>

♦

A® ^ ‘ 0 - o V

,v

■<o '° ‘ * *

O^ *'»/•'* A® 'f-l ®

V • ^x- c\ A? .

/ V ‘^ • ’ /

^ -aV . . • .

*0 *

. ^ . V ^

^ r\ ^ ^

■» rtV <;^

^ ® -3l^ *>l^A

♦

<?>

' •

t /><

jB^nl/

K j^ll!//,

^ » '^x

-0«o’

'a. V 0 ’ * °

: V V • i

-fc 4> •

,0^ A

’•<^ 0^ c ° ^ ^o

, 0 O

1 « ^0^

< Vt^ *

vj.

o A ■<^

O'"'* ^0" 0°"°-, ’o,

1^ ^ 0 o <^ ' '^

vr ^

' O .0 "-

^ Q*

5 ^7^*4 A -o. »* A

♦ . *- ' ^ >» 0^ 0 ®
.<- o S^ ^ ^

..»’ <!.^ *
V' - ' -

»*,

,-.rr.-’A0' a;*.

aV ^

• '*^>v Aa

o /-> «

A^ V A

fA 0 » o A'’ . I ' » .

jO^ -.^tK,: ,to

0^0

<>, >.-..’>' A*^-*'/ v*^\/ *

% ^ ^"O, *^cv 0^ ^*7' ^

' '• ■^j. A^ .y^-^”-- •^-

v«^^ : ^

/• S ^ -»

. V- - •

^ '• ^

<0 o. -^**5' V> A^ -- .

^ r\^ o ** o -

C . O'. -X- . • _ v<i ^O *^<ri:^ o J

\y^ oT/y7^^\W‘* C^ •'a

!><■ -rw!* ,<j5’^ A •'

® -9 A^ 9 ^ ^

• ^0

*®«o^

■ c\ A v^ A’»' C'

' ^ ^ » fC(\ gC7^'‘o

<0 *
V v *

^ V . ■ - °. "V - ' * * ■

• %A •^•. %/ - ■

V*'^

*$* ° V/

' » .

' «

K>^ %

JT/tV
•*• J^Wh

'Zo^

A ^ O „ 0

A ^ V

* ^ '■ d

0^

0°"^ °o

A'

0^ c

'^^0^ o

.^ ... .. \.'-7¥f--'y %-^.-'\<p '

•<^ V ^ ^ ° ^ *^C> s ® * * '■-y *S^ - "^ * o .

Y- V

: : ^

A^ \ A xf^ 'o.A 0^ %> ^

rv V o N o L ' « ^ /% V « H O

K ':rsx\\\n^ ^ ci> ^ ^{\l//y>^ *»

• o V

A “

. O ♦ o „ o ’

*>. ' ' ■ ^ V-.

C> .0^ ^J^!rL:-- ^

A* A?> o^M\¥. A •'

o ♦ » \ ^

A V

0

9 I 1

<<V

V ^«oO y o^ o'^

<6 ^ ^

- «' t#' ^ % .

.A. ^ '

r^ ‘ °ZJ '* ^O ^ ‘

_ o V •

o ?rn.’ ,0^ '#-p -.

•• '='^.

• o <

.0' c 0 " ® ^ '^O

• C • r-.C<Vv f'

’ -^o'i f

<» r O 0

0 ^\''^^' ^ V- .••»- V, .0^ .-Vi,'. '>

<f -vst^'- •^j. •'rfvV/'):" -<1- ■;■«' ‘

f / / y M ^-m \ V V •“ ^ \. W W \I // ^ ^

l>

A

. A* °-^ .

LA ''NJ'si— ^ ^

O -

* * ’ ' - ^ v^ ^ ^

A"" '.SIK * ^ '%'

0 w

o

I

^ *' » « 0 ’ o^ * . , , . 0

V c' aO »»j,-1'-»

■^-S- A^ ♦^iVa- <?r. <«► ''^fe'-

V<<;^ ' ® 'Cr. C,‘5 o ,^11^ .

. ^

A '' ^ ♦ <S ^ *CL r^A

A 'o , » * G^

^ ^ t ^ ^ /> ' o ^ c

^ j-d' t* ^ /-^ >

'f‘ 4^ ♦

• o V

* .0

•♦ c

.V

• ^£71iKi aV ''.V/iiSW'^ aS vT.

o ^Tyls^ A -o.*'* 0^ ^ A

^ 0 " ® ^ *^0 A^ o '- ' * ^ C^ O " ° >.

0

* 3lP "'Tj *

• / ■< * aO * » « 0 ’

^ A, ^

• A

• 4 _

. «• ' *

. V , t - .

^5^ o c

^ (P .^!c<n!a °

^ V . - V* 0^ ®

At*. *1.0 a >7*

r\ -^, '^^\\\v$^ N~ ^ ^iy/IPJf * f\

- ^-V * ' " * ' A° ♦' O « o ’ ^ o - , , T • ’ ^0 •'- <> 7o ’

»>vVa" c,'?^ a"^ -aVa'' ..-.

A ^^Mj/k- '^r.Cp O

j\ « .v-^'---. o‘[///

^ 'T ^ '

qV ^o«0^ ^q a .l<*. kP

' ^ A'

o >

V * C,*^ "

^ r.^ d'.

W O A

•* A

" ^ 0^

' N~ ^^2/jjyJp * /N

" o « o ’ ^ ’ ^0 » O

'> y ’ * °.- o. A^ s‘Vl% ^

.GvT

“.%fy-‘ a'’ A '•
c- ■'"•■•' A \;

o »■ ' «

^P

• 9-

v.ir-'

I

'I

■I

1 a

ij

i

(I

<•

I

Public and Private Aid
in 116 Urban Areas
1929-38

4

Copy_

4

5

SO

With Supplement for 1939 and 1940

FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY

SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD

DUREAU OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE

Public Assistance Report No. 3

FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY

a:

, 1

f

SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD I

Arthur J. Altmeyer, Chairman ^

George E. Bigge Ellen S. Woodward j,

BUREAU OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE
Jane M. Hoey, Director

Geoffrey M. ay,* Associate Director Peter Kasius, Associate Director

Anne E. Geddes, Associate Director

Division of Operating Statistics and Analysis
Joel Gordon, Chief

Division of Standards and Procedures
Elizabeth Long, Chief

Division of Plans and Grants
Gertrude S. Gates, Chief

Division of Assistance Analysis

Anne E. Geddes, Acting Chief

Division of Administrative Surveys
Rose J. McHugh, Chief

Division of Technical Training
Agnes Van Driel, Chief

Field Division
Mary E. Austin, Chief

•On leare.

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. WASHINGTON : 1942
Fnc Mile by the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D. C. Price 40 cents •

Public and Private Aid
in 116 Urban Areas

1929-38

With Supplement for 1939 and 1940

by

Enid Baird

with the collaboration of

John M. Lynch

Division of Assistance Analysis

BUREAU OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE

Public Assistance Report No. 3

FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY

SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD

WASHINGTON, D. C.

1

0

I

I

I

I

\ •

V

i

• 4

I

I

t I I

A • • ■ ■ ‘ ♦ ' L '

' / : » J N* rH i i ' * '

\

FOREWORD

This report summarizes trends in expenditures for public and private
aid in 116 urban areas during the 12-year period 1929-40, It is based on
the urban relief series, the only continuous, comprehensive record of relief
trends extending back to the period preceding Federal participation in relief.
The report is focused on a quantitative analysis of expenditure data for the
urban areas, but an attempt has been made to view these expenditures
against the background of economic depression and the far-reaching
changes that have occurred in the structure of public and private aid.
In addition to the composite picture of urban relief trends in the United
States, the report contains an analysis of relief outlays and patterns of aid
in the 116 individual areas. Expenditure data for the individual areas are
shown in appendixes B, C, and D.

The report was prepared in the Division of Assistance Analysis and was
written by Enid Baird, with the collaboration of John M. Lynch, under
the direction of Anne E. Geddes, Associate Director of the Bureau of
Public Assistance. Special acknowledgment is made to Sybel E. Longhead,
who has responsibility for maintaining the urban series as a current report¬
ing project; to Sadie Saffian, who was responsible for checking and
revising the basic trend data for all reporting areas and for the preparation
of the tables in appendix C; and to Elizabeth S. Goodwin, who supervised
the tabulations and checked the tables and manuseript in the final report.

Jane M. IIoey, Director,
Bureau of Public Assistance,

March 1942.

in

/fi ‘

tii, ^

I' <?

\ T '

\4‘S*«4

u’,

p|./. S'j; ;

if- O' . S i ;: '

:

ih

fy

y ni.

w

' • ^ • ..'

.^:^:r

'l£'.':‘ i,‘; ':>.^^..,,;M'-^m*tf ‘

■■yvf'' ''■;■■• ;p(v .' 5l««SW V:- ,vv:,!,'-V ■;£ ■'.

^ If ■ •: ■'‘<^■•'-'".^^■'7

' 1.1 V ., < ^

' .-i;

V -- I - •'

.1 1

4.K.

f

iV.’/ ;

r -•,•■*. ■

'<iV, >S ,

' V /

i. *' " \P-'

fit '• i'

t ^ ,n •

N r, ^ n‘4^ *

:7v;!/V '^s .-v'-. ' •H^ SV'.vV'. /'•

*': : ' ■:'. ,I''' '.'■ ' ;'. i:'V .■,.;®l '.

J .

•■ ^ ' j

U'

XI V '

{'*•4 X ' ■/• f. ■’:• ''

j'' ’

f.

. 4

r j. ' « f ' F* ^ ^ ' ' ‘ * ■■ ' ^ ' *ifi

' ^ X*

.•• VI • f

, /

/V> v- v"» ■'• ■'■' ^

I •

i •■

:r"' ;

, ■

-* -■ *< ' ’ »* ’■ ' ■• ' s - .V \ " ■ V.' ' , . . ■ **)p

;-• JT;-. ‘*r,./ :|i2r:^'‘\ ' \ /■,'<> 'y/

i ': . >•' ' ' . : It M' ■

? I' .•!'■■■’ W^iv ■■'-

jL-iCr V. ' '_ . 'ar. :i!j« '/ !■■. t

r*'

^ 'w

i''- ■:ymy i i ' \ ’■■li’^J-'v ■■'?■.'•'•<• ■ ■■ i,. v ■;;

' '■iv -',.. - .'4'. ■!.«!i,'Wto:;f' yy ;■ ■ ■ • «i, ■ - , '• ■ ■ J

_ iM

^ »■

< ’ •>,:'<• i,.

♦ •

' ti

'

,y}

i

, /.-S/ <i4\. ■ n . ■ ‘■i,'

I (
1

•' -A

'

f M . .

’** ,;. f

g; : y.' . .fm,.

X '

fv. ’■. ■'•■• 'V..'

^ A

; '.v: s:vM .^r- 'X

'•.V.iV:

I' r

'^V .

».'• - . .•

. .,v ‘V'

* I'i-

>

‘v l\

'■ ' iXf'f.'y.’ . ,., ' ' V ■'■ ■'■ '• )'’■ 'ij- ' i'?' ■'•' •' y ' ' ' ' '. 'i^' .-';

■•.f '

j, 4 ^

•.t

: '■“te 'h-

I ' '

.^!^v v.y ■. ■.y-.y ; .'v,. , , , y

CONTENTS

Page

I. A Decade of Expansion and Change . 1

11. The Urban Series . 3

Description of the areas . 3

Content of the series . 4

Programs not included . 7

III. Trends in Public and Private Aid in the Combined Urban Areas . 8

The background of depression and unemployment . 8

Relation of urban to national trends . 9

The 10-year bill . 10

Trend in total outlays . 10

Development of component programs . 14

Trends of component types of aid . 20

Underlying shifts in the relief structure . 24

Expansion in per capita burdens . 26

IV. Diversity in Local Trends and Patterns of Aid . 27

Factors contributing to diversity . 28

Comparative trends in total outlays . 30

Comparative emphasis on different programs and types of aid . 31

Comparative relief burdens . 33

Comparative outlays for component types of aid . 34

V. The Present Decade . 38

Supplement for 1939 and 1940 . 41

Trends in monthly expenditures . . . 41

Per capita outlays . 44

Legislative and administrative developments . 44

Appendixes . 47

Index to Charts for Urban Areas . . 166

TEXT TABLES

Table 1. — Number and population of urban areas reporting, and percent of total popu¬
lation and total urban population covered, by five geographic divisions,

1930 and 1940 . 4

Table 2. — Amount and percentage distribution of public and private assistance and

earnings under specified Federal work programs, 116 urban areas, 1929-38 . 12

Table 3. — Range among 116 urban areas in percent of total public and private aid

expended for specified types of aid, 1929-38 . 31

Table 4. — Extreme, quartile, and median amounts per inhabitant of total public and

private aid, 116 urban areas, 1929-38 . 34

Table 5. — Median amount per inhabitant of total public and private aid, 116 urban

areas, by five geographic divisions, 1929-38 . 34

Table 6. — Range among 116 urban areas in amount per inhabitant expended for speci¬
fied types of aid, 1929-38 . 36

Table 7. — Number of urban areas reporting expenditures for specified types of aid,

median amount per inhabitant expended in those areas, 1929-38 . 37

Table 8. — Amount and percentage distribution of public and private assistance and
earnings under specified Federal work programs, 116 urban areas, 1939 and
1940 . 42

V

TEXT CHARTS

Page

Chart 1. — Expenditures for public and private aid in 116 urban areas as related to
estimates of national unemployment and national income payments,

January 1929-December 1938 . 9

Chart 2. — Expenditures for public aid in 116 urban areas and in the continental

United States, January 1933-December 1938 . 11

Chart 3. — Expenditures for public and private aid, 116 urban areas, January 1929—

December 1938 . 13

Chart 4. — Percentage distribution of $6,853 million expended for public and private

aid, 116 urban areas, 1929-38 . 15

Chart 5. — Expenditures for private relief, 116 urban areas, January 1929-December

1938 . 20

Chart 6. — Expenditures for public general relief, 116 urban areas, January 1929-

December 1938 . 21

Chart 7. — Expenditures for special types of public assistance, 116 urban areas, Janu¬
ary 1929-December 1938 . 23

Chart 8. — Public expenditures for direct assistance and for work program earnings and

work relief, 116 m-ban areas, January 1929-December 1938 . 25

Chart 9. — Amount per inhabitant of public and private aid, by urban area, 1929 and

1938 . 35

Chart 10. — Expenditures for public and private aid, 116 urban areas, January 1929-

December 1940 . 41

APPENDIXES

A. Area and population of 116 urban areas, by geographic division and State . 47

B. Comparative expenditure patterns for 116 urban areas, 1929-38 . 48

C. Comparative expenditure data for 116 urban areas, 1929-38:

Table C-1. — Amount of public and private assistance and earnings under speci¬
fied Federal work programs, 116 urban areas, by month, 1929-38 . 84

Tables C-2 through C-11.- — Amount of public and private assistance and earn¬
ings under specified Federal work programs, by urban area, 1929-38 . 86

Tables C— 12 through C— 21. — Percentage distribution of amount of public and
private assistance and earnings under specified Federal work programs, by

urban area, 1929-38 . 112

Tables C-22 through C-31. — ^Amount per inhabitant of public and private
assistance and earnings under specified Federal work programs, by urban
area, 1929-38 . 132

D. Comparative expenditure data for 116 urban areas, 1939 and 1940;

Table D-1. — Amount of pubbc and private assistance and earnings under speci¬
fied Federal work programs, 116 urban areas, by month, 1939 and 1940 . 152

Tables D-2 and D-3. — Amount of public and private assistance and earnings

under specified Federal work programs, by urban area, 1939 and 1940 . 153

Tables D-4 and D-5. — Percentage distribution of amount of public and private
assistance- and earnings under specified Federal work programs, by urban

area, 1939 and 1940 . 153

Tables D— 6 and D-7. — Amount per inhabitant of public and private assistance
and earnings under specified Federal work programs, by urban area, 1939
and 1940 . 162

VI

•I •

A Decade of Expansion and Change

The decade 1929-38 was one of momentous
changes in the realm of dependency and relief.
Outlays for public and private aid rose rapidly to
unprecedented levels, and a poor-relief system
that had undergone only superficial change over
many decades was within a few years radically
altered to meet the challenge of mass insecurity
presented by our modern industrial society.

It is the purpose of the present report to review
the developments of the decade as they are
reflected in the expenditure trends and patterns
of aid for 116 of the largest urban areas in the
United States. The expenditure data which pro¬
vide the basic material for the report were sup¬
plied by the urban relief series, the development
and content of which are described in chapter II.
An effort has been made to sketch the background
of economic depression that precipitated the
sweeping changes that occurred, and to recall the
sequence of programs and events that influenced
relief trends over the decade. For the most part,
however, attention has been focused on the story
told by the expenditure data themselves and the
questions that inevitably arise from analysis of
such quantitative data.

The story is essentially one of transition and
evolutionary change under the pressure of the
most severe and prolonged depression in the
history of the United States. The acuteness of
the unemployment crisis in its early stages neces¬
sitated action on a national scale and prepared
the way for the entrance of the Federal Govern¬
ment into emergency relief activities and for other
drastic departures from traditional concepts and
methods of extending aid. The long duration of
the depression brought a greater awareness of the
basic elements of insecurity in our social and eco¬
nomic life, and prompted the adoption of more
stable and more nearly adequate measures to com¬
bat the hazards of dependency and provide some
security against future want.

In describing the impact of these various
developments on urban expenditures and patterns
of aid, two complementary approaches have been
used. Part of the report is focused on the data

for the 116 urban areas combined and emphasizes
the changes in prevailing trends and patterns of
aid over the decade; the remainder is focused on
the individual urban areas and emphasizes the
extreme diversity in local trends and patterns of
expenditure.

From the combined urban data there emerges a
composite picture of the fluctuations and shifts in
emphasis that have characterized the national as
well as the urban structure of public and private
aid during the decade under review. Salient fea¬
tures of that picture include the tremendous growth
in total outlays; the varying emphasis on compo¬
nent types of aid ; the introduction of new and more
nearly adequate types of aid and the improvement
in standards of care under previously existing
types; the abrupt policy changes affecting the type
of aid and the level of payments provided for needy
employable persons; the increased differentiation
among dependent groups; and the prevailing com¬
plexity and variation in eligibility requirements,
procedures, and standards of care. Less apparent
in the composite expenditure trends and patterns
but equally important are the evolutionary changes
that have taken place in public attitudes toward
the treatment of dependency and the significant
shifts that have occurred in the division of finan¬
cial, administrative, and supervisory responsibility
for extending aid to various needy groups.

The impressions conveyed by the combined ex¬
penditure data of complexity, variability, and lack
of integrated control are confirmed and amplified
by the comparative analysis of the trends and pat¬
terns of aid in the 116 separate areas.

The series of diagrams for individual urban areas
in appendix B and the expenditure data for the
individual communities presented in appendix C
provide the basic material for a detailed analysis
and interpretation of the trends and patterns of
aid in each of the 116 urban areas.^ The concern
of the present report has been to call attention to
the existence of diversity in almost every aspect

> Such an analysis has already been made for one of the urban areas. See
Geddes, Anne E., “Belief Trends In Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1929-37,”
Social Security Bulletin, Vol. 1, No. 8 (August 1938), pp. 17-22.

1

of the relief structure, to indicate some of the
manifold factors responsible for the wide interarea
differences, and to suggest some of the more obvi¬
ous implications to be drawn from the great dis¬
parity in financial burdens, in amount and ade¬
quacy of aid provided to different classes of needy
persons, and in legislative and administrative pro¬
visions governing the distribution of aid in these
116 urban areas.

The report does not attempt a critical appraisal
of the progress that has been made during the
decade in adjusting an obsolete relief system to
meet the new problems flhat have arisen, but it does
indicate that the process of adjustment is not yet
complete. There remain for the present decade the
essential tasks of consolidating past gains and for¬
warding the development of an integrated, long-
range program of public welfare and social security.

I

2

• II •

The Urban Series

The urban series was initiated in 1929 by
Ralph G. Hurlin of the Russell Sage Foundation;
it was subsequently transferred to the United
States Children’s Bureau, and later to the Social
Security Board where it is now maintained as a
current reporting project.

The Russell Sage Foundation built up a collec¬
tion of monthly data for public and private relief
agencies in 76 cities of the United States with
populations of more than 100,000.^ As of January
1932 the United States Children’s Bureau assumed
responsibility for the series and expanded it to
include other urban areas, mostly between 50,000
and 100,000 in population. Monthly statistics
on relief in some of these areas had been compiled
since late in 1930 by the Children’s Bureau at
the request of the President’s Emergency Com¬
mittee for Employment. For other areas monthly
data had been collected in comiection with the
Children’s Bureau project for the collection of
social statistics in registration areas. A report on
the urban series. Trends in Different Types of
Public and Private Relief in Urban Areas, 1929-85,
was prepared by Emma A. Winslow and published
by the Children’s Bureau in 1937.^

As of July 1936 the urban relief series was
transferred to the Social Security Board, where
it is now maintained as a current reporting proj¬
ect of the Division of Assistance Analysis of
the Bureau of Public Assistance. The content
of the series was expanded by the Social Security
Board to include earnings of persons employed
under the Civil Works Program and on projects
of the Works Progress Administration.^ Through
the services of the regional public assistance
^ research representatives, the data reported by all
participating agencies were checked from the be¬
ginning of the series and were revised wherever
changes appeared to be indicated. Data for the
urban areas were published monthly in the
Social Security Bulletin from March 1938 thi’ough

1 Five Canadian cities were also included in the original series.

1 Bureau Publication No. 237.

» As of July 1, 1939, the name of this agency was changed to Work Projects
Administration.

September 1941 and are now issued twice a
year.

Description of the Areas

The 116 urban areas represented in the present
series are located in 36 States and the District
of Columbia. They are listed in appendix A,
which shows the extent of each area and its popu¬
lation in 1930 and 1940 (p. 47).

Considerable variation exists among the areas
with respect to the territory covered. Of the 116
areas, 34, including the District of Columbia, are
cities;^ 81 are counties® containing at least 1 city
with 50,000 or more population; and 1 is an inde¬
pendent city and the surrounding county.® Six of
the county areas — Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit,
Los Angeles, Oakland, and Pittsburgh — cover
territory containing more than one city of 50,000
or more population.^ The 81 county areas vary
widely in the proportion of the total population
living within city limits. Some represent cities
coextensive with the county;® some have only a
small proportion of the total population outside
city limits, while in others a substantial part of
the population resides in outlying territory.

When the urban series was originally established
by the Russell Sage Foundation, the territory
represented by the urban areas was in all instances
the city. The Children’s Bureau modified certain
of the areas to bring them into conformity with
areas represented in the Children’s Bureau project
for the registration of social statistics. These
registration areas, for the most part more extensive

‘ Four of these cities — Baltimore, Md., and Norfolk, Richmond, and
Roanoke, Va.— are inde pendent cities having the status of counties. A fifth—
New York City— is the combination of five counties.

s Two of the areas — New Orleans and Shreveport, La.— represent parishes
but are classified as counties.

« Data for St. Louis, Mo., cover outlays made within both the city and
county jurisdictions.

f These 6 areas contain 19 cities of 50,000 or more population. Cook County,
Ill., includes Chicago, Cicero, Evanston, and Oak Park; Cuyahoga County,
Ohio, includes Cleveland, Lakewood, and Cleveland Heights; Wayne County,
Mich., includes Detroit, Dearborn, Hamtramck, and Highland Park; Los
Angeles Coimty, Calif., includes Los Angeles, Long Beach, Pasadena, and
Glendale; Alameda County, Calif., includes Oakland and Berkeley; and
Allegheny County, Pa., includes Pittsburgh and McKeesport.

s San Francisco, Calif.; Denver, Colo.; Philadelphia, Pa.; and New Orleans,
La.

3

than the city, were determined with reference to
the territory served by the agencies participating
in the registration project. Other areas not par¬
ticipating in the project were also extended to
ensure as much comparability among areas as
possible. It is necessary in making interarea
comparisons to allow for differences in the nature
of the territory covered.

According to the Federal census of 1930, there
were in the United States 93 cities of 100,000 or
more population and 98 of from 50,000 to 100,000
population. The 116 urban areas represented in
the series embrace 83 of the cities of more than
100,000 population and 46 of the 98 cities in the
50,000-100,000 population group. The aggregate
population of the 116 urban areas in 1930 was
45,600,000, representing 37 percent of the total
population and 66 percent of the total urban popu¬
lation ® of the United States, By 1940 the total
population of the 116 reporting areas had increased
to 49,100,000, but the proportions of the total
population and total urban population of the
United States represented by these areas were
practically unchanged. Table 1 shows the dis¬
tribution of the urban areas and their population
by five major geographic divisions^ — ^the New
England, Middle Atlantic, North Central, South
Atlantic and South Central, and Mountain and
Pacific States^ — ^in both 1930 and 1940. The
urban areas represented in the series comprise
varying proportions of total and urban population
in these geographic divisions. For example, in
1930, in the South 18 percent of the total popula¬
tion and 53 percent of the urban population were

» Under the definition used by the Bureau of the Census, the urban popu¬
lation represents the population of cities and other incorporated places of
2,500 or more inhabitants.

located in reporting areas, whereas in New England
the reporting areas comprised 34 percent of the
total population and 45 percent of the urban
population. In each of the five geographic divi¬
sions, the ratios of the population of the reporting
areas to the total population and the urban popula¬
tion changed only slightly from 1930 to 1940.

Content of the Series

Types of aid included in the urban series are
public general relief, earnings under the programs
of the Civil Works Administration and the Works
Progress Administration, old-age assistance, aid
to dependent children, aid to the blind, and private
relief. The series provides a record of the most
substantial portion of public and private aid in
the urban areas, although data are not included
for certain programs, described later in this chapter,
which have contributed to the relief of distress
during this 10-year period. For the programs
included in the series, the data represent payments
in cash and in kind to families and individuals
outside public institutions.^® They do not include
the cost of administration or, in the case of work
programs, of materials, supplies, and other items
incident to the operation of projects.

A brief description of the types of aid incorpo¬
rated in the urban series follows. Additional in¬
formation concerning specific programs is given
in later chapters of the report.

Public general relief .—The term general relief is
used to describe relief administered from public
funds which are not designated for special statu¬
tory relief programs. General relief is variously

10 A very small number of persons receiving old-age assistance, aid to de¬
pendent children, and aid to the blind are living in private institutions.

11 Some statutory veterans’ aid granted on the basis of need is included as
general relief.

Table l.—ISumber and population of urban areas reporting, and percent of total population and total urban
popu lation covered, by five geographic divisions, 1930 and 1940 *

Geographic division

Urban areas reporting

Population of urban areas as percent of — '

Number

Population

Total population

Total urban population »

1930

1940

1930

1940

1930

1940

Continental United States.. . .

116

45, 557, 346

49, 067, 263

37.1

37.3

66.1

66.9

New England... - - - - - . .

18

2, 808. 006

2, 794, 598

34.4

33.1

44.5

43.6

Middle Atlantic - - - -

23

15, 059 296

15, 758, 687

57.3

57.2

73.8

74.6

North Central - -

36

15, 749, 426

16,477, 579

40.8

41.0

70.5

70.3

South Atlantic and South Central . . .

29

6. 823, 628

8. 067, 333

18.0

19.4

62.9

62.8

Mountain and Pacific _ _ _ _ _

10

5, 116, 990

A 969,066

43.0

43.0

73.2

73.4

' 1 Based on population figures from U. S. censuses of 1930 and 1940.

J Represents population of cities and other incorporated places of 2,500 or more inhabitants.

4

referred to as poor relief, outdoor relief, general
emergency relief, and general assistance. It is
given to recipients in the form of cash or kind and
may cover subsistence items, such as food, shelter,
clothing, and household necessities, and provision
for medical care and hospitalization. The amount
of the general relief payment is ordinarily adjusted
to the needs of the relief case at a given standard
in accordance with the budget-deficit principle or
some modification of that principle. It may be
extended either as du'ect relief or as work relief.

Direct relief is relief in return for which no
systematic work has been performed by the re¬
cipient. Work relief is relief granted to a recipient
who has performed work on an organized project
in exchange for aid. The line of demarcation
between direct and work relief in a general relief
agency is often nebulous, since some agencies apply
a work test or accept minor services from certain
recipients but do not provide them with employ¬
ment on a systematic work program. The term
work relief is not applied to earnings of persons
employed on projects of the Civil Works Adminis¬
tration or the WPA, since earnings of such em¬
ployees have been determined on the basis of fixed
wage rates and hours of employment rather than
on the basis of the budgeted need used for work
relief payments.

During the decade covered by this report public
general relief has been administered by a variety
of agencies, among which are local poor-relief
ofl&ces, departments of public welfare, and emer¬
gency relief administrations. During 1931 and
1932 emergency relief administrations operated in
a number of urban areas under State legislation;
from May 1933 through 1935 such administrations
operated under rules and regulations of the Fed¬
eral Emergency Relief Administration. During
the FERA period, relief distributed by the emer¬
gency relief administrations was financed from
Federal, State, and local funds. General relief
administered by poor-law offices has been financed
entirely from local, or from State and local, funds.

Work 'program earnings. — The urban series
includes earnings under two of the major work
programs initiated by the Federal Government —
the Civil Works Program, comprising projects of
both the Civil Works Administration and Civil
Works Service, and the program operated by the
WPA. Under the Civil Works Program, which
was a recovery as well as a relief measure, half

of the workers were drawn from the ranks of
the general unemployed without certification of
need. However, these employees included many
who would have been found eligible for aid if a
needs test had been applied, and many such per¬
sons were subsequently absorbed into the general
relief program. Operating statistics of the Civil
Works Program did not distinguish between em¬
ployees drawn from relief rolls and those recruited
from the general unemployed. The data for the
Civil Works Program represent total earnings of
persons employed under the program, including
the administrative staff.

The Works Progress Administration, which
became the Work* Projects Administration in July
1939, has operated since the summer of 1935. It
finances and administers work projects for the
employment, under an established wage scale, of
workers certified as in need. Employment of non-
certified persons has been limited to a small per¬
centage of total employment. State and local
sponsors of WPA projects contribute funds, chiefly
for materials and supplies, and local public agen¬
cies refer to the WPA persons eligible for employ¬
ment. Assignments to projects are made by the
Federal agency and wages of project workers are
paid from Federal funds.

The data on WPA earnings represent payments
to both certified and noncertified persons employed
on projects operated by the WPA within the urban
areas. Salaries of administrative personnel are
not included. Data on earnings of persons em¬
ployed on projects financed by WPA funds but
operated by other Federal agencies are not avail¬
able for the urban areas.^® Earnings data for
projects operated by the WPA are not currently
available according to the residence of employees;
the data used are compiled according to area
of employment. The extent to which this affects
the comparability of the data varies from area to
area. It should be noted also that the area cov¬
ered by CWA and WPA data is not always iden¬
tical with the urban area as defined in appendix A.

Old-age assistance. — Prior to 1936, when Federal
grants-in-aid for old-age assistance became avail¬
able under the Social Security Act, old-age

H Data on the Civil Works Program for the continental United States
exclude earnings of administrative staff.

13 Total earnings derived from such projects, which have been in operation
only since July 1938, amounted to less than $30 million for the continental
United States during the last half of 1938. Many of the projects were continu¬
ations of programs operated by other Federal agencies with funds appro¬
priated by the Emergency Relief Appropriation Acts of 1935, 1936, and 1937.

5

assistance was financed entirely from State and
local funds. States with approved plans for old-
age assistance can now receive grants of Federal
funds equivalent, within specified limitations, to
half their total expenditures for cash payments to
recipients. By the close of the decade reviewed
here, all States were receiving such grants under
the Social Security Act. The data on old-age
assistance represent almost entirely cash payments
to recipients but include some small amounts
paid directly to persons or agencies furnishing
medical care and/or hospitalization to recipients.
Only unrestricted cash payments to recipients
are matchable under the public assistance provi¬
sions of the Social Security Act. The data do
not include expenditures for burial of recipients,
which are frequently met from State and local
funds for old-age assistance.

Aid to dependent children. — The term aid to
dependent children came into general use with
the enactment of the Federal Social Security Act.
Prior to that time, aid to dependent children was
commonly known as mothers’ aid, mothers’
pensions, or aid to widows. Beginning in 1936,
Federal grants-in-aid became available on a
matching basis to States administering approved
plans under the Social Security Act. By the
close of 1938 all but 8 States containing 14 of the
116 urban areas were receiving such grants.

The scope of the aid to dependent children
program has been extended since the Social
Security Act became operative. Prior to that
time mothers’ aid programs were generally
restricted to children of widowed mothers. Under
the Social Security Act, aid may be granted in
behalf of children who have been deprived of
parental support through death, mental or phys¬
ical incapacity, or continued absence from the
home of one or both parents, and who are living
with any one of a number of relatives within the
second degree of relationship recognized as eligible
to receive payments for their care.

Data on payments to recipients of aid to
dependent children represent almost entirely cash
payments but include small amounts for medical
care and hospitalization which were paid directly
to persons or agencies supplying these seiwices to
recipients. Only direct, unconditional money
payments to recipients are matchable under the

At the end of 1941 only 3 States, containing 3 of the 116 urban areas, were
not administering approved plans.

6

Social Security Act. Payments for care of children
in foster homes are not considered aid to dependent
children and are omitted entirely from this com¬
pilation. Such payments represent the most
important omission of noninstitutional aid to
children.

Aid to the blind. — Aid to the needy blind was
one of the fimt types of assistance to be developed
for a special group of needy persons in this coun¬
try. In 1936 Federal grants-in-aid for aid to the
blind became available to States with plans ap¬
proved by the Social Security Board. At the end
of 1938 all but 8 States containing 23 of the 116
urban areas were participating under the act.^®
As in old-age assistance and aid to dependent
children. Federal funds may be used to match
only direct, unconditional money payments to
recipients. Aid to the blind is disbursed almost
entirely in cash, but some payments are made
directly to persons or agencies furnishing medical
care and/or hospitalization to recipients.

Private reliej. — -Alany different types of private
or voluntary agencies administer relief, but in the
vast majority of such agencies the relief function
has been secondary to the service function. The
relative importance of the service function has in¬
creased during the period under consideration.
Among the private agencies disbursing relief in
the urban areas are the nonsectarian, the Jewish
and Catholic family societies, the American Red
Cross, the Salvation Army, emergency relief com¬
mittees, and miscellaneous organizations. Emer¬
gency relief committees under private auspices
were a depression phenomenon and were estab¬
lished as temporary agencies in the early phase of
the unemployment crisis. Most of these emergency
organizations were disbanded when the Federal
Government assumed a share of the responsibility
for the relief of dependency. Some of the emer¬
gency and other private organizations operated
work relief programs, but, because of the difficulty
of obtaining valid data, no attempt has been made
in this report to classify expenditures from private
funds as direct and work relief payments.

Omitted from the data on private relief are un¬
organized private charity and direct assistance ex¬
tended by labor unions, fraternal organizations,
private industrial and business welfare groups,
and local church and school organizations.

15 By the close of 1941, 2 of these States containing 6 of the 110 urban areas
had been added to those administering approved plans.

Programs Not Included

Although the urban series includes the principal
assistance and work programs operated in urban
areas, some programs with relief attributes are
omitted because expenditure data are not avail¬
able on an individual-area basis.

Among the programs not represented in the
series are three special programs operated by the
FERA — the emergency education, student aid,
and transient programs. Outlays for these pro¬
grams, which were concentrated in 1934 and 1935,
were small in relation to total public and private
aid, and omission of the data is consequently of
slight importance. Data are likewise not available
for transient care provided under State and local
programs.

Also omitted from the series is the program of
the Civilian Conservation Corps, originally the
Emergency Conservation Work, which has been
in continuous existence since April 1933. The
operations of this agency are primarily outside
the large urban areas, and statistics on earnings
of enrollees, many of whom have been drawn from
urban areas, are not available according to local
residence. Eligibility rules on this program have
varied from time to time, but a large proportion
of the enrollees have been selected from relief
families and have been required to send to their
families a substantial share of their monthly
earnings. Thus a considerable amount of aid
has been supplied through CCC channels to
families living in the urban areas.

Local data are not regularly available for the
student aid and work programs of the National
Youth Administration, which was established in
1935. In view of the fact that payments to
recipients from the creation of the agency to the
end of 1938 amounted to $180 million for the total
United States, it is clear that omission of these
programs does not greatly affect the data for the
116 urban areas.

The omission of data on Federal surplus com¬

modities distributed in the 116 urban areas may
be more significant. The Federal Surplus Com¬
modities Coi-poration,^® formerly called the Federal
Surplus Relief Corporation, purchases surplus
agricultural products as an agricultural relief
measure. These commodities are distributed to
needy persons and to welfare organizations, but
the welfare objective is secondary to that of pro¬
viding agricultural aid. Except for data con¬
cerning the food stamp plan, statistics on surplus
commodity distribution have been compiled in
terms of quantities of goods issued rather than in
terms of expenditures, and no data are available
which make it possible to estimate the monthly
value of surplus commodities distributed in the
urban areas since the program was initiated in
October 1933. However, such commodities are
known to have constituted an appreciable share of
the aid distributed in some areas, although not a
large share of the total aid extended in the com¬
bined urban areas.

The urban series differs from the integrated
series on public assistance and Federal work
programs published by the Social Security Board
for the continental United States in that it does
not include data for “other Federal agency projects
financed from emergency funds.”*^ During the
period under review the Federal Emergency
Administration of Public Works, which became
in 1939 the Public Works Administration, ac¬
counted for the largest share of employment on
projects classified as “other” in the national
series. Projects falling in this group gave em¬
ployment to considerable numbers of certified
workers but also employed persons from the open
labor market without the requirement of certifi¬
cation of need.**

•• On July 1, 1940, this agency became part of the Surplus Marketing
Administration of the Department of Agriculture.

" For the latter, see Sociaf Security Bulletin, Vol. 4, No. 2 (February 1941),
pp. 66-70.

>* Whiting, Theodore E., and Woofter, T. J., Jr., Summary of Relief and
Federal Work Program Statistics, 19SS-40, Work Projects Administration,
1941, pp. 13-15.

7

• III •

Trends in Public and Private Aid in the
Combined Urban Areas

The Background of Depression and
Unemployment

In the year 1929 began the most severe depres¬
sion in the history of the United States. Prevailing
upward trends in employment and national income
were abruptly reversed. Curtailed economic
activity was followed promptly by widespread
unemployment and want and by a progressive
rise in expenditures for public and private aid to
the needy unemployed. The cause-and-effect
relationship between the unemployment crisis and
the initial upward sweep in relief costs was direct
and unmistakable.

Relief payments moved upward with unem¬
ployment during 1930, 1931, and 1932 as the
Nation watched anxiously for the end of the
depression and a revival of economic activity
which would bring both unemployment and relief
back to normal levels. Unemployment, as
measured by the subsequent estimates of several
different authorities, reached its peak in March
1933, but there was no immediate commensurate
‘^drop in relief expenditures (chart 1). The cumu¬
lative effects of acute economic distress had not
yet been fully registered. Instead of a diminishing
relief problem there was compelling need for still
greater outlays to care for the mounting burden
of dependency caused by prolonged unemploy¬
ment and the gradual depletion and exhaustion of
savings and other resources among persons who
had at first been able to maintain themselves
without public aid.

The extraordinary growth in expenditures and
other fundamental changes that have occurred in
the relief structure since March 1933 undoubtedly
had their impetus in the unprecedented volume of
unemployment during the depression years. The
estimated trend of households and persons aided
in the continental United States followed roughly
the estimated trend of unemployment after 1933,^
but the relationship between relief outlays and

1 Work Projects Administration, Report on Progress of the WPA Program,
June SO, im, pp. 137-138.

economic trends was no longer simple and direct.
More nearly adequate standards of relief payments
and the introduction of new forms of aid through
Federal and State programs were important factors
influencing the course of relief expenditures in 1933
and subsequent years. Moreover, the mere
existence of large-scale relief programs, financed by
public funds and with more or less well-defined
eligibility requirements, inevitably resulted in the
declaration of need that had existed long before the
depression but had hitherto been ignored or met
in very inadequate fashion by friends and relatives
or unorganized private charity.

The first Federal relief agency — the CCC — was
created in April 1933, almost a month after the low
point of the depression had been reached. Unem¬
ployment was near its height and national income
payments ^ near their lowest ebb at this time
(chart 1). Beginning in the spring of 1933 income
payments moved slowly upward, with a brief spurt
in 1936 reflecting veterans’ bonus payments, until
the last months of 1937. The acute recession in
economic activity at that time caused a temporary
decline lasting until the middle of 1938, when
income payments again started upward. Unem¬
ployment decreased slowly and irregularly over
most of this period, with a sharp upward spurt
from the fall of 1937 to the following summer.
After July 1938 the unemployment series moved
downward but at the end of the year were still well
above their low points of 1937.

Meanwhile, total outlays for public and private
aid continued an irregular advance toward 1938
peaks. They reached their highest point in the
decade in December 1938, more than 5 years after
the estimated peak in unemployment and 9 years
after the first impact of the depression.

Unemployment still loomed as the major
economic and social problem of the Nation when

J Estimates of national income payments indicate the flow of income to
individuals on a monthly basis and provide a current measure of consumer
purchasing power. They are to be distinguished from annual estimates of
national income produced, which measure the net value of the Nation’s
economic output.

8

the decade closed. Improvement in economic
conditions had restored jobs to many millions of

Chart 1.— Expenditures for public and private aid in
116 urban areas as related to estimates of national
unemployment and national income payments, Jan¬
uary 1929— December 1938

MILLIONS OF DOLLARS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE AID'^t

t Estimates of U. S. Department of Commerce, National Income Division,
Survey of Current Business, Vol. 19, No. 10 (October 1939), table 41, pp. 16-16.
ttBased on table C-1.

the unemployed, but millions of new gainful
workers had been added to the labor supply since
1929. Accurate measures of employment and
unemplo3anent do not exist, but available esti¬
mates all indicate that unemployment was still
severe at the close of 1938 despite the fact that
indexes of production, employment, and national
income payments recorded a very substantial
degree of recovery.

It must be realized, of course, that not all the
expansion in relief expenditures during the decade
under review is attributable to increased aid to the
needy unemployed, and that a more accurate com¬
parison of changes in the volume of relief with
changes in the volume of unemployment could be
made if it were possible to subtract assistance
granted to unemployable persons from total pub¬
lic and private aid.® Unfortunately, such a sub¬
traction cannot even be approximated. Separate
data are avaOable on payments under special pro¬
grams for certain groups of unemployable persons —
the aged, dependent children, and the blind —
but no basis exists for distinguishing payments to
unemployable persons under programs for public
general relief or private aid.

Relation of Urban to National Trends

The curve of public and private aid in chart 1
relates to the 116 urban areas and not to the total
United States, but it is believed to parallel closely
the national trend in outlays for public and private
aid during most, if not all, of the 10-year period.
Comparable expenditure data are not available on
a national scale for the first 4 years of the decade,
but the striking similarity in national and urban-
area trends in public aid from 1933 to the end of
1938 is apparent from chart 2.^ The contours of
the two trends might not be quite as similar if
private relief and the omitted types of public aid
could be included in both series, but the essential
likeness would remain.

It seems reasonable to assume that there was

> In this report the terms “employable” and “unemployable” are used in
their broad, commonly accepted meanings, that is, to distinguish individuals
or groups of individuals who are capable of self-support (provided employ¬
ment opportunities are available) from those (young children and their
mothers) who are not expected to maintain themselves and those who are
seriously handicapped in the competitive labor market because of old age or
physical or mental disability. It is obvious that many persons who are
unemployable at a particular time within a particular economic situation are
not unemployable in the absolute sense of being completely unable to perform
economic activity.

* To facilitate comparison, the two diagrams have been standardized tor
mass; for explanation of the method used, see appendix B, p. 48.

9

somewhat less similarity in trend from 1929 to the
close of 1932. Private relief then formed a more
significant share of total outlays, and local relief
organizations were still bearing the main respon¬
sibility for emergency relief of the unemployed.
Large urban areas were more immediately affected
by the economic crisis than were other portions of
the country, and were more likely to have organ¬
ized relief channels through which funds could be
raised and the needy unemployed could make
known their distress and receive aid. For these
reasons, the proportion of total national aid ex¬
tended in the 116 urban areas was undoubtedly
greater in the years preceding 1933 than in subse¬
quent years.

Even after 1933 the proportion of total public
aid in the 116 urban areas was considerably greater
than the proportion of the total population living
within those areas. Comparison of the urban-
area expenditures with those of the total United
States is possible only for the types of aid covered
in chart 2, i. e., public general relief, earnings under
the CWA and on projects of the WPA, and the
three special types of public assistance. In 1933
almost half — 48 percent — of the total amount
expended in the United States for these types of
aid was distributed in the 116 urban areas, al¬
though the combined population of the areas in
1930 was only 37 percent of the national total.
The share of the national aggregate expended in
these urban areas was even greater in subsequent
years, reaching a maximum of 56 percent in 1936.
In 1938 the urban areas accounted for 49 percent
of all public outlays for these types of aid.®

The 10-Year Bill

Outlays in the 116 urban areas for public and
private aid of the types included in this series
aggregated almost $6.9 billion for the decade
1929-38, an impressive 10-year bill for the
alleviation of distress in areas containing less
than two-fifths of the total population of the
Nation.

Much of the bill was for the relief of need
arising directly from the economic disaster of
the early 1930’s and may be looked upon as de¬
pression expenditures swelling the normal costs
of caring for the destitute and needy in these
areas. But there is evidence that urban relief

5 For a discussion of the varying proportions of total outlays represented
by the several component types of aid distributed in the 116 urban areas, see
pp. 31-33.

costs were in a process of expansion for many
years before the unemployment crisis.® Even in
1929, following an era of conspicuous business
prosperity, the relief bill for the 116 urban areas
exceeded $47 million. By contrast with the
amount spent in subsequent years this sum may
be considered a relatively small outlay. With the
exception of 1937, each succeeding year in the
decade saw increased outlays for total public and
private aid.

The $47 million spent in 1929 represents less
than 1 percent of the aggregate outlay for the
10-year period. Only 8 percent more of the
aggregate was spent during the following 3-year
period, which led to the depths of the depression
and the entrance of the Federal Government into
active relief operations. Nearly 36 percent was
expended during the next 3 years, 1933-35, but
the major portion of the $6.9 billion total, 55
percent, was spent during the last 3 years of the
decade.

Trend in Total Outlays

The irregular upward course of total monthly
expenditures for public and private aid in the 116
urban areas is shown graphically in chart 1; the
aggregate monthly outlays on which the chart is
based appear in table C-1. As a measure of total
relief burdens the trend in combined expenditures
is impaired somewhat by the omission of data
for certain programs and of administrative costs
for aU programs, but it is nonetheless an effective
indicator of the chaiiges that have occurred in the
amount of aid extended to the needy in these areas.

Unfortunately, there are no data by which one
can measure changes over the decade in the total
volume of need existing within the areas. There
are not even satisfactory data by which to measure
changes in the numbers of households and persons
whose wants were met, in varying degrees of
adequacy, by the outlays made under the com¬
bined assistance and work programs. Consoli¬
dated data on households and persons aided, were
they available on an unduplicated basis, would
afford a valuable record of the proportions of the
population of these areas receiving aid at different
points of time, but they would not measure fluc¬
tuations in the volume of need. The diverse
eligibility requirements of the different programs,

* Geddes, Anne E., Trends in Relief Expenditures, 1910-19S6, Research
Monograph X, Works Progress Administration, 1937.

10

Chart 2,— Expenditures for public aid in 116 urban areas and in the

December 1938 •

continental United States, January 1933—

CIVIL WORKS
/PROGRAM +

PUBLIC GENERAL RELIEF

^SPECIAL types OF PUBLIC ASSISTANC^

MILLIONS OF DOLLARS

150

116 URBAN AREAS

120

MILLIONS OF DOLLARS

150

I 20

1933

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
300

CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES

250

200

150

100

MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
300

1 1

CIVIL WORKS
/ PROGRAM

/////\ / / / /?

- -

PUBLIC GEIN

^ r * ' . . ■ ■ 1

SPECIAL TYPES OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE

250

200

150

100

1933

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

-4— INDICATES THE 6 -YEAR MONTHLY AVERAGE

•Tofacilitatecomparison, the two diagrams have been standardized for mass; for explanation of the method used, see app.B.p. 48. a , t

fKarDings of all persons employed under the Civil Works Program, including the administrative staff; hence not strictly comparable with the data for
the continental United States, whieh exclude earnings of administrative staff.
ttEarnings on projects operated by the WPA within the areas.

462436° — 42 - 2

11

Table 2^~^Amount and percentage distribution of public and private assistance and earnings under specified Federal u^ork programs^ 116 urban areas^

1929-3S

tn

a

3

o

s

3

Ph

(£5

a>

u

3

09

w

CO

CO

CQ

V

2

3

Q.

a

>»

09

O

o

O.

CQ

M

u

O

IS

u

o

'3

feS

09
u,
O fcc
73 P

a

3

CO

bO

3

3

Pii;

u,

a

o

2

13

O)

3

P

O

P

•3

S.9

-oS

■§1

2«2

P

P
P O

bfi 3
P c8

'3 w

p

p

o

Eh

i-. p

O p

^ «

CO

|a

.-Ph

o

p

1

M

u

o

p

ppm

p

o

p

hi

CO

o

Eh

cs

o

p

p

^ p —

a u '3

^ as
Prt-i 3

O 3
Eh P

3

3

o

a

<1

CD

o>

CM

O

CO

s

CMO»OCOCM— igoOOiD
^COaOb-CM-^CMcD— <05
00CMC0C005O05OCMt>»

CM

t«F

oTcd'crco^co'io'^^o

^t-HOO.-H*.HIO>DlO^

^«>hidACD.-hC^CD^05

s

.-HOO'.^od'^CDC^i-i^Cr

lOlOCN^i— 4— <

CD

i-h»C'4J*CD^»DCOCM»OCO
0^t^»-»CD0t^0CD*'J'
Ol>»CDt^CD^i-<00 00*0

00

O5'io‘4tfrc^-4CM^^O’^

CM

lOCOCOi^CMcOOOUbt^FH

lOOSCMlOt-CMOCOCMO

t>r

SI

^-^c^c^cm'coco'id'cd'cio

I

OOOQOOt>*»0»Oi-i05t^

— iO»-H’.tt<COOOCOCDCO
C0t>-05CMa5'.t*’4j.C0QC05

cd'

f-»05ctf— •cD'cacoToct^io'

CO

05 05i-HC0CMi-H00OCMCM

CM

t>.OOCMCO'4j<COCDCOO

CM

I>.05e0»0'4j<^*005t^c0

WWCMC^CMCMCMCMCO’V

S

05 05C00000Ot>.t^CMlD
OcD05U5t^4ji.-HO‘OiO

CO

O5C0t^C0i-^iOCMC0'^CM

cm"

00 Or00"cD"00*'t^Q".-» CD^IO"

05

CO»Ot..OCM004jiCDOO

Ocq4^i?5o»c-^'^t^

CD

i-TcTio'wb'c^—

0

^ ^ »-H ^ CO ID ^

fH ^

CD

S

S5?

OCMo5CM05000cDOO

i-HCOoOOOOOOO'^fCOOO

COOOcOCMt^i-HGC'^f.—

oT^cTocD'od'os^'^u^

utic^_i?q»or>-TjiSrs.CM

eoOiDCMCMCDOOOCt^OO

co"

05CMi0'C0CM^O'-'»Dt^ 1

^ CM CO ■'Ji CD 05 10 05

h-

mm mm 1

ic CD
CO *C CP O
»0 Tj* 00 00

CO CD 00'
UO 0>
.-•00 CD 00

05 CD
CO *0
CM

CM"tC

CO w

r>.

05

^§5

■^OOCMCOCDCOCOOOw

CO

COb*CD4jitN.05 05COCD

t>.

r^4t.oOt>-COCDI^OOCD

cm"

TjI'CMCM"^CO"'-'r^CDCr

CMCOCDOOCDUO'^OOS

CD

COOOO'.tf*l^l>.COi-iS^

f-iCM.— 'OCOCD’CMr-T

CD

t..

OOcDCOOt^-Ht>.>^t>.

CM CD t'* 00 CM 4ti 05 CO 1

^m

05

0 CM »0 CD CD .*H I— CD CO '

ccT

0«-^‘D05 00«-«.— '-Vti
rrcDt^COCO^OO'.^'CM^

10

00

cD'co'oo»o'.-i^i<‘i>»co

»-fC0CDCD05OC005CQ

1-4 ^ 4,J. »0 CM CM

cm"

s

CM*^iOCDCOt'-COCMOO".J4
^5DCMi— CD— 4^000505

CD

00t>.-.^*4t4»D00O5»OO5CO

05"

00

CMt'-i-iOO»OCDCDCOCD05

-H

’4j44^io0CMO0CMt^i-H4jiCD

oT

CDiDOt>.-H.^COOM4'^

1— COO— 'O'— it^OCCCM

CM iij. CD t>- CO CM CO

10

0

si

»D

CMCD4i}i00i-4COCOCM'4jiCM
CM00 05 O05i0CMt^00 00

^m

i-HlOt^t>.»0’^00 05i-'w

«k

iD'-'^oTi-^oi-ro'orooor

OOW5flOTf4CDOOOOOt>.

CO

*0

tN.»OCO»O00’^'-^COi-HCO

g'

iDt>rcDo«5‘od'o«5'c<ro^i-4

CO»DCMCD005l^i't'®CM

— •CM»000 05CMO'^

CD

<o"

—1 —4

'4t*CD05i-'C04^4,-lCM’^t>-

CO— 't^-OO— 405»0C005t^

CD

C500CDO»D’^b»OC005

cm"

s

•tjTo 05*'io"cm"Vcd ©“CM Wb"

— tt>.COO»DI^CO^©0
CMCD00i!f*iC'‘DC5O*OC0

CO

t^io't>^05"»o •^ocToTcm

»o

4tfib..t^i-HC0^©©O5CO

00

i-«COiO©05CMO’M4

co"

«i. F. «k

^ ^m

ۥ9-

3

O

*3

3

Xi

•M

u

•w

CO

■—

p

br.

a

*»

3

P

p

hi

p

a

3.4

CM©O^©00C0©OQ0

CO © 00 »0 •-• 1-1 1^

CM CM CM I—

»o

COOCMOOiDCO^^©©

C5

eOCM-H

0

r>-CM©©©t»©Tji4*ico

10 CM* b-‘ '•ji CM cm’ CM* CO CO

CO CM 1-H

o>

‘^00©00©CM©CM©

»c

— •»D'^cm»-hco-^c5o5

©CM©CD©©-iCOCMOO

©

-HO5O5COt^'^©t^''?*C0
^ CM — 4 — 4 — 4 ^

CM

1 < 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 50 0 © t»

«

llllll****

t4.

■ 1 1 1 1 • -^ 00 00 CM

CO

t 1 1 > 1 I —1 © to ©

1 1 1 1 1 <

1 1 1 1 1 1

( 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 t 1 1 1

1 t 1 1 I 1

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 t 1

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 I

■III 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 © CM 1 I 1 1

I

1 •

1

1

1 i ) 1 —1 CD 1 1 1 1

1 1 I 1 —4 CM 1 1 1 1

1 t I 1 1 1 t 1

1 1 1 1 till

• ill (lit

1 1 i 1 1 1 t 1

> 1 i 1 till

■ til 1 1 1 1

>111 1 1 1 1

lilt 1 1 t 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1

1 t 1 1 till

I'll lift

CO

— l©•4^1CMt>.CO©CM— <

•

CM CM CD © CO CO
— • -H CM CM CM

s

A

Nw"

0^

1

\

CO

t-'^t>-OO-4jiO0CM©00

»o

^^o6-^"4j5co4jicotc

CO

CO4tf'C0©©’4f©CMCM

OD

Sw"

CD 1

00©— •©—•I— ^00©t^

1

^CDi—odtOt^^OOCOtoCM

CO'^©©t>-©t-CMCMCM

©

00— i©©©CMt--HOCM

CD

tO©.-4^4jiodGO©©*©

©

t-t^C-OO©©©©©©

©

©©ooooo©©©

«

S

ssssssssss

— 4'-H— 1— li^^i— ^

hi

p

p

00

CO

05

05

05O.-lCMC0'^»CCDrN.00
05COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOf5
05 05 05 Cb 05 05 05 05 05 05

O5O*-HCMC0'^‘OCbt^00
PJCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO
05 05 05 ^050505050505

9i

P

P

u

a

•3

3

P

P

O

0

u

3

p
P
CQ

'p

•—

P
O
03

P

>»

X)

73

P

>

a*C

P 3
CO W

3 ®

gcQ

3

O

o

'a

'i *

.3 p

P >*

a p

p ^

O. 3
® •—

P. 2
im ;3
p P

CO ^

P'3

hi P

p

<3 g

p but

2 o

I

P

a o9 2

.3 PxJ
0 .3
■>CQ P

S P'^

p^a S

•*.* P

■2 53 p
«3^ =

a g 2

p bJD is

P 3 P

53S ^

^ P P

CO —

ap P

o..i-

«3 *^73

CO O CO

'§^'§

3 §3

p-3 P

32 c

I— fCOl-H

«Q ^

3

P 3

aS

sa

.9 0
” o.

*3 J3

Im •—

^ bA
p;=3
p to

hi p

3

73

fli ^

73

p

^3

3

P

3

P

CO

3

s

a

p

M p P*W
05 j— (i4

u-gga
2 I p-t
P-^ o -

3: p 3 a

£33

M CO
tH p

o

p

p-a

3 CO

- bX) w
P P

.2feM

00 Ok

3

3

o

•—

4.5

P

hi

P

a

o

3

p

73

P

3

•—

CO

a

p

hi

p

.3

73
3
P

•»

-4^

3

p

a

a

3

O'

P

13

u

p

4^

P

a

o C

"•S

3 ^

O .fci

73

P

P

3

o

CO

1.4

p

73

3

3

3

P

>,

O

a

a

p

CO

3

o

CO

hi

p

a

p

hM

o

CO

3

« 2

p >»

■S''§

^a

3 p

® CO

3 3

p O

>*u

a p
ao.

a^

p

CO
CO ^

3

g
sU

a

•mm

3

p

P

p

— Q

|g
■“2
a

P

I— ^
^ .«

P CO

Js P

3

O

a

^ L4

®,2

CO ^

bA p

.as

3 P

si

p

■S'®

4^

o
3

£

a® .
, £S^

^.2

.rt ’rf r4

CO CO P — —

4^ CO tul A

.g-S “ =

rt .S P P

Brr> >

3
. P

O
3 ^

;2CQ S ^

P-

hi

O

3

O

P 3

P ®
CO

3.2*3 p CO 5
p.S2.2*c3 « 2
I33'*^>3 3'R®
P Sc t> .rt ^

is 2 a

a^’

a
o

a*-- bck? ,

•a ® 0,^ g^<1 g

° §^5 35^5

I « ^ a § fl ® ®
§at^2”

g g W-

^ R, P CO

3 p

3 P —

x; s

Pa'S

“ ja.3

Sm **“

p p.p

^ £_. p

CO

aS^S'S®.

^ - bi)2 bo2^

”S “■5 2 D.

l> 4^ o o

the varying standards of aid provided, and the
shifts in emphasis among the several types of aid
preclude any close correlation between the volume
of need and either the numbers of households and
persons aided or the expenditures under the com¬
bined programs. These same factors would lead
one to expect marked divergence between a con¬
solidated trend of households and persons aided
in the 116 urban areas and the monthly expenditure
trend shown in chart 1 .

During most of 1929, combined monthly expen¬
ditures for relief in the 116 urban areas were
at the comparatively low level of about $4 million.
A pronounced upward shift occurred at the close
of that year, and by March 1933, some 3 years
later, monthly expenditures were nearly 11 times
as large as in January 1929. Liberal wage pay¬
ments under the short-lived CWA resulted in a
total bUl for January 1934 of $115.6 million, a
sum 28 times as great as the amount for January

1929 and 2}i times the $45 million paid out in
March 1933. The drop from this high point was
as sudden as the rise to it, but expenditures did
not return to their pre-CWA level.

The upward movement was again under way by
the middle of 1934. The further climb to 1938
levels was accomplished in three major advances,
each leading to a temporary peak and subsequent
decline in monthly expenditures. The first steep
advance continued to January 1935. The second
began in the fall of that year and ended in March
1936, with a total expenditure in that month with¬
in $800,000 of the high point under the CWA.
The third major advance began in the summer of
1937 and ended in December 1938 with an outlay
of $130.8 million, well above the highest monthly
figure in any previous year. Thus the decade under
review ended with a maximum expenditure for
these 116 m’ban areas almost 32 times as great as
that for January 1929.

• OlKSeU UU tauie . , . ^ .l* I. rm

fEarnings of all persons employed under the Civil Works Program, mcluding the administrative staff.
ttEarnings on projects operated by the WPA within the areas.

13

Development of Component Programs

Viewed solely in relation to economic indexes,
the trend of expenditures for public and private
aid seems illogical and unpredictable. The con¬
spicuous lack of agreement of the relief curve with
the trends of unemployment and national income
payments during the latter part of the decade is
understandable only in the light of the evolution¬
ary changes that have occurred in the underlying
relief structure. A chronological account of relief
developments since 1929 will contribute to a better
understanding of the roles played by the various
programs and their individual and joint effects on
the over-all trend of expenditures. It will also
indicate the dynamic character of the national
relief problem and the important advances that
were made during the decade in the treatment of
the problem.

Chart 3 affords a panoramic view of outlays for
public and private aid over the entire period, re¬
vealing the ebb and flow of monthly payments
under the component programs. The annual ex¬
penditure figures are given in table 2 and the
monthly figures in table C-1. The 10-year picture
is telescoped in chart 4 to show the shares of the
aggregate outlay expended under each program
and for each type of aid.

Prelude to Federal participation, 1929-32.— -At
the opening of the decade relief was still primarily
a local responsibility, with some States participat¬
ing to a limited degree in providing aid to special
classes. Contrary to popular belief, it was not a
responsibility met primarily by voluntary con¬
tributions dispensed through private channels.
Even in the largely predepression year of 1929,
public funds paid three-fourths of the aggregate
relief bill for these 116 urban areas.

Considerably more than half of the public
relief in 1929 was statutory aid to two special
groups — dependent children and the blind. The
lesser share was for general poor relief dispensed,
for the most part, by local overseers of the poor
or county commissioners in accordance with anti¬
quated poor-relief laws. Such relief was granted
to destitute employable persons as well as unem¬
ployable persons not eligible for existing forms of
categorical relief, but it carried with it a label of
pauperism and a distinct social stigma. Some of
the local poor laws imposed a pauper’s oath and
required apphcants to waive certain political and
civil rights as a prerequisite to receiving aid.

Public relief agencies were ill-equipped, both
administratively and financially, to meet the
initial impact of the unemployment crisis, and it
was natural, therefore, that families faced with
sudden economic distress should turn to private
agencies for relief and care. As early as the late
autumn of 1929 private social agencies began to
feel the increasing burden of need. Public relief
costs also began to expand during these first
months of the depression but at a somewhat
slower rate.

The strain on both private and public resources
increased as the months passed and the depression
became more acute. Local governments were
faced with dwindling resources and a widening
gap between demands for assistance and their
ability to meet those demands. Many local
governments were hampered by statutory limita¬
tions on the taxation of real estate, the chief source
of local revenue, and nearly all were affected by
declining property values and mounting tax
delinquencies. Under the growing burden of dis¬
tress, current revenues were soon exhausted and
localities were forced to borrow funds.

Demands for assistance, far from abating,
became more numerous and more urgent, over¬
taxing completely the resources of existing relief
mechanisms. Gradual recognition of the disaster
proportions of the unemployment crisis led to
the creation in October 1930 of the President’s
Emergency Committee for Employment, and in
August 1931 of the President’s Organization on
Unemployment Relief. Under the stimulus of
these groups, local committees were formed in most
of the larger urban areas to devise temporary means
of helping the imemployed. Recovery, like pros¬
perity, was then assumed to be “just around the
corner,” and stopgap measures rather than long¬
time relief policies engaged the attention of
these committees. Reemployment and make-work
drives of all kinds were launched in an endeavor
to check the further spread of unemployment and
to hasten the expected economic revival. City¬
wide relief campaigns, directed by prominent
citizens, were organized to raise funds for the
destitute unemployed.

The upward spurt in private relief outlays in
the winter of 1930-31 reflects the valiant efforts
of these emergency committees to meet the rising
volume of need among the urban unemployed.
In the winter of 1931-32 voluntary contributions

14

Chart 4. — Percentage

11

'■V

PUBLIC
ASSISTANCE
AND EARNINGS

96.6%

PRIVATE RELIEF

3.4%

flistribiition of $6,853 million expended for public and private aid, 116 urban areas, 1929-38 ‘

EARNINGS ON
WORK PROGRAMS
AND

WORK RELIEF

50.9%

DIRECT

assistance

49.1%

C

EARNINGS ON PROJECTS
OPERATED BY THE WPA
37.2%

EARNINGS UNDER THE
CIVIL WORKS PROGRAM

4.4%

WORK RELIEF

9.3%

PUBLIC

V GENERAL RELIEF

DIRECT RELIEF

35.3%

44.6%

AID TO THE BLIND

5%

AID TO DEPENDENT
CHILDREN

4.0%

OLD-AGE ASSISTANCE

5.9%

PRIVATE -RELIEF
3.4%

SPECIAL TYPES OF
PUBLIC ASSISTANCE

10.4%

I Based on table 2.

15

to emergency relief campaigns were even greater
in amount, but private relief funds represented a
distinctly smaller share of the total relief outlays.
By January 1932 monthly expenditures from
private funds had reached their peak for the decade
and thereafter declined rapidly, both in actual
amount and as a percentage of total expenditures
for aid in the 116 urban areas. From a maximum
proportion of 29 percent in 1931 they shrank by
1935 to about 1 percent of aggregate outlays.

Continued expansion in public relief outlays
during the winter of 1931-32 was made possible
only by a gradual shift in financial responsibility
from local to State governments. Fourteen
States, containing 65 of the 116 urban areas,
passed special legislation in 1931 providing funds
for the needy unemployed. Four other States,
containing 9 of the urban areas, voted their first
appropriation for unemployment relief in 1932.^

The initial move toward Federal participation
in relief financing was made in July 1932, when the
Emergenc}^ Relief and Construction Act was
passed, authorizing the Reconstruction Finance
Corporation to make loans to the States and local
subdivisions for relief purposes.® Two years later
State obligations under this act were canceled
by congressional action,® so that Federal funds
for unemployment relief actually became avail¬
able with the negotiation of the first RFC loans
for relief purposes. Earlier in 1932 Federal funds
had been used to purchase large quantities of
surplus wheat and cotton which were distributed
to needy families through the facilities of the
American Red Cross, but this measure was pri¬
marily designed for farm and not unemployment
relief.'®

' For dates of first legislation financing unemployment relief in the various
States, see Lowe, Robert C., Digest of State Legislation for the Financing of
Emergency Relief, January 1, 19Sl-June 30, 19SB, Municipal Finance Section,
Federal Emergency Relief Administration; and Lowe, Robert C., and staff.
Supplement for Period July 1, 1935-February 29, 1936, Division of Social
Research, Works Progress Administration.

* The Reconstruction Finance Corporation was established on January 22,
1932, to make emergency loans to agricultural, commercial, and industrial
enterprises, but its powers were extended and broadened by subsequent
legislation.

« Funds made available to the States for relief purposes were considered
advances on grants for public roads; required deductions from future grants
were waived by congressional action on June 18, 1934. Loans made to local
jurisdictions were secured by bond issues; outstanding balances of such loans
were canceled by congressional action on Feb. 24, 1938.

10 The total amount expended by the Federal Government for the purchase,
processing, and distribution of surplus wheat and cotton in 1932 and 1933 was
$73,598,452. See American Red Cross, The Distribution of Government-Owned
Wheat and Cotton, June 1, 1934, pp. 80-83. Expenditure data for the 116
urban areas do not include the value of surplus wheat or cotton distributed
in those areas, or the value of surplus commodities distributed after October
1933 by the Federal Surplus Relief Corporation and its successor agencies.

The RFC loans afforded a new source of funds
for harassed States and localities and sustained the
upward trend in relief expenditures in the face of
an increasingly critical relief situation. It was
obvious by the end of the year, however, that
more direct Federal action was necessary. The
bonus march to Washington in 1932 had helped to
focus attention on the plight of the unemployed
and to crystallize public opinion in favor of some
Federal action to combat the widespread unem¬
ployment and distress caused by a major break¬
down in the national economy. In the depth of
the depression, with unemployment near its peak
for the decade, the Congress acted to establish a
Nation-wide emergency relief program under
Federal auspices.

Emergency reliej measures under Federal aus¬
pices, 1933-35. — The first Federal Emergency
Relief Act was approved by the President on
May 12, 1933." It appropriated funds for a com¬
prehensive program of direct and work relief to be
administered by the States and localities in coop¬
eration with the Federal Government. The
FERA was created, with a 2-year span of existence,
and the administrator was authorized to make
grants-in-aid to the States for relief purposes and
to prescribe such rules and regulations as would
ensure their effective and efficient use. Later acts
extended the life of the program and financed
Federal grants totaling more than $3 billion by
the end of 1935.

Certain basic policies governing Federal par¬
ticipation in emergency relief activities that were
laid down in connection with the FERA have had
far-reaching effects on the relief structure. Nota¬
ble among these policies were the use of matching
and discretionary grants of Federal funds, the
acceptance of work projects as a form of Federal
aid, the differentiation of programs to meet
special needs, and the insistence that Federal
funds be expended only through public agencies
and in accordance with established minimum
standards and broad policy regulations.

The act itself made it clear that Federal aid was
to supplement and not displace State and local
support of emergency relief activities. The first
grants were made on a matching basis, in the ratio
of $1 of Federal funds for every $3 of public funds
expended within the State during the previous 3

» The Emergency Conservation Work, known later as the Civilian Con¬
servation Corps, was established a month earlier to provide training and
useful work for unemployed young men.

16

months. Unmatched grants were to be made
when State resources plus available matching
funds were found by the administrator to be
insufficient to meet existing need. State emer¬
gency relief administrations were required to
assume responsibility for the expenditure of Fed¬
eral funds through local emergency relief adminis¬
trations or other public agencies. The turning
over of funds to private agencies was strictly pro¬
hibited after August 1, 1933.

FERA regulations sought to limit the use of
Federal emergency funds to the relief of hardship
and distress caused by unemployment and forbade
their use for institutional care or for aid to special
classes and other normal welfare activities of the
States and local subdivisions. Payments were not
restricted to employable persons, however, and aid
was extended under the direct relief program to
large numbers of unemployable persons when the
States and localities were unable to finance assist¬
ance to such persons. At the same time emphasis
was placed on the development of work projects
that would afford useful employment to able-
bodied relief applicants.

The preponderant share of emergency relief was
extended under the broad dual program of direct
and work relief, but several minor programs were
devised to meet the special needs of certain rela¬
tively small groups of dependent persons. Two of
these programs, rural rehabilitation and student
aid, were subsequently transferred to other Fed¬
eral agencies; the emergency education program
was eventually brought within the scope of the
diversified Federal work program that succeeded
the FERA. The FERA transient program was
discontinued; some transients obtained employ¬
ment on WPA projects and others were given
transportation to their place of legal settlement or
received assistance under State and local general
relief programs.^^

The first grants of FERA funds were made on
May 23, 1933, and served to maintain relief ex¬
penditures at prevailing levels. A gradual rise
in average payments was effected during these early
months of Federal participation in relief activities,
counterbalancing in part a temporary, seasonal
decline in relief loads. Improvement in standards
was manifest not only in higher average payments
but in the greater emphasis on work relief and the

•• The urban series does not include data for any of the FERA special
programs.

encouragement given to payment of benefits in
cash instead of in kind.

The early work relief program of the FERA
focused, for the most part, on small-scale projects,
many of which had been initiated under State
or local auspices prior to the FERA. Projects
were of short dmation and confined largely to the
performance of unskilled work. A policy of “fair”
or “prevailing” wage rates was established, but
monthly earnings were intended to be related to
the budget deficit of the relief family in the same
manner as direct relief payments.

By November 1933 the decision had been
reached to launch a new and intensive program
of public works which would provide more jobs
on more useful projects and at the same time speed
recovery by releasing purchasing power to millions
of unemployed.

The Federal Civil Works Program was created
by an executive order issued November 9 under
authority of title II of the National Industrial
Recovery Act.^® The program was designed as a
bold offensive against the depression and the con¬
tinuing burdens of unemployment and relief, and,
unlike the FERA, was federally administered. An
employment goal of four million was set for the
new program. Approximately two million persons
were to be transferred directly from the general
relief rolls. Another two million were to be hired
from the general ranks of the unemployed without
the imposition of any test of destitution or need.
Wages and hours on CWA jobs were to be the
same as those on regular public works projects
administered by the Public Works Adminis¬
tration.^^ Earnings of employees were not to be
linked to their budgetary needs but to the kind
and quantity of work performed.

The wholesale transfer of needy employable
persons from FERA work projects to CWA jobs
took place almost overnight. The shift from
subsistence wages to regular earnings obviously
meant a sudden rise in the standard of living for
some two million relief families; it meant also
a precipitous rise in public outlays for their care.

n This act was passed in June 1933 and authorized the appropriation of
$3,300 million “to encourage national industrial recovery, to foster fair compe¬
tition, and to provide for the construction of certain useful public works, and
for other purposes.”

n The Federal Emergency Administration of Public Works (PWA) had
been established in June 1933 to help direct the extended program of normal
public works authorized by the National Industrial Recovery Act. These
projects were let by contract to private employers, wages were at prevailing
rates, hours of work were normal, and employees were hired in the open labor
market.

17

Still greater advances in costs were incurred by
the hhing of about two million unemployed
persons not in receipt of public aid at the time
of employment. Within the span of a few weeks
the rate of outlay for relief and earnings was more
than doubled. Expenditures in the 116 urban
areas rose by 188 percent between October 1933
and January 1934. In the latter month CWA
monthly earnings reached a maximum of $85.4
million and accounted for nearly three-fourths of
a record total expenditure of $115.6 million for
public and private aid in these areas. The heav^'’
burden of CWA wages was maintained for only
a brief time. Reductions in hours and pay rolls
were ordered almost as soon as employment goals
were reached, and the progi'am was officially
terminated as of the close of March 1934. Out¬
lays for CWA dropped abruptly, and with them
total outlays for relief and earnings.

Suspension of the CWA was followed by the
creation of an Emergency Work Relief Program
within the general relief programs of the State and
local emergency relief administrations. Outlays
for work relief under the FERA had been curtailed
almost to the vanishing point during the CWA,
but direct relief expenditures had continued to
expand. With the suspension of CWA operations
at the end of March, eligible persons on the pay
rolls were ordered transfeiTed to the Emergency
Work Relief Program. New employees were to
be accepted only on proof of need, and wages for
all employees were to be regulated strictly in
accordance with budgetary needs. With the
renewed emphasis on emergency work relief proj¬
ects and the continued expansion of the direct relief
burden, general relief outlays once more dominated
the emergency relief structure and the Federal
Government continued to be a dominant factor
in the financing and supervision of the general
relief program.

FERA and other general relief outla3''s were at
their maximum in January 1935 when the Presi¬
dent, in his annual message to Congress, voiced
the need for a reallocation of the responsibilities
for public aid. Declaring that “work must be
found for able-bodied but destitute workers” and
that “the Federal Government must and shall
quit this business of relief,” he proposed a definite
separation of the two tasks of providing work for
the unemplo3’'ed and relief for other classes of
dependent persons. Responsibility for the fii’st

was placed squarely on the Federal Government.
Responsibility for the second, it was insisted,
must be returned to the States and localities, with
such Federal participation as might be provided
through the permanent social security legislation
then pending.

A joint resolution of Congress on April 8, 1935,
laid the legislative ground work for the contem¬
plated change in Federal policy, and on May 6,
1935, an executive order was issued creating the
WPA. This new Federal agency was charged
with primary responsibility for organizing a broad
work program to furnish employment at security
wage levels for able-bodied workers then on
relief roUs of the FERA and such others as later
became destitute. Various permanent and newly
created agencies participated in the new program,
but projects operated directly by the WPA
through State and local administrations have
afforded by far the greatest volume of employ¬
ment and earnings.’®

Persons referred by local emergency relief
administrations as eligible for employment were
assigned to WPA jobs at fixed monthly wages,
without regard to varying family needs. Employ¬
ment was at prevailing wage rates, with hours, of
work adjusted to yield an established security
wage. WPA earnings have been graduated ac¬
cording to the skill of the worker and the loca¬
tion of the project, but in general they have
provided a standard of family living far above the
subsistence scale authorized under the FERA
program.

The transfer of eligible workers to WPA jobs
began in August 1935 and proceeded rapidly
during the next few months. By December,
FERA emergency work relief was reduced to a
small fraction of its former volume and direct
relief had been severely curtailed in the face of
imminent withdrawal of Federal support.

The last Federal grants were determined in
December 1935, and at the close of that year the
FERA ceased to function as an active relief
agency. The WPA replaced it as the main
channel of Federal aid to the unemployed, and the
State and local agencies were forced to take over
the burden of direct relief to needy unemploy¬
able persons. The only Federal funds available
for direct relief were some unexpended balances

The urban series does not include earnings on projects other than those
operated by the WPA.

18

of gi-ants determined before January 1, 1936.'®
Federal assistance in the financing of special
types of assistance was promised under the Social
Security Act, which had been approved in August

1935. Congress did not at that time appropriate
the necessary funds, but matching grants-in-aid
were to become available early in the following
year to States with public assistance plans ap¬
proved by the Social Security Board.

Beginnings of a Federal security 'program, 1936-
38. — Since the end of 1935 the composition of
the m-ban relief structure has not been altered
by any major shifts in legislation or administrative
policy, but it has undergone marked changes of an
evolutionary nature. The enactment of the
Social Security Act caused no immediate trans¬
formation in the composite relief pattern, but
it instituted vital changes that gathered momen¬
tum in subsequent years.

The public assistance provisions of the act
became operative in February 1936” and stimu¬
lated a prompt expansion in old-age assistance,
aid to dependent children, and aid to the blind
in the urban areas. The availability of Federal
grants-in-aid hastened the spread of new State
legislation for these forms of assistance and en¬
couraged broader coverage and higher payments
under laws already in operation. The public as¬
sistance curve moved upward at an accelerated
rate during 1936 and contributed materially to
the over-all rise in relief outlays during the last
3 years of the decade under consideration.

The Federal work program under WPA con¬
tinued to expand during the opening months of

1936. WPA earnings in the urban areas mounted
each month until March 1936, when they aggre-

i gated more than two-thirds of the combined ex¬
penditures for public and private aid. During the
balance of the decade they fluctuated with eco¬
nomic conditions and available funds but suffered

I no serious diminution in relative importance.

>6 For the country af a whole such balances were relatively unimportant,
but in some States where State and/or local fimds were extremely limited
they were the source of a substantial share of general relief expenditures during
part or all of 1936.

17 Other provisions of the Social Security Act that may be expected to
influence expenditure trends for public and private aid include the Federal
grants to States for maternal and child health and welfare services, public
health and vocational rehabilitation, and the broad insurance programs set
up for unemployment compensation and old-age and survivors’ benefits.
Payments under State unemployment compensation laws began in Wisconsin
in July 1936 but in no other States until 1938; monthly benefits imder the
federally operated old-age insurance system first became payable in J anuary
1940. The Railroad Retirement Act, approved August 29, 1935, provided
I for a federally operated retirement system for aged and disabled railroad
I workers; benefits under this system were first paid in July 1936.

They continued to represent, as chart 3 shows,
the largest single component of the relief structure.
Successive appropriation acts modified the scope
and conditions of employment on work projects
but made no fundamental change in the objec¬
tives or basis of extending aid. Improvement in
economic conditions during 1936 and the first half
of 1937 permitted a sharp retrenclunent in WPA
operations. This decline was cut short in the fall
of 1937, when a slump in general economic condi¬
tions forced an expansion in WPA employment to
counteract the effects of a sharp contraction in
private pay rolls.

After 1935, public general relief declined ma¬
terially in volume with the substitution of other
forms of public aid and the decentralization of
fiscal and administrative responsibility. Never¬
theless, it remained a major component of the
relief structure. Despite the removal of millions
of needy employable persons to work programs
and the absorption of millions of needy unem¬
ployable persons in a permanent public assistance
program, general relief continued to absorb almost
a fourth of annual outlays for public and private
aid in the 116 urban areas. Most of this amount
was dispensed as direct relief payments, scaled to
meet the needs of those accepted for care at the
levels recognized by general relief agencies and
in many instances failing to reach even those levels.

Private relief had by 1936 been stabilized at
approximately predepression levels and was sub¬
sequently a small, although dependable, contribu¬
tor to relief expenditures in these 116 areas.

Developments under the insurance provisions
of the Social Security Act undoubtedly played a
part in shaping relief trends in the last year of the
decade. During that year, unemployment bene¬
fits first became payable to workers in 30 States
qualifying under unemployment compensation
laws set up under the provisions of the Social
Security Act. These States, together with Wis¬
consin, which began payments in 1936, contain 88
of the 116 urban areas. There is no way of know¬
ing how many persons in these urban areas were
kept off relief and WPA rolls by the receipt of
unemployment benefits during 1938, but it is
certain that the total expenditures shown in both
charts 1 and 3 would have risen even higher if the
unemployment compensation program had not
been in existence.

18 Including the District of Columbia.

19

Trends of Component Types of Aid

With the relief pattern of the decade spread
before us, the trends in expenditures for compon¬
ent types of aid can be viewed in their proper set¬
ting as interrelated elements of the composite
relief trend. But changes in the relief pattern
have a qualitative significance far beyond their
effect on the total cost of public and private aid.
A shift in emphasis from one type of aid to another
may make little difference in the composite relief
trend but a vast difference in the amount and kind
of aid provided for different classes of needy per¬
sons. The previous section has directed attention
to the interplay among programs and the major
economic, legislative, and administrative changes
that have influenced relief trends; the present
section traces the net effects of these changes on
each of the component types of aid.

Private relief.- — Three years after the decade
opened, the monthly outlay for private relief in
these 116 urban areas was more than 8 times the
$1. 1-million outlay of January 1929; 3 years later,
the average monthly outlay was not far above the
$l-million level of predepression months. The
expansion in public aid has reduced these outlays
to an insignificant proportion of the total expendi¬

tures for public and private aid in these areas,
but it has not led, as many persons feared it might,
to a disappearance of private charity or to a
serious decline of expenditures below predepres¬
sion levels. Aside from the first few years of the
depression, when emergency relief campaigns
pushed private relief expenditures far above former
levels, public agencies have assumed all the added
burden of aid in these urban areas, but they have
not conspicuously lightened the load borne by
private organizations.

The sharp ups and downs in the private relief
curve dirring the critical years of 1930-33 are
shown in chart 5. They reflect the prompt and
generous response of private citizens to the emer¬
gency relief drives and reveal also the marked
concentration of private expenditures in the winter
months when relief needs were greatest.

Public general relief. — The trend of public
general relief over this period, as shown in chart 6,
is closely linked to the evolution of Federal policy
concerning unemployment relief measures. In a
very real sense, general relief is a residual element
in the public relief structure and hence reflects any
major changes that occur in the provisions for
other types of aid.

Chart 5. — Expenditures for private reliefs 116 urban areas, January 1929-December 1938 ^

20

Until the fall of 1933 public general relief shared
with private relief the task of caring for the
growing volume of need caused by unemployment.
Part of the expansion that occurred during these
years in the cost of old-age assistance, aid to
dependent children, and aid to the blind was a
secondary result of unemployment and reduced
income among relatives formerly responsible for
the care of such dependent persons, but these
special types of assistance were not an important
factor in the emergency relief situation since they
were not intended to provide aid to needy employ¬
able persons.

State and local funds, augmented in 1932 by
RFC loans, supported almost a twenty-six-fold
increase in monthly outlays for public general
relief in these areas from January 1929 to March
1933, 2 months before Federal funds were made
available for grants under the FERA general
relief program. Total general relief outlays were
fairly stable in the initial period of operation under
the FERA program, but there was a further up¬
ward shift in the relative importance of work
relief, which had formed a minor, although steadily
increasing, part of the emergency relief dispensed
by the States and localities. During the summer
months of 1933 work relief payments represented

about one-third of the general relief extended in
these urban areas.

Establishment of the CWA brought the work
relief phases of the FERA to a virtual halt and
caused an immediate slump in the general relief
curve from $37 million in November 1933 to $25
million in January 1934. Curtailment of the
CWA and inauguration of the Emei^ency Work
Relief Program within the FERA soon reversed
the decline and set in motion a strong upward
movement that carried general relief outlays to $80
million in January 1935, the peak for the decade.
This figure represented a rise of only 113 percent
above the highest monthly outlay prior to the
first FERA grants, but a fifty-six-fold increase
from the first month of 1929.

A decline in general relief outlays beginning in
the first half of 1935 was accelerated thereafter by
the decision of the Federal Government to end its
support of general relief and confine its participa¬
tion in unemployment relief to the provision of
jobs for the able-bodied unemployed through the
WPA and related work programs. From the
beginning of 1936 public general rehef again be¬
came a function solely of the States and localities,
although it was the intention of the Federal
Government to limit State and local responsibility

Chart 6. — Expenditures for public general relief , 116 urban areas, January 1929-December 1938 ^

MILLIONS OF DOLLARS MILLIONS OF DOLLARS

100

60

20

21

to the care of dependent persons unable to work.
The intended removal of employable persons from
the realm of public general relief, however, was
only partially effective. Limited WPA funds,
coupled with the administrative difficulties of
obtaining sponsorship for and maintaining suitable
projects in every locality for the employment of all
eligible applicants, left a varying but always large
number of able-bodied unemployed dependent on
public general relief for such assistance as the
States and localities could or would provide.

The drop in general relief outlays in the 116
urban areas after the withdrawal of Federal sup¬
port was substantial but relatively less than in the
United States as a whole. From December 1935,
when the last Federal grants were determined, to
the low point in relief outlays preceding the 1937
recession in economic activity, public general relief
payments in the 116 urban areas declined by 39.6
percent as compared with a 48.5-percent drop for
the total United States.

By the close of the decade the monthly outlay
for public general relief in these urban areas was
back to the $27-million level it had reached at the
end of 1932, and general work relief was reduced
to a position of relative unimportance.

The varying importance of public general relief
in the total relief pattern for these areas is indicated
by the annual percentage distributions in table 2,
which shows it to have ranged widely during the
decade between a minimum of 23 percent and a
maximum of 78 percent of the combined annual
outlays for public and private aid.

Special types of public assistance. — Unlike other
forms of aid, the special types of public assist¬
ance — old-age assistance, aid to dependent chil¬
dren, and aid to the needy blind — have followed an
almost unbroken upward trend since 1929.^®
These forms of relief were relatively insensitive to
the early impact of the unemployment crisis, and
short-time emergency measures have played no
direct part in their financing or administration.
The depression undoubtedly hastened the spread
of enabling legislation and led to a higher incidence
of dependency among the special classes eligible for
these forms of relief. But expansion in case loads
and expenditures has been predicated on specific

i» During 1933 and 1934 there was a temporally slump in old-age assistance
and aid to dependent children presumably induced by a shortage of State and
local funds and the consequent shifting of cases to FERA relief rolls. See
Geddes, Anne E., Trends in Relief Expenditures, 1910-1935, op. cit., p. 37 and
footnote 69.

legislative provisions and hence has been more
orderly and sustained than for other types of aid.

It must be remembered that not all special types
of assistance were extended in all the urban areas
during the period under review. In 1929 aid to
dependent children, or mothers’ aid as it was then
more commonly called, was provided in all but 12
of the 116 urban areas, but aid to the blind was
provided in only 60 areas and old-age assistance
in only 2. When statutory provision for a special
type of aid was lacking, or when funds were inade¬
quate to care for all eligible applicants, all or part |
of the burden of caring for these special classes of
dependents devolved on the general relief agen- j
cies. The expenditure trend for the special types
of public assistance is therefore a poor measure of
the amount of aid distributed among these groups
of needy persons during the early years of the
decade.

By January 1936, the month before the first
Federal grants were made to States participating
under the Social Security Act, the combined ex¬
penditures for the three types of special assistance
were already 260 percent above the January 1929
level. During the next 3 years expansion in out¬
lays was far more rapid, resulting in an increase
during the decade of more than 1,000 percent in
these 116 urban areas. Most of this increase must
be attributed to the spread of enabling legislation
and the improvement in standards stimulated by
the Federal matching-grant procedure of the Social *
Security Act.

The upward trend in outlays for the special
types of public assistance was less pronounced in
the 116 urban areas than in the Nation as a whole.
In 1933 special assistance payments in the urban
areas represented almost three-fifths of all such
outlays in the United States; in 1938 they were
less than two-fifths of the national total.

Although changes in the emergency relief struc- -
ture caused little fluctuation in the trend of special
assistance payments, they caused marked fluctua-'
tion in the relative importance of these forms of,
relief in the total relief structure. In 1929, despite'
the limited geographic coverage of old-age assist¬
ance and aid to the blind, special assistance pay¬
ments accounted for 41 percent of the total out¬
lays for public and private aid in the 116 urban
areas. With the precipitous rise in emergency
relief expenditures this percentage dropped to less
than 5 percent in 1934. After the passage of the*

22

Chari 7. — Expenditures for special types of public assist-

1 Based on table C-1.

Social Security Act the special types of public
assistance regained part of their former relative
importance and in 1938 accounted for 14 percent
of total outlays for relief and work program earn¬
ings in these urban areas.

An extraordinary growth in old-age assistance
has been the dominant factor in the rise of the
special assistance curve. During 1929 combined
outlays for statutory old-age assistance in the 116
urban areas averaged less than $750 a month, as
contrasted with nearly $1.5 million for aid to de¬
pendent children and $130,000 for aid to the
blind. By the end of 1938 monthly outlays for
old-age assistance were more than $12 million, for
aid to dependent children about $4 million, and
for aid to the blind $700,000. The separate ex¬
penditure curves for the three types of special
assistance are shown in chart 7.

Earnings under Federal work 'programs. — -The
Federal work program is a development of the
decade under review. It originated as an emer¬
gency measure to provide useful jobs instead of
a dole to the millions of able-bodied workers
temporarily deprived of means of self-support, and
it has not yet acquired a permanent status in the
structure of public aid.^ The gap between CWA
and WPA (chart 3) emphasizes the experimental
character of this new form of aid for the unem-

*0 Except the CCC, which received direct appropriations from regular
Federal funds from July 1936 until its liquidation beginning July 1942.

ployed and the unsettled public policy behind it.

The CWA program was intended as a recovery
as well as an assistance measure. In an effort to
“prime the pump,” employment and earnings on
this program were brought to maximum points
within 2 months after issuance of the executive
order which created the Federal Civil Works
Administration. At their peak in January 1934,
earnings under the program totaled $85 million
in the 116 urban areas and made up almost three-
fourths of the montlily bill for public and private
aid. Work program earnings declined rapidly in
amount and relative importance during the next
6 months and, with the exception of CCC wages
and earnings under “other Federal agency projects
financed from emergency funds,” disappeared
entirely for a 12-month period in 1934 and 1935.
During this period work relief was revived and
expanded through the development of the Emer¬
gency Work Relief Program of the FERA, under
which many of the projects initiated under the
CWA were continued.

The Federal work program was restored to an
important place in the relief structure in 1935
with the establishment of the WPA and the
appropriation of funds for the operation of work
projects by other Federal agencies. From the
end of that year through 1938, monthly earnings
on projects operated by the WPA exceeded the
combined outlays for all other forms of aid in the
116 urban areas. Because of its purpose of com¬
plementing private employment, the WPA pro¬
gram has been the most responsive to the ups and
downs of economic activity. After the initial
organization period, earnings remained fairly
stable at about the $70-million level until near the
close of 1936. A slow decline began at that time
and continued until the fall of 1937, when the
economic recession caused a reversal in the down¬
ward movement. A new wave of unemployment
distress carried montlily earnings well above
former levels and 93 percent above the $45-mil-
lion low of August 1937. The peak of $87 million
was reached in October 1938, 2 months before
the 10-year peak in total outlays for public and
private aid.

As a proportion of total annual outlays in these
areas, work program earnings ranged from nothing
in the first 4 years of the decade to more than
two-thirds during 1936. Of the national outlays

See p. 7.

23

for work program earnings, the 116 urban areas
have received a varying share. Under the Civil
Works Program these areas accounted for only
two-fifths of such earnings in the United States;
under WPA-project operations they accounted
for one-half to three-fifths of the annual national
totals.

Underlying Shifts in the Relief Structure

Some of the major alterations that have been
made in the urban relief structure since 1929 are
not apparent from charts showing the divergent
trends of expenditures for the component pro¬
grams. Other break-downs of the data are
needed to emphasize the underlying shifts in
financial and administrative responsibility and the
methods of extending aid to needy individuals.

Shift in financial burdens. — The diminishing
share of the bill for assistance and earnings paid
from private funds has already been noted.
Reaching 29 percent in 1932, the proportion of
expenditures from private funds in these 116 ur¬
ban areas dropped to 1 percent or less during the
last 3 years of the decade. In rural communities
and smaller cities the proportion of private relief
was probably even lower at the beginning as well
as the end of the 10-year period. Public funds
provided three-fourths of the aid extended in the
combined urban areas in 1929 and more than 99
percent of the vastly greater amount extended in
1938. Of the total bill for the decade, public
funds contributed all but 3.4 percent.

No less significant than the shift from private
to public funds has been the shift in financial re¬
sponsibility for public relief among local. State,
and Federal Governments. Although the urban
data do not afford an exact measure of this trans¬
fer, some conception thereof is conveyed by a
comparison of the financial structure of public
aid in the 116 urban areas at the beginning and
at the end of the decade. The Federal Govern¬
ment provided no funds for public aid in 1929;
it provided more than 60 percent of the public
outlays in 1938 in the form of WPA earnings and
another 5 or 6 percent in the form of matching
grants for old-age assistance, aid to dependent
children, and aid to the blind. The relative shares
of State and local funds are not easily approxi¬
mated because the division of responsibility for

“ Wynne, Waller, Jr., Five Years of Rural Relief, Works Progress Admin¬
istration, 1938, pp. 25-28.

various types of aid differs widely from one State
to another. State support for general relief has
been almost entirely a development of the decade
under review, and State participation in the financ¬
ing of special types of public assistance has been
rapidly extended under the requirements of the
Social Security Act.^® Paralleling the transfer of
fiscal responsibility from smaller to larger govern¬
mental units has been the shift of administrative
and supervisory responsibility to State and Fed¬
eral levels.^^

Trend toward work. — ^The trend away from direct
subsistence benefits and toward work projects can
be viewed from two distinct angles: first, as a
move to require work in return for aid; second, as
a move to provide earnings instead of relief to
needy employable persons. Work relief pay¬
ments under the general relief program must be
regarded as a step from direct to work assistance,
but they were extended in accordance with
budgetary needs and hence can hardly be regarded
as a step from relief toward earnings.

The progressive emphasis on work program
earnings has already been noted and is graphi¬
cally shown in chart 3. The extent of the shift
over the 10-year period from direct assistance to
work can be measured only for aid extended from
public funds, since private relief outlays in the
116 urban areas are not separated into direct and
work relief payments. It is known that an
appreciable volume of private aid was dispensed
in the form of work relief during the early years of
the depression, but private work projects were
sponsored primarily by emergency committees
and were relatively short-lived. With the de¬
velopment of Federal work projects, private work
relief has virtually disappeared.

The alternating rise and fall of the direct assist¬
ance curve and the combined curve of work relief
and work program earnings is shown in chart 8.
Public aid extended in return for work was only
0.1 percent of total outlays in 1929. The pro¬
portion of such aid rose rapidly thereafter, as
public work projects were formed to give emer¬
gency relief and employment to the many able-
bodied workers applying for aid. Even before

23 For information on sources of funds for these types of^id, see “Sources of
Funds Expended for the Special Types of Public Assistance and General
Relief, 1938-39,” Social Security Bulletin, Vol. 3, No. 1 (January 1940), pp.
65-72.

2* See pp. 28-30.

2‘ See p. 19.

24

the first Federal work projects were begun under
the FERA, work relief had risen to more than
one-fourth of the monthly outlays for public aid.

The attempt under the CWA to provide the
unemployed with regular jobs at normal wages
and hours meant that a much larger share of total
outlays went to persons employed on work proj¬
ects. At the height of this program, earnings plus
work relief outlays accounted for three-fourths of
all public aid extended in the 116 urban areas.
This proportion declined sharply when the CWA
projects were abandoned in favor of an expanded
work relief program under the FERA, but pay¬
ments in return for work formed more than one-
third of public outlays for aid throughout 1934 and
during most of 1935. Replacement of FERA
work relief projects by a new work program
offering security wages to the unemployed again

boosted the proportion of outlays in return for
work. During 1936 more than two-thirds of the
total public outlays for aid in the 116 areas were
for WPA earnings and work relief.

The expansion in payments for the special types
of public assistance during 1937 and 1938 contrib¬
uted slightly to a reduction in the proportion
of public aid paid to recipients in return for work,
but this reduction did not signify a reversal in the
trend toward work as a means of extending aid to
needy employable persons. Special assistance
payments are intended solely for imemployable
groups, and their inclusion in the data obscures
the full extent of the shift away from direct assist¬
ance as a method of caring for the needy unem¬
ployed.

The percentage distribution of the 10-year out¬
lays for public and private aid in these 116 urban

Chart 8. — Public expenditures for direct assistance and for work program earnings and work relief, 116 urban

areas, January 1929— December 1938 *

MILLIONS OF DOLLARS

MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

J Based on table C-1.

tKepresents public general direct relief and special types of public assistance.
TtRepresents OWA, WPA, and public general work relief.

25

areas (chart 4) shows earnings on work programs
and work relief to have constituted slightly more
than half of the $6, 853-million total. Work pro¬
gram earnings alone made up almost 42 percent
of the total.

Expansion in Per Capita Burdens

Changes in the relief burden over the 10-year
period can perhaps be comprehended better if the
aggregate outlays for these 116 urban areas are
expressed in terms of the amounts spent per in¬
habitant. The per capita expenditures mentioned
in the following discussion relate to intercensus
years and therefore are based on population figures
estimated from the censuses of 1920, 1930, and
1940.

During 1929 the per inhabitant cost of public
and private aid in the 116 urban areas combined
was $1.06. In 1938, the last year of the decade,
it was 28 times as much, or $29.69. If the value
of certain other types of aid omitted from the
urban series could be added to the 1938 data, the
rise in the per capita cost would be somewhat
greater.

These per capita figures, of course, give no clue
to the actual distribution of the burden of provid¬
ing aid within these areas. Relief funds come from
Federal and State as well as local sources, and resi¬
dents of these urban areas may have borne either
more or less of a per capita burden for the relief of
destitution and need.

Per capita costs for the individual areas varied
widely,^® but for the combined areas they were
consistently higher than for the total United
States. The differential may be explained, at
least in part, by a higher incidence of unemploy¬
ment and need in large urban communities.
Other contributing factors are higher costs and
levels of living, more liberal relief standards, and
better organization for relief operations in large
urban areas. Limiting the comparison, of neces¬
sity, to the types of aid and span of years covered
by chart 2, we find for 1933 a per capita annual
outlay in the total United States of $8.33, as
compared with $10.86 in the 116 urban areas.^^
Corresponding figures for 1938 W’ere $20.86 and

“ See pp. 33-37.

w In this connection it should be pointed out that various agricultural
subsidies not considered relief are available to residents of rural areas and
that certain relief programs omitted from the data extend aid only in rural
areas.

$29.46. Not only are the amounts per inhabitant
larger for the urban areas, both at the beginning
and end of the 6-year period, but the advance was
relatively more than for the total United States.

For a fair appraisal of the growing relief burden
it w^ould be desirable to view relief costs over the
decade in relation to the incomes available for
paying them. It is neither feasible nor logical
to attempt this direct^ for residents of the 116
urban areas,^® but some conception of the Nation's
ability to support the larger national relief burden
can be gained from the Department of Commerce
series on estimated national mcome payments,
which includes payments for relief and work
program earnings.^ The data on total income
payments in the United States during the 10-year
period under review are plotted in chart 1.

Relief and work program earnings have, of
course, formed a larger share of national income
payments during recent years than at the begin¬
ning of the decade, but at no time have they ex¬
ceeded 5 percent of the annual total. On a per
inhabitant basis, the relief payment in 1929 was
$0.59 as compared with an income payment of
$672. In 1933, at the depth of the depression, the
relief payment was $9.56 and the total income
payment $372. By the close of the decade relief
payments per inhabitant had risen sharply to
$24.28, but national income had also risen, to
$510, so that the relief payment formed only a
slightly larger share of the total income payment
for 1938. Even in that year of peak expenditures
for public and private aid, it averaged less than 5
percent of estimated monthly income payments.

s* Since local relief costs are not borne directly by local residents, such a
comparison would have little meaning.

w Estimates of U. 8. Department of Commerce, Survey of Current Business,
Vol. 19, No. 10 (October 1939), pp. 15-16, table 41. Per capita payments have
been calculated from these data on the basis of population figures for the
continental United States estimated from the U. 8. censuses of 1920,1930, and
1940. In the national series on income payments, relief payments include, in
addition to payments for which data are available for the 116 urban areas, the
following: subsistence payments to farmers by the FERA, Resettlement
Administration, and Farm Security Administration; earnings of enrolled
persons in the CCC; nonrelief earnings on administrative and work relief
projects of the FERA; earnings under the emergency education and student
aid programs of the FERA and under the out-of-school and student work
programs of the National Youth Administration; earnings on work projects
operated under the Federal works program by Federal agencies other than
the WPA, CCC, and NYA; and earnings on Federal agency projects financed
by transfer of WPA funds. Payments for private relief are not included in
the series on income payments.

It should be noted that direct relief, work relief, and work program earnings
are all included as components of national income payments because they
swell the purchasing power in the hands of consumers; since direct relief is
regarded as a transfer item of income, it is excluded from the Department
of Commerce annual estimates of national income produced.

26

. IV .

(

Diversity in Local Trends and Patterns of Aid

The discussion has so far been focused on the
combined movement of relief costs in the 116
urban areas. From the analysis of the combined
expenditure data there has emerged a composite
pattern of public and private aid in urban areas
over the decade. Merged in this over-all pattern
are very diverse patterns for the 116 local areas.
These communities have experienced common
problems of depression and mounting relief costs
since 1929, but they have experienced them in
varying degrees of intensity. They have utilized
substantially the same programs and types of aid
in relieving distress and need, but they have
combined them in different proportions. In the
actual distribution of aid to needy families and
individuals they have functioned as 116 distinct
units, operating under a wide variety of legisla¬
tive, financial, and administrative provisions.
Lack of uniformity is such a dominant character¬
istic of the urban relief experience that some com¬
parative analysis of local expenditure patterns is
essential for an accurate portrayal of recent trends
in public and private aid. For a fair evaluation
of developments during the decade, the dissimi¬
larities are quite as significant as the similarities.

Regardless of the fact that State and Federal
Governments have assumed more administrative
and supervisory powers along with more fiscal
responsibility for public aid, the city or county is
still the operating unit in the distribution of most
types of aid. Needy families and individuals
must seek help within their home community;
the kind and amount of help they receive will
depend on conditions in the particular locality
in which they happen to live, e. g., the combina¬
tion of programs and types of aid provided, the
financial resources available, and the procedures
and standards maintained by the local agencies.

The basic data for comparing relief patterns
and trends in the separate urban areas are pre¬
sented in appendix C. The data on aggregate
annual outlays for the various types of aid appear¬
ing m tables C-2 — C-11 show the changes in
absolute expenditures that have occurred during
the decade, but they do not reflect clearly the

relief patterns of the individual areas. Nor do
they lend themselves to comparisons of relief
burdens and relief trends, because the areas differ
so greatly not only in total population but also in
the rate of population change over the decade.
Interarea differences in the composition of the
relief structure and in the relative emphasis
placed on various programs and types of aid can
best be measured by the percentage distributions
of the annual expenditures within each area,
shown in tables C-12 — C-21. These percentage
data parallel those given for the combined areas
in table 2. The most satisfactory basis for quan¬
titative comparisons of relief burdens and relief
trends appears to be the amounts spent per inhabit¬
ant within the separate areas. The per inhabit¬
ant data in tables C-22 — C-31 can be used to
compare outlays under different programs as well
as in different localities.^

Graphic evidence of the diversity in urban
relief patterns is afforded by the series of diagrams
for individual areas presented in appendix B.
Since the series is designed to bring out differences
in the trends and composition of expenditures over
the 10-year period rather than differences in aggre¬
gate outlays, the 116 diagrams have been standard¬
ized for mass ; that is, the vertical scales have been
chosen in such a way that the shaded area under
the total expenditure curve will be the same in
every diagram. This objective was accomplished
by using a standard height on the vertical scale
to represent the 10-year average monthly expendi¬
ture for each urban area. The appropriate dollar
scale has been placed on each diagram and the
position of the 10-year monthly average marked
by an arrow. Thus the monthly expenditure
trends for each urban area are recorded in absolute
values, but interarea differences in magnitude are
subordinated in order to facilitate comparisons
of the urban patterns with respect to such factors
as the timing and composition of expenditures.

Even a cursory examination of the patterns dis¬
closes wide divergence in trends and conspicuous

> For some discussion of the limitations of the per inhabitant data, see
pp. 34 and 36.

452436” — 42-

3

27

variation in the emphasis placed on component
programs and types of aid at any given time and
over the whole decade. It should be recognized,
however, that the diagrams offer no information
on the comparative relief burdens per inhabitant
or the comparative adequacy of payments to
needy residents.

Factors Contributing to Diversity

Before examining the statistical evidence of
dissimilarity in the 116 urban patterns, some
attention should be given to the underlying factors
that have contributed to local diversity in the
composition and trend of expenditures over the
10-year period. Those factors are multiple and
complex. Among them — but hardly the most
influential — are basic differences in the incidence
of need in the individual communities, and in
the prevalence of particular types of dependency.
It is extremely difficult to measure these basic
differences, but they indubitably exist and help
to shape the course of expenditures in individual
areas. Interarea differences in the costs and
levels of living also exist but are of minor import
compared with less tangible factors such as the
prevailing social and political attitudes toward
the treatment of dependency. Accepted local
procedures and standards of assistance are major
determinants of relief trends.

The most obvious source of diversity in local
relief patterns, hqwever, is the availability of
funds for financing public and private aid. It
means far more than differences in the per capita
wealth and income of the political units concerned.
It means also the varying extent to which local
and State governments are able and willing to
tap their financial resources for relief purposes,
and — equally variable and uncertain — the fiscal
relationships prevailing among the local, State,
and Federal Governments.

The major shifts in the incidence of relief costs
from local to State and Federal Governments
during the decade 1929-38 gave rise, of course,
to the extremely difficult problem of distributing
State and Federal funds among local areas in
proportion to their relief needs and their abilities
to meet these needs. With the States themselves
varying markedly in relief needs and financial
resources and in the absence of central control of
their relief policies, it was to be expected that the
States would differ greatly in the extent to which

they sought and achieved a solution to this
problem. But even in the realm of Federal
financing the policies adopted have not always
contributed effectively to its solution.

RFC advances were negotiated on a loan basis,
and the bulk of such advances were subsequently
canceled. Under the FERA program a combined
system of matching and variable grants was used,
with the avowed intent of supporting minimum
standards in all areas but with no established
criteria for ascertaining how much Federal help
was essential to enable the States and local areas
to achieve this end.^

Under the Social Security Act matching grants
for each of the special types of public assistance
have been on a uniform basis for aU States having
approved plans, with the result that poorer States
have been handicapped in maintaining adequate
levels of payments. Federal participation in the
financing of each of the special types of assistance
is limited not only by predetermined Federal
matching ratios but also by eligibility restrictions
and maximum payments to individual recipients
prescribed by the States.^ No minimum levels
of payments are prescribed under the act, and the
disparity among States in the amounts paid to
recipients is striking.

Even under the federally operated work pro¬
grams it has been very difficult to ensure the allo¬
cation of Federal outlays among local areas in
proportion to their needs for emergency public
employment. Mandatory requirements laid down
in successive appropriation acts concerning spon¬
sors’ contributions to WPA-project costs have
undoubtedly influenced the geographic distribu¬
tion of WPA employment. Beyond these factors
there remains a wide area of administrative discre¬
tion at the local and State, as well as the Federal,
level. Moreover, local and State initiative in
formulating and sponsoring suitable projects and
policies of providing or withholding alternative
forms of aid for able-bodied workers not assigned
to WPA projects are all subject to a high degree
of variance.

Efforts of the Federal agency to relate quotas
to need within legislative restrictions are com¬
plicated by such differences in local and State

* For discussion of allocation of Federal funds under the FERA, see
Williams, Edward A., Federal Aid for Relief, 1939, pp. 180 fl.

* See “Sources of Funds Expended for the Special Types of Public Assist
ance and General Relief in 1938-1939,” Social Security Bulletin, Vol. 3, No. 1
(January 1940), pp. 65-72.

28

practice, as well as by the ordinary difficulties of
approving, developing, and maintaining work
projects that will provide the desired level of em¬
ployment and wage payments in each area.

The Federal work programs have minimized
geographic differences in the level of payments to
recipients assigned to work projects, but they have
only partially succeeded in achieving equal op¬
portunity for assignments in the different local¬
ities. In addition, the security wage scale of the
WPA program has introduced a further differen¬
tiation in the level of payments provided for needy
families and individuals within each area, accentu¬
ating the inequity of treatment of those eligible
for but not receiving the more liberal form of aid.

The marked disparity in the levels of care pro¬
vided under the several programs and the differ¬
entiation among needy groups that is furthered
by the varied eligibility requirements of Federal
and Federal-State programs afford many occasions
for alternative choices in the disposition of local
and State funds and thus contribute to the dis¬
similarity in urban relief patterns. A choice may
have to be made, for example, between using local
funds to sponsor a work project for needy em¬
ployable workers or to provide more adequate
care for destitute unemployable persons under the
general relief program.

During the decade under review, the difficulties
confronting local communities in planning their
fiscal requirements for the treatment of depend¬
ency were multiplied not only by the great ex¬
pansion in relief needs but also by the large-scale
Federal and State participation which this ex¬
pansion necessitated. The impact of Federal
and State participation has so modified the re¬
lief structure that, to a considerable extent, the
burden which rests upon the community is re¬
sidual and is determined by the provisions of
Federal and Federal-State programs.

At the beginning of the decade, local communi¬
ties were largely autonomous both in the financ¬
ing and administration of relief. Faced with a
relatively small and stable relief problem, they
were able to plan and control, to a much larger
extent than in later years, the amounts, types,
and relative proportions of aid to be extended
under different programs. Although in some
areas there was State participation in, and ad¬
ministrative supervision of, certain types of
relief — notably aid for veterans and for special

groups of needy unemployable persons — the
specific legislative basis of such aid generally
offered some assurance of continuity and a guide
for future planning within the local community.
With the. development of emergency relief opera¬
tions, financed in part by State and Federal ap¬
propriations, integrated planning at the local
level became utterly impracticable. The States
likewise were confronted with an unknown vari¬
able in the form of Federal grants for unemploy¬
ment relief under the FERA and, for a brief inter¬
lude, Federal wage payments under the broad-
scale eWA program.

The attempted redefinition of the fiscal respon¬
sibility to be assumed by the Federal Government
after the close of 1935 has not eliminated the un¬
certainties of Federal participation. With each
session of Congress and with each new WPA ap¬
propriation the question is reopened, and modi¬
fications may be made in the eligibility require¬
ments, conditions of employment, sponsors’ con¬
tributions, and types of projects permissible under
the law. Local quotas of WPA employment and
outlays are generally expanded or contracted in
accordance with current Federal appropriations.

The bases of Federal financial contributions to
State public assistance programs are more explicit,
but the Social Security Act has altered significantly
the scope of State and local control over these
types of aid. Although some funds are still con¬
tributed by local communities, approved programs
are operated under State supervision or direction
in accordance with Federal requirements concern¬
ing eligibility and standards of administration.
Adoption of proposed changes in these require¬
ments or in the authorized grant-in-aid pro¬
cedure to allow for variable Federal gi-ants would
have significant repercussions on State and local
programs. i

It is apparent that through Federal work pro¬
grams and the public assistance programs the
Federal and State Governments now exercise a
dominant influence on the relief structures of aU
local communities and bear a major share of the
combined financial burden. No statistical data
are available to show the relative reliance of the
116 urban areas on Federal, State, and local funds,
but the prevailing trend is clearly toward a dimin¬
ishing share of local participation in financial, as
in administrative and supervisory, control.

It should also be apparent from the diversity

29

in local patterns of aid that Federal participation
has complicated, as well as strengthened, the relief
structure, and that the basis for effective coordina¬
tion among the three levels of public responsibility
has not yet been laid. New national. State, and
local agencies have been superimposed on tradi¬
tional State and local set-ups, with resultant com¬
plexity in the relief mechanism of each community
and a continuing lack of uniformity among com¬
munities that does not stem from differences in
local needs or in resources for meeting those needs.
The difficulties inlierent in coordinating the objec¬
tives and operations of a variety of relief programs
administered by a variety of agencies on the
national. State, and local levels have been alle¬
viated to some degree by the progressive tendency
toward the establishment of unified welfare depart¬
ments in both State and local governments. There
remains, however, a complexity in relief adminis¬
tration that contributes to inequities and to
illogical variations in local trends and patterns of
expenditures.

Comparative Trends in Total Outlays

The most vivid impression conveyed by the
series of diagrams in appendix B is the dis¬
similarity in the trends in total outlays over
the 10-year period. The contours of the com¬
posite expenditure patterns present startling con¬
trasts in the sharpness of the rise from 1929 levels
and in the frequency, abruptness, amplitude, and
timing of fluctuations. No slow-motion statistical
comparisons can enhance the impression of variety
in urban relief trends, but they can underline
salient points of difference and indicate the range
of variation recorded by the diagrams and by the
tabular data in appendix C.

All the 116 urban trends turn upward, of course,
from 1929 levels, but they reach their peaks for
the decade at three widely separated periods.
Fifty-four areas, including many of the larger
cities and only three of the southern cities,'* * show
the maximum monthly outlays in 1938, the same
year that the combined urban outlays reached
their peak for the decade. Almost as many areas,
52 in all, register a lO-year peak in outlays at least
4 years earlier, during the height of the CWA.
This group includes most of the southern areas. In
general the trends for these 52 areas show second¬
ary peaks in outlays during 1938, but there are

* Asheville, N. C.; Louisville, Ky.; and New Orleans, La.

conspicuous exceptions to this rule. In Balti¬
more, Md., for example, the monthly expenditure
peak is lower m 1938 than in several preceding
years.® In 10 urban areas, among them New
York City, a maximum volume of aid was extended
near the end of 1935 or the beginning of 1936.®

No attempt has been made to compare the
urban trends with respect to the relative increase
from 1929 to monthly peaks, since of themselves
these high points tell little concerning the sus¬
tained rise in expenditures over the 10-year period.
Such a comparison would be particularly inappro¬
priate for the CWA for which peaks represented
concentrated outlays of Federal funds over a brief
period. A more useful index of the varying
growth of relief burdens is the percentage change
in annual outlays from 1929 to 1938.

Increases in annual expenditures over the 10-
year period ranged all the way from 776 percent in
Cambridge, Mass., to 19,423 percent in Mobile,
Ala. Both these extremes are in sharp contrast
with the thirtyfold increase in the combined ex¬
penditures for the 116 areas. In 24 localities the
expansion in annual outlays was less than twenty¬
fold, while in 27 localities it was more than fifty¬
fold. In interpreting comparative rates of in¬
crease over the decade it is essential to remember
the disparity in 1929 base figures. A marked per¬
centage increase may mean relatively meager out¬
lays and light burdens m 1929 rather than generous
outlays and heavy burdens in 1938.

The expansion in outlays proceeded very un¬
evenly in the different localities. A few com¬
munities experienced their most pronounced rise
in expenditures during the early stages of the
depression, prior to Federal participation.^ Others
made their major advances much later, with the
help of Federal funds. In 15 of the areas the
percentage rise in annual outlays from 1929 to
1932 was equal to one- third or more of the relative
increase for the entire decade; in 39 areas it was
less than one-tenth of the total rise for the decade.
Percentage increases in annual outlays during
these 4 years ranged widely, from 60 percent in
Allentown, Pa., to 1,801 percent in New Rochelle,

» other outstanding exceptions are Niagara Falls, N. Y., and Norfolk and
Roanoke, Va.

• In addition to New York City, this group comprises the following nine
areas; Allentown, Chester, and Erie, Pa.; Buffalo and Rochester, New York;
Los Angeles and San Diego, Calif.; St. Paul, Minn.; and Springfield, Mass.

’ In Niagara Falls, N. Y., the percentage increase from 1929 to 1932 was
more than 82 percent of the increase for the decade; in Allentown, Pa., and
Charleston, S. C., it was less than 1 percent.

30

N. Y. Over this same 4-year period the combined
expenditures for the 116 areas rose 576 percent
above 1929 levels. For more than half of the 116
localities the rise in annual outlays prior to Federal
participation was between 250 and 750 percent.

Further evidence of variation in the timing of
outlays is found in the degree of concentration of
expenditm-es during the last 3 years of the decade.
It may be recalled that 55 percent of the com¬
bined urban relief bill for the decade was incurred
during 1936, 1937, and 1938. Among the indi¬
vidual areas this proportion ranged from less than
one-third to more than two-thirds of the aggregate
outlays for the 10-year period.®

Comparative Emphasis on Different Programs
and Types of Aid

Most of the expenditure patterns for individual
urban areas include at least some outlays for
every program and type of aid covered by the
urban data,® but they differ tremendously in the
emphasis accorded various components of the re¬
lief structure. Even within each locality the em¬
phasis changes from year to year. The wide vari¬
ation in the division of outlays among the specific
types of aid is revealed in some measure by the
urban area diagrams (appendix B) and in detail
by the percentage distributions of annual expend¬
itures (tables C-12 — C-21). The range of vari¬
ation among the urban areas is indicated in table

« The smallest proportion, 33 percent, was spent in Shreveport, La.; the
largest proportion, 71 percent, in Terre Haute, Ind.

• For number of areas reporting some expenditures for specified types of
aid in various years, see table 7, p. 37.

3, which records for each year the highest and
lowest percentages of total outlays expended for
each type of aid. These various measures permit
a comparison of distributions of expenditures
among specific types of aid in the separate urban
areas and reveal the wide divergence of such dis¬
tributions from those for all areas (table 2).

The 116 areas differed materially even in their
degree of reliance on public funds. The proportion
of private relief was relatively low, of course, in
every area, but it ranged from 0.2 percent of the
10-year aggregate in Malden, Mass., and Pontiac,
Mich., to 14.2 percent in Wilmington, Del.
Twenty-one of the urban areas relied on public
funds for at least 99 percent of total outlaj/s. For
the combined areas the proportion of public funds
was 96.6 percent.

At the beginning of the decade, private contri¬
butions reported for the various areas ranged from
0.7 percent of annual outlays in Fall River, Mass.,
to 100 percent of those in Birmingham and Mobile,
Ala. The percentage for the combined areas in
1929 was 24.2 percent. _

Demands of the depression caused rapid read¬
justments in the proportions of public and private
aid in most areas. By 1931 both Birmingham and
Mobile were extending some aid from public funds.
Private relief gained temporarily in relative im¬
portance and in some areas completely dominated
the relief picture during the first years of the
depression. This dominance is notably true of
Wilmington, Del., and Kansas City, Mo. Emer¬
gency relief drives resulted in sharp peaks in

Table S.— Range among 116 urban areas in percent of total public and private aid expended for specified types of

aid, 1929-38 '■

Year

Public funds

Private funds

General relief

CWA and WPA
earnings

Special types of public assistance

Total

Direct relief

Work relief

Old-age

assistance

Aid to depend¬
ent children

Aid to the
blind

Lowest

Highest

Lowest

Highest

Lowest

Highest

Lowest

Highest

Lowest

Highest

Lowest

Highest

Lowest

Highest

Lowest

Highest

1929-38 .

21.0

61.8

8.3

57.9

1.3

26.9

25.2

69.0

(0

22.8

0.0

10.5

0.0

4.1

0.2

14.2

1929

0

93.5

0

93.5

0

2.1

0.0

3.1

0

69.9

0

40.6

.7

100.0

1930 .

0

93.7

0

93.6

0

50.2

0

31.4

0

65.1

0

39.1

.4

100.0

1Q31

0

95.4

0

95.1

0

73.0

0

38.5

0

53.2

0

34.1

.6

85.0

1932

7.2

96.7

0

96.6

0

71.9

0

38.6

0

56.0

0

15.7

.4

92.8

1933 .

30.4

91.5

1.6

90.7

0

64.6

1.1

51.2

0

23.0

0

14.0

0

9.4

27.5

1934 _ _ -

34.2

83.0

8.2

72.8

.6

54.5

10.7

62.2

0

11.3

0

8.9

0

2.9

0

10.2

1935 _

55.8

92.8

5.3

83.4

0

76.8

2.0

34.7

0

14.5

0

9.6

0

2.8

0

7.8

1936— _

.7

50.3

.7

49.0

0

7.2

43.7

95.7

0

20.8

0

9.8

0

1.9

0

7.3

1937 _

0

57.4

0

57.3

0

8.9

13.7

92.3

0

40.8

0

26.1

0

2.4

0

9.3

1938 _ _

0

60.5

(?)

0

(»)

(5)

23.3

92.1

.2

39.6

0

24.6

0

2.6

0

6.2

1 Based on tables C-12— C-21. > l/css than 0.1 percent. » Figures not avaUable.

31

private relief outlays in many of the New England,
Middle Atlantic, and North Central areasd® The
prominence of private relief in the expenditure
patterns of southern cities is also worthy of note.
In many commimities in the South, where there
have been less substantial outlays for public gen¬
eral relief from State and local funds, private relief
has continued to form a sizable share of the relief
burden throughout the decade.

Private relief has disappeared entirely from the
relief structures of very few of the 116 urban areas,
but it has been much reduced in importance in
'every area. During 1938 the maximum per¬
centage of private relief, 5.2 percent of annual
outlays, was dispensed in Hartford, Conn. The
percentage for all areas was only 0.8 percent in
1938.

Although general relief was the dominant type
of aid in the combined urban expenditure pattern
for the decade, it accounted for the largest share
of outlays in less than half of the individual com¬
munities. In 58 of the areas it was exceeded in
importance by WPA earnings and in one area by
special assistance payments. General relief was
relatively most important in Buffalo, N. Y., where
it represented more than three-fifths of the aggre¬
gate expenditures for public and private aid, and
least important in TeiTe Haute, Ind., where it
represented only one-fifth of total outlays. In
21 areas less than one- third of the 10-year outlays
was dispensed in the form of general relief.

Despite the basic role of this type of aid in the
public relief structure, it was granted in every
area during only 5 of the 10 years under review.
These 5 years, 1932 through 1936, embrace the
period of Federal participation in the financing of
general relief. At the beginning of the decade,
public general relief was missing from the relief
structures of nine areas.'® With the exception of
Kansas City, Mo., these areas were all in the South.
San Antonio, Tex., reported no outlays for general
relief during either 1937 or 1938.

The Federal work programs have operated in
every urban area over substantially the same spans
of time, but they have formed widely dissimilar

See, for example, Chicago, Ill.; Hartford, Conn.; New York, N. Y.; and
Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, Pa.

>> See, for example, Charlotte and Winston-Salem, N. C.; Louisville, Ky.;
Memphis, Tenn.; and Richmond, Va.

» See table 7, p. 37.

>* Asheville, N. C.; Birmingham and Mobile, -41a.: Kansas City, Mo.;
Knoxville and Memphis, Tenn.; Louisville, Ky.; New Orleans, La.; and
Wilmington, Del.

shares of aggregate outlays in the 116 urban areas.
Wages extended under the CWA ranged in relative
importance from only 1.3 percent of the decade’s
expenditures in Philadelphia, Pa., to almost one-
fourth of those in Shreveport, La.^^ For the com¬
bined areas the proportion was 4.4 percent.

WPA wage payments, which accounted for 37
percent of the 10-year outlays in the combined
urban areas, formed less than one-fourth of the
aggregate in 6 areas and more than one-half in
16 areas. Such payments accounted for only 13
percent of the total aid extended in New Rochelle,
N. Y., over this 10-year period, as contrasted with
63 percent in Terre Haute, Ind. It should be
noted again that the limitation of the data on
WPA earnings to projects operated within the
area affects the data for the several areas in vary¬
ing degrees. In some cities many residents may
have been employed on projects operated outside
the limits of the reporting area; in others the
reverse may have been true.

The special types of public assistance account
for widely varying proportions of the 10-year
outlays, partly because of the delayed enactment
of enabling legislation in many States and partly
because of differences in the coverage of programs
and in standards of assistance payments. At the
beginning of the decade, 11 urban areas in the
southern region had none of the three forms of
special assistance. Twelve areas distributed no
statutory aid to dependent children, 56 areas no
aid to the blind, and 114 areas no old-age assist¬
ance. By 1938 all 116 areas extended assistance
to the aged under State plans approved by the
Social Security Board. All but 4 areas extended
aid to dependent children, although 10 of the areas
administering this type of aid were in States not
yet participating in Federal grants under the Social
Security Act.^® Only 8 areas extended no aid to
the needy blind in 1938 4 of the areas granting

this type of assistance were in States in which the
program was operated without Federal partici¬
pation.'®

X The calculated percentage figure for New Rochelle, N. Y., is slightly
higher than that for Shreveport, but it is probably inflated to a large extent
because the CWA expenditure data relate to the county exclusive of the city
of Yonkers instead of the city of New Rochelle.

■» El Paso, Fort Worth, Houston, and San Antonio, Tex.

>« Bridgeport, Hartford, New Britain, and New Haven, Conn.; Chicago
and Springfield, HI.; Dallas, Tex.; Des Moines and Sioux City, Iowa; and
Louisvilie, Ky.

” Dallas, El Paso, Fort W'orth, Houston, and San Antonio, Tex.; Louis¬
ville, Ky.; Providence, R. I.; and Wilmington, Del.

19 Chicago and Springfield, Ill.; and Kansas City and St. Louis, Mo,

32

The share of 10-year outlays devoted to special
assistance payments ranged from 0.3 percent in
Norfolk and in Roanoke, Va., to 33 percent in
Sacramento, Calif. In 10 areas less than 5 percent
of all aid was extended through the three types of
special assistance, as compared with the 10-percent
share spent in the combined areas for these types
of aid.

Old-age assistance ranged in relative importance
from less than 0.02 percent of the 10-year outlays
in Norfolk, Va,, to almost 23 percent of those in
Denver, Colo,; aid to dependent children from
zero in three Texas areas to 10.5 percent in Sagi¬
naw, Mich.; and aid to the blind from zero in
seven areas ^ to 4.1 percent in Springfield, Ill.
These interarea differences in emphasis are not
entirely attributable to differences in coverage or
span of operation. A comparison of relative out¬
lays for old-age assistance in 1938, when all 116
areas extended such aid, shows proportions rang¬
ing from 0.2 to 39,6 percent of annual outlays.
Combined payments for old-age assistance in
these areas in 1938 constituted 9,9 percent of the
aggregate outlays for all types of aid.

Interarea comparisons of the trend away from
relief and toward work program earnings also
reveal marked differences, with the southern areas
showing distinctly high ratios of earnings to
total outlays and New England areas distinctly
low ratios. This situation reflects the relatively
greater dependence of the southern localities on
Federal programs and hence cannot be interpreted
as evidence of a fundamental difference in policy
or attitude toward work projects as a means of
extending aid to the able-bodied unemployed.
The comparative shares of aid extended as work
program earnings varied among the 116 urban
areas from 25 percent to 69 percent of the 10-year
outlays. The minimum percentage applies to
Worcester, Mass., and the maximum to Terre
Haute, Ind.

With work relief wages added to work program
earnings, the range of interarea variation is even
greater. In Charleston, S, C., 87 percent of all
aid extended during the decade was in the form of
work relief or work program wages. In Phila¬
delphia, Pa., only 28 percent of the total volume
of aid was extended to recipients in return for work.

1* El Paso, Fort Worth, and San Antonio.

Dallas, El Paso, Fort Worth, Houston, and San Antonio, Tex.; Provi¬
dence, R. I.; and Wilmington, Del.

Wage payments, of course, assumed greater
prominence in annual outlays during the latter
years of the decade than in the 10-year aggregate
expenditures. In 1938 WPA earnings alone com¬
posed 63 percent of coihbined outlays in these 116
areas.^^ They represented 92 percent of the
annual expenditure in Norfolk, Va., and, at the
other extreme, only 23 percent in New Rochelle,
N. Y.

Comparative Relief Burdens

As suggested earlier, the comparative rise in
costs over 1929 levels gives no clue to the com¬
parative relief burdens for the 116 urban areas.
One must turn to per capita data for a common
denominator of relief costs over the 10-year period.
Comparative annual rates per inhabitant for all
public and private aid and for each component
type of aid are given in tables C-22 — C-31.
With the exception of those for 1930, the per in¬
habitant rates are based on estimated population
data. The 1929 population figures for the sep¬
arate areas were estimated from the censuses of
1920 and 1930; population data for 1931-38 were
estimated on the basis of the censuses of 1930 and
1940.

By considering first the relief bills for the entire
decade, we can eliminate differences in timing of
outlays and obtain an over-all comparison of
relief burdens in the 116 urban areas. The lowest
per inhabitant cost for the decade was $21; the
highest, $253. These extreme rates applied to
Shreveport, La., and Boston, Mass. Between
these extremes are 14 areas with per capita out¬
lays for the decade of less than $50; 23 with per
capita outlays ranging from $50 to $99; 49 with
outlays from $100 to $149; 26 from $150 to $199;
and 2 from $200 to $250. As might be expected,
the southern areas are clustered near the bottom
of the array and most of the New England areas
near the top.

Table 4 summarizes the trend in per capita out¬
lays from 1929 through 1938. Except for the
year 1937, median annual costs per inliabitant
moved steadily upward. In 1929 the rates varied
from $0.07 in Mobile, Ala., to $4.19 in Boston,
Mass., with a median rate for the 116 areas of
$0.87. For half of the areas the per capita rates
were between $0.47 and $1.30. A graphic com¬
parison of these 1929 outlays per inhabitant with

“ Separate data for work relief are not available for 1938.

33

those of 1938 is given in chart 9. The 116 urban
areas are here arrayed in order of their relative per
capita payments during the last year of the decade.
Toledo, Ohio, is at the top, with per capita outlays
of $53.15. This amount is nearly 13 times the
maximum rate recorded in 1929. Shreveport,
La., had the lowest rate of $2,76, or about 39
times the minimum at the beginning of the decade.
The median rate of $26.03 was nearly 30 times the
median for 1929.

Table 4.-— Extreme, quartile, and median amounts per
inhabitant ^ of total public and private aid, 116 urban
areas, 1929-38

Year

Lowest

First

quartile

Median

Third

quartile

Highest

1929-38 .

$21.00

$85.69

$122.95

$149. 86

$252. 84

1929 . . .

.07

.47

.87

1.30

4. 19

1930 .

.10

.61

1.09

1.92

5. 98

1931 . .

.10

1.06

2. 36

4. 61

12. 29

1932.. .

.25

2.07

4.81

8. 19

19.99

1933 .

2.05

6.31

9. 62

11. 49

21.69

1934 .

6.02

13.05

16. 51

20. 13

36.89

1935 .

2. 58

11.28

17.37

22.62

36. 09

193fi

2.15

14.05

21. 48

27.16

43.03

1937 .

1. 68

11. 26

18.47

23.96

38.22

1938 _ _ _

2. 76

16.99

26.03

33.47

53.15

1 For 1930, based on total population of areas according to U. S. census of
that year; for other years, based on total population of areas estimated for
particular year from U. S. censuses of 1920, 1930, and 1940.

During the first year of the decade not one of
the 116 urban areas had a per capita relief ex¬
penditure as high as $5.00, and in 29 areas the per
capita rate was below $0.50. By 1934 not one of
the areas had a per capita expenditure as low as
$5.00, and in 11 areas the annual rate was above
$25.00. By the end of the decade the number of
areas with expenditure rates above $25.00 had
risen to 63, and in only Shreveport, La., was the
outlay per person for public and private aid below
$5.00.

Characteristic regional differences in the level
of relief outlays are revealed in table 5, showing
the median outlays per inhabitant for areas within
each of five geographic regions. Prior to the
period of Federal participation in relief financing
and administration, the median outlay per inhabi¬
tant for New England areas was more than IJ^
times that of any other geographic division and
more than 7 times the median rate for areas in the
South Atlantic and South Central States. The
differentials between New England and the Middle
Atlantic, North Central, and Mountain and Pacific
regions were not great in 1933 and thereafter, but
there remained a broad gap between the level of

per inhabitant outlays in the South and in other
geographic divisions.

The annual outlays per inhabitant in the indi¬
vidual areas should not be regarded as measuring
either the relative extent of need or the relative
level of aid provided in these 116 localities. Both
these factors help to explain the wide disparity in
per capita outlays, but the rates are also affected
by other factors such as relative costs of living
and the varying extent to which the communities
have benefited from other kinds of aid omitted
from the urban series. The rates per inhabitant
are, of course, considerably affected by differences
in the character of the urban areas themselves.
Some of the areas, including many of those in New
England and the Middle Atlantic States, are
densely populated and constitute only the core
of a large metropolitan area, whereas some of the
other areas, for example Los Angeles County,
embrace not only a metropolitan area but some
iniral temtory as well.

Comparative Outlays for Component Types
of Aid

Interarea differences in total per capita outlays
must inevitably reappear as differences in per
capita outlays for one or more of the component
types of aid. The significant fact disclosed by
table 6 is that the differences are not concentrated
in one or two segments of the relief structure.
Annual per capita outlays for every type of aid,
including the federally financed and operated
work programs, differ widely in the 116 urban
areas.

Table 5. — Median amount per inhabitant * of total
public and private aid, 116 urban areas, by five geo~
graphic divisions,^ 1929-38

Year

New

England

Middle

Atlantic

North

Central

South At¬
lantic and
South
Central

Mountain

and

Pacific

Number of areas-...

18

23

36

29

10

1929 _ _

$2.22

$1.02

$0.92

$0.29

$1.04

1930 . .

3.50

1.11

1.29

.34

1. 54

1931 . .

6.04

3.30

2.57

.68

2.39

1932 . .

10.19

6.24

4.84

1.37

4. 78

1933 . . .

10.40

10.69

9.80

5.58

11.11

1934... .

16.98

17.77

16.77

9.00

18.13

1935. .

21.09

23.69

17. 32

7.14

19.61

1936... .

22.65

27.11

24.01

8.79

24. 57

1937 .

21. 15

23.50

19.34

6.65

23.18

1938 .

30.05

27.71

29.80

10.46

28.14

1 For 1930, based on total population of areas according to U. S. census of
that year; for other years, based on total population of areas estimated for
particular year from U. S. censuses of 1920, 1930, and 1940.

* See app. A for urban areas in States in specked geographic divisions.

34

Chart 9. — Amount per inhabitant of public and private aid, by urban area^ 1929 and 1938 *

1929

$5 SO

S0.70

1.91

1.02

1.09

1.16

4.14

3.41
1.09
1.58
4.19

.64

1.42
.83
.69

2.47

102

1.41

1.05

2.79
1.50
1.68

.56

.57

1.16

3.43
1.09
1. 16
1.00

1.71
.72
.87
.64

3.54

1.72
.54

2.34

.90

2.83

.57

.82

.89

.89

.94

2.09

.77

1.19

.76

1.31

.42

2.80
1.36
1.27

.98

.61

.33

.28

1.02

1.30

sr

.27

.71

1.89

.91

.74

.67

.51

132

1.43

1.04

.74

.86

.35

1.50

.59

.61

1.23

2.09

.43

.45

1.04

Ml

.99

.74

M3

.29

.64

.92

l.ll

.39

.13

t.6l

.80

1.35

..15

t.2d

.24

.61

.33

.46

.07

.43

30

.30

.13

.40

.12

.59

.10

.41

.21

.86

.22

30

.17

.30

.20

.23

URBAN AREA

TOLEDO

453.15

KENOSHA

50.22

CLEVELAND

49. 16

SCRANTON

48.59

TERRE HAUTE

47.81

LOWELL

47, 26

BROCKTON

46.22

WILKES-BARRE

45. 14

DULUTH

45.00

BOSTON

44.06

AKRON

43. 41

ST. PAUL

39.14

MINNEAPOLIS

37.80

TACOMA

37.41

LYNN

37.37

FLINT

36.89

NEW YORK

36. 70

MILWAUKEE

36.61

FAU RIVER

36.30

SAN FRANCISCO

35.42

DETROIT

35.25

PITTSBURGH

35.00

GRAND RAPIDS

34.93

DES MOINES

34.74

NEW BEDFORD

34.62

EVANSVILLE

34 .44

NEWARK

33.90

YOUNGSTOWN

33.60

OAKLAND

33.47

CHICAGO

33.46

OMAHA

33.36

ALTOONA

32.82

CAMBRIDGE

31 .52

SPRINGFIELD* MASS

;. 31 .51

INDIANAPOUS

30.33

LAWRENCE

30.33

SAN DIEGO

29.61

WORCESTER

29. 76

ERIE

29.74

JOHNSTOWN

29.47

COLUMBUS

29. 27

DAYTON

29. 17

CANTON

29.08

MALDEN

28.67

SEATTLE

28.46

YONKERS

28.42

PHILADELPHIA

28.25

RACINE

28.03

SOUTH BEND

27.89

ROCHESTER

27.85

DENVER

27.81

TRENTON

27 . 71

CINCINNATI

27.56

SPRINGFIELD.OHIO

27.29

KANSAS CITY. KANS. 27.18

NEW ORLEANS

26.77

SYRACUSE

26.44

PONTIAC

26. 15

MEDIAN

26.03

HUNTINGTON

25.91

PROVIDENCE

25.85

BUFFALO

25.64

SIOUX CITY

25.45

JERSEY CITY

25.20

BETHLEHEM

24.61

ST. LOUIS

24.59

MADISON

24. 57

SALT LAKE CITY

23.97

LOS ANGELES

23.87

PORTLAND.OREG.

23.79

SPRINGFIELD, ILL.

23.79

ALLENTOWN

23.44

SAGINAW

23.25

KANSAS city, MO.

23.20

READING

22.93

NEW HAVEN

22.76

HARTFORD

22.48

NEW ROCHELLE

22.41

FORT WAYNE

21 .92

SACRAMENTO

20.48

NEW BRITAIN

20.32

BRIDGEPORT

19 .75

JACKSONVILLE

19.68

UTICA

19.46

ATLANTA

19.29

WICHITA

17.99

TOPEKA

17.96

NEWTON

17.49

FORT WORTH

16.82

CHARLESTON

16.31

PORTLAND, ME.

15.90

TULSA

15,44

ALBANY

15.26

BIRMINGHAM

15. 19

NIAGARA FALLS

15.08

ASHEVILLE

14. 58

WASHINGTON, D.C.

14.53

CHESTER

13.91

WILMINGTON

13.25

MOBILE

12.33

BALTIMORE

11.12

LOUISVILLE

il. M

DALLAS

10.46

KNOXVILLE

10.38

WINSTON-SALEM

1002

SAN ANTONIO

9.62

RICHMOND

8.93

NASHVILLE

8.50

MEMPHIS

8. 18

HOUSTON

7.35

MIAMI

7.08

CHARLOTTE

6.75

GREENSBORO

6.74

EL PASO

6 65

NORFOLK

6.43

ROANOKE

5. 65

SHREVEPORT

2. 76

1938

I

i Based on tables C-22 and 0-31.

35

I

The causes underlying the variance in per
inhabitant rates of expenditure are too complex
and contradictory to permit any extensive inter¬
pretation of the data in qualitative terms. Varia¬
tions in per capita outlays for the component types
of aid are too dependent on the proportionate dis¬
tribution of expenditures among the several forms
of aid to be very useful for measuring changes in
standards or burdens from one year to another.
Interarea differences in per capita outlays for
specific programs are likewise much affected by
the relative emphasis placed on each segment of
the relief structure. Thus the wide dispersion in
per capita outlays for general relief is attributable,
in part at least, to the wide disparity in standards
of assistance provided. But it reflects also the
varying extent to which other forms of public
assistance have been developed and used to care
for needy employable persons and the three
special classes of unemployable dependents. A
relatively low per capita outlay for general relief
may mean that an area is not providing adequately
for needy applicants, or it may mean that rela¬
tively high proportions of needy eligibles are being
cared for under alternative programs affording
more adequate aid. Avoiding the hazards of
superficial interpretation of the per capita rates
for individual communities,^^ attention is focused
here, as elsewhere in the report, on the extent of
variation existing among the 116 urban areas.
The range in amounts per inhabitant expended

“ Similar hazards exist in interpreting the comparative per capita costs for
the several types of aid extended within any one community or the differ¬
ences among communities in the relative per capita costs of the several types
of aid.

for specific types of aid are given in table 6 for
each year from 1929 through 1938. The number
of areas reporting some expenditures for given
types of aid and the median per capita outlays for
those areas are shown in table 7 .

At the beginning of the decade, per capita out¬
lays for all public aid ranged from zero to $3.68
and for private aid from $0.01 to $1.23. General
relief outlays per inhabitant ranged from zero to
$3.03, and outlays for the special types of public
assistance from zero to $1.05. Median outlays
per capita for those areas extending the specified
types of aid in 1929 were $0.66 for all public aid;
$0.16 for private aid; $0.29 for general relief; and
$0.31 for the three special types of public as¬
sistance.

In 1938, per inhabitant outlays for all public
aid ranged from $2.73 to $53.13. General relief
outlays, dispensed entirely from State and local
resources, varied from zero in San Antonio, Tex.,
to $15.06 in Philadelphia, Pa. The median outlay
for areas extending this type of aid was $4.03.
Special assistance payments, dispensed in most
areas through joint Federal-State programs,
ranged from $0.04 in Norfolk, Va., where these
assistance programs were in an early stage of
development, to $12.54 in Denver, Colo. The
median per capita outlay in 1938 was $3.59.
Earnings on Federal work projects operated by
the WPA ranged from $0.72 per inhabitant in
Shreveport, La., to $42.25 per inhabitant in
Toledo, Ohio; the median per capita outlay for
WPA earnings in these 116 urban areas was $16.15.
Expenditures per inhabitant for private aid ranged

Table 6. — Range among 116 urban areas in amount per inhabitant * expended for specified types of aid, 1929-38^

Public funds

General relief

Special types of public assistance

Private funds

Year

Total

Direct relief

Work relief

c; w A ana w rA
earnings

Old-age assist¬
ance

Aid to depend¬
ent children

Aid to the blind

Lowest

Highest

Lowest

Highest

Lowest

Highest

Lowest

Highest

Lowest

Highest

Lowest

Highest

Lowest

Highest

Lowest

Highest

1929 . .

1030 .

1931 .

1932 .

1933 .

$0.00

0

0

.03

1.06

$3. 03
5.06
10.24
15. 60
18.01

$0.00

0

0

0

.07

$3.03
5.06
8.49
13. 93
15. 86

$0.00

0

0

0

0

$0. 03
1.69
3.39
6. 50
11.32

$0. 10

$5.49

$0.00

0

0

0

0

$0.04

.58

1.04

1.46

1.90

$0.00

0

0

0

0

$1.00
1. 03
1. 34
1.49
1.41

$0.00

0

0

0

0

$0. 35
.44
.51
.50
.53

$0.01

.01

.01

.01

G)

$1.23
1.06
2.54
5. 05
3.13

1934 .

2. 34

27. 21

.49

17. 17

.06

12.07

1.80

9. 65

0

2.22

0

1.51

0

.27

0

1.64

1935 .

2.00

29. 81

.39

22.51

0

18.33

.40

8.75

0

3.11

0

1.58

0

.34

0 .

1. 43

1936 _

.08

13.70

.08

13. 34

0

2.39

1. 31

29. 95

0

5.08

0

1.66

0

.39

0

1.28

1937 . . .

0

12.31

0

12. 31

0

2.61

.23

24. 93

0

9.67

0

1.98

0

.48

0

1.30

1938 .

0

15.06

W

G)

(^)

(‘)

.72

42. 25

.01

11. 02

0

2.71

0

.61

0

1.24

> For 1930, based on total population of areas according to U. S. census of » Based on tables C-22— C-3L

that year; for other years, based on total population of areas estimated for > Less than 1 cent,

particular year from U. S. censuses of 1020, 1030, and 1940. * Figures not available.

36

from zero in 4 areas tp $1.24 in Boston, Mass.
The median rate for areas reporting expenditures
from private funds was $0.13.

The variance in per capita rates is as striking
for the last year of the decade as for the first.
Except for private relief, the median rates of

outlay for areas extending specified types of
aid have risen sharply under the joint impetus of
the depression and State and Federal participa¬
tion m relief operations, but there has been no
tendency toward a reduction in the range of per
capita rates for any form of aid.

Table 7 .—Number of urban areas reporting expenditures for specified types of aid, and median amount per

inhabitant * expended in those areas, 1929-38 ^

Year

Total

Public funds

Private

funds

General relief

CWA

and

WPA

earnings

Special types of public assistance

Total

Direct

relief

Work

relief

Total

Old-age

assistance

Aid to
dependent
children

Aid to
the
blind

Number of areas reporting expenditures

, 1929 . .

114

107

106

3

105

2

104

60

116

1930 _

115

110

109

18

106

9

106

62

116

i 1931 _ _ _

116

113

110

54

106

35

106

62

116

1932 _

116

116

115

60

107

37

106

62

116

L SI 1933 _

116

116

116

94

116

107

38

106

62

116

V ^1934 _ _ _

116

116

116

116

116

106

74

104

74

113

( 1935 _ _ _

116

116

116

115

116

106

75

104

75

114

1936 _ _

116

116

116

59

116

113

101

109

90

113

< 1937 _ _ _

116

115

115

22

116

116

113

113

104

113

1938 - - - -

116

115

(>)

(»)

116

116

116

112

108

112

V

\

Median amount per inhabitant

1929 . . . . .

$0. 66

$0.29

$0.30

(‘)

$0.31

(0

$0.29

$0.04

$0. 16

1930 _ _ _

.85

.46

.44

(*)

.35

W

.32

.05

.24

1931 . .- _ _

1.62

1.25

.92

$0. 42

.41

$0.27

.34

.05

.45

1932 _

4. 04

3.56

2. 47

.93

.50

.61

.36

.05

.45

1933 _

9. 13

6.86

6. 60

1.34

$1.37

.48

.65

.33

.06

.22

1934 _

16. 19

10. 67

6.11

3. 63

4.90

.61

.37

.36

.07

.15

1935 _

17.28

13.76

7. 65

4. 14

1.73

1.26

.95

.36

.08

.13

1936 _

21.40

3. 69

3. 44

.03

14.28

1.80

1.21

.43

.06

.13

1937 _

18.41

3.37

3.30

.03

10.29

2.99

2. 13

.66

.07

.13

• 1938 _

25.98

4.03

(’)

(»)

16.15

3.59

2. 46

.84

.10

.13

1 For 1930, based on total population of areas according to U. S. census of
t that year; for other years, based on total population of areas estimated for
V particular year from U. S. censuses of 1920, 1930, and 1940.

1

3 Data exclude areas with no expenditures for specified types of aid. Based
on tables C-22— C-31.

3 Figures not available.

3 Not computed because of small number of areas.

. 1

■, I

I i
V

37

V

The Present Decade

No REASON is apparent for believing that 1938
marked an end to the era of rapid change in the
realm of public and private aid. Developments
of the decade ended with that year make it clear
that large-scale measures for the care and pre¬
vention of dependency wdl be necessary for many
yeare to come. An increasing awareness of the
long-time factors influencing the spread of de¬
pendency and personal insecurity had already
dictated the initial moves toward an integrated
long-range program of social security measures to
augment and gradually replace the emergency relief
measm-es of the decade reviewed here.

Intensification of such long-time social and
economic trends as progressive urbanization,
greater dependence on industrial employment,
decreased family solidarity, a declining birth
rate, and an upward shift in the age distribution
of the population would ultimately have forced
drastic revisions of the obsolete relief structure
in this country as it has in others, but the evolu¬
tionary process has been hastened by the unem¬
ployment crisis of the early 1930’s. Changes in
public attitudes toward dependency and in the
traditional mechanisms and procedures for ex¬
tending aid were long overdue; the depression
hastened their arrival and their application, on a
broad national scale.

The decade under review has seen considerable
experimentation with, and public acceptance of,
more progressive methods for treating need on a
mass scale. The prevention and alleviation of
dependency has become an accepted responsibility
of the Federal as well as the State and local
governments. The time has now arrived for
evaluation of the experience gained and the
shaping of a continuing program that will retain
the desirable features of emergency measures and
eliminate their undesirable aspects. The present
decade should bring a consolidation and refine¬
ment of past advances, based on a critical ap¬
praisal of objectives as well as the ways and means
best adapted to promote the objective set.

Such a critical survey is beyond the scope of
the present report. A broad appraisal of past
experience, present needs, and future goals is now
in preparation under the auspices of the National
Resources Planning Board. No attempt has been
made here to evaluate the influences affecting pat¬
terns of urban aid over the decade or to suggest
any ideal pattern as to combination of programs,
relative emphasis on different types of aid, or the
standards of adequacy to be maintained. It
would be futile, in the face of dynamic economic
and social readjustments, to attempt any pro¬
jection of the expenditure trends for public and
private aid in these 116 urban areas. The public
welfare and security structure is stdl in a develop¬
mental, transitional stage, and the ultimate
methods of providing aid and future security are
not yet fully ciystallized either in legislation or in
public opinion. The transition from temporary
to permanent measures was still far from complete
at the close of the decade under review, although
nearly 10 years had elapsed since the beginning
of the unemployment crisis. Even in 1938 the
major share of aid in the 116 urban areas was
extended thi’ough WPA projects directed by a
temporary Federal agency and financed by emer¬
gency appropriations.

While the net effects of future change on
urban expenditure trends can scarcely be pre¬
dicted, there are certain factors already apparent
that must be reckoned with in the future. These
factors involve both substantive and procedural
changes; in general, they suggest the possibility
that expenditure trends in the individual areas
may foUow quite diverse courses as efforts are
made to attain more uniformity in patterns of aid
and in the standards and levels of care provided
for various needy groups.

The most explicit of the factors to be considered
are legislative changes that were approved shortly
after the close of the decade. These changes
include the 1939 revisions in the Social Security
Act which provided for an extension of Federal

38

I

I

I

participation in the financing of the three special
forms of public assistance and liberalization of the
old-age insurance program. The unemployment
compensation provisions of the act were not
changed basically by the 1939 amendments.

As of January 1, 1940, the ratio of Federal
participation in payments for aid to dependent
children under approved State plans was raised
from one-third to one-half. The permissible age
limit for matching individual payments had pre¬
viously been raised, at the time the amendments
were approved in August 1939, from 15 to 17
years for dependent children who continued in
school. Also effective as of January 1940 was
the increase in maximum individual payments
which may be counted in computing the Federal
share of payments for old-age assistance and aid
to the blind in States participating under titles I
and X of the Social Security Act. Federal funds
may now be used to pay half of individual monthly
payments not in excess of $40. The maximum
was previously $30.

To be balanced against these legislative changes,
which will presumably lend impetus to the upward
trend of public assistance payments, are the amend¬
ments to the old-age insurance program which are
calculated to reduce the future volume of old-age
dependency. These amendments advanced by 2
years, or to January 1940, the date for beginning
.payments of old-age annuities, liberalized eligibil¬
ity requirements and average benefit payments
during the early years of the system, and extended
the coverage to protect dependents and certain
survivors of insured workers. The extended func¬
tioning of this program and of the unemployment
compensation programs now operating in every
State should result in a progressive reduction of
the incidence of need among the aged and tem¬
porarily unemployed. A less predictable factor in
the future course of public outlays for the aged
is the strong political drive behind old-age pension
movements of various kinds.

Proposals for further substantive changes in the
public assistance titles of the Social Security Act
center about the extent and basis of Federal
financial participation, more particularly on the
possibility of adjusting Federal grants-in-aid to
promote greater equalization of treatment under
different programs and in different geographic
areas. The Social Security Board has repeatedly
recommended the adoption of some variable-grant

procedure ‘ to pemiit relatively more Federal aid to
States with low economic and fiscal capacities.
Attention has also been directed to the need for
attaining more equality of treatment within States.
Recurrent proposals for Federal participation in
the financing of general relief likewise focus on the
disparity in standards and levels of care provided
by the States and localities, and their varying
economic ability to support an adequate program
of general relief. A Federal grant-in-aid program
is urged as a means of raising general relief stand¬
ards in States and localities where they are dispro¬
portionately low, and also as a means for bringing
general relief payments and conditions of aid more
equitably in line with those for other assistance
and work programs.

The diversity and lack of consistent and logical
relationships in eligibility requirements, levels of
care, and methods of extending aid imder the
programs now in operation constitute major prob¬
lems of integration to be resolved. A satisf actor}’'
solution entails both the elimination of unwar¬
ranted geographic differences under specific pro¬
grams and the attainment of more explicit, equi¬
table, and stable relationships among all programs
extending aid to needy persons. It involves, also,
the preservation of a soimd balance among the
social insurance programs and the public assistance
and employment programs that will foster the
development of preventive measures and at the
same time afford adequate levels of care for those
in immediate need of direct assistance.^

A second insistent problem of integration to be
faced during the present decade is that of simpli¬
fying and coordinating the complex administra¬
tive and supervisory relationships that now hamper
the efficient functioning of the relief and welfare
structure. Part of the existing complexity arises
from, and is perpetuated by, the mixture of
temporary and permanent agencies. Part of it is
the result of a division of authority and responsi¬
bility among Federal, State, and local governments
without sufficient coordinated relationships and
procedures to ensure the efficient and flexible
performance of the structure as a whole.

1 Such action was recommended initially by the Board in Message From the
President of the United States Transmitting a Report of the Social Security Board
Recommending Changes in the Social Security Act, H. Doc. 110, 76th Cong.,
Istsess., p. 21.

» Compare, on this point. Brown, J. Douglas, “Some Inherent Problems
of Social Security,” and Burns, Eveline M., “An Appraisal of Services for the
Unemployed,” The Annals, American Academy of Political and Social
Science, Vol. 202 (March 1939), pp. 1-7 and 46-62.

39

The potential applicant for public aid is today
confronted with an elaborate maze of agencies
and regulations governing the form and amounts
of aid available to him and his dependents. He
may find himself eligible for aid under two or more
different programs or unable to qualify for any.
Even if he is nominally eligible for a given pro-
gi’am, he may be denied aid or transferred to some
less adequate form of aid if available financial
resources are limited.^

The confusion, overlapping, and gaps in the
present structure of public aid call for progressive
coordination of Federal and Federal-State pro¬
grams with those residual forms of aid left to State
and local responsibility. Efforts toward simplifi¬
cation and integration must proceed at each level

’ For a graphic description of conditions in one community, see Qeddes,
Anne E., “Relief Trends in Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1929-37,” Social Secu¬
rity Bulletin, Vol. 1, No. 8 (August 1938), pp. 17-22.

of government and must extend to all public
assistance, work, and social insurance programs if
they are to result in a smoothly functioning mech¬
anism for preventing and alleviating need.

The present decade may not involve any such
abrupt and startling departures from existing
relief trends as characterized the early 1930’s, but
it will inevitably bring evolutionary changes and
internal adjustments of far reaching significance.
In order to maintain a continuous record of those
changes as they affect expenditure patterns and
trends in the 116 urban areas, it is planned to
issue supplements to the present report, extending
the basic data for individual areas and interpret¬
ing them against the background of past years.
The first such supplement, covering 1939 and 1940,
consists of the discussion beginning on page 41,
and appendix D, which contains tabular data for
these years.

40

r

Supplement for 1939 and 1940

Tbe years 1939 and 1940 brought substantial de¬
clines in aggregate expenditures for assistance
payments and work program earnings in the 116
urban areas (chart 10). In 1939 a sharp drop in
WPA earnings reduced total annual expenditures
to $1.3 bUlion, or 11 percent less than the record
outlay of the previous year. Aggregate outlays
for the following year were 16 percent below those
for 1939 because of another marked decline in
annual WPA earnings and a sizable contraction in
expenditures for general relief. The 1940 total
of somewhat less than $1.1 billion was the smallest
annual expenditure in these lu-ban areas since
1935. During 1939 and 1940 new provisions with
I regard to the WPA program, amendments liberal-
5 izing the Social Security Act, the creation of the
f Federal Security Agency and the Federal Works
f Agency, initiation of a Federal unemployment in-
surance program for railroad workers, and the

inaugm-ation of the food and cotton stamp pro¬
grams of the Surplus Marketing Administration
affected the structure of public aid and related
social insurance programs and will presumably
influence that structure for years to come.

The total amounts expended for the various
types of aid in the 116 areas combined during 1939
and 1940, the cumulative amounts for the 12-
year period 1929-40, and tbe percentage distribu¬
tion for each of these periods are shown in table 8.
Annual data for 1939 and 1940 for individual
areas appear in tables D-2 — D-7, which show
absolute expenditures, percentage distributions of
these outlays, and amounts spent per inhabitant.

Trends in Monthly Expenditures

By September 1939 the composite expenditure
curve had dropped 34 percent from the all-time
peak which was reached in December 1938. It

Chart 10. — Expenditures for public and private aid, 116 urban areas, January 1929-Deceniber 1940 >

MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
140 - -

MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

' Based on tables C-1 and D-1.

t Earnings of all persons employed under the Civil Works Program, including the administrative staff.
ttEarnings on projects operated by the WPA within the areas.

41

turned upward again during the last quarter of
the year and continued to rise gradually until
April 1940, when there began a brief downward
movement extending through June. During the
last half of 1940 total monthly outlays remained
fairly stable, varying between $83 million and
$88 million.

The decline in the total expenditure curve from
March thi'ough September of 1939 was obviously
caused by the sharp curtailment in WPA outlays.
This curtailment was induced partly by improved
economic conditions and partly by a cut in the
WPA appropriation to an amount one-thud less
than that provided in the preceding fiscal year.
A decline in WPA earnings was well under way
even before the Emergency Relief Appropriation
Act was passed in June 1939; between June and
September monthly earnings in the 116 urban
areas contracted sharply from $64 million to $40
million.

Reduction in WPA pay rolls during this period
was necessitated not only by the reduction in
available funds but by a mandatory provision of
the new appropriation act calling for the removal
from WPA jobs by August 31, 1939, of all relief
workers, other than veterans, who had been em¬
ployed continuously for more than 18 months.
Workers still in need after a lapse of 30 days could
be recertified for WPA employment but could

not necessarily be reassigned immediately to
projects. The existence in some areas of long
waiting lists of certified workers and the reduced
employment quotas in all areas precluded the
possibility of reassignment of many needy workers.
As a result, many of those removed from WPA
jobs applied for general relief during this period,
but the stringency of funds in many States and
localities prevented expansion commensurate with
the increased demand for aid.

WPA earnings in the urban areas moved upward
in all but one month of the period October 1939-
March 1940, although they remained markedly
below the monthly expenditures for this type of
aid in the first half of 1939. Such earnings de¬
clined once more during the second quarter of
1940 and by June were not much above the
$40-million level of September 1939.

For the fiscal year 1940-41 the WPA received
an initial appropriation which was again about
one- third smaller than that for the previous year.*
The Emergency Relief Appropriation Act for
1940-41 ^ provided, however, that WPA funds
might be apportioned over a shorter period of

■ A supplemental appropriation approved in March 1941 brought the total
WPA appropriation for the fiscal year to a point about one-ninth below the
total for 1939-40.

» The 1941 Emergency Relief Appropriation Act was designated as of the
fiscal year for which it appropriated funds; previous ERA acts were desig¬
nated as of the calendar years in which they were enacted.

Table 8. — Amount and percentage distribution of public and private assistance and earnings under specified Federal

work programs, 116 urban areas, 1939 and 1940

Type of assistance

Amount

Percentage distribution

1929-40

1939

1940

1929-AO

1939

1940

Total, public and private funds * _ _ _

$9, 197, 431, 732

$1, 273, 294, 901

$1, 071, 134, 160

100.0

100.0

100.0

Public funds, total _ _ _ _ _ _ _

8, 943, 845, 664

1, 262, 553, 813

1, 060, 760, 436

97.3

99.1

99.0

General relief, total _ _

3, 672, 740, 758

329, 927, 667

283, 623, 437

40.0

25.9

26.5

Direct relief _ _ _ _

> 3, 032, 068, 021

(‘)

(*)

»33.0

Work relief- _ _ _ _

3 640, 672, 737

W

0)

3 7.0

0)

0)

Earnings under Federal work programs:

Civil Works Program * _ _

301, 249, 695

3.3

Projects operated by the WPA « _ _ _ _

3, 784, 135, 136

710, 822, 610

526, 570, 526

41.1

55.8

49.1

Special types of public assistance, total ' _

1, 185, 720, 076

221, 803, 536

260, 566, 473

12.9

17.4

23.4

Old-age assistance _ _ _ _ _

735, 096, 603

155,408,631

177, 995, 592

8.0

12.2

16.6

Aid to dependent children _ _ ..

395, 245, 465

57, 662, 628

63, 346, 637

4.3

4.5

5.9

Aid to the blind-- _ _ _ _

55, 378, 007

8, 732, 277

9, 224, 244

.6

.7

.9

Private funds * _ _ _ _ _

253, 586, 068

10, 741, 088

10, 373, 724

2.7

.9

1.0

> Excludes cost of administration; of materials, equipment, and other items
incident to operation of work programs; and of transient care. For 1940,
figures for assistance programs differ from those published for previous years
in that they include obligations incurred for burials, in addition to obliga¬
tions incurred for money payments, assistance in kind, medical care, and
hospitalization.

s Includes statutory aid to veterans administered on basis of need. See
also footnote 1.

* Work relief for 1938-40 included with direct relief, since separate figures
are not available; information indicates that work relief represents a negligible
proportion of general relief in these years.

< Figures not available.

» Figures from the WPA, Division of Statistics; represent earnings of all
persons employed under the program, including the administrative staff.
Terminated in 1934.

« Figures from the WPA, Division of Statistics; represent earnings of per¬
sons employed on projects operated by the WPA within these areas; figures
are not available for earnings of persons employed on projects other than
those operated by the WPA.

’’ Includes figures for areas in States with plans approved by the Social
Security Board and for areas in States not participating imder the Social
Security Act. See also footnote 1.

* Includes direct and work relief and aid to veterans. See also footnote 1.

42

not less than 8 months if the unemployment situ¬
ation warranted such action. Under the impetus
of the defense program, employment increased
substantially dm-ing the last half of 1940 but the
volume of unemployment remained large, as is
indicated by the fact that the number of applica¬
tions for jobs in the active file of the United States
Employment Service, an admittedly incomplete
measure of unemployment, stood at 4.8 million at
the close of the year. It was necessary, therefore,
to maintain WPA employment at a higher level
than would have been possible if the appropriation
had been apportioned over the full 12 months of
the fiscal year. During the last 6 months of 1940,
WPA pay rolls in the 116 urban areas remained
approximately at the level to which they had
declined in June. Outlays for WPA earnings for
the final month of 1940 were only half those for
December 1938:

After moving upward in the first quarter of
1939, monthly expenditures for general relief
declined in each of the next 4 months. Total
outlays rose somewhat from July to August but
fluctuated only slightly during the balance of
the year. Although the expansion which had
been recorded for the last quarter of each of the 3
preceding years was absent in 1939, the average
monthly outlay for the latter year was slightly
higher than that for 1938. A temporary advance
in total payments in January 1940 was followed
by a steady movement toward a lower level of
expenditures. In the last 4 months of the year
the amounts expended were the smallest since
the summer of 1937. General rehef payments
in the urban areas in December 1940 were less
than $22 million, as compared with $27 million
in December 1938.

In contrast to the unsettled course of expendi¬
tures for WPA earnings and general relief was the
steady growth of payments for the three special
types of public assistance. By December 1940
combined monthly outlays for these types of aid
had reached $22 million, or 26 percent more than
in December 1938. From the last month of
1938 to December 1940, monthly expenditures
for old-age assistance increased 26 percent, for
aid to dependent children 28 percent, and for
aid to the blind 11 percent.

It is not possible to measure the effect on the
monthly expenditure curves of the more liberal

provisions for Federal participation which be¬
came effective January 1, 1940,® but it would
appear that in the urban areas the impetus to
increased expenditures was greater for old-age
assistance than for aid to dependent children.
From December 1938 to December 1939 monthly
outlays for old-age assistance rose 9 percent;
from December 1939 to December 1940 the in¬
crease amounted to 16 percent. For aid to de¬
pendent children, the increase was 13 percent in
both instances. The latter half of 1940, however,
witnessed an acceleration in the rate of growth
in payments for aid to dependent children, where¬
as the rate of expansion in old-age assistance
declined somewhat. Monthly expenditures for
aid to dependent children increased only 4 percent
from December 1939 to June 1940, but expanded

9 percent from June to December 1940. During
these two 6-month periods monthly payments
for old-age assistance rose 9 and 7 percent,
respectively.

Combined annual expenditures for the special
types of public assistance rose 12 percent in 1939
and 13 percent in 1940. In the first of these
years, old-age assistance expanded 10 percent, aid
to dependent children 20 percent, and aid to the
blind 9 percent. For 1940, the increases amounted
to 15 percent for old-age assistance, 10 percent for
aid to dependent children, and 6 percent for aid to
the blind. In 1939, the rates of growth in old-age
assistance and aid to dependent children in the
urban areas differed only slightly from the rates
of expansion in these programs in the continental
United States, but in 1940 there were sizable differ¬
ences in the urban-area and national rates. The
national rate of increase in old-age assistance was

10 percent in both 1939 and 1940. For aid to
dependent children, the rate of expansion in the
country as a whole was 18 percent in 1939 and 16
percent in 1940. In both 1939 and 1940, pay¬
ments for aid to the blind increased at approxi¬
mately the same rate in the 116 urban areas and
in the Nation.

During 1939 and 1940, monthly outlays for
private aid followed much the same seasonal
pattern as in 1938, although aggregate payments
declined somewhat in both years. Annual expend¬
itures from private funds decreased 1.7 percent in
1939 and 3.4 percent in 1940.

* See p. 39.

452436“— 42-

43

Per Capita Outlays

The median amount spent per inhabitant for
public and private aid in the 116 urban areas
dropped to $23.36 in 1939 and $19.15 in 1940.^
The median outlay in the latter year was almost
$7 below that for 1938. As in previous years,
there were marked regional differences in per
capita relief burdens. The New England areas
showed the highest median rate of expenditure in
both 1939 and 1940 — $28.22 and $26.61, respec¬
tively; and the South Atlantic and South Central
areas the lowest — $10.83 in 1939 and $11.15 in
1940. Median amounts spent per inhabitant in
the other geographic divisions were as follows:
Mountain and Pacific, 1939 — $26.05, 1940^ —
$24.71; North Central, 1939— $25.80, 1940—
$21.03; and Middle Atlantic, 1939 — $24.21, 1940 —
$19.08.

Among the 116 areas, the range in per capita
expenditures for total public and private aid in
1939 was from $4.19 to $44.78, and in 1940 from
$4.88 to $40.37. Annual outlays per inhabitant
for half of the areas were between $16.70 and
$29.11 in the first of these years and between
$13.79 and $25.59 in 1940 (tables D-6 and D-7).
Median per capita expenditures for component
types of aid in the 2 years, calculated on the basis
of areas reporting some payments for a given type
of aid, were as follows: WPA earnings, 1939 —
$13.10, 1940 — $10.01; public general relief, 1939 —
$3.91, 1940 — $3.56; and the special types of public
assistance, 1939 — $4.15, 1940 — $4.49. For pri¬
vate relief, the rate was $0.13 in both years. The
median amount spent per inhabitant for old-age
assistance rose from $2.46 in 1938 to $2.78 in 1939
and $3.02 in 1940, and that for aid to dependent
children from $0.84 in 1938 to $1.01 and $1.17 in
the 2 succeeding years. For aid to the blind, the
median rate remained constant at $0.10 for each
of these years.

Legislative and Administrative Developments

The most important legislative developments
affecting relief expenditures during 1939 were
the changes in WPA employment and wage
policies set forth in the Emergency Relief Appro¬
priation Act of 1939. In addition to the provisions
already described, the act established various

* Per capita amounts for 1939 are based on population data estimated from
the censuses of 1930 and 1940; those for 1940 are based on data from the census
of that year.

restrictions and priorities in WPA employment,
called for a revised schedule of monthly earnings,
and altered the conditions governing sponsors’
contributions to WPA projects.^ For non-Federal
projects approved after January 1, 1940, State and
local contributions were required to average, on a
State-wide basis, not less than 25 percent of the
total cost of projects.

Provisions of the ERA Act of 1939 governing
the operation of the WPA program were in
general continued by the ERA Act for 1940^1.
The later act differed from its predecessor mainly
in the inclusion of a number of specific provisions
intended to facilitate the cooperation of the WPA
in the defense program. All projects certified
by the Secretaiy of War or the Secretary of the
N avy as important for military or naval purposes
were exempted from certain provisions applying
to other projects. Certified defense projects were
exempted from the requirement that sponsors’
contributions represent at least 25 percent of
total project costs within each State, and from
the limitation of an average of $6 per month per
worker during the fiscal year on Federal expendi¬
tures for nonlabor costs in any State. Authority
was also given the WPA to supplement usual
Federal allowances for nonlabor costs up to a
maximum of $25 million in the furtherance of
defense projects. Other exemptions pertaining
to such projects authorized departures from the
regular schedule of monthly earnings and hours of
work, and the maximum limitation on the amount
the WPA was permitted to spend for work on any
public bunding. The participation of the WPA
in activities contributing to defense was also
extended by the Second Deficiency Appropriation
Act of 1940, which authorized the use of funds
appropriated to that agency by the ERA Act for
1940-41 for training workers for manual occupa¬
tions in industries engaged in production for
national defense purposes.

The liberalizing amendments to the public
assistance and old-age insurance titles of the
Social Security Act passed in August 1939 have
already been described.® Creation of the Federal
Security Agency and the Federal Works Agency

‘ For a more detailed description of the provisions affecting WPA opera¬
tions in 1939 and 1940, see Report on Progress of the WPA Program, June 30,
1939, pp. 8-14, and Report' on Progress of the WPA Program, June 30, 1940,
pp. 10-14.

® See p. 39. For an account of the amendments to the Social Security Act,
see Fourth Annual Report of the Social Security Board, 1939, pp. 166-180.

44

under the President’s Reorganization Plan No. I
represented significant steps taken in 1939 toward
the integration of Federal activities relating to
relief and unemployment. Grouped within the
first of these agencies were the Civilian Conserva¬
tion Corps, the National Youth Administration,
the Office of Education, the Public Health Service,
and the Social Security Board, ^ Included in the
Federal Works Agency were the Public Buildings
Administration, the Public Roads Administration,
the Public Works Administration, the United
States Housing Authority, and the Work Projects
Administration.

The first reorganization plan provided also for
the consolidation of the United States Employ¬
ment Service with the program for unemployment
compensation under the Social Security Act, by
transferring this service, hitherto in the Depart-
^ ment of Labor, to the Social Security Board. The
' scope of State unemployment compensation pro-
. grams was altered somewhat in 1939 by the initia-
‘i tion of operations under the Federal system of
unemployment insurance for railroad workers pro¬
vided for by legislation enacted in the previous
year. Wlien benefits under the Railroad Unem¬
ployment Insurance Act became payable in July
1939 some 1.5 million workers formerly covered by
State programs were transferred to the new Federal
^ system administered by the Railroad Retirement
|n|^Board, which carries responsibility for the Federal
’ retirement program for aged and disabled railroad
workers.

During 1939 a development of potential impor-
ilH tance to the urban relief picture was the inaugura-
tion by the Federal Surplus Marketing Adminis-
tration of the stamp plan for distribution of sui-plus
foods to persons eligible for public aid. The new
procedure, established experimentally in Roches-
M ter, N. Y., in May 1939, provided for the dis-
it- j tribution of surplus foods to needy persons through
Iff; normal trade channels instead of direct distribution
through central commissaries or other relief
channels. The plan was intended also to increase
the total food consumption of relief families by
making sure that surplus commodities were
received in addition to, and not in lieu of, normal
relief allowances for food. In general, the stamp
plan allowed certified relief families to purchase,
from their regular relief payments, orange-

^ Additional functions and agencies were placed in the Federal Security
Agency by the second and fourth reorganization plans.

colored food stamps in values ranging from $1.00
to $1.50 a week per person; for each dollar’s worth
of orange-colored stamps purchased, the family
received 50 cents’ worth of blue stamps which
could be used to purchase commodities currently
listed as surplus by the Department of Agriculture.

Favorable experience with the stamp plan in
Rochester led to its gradual extension during the
balance of the year. In 1940 the plan was ex¬
tended rapidly and by the close of the year was in
operation in 231 areas.® These areas included part
or all of the territory covered by 71 of the 116 areas
represented in the urban series.

In May 1940 the Surplus Marketing Administra¬
tion initiated another stamp progi*am designed to
stimulate the consumption of cotton goods and to
increase the ability of families eligible for or
receiving public aid to purchase such goods. The
mechanism of the cotton stamp plan was patterned
after that employed in the operation of the food
stamp plan. By December the program was in
effect in 10 areas, including 7 of the 1 16 urban areas.

While the extent to which the defense program
would ultimately reduce unemployment and the
need for public aid was hardly discernible at the
end of 1940, certain implications for the immediate
future were fairly clear. It was apparent, for
example, that even a marked increase in employ¬
ment would have only limited and, in large part,
indirect effect upon the need for assistance to groups
of unemployable persons represented by recipients
of the special types of public assistance and a sub¬
stantial proportion of the general relief load. Most
of those employed on WPA projects lacked the
occupational skills and semiskills requisite to
employment in defense production, and there was
a strong presumption that this lack characterized
also the larger body of unemployed persons who
were not receiving public aid. In recognition of
the widespread lack of suitable skills among those
comprising the labor reserve, a federally financed
training program, begun on a small scale at the
outset of the defense program, had been consider¬
ably expanded before the end of 1940.

It was likewise evident that the impact of
defense production upon the States and local com¬
munities would be very uneven because of the
high degree of geographic concentration of defense

* A stamp plan area may be a city, county, or group of counties. Summary
data on the food stamp plan have been published monthly in the Social Secu¬
rity Bulk tin since September 1940.

45

contracts. Although increased purchasing power
arising from defense employment initially stimu¬
lated expansion in consumer-goods industries and
served to diflPuse the expansion induced by defense
expenditmes, it was clear that the magnitude of
defense requirements would eventually necessitate
curtailment in production of consumer goods.
Areas relying for their economic activity on con¬
sumer-goods industries thus adversely affected
may face serious problems of industrial disloca¬
tion and accompanying unemployment.

The need for looking ahead to the period of

readjustment after the defense program is com¬
pleted was recognized in the authority given the
National Resources Planning Board in June 1940
to develop plans for a large-scale public works
program to be held in readiness for implementation
in the post-defense period. Whatever the reper¬
cussions of the defense program upon relief needs
and unemployment in the interim, it is a reason¬
able assertion that an adequate and well inte¬
grated system of public aid and social insurance
will prove a substantial factor in public morale in
a time of national emergency.

46

APPENDIX A

Area and population of 116 urban areas, by geographic division and State

Geographic division. State,
and urban area

County to which
reports relate >

Population of area
to which reports
relate

1930

census

1940

census

New England
Connecticut;

Bridgeport .

146, 716
164, 072
68,128
162, 655
70,810

147, 121
166, 267
68,685
160, 605
73, 643

Hartford . . . .

New Britain _ _

New Haven _

Maine; Portland _

Massachusetts:

Boston. . . . .

781, 188
63, 797

770, 816
62, 343
110, 879
115, 428
84,323
101, 389
98,123
58, 010
110, 341
69, 873
149, 554
193, 694
253, 504

Brockton . .

Cambridge _ _

113,' 643
115, 274
85,068
100, 234
102, 320
58, 036
112, 597

Fall River _ _

Lawrence _ _

Lowell . . . .

Lynn _

Malden . . . .

New Bedford . . .

Newton _ _ _ _

65; 276
149,900
195, 311
252, 981

Springfield... _ _

Worcester . . .

Rhode Island: Providence _

MroDLE Atlantic

New Jersey:

Jersey City _ _ _

316, 715
442, 337
123, 356

301, 173

Newark _ _

429', 760
124, 697

Trenton _

New York:

Albany _ _

127,412
762, 408
54,000
6, 930, 446
75,460
328, 132
209, 326
101, 740
134, 646

130, 577
798, 377
58, 408
7, 454, 995
78, 029
324, 975
205,967
100, 518
142, 598

Buffalo _ _

Erie _ .

New Rochelle. _ _

New York _ _

Niagara Falls.. .

Rochester . .

Syracuse > _

(*).... .

Utica . . .

Yonkers _

Pennsylvania;

Allentown _ _

Lehigh .. .

172, 893
139, 840
169, 304
280, 264
175, 277
203, 146

177, 533
140, 358
168, 959
310, 756
180, 889
213, 459
1, 931, 334
1, 411, 539
241, 884
301, 243

Altoona _

Blair. _ _

Bethlehem _ _ _

Northampton....

Chester _

Delaware

Erie _ _

Erie .

Johnstown . . .

Cambria _

Philadelphia _ _

Philadelphia * _

1, 950; 961
1, 374, 410

Pittsburgh _

Allegheny _

Reading _

Berks _

■ 231', 717
310, 397
445, 109

Scranton . . .

Lackawanna _

Wilkes-Barre . . .

Luzerne _

441, 518

North Central*
Illinois:

Chicago . . .

Cook _

3, 982, 123
111, 733

4, 063, 342
117, 912

Springfield _ _ _

Sangamon _

Indiana:

Evansville _ _ _

Vanderburgh .

113, 320

130, 783

Fort Wayne _

Allen _

146, 743
422, 666

160, 033

155, 084
460, 926

161, 823

Indianapolis _

Marion _

South Bend _

St. Joseph _

Terre Haute _

Vigo _

98, 861

99; 709

Iowa:

Des Moines _

Polk .

172, 837
101, 669

195, 835
103, 627

Sioux City _

Woodbury _

Kansas:

Kansas City _

Wyandotte... .

141, 211

145,071

Topeka _ ’. . .

Shawnee _

85,200

91, 247

Wichita. _

Sedgwick _

136, 330

143, 311

Michigan:

Detroit _

Wayne _

1, 888, 946
211,641
240, 511
211, 251

2, 015, 623

Flint _ _ _

Geiiesee _

227, 944

GrATiii Rapids .

Kent _

246, 338

Pontiac .. _

Oakland _

254, 068

Saginaw _

Saginaw . .

120, 717

130, 468

Minnesota:

206, 917

St. Louis . . .

204, 596

Minneapolis _

Hennepin _ _

517, 785

568, 899

Rt. Paul .

Ramsey _

286, 721

309, 935

1 When no county is specified, reports relate to city. Differences in terri¬
tory to which certain reported figures of particular urban areas relate are
indicated in tables in which these figures appear.

> Represents 6 counties: Bronx, Kings, New York, Queens, and Richmond.

* At the beginning of 1939 reporting area was changed from city to
Onondaga County, which had a population of 295,108 in 1940.

* City coextensive with county. ^

* Represents States grouped under East North Central and West North
Central of U. 8. census geographic divisions.

Geographic division. State,
and urban area

County to which
reports relate >

Population of area
to which reports
relate

1930

census

1040

census

North Central— Continued
Missouri:

Kansas City _

Jackson .

470, 454

1, 033, 533
232, 982

477, 828

St. Louis... . _ _

(i)

1, 090, 278

Nebraska: Omaha _

Douglas _

247,662

Ohio:

Akron _ _ _

Summit.. . .. _

344, 131
221, 784
589, 356

1, 201, 455
361, 055
273, 481
90, 936
347, 709
236, 142

339, 406

Canton . .

Stark _ _ _

234, 887

Cincinnati .

Hamilton _ _

621, 987

Cleveland . . .

Cnvahnga

1, 217, 250

Columbus _

Franklin _ .

388, 712

Dayton... . . .

Montgomery

295, 480
95, 647

Springfield . .

Clark _

Toledo _

Lucas _ _

344, 333

Youngstown . . .

Mahoning.. _ _ _

240, 251

Wisconsin:

Kenosha _ _

Kenosha _

63, 277
112, 737
725, 263
90,217

63, 505
130, 660
766, 885

Madison.. _ _

Dane _ _

Milwaukee _ _

Milwaukee _

Racine . . .

Racine _ _ .

94,047

South Atlantic and South
Central ^

Alabama:

Birmingham.. .

Jefferson _

431, 493
118, 363
161, 032

459, 930

Mobile . . . . .

Mobile _ _. . .

141, 974
179, 562

Delaware: Wilmington _

New Castle _ _

District of Columbia: Wash-

ington _ _

(S) . .

486, 869

663, 091

Florida:

Jacksonville . . .

Duval . .

155, 603

210, 143

Miami _

Dade _ ..

142, 966
359, 963

267, 739

Georgia: Atlanta • _

Fulton 1* and part 0

421, 880

Kentucky: Louisville .

Atlanta in De Kalb
County.®

Jefferson . . .

355, 350

385, 392

Louisiana:

New Orleans _

Orleans u iJ

458, 762
124, 670

494, 637
150,203
859, 100

Shreveport _ _

Caddo u . .

Maryland: Baltimore _

804, 874

North Carolina:

Asheville . .

Buncombe _ _ _

97, 937
127, 971
133, 010
111, 681
187, 674
101, 050

108, 765
151, 826
153, 916
126, 476
193, 363
121, 105

Charlotte. . .

Mecklenburg _

Greensboro _

Guilford _

Winston-Salem _

Forsyth _ _ .

Oklahoma: Tulsa... _ _

Tulsa. . . ..

South Carolina: Charleston _

Charleston _

Tennessee:

Knoxville _

Knox _ ...

165, 902
306, 482
222, 854

178, 468
368, 250
267, 267

Memphis _ _

Shelby.. . . . .

Nashville _

Davidson _

Texas:

Dallas _

Dallas . .

325, 691
131, 597
197, 553
359, 328
292, 633

398, 664
131, 067
225, 521
528,961

El Paso _

El Paso _

Fort Worth _

Tarrant . . .

Houston _

Harris _

San Antonio _

Bexar _ _ _

338; 176

Virginia:

Norfolk _ _

129, 710
182, 929
69,206
90,786

144, 332
193, 042
69,287
97, 469

Richmond .. _

Roanoke _ _

West Virginia: Huntington....

Cabell .

Mountain and Pacific

\

California:

Los Angeles _

Los Angeles .

2, 208, 492
474, 883
141, 999
209, 659

2, 785, 643
613, oil
170, 333
289, 348
634, 536
322, 412
355, 099
211, 623

Oakland

Alameda _

Sacramento _

Sacramento . .

San Diego _

San Diego _

San Francisco _

San Francisco <

634; 394
287, 861
338, 241
194, 102

463, 617

Colorado: Danvp.r

Denver *.. _

Oregon: Portland _

Multnomah . . .

Utah: Salt Lake City _

Salt Lake.. . .

Washington:

Seattle _

King _ _ _

504, 980
182, 081

Taooma ... _

Pierce _

163; 842

• Reports relate to both independent city of St. Louis and St. Louis County.
’ Represents States grouped under South Atlantic, East South Central,

and West South Central of U. S. census geographic divisions.

• City of Washington coextensive with District of Columbia.

» At the beginning of 1940 reporting area was changed to Fulton County and
all of De Kalb County, which had a combined population of 479,828 in 1940.
m Includes former Campbell and Milton Counties,
u Parish.

>» City coextensive with parish.

APPENDIX B

COMPARATIVE EXPENDITURE PATTERNS FOR 116 URBAN AREAS, 1929-38

The series of charts presented in the following pages
affords a comparison of monthly expenditures for public
and private aid in the individual urban areas over the 10-
year period 1929-38. The charts are designed to reveal
interarea differences in patterns of expenditure as well as
differences in trends and have therefore been standardized
for mass; that is, they have been constructed in such a
way that the shaded expanse under the total expenditure
curve is identical for all the urban areas. Interarea differ¬
ences in the magnitude of total expenditures are thereby
subordinated to differences in timing and in the relative
emphasis placed on component programs and types of aid.

In constructing the series of charts, a standard height on
the vertical scale was used in every instance to represent
the average monthly expenditure in the urban area for all
types of aid over the 120-month period. The arrow on
each chart marks this height and indicates the value of the
10-year monthly average expenditure for the individual
area. The separate diagrams can thus be read accurately
from independent dollar scales and at the same time can
be compared visually with respect to changes in the com¬
position and volume of expenditures over the decade.

In making comparisons of the charts for individual
urban areas, a number of considerations should be borne
in mind. One such consideration, of course, is the fact
that the impact of the depression upon these areas was
decidedly uneven, not only for the decade as a whole but
also for any particular period within it.

The relief patterns for many areas would undoubtedly
be altered substantially were data available on a local-area
basis for all programs meeting relief needs. The omission
of programs for which data are not available for inclusion
in the urban series (see p. 7) is particularly significant for
the period beginning in the summer of 1935 and extending
through the balance of the decade. During this period
large numbers of needy persons were employed on work
projects financed from Federal emergency relief appro¬
priations but operated by Federal agencies other than the
CCC, NYA, and WPA. In some urban areas little or no
employment was provided on such projects; in others em¬
ployment on these projects represented a substantial pro¬
portion of the total emergency employment provided on
the basis of need.

For certain areas the relief patterns during the brief
period in which the Civil Works Program was in operation

would be quite different if it were possible to exclude from
the data for this program the earnings of nonrelief persons
who were employed primarily for the purpose of stimulat¬
ing recovery by increasing purchasing power. Such per¬
sons represented about half the total number of persons
employed on the program in the United States, and al¬
though statistics on the number of nonrelief workers are
not available, it is known that the proportion that such
workers comprised of the total number employed differed
greatly from one area to another.

As indicated on the charts, the WPA data represent
earnings of persons employed on projects operated by the
WPA within the area, rather than earnings of project
workers residing within the area. It has not been un¬
common for large numbers of persons living in urban areas
to cross city and county lines to work on WPA projects.

For some urban areas for which the territory covered is
the city, data on CWA and/or WPA earnings were avail¬
able only for the county (tables C-6 — C-11). In con¬
structing the charts for these areas, such earnings were
estimated for the city on the basis of the ratio of the city
population to the county population, and the top of the
expenditure curve left open to indicate this circumstance.
In a few other instances (Baltimore, Chicago, Kansas City,
Mo., Minneapolis, and St. Louis) reported data became
available for the desired areas after the tabulations were
completed; the tables were not revised, but the new figures
were used in constructing the charts for these areas.

In the case of the charts for a number of individual areas,
the data on work program earnings, which cover all pay¬
roll periods ended during the month, do not accurately
reflect month-to-month changes in the level of project
operations. Pay rolls may cover weekly, biweekly, or
semimonthly periods. When earnings are paid on a weekly
or biweekly basis, the number of pay-roll periods ended
within a calendar month frequently varies from one month
to the next, with the result that monthly earnings may
fluctuate widely while the number of persons employed
may change only slightly or not at all. Differences in the
number of days in calendar months also contribute to the
erratic character of monthly changes in work program
earnings for some individual areas.

A brief descriptive analysis of the charts appears in the
text, pages 30-31.

NEW ENGLAND

1'

V

I

y

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
\ 350

300

250

200

150

/ 100

I'

5

/

I'

» .

iJ

i

50

0

150

125

too

75

50

25

0

1

B

1

RIDGI

EPOR

—

T. CO

NN.

1

i

Ip

N ■

It

% ^

1

I

1

PI 1

$

III

mM

m

1

i

mm

s

N

EW

3RITA

IN, C

z

z

o

r

I

1

r

i

•Im

iv-4

1

Ai

1

ply

tyM '

• k

§

y|ip

WA«±M<‘.V

m.

lM

Xv^vfvv

^Vk;s;.^%v

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
420

360

300

240

ISO

120

60

0

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

—

H

ARTF

ORD,

—

CONI

4.

1

J

m

m

S

1 J«

m

i

^ ?88?9? xS§^S3&vv^

m

M

-XvvvwwvwXv

1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938

SPECIAL TYPES OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE

N

EW

MVE

1

CONN.

^ •

1

'yyxx

A

S^k ''

L

y

’ • 1 '■j

m

E

"4'^kL

1929

1930

1931

1932 1933

1934

1935

1936 1937

1938

PRIVATE RELIEF

PUBLIC GENERAL RELIEF

EARNINGS OF ALL PERSONS EMPLOYED UNDER THE CIVIL
WORKS PROGRAM INCLUDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

EARNINGS ON PROJECTS OPERATED BY THE
WPA WITHIN THE AREA

I— INDICATES THE 10 -YEAR MONTHLY AVERAGE
t ESTIMATED ON BASIS OF RATIO OF CITY TO COUNTY POPULATION

49

NEW ENGLAND

225

200

175

150

125

100 '

75

50

25

0

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS

3.500
3,000

2.500

2,000

1.500

1,000

500

0

350

300

250

200

150

too

50

0

C

—

AMBF

lOGE

, MAS

1

s.

p

1

^0^

I

2

m

u

mm

m

1

m

V.V.'.'.V

M

VV\V^

1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938

PRIVATE RELIEF

SPECIAL TYPES OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE

EARNINGS OF ALL PERSONS EMPLOYED UNDER THE CIVIL
WORKS PROGRAM INCLUDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

INDICATES THE 10 -YEAR MONTHLY AVERAGE

ESTIMATED ON BASIS OF RATIO OF CITY TO COUNTY POPULATION

PUBLIC GENERAL RELIEF

EARNINGS ON PROJECTS OPERATED BY THE
WPA WITHIN THE AREA

50

NEW ENGLAND

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
450

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
270

400
350
300
250
200
I 50
100
50
0

F

- r

ALL

RIVEf

1

kSS.

■

*

-.i

1

m

m

i

1

P

M

WM

is

Si

ir

'.‘i ■

V

240
2 I 0
180

150

120

90

60

30

0

L

AWRE

NCE,

MASl

—

«

J

1

f

m

'A

i

y

p/

m

i

WZ/^

A <!«!". '

q ''/////

rjr-’

500
450
400
350
300
250
200
15 O
100
50
0

L

—

OWEL

L, M/

xss.

fv

m

Isl

m

w

Iw

m

\

p

''.'Xwv?

s

ii

'“’■V^58ot

-A >

• -CV.'

'1 " -

1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938

SPECIAL TYPES OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE

PRIVATE RELIEF

PUBLIC GENERAL RELIEF

EARNINGS OF ALL PERSONS EMPLOYED UNDER THE CIVIL
WORKS PROGRAM INCLUDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

INDICATES THE 10 -YEAR MONTHLY AVERAGE

EARNINGS ON PROJECTS OPERATED BY THE
a WPA WITHIN THE AREA

51

NEW ENGLAND

250

200

150

100

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
400

350

-n - ^ ^ ^ r

NEW BEDFORD, MASS.

300

PRIVATE RELIEF

im

SPECIAL TYPES OF PUBUC ASSISTANCE

PUBLIC GENERAL

EARNINGS OF ALL PERSONS EMPLOYED UNDER THE CIVIL
WORKS PROGRAM INCLUDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

y///A EARNINGS ON PROJECTS OPERATED
V////A W PA WITHIN THE AREA

<«— INDICATES THE 10 -YEAR MONTHLY AVERAGE

REUEF
BY THE

52

NEW ENGLAND

THOUSANDS Of DOLLARS

PRIVATE REUEF

SPECIAL TYPES OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE

PUBLIC GENERAL RELIEF

^ EARNINGS OF ALL PERSONS EMPLOYED UNDER THE CIVIL
^ WORKS PROGRAM INCLUDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

EARNINGS ON PROJECTS OPERATED BY THE

a W PA WITHIN THE AREA

INDICATES THE 10 -YEAR MONTHLY AVERAGE
t ESTIMATED ON BASIS OF RATIO OF CITY TO COUNTY POPULATION

MIDDLE ATLANTIC

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
1,400

1,120

840

560

280

N

1

EWAP

K, N.

J.

1

J

11

1

Mm

m

1

'/////

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS

28,000

21,000

14,000

7,000

0

400

320

240

160

80

0

250

200

150

100

50

0

1929

1930 1931 1932

1933

1934

1935

I93'6

1937

1938

N

lAGAI

1 !

RA FALLS,

1

] - 1 - :

N.Y. 1

i

1

1

ii

y

1

< t

—

JL

1

f

. i

>

H

1

^ '
m

1

M

S

1

PRIVATE RELIEF

SPECIAL TYPES OF PUBUC ASSISTANCE

PUBLIC GENERAL RELIEF

EARNINGS OF ALL PERSONS EMPLOYED UNDER THE CIVIL
WORKS PROGRAM INCLUDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

INDICATES THE 10 -YEAR MONTHLY AVERAGE

ESTIMATED ON BASIS OF RATIO OF CITY TO COUNTY POPULATION

EARNINGS ON PROJECTS OPERATED BY THE
21 W PA WITHIN THE AREA

54

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

MIDDLE ATLANTIC

NDS OF DOLLARS

B

UFFAl

-0,N.

Y.

A

1

1

m

>*—

1

s

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
200

F

OCHE

^ -

:STER, N.Y

1

1

m 1

p

g

W'

s

YRACUSE,

N.Y.

1

'

1

1

■

s

- 1

i

\

4

m

1

^ 1

%

w

V*‘<'

w'; 1

4 v:xv«?

\

N A'/iCfy

1

m

w

B

929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938

400

350

300

250

200

I 5 0

100

50

—

A

LBAN

Y, N.Y

r

V

N

1

1

1

1

1 J

.

/

'

1 .

to

J

1 ^

1 1

y

V/

i

1

1

w

W/

m

s

1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934' 1935 1936 1937 1938

PRIVATE RELIEF

SPECIAL TYPES OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE

PUBUC GENERAL RELIEF

EARNINGS OF ALL PERSONS EMPLOYED UNDER THE CIVIL
WORKS PROGRAM INCLUDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

INDICATES THE 10-YEAR MONTHLY AVERAGE

ESTIMATED ON BASIS OF RATIO OF CITY TO COUNTY POPULATION

EARNINGS ON PROJECTS OPERATED BY THE

W PA WITHIN THE AREA

55

MIDDLE ATLANTIC

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
300

250

200

150

100

50

O

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS

PRIVATE RELIEF

iiP

SPECIAL TYPES OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE

PUBLIC GENERAL RELIEF

EARNINGS OF ALL PERSONS EMPLOYED UNDER THE CIVIL
WORKS PROGRAM INCLUDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

INDICATES THE 10 -YEAR MONTHLY AVERAGE

ESTIMATED ON BASIS OF RATIO OF CITY TO COUNTY POPULATION

EARNINGS ON PROJECTS OPERATED BY THE
WPA WITHIN THE AREA

56

MIDDLE ATLANTIC

I

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
6,000

I

5,000
^ 4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

p

HILAC

^ELP^

HA, PI

Wa

MW

Ww;-

y////.

lAniil

Mm.

mm

m

^:v

vX-v^'X'l

600

540

480

420

360

300

240

180

120

60

0

C

HESTI

iR,P/l

..

J/l

L I

IP

w

p

fei

1*

i

i

i

mmiM

■■■aa.MMMA

.‘Xv;-:-

h Y^

' ■ ' i

1929

1930

1931

1932 1933

1934 1935

1936

1937

1938

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

560

480

400

320

240

160

80

P

ITTSE

UR6h

,PA.

Y

i

r

m

0

!§3wass

E

RIE, R

L

m

m

A

1

—

m

^ P

i ^

W'a

1

^ P

yy

m

\

'>•

MvSeS

PRIVATE RELIEF

1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938
SPECIAL types of PUBUC ASSISTANCE ^

PUBUC GENERAL RELIEF

EARNINGS OF ALL PERSONS EMPLOYED UNDER THE CIVIL
WORKS PROGRAM INCLUDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

INDICATES THE 10 'YEAR MONTHLY AVERAGE

EARNINGS ON PROJECTS OPERATED BY THE

2J W PA WITHIN THE AREA

57

MIDDLE ATLANTIC

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS

THOUSANDS OF OOLllARS
2,100

1,800

1,500

1,200

900

600

300

w

ILKES

-BAR

—

RE, P

A.

1

w,

i

i 1

1 f

r

w

w

m

I

M

p

w

m-,

m

i

y////

m

iilKi

Issssssb

1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938

PRIVATE RELIEF

SPECIAL TYPES OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE

PUBLIC GENERAL RELIEF

EARNINGS OF ALL PERSONS EMPLOYED UNDER THE CIVIL
WORKS PROGRAM INCLUDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

EARNINGS ON PROJECTS OPERATED BY THE

21 W PA WITHIN THE AREA

INDICATES THE 10 -YEAR MONTHLY AVERAGE

58

NORTH CENTRAL

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
14,000

12.000

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

too

50

0

E

VANS>

/ILLE,

IND.

i

I

i

y

4a

////y/

V ty

V

'M

/y/

fwm

V'^/y'/y/y/A

p

^ 1

s

w

IE

lii

El

1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938

400

350

300

250

200

I 50

I 00

50

F

ORT

WAYNI

i. INC

.

\

k

:

p

B

y

1 r

yA

-

%

m

1

K

m

m.

M

m

m

1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938

PRIVATE RELIEF

SPECIAL TYPES OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE

PU8UC GENERAL RELIEF

EARNINGS OF ALL PERSONS EMPLOYED UNDER THE CIVIL
WORKS PROGRAM INCLUDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

INDICATES THE 10 -YEAR MONTHLY AVERAGE

EARNINGS ON PROJECTS OPERATED BY THE
WPA WITHIN THE AREA

452436°— 42

59

NORTH CENTRAL

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
1,400

1,200

INDIANAPOLIS, INO.

1,000

800

600

400

200

300
250
200
I 50
100
50
O

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
450

400

350

700

600

500

400

300

200

I 00

Of

iS MC

(/>

UJ

z

1

low/

V

!

§

i

1

P

P

■

mlM

1

'j

)■

;

1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938

PRIVATE RELIEF pjj v.' | SPECIAL TYPES OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE

1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938

PUBLIC GENERAL RELIEF

EARNINGS OF ALL PERSONS EMPLOYED UNDER THE CIVIL
WORKS PROGRAM INCLUDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

EARNINGS ON PROJECTS OPERATED BY THE
WPA WITHIN THE AREA

INDICATES THE 10 -YEAR MONTHLY AVERAGE

60

NORTH CENTRAL

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
330

300

270

240

210

‘ 180

'f

/ 150

120

90

60

30

[f3i

1

Sli

1

DUX C

1

;iTY,

OWA

I

1

i

1

1 ^

p

1

A ’/

yy//

m

1

I

i

'w

1

vX/////

'M

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
400

350

300

250

200

I 50

100

50

0

320

280

240

200

160

120

80

40

1 1

KANSAS

CITY

, KA^

S.

1

1

?! ’

'<W/

■

1

' V

■

1

p

yy

1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938

PRIVATE RELIEF SPECIAL TYPES OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE

1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938

PUBLIC GENERAL RELIEF

EARNINGS OF ALL PERSONS EMPLOYED UNDER THE CIVIL
WORKS PROGRAM INCLUDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

INDICATES THE 10-YEAR MONTHLY AVERAGE

EARNINGS ON PROJECTS OPERATED BY THE
WPA WITHIN THE AREA

61

NORTH CENTRAL

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
960

900

840

780

720

660

600

540

480

420

360

300

240

I 80

120

60

® 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938

PRIVATE RELIEF

SPECIAL TYPES OF PUBUC ASSISTANCE

EARNINGS OF ALL PERSONS EMPLOYED UNDER THE CIVIL
WORKS PROGRAM INCLUDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

PUBUC GENERAL RELIEF

EARNINGS ON PROJECTS OPERATED BY THE
21 W PA WITHIN THE AREA

INDICATES THE 10 -YEAR MONTHLY AVERAGE

62

NORTH CENTRAL

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
720

660

600

540

480

420

360

300

240

180

120

60

0

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

1

PC

1

)NTIA(

MIC

H.

a

1

_

1

1

i

i

B

1

i

i

1

k \

1

1

lil J

i

P

3&x->y.«

J.v.y^V

y\

1

A K

m

0

—

JLUTh

1. MIN

—

N.

P

\

/ //////

1

;

;

> - fi

fc

s\ k

'S k

X h

M

§ L

!<v

w

P

1

'a Km''-??

vX'.'

A

;' '■ '-■'

i

•y.«

\v.*.

F*

vI*X

1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938
■m PRIVATE RELIEF SPECIAL TYPES OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE

PUBUC GENERAL RELIEF

EARNINGS OF ALL PERSONS EMPLOYED UNDER THE CIVIL
WORKS PROGRAM INCLUDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

INDICATES THE 10 -YEAR MONTHLY AVERAGE

EARNINGS ON PROJECTS OPERATED BY THE
WPA WITHIN THE AREA

63

NORTH CENTRAL

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
1.200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

1,100
1,000
900
800
70 0
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938

2,800

2,400

2,000

1,600

1,200

800

400

0

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
3,200

1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938

PRIVATE RELIEF

’ ] SPECIAL TYPES OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE

PUBLIC GENERAL

EARNINGS OF ALL PERSONS EMPLOYED UNDER THE CIVIL
WORKS PROGRAM INCLUDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

W///\ EARNINGS ON PROJECTS OPERATED
V^//A WPA WITHIN THE AREA

RELIEF
BY THE

< — INDICATES THE 10 -YEAR MONTHLY AVERAGE

64

NORTH CENTRAL

600

400

200

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
1,600

1,400

AKRON, OHIO

1,200

1,000

800

800

600

400

200

0

720

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
1,200

COLUMBUS, OHIO

1,000

660

600

540

480

420

360

300

240

180

120

60

0

1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938

PRIVATE RELIEF

/' SPECIAL TYPES OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE

PUBLIC GENERAL RELIEF

EARNINGS OF ALL PERSONS EMPLOYED UNDER THE CIVIL
WORKS PROGRAM INCLUDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

INDICATES THE 10 'YEAR MONTHLY AVERAGE

EARNINGS ON PROJECTS OPERATED BY THE

21 W PA WITHIN THE AREA

65

NORTH

CENTRAL

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
1,800

4,800

1,600

4,2 00

1,400

3,600
3,000
2,4 00
1,800
1,200

1,200

1,000

8 00

600

600

400

200

0

900

800

7 00

600

500

400

300

2 00

I 00

1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938

0

1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
6,000

5,400

300

270

240

2 I 0

180

150

120

SPRINGFIELD. OHIO

PRIVATE RELIEF

SPECIAL TYPES OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE

PUBLIC GENERAL RELIEF

EARNINGS OF ALL PERSONS EMPLOYED UNDER THE CIVIL
WORKS PROGRAM INCLUDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

EARNINGS ON PROJECTS OPERATED BY THE
WPA WITHIN THE AREA

INDICATES THE 10 -YEAR MONTHLY AVERAGE

66

NORTH

CENTRAL

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
1,000

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

3.500

3,000

2.500

2,000

1.500

1,000

500

° 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS

PRIVATE RELIEF

SPECIAL TYPES OF PUBLIC

ASSISTANCE

PUBLIC GENERAL

RELIEF

EARNINGS OF ALL PERSONS EMPLOYED UNDER THE CIVIL
WORKS PROGRAM INCLUDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

Y7Z7A EARNINGS ON PROJECTS OPERATED BY THE
/////A WPA WITHIN THE AREA

INDICATES THE lO-YEAR MONTHLY AVERAGE

67

NORTH CENTRAL

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
400

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS

1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938

PRIVATE RELIEF

350

300

250

200

I 50

100

50

! R

ACIN

E, Wl

S.

!

'1

1

j

i

I 1

A

i

m

W

K

SPECIAL TYPES OF PUBUC ASSISTANCE

1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938

PUBLIC GENERAL RELIEF

^ EARNINGS OF ALL PERSONS EMPLOYED UNDER THE CIVIL
WORKS PROGRAM INCLUDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

EARNINGS ON PROJECTS OPERATED BY THE
WPA WITHIN THE AREA

INDICATES THE 10 -YEAR MONTHLY AVERAGE

68

SOUTH ATLANTIC AND SOUTH CENTRAL

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

I 00

0

n

B

RMIN

6HAM

.ALA

1

1

i

P

l-i

1

1

w

:

V,

!■

m

f

WT*'*'

' S

V hy,\

1^?

1

1

1

mI

•Kv:':-:

'■:'^yyy.y

m

1

m

1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938
PRIVATE RELIEF

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
275

250

225

200

175

150

I 25

I 00

75

50

25

M

DBILE

, ALA

1,

ll.

M

i

11

L

m

1

1

II

y////

1

_ -

1

I

1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938
SPECIAL TYPES OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE

PUBUC GENERAL REUEF

^ EARNINGS OF ALL PERSONS EMPLOYED UNDER THE CIVIL
WORKS PROGRAM INCLUDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

EARNINGS ON PROJECTS OPERATED BY THE

id W PA WITHIN THE AREA

INDICATES THE 10 -YEAR MONTHLY AVERAGE

69

SOUTH ATLANTIC AND SOUTH CENTRAL

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS

2,400

2,100

BALTIMORE. MD.

1,800

1,500

1,200

900

1,200

1,000

300

800

250

200

I 50

I 00

200

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
1,600

1,400

WASHINGTON, D.C.

600

300

0

350

600

400

1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938

1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938

PRIVATE RELIEF

SPECIAL TYPES OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE

EARNINGS OF ALL PERSONS EMPLOYED UNDER THE CIVIL
WORKS PROGRAM INCLUDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

PUBLIC GENERAL RELIEF
EARNINGS ON PROJECTS OPERATED BY THE

21 WPA WITHIN THE AREA

INDICATES THE 10 -YEAR MONTHLY AVERAGE

70

SOUTH ATLANTIC AND SOUTH CENTRAL

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
360

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS

340
320
300
280
260
240
220
200
I 80
I 60
I 40
I 20
100
80
60
40
20
0

1

Ml

AMI.

FLA.

JN

K

1

I

i

1 i

m

m

W/A

m

m

1

A

Pggllj SPECIAL TYPES OF PUBUC ASSISTANCE

[MPLOYED UN
THE ADMINIS

INDICATES THE 10 -YEAR MONTHLY AVERAGE

PRIVATE RELIEF

EARNINGS OF ALL PERSONS EMPLOYED UNDER THE CIVIL
WORKS PROGRAM INCLUDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938

PUBUC GENERAL RELIEF

vtttttx earnings on projects operated by the

y////A W PA WITHIN THE AREA

71

SOUTH ATLANTIC AND SOUTH CENTRAL

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
220

170

160

I 50

140

130

120

I I 0

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

I 0

PRIVATE RELIEF

f V I SPECIAL TYPES OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE

1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938

PUBLIC GENERAL RELIEF

3 EARNINGS OF ALL PERSONS EMPLOYED UNDER THE CIVIL
WORKS PROGRAM INCLUDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

EARNINGS ON PROJECTS OPERATED BY THE
WPA WITHIN THE AREA

INDICATES THE 10 -YEAR MONTHLY AVERAGE

72

SOUTH ATLANTIC AND SOUTH CENTRAL

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS

PRIVATE RELIEF

1

SPECIAL TYPES OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE

PUBLIC GENERAL RELIEF

EARNINGS OF ALL PERSONS EMPLOYED UNDER THE CIVIL
WORKS PROGRAM INCLUDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

EARNINGS ON PROJECTS OPERATED BY THE
WPA WITHIN THE AREA

INDICATES THE 10 -YEAR MONTHLY AVERAGE

73

240

220

200

180

t 60

140

120

100

eo

€0

40

20

0

SOUTH ATLANTIC AND SOUTH CENTRAL

IDS OF DOLLARS

61

^EENS

>BORC

,N.C.

f

A

!

1

yA I

1 J

m

yy.-y

m

r

Ai

iiii.

wMm

■7

\ V

M

w

V,

P

K

m

Ww .V-

1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
I 60

I 40

20

I 00

80

60

40

20

W

INSTC

N-SA

.EM. 1

^.C.

f

1.

p

1

L

1

* /yyj^

p

P

¥.X-X' 7

fcf

y///A

P

P

s

ill

1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938

PRIVATE RELIEF

SPECIAL TYPES OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE

PUBLIC GENERAL RELIEE

EARNINGS OF ALL PERSONS EMPLOYED UNDER THE CIVIL
WORKS PROGRAM INCLUDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

EARNINGS ON PROJECTS OPERATED
WPA WITHIN THE AREA

INDICATES THE 10 -YEAR MONTHLY AVERAGE

SOUTH ATLANTIC AND SOUTH CENTRAL

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS

m PRIVATE RELIEF jljjl SPECIAL TYPES OF PUBLIC

EARNINGS OF ALL PERSONS EMPLOYED UNDER THE CIVIL
WORKS PROGRAM INCLUDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

ASSISTANCE

PUBUC GENERAL REUEF

Y////A EARNINGS ON PROJECTS OPERATED BY THE
V///A WPA WITHIN THE AREA

INDICATES THE 10 -YEAR MONTHLY AVERAGE

452436°— 42

75

380

360

340

320

300

280

260

240

220

200

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

SOUTH ATLANTIC AND SOUTH CENTRAL

\IDS OF DOLLARS

1

Kt

1

JOXVI

—

LLE,

—

TENN

■

s

\

V

y

s

y

V

\

s

(

j

1

p

J

r

ii

ii

•

y

W.

1

yJ^'.V.'C

^/////

0.

*

s

m

m

1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS

PRIVATE RELIEF

SPECIAL TYPES

OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE

PUBLIC GENERAL

RELIEF

EARNINGS OF ALL PERSONS EMPLOYED UNDER THE CIVIL
WORKS PROGRAM INCLUDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

^/7A EARNINGS ON PROJECTS OPERATED BY THE
V////A WPA WITHIN THE AREA

INDICATES THE 10 -YEAR MONTHLY AVERAGE

SOUTH ATLANTIC AND SOUTH CENTRAL

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
400

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
650

6 00

550

500

450

400

350

300

250

2 00

I 50

100

50

0

Di

\LLAS

i, TE!

<.

,

I

\

1

'

■<

i

i

1

i!

/i

j

i;

m

!

A if/

m

i

IaI

V j ff

ili

P

P

p

iiiivSoSi

mi

m

-H U,i

4

J ,'r^i

a

380

360

340

320

300

280

260

240

220

200

I 80

160

I 40

I 20

I 00

80

60

40

20

1

EL

PASI

-1

m

K.

j

1

1

1

1

1

\

i

A

1

V

\\

/y

1

I I

1

IP

W[

;pl

J

I i

V//)^

P

B

w

1

r

C 1

SV.VW’^

1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938

PRIVATE RELIEF

SPECIAL TYPES OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE

1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938

PUBLIC GENERAL RELIEF

EARNINGS OF ALL PERSONS EMPLOYED UNDER THE CIVIL
WORKS PROGRAM INCLUDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

EARNINGS ON PROJECTS OPERATED BY THE
WPA WITHIN THE AREA

INDICATES THE 10 -YEAR MONTHLY AVERAGE

450

400

350

300

250

200

I 50

I 00

50

0

600

550

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

78

SOUTH ATLANTIC AND SOUTH CENTRAL

OF DOLLARS

FC

)RT W

ORTH

.TEX

-4

1

J

1

^-r-1

p

s

m

1

:

y

^ r

y. ;

1 /

1 '

li

yy.\ /

if

P

.1 o

•j • "

P

LwyyA<-

H

OUST

ON. T

EX.

,

J

1

1

i

m .

4

P

i

m

p

Rli

wm

1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS

PRIVATE RELIEF pIpH SPECIAL TYPES OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE

PUBUC GENERAL REUEF

EARNINGS OF ALL PERSONS EMPLOYED UNDER THE CIVIL
WORKS PROGRAM INCLUDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

W/TA EARNINGS ON PROJECTS OPERATED BY THE
V/Z//A W PA WITHIN THE AREA

INDICATES THE 10 -YEAR MONTHLY AVERAGE

SOUTH ATLANTIC AND SOUTH CENTRAL

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
240

220

200

i 80

160

I 40

120

100

60

60

40

20

N(

)RFOl

.K, VA

A

I

I

i

Pi :</

r"

“•Xv

SV '

yy^/

f

<—

^ li

Nf--

m

m

m

m

I

1 ;

im

w

w

w%

w

1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
280

260
240
220
200
I 80
I 60
I 40
I 20
I 00
80
60
40
20
0

I

Rl

- [

CHMO

— 1

NO.Y

A.

S

\

\

1

j

;

V

V

i

1

s

s

s

i

1

1

J

!

m!;

H

M

1

1

J

ll

m

1 i

m

W

W.

i

1

u

m

W

!

iJ

V

m

Wi

iJ

H

s

■

MM

m

M

aBB

■.-s

1

m

1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938

PRIVATE RELIEF

pggij SPECIAL TYPES OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE

PUBUC GENERAL RELIEF

EARNINGS OF ALL PERSONS EMPLOYED UNDER THE CIVIL
WORKS PROGRAM INCLUDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

EARNINGS ON PROJECTS OPERATED BY THE

a W PA WITHIN THE AREA

INDICATES THE 10 -YEAR MONTHLY AVERAGE

79

SOUTH ATLANTIC AND SOUTH CENTRAL

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
96

86

80

72

64

56

48

40

32

24

16

8

0

F

lOANO

UJ

^ _

1

^A.

1

i

\

1

1

1

ll

L

^ 11

1

fjl

IB

|j

1

wi

IB

m

m

mi

B|

R

m

hd

r*i*sc

mm

1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938

liQB PRIVATE RELIEF

330

300
270
240
2 I 0
180

150

120

90

60

30

0

HI

z

H

Z

3T0N,

W. V/

L

i

Bir

T r.

m

. s

1 c >.

^ J

^ A

m

p L '

^ r

a

1

m

Wy

P

yy W B s

R ''

P

R77^

V/y//

"W/

1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938

SPECIAL TYPES OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE

EARNINGS OF ALL PERSONS EMPLOYED UNDER THE CIVIL
WORKS PROGRAM INCLUDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

INDICATES THE 10 -YEAR MONTHLY AVERAGE

PUBLIC GENERAL RELIEF

EARNINGS ON PROJECTS OPERATED BY THE
WPA WITHIN THE AREA

80

MOUNTAIN AND PACIFIC

THOUSANDS OF DOUARS
7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

LI

)S AM

GELE

S, CA

LIF.

,

/A< K

A

W/,

p

H

m

800
700
600
500
400
300
200
I 00
0

—

S)

—

Oli

iGO, (

JALIF.

i

B

w

m

1

W/

:

I

1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938

■Uh

PRIVATE RELIEF

1 SPECIAL TYPES OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE |

PUBUC GENERAL

RELIEF

EARNINGS OF ALL PERSONS EMPLOYED UNDER THE CIVIL
WORKS PROGRAM INCLUDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

Y////A EARNINGS ON PROJECTS OPERATED BY THE
/////\ W PA WITHIN THE AREA

■4— INDICATES THE 10 -YEAR MONTHLY AVERAGE

81

MOUNTAIN AND PACIFIC

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
2,1 00

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
900

?,800

1,500

1,200

900

600

300

0

s<

*

FF

ANCI

•

o

u

m

CALIF

J

w

m

m

1

1

m.

■

I

y////

w

iC"

V,'

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

— 1

0

1 - 1

lENVE

:r,ci

1

)L0.

i

1

k

1

i

i

1

W/,

H

B

m

Wi

-

■

B

w

m

M

j

a,

»

9

n.W,

l-f^y

ii

PRIVATE RELIEF

SPECIAL TYPES OF PUBUC ASSISTANCE

PUBLIC GENERAL

RELIEF

EARNINGS OF ALL PERSONS EMPLOYED UNDER THE CIVIL
S WORKS PROGRAM INCLUDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

yy/TA EARNINGS ON PROJECTS OPERATED BY THE
V/2Z/A WPA WITHIN THE AREA

•4— INDICATES THE 10 -YEAR MONTHLY AVERAGE

82

MOUNTAIN AND PACIFIC

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

'I

1

EATTl

UJ

ISH.

(

m

m

A i/.

^/////

/////

w

i ^

y

i

4929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938

mig PRIVATE REUEF

SPECIAL TYPES OF PUBUC ASSISTANCE

EARNINGS OF ALL PERSONS EMPLOYED UNDER THE CIVIL
WORKS PROGRAM INCLUDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

PUBLIC GENERAL

REUEF

EARNINGS ON PROJECTS OPERATED BY THE
WPA WITHIN THE AREA

INDICATES THE lO-YEAR MONTHLY AVERAGE

83

00

Os

0

§

0

St

0

nO

•s

Vi

o

0

k.

Q,

K

0

s

0

s

<Dm

•f" p
r1
Oh«P

c«

00

oT

lN.cO^«^f<^CO'^00«D’-*C^O>

<O^»O':O*-i'^h,h-CO*OC0’^

OiO'— 'C^cs«o>oo>ooco*^i^

Gin^ooofcc t^cS' i-T^o
O’^'^o>c4c‘»*^’-^r^?or>*

OOOSCOCOOOCOOOCOOiC^

0

fA

r-

CM

05

CO

CM

3

CM

CO

CO

•4f4

-1^

ccT

m

0

0“

rX

CO*

CO

as

00

CM

00

^4

aH

05 ^ ^ ^ 05

CO »o o <o *0 ;o

*-H o »-• W CO

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ »-H ^ ^ ^ i-H ^

»o

wo

*o

C000»005»c0’^c^c^«0*0c0

t^r'-ooO'-H05t^c^ooooeot>.

C^OOCO-^^OOOJOiOCS-^^

c*S'fO^'^a6'^^oo<oai'^co

05COt^'^COO»OI'-C^*-<‘OiO

0c0c000'^00’^c0»00'^’^

OICCO'^COC^C^CMC^CO'^00

CO

CO

co"

o

05

s

iot^QO'-^'^r>»050500r^o
r^c0'-c<g-^«?^004coi-^t^

■^00 t>*

M ^ t- 1-H

^^'^’^050C<'^t'-05^<D
O5»-<C^'^00«DiO'^COt>-CO»-«
OO'od'od »0 co’co CO eo CO of C»5’'^

cor'-oo50<4oots.cMco»ocMr'p

50

^0050C4CMTfF-ct'.05CO»0

<4

P

<D<D5O^C0»O’^r^O5O5O5a5

-144

50»Of-4500000»OhpO05CM»O

X

0

lN.CM000»04O5O50C005t>-G0

qi6^fHi-h00505i— 'C0»000

CO

oT

cd“ ^* 50* io^co* 00 05* 0^ 1-4“ '^* tC f-T

50*

cT CM* ■njJ'cD tXAH" CM*”^* CO* 00* oTcm*

HJ4“

0 P

50

CM CM CM CM'CM CM CM ?4 CO CO CO

CO

505050*0»0c0c0c0c0c0c0t>-

sr5

•4^ •pH

50

fHpHpH*^i— 4fHi-Hi-H»-HfH»^pH

05

^ aH fM rH f— ( ^ rH ^ aH pH fH

CM

TJ-O

•k

CM*

<5

X!

Q

k.

":3

c

3

Ph

<J

c

h.

Q

o

e

0

o

Q

;i

0

<w

Vi

*m

Vi

Vi

0

o

•M

>k

0,

c

o

*m

«c

s

t

s

o

s

I

2

f2

CO

*0

p

p

X)

p

Pm

o

o

p

CC

•«^

to

CO

CO

03

o

x:

p

Q.

CO

0/

p.

>.

03

»p>^

c

a

GQ

4?

b<

'cS

u

O)

p

0)

o

COiO^cOi-H.-iiO’Tt'CO^CO'C*

cocooOi-Hr^'^ooooi^ooco

CDCOt^05t^C00505CSJC00500

cd‘^^o•-^c<^^o^X‘a^oc^"coTM"

t^I^00O0C0COG000O5O>O5O5

CC

r-

cs"

»o

c<r

C0»-H00b»0005'^>0»0c^c0-^
ojr^Q^ooiooc^t^'— 'COO
0-hOCO»OI^C^’^OCOOcC

tX oT c^’ co" oTo C<r »o fX oTo^

OOOOOO*-''-''^’-^*^^

»-h»-hc<|CSIC^C^CMC^OIC^C^C^

o a
o « S

-p p'p

0«43
^ «'o
PJ

o

CO

o

««

t>.

«e^

CO^Ot>»OC^f-'C^^C^T}<>-j

0'00'-Hooooc<iTfr-.»ot^

orc^*-He4'o4'^GriX'or
co'^cor'-ot—i^oot^

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

00

wH

•«

o

o

oooor-^^cct>-co
oco-^ooocCTpt^r>.
O CO<N O OC^

Tf h-

. CO <C

00 O CJ o

o»or*'cooococococo’^h-.o
COCSCD‘OCCCOOOGO*-'CO'^«— '
kO>OtOu04O5O>OU^CCcCCCt^

o

o

o

co”

o

??

OC^lCOUOCDOCOiOl^t^OC^
»OCO^Oi— *»-<C4COOC^COO
cO'^cooococor^cccoc^cot-'

iOCO'^CDr^OiO»OOOQ^lN
^'^'00 00 00 00OOOOO1-‘

c^ c^

00

CO

<N

uo

Ccwoeot^-^UO^OCOCDCOCO

OO^’^CO'^cOoOC^cCOOOOO

ccc^ic^cot'-t^c^oooort

S^^CO Co" »C co'o t^OO^O CO* CC

cor>-»o*-«oo-^-^*oio»-H'<i^

^,^,-Hr-l.-HOOOOO^*^

C^C^IC^C^C^C^C^C^C^C^C^C^

45
<X> V
bc P
^ cs
JL

'P CO

O CO
^ CO

o3

o

o

o

00*

00 50 OS 05
C4C^C^C^C^CSC4c0<©*-'f^cD

C^ C^ CO 50
^

1-4 Ol

05

CO

CO

05

s

^1-MCOi— 'C^iOOSCOCOC^'^OS
^■^•^00CO*-'C5'i^'COi— <50CO
«-^COOOOO'^OCDOCOC5'-hO<

50 Ol
CO 50

-Hi-H^co-^COWOOO

t>-oooooooo-^^

50

05

t'-

«k

00

50

04

000'^OCOC450 50 00t'»t^cp
W^(aco04r--CDC00500050
1— tOC050*“iC400'^''ft—C405

to' ,-r CO* -5# C4*C<r ’^*00*
C0<Mh-TfC0t^05CMeD-H5OC4
50COC0t>«00G0000505OOi-H

00

50

CO

•>

CO

r>.

50

-4t>.COf-HCOQOOCOC^t>.i-HCO
COC00500«005i— '-^05000
t>.i-HO5*-'O500^COi— ICOCOO

CD i^50‘TM*Dfccrco t>r

OOCO»Ot>-050C^'»J*-TH»OcD
1-ID4C4C4D404COCOCOCOCOCO

5

o

0

05

0

05

CO

05

05

CO

00

CM

CM

0

:2;

CO

00

05

pH

05

pH

05

50

50

pH

0

CM

CO

pH

00

CM

CM

0

CO

50

00

-*1'

Q

0

CO

50

!>•

CO

50

CO

50

0

CO

h-

CM

00

CO

CO

CO

0

CM

05

05

1-H

05

05

CO

0

pH

05

4^

pH

CO

05

0

05

00

CM

05

00

CM

CO

»o

pH

0

r-

00

0

CO

pH

CO

00

00

05

05

CM

0:

50

00

0

05

0

00

0

C4

05

50

CM

0

0

05

CM

50

CO

CO

CO

CM

CM

0

CO

CO

CO

00

CM

5C

»o

<4

CO

0

»o

05

^H

»o

CO

•k

05

CM*

o'

CO*

«k

00

00

■05

“o

CO

CO

*.

50

0

50

t'.

CM*

*•

CO

•>

50

•k

?5

P>

0

cT

0“

»

pH

m-

<r>

od

0 05

C4

■^'

■H"

««

4-

0“

*.

0

f*4

•(

rX

m

P^

4>-*

o’

CM

•k

CO

50

05

r>.

0

05

05

05

CO

CO

CM

CO

00

00

0

»o

50

06

pH

CM

^H

CO

CO

0

00

0

CO

CO

r'-

CO

0

4>»

CM

4>»

pH

05

00

CO

CO

pH

04

CO

CO

50

50

CO

50

<0

50

50

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

0

l>-

r>.

00

00

00

00

00

05

05

0

50

50

t>.

00

05

0

0

pH

CM

CM

M4

CM

lO

CO

CO

50

*0

50

»o

CO

CO

«k

05

CM

pH

pH

^H

CM

50

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

fpH

CM

CO

«

O'pQj
O op
•p*-*-*

£ fc <D

v>

M «

°a
^2
Ip o
gfl<

a>

*3

$-4

Jii

o

CO

tN.

«s

04

M'

ooooo

aH

50 50 50 ^ 50

<o*co*cocsrcsr

»o

C4

00

•5*'

C4*

CO

CO

e4'^04C4^oo^*-'t^r>-t^co

2'C4050CO^*-'COQC40CO

050t^’^005C400^5050

»^^CCr^^*COtXcOC<rC4*CrD4*t>^

i-HC^UO-^COi-HCOCMCO^OCp

rH ^ o

04

CO

00

04*

8

CM*

04

'i^' tN- O 05

^ F-H CO O »C CO

O CO 05 . .
00 CO

50O5Ci505’^t>.C004C0i— 'CON-
50Q 00 04r^005r}'Tt'50itf‘'-'
0^-^'^04 0550 50CD00 04QO

1— 4^0404

CO

'lif

t'-

00

00

50

04M'^COt^Oc0500'^00

»-'®00Ol'^05i-<i-<C0CDt^04

’VOC4^05q0C005*O05O'5^

5.5“ CO ^

5OQt'«»l^00*^‘O'TfcOCS*O5O

rH®cMC0O5C0’i^05C5c0l>»5O

■'flJ'ioec €0*00 CC eo^-^^ior

*45

Ui

o

45

CO

CM

o

o

CO

4^

CM?0050>-*^C0C0OCMe000 00
CMQ01-'C004COC004»-I04'^00
CD004 05 04rf4t^COCM

1 1— I CO

Soo8o4’iC-<14^C4^
M4 ^ 50 CO 04 ^

CO" oT co" >0* '^* ^*cd‘co* Q
CO 04 'Fj' 1-H 05 »0

^ 1-H CM ^ O

pH ^ ^ *-4 f-T f^ — H f-H 1— H ^ wH cm

CO

f'.

CM

o*

pH

CO

CO*

CO

C0C0pHM4»-iCM00005OpH«itf*CO
F^O«-'50 50QCO»Ot^CMC050
00'^O05pH^C0t^'^CDt^C0

'»f**C^i-'*C^'^5o“o tC»--r 50*04*1^
hp^05CO®0'^000'^HfpH

•^50G0^0400»-H'^0c0^
CM* CM* CM* CM* 04* CM* CM* CM* CM* CO CO* 50*

3

50

CO*

»o

0-

00*

CO

COOO'itf'COM*!— •C004»-'00*-''^
OOC005^50C000CMt'-i-HCM
Oi-405t>*OpCOTj*t^COCOOOcO

c^od‘tX“^co'^*cd‘ori^*cDoo05*

OOCOCM^CM^f-*‘i--iCOcO»0^

04CMC05O05C0iOCD05'^C0C0

coco*c^5o‘'^’^*^'^*Hjr5oe^oo

o

!>.

CO

oT

05

CO

50

CO

COOOiOrHCOHfCO'M'iOO^

CfeCOCMC4^^C00^05CCO

^04COi— 'QC0O5h-.C000COi— '
COOOOQOCOC004’^^5005
'M'OCO«05525oO*^COCO’-^»0

od' F-«rcdC4*CM*ed^cdcd'^od»-r

Ji-HpHpHpHpHpHCM

CM

00

CMCOOSt-'.’^COCOOCMCOOOCM

COO5CM00CMCOcOCM»-'CMi^'^

^^4-«»’<<t>.'5J4b-COCMi-4COO

50

4^

504>-COCOCMOCM05CMoO»-h05
00CMO50 00CM00C000^''J'00
t'^^OOCO»^»0»OOOOOCMOO

5.0

04

O5H'i-hC0'-h»OCO5OO55O00O5
hJ^oOf- i4-N.CM’kJ'C04>»CM’^0'^
<'CM<000CMO-^OO»O®04

CO

fH

COCMCMCMt>.0500004-«-0500

O5CM5OCO005O»O'^t>-CM4>.CO

CO-^»OCOOCOC005050*Ot>-

i

c

50*“

9

_ P P«k»k«k*kP*k**»k«k*k

0504>0b*— 'CO5Oi^hJi«Oc0’-h
C005CM-^»0C0CM’'^»-'Ht*05»0
<4'<4U5COCMf— ll-Hf-Hi-HCM-F^O

05*

4>-

c? CM* ^*go*cd ^cd*d‘’Tf4‘cd' 50 ■^*
O5O5-<4CMO5CMt->-F-HeO»OHt«00
^50054>»CMOOCM-««t4wO'<'

«w

05

p4

00

rX'i-H* oTcd CM* itf4*CM*i-r 00 50 rX
i^Hti^F^(3jCMAH<000«-4Oc0
C0^^05f-Ht0i-Hl-Hi0c0c0'<4

p

PH

00

CM

CO* ^* CD cd CO 0 CM* 05 50*

^000500005054^00500^
*O«05OtN.00'-HCMC0OCM05i-'

E-*

CO*

*

«k pppp^ka^ppvk^k*'

50*

CO

CM* CM* CM* CM* CM* CM* CM* CM* CM* CO* V CO*

0*

tCtsTod cd" cX <0 tX od

cX

CM* idodccrcd'tXto-tsTtsjrorcM* tX

05

pH

«^,-tFHi-Hi-4,-Hi-H^.-<CMCM

s

o

C4

04

50

g

»o*

CO

C0cO00tSFC0C05OO55OOcO'5#»
C005050500COi— 450C050C004
05 05C0C005C0C0i-hCMOC0CM

CM* lO ^* iC 05*CM“ »0*-H"50‘cdCM*'^
lOOCO’^COCOCMCOCMOOCOCM
OOF-<05 00t^t>«.0pt^00*-«t«»

COCO CO 04*04*04“ 0*4* of of CO CO

iD

S

’^*

50

50

t>r

50

05tN.h-05|^00»-40'“'0450 0
■^500050t>-00c00'ic»000
C0»OOCMC^t'»c005OC)0'^-»4’

»o*cM*tNro cr50‘orGrQd“co* i-TicT

i-*CMCMi-»OCOCMI^pHCOt>.00

CMCOt^*0*-'00050C0005’i^

^ •^'“•^■v*''«4'co“cd'^'M4“50 5d"od‘

05

o-

05*

CM

CO

CO*

CM

■^05CM'^— Hh»CM050C004i-^
»005O'^C0t>-C0«--.CMC0C005
OCOOi— 'CM'tJ'CM050’''CCMCMO

•-'*odorGdoO*cd'cd''^50‘odcO*CM‘

Or^’-'COCOOO»OCOi--‘CMQOi-H
Q0 0500t>*OT»‘F-iCMt--.i00005

5Si2^l2:?9^aooo<P*^c^co

OOt^05^tN.^F-H<0CM»-^b-

05005CMTHt^eMO>pH500>Qr)

00 CM’oTt^rco C^ 1— T pX ^jT c<a
■“•^05CD^-0050 C005^-0500
1-Ht— <C0'^t^00O5CM00»O00

CO* 05*04*0 0*0 00* <^1-H CM* CO* 0“
’^i-4CMCMCM04^CMCMC4CMC0

P

o

a

•p

p

os

u

s

5w

03

05

CM

05

;SS

-D CS »-

•<4

CO

05

, 133, 950
, 131,914
, 179, 849
, 895, 661
, 762, 197
,591, 014
, 552, 889
, 574, 137
, 537, 151
, 759, 401
, 096, 798
, 999, 973

CO

1-H

00

O05C04-^05C005H#*c005'«t'C0

CMHl4COC005ar-CM'»#4tOh-4^

CM05H4t^COOCMOt^’^05FH

05

Ci-

cO

4^h*4^C0CD4^C0^CM054>.t>«
CM4^00i-^-<4<0OOOi— (COCO
F-^4^05t^05050505050C050

aH

00

0

•-hCM'i14qq05O4>-4>-CO5OO5CO

004^CM05*OCOrfCM0050M'^

C0004^CMC005C0i^)^CMOC0

P > CO

P* Sh'P

M D< P

fH

CM

0

4'-

CO

cp' CM *^4 c0 05'c6'-^’‘Hjr,-H“od<0"CM"
d4QC005O4>.C0-ki4CMC0t-00
50OO4'»C005Oi-H'^CMC000

05'

CO

00

50 50“ cd‘cM*cD*odarcd‘i-4“ tXod5d“
05i-ho00050000^H4'«C'COCO
00COfHiO5OCMCOcOCM5OC0CO

50*

0

oro5*tX‘cdcdcdodco*od*^* 5d“od

C005CMCOCMCMcO^OiOfhC5

OCMi>J400C0-i^C0’^C0C005O

0 q

H 03

H*

1

’itf*H4-^cococococoeoco<4^

1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

50

4---

1

50 »d CO *d'5d ^'id ^o'io'c^tXcM*

pH

liiiiaiii.il

tx

4^

pH

TfT 50“ rX tjT c»d CM* CM* f-T CM* CO cd cd

,-ki-HFH,-HFH,-H.-Hi-H,.H,.Hi-HCM

05*

pH

CO

i£f4^^5fd'-Fj«*Ht!“CM*Tj7“-Td‘d“055d

CMCSJCOCMCMCMCMCMC^CMCMCO

>5

>>S

'a SpP
c3 S ^

-S rt ‘5 rt p ^ Of 9.

>5<»

45

W

. P

>5 b£

"■§

U’^Xi
‘^00
gg

O

CO

05

>»

>»!S
b 2.P
P P

^ Xi 5- t-,

M ill
III a a

03

CO

05

>»
>5^

P
P

H» -<500020 H^fr<S<52>5i-^<5cQ02Q

bri

45

Xi

u

05

Im

CO S p

=3^0 9 S

C5

CM

CO

05

cS

P

>5

Ui

Bxs
2

S ^

^1

u

45

s1|§i

->fr4S-<jS^h^<5cQO20

84

«N

C<l

O

C5

f,

<©

o

t^00000i0»-<;0»oc^0'^

*-'0»OL.'iOarH<000«-'*-.0><N

<>l *-* lO c4 ' ^ ^ CC

t^c>c^t^eocco»-Ht— loco^c
oocooococooo>oooo«Dr>-co

CO CO ec cs

#1.

CO

CD

Oi'crt;^^b-0>OC<l**i*'^f»iDcO

o>’-'Oa5ooao<NO'-'cDt^i'»

t-.*-<05rr't^o>oocoTr’^t^'^

C5t^CDCOt^M'«S'CDCOOOTft^
C50coeo<Mr^o ob-^nc^oj
»0 4*40tJ<'^D»DIC<»i-'C^C<JCO

00

05

uo

»D

t'-

00'S*^C0C0C0O'*I‘C^'^C'»O
»-’0005;DC005 t<CMCCCDCO

C0CO^t'»cDOit^»O?000*-«00

CD05»0»00»0'^001-<COCOO

C0'^iD.DOt>.CDi0C005QC^

05>-Hi-h,^005050505050C^

o

UO

CO

»0005t»C00005C«OOi-«<005

C0c0i0*-H40»D1D<00000»0»0

coOccb-»oc4*-‘coco«ouo'«j<

»irj00DJC0»HC0D<u005»DC^O

t>C0^05«-‘05OcD0PCS»000

000050>CC050000050>»H

o

UTi

i-lr-<D1t«»O>00<O»D'^O5»OCC
b»CO<D^DI00O5b^f-Hb^?D»D
C^a5COC^'^CCDIDIO>

»o o

c5cpi-H‘b^b^<^«tO.-H

00^*«J<»005^b-»0 _

05 05OO>00G000a0000505

» ■»

CO Di

CMb».Ob-COOCCCb-40b»05 00
CM00Ob.'***C0CMCM<DCM4O00
‘05CDOb.CMTfb»CM-— 'CC

»o

0

CM

COD5 40D<b-'^CDb-OCOGOCO
4—1— 'CD*— •t'-b-40CM40CO»“'0
COCDb-b-CM40CDOOCOCOCM40

00

b-

40 00*-'CMCMb.*-ib-05’-rf<'^00

4O'M*'-^b-00O5'*»'O>O5CD00CM

CDC0 00 05xJ400b-b.*-'05X'^

CM

X

•Tj4b-’'>t«b‘05*-'CM0540b-Ob-
*— '40b-CMTf*-t*40b.Ob-^X
050X»D05’-^CDCDX40b-0

40

CD

X

COXXXb-b-050500'''t*’^

OXTf<CM40'-8fXXb.CMCMO

b-CDXCD05’^05eO'Tt*b.CMT»4

CM' cO 40‘CD 06'l> CD’ cD'cD b^ b^'c-^
CMCMCMDJCMD^CMCMCMCMblcO
CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMDICMC'I

of

8

*— 'CD^I— '''t*4D05CDO--H^»0
COCMCMCOCOgQOOOlOOOO
CMCMCMCMCMCMwMeNCOCOCOCO

0

§8

*-'C0XCM40CD'^''-4<CMCDO*-'
.-*.-jO*— **“4i— 'CMCMCOCO-st*^
cococococococococococoeo

0

40

0

'^XX40X*-'CMCDCM05tO»-H
^X DCOCMXXTt4'-!?'40CD

0

05

b-

CM

Tt* '

!00.-'b-.-HXXXQ'^05
3X000500— 'b.00O5Q
?^^^i040»D»Ot0400

co"

CO

0

40

<0

b-

05

CD

Dl

CO

CDCD05iOO«-HC<l-«!fiOD»t>.0
u0Ot'-4O’-«05»DCOC>400C0a>
b-»-*OOCCt^Tj<C^COOO»— 'DlTf*

Oi^OOCOt^i-^ C<r CO O lo' CO
00*000'^'3‘05COOCt>-b-05Dl
*-'00000505050505050

Dl

<M

UO

CO

0s

GO
»— t
rt*

COCOD3t->»'^'*«C'b-0 05’-'CD
q0tt<O5CD^0O«-'C^CSICOQ0

d5CDOC5NC^O>»OOOiOOCO

^05 05k00505CDcDCO'— 'COCO
n:?05'^ococ^cocoi-i»D»ooo
0050000000000

.Ni— - M c4^C^"(^^D^'^^D^CsfciDi

uo

oc

05

00

CO

•v

»c

CM

05*-'CDcOOCb-OODICD00 05QO
05i— 't^<005r'-b-»DC0i— 'COO
CO'«fl>-CD'^*-'t'-00COCDO5t'

io' 00 O t-TcO G>'05*

O O 05 »-H 1-H qo f-'

CMCM'CMCMDfcMDfDfcMCMCMCT

CO OC *— I »c O^
CO 05 ID CO oc

CO

CO

CO

o

CD

f'

CD05000b*05*-HO»000‘DcO

C0-Tj*b-C0'*i‘b-O00t>-00'M*--'

05T-ii-lcOCDCr‘r-ix«}*0>I'-CDCM

0K » 0‘0S^^^0S0s0>,0sm>

g'^e005a5'-‘b-05*-H*-<*Db-
»D05CD**fCOT-'*-*CO*-'COCO
CMeoeococoTfTtiTt*io<DcDb-

cmcmcm'cmcmcmcmcmcmcmcmcm'

05

CD

00

0»

b-

CM

CO

p»

t'.

CO

COb^i-'i— 'O‘0C0O5b-CD00C0
05^»00500000cp*— l»-C’^05
^05*-'OOCD»-h050«OcD’^0

cob-ooo^b-»ooco»ooeM

05 05'»f^i-HiOb.»005CMb»CD
b»b-0505000i-'r-ce0'^‘0

C<fCM‘CM‘CM‘c*OCO‘cOCOCOCOCOCO

X

CDX»D05b.050XT«OObl
05XCDblCD005a-. CMb-CD05
Oirf^Dl'rr*XCM''t«b-i-HOb-

0

05-<^'’M*rj-40XCMb-’Tl*b-CM’M*

b.

CM05 05COXCMCDXCMCMb.'-«<

b.

Xb-X40'^WCM’'t*XX05C0

CM

CM'TfXOcDXQCMX— 4b-CO
CM'^CM--*CM’^«tJ*40tJ4CMX
— 'CMCM005CM400CD40*-Hb-

b-

4OTfC0OCM'TT*CMb»X'— 'C005

W

CD05COCDXC0050505''C40b-

^b.X050CMb-t'-Xrfb-X

0

b-Cp*“'OOCi0 40CM0500505*-^
40CM»0— 'CM— 4X’^XX05X

»o

»o

XTr050b»xo5coo5»-'’*^'0

CM

CO

'-S*

x"

0 000000000^PS

CD^40 05b.X0005CD'^X

•k

t'-

— TcD 40'05"x"x"--r bT 40 c^os" CD

0

fSs-^aoooc3C'^oo^coc^\c>ui'

iC V— T CM"<^x"eO 40 CM o"CM of

CD

i-TcdoocTo— r^toooc^odco
Xb-I-HWCM-— '

0

eO'^Ob-»0’^'*t'CM — CMiOb-
X X X CM CM CM D4 CM CM -M D1 DJ

CM

CO Qb.l'-XCM400'*f*-'XcD
CMCMCMwNCMXXTf-^totoO

X

O05 X 40CM4OCDCDO'*^*’kt*C0
CMCMCOTl'40COCDb-XX050

XXXCMb.XOX05C0X'D
— 4C0TfCDb-O5CDXCDC^b.^

CD

CM

0

40

CDO^DXOO-^CDOXCOO

•k

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

•k

— '--H— t — 1-H— (f-HDI

«k

CO

cm" cm" cm cf cm" CM CM CM* cm" cm" CM C»0

0

b-

40

coe-^coco'co’c’O-^toocDcobT

0^ 0 0 0 •.A^«k«k«k^«k

b.XXX05050505000i-l

**H .H

t

•««#*CD05»-'00000-1''T?'05CDO

t>.b-'-»*CDCMCOCDOO*“'b-*Ob-

•-ib»C5»C'MiOb-,MCOiO'^*-'

^t'^o>CiC<S't'^aQC>t^oooofS
•r-'^COCDC^CO’-^CMT'-CO
b"C0CC»0*0‘^^^^ ^■^40

CO** CO" CO*" CO" CO CO*" CO CO*‘cO CO CO CO

o

€50

00

b-

CD

rM

00O5*-'b0CDCO4O’"!t<CO*— 'CDgC'
*-'C50500b»O05D5CD0CC0O
b-cDb-CDCMb-’'fO*~l05b»05

t^CAaicot^oooo^iScc^^'^

b-00-^*-<4CCOb>»^CDCD'»?<40

•^•Tj'*O4-O»OCDCDb^b^0CO5''^<

co‘'c0*'c*0 COCO CO CO"cO''co'‘co'

o

00

00

0s

Cl

*rf*

00

o'

CD

CD0CCD00C0C04Db-b-'*t«OO
*— '400^05*— 'CO*— '^CMCMi-hi-h
CD40Tj'tCOCOCO'-«*050CDO

c»ocooocob^*-rcoo5’'co‘*-^b^i"^

*— 'l'-00 0040 40»-'*-'COCO’— 'CD
CDC0b^00 05O*-*CMCMC0-*^*»0

O

OC

05

C0C0b-OOC0‘OC0 00 00'^CD
40b-40400Cb-lOb-004DCD*-'
«^t<'^lC4O00O5CD*C»Ob*COCD

cT<COOt^QO^C*i^fO^'^C^

C0b»CMa5CMa>'OO5’-'O5b-*-'

b»0'?MC040b--^*-'b-D<OOiO

4CC0C0CDcDCDb-00 00 05 05O

CD

00

*cf

b-

b-

m

40

40

•^05b-'»st*C0040040b»05CO
D5 05CM^00 00 0540-^r^0500
C0b-b-4O'^00’Ct*C0CD00b»CM

ooc<r'^‘"o‘<:^oroTjr4ooocM40

C0'*^<rt<Tr*C0CDO00*-'*-'O00

O5C0O5CM4O4OOCM000^b-i-H

Oi-TwCvTcrDrcOCOCO^'^iO

O CM CD 00 00
lO-cj* O COCM
05 05 00

* •k

CM CO b-
*-< CM CO CD

8

b-

40

CD

•O

00

•'tf'i'-.OOCDCOCMOO’-HOO-^'^
CDWC000CD4Ob-C0CMb»CC05
'VO''f00CD05 05b-b-CM05CM

1-H Tf OC' 40 CM 05 00
b« b« b- b- CO CO

00 O 05 b-
CD b- CD CD

40

CD

00

0s

b.

Tt*

CO

eooocD05oo»0404ocpo5b»’^

OSCOOCMTfb'CMCM^iOi-HCM

*-i05CD*^CMb-*-'COb-TfcOO

S‘‘*^CMCrOb>rcr4OiOCDCP00
C0CDc0c04O4O'*tf<^^^^

t

I

05

CO

CM

cm"

CO

CD

X —1

CD

05 Tt*

40

CO X

'St*

cc“40

rt* X

wM

05 b.

40

bTeo

0

05

40

CO

CM

40 b. 40 1-H CO O »0
00 CO *— ■ *— I '*f 00 00
^ CO *— ' CD b' cD

*-h" **C^ CD CD 40 CO'cT
CM 40 40 00 CM 05 b»
^ 40 40 40 ^

iO r^ CO 00
00 b- b»

CD

b*

00

CO

CD

»-40M*^40»— 'CC05'^050CO
CMO>00 05C0£JOC0CDOCM'^
40 0540c*0 0000c*0b»0b05»0

05 CO
I CM CO

COO*-^OCMCM40'rf*-«
CM<3i4O'^00OC0l'-00
CMf-‘0t'»0 ^»0»0CO05C0O

^ ^ ^ #w »v •k _ » _ »* ^ ^

CDb-OO*— '»*-'0*-'0005*-'

CD

05

CD

40

b-

CO

CM

CD CD 40 CM 00 ® b- 40 05 'tf '
00CMO*-»i0O00gC40i-HCMC0
00b*’^*O*— ICCC’OCM0500CDCD

g"0 C<r**H‘brc^40C^0^CDO'c0
C040b-cDC00040CO«— '05-^
CDb-b-0'*fCM0040005»OOC

r-*b-*-^*-^s.M40CO’^b*CD

i-iCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM

CD

05

b-

•»

b.

b-

CD

CO

CM

Tt<b-*-«0'^*^CMCOOOOCOO
C0b.C0CMt^*-H^^^«^4O

05 O Tf 00 CD

00

OCM0050CCC0050005b-05
CMt'-CMl'-0'rf40b-40 05COb»
CDb-O5e0*-‘O5iOO5'^'^b.b*

*-« b- b. CO 05 »o
CO CM CM CM <N CM

b- 05 b* CO

00

CO

00

CO

00

CD

cm"

0>b«40 05 0540 c0^00*-'0505
b»fHb«CD'^'— '400b»40b-CD
CD'^b*b-'>5fb»05CD*-<00OC0

CO*-'OOO^COOOCDQb--**f’^

CDb-0*-iOO*-'CO®CO^CD

COCMCOCOCMCMCM*-H»Hr-H^i-H

CD

CD

00»040000'^CM40 00CDCOb.
00b-b.b-O05OCMC0’^*-HCM
CM*-l00005-^b*C0040CDCD

■*^i-H4000505*-Hb-b-*-HO^

C0C0CMC040rJ*00OOOb.05

00

CD

b-

§S

OOCDCO'^^^CM‘^C^‘^00
rf'g‘CM*-HCM4000005*-'^’’<f
O *-' O CM 00 ^ 05 *— ' O

00

»o

^fOC^CO^<0 *-H 05 4D ^ t'- *-H
eob-cDOcMb.'vOO?»oC*o
iO'^40 05CM40b-»-«OCM0505

CM''J<b-’^'ct»CMOCMCM'^b.b.
CMCMCM -MCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM

CM

1-^

40

rt*

b,CM4C*-HOO^OOOOC*0’^
CMTf'TbCDi-HCMCMb.OCOcbcC
CMb-4Cb»'«t'‘'^*-''*t'OOCO D*-i

b^cT ^"oO CD'*D05"iD‘cDOror*-H"
O00 05 00 C0CMCM*-'CC00C0-^
40O00C0b»C0»O'«J‘*-^b-05t'-

TfOO*-'COC<li— '■*rt*C0b*05’^
CMCMCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO'*^'

b.

05

O

0s

b-

co

40

OOi-'»-*OOOCMCOb»OOCM’-'CD
OCOOCOCM*— '•^40 40 40*-'^-^
b»05b-»005CDOOOOCMGO’-lCD

4o"co‘orC<r40‘CM"40‘cxr ^ooco'

e0CDb-CD4O4O-^O5CMCD-^O5
4O00CD*— '»O»O»OC0CDCDCDb-

CO'''^<D'»OCO*-^’'!j^brcDorC^40‘

05

CD

4^

3:

b*

s

CMO5C5CMi-Hi-Ht-H4OCMb»00b-

b.OC0b-C0O’^40CM0C*-'’-'

tO->^O5CMCD*OO5*-'CD00CM4O

O5CMC500CMCM f40*-i040CM
eOCM^CDGCCMOlCO00CMO5CO
b-b.00 05C0C0b.O>C000'^O

0 05 00CO'^CO*-'0*-'*-'CM40
CODiCMCMD^CMCMCMCMCMCMCM

i04D40b-40O^b»OC5OO

OOCOb.COOCO'^i-'CDCD*^’^

b«C0CM'^05’^'^05*-H00Ob«

O4DCM“CM"br00CM‘*-!}^‘00Cr054O

^*-HCMOb-CDb.05D505-^’^

000'<J'b.40CM*-H05*-'*H*^00

•** •» •» «t 0s ^ » 0s ^

40 40CD’^— tO»-'*-^CMeM’Tt«b«
CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM^CM

CO

CD

to

4C-

00

o

OsCDb-Xb-X*-**— '05b-^-’«*
cDc00040b''“*b.»OCMcDX
COOb.’*3*'*t‘N«OXb-0050

b-

X

XXOXX05X»0b-CM05»D

1— 'O‘Qt-»<0CM D40CDOX05
— t^OD<40040b-b.CMCDb-

'•t*

05

CMXCMOCMX»OOCDCMb-CO
CM40CD'si*054C-— »*— 'b.05CM05
b-0*-'CC400X*-'XCM'*t<-;I*

CM

CO

40

— *CD'-t*-— 'OCDb-CDOXb-CO
40CM'«t*Tl4X— '05400C005X
,MXb-OOCMXb*Xb-D4X

X

05

05

C0OO40t0'^C0CMX»DXb.
b-— ‘40— *OCM’^'^05— I40C0
040— '»0X05*-<CM— i-^COX

C'^br—rC'^b^XbrcOb^CDCDX"
<DCC*— '■^Ob-b-Xb-X— 'OO
b-CDCDCCX05CMC0’^*~^X05

40*

CD

D1

bT— rCM'^eo'CM''^b^»OOOr'<t*'
1-H— ' OCDOCD*-^CDtOO^X
— lXCD’'t*CM4D'«T'05CMb-4040

•s

CD

CD

b-

CD cd‘o'e0‘cD‘05"05 x'co'o'b^'cd'
tOXO'^toOjOb-XCOb.b-
— 'CDCD40CD'«t*OXO— IX»D

0

CM

CO

CO co’ O* b^ o* CO“ co‘ *-^‘ •-H 00 05’'cd"
OC5CMXXCM— tX'-^*XC005
— 'C5*— 'CM40 40O*— '»D05CD*'^

8

rt*

40 CD X CM b^ bi CM 40 cm' 0> b^
-kf*rt*Tt4XCO— 1400X051-HX
*-h05‘OXCDXCM— 'CMDICMOS

X*'^b-»D40X-HXCM»0b.X

CMXXXXXXXXXXCM

CD

40‘cd'C^X"»^C*5‘'^I* 05' CD‘CM‘b^ --i
CMCMX'^»040»04040CDCDb.

co"

b-

b-

•k*k«k#k«««k»k*s*k#k#k^

OCMTt*XCMb-i-H40COb.COCD

Xb-b-b.b-CCb-CDi040'M*X

0

0

CO

«.*k*>#k*t«k»k^*k^^#k

*-'05 05b‘'^XCMi-«i-'*-'CM4O
XCMCMCMCMCMCM«CMCMCMCMCM

40* 40 o’rt* — -"o’ --^^CM Cm' cm* b^

CMCMCM^CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM

ai

05

40

o

00

40

o

40

CO

40

CM

»o

40

eo

40

C3

O

w

CO

CO

05

C0CM<D05b-*-H05 4fvCCC0»O»O
•^»-H40CDb-*— ib»40b»0*— '05
40 00CD05CD00C0»-^OC000O

40 *-H O

>, ^^i-'05CD'^*-H

OO'^t^’^COtOb-CO

•s •v _ ^ •

CM Tl* i-t CM O 40
^ CO 05

40

CM

CM"4o"-ro5"oo ^ £2 2S S2

COCO'^COCOCOCOCOCOCO’Ct^CO

eo

CD

00

05

00

COrt<«Db-b*»0 00050C040CO
*-'040CDOO^OOl'-COOOCMO
C0 0040 t040Tt*»-Hb*05*-l'^b-

CDCOOOCOCC’^CMOOOtOCOOS
*— i’>si*40COCC05b»0'-4b-b.CO
OOOb-1— iCMCO’-'b»040-ct*0

ps 0 0 Ps0S0S0S0.^0S0S0-

Tfi-HOlOOSb-OOCOOcpi-HCD
1— <OOCD*0»040CDCDC0b»b»

CO

CM

00

o

00

00

b.

05

00CD00 0040 05Ob.C0CDb»O
CO*— '00C0OG0C0 4OO*— ICOO
C0CD40 05CCC0CD4OC0e0O‘D

O05 00CDC0OCMb*05b-C0*— I
l'-OOOCMr-*40^'^40 05COb-
I-^COCO’^CDtOCMOCMOOb-OS

•^b.O500b-CMCD»O’rf4OC5CO
OOb-b-b-b.b.b-b.b-00 00'5

CM

b.

05

05"

S

00

CM

SO>i-Hi-h005CM0500cDi— 'CM
05O05«DC0»OCM00 05<DO
b.CMeO»005»-'40COCO'rj*C040

^ ft.

Sb»05''^^C0005*— '05 00b-*-'
’*fb.CD00b»C0C0b.40 05O
CO’-'b.40b-CMTf005‘0'*!t'0

ocrcrcoqrco"crorroc" oO’-J'c^co

0»-'»^000050505000

00

o

§8

O

b-05b-0500’cf*-'CMC0CMCMO

050b»eoooo^05^05to40

COCOOOOC^OOcDtOOODl'^CD

CDb-OOCMCDCM05*-«CD005CD

b-CM050^CDb-i-'b*b-eO'^

CMCMOCMTj<COCOb.b-05CM*-<

oro»-rbC'^“o'^cr*-^c^to*-?

05050050505000000000005

gCMCDb-CD*-lO^0G004O05

1— iOCMb.CM'*f''fOC’— 'O*-!
CMtOb-*— 'O50CCO4D*— 'b-i— 'O

b«b«CO‘*!t'4Ob-b-CO0CCMb-*— '
GOb-40CDb-CMOCOOb-b-CD
CO*— '00*-<40C005b.*-''»i*’-'

CD0540CM*-^05CDOOb*0000

COCO’^'«C*'^COCOCOCO'-?*»CGO

05

0s

b.

40

05

40 00 CO
»-H f fD
*-« 05 ••'f

b-S
I eo "T*

' *-< Tf b- O 05
iQOrt^TfOb-
' O CO CO CM t“l

C04040CMTt*b-b'»005CO’— 'b-
' 0050*— 'CDb-1— '05 05OC0
CDCMCMCDb-CDCOOS*— 'b*4--'^

io" CO* *— '" *-h" cS 0^ 05 b- cm b-

i-HO*-<CDCD40»OCDCDCDb-b«

40

b-

0

CD

CO

05

«s

O

05

05

CDOC0»-'00CMO*-'40OC>CC
40CM05C0CDwMCMOCM40 05CD
CDO5O5b-CMC'0 J'*— 'CD*— ‘CO

» «v

§OOCOCM'^CDb.CDOi-^CDC1
40’^eOi-^CMb.00505COC5
rflOtOCDtO*— 'O^OOl'*’”'

C000O 0500 C0b-C040CDO00
O0b-00b-b-b-b-b-b»00 05 0

CM

CO

o

•s

o

s

#s

o

CD

CM

05 05 O00C0b**-Hi-'?Db-b-*-l

gCMCDO»-'Tf<*-<05b-l--»-'«0
COCDC040'^b-CCOOCM05

CM 40 *-» 00 40 CO *-'
00000 4i0 05CD'^-.—
C0i-'00 40CD’-'C00500

•k ^

0>^0*-'
CD ^ *0 GO

I

® I-H '-St* O ^
O *“< 1-H »— I O

V-I 05 CO 05 CM CO ■*»*
O 05 05 05 O O O

'-sf*

05

CO

cm"

CD

40

0

05

05

O

GOOC5CDb-CMb.b-b-^b-CO

CD^C000*-'05C0CD4Ob-»-HO

05C0C0CMCM--H05O*-'»Db-CD

0rc0O0rTt*"c0'«J^C0b^C0C’f05‘

tOO5'^»O*-'iO4OcDCM00CM00

CM,-i--Hf-lCO»OCM40CDOOCMCO

OGrCM0040--r40^CM"cOCDeM

000050505000000000005

>»

5 .

3 tx >» c

ils^l

® I « 63

«s|aa

•go|IS«

C3

o

CO

05

sS-gJ : : l|i^i| ai-SJ 'J i|i|ii " ip§|ii

>5CHS*^SSt-->-<i03O^P H-) H, I-S CQ O ^ Q

l-l

o- I oj S

w a a

3 ^'S ® s

>5 ®

cc

40

CO

05

o3

CO

CO

05

>i

U

03

>4

u

u

a>

eO

O

•4-4

b-

co

05

>4

>*u

C3 3*^

3 *-

§ ®

r >4 «?

o

u^.
03 S 03

^ « o «

85

See footnotes at end of table.

00

I

0\

Os

t

o

s

QO

Q

0

Q

•C

k

2

'C

99

g

0

fc.

00

0

fc.

a,

u

0

2

H

*c

■§

s

g- S

-I ■■^

^ fl

S 0

3 U

ot

t

•tm

t

u

§

0)

Q

t

e

99

•m

99

9i

o

0)

«id

«>

am

>T}

*^S

a.2

cn

Q

3

XJ

9

U

a,

"C

2

e

•M

•O

2

a.

2

S

0

s

I

fH

1

09

O

0

s

.S3

VJ

CO

0!

XJ

9

a

CO

C9

a

t>l

CO

o

o

a

CQ

03

09

2a

o§,
T3 O
9 »M

§C,

CO

&£ ^

9 O

•3^

Irt

03

.£

*3

£

«

9

C9

O

kO

09

h-

CO

cs

09

<o<oc<QC^coco«^oooooo

rr<C^T.HO^C^09C009l^^Q

09COO’^CO’^^t^CDcOcOOO

S*‘ori-r t>ro9‘io ^fTcq w

«-HTt<COr-.<OQOOi-HQCOTf<
OOO0»00 00^b«00WG0O

0>

■Wt3

<1

CO

s

o

00

•^00t^’^t*-C0C^^COC^t»'O9
•-•OOt^'^kOC^i— '0090000*-*
kO*-H'^OCOCOcOOO»009eOO

O9CO0O*-^'cOCC’^'“QCO-^c4‘cld
1— 'co'^io»ocot^ooog0900
cO cO cO CO cO CO CO CO CO cO

o S §

**^ ® !9

"^§•3

t>.

oo

09

kO

c«

o

00

«9

r-'C^C^C0C0'-*01*-^i-*C0’— 1*-<
009*-'i-<’^'^u5C^cocOQ*-‘
’^OC^Okr50cO^C^OO®09

co»ot^kOofko‘»rr^cfoo.-H“t-r

Tt*^*^0'^'^OCOO»COoO’"J*

COt*-CO00CO00O9rHi-iC5cO''S^

cocoeocccococo’^'^’^’^'"'^

o

09 9
t09

s,^

2.S3

Oto
CO
c3

kO

kO

s

t«-

*'J'Q00 00 09CC00 09eCO>k009
OO^COt^-''J*kO^^^''!?*COCO
kCCO’^CDO'^^»00'V090

*“ g ^ of .-T ko CO 0O c^” o

. - .t^09CCt^C0t^09Tj<

■^40c0t^09 09O»-'C^'^

F-' F^ ^ ^ ^ C^

^ ^ ^ W* ^ ^ W F^ »-H *-^

C3

•M

o

00

0»

O9or^ooc^t^c^'^o-'tf*coc^

C9COkOC*9kOf-H— 'r^iO*~*kC09
’^09*-Ht^09i— 'kOt^09C^0909

OOQOt'^C^fOcOkOcO-^VcOkO

ccf5..^ootN.o^'-*’'»*ot^09

'^COa9O9»-*C0kO00O9F-iCOkO

lOkOkOkcTcDCOCOCOCDt^t^t^

o-of^

2S®

Ph g,^
o

o

o

o

s

00

00

00

SCOC^C^— 'COt^COkOI—OTt*

-Hi^cocot>«eoco^c^kooQ

CDt^t^C0C^O09'^C0’^’^00

09 CO 09 coco

kO CO CO l>-

kO CO

00 00 00 00 00

GO

M «

03

gPH

.2

49

o

C9

*3

•«^

C9

C9

a

Q

2

o

s

eo

t>r

o

M

eo

O CO kO ko

® C4 ^ 00 CO 00 CO

^ o »o

^■^C^oOkOkOcOf^i^^S^S
cocrc^tCtCoTi-Tcpc^eokrri-r

:?§2:8S^8SSS!5ig5S

Q^^OOkOkOkfJiO'^-TtkOtC'

cocococic^c5csc^c<ic^c4c^

2

o

00

09

eo

Cl

O9C»O9'^C*.^t>*01CI*«fkOC-

k0k0l^Cl^OTfTfClC-C009

^eococok0t^^09c-cocoko

t-TiOF-Tcioroo^oocfTjrc^^

kocicOkoeooocociF-iocoFH

’^^i-HCOOCOt«.O''0'OOC*

CO kO 09-^ g g ^ g g

09 O ^ ^ 1-H ^

9: ®

^ co*^

3 > w

— ci«S

2'9'^

o 0

H «

c-

09

kO

o

eo

c^

eo

'O*

fH

kOOO^'^090QCOClCl»OkO

ot^09i-HiceO'^o*-*koooo

•kJ*09eO*-HCO'-'COt^^t^C9'^

' o 09 i-T CO 00 '*1^’’

09.-HkO-Tf».HC10^»0

I009»0k000cic009t>-

■cf <N g g g5 g- g Q

O F^ ^ F^

CO

0

o

B

0

eo

s

>5

OS

•w

o

00

s

. >.

Sa-g^ - ■

§ 09^ O' ”

u

49

95

3

i^§a

9.^ a "" a'a > §

§492 0.2 9 3 S ^

E

iSS?

cotn

.-N O

u

. - 0

.2 9"^
t? 49
Q. 9
w eo

0,2

o

0

CQ

4>

49

'O

cs

SxJ Cl

0 9-S

S a

>»*"' ^

cd CO c6

CO (m ^

49 o3 ®

a2“

49

^ <i> 3

49>i O

> CQ

•fh bj&^

§.9^

o Q

■s-as

CD o

«95CQ

—
corj
^ 49 W
>9 &*S

*3 3 O

2

2

49

>

'9

A

•u

0

CO

49

»p^

'S

Im

9^

0&H ©

^ .5

st>^

09 <1*®-..

2 49 0 fa'H'2

a's §« £ ®

2m §

CO © 5 ^ S ^
49 ,9 ©TJ g

s::^52s

hr*FF 'Tv h,/v

o

0

o

CO

If,

49

0

o

o

0

49

'd

C9

0

.M

CO

49

*9

0

9

*0

49

>»

o

0

a

49

eo

0

o

2

49

0

W fl

t? O

^©

is ^

0O
0 0

•d 49
® CO
^ 0
f2 o
0"^

49

0

a s

49

00

u

49

.0

'd
0
©

0

©

a

0

•3

O'

49

CO*

©

•F<

u

09
©
a

kFM

o ©

'd

49

49

0

m

bo

0

•F^

0

©

49

a

49
GO 'o

gw

Kp

*x ®
o ©

•2 0
w ©

© CO
£ 49

0

o

CO M

2©

ss
© ©

49 —

•4^ ©

o >

49 ©

to J_a

2 O

0G
£2
mT

CO CO ^ UfC

'ff © CO ff Uj

•3 « “-Ife

-d VF -2 CQ 2 2
© o ^

s ® s o

2 0 a 0

f S 3.2.S2 o

^ ® ‘-.S fl w

0

o

TO

2

Im

0

49

h

s

©

©

©

C9

2t>

>.

0.-“
CO 73

.2 a >-2^

C3 0 «;r 0.0 :i5

J3.2 q

to CO o ^ .a
•so**.*?'© J^fO

2

49

0

o

•g Js^S^-g
1-3

°gs«55^_

o' © a 0 0 ©5

a

©

CO

o

C9

CO

to

49

a W.2

•V fcF -w a

ar^^

p3 CO

'g w-S 2 g ©*^

*r ^.3 9
2 0© two .9 5.2

m

o*Pc4 2i>

s- s.^

o

•F O
&

.0

o

u

a

Os

Os

0

0

;:t

0

*c

ll»

;:j

#v

g

0

k

tit)

c

u

a*

k

o

8

0

k

• w*

&

k

z

z

Vi

z

c

k

§

z

0

z

0

Vi

•M

Vi

Vi

z

z

0

•m

k

a,

z

z

•M

kc>

z

a,

■o-

4i9

c

z

0

s

1

t

o

2

eS

H

00

fh

kC C5 ^ kC ^
I'- CC CD CO 00
t.- CO eo t>* Cl

D1 00 kd^odoT

eo 01 40 F-i

OC0^l*F00 00 00kCC-00
*-HOiC109C00^3 — COQ
OiOO^eoOt^OCOkCO

t>rt>rio'c^oicd‘‘d'FHkoo?

CO eo *-H fh

kO

©

0

©

Ff3

CO

• fF

CO

CO

©

X5

9

0

CO

©

0

>k

.©

*©

©

0

CQ

©

fO

'^'d
o g

■^3

*0.0

.ff

<

09

o

<5

kO

kc

OOOQOIfh OcO 09 ^ CO o-^ m . .

t>F cs CO 1-H o r- 00 »o 09 00 — <0 09 kO - ,

t'F'^ CO .-H kO cs 00 — o *-* o t>- t*.

IS

cs es CO

cTcd'iC^F^'kDcs'^eo

..S’

F-:.

0

©

h*

0

cs

©

©

©

©

cs

©

0

©

q

0^

©

©

r>-

©

©

©

kO

cs

©

r>*

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

t>-

©

bF

GO

cs

00

©

©

d

w

kd

09

0

cs

©'

so

©

od

od

©

©

■d

0

d

©

©

•H*

CS

00

0

cs

00

cs

©

0

cs

cs

••M

©

r>.

t**

vH

0S

© C9

td

d

«o>

49

©

g

b£

0

q

CO

oc

1

d

F^

cr9

0

CO

CO

03

©

o

©

eo

09

kO

CO

oT

©kCO^t^
eo © CO 09

-H cs kO 00 ©
ko ocT Oi" os' od

CO 01 00 1-*

kOCSeO©00©kO^-^FH

OCSi-Hfh©©©OCO©

oo©oot^©ficocs©

o h- kQ09
© cs © cs eo

CO

0

9

«M

©
• fF

3

9

01

©

u

©

-d

©

w

a
©
^ u
© tc
*d o

u

0

0
9

CO

bc a
q o

0

(.F

©

Projects

operated

by the

WPA 5

1

1

1

1

1

t

1

1

1

I

I

* 1

1

1

1

m 0

1

93^ a

> 2

1

1

a

r^k? W)

1

1

1

01

1

t

1

©

fcF

3

»F

©

0

©

o

ti ®
OS

^2

s

•“•rs

>fF ffi

o

o

CO

fH

kO © CO fH

cs©koeot^

00 © © *-^ CO
t>- CO CO ^ t**

F^CS0O©F-<©©kft<O^

csoeoeooocst'-kD.^cs

©co©ocorFOw«©

kd'edod'^odcO'-^gpcd'cd

t>*^©©'^©©o^eo

©FHCscsFHCSi-H^eo

cs

f— '•

*-F

00

Tota

kd

cs

©

F-4

© h- © © F-c

cs © kD eo 1>F
© © © i-H eo

09* oT oT kd"
t..- © eo t**

■^CSOO©— *©©©©*-1
CSOf5cOOQCSI>.iO*^CS

©eooo©t>.ocscs©

kded C30 00*' cd f-Too coco
C'-'^©©F^©©0^eo
©r^CS01*-HCSFMF-«CO

©

F-»

o

CS

cs

©

00

t>-

kd

SI

fH cs © O 00
© © ?1 cs ©
© © kD o O

cs*'t'rorcs*'*^
F-i CO © eo ©

©.^F-«cs©©Fms.OCS

cScs©©r^©t'F©FMF«4

©CO©CO'*t*©COOO©CS

© o id© odedt^oded*-H

CSt«FCOF^OObFOFHt*.©

t^FHcoeOFHcoMFieo

•«

cs

-F © ©

S^'d ©

o-g o >

C4 9 rt

^ 0

CO

^d

.0 0

KS

CO

©

cs

isT

CO ^ eo © cs
coo © CO ©
t** © CO eo

©t*»CS©t^cO©CSl>.g

t^.'^F-lOCOt'-’^-.

cs © FH o CS

©

00 cs o

ed od F^ cd F.r cTcs*
© F-I o cs ©
cs cs Tf © cs ."t* cs

©*“

©o

1 oot**

I ©

T?

0

©

•»

©

©

F.9

CO-

0 2
•2 g
•2 !:
> 9

*ff a

.2 3

■a

©

5

o

©

o

0

d

2

w

u

;2;

©

F^

o

H

|s>2

■SSfe
5 C 0 © ©

M ri *0

•3 c? O ♦ •

5g«S
•C

® 1-

o^f® ®
oS>;

iJSfcF© — S© • ic3®

«W£3§Sa5®=o'|m

•d

,2

©

a

o

w~L^i^L^©2w».Fwgogro«j KtM »'*'

ammzza cgnpQuiioJ.j.4S:z:;z:

© ©

ss

CO o Ss ^ ^ ca

O 1.1 © © © ~

O

© ©

0

o

o

86

oooo«o

CO

<0000
*o 35 ^

h'lOC'J CO lO O CO CO <c

O0*-HC^ Tj< o 00 O <0 O Tt< lO

^C4lO 1-H 04 00 O Tt* CO o o

oTc^Tio cT oeTco C4 ^ »o ^ t>r

00 •-< C4 C4 l>- CO 04

C4 ^ ^

C4

OC0000>OC4O<3SO»00>

0^004C^10COC400CO

00»00>»0050c^i-i0b»0

i-rotCt>r''^-^>^jre<rorc^od

^ ^ ^ C4C4COt^i-H

00 04

CO

o

00

o

CO

Tf

0

CO

<0

0

CO

<0

o>

C4

WO

CO

wo

M

Oi

00

o

C4

o

Oi

o

C4

CO

<0

wo

CO

00

h-i

CO

CS

00

CO

C4

o

»o

o

o»

00

CO

t>.

wo

0

CO

!>•

CO

CO

00

CO

CS

•l

t-

00

^4

<o

|C

C4

s

CO

o

*o

•k

S4

<0

»H

C4

•«

a

04

•k

CO

•1

Oi

00

rH

•1

M

CO

•k

a

«»

0

M

0

•k

CS

GO

o>

•H

COOi»OCO<DOjOO>00

OOC4OC0OOC0$

cowo-^ojoi^oc^o

0^•00^«•000^-C4<0
''.0C0O<0’^00C4C4*O
f-t »o

2,286

7, 434

wo CS ^
Tt* 0
Oi 0 wo

<k^C0

Tt^t^<OWOOOCSOi<0

OoOOit^cOOwOO:©

OCSoOOiOXOOiOOO

^CS** 00 orC4CSCS

rH Oi

1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

i 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 t 1 1

1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t

1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

t 1 1 t 1 1 t 1 1 t 1

1 « 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 t

1 1 1 1 • i 1 1 ( 1 1

1 1 1 t 1 • 1 1 1 1 (

319, 336

38, 724

1 1 1 t 1

1 1 t 1 1

111(1

111(1

1 1 t t 1

1(111
1(111

1 1 1 1 1

1 ( ( ( 1

1 1 1 1 1

• (III

• till

1 1 1 1 1

24, 865

9,099

1 1 (

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 I 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

• 1 1

t 1 1

1 1 1

t 1 1

1 1 1

1 ( 1

1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

1(111

1 1 1 1 1

i 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

t 1 t t 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

(•lit

6, 725

10, 200

8. 400

74, 295

147, 750

5, 134

P<OWO<OCSOOCOWO

Ph^W0Ci<0^'^f-(O

OOiC40iOOI^CS»OOi

cscot^rtCooTcoco^

I-IWOWOWOPM 1-HCS

CO ^ CS
COOiO
^ ^

WO^-^
CS CO <0
<D 1-H 00

t-»-Ht'-COOi^W0t'^t^

COOiCOtOCSr>.CS»OkO

t>-^W0CSi-i'^CO00’^

'^t^^WOOOOkOOiCOOCSO

OOOWOb'.’kJ^i-tCOt^COO*-*

O^OCO^wCSTj^OiOiOOi-l

<0 p
Oi M
CO <0

CS Oi wo ^ 0
^ CO wo
OOiWOCScO

wo 0

CO h*
00 <D

OOCOOi
CS wo
<0

I-IOCSCSO

Oi h- Oi

00 wo <0

OiQC4

<0 ^ <0

00 CS
CSCO<D
GO CS <0

<C>CO<OwowOb-OiOiO
i-Ht^01CSW0i-H.-HO»— •
CO’'^<DC^WOb-Oit^OO

'^'Oi

CO<Dt^

oi CS

wo 00 00

'^“00 C^OO CS O'h^QO
-^Oi C*- CO 00 CO 00
CS

<&

^Oi'oi'^c^co‘TfJ'<d'cocsor
•^COCO*^-^WO<DO>t^OO
wo CO i-< »-H

CO 00

s-

•k

00 <0 I-H

^ ^

•k ft.

<0 CS
wo CO

». *k

CS~ Oi CS CO CO
<0 0 00 rH t^
0 I-H i-(

•k •k

CS Oi CO
Oi Oi<0

ags

•k«h».«>«k«k«>*k«k

Oif^O<DOiCS'kS<pWO

kOkOii^GOCOCOi-lOt^

es ^ — <

<

Oi »o CS
-H CS 0
^<0»-(

0 CO wo

•kt* l'«<0
wo 1— 1 CO

wOOOCOOOOi-^t^<OCO

COt^COCOCOr'-b-COCS

COC'-'^CSOOCSCOWO

00c

o<

pwoOOOWOOiCOOCSO

5wob-^i-<cor>»coow

O00''^<FHCSTj(OiOi00»H

CS

CO rt*
t*- CO

CS Oi wo 1-4 0
i-( CO wo t'-
©OiW0CS<O

0©
0 <0

coco ©
'kS* CS wo

© Tt4 I-H

r-HOCSMO
p © r'.
© -04 t>« ©

CO wo ©
CS 0 CS
k!»4 t>. 0

© 00 ©
1^00©
Oi ©

©©i-ii-4b»r^05cswo

i-CkJ4W5CSi-4CSkOCSO

coi040ir-k,j4T!4i-(csco

<o<D“tkr

cot^r-

f-H 1— 1 0

<0 Oi 00

oT^od'h^co'cT^i-H'or
Tf( i-H b»copwo*^oo
CO <0

^OiOi’^COCO"^<OCOCSOi
k^COCOi^^WOCDOib-OO
wo CO 1-H rH

«k

CS r^
00 wo
CO

•k flk Wk Vk

^ 1— 4 ^

i-TaH"

00^

•k •k

•k «k •t

CS © CS coco

©O00»-Ht>.
0 1-4 1-4

oToi CS

2aj5

^ Vk «k

Oigwo

•k«k«k.*k«k«k«k»«^

^•^t>.'^ocsco©r^

t>-i-(pCSO©i-(i-(©

1-H M wo CS -4

•«

<0

«k

•«

CO©
00 CO
00T»4

©0 © CS — 4
CS © wo 0 ©

® CO CO CO ^

© t-
» M
b« ©

© © '?4

© © CS
© 11^4 <«!t4

CS© © © CS
© ^ CS tk- ©
1-IOWO'^t'.

© Q ©
p © ©
P © Oi

1©
(OOP
It". CS

•k «k

f-( ©

I^CS

•k Vk «k •> Vk

fs. ts. wo k(t« CS
ocsoco©

cTm

©CS

p CO

M CD ©

pk Pk Pk Pk p.

Oi©Ort4©

g©k^«©

p p Pk

CS CS Oi

Oi«i-4

1 Pk Pk

(■^p

1 ©

1

Pk

1

1

1

1

CO©

»co

©p©CSi-i
CS © © 0 ©
00 CO CO CO

© l>
©C4
©

© © •kt4

© © CS
©

cs©©©cs

©^CSh-©

l-^Oi©’^^k1

©oco
o©o6
Oi © Oi

!©i-4

l©p

It".cs

t-cs

Pk *k Vk Vk

rk- h- © *^ CS
OCSOCO®

«k Pk

QCS

©CS

Pk Pi Pk

p k^l ©

M <D ©

oTcd 0 kiiJ'c^
© © "^ © ©
© *-4

cs'csoi

Oi©i-4

1 Pk Pk

• kC4P

1 ©

1

ft

fH

f

1

1

1

1

to 0

»-( QO

© t>>

r- © ^ CO *-4

© ©CO © es

© CS © © 1-4

© ©
© p
•^cs

^»©
OC-©
© © ©

© © h- © CS
© 0 ©CO 0
fh rt4 CS CS tk«

ag§

©00

p 1-4 t".
1-4 tk.©

PC-O

•k ^

CS

© 00
00

wo WOOiO-k^

1-1 © 1-H wo 0
^ ^ ^

*k Pk

CTk?^

©fk-CD

Pk Pk Pk Pk

CS©CO©Q

©tk.CS'«t?©

P 1-4 1-H CS 1-4

cscscs

P Oi p
CSCSM

Pk ^ p^

CS tk-
P fH ^
CSf-4

p

CS

«

S3S

SOM
lO

<0 rf* CO
rf< 00 00
oooo

cri-TirT
to CO <o
C4

OO-Ht^lOb-COCOCOCO

oor^t>»oMoot^_

COOCOOWO^O^I-^O

O»0O'^OM00i-^h«

tOOO'-«^CO'5?»-HT*<CO

00 00 <o

g»-i^Oi-HO<Oi-<0^l^
»-«<*^^0t^'^0’-H<C>00
C4rrOMC0C0^OOOb«

•t •t ^ _«* •«•»«» •t _

<0C4C0t>-OOO'^t^OO
C0»CMC0O<0»0C4»0»0
^ ^ CO

OO-^I^’-'COCDM'^OO

Tj<t^tN,cOt>.OOi-HOOi-H

O«000O00»O00OM

<0 CO rfl“ eo oo

ot^

»o t>-

3 3 S

S'^o m'
1-1 *o

<D CO
Tf< 00 00

oooo

O ‘O
^OgJO

oo^ior^cocoocoo

OOt>-t>»OMOOt^O

00000»0»0-^1-HO

»oO'^OMOOi-<r«-
Q0i-H— ICO^’-^^CO
00 00 Oi-H

C4

^rt*Oi^O<Oi-HOTf<t^
^^0b»'^0’-<<000

o ■

M CO CO rH o O

g

CO»OMCOOO»ftC4»0

CO

00^-4^CO<OMt#<00

’«(t't^cooor^c0i-io0i-^

O»0»HO00u5c0OC4

<o CO cvT o' CO ■'iJ'o
l^iOb-OC^wS ot^

SC4 O

CO

h-O O
o OM
— < ^ — <

<0000 CO C4 00 UO C4 ^ CO O C4
OOO*^ 04tOOCOi-H<P
CO^"^

MUOOCOi-HOt^COCO
tO<Tt<i-iM<D<Ol^00rt<

»HCO^ QO'o (N'm" 04^00 C<fl^
M C4 UO O O ^ O h- CO <O00M
TJ4 ^

’>ti^^-OOO^W0'«t*O<Dt^

OOi-HO<Oi-i<OCOOOOOQ

MOOOr«»OtO<DOOOOOO

«h •* •• •* _ ••

t^MM»-<C0C4C0O^i-<O

’^t>iOt«-t>*<OCO»00<0»0

^<0^r-4C4<^

rf*COMC^IOCOi-<<OeO

<OC4qOQO’-Ht^OM

C0OO®C4OOC0O

t^oopg

, _ _ /I'iri-iuoco'^

^ r-t CO <0 C4 ^ C4 ^

CS 0 fH

0 1" ©

tk. CS t-

© © 0

t". t- tk.
© © p

tk-©©Tt4©t'-1-4l-(©
©Ptk-CSi— ICS©©©
©©PCSOOCS'kJi©

OOtk-©P©©©Qi-(©

©GDOP©'-H©f-4PfH'^

.-H©©CSk|#*©©l-l©©P

© ©
00

tk.©

t- tk. ©© *Ft4

© 00 Tt4 1-4 k(J4

«Mtk.O©

p 0
p ©
M 0

© fH p
tk. CO fH

© <D ©

C4 P CO ^

CS FH CO © t"'

cst-pwo©

© © -^
© p ©
Tt4 ©

fH 0 W5

0 -4 fH
© fH ©

r^cstk.©©FH©w5FH

©©0©CSCS^'Tf«P

G0W0©tk-©FH©W3O

e^<D t-T
© ^ t-
CS © *-*

0 wo'ccT
© 0 ©

CS © fH

•kPkPPiPkPkPWPkPk

O^CS©k!t4©P'^^
j^^CSfhPOOf^©
fH k«J1 <0 P CS fH 1-^

oTod'croroocd'tkrk^^wo'tk^

©©FM©pGO©t-'^©rk.

l-( fH kk}4 t- F-4 © -<^4

fH wo

k«t< p
©

F^ © ’TJ4 ^ ^

CS©CS©F-(
fH CS F- 4

t-^ CS
p p

fH

<b wo

■4t4 tk- ©

tk^ © tk^ 06

tk-0©©lk-
0 M F-4 CS rH

ki}4 Cs’
CS CS 0

©«kJ4-iJ4

tk-’cop’

M © fH

©w^o6<Dtk;p©w6Q
fhO©Pi— i©W5©©
CSCS©f4©CS cscs

fh" oT

c<

CO

+

H

5Z

»

o

w

H

a

o

z

! © o

® B^d d

3 « &fS5

eo^ d —
d OS'® ®
2 •<-» .S H

O rt o ^
oOm.SWfeSooE-'

a 3

Sfbo
03 O
W.2

• • J.

•Srf? ftP

03

s a

CO

2 o

®o

W 3 ! •

GO oS

-§

a

03

r

.2

a„

0,2 •:

t»

cS

id
C5

^.20
CO d
03 o i:

“^5

© o

•=5Qw I
^ §
a M

w f> ^ rt

“■35 g'2-^ aS 0^3 gp:-c 2h35
MH^-gPfeOPUM SQSm JMco 2

*3 “

3 S

43

® ja

ZO

iai

- S §-3

g O.S © a

i3a.S®3

<00001

See footnotes at end of table.

fl

0

u

CN|

Os

Q

K.

0

0

k.

s

9\

«0

g

o

u

0

li«

a,

k

0

0

1^

•o

cS

• li*

&

Ik

c

s

v>

U)

t

•m

ii.

o

"C

e

o

c

0

CO

•M

CO

fc

O

Q)

4k

o

Im

0.

t,

0

o

•M

-c

«4

4k

s;^

s

0

S

I

c4

c^

2

e2

eo 42

•c°

£2

® OOCO

04 ^ $ 04

ID QO 04 CO

r'.QC4'^t'
coo -4

CO CO C'.

ID

04

C'.

t'- 'Cf O
CO O rH

coo 00

O ^ ID
ID h- ID
i-H ID CO

CO 04 CO 04 ^ 04
04 C- 1^4 '«J' CO CO
Tf< C4 CO C- 00 00

i-« h- ID
CD 04 CO
CO ID Tji

807

483

CO r^- ID
14. C5 CO
00 CO ^

— 04 04 04
04 O O ID
^ CO CO 00

^ *1

C4 ID -H CD

1-H

i-H cb c<i

CO C^4 00

CO

04 1— < -4

04 04 O

r4

04 OO’
04 04 O-
^ 04

04 00 ^ ^ O
*'4 ^ CO 04

lb CO 04
rH 00»-l

i-

eo

^ 04 ID
04

gocoocft

-^OiC5C^C^05<:00

O CO

r-< Oi ;0 t«-

5i O

S

O 00 «-* CO O OJ 04 »C COCO

»— «V 04 Oi O ‘O UO h*- *-«

04 CO ^

8

a

«

4^

CO

CO

cn

03

_o

s

D

a

C;

a

>>

ce

o

a

CO

X3

"^73

O P

tjS

-<

0> t>> lo 04
O Ci 04 ^
CO »0 04 -o*

tfTco CO '«jJ‘

4^ »0 ^

•4>A

C3 P

o a> S

■*^'0 u

'd o2

<5

0^ o
73

CO CD O
ID O 04
ID 00 O ID

*k ••

ID 1—1 r>- 04

04 CO 04
^ CO

9
9 O

b/)P
03 CO

JL -IJ

*U CO

OC0
C/4

ed

CSj ,-(,-( C4

1 i

1 1 00 rt'

00 O

1

1 -Ji

O C4

1

1

CO O 04 coo •

O CO

1

1

1 1

1 o '

i

i

1

’OC

O ID

00 ID O CO

1 1 04 00

<N O

- 00

Q 04

1

04 IQ 04 f-4 O •

O ID

t

CO

•CO 1

• 00

■ -•C'

ooi'-iDr>.eor>-cD04

t-o

00 Tf* CO o

• '04 O

t' O

CO

1

t'. »-« 04 CO "■S' 1

O OO

1

04

1 CO •

• CO

'

ooo»Dr'-i-4cooco

04 CO

<0

oobo'U'

1 1 ^ ID

CO GO

<b^

1

04 CO CO CO 00 '

1

t

lb

1

1

* *

1 ^ 1

• 00

1 «»

' C'.

cooco-4^,-Mcbo6

CO C'.

CO S « CO

1 1 »D O

CO '5f'

ID

1

1

CO

1

04

1 1— t 1

1

1

O0-'O00iDC4*«rcOiD

eo ID

W

Eh

CO

1 l .-4

1 1

1 i
• ■

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

•

k

1

t

•

t 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

t

1

1

r

1

1

1

1

CO 4*1 ID 1-4

CO

04

00

ID

CO

co”

CO

CO

!>•

00

eo

ID

ID

ID

4^

04

04

oT

04

w 04 CO
04 CO CO CO 00

CO

CO

04

ID

04

O

s

CO

00

00

04 t-i 00 O O
00 Tf 00 ID ID
04 00 CO CO CO CO

CO 04 04 CO

04 04 04

O

oc>

*-H o

O CO
00 O

^ 04 ^ CO O
04 04 04 CO TT*
O O CO

CO 00 I-" »— t

CO ^ CO 04 O
CO 1— t

ID

O ID

c-o

04 CO
CO

eo ID

ID

CO

oo"

m

'O

P

a

9

3

s

Ph

03

9 2

'2 S

® 03
Pk

bO

©

Ui

Q.

9
T?

9 ^

P'S

to O

.S^

p

03

»

to *0

•g © «-*

®s£-<
s'® >>?::'

^ to P

> fe 2
2

©

*©

03

u

9

P

©

o

•“*5?

Im ©

03:

^2

o

CO

»D

9, si

rs u.

•ki -Tti coco

> • <1-4

ID Q CO «

ICO 1-4

i4j'04i-4b-.t'-

1 1 ID

CO IC o o

1-4 1-4 O CO

1-4 04 O

1 » 1 o

ID O 04 1

1 04 CO

1 O CO ID 04

1 1 ID

04 o b- o o

CO ID 00'^

4t CO 04 ^

1 1 1 ^
111

O 04 4t' 1

1

1 1-4

i

• 00 04 CO 00 04

• ICO

1 ■

eo o 04 1-4 o

CO OO 1-^ 1-4

’^"woToT

« 1 ICO

#V ^ «l *

CO CO O •

• 04 CO*

• '^'‘ 04 od 04“ 00

1 ■ 00

1-4 cbod

t^Tosibcb

ID h- OOCO

t 1 1

'If CO 00 •

1 ^

• CO *“•

1 I

CO .-H I'— r*4

04 ID o
O 04 O
O 04 CO CO

h- r>» 'isf'
GO CO 00
»D 04

04 ^ 04

l-H Q »-•

»D ^ t-l

10 ID

SS

CO 04
04 ID

O 04

CQ

•4-»

o

CO CO
1— I 04 Q ^
CO ^

^i-ToToT
ID r- 00 CO
•-«

ID O CO 1
ID O 04 i
O 04 ^ •

• CO *-(

• 04 CO

1 ^ 1-4

• Q CO »D 04

1 00 04 CO 00 04

1 1 ID

1 1 ID

1 1 CO

• •

CO 'Tt' ID o O

04 o r- efi o

CO O 04 .-4 O

1-4 1-4 O CO

CO ID 00 Tji

CO 00 *“H 1-1

04 ID o t'- O
4t« O 04 O Q
O ^ CO CO O

04 1-4 04

ID O »-•

ID ID

SS

CO

CO cb o •

CO 00 1

1

• 04C0’'

1 'tfi

1

1^04 00 04 00
• CO 1-H

1 ^

■ 1
• *00

1 1

1 1

^ O CO 00
eo —4 1>» ^

lO <c»

^ h- b- Tt* O
c>- 00 eo GO ^
ID 04

00 04
C4 »D

lb 04’

03

>4^

o

CD ID ID

1 1

• I 00 »D

CO O CO 494

O 04 44

♦ • 04 00

1 • 04 ^

1 t

00 O 04 00
04 4}H 44

Q 04 CO
O 04 -4

iboocb

• 1 ^4

cb ^ o lb

CO CO

00 rf* t>. O

1 1 ID 44

O CO 00 ID

49*

^t-H ID 1— 4

1 1 44

1 1

cOTfTj^t'.t^rN.

04 ID CO ID 04
!>• 04 »-H 04 04 04

CO ID
CO O h- , -
»D O C4 00

^ 04 O I-*
CO CO 00 04
CO o« ^ 00

04 t*- CD 1-4 1-H 00
CO •-• 04

ID 00 00
CO

CD Tji O O 00
ID rH I'-.CO

t- 00 »D CO
»-4 04 ^

04 CO 1^4 00 CO CO 100
CO h- C- CO 04 CO O t^rH
1-4 o 00 O r-H 04 00 0-00

O^OOcTcOfh'cDi-^O^ od04
»D 01 « CO 00 04 1-^ 04

05 ^ ^ CSJ ,— ( i-H 04

O

f-g'sl

ID ID 'It' 1-4
04 O 04 O-
00 O 00

t>r<o“ofco

l-H '«J4 ^ »-i
»“H ^ ik ^

t- Q o 04
00 O ^ 04
CO CO CO f'N

00 O- O- '«J4
O CO 04 04
ID 04

geo CO
04 00
t*- ■'O 04

04 CO O CO CO CO
T»4 CO 00 04 04 CO
1-* 04 Tt4 to o *-<

^ CO O
CO »D 04
CO 00

CO ^-. 1-H h- ID
04 00 ID »-( CO
CO 1-H ID

04 ■4t4 04 CO
00 CO 00
C- O ^ C'*

i'^ 00 CO <0
CO t>- 04
04

CO ^ »-4 CO
1-* I-H O ID

04 04

CO

04 CO t'- CO 04 CO
04 04 CO i-t

sss

rf» t-h ID CO CO
04 04 t'- CO

h- CO CO
CO O i-« 04

CO ID CO O CO 04 CO CO ust'O
Tt' ID CO 04 r- CO 04 -t' 04

I-' ^ 1-H CO 04 »-t CO ID r- ID

t^c^ofoT^-oT'^eo o^Tco

CO 00 Tji CO GO 0- lDi-«

1-Ht>-1— li-s04C0C^04 eOf-H

04

•G

a

<s

©

cO

■4-»

Q C3

a <p

O u
w 03

> 9

C3

73^

sU

Pi
cQ

73

©

p

p

p

o

Q

8

<5

03

H

z

o

m

H

p

o

©

©

cC P'S

>Xi o

<

D3

H

u

o

s

H

p

o

OQ

a

z

<

Q

t a

g © ®2 s ^

CO

H

<

H

n

p

o

OQ

03

ja

b£)

p

©

p

o

bo

p

,p

CO

oS

pp"

o ..

tU'zi

^'S

11

©

fa

• • p iP © o

aEoS-s® 0-:

03 'POT*

<i

©

03.2

1§

<i jLf ••

• • .w p
9© s
a**-

rt CO

CO

(X> '-■

©

u

o

a

'P C8
ce P3

p

o

4^

CO

©

'H

03

O ^ 2 c3

JnCi QP34^.©g 'P
0©.lli^*POOTQ'jP

^ ^ flj

' » I

© eo ©

- - •I'H

•53

© .a o

rsi^rT

W),

o P p

© © O

o ®4j 2-^0 ® o g y>’a>

^2lo|sis|5^ii-s

"Zoi

S is r- r3 P

©

P

73

p

P P

fe o_2 ^ a

eo . -O ®

C

©

4-4

b£'

P

P

P

• •

03

to 2

is 2 P.S ^ "

©'

•• «r-l © P

C5

©

P

cS

©

S

D

-*5

pH

o

z

<

<

H

Z

P

O

to

©

©

CO

&A l«k

2 S

CO

©

Pop

6i)73 © © §

.. p p B'X 2

.S'C ® «Qp^

S Sd s s s

jPmOcqqqcq

3
o

©^

>92

S- «

Q ..

PhS®^

°a-“

P o3

2§..-a®r'^

'^ © © oS

OOP^

88

1 See app. A for the territory included in each urban area. Figures which relate to territory other * Not initiated until 1933.

than that shown for the area in app. A are footnoted. * Not initiated until 1935.

2 Excludes cost of administration; of materials, equipment, and other items incident to operation « Includes direct and work relief and aid to veterans,

of work programs; and of transient care. t Relates to city.

* Includes statutory aid to veterans administered on basis of need.

o

Os

0

K

0

0

tl.

M

s

0

k.

V)

c

k.

a,

1^

k.

0

g

0

k.

*»^

k.

c:

S

eo

fet)

£

•M

e

>«

S

c

fj

Q

«i^

v>

•iW

CC

•D

0

c

4«

e

•m

k

a.

c:

0

•m

!3

s

a,

kd

c

s

o

s

I

CO

1

U

pS

S

o

H

w

'C

a

s

s

Pm

o

fO

•k

<£>

00

00 CO oc^
COOO^CDO
»0 CO 00 1-1 CO

Oi-H»HcoM*oo^coc<it^e<iooc^

COC^t^r<Hi-(f-HC<liOiOC^CO^O

0irH'^»O'^O»O05O0i00CO0>

COcOOSi-iCto 1-1 CO »-i 0> 0>

‘ot* 0& ^ ic *■«< c^ioo c^i-Hoor'*(^
f— I o

^ W5 rM
00 O i-H

40 o> r^

cfoo t>r
f-ic^c«

t^g^C04O<or^c4^e«r>

Qi

»o

o»

'^40401^1— lOJiOt^CO
00^ g CO ^ 40 40 o

•v

40

t:rco«coococ^esio

0*~<C^^OiCOCOC^CO

^ ^ ^ • •fc

*-»C^C^C0^i-H'^04t^C«»^
O CO

Sf2

00 40

CO 00
CO 1-i

to

o

o

G

09

•4^

CO

CO

CO

CQ

3

a

CO

a>

a

>)

oS

o

o

a

CQ

OP

o c
■*^

<1

40

1C«

40

CO

CP

40 CO C^ CO 40
C^i-i»OOOt^
CO I-H *C CO

•n »S •>

04 e^co

04»OiOe4C400C4000POOb-

C0C0Oi-I40tJ<^C004O00»-I

oocpt^c^cococor^-^cpcot^

CO C0 00 40^»0 04"*-r-^ CftC

40 0 0 »-< O 1-H CO o © »0 C^ CO

CO t>» •— • ^ 00 40 04 o O CO »o h-

O ♦-« CO O CO 40 05 CO CO O

_ ^ ♦» #«

C4 40 ^ 40 ^

00

05

_ A Ph

ococoe4

r^ S
o o CP

■^ns u

TJ C!2
— 1 0.73
<* D.J3
4) c>
T}

t^eo
C4 1-*
05 r-

jHoT

O'^

00

t>.

05“

05

O

oT

^ CO 05 ^

CO 05 05 11^ 40
C4 40 00 05

C4C040Oi-'‘^t^Oh-t^C0i-HC0

OCOOTti(NCOOi-HC5^COt>-CO

t^OOi-HOPi-tTtHOOOPi-ii-tC^O

O O
Tt- »0 CO X

t>-

CO00t^C^4O'^00C4t>.«rMtj<i-t
CM 05 CO 05 40 ■' ■

CM CO t>»00

t- 05 O ^ ^ 05 40 CO 00 O CO ^
CM 05 CD i!t< TJHO 05 40 05 40 CM CO

O CM CO O 40 h- 40 o 40 40 CD

f— I CM CO O 00 05 40 1— I CO IJ*

05 CM o CM i--t^0404005

*-H CM 1-M CO r-4 1-4

St^*O^Q040i-H^05Tj«0>
CM4OiiO0QCO00t>-i-tt^O5
4OcDrHCM00X4OCOi-li-H

•4 ^ •»

t>-b»t^QCCM404005
COCOCO'i^‘'^CO^-l>»

40 CO

00

CD ^
005

riD CO

40 C

5o-j*

^ hC

2SS
^ 00

1-4

s ss

4P
OP CP
W) 0
c3 ce

73 tn
•— <

o ^

CS

05

CO

CO

05

CO

o

4^

CO

<4.2

o

CM

CO

oc

v

r-

o

cf

CM

CD 05 T-4 o CO
O O 40 CO CM
05 00 O »0 00

^OOOCMCOCMOPCOCDt^COOOCO
C005.— iiot^OOi-Hi^^CMTt-i-HOOcO
»005t>.COCMTj<t^40^000050

OcOi-Ht^t'-
^ *D CO 00 1-t

TfCpCDCMrf’Ocpd'-O^CD

OOCMO’^’^0»0»-I’^
tM

CO 00 CO

CM050 40 O 00 CO 00 40 40 o

CDcDt^ 00 CM CM f-H 1-1 05 00 l>.
OCD40 O’— ‘CMCO4OC0O51— it^

COi>t^ CO Oi CC tc <o

05 Cm o 40 CO »-H -Mi I-H 40 »0 05
1— i CM 1— i CO CO ^

5:^400500401-^1^05^05
QCM40 40ooco«r'-»-ir^05
040<Di-HCM00 0040eO»-‘^

t-TtC iC orT cm" ir^ U5“ cT 40 40 c^
COCOCOTJ^’UiCOt'.t'.CDOi^^
40 CO rH I-H

iO

05 CO
05 CO

CO O

or-

CM o
00

*4 — •*

eoo

CO

1-4

9
T’

OP

t-l

OP

73

a
0
CO M
bjD b

o s

u

CQ

s

cS

t-t

bc

o

Ui

Oi

Projects
operated
by the
WPA 5

1

1

1

1

i

1

1

1

1

«

1

i

1

Civil
Works
Program <

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

9

%

U4

U4

9

G

9

o

^ ss
^2

CO

t-

CM*

CD

00

*-4 O
CO CM
00 CO

t^co

CO

CM

o

o

It*

00

CO

s'

0

1

' 0 CO

0

T

1 0 40

0

1

1

1 0 1-

1

»k

1

' •k

1 10 to

00

1 1— 1 1-

1®

CO

u

CD

g

00

CO

CO

0

CO

0

CD

00

0

It*

CD

iC

CD

■"f

rH

0

r-

of)

CO

CO

*0

r-

00

CO

on

05

CD

00

CO

00

0

CM

CO

If

CM

CM

tN.

CO

05

0

r-

•It*

05

t-

CO

’It*

0

0

CO

CO

If

05

05

4C

CM

05

00

Tf

CD

rt*

CO

»o

CD

40

05

CO

00

CM

CM

CD

CO

CO

05

0

05

CD

(T)

0

•*f

CO

Tt*

CM

*f

00

CM

00

05

CD

05

CM

’t*

r-

I-

»o

CM

05

Cl

If

r-

00

40

t-

40

CM

05

05

00

<D

CM

If

fH

00

0

*-o

t-

05

00

CM

CD

0

00

r-

•k

r-

05

CO

CO

05

CM

00

CD

CD

CM

cn

CD

05

0

CO

•o

0

t-

00

40

00

05

CM

0

05

CO

CO

r-

CO

CM

05

t-

CD

If

CD

CO

05

•4

40

«k

tC

•>

40

0

t-

00

05

CD

r-

CO

CO

CO

CO

It*

CO

40

00

CO

r-

00

40

t-

CO

05

C4

40

CD

00

CM

CO

If

CO

0

0

CM

CO

Hf

40

CO

Tt*

40

CO

CO

CM

CO

»o

CM

CO

CM

40

CO

CO

40

CD

CM

CO

CO

05

CO

CQ

•4.2

o

H

It*

40

t-

oT

r-

'Ct*

40

CO

i-« 00 CO CO O
CD CO 05 t-. CO
1J* 1— I 1— t 05 CD

oTco c^c^oT

05 Tf I>* CM 05
CO CO

e0400cDOOOit*C040it*CDi-i’it*
it*00OC0C0-^05 05 4OCMO500Tf*
’n’DicMit*i-Hr-r*40CM05c<'^r-

CM*‘cDCDCDCMCO‘i-rcCrori-r<rrc040

COOCO«-*COCOCO’’^CD»OOOCOt-
CM ^ CO »0 CM CO CM 1-H 40 COCO

#1.

CO

4— i o r-

COrhCO

00 »c r-

r- o t-

00 40t-
•’»*

00COCO4Or-»-HCD00O5
40CD*OC5COifCMCMCD
40CM05 0500'^CM’’«fi-t

cDooo5r-t-o>coi-*
O5t-(O5CMO54OCO00
40 CD 1-1 1-H CM

38

CDOOCOOOOCMCO'^’-'CMCM

C0C005O^CC00OifCD-t*

ooo40i-Hr..05oo^CM«oo

COt3“cgC4fortCcD'M*'cDcpor

CM

I ■^eOOOCMi^CDU*

CO 1-H CO

t-cD
CM Tt*
I#* 00

40 t^r
40 CO
05

050

w

It* 40

CD

r- r- If CO CO

00

cor- Tf 0 40

,

»o

CO 05 CM *0 If

as

-1-^

f «k •« ».

"If

0 05 r- If b-

40

If 05 0 1— * i-H

W

40

Vk

■f* CO 1-H CM 1-H

40

r—COOOOi“*CMCO’r**i-<
O 00 1—1

- - - . - 05 05r-

00 1-H CM i-« Tf 00 r- O CD o
CM05r<-it*CM4Ci-HCD05^iit*C0

t-^COCi'oOtD'^CQt^tOCit-^^tS
'it*C0it*4Ot'-C0004OT-»tN,i-lrH4O
o CM 40 CM CM 1-H CO '•t*t-i-H

ijr

CO 05 r-
CM P O
05 CM CO

OOO 40

r-oo

CD »H

eor«»cocooo5i-<co05

Soor-i-H*ocOi-«oo
COi-(COC0COCMc5O5

Tt<COCMi-ib*i-Hi-(^t-
I-* 05 O 1-H CO CO i-« 1-H

Vk

^ 05 T— I

COCOCMoOOr-‘M*OOOcOi-H

Tt*co404or-05cor-cDcO’^

co4ocMCMOr-r-co4ooocM

cTur^OCMCo'CM'cO^i^'io"
40cDCM05oor-oooi-Hr-o5
fH f-H CO t- 1-H CM 1<*

CM CO
CM 00

*«* ’l^

cm“oo

CO O
CO 1H

•k

CM

CM

coco

^ o

€3 73n-5 73 05

.4J'o2 £73
o ^ p > i

^ S ®

a

o,S

CO

40

0

If

40

0

t-

-t*

40

0

r-

CO

00

t-

05

t-

*<f

00

00

40

40

CD

00

*«f

40

00

r-

r-

"rf

•If

r-

on

r-

r-

00

CO

CO

0

0

CD

CO

CD

CD

CO

0

on

0

CM

Tt*

CO

05

CO

05

t—

0

0

t-

r*^

C->

CD

fH

CO

If

If

05

00

CT>

CO

on

0

CD

CO

05

00

»o

00

05

CO

CO

t-

05

Tf

CO

CO

00

CM

CD

0

r-

00

05

00

1-

40

0

CO

CO

CM

Tf

40

00

CO

0

t’-

05

CD

If

CD

0

^H

0

05

T-S

"'f

CM

0

0

CO

CO

r-

40

CD

00

CD

40

r-

CO

00

00

’f

If

40

r~>

CO

h-

CO

CO

>0

CO

*0

»o

*f

05

00

•*f

40

•'f

40

05

»o

r-

••f

on

CO

40

•«

CO

«k

h-

r-

05

t-

0

CO

CD

OQ

00

CD

c:y5

05

40

»o

If

05

0

00

C\

05

0

CM

05

CO

c5

p

CO

l>-

-f

CD

00

CM

CM

00

CM

05

00

-If

05

CM

CO

»o

CO

rM

CD

If

40

CM

If

CO

CD

40

r-

CM

CM

00

CM

CH

i-H

0

CM

40

CO

CM

^H

t-

0

CO

40

05

•k

40

■If

CM

If

•k

1-H

•k

pH

CO

»o ^
00 00
00

-t*''co
00 05

73

a

03

9

4^

OS

4^

CQ-

ag
•2 £
iQ?
> 9

•— cQ

o.

«0

i-t

bo

o

9

o

9

4^

o

fl •'C
•pop,.

K .-2gas

.sS..2"Wog

CP -

9 9
973 > CP

“•E-" e-

73

u

a

'C3

Ga

o

•4-5

OP fe

bo”
P O

_ „^§S|«S=5a'|«._„

cp*H^i®i®CPca®*H^Po30 0,4^

G

o

o

cQ as

CP

CP

p

CP

73

>

o

u

Ph

• ♦

73

G

p

^-4

CO

h-i

©

73

o

.a

Ph

o

1-4

55

-<5

Hi

Eh

m

hI

Q

Q

IJ

§

o

g

p

o

©

&

.. C3

CO 5>

fl

©

a

O (p
» d

w.— ••

• • •— ^ p3

iS-fl afl

gOco.^f^f^

M

gtj

> o

a a

89

See footnotes at end of table.

4)

u

• M

0

U

I

On

O

k.

O

Q

k

s

V3

0

K

0

^

Cl,

1^

!.«

0

8

o

"0

'B

&

Ik

"O

c

w

ffi

to

:t

•M

c

im

o

"O

e

0

o

o

0

o

4y

fio

•M

QC

o

0

•mi

k.

a,

'o

e

e

o

• m

)c

s

a,

'S*

•w

ct

s

0

S

T

CO

0^

s

08

H

2*

05 iS

>v,

•c

Ph*S

00 o *-•

•-• ^

cc >o

S*‘cf»r5

(?< ^

Q Hj*
40

Ot-

COtJ' W
TP t- 05
0500

1-H005005
CO 05 0 0 1-H
05 coot-

sss

40 05 CO

COQCO
Htt 40 1-H
00 TP CO

O00i-5C005Q<DC005
Ttlt-OC^OO0540 C0
4Ohh05XW»OO5C5i-h

0 CO 00 b-

CO 40 CO
TP 00 00 0

00 Hjf
CO 05

05 hh CO
-H 05

05*05 00 CO
i-h^05 05

CO

00 oft-f
CO CO 0
1^ ^

tP COb-f
t-COb-
rH CO

40c'fcoi-H‘ofofod‘t-i-f

TPC005t-»OOOCOCOCO
1-H 1-H 05 1-H 05 1-H

40 00 05*05*
40 1-05

05

o ^ <0 »-H

t'- CO C^ 1-1

C^J ^ o o

^ CO ^

Oi kO CO
tv. »o CO c2>
CO »o o> to

®sss

»-• h- CO
CO ^
^

tCcD ’^'‘

CO CO
I-H CO

CO oo
CO O

o ^
rvTco

C^CO

o

o

fl

03

CO

•M

(«

</l

03

o

X5

3

u

03

o

o

a

QQ

a>

.a

'^'3

o a

ll2

TSS

<

lO t^

o »-<
CD 00

»« oT
c^

»0 CO »o
Oi o>
t>.ooo

COC^” o"

OO*^ 05 Tt< t>v O CO o »o »o »-< ®»oco«-«

COO«0 05 rf< lO ^ lO ^ 1— I lO O CO 05 »0

t^»OC^ CO C^ 00 O CO T-t coc^t>»c^

f-j'coco CO co'cTcoc^'*-^ coocc^»o‘

00»O f-H CO *0 CO CO CO C<IOI »Of-»

^ p a

O 0) C>
*^'3 »-•

3 P2
©r3

<J g.J5
® o

QCO <35
0 05 40
0 05 0

CO ^

00 0

00 t-

00 40 40
Tp 05 05
CO 05 1-H

CO^i-HCOt-
I— CO »-H 05 rH
OCOCOi-hhP

05 ^ CO
CO CO CO
005 t-

HP 00 t-
05 »0 t—
1-H t— 05

050050505i-h05040

b-COi-HCOO5CO00i-HO5

OOCOi-HCOOt-i-HOOcO

05 00 ooo

t— 1-H -1^1 t—

1-H 0 TP

1 1 05 40

1 1 ^ f-H

1 1 1-^

1 I

00 0

CO 0
40 0

|05

1 05 05
It- CO

1 0 40

gss

« t- 1-

40 1-H C5
hH 05 1-H

0 1-H

coco

05 0

CO* b-^ CD* 05* 00*

05* 06 1-H
05 05 t-
^H

tPO’cO
05 CO t—

05* 0 0 Q b-^ 0 HP

40b-'^05^cDi-HOc0

^ 1-H f-H

05* 1-’ f-4 0

CO t— 05 40

CO

1 *C005

( 1 40 f-H

1 1 fH

1-1-^
CO 40

\S

i

1 CO »c

1 05

1

05 05 05

®

® ®
bcp
cfl 03
j;

“ CO

O CO

°3

0

' 05

>0

' 0

‘ 0

1

CO

• CO

1 CO

1

03

■4^

o

coco

00 c^

TJ4 lO

00 »o »o

TT 05 C^
CD 05 1-H

CO 1-H CO t>*
CO ^ 05
O 00 CO »-H

00

00 t>- c^

05 CO

00 •-« »-H CO 00 ^ lO CD

So CO r* o o CO c^

C^C^ CO CD CO »o 00 00

»0 1-1

w ^

CD »-H

00-^

05 O

§S5g?S88

«:» o c^

O 1-1 00
C^ r-i

1C CO o
005 00

CO DJ t'-
CO

00 O CO 40
005 0^5^00
(N 1-t

coco 0 hh

1 1 05 40

000

1 CO

0 t- f-H

00 CO

CO 40 40 C5

1 1 ^ f-H

CO 0

1

0 I-H CO

0 CO 40

0 CO 00 t-

1 1 rH w

40 0

I 1-H

0 40 HP

C5 b- 1-

05 40 0 40

1 IC005

1-H HP

1 05

CO 'tf^* TP*

C5D5C5

40 00 hH CO

1 1 40 f-H

CO 40

lOO

Hp

40

00

Q00C5

40

Q CO CO

I-H

CO Hp 00

•4

05

CO i-Tod

CO

05

CO

OI

CO

'3

3

3

«M

o

3

3

Ph

a

u

o

TS

®

CO

a

feS

® tlfl

»3 o

h<

o.

a

3

w-t*i

a a
•3^*

03

eo'3

+^05®

2 ® >*>

^ b
— o

3

c3

Sm

b£

o

u

®

3

u

— H

C8

®

a

®

o

u ®

o;3

^2

CO ^
CO
05 ^

05 — ^
t>.

6^b-

40

05

40

CO

40“"

05

CO

o

CO

0*3

.b'qj

85

05 CO
■Kj* 40

•-• t^o

40 C^

^ o

CO

00

0

00

05

05

05

CO

Hp

0

b-

CO

CO

c5

0

CO

05

40

CO

05

00

0

TP

05

CO

C5

0

tP

CO

CO

CO

TP

CO

CO

t-

40*

c>

^H

CO

00

40

oo

b-T

of

CO

0*

cf

00

CO

CO

CO

t-

0

f^

0

05

CO

TP

CO

40

CO

CO

1-H

f-H

rH

1-400 4<5 CO O 40 CD 40 05

C0C0400505C0O^C0

icTcT ccToTc^i^c^i-rorc^cr

r- 40 1- 1- CO r- T-i r- 05

I-H 1-1 1-H T»«

00 ^ 05 HP

CO »0 0 b-
1-H 40 05 0

fOZ

008

hH CO t- 40
05 40 CO

05 05t-Hp

t- 05 t-
CO CO 00
f-H »0 »0

• coco
IQCO
•005

40cd*coo
cot- 05-^

00 i-H

I ICO

1 1

1 1

a a

CO* 00 of TP
CO 05 CO

Iv

lofco

1 H*4

1

00

03

o

&H

85

88

05 CO
. Tf 40
1-H t- O

‘40C^*“

- - o

C5 ^ **H

CO

00

0

CO

05

05

05

CD

tP

Q

t-

<0

CO

fH

0

CO

05

40

CO

05

GO

0

Hp

05

CO

05

0

CO

CO

CO

Hp

rH

CO

CO

t-

40

cf

*

00

GO

40*

»

00

t-f

of

CO

0

c>

00

CO

CO

CO

t-

Q

^H

0

05

CO

Hp

CO

40

00

CO

fH

rH

I-HOO »0 CO CO 05 CO ^ 40 CO 05

coo Q c5 1-H CO 05 40 CO

C5 1-H coo 40 0 05 cOO 05 CO

lOcT CO oTco ofco i-ToTc^o

!>. 40 r- 40 40 -Tfi t- 1-1 05

1-H f-H OO 1-H »0

00 1H iH TP
^ 40 CO t-
rH »0 40 0

1 0 I tP

IH CO t- Hp
P5 tP 40 CO
05 05 b- 00

t- 05 t-

• O lO
ICO |05

CO CO QO
rH 40 »0

40 CO 00

CO t- 00 Tp

• 1 c^

1 1

C0*00 of rH*
Hp CO 05 »0

iH 05 ^

1 1

r.

coco

g?5

05

<o

00

03

o

b*

85

40 40

T»* ^

O ^

co't'^HjT
O CO 1-H
CO 1-H 1-H

COCOt- 4O4OC0C5^ ^^05 05 CO 05 1-H Tt4 40 05 1-H 00

>1^ OOOO C0C0'VD5O 00 ^ O *-4 CO ^ r- 05 CO 05 CO C5 00 o

1-H r- ■'9' t-'^OCOCO COCO^ 05 40 CO o C5 oo CO CO hj4 »o CO C5

C^'i-H i-ToO'i-h' ^C040‘orc5‘ oTf-TcO io'oo'^ ^C5‘co'40‘4^c^0r^c^

COt^OO »-H ^ o 1-H 40 ^ Hf4 CO 0 05 40 CO 1-H 40 1-^ 40 CO CO t-

IH O'^C5C0C5 cococo i-h i-H r-i C5 C5 ^ CO i-H C0 1-^

-H 05 40
05 CO 05 o

hH 1-1 <1«4 ^

SC5 05
1-H

00 1-c CO

CO* 40“
40 C5

05 CO t-
Tj* 40 r-
oo 05 05

1^05*05*00
O 05 05 CO

t- 05 00
CO 'Tjl 1-H

*^oo

CO 00 oT
o

00O5 ^

St- 05
CO 05

05* of

2S

-H ®

-3’gl'o

Di»—

^ 40 CO

0 40t^

»0 40 0

Hp CO

t-oO

1H

Hp t- 00

40 b- 0

CO 40

CO 40 05 05 CO
05 0 40 rH 1H

0 00 0 ^ 0

fH »0 HP

40 05^
05 05 t—

05 05 05
40 CO 40
t-05C0

HH^ofO
CO 40 CO

HP 1— 1

OCO
Hp 05
05

•-^of’^
»o t- 0

HjTii^coco od"

05 00 C0 05t-
CO HP 05 CO 05

b^Hp"^

00 0

CO 40 Hp

0 fH t—
00 CO 05
05 40 05

>lCj4t-OHt*C04040t-0
05Ht<0‘ib05 05 05COHt<
i0'^i-HTfi-HO40C0C0

i0^t^t^iO<OCCCCt>^

t>.*^^00i-H40t-C0O

COCOt-tO’^’^ t-co

of

g

t- 05 05
<Tf* CD CO
CO t- 05 Hjt

of cT of 00

Hf4 t- t- ?5
t-C5

O Ht* 4C o
t- oo t- CO
05 05 1-H CO

00 r- 05 40

Q 05 05 HJ1

« t- t- iO

00 CO M*
05 05 CO

00 1-H

1-H o CO
Tf4 r-
05 40 CO

t- rH 05 05

^ ^ fH 00

iH TP CO

06 »o

b- ^ 00 t-

1H 05 05 CO
rH fH fH 05

CO HP t-

Hp CO

CO

fH

*3 .

a

C9

o

cs

flS
o u

^ §

»3XJ

aU

•a

03

&

8

o

'3

®

3

a

a

o

o

i

<

OS

t-

z

u

o

m

H

p

o

!2:

*3
®

3

P to

®

ga§§

o|«W

I 5.3 HI

CO

2.tJ O

S5 s

2*3 3 bf

2 3 O

3

•3

o

a o ©

- «cqE^

®|y

3Q33 g

^ §

3 M

CO 03 5
CO 2

P A o 3

CO

a

C3

CO

pi • tm

^ 5 ^ 3iP «5
»pj 3 3 c3iS ®
a +3 PI:? 3 p

>1

3

.p

3

a

24-5*0+3 p
p 3

s §>s 2 g'alls" 5 §"«

WE-'^SfifeOPnCQ gPScQ SMm 2

a a ^

S 2 § ®

O' ;r7 1 p

^.20

'^3 2 3

S pM^

D 03 • w

-3

®

p

o

®

®

p

o

c3

6

izio

»2P3j® Jh3 rtp'^
P33'5P^/-^^»*.P03

O ^ a P 5P3 2^ 3 W w 3

£i||>3^.a^§-|a''3^

M a}.Sa^ ® cLpJ=^ oi'^2G ®

o^ooooPwtH>H 8WSS«

— H OT

•— 4

<v

a

o

3

mS

<

OS

H

Iz;

H

o

n

3

o

GO

Q

o

iz;

•<

»

H

o

CQ

a

3

CO)

a a

as

p

o

•w
bfl
p

A

CO

3

p^

o . .

3

P'2

a 3

•o

« •
®
fc.1

®

33
>

§-

CO

®

3.2

4^ a

s §

2

I

^ U O ® o 3

^ aJ-a o

ssg

OMj

3

S hJ-P p

IS«:Sd®S

O ® ^ ti v o w
fe aj PrN ® 5 ®

2 s^-p a ®
Zaa >^a<00

£0

90

1, 382

^ r>-

c^o irT

^ CO

kO

C^ CO

tC
CO C4 »-t

<Deoi-''^t>»
cq 05 O
C5 »0 O CO

CO coco'co o"

^ »OCO

«o »o r>.fo

CO i-< O
CO t>* CO

00 Tt^u? <«(j7

^ o ^ ^

05O00«C^C0C0C^

t'-i-HC005i-(COt^05

C005c0t^00»-'’«j<

^05^g<55

CO Tj<
C4

05

CO

rf< 00
CO 00

t^co

CO

05 to

•s «»

00 to
CO »-*

^ 00
05 x}<
CO O

1

i

1

1

CO O
ooo
XX eo

<

1

I

1

to

XX

CO

1 1

1 xH 1

cO 1

tto

• to

• 00

lO

>05

•CO

Oxxoob-^tototo

t>-O500COC0C0xX4O

COxJ<xXxj«eOOOCOO

to to

05 CO
05 XX

040

1

1

•

050

1

1

1

1

t CO 1

1 xH 1

1 1

■ Vk

>05

i

1

I

1

(

orcd'’^to'<D'<^»do
C^xxeO^txOcoto
co-^ ^

CO CO

coo

xX

TJ< 00

eo o

1

to

1 I

1 to

>o

C4xxeC<OC4OtOCi0

to to

1

O 00

1

1 XX 1

1 to

*<05

tx00050xxrN.,-xco

<95 CO

CO O

1

1

xx eo

1

1

CO

1

1

■ O 1
« •

>00

• eo

too’^ocoo5eotx

05 xX

d o

1

05 o'

1

•%

tx

iCO 1

1 •*
>05

t m

1 xii

tx' o xx CO tx td 00

CO CO

1

rt<

•

04

» xH 1

1

*

OOxXtxiOOCOCOxx

CO CO

w b- oo CO to

00 <05 to CO
<£5 00 lO C<l 1-I

oTco^'tOiooo

toco

to OO »-' »0 to
*-< 05 CO t>- to

to <o t>- C<l
to'co t-To

I-H CO 05 t^
CO 1-H

CO

wM

00

CO

r-^ i-H ^

ill III 1 t 1 1 ( i 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II
III III 1 1 1 1 1 till 1 i 1 1 t 1 1 1 II
III III 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 II
III III 1 1 1 1 1 III! 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 II
III III 1 1 1 1 I 1111 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 II
III III 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 < 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II
III III 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 II
III III 1 I 1 1 1 (III 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 II
III III 1 1 1 1 1 till 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I II
III III 1 1 1 1 1 till 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 II
III III 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 II
III III 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II
III III 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 II

III III I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 ( 1 II
III III 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II
III III 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 II
III III 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 II
III ill 1 1 1 1 1 till 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I II
III III 1 1 1 1 1 till 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I II
III III 1 1 1 1 1 till 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I II
III III 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 II
III III 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I II
III III 1 I 1 1 1 till 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I II
III III I 1 t 1 1 till 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 II
III III 1 I 1 1 1 till 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II
III III 1 1 i 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 II

1 1 i

1 1 I

1 1 I

1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 I 1 1 1

1 I 1

Oil!

III 1 1

1 1 1 CO 04 1 0 <

1

CO 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1 1 I

Oil!

1 1 1 0 tx 1 0 1

CD 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

O < 1 1

1 1 1 tx O I O '

114 1 1

rf« 1

j

lit

1 1 1

III

1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1
till!

will

tx 1 1 1

• 1 1 w ' w *

1 I 1 to to 1 o >

w <

xX 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 I

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

t 1 I

1 I 1

1 I 1

1 I 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 I

1 1 1 1 1

I 1 1 1 1

1 t 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 t I

1 1 1

1 1 1

III tx 1 eo 1

1 1 1 04 ■ 1

III 1 1

III 1 1

III 1 1

III 1 1

III i 1

04 1

1

1

1

•

1

1

04 CO xX

1 t

1 1 00

O tx 00 00

OOCO O xH

1

^ O lOO^^

<95 CO

to 00

1 1 tx

04 O 0> XX to

CO to CO o

00 00 ^

<95 O tx X!t< 1 04 tx V»(

xx eo

00 to 05

■ 1 05

1 1

to O tx CO O

OO tx CD 00 1 to 05 CO

CD 05

00 04 05

1 1 «»

1 I xX

t^ tJ 00 00

t^CD^cd

00 05tdo iCDCOxX

OxcDcOtO lOO'^CD

<95 OO’

CO

1 1 xH

CO xX 00 xX

xX 04

CD to

1 1
t 1

1 1
* 1

1 1

1 1

CO ^ xX 1 xX

.K 1

04 j

1

04 CO XX

1 1

1 lOO

O xj< tx 00 00

00 CD O XX

tOxX<39C004C0^to

04 CO

to 00

1 1 tx

04 O <95 XX kO

CO to CO O

<050tx.«tf<tx04txxj<

00 CO

00 to 05

1 1 05

to O tx CO o

00 00 04

00txCD»OO»O<95C0

O C5

00 04 05

1 1

1 1 xx

t.^>vt^o6od

w w w »

^ CD ’t*<CO

OOO^toeOiOCDCOxx

XX 00

05 55

CO

I 1 xX

CO xX X xX

04 04

O4cDCDtOtx00txCD

1 1

CO xH 04 xX

xx

i 1

1 1

1 1

1 I

1 1

of

eo xx xH

CO O GO

to ^ tx 04 CO

00 xX o xX

tx04tOCO’^C0O5C0

tx op
tx 25

CO <0 00
to O <95

O CC tx

CO 0<35 CO to

CO XX CO 05

CD<»txxj<00O500xX

XX CO <95

xx o tx CO O

00 CO 00 00

.^tx,-xiOCO-^C4xx

o o

» ^ «k

XX 04 05
xH tx

•k

05 O xX
^ XX

to ^ t.^ Vj< 00

CD XX coco

W W W W

^ CD ^ O

W CO XX

CDCOCDtxo6’^05Q

xxooeootxC^co®

(-ixx04C0050404xx

op to*

04 04

CO XX

CO

o

CO

00

^"4

CD

05

rx

tx

00

CO

to

rf<

CD

tx

CO

04

CO

04

CD

04

to

CO

CO

CO

CO

CD

05

CO

CO

CO

CD

tx

<95

05

xx

xf<

<95

CO

CD

o

XX

xH

05

04

CO

CO

XX

CO

o

to

00

tx

05

XX

00

to

00

CD

to

CO

CO

to

Tjt

CD

O

CD

ed

w

CO

w

cd

w

o

of

of

04

CO*

cf

00

cd

m

o

p

to

o

cd

O

cd

W

tx

•td

CO*

00*

m

tx

cf

to

o

tx

04

o

04

05

05

CO

CO

04

04

to

CD

04

tx

04

o

CD

05

xX

xX

xX

»x

CO

04

04

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

xX

cd

fX

«k

o ®

^ CO

“1

4>» CO
eo ca

o s

3

o

a

o

CO

<0

Im

co

x:

o

♦ •
CO

a

o

Sx

o3

05

o
0[g

§

05 eo C5

^ ' »-x

*Q rz3

> a>

O « M
fl «

.a

tx

o

00

cO

SIX'S 3

fl

af

o P

P.2

p
c

OjO
p

p
p

w

• «

CO

p
bJ5

vja

'p
P <35

S'^

o S §

cO

p

cO^oOP’PO'^O
SQWfeWcB-SlZiWP^

b< >

• m

a

B

a

o

CO
<35

^—.
Wit3

p p

CO^

O cO

h30

o

C5

a '

>? I •—

g bfl P

305 C5 CO

‘X ^
coPP^

b P P

C3 03
OiCQCQ

05 “

> 9^

05 . ,

o

CD bJ3

'P p

eo

20
o

C5

P flCO P 03 S
g 05-05

g as-st»0H

^ 05 03

OOP^

09

p

03

lx

05

05

>

'p

CO

*o

p

03

Vx

05

a

<35

lx

♦ •

eoto g

CO CO P
<35 <95 S
xX 1«H

p p
p p

'p'p

05 05
x-»

03 c3

p p

♦■X .xx

X^ x>d

o o

:z;^

'p

p

03

XJ

^ x^

S-’S

•■X W

'p o

to

C5 CO
'p 0>

S CO

p"®

i-hPh

p

o

••X

x^

03

05

a

o

a

<v

'p

o

p

CO

a

05

a»

.P

PJ

P

03

05

.P

x^

O

>»

lx

O

lx

05

05

x^

,2

lx

43

05

• mm

J3

&

eo

05

ix

P

CuO

CO

05

hx

cO

P

a

Xi

p^ _

_ <35 CO

-P '*-* r2

« 2.2

OS P lx

05 <35

^ O X-9

P O 08

♦nh rt

.p 05 P

^ CO ^

^ X ® OO

P<J •- O

• o

.9 S*.§

0*xX

s:a

S 9 oS
2'^'p ^

©•P 03 fl >»

43-«vx ”

t:o^

.2 P CO

o

P

05

a

a

•^^

p

p

<35

-P

C5

C5

o

CO

."X

CO

<a

43

P

O

T?

05

lx

05

x.»

CO

a

'p

_ 50

as w
P
as

05

P

05

05

CO ©

p >
•xi w cO o

Ix

lx

05

as

lx

o

CO

p

Olx M

CO bX) „

'H 05 o g

co<^

ax-3 fx

CO ^ .-

0^43

&•§

©Ti a u o

CO P W ghH

- ^r.

<3\

Q

k.

P

Q

lO

k

Z

9\

s

s

o

k.

k.

Q

S

P

k.

"P

■§

•i^

CJ

S'

k.

z

z

«D

s

• ita

z

tm

P

z

p

g

z

p

4x5

Vi

•tti

Vi

Vi

P

g

4x5

P

•M

k.

Ox

"P

z

p

g

•iw

to

C4

CO

04

<X>

CO

05

to

04

O

CD

to

CD

05

<30

CO

to

04

CO

to

CD

•*J<

05

eo

xX

<5

05

©

(0

00

to

CD

CD

CD

04

05

04

to

CO

CD

rX

00

CO

as

>

Vi

p

a

of

s

pi

tx

00

•k

05

tx

04

*

S3

m

<95

to

?x

S

cd

05

CD

00*0

05

of

to

of

04

CD

tf

CD

pk

o

CO

u

a

p

to

CO

P

P

P

Vx

©

s

p

a

S

§

x-»

CO

eo

S3

O

•M

s

p

a

CO

05

a

>*

as

•4M

O

05

a

OQ

43

■^P

2.S

S3

tx

CD

CD to 04 CD 00
O CO tx P o

txO XX p TJ<

§

C40tOCDCD04 04xXTr
COCDtxxflxH^txOO
xXxXiOOcD05xJ<00xX

w

Tjt

CO

<N

04

Pk Pk

COCO

cd-^*<d‘cD*C4* tdof xx cd XX

xX

of

^ ® a

O 05 05
X3 *-•
P p2

•< a43

05 O

P

o

o

<95

co"

o

?f

tx eo ^ CO
o to O oi cc
05 00 0^00

tC05COOOxx.-f^txoO

‘OCO»-xoOO*-<cO<3>»-xtO

1-x c-1 eo 05 *-<

CO CC 05 ’■H

c<icocooi-xc^oocoeoco

COC^OCC^05tr5 tOO«
GO I-H

©

to

•

1

® fl

bii E

05

1

tx

1

<3 ®

w

00

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

«

P.2

XX

to

04

1

1

1

1

w

O

t-H

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

xHOC<cOf-HOirxiO'^05

050i-'05»oc0t0000

tx,-t00t^<30»OC0i-x00G0

.-J' cf ol' to CO cTc^ 00 00

CO CO f-< »-< »H

as

x-»

o

05

CO

cc

«x

o

to

lO

s

CO »-H 05 O CO
oo5rxcot^
|x 00 eo CO

00<O5i-^C?tC0OCCC^C^’^

^01C0C0Ot0i-<C3C0<95

tOCO^C^0501»-<tOt^'^

s

00 00 o o 00 'tf 53 o •« CO
CCO*H ^ to CO CO to XH O XH CO

^ T-X xH xH

as

u

(35

p m

5K w

. ©
kx Ix

© tJO

P o

a **"

ga

eo44
be ^

P 9

Ix

as

a

Wp -.X*

fsfS

2 05

— « 9

•S'S §

^ g lx

PlPta
U> O

J-** lx

a

©

*05

Ix

s

Ix

05

p

©

o

^Hx
Ix ©

033

^2

•M

CO

00

o

o

oT

04 ’pi

1 xX O

1 CD

1

»

1 xt<

• o

t

CD xX

•txO

i xX

i04

<o

04 xX

1 txO

4

• CD

1

a

1

• tx

•

■ O
•

• o

1

t’fof

Pk «k

Itxp

• OO

• w

■ 04

w

1

■ pk

• <95

1 Pk

* Pk

1 xX

tx CO

t

1 o

• CO

CO XH

1 to »-x

1

1 xX

1

1

S.2

k-P

Ix

CO

CO

to

CO*"

to

$

XH XX 05 CO

rxocooooo

05 CO CO tx 00

rxtx00tO00CO00txt>.O5

<30050»OOC^OOCOCCOO

05-^«COCOxXCOxHtOCO

■Xj< CO O
xXtx.06O5O5
corxC^ xH

tO-rl^OOOCOMC^ICxIMOO

C^COCOOO^XXOO'^OCO

COC^tOtOO)<^'tt404t»

cd

to

CO to 05 xf< tx

txCOOOtOOOOCOtxrxC5

04

eo<95 00 txoo

OOxxOtOOiOOOCOCDCO

04 XX CO *^00

O5xH00CDCO00CCxxtOCD

©

• V

Pk

05

04 ededoo lx

»d't’fcrcdcdx-oro404of

05 xX OO 05 05

04C0C000xjiC400txOai

w

CO

Pk

CD <95 04 CD xX

CD04tOtO04tO-^04tx

Pk

s

CD

€i^

as

x-»

o

M*

05

CO

eocooOTf* CO
CO 00 <0 O CO
05 CO t'x CO

^odoTxx" td
eo h- xx o x-t
t'-O5CO0CCS

tOC^O5t.xCO00x-<O5<05CO

CO'«t'OaOxxoOtO-^CO

»Otx0500C<xX40CDCOxx

•xiTidocdofcd'^c^rodccr

txoico'^ocooooorxco

tococoococotoc^rxxx

XX ©

o-^ p >S

p

05

tx.

CO

05“

C<J

00

•t

tx.

xX

OO 05 OC'^ ^
CO CO xx CO <»
Xj< o •''C< to 05

•^i>xxxtx05cor^oooo^

<050CO<NtOOCOI-xtOl>-

t-t-d-^tCOOCO-^COCO

C5 OC CO O to

to o CO eo
«c4xJ<05 03

O«-xJ«xxO0'^Cxxxtx.O0C<

tx.txii000105t0a00b-

c^cotxtxeococONooxx

00

p

p

03

«k

©

eo

co^

xT as

9 ©
3 g

eo ®

> 9

*xx 05

P43

as

&

o

©

o

Ix

p fj

s

o

I

p

03 © 3 eo

W - XJ > 49 x^

Tx aS±?i2^ © ' fl

g££«Wogg--5«a

-npt^^^^43-e©p«bu

©

^ ^ ^
©

p.

gp >

Pt.2

V

tx

s

p

©

gm

^ 43-*^ © Qxx ^ ^

S S S o § o 2 03 '3 cc b

paw:z;:z; g |ffl«aaH3h^i-3Slz:!2

S 03 ©

5

© ©

452436®— 42

■7

91

See footnotes at end of table.

'C

?

c

• M

c

0

u

I

Os

u

Q

Z

c

k.

Vi

2

tt

C

k.

c;

K,

0

g

Q

k

•k*

S'

k

•0

C

2

cc

tic

Z

•m

e

k

0

"0

e

e

z

S

Vi

•M

Vi

Vi

Q

0

k

• m

k

a,

•t!

C

Q

k

« ^
a,

'c^

kd

St

«»

M

c

2

I

3

Ji

!2

a

H

a>«e>

"S

•C«

i:5

O>opt>-

CO ^ 1-*
^

«Dcft>r

o»-^co

t-t lO

SSo

CO 00 ^

05C51CC4«OCO’^00>

iOl'-CJh-COu5iOiOCO

iftCOO-^t^^OO^

C^Oit^Tf*t-<COI>-«-'COOOtN.

iO»-«OOiOOiC^COQ*-iO>

CO«0<0'^Tt<40C^^»OOS»0

So ^
QQCO

ggs

COi-*»OOTf»'^^ ^
CO O O ‘ft

W5 W ^

•k

«o

00t^C0OM‘C0«Ch>-t;^C^«0

c^-^iot^oO'^c^coO'«j<eo

^ <o ^ ‘

© ©

«*** X
xco

© bn X ©o

n © ■*** r-p ©
O ■*** t>- 04 X

x o

283

© ^ ^

X s s

'^X©Q04
© X © © ©
Xt''*'*#*040

© rn o
Q

^ t'p ©

x’"©*' ,

O © 4

cd'©'‘04 © ^
© 04 *H X X
04 04

^ CO
04 04

© x’ ©

X X

X o ecT^f-r
© -^X 04

5S2

•4k H

©

o

o

a

03

•4^

w

w

CO

03

o

s

s

a

•m

o

CO

a>

&

03

•M

o

0>

c.

OQ

o a

■**— H

'oS

ss

t-o

CD h- O

00 o

IftOCO

^ ^ lO o
iC O *-'«—' cc
CO CC Oi

^ o kft Aft

s s

CO Dl

ii X
•*** ©

X n

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

X
l!^ ^
01^

x'‘o^
© ©

Ik

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

CO<S
X 1-*

fHCOO
^ ^ w
^ CO CO

QO'^Cf

o c
o S o

•4->»Q »H

flS
0? rz3

-< C.JS
© u
T?

CO CO 0&
CO

»-« O 00

00 CO o
CO 00$

o>

CO Dl OC’

^

CO-^Df

CO

C^ C^ i-»

‘CoocoTj‘r^iooiC^

^oo‘ftcr‘io‘0*-H'^»o

oOO>OC^OOe*-'^l^

•"n’t-Tcfc^—TcDcocood'

‘ftCO»-'00‘ftC^‘OCOOS
CO CO 1-^

cT

CJOOC^OOOSOOOCTj'Ot'-

0>-^C0C0f-HX00C0Oi-HC^

COCOOOCOCOOJOi'^COOOCO

CO ‘ft i>r Q oT 00 of dT -Tc^

•>itir«'«^'iftiftCOC^COI^COt^
O*^ r-iwH

ooo

.~4TJ<

00 t>.
CO f-H

>-H Ci o *0

8(M O $ CO
X O 00 CO

lOCsfo ift

^ ^ ^

Tt< o

QO Tf<
00 CO

ss

X<N o

o

coco^

t>.CDCO coo

^ -"ij* X Oi ^
CO •-* c^

xw t^raTxi^c^

1-H •-< X X 05

^ ^ rH *H

c^ xc^

I-H X

^

C5

bjo

P

cC

cO

1

CO

O

CO

%

oco
X X
Xl>-

^*“co

t'-ift'^OicOQCp-^C^

COXXX’-«2>$cOt^

b»i-*OC4XC^*-HXO

ift o o XX
C^ ^ ^ Ift

05 05 i-< X
^ ^ ^ CO
OI

tft050
1-H ^ CO

^ 1-1 w

‘ftC*

08

<4-5

o

X X 05

lOX*^

t^oox

‘ft h^O
^05$

lfti-« Q

Ift X o

X ‘ft

^cOiftt-OC^C^Xi— '
0‘ft-^cpX’T‘gOO

05 05 b- CO X X

X

C^XC5X05050X'«^«05t^

OS-^^XX^XXXOi-HCI

XC0XXX0505'^C0XC0

Xo8o5
c4 Ol *-i

C0t>gj^b»x^0505

t'-05
ift

<4)4 to t>.

X X
CO

X‘fth-005X'MC^'it’^C^

i^n^^iOiOCOOIXt^Xh-

o ^

It ©
©'4k

n ©

oSc
ox c

O © ©

5 © X
oxx

X X
© ©
© t>-

X 04 Q
•»k "Ik ©
© X ^

fi. © © © o

^ Ik X © 1-H
X 1-104 Fp 04

04 © ©
04 04 04
n © ©

CO 04"
Xfi.
©

© 04 © ©•*)*
pH 1-4 ^ 04 *'^

cd X
© X

t'''^©o^t'.r©

^X04X©
^ i-H ^ pH

o i>rpH

S?32

CO

'V

a

D

o

3

s

Ck

03

&

TS

©

CO

a

ce

&b

o

tM

a

©

'C

a

D

CO

ti£ b

fl o

a

•4i^ <Q ©

•§‘2‘^S

p © >»^

■3^ s

r O” C3
^ b k

Sk

<9

v«

©

3

c:

fe

Q

©

o

^ 2

o;:^

o

X

X

O © X
© © t^-
t>* X 04

OpH©cOXO'phOp©

o*-'r-i--ot^-©o-i-'

eoco©©xXi-t'4k©

1 r

1 ' X o

1 1^0

1 * X 1-H

4

■

1

1 pH

(X

I©

V

i

■

1

1

1

A

V

1

1

1

i

«

t

1

1

4

1

1

1

i

•

1

1

1

4

*

1

«

(

1

1

•

ox

© 14k

X X

1 ti* 04
» © X
' 04 ‘ft

o

X

x"

©

© x'c
©

•^cdcdX00©O4’'04'of

i-'©XO©04'4k'^

Ik *-4 © ©

I * kh

• 1 © 1l

i 1 tip

1 1 1-H

1

1©

1©

1

1

1

1

•

1

1

■

1

1

1

#

•

1

1

1

i

1

i

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

s

1 ‘ft'l*^

1

1

c>

X

X

05

o

•«

X

cs

40

C^ 40
04 1-1
04 CO

oTco
OI X

X

Is

•t^ 0)

k

05 CO 05
1-H CO $
X CO 05

00 O-Tuf
X O 50
XOI 04

X O ti-
©XX
0004

•4k'k‘ft©XQXX©

©xxri*©©©©o

©©©XXXX'^00'^^

’kX^©Xti*04»ftOC^CS

XX©O404X'4k©h-^ti*

•k 04
k* ©

H©Xl— ltl*'4kti*©tl-

© X

COti^ik

tip©c>0

cd'4kcdk“ftX04i-ii-i
ph©cOpH04040XX
*-• © © X ti* X 1— t <N

©G>cdt''^pH04’'4kXt''^004

XXX'kO^X©©*'^

04 04C^XtipnC4©

04"‘ft

©CC

4k *4#* 04

X

rH

CO CC 04"

04

CC

fN. 04 04 I-H O
X X X 05 O
O- 1~» CO C-X

Gr-Tj4"x''‘ft'*^*‘

X CO tft 05
04 kH 00 40

005

St^
X

c?S s

X05X
T)4 CO
05 tftX

‘ft o-

o<»x

1^05 04 0-04
‘ft$05 0 0«.
05 X o- o*

0$X04 0-

X r»« 04 4ft 1«J<

Xl>» X
1-H ^ 05

xo6i-h
04 -1^ 04

05 CO 05
^ CO 04
X CO X

38 S 2

XC4X

X 40 ift
ift l-H
X 05 tft

X cft 'iiJ‘
TT X
■4^ CO X

^‘ft^^l-Ht'-^lftCO
05 051— <05C0X^f^’— *
'^044ftt-OX050X

‘ftC35^XXXC0«^O5Tf4^

<^eococoxr'«04^xo404

XXXX04X'4it<05CO*^»‘0-

O I-I X

X © O- ^. _ . - - ,

I-IO oxxx»-<

8340 O'*

^S2

^ 04 X 1-^

05©1-4X^04'4)4

XC0X'«^’Oi-'06 04 -. . .

04 c5 X O* 04 04 Ift

04

^ 04

csTcft

Oi X
X

c6

ts.C4 C4 ^

xxg©

© '4C<

s:2

t'-x

X ‘ft'^
^ 4ft 05
X 40

SSj

o-

3C^*

X

X CO ‘ft
k#i CO
© XX

©©
04 X

s'

t>. © ^ r-»04
CO © ©O t>*
04 x©t^0-

©’‘04‘cO'9<‘
_ © © 04 O'*
O* ts,4ft ^

S04 ^
© X
■^tl*©

f-Tx^
^ CD i-<
X»ft04

«9

<*•»

04 © X
t'»©C>*

o^©

'Hf'cft o
*ai o
© X 11^

cc © © X 11 © X i-H -^ © X

14 0*— © © ift © © © © © t'* X

04^0 04 04 X »-4 X ''C' X W

t::*©r^ri*i-H©©xx
0'‘J'©©t>-X^©X
X© X TJ1 O-- © X ntf*

^ §s

t^r*©i-H04 04 x 04XXi-H
'■|X©0©©0©©’^'©
•^©t'*©X’^X04 04X

eftcO©od'©iriCr<C04 04‘»ft
©040X©0-X04©XX
i-h©*^X04'^04XX©

^ kk

XK

X^04©'4)4

©

•Tt<

K©x

©CO
‘ft ccfcfti-ror

i52gS2

x o

© X

x^

©cd*

S5S

© X ©
©X ©

© 1— < "Ik
iTut* iT

©xo

X<PX

X©©

"'‘f* © t-*. X 04

x*^

© ©

04*“ 05 ^ CO
© 04 ©CO ri.
rH © X© ©

CO

^ t'*©
X 1-H ©

©•^x

^ Q

08

CP ««

w

Ss §•- o

M 1 k ri

o. 0.42

w t>. ©

oo3 S

© X
© 1-t -vtl
O'***©

04 04 ©

S82

t'-O'^fOO't^OX©

1-HXXX040^1-|©

0©*-H©©X©©X

© © X

^ 14 ©

X 04 ©
04

^ _,xh:.©o^xx
04©C©i-«X©*ftX

. C © i-« X ©
*ki-H*-iX©0©^

©

©

1^ n

©

X

8

X

©

©

©

2

©

©

o

X

X

04

8

to

X

•k

^ X
^ X

X

©

X

04

©

04

8

•k

€!5

©

•k

O

©

iO

rH

04

04

©

©

X

X

xxk

X © Op

©

X

©

©

©

X

tip

©

©©

Op

•4k

•k

©

O

©

tip

©

04

o

©

X

XOpO

00

■k

fi-

s

g

s:

X

•k

X

©

X

©

8

©

04

rH

tCtiT
X ©

rH

rH

04 ©
04 ©

O*

04

2

CD

©

04*^

©

©"

X

fiT

X

s

o"

X

o"

•» r

0 ©
‘S

©

C4

X

X

o

X

•4k

©

tip

rH

X

o

©

K

X

rH

rH

©

©

© CJ

W Sp*»

5 ©

X

CC

rH

rH

CC

o^©

X © ©
© ^ CO

s'SS

© X ©

a

08

D

00

TO-

a S

.2 ^
« «
•*'* ^

> s

— . CO
T3^

iC

p.

c3

8

o

s

o

o

1 1

z

*<

CS

z

w

H

■ \
t ,

Q

•

TJ

j '

5S

S5

fl

* Q

<

C

*•9

P

1 NH

t 'P

13

PH

H

H

o

C

1 ^

' ©

1 k

»

1-4

1

:ph

P

co'O

J..

P

o

CO

9

J3

o

03

CO

§

3 <»'2

c» 2
b£ QJ ^

•gg«

a|> ®

colS-o

A

01

§;«<«§

o

3

CO

PI

3

k

<x> ®

‘3

*“S

O <D

^2; Is

bjo*^
C3 «

eo*S

k P
o ca
» C8i<9 >
•Sort

a

o

S-fl k
P a> o

CO

a>.

CO

p-gfj

bO

o3

'O

S8fd

•D

t:
. 83
p«

^•9

I

CO

a>

p

H

z

o

Pi

o

Is

o

- . s ^ ^ l-i g s^-s g §3| j gs

« £>i5 3 ® o;2 o o o.p-c-93-2 §

p<1<1«OW»?£fkP4W^

.®.52'd^
© go fl P

*E:g S'PQtq

©

p

IS

§.S..S«.2«£:

•ki-asPt-f^kk

©t^

CftH

X3 fe. § > p c O ©

Q. P •■_
OcQ.2 WPh
•o
a

§>•

© -k

*S

©D

© o
ccQto

o

08

>4

•P4

o

S5-i 0*3

w CJJ3 y p

w, g Q* © ^

§ .ce o

CO

'O

•m

a

p

p?

p

a PH
.©

»S M

be*:?

..

<9 05'

«o,

bO ^

□Q

92

^ fH ^ lA CO ^ to tD

CO C^ 0> O »0 Os •-• 05

i-H CO to 1-^ r-c 00 »-< O ^ tx.

otoo gc<r*^"<^joooc>rco'‘

*000^ f-) CO t*- t>- i-H c^

ocoo*-^

osSS s
sjgfss

CO

S§Sfe

C^ CO o

goT CO oo"
OS woo
w "^CO

w »C OS
CO UO b- to
OS W o

t^rcTod

CO CO OI

00 O (N

to OS w
o g »o
O to

ate •» Vh

l>- Q W Q ^ lO
w o O 40

g»0 OS

geo

to. rococo CO

»0 f-i w ^

w CO g w
g ?5 w
w 40 o O

wcTodod

CO w i-H ca

40 40 g CO 40

g w w os 00

cot'* o5

«

o

0t^t^c^40

oot^t^4og4oc^r'-

;»««<NSgog

to

»or«-

to -tj*

CO w

40*0^ CO CO O »0 w OS h»c^ 00

osdt^ o 00 CO g oo OS 00

i-i-i^co CO g CO 00 CO w o

tCot>^ lo’td't^cdco ^

00 w Is. u5 In. g CO

h- CO 00
00 00
00 o •-' g

•w *»

ts. os O 40
to w

40 40 g

S»0 40
CO o

“5Qgc5t>^^os40

40 rs.co CO
00 M OOCS 00

o 00 g
go-'ic*

^ os O 40 00 40 1-H 1-H g

c^gco 40 00 CO ^ g w i-H 40

40 W l-H

t;O©C0

» • CO ©

ts CO

< 00

1 © ©

© © C4

1

1

C4

1

1

©

1

1 ^

1

1

1

1©

CO w CO

• 1 O 00

©

i ©

1 ©

00 ts ts. 00 <N

1

00 ©

1

C4

1 ©

1

>©

w ts mh C4

• • © o

^ r-t

'©

• © ©

w © © C4 0

1

ts ©

1

'©

1

1©

CO**«^* CS C4

1 1 © ©

©00

1 •.

1

1 .9*

CO CO CO ©

1

1

«k

W w

1

1

1

1

i »

*

1

1

1 «.
• ©

© 00 © ts

1 I © CO

© ©

•CD

• CO

1

w ^

1

• w

1

1 w

40

40

iCO
1 1>-
• o

. I

o

CO

g

©

#i>

40

00

40

0040
O CO w
©•^ w

CO

CO

woo 00 CO 40
ts.MCS'OQOS

00 N h- c5 lO CO

tC40<^c<f40 tsT
N00C» WOCO

*-H40C0 40ls-
w CO 40 OS
40 40ts. CO O

ts»©C^C0^©00O
-icot^*^r-o©4o
I ^ w

oc^

40 00

©©00C4OS
rs. 'ef 00 00
OOOIOOCOt>»

2Sg§S§-

© 00 W w CO

I ©

• CO

• o

I ..

• CO

I©

I

I

I

I

I

I

w CO 05

00©©ts.00c0©wc0

^COOCOC^OO^OOOO

■Ttic^e^we^oioscoc^

©‘tsTooTio'c^s^os'os'
ts.©C^f-H»-HOSWCOt^
w CO © W

S!t* ts ©

1 ts ©

ts CO

1 M*

0 © 0

© © 04 04 04

1

04 ^

1

©

1 ©

1

1 ©

04 0 ts 00

1 1 ts 00

© 04

1 ©

g © CO

00 ts ts 00 04

1

00 ©

1

04

I ©

1

1 ©

© 00 CO 00

• > © 0

I 1

TT w

to

1

© © 04

w ©© C4 0

•

ts ©

1

ts

•0

1

A

1 ©

Bh

w CO 0^ ^s

* * B.

1 ' © ©

©“od

• ©

tsTco^'d

04* CO CO CO©

1

1

04* w*

1

1

B.

1

1

• t^

1

1

1 B.

• o

OS © 00 00

• • 00 CO

© ©

' ©

0

1

w ^

1

1

1 W

1

• w

SCJOwC^eow ©©
CO'5»©'^(»© O
O OS CO CO w 00©

‘•^co 40orcdodcd

I’^COt^C^'^OS W ©00
• c4 W

: 00

I 00 W W

00

©

©

00 05 O w
CO © o ^
O O O CO

rtTkc^co t>r

ts.

o

•k

o

00

©

cs ©

© CO
00

©

©

a

©

CO

§

©

ts

a

•

1

1

1

•

i

1

1

g

1

1

1

I

1

• 0

• 04

1

r

1

i

1

1

1

1

1

•

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

•

f

1

t

1

00 ©
ts ©
©

•

•

1

1

A

.

i

1

1

j

»

1

1

1

A

T

%

1

I

t

A

1

1

1

1

A

© 00
^ 04
CO

' © CO
• 04 06
i©04

• 0

1 9^

•ts

•

1

1

1

A

ts

ts

04*

ts

1

»

•

1

1

1

1

1

1

• B.

• 00

1

1

•

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

4

1

1

1

t

1

1

1

1

coisT
© ^

1

I

I

1

1

1

1

t

1

B. 1

04 1

1

1

1

t

f

1

t

»-

©

©

* B. ^

• © ©

1 ^ ts

ijs

1

Bk

©

©

©

© CO
© ©
ooo

o © © © 00 © CO ■^ © 1-^ ^ ts. ^

00 © ts. ts. CO ©©ts.©

© © © w © OS 00 © ooco^©

00 t«*
© fs-

eo

00©’^0©©0©CO

s^t'^wcoo©'^©©

S(»4 CO © t*s. w Ow

w

o©coo

CO © ©

©

h«

©

cd

©

o

•k

©

CO w

oot:- 1 ®

ts. O 00

rH© C^C^
^ ^ ^ C4

CO

w 00 © © ts- ©

OI ts. o ts- ©

© © © © w

a«

ts» © w © ©
Oi CO © CO ^

04

a

© © © 04 ©
©OOO cots
w Tj* CO W ©

©CO©©

ts © ts

C0000 04

CO cots©©©
00O©C0ts&
00 00 ts 00 CO©

§s

ooo

©

CO

B. B> B. Bk B.

© ©CO 04 00
©04 04 04

B> B> BA BA

© AM © CO
w 00 w w.

©s^©g*04 ©
w © 00 © w

©© © W

Bk Bk

©©

CO

^ ©
©CO

o ©

w ©
04

CO CO
© ©
© 0

©©^rfOOtsCOw©

cp©w©0400404©

©©Omm©C000O04

w ^ © ©

© © © 04

00 CO © 0

© © 0 ©

W ts ts t4
w © © 0

CO w ts
00 ts ts 00

ts 0 -^ ©

© ts 0
ts © ©

© 04 CO

© tsT
04 ts

od^os‘©©*co*crcrco‘

•^^w©MHeo^Q0©

'B* CO © © .B* 04 W

^ B. Bk Bk

mn 0 © w

0 © 0 ©

CO c^y ©

04 w ©

w © 04 ts’
^ ^ w ^

04 w ©

^ s

w 00 © © t^ ©
04 04 w o ts. ©
04 © 04 © © w

ts. 04 00 w © ©
04 CO © CO

04

CO

©

©

04

©

©

CO

©

©

C?

ts

©

00

CO

ts

t-

04

©

ts

©

a>

CO

©

00

©

00

01

B.

©

00

04

CO

04

00

©

CO

CO

tH

ts

04

04

04

00

COWt'-©©©00©

04cO©©©OOw©

04e^ts.co©©©o

©

CO

S©©
©00'
CO©

©

oooo©
ts. w®00
© w CO

©

t- ©
CO

O CO CO
OCOC4
00 © ©

w* 04 ©“

W © ©

w <o »— I

O0wcow©0040400

C4004e0©©©0^

w©e4cooo©t'."^©

Tt* fs- © -^ .-.

© « W CO
© 04

© © 04
, . - . © W CO
© © © 04

04 w

© .-• CO ©

W © ts. ©

^ W CO ©

cd'^tfJ'oTod'

© 00 00 ts.

CO W o ©

© © tsstt
ts .B* w
w © © W

© -.»• «B* w

00© ts ©
04 w Tt t-

© CO ©

ts © S

©04©

ts 00 00
QOOOOO
^ © 00 w

© ©
© ©
© w

04 ^ 04
00 © CO
ts © 04

©©©00©
© © 00 00 ts

CO © CO w ©

© CO © -^

ts ts © ©
00 © 00 ©

© 04 04 w
^ OO'^
04 w

ts CO 04 CO
© 0 'B* ©
w w CO

© 06 ^
t- w ©
CO

© © mn ©’
04 CO w CO

04’ w’ ©■
w ^ CO

06 04 CO OS 06
ts ^ CO

tM W

© ts
(s) W

©0©©0wi-<0

g^sasssa

odg'g 04’' 00 ^■'oT 04*

© © 04 ts. 1-^
© ts. CO ^ ©

s

©
© ©

a

t» w

04

W Is-

O CO
04 CO 00

04* 00* CO

goo ©

SU4 04

CO-^O4©00©CO00CO
©04C4COg^gw^

ts. © -^ W

©CO

©co©r'-©©©©
©u5©©©©©oo
00©COts-© ^

•k a^ a»

.-I CO h-
04 04 © O
CO 04 © ©
. . .> . —
W ts. © ©

o © ©

« CO ©

CO © © w

goo © W
w 04 04

W © CO CO
•^ -^ © »-•
04 CO ts.

© o ©

CO T}<

00 CO 00

© © © -^ 00 ©
© © © © o o
w 04 Tj* 00 © ts.

© 04 © ©
04 w © 04
-^ ©

© CS4 o w
CO ts OO
w w 04

« ts Tf<
© © ©
St* 04

ts. ts CO © 00 ^
^ © w © O w

© tT ©
W CO CO
w ts 04

© «iB* © © ©
04 00 w ©
0 © ts ts

t- Tt« ©©

© ^ ts ts

004 00©

©©0004CO©04w
©©04 04Qw,-i©
©©•^COW^©tH.

© CO
CO ©

coo

© © ©
© ts ts
04

© 0 OS © w

g © w © ©

CO 04

CO ©
CO'B*

B. Bk B. Bk B. - ^ Bk B>

©©©tstsOi-^©

©©©©04©»CO

eoooco'^eo^©^

©04

00

CO

C5
03

h-3^

QJ

t,o

fl o.
Oti

(s' P
M 03.

p

CO

p

a

o

CO

<D

■ ■ s

03 p-y
.. J3 O 3

o-sa g'S'5 Sh-s s s §

JA oj.siJo « ao o ggw3 J

<!ooooOMas>* gt'iJSStf

CO

h9

<

Oi

H

H

o

n

p

o

CQ

p

jz;

<

H

5

n

p

o

OQ

a

s

ta
p

1

o ••

w ea

p-g

pS

B p

^6

i

ja

Cud

S S’S

8 »>- o ^

D W 03 ^

*3.52 O

ppS

P3

>

p

a>

^ "o ^

XU

ca

o
P3

03.52

^■2.2 g §

§gg

OMs3

CO

p

ca

OJ

o

0)

u

o

B

•*"> *P o3
^ p

I

a

os 05
,Si CO

o C5

p

o

4^

CO

o

Xi

o

a «

03

p

o

© 03 ®
w ..-t ^

pa.ppa

.a

4.^

1m

o

I

o

p

o

SP-(

ca

eo **S

p «

o P

*-* g p

03

'O

• s ®

'o 0 §
ca

0.2 o

Z&’^e^oo^-^S «QS£w^.9^rt«

3gg 2 A

Sis OiSEh Eh >

p

.2

b£

p

p

p

w

a a

ea

*a

bA

u

4^

CO

©

O *-w^
w ©T3

• W > p 2

do g.S'2

Sp ”

03

© ceP a . „

’X *- ft o © p

O oolj o

a a-o p“ a a §

coco g S.p'gcnE-*

oSSi

93

1 See app. A for the territory included in each urban area. Figures which relate to territory other * Not initiated until 1933.
than that shown for the area in app. A are footnoted. * Not initiated until 1935.

* Excludes cost of administration; of materials, equipment, and other items incident to operation of « Includes direct and work relief and aid to veterans,

work programs; and of transient care. ^ Relates to city.

• Includes statutory aid to veterans administered on basis of need.

a) cQ

>'2

*n

i5a

CO

CO

CO

o

o»

oo"

»o

eoo>t^i-«o

i-^ t'- OOCD

^ 1-H lO

»00><Dt^C^C<lrj*oOO>0>^h»00

4O'^00*-<€0c0t^(N00'^O0500

0>t«»t^iOcDCOCO»-4eoCOC^iOCO

b- CS o 1-'

O O CO
|^<0

CDOSOSOiOOOCOC^O^^fiJC^CO
— t ^ I>- OO ca »0 CO CO ^

^ ^ ^ tH

€4“

C<100*-< 1-H eo f-<

»-HC^O> IN 00 i-< CS t- ^ CO 0> 00
COC^CO CD o QO CO 0> O O O

00000“ oTuo CO TjTooar

O'^b- CD CO i-i CO CD 00

00 »-t

O»C«»OlD»O^-*J'»C00C^C^
1— iCOCO^OiOOOCDt^OO
r-ifN-O0b^CDC0CDcDTj«O

oTo l^<o“ CO CO O CO Q CO
^CO^CDt^»-i-^»Ot^»5cO
^ O 00 ^

o» t»

CO

t^o

CO o
CO CD

CS CO
VM CD

«>g5

CO

Q

K

o

Q

>k

2

V5

Q

ll.

k.

a,

K

0

Q

K

S'

k

c

5

•m

c

k

o

T3

c

g

2

Q

4w

CO

• 1^

CO

CO

0

ki

Q

•m

k

a,

"2

c

Q

V

•w

2

a,

kd

2

2

0

s

I

vi

2

es

H

CO

TJ

a

a

t)

2

p

Oh

o

a

(A

•M

CO

•«

CO

03

CQ

s

a

CO

<»

e

03

o

03

a

CQ

©

CD

Jp

■*^73

0 fl

HH .P

»o

'P.Q

04

00t>.^O3CO
00 f-H CO 03 »o

.-H ^ c<noo

CO»-HOOCOt'-^»H»DC^'^»DO>

««i<r-l.-ICOO»D»-l'^f-Hr-C^»0

CO t>»

CO’^i-HOODJ«3CO»-i^r-iCOOi
»0 rH

^ CO o
N 03
D»OCO

r^'TjH-cD

COt^O»OOONC<l03

00<DcDt^cDOC0003

t'-t^cD003D1CD<Dt^

*0

CO

03

CO ^ N

IN .-H
00
CO

03 CO
CD ^

o § §

■*^-0 s

ax3

03 o
73

00

03 rH CO rH

Hfl 40 rH 04 0

04

00 GO rH tr 0

rH 0^03 00 CO

s

40“

04

^ O- CO 0 rH
rH

c^'^03r^.-icD*-Hooo‘De^rfoe

i-H03CONC00030*-«C^COt^N

t^C0i-HG0cD’-HC0i-^00O'^O3C^

c^t^i-T r^o co‘c4‘»c'oo‘co‘cr»o c^
CO DJ 03 »0 O »0 «DC^C^0003

03 1-H

0031-4 03 »0 I-H d r-4 10 r-

»0 CD 1“^ 03 03 03 ic lO O 00

003C^ 03 rH 03 N 00 CO 00

.-lC^I03Tt<03C^CDi-HTHC0rH

OO-^’^C3'^‘0OcDcD'^

rHCO00*-«O3t^CSCOt^O300

03CDC0 CO CD CD CO «:> -Tj*
wo CO CO rH »0 CO CD

04 CO 1-H CO Tf* rH

C0CSC4»-(C0Tt«C0'^03-^'^
»OW5cDOOr-00000'*t'W5
rH t«« lO rH

CO CO »o

©

© ©
top

00

t

1

1

03 0 rH H}< t>. <0 tr 03 04 40 rH I

1

1 40

CD004OC0C0C0O-«f*00

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

t

1

t

i

1

1

1

1

1

1

40

1

1

H}1 C4 rH 03 CO 03 r- 40 03 03 t

• 03 04

O3C0tr4OO4 4OTfC0<D

1

1

1

1

1

1

t

CO

•k

1

1

t

1

1

rH 03 CO 03 03 0 03 03 t'- rH CO 1

t »o 0

1 r r

i040'^40 04 0440 03»0

1

1

1

1

1

1

t

1

1

1

© 03

CD

1

1

CD CD 0 00 40 CD CO rH 40 CO 00 1

lt^04

Tfi CO 0 CO CC 03 40 CO"

1

1

1

1

•

1

1

rH t>. 0 CD 03 CO 04 CO 03 CO l

1 40 CO

00rHO4r>.O4trrHlN0O

1

1

1

1

i

*0 CO

V.

1

rH rH rH ^H ^H 1

1

03 Tf 04 rH

1

1

1

1

•

b

•s

40

>

1

1

1

rH 1

t

1

00

1

I

1

1

1

r

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

t

1

1

1

1

1

1

t

1

1

1

©

t

1

(

i

1

1

1

«

1

1

(

1

1

1

1

1

t

1

1

t

1

1

1

i

1

1

09

■t^

o

t-00 03CDt^
CO CD IN »0
O CO coo

'iJ*wOOOHjnCcD03C^03rHN'^00

rHHt1»OOC^00303rHa3t^’^C^

CO^CDrHCDt'-TtlO'^TtlOOOC^

t- IC
03 HJ1 CD
»0 CD

O003003»0rf<t-0*<t<

Tf<CDCOiHt^ONt^iO

COt-COCOTfit^OOOCS

lHC^O>Tf*03C^CDlH^CPrH

oO‘^Tr<o3‘^‘oocDO^

»HcooorHc33t-c^cor-0300

CO O 03 D4 o

^ 00 CO IH CV|

COOOCMtOOOD4D40'<t’»D*DCOCD
00003000’'J*03CDC^C003
O rHC*4rHrHlNIN rH tHN

CDOOih C4 00 CO 04 CD 03 O 00

CDOt^ CO rH CO 00 c<4 GO 04 00
CSInfrH rH 00 CD CD 04 04 rH

oT

C00404r-CO'^CO"^03Tf<HP
*D»DCD00t>»OOO00'i|J*W5
iH o- 40 rH 04

CO

03 CD 0

r- CO

03 04 0

Or CO

CD CD 0

t^CD

co“co tfT

CO t-

^ rH rH

CD

CO

03

Im
03
73

(ga

03

u* u

9 to

o

a

73
p
p
t/>M

to i-

p o

•S^

ki

03

K

C073 -•«*
-*-> ® ©
0^^<4

2 ©

-20

■PsS

pui

©

*©

©

©

p

©

o

M «_■

ts.®

op;

^2

CO

o-

00

00

4D

40 CO
CO 00
40 CD

W^IO
40 03
40

04

r-

40

CO'

40

CD

'XJ*

CO W5 03

C0OCDl-H40trt-C0»0

1

1

•

•

»

•

1

1

•

1 W

1 0

0

h-COrH

rHC003C0rH400-O»D

1

1 CO

1 04

03

O-

000 03

03CD0004000004CD

1

1

•

1

1

1

1

1

1 0

1

' 00

0

«■

O-

oThjTio

rH0340 04-rti03C004-xt<

1

1

1

I

1

1

1

1

1

1 CO

• Vs

04“

rH

^ <0 CD

H}<04rH40'xt<rJieD03C3

1

• !>•

1 b-

*0

03

04 rH rH

C0t>-04rHHSi<0OC0CD

1

1 rH

1 rH

04

o

04

C4

r\ fc-

o

t-

CD

03“

03

CO

•o"

CO

rH

00 »0 rH C4 40
O?. 04 40 40 CO

04 Ht* o rH

oocd“cd“oo4“
03 r^ 04 00 00
CD rH 00 CO 04

40Tt<cDC040MirHrt<'«<400c004

OTt<O00C003TtlCDC0iHOrH40

O3CDlN00CDCOifO3C0rH4Ot^O3

C£r40'cD04'’^OCro6‘co'OCDr-rc»^CO‘

400t-0300 00 0440 03C00340rH
00Tt<00O3Tjic000Tt<03rHCDO00
*»

O rH 04

04 CD ^
03 00 O
04 40 40

04 04C0t^C0C0rHO*rJ<
O00t^04C04OINCDt^
00 03Tf400000004'^

•^03 03CDC0004l^COC003
03iHCDt^O00rH0300t-O
40C003COr-OOOOOOrH03

00 CD ^

Si°'-'

CD

rH 04

^0400CDOCDTt*O*O

ooor-t-'^corHcDt-

044OrHrHts.-^4O'*#*O3

•s *.

O- 00 CO rH

04CD00C0rHCD0-03Tf'C0O

rHHf4OC0O4Hf00t-CDrHeO

C0COCDtHO4r-04O3CD04

r-T

04 rH

CO 0

04 0

rH rH 00

rH 04

rH 03 CO

CO

•s

00 ^ 04

40 04

04 0 x^

'XJ' 04

40 CD 40

04

rH

CO

CD

rH

x«<

©

W

HH

0

6h

o-

04

CO 00 rH H»4 40
CD O »D 04 CO
iH O- t*—

40'^CDCD4O'^rH^Tt440OC0CD
O’^OC0C003Tt<<000rHOrH03
03CD04 00cDCO'^03 00iH40t>-CD

»0 rH CO
CD 04 04
CO

4004030000000C003

lHrHCD4O'^rHO3CD04

t'-CO»040003CD^rH

•^03 03<0C0O04t>.HfiC003
03rHC0WO00iH03rHr>-04
40C003COC'-000040rHt>.

03 04 CD CO 04
04 CO 00
04 00004

CD40<D04T!fiOOOOCOO«DrHCOrH
400t^03 00 00 04400cD0340CO
0Cr^ic003’rf«cD00-^03iHOOt>-

rH ?H ^

04 rH

O- rH O
rH 00
40 04 t-

rH CO

CD04C000»O4O 00 04O
Tf«rH03 04 00 00t-40t^
4Oe0C0C0rHO»000CD

03

00 rH HJ1 04 rH
CO

O4CD00COrH«£5t>.O3rHCO»O

rHHt140C004Hf00r--^rHO

COCOCDt-04t-O4rH<D't»<

-^"40 r-T r-T

04 rH
iH o
04 04

SS3

O- 04
CO

CO •««»* o
rH rH 00
IH 03 CD

00 Vof

04 O
40 CD 40

o

O CD O O 04
OO-'O'DO

ooeo o tr

0303i#'OOOOcDcOcD04b-*^
rHOOCD03<DO'^40000-»004
C4O 00 03 04rHC340e0cDC0CD0>

03 00 00 CO rH 03 r- CO 40 CO CO
lOcDOO CD 00 03 04 rH 04 CO 00
CD030 O CO 00 iH 40 CD CO CO

40rH0000404000000030
03 04iH(NO04CD03r>.C0tr
CDcD00401^00 04ih04iH40

04 04 40 CD 04
03 03 CD O
04 04 00 IH CO

O^OOt-COrHO’^iOiHO-t^O-
CDiHt>-00 03 03C00300COiHC004
0040OrHkO00OTPrH04 00 04 00

rH rH rH 04

04

CO 03 04
CO 40
O- CD 03

««

rH CO

<^4OrHO4r-O4t^CO00
C004COrrCD-H?Ot>-»0
C0rH'^03 04t-C0O00

40 00 rH Hji 40 O
CD 03 04 rH 03 40

CO ^ r- r- CO o-

rH 00

005540

CD

tr iH 04 rH

*0

»0 40 1H

40 40
00 CO
03 40

•> k

CO 03
03
CO 04

CD“

CO

04 O Q
^ 00
00 »0 CO

*4

rH 00
rH »0
40 CD 40

^ o ^

OSpS'P 05

tfi

O’t^ fl

r. S ©
^ Pk

P

P.«2

00

o

40

o

03

rH

CO

CO »0 r- rH IH
•H »0 00 »H Hj*

04 40 03 CO CO

04 »0 CO 1H CO
Ht» 03 03 CO

Hfi000t-04C4’^'^0440CD'«J«04
t-C04OO04G0iH00 0340rr40rH
iH00CD‘DO3O3COCDCD03»O04CO

t^CO^ 00" GO 00* oT-^ CD 40* iO^co'c^ in’
t>-CD‘OCDrH4O 00 03iHO40C0r-
40 40 04 04CD030'^04C003'V03

iH CD 03 O 40 O rH CD »0 CD 40 40
tr03t>. 0 CD rH t>. 05 40 40 04 CD
03rH03 CD-^rr»0'^04 03^'^

iiJ*C0C040I>-CD04C0cDrHC4

rHi040cD030CDcD40COCD

00COTt<cOrH4OCDCOO3CDcD

rH iH iH 40

iH 04 ^

rH 00 04
03 04 04
03 03 Hji

^ *4

rnCOrH

COOCDCOt-iHiHrHtr

CDOC000040C040’1^«
trCOTfG0 04 00 03iH03

^ «4

O 03 rH Hjl 04 1H rH

iH r—

^O3O3rHO34OCO'^'^00CO
03 04cD00cDCDe‘0C0OOC3
40 rr 00 CO CD 03 t-

•4 «« *4

o 00 1H rH

04
04 GO
Or 40

k4

r- 03
tr 10
CO

o

CD O
00 00 CO

03 rH ^

40 oToo

04 03

CDOOC^

*P

P

©

•»

o

HH

©

HH

CQ«

P s

c U4
« «3

> Q

•rH OT

T5,0
O H

•r^ rO

Pi

©

o

©

O

<

tj

o

55

P>^

Z

©

4H

o

p

o

ri'^

P p . .

■2 ' © ® c5

H t ^ HH

5 73 T* M H? ■*•5

© oPQW o w
fe

S'c ® ©
p«W)z;Iz;

p
o

O

pl^--

©

©

P,

73

(h

<2
73
©

©«

'’'©©®^®3©©o

g5 ©

©
©

p

©

73

• pN
>
o

kl

73 ij ..

© ^'2

CP to 9

tJ3 ©^
P © CO

'C i?*"*

kt O

-^1

Q

rn

H

z

H

<

S’

P

Q

w

©

'9'^Ck

•»jO M fl ''Ob

(m

©
© •*-»

© S

b£'^

©

p

o

©

CO

ki

©

©^
o

©

p

o

CQ

Hs

©

:2;

p

©

few & ^ ^ s© S.2 O'l.S 0-3S .© s

^>2j;z;eh . <ipq;z:;z:;z:p5oqp>h

a
©
C5J3
P ©

©

•1-3

CO

©.

©

I

P^-P

^ Oi b£

rr k<

5^ 5

Wr-^ ©

b/)

P

©

ki

ki

©

I

CO

©

M

a

H

O

m

H

Ph

o

12;

73

©

©

p

©

o ca

w rt

0.2 ••
• ♦ q3

•£2 ^ Q- fl
oQcq

.a ^

ra

>

CO

■§

>

rtj CO

o.
©
p
©

, — ^

94

240, 800

CO CO

t>. t>»

00

00 CO
to 05

CO t>.

^ o ^

CO CO o

00 05’'*<00d

to to CO 00
d d 00 CD

^ ^

00 Hfi O

W to T-H

t- CO CO

oco c5

CO to 05

000>»H00Odt-t0i-H

M<rHO00t-.00C0M»05

C005M^05005COrH05

to d M to

d CO OO t-
CO M COOl

to rH 00 00

CO to M to

CO 05 CO to

t- O CO to

CO t- O rH

00 to 00 M

00 05M

CO t- M
t- 00 d

to 00 to b- d d

M d CO 05 to 05
t- CO M M CO CO

QO CO O

M to t- CD M

O CD 00 fH O

CO CO O 00 to

to t- to M
t— eo CO CO
00 00 CO CO

05 t^

dco

CO 05

»od

05

O kO

O CO •tf*

ooood d

05

to od 1-f

05

to

•>> A

to 1-H to

CD to 1-H

CO 05 d

CfcOtOOr-TtOClofrH

coddocowtocot-.

rH Ml to 1-H

•

rH 05 CO to

05 rH 05 rH
d d

t— 05 d' to
t— M CO d
d 0005

l-fcf C5 of
dMCOO

rH d

d'oToT

05 CO d

d o

at at at at at at

CO CO fH to t— d

MM CO 00 rH

at at at

O to 05
d CO M
rH

at at at a^ at

00 00 rH CO 00
to d MOO

rH rH

o i-Tco ef
»o M dco

rH

rH-

r-

a^

1 t

1 1

1 1

1 i

O CO
d to

00 CO

• 1 t

< 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

I 1 I 1 1

to 1-4 05

05 00 Ml

CD CO CO

00 O CO

1-H O CO

05 cot-.

M^M^OOdtOOOeOCOCD

M<OOt-.05iOCOt-t'-05

CDCOdt-OOdCOO

CO -H 05 CO

CD d 05 M
MCOOOO

till

1 1 1 1

till

1 1 t 1

1 1 1

II 1 CO

1 1 1 00

1 1 it—

O 05 M
to CO CO
d 00 M

1 I 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1

I 1 t 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 I 1

1 I I

1 1 1

1 1 4

1 1 1 1 4

1 1 1 1 1

4 114 1

4 1 4 1 1

till

4 14 1
till

I 1 1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1
t 1
• 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

««

co»-<

III

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 I 1

1 1 1

1 t I

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1 I 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 I 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 I 1

I 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

•k «< •«

oo'*<< d

O5’'t-rod

05 00
rH

ofcdoftotcocococo
rH t- to t- CO CO cod

•% av

05 OrH CD
rH O rH

till

till

till

till

till

till

1 I 1 1

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 T

1 1 1

I 1 1 M

II id

1 ! 1

1 1 1

I 1 1

1 1 1

1 I 1

at a. at

t- CO o
to

1 1 t 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 I 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

4 14 4 4

114 11

4 1 1 4 1

I 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 I 1 1

1 I 1 1 1

1 • 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

till
lilt

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

1 1 t 1

1 t 1 1

1111

00 o
ec

CO d

d

CO

00 ^

00 r- 00

^ O CO

CD 1-H ^-H

Q O CO to CO
Ot-* CO CO
cot>-Odi-t

to 05 CO

1-H 00 M*
005 00

O CO t-
COOMI

o cot^

OOOdM^OtOtOO

OtOrHdCOCOOOOOrH

OCOOd05COOOrH

CO OrH CD
to d to CO

05 00 to GO

1 1

1 1 d 00

1 1 O M

1 1 d CD

05 00 1*^3

to t— 1 M
to 00 It-

1

itOM

Itooo

1 M O

»0 M O 00 CO 1
to O 05 00 d t
O t- 00 O 05 1

COO 1

rH 00 1

M M 1

i 1 1

d 1 >05 1

M 1 1 05 t

to 1 lOO 1

COM ito
COCO ICO
to CO Ito

ci

eot-4

C5 to
coco

•s •«

00 00

•Ni

to ■«it< »-H 05

CO to T-< 1-H o

^ ^ TH tH fH

•4

tH

M< c4od

^ d 1-H

^

05 rH T.H

CO cot-.

otot-^o^-cototoo

CDOCCCOtOt-rHCOtO
iH d to rH tH

COQCOCO
t-.005 00
rH CO

• '

1 1 o to

1 1 CO CO

1 1 rH

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

a« 1 at

Oco 1 o
to to 1 <D

1

t

1

1

I

1

iCOd

1 M
•

1

1

1

1

I

d M M M 00 1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

a« at 1

dt- 1
dCO 1

I

1

1

1

1

1

00 1 I O 1

d 1 Id 1

I I 1

1 1 1

1 I 1

1 1 1

1 1 4

1 t t

00 'M

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1 1
• 1

I 1
• I

1 1

1 i

1 1

1 1

1 I 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

>1111

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

00 CO d
O5 00M<
to O 1-4

1 1 1

I 1 1

1 1 1

« 1 1

I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 I • 1 1 1 1 1 1

I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

■ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

t 1

CO • 00 1

CO ' M «

00 >05 1

1 1 I

1 1 to 1

1 1 0 1

1 It— 1

1 1 1

1 1 1 05

1 1 Id

■ 1 1 00

1 1

1 1 M

1 l05

1 Id

1 1 I 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 t I

■ 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

I 1 1

I 1 1

1 1 1 4 1

1 1 1 I 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 t 1 1

till

1 I 1 I
till

I 1 1 1

1 1
t 1

1 1

1 I
t 1

1 1

1 4

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

} :

1 1

1 1

1 I

1 1

1 )

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 I

1 1 I

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 t

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 (

1 1 t 1 1

1 1 1 1 i

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

00

t^t-00

1 1 I

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

■ I 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1

M 1 eif 1
d icio I

1 rH 1

1 t

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1 d 1

1 1 00 ■

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 I

1 1 1

1 1 ^ at

1 t 1 1—

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 t

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 t 1

t I 1

1 1 *.

1 ICO

1 Jt-
1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 I

1 1

1 1 1 I 1 1

1 1 1 I 1 I

t 1 1 1 1 1

I 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 I

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1

I 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

■ 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 I

1 I 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

114 11

4 1111

1 1 1 1 1

4 4 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 I 1 1

1 1 1 1

till
14 11

till
till

1 1 1 1

till

1 1 1 1

1 I I 1

00 o

CO ^

cod

d o

05 d
CO 00

00 CO

OCO
CD f-H t-H

O O CO toco

O '•■H GO CO

CO O d t-l

00 CO t-
O to CO
CO CO

CO CO o

M^Oi-H

05 CO to

M^M<00M<O5CO00t-4CD

M^COCOrHOOCOtOCOO

C00d00500c0t-d

00 rH 00 05
tOM 05 O

d M to t-

1 1

1 1 1— 00

1 1 O M

1 1 05 CO

1 1

1

05 00 ‘ o

to t— ICO
to 00 ICO

OM d
to 05 IH
d d M

to M O 00 CO 1
to O 05 00 d 1
01—00005 1

coo 1

rH 00 1

MM 1

I I 1

d 1 >05 1

M 1 ' 05 1

to 1 1 00 1

COM Ito
COCO ICO
to CO Ito

d"t(f

eo»H

coco

05

o6^

pH

to T-i 05
CO to »“> --H o

^ ^ ^ M

»S «il

1-H 05 d
CD to I>
d M< d

ooooo

CO M* 00
1-H d

eioicDCDdcoodi-^cd

i—oodcodOi-Ht-t-
rH CO CO d 1-H rH

CO rH GO CO
rH rH CO O
rH rH 05 tH

• 1 ^

1 1 d to

1 IM CO

1 1 rH rH

t I

1 1

1 1

I •

a. a^ 1 at

O CO ICO
to to 1 05

1

t

1

<

1

1

at a« a.

t- t- 05
CO

rH

d M M M 00 1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

at at ■

dt- t

d eo 1

1

1

1

1

1

1

at 1 1 an ?

00 1 I O 1

d 1 I d 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

t 1 1

00 IM

1

1

1

1

1

t

1

• •

1 t

1 1

1 1

1 1

I 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1
t 1

1 1
t 1

1 1

I 1

1 1

1 t

1 t

1 1

1 t

1 1

1 1
t 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1 i

1 1 1

« 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

■ 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 t 1 i

1 1 t 1 1

1 1 1 i 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

■ 1 1 > 1

1 I 1 1 1

* 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 I

1 1 1 1 1

t 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 I 1

1 > 1

1 1 1

1 I 1

1 1 >

1 1 <

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

I 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 t

S 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 t 1

1 1 1

1 > 1

1 1 I

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I

1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

• 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

1 1 I 1

1 1 • 1

1 1 1 1

till

I'll

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

till
till

1 1 1 1

1111

1 1 1 1

till

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

1 1 • 1

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

i 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

lilt

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

till
till
till
till

1 I 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

t 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

I 1 1

1 1 1

I 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 I 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 i 1 1 1

1 1 1 t 1 1

1 1 I 1 1 1

• 1 1 1 1 1

t 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1

I 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 I 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

■ 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 I 1

1 I 1

t t 1

! 1 I 1 1

1 1 1 I «

1 1 1 1 •

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 I 1 1

1 t 1 1 1

1 1 1 « 1

<1111

1 1 • 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 I 1 1 1

lilt

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

till

1 1 > 1

till
till
fill

1 1 t 1

1 1 1 1

till

1 1 1 1

lilt

1 I

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 t

1 1
t 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 >

1 1

1 t

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

• I

1 1

* 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

< 1 1

i 1 1

t 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 t

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1 1 t

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 > 1 1 >

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 > 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 > 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1

> 1 1

1 t 1

> 1 t

1 1 1

1 1 >

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 t

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 I 1

> 1 1

> 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 <

1 1 >

■ ■ 1

1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1

i 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 t 1 1 I 1 1

1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 I 1 1

1 1 1 1

till

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

till

1 1 1 1

1 1 I 1

till

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

till

1 1 1 I

1 1 1 I

till
III!

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

till
till

1 1 ■ 1

1 1 1 1

till

1 1 1 1

1 1 I 1

1 1 I 1

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 I

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 I 1

1 1 1

1 I 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 I 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 •

I 1 1 1 1 I

I 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 I 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 I

1 I 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 t 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1

I 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 t 1

t 1 1

I I 1

1 1 1

1 t I

1 1 1

> 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1 1 >

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 I 1

1 1 1 t 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 I 1 t 1

1 I 1 1 1

I 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

till
till

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

till
till
till

1 1 1 1

till
till
till

1 1 1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1

1 ^

1

1 ^

d d CO
d »-H GO
CO 00 O

1 1 1

d > to 1 1

to 1 d 1 >

O 1 d i 1

1

Qd 1
O 1

d CO '

1 1 1

■ > 1

1 1 1

• 1 1

II 1 II

1 it-. 1 O CO 1 1 1—

1 1 to 1 1-H 05 1 1 rH

1 1 rH 1 d d 1 1 O

1 1

1 1 d 05

1 t to rH

1 1 rH rH

CO > M to
CO ' 05 CO
CO ■ CO o

O CO CO 05
O CO CO CO
t- t- CO cO

OCO d
005 00
rH 00 M

1 I 1

dCD id 1 1

Ot- ICO 1 1

do 1 M 1 1

1

to t- 1
00 1- 1
to rH 1

tOM»0 lOO

to t- 00 ICO
to CO t- 1 05

1 1 1

• dll

• CO II

ICO 1 1

4 *4

t 1

1 1

1 1
t 1

t «s

1 00

1 CO

1

CO l-H
•V CO t>-

CO 1 I 1

F-i 1 to i 1

O 1 05 1 1

M* 05 1

^ r-. I

1-H 1

III
■ 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 •s t ^ 1 4

1 ICO I 05 00 1 ' t-.

1 It— 1 iO to 1 1 to

1 ICO 1 05 rH 1 •

I 1

1 1 00 o

1 1 CO d

1 1 M

CO 1 00 05
t— 1 rH 05
^ 1 d rH

rH O to to

rH M to O
rH rH CO

CO to d
05 M M
to t-

05 d 1 M 1 1

M to 1 II

1 1 I

1 1 1

cb CD 1
MCO 1

1

k

OOMcb lOO
CO to rH lOO
d rH 1

4

1 00 1 1

1 C5 II

1 1 1

1 1 I

1 1

1 1

1 1

i t

1 >

1

1

1

1

d 1 1 i

1 1 1

1 1 >

1 ) 1

>

1

1

1

1

III

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 t

1 I 1

I 1 M I ' II

■ ' HH 1 1 •

II 1 II

II 1 II

1 1 f >

11 —

1 1 rH

1 1

1 1

1 1

1

1

1

1

at

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

t 1

1

1

f

1

1

1

1

1

1 I i

1 1 1

1 I 1

1 1 1

o

d 00
05
00 d

^ ^ ^
CO 05
1-HCOi-i

CO O CD d
CO OO CO to CO
CO to 0>'^ o

05 00 CO
CO CO 05
r>- 05

05 CO to
t-. 1-H d
05 rH

00OCD0500tOM'C0d

COOOCOCOCOM<rHOM4

COOCOdM'OOJdOO

to CO d 1-H

C0 05 rH O
rH d CO O

CO OM to
O5CO00M
d 00 to iH

t- M O O
o o d t-

to t- rH t-

05 00 eo
M M CO

00 O to

CO CO M CO CO 05
CO OCO 00 0 05
rH t- Ot- O O

o loo

O ICO

to 'CO

rH 1 CO
• 00

1

CO 05 00 00 CO
00 1-H 05 CO to
05 05 to 00 rH

05 CO 00 CO
CO O 00 CO
CO 00 M d

d o

O d

co"d
CO CO
d

to

Cl 1-1 05 i-f CO
CO to OO *o

T-I 05 CO 05

00 to to

CD CO 1-H
05 00 t>

cdt-^rH
to M CO

d rH rH

CO 00 CO O Mi 05 CO 00 rH
COdl-HdrHOOOt-d
00COO5CD*OC0 M< 00

d OO d

05 COM CO

CO CO cot-

OCO 00 00
CO CO O

rnOOOCO
OCOOCO
rH M rH

CO MCO
CO CO

to

rH 00 rH O O M
d to 00 CC CO rH
fH rH d

05 t-^ rH M O
M 05 to rH d

rH rH

to 05 cod

rH 05 CO rH

««

l-f

» •

rH M< rH

CO

at

pH

1

1

1

O

t>.

d CO

TH

00

CO CO ^-
05 !>-

T-1 d

05 CO to CO d
00 CO 00 to CO
00 to 1— * o

05 o CO
CD *-> 05
05 1-H 05

05 CD »0
t^ 1-H d
05 rH

00OC00500rHM*C005

COOGdCCt-M^rnOtO

OC0«(MC0C005d0C

to COM O

CO 05 CO d
*H d M iM

d o 00 o

CD CO t- 00
CDOOd rH

t-t— C0 05

o CO 00 to

d Ml— M

05 M to

M M rH

05 05 o

to 05 M to CO 05
CO t- CO rH O 05

CO t- O d o O

tot- 00
00 t- CO
O rH CO

00 00 CO 00 M
CO 05 00 00 05
to d CO 00 O

05 00 00 CO

CO eo 00 CO
eo i-H M d

d o

O d

cd'o

CO r^
d

•tjj'coof

OOCOrH

d d

to r-T tC r-T CO*
05 to •«*< •-!t> to
05 CO 05

Cl to»o

00 M* 1-H
005 C-

cdt-^i-f
tp CO

d T— 1 rH

coodcocfcdt-Tcoodod
codoodt— cooot— 1—

OOCOdCOM^O MOO

d O" 00 d

05 CC t- to

CO CO t- t—

CC CO t-^ t-
CO 00 o
CO CO CO

CO 1-H CO os'
rH O CO CO
d d M M

cb 05 CD
to M t-
<o d

O O *-H »b O M
t— 1-H GO CO CO rH
dr-. d

oocbco’

MCO 00

ob d OO M05
cb to CO rH o

^ C4 -4 rH rH

to 00 CO d

rH 05 eo rH
rH

05 T-l

*•

pH pH

CO M rH rH

t—

l«

CO

to

^ 00
O CO

CO

coco
»c d

1-t o to

Tf* 00 ■«— <
d

05 CO T-* 00
00 05 05 o
1-H d d CO d

c^coo
r- CD CO
d 00 CO

t^05 to

d rH CO
05 C- 05

dM»HC0t-05dMto
OOrHi-HOOCCOt— coco
CD05rHdCOdd050

CO M d 05
d CO CO d

M t- OOO

d o to 00

CO CO CO d
CO 00 1-H 00

CO to CO 05
COM 00 1-H
t- cot- 00

05 00 t—
05 CO d
fH d M

O CO M CO 05 05

d 00 d o d 05

M M05 CO 05 o

rH t— 00
O to CO
to CO CO

O COCO t- M
00 05 CO 00 C5

o d CO t— o

d d 00 00
1- O 00 05
00 to M t-

tC-^
to I-H
O d

lOt«-
CO 1-H
iOCO

•» •»
to ^ t>»
00 to CO
d d

c? t^fi-Td'to

CO O CO to CO
CO 1-H ■<5h O to

M^M^OC

M ooo

CO M* 05

C^tn rH
OC5tH
CO CO d

00 O CO CO CO M d 05 oi
0'r^1-Hl005t— OMtO
OiOOCOdCCOrHCOOS

»0 rH to

Ot-1-HtO

CO M t- 00

CO CO O d'
CO COM

CD to M

eo to cod'
CD to CD CO
d d M to

a at

M t- to
CO to M
CO M

d' to to 05 00 M

t- rH 00 CO CO rH
d 1-4 d

OCO CO
t-t- 00

t-i d 00 to 05’
rH to COCO O

CO d rH fH rH

to CO CO <b

rHO CO rH
d

•v

•b

O ^H

««

i->d

pH

CO to'rH r-T rH

00

CO

pH

o

CC'

to

CO

d

r-

d

to

05

o

M

M

M

»o

00

05

t—

o

to

00

CO

CO

to

d

d

05

CO

o

CO

CO

to

eo

t-

M

d

t-

00

M

M

to

o

»o

00

M

M

to

d

GO

cb

cf

d

a.

t-

d"

OO

cb

o

m"

to

a

t-

of

o

cb

of

00“

a

t-

00

to

d

M

05

to

05

pH

05

«;

to

CO

05

CO

t—

to

M

d

o

d

t-

CO

Cl

d

CO

r-i

M

o

to

CO

05

M

o

CO

M

a

pS

^H

pH

pH

^H

d

pH

Pi

CO

OC<3C'lr-<t^i--t050?0

COCC-^t^COOsOOii^

cooo«:>c^t^>-Hi;C'i-io

F-rtC'odt^t^O'TfcTTj?'

Tj<COCOiO»0«OiOOOO<l

OC^Ot^OO»*Hr-H<CO

i-H 1— t «0 1— I r-i

00 CO CO
CO"^ O
O t-' 00

t-H CO ^

Ci C>

GO O O
Oi ^

f'- rH CO CO
05 'I—* CO CO
05 00 »0 CO

CO CO ol'oc
rH »0 CO CC
05 CO CO

CO »0 05
CO^OOCO
CO 05 UO

f-Tt^co of

05 05 O
CS CS CO t^

t'* t-H
CO *“« t^
05 fH to

co'‘C'r'tf<'

>0 05
05

to ^ 05 O ^ tM
CD to O 00 05
»-H 00 CO 00 Tj*

CD" »-f CO* CO
*-H CO 00 o cs
^ Cl ^ CO

S'^ 00
CO y-<
CO O

r-foTcf

05 O CO
Cl I-H

00 O CO 00
00 to O 05
CO 05 CD to

to o cTci bf

CO 00 00 05
^C1 t-H d »-H

05 CO d
•^CO d CO
CO »-i ^

CO 00 t^foT
<o »o

CO

§g

MW

<£3 o
u>

to

§ >»
.9i2

Sx

CO 3

>5
•1^

Q

CO ^

W <1?^

C3

4<5

2-

CO

§■

"O-S §5'

I

00
• >-4

o
Ck

03 3
a>

>5

•4^

09

*a

c9

0.22^
CO ^

03 o

CO . T W
pl-l^

ce^-

•v

n

o

■*^

CO

3g $sigg||ai;9 2g-a§'3;9::;ss^.'i

mE^ 'osPm wME-'^SPpHOf^OQ gPiScQ SWcQ^ o

^ S r3 r3 :::3 « S

o

a

as

t4

CO

o 9 ' ®

; a o S-g c:<a ' w

Sl-S'sa^a^'oa.a

£g.g®o|^S.^og

<!OOOOfiwE-i!>^ 8

CO

a>

is'-s

CO CO c3 s

SII’S

!2;o

a

03

*a

bO
0^

a

o

-l-d
b/.
tl

43

CO
03

o ••

03

bj:*3

p-g

*a s

'Co

^•prp o) o

P P. ^ rtS -<2^

<D

o

>
ca.2

s§

H

io^sy-Sg

^h><5

O o P

© O) o

CO

p

C9

©

(h

o

a

o3

03

♦9 © ®

a

©

03

p

o

CO

©

'Im

as

43

o

l§<”o:3--g

O ®4: o 2

03 0

:2;w

03 g

2cq

^p
o

4:>
CO

p

CO
^ ••
a c3

o

«-l

cO

© ® O

OMiJ Si?

© CO ©
•'“• 1-^
33 43 33

n ^ ^ Q« ^

a 03 © X 3^

|o«oy'§

-543

Co -*-* W
•73 a p

OcqE^

sSII

o

CO CO

03 ^
SAh

43

•u

o

■ f •

p

o

•'S

I p ©

4^ ®4d

Sg'g

o P

..

••'cO^ O ® S’i ®*l=i O

SqwpHWrg.9;z;a3«

X £?

© •P

Eh >

- • 43 9 ■

fe © 2'

O o i

(

95

See footnotes at end of table.

c

• pm

P

0

U

Os

0

o

K

0

c

0

k.

•v

«5

2

0

Ik

a,

K

0

5

Mart

0

k.

•■k*

k!

6

k

s

cn

^K)

St

•)«»

C

k

c

c

Q

0

•w

Vi

•m»

Vi

Vi

O

4«i

0

k

*■«

k

a,

St

o

k)

•M

**^

>c

s

a,

•w

St

I

lO

I

u

!S

es

H

CO

'CJ

a

3

£i

3

Ph

2*

03 iS

•r~t C3

3

CSf>.O'^»0i--iO^ ot^

1-H Ci Ci ^ ‘O C^CC

Oi o <0 QO 00 ‘Cco

o CD »-r

O C^ 05 CO 1-H C^

0> F-I *1^ »0 ^ DJ •-<

<s>

o

a

03

CO

CO

CO

03

O

JD

3

a

c.

>>

•4^

CO

o

0>

Q.

CQ

a>

X3

o a

4-S— '

8C^ i-H i-^ *-H

00 O CO o

00 O 05 i-H o

«k •a

00 C3J O WO ® 00
O CO --H CO CO
CO 1-H

4-9

H □
O 0? ®
k

xj fl!2
••“• 0) 33

ax3

'3

O 00 CD O CO i-H 1-) o OWO

CO W w W5 00 05 O CO CD

CD CD WO CO 05 CO CD h- 05 CO

WO CO oT tjT CO t>r ,-H od" W50

05 r-* W3 00 O 05 "^05
^ W rH

05
(D O
bAq
CD ca
^ -w

'O CO

OCO
CO

03

O CO

C^ W3 r-. 05 CD
1-H c^ CD W3 00

CD

^ 40

O r3

CD

wo CO
1-H CO

W3

05

Df

W3

cs

•4.5

o

O W5 f-H 00 1-H iO

SCD CO OO 05 05
05 00 05 CO CD CD

o w:>

t- CD
05 CO

^ , CD O *0
05 05 csi e^ 00 1-H

SSS<M<*^050

W3 O
05

CO

03
u>

<D

'3

CD

u u
« bc
*3 O

3 ^

CO 1^

to ^

.g

3
W

C0*3 ^ -a

-4-5 ® ®

0^X3 HfJ
2 ®

Ph

QJ

o

_ _ OT

-id

> is

.-H O

a

c8

b4

bi)

o

(h

Ph

<0

o

3

O

^
t- ®

0 33

CO Wb
O CO
t'- 05

•>

00 00
‘ 05

40

s

CO 40

o c^

^ 1-H

00 o'

CD CO
CO c^

CO

40

CO 40
CO 05

poo

?5 *-4
OQ Dl
«»

CO

CD

CD

00

^ ®
.fa's

00 Tfi CO O r- Q CO 05Tf<

CD CD rf< 00 p ® CD 05 00 00

P t- 00 05 t-. CD 1-H

t-r»o CO t-^c^odo o t^od'

00 CO P 00 O CD 00 l>- P

00"^ C^i-HCOCD'^ CS 40

-H CsT

03

•4-9

o

I-H P CO CO D5 Q CS O 05

t'. P 00 05 O O wb WbOO

CD CO 1-H 00 CO CO 1-H

CD ^ CO CD p oo 1-H P POO

t>. CO P 40 P b- 00 P PP
Hfi o PCOCOOOP 05 40

C5

•4^

o

CD 05

CO

05*“

05*'

00 P CO

1-H lO

CO CO rH

00 CO 00 CO Wb
05 O Wb p p
o p CO

OJ P
05

CO Wb

?5S2§

•4^4 O CO

*4 «k

CO 1-4 D5 1-H

IX 00 05 b- O

X 05 Wb p X

05*^
H}4 GO
CD

•> *4

00 CO

'ia4"'

05

05“

— o

*;=3'3 "S^

k( 2 03 ‘c S

" c. Old

OPPC^QOPCOP

COCOPb-PDl^rf

05.-h(NPD5000P

od'05'oc^ori-rod4o‘

;O^Oi-Ht^POOC5

COi-HTjipt^-oOO

P CO

H}< i-H CO 1^

1-4 P

Wb 00
00 1-H

odo

P CO

P tN.
•«

a

03

®

•4-9

03

•4-9

OQ^

ag

to ®

> a

w

■3-0

a

•—4

.3

a

CO

Im

bo

2

o

u

►H

(X.

*<

Ph

0

iz;

◄

B

•d

6h

Jz;

p

o

CO

p>»

o
§
CO

05

a

!-«

a

03

o

■ 03 ^ P

' *!r^ a o3
bCT^ § « § Q Js ^

a C3 dd 2*^ 0-4^

gPPH •-•Ph

d

coibC

d

03

d

o

o

03

a

- ^ b d d'^ P'S §
®^rt03c3®a..’a2r®^
h^Ocooqcq g S^s-gco^

•b? ® ® 03

qo2^

to

§

1-4

•4-5

>

^3

03

*3

P

03

v-1

2

cd p fe
coco ®
p p fe

1-H 1-H

§

•4-9 H-9

P P
3 3

•3 *3

•45 H-9

cO o3

^ 4^

P P

o o

o

>>

g.-p
•d O

XJ o

CO ■*^
® CO

3 '■

05

O'

P

<D

*a«

Ih

CD

.d

o .)=:

d

o

l>9

»H

o

•4.9

Ih

Ih

O

©

■4^

a

'o

Ih

o

-d

CO

o

Ih

Ph

CO

Ih

©

Pi

o

o

-4-9

•4-9

d

©

XJ

• fH
©
d

♦ -H

to

a

©

u

©

•4-9

O

X3

§

X3

©

©

d

•49

d

©

a

n

-d’a

© o*

P CO

•49^2

O CO

42 ‘C

(3>

P © -49

— lu cC

-o « a
® -<1 .T
o
o,-
Pi a
03.2

>9.g®

O 03-g
HH> ©.2

■gS-H

£®a

© -4.9

-P

•49

C5

©

Ih

03

P

cO

Ih

3

.P

©

03

©

X3

3

©

P

u

o

Ih

o

'3

c«

CO

O

CO

•-H

CO

oS

.Q

P

O

X3
©
Ih

©
•49
CO

d

a

XJ

cO

CO

- p
cS cO

© *H
"3 +9

p ©

© >

*2 ®
P -49

^'2

o >»

-go

§3

©

Ih

P

a+9^

cO CO

©S o . - w

Spw^5

-4 2 •• o ••

5 ^

^ ^ 03

« as

- 2 ««
Ih O

2|

Pi ©

©

XJ

*©

96

I

SAOO

*0 l-H

Sg$

»C<D0>C^<0»0i-<OC^

l>*i-iOt*»‘Ol'«-^»-»'^

00 cc

■^03 O

o

05 O »-' 0>

h* -I9<

00

0«0t^05»0t^ci«00»-4»0

C^C^COOit-i-iQC^CiQOO

^C4C5ooC^'^<5oc5*-hC^

lO 1-H 40 ^ C^ 1-H
»OC^C005C^

l-< ■««»*

05 05
CO 00
1-t r}<

00 «r

eo

CO

cf

t^05e5t>.Q
»o CO CO o o

05 CO »C 05

•» »> «k *4 ^

^ 05 ooc^

00 05
CO c^
!>•

C^Q00COO5
05 00 OI 00

gcoo*o‘csfco“

?i ^ ^

»oe«<o

OOQ-^
CO O CO

OOO lO*
WOOC'*
04

^r^05
g CO r^

CM CO

»o »o ^

lO ^ ^

^^^»H4O^00COt**
CMOOit^-^^'cO^Wg

»OcO t^OOO'^CM*^

SCO 05 CM CO CO »0

CO •-< 05 05 e*0

CM CO

O^-'t'CM
»-H CO Q
05 f-H CM

00*’cO*‘QOtC

iOOO»OOOOQO‘^'«t<

050COOc0005CMi-h

»005t^00>-»**00c00-

»o

wo CO CM

05 00
CO 05
'«»' CO

^ _•»

-*»< Q
o

CM CO
CO

wo »o

ss

CMOOt^
05 CO
00 05 O-

00 wo CM

WOt»<OW5i^U5COCOI^

O5CMO5COCO00’^COCO

•^•^OOWOOOt^t^OrS

*-i"c005‘'^CM‘t^COCM’“cO
<— • CO wo t'* CO 04 ■

CO CM

1-i CMWO
i-» CM 00 05
O-O-'^OO

«k •s ffk

OOCOCM

CO

CO «-• «
*--< CO 05

wo f-H O

«h *4 «»

h- 0-> CO

SS2

00c0^c000040505

t^CO00t^W0b-.-^00O5

»-H^05WOCM0005CO

Crwo“cO‘T^Tp"<^OW3‘c^
'^C0»-<05W3W5®050
eo wo 1-c 1-^

»«

05

COO-Oh«

CO h- CO »o
O CO CM CO

CM* f-T ^-Tq" c<f
CO wo CO 00 r^

O 00 00 CO i-H
wo Tt< CO CO 00 »-<
CO ^ 00 CM CO

rTjfwo od'oTo*'
. ^ o t>» ®

I CO CO ^ CM

CM

CM CM
^ 00

c-'^oo**

s

00 CM

Soo
00

wo wo

CO 00

00 oc

CO CO wo g 05

CM

§00

CM
w: -V

00 CD 00
05 i-<
COi-t 05

wo'c^

05 O wo wo

CO CM CO 05
CO Tf i-H t>. CO

cm'oT^'o

C0 00&COO5

r-H lo
O

Tj* wo

*4

^ ^ CM

t^’^cp
CO w w5

W>Ot*^QCO00O5W0

Ot^COSCMCMOOt>.

O5Ot^W0t^u0OCO

« *4 •« *»

^ CO t>» wo

UOCO t*- CM ^

wo ^ »-H

wo CM CO CO
r^coco-^
CO »-H CO 05

wo CO CO ^
C- 00 00

CO

1 CM 05

• CM CM

1 CM CO

• G 05
i(0<0

• ^

1

1

1

1

1

COCJOW5t^i-HW3f-(^F-l

C5t^00W5O'^-4f<C500

cooo^cot'-oOi-Hcoeo

Qd'^czrartCc^tNr^jrec

COCOCOOCMW3.-<CM05
rf o CM 1-H

1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 • 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 < 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 I 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t

« 1 i t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

i i 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

■ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1

1 1 1 1 t 1 t 1 t 1 1

1 1 1 1 I ■ 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i

1 1 1 t 1 1 t 1 1 1 1

« 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

I 1

1 1

1 t

1 1

1 t

1 t

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 t 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 t

1 1 1 1 t

1 1 1 I 1

1 1 1 1 I

i ( 1 1 t

1 1 1 I 1

1 1 1 t t

1 t 1 1 t

t t 1 1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 t

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 I I

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 I

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 I

1 1 1

t t t 1 1

t 1 1 1 1

t t 1 • t

1 1 1 t •

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 t 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 t

1 t 1 1 1

t 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

70, 666

237, 400

106, 885

1 t 1

t 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 t

1 1 t

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

t 1 1

1 1 1

I 1 1

1 1 1

I « 1

t 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1

1 1 1 ( 1 t t t 1

1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1

1 > 1 1 t t 1 1 1

1 < 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 > 1 i 1

1 < t 1 1 1 1 1 I

1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1

di *00 i
CM ' t-- 1

^ y* t

CO 'CM 1
<54 1

1

1

1

' 1

1

CM CM 00
00 W3 o5

CC »-l

♦-HCOCOW5t>.«.-Ht^'^
C0i-hOCM^CM00Q05
i-HC405 05 05C0O»Ot>.

COt'-Ot^iet<’^OOOOOCD»-H

C0r^C0W5OW5«T}*C0C000»-H

OCOCMCOO''rcO'ct*GOCMCO

yt CM
05 CM
lO CM

OC CM O W3 ao
05 00 Q eo 00
O OOO 00 00

CO W3

CM CM

CO O

OOOOO
•«if o »-*
CO 1-* 05

05 O wo lo
CO CM CO 05

CO ^ r^oo

wo 05

CO 1-H 05
05 00 1-H

t>.cOO

wo 1-1 t>.
t- CO CM

WOCMcOCMTfOOi-'WOCM

05eOOCOCMOt-WOt-H

*4*eo^cO’^woc‘<,-too

O CO <05 00
»-• 00 05 CO

coS>»coo

wi M 05’
Wi CM t^
CM r- ^

^t^’^*ed'cMt>7cO'^*od
»“*t^^O00i-*00CM05
^00 CM CM CM ^

CM" .-T i-T cTcm*^ *4*' wd 00 (OT^
COW5cOOOt^Q-^»-HOb-05

CM CO CO *-H ^

i-TS"
oo CO

CO

cdcowdoTor

^ I-* C4

•4 ^

CO Wt

00 wo

«co

CM*orcO o' I-*

oc 00 05 CO 05

y^ y^

cr-^*cM*

54 Tf 05
CO WO CM

odcoco
^ wo CO

^ CM

•^co»>ororw3odt>^^

t-CMCMCMOSO^WOr-.
^ CO <0 ^ ^ »-*

woco*adt'r‘
1-^ 05 wo 05
y* 05

•4

OOWOCO 00 wo 05 ^ 1-H CO
OOSP^S* ^ CO 00 CM oo CO CO t>.
CO Cm 05 o 05 CO CO eo

05OCM00gCM00l^

CO 00 ^ 00 - .

03 ^ r~» 05 CO

_ ■*5t<

05 CO wo
O 00 CO Tf

goo

CO

^ S CO S

05 woo cot^co

_ _ _ -05 i-hWO 01^1^

CMO0>'^05 OOCO t^ooco

wo CO O 05 CM
O 0^ 00 TP

05

0-^0 COrt^CM CO t*- CO 05 O 05 CO wo

i-« 00 CM O CO O •-• w CO O 05 05 00

CO CO T-t CM CO T-H o wo CO O CO CO wo 05

05 CO CO CM
O 00
OOCO

05 “

50 O ^ wo CO O CO 00 05

^ CO 00 o CO 05 05

i-» CO wo o CO ^

h-t^OOC^t>-WOcO'-''^'<tt'CM
<0050000^O00C0'^05C0
^ ^ CO ^ ^ ^

•-' w^

05 CM
t^CM

'5' S CD
CO 00 CM CM

t- CM
CO
»0 CM

Soo CO
05

eo eo

t^oo
CO I-H
CO oc wo

t^t^O *-H»-«C0Ot>O’^C0Q t«-O5C0<O

^ O OO 05 CM Q CO CM CM ^ Tf O ^

05 W t>- CO 1-^ 00 00 wo CM CM CO CM CO 00 CM

CO

CO

CM

CO

s

9

1

1

1

f-.OCM05T»*CMc0b-00

QOQi-'i-HCM^'?fCOCO

OC40-^C50t'-OOCOCM

•-* 1-* -le* op
wo oc o S

Tf 1-H 05 O

« CM wo CM eo 'itf' CO

1 t- 05 C-. CO

1 t— MO 1-H 1-H ^ t--

wo Tf

ss

CP *-H CO Tt*

W5 05 »-H CO 00
CPOOCPCO*4«

wo O

CM t>*
CM wo

CM X cp
1-H O
cpl>*^

wo CO CP

X X wo 05

Itfl HJ* t.. lO

1 wo X

105 t-i
If-H CM

ss

^ 1-H

h-

eo

t

1

1

1

O05 05C0C0C0001-HC0
oo5'ie'coo5wowoi-Ht>.
^COCMCO**i*05COt-*^

od 1-H wo wo

I-H CO CM HJ*

i O wo wo CM 00 ^

1 CO »-H CM r- CM cp

1 ?-H CO »-H wo

t-^CM*
05 rr

*> «k *4 ^

I-I CM CM 05 CO
O O 1-H I-H

^ CM 1-*

1-H CM

^ ^

o ^ wo
w S wo

X hsT lo cT t>r

O CM t^T-i

iCMCO

1 wo

•

05*^

o

1

1

«4 ^ »k »«, 0K

yr wo 1-H CM f-*

1

t

00*

CO

1

t

CO

wocoeo*-H.-^oct>.'^co

O5OCMi-'00 00C00500

COO0COO5O5i-'i-i;CW0

oT c^cd'wooTcoco'^
CO 1-H CO o

CO CO f-<

CM* 1-^

00

t>.C5

CO CO O ^
CO OO CM

wo |C CO CO

^ CO CO
^ 00

O CO o
eo b- wo

•-• 05 CO

cf wo* tC
CO cp !>•
00 ^ 05

I-Tco

WOi-«WOCM-<»<CMOOCOC5

wot>»r-eoeoQco»-'-»tf*

Ot>.000'^S05Tt<00

8*0 oT cTt^ ^ c^

CMi-»CMC00505C0’^

'^COW0O5W0W0CO'^O5

ao cfi-H*

,J, ■ — — -.

OOCO^OOW005WOCO<DOO

Q^-C0COt>.'^J*COO5t^W5i-H

?40000050’-*COWOt^COt^

wo* wo” »0 od CM* CO CO

«t'-C5CMOOrreOOO'«J<CMOO
ocO'-'coo5i-*tN.wooor^05

rH ^rH ^W5^f-H»-HCM

Q

CO

wo

X

05

CO

CO

CM

h-

05

wo

c?5

CO

CJ5

CO

wo

X

<55

o

t-

o

CP

05

CM

o

05

X

X

wo

CO

X

05

05

o

<c

05

o

o

CO

r-

*4"*

X

05

CM

05

CM

CP

X

<55

CO

CO

CO

wo

wo

05

04

X

CO

X

05

CM

X

X

CM

CM

CO

CO

yi

CM

CM

X

t-

r-

wo y* *H CO ^ ^ ^

X

wo

o

X

5>

O

CO

CO

CO

05

wo

o

CM

CO

o

CM

CM

o

04

X

X

o

$

o

WO

X

-itf*

h-

^H

r--.

05

X

w5

05

X

t-

WO

t-

yi

TJ<

05

wo

CO

X

X

CM

O

<55

o

o

WO

t-

X

05

r-

wd

WO

CD

<55

X

wo

rH

X

X

X

04

WO

00

CM

rH

o

*5f

r-

r-

wo

o

05

o

»c

O

CM

o

05

04

r-

CO

CM

CO

X

wo

05

05

X

X

fH

X*

CM

CO

m

CM*

CM*

•k

rH

•h

wo

«4

rH

O CM <5
X CM WO
l-H CO X

CM

8

1-Ht-.i-HX'^^Xt-«

WOXWOWO-rrXXX

oocMCMxr-r-o

t-.i-Hr-.osxt^'^t'.coo'^

WOWOCMCMt'-i-HXXi-'XWO

c0OXOOC5-^t-O5W0'^

05 WO
88

X CM
X oB

1-H CM X
1— ' t— t—
<55 X

O X
05X
<55 X

05 t- <55

wo X wo

Hji CM

X 05 Q C- X

r-i b- *4* o

05 CM CM 1-H ip

X CO X
rH ^ CO
05 WO X

COXX
CM WO o
X ■-4' t>.

’^Xp-t'-t'-^XXrH

CMXO»ttP<55C'JXX

O5»PXXO5COXW0O5

t- rH UO X
X WO X o
CO X^ X

CM*X*

Sgg8

•k

<55

§

0'odcO*T»7 ■^CM'wdHH
CMXO5X'^W0O5CM
t'»b>-WOOWOt'»l-H'^

od 1-e" I-T X 0~ t'T' 00 I-T cm"
xocMr-xc^wooi-Hwowo
Ot>*CMX05i-»r-t-CMXW0

i-H CM
CM yi
y X

CM C5 1-H 05

1-H X Q TP WO
05 05 ^ CM X

O wo*
O wo
wo wo

WO X

CM CM t-

He< He*

CC TT X O 05
Q t>- WO Tf -1^
WO X X X

cSt^co
X TP X
'itf* wo O

XQ X
CM ® CO
CM rH <p

Cp X cm’ ^ WO wo’ CM 05
S^xt-xcoxxwo
CMC400050XXC5

CO 00 O TP
X X

05 05 t"- y

1-7 CO

CM* i-i -Hj* cd I-* CM

f-H r—

^H tH rH rH iO C*l ^ CC

•k

wo

rH

CO rH rH ^

rHXC5|

1-H*^

e

CM* rH* lO O* CM* CM* Ci rH*

t^yi

eo wo f-t

• eo

^eOOOW505WOC4CM^

CMCMCOOOOOi-^COCOO

orcM*odcd‘i>rcd'orodor

?405’^o0’-^coo*:jw

CCCOCOOOCM05^WOt^

•4 •« *4 ^ ^

11-(1-<W0*I*<»^CM

OQO

CM i-» 05 CM
<COi'^ao<^

' CO CO •-< 05

05 wo f-H
> o CM wo ^ »0

OOWOi-tOO^M'»-H'^CMWOWO

C0W0tN.C0OO500W0t^CMr-

^O0COW0f-^Tj'W0CO^'-HO5

CO wo CM CM CO

8J0

rH CO

X X rH CM

CM WO H^i CO <0
CO X X CO X

X S

TP t>-

OOO

rH TP ^
X X CO

wo Tp o ^ wo

TP rH (54 X rH
b- O X X I-H

X 05 o
X rH X
F-H O hH

05 X WO
X X t-
CM tP O

WOCMcOCO^OXXi-hX

XXOTPX<5505r'-rH

^k^,..|^«C5C0^-01^-

COXP-Op
O TP CM CM

o t- rH wo

Hji X

gi

WO X CO X 05
X CM wo 04
rH Xb- WO CO

WO CM*
X t-
y X

CM l>.

xco
t- CO

s

rH

05 X C35' cm’ X
CO CM X Q Cp
tH- X CO CM O

05 X CD
CO X X
f-H 05 ce.

X*COO
<55 X 05
CO X 05

WO wd T-i X 1-H X CO 1-H
^05TpO5Ot^C0OW0
OCOWOWOOCOCOOCO

05 r-» <b X
?4 X05 wo
X CO wo TP

s

rH 1-H CM rH

«4

CM

*.

rH

g* rH CM* CM*

CM* TP* CM*

A

r^ t*T,

A A

COrHCOCO^N *^04

^H

^H ^H ^0 ^H

y

00 00 05

00*0 CM*
CO »-H 05
O 1-H CO

<Ot^O5C0W0«-^Oi-^C0 QCO^t^W0t^00O5^00^

Qi0^r<Hi-HCMCO'~'CO'~^ WO^COCM^»— 't^p5^»od4
05 eo co ^ 05 ^ wo O ^ CO CO CM OO CM

t^C0'>^00COW0OO5Cp

t>.OOWOOOCO^f^OOCp

COOOCOOOCMOWOWOf>-

COCMt«-W0’^C5CMO5COr*-CO

oooo^cD005Cot::.Q^05

i-H00^W0»-H^t^O5OCM0>

eo wo 1— r 1— wo »-H CO ^ ^ CM rH I— 1 f-H ^ h- CD CM CM eo

»«»•(>- r- ^ oD ^ *“ »» ^ ^

oo

X rH

wo X o X CM

cp CM X X rH

IQ 04 X wo X

05 CM
CO <55
X

CMQ

Smo

Tp

g

CpXQCMC4
O rr O <55 *4*
O X X aC 05

X rH «0
CM CM
aQ O WO

cm’ cd

TP

CP CD

t- O x CM rH
X wo O wo

rH Tp X ao CO

C©

SS cC
y oo

rH 05

X CO
r- CO

8

rr

X rH 05 rH

O X TP ox
O X X CM CO

00 rH 1-H
05 CM rH
rH ^

CM*

CO

•4 ^ *4

rH ^ CM rH

CM*

rH

1-H rH CM C4

CM

cfkSco

9

eoo^

2?8K

' 05 O CO ^ wo
CO wo 00 00

1 CM 1-) o CM d4

^ o

b- C CO
CO t>-

^cooo CO CO ^ CO CO w: o oowo*^wo

<^05 05 O 05 CO Cp O CO b- CO COOCOCO

CMr^O i-» CO « r-t CO o S cocooo^

CMWOCO CMb»»-c COWCO^'^CM ^ CM r- i-^ O •-*

M

H

z

◄

ij

H

Q

Q

Jr* CO

^ U< Oi

4)

q

s • •

o

u

y-1

<15

CO

—.,.,<53

o

05

'Z

u

03

^ CO

br.'^
S'<y
^ o

05

CO

s

o

q

03^

fl

o

a

S2*3

05 <a

>

a

o

a

05

cs,q ui

a 05 ®

CO

45

■I

flW

I

CO
45

^ atj

o 45 g

« ss «

„ - - 45 »a 'C "g 43

§-^<;pquw.Sph^p5w^
a

45

Oh

<

PS

H

z

»

o

a

t-

PS

o

z

TS

• $

VJ

*5

a

Ccq

Q.

eo

45 CO

® r
s b

® G

45

o a ^

,25 2

_ > O '2 c ®

Oco.2WCs<h-toQE-
TT

c

CO

G -1^

•r-i

OQ

Sog
•csfiS I

w

>*

s5.|

S£5

CS o

q

® CO
^bfl 45 ;q

CO

t:

G.

03

pH ^

'2.2

c -e

CO

G

S*S)S

o q ®

«5

o5

o

C5 a
45 3

P>5

4^

o

45 G CO .G

•« 45 JH

97

See footnotes at end of table.

c

0

u

Os

e

e

t

e

nC

K

ts

<4

S

0

k

a,

k

0

S

Q

k

k

k

S'

k

c

s

4

t

•*m

z

k

©

k

C

c

k

k

c

e

4w

4

•w

4

50

Q

k

•k

k

•M

k

a.

k

c

pC

‘o'

k

s

s

0

s

1

•

so

I

U

k

2

03

H

w

TS

fl

0

*M

o

•i-^

Xi

o

Ph

Q <e
•*5 CG

I'S

£*2

O O Oi
00 C^ ’-' TP
rH

»-• t>» Oi

T— I lO *— ' t'-

05 o «o as

CO 05 t«*
*o 05 CO
uo CO so

1— 00 CO ^ 00 05
so «3' so CO 1-H
»-< CO so CO CO r^

CO 00 O
O O CSJ
C^ rH T-H

O O CD C^ t>*

^ <M O CM o

CD ot^ so CM

OCO CM
CO < 05

00 so

CMOOQt^OCMOOO
i-hOWSO»— i’-^GOt>-
^ 1-H O O

t'-

CO r-.
CO CO

05 so CO
CM 00 05

CO CM CD
l-H »-i CO
»-l CO

t>* CD CM CM CM 00
CO CM

CO o ^
CO

05 so 00 CO
SO CM

rH 05 1>-
CO 1-H CO

COCMCOt^t^
CD rH T-H CM
SO CM

S?5S?

CM rr
CM 05

k «k

CM CM

W

O

p

c3

m

CG

CG

03

Xi

P

a

to

<D

a

C6

o

<D

a

CQ

03

U

©

'2

■Si

03

u u
© to
'V o

ga

CG 1^

to b
« 2
•S^

lx

©

H

©

■ III

1 1 1 1

1 1

1 1

1

1 CO

SO SO CO

1 1

1 I

1

1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1
1 1 1

1

1

1 1 1
1 1 1

1 1

1 i

1

1

1 1

CD CM 05 tH 05 05 I I

1 1

1 1

till

1 1

1 00

iH tH CM

1 1

1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1

1

1 1 1

1 1

1

CD 05 tH CD 0 I-H 1 1

1 1

H—

till

till

1 1

1 1

I so

CM tH 0

1 1

1 1

1

4 1 1
1 1 I

1 1 1

t 1 1

1

1

4

4

1 1 I
1 1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

CO Hji CM CO TJH CM 1 1

FT Fs Fk Fk Fs Fk 1 1

1 1

1 1

0 P

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

1 1
t 1

1 CO

1 CM

b* ’>9^ b-
CD

1 1

1 I

1

1

1 1 1
1 1 1

1 1 1

4 1 1

1

1

1

1

1 1 1
1 1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1
i 1

Ob-Ob-CMb* 1 4

CM rH CO rH CO CO 1 »

1 1

1 1

1 1 1 1

1 1

1 ^

{ 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

t

1

1 1 t

1 1

1

SO rH II

1 1

73 rP

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

1 I

1 1

1 P

1 1

1 1

1

1

t 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1
1 1 1

1

1

1

1

1 1 t
t 1 1

1 1

4 1

1

1 1

t 1

1 1

I 1
> 1

<

1 1 1 1

lilt

lift

1 1

1 1

1 1

1

1

1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1

1

1

1 I 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 I

1 1 1

1 1 1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1 1 1
1 1 1

1 1

1 1

I 1

1

1

{

1 1

1 I

1 r

1 1

1 1
t 1

4-3

1 1

1 1 ?0 hH

05 rH

1

1 CO

1

1 0 rH

QOOtHOOiH I

000 «

1 1

1 00 1

CD CM

1

1 CO

rHOb-rHTHCOSOSO

0 so

0 g g

*^73 Ih

1 1 CO SO

hH 00

1 b-

1 CM 00

0 05 SO sO 05 I

CM 0 1

CM

1 0 1

TJ1 t-x

1 CM

tHtHSOOCtHCOCOi-H

00 so

1 1 00 00

00 0

lOO

1 CO 05

CO 0 CM SO so 1

bx 0 1

b-

1 CD 1

CO CO

1 CM

CMC5<DCOb>.00 05CO

CO CM

■ ^ #k Fs

1 1 05 <D

Fk FV

CO eo

1 CO

^ Fs F4

1 CO CD

Fk F> Fk F^ 1

rH tH HH CO b* 1

cm*1d 1

Ft

1 Ft 1

1 iH 1

CM^bT

I

1

FsFsFs FsFsFrFsFa

CDOCD05CM00b*O

F. Fs

CO CO

73 P'P

1 1 so ^

CO HH

1 CD

1

i 00

1

1

CM CO 1

CM

1 CM I

1

tH05(X)CD05 05 05tH

rH 0

-7 ©73

< o<x

1 l<^l-H

1 1

1

1

1 1

1 1

1 i

1

1

1

CD CO hH

1

1

© ©

73

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 (

J

1

1

1

1

1

1

i

1

1

1

1

1

1 I

1 1

1 1

I 1

1

1

1

©

1 1 1

1 lb* 1

1 1

1 1

1

1 CM

1 t

1 1 b*

1 1

1 1

1 I 1

1 1 1

• 1 I

1 1 1

1

1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

05COCOOOOOCO 'co

1 1

1 1

1 ISO •

1 1

1 TH

1 1 b—

1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1

1 I 1

1 I

I 1

rHOObrSOCMTH 1

1 I

© ©
bjD P
© ©

1 1 so 1

1 1

■ CM

1 iCM

1 1 -

1 1 0

I 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1

1 1 1

1 1

1 1

05 so CD CO b* bH ICO

Ob^r-TcOcd'cD 1 C^

1 1

1 1

1 * ^

1 1 05 <

1 1

1 1

1 F^

■ 00

1

i 1

1 1

1

1

III

1 1 1

III

1 1 1

J

1

1

1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1 00 *

1 1

1 1 so

1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

I

1 1 1

I 1

1 1

00 CD so b* b* 05 '

I 1

73 CG

XX -rX

1 }

1 1 1

1 1

1 1

1

1

r 1

1 1

» t

1 1

1

1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1

1

1 1 1

I 1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

CO rH rH CO ‘

^ 1

1 1

1 1

W CG

1 1 i

1 1

1

1 1

1 1

i 1 I

1 1 1

1

1 1 1

1 1

t 1

rH 1

1

4

1

1 1

©

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 I

1 1

t >

1 1

1

1

1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 \

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 I

1 1 1

I 1 1

1 1 1

1

1

I

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1 CO ^

05 1-H

1

• 00

so so tH

1

Q 00 TH 00 1-H i
0 05 so so 05 1

OOO 1

1

1 1

1 00 1

CD CM

1

1 CO

COS005COrHOOiOOO

0 so

1 1 05 so

TH 00

' 05

1H CD 00

CM 0 i

CM

lO 1

TH b*

1 CM

C5rHb*O00 05C0s0

00 so

1 I CO 00

00 0

1 CD

CM b* CM

CD 0 CM »0 so 1

b-o 1

b-

1

ICO '

COCO

1 CM

THO*Ct'-00b*05rH

CO CM

©

1 ^ Fs

1 1 05 <D

k Fs

CD CO

* F«

• SO

Fk F*

b*b*TH

r-iTHHHeCbC 1

•k Fk 1

CM CD i

Ft

1

' Fs *

f ^ 1

Ft Fk

CMb*

1

b-T co 00 CO 00 cm' b-^ CO
THb>-CDCDTHC00500
SO 05 CM CM 05 CM

CO cd

1 1 Tf

CO '9'

•05

1

0

1

CM CO '

CM

iCM 1

1

rH 0

w

1 1 1-H rH

CM

1

1 1

1

rH rH

E-*

1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1

1

1

1

i

1

1

1

1

1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 t

1 1

1

1

1

1

1

Fs

CM

i9'fl

4-3 ©

1 1 1 1

till

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

t 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

I 1

1 t

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

t 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1

1 1 1

1 > 1

1 I 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

I 1 1

1 1 1

1 ft 1

1

1

1

t

1

1

1

1

1

■ 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

■ a

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

A 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

ilftllllft

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

® o3 4^0

eg>>^

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

till
1111

1 1 1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

• 1

i i

1

111

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

t 1

1

t

1

1

1

III

1 I 1

t 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

ft V 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

>

(

1

1

4

1

1

1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1
i 1

I 1

1 1
t 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

till

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

ii

I 1 1

1 1 1

• 1 1

1 1 1

1 1

1 1
• 1

1 1

1

1

1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 I

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 I

1 1 1

i

1

(

1

1

1

1

1

1 1 1

1 1 1

■ 1 1

1 1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

. CO

rp^

B

©

lx

to

o

lx

pH

CD b- CO
f-i C5

i-» O <D b*-

k k

CO O O
rt< CD

CD r-« 05

6^

CM SO CO
CD CM O
GO O ^

■sjs CD CO »-(
bx>^J- QO b*
CM CO

OO O SO
CD •— I »— t
CD b-

O GO SO
OCO
CM so

CM CO — H so Tt’ CO
SO CD CO CO O ’-t
b- CD 05 CO
^ *1. ^ ^
CO b- bx CO CO
05 05 05

^ ^ CO CM

CO bx tx
CO bx
I— < 1— ( CD

««• k •'k

O CM
rH O bx
CM f-H

CO so so so 1-H
CO CO 05 b- 05
bx O CD 05 1-H

CO oToTo csf

CM CM »-H COHf
CO »0 SO

CD bx O O
so so lx rji
CM CO O bx

CO COCO
CM Tji

DOOC5S005CM 05 00
0 CT Hji SO 05 CM 1— I F-i CO
M 00 00 CM CM CM 1-H i-h O

S

SOCDOOC5S005CM
00 OQ CT Hji SO 05 CM
rP cl 00 00 CM CM CM

CO' •^CO CM* CD CD' od' CMi!H'
05 rt< bx o bx 1-H O CD CO
CM bx i-H ^ T-H -Tt* -Tf OOCO

CO T-i

©

•*x

©

lx

13

lx

©

a

©

O

^ Six

u 2

o:p

so CO OO
OCO 05
05 CM CD

cooTcM^Tir

05 1-H o bx
00 HJH CD

00 CM CM rH

SO 05 bx 00
o CO bx bx
^

CM bx 05 CM
CO CO CO CM
CO CO bx bx

rb rjs so
txCM GO
Obxio

k vh ^

so CO CM
T-H 05 CO
COCM Hjs

§s

1-H bx CO CM o 1-H

■ 00 05 O CO tH

f-H so 05 05 O
^ ^
O O GO CM CM SO
bx rf< »0 b3 00
rH rH rH i-H CO CM

SO 05 O
bx 00
CD 1-H CO

cTcD 00

CO 00 1-H
rH bx rH

CO CM 1-H bx CO

rH so CD 1-H bx
CO CD 05 CM »0

k «s

05 so CD 00 bx
1-H 1-H 00 CD CO
1-H CO CM 1-H CD

bx CO
TH so
05 bx

cfco"
CO so

P CM CO

bx

so

bx

0

tH

1 CO

CO

1 CM

tH

b*

0

1 CD

05

1 0

CM

CD

b*

1 CO

1

CD

1 CO

1

05

CO

co"

1 tH

'seT

1 Fs

• CM

Fs

CO

SO

05

I 00

rH

1 00

CM

CD

CO

1 CM

CM

1 b*

1

CO

CO

1

Ft

CO

■ Fk

IlH

00 CO
1-H bx

TH O

co'co

Oso

S.2
.is '3
P*-

C0 050bx
05 05 bx tH
tH CD bx CO

tH CD "SH CO
05 CO rH CO
CO 1H TH CO
^ r

bx rH CO 05
Hj« TH COCM
tH 05 TH 1-H

«N k

bx 00 CD 1-H
CO 00 I-H 1-H

CM CM CM

05 05
CM CO O
CDbxOO

♦s •« •»

CO GO SO
CD CO
tH CD

1-H SO CO CO tH 05
b- 05 bx Obx SO

•sC< 05 O 05 bx -sji

^ Vs »«

TH 1-H 1-x 05 CM

rH CO bxbx bx 05
I-H CO TH CM SO

bx bx CO
CO CD 05
OCO SO

05 (xTcm*'

CO tH TH

bx CD SO so O

O CO CM 1-H bx

05 00 CO CD CD

i-HObxbx05
bx 1-H so CO CO
sOCMCOOtH

1-H tH 1-H CO
OO CM CM bx
05 CO SO rH

05 rH TH CO
iiH CD CO CM
1-H rH CM

OCDCDiHCMbxCDOO

00COO5i-HCMbxCO’5H

COCDCOrHbxOCMO

oco'c5'of5'oc<rc<ro

CObxOOi-HOsOCO

sOCOCM-sHOi-hOOtH

CD CM

CM CM

O 05
rH bx

CO CD
S0’‘C0

rH tH

COCO
hH 1-h

CO CM 00 r-H
05 CD rH tH

CO 05 CM 0

SOCOSOO

0 CO 0 rx
SO CO CM 05

CO CO 05
0 rH CO
b* SO CO

CM CM CD SO hH 0
sOCOCOOOb-
rH CD OC b* hH

CM CD CO
rH -94 b*
b* SO CM

COCO CD CM CO
DM CO 00 CO tH
CM SO SO 00 CM

00 b*rH CO

CM b* CM CD

05 SO so CM

OOeOOOOb*OOCM

SOb*O500rHbs.C0b*

s0C0C0tHtHO»O05

00 CM
CM so
b- b*

'©

4H

0

cd SO b-T CO
00 SO rH 0
b* »c 00 CO

Fs Fs Fk

05 CD CD CO
05 CM so CO
Ob- 05 05

Fs Fk Fs

GO CM 00
bxOCD
CM CO 0

Fs Ft Fs Fs Fs Fk

THCMCMTHCMb*

sOOCMCMi-Hb-

CM SO CO -kCi 05 CO

Fs Fs Fs

rH ^ rH
b* CO CD
rH 00 CM

Fs Fk Fs Fs Fs

1-H CD TH SO b*
05CMTHOb-
CD *D CDCM 0

CM so' TH so

CO rH CO 00

CM CO rH 05

oTbTcTc^COC^rTH'cD
00 CD 0 05 CM 0 CO SO
rHb*CMCDCMrHCDb-

06 rH
rx 0
TH TH

Eh

r ». _ ra

rH rH CM

1-H rH

Fs

CO

00

Fk Fs F

^ ?H rH

g cm" so CM"cdrH

tH i-h^

TH CD 00 CO
rH so 06 rH

SO 0 CM CD

CD 05 00 CM
1-H CO 0 SO
CM 15H CD b*

CD 00 SO
00 00 00
so 050

TH CO rH 00 03 CO
OTH SO tH 05 00
00 0 CO CD CM

SO rH 0
CD 0 SO
SO b- 05

b* CO rH SO

CM b* 00 rH CO
b* SO CM -iSi TH

OCD rH CD

CO 005 CM

SO CO SO CM

rHi-xiOCOOOOO^CM

COb*CDCMsOb-OTH

sDCDOOOsCrHbrCM

b* so

CM tH
CM 0

©

4H

0

F. Fs F. Fs

1-H CD b* CO
CO rH 0 CO
b- 0 CO

Fk Fk • F

rH SO 05 0
rH 1-H CO 0
CD 0 CD CM

Fs Fs Fk

CD 00 00
CM rH CO
SO SO 00

F» Fs Fs Fk Fs

CM rH tH CD CO rH
SO CM b- CM rH 05
CO CD b* so CO so

tH TjTcd
Ob* CO
Tji CM TH

•k Fk Fs Fs Ft

CD SO tH 00 05
CO so CD SO rH
rH 00 0 b* CO

F Fs F Fs

SO CD 0 TH

00 CD CD CO

CO rH rH

0 b-T CM"05 r-Ti-T b^ od
COOOtHsosOOOtHtH
OTHCOCOCOb*rHCM

THCb
05 CD
CO 00

Eh

c^f c^Tcd

Fs Fk Fs Fk

rH 1-H CM rH

Fs

hH

Fk

00

FT

rH

Fs

r-H

Fs Fs Fs Fs

CM rH rH rH

F

CD TH rH"b-rCM tHCM"

CM

iOrX

Total

public

and

© CT

00 CM CO CM
05 CC' 03 CD

CM 0 cob-

b-<C)b*05
CM 03 CM CM
rH -kf CM b-

05 b- CM
CO 00 CM
rH CO CD

so rH tH CM b-CM
SO 05 0 00 rH CO
05 CO rH 05 0 0

00 05 0

CO 0 b*
b* 00 0

b* CO b* b* rH
CO 05 00 CO tH
CO SO 05 05 CD

TH CD TH 00

CD rH 00 CO

05 0 TH b*

C005SOO00CMCMO

THb*THOOCOOOOOCM

CMOOOCDOOOOCO

05 05

05 rH

TH 0

S73

.P P

Fs Fs Fk Fk

05 CD 0 b-
t-x r-X rH ts-

tH b- CO CD

rH^OedsO
CM TH CM 05
CD 0 b* Oft

Fs Fs

0 rX TH
HH CO CM
CD SO CM

Fs Fk Fs Fk Fk Fs

05 b* b- 00 CO 0
so CM b* so CO 0
CO CD b* so CO CO

Fs Fs Fs

0 tH 00
rH 0 b*
T94 TH tH

•s Fs Fs F F.

CD 0 CM CM SO
05 b* b* 1'* tH
rH 00 0 i- CD

• s F Fs F

tH rH 0 rH
rH 0 00 b*

^ CD rH rH

T9roo5CDod'rH'TH'xH"

b*sosOb-b*CDb*C0

sOsOCDCOSOOOrHCO

CD" cm"
CD b*

TH 00

lx q

P^fl

cm" CM"cd

rx rH CM rX

Fk

05

Fs

F>

rH

F F Fs Fs

CM rH rH rH

F

CD tH rH"b<rCM"-^"CM
CM

F F

SO rH

PJ

a

03

©

a

OQ

q 03

.2 2
CO c3

> a

P3 o3

Ck

03

lx

U)

o

©

O

ra

Hj

oi

Z

Pd

O

K

H

P

O

TO

P

<

►X

H

z

<

e

W

Eh

P

O

CO

a

©

a

©

X

Q.2 ..vx

— ® o

UrO U

a.t35 a o ^

J-'q

©

© 4-3 lx

o

© .t-H

ppj=k

©

.73

>

q • .

3x *rT • • • .

s

^1.2^ §
£f-3.s

o a q
© © o
OMP

iH q I ^

Ch O rr! ■*■=*

CG.P

©
Pto
o

9©

Oi ©

to

d

o

-4-3

CG

©

rX

lx

©

X

O

X

CG

a

©

3

©

a

©

o

lx

©

© CG ©

rPiPp:
> Cl p>

a© ® « qja
Q 59 o 5X5

.a

4.3

lx

O

a

o

CG 2
OS ^

£;>£ <500^-35 cM§Z SPHP^Wm

S g - M a ii

4-3

lx

o

p
O P

p

o

H3

to

p

4-3

P

P

W

CG

P

o

T)

. P ^
M OM

-r

© *p

© lx

©

OoqH

X

©

Eh

bX)

lx

©
P
b‘

P

©;r

ot>

XH

CG

©

O

Z

D

<

Ph

P

Iz;

Hi

iz;

g

P

O

CG

©

8

CG

1

o p

>»

4-3

<1^^ 05

to

lx

® » p 22 ©

§073 © a?©Q

.. fl q q-2

©x5< ©

' cg3
o

p p 'X fci

©Af^ o

o P p'p
© © © ce

q © -^

©
P“

Ph'

©
r— > rH

P

©

a

w O
© 2

©

o^2SSgg..-^Sg

O TO TO TO g -S ^

^H Oj © /H

p

o

p

X

p

p

p

©

73

©

4^

©

4-3

CG

lx

©

>

o

©

lx

2

©

lx

©

X

-4-3

©

lx

©

CO

13

4H

o

4-3
• ^

4-3

P

P

8

o

4.3

CG

©

I

lx

©

>

o

©

©

lx

©

o

lx

©

CG

13

-4-3

O

4H

CG

u

©

P

O

«rx

o

o

>

CO

P

o

X

©

f>s

4.3

P

P

o

©

CG

©

TP

©

4-3

©

4-3

CG

lx

©

7S

P

P

©

lx

2

©

lx

©

X

©

lx

©

CG

13

© ©

©

lx

©

lx

O

O

4H

CG

©

•H3

©

©

a a 9

©

lx

bjo

O

lx

Ph

CG

M

(x

O

©

u*

bJD

O

lx *

e^a

CG ®
©

lx

o

>

O

lx

2

©

lx

S14J

—H 7r

P

r*H ®

t?

©

P

O
> C3

O p

©

lx

to

o

lx

Ph

CG

.id

lx

O

ter

©

lx

2

©

lx

©

X

4.3

©

M

©

CG

©

4H

O

4.3

•4H
• rX
©

O

4^

©

•4H

©

©

lx

'p

©

CO

©

O.

>»

4H

lx

©

X

CG

§

•-X

lx

©

>

'O

p

©

a

£ ©

CG

rid

lx

o

P qH O P3 >

5 O

lx

o

P

P
© ©
lx ©

P 4H

.rx'P

Ph ©

eo q
4-3
CG

>

O

lx

O

4x

©

lx

S)^

— H sj

fr . P
^ ©
4H

X

©

P

is

o

p

.id

P

p^
©•3

CG

o o

CG 'P

© © ©
lx -IJ 4S

P^ ©
Ph gpH

o 73 -X

P ""
P

.§2

s§ .a

^ O CG ©

*1: £

©

CG

o

p

M w

© Q.

lx -

O

o

o

WJ lx -rr
w ®

4H k, P

CD ®

2 bfi 53 73
©^ ^ fl

Ix'^rx.-x

X3 p2 §

3 bD'fl ®

rfl

© p
3 ®

S.a

©

Ph

lx

©

X

Ph w ©

©

ca-s

©

X

o

*rx

fl

o

©

l4 P

© ©

.■ga

Ss §.2-

t\5 ^
©

© ©
X •

o

p

4-3

o

o

-p
©

© ©
-X lx

©

CG

bJD O*

q ©
•P
P w

©.a

© lx

'g<ijga

7:3

P

>3'

lx

O

-H? lx

lx

lx

©

4-3

©

X

4-3

lx

.0

b 2* ^ P ®
goscago j

'■g “2 9 “

© il _i7 — H

£g.aSj

o.a 2

© o S-^

«P JH fl Six
-*^.3 73 O

o g-S-g

Ch ® o fl

a g« °3

^ ^ S o 52
otq ® a
• 'fl :r3 25 ©

rvW'O © 2

Os-*^ ® q o

C3§x:x 2

TO P gpj-g

- SrpF O

■1.3 ^ ^

©

73

p

p

73

©

>»

o

Pi

a

©

CG

p

o

CG

lx

©

Pi

r T
©

CG

' bio
'2 ^
© p
p H

CG

• Pk

§

UP

P

o

73

©

lx

©,

CG

*

P'

•fH

a<

T3.

©

CG

98

Table C— 7 •—Amount of public and private assistance and earnings under specified Federal work programs^ by urban area^ 1934

«

(£a

s

CO

<&

0)00 0^00 CO

^ ^ GO

oi“o coo-^"

jH<^»^c^o)r^ooo)*-i’^h»»ooo

t>»^c^.-icoh-ooouoeo»ocoi-i

00

CO CO »o
C0«0 1-H-^CO

S-h- t>r<o 00

I-H »o t» O)

O) Ud CO
CO O 00
1-H CD O)

lOoTi-T
^ CO

^O)cor^coo>g>b»'«j'

0)COC^C^»OOOCO'«»‘

’^t^CDOOOOOJuOCO’^

t>r<^c4‘'^o)cDio^cr

CO 1-H o
OI 00

»D

0)^Ot^*-4h'.i-HHJ*^CO^

0^0»D’^CDt^*OeOCO®

C^OOcD»O^OOi-<f-HO»Oc5

t- lO

CO ^ O ^ O w
t-- ^CO CDW

COM
1“H »c
00 CD

O)

h-i CO
00
1-4 ^

o

o

a

CS

CO

•M

CO

to

03

o

2

S3

a

CO

«>

Q.

c3

V

a

CQ

0)

iD

s

-^40

s

0 c

M

•4^

ss

'OS

CO

<1

Tt< 0> »0 o M

CO ID I- »D Tt<
1-H O I-H CO

^O)h-OOUOOOMO^COO>

»CMC0»0CDt^i-Ht^Oi4j4b-O

*-H HJ4 CO

^-^OOOMCDMF-4^rHCOOO

CO 00 CO
00 00 M

00 M HJ4

M»0»DOOcDC4t^CD

CDC3)COOMMrt<t^iO

i-<'^0)Ot^OO00CD

oOQwoMt^oor^r^O)’0'0>

cDMcooocor-ot^r^OH}4

t-HiOOOcO^COOOCO-^CDi-H

CD CD CD

^ O)
C4

CDCDCOM M-^M-*HC4Tj‘O0gCDQ-r‘

CO

M CO

O CD
CO CO
CD O

CO ^
t-M

_ c fl
o ®

•*^'0 «H

'O G2

•1-4 c> rsi

•<

'O

Wv

CO

00

8CD O) lO CO
00 CO O)

l>0 o 00 00

ID » H»4 O HH

«DCOh-cDi-tCX)OOOcDOCDOcD

CDCOOOi-hMiOIDCDOOcOCD^CD

COOOOOOCCT!<,-«OOOt^OCOiO

OeOOOuOt^OOiDiO^iDiDC^

»D M f-H 1-H ^ CO O CD O CO i-<

^ CO i-H 1-H O CD O) M i-<

C>»D>-4 CO ^ O 00 O ID 00 t^

O»^0)HjHD00M0>Hj«OO)

lOCOOCOMl^r-t^iDcDi-H

i-HOH}4cOr-OOCOMO)rr»D

00 CO CD CO

»D ^ 1-H O)

O) O ^D

t- CO »0 1-H CO

»D

I CO 1-H M

1-H O H}4

M CD 00
M »D

oorfooi-HT^r^oO'S'
COt^i-Hrr'Dt^OOO
CO ^ tH

oT

C4coo)^oooooor^r-co

CDC04Dt>-CDCSC005000*D
CDiDi-H 04

CO »D

S

00

\

b£fl

C3 c3

TJ OT

p-^ >—4

OC0

w

c8

o

kO

M

o

CD 1-H ^ CO O
M r- CO o CD o>

t-0)OOCOHj4

coiDi-ir-tHieo-.^-v-w^^ _

ls,i-H<^0»DO)»DCOO)r«-0<N

^ ^“<0 C4 mm' ^ cp" CO M

05 CD
M

^66coc^Tj4t>.^cOoo

^ M w ^ ^

COt-Hj4 M M h- 00 eo M M Hji f-H

OOOt^ »-H -H fH. o M 05 O- M CO

MOOCO »D 05 M M 00 00 CD 05 05

b— 05 ^

Sb-OMl^

CD t>- 05 O

gJ050‘DM»DHf40>

M *D CO O
00 O M 00

M b- O
M oor-

MMcDMg^g^g^O)

§

rH.C5CO
CO 05

CD

05

1-H05l-H05l-H^^^CDgO

CO 05

CO

88
1-H 00

^ 00
t- CO

C3

■4^

o

s

00

CD

»D CD M 1-H
COM tH, O 00
*-• 05 O M

t^^^COO5-HM00t-»DMO5CO

tDl>-COHf4iDt^050»-<f'-OCOCD

COHj*t>-COCDCDCOi-H05COOCO»D

^t-00
1-H CO CO
1-H CD 05

»D00 05i-4COHjirfiC-00
^M-HO*-HC0t>^

OOMO»D»DO»D

Hf«C04D05i— COHj*00 00 00tH.

AcOOCDTficDcDh-.OOOOt>*

MMOCOr-4MCO>^t<-«»'CO'^

00 -S* ^ M ID
»D^^ 1-HM

M 4D 00 1-4 iD CD M 05 M H54 ti, n^i C4 ^

1-hM M O O O COh# 05 »0 CO 1>.Q O M
^ iD^MM^MM M MCOi-H

M

^ ^ — H CO ^ — H CD

»D CD CD 1-H O »D CD 05 iD M Q
1-4 00 00 IDMMM

•k

CD

CDt'-Hf4MC000^05000»D
00t^r-O05MO00H»i(N^
rH 1-HOT ^ 1-H CO

00 05
00 t-
CO 00

r- b-
M

S4

CD CO
COOT
o CO

CD't>r

00 O

c3

u

o>

CO

Q

D

O

3

3

CQ
t- u,
® to
'O O

a

3

Im

04

CO M

•a^

W

iS-gc)-

® c3 ' ^
O ‘

'Ph

_ _ CO Ch

CD

ID

Ht-

5D

OT

CO

M

Htf4 O l-H Htl

r- CO 00 M ■'!»<
o O 00 OT

i-T r-T of id"
^ f— M OT
CD 5D M CD U)

iD00*-«h-*Mi-Hb-cOM»DOTr-CD
»Dt>-O'^O'^00 00t^-Ht>-O*i1*
OCt^’-H’i^'CDCOOOOOMCOt-OOi-H

i-ToQiDCOOTOO^^Dt^odu^i-^

COScD'^COt'-QOCDOOHjiMOO

Mi-HCOiDMM^^COi-HtDOTOO

m

CO

CO

Hjl

CO

OT

t-

M

fH.

M

©

OT

©

©

fH.

CO

CO

©

r-

©

Hj*

Ht*

©

CD

OT

CO

©

OT

©

00

00

l>-

HJ*

Ht*

©

M

l>.

CO

©

fH.

©

M

©

tH.

©

H»4

0

OT

M

©

M

©

CO

M

OT

©

CO

©

«

t>.

©

©

M

pH

h-

rf

M

00

©

00

©

t--

©

Q

tH-

©

M

tH.

©

M

©

©

©“

©

iD

0

M

h-

hH4

M

©

00

rn.

M

OT

CO

Ht*

OT

<P

^4

©

©

©

©

CO

©

CD

CD

OT

M

©

OT

©

tH.

00

©

CO

©

©

OT

t-

©

tH-

©

M

OT

©

©

©

©

©

OT

CO

0

CO

t-

*

M

0

M

m"

0

CO

0

H»*

0

0

CD

»>

r-»

«o

CO

r**

M

M

iD

on

©

h-

00

M

©

■n*

fH-

M

©

©

CO

©

©

M

OT

t-

©

Hit*

0

iD

t--

©

0

0

0

©

OT

r-

on

©

©

©

©

©

'X

©

HlJI

©

r-

©

r-

CO

CD

©

©

OT

©

00

CO

©

M

M

CO

t--

tH.

OT

CO

©

OT

CO

©

05

M

©

©

M

OT

©

©

Ch.

CO

©

■n*

H}4

h-

c*-

©

©

CO

0^

©

OT

Tt*

pH

©

Ht*

Q

"ot

0

CD

f.'S

tH.

©

©

Hf

M

■Hf*

©

tH-

CO

©

00

OT

©

©

©

OT

9^

M

M

1-

CO

0

Chi

M

©

c-

OT

M

OT

CO

CO

M

©

■Ht*

CO

M

©

©

di5

©

Ht*

OT

<D

»-H

%

3

1.4

<s>

a

O

IS ®

OS

^ <D

CD

05

CD

iD

tH.

CO

M

CD »D CO tH- »D

CO r- HJ4 10 HJ4

t- CO »D CD

00

CD CD OT M
M M CO Tt«
CD CO »0 CO

McOCDi-HH^OTCDMoOC-tD^rt*

r>-'^Hj40M»Deoooor-cDcoi-H

O»Di-HOi-^M00»DiDt^^M00

t>riDOTt^O»Di-roOCOOO
^^CDO0P*Dg'3'O:^

00

O0OT->. ^ •. y- , — ^

i-HCOCDtH.tH.t^OTCOr-MO’^t-

CO 1-H 1-H 1-^

00

M

CO M

M

S.2

S

Sh

Q

M

iD

o'

O

00 CO t-. CD CO

SCD CO CO I'-
00 CO OO 05

COiDCDCOnficOcDCDi-HOCD'^iD

CO»DOOCDOOMOGOcOiDiDCDiD

OT^OTiD»Di-Hi-HiOCDM00i-HCO

•^-hOT Hji cDO O M -h M M O

OTi-iCO tH. M -H O iD CD hJi M

rt* M OT CD 00 CD r»4 M CD CD Hji M

OOt^OOOt--i-Hr-i-HMHj4

i-HeOOcDOTHJ4tN.MMi-Hl>«

OOTt-OTi-H-^iDiD00a0»0

CD Hji OT
iD05COt'-
00 1-H CO OT CO

85

r-i-Ht>.cor-CDt^M00MHj4iDCD

OOiDcDOT-^O-^Ht't-OTMOt^

CDCOiDHj4COt^cDCO-^i-H'rI4ci5?o

CO r- OT

go

1-H M

»

M t- ^

O OT rn- r- CD M CO
OT CO CO -Tji 00 M HJ4
iD 00 1-H t- t- 1-H

00

COOTiD-^r-OOOMMI^M

OOCDOOOCMOTiDtH'^i-Hi-H

HjiQOiDt'-.COrrOTOOf^OO"^

^ t-(i-Hi-h^i-hO»-hCO»D
M M

00 iD
M iD
t- CO

OT iD

1-H iO
00 iD

O

CO

OT iD
M iD

04 04

iD r-
CO iD
CD 00

<55

H-i

O

£h

t-

1-H

00

iD

CD

M

CD

TJ4 CO O CO 00
CO CO 00 <35 »-H
t>.MOCOCD

iD00M'^00MM00OTt--HiDO5

OOTCOCDOOO’O'OOrPMMOTcD

OOTi-HiDt>-COOTOMOCOCOi-H

M

M OO M r- M
00 t- tH* ’4C t-

MOTCDOM^’O'COT^^CO

t'--*14iD-!POTt^OMC000t^HHM

OOt^MMO’O'CDtH-MHji’^t'-i^

CD

M M M

09

H>»

o

e

CO

iD

CD

HJ4

00

OT

CO Tf4 CO CO
Hfi OT CO M Tf
OT 1-H O O CO
^ ^
OT OT O O CO

iD 00 Hf1 ^ H^4

iD CO O M CO

ts-Ot-‘^C5H^4#-HOTOOt-Ml-Hi-H

i-HiDOiDCDOTMt^COi-40'^00

MMOTCDOTe0MO’O*t'-i-HiD00

cfoT— rM‘ciOHj4“cDMtHriD’T»4‘co'oO
COi-HMOTiDOOOQCO'^MTfiM
CDOOOOT‘itf<OcOOOOOt«-MOT^

M M 1-H M 1-H

S’-

l-H 1-H 1-H M M 1-H

CO CO CO

©

M

Hf*

M

M

0

pH

CD

Ht*

©

M

rH

M

©

©

05

©

M

©

Ht*

©

Hf

©

CO

©

Ht*

CO

©

pH

©

©

©

Ht*

Ht*

05

M

©

M

©

S!

0

t-

©

M

pH

pH

©

©

M

©

CO

©

CO

HJ4

M

CO

tH.

Ht*

05

05

©

M

©

HI*

»H

OT

CO

OT

©

pH

©

t*-

©

©

pH

©

'©

o'

0

©■

m'

h-T

0

on

©

CO

t-

©*

0

pH

CO

0

pH

0

l>-

‘5’

"ot

00

m“

M

CO

©

•it

05

©

p

r-

OT

t-

©

h-

©

©

©

©

05

tH-

©

©

©

05

©

OT

HT*

©

©

M

©

M

©

05

CO

Ht*

M

©

©

©

©

pH

Ht*

©

pH

05

^4

r-

©

M

©

©

r-

©

M

r>-

©

©

CO

©

rH

<0

pH

M

Ht*

pH

pH

©

©

pH

M

^H

pH

M

r-4

88

M

Hf*

©’

CO

©

0

Ht*

©

©

pH

Ht*

CO

iH.

©

tH-

fH.

©

OT

r-

©

©

©

pH

©

©

rH

©

©

©

Hf

t*-

©

Ht*

rH

^H

pH

r>-

M

CO

CO

on

tH.

©

on

M

05

r-

M

©

©

©

M

©

CO

©

M

©

©

pH

©

©

M

CO

t-

HI*

M

pH

©

dh

©

t-

©

Hf*

Ht*

Ht*

©

^H

Ht*

M

r-

M

©

r-

©

CO

©

©

Ht*

©

©

pH

OT

pp

pH

©

05

OT

pH

M

©

t--

©

©

m'

©“

00

p

OT

©

©

t-H

05

©

CO

h-

0

h-

tH.

©

pH

pH

©

pH

Ht*

©

©

05

©

©

M

pH

©

©

CO

©

Ht*

©

CO

CO

©

0

»

OT

©

©

00

05

0

Ht*

©

©

©

Hi*

©

©

©

©

M

©

tH.

M

M

M

M

CO

M

M

OT

©

©

M

9^

M

©

M

M

«

©

©

©

^H

m“

P

M

r-

P»

M

V

05

P-

M

M

©

a >

OT

o's a

5 2 "‘C 3

o* o,«2

OT

Hf

05

Hf

M M M M OT
© Hf* © t- M
^ ^ OT M 1-^

©■«^©©©i-hOT©OTi— OT©OT
©©©©©t’-M©©©©OOT
OTMi-H05Hf©05©©©M©M

© © 1-*
© T-H ©
M 1-H ©

©©©Hf©©©©©

©©©©©©t-*^co

t'-©©Ml-HOl-H©©

©OT©bHMl'>-HH©HfC4M

co©i>»t^©i-4©^-©r>-Ht*

©©©©(^©MM-^t”-©

r- OT
» t’-
© OT

b- 0
© OT

© I-H

P

Hf

r-

©

m'©'©'<3 ©“

1-H © ^ Hf CD
© ©© © ©

©©t’>-O5C-HfH!f00©©CO^M

Hf©©05Hf©©00©t>-MO©

OT © ©
1-H M ©
© © ©

© © t- 06 © © ©’ © 1-H

©©©r-rHOMtH.©

©©©i-4©©05OT©

CO CD M' 00 CD M CO ©

M©©M**fi-HM©M^rH
©©OOHf©Ht*©©Hf*©

M CO
© ©
HH CO

hH ©

© OT
M ©

p

Hf

pH

M’m'i-h M S

1-1 r-i .-H M m" 1-4 co’HtTco

tH^MM

MM©©M05©’^©
^ r.

M 1-H CO CO M m’ © 0^ CO ©

M i-H
©

MM

*3

a

03

•k

05

03

H>>

DO-

pS

•ii

•2 ”

'OS

.23

s

p.

09

O

o

O

Q

Z

2

O

z

w

;2;

o

Eh

fl

.3 P fl ..

« oCQtd O W

.2 S^^^Ph

® fc-

fliS? ® ®

S ^ t>

p.fH .2

'3

»H
4®

'3

*-H^ P

Qjpp O

P P '3

O

35^5 S"’

§ n « ® ® ^§o*:;coooc3o
cppWizilz: fl |pqffiafesShJS:z:!2:

o
O

M

03 eO

<D
<y

P

O'

■3

>

O

Ui

*3

® fe'S

« to S
tuD a>^
P O OT

-H ImI-H

»- o ^
ta^'O

s

o

H

z

H

»

)-3

P

P

>»

0)

OT

iZ ^ ® 3 ® o s:

Iz;

ce

P'S 4=3

^ Pi bfi

® ® 3

is-H^

2||.g

fl p ot'3

oS.t3 ®

0)
t

C9

PPP

o

I

OT

a>

P

H

z

H

O

H

H

P

O

:z;

'3

p

s

0

wtfl

® a
®.3 ••

• • ii4 P

oOco.PWPsi
.3 '3

S 3

S 09

>>

OT

§■«
> o

99

See footnotes at end of table.

Table Amount of public and private assistance and earnings under specifiefi Federal teork programs, by urban area, 193^-— Continued

ce «

3 ID CD

000

04 CO CO

3 00 04 05 ID

ID 0 CD

3 ID CO

3r--kj*eor-04cor-3

3 4D r- M

3

lOO

CD 3 3 00

ID CO r-

CO 3 CD

CD 3

ID M 0

3 3 r— r— CD

^H ^H Qi

00 ID 3

OOCDOOr-CDOCDr-3

3 3 3 CO

CD

• CO 05

3 3 04 CO

CD r- CD

05 t- 3

ID 0

04 05 W

05 CD r- CO »D

r-053

04 3 GO

-COCOCDOIDID3COCO

ID ID 05 ID

04

1 3 3

3 r— 3 3

CO 3 05

CD CD 3"

04*0

3 ID 0

r-xoo04 3

00 05 05

3 3 CD

04 003333300

CD CO go 00

1 Ak

1 04 3

1^00 0510

t-" 05 05

3 3

3 3

3 3

05 04

coco *0

3 3 ID

CO 3 iD 3 ID 3

00

, ta CD

04 CO CO

3 3 0

3

3

CO 3

CO 3 3

C^3

3

• 3

3 3

9

1

<o o »c

«D

•-H 04

9

o

a

eS

.2

Vi

s

•D

3

A

e

03

o

o

a

CQ

a>

x:

o q
<1

w CO

03

O 05

O C4
CO »-<

«0 -H o
00 cc
05 O ''C*

odt^of

o o

05 »0 1-H

cor^oo

^ 04

’Tt*t^<OC005Q005lCt^
CO<OCD05t'-05r-tCOUO
0^*00»-HCOi— tCO»C

•^‘‘’rr‘oo*o‘r-rt>rrjro^

^’^»Or^CO04 C004

s

O 04
CO 05

o «o *o
CO

^

f-H COC^
rH

olg

0004
CO CD 04
CD ID 04

00 3
00 ID
05 CD

or- 1-

04 CO 05
^H ^H ^5

04 04 0 'CO

2g5a ig

CO r- 05

0 3 0
0 3 10

00 05 3
r- CD 05
ID 3 00

30C005r-iDiDr-iD
»DCDO5O5COCdC03Ci;
r-05»D00 04 00 C505iD

CO coco r-

CD CD 05 t>

r- 01 CO 04

1 1

t 1 3 ID

1 > 3 CO

1 1 04 3

P CD
P 3
r-3

1 CO

iS

I P ID

:?ss

0 04 r- CO
3 r- 3 CD

0403CD

1-

ns fl!2

— H 0)

< A^

© ©
ns

ScoS

CO ID
ID 3

✓

04 t-’

0 r- 05 '00

^H ^H 05 '

CO 3 13

3 1

1

1

1

r*^ 05 06

3 C5 CD
04 04 3

CD 3 3
CO ID3

C:3lD3CD3 3tHilD
IDIDCD05COI^333
04 ID 3 3

0 CD r- r-^

iDCOOOO

r—

1 t «k ••

1 1 0 00

1 1 CD 3

1 1 3

1 (

1 1

1 1

1 i

1 1

cd'o

*D3

•

1 T-H

t CD

1

1

I

1

1

1

ICOJO

1 p

1

1

1

1

1

1

3 co"edo4

©

© 0
bc a

3CO 3

CO 3 r-

3 05 CO

3 05
3 ^
3 t-

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 t

1 t t

CO 3 ID 04 3
3 CO CD r- ID
CD 05 CO CO 0

00 04 3
0 3 05
0 »D3

t 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

■ 1 1

O0CDCDIDO43O4O4O5
04CDC0CD05 05C0C0O
G03O04C0CD04C0r-

1 1

0 • CD I

3 1 0 «

04 t CO 1

t 1 1

1 1 ID 1

1 1 CO 1

t t 0 '

1 1

• 1

1 1

1 1

1

1 ID

1 ID

1 r-

1 1
t 1 p

1 I 3

1 t ID

lilt

1 1 1 1

till
III!
1 t t 1

« «

JL •*-=*

T? Vi

3

Vi

W Vi
©

3'odQd

00 3 ID
GO 3

r-04

1 1 1

t 1 t

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

i 1 1

1 1 1

3' cd *D CO ID
04

0 3' cd

00 CD 3
04 3

t 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

( 1 1

1 1 t

1 1 1

1 1 1

o“ o’ 3’ 0 0 gd CO cd' p

3COCDOCDC43CD«
3 3

3 • 04 1

CO ' cp 1
• W 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 t

' t P I

1 1 P 1

1 1 r

1 1 t

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 )

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1

t

1

1

1

1

1

1

* 4 «.

• 1 0

I 1 ID

1 1

I 1

t 1

1 1

1 1

{ 1

III!
till
1111
till
1 > 1 1
till
till
1 1 I 1

3 COCO
CD005
r- ID »D

CO CO

r- r-
3 CO

Q r- r-

^ CO 05

3 3 0

ID CD ID 04 3
CD CD ID r- 10

t- 3 CD CO r-

r- 0 CO

ID r- 00
ID r- 3

05 05 3
CD 3 0
05 05 r-

cocoiDr-oor-cD33
30505iC004g030
CD0530000 0''CSCDOO

\D 00 P 05

CO 04 04 CD

0 P 3 00

1 1

1 I CD ID

1 ' t- CD

1 1 04 3

P CD
P 3
t- 3

1

1 04

1 r-
3

ro OCO

00 r- p

CD 0 04

0 04 r- CO
3 r- 3 CD
04 0 3 CD

Tota

CO ood

3 ID CD
3 3

05 CD

3 3 3 cd CO
CO 04 0 3

CO 3 3 3

3

0 Q 3

000 05
CO ID 04

05 id 3'
ID CD ID
304

3 CD ID 0 t- 3 04 3 r-’
304COr-iDCOCO300
3 3 3 r— 04 3 04

cd p 04’ p

05 r- 3 0

©3

3

1 1 »

■ 1 P 00

1 1 ID 3

1 ' ^H

• 1

1 t

1 1

1 (

1 1

COO
ID 3

i 3

1 CD

1

1

1

1

t

1

odofrC

04

H^cd’cdof

Vi

•3

3

3

o

s

3

A

CO

03
u
<x>

*3

• 08
^ bC

O

u

Oi

*3
3
3
eo,i4

3 O

•S^

U

cC

''^'3 ^ «e

■+J © ©

,?> CQ -4^ V

— Vi

.•3^
> b

..H O

B

03

O

A

p

ID

CO

CO

3

3

P

r-

CO

04

ID

3

05

CO

r-

CD

CO

r-

3

3

00

CD

p

0

3

3

ID

•k

t-

3"

ID

cd

r-

CO

0

P

04

p

P

3

co

00

CD

ID

r-

CD

3

r-

O- go 04 04 CO IC

04 O O 05

05 t'- 05 00

04

04 05 ^ 05
00 00 05 05
05 1— I 1-H

•k ^

f-« T-H OO
tN. O ©
CO CO

•-Tco 04"

CO 1-H lO
"^0^04
^ 05 I-H
#• 0^
rH ^ ^

t'-.coooo5wi-tr^co’^

O5CO*C'«5»*<D00»Ct^t>»

»OCOO^OOphCO»-^»0

t^coc^^oco'o^oi'coof

^ CO

04O05r-4O’V«0C0

05-^^

04

CO 00 04

CO 04

CD 00’^ lO
^ CO CO
I-H 05 o»

•^C5"q
1-H ^ »o 05

»C 1-H o ‘O

•k

0wt'-05

^ ^ o ^
t-«t^o0 04

CD

O-t-H 04 CO

^ CD CO 04

O 04 »-• CO
CO -3* *-•
3^000

CD"04"'ifl?‘C0"

COf^

^ CD 05 05

04

CO ^

^ CO o

»-H 40 O
0-000

oTod^-T

^ CD *o
CD-^ CD

04 04

O O 00 ^
I-H CD 1— • 05
CO 05 00

o »o oTcd

CO CD 05
CO^* 04

Ui ®

o A
^2

©

©

'3

t-4

©

3

©

o

05 4D CD
CO 05 05
05 05

005 CO
3? »D ■
00 ID

04

pco
00 3
55 1-

3 04 CO
p r-3
04 p r-

POO 03 P

r- 3 r- 05 CO

00 04 ID 0 00

04 P CD
3 P t-
ID3 00

0 r- ID
3 04 CD
ID CD CO

ID 00
00 3
ID 3

04 CD 00"
3 COP

0 00

od 04 of 1-f 04"

04 CD 04 04 04
CO 04 00 CD 3

oo"rCco"

3 04 ID
PID04

rf CD od

3 ID ID

00 r- p

3

P

04 of

t^OCOO«004t>-iD3*

C0^3<0-^05»000i-t

COt^CD»-l004C0053*

- ^ O CD CO »-«
- _ ID 04 00 05 O

05iC003'C004COt>-

1— I Q 05 00 05
050iCt^04

04 CO

04 »D 1-4 05
O 3< i-H CO
CO CO 1^ CO

cD'1-4" cdi-^
COOO ^ 3«
CD 10 0 04
».

ID

00 00 CO CD
^ 10 04 1-H
»-H 05 CO

04 00 05 04
C5CO O-
OOCO O-

i-T 04

CO 04 OCO
O5r-ot>-
1-H T-H CO

ID odoTf-T
04 CO 3* 1-H
05 CD 3* CO

05 05 04
r- 04 i-H
ID t>- *0

i-h'05 CO"
05 3* 1— *
3* 04 CO

05 CO CD 00
1-H 04 CD 05
04 04 corn

3 CO ^

©.2
fcri I—*

U

Q

CO Q CO
00 O
CO 3 t>-

Cr3«‘lD
3* 00 1-t
CD CD 04

«0-

005
ID CD
00 04

•k

00 ID
C-OO
31 CO

00 00 3
ID 05 t>-
CD CD 05

«k

CO I-H b-
CD »D CD
tH i-H CO

3 05 3 ID CD
O 05 CO O 04
CO ID 05 ID 05

i-To ofiDod

t- CO ^ O !>■

00

00 3

W i-H 04 »— <

3 3 0-
CC t-< CD
3 O ID

oTodiD"

CO CD 00
CO 05 3

i-Tcdof

04 CD 05
ID 1-N »D
3 00

0"0 1-H
t>- 03
3 00 ID

0-iDiDi— <00»— *^*D
iDi-H3ii-H3*00O>— <CD
C0C0300OC0O0-05

Oi-icoor-

CO 05 CD 3 ^

04 04 r- go
g 05 C4

1-H CO 1-H CO 05 3 05

f-too^ 04 i-k ID ID 04 i-(

CO 04

ID 04 1-* CO
ID O CO ID
i-H ID 06 1-1
^

00 O- 3 1-H
00 cor- CO
o t- ID ^

I-T CDfH*

CO cor- CO

05 04 r- CO

CD CO 3 t-

CD t>^CO 04
04 3 3 CD

CO r- CO ID

04

CO

SCO 04 3

05 r- ID
05 05 05 r-

CO ID ^
O 04 1-H 3
t- 04 CO CO

CO ::

04 00 3

05 r- 04

3 CD ID

3” CD 04
ID CD 05

ID 3

00 ID ID 1-H

SfSf2?g

000 cT
^-iD03
CO 04 3 04

CO

o

Eh

04 ID 05
04 ID CD

3 3 r-

03 04
O ^ ID

ss

3

3"'

CO

004
■ 00
05

3" CO
CO CO
O ID

of

04 or-
iD r- 3
05 CO r-

iDodcD

CO r- 3 05 ID
CJO 3 o 05 CD
1-H 00 ID ID r-

Q 04" 04" CD 3"
O 05 04 04 O

W CO 3 3 O

04

CO 04

CO COCO
04 1-H 3
0*D3

•k

GO ID 05
05 CO
3 t-

04"cd"3"

04 CO 3
CD 2 04

05

3

r- CD 05
‘ 3 05
CD 3

85

3iDCCi-hCD040C005

050ooi-Hoor-iDor-

CD3005005CDr-CO

CO CO r-

r- CO ID

04 r- 3

04 O 04
o

ID r- CO CO 05

r- CD r- CO 05

CO 1-H t- GO CO 04 ID 04

r-r-04 04
ID 3 3 05
3 3 05 3

‘2SS

t- CO ID CO

33
3 00
00 04

05

t-

3

a

00 CO CO ID
^ i-H ID CO
04 3 CO CO

CD GO 04 3
05 CD r- 04

o r-o 1-H

r- 04 ID CO
04 CD CD ID
CD 00 r- 05

3 3 f-H CD 3

3 ::

3 r- CD

feSS

cc"cd of

S1-H o
CO 00

ID 04

or- COO

CO CD 3 CD
3 04 00 CO

of 3" CD of

r- CD CO

3 0-3

s

C3

3

o

Eh

§S5g8

ID CO O

♦k

3 05 CD
r- 04 04
05 04 ID

CD 04 3

3 00
ID 05

3 r—
«!

3 04
ID 04

r- CO

CO 3

CD 3 CO
CD 3 05
05 3 1--

CD 3 05 CO 05
O 04 ID r- 1-H
t- CO 050 »D

3 CO 00 of ID
1-H O 1-H 04 O
O ID 3 CD 04

CO 04" 3 CO 3
CO

O 3 go
CO 3 04
ID OGO

CD 0004"

300-

COiD CO
CO iDr-
CD 3 ID

CO ID CO
o ^

33i-Hr— iDOi-Hr-3
OCD33IOCOOCOID
O53cocor-coco3r-

iDCOhh30^304^"

o O 1-H 05
CD 05 05 o

04 CD 05 . .
04 3 CO CO

00 CO ID CD
CO 04 o 05
O 04 CO O

O4"cdodod

CO 1-H 00 CD
COIDCDO

1-4 ID CO CO
04 r- 00 CD
05 O 3 1-H

04" 1-H od o

05 CO CO 04

cor-oor-

ID 04

t- CD 3
04

00 ID 04 04 05 04

CD

05

ID CD CO 05
CO 05 1-H O
CO 04 1-H CD

t>riDofo

CO « CD
CO ID r- 05

Ofi-fcD 3

ID O 05
CD CO ob
3 CO 04

3" 3"od
005 r-
r- 1- CO

r-T wd

o go 00 r-

iDor-3
05 3 M 05

_ _ •k

O CO O »D
04 3 04 CO
05 05 04 r-

-H ©

©

T w

o’lO c

Eh 2 9

» a.«c

CD CO 3

05 <C ID
3 O 04

3"cDCf

g83S

•s

r- 04 3

04 00
04 CO
t-OO

CO 04"
CD CO
t- CO

••

CO 3

00 3 CD
3 CD 05
04 CO 05

04*04 r>f
3 CO 04

05 0^ o

•k * •

^ 3 04

004 3 04 3
04 r- CO ID CO
CD 05 r-3 O

#.

04 3r—3r—
3 1-1 04 CO 04
04 ID3 CD 04

CO 04" isf CO i-T

CO

ID 3 3
3 04 CO
04 05 05

»D r- 3
r- 3 CD
O t- ID

r- o CD

3 3 CO
05 CD CO

IDOO"CO
03CO
04 CO CO

00 c5

ID

3 o r- 3 CD CO

ID Q 04 04 3 3 ID
04 Cb 04 00 CD CD 05
04G0OC0C000300ID

od CO o id" ID r-f odcd od
coo^3r-r-t-05co
CD053ID004300CO

iD04 04"r'rcD3fi-rod»D

3 04

04 00 04 r-
ID CO ID 04
ID r- 04 CD

*. ft. #k as

00 3 r- CD

CO 04 r- r-
CO ID 00 O

of of of 04*

ID ID CO CO
00 t- 3 ID
3 OCO CO

3 r- 3r-

‘O CO CO 3
t- ON t-

0 CO CO
CO 0 ID
00 00 04

03 00
^ CO CO
P 04 CD

04

p

3

CO ^ 0 3
PCOOOO

CO r- p CO

3 3*odid

CO CD r- p

GO ID t- 0

3 edod
04 3 00
00 oot-

004
04 p
p p

CD 3 3 p

043 CD of

r-T io

a

•k

©

3

©

3

a «3
§£
OT 03

> g

_ o3

A

©

Im

to

o

©

O

T3

©

a

a

G

O

O

© *0

H ©

a

a

a

©

O

xi

3

u

O

z

a

o

O

©

a

©

ns

a

o fl a

a © ©

©Am

§^©
.a 3 l1

a o ®

^cqE-*

Vi
^ >1
a 3

>3

a o

o

to 3 ••

§
Vi

a

©

©

ceficQ

CO ©

©^3
W ©^

S

© o

ro

ns

A

©

Ph

^ «
7^ ©

- rn ° a
2 O

2

© ©5

-

CO

O
A„'

© 3

© a
a /2 * •
af^-g

-H , Hj

>*

3

gPSw

o a

©

© o

G^M
© • w

fcH

a

o

©'§1
a 9 ®5'S
o3%B

© .9 ^ 'o © ^'o o Q

iQ.S

©X3

ZO

.22

a

o

3

tuo

a

o . .

a ^

bC‘-H

II

1^0

©

a ©

gss

S S o 2 © «

©52

©iS’E

C3 - - - ^

©

A

flk CO

3 g

s §

©

©

Sm

©

I-

©.a o

r\r\7I'

Vi

>

o '3 <1 bi

CO p [7 ©

■o-2.2 o §

&I1

8 ® o

oMp

100

ro CO

» «»
CO 1-i

00

ssi

i>^cd

cocs

oo r*- CO CO
o c» CO c; CO
^ O >0 o o

»-rf-r*oo^io

»o »-< f-<

^ CO c*- CO

•o^ooc^o

Cd CO CO

oodc<r»^
^ o> ^

CO »0 CO C^ 00

^ O O CO CO C« CO »o
OO CO CO 00 1-1

»0 M5 CO
CO tc CS ^
CO

38

»o

»c

<0

1

0

a

1

CO

• 1

rO 1

Q <0

kO

1

44 04

1

CO

> 04 I

S CO

0

1

00

1

CO

• 44 1

OJ 0

00

1

t

of CO

1

1

cT

1 of !

CO 0

1

CO

•

04

1 04 •

4^

CO

kO

0

t

1

1

00

1

,

1

CO

CO

CO

■ 0

• 04

1 4N

1

1

1

0 CO • 1

CO CO 1 >

04 0 • 1

cor4-«‘4j-ooct-Q
i-«kct4C5i— «oeoo
^04r-04 040C4kO

CO 04
t3r CO

00 05

00

1

1

1

1

1

of CO
CO -A

1

1

1

1

1

8

1 A

• 04

• 04

t

1

1

1

t

1

•

A A 1 V

COO I 1

4.1 1 1

1 1

COCOOfcOOf4ftOor
COCOOQOCOCOt'-kO
0 0^ CO 05 kO 04

t-fco

CO 04

1

C

1

9

1

1

•

1

• 9

1 1

CO 44”

C4 kO -O' i-H ic kO

C5 CO oco o
^o^o&oc5

o cf^-^kO

CO CO CO
CO 1— «

0> CO

CO

»“<O5C0i-'t^'^^kO

C^OCOCOC^O’^'^

00»000'^'^0^»0

ss

s

gC«-« 05 tN*
05 CO CO 05
CO

■ CO

05

05

CO CO t'- 00 05 CO 40
O 05 o Q kO Q 05 00 iij*

■v »c oc c5 t>» « o 05C^
•^orci’koocrkcoo oco"

05 CO kO »— O ^ 00 C5 CO'^'
»c »0 i-< W ^ CO 1-H

CO 05
■ ■ 00

kc

§3

CO CO

CO «5

05 CO

I0t^05
05 CS CO
CO CO

lOt^Q
00 00 kO
00O5t>.

»C 00 05 ^

»0 ^ kO t>- O

CO o »c cq

CO CO 0^0 CO
^ 05

CS 05 CO »0

»C CO

CO CO o o5
i-< CO 1— t

oT r«r CO ®

00 CO o o
t>* CS CO

O5kOC^'>^00O5^C^
COOkOOOl— 'CO^-^
i-(COCOt^CO'!f''«J'C<l

G^Oi^cS^CO

t*« CO ^ 05 00 O
1-H kc CO O’* 1— I O

«k «k

O ^ CO ^ ^

8

CO

CO

CO

04

05

00

00

00

of

22

p

0

t-

00

0

05

k©

0

C-4

»©

0

4J1

0

04

CO

CO

CO

t-

00

CO

l>

t-

C4

CO

04

04

0

CO

00

r-4

00

4H

co

00

44

t-f

05

cd

00

0

t-f

05

CO

A

05

cd

00

0

oc

k©

k©

CO

•A

CO

CO

00

4^

k©

0^

cc

C4

-A

kO

04

CO

CO

k©

CO

9

CO

05

k©

05COCO^COOOCOCO

coi-Hco®or^cooo

'nC-C^COOOCOOJcOt^

Q go CO CO iflj' CO Q o
OC0C^C5^-0500k0
OOC0C00500t^i-«

•I

^ ^ ^

00

0

04

p

0

05

CO

00

cc

05

05

VO

00

k©

05

04

k©

00

4^

CO

•bC*

90

04

00

CO

0

C4

0

t-

CO

^4

k©

cc

00

00

4H

9^

CD

0

05

0

<0

k©

CO

CO

05

05

44

44

04

k©

00

0

C5

o-

05

05

CO

05

04

44

04

00

A

»©

cd

of

A

CO

A

A

05

A

t--

'cd

»©

A

CO

A

0

of

t-r

if

cd

of

»©

95

0

>©

CO

CO

t--

k©

04

05

0

»

CO

CO

'Cl

4©

CO

k©

<0

•bC

04 04

CO

IC*

oO

k©

44

44

C4

k©

CO

CO

C4

CO

•bC<

0

04

CO

'A

k©

»©

44

0

00

i©

44

'j'

04

4»*

05 04 •— 1 04 CO

CO

05

4J,

8

05

04

00

CO

g

g

05

§

0

C5

I©

k©

»©

k©

CO

05

CO

05

CO

4ti

05

h-

<35

CO

»©

»©

05

CO

00

r-

k©

<©

k©

GO

CO

t-

06

04

05

00

CO

05

A

A

04

^ O 05 04
05 00 05 04
CO 05 1-H 1-H

kC COOO 00 ^ o 00t>-
04 CO »C 04 O CO O 1-H CO
04 1-t 04 CO 05 kO O 05 10

OOCOOO-t^.WOCOO
C4COI-- — 05 04 04C0
C0C0’^r-0-iC*O5C0

o

CO

C4 04

tN.

^i-T

CO CO

t^co

04 44

04 CO t-
44 r-- CO

04 00 00

44 OC CO o- bA
04 -A k© C5 44
CO CO 0 05 44

CD 0 CO k^

44 kO k© A

OO CO CO 04

04C044440k©0504
4405000C0 44 4HO

oooscoAOicor-oo

0 >0

^ FA^

44 k©

CO

CO bijk

04' 05 44
»© 44 04
t- CO t-

44 04 44 k© 05
04 CO »© 04 04
44 -A CO »0 t©

A k© 44 05

05 05 Ot—

05 04 k© k©

05* CO 04 CO 0 p cd cd
cot-c405k©26coo

k©00COO4COCOCOt-

0^

A 44
k© t-

A A

44 04 44

co" -1 C4‘ eo' cd

A A

A t-j 44' A 04 CO cd

A 44

CO CO
04 CO
bA CO

CO CO «©
•gi 00 CO

0 CC t-

CO CO 0 0 0
04 ^ 04 05 *©

O- -A CO 05 44

0 CO 0 »

CO CO 00 CO

O- CO 05 04

COCOCOCOOOOOCOA
O4kC00COO5O4ACO
00 0544OC005AC0

t- k©
t-- 44

k© 44

k©cd

05 k©
CObA

c 05'

C •© -A
t- CO t-

ofeded OOA

1- CO »© CO A
44 A CO »© k©

i© A CO *©
pCSi-bOO

0 CO k© k©

A 05 'k© 0 C >^ CD'k.©
C004A44gi44005
05C5COCOCOt--Al--

i©^
05 44
k©t4

4H 04 44

ed 44 04 cd cd

44 4H tH

A t-^44 a“ 04’ cd t-Tco

A 44

i>of

a

o

bM

cS
A

CO . .

"3

.. o

'“a

a> CO

S2S

r". 9‘>

gagisg*^ ^^Z-

gQwOWM — ocb-T^OB

2 S ^k^2 « •• o o E-p 0.2 c

a S £f

05 05 .£3

u*

OC^

o

03 iS

*3 3 5
OcqE^

a

o

4.5

a

-<

c.

T3

a

..V ®

5l§
ofn

Q>

0

c

hC

0

0

0

H
• «

2

*o

*5b

fc4

CO

Q>

t

<

Q

•<

E“

z

o

«

‘5

(m

o

CO

o

0 0

co^
O 08

o

4.5

0

o 2

2 ® «8
p’r* b-

Sfii^

« 0 0
C8 03 83
OQCQCQ

0

>k

C5

> BS

Pg’^0 ies

O ® bcs O
'§a“.9|§

“o £5 «
OOt>P

0

o

0

M

0

0

0

03

'0

05

§

o

o

Ui

£

Im

o

x:

4.5

1.1

eS

0

o

0

0

3

0

03

£

a

o

Im

05

.c

4^

05

b«

c5

CO

3

45

o

83 J2

CO

b4

a>

>

o

(O

b4

a

o

bH

9

JS

45

®

b4

c3

CO

05 2

■ •>

c3

00

b«

9

0

o

9

>

*co

0

O

•o

05

OS

-ts

>>

45

0

0

o

9

c

CO

45

.s

'9

u

e

83

b4

to

o

b4

Ah

CO

bH

o

>

o

b4

o

•m

9

u

£

9

0

0

o

C5

CO

9

45

©

©

0

0

©

a

©

b4

©

ss

4.5

©

b*

03

CO

©

o

45

©

4.5

a

*©

I4

2

'S

CO

©

D.

>*

45

bri

©

.0

©

o

45

CO

©

45

a

©

a s
§ «

be

o

b4

Ah

b£

o
^ Ah

o

CO © w

O ® o

n3 ©50

> o >

0^0
0 b«

0^
gj 83 ^

b«

03

>

•0

0

©

i ■

© 45

Q

£ts

Ah ©

CO c

tS|

44 0

50'^

b«

.0

b«

0

05.^,

sS

fc- c

0w 0

W— be

.-N '0 •;

fc, gfe ®&i

K

©

wT! CO

© © ©
b« 45 ^

SC3 C5

4^ — ^

0 Ah ^Ah

©

fc- a

o ^

>>T?
Ih O
O 4.5
45 O

b4 0
*-•

9 o

'^p
o

CO

0

o

•M

45

©

b-

&

©

©

45

X

©

©
'O-
0-
0

m

©
b^

© ©

■s? ^
© ®

*©

>-<

Be
2^

£§

■g«^g
o P

l§i“

s|25

^ ©»0
fo-sE^g

© w *5

§3o

05 o ©
EE^ G.&

c8 O

a-da ©

©^ .K

x: ** 0 50
© 2 0“

©

.0

45

b4

©

'0

0

0

-0

©

>>

o

a

a

©

CO

0

©

CO

b4

©

a

©

0

©

a

0

0

© 0

0 ©
©

73 2

'S^g

©
w*C
be ©

0 "
©

0
b«

a

CQ

2^ © ••‘is
® eL'^ C g

0 S' CO o ^

— S' ® '-S

ju o ^ ^ .2

©*^ Oit^ w

-g«*0a
i: £ ©.a S'

5 © bea45'
®’^= °
0 o © o

fc-a ® 4^ ©

•2 g.a g m
<i|® «a

. 2 ® w ©

&« S'© &
&©S22

®S^ 2 Pi

<0 45 ••4

Wfl-ow-g

"^5" g

4545 p

©

CO

'^3

On

Q

I4

c

0

o

k

s

*v

QC

ss

«4

0

k

tc

0

k

Cl,

k

0

2

"0

•k*

k

0

«5

k

0

0

0

o

o

0

0

Vi

•M

Vi

Vi

0

0

k

•1«

k

a,

0

0

0

s

I

i

u

p2

0

H

©«

>2
•r P

b< rn

Ah5

05

kO

kC

b.

of

oo^c^o

cot>.t^ooo

4HkCCOCO-^

^ _ •b •b «b

00 kO O CO
4g5 o«

00 O ^ 00 05

^ Q C5 t> 05
00 ,© O 05 C) O

oT^ofeo CO o

CO -bt, 1-4 ^

00

©

©

0

©

4.5

.2

CO

a

©

3

0

Pk

CO

©

p.

>»

©

*©

©

a

OQ

©

03

45^

© 0
45 —

*0 05

R

&

C» CO 0)^0
00 S C- o
eo^cot-c'i

05 CO 04 CD
t-Ocoeooo
04 » 00 'I** 18<

1-H »o CO r-

05 o 05 04
kO 1-H

45

0 0
© © ©
Wi

'o 02

•4. ©

-tj P03
© ©
*0

S8

4J1

•k

05

00

CO

•b

»c

04

t^QOQC-CO
CO b4 ® 1-4

^ CO 44 44 05

o>4fi05^a&^
04 4J1 kO 04 CO 04
»0 04 CO CO 04 44

4fi CD 04^05

<0 05 CO O 4H

04 kOt-.t-.t^05
04 cot-- »0 ^ O

04 44

05

t-

9 9

be 0

04

83 03

0

0 w

*aN

00

k©

r\ Vi
w w

A

08

Si

'**05 44co^r-
04 CO 05 44 CO
kO *0 4J1 r* C5

05

CO

CO

044 CO 10
CO CO O CO

©

45

©

05

00

0“

CO

05 «-4 05 44 CO
CO « 05
to kO 00 44

•b •b ffb •« at

W5 4H 04 t- t--

cooeooo4

04 05 04 CO t- 04
COOOOOt'-kOt>
04 CO r- 4»« 04

4^*‘ood‘oo coof

kO bji 4H C4 kC 00
CO 1-H 04 04 1-i 04

of

m

0

0

0

p

0

Ah

©

Ui

©

la

is ^
® be
0 ©
0 *1
0ft

CO

be
0

0

©

a;

c

>

“ 0 ^ -s

g ®03-<

^ o

s

*0

CO

t«- 05 l> CO C-
CO 04004

»OC0 44t>.44

O ut) o CO 44

t-- coo t-co

44 w 44

1

•

}

1

1

I

1

1

1

1

t

i

1

1

1

i

1

1

1

_ _ CO 0

I

1

1

1

1

1

1

»

t

•

•

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

•

1

1

1

1

1

4

1

1

t

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

a

1

1

•

1

•

1

1

1

1

1

1

•

1

1

1

©

3

b.1

3

b.)

©

0

©

o

b ©
©;0

^2

CO

05

*.

t-

h-

cc*

S3

kO t*- t-- t- 05
04 00 44 CO
OOCOCOO

•• «b «b *b

O 44 ^ 44 t--

COCOQCOOO
00 coo t- W5

»-H 00 04 —« CO 00

4t, kO 05 kC 44

44 o 1-H CO 05 CO

•b •b •b •b •> «b

05 bji o kO 00
04 t- O o 00 C4
04 CO 04 -«»* O -tfi

«b

1

Direct

relief

$537,019, 147

601, 441

1,403, 991

409, 943

1, 091,204

423, 631

8, 813, 302

383, 306

764, 590

895, 981

237, 618

763, 869

CO

CO 00 0 44 0

eo A 04 04 1-41--

A

^ O- CO A 00

AC0 00 04t-.CO

05

A 0 k© 00 CO

A CO O- <0 k© A

C8

co'

44 4© 44 04 0

oofodk© cdof

CO

CO CO 44 04 44

A CO k©0 04 05

Q

trf

o-

eot^oooo

004 05 CO CO 44

r'

cd

04 04 4H 44 4H

44 44 04 44 04*

r-

©

•4.5

©

6-

00

00

r-

<5

kc 05 05 04 CO
CO 44 CO 04
05 CO 44 r.. 00

CO kO 44 co'-d^

coco

05 44 44 CO 44

«b Vb Ab Ab •b

04 CO 44 04 44

ko CO 4r kooc 05
r» kO <0 05 04 kO
cookooor-

Ab Mb «b •b *•

-kCOb-t^44kO

CO c-o coyj CO

44 CO kf5 CO

Ab Ab «> Ab A» A

44 04 04 44 04

^ ©c-

■^3 0

s «u a

©

e

kO

I--

A|

CO

CO

05

»o 05 CO ^ CO

t'-005 44 0Q
oe4t-.’bji04

04 44 CO '^00
04 44 I-. CO 05
o ^ 44 t-* 44

Ab Ab Ab A, Ab

COCO 44 04 44

CO CO kO CD CO 00
C4<OcOOOCkO
kC kO kO O CO 06

4-r co";^ 44* 4r ko"

804 kO CO
kOCO t- kC CO

Ab Ab Ab Ab A A

00 44 04 04 44 C4
04

0

0

©

•b

©

©

4^

OQ^

og

o u
'w <«

^ a
0 0}

.2B

2

be

s

o

H

©

©

2'^'C

a^

'0

0 0 ••

© © CO
44 4^

®±jkS»2k2®©®i3p®®®2
apQWlz;^ g gmnofeiJ25
0
o

o

101

See footnotes at end of table.

c>

?

C

•PN

a

0

u

Os

0

o

c

C3

s

.o

V5

M

o

ilk

0

h.

1^

IL

0

S

1

• pi*

S'

K

"O

s

V)

•m

t

K

o

QD

0

O

g

0

•w

«5

•m

QO

«5

0

Q

•i^

h,

a,

e

0

o

•M

s

a,

<w

Et

3

0

s

1

•

CO

I

U

2
es

H

<D«

•n c3
Ph2

05 04 05 -Pt* 04 O tv

1-/ 04 -•f

4O»Otv'^i-<C005CDC0

40tv0540050'<J*0^0504

05 ^

40 or vH CO

05 O

04 CO P--

pH OO pH pH 40

■•C* Hj* 40

O O 04 « »© CO --H

p-H CO

p-<04F-»i0Oc0C0‘0tv

CO’^i-H^C004400CDtvCD

‘O 4D

t- 04 CO 04 tv

tv 40

pH ^ CD

05 04 O 05

^ 00

CO tv D4 40 -Pt* O 05

004 Tt

CDCO’^O'^COlvcotv

CD’-H05’^CD'^0”rf'054004

40 O 1-t

CO tv

CO o 05

00 O 05 ^

40 CO oo

CO C5'“cfofoo5

ofco o"

OC004COO»DCO»DO

ti‘ci0~4O'cf CO ’•*‘“‘0 CO CO of

I'M ^

CD ‘O 05 04 CO

04 00

pH tv Oi

O CD ‘O pH tv

tv o’ 04"

CO l-H 1-H 40 tv50

I-H CD »-*

jyjO CO •''t* CO

tH T-* i--( tv04 0440p-‘

CO 04

^ rH pH rH

00 pH

o o

04 O

4© 04

CO *-H

a>

o

d

ce

4-9

CO

*OD

CO

cd

o

d

D.

CO

a>

a

>*

03

o

a

00

a>

o d
*^;d

<

COO>CD»OC<50
05 Tf CO O OO
00 •-• CO C'^ •-«

»o o

i-H

CO iO 05

1:^<N r>.
CO t>-

CO 00 CO 00
-s t'- O
fs. lO c^ »o

t^co t'*

CO C^
CO

05

05

^ GC 00
'»5< CO T-t t^

CO "O’ r* o

■^C5■^COO5'^00^-O0COCO

C0i005.-t0Jt>.i0OC0Tj<C^

COCO<NOCOt^Tt't^i--(»000

OO^O’^CO ’•C' CO CO O C<l b- 00 CO CO CO 05
•M OJ ^ CO C^ CO o

04 f-(

04 *-(
CO 00

cs c^

O <N
04

O CO

tv

<N 05

^ «k

O 04
CO rH

^ fl d

O O d)

■^'O »-

S2
*< 9'-^

® o
'd

,-4 CO CO CO 05 lO 04

uo >0 I-- t- ic ’•}* 00
CO 04 04 CO 04

CO ‘O' oT of

tv 04 IC CO CO 'Tf»

OOOSJTv O CO CO CO CO O CO CO
rv CO f-H 00 CO CO Tt< 05 05 tv
400505 04040000tvlvco04 00

00C0C0OC004tv05C004tv
OCOCO'-H-^tv^O'— '005
C0CO0-»C5504G0O4O4tvO4’-H

40 05 OO tv CO 04 O OO tv CO

C4f-«05 C0'^*-<c0‘00»000

04 CO CO 04 t-H ^

05

00tvrt«c0tv»o05»0‘0c0
CO‘0‘Otvtv0504COv4COCO
CO CO ' I— t 04

tv uO 04 F- ' — ' 05 00 04 05
OOCD O ^ '«C* CO 00 CO i-f
40 00 ■^C0T“05tv 0CO5

CO-^ C0’-Hi-hC005 »Otv

04 40 CO 40 CO

05

00 OO GO
00 CO CO
04 O 40

CD

CO

CO

00

tv

tv

40 1-^ 04
tv 40 CO
CO 04 •tJ*

05

CO

s

o

o

tv 05 1-H
40 04 00

-^fOCC
CO 04 CO
04 CO r-«

®
O O
bed
c3 ca

'd w

I— I

OC0
c/5
CO

s

^ tv r-« 40 40 40 05

tv ^ tv o ■•c* 00

05 05 r-l tv

t^ of *-f ctTof of of

40 CO CO 40 r-H 04
04 04 04 04

04004 05 O tv 00 04 rt O

04tvtv CO -rf CO i-t -Ft* 05 04 04

T}^ CO 1-t CO 40 00 -H O CO 40 O O

05i— (•^COtv40T*<0040 C040
COt— 'F-t04O’— 'tv40»000
tvcOr-H4O00tvtv«;o-^GO00

40 05

4ocoeo»occoco‘0co
tv04'«J<C004O»-<C0i-l
CO 40 04 1— ( »-i

04C00400tvC0OC0Tj<cD'p^‘
COCOCOCDC005Tt<04C00904
r-4i— irHO4i-H’-'00COO4O4'^

r-( o O -^05

O "ct^ tv ( 04 1— I 00

tv oO 00 ’•C' OO 00

COi-TcOCCOf 04"of
tv 04 tv 05

^ 04 vH

40 40 04 04 CO
CO O 04 vH — •
40 CD tv CO

40 oT icf oc' ‘O'

O 00 CO CO 04
04

1-^ 05 05
-pj* ‘O *- »
tv CO

CD -CP of

i-t C5 ’•C*
^ CO

03

•4-9

O

00 05 O CD tv o vH
04 04 CO CO CD tv tv
O C5 00 00 CO tv 04

tf" of CD 04" p-f cT
CO 00 05 05 CD 00 *0
04 04 CO

CD

Tf*

00

04

00

CD

04

CO

TM

04

05

05

CO

CO

JO

05

CO

CO

40

05

04

CD

no

on

on

r-^

40

o

04

Tt«

CO

05

04

t-

CD

CD

00

CD

tv

40

r-H

o

tv

40

Tt<

CD

tv

tv

o

»o

04

Tj«

o

40

tv

T-

40

on

CD

CO

00

o

o

o

tv

CO

CD

CD

00

CO

CO

05

40

tv

tv

O

05

04

CO

TP

CO

CO

T}»

‘O

CO

40

00

oo

00

CO

CO

tv

04

05

tv

04

o

>o

00

4C5

tv

CD

o

00

of

o

00

■«

05*

»•

tv

t^

cT

00

tv

•*

CD

CO

Id

05

of

"cD

lO

CD

tv

CO

40

40

04

OO

o

Tt

40

05

tv

00

40

Tf4

tv

tv

tv

04

o

CD

tv

tv

04

05

04

tv

CD

04

CD

on

tv

04

O

04

CD

05

tv

40

tv

o

04

00

CO

CO

04

CD

04

CO

00

05

04

tv

04

04

04

04

04

CO

04

CO

tv

CO

TJ*

tv

Tt

04

04

00

CO

tv

CO

04 04

W

'O

d

B

o

pd

S

pL,

ca

®

'V

®

c/3

a

ut

® tU3
T3 O

Ut

d

d

Pp

CO pi4

bo

d <=>

d

Iv

ca

s:fc

•«— »-uj>
o cei>

ji ®

^ PppCl

O-^

o o o o

Sooo
ooo

ooo ooooooooo
ooo ooooooooo
ooo ooooooooo

ooooooooooo

OOOOOOOOOOQ

ooooooooooo

OO OOOOO OO ooo
OO OOOOO OO ooo
OO OOOOO OO ooo

OOOOO

OOOOO

OOOOO

OOO

OOO

ooo

05 CD 5^

‘O tv CO

OlvO
Tt* tv 05
<0

•-H D4 CO
C4 05 CD
40 ‘O CO

tvtvi— itvCO^COC4CD
COt-^O*— <4CCDCDC3C’^
eO‘D'-'C5D4tvp^r- fr-<

tvCOtvCDt'Tf'C^C^CDOO
'p?’'«»«»-HCOCDtvD4GOCOTj‘CS
■^'l^‘404CCDtv05tv^.— *0

CD 04

PH 40 cd’ CD’ CD

05 CD

M" tM 40

40 Hji CD PH tv

CD 04 CO

^ o

p-i 05 05 uO O

04 tv

40 40 pH

40 o tv tv oi

40 tv 40

C4

C4

CD

r-

04

04

CO

40^

tv CD 05 tv CD

CO

04

CD CO CO 04

of

w d
§

^ ^
r’ ® be

2

Pm

Work

relief

05 CO tv 05 O Tt< »o

CD CO 04 t» 40 40 pH

O pH CO 04 40 tv »0

CD Tt* t
04 00 1

OOO ‘

CDtvCDCOCO05C0CD4O

C0OCD40C0hhC0t}Hph

C44OC0HHiOt-pHCftcD

05Tj»05 04tv-««t<OOpH05 04»0
C0Otvtv00cD04pHCDC0Tr

40 40 00cDtvCSOC0t-OC^

CC 40

tv tv
O tv

pH lo »0 05

p^ 09 t— 05 pH
pH CO pH 05 tv

00 40

O tv
05 GO

C5 00 CO
C5 Tt 40
tv 40 04

CO Tt' tvTjt 00
PH o O O CD
04 O 40 to 04

O 40 Tt4
O 05 40
lO 40 CO

PH C^of C4 ti' o cef

CO O CO CD tv 04 tv

04 GO CO CO 40 O Tj<

CD04 «
O CO 1
pH 04 »

04'‘od'40'c^04~pH O5'tv‘o’
C00000tvc004i-Hc040
00Tj<»OpH00tvO4cD4C

oopH‘pfcrtfo6'c4"t>rofcr4cr

O504pHG0C0tvtv'»s<O5pHCD
40’^40 04Tf40c004cDcD04

CO 00
Tj< pH
tv CO

pv pH 00 40 05
CO 04 pH CO CD
00 CD '-f CD CD

CO o
40 CO
05 04

05 C: tv
tv CD tv

40 o o

pH 40 40’ Tt< tf
tv OC o 00

tv 04 40 04

04 CDTfi
CD CO 05
CO CD CO

90

•S Vh

pH PH PH 04 04

1

1

1

1

1

of rr' 04" of pf

CO Tf-' p-T

of

of

CD

pf CO of

®

pfH

®

00 CO tv CO 40 O CD

40 CO CD 05 tM CO CD

04 00 05 40 « GO TJ4

40 pH 04
t- pH 05
tv 05

CD05*'^<r-Tt<C0C005tv

CD05i0rvOC0Tj^>^C'4

CDOtvOOO'«J'40tv

OtvCOOcD05 04COOOtvCO

05C5005tv0005pH!Mtv

Otv»OCOCOpH'i^50tv'^CD

O 05
th rj<
CO CO

05 pH lO CO »o
00 CC p-> 00 40
CC GO CC pH 05

CD 40
05 CO
tv 05

tv 40 CO

CC OOtv
05 00 CD

CO CD 04 O 04
04 04 05 O O
CO CO 00 05

40 CO CC
O tv 40
05 O 40

Ih

pH

tH

Direc

relie

pH CO tv tv 05 O CO
pH HJ* CO 40 05 S 04
tv CO 40 04 O OO 05
^ ....

04 pH

40 05 CD
TtJ 04 CD
W CO 05

CO04CDpHCOTj<pHtvCD

COtvC005tvCCCD050

CDtvO0O0O0PHTj<O0Tj4

40^pH40C'40tfTfC005CO

40T-|._(FH■T^T^<OCC05C5T^^
'^40 40tvHj-tvtVi-HCOpH04

oo

O 04
05 t-

CO tv Tf« 40 CO
CO 40 TT O O
tv CO 04 oo CO

C4 rh
tv 04
40 CD

ooo’ 05
p- tv ^

CO 04 CC

40 04 00 40

o o

tv' CO 05
O PH 04
05 O O

®

d

®

O

o6 1-H

CO CO »0 04 ^

PH O

pH

of pH 04 OJ 04' 04' 05* pH 04 CD 05

CO CO

o

40

of

^ rH CO ^

pH OtT

tv 04 04 40 Tt pH

04 O 05 t- 05 pH OO

CO O *0 00 tv CD 05

pH 40 04
O 05 05
40 40 05

04CDOrt004c04004

000404T».QOtv05Tf

05CDpH0440tv40Tj<cO

05pH04 04 C0C0OTt<tv05C0
04000cDCOtvC00004004
cccocoo'^cOTj<OTrTf05

00 Tt*

pH 04

O 40 O 00 Tt

Ot-Otvtv

O 04 Tt PH CD

HJ* O

OTt-
tv 00

CD CO CD
00 CO 04

tv Hj* 03

05 O 05 Tf< O

COCOC5 0tv
CC CO OC CO pH

40 pH 04

O tv pH

HJ4 CD 04

1

Tota

*4 »4

04 tv tv 05 CD pH 04

TJ< o — ' tv 00 o

05 pH 05 CD CD 00 Tj*

PH 04 CD
40 CD CD
CO »0 05

i0004Tj<ufi0040tv'

05CD04CD04COOC040

Tj'04Tt<Otv00CD4005

COCDCOCDCOC005 04C00500
40C0040504C4tvC00500
005005C5COCOtj<OC040

CO 05
CO
CC o

40 05 04 PH CO

CO tv CD tv tv

40 CS CD Tt 05

CD 40
04 00
4*0 00

O CO CO
05 TJ^ 04
pH 05 tv

CC tv 05 CO CO

on 40 OC 04 o

05 05 40 pp 00

O 05 hC*
tv tv C4
40 CD TJ(

•4 «4 •. ^ *4

PH pH PH CO CO CO

00 pH

pHCO’-H0CpHtv-^pH04'
04 Tt

pH

C0pHC00404C0C040C0cdO

CO PH

CO pf
CO

^H ^H pH

04"

04 pH

cfpH CO of

04

CO CO CO

lO pH Tt* 00 04 Tj* 04

40 CO 04 O CD 00 40

CO 05 tv pH CO 04

tv 05 O
tv lO O
05 04 00

Hj»tvpHO4T}<00 00CDCD
T}<00C0tvO40 04 O4O
04050tvc004C04004

OtvCD’^04Tf*0500 C004pH
T}<040pHpHCOOtvC5pHlO
C0^40»OC0tvC540tvOtv

tv O

O tv

04 40

CO O pH tv CD
O CO O 40 00
00 CD 00 05 00

O pH
40 05
CD 40

Tt* pH T»<
tv O CD
O 40 TC*

O 40 05 CD
04C0q5pHtv
40 OC 04 o tv

COO"^

tv pH tv

Hj’ CO CO

as

■4H

o

&H

*. *4 *4 W. *4 »4

0 40 0 05 00 05 0-
CO pH TJ< CO tv CO Tf«

CO CO CO tv O CD

O tvGO
40 04 Q
04 O S

C0pHCC05tv05pH^CD

40C00004COCOC4CD04

05CD»0040COtJ405CO

G005CD40pHCD40C040TfpH

■'^tvcDOC0pH04C0pHC040

tv40tv0500’^OC005Hj*04

CD"oC
05 CD
CO PH

tf of CO of pH
CO CO CO tv CO
TT O 05 Tf tv

Tt"04"
CO CO
pH pH

40 CD tf
pH Tt^
40 pH 05

C/fcf CC CO 4cf
CD 40 O CO 04
Tt CO CD rt O

tf of pf
00 05 o
tv CD o

04 pH 04' Tt

CD PH of

p. ’-'f.

•4«4^«4^*4«4*4«4

pHCDph0CO4O54OphCO
04 F, F, F-

CO of c*f e/f c^tiT tf c^co oef CO

Tf «(»* PH

Oph

tv

04 04 CD 04 PH

CO pH

04 pH pH

40‘ 04 Tt 04 pH
04

^ O GO

^4

^ ®

®

•4^

03

OQ

^5

©•S o > rl

Tf CO CO 04 TJ4 T»« 05
<D CO 40 05 pH pH CD

CD CD CD 04 CD pH

GO pH
pH t- 05
O Tt< 04

05 04 00CD40pHtvC405
40phhh<C4004«DCD04
OCCO'^OOtvCDOOOO

4OTt<4OO5pHHj/cO00tvpHC0
tv40tv40 40 40CDtv4005pH
T}<OTj’05Tj<PH05 05tv400

CD p-
04 04
rf tv

40 05 CC 05
tv 40 CO tv 40
CO O 00 CO o

09 pH
04 Tjt
O CO

CD 40

00 Tf 04
CO »0 Tj*

pH CO O tv 05
CO CO 04 pH CD
CO 05 04 TJ4 04

04 Tt< 09
C4 05 pH
O pH 04

CO CO 05 05 O 05 CD

CD pH 40 40 CO O CO

CO eo CO tv pH »o tv

co'eoo5

CD 05 pH
04 O 40

CO'O'CO 04 tf 40 05 tf
GOO5C0TtHj<t-.CDC5CO
O5004OO4CCOtJ<O5CO

c^ooof4rrofo"ofc3d'Tttfpf

40 0500pHCD04050Tj<OOtv
tv4OtvO300Tf<»OCD05Tji04

tf 04
04 05

40 PH

Tt CO 04’ 40 40
pH 40 00

TH pH O ’•t^ tv

tv pH
Tt tv
fH pH

CC’ CO tv’
Tj- 04 40
40 pH 05

Tt CD 05 Tf4 CO
40 o CO Tj*

CD CO CD O

40 04 Tt*
CO O O
OOOpH

Ofpf04'

CD pH 04

P. ^F-
F—

pHCDph04 04 05»OpHCO

CS

cooieocftco’^i^tfc^cood'co'

^ ^ fH

pH pH

tv

«o

of of tv" 04 PH

CO pH

04 pH f-/

40" of tjT cf pf

04

i-< 00

d

•4

®

•4^

<a

-<•9

CQ^

d

o

CO

&

®

Iv

03

> 9

•g.

tm

ta

s

o

73

®

d

.9

•M

d

o

O

1

n

2
<

o

H

Iz;

®

d

d

d

o

O

C/}

®

00

d

,d

d

.o

73

»l=i

slfll

as

®
o
d
®
73

>
O

tH

.

'3 S'd

^ OB 9
be o) _»
C3 « w

•c g*-*

pd

(r>

z

-<

e

i}

P

P

® **3

pd^i u

o o

r

be

d

ie'i

t2®tedoce*2fet> be*^ o3 ©"rtp^ ^ opP ^ dp2 ^73

g I I 1.1 § fcS gi:S;2S_g.2|gs g §5

® ® 9

Iz;

a la

^ te I o

d g 2*^ Js

is d ® ®
d
®

®

t-i

»-■

as

®

%

05

G'Gx:

^ ag)

||.g.S^S
ass's

•SpC ” *-■•

d«
O ■

d

H

H

O

w

e-

d

o

Z

d

®

PL4

CO

o

d

®
O Cfi

•I-

■a o.

r— 4

>

CO

d

03

>

O co^ ®
e 12 ”

fl d

c3pp W

03

OcQ.d WCh
73
d

o

d fa

d o ®
cqE-<

CO

®

d

CO

®

*o5Q:

o

102

eo Cl

c^i-HkO f-H ^ a> cs t'» <D

»0 <D i-» C^ <0 Oi <£ 0> ^ <0 t- CC

c^" <c oc ^ oT c> cT w

oococ^ eo c4C^co^

^ ec »-• c^

«0 <& fH

c^ o <o
OS « ^ oc

<D t-K

CO<D«irf<

OCC^OiOi

^OCOTt<

oo^<S

<0 CO

Oit^Oi^
<C CO-^ 00
Oi CO O

«« o c4“
*0 o<

wS s

00 <0 o

^ ^

eooco

1-H 1-i 4C

r>« o »-(

CS O <D
05 CO 1-4

M'*‘cfod
c^ c^

1-4 W

eoi-4»o^ioo5»o<0’^

r-r^c^F-ioococ5’^co

Tf05’^000t^0»-'00

c^^'ocTt^t^t^^oci-r
f* CO »o CO »o c< c5c^

hT CC FH ©

t

1

•

1

1

©

•

I ©

1 *4. ©

«

1

»

1 ©

*4- © FH ©

1

1

1

• d

*©1-H

1

< ©

*4. © © ©

1

m

1

m

«

1

d

g

*©

•

1 t4. fF

«

•

1

•

• ©
A

cd^^ood**

9

1

9

i

1

1

1

1

1 ^

1 as

1©-^

1

1

1

1

1

fH fh Jh fH

t

■

1

1

1

1

.

1 »

■ 00
■

1

m

1

■

1

■

^ r-4 00
CO CD 40

■^ooo

CO 10 CO
CO

0©t4-©©0©CC©

oo©d4rHrrrd©

©FH©^4.^d©FH©

*4-©©©
d *4- © *4.

0 FH IT ©

1 1 © ©

1 1 © ©

1 td©

t 4

© 0

©*4-
4** ©

1 ©

> *4.

• d

1

I © ©

1 © 1-H

1 © *4.

1

00 4^0©©
© FH l4- ^ 05
OfH ©0 ©

1

1

1

1

g

© ©
CO 05
CO ^

■

1

1

1

0

*4.

1

1

1 ©

1 *4.
lO

1

1

1

1

©do
*4- d 0
© 00 Cl

o©tCoot4rFtr»£5j>r
©•^©0’4?*t'-FHFHHr
d © fH fh

rs #s a« as

© ^ © d

© *4- F-l ©

c-

^ 1 #s as

t 1 © 1-H

1 I © ©

1 1 fH

^©
© 4r

as

• ©
*©

1

1

Cl CC d*‘©'‘cD

1

1

1

1

edd”

©

t

1

•

1

8

1 as

1 ^
Id

t

1

1

I

1

as

0

C0O©©©i-Hfh©O

d©CO©l-HFHFH©FH

OCOdt4.FH©©4^t4.

fH © d
© Cl ©

FH © ©

(

1

1

1

1

1

1 *4-

1 4r

1 d

©»ci©©odcD*4rFH

fH©fH©fH©©CO^

4i**©©d©’^FHCod

CO Cl 0

© *4.

©

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1 ©

1

^ »H 05
CO CO 1-4
CO *-4 c^

S‘"oo ^
05 *0

8

CO 05 1-4 CO C^ O »0 »0 05 WQCC50

05 U5 CO C^ >0 05 »0 c5 »CC500»O

^ CS U5 ^ Tt< CNi 05cct^0

C^ 00 CO" t>r CO »0 O i-T c^,-r»o»c

00 CO »0 1-H 05 1-4 1-H 1-* o 05 CO o

^ CO 05 o C< 00 CO i-« 1-1 1-H

Cl 00

CO

cc 00

fcO cc

»-i o
»oc-

CO 05

•4^^o^
CO 4^

8

o

CO © 1-4 ^ '4i4

Cl »-< O CC Cl
d 10 1-4 ^

*> «« «h

C» 1-4 Cl ©

CO !>.

r- Cl ei
CO 4C ©
©©rH

lO CO CO

© Cl OC CO
CO Cl CO © ©

©■^oo^co

i-h'CI CO
^ ^ 1-t

©©0000

Cl CO Cl CO
Cl © l-H ©

© ^ ^

^00

©©©©©^©©
©00^— »-hOO^^^
00©©«COCO©4*i

t>rcp'^cd^i^^05©

J^©(Nr-4^€0^©

I

• 00
It^
I©
i ^
I ©

I ©
I
I
I

Cl ^
CO 1-H
t- ©

Cl

00 "^ © © "^
© 1-H I'* TJ4 ©
© 1-H © © 1-H

cTeo cico

© ©
CO ©
© ^

co'ci

co-^

©

r-

©

Cl

© Cl
C- Cl
CO 00

Cl ©

•^©^©dco

© © Hj< Hr fH

c-coc-o©i-4

cCod^cTcoco

COHT COCO©CO
OC ^ 1-H

s

CO -
1^0

'^ei

©d

©d©©©©©©

t-Hr^d©©i-H©eo

d'^dd©00'^d

^^•4 Me «C •>

^idnTi-HdCO©©
©©©00©©©'^
© CO 1-H ^ 1-H

© ©
^ ©
CO ©

•c

<z>^

d 4^

©^©©©d©d

©©©©0«l-HtH.

©©Hrf-HC-©Tj44^

c-t'-©r«-©©©©
©'^©©’^’^HTCO
»-4 © 1-Hd ©© CO

Cl

»

hT CO
©TJ4

tCir
© ©
d f

g©d©©-^©tH. ©©

1-H © © o r«- o 1-H 1— (

iod rr ht d ©©c- ©©

oTooc-To o r^-^co co

©©©©©©©c-

©^coHri-H©M4 ^

•4 *4 9^ »,

CO ^ ^ 1-H

4*gJ

©o© ©ooo©©ooo
000 000000000

©o© ©ooo©©ooo

©^ei © -^ i-T od" t-T © CO 00 00
coo-^ ©©d©oodi-4©
©©’4»4 d©©©d©©d©

rk *4 *4 #. •k •«,

— H ^ ^ r5 ^ ^ rH

ooo©
0000
© © © o

d

8§SS

©©©00

o©o©o©©o 00
oooooooo 00
o©©oo©o© 00

©

©

*4. HT ©

F-> d *4. d

^ Vs as as

© © © 0

^ as^^

© ©

tsTcc 0 cd© t4r

© © ©

cdoTt'Z'© Cl

Cl oTr-Tcd

©©©i-Hd©d(5Q

HrFH©d©i4.©ci

c

© d *4.

Cl © fH

Cl

© 1-H © 0

g ©© ^

© © *4.

© © © *4* fH ©

CO © ©

4** CO © d ©

©©©gj

C

*4- © FH ©

as

d 0

.. *4.

©

1-1 © d

^ f4 hT © fH

©*4.d©CO©t4.^

as as

© fH

8

© -^ hT -^ © CO t- © ©

©4^*0 1-HClt4-©©1— '©©©

©©d © © CO o 1-H © d d c-

c*?©-^ oToocTcDcri^Tc^co

S©i-H 04rdt-^4^©©d

■^ © ©•^c-©©©»-4©©

e» » K. — —

d © « -^

© » hT l-H
Tt< © © ©
^ ^

© d '^ ©
Od©©
CO ^ © ©

CO

© © © -H

© © CO t>»
d d ©©

•4 ^ «k

r- r- 4^ ©
^ Q d ©

oo© ©

d

©

©©COfh
CO © CO ©
1-H © © ©

©'cd“© cT

© © d 1-H

© d © ©

1-H CO ©

d©tH.
©FH ©

*4 » av

hT 1-4 1-H
©©©
© »— I

CD

© -^ © © -^ ©
d O © CO Cl ©
© © CO C4- HT ©

Vs *. •« ^

d t«- 1-4 HT ©

© © d © 1-4 ©
© © © © -^ ^

© © ©
©C-1-H

© 1-4 ©
1-H OC-

© 04r

© 1-H ©

©o©©-^
© c- 1-H 0 ©
d HT 05 -^ ©

F-^© © © -^
C- t4- © 4^ 1-H
00©©©©

©Hr©c- ©©i-Ht^©-^©i-H ©©

4ri-4©^ t4-©©©©r4.©^ ^ci

t4.c-©c- ©©^i-4©i-4©© © r-

©CO©© cTc^© CO© c^t-T© o'©

©©©CO r4-i-H©o^©©© 4^1-4

r-.icco© ^d©©r4><P'^© ©d

C^IOf-TcO ©I-^CI rH

© d
hT c-
© © «

Cl © HT
© © ©
© © 4tf*

Cl CO Cl

4^ © t- © hT © © h- (4- ©©©©

r- 1-H © o d "It* © d d©d©

© © r- © © r- 1-H HT i-HOd'^

r>r © ©*■ ©*■ CO 4r ©T <Hr d*“ t^r-Td-F-T
©©©©t-oci©© d©^©

00 Cl © ^ ht o © t4- ^©©©

d FH © f-H © ©

d

d fh ^ © fh

t- © © c-
1— d d o
©r-©-^

tCd"© ©*

t4- © © r-4
© © © ©

FH Cl

© © © ©
© © d

FH O © ©

cooTci ^

© FH © ©
©FH O ©

d"*

©CO©
Tf 00 -H
HT © ©

CO CO
© © ©
© ©

dHrd©©Hr
d © ^ FH © 4^
© © ©t-- 1- ©

•s *4 ^

4*4 d fH d © FH
d © © ©^4• ©

HT FH © 1-H 1-H

© FH ©

FH HT ©

^ d ©

hiToO CO
tT ©©
© © ©

S© 1-H © 00
4r © © ^
FH © © O ©

_ *4 *1 ^ *4 *4

d FH i>- d ©
FH © © © FH
© d © © fH

eo© © ^

Cl FH ©05
©©dt^

a^ *• *4 •>

l4-©t-©

fh©C1C0
©© Ch

©t'-©©©FHdb- r-co

©©©FH©tH©t>, ©Cl
©4r©©©t4»©^ HT ©

4rdd©©©©t^

©©©©t4-©t>i4r

©©©tHHr>^Hr©

r- ©

d

©

tH©

CO

d©©dFH ©FH

©

8© 5-
© o

d©FH©-^©©©©

05’^4^©©©©©0

d©4rf©©d’^cod

© © © o

t- t- I4-
© © © ©

« © © ©
O d © ©

© 14- FH ©

r- © CO
© rr 00

*4- tH

©©© r- © © d
©r-o -^ © © © _ . .

©©491 ©c-d©©©©©

t- © © ©
© d d og

© o
© ©
r4*4r

© o

Sc-

4*4

d 4r d «
c- d © r-
*4. o © Cl

HTOco© oc©eo't- O4trco

dt-FHOo 45rFHO© ©i>©

©©o© ©"^©o r-d-H

© 00 d 1-4*4. o

45r © o ©00 ©

fh t— © hT fh ©

*4^0 od HT ©‘od
d © d d 00 FH
*- ©00 © © ©

© © CO
*4. FH 00
© 491 4r

©‘odF-T
d © ©
FHt4.4ir

© nr

© fH o ^ 41** CO
fH d

© ©

«

©

4r fh

00

«d^«d

oci o © fh

'a*

CO d^HT d^o
00 © FH d ©
©©*4-00

aw «4 *4

fH fH dd

©©iTfH 00 *4. O *4- *4* © r- © CDCl

©©©HT t4.FHdO©'^«FH ©©

r-r-oo© ©©FH©4tfi©oo© ©©

c^cico*^ t4r‘o5cdc^©cd‘©od 00*4^

d © fH O © *4. FH © FH ^ '^ © *4. 1-H

©©"^CO 00*4-©©dO©t4. *4-0

^ ^ «4«4«>a4a4*.aka» a.*4

fh fh 4roOFH©d©'^d •'Td

© FH

© © ©

© © ©
d *4- d

d't'T©

© *4- O
©•»**©

CO 4*4“

©©d©©©©©-^ *4.00©©

© © *4- 00 © ■^ I-* 1-H © d©©d

*4. © © © 4«1 t>. -^ *-. ©©©^

oT *0“ CO ht' cT f-T 05 © cooTc^od
;0 ^ CO © 4^ © ©Q©-^

© *4- © © *4. FH HT © C- ©©©*4-

Cl HT hT ©

*4. d o ©

*'• FH FH

•cTci odoT
©©©©
dd©c5

© © ©FH
©©00©
© © FH «

fH HT d FH
fH © *4, HT
^ ©© -^

r- ©4r

© *4- ©
*4. 4*4 ©

©“coco
© ^ ©
© © ©

© d d *4- fh ©

© 00 t4. © © ©

d OC *4. hT © ©

^ a. ^ ^

©©FH

© © ©

*4- © 00

^FH ©
FH FH ©
© © -^

d“© *4^

d FH ©
© FH *4.

» d 4r ht d

t4.d©©FH

00 © © © -^

©

©

FH © d
© © d
fH © Cl

HT © "^ FH
HT © ©4**
fH © © ©

t4rd‘‘'^©
*4-0 fh 4r
fH d © ©

© d ©

8

©©FH*'«4e* dFH©FH

©

© FH

^ FS FS F4 _ F- F« FS FH F-

fH d FH d d d ^ FH ^

FH©dd©©©© ^d
^©©*4-©FH©Cl *4-©

d©©©©©*'-© ©©

edco CD eo*4r©ci‘cd' fh^^T

© ©d fH *>. fH TT © •^©

*4-©-^©©©fH© ©©

d^OCl -^©COCO ©Cl
© fH fH

*4. © ©

© © ©
*4- © HT

©FH^©Hrood©Oi

©i-Hl-HQO»«©t4.0

©0©©CCfH©»-ifH

HT 41** © ©

© *4- d ©

*4. FH © ©

© 0 0 0

© ©0 CO
do©©

«©*4-d
d © © *4.
© FH © ©

*4. © 4ir
© © *4.

© 1-H 0

© 00 d 00 © 4**

00©©©©

d FH d ©00 ©

FH © ©

00 © 00

d © ©

t4.©©d©
fH HT © © Q
© 4*100 FH ©

0 © d ©

*4- 00 © 0

© © fH FH

0’4rd0©©©FH

©d©©*4-©©*4.

©©FHt^O©t4-4*1

©d
©©
© 0

© fH d“
hT fH ©

© 00 0

FHcd'ciciororF-Torcjo

0l4-^0t4-©t4.©0

4^*4-0^*4.F.lHr©t4-

© d « CD

© 1-H ^ ©

0 00 FH *H

© 0 05 ©

© © d *4-
ddHT rH

odF-Td cd

FH FH Cl ©
41** © ^ ©

as » as

© *4-

*4. © FH

1-H © d

CD *4^ ed ’^■© 4r

© © © 0 *4. ©
*4. ©00 © 05 ©

OOf-T Cl*

d © FH
© FH *4.

as as as a. a.

1-H © *4, Q ©

© 0 00 00©

© 00 fH © d

t4Zcd'^d

©00 FH4*1

FH d © ©

asasasasasasasas

^ d fH 0 © fH fH ©

®^©©fH4*i<oo5

05*4.'V©©©fH©

^HT
fH ©
*4. ©

^ <0

©Ci’^OCb©FH*4-'^
FH ©

d FH *4. fH

a. as a. ^ ^
© FH FH *4,

as as ^

FH © fH

0 ^

FH d fH

fH d“ClCl

fH ^ fH

d“ Od'jhT sr © ©“ cd

© FH FH

©d'

C3 c 3

2

"3

a

o

Vj

<D
. ^

I w C ^ I w • m LJ

|.2'3 2og>i§ c.S8:Sfea
OOOOP\&h>^

<

a

H

z

u

O

e

H

P

O

QQ

A

Z

<

H

z

<

H

w

H

P

C

CQ

fl

o

u>
a

1

O .•

■t® 08
taC*«

0-9

§

ifl

bo

..

2 B2 2

Q in O 03

03
10
C3

11 ^

*0

O

>

fllF-

iM ffi

03 — «

H p CD

s

o

a

0)

iH w r*

SSI

-

0.2.2 0

tuo3

tH

o

a

CO

o CD flj

a>,P* u^'Z* o 22

>V. >7! O

a

.22

*3

a

o

H-»

CO

O)

F—

l-l

03

-P

o

Sco
o

a eS

fS ®

1. o

Ih

O CO o

5S3

p*>

»H

o

. 1/J

»H ^‘IH

O fl

4. «

^ 2 2o5 C3 g fl »0 W O P'S XP-tt,

;zig pMS^ SfiWP^W

a * — ^ -

tH

o fl
o

4.5

to
P
o

o

a

S

a

u

O

S

bc

.2

•4^

a

p

a

Q

Z

<

'2 S C8

' 2

A) oj>i.a
•< o S § £f
"r iP 2 *5^ '
H— o>

OMh:)

u,

si

P

/-V -2

OcqEh

-W o

H

O

Eh

M C>

P

U

a

13

Q

bo'O
P P
^ ca

co3

O o3

h50

* I

n‘_lO

CO

X O ^

P p

2 © 031

a*;? *-•

Sag

ca 03 03
OQCOGQ

'S

>5

o

a

a

05

CO

P

o

CO

1-

4>

O.

£

a

£

05

43

^ X
P ©
^ P

Ǥ

'^a
o a

2't3
ce ©
(O 03

©2

0*0
© p

Ih g

si 2

- S ©2

^ tH 43 0)

03 * O >H

05 ■*^ /.^ ©

PE? >

1^-32

© ca '

00

b£

a

Q

t->

ea

05

tH

2

p

4D

03

C9

>

as

*»

o

a

£

03

CO

■4^

O

£

o

a

"3

pq

4F4

o

t>5

• mm

o

05

43

HA

CO

03

*©

CO

as

P

P

o

a

£

o

2 ©-H
*5 O o S ”

-<p2£2

^ o Ph Oi -
♦AHA'OUtl-l ©So
.“2.2 c <0 2 S-o

'gslsslai

bflbc'p,.2P5

03

O

tH . .

fe ^

DiP^
O O

•*« P

© g

*243

OJJ SMJ /*\ '

«SS«f^2

o 01

•4 «> • •• g

o ^ .2

o

p

o

>»r^

U 05

© -ti

HA O

*C P

o

03

w

05

a

o

o

05

00 4.5

^s§S

o3 A bO u
-pCOp

eo

HA

o

o^

p

o

'p

05

2.

a

©

CO

p

e

CO

I-

05

Oi

to

bC

a

a

Urn

OO

05

HA

P

05

CO

05

tH

a

05
tm
• •>

CO

C5

HA

CO

•mm

H-A

08

HA

cc

2 2
P S CO o

E?p 0.2

HA 03 S^.S2

*C © P
H ^ <D.P

S oa bo p

HA 05 08 5

103

VC

K

c

e

Q

-C

k

CO

9

k

0

k

k

0

5

9

k

“9

•k*

CJ

6

k

^9

9

9

CO

9

9

k

9

"9

9

9

9

9

<w

•M

CO

QO

9

9

•m

k

a,

9

9

•C

9

a,

4id

9

M

0

s

I

CN

2

9

H

a>«~

•c«

0:2

s

r- © © ^ ^
© © o> 00

t^04© ©©

•^•^©^©©©'^04i-H©00©

C^©04h-OO^kDrfi050©’rf

004©Tt4©©©©004r'-©'4j<

HJ4

i-H 04 ©
© t- 04

cSS

© hH

© © pH © © pH

© © © kO © ©

© 04 pH 04 © !>• ©

04 © H}k pH p
04 © *H © ^
© © 't* © ©

t>- © 04 05 Q HT
© Ht* 04 © © ©

04 © r-H 04 HJ* 04

pH ©

© 04 © CD

pH pH

04

G)' kO CD 04" CO CO CD'04©HHr^
©©•^ 1-H©© l-Hl-4'^©tH.

04

CO 0 04

pH © pH

So

04

pH Tfi 04 PH 04 ©

IQ iiS4 04 C4

04

04"

© i-< © 04
»H pH i—H

0 © 1^ © © ©

pH © CD © © 04
© 04

04 04

0 04

pH

«»

CD CO
fcO
CO 00

mk *

'°s

<0

0

CS

•w

CO

*w

CO

cS

3

a

CO

a*

a

>.

<a

O

a

cn

D

A

•^'3
o □

•cS

<1

c^

o

00

s

o

•>.

*c

CO »D O O?

00 CO CD to
CO 00 •-C CO

CO

COO

0»0»-<QO»-<CDCO
i-HCO*-'00’^‘O’^00
Ot^CO^»DCO»-tCS

oT-^o oT cf 00 ci »o

lO ^

00 ^ 00

_ - t'i 04 c^
0 CD O f

o

r^

co

•D

Oi

0> CO »o
m CD

00 cocoes

00 CD CD

CD

CO

CD

a>

CDOt^f^ t-. CD CO CO O 04 CO O t>» »D

00 o O O o CO CD ’-H •-* cO CD «-H t>-

aSr^oo »o o wo o o^ o o CO CO 0

00 CD CO CO

r* O CD CO CO

■"T CO CD CD

t-« o CD »0 CO
0> 04 I'' *-•

W3 CO I-H

1-(

00 00

CD CO

04 ^
CO

CO
kO 00
00

CD wj

p a
o o S

■‘^'O fc-

02
•i- 03:
-< Q.J3
© o
73

CO

CO

00

o

CD

*»

Oi

04

«9-

4C 0> kO

00 h* »o
04 CD 04 CO 04

00C0Oc0»0»--i04000iO»D0>k0

000>»Dw04»OOi-^*^COOOOcD

0>0>0400t^t^OOCfc04t^cDcDi-t

04 00O h- CD CO »0 04 O »0 0>

04 ^ CO —H O ' 05 04 GO

O4CO00 C0 04 CO kO O 00 O 00 00

«-HkDC004»004^»OCOkO'«S*

00404i^COCD04kOt--*4#«oO

rHC004C0T-<»-HC0'^04cDt^

O Tf* 04
04 CO O 04

oocoeo*^oooh»t-kDcoo4r^04

00’^O4CD^«-^t^C^CDrr'it<kO'^

^ tM t-H

^ 40 ^
CO 00 o
04 CD i-«

kO >- C^ CO CO O CO kO o

CO kO

40 kO 04 CD
CD 04

cT

04 04r^04'^040040»-ico

40Tf«40 00 00 04CDC004COC^

^ ^ 04

b-

©

0

04

©

s

©

©

04

©

of

©

04

©

04

<d8

OOfl

CQ cO

•

*3 M

*S5
W m
0)

h«

o

CO

&

03

4^

o

E-

CO Q 04 OQ
*0 00 CD 04
04 04 04 1^

O 04 40 CO
^ 40 O 1-H
^04 04

40 ^ 00

CO CD kO 40 04

l>. 04 ^ 04 ^ 04 CO

0?

IH

©

04

0

Q

©

04

0

©

©

05

©

04

0

©

©

r>-

©

TP

04

Pp

Tp

©

0

©

(N

Hfl

©

©

©

04

©

0

©

0

©

tP

©

P

TP

©

©

0

©

04

©

04

©

©

04

04

0

©

©

05

CD

0

t'p

0

04

04

©

Tjk

©

©

©

©

0

0

04

0

04

©

©’

04

0

©

04*

©“

l>p

04"

■(

©■

•»

TP

©‘

"©

CO

■©

Tp

00

■©

«>

04“

•»

0

04

04

©

©

04

0

©

04

©

h-

©

04

©

©

©

0

©

©

0

TP

©

©

©

©

TP

©

©

tH

©

04

©

©

©

©

©

04

04

pH

©

04

04

©

©

04

©

Hp

t>* 00
CD 04
04 04 00

^

494 pH Q

t^OOO

1-H pH

04

00 04

00 ^ 04 O CO
40 40 00 CD t^

04’^o4i-Hi-H4}40oooo4co4rQ
t^CD^^^b-y^C0»-44O»OCD^

4J4 CO

1-4 04 tH CD rH

04 04 04 CO 00

p o 00 1-1 ■'»<

^ CO CO

k0O00CDC0050000040500i-<C0
OOCDCD04P40t^C^CDC0040004
O04 04 C0«C0^i-H'^i-HC0Tt*C0

CO

CO 00 CO
kO 04 04
04 kO CO

^ •>

®

04 — H
^ O 04

CDCOiOOO'^’^t^OO
00 04 04.-H40i-H04 04r>4
C0C^C0t>.»Dt^04 04t>.

f-(’i^»-<|><DO4O4C0O>
COi-H04C^OOCOCOt^CO
1-H O 00 CO04 04

•k #4

kO 00 04

^ 1-4 CO iO OO »H
00 CO 04 00 05 CD

I ’4J4 0 i-< CO
I o 04
1 CD CO O

_ •. . ^ ^ ^

CS|4t'l>.,-H04©Ot^i-'00O4

i-HCDh-CD©00©©©'^04

COO4044j4c0CO00©’4f4kO00

CO 04"

D4qo

CO o

oco

00 ^
04 1-H
kO 1-H

04

© 1-I o
©00
© o ^

C4 oTo

pco

C4i-ikD

tn

'O

c

3

«PM

O

Xi

3

03

u

o

03
O hi)

ns o

3 Ih

§a

co»^

eg

•S^

w

03

CO

o ®

_ _ CO

:3^

.£S

S

03

u

OA

O

U

Ph

ooppo
o p o o o
00000

'OOOOOp

■000000
000000

oooooooooop

ooooooppopo

00000000000

©

©

0

©

05

©

©

©

©

04

04

©

©

©

©

0

©

«

04

TP

©

Hp

04

04

©

04

04

©

0

r>-

04

©

tP

04

©

TP

©

04

©

04

04

04

0

of)

©

©

©

0

04

©

04

©

55

©

TP

TP

©

04

©

C^4

TP

©

©

©

Hp

04

©

©

©

©

04

©

03

©

©

©

04

©

0

0

0

©

HP

©

©

HP

tP

Hp

06

©

P-

©

©

©

04

©

HP

!>■

Hp

©

P-

04

0

©

©

©

©

©

04

TP

©

04

©

CD

TP

rH

04

04

pH

04

04

©

TP

04

©

04

©

©

04

04

04

©

tP

Hp

Hp

©

©

t>-

kQ

•k

04*^

04

©

«0

QD

00

04

Op

pH

ee

00

0

CD

OP

op

00

04

©

©

%

03

Wi

fl

o

00

S8

c^

00

©

Dl*’

o'-

p

©

03

w

o

Eh

00

©

of

CO

8

03

o

C4

04

oT

00

00

«■

^ o

-t“ll

cs

CO

o

o

s

C4

a

cs

««

4>

4->

08

-4^

CQ«

O ®
o u

•3 C3
CO ^

> 9

•—• 03
'OXi

P.

08

ho

§

o

04 ©

•©

rH

Hp

04

04 0

©

04

©

© pH

1

©

©

04

0

© pH

0

©

©

1 ^

©

©

Hp

tH.

TP

tH

»H

Hp

t ^
1

04“

of

CO

hf

©

©

1

1

tH.

s

gkOOQOOO'Tj4t'-.©'Tf4
OC^i“<*-*t'-C400C4
OC>0©©00'^©'^04

cT CO o C4 kO C4 CO cs*

t>. C4

©©eo©

C4

O

©

t>. Tf t-os ^
C4 © D4 CO «
00 © O O©

kO

© © CO CO
^ tH CO

S4

D4«— iC400t^©©O4'^O'^i— '©
©i5t4»-«©OI^CO©t-t'-COC400
^000'»tf400©04«C4©i-4^00

ecTo CO 00 CO 00 oT oT »D cT^

t>-i— iC0©©t^t^O4©C4t>^©
i-t'«t4t'*©C^©©CO©eOC4cD©

00© O © CO © 1^ 04 04

r^. 1-H © CO 00 1-4 © © © o t>-
Ot^© © © rf4 © CO CO © 04 ©

kOCOkrT oTcOkOO —Tc^’oTi-rGr
04 © C4 04 O © kO © 04 o © "^

’«J4 05t^ D4 W CO O © © 04

«> «

1-4 © t>.

C4©05©©©04’^©p©
t>-05i-Ht'-’^©©CO©©0
1-1©^©0©1— ‘04i-hi-«©

00 0CrcDOr'^C4'C4‘kOO4^CD
©'^05 04©©i-tD4r'-.t^©
i-H©04©»-*0©©04t^^

04 !>.
t'* ©

D4 '4J4

evT©"

© O

C4 © CO
© 1-4 CD

Tf © ©

•» p ^
^ ^

O © ©

© rH ©

O

04

©

1-4 ^ ©

0*4 1-*

D4 '«t4

S

•^ -^ © 04 ’4C<
h- i-H © © ©

^ O C4 O ©

Di* CO oTt-T
O t-- i-« © ©
TJ4 C4 ©

•^04C4©«01^©©004©-H

CP©«-4©©'i!j4C004©©©©t>-

04©004-^©Tt4050©©i-HO

^ocokD’^— I’odoTDfkoood't^

'^©t>»k004t>-0J©<N©i-4©
•^t>-©D4©©©©©D4l'-i-H

© C4 © ©
© © © -^ ^
© O CD

•k ^ ^

P-1 CD © © 04
© t'- D4 © ©
C4 © D4 © ^

40*0^ p-TirTr-T

©©■^r>»0i'^t^'^©04D4t^i— I
©04t''»0©i— •©©©©04i— (04
''14D405D4©r-©i— (■^©1— «©i-<

e^l>r'«J4‘cOCOOr©'-4"o‘oOkDO^

©i«H©t>»t'-t^C4©©<NO©C4

^t^o©©i-^r^©r^04»-4©©

I-4 1-t © 1-4 © 1-H ■>^'19400

© *

© t>- © C^l
I— I 04 »0 © 04
© t>. O h-

Ob-t>.i-t©©Cg©Wpt>©p

©©©©b-^©©

^-^C0©O5©©©

© 05 P CO
04 © CD

© ©© D4 ©
© 04 © ©
^4 « ^

0404i— »©P©04i-'©t^©C^^
04©©t^^i-H©©CD’^©00

©t>.1-H©©04t^©t^(55l-Hf^’itf4

© 01

© l-H

04 1— < 04 © 1— t © 04 1-1 04 ^^©

©

€8

-4H

o

0 0 ©

pH ©
0 tH- ©

04©©i-h©i-h©©©

©©TPt>.©©©©04

CD04 04 04pH©pHHptN«

04©04©©©04hP»qO©

t^04pHt»--^00©©©©0

ph©tP©0©ph04pHph©

© pp

0 ©

© HP

04 © CO
© pH CD
•V © ©

kC CO kQ

04 © 04
TP 04

06 04 kO © Tp' 04* ©■ CO

p-PphppH©^t^0CO4

©©t>-©©p4©©0

OOodcD'orHp’c^cfkrforcTcD

©Tp04 04©©pHC4r>.rN,»Q
pH©04©pHO©©04tH.H^

04 00
PH 0
04

pH’-^Pf

0 © ©

© pH ©

pH ©

0 CO'pH pH

04

PH pH phtp'cO 04 Hji

04 PH

04

04

©©«
04 0 HP
© © C4

©©©phcD©004©

©©©©i-Ht-©©-^

Otp©04l'p©©TPkQ

t>-PH©tN.C4©C4©pHpHpH

©-H©C4©Qt^©©©©

04 04©HpO©0©b*©00

0 ©

Hp Hp

kO tH.

© © ©
04 04 Q
04 © ©

© Q ©
© 04 00
HP tN. CD

O406ph©tpO4CO©O4

040hP000040tPph

pHO©tH.HPC4ior-.t>,

C^HpPHPHTpD404tCt>ro’pH

Hpt'-C4’ipO©04©t'-.t'-pH

©©■^•^1>.^0©04pH©

TP^
04 TP
tH- 04

00 04 ©
© -^ ©
© »o ©

0 ^

CD

«D CP

COtfpH06O4'pHtCO4‘c0

e*> ^ 2 flo ^

© «

HP©TP©l6lOkQt^TPpHCO

© HP pH pH

00

o»

«k ».

© 04 0

pp 04 04

©00

04 PH D4

04©pHCDt^04©OTP

©©04hPtP©040pH

©CClHp04©©©C4i-»

04 04P>-©C40000ph©

OHp©r^»QTPC4©rs.pH©

©tH.O04©TPPp00OOO

Hp ©
CD

© HP

HP C4 ©
b- © ^

© b- pH

Ob 'pH CO

TP t>. 0
Hp

©" O) co'o' CO o'l^ crT 00

040^hPphtP^I>.'»P

04 04©l>»HpfQiOtN.ts,

pH'cDkOOTjTcOkOGO'cO^kO

©©©©004©TppHC4©

©©HPTPt^TP©1-H00406

co*^
© ©
© 04

Pk

© HP ^
© ©
© © Hp

© H^

CD A

CQt>J.-ir-lCV)pHt^C4'CO
«> ^ •

^ 00

HP©'^©©©©©kQpHCD

10 PH 1-H

00 pH
©

P> Pk Pk

CO 040

PH

H

z

<

•-)

H

•-)

a

a

PH

s

S >>c3

u « ^

CO

Ph iJ W

*e ^

o

fl o

r.'t /i-» Q

c3

u

0)
03

S|

^■s

o

03
w *2
U4 3
« C8
054^ >

3

O

3

*^ 3

3

a

ID

2J3
3 D

8-^

u

D

CO

D

Ih

>_

cs

q-g^a

2>§SnSa

-^809:3

pj

•<

3

H

JZ

u

O

w

H

3

O

Iz;

2.2

pep

^ hfl

D

:z;

o

a;

3

O4

S.9 *•

• • ‘3 Ld 3
.SS;f3 ft3_'^ O 2
OQoS 3MP^94

.a •B

5 5

104

t

53,264 I 36,052 1 112.640

00

o>

t-H

CO

1-1

uo o ^

CO ^

»0 I-H o

wco 00*00
O O? 00 Q 0>
OT

^ •» Pk

^ *o ^ ^

00 1-H

o> ^

00 00 C4

o »

'^00*0
*0 00 h-
C^

^0«0 ^ <0 <D 00 <0 <0 CO 1-1

r^ Oi o^ t^ CO

CO CO ^ QO C^ »0 05 TJ« TJ* CO

*Oi-ri>r oT 05 oT 00 CO 00 CO

<0 w CO ^ ^

*-tC0

C^ M CO
CO *C CO 00
CO *o h- ^

«> Wh «k

»C CO o
CO

C0«t>.0
05 ^ CO 1— •
1-^ t«-CO CO

o^t^ro"

00 CO

OOOCO
CO 1^ CO
•-• ''C T»«

of »o i-T o

11^ *0 05

^ O

oTio o

O 05

1-H QCO i-»
b- 1-H ^ O C^
05CO O ^

1^ 1-H O 05 t-

N *0*0

sss

CO ■*»* t^

•^’‘oo’‘oo

C^QOQ^CO
1-H<0 ® »0 CO
^ CD ^

1-H CO *0 C^ Q

*0 »-H^

2g

^ »
^ t--

cs

s

eS

CO »o
05 t--
*0 05

CO CO

00 lO

t-

CO CO

**

CO c^
CO f-i

S5

CO

05

I O t- CO
• CO *o
I 05 -H

I

»0 CO »-H
05 00
CO o

•« Ak

OCOCO

»"H CJ ^

CO O <N

S*0 CO
05 00
^

00 00 I-H

cog^

1-H

cooDcoo^coao-^i-H

C<j^C0C:5g^*O*OHj<

1-H 00

05 CO h9«

^ CO »c »o
00 ^ TT o5
CO *0 CO *o

coco cf00*O OCOCO O CDt'f'^i-H

f-H OI tf5 *0 CO cow •Ht-HOO'-H

00

05

*o

C5 X

X X

X X >o

<35 *0

C5 X

X fH O

o

HJH X

C5 05 b-

X fH

05 Htl

1-H lO

X fH

H9> X

CO b- 05 1-H I-H
CO 05 b* o
CO '<9* b- 05 CO

O 00 CO

b- rH

CO CO 1-H

*005b-b-»0*0*0WO

•^QWO-hW0005

Woo*owHj<-u<b-co*o

05 ^ 05 CO
b- 05 05 05
CO 00 CO *o

1-H CO »0 b-
00 *0 W CO b-
O ^

w

^ b- 05
Hb 00 *o
C5 CO rH

lO CO CO
CO b- W

C0Wb-05b-
CO CO 05 05 CO
05 CO f-H

O CO 1-H

05 05 *0

CO »0 CO *0
00 00 CO 05
00

05 ^ O 1-H
»-• 05 -o
o I-H CO »o

00 ^ 05 ^
1-H *0 b- CO
05 CO

05 *0

1 w

05 05 O

CO 05 *Q fH
C5 *0 o6 F-i

»

1

1-H O •

w

9

1

O CO <

X *o

‘ X

>o X *o

1

*0 Hfl 1

s

1

1

O b- C

FH *0

• CO

1

b-O >0

fH I-H 05 CO X

t

§

rt* *0 I

•

1 ^

1

Oc

X w

«»

• b-

cfbToT

cf xedofF-f

1

1

edcT 1

§

•

1

1 •»

IS

1

1

•> flk

f-H

*0 CD

• o

1 fH

CO

1

1

XX, «

% 1

1

1

•

1

CO

I

• CO
I *o

• o

I «

• 05
ICC
I

»

I

I

00 1-H 00 05 0
05 1^05 b- b-
b-050 05

05X
X 05
t^b-

O

X o
o

1

1

1

1

1

t

1

1

t

05 'Tb C5 W f-h
fH 05 05 HiJ> X
X X *0 b- 05

CO fH X

00 o

CO FH X

»0 X 05
b. FH 05
005 F-H

FH05b.005COXHj<05

X0*0*0>0*005t--C0

•VXXWOSOIOsOSf^

b-X CO X

05 O C5 05

*o *5 b- *o

05 05 O X

F-H 05 b • F-H

X ^ X X

fH fH

X X
*OcO

1

ICO

1 CO
' b-

b- O FH

05 *0 *0
X05 05

1

1

1

1

1

■ X

1 *o

I X

1

1

t

1

t

1

1

1

•

1

1

1

X *0 *C 05 X
XXFH»Ob-
fH -H CD CD O

1 1

1 1
t 1

1 4

is
1 1

•»

CO HJ*
05 CO
fH ^

bTlc

b- fh
XfH

1

(

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

fH CD CO X O
CO O X fh
fH 05 X 05 fh

«*•*#>
b- X X
*o X *o

H9i I-H H«*

^

CO FH 1-H
05 X

»o

Hji »0 ui CD X *d 05 o
05rf<*OF-iroeocowo
*OCOC0b.05C0XO5H9i

Xi0 0l*0

FH X X 05
fh X 05 fH

CD 05 ^ *0
CO X CO Hj*
^H ^H ^H

05 FH

' .h

1 b*

1 fH

1

i

^ a^ ••

Xb-FH

b- 05 X
fh 00

1

1

1

1

1

1 b-
i fH
l fH

1

1

I

1

1

t

1

1

1

t

1

1

CD X O FH ^

5:“"?2SS5

1 1
• (

1 1
( 1

1

t

1

1

•

•

1

1

1

t

I

1

1

^ ^

fH fH fM

t

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

»

1

1

t

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

•

1

1

t

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1 1

1 1

1 t

1 1

1 <

9

1

1

1

t

^ CO CO b-

05 05 *0 CO

05 00 O

Co" Q O 05*“

CO 00 CO CO

05 ^ ^

CO 00 *o

00 i-< o

05 05t^

^*o

1-H *-H b» O *0

00 CO »o o CO
b- CO b- CO ^

ofoCOCO^OQ
^ W CO CD 00

W CO CO 1-H
CO

1-H 05 05
05 05 o
CO 00

oT co"^

005 05
b- *C CO

05 05b-b*.C0Ht«C0Oe0
05^^b-b-*C*0C0O3
b-O^Hji-^OCOOSi— t

0'^<0bfc0*0050r05

b-COQ05'^»OCOHjit^

C0b-OC0Hfi05C0Oi^

av «*

05 05 1-H 1-H

b- »0 X 05

X HJ1 X FH
*0 05 FH b-

XC0 05X
X X xb-

XCO »0 FH

*OCD

•X

' fH

1

1

CO 05 HJ*
lO X »o
CO 05 X

05b.b.b.05 1

05 X *0 X •
05 O 05 b- CO '

fHO
*o *>qi
>0

*o *o »o b- X
05 Xf-h b- tH.
05 FH CD b* O

O CO
O b-
Hj’ O

cdx FHof
r* CO 55 o

05 HJI X X

«* a^ ^

S’ Xb-O
<30 05X05
X W X

>o o

b- X

‘05
• 05

1 FH

P» Pk A

fH 05

05 *0 X
Ht< O

of'^cdofoT '

b- 1
fH t

a^ p*

X05

X X

CO COO -aJ"

OfFH

fH

05

^ rs

1-H CO
Ob*

•*

CO 05

^05
fH ^

CO I-H

*0 b- 05

S05 b-
-H b-

CO b- 1-H b. CO
b- O <0 05
b- O *0 HJ1 CO

CO 1-H *-H CO -H Hpl ^

CO 05 1—1*0 05 b* 05 CO b- 05 HJ< CO 1-H 1-H 05*0 05 05

05*OHfi 05C0h}i05^05C0’^05 0500005

»O^CO OHj«0 00 CO CO 05 b- 05 CO ^ CO X »0 *0 »-*

*OOb- COCDfcO CO 05 05 ^ CO 1-H 05 i-H’i-H'bT^

^ rji O CO
b-X005
05 CO CO CO

oooo
O Q O o
oooo

05 CO *o o

1-H

X X Ht* CO

*0 ^ tH hH

»o

ooo

ooo

ooo

b^CO »0
*0 X 05
O ^ 1-H

o o o o o o

So o o o o
o o o o o

oTHtToT *o CO CO
CO b- 05 i-< 05 CO
CO CO *0 b^'^X

ooo

ooo

ooo

OObTbf

o X 05

*0 CO 1-H

X^^b-b»
f'- 05 05 05 X
b. X rt’ 05 C5

b* X 00 *0
b> *0 1-H 05
O CO *0 05

1-H 1-HC505 I-H 05rH05

CO

®ss

X CO X CO
CO I-H X
CO o o w

05 ^ X

O X b- X
lO »0 b-
X ^ »0 05

b* b*

<0 lO

05 b-

b- 05

••

05

05

05

*0 *0 CO 05
O 1-H X
05 HJH

H9H 05
O lO
05
^ «*•
ox

O

F-H

b-

CO

05

X

b.

CD

*o

CO O

So5

^ O b- 1-H

05 O 1^ O

*o b- b- *o

*o X
X

05 -H

O X

05

X 'itfH

X O I-H
05 X 05
^ X
^

CO ^ CO
1-H o
X 05 *0

00 o 1-H

1-H X CO *o X
o X 05 X »o

ufbTF-^of -f"

05 CO X 05 IJ*
b- b- 05 CO X

X

^ X
^ iO CO
X 1-H CO

b^Hb X*"
^ 05 X
O *0 CO

fH ^ 05

*0X0

o 05 25

X 05

CO -HCD
b- CO HJI
X O CO

X

.. .^Xb-eob- X05*0*2
o 05 F-H *0 cO 1-H O b- X 05XXCO
b- X CO *0 1-H C5 b. fh »0 OXXi-H

CO g »0 05

b-

o

CO 1-H rt< X
CO 05 X

X o

CO lO Hf< CO
O Xb. X
'XX CO 05

b- CD fH

S05 00
b- *0

1-H lO 05 lO fH O
05 CO X 05 05 CO
1-H X05 b-05 O

b- »o
05 05 CO
05 ^ 1-H

X COW CO cp
HJ* o CO ^
X b- X X lO

Pk P« P«

O X F-l

05 Q 05 b.

05 O 05 X

X X 05 X

lO X CO

p. Pk p p> p. p

OCO ^ FH FH

ofcobf"

O CO HJIO

*o

05 W O

*0 O »0 b-

05 FH lO X

5> »o X >o

^ *0 05

05 *0 05 CO O *0

CO FH X

b- »0 O 05 05

X

W X X

HPI FH X

X *o

CO X

CO X

fH fh

fH

fH X 05

p.

Pk

o

Pk

CD 005 05
*C 05 b- CO
■^b-b*X

CO

8

X

X

X

o

CO

X

o

X

b-

X

05

05

*o

X

A

CD

CO

05

o

CO

X

O

Hb

05

*o

“5

CO

fH

Hb

X

o

Hb

Hb

CO

b-

CO

fH

a— H

»0 <35

>o

05

S' b-

*o

CO

X

05

CO

CO

05

o

05

05

*o

X

05

X

05

X

05

Hb

05

X

o

05

25

o

X

b-

X

CO

<35

o

Hb

Hb

o5

X

X

CO

Hb

CO

05

CO

fH

05

b-

05

3!

05

X

05

CO X

05

05

^ <35

X

S!

o

CO

Hb

05

Q)

s

b-

CO

% «r

b-

b-

X

rb

HO

X

-Hb

CO

cS

X

f-H

X

05

X

05

Hb

fH

fH

X

C30

CO

b-

fH

X

o

X

X

fH

Hb

X

o

b-

05

CD

05

05

b-

*o

X 05

b-

05

b-

05 Hb

fH

00

b-

X

X

*<3

O

o

b-

X

X

X

o

«

Hf

CD

a*

o

CO*"

*o

05

p

Hb

b-

P

05

«■

b-

p

*o

Hb

od

Hb

05

of

co"

b-

p

CO

cd

S*

p

X

o

p

CO

X

S

p

05

*o'

CO

p

Hb

o

S

bf

3!

p

05

O

p

05

>o

g

of

*c

p

b-

b-

05*

05

o

fh

of

*o

p

X

X

<»

X

p

b-

CO

p

05

X

P

05

*o

*d

Hb

od

*o

s

p

Hb

CO

P

CO

P

b-

o

oTcd

CO FH

P

b-

00

p

o

b-

p

Hb

U3

'cO*

o

cd

X

s

p

b-

X

05

P P

05

o

H9’

X

05

*o

b-

b-

05

cO

X

o

*o

CO

X

o

CO

X

CO

X

Hb

05

X

X

Hb

Hb

fH

X

X

uO

CO

X

CO

X

fh

FH

Hb

X

CS

CO

F-H

od

fH

Hb

of

o

cc

fH

x*

05

F-H

p

p

p

Hb

p

o

p

05

CO

05

o

X

CO

b-

05

b-

X

05

S’

Hb

CO

05

05

o

>o

Hb

<N

co

b-

b-

CO

X

X

*o

o

<35

CO

05

X

o

05

05

X

*o

05

*o

05

CO

»o

b-

X

bf

p

Hb

p

05

bf

p

o

p

Hb

of

CO*

1— i

p

b-

p

P

p

bf

X

of

X

X

b-

fH 4

Hb

X

fH

o

X

^H

o

X

X

QQ

CO

>o

b*

Hb

O

b-

O

«

X

X

X

b-

05

*o

w

05

05

00

o

X

05

x"

P

X

p

S’

P

05

p

X

F^

of

s

05

P

*o

of

p

bT

cd

FH

p

o

p

b-

o

05

cd

»0*005b-05 05XOb-
OX*--00*OCOb-X
05b.XXXC0XO*0

u^'eoofo^Hji’co

b- X X X w *o X
X t'- 00 b- CO O 05

oocobr^orbfF-H^ofco

*0 Hb X Hb

FH 00 CO x
o W 05 X

Hb b- X fH
<30 Hb XCD
b- fH Hb 05

*0 o Hb Hb
05 X b- FH
Hb *C X b-

X *o *o
O X X
CD O S’

XC5 CO 05005
X CO 05 *0 X 05
1-H 05 05 *0 05 b-

»0 b- >0
■S’ X X

b- O FH

xxb-XHb
CO X b- 05 b-
000 05 CO CO

O CO 05 05
05 b- b- 05

^ox«o

-H 05 »0 F-H
b— X fH b-
*0 X CO X

Hb XOc6
>0 X 05 •S’
Hb S’ X o

X X S’ 05
fh b- *0 05
0 05 O b-

Hb CD S?
05 05 05

f-H 05 fH

cd 00 <35 05 CO O
05 05 05 X XHb
b- b- CO b- X 05

OO Hb

F-H Hb F-i

CO *0 05

OXb^XO
fh O fh O O
Hb O hh fH b-

*d»o CO Hfi
CO CO *0 05
FH b* *0 FH

05' 05 FH

CO F-i F-i b-

of COfh

P P

P

rH

F-fofof

05 fH X X05

FH FH 05

ss

CO fh
Hb 05

X X

*dcd

FH O

05 O

s* o

05 X
tH. O

p p

XX

sfof

CD b- b^
b- 05 CO
05 S’ O

s

S’

>o *o X X
b- CO b- b-
05 X X b-

X 05 fH
<5 CO S’
® b- 05

of bfo"

05 Hb S'
XXX

»0 X X X X

O O O fH 1-H
05 b- ^ *0 05

*0 0^0
X FH O
X >0 05

p p p

X FH C5

0f*d05 F-t

bfcdo

X »o X
05 X 05
X 1-H b-

co »o oT
X CO X
05 CO X

tC o CO
05

CJi-HC0Xb-X05XX

-HX0505005XXO

X*0*OXXi-HXXb.

*OH9^-H‘»OCOXH9i‘*0*0

i-HXC0X'^C005’>tfib-

05b-005C00050i-H

00^ C'f OCT 1-H 05 bf F- r05 CO

05 CO o o

*o X X b-
05 X b- X

CO of CO CO
b- HJI Tb X
*CXb-X

ofofx"— r

C5

o xo FH
X Hjl b- b-
05 05 o *0

^occ<S
>0 05 b-o
HJI 05 05

ai> #. ««

CO FH 1-H b-

*0 O b*
O 1-H X hC*
CO X O 1-H

»o ofc^cT

05 1-H o 05
OOfhX

— — -K F.

05 fh o 1-H

05 X 05
*o O X
b- fh fH

fh'io

O FH

X Htl

X05 b- 05 CO X
X X X b* X fH

rH b» fH fH 0>

CO CO” f-T X >o od

05 *0 O X 05 tH

b- b- b- X X 05

FH CO O
CD Hj* (N
XHji 05

*C xof

fH X05
CO 55 05

fH 05 05

OCDb-H5f>b-
XO>Ob.O
^ *0 b- XX

fH 05X00
CD fH 05 05 FH
^ O fH f-H X

05 FH X X 05

05 b5

fh b-o
CO 05 X W

co^w CO od

b-H»< *0 05
fhx >0 fh

fh fH 05

'oS

a 3

^ 03

«W

^ <o

Ih
3 IH

^ 05

60
2?>*

>*

•■s o

oo
« ^ «

CO

2 m —

C8 pi«^ -^H

a

CES

^ o
'P.S

CO

otE-i ijPM “

^ §

.3 M

_ _ 3 £ 3

3p.otiw3cd3

We^jsPP^OPH

O

' 3

:(!.•

3

CO

• a>4

^,3

Zo

t£)S ^ r1

« a ^ 3 .3 o «-•
i« o3.= f:5 o rt a o o

CO

•fh

3

GQ

Hj

3
H

»

iJO

iz;

W

GO

i

.3

t£)

PS

3

O

HH

3

a

S 03

3^

P 3

-H 73

C5

OS

c3

C5

>

CO

3

O

iJ

CO

3

03

05

£

I

s §

g g o 3

C3
X5
03

03

CO

J4

O'

:i; 05
in 03 3
OCQ'^

ce
o
u

a

o
O ®3
O®©*-

-1 F^ o 3

-^otS

Pm ® ©

3

O

CO

o

03

,3

• •
03
3

gnS

•3.2° 881 "o

ppp^ OMP Sis

e-9 ^-ES^S

03

1^

3 ®

o3 o

CO

CO

ill

u,

O

3

O

as^ „

o3^

Ih

©,

'g^SwISiz: SQwphW<
3 o ® ®

Owen ^

105

West Virginia: Huntington .

See footnotes at end of table.

T^le C-9. Amount of public and private assistance and earnings under specified Federal work programs, by urban area, 1936 — Continued

W

T?

fl

a

o

•iM

s

3

a,

s-

03^3

•c«

»-^i-tO»0»OX050

Or-ToTcrTjrco'cocf

(N 1-H

00

CO

cs

in'

CC

<D

o

a

ca

•4^

C/5

♦*-<

CO

CO

03

V

• rH

X)

3

a

CO

©

Q.

>>

©

©

a

CO

©

x:

'oS

•-H lO 00 O »-* CO Oi CD Tti

lO 05 ID CD CO 1-H CO •^Jh-

00 00 CO 05 *D CD ■TJ< CD CD

C9 IN 05 o 1— » N CO r«» i-< CD

O CD CO fH t^CO

O *”♦ »H

•4^

^ ^ a
o © s

U

TD G'^

©33

<1

© o
'3

to CO 1-H 4© CDb-

lO 05 05 lo i-H o IN 40 coco
CO 00 O O 00 »0 05 CD

cT 00 oT lo'cT n' njT ood

1^ 1-H 00 1-H OO 1-H ic

05C01-H 1-H C9 1-H

©

© ©
^ 3
c? ce

*3 CO

Ow
CO
C8

40 00 CO CD CO CD N CD CD
1-H HJI CO 40 <XI N HJ< CD 40 Hf

05 1-H lO 05 N 05 CD 05 CD 40

cdododtCcD t^^oTi-H* CDt>^
05 b- HJI Cs. 05 CD O CO OO
CD 1-1 CO 00 CO »0 00 d 1-H 40

U'

S3

•4.5

o

o b- CD o r>- CD N CD 40

(N CO 00 t>- IN O 00 40 C04O
05 HJ4 o N CO 05 05 C^OO

cDori'rcdcd'^4o‘cd oTd

O 1-H o O CD N O 1-H (50 0

CD t'- »0 O 05 00 05 cor-

^ rH rH ^

2

©

T3

CO

(ga

^3 O

3 »H

Sp.

CO

tuo w
3 o
fe
3 ^

tH

C3

lO

co'C

w

Gh

OOOOOOOO OO

SOQOOOOO OO
OOOOOOO OO

od'cdc'TcDHjrcrood HfTrC

^OOOOrHi-Ht^OO 1-HO
HJ4 !>. 40 ■>5}< o CO CD N t>-

Ht4

00

40 CO 40 N CO CO

33^

•Sg

a

c3

u

to

o

u

©

•w««

'S

Im

2

©

3

©

o

u ©
033

^2

40NC0t^t>-
N o 05 00
«1J4 CO 40 CO

40 CD*"

t5 *•—

Is

•-H m

u

C^40C005i-H05t-«05
4O00CD00C0C0COCD
C0i-<00 00hJ1C0O05

cD^i— I t>r i-T oTcd^ CO*

l-Hl-HCDr«-CD40 40 0
05 05COi-HrH00540

1-H

CO HH
CD 40
•<
05

CD 05
CO

eo '

CO

e3

•4H

o

Eh

t«-t'«-O5CD00O5^Hti

t^4OCD00t-HC0OcD

0‘D(N'^rHCOC005

Nt^OOC^OOnfiCD
4Oi-H<0t^t—4O4£0O
05 05COrHi-H0054D

I-H CD
O 40

00 CO
05
CO HJI

CO 1

1-H

CO

s

o

e

^ <1^ 40 CO 40 »C CD 1-4 00 ti*

« 05 40 40 rt^ Tt< (50 N Hf4 1-H

1>- Tt4 40 CO CO d 05 N H»1

«o cf i-T c-T o o 00 i-Tcd
O N tN. 00 Hfi 05 CO O 00 O

O CO 40 1-H 40 N 1«4 CO

cddN t>^od't>^t>rcd' oT’itfT'

CO rH 1-H

lpi|

1-H ts. o N 1-H CO »D CO CO tH
■Ht4 CO 05 00 40 05 1-H

05 CD ^ O 00 N 05 CD ^

^*-4^c^»-hc*-^o coco
00 CD 05 05 00 1-H lO C9
C^^C040C04040CO 40CD

CO N N (50 bi- c-T cd cT'^

CD t-4 W

^3

3

C8

©

•4H

c8

HH

3

o

cC

©

63

w

> 5

•1-1 TO

'3,3

s.

2

tJO

o

o

o

©

>H

IH

©

◄

Gh

3

z

<

z

H

z

3

o

to

©

®

o
©
CO

O O
b£3

G

© orSQ a : cfl

2 g-S ^ P P'2 P'S i

.'3h50wcqco g S-q-gooEH
*3 r2 © o3 ca

o

©

(-•

03

o

n

3

c3

'3

(m

c3

o

CQ

>4

-4-^

•f-1

1-4

3

©

©

CQ

^H

63

•OH

©

o

CC

©

ja

>4

X5

'3 .

05 HH

2^

4.9

p+i

^3

® H

©

3

o

3

M

3

o

3

G 3
3 P

« 3
O c3

c

13+9

^'3

gs
s 'i'

P'3
© 3
o

©

Ih

o

- 2 ©
P^o3 ©v_

3i.-h Jh 05
o3 ^ © .4^ t.4

9 © > feS

o en ©

33.935 ^

4-9 ©*3 oiS

*ter?

TO 3 . -.-HS

w © a >>5
■25 "^-S-
-t:.g

“'§©©■©
-9 a ^

W« is 03 CO

00 o © ©

p ^ .4-9

•G

t-t 633'©'©
o a 3 ^ ^

pS-gOnPH

CO

63

©

1-1

03'

3 ^
o.t^

o o

©

2

©

,3

4H

©

1-.

c3

CO

p*H

c3

49

o

4H

©

1-t

o

a

'c3

w

>4

4-9

©

©

-3

49

'©

CO

c3

>4

49

3

3

o

o

©

u

o

a

C3 4^

«g

CO

©

4-9

c3

©

(-1

p s

P>>ClH

C3

CO

4-9

o

CO

l-<

o

t-l

o

o u

4-9 O

©

3

o

3

3

3

3

C3

b- *0

1 3

0 rH 1 ►-i

iW

CQ

CC 05

00 N 1 c»

d 03

CC 0 1

3

cs"

OOrH 1

63 3 ^
©.£? C3

(-1

o — ©
■ >
o

r-, 05 iH ^ ti
5 ©,3 3 3.

© t? © fci3 bfi

(H •<-< •1.-I

_

c— 40 a* M —

*H *T3

S p

•3 H-9

■5^ P
P 3

bp

o,p

^ 9

© w

CO

© a

3

3

49

©

Im

©

Oi

o

o

4.9

©

CO

©

Ih

63

©

o

Ui ^ 44

3 p.'p

^ tl£ M ©

2«fe-a

2-g^S

.2 ” S2

fe P'p Jr!
P3 © ©

60 ^ ^ iG

Si © 2

S gS'G

r " C! p

ps^ 05 r^ 03

3

©

©

3

03

2^

C3

p” c

©

9 p

o ©

u

©

CO

•'P.&
93 a s

a i

63 S

ja -S

(H O

3 3

ja o

© <©

3

.3 C«

3 O’

CO ©

>4* _

^ (S C3 4H

o ©

•a a

as
©

J3 *H
±3 .0

3
o

3

©

1-1

©

4H

CO

3

• pH

a

.3
© c3

0^ 2

© 3
4^ «3
53.2 3

4i © 4H

S)2’gg

49 3 ^

OT 03 o

©*3 iH ia

3 4-9

sao-l .

bJD -

Pi2

3

ia *-

c3 ©
© 49

_ .2b

3 ^.2 o

.a So. c

P Gig

i23

p g

© p%

at

sa

3 ©

P 05
3 3
© o

>4 CO

2 ©
c.a

go

gl

2 e

® 9

Gig

*•- t

P o

CO

C.2

■S.O

e.=2

C3‘3

© a

© 4-9

05 O

© p
1-1 *H

c. ©

© *3 •

^ 03^

t5i>

4.9 3^

to bjT)

’■S«^

TO 05 >»

2,3
o b

63 IQ

3

o

© ©
CO

2

>5 p

Q.9

§

0,

o

--P 2
•<.t; o
Ph ^'P

3

©Ph 5

Ul

0

3

Q,“3 P o

Ih C5
O 1-H ^ .
.^4.9 ,3

05 P 3 4H K*"

® *3
© o

g-s

p 8 s^'S gja.:q

a-b

- 3 3

a-s'i^ppp

2 m P

”2|l

‘^la

© U4

«3 o

S-GiS

3^ ©

^3

05 ^ 4-9 P 4:^

TO 3 gw g^^EnW 2 a

Hi* l> o o o

©•3.

o

1-1

In.

Os

0

0

c:

0

nO

u

M

r\

«5

g

0

s..

a.

k.

0

s

0

k.

o

S'

k.

s:

s

ffi

t

•M

c;

k.

0

ns

£

e

e

CC

•M

CO

CO

0

4.;

e

5^

•M

K

a,

ns

c

0

o

•m

•o

s

a,

4.5

t

s

0

s

i!

I

ci

I

CO

3

3

s

©

• -H

3

3

Ph

©r-

>3

•c P

Ah«2

o

Cl

hjT

IC

N CC CD 10
05 1-- Hji N o
00 f-H CC 05 1-H

lOO^iO rdh-T
CC 00 t>. f-H

05 CC N 00 05 1-H Dl
r- 05 CD N 05 o
CD Tt* 4© o 05 00

00 ^ 1-H CD 1-4 o
o cc*^ T-c eo ^

©

©

3

49

60

•—I

05

©

,3

3

a

CO

©

ft

>4

49

cs

•0^

©

©

ft

CQ

©

43

■^3

O 3

4-9. -H
3-0

<1

40

ID

40

00

05

CD

0

c

40

40

40

03

CD

CC

0

05

b-

CD

CD

05

CD

CD

03

00

05

40

CC

05

hH

00

b-

CC

40

CD

hH

03"

t-H

CC

cs"

«.

40

s

hC

o*

rH

od

cs

•k

03

ec

d

cd"

oSg

4J3 c

'p 92

ft43
© ©
3

635

CD

00

N

60

t>-

cc

49

©

© ©
bC3
63 C3
JL1

3 05

1-H *■— I

OCO
CO

C3

01

10

CD

CD

N

63

49

o

CD

00

r^-

ud

10

4e^

o3

1-t

©

si

©

3
3
3

CO M
tC iH
3 ©

•a^

Ih

c3

w

S)

o

iH

ft

60 3 w»
+* ^ ©

2 ® >•>

10

CD

00

t>-

CD

4^

4^

u ©

033

p

CD

CD

o'

05

44^

©
• -H
»-H
©
u

HH

C3

Ih

©

3

©

o

b-

CC

CC

2I

• W ^

(N

Q ^

cd

oS

4.9

o

CC

05

05

00*'

CD

00

4^

00

•k

03

00

HH

0

0

00"

00

0

CC 1-4 O CD

Tt^ 00 05 M4 HTfi

lO Cl !>- CD 00

CD »0 40
05 CC

I CD

> Cl

CC Q 40 00 CD IN 1^

So Cl CO CD 00

CC O 1-H rJH CD
05 N Cl 05 g Cl

1-H CD 05

Cl 00

t- 40 00 CC CC
CD CC 40 CC
b- H!tl 4tl 05

cT*^ 05 cd 40*
O CD 1-H f- c^
CC 1-H 4^4

O 05 Tt* 1-H 40 CC 05
05 40 40 ^ O 40

Tti hH CD'OO ’4J1 CC

oTcd cdod ‘^To c3^
00 05 Cl CC Cl Cl 00
CO -nji ec 40 CC 40 2>

cc"

40 ^ CD 00 CC
4!5 d 4#1 05 cs
cs d 05 O 05

—Ti^ 40*' 40 t>r
00 CO 40 CD
CC 40 1-H 40

CC 05 4!fi cC CD O cs
CC 1-1 CD d 05 CO
<30 40 40 CC 00 O

*1- p. ^ ^ #1^

o *0 CD CD rn d
CDCDt'-TP'00»Ot>-
00 40 CO CO CD l>-

•k

0000
0000
0000

'lo^d^i-Tcr

d 1-H 05 4j<

O CO CD 40

H cd«
ao

00000

QQOOO _

000000
4<d cd'cT'^d 40 tC cd

CC CD O 1-H CD CD 40

40 o CC r- 00 CD Tt*

^ -v .

f.— rH rH T— < hH hH

1

t

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

»

1

1

1

1

»

1

1

•

1

1

1

cn 3

1

1

1

1

9

t

f

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

as 44 y
•G P fc)

1

1

1

1

t

1

I

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

i

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

t

1

1

1

1

1

^^2

1

1

1

1

I

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

t

1

I

1

1

1

1

t

i

1

(

1

1

1

Ph

1

t

t

1

1

1

t

1

1

<

1

1

<

1

1

1

I

1

1

»

1

05 00
CD 1-H
40 05

40

rn

cc

40

05

di-Hd05t-
d CD O 05
CC 1-H 00 05 40

od crTd’' CD oT
O 05 HJ* d 05
d 40 rH 40 d

^ CC 05 40 40 o

cs CC 40 d 05 05 CC
1^ 1-H CC CD

od i-T j-TtCH^TrCd'

O d b- ,-H CC 00
1-H ^ CD CD CC bi.

CD

05

O 05 b-

?5§S

CC b- CD CD
b- 05 40 d

ec »o 1-H 40

05 CC 03 40 ^ 40 o
1-H CC 40 d 05 05 CC
05 b- H#i »-H ec CD

of i-Ti^ bd^ tCcd

CD d b- 1-H CC 00 1^
hh CD CD CC b- 1^

cd'

1-H CD b- O

ec -Hji d o d

1-H CC Cl O 40

CC" CD Hdfd bd
00 CO cs 05 o

05 CD t-H

cc'd*' ^i-T

cs d CC 00 O 40 cs
40 40d'^05db-
b- d O Hji Cl Hji Tt»

cs"'©" cs^bTcD d^b-T
b- 40 b- 00 rH <D
40 o H^1 05 40 rH CO

o^cs'd’' d' r-T ed cf

3

3

©

©

H.9

©

HH

TO^

• c8
3 ^

O Ih

W «a
> p

•«-H c8

34a
.2 3

,3

ft

63

&

o

©

o

o

5

h)

o
z
w

HH

o

•S d'p

p*n c3 © © **

3

o

CO

3rSf © ©
0.2 > p

.H9 iH*^

©

^ ^ L_j ©o3'*'^'~wwji-9rn

anm'^l'za weqno(i(,9iJH5

o 63 63

o

ass.s«g^

W ^ . _ _ .

o3 P b J? c3 03 p

106

«OT-*Ob«.00

CO »o ^ ^ c<»
O 00

1— I iO t«»

s

to ^
^ CO ^

«3 tOiC

tH<i<<Cs4

:2! £2 ^ ^ ^
£sSJ2?^^05»^»-^0i
MCSOO'^r-tCO^OO

oo^eo Vofi>r

?? ^ .-H xti xcH eo «?>

OS o o o

^ CO Q CO Oi ^

O O to CO ^ to

' *-• C^ CO

Igsas

OtCc^cO
^ ^

to O ^ to CO 00

Sr- c<» tol-c

04

•^os

t-

fH 00

04 04 CO

oooooo4r-

OSCOHjtOSOS

COOS

rH 10

rH CO

OS 04 CO
CO ^ to
to CO CO

rH ts, to

OSQQ CO rH OS
CO 04 to CD

04 F^

OS 00 0

00 CO CO

CS 04 'iji
04 CO C-

000 CS

04 CO
04 04
rH

CO rH 04 00 04"
CO »“H rH

rH rH

00" 04"

rH

CO CO" rH fh" 04
rH rH

C0 04"rH
to 04 t-

04"t0 rH
to rH

«k

rH

04

rH CO rH

O to ^ 04 CO

t-osoa ^ .

o>cotoc0r-cot0^co
tO*^»OC4tOi-tC40>Oa

CO i-ToTco'r^c^ VcocC

CO CO r- C4 ^

C4 ^

^ t'. os to
Oico C4 O 00
^ CO 00 o r-

cor^ to 00

*H c5 06

to CO TJ*

— *» •k

O CO tN.

C40C4C^tOtO'«J^O«0

t>t-C4C^w^0>»-r'O

OS 00 to
r^TfTr-Too

« s

CO 00

05 i^ wco

S£5S2!Soo®<55t»oc4o
OS00O500h-i— <CO^OOCOCD
rnr— »-^coo5r-to^cO'^^

oTi^ os trTtcTr^ocfr^r-rco'oo'
tocoTf'r-oocooosososaS
r- eo T-i

to r-

04 O

<000

to" CO*

S'**

ClCOOSr-i^ 04 to ^ OS to

COtOOCrHO OStO OOCOO

COCOC4.-IO TjiiO «OS«

os' cTod'co »o »oco

rH to IM

CO to

f-H »-t o to CO

CO CO 00 to 00
00 C4 CO •»<rc4

O 04
0*^0
C4 to
* «»
1-1 04 CO
f-H 04 T-H

g8§

O OS

00 000

CO CO i-H
1-* 04

cor^coto^ioc^^O

coeotooocococo»-(io

040s04c0'«j»c0t^'^c0

tO’^COoT^OCO’co'oi'

•-<04c0c0t0c0^^04

04 Tft 00004
CO ^ 04 _

^ OS CO OS

to* i-Ti-Tccr-^
eo t- 00 00

t0t0cor-i-^‘^04 04t0

■^i-tOCOOSOOCOOO

tOCQOrorTfrc^OiQOC^

CO‘0'^CO*OOCC>04Tt«

to r— CO T-^ T>H
oT

■^e400f-'r-t-cocD'^r-
t0i-HTfc0040SOOt0c0O

tOOJ^I'-COt-'^WOOOSTti

t£fTjrtCcO*'t-‘cO 00 Op
OSOSOS04CO^COCC'CO-^^
rHi-*^f-'Oi-^04CO

gp^ooost>-
O 04 00 ^ 04

r-- wi^ o

CO ^"f-HO^OO"
C4 04 O •-* CO
rH »-4 r}4 ,-4

»0 04
1-1
OS ^

00 OS
^co

CO OS 04
04 to rH

tQt-O.

r^ OS 00 >^04
r- ^ CO 00 o

rHCO OOt-CO

^os ofo^of

O t>. CO CO CO
CO^C0 04^

•s

CO

00 OS o
^ Os os
00 04<0

•t •»

to 04 »-«
CO 1-H to
04 rH

-itf< !>.

r- 1-< 04

00 1-H CO

to toco"

CO O 00
t-H 04

ocoososcoor-04co

O»O00C004rHl-H0SHft

0004c00c00-^000

^rHOOCOcOOSCO^OO

eoi-H04oooo*otooto

^ ^ r«« fH rH rH rH

OOOOrHQ'^t-

r- tO 0 Hf1

00 00 rH t- CO 0

pfc^T to" cT co'cT

04 rH •«»< 0 CO

04 t- rH to CO Hj«

230, 796
486, 099
149, 749

OOpHj<tOt'-C4CSOOO

tOOPC4CSOCOtOcOC4

t-COOt^rHC4COOSCS

Oj‘ort004‘crrH‘'co't>^C£r

rHC4CS<NtOi-HTj<cOC4
rH OS Hf 05-^04 04

CO

rH

OSOQCDCSCCCOC4rHC4rH(M

CSCHHt^CSOO'^OSOC-rHCS

tot— Tfkoeoot— cCt-4ooco

e4'rt!'t^cc'crrH"c^crofc>rrjr

iOOOi-HiOcsOOt-C-CSCSCO

CCCOCO'^iO'^C<40StCtOt>.

Hjrc4"

p t-

ooS
^ 0

CO

0 eo

•k

cs

t- rH to os

CO Hj< oa'O
^ CO t-\ 0 i-H

to 0 CO cToo

CO OS fH 06

c<»cscscs?i

657, 721

175, 409

24,071

19, 179

37, 163

■ 1,933,986

409, 720

629, 245

379, 618

206, 764

1,109,954

2, 965, 634

1, 187, 527

961, 170

1,147,914

806, 008

792, 284

815, 767

2, 026, 815

2, 060, 272

1, 636, 944

1,168, 357

604, 820

1,185, 802

670,857 i

rHCSOOtOQCO
rH to P to to

to CS 00 0 0 Hjt

•« «k » «k «k

rH to t— CD 0 Ht<

CO OS rH 00 CO rH

04 Or 04 <000 CO

470, 713
1, 196, 496
262, 291

156, 183
1, 516, 621
145, 461
23, 440, 624
114,116
1, 234, 956
513, 880
368, 805
373, 383

506, 349
545, 726
463, 088
654, 740
810, 688
696, 555
6, 114, 767
4, 444, 454
823, 706
940, 240
1, 222, 058

CO t-
t—
HJI fH

CO 0
CO ^

m

0

t— 00 rH »0 Q
CO rH CO CO ^
to 10 OS to

00 to'ccT to" r-T
CO to to CO

CO CO CO CO

•k

00 CO
to I-.

rH CO

ak

rH

toc^

29, 692

37, 742

45,092

CD 52 <c» rH

CO 00 to 04
CO 00 00 cs

«« as «k Vk

CD ,-H »0 rH fH
00 OS 04 HJ1

to to cs CD CO

»o

04t^OS

t— ^H

OS CO CD

*» ak ak

CD 0 to
to 0 to
CO CO

•t ak ak

rH CO rH

1,125, 044

1,483, 428

1, 108, 290

947, 326

951, 960

2, 518, 457

2,915, 696

1,875,004

1, 358, 402

571,999

1, 333, 308

762, 350

674,000
1, 181, 000
301,000
1, 900, 000
1,688,000
« 6, 497, 000

opo

S08

O4"cs"0p
to t— tp
rH 0 0

r^ rH CO

rH rH ^

8 2, 061, 000
10, 416, 000
342,000
153, 831,000

8 798, 000

8 4, 888, 000

8 4, 022, 000

8 1, 268, 000
2, 393, 000

2, 17G, 000
1. 879, 000
2, 250, 000
2, 579, 000
2, 704, 000
2, 354, 000
22, 506, 000
24, 363, 000
2, 394, 000
7, 437, 000
11, 036, 000

1

1

43,994,000 '

869,000 1

1

1,931,000
1,495, 000

6, 460, 000

2, 062, 000

2, 463, 000

§s

0 0

•t at

»0 04
t- OS
CD 0

•k •k

C4 rH

2, 435,000

866, 000

1,289, 000

11,655,000

1,116,000

2, 713, 000

822, 000

478, 000

4, 020, 000

8,130, 000

5, 646, 000

4, 790, 000

12, 284, 000

4, 617, 000

6, 193, 000

1,310, 000

7, 327,000

20, 297,000

4, 552, 000

3,311, 000

766, 000

6, 648,000

3, 140,000

s

OS

r-

CO

cs

CO

o CO CO 00
00 oC OS OS CO
t- 04 CO

04"co"i-h"«^*'

r-

to

^<0 o OS 04 CO

oco 00 dp 00

»HOO«OOOCS

C4t;^’VOS00

r— ^

04

CO

o

•k

CO

to rH
to CD
t- C4

rH 0 0 to

C- CD OS op rH

CS 00 ^ to

000

CO 04
00 ^

cs 0 rH
r- CS OS
OOSM*

CO CD toes to
0 CS CO 00 00
t- M CO 0 CS

OS M4 P
X P Mt
X Osh-

0 1-<X

0 cs p

OS X ^

rH
C4
CD CD

00 to OS OS

to rH to 00 *-<

C4 rH to C4 C4

^ ak

rH CS
CD 0
ot-

cs to fh'
to cs M<
CO CO to

to CD tCCS Mi'
rHMtCSOt*-
“5 00 tH toes

p’eSMi'
P X M<
rH rH 0

SxS

PM< rH

0

CO

•k

ak

CO

•k ak ^

rH P X

S CS

to rH
to CD
t- C4

hr rH 0 0 to
t- CD CS 00 rH
OS ^ 00 to to

00
P CS
0 cs

CSOrH

r- cscs
OOSM<

CO P to OS to
0 cs CO X 00
t- M' eo 0 cs

a> Ml p
X P M<
X OS tH

0 rH X
0 CSCS

csxcs

fH

04
CD CD

ak «k ak a,

00 to CS CS
to rH to OC rH

M ^ to C4 CS

CD 0

or-

CS to r-l

to cs Mt

CO CO to

ak ak ak •k ak

to CO Ch cs M*
rH -la* CS ot^
to X t- PCS

P os'k^

P X M
rH rH C?

Pk ak ak

0 1H 0
P X P
P M* rH

•k

0

CO

ak

•k

to

i-TtOCO

A *«

» CS

00 00
OS eo

rH HJ*

CS rH to to
rHr-tO'<a<t>-

*0 00 ^ to 0

04 Ml
CD 0

rH <0

M< cs CO
CD p 00

r-p to

OS OS cs P CO
t- 0 cs M 0

M* 00 CS OS CS

fH rH p

rH X P
XXX

Ml OS X
M rH X
CS X P

HT "la*
OOS
CO 00

oo'io

to CD r- op to
to cs 'itfi p 0

mTo

CO rH
CO 0

CO‘ os to’
cs cs c-
00 cs 00

tC CO CO P Ml
P p rH M* CS

r- p M< OS 0

C4 0 CO
X CS M<
P Ch CS

P X P
P M l>k
P CS t»

tO"TH

00

cs fh"cs csco

*k

cs rH FH

^ m. —

CO CS M» rH rH
CS

tc <0 oT

»— 4

<0 <d 40

co-^r-cooor-

CO O O OS CO to
00 O OS t- 04 O

O os" o" 04" to

O OS CO H}< t- Q

^ to CO O M» O

04 r- cp
to 04
O CO

toiotoi-Htotor-ooos

t-iotocooot>rg^Hro

CO CO to

04

04

go 1-H OS O OS
ooi-HTt*ii»-r-
CO 00 00 to CO

t- CO 04 r-
OS 04 o 04
to 00 HJ4 ^

tooo

COCO Ht<

to CO CO

i-T ^

osHfcoor-r-OJooo

COr-tOrH^lOHfOl-H

coo-cc*ocoosr-cooo

r-cocpcot-oo»or-toooto

'^^OCO^O>tOOOOi-HQ

cotocotor-^oooooocsco

CO

OS

00

04

CO OS
04

04

<0004AQOOSH«4t>*io
COgpOS04 04cOi-H'i*i*H<
■VC4rHCOi-HtOf-l04»

OoTcOCO'^^OroOC^

osr-t^O'9*i-tcor-o

r-*^e0’^»-io0i-^04®

04 r— ^ rH

CO r- CO
CO Q O OS
00 O OS t-

r-ososoo4r-
O OS CO t- <0
^ »0 CO O HT 04

04 r- o
to 04 04
O ^ CO

i2o"o"

CD CO

to CO <0

04tOi-Hi— 'OStOCOi-Ht-
O4tOtOCOCD»O0pHj*CO

t0'^otoo40‘ooor-

OS o- o r- Q to
CO r- to rH CO ■»r
CO t- CD to CO OS r-

ooi-HOsoosM'cor-coo4r-
O0i-Hrt<^r-OCDOS04004
tO

COOOoOtOcOOSOtOOO’-tf’^H

00

cor-Tootot-tooo^
co^ostoopQ*r'g

t- CO

CD

OS

CO

04 1-H

CO OS
04

04

t;-c004000»0-^00t0
CO ^ r— r— to rH r— ^
tOrH00CO00tOrHO4^

00 04 CO r-Tco' CO oT rn'c^
i»H00*OHt«tO04CD04O
OO’^'^COrHOOrHCOU?

04"r-"^ ^

Ht«cotorHoor-

^ CO to CO ^ rH
CO os t- 00 CO Hjt

* ^ ^ tk «k

CO OS OS
04 OS r-
CO OS CO

•k _ •s

rHC4 coeor-

to CO r-
<0 04 —<
r-coco

■k #k •k

r- to Q
00 O CO
rH 04 OS

co'r'Tco'

1-H rH ^

tOCO04tOHfirHC0COp

Or-rHiOOOrHCD-iJlO^

O-OtOrHCOOHjlCOrH

c^ e<r oT co" rH*" co rn'

wSOHfHoOtogpoQHfcp

ior-i-Hr-o40C4C4t25

r-r-r-ot^osOrHoso4to

COCOCOOOCO»OCOt004HjiOO

t^tO0S04C0Hj'00OtOC0i-H

OrrH'‘oscroforto"»OCO»OCO

cocoos'vitf*r-co«Dto

C0O04r-rHlOrH000S

OOrHCOCOOOOSrHtOOS

COOSCOr-040-^CDO

00

op H»<
to HJ1

04 00

CO

CO

04

OS CO 04 CO

•D «> W

C004COCO'^'itf<04 00HfirHCO
to CO rH rH

0004 rs. 04 00
. _ CO 00 OS 000s

OSO-O400tOH»(kOCOHjl

<0" 04‘‘04"Grt-"io"rH00 V*

rH CO

cs cs P rH p P

X ® 0 0 P M«
cs 0 X to rH X

X P cs

rH t>. P
CS CS r-

CSXXPPCSM'prH

XrHXPCSOl^prH

0>XPrHXCSt-00

Ph-rHPt>rpt-rHOM‘X

XPM*M*POt— rHFHprH

t-PCsXOCSXe4M^XX

cs r-
r- X
X cs

XX X X
cs P P P M*
Mt cs X M< 0

X X
C- P

cs cs

X M* P
0 0 X
X X ©

oxpes rH
f- © p p 0
X © P M* P

X cs ©

© rH P

cs r- ©

XrHt-
t- p p
© p p

©CSX©©CSrHXX

Pt-XMI©CSI-.©CS

•VPXPXrHXM*©

CO CO CO rH OS rH

M< OS rH X M* P

CS P OS P 0 M*

X rH t—

0 P X
CS CS CS

cs" Mi' p" cs" cTp" p" cT OS

XXM'CSPCSCSt- rH
PCSpHi-hCSihXCSP

0 OO'r-rp’eO’HjTx'CS cs 00 r-l
M<PXCSXPt-P^M<X

xcsxr-csoo^oxx

M< OS

a< as ak a. ak

pt—ppr—
P Cs X cs P
p cs P P 0

x'r-"
t- cs

X ©

Mi'xTT
cs X X
X cs X

ak a. a» a> ^

©t-t-t-c-
X p cs M* ©
Oi P M» © i-t

©CStH*
X M* rH
p © ©

tr" Tj? t-'

g§g§

P P 00 CO 00 P rH ©“rH
©M<XX©©rHO©
©C-PXPPPXP

#H CS eoM^'r^

a. ak ak

X t- X

rH rH ^

«o <«

c^odrH“cri-H’'orcd'cs"eo‘

«o ^ ^ « CO ao «D

CO' cs" 00“ CO M*' M^ CO OO Mi F-rp'

P X rH rH

ak ak

P f-H
00

0

csrH oTcsx"

Ml" cs"

cs’ rH rH

ak * ak ak

X cs Ml rH rH

cs

<© to 0

to* <0 40

a> ak ak » ak ak

pCSCSrHt-PrHXM*

rHCO

Ih

.2

73

§m

<0

o

a

o

T3

>

o

u

Ph

• •

T3

•o

q; cy

® ^ w 3
o bfl a,j ^
a o'w

M rH

Ih O

o

.a

OQi

2
H

<

>-]

i-4

Q
p

rn • •

e te- a

J— <

o

w

— » • 03

‘ » O O rtk ^ 2 ' Cf3

k. k. hr J3 2

^ H '3 3 B

gS&go«igg^g-g««c

Ih CJ 3 © © •—! o C.4-S O

^^Zb'^<inZZZPimP><

© ©

:z; 12;

u p

§5
t> a
©

a

. ©

p ©

<^3

Ih

©

CO

03

I

p-p-p

P

S3

■T' w as © 5 •*»»««

iias,jq’C'g,c3.-tS©^

G<1<JPPOW»SP4f^pHM

p

p

p

©

04

w P
a ®

p

<1? fe

©

Ih

Ih

C3

m

$

CO

©

M

«<

fii

H

w

o

w

Eh

p

o

:z;

*0

©
^ W)

§ o

• • *3 I— ©
.»;« 0.0
oOco.g
O

as CO ^ ©

© £^3 fl 3
S ^ © ©

as

3 4H -Hd (m
W lH»rt 3 tH

> o a o ^
WP^SccE-'

CO

.a.t5

OQ

CO P

© o

o

>t

o

CO c3 5

^ *3

W ©X3

«gg'-2a^.S£g-a§-3a"gg"-a .sgs®l«

|M^^2PSO(§ta gPSS gMm 2 o<;QOCiOP

S .2 5 .2 e-~

MS S S

CO

'V

•rH

p<

03

Ph

" © 1^ --

■0.2 § «

3

Q.

ce'

©

p

p

a

cs

-9
©

r-, '9
'^.20

I.N «

©ja

ZO

452436

107

See footnotes at end of table.

#

^0

3

C

0

u

0

Q

C

Q

O

Cl

o

li.

0

k.

K

z>

S

S'

k

"B

c

3

3

*M

c

kl

0

-3

S

3

S

3

4*^

Vi

•m

Vi

Vi

3

Ot.

•ca

£5

St^t^o
»0 Oi ^
lO •"( t>> CO

^10(^00"

OOOC^CO

»0 CO

»>

»o

CO

CO

CO lO o
^ ic »0 CO

00*^05
00 CO !>•
Oi IC

^

;3 Si

o>

lOt^OO

coco

T— » ^

^ c^oo
O 1^

CO CO o
lO ^

g qp CO y? ^

. I o> lo CO

!>- t"- t

coco^oco V
no o5co

»o c^
>• CO 00 o>
:-^ f-4 io CO

o

o

fl

03

<*■»

OT

CO

c

3

a

Q.

©

s

fi.

>1

•4-a

3

o

•o

p.

CO

©

o a

■*i» -H
<1

h» lO OJ 1-H

O Oi

coco 00

«? CO CO oT
^woo

Oi

C4 CO

^ o

r O
I »o

■ o

<N

CO

«* vs 1 •k

!?:

I
I
t
I
I

CO

1

t

b- b- X

Cl t>. ns ns X 05

CD Cl Cl

1

t

1

1

1

1

1

1

t

t

1

1

P

i

1 X

Tfxnsf-t'^nsFHX

rH'Ffxxnscicox

NnscD'Ff05XXt>-

CD X

1

CD ns Cl

0 0 r- ns Cl Cl
0 0 X X

05 Cl CD

1

1

1

1

«

1 05

Ff 'Ff

0

1

ns t^. ns

05 fH CD

1

t

r

1 CD

05 fH

CD

1

1

05 X

«« ««».•» p«

XClCDXgFH

XCl

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

I

1

J

1

1

1

1

1

■ CD

1

t

FH CD 0 ni C5 05 CC

X X

t

1

05

1

1

1

1

1

1

^onso^X'ifFH

tF.X

1

1

1

t

1

1

t

1

1

t

1

1

)

•

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

^ Q a

o © S

xj qs
••-• © ra
•< P.jq
' © o
'O

CO CO o
CO OCO iO
00 ^

lo co^co^od

CVIC^OOC^

^ W 0> *H

O-l o

»0 00 Tt< 05
CO c^

S'^oTt^ToT

CO 05 t^
CO

CO O CO

o o t^

00 CO

*M lO

»o *c o

*-H lO 05

*o

o »c »o
CS

00 CO
»0 CO

O O 1-H t>. CO CO

gc^ CO 05 iO CO
00 00 6) O rH

t^ododod>^'*‘or

fH CO

CO O
. ^
C^ T-t

co"t>ror

lO CO

CO

<N

»o

&

05

00 •«»* 00 ^ CO

lO 00 CO CO CO CO
CO »0 »0 •-"M 05

00C^t^C0C^O501O
OTt<i-Hi-HlOC^C>^t^
CO c^ •-<

CO

§

•k

00

CO 00 O •-!
O 00 CO
TT^OSOO
^

c<0*-<05
^ CO

CO »0 ^ i© CO GO CO 05 o

C^ ^ CO CO CO no 00 f-H t>.

05 CO ci C^ ^ O Cl 05 I-H tN.

00 c© I© i-T of oT o cd* Qco

't^05 05 ^CO

0^ Tt* 1-H ^ T»< CO r-t ri*^

©

© ©

tc a

« flC

sS

00 00 CO

t— I CO 05
CO 05 CO 05

tfoTus cd

05 1-t o

,-( ^ ic d

SCO CO

01 00
05 »— I 05 00

cdcf coo

CD 05 -H 01

C<1 cit>.

ns X 05 X
CD 0 05
FH 05 05

X X If.

c- ns
X ns 0

Cl 0 CD CD Cl Cl
CO X 0 'Ff FH X
CD tF. ns CO X FH

X ns 0

X 'Ff ^

X 05 0

t- tF. X ns 0

tF» FH t-F If» 0

Cl OX FH s

1

1

t

t

1

iX
t 1—4

lO

PCOXXXOfhX

Cinsusoxxnsoo

OX-^cD05XCDX

050
05 tF.

ns

■Ff oTcdcd

05 FH CO

FH Cl FH Dl

fH ^

X tF- Q

'Ff 0

ns tFr© COO
Cl fh ns W t- X
CD

FH tdci*

Cl ns X

ns ns cdoToT

Cl ns 'Ff X 0

FH FH N. X t—

t

1

1

1

Icf

1 ^

1 fH

X x" CD" fh" x" x" -Ff

C1-S405CDC1fhXX

OOfFpCD-FfOCluS

•»

CO

XOQ

0 00

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

I

1

1

*• «k As

^ ^ CO ^

«k

Cl

t>» CO Q D1

O CO O 1-1

-H Ttl CO CO

CO CO CD cs

l>- 00 -H

CO CO Cl 'Ft'

O CD o ^-

00 CD 00 t-

CO n5 05
05 lO
05 00 1-1

'Ff't'-C^OOCOt'-
Cl O CO 05 05 !>.
CD DJ Cl CO CD CD

00 CO Cl
no 05
*0 CO t-

00 05
»— • 05
O X CD

CD X Q
o »0 00 X

•Ft* 05

T-H 05 O 1-H X no o no ns
lO^rHOi-HCDX® nocft
CD Cl CO X 1—' I'- CD X^

s

05 If- If. ns

0 Cl Ff Hf

fF- FH 05 ns

^t^o

X

•f •>

?2

Cl CD 0

ns cf CO

X ns CO CD

05

Cl 0 FH t--

'^coXXClcD'Ffns

^ «k

0 X

0

X X X 0

X X fH -Ff

•Ff 05 05 'Ff

Cl X X

X

Cl GO

X X -Ff

t-- ^ r—

•Ff ns Ff 0

0

fh X

TfnS05CDFHXC105

Q X

t-.

CO ns ns Ff

ns fH X

Cl Cl FH X

0 fH 0

GO

^4 fH tL

If*

Ff

•Ffns05XO'FfFflF-

4^

Cl

cc

Cl

X X

Cl

tn

a

3

©

3

3

g

©

©

V3

c3

c Cit
*3 O

u

c,

a

3

CO M

u i?

cQ

s'S ®“*

Si

O ^

0^

Cl r«- Cl CD
X 05 05 tx.
X Cl X

oooo
o ooo
oooo

•k

o

X n5 X X
X O 05 o

1C ^ t>.co
i-( Q X *-»
t>i CD 05 CD

ns X O
XXl'*
''9'

Cl i-< X CD ns ns
X X X CO X o
ns •Ft' "1^ IC o X

X X CD

X o 1-1

X CD Cl

X t'- X Cl X
CD •-< X X f-«
I'* ns 05 ns

O 05 2

o

t'-

_ -FJ*

X

nst>-*^}*.-^OClXCO
ClCDXXt'«-X'^ “
'Ft' X 00 CO o 05 o

Cl

X -H

X

X 'Ft’

^ ^ fh D1 ^ ^

X f-t

ns X

^ Vi Q
^ M ^

^ o

Ofe

».•

bts

o

u

fU

Ji

2

3

H

©

©

2

©

a

©

o

Is

^2

Cl

Cl

ns

si

CD

'Ft'

X

W F-4

<Q

03

•4^

o

$341,617
360, 692
3, 726, 590
280, 616

76, 728

9, 713
289, 286
958, 301

CD X f- X
CD 05 X X
X tF- 05 05

ododx 'Ff

CD CD X 05
X fH

0

565, 402
64, 340
1,679, 644

0 X Ff 0 CD X
5 CO 05 05 X 0
X X fh CD ©

'^FH'FfOCltF.
ns X X X ns FH

90, 178
85, 825
139, 373

173, 424
1,504
151,831
261,427

If. 0 CO

XXCD fH

CO X tF. X

Cl 0 Ff

0 X 'Ff 0 CD X

X ns X

"Ff Ff tF- tF

fH fH 0> fH

Cl FH X 0

CD 05 X X

0 ■Ff

^ CD 05 05 X 0

tF- Cl tF.

Cl 0 t- Cl

ns Cl ns CD

tF- tF. Cl X

X tF. 05 05

Hf X CD

X X FH CD 0

FH X X

Ff US FH rf

•.

fh CD 0

nS05 05X

GO 06 X 'Ff

ns Ff 05

^ A

^ fh Ff 0 Cl tF.

•k •• •»

0 ns 05

*. •- •-

X fH X FH

•^ CD Cl X

tF. X ns

CD CO X 0>

CD CD (F-

»0 X CO X ns FH

0 X X

t- ns <D

^X tF. Cl

Cl 05

X fh

0

ns CD

fH fh Cl

'Ft' ns 'Ff' X

Ttl X -Ft* X
CD 1-1 X O

»-i 05 ns t>-
X -H X t>-
X

Cl X X -Ff
X CD ns X'
O ns Cl O

Cl 05 CO
X O nS

Cl -H o

X

Cl

XOsXCD^X’FfX

-FfCDXnsOSOST-^CD

0'FfnsciI'^05i-<0

X Cl

^ X ^

t'-Cl
Cl 05
X t"-

Cl

'5» ns X

X 'Ff X

CD 1-* X o

fh 05 ns i>.

X -FXt>.
X

Cl 05 X

?52i

Cl X X -Ff o
X CO ns X o
O ns Cl O Cl

X05XCDi-^X’FfX

SCO X ns 05 05 I-F CO
Ff ns Cl h- 05 fh <D

Cl

tF.

X

XCl

fH X

X

t^Cl
Cl 05
X t>-

cf

cs

•4^

o

X CD t'F
X "Ff 05 X

ko US ns r-

Cl Cl 05 ^
fH

05 05 h-

o t- -Ff Cl

ns ns t'-

05 X 05 t-

CD ns X ns

1-^ "Ff t-

X ns X
05 -< o
X Cl X

•Ff US CD X 05 ns
1-1 !>. Cl X X
ns CD 1-H ns X ns

4

CD^X C

«k •«>

D 05

«k ^

fH FH 0 CD

X ns 05

ns 05 CD X "f X

X .

s

X 05 <

5 X

X CD t- ns

Cl X tF

t- X Q t- Cl CD

s

^ 1-4 ns 'Ff

0 05 ns fh

X Cl fH

CD Ff ^ CD 05 X

OC

CO X ns

X CD CO

t'— ^ F^

05

Cl

■Ff

•Ff FH fH CD Cl -Ff Cl

05

•Ff FH ns X O
Cl Cl ns Cl o
"Ff ns o Fi o

‘Ff'x ns o cf

X r- X ns Cl
O CO X F^

X cicfci

O X ^ ns
ns 05 CH>.

OO “Ff t>.
Ofh

X X ^ ^
Cl X t>-

$

05 05 Ff fh ns -Ff X X CO

Ot'F^^05 05F-4 nSFH

XnSF^XOSXt- oci

CicfnsQXcDcd'Ff nfci
fh 05 CD ns CD X CD I'-fh
05X X tF. X X ns Cl uSfh

cdcfCltflCtFr«DX onf

ns ^ fh fh

F-.

3;S-Oa «
-^Xi 3 > a
£ 3 © *c S
^ a 0,5

t'F X 'Ff X
FH o 05 X
t>. X ^

rfx“x nf

I— I ns ns tF*

O Cl Cl ns
»

Cl Cl 05 fH
fH

05 »c fh ns
t'F Cl o o

!>• F-i X 05

00 X Cl ns
Cl o -Ff fh

X t- 'Ff ns

CD 05 Cl
X t'F X
— 4 fH X

-Ff Cl Cl Cl X
fh Cl 05 05 'Ff Tf

ns Cl X X t-

Cl i>.
"Ff 05 Ff
fH fH 05

O 05 FH fH ^
ns FH FH Q X
FH X X o

ns US -Ff Cl

SX Cl X
05 -Ff X

CD 05 0 ns

Ff ns CD t-

CD 0 1-4

ns 05 tF X fh fh

tF tF 05

x’ tn" c

S X t'^

ns CD 0

0

X 05 ns ns

'f fH Cl X

X ns

tF 0 0 05 tF

0 X X

X tF ?

J5 1- ns

05 fh 'f

fh CD CD

OOCDCl

Ff Cl Ff

CD ns 0 tF 05 X

ox

FH CD X t* fH

tF CO X

tF

'^fHfHCD ClFHFfCl

05

^ fFfh^ X ClClCl

05 t- FH Cl X o no FH FH CD

00 CD CD X OO X Cl X CD FH

t"- FH O O X FH FH <D Ff Cl

O nfxFf" ns edoT ns <dcf

C1XXCDC1050X ns FH
Cl 05 X t'F fh e*s CD ^ CD fh

oTci Cl f'^Qdtfcdx o^ns
ns w ^ fh

*3

3

a

©

•4^

03

■*-s

CO

o g

i2
> 3
zi ca

© iH

3=^

p.

g

bJO

o

©

o

'3

©

3

-S

a

o

o

nS

<

3

H

25

o

H

Pi

o

2

©
©

03 3-^

• • »3 O 5 ©
3 W W g §

« a'2^'3

ta

H
3
o
w

p

en

z

3

H

p

o

OQ

<

3

H

z

»

03

B

03

XJ

CO

e

03
X
bP

■9;;h

pqS

©

t

3

o

•w

bfi

3

• l^

X3

CO

03

3*^

o • •

®3

be ‘SC

3-9

li

^c5

• • V4

© o
g © «

05

©.£2 0
QQpsi

©

a

>

3

o

*3 •<J k! • •

CG 9 ^

§.2 S

o P 3

a

3

2

CO 52

<»

TS

I 3 ©

M OM

••S|g

.»o3,_f 00330. — O

gqH£w,g.S^rt«

M ^

© .3

e >

^ Cl 4.5 FF
‘ ^ § p

3

o

-4.H

be

3

3

3

w

• •

.9

be

.3

>

CO

©

*©

o

jr— ^

be'3 ©

.. p 3 3

.2<1^§

.ghPOcQ

'3

o

>»

<=>

© © ^

CO > p ©

O *© 3 ^

Sa 0:35

© osrj 3^

•fH L^F-i Q

QCl ••QjPi -w
o^ ca w

3
o ©

3 3^3

ca ca 03

CQ 3

03

a

o

©

ca

o

FT2 © TO c8

108

u

c3

O

c

C3

•a

c3

S

o

o

CQ

o

o

03

>»

Xi

T3

> w
o o

•t^

a

<x>

a

K

O) XI

fl
O

c

C3i4
9 a

<o

a

o

9

<0

U4

a

O)

u

4>

J3

03

03

o

• *

a>

b4

o

a

c

03

O

9 i;

c

cO

^T?

ccS

to 03
2 ♦->
ge

^ o>
O'O
o 9

,S3

o

9.

92^

0« W rt Qi

05 .-*5^5 2

S b «

&co2 « S

^*3 *05 ^
■g g "S-a

a >*S

■2 2 os-gtt

02 fc-;S 0.t;

9*9 £

9 m

OS 5- CO w

O bO P O ®

s-a^::'

e3

CQ

o

>*

4^

»M

u

o

;9

4^

CO

03

0>

s

9

9

o

O

u

o

a

o o

u

o

ce 08

_ 4>

ag"-*"

2J-S -504 04.

CJ c^-c U« .

CO "q CO 3«2
o 2 o
*9 £ £.

3 25 9 9.

O -H O b£ bJD

O w 5 *fo £ ^

73

©

4^

O

' 9

‘O

.2

©

li4

03

O

9

O

• pi4

4^

03

• bi

a ^

rt o

c

2*9

« SL

OJ ^

p

«g

o

*9

©

M« Qj

©

9

’ CO

' £

I 3

’•=§

I cj (> ■■”

I a _ CO

; S 03 a
I bi> fc ©

' 9'C.t2

;^C=4 ©

’-2 -9

^ 4-»

I o

r.

*9

^ O P
© « 03
'

® 9

u ©

-■s|

■? c P*

3 9

CO O*

bo ©
-9 CO¬
ES

03 C

© ©

o ■ '

CO

9
_ O

>» w
o S3
c.ft

a-s

©

CO

9

O

CO

u

©

CO

&£

9

CO

o

E-*

©

4^

o

9

4^

o

£

©

Ii4

03

•9

©

©

9

.2

9

O

©

b4

©

4J

CO

9

o 03
9i ©

O o

CO

bX> ^

P’S

'S’S

a '3

03

9

©

CO

©

O

9

S

CO

9 *7^

a

*9

03

03

<«a
P°2ia

O. P* C8 03

flS 0< 9 © tH

" 03 O,” ©

5 ® -Ji 9 ©
bo ©
c8 © ^

£ on

©.2

9

©

*-• _
03 >
O

©

«a

9*9

03

©

©

9

© >

2 c

9 4^
i- '9

C. ®

® is

IM © .

CO <1

2p-,

, • -j3
4f co^

CQ ©

^ © >»

® "S

<0 X

ats
'p £
53
Q.
O

©

9

O

CO

^ 9
^2

©

©

CO

<-.■9

a

© Qh ©

- - .^ 03 9 9

© w • •■ cj ©

»- o w © 'b 9

-

>>co

Im C>

o

©

> K o w ©'b X

=to"a^S255

Sfl-aslas-g'

©

©

2 P*'© t? bo

sgw^5H*S2

5^-4 o- - - 0.9

o

u

a

00

Os

0

k,

0

C

0

2..

(M

•V

«Q

s

0

2k

0

2k

K

0

o

h.

"0

•tX*

S'

t

s

Vi

t

•w

ti

im

Q

C

0

ki

c

9

ki^

Vi

Vi

Vi

9

4k

9

k)

•M

2k

a,

9

4k

9

S

0

I

I

u

'o

H

©40

«85

>2
*r P

.f- 9

W5

o»

S

05

o

’4t< o c^ »o

CO i-H

CO c^ o c^i

cso5co4««c^»-itc.-tts.r>.t^

eooooooo5coc>»t>»t'-<oi>-

'000’4j‘r'«oO’^’^o»ob'CD

05 0.-^ C4 05 Ub 00 50 CD CX) Cvi
OC ^ CO CO O 50 o O 50 «— I »o
coc^r- CO i>- ■»!»< f-H ^ CO CD 05

00 CO 05 ^

® *-< cs

50 50 ^
CO 05

00

00 »0 <4^ 1-4 D«
•-4 O 50 50 t>>

“:§85

0Q-H-Hr-c0‘49’O5i-H5o
© 00 CO c4

8

ci

»0 05

2 da

_ -- 00

cD-^or-

s

©

*9

9

9

X)

9

Ph

s

9

©

©

©

©

©

«

3

9

9.

o

©

a

>5

©

*©

©

a

03

©

x:

5 P

4>A

-92

CD

•4t<

50

o

00

00 O CD 50 50
•4f< CO CO CO
r- 1» 00 CD 4^1

iXio" 50 CD

t>-0QO«DCSC0C0 00 00‘^C005

SOOCO — t^’«t>|>.0st>»00505
OX<'i^t^CDC^CDOi-<XiiO

gCDO05500rcDc00ri-r«D05

S4^1 CO
CD CO
r- 50 CO

dg*-'

50 00^CDi-4iOO00X*
»-405»-iCO»05050i-hCO
05C400 00‘^'«f<050-k<

1^ O ^ 50
50 o

50 05 CO -k*
C4

05 00C0005QCO

CO o> 1^ 50 00

r- t- 05 CO 05 00 05

S^OCD ofoo CnT-^
t>- 50 CO 00 h- »

9 C3

o © S

•*-> -b »-•

*9 P2
♦•4 © r9
< 9.^
© ©
'V

t>.

CO

P

P

P

00

00

fl¬

P

p

Tp

p

oe

P

p

o

p'

9"

P

«ft

Q

*1

•ft

00

p

d

o

t-

P

CO

p

CO

CO

T»550pr-oo-^c^oc^oococD

C0COC^r-0500'4f<C0Ot>-CD0550

05i-H»-lC0»-4OC^O^'^5O-^00

t^50 50wC^D4r<-00
I 00 05 CD »0 O

s

I D5 ^ Oi Dl
1 05 r- <N 1-H
I i-H 04 D4

CD CD 05
50 O 50
»0 f-4 05

CD c4“cD

SS2

50 05 O
05 CO 05

-H ^

»0 P 05 04 00
O 05 CO 00

50 00 i-H o «5

i-H 05 C4 CD 05 'k* -H
O -4 05 00 »0 CO *D
1^ CD ^ 00 CO

— ^ 05 CO I—* ^ 05 _

'^-Hoor-r^x^O’^p

t- CO T»t ^ 1-4 c5

_ ^S^SScS

1-4 ^ ^ rH »-4 C4 ^

©

© ©
W9
© ©

Td-©

3'^

w ©
©

©

4J

o

p

CO P P O

p

O P- Tp p

d

CO P CO P t-

50

50 f-< P tX P

00

-4 CO d d P

t-

•ft

TP

^4

CO P I-H P -4

5DpC4X'r5'OCOCOt^COi-4
C4 P O C4 Oi-O CO C4 D4 50 p
pD4C0C000i^50C0O50C4

-^CCOOCOPPOOQOOO
5.0 0PC*4--t-l--cD-H
'^t^t-COOOi-Hb-OOCO

•4j<00t^
D4 50 00
00 P C4

CO -^00
^ 00 t-
C4 50

PCOiOC4P*-.i-hO-^
*- iC4505Ot>.00C4C4O
coi-Hppot^cor--^

Or'4f-Hrf<“cOOC4‘50,X
TJ55OC^Pt>»PPC0P
1-4 1-4-4 10 1-450C^C<

— •• •.

— 4 50 -H

c> 50 1-4 p o p r-

eooooPpPco

O *k* 1-4 1- 00 OC l>-

p ^ jX gl" 50 pd

50
CO ^ CO

05 !■-
'tfi cs

•4

»o

00

p

50 00 00 P CO
<0 I-- 50 CO

-4 50 1-ir- o5

CDOdcX -4-4
05 CD CO -4
CO CD -4 p

PCOC^t>*t>*COi-4-4|N.O-^»0^

P005Oi-4pCO5O5OpCOi-4O5P

p-^OO-VWOOOOMi-icOOP

od'^c4^»oortXcX5o^<^cctC-4

-4 05-450 -4p-4t>.C0t^50OC0
COPPt-50 00PC005D)pi-400

CD -X

CO 00 P

§cs r-

p50
CO CO

50 eo CO

pOPPDJOOOp

DiP»O5Ot4.C0t>*l'-.^

4}4r-,o>50oo^r--'^

od'4Xp-4‘*dcDO»dcd

pcsot>-4j4eococot>-

-405CSCO-4p04j4^

^ CO CO GO 1^4
oo’^cococo'^r^
00 00 CO 00 O 50 CO

S‘ 00 00 CD tX 444 oT
_ ^ p CO 50 « ^

50 P 50 P 00 r-

a

©

©

9

©

©

a

. “5

441 ©

o S3

9

9

9

© ^
b£ ^

9

Ul

©

t-t

9,

9X3^

o

p

50

00

00*

05

00 P CD O -o*

r- iO p o P

O -4 05 50 1-4
50 cX CD -4

00C^C^Pppl4.5OPPh*.C^p

00i-4C050OC0PPC0OPDir-

t-^t-pr-»op-4r»05oc^cop

-4«XcXXcXcX cX cXcXod

C^OOP Cl CD -4 po 50 »0 P CO 00
^POO Tf4 p o O CO 1-4 00 »o
Cl -4 CO -4 o CO r- 1-4 -4 ^ d

Cl go o Cl 4t4 CO -4

Cl Cl ppco

O O O 00 *0 1-4 t>*

s

O Tj* CO Cl 00

Cl

*o

4J4 CO 1-4 Cl CO CO CO Cl CO ^ 00

•=3 S

2

£

Oh

©

©

t-

2

©

9

©

o

ta

1

1

1

2*-

1

© ©

1

(M —4

1

Q 2

1

1

1

1

1

©

©

4J4

p

CO

•5

r-

p

iO

o S CO r- 00

f-4 CO P »D O

-4 >1^4 5^5 d 1414 4^4 •<^

P CD OO Tf* 50 50 P
O 00 Cl d CO 00 00

p d C- d CD
' d CO “S* P P
' CD 00 O !■- P

p P 50
-4 0 0
CD 50 00

4^'OClOp00i-450CD

CD4f45O4^4dPPC000

CD’^OOCOi-4dOOO

eo -4 4t4 CO p p 50
CO 50 P CO O 4-1 -4
CO CD O Cl X* f-4 00

d 4J4
P 4J4

-4 CO 4t*
CO P Cl
h- Cl r- CO

Pb-5OCOi^00i-4C04j4,-<00Clt4»

OOCOr'-b-drrtop^fOOPP

P4J400P»OPP4J*004^44J4C'14»'

1-4 d ^

CO -4 00
O 4f4 CO
4J* p p

cX 50

ppOe050Pdp-4

OOOOOP500C15050

4j4l-4ti-PPCOPt>-d

4fp P P t- P p
00 50 P -4 P o
50 p p r- 00 CO -4

p

cc

•4f< d -4

d

00

p

c-

co

d

o Cl p d d
t- CO 4}4 CO d
d P 1-4 CO CO

CD Xo »DP
CO CO P Cl Cl
-4 PCO P

t4*r'-i'«-p-4f-pppd— ir-
pTt<C0Pd00i-4PC0PO00
t-COi-4pdPPOOOPOOOO

d t>. 4f4
OPP
-4 CO

CO o •■4 p

S S o p 1^

-4 Tt* -4 p d

O ^ pp

C- 00 CO

dcoodoocop
d P 4J. CO P CO
p 'k'co O 1^ P -H

p p o t>. d p

84J< f>- 00 4t4 p p
00 ^ -4 p t- p

CO t>. O
P 1-4 00
P 00 -4

-4 P

d o

C- CO

1-4 4t. CO p ti- 00 00 CO o
Pt-« d P 4J4 4t4 d CO

copp -Hp-4dcod— •

p CO 1-4 ti- 1-4

codco-^d-^eoi-4co

CO

4^ p

CO -4 4J4
-4 d «.

dO-4f-1-4OPdC0

• s* r* •

^ ^ 4f4 P p

s

— ©
caSTJ ©

© ««

©

9

o o

^ 9.59

r--

p

50

o

CO

cX

CO

«o

4C4d0 4f<b-

So p 4f« 4J5
CO CO CO P

eX tX tjT 50 tX

t- d P CO 4J4
»-4 f- CO P t-

-4OP00'^-4ti-P-4C000ii?'t^

dPPdot^ooo-4coco»ot'-

■^i-4pC0t'-'^00'^C0OPPd

4}r5d'cXppiXodco‘cd‘p»dcdod

PPi-40OP00PCDCOpi-4t-t^

OOOp44pt-PPOO«bi-b-CO

p CO 1-4 r- -4

4f4dc0’^d'^coi-4C0444j.p^

CO •-^

-4 f- p

P CO -4
CO 4t< r-.

tXc>ca
00 1— t-
-4 P P

cdX id

-4 d ^

dC0Pd*O4t5*-4dS
^COX't'-piOP'^d

50d-ppcd-diXpor

Ppgpu^oopp

00 d d h- p -4 *i»< ti- o -H p -4 d eo d p

O P P P P CO O

f-4 0Cippr>-i>*

f-4 p r- p r- p

O cfoo o CO rXp

4»* Q P 4»? 4J- gj p

d

p

p

d

1-4 O p ^ TP P P

s

9

9

©

•ft

©

w

©

CQ^

X05

9 ©

O u

© 03

> 9

•—I ©

9X3

a 9

X3

9.

©

fcM

bd

c

©

o

t

9

5

1-1

o

is

w

»

z

©

•4^

o

© <

9^3 > O

Oi^.C a

9

»4

.o

■V •

® no

©

©

9

©

9

>

o

l4

Oh

a

f4

i

»

k)

9

9

s

2

u

® ' ©

59 ' s

2 J© ,
o’SP^ g

•5.3
©
©

O]: & o«;S S

OT ^ ^ 5 © « 2-2 99 ® 5^ 2-2 a '-J

£>^^9 9 © ©;2 o ©XI n-go

^<jw!2i:2;:2;tf S<j<JwoWhSeL,

9

2
9

® ©-i4

©

© '9

Im 9

.© ©

a

^ ®

©X »4

9 0®

©
fl-a

o ®
9
rt

'z

'z

©

P4

109

See footnotes at end of table.

fl

o

U

i

Os

0

o

u

o

Q

pO

k

s

ec

S

o

k

t®

o

k

a.

k

0

8

"c

k

"§

S'

k

3

00

to

C

•i^

3

k

0

3

0

O

3

2

CO

•M

CO

CO

O

O

«w

E

•M

k

a.

"0

3

0

pC

s

a,

k»

3

3

O

s

I

Xi

e2

rt W
fl

*■* ^

C^OC^cO
00 cs t>.

CO

CO o>

o

COi-HOOOOCO <0»0

o^i>»»o<o ooQ xo'^a

tHkOOOUOCO 00^ OOCO

c^

»o ^

*-H

8

c^

CO

r-* CD

c^

O CO OC

C^ Oi O »0
, CO ^

c^c0^t>-
cT'^ooco oT

8

»0 CC
»0 CO CO

00 o o

»D 00

eo '«5j<

00 ^

» C» CO *o c^ o
o »D CO t'-
t>- 05 CO CO

s^'

Di w

.-H CO

CD O CD C^

o CD C^ 1-H

c5

»c o

00 CO

00 to

OJ CO lO O
C^ Tf Q C5
CD lO Cl

^

CO CO CD CO
CD ^

00 ^

g-^f« ID 00

05 00^

V" CD* Ol*
kO C5

o

c

C3

>4^

CO

Vi

Vi

03

o

a

a

CO

05

a

03

• M

o

C5

a

CD

d to the
blind

bp.OCDiD
d ID O -H

ID 1-t ^ 05

d bp.
05 CO
OOtPF

Pi* ID Pi* 05 1-4
F-1 00 Pt* O 00
O Pt* 05 Pi* Cl

^ d
Pi* CD
^ 05

COOO d
— H ID
d Pi* 00

O CO CO bp. o
CD ID 00 00 bpi

bpF F^ ^ ID 00

bpi ^ bp
O 1— * 05
CD O Cl

CD 05 d
d 1-H fH
^ iD ^

Pi* oc’cD CO
COOO»D

ooo

pt* Pi*
00

ftk «* m

tpF ID F-4 o O
^ b— 1-H d

ID* CO
Pi* fH

ID i-TcD
^ rH ^

CO ID CD CO cT
ID 1-H

icTc^pi^

CO;:Hd

d

OC^Ot^CliDOO’^
wClOOiCDCO’^OCD
05 ^ 00 ^ Cl c* ^

«-H««ij?'^cDcooorr>rci’

ClClCDOOcDcOi-i'^fiCO

d Cl o

tN. Cl CO ID
CO CO »D

cDcfirToo

f— t •— I 05

C«05

00 CD

^ P*1

oTof

■PJ*

ID

CD

-4^

^ fl
O fl? o

>-

'O

^ 05^3

<1

©05

*0

COOQ^-
r-H t>- ^ ID
CO O CO ID

CO CD ID tC
Q Cl Tt4
d i-4CO^

05

CO

05

b-

ID

d

CO

b-

d

Pt*

00

Pt*

b-

00

05

d

^4

ID

IP-

b-

ID

ID

f-H

Pi*

CD

05

b-

CO

05

Pt*

CD

CD

CO

CO

00

b-

bp-

05

lO

bp.

d

00

ID

00

CO

05

^4

bp.

ID

o

ID

05

b-

w

-t*

b-

Op

Pt*

Pi*

00

CD

CO

CD

ID

CO

CO

00

CO

CO

ID

o

CO

CO

05

CO

tp-

CO

CD

o

05

CD

d

05

d

Pi*

Pi*

b-

d

o

CO

o

d

d

CO

d

CD

O

1-H

CD

00

bp-

05

I-H

ID

ID

d*

bpT

•»

b-

O

eo

00*

CO

*k

CD

CD

•>

Pl^

00*

•I

05

■pT

CD

CO

«k

b-

»D

ID

ID

•k

«k

05

#«

CD

05

o

CO

b-

CO

d*

•»

b-

•»

b-

•k

05

•k

CO

Pi*

d

o

CO

OO

Pi*

O

05

Pt*

ID

CO

o

5R

ID

05

CO

oc

bp-

CD

O

ID

CO

PI*

CO

Pt*

00

tp-

5G

bPF

b-

00

1-H

00

05

d

d

bp-

i-H

fH

»-H

O

d

Pi*

d

d

pf»

CO

CO

Cl

I-H

d

F-*

d

f-H

o ^ 05 ^
t-H CD O
CO CD CD
^ *
ID ID O d

S”2S

o

© ©
to 3

d b- 05 Pt*

Pi* d

05 bp» Pi* pt* CO

dcD

ID 05 CD

CD ID Pi* 00 bp

bp 05 d

O CO d

Obpi-HOOPl*lDbp*-lCO

d b- 1— 1 f-H

00 05 ID Pt*

O Pi*

CD ID CD 05 F-I

d CD

CO 1-* Pi*

d o 005 00

CO CD b- d Pi*

I-H CD 05

00500c005e0o00c0

bp Pi*

CD »-* OObp

00 d o d

05 bp

pf* 00 CO CD b-

d 00

d I*H ID

PT bp d

4Ci-hiOp1*COCOp1*i-*ID

3 08

CD CO CO CD

CO Pt* CD CD

00 Pi*

1—1 CO ID 05 05

ss

o bp. 00

d ID I-H 05 ID

bp^co fp^

b-i ID d

COC>OiDcdo6l'pC5b^
o:opi*oopi«>— idcoci

00 ID ID 1-T

JL

gf;

CO 05 I-H CD CD

O bp CO

1-H CO ID tp. ID

ID CD 00
d d d

CO O CO
CD d 00

d op ID CQ
d ^ 00 d

2a

O ID CD b-

d d »-« d CO

05 CO

d FH CO

1-H CD fH ID CO

00O5i-HCObpdCDC0CD

o ^

03

o

•k Vk

CO F-*

•k *k «k

»“< CO t-H

«> *k

I-H d

of Cl i-T i-T I-H

•k

f-4 05 00
O 05 ^ 00
OO’Pt’CDC^

d bP ID CD
d 1-H d -H
bp ID 00 bp

ID ID
bp ID
00 00

d05eOiDb-
ooo5oodbp
00 d CD 00 CO

o o

d FH

O 05

ID ID 05

?§?ss

O »D 00 Pi* 05
CD bp- PI* 05 o
o 05 CO d 1-H

ID OO CD
1-H 40 O
CO Pi* 05

CO b- 05

ID S' bp
pf OQO

C5

•4H

o

CLt

•k «k «k •»

Pt* O Pt* o

bp 00 00 bp

COb-OCO

-H pf
05 Pi*
CD -1*

ID bH bTcO 00
O d I-H O CO
ID ID 05 11* ID

O Pi*

do CO
00 00 05
CO d Pt*

i-T 00 bpT bsT ID
d b» bp CD 1-H
d 00 ID 00 ID

«k ^ •k

hH i-H bp
bp pf 05
ID bp pf

•k Ik

b- bp b-
pf 00 00
00 bp ^

^ ^ Vk

^ I-H »H

rH

•i

fH

«k

Vk «k

rH

^ *k Ik

1-H CO I-H

»-H d I-H

»-4COC-’^COCOCDiDCO
iDCCdO05C000ClcD
lN.iD»-'t'«CDdOOt^

l'-CD‘DO»DCOdCOCO
^OCCCDO’^t^CDOO

^ »-H d i-H ^ d CO Cl ^

O CD 05
O CO ID
O CD 05 O

tCrjTo

CO

CD O
CO

op 05 t-d
Cl ^ O
d CO CO

cf’^iD'iD'

geo !-• «

^ CO V

Vi

•a

o

s

X5

3

Oh

a

u

C5

'S W

*3 O

O *-•

§04

Vi^4

biD

a ®

e"

03

<X>^
2-^2

o

u

04

05 d -O' d
O ID 05 CO
lO CD CD 05

05 CO
d

rt<

CD 4-4
05 d
05 CD

CO ^

ooooo
o o o o o
ooooo

cCoror^'d*

>D O b- d 05
Tf4 ID O "PJ* 05

CO cToco^eo

«-H

o o o
o o o
o o o

tCiDTf?
t>. t-
^ ^ *D

^ •p

CO ^ *-4

ogoog

S o o o o

iD‘t>r«-H‘^ cT
ID O o 00
CD d 4-c 05

tC ID c^ -i^r ,H

P»4

OQO

o o o
o o o

tCTt-^cD*
CD -H CD
O O ID

CD Cl InT

dpo

CD d t>.
OCDt>.

oopoopoo oopo
opoppoop opoo
oooooooo oooo

^ CO 'PJ4' ID CO cf cf nT CD iD'oo'oood

ID d d 05 -H d ID fh wcoopiD
C* 00 00 CO 00 c* ’PJ' ID Pt< C0*-iOCD

d*^o cTtCiD ,-r>^cD cid’oTi-r

o o o

05 CO o

CO CO ID CO
Cl ID ID CD
— ^ »
CD p-« CD

>o

> u< 2

— N O 3v

® bo

o

u

Oh

©

'©

e

o

3

©

o

0-2

© o

l->

rs ©

c8

•4—

o

6h

t-4 00 CO

C- CD ID
f-4 05 Pi* 05

CfoiD
ID ID

CD O 05 CD

Pi*" i-T r-T co"

CO d

g?5

f-ioo

d c-

CO CD

CO

CO

dO5diD00 ID 'Pi* iDCDOO

•Pt*CD00O5*^ P»D 05 ID CO

t-O4-H*DCi0 05tp. Pl*dd

coooro5p oTcf piDO

•-••Pt^ptipd OO OiDl>-

Pi* d CD O d CO »-4

tp- o
■Tj* CO CO
d 00 1-4

Ik -

^ Cl S 6d

t-4 p lp» PJ* ■Pf*
ID 1-H 1-H

Pj* fp- Pi*
00 ID
f-H d P

CsTiD pj*"
05 Pt* •-<
ID d 00

tp. 00 c-

CO 05 i-«

00 ot^

oTpiI’-^
O *-p 00
00 c-

iDd»DlDC005iD05CD

piiO^iD00O00CD05

Cl05005CDCOOC005

05 ID d o d d
•-< CD tp- Pi* d d
oooodd

CD ID
- . - . fH 00
CO CO f-H Cp

ID •“* d eo

Pt* C* CD

ocot^o

•l Ip •S

*-4 ID CD o
ID 05 CO tp"
Pi* d OOpI*

00 05 fp- CO
CO 05 1-^ CO
CO P»* 00 Cl

cfd'g'piT

00

■^co

1-4IDC1 3 «-4

CO CD rH t-i C4

03

©

Eh

CO 00 CO 05
05 IP- O CD
00 Pl< CO CD

•k ^ ^

ID CO
CO 00
00 PI*

00 ID plToT

tp*

CO

§

00

05 ^
O Pt*

ot^

Pi* 00 ID O ID
d CD CD d d
CD CO 00 Pi* d

c^c^if^^F-T
bp. CO Pi? 05 ID
CO CO CD tp»

8

Cl ^ CO CO Pi*

ID Pi*
d CD
05 CD

O PT
CO

CD CD
CD Cl

O ^ C«

00 05 tp-
00 ''I* 00

05*0"0

^*

05 CD ID

ID ID d -H 05
CO tp- 05 CO CO
rp PI* ID 1-4 Cl

CD CO" CT CO tpT

CO ^ 1— ( b-

05

Pi* 05

05 ID
05 C-
Pi* CD ID

•k

O Q 00
CO Ob'-
Cl o 00

CO

d

05 00 00CDd
CD

05

d

05i:-d

d Pi*

bp. i-H O

2g“

CDlDd05C0di-HP1*05

05CD'^iDbp.P»*bp.05iD

O5P1*i-iCDC0*Di-4COb'-

pboTi-Ttpr.-ropi^cior

■^^IDCOOSOOOOCOCO

bp-bp-bpdi— <Pi*iDcoo

Pi* CO CO 05
^ *-< ID

X d 00 00

ID 00 00 d
pf* O ^ 05

O ID bp» o

S*od ID cT
^ 05Q
1-4 ^ ID o

CO CO* tt Cl
d

CO00p1«0O
Ob-eo w
o bp> ^ ID

d*iD CO ^
O QO bp. Cl
CPOC105

•« ». •k

cD«-PCiao

^

ID 00 ID d
CD »D d PI*
d CD b- d

CD 00 ID ID
d 05 d CD
F-4 ^ b- 05

oTiD -^05

hH CD

b* I-H

ID pf

bp 05 CO 00 OQ
d bp pf bp 00
bp 00 bp05 ID

^05
CO pf
bp CO

pf 00 CO
CO CO bP
05 pf ID

bp O fH I-H pj*

CD ^ I-H o 00
CO tP d CO 05

pf »*H ^
ID I-H 05
CO tP FH

ID 05 pf
d 00 d
F-* ID tP

iDbpiDpf00di-HO5O5
C00 0500c0i-Hbpbp00
bpC0dO5bPCOi-HiD00

tp w ffO d
CD ID d 00
CD d d CO

O CO
CO bp
hH bp

CO d" CD —To

00 CD pf o O
coeobpiDbp

^ Ik

pf bp
111 d
CD CD

1-H*CD d
d I-H ID
05 CD ID

•k •k ^ ^

00 bP ^ 05 CD
ID 00 CD 1—1 00
hH Cl ID Pi* 05

oTci o

00 d ID
d »H 05

ocoTo

00 pf I-H

CDi-Hbpb^bpCOPfOpf

bPiDiD05f-H0500pfPf

bpbPOSCDdpfiDCOO

C^CnTci ID*
00 d CD 1-H
1-H hH bp CO

1-H d"

d

hH

*1* CO CO Pi*" pf

CD Cl

CO I-H ci

•k Ik «k

O 00 00 CD d
tP

05 fh hh
d 1-H

OCD 00
1-* d

pfCDCDoTpHodClOOod

1-H t-H ID ^ FH

CO CO b-Tci
Cl

Pi* ID OO d
ID d 00 d
CO C- 05 00

§ SS"d

$ CD CO

^ «k _ » •>

CD •H Cl 05

*o

0

C0

©

5-
® S

§2
•—< rt

CO ti
•fp Co

*-p li^

a

©

,3

P.

s

o

©

O

*3

©

3

.a

3

o

Q

i -9

H

2

*<

H

»

t-i

0

0

'3

©

3
3

m4

3

O

O

TO bO

•— r—

^ 9

bfl

S

P«

t

CO

©

0

H

2

»

O

W

H

0

O

Z

3 m

cd^

,£ co'3

sP-iWoqI>

3

©

©

to

S.S..

;;;*a »p 05

.S9;f3 0.0

oOgQ C3

.3 S

a a

0

2 ,
«

(r

2

<

{H

2

O ® 'S S O fcjD ® S? a CO w c3 ®

c§|l|||§|§=3^|

n

o

CQ

m

H

P

O

OQ

I
4

3
O

4.»

bc

3

fO

3^

Sa

pS

a

3

i il„

fP

bo i^n

« as £ °

110

CO CO ^
CO ^
CO o> t^

^ ^ ^0
00 00 1>-
Tf o

W^ ci CD

»-< »o »o

OJ» *-1

to

o

C» 00 CO »o o>
05 DJ CD CO
CO c^

eo^csTc^

CD 00

^ »0 CO

CO

*-^ *^ 00
co'cTio

CO 05 CO 00
OOCMt^OC-
^ <D CO C^l CD

*0 CO ^

O CD

§s

o

lOO

IS

loi^

I

I

I

I

I

I

i-t00'^DJ»^»O05O

»0C^D^'^05'^«-HC£>

0-^0«DC^CDC^»0

- ^ ^ ^ _ •. _•*• VV ^

05C<I00505COOOO

CO
CO

I CO ®

DJ 1-1

s

•k

t>.

CO ^ 00
00 i-H 05
05 D) ^

O'cD i-T

C< 1-t w

CO CD 00

SI-* 55

»0 CO

wo O CD CO
05 r* i-< lo 00 1^
00 DJ 00 CO CD

O C-co
O 1^
05 CO

D<

eo

O CO »0 1-N 1— t ts.

^ ^ ^ CO

05 CO CO

1-H 0 1-H 00

0 CD CO Tt4
t- 05 CD

go CD -H
W5 ko

0 »o

kO t- 05 05 CO 05

0 CO CD -14 ^ i>.

b- 0 i-H kC CO CO

t- 005
C^ 05 CO
CD GO CD

1111
CO 4 1 1 1
^ 1 1 1 1
^ 1 1 1 t

0 t- 00 00
t- 00 00

05 05 CO CD

0005C5i-400»0’^

i-4-14050CDOkO’Tj4

O5CDCO^00»Ot--t^

1-1

05 rj4
kO C^

©

CO

CO’ 1-4 05 C4
kD 00 Q 05

cd 00 cd

CD 05 -14

t- r-

#4

05 CO -1* 1-4 kO i14'

kO *D 00 »0 i-H kC

1-4 CO 0

00 1*14 05

l-H 1—4

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 (

^ 1 1 1 1

1 1 t 1

kill
11(4

1 • 1 1

1 1 1 1

1 1 t 1

cdi-4'‘cd<©

1-4 CD

C^icDcocD-^C^Oi-d

cDi-H05CqO'^00CM

OOkOi-HC'lkO-iinHCO

*4

05 Cl
wo kC

©

0

CO

©

Xi

>>

i-H CO 1-1 CO
<» t- 05 0
*0 0 CD 00

W^OOi-H
t-- 05 t-.
1-4 CO 05

CO 1-1 00 CD rt4 CO
^ 111* H}’ CD C5 1— 4
0 05 CD !>• 00 CO

kC kC 0
Q r- *D
« 00 05

CD -1* CO C<l CO
1-4 CO 1414 CO

CO 0 kO c-. CO

0 1-4

1-4 GO 05 05

CO 05 i-H HT

05kOtN.c,5C,.^ kOoO
•VC-COC^i-hOS-h*^
i-iC^CDC5CCOCOO

CO
i-H CD

^ 0

Xi

73 ‘

2 0

*4 «4 *4

»0 CO CO 00

Q »o 1- as

»0 ^ CO Dl

CD ©Ti-d
pH CO
*D 1-i 05

«k

cd cd rd 1-d CO* kO

CO 00 CO CO ^
i-H l-H l-H l-H GO 4"^

cd05 05
05 -14 CO

1-4 rj4

^ ^ ^
05 kO ,— 1 00
'S* CO t— Hj* CO

0 1-^ t-- 00 t-

•4

-g-N-rf

tdwdcdcDort-r-irwd

t-CMTlKNcDr-kDOO

05CDi-HC0C0-1*t-*HH

«> «»

1-4 00

05 05

t^o

0< eo

•h . fl

t'- 1-1 CO
05 Q

t^CDOO

^

1-4 ^ 00

SrH CO »0 CO 0& 1-^ CD DJ DJ
1^005000 Cll>*
00 CO Dl » CD f-l CO *Ot'«

f’‘coCDr-r05'‘oo'‘t^CO *ct'^

•D 00 O CO *0 1-4 oco
C< 1-1 •— I

t^C^^C^COCO^»^ <Ni-^

»0 O 40 *-1
00 »0 O 00
kO lO CD eo

£p<=>

05 t>- lO

CD 05 CO

CD

1^

CO c<i t>.

»> ffk

^ CO

CO 00 CO

•-H -14 CO

kO oo o

05 O

kc eo

kD o’

g05O5 00 Q

D4

o

C<l »D
t'- t^O

ooo
»D t^TcO

00 CO 05
CO t-

05 CO CO
CO 00

o kC CO

i-T wo'—T o<r c4“

8CO CO

1-^ t— 00

t'- O C<l
C-. O 00 CO
O CD *0

kcT’^-kO CD
CO 05

05 CD 05 b- 00 1— ( 00 05 05
1-H 00 t- 00 05 CS C^C-
00 t>* CO CO DJ CS i-( 1-H o

O ^OO'^^odc^cT CDOO
00 05 (N wo kC 05 WOOD

TT CO CD ^ 05 05 »D COCO

F"4CO^C^'^CO^i^

CO

O 05

O CD

«0 ko CO C- 05
O »-H O 05 »o
CO r- 05 CD CD

ooo

8SS

oo^t^od
wo CO r^

CO OM5

CO 1-4 CD CO W

^ ^ *-4 ^

05 O CO 05 05
"<1* CO CO CO
cDf^ r- -n* CO

of D^C<»CS

b- 00 CO CD
CO kO ^

CO CO •-«

fM c<f

■rfk 1-t 00 ko Tt4 00 eot>.

kOOOcDC<lC0005f-* CDkO
05 CO Dl o OC O 05 00 t^CD

’^Ol-H'^COl^'4j4C<

M 1-H M

00

CO 00 CD t—
t- S CO Tf4
-I* CO »c r-

1-4 QOO
0 00 05
CO 1-H wo

•<1* GO kO r>. 1-H GO
00 t- »0 CO 0 CO
r- t— 1— 4 1— ' kO CD

CO 0 t-
CO 05 00
COCDTJ4

CD 0 l-H 00

kO t- -14 PH
CO -14 05 00

t

1

1

0 l-H 0
0 CO pH CO
Hf CD <J0 0

ododtded

oo^odecT

CO I- CD
kO l-H

tdcdo'cD*odld‘
CO CD kO 0 CO

l-H

k<dcd“w
40 Dl CO

cdi-TcTcd'

kO 05

c5 1-4 CO

i

1

1

1

•4 «W •»

CD 0 CO CO
kD Ht* CO CO
CO pH

cd

t

1

i-J-^CSi-ikCO^-OS

t^C0t'-'«a'^-i-H05CD

00.-Ht-.CO*«t’i-4ThO

cd’^cdi-^cDcdi-^kc

COOCDcD’^t^kOt>-

051-HCD’^D^^•C0•-C4

O 05
CO

o ^

CO
05 CD

CD CO

00 <N CD GO
CO O 05
CD 00 1—*

*4

STjkCDO
CD Tf< kO
O5CD00O

co^’i-TtC''^'^

b-OOO
05 kO 'kj’
05 1-H 05

W4 » *4

*-« kO ^
CO 05 O
05 CO GO

r- CD 00 ko c-
■ 00 O 05 05

CO 1-4 CO 0 05

s

05

kO t- 1-H kcp O CO
lO OO 1— I t- 00 O
kC 05 O rH 00 O

^ rH ?-H I— 4

OO D?

SCO 05

C- -414

•• #4 •«

CO rH
05 05 1-4

f-H

W> Tfi ^ O CO
00 O GO 00
kO -14 iO CO

cd c^ Tf' 1— r 1— r

CP CD 05 — • D»
05 00 CD CD 1-4

i-H (?a CO CO CO CO

t- *-< 05

t- eo 05 05

CO CN

odco D?‘o

<35 CO 05 CO

OOCDCO’4J4

•-H c<r

O O 1-4 00 05 GO 00 r-' 05 CO

05 ca »0 00 kO O CD 05 kO

CO 05 1-4 CD t- CD r-< Di iO

odo O -14^ O 1-^ 05 -^CD
<35 CO kO ^ ko rt4 o CDt-

CO 00 CO 1-H t-- CO 00 O CD

COCDCOOOC^OOW’^
CD »“< Ol

^ CD

-H 00 0 DJ

CD 1-4

•'1' 05 t— 05

00 05 0
!>. CO 1-4
^ CD 0

r- kD CO CO t- CD
05 r- 00 ^ »o CO
0 CD ^

tH. kO

eo cs 0
0 05 CO

GO CO pH CO pH
CD CO CD 114 CD

cs PH 00 r- 0

t- t- 05 0

05 CD 05 05

00 eo ko

pHcokOoocoe-i--

HjiTt4b»cOkOkOOOkO

t-copHcooo»t--

CO 00

cs cs

r-H ko

pdc^P-Tco'

pH Q

05 ^ pH

tdoT cd

^ 05 iH

OCOO

wdkdi-Ttdod^

kO 05 pH CO CD ^
wo 05 0 cs 05 05

kdcD rd
0-14 cs
00 00^

CD pH* od cd cd

-H t- 05 -14 <0

0 OOCD CD 4-H

cd’kdcdcT

0 0 05 CO

05 1- CO 11*

rdedcd^ii4*-dorc5
c0CSt--kOt— h-CDCO
r-05C0pHHiitN,p005

cdcD*
CO 1—
pH CD

CO pH ^

cd 0

wm^

*4 *1. ^

pH f-H 1-H cs l-H

pdedcs

ededed

»• •>

PH cs

cdcDcdodcdodod'^
CD 1-4 cs

id CO*

i-H

<D

>

a

s

>
ca.£5
■4^ 3

s §

V

B

s -

<v c«
. w

jZM B

o

-s-iB

o g5

B

B

o

-w

CO

05

'C

cs

xi

u

03

B

i;o § ia'S S ^ S § ®.9

^£<400^'

c s 9 g rt g

S;l

* I I

r/i 9

—4

t . Q '"B rB
y 2 > ft >

c 3 S X axi

Bn w o M'S?

O ^ w “ -

Im -_.

o a p
^ 0)05©

(*i OUIh5

^ss

OcQ&^

^

a o5

o

o § 0-2

• ^ fc- B ©

1

0

1

1

b

1

1

©

r

B

0

Ph

tr

Q

B

73

9

S'^

a °

M

;BP-ci^ B a co'C'g §

••c3«o0S*B0.S;0

a Q W Ph CQ Ph

X ^

0) ^

6h >

B

3

w

• •

cs

c

bfi

>

w

o»

o>

Q i-i ^ o
X © 73

OT > B ®
^ p o3 ra

Sa

“'0§“Sqg’-'a la
a5gi5|i:-pS-3 2:2a

B

o

Vj

o

'S O'B yCQ fl-g §
X^a3«3c32o’*‘3^5

I-IOCQOTOQ g st^'^CQC-'

C9

o

. . © 03 a

oo&^

0)

»«

£

0>

u

o

X3

a

g

' *::? o 2 O o

'2— CO

1 5 p a ®

, S.&o.£f2

O •- M ^
^
o

Ih rt

s §

»B

O ^

>*73
u a>

-M O

‘C B

© o
' o

o

B

o

• p4
•4^

eo

Ui

o

P4

o

o

ii«B

oSa|

-ti W eSS

03 © tia o

£S|.S

•g«^a

:a««l

w ij

?? Wj-- s

2 fl o3 iB
^.B ^ -4^

Bip « B
.S^B'Btp

s

a ^

•B ®

csiS-Bti

05^3 •*^ B

§2«« a
03 o O a

bEh 45 a
cO B*p

'B O E

»-• *pi I-I B*

05

'B

o

o

B

©

V)

'i

B

o

73

©

©

^ 1::^

O O B -M

S H 3.2 .a

© eo fc- B

— 2 ti£ 4> iB

© eo --
— 9 ti 4>
P O =r+j

^ .B co
'B

is ^ c> O

a

73

03

2'B
o P>>
*0*2

a 2

® w
TP B
© o

>*2

s ©

ft 04

6*3

©

rt ^

0.9

”9

°a

Vi

OA ©

•p

il

B^

« o

« a

ft©^
© *3^
»-4 ®aH
• p eo b:*

B ©

CO be

•-riepis

eS

CQ

2i

03 ^
© ^■'
eO.Saj 2
©•4^

B-< _

® 6 § B

'T? . ©

-B ft eo

03.2 TS PH —

cd ^

OS'S

B © -Ji
.2 g 2
<0 2 ©
>B O.

»pH O

Q.a ©

■•9 §

X3

^ os.stj fl ©
feaa2.2> Q.a

2*3 §4.2 S 2

H £ S gip . ^-S-B

S®S>s^*SiS

©£5fe^O>»0flCC?>^03

>4^73 ©f^-B

5^2 ©_S pji

111

Table C— 12. — Percentage distribution of amount of public and private assistance and earnings under specified

Federal work programs, by urban area, 1929

Geographic division, State,
and urban area i

Total _

New England
Connecticut:

Bridgeport _

Hartford _

New Britain _

New Haven _

Maine: Portland.., . .

Massachusetts:

Boston _

Brockton _ _ _

Cambridge _

Fall River _ _ _

Lawrence _

Lowell _

Lynn _ _ _

Malden _

New Bedford _

Newton _

Springfield _

Worcester _

Rhode Island: Providence _

Middle Atlantic
New Jersey:

Jersey City _

Newark _ _

Trenton _

New York:

Albany _

Buffalo _

New Rochelle _

New York _

Niagara Falls _

Rochester _

Syracuse _

Utica _

Yonkers _

Pennsylvania:

Allentown _

Altoona _

Bethlehem _

Chester _

Erie _ _

Johnstown _

Philadelphia _

Pittsburgh _

Reading _

Scranton _

Wilkes-Barre _

North Central
Illinois:

Chicago _

Springfield _

Indiana:

Evansville _

Fort Wayne _

Indianapolis _

South Bend _

Terre Haute _

Iowa:

Des Moines _

Sioux City _

Kansas:

Kansas City _

Topeka _

Wichita _

Michigan:

Detroit -

Flint _

Grand Rapids . .

Pontiac _

Saginaw _

Minnesota:

Duluth _

Minneapolis _

St. Paul _

Total
public
and
private
funds 2

Public funds

Private
funds •

Total

General relief ^

Earnings under
Federal work
programs

Special types of public assistance

Total

Direct

relief

Work

relief

Civil
Works
Pro¬
gram *

Projects
operated
by the
WPA 5

Total

Old-age

assist¬

ance

Aid to
depend¬
ent

children

Aid to
the
blind

100.0

75.8

34.8

34.7

0.1

41.0

0)

37.7

3.3

24.2

100.0

77.5

53.4

53.4

24. 1

23.6

.5

22.5

100.0

41.0

26.6

26.6

14.4

13.7

.7

59.0

100.0

92.8

53.3

53.3

39.5

39.4

.1

7.2

100.0

65.8

24.5

24.5

. 41. 3

40.1

1.2

34.2

100.0

83.0

66.5

66.5

16.5

11.1

5.4

17.0

100.0

83.5

60.5

60.5

23.0

21.7

1.3

16.5

100.0

78.1

65.7

65.7

12.4

10.9

1.6

21.9

100.0

91.2

66.8

66.8

24.4

22.4

2.0

8.8

100.0

99.3

91.3

91.3

8.0

6.7

1.3

.7

100.0

93.6

73.8

73.8

19.8

19.2

.6

6.4

100.0

88.9

63.5

63.5

25.4

24.2

1.2

11.1

100.0

82.2

,63.8

63.8

18.4

17.6

.8

17.8

100.0

98.9

'90.1

90.1

8.8

7.3

1 5

1. 1

100.0

96.0

88.2

88.2

7.8

6.8

1.0

4.0

100.0

87.2

47.8

47.8

39.4

38.4

1.0

12.8

100.0

77.7

63.3

63.3

14.4

13.5

.9

22.3

100.0

90.8

76.8

76.8

14.0

12.7

1. 3

9.2

100.0

72.7

29.3

29.3

43.4

43.4

27.3

100.0

96.0

25.9

25.9

70.1

69.2

.9

4.0

100.0

83.7

45.9

45.9

37.8

37.0

.8

16.3

100.0

96.5

41.5

41.5

55.0

62.8

9.. 9.

3.6

100.0

58.9

29.8

29.8

29.1

26.2

2.9

41.1

100.0

84.6

62.6

62.6

22.0

21.1

.9

15.4

100.0

83.2

46.5

46.5

36.7

32.8

3.9

16.8

100.0

77.9

8.5

8.5

69.4

67.4

2.0

22. 1

100.0

77.2

42.0

42.0

35.2

34.2

1.0

22.8

100.0

80.7

70.8

70.8

9.9

8.9

1.0

19.3

100.0

80.6

56.6

56.6

24.0

22.6

1.4

19.4

100.0

72.4

36.0

36.0

36.4

33.9

2.5

27.6

100.0

82.3

24.5

24.5

57.8

66.5

1.3

17.7

100.0

79.9

10.5

10.5

69.4

69.4

20.1

100.0

81.3

36.6

36.6

44.7

44.7

18.7

100.0

83.8

47.9

47.9

35.9

35.9

16.2

100.0

80.4

30.6

30.6

49.8

49.8

19.6

100.0

74.7

30.9

30.9

43.8

43.8

25.3

100.0

97.6

65.6

65.6

32.0

32.0

2.4

100.0

43.5

4.8

4.8

38.7

38. 7

66.5

100.0

71.2

19.9

19.9

51.3

61.3

28.8

100.0

72.3

19.8

19.8

62.6

52.5

27.7

100.0

78.0

47.4

47.4

30.6

30.6

22.0

100.0

96.2

73.4

73.4

22.8

22.8

3.8

100.0

65.3

16.6

16.6

48.7

37.4

11.3

34.7

100.0

86.9

26.7

26.7

60.2

19.6

40.6

13.1

100.0

95.1

88.5

88.6

6.6

6.6

4.9

100.0

55.8

43.2

43.2

12.6

12. 6

44.2

100.0

53.4

46.9

46.9

6.5

6.5

46.6

100.0

79.0

53.6

63.6

25.4

25.4

21.0

100.0

90.7

80.5

80.5

10.2

10.2

9. 3

100.0

72.2

30.8

30.8

41.4

28.8

12. fi

27.8

100.0

69.9

24.5

24.6

46.4

35. 6

9.9

an. 1

100.0

64.6

63.3

63.3

1.3

1. 3

36.4

100.0

96.5

83.1

83.1

13.4

13.4

3.5

100.0

75.7

62.6

62.6

13.1

13. 1

24. .3

100.0

94.4

59.8

59.8

34.6

34.6

5 n

100.0

84.9

32.2

32.2

52.7

62. 7

15 1

100.0

90.6

29.8

29.8

60.8

60.8

9 4

100.0

96.4

52.2

52.2

44.2

44. 2

.a n

100.0

89.8

48.5

48.5

41.3

41. 3

10. 2

100.0

90.1

28.6

28.6

61.5

59 4

? 1

9 9

100.0

69.3

19.5

19.5

_ L V .

49.8

47 4

2, 4

30 7

100.0

72.6

29.8

29.8

1

42.8

40.7

2.1

27.4

See footnotes at end of table.

112

Xable C“12. Percentage distribution of amount of public and private assistance and earnings under specified

Federal work programs, by urban area, 1929 — Continued

Geographic division, State,
and urban area >

Total
public
and
private
funds ’

Public funds

Private
funds *

Total

General relief *

Earnings under
Federal work
programs

Special types of public assistance

Total

Direct

relief

Work

relief

CivU
Works
Pro¬
gram <

Projects
operated
by the
WPA«

Total

Old-age

assist¬

ance

Aid to
depend¬
ent

children

Aid to
the
blind

North Central— Con.

Missouri:

Kansas City . .

100.0

38.3

38.3

8.3

3ft ft

8ftl 7

St. Louis _

100.0

41.5

0.9

0.9

40.6

11.8

28 8

Nebraska: Omaha _

100.0

58.7

29.7

29.7

29.0

26.4

2.6

41.3

Ohio:

Akron _

100.0

68.0

35.1

35.1

32.9

27.4

39. ft

Canton _ . .

100.0

81.8

26.1

26.1

65.7

28.0

27. 7

18. 2

Cincinnati _

100.0

65.1

12.7

12.7

(0

52.4

42.3

1ft 1

34.9

Cleveland _ _

100.0

52.5

8.7

8.7

43.8

39.0

4 8

47.5

Columbus . L.. .

100.0

87.3

24.2

24.2

63.1

43.9

19.2

12.7

Dayton _

100.0

63.2

24.5

24.5

38.7

26.3

12.4

36.8

Springfield... .

100.0

48.4

14.6

14.6

33.8

27.8

6.0

51.6

Toledo . . . .

100.0

90.6

40.0

40.0

60.6

42.7

7.9

9.4

Youngstown _

100.0

75.6

33.1

33.1

42.5

32.9

9.6

24.4

Wisconsin:

Kenosha _ _

100.0

72.3

46.1

46.1

26.2

21.7

4.6

27.7

Madison _

100.0

96.0

49.1

49. 1

46.9

42.4

4.5

4.0

Milwaukee _

100.0

76.8

25.6

25.6

51.2

44.0

7.2

23.2

Racine . _ _ _

100.0

88.3

33.5

33.5

64.8

42.4

12.4

11.7

South Atlantic and South

Central

Alabama:

Birmingham _

100.0

100.0

Mobile”. _ _ _

100.0

100.0

Delaware: Wilmington.. _

100.0

69.9

69.9

69.9

30.1

District of Columbia: Wash-

ington _ .. .. .. ..

100.0

37.6

2.1

2.1

35.5

36.5

62.4

Florida:

Jacksonville

100. n

94.1

37.9

37.9

66.2

56.2

6.9

Miami _

100.0

74.0

32.2

32.2

41.8

41.8

26.0

Oeoreia: Atlanta

100.0

79.3

79.3

79.3

20.7

Kentuckv; Louisville

100.0

35.2

35.2

0.4

24.7

8 10. i

8 64.8

Louisiana:

Mew Orleans .

100.0

2.8

2.8

2.8

97.2

Rhreveporf.

100. 0

17.9

8.8

8.8

9.1

9.1

82.1

\Tarylanf1* 'Raltimore

100.0

13.4

13.4

13.4

86.6

North Carolina:

100.0

12. 3

12.3

12.3

87.7

100.0

29. 5

17.8

17.8

11.7

11.7

70.5

100.0

96.5

87.9

87.9

8.6

8.6

3.5

100.0

27.3

19.7

19.7

7.6

7.6

72.7

100.0

85.3

79.4

79.4

6.9

6.9

14.7

100.0

63 2

63.2

63.2

36.8

Tennessee:

100.0

24. 2

24.2

24.2

7.5.8

100. 0

31.7

31.7

31.7

68.3

100. 0

40 1

40. 1

40. 1

69.9

Texas:

100 0

59.9

33.2

33.2

26.7

26.7

40. 1

100.0

65. 2

65.2

65.2

34.8

100-0

93 5

93.5

93. 5

6.5

100.0

41 9

22.0

22. 0

19.9

19.9

58.1

100.0

23 9

23.9

23. 9

76.1

Virginia:

im ft

46.0

46.0

46.0

64. 0

100.0

26 8

18.5

18.5

8.3

8.3

73.2

Iftft- ft

38 4

38.4

38.4

61.6

West Virginia: Huntington....

100.0

58.5

25.9

25.9

32.6

32.6

41.5

Mountain and Pacific

California:

Iftft ft

90 3

72.6

72. 6

17.7

16.6

2.1

9.7

ioo!o

92.6

36.5

36.5

56.1

53.2

2.9

7.4

Iftft ft

85.0

26. 2

26.2

68.8

43.0

15.8

15.0

Iftft ft

75.8

47.0

47.0

28.8

26.4

2.4

24.2

Iftft ft

58 1

2. 1

2.i

66.0

53.4

2.6

41.9

Iftft ft

73.5

37. 1

37. 1

36.4

26.0

10.4

26.6

Iftft ft

7« fi

52.7

52. 7

25.8

25.8

21.5

Iftft, ft

43 1

21.6

21.6

21.5

3.1

18.4

56.9

Washington:

TOO 0

79.0

41.2

40.0

1.2

37.8

37.8

21.0

ocatlic-

100.0

87.9

37.4

37.4

60.6

50.5

12.1

* See app. A for the territory included in each urban area. Percentages
based on figures which relate to territory other than that shown for the area
in app. A are footnoted. ^ j - ^

’ Figures on which these percentages are based exclude cost of administra¬
tion; of materials, equipment, and other items incident to operation of work
programs: and of transient care.

> Figures on which these percentages are based include statutory aid to vet¬
erans administered on basis of need.

* Not initiated until 1933.

« Not initated until 1935. .

« Figures on which these percentages are based include direct and work
relief and aid to veterans.

1 Less than 0.1 percent.

• Figure on which this percentage is based relates to city.

113

Table C-13.— Percentage distribution of amount of public and private assistance and earnings under specified

Federal work programs, by urban area, 1930

Public funds

Geographic division, State,
and urban area *

Total
public
and
private
funds *

Total

General relief *

Earnings under
Federal work
programs

Special types of public assistance

Private
funds •

Total

Direct

relief

Work

relief

Civil
Works
Pro¬
gram *

Projects
operated
by the
WPA »

Total

Old-age

assist¬

ance

Aid to
depend¬
ent

children

Aid to
the
blind

Total .

100.0

76.1

46.9

44.4

2.5

29.2

1.4

25.2

2.6

23.9

New England

Connecticut:

Bridgeport _

100.0

89.2

80.9

30.7

50.2

8.3

8.2

,1

10.8

Hartford _

100.0

69.8

59.9

54. 1

5.8

9.9

9. 5

.4

30.2

New Britain... . . .

100. 0

91.6

65. 1

65. 1

26.5

26.4

.1

8.4

New Haven.. _

100.0

70.2

41.6

28.5

13.1

28.6

27.8

.8

29.8

TVfainp- Portland

100.0

85.9

72.9

72.9

13.0

8.4

4.6

14.1

Massachusetts:

Boston .. _ _ _

100.0

86.7

69.9

69.9

16.8

15.9

.9

13.3

Brockton _

100. 0

81. 5

72.0

62. 5

9. 5

9. 5

8. 1

1 4

18.5

Cambridge. . .. _

100.0

91. 2

69.2

69.2

22. 0

20. 2

1.8

8.8

Fall River _

100.0

99.6

92.0

92. 0

7.6

6.6

1.0

.4

Lawrence. _ _ _ _

100.0

92.8

77.9

77.9

14.9

14. 4

. 5

7. 2

Lowell _

100 0

88. 0

67.6

67.6

20.4

19. 3

1. 1

12.0

Lynn _

100.0

80.6

64.8

64.8

15.8

15. 2

.6

19.4

Malden _

100.0

99.4

92.7

92.7

6.7

5.6

1. 1

.6

New Bedford _

100.0

96. 1

88.7

88.7

7.4

6. 7

.7.

3. 9

Newton _

100.0

84.3

54.7

54. 7

29.6

28.6

1. 0

15 7

Springfield _ _

100.0

82.6

75.3

75.3

7.3

6.8

. 6

17 4

Worcester _ _

100.0

91.0

80.6

80.6

10.4

9.4

1.0

Q 0

Rhode Island; Providence _

100.0

67.7

32.7

32.7

35.0

35.0

32.3

Middle Atlantic

New Jersey:

Jersey City _

100.0

95.7

29.9

29.9

65.8

65. 1

.7

4. 3

Newark _

100.0

84.0

55.8

55.8

28.2

27.6

.6

0

Trenton _ _

100.0

87.0

36.5

36.5

50.5

48. 5

2.0

13! 0

New York:

Albany _ _

100.0

62.5

39.1

39.1

23.4

20,9

2 6

37 5

Buffalo . .

100.0

87.9

72.7

69.0

3.7

15.2

14. 6

.6

1

New Rochelle.— . .

100.0

84.8

57.1

67.1

27. 7

25 8

1. 9

15 2

New York _

100.0

64.3

12.1

12.1

52. 2

50. 8

1 4

35 7

Niagara Falls . . .

100.0

84.8

62.2

54.9

7.3

22. 6

22. 2

.4

15 2

Rochester _ _

100.0

86.6

79.0

74.0

5.0

7.6

6 9

, 7

13 4

Syracuse _ _ _

100.0

85. 1

70.2

70.2

14. 9

14 0

g

14 9

Utica _ _

100.0

67.7

35.6

35.6

32. 1

30 1

2 0

32 3

Yonkers _ _

100.0

73.6

33.6

33.6

40.0

39 1

.9

26.4

Pennsylvania:

Allentown . .

100.0

78.3

21.3

21.3

57.0

57. 0

21 7

Altoona _ _

100.0

75.3

31.5

31.5

43.8

43.8

24 7

Bethlehem . .

100.0

83.9

57.8

57.8

26. 1

20 1

16 1

Chester _ _

100.0

71.8

33.5

33.5

38. 3

38 3

2g 2

Erie... . — .

100.0

63.6

30.8

30.8

32.8

32 «

36 4

Johnstown. . . .

100.0

93.9

58.3

58.3

35.6

35 fi

0 1

Philadelphia .

100.0

39.5

6.2

6.2

33.3

33 3

60 5

Pittsburgh _ _

100.0

64.3

29.6

29.6

34.7

34 7

35 7

Reading- . . . .

100.0

59.3

24.6

24.6

34. 7

34 7

•?

Scranton . . .

100.0

79.2

48.6

48.6

30.6

30 6

20 3

W ilkes-Barre . . .

100.0

96.1

67.7

67.7

28.4

28.4

3.9

North Central

Illinois:

Chicago . .

100.0

59.1

23.9

23.9

35. 2

25 1

10 X

n

Springfield _ _

100.0

85.4

29.8

29.8

55. 6

16! 5

39.1

14.6

Indiana:

Evansville _ _

100.0

87.6

80.3

80.3

7. 3

7 3

10 A

Fort Wayne . . .

100.0

63.9

53.3

53.3

10.6

10 0

36 1

Indianapolis _

100.0

65.7

62.4

62.4

3.3

3 3

*iA Q

South Bend _

100.0

85.9

72.6

72.5

13.4

13. 4

14 1

Terre Haute _

100.0

87.7

78.4

78.4

9.3

9.3

12.3

Iowa:

Des Moines _ _

100.0

71.7

35.7

35.7

36.0

25 3

10 7

Sioux City _

100.0

74.4

31.3

31.3

43. 1

32! 9

10.2

25.6

Kansas:

Kansas City _

100.0

61.4

60.1

60.1

1. 3

1 3

Topeka .

100.0

98.6

86.0

86.0

12. 6

19 0

Wichita . . .

100.0

78.0

68.3

68.3

9.7

9.7

22.0

Michigan:

Detroit .

100.0

97.0

85.3

85.3

11. 7

11 7

Flint . .

100.0

91.3

65.0

65.0

26.3

90 3

Grand Rapids _

100.0

88.0

46.5

46.5

41. 5

41 5

Pontiac. _ _

100.0

98.9

79.4

79.4

19.6

19 5

Saginaw . .

100.0

90.1

58.3

58.3

31.8

31! 8

9.9

Minnesota:

Duluth . . .

100.0

90. 1

37.0

37.0

53. 1

51 3

Minneapolis . .

100.0

67.7

25.9

25.9

.

41.8

30 4

2 4

St. Paul .

100.0

75.7

34.2

34.2

41.6

39.0

2.5

24.3

See footnotes at end of table.

114

Table C— 13. — Percentage distribution of amount of public and private assistance and earnings under specified

Federal work programs, by urban area, 1930 — Continued

Public funds

Geographic division, State,
and urban area *

North Central — Continued
Missouri:

Kansas City . .

St. Louis _

Nebraska: Omaha _

Ohio:

Akron _ _

Canton _ _

Cincinnati _ _

Cleveland - - -

Columbus _ _

Dayton _

Springfield - -

Toledo _ _ - .

Y oungstown . . . . .

Wisconsin:

Kenosha _

Madison _ _ _

Milwaukee - - -

Racine.-- . . . .

South Atlantic and South
Central

Alabama:

Birmingham _ _

Mobile _

Delaware: Wilmingrton _

District of Columbia: Wash¬
ington _

Florida:

Jacksonville . . .

Miami _ _ _

Georgia: Atlanta -

Kentucky: Louisville -

Louisiana:

New Orleans -

Shreveport — . - .

Maryland: Baltimore _

North Carolina:

Asheville -

Charlotte . . .

Greensboro -

Winston-Salem -

Oklahoma: Tulsa. . . .

South Carolina: Charleston..
Tennessee:

Knoxville . . .

Memphis -

Nashville -

Texas:

Dallas _

El Paso - -

Fort Worth -

Houston - -

San Antonio -

Virginia:

Norfolk -

Richmond-- .

Roanoke - -

West Virginia: Huntington..

Mountain and Pacific
California:

Los Angeles - -

Oakland . .

Sacramento -

San Diego . . - .

San Francisco . .

Colorado: Denver.. . .

Oregon: Portland -

Utah: Salt Lake City.. .

Washington:

Seattle . .

Tacoma _ _ _

Total
public
and
private
funds *

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

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

Total

37.7

35.3
66.0

61.2

61.4

60.8

54.7
85.6

36.5

50.3

90.8

57.3

77.8

94.8

84.6
90.1

6.7

59.6

33.7

94.4

75.7

76.2

56.2

2.9

18.0

23.0

7.6

25.5

97.9

21.4

70.3

64.9

19.6

23.9

40.8

59.7
62.0

93.6

37.8

20.7

57.5

27.7

23.5

42.7

93.0

96.0

90.7

93.7
71.0
69.2

78.9

48.9

82.6

88.9

General relief *

Total

0.9

30.8

41.7
23.0
21.0

32.9
35.4

15.7

24.3

74.1

29.4

54.1

44.8

55.8
61.3

Direct

relief

6.7

1.7

40.5
31.4
76.2

’21.8

.1

7.9

13.6

19.8
93.7
16.4
60.6

64.9

40.8

34.4
62.0

93.6

20.2

20.7

57.5

20.2

23.5
24.3

69.5

38.1

25.2

47.7

20.0

26.7
57.4

16.7

48.1

41.9

0.9

30.8

41.7
23.0

10.3
5.0

35.4

15.7

24.3

64.5

29.4

54.1

44.8

50.4
61.3

6.7

1.7

40.5
31.4
76.2

’ 14.5

.1

7.9

13.6

19.8
67.2
16.4
60.6

64.9

40.8

34.4
62.0

93.6

20.2

20.7

41.3

20.2

23.5

24.3

69.5

38.1

25.2
46.0

26.7
47.5

16.7

42.7
41.9

3

Earnings under
Federal work
programs

Special types of public assistance

Private
funds «

Work

relief

Civil
Works
Pro¬
gram *

Projects
operated
by the
WPA «

Total

Old-age

assist¬

ance

Aid to
depend¬
ent

children

Aid to
the
blind

37.7

8.6

29. 1

’62.3

34.4

6.5

27.9

64.7

35.2

32. 6

2. 7

34.0

19.5

16.9

3.6

38.8

38.4

20. 4

18.0

38.6

10. 7

39.8

32.1

7.7

39.2

27.9

21.8

19.2

2.6

45.3

50. 2

33.7

16.5

14.4

20.8

14.2

6.6

63.6

26.0

21.9

4. 1

49.7

9.6

16.7

13.6

3.1

9.2

27.9

21. 0

6.9

42.7

23.7

5.3

16.8

2.6

22.2

50.0

45.2

4.8

6.2

5.4

28.8

3.6

22. 1

3.2

16.4

28.8

22.1

6.7

9.9

100.0

93.3

59.6

59.6

40.4

32.0

32.0

66.3

63.9

53.9

6.6

44.3

44.3

24.3

23.8

’7.3

34.4

1.1

25.3

’8.0

’43.8

2.8

2.8

97.1

10.1

6.9

3.2

82.0

9.4

5.4

4.0

77.0

7.6

7.6

92.4

5.7

6.7

74.5

26. 5

4.2

4.2

2.1

5.0

5.0

78.6

9.7

9.7

29.7

35.1

19.6

19.6

80.4

23.9

23.9

76.1

69.2

25.3

25.3

40.3

38.0

6.4

17.6

17.6

62.2

79.3

16.2

42.6

7.5

7.6

72.3

76.6

18.4

18.4

67.3

23.5

9.4

9.8

4.3

7.0

67.9

18.4

33.6

6.0

4.0

65.5

31.4

24.7

9.4

9.3

1.7

46.0

27.6

13.9

4.6

6.3

20.0

51.0

12.9

34.1

4.0

29.0

42.5

30.8

11.7

30.8

9.9

21.5

21.5

21.1

32.2

18.6

13.6

61.1

5.4

34.5

34.6

17.4

47.0

47.0

11.1

1 See app. A for the territory included in each urban area. Percentages
based on figures which relate to territory other than that shown for the area

'°»^F&ms^on^whU*these percentages are based exclude cost of admin^tra-
tion; ^materials, equipment, and other items mcident to operation of work

^^f^ures^on which ^theL°%rcentages are based include statutory aid to
veterans administered on basis of need.

* Not initiated until 1933.

‘ Not initiated imtil 1935. , . , ^ ^

« Figures on which these percentages are based mclude direct and work
relief and aid to veterans. ^

’ Figure on which this percentage is based relates to city.

115

Table C— 14. — Percentage distribution of amount of public and private assistance and earnings under specified

Federal work programs, by urban area, 1931

Public funds

Geographic division, State,
and urban area '

Total
public
and
private
funds *

Total

General relief *

Earnings under
Federal work
programs

Special types of public assistance

Private
funds •

Total

Direct

relief

Work

relief

Civil
Works
Pro¬
gram <

Projects
operated
by the
WPA «

Total

Old-age

assist¬

ance

Aid to
depend¬
ent

children

Aid to
the
blind

Total . . .

100.0

71.0

51.1

38.7

12.4

19.9

5.8

12.9

1.2

29.0

New England

Connecticut:

Bridgeport-.

100.0

89. 4

84. 2

38.3

45.9

5.2

5.1

.1

10.6

Hartford . .

100. 0

77.8

72. 6

61. 6

11.0

6.2

5.0

.2

22.2

New Britain.. _ .

100.0

79.3

70.3

70.3

9.0

9.0

20.7

New Haven _ _ _

100.0

83.4

72. 7

19.8

52.9

10.7

10.3

.4

16.6

Maine: Portland .

100. 0

91. 3

83. 9

41. 6

42.4

7.4

4.7

2.7

8.7

Massachusetts:

Boston _ _ _

100.0

91.6

80. 1

80. 1

11.5

.8

10. 1

.6

8.4

Brockton _ _ _

100.0

86.9

71.3

70.6

. 7

15.6

8.3

6.2

1.1

13. 1

Cambridge _ _

100.0

88.0

70. 7

70.7

17.3

1.8

14. 1

1.4

12.0

Fall River. .

100.0

91.6

83. 1

83. 1

8.5

3. 2

4.4

.9

8.4

Lawrence.- _ _ . .-.

100.0

93. 1

76.0

75.0

18.1

4.9

12.6

.6

6.9

Lowell _

100.0

91.2

74.8

59. 1

15. 7

16.4

2.4

13.2

.8

8.8

Lynn _ _

100.0

89. 7

74.0

74.0

15.7

6.3

8.9

.6

10.3

Maldp.n

100. 0

98 3

94 7

8fi. 0

8.7

3. 6

.7

2.4

.5

1.7

New Bedford _ _

100.0

96.3

86.9

86.9

9.4

2.3

6.6

.6

3.7

Newton _ _ _ _

100.0

78.9

57.8

39.8

18.0

21.1

5. 1

16.4

.6

21.1

Springfield _ _

100.0

89.8

84.5

84.5

5.3

1.4

3.6

.3

10.2

Worcester _

100.0

92. 1

85.2

85.2

6.9

.5

5.8

.6

7.9

Rhode Island: Providence _

100.0

43.3

33. 7

27.0

6.7

9.6

9.6

56.7

Middle Atlantic

New Jersey:

Jersey City _ _

100.0

87.8

58.6

57.9

.7

29.2

28.6

.6

12.2

Newark _

100.0

86.9

74. 1

67.4

6.7

12.8

12. 4

.4

13. 1

Trenton _ _ _ _

100.0

66. 7

48.3

41.0

7.3

18.4

17.6

.8

33.3

New York:

Albany . .

100.0

73.0

31.0

27. 6

3. 4

42. 0

28. 4

12. 3

1.3

27.0

Buflalb _ _ _

100.0

90. 1

78.5

69. 7

8.8

11.6

4. 3

7.0

.3

9.9

New Rochelle _ _ _

100.0

94.3

71.3

35. 7

35.6

23.0

10.7

11. 7

.6

5.7

New York _

100.0

63.6

26. 5

8.6

17.9

37. 1

16.0

20. 7

.4

36.4

Niagara FaUs.. _ _ ...

100.0

91. 3

76. 2

63.0

13. 2

15. 1

5. 0

9.9

.2

8. 7

Rochester _

100.0

92.7

83. 3

67. 7

15. 6

9.4

6. 0

3. 1

.3

7.3

Syracuse _ _ _

100.0

93.8

81. 4

48. 6

32. 8

12. 4

8.8

3. 4

. 2

6.2

Utica . .

100.0

66.9

38. 4

29.0

9.4

28.5

13.0

14.6

.9

33. 1

Yonkers . . . .

100.0

68.4

44. 9

44. 5

. 4

23. 5

7. 6

15. 6

.3

31. 6

Pennsylvania:

Allentown _

100.0

65.3

12. 1

12. 1

63.2

53. 2

34.7

Altoona. . . . . .

100.0

72.6

46. 4

46.4

26. 2

26.2

27.4

Bethlehem . . .

100.0

90.5

82.0

50.9

31. 1

8. 5

8. 5

9. 5

Chester _

100.0

66.3

42.2

41. 7

. 5

24. 1

24. 1

33.7

Erie.. . . . .

100.0

78. 1

62. 7

62.7

15. 4

15. 4

21. 9

Johnstown. _ _

100.0

86.2

64.3

64.3

21.9

21. 9

13.8

Philadelphia- _ _

100.0

42.6

34.9

34.9

7. 7

7. 7

57. 4

Pittsburgh _

100.0

31.7

20.5

20.5

11. 2

11. 2

68. 3

Reading _ _

100.0

73.8

55.6

38. 5

17. 1

18.2

18.2

26. 2

Scranton. _ _

100.0

72.8

47. 7

47.7

25. 1

25. 1

27. 2

Wilkes-Barre _ _

100.0

94.9

71.0

71.0

23.9

23.9

5.1

Nobth Central

Illinois:

Chicago _ _ _

100.0

36.6

24.0

24.0

11.6

8.3

3.3

64.4

Springfield _

100.0

64.6

21. 1

21. 1

43. 6

9.4

34.1

35.4

Indiana:

Evansville _

100.0

82.0

77.2

77.2

4.8

4.8

18.0

Fort Wayne _ _

100.0

46.6

43.6

43.6

3.0

3.0

53. 4

Indianapolis _

100.0

80.6

79.2

79.2

1.4

1 4

19 4

South Bend _ _ _

100.0

93.7

89.5

89. 5

4.2

4 2

6 3

Terre Haute . . .

100.0

77.9

67.7

67.7

10.2

10. 2

22. 1

Iowa:

Des Moines _ _

100.0

66.0

38.8

38.7

. 1

27. 2

17.9

Q 3

34 0

Sioux City _ .

100.0

82.8

67.4

39. 8

17.6

25.4

18.8

6.6

17.2

Kansas:

Kansas City _

100.0

59.4

58.6

58.6

.8

. 8

40 6

Topeka . .

100.0

97.8

88. 1

55.1

33.0

9.7

9.7

2 2

Wichita _

100.0

73.5

64.7

63.6

1. 1

8.8

8.8

26.5

Michigan:

Detroit _ _

100.0

96.6

86.2

79.7

6.5

10.4

10 4

3 4

Flint . .

100.0

93.9

73.1

73.1

20.8

20 8

oil

Grand Rapids. . .

TOO.O

96. 1

82.3

26.8

56.5

13.8

13. 8

, 3 9

Pontiac _ _ _

100.0

99.4

78.8

78.8

20. 6

20 6

6

Saginaw _ _ ..

100.0

96.5

79.8

79.8

16.7

16 7

3! 5

Minnesota:

Duluth _

100.0

93.2

49. 1

45.6

3.5

44. 1

9 3

1 3

6 8

Minneapolis _

100.0

63.6

42. 7

36.4

6.3

20 9

1 s

IR n

1 \

36 4

St. Paul . .

100.0

71.3

37.7

37.7

33.6

L3

3a 2

2.1

28.7

See footnotes at end of table;

116

Table C-U.— Percentage distribution of amount of public and private assistance and

Federal work programs, by urban area, i95i— Continued

earnings

under specified

Geographic division, State,
and urban area >

Total
public
and
private
funds *

Public funds

Private
funds »

Total

General relief *

Earnings under
Federal work
programs

Special types of public assistance

Total

Direct

relief

Work

relief

Civil
W'orks
Pro¬
gram f

Projects
operated
by the
WPAS

Total

Old-age

assist¬

ance

Aid to
depend¬
ent

children

Aid to
the
blind

North Central— Con.

Missouri:

Kansas City.. .

100.0

16.4

4

St. Louis _

100.0

44.5

28.8

24. 1

4.7

15 7

® 83. 6

Nebraska: Omaha _

100. 0

56. 1

26.0

26.0

3o; 1

27.6

11. 5

2.5

65. 5
43.9

Ohio:

Akron . . .

100.0

78.8

67.5

67.5

a

9 0

21.2

Canton . . .

100.0

57.2

39. 1

39. 1

18 1

Cincinnati _

100.0

63.4

47.0

26.3

20. 7

Ifi 4

13 5

42. 8

Cleveland _ _

100.0

59.9

45.7

39.6

6. 1

14 9.

12 5

36. 6

Columbus _

100.0

83.5

55.0

52.9

2. 1

28 JS

19 7

40. 1

Dayton . .

100.0

79. 1

64.7

29.3

35.4

14 4

9 7

Springfield _

100.0

58.0

42.5

42. 5

15 5

12 4

20. 9

Toledo _ _ _

100.0

94.8

85.5

73.5

12.0

Q. 3

7 4

Youngstown _

100.0

47.8

31.5

31.5

16 3

1L6

4.7

5. 2
52.2

Wisconsin:

Kenosha.-- _ _

100.0

89. 1

68.4

68.4

20 7

4.6

14 3

Madison _ _

100.0

88.9

43.6

43.6

45. 3

40 9

Milwaukee . . .

100.0

93.0

75.2

57.6

17.6

17 8

2.9

^3 5

Racine . . . . .

100.0

97.6

86.0

72.1

12.9

12. 6

io!4

2.2

2.4

South Atlantic and

South Central

Alabama:

Birmingham

100.0

63.8

63.8

53.8

2

Mobile...

100.0

24.4

24.4

24.4

75 6

Delaware: Wilmington _

100.0

' 16.7

.4

.4

16.3

5.0

11 3

83.3

District of Columbia: Wash-

ineton _ _ _

100.0

26.7

1.2

1.2

25. 5

25 5

73.3

Florida:

Jacksonville

100.0

71.9

30.9

30.9

41.0

41.0

98 1

Miami

100 0

72.5

31.7

31.7

40.8

40 8

27 5

Georgia: Atlanta _

100.0

52.6

52.6

52.6

47 4

Kentucky: Louisiville _ _

100.0

73.5

*53.5

» 26.3

« 27. 2

20.0

1.6

13.3

* 5. 1

« 26 5

Louisiana:

New Orleans.. _

100.0

16.0

14.6

14.6

1.4

1 4

84 0

Shreveport

100.0

31.9

19.7

19.7

12. 2

8.0

4 9

08 1

Maryland: Baltimore _

100.0

28.8

20.6

20.6

8.2

2. 5

2.8

2.9

7L2

North Carolina:

Asheville _ _ _

100.0

62.4

57.7

57.7

4.7

4.7

37 fi

Charlotte. _ _

100.0

37.5

33.8

33.8

3.7

3.7

62 F,

Greensboro _

100.0

98.6

95.4

52.9

42.5

3.2

3.2

1 4

Winston-Salem _ _

100.0

36.7

33.3

33.3

3.4

3.4

63 3

Oklahoma: Tulsa _

100.0

50.3

45.7

45.7

4.6

4.6

4Q 7

South Carolina: Charleston.. .

100.0

62.3

62.3

62.3

37. 7

Tennes.see:

Knoxville _ _

100. 0

18. 5

18. 5

18.5

81

Memphis _ ... ...

100.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

85 0

Nash^lle _

100.0

46.8

46.8

46.8

53 2

Texas:

Dallas . .

100 0

72.0

57.6

31.6

26.0

14.4

14.4

28 0

El Paso.. _

100.0

80.5

80.5

28.0

52.5

19. 5

Fort Worth

100.0

95. 1

95. 1

95. 1

4.9

TTouston

100.0

2.5.2

14.2

14.2

11.0

11.0

74. 8

San Antonin

100.0

16.6

16.6

16.6

83.4

Virginia:

Norfolk

100.0

41.2

41.2

36.5

4.7

58.8

Richmond _ _ ... _

100.0

45.3

40. 1

40. 1

5.2

6.2

54.7

Roanokft

100 0

46.8

46.8

46.8

53.2

Wr'sf. TTiinfinption

100.0

39. 1

28.9

28.9

10.2

10.2

60.9

Mountain and Pacific

California:

TaOS Anpftlps

100.0

91.0

76.2

42.4

33.8

14.8

7.4

4.7

2.7

9.0

Oakland

100.0

96.9

51.4

51.4

(')

45.5

17.4

23.5

4.6

3. 1

100.0

89. 7

24. 1

24. 1

66.6

38.5

20.2

6.9

10.3

San 'Diego

100.0

95.0

69.6

50.4

9.2

35.4

24.2

8.7

2.5

5.0

Ran FrftTif*i.9Pr»

100.0

84.7

69.5

. 1

59.4

25.2

9. 1

14.1

2.0

15.3

100 0

65.3

24. 1

24. 1

31.2

23.1

8.1

44.7

100 0

93.5

87.3

14.3

73.0

6.2

6.2

6.5

100 0

46.0

20.3

20.3

25.7

14.3

11.4

54.0

Washington:

100.0

75. 1

53.4

30.3

23. 1

21.7

21.7

24.9

100.0

80.3

42.4

42.4

37.9

.37.9

19.7

> See app. A for the territory included in each urban area. Percentages
based on figures which relate to territory other than that shown for the area
in app. A are footnoted.

• Figures on which these percentages are based exclude cost of administra¬
tion; of materials, equipment, and other items incident to operation of work
programs; and of transient care.

* Figures on which these percentages are based include statutory aid to
veterans administered on basis of need.

< Not initiated until 1933.

» Not initiated until 1935.

* Figures on which these percentages are based include direct and work
relief and aid to veterans.

’ Less than 0.1 percent.

• Figure on which this percentage is based relates to city.

117

Table C— 15.— Percentage distribution of amount of public and private assistance and earnings under specified

Federal work programs, by urban area, 1932

Public funds

Geographic division, State,
and urban area '

Total
public
and
private
funds >

Total

General relief®

•N

Earnings under
Federal work
programs

Special types of public assistance

Private
funds *

Total

Direct

relief

Work

relief

Civil
Works
Pro¬
gram ‘

Projects
operated
by the
WPA «

Total

Old-age

assist¬

ance

Aid to
depend¬
ent

children

Aid to
the
blind

Total _ _ -

100.0

81.6

68.0

51.8

16.2

13.6

4.9

7.9

0.8

18.4

New England

Connecticut:

Bridgeport _ - _

100.0

91.0

88.0

49.2

38.8

3.0

2.9

,1

9.0

Hartford

100.0

66. 1

62.0

57. 1

4.9

4.1

4.0

.1

33.9

NTpw ■Rritain

100.0

92.5

88.3

88.3

4.2

4.2

V)

7.6

■NTpw ■Ravpn

100.0

81.1

73. 1

26.9

46.2

8.0

7.7

.3

18.9

TVTftino: Portland

100.0

90.6

84.6

84.6

'6.0

3.9

2.1

9.4

Massachusetts:

Boston _ _

100.0

82.6

69.7

69.7

12.9

6.5

6.0

.4

17.4

Prookton .

100.0

91.2

72.0

72.0

19.2

13.6

4.9

.7

8.8

Cambridge - _ _ _

100.0

85.7

69.6

69.6

16. 1

8.0

7.2

.9

14.3

Pall Rivp.r

100.0

93.7

78.3

78.3

15.4

10.1

4.6

.7

6.3

Lawrence _

100.0

95.9

78.3

78.3

17.6

10.7

6.6

.3

4.1

TiOwpll

100.0

92.8

71.7

71.7

21.1

9.8

10.7

.6

7.2

Lynn _ _ _

100.0

95. 1

76.4

76. 4

18.7

13.6

4.8

.3

4.9

Malden . _

100.0

99.6

91.4

91.4

8.2

6.9

1.0

.3

.4

New Bedford _

100.0

97.5

81.5

81. 5

16.0

10.0

5.7

.3

2.6

Newton _ _ _

100.0

75. 7

54.3

54.3

21.4

11.6

9.2

.6

24.3

Springfield _

100.0

93.0

86.6

86.6

6. 4

4.7

1.5

.2

7.0

Worcester _ -

100.0

94.1

84.5

84.5

9.6

5.7

3.5

.4

6.9

Phodp T.«;land* Providonop

100. 0

92. 7

87.8

41. 2

46. 6

4.9

4.9

7.3

Middle Atlantic

New Jersey:

Jersey City _

100.0

89.5

76.1

62.6

13.5

13.4

13.0

.4

10.6

Newark _ _ _

100.0

93.7

83.3

53.6

29. 7

10.4

1.5

8.5

.4

6.3

Trenton _

100.0

66.9

54.8

43. 1

11. 7

12. 1

2.3

9.4

.4

33.1

New York:

Albanv . .. __

100.0

89.6

71.6

26.8

44.8

18. 0

11.4

6.8

.8

10.4

Buffalo _ _

100.0

93.0

85.5

69.6

15.9

7. 5

3.8

3.5

.2

7.0

New Rochelle _ _

100.0

98.9

90. 1

40.8

49.3

8.8

5.3

3.3

.2

1. 1

New York _

100.0

72.6

48.0

22.7

25. 3

24.6

11.3

13.1

.2

27.4

Niagara Falls _

100.0

98.4

92.0

57. 5

34. 5

6. 4

2. 2

4 1

.1

1.6

Porhpster _ _

100.0

97. 1

84. 2

70.8

13. 4

12.9

9.8

2.8

.3

2.9

Syracuse _ _

100.0

97.8

87.9

51.7

36. 2

9.9

7.5

2.2

.2

2.2

Utica. _

100.0

93.2

74.0

39.9

34. 1

19.2

10.9

7.9

' .4

6.8

Yonkers _

100.0

95.4

85.8

50. 1

35. 7

9.6

4.3

6.2

.1

4.6

Pennsylvania:

Allentown _ _ _ _

100.0

69.3

13.3

13.3

56.0

56.0

30. 7

100.0

75.3

65.4

65. 4

9.9

9.9

24 7

Bethlehem _ _ _ _

100.0

89.9

76. 5

76.5

13.4

13. 4

10. 1

Chester _ _

100.0

91.4

81. 1

81. 1

10.3

10.3

8. 6

Erie . _ _

100.0

91. 5

83.0

83. 0

8. 5

8. 5

8. 6

Johnstown _

100.0

96.0

67.3

67.3

28. 7

28. 7

4 0

Philadelphia _

100. 0

52. 6

45.9

45.9

6. 7

6. 7

47 4

Pittsburgh _

100. 0

67. 0

61. 1

61. 1

5.9

5. 9

33 0

Reading _ _

100.0

87.6

81.2

68.6

12. 6

6. 4

6. 4

12 4

Scranton _

100.0

83.4

67.4

67.4

16.0

16.0

16.6

Wilkes-Barre _ - _

100.0

92.6

78.4

68.6

9.8

14.?

14.2

7.4

North Central

Illinois:

Chicago _

100.0

89.8

85.8

80.2

5.6

4.0

2.8

1.2

10.2

Springfield _

100.0

83.3

62.1

62.1

21. 2

6.5

15.7

16 7

Indiana:

Evansville _

100.0

86.6

84.4

84.4

2.2

2.2

13 4

Fort Wayne _

100.0

72.8

71.2

71.2

1.6

1.6

27 2

Indianapolis _

100.0

86.6

85.8

85.8

.8

.8

13 4

South Bend _

100.0

97.3

94.3

94.3

3.0

3.0

2 7

Terre Haute _

100.0

85.0

79.4

79. 4

5.6

5.6

16.0

Iowa:

Des Moines _

100.0

78.3

64.6

64.6

13.7

8.9

4.8

91 7

Sioux City _ _

100.0

91.4

77.9

66.9

11.0

13.5

10.2

3.3

8.6

Kansas:

Kansas City _

100.0

44.3

44.0

21.4

22. 6

.3

.3

55 7

Topeka _ _ _

100.0

98.2

91.2

40.3

50.9

7.0

7.0

1 ft

Wichita _

100.0

80.1

74.0

49.0

25.0

6. 1

6. 1

19.9

Michigan:

Detroit _ _

100.0

91.6

79.2

61.9

17.3

12.4

12.4

8 4

Flint... .

100.0

92.7

79.7

79.7

13.0

13.0

7 3

Grand Rapids _

100.0

98.4

90.7

64.4

26.3

7.7

7. 7

1 6

Pontine

100.0

99.5

89.0

89.0

10.5

10. 6

5

Saginaw _

100.0

95.8

77.3

77.3

18. 5

18. 5

4.2

Minnesota:

Duluth _

100.0

96.7

77.9

69.7

8.2

18.8

5.7

12. 5

.6

3 3

Minneapolis _

100.0

80.6

65.2

62.5

2.7

15.4

5.8*

9. 1

. 6

4

St. Paul _ _

100.0

66.8

48.4

48.4

18.4

5.6

12.1

.8

33.2

See footnotes at end of table. V

118

Table C-15. Percentage distribution of amount of public and private assistance and earnings under specified

Federal work programs, by urban area, 1932— Continued

Public funds

Geographic division. State,
and urban area i

Total
public
and
private
funds -

Total

General relief ’

Earnings under
Federal work
programs

Special types of public assistance

Private
funds 8

Total

Direct

relief

Work

relief

Civil
Works
Pro¬
gram *

Projects
operated
by the
WPA5

Total

Old-age

assist¬

ance

Aid to
depend¬
ent

children

Aid to
the
blind

North Central — Con.

Missouri:

Kansas City _

100.0

37.1

« 24.0

8 24.0

13.1

7 d

3.7

1.8
16.8

5.8

8.5

6.6
8.3
8.6
6.6

9.7
8.0

4.9

8.8
20.5

7.7

8.1

9.4
5.6
2.0

1.2

6.2

1.5
1.1

3.5

2.6
2.1
2.2
2.3

1.1

2.2

8 62.9
68.3
50.5

12.7

St. Louis . . .

100.0

41.7

34.3

34.3

Nebraska: Omaha

100.0

49.5

30.7

30.7

1

18.8

7.0

14.7
8.1
9.4

12.0

9.2

11.8
10.2

7.2

12.6

22.7

10.4

9.7

Ohio:

Akron _ _ _

100.0

87.3

80.3

80.3

Canton _

100.0

65.5

50.8

50.8

Cincinnati _

100.0

89.5

81.4

47.4

34.0

o4. 0
10.6
22.2
8.7
7.4
33.9

2.3
7.0

10.2

4.0

3.3
20.2

Cleveland... _ _

100.0

77.8

68.4

68.4

Columbus.- .

100.0

91.3

79.3

27.7

51. 6

Dayton _

100.0

92.6

83.4

69. 7

13.7

Springfield . .

100.0

66. 1

54.3

54.3

Toledo. .

100.0

97.7

87.5

87.5

Youngstown. . . .

100.0

93.0

85.8

80.2

5.6

Wisconsin:

Kenosha _ _

100.0

89.8

77.2

77.2

2.7

Madison _ _

100.0

96.0

73.3

73.3

Milwaukee _

100.0

96.7

86.3

73.7

12.6

2.0

Racine _ _

100.0

79.8

70.1

68.3

1.8

L6

South Atlantic and South
Central

Alabama:

Birmingham _

100.0

69.7

69.7

50.4

19.3

30.3

92.8
61.1

67.6

9.6

14.3
23.2

8 28.2

30.6
41.1
23.0

37.7

17.7
.8

33.9

26.8
46.8

Mobile _

100.0

7.2

7.2

7.2

Delaware: Wilmington.. . .

100.0

38.9

28.4

12.4

16.0

10.5

6.1

4.4

9.9

17.3

18.1

District of Columbia: Wash¬
ington _

100.0

32.4

22.5

7.9

14.6

9.9

Florida:

Jacksonville _

100.0

90.4

73.1

34.8

38.3

17.3

Miami _

100.0

85.7

67.6

20.4

47.2

18.1

Georgia: Atlanta . .

100.0

76.8

76.8

67.6

9.2

Kentucky; Louisville _ _

100.0

71.8

» 59.2

8 18.0

8 41.2

12.6

1.1

8.2

8 3.3

.8

3.9

1.1

Louisiana;

New Orleans _

100.0

69.4

68.6

6.6

62.0

.8

Shreveport _ _

100.0

58.9

51.4

4. 2

47.2

7.6

3.6
1.0

1.7

1.8

Maryland; Baltimore _

100.0

77.0

73.2

34.3

38.9

3.8

1.7

North Carolina:

Asheville.. _ _

100.0

62.3

60.6

18.2

42.4

1.7

Charlotte... . .

100.0

82.3

80.5

60.6

19.9

1.8

Greensboro _ _

100.0

99.2

96.6

96.6

2.6

2.6

Winston-Salem _

100.0

66. 1

62.2

58.0

4.2

3.9

3.9

Oklahoma; Tulsa _

100.0

73.2

70.5

70.5

2.7

2.7

South Carolina: Charleston...

100.0

53.2

53.2

53.2

Tennessee;

Knoxville _ _

100.0

77.2

52.6

1.6

51.0

24.6

24.6

22.8
64 8

Memphis _ _

100.0

35.2

17.3

17.3

17.9

17.9

Nashville.. _ _

100.0

62.9

62.9

62.9

37.1

33.3

3.3

Texas:

Dallas _

100.0

66.7

60.7

10.5

50.2

6.0

6.0

El Paso _

100.0

96.7

96.7

37.5

59.2

Fort Worth _ _

100.0

88.9

88.9

80.0

8.9

11. 1

Houston _ _

100.0

48.0

40.6

40.6

7.4

7.4

62.0

44.8

San Antonio _

100.0

55.2

55. 2

10.2

45.0

Virginia:

Norfolk _ _

100.0

23.8

23.0

23.0

.8

.8

76.2

Richmond _

100.0

59.3

56.9

28.7

28.2

2.4

2.4

40.7

Roanoke... _

100.0

58.6

58.6

58.6

41.4

West Virginia: Huntington...
Mountain and Pacific

100.0

34.0

24.8

24.8

9.2

9.2

66.0

California:

Los Angeles... _

100.0

90.0

69.2

52.2

17.0

20.8

11.5

5.3

4.0

10.0

Oakland . _ _

100.0

96.5

65.4

46. 1

19.3

31. 1

13.4

14.2

3.6

3.5

Sacramento _ _

100.0

89.5

23.4

23.4

66.1

38.6

19.9

7.6

10.5

San Diego _

100.0

96.8

71.9

31.5

40.4

24.9

17.2

6.0

1.7

3.2

San Francisco

100.0

89.6

70.9

3.3

67.6

18.7

7.1

10.1

1.6

10.4

Colorado* Donvor

100.0

48. 1

34.7

34.7

13.4

9.9

3.6

51.9

Oregon; Portland _

100.0

96.3

93.3

21.4

71.9

3.0

3.0

3.7

TTtah' Salt. T.alrft City

100.0

78. 1

68.2

46.9

21.3

9.9

5.2

4.7

21.9

Washington:

100.0

95.1

89.4

88.7

.7

6.7

6.7

4.9

100.0

94.3

81.9

81.9

12.4

12.4

5.7

‘ See app. A for the territory included in each urban area. Percentages
based on figures which relate to territory other than that shown for the area
in app. A are footnoted.

1 Figures on which these percentages are based exclude cost of administra¬
tion; of materials, equipment, and other items incident to operation of work
programs; and of transient care.

> Figures on which these percentages are based include statutory aid to
veterans administered on basis of need.

< Not initiated until 1933.

« Not initiated until 1935.

* Figures on which these percentages are based include direct and work re¬
lief and aid to veterans.

» Less than 0.1 percent.

* Figure on which this percentage is based relates to city.

119

Table Cr-16.— Percentage distribution of amount of public and private assistance and earnings under specified

Federal work programs, by urban area, 1933

Geographic division, State,
and urban area <

Total

public

and

General rell

private
funds »

Total

Total

Direct

relief

Total . . .

100.0

94.6

75.1

64.4

New England
Connecticut:

Bridgeport . . .

100.0

95.1

80.6

73.5

Hartford . . . .

100.0

72.6

62.2

61.0

New Britain .

100.0

82.9

62.5

62.5

New Haven _

100.0

85.3

67.8

67.4

Maine: Portland . .

100.0

95.6

71.0

71.0

Massachusetts:

Boston.. _ _

100.0

90.6

73.1

73. 1

Brockton . . .

100.0

93.6

71.3

71.3

Cambridge . . . .

100.0

90.9

66. 1

66. 1

Fall River .

100.0

99.7

68.3

68.3

Lawrence _

100.0

97.2

65.0

65.0

Lowell . . .

100.0

95.2

61.8

61.8

Lynn . . .

100.0

97.7

71.0

71.0

Malden _ _

100.0

99.9

85.5

85.5

New Bedford _ _

100.0

98.1

69.7

69.7

Newton _ _

100.0

93.3

65.8

65.8

Springfield . .

100.0

97.9

84.7

84.7

Worcester . . . ..

100.0

96.7

77.0

77.0

Rhode Island: Providence _

100.0

92.9

76.3

39.2

Middle Atlantic

New Jersey:

Jersey City . . . . .

•100.0

•99.1

•60.3

•60.3

Newark _ ...

• 100.0

•98.0

•76.0

•69.8

Trenton . .

• 100.0

•95.0

• 70.2

•70.2

New York:

Albany _ _

• 100.0

•96.5

•65.7

•29.7

Buffalo . . .. .

100.0

96.7

85.5

55.9

New Rochelle _ ..

• 100.0

•99.8

•56.8

•38.4

New York . .

100.0

87.9

67.0

36.2

Niagara Falls _ _

100.0

98.5

83.7

43.6

Rochester.. .

• loo. 0

•98.7

• 75.6

•43. 1

Syracuse .

• loo. 0

•99.1

•83.2

•30.9

Utica .

100.0

95.5

75.2

30.5

Yonkers _ _ .

100.0

98.2

87.4

34.1

Pennsylvania:

Allentown _

100.0

98.5

87.6

86.0

Altoona. .

100.0

97.0

80. 1

76.6

Bethlehem _

100.0

96.7

86.2

84.4

Chester _ _ _

100.0

98.3

87.6

84.7

Erie.. .

100.0

100.0

89.1

89.1

Johnstown _ _

100.0

99.6

78.6

76.6

Philadelphia .

100.0

93.6

88.8

88.7

Pittsburgh. .

100.0

97.4

91.5

90.7

Reading _ _

100.0

98.6

88.5

73.7

Scranton . .

100.0

95.8

83.6

77.7

Wilkes-Barre _

100.0

99.5

88.9

74.8

North Central
Illinois:

Chicago.. .

100.0

96.2

86.4

73.3

Springfield _

100.0

94.3

48.5

41.9

Indiana:

Evansville

100.0

99.8

76.8

68.3

Fort Wayne _

100.0

93.0

68.3

64.3

Indianapolis _ _

100.0

94.8

66.2

66.1

South Bend _ ..

100.0

99.4

79.9

78.7

Terre Haute . .

100.0

96.6

54.4

37.0

Iowa:

Des Moines _

100.0

98.9

69.5

62.4

Sioux City _

100.0

98.3

62.6

38.1

Kansas:

Kansas City .

100.0

93.8

64.6

17.3

Topeka .

100.0

99.7

66.2

24.8

Wichita _

100.0

97.7

68.5

22.9

Michigan:

Detroit _ _ _

100.0

98.9

78.6

63.3

Flint... _ _ ..

100.0

99.6

75.0

72.6

Grand Rapids .

100.0

99.6

79.1

73.8

Pontiac . . .

100.0

99.9

83.5

80.3

Saginaw _

100.0

98.0

65.9

63.3

Minnesota:

Duluth _ _

100.0

98.7

67.4

67.4

Minneapolis _

‘0 100. 0

••Ol.O

*» 65. 4

*0 65. 4

St. Paul _

100.0

92.8

67.0

65.2

Missouri:

Kansas City _

» 100. 0

» 75. 4

** 54. 6

** 54. 2

St. Louis _

10 100.0

*''94.1

*0 79. 0

>» 79. 0

Nebraska: Omaha. ..

See footnotes at end of tabk

100.0

i.

90.1

62.2

62.2

Public funds

Earnings under
Federal work
programs

Special types of public assistance

Private

Work

relief

20.7

7.1

1.2

10.4

36.1

*6.2

•36.0

29.6
« 18.4

30.8

40.2
•32.5
•52.3

44.7

53.3

1.6

3.5

1.8

2.9

2.0
. 1
.8
14.8
5.8
14.1

13. 1

6.6

8.6

14.0

.1

1.2

17.4

7.1

24.6

37.2

41.4

46.6

15.3
2.4
5.3

3.2

2.6

(7 10)
1.8

>'.4

(7 10)

Civil
Works
Pro¬
gram ‘

Projects
operated
by the
WPA •

Total

Old-age

assist¬

ance

Aid to
depend¬
ent

children

Aid to
the
blind

funds »

11.5

7.9

2.8

4.6

0.6

5.6

11.3

3.2

3.1

.1

4.9

6. 1

5.2

6.0

.2

27.5

15.2

6.2

6.2

(0

17.1

9.9

7.6

7.4

.2

14.7

21.6

3.0

2. 1

.9

4.5

3.4

14.0

7.2

6.5

.3

9.5

6.2

16.1

9.8

6.7

.6

6.4

9.3

15.5

8.9

6.8

.8

9. 1

12.0

19.4

12.8

5.8

.8

.3

10.4

21.8

13.9

7.6

.4

2.8

13.2

20.2

10.4

9.3

.5

4.8

9.1

17.6

13.4

4.0

.2

2.3

6.3

8. 1

6.8

1. 1

.2

. 1

8.5

19.9

13.6

6.0

.4

1.9

13.5

14.0

8.6

5.0

.4

6. 7

6.9

6.3

4.9

1.3

.1

2. 1

9.7

10.0

6.3

3.4

.3

3.3

13.7

3.9

3.9

7. 1

•30.4

•8.4

•8. 1

•.3

•.9

•7.9

•14.1

•3.1

• 10.7

•.3

•2.0

• 11.9

« 12.9

•6.0

•7.4

«.5

•5.0

•22.6

•8.3

•5.0

•2.9

•.4

•3.5

5.3

5.9

3.3

2.4

.2

3.3

•39.7

•3.3

•2.2

• 1.0

•.1

•.2

6.1

14.8

6.4

8.2

.2

12.1

8. 1

6.7

2.2

4.4

.1

1.5

• 11.2

• 11.9

•9.2

•2.6

«.2

• 1.3

•9.6

•6.3

•4.8

• 1.4

•.1

•.9

6.2

14. 1

7.8

6.0

.3

4.5

3.6

7.2

3.4

3.7

.1

1.8

5.7

5.2

5. 2

1. 5

11.0

5.9

6.9

3.0

6.2

4.3

4.3

3.3

6.6

5. 1

5. 1

1.7

4.4

6. 5

6. 5

(0

7.0

14.0

14.0

.4

1.1

3.6

3.6

6.6

2.1

3.8

3.8

2.6

5.8

4.3

4. 3

1.4

8.7

3.6

3.6

4.2

3.3

7.3

7.3

.6

7.6

2.2

1.4

.8

3.8

35.0

10.8

1 4

9.4

6.7

21.9

1.1

1. 1

.2

23.8

.9

.9

7.0

28. 1

.5

. 6

6.2

17.6

1.9

1.9

.6

40.7

1.6

1.6

3.4

25.4

4.0

2.6

1.4

1. 1

29.5

6.2

4 8

1.4

1. 7

39.2

. 1

. 1

6. 2

31.1

2.4

2.4

.3

28.0

1.2

1.2

2.3

14.7

6.6

6.6

1 1

14.2

10.3

10.3

. 6

16.4

4.1

4. 1

4

15.0

1 4

1.4

. 1

18.6

13.5

13.6

2.0

16.7

14.6

3.2

11.0

0.4

1.3

>« 15. 5

*0 10. 1

*04.4

*0 6.4

*‘>.3

*» 9.0

16.4

9.4

3.4

5.6

.4

7.2

» 14. 1

•* 6.7

** 1. 7

u fi (1

11 94 Q

*0 11.8

*03.3

10 7

10 9 fi

10 5' 9

21.9

6.0

5. 1

.0

9' 9

120

Table Percentage distribution of amount of public and private assistance and earnings under specified

Federal work programs, by urban area, 1933— Continued

Public funds

Geographic division. State,
and urban area >

Total
public
and
private
funds *

Total

General relief *

Earnings under
Federal work
programs

Special types of public assistance

Total

Direct

relief

Work

relief

Civil
Works
Pro¬
gram *

Projects
operated
by the
WPA«

Total

Old-age

assit-

ance

Aid to
depend¬
ent

children

Aid to
the
blind

North Central— Continued

Ohio:

Akron _

100.0

97.9

73.0

62. 1

10.9

22.

2 4

Canton _

100.0

100.0

72.4

72.3

. 1

20, 1

7 5

0. 4

Cincinnati... .

100.0

96.8

74.4

40.2

34. 2

17. 5

4 9

o. 9

Cleveland _

100.0

95.3

70.6

67.3

3.3

20. 3

4 4

Columbus. . .

100.0

97.7

72.7

30.1

42.6

20 2

iis

Dayton _ _ _

100.0

96.7

74.8

69.6

15. 2

1

3 8

Springfield _ ..

100.0

99.0

59.8

58.8

1.0

36. 4

2 ^

Toledo..

100.0

99.8

65.9

63.4

2. 5

.30 0

3 9

Youngstown _

Wisconsin:

100.0

98. 7

72.9

71.3

1.6

23. 1

2.7

1.8

• 8

.9

Kenosha _

100.0

99.3

72.2

71. 1

1. 1

1^ 5

2.3

Madison _

100.0

99.8

65.7

47.6

8.2

5 6

0. 0

. 7

Milwaukee _

100.0

98. 1

71.6

54. 6

17 1

17 fi

8 9

2.1

Racine.

100.0

99.6

78.1

75.6

2. 6

14.7

6.7

6.8

.9

South Atlantic and

South Central

Alabama:

Birmingham..

100.0

98. 1

72.1

36.1

36.0

26.0

Mobile _

100.0

100.0

77.6

19. 1

58.5

22.4

Delaware: Wilmington

100.0

86.9

78.6

61.2

17.4

1.8

6.5

3. 9

2.6

District of Columbia: Wash-

ington _

100.0

91.6

62.7

17.2

45.5

24.8

4.0

4.0

Florida:

Jacksonville _

100.0

99.4

67.8

14.6

63.2

29.3

2.3

2. 3

Miami...

100.0

97.6

69.8

8.6

61.3

23. 7

4.1

Al

Georgia: Atlanta . _

100.0

96.9

71.8

44.7

27.1

25.1

Kentucky: Louisville
Louisiana:

100.0

92.7

i» 72. 1

” 16. 3

» 55. 8

13.2

7.4

.7

4.9

» 1.8

New Orleans _

100.0

97.6

70.7

10.0

60.7

26.7

.2

Shreveport..

100.0

97.7

66.9

1.6

65.3

39.3

1. 6

5

9

Maryland: Baltimore _

100.0

96.8

87.5

60.3

37.2

6. 1

2. 2

. 6

.9

7

North Carolina:

Asheville _ _

100.0

98.0

70.8

31.8

39.0

26.8

.4

4

Charlotte

100.0

99.0

80.0

52.9

27.1

18.3

.7

7

Greensboro

100.0

99.7

80. 1

61.0

19. 1

19.0

.6

6

Winston-Salem

100.0

94.2

76.0

48.6

27.4

17.5

.7

.7

Oklahoma: Tulsa

100.0

98.3

68.3

43.4

24.9

29.4

.6

. 6

South Carolina: Charleston...

100.0

98.5

62.9

15.4

47.6

35.6

Tennessee:

Knoxville

100.0

98.5

41.8

9.6

32.3

61.2

6.6

5 6

Memphis.. .

100.0

90.7

69.4

3.4

66.0

28.8

2. 6

2.6

Nashville

100.0

90.8

64.7

29.9

24.8

36. 1

Texas:

Dallas...

100.0

97.3

77.0

26.0

61.0

19.3

1. 0

1.0

El Paso .

100.0

98.3

60.5

24.2

36.3

37.8

Fort Worth .

100.0

99.2

60. 1

33.3

26.8

39. 1

Houston

100.0

99.2

68.0

68.5

9.5

30.0

1.2

1.2

San Antonio _

100.0

98.4

65.6

26.7

38.8

32.9

Virginia:

Norfolk

100.0

92.9

56. 1

12.0

44. 1

36.2

.6

.6

Richmond. .. .

100.0

77.6

52.5

26.9

25.6

23.9

1.2

1. 2

Roanoke _

100.0

89.0

74.5

74.5

14.6

West Virginia: Huntington...

100.0

96.8

84. 1

19.6

64.6

12.7

(0

Mountain and PAaric

California:

Los Angeles _

100.0

98.0

76.0

24.6

51.4

12.4

9.6

6.2

2.4

2.0

Oakland _ _

100.0

98.6

60.8

52.2

8.6

16.4

21.4

10.2

8.6

2. 6

Sacramento. _

100.0

97.5

30.4

30.4

26.4

40.7

23.0

13. 1

' 4.6

San Diego _

100.0

98.8

50.3

29.6

20.7

29.3

19.2

12.8

5. 1

1. 3

San Francisco

100.0

97.0

69.0

26.6

42.4

15.5

12. 5

4.9

6.5

1. 1

Colorado: Denver _ _

100.0

97.2

7.3.5

73.5

15.6

8. 1

3.4

3.4

1.3

Ores-on: Portland

100.0

99.3

87.1

44.4

42.7

9.9

2.3

2.3

TJtah; Salt Lake City

100.0

96.4

75.3

61.3

14.0

17.5

3.6

1.8

1.8

Washineton:

Seattle

100.0

98.7

80.8

78.9

1.9

15.8

2.1

2. 1

Tacoma

100.0

99.8

74.9

72. 1

2.8

19.4

6.6

5.6

Private
funds •

(0

2.1

3.2
4.7

2.3

3.3

1.0

.2

1.3

.7

.2

1.9

.5

1.9

(»)

13.1

8.6

.6

2.4

3.1

>«7.3

2.4

2.3

4.2

2.0

1.0

.3

6.8

1.7

1.6

1.6

9.3

9.2

2.7

1.7
.8
.8

1.6

7.1
22.4
11.0

3.2

2.0

1.4

2.5
1.2
3.0
2.8

.7

3.6

1.3

.2

• See app. A for the territory included in each urban area. Percentages
based on figures which relate to territory other than that shown for the area
in app. A are footnoted. The entire percentage distribution is footnoted when
the difference in coverage applies to earnings under one of the Federal work
programs.

• Figures on which these percentages are based exclude cost of administra¬
tion; of materials, equipment, and other items incident to operation of work
programs; and of transient care.

• Figures on which these percentages are based include statutory aid to
veterans administered on basis of need.

< Figures from the WPA, Division of Statistics, on which these percentages
are based represent earnings of all persons employed under the program,
including the administrative staff.

‘ Not initiated until 1936.

« Figures on which these percentages are based include direct and work
relief and aid to veterans.

’ Less than 0.1 percent.

* The percentage distribution is distorted to an unknown extent because
figure for Civil Works Program relates to county.

* The percentage distribution is distorted to an unknown extent because
figure for Civil Works Program relates to county exclusive of Yonkers.

‘'I The percentage distribution is distorted to an unknown extent because
figure for Civil Works Program relates to city.

The percentage distribution is distorted to an unknown extent because
figures for Civil Works Program, public general relief, and private relief
relate to city.

•* Figure on which this percentage is based relates to city.

121

Table C-17. — Percentage distribution of amount of public and private assistance and earnings under specified

Federal work programs, by urban area, 1934

Geographic division, State,
and urban area i

Total. .

New England
Connecticut:

Bridgeport .

Hartford .

New Britain _

New Haven... _ _

Maine: Portland . . . .

Massachusetts:

Boston. . .

Brockton _

Cambridge .

Fall River _

Lawrence _

Lowell _ _

Lynn . .

Malden _

New Bedford _

Newton _

Springfield .

Worcester . .

Rhode Island: Providence _

Middle Atlantic
New Jersey:

Jersey City .

Newark.. _ _

Trenton _ _ _ _

New York:

Albany _ _ _

Buffalo _

New Rochelle _ _

New York... _ _

Niagara Falls _

Rochester _ _

Syracuse _ _

Utica.. .

Yonkers _ _

Pennsylvania:

Allentown _ _

Altoona _ _ _

Bethlehem _

Chester _

Erie _

Johnstown _ _

Philadelphia . .

Pittsburgh _

Reading _ _

Scranton _

Wilkes-Barre... . .

North Central
Hlinois:

Chicago _ _ _

Springfield . . . .

Indiana:

Evansville _

Fort Wayne . . .

Indianapolis _

South Bend .

Terre Haute . .

Iowa:

Des Moines _

Sioux City _ _

Kansas:

Kansas City _ _

Topeka. .

Wichita _ _ _

Michigan:

Detroit .

Flint _

Grand Rapids .

Pontiac. .

Saginaw _ _

Minnesota:

Duluth .

Minneapolis _

St. Paul .

Missouri:

Kansas City .

St. Louis .

Total
public
and
private
funds >

Public funds

Private
funds *

Total

General relief *

Earnings under
Federal work
programs

Special types of public assistance

Total

Direct

relief

Work

relief

Civil
Works
Pro¬
gram *

Projects
operated
by the
WPA *

Total

Old-age

assist¬

ance

Aid to
depend¬
ent

children

Aid to
the
blind

100.0

98.2

67.1

43.8

23.3

26.2

4.9

1.9

2.7

0.3

1.8

100.0

98.0

70.0

31.8

38. 2

25. 8

2.2

2.2

(0

2.0

100.0

89.8

67.0

43.5

23.5

19. 2

3.6

3.4

. 2

10.2

100.0

90.6

69. 1

37.8

31.3

26.6

3.9

3.9

(1)

.4

100.0

94.4

63.0

39.9

23. 1

26.6

4.8

4.6

.2

5.6.

100.0

98.2

52.8

27.8

25.0

43.5

1.9

1.4

.5

1.8

100.0

96.4

71.8

45.5

26.3

13.8

10.8

5.6

5.0

.3

3.6

100.0

96.4

71.4

33.5

37.9

15.3

9.7

6. 1

3.2

.4

3.6

100.0

97.2

67.0

30.3

36.7

19.2

11.0

6.2

4.2

.6

2.8

100.0

99.9

62.2

24.7

37.5

27.3

10. 4

7.1

2.8

.5

.1

100.0

99. 1

74.2

23.6

60. 6

15.9

9.0

5.6

3.2

.2

.9

100.0

97.8

72.0

34.5

37.6

13.6

12. 2

6.5

5. 4

.3

2.2

100.0

98.5

68.5

27.6

40.9

17.5

12.5

9.6

2.8

.1

1.5

100.0

99.9

81.9

38.8

43.1

11.9

6.1

5.2

.7

.2

. 1

100.0

98.9

66. 4

25.7

40.7

19.7

12.8

9.6

3.0

.2

1.1

100.0

97.8

63.4

25.2

38.2

24.6

9.8

6.3

3.2

.3

2.2

100.0

98.3

75.4

43.4

32.0

16.7

6.2

5.0

1.1

.1

1.7

100.0

98.1

67.5

32.5

35.0

23.0

7.6

4.5

2.9

.2

1.9

100.0

97.2

68.7

19.1

49.6

25.0

3.6

3.5

2.8

« 100.0

»99.8

*46.4

*40.9

*6.6

*50.0

*3.4

*.3

*3.0

».l

*.2

» 100.0

*99.4

*64.7

* 56.3

*8.4

*28.6

*6.1

» 1.5

* 4.5

*.l

*.6

« 100. 0

*98.7

* 56.3

*49.9

*6.4

*36.0

*6.4

*2.8

*3.4

*.2

*1.3

» 100.0

*98.6

*47.6

» 18.3

*29.3

*46.6

* 4.4

*2.7

» 1.5

*.2

* 1.4

100.0

99.0

74.8

38.4

36.4

20.7

3.5

1.7

1.7

.1

1.0

• 100. 0

•99.9

•34.2

» 17.7

• 16.5

•64.2

• 1.5

• 1.1

». 4

0 (!)

•. 1

100.0

97.1

72.0

41.3

30.7

16.6

8.5

3.5

4.9

.1

2.9

100.0

99.5

67.5

21.7

45.8

28.2

3.8

1.2

2.6

(1)

.5

« 100. 0

*99.1

* 64.8

*42.1

« 22.7

*28.3

*6.0

* 4.1

* 1.8

*.1

0.9

e 100.0

*99.2

* 63.3

*30.2

*33.1

*31.7

*4.2

*3.1

« 1.0

*. 1

*.8

100.0

97.7

60.4

36.5

23.9

25.9

11.4

6.2

5.0

.2

2 3

100.0

98.7

81.2

37.5

43.7

10.7

6.8

3.3

3.4

.1

1.3

100.0

99.7

70.5

56.5

14.0

2.5.9

3.3

.4

2.4

.6

.3

100.0

99.0

62.6

47.3

15.3

32.2

.

4.2

.5

3.4

.3

1.0

100.0

99.4

65.9

52.7

13.2

31.0

2. 5

.4

2.0

.1

.6

100.0

99.5

72.4

59.0

13.4

23.7

3.4

.6

2.4

.4

.5

100.0

100.0

69.9

54. 3

15.6

26.3

3.8

.5

2.8

.5

(0

100.0

99.9

67.2

62.9

14.3

28.1

4.6

.5

3 6

.5

. 1

100.0

97.5

83.0

72.2

10.8

11.5

3.0

.4

2. 1

. 5

2 5

100.0

99.0

81.7

72. 4

9.3

14.6

2.7

.3

2.1

.3

1.0

100.0

99. 1

67.1

49.5

17.6

28.0

4.0

.4

3 1

. 5

.9

100.0

99.1

73.6

59.5

14. 1

23.5

2.0

.3

1. 4

.3

.9

100.0

99.7

76. 6

68.7

7.9

19.1

4.0

.4

3.2

,4

.3

100.0

98.0

64.8

49.7

15.1

31.7

1.5

1 0

2 0

100.0

98.7

54.7

41.6

13.1

41.9

2. 1

.6

1.6

1 3

100.0

99.9

67.9

28.1

39.8

28.2

3.8

3.3

.5

. 1

100.0

98.5

61.5

33.0

28.5

34.8

2.2

1.5

.7

1 •>

100.0

98.4

63.3

23.3

40.0

33.6

1.6

1. 2

. 4

1. 6

100.0

99.7

55.7

30.6

25. 1

37.3

6.7

5.3

1.4

. 3

100.0

99. 1

55.4

14.0

41.4

39.3

4.4

3.8

.6

.9

100.0

99.7

54.9

39.3

15.6

42.4

2.4

.2

1.4

. 8

. 3

100.0

99.2

40.0

28.9

11. 1

54.6

4.6

.2

3.4

1.0

.8

100.0

99.4

63.1

8.6

54.5

36.3

(0

(1)

.6

100.0

99.5

58.3

12.3

46.0

40.2

1.0

1.0

5

100.0

99.5

62.5

18. 2

44.3

36.7

.3

. 3

5

100.0

99.4

63.8

35.7

28.1

31.6

4.0

.1

3.9

. 6

100.0

99.7

55.5

45.0

10.5

39.4

4.8

. 1

4.7

3

100.0

99.8

70.5

61.8

18.7

26.9

2.4

. 1

2.3

2

100.0

99.9

66.8

49.7

17. 1

33.0

.1

.1

1

100.0

98.2

49.0

39.0

10.0

39.9

9.3

.4

8.9

1 R

100.0

99.0

55.4

32.9

22.5

36. 1

7.5

2.0

5 3

1 0

100. 0

>* 96. 8

i» 60. 6

i* 37. 0

10 23.6

10 30. 8

10 5.4

10 2. 5

10 2.8

10 1

10 3 9.

100.0

97.9

62.7

32.9

29.8

31.3

r -

3.9

1.5

2.2

.2

2. 1

» 100. 0

11 92. 5

11 54. 4

11 35. 0

‘1 19. 4

» 34. 3 1

11 3.8

11 9

” ? P

u 7^

‘1 100. 0

i* 97. 3

l« 65. 1

10 64.4

i»10.7 ‘

10 30. 6

10 1.6

10,3

10 L3

10 2! 7

See footnotes at end of table.

122

Table C-ll .—Percentage distribution of amount of public and private assistance and earnings under specified

Federal work programs, by urban area, 1934 — Continued

Geographic division, State,

Total

public

and

Public funds

General relief *

private
funds 2

Total

Total

Direct

relief

Work

relief

Civil
Works
Pro¬
gram <

North Central — Con.

Nebraska: Omaha _

100.0

95.9

65.2

40.2

25.0

29.4

Ohio:

Akron _ .

100.0

99.4

58.1

40.5

17.6

39.3

Canton _

100.0

100.0

59.7

40.4

19.3

35.3

Cincinnati _

100.0

98.0

61.3

44.4

16.9

32.7

Cleveland _ _

100.0

98.4

66. 1

54.9

11.2

29.5

Columbus _ _

100.0

99.3

61.9

38.4

23.5

33.2

Dayton _ _

100.0

98.8

62.5

46.6

15.9

33.3

Springfield _ _

100.0

99.0

50.0

31.3

18.7

46.8

Toledo _ _ _

100.0

100.0

60.0

44.3

15.7

37.6

Youngstown . . .

100.0

99.8

56.2

43.1

13. 1

42.0

Wisconsin:

27.2

22.0

Kenosha _ _

100.0

99.7

73.7

46.5

Madison_-. _

100.0

99.9

62.3

29.2

23.1

44.4

Milwaukee _

100.0

99.0

58.3

33.1

25.2

35.5

Racine _ _ _

100.0

99.6

66. 1

54.6

11.6

28.6

South Atlantic and
South Central

Alabama:

29.6

34.0

Birmingham _

100.0

100.0

66.0

36.4

Mobile _ - _

100.0

100.0

64.5

43.2

21.3

35.5

Delaware: Wilmington _

100.0

96.7

71.2

70.7

.5

17.1

District of Columbia: Wash-

28.1

32.8

ington _ _ _ _

100.0

98.4

64.1

36.0

Florida:

32.6

40.4

Jacksonville _

100.0

99.7

57.4

24.8

Miami _ _

100.0

98.2

55.2

14.3

40.9

40.4

Georgia: Atlanta _ _

100.0

99.4

70.3

48.9

21.4

29.1

Kentucky: Louisville.- -

100.0

93.6

n 45. 5

» 16. 3

« 29. 2

45.0

Louisiana:

19.9

44.6

33.9

New Orleans _

100.0

98.5

64.5

Shreveport - -

100.0

97.6

38.9

8.2

30.7

57.6

Maryland: Baltimore— -

100.0

99.3

81.1

72.8

8.3

16.8

North Carolina:

23.8

35.9

Asheville.. _ _

100.0

100.0

64.0

40.2

Charlotte _ _ _ -

100.0

95.0

47.8

25.3

22.5

46.9

Greensboro _ _

100.0

99.7

62.6

32.7

29.9

36.8

Winston-Salem... ..

100.0

96.7

57.7

31.6

26. 1

38.6

Oklahoma: Tulsa. _ _

100.0

96.2

38.7

9.9

28.8

57.0

South Carolina: Charleston...

100.0

99.2

54.3

16.1

38.2

44. 9

Tennessee:

32.7

14.7

50.4

Knoxville _ _ --

100.0

99.6

47.4

Memphis _ _ _

100.0

98.4

54.7

27.7

27.0

41.9

Nashville. -- -

100.0

98.4

55.5

35.6

19.9

42.9

Texas:

Dallas _ _

100.0

98.4

68.5

40.8

17.7

39.2

El Paso _ _ _ _ -

100.0

99.9

44.6

21.1

23.5

55. 3

Fort Worth - - -

100.0

99.8

64.3

29.7

34.6

35. 5

Houston _ _

100.0

99.6

60.8

41.4

19.4

38. 2

San Antonio _ _

100.0

99.6

56.0

30.1

25.9

43.6

Virginia;

Norfolk _ _

100.0

98.9

50.0

24.4

25.6

48.6

Richmond - -

100.0

92.9

39.3

25.4

13.9

52.9

Roanoke _ _

100.0

97.6

58.0

31.1

26.9

39.6

West Virginia: Huntington...

100.0

99.6

61.4

28.6

32.8

38. 2

Mountain and Pacieic

California:

Los .4.ngeles _ _ _

100.0

99.2

68.2

43.6

24.6

24.3

Oakland- _ _ _

100.0

99.3

58.8

32.7

26. 1

27.4

Sacramento. _

100.0

98.3

35.0

10.9

24. 1

42.3

San Diego _ _ _

San Francisco _

100.0

99.7

63. 1

23. 7

39.4

29. 5

100.0

97.7

61.7

38.2

23.5

28. 6

Colorado: Denver.. . -

100.0

99.6

65.9

37. 7

28. 2

25. 8

Oregon: Portland _ ..

100.0

99.7

66.5

42. 5

24. 0

29. 5

Utah: Salt Lake City -

100.0

97.7

69. 5

39. 2

30. 3

26. 6

Washington:

100.0

99.3

69.0

42.8

16.2

38.1

Tacoma _

100.0

100.0

63.0

52. 1

10.9

32.4

Earnings under
Federal work
programs

Special types of public assistance

Private

Projects
operated
by the
WPA»

Total

Old-age

assist¬

ance

Aid to
depend¬
ent

children

Aid to
the
blind

1.3

1.1

0.2

4. 1

2.0

0.7

1.1

.2

.6

4.4

1.1

1.8

1.5

(')

4.0

1.3

2.2

.5

2.0

2.8

. 4

2.1

.3

1.6

4.2

1.0

2.2

1.0

.7

3.0

.7

1.7

.6

1.2

2.2

.9

1.0

.3

1.0

2.4

.8

1.3

.3

(0

1.6

.4

.8

.4

.2

4.0

1.3

2.2

.5

.3

3.2

2.6

.6

1

5.2

1.3

3.5

.4

lio

4.9

4.2

.7

, 4

C)

8.4

5.2

3.2

3. 3

1.5

1.5

1 6

1.9

1.9

. 3

2.6

2.6

1.8

6

3.1

(0

3.0

12 .1

>2 6.4

. 1

. 1

1. 5

1. 1

.4

.7

2. 4

1.4

.3

.6

.5

.7

. 1

. 1

.3

.3

5.0

.3

.3

. 3

.4

3.3

. 5

.5

3. 8

.8

1.8

1.8

. 4

1.8

1.8

1.6

1.6

.7

.7

1.6

. 1

.6

.6

.4

.4

.3

.3

1.1

. 7

.7

7.1

2.4

.4

6.7

3.5

1.8

1.4

.8

13.1

6.8

4.6

1.7

.7

21.0

11.3

7.3

2.4

1.7

7.1

5.0

1.6

.5

.3

7.4

3.2

3.5

.7

2.3

7.9

6.0

1.4

.5

.4

3. 7

2.5

1.2

.3

1.6

.8

.8

2.3

2.2

.4

1.3

.5

.7

4. 6

1.6

3.0

> See app. A for the territory included in each urban area. Percentages
based on figures which relate to territory other than that shown for the area
in app. A are footnoted. The entire percentage distribution is footnoted when
the difference in coverage applies to earnings under one of the Federal work

^Tpi^res on which these percentages are based exclude cost of administra¬
tion; of materials, equipment, and other items incident to operation of work
proerams; and of transient care. ^ , 4. * *

* Figures on which these percentages are -based include statutory aid to
veterans administered on basis of need.

< Fieuresfrom the WPA, Division of Statistics, on which these percentages
are based represent earnings of all persons employed under the program, in¬
cluding the administrative staff.

• Not initiated until 1935.

9 Figures on which these percentages are based include direct and work

relief and aid to veterans.

1 Less than 0.1 percent. ^ v

* The percentage distribution is distorted to an unknown extent because
figure for Civil Works Program relates to county.

* The percentage distribution is distorted to an unknown extent because
figure for Civil Works Program relates to county exclusive of Yonkers.

>0 The percentage distribution is distorted to an unknown extent because
figure for Civil Works Program relates to city.

'• The percentage distribution is distorted to an unknown extent because
figures for Civil Works Program, public general relief, and private relief
to city.

>9 Figure on which this percentage is based relates to city.

452436° — 42-

-9

123

Table C— 18.— Percentage distribution of amount of public and private assistance and earnings under specified

Federal work programs, by urban area, 1935

Geographic division, State,
and urban area •

Total
public
and
private
funds 5

Public funds

Private
funds ‘

Total

General relief '

Earnings under
Federal work
programs

Special types of public assistance

Total

Direct

relief

Work

relief

Civil
Works
Pro¬
gram <

Projects
operated
by the
WPA «

Total

Old-age

assist¬

ance

Aid to
depend¬
ent

children

Aid to
the
blind

Total . . ..

100.0

98.7

78.1

54. 2

23.9

14.5

6. 1

3. 2

2.5

0.4

1.3

New England

Connecticut:

Bridgeport. .

7 100. 0

'98.4

' 77. 1

' 16.6

' 60. 5

' 19. 1

' 2.2

'2. 1

'. 1

' 1.6

Hartford . . .

100.0

93. 1

80. 2

41.2

39.0

9.9

3.0

2.8

. 2

6.9

New Britain _

100. 0

99. 8

86. 2

34. 9

51.3

10.8

2. 8

2.8

(*)

.2

New Haven _

’ 100.0

' 96. 3

'66.7

'39.9

'26.8

'25.7

'3.9

'3.8

'. 1

'3.7

Maine: Portland _ _

' 100. 0

' 97. 2

'84.3

' 35.3

' 49. 0

' 10.6

^ 2 3

' 1.7

'.6

'2.8

Massachusetts:

Boston

100. 0

96.9

82. 3

31. 5

50.8

5. 1

9. 5

4.9

4.4

.2

3. 1

Brockton _

100.0

97.0

82.9

25.2

57.7

4.9

9.2

6.6

2.3

.3

3.0

Cambridge.. _

100. 0

97.9

83.1

32.0

51. 1

5.5

9.3

5.5

3.3

.5

2. 1

Fall River _

100.0

99. 9

84. 1

32. 7

51.4

7. 4

8.4

5.9

2. 1

.4

. 1

Lawrence _

100.0

99.2

84.6

15. 2

69.4

4.8

9.8

6.6

3.0

.2

.8

Lowell _

100.0

98.5

81.9

28. 5

53.4

6.0

10.6

6.2

4. 1

.3

1.5

Lynn _

100.0

98.6

82.2

30. 1

52. 1

2. 2

14.2

10.9

3.2

.1

1.4

Malden _

100.0

99.9

87. 1

26.1

61. 0

6. 0

6.8

4.7

1.9

.2

. 1

New Bedford _

100.0

99. 2

80.8

24.0

56. 8

5.8

12.6

9.9

2.5

.2

.8

Newton _ _

100.0

97.4

81.6

33.9

47. 7

3. 6

12.2

7. 7

4.3

.2

2.6

Springfield. _

100.0

98.7

89.0

50.8

38.2

3.4

6.3

5.3

.9

. 1

1.3

Worcester _ _

100.0

98.4

86.1

41.3

44.8

3.9

8.4

5. 1

3.1

.2

1.6

Rhode Island! Providence

7 100.0

'98. 1

'71.9

'19.6

'•52. 3

' 23.0

'3. 2

'.2

' 3. 0

' 1. 9

Middle Atlantic

New Jersey:

Jersey City _

7 100. 0

'99.8

'69.5

'67.8

' 1.7

'24.3

'6.0

'2.3

'3.6

'.1

'.2

Newark _

’’ 100. 0

'99.4

'77.2

' 75. 1

' 2. 1

' 14.4

'7.8

'2.2

'5.5

'.1

'.6

Trenton _

? 100.0

'99.6

'78.1

' 78. 1

' 14.4

' 7. 1

'3. 1

'3.7

7^

'.4

New York:

Albany _ _

7 100. 0

'98.5

' 75.4

'31.9

' 43. 5

' 17.0

'6.1

'3.8

'2.0

'.3

' 1.5

Buffalo _

100. 0

99.2

86. 5

51.2

35.3

9.3

3.4

1.6

1 7

. 1

.8

New Rochelle _

100. 0

99.8

89.5

52. 7

36.8

6.3

4.0

2.8

1. 1

.1

.2

New York _

100.0

98.3

63.7

44.7

19.0

27. 1

7. 5

3.2

4.2

.1

1.7

Niagara Falls _

? 100. 0

' 99. 5

'83.3

'42.6

' 40. 7

' 12.4

'3.8

' 1.2

'2.6

'.5

Rochester _ _

7 100.0

'99.6

'83.8

'54.8

' 29. 0

'8.1

'7.7

'5.3

'2.2

'.2

'.4

Syracuse _

’’ 100.0

' 99. 2

'85.6

'45.0

'40.6

' 8. 5

'5.1

'3.9

' 1. 1

'. 1

'.8

Utica _

' 100.0

'98.2

'76.8

'44.9

'31.9

'9. 1

' 12.3

7 fi 7

'5.4

'.2

' 1.8

Yonkers _

100.0

98.8

87.8

41.8

46. 0

4.3

6.7

3.4

3.2

.1

1.2

Pennsylvania:

Allentown. _ _

100. 0

99.8

81.3

65.4

15.9

11.9

6.6

4.3

1.6

.7

.2

.\ltoona _ _

100. 0

99.3

74.5

58.3

16. 2

17. 2

7. 6

5. 1

2.0

.5

.7

Bethlehem _

100. 0

99.6

79.9

66. 4

13.5

13.7

6. 0

4. 3

1.5

.2

.4

Chester _

100. 0

99. 7

76. 5

69.3

7. 2

13.7

9. 5

6.8

1.9

.8

.3

Erie _ _ _

100. 0

100. 0

75.8

63. 2

12. 6

17.3

6. 9

4.3

2. 0

.6

(•)

Johnstown _

100. 0

99.9

75.2

62. 1

13. 1

17. 5

7. 2

4.4

2. 2

.6

. 1

Philadelphia _

100. 0

98.8

91. 1

83.4

7. 7

2.0

5. 7

3.9

1.3

.5

1. 2

Pittsburgh _ _

100.0

99. 4

87.3

76.8

10. 5

6.8

5. 3

3.3

1.6

.4

.6

Reading _ _

100. 0

99. 3

78.4

60. 7

17. 7

11. 1

9. 8

6.0

2. 9

.9

. 7

Scranton _

100. 0

99.4

80. 2

73. 0

7. 2

13.6

5.6

3. 5

1.6

.5

.6

Wilkes-Barre. _

100. 0

99.9

79.2

69. 7

9. 5

15. 2

5. 5

3. 2

1.8

.5

. 1

North Central

Illinois:

Chicago _ _

• 100.0

*98. 4

•89.0

«71. 2

• 17.8

*7.5

» 1.9

' 1.3

».6

• 1.6

Springfield _

100. 0

98. 0

87. 1

60.4

26. 7

8.6

2.3

.4

1.9

2.0

Indiana:

Evansville _

100.0

99. 7

64.0

30.0

34.0

29. 1

6.6

6. 1

.5

. 3

Fort Wayne _

100.0

97.9

60.6

31. 2

29.4

32.9

4.4

3.4

1.0

2. 1

Indianapolis _ _

100. 0

98.3

66. 1

31.8

34.3

28. 3

3.9

3.2

.7

1.7

South Bend _ _

100.0

99. 5

59.2

32.4

26.8

31.6

8.7

7. 2

1.5

.5

Terre Haute _

100. 0

99. 2

55.8

17.4

38.4

34. 7

8. 7

8. 2

.5

.8

Iowa:

Des Moines _

100.0

99.6

80.3

50.0

30. 3

13. 6

5. 7

2. 9

1.8

1.0

. 4

Sioux City _ _

100.0

99.3

75.7

53.4

22. 3

15.0

8.6

4.3

3. 2

1. 1

.7

Kansas:

Kansas City . .

100.0

99.9

86.0

24.0

62.0

13.9

(')

(*)

. 1

Toiieka . . . .

100.0

99.4

84.4

24.8

59.6

13. 7

1.3

1.3

.6

Wichita . .

100.0

99.5

88.2

33.2

55.0

11. 0

.3

. 3

.5

Michigan:

Detroit _ _ _

100.0

99.3

81.8

55.4

26. 4

10.4

7. 1

.8

6.3

.7

Flint- _

100.0

99.7

83.0

72.2

10. 8

12.9

3.8

3.8

. 3

Grand Rapids _

100. 0

99.9

77.9

65.2

12. 7

19. 0

3. 0

. 8

2. 2

. 1

Pontiac _

100. 0

99.9

87.2

78.8

8.4

11. 1

1. 6

1.6

. 1

Saginaw _ _

100.0

98.3

77.0

68.6

8.4

9.3

12. 0

2.4

9.6

1 7

Minnesota:

Duluth _ _ _

100.0

99.0

73.8

39.4

34.4

17. 7

7. 5

2. 4

4.9

. 2

1 0

Minneapolis _

100.0

97.2

78.9

45.6

33.3

11.6

6.7

3. 6

2. 9

.2

2 8

St. Paul _

100.0

98.7

79. 2

49. 7

29. 5

15. 5

4. 0

1. 7

2. 1

2

1.3

Missouri:

Kansas City _ _

100.0

9.5.9

78. 4

‘H 65. 1

13. 3

14. 0

3. 5

. 7

2.8

10 4. 1

St. Louis _

100.0

98.0

86.7

77.8

8.9

9. 5

1.8

.5

1, 3

2 0

Nebraska: Omaha _ _

100.0

97.5

87.6

49.6

38.0

8.8

1. 1

.9

.2

2. a

Seo footnotes at end of table. ■

124

Table C-18. Percentage distribution of amount of public and private assistance and earnings under specified

Federal work programs, by urban area, 1935 — Continued

Public funds

Total

Earnings under

Geographic division. State,

public

and

General relief >

Federal work

Special types of public assistance

and urban area i

private
funds »

Total

Private

Total

Direct

relief

Work

relief

Civil

Works

Pro-

Projects
operated
by the

Total

Old-age

assist-

Aid to
depend¬
ent

Aid to
the
blind

funds 0

gram <

WPAs

ance

children

North Central— Con.

Ohio:

Akron.. . . .

100. 0

99. 4

67. 6

52.5

40.8

15.0

15.9

22.9
20. 3

9.0

17.0

11.7

6.4

15.0

11.5

14.5

10.6
6.6

1. 1
1.8
1.9

0.2

1.2

Canton _

Cincinnati _ _

100.0

100.0

62.7

7. 7
14.0
9.4

0.6

(•)

100.0

98.4

73. 0

60.8

12.2

9.5

15.4

10.5
13.3

12.5
13.2

Cleveland. _ ..

100. 0

98.6

80. 2

70. 7

12.0

17.8
17.6
22.0

15.9
21.4

. 4

1.6

Columbus. _ ..

100. 0

99. 5

66. 7

51. 3

4. 2
12. 1
9.5
13.3
8.7
6.1

2. 0

. 2

1.4

Dayton _ _

100. 0

99.6

70. 5

60. 0

2. 0

.9

.6

Springfield _

100.0

99.3

62.8

49. 5

1. 6
1.0

. 5

.4

Toledo . . . . . .

100.0

99.9

73. 4

60.9

58.7

. 2

.7

Youngstown _

100.0

99.9

71.9

1. 6

. 4

.1

Wisconsin:

1. 0

. 5

. 1

Kenosha _

100.0

99.6

82.9

68 1

14.8
23.3
23. 1
22.0

11.8
14. 1
14.7

9 8

4.9
5. 1
6.8
6.0

Madison. _ _ _

100.0

99.8

80.6

57. 3

1. 7

2. 5
4. 1

. 4
.8

.4

Milwaiikee _ _

100.0

99. 1

77.6

64, 6

2. 1

. 2

Racine _ _ _

100.0

99.0

83.2

61.2

4. 2
5.3

. 6

• 9

South Atlantic and South

. 7

1. 0

Central

Alabama:

Birmingham _

100.0

100.0

72.3

26.8

45.5

27.7

(*)

.6

4.3

Mobile... . . . .

100.0

99.4

75.2

28.1

47. 1

24.2

Delaware: Wilmington _

100.0

95.7

70.9

69.2

1.7

13.8

11.0

6.9

4.1

District of Columbia: Wash-

ington _ _ _

100.0

98.1

83.4

40.7

42.7

12.6

2.1

2.1

1.9

Florida:

Jacksonville . . .

100.0

99.5

73.9

27.7

46.2

21.1

16.2

14.2

4.5

8.2

4.5

8.2

w

Miami _ _

100.0

92.4

68.0

19.5

48. 5

. 5
7.6
.9
10 7.8

Georgia: Atlanta . .

100.0

99. 1

84.9

38.4

46.5

Kentucky: Louisville _

100.0

92.2

10 70. 2

10 37. 4

10 32. 8

15.3

6.7

6.4

10.3

Louisiana:

New Orleans _ _

100.0

98.9

86.4

23.5

62.9

12. 5

1.1
3.0
11 1.4

Shreveport _

100.0

97.0

77.6

26.4

51. 2

16.7

11 6.3

2.7
n 1.9

1.7

11.7

1.0

U.7

Maryland: Baltimore _

» 100.0

11 98. 6

11 90.4

11 83. 4

11 7.0

n. 6

North Carolina:

Asheville _ _ _

100.0

100.0

91.3

53.3

38.0

8.4

.3

. 3

Charlotte _

100.0

94.2

83.3

30.3

53.0

10. 4

. 5

5

5.8

Greensboro _

100.0

99.8

92.8

33.8

59.0

6. 7

.3

3

Winston-Salem _

100.0

99.3

86.7

31.9

54.8

12. 1

.5

5

Oklahoma: Tulsa _ _

100.0

92.6

59.7

17.4

42.3

32. 1

.8

7

J

7.4

1.5

South Carolina: Charleston...

100.0

98.5

87.2

10.4

76.8

11.3

Tennessee:

Knoxville _

100.0

99.6

84.8

41.0

43.8

12. 3

2. 5

2.5

2.0

Memphis... _ _ _

100.0

97.9

80.4

29.5

50.9

15. 5

2.0

2!i

3

Nashville _ _

100.0

99.7

84.8

47.0

37.8

14.9

Texas:

Dallas _

100.0

97.4

86.9

32.2

54.7

9. 2

1.3

1.3

2.6

3

El Paso . . .

100.0

99.7

82.4

36.3

46. 1

17.3

Fort Worth _ _ _ ...

100.0

99.7

78.3

48.3

30.0

21.4

3

Houston _ _ _

100.0

99.5

85.0

58. 1

26.9

13. 6

.9

9

5

San Antonio _

100.0

99.2

90.6

49.8

40.8

8.6

.8

Virginia:

Norfolk _ _ _

100.0

99.1

86.1

26.7

59.4

12.8

.2

2

.9

6.3

(»)

1

Richmond _

100.0

93.7

77.4

30.9

46.5

15. 5

.8

. 8

Roanoke . . .

100.0

100.0

81.1

5.3

75.8

18.9

(«)

(»)

West Virginia: Huntington...

100.0

99.9

84.6

47.7

36.9

15.3

Mountain and Pacific

California:

Los Angeles _ .

100.0

99.6

87.1

59.4

27.7

6. 3

6 2

3 6

1.4

3.7

4 2

1.3

1.4
1.4

5

Oakland _

100.0

99.5

81.7

33.2

48. 5

6. 7

11. 1

6.0

6 9

K

Sacramento _

100.0

99.0

78. 1

14.4

63. 7

8. 4

12 6

1.0

.-2

San Diego _

100.0

99.8

87.2

38.0

49.2

7. 1

5. 5

3.9

1. 1

San Francisco _

100.0

98.4

81.9

4.3.4

38. 5

9. 1

7. 4

3. 7

3.0

7

1.6

5

Colorado: Denver _ _

100.0

99. 5

77. 1

52. 1

2,5.0

5. 8

16.6

14. 5

1. 6

5

Oregon: Portland _ _

100.0

99.7

80.2

40.2

40.0

12.4

7. 1

5.7

1.4

3

Utah: Salt Lake City _

100.0

97.3

82.5

57.4

25. 1

12.6

2.2

.9

1.3

2.7

Washington:

Seattle _

100.0

98.7

83.6

65.4

18.2

7.3

7.8

4.7

2. 1

1.0

1.3

Tacoma _

100.0

100.0

79.6

71.0

8.6

11.6

8.8

6. 1

1.8

.9

1 See app. A for the territory included in each urban area. Percentages
based on figures which relate to territory other than that shown for the area
in app. A are footnoted. The entire percentage distribution is footnoted
when the difference in coverage applies to earnings under one of the Federal
work programs.

2 Figures on which these percentages are based exclude cost of administra¬
tion; of materials, equipment, and other items incident to operation of work
programs; and of transient care.

> Figures on which these percentages are based include statutory aid to
veterans administered on basis of need.

* Terminated in 1934.

« Figures from the W PA, Division of Statistics, on which these percentages
are based represent earnings of persons employed on projects operated by

the WPA within these areas; figures are not available for earnings of persons
employed on projects other than those operated by the WPA.

* Figures on which these percentages are based include direct and work
relief and aid to veterans.

’ The percentage distribution is distorted to an unknown extent because
figure for WPA relates to county.

* Less than 0.1 percent.

* The percentage distribution is distorted to an unknown extent because
figure for WPA relates to city.

lo Figure on which this percentage is based relates to city.

■> The percentage distribution is distorted to an unknown extent because
figure for WPA relates to Baltimore County as well as the city of Baltimore.

125

Table C-19. — Percentage distribution of amount of public and private assistance and earnings under specified

Federal work programs, by urban area, 1936

Public funds

Geographic division, State,
and urban area >

Total _ _

New Engi.and

Connecticut:

Bridgeport . . .

Hartford . . .

New Britain _ _ _

New Haven . . .

Maine: Portland _

Massachusetts:

Boston. . . . .

Brockton . .

Cambridge . . .

Fall River . . .

Lawrence _

Lowell _

Lynn _

Malden . . .

New Bedford . . .

Newton _

Springfield _ _ _

Worcester . . .

Rhode Island: Providence....

Middle Atlantic
New Jersey:

Jersey City... .

Newark . . .

Trenton _

New York:

Albany . . . .

Buffalo _ _ _

New Rochelle _ _ _

New York _

Niagara Falls.. . .

Rochester _

Syracuse _

Utica _ _ _

Yonkers _ _ _

Pennsylvania:

Allentown _

Altoona _ _ _

Bethlehem _

Chester _ _ _

Erie _

Johnstown _

Philadelphia.. . .

Pittsburgh _

Reading . .

Scranton _

Wilkes-Barre _ _ _

Nokth Centbal
Illinois:

Chicago . .

Springfield.. . .

Indiana:

Evansville... . .

Fort Wayne _

Indianapolis _ _

South Bend _

Terre Haute _

Iowa:

Des Moines _

Sioux City _

Kansas:

Kansas City _

Topeka . . . .

Wichita _

Michigan:

Detroit _ _

Flint _ _

Grand Rapids . .

Pontiac... . .

Saginaw .

Minnesota:

Duluth _ _ _

Minneapolis _

St. Paul _ _ _

Missouri:

Kansas City _

St. Louis . .

Nebraska: Omaha. . .

Total
public
and
private
funds »

Total

General relief *

Earnings under
Federal work
programs

Special types of public assistance •

Private
funds ^

Total

Direct

relief

Work

relief

Civil
Works
Pro¬
gram 8

Projects
operated
by the
WPA 8

Total

Old-age

assist¬

ance

Aid to
depend¬
ent

children

Aid to
the
blind

100.0

99.1

23.8

23.6

0.2

68.0

7.3

4.5

2.4

0.4

0.9

» 100. 0

8 99. 1

8 7.7

8 5.2

8 2.5

8 87.6

8 3.8

8 2.3

• 1.5

(8.)

8.9

100.0

92.7

26.8

26.6

.2

55.2

10.7

7.3

3.3

.1

7.3

100.0

99.7

17.4

12.3

5. 1

75.0

7.3

4.8

2.6

C)

.3

« 100. 0

8 98.7

8 12.9

8 12.9

8 80.3

8 5.5

8 3.6

8 1.8

8. 1

8 1.3

* 100. 0

8 98.8

8 22.7

8 22.7

8 72.8

8 3.3

8 1.1

8 1.6

8.7

8 1 2

100.0

97.1

22.3

22.1

.2

65.2

9.6

6.4

4.0

.2

2.9

100.0

98.0

23.4

23:4

(')

59.7

14.9

12.1

2.6

.3

2.0

100.0

97.8

34.4

34.4

50.8

12.6

7.7

4.4

.6

2.2

100.0

99.9

18.9

18.7

.2

71.9

9.1

7.0

1.8

.3

. 1

100.0

99.1

13.5

13.4

. 1

74.9

10.7

8.0

2.6

. 1

.9

100.0

98.9

21.5

21. 1

.4

66.2

11.2

7.5

3.4

.3

1.1

100.0

98.8

21.0

21.0

(')

60.5

17.3

14.4

2.8

.1

1.2

100.0

99.9

30.0

30.0

(“)

60.3

9.6

7.3

2.1

.2

.1

100.0

99.4

20.3

20.2

.1

62.4

16.7

14. 1

2.4

.2

.6

100.0

98.0

34.4

34.4

(•)

48.8

14.8

9.7

4.9

.2

2.0

100.0

98.8

30.8

30.7

. 1

60.1

7.9

6.8

1.0

.1

1.2

100.0

98.9

36.5

34.9

1.6

52.1

10.3

6.7

3.4

.2

1.1

8 100. 0

8 99. 1

• 13.9

8 6.7

• 7. 2

8 81.3

8 3.9

8 2. 1

8 1.8

8.9

* 100. 0

8 99.9

8 9.1

8 9. 1

8 88.3

8 2.5

8 1.0

8 1.4

8.1

8. 1

« 100. 0

8 99.7

8 22.4

8 22.4

8 71.6

8 5.7

8 1.8

8 3.8

8. 1

8.3

8 100. 0

8 99.6

8 15.4

8 15.4

8 79.6

8 4.6

8 2.2

8 2. 2

». 2

8.4

8 100. 0

9 99.2

8 9.9

8 9.3

8.6

8 85.2

8 4.1

8 2.8

8 1.1

8.2

8.8

100.0

99.3

27.1

26.5

.6

68.4

3.8

1.9

1.7

.2

.7

100.0

99.9

50.3

49.0

1.3

43.7

6.9

4.3

1.6

.1

.1

100.0

99. 1

29. 1

29. 1

(•)

64.3

6.7

2.5

3.1

.1

.9

8 100. 0

8 99.6

8 15.9

8 15.8

8.1

8 80.1

8 3.6

8 1.4

8 2. 2

8.4

8 100. 0

8 99.6

8 27.7

8 27.2

8. 5

8 64.5

8 7.4

8 5.2

8 2.0

8.2

8.4

8 ICO. 0

8 99.4

8 22. 1

8 21.3

8.8

8 72.9

8 4.4

8 3.5

8.8

8. 1

8.6

8 100. 0

8 98.9

8 24.7

8 23.5

8 1.2

8 64.3

8 9.9

8 6.6

8 4.2

8.1

8 1.1

100.0

99.2

27.3

25. 1

2. 2

64.7

7.2

4.1

3.0

.1

.8

100.0

99.8

27.3

27.3

65.3

7.2

4.7

1.4

1. 1

.2

100.0

99.7

15.3

15.3

77.0

7.4

4.6

1.4

1.4

.3

100.0

99.7

22.5

22.5

71.0

6.2

4. 1

1.3

.8

.3

100.0

99.6

12.8

12.8

78.4

8.4

5.6

1.6

1.2

.4

100.0

100.0

20.2

20.2

72.9

6.9

4.2

1.5

1. 2

(8)

100.0

99.8

19.2

19.2

73.7

6.9

4.4

1.6

. 9

. 2

100.0

99.0

44.0

44.0

48.0

7.0

4.5

1.4

1. 1

1.0

100.0

99.5

27.7

27.7

66.2

5.6

3. 4

1. 5

.7

5

100.0

99.3

19.5

19.5

70.6

9.2

5. 3

2. 4

1. 5

7

100.0

99.5

24.7

24.7

69.9

4.9

3.0

1. 2

. 7

. 5

100.0

99.9

26.5

26.5

68.5

4.9

2.9

1. 3

.7

, 1

10 100. 0

lo 98. 8

18 32. 9

18 32. 8

18.1

10 63. 0

10 2.9

10 1.3

10 1. 1

10.5

10 1.2

100.0

98.8

20.8

20.8

72.2

6.8

3.6

.6

1.6

L_2

100.0

99.8

9.0

9.0

84.8

6.0

6.2

.6

J2

100.0

98.8

6.4

6.4

87.0

5.4

4.0

1.2

. 2

1 2

100.0

98.9

13.3

13.3

80. 2

5.4

4.6

.5

. 3

1 )

100.0

99.8

6.7

6.7

(»)

86.4

6.7

5.6

1.0

. 1

.2

100.0

99.6

4.6

4.6

89.2

6.8

6. 3

.4

4

100.0

99.8

18.9

18.6

.3

71.3

9.6

7.9

1.0

.7

. 2

mo

99.4

21.9

21.9

(')

69.5

8.0

6.7

1.7

.6

.6

100.0

100.0

9.5

9.5

90.5

(')

(«)

100.0

99.5

15.0

15.0

83.6

.9

.9

5

100.0

99.6

23.3

23.3

76.0

.3

. 3

4

100.0

99.4

30.3

30.3

(»)

57.9

11.2

3.9

7. 2

. 1

. 6

100.0

99.8

28.6

28.3

.3

59.4

11.8

9.8

2.0

100.0

99.9

16.6

16.4

.2

76.1

7. 2

5. 1

2. 1

(8)

1

100.0

99.9

25.8

24.8

1.0

59.5

14.6

9.3

5.3

(0)

, 1

100.0

99.1

28.4

28.0

.4

55.2

15.5

9. 1

6.4

(•)

.9

100.0

99.3

14.3

14.3

(')

75.3

9.7

6.2

3. 3

.2

.7

100.0

98.3

27.4

27.4

C)

61.2

9.7

7.2

2.4

. 1

1 7

100.0

99.3

24.1

24.1

(')

69.5

5.7

4. 1

1.5

.1

.7

100.0

97.7

11 5.2

11 5.2

84. 2

8 3

^ P

5

1 Q

11 2.3

100.0

98.5

14.8

14.8

79. 6

4. 1

9 fi

4

100.0

98.2

10.1

10.1

79.1

9.0

6.9

L9

.2

1.8

See footnotes at end of table.

126

lable C-19. Percentage dis^ibution of amount of public and private assistance and earnings under specified

tederal work programs, by urban area, 1936 — Continued

Geographic division, State,
and urban area •

Noeth Central— Con.
Ohio;

Akron _

Canton... . . .

Cincinnati . . .

Cleveland _ _

Columbus _ _

Dayton... . . . .

Springfield . . . .

Toledo . . . .

Youngstown . .

Wisconsin:

Kenosha. .

Madison _ _ _

Milwaukee _

Racine . . .

South Atlantic and South
Central

Alabama:

Birmingham _

Mobile _

Delaware; Wilmington _

District of Columbia: Wash¬
ington _ _ _

Florida:

Jacksonville _

Miami _ _ _

Georgia: Atlanta _ _

Kentucky; Louisville _

Louisiana:

New Orleans _

Shreveport _

Maryland: Baltimore . .

North Carolina:

Asheville _

Charlotte _

Greensboro _

Winston-Salem _

Oklahoma: Tulsa _

South Carolina: Charleston...
Tennessee:

Knoxville _

Memphis . .

Nashville _ _ _

exas:

Dallas _ _

El Paso . . .

Fort Worth _

Houston _

San Antonio _

Virginia;

Norfolk _ _

. Richmond... _ _

Roanoke _ _ _

West Virginia: Huntington...

Mountain and Pacific
California:

Los Angeles _ _

Oakland... . .

Sacramento _ _

San Diego. . .

San Francisco _

Colorado; Denver _

Oregon: Portland _

Utah: Salt Lake City _

Washington:

Seattle... _ _

Tacoma

Public funds

Total
public
and
private
funds *

Total

General relie

f»

Earnings under
Federal work
programs

Special types of public assistance

Total

Direct

relief

Work

relief

Civil
Works
Pro¬
gram *

Projects
operated
by the
WPA«

Total

Old-age

assist¬

ance

Aid to
depend¬
ent

children

Aid to
the
blind

100.0

99.6

14.7

12.1

2.6

77.4

7.6

6.7

0.7

0- 1

100.0

100.0

17. 1

17.1

(•)

63.2

19.7

17.3

1.7

,7

100.0

98.7

19.3

18. 1

1.2

68.3

11.1

9. 2

1.6

100.0

98.9

22.8

21.8

1.0

70.3

5.8

4.2

1. 6

100.0

99.8

15. 2

14.8

.4

69.6

15.0

12.8

1.7

.6

100.0

99.8

15.6

15.6

(•)

70.7

13.5

11.8

1.3

.4

100.0

99.6

14.6

14.6

66.8

18. 2

If) 8

U)

100.0

99. 9

15.3

15. 1

.2

1 -

75.9

8.7

7.6

.8

.3

100.0

99.9

13.1

13.0

.1

79.2

7.6

6.6

.8

.3

100.0

99.8

17.8

17.8

73.7

8. 3

4 4

3 3

5

100.0

99.8

17. 1

17.1

64.2

18. 5

14 1

3 7

7

100.0

99.4

17. 5

17.5

74.0

7, 9

3. fl

3 6

4

100.0

99.2

20.0

20.0

63. 2

16.0

10.3

^ 1

.6

100.0

100.0

1.5

1.6

92.5

6.0

2.6

3. 4

100.0

99.8

.7

.7

92.8

6.3

2. 7

3. 6

100.0

95.6

17.9

17.9

65.7

12.0

8.3

3. 7

100.0

97.8

21.3

21.3

65. 1

11.4

2.0

9

100.0

99.4

4.4

3.4

1.0

91.3

3.7

1.1

2.6

(•)

100.0

95.6

6.6

5.7

.9

81.0

7.9

1. 7

6. 2

100.0

99.2

10.5

10.5

88.7

100.0

95.2

« 19. 0

>1 18. 7

‘1.3

69.3

6.9

.9

6.7

>1.3

100.0

99.1

5.3

6.3

90.4

3. 4

1.4

2.0

100.0

98.3

19. 6

19.5

60.8

18.0

9.0

9.0

H 100. 0

» 97. 5

» 16. 6

J> 16. 6

" 63. 1

'» 17. 8

7.3

ng A

13 7

100.0

100.0

15.6

15.6

84.0

.4

.3

100.0

96.3

6. 7

6. 7

89. 1

. 5

. 4

100.0

99.7

13. 7

13. 7

85.4

.6

, 4

J2

100.0

93.9

7.8

7.8

85.8

.3

. 3

(^)

100.0

96.9

8.5

8. 5

78.9

9. 6

6. 2

3. 2

. 1

100.0

99.2

11.4

6.4

6.0

87.8

100.0

99.7

4.3

4.3

93.3

2. 1

2. 1

100.0

98.1

4.4

4.4

92. 2

1. 5

1. 6

100.0

99.6

3.9

3.9

95. 7

100.0

97.9

7.0

7.0

72.0

18.9

18. 1

.8

100.0

99.6

6.4

5.4

88.0

6.2

6.2

100.0

99.8

13.0

13.0

79.7

7.1

7. 1

100. 0

99.5

26.5

26. 5

64.0

9.0

8.4

. 6

100.0

99.3

8. 2

8.2

81.4

9. 7

9. 7

100.0

99.1

7.3

7.3

(®)

91. 6

.2

.2

100.0

95.8

21.5

21. 5

(')

73.7

.6

.6

100.0

100.0

6.8

6.8

93. 1

. 1

.1

100.0

99.8

8.7

8. 7

90. 7

.4

.4

100.0

99.6

22.1

22.0

.1

65.6

12.0

9.0

1.4

1.6

100.0

99.7

15.4

15.3

.1

70.5

13.8

9.6

3.0

1.3

100.0

99. 2

15.4

15.3

.1

62.6

21.2

14.5

6.0

1.7

100.0

99.9

16. 5

15.5

(•)

71.2

13.2

11.6

1. 1

.6

100.0

98. 7

17.2

17. 2

m

70.8

10. 7

7.6

2.4

.7

100.0

99. 6

14. 0

14.0

61.4

24.2

20.8

2.8

.6

100.0

99. 7

12. 6

12. 6

(«)

75. 1

12.0

10.7

1. 1

.2

100.0

96.6

15.3

15.2

.1

68.9

12.4

7.0

6.2

.2

100.0

99.3

14.4 ’

14.3

. 1

70.4

14.5

11.6

2.2

.7

100.0

100.0

10.7

10. 7

(•)

74.0

15.3

11.0

3.5

.8

Private
funds •

(•)

0.4

1.3

1.1

.2

.2

.4

.1

.1

(•)

.2

4.4

2.2

.6
4.6
.8
» 4.8

.9
1.7
>»2. 6

3.7

.3

6.1

3.1

.8

.3

1.9

.4

2.1

.4

.2

.5

.7

.9

4.2

.2

.4

.3

.8

.1

1.3
.4
.3

3.4

.7

1 See app. A for the territory included in each urban area. Percentages
based on figures which relate to territory other than that shown for the area
in app. A are footnoted. The entire percentage distribution is footnoted
when the difference in coverage applies to earnings under one of the Federal
work programs.

> Figures on which these percentages are based exclude cost of administra¬
tion; of materials, equipment, and other items incident to operation of work
programs; and of transient care.

> Figures on which these percentages are based include statutory aid to
veterans administered on basis of need.

* Terminated in 1934.

* Figures from the WPA, Division of Statistics, on which these percentages
are based represent earnings of persons employed on projects operated by
the WPA within these areas; figures are not available for earnings of persons
employed on projects other than those operated by the WPA.

* Figures on which these percentages are based include data for areas in
States with plans approved by the Social Security Board and for areas in
States not participating under the Social Security Act.

' Figures on which these percentages are based include direct and work
relief and aid to veterans.

» The percentage distribution is distorted to an unknown extent because
figure for WPA relates to county.

• Less than 0.1 percent.

lo The percentage distribution is distorted to an unknown extent because
figure for WPA relates to city.

Figure on which this percentage is based relates to city.

>* The percentage distribution is distorted to an unknown extent because
figure for WPA relates to Baltimore County as well as the city of Baltimore.

127

00 to to

Table C-20. — Percentage distribution of amount of public and private assistance and earnings under specified

Federal work programs, by urban area, 1937

Public funds

Geographic division, State,
and urban area >

'

Total
public
and
private
funds *

Total

General relief*

Earnings under
Federal work
programs

Special types of public assistance ’

Private
funds 8

Total

Direct

relief

Work

relief

Civil
Works
Pro¬
gram 8

Projects
operated
by the
WPA 8

Total

Old-age

assist¬

ance

Aid to
depend¬
ent

children

Aid to
the
blind

Total. _ _

100.0

99.0

25.9

25.8

0. 1

58.9

14.2

10.2

3.4

0.6

1.0

New England

Connecticut:

1

Bridgeport- . .

s 100. 0

•99.1

8 9.8

8 7.8

8 2.0

8 79.3

8 10.0

8 7.9

8 2.0

8 . 1

8.9

Hartford- . . ...

100.0

93.2

22.4

22.4

(“)

49.7

21. 1

17.4

3.6

. 1

6.8

New Britain... . .

100.0

99.4

16.8

15.4

1.4

65. 8

16. 8

12.9

3.9

(')

.6

New Haven _

« 100.0

8 98.4

8 11. 1

8 11. 1

8 75. 3

8 12.0

8 9.9

8 2.0

8. 1

8 1. 6

Maine: Portland... . .

8 100.0

8 98.6

8 26.6

8 26.6

8 65.8

8 6. 1

8^3

8 2. 4

8 1.4

8 1. 5

Massachusetts:

Boston . . ...

100.0

96.6

20.9

20.8

.1

59.3

16.4

11.4

4.8

.2

3.4

Brockton ...

100.0

98.2

20.2

20.2

51. 1

26.9

23. 7

3.0

.2

1.8

Cambridge _ _

100.0

98.2

26.9

26.9

62. 2

19. 1

13.0

5. 7

.4

1.8

Fall River _ ' _

100. 0

99.9

20. 7

20.7

57. 5

21. 7

18. 1

3.3

.3

. 1

Lawrence. . _

100.0

99.0

20.9

20.9

64.0

24. 1

20. 3

3.6

.2

1.0

Lowell _

100.0

99.0

25. 1

25. 1

53.0

20.9

16. 5

4. 1

.3

1.0

Lynn _ _

100.0

98.5

16.3

16.3

63. 7

28. 5

25.3

3. 1

. 1

1.5

Malden _ .

100.0

100.0

32.8

32.8

46. 2

21.0

17.9

2. 8

.3

(8)

New Bedford _

100.0

99.3

23. 1

23. 1

45. 5

30. 7

27. 5

2.9

.3

.7

Newton _

100.0

97.3

40. 5

40.5

32. 9

23.9

15.9

7.9

.1

2.7

Springfield _ .

100.0

98.5

28.3

28.3

51. 6

18.6

15.5

3.0

.1

1. 5

Worcester . .

100.0

98.8

36.4

36.4

41.7

20.7

15.9

4.6

.2

1. 2

Rhode Island: Providence _

* 100.0

8 99.0

8 17.0

8 8.1

8 8.9

8 73.8

8 8.2

8 6.8

8 2.4

8 1.0

Middle Atlantic

New Jersey:

Jersey City . . . .

* 100.0

8 99.9

8 11.9

8 11.9

8 84.6

8 3.5

8 1.7

8 1.7

8.1

8. 1

New^k . .

8 100.0

8 99.7

8 25. 1

8 25. 1

9 67. 7

8 6.9

8 2.8

8 4.0

8. 1

8 3

Trenton _

8 100.0

8 99.3

8 16.1

8 16. 1

8 76. 7

8

8 3.7

^26

8^

8. 7

New York:

Albany _ _

9 100.0

8 99.0

8 13.1

8 13. 1

(8 8)

8 79.9

8 6.0

8 4.3

8 1. 4

8.3

8 1.0

Buflalb.. . .

100.0

98.8

35.8

35.8

55.0

8.0

4.9

2.9

.2

1. 2

New Rochelle _

100.0

99.9

57.4

57.3

. 1

29.8

12. 7

8.3

4.3

. 1

. 1

New York _

100.0

99. 1

33.3

33.3

57. 1

8. 7

5.0

3.6

. 1

. 9

Niagara Falls _ _

8 100.0

8 99.2

8 27.3

8 27.3

(8 8)

8 62.9

8 9.0

8 4.7

8 4.3

(8 8)

8.8

Rochester _

8 100.0

8 99. 5

8 32.4

8 32.4

(8 8)

8 53. 6

8 13. 5

8 10.0

8 3. 3

8. 2

8. 5

Syracuse... . .

8 100. 0

8 99.3

8 27.6

8 27.5

8.1

8 63. 6

8 8. 1

8 7.0

8 1.0

8. 1

8. 7

Utica _ _ _

8 100. 0

8 98.6

8 26.8

8 26.7

8.1

8 55.6

8 16.2

8 10. 5

8 6.6

8.1

8 1. 4

Yonkers _

100.0

99.0

22.6

22.4

.1

66. 1

10.4

6. 3

4.0

. 1

1.0

Pennsvlvania:

Allentown _ _

100.0

99.7

19.4

19.4

65. 1

16.2

10.6

2. 8

1. 8

3

Altoona _

100.0

99.4

17.5

17. 5

63. 5

18. 4

13. 0

3. 3

2. 1

6

Bethlehem . . .

100.0

99.6

18.2

18.2

67. 5

13.9

9. 5

2.9

1 Ft

4

Chester _ _ _

100.0

99.3

14. 1

14.1

67.9

17. 3

12.0

3. 3

2 0

7

Erie . . .

100.0

100.0

17.0

17.0

63.9

19. 1

13. 9

3. 2

2 0

(8)

Johnstown . . .

100.0

99.9

24.6

24.6

58. 1

17.2

11.9

3. 6

1. 7

. 1

Philadelphia. . . .

100.0

98.9

45.0

45.0

42. 4

11. 6

8. 1

2.1

1.3

1 1

Pittsburgh _ .

100.0

99.3

25.4

25.4

62. 5

11. 4

7. 7

2. 7

1 0

7

Reading . .

100.0

99.4

19.9

19.9

59. 1

20. 4

14. 7

3.3

2 4

6

Scranton _

100.0

99.5

25.7

25.7

65. 6

8.3

6. 3

2.2

. 8

Wilkes-Barre . .

100.0

99.9

27.3

27.3

65.4

7.2

4.3

2.1

,8

! 1

North Central

Illinois:

Chicago _ _ _

10 100.0

10 98. 7

10 35. 5

10 35. 5

10 50. 9

1012.3

>® 10. 6

80 1.1

10 7

w 1 3

Springfield _

100.0

98.6

32.3

32.3

45.2

21. 1

17. 8

1.0

2.3

1.4

Indiana:

Evansville _ _

100.0

99.7

10.1

10.1

75. 2

14. 4

9 2

4 8

3

Fort Wayne . . . .

100.0

98.4

5.8

5.8

74. 8

17. 8

11. 1

6. 1

6

1* 6

Indianapolis _

100. 0

98.8

16.2

16.2

67. 4

15. 2

10 4

4 2

6

1 ?

South Bend _ _

100.0

99.7

10.7

10.7

76. 5

12. 6

8 2

4 1

9

3

Terre Haute. _ _

100.0

99.6

7.2

7.2

80. 3

12. 1

9 4

2.2

5

4

Iowa:

Des Moines . . .

100.0

99.7

24.4

24.3

. 1

61.1

14.2

12. 7

1 1

, 4

3

Sioux City _

100.0

99.4

34.6

34.6

63. 9

10. 9

8.7

1.9

3

5

Kansas:

Kansas City _ _ _

100.0

100.0

12.7

12.7

86.2

1. 1

.9

.2

f»)

Topeka.. _ _

100.0

99.3

26.3

26.3

70.0

3.0

1 5

1 4

1

7

Wichita . . .

100.0

99.3

28.7

28.7

68. 3

2.3

1.9

•A

(8)

7

Michigan:

Detroit.. _ _

100.0

99.3

27.2

27.2

48. 7

23 4

8 1

16 1

7

Flint _ _ _

100.0

99.9

33. 1

33. 1

43. 7

23 1

ifi 0

7 0

1

Grand Rapids _ _

100.0

99.7

16.4

16.4

61. 3

22.0

14 2

7 6

’ 3

Pontiac _

100.0

99.9

25.8

25.8

42. 2

31 9

^9 9

1

Saginaw _

100.0

98.9

24.8

24.8

43. 2

30. 9

18.7

11.9

Ll

Minnesota:

Duluth _ _

100.0

99.1

17.5

17.5

61.0

20. 6

16 ft

6

g

Minneapolis _ _ ...

100.0

98.7

30.6

30.6

48. 0

20. 1

17 F,

9 Ft

1

1 3

St. Paul.. . .

100.0

99.3

30.4

30.4

55. 4

13. 6

11.8

1.5

7

Missouri:

Kansas City _

100.0

97.9

11 9.7

11 9.7

71. 4

16 8

14 9.

5

2, 1

11 2J.

St. Louis _ ... _

100.0

97.9

15.0

15.0

74 0

» Q

6 q

6

] 4

2. 1
1.9

Nebraska: Omaha _

100.0

98. 1

2.6

2.6

76. 7

18.8

13.7

4.8

.3

See footnotes at end of table.

128

Table C-20.-Peree„<„*e „f „/ p„Uic and private aaristanee and earnings under .peeified

^ P^deral work programs, by urban area, 1957— Continued

Geographic division, State,
and urban areai

Noeth Central— Con.
Ohio:

Akron . . . .

Canton _

Cincinnati _

Cleveland _

Columbus . .

Dayton _

Springfield _

Toledo _ _

Youngstown . .

Wisconsin:

Kenosha . . .

Madison . .

Milwaukee _

Racine _ _ _

South Atlantic and
South Central

Alabama;

Birmingham. . .

Mobile _ _ _

Delaware: Wilmington _

District of Columbia: Wash-

ington.- . . . .

Florida:

Jacksonville _ _ _

Miami _

Georgia: Atlanta _

Kentucky: Louisville _

Louisiana:

New Orleans _ _

Shreveport _

Maryland: Baltimore _

North Carolina;

Asheville _ _ _

Charlotte _ _

Greensboro _

Winston-Salem . .

Oklahoma; Tulsa _

South Carolina: Charleston..
Tennessee:

Knoxville _

Memphis _

Nashville _

Texas:

Dallas.. . . .

El Paso _

Fort Worth _

Houston _

San Antonio _

Virginia:

Norfolk _

Richmond _

Roanoke _ _ _

West Virginia: Huntington..

Mountain and Pacific
California:

Los Angeles _

Oakland _

Sacramento _

San Diego _ _

San Francisco _

Colorado: Denver . . .

Oregon: Portland . .

Utah: Salt Lake City _

Washington:

Seattle. . . .

Tacoma

Total

public

Public funds

General relief ’

private
funds 3

Total

Total

Direct

relief

Work

relief

Civil
Works
Pro¬
gram *

100.0

99.5

11.7

11.3

0.4

100.0

99.9

17.6

17.5

. 1

100.0

98. 1

19.6

19.0

.6

100. 0

98. 5

24.4

23.6

.8

100.0

99.6

15. 2

15. 1

. 1

100.0

99.8

15.0

14.8

.2

100.0

99.7

11.2

11. 2

100.0

99.9

15.9

15.4

. 5

100.0

99.9

13.5

13.5

100.0

99.8

16.9

16.9

100.0

99.8

16. 2

16.0

.2

100.0

99.2

19. 4

19.4

100.0

99. 1

17.8

17.8

100.0

100.0

1.7

1.7

100.0

99.5

.8

.8

100.0

96.3

17.5

17.5

100.0

97.5

14.4

14.4

100.0

99.3

3.3

3.3

100.0

94.7

6.8

6.8

100.0

98.8

8.3

8.3

100.0

94.3

» 8.5

» 8.5

100.0

98.9

5.4

5.4

100.0

97.9

26.8

26.8

100. 0

>3 97. 1

■3 17. 8

>3 17.8

100.0

100.0

8.1

8.1

100.0

96.2

6.2

6.2

100.0

99.8

14.0

14.0

100.0

90. 7

10.7

10. 7

100.0

96.6

2.6

2.6

100.0

99.1

2.1

2.1

100.0

99.7

9.0

9.0

100.0

97.0

4.5

4.5

100.0

99.3

9.7

9. 7

100.0

98.3

5.5

5.5

100.0

99.4

.2

.2

100.0

99.8

5.3

5.2

.1

100.0

99. 1

9.4

9.4

100.0

98.4

100.0

98.5

10.2

10.2

100.0

94. 1

24.3

24.3

100.0

100.0

10.4

10.4

100.0

99.5

4.5

4.5

100.0

99.5

22.0

22.0

100.0

99.7

19.1

19. 1

100.0

99.3

22.4

22.4

100.0

99.8

16.2

16.2

100.0

98.6

20. 9

20. 9

100.0

99.6

13. 5

13. 5

100.0

99. 7

16. 9

16. 9

100.0

95.0

19.3

19.3

100.0

99.2

21.8

21.8

100.0

100.0

15.5

15.5

_

Earnings under
Federal work
programs

Special types of public assistance «

Projects
iperated
by the
WPA5

Total

Old-age

assist¬

ance

Aid to
depend¬
ent

children

Aid to
the
blind

. rnvaio
funds 3

74.2

13.6

11.4

2.0

0.2

0. 5

47. 7

34.6

29.7

4.0

.9

. 1

58.4

20. 1

16.2

3.4

.5

1.9

64.8

9.3

6.6

2.5

.2

1. 5

59.8

24.6

21.5

2.4

.7

.4

60. 1

24.7

21. 2

2.9

.6

.2

50. 7

37.8

33.4

3.5

.9

.3

68.0

16.0

14.3

1.2

.5

, 1

69.7

16.7

12.7

3.5

.5

.1

66.0

16.9

9.8

6.3

.8

.2

57.5

26. 1

20.0

5. 5

.6

.2

66.4

13.4

7.9

5. 1

.4

.8

55. 6

25. 7

17.0

8. 1

.6

.9

86.5

11.8

5.8

5.9

.1

(')

87.6

11.1

7.7

3.3

.1

.5

59.8

19.0

13. 1

5.9

3.7

61.4

21.7

10.8

10.2

.7

2.5

83.9

12.1

9.5

2.5

.1

.7

59.2

28.7

21.6

7.1

5.3

86.2

4.3

3.0

1.2

.1

1.2

70.6

15.2

10.7

4.5

11 5.7

83.7

9.8

4.1

5.6

.1

1.1

13.7

57.4

31.0

26.1

.3

2.1

■3 47. 3

13 32. 0

13 17.0

13 14.0

13 1.0

13 2.9

86.2

5.7

4.1

1.2

.4

84.7

5.3

3.1

1.7

.5

3.8

72.1

13.7

9.5

3.1

1.1

.2

75.6

4.4

2.8

1.1

.5

9.3

52.0

42.0

33.8

6.7

1.5

3.4

92.3

4.7

3.5

1.0

.2

.9

83.2

7.5

2.1

5.3

.1

.3

85.0

7.5

3.0

4.1

.4

3.0

84.5

5.1

2.2

2.7

.2

.7

56.3

36.5

35.9

.6

1.7

76.3

22.9

22.9

.6

68.8

25.7

25.7

.2

57.0

32.7

32.1

.6

.9

65.5

32.9

32.9

1.6

88.0

.3

.3

1.5

69.0

.8

.8

5.9

89.3

.3

.3

84.1

10.9

8.2

2.3

.4

.5

53.1

24.4

20.3

2.1

2.0

.5

60.8

19.8

15.1

'3.2

1.5

.3

35.0

41.9

33.4

6.1

2.4

.7

59.6

24.0

21.4

1.8

.8

.2

61.1

16.6

13.3

2.3

1.0

1.4

39.6

46.5

40.8

5.2

.5

.4

'61.2

21.6

19.4

1.4

.8

.3

52.6

23. 1

17.0

5.7

.4

5.0

53.0

24.4

19.6

4.1

.7

.8

61.3

23.2

17.3

5.2

.7

‘ See app. A for the territory included in each urban area. Percentages
based on figures which relate to territory other than that shown for the area
in app. A are footnoted. The entire percentage distribution is footnoted
when the diflerence in coverage applies to earnings under one of the Federal
work programs.

* Figures on which these percentages are based exclude cost of administra¬
tion; of materials, equipment, and other items incident to operation of work
programs; and of transient care.

8 Figures on which these percentages are based include statutory aid to
veterans administered on basis of need.

* Terminated in 1934.

> Figures from the WPA, Division of Statistics, on which these percentages
are based represent earnings of persons employed on projects operated by the
WPA within these areas; figures are not available for earnings of persons em¬
ployed on projects other than those operated by the WPA.

» Figures on which these percentages are based include data for areas in
States with plans approved by the Social Security Board and for areas in
States not participating under the Social Security Act.

^ Figures on which these percentages are based include direct and work
relief and aid to veterans.

* The percentage distribution is distorted to an unknown extent because
figure for WPA relates to county.

• Less than 0.1 percent.

The percentage distribution is distorted to an unknown extent because
figure for WPA relates to city. >

>■ Figure on which this percentage is based relates to city.

The percentage distribution is distorted to an unknown extent because
figure for WPA relates to Baltimore County as well as the city of Baltimore.

129

Table C-21

I

. — Percentage distribution of amount of public and private assistance and earnings under specified

Federal work programs, by urban area, 1938

Public funds
Earnings under

Geographic division, State,
and urban area *

Total
public
and
private
funds 2

Total

General relief 3

Federal work
programs

Special types of public assistance '

Total

Direct
relief ‘

Work
relief *

Civil
Works
Pro¬
gram t

Projects
operated
by the
WPA 6

Total

Old-age

assist¬

ance

Aid to
depend¬
ent

chiidren

Aid to
the
blind

Total . . . .

100. 0

99.2

22.7

62. 7

13.8

9.9

3. 3

0.6

New England

\

Connecticut:

Bridgeport _ _

• 100.0

9 99.4

« 10. 7

*82.3

»6.4

9 5. 1

•1.3

(» 10)

Hartford _

100. 0

94. 8

20. 0

57. 9

16. 9

14.3

2.4

.2

New Britain . .

100. 0

99. 7

16. 6

71. 4

11. 7

9. 1

2.5

. 1

New Haven _

« 100. 0

9 99. 2

« 9. 9

» 81. 4

« 7.9

9 6.6

9 1. 2

9. 1

Maine: Portland . . .

• 100. 0

9 99.0

« 18. 6

»68. 3

9 12. 1

9 9. 1

•2.0

9 1. 0

Massachusetts:

Boston _ ; _

100. 0

97. 2

17.6

61.0

18. 6

12.3

6.0

.3

Brockton _

100. 0

98. 3

15. 1

59. 1

24. 1

20. 9

3.0

.2

Cambridge . . .

100. 0

98. 8

24. 9

56. 4

17. 5

11.6

5.6

.3

Fall Kiver _

100. 0

100. 0

16. 1

65. 9

18.0

14.4

3.4

. 2

Lawrence _

100. 0

99.4

20.5

58.6

20. 3

17.7

2.4

.2

Lowell _ _ -

100. 0

99. 4

19. 8

61.4

18. 2

14.8

3. 2

.2

Lynn _

100. 0

99. 0

14. 9

69.4

24. 7

21. 6

2. 9

. 2

Malden. . .

100.0

100. 0

29. 6

47.8

22. 6

19. 5

2. 9

.2

New Bedford . .

100. 0

99. 5

22. 0

53. 2

24. 3

21. 3

2. 8

. 2

Newton. . . .

100. 0

97.9

33.3

42. 2

22. 4

14.6

7. 7

. 1

Springfield _ _ _

100. 0

98.8

29.9

48. 7

20. 2

16. 5

3.6

. 1

'Worcester _ _ _

100. 0

99. 1

39. 7

40. 2

19. 2

15. 0

4. 0

. 2

Rhode Island: Providence _

« 100. 0

9 99. 4

* 13.2

“78.9

«7. 3

9 5.4

9 1.9

Middle Atlantic

New Jersey:

Jersey City _ _

« 100. 0

999.9

« 18. 2

«77. 7

•4 0

9 2. 0

• 1.9

9. 1

Newark _

» 100. 0

999.8

0 27. 6

“ 66. 0

* 6. 2

9 2. 7

9 3. 4

9. 1

Trenton . . .

' 100. 0

*99.4

' 20. 1

* 72. 4

9 6 9

93.8

9 2. 9

9. 2

New York:

Albany . . . .

' 100. 0

9 99. 0

' 17. 1

* 75. 0

9 6 9

« 5 2

9 1 4

» 3

Bufialb _

100. 0

99. 0

49. 8

39. 7

9. 5

6 7

3. 5

.3

New Rochelle _

100.0

99. 9

60. 5

23. 3

16. 1

9. 5

6. 5

. 1

New York _ _ _

100. 0

99.2

32. 1

56. 5

10. 6

5. 8

4. 6

. 2

Niagara Falls . .

» 100. 0

999. 5

“ 42. 5

' 47. 6

9 9. 4

9 4. 7

94 7

(0 10)

Rochester _

» 100.0

999.6

^ 42. 7

> 40. 7

9 16. 2

9 11 5

• 4. 4

9. 3

Syracuse _ _

9 100. 0

9 99. 2

» 39.4

« 49. 2

9 10 6

9 8 8

9 1 7

® 1

Utica _ _ _

9 100. 0

9 98. 8

s 27. 9

» 54. 8

9 16. 1

9 10. 6

6 4

6 1

Yonkers. . . .

100.0

99.4

31. 3

56. 3

11.8

6.5

6. 2

[ 1

Penns vlvania:

Allentown _

100.0

99.7

14. 1

73. 0

12. 6

8. 5

2. 6

1 6

Altoona _ ... . .. .

100.0

100. 0

20. 7

65. 8

13. 6

9 1

2 8

1 6

Bethlehem _ _ _

100. 0

99. 7

13. 7

73. 8

12 2

7 ft

2 ft

1 4

Chester . . . .

100. 0

99.6

17. 0

67. 5

1.5 n

10 0

3 1

1 ft

Erie . . .

100. 0

100. 0

16. 8

67. 2

16 0

11 s

S 0

1 7

Johnstown _

100. 0

99.9

21. 0

66. 3

12 6

8. 0

3 4

1 2

Philadelphia. . .

100. 0

99. 0

53. 3

34 3

n 4

7 S

2 1

L-5

Pittsburgh. . .

100.0

99.4

29.8

60. 1

9 5

o! 2

2 4

’ 9

Reading _ _ _

100. 0

99.7

19. 1

66. 4

14 2

ft ft

2 S

2, 0

Scranton... . .

100.0

99. 7

12. 9

79. 4

7 4

4 6

2. 2

7

Wilkes- B arre . . .

100.0

99.9

18.2

74. 8

6.9

3.8

2.3

'.8

North Central

Illinois:

Chicago. _ _

11 100. 0

» 99. 1

11 27. 5

•1 61 1

11 in .5

11 9 0

11 g

11 7

Springfield. .

100.0

98.8

24.4

68.4

leio

13.5

' 7

1.8

Indiana:

Evansville . . .

100.0

9l8

9.4

78 9

11 .5

6 4

4 7

4

Fort Wayne . . . .

100.0

99. 2

7. 1

76 4

16 7

S 7

6 6

5

Indianapolis _

100. 0

99.3

12. 0

73 3

14 0

S 1

5 3

South Bend _

100. 0

99.8

13. 5

76 0

10 2

6 0

4 1

2

Terre Haute . .

100.0

99.8

4.6

83. 9

11.3

7! 8

3.1

4

Iowa:

Des Moines . . .

100.0

99.8

10.7

73. 8

16 S

14 0

5

7

Sioux City . . .

100. 0

99.6

26.7

66. 6

16.2

13.9

1.8

5

Kansas :

Kansas City . .

100.0

99.9

9.2

81. 0

9 7

6 6

2J7

Topeka _

100.0

99.6

9.6

72. 7

17 ^

10 9

5 7

Wichita _

100.0

99.5

18.4

61.7

19! 4

13.3

5.5

.6

Michigan:

Detroit _ .

100.0

99.8

21.6

67 Q

10 ^

4 4

6 S

Flint... . . .

100.0

99.9

23. 2

66 1

10 (y

7 6

9 ft

Grand Rapids. . .

100. 0

99.8

8.9

72. 4

IS 6

IS 6

4 8

Pontiac. . .

100.0

100.0

22. 5

64 n

IS 6

9 0

4 4

Saginaw . . .

100.0

99.7

16.1

66.3

i7;3

11.9

5! 3

Minnesota:

Duluth _ _ _

100.0

99.4

17.2

a

16 Q

13 6

Q 0

Minneapolis _ _ _

100.0

99.4

24.8

66 Q

17 7

15 4

2 1

St. Paul . .

100. 0

99.4

23.6

63.3

12! 5

10.8

1.5

Missouri:

Kansas City _ _ _

100.0

98.6

H 7.4

74 2

17 0

1

7

St. Louis . . . . .

100.0

98.9

6.6

si. 9

ias

8.3

1.4

.8

Private
funds •

0.8

».6

5.2
.3
«.8

«1.0

2.8

1.7

1.2

(10)

(10)

2.

1.

0.

o’

e’

« 1.

1.

o’

o’

0.

* i!

(10) •

(10) •
i!

». 9

1.2

.2

.8

.7

.2

.2

.2

.5

.1

.4

.5

.2
. 1
.2

(10)

.3

.6

.6

.6

IS 1.4

1.1

See footnotes at end of table.

130

CO CO o *-• C« CO CO Oi to 00 O' 00 >-* o O OibOH-* 0»<0t0s-‘0'

/

Table C— 21. — Percentage distribution of amount of public and private assistance and earnings under specified

Federal work programs, by urban area, 1938 — Continued

Public funds

Geographic division, State,
and urban area >

North Central — Con.

Nebraska: Omaha _

Ohio:

Akron _

Canton _

Cincinnati _

Cleveland _

Columbus _

Dayton _

Springfield _

Toledo _ _

Youngstown . . .

Wisconsin:

Kenosha _

Madison _ _ _

Milwaukee _

Racine _

South Atlantic and
South Central

Alabama:

Birmingham _

Mobile _

Delaware: Wilmington _

District of Columbia: Wash¬
ington _

Florida:

Jacksonville . . .

Miami . . .

Georgia: Atlanta _

Kentucky: Louisville _

Louisiana:

New Orleans _ _ _

Shreveport _

Maryland: Baltimore _

North Carolina:

Asheville _

Charlotte _

Greensboro _

Winston-Salem _

Oklahoma: Tulsa _

South Carolina: Charleston. __
Tennessee:

Knoxville _

Memphis _

Nashville _

Texas:

Dallas _

El Paso _

Fort Worth _ _

Houston _

San .4,ntonio _

Virginia:

Norfolk _

Richmond _

Roanoke _

West Virginia: Huntington...

Mountain and Pacieic
California:

Los Angeles _

Oakland _

Sacramento _

San Diego _

San Francisco _ _ _

Colorado: Denver _

Oregon: Portland _

Utah: Salt Lake City _

Washington:

Seattle _

Tacoma

Total
public
and
private
funds 3

Total

General relief *

Earnings under
Federal work
programs

Special types of public assistance '

Private
funds *

Total

Direct
relief *

Work
relief <

Civil
Works
Pro¬
gram 3

Projects
operated
by the
WPA3

Total

Old-age

assist¬

ance

Aid to
depend¬
ent

children

Aid to
the
blind

100.0

98.6

1.0

83.0

14.6

10.6

3.7

0.3

1.4

100.0

99.8

5.5

86.3

8.0

6.1

1.8

,1

.2

100. 0

100.0

12.8

71.5

15.7

13.3

2.0

.4

(10)

100. 0

98.8

19.3

63.8

15.7

12.6

2.7

.4

1.2

100. 0

99. 2

10. 5

82.7

6.0

4.0

1.9

.1

.8

100. 0

99. 8

11.8

69.6

18.4

15.6

2.2

.6

.2

100. 0

99. 8

15. 5

67.4

16.9

14.3

2.2

.4

.2

100. 0

100. 0

15. 9

56.2

27.9

24.3

2.8

.8

100.0

100.0

11. 5

79.5

9.0

7.3

1.4

.3

(10)

100.0

99. 9

9.8

79.7

10.4

7.8

2.2

,4

.1

100. 0

99. 9

14. 2

72.6

13.1

7.2

5.4

.6

.1

100. 0

99. 9

9.5

68.5

21.9

15.5

6.0

.4

.1

100.0

99. 4

17.4

70.9

11.1

6.7

4.0

.4

.6

100. 0

99. 6

18.0

63.4

18.1

10.8

7.0

.3

.5

100.0

100.0

1.2

90.4

8.4

4.0

4.3

.1

(10)

100 0

99. 7

.8

91.0

7.9

6.3

1.5

.1

.3

mo 0

97.6

17.4

66.7

13.5

8.3

5.2

2.4

100.0

97.9

6.7

72.7

18.5

10.5

7.3

.7

2.1

100.0

99. 7

2.0

82.8

14.9

12.9

1.4

.6

.3

100.0

97.0

4.0

60.9

32.1

26.4

4.8

.9

3.0

100.0

99.3

3.8

87.9

7.6

4.7

2.6

.3

.7

mo n

U7 7

13 5.9

82.6

9.2

7.0

2.2

13 2.3

100.0

99. 1

4.1

84.5

10.5

4.4

6.9

.2

.9

100.0

98.9

19.6

26.0

53.3

28.1

24.6

.6

1.1

13 100. 0

13 97. 9

13 21. 6

13 38. 6

13 37. 7

13 19. 3

13 17. 4

13 1.0

13 2.1

mn 0

mn n

2 4

83.9

13.7

9.1

3.9

.7

100. 0

99. 3

6. 8

71.9

20.6

13.4

6.8

1.4

.7

100 0

100 0

2.0

69.9

28.1

18.3

8.3

1.6

(10)

100. 0

94.9

4. 5

74.6

15.8

10.6

4.2

1.0

6.1

100 0

97 2

3.6

57.2

36.4

28.1

7.2

1.1

2.8

100 0

99. 7

2.0

86.8

10.9

7.6

2.9

.4

.3

100.0

99. 7

3. 1

75.2

21.4

10.7

10.1

.6

.3

100.0

98.3

.8

71.6

25.9

15.8

8.6

1.6

1.7

100 0

99.3

1.8

74.2

23.3

12.7

9.4

1.2

.7

mn n

QS 7

6 3

66.0

26.4

26.1

.3

1.3

inn 0

QQ Ft

9

83.8

15.5

15.5

.5

inn n

QQ Q

Ft 4

73.6

20.9

20.9

.1

100 0

99 1

8.9

66.9

23.3

23.3

.9

inn 0

QR 7

75.5

23.2

23.2

1.3

mo 0

98 9

6. 2

92.1

.6

.2

.3

.1

1.1

mn 0

95 7

20.0

73.7

2.0

1.2

.7

.1

4.3

100 0

mo 0

9 9

88.7

1.4

.6

.6

.2

mn n

99! fi

5. 5

86.2

7.9

5.1

2.5

.3

.4

inn n

99 Ft

26. 6

39.2

33.7

28.2

2.9

2.6

.6

mn n

99 7

18.3

61.3

20.1

15.5

3.1

1.6

.3

mn n

99 4

19.7

37.6

42.1

33.9

6.8

2.4

.6

inn 0

99 9

17.9

49.4

32.6

28.6

2.8

1.2

.1

inn n

99 0

18.9

61.8

18.3

15.0

2.2

1.1

1.0

mo n

99 n

8.9

45.6

45. 1

39.6

5.1

.4

.4

mn 0

99 7

16 2

59.7

23.8

21.0

2.1

.7

.3

100 0

90 4

9 5

56.4

30.5

23.8

6.4

.3

3.6

ion 0

99 Ft

13 7

62.0

23.8

19.8

3.3

.7

.6

100.0

mo

9.5

69.8

20.7

16.4

3.8

.5

1 See app. A for the territory included in each urban area. Percentages
based on figures which relate to territory other than that shown for the area
in app. A are footnoted. The entire percentage distribution is footnoted when
the diflerence in coverage applies to earnings under one of the Federal work
programs. , , ^ j *

> Figures on which these percentages are based exclude cost of administra¬
tion; of materials, equipment, and other items incident to operation of work
programs; and of transient care. . ....

3 Figures on yyhieh these percentages are based include statutory aid to
veterans administered on basis of need.

< Figures not available.

* Terminated in 1934. . . , . , t

3 Figures from the W^PA, Division of Statistics, on which these percenta^s
are based represent earnings of persons employed on projects operated by
the WPA within these areas; figures are not available for earnings of persons
employed on projects other than those operated by the WPA.

3 Figures on which these percentages are based include data for areas in
States with plans approved by the Social Security Board and for areas in
States not participating under the Social Security Act.

* Figures on which these percentages are based include direct and work
relief and aid to veterans.

9 The percentage distribution is distorted to an unknown extent because
figure for WPA relates to county.

10 Less than 0.1 percent.

11 The percentage distribution is distorted to an unknown extent because
figure for WPA relates to city.

19 Figure on which this percentage is based relates to city.

13 The percentage distribution is distorted to an unknown extent because
figure for WPA relates to Baltimore County as well as the city of Baltimore.

131

Table C— 22. — Amount per inhabitant^ of public and private assistance and earnings under specified Federal work

programs, by urban area, 1929

Public funds

Geographic division, State,
and urban area >

Total
public
and
private
funds 5

Total

General relief ‘

Earnings under
Federal work
programs

Special types of public assistance

Private
funds i

Total

Direct

relief

Work

relief

Civil
Works
Pro¬
gram «

Projects
operated
by the
WPA 6

Total

Old-age

assist¬

ance

, Aid to
'depend¬
ent

children

Aid to
the blind

Median * . . .

$0. 87

$0.66

.$0. 29

$0.30

(»)

$0. 31

(')

$0.29

$0. 04

$0.16

New England

Connecticut:

Bridgeport _ _

.99

.77

.53

.53

.24

.23

.01

. 22

Hartford _ _ _

2. 09

.86

.56

.56

.30

.28

.02

1.23

New Britain _

1.11

1.03

.59

.59

.44

.44

(10)

.08

New Haven _

1.23

.81

.30

.30

.51

.50

.01

.42

Maine: Portland . . .

1.61

1.34

1.07

1. 07

.27

.18

.09

,27

Massachusetts:

Boston... _

4. 19

3. 50

2. 54

2.54

.96

.91

.05

.69

Brockton _

3.41

2. 66

2.24

2.24

.42

.37

.05

.75

Cambridge _

3. 54

3.23

2. 37

2. 37

.86

.79

.07

.31

Fall River _

2. 79

2. 77

2.54

2. 54

.23

.19

.04

.02

Lawrence _

2.34

2. 19

1.73

1. 73

.46

.45

.01

. 15

Lowell _

4.14

3.68

2. 63

2. 63

1.05

1.00

.05

Lynn _

2. 47

2. 03

1.58

1.58

.45

.43

.02

44

Malden - -

2. 09

2. 07

1.89

1.89

.18

. 15

.03

02

New Bedford _

3. 43

3. 29

3.03

3. 03

.26

. 23

.03

14

Newton _

1.11

.97

.53

.53

.44

.43

.01

. 14

Springfield _

1.72

1.34

1.09

1.09

.25

.23

.02

38

Worcester _ _

2. 83

2. 57

2.17

2.17

. 40

.36

.04

96

Rhode Island: Providence _

.71

.52

.21

.21

.31

.31

.19

Middle Atlantic

New Jersey:

Jersey City _

.74

.71

.19

.19

.62

- .51

.01

03

Newark _

1.16

.97

.53

.53

.44

.43

.01

19

Trenton. _ _ _ _

1.27

1.23

.53

.53

.70

.67

.03

.04

New York:

Albany.. _

1.35

.79

.40

.40

.39

3.5

04

56

Buffalo _ _

1.89

1.60

1.18

1.18

. 42

40

02

’99

New Rochelle _

.43

.36

.20

.20

. 16

14

02

07

New York _

1.41

1.10

.12

.12

.98

95

03

31

Niagara Palls _

1.28

.99

.54

.54

.45

44

01

* ?9

Rochester _ _

2. 80

2. 26

1.98

1.98

. 28

25

03

54

Syracuse _ _ _

1.02

.82

.58

.58

. 24

23

01

20

Utica. _ _ _ _ .

1.13

.82

.41

.41

. 41

38

03

31

Yonkers _ _

1. 19

.98

.29

.29

. 69

.67

.02

.21

Pennsylvania:

Allentown _

.35

.28

.04

.04

.24

24

.-07

Altoona.. _

.64

.52

.23

.23

.29

29

Bethlehem _

.67

.56

.32

.32

. 24

24

Chester _

.33

.26

.10

.10

/

. 16

16

07

Erie . . . .

.57

.43

.18

.18

. 25

95

14

Johnstown _

.82

.80

.54

.54

.26

26

QO

Philadelphia... . .

.76

.33

.04

.04

. 29

. 29

43

Pittsburgh _

.56

.40

.11

.11

.29

29

16

Reading _

.61

.44

.12

.12

.32

32

17

Scranton _

1.09

.85

.52

.62

.33

33

24

Wilkes-Barre _ _

1.09

1.05

.80

.80

.25

2.5

.04

North Central

Illinois:

Chicago _

.72

.47

.12

.12

.35

27

08

Springfield . .

.86

.75

.23

.23

.52

.17

.35

Indiana:

Evansville _

1.09

1.04

.97

.97

.07

07

Fort Wayne . . . .

.45

.25

.19

.19

.06

06

20

Indianapolis _ _ _

..54

.29

.25

.25

.04

04

25

South Bend _

.42

.33

.22

.22

.11

n

09

Terre Haute _

1.16

1.05

.93

.93

.12

12

.11

Iowa:

Des Moines _ _ _

1.16

.84

.36

.36

.48

33

Sioux City _

.91

.63

.22

.22

.41

.32

.09

.28

Kansas:

Kansas City _

.33

.21

.21

.21

(10)

Topeka _

.92

.89

.77

.77

. 12

1?

.

Wichita _ _

.64

.48

.40

.40

.08

.08

.16

Michigan:

Detroit . .

1.68

1.59

1.01

1.01

.58

58

Flint _ _ _

1.02

.87

.33

.33

. 54

54

Grand Rapids _

.57

.52

.17

.17

.35

35

Pontiac _ _ _

1.30

1.25

.68

.68

,57

57

Saginaw _

1.50

1.35

.73

.73

.62

.62

.15

Minnesota:

Duluth . . .

1.58

1.42

.45

.45

Q7

Minneapolis . .

.83

.57

.16

.16

41

. 03

, 16

St. Paul _

1.42

1.03

.42

.42

.61

.68

.03

. 26
.39

Missouri:

Kansas City _

.59

.20

» .39

St. Louis _

.51 1

.21

(10)

(10)

.21

.06

.16

See footnotes at end of table.

. 30

132

Table C-22.— Amount per inhabitant^ of public and private assistance and earnings underspecified Federal woik

programs, by urban area, 1929 — Continued

Geographic division. State,
and urban area *

Total
public
and
private
funds >

Public funds

]

1

Private
funds >

Total

G

eneral reli(

;f ‘

Earnings under
Federal work
programs

Special types of public assistance

Total

Direct

relief

Work

relief

Civil
Works
Pro¬
gram •

Projects
operated
by the
WPA 9

Total

Old-age

assist¬

ance

Aid to
depend¬
ent

children

Aid to
the blind

North Central — Con.

i

Nebraska: Omaha .

$0.87

$0. 61

$0.26

$0.26

$0.25

$0.23

$0.02

$0. 36

Ohio:

Akron . . .

.64

.44

, 22

.22

. 22

18

Canton . .

.94

.77

J25

.25

. 62

26

26

Cincinnati.. .

.98

.64

. 19!

.12

(10)

. 52

42

10

Cleveland _

1.02

.54

.09

.09

.45

7

40

05

Columbus .

.89

.78

.22

. 56

39

17

Dayton _

.89

.56

J22

.22

. 34

23

Springfield- .

.61

.30

. 09

.09

. 21

17

04

^1

Toledo.. .

.70

.63

9R

.28

.35

30

Youngstown _

1.00

.76

.33

.33

.43

.33

.10

.24

Wisconsin:

Kenosha _ _ _

1.91

1.38

88

.88

.50

41

OQ

63

Madison . .

1.32

1.27

.65

.62

60

no

Milwaukee.. .

1.06

.81

.27

.54

40

08

24

Racine. _ _

1.31

1.16

.44

.44

.72

.56

.16

.15

South Atlantic and South

Central

Alabama:

Birmingham _ _

.16

, 15

Mobile _ _

.07

07

Delaware: Wilmington _

.46

.32

.32

.32

.14

District of Columbia: Wash-

ington _ _

.61

.23

.01

.01

.22

22

.38

Florida:

Jacksonville _

.74

.70

28

.28

.42

.42

,04

Miami _ _

.86

.64

.28

.36

.36

, 22

Georgia: Atlanta _

.29

.23

.23

.23

' no

Kentucky: Louisville .

.50

.16

.16

(10)

. 11

" .05

>1.34

Louisiana:

New Orleans _ _ _

.28

.01

.01

.01

, 27

Shreveport _ _ _

.23

.04

.02

.02

.02

.02

- 19

Maryland: Baltimore.

.43

.06

.06

.06

.37

North Carolina:

Asheville _ _

.24

.03

.03

.03

.21

Charlotte.. _ _ . ...

.22

.07

. 04

.04

.03

.03

.16

Greensboro . . .

.30

.29

2fi

.26

.03

.03

.01

Winston-Salem _

.40

. 11

. OS

.08

.03

.03

.29

Oklahoma: Tulsa _

.80

.68

. fiS

.63

.05

.05

. 12

South Carolina: Charleston _

.13

.08

.08

.08

.05

Tennessee:

Knoxville _

.13

.03

.03

.03

. 10

Memphis _

.41

.13

.13

.13

.28

Nashville . .

.10

.04

.04

.04

.06

Texas:

Dallas _ .' _

.30

.18

in

. 10

.08

.08

.12

El Paso _

. 17

.11

. 11

.11

.06

Fort Worth _

.39

.36

.36

.03

Houston _

.21

.09

.

05

.05

.04

.04

.12

San Antonio. _ _

. 12

.03

.03

.03

.09

Virginia:

Norfolk _ _ _ _

.30

.14

. 14

. 14

.16

Richmond _

.59

.16

. 11

.11

.05

.05

.43

Roanoke _ _ _

.20

.08

.08

.08

.12

West Virginia: Huntington _

.27

.16

.07

.07

.09

.09

,11

Mountain and Pacific

California:

Los Angeles _

1.04

.94

.76

.76

.18

.16

.02

.10

Oakland _

1.71

1.58

.62

.62

.96

.91

.05

.13

Sacramento . . . .

1.04

.88

.27

.27

.61

.45

.16

.16

San Diego _

.90

.68

. 42

.42

.26

.24

.02

.22

San Francisco _ ..

1.50

.87

. 03

$0. 03

.84

.80

.04

.63

Colorado: Denver _

1.36

1.00

. 51

.51

.49

.35

.14

.36

Oregon: Portland _

. 74

.58

.39

.39

. 19

.19

.16

Utah: Salt Lake City _

1.43

.61

.31

.31

.30

$0.04

.26

.82

Washington:

Seattle _ _

.77

.61

.32

.31

.01

.29

.29

. 16

Tacoma _ _ -

.69

.61

.26

.26

.35

.35

.08

> Based on total population of areas estimated from U. S. censuses of 1920
and 1930.

> See app. A for the territory and total population included in each urban
area. Amounts per inhabitant based on figures which relate to territory
other than that shown in app. A are footnoted.

* Excludes cost of administration; of materials, equipment, and other items
incident to operation of work programs; and of transient care.

* Includes statutory aid to veterans administered on basis of need.

* Not initiated until 1933.

« Not initiated until 1936,

^ Includes direct and work relief and aid to veterans.

» Based on number of areas reporting expenditures for specified type of aid.

* Not computed because of small number of areas.

Less than 1 cent.

» Relates to city.

133

Table C--23. — Amoxint per inhabitant ^ of public and private assistance and earnings under specific d Federal work

programs, by urban area, 1930

Public funds

Geographic division, State,
and lu'ban area >

Total
public
and
private
funds ’

Total

General relief ♦

Earnings under
Federal work
programs

Special types of public assistance

Private
funds ^

Total

Direct

relief

Work

relief

Civil
Works
Pro¬
gram *

Projects
operated
by the
WPA «

Total

Old-age

assist¬

ance

Aid to
depend¬
ent

children

Aid to
the blind

Median * _ _ _ _

$1.09

$0. 85

$0. 46

$0. 44

(»)

$0.35

W

$0. 32

$0. 05

$0. 24

New England

Connecticut:

Bridgeport

3. 35

2. 99

2. 72

1.03

$1.69

.27

.27

(10)

.36

Hartford

3.49

2.43

2. 09

1.89

.20

.34

.33

.01

1. 06

New Britain

1. 72

1. 57

1. 12

1. 12

.45

.45

(10)

.15

New Haven

1. 88

1. 32

. 78

. 53

.25

.54

.52

.02

.56

Maine: Portland

1.93

1.66

1.41

1. 41

.25

.16

.09

.27

Massachusetts:

Boston

5. 98

5.18

4. 18

4. 18

1.00

.96

.05

.80

Brockton

4. 48

3. 65

3. 23

2.80

.43

.42

.36

.06

.83

Cambridge

4. 27

3. 90

2. 96

2. 96

.94

.86

.08

.37

Tlivp.r

4. 87

4. 85

4. 48

4. 48

.37

.32

.05

.02

Tiawrpnnft

3. 50

3. 25

2.73

2. 73

.52

.50

.02

.25

Lowell

4.92

4. 33

3. 33

3. 33

1.00

.95

.05

.59

Lynn . _

3. 50

2. 82

2. 27

2. 27

.55

.53

.02

.68

Malden _ .

2.73

2. 71

2. 53

2. 53

. 18

.15

.03

.02

New Bedford _ _ ..

5. 70

5. 48

5.06

5. 06

.42

.38

.04

.22

Newton _ _

1.46

1.23

.80

.80

.43

.42

.01

.23

Springfield

3.38

2.79

2. 54

2. 54

.25

.23

.02

.69

W orcester _

4.02

3. 66

3.24

3.24

.42

.38

.04

.36

Rhode Island: Providence

.92

.62

. 30

.30

.32

.32

.30

Middle Atlantic

New Jersey:

Jersey City _

.93

.89

.28

.28

.61

.60

.01

.04

Newark _

1.82

1.53

1.02

1.02

.61

.60

.01

.29

Trenton _

1.72

1.50

.63

. 63

.87

.84

.03

.22

New York:

Albany . .

1. 79

1.12

.70

.70

.42

.37

.05

.67

Buffalo _

2. 89

2. 54

2. 10

1. 99

.11

.44

.42

.02

.35

New Rochelle _

.61

.52

.35

.35

.17

.16

.01

.09

New York _

2.03

1.31

.25

.25

1.06

1.03

.03

.72

Niagara Falls _

2. 72

2.31

1. 70

1. 50

.20

.61

.60

.01

.41

Rochester _

4.62

4.00

'' 3.65

3. 42

.23

.35

.32

.03

.62

Syracuse _

1.77

1.51

1.24

1.24

.27

.25

.02

.26

litica _

1. 75

1.19

.62

.62

.57

. 53

.04

.56

Yonkers _

1.79

1.32

.60

.60

.72

.70

.02

.47

Pennsylvania:

Allentown _

.37

.29

.08

.08

.21

.21

.08

Altoona _

.61

46

.19

.19

.27

.27

.15

Bethlehem _ _

.85

.71

.49

.49

.22

.22

.14

Chester _

.45

.32

.15

. 15

. 17

. 17

. 13

Erie _

.74

.47

.23

.23

.24

.24

.27

Johnstown _

.91

.85

. 53

.53

.32

.32

.06

Philadelphia. _

.89

.35

.05

.05

.30

.30

.54

Pittsburgh _

.80

.52

.24

.24

.28

.28

.23

Reading! _

.81

.48

.20

.20

.28

. 28

.33

Scranton _

1.11

.88

.54

.54

.34

.34

.23

Wilkes-Barre _

1.15

1.11

.78

.78

.33

.33

.04

North Central

Hllnois:

Chicago _ _ _

1.00

.59

.24

.24

.35

.25

. 10

.41

Springfield _ _

1. 14

.97

.34

.34

.19

.44

. 17

Indiana:

Evansville _

1.62

1.42

1.30

1.30

. 12

. 12

.20

Fort Wayne _ ...

.66

.42

.35

. 35

.07

.07

.24

Indianapolis _ _ _

1.09

.72

.68

.68

.04

.04

.37

South Bend _

.99

.85

.72

.72

. 13

. 13

. 14

Terre Haute _

1.31

1.15

1.03

1.03

. 12

. 12

. 16

Iowa:

Des Moines . . .

1.39

1.00

.50

.50

. 50

. 35

15

39

Sioux City _

.95

.71

.30

.30

.41

.31

. 10

.24

Kansas:

Kansas City _

.36

.22

.22

.22

(10)

(10)

14

Topeka.. _ _

.93

.92

.80

.80

. 12

. 12

ni

Wichita _ _ _

.76

.59

.52

.52

.07

.07

.17

Michigan:

Detroit. _

5. 47

5. 30

4. 66

4. 66

.64

. 64

17

Flint _

2. 29

2. 09

1.49

1.49

.60

. 60

90

Grand Rapids _

.97

.85

.45

.45

.40

.40

19

Pontiac _

2.96

2. 93

2.35

2.35

. 58

. 58

0'^

Saginaw _ _

2. 30

2. 07

1.34

1.34

.73

.73

.23

Minnesota:

Duluth.. _ _ _

1.89

1. 70

.70

.70

1. 00

Q7

03

Minneapolis _

.96

.65

.25

.25

.40

09

St. Paul. _

1.54

1.17

.53

.63

.64

.60

.04

.37

See footnotes at end of table.

134

Table C— 23..— Amount per inhabitant ' of public and private assistance and earnings under specified Federal work,

programs, by urban area, 1930 — Continued

Public funds

4

Earnings under
Federal work
programs

Special types of public assistance

Private
funds 1

Work

relief

Civil
Works
Pro¬
gram 3

Projects
operated
by the
WPA 3

Total

Old-age

assist¬

ance

Aid to
depend¬
ent

children

Aid to
the blind

$0.22

$0. 06

$0.17

11 $0. 44

.19

.04

.16

.35

.36

.32

.03

.33

.21

.17

.04

.42

.60

.32

.28

.60

$0.14

.60

.51

.41

.10

.60

.46

.41

.05

.98

.58

.39

.19

.17

.35

.24

.11

1. 06

.23

.19

.04

.43

.36

.29

.07

.20

.36

.27

.09

.56

.93

$0. 21

.62

.10

.88

.75

.68

.07

.08

.13

.71

.09

.54

.08

.38

.73

.66

.17

.25

.18

.09

.33

.33

.22

.24

.24

.61

.40

.40

.04

.38

.38

.21

.08

11 .06

.24

.01

.17

11 .06

11 .34

.01

.01

.28

.03

.02

.01

.29

.05

.03

.02

.45

.02

.02

.28

.02

.02

.28

.13

.02

.02

.01

.02

.02

.38

.05

.05

.16

.05

.06

.06

.24

.13

.13

.42

.08

.08

.08

.13

.07

.03

.04

.04

.16

.11

.05

.14

.05

.05

.52

.23

.06

.05

.16

.35

.14

.15

.06

.11

1.61

.48

.87

.16

.11

1.20

.58

.46

.17

.17

.03

.72

.43

.22

.07

.10

.43

1.11

.28

.74

.09

.63

.48

.35

.13

.35

.09

.19

.19

.19

.61

.36

.26

.97

.05

.30

.30

.15

.40

.40

.09

Geographic division, State,
and urban area >

North Central— Con.
Missouri:

Kansas City _

St. Louis.. _ _

Nebraska: Omaha _

Ohio:

Akron _

Canton... _ _

Cincinnati _

Cleveland.. _ _

Columbus _

Dayton _

Springfield . .

Toledo _ _ _

Youngstown _

Wisconsin:

Kenosha _

Madison . .

Milwaukee _

Racine _

South Atlantic and South
Central

Alabama:

Birmingham _ _

Mobile _

Delaware: Wilmington _

District of Columbia: Wash¬
ington _

Florida:

Jacksonville- _ _

Miami _

Georgia: Atlanta _

Kentucky: Louisville _

Louisiana:

New Orleans _

Shreveport _ _ _

Maryland: Baltimore _

North Carolina:

Asheville _

Charlotte _

Greensboro _ _

Winston-Salem _

Oklahoma: Tulsa _

South Carolina: Charleston..
Tennessee:

Knoxville . . .

Memphis _ _ _

Nashville _

Texas:

Dallas. . - .

El Paso _ _

Fort Worth _

Houston . .

San Antonio .

Virginia:

Norfolk _

Richmond.. - -

Roanoke - - -

West Virginia: Huntington..

Mountain and Pacific
California:

Los Angeles.. . .

Oakland _ _ _

Sacramento.. - -

San Diego . . . .

San Francisco _

Colorado: Denver -

Oregon: Portland _

Utah; Salt Lake City.. .

Washington:.

Seattle - - -

Tacoma _

Total
public
and
private
funds s

$0. 66
.55
.98

1.09

1.56

1.28

2. 15

1.16
1.67

.87

2.13

1.30

3.95
1.51
2. 45
2.53

Total

.76

.74

.86

.34

.75

.29

.35

.68

.30

.38

.49

.48

.54

.15

.30

.65

.13

.33

.18

.47

.25

.14

.33

.71

.30

.28

1.51
2. 61
1.83
1.57
2.17
1.13
.90
1.90

.87

.85

$0. 22
.20
.65

.67

.96

.78

1.17

.99

.61

.44

1.93

.74

3.07

1.43

2.07

2.28

1.40
2. 50
1.66
1.47
1.54
.78
.71
.93

.72

.76

General relief *

Total

$0.01

.30

.46

.36

.27

.71

.41

.26

.21

1.57

.38

2.14

.68

1.36

1.65

.01

.01

.30
.27
.26
>1 .17

(10)

.03

.08

.08

.46

.08

.3:i

.10

.05

.12

.11

.44

.05

.03

.19

.14

.07

.07

1.05

.99

.46

.75

.43

.30

.52

.32

.42

.36

Direct

relief

$0.01

.30

.46

.36

.13

.11

.41

.26

.21

1.37

.38

2.14

.68

1.23

1.55

.01

.01

.30
.27
.26
11 .11

(10)

.03

.08

.08

.33

.08

.33

.10

.05

.12

.11

.44

.05

.03

.14

.14

.07

.07

1.05

.99

.46

.72

.30

.43

.32

.37

.36

1 Based on total population of areas according to U. S. census of 1930.
a See app. A for the territory and total population included in each urban
area. Amounts per inhabitant based on figures which relate to territory
other than that shown in app. A are footnoted.

3 Excludes cost of administration; of materials, equipment, and other items
Incident to operation of work programs; and of transient care.

* Includes statutory aid to veterans administered on basis of need.

3 Not initiated until 1933.

• Not initiated until 1935.

3 Includes direct and work relief and aid to veterans.

* Based on number of areas reporting expenditures for specified typo of aid.
« Not computed because of small number of areas.

I" Less than 1 cent.

11 Relates to city.

135

Table C— 24. — Amount per inhabitant ^ of public and private assistance and earnings under specified Federal work

programs, by urban area, 1931

Public funds

Geographic division, State,
and urban area *

T otal
public
and
private
funds ’

Total

General relief *

Earnings under
Federal work
programs

Special types of public assistance

Private
funds 1

Total

Direct

relief

Work

relief

Civil
Works
Pro¬
gram ®

Projects
operated
by the
WPA «

Total

Old-age

assist¬

ance

Aid to
depend¬
ent

children

Aid to
the blind

Median *. _

$2. 36

$1.62

$1.25

$0.92

$0. 42

$0.41

$0.27

$0. 34

$0.05

$0. 45

New England

Connecticut:

Bridgeport _ _

5. 61

5. 01

4. 72

2. 15

2. 57

.29

. 29

(')

.60

Hartford- _ _ _

7. 65

5. 95

5.56

4. 71

.85

.39

.38

.01

1. 70

New Britain _ _ . _

5.92

4. 69

4. 16

4. 16

.53

.53

(«)

1. 23

New Haven.

5. 91

4.93

4. 30

1. 17

3. 13

. 63

.61

.02

.98

Maine: Portland.. ... .

3. 33

3. 04

2. 79

1.38

1. 41

. 25

. 16

.09

.29

Massachusetts:

Boston ._ _ _ .

10. 61

9.71

8.49

8. 49

1. 22

.09

1. 07

.06

.90

Brockton _ _ _

5.89

5. 12

4. 20

4. 16

.04

.92

. 49

.37

. 06

.77

Cambridge. _

6.63

5. 83

4. 68

4. 68

1. 15

. 12

.94

.09

. 80

Fall River _

6. 16

5.64

5. 11

5. 11

. 53

. 20

. 27

.06

.52

Lawrence _ _

3.81

3. 55

2. 86

2. 86

. 69

. 19

. 48

. 02

. 26

Lowell _

6.95

6. 34

5. 20

4. 11

1.09

1. 14

. 16

. 92

. 06

.61

Lynn _ _

6. 39

5. 73

4. 73

4. 73

1. 00

. 40

. 57

.03

.66

Malden _ _ _

4. 96

4.88

4. 69

4. 26

.43

. 19

. 04

. 12

.03

.08

New Bedford.. _

7. 19

6.92

6. 25

6. 25

. 67

. 17

. 47

.03

. 27

Newton _ _ .

2.62

2. 06

1. 51

1. 04

.47

. 55

. 13

. 40

.02

.66

Springfield _ _

7.01

6. 30

5.93

5. 93

. 37

. 10

. 25

. 02

.71

Worcester _ ...

7.27

6. 69

6. 19

6. 19

.50

. 03

. 43

.04

,68

Rhode Island: Providence _

3. 74

1.62

1. 26

1.01

.25

.36

.36

2. 12

Middle Atlantic

New Jersey:

Jersey City _

2.59

2. 27

1.52

1.50

.02

.75

. 74

. 01

.32

Newark _

5.03

4. 37

3. 73

3. 39

.34

.64

.62

.02

.66

Trenton _

5. 61

3. 74

2. 71

2. 30

.41

1. 03

.99

.04

1.8

New York:

Albany _

3. 30

2. 41

1.02

.91

. 11

1. 39

.94

. 41

. 04

.89

Buffalo _

6. 74

6.07

5. 29

4. 69

.60

. 78

29

47

02

67

New Rochelle _

1.89

1.78

1.35

.68

. 67

. 43

. 20

. 22

.01

11

New York. ... .

6. 50

4. 13

1.72

.56

1. 16

2. 41

1. 04

1. 34

- 03

2 37

Niagara Falls _

6.81

6. 22

5. 20

4. 30

.90

1. 02

. 34

. 67

. 01

.59

Rochester _

12.29

11.39

10. 24

8. 32

1.92

1. 15

73

38

04

90

Syracuse... _

7. 90

7. 41

6. 43

3. 84

2. 59

. 98

69

. 27

. 02

49

Utica _ ...

4. 47

2. 99

1.72

1. 30

. 42

1 27

58

65

04

1 48

Yonkers .

4.68

3. 20

2. 10

2.08

.02

1. 10

.35

.73

.02

i!48

Pennsylvania:

Allentown . .

.47

.31

.06

.06

. 25

. 25

16

Altoona _ ...

1.25

.91

.58

.58

.33

. 33

. 34

Bethlehem _ ..

3. 33

3. 01

2. 73

1.69

1.04

. 28

J28

, 32

Chester. _

.74

.49

.31

.31

(»)

. 18

. 18

! 25

Erie. _

2. 19

1.71

1. 37

1.37

. 34

34

48

Johnstown _

1.54

1.33

.99

.99

. 34

. 34

21

Philadelphia _

4. 13

1.76

1.44

1.44

. 32

.32

2 37

Pittsburgh _ .. .

2. 79

.88

.57

.57

_ 1 _

.31

. 31

1. 91

Reading _ _

1. 76

1. 30

.98

.68

.30

.32

.32

46

Scranton. _

1.70

1.24

.81

.81

. 43

. 43

. 46

Wilkes-Barre. _ _

1.62

1.54

1. 15

1. 15

.39

. 39

.08

North Central

niinois:

Chicago . .

3.54

1.26

.85

.85

.41

29

12

2 ^

Springfield _ .

1.49

.96

.31

31

65

.14

.51

!53

Indiana:

Evansville _ _

2.71

2. 22

2.09

2.09

. 13

. 13

49

Fort Wayne _

2. 87

1.34

1. 25

1. 25

.09

09

53

Indianapolis _

2.58

2.08

2. 04

2.04

.04

. 04

50

South Bend _

3.88

3. 63

3. 47

3. 47

. 16

. Ifi

' 25

Terre Haute _ _

1. 41

1. 10

.96

.96

. 14

.14

.31

Iowa:

Des Moines _

2.03

1.34

.79

.79

(')

. 55

36

]9

Sioux City... .

1. 50

1.24

.86

. 60

.26

. 38

.28

.10

.26

Kansas:

Kansas City _

.61

.36

.36

.36

(«)

(«)

^ 25

Topeka _

1.61

1.57

1.41

.88

.53

. 16

16

04

Wichita _ ..

1.01

.74

.65

64

.01

. 09

.09

.27

Michigan:

Detroit _ _

7. 17

6. 92

6. 17

5. 71

.46

. 75

75

Flint _

3. 14

2. 95

2.30

2. 30

. 65

65

Grand Rapids _ _

3. 84

3. 69

3. 16

.99

2. 17

.53

53

Pontiac. . . . ...

3. 10

3. 08

2. 44

2.44

.64

64

Saginaw _ _ .

4. 89

4. 72

3. 90

3. 90

.82

.82

.17

Minnesota:

Duluth _

3. 10

2.89

1. 52

1. 41

. 11

1 37

29

1 04

Minneapolis _

2. 56

1.63

1.09

.93

. 16

. 54

05

46

St. Paul _

1.98

1.41

.74

.74

.67

.03

.60

.04

.57

Missouri:

Kansas City _

1. 67

. 24

. 24

05

St. Louis. _

1.43

.64

.42

.35

.07

.22

!o6

.16

.79

See footnotes at end of table.

136

Table C-2i^ Amount per inhabitant ^ of public and private assistance and earnings under specified Federal work

programs, by urban area, 195i— Continued

Geographic division, State,
and urban area >

North Central— Con.

Nebraska: Omaha.
Ohio:

Akron. .

Canton . .

Cincinnati _

Cleveland _

Columbus _

Dayton _

Springfield _

Toledo _

Youngstown...

Wisconsin;

Kenosha _

Madison _

Milwaukee _

Racine _

South Atlantic and South
Central

Alabama:

Birmingham _

Mobile _ _ _

Delaware: Wilmington _

District of Columbia: Wash¬
ington _

Florida:

Jacksonville _

Miami _

Georgia: Atlanta _

Kentucky: Louisville _

Louisiana:

New Orleans _

Shreveport _ _ _

Maryland: Baltimore .

North Carolina:

Asheville.. _ _

Charlotte _

Greensboro _

W inston-Salem _

Oklahoma: Tulsa _

South Carolina: Charleston...
Tennessee:

Knoxville _

Memphis _

Nashville _

Texas:

Dallas _

El Paso _

Fort Worth _

Houston . . . .

San Antonio _ _

Virginia:

Norfolk _

Richmond _ _ _

Roanoke _ _

West Virginia; Huntington _

Mountain and Pacific

California:

Los Angeles. . .

Oakland _

Sacramento .

San Diego _

San Francisco _

Colorado: Denver _

Oregon: Portland _

Utah: Salt Lake City.. .

Washington:

Seattle . .

Tacoma _

Total
public
and
private
funds *

$1.27

1.94
3. 91
3. 30
3. 63
2. 07
2. 43
1.05
4.31
2. 06

6.97
1.81
6. 02
7.68

.98
.10
3. 04

1.05

.84

.91

.74

1.52

1. 09
.46
1.56

.47

.75

.84

.85

.58

.14

.44

.88

.34

.62

.68

.65

.42

.18

.41
1. 10
.49
.51

3. 66
3. 87
2. 49
2. 28
5. 24
1.58
4. 65
2.24

1. 48
1. 31

Total

$0. 71

1.53
2. 24
2. 09
2. 17
1.73
1.92
.61
4. 09
.99

6. 21
1.61
6.60
7.50

.53

.02

.50

.28

.60

.66

.39

1.11

.18

.15

.45

.29

.28

.83

.31

.29

.09

.08

.13

.16

.45

.55

.62

.11

.03

.17

.50

.23

.20

3. 33
3. 75
2.23
2. 17

4. 44
.87

4. 35
1. 03

1.11

1.05

Public funds

General relief ♦

Total

$0.33

1.31

1.53
1.56
1.66
1. 14
1.67

.45
3. 69
.65

4. 77
.79
4. 53

6. 53

.53

.02

.01

.01

.26

.29

.39

>'>.83

.16

.09

.32

.27

.25

.80

.28

.26

.09

.16

.36

.56

.62

.06

.03

.17

.44

.23

.15

2.79
1.99
.60
1. 36
3.12
.38
4. 06
.45

.79

.56

Direct

relief

$0. 33

1. 31
1. 53
.87
1. 44
1. 10
.71
.45
3.17
.66

4.77
.79
3. 47
6. 64

.02

.01

.26
.29
.39
w. 41

.09

.32

.27

.25

.44

.28

.26

.09

.16

.20

.19

.62

.06

.03

.15

.44

.23

.15

1. 65
1.99
.60
1. 15
(')

.38

.67

.45

.45

.55

Work

relief

$0.68

.22

.04

.86

.62

1.06

.99

Earnings under
Federal work
programs

Civil
Works
Pro¬
gram 5

Projects
operated
by the
WPA 8

.53

'.'oi

ID. 42
.16

.36

.02

1.24

(»)

.21

3.12

3.39

.34

Special types of public assistance

Total

$0.38

.22

.71

.54

.51

.59

.35

.16

.40

.34

1.44

.82

1.07

.97

Old-age

assist¬

ance

.28

.02

.06

.13

.02

.03

.03

.03

.03

.08

.13

.09

'os'

.54
1.76
1. 63
.81
1.32
.49
.29
.58

.32

.50

$0. 32

.18

.15

.02

.04

.27

.67

.96

.55

.48

.32

Aid to
depend¬
ent

children

$0.36

.17

.36

.44

.45

.41

.24

.13

.32

.24

1.00

.74

.81

.80

Aid to
the blind

Private
funds t

.18

.04

.04

.02

.03

.03

.03

.03

.08

.13

.17

.91

.50

.20

.74

.36

.29

.26

.32

.50

$0.03

.05
.35
. 10
.06
. 18
.11
.03
.08
;10

.12

.08

.08

.17

ID. 08

.02

.02

.05

.10

.18

.17

.06

.10

.13

$0.56

.41
1.67
1.21
1. 46
.34
.51
.44
.22
1. 07

.76

.20

.42

.18

.45

.08

2.64

.77

.24
.26
.36
ID. 41

.91
.31
1. 11

.18

.47

.01

.54

.29

.05

.36

.75

.18

.17

.13

.03

.31

.15

.24

.60

.26

.31

.33

.12

.26

.11

.80

.71

.30

1.21

.37

.26

1 Based on total population of areas estimated from U. S. censuses of 1930
and 1940.

I See app. A for the territory and total population included in each urban
area. Amounts per inhabitant based on figures which relate to territory
other than that shown in app. A are footnoted.

» Excludes cost of administration; of materials, equipment, and other items
incident to operation of work programs; and of transient care.

I Includes statutory aid to veterans administered on basis of need.

D Not initiated until 1933.

* Not initiated until 1935.

I Includes direct and work relief and aid to veterans.

* Based on number of areas reporting expenditures for specified type of aid.
D Less than 1 cent.

ID Relates to city.

137

Table C— 25. — Amount per inhabitant * of public and private assistance and earnings under specified Federal work

programs, by urban area, 1932

Public funds

Geofrraphie division, State,
and ui'ban area *

Total

public

and

private
funds s

Total

General relief <

Earnings under
Federal work
programs

Special types of public assistance

Private
fimds '

Total

Direct

relief

Work

relief

Civil
Works
Pro¬
gram s

Projects
operated
by the
WPA «

Total

Old-age

assist¬

ance

Aid to
depend¬
ent

children

Aid to
the blind

Median * _ _

$4. 81

$4. 04

$3. 56

$2.47

$0. 93

$0.50

$0. 61

$0. 36

$0.05

$0.45

New England

Connecticut:

■Rrid^ppnrt

9.69

8. 82

8.52

4. 76

3. 76

.30

.29

.01

.87

Hartford

11. 88

7. 85

7. 37

6. 79

.68

.48

.47

.01

4. 03

New Rritain

13. 71

12.68

12. 11

12. 11

.57

. 57

C)

1. 03

New Haven

8. 71

7. 06

6. 37

2. 34

4. 03

.69

.67

.02

1.65

Maine: Portland

4. 68

4.24

3. 96

3.96

.28

.18

.10

.44

Massachusetts:

■Roston

19.99

16.50

13. 93

13. 93

2. 57

1. 30

1. 20

.07

3. 49

■Rroekton

8. 87

8.09

6. 39

6. 39

1. 70

1. 21

.43

.06

.78

Cambridge

11. 14

9. 55

7. 75

7.75

1.80

.89

.81

.10

1. 59

Pall Tllver

11.00

10. 30

8.61

8.61

1.69

1. 12

. 50

.07

.70

T.awrenoe

7.29

6.99

5. 71

5.71

1. 28

.78

.48

.02

.30

T.nwell

9.56

8.87

6. 86

6.85

2.02

.94

1.03

.05

,69

T,ynn

10. 69

10. 16

8. 16

8. 16

2.00

1.45

.52

.03

. 63

Malden

8. 57

8.53

7.82

7. 82

. 71

.59

.09

.03

.04

New Bedford _ -- _

10. 84

10. 57

8.84

8.84

1. 73

1.08

.61

.04

. 27

Newton _ _ _ _

4. 62

3.50

2.51

2. 61

.99

.54

.42

.03

1. 12

Rprinpfie.ld

13. 04

12.13

11.29

11.29

.84

.62

.20

.02

.91

Worcester _ . _ _

12.46

11.73

10.53

10.53

1.20

.71

.44

.05

.73

Rhode Island: Providence _

7.80

7.23

6.85

3.22

3.63

.38

.38

,67

MroDLE Atlantic

New Jersey:

Jersey City

6. 35

6.69

4.84

3.98

.86

.85

.83

.02

.66

Newarlr

8.93

8. 37

7.44

4.79

2.65

.93

.13

. 77

.03

. 66

Trenton _ _

11. 51

7.70

6.31

4.97

1.34

1. 39

.26

1.08

.05

3. 81

New York:

Albany . .

5. 96

5.34

4. 27

1.60

2. 67

1.07

.68

.34

.05

.62

Buffalo _ - _

14. 15

13.16

12. 10

9. 85

2. 25

1.06

. 54

. 49

.03

.99

New Rochelle _ _ _ _

7. 96

7. 87

7. 17

3.25

3. 92

.70

.43

. 26

.01

. no

New York _ _ _ _

11. .34

8.24

6.44

2.58

2.86

2. 80

1. 28

1. 49

.03

3 in

Niapara Palls

16. 94

16.68

15. 60

9. 75

6.85

1.08

. 37

. 70

.01

.-26

Rochester _

14.80

14. 38

12.47

10.49

1.98

1.91

1. 46

. 41

.04

.42

.Syraense

14. 05

13.74

12.36

7. 26

5. 10

1. 38

1.05

.31

.02

Utica _

11.34

10. 57

8. 39

4.53

3.86

2. 18

1. 24

.89

.05

- 77

Yonkers _

14.29

13. 64

12.26

7. 16

5. 10

1.38

.61

.75

.02

.65

Pennsvlvania:

Allentown _

.55

.38

.07

.07

.31

.31

- 17

Altoona _ _

3.77

2. 84

2.47

2.47

.37

.37

. Q.^

Bethlehem _

2.77

2. 49

2.12

2. 12

.37

. 37

_28

Chester _

2.72

2.49

2.21

2. 21

.28

.28

Erie _ - -

4.93

4. 51

4. 09

4. 09

.42

. 42

- 42

Johnstown _

1.78

1.71

1.20

1.20

.51

. 51

.07

Philadelphia _

5.36

2. 82

2. 46

2.46

.36

.36

2 54

Pittsburgh,, _ _

6.24

4. 18

3. 82

3. 82

.36

.36

2 nfi

Beading _ _ _

6.01

5.27

4.89

4. 13

.38

.38

' 74

Scranton... _

2.95

2.46

1. 99

1.99

.47

.47

4fl

Wilkes-Barre _

4.03

3.73

3.16

2.77

.39

.67

.57

.30

Noeth Central

Illinois:

Chicago _

10.12

9.09

8.68

8.12

.56

.41

.29

Springfield _

3. 19

2.66

1.98

1. 98

.68

.18

.50

'.63

Indiana:

Evansville _

5.36

4.64

4.52

4.52

. 12

. 12

7?

Fort Wayne _

5.72

4.17

4. 08

4. 08

.09

.09

] 55

Indianapolis _ ..

4.17

3. 61

3. 58

3. 58

.03

.03

5fi

South Bend _

6.78

6. 59

6.39

6. 39

.20

. 20

19

Terre Haute _

2. 54

2.16

2.02

2.02

.14

. 14

.38

Iowa:

Des Moines _

4.07

3. 19

2.63

2.63

.66

20

.-88

Sioux City _

3.40

3.11

2.65

2.28

.37

.46

.35

.11

.29

Kansas:

Kansas City _

1. 36

.60

.60

.29

.31

(*)

(S)

76

Topeka _

3. 00

2.95

2.74

1. 21

1. 53

.21

. 9A

06

Wichita _

2.15

1.72

1.59

1. 05

.54

. 13

.13

.43

Michigan:

Detroit _ _

6.06

6.55

4.80

3.75'

1.05

.75

.75

.-61

Flint _

5. 56

5.15

4. 43

4.43

.72

. 72

.-41

Grand Rapids _

6.14

6.04

6.57

1.61

3.96

.47

.47

Pontiac _ _

4. 81

4. 79

4.28

4.28

.51

51

^ 02

Saginaw _

4. 81

4. 61

3. 72

3.72

.89

.89

.20

Minnesota:

Dnlnth _

6.77

6. 65

5.28

4. 72

.56

1. 27

.-85

04

Minneapolis _

5. 66

4.56

3. 68

3.53

. 15

. 88

' 52

.-03

1 in

St. Paul _

5. 08

3. 39

2. 46

2.46

.93

.28

.61

.04

1.69

Missouri:

Kansas City _

2.60

.93

>«.64

i».64

.29

08

.-21

10 1 ft*?

St. Louis _

3.21

1.34

1.10

1.10

.24

ioe

iisl

1.87

See footnotes at end of table.

V

138

Table 0-25. Amount per inhabitant » of public and private assistance and earnings under specified Federal work

Programs, by urban area, 2932— Continued

Public funds

Geographic division. State,
and urban area ^

Total
public
and
private
funds ’

Total

General relief <

Earnings under
Federal work
programs

Special types of public assistance

Private
funds J

Total

Direct

relief

Work

relief

Civil
Works
Pro¬
gram «

Projects
operated
by the
WPA 0

Total

Old-age

assist¬

ance

Aid to
depend¬
ent

children

Aid to
the blind

North Central— Con.

Nebraska: Omaha _

$1.82

$0.90

$0.56

$0. 56

$0.34

.21

.81

.55

.53

.61

.38

.20

.50

.31

1. 79
.96
1. 28
1. 14

$0.30

.17

.47

.45

.47

.43

.27

.16

.39

.21

1.25

.87

.95

.95

Ohio:

Akron. .

Canton _ _

3. 04
6. 51

2. 65

3. 61

2. 44
2. 80

2. 44
2.80

$0. 04

.04

.34

.10

.06

$0. 92

.39

1.90

.71

Cincmnati.

Cleveland .

6. 77
5.62

6. 06
4. 37

5. 51
3.84

3. 21
3. 84

$2. 30

Columbus _ ...

5. 07

4. 63

4. 02

1.40

2. 62

1. 26

Dayton.. .

4. 17

3. 86

3. 48

2.91

.57

• 18

. 44

Springfield... _ _

1. 68

1. 11

.91

.91

• 11
• 04

.31

Toledo _ _

4. 87

4. 76

4.26

4. 26

.57

Youngstown . .

4. 32

4. 02

3. 71

3. 47

.24

• 11
.10

• 11

Wisconsin:

Kenosha _

14. 17

12. 72

10.93

10.93

$0. 39

. 30

1. 45

Madison _ ..

4.23

4. 06

3. 10

3. 10

• 15
.09

Milwaukee _

12.28

11.88

10.60

9. 05

1.55

.22

.25

. 17
.40

Racine. . . .

11.78

9. 41

8.27

8.05

.08

.19

South Atlantic and South
Central

2. 37

Alabama:

Birmingham _

2.08

1. 45

1. 45

1.05

.40

.63

Mobile _ _

.44

.03

.03

.03

Delaware: Wilmington . ..

8.27

3. 22

2.35

1.02

1.33

.87

.26

.30

.32

.50

.37

.26

.30

.32

6.05

L77

.17

.25

.38

10.68

.63

.31

1.26

.44

.35

.01

.31

.46

.12

.13

.43

.21

.47

.07

.10

.37

.29

.38

.77

.34

.35

District of Columbia: Wash¬
ington .

2. 62

.85

.59

.21

.38

Florida:

Jacksonville _

1.75

1. 58

1.28

.61

.67

Miami _ ...

1. 77

1. 52

1.20

.36

.84

Georgia: Atlanta . . .

1.63

1. 25

1.25

1. 10

.15

Kentucky: Louisville.. _

2. 37

1.69

10 1.42

JO. 43

10.99

.27

.02

.06

.20

.02

.04

.04

.02

.17

i".08

.02

.03

.06

Louisiana:

New Orleans _ _ _

2.06

1. 43

1.41

.14

1. 27

Shreveport _

.75

.44

.38

.03

.35

.03

.05

.02

.04

.04

.04

.05

Maryland: Baltimore... .

5.48

4. 22

4. 02

1.88

2. 14

.09

North Cai-olina:

Asheville _

1. 16

.72

.70

.21

.49

Charlotte _ _

1.98

1.63

1.59

1.20

.39

Greensboro _

1. 37

1.36

1.32

1.32

Winston-Salem _

.92

.61

.57

.53

.04

.04

Oklahoma: Tulsa . .

1. 73

1. 27

1. 22

1.22

.05

South Carolina: Charleston _

.25

.13

.13

.13

Tennessee:

Knoxville . .

.57

.44

.30

.01

.29

. 14

.14

.12

Memphis _ _

.66

.23

.11

.11

.12

NashvUle _

.57

.36

.36

.36

Texas:

Dallas . . .

1. 40

.93

.85

.15

. 70

.08

.03

El Paso _

1. 98

1. 91

1.91

.74

1. 17

Fort W orth _ _

.93

.83

.83

.75

.08

Houston _

.71

.34

.29

.29

.05

.05

San Antonio _

.65

.36

.36

.07

.29

Virginia:

Norfolk . . . .

.50

.12

.12

.12

(•)

.05

(«)

.05

Richmond . . .

1. 89

1.12

1. 07

.54

.53

Roanoke _ _ _

.82

.48

.48

.48

West Virginia: Huntington...

.53

.18

.13

.13

.05

.05

Mountain and Pacific

California:

Los Angeles _

4. 01

3. 61

2.78

2. 10

.68

.83

.46

.21

.16

.23

.40

.22

.29

.13

.78

1.92

Oakland _

6. 44

6.22

4. 21

2.97

1.24

2.01

.86

.92

Sacramento _ _

2. 71

2. 42

.63

.63

1.79

1. 05

.54

.20

San Diego _

4.04

3.91

2.91

1.28

1.63

1.00

.69

.24

.07

San Francisco _

7. 52

6. 74

5.34

.25

5.09

1. 40

.53

.76

. 11

Colorado: Denver _

3. 70

1. 78

1.29

1.29

.49

.36

.13

Oregon: Portland _

9. 04

8. 70

8. 43

1. 93

6. 50

.27

.27

.34

Utah: Salt Lake City . .

5. 19

4.06

3. 54

2. 43

1. 11

.52

.27

.25

1. 13

Washington:

Seattle _

5. 45

5. 18

4. 87

4. 83

.04

.31

.31

.27

Tacoma... . . . .

4. 36

4. 11

3. 57

3. 57

.54

.54

.25

1 Based on total population of areas estimated from U. S. censuses of 1930
and 1940.

* See app. A for the territory and total population included in each urban
area. Amounts per inhabitant based on figures which relate to territory
other than that shown in app. A are footnoted.

s Excludes cost of administration; of materials, equipment, and other
items incident to operation of work programs; and of transient care.

‘ Includes statutory aid to veterans administered on basis of need.

‘ Not initiated imtil 1933.

» Not initiated imtil 1935.

1 1ncludes direct and work relief and aid to veterans.

« Based on number of areas reporting expenditures for specified type of aid.
» Less than 1 cent.
lORelates to city.

10

452436“— 42

139

Table C— 26. — Amount per inhabitant

of public and private assistance and earnings under specified Federal work
programs, by urban area, 1933

Geographic division, State,
and urban area ’

Total

public

and

Public funds

General relief *

nvate
xnds 3

Total

Total

Direct

relief

$9. 52

$9.13

$6. 86

$5.60

10. 03

9.54

8.08

7. 36

11.39

8.26

7.08

6.94

11.70

9.70

7.32

7.32

9.76

§.32

6. 61

5.60

9.42

9.00

6.69

6.69

21.69

19.62

15. 86

15. 86

9. 43

8.83

6. 73

6. 73

11.91

10. 82

7. 87

7.87

9.64

9.61

6. 59

6.59

6. 35

6. 17

4.12

4. 12

11.49

10. 93

7.09

7.09

14.23

13.91

10.11

10.11

9.44

9.43

8.07

8.07

10. 37

10.17

7.23

7.23

7. 65

7.14

5.04

5.04

18. 59

18.20

15. 75

15. 75

14. 49

14.02

11.16

11.16

10. 43

9. 69

7.85

4.08

8.14

8.05

5. 87

5.87

11.21

10. 98

8.85

8.13

10.78

10.22

7.90

7.90

9.75

9. 37

7.05

3. 19

19. 25

18.61

16. 45

10. 76

16.08

16. 03

13.88

9.38

16. 36

14. 38

10. 95

5. 92

16. 21

15.97

13. 57

7.05

17.90

17. 66

13.89

7.92

21.04

20. 85

18.01

6.69

15.69

14.99

11.80

4.78

20.20

19.84

17. 67

6.90

6. 81

6. 71

5.96

5. 85

6.30

6.11

6. 05

4. 83

8. 37

8.10

7. 22

7. 07

5.41

5. 32

4.74

4. 58

6.24

6.24

5. 56

5.56

7.28

7.25

5. 72

5. 57

9.12

8.53

8. 10

8. 09

11.60

11.29

10. 61

10. 52

10. 69

10.54

9.46

7. 87

7. 21

6.91

6. 02

5.60

9.00

8. 95

8.00

6. 73

15. 65

15. 06

13. 51

11.46

5.65

5. 33

2.74

2.37

10. 02

10.00

7.70

6. 84

9.71

9.03

6.63

5.27

6.61

6.27

4.38

4. 37

9. 74

9.68

7.78

7.66

6. 57

6.34

3. 57

2.43

12.01

11.88

8.35

7.49

8.68

8.54

5.43

3.30

5. 48

5.14

2. 99

.95

7. 34

7. 32

4.86

1.82

8.16

7.98

5. 59

1.87

10.89

10. 77

8.56

6.90

8.46

8. 42

6. 35

6.14

9.70

9.66

7.67

7.15

9.85

9.84

8. 22

7.90

5.50

5. 39

3. 63

3. 49

10.70

10.66

7.21

7. 21

10. 38

9. 46

6. 65

6. 65

10.59

9.82

7.09

6.90

5. 56

4.18

IS 3.07

” 3. 05

7. 65

7. 22

5. 86

5. 86

Earnings under
Federal work
programs

Special types of public assistance

Private
funds ’

Civil

Projects

Aid to

Work

Works

operated

depend-

Aid to

relief

Pro-

by the

ent

the blind

gram «

WPA 6

children

$1.34

$1.37

$0. 48

$0.65

.$0. 33

$0. 06

$0.22

.72

1.13

.33

.32

.01

.49

.14

.59

.59

.57

.02

3. 13

1. 78

.60

.60

(»)

2.00

1.01

.97

.74

.72

.02

1.44

2.03

.28

.20

.08

.42

.73

3.03

1.55

1.41

.07

2.07

.58

1.52

.92

.54

.06

.60

1. 11

1.84

1.05

.69

.10

1.09

1.15

1.87

1. 23

.56

.08

.03

.66

1.39

.88

.48

.03

.18

1.51

2. 33

1 20

1.07

.06

.66

1.30

2.50

1.90

.57

.03

.32

.60

.76

. 64

.10

.02

.01

.87

2.07

1 41

.62

.04

.20

1.03

1.07

.66

.38

.03

.61

1.28

1. 17

.91

.24

J)2

.39

1.41

1.45

.92

.48

.05

.47

3.77

1.43

.41

.41

.74

10 1.36

.82

.79

.03

.09

.72

10.48

1.65

.37

1.25

.03

.23

10.87

1.45

.56

.83

.06

.56

3

10 1.44

.88

.53

.31

.04

.38

5.69

1.03

1.13

.63

.47

.03

.64

4. .50

11 1.34

.81

.55

.25

.01

.05

.5.03

1.00

2. 43

1.05

1. 35

.03

1.98

6. 52

1.32

1.08

.36

.71

.01

.24

5.97

10 1.58

2.19

1.69

.46

.04

.24

11.32

10 1.48

1.36

1.04

.29

.03

.19

7. 02

.97

2. 22

1.23

.95

.04

.70

in 77

.72

1.45

.68

.75

.02

36

n

.39

.36

.36

.10

’ 9.9.

.69

.37

.37

.19

If;

.52

.36

.36

, 97

.16

.30

.28

.28

.09

.27

.41

.41

(«)

IS

.51

1.02

1. 02

.03

.01

.10

.33

.33

J59

09

.24

.44

.44

.31

1 fiO

.62

.46

.46

.1.1

42

.63

.26

.26

30

I 27

.30

.65

.65

,05

2 05

1.20

.35

.23

.12

59

1 37

1.98

.61

.08

.53

39

.86

2.19

.11

.11

09

1.36

2. 31

.09

.09

63

.01

1.80

.03

.03

! 34

.12

1.71

. 19

.19

.06

1.14

2. 67

.10

.10

23

.86

3.05

.48

.32

.16

13

2.13

2. 57

.54

.42

.12

, 14

2.04

2.15

(0)

34

3.04

2.29

.17

.17

02

3. 72

2.29

.10

.10

13

1.66

1.60

.61

.61

1?

.21

1.20

.87

.87

04

.52

1.59

.40

.40

04

.32

1.48

.14

.14

m

.14

1.02

.74

.74

, 11

1.79

1.56

.34

1

04

(•)

10 1.78

1.03

.45

'.55

.03

.92

.19

1.74

.99

.36

.59

.04

.77

”. 02

10.79

.32

. n«

J24

IS 2 3g

(•)

10 1.12

.24

.05

!io

.43

Median

New England

Connecticut:

Bridgeport . .

Hartford _ _ _

New Britain.. .

New Haven _

Maine: Portland... .

Massachusetts:

Boston... . .

Brockton . . .

Cambridge . .

Fall River _ _

Lawrence. _ _

Lowell. _ _ _

Lynn . . .

Malden _

New Bedford _

Newton _

Springfield. .

Worcester . .

Rhode Island: Providence.

Middle Atlantic

New Jersey:

Jersey City... . .

Newark.. _ _

Trenton _

New York:

Albany _ _ _

Buffalo _

New Rochelle . . .

New York _ _

Niagara Falls _

Rochester . . .

Syracuse _

Utica _ _ _

Yonkers _ _

Pennsylvania:

Allentown _

Altoona.. . .

Bethlehem _

Chester.. .

Erie . . .

Johnstown _

Philadelphia _

Pittsburgh.. .

Reading. _ _

Scranton . . .

Wilkes-Barre _

North Central
Illinois:

Chicago _ _

Springfield . .

Indiana:

Evansville _ _

Fort Wayne _

Indianapolis. . .

South Bend _

Terre Haute _

Iowa:

Des Moines... . .

Sioux City. . .

Kansas:

Kansas City.. . .

Topeka _

Wichita. _ _

Michigan:

Detroit _

Flint.... . .

Grand Rapids . .

Pontiac _

Saginaw _ _

Minnesota:

Duluth. _ _

Minneapolis _

St. Paul _

Missouri:

Kansas City _

St. Louis _

See footnotes at end of table.

140

Table 0“26. ATnoimt per inhabitant ^ of public and private assistance and earnings under specified Federal work

programs, by urban area, 1933 — Continued

Geographic division. State,
and urban area >

Total

public

and

private
funds 3

Total

North Central— Con.

Nebraska: Omaha _

$4.63

$4. 17

Ohio:

Akron . . . .

9. 07

8.88

Canton . .

7. 51

7. 51

Cincinnati _

11.31

10.94

Cleveland . . .

11.83

11. 27

Columbus _ _

11. 12

10.86

Dayton.. . . .

9.88

9. 55

Springfield _ _

6.99

6. 92

Toledo - - -

11.74

11.72

Youngstown. . .

11.33

11. 18

Wisconsin:

Kenosha _

21.12

20.98

Madison. . . . .

14. 26

14.23

MUwaukee - -

14.64

14.36

Racine . . .

16. 05

15. 97

South Atlantic and

South Central

Alabama;

Birmingham . .

5. 63

5. 52

Mobile _

5.71

5. 71

Delaware: Wilmington _

13. 87

12. 05

District of Columbia; Wash-

ington _ _ _

6. 81

6.23

Florida:

Jacksonville _ _ _

9. 43

9. 37

Miami _ _

5. 76

5. 62

Georgia: Atlanta -

7. 19

6. 97

Kentucky: Louisville -

4. 06

3.75

Louisiana:

New Orleans _

9. 89

9. 65

Shreveport -

4. 02

3. 93

Maryland: Baltimore . .

11.24

10. 77

North Carolina:

Asheville _

3. 56

3. 49

Charlotte _ _

4. 65

4. 60

Greensboro _

5.58

5. 56

W inston-Salem - -

4.81

4. 53

Oklahoma: Tulsa -

7.06

6.94

South Carolina: Charleston...

5. 60

5. 52

Tennessee:

Knoxville... . .

2. 53

2. 49

Memphis . . .

4.36

3. 96

Nashville _

2.05

1.86

Texas:

Dallas - -

6. 32

6. 15

El Paso . . .

6.61

6.50

Fort Worth _

5. 21

5. 17

Houston _

4. 32

4.28

San Antonio _

5. 38

5.29

Virginia:

Norfolk - -

3. 09

2. 87

Richmond - -

3.23

2.51

Roanoke -

2. 61

2. 32

West Virginia: Huntington...

12.62

12.22

Mountain and Pacific

California:

Los Angeles. . .

11. 15

10.92

Oakland _ _

9. 35

9. 22

Sacramento _

4.39

4.28

San Diego _

5. 89

5. 82

San Francisco _

11. 95

11.59

Colorado; Denver -

9. 59

9.32

Oregon: Portland . . .

12. 17

12. 09

Utah: Salt Lake City.. .

11. 69

11. 27

Washington:

Seattle _

11. 49

11. 34

Tacoma... - -

11.06

11.04

Public funds

General relief <

Earnings under
Federal work
programs

Special types of public assistance

Private
funds t

Total

Direct

relief

Work

relief

Civil
Works
Pro¬
gram *

Projects
operated
by the
WPA »

Total

Old-age

assist¬

ance

Aid to
depend¬
ent

children

Aid to
the blind

$2.88

$2.88

$1.01

$0.28

$0.24

$n 04

$0 46

6. 62

5.63

$0. 99

2. 05

.21

.18

.03

. 19

5. 44

5.44

(*)

1.51

.56

.27

.29

(«)

8.41

4.54

3. 87

1.98

.55

.45

.10

.37

8. 35

7. 96

.39

2. 40

.52

.46

.06

.56

8. 08

3. 35

4. 73

2.24

.54

.37

.17

.26

7. 38

5.88

1.50

1.79

.38

.28

.10

.33

4. 18

4.11

.07

2.54

.20

.16

.04

.07

7.74

7. 44

.30

3. 53

.45

.36

.09

.02

8. 26

8. 07

.19

2. 62

.30

.20

. 10

.15

15. 26

15. 02

.24

3.90

1. 82

$0.48

1.19

.15

.14

7. 95

6. 78

1. 17

6. 49

.79

.70

.09

.03

10.49

7. 99

2.50

2. 57

1. 30

.30

.91

.09

.28

12.53

12. 13

.40

2.37

1.07

.93

.14

.08

4. 06

2.03

2.03

1. 46

.11

4.43

1.09

3. 34

1.28

(')

10.91

8. 49

2. 42

.24

.90

.54

.36

1.82

4.27

1. 17

3. 10

1. 69

.27

.27

.68

6. 40

1. 38

5. 02

2. 76

.21

.21

.06

4.02

.49

3. 53

1. 36

.24

.24

.14

5 16

3. 21

1.95

1.81

.22

12 3. 00

12 .68

12 2. 32

.47

.28

.02

.18

u .08

U.31

6. 99

.99

6. 00

2. 64

.02

.02

.24

2. 29

.07

2. 22

1.58

.06

.03

.03

.09

9. 83

5. 65

4. 18

.69

.25

.06

.11

.08

.47

2 52

1. 13

1.39

.95

.02

.02

.07

S 72

2 46

1.26

.85

.03

.03

.05

4 47

3. 40

1.07

1.06

.03

.03

.02

S fifi

2 34

1.32

.84

.03

.03

.28

4 82

3 06

1.76

2.08

.04

.04

.12

fi2

.86

2 66

2. 00

.08

1 OR

24

82

1. 29

.14

.14

.04

2 5Q

15

2 44

1.26

.11

.11

.40

1 12

R1

51

.74

.19

4 87

1 65

3. 22

1. 22

.06

.06

.17

4 OO

1 fiO

2 40

2, 50

.11

1 74

1 3Q

2 04

.04

2 ^4

2 5-^

41

1 29

.05

.05

.04

3

1 44

2! 08

1. 77

.09

1 73

37

1 36

1 12

.02

.02

.22

1 70

* ^^7

!83

77

.04

.04

.72

1 *^4

1* Q4

.38

.29

9 46

8 16

1. 60

W

(*)

.40

8. 47

2. 74

5. 73

1. 38

1.07

.58

.27

.22

.23

5. 69

4.88

.81

1. 53

2.00

.96

.80

.24

. 13

1 33

1.33

1. 16

1.79

1.01

.58

.20

. 11

2.97

1.75

1.22

1.72

1. 13

.76

.30

.07

.07

8.24

3. 17

5. 07

1.85

1.50

.59

.78

. 13

.36

7 05

7. 05

1.50

.77

.32

.33

. 12

.27

5 40

5 19

1 21

. 29

.29

.08

7 17

1 64

9 05

.41

.21

.20

.42

p Q7

22

1 81

.24

.24

.15

8.28

7. 97

.31

2! 15

.61

.61

.02

> Based on total population of areas estimated from U. S. censuses of 1930

and 1940. , . . , , , . u u

* See app. A for the territory and total population included m each urban

area. Amounts per inhabitant based on figures which relate to territory other
than that shown in app. A are footnoted. j

3 Excludes cost of administration; of materials, equipment, and other items
incident to operation of work programs; and of transient care.

* Includes statutory aid to veterans administered on basis of need.

« Figures from the WPA, Division of Statistics: represent earnings of all
persons employed under the program, including the administrative stan.

« Not initiated until 1935.

3 Includes direct and work relief and aid to veterans.

8 Based on number of areas reporting expenditures for specified type of aid.
• Less than 1 cent.

>i> Relates to county.

n Relates to county exclusive of Yonkers.

13 Relates to city.

141

Table C~2n .—Amount per inhabitant ^ of public and private assistance and earnings under specified Federal work

programs, by urban area, 1934

Geographic division, State,
and urban area *

Total
public
and
private
funds 3

Public funds

Private
funds ^

Total

General relief ‘

Earnings under
Federal work
programs

Special types of public assistance

Total

Direct

relief

Work

relief

Civil
Works
Pro¬
gram »

Projects
operated
by the
WPA «

Total

Old-age

assist¬

ance

Aid to
depend¬
ent

children

Aid to
the blind

Median * . . .

$16. 51

$16. 19

$10. 57

$6. 11

$3. 63

$4.90

$0. 61

$0. 37

$0. 35

$0. 07

$0. 16

New England

Connecticut:

Brid^piport.

17. 79

17. 43

12. 44

6. 64

6. 80

4. 59

.40

.39

.01

.36

TTart.fnrd

16. 12

14. 48

10. 81

7. 01

3.80

3. 10

.57

.55

.02

1. 64

15 28

15 22

10. 56

6. 77

4. 78

4. 07

.60

.60

C)

.06

14. 46

13. 66

9.11

6. 78

3. 33

3. 85

.70

.67

.03

.80

19.01

18. 67

10.04

6.28

4. 76

8.28

.35

.26

.09

.34

Massachusetts:

Bo.ston ... _ _

30.22

29. 12

21. 71

13.75

7.96

4. 16

3. 25

1.67

1. 61

.07

1. 10

Brockton - _

16.60

16.00

11. 86

6. 56

6. 30

2. 54

1.60

1.01

.52

.07

.60

nflmbn’d^ft . .

16. 65

16. 18

11.16

6. 05

6.11

3.20

1.82

1.03

.70

.09

.47

Fall Rivar . . .

17. 30

17. 28

10. 76

4.28

6. 48

4. 73

1.79

1. 23

.48

.08

.02

17. 37

17. 21

12. 89

4. 10

8. 79

2. 76

1.66

.97

.56

.03

.16

Lowell _

20. 35

19. 90

14. 65

7. 01

7.64

2. 77

2. 48

1. 32

1. 10

.06

.45

Lynn _

23. 27

22. 92

15. 95

6.43

9. 52

4. 06

2. 91

2. 22

.66

.03

.35

Malden _ - _

16. 21

16.20

12.46

5.90

6.56

1.81

.93

.80

.10

.03

New Bedford _

16. 62

16. 44

11.05

4. 29

6. 76

3. 27

2.12

1.59

.49

.04

.18

Newton _

11.37

11. 11

7. 21

2.86

4. 35

2.79

1.11

.71

.37

.03

.26

Springfield _

21.90

21. 52

16. 51

9. 51

7. 00

3. 66

1. 35

1. 09

.23

.03

.38

Worcester _ _

20. 64

20. 25

13. 92

6. 70

7. 22

4. 76

1. 57

.94

.69

.04

.39

13. 93

13. 54

9.68

2. 67

6.91

3.48

.48

.48

.39

Middle Atlantic

New Jersey:

Jersey City _

17. 21

17. 16

10. 94

9.64

1.30

>0 6. 42

.80

.07

.71

.02

.05

Newark _ _

24. 94

24. 77

18.69

16. 25

2.44

10 4. 33

1.75

.43

1.28

.04

.17

Trenton _

17. 67

17.41

11.39

10.09

1. 30

10 4. 72

1.30

.67

.68

.05

,26

New York:

Albany _ - _

16. 61

16. 32

9.73

3.74

5. 99

10 6. 68

.91

.66

.31

.04

.29

Buffalo _

29. 05

28. 77

21. 71

11.15

10.66

6.02

1. 04

.51

.49

.04

.28

New Rochelle _

26. 75

26.70

20.48

10. 69

9. 89

11 6. 30

.92

.65

.25

.02

.05

New York. _

27. 76

26. 95

19. 97

11. 46

8. 61

4. 61

2. 37

.97

1.37

.03

.81

Niagara Falls _

26. 35

26. 22

17.79

6. 72

12.07

7. 43

1.00

.31

.68

.01

.13

Rochester _ _

28. 13

27. 86

19. 56

12. 69

6. 86

10 6. 49

1.82

1.24

.53

.05

.27

Syracuse _ _

25. 87

25. 65

18. 03

8. 59

9. 44

10 6. 41

1. 21

.90

.28

.03

.22

Utica _

19. 53

19.09

11.80

7.14

4. 66

6. 05

2.24

1. 22

.98

.04

.44

Yonkers _

22.14

21. 86

17.97

8.29

9.68

2.37

1.61

.73

.76

.02

.29

Pennsylvania:

Allantown _

15.02

14. 98

10.69

8. 49

2.10

3. 89

.60

.07

.36

.07

.04

Altoona _ _

13. 12

12. 99

8. 22

6. 21

2. 01

4.22

.66

.07

.45

.03

.13

Bethlehem _ _

17. 77

17.67

11.72

9.37

2. 35

6. 61

.44

.07

.35

.02

.10

Chester _

10. 34

10.29

7.49

6.10

1. 39

2. 45

.35

.07

.24

.04

.05

Erie _

13.76

13. 76

9. 62

7.48

2.14

3.61

.53

.07

.39

.07

(»)

Johnstown _

13. 60

13. 68

9. 14

7.19

1. 95

3. 82

.62

.07

.48

.07

.02

Philadelphia _

15. 65

15. 25

12. 99

11. 30

1. 69

1.80

.46

.07

.32

.07

.40

Pittsburgh _

20. 77

20. 56

16. 95

15. 02

1. 93

3. 04

.57

.07

.43

.07

.21

Reading _

14. 94

14.81

10. 02

7. 39

2. 63

4.19

.60

.07

.46

.07

.13

Scranton _

20. 93

20. 73

16. 40

12. 45

2. 95

4.90

.43

.07

.29

.07

.20

Wilkes-Barre _

17. 75

17.70

13. 60

12. 20

1.40

3. 39

.71

.07

.67

.07

.06

North Central

Illinois:

Chicago _ _ _

20.46

20.06

13. 26

10. 17

3.09

6.48

.32

.20

.12

.40

Springfield _

11. 67

11. 52

6. 39

4. 86

1. 53

4. 89

.24

.05

.19

IS

Indiana:

Evansville _

18.81

18. 78

12.77

6. 28

7.49

5.29

.72

.62

. 10

.03

Fort Wayne _

17. 31

17. 05

10. 64

6. 71

4.93

6. 03

.38

.26

.12

.26

Indianapolis _

16. 20

16. 93

10.26

3.77

6.49

6. 41

.26

.19

.07

.27

South Bend _

13.91

13. 87

7. 74

4.26

3.48

6. 19

.94

.74

.20

.04

Terre Haute _

16. 70

16. 55

9.26

2.34

6.91

6.66

.74

.63

. 11

.16

Iowa:

Des Moines _ .

20. 68

20. 61

11.34

8. 12

3.22

8. 76

.51

.04

.30

.17

.07

Sioux City _

13. 02

12.92

6. 21

3. 76

1.45

7.10

. 61

.03

.45

.13

.10

Kansas:

Kansas City _ _

13. 40

13.32

8. 45

1. 15

7.30

4.87

(0)

(«)

.08

Topeka _

14. 07

14. 00

8. 20

1.73

6.47

6. 66

.14

. 14

.07

Wichita _ _

14. 57

14.50

9. 10

2. 64

6.46

6. 35

.05

.05

.07

Michigan:

Detroit _

17. 12

17. 02

10. 93

6.12

4. 81

5.40

.69

.01

.68

.10

Flint _

11. 51

11.47

6. 38

6. 18

1.20

4.53

.56

.02

.54

.04

Grand Rapids _

18.24

18. 20

12. 86

9. 44

3. 42

4. 91

.43

.02

.41

.04

Pontiac _ _

15. 90

15. 89

10.63

7. 91

2. 72

5. 25

.01

.01

.01

Saginaw.. _

9. 84

9. 67

4.83

3.84

.99

3. 93

.91

.04

.87

.17

Minnesota:

Duluth.. _ _

19. 83

19.64

10.99

6.52

4.47

7. 16

1.49

.39

1.06

.04

. 19

Minneapolis _

20. 72

20.09

12. 07

7.37

4. 70

12 6. 94

1.08

.49

.56

.03

.63

St. Paul _

25. 54

25.00

16.01

8.40

7.61

8.00

.99

.38

.67

.04

. 54

Missouri:

Kansas City _ . .

10.47

9.68

W 5. 73

» 3. 68

IS 2. 05

12 3. 61

.34

.08

.26

» .79

St. Louis . . . .

16.84

16.42

10.08

8.42

1. 66

12 6. 09

.25

.05

.20

.42

See footnotes at end of table.

142

Table C-27. — Amount per inhabitant ‘ of public and private assistance and earninps under specified Federal work

programs^ by urban area, 1934 — Continued

Public funds

Geographic division. State,
and urban area ^

Total
public
and
private
funds 8

Total

General relief ♦

Earnings under
Federal work
programs

Special tjnpes of public assistance

Private
funds f

Total

Direct

relief

Work

relief

Civil
Works
Pro¬
gram ®

Projeets
operated
bv the
WPA «

Total

Old-age

assist¬

ance

Aid to
depend¬
ent

children

Aid to
the blind

North CENTEAi^Continued

Nebraska: Omaha _

$16.05

$15. 39

$10. 46

$6. 45

$4.01

$4. 71

$0. 22

" $0.18

$0.04

$0.66

Ohio:

Akron _

16.47

16. 38

9. 57

6. 67

2.90

6.48

.33

$0. 12

.17

.04

Canton _

12. 79

12.79

7. 63

5.16

2.47

4. 60

.56

. 13

.23

. 20

*

Cincinnati _

20. 19

19.78

12. 38

8. 96

3. 42

6. 59

.81

.27

.44

. 10

41

Cleveland _

22. 80

22.43

15.08

12. 53

2.55

6. 72

.63

.08

.49

.06

^7

Columbus _

16. 32

16.20

10. 10

6. 26

3. 84

5.41

.69

.16

.37

.16

12

Dayton _ _

15.16

14.98

9.47

7.06

2.41

6.04

.47

.10

.27

. 10

Springfield _ _ _

15.92

15. 77

7. 97

4. 99

2. 98

7. 46

.34

.14

.16

.04

15

Toledo _

25. 67

25. 67

15.40

11. 38

4. 02

9. 65

.62

.19

.34

.09

Youngstown _

22.45

22.41

12.61

9.66

2.95

9. 43

.37

.09

.19

.09

.04

Wisconsin:

1'

Kenosha _

36. 89

36.79

27.21

17. 17

10.04

8.12

1. 46

.49

.80

. 17

.10

Madison _

21.02

20.99

11.00

6.15

4. 85

9. 33

.66

.55

.11

.03

Milwaukee _

26.78

26. 53

15. 63

8. 86

6. 77

9. 60

1. 40

.35

.95

.10

.25

Eacine _

22. 63

22. 54

14. 96

12. 33

2.63

6.48

1.10

.95

.15

.09

South Atlantic and South

Central

Alabama:

Birmingham _

14. 43

14. 43

9. 52

5. 25

4.27

4.91

(»)

Mobile _ _

13 55

13.55

8.74

5. 85

2. 89

4. 81

Delaware: Wilmington _

11 29

10.92

8.04

7. 98

.06

1.93

.95

.59

,.36

.37

District of Coiumbia: Wash-

ington . .

17. 73

17.44

11.36

6. 39

4. 97

5.81

.27

.27

.29

Florida:

TanksoTivillA

1.5 ftS

15. 94

9.18

3. 96

5. 22

6. 46

.30

.30

.04

M iami _

8. 11

7. 96

4.47

1.16

3. 31

3. 28

.21

.21

.15

Georgia: Atlanta.- _ _

17.62

17. 52

12. 39

8. 62

3. 77

5. 13

.10

Kentucky: Louisville. ..

6. 23

5.80

12 3.05

12 1. 09

12 1. 96

2. 57

.18

(»)

.17

n.Ol

n. 43

Louisiana:

TCaw OrlftftTiR

16 .54

16. 29

10. 67

3. 29

7.38

5. 60

.02

.02

.25

Shrp.vftport .

6 02

5. 88

2. 34

.49

1.85

3. 48

.06

.02

.04

.14

Maryland: Baltimore _ _

19. 10

18. 97

15. 49

13.90

1. 59

3. 21

.27

.06

.12

.09

.13

North Carolina:

ft Oft

9.00

5. 76

3. 62

2. 14

3.23

.01

.01

nhflrintt.p.

7 22

6. 86

3.45

1. 82

1.63

3. 39

.02

.02

.36

» 64

8. 62

5.42

2. 83

2. 59

3.18

.02

.02

.02

6 46

6. 25

3.73

2.04

1.69

2. 50

.02

.02

.21

R ft3

8. 59

3.46

.89

2.57

6.09

.04

.04

.34

13.35

13. 25

7. 26

2.15

5. 11

5.99

.10

Tennessee:

10.67

10.62

5.06

3. 49

1. 57

5. 37

. 19

.19

.05

7. 21

7.09

3. 94

2. 00

1.94

3.02

.13

.

.13

.12

7. 39

7. 27

4 10

2.63

1.47

3.17

. 12

Texas:

8 03

8. 79

5.23

3. 65

1. 58

3. 50

.06

.06

.14

10

10.91

4 87

2 30

2.57

6. 04

.01

12 73

12.70

8 1ft

3 78

4.41

4.51

.03

s! 28

8.25

5.04

3. 43

1.61

3.16

.05

.05

.03

11.41

11.36

6. 39

3. 43

2. 96

4. 97

.05

Virginia:

7 41

7.33

3. 70

1.81

1.89

3.61

.02

.02

.08

7 46

6.93

2. 93

1. 89

1.04

3.95

.05

.05

.53

7 42

7.24

4 3ft

2 31

1. 99

2. 94

.18

West Virginia: Huntington...

16!97

16. 91

10.42

4. 85

5. 57

6.49

.06

Mountain and Pacific

California:

18. 41

18. 26

12.55

8. 02

4.53

4. 47

1. 24

. 65

.33

.26

• 15

16. 18

16. 07

9. 51

5.29

4. 22

4. 44

2.12

1.10

.75

.27

.11

8. 79

8.64

3. 07

.96

2.11

3. 72

1.85

1.00

.64

.21

.15

17. 85

17. 79

11.25

4. 22

7.03

5. 27

1. 27

.89

.29

.09

.06

19. 93

19.47

12. 29

7. 60

4. 69

5. 71

1.47

.63

.69

.15

.46

22. 27

22.18

14. 68

8.40

6. 28

5.74

1.76

1. 32

.32

.12

.09

21 47

21. 40

14.28

9. 12

5.16

6.32

.80

.54

.26

.07

18 g7

18. 43

13. 12

7. 40

5. 72

5.01

.30

.14

.16

.44

LttXI* LJdl 1/ Vy 11/ Jf — —

Washington:

15.81

15. 70

9. 33

6. 77

2. 56

6. 02

.35

.06

.21

.08

• 11

Tacoma . . . . . —

15. 88

15.88

10. 00

8. 27

1.73

5.16

.72

.25

.47

1 Based on total population of areas estimated from U. S. censuses of 1930
and 1940. , , . , , , . .

> See app. A for the territory and total population included in each urban
area. Amounts per inhabitant based on figures which relate to territory
other than that shown in app. A are footnoted.

> Excludes cost of administration; of materials, equipment, and other items
incident to operation of work programs; and of transient care.

* Includes statutory aid to veterans administered on basis of need.

» Figures from the WPA, Division of Statistics; represent earnings of all
persons employed under the program, including the administrative staff.

8 Not initiated until 1935.

7 Includes direct and work relief and aid to veterans.

8 Based on number of areas reporting expenditures for specified type of aid.
* Less than 1 cent.

1“ Eelates to county.

1* Eelates to county exclusive of Yonkers.

Eelates to city.

143

Table C— 28. — Amount per inhabitant ' of public and priiHite assistance and earnings under specified Federal work

programs, by urban area, 1935

Geographic division, State
and urban area •

Median * _ _

New England

Connecticut:

Bridgeport . . .

Hartford-.- . .

New Britain _

New Haven _ _

Maine: Portland _

Massachusetts:

Boston . . . .

Brockton _ _

Cambridge _ _

Fall River _ _

Lawrence . .

Lowell . - . .

Lynn _ _ _

Malden . .

New Bedford . .

Newton _ . _

Springfield _ _

Worcester _

Rhode Island: Providence.

Middle Atlantic

New Jersey:

Jersey City .

Newark . .

Trenton. . . .

New York:

Albany.. . .

Buffalo _

New Rochelle . .

New York _

Niagara Falls... .

Rochester . .

Syracuse. _ _

Utica _ _ _ _

Yonkers _

Pennsylvania:

Allentown . .

Altoona _ _

Bethlehem _ _

Chester _

Erie . . .

Johnstown _

Philadelphia _

Pittsburgh _

Reading . .

Scranton. .

Wilkes-Barre _

North Central
Illinois:

Chicago _

Springfield .

Indiana:

Evansville _

Fort Wayne .

Indianapolis _

South Bend . .

Terre Haute . .

Iowa:

Des Moines .

Sioux City . .

Kansas:

Kansas City _

Topeka _

Wichita . .

Michigan:

Detroit-- . .

Flint.- . .

Grand Rapids _

Pontiac.. . .

Saginaw . . .

Minnesota:

Duluth . .

Minneapolis _

St. Paul . .

Missouri:

Kansas City .

St. Louis _

Public funds

Total
public
and
private
funds 1

Total

General relief ‘

Earnings under
Federal work
programs

Special types of public assistance

Total

Direct

relief

W'ork

relief

Civil
Works
Pro¬
gram *

Projects
operated
by the
WPA e

Total

Old-age

assist¬

ance

Aid to
depend¬
ent

children

Aid to
the blind

$17. 37

$17.28

$13. 76

$7. 65

$4. 14

$1.73

$1.26

$0. 95

$0. 35

$0.08

18.08

17. 75

15. 87

3.41

12. 46

» 1.43

.45

.44

.01

20. 65

19. 22

16. 56

8. 50

8. 06

2. 05

.61

.58

.03

17. 16

17. 12

14.78

5.99

8.79

1.86

.48

.47

.01

14.04

13. 42

11.28

6. 75

4. 53

» 1.48

.66

.64

.02

15. 75

15.29

14.00

5. 87

8. 13

*.91

.38

.28

.10

36.09

34.97

29. 69

11.36

18.33

1.86

3. 42

1.76

1.68

.08

24. 16

23.44

20.02

6. u8

13.94

1.19

2.23

1.59

.56

.08

21.00

20.56

17.45

6. 72

10.73

1.16

1.95

1. 16

.69

.10

23.76

23.73

19. 99

7. 77

12. 22

1.76

1.98

1.40

.50

.08

18. 47

18.31

15.63

2.81

12. 82

.87

1.81

1.22

.66

.03

26. 55

26. 15

21.75

7.58

14. 17

1.60

2.80

1.65

1.08

.07

23.58

23. 25

19. 38

7. 10

12.28

.51

3. 36

2. 57

.76

.03

22.70

22.69

19. 77

5. 93

13.84

1.36

1.56

1.08

.44

.04

21.17

21.00

17.12

5. 10

12. 02

1.22

2. 66

2. 08

.53

.05

11.23

10. 94

9. 17

3.81

5. 36

.40

1.37

.87

.48

.02

27.60

27. 25

24.56

14.02

10.54

.94

1.75

1.47

.25

.03

23. 19

22. 83

19. 96

9. 57

10. 39

.91

1.96

1. 18

.73

.05

16.40

16. 05

13. 44

3.66

9.78

« 2.00

.61

.04

.67

17.61

17. 57

14.08

1

13. 74

.34

*2. 27

1.22

.47

.73

.02

23. 69

23. 54

19. 63

19. 10

.53

» 1.91

2.00

.55

1.41

.04

19. 27

19. 19

15. 86

15.86

» 1.89

1.44

.64

.74

.06

14.31

14.07

11.59

4.91

6. 68

*1. 56

.92

.58

.30

.04

34.46

34. 19

29.81

17. 65

12. 16

3. 23

1.15

.54

.57

.04

28.26

28. 22

25. 30

14.89

10.41

1.80

1.12

.78

.32

.02

32.29

31.73

20. 58

14.44

6. 14

8. 75

2. 40

1.03

1.34

.03

25.04

24.90

22.23

11.38

10. 85

« 1.64

1.03

.34

.69

28. 13

28. 02

24. 05

15. 72

8. 33

« 1.77

2.20

1.53

.61

.06

25. 67

25.46

22. 54

11.85

10. 69

« 1.58

1.34

1.03

.28

.03

18.89

18.54

15.19

8. 88

6.31

« .90

2.45

1.34

1.06

.05

24.29

24.00

21.34

10. 15

11. 19

1.05

1.61

.82

.77

.02

21.44

21.40

17. 43

14. 01

3. 42

2. 55

1.42

.93

.35

.14

18.54

18.41

13. 82

10.81

3.01

3. 18

1.41

.95

.36

.10

. 22.37

22.28

17.88

14.85

3.03

3. 06

1.34

.96

.34

.04

13. 25

13.21

10. 14

9. 19

.95

1.81

1.26

.91

.25

.10

21. 70

21.70

16.45

13.71

2.74

3. 75

1.50

.94

.43

.13

21.23

21.21

15. 96

13. 18

2. 78

3. 72

1.53

.93

.47

.13

24.52

24. 22

22. 35

20. 46

1.89

.47

1.40

.95

.32

.13

29. 16

29.00

25. 44

22. 39

3. 05

2.00

1.56

.95

.48

. 13

16. 66

16.54

13.07

10. 11

2. 96

1.84

1.63

.99

.49

.15

27. 75

27. 57

22. 26

20.27

1.99

3. 76

1.55

.97

.44

. 14

29. 93

29. 89

23.70

20. 85

2. 85

4.56

1.63

.96

.54

.13

18.03

17. 75

15. 82

12. 65

3. 17

11 1. 58

.35

.23

. 12

10. 39

10. 18

9.06

6.28

2.78

.89

.23

.04

. 19

20.03

19. 98

12. 82

6.01

6.81

5. 83

1.33

1.22

. 11

14. 01

13. 71

8. 48

4.36

4. 12

4.61

.62

.48

. 14

15. 97

15.70

10. 55

5.08

5. 47

4.52

.63

. 51

. 12

15.44

15. 36

9. 14

5.00

4. 14

4.88

1.34

1.11

.23

17. 57

17. 44

9.81

3.06

6. 75

6. 10

1.53

1.43

. 10

17.06

16.99

13.70

8. 53

5. 17

2. 33

.96

.50

.30

.16

11.42

11.33

8.63

6. 09

2.54

1.71

.99

.49

.37

.13

17. 79

17.78

15.31

4.27

11.04

2. 47

(10)

(10)

12.74

12.66

10. 75

3. 16

7.59

1. 75

. 16

. 16

14.00

13. 93

12. 35

4.65

7.70

1.54

.04

.04

13. 14

13. 05

10. 75

7.28

3.47

1.36

.94

. 11

.83

10. 73

10.70

8.91

7. 75

1. 16

1.38

.41

.41

18.94

18. 92

14. 75

12.34

2.41

3.60

.57

. 15

.42

10. 47

10. 46

9. 13

8. 25

.88

1. 16

. 17

.17

8. 30

8. 16

6. 39

5. 70

.69

.77

1.00

.20

.80

23.50

23. 27

17. 35

9. 27

8.08

4. 16

1. 76

. 57

1 14

05

20. 26

19. 69

15.98

9. 23

6. 75

2. 34

1.37

.73

.60

l04

27. 17

26. 83

21.54

13. 51

8.03

4.20

1.09

.48

.56

.05

11.08

10. 61

>1 8. 93

>i 7. 42

i> 1.51

1.35

.33

07

15.82

15. 51

13. 72

12.32

1.40

1.51

.28

.07

.21

See footnotes at end of table.

Private
funds t

$0.13

.33

1.43

.04

.62

.46

1.12

.72

.44

.03

.16

.40

.33

.01

.17

.29

.35

.36

.35

.04

.15

.08

.24

.27

.04

.56

.14

.11

.21

.35

.29

(10)

.04
.13 .

.09 I
.04 !

.02

.30

.16

.12

.18

.04

.28

.21 /

.05 ‘

.30
.27 i
.08 1
.13 I

.07 ,

.09 ,

.01 :
.08 )
.07 j

.09

.03

.02

.01

.14

.23

.57

.34

11. 47
.31

144

Table C-28. Amount per inhabitant » of public and private assistance and earnings under specified Federal work

programs, by urban area, 1935 — Continued

Geographic division, State,
and urban area >

North Central— Con.

Nebraska: Omaha . .

Ohio:

Akron . .

Canton... . . . .

Cincinnati. .

Cleveland _

Columbus _

Dayton. . .

Springfield _ _ _

Toledo . . .

Youngstown . .

Wisconsin:

Kenosha.. . .

Madison... . . . .

Milwaukee . .

Racine _ _ _

South Atlantic and
South Central

Alabama:

Birmingham . .

Mobile . .

Delaware: Wilmington _

District of Columbia: Wash¬
ington . . . . .

Florida:

Jacksonville _

Miami _ _ _ _ _

Georgia: Atlanta . . .

Kentucky: Louisville _

Louisiana:

New Orleans _ _ _

Shreveport _

Maryland: Baltimore _

North Carolina:

Asheville . .

Charlotte _

Greensboro _ _ _

Winston-Salem _

Oklahoma: Tulsa. . .

South Carolina: Charleston...
Tennessee:

Knoxville _ _ _

Memphis _ _ _

Nashville. . . . .

Texas:

Dallas . . .

El Paso _ _

Fort Worth _

Houston _

San Antonio . . .

Virginia:

Norfolk. . . . .

Richmond . .

Roanoke _

West Virginia: Huntington. ..

Mountain and Pacific
California:

Los Angeles _

Oakland _ _

Sacramento _

San Diego. . . . .

San Francisco . .

Colorado: Denver.. .

Oregon: Portland _

Utah: Salt Lake City _

Washington:

Seattle . .

Tacoma . .

Public funds

Total
public
and
private
funds 3

Total

G

eneral relief ‘

Earnings under
Federal work
programs

Special types of public assistance

Total

Direct

relief

Work

relief

Civil
Works
Pro¬
gram »

Projects
operated
by the
WPA «

Total

Old-age

assist¬

ance

Aid to
depend¬
ent

children

Aid to
the blind

$20. 94

$20. 41

$18. 35

$10. 38

$7.97

$1. 84

$0. 22

$n ]9

16.80

15. 71

10. 67

8. 30

2.37

3. 61

1.43

$1.21

. 18

04

12.15

12.15

7. 61

6. 68

1.93

2.47

2. 07

1.70

.22

' 15

23.18

22.81

16.93

14. 09

2. 84

3.17

2. 71

2.17

.44

10

25. 13

24. 78

20. 14

17. 77

2.37

3. 02

1.62

1.06

.50

Ofi

18. 07

17. 98

12.06

9. 27

2.79

3. 22

2.70

2.18

.37

15

18.15

18. 08

12. 79

10.88

1.91

3.20

2. 09

1.72

.27

. 10

15. 76

15.66

9.90

7. 81

2.09

3. 46

2.30

2. 10

.16

04

22.13

22. 10

16.24

13. 48

2.76

3. 52

2.34

1.93

.33

.08

19.76

19. 75

14. 22

11.60

2.62

.

... 4. 23

1.30

1.01

.20

.09

33.07

32.92

27. 39

22. 51

4. 88

3.90

1.63

.57

.84

. 22

14.89

14. 86

12.00

8.53

3. 47

2.11

.75

.02

.61

. 12

22. 99

22. 77

17. 82

12. 52

5. 30

3. 38

1.57

.50

.96

. 11

19.18

18.98

15.96

11. 74

4.22

1.88

1. 14

1.01

.13

14.03

14.03

10. 15

3. 76

6.39

3. 88

9. 92

9.86

7. 46

2. 79

4. 67

2. 40

8.40

8.04

5. 95

6. 81

.14

1. 16

.93

.58

.35

12. 48

12. 24

10. 41

6.08

5. 33

1.57

.26

. 26

7. 76

7. 72

5.73

2.15

3. 58

1. 64

.35

.35

(10)

2. 97

2. 74

2. 02

.58

1.44

.48

.24

.24

13.88

13. 75

11.78

6. 33

6. 45

1. 97

4. 84

4. 45

11 3. 51

» 1. 87

» 1. 64

.65

.29

.27

11 .02

21.35

21.11

18. 45

5.03

13. 42

2.66

2. 68

2.50

2. 00

.68

1.32

.43

.07

.04

0.^

13. 36

13. 18

12. 18

11.24

.94

«.73

.27

.07

.10

.10

7. 71

7.71

7. 04

4. 11

2.93

.65

.02

.02

4. 55

4. 28

3. 79

1.38

2.41

.47

.02

.02

6.23

6.22

6. 78

2. 10

3.68

.42

.02

.02

5. 08

5. 05

4.41

1. 62

2. 79

.61

.03

.03

5.14

4.76

3. 08

.90

2. 18

1.65

.03

.03

(10)

6. 35

6.27

4. 67

.56

4.11

.60

7. 94

7.91

6.74

3.26

3. 48

.97

.20

.20

6. 51

6.37

5.23

1.92

3. 31

1.01

. 13

. 13

7. 14

7.12

6. 05

3.35

2.70

1.07

4. 39

4.28

3. 82

1.41

2.41

.40

.06

.06

6. 12

6. 10

5. 04

2.22

2. 82

1.06

10. 35

10.32

8. 11

5. 00

3. 11

2. 2]

5. 36

5. 33

4. 55

3.11

1.44

. 73

.05

.05

7.11

7. 06

6. 44

3. 54

2.90

.61

8.66

8.59

7. 46

2.31

5. 15

1. 11

.02

.02

6. 83

6. 40

6. 28

2.11

3. 17

1.06

.06

.06

7. 42

7. 42

6. 02

.39

5. 63

1.40

(10)

(10)

16. 39

16. 37

13.86

7. 82

6. 04

2.51

25.23

25. 12

21. 98

14. 98

7.00

1. 58

1.56

.86

.36

.34

21.74

21.63

17. 77

7. 21

10. 56

1.46

2. 40

1.31

.79

.30

15. 70

15. 54

12.26

2. 26

9.99

1.32

1.97

1.08

.67

.22

29. 39

29. 32

. 25. 62

11. 18

14.44

2.09

1.61

1. 15

.33

.13

23.52

2.3. 14

19.26

10. 21

9. 05

2.15

1.73

.86

.71

.16

21.44

21.34

16. 54

11. 17

5. 37

1.23

3. 57

3.11

.34

.12

17. 78

17. 73

14. 27

7. 15

7. 12

2. 20

1.26

1.01

.25

16.73

16.28

13. 79

9.60

4. 19

2. 11

.38

.15

.23

11.80

11.65

9. 87

7. 72

2. 15

.87

.91

.55

.25

.11

14.65

14. 65

11. 66

10.40

1. 26

1.71

1.28

.89

.26

. 13

Private
funds ’

$0.53

.09

10)

.37

.35

.09

.07

.10

.03

.01

.16

.03

.22

.20

.06

.36

.24

.04

.23

.13

39

.24

.08

.18

.27

.01

.03

.38

.08

.03

.14

.02

.11

.02

.03

.03

.06

.07

.43

(10)

.02

.11

.11

.16

.07

.38

.10

.05

.45

.15

I Based on total population of areas estimated from U. S. censuses of 1930
and 1940.

> See app. A for the territory and total population included in each urban
area. Amounts per inhabitant based on figures which relate to territory
other than that shown in app. A are footnoted.

3 Excludes cost of administration; of materials, equipment, and other items
incident to operation of work programs; and of transient care.

* Includes statutory aid to veterans administered on basis of need.

3 Terminated in 1934.

« Figures from the WPA, Division of Statistics; represent earnings of

persons employed on projects operated by the WPA within these areas;
figures are not available for earnings of persons employed on projects other
than those operated by the WPA.

’’ Includes direct and work relief and aid to veterans.

8 Based on number of areas reporting expenditures for specified type of aid.
• Relates to county.

18 Less than 1 cent.

11 Relates to city.

13 Relates to Baltimore County as well as the city of Baltimore.

145

Table C^29.— Amount per inhabitant * of public and private assistance and earnings under specified Federal work

programs, by urban area, 1936

Geographic division, State,
and urban area ’

Total
public
and
private
funds ’

Public funds

Private
funds *

Total

General relief *

Earnings under
Federal work
programs

Special types of public assistance 3

Total

Direct

relief

Work

relief

Civil
Works
Pro¬
gram 3

Projects
operated
by the
WPA «

Total

Old-age

assist¬

ance

Aid to
depend¬
ent

children

Aid to
the blind

Median » _

$21. 48

$21. 40

$3. 69

$3. 44

$0. 03

$14. 28

$1.80

$1.21

$0. 43

$0. 06

$0. 13

New England

Connecticut:

Bridgeport

15. 85

15. 53

2.75

1.88

.87

10 11.40

1.38

.84

.53

.01

.32

TT nrt'ford

17. 46

16. 18

4. 67

4. 64

.03

9. 64

1.87

1. 28

.57

.02

1. 28

New Britain _ _

17. 92

17.87

3.12

2. 21

.91

13. 44

1. 31

.87

.44

O')

.05

New Haven

16. 66

16. 19

4. 58

4.58

10 9. 67

1.94

1. 27

.65

.02

.47

Maine: Portland

13.23

12. 99

4. 66

4. 66

10 7. 66

.67

.22

.31

.14

.24

Massachusetts:

Boston

41.79

40. 59

9. 34

9. 26

.08

27.27

3.98

2.24

1. 66

.08

1.20

Brockton _

27.85

27.29

6. 53

6. 53

(»)

16. 62

4. 14

3. 36

.70

.08

.56

Cambridge _ _ _

19. 03

18.62

6.55

6. 55

9. 67

2. 40

1.48

.83

.09

,41

Fall River _

30. 98

30. 96

5. 85

5. 79

.06

22. 29

2. 82

2. 18

.56

.08

.02

Lawrence _ _

22. 35

22. 15

3.01

3. 00

.01

16. 73

2.41

1.80

.58

.03

.20

Lowell _ _ _

31.83

31.50

6. 85

6. 72

. 13

21.09

3. 56

2. 38

1. 10

.08

.33

Lynn _

27. 64

27.30

5. 79

5. 79

(11)

16. 72

4. 79

3. 99

.78

.02

.34

Malden _ _

22.95

22. 94

6. 89

6. 89

(U)

13. 84

2.21

1.69

.48

.04

.01

New Bedford _

24. 88

24.74

5. 06

5. 03

.03

15. 52

4. 16

3. 52

.59

.05

.14

Newton, _

13.93

13. 65

4. 79

4. 79

(11)

6.81

2. 05

1.34

.69

.02

.28

Springfield _

27. 74

27.41

8. 55

8. 53

.02

16. 67

2. 19

1.88

.28

.03

.33

Worcester _ _

24.19

23. 92

8.84

8. 44

.40

12. 61

2.47

1. 61

.81

.05

.27

Rhodft Tsland r Providpinnft

18. 71

18.40

4.60

2.21

2.39

10 12. 51

1. 29

.70

.59

.31

Middle Atlantic

New Jersey:

Jersey City _ _

28.00

27.96

4. 86

4. 86

10 21. 77

1.33

.55

.75

.03

.04

Newark...' _

26. 85

26. 73

9. 16

9. 16

10 15. 21

2. 36

.74

1. 58

.04

.12

Trenton _

27.11

26. 95

5. 85

5.85

10 19. 37

1.73

.85

.82

.06

.16

New York:

Albany _ _

16. 33

16.12

2. 47

2. 32

. 15

10 12. 64

1.01

.69

.27

.05

.21

Buffalo _ _ _ ..

34. 70

34. 44

9.41

9. 19

. 22

23. 74

1. 29

.67

.58

.04

.26

New Rochelle _ _ ...

27.24

27. 21

13. 70

13. 34

.36

11.90

1. 61

1. 18

.41

.02

.03

New York _

43. 03

42. 62

12. 49

12. 48

.01

27. 68

2. 45

1. 09

1. 33

.03

.41

Niagara Falls _ _

18.64

18. 52

4. 99

4. 95

04

10 12. 41

1. 12

.42

.70

.12

Rochester... _

29. 27

29. 14

9. 65

9. 48

. 17

10 16.91

2. 58

1.82

.70

.06

. 13

Syracuse _ _

28. 59

28. 38

8. 06

7. 76

. 30

10 18. 72

1. 60

1. 26

.31

.03

.21

Utica _

18. 64

18. 35

6.78

6. 45

. 33

10 8. 86

2. 71

1. 53

1. 15

,03

.29

Yonkers _ ...

26. 88

26.68

7.34

6.75

.59

17.40

1.94

1.11

.80

.03

.20

Pennsylvania:

Allentown _ _ _

24. 77

24. 72

6.76

6. 76

16. 18

1.78

1. 17

.34

.27

.05

Altoona _

25. 58

25. 50

3. 91

3. 91

19. 71

1. 88

1. 18

.35

.35

.08

Bethlehem _ _

26. 23

26. 15

5. 89

5.89

18. 62

1. 64

1.08

.34

.22

.08

Chester _

18. 29

18. 22

2. 34

2. 34

14. 34

1. 54

1.03

.30

.21

.07

Erie _ _

31.93

31. 93

6. 46

6. 46

23. 27

2.20

1.36

.47

.37

O')

Johnstown _

26.23

26. 18

5. 03

5. 03

19. 34

1.81

1. 14

.43

.24

.05

Philadelphia.. .. _

28. 70

28.41

12. 64

12. 64

13. 77

2. 00

1. 31

.39

.30

.29

Pittsburgh _

34.47

34. 28

9.54

9. 54

22. 81

1.93

1.17

.53

.23

.19

Readingr _ _ _

21.08

20.93

4. 12

4. 12

14. 87

1.94

1.11

.51

.32

.15

Scranton _

36. 82

36.64

9. 09

9. 09

25.75

1.80

1. 12

.43

.25

.18

Wilkes-Barre _

38.01

37. 96

10.06

10.06

26. 04

1. 86

1. 09

.51

.26

.05

Noeth Cents al

Rlinois:

Chicago _

24. 66

24.38

7.24

7.23

.01

13 16. 50

.64

.29

.23

.12

.28

Springfield _

17.04

16.84

3.54

3.54

12. 31

.99

.61

.11

.27

.20

Indiana:

Evansville _

27. 18

27.13

2. 43

2. 43

23. 06

1. 64

1.41

.18

.05

.05

Fort Wa3Tie _

16. 97

16. 76

1.09

1.09

14. 75

.92

.67

.21

.04

.21

Indianapolis _ _

23.45

23.20

3. 11

3. 11

18. 81

1.28

1.08

.12

.08

.25

South Bend _ _

21.70

21.65

1.46

1.46

CO

18. 74

1.45

1.22

.21

.02

.05

Terre Haute _ _ _

31. 17

31.05

1. 45

1. 45

27. 78

1.82

1.66

.12

.04

.12

Iowa:

Des Moines _

25. 66

25.60

4. 85

4.77

.08

18. 29

2. 46

2. 02

.26

.18

.06

Sioux City _

19.73

19. 61

4.31

4. 31

00

13. 73

1. 57

1. 12

.33

.12

.12

Kansas:

Kanses City

23. 14

23. 14

2.20

2.20

20. 94

O')

O')

O')

Tnpekn

15. 17

15. 09

2.27

2. 27

12. 69

. 13

.13

.08

Wiebita

16. 65

16. 59

3. 89

3.89

12. 66

.04

.04

.06

Michigan:

Detroit _ _

14. 76

14. 67

4. 48

4. 48

00

8. 54

1. 65

.58

1. 06

.01

.09

Flint _

12.24

12. 21

3. 50

3. 47

.03

7. 26

1.45

1. 21

.24

.03

Grand Rapids _

24. 57

24. 54

4. 06

4.02

.04

18.69

1.79

1.26

.52

.01

.03

Pnntian

10. 62

10. 61

2.74

2. 63

. 11

6. 32

1.55

.99

.56

O')

.01

Saginaw _

9. 63

9. 54

2.73

2.70

.03

5. 32

1.49

.88

.61

(")

.09

Minnesota:

Dnlnth

35. 61

35. 35

5. 09

5. 09

00

26. 82

3. 44

2. 22

1. 17

.05

.26

Minneapolis _

30. 13

29.60

8. 25

8.25

00

18. 44

2.91

2. 16

.71

.04

.53

St. Paul _

36. 45

36.20

8. 79

8. 78

.01

25. 32

2. 09

1.51

.53

.05

.25

Missouri:

City . . .

15. 45

15. 03

13. 94

13. 94

12. 83

1. 26

.90

.07

.29

». 42

St. Louis. _ _

19.35

19. 06

2. 87

2. 87

15. 41

.78

.50

.07

.21

.29

See footnotes at end of table.

146

Table C-29. Amount per inhabitant i of public and private assistance and earnings under specified Federal work

programs, by urban area, 1936 — Continued

Geographic division, State,
and urban area >

Total
public
and
private
funds >

Public funds

Total

General relief *

Total

Direct

relief

Work

relief

Works
Pro¬
gram •

North Central— Continued

Nebraska: Omaha

$26. 43

$25. 94

$2.67

$2. 67

Ohio:

Akron _

26. 13

26. 01

3 83

^ Ifi

$0 67

Canton _

16. 26

16. 26

2. 77

2 77

('lO

Cincinnati _

29. 67

29 29

79.

34

Cleveland _ _ _

34.05

33.68

7. 75

7. 41

34

Columbus _

25. 53

25. 48

3. 88

3 78

in

Dayton . . . .

24. 66

24. 61

3. 85

3 84

.01

Springfield _

21. 27

21. 18

3. 10

3. 10

Toledo _ _

34. 84

34. 82

5 34

5^27

07

Youngstown _

25. 89

25. 88

3 39

3. 36

.03

Wisconsin:

Kenosha _ _

40. 64

40.56

7. 24

7. 24

Madison _

18. 98

18. 95

3. 24

3. 24

Milwaukee _

31.65

31.48

5.64

5. 54

Racine . . .

20.38

20.22

4.08

4.08

South Atlantic and

South Central

Alabama:

Birmingham _ _

14. 39

14. 39

.22

.22

Mobile _ _

11. 25

11.23

.08

.08

Delaware: Wilmington. . _

11.49

10.98

2.05

2. 05

District of Columbia: Wash-

ington . . . .

12.17

11.90

2.69

2.59

Florida:

J acksonville _

10. 75

10. 69

.47

.36

11

Miami _

4.68

4. 47

.31

. 27

.04

Georgia: Atlanta.. . .

15.38

15. 25

1. 61

1.61

Kentucky: Louisville .

5. 29

5.00

1. 14

W 1. 12

». 02

Louisiana:

New Orleans _

25. 48

25.25

1.35

1 35

Shreveport _

2. 15

2. 11

.42

.42

Maryland: Baltimore.. .

12. 38

12.03

9.

2. 26

North Carolina:

Asheville _ ...

7.63

7. 63

1.19

1. 19

Charlotte _ _

5. 33

5. 13

.36

. 36

Greensboro _ .

4.82

4. 81

.66

.66

W inston-Salem _

6. 91

6. 49

.54

.54

Oklahoma: Tulsa _

9. 92

9. 61

.84

.84

South Carolina: Charleston...

8.39

8. 32

.95

.45

.50

Tennessee:

Knoxville _ _

9.54

9. 51

.41

.41

Memphis _ _

7. 67

7.53

.34

.34

Nashville _ ..

9. 14

9. 10

.36

.36

Texas:

Dallas _ _ _

6.66

6. 52

.46

.46

El Paso _

7. 72

7. 69

.42

.42

Fort Worth. . .

14. 58

14. 55

1.90

1.90

Houston _

6. 77

6.73

1. 79

1. 79

San Antonio _

8. 79

8.73

.72

.72

Virginia:

Norfolk _ _

8.50

8. 42

.62

.62

(11)

Richmond _

9. 75

9. 34

2. 09

2.09

(»)

Roanoke _

8.04

8. 04

.55

.55

West Virginia: Huntington...

23. 19

23.15

2.02

2.02

Mountain and Pacific

California:

Los .\ngeles _

24. 77

24. 66

5.46

6.46

.01

Oakland _

25.04

24. 96

3.85

3. 84

.01

Sacramento _ _ - _

15. 07

14.95

2.31

2.31

(”)

San Diego. _ _

29. 49

29. 45

4.56

4. 55

(”)

.9nTi Eraneisen

28. 97

28.60

5.00

5. 00

(")

Oolorafio! Denver

24. 36

24. 27

3. 40

3.40

Oregon: Portland _

21.69

21.62

2.74

2.74

(“)

TTt.flh- Salt. T.aka City

16. 22

15. 67

2.47

2.46

.01

Washington:

Seattle . _

19. 55

19. 42

2.82

2.80

.02

Tacoma

26. 34

26. 34

2.83

2. 82

.01

Earnings under
Federal work
programs

Civil

Special t3rpes of public assistance'

Projects
operated
by the
WPA «

Total

Old-age

assist¬

ance

Aid to
depend¬
ent

children

Aid to
the blind

lunas *

$20. 89

$2.38

$1.82

$0. 51

$0. 05

$0. 49

20. 21

1.97

1.74

.19

.04

.12

10.29

3.20

2. 81

.27

.12

CO

20.27

3.30

2.72

.49

.09

.38

23.95

1.98

1.42

.51

.05

.37

17. 77

3.83

3. 27

.44

.12

.05

17. 42

3. 34

2.91

.32

.11

.05

14. 22

3. 86

3. 57

.22

.07

.09

26. 44

3.04

2. 67

.27

.10

.02

20.50

1. 99

1.68

.22

.09

.01

' 29.95

3.37

1.79

1.32

.26

.08

12. 19

3. 52

2.68

.70

.14

,03

23. 44

2.50

1.24

1.15

.11

.17

12.88

3.26

2.11

1.03

.12

.16

13. 31

.86

.37

.49

CO

10. 44

.71

.30

.41

.02

7. 55

1.38

.96

.42

.51

7. 92

1. 39

.25

1.12

.02

.27

9. 82

.40

.11

.28

.01

.06

3. 79

.37

.08

.29

.21

13.64

. IS

3. 51

.35

.05

.29

».01

11.29

23.02

.88

.37

.51

.23

1.31

.38

.19

.19

.04

18 7. 34

2. 43

.99

1.34

.10

.35

6. 41

.03

.02

.01

4.74

.03

.02

.01

.20

4. 12

.03

.02

.01

.01

6. 93

.02

.02

(»)

.42

7.83

.94

.61

.32

.01

.31

7. 37

.07

8.90

.20

.20

.03

7. 07

.12

.12

. 14

8. 74

.04

4.80

1.26

1. 21

.05

.14

6. 79

.48

.48

.03

11. 62

1.03

1.03

.03

4. 33

.61

.57

.04

.04

7.15

.86

.86

.06

7.78

.02

.02

.08

7. 19

.06

.06

.41

7. 48

.01

.01

21. 05

.08

.08

.04

16.22

2. 98

2.23

.36

.39

.11

17. 65

3.46

2. 37

.76

.33

.08

9.45

3.19

2. 19

.75

.25

.12

21.00

3.90

3. 41

.33

.16

.04

20. 51

3. 09

2.20

.70

.19

.37

14. 97

5.90

5. 08

.68

.14

.09

16. 28

2.60

2.32

.24

.04

.07

11. 18

2.02

1.13

.85

.04

.55

13.75

2.85

2.27

.43

.15

.13

19. 49

4. 02

2.90

.91

21

Private

I Based on total population of areas estimated from U. S. censuses of 1930
and 1940.

> See app. A for the territory and total population included in each urban
area. Amounts per inhabitant based on figures which relate to territory
other than that shown in app. A are footnoted.

3 Excludes cost of administration; of materials, equipment, and other
items incident to opseration of work programs; and of transient care.

* Includes statutory aid to veterans administered on basis of need.

* Terminated in 1934.

* Figures from the WPA, Division of Statistics; represent earnings of per¬
sons employed on projects operated by the WPA within these areas; figures

are not available for earnings of persons employed on projects other than those
operated by the WPA.

' Includes figures for areas in States with pjlans approved by the Social Se¬
curity Board and for areas in States not participating under the Social Secu¬
rity Act.

s Includes direct and work relief and aid to veterans.

* Based on number of areas reporting expenditures for specified type of aid.

Relates to county.

” Less than 1 cent.

13 Relates to city.

13 Relates to Baltimore County as well as the city of Baltimore.

147

Table C-30. — Amount per inhabitant * of public and private assistance and earnings under specified Federal work

programs, by urban area, 1937

Public funds

Geographic division, State,
and urban area *

Total
public
and
private
funds ’

(

Total

General relief ‘

Earnings under
Federal work
programs

Special types of public assistance '

Private
funds *

Total

Direct

relief

Work

relief

Civil
Works
Pro¬
gram 5

Projects
operated
by the
WPA «

Total

Old-age

assist¬

ance

Aid to
depend¬
ent

children

Aid to
the blind

Median • _ _

$18.47

$18.41

$3. 37

$3. 30

$0. 03

$10. 29

$2. 99

$2. 13

$0.66

$0.07

$0.13

New England

Connecticut:

Bridgeport . . .

12. 78

12.54

2.54

2. 03

.51

10 7.41

2.59

2.06

.52

.01

.24

Hartford _ .

16. 11

15. 02

3. 61

3.60

.01

8.00

3.41

2. 81

.58

.02

1.09

New Britain _

13. 57

13. 49

2. 28

2.08

.20

8. 93

2.28

1. 75

.52

.01

.08

New Haven _ ....

14.81

14. 35

3. 27

3. 27

10 7. 51

3. 57

2. 94

.61

.02

.46

Maine: Portland . .

10. 48

10. 25

4. 12

4. 12

10 5. 19

.94

.36

.37

.21

.23

Massachusetts:

Boston . . .

38. 22

36. 92

7. 97

7. 97

(“)

22. 66

6.29

4. 38

1. 83

.08

1.30

Brockton _

33. 27

32. 66

6.72

6. 72

17. 01

8. 93

7. 86

.99

.08

.61

Cambridge _ _

22. 32

21.92

6. 01

6.01

11.66

4.25

2. 89

1.27

.09

.40

Fall River _

25. 82

25.81

5. 35

5. 35

14.86

5. 60

4.67

.86

.07

.01

Lawrence _

18. 95

18. 76

3. 96

3. 96

10.23

4. 57

3. 85

.69

. 03

. 19

Lowell _ . .

31. 13

30.81

7.80

7.80

16. 50

6.51

5. 15

1. 26

. 10

.32

Lynn _ _ _ _

27. 25

26.84

4.45

4. 45

14. 62

7. 77

6. 91

.83

. 03

.41

Malden _ _

21.44

21.43

7. 03

7. 03

9. 89

4. 51

3. 84

. 61

.06

.01

New Bedford _

23. 36

23.21

5. 40

5. 40

10.64

7. 17

6. 43

.67

07

.15

Newton _ _

13. 34

12. 97

5. 40

5. 40

4.39

3. 18

2. 12

1. 05

.01

.37

Springfield _ _ _

24.60

24.23

6. 95

6. 95

12. 70

4. 58

3.81

.74

.03

.37

Worcester... . .

20. 85

20. 59

7. 58

7. 58

8. 69

4. 32

3. 31

.96

.26

Rhode Island: Providence _

17. 77

17. 48

5.00

2.39

2. 61

10 10. 05

2.43

1.70

.73

.29

Middle Atlantic

New Jersey:

Jersey City. . .

23.50

23. 45

5. 12

5.12

10 16. 80

1. 53

.75

.75

.03

. 05

Newark _ _ _

26.83

26.72

9. 99

9. 99

10 13. 97

2. 76

1. 12

1.60

.04

.11

Trenton _ _ _

23. 22

23.00

5. 15

5. 15

10 15. 74

2. 11

1.20

.85

.06

.22

New York:

Albany _

13.45

13. 25

2. 62

2. 62

(»)

10 9. 43

1. 20

.87

. 27

06

.20

Buffalo... . .

24. 04

23. 75

8.60

8.60

13. 23

1.92

1. 18

. 70

.04

.29

New Rochelle .

20. 06

20.04

11.51

11.50

.01

5. 99

2. 54

1.66

. 86

.02

.02

New York _

36. 89

36. 56

12. 27

12. 27

21. 08

3. 21

1. 84

1. 34

03

.33

Niagara Falls . .

11.20

11.06

4.49

4. 49

(")

10 5. 09

1.48

. 77

. 71

(11)

. 14

Rochester _ _

24. 26

24. 13

9.08

9. 07

' .01

10 11. 26

3. 79

2. 80

.93

06

.13

Syracuse _

24. 81

24. 60

8. 44

8. 42

.02

10 13. 68

2. 48

2. 14

. 30

04

.21

Utica _ _

16.30

15. 98

6. 05

6. 03

.02

10 6. 27

3. 66

2. 36

1 27

03

. 32

Yonkers . .

25. 81

25.54

5.81

5. 78

.03

17.07

2. 66

1. 62

1.02

.02

. 27

Pennsylvania:

Allentown _

18. 97

18.91

3. 68

, 3.68

12. 35

2.88

2. 00

. 54

.34

,06

Altoona _ _ _ _ _

21. 10

20. 98

3. 69

3. 69

13. 40

3. 89

2. 74

. 71

. 44

. 12

Bethlehem _ _ _

19.71

19.64

3. 59

3. 59

13.31

2. 74

1. 88

. 57

. 29

.07

Che.ster... _ _

12. 59

12.50

1.78

1.78

8. 55

2. 17

1. 50

.42

. 25

. 09

Erie _

23.61

23.61

4.00

4.00

15.09

4. 52

3 29

75

48

Johnstown _ _

19. 28

19.25

4. 75

4. 75

11. 19

3. 31

2. 29

.70

32

. 03

Philadelphia _ _ _

27.41

27. 10

12. 31

12. 31

11. 62

3. 17

2 21

.59

37

31

Pittsburgh _ .

27. 83

27. 63

7.06

7.06

17. 40

3. 17

2 13

76

98

?0

Reading _

16. 95

16. 84

3. 37

3. 37

10. 02

3. 45

2. 48

. .56

41

11

Scranton. _ _ _

37. 34

37. 16

9.60

9. 60

24. 46

3. 10

1.97

. 82

31

1ft

Wilkes-Barre _

38. 13

38. 09

10.40

10.40

24. 93

2. 76

1. 66

.79

.31

.04

North Central

Illinois:

Chicago _ _ _

23. 48

23.20

7. 59

7. 59

n 12. 97

2. 64

2. 25

23

16

9g

Springfield _

16. 55

16.32

5. 35

5. 35

7. 49

3. 48

2 93

. 17

!38

.23

Indiana:

Evansville _ _

20. 44

20. 38

2.06

2.06

15. 38

2. 94

1. 88

.99

07

06

Fort Wayne _

13.10

12. 89

.76

. 76

9. 80

2. 33

1, 45

80

08

.-21

Indianapolis . . .

21. 33

21.08

3. 47

3. 47

14. 37

3. 24

2 22

8Q

13

.-25

South Bend _ _

16. 72

16. 66

1.80

1.80

12. 78

2. 08

1 36

68

04

06

Terre Haute . . .

30. 84

30.71

2. 21

2. 21

24. 76

2. 90

.69

.15

.13

Iowa:

Des Moines . . .

23. 17

23. 10

5. 65

5. 62

.03

14. 16

3. 29

2 9.5

26

08

07

Sioux City _

19.68

19. 56

6. 82

6.82

10. 60

2. 14

1.70

.38

.06

.12

Kansas:

Kansas City _ _ _

19. 63

19.63

2. 50

2.50

16. 92

.21

. 17

04

(i‘)

(’o'l

Topeka _ _ _

13.84

13. 74

3.64

3j64

9. 68

.42

. 21

. 20

01

-10

Wichita . . .

13. 37

13.28

3.83

3.83

9. 13

. 39

.26

.05

.01

.09

Michigan:

Detroit _ _ _

12.09

12.00

3.29

3. 29

5. 89

2 82

98

1 82

09

Flint . . .

11.45

11.44

3.79

3. 79

5.00

2 6.5

1 84

80

01

01

Grand Rapids. . .

18. 10

18. 05

2. 97

2. 97

11.09

3. 99

2 57

1 .36

06

05

Pontiac..." _

8.08

8.07

2.08

2. 08

3. 41

2. 58

1 57

QQ

02

01

Saginaw _ _

8.69

8. 59

2. 16

2. 16

3. 75

2. 68

1.62

1.04

.02

.10

Minnesota:

Duluth _ _ _

31.94

31.66

5. 60

5.60

19. 49

6. 57

5 3ft

1 14

05

OQ

Minneapolis _ _

30.61

30.21

9. 38

9. 38

14. 69

6 14

.5 36

74

04

St. Paul. _ _

33. 07

32. 83

10.05

10. 05

18. 31

4. 47

3. 92

. 50

.05

.24

Missouri:

Kansas City _ _ _

14.43

14. 07

u 1. 63

» 1. 63

10. 07

2 37

2 m

og

29

St. Louis . . - . .

15. 47

15. 14

2.31

2. 31

11.45

1.38

1.07

. 10

.21

.33

See footnotes at end of table.

148

Table 0-30.— Amount per inhabitant ^ of public and private assistance and earnings under specified Federal work

programs, by urban area, 1937 — Continued

1

Geographic division, State,
and urban area >

Total
public
and
private
funds 2

North Central— Con.

.'Nebraska: Omaha _

$24. 21

bhio:

Akron . . . -

20. 52

Canton _ _ _

11.89

Cincinnati--. .

20. 48

Cleveland _ _ _

25. 85

Columbus . . . .

20.00

Dayton . . . . ..

19. 05

Springfield _

16. 05

Toledo . . . .

24. 05

Youngstown _

18.83

Wisconsin:

Kenosha _ _ ..

31.79

Madison _ _ _

17.99

Milwaukee _

25. 53

Racine.. . .

16. 96

South Atlantic and

South Central

Alabama:

Birmingham... . .

9.94

Mobile _ _

8.88

Delaware: Wilmington . . .

9. 49

District of Columbia: Wash-

10.90

ington.

Florida:

Jacksonville . . -

10. 55

Miami _ _ —

4.42

Georgia: Atlanta _

11.47

Kentucky: Louisville _

6. 24

Louisiana:

' New Orleans _

21.56

1 Shreveport . . .

1.68

1 Maryland: Baltimore .

10. 43

1 North Carolina:

Asheville _ _

6.41

Charlotte _ _ _

3. 53

1 Greensboro _ _

4. 12

Winston-Salem _ _

6. 14

Oklahoma: Tulsa _

10. 38

South Carolina: Charleston. ..

7. 57

Termessee:

Knoxville . .

5. 87

Memphis _ _ _

5. 51

Nashville _ _

5. 82

Texas:

Dallas _ _

8. 33

' El Paso _ _ _

5. 16

Fort Worth... . .

13. 33

1 Houston _ _ -

5.81

San Antonio _

6. 65

Virginia:

Norfolk _ _ _

5. 68

Richmond _ _

6. 93

Roanoke _ _

4. 92

W'est Virginia: Huntington. ..

18.04

Mountain and Pacific

California:

Los Angeles . . .

22. 66

Oakland - - ..

25. 77

Sacramento _

14. 73

San Diego _ -

29. 25

San Francisco . .

28. 58

Colorado: Denver _

23.70

Oregon: Portland _

18. 87

nt.Ah: Rfilt Tiakft Olty -- --

16. 64

Washington:

... . _

21.64

Tanoma . _ _ _

28. 95

Public funds

Total

General relief *

Earnings under
Federal work
programs

Special types of public assistance i

Private
funds •

Total

Direct

relief

Work

relief

Civil
Works
Pro¬
gram 5

Projects
operated
by the
WPA «

Total

Old-age

assist¬

ance

Aid to
depend¬
ent

children

Aid to
the blind

$23. 75

$0. 62

$0. 62

$18. 57

$4.56

$3. 31

$1. 17

$0. 08

$0.46

20.41

2. 40

2. 32

$0. 08

15. 24

2. 77

2. 32

.41

.04

. 11

11.88

2.09

2. 08

.01

5. 67

4. 12

3. 53

.48

.11

.01

20. 09

4. 01

3.88

.13

11. 97

4. 11

3.31

.70

.10

.39

25. 46

6.31

6. 11

.20

16. 74

2.41

1.70

.65

.06

.39

19. 93

3. 04

3.01

.03

11. 97

4. 92

4. 30

.48

.14

.07

19.01

2. 85

2. 82

.03

11. 46

4.70

4. 04

.65

.11

.04

16.00

1. 79

1.79

8. 13

6. 08

5. 36

.67

.15

.05

24. 03

3.82

3.70

.12

16. 35

3.86

3. 43

.30

.13

.02

18.82

2.54

2.54

13. 14

3. 14

2.30

.66

.09

.01

31 72

5. 38

5. 38

21.00

5. 34

3.11

1. 98

.25

.07

17. 95

2.91

2. 88

.03

10. 35

4. 69

3. 59

.99

.11

.04

25. 33

4. 94

4. 94

16.96

3. 43

2. 01

1.30

.12

.20

16. 81

3.02

3.02

9.43

4. 36

2.87

1.38

.11

.15

9 94

.17

' .17

8.60

L17

.68

.68

.01

(»)

8 84

.07

.07

7.79

.98

.68

.29

.01

.04

14

1 66

1 60

6. 67

1. 81

1.25

.56

.35

10. 63

1. 57

1. 57

6.70

2.36

1.18

1.11

.07

.27

10 48

.35

.35

8.85

1.28

1.00

.27

.01

.07

4

30

30

2. 61

1. 27

.96

.31

.24

IL 33

.95

.95

9.89

.49

.34

.14

.01

. 14

la 69

13 62

4.29

.92

.65

.27

n .41

21. 33

1. 17

1. 17

18. 05

2.11

.89

1.20

.02

.23

1 65

. 45

45

.23

.97

.52

.44

.01

.03

in. 11

1.99

1. 99

13 4. 52

3.60

1.91

1. 57

.12

.32

6

, 62

5.52

.37

.26

.08

.03

3 39

^22

!22

2.98

.19

.11

.06

.02

.14

4 11

.57

. 57

2.97

.67

.39

.13

.05

.01

5 57

.66

.66

4. 64

.27

.17

.07

.03

.57

10 03

.27

.27

5.40

4. 36

3.51

.70

.15

.35

7 flO

. 16

. 16

6. 99

.35

.26

.08

.01

.07

5 85

.53

.53

4.88

.44

.12

.31

.01

.02

5. 35

.25

.25

4. 68

.42

.17

.23

.02

. 16

5 78

.66

4. 92

.30

.13

.16

.01

.04

g IQ

46

46

4.69

3. 04

2.99

.05

.14

5 13

Loi

i-Ql

3.94

1. 18

1. 18

.03

on

71^

70

.01

9. 16

3. 43

3. 43

.03

6 76

.55

.55

3.31

1.90

1. 86

.04

.05

6 54

4. 35

2. 19

2.19

. 11

5 60

58

58

5.00

.02

.02

.08

6 52

j, 6S

4. 78

.06

.06

.41

4 S9

.02

.02

17 04

.81

.81

16. 16

1.97

1.49

.41

.07

.10

54

4 99

4.99

12.03

6.52

4.60

.46

.46

.12

4 92

4. 92

15.68

5.09

3.88

.83

.38

.08

14 ^^2

3 30

3.30

5. 15

6. 17

4. 92

.90

. 35

. 11

90

4 73

4. 73

17. 45

7. 02

6.26

.53

.23

. 05

2g 18

5 98

5. 98

17. 45

4. 75

3. 82

.66

.28

.40

23 61

3. 20

3 20

9. 40

11.01

9. 67

1. 21

. 13

.09

2g gi

3 IS

3 18

11.56

4. 07

3. 67

.26

.14

.06

15

3. 21

3. 21

8.75

3. 85

2.83

.95

.07

.83

21 47

4 7?

4. 72

11.47

5. 28

4.23

.89

. 16

. 17

28. 95

4.49

4. 49

17. 73

6. 73

5.00

1.61

.22

1 Based on total population of areas estimated from U. S. censuses of 1930
1940

2 See app. A for the territory and total population included in each urban

area. Amounts per inhabitant based on figures which relate to territory
other than that shown in app. A are footnoted. . j

* Excludes cost of administration; of materials, eqmpment, and other items
incident to operation of work programs; and of transient care.

* Includes statutory aid to veterans administered on basis of neea.

‘ Terminated in 1934. .... *.

» Figures from the WPA, Division of Statistics; represent earnings oi
persons employed on projects operated by the WPA within these areas,

figures are not available for earnings of persons employed on projects other

than those operated by the WPA. j x, .i. o ■ ■

2 Includes figures for areas in States with plans approved by the Social
Security Board and for areas in States not participating under the Social
Security Act. , _

s Includes direct and work relief and aid to veterans.

• Based on number of areas reporting expenditures for specified type of aid.

Relates to county,
n Less than 1 cent.

12 Relates to city. , . , „ ,x.

12 Relates to Baltimore County as well as the city of Baltimore.

149

Table C— SI.— Amount per inhabitant * of public and private assistance and earnings under specified Federal u'orJc

programs, by urban area, 1938

Public funds

Geographic division, State,
and in-ban area >

Total

public

and

privaitJ

funds 8

Total

Total

Direct
relief ®

Work
relief '

Civil
Works
Pro¬
gram »

Median _ _

$26. 03

$25. 98

$4.03

New England

Connecticut:

Bridgeport .

19. 75

19. 51

4.60

Hartford . . . .

22. 48

21.30

4.49

New Britain _ _

20. 32

20.26

3. 38

New Haven . .

22. 76

22.39

4. 93

Maine: Portland . .

15.90

16. 65

4.44

Massachusetts:

Boston . .

44.06

42. 82

7.75

Brockton _ _

46. 22

45.44

6 99

Cambridge _

31.52

31. 14

7. 85

Fall River _

36.30

36.29

5.83

Lawrence. . .

30. 33

30.13

6. 21

Lowell... .

47.26

46.98

9.38

Lynn . . .

37. 37

36.99

5.58

Malden . . .

28. 67

28. 66

8. 50

New Bedford _ _ _

34. 62

34. 45

7.62

Newton.. . . . .

17. 49

17. 13

5. 83

Springfield _

31.51

31. 15

9. 41

Worcester _

29.76

29. 49

11.82

Rhode Island: Providence _

25. 85

25.56

6. 91

Middle Atlantic

New Jersey:

Jersey City _

25.20

25. 17

7.90

Newark.. . .

33.90

33.80

13. 74

Trenton _

27.71

27. 48

7.54

New York:

Albany... . .

15.26

15.04

3. 75

Buffalo _

25.64

25. 39

12. 77

New Rochelle _

22.41

22.38

13.56

New York _

36. 70

36. 39

11.79

Niagara Falls _

15.08

14. 97

8. 45

Rochester _

27. 85

27. 71

13.23

Syracuse _

26. 44

26. 20

12. 21

Utica _ _

19. 46

19.15

7.60

Yonkers _ _

28. 42

28.24

8.88

Pennsylvania:

Allentown _ _ _

23. 44

23. 38

3. 31

Altoona.. _ _

32.82

32. 81

6. 81

Bethlehem _ _

24. 61

24.54

3. 37

Chester _

13.91

13. 84

2. 36

Erie _

29. 74

29.74

4.99

Johnstown _

29. 47

29. 45

6. 18

Philadelphia . .

28.25

27.96

15.06

Pittsburgh _

35.00

34.79

10.44

Reading _ _ _

22. 93

22. 87

4.38

Scranton _ _

48. 59

48. 45

6.29

Wilkes-Barre _

45. 14

45. 09

8. 24

North Central

Illinois:

Chicago _

33. 46

33.18

8.23

Springfield.. . .

23.79

23. 51

5.81

Indiana:

Evansville _

34. 44

34. 38

3. 25

Fort Wayne _ _

21.92

21.75

1.56

Indianapolis _

30. 33

30.11

3.64

South Bend.. _ _

27. 89

27.84

3.78

Terre Haute _ ...

47.81

47.72

2.22

Iowa:

Des Moines _ _ _

34. 74

34. 67

3. 71

Sioux City _

25. 45

25. 33

6.81

Kansas:

Kansas City _ _

27.18

27.17

2.50

Topeka _ _

17. 96

17.89

1. 72

Wichita _ _ _ ...

17. 99

17.91

3.31

Michigan:

Detroit. . .

35.25

35. 16

7.59

Flint- . . .

36. 89

36. 87

8.58

Grand Rapids _ _

34. 93

34. 85

3. 12

Pontiac _

26.15

26. 14

5. 89

Saginaw _ _

23. 25

23. 17

3. 75

Minnesota:

Duluth _ _ _

45.00

44. 71

7. 71

Minneapolis _

37.80

37.58

9. 39

St. Paul _

39.14

38.91

9. 22

Missouri:

Kansas City. .

23.20

22.83

u 2. 03

St. Louis _ _ _

24. 69

24. 32

1.60

General relief <

Earnings under
Federal work
programs

Special types of public assistance *

See footnotes at end of table.

Projects
operated
by the
WPA 1

Total

Old-age

assist¬

ance

Aid to
depend¬
ent

children

Aid to
the blind

$16. 15

$3.59

$2. 46

$0.84

$0. 10

$0. 13

11 12. 32

2.69

2.14

.64

.01

.24

13. 02

3.79

3.21

.55

.03

1. 18

14. 52

2. 36

1.84

.51

.01

.06

11 13. 54

3. 92

3.28

.61

.03

.37

11 8. 31

2. 90

2. 19

.48

.23

.26

26. 90

8. 17

6. 42

2. 65

.10

1.24

27. 33

11. 12

9.66

1.36

.10

.78

17. 79

5.50

3.66

1.75

.09

.38

23.91

6. 65

6.24

1.23

.08

.01

17. 76

6. 16

5. 35

.74

.07

.20

29. 02

8.58

6.98

1.60

.10

.28

22.20

9. 21

8. 07

1.08

.06

.38

13.70

6. 46

5. 57

.83

.06

.01

18. 40

8. 43

7. 39

.96

.08

.17

7. 38

3. 92

2. 56

1.34

.02

.36

15. 36

6. 39

5.20

1.15

.04

.36

11.97

5.70

4. 47

1. 18

.05

.27

11 16. 37

3.28

2.44

.84

.29

11 15. 52

1.75

.90

.81

.04

.03

11 16. 97

3.09

1.35

1.69

.05

.10

11 17. 35

2.59

1.43

1. 10

.06

.23

11 9. 76

1.53

1.15

.32

.06

.22

10. 19

2. 43

1.46

.91

.06

.25

5.23

3.59

2. 11

1.45

.03

.03

20. 74

3.86

2. 12

1.68

.06

.31

11 4. 65

1.87

.94

.92

.01

.11

11 9. 45

5.03

3. 57

1.38

.08

.14

11 10. 70

3.29

2. 72

.52

.05

.24

11 7. 32

4. 33

2.84

1.46

.03

.31

16. 01

3. 35

1. 85

1. 47

.03

.18

17.11

2. 96

1. 98

.62

.36

.06

21.59

4. 41

3.00

.91

.50

.01

18. 16

3. 01

1.96

.71

.34

.07

9. 39

2. 09

1.39

.43

.27

.07

19.99

4. 76

3.38

.89

.49

(!S)

19. 55

3. 72

2. 35

1.00

.37

.02

9.68

3.22

2. 21

.60

.41

.29

21.02

3. 33

2. 16

.86

.31

.21

15.23

3.26

2.28

.53

.45

.06

38. 58

3. 58

2. 19

1.04

.35

.14

33.76

3. 09

1.73

1.01

.35

.05

11 21.81

3. 14

2. 70

.23

.21

.28

13.89

3.81

3. 21

.18

.42

.28

27. 16

3. 97

2. 21

1.63

.13

.06

16. 75

3. 44

1.92

1.42

.10

.17

22. 24

4.23

2. 46

1.61

.16

.22

21. 19

2. 87

1.67

1. 14

.06

.05

40. 10

5. 40

3. 71

1.49

.20

.09

25. 64

5. 32

4. 85

.23

.24

.07

14. 40

4. 12

3.53

.45

.14

.12

22. 02

2.65

1.80

. 74

.11

.01

13.05

3. 12

1.97

1.02

.13

.07'

11.09

3. 51

2. 39

1.00

.12

.08

23. 94

3. 63

1.56

2.04

.03

.09

24. 38

3.91

2. 83

1.06

.02

.02

25.29

6. 44

4.70

1.67

.07

.08

16.72

3.53

2. 36

1. 16

.01

.01

15.41

4. 01

2. 77

1.22

.02

.08

29.39

7. 61

6.09

1.42

.10

.29

21.50

6. 69

5.84

.78

.07

.22

24.78

4. 91

4. 22

.61

.08

.23

16.92

3.88

3. 44

.16

.28

i».37

20.13

2. 59

2. 05

.34

.20

.27

Private
funds *

150

I

ll Table C-31. — Amount per inhabitant ‘ of public and private assistance and earnings under specified Federal work

programs, by urban area, 1938 — Continued

Geographic division. State,
and urban area *

Total
public
and
private
funds 3

Public funds

Private
funds •

Total

General relief *

Earnings under
Federal work
programs

Special types of public assistance *

Total

Direct
relief *

Work
relief «

Civil
Works
Pro¬
gram «

Projects
operated
by the
WPA ?

Total

Old-age

assist¬

ance

Aid to
depend¬
ent

children

Aid to
the blind

North Central— Con.

Nebraska: Omaha _

Ohio:

$33. 36

$32. 88

$0. 35

$27. 67

$4.86

$3.53

$1.23

$0. 10

$0.48

Akron . . .

43.41

43. 32

2.41

4fi

3 45

2 63

76

.09

Canton _ _ _ _

29. 08

29. 07

3. 73

20 77

4 57

3 88

Cincinnati-- . -

27. 56

27.23

5. 32

17 FiQ

4 32

3 48

. 01

Cleveland _ _

49. 16

48. 78

5. 14

40 Oft

9 06

1 96

. 33

Columbus _ -

29. 27

29.20

3.45

20

5 30

4 56

AQ

. 38

Dayton- _ _

29. 17

29. 13

4. 54

10 fifi

4 03

4 ^9

64

. 07

Springfield _

27.29

27.29

4. 34

15. 33

7! 62

fi 63

7R

21

. 04

Toledo . - .

53. 15

53. 13

6. 13

42 25

4 7.»1

3' gg

73

Youngstown . .

33. 60

33. 58

3.28

26.80

3! 50

2! 62

.74

.14

. U2
.02

Wisconsin:

Kenosha--- _ _

50. 22

50. 16

7.11

36 48

fi .*>7

3 60

2 71

Madison _ _

24. 57

24. 54

2.33

If 82

Ft ftO

3 g9

1 47

Milwaukee . .

36.61

36.39

6. 38

25 95

4 OR

2 45

1 48

Racine _ _ ---

28. 03

27.89

5.04

17 77

si 08

3. 02

1.97

.09

.14

South Atlantic and

South Central

Alabama:

Birmingham _

15. 19

15. 19

.18

13 73

1 9S

, 61

65

02

Mobile _

12. 33

12.29

.09

11 21

QQ

78

19

.02

Delaware: Wilmington _

13. 25

12. 93

2. 30

8. 83

L80

1. 11

.69

.32

District of Columbia: Wash-

ington . . - _ _

14. 53

14.22

.98

10. 56

2.68

1.52

1.06

.10

.31

Florida:

Jacksonville _

19.68

19. 62

.39

16. 29

9. 04

9 04

, 27

13

Miami _ _ - _

7. 08

6. 86

.28

4 30

9 2ft

1 R7

^ 34

07

Georgia: Atlanta _ - - --

19. 29

19. 16

.73

16. 96

1 47

91

‘ 61

.05

Kentucky: Louisville _

11. 11

10.80

» .77

9.03

1.00

!76

.24

H.31

Louisiana:

New Orleans _

26. 77

26. 53

1. 10

22. 61

9 ft2

1 1R

1 67

07

24

Shreveport _ ---

2. 76

2. 73

.54

. 72

1 47

77

fift

, 02

03

Maryland: Baltimore _

11. 12

10.88

2. 55

3. 87

4 46

2.28

2.06

.12

.24

North Carolina:

Asheville _ _

14. 58

14. 58

.35

12.24

1.99

1. 33

Rfi

10

Charlotte _ -

6. 75

6. 70

.46

4.86

1 38

90

39

' 09

65

Greensboro _

6.74

6. 74

. 13

4. 72

1.89

1 23

! Rfi

* 10

fu'i

Winston-Salem . . . .

10.02

9. 51

.45

7. 47

1 .59

1 07

42

' 10

54

Oklahoma: Tulsa _

15. 44

15. 01

.56

8.83

5. 62

4 34

1 12

' 16

.-43

South Carolina: Charleston---

16.31

16.26

.32

14. 17

1. 77

1 24

.46

!o7

.05

Tennessee:

Knoxville _ _

10. 38

10. 34

.32

7. 81

2 21

1 11

1 04

06

04

Memphis _ _

8. 18

8.04

.07

5. 86

2. 11

1. 29

.70

12

14

Nashville _

8.50

8.44

. 15

6. 30

1. 99

1.08

80

11

06

Texas:

Dallas _ _

10. 46

10. 32

.66

6.90

2. 76

2. 73

.03

14

El Paso- _ - _

6. 65

6.61

.01

5. 57

1.03

1.03

04

Fort W^orth- . .

16. 82

16.80

.91

12. 38

3. 51

3. 51

^ 02

Houston. _

7. 35

7. 29

.65

4. 93

1. 71

1. 71

OR

San Antonio _

9. 62

9. 49

7. 26

2.23

2.23

.13

Virginia:

Norfolk _ _

6. 43

6. 36

.40

5. 92

.04

.01

.02

.01

.07

Richmond _ _

8. 93

8. 55

1. 78

6.59

. 18

. 11

.06

.01

.38

Roanoke _ _ _

5. 65

5. 65

.56

5.02

.07

.03

.03

.01

West Virginia: Huntington...

25.91

25.81

1. 44

22.33

2.04

1.33

.63

.08

,10

Mountain and Pacific

California:

Los Angeles _

23. 87

23. 74

6. 35

.

9.35

8.04

6.73

.70

.61

. 13

Oakland.- _

33. 47

33. 39

6. 14

20. 54

6.71

6. 19

1. 02

. 50

.08

20. 48

20. 36

4. 03

7. 70

8.63

6. 95

1. 19

.49

. 12

San Diego _ _ _

29.81

29. 77

5. 34

14. 72

9. 71

8. 51

.83

.37

.04

San Francisco _

35. 42

35. 07

6.69

21.88

6.50

5.31

.80

.39

.35

Colorado: Denver _

27.81

27.70

2. 47

12. 69

12.54

11.02

1. 40

. 12

. 11

Orpfron* Port.lfind

23. 79

23.71

3. 84

14. 21

5.66

4. 99

.51

. 16

.08

TTtah’ Salt TjaVf* Oitv

23. 97

23. 10

2.28

13. 52

7. 30

6.69

1. 55

.06

.87

Washington:

28. 46

28. 31

3.91

17.64

6. 76

6. 62

.93

.21

.16

37.41

37.41

3.54

26. 10

7. 77

6. 15

1.41

.21

I Based on total population of areas estimated from U. S. censuses of 1930
and 1940.

> See app. A for the territory and total population included in each urban
area. Amounts per inhabitant based on figures which relate to territory other
than that shown in app. A are footnoted.

3 Excludes cost of administration; of materials, equipment, and other items
incident to operation of work programs; and of transient care.

< Includes statutory aid to veterans administered on basis of need.

• Figures not available.

« Terminated in 1934.

3 Figures from the W PA, Division of Statistics; represent earnings of
persons employed on projects operated by the WPA within these areas;

figures are not available for earnings of persons employed on projects other
than those operated by the WPA.

8 Includes figures for areas in States with plans approved by the Social
Security Board and for areas in States not participating under the Social
Security Act.

“ Includes direct and work relief and aid to veterans.

1“ Based on number of areas reporting expenditures for specified type of aid.
» Relates to county.

13 Less than 1 cent.

13 Relates to city.

13 Relates to Baltimore County as well as the city of Baltimore.

151

Os

t

0

Os

c

0

Cf.

§

K

0

c^

c

pC

tl.

Mr

'C

V5

2

fee

0

Im

Cl,

u

0

S

0

Im

“2

•iM*

S'

u

o

•0

z

M*

BM

»D

fee

z

•m

z

L,

0

e

Q

O

o

C

0

4id

Vi

•m

Vi

Vi

O

o

•w

0

5^

•M

k.

a,

c

o

2

a,

z

s

c

s

c

*£

C8

H

o«»

>*0

•r c

00

CO

o

r>-

•»

o

o CO »o o <o ^

h- 00 00 <C «0

CO 05 OJ OS »-< ‘O

<0 iO

^ O OS OS h»

OS OS OS 00 00 00

00 CO CO 1-1 <o
CO OS CO <0 *0 CO
r-* 00 O CO »0

t^oo »o »o

SCO CO ■»t‘ OS cO
GCOOOOOOO

CO

CO

CO 1-H C^ CO OS '<f
OS o CO CO »0 CO
O CO CO coo

O O CO CO oTcd
TT" « CO OS OS
OS OS OS 00 00

o O 00 CO
c5 Ol CO t>- 00
00 00 O CO
^ ^

h- »0 00 *--1 Q
00 OS 00 o ^ ^
t^CO 00 o

05

'O

fl

3

Sx

o

«

3

P4

8

fl

03

•*<>

05

05

05

03

o

• •-H

3

a

CO

C5

a

03

•^N

v

<D

D*

CQ

o

X3

o a
** 35

<5

t^

o»

CO

r>*

t- CO lO lO CO
CO O OI 00 OJ

00 cfe o cooo

^ CO o Q

O CO CO OS »-* CO
CO o OS •“!

lO p OS CO
1.^ ^ ^ Ol

CO O CO 00 CO Q
Ol CO CO CO •«?t‘ ^

cs

OS

CO coco o

CO CO 00

Ol TP O O OS

o *'9* CO CO 00
^ O P t''* CO *-<
d C^ c5 CO CO

i-H Tt« r>. Q »-« CO
»0 CO CO P CO CO
t>-

S^Tfl>-CO^-

t-. 00 00 oo

t'- ^- t'-

^ a d

O O'

u.

*3 d2

•M C5 <3

aja

(DO

'd

00

OS

CO

cs

<o

CO

CO

t>- Tf« CO CS 00 O

CO 00 CO CO r-* r-<

CO csi o CO CO

»k •v *% ah

C^S OS X CO ^

Sec rM .— I lO 05

COXTf< cox

O- CO O P CD
CO O ^

1— ( O 05 ^ OS C5

»0 w lO 05 P X
CO cs X OS P »— t
X X OS OS cs o

r>»

CO

fC

X

CO

CD

OS o ■>?r X X
O-’^CO^OC^
CO CO P X CO

•

X t>- 05 o ^
X X CO CO OS
C> CO

X CO •-' OS i-»
05 OS 05 X P CO
X CO P OS X

O cOoTc^O of

COi^XXTT't^
05 X X CO CO

locococococo cocococococo

D B

bfiO
cQ ca

I J ^

*3

CO

o ^

CO

X

CO

cc

o

»o

CO

9^

tD<D^O>aO'^
CO X 00 o
OS P O 04 ^

a. a« as *. ••

O Tf< OS CO i-«
P X X 05 OS
CO CO 'ij* cox

s

OS CO X ^
o CO '«»' X X
CO CO CO t>- t-H

tvT to CO 05 oi 00
^ to 05 P X P
o •-' 05 05 »0

050505050505 XXXXXX

05

OS

to

to

cs

o>

h-

Q O X O cs

Olt^'^COXh-
05 (OS X X P P

X ox X X t'-

s w

^ to to CO

X05X05 0Sr^
OS X 05 X X
to X rt* OS o

tjj'co 00 cc''*-f'^

X 05 o CO X O
X (OS O 05 CO

"^^cocococo

03

•4-S

o

CO

X

CO

X

§

05

05

O X •“< CO 05 CD
X CO 05 P CO X
X X X X 05 X

r--. p X X X X
P O to X P X
1-H 05 t'' P X P

P P 05

p 25 p

X P »-<

r^^p ph-'<«fxPP
050X 05O-P05COr-

PO^ P0»XO»-(05

t^|--Xt>.XX XXXPPP

X

p

p

p

p

p

05

X ’— ( t>- p P
P P P P P 05
1-H X X X X P

t- 05 X 05 P
05 X P X p
P 05 X 05 P

X P X 1— ' p P
t>- 05 P X P X
O 05 05 rf' CO

X CO P P X
P 1-1 P (05 P <N
X P »-( P

p p p p p
05 05 05 05 05

»— i 05
05 OI 05 05 05

03

l-l

D

03

*-1 (_

D tc
'd o
C

3 ^
(r>^4
bofc

n 9

w

tx-

o'dp^
QP dP

p 03?

o

p

?3

X

rx.

OI r^x P X
I'" p h- p p p
X p X »-( p o

p to 05 px X
p p (N p p p
I-H X X l^P o

P P P 05
X X t>- P X
P O- X X P

a« av •«#»#• a»

X P X X X 05
p p p p "1^

P P X P O P

P 05 P P h-
t>- O- O- P P

P P O 05 P P
p p ^ ^

p

05

p

a.

p

o-

p

p

05

p

X .-( p P X
p 1— ( I— ' p P X

P X 05 X P

g'^to iCc'fco CO
O- X P P X
P P p I— I X P

p p p p p p
l-H P P P P
p o P p cC O'

of 05" of (X x" P
t' i-H 05 X T?* 00
i-t X X X P 05

P P P X t' i-<
^ ^ ^ ^ ^

X -H P 1— ( X 05
TJ< X X

CO

M •»

H

r3 o

Q_i

D

o

Im

»-l

D

P

©

D

"d

u

M

u

O

I-.

r- »>

D

*©

b,

D

D

t**" fM, >*>•

03

4-»

O

W

P

P

§

a>>

n

X

p 1— I p p p p
O- P P 05 i-( X
•^ © 'tf* 05 XP

05Pi“(05Xl'-
^ X P

X X i-< P

OS cs CO CO (Of <p
p p p •^ »-( r'
P O- 00 P t'l 05

p p p p
05 05 05 05

p

05

O-

X

Tj*

?3

P

S?

05

PXXXt'-05
P 05 i-( P 05 P
P P P P X X

Tf^ os' 00 CO p cc'
^ P ^ t'. X X

P X 05 P P (N

X 05 P P P
O- P 05 P P X
P P P X P 05

P CC •^p CD CC
P P 05 X P P
P P 05 P X P

O- P P P X 05
OI 05 05 05 05 05

05 05 05 05

C8

O

X

X

s

p

05"

P

05

•»

o P X P P X
■■ r-( P X 00 1— 1
P f-H 05 o P

gs

P X 05 P 05
05 t'. 05 O •-(
P X O- P X P

^ © © ^ X ^

X r' P © ^
O- O" X P

X

05 O- P ^ P P
05 P P P X X
X -^ © P P i-H

05 P P P X X
05 ♦— ( 05 »-H ^ ©

i-( P P X
©PXX

05

P

P

X

©

P

©

t>-05pxpr'
©©X05Xt'i
t^P P X P ®

© 05 P X p 1— I
p Tt< 1-1 © ^
05 05 © X ^ ©

X P P P X P
P P t' P Tt< P
05 r- © p t' p

cc cc P cc 'cff
P P P P P X

O- (N 05 X P X
X X i-H P P o
P 05 05 t' ©

CO p'of Pi-Tp
XXXXXX

■SB

Xi <0-
3 > to
O.Z'O

^ aa
®3 n-t 3

o c

^ ca

Tt<

P

05

a>

X

05

X © P P
© P 1— I t'

P P X 05 05

X O- 1-H X 05 X
Xl-HTjlXPt'
1-H 05 05 P P rH

t'- P P P 05
r- p p ^ X
P P X X © P

P X O- P © P
05 X P © X P
i-H X P P X 05

P I-. P
C5 ^ 1-H ©

05 t'- P P -H X
© P X X P P

X

t>.

©

O X X P X w
O O P Tf<
X © 05 X X O

© 05 Hji p 05
1-H p X cO
© © X X X CO

X P P P X P
O X r-( P P P
05 P © P P X

P X ©

05 (^5 O P
O- 05 © O

'if ^ 05 p

aia>aiCia>oo

In. p X p 05 r*
XXXXXX

d

o

6

*3

§

D

>i

cS

•4^

o

-*-»

p

X

p

>t

>»J3
p-g fe Q.S'd

bl

D

■d bi
O'?

lO

bi

D

d

D

fS o ►

bl

D

a

D

D

D

ea

o

o

p

>»
bl

3-
C'S 05

ert

3

5 >» o

to
>» be

o

Xi

d

o

D

gid
Di-

b<

D

s a

D

> '

^cqO^Q i?<iCQCj5Q

*3

D

O

c,

a

D

to

d

o

to

bl

a

to

tc

d

cC
D

bl

a

D

3

ca
>
ca

-4.S

O
d

CO
D '
bl

eo

03

D

b

03

'd

d

(33

*3

b

ca

o

m

b

3 D

cc d

03

O

o

I*-*

O o

CO w

D

-4-9

o

d

-4.9

o

o

o

CO

—4

ca

D ca

rd

t; ^

wta a>

rb

D-^

W

fw fl
Di^ca

gg

CO

M Co
Sd^M o
^x:

S? 0*3

^ b T* ®

tfCOns

c3 to D d

Sst's

o d Q

o 2 tie o

te -a B .g ^ c5
P ca '.fS _ ^
-1- rt b ca'drQ

§ o ad
-e ^ ’d c3 ^
5 w .a jN c3

S D -4^ >

D D 3 S

D

rd

-4-9

d

43

b ^
D 33
D

b

X3 43 ^ Cu-^

o

CQ O to

^ to D rl D CO

5< rH CO rH
qj 3 qj b

O ^

TJ

D

a

ca

b

D

ad

o o

CQ

d

3 to 43

.2

■3-^ o
ca -4^
b o
D C

O o O G

-2 . .ti -b ^
- — 03 D

^ DXJ
Gfe3'C

O'—

^3

pg

•»M -

to

a

N -

§

I rt -4^ -4.9

'a o

c3'G 2 O

b 2 43 ^

. - O d '3 o3

^ S D

ca q>

D o«2 g

43 S .

^ w 3 c3

g «g D ^

03 03 P'0‘3

■d o w d .*2

pv^ p d
2 to o3

a D S ^ X5
ad « a -
•-* d cijo’m d
p b£)«b'4< o

d-d

^ ^ O D
CO'^ ® 8 ^

•32^|-S

*r^ ^ c3 — *

h b o -b d

-§ O P.2‘3

ca a — 2 H

s

. D 03

g g
saSS-
glo§“>
t?§'^ao

o £ «

•S-g.a2

03

03 g 3 d ^52^^

1^ ^ o b d S o>

CO

ca

•4^

CQ

V.4

O

d

o

to

>

b I'' s

P-e --d

00 > ,2 3 p 'w

•4.9 p qj b p ^

W d G *3 -p p

o O.D a

frt ^ d J-*

g OP 3 to 03

^ b*-^ O D p to

2 mS*" 3 a 5

S^'gigSgg.l

'* V. d «

o au)

152

0\

Os

§

0

t

k.

rv

2

tD

0

k

C.

1^

k

0

c

k

• l^

S'

k

s

s

C^

tc

c

• i«

c

k

o

0

g

Q

4w

«0

• m

5C

CC

e

g

•M

E

•m

k

Oh

"t!

e

•o

3

4*d

3

3

0

I

c4

c^

g

es

H

O «D

'71 ®
Plh5

O*

CO t>-

04

lO

05

CO

Is.

t^

CO

Ml

04

o

5^

X

Ml

M*

05

Ml

CD

X

05

04

9S

05

X

X

05

Ml

lO

CO

X

M*

X

05

v* V

05

lO

X

o

05

04

X

X

X

lO

Ml

O-

*o

c4

lO

M»

lO

ID

X

Ml

Is.

Ol'

od

od

x'

x'

04

id

*>

05

04'

cd

05

id

t>-

ed

cd

05*

id

lO

04

05

Ml

X

T“1

04

X

04

Ml

Ml

CO

X

04

04

ID

F— 1

OOC^ <P <3i

ss

CO

00

CO

c^

lO O »0 iC

_ •■ #. •.

o ^ o> *-<

O 04 05 X 0 05

CO

Ml 05 04 O -H O

Is.

1-. CO Ml I- 04 I-H

cdoToTcD o od

04*

04 »D F-( ^ I-H

Is,

ID C4

9

o»

§

b- In. CS 00
T»« CO C^ o

00 t^ o<o

wcocsTiO

CO

'O

a

s

v«

o

rO

3

Ph

a

03

CO

o3

o

3

3

a

CO

o

C3

o

o>

a

OD

CP

S O

•4>3

C'-

l^

c^

<N

ICO ^COCQi— l40*0O<Dt>»00O^t^
r^OCOQOO 0»OCOCO*-iC^®t^t^<OCOTt<0>
OOiCDOOP »-»*^C^COCO»^COC^O<COcDr-«cO

kOOO

iO»0*-«t-HCOO>OOCOO*-«OiO’^

OS 1^ rH I-H tH

CO

coco 05

^050

co^Vod

•-H c^

•^r-H-Tj^eOCOCDOOwOC^

O05O‘Ot0C^C000i-H

oo

<o

CO

05 CS ^

C^ 1-t

t>i-<Q05 0500'^CCOS‘Ot^
OC0OT05»--ic0CSt^»-HC00>
C^t'OOsMtN.cOO’-'COCS

*0" cd" cd cd" wd t^r CD" *— r cT CO*" ccT

<DC^COC0O500C0*O»-i(NcO

00 1-H 1— I

o »o

t>-
CO

S5

05

CO

OO-HCOC^
C0»0 uo

05 CO CO

odcd»d-^

^ Is. ^

olg

u

-3 02
•— 0513
-< 0^J3

CD U

-3

8S

CO

c^f

Cs.

»c

CS I-H IC io »0

00 CO CO
c^ •«»< CO c^i CO

t^-cdcfcT'^’'
t>* 00 CO o

^t>-05i-Ht'.eOcOCO»CC^05t>-00

co»0'^oooooo5»o«ooo’Tj«eoo

00C005e000'^0^C000'^C^i-HO

•<»< O 05 (N udoo 00 ^
h-O5Q^CO00»-<COCO
UO ^ ^ ^ rH

h-rs.05
^ 05 CO

c^ fs csi

^ »o

05 CO
CO ts* 00

cdcdcd

00 lO CO

1-H

C5C<»C’^’^'*5f<'^cOcO
C^Cprs»ts.cOt^»OC^rj<
■^005 05 00i-Ht'-00'^

C^oors*'^-^rs.05cot^
W005OO00 05C0CDe0
ts. ^ .-( ^ 04 -H o*

U5

t^O5CO»OO4^00'^O4»O^
»004O*^Q00»OO»0c0^
i-Hi— li— <CO<N05C000505l^

id'^’^cdodod'cdido'd'cdod

ooocor>-ts,04u5^o5o50

i^i-H»H*^^C004t>»»-HC0^
CO *— •

CO t-l
00 CO
O CO

05
lO »-t
05

05 OC5
04 04 00 05
hs 00 05 t'.

of-^cd*-?

Tf*»OCOCO
04 04 00 04

cpg
^ 3
« C3

*3 CO

OC0
CO

ce

03

o

O X X X X

X

O ID I-- O 04

CO

O 04 X X CO

x'

od Ml isTedoT

o

ID 05 X X O

Ml

id

ID

CO »D 1-H ID 04

»C0400M<C004t*-'^^C000050
»O0Q— ‘O50400COCO‘O»OCO«-‘^
04001>‘0c0»0i0050405i0c004

Q o'cd 04" o od C4 O tsT C4 o" 05**
•^00 05c004t>-00c004<0i-<c5c0
00c0'^c0»0t^00c00504050<0

h". 04 04 »0 05 O 05 io »-H CO 00 »0

X 05 00 F-H 00 X X 1— I 05 X I-I o

X^o-^ 04 o ‘O to UO CO lO X I-H

'd x cd tC x" cd oT 04' ^ 04** lid

0 05 0 ts- iO X 04 05 O C4 t'- »0
XCO04 f-H »-i 1-1 o XXX04

^H CO

i-HiDXts.a5MitOXXCOi-H

T-HiDcOiD04iDMii-H0004

Xi-HXiDOXcOX«DOiD

t-05
04
X CO

is^od‘dodMi‘i'^cdo4**04‘‘cdod

»DiDCOOx04iDXMiO‘D

04 X 04X»DMii-Hts.ijicOCO

Ml* cd

Ml ID
Is. Ml

Ml* 04*

04**

rH

04 OiC X
50 05 04 X
<0 05 05 05

cdcdC4‘04’
id 04 04
IC* lO

CO

X

lO

x'

§

04

04

X X O 05 I-H
lo X I'*

04 CO X CO 04

i-h' bd i-T id oT
TJ* X 05 CO
CO I-H CO 04

04XCOXOXXCOXC-
05Xt^04 05 05 05XO»-H

e4coo5t>.xi-Hi-Hioxx-^

o I-H* tsT o T-H id id -d* 04 oT oT tsT 04

i-hXi-h^OSCOf-iCOOOCOiOi-h

»OC-l>»Xi0050'HCiOXi-HX05

ICOX X 04 o X C4 1-H lO X X
X04^ ^ 1-H CO I-H 05 04 04 CO
CO X CO 04 O ts. GO 05 r- CO

cdt>ro4"’didodcdcrcd

X05^05X040‘^05
04O504iO^Xi-h»Oh»i

X

»0iC05f-HOXX'^'HjiC005

h-C0i0Oi0O04Xts.O*0

COOIOO'«»*CDC005»00404

4^i-H“rsrcdt^ododcdod'd''d

04F-<c0XOX'*tiC5tN.04X

•^COii»*COXX04XCO^CO

x' -d ^ i-h“

X lO
X X
t>.05

O cd

^ 04
lO IC

'd

Cs- O ^ 05

04 xcox

X 04 lO X

udidofcd

X04 CO CO
t- tN. rf O

04'

03

u

o

TJ

OP

fe

CO

a

. 03

OP bo

o

Ui

Q.

a

3

CO M
tuo b

1^

u

w

S’So-

^ d
« «3

£ fe

Ck

o

X

r-

s

iOXXe4 COi-HX0504i-HX05i004F-‘t^04
COOXX iOTrC50XiOXX»OQCOX05
04r-iCOX X04^t>-0004xi004050c0

04 1^'^-O5^-
I-H X o o
CO CO O CO

Xi-'XXi-HiOXXCOiOT-iX'^

J^COcOO5t>-rHCpx04'FrC4Tf

04

t-*04 04'^t'-*OXHtiOcOiO

05 I-H f—i 04 ^ 04 ^

04 04 04

X Hf X
CO CO
X IC X

i-n'cdcd

04 0 04
^ ts. X
^

X I- I-H

XiO<OOX'«C<050"itf^
04050XCO‘004 04-H
ls.iOiOt''i-HX004Hti

•s • _•» «S

OJ^iOXiiiiiCt-t^OS

iO'»t'X04rs.coxxio

OXi-Hf-H-^OO^XCO

3 CO

Hjl 3

04

I-S 04 3 I-H

Oi--05 05 05C005lCC4t'«00
0'i»iiOXiCi!fico040*Mt>.
■^t^iOCOC-i-icOX-^i-HO

Oi-ro5i-H"idcdidtsro4crod

^TfiOCs-iOCOOs^cOOi-H

i-HXX»-«»Ots-Ot-t-C-X

04' 04** 04' 04'‘O4’‘ cd id ^ 04'*cd od

S!f1

C- lO
X X

Hfi 04

*H o X X
X lO X X
lO O F-t X

oddof d

Hfl I-H 04 O
^ O CO lO

•l

s

04 X 04 ts. 04

r^M

a

C3

bO

o

u

pH

OP

3

Vi

3

t-l

CP

p

O'

o

Is

^ s

O CP

OP

f-i

p

c3

•4^

o

H

ts.

CO

CO

t'T

04

05

s

X

X 05 04 X X

t-h (3i o

X X t>- 05 I-H

•-Hi-HO*ooo50'^i-Hcots.xr^

00rHC'4i0c0O04i-':04itii0^X

l>-C5I'-04l0X04I'-0-OTfiC005

X r-- o X

— < I-' X >o

t- O- T-* 05 C4

iCC0050404X'^'^iCi-HOicr’04

C004C00051#'IOOX’-H1-HIO|-H

XHf<O5cO04t-COiOt'--«t‘XO5X

id r-T d d

o CO t--.
*-• X 05
X C4 C4

x'os'd

X «-• 05
X 05 t>.

did*

IOOX04CO»-HIC0505

C005X005TJ<COOQ

Xi-iXOOXXCOiO

04' cd odoT x" O5'ido4'o
iCH»irs.ooxt--X4^i^<
lOO»t>-rHC00504t^X

o

X

X

Xi-Hooi-Hr>-t>-oxxo405

XO5iO04Xr>-COX»OCOX

05i!tiC0'^t-’|^rtits.t^X'V

' x* cd X id cdcd^' ^ <dcd

t^t'-XC4^idO5C0cO»C

Oi0XX»00405XX05

«— 1 05 1>- I-H ^ lO
04 I-H

X

Ml

X

|S-

X

X

05

04

Ml

iD

Is.

CO

t-

fH

X

04

ID

Ml

x'

•ft

Is,

•ft

Is.

id

od

04'

Ml

ID

X

CO

X

ID

ID

X

ID

CO

id

X

X

04 04 ID O CO

OMii-HOOCPi-HC004i-HiDiDQ

OMiiDMi^iDOXCOiDXiDO

XXXts.M“Dt-ts-COOOO»D*D

04 X 05 ^ Is.

X

Is. X i-H X CD

od

cd

<o tsTcdcdoT

OSCSOi-HiDXKoiMicdi-HOO
XM’‘D05fs.00XOXMi04M'ts*
»Dts-MiCOi-Hi-HeOiDCO»— ‘»DO504

ID

04 Is. eo X X

o

»D

X O i-i ID I-H

E-*

04**

CO

04

•k

04 X I-H X I-H

04 04XX04Mix^XF-iMiiDiD
X

I'- F-< ID 04 — 1

^X04C0Is-i— iX04OXiDIs.X

xox I-H r>- 05 ic CO CO 05 1- CO

*'.040 'if04Ht<O5l>-X'-'iOX
CO I-H 1-H Is. O X O I-H CO ^ X

*d04'x' x'04 iddcdd cdo cd

I-H005 ^XOO^l'-04iOC5
05 I-H HJI ts. o ^ 05 X ts* CO I-H Ml

XI>iCOi-HCOCOls.04MiiOCO
005ts.i-H05 04 04MiXXl^
004ts.OC504t>.ot>-’-Ht'-

b- cox 05
XC4 O X

I-H o to

. lO CO Ml lO 10
Ml 05 Q O Ml
I-H IC 0X04

10 10 04

05

lO

X

04

X CO 04 X

XMiXXM*COO4XMi04CO
10 Ml ^ I-H

ID

X

CO

Is.

t-s

ID

O

ID

Is.

05

Ml

Ml

Is.

O

04

1-H

cd'

04"

•.

*-H

x"

x"

05

ID

04

1-H

*D

o

X

Ml

CO

X

Ml*

x"

Ml

•ft

X

cd

^33^3 cOiS

ot; S.3 a

Cj 3 c3 C fH

a-3

Ml

05

04

X

t--

04

I— X M- O
C4 F- Ml X

M* CO M* Is. »xs

04 X X 05 f- Ml O

f— I M* Is. 05
I-H X 05 ot-

ts.TtiI^ 10 X 04 X Ml X X I-H CD

I-HMIIO 04 04 CO X o Ml ^ 04 Is¬
os 10 X X CO I-H CO Ml O CD 04 I-H

04ts.Xts.OC005i-H04i0i0

XCOO»OiOCOi-Hls.MiC5X

lOXXiOiOCSMiMiMiXX

I- t>- X I-H

X IC X Ml O
X 04 I-H CO C4

04t''05MiXi-iXXMits.
•-H05 X 05XI-H04QOC0
iCts.M'COi-HC4M’iOts»i-H

005 CD

« X I-H
05 I-H IC

lOi-Hi-nXiCI^Xi^X

I^Mii-HMiiCOI^Xi-H

Is*0l04t'»XXC0i-HiC

ts-ts.XO05XC0X0li005

05C4i-HCOXMi04C004X04

i-hOM*COCOi-hi-hXX04i-i

04 X I-H X

X 04 X X 04 Ml X
X

X

Ml IC lO

ic IC 04 I-H 05 I-H 00 ^ X CO 04 X
F-4 fM X

04

XMIXXMI<OXXM'04CO

Ub ^ f-4 1— 1

ID

X

Ml

05

X

X

O

o

ID

05

Q

»D

X

CO

X

04

X

od

■k

05

05"

od

d

x’

CO

Is.

04

X

CO

o

X

Ml

1-H

Is.

X

id

x"

Ml"

X**

•ft

x"

3

p

03

OP

oS

H.H

CO^

p

o

<0

03

£

OS

> s

•-1 CO

'3d

.a S

d

Pi

o3

&£

o

«>

o

c3

o

£h

p

<

o

w

H

Vi

S'®'

» Vi

cd

'3

p

p
cd

g

OP

^ VA iL ^1.13 Vh CP • fl

£=3

'3

(m

o

p

'3

CP

Spq
P'3
p

2»-

Oi

ptp'K

O bJP CP

g-c s S S § § 2 S'S S 5 Ki2 « ® pif

ppqWI^^ p wpqfqQpL<h^,-3K^JS^l5oQ;^

vj

p

o

o

03 Cd

CP

o

p

CP

3

• -H
>
o

Vi

Ph

• •

3

p

cd

F*1

CO

VH

CP

3

o

d

pc;

H

◄

H

<J

H

h]

p

p

CP [>
CO 1^
Vh CP

CP

CO

2

CP

d

p

Vi

o

CP

C3 b£'^

CP

CO

3

CP CP

03’ O
-H O

eo

Vi

CP

‘cog

— 1 B

So

03 1.^
>

Ci3 S

a

CP

^d *H
P CP ®

oS 0.2 s’

d cpd vi-y d^ CP

2
O cc3

03 ri

CP .3

CP

sg.'

cd

vhCP»:,jh;33<iJ®-^o bs-*-* O ^'v:3r:.i CPH-I Vi754^.ii cy
CP

i5

p

CP

Pt

3

o ca

Q.CP

rtPP

oOcQ.cdW^^^oQ
3 '3

» p

153

TerreHaute_- _ _ _ t 4.239,720 ' 4,227,841 I 278,306 L._ . i . . . 1 3.139,323 ! 810,212 i 584,420 I 201,481 ' 24,311 I 11,879

See footnotes at end of table.

Table Ji-2.~Atnount of public and private assistance and earnings under specified Federal work programs, by urban area, J939— Continued

CO CD
COCO

O 1^
lO 00
CO 00

•^00 00
40>

o OS eo CO

O O »-l O CO

CO CO os

r>»cococoos

os

o os

pH o OS

OS

rf pH b-

pH so b*

so

C4XpH

X OS b*

rf

pf bfrjT

rjfrf sff

x"

CO X CO

X CO o

X

pH C4 pH

^

iO os

(N CO O ‘O

1 O »-t
■ t^O

lOStN.

•* PS •• Wk Pk *

OS Ol t>» OS

t^cooi

T-*

ICO so

I

I

I

I

t

I

I

«

t>. »0 CO

00 OS OS
O CO

coco'iff 1^"

Ol rH

SO 04 X IN

t-k OS SO rf

o

so pH X ^

pH X CO rf

CO

rf 04 O X

O X bi N

OS

ak ak ak ak

pH CO Q so

ak ak •«. »

'If OS O pH

rf

rf OS

PH SO b- X

C4

pH

pH

CO

o>

CO O OS lO

00 O 00 CO

1-f CO t>* 00 CO CO

tCf-TcOr-^hS SCO so

CO 00 ^

©

gs

pH O CO

X OS CO OS O

CO »0 rf

0*0 0

sOOSX'^04b-XpHO

OS pH O X

*0 b-

1

1 X

CD CO pH

bi b* t—

b-b4 Xrf OS

O b- O

O 04 so

04b-ifCOOSb-XifOS

CO OS If so

OS O

1 ^

pH X CO

kd

kPH

pp

C4 PH

0C40if pH

0*0 04

OS OS pH

'^OCOXb-XpH<004

04 OS X pH

X pH

1 pH

X If CO

o d

Hkd —

ocT^

p p

b- pH Q
pHpH^

ak ak ak ak ak

CO CD CO CO »0

Xso'rf

ak ak

CO X CO

0fif"rf"so"x"o‘00‘pH" X

b^pH~C0"O

ak ak

OS 04

* ak

» bi

a» ^ fk

CO O O

so pH

CO pH

04 so X

C4 g 04

04 04CO0Sb-XpHSOX

PH pH O pH
pH

1 CO

1

1

1

X X 04

73,3

<

1

1

1

o 00 r>-
O CO o
00 OS A

^ 00
*o o

00 CO »-i CO
00 00 O CO oi

CO O CO ^ o
^

o so ^ O 00

^ ^ CO

St^

o

oTco*

4^

04

X

rf

rf

o

SO

SO

so

X

04

»o

If

CO

d rt

^H

04

o

b«

SO

04

»o

so

04

t-

o

CO

b-

so

o

2 d

so

04

t-

04

rf

O

X

so

os

OS

«o

o

OS

X

SO

73

CO

ak

X

pH

X

of

CO

co"

04"

av

X

bT

04"

fk

b*

a

cs

a

rf

ak

fH

d'^

rf

so

CO

OS

OS

O

b-

CO

X

o

OS

o

b-

pH

os

•—

©33

pH

pH

04

04

X

X

04

X

CO

04

pH

rf

X

© ©

a

rf

'O

CO so N »0 00 O 00 »0 00 r^-ctiOOOS

so *- 1 O O O »-i CO O so O CO OS

O OS O C^l CO 00 t>» o o»oi^co

<occ^fOaiC^'^c^oo <^'«i^"‘so’'oo

00 00 ^ l>. so cs CO o^«coc^

1-1 oi »-( 1^1-j

sot'-oo SOCO-I^IO .-H 1-H CO CO 00 CO titri

Tf<co'«!}ico t^cooco h«cooi c^cosocoo^ 925S

osoc^lt^ so so so CO O OS O so COSO

ocTo^ooco t-Tos'oos o'oo'V -^co os'co-co <5

rHC^^lN. OS O O h-^OS so t>- CO o »o OOCO

c<l 1-11*1 OSi-HW ^

CO

cs

Q.

>>

C3

ppH

o

<0

a

CO

O

so

X CO

OS

04

o

CD

os

04

o

O

b.

rf

X

X

X

»o

o

ip<

CO

X

os

o

b-

X

X

b.

t-

so

X

OS

OS

©

w>

pH

OS OS

04

O

OS

SO

rf

o

so

X

rf

pH

os

If

OS

04

CO

rf

04

so

pH

CO

SO

OS

OS

O

CO

b-

o

©

CO

X

SO

X

X

If

OS

If

b-

o

X

b-

rf

04

If

X

rf

pH

X

OS

CO

b-

OS

CO

pH

04

04

so

o

os

so

a

ak

b-

ak

O

p4^bf

ak

bi

pH

X

x"

pH

of

rf

04"

rf"

04"

rf

ak

X

o"br

a

04

*

OS

pH

a

b.

a

so

OS*

a*

If

cd

a

X

OS*

ak

X

SO

bT

so”

zS

1

A—

04

X

X OS

rf

OS

b-

SO

OS

CO

rf

X

X

o

04

so

rf

o

b-

X

so

X

OS

b-

so

pH

CO

OS

o

OS

73

lA

O

If

X PH

If

o

CO

04

SO

X

X

CO

X

CS

so

OS

OS

OS

04

t-

X

X

CO

If

so

04

»o

X

X

04

04

OS

o

C/S

a>

X

a

^4

a

pH

x"

ak

pH

04

of

04"

a

a

a

04

X 00 o o
CN so (M
CO OS X

co'‘os"t>rc4'

CO X so OS
sc U1 OI CO

l>* so

t-. UI CO
OS so X

x^x^co

X CO I>1
ti. »-i X

so CO CO so bi
00 X OS

pH o 00 O so

oT so csT •»*<' CO ^

X OS OS CO ^ X
pH rH pH pH O

X CO

OI so

X
pH o"

S3

ca

o

Eh

04

04

02

o

so

so

rf

b-

X

X

rf

b-

04

OS

If

CO

05

o

o

CO

so

SO

CO

so

rf

X

so

rf

so

04

OS

04

os

b-

so

o

CO

CO

X

X

X

O

X

b.

OS

so

o

so

CO

04

rf

OS

so

X

OS

04

OS

rf

04

b-

so

05

CO

04

X

•o

OS

rf

o

so

rf

X

fH

If

so

so

rf

CO

X

so

so

X

CO

rf

SO

05

X

CO

o

rf

04

X

CO

X

OS

so

CO

O

•o

b-

OS

OS

X

X

X

OS

SO

fH

04

OS

CO

rf

X

X

04

04

X

so

b-

X

X

rf

OS

04

b-

*o

so

CO

pH

o

OS

a

04

of

X

04

O

tH

OS

o

o

cd

OS

04

o

X

o

X

rf

o

X

rf

X

OS

fH

so"

o

a

OS

OS

of

cd

os'

rf

a

b-

04*

a

OS

of

cd

a

rf

X

so

pH

o

CO

CO

CO

X

04

b-

b-

b-

cs

b-

CO

04

04

X

04

OS

CO

rf

04

X

b-

OS

X

CO

»o

OS

04

rf

05

X

1—

O

CO

I—

O

X

X

rf

rf

o

os

20

pH

SO

SO

X

X

OS

CO

OS

*o

b*

04

CO

pH

X

tH

fH

b-

o

SO

b.

b-

b.

rf

X

CO

so

rf

X

so

CO

CO

rf

»o

b.

X

b.

04

04

04

04

04

X

b-

a

b-

04

X

fH

04

rf

04

a

X

a

pH

x“

a

CO

03
u

'§ '

u u
« tc
73 O
d

gft

CO pM
bX) ^

w

b.

SO

SI

CO

04

b-

CO

X

rf

O

SO

X

X

04

X

X

04

so

X

so

CO

b.

X

X

X

h-

b-

X

CO

o

X

CO

b-

Tf)

CO

If

rf

o

OS

X

b-

CO

o

b-

b-

04

If

so

rf

SO

X

CO

SO

04

b.

04

X

C3S

CD

rf

rf

X

cs

OS

©

©

X

OS

OS

CO

04

b-

X

X

SO

SO

rH

04

O

o

o

SO

b-

b.

b.

If

04

X

os

X

SO

X

o

o

04

©

©

o3

kd

x"

a

b.

so

a

X

cd

so"

of

sd

a

b.

o

x"

of

sd

co"

a

CO

a

so

so

of

rf

X

»d

a

CO

a a

pH O

os"

'If

os"

a

b-

a

rH

X*

X

o

SO

Ph

rf

O

X

X

CO

05

CO

04

Q

OS

b.

X

CD

04

o

X

ns

rf

X

»o

b.

SO

b-

b-

b-

X

so

b.

rf

o

©

t>s

O

04

X

o

pH

»o

O

X

b-

rf

CO

pH

X

b.

X

OS

04

04

o

CO

CO

o

os

b.

X

'If

o

Ph

Uk.£3

O

t

pH

^4

rf

X

X

rf

04

»o

os

SO

b.

to

rH

SO

o

X

X

b.

X

CO

o

rH

rH

04

so

pH

cd

fH

a

a

b.

X so CO
1*11— h- CO
CO X O X

oftCso'ccT

PH t- bp. CO
t>. (N pH OS

X^ph co‘‘of

X If OS
CO OS
If If CO

OS pH

o

t-<MOS

XCOphOCOC^ Ifl—
X so OS t— rf pH
WXCOXO^ O? CO

od‘csrorpH''io"so‘‘ cd'co
osb-xr— xco OS X

Xt-b-OXX XX

.k a^ a^

pH pH pH pH fH

<9
«p*
0^
• p4

pH

o

Sh

'3

u

o

d

o

o

TJ S—

0.2

IH

Ot_

QJ o
u

♦1^

P2

ca

HH

o

Eh

pHO
pH (N
X -If

OS so"

t— pH OS
X I— b-
b« X so

_ ai.

so OS pH
C<1 04 If
X pH CO

OS If X X cs
C^sO'^CObp

b- *0 If cs OS

a^ Bk Vk ».

X OS b- o
b* 'f so b- CO
CO X CO so X

ak

OS

00 CO b-
(N <N O
0X0

CO CO p-T
PH 04 04
pH t-

of so" of

pH o O
b- CO b.
04 pH X

cTscTTHtf
X b- o
O bi pH

0ssoifif04s004*^04
if04 X 04sO'^C004sO
C00Sb-pH04 X 04C00S

ofpfx'sosrfTfbfClOO

bpXXOOSb-COOSX

04S0OS04XXPH4OCO

^ ^ ^ fk ak ak ak

pH 04 b" pH pH pH

OS X CO CO
CO If »-• X
b. If OS pH

as ak •« fk

»0 X X X
04 b» pH ^
Hf X PH CO

CO

X OS b- bp

X ox X

so CD pH CO

a. a. fk a«»

O pH so OS
X pH pH pH
Tf so

OS o OS »o
04 so b. OS
OS pH o X

C4"ph x"br
b-b* OS If
PH 04

so b« 04
X X b-
os O CO

pH X pH

rf X CO
Hf X

of

SOpHCOpHCSSO 04 pH
b- pH o CO X 04 X so
pHXOSOOSbk b.if

00 If" so OS so of HfO
XC004C004X Hf 04

ca

o

Eh

O

b-

05

b.

CO

pH

rf

X

so

04

04

pi

04

04

X

b-

OS

04

SO

SO

X

04

X

OS

X

o

SO

p^

b-

so

04

b-

OS

b-

04

If

pH

o

SO

o

rf

SO

rf

o

SO

so"

so

of

o

X

of

a

b-

b^

so

of

o

of

of

so

rf"

O

SO

X

b.

so

X

o

os

»o

X

X

X

CO

so

X

CO

X

OS

CO

CO

X

pH

04

rf

o

CO

X

X

O

SO

so

of

x"

a

rH

of

a

^H

a

a

b-

rf

a

04

OS

X

of

a

o

pH

cd

so

pH

pH

04

b-OS04 0SHfb.OXO OXOSCO
b- so O CO If b* Os so CO PH X X
CO X O O X O »0 pH If pH O PH so

cd'if"cD OSO 04 bTx'p-T ifCOOcTccr
XOOXpHOSifOX OSSOOSX
X CO Hf pH so pH PH Tf pH SO 04 CO CO

OfsO^Hf Cs"obr04"x*'C0 O4"x*‘so"of

pH pH If pH pH 04

XOS 04 o
CO pH so CO
04 OS If X

of so of so*
04 O b- b.
X so PH o

pH 04 pH pH
Os b» b. pH
Ob- •'f CO

cf ocTof co"

X X so pH
^ 05 X b.

OS b- b.

M* O X
X If CO

Xif of

X PH CO

OS CO O

PHXSO-^SOO XOS
OOpHCOifif XsO
04 X PH b- o OO

pfiffcd'xobT bfof

b-040XpHO Xif

XpHPHXb-P-t Xb-

b.pH04OS- ifpHCCX 04 OS pH PH PH pH 04 of pHX“

X If
X X
rf X

*k *k

O X
b. OS
OS rf

fk ak

so 04

Os OS X
X b- rf
04 b. CO

bfso bf

b- CO OS
CD If If

•k ak ak

Xph 04

pH OS 04 X so
SO X If X 04
»0 b- X b- SO

OS o so" CO 04"

OS o CO X rf
b- OS pH 04 rf

pH rfbf*^" of

SO

04 CO pH
b- pH X
04 C4 b-

ak fk ak

pH b* X
rf SO pH
pH b» OS

of 00 of

X If 04
04 04 04
b- O X

of of CO

pH 04 X
O X CO

04

CO

X O 04 CO so rf o X pH b- O rf

X CO 04 04 CO If b- CO SO -^OXb-

pH rf 04 b. X CO SO pH pH b- SO 04 C4

<^io'soc4"ofp-rbfobf bfcd'cood

b- O X If rf pH If pH X OS SO C4 If

SO CO SO CO SO 04 pH pH SO 04 X CO

of SO rf ofGfbr04"x CCf ofx"»QOf

pH pH If pH pH 04

X pH O X
04 X rf i-H
b- PH SO b-

o"ofof cf

X PH pH t>«

X SO 04 04

X pH CO »0
O pH CO SO
pH CD 04 X

rjToo CO bf
OS If 04 OS
rf O OS b.

OS O 04
O X 04

X PH pH

x" b-’ of

^ pH CO
pH CO 04

PH If SO SO CO OS
O SO OS CO pH 04
04 O 04 O so OS

p-T 04"rf"br of 04"

bk X O rf OS pH
SO pH PH If b- pH

bkpH04OS rf04ccfx X of ph'ph' pH p-T of Of

XpH
04 OS
b- X

04" bf

ss

as as

pH X

73

g

cT

c3

CO¬
OS
<v
u

03

d

o

a^

a^ ^

> 3

• ^ CQ

TJX)

kd

d.

03

&

O

OS

o

73

(O

d

d

d

o

O

I

1.4

<

Di

H

;z;

»

O

m

d

o

12;

CO

a

.9.tJ

t>»

•a— «

O

ea

d

o3

CO Okd

d 0*0 C3 ^ q 03

bfl ’p* « •

CO

73

a
&

o

'rt c3

il ’Pk

«-s

c3 ca TS

.9o3

bfl

co3t*.-

a>o2o3oL”o"c;'— i-iQ— ’(^3.’^ •

rtflm «WE^^2PPhOPhoq gfiSS

&
o

CO
O

Qi-P
03 j3

d^
d:r

O

ca

'3

a

.20

Sd

o u

«5

D

d

03

^ 3

S-O

'3 fi

> d

73

<0

d«o ^
o

»

H

d

o

CQ

Q

Z

Q

H

z

»-4

rj

d

H

z

<0

CJ

5 M

.a'

ca
d ®

d O d rr; M a cjj^ uw —

o°oS§1:^Ol5®-Sd;dte.2

*H q Q ^*Ck2 3 d Skd 0

sMco 2

§ !ziO ^

<1

n

H

P

O

CO

a

C3

kd

bjO
d ®

d

o

ta

d

kd

o ..

-»-> C8

®'9

■3 S

a a

03

a

03

kC

03

a’^*d Q> O

« . o C33 ir —

»2

d

o

CO

03

d

cd

k2

CO

d

o

a

CO

d

03

O'

O

2

I

ca

ca

d

g«;d

a

<D

OS

d

o

CO

o

p^

S3

kd

O

di 'Ok2S-d

wj a ^ .

o d q'

om3

o

fl? o •

d

>'2 §^'§ a|

£§0^1 go

^ -d _ CO kd tp

cci £72 *<00^

ii -

08

3 ®3

^.9 ;§.2

iSidga

q 03 S « d

22S^^^

t; d d
kM o
OmEh

154

ashviUe . ' 2,607,263 1 2,587,487 I 38,374 ' _ _ ^ . • . ‘ 1,938,152 ‘ 610,961 * 381,191 I 201,552 > 28,218 ‘ 19,776

<o 1C cfl CO

OC^ CO

oo<oo»oo

O'^'^'odco
kO coo

SS5

o c^*"
»— 1

■ <o
1 1'-
I ^

Io»

I

I

OiCO^O'^COOiCO C“«

o a> CO o <o Oi 00 CO

OC^ OS O rH o 00 O 00
CO os^*^" CTOs' •^t^Tco*' of

t; CO OJ O CO OJ O-

C9 cs .«

OS

cs

OOOl
1-H CO cO O
t>- CO OI

oTosTifod

CO OS 00 O CO 00 OOO
OI 00 OS 00 O O CO os*c
CO o OS 00 o- 00"^

•^kC^kCO’-fcsfoOiO coof
i-< 00 CO 00 u5 r-t oscoi

00C< f-hC5

OSO"^!^ «c ^ ooco »c t^os ^ t^CO

»-hOCOC^ CO O os OI ^ 00 rHkO'

OSC^C^rr< 1-t CO CO CO CO ft 00 »oo|

t^tCod‘0' oorCc^p-TcTkOOco »-r»ol

»-H rH CO OS OS (N 00 OS CO rj< O O Ol ,

CO ko w »o *o oi

OS

CO O r-H b*

OS »0 00 o

of o' CD V Q
o b» CO o

O »-• o- 00 ts.

oooooco

b- i-« (N

CO oTco

00 *-1

O CO CO O OS CO O OSOS

00 00 b^ CO O b«* >0

OS 00 o- OS T-H CO OS »-< cooc!

cTcd'ofbfiCco'cob^ ’^cd'l

lO OS CO 00 CO b- CO »0 rH 00
CD OS ic 00 b^ OS rH 00

OCfiHCfcOCOrHrH cf
C4

b^ OS Ht*

»0 b» ic fH t>.
0^*0 000"^

co‘'0<0'^*'c^

rH Tt< b» CO CO

OrHt>»OOt^

rH kO CS »0
CO kO

CO br CO b^

ocd CO Off

rH rb kO OS

1H CO OJ b* OS 00 kC OS

OS rH CO b» »C UD OS h}< IC 1

kO kO OS Hj< b» »o 00 CS oco
crToTosoTrH'T-fb^oT co-^

CO CO br OS rH 00 CO OS rHTj-
00 00 kO OS b- CO OI CO CO'^’i

CO rH OS OS rH

CO

00000 00 05
kC CO 00 b» CO
CO O OS rH

kT rH* CO oT bf

b- br OS rH b»

CD 00 00 coo
of cfofco

C>S rH OS b«

CO o

CD^ coos
ofos'co tC

kO rH tr

OS OS 00

OS rH CO 00 OS O rH COb-
»0 OS o OS OS CS OS kOkOl
OS CO »0 CO CD CO 00 b^OS

CO bfkO CO ’^rH'rtJ'o coco
OS OS b- 00 O kO CO OS coos
CO OS OS O CO OS Tf< CO CD

^OdlH COrH CO'CjJ'Of kQ CO
OS rH

CO Ht* 00 OS

OS coco 00

CO 00 00 rH

O

kO rH

OS CO

OS

S3

b- CO •«»« CO
es kO rH kO
CO 00

CO bf^CO
br OS CO 00
OS

rHb-OSkO-^^^QOOS

■^COOSCOCOOSb-rH

OSrH'^OSO'^OO

CO od' bf “O' CO bf c^of
O'^COOSOSOOrHOO

COkOCOOOOOb-rHb*

oco rH-^ rH

CO ,
OS b-
kO

hjT OS’i

S'^'l

00 00 00 OS CO

O OS b- b.

cO ^ ^ ^ ^

rH^OS^r-ToObT
^ kO OS CO
OSOOOtr 00

oosoooo

OS OS rH
CO CO CO 00

coco c^oT
CO >0 CD
tH 00 CO rH

kO kO

ss

cfr-TcOCOCO rHlH OS

rH br lO <S0 rH o
OS OCD OS OS ^
brrHOSOSOCD

CDkO’^rHCOOkOOS

CD^rHrHrHCS^O

»OCOkOOSOSH»<OOrH

oT CD CO b^ rf' od'bfko

CD k-H OS

CD *0
osool

CO b*

tjTosI
•<^coj
O koi

HfkCOOC^t^
rH rH 00 O O
rH CO O*^ *0

OfbfcDii;^

rH kC CO OS
OS O 00 X 00

co'iH eoco'co'

rH 00 ^
brb»OSOS
b- 00 CO OS

c^ooco'oT

Hb OS CD kO
rH OS CO rH

rH rH OS

O O CD 00 »0 CO ^ rH oo»oi
CD »0 OS kO Hjk 00 »0 00

CO CO OS CO OS OS OS OSb-

COH#<CDrHCS»OCO»0

Ht<OOCOOSOSkOb»OS

OOCOkOOS'^’^OOrH

oTcd CO bf r-T 00 bf »o'

COrH OS

b-OSi

Scoj

o*o1

Ui

o

..=3^|gg-2S|§>
^ 2? .©

a
o

CO

§ fl*

1

1

1 1 1 1
lilt

©

HH

1

till

b»

(

1

1

1 1 I H

: i il

©

◄

1

1

1

,

1 1 1 p

t 1 I 'H

CL

Q

1

1 1 ! p

A

1

1113

<

1

o

: : :w

1 1 '

A

a

P

I'a : a

H

O

j

• s ®'a

P

§'S*S

a

'o 9 2 wj
• «2 H a M

0

r

CO

o

o

u

CO

.

o o

OS *0

> fl g

rH "S O H C3

bfl'd ^ o So a

6s'S«ag'2a“g«

c3|

al

oi

V

06

H

tH

Jh

>

13

o

O « 03 08 c6gs..';i®®

J O CQ CQ OQ g 5)43 *5 CQ ^
o£5|

2

♦H ^

■§

r1

-dS -3

Ipfi*

_os^ bo

® £ £ ^ o'^S

*S n Pop

^ wSf spa o,g

'O 3 a 3 Q. © ®

aH O O Im

P *-< u ®

O

. *H L-

2 03 a

a 3 ‘

o

CO

fl

i|

o o

a g Bp

■sill

03 3 a 3

S O o

iaa

o

'S’

a

a-

a

2

bfl

o

Ih

o.

©

©

IH

a

©

.a

o3

p

o

•*■»

o

a

03

-1^

03

Xi

©

o

p

CO

©

d

3S

B

.§S°®£”.|-3|

m , . >5 1. a

- _-2S g g

3 ^ crt a rr

©

w . - -
© o

5 3 '

^

^ A ^ ^ M

© © p

■«tl3

o +j ©.Sf

as s

M
©

u

©

-M

o

b

o

•fH

g

©

*©

u

p

©

A

3

bO

Pm

08

©

u

p

p

3

g

©

a

o

o

*»

p

©

'd

©

p

•r4

CO

a

©

©

p

o

'O

p

C6

p

©

a

a

p ....

S'd 3
© o*

— a oT
'^'S'3

•h qj
© -H

u 03

©

(m

a

©

©

©

'd<*
© ^
TJ

a

rH ^

CL a

i!-

o ©.2
•aba

0) ©
XI g*H

o a ■«

*H O

^ o ^

d-SI

as 3

©
. t-t

'V

©

©

p

CO

•«-H

CO

©

p

a

o

•d

©

t-«

©

.a

a

'd

©

CO

fl

CO '3
QJ K»

*5? O

2'a

p ©

® CO

'd a

© o

>*£
o S

aO*

a's
©

a ^

§.9

”S

a ©

*H Lj

CO

tuo 0)

ri

p ©

a •'a
Sg

o'"

©■^

CO O

p p

a ®

M «3^
g ©Ph

03 bo _
H> to

3

£

©

kS

'd

p

©

•d

Ut

©

o

«

©

©

CQ

S o

a 9* rt © P

©

©

•k^

a p
© >•

CO O
P-M

2'a _

'H ®

p

o

©
CO

l-S

£-“>m

^ 'O CO 0)

(D -

■H ia
© ©

©CO ©

•H a ^ 'a

Q.3 ®-9 a

J3 ©

o

-3 gda

a -3
05 a

© ^^3

o ^

©'

CO

p

CL ©

■•3 rH s J2

p ^p^
p ®

tH H *2

© 3 ©

a to

3

© CO
U OS

® a

a^^ bija

o
^p

H'© © 3

H 03 III ., ||

a 03

^.a

Clift'S I iis

"5" 1"^ “**" oo

CO §

©'3 „

© a ©

o

p

2’9 «

fe a Hs

Ohh cq

©

o

CQ

©

p

HH

>»

X

T? .
§► «

•p

si

^CQ

a^

X.2

- ©

w a

p bA

1-9

U p

.SB

CO .2
© -4^

e

k.

e

z

k

s

CO

s

Q

k

be

0

k

a.

k

0

z

s

•k*

S'

k

"C

s

z

*5

be

e

•M

£

k

"Q

z

z

c

o

4L

so

•pH

CO

CO

Q

b)

•w

Q

•pH

k

a.

z

z

•pH

PHH

•c

z

a,

4L

z

0

I

CO

i

o

4^

pC

d

H

CO

X

p

a

v-<

©
• pH

X

a

a

© «0

•ca

(55

b-

«k

eo

b-

eo

o

rH

4^

COrHOS«CS 00 00 CD lO CS (JO O cs o OCS <D CO

OSb-rHiO-^Jk COCSOOSOb^OSCCt'»OOSO> CD

OOSrHrHCS OO OS 00 b- CO OS OO CD 00 CO CO

OCObTOkO kO oTo COC^'PjTiOrH kCpH OObT eo

e0»0 kOrH ^CO'^ rHCSCO iHCSCS^« b*

rH OS

©

©

p

©

CO

• pH

CO

CO

©

©

• pH
rH

X

a

a

CO

©

a

>»

©

»ph

©

©

a

CO

■kCk

©

■k^k

CS

X

CS

'OP

oT

<1

OHkCOHkOS »0 CD kO rH OS CS b- Hk CS Hk b»
IOCOH4CD00 OoOb-OSrHOSb-CSrHOSCSOO
kOb»k0^40 OkCOSOOSCOOSCSOoOCOCO

S3

bs

b-rHrHOfkO ^kOO O CD O OOCO of rH rHOS b?”

rH ^ pH O ^ ^ rH ^ ^

rH

a p

o © S

*^'d iL

'3 0 2

< §3
© ©
•d

b-

CO

CD

CD

Hk

CO

s

COrHOHkHk rHCOkrtcOCDOOOOOOCCCDCSb-
COOSCOCOb- Hk bs CO kO 00 kO O OS CO CO OS b*
kOb-COOCD CObHHkCOb-CS(3SOSHkCOOSOS

ko'^bfeocs' ^COrHFj’cfcDOCOkOHk'oTbT
OOOOCOOSkO QOOSkObrOOCOOOkOOOOHk
OrHbSrH rH pH rH pH CS CO

CO*

CO

b-

©

© ©
Mp
© ©
-dto

?? *co
V CO

©

CS

OS

*o

kO

Os

00 PHb» >oOS
H< pH kO rH CO

oost^oso

oT PH 00 bfcT

CS b- 40 ’•Jk Tjk
Hk CD rH CO CS

kCrHrHCSb.C0kO4OWC0HkrH

OSOOrHOOb-COpHCDCDrHb.00

COOOCSCOOSOOCOCSOb»pHb-

CDOTcfOHfr-I'OCO'rHOOHk'br

pHCSb«iH4DHkHkOSb»CO'n4aS

Hib,»ot-»OOOOSCOOSCSOPH

kO* pH rH

b»

OS

CS

br

©

o

Eh

CO

Hk

CD

CD

kO

o

kO

CS

p-H CD O CO kO pH o rH CD CS CO O b- 00 CO O kO
COCOCOrHOS Hk(3>cSCSCOHkOOOrHt^OSHt4
rHHjPtOtOCS OrHCDOOCDHkCSHkkDOOHkpH

cs^’koefcood' od'oTHirrHHk"oO*'0'Ood'Hk‘kO>D

CSCDOSkDO HkCOb.b.COCOOOOOCOHf4Ht4»o
kOb-rHb-CO kOOOOOOOCDOOHkpHCOCOkO

00 pH iH pH pH iH

CS

CO

00

CO

00

OS

©

©

'd

©

Pm

Vi

o tuD

'd o

p

a

a

CO M
bC tH

a g
*a^
©
p^

O'OCLi
® ©^

P c6p^

CD

CS

kD

br

kO

CO

CS

kO

COOkOrHb- kOCDCOkDb.QCOkOOsCSCSCS
CSHkCOeOOO kOCO'kj40b-OHkOSb-b-b-CO
COiHCDOCD kOCOOCSCSHkCDHkOOOOOCO

Hk pH OS CO

b- O pH b. o

O rH io kO b-

■•Ck’^rHb.COCSCOcDCSrHOrH

OSkOCOCSb.OOOOb.rHCSOO

COpHCOkOOOSkOkOkDCOCDOS

00

kO

b.

cf

o

b.

kO

pH pH CS

Vi

1

t

M •*»

1

tH H

1

0 P

1

^g

1

1

rr tlX>

a3 0

1

1

> tH

T

1

•F-* r\ .

0^

(

1

1

©

©

tH

©

tH

©

a

©

o

©

£

M

tH

o

-4^ .r

1

1

•

1

1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I

1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t I

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

© k^H

1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1

© ©

1

1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1

Q£

1

I

1

1

1

1

I1IIP lllll

1 1 i 1 1 lllll
lllll lllll
lllll lllll

©

■4^

o

e

b-

CO

■kC

CO

c<

CO

CO

00

es

kOOOOSCS
rH 00 pH CD CO
brb. 00

•^CSCOOO-^rHkOrHCDOCSCS

OSCDOOSkOCOkO^Hj^OSiOCO

OOOOOSkfjCOb-kOOOOOCIkO

PH CS CS OS CD
CO PH IC CS
iOpHrHOOCS

COOOCSb«OrH40CO-kCkt>.
. 00 CO OS 00 b- CO C^ CD b-

CD'kkt'OOS'^brS'kCktocOrHkO

s

kO

b.

OS

•tf*

00

kO

©

o

H

CD

CO

■kstk

s

b-

o

rH

se¬

es CD ko CO

CD »0 b» pH iH
pH CO CD kO

od'osoTcf 00*

kOOrHOSCO
pH O 00 rH CS

cfco eo PH

SiOOOSCO'^OOCOCOkO'^OS
OSb-CSrHb-OSCS-^JkCOpHCO
COkO^^OkOrnkOkOCSOOCDO

pHCDcd'ocood'Tjk'od'brcfo'^

"iCkbrCD'-^kOCOCDCO'kCkoOCOpH

CD^CSCOrHbrCSkOCOOSrHpH

ges cocoes coco

pH CO ""Sk »0

.9 ®

p

X ® ^

a > w

aC-d

rH ap

©— 3

p p

0H ©

o

CD

CO

b*

o

Is, t-i* ,H CD
CDC10Sb.kO
CS CO O CD

CO CO CS CO
CDCS p^ kO
PH 00 CS CS

88

CS CO CO pH

OOCOCD-^kOCSOOkOCOkCCDkD

CSCSb-eSpHkOOOkDrHOSCOCO

kO»OCSOOOOpHHt4pHb-CDOS4D

bfcDbTcd'kQ'cooocf'^od'pH

iDiHO'^CkCDCOO'^CDOkOCD

kO*DCOeOpHb-CO»OCOOpHpH

O cf CO CO CS*" CO CO IH CO rH hF kO

CO

fl «8

H aD

o 2.

« «3

.£:©

•dx

.2 5
a's

« s

o ©

0-2

CQ

©

•4-»

o

a

'A

◄

p

o

A

tH

o

a

■Sap..

2 ”

'g-c ©-^-^

tH ©

8

p

-d

tH

.o

t>

o

tH

a

2tH
©

^ 2
a ©
^ ©
p a

p

o

o

2 aato

b£ ©

a ©

P S g

SS(5Woig||sSd :g(q

bflkH Cl a O rH »“ rH tn © p '3 I. T~ i-J W

.'2'g ^ I •••§ s ® ^ ^ S,® o

^©©©^^otH©©©o L® P a^

© ©

-d

p

©

w

©

'd

o

X

Ps

155

452436°— 42

11

dence . . 1 5, 609, 128 1 5, 635, 765

See footnotes at end of table.

Table D-3. — Amount of public and private assistance and earnings under specified Federal work prograniSy by urban area, 1940 — Continued

•r- fl

o

a

CQ

•«-»

CO

(O

CO

03

o

•t--

D

a

CO

«

a

03

o

c;

Q.

CQ

tN. o » «c o> »c at
O O Ci •-< O CO ^ Q '

OS CO 00 io CO o

c^c^r*os»cc^o>t^**^Qco

»-^t>.cocot>.oo»ococo«'“

COOCO’^OSOOCOOCSt^

SOCOC'* <0 CO CD OO O

CSCD 40 ^
i-H m

C4

OOO COCOOSt^^OS

^ 0> 1— • ^ ^

00 O
c5 CO
CO

r-TioT

1-1

o

O O OS 40
CO O 40 O 40
1-H 00t>* CD

o rj^crTco'* c<r

i-< CO 1-*

or^

ca

^ CO

40 <o

coosoo
os oo>

l-H X

^ OC t*“ M*
COO^I-^ —
CO^ 00 CD CO

»o c^tD
os

C<IOCO
CO oo ^
1-^ OS CO

•> Ak •»

CD CO QO
40 GO 40

CD 40 i-«

X C0 40
OOOSOOt^

:3L

CO oEicd

o

5-0

o.S

CD’-40400S400Si-<t»»
t>- OS OS CO »0 CD OS
X*^ C^CDCOOO'^OS

'^CDOOCDCDCOOSCDcOcoOJ
OSt^OSOSCOC*-i-<COC^CO‘0
401— iOSCOC^4Ot>-<N»O06OS

OS

OS i-< ^ »0 ^ 40
O CO 1-N

,-r,-M 40 01 00
t'* 00 CD OS OS

K •. ««

. Q CD ^ C-
lOSOi-'COOO
X

coos

OCD

CO

coco

CO

OSOCOt'-CD
1-^ X O 00 00
CD X OS 40

odcD oTof 40

^ ^ d

oo o

OS CD
CD CD

00 ^

CD CD CO
X O 40
O CD

d »-« d

t«-40Xt^X

os 40 CD

O TJ4 t«. X »0

O CD 00 os' CD

CD *-H

X O X
TJ< X 40
1-H X

CO t>ros
X CD X

CO X X
OS O d
t^h-X

CD 00 oT

^Xd

4OX0SXd
CD X O » »0
'Tj* 1-* X o d

»-^‘c0 0 4C5CO
ddcDor^

^ o a

O ^

fl [O

< aja
o o

^CDOS X OS X CD d

XOX 00 X 1— 40 40 X d OS
x^x OS •'C4 40 !>- ^ d

xdosxt^dist'xoxos

gXOsOsXt'-Tt4CDQ^t^
t^-^^XdXt^OXCD

1-1 CD
X I-I

CD0SX40'i**i-hC^X-H
CD40000SOS40 40X
b* 1-H X Tf< d ^ d

CO*

4O0Si-«’^t^i-'d4O0S^*-(

xr'-40xosasxcDX4ox

i-^dt-4ddxd’Tj4»-ixx

40 Cl

X

©

©

o

o

X

©

X

X

X

d

d

mM

©

o

©

t-

Tt*

©

•iJ<

©

©

X

X

©

X

o

X

-•f

©

Q

»o

X

o

Q

X

©

o

r--

©

s

©

©

X

©

tM

X

o

l>-

X

©

t-M

X

t-M

©

©

d

©

o

X

©

©

©

CD

d

CD

CD

©

X

X

CO

d"

d’

©

©

■h

X

X

r^

40

CO

OS

©

X

CO

d

s

X

d

40

©

rf<

©

40

X

©

d

Tf*

»*H

X

o

X

©

X

X

X

©

©

X

©

d

d

X

d

d

d

o

X

X

X

d

©

X

d

t-l*

d

a
o o
ua
ca a
JL

T3 w

O*^

CO

cs

© X t^
d

*1#* d ^

X©©Xl^t^X©X

©©^dr«-d’'»'X©

OlMMfMTflOl-'l-HXX

OXX'^©d©OHj<tM©

©o©t^od©xdxx

x©d©ot>-t'''^dt-M©

t-M mH

© r>*
X d

©d 1-H X X
© © © CS ©
O © d d

Hf d
© ©
X X

© d

© H?*

i-H © X

© © © X d
X © © ©
t-i-Ht-'^X

Hfi -ij* r^
O X d

©ox

© X X
X © ©

rH mH ^H

©©xr^^
© -^ X © ©

-Tfi X X © hH

x'‘cdcd'

d ^

X d

oTb-rcsfcDOTco'd'O'h^

©©©©ot^^c^-^

dXi-*di-i'^©Xd

X* o' d*'0 i-T 04“ O O CD CO CD
X©0^drl4ddi-<'^r-
dxx*^©-^©Tj4©x©

1-M ^

d ©
X ©

© CD CD 40 CO
Q CO d X X
© 40 © -^ ©

X ©*■
X ©
^ ©

iCr>r-H!jr
X d d
X d ©

cTcO'^d 40
t>- H}1 CO © ^
© © d © X

1-H O CO
Hf X d
d Tj* X

S2S

ot^o

OS d CD t^x

do©do
O 1-H o d

Vs *4 *4

1-H X 1^

40“

Vs

Htfl

•s

Vs

d hH

f-M X ^

d d *-H

i^'^d CO d

eO

o

X CD

OS lit*

X c- o

»>

OS X
40 OS
CD 40 X

*e- ^

ls,^X040CDOdd
XCDl— <’i»‘X»-4^dTj4
0040'^Xt^l^t^CD

t>.CD40Xdt'-d'^O40O
Tf4CD0SCDXCDXX40cDt^
05X^^4O0S4OX’^^^0S1— I

CDXi-Hi— t40 X 40X'^
XOcOXOOS^XX
d^d40dCSd40'i!j4

Oi-iOSt^CD^i— 'Xi-HdcD
0S40-HXi~4dO’^dX^
^l>.40t'.OOS^XXXO

d

d

X

d X

d

X

©

X

X

X

S2

o

H|<

X

X

o

r-

s

HI*

X

X

o

o

d

h-

O

Hi*

o

d

X

s

©

d

©

©

©

X

d

??

d

d

©

X

Hj*

X

©

©

©

©

Ht*

^ ©

X

©

Tf4

©

X

X

©

©

o

X

X

©

©

Hj*

d

©

t-

©

X

d

o

cT^-T

tC

«4

r>.

40

o

x

CD

Vs

X

Vs

©

v^

o

d

d‘

40

nf

Vs

o

CO

OS

©*■

V4

X

40

V4

d

o

©

o

MH ©

HI*

©

©

CO

©

X

r-

hM

©

X

o

hM

©

©

O

Hj*

o

©

X

X

©

X

X ©

h-

©

d

CD

©

X

o

©

©

©

©

©

Hi*

©

©

d

d

©

X

©

CD

Vs

d

Vs

Vs

t*.

rH

Hj*

d

X

VH

d

d

CO

*0

a

3

s

Ph

ca

u

o

la

* cc

5r?

^ bO

'O o

3 Cl
t£ U

G 9
w

eo*^<4

O'CCu
<D cjr

p 03f>

*- --v

a.n

o

X

o

©

■"«*

Ht*

©

©

©

©

X

t-M

X

©

X

X

d

o

o

©

X

©

X

o

o

r-

d

X

©

X

©

Q

d

©

©

©

©

Ht*

©

Ht*

©

©

X

©

r-M

H^*

Ht*

S'

CD

©

©

X

©

X

X

©

i>-

X

o

o

©

©

d

©

©

©

wM

©

X

X

©

o

X

o

X

t-M

o

d

X

©

d

©

d

O

9^

CD

©

X

©

©

tH.

©

X

X

Hi*

©

Hf

©

Ht*

©

o

©

X

o

Ht*

©

Hf*

X

©

©

X

!>-

X

o

9^

©

X

©

X

X

X

X

tH.

!>•

rM

oT

h«s

O

©

Q

Ht*

o

©

©

©

r*-

X

©

cf:

X

©

fH.

40

©

d

Ht*

h-s

d

©

d

r>*

©

©

X

©

X

X

©

r-

©

X

©

o

©

©

o

©

©

©

©

©

X

©

©

d

i>.

Ht*

©

X

d

o

o

©

X

t>-

CD

©

CD

Ht*

tH.

Pm

X

©

©

X

©

©

©

©

d

X

d

©

tM

©

d

©

©

©

HI*

©

©

Ht*

©

Ht*

o

X

o

©

o

X

H^*

©

©

o

r-

O

O

O

d

r-

Ht*

o

X

d

©

©

©

X

o

o

Vs

©*■

V4

x"

•k

Vs

Vk

d"

wM

V

d'

©"

CD

X*

HP

CD

©‘

d

^4

d

X

d

d

d

d

X

r-M

X

©

o

X

©

d

©

X

rH

Ht*

d

CO

'^'1

2

^ feb
o

OS

3

u

3

Im

o

a

o

o

44

oS

•t-Si*

o ^

a>

«s

o

X X ''tf*
CD *0
X 't*

X OS O 40 OS d
CD r- 40 X
O d d X 40 1-H

t^xr^osdXb'b'X

b-cDI^»OQdXXX

n^i-HOXCD^sOt^d

X

d

^ d

o©x©©©©ddxt^

XX©Hi*XXt^©©Hf*d

H|*©MHXHt*Ht-CO©t>-»-HX

X d
© ©

© -H

© X © X ©
1-H Ht* CO ©X
X d © t- X

Ht* ©

X X

Ht* ©

© X X

© © 0

X d

0 1-H © 1-H mH

^ d X d d
X © © © ©

X X ^
© © r^

Hf* (H. ©

© mH •—*

2S2

© d © © GO
© © 0 © 40
© © © X Ch

os'i-Hoo©ort^cDd'co'd'ccr

Xdd©l>-©XX-Ht-.©

d©XXtH.tHsHf*XtH,Xl-H

t>^©
© ^
©©

© Ht* d CD
© CO 40 b* X
©COi-H©X

oTo

d X
©tH*

Ht* OS ©

© X d

x^x

^ CD 1-H 40 CD

© pM mH © ^
t-HVtHiXd

cDdt>^
© X 1^
©© ©

Vs Vk Vs

tH. X d
© © X
0©d

d X

^ s-T ■^"40'

CO

Vk

Vs

©

*-*cod

Vs Vk

l-T dtH^I-T

flS

o

9^

X— < 40
X OS

»o

•^jfcDX*'
OS
X

OS ®

^ s

t«-I^«040dOSCDd

dX-^t^OSdOSOOS

OSOSXi-Ht>»X’^XOS

QcD-^dddXXX

XCDOSOt^40COOSX

XOO»-H©CD494t^X

^©XcDi-<^XXdX40

,-(Osx'^cD©r^©x^o

X©C-40X©'-'©40©X

^^Or^oToOCD't^’^CSfoQ

’^O^XX©Xb»40©d

d'^40©400i-<rH40Xd

X l-H

^ 40 ^ 1-H 40 ^ d

i-t a

dxddX’i»<X’4j4'^©x
^X ^ i-«

pM©

XCO

OX

tH. © © © ©
© Hp X © ©

© X 0 HP 0

0 Hp

i-> d
© ©

© 1-1 ©
t". X ©
^ X ^

0Q©©0
X 0 © X 0

© © © d HP

X © ^
© X X
X »-* ©

©X©
0 X X
^ X 1-H

hPPm©X^
X x-^ d

IV* HP X CO pH

•^HP
t-M ©

xd

X oTd © i-T

© Q 0 © ©

d © X X X

rH.’'x
© d
X HP

d CO p-T

0 X ©

1-H © ©

eo40tHr©-^
P- 1-H pM 05 t-

o©c>©x

»o tHToT

HP pM ©
©XP-

or40 oT

1-* CD d
ddpH

© © CO ^00
1-H X X © Ph

xo©©x

HP CO
©

CO d x d CO

40 d

cOi-Td

oTco © d i-T
X

pTio t>r

fH

Vs Vs ^

© © ©

oThp i-Td X

1-H X

.2 ©

-t-s

a > oo

Oi ix'O

^ aa

^ vi

o a

^ 03

X »0 *4^4
X Tf4 »0
i-i d

•» «1.

8X ^
© d

^ o

OS «4J< X
^ © 40
X

40 X
X d

X X X i-H 1-^
'X©Od^
©CD©©©

» •k «4

© © © © »-H 'nr
© X © 1-4 d ©
©©©©XX

CDi-H©©©©t^©XXX

dt'»t'»xx'«f»'XO’'*'©©

•^©©©xx©©x©d

*4 *4 ^ *4 •* ••

©xx©©d'^i^x'^oo

©©d©’'»>©x©©x'3|

d^©t^©i-«©X©'^d

X '

d

,-H©»-l©l-Ht'»©T-td
1-H ©

dxddx*^xi4f^ox

^ X ^

© CD
cO

0

© © © HP ©
© HP X Ph d
l-Ht-HXXP-

©mH
Pm -fP

0 d

X © d
I-H d X
^ ^ ^

1-1 00 X X©

HP 0 MM lO ^

X © © X tH.

© © ^
d MM up
© 1-H X

© © ©
So © X

d©Hp

© d pH © ©

d XX X ©
X X X X HP

© s

X X

oTtp Xd Ht*"
0 X X © ©
X © X © "^

oTt-r
Q X

Vk ^ Vs

pH t>- ©

© •^ pH

rH © ©

Vk Vs Vs Vs Vk

© X HP p* mM
©1^X©X

d © © © So

di-HP—
CD © d
© HP X

CD -^OS
X mH X

x©x

© CO eooTd
© X 1-H © ©
X © 1-H 0 ©

»0 CO
©

CO d Xdco

©d

Vs, Vs Vs

X 1-H d

Vs Vs » Vs Vs

© X © d mh
X

pTio pT
mH

oTco 40

oTV^d cox

MH X

a c®

9 ©

O w
e/5 ^

> s

O.'S

« s

to -

o ©

o5

OQ

H

IJ

H

CA

,2

2 ‘a

o ^

» ^ ® iS

p

p

2 ©

©

a R csi£

®tS£ a

o o

o

ce ©
txJ2
©
= o

o

CA

a

o

eC

1m-

>4.

o3

a

o3

>

a

o

CO
Im
Qj

a

<D

2^3

a o
oS

Im

a>

to

!5

ce

.

O OS 3 ri
** Ta o ^

CO ■ S c

Qj .© y 33 ■4-» o3 ce

a

©

04

©

Im

ce

cm

t

CO

©

M

i4

H

Iz;

u

o

a

H

Oh

o

iz;

2

Sf bo

S.s ••

• • *• - cB

aa

oOm S

.a •B

sa a

ff) CO ©

,2 So G 3

>1 t«w

§J= ®

a H^.a -4^ Im

>a’2g®

w^w(»a-

156

l.'b 4-4 H«J1 0
00 CO 1“^ 1-H
(H* f-4 05 CO

oi^or^

1-H 0 00 ^

Q»0 05
^ uo b4
00 1-4 CO

b-

•H

o*

OOtPPJ-^
b- »C 0 05
05 Tt* 0

MbOObr*
COtPOO
^ 05 O*

lb-*04H05
ICO 05 CO »C
IOCD05 00

1

05

05

00

1 CO CO

1 t"- 44
ITP 50

CO 50 CD CO
CO -P 50 1-H 05
»0 05 0 50

C5 50 1

r>-C5 1

0500 1

s

*OtT.00O5b»00CO00

4HC0b-c0bH-O0Q50

00’^C50b-^?5ip

00 •

05 1

CO I

rH

c<fc<rr^o>

C5

cb

CO

Tp-

05

0 06 t-" Tfl

1-4 t- fr, b-

iO 05“

05 00

f-H 4^

it'T 00 05

• TP br

1

•

•

c

1

1

t

50

1 1-H 05
150 CO

1

t

1

I

1

1

1

1

ooTp 5bTjror

Tp tP

CO 05 1

1-H CD >

1

1

1

1

1

•

1

1

tC

odo5^i-HTP5beo'Tjr

00c0C5i-H5OcOC5O5

C5 •,

05* 1

50 «

1

1

1

1

1

1

•

1

iO 05 »0 05
-H 4-1 C<5 05
CO 00 05 C5

CO 0 OC CO

1-4 CO 00

b^eo t
05 -Ip •
»-H CO *

1

00

Tp

00

CO 0 CO 1
44 C5 CO •
COCO^ 1

CO 0 CO
00 CO tP
CO 05 Ub

1-105 05 i7<»0
50 CO 05 CO

005 CO 00 05

CO

00

00

TP coo

CO 50 50
1-H TP 0

1 1 1 t 1

1 t 1 t 1

1 1 1 1 t

1 1 1 1 t

50 C5 50
CO CO 1-H

TP 05 CD

50

00

05

COCOOOOOb4C'5C5FH

b..COOOC5QOOcOC5

C005COO^i-hOOO

ss?

50 0

o»ooi'*H

C0»-H»0'^

CO co'cs— r

^ »-4 r"4

C>^ '

«-H 1

1

1

1

<

1

1

1

CO

CD

b'^^o’co' «
COC505 1

1

•

1

•

•

•

t

0^00 05
CO »H
f-H

i-i tri lb 4h' 50
1-H *1 4H 44 CO

o-

oib-To

CO CO

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

till!

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 t

1 1 1 1 •

• lilt

1 1 1 1 1

05

or-HbNrTfri-H't-Todod

b'-05 X 50l-H50 50l-l
05 05 rH CO

45

0 c^r

0 CO

44

r>. ^ 0

Tp u5 CO

0 t'- »o 0

b- b- h- »o

0 05 CO CO

0 CO 'ip Tp

CO 1-4 CO
0^0
*-H b-*

iO

05

05 00 CO 00

0 00 05 1-H
CO CO 0 05

bn* tH ^
44 TP .H
05 05 »-4

OCDCDCOO
1-4 05 Tp CO 0
05 CO 00 Tb 50

Or

50

0

4H CO CD
00 Tp 05
05 05 4H

1 1 1 1

50 t 1 t 1

50 1 1 1 i

4H 1 1 1 1

05 1-H TP
4H Tfl 05

050CD

4H

b-

00

05C5b'-C00005000

50Tf1b>-^1-Hi-Hts.C0

C0l-HTP0>C050b»05

1-4 05

CO 0

TP b-

CO CO 05
«0 50 05*1^5

rH 14H ^

p^o^od'

»-H CO 00 "Ip
C5COC^C'l

0 CO"h^

05 05
05 1-4

t-

44

TP

cb TP W5 CO
0 CO -H CO
^ ^ 05 ^

ic 05''cf
^ 0

05 05 CO

TP~ 4-r 05" 50 tP

b^05goo^

50

00 05 50
TP 0 05
05 CO CO

05 1 1 1 1

till
115 1

Q b-^TjT
50 b- 0^5

br

odeb<ood‘cbcoc5'c5‘

OC'55O00b-0005»D

00COC5eO<DCDC55O

i>ro5

Hp 1-H
tP 05

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 5

1 I 1 1

1 1 1 1

• 1 1 1

till

C5

00 05 05 CO
05 ^ rp

4p COCO CO

05 CD bn- CO

CO CO CO 00

00 05 CO 00

05 CO 0
0 00 t>.
TP CO 00

00

05

CO

05 TP CO 05
05 CO *C 05
b-Tp »0 05

eoo5b^

50 Tp b4

00 44 tP

05 05 05 44 CO
Tp 05 05 CO 00
0 05 CO 0 00

CO

CO

05

Tp 50 CO
»-H 05 00
1-< 0 *0

O- 1-H CO CO CO
CO CO 05 CO tP

b-. K 50 50 0

CO 0 CO
50 1-H CO
CD bH* Th

tP

CO

b»

05b405050i-HbT50

b-i-Hb-TpcOOC550

C0OOC5c0O500b-

CO i-<

CO CO

00 50

^ Q 1-H CO
05 0 00 uo
to CO CO CO

CO ^0"’^

CO 05 0^5 CO

co^ooco

05*'OtC

CO 05 *-H

05 05

00

05

0

CO 05 44 *-H
Tp 4H 05 »0
•OtPCQtP

1-4 inToo'
CO 44 ub
00 05 05

cbo^Oio'ib

CO 1-H Q b- 50
4HC5C5i-^ 0

oT

0

4H

CQ't-H^of

4H 4H ^5

05 CD 50

CO Ip of 05" CO
00 1-H 1-H Qoo

C5 b-Too
05 CO 50

4H

b-T

CO

4H

o'O' 0 CO 00 00“ 05* 05*'
COCOGOCOb^OOTPCO
’^b-5OC005c00505

'p'co

b- 05

00 4H

^ «-4

of

4H

CO CO 1-H CO'^T^r r-T I-T
05

ofi-T

0 50 tP 05
TP 00 05 05
1-4 4H 0 05

CDt>.TpC5

CO CO 50 QO

0 05 05 t-

05 Q CD
« T? b-
CD b- »0

4H

0

0

b- 05 50 0

^H ^H

b- 05 0 05

coco Ip
50 1-4 eo

b-CO 4H

CO 0 b- 00
0 00 00 00

CO b- 44 CO

oTo'oo'cr

00 CO 05 CO
b^ 0-05 00

C0*'05“‘tp''tp'‘

CO CO 1-4 05

50 05 05 CD

C<f50 icT

Tp f4 TP

50 4H CO

of

44

50

t-To o' 50
00 00 ® 00
CD 50 50 3

TP'od'r-r
b- 05 05
1-H Hp CD

00*'i-h’'05’‘05*'
Tp 05 1-H b-
05 CO CO 05

tjT

1*4

of CO

00

CO

05 44 05
05 05 05

05 1-H CO CO CD

© CO 05
© OC' b-

b-©TPcO©C5©Tp

Tp©

fH

0

TP CO 05 CO Tp

0©Tpb-00©©Tp
Tb©05 05tH©©ib

© Oi

CD

05

05 Tt* 00

05 b- »C *0 0

© © ©

©

00 05

10

§

CO »-H b-

50 TP C5‘ C5 cb

Tp b-‘ 00
00 ICOO

*«

Oi

o6'odTPorTti5b'cbT*r

of 44

CO

b- 50 50

05 44 4H 0 00

4H

t4'P050© 05 05cO
O5CD©©©i-H^05

05 -P

CO

4H

Tp 05 00

O5^b-O0b-

1-H 05

05

P P

44

w 1-7 CO 50 © of 1-H

CO

•s »

COi-<

© b- P b-

© 00 CO 44
b- © P ©

CO tP P ©
b- CO © ©
t4 05 © p

ooco P
cc © 00

00 i-< ©

©

©

ipH

05© ©P
© 05 © ©
©CO b- 00

05©P
P 0 ©
CO © CO

1-H © 00 © ©
l-H p © P ©
© © © *4 p

0

t—

©

©©©
P © ©
b- 1-H ©

P P © b- br

Q©i-H©b4

© © © P ©

© 05 ©
CO 05 P
CO © ©

©

cfbCiooo

© 05 1-H tN.
© © © ©

cTtp'^^co’

© b- © 05
© © © 00

p^co of

CO © ©
p eo CO

b- i-H b-

44 0 © ©
© © © CO

&2S

© 05 CO

© CO i-f 0 cT

© 05 © P 4H

05©b-©©

§

©

©'4h’‘ of
© b- p
© p ©

bf of 00 cb CO

© © P b- ©
© © © p ©

P*'cd'^
© b- 05
© © 05

0

of ©of

*4 44

P

P'i-h’i-T

«k

b«

cf pof

00 CO

^ T-f P

P

p of 1-H

of ofcbof

P

P

p b- © ©
05 © P ©

© 1-H p ©

© b4 p ©

© © © P
© P © 44

P 05 ©
© 05 ©
© © P

©

t--

P

© © © ©
p b- 44 ©
© b- b- ©

P b*©
P © ©
b. © P

p p © p p
05 b- P b- ©
b-Pb4p©

©

©

©

P 05 ©
b- © b-
© © ©

orooccT©

CO © 1-4 ©
1-4 44 ©

^hTp^ob

© b- 05 b-
»o P © P

oop^br

05PP

©

b-

05

©

44'©' of 50"
b«b4 © ©

05 05

Tt<‘cO‘5b

P 1-H ©
© P ©

bTc
© c

5 CO©*'©*'

0© © b-

p

©

COP"’^
© © ©

«s

©

of

lO CO CO o

00 o

CO CO T-* CO
05 CO CO

^ 1-^ cs

p 05 ©

b.

© © P

05

© © ©

05

^

b- b- ©

05

P © 05

©

^t^^050i-<'^T}C
COC^I— l^COC^COt^
lO00CC'cti»-HC^O5O5

q" io" ’-^'co' cT
r^cOc^^'^»-*cot^
C^COC4l'-»-t’^COCO

Ot^rHC^OScOCOC^

^C0C005C0t^C^i-*

r^ooco-^^ccicco

C0’-HOC^CS05C0Tt<

eoco'e'fcTbTcftCco

0*-<C0051— 1^050
f-<»C'^C<IOOOOOOO

odof i-Tco 1-1'

CO CO

00 o

00 00
CO
CO CO

CO

t-

<J>

tjTo

1-H

CO

CO 05 W ^
O Q t- Q

c^oo>o

^cpoTcT
^ uo lO
00 1^05 05

iS f-Todco

40 00 CO
05 CO 1— * 1^

O f-H T»<

O i-i'odco
r* 05 05 cs

o 05 1-H o»

P © ©
© © 05
b- b- ©

©

b.

05

to b- © b-
© p © ©
b- © P P

©©00
© © ©
» © ©

© P b- b- ©
© © p © ©
© © © b- ©

©

©

©

P P ©
05 P ©
© © p

© © © © ©
05 p © P
© b- © © b*

Pb.©
© © ©
© © 05

b-

©

©

©©ppp©©©

p©©pb-©pb-

©P©©©0©©

©©
© ©
©b-

© 0 ©
tT.05 05

0© 0

©' © 4-i ©
b- CO 05 ©
© © © 05

©‘of©

© © p
© b- P

© © P P ©
© 0 P p 05
P « P P P

©■

P

0

p'b^©"
P © ©
P P ©

©'©" 05*44 ©
p © © P p
b- © © © b-

of 00 00

© 05 ©
P p ©

©

©

p' 05"cd'© 05 05' o'cd'
©05© 05 05©©P

©©©©©©0©

©*lo

P 05
0 P

tffpof

of

© P © ©

P ©

P

p P p P 05

of

05 © 05

cd p © cd ©

pof

fH

©Tticdb^o6©’b^©

© P P

©P

000i-ci!jc
’Tf 05 i-«

o rH 00 05

^t^CO CO
CO CO CO 00
cot- 05 05

iOi-Todcd

X0 05C50
40 O *— * 05
05 t- 05 40

05 '(jT 40*^40
t^05 40 CO
o 05 C5 05

C9C4

c«

P © b-

s © s

0

§

©POOP
© b* 00 ©
<0 b- P P

p © ©
b- 05 ©
© ©P

©©t^©©
© © © © ©
© © b- © ©

b-

P

05

p b- ©
05 © P
© © ©

P 05 © 05 ©

© © p © p

0 © P P 05

© 05 ©
© © ©
© p 05

©

©

©

0 ©‘©

CO 05 ©

0 © ©

©

©

CO

b^ 44 ©' 05~
© P © p
©©©©

05** ©"co'
© © ©
P b» 05

©“© p" of 00

© p p © ©
P 05 p p P

©

©

P © Tf
p 0 b-
p © ©

© © cd'© of
© © © © ©
b- © b- © b-

© 06 00

p © ©
P P w

g

©

ttfpof

of

CO P ©CO

•»t of

p p p P 05

of

of CO of

COP CO coed'

poi

o 40 C5 o 00 00 1-^ r-a>

CO CD CO CO 40 »0

rf 40 eo O CO 05 C4 Tfi o t-

cd‘i-i-^t^t>^t-T>J'od cTco

OO CO 1— t CO 1-^ 00 CO 05
00 00 CO 05 »H O O O Tf4

05 CO 05 05 r- »0 05'^

CO 1-H 1-H

\Z S

a 9-g
9-is>S fe.

_QpqS oj,
g5

C3'

CO

cO
fl

a

o

2^2*"
o OT ®

i|l?llili-

6 ®

fl

o

•4-5

CO

<1>

® CO ©

S33

aJ > D. >

a-a

Ih

o

^£gosssattxj.a«ls« s^tiSo^’c-ga^a
2« a S .. eo^ 5 O g-g 0.2 o
3^ gWSZ SQWfeWM-9;z;«P5-s w

3 S 3 oO g g S' «.S

Sz OcQ Eh &H > ?

s|!s

C]

O

•4-5

d

-CJ

d

d

3

K

I

« 2 9

o‘£f

^ ^
8§§
OUit^

d

o

4^

bO

a

g

M

u

PW

s

s

z

D

O

eo

©

*©

O
©
CO

ti) d

I

I

I

>4

> d ®

Jf'S rt ^ «

.. d d d*^ 4-

S © fl

O ^ o3 c3 c3

M

g’S'S

© 4-5 "4

(5

O 4-5
73 •tHJ

cS

.29

biC

o w w w g a ..’S ©^

ghJOcQCQCG g g^-gooE-'
® o3

CO o

o

-•v © -4^ ® 00 3

S5>'c“7S
cts o 3 <i<d

3 55 © 'C^ w ©'d I

«.o d.!» a^2 ea

CO c3 ©^ 3,d g-:

© & rt

xi ©

w .- --

3 2 co^-d
•d^ ©^ rt

4-5 » 3

.M d 4-5 •^4^4

rtCQ m.2
; -4-5 a.S

© .^5.2 ^ 4-

-d — o CO
^2*^ Dh© 25

- -g£S£

©

CO

2 ©-p*-

4-5,0 o ^
d.d ©d 3 ©*P

pH fe CO ^05^

l^is g © p ®.2^2o

H ._ ^ ^ © 4-1 V

©

,d CO

03'

. ©

>% ©

h* Wi

b S'O 2 ® o
2 ag5 g>M

„ « o « d

rs*^ dO*d‘
— wK.d©‘'-'eo3

"g ag ’=' £ ©.„.S

2g'a.2'«2°|

— 05 CO B ©-“ ,

-i--^ ^ t_i ^

o

CO

© O g

©•^.H 50
d,HH CO

P 3 •• © *

A © 08

© CO 03 CO 3 ©"^
c.'d © •** ^ -N b ©
o o'dcQ'd © 3 2

I=3d53-^

^©.2 © bi'2-*^

ss

©
0,0
K'^
©

d'd 22

o © d

zS'a.a

2*- m
©^ bjo

ft d:=3
o o.^

O © O
■*^ CO o

^.5 o 9

d^

©

73

2 o.ti

a-2

s ®
-1^
d d §
o o »
o
.0

£*3 2
3;d

CO © '2 ni 3

O © © © CO

© 2 3 o3

S'S-lS'®

1-4 eo w p ©

s a®-®®

^l§|

p.

cO

lx

b£)

©

©,

^ ©

2^

3

w o

- --r^ © ©

5 a o^.a

2S 03 W

3 w 2 ,© «

Vco ©’3'^
3 ^2 d © d

11 3 CO

.Or*

|2S

2.S ®

3S^.«

Ss d d

fCXJ-'g

^ o © a

© 2'^

CO

©

»1

©13

*- 3

3

CO

d

d

o

*3

©

t>»

O

ft

a

©

CO

d

o

CO

U4

©

ft

CO

bD

d

05

©

d

©

CO

©

ft

S

• «•

s

*44

•4-A

CO

•44

OS

•4-5

CQ

d

o

• 44

CO

•44

>

<

ft

o-B-S

^ d ^ 2

S*'" S ®

.£>»•.©

CO © CO >

dxj-ti
2 -Ҥ2
::3a'a .
°5S“'3'2 .fe

g-9>.g|s5

.-.CO © F 44

CO ^ 3 3 > d^

2>*9-So1o

bjOm Im rr^ d

030

14 gC5

ft*"^ .44 d >-• d *-•

g o.§5p=te&H

^ I- ©« -• «» O

157

Table D— 4. — Percentage distribution of amount of public and private assistance and earnings under specified Federal

work programs, by urban area, 1939

Geographic division, State,
and urban area '

Total
public
and
private
funds s

Total

G

Total

Total _ _ _

100.0

99.2

25.9

New England

Connecticut:

Bridgeport . . .

100.0

98.9

25.0

Hartford _ _

100.0

94.5

23.9

New Britain . . . .

100.0

99. 5

15.3

New Haven _

100.0

98.5

26.9

Maine: Portland _

100.0

98.5

20.9

Massachusetts:

Boston.. . . . .

100.0

97.2

17.5

Brockton _ _ _

100.0

98.3

15.3

Cambridge.. . .

100.0

98.9

27.8

Fall River _ _

100.0

99.9

16.3

Lawrence _

100.0

99.4

13.4

Lowell _

100.0

99.5

17.8

Lynn _ _

100.0

99.0

19.1

Malden _ _ _

100.0

100.0

33.6

New Bedford _

100.0

99.5

21.2

Newton _ _

100.0

98.1

35. 2

Springfield _ _ _

100.0

99.1

28.7

Worcester _

100.0

99.3

32.7

Rhode Island: Providence _

100.0

98.7

33.9

Middle Atlantic

New Jersey:

Jersey City _ _

100.0

99.9

31.9

Newark _ _

100.0

99.8

39.1

Trenton _ _

100.0

99.1

31.5

New York:

Albany . .

100.0

98.5

31.1

Buffalo _ _

100.0

99.2

55.8

New Rochelle _

100.0

99.6

64.3

New York _ _ _ _

100.0

98.8

33.6

Niagara Falls _

100.0

99.1

50.4

Rochester _

100.0

99.6

56.5

Syracuse _ ...

100.0

99.3

49.2

Utica _ _

100.0

98.6

35.4

Yonkers _ _

100.0

99.4

38.1

Pennsylvania:

Allentown _ _ .

100.0

99.7

20.0

Altoona.. _ _

100.0

100.0

26.7

Bethlehem _

100.0

99.7

16.9

Chester _

100.0

99.4

22.8

Erie _

100.0

100.0

28.3

Johnstown... _ _

100.0

99.9

25.1

Philadelphia _ _ _

100.0

99.0

55.1

Pittsburgh _ _ _

100.0

99.4

41.0

Reading _ _

100.0

99.7

28.3

Scranton _ _ _

100. 0

99.7

35.5

Wilkes-Barre _ _

100.0

99.9

36.9

North Central

Illinois:

Chicago _ _

100.0

99.2

30.5

Springfield _

100.0

99.2

16.5

Indiana:

Evansville.. _ ...

100.0

99.8

12.1

Fort Wayne _

100.0

99.1

11.9

Indianapolis _

100.0

99.0

13.3

South Bend _

100.0

99.9

16.6

Terre Haute.. . .

100.0

99.7

6.6

Iowa:

Des Moines.. . .

100.0

99.8

13.1

Sioux City _ _ _ _

100.0

99.7

29.1

Kansas:

Kansas City _ _

100.0

99.9

8.9

Topeka . . .

100.0

99.0

8.8

Wichita _

100.0

99.6

25.7

Michigan:

Detroit _ _

100.0

99.6

18.7

Flint _

100.0

99.9

17.2

Grand Rapids _

100.0

99.9

9. 2

Pontiac _ _ _

100.0

99.9

13.6

Saginaw _

100.0

99.6

14.8

Minnesota:

Duluth _ _

100.0

99.3

23.1

Minneapolis _ _

100.0

99.5

27.8

St. Paul. . . .

100.0

99.4

27.5

Missouri:

Kansas City _ _

100.0

98.8

9.4

St. Louis _ _ _

100.0

98.8

8.3

See footnotes at end of table.

Public funds

General relief s

Direct
relief ‘

Work
relief *

Civil
Works
Pro¬
gram «

Earnings under
Federal work
programs

Special types of public assistance ’

Private

ijects
rated
the
PA 6

Total

Old-age

assist¬

ance

Aid to
depend¬
ent

children

Aid to
the
blind

55.9

17.4

12.2

4.5

0.7

0.8

58.5

16.4

12.5

2.7

.2

1.1

49. 6

21.0

18.2

2.5

.3

5.5

69. 1

15.1

12.1

2.8

.2

.5

52.5

19.1

16.0

2.8

.3

1.5

55.3

22.3

17.4

3.7

1.2

1.6

57.3

22.4

14.4

7.7

.3

2.8

55.1

27.9

24.3

3.4

.2

1.7

50.5

20.6

14.3

6.0

.3

1.1

61.4

22.2

18.1

3.8

.3

.1

59.0

27.0

23.9

2.8

.3

.6

58.8

22.9

18.3

4.4

.2

.5

50.2

29.7

26.0

3.5

.2

1.0

37.5

28.9

24.1

4.6

.2

C)

49.6

28.7

24.8

3.6

.3

.5

36.4

26.5

17.8

8.6

.1

1.9

44.8

25.6

20.0

5.4

.2

.9

43.9

22.7

17.5

5.0

.2

.7

47.7

17.1

12.5

4.5

.1

1.3

57.8

10.2

5.2

4.8

.2

.1

50.9

9.8

4.6

6.0

.2

.2

52.7

14.9

8.1

6.6

.3

.9

54.1

13.3

9.9

3.0

.4

1.5

33.0

10.4

6.0

4.2

.2

.8

15.3

20.0

11.0

8.9

.1

.4

52.0

13.2

6.7

6.3

.2

w 1.2

35.0

13.7

7.3

6.3

.1

.9

22.3

20.8

14.8

6.7

.3

.4

33.5

16.6

12.3

4.1

.2

.7

38.4

24.8

17.1

7.5

.2

1.4

47.2

• 14.1

7.2

6.8

.1

.6

66.3

13.4

8. 1

3.3

2.0

.3

68.1

15.2

8.8

4.6

1.8

69.1

13.7

7.8

4.0

1.9

.3

59.3

17.3

10.0

4.9

2.4

.6

5^5

17.2

11.4

3.8

2.0

(»)

61.2

13.6

7.0

6.2

1.4

.1

28.4

15.5

7.8

6.1

1.6

1.0

47.2

11.2

6.3

3.9

1.0

.6

57.3

14.1

9.2

2.6

2.3

.3

65.0

9.2

4.9

3.3

1.0

.3

64.7

8.3

4.1

3.2

1.0

.1

56.0

12.7

11.1

.8

.8

.8

67.1

15.6

13.5

.6

1.5

.8

71.1

16.6

10.7

5.5

.4

.2

64.1

23.1

14.5

8.1

.5

.9

64.8

20.9

13.0

7.3

.6

1.0

65.8

17.5

11.1

6.1

.3

.1

74.0

19.1

13.8

4.7

.6

.3

67.7

19.0

17.2

.8

1.0

.2

48.4

22.2

19.3

2.1

.8

.3

77.1

13.9

9.0

4.4

.6

.1

69.5

20.7

13.5

6.4

.8

1.0

47.5

26.4

17.9

7.7

.8

.4

66.7

14.2

6.0

8.1

.1

.4

63.1

19.6

13.9

6.6

.1

.1

67.9

22.8

17.5

6.1

.2

.1

64.3

22.0

14.0

7.8

.2

.1

61.4

23.4

14.8

8.4

.2

.4

56.8

19.4

14.7

4.4

.3

.7

48.9

22.8

19.3

3.2

.3

.6

54.8

17.1

14.0

2.8

.3

.6

69.6

19.8

17.6

1.1

1.2

0 1.2

76.6

14.9

11.8

2.1

1.0

1.2

158

Table D-4. — Percentage distribution of amount of public and private assistance and earnings under specified Federal

work programs, by urban area, 1959— Continued

Geographic division, State,
and urban area i

Public funds

North Central— Con.

Nebraska: Omaha _

Ohio:

Akron _

Canton _

Cincinnati _

Cleveland _

Columbus . . .

Dayton _

Springfield -

Toledo _ _

Youngstown _

Wisconsin:

Kenosha _

Madison _

Milwaukee _

Racine _

Total
public
and
private
funds ’

South Atlantic and
South Central

Alabama:

Birmingham -

Mobile _

Delaware: V/ilmington _

Dist. of Col.: Washington —
Florida:

Jacksonville _

Miami _

Georgia: Atlanta- -

Kentucky: Louisville -

Louisiana:

New Orleans _

Shreveport -

Maryland: Baltimore -

North Carolina:

Asheville _

Charlotte _

Greensboro -

Winston-Salem -

Oldahoma: Tulsa -

South Carolina: Charleston.
Tennessee:

Knoxville -

Memphis _

Nashville _

Texas:

Dallas -

El Paso _

Fort Worth _

Houston _

San Antonio _

Virginia:

Norfolk _

Richmond -

Roanoke _

West Virginia: Huntington.

Mountain and Pacific
California:

Los Angeles -

Oakland _

Sacramento _

San Diego -

San Francisco -

Colorado: Denver -

Oregon: Portland -

Utah: Salt Lake City -

Washington:

Seattle -

Tacoma - -

Total

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

ICO.O

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

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

General relief ’

Total

98.4

99.7

100.0

98.8
99.1
99.7
99.7

100.0

99.9
99.9

99.9

99.9

99.5

99.6

100.0

99.6
98.2
97.9

99.7
97. 1
99.0
97.9

99.0

99.6

97.8

100.0

99.4

99.9

95.6

97.1

99.7

99.7

98.8

99.2

98.7

99.5

99.9
99.0

98.6

99. 1

96.3
100.0

99.6

99.6

99.8

99.4

99.9
99.0
99.6
99.6

99.5

99.3

100.0

1.6

10.1

10.4
20.1
14. 5

13.2
19.0

7.8

11.9

11.1

16.4

11.5
23.7

24.3

1. 1
.8
18.7

5.6

1.6
3.5
2.9

12 6.6

3.4
14.3
25. 5

2.4

5.7

2.4

4.8

4.5

1.9

8.

Earnings under
Federal work
programs

Direct
relief *

Work
relief *

Civil

W orks c
Pro¬
gram 2

]

i,

)

_

by the
WPA «

Special types of public assistance '

Total

Old-age

assist¬

ance

Aid to
depend¬
ent

children

Aid to
the
blind

Private
funds *

76.9

19.9

13.6

5.9

0.4

1.6

80.6

9.0

7.3

1.6

.2

.3

69.4

20. 2

17.1

2.7

.4

(•)

60.0

18.7

15.4

2.9

.4

1.2

76.3

8.3

5.5

2.6

.2

.9

66.0

20.5

17.7

2.1

.7

.3

59.3

21.4

18.6

2.4

.4

.3

33. 9

30. 5

2.6

.8

75.1

12.9

11.1

1.4

. 4

.1

76.2

12.6

9.7

2.3

.6

.1

64.5

19.0

10.6

7.7

.7

.1

62.6

25.8

17.0

8.4

.4

.1

61.6

14.2

9.0

4.8

.4

.5

54.4

20.9

11.9

8.6

.4

.4

92.1

6.8

3.6

3.0

.2

(•)

90.8

8.0

6.4

1.5

.1

.4

64.9

14.6

9.3

5.3

1.8

75.7

16.6

10.8

5.1

.7

2.1

82.6

15.5

12.6

2.1

.8

.3

62.4

31.2

23.9

5.8

1.5

2.9

89.2

6.9

3.7

2.9

.3

1.0

78.1

13.2

10.3

2.9

H2. 1

82.2

13.4

5.6

7.4

.4

1.0

33.9

51.4

26.5

24.1

.8

.4

31.5

40.8

20.2

19.4

1.2

2.2

84.6

13.0

8.8

3.5

.7

68.2

25.5

17.3

6.7

1.5

.6

71.5

26.0

17.4

7.2

1.4

.1

74. 1

16.7

11.3

4.6

.8

4.4

47.8

44.8

36.4

7.3

1.1

2.9

88.3

9.5

6.3

2.8

,4

.3

75.8

21.5

11.0

10.0

.5

.3

74.9

20.7

13.5

6. 1

1. 1

1.2

74.3

23.4

14.6

7.7

1.1

.8

67.4

25.6

25.2

.3

1.3

85 6

la «

13. 8

. 5

73 2

?.0 9.

20 2

.1

68 3

?19 F,

22. 5

1.0

79 1

IQ ft

19. 6

1.4

83. 1

9.6

7.3

1.5

.8

.9

73.3

7.6

6.2

.9

.5

3.7

76. 1

15.5

12.0

2.3

1.2

86.5

9.2

5.8

3.0

.4

.4

34.9

3.5.6

29.6

3.4

2.6

.4

54.5

23.6

18.3

3.6

1.7

.2

36.1

44.4

35.7

6.3

2.4

.6

39.0

37.9

32.7

3.6

1.6

. 1

54.2

22.0

17.9

2.8

1.3

1.0

38.5

51.8

44.6

6. 7

.6

.4

56.7

28.8

24.9

3.1

.8

. 4

52.5

31.8

22.6

8.9

.3

18. 5

53.3

31.4

26.7

3.8

.9

•7

64. 5

27.2

22.4

4.2

.6

1

1 See aoD. A for the territory included in each urban area. Percentages
based on figures which relate to territory other than that shown for the area

*°2^FiSu^s^on wUch*^these percentages are based exclude cost of administr^
tion; of materials, equipment, and other items incident to operation of work

’^^i'igurl's^on which \heL°percentages are based include statutory aid to
veterans administered on basis of need.

2 Figures not available.

« f£s fmm Hil^WPA, Division of Statistics, on which these percentages

are based represent earnings of persons employed on projects operated by the
WPA wltXIhese areas! figures are not available for earnings of persons
employed on projects other than those operated by the WPA.

States with plans approved by the Social Security Board and for areas in

States not participating under the Social Security Act.

* Figures on which these percentages are based include direct and work re¬
lief and aid to veterans.

2 Less than 0.1 percent. . i •

12 Figure on which this percentage is based is more inclusive than those
published for 1929-38 in that it contains an estimate for annuai expendi¬
tures of 30 agencies unable to report monthly flgiires.

11 At the beginning of 1939 reporting area was changed from city to county.

■2 Figure on which this percentage is based relates to city.

12 Figure on which this percentage is based is incomplete since data not ob¬
tainable for 1 relief program.

159

Table Percentage distribution of amount of public and private assistance and earnings under specified

Federal work programs, by urban area, 1940

Public funds

Geographic division, State,
and urban area i

Total

public

and

General relief *

Earnings under Fed¬
eral Work programs

Special types of public assistance »

Private

private
funds >

Total

Total

Direct
relief *

Work
relief ‘

Civil
Works
Program *

Projects
operated
by the
WPA «

Total

Old-age

assistance

Aid to de¬
pendent
children

Aid to the
blind

Total _ _

100.0

99.0

26.5

49.1

23.4

16.6

5.9

0.9

1.0

New England

Connecticut:

Bridgeport _

100.0

98.6

25.7

49. 1

23.8

19.6

3.9

.3

1.4

Hartford . . . .

100.0

95.1

36.1

34.8

21.2

21.2

2.6

.4

4.9

New Britain _

100.0

99.1

13.6

62. 2

23.3

19.2

3.9

.2

.9

New Haven . .

100.0

98.6

26.6

48. 7

23.3

20.0

2.9

.4

1.6

Maine: Portland . .

100.0

98.8

18.1

66. 1

24.6

19.2

4 2

1.2

1.2

Massachusetts:

Boston . . . .

100.0

97.0

18.7

60.4

27.9

17. 7

9.9

.3

3.0

Brockton _ _ _

100.0

98.4

19.2

45.9

33.3

29.0

4. 1

.2

1.6

Cambridge.. . .

100.0

98.8

31.2

41.2

26.4

17.3

8.8

.3

1.2

Fall River _

100.0

99.9

28.1

45.7

26. 1

21.3

4.5

.3

.1

Lawrence _

100.0

99.4

20.4

49. 7

29.3

25.6

3.4

.3

.6

Lowell . .

100.0

99.3

21.2

60. 5

27. 6

22.4

4.9

.3

.7

Lynn . . . .

100.0

98.9

20.6

45.5

32. 8

28.5

4.0

.3

1.1

Malden.. _ _

100.0

99.9

30.6

38. 1

31.2

25. 5

5. 5

.2

.1

New Bedford _ ...

100.0

99.5

18.9

46.8

33.8

28.9

4.6

.3

.6

Newton . .

100.0

97.8

32.5

31.0

34.3

23.7

10.4

. 2

2.2

Springfield _

100.0

99.3

28.0

39.0

32.3

25. 1

7.0

.2

.7

Worcester... . .

100.0

99.1

30.6

38.4

30. 1

23.2

6.7

.2

.9

Rhode Island: Providence _

100.0

98.7

33.0

48.2

17.5

13.0

4.4

. 1

1.3

Middle Atlantic

New Jersey:

Jersey City _ _

100.0

99.8

39.3

41. 1

19.4

9.7

9.3

.4

.2

Newark . . . .

100.0

99.6

40.1

45.8

13. 7

6. 7

6.7

.3

.4

Trenton _

100.0

98.9

24.5

54. 9

19.5

10.7

8.3

.6

1.1

New York:

Albany _

100.0

98.3

35.3

41.9

21. 1

15.5

4.9

.7

1.7

Buffalo.. . . .

100.0

98.9

63.6

31.4

13.9

8.6

5.0

,3

1. 1

New Rochelle _

100.0

99.4

61.5

14. 1

23.8

13.9

9.9

.6

New York _ _

100.0

98.7

37.0

45. 1

16.6

9.3

7.0

.3

• 1.3

Niagara Falls _

100.0

98.9

55.5

24.4

19.0

10.1

8.7

.2

1.1

Rochester . . .

100.0

99.4

53.5

19.9

26.0

19. 2

6.4

.4

.6

Syracuse ■». _ _

100.0

99.2

46.9

30. 2

22.1

17. 1

4. 7

.3

.8

Utica. . . . .

100.0

98.4

40.6

28.4

29. 5

20. 6

8. 7

.2

1

Yonkers. _ _

100.0

99.3

43.2

39. 1

17.0

8.7

8. 1

. 2

.7

Pennsylvania:

Allentown _

100.0

99.5

12.8

64. 9

21.8

12.6

6.0

3. 2

.6

Altoona _ _ _

100.0

100.0

15.3

62. 6

22. 1

11. 5

8. 2

2 4

(»)

.3

Bethlehem... . . .

100.0

99.7

13.0

66. 1

20.6

12. 0

6.0

2.6

Chester _

100.0

99.2

13.5

58.4

49.3

27.3

15. 2

8.7
8. 4

3.4

2 8

.8

(“)

.1

Erie _ _

100.0

100.0

22.0

28. 7

17. 5

Johnstown _

100.0

99.9

18.5

58. 9

22.5

10.8

9. 5

2. 2

Philadelphia _

100.0

99.0

42.1

32.0

24.9

12.2

10. 9

1 8

1.0

Pittsburgh... . .

100.0

99.4

33.0

48.0

18.4

9. 9

7. 2

1.3

.6

Reading _ _

100.0

99.6

15.6

66. 0

18.0

11.3

4. 1

2.6

.4

Scranton. _ _

100.0

99.6

41.9

42.0

15. 7

8. 1

6 3

1.3

1.4

.4

Wilkes-Barre _

100.0

99.9

38.9

45.6

15.5

7.4

6.7

.1

North Central

Hlinois:

Chicago _ _ _

100.0

98.9

33.2

48.8

60.7

54.5

55.6

54.7

54.2

61.3

62.8

43.8

68.1

68.5
39.7

56.6
60.0

54.6

53.2

66.2

50.9

47. 1

45.4

61.2

66.4

68.4

16.9
19. 9

15.0

17.9

1.0

.7

.9

1.3

. 5

1. 1

Springfield . .

100.0

99.2

18.6

.8

Indiana:

Evansville _

100.0

99.7

21.0

24 2

15.3

8.4

.3

Fort Wayne _

100.0

99.1

12.7

30 8

20 4

9. 8

. 6

.9

Indianapolis.. _

100.0

99.0

13.7

30. 6

19 4

10 2

1. 0

1.0

South Bend _

100.0

99.8

19.9

25. 7

16. 7

8 6

.4

.2

Terre Haute _

100.0

99.6

9.9

28.4

21.3

20.1

19.3
22.8

12.5

14.7

19.6

7.6

17.8

24.3
22.0

18.4

16.3
22.2

16.9

22.0

16.4
17.2

7 6

. 7

. 4

Iowa:

Des Moines . .

100.0

99.8

15.7

.8

2.2

5.9

6.0

8.6

10.3
8.8
6.6

11.2

11.6

5.8

4.3
4.3

2.5

4.5
8.0

1.2

.9

. 7

.2

Sioux City _ ._

100 0

99.7

30.0

25 9

.3

Kansas:

Kansas City _ _ _

100.0

99. 9

12. 7

19. 1

. 1

Topeka _ _

100.0

99.1

9.0

21.6
29 1

9

.9

.3

Wichita . .

100.0

99.7

30.9

.9

Michigan:

Detroit _ _

100.0

99.5

24.8

18.1

26.8

31.3

33.5

30.3

22.5
26.9

21.7

25.7
22.0
25.7

J5

Flint . . . .

100.0

100.0

13.2

.-2

(”>

.1

.1

4

Grand Rapids _

100.0

99.9

14.0

4

Pontiac _ _

100.0

99.9

13.2

.-3

Saginaw. . . ..

100.0

99.6

13.1

3

Minnesota:

Duluth _

100.0

99.3

25.9

4

7

Minneapolis _ _

100.0

99.4

25.4

4

7

St. Paul _

100.0

99.3

32.2

5

Missouri:

Kansas City . . . .

100.0

98.7

11.8

1.2

1.1

.5

1.3

1.6

1.9

St. Louis. . .

100.0

98.5

10.1

Nebraska: Omaha _ .

100.0

98.1 1

4.0 1 . 1

See footnotes at end of table.

160

X

Table D-5. Percentage distribution of amount of public and private assistance and earnings under specified

tederal work programs, by urban area, 1940 — Continued

Geographic division. State,
and urban area i

Total
public
and
private
funds >

Public

Total

General relief *

Earnings u
eral work

Total

Direct
relief <

Work
relief ‘

Civil
Works
Program «

Nokth Central — Con.

Ohio:

Akron . . . .

100.0

99.6

13.9

Canton _ _

100.0

99.9

10.4

Cincinnati _

100.0

98.5

24.2

Cleveland _ _

100.0

98.6

22.5

Columbus .

100.0

99.7

15. 1

Dayton. _ _

100.0

99.7

20.0

Springfield— .

100.0

99.4

6.6

Toledo _ _

100.0

99.9

12.4

Youngstown _

100.0

99.8

14.0

Wisconsin:

Kenosha _ _

100.0

99.9

24 3

Madison _ _ _

100.0

99.9

15.9

Milwaukee . .

100.0

99.4

27.9

Racine . . . .

100.0

99.5

24. 7

South Atlantic and

South Central

Alabama:

Birmingham... . .

100.0

99.9

1 Q

Mobile . . . .

100.0

99.6

.8

Delaware: Wilmington _

100.0

98.3

15.4

Dist. of Col.: Washington.. ..

100.0

97.9

6.7

Florida:

Jacksonville . .

100.0

99.7

1.9

Miami _ _

100.0

95.2

4 f\

Georgia: Atlanta n _

100.0

98.7

4.6

Kentucky: Louisville _

100.0

97.8

8.9

Louisiana:

New Orleans _

100.0

98.9

5. 4

Shreveport _ _

100.0

99.6

15.2

Maryland: Baltimore.. .

100.0

98.0

22. 1

North Carolina:

Asheville _ _ _

100.0

100.0

2. 5

Charlotte _ _

100.0

99.4

' 6.0

Greensboro _

100.0

99.9

3.0

W inston-Salem . .

100.0

96.7

6.8

Oklahoma: Tulsa _ _

100.0

97. 1

2.8

South Carolina: Charleston...

100.0

99.7

1.5

Tennessee:

Knoxville _ .

100.0

100.0

1.6

Memphis _

100.0

98.5

1.0

Nashville _ _

100.0

98.6

1. 2

Texas:

Dallas _

100.0

98.7

6. 1

El Paso _

100.0

99.6

. 3

Fort Worth _ _

100.0

99.9

4. 5

Houston .

100.0

98.8

7.4

San Antonio _

100.0

98.7

Virginia:

Norfolk. _ _ _

100.0

98.8

4. 1

Richmond _ ..

100.0

96.8

9. 0

Roanoke. . . .

100.0

100.0

8. 6

West Virginia: Huntington...

100.0

99.5

6.6

Mountain and Pacific

California:

Los Angeles... _

100.0

99.6

25. 9

Oakland . . . .

100.0

99. 7

16. 9

Sacramento _

100.0

99.4

12.0

San Diego _ .

100.0

99.9

16. 4

San Francisco _ _

100.0

98. 7

19. 9

Colorado: Denver . . .

100.0

99.6

9.0

Oregon: Portland _

100.0

99.7

15. 5

Utah: Salt Lake City... .

100.0

99.5

15.9

Washington:

Seattle... . .

100.0

99.4

14.0

Tacoma

100.0

100.0

7. 2

Projects
operated
by the
WPA«

72.7

68.0

49.6
62.9

56.4

49.3

52.5
66.0

64.7

48.2

62.6

61.7

42.5

87.3

91.3
66.1
75.0

79.1

55.3

84.6

71.2

74.6

28.5

36.2

80.9

68.0

68.3

71.2

40.8

89.9

76.3

70.4

67.6

67.4
88.3
76. 1
69.0

77.8

78.6

76.1

65.2

78.9

29.0

61.5

34.2

34.2

47.7

36.2

61.8
47.1

47.8

60.3

Special types of public assistance i

Private

funds •

Total

Old-age

assistance

Aid to de¬
pendent
children

Aid to the
blind

13.0

11.0

1.8

0.2

0.4

31.5

27.3

3.6

.6

. 1

24.7

20.6

3.6

.5

1. 5

13.2

9.1

3.8

.3

1.4

28.2

24.8

2.6

.9

.3

30.4

27.2

2.7

.5

.3

41.3

37.4

3.0

.9

.6

21.5

18.7

2.2

.6

.1

21.1

16.5

3.6

1.0

.2

27.4

16.3

10.3

.8

.1

31.4

19.9

11.0

.5

.1

19.8

13.3

6.0

.5

.6

32.3

18.9

12.8

.6

.6

10.7

5.2

5.3

.2

.1

7.5

6.9

1.5

. 1

.4

16.8

10.6

6.2

1.7

16.2

11.0

4. 5

.7

2.1

18.7

14.8

2.9

1.0

.3

35.3

25.5

8.2

1.6

4.8

9.5

5.6

3.6

‘ .4

1.3

17.7

13.6

4. 1

2. 2

18.9

7.5

10.8

.6

1. 1

65.9

28.3

26.5

1.1

.4

39.7

21.1

17.4

1.2

2.0

16.6

10.9

6.0

.7

26.4

17.5

7.5

1.4

.6

28.6

18.0

9.2

1.4

.1

18.7

12.0

6.9

.8

3.3

63.5

42.3

9.8

1.4

2.9

8.3

6.4

2.5

.4

.3

22. 1

10.1

11.6

.4

27.1

17.4

8.6

1.1

1.5

29.8

17.5

11.3

1.0

1.4

26.2

26.0

.2

1.3

10.9

10.9

.6

19.3

19.3

. 1

22.4

22.4

1 9.

20.9

20.9

1.3

16.1

10.7

4.5

.9

1.2

11.7

7.6

3.5

.6

3.2

26. 2

17.3

7.3

1.6

14.0

8.8

4.6

.6

.6

44.7

37.8

4.0

2.9

.4

31.3

25. 1

4.2

2.0

.3

63.2

43.7

7. 1

2.4

.6

49.3

42.4

4.9

2.0

.1

31. 1

26.0

3.5

1.6

1.3

64.4

46.6

7.3

.6

.4

32.4

27.4

4.2

.8

.3

36.5

25.1

11.0

.4

H.5

37.6

31.6

4.9

1.1

.6

32.5

27.0

4.8

.7

I See app. A for the territory included in each urban area. Percentages
based on figures which relate to territory other than that shown for the area
in app. A are footnoted.

» Figures on which these percentages are based exclude cost of adminis¬
tration; of materials, equipment, and other items incident to operation of
work programs; and of transient care. Figures on which percentages for
assistance programs are based differ from those published for previous years
in that they include obligations incurred for burials, in addition to obliga¬
tions incurred for money payments, assistance in kind, medical care, and
hosp^italization.

* Figures on which these percentages are based include statutory aid to
veterans administered on basis of need. See also footnote 2.

‘ Figures not available.

« Terminated in 1934.

• Figures from the WPA', Division of Statistics, on which these percentages
are based represent earnings of persons employed on projects operated by

the WPA within these areas; figures are not available for earnings of persons
employed on projects other than those operated by the WPA.

’’ Figures on which these percentages are based include data for areas in
States with plans approved by the Social Security Board and for areas in
States not participating under the Social Security Act. See also footnote 2.

* Figures on which these percentages are based include direct and work
relief and aid to veterans. See also footnote 2.

* Figure on which this percentage is based is more inclusive than those
published for 1929-38 in that it contains an estimate for annual expenditures
of 30 agencies unable to report monthly figures.

10 At the beginning of 1939 reporting area was changed from city to county.

11 Less than 0.1 percent.

» At the beginning of 1940 reporting area was changed to Fulton County
and all De Kalb County.

11 Figure on which this percentage is based is incomplete since data not
obtainable for 1 relief program.

161

Table D— 6. — Amount per inhabitant * of public and private assistance and earnings under specified Federal work

programs, by urban area, 1939

Geographic division, State,
and urban area >

Total
public
and
private
funds ’

Total

Total

Median ic.. . .

$23. 36

$23. 05

$3. 91

New England

Connecticut:

Bridgeport _ _

19.43

19.22

4. 85

Hartford _

19. 61

18. 53

4.68

New Britain _

16.59

16. 51

2. 55

New Haven . .

22.64

22.30

6. 10

Maine: Portland . . .

16. 46

16. 22

3. 45

Massachusetts:

Boston _ _

43.42

42. 22

7.60

Brockton _

44.78

44. 01

6. 83

Cambridge _

31.39

31.04

8. 72

Fall River _ _

32. 02

31.99

6. 22

Lawrence _ _

25.94

25.78

3. 47

Lowell _ _

41.59

41.36

7.39

Lynn . . . .

34.74

34. 38

6. 64

Malden _ _ _

25.92

25. 91

8.70

New Bedford _

33.50

33.32

7.11

Newton.. . . . .

16. 83

16.52

5. 92

Springfield. . .

30.50

30.22

8. 76

Worcester. .

30.86

30.64

10.08

Rhode {Island: Providence _

21.06

20.79

7. 15

Middle Atlantic

New Jersey:

Jersey City . .

19.56

19.54

6.24

Newark . . ...

35. 13

35. 04

13.73

Trenton _

20.20

20.01

6. 35

New York:

Albany _

13.62

13.42

4.24

Buffalo . . . . .

24. 21

24.01

13.52

New Rochelle _ ..

20.89

20.80

13. 43

New York _ ..

32.24

31.86

10. 83

Niagara Falls _ _

17. 43

17.27

8.78

Rochester _

27. 07

26.97

15. 31

Syracuse 12 _ _

22. 65

22. 49

11.15

Utica _ _

21.68

21.37

7. 68

Yonkers _

24. 79

24.64

9. 45

Pennsvlvania:

Allentown _

18.05

17. 99

3. 61

Altoona _ _

28. 71

28.70

7. 65

Bethlehem . .

20.20

20.14

3.41

Chester . . .

11.90

11.83

2. 71

Erie _ ...

26.00

26.00

7. 35

Johnstown _

28. 95

28.93

7.27

Philadelphia... . .

27. 47

27.20

15. 13

Pittsburgh _

31.15

30.97

12.78

Reading _

20. 03

19.96

5. 67

Scranton.. .

40. 65

40. 52

14. 43

Wilkes-Barre...

36. 51

36.47

13. 49

Noetii Central

Illinois:

Chicago.. _ _

28.40

28.16

8. 67

Springfield . . .

28.81

28.68

4. 75

Indiana:

Evansville _

34. 33

34.27

4. 17

Fort Wayne _ ..

20. 34

20.17

2. 43

Indianapolis... .

25.74

25. 49

3. 43

South Bend .

23.55

23. 52

3. 91

Terre Haute.. . .

42.65

42. 43

2.79

Iowa:

Des Moines _

30.85

30.77

4. 03

Sioux City _

24.09

24.01

7.01

Kansas:

Kansas City. ...

25. 41

25.38

2.25

Topeka _

16. 16

16.00

1.43

Wichita _

17.61

17. 46

4.50

Michigan:

Detroit _ _

25.86

25.76

4.83

Flint... _ _

21.65

21.64

3.73

Grand Rapids _

29. 16

29. 12

2.68

Pontiac _

16.97

16.96

2.31

Saginaw _ _

18.86

18.78

2. 79

Minnesota:

Duluth _ _ .

44.25

43.95

10.24

Minneapolis _

33.28

33. 12

9. 27

St. Paul _

32.24

32.03

8.85

Missouri:

Kansas City...... .

23. 16

22.82

2.18

St. Louis _

19.67

19. 43

1.64

Nebraska: Omaha _

26.96

26.53

.42

Public funds

General relief <

Earnings under Fed¬
eral work programs

Special types of public assistance *

Private

Direct
relief ‘

Work
relief •

Civil
Works
Program *

Projects
operated
by the
WPA 1

Total

Old-age

assistance

Aid to de¬
pendent
children

Aid to the
blind

lUIiUS ’

$13. 10

$4.15

$2.78

$1.01

$0. 10

$0. 13

11.37

3.00

2. 44

.53

.03

.21

9.72

4.13

3. 58

.50

.05

1.08

11.47

2. 49

2.00

.47

.02

.08

11.88

4. 32

3.63

.62

.07

.34

9. 10

3. 67

2.86

.61

.20

.24

24. 89

9. 73

6. 27

3.34

.12

1.20

24.66

12. 52

10.90

1.53

.09

.77

15. 86

6. 46

4. 47

1.89

.10

.35

19.66

7. 11

5. 78

1.23

.10

.03

15.30

7.01

6. 19

.75

.07

.16

24. 44

9.53

7. 61

1.83

.09

.23

17. 44

10.30

9. 02

1.20

.08

.36

9. 71

7.50

6.26

1. 18

.06

.01

16.61

9.60

8. 32

1.19

.09

.18

6. 13

4. 47

3.00

1.45

.02

.31

13. 65

7. 81

6. 10

1.65

.06

.28

13.56

7.00

5. 42

1.53

.05

.22

10. 04

3.60

2.64

.94

.02

.27

11.30

2.00

1.01

.95

.04

.02

17. 88

3. 43

1.61

1.76

.06

.09

10. 65

3. 01

1.63

1.32

.06

.19

7. 37

1.81

1.35

.40

.06

.20

7.98

2. 51

1.46

1.00

.05

.20

3.20

4.17

2. 30

1.86

.01

.09

16. 77

4. 26

2. 16

2. 04

.06

».38

6. 10

2. 39

1.28

1.09

.02

.16

6. 04

5. 62

4.00

1.53

.09

.10

7.59

3. 75

2.79

.92

.04

.16

8. 32

5.37

3.70

1.63

.04

.31

11.70

3. 49

1. 79

1.67

.03

.15

11.97

2. 41

1.45

.59

.37

.06

16.69

4. 36

2. 52

1.31

.53

.01

13.96

2. 77

1.57

.81

.39

.06

7. 06

2. 06

1.20

.58

.28

.07

14. 17

4. 48

2.96

.99

.53

(13)

17. 72

3. 94

2.01

1.52

.41

.02

7. 81

4.26

2. 15

1.68

.43

.27

14. 72

3.47

1.94

1.21

.32

.18

11.47

2. 82

1.84

.52

.46

.07

22.37

3.72

2.00

1.31

.41

.13

19. 96

3.02

1.49

1.15

.38

.04

15. 89

3.60

3. 14

.24

.22

.24

19.34

4. 49

3.89

.17

.43

.23

24.40

5.70

3. 67

1.88

.15

.06

13.04

4.70

2.94

1.65

.11

.17

16. 67

5. 39

3. 33

1.89

.17

.25

15.49

4. 12

2. 62

1.43

.07

.03

31.51

8.13

5.87

2. 02

.24

.12

20. 89

5.85

5. 31

.24

.30

.08

11.67

5.33

4.64

.51

.18

.08

19.60

3. 53

2.29

1.12

.12

.03

11.23

3. 34

2. 18

1.03

.13

.16

8. 32

4.63

3.14

1.35

.14

.06

17.26

3. 67

1.54

2. 10

.03

.10

13.66

4. 25

3.00

1.22

.03

.01

19.80

6.64

5. 10

1.47

.07

.04

10.92

3.73

2. 37

1.33

.03

.01

11.58

4. 41

2.80

1.57

.04

.08

25.13

8.58

6. 51

1.93

.14

.30

16. 27

7.58

6.41

1.07

.10

.16

17.67

5. 51

4.50

.90

.11

.21

16. 07

4.57

4. 05

.25

.27

1‘.34

14. 87

2.92

2. 32

.41

.19

.24

20.74

5. 37

3. 67

1.59

.11

.43

See footnotes at end of table.

162

Table D— 6. — Amount per inhabitant

of public and private assistance and earnings under specified Federal work

programs, by urban area, 1939 — Continued

Geographic division. State,
and urban area *

Total
public
and
private
funds 3

Total

Gei

Total

North Central— Con.

Ohio:

Akron, . .

$36.99

$36. 89

$3. 74

Canton _

23. 99

23.99

2. 49

Cincinnati. . _

23. 56

23. 27

4. 74

Cleveland. _

40. 84

40. 46

5. 93

Columbus _ _

27.32

27. 25

3. 62

Dayton . .

24.69

24. 52

4. 69

Springfield _ _

22.57

22. 57

1.76

Toledo _ _

38. 91

38. 89

4. 64

Youngstown. _

25. 59

25. 57

2. 84

Wisconsin:

Kenosha _

40. 93

40. 87

6. 71

Madison _ _

25. 27

25. 24

2.90

Milwaukee. _

33. 85

33. 69

8. 02

Racine - - -

28.27

28. 15

6. 87

South Atlantic and South

Central

Alabama:

Birmingham -

16. 03

16.03

.18

Mobile _

10. 83

10.79

.08

Delaware: Wilmington _

12.50

12. 27

2. 34

Dist. of Col: Washington _

14. 36

14. 06

.81

Florida:

Jacksonville _

21.97

21.90

..36

Miami _ _

8.03

7. 80

.28

Georgia: Atlanta _ _

16. 65

16. 48

.48

Kentucky: Louisville . .

10. 12

9. 86

.78

Louisiana:

New Orleans _

26. 72

26. 47

.90

Shreveport _ _

4. 19

4. 17

.60

Maryland: Baltimore.— .

10. 85

10. 62

2.77

North Carolina:

Asheville. - - -

14. 59

14.59

.35

Charlotte _

7.58

7. 53

.43

Greensboro _ _

7. 27

7. 26

. 17

Winston-Salem . .

11.57

11.06

.55

Oklahoma: Tulsa _

14.49

14.07

.65

South Carolina: Charleston—

17.74

17.69

.33

Tennessee:

Knoxville _

10.44

10. 41

.25

Memphis _

10. 73

10. 60

.34

NashvOle _

10.27

10. 19

. 15

Texas:

Dallas _

10. 15

10. 02

.59

El Paso.. _ _

7.76

7. 72

.01

Fort Worth . .

17. 32

17. 30

1. 13

Houston. _ _

7. 50

7. 42

.61

11. 66

11.50

Virginia:

Norfolk _ _

8.02

7. 95

. 61

Richmond. _

10. 05

9. 67

1. 55

Roanoke _ _

5. 24

5.24

.44

West Virginia: Huntington...

22. 31

22.21

.87

Mountain and Pacific

California:

TiO.*? A ngeles ... _

25.60

25.50

7. 44

Oakland _ _

32. 18

32. 10

6. 97

Rflprampnto . .

21. 11

20. 98

3. 98

28. 16

28. 12

6. 49

33. 76

33. 43

7. 72

Pnlnrado* Denver ..

26.50

26. 39

2. 47

Oregon: Portland

22.28

22.20

3. 15

TTfab' Salt Lake City

24. 42

24. 31

3.73

Washington:

Seattle _ _ _ _ _

21.09

20. 94

3.08

Tacoma

29. 47

29. 47

2. 45

Public funds

General relief <

Earnings under Fed¬
eral work programs

Direct
relief '

Work
relief '

Civil
Works
Program ®

Special types of public assistance *

Private

Projects
iperated
by the
WPA7

Total

Old-age

assistance

Aid to de¬
pendent
children

Aid to the
blind

lunas *

$29. 82

$3. 33

$2. 71

$0. 55

$0. 07

$0. 10

16. 66

4. 84

4. 10

.64

.10

(I»)

14. 13

4. 40

3. 62

.68

.10

.29

31. 16

3. 37

2. 23

1. 06

.08

.38

18.02

5.61

4. 85

.57

.19

.07

14. 58

5. 25

4. 56

.59

.10

.07

13. 15

7. 66

6. 89

.58

.19

29. 22

5. 03

4. 32

.56

.15

.02

19.51

3. 22

2. 48

.58

.16

.02

26. 38

7.78

4. 36

3. 15

.27

.06

15. 83

6. 51

4. 29

2. 13

.09

.03

20.87

4.80

3. 04

1. 62

.14

.16

15. 39

5. 89

3. 34

2.44

.11

.12

14. 77

1. 08

.58

.48

.02

(l»)

9. 83

.88

.70

.16

.02

.04

8. 10

1. 83

1. 16

.67

.23

10. 87

2.38

1.54

.74

.10

.30

18. 14

3.40

2. 77

.45

.18

.07

5.01

2.51

1.92

.47

.12

.23

14. 85

1. 15

.62

.48

.05

.17

7. 76

1. 32

1.03

.29

M. 26

21.97

3. 60

1. 51

1. 98

.11

.25

1.42

2. 15

1. 11

1.01

.03

.02

3. 42

4. 43

2.20

2.10

.13

.23

12. 34

1.90

1. 29

.51

.10

5. 17

1.93

1. 31

.51

.11

.05

5.20

1.89

1. 27

.52

.10

.01

8. 58

1.93

1.31

.53

.09

.51

6. 93

6. 49

5.27

1. 06

.16

.42

15. 66

1.70

1. 13

.50

.07

.05

7. 92

2.24

1. 14

1.05

.05

.03

8.03

2.2z

1.45

.66

.12

.13

7. 64

2.40

1.50

.79

.11

.08

6. '84

2. 59

2. 56

.03

.13

6. 64

1.07

1.07

.04

12.68

3.49

3.49

.02

5. 12

1. 69

1. 69

.08

9. 22

2.28

2.28

.16

6. 67

.77

.58

.13

.06

.07

7. 36

.76

.62

.09

.05

.38

3. 99

.81

.63

.12

.06

19.29

2.05

1.29

.68

.08

.10

8. 94

9. 12

7. 57

.88

.67

.10

17. 53

7. 60

5. 89

1. 17

.54

.08

7. 61

9. 39

7.54

1.34

.51

.13

10.97

10. 66

9.20

1. 00

.46

.04

18. 29

7. 42

6. 05

.93

.44

.33

10. 19

13. 73

11.83

1. 77

.13

.11

12. 63

6. 42

5. 56

.69

.17

.08

12. 82

7. 76

5.51

2. 18

.07

I*. 11

11.25

6. 61

5. 62

.80

.19

.15

19. 01

8. 01

6.58

1. 25

.18

1 Based on total population of areas estimated from U. S. censuses of 1930
^ucl 1940

» See app. A for the territory and total population included in each urban
area. Amounts per inhabitant based on figures which relate to territory
other than that shown in app. A are footnoted. _ . ^

3 Excludes cost of administration; of materials, equipment, and otner items
incident to operation of work programs; and of transient care.

1 Includes statutory aid to veterans administered on basis of need.

* Figures not available.

0 Terminated in 1934. . . j

^ Figures from the WPA, Division of Statistics; represent ear^gs of all
persons employed on projects operated by the WPA withm these ^r^s,
figures are not available for earnings of persons employed on projects otner
than those operated hy the WPA.

8 Includes figures lor areas m siaies wiuu ‘juv.ai

Security Board and for areas in States not participatmg under the Social
Security Act. ,

* Includes direct and work relief and aid to veterans.

10 Based on number of areas reporting expenditures for specified type of aid.

11 Figure on which this amount is based is more inclusive than those pub¬
lished for 1929-38 in that it contains an estimate for annual expenditures of
30 agencies unable to report monthly figures.

12 At the beginning of 1939, reporting area was changed from city to county.

13 Less than 1 cent.

u Relates to city. . .... ^ . * k* •

n Figure on which this amount is based is incomplete since data not obtam-

able for 1 relief program.

163

Table l)-7. — Amount per inhabitant ' of public and private assistance and earnings under specified Federal work

programs, by urban area, 1940

Public funds

Geographic division, State,
and urban area *

Total

public

and

General relief *

Earnings
eral work

private
funds *

Total

Total

Direct
relief *

Work
relief ‘

Civil

Works

Program®

Median . .

$19. 15

$19. 03

$3. 56

New England

Connecticut:

Bridgeport _

14. 87

14. 67

3. 82

Hartford _ _ _

19. 02

18. 09

6. 87

New Britain _

12. 03

11.93

1.64

New Haven _ _

20.18

19. 87

5. 35

Maine: Portland _

17. 03

16. 82

3. 07

Massachusetts:

Boston _ _ _

39.64

38. 45

7. 39

Brockton . .

40. 37

39. 73

7. 75

Cambridge _

29. 84

29.47

9. 30

Fall River _

28. 96

28. 93

8.15

Lawrence-- _

25.68

25.53

5. 25

Lowell _ _

37.11

36. 86

7. 86

Lynn . . . ... .. .

33.63

33. 26

6. 94

Malden _ _

26. 56

26. 53

8.13

New Bedford _

30. 47

30. 33

5. 76

Newton _ _ _

14. 38

14. 07

4.68

Springfield _

27.81

27.62

7. 78

Worcester _ _ _ _

26.65

26. 40

8.14

Rhode Island: Providence _

22.13

21.84

7.29

Middle Atlantic

New Jersey:

Jersey City . .

11.29

11.27

4.44

Newark _ _ _

26. 74

26.63

10.72

Trenton . . .

16.20

16. 02

3.98

New York:

Albany . . .

10. 36

10. 19

3.66

Buffalo. - _ . ...

19.08

18. 87

10.23

New Rochelle- .

18. 85

18. 74

11.60

-

New York _

26. 37

26. 03

9.77

Niagara Falls-. . .

13. 91

13. 75

7. 72

Rochester _

23.69

23. 55

12.69

Syracuse _ _ _

18.68

18.52

8.77

Utica . . . .

18.12

17. 84

7.34

Yonkers.. _ _

20.00

19. 86

8.65

Pennsylvania:

Allentown _ _ _

12.70

12.64

1.63

Altoona . . . .

24. 25

24.24

3. 72

Bethlehem _ ..

14.96

14.91

1.94

Chester _

8.70

8.63

1.18

Erie _ _ _

19.58

19. 57

4.31

Johnstown.. _ _

19. 21

19. 19

3.55

Philadelphia. - . .

25.19

21.93

10. 61

Pittsburgh . .

24.38

24. 22

8. 03

Reading . . .

18.88

18.81

2. 95

Scranton _ _ _

34.63

34.49

14. 51

Wilkes-Barre . .

30.02

29. 97

11.68

North Central

Illinois:

Chicago . . .

23. 47

23.22

7. 79

Springfield _

28. 15

27.94

5. 25

Indiana:

Evansville . . . .

25.31

25. 23

5. 32

Fort Wavne.. . .

17.00

16.84

2.16

Indianapolis . . .

18.19

18.00

2.50

South Bend _

17.94

17.90

3. 56

Terre Haute. . . .

34.15

34.01

3.39

Iowa:

Des Moines _

30. 18

30. 12

4. 75

Sioux City _

23. 52

23. 44

7. 05

Kansas:

Kansas City . . .

21.41

21.38

2. 72

Topeka _ _ .• _

16. 95

16.80

1.53

Wichita. . .

18. 67

18.61

5. 76

Michigan:

Detroit _

19.49

19.39

4.84

Flint _ _ _

15. 86

15. 85

2. 09

Grand Rapids. _

20. 65

20. 62

2.89

Pontiac _ _ _

10.61

10.60

1.40

Saginaw _

14.42

14.36

1.89

Minnesota:

Duluth _ _

36.73

36. 46

9.50

Minneapolis _

27.18

27. 03

6. 91

St. Paul _ _

25.25

25.06

8.12

Missouri:

Kansas City _ _ _

19. 53

19.29

2.30

St. Louis... . . .

15. 15

14.92

1.53

Nebraska: Omaha. _ _

23.60 1

23. 15

.94

Special types of public assistance *

Private

Projects
operated
by the
WPA 7

Total

Old-age

assistance

Aid to de¬
pendent
children

Aid to the
blind

lunas •

$10. 01

$4. 49

$3. 02

$1.17

$0. 10

$0.13

7. 30

3. 55

2. 92

.58

.05

.20

6. 62

4.60

4. 04

.49

.07

.93

7. 49

2.80

2.31

.47

.02

.10

9.83

4. 69

4. 03

.58

.08

.31

9.56

4. 19

3. 26

.72

.21

.21

19. 97

11.09

7.03

3. 93

.13

1.19

18. 52

13. 46

11.71

1.66

.09

.64

12.28

7. 89

5.16

2.63

.10

.37

13.23

7. 55

6.15

1.31

.09

.03

12. 76

7. 52

6. 58

.86

.08

■ .15

18. 76

10. 24

8.30

1.84

.10

.25

15. 32

11.00

9.58

1.33

.09

.37

10.11

8.29

6. 78

1.45

.06

.03

14.25

10. 32

8.80

1.41

.11

.14

4. 45

4.94

3. 42

1.49

.03

.31

10. 84

9.00

6. 98

1.94

.08

.19

10.23

8.03

6.18

1.80

.05

.25

10.66

3. 89

2.88

.98

.03

.29

4.64

2.19

1.09

1.05

.05

.02

12.24

3. 67

1.81

1.79

.07

.11

8.89

3.15

1.73

1.34

.08

.18

4. 34

3.19'

1.60

.51

.08

.17

6.00

2.64

1.64

.95

.05

.21

2. 66

4. 48

2. 62

1.86

(»)

.11

11.89

4. 37

2. 45

1.85

.07

H.34

3. 40

2. 63

1.40

1.21

.02

.16

4.71

6.15

4. 54

1.51

.10

.14

5.64

4.11

3. 19

.87

.05

.16

5.14

5. 36

3. 74

1.58

.04

.28

7. 82

3.39

1.73

1.62

.04

.14

8.25

2. 76

1.60

.76

.40

.06

15.16

5. 36

2. 79

1.99

.58

.01

9.89

3.08

1.79

.90

.39

.05

5.08

2. 37

1.32

.75

.30

.07

9.64

5.62

3. 43

1.65

.54

.01

11.32

4.32

2. 07

1.83

.42

.02

8.05

6. 27

3. 07

2. 74

.46

.26

11.69

4.50

2. 42

1.75

.33

.16

12. 47

3.39

2.13

.78

.48

.07

14. 56

5. 42

2.80

2.17

.45

.14

13. 65

4. 64

2. 21

2.00

.43

.05

11.47

3.96

3.52

.23

.21

.25

17.09

5.60

5. 04

.19

.37

.21

13.78

6.13

3. 87

2.12

.14

.08

9.45

5.23

3. 46

1.66

.11

.16

9. 95

5. 55

3. .53

1.85

.17

.19

9. 72

4. 62

3.00

1.54

.08

.04

20. 92

9.70

6. 85

2. 59

.26

.14

18. 96

6.41

5. 81

.25

.35

.06

10.30

6.09

5. 36

.52

.21

.08

14. 58

4. 08

2.67

1.26

.15

.03

11.61

3.66

2. 49

1.02

.15

.15

7. 42

5. 43

3. 66

1.60

.17

.06

11.04

3 51

1.47

2. 01

.03

.10

9. 52

4.24

2. 82

1.39

.03

.01

11.28

6. 45

5. 01

1.36

.08

.03

5.64

3. 56

2.33

1.19

.04

.01

8.10

4.37

2.65

1.67

.05

.06

18.69

8.27

6.00

2.11

.16

.27

12.80

7. 32

6.03

1.17

.12

.15

11.47

5. 47

4.27

1.07

.13

.19

11.97

5.02

4.30

.48

.24

.24

10. 05

3. 34

2. 49

.68

.17

.23

16. 13

6. 08

4.06

1.90

.12

.45

See footnotes at end of table.

164

Table D-7. Amount per inhabitant i of public and private assistance and earnings under specified Federal work

programs, by urban area, 1940 — Continued

Geographic division. State,
and urban area *

Total
public
and
private
funds 3

Total

G

Total

North Central— Con.

Ohio;

Akron _ ,

$27. 54

$27. 44

$3. 83

Canton _ _ _

17. 16

17. 15

1. 79

Cincinnati _

19. 48

19. 19

4.71

Cleveland _

27. 15

26. 77

6. 10

Columbus _

22.90

22. 84

3. 46

Dayton. _ _

19. 85

19. 78

3. 96

Springfield _

18. 49

18. 37

1.03

Toledo . . .

26. 03

26.01

3.24

Yoimgstown _ .

16.58

16. 55

2. 33

Wisconsin:

Kenosha . . . .

32.63

32.60

7.95

Madison _

22.91

22.89

3. 65

Milwaukee . .

27. 72

27. 55

7.72

Racine . . .

20.58

20.48

6.08

South Atlantic and South

Central

Alabama:

Birmingham _

11.04

11.03

.21

Mobile _

10. 74

10.70

.08

Delaware: W'ilmington ..

11.47

11.28

1. 77

Dist. of Col.: Washington _

14.08

13. 79

.95

Florida;

Jacksonville _ _

17.55

17.50

.34

Miami _ _ _

6.13

5.84

.28

Georgia: Atlanta “ _

12.29

12. 13

.56

Kentucky: Louisville _

8.60

8.41

. 77

Louisiana;

New Orleans.. . .

2.3.23

22.98

1.24

Shreveport... . . .

5.09

6. 07

.77

Maryland: Baltimore... _

10.83

10.61

2.39

North Carolina:

AsheviUe _ _

13. 75

13. 75

.35

Charlotte _

8.00

7. 95

.40

Greensboro . . .

7.23

7.23

.22

Winston-Salem _

11.53

11. 15

.78

Oklahoma: Tulsa.. _ _

12.92

12. 54

.37

South Carolina: Charleston...

16. 95

16.90

.26

Tennessee;

Knoxville _ ..

11.99

11.99

.19

Memphis _ _

9.80

9. 66

.10

Nashville .

11. 17

11.02

.14

Texas:

Dallas _ _ _ _

9. 52

9. 40

.48

El Paso _ _ _

8. 06

8.02

.03

Fort Worth _

16.42

16.40

.74

Houston _

6. 78

6.70

.50

San Antonio _ _

11. 15

11.00

Virginia;

Norfolk . . .

7.95

7. 85

.33

Richmond _

11. 39

11.03

1. 02

Roanoke _

4.88

4.88

.42

West Virginia: Huntington...

15.99

15. 92

1. 05

Mountain and Pacific

California :

Los Angeles _ _ _

25.09

24.99

6.60

Oakland _

28. 97

28.89

4. 90

Sacramento _ _

21.22

21. 10

2.54

San Diego _ _

27. 42

27. 38

4. 49

San Francisco . .

30.23

29. 83

6.02

Colorado: Denver _ _

29. 21

29. 10

2.61

Oregon: Portland _

19. 94

19. 87

3. 09

Utah: Salt Lake City... . .

23. 82

23.70

3.80

Washington:

Seattle _

18.01

17. 91

2.52

Taeoma . .

24.32

24. 32

1.74

Public funds

General relief *

Direct
relief *

Work
relief ‘

Civil

Works

Program®

Earnings under Fed
eral work programs

Special types of public assistance *

Projects
operated
by the
WPA '

Total

Old-age

assistance

Aid to de¬
pendent
ehildren

Aid to the
blind

funds *

$20. 02

$3. 59

$3.03

$0.50

$0.06

$0. 10

9.96

5.40

4.69

.61

. 10

.01

9. 79

4.81

4.01

.70

.10

.29

17. 07

3.60

2. 48

1.03

.09

.38

12. 92

6. 46

5.68

.58

.20

.06

9. 67

6.03

5. 40

.53

.10

.07

9. 70

7.64

6.91

.56

.17

.12

17. 18

5. 59

4.88

.56

.15

.02

10. 73

3. 49

2.73

.59

.17

.03

15.75

8.90

5.30

3. 35

.25

.03

12.05

7. 19

4.56

2.53

.10

.02

14. 33

5.50

3.68

1. 67

.15

.17

8.76

6.64

3.88

2.64

.12

.10

9.64

1. 18

.57

.59

.02

.01

9.81

.81

.64

.16

.01

.04

7. 59

1.92

1.21

.71

.19

10.56

2.28

1.55

.63

.10

.29

13.88

3.28

2. 59

.51

.18

.05

3. 39

2. 17

1.57

..50

.10

.29

10. 40

1. 17

.67

.45

.05

.16

6.12

1. 52

1. 17

.35

.19

17.34

4. 40

1. 74

2.52

.14

.25

1.45

2.85

1.45

1. 35

.05

.02

3. 92

4.30

2.28

1.89

.13

.22

11. 12

2.28

1.50

.68

.10

5. 44

2. 11

1.40

.60

.11

.05

4. 94

2.07

1.30

.67

.10

(“)

8.22

2.15

1.38

.68

.09

.38

6. 27

6.90

5. 46

1.26

.18

.38

15.24

1. 40

.91

.42

.07

.05

9. 15

2.65

1. 21

1.39

.05

6.90

2.66

1.71

.85

.10

.14

7.55

3.33

1. 95

1.26

.12

.15

6. 42

2.50

2.48

.02

.12

7.11

.88

.88

04

12.50

3. 16

3. 16

4.68

1.52

1. 52

,o«

8.68

2. 32

2.32

, IK

6.25

1.27

.85

.35

.07

.10

8. 67

1. 34

.87

.40

.07

.36

3. 18

1.28

.84

.36

.08

12.62

2.25

1.41

.74

.10

.07

7.28

11.21

9. 49

1. 01

.71

.10

14. 93

9.06

7.27

1.22

.57

.08

7.26

11. 30

9.28

1. 51

.51

.12

9.39

13.50

11.63

1.34

.53

.04

14.41

9.40

7. 85

1.06

.49

.40

10.59

15.90

13. 61

2.13

.16

.11

10.33

6.45

5. 47

.82

.16

.07

11.23

8.67

5. 97

2.61

.09

i«.12

8.61

» 6.78

5.69

.89

.20

.10

14.66

7. 92

6.57

1. 17

. 18

Private

‘ Based on total population of areas according to TJ. S. census of 1940.

* See app. A for the territory and total population included in each urban
area. Amounts per inhabitant based on figures which relate to territory
other than that shown in app. A are footnoted.

3 Excludes cost of administration; of materials, equipment, and other
items incident to operation of work programs; and of transient care. Figures
on which amounts per inhabitant for assistance programs are based differ
from those published for previous years in that they include obligations
incurred for burials, in addition to obligations incurred for money payments,
assistance in kind, medical care, and hospitalization.

♦ Includes statutory aid to veterans administered on basis of need. See
also footnote 2.

‘ Figures not available.

' Terminated in 1934.

^ Figures from the WPA, Division of Statistics; represent earnings of all
persons employed on projects operated by the WPA within these areas;

figures are not available for earnings of persons employed on projects other
than those operated by the WPA.

* Includes figures for areas in States with plans approved by the Social
Security Board and for areas in States not participating under the Social
Security Act. See also footnote 2.

« Includes direct and work relief and aid to veterans. See also footnote 2.

1° Based on number of areas reporting expenditures for specified type of aid.

n Less than 1 cent.

Figure on which this amount is based is more inclusive than those pub¬
lished for 1929-38 in that it contains an estimate for annual expenditures of
30 agencies unable to report monthly figures.

n At the beginning of 1939 reporting area was changed from city to county.

At the beginning of 1940 reporting area was changed to Fulton County
and all De Kalb County.

1* Figure on which this amount is based is incomplete since data not ob¬
tainable for 1 relief program.

165

INDEX TO CHARTS FOR URRAN AREAS

Page

Akron, Ohio _ 65

Albany, New York _ 55

Allentown, Pennsylvania _ 56

Altoona, Pennsylvania _ 56

Asheville, North Carolina _ 73

Atlanta, Georgia _ _ 69

Baltimore, Maryland _ 70

Bethlehem, Pennsylvania _ 56

Birmingham, Alabama _ 69

Boston, Massachusetts _ 50

Bridgeport, Connecticut _ 49

Brockton, Massachusetts _ , _ 50

Buffalo, New York _ 55

Cambridge, Massachusetts _ 50

Canton, Ohio _ 65

Charleston, South Carolina _ 75

Charlotte, North Carolina _ 75

Chester, Pennsylvania _ 57

Chicago, Illinois _ 59

Cincinnati, Ohio _ 65

Cleveland, Ohio _ 66

Columbus, Ohio _ 65

Dallas, Texas _ 77

Dayton, Ohio _ 66

Denver, Colorado _ 82

Des Moines, Iowa _ 60

Detroit, Michigan _ . _ 62

Duluth, Minnesota _ 63

El Paso, Texas _ 77

Erie, Pennsylvania _ 57

Evansville, Indiana _ 59

Fall River, Massachusetts _ 51

Flint, Michigan _ 62

Fort Wayne, Indiana _ 59

Fort Worth, Texas _ 78

Grand Rapids, Michigan _ 62

Greensboro, North Carolina _ 74

Hartford, Connecticut _ 49

Houston, Texas - 78

Huntington, West Virginia _ 80

Indianapolis, Indiana _ 60

Jacksonville, Florida - 71

Jersey City, New Jersey - 54

Johnstown, Pennsylvania - 58

Kansas City, Kansas _ 61

Kansas City, Missouri _ 64

Kenosha, Wisconsin _ 68

Knoxville, Tennessee - 76

Lawrence, Massachusetts _ 51

Los Angeles, California - : - 81

Louisville, Kentucky - 80

Lowell, Massachusetts _ 51

Lynn, Massachusetts _ 51

Madison, Wisconsin _ 67

Malden, Massachusetts _ 52

Memphis, Tennessee _ 76

Miami, Florida _ 71

Milwaukee, Wisconsin _ 67

Page

Minneapolis, Minnesota _ 63

Mobile, Alabama _ 69

Nashville, Tennessee _ 75

New Bedford, Massachusetts _ 52

New Britain, Connecticut _ 49

New Haven, Connecticut _ 49

New Orleans, Louisiana _ 72

New Rochelle, New York _ 55

New York, New York _ 54

Newark, New Jersey _ 54

Newton, Massachusetts _ 52

Niagara Falls, New York _ 54

Norfolk, Virginia _ 79

Oakland, California - 81

Omaha, Nebraska _ 64

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania _ 57

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania _ 57

Pontiac, Michigan _ 63

Portland, Maine _ 50

%

Portland, Oregon _ 82

Providence, Rhode Island _ 53

Racine, Wisconsin _ 68

Reading, Pennsylvania _ 58

Richmond, Virginia _ 79

Roanoke, Virginia _ 80

Rochester, New York _ 55

Sacramento, California _ 81

Saginaw, Michigan _ 63

St. Louis, Missouri _ 64

St. Paul, Minnesota _ 64

Salt Lake City, Utah _ 82

San Antonio, Texas _ 78

San Diego, California _ 81

San Francisco, California _ 82

Scranton, Pennsylvania _ 58

Seattle, Washington _ 83

Shreveport, Louisiana _ 72

Sioux City, Iowa _ 61

South Bend, Indiana _ 60

Springfield, Illinois _ _ 59

Springfield, Massachusetts _ 52

Springfield, Ohio _ 66

Syracuse, New York _ 55

Tacoma, Washington _ 83

Terre Haute, Indiana _ 60

Toledo, Ohio _ 66

Topeka, Kansas _ 61

Trenton, New Jersey _ 54

Tulsa, Oklahoma _ 72

Utica, New York _ 56

Washington, D. C _ 70

Wichita, Kansas _ 61

Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania _ 58

Wilmington, Delaware _ 70

Winston-Salem, North Carolina _ 74

Worcester, Massachusetts _ 53

Yonkers, New York _ _ 54

Youngstown, Ohio _ 67

166

PUBLIC

ASSISTANCE

1941

FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY

SOCIAL SECIJIIITY BOARD

RUREAU OF PUDLIC ASSISTANCE

PuEilic Assistance Report No. 4

Preprinted From Social Security Yearbook, 1941

FOREWORD

This publication, which is preprinted from Social Security Yearbook, 1941,
is the fourth in a series of yearly analyses of public assistance in the United
States. It summarizes monthly data fimnished by State and Federal
agencies responsible for the operation of one or more programs and issued
periodically in the Social Security Bulletin, and shows in perspective the
development of the public assistance programs under the Social Secmdty
Act by the inclusion of data for Federal work programs and other forms
of public aid.

The present report lays particular emphasis on changes in the numbers
of recipients of old-age assistance, aid to the blind, aid to dependent chil¬
dren, and general relief in 1941, and the effect of the rising cost of living?
administrative policies, and availability of fimds on levels of payments.
This report also presents a summary of trends in financing these programs
during the period 1930-41, with an analysis of changes in Federal, State,
and local responsibility for meeting the costs of public aid. An accom¬
panying analysis summarizes eligibility requirements for receipt of public
assistance as of December 1941 under State plans approved by the Social
Secmity Board, with notation of 1941 amendments to State laws.

The earlier summaries published by the Social Security Board appeared
as "Tabular Summary of Statistics of Public Assistance under the Social
Security Act for the Calendar Year 1937” (Bureau of Research and Sta¬
tistics Report No. 1), "Trends in Public Assistance, 1933-1939” (Bureau
of Research and Statistics Report No. 8), and "Public Assistance, 1940”
(Public Assistance Report No. 1).

Jane M. Hoey, Director,

May 1942. Bureau of Public Assistance.

\

CONTENTS

Public Aid in 1941 .

Federal work programs . ^

Public assistance programs . ^

Changes in coverage of special types of assistance . . 5

New Federal-State programs . ^

Liberalization in eligibility provisions . g

Increase in Federal matching . g

Increase in State and local funds . g

State variations . ^

Applications and case closings . jq

Changes in coverage of general relief . jq

State trends . ^ j

Changes in assistance payments . J2

Adjustments of payments to increased cost of living . 12

Influence of prescribed maximums . 1^

Administrative limitations . Ig

Influence of inadequate funds . 1^

Trends in Financing Public Aid, 1930-41 . 21

Federal financial responsibility . 21

State and local financial responsibility . 23

Financing individual programs . 26

Old-age assistance . 26

Aid to dependent children . 26

Aid to the blind . 27

General relief . 28

Eligibility for Public Assistance Under Approved State Plans, as of December 1941 . 29

Conditions relevant to need . 29

Need as a condition of eligibility . 29

General definitions of "needy persons” . 3Q

Specific income limitations . 3q

Real property limitations . 3j

Personal property limitations . 32

Changes in property limitations in 1941 . 33

Disposal of property to qualify for assistance . 34

Responsibility of relatives and others . 34

Receipt of two or more types of assistance . 36

Other eligibility conditions . 37

Age limitations . 37

- Residence requirements . 38

Citizenship requirements . 40

Institutional status . 41

Special conditions applicable to aid to dependent children . 42

Definition of blindness . 44

Miscellaneous provisions . 44

CHARTS

1. — Index of cases receiving general relief in the continental United States and in selected States, Jan-

uary-December 1941 . 12

2. — Effect of maximums on amounts of payments: Percentage distribution of payments for special types

of public assistance, by amount, in selected States, November 1941 . 14

3. — Effect of no maximums on amounts of payments: Percentage distribution of payments for special

types of public assistance, by amount, in selected States, November 1941 . 14

4. — Effect of variations in availability of funds: Percentage distribution of payments for special types

of public assistance, by amount, in selected States, November 1941 . 15

5. — Public expenditures for assistance and work program earnings in the continental United States, by

source of funds, calendar years 1930—41 . 22

6. — Expenditures from State and local funds for assistance in the continental United States, calendar

years 1930-41 . 24

I

TABLES

Public Assistance and Federal Work Programs in the Continental United States

Page

1. — Summary of assistance, earnings, recipients, and persons employed, 1933-41 . 1

2. — Assistance and earnings, by month, 1941 . 2

3. — Recipients and persons employed, by month, 1941 . 2

4. — Percentage distribution of assistance and earnings by program, for each year, 1933-41 . 3

5. — ^Assistance and earnings, by State, 1941 . 4

Special Types of Public Assistance and General Relief

6. — Old-age assistance: Recipients, by State and month, 1941 . 5

7. — Aid to dependent children: Families receiving aid, by State and month, 1941 . 6

8. — Aid to dependent children: Children receiving aid, by State and month, 1941 . 7

9. — Aid to the blind: Recipients, by State and month, 1941 . . 8

10. — Special types of assistance: Number of States with specified percentage changes in number of

recipients from December 1940 to December 1941, by program . ' . 9

11. — Special types of assistance: Applications received and cases closed in States with approved plans,

by program, 1941 . 10

12. - — General relief in the continental United States: Cases receiving assistance, by State and month,

1941 . 11

13. — Special types of assistance and general relief: Average payment, by State and program, December

1941 . 12

14. — Special types of assistance and general relief: States in which average payment increased or de¬
creased by $1 or more from December 1940 to December 1941, by program . 13

15. — Old-age assistance: Payments to recipients, by State and month, 1941 . 16

16. — Aid to dependent children: Payments to recipients, by State and month, 1941 . 17

17. — Aid to the blind: Payments to recipients, by State and month, 1941 . 18

18. — General relief in the continental United States: Payments to cases, by State and month, 1941 ... 19

Source of Funds for Public Assistance and Federal Work Programs

19. — Public expenditures for assistance and work program earnings in the continental United States, by

source of funds, calendar years 1930-41 . 21

20. — Expenditures from Federal funds for assistance and work program earnings in the continental

United States, by program, calendar years 1930-41 . 23

21. — Expenditures from State and local funds for assistance in the continental United States, calendar

years 1930-41 . 23

22. — Expenditures from State funds for assistance in the continental United States, by program, calendar

years 1930—41 . 25

23. — Expenditures from local funds for assistance in the continental United States, by program, calendar

years 1930-41 . 25

24. — Public expenditures for old-age assistance in the continental United States, by source of funds,

calendar years 1930—41 . 26

25. — Public expenditures for aid to dependent children in the continental United States, by source of

funds, calendar years 1930-41 . 26

26. — Public expenditures for aid to the blind in the continental United States, by source of funds,

calendar years 1930—41 . 27

27. — Public expenditures for general relief in the continental United States, by source of funds, calendar

years 1930-41 . 28

Eligibility Requirements for Special Types of Public Assistance Under

Approved State Plans

28. — Requirements relating to disposal of property to qualify, by State and program, December 1941. . 35

29. — Age requirements, by State and program, December 1941 . 37

30. — Residence requirements, by State and program, December 1941 . 39

31. — Citizenship requirements for old-age assistance and aid to the blind, by State, December 1941. . . 41

II

Public Aid in 1941* *

During 1941 expanding employment and the
rising cost of living exerted marked influence on
the trends in public aid. With the growth of
defense production the number of persons in the

United States dependent upon public aid declined,
but individual payments to persons on the rolls
tended to rise, partially compensating for in¬
creasing living costs. There have been sharp
variations in the effect of the defense economy on

'Prepared in the Division of Assistance Analysis.

Table 1. — Public assistance and Federal work programs in the continental United States: Summary of assistance^

earnings, recipients, and persons employed, 1933—41 *

[In thousands; corrected to Feb. 15, 1942]

Program

Total assistance and earnings _

Total assistance . . - .

Old-age assistance - - -

Aid to dependent children . .

Aid to the blind . . .

General relief * - -

Relief under special programs of the Fed¬
eral Emergency Relief Administra¬
tion 8 _ _ _

Subsistence payments certified by the

Farm Security Administration * -

Total earnings of persons employed under

Federal work programs - - -

Civilian Conservation Corps .

National Youth Administration: «

Student work program - -

Out-of-school work program -

Work Projects Administration * -

Civil Works Program . .

Other Federal agency projects financed
from emergency funds t _

Estimated unduplicated total:*

Households _ _ _

Persons in these households - - -

Recipients of assistance:

Old-age assistance — . .

Aid to dependent children:

Families -

Children _

Aid to the blind. . . . .

Cases receiving general relief * - -

Cases aided under special programs of
the Federal Emergency Relief Admin¬
istration s - - -

Cases for which subsistence payments
were certified by the Farm Security
Administration * -

Persons employed under Federal work pro¬
grams: ^

Civilian Conservation Corps » -

National Youth Administration: «

Student work program— .

Out-of-school work program .

Work Projects Administration * -

Civil Works Program . .

Other Federal agency projects financed
from emergency funds t -

1933

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939

1940

1941

Amount of assistance and earnings, calendar year

$1, 223, 329

$2, 380, 865

$2, 532, 512

$3, 119, 013

$2, 653, 918

$3, 236, 600

$3, 185, 447

$2, 723, 408

$2, 227, 404

836, 919

1, 341, 687

1, 665, 382

680, 950

840, 306

1, 007, 566

1, 067, 889

1, 053, 266

1, 002, 668

26, 071

32, 244

64, 966

155, 241

310, 442

392, 384

430, 480

474, 952

541, 479

40, 504

40, 686

41, 727

49, 654

70, 451

97, 442

114, 949

133, 243

153, 138

5, 839

7,073

7, 970

12, 813

16, 171

18, 958

20, 752

21, 826

22,901

758, 752

1, 200, 615

1,433,182

439,004

406, 881

476, 203

482, 653

404,963

272, 869

6,753

61,069

114,996

3,873

467

2,541

20, 365

35, 894

22,579

19,055

18,282

12,281

386, 410

1,039, 178

867, 130

2, 438, 063

1, 813, 612

2, 229, 034

2, 117, 558

1,670,142

1,224,736

140, 736

260, 957

332, 851

292, 397

245, 756

230, 318

230, 513

215, 846

155, 604

6,364

26, 329

24,287

19, 598

22, 707

26,864

25, 128

28,883

32, 664

41, 560

51,538

65, 211

94,032

238,018

1, 592, 039

1, 186, 266

1, 751, 053

1, 565, 515

1, 269, 617

937,068

?!14 Q'ifi

503, 060

30,718

275, 161

289, 897

498, 415

324, 639

186, 505

247, 285

92,604

» 12,904

Number of recipients and persons employed, December

7, 164

6,706

6,007

5, 835

5, 169

6,954

5,907

6, 362

4, 147

25, 375

24, 122

20,764

18,602

15, 460

21,286

16,861

14, 807

10, 370

107

206

378

1,106

1,577

1,776

1,909

2,066

2,234

112

113

117

162

228

280

315

370

390

285

280

286

404

565

684

760

891

941

25

33

35

45

56

67

70

73

77

3,246

5,368

2,886

1,510

1,626

1,631

1,668

1,239

798

^59

96

11

130

135

109

116

96

46

26

290

330

459

328

284

276

266

246

126

283

411

304

372

434

449

337

178

136

240

296

32t)

283

2,^7

2, 243

1,594

3, 156

2,109

1, 826

1,023

3f ^97

264

331

408

506

235

167

141

22

«2

1 Data partly estimated and subject to revision. For definitions of terms
see 1940 Yearbook, pp. 309-311; Public Assistance, 1940 (preprinted from 1940
Y^rbook), pp. 3^1; or Social Security Bulletin Vol. 4 No. 9 (September
1941), pp. 50-52. For monthly data see ^ctal ^curity
No 2 (February 1941), pp. 66-70, and Vol. 6, No. 2 (February 1942), pp. 26-29.

> Data for January 1933-March 1937 from the WPA.

* Data from the WPA.

» Data from the CC^. Beginning July 1941, earnings of persons enrolled
estimated by the CCC by multiplying average monthly numter of prsons
trolled by average of $67.20 for each month for enrollees other than Indians
and $60.50 for Indians,

» Data for September 1935-June 1939 from the WPA; for subsequent months
from the NYA. Beginning July 1941, data for persons employed on out^f-
school work program based on average of weekly employment counts during

™?Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics; excludes employment and
earnings on projects financed from Reconstruction Finance Corporation

^'^Be’ginning October 1941, represents employment and earnings on projects
financed from Public Works Administration funds omy. Data not available
for other Federal agency projects financed under emergency relief appropria¬
tion acts, but latest available reports show monthly employment of approxi¬
mately 1,000 and monthly earnings of approximately $100,000.

« Estimated by the WPA and the Social Security Board.

1

2

■Table 2.— Public assistance and Federal work programs in the continental United States: Assistance and earnings,

by month, 1941 '

[In thousands: corrected to Feb. 15, 1942]

Month

Totals

Assistance to recipients

Earnings of persons employed under Federal work pro¬
grams

Earnings

on

regular

Federal

construc¬

tion

projects

Special types of public assist¬
ance

General

relief

Snbsistence
payments
certified
by the
Farm
Security
Adminis¬
tration

Civilian

Conser¬

vation

Corps

National Youth '
Adminstration

Work

Projects

Admin¬

istration

Other

Federal

agency

projects

financed

from

emergency

funds

Old-age

assist¬

ance

Aid to
depend¬
ent

children

Aid to
the
blind

Student

work

program

Out-of-

school

work

program

Total . —

$2, 227, 404

$541, 479

$153, 138

$22, 901

$272, 869

$12, 281

$155, 604

$25, 128

$94, 032

$937, 068

$12, 904

$1, 537, 663

January _ _ _

222, 090

42, 523

12. 298

1,868

30, 555

1, 543

17, 110

2,776

7,901

103, 526

1,990

103, 323

February . .

215, 115

43. 001

13, 191

1,871

28, 883

1,680

18, 152

3. 165

9, 224

94, 099

1, 849

113, 790

March _

216, 197

43, 461

12, 767

1, 870

28, 769

2,049

16. 178

3,283

8,929

97. 429

1, 462

111, 136

April . _

208, 565

43. 884

12, 866

1,885

26, 279

1, 667

15, 073

3,352

8,419

93. 692

1. 448

116, 152

May _

198, 988

44, 118

12, 858

1, 896

23,280

975

14. 765

3, 385

8, 129

88, 246

1,336

106, 415

Jime _

188, 052

45, 686

12,803

1, 896

20,581

1, 670

12,902

2,595

7, 992

80, 754

1,173

110, 103

July . . .

167, 063

45, 333

12, 570

1,889

19, 828

308

11, 693

26

7, 164

67, 332

920

119, 282

August _ _ _

161, 119

45, 693

12, 573

1,905

19, 645

442

11, 430

1

7,507

61. 136

787

129,808

September.. . .

158, 650

46, 188

12, 562

1, 910

18, 546

318

10. 665

150

7. 384

60,285

642

137. 119

October... . .

161, 400

46,860

12, 698

1,949

18, 591

372

9, 616

1,731

7,115

61, 974

>494

156, 661

November . .

160, 392

47. 226

12, 841

1, 969

18, 438

509

9, 572

2, 363

7,419

59. 732

> 323

167, 074

December.. . .

169, 773

47, 506

13, 111

1,993

19, 474

748

8,448

2,301

6, 849

68, 863

3 480

166,800

1 See footnotes, table 1, p. 1. ' Preliminary; represents earnings on projects financed from PWA

> Excludes earnings on regular Federal construction projects. fimds only. See footnote 8, table 1, p. 1.

the several public aid programs which are designed
to meet the needs of particular groups of persons,
such as dependent children, youth in school,
unemployed youth, unemployed adults, needy
farmers, the blind, the aged, and other needy
persons. Variations in the extent to which com¬
munities participated in the war effort explain to a
considerable degree wide differences among States
and localities in the trends in each program. Other

influences, although minor in determining national
trends, were major determinants of trends in some
States and localities.

In 1941 public aid in the United States totaled
$2.2 billion (tables 1,2, and 5), representing less
than 2.5 percent of national income payments.
The bill for public aid in 1941 declined 18 percent
from the previous year, while national income pay¬
ments rose 21 percent. The share of the national

Table S.— Public assistance and Federal work programs in the continental United States: Recipients and persons

employed, by month, 1941 ^

[In thousands: corrected to Feb. 15, 1942]

Month

Estimated im-
duplicatedtotaU

Recipients of assistance

House¬

holds

Special types of public assistance

Persons
in these
house¬
holds

Old-

age

assist¬

ance

Aid to de¬
pendent chil¬
dren

Fami¬

lies

ChU-

dren

Aid to
the
blind

Cases
receiv¬
ing gen¬
eral
relief

Cases for
which sub¬
sistence
payments
were certi¬
fied by the
Farm Se¬
curity Ad¬
ministra¬
tion

Persons employed under Federal work
programs

Civil¬

ian

Con¬

serva¬

tion

Corps

National Youth
Administration

Student

work

pro¬

gram

Out-of¬

school

work

pro¬

gram

Work

Proj¬

ects

Ad¬

minis¬

tration

Other Fed¬
eral agency
projects
financed
from

emergency

funds

Persons
employed
on regu¬
lar Fed¬
eral con¬
struction
projects

January...

February..

March _

April. .

May _

June _

July _

August _

September.

October _

November,

December.

5,445
5, 458
5, 360
5, 153
4, 913
4, 691
4, 145
4, 040
4, 000
4, 094
4, 136
4, 147

15, 064
15, 060
14, 667
13, 896
13, 048
12, 375
10, 811
10, 412
10, 231
10, 272
10, 326
10, 370

2,075
2, 082
2, 108
2,127
2, 148
2, 167
2, 181
2, 195
2,205
2,214
2, 224
2,234

376

383

387
391
393
391

388
386

384

385
385
390

908

924

935

942

944

942

935

931

926

928

928

941

73

1,257

73

1,230

73

1, 210

74

1, 153

74

1,038

74

934

74

876

74

859

75

817

76

796

77

782

77

798

59

58

68

54

36

40

14

18

11

13

16

26

258

442

274

459

244

471

228

478

223

462

195

357

175

5

171

«

159

34

144

273

143

341

126

337

419

1, 858

482

1, 851

459

1,718

419

1, 575

392

1, 453

384

1,376

318

1,025

315

1, 015

308

1,007

288

1, 009

303

1, 027

283

1, 023

15

721

13

797

11

762

11

776

10

723

9

718

7

758

6

783

5

835

M

928

<2

991

< 2

977

* See footnotes, table 1, p. 1.

* Excludes persons employed on regular Federal construction projects.

* Less than 500 persons.

< Preliminary; represents employment on projects financed from PWA
funds only. See footnote 8, table 1, p. 1.

3

income paid for public aid was smaller than that
of any year during the period 1933^1, m which the
Federal Government has assumed major responsi¬
bility for relief of unemployment and need.

In December 1941 it is estimated that 4.1
million households, including roughly 10.4 million
persons in the continental United States, were
receiving public assistance or work program earn¬
ings (tables 1 and 3), a decrease from the previous
December of about 23 percent in the estimated
number of households and of about 30 percent in
the number of persons directly affected by these
programs. The 10.4 million persons who were in
households receiving public assistance or work pro¬
gram earnings in the last month of 1941 comprised
about 8 percent of the population of the United
States. In February 1934, when relief loads reached
an aU-time peak, approximately 22 percent of
the population of the country was in households
receiving some form of public aid. These figures
overstate the incidence of dependency, since public
aid which supplements a family’s income may be
given in behalf of specified members of a house¬
hold while the other members may be self-sup¬
porting. It may be assumed, however, that in
December 1941 not more than 2 persons were
actually dependent upon public aid for every 5 in
February 1934. The decline in the incidence of
dependency may have been even greater because
it is probable that the proportion of self-supporting
persons in families receiving public aid was larger
in December 1941 than in 1934, at the depth of the
depression.

Table 4

Federal Work Programs

Inasmuch as diminishing expenditures for public
aid have been related in large measure to increas¬
ing opportunities for employment, in 1941 the work
programs decreased more than the assistance pro¬
grams. In each year since 1938, earnings under
Federal work programs have constituted a declin¬
ing proportion of the total volume of public aid in
the United States. These earnings comprised 55
percent of total expenditures for public aid in 1941
as contrasted with 61 percent in 1940 (table 4).

Despite a reduction of one-third of a billion
dollars from 1940, Work Projects Administration
earnings still constituted the largest share of total
public aid in 1941. The total amount of WPA
earnings — $937 million — exceeded by nearly 75
percent payments for old-age assistance, the next
largest public aid program m terms of cost. In
December 1941, however, when the program of old-
age assistance reached a peak and the WPA pro¬
gram was at a low point for the year, 1,023,000
persons were employed on WPA projects and
2,234,000 persons received old-age assistance in
the continental United States. Expenditures for
WPA earnings represented about 42 percent of
total public aid in 1941 as compared with nearly 47
percent in 1940.

Expenditures for earnings of persons enrolled in
the Civilian Conservation Corps in 1941 amounted
to $156 million and represented 7 percent of the
total amount of public aid. Earnings of persons
employed on other Federal agency projects
financed from emergency funds declined as a pro-

. — Public assistance and Federal work programs in the continental United States: Percentage distribution
of assistance and earnings by program, for each year, 1933-41 *

Program

1933

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939

1940

1941

Total assistance and earnings _ _

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

Total assistance _

68.4

56.4

65.8

21.8

31.7

31.1

33.5

38.7

45.0

Old-age assistance _ _ _

2.1

1.4

2.6

5.0

11.7

12.1

13.5

17.4

24.3

Aid to dependent children _ _

3.3

1.7

1.6

1.6

2.7

3.0

3.6

4.9

6.9

Aid to the blind .. _ _

.5

.3

.3

.4

.6

.6

.7

.8

1.0

General relief _

62.0

60.4

56.6

14.1

15.3

14.7

16.1

14.9

12.2

Relief under special programs of the Federal Emergency

"Rriliof A Hmini’QtTflfinTi

.6

2.6

4.6

.1

(*)

Subsistence payments certified by the Farm Security
Adininistratioii _

.1

.6

1.4

.7

.6

.7

.6

Total earnings of persons employed under Federal work

prngrnmQ . .. . _

31.6

43.6

34.2

78.2

68.3

68.9

66.6

61.3

55.0

Civilian ConsGrvation Corps - . _ - _

11.6

11.0

13.1

9.4

9.3

7.1

7.2

7.9

7.0

National Youth Administration:

Student work program _ _ _

.3

.8

.9

.6

.7

1.0

1.1

Out-of*school work program _

.9

1.2

1.3

1.6

2.4

4.2

W^ork Projects Administration _ - _ - _

9.4

51.1

44.7

54.1

49.2

46.6

42.1

'\^Tr\r>\rC‘

17.6

21.1

Other Federal agency projects financed from emergency
funds _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _

2.5

11.6

11.4

16.0

12.2

6.8

7.8

3.4

.6

1 See footnotes, table 1, p. 1. ’ Less than 0.05 percent.

4

portion of the total bill for public aid from 3.4 per¬
cent in 1940 to 0.6 percent in 1941.

Because of the development of defense training
projects in the out-of-school work program of the
National Youth Administration, earnings under
this program increased in 1941 in contrast to de¬
clines under the other Federal work programs in¬
cluded in the public aid series. At the end of the

year, 620,000 young persons were employed on the
student aid and out-of-school work programs of the
NYA.

Public Assistance Programs

Expenditures for old-age assistance, aid to de¬
pendent children, and aid to the blind have in¬
creased in importance year by year from only 7

Table 5.— Public assistance and Federal work programs in the continental United States: Assistance and earnings^

by State, 1941 *

[In thousands; corrected to Feb. 15, 1942]

State

Total > _

Alabama _

Arizona _

Arkansas _ _

California _

Colorado _

Connecticut _

Delaware _

District of Columbia.

Florida _

Georgia _ _

Idaho . .

Illinois— . .

Indiana _ _

Iowa._ _ _

Kansas _

Kentucky _

Louisiana _

Maine _

Maryland _

Massachusetts _

Michigan _

Minnesota _ _

Mississippi-. .

Missouri .

Montana . .

Nebraska _ _

Nevada _

New Hampshire _

New Jersey _ _

New Mexico _

New York.. .

North Carolina. .

North Dakota. .

Ohio _

Oklahoma _ _

Oregon _

Pennsylvania _

Rhode Island _

South Carolina _

South Dakota _

Tennessee _ _ _

Texas _

Utah _

Vermont _

Virginia.. .

Washington _

West Virginia _

Wisconsin _

Wyoming

Assistance to recipients

Earnings of persons employed under Federal work
programs

Total >

Special types of public
assistance ^

Genera 1
relief

Subsistence
payments
certified by
the Farm
Security
Adminis¬
tration

Civilian

Conser¬

vation

Corps

National Youth
Administration

Work

Projects

Adminis¬

tration

Other Fed¬
eral agency
projects
financed
from emer¬
gency
funds

Earnings
on regular
Federal
con¬
struction
projects

Old-age

assist¬

ance

Aid to de¬
pendent
children

Aid to
the blind

Student

work

program

Out-of¬

school

work

program

$2,227,404

$541, 479

$153, 138

$22, 901

<$272, 869

$12, 281

$155, 604

$25, 128

$94, 032

$937, 068

$12,904

$1, 537,663

33, 246

2, 221

969

68

252

1, 801

6, 495

502

2,423

18, 374

143

44,623

12, 133

3,297

969

140

593

620

1, 933

122

320

4, 106

32

4,562

28,292

2,377

1, 033

124

245

154

7, 217

305

1, 638

15, 198

(')

10,445

160, 002

69, 502

8,910

4, 144

17, 939

1,381

3, 726

1, 554

3,597

49,027

^ 222

142, 844

36, 402

17, 004

2,291

224

2,008

188

1, 531

291

825

11, 700

338

11, 425

17, 455

6,976

653

74

3,080

1

365

204

849

6,222

31

18, 896

2,585

348

243

234

2

130

30

176

1,422

3

10, 286

1, 083

443

84

638

425

152

336

6,549

576

30', 585

30, 866

6,980

1, 220

429

707

78

2,765

290

1, 217

17, 916

263

30; 954

34, 412

5,039

1,243

206

488

645

5, 716

610

2,730

17, 654

80

29; 117

10, 321

2,561

1, 104

76

288

144

516

140

417

5,054

21

1, 808

161, 567

41, 041

2,692

3,713

32, 989

133

5, 857

1,486

5,802

66, 168

2,688

62', 408

64, 042

15, 082

6,796

593

6, 167

41

2,297

659

2,481

21, 661

265

8O; 025

35, 838

14, 284

79S

445

3,889

41

1, 344

491

1,784

12, 763

6

9, 794

29, 342

7, 199

2,413

361

2, 473

186

1, 804

474

1, 356

13, 055

20

11; 811

34, 360

6,195

189

565

217

6, 447

447

2, 183

18, 093

26

20, 040

36,208

5, 637

4, 932

250

2,337

251

4,433

499

1, 703

16, 165

(')

34; 506

12,073

3, 368

778

297

1, 890

53

753

165

1, 018

3, 744

7

13; 491

16, 830

3, 852

2,433

173

1, 970

22

872

242

1,041

6,053

172

45; 157

101, 026

30. 461

8,634

334

12, 625

3

2,316

724

3, 104

42, 658

167

73; 157

82, 484

18, 160

10, 374

362

10, 032

180

3, 878

971

3,690

34, 810

26

12, 168

59, 237

16, 253

3,847

316

6,821

317

3, 735

560

2,017

25, 355

15

10, 220

25, 699

2,808

307

119

32

549

5, 301

382

1,624

14, 572

6

20, 958

71, 526

20, 891

4,377

1,008

3, 238

378

6, 150

684

2,781

3i; 797

223

65 754

12, 969

3,044

921

70

611

246

1,029

155

410

6; 446

37

2, 627

26, 096

6,422

2,048

182

939

509

1,413

327

974

12; 884

398

6, 368

2, 162

759

33

8

89

7

190

20

65

957

34

2,634

7, 512

1, 830

348

91

1, 352

12

229

92

252

3, 299

s

17 552

57, 815

8,033

3,910

213

8,110

9

2,040

529

2,748

32; 022

198

77, 385

12, 215

989

662

50

147

277

2,303

119

400

6; 735

543

6,612

253, 827

36, 753

18, 373

896

91, 360

63

6,532

2,431

9, 430

86, 879

1, 111

69, 180

33, 723

4,622

1,986

357

379

326

5,063

717

2,691

17, 554

27

37, 419

11,014

1, 941

926

46

467

132

1, 515

205

516

5,264

3

1 070

120, 960

38, 529

5,585

967

11, 916

100

5, 468

1, 213

4,760

51, 472

949

63 463

48, 913

16, 582

3,867

446

536

236

6, 533

623

2,231

17i806

53

Q, 255

17, 425

6, 439

1,016

142

1,412

138

824

245

611

7,570

28

25’ 1S7

177, 850

27, 222

27,149

i,907

30, 512

95

9,880

1,567

6,260

69; 941

317

82’ 354

9,951

1, 753

709

21

1, 601

1

325

116

442

4, 925

66

2Q, 102

29, 403

1, 809

762

96

226

711

3, 140

401

1, 350

17, 858

3, 050

3fi' fi21

13, 117

3,419

482

62

591

465

1, 572

259

508

5, 766

4

i; ^2

33, 110

4,864

3,188

220

210

72

6,283

531

2,090

15, 517

135

Kfi 2^7

88,958

28,273

56

107

1,031

724

11, 387

1, 322

5,295

40, 613

151

81 655

15, 943

4, 522

1,986

57

1,498

99

464

213

' 432

6, 369

303

4 ^7

4,256

1, 156

255

41

376

19

147

71

223

1, 969

819

21, 047

2,418

1,064

168

640

86

4,637

546

1, 950

9; 525

22

Q4 727

42,728

20,989

2, 262

422

2,144

151

1, 354

375

1,229

13; 762

41

Fip! 037

31, 674

3,677

3,029

206

1, 487

57

3, 874

343

1,606

17; 354

40

10 835

67,060

14, 797

6,591

662

6,880

238

3, 107

673

2,249

22; 930

31

()2g

3,790

1, 015

299

46

204

119

288

52

197

1,533

38

2; 672

' See footnotes, table 1, p. 1.

2 Totals represent sum of unrounded data; exclude earnings on regular
Federal construction projects.

s Figures in italics represent programs administered under State laws from
State and/or local funds without Federal participation; for footnotes to State
data see tables 15-17, pp. 16-18.

♦ Partly estimated; does not represent sum of State figures because in 4
States pajunents for medical care, hospitalization, and/or burial have been
eMluded arm an estimated amount of payments to cases aided by local
officials in Rhode Island has been included. For footnotes to State data
see table 18, p. 19.

‘ Less than $500.

5

percent of all public aid in 1936, when the Social
Security Act became effective, to almost one-third
in 1941. Old-age assistance comprised a little less
than one-fourth of the total expended for assistance
and work program earnings in 1941; aid to de¬
pendent children, about 7 percent; and aid to the
blind, roughly 1 percent.

The absence of major natural disasters was pri¬
marily responsible for the decline in the size of the
program of the Farm Security Administration
providing subsistence payments to farmers. Im¬
proved prices of farm products and increasing
opportunities for off-farm employment also con¬
tributed to the decline in cases from about 45,000
in December 1940 to about 26,000 in December
1941.

General relief expenditures in 1941 ranked third
in magnitude, whereas in the years 1933 to 1935
such payments ranked first and were laiger than
those for all other types of public aid combined.
General relief expenditures constituted only one-
eighth of all public aid in 1941.

Changes in Coverage of Special Tfpes
of Assistance

In 1941, as in each year since 1936 when the
first grants-in-aid were made to the States by the
Social Security Board, increases occurred in the
total number of recipients of old-age assistance,
aid to dependent children, and aid to the blind in
the continental United States and the other juris-

Table 6.— Old-age assistance: Recipients, by State and month, 1941

[Corrected to Feb. 15, 1942]

State

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

Total *. _

2,078,402

2,084,874

2, 110, 971

2, 130, 645

2, 151, 618

2, 170, 489

2, 184, 792

2, 198, 037

2, 208, 098

2,217,273

2,227,333

2, 237, 386

Alabama... _ _

20, 215
1,560
8,548
26,442
151, 740
41, 864
17, 493
2, 490
3,449
37, 785

41,083
1,805
9, 123
142, 702

20,258
1,563
8,590
25, 484
152, 614
41, 830
17, 478
2, 452
3, 445
37, 624

42,009
1, 798
9, 164

20,274
1,559
8,640
25, 603
153, 594

20, 248
1,564
8, 710
25,803
154, 527

20, 059
1,573
8, 806
26, 035
155, 503

20, 086

20,170

1,572

20, 259

20, 331
1,566

20, 332

20,568

20,748
1,568
9,240
25,229
158, 723

Alaska _

1, 572
8,863
26, 046

1,569

1,569

1,670

Arizona _

8,910
25, 935

8, 973

9, 057

9,113

9, 169

Arkansas _

25,842

25, 634

25,505

25, 314

California _

156,329

156, 943

157, 723

158, 463

158, 326

158, 402

Colorado * _

42, 014
17, 561
2, 469
3, 450
37, 701

45, 288
1,789

42, 209
17, 545

42, 406

42, 551

42, 600

42,608

42, 697

42, 762

42, 895

42, 899

Coimecticut _ _

17, 629
2,497
3,504
37, 946

17, 636
2,607
3, 494
37,688

17, 614

17, 695
2,480

17, 594

2, 478

17,728

17, 758

17, 785
2,462

Delaware.. _

2; 439
3,485
37,803

2,484

2,486

2, 473

District of Columbia..
Florida .

3,496
37, 774

3,509
37, 948

3,503
38, 073

3,656
38, 277

3,562

38,474

3,560

38,742

Georgia _

48,104

50,613
1, 811

51, 742

52, 240

52, 421

62,637

52, 817

64,981

67, 359

Hawaii _

1,813

1,825

1, 842

1, 838

1,841

1,826

1, 810

1,814

Idaho _

9, 190

9,241

9, 257

9,318

9,426

9, 518

9,569

9,628

9,697

9, 724

Illinois _

143, 482

144, 389

145, 159

146, 883

146, 636

147, 280

148, 128

148, 749

149, 133

149, 146

149, 198

Indiana _

67, 275
66, 497
28, 149

67, 149

67, no

67, 024

67, 193

67, 236

67, 725
57, 050

68, 134

68,665

69, 089

69,412

69, 653

Iowa _

66, 520

66, 555
28, 297

56, 670

66, 812

56, 983

67, 087

57, 183

57, 146

67, 197

67, 143
30, 691

Kansas _

28, 145

28, 404

28, 625

28, 885

29, 169

29, 443

29,745

30, 072

30, 355

Kentucky _

64, 134
34, 511
13,086

64, 019

55, 079

55,658

56, 420

67, 806

58, 325

58, 770

69, 261

59, 465

69, 637

59, 924

Louisiana _

34,954

35, 487

35, 992

36, 099

36,099

35, 775

35, 636

35, 610

35, 662

35,753

35, 740

Maine _

12, 903

12, 759

12, 756

12, 591

12,502

13, 075

13, 561

13,969

14, 435

14, 612

14, 905

Maryland _ _

18,158

18, 105

18, 078

18, 058

18, 012

17, 941

17, 836
87,046

17, 715

17, 639

17,588

17, 476

17,368

Massachusetts. _

86, 982
78, 721

86, 820

87, 143

87, 174

87, 218

87, 067

87, 212

87, 240

87,440

87,544

87, 825

Michigan _

79, 738

81, 160

82, 673

85, 515

88,768

90, 382

91, 373

91, 937

92,442

92, 820

93, 123

■M’innpsnt.ft

62, 918
25,564
109, 140

62, 842

62, 808

62, 809

62, 956

63, 081

63, 230

63, 321

63. 426

63, 447

63, 488

63, 561

Mississippi _

25, 701

26, 058

26,211

26, 409

26, 621

26, 788

26, 854

27, 147

27,477

27,563

27, 695

Missouri _

109, 238

no, 301

111,692

112, 802

113, 787

114, 211

115, 752

116, 192

116, 676

117, 132

117, 368

Montana _

12, 266
28,550
2,303

12, 261

12, 328

12, 370

12, 448

12, 464

12, 473

12, 517
29,204

12, 460

12, 416

12, 443

12, 516

"Mfibraska _ _ _

28,564

28,661

28,782

28,899

29, 024

29,103

29,299

29,466

29,613

29, 723

Nevada _ _

2,299

2,301

2,313

6,862

2,322

2, 317

2,311

2,304

2,290

2,284

2,282

2,279

New Hampshire _

6,673

31, 327
4,889
121, 217

6,740

6,804

6,913

6,994

7,023

7, 069

7,098

7, 152

7,183

7,237

New Jersey _

31, 260

31, 199

31, 150

31, 188

31, 174
4, 750

31, 099

31, 018

30,960

30, 971

30, 940

30,888

New Mexico. _

4, 921

4,944

4,887

4,816

4,789

4,796

4, 820

4, 876
121, 373

4} 92u

6, 041

New York _

121, 463

121, 283

121, 364
37, 206

121, 314

121, 496
37, 549

121, 934

121, 842

122, 096

121, 687
38, 928

121, 722

North Carolina _

36; 988
9,011

36, 918

37, 095

37. 441

38, 030

38, 270

38, 531

38, 727

39, 076

North Dakota _

9,038

9,069

9,115

9, 145

9, 234
137, 943

9,369

9,406

9,390

9, 434

9, 448
139, 058
77, 701
21, 814
101, 950
7, 358

9, 458

Ohio _

134, 597
75, 310
19, 759

135, 105

135, 910

136, 624

137, 334

138, 438

138, 512

138, 692

J.S8, 854
77, 577
21, 659
102, 347
7,301

Iby, i)«JO

Oklahoma _ _

75, 381

76, 514

75, 701

76, 232

76, 469

76, 826

77,065

77j 3bi)

77, 831

Oregon _ _

19,945

20, 180

20,379

20, 626

21, 059

21, 248
103, 256

21, 416

21, 534

21, 857
101, 458
7, 400

Pennsylvania _

100, 302

100,380

101, 097

102, 557

103, 417

103, 567

103, 109

102, 694

Rhode Island _

6,974

17,304
14, 926
40, 172

6,932

6,915

6,930

6,942

6,976

7,037

7,110

7, 188

South nerojinft

17, 163

17, 120

17, 166

17, 340

17, 683

17, 915

18, 115

18, 524

18, 878
14, 931
39, 566
154, 092
14, 626
5,669
20,280
61, 662
21, 212
54, 395
3,631

19, 308
14, 922
39, 259
157, 155
14, 706
6,620
20, 243
62, 296
21, 739
64,396
3, 657

19, 659
14, 947
38,755
160, 513
14, 736
6,567
20,254
62,686
22, 121
54, 522
3,557

South Dakoio

14, 913
40, 196

14, 915

14, 920

14, 979

14,968

14, 967
40, 067

14, 946

14} 93^

Tennessee _

40, 225

40, 167

40, 207

40,164

ay, ybu

39, 821

150, 260
14, 567
5,722
20, 237
60, 960
20, 625
54, 308
3,529

Texas ...

120, 863

121, 739

124, 724

128, 113

132, 762

138, 677

143, buy

147, 815

Utah . .

13,692

13, 768

13, 949

14, 105

14,200

14,284

14, 368

14, 503

Vermont _

6, 183

5,830

5,900

6,863

6,828

5, 775

b,

5, 745

Virginia _

19, 782

19,841

19, 901

19, 947

19,993

20, 080

20, 183

2u, 185
60,050
20, 086

Washington _

40, 419

40, 676

60,867

64, 251

66, 495

67, 964

59, 091

Wpst. Virginia

18, 616
63, 486

18, 663

18, 548

18, 766

19, 059

19, 278

19, 483
54,099

Wiseon.sin . _ -

63,604

53, 676

53,818

63, 926

64, 018

54, 202
3,533

Wyoming... .

3, 461

3, 469

3, 500

3, 518

3, 618

3, 523

3, 518

1 All 61 States have approved plans. ‘ Includes recipients 60 but under 65 years.

6

dictions — Alaska and Hawaii — eligible to partici¬
pate in programs under the Social Security Act.
The program of old-age assistance expanded more
rapidly than the other two programs. In De¬
cember 1941 there were 2,237,000 recipients of
old-age assistance, an increase over December 1940
of 8.1 percent (table 6). At the close of 1941 about
944,000 children in 391,000 families were receiving
aid to dependent children, increases over the previ¬
ous December of 5.4 and 5.2 percent, respectively
(tables 7 and 8). Approximately 77,000 persons

were receiving aid to the blind, representing an
increase over December 1940 of 5.3 percent (table
9). Factors which contributed to expansion of the
programs are (1) the extension of Federal financial
participation to successive new States, (2) liberal¬
ization of eligibility provisions in State laws, and
(3) increase in Federal matching. Such changes
have increased the funds available to State and
local public assistance agencies and have enlarged
the groups of persons eligible to benefit from the
programs.

Table 7.— Aid to dependent children: Families receiving aid, by State and month, 1941 *

[Corrected to Feb. 15, 1942]

State

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

Total, 51 States.

377, 577

384, 163

388, 614

392, 628

393, 849

392, 474

389, 077

387, 344

385, 011

386, 172

386, 141

391, 098

Total, States
with a p-
proved plans

364, 427

371, 040

375, 608

379, 650

380, 831

379, 605

376, 148

374, 403

372, 288

380, 830

381, 163

387, 159

Alabama . . .

5, 881

5,890

6,924

5, 904

5,834

5, 801

5,832

5, 819

5, 767

5,791

5,821

5, 837

Alaska > _

96

96

95

96

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

Arizona _ _

2, 502

2, 462

2,444

2, 455

2,459

2,471

2, 459

2,471

2, 455

. 2,432

2,443

2,445

Arkansas.. .

6, 255

6,296

6, 332

6, 409

6, 483

6,462

6, 451

6,423

6, 360

6,339

6,251

6,216

California _

15, 666

15, 710

15, 740

15, 801

15, 840

15, 864

15, 725

15, 508

15, 386

15, 083

14, 930

14, 954

Colorado _

6,331

6,288

6,384

6,439

6,413

6, 362

6, 276

6,284

6, 223

6, 137

6, 111

e; 142

Connecticut _

1,356

1,363

1,343

1,334

1,397

1,369

1,365

1,333

1,308

1,190

1,168

1, no

Delaware _ _

581

595

608

615

617

624

601

596

590

581

672

569

District of Columbia..

943

939

946

961

975

982

1,004

1,019

1, 007

1,012

1, 015

1,028

Florida ‘ _

4, 334

4,320

4, 344

4, 329

4, 326

4,235

4, 134

4, 302

4, 305

4,682

4,908

6, 481

Georgia... . .

4,821

4, 938

4, 889

4,849

4,805

4, 749

4,696

4, 660

4, 612

4, 559

4,561

4,583

Hawaii _

1,238

1,232

2,987

1,229

1, 236

1,236

1,213

1, 195

1, 137

1,115

1, 109

1,095

i;075

Idaho _ _ _

2, 969

3, 015

3, 029

3, 032

3,048

7,409

3, 061

3, 090

3, 075

3, 044

3, 027

3, 055

Illinois _

7,m

7,463

7,486

7,463

7,461

7,480

7,693

7,409

* 10, 281

* 11, 534

* 15; 243

Indiana. . . .

17, 331

17, 263

17, 293
3,606

17, 256

17, 210

17, 032
3,485

16, 190

16, 041

15,912

15, 724

15, 590

15, 598

Iowa _

3,681

3,666

3, 496

3,649

3, 495

3,435

3,413

3,643

3, 313

3, 331

Kansas. _

6,514

6,532

6,653

6,608

6,624

6,6)0

6, 533

6,534

6,545

6,631

6, 610

6,654

Kentucky * _

370

370

. 380

410

430

430

410

410

400

400

'400

'400

Louisiana _ _

14, 958

15, 269

15, 582

15, 800

15, 902

15,812

15, 427

15, 325

15, 270

15, 308

15, 352

15, 330

Maine . . .

1, 598

1,589

1, 574

1, 560

1,545

1, 545

1,601

1,658

1,691

1,728

1,738

1,766

Maryland.. . . .

7,046

7, 003

7,000
12, 804

6, 909

6, 676

6,531

6,341

6,198

6, 052

5, 970

6,932

5,931

Massachusetts _

12, 619

12, 757

12, 825

12, 795

12, 695

12, 586

12, 441

12, 471

12, 355

12, 313

12’ 355

Michigan _

20, 329

20, 206

20, 489

21, 045

21,414

21, 459

21, 448

21, 362

21, 442

21, 563

21, 549

21, 541

Minnesota _

9, 260

9,343

9, 391

9,449

9,439

9,398

9,317

9,287

9,283

9,216

9, 165

9i, 190

Mississippi. . .

^104

3 104

173

174

485

999

1,600

1,911

2, 196

2, 367

2, 464

2, 531

Missouri .

13, 179

13, 230

13,317
2, 598

13, 663

13, 711

13, 937

14, 058

14, 206

14, 278

14, 299

14, 424

14; 372

Montana _ _ _

2,522

2,666

2,619

2, 660

2,643

2, 538

2,625

2,618

2, 590

2, 589

2, 614

Nebraska L. . .

5,747

6,773

6,771

5, 808

5,834

114

5,852

5, 800

5,771

5, 748

5,736

5! 756

6,757

Nevada _

103

107

107

113

no

113

116

119

119

117

118

New Hampshire _

615

605

601

697

583

678

623

654

679

708

741

741

New Jersey _

11, 268

11, 163

11, 141

11,084

10, 879

10, 486

10, 026

9,839

9,707

9,528

9, 440

9, 398

New Mexico . .

2,074

2,094

2,096

2,082

2,047

2,011

2, 006

2,023

2, 038

2,094

2, 110

2, 278

New York . .

34, 284

34, 127

34, 035

33, 823

33, 698

33, 203

32, 650

32, 317

31, 709

31, 210

30’ 622

30^ 257

North Carolina. .

9, 736

9,752

9,784

9, 831

9,908

9,858

9, 837

9, 832

9,847

9,834

9i 832

9 904

North Dakota _

2,456

2,455

2, 477

2,483

2, 507

2,502

2, 472

2, 462

2, 456

2, 448

2 478

2, 486

Ohio _

11,329

11, 457

11,596

11,698

11, 772

11,820

11, 803

11, 780

11, 794

11,813

11,914

11, 992

Oklahoma . . .

19, 287

19, 256

19, 363

19, 377

19, 518

19, 562

19, 732

19, 906

19, 982

20;025

19^ 962

19, 922

Oregon .

1,970

2,000

2,010

2, 025

2,040

2,067

2, 064

2,074

2, 061

2, 052

2, 072

2089
65, 663

Pennsylvania . .

S3, 596

69, 323

61, 827

63, 982

64, 074

63, 360

61, 989

60, 506

58, 984

57, 464

56, 239

Ehode Island _

1,298

1,285

1,278

1,291

1,292

1,305

1,296

1,288

1,288

i;310

i;298

1,280

South Carolina .

3,056

3,110

3, 315

3,506

3, 623

3, 760

3,808

3,818

3, 879

3, 924

3,923

3,968
1, 765
14, 091
* 1,447
4,047
714

South Dakota.. _

*992

* 1, 065

* 1, 218

< 1, 339

* 1, 455

* 1, 522

* 1, 600

* 1, 637

* 1, 677

* 1, 692

* i, 734

Tennessee _

14, 379

14, 392

14, 403

14, 379

14, 374

14, 343

14, 300

14, 239

14, 175

14, 135

U, 131

Texas. . .

88

87

90

89

87

86

86

86

84

*351

* ’ 751

Utah. _ _

3, 820

3,869

3, 919

3,961

3,990

4, 024

4,031

4,048

4,040

4,013

4, 035

Vermont . .

624

621

624

618

613

613

655

674

689

696

707

Virginia . . .

3,987

4,078

4, 155

4,247

4,291

4, 342

4, 505

4, 564

4, 636

4, 656

4, 684

4,788
5,224
11, 073
11, 980
775

Washington _

4,993

4,993

5,025

6, 118

5, 253

5,309

5,288

5,281

5, 305

5,278

5, 211

West Virginia _ _

8,667

8, 793

8,872

9,082

9,235

9, 360

9,481

9,783

10, 031

lOi 355

10, 756

Wisconsin _ _

12,646

12, 680

12, 727

12, 732

12, 694

12, 484

12, 332

12, 236

12, 142

12, 045

12, 002

Wyoming _

726

734

742

752

770

772

777

774

768

762

771

1 Figures in italics represent programs administered under State laws
from State and/or local funds without Federal participation.

* In January and February 43 States made payments under approved plans;
Mississippi was added in March, Illinois and Texas in October, and Con¬
necticut in December.

* Estimated.

< Includes program administered under State law without Federal partic¬
ipation.

« In addition, some families were aided from local funds without State or
Federal participation under the State mothers’-pension law; some of these
families also received aid under approved plan.

7

New Federal-State Programs

During 1941, 4 State programs of aid to de¬
pendent children and 1 of aid to the blind came
under the Social Security Act. At the close of
the year the Federal Government participated in
programs for old-age assistance in 51 States, for
aid to dependent children in 47 States, and for aid
to the blind in 44 States. Although the 5 new
Federal-State assistance programs were in early
stages of development, the results of Federal

participation in 3 of these States are evident in
the following comparison of case loads:

Program and State

State-local
program
December 1940

Federal-State
program
December 1941

Aid to dependent children:

Connecticut . . . .

1,369

1,110
« 15, 243
2,531
> 1, 447

1,815

Illinois _ _

7,446

104

Mississippi _ _ _ _

Texas _ _ _ _

85

Aid to the blind:

Texas _ _ _

> Includes program administered under State law without Federal partici¬
pation.

Table 8. — Aid to dependent ehildren: Children receiving aid, by State and month, 1941 ^

[Corrected to Feb. 15, 1942]

State

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

Total, 51 States-

912, 762

928,298

939, 393

946, 244

948, 154

945, 973

938, 896

935, 034

929, 938

931, 698

931, 460

944, 186

Total, States
with approved
plans 2 _

882, 897

898, 619

909, 825

916, 798

918, 595

916, 789

909, 567

905, 543

900, 968

919, 541

919, 892

934, 980

Alabama _ _

17, 285
S18

17, 076
218

17, 119

17, 005

16, 825

16, 815

16, 832

16, 781

16, 676

16, 655

16, 754

16, 835
210

Alaska* _

218

218

210

210

210

210

210

210

210

Arizona _

7, 202
15, 865
37, 666
15, 469
S,08i
1,609
2,825
10, 822

12, 199
4, 070
7, 425
16, 679

6,492

16,011

6, 456
16, 091

6,475

6,512

6,563

6, 492

6,640

6,646

6, 621

6,705

6,619

Arkansas _

16,264

16, 537

16, 486

16, 592

16, 492

16, 315

16, 309
35, 960

16, 112

16, 038

California _

37, 609
15, 494
S,09S

37, 732
15, 694
3,066

37, 819

37, 778

37, 815

37, 591

36, 998

36, 608

35, 476

35, 613

Colorado _

15, 789

15, 701

15, 572
2,908

15,414

15, 438

15, 286

15, 100

15, 083

15, 144

Connecticut _

3,027

2,970

2,852

2,793

2, 776

2,728

2,652

2,977

Delaware _ _

1, 657

1,689

1,705

1,723

1,735

1,691

1,689

1, 671

1,661

1,646

1, 658

District of Columbia. .
Florida < _ _

2, 838
10, 839

2, 869
10, 835

2, 919
10, 774

2,963
10, 767

2,888
10, 974

2, 953
10, 373

3, 016
10, 752

2,946
10, 649

2,963
11, 367

3,000
11, 854

3,001
13, 128

Georgia . _ _

12, 421

12,229

12, 114

11, 971

11, 788

11, 622

11, 497

11, 343

11, 174

11, 163

11, 229

Hawaii _

4,017.,

3, 997

4,033

4, 001

3,909

3, 850

3,646

3, 574

3, 532

3, 484

3,418

Idaho. _

7, 481

7,561

7, 589

7,599

7,666

7, 743

7, 802

7,780

7, 739

7,708

7,783

Illinois _ _

16, 492

16, 613

16,637

16, 609

16,626

16, 681

17, 067

16,676

* 23, 320

* 25, 663

‘ 34, 489

Indiana _

35, 594

35, 397

35, 443

35, 404

35, 373

35, 108
7,751

33, 527

33, 248

33, 082

32, 678

32, 436

32, 422

Iowa.. _

8, 184
15, 301
i,m
40, 954

8,069
15, 346

7,996

7,884

7,963

7, 813

7,665

7,660

7,642

7,131

7,422

Kansas _

15, 395

15, 590

15, 653

15, 634

15, 451

15, 538

15, 605

15, 596

15, 833
1,300

15,988

1,300

Kentucky * _

1,210

1,235

1,330

1,350

1,360

1,330

1,320

1,300

1,300

TiOnisianft

40, 655
4,012

41, 665

39, 748

39, 628

39, 658

39, 475

38, 917

38, 813

39, 006

38, 998

38, 940

Maine _

4, 036

18, 971
31, 276
48, 773

3,980

3, 936

3,887

3,864

4, 118

4, 334

4, 446

4, 682

4,730

4, 801

Maryland _

18, 758

18, 762

18, 514

17, 922

17, 744

17, 307

16, 980

16, 595

16,411

16, 331

16,328

Massachusetts _

31,568

31, 650

31, 659

31, 591

31, 273

30, 925

30, 584

30,632

30, 332

30, 279

30, 317

Michigan _

48, 345

48, 860

49, 949
22, 390

.50, 625

50, 768

50, 693

50, 462

50, 524

50, 586

50, 440

50, 393

Minnesota _

21, 991
* 16£

22, 149

22, 263

22, 408

22, 284

22, 136

22, 014

22, 071

21, 869

21, 730

21,823

Mississippi _

^162

492

491

1,343

2,713

4, 276

5, 022

5,760

6,183

6, 408

6,561

Missouri _

30, 944

30, 945

31, 029

31, 486

31, 787

32, 297

32, 485

32, 830

32, 942

32, 969

33, 232

33, 078

Montana _

6, 149

6,272

6, 339

6,377

6,461

6,411

6, 226

6,454

6,416

6, 353

6, 351

6, 411

N^phra-^ka 5

12, 767

m

12,880

12, 923

12, 978

13, 024

13, 077

12, 990

12, 935

12, 867

12, 796

12, 861

12, 849

Nevada _

254

256

267

278

262

268

275

280

277

276

274

New Hampshire _

1,525

1,503

1, 485

1,467

1, 430

1, 407

1,534

1,628

1, 691

1,767

1, 853

1, 855

New Jersey. _

25, 466

25, 230

25, 174

25, 107
5, 929

24, 686

23, 833

22, 690

22, 332

22, 122

21, 749

21, 539

21, 465

TMpw TVfpxino .

5, 927
67, 382

5, 960

5, 969

5,828

5,710

5,703

5, 723

5,785

5, 974

6,083

6,603

New Y ork _

67, 069

66, 896

66, 519

66, 082

65, 242

63, 899

63, 425

62, 481

61, 535

60, 425

59, 796

North Carolina _

23,716

23,586

23, 627

23,672

23, 742

23, 585

23, 440

23, 416

23, 397

23, 296

23, 313

23,409

North Pf^knta

6,794

6, 798

6, 838

6,862

6,901

6,946

6,884

6,819

6,773

6, 766

6, 830

6, 915

Ohio _ _

30,773

31,077

31,286

31,542

31,644

31,734

31,643

31,565

31,491

31,246
45, 960

31,265
45, 827
4, 873
140, 660
3, 664

31,488
45, 758
4,908
139, 392
3, 597

Oklahoma

44, 084

43, 995

44,247

44, 329

44, 701

44, 879

45, 274

45, 728

45, 889

Oregon _

4, 625

4,690

4, 736

4, 777

4, 814

4, 887

4, 872

4, 877

4, 850

4, 814
143, 883

Ppnnsylvania

132, 645

148, 496

154, 904

160, 244

160, 054

158, 348

154, 977

151, 34y

147, 811

Rhode Island _

3,703

3, 661

3, 658

3,710

3, 685

3, 730

3, 667

3,660

3, 645

3, 708

Rrrnt.h Carolina. _

9,069
< 2, 221
36, 232
182

9, 213

9, 677

10, 286

10, 692
‘ 3, 408

10, 992

11, 183

11, 195

11, 331

11,351
*3, 954
35, 251
<721
10, 514
1,857
13, 640
12, 678
27, 493
27, 553
1,969

11,476

< 4, 064
35,268

< 1, 561
10, 573

1,887
13, 716
12,584
28,641
27, 507
2, 006

11, 635
4, 137
35, 035
* 3, 034
10, 616
1, 911
13, 978
12, 628
29,497
27, 453
2,027

Snnt.h Dakota .. _

‘ 2, 567

< 2, 950

< 3, 179

* 3, 548

* 3, 747

* 3,813

* 6, 895

36, 271
181

36,231

36, 097

36, 034

35, 921

35, 797

35, 55/

35, 414
169
10, 581
1, 850
13, 630
12,744
26, 665
27, 701
1,975

Tpras .. _ _

184

183

179

177

175

171

Utah . .

9, 899

10, 037

10, 186
1, 719

10, 274

10, 389

10, 483

10, 519

lU, 583

Vprmont

1,740

1, 721

1, 702

1,690

1,693

1,792

1, 84^5

Virginia . . _

11,963

12,230

12,414

12,643

12, 746

12, 813

13, 254

13,

12, 622

11,851

11,825

11, 913

12, 136

12, 477

12, 653

12, 614

WpRt Virg’inia. _

23, 519

23, 777

24, 003

24, 398

24, 706

24, 992

25, 247

26, 022
27, 909
2. 001

Wi^ponsin . _

28, 742

28, 825

28,999

29, 023

28, 851

28, 383

28, 089

Wyoming _

1.828

1,826

1,840

1,894

1,956

1,968

1, 980

< Figures in italics represent programs administered under State laws from

State and/or local funds without Federal participation.

1 In January and February 43 States made payments under approved
plans; Mississippi was added in March, Illinois and Texas m October, and
Connecticut in December.

* Estimated.

< Includes program administered under State law without Federal partici¬
pation.

» In addition, some children were aided from local funds without State or
Federal participation under the State mothers’-pension law; some of these
children also received aid under approved plan.

4654.39“— 42 - 2

8

Liberalization in Eligibility Provisions

Durmg 1941 several State legislatures liberalized
conditions of eligibility for assistance and stand¬
ards for determining payments. Such liberaliza¬
tions were reflected in increases in coverage in
these States. In Indiana, for example, repeal of a
provision for liens on property was followed by
marked increase in applications for old-age assist¬
ance and by some increase in the number of re¬
cipients. The old-age assistance load in Washing¬
ton increased nearly 56 percent over the previous
year, largely because the method for determining
the amount of the payment was changed from one

providing a maximum of $30 to payments of a flat
amount of $40 minus income. In Georgia, where
the State legislature determined that all persons
eligible for old-age assistance should receive an
award, the number of recipients of old-age assist¬
ance rose 48 percent during the year.

Increase in Federal Matching

No changes occurred during 1941 in the provi¬
sions of the Social Security Act for Federal partici¬
pation in individual payments. In 1940, however,
a number of changes became operative: The max¬
imum age for aid to dependent children was raised

Table 9. — Aid to the blind: Recipients, by State and month, 1941 *

[Corrected to Feb. 15, 1942]

State

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

Total, 48 States A

73, 406

73, 543

73, 492

73, 884

73. 995

74, 107

74,089

74, 441

74, 963

76, 173

76, 728

77, 293

Total, States with

approved

plans* _

49, 111

49, 248

49, 370

49, 649

49, 700

49,817

49, 878

60,208

60,412

61, 791

52, 187

62, 616

Alabama _ _

613

613

618

621

618

615

620

623

625

636

636

637

Arizona _

381

384

388

397

400

404

401

404

404

404

397

400

Arkansas _ _

1,106

1,112

1, 112

1. 132

1,139

1,142

1, 152

1,159

1, 149

1, 158

1,150

1, 154

California _

7,286

7,286

7,291

7,295

7,292

7,290

* 7, 268

* 7, 281

* 7, 309

* 7, 306

* 7, 279

‘ 7, 287

Colorado _ _

599

606

605

604

601

607

607

608

614

618

626

630

Connecticut * _

213

216

221

223

216

233

208

230

213

214

217

211

District of Columbia—

222

223

224

230

231

234

232

237

234

246

247

255

Florida . .

2,474

2,467

2,483

2, 499

2,651

2,536

2, 571

2,594

2, 620

2, 631

2,651

2, 678

Georgia _

1,359

1, 391

1, 447

1, 496

1, 553

1, 576

1, 600

1,621

1,662

1,663

1, 723

1, 783

Hawaii.. _ _

68

69

71

72

69

68

73

75

78

81

82

77

Idaho _

277

279

283

279

278

278

283

282

284

280

282

280

Illinois _

7,659

7,688

7,m

7,606

7,474

7,410

7,354

7,977

7,541

7,339

7,517

7,654

Indiana. . . .

2,405

•2,403

2,401

2, 391

2,372

2,369

2,358

2,350

2,352

2,359

2,358

2, 353

Iowa _

1, 608

1,517

1.523

1,519

1, 618

1,527

1, 537

1,639

1,547

1, 555

1, 550

1,544

Kansas _

1, 384

1. 394

1,404

1,413

1,411

1, 402

1, 382

1, 394

1,373

1,369

1, 364

1, 355

Louisiana _

1,173

1,185

1,204

1,226

1,232

1,260

1,248

1, 246

1,248

1, 252

1,269

1,284

Maine _

1,126

1,104

1, 094

1, 082

1,070

1, 071

1, 074

1,083

1,085

1,094

1,093

1, 097

Maryland _

682

679

674

677

678

671

662

657

652

653

649

646

Massachusetts _

1. 169

1, 167

1, 167

1,176

1, 176

1, 175

1, 175

1, 187

1, 190

1, 181

1, 169

1, 161

Michigan _

1, 123

1, 160

1, 181

1,206

1,221

1, 244

1, 251

1,289

1, 308

1,332

1,340

1, 347

Minnesota _

961

969

970

970

980

975

986

984

999

997

1,001

1,005

Mississippi. _

963

984

999

1,014

1, 030

1, 071

1,083

1, 120

1, 159

1, 203

1,221

1,234

Missouri *. _ _

S,184

s,m

S,165

S,S0i

s,m

s.m

s,m

s,m

s,m

S,108

S,046

S,04S

Montana. _

220

228

239

245

250

260

275

281

285

286

295

291

Nebraska < _

707

708

706

706

715

718

724

732

743

756

758

756

Nevada . . .

IS

15

17

18

18

17

as

2S

96

95

9S

96

New Hampshire _

316

321

321

322

328

330

329

329

333

332

334

332

New Jersey . .

744

760

753

757

751

739

738

742

744

741

739

733

New Mexico .

222

225

222

220

218

218

219

218

231

233

236

235

New York _

2, 874

2, 869

2,848

2,849

2, 852

2,845

2,840

2,867

2,879

2,855

2, 830

2,809

North Carolina.. .

1, 894

1, 893

1, 894

1,896

1,901

1,911

1,994

2,049

2,065

2,084

2,115

2,163

North Dakota _

230

229

230

230

230

219

136

136

134

136

' 136

140

Ohio _

4, 027

4, 047

4, 022

4,035

4, 023

3, 998

3, 986

3,985

3,980

3, 982

3,993

3,995

Oklahoma _ _

2, 184

2,171

2,168

2,160

2,151

2,153

2,157

2,167

2,185

2,181

2, 186

2,184

Oregon _ _ _

456

467

455

452

459

465

466

475

474

478

481

475

Pennsylvania _

13, 4S9

IS, S89

IS, US

IS, 507

IS, 58t

IS, 656

IS, 715

IS, 81S

IS, 864

IS, 910

IS, 955

IS, 954

Rhode Island _

70

74

79

82

81

84

83

85

93

98

99

104

South Carolina _

761

758

754

766

784

801

803

801

804

796

797

806

South Dakota _

259

265

268

273

279

281

282

264

266

252

251

253

Tennessee _

1,649

1, 650

1, 646

1,640

1,638

1,645

1, 641

1,638

1,629

1,621

1,619

1,616

Texas _ _ _

1 ,

1 ^^9.

Utah _

190

187

187

182

182

183

180

180

179

174

’l76

’l77

Vermont _ _ _

147

145

145

150

158

158

158

161

161

161

164

163

Virginia . .

1, 028

1, 036

1,038

1, 035

1,034

1, 025

1,045

1, 057

1, 066

1,057

1, 060

1, 064

Washington. _

1, 045

1,048

1, 044

1,044

1,043

1, 041

1,057

1, 061

1,052

1,042

1,039

1, 036

West Virginia _

837

841

846

849

850

862

873

897

915

933

948

960

Wisconsin _

2,017

2,014

2.000

1,987

1, 987

1,983

1,978

1, 977

1, 979

1, 970

1, 956

1,955

Wyoming _ _

143

144

145

147

150

150

144

143

141

140

139

' 136

■ Figures in italics represent programs administered under State laws from
State and/or local funds without Federal participation.

* Delaware and Alaska do not have programs; information on status of pro¬
gram in Kentucky not available.

* For January-September, 43 States made payments under approved plans;
Texas was added in October.

‘ Includes program administered under State law without Federal partici¬
pation.

• Estimated.

9

from 15 to 17 for children attending school; the
maximum payment for old-age assistance and aid
to the blind, from $30 to $40; and the Federal
matching ratio for aid to dependent children, from
one-third to one-half. A number of States first
took advantage of these liberalizations in 1941
after amendment of State legislation; in other
States the effects of liberalizations made in 1940
continued into 1941.

Increase in State and Local Funds

An added factor in expansion of the programs of
old-age assistance, aid to dependent children, and
aid to the blind in 1941 was the increase in State
and local funds and consequently in the amount of
Federal matching funds. The assistance programs
first came under the Social Security Act in 1936
during the economic depression. State and local
funds available for the special types of public
assistance in 1941 showed the first marked effect of
improved economic conditions. With the upswing
in business there were increases both in appropria¬
tions and in revenues earmarked for public assist¬
ance. Increased funds enabled many States to
accept substantial numbers of persons whose ap¬
plications had been pending for some time. In
States administering programs throughout 1940
and 1941 under plans approved by the Social
Security Board, the number of applications pend¬
ing was reduced by 50,000 for old-age assistance,
by about 7,000 for aid to dependent children, and
by about 800 for aid to the blind.

State Variations

The rise from December 1940 to December 1941
in the coverage of the programs of old-age assist¬
ance, aid to dependent children, and aid to the
blind for the Nation as a whole obscured the
varied trends in the State programs. The differ¬
ences in the amount and direction of change in the
coverage of each program are summarized in table 10.

Old-age assistance. — Expansion in coverage of
the old-age assistance programs occurred in all but
five States (table 6). Among the reasons for such
general expansion are the progressive increase in
the number of aged persons in the general popula¬
tion and the popular interest in their security.
Increased employment opportunities did not
result in any substantial reduction in the number
of recipients of old-age assistance, even in centers

Table 10.— Special types of assistance: Number of
States with specified percentage changes in number
of recipients from December 1940 to December 1941,
by program

Number of States

Percentage change

Old-age

assistance

Aid to de¬
pendent chil¬
dren (family)

Aid to
the blind

Total _

51

1 47

1 43

Increase:

Under 5.0 . .

24

11

6

5.0-9.9 _ _

12

9

8

5

10.0-19.9 _ _

7

7

20.0 and over ...

3

5

4

Decrease:

Under 5.0 _ _

5

8

17

2

5.0-9.9 _ _ _ _ _

1

10.0-19.9 _ _ _

6

20.0 and over . . . .

1

> Excludes States which had no State-wide programs in December 1940,
States for which data are estimated, and States with less than 100 recipients
in December 1940.

of armament production.^ The majority of the
recipients of old-age assistance are aged 70 or over
and hence are comparatively unemployable. In
Delaware, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, and
Tennessee, as contrasted with the other States,
the number of persons receiving old-age assistance
in December 1941 was lower than in the previous
December. The declines in Maryland and New
Jersey were fairly continuous throughout the year.

Aid to dependent children. — From January
through May 1941 the number of families receiving
aid to dependent children in the United States
continued an upward trend, partly reflecting
liberalizations in the matching provisions which
became effective in January 1940 (tables 7 and 8).
In June 1941 the case load began a decline which
continued until October, when the effect of the
new Federal-State programs became apparent.
From December 1940 to December 1941 the num¬
ber of families receiving aid to dependent children
declined in 15 States.^ In 5 of these States —
Connecticut, Indiana, Maryland, New Jersey, and
New York — the downward trend began in 1940
and by December 1941 resulted in reductions of
1 1-23 percent in the number of families aided.

These declines may be explained by several
factors, including the employment of parents or
other adults caring for dependent children, the
employment of older children, and the movement
of families to WPA rolls. Data on reasons for

1 Perkins, Walter M., “Measuring the Effect of Defense Employment on
Relief Loads,” Social Security BuUelin, Vol. 5, No. 2 (February 1942), pp. 5-9.

1 Alabama, Arizona, California. Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii,
Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Ten¬
nessee, and Wisconsin.

10

closing cases suggest that, among other factors,
the failure of aid to dependent children payments
in most States to keep pace with the rising cost of
living may have encouraged some mothers needed
in the home for the care of young children to go to
work and some older children to leave school for
jobs. In times of economic depression the relief
rolls are heavily weighted with workers with little
formal education. Some of the children who are
now leaving the aid to dependent children rolls to
go to work may find it difficult to compete with
better educated workers in periods of unemploy¬
ment and may again need public aid with the
downswing of the business cycle.

Aid to the blind. — During 1941 the number of
recipients of aid to the blind increased in the
country as a whole, but declined in almost half the
States providing such assistance (table 9). In
most of these States, however, the declines were
small. Increased support from relatives, the
restoration or improvement of vision of blind per¬
sons, and employment of blind persons contrib¬
uted to the decrease in the number aided. During
the year, 54 workshops for the blind in 27 States
were engaged in filling Government orders for a
variety of products for which the war has increased
the demand.^ In North Dakota a decline of more
than 38 percent from December 1940 to Decem¬
ber 1941 resulted from the transfer of aged blind
persons to old-age assistance, for which funds are
more nearly adequate. Similar shifts may have
occurred in some other States.

Applications and Case Closings

The change to a defense economy was reflected
in declines in applications received and increases
in cases closed under all thi-ee programs. The
changes from 1940 to 1941 in applications and
closings in States in which Federal-State programs
operated throughout both years is given in table
11. The rate of decline in applications was sim¬
ilar for the different programs. There were,
however, very sharp differences among the pro¬
grams in the rate of increase in case closings.
There was only a veiy slight increase in the number
of aged persons dropped from the roUs, but the
number of families for whom aid to dependent
children was discontinued increased by one-half.

5 “About the Blind,” Surety Midmonthly, Vol. 78, No. 1 (January 1942),
p. 23.

Table 11. — Special types of assistance: Applications
received and cases closed in States with approved
plans, by program, 1941 *

/ Program

Applica¬

tions

received

Cases

closed

Percentage change
from 1940

Applica¬

tions

received

Cases

closed

Old-age assistance _

626, 237

289, 412

-6.4

+ 2.3

Aid to dependent children _

191, 691

120, 644

-6.1

+51.4

Aid to the blind _

15, 732

7, 852

-7.6

+14.3

* Excludes States which did not have approved plans for all months of 1940
and 1941.

Changes in Coverage of General Relief

The general relief program is primarily a residual
program, the size of which is influenced by trends
in other programs as well as by changes in eco¬
nomic conditions (table 12). The sharp rise in
employment radically reduced general relief loads
in 1941*. In December 1941, 798,000 cases were on
the relief rolls, a drop of 441,000 cases or nearly 36
percent from December 1940. The decline in the
number of persons aided is estimated to be more
than 40 percent.

The major part of the reduction in general relief
loads is attributable to expanding employment
opportunities in war industries. Relatively few
workers formerly on relief, however, went directly
into jobs in war industries, since these industries
drew primarily from civilian industries and drew
only the best qualified workers from Federal work
programs and general relief rolls. Many vacancies
thus created in industries producing for civilian
use were filled by workers from the Federal work
programs and the general relief rolls. The shift to
industry of workers on Federal work programs
more than offset the reduction in employment
quotas resulting from cuts in appropriations, and
many relief recipients were able to obtain employ¬
ment on projects with earnings higher than their
relief payments.

The prevalence of job opportunities has induced
many general relief agencies to adopt policies under
wliich relief is given only to families in which no
member is presumed to be employable. Conse¬
quently, most of the people remaining on relief are
in families without “employables.” Since families
with employable members tend to be larger than
other families, the cases remaining on the rolls are

11

the smaller families, including a large number of
one-person cases. The average number of persons
per case was estimated to be 2.9 in December
1940, and 2.6 in December 1941.

Of continuing but secondary significance in the
decline in general relief loads during 1941 is the
growth in the programs of old-age assistance and
aid to dependent children.

State Trends

Although in 1941 the trend in general relief was
downward in almost all States, the rates of decline
and the seasonal changes in the case loads of

individual States varied widely from the trend for
the Nation as a whole (chart 1). Armament
production infiuenced case loads significantly in
some States and had relatively slight influence in
others. In regions where general relief programs
have made little or no provision for families in need
because of unemployment or under-employment,
the possibilities of reduction in relief loads were
negligible.

In the southern States, which are not primarily
industrial and in which general relief is meager,
case loads were relatively stable; the number of
relief cases even increased from December 1940 to

Table 12.— General relief in the continental United States: Cases receiving assistance, by State and month, 1941

[Corrected to Feb. 15, 1942]

State

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

Deeember

Total .

1, 257, 000

1, 230, 000

1, 210, 000

1, 153, 000

1, 038, 000

934, 000

876, 000

859,000

817,000

796,000

782,000

798,000

Alabama _

2,316

2,356

2,364

2,382

2,429

2,387

2,390

2,352

2,337

2,320

2,321

2,286

Arizona.. _ _

3, 169

3, 079

3, 184

3,106

3, 075

2,799

2, 845

2,854

2,687

2,671

2,733

2,821

Arkansas _

4, 406

4, 392

4, 393

4,393

4,318

3, 463

3, 363

3,267

3,228

3, 183

3,606

3,848

California ’ _

89, 093

84, 026

82, 178

78, 057

71, 870

62, 140

2 45, 393

42, 181

35, 375

32,502

30, 782

31,564

Colorado * _

15, 701

15, 181

14, 440

14, 419

12, 534

10, 013

8,561

8,541

8, 861

8,310

8,904

10, 272

Connecticut-. - _

13, 405

12, 916

12, 484

11,281

9,681

8,571

8,046

7,765

7,514

7,240

7,020

7,110

Delaware _

1, 124

1,087

1, 184

1, 179

1,073

951

816

808

807

747

760

746

District of Columbia.

2,069

2, 157

2,207

2,240

2, 148

2,075

2,075

2,223

2,265

2,208

2, 165

2,059

Florida.. . .

9,003

7, 975

8, 257

8, 409

8, 434

8, 343

8,528

8,467

8, 274

8, 193

7, 983

8,204

Georgia _

6,873

6,473

6,298

5, 979

5,962

5,880

5, 957

5,841

6,850

6, 017

5, 874

6,025

Idaho ‘ _ _

2,376

2, 335

2,346

2,208

1,456

1,410

1,370

1,411

1,361

1,324

1,282

1,225

Illinois _ _

150, 756

147, 193

144, 798

139, 339

126, 533

113,900

108, 872

111, 195

108,606

105, 907

102, 537

99,502

Indiana ». . .

44, 496

43, 227

40,560

34, 578

27, 815

23, 484

23, 282

23,766

24, 172

23, 199

23, 636

24,698

Iowa _

27, 339

27, 048

26, 698

24, 679

20, 875

18, 759

18, 102

17, 711

16, 510

15,950

15, 848

16, 828

Kansas _ _

15,990

16, 290

15, 265

14, 052

13,264

12, 186

11,222

11, 723

11, 797

11, 699

11, 848

11, 628

Kentucky * _

Louisiana _ _

5,700

6, 100

6,000

5,300

4,700

5,000

5,200

4,700

4,700

4,400

4,700

4,500

11,496

11,901

12, 404

12, 455

12, 569

12, 677

12, 262

12, 100

11, 944

11, 885

11,902

11, 887

Maine _

IQ, 086

9,568

9, 207

8,842

7,791

6,774

6,247

5, 886

5,700

5, 639

5,595

5, 882

Maryland _

8, 676

8,665

8, 752

8, 374

7,683

7, 241

7, 099

7,079

7,139

6, 995

6,988

7,098

Massachusetts _

52, 753

49, 858

48,228

45, 135

40, 921

36, 732

37,266

36,820

35, 505

35, 127

34, 245

35, 352

Michigan _ _

Minnesota _

51,417

50,329

49, 519

46, 685

40,397

32,829

30, 227

30, 886

30, 542

31, 335

31, 483

33, 717

34, 825

33, 705

33, 273

31,805

26, 976

23, 303

21, 465

21, 441

20, 341

20,236

21, 278

22, 651

Mississippi _

Missouri-- . .

903

916

905

897

918

745

737

700

701

693

638

682

25,011

24, 669

24, 128

23, 029

21, 398

19, 879

18, 159

16, 233

14, 930

14, 978

15, 152

15, 757

Montana _ _

4,633

4, 137

4, 187

3, 899

3, 313

3,004

2, 895

2,630

2,595

2,592

2, 729

3, 105

Nebraska _

9,860

10, 050

9,783

8, 030

6,773

5,763

5,233

5,482

5, 285

6,137

6,087

5,626

Nevada _

552

502

519

520

477

426

427

474

508

461

563

517

New Hampshire _

6,956

6,501

6, 498

5, 992

5,287

4, 543

4, 156

4,001

3,781

3,594

3,548

3,692

New Jersey * _

New Mexico * _

38,154

37,294

35, 744

35, 737

31, 589

26,539

25, 264

24, 893

23, 867

23,268

23,004

23, 475

1,754

1,837

1,906

1, 774

1,795

1,759

1,733

1,609

1,409

945

1, 165

1, 164

New York ? _

237, 375

236, 482

238, 445

229, 603

212, 594

199, 949

195, 256

192, 550

183, 950

179, 685

173, 762

174, 557

North Carolina _

5,669

5, 644

5, 274

4, 754

4,601

4, 435

4, 180

4, 135

4,018

3,920

4, 174

4, 536

North Dakota _

4, 102

3, 736

3,889

3, 653

2,862

2, 556

2,199

1,898

1, 954

1,968

2, 203

2, 854

Ohio _

76, 775

76, 151

73, 995

65, 564

55, 545

47, 980

44, 514

45, 353

43, 373

42, 188

42, 071

43, 351

Oklahoma * _

12, 164

12, 056

11,267

9,963

10, 618

11, 129

5,987

9, 777

10, 436

10, 079

9, 490

10, 108

Oregon . _ _

9,744

8, 887

8,313

7, 895

7,222

6,581

6, 055

5, 756

5, 468

5, 388

5, 549

6, 916

Pennsylvania _

155, 893

152, 455

151, 455

146, 726

134, 730

123, 071

115, 140

106, 227

93,700

87, 261

81, 560

80,771

Rhode Island * _

3 6, 254

3 4, 962

3 4, 697

« 4, 480

3 3, 885

3 3, 220

3 3, 292

33,117

2, 972

3, 090

3f 1 13

3, 293

South Carolina. - _

2, 148

2,143

2,183

2, 186

2, 184

2,272

2,311

2,371

2,361

2, 413

2, 428

2, 432

South Dakota _

4,994

5,128

4, 937

4,738

4,010

3, 126

2,902

2,693

2,365

2, 574

2, 687

2,929

Tftnne.s.sftfi ^ . .

3, 300

3,400

3,400

2,900

2,700

2,600

2,700

2,700

2, 600

2,700

2,600

2,600

TpYas

11, 160

11, 223

10, 725

10,290

10, 351

9, 550

9, 128

8, 948

9,048

by 852

8, 790

9, 460

Utah

5, 486

5; 283

5, 344

5, 438

5,269

4, 855

4,808

4,804

4, 075

4, 141

3) 881

4, 158

Vprmnnt ....

2, 530

2, 367

2,349

2,086

1,828

1,599

1,437

1,395

1,349

1,383

1, 408

1, 641

Virginia _ _

Washington . .

West Virginia _

Wisconsin.. -

Wyoming _ _

5, 850

6,074

6, 075

5,946

5,648

5, 352

5,217

5,139

6, U36

4,981

4, 930

3y OIU

17,382
11, 854

15, 965
12, 131

14, 572
12, 183

12, 682
17, 674

10, 390
15,034

9, 605
12, 572

8,580

11,815

7, 879
11, 852

7, 461

12, 496

7, 321
12,901

7, 719
13, 395

8, 844
14, 132

38, 177
1,445

37; 516
1,501

37, 316
1,527

34, 846
1,491

28, 461

1, 103

24, 116
870

21, 836
798

21, 109
799

20, 064
769

20, 180
778

20, 791
829

21, 639
941

> Partly estimated; does not represent sum of State figures, because in 4
States an estimated number of cases receiving medical care, hospitalization,
and/or burial only have been excluded, an estimated number of cases aided
by local officials in Rhode Island have been included, and data on cases aided
in Oklahoma have been estimated to exclude duplication.

’ State relief administration discontinued operations June 30, 1941; data for

subsequent months represent county indigent aid only. . . .

^ Includes unknown number of cases receiving medical care, hospitalization,
and/or burial only.

1 Excludes cases receiving assistance in kind only and, for a few counties,
cash payments.

e Estimated. , . . . . , , ~ ,

« State program only; excludes program administered by local officials.

? Includes cases receiving medical care only; number believed by State
agency to be insignificant. .t..:.,

* Represents cases aided under program administered by State Board of
Public Welfare and under program administered by county commissioners;
duplication believed to be large.

12

Chart 1.— Index of cases receiving general relief in the
continental United States and in selected States^
January-December 1941

INDEX NUMBER

[January 1941= 100]

December 1941 in Alabama, Louisiana, and South
Carolina. Some States, on the other hand,
experienced a much sharper reduction in general
relief loads than the country as a whole. In
California, for example, the liquidation of the
State Relief Administration combined with the
upswing in employment resulted in a drop of 62
percent in the number of relief cases from Decem¬
ber 1940 to December 1941.

In a few States particular conditions produced
highly irregular trends. Strikes in the coal mines
of West Virginia, for example, increased the
number of families on relief by 45 percent in a
single month ; settlement of the strike was followed
by a return to the previous level.

Changes in Assistance Payments

Adjustments of Payments to Increased Cost of
Living

The rise in the cost of living in 1941 was accom¬
panied by a general rise in levels of assistance
payments, but the rise in payments lagged behind
that in prices and does not appear to be commen¬
surate with this increase. Although a number of

surveys in limited areas have provided a basis for
keeping the standards for determining need abreast
of the changes in cost of living, no satisfactory
measure exists of the general rise m the living
costs of recipients of assistance, as distinguished
from others in the general population. The
Bureau of Labor Statistics, however, estimates
that for wage earners and lower-salaried workers
in large cities the cost of living rose 9.7 percent from
December 1940 to December 1941. During this

Table 13. — Special types of assistance and general
relief: Average payment, by State and program,
December 1941

State

Old-age

assistance

Aid to de¬
pendent
children
(family)

Aid to the
blind

General

relief

Total _

$21. 26

$33. 63

$25. 80

$24. 41

Alabama _

9.03

13. 70

8. 98

8. 83

Alaska _

29.17

(')

(2)

(’)

Arizona _ _

34. 14

33. 34

32.77

19. 18

Arkansas _

7. 95

13. 66

9. 19

6. 01

California _

36.61

48. 86

46. 78

22. 16

Colorado _

29.91

30. 68

32. 68

19. 38

Connecticut _

29. 07

45. 06

29. 50

31.05

Delaware _

12. 33

33. 37

(2)

21.97

District of Columbia _

26. 08

36. 96

30. 92

24. 78

Florida _ _

13. 74

23.53

14. 62

7.22

Georgia _ _

8. 66

22. 01

11. 22

7.35

Hawaii _

12. 98

37. 23

15. 39

18. 94

Idaho _

22. 87

31.13

23. 08

14. 06

Illinois _ _

24. 65

31.46

30. 57

23. 84

Indiana _ _

18. 74

29. 99

21. 19

15. 93

Iowa _

21. 10

19. 30

24.98

17. 05

Kansas _ _

22. 90

33. 98

24. 01

18. 02

Kentucky, _ _

9. 26

(0

(‘)

0)

Louisiana _

13.24

26. 62

16.99

16. 18

Maine _

21.05

40. 46

22. 85

23.75

Maryland _ _

18. 58

32.84

22.28

23. 35

Massachusetts _

29. 75

68. 55

23.81

29. 36

Michigan _

18.02

42. 74

24. 85

25. 63

Minnesota _

21.97

34. 69

26.90

23. 21

Mississippi _

8. 94

20. 29

10. 14

3. 45

Missouri _

13.01

23. 10

(')

15. 76

Montana _

21.42

30.11

23.24

16. 06

Nebraska _

20. 03

31.49

21.02

12. 80

Nevada. _

29. 67

24. 59

33. 65

14. 59

New Hampshire _

22. 18

46. 08

23.25

24. 42

New Jersey _ : _

22. 21

31.72

24. 06

25. 34

New Mexico _

15.98

26. 53

18. 18

11. 08

New York,. _ _

26. 59

49. 02

27. 76

39. 31

North Carolina _

10. 23

16. 91

15. 02

7. 26

North Dakota _

18. 03

31.52

21. 87

14. 77

Ohio _

23. 64

40. 26

20. 35

20. 52

Oklahoma _

18. 78

19. 37

20. 09

(®)

Oregon _

22. 16

43. 38

26. 49

19. 51

Pennsylvania _

22. 64

37. 67

29. 76

19. 25

Rhode Island _

21. 63

46. 32

21.64

» 38. 16

South Carolina _

10. 11

16. 42

10. 40

8. 33

South Dakota _ ^ _

18. 95

28.29

15. 14

14. 45

Tennessee _

10.28

18. 70

11.44

(’)

Texas _

19. 13

19. 98

23. 25

9. 27

Utah _

26. 88

43. 71

27.19

27. 12

Vermont _

17. 22

32. 48

‘ 22. 15

19. 74

Virginia _

10.17

20. 10

12. 70

10. 12

Washington _

33.13

40. 76

35. 40

20.85

West Virginia _

17. 24

30. 30

21.94

11.06

Wisconsin _

23. 15

38. 90

23. 86

25. 75

Wyoming _

24. 28

33. 22

26.09

16.50

■ Not computed because data on cases and payments estimated.

2 No program in operation.

3 Data not available.

< Status of program not known.

« Not computed because unduplicated count of cases receiving assistance
under State and local programs not available.

« State program only.

13

period, costs of food increased 16,2 percent, rent
3.1 percent, and clothing 13.0 percent. The
lower the income available for living expenses the
greater the significance of the amount available
for expenditures for food ; hence it seems probable
that families mainly dependent on public assist¬
ance experienced more than a 9.7-percent rise in
their cost of living.

Prices of goods and services have risen much
more sharply in some places than in others.
Costs have varied also among mdividual families
as well as from place to place. For instance, the
impact of rising prices has been felt more by
families which must buy all the goods and services
they consume than by those who own their homes
or produce part of their food and fuel.

The effect of increasing costs of living has been
offset somewhat by increases in wage scales or in
the number of hours of employment under several
Federal work programs. On November 1, 1941,
the WPA put into effect a wage scale providing
increases of $5.20 per month for all workers on
nondefense projects, except the professional and
technical groups who received an increase of $3.90.
Earnings on defense projects under the WPA rose
because of an increase in hours worked. On
! July 1, 1941, the number of hours worked on the
out-of-school work program of the NYA was in¬
creased and the maximum wage on defense train¬
ing projects was raised $4 to $5 per month,
depending upon the region.

The Farm Security Administration endeavored
in 1941, through its rehabilitation program, to
reach even more farmers than this program had
previously aided. The subsistence payments
given to these farmers in 1941 provided for certain
household and clothing needs in addition to the
food formerly provided.

Other public assistance agencies have also
recognized increasing living costs and have in
general attempted to raise amounts of payments.
Average payments for old-age assistance, aid to
dependent children, aid to the blind, and general
relief have risen slightly in the United States, as
shown below, and have risen by varying amounts
in the great majority of States (table 14).

Program

Average payment

Decem¬
ber 1940

Decem¬
ber 1941

Old-age assistance, recipient _ _ _ _ _

$20.26
32.69
23. 47
24.28

$21. 26
33.63
25.80
24. 41

Aid to dependent children, family _ _

Aid to the blind, recipient-- _ _

General relief, case . . . . . .

The averages serve as rough measures of levels of
assistance payments although they do not, of
course, measure average income of recipients.
No information is available to indicate whether,
in general, there has been an appreciable rise in
the resources of recipients which the assistance
payments are intended to supplement. Such in¬
formation would be essential in appraising the

Table 14. — Special types of assistance and general relief: States in which average payment increased or decreased

by fl or more from December 1940 to December 1941, by program

Amount

Old-age assistance

Aid to dependent children i
(family)

Aid to the blind

General relief

INCREASE

Colorado.

Arizona, Rhode Island, Utah,
Washington.

Oregon, Wisconsin.
Connecticut, Michigan, Mis¬
souri, New Mexico, West
Virginia.

Kansas, Massachusetts, Ohio,
Vermont, Wyoming.

Nevada.

Pennsylvania.

California.

Q AfUQ QQ

South Dakota _

fi nn fi QQ

Illinois, Washington _

A HA-fi QQ

West Virginia _

fk AA_^ QQ

Utah....r. . . . .

Arizona, Colorado _

4 00-4 QQ

Utah . .

Kansas, Oklahoma . .

District of Columbia, Nevada,
Oklahoma, Washington,

West Virginia.

Rhode Island _

Oregon _ _

2.00-2.99..- _ _

1.00-1.99 . . .

DECREASE

$1.00-1.99 _

2.00-2.99...- - -

Illinois, Kansas, Montana,
South Carolina.

Connecticut, Florida, Michi¬
gan, New Jersey, New York,
North Dakota, Rhode Is¬
land.

California, Colorado, Mis¬
souri, New Mexico.

California, Michigan, New
York.

Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Lou¬
isiana, Maine, Maryland,
Montana, Pennsylvania,
Wisconsin.

Massachusetts, Missouri -

Connecticut, Kansas, Mon¬
tana, New York, Utah.

Florida, Iowa, Louisiana,
Michigan, Mississippi, Ore¬
gon.

California, Wyoming.. .

South Dakota - -

I Excludes 2 States which had no State-wide program in operation in December 1940.

14

adequacy of the adjustments made in payments
to meet higher living costs.

State changes. — Changes of less than $1 in
average payments from December 1940 to Decem¬
ber 1941 predominate. Such small changes may
not reflect significant changes in adequacy of
assistance. States in which average payments

Chart 2. — Effect of maximums on amounts of pay¬
ments: Percentage distribution of payments for
special types of public assistance, by amount, in
selected States, November 1941

AMOUNT OF PAYMENT IN 00UAA5

t 2.8 percent of payments exceeded $70.

Chart 3. — Effect of no maximums on amounts of pay¬
ments: Percentage distribution of payments for
special types of public assistance, by amount, in
selected States, November 1941

PERCENT
10

KANSAS t
OLO'AGE ASSfSTANCe

— n - 1 I I

60 65 70

t 0.8 percent of payments exceeded $70.

* 7.6 percent of payments exceeded $70.

under each program mcreased or decreased by $1
or more are shown in table 14. A few States
which did not make substantial increases in 1941
had made such increases in 1940.

The rise in the cost of living was not the only
factor influencmg levels of payments. Federal
participation in the programs of aid to dependent
children in South Dakota and Illinois, which
came under the Social Security Act late in 1940
and in 1941, respectively, caused average pay¬
ments in these States to rise sharply. Some ad¬
justments of payments to meet rising living costs
have occurred without increasing average pay¬
ments. Because of changes in the characteristics
of case loads, such as the declme in the number of
persons per general relief case, standards for
determining amounts of assistance may have been
maintained or raised without a rise in average
payments.

Influence of Prescribed Maximums

Sometimes increases in payments .affect only
a small proportion of recipients and are not dis¬
tributed over the entire case load. In some
States average payments have increased because

15

/

prescribed maximums on the amounts of payments
were raised or were removed in 1941, affecting
the group of payments which had formerly been
limited by maximum amounts of assistance.

At the end of 1941, maximums were still pre¬
scribed by State law or agency policy for 45 of
the 51 programs of old-age assistance, 36 of the
44 programs of aid to the blind administered under

Chart 4. — Effect of variations in availability of funds: Percentage distribution of payments for special types of public

assistance, by amount, in selected States, November 1941

PeftCENT
e 5 I -

to

5

O

t 8.4 percent of payments exceeded $70.
465439°— 42 - 3

16

the Social Security Act, and 27 of the 47 programs
of aid to dependent children operated under the
act. In 1941,^ about one-eighth of the payments
of old-age assistance in these States, roughly
one-fifth of the payments of aid to the blind, and
more than one-third of the payments of aid to
dependent children were already at the highest
amount permitted by State regulations.

In several States the proportions of payments
at the prescribed maximums were much higher
than in the country as a whole. For example,
more than 42 percent of old-age assistance pay-

< Data for old-age assistance and aid to the blind are based on reports for
November 1941; data for aid to dependent children on reports for May 1941.

ments in Arizona, nearly 44 percent in the District
of Columbia, and about 60 percent in California
were for maximum amounts. In 10 States, more
than half of all payments for aid to dependent
children were at the maximum amounts and
consequently could not be increased to meet
rising living costs.

Administrative Limitations

Changes in amounts of payments may lag
behind increases in the cost of living for legal and
administrative reasons also. The development
and use of sound administrative standards and
procedures for equitable determination of need

Table 15.— Old-age assistance: Payments to recipients, by State and month, 1941

[In dollars; corrected to Feb. 15, 1942]

state

Total

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

Septem¬

ber

October

Novem¬

ber

Decem¬

ber

Total 1 _

542,301,101

42,590,374

43,068,075

43,528,447

43,951,948

44,186,359

45,754,779

45,403,047

45,761,626

46,256,821

46,928,895

47,295,058

47,575,672

Alabama _

2, 220, 905

185, 903

185, 584

185, 719

184, 649

183, 109

183, 613

183, 507

185, 004

185, 841

184, 446

186, 203

187, 327

Alaska _ _

543, 193

44, 128

44,313

44, 883

44, 813

44, 828

45, 633

46, 091

45, 711

45, 671

45, 594

45, 794

45, 734

Arizona.. . .

3, 297, 254

239, 622

240, 860

242, 406

244, 422

247, 249

250, 286

290, 881

300, 495

305,082

308, 438

312,033

315, 480

Arkansas. . .

2, 376, 994

199, 032

198, 668

198, 704

199, 526

200, 715

200, 367

198, 740

197, 498

195, 712

194, 498

192, 892

200; 642

Caiifornia . .

69, 502, 081

5, 744, 940

5, 774, 867

5, 809, 531

5, 844, 102

5, 876, 537

5, 908, 628

5, 661, 943

5, 747, 670

5, 776, 092

5, 778,874

5, 783, 546

5, 795, 351

Colorado ^ _

17, 004, 284

1,451,991

1, 701, 723

1, 167, 002

1, 131, 300

1, 263, 384

1, 437, 803

1, 525, 409

1, 356, 718

1, 529, 639

1, 618, 027

1, 538, 313

1, 282', 975

Connecticut _

5, 976, 393

492, 405

444, 652

495, 651

482, 520

501,611

487,435

503, 847

514, 388

509, 094

512, 694

515,119

516; 977

Delaware _ _

347, 888

28, 431

28, 009

28, 158

27, 949

28, 744

29, 102

28, 887

29, 127

29, 465

29, 718

29, 934

30, 364

Dist. of Columbia.

1, 082, 509

87, 824

87, 951

88, 298

89, 348

90, 049

89, 950

90, 203

90, 544

90, 673

92, 209

92, 617

92; 843

Florida _ ..

5, 980, 300

476, 480

477, 606

482, 565

488, 002

494, 286

495, 298

495, 946

499, 118

505, 196

512, 284

521, 179

532, 340

Georgia... .

5, 039, 382

340, 026

349, 125

376, 874

399, 944

420, 339

430,811

437, 082

439, 645

442, 679

445, 334

466, 779

490, 744

Hawaii.. . .

278, 866

23, 031

22, 849

22, 751

23, 094

23, 166

23, 226

23, 562

23, 372

23, 553

23, 449

23, 261

23, 552

Idaho _

2, 561, 474

204, 666

206, 241

207, 656

209, 214

210, 080

212, 108

214, 541

216,419

217, 571

219, 405

221, 221

222, 352

Iliinois... _

41, 040, 666

3, 169, 888

3, 208, 702

3, 257, 443

3, 306, 854

3, 350, 243

3, 397, 249

3, 442, 398

3, 494, 185

3, 538, 987

3, 576, 728

3, 620, 025

3, 677; 964

Indiana _

15, 081, 979

1, 222, 298

1, 224, 364

1, 229, 161

1, 231, 507

1, 240, 747

1, 245, 231

1, 255, 123

1, 265, 539

1, 277, 422

1, 288, 513

1, 296, 872

1, 305, 202

Iowa. . .

14, 283, 883

1, 172, 997

1, 174, 611

1, 176, 258

1, 180, 066

1, 185, 199

1, 190,417

1, 194, 292

1, 196, 559

1, 201, 203

1, 201, 755

1,204,945

1, 205; 581

Kansas.. .

7, 198, 731

567, 956

571, 121

577, 682

569, 244

554, 393

559, 886

567, 448

591, 561

616, 641

644, 691

675, 248

702, 860

Kentucky . .

6, 195, 134

483, 369

482, 759

491, 678

497, 356

504, 258

516, 810

520, 852

526, 129

532, 299

539, 023

545; 841

554; 760

Louisiana _

5, 636, 835

443, 189

456, 037

469, 162

476, 502

481, 739

482, 792

472, 701

470, 001

469, 326

470, 260

472, 040

473, 086

Maine . . .

3, 367, 539

272, 292

268, 445

265, 512

265, 876

262, 320

260, 555

273, 296

283, 396

291, 947

302, 728

307, 477

313, 695

Maryland _

3, 851, 799

322, 803

322, 447

322, 131

322, 560

321, 590

320, 302

319,613

318, 342

317, 972

319, 033

322, 324

322, 682

Massachusetts _

30, 460, 577

2,515,118

2, 529, 853

2, 539, 900

2, 532, 040

2, 523, 862

2, 517, 562

2, 515, 539

2, 520, 930

2, 527, 200

2, 566, 731

2, 559, 181

2, 6I2; 661

Michigan _

18, 159, 954

1, 322, 331

1,343,913

1, 371, 568

1, 403, 798

1, 459, 247

1, 520, 820

1, 560, 798

1, 589, 738

1, 612, 413

1, 636, 635

1, 660, 442

1, 678; 251

Minnesota _

16, 253, 297

1, 332, 163

1, 331, 635

1, 333, 450

1, 337, 217

1, 343, 102

1, 349, 108

1, 356, 674

1,361,735

1, 366, 670

1, 369, 513

1, 375, 725

i, 396; 305

Mississippi _

2, 807, 843

220, 272

222, 090

225, 664

227, 507

230, 441

233, 261

235, 502

236, 432

240, 051

243, 761

245, 250

' 247; 612

Missouri _

20, 891,251

1, 949, 008

1, 950, 256

1, 969, 982

1, 997, 340

2, 018, 397

2, 039, 891

1, 452, 045

1, 477, 080

1, 490, 072

1, 503, 309

1, 516, 824

1, 527, 047

Montana . .

3, 043, 942

239, 074

241, 842

245, 075

247, 479

251, 403

253, 613

255, 574

257, 970

259, 439

260, 734

263, 696

268; 043

Nebraska. .

6, 422, 166

552, 075

553, 508

555, 607

488,897

492, 124

496, 619

499, 169

502, 985

505, 848

588, 047

592, 020

595, 267

Nevada. . .

759, 268

61,219

61, 120

61,111

61, 519

61,731

61, 653

62, 339

63, 460

64, 282

66, 135

67, 092

67; 607

New Hampshire...

1, 829, 649

142, 620

144, 818

147, 216

148, 832

149, 367

151, 579

153, 290

154, 967

156, 836

158, 369

161, 267

I6O; 488

New Jersey. _

8, 033, 287

659, 394

662, 287

663, 900

663, 210

663, 150

666, 321

666, 086

667, 260

673, 984

678, 749

682, 773

686, 173

New Mexico _ _

989, 435

84, 433

86, 187

86, 915

85, 268

83, 523

81, 944

81, 681

80, 515

79, 781

79; 641

79, 000

8O; 547

New York _ _

36, 753, 002

3, 038, 041

3, 025, 935

3, 016, 784

2, 974, 364

2, 995, 632

3, 002, 798

3, 027, 725

3, 066, 380

3, 023, 462

3, 139, 505

3, 206, 189

3, 236, 187

North Carolina _

4, 621, 754

374, 706

374, 529

375,879

378, 091

380, 666

382, 350

386, 708

388, 440

390, 741

393; 627

396i 284

399, 733

North Dakota _

1,941, 113

151, 562

152, 623

154, 478

156, 237

158, 019

160, 772

164, 922

166, 822

167, 039

168, 444

169| 686

170, 509

Ohio _

38, 528, 940

3, 095, 548

3, 115,203

3, 143, 953

3, 169, 776

3, 195, 429

3, 218, 350

3, 238, 102

3, 246, 467

3, 258, 334

3, 268, 886

3, 279' 913

3, 298; 979

Oklahoma _

16, 582, 105

1, 346, 048

1, 348, 275

1, 352, 744

1, 358, 319

1,369, 914

1, 377, 052

1,383, 836

1, 388, 158

1, 395, 273

1, 399, 582

i, 40i; 567

i, 46i; 337

Oregon _ _ ...

5, 438, 934

422, 099

426, 656

431,426

436, 187

441, 832

451, 153

457, 392

463, 510

468, 941

474, 348

480^ 952

484, 438

Pennsylvania _

27, 222, 426

2, 193, 937

2,202,115

2, 105, 893

2, 270, 817

2, 302, 797

2, 323, 311

2, 302, 167

2, 319, 021

2, 306, 207

2, 295, 688

2, 303i 417

2, 297, 056

Rhode Island- ...

1,753,477

139, 665

139, 121

139, 062

139, 878

140, 689

142, 282

144, 624

147, 190

150, 554

' 153, 592

156; 734

160, 086

South Carolina _

1, 809, 270

136, 287

134, 092

127, 433

128, 556

133, 739

140, 566

143, 709

150, 755

159, 389

169, 111

186, 870

198, 76.8

South Dakota _

3, 419, 221

287, 436

286, 749

286, 396

286,241

287, 150

286, 618

285, 384

282, 082

282, 792

282, 642

282, 458

273

Tennessee _

4, 863, 974

406, 164

406, 673

407, 320

406, 862

407, 601

407, 567

406, 930

406, 494

405, 571

403, 313

400, 997

398, 482

Texas _

28, 273, 246

1, 682, 215

1, 710, 788

1,771,009

1,838,175

1, 522, 641

2, 565, 321

2, 660, 682

2, 750, 625

2,811,305

2, 904, 805

2, 985; 574

3, 070, 106

Utah _

4, 521, 930

309, 484

363, 959

369, 083

374, 266

377, 843

381, 130

383, 841

388, 353

390, 592

392, 512

394; 750

117

Vermont _

1, 156, 214

85, 825

96, 336

98, 236

98, 170

98, 043

97, 515

97, 476

97, 646

97, 878

96' 971

96, 242

95,_876

Virginia _

2, 418, 007

197, 067

197, 232

197, 887

198, 718

199, 899

201, 104

202, 531

203, 178

204, 249

205, 155

205; 037

205, 9.56

Washington _

20, 988, 926

921, 613

929, 976

1, 644, 021

1, 745, 914

1, 822, 527

1, 877, 633

1, 923, 468

1, 962, 357

1, 999, 128

2, 028, 885

2, 056, 842

2, 07fi

West Virginia _

3, 677, 467

260, 167

262, 528

265, 360

271, 337

279, 329

286, 966

293, 582

309, 635

337, 585

356, 388

373, 216

3fi1 374

Wisconsin _

14, 797, 282

1, 208, 783

1,213, 560

1, 217, 878

1, 223, 625

1, 227, 185

1, 227, 896

1, 230, 769

1, 235, 277

1, 244', 213

1, 250, 935

1, 255, 208

1, 261, 9.5.8

Wyoming _

1, 015, 055

82, 749

83, 282

83, 992

84, 460

84, 491

84, 522

84, 140

84, 743

84, 927

85, 181

86, 189

86, 379

■ All 51 States have approved plans.

’ Includes payments to recipients 60 but under 65 years.

i

17

are frequently hampered by State laws or inter¬
pretation of these laws, and by a lack of personnel
qualified in the preparation and supervision of
the standards for determhiing need. Further¬
more, the size of case loads in relation to personnel
sometimes places a serious stram on staff time
available for making adjustments in assistance
plans in individual cases to conform to changed
requirements and resources. Even though adjust¬
ments are under way, in many States and localities.

it had not been possible by the end of 1941 for
some agencies to change the amount of the pay¬
ments received by a substantial proportion of
the case load.

Influence of Inadequate Funds

The most marked discrepancies between the need
of the individual recipient and the amount of assist¬
ance received result from inadequacies of funds
available for assistance (chart 4). This factor

Table 16. — Aid to dependent children: Payments to recipients, by State and month, 1941 ^

[In dollars; corrected to Feb. 15, 1942]

State

Total

January

1

February 1

March

April

May

June

July

August

Septem¬

ber

October

Novem¬

ber

Decem¬

ber

Total, 51
States _

153,693,423

12,347,075

13,238,738

12,815,669

12,914,978

12,906,228

12,850,017

12,616,449

12,617,217

12,605,498

12,742,326

12,885,226

13, 154, 002

Total, States
with ap-
proved
plans 3 _

150,482,946

12,027,711

12,928,408

12,496,492

12,595,815

12,582,640

/

12,532,362

12,297,714

12,297,580

12,293,201

12,604,077

12,768,341

13, 068, 606

Alabama _

969, 053

80, 586
3,157
81, 095

80, 615

81, 827

81,400

80, 319

80, 009

80, 207

81, 525

81,811

80, 367

80, 448

79, 939

Alaska 3 _

38, ns
969, 447

1, 032, 662
8, 910, 480
2, 291, 405
* 652, 756
242, 532

3,167

3,167

3,167

3,300

3,300

3,300

3,300

3,300

3,300
80, 868

3,300

3,300

Arizona _ _

80, 068

79, 700

79, 753

80, 251

81, 112

80, 936

81, 441

81, 350

81, 347

81, 526

Arkansas _

85, 645
738, 599

86, 304

86, 494

87, 360

88, 032

87, 254
758, 008

86, 904

86, 175

86, 238

84, 823

83, 492

84,941

California _

742, 782

749, 029

756, 248

757, 404

754, 371

743,419

733, 184

723, 886

722, 830

730, 721

Colorado _

191, 780

192, 183

194, 342

195, 373

194, 496

192, 636

190, 108

189, 596

188, 401

186, 548

187, 514

188,428

Connecticut _

60, 886
19, 569

6i, 671

69,983

67, 347

68, 099

66, 173

55,376

64,076

51,376

61,773

44, 386

50,013

Delaware _

20, 250

20, 947

21, 286

21,371

21,770

20, 394

20, 083

19, 670

19, 288

18, 915

18, 989

Dist. of Columbia.
Florida* _

443, 231

1, 220, 401

35, 920
95, 051

35, 521
95, 384

35, 677
95, 421

36, 215
95, 424

36, 948
95, 550

36, 611
94, 515

37, 261
92, 984

38,092
97, 639

37, 664
101, 954

37, 797
no. 334

37, 728
117, 177

37, 997
128, 968

Georgia _

1, 242, 847
517, 467

1, 103, 756

105, 433

108, 294

107, 373

106, 550

105, 466

104, 217

102, 849

101, 879

100, 754

99, 366

99,800

100,866

Hawaii-. _

45, 980

45, 075

45, 053

45, 549

45,419

44, 176

43, 576

40, 838

40, 371

40, 743

40, 662

40, 025

Idaho. . _

88, 180

89, 005

90, 044

90, 561

90, 823

91, 750

92, 940

94, 015

94, 098

93, 657
* 300, 533

93, 583

95, 100

Illinois _

*2,692,025

169, 068

168,361

169, 639

170,978

173, 696

173,636

173, 617
476, 206

177, 034

175, 100

* 363, 083

« 479, 592

Indiana.. _

5, 796, 081
791,663
2,412, 682

494, 210

493, 375

495, 415

496, 073

497, 644

494, 759

473, 515

472, 573

468, 175
66,886

466, 337

467, 799

Iowa _

66, 336

63, 701

67,385

68, 367

69, 730

66,878

67, 189

66, 166

64, 386

61,566

64, 396

Kansas _

195, 790

197, 327

198, 760

198, 096

193, 990

191, 992

189, 440

192, 640

200, 914

208, 621

218, 977

226, 135

Kentucky 3. _

188, 700

16,100

16,600

16,800

16,000

16,600

16,500

16,300

15,800

14,800

14,600

16,000

16,000

Louisiana _

4, 932, 346

388, 753

404, 610

417, 905

421, 589

429, 126

428, 926

410, 765

405, 520

404, 162

405, 132

407, 794

408, 074

Maine _

778, 274

62, 958

62, 546

61, 989

61, 662

61, 198

61, 184

63, 543

65, 644

66, 863

69, 155

70, 078

71, 454

Maryland _

2, 432, 684
8, 634, 008
10, 374, 147

221, 252
742, 784
826, 868

218, 890

219, 211

213, 582

203, 188

199, 378

195, 424

191,017

194, 005

190, 020

191, 929

194, 788

Massachusetts. . ..
Michigan _ _

750, 316
822, 123

752, 405
831, 750

743, 162
853, 493

721, 345
867, 258

710,029

868,008

700, 694
869, 820

692, 963
869, 894

692, 298
875, 641

712, 907
882, 132

691, 689
886, 518

723, 416
920, 642

Minnesota _

3, 846, 820
< 307, 426

320, 508

323, 551

325, 029

326, 693

324, 426

321,077

317, 875

316, 564

317, 061

317, 793

317, 475

318, 768

Mississippi _

>673

3 673

3, 625

3, 627

9,940

20, 547

33, 416

39, 576

45, 297

48. 508

50, 194

61, 350

Missouri _

4, 376, 698

393, 563

394, 337

396, 465

403, 293

407, 955

414, 829

321,214
75, 512

324, 814

327, 354

328, 438

332, 400

332, 036

Montana _

920, 884

73, 014

74, 952

76, 171

76, 794

77, 960

77, 591

77,873

77, 625

77, 221

Ilf 452

ibt 1 id

Nebraska * _

2. 047, 852

180, 669

182,000

182, 641

159, 858

160, 374

161, 337

159, 860

158, 963

158, 238

180, 943

6/U

ifSSS

181, 299

Nevada.. _ _ _

33, 03 i

3,665

3,693

3,631

3,838

3,796

3,706

3,687

3,737

3,897

3,890

3,903

New Hampshire..
New Jersey _

347, 999
3, 910, 329

27,681
363, 158

27,373
350, 704

27, 708
349, 666

27,600
348, 207

26,766
343, 077

26, 347
331, 379

26, 858
316, 367

28, 554
311,068

30,291
307, 421

31, 664
302, 052

;i3, on

299, 145
53, 911
1, 488, 020
165, 688
77, 780
475, 543
375, 332
89, 055
2, 116, 697
59, 354

64,931

* 48, 699
263, 954

* 14, 491
172, 544

22, 974
93, 645
211,726
323, 001
464, 094
25, 654

34, 146

298, 085
60, 428
1, 483, 070
167, 485
78, 360
482, 807
385, 840
90, 622
2, 093, 002
59,291

65, 151
49, 928
263, 462
* 28, 912
176, 890
23, 189
96, 227
212, 918
335, 481
465, 977
25, 749

New Mexico _

652, 373

54, 542

65, 225

55, 557

54, 973

53, 878

52, 851

52, 515

52, 472

52, 473

53, 548

New York _

18, 372, 504

1, 601, 242

1, 598, 376

1, 600, 331

1, 587, 214

1, 545, 954
167, 160
78, 213
465, 186

1, 528, 743

1, 504, 691

1, 491, 547

1, 474, 314

if 4t)y> 00^

North Carolina.. -

North Dakota _

Ohio _

1, 986, 487
926, 233
5, 584, 757

163, 402
76, 362
450, 492

163, 860
76, 332
455, 061

165, 568
76,971
459, 169

166, 159
77, 528
463, 374

166, 510
78, 150
465, 281

165, 541
77, 109
464, 764

164,991
76, 658
464, 882

165, 104
76, 397
468, 455

165, 019
76, 473
469, 753
366, 107
87, 374
2, 108, 020
59, 831

64,834
* 47, 263
263, 678

< 6, no

170, 733
22, 477
93, 576
210, 478
302, 908
460, 704
25,219

Oklahoma _

3, 866, 513
1, 016, 183
27, 148, 514
708, 969

761, 548
* 482, 006
3, 187, 876
* 55, 559

283, 587

283, 680

285, 979
81, 564

287, 252

290, 782

298, 437

318, 920

337, 991

352, 606

Oregon _

79, 281

80, 798

82, 596

83, 409

84, 481

84, 404

86, 108

86, 491

Pennsylvania _

Rhode Island .

South Carolina _

South Dakota... .

Tpmipsspp. _

1, 960, 519
59, 596

49, 961
* 23, 148
266, 270

2, 812, 441
58, 772

51, 981
* 28, 135
266, 910

2, 281, 968
58, 469

59, 701
* 32, 814
267, 312

2, 360, 108
59, 019

63, 877
* 36, 330
266, 949

2, 365, 598
58, 858

67, 172
* 39, 282
267, 136

2, 339, 076
59, 384

70,388
* 41,214
266, 617

2, 264, 901
58, 792

69, 052
* 43, 844
266, 098

2, 252, 402
58, 794

67, 827
* 44, 938
265, 280

2, 193, 782
58, 809

66, 673
* 46, 411
264, 210
640
171, 049
22, 220
93, 208
207, 725
281, 605
452, 315
25, 226

Texas _

689

674

693

686

678

665

666

666
171, 301
21, 974
91,310
198, 071
252, 692
449, 608
25, 527

Utah _

1, 985, 749

144, 073

146, 193

162, 659

165, 529

166,964

168, 343

169, 471

Vermont _

255, 086

20, 292

20, 134

20, 175

20, 164

19,961

20, 041

2if 485

Virginia _

1, 064, 090

81, 125

82, 366

83, 798

85, 465

86, 408
189, 068

86, 868

90, 094

Washington _

2, 262, 051

159, 840

160, 061

161, 536

164, 844

192, 365

193, 419
235, 578
452, 143
25, 369

West Vfrginia _

Wisconsin _

3, 028, 830
5, 591, 332

203, 270
478, 140

207, 411
479, 495

212, 437
482, 039

218, 350
482, 100

224, 763
467, 267

231, 334
457, 450

Wyoming _ _

298, 946

23, 523

23, 602

23, 898

24, 536

25, 255

25, 388

* Figures in italics represent programs administered under State laws from
State and/or local funds without Federal participation.

* In January and February 43 States made payments under approved pmns;
Mississippi was added in March, Ulinois and Texas in October, and Con¬
necticut in December.

3 Estimated.

* Includes program administered under State law without Federal partici-

^ » In addition, payments were made from local funds without State or Fed¬
eral participation to families under State mothers’-pension law; some of these
famUies also received aid under approved plan.

18

has often determined the amount of the maximum
payment imposed by a legislature or administra¬
tive agency. Shortage of funds usually is a more
acute problem for programs which depend in
whole or in part on local and State funds than for
programs financed wholly or chiefly from Federal
funds. The increase in November 1941 in WPA
earnings, paid wholly from Federal funds, affected
all persons employed under this program through¬
out the United States. On the other hand, some

States were unable to increase assistance pay¬
ments, and frequently increases which were made
were not uniform throughout the State. Pay¬
ments for general relief, in which there is no Fed¬
eral participation, showed the least rise.

Even before the advance in the cost of living,
payments in several States — usually those with
the least adequate resources — did not meet the
amount of need as determined by the agency.
The rise m the cost of living has accentuated these

Table 17.— Aid to the blind: Payments to recipients, by State and month, 1941 *

{Corrected to Feb. 15, 1942]

State

Total

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

Septem¬

ber

October

Novem¬

ber

Decem¬

ber

Total, 48

States

$22,915,334

$1,868,991

$1,871,900

$1,871,126

$1,886,170

$1,897,492

$1,896,881

$1,889375

$1,906,586

$1,911,059

$1,950,333

$1,970,415

$1, 994, 506

Total, States
with ap-
proved

plans > _

14, 281, 374

1, 152, 204

1, 156,964

1, 161,797

1,166,928

1,175,087

1, 179, 336

1, 170, 627

1, 184, 254

1, 193, 629

1, 231, 300

1, 246, 990

1. 263, 358

Alabama _

67, 521

5,434

5,511

5,657

5,643

5,683

5,677

6,583

5,676

5,664

5,719

5,754

5,720

Arizona _

140, 467

10,327

10, 455

10, 587

10, 847

10, 983

11,069

12, 034

12, 418

12; 708

13, 003

12, 930

13,106

Arkansas _

124, 457

10,249

10, 307

10,273

10, 360

10, 418

10, 381

10, 399

10, 456

10, 310

10,411

10,286

10,608

California _

4, 143, 709

350,322

350, 342

350, 478

351, 085

350, 932

350, 839

‘ 337, 408

‘ 339, 338

‘ 340, 969

‘ 340, 753

‘ 340, 340

* 340, 913

Colorado . .

224,303

16,639

16, 845

16, 810

16,812

18, 491

19, 145

19, 310

19,540

19, 762

20, 038

20,321

20,590

Connecticut ‘ ...

74, 081

5,841

5,350

6,160

6,018

6,085

6,761

6,763

6,635

6,386

6,080

6,777

6.225

Dist. of Columbia..

84,222

6,040

6,295

6,462

6,777

7,039

7,148

7,096

7,260

7,188

7, 424

7,609

7,884

Florida ‘ .

428, 845

32, 998

33, 137

33, 675

34,229

35,287

35, 331

36,881

36,258

37,002

37,642

38,347

39,158

Georgia .

205, 799

14,490

14, 910

15, 636

16, 156

16, 763

17,088

17, 474

17, 697

18, 153

18,324

19, 102

20,006

Hawaii _

13, 478

1, 043

1,070

1, 104

1,089

1,060

1, 041

1,094

1, 140

1, 162

1, 244

1, 246

1, 185

Idaho _

76, 217

6,247

6,262

6,352

6,288

6,235

6,249

6,369

6,379

6,430

6,424

6,519

6,463

Illinois _

g, 711, 76S

gSl,68i

917, 696

996, 684

930, 445

997, 373

993, 437

991,997

994, 409

918, 765

999, 077

994, 188

934, 016

Indiana _ _

593, 176

49,288

49,428

49.446

36. 447

49, 439

49, 271

49, 363

49, 201

49, 223

49, 323

49, 610

49, 724

49, 860

Iowa _

444, 579

35, 962

36, 255

36, 490

36, 542

36, 719

37,026

37,040

37, 460

37, 899

38; 168

38, 571

Kansas _

361, 015

29,424

29,904

30,257

29,933

29,288

28,915

28,786

29,744

29,735

30, 709

3i; 792

32; 528

Louisiana . .

250, 386

19,284

19, 818

20, 331

20,654

21,048

21, 692

21, 136

20,997

21, 031

21, 146

21; 434

21,815

Maine _

297, 092

25, 467

24,942

24,741

24,590

24,370

24,333

24, 362

24, 568

24,700

24,999

24; 967

25,063

Maryland _

173, 250

14,680

14, 698

14, 518

14, 614

14, 642

14, 472

14, 319

14, 267

14, 182

14, 161

14; 401

14; 396

Massachusetts _

333, 661

27,467

27,260

27,505

27, 706

27, 867

27,882

27, 957

28,193

28,278

28,024

27; 877

27,645

Michigan _

361,802

26,400

27, 132

28,047

28,719

29, 192

29,766

29,999

31,069

31, 865

32, 752

33; 383

33; 478

Minnesota _

315, 565

25,398

25, 610

25,757

25,801

26, 156

26,200

26, 529

26,448

26,854

26,761

27,020

27,031

Mississippi _

118,955

8,083

8,305

8,511

8,658

8, 821

9,277

9,447

10,064

11, 144

11; 868

12.268

12; 509

Missouri * _

1, 007, 6g7

86, 147

86, 666

84, 639

86, 304

86,664

86,304

89,800

89,800

89,800

89, 664

81, 016

80, 936

Montana _

70, 129

4,665

4,879

5,163

6,308

5,467

5, 763

6,193

6,292

6,417

6,481

6,738

6,7&8

Nebraska ‘ _

181, 899

14, 493
S68

14,561

14, 515

14, 573

14,799

16,027

15, 167

15, 399

15, 693

15; 925

15, 953

15, 894

Nevada _

7,856

458

498

636

648

698

778

798

900

795

'785

876

New Hampshire..

90, 624

7,191

7, 414

7,503
17, 782

7,330

7,480

7,559

7,692

7,613

7,776

7,764

7,682

7,720

New Jersey _

212, 668

17,468

17, 699

17,927

17, 818

17, 531

17, 603

17,825

17, 819

17, 779

17; 784

17; 633

New Mexico . .

50,110

4,171

4,288

4,225

4,159

4,088

4,068

4,014

3,978

4,279

4; 267

4; 301

4; 272

New York _

894, 954

72,881

72, 869

72,653

72,425

72,923

73, 171

73, 982

75, 878

75, 364.

76,970

77; 868

77; 970

North Carolina _

357, 362

28,310

28,332

28,384

28,489

28,602

28,601

29, 779

30, 721

30, 893

31, 169

31,684

32,498

North Dakota .

46, 484

4, 952

4,942

4,957

4,952

4,830

4,241

2,865

2,871

2,878

2; 951

2; 983

3, 062
81 ;

Ohio _ _

967, 493

79,586

80,485

80,739

81,244

81, 274

80, 360

79, 874

80, 095

80;643

80;928

80; 963

Oklahoma _

446, 073

34, 514

34, 331

34, 319

34, 475

34, 564

35, 334

36, 578

37, 968

39; 267

39, 996

40; 846

43,881
12,584
416, 399

Oregon _ _

142, 316

11, 400

11, 411

11,383

11,298
409, 968

11, 459

11, 696

11, 732

12, 194

12,284

12, 399

12; 576

Pennsylvania .

4, 906, 7«4

S99, 698

401, 198

398, 608

407, 990

407, 986

413, 773

414, 339

414, 966

413, 497

417,437

Rhode Island _

20,896

1,289

1,417

1, 548

1,583

1,596

7,984

1,677

1,659

1, 739

1,965

2,057

2, il5

■ 2; 251
8,384
3, 830
18, 480

South Carolina _

95,646

8,058

7,972

7,314

7,606

8,223

8,095

8, 067

7; 994

7; 973

8 076

South Dakota _

52, 159

4,445

4,559

4,571

4,623

4,718

4,734

4,696

4,337

3; 964

3; 845

3,837

18,245

Tennessp.e

Texas _

220,218

107,063

18, 345

18,386

18, 369

18, 335

18, 362

18, 413

18,412

18; 409

18; 274

is; 188

29 199

Utah _ _

57, 114

4,729

4,754

4,763

4,730

4,760

4,807

4,788

4,772

4,741

4,676

4, 791

4,813
3,611
13, 517
36, 670
21, 063
46, 651
3,548

Vermont _

40,754

3,193

3,125

3,125

3,252

3,382

3,455

3,442

3,609

3,619

3; 529

3,612
13, 382
36, 493
20 791

Virginia. .

158,104

12, 972

13, 053

13,027

13,003

12, 989

12,923

13,129

13; 357

13,381

13; 371

Washington _ _

421, 763

32, 485

32, 593

32, 462

32, 570

35, 473

35, 734

36,854

37; 030

36; 836

36; 563

West Virginia _

206,347

14,826

14, 989

15,349

15, 450

15, 612

15, 982

16, 374

17; 249

18, 813

19; 849

Wisconsin _ _

562, 462

47,220

47, 137

46, 949

46,788

46, 964

46, 850

46, 683

46; 737

46, 913

46; 847

46, 723
3,625

Wyoming... .

46,156

3,928

3,932

3,943

4,000

4,080

4,039

3,843

3,815

3; 720

3, 683

• Figures in italics represent programs administered under State laws
from State and/or local funds without Federal participation.

> Delaware and Alaska do not have programs; information on status of
program in Kentucky not available.

> For January-September, 43 States made payments under approved plans;
Texas was added in October.

‘ Includes program administered under State law without Federal par¬
ticipation. ^

‘ Estimated.

19

inadequacies in assistance payments. To ensure
as nearly equitable treatment as possible, a State
agency administering the special types of public
assistance sometimes instructs local agencies to
provide a uniform proportion of the total require¬
ments of the recipient even though this propor¬
tion is less than the amount of established
need.

As of November 1941, provisions for uniform
reduction of payments were in effect in at least
seven States for aid to the blind, eight States for
aid to dependent children, and nine States for

old-age assistance. Some of these States pro¬
vided that all payments must meet the same pro¬
portion of the budget deficit computed by the
agency ; other States had the fairer provision that
payments plus other resources must meet a speci¬
fied proportion of total requirements of the re¬
cipients. The proportions prescribed by the
States range from 50 to 90 percent. In a few
States 75 percent, originally established as a
minimum proportion, had become the proportion
to be applied uniformly. Three States had max¬
imum proportions ranging from two-thirds to

Table 18. — General relief in the continental United States: Payments to cases, by State and month, 1941

[In dollars; corrected to Feb. 15, 1942]

State

Total

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

Septem¬

ber

October

Novem¬

ber

Decem¬

ber

Total 1 _

272,869,000

30,555,000

28,883,000

28,769,000

26,279,000

23,280,000

20,581,000

19,828,000

19,645,000

18,546,000

18,591,000

18,438,000

19, 474, 000

Alabama -

251,810

20,662

21, 061

21,081

21, 366

21, 675

21, 373

21, 236

21, 113

20, 888

20, 679

20, 583

20, 193

Arizona.. ... -

593, 226

48, 323

47, 945

48, 901

48, 713

49,202

46, 339

48, 508

50,604

50, 196

49, 335

51,068

54,093

Arkansas _

245, 022

25, 426

25, 108

24, 963

25, 045

25, 144

15, 918

15, 298

15, 002

14, 719

14, 525

20, 766

23, 108

California ^ -

17, 938, 722

2, 545, 089

2, 373, 339

2, 347, 879

2, 261, 951

1, 964, 452

1, 453, 407

21,064,595

1,044,777

797, 365

723,501

662, 939

699, 428

Colorado 3 _

2, 008, 466

207, 757

196, 677

190, 920

188, 988

168, 795

142, 035

127, 163

132, 294

140, 486

146, 100

168, 198

199, 054

Connecticut - -

3, 079, 756

377, 927

349, 099

342, 705

297, 685

253, 898

218, 128

210, 941

204, 973

198, 946

202, 529

202, 181

220, 744

Delaware. . -

234, 326

25, 677

23, 272

26, 805

24,636

20, 850

18, 781

15, 483

15, 915

15, 629

15, 281

15, 628

16, 369

Dist. of Columbia.

637, 903

51, 980

53, 642

55, 537

56, 054

63, 122

60, 988

50, 267

54, 529

55, 164

54, 109

52, 487

61, 024

Florida _

706, 945

59, 749

57, 417

55, 630

59, 147

61,364

69, 883

60,290

60, 959

58, 350

58, 447

56, 606

59, 203

Georgia.- -

488, 008

44, 686

42, 220

41, 138

39, 476

38, 367

38, 342

39, 137

38, 538

39, 351

39, 789

42, 657

44, 308

Idaho* _

287, 645

36, 130

35, 860

35, 752

30, 064

20, 717

19, 474

18, 806

19, 075

18, 313

18, 239

17, 993

17,222

Illinois. _ -

32, 988, 525

3, 497, 601

3, 413, 792

3, 447, 014

3, 161, 225

2, 692, 220

2, 454, 103

2, 359, 853

2, 411, 504

2, 407, 018

2, 426, 576

2, 345, 733

2, 371, 886

Indiana ^ _

5, 166, 604

683, 425

620, 649

606, 377

474, 959

376, 830

323, 500

327, 919

308, 956

342, 499

349, 085

358, 931

393, 474

Iowa _ _

3, 888, 645

461, 736

434, 214

444, 795

383, 619

316, 851

274, 046

265, 795

262, 938

246, 974

263, 777

256, 945

286, 955

Kansas _

2, 473, 415

242, 231

255, 191

239, 684

215, 220

202, 217

179, 093

169, 373

180, 317

186, 190

189, 156

205. 246

209, 497

Kentucky A -

565, 000

53, 000

57, 000

57, 000

45, 000

41, 000

44, 000

44, 000

44, 000

43, 000

43, 000

46,000

48,000

Louisiana _

2, 336, 781

181, 537

188, 841

198, 698

200, 637

204, 471

205, 424

197, 115

194, 179

191, 273

190, 505

191, 736

192, 365

Maine. _

1, 890, 341

227, 618

200. 262

203, 644

187, 250

156, 071

145, 196

128, 426

121, 760

126, 543

129, 124

124, 762

139, 685

Maryland-- _

1, 970, 043

193, 242

192, 510

192, 965

172, 615

156, 142

146, 273

145, 313

146, 911

150, 647

147, 843

159, 930

165, 752

Massachusetts -

12, 625, 324

1, 456, 943

1, 292, 826

1, 296, 207

1, 181, 676

1, 008, 568

868, 801

909, 284

890, 162

877, 867

936, 983

868, 004

1, 038, 013

Michigan _ _

10, 031, 550

1, 196, 440

1, 099, 308

1, 059, 210

964, 624

777, 164

645, 999

650, 938

643, 398

658, 684

748, 535

723, 083

864, 167

Minnesota _ _

6, 821, 025

807, 914

792, 408

750, 842

676, 979

663, 841

477, 236

444, 098

432, 169

418, 667

430, 821

510, 400

525, 650

Mississippi ._ . ..

31,611

2, 734

2,686

2,813

2, 707

3,179

2,809

2, 465

2, 456

2,461

2,559

2, 391

2, 351

Missouri _

3, 238, 166

363, 621

351, 089

343, 441

309, 235

275, 212

264, 730

226, 827

203, 377

206,680

219, 014

226, 652

248, 288

Montana .. _

610, 564

71, 601

64,328

65, 621

60,097

49, 572

44, 793

42, 390

38, 139

40, 330

40, 815

43, 023

49, 855

Nebraska _

939, 375

119,257

120, 679

119, 094

86, 307

72, 658

60, 697

54, 885

59, 558

55, 872

57, 432

61, 020

72, 016

Nevada _ - ..

88,675

7,904

7, 702

7, 570

7,650

7,500

7,439

6, 689

6,767

7, 242

7,128

7,540

7,544

New Hampshire..

1, 351, 577

171, 741

154, 867

155, 435

140, 590

116, 916

96, 028

93, 122

85, 635

82, 745

83, 711

80, 634

90, 153

New Jersey ^ _

8, 110, 097

937, 493

889, 153

870, 789

823, 420

687, 714

582, 091

552, 713

550, 575

536, 159

534, 936

550, 261

594, 793

New Mexico «-

146, 933

13, 819

16, 761

16, 320

14, 038

13, 754

12,412

11,971

10, 171

8,837

6, 152

10, 815

12, 893

New York _ . .

91, 359, 503

8, 987, 609

8, 917, 367

8, 916, 900

8, 088, 887

7, 682, 527

7, 240, 571

7, 192, 136

7, 266, 896

6, 863, 794

6. 703, 694

6, 737, 644

6, 861, 578

North Carolina

379, 442

39,039

36, 355

36, 042

32, 404

32,286

28, 606

29,375

28, 086

27, 518

27, 960

28,839

32, 932

North Dakota

466, 571

56, 265

50, 748

52, 335

48, 796

37, 619

32, 564

30, 147

26, 488

27, 786

28, 959

32, 713

42, 151

11, 915 ', 914

1, 455, 161

1, 382, 400

1, 362, 112

1, 141, 675

922, 198

782, 108

746, 268

783, 421

786, 114

799, 689

865, 373

889^ 395

536, 370

60,171

55, 619

52, 407

36, 330

37, 537

60, 012

24, 431

37, 280

47, 335

42, 396

43, 292

49, 560

Oregon _

Pennsylvania -

1,411,901

152, 919

141, 191

137, 470

128, 012

118, 312

108, 264

103, 496

100, 413

99, 243

102, 679

104, 485

115, 417

dO, 511, 916

4, 004, 326

3, 408, 498

3, 386, 435

3, 237, 306

2, 964, 607

2, 378, 181

2, 384, 407

2, 175, 261

1, 776, 572

1, 736, 197

1, 6U5, bb'6

1, 654, 673

31,601 422

3 217,059

3 168, 458

3 169, 861

3 150, 286

3 144, 388

3 98, 085

3 116, 918

3 99, 093

91, 010

122, 718

107, 877

125, 669

225, 568

17; 962

17, 538

17, 526

17, 853

17, 911

18, 625

18, 972

19,666

19, 272

19, 889

20, 092

20, 262

South Dakota -

590, 924

70', 401

71, 758

70, 636

65, 988

50, 076

43, 725

39, 074

33, 808

30, 557

ys, yu&

37, 284

42, 312

210, 000

24,000

23,000

23, 000

16, 000

16,000

15, 000

15, 000

16, 000

15, 000

16,000

16,000

17,000

1, 030' 691

94; 786

92; 518

90, 717

87, 753

84, 998

83, 038

81, 538

81, 658

83, 325

80, 424

82, 288

87,648

TTtoh

1, 498, 126

123', 911

IIS; 007

144, 624

145, 711

160, 036

130, 962

129, 750

129, 065

107, 056

103, 790

102, 469

112, /46

376, 345

45; 897

39; 266

40, 070

35, 023

31, 267

27, 110

25, 088

24, 371

24, 687

25, 325

25, 851

32, 390

Virginia - -

Washington _

West Virginia _

Wisconsin -

Wyoming -

704

54' 895

58, 914

58, 810

67, 735

54, 664

53, 327

60, 926

61, 255

48, 858

60, 095

49, 521

50, 704

2, 143, 692
1, 487, 459
6, 880, 195
203, 972

280, 079
104, 216
857, 675
21, 855

253; 932
108, 325
755, 745
23, 693

224, 444
115, 048
806, 138
24, 066

197, 389
125, 987
698, 572
23, 185

169, 620
126, 659
534, 570
16, 610

151,491
118, 601
470, 091
13, 816

136, 175
111,716
457, 895
12, 822

129, 235
118, 908
424, 924
13, 019

128, 854
127, 014
405, 864
12, 624

132, 663
132, 994
450,950
13, 059

155, 386
141, 744
460, 470
13, 696

184, 424
156, 247
657, 301
15, 527

1 Partly estimated; does not represent sum of State figures, because in 4
States payments for medical care, hospitalization, and/or burial have been
excluded and an estimated amount of payments to cases aided by local offi¬
cials in Rhode Island has been included. j ,

5 State relief administration discontinued operations June 30, 1941; data for
subsequent months represent county indigent aid only.

s Includes payments for medical care, hospitalization, and/or burial.

< Represents approximately 70 percent of total expenditures; excludes
assistance in kind and, for a fevz counties, cash payments.

® Estimated. , . ^ ^ ,

» State program only; excludes program administered by local officials.

20

nine-tenths and instructed agencies to determine
uniform proportions locally. In certain States
which have inadequate funds payments are scaled
down, but not according to a uniform plan.
Sometimes payments are limited either by re¬
striction of the requirements which may be met-
or by maximums on amounts which may be given
to meet specific requirements. In general, the
more nearly adequate financing of old-age assist¬
ance and aid to the blind has tended to promote
more ample standards for determining need and
amount of assistance in these programs than in
aid to dependent children; standards for general
relief often are still lower.

Administrative and fiscal considerations, policies
and standards for determining need and amount
of assistance (including limits on payments), and
variations among States and localities in cost of

living have combined to produce the variations
observed in average payments to recipients of
public assistance (table 13). In order to afford
greater uniformity in levels of payments for the
three special types of public assistance, the Social
Security Board has recommended to Congress
variable grants to States related to their respective
fiscal capacities. To raise the level of assist¬
ance payments for aid to dependent children,
the Board has further recommended increase in the
maximum payments provided m the Federal act
for such aid. In comparison with other types of
assistance. State and local provisions for general
relief have always been inadequate. To lessen
the disparity in assistance between general relief
and other public aid programs, Federal participa¬
tion in the general relief program has also been
recommended b}^ the Board,

1

21

Trends in Financing Public Aid, 1930-41*

During 1941 increasing employment in war
production industries greatly reduced the burden
on the Federal, State, and local governments for
financing public aid. Expenditures for public
aid 1 dropped from a peak of $2.8 billion in 1938
to $1.9 billion in 1941, the smallest amount expend¬
ed since 1935 but roughly 20 times the bill in 1930
(table 19 and chart 5) . The history of relief financ¬
ing since 1930 can be divided into four periods;

1. From 1930 through 1932 the rapidly increas¬
ing bill for public aid was paid almost entirely
from State and local resources, which proved
insufficient to meet the widespread need in the
deepening depression. The Federal Government
recognized the inability of the States and localities
to finance relief programs and first extended
financial support for public aid in 1932.

2. During the next 4 years, 1933-36, expansion
in total expenditures resulted in a marked redis¬
tribution of relief costs among the Federal, State,
and local governments. Financing of public aid,
formerly almost exclusively a local responsibility,
was assumed primarily by the Federal and State
Governments.

3. In 1937, when improved economic conditions
permitted a reduction in total expenditures, there
was some shift from Federal to State-local
responsibility.

4. As expenditures reached their peak in 1938
and declined thereafter, the States and localities
assumed increasing proportions of the total bill
for these public aid programs while the Federal
share dropped to that of 1933, the firstyear of large-
scale Federal participation in relief programs.

Federal Financial Responsibility

The Federal Government assumed no financial
responsibility for public aid until 1932. The
period after 1932 was characterized by a marked

•Prepared in the Division of Operating Statistics and Analysis.

1 Includes old-age assistance, aid to dependent children, aid to the blind,
general relief, subsistence grants of the Farm Security Administration, pro¬
grams of the Work Projects Administration (formerly the Works Progress
Administration), and other Federal agency projects financed from emergency
funds. Excludes programs of the Civilian Conservation Corps, National
Youth Administration, and Public Works Administration, and regular
Federal construction projects. For 1933-37, also includes the transient and
emergency education programs of the Federal Emergency Relief Adminis¬
tration and the Civil Works Program but excludes the program for college
student aid of the FERA. Excludes administrative expenditures.

increase through 1936 in the proportion of total
costs paid from Federal funds, and a decline there¬
after. The amount of Federal expenditures, how¬
ever, reached its peak in 1938 and decreased dur¬
ing 1939-41 as the need for public aid lessened
(table 20).

In 1932 the Federal Government assumed lim¬
ited responsibility by making loans to States and
municipalities for relief thi’ough the Reconstruc¬
tion Finance Corporation and continued to make
such loans in 1933. From 1933—36 the Federal
Government entered the financing of public aid on
a large scale. Federal Emergency Relief Admin¬
istration grants for general relief were made to
the States during 1933-35, and Federal expendi¬
tures for the Civil Works Program provided em¬
ployment during the winter of 1933-34. The
special programs of the FERA, also established
in this period, continued to provide public aid
until early in 1937. The subsistence grants of the
Farm Security Administration (formerly the Re¬
settlement Administration) and the work program
of the Works Progress Administration were initi¬
ated in 1935; other Federal agency projects

Table 19. — Public expenditures for assistance and work
program earnings in the continental United States,
by source of funds, calendar years 1930—41 *

Year

Amount (in thousands)

Percentage distribution

Total

Federal

funds

State

funds

Local

funds

Total

Fed¬

eral

funds

State

funds

Local

funds

1930 .

$98,024

$8, 572

$89, 452

100.0

8.7

91.3

1931 . .

217'. 043

39; 061

in', 982

100.0

18.0

82.0

1932.. . .

421, 370

$73, 523

92', 315

255', 532

100.0

17.5

21.9

60.6

1933.- .

1,059,657

677,091

122, 530

260. 036

100.0

63.9

11.7

24.4

1934 _

1, 779, 313

1, 348, 572

176, 433

254, 308

100.0

75.8

10.0

14.2

1935 _

1, 871, 315

1, 372, 389

242, 974

255, 952

100.0

73.3

13.1

13.6

1936 _

2, 505, 303

1, 938, 550

336, 239

230, 514

100.0

77.4

13.4

9.2

1937. . —

2, 173, 580

1, 543. 895

396,073

233, 612

100.0

71.0

18.2

10.8

1938 . .

2, 827, 300

2,060,300

495, 582

271, 418

100.0

72.9

17.5

9.6

1939 _

2, 638, 869

1, 831, 466

531, 430

275, 973

100.0

69.4

20.1

10.5

1940 . .

2,309,068

1, 582, 536

478, 635

247, 897

100.0

68.6

20.7

10.7

1941 . .

1, 950, 269

1, 297, 685

439, 904

212, 680

100.0

66.5

22.6

10.9

• Amounts differ from annual totals based on monthly series, tables 1, 2,
and 5, pp. 1, 2, 4, and tables 15-18, pp. 16-19. Data for 1930-35 partly estimated.
Figures exclude administrative expenditures; include expenditures for old-
age assistance, aid to dependent children, aid to the blind, general relief, the
Work Projects Administration, the Civil Works Program, transient and
emergency education programs of the Federal Emergency Relief Adminis¬
tration, Farm Security Administration grants, and other Federal agency
projects financed from emergency funds; excludes expenditures for Federal
programs of the Civilian Conservation Corps, the National Youth Admin¬
istration, the Public Works Administration, the program for college student
aid of the FERA, and other regular Federal construction projects. For def¬
initions of terms see 1940 Yearbook, pp. 309-311; Public Assistance, 1940 (pre¬
printed from 1940 Yearbook), pp. 39-4l; or Social Security Bulletin, Vol. 4,
No. 9 (September 1941), pp. 50-52.

22

financed from emergency funds began in 1933; all
these programs are still in operation. In 1936 the
Federal Government made the first grants to the
States for the special types of public assistance
under the Social Security Act; since then no
major programs have been established by the
Federal Government.

Federal funds represented only a negligible por¬
tion of the rapidly mounting expenditures for
public aid in 1930-32. RFC loans, the first of

which were made in 1932, paid only 17 percent of
all public aid and amounted to only $74 million,
all of which was spent for general relief (table 19).

From 1933 to 1936 the amount of Federal par¬
ticipation increased threefold as total expendi¬
tures for public aid more than doubled. The
Federal share rose from less than two-thirds to
more than three-fourths of all public aid and
reached $1.9 billion in 1936. From 1933-35 Fed¬
eral aid was extended primarily through FERA

Chart 5. — Public expenditures for assistance and work program earnings in the continental United States, by source

of funds, ^ calendar years 1930-41

1930 1931

1933 1934

1935

1936 1937 1938 1939

1940 1941

* Percentage distribution by source of funds indicated in each bar.

23

Table 20. — Expenditures from Federal funds for assist¬
ance and work program earnings in the continental
United States, by program, calendar years 1930-41 ^

Year

Total

Old-age

assist¬

ance

Aid to de¬
pendent
children

Aid to the
blind

General

relief

Federal
work and
assistance
programs’

Amount (in thousands)

1930 .

1931 _

1932

$73, 523

$73, 523

1933 _

677, 091

456, 385

$220, 706

1934

1,348, 572

3 $78

792, 140

556, 354

1

1, 372, 389

989, 746

382, 643

1936 _

1, 938, 550

66, 407

$6. 391

$2, 752

12, 538

1, 850, 462

1937- ....

1, 543, 895

150,006

17, 190

4,975

532

1,371, 192

1938 .

2.060, 300

188, 941

25, 400

4,746

5

1, 841, 208

1939. _

1,831,466

208, 005

29, 348

5, 377

(‘)

1, 588, 736

1940 _

1, 582, 536

234,881

52, 110

6,259

1, 289, 286

1941 _

1, 297, 685

268, 377

60, 357

6,698

962, 253

Percentage distribution

1930 _

1931

1932

100.0

100.0

lQ2?t

100.0

67.4

32.6

1934

100.0

(')

58. 7

41.3

100.0

72. 1

27.9

1936 _

100.0

3.4

0.3

0. 1

.7

95.5

1937 _

100.0

9.7

1.1

.3

. 1

88.8

1938 _

100.0

9.2

1.2

.2

(3)

89.4

1939 _

100.0

11.4

1.6

.3

(»)

86.7

iQ4n

100.0

14 8

3.3

.4

81. 5

1941 _

100.0

20.7

4.6

.5

74.2

I See footnote 1, table 19.

» Data for 1933-40 based on Whiting, Theodore E., and Woofter, T. J., Jr.,
Summary of Relief and Federal Work Program Statistics, 19SS-40, Work Proj¬
ects Administration, Divisions of Statistics and Research, 1941, pp. 50-53.

> From Federal Emergency Relief Administration funds.

* Less than $500.

5 Less than 0.05 percent.

grants for general relief. At the end of 1935,
however, with the establishment of special types
of public assistance under the Social Security Act
and Federal work programs, the Federal Govern¬
ment withdrew financial support from general
relief ; the Federal work programs represented al¬
most all Federal expenditures for public aid in 1936.

The first decrease in Federal participation
occurred in 1937, when improved economic condi¬
tions permitted a cut in total expenditures.
Federal expenditures represented a slightly smaller
proportion of total costs and were reduced by 20
percent from $1.9 to $1.5 billion. In 1937 Federal
funds continued to be used almost entirely for the
Federal work programs; the portion expended for
the special types of public assistance, however,
increased to nearly one-eighth from a negligible
portion in the previous year.

From an all-time peak in 1938 Federal expendi¬
tures were cut more than one-third as total need
declined sharply from 1938 to 1941. By 1941 the
Federal Government’s share of the total cost of
public aid had returned almost to the 1933 level
about two-thirds of the total — and the amount

was down to $1.3 billion, the smallest sum since
1933. During the same period increasing propor¬
tions of Federal funds were expended for the special
types of public assistance, while the work and
assistance programs declined from almost 90 per¬
cent to less than three-fourths of the Federal total.
In 1941 the programs financed entirely from
Federal funds represented a smaller part of Federal
expenditures than in any other year since 1935.

State and Local Financial Responsibility

Although the Federal Government assumed the
largest part of the burden after 1932, the States
and localities increased their expenditures for
public aid more than eightfold during the period
from 1930-39; since 1939 increasing employment
has permitted reductions in State-local as well as
in Federal expenditures. From 1930 through
1935, the localities paid the larger part of State-
local costs. Since 1935, however. State expendi¬
tures have exceeded those of localities. Thus the
relative responsibility of the States as compared
with the localities has been completely reversed
since 1930, primarily because of the limited
financial resources of local governments (table 21
and chart 6). In addition, the States were
encouraged to increase their financial responsibility
for general relief under the FERA from 1933-35
and for the special types of public assistance under
the Social Security Act, beginning with 1936.

State financial responsibility. — The States in¬
creased their expenditures tenfold from 1930-32 as
rapidly mounting need exceeded limited local
resources. State participation increased from less
than one-tenth to more than one-fifth of ail public

Table 21. — Expenditures from State and local funds for
assistance in the continental United States, calendar
years 1930-41 ^

Year

Amount (in thousands)

Percentage distribution

Total

State

funds

Local

funds

Total

state

funds

Local

funds

1930 _

$98, 024

$8,572

$89, 452

100.0

8.7

91.3

1931 _

217,043

39,061

177, 982

100.0

18.0

82.0

1932 _

347, 847

92, 315

255, 532

100.0

26.5

73.5

1933. . .

382, 566

122, 530

260, 036

100.0

32.0

68.0

1934 .

430, 741

176, 433

254, 308

100.0

41.0

59.0

1935 _

498, 926

242, 974

255, 952

100.0

48.7

51.3

1936 . -

566, 753

336, 239

230, 514

100.0

59.3

40.7

1937 _

629,685

396, 073

233, 612

100.0

62.9

37.1

1938- .

767. 000

495, 582

271, 418

100.0

64.6

35.4

1939 _

807, 403

531, 430

275, 973

100.0

65.8

34.2

1940 _

726, 532

478, 635

247. 897

100.0

65.9

34.1

1941

652, 584

439, 904

212, 680

100.0

67.4

32.6

I Includes expenditures for old-age assistance, aid to dependent children,
aid to the blind, and general relief. Excludes administrative expenditures.
Data for 1930-35 partly estimated.

24

aid as State expenditures expanded from $9 million
to $92 million (table 19). Most of this increase
was expended for general relief, which represented
more than three-fourths of State relief expenditures
in 1935 (table 22).

From 1933 through 1936 the amounts financed
from State funds were considerably larger than
in the previous period but represented a smaller
proportion of total relief expenditures. State
costs dropped to one-eighth of the total in 1933
and remained at rouglily this level throughout
the following 3 years. In amount, however. State
expenditures increased almost three times; the
largest part was spent for general relief. Ex¬

penditures for the special types of public assistance
ulcreased in importance during 1935 and 1936 in
anticipation of Federal grants under the Social
Security Act, and general relief decreased from
more than four-fifths of total State expenditures for
assistance in 1934 to less than three-fourths in 1936.

Despite the decrease in total expenditures for
public aid in 1937, State costs continued to in¬
crease and represented almost one-fifth of the
total costs of public aid in that year. The
States financed a higher proportion of the bill for
public aid in 1937 than in any other year since
1932 and spent almost three-fifths of their funds
for general relief.

Chart 6. — Expenditures from State and local funds^ for assistance in the continental Lnited States, calendar years

1930-41

MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

•AVvW

-

d667o(

165%P

-

1

|35%i

-

1^4%

MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
900

800

700

- 600

- 500

- 400

- 300

- 200

100

1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 »937 1938 1939 1940 1941

> Percentage distribution by State and local funds indicated in each bar.

Table 22. — Expenditures from State funds for assistance
in the continental United States, by program, calen¬
dar years 1930-41 '

Year

Total

Old-age

assist¬

ance

Aid to
dependent
children

Aid to
the
blind

General

relief

Amount (in thousands)

1930 _

$8, 572

$869

$4, 899

$2,580

$224

1931 _

39,061

7,695

4,915

2,667

23,784

1932 _

92, 315

11,506

7,256

2, 905

70, 648

1933 _

122, 530

11,990

7,042

3,028

100, 470

1934 _

176, 433

16, 092

7,121

3,508

149, 712

1935 _

242, 974

45,617

7,342

4,342

185, 673

1936_ _ _

336, 239

69,948

12, 979

6,778

246, 534

1937 _

396,073

129,658

26, 762

8, 134

231,519

1938 _

495, 582

165, 733

43, 418

10, 615

275, 816

1939... _ _

531, 430

181,659

53, 069

11,501

285,201

1940 _

478, 635

190, 241

50, 191

11, 592

226, 611

1941 _ _ _

439, 904

221, 058

61. 258

12,220

145, 368

Percentage distribution

1930 _

100.0

10.1

57.2

30.1

2.6

1931 _

100.0

19.7

12.6

6.8

60.9

1932 _

100.0

12.5

7.9

3.1

76.5

1933 _

100.0

9.8

5.7

2.5

82.0

1934 _

100.0

9.1

4.0

2.0

84.9

1935.. _ _

100.0

18.8

3.0

1.8

76.4

1936 _

100.0

20.8

3.9

2.0

73.3

1937 _

100.0

32.7

6.8

2.0

58.5

1938 _ _

100.0

33.4

8.8

2. 1

55.7

1939 _

100.0

34.2

10.0

2.1

53.7

1940 _

100.0

39.7

10.5

2.4

47.4

1941

100.0

50.3

13.9

2.8

33.0

1 See footnote 1, table 21.

A larger part of total relief expenditures was
paid from State funds each year from 1938
through 1941; in absolute amount, however, State
expenditures reached their high point in 1939 and
decreased thereafter. During this period State
funds were shifted from general relief to the
special types of public assistance, which repre¬
sented two-thirds of the total State cost by 1941.

Local financial responsibility. — The responsi¬
bility assumed by the localities declined from
more than 90 percent of public aid in 1930 to
three-fifths of the total in 1932 (table 19). This
decrease occurred despite the fact that local
expenditures increased threefold from $89 to $256
million. The localities, like the States, used most
of their funds for general relief, which by 1932 repre¬
sented almost four-fifths of local costs (table 23).

From 1933 to 1936, as Federal and State
responsibility increased, local funds continued
to play a declining role in total expenditures.
The local share fell to less than one-fourth of the
total in 1933 and continued to decline in the next
3 years to less than one-tenth in 1936. The
localities were able to decrease their expenditures

25

during this period and spent only $231 million in
1936 as compared to $260 million in 1933. Gen¬
eral relief, which continued to take the larger
part of local funds, accounted for four-fifths of
local expenditures for public aid in 1933 and
thereafter declined steadily to three-fifths in 1941.

Expenditures by the localities were slightly
larger in 1937 than in the previous year despite
improved economic conditions. The increase was
expended entirely for the special types of public
assistance, which rose slightly in importance in
local expenditures while general relief declined.

The proportion of total aid borne by the local¬
ities did not change significantly during 1938-41
although the local amounts decreased from their
all-time peak in 1939 to an amount in 1941 which
was smaller than that for any year since 1931. In
this period of rapidly decreasing expenditures for
public aid, local funds remained at about one-
tenth of total costs but had decreased more than
20 percent by 1941. The localities still were
expending more than half of their funds for general
relief, but expenditures for the special types of
public assistance expanded to 40 percent of local
funds for public aid in the last year of the period.

Table 23. — Expenditures from local funds for assistance
in the continental United States, by program, calen¬
dar years 1930-41 '

Year

Total

Old-age

assist¬

ance

Aid to
dependent
children

Aid to
the
blind

General

relief

.\mount (in thousands)

1930

$89, 452

$1, 183

$28,912

$2, 881

$56, 476

1931 _

177,982

8, 471

28,963

3,032

137, 516

1932 _

255, 532

13, 491

35, 424

3,297

203, 320

1933 _

260,036

13, 865

33, 560

3, 395

209,216

1934 _

254, 308

16, 087

33, 661

3, 516

201, 044

1935 _ _ _

255, 952

19, 297

34, 491

3,675

198, 489

1936 _ _ - .

230, 514

18,884

30,284

3,284

178, 062

1937 _

233, 612

29, 536

26, 345

3,061

174. 670

1938 _

271,418

39, 556

28, 494

3,583

199, 785

1939 _

275, 973

43, 255

32, 501

3, 887

196, 330

1940 . . — -

247, 897

46, 905

30, 757

3, 874

166, 361

1941 _

212, 680

49, 825

31, 132

3, 925

127, 798

Percentage distribution

1930 _

100.0

1.3

32.3

3.2

63.2

1931 _

100.0

4.7

16.3

1.7

77.3

1932.. . .

100.0

5.3

13.8

1.3

79.6

1933 _ _ _

100.0

5.3

12.9

1.3

80.5

1934... . .

100.0

6.3

13.2

1.4

79.1

1935 _ _ _

100.0

7.5

13.5

1.4

77.6

1936 _ _ _

100.0

8.2

13.1

1.4

77.3

1937 _

100.0

12.6

11.3

1.3

74.8

1938 _

100.0

14.6

10.5

1.3

73.6

1939 _

100.0

15.7

11.8

1.4

71.1

1940 _

100.0

18.9

12.4

1.6

67. 1

1941

100.0

23.4

14.6

1.9

60.1

> See footnote 1, table 21.

26

Financing Individual Programs

Old-Age Assistance

Prior to 1936, when the Social Security Act
became effective, old-age assistance was financed
entirely from State and local funds. From 1930
to 1934, expenditures for old-age assistance in¬
creased from $2 million to $32 million, primarily
because of the establishment of programs by addi¬
tional States. During this period the localities
bore somewhat more than half the cost (table 24).

In 1935 several States established old-age
assistance programs financed entirely from State
funds in anticipation of receipt of Federal grants
under the Social Security Act. As a result, more
than two-thirds of old-age assistance costs were
paid from State funds in 1935.

When the Federal Government assumed its
share of old-age assistance costs in 1936, State
participation rose to 79 percent of the non-Federal
share and increased slightly from that date to
1941, when it reached 82 percent. The large in¬
crease in State participation in 1935 and 1936 may
be explained in part by the requirement that the
States contribute to the financing of programs
under the Social Security Act. The continued

Table 24. — Public expenditures^ for old-age assistance
in the continental United States, by source of funds,
calendar years 1930—41

Year

Amount (in thousands)

Percentage distribution

Total

Federal

funds

State

funds

Local

funds

Total

Fed¬

eral

funds

State

funds

Local

funds

1930 _

$2, 052

$869

$1, 183

100.0

42.3

f>7 7

1931 _

16; 166

7,695

8, 471

100.0

47.6

*19 4

1932 _

24, 997

11, 506

13; 491

100.0

46.0

M 0

1933. .

25, 855

11,990

13, 865

100.0

46.4

1934 _

32, 257

«$78

16, 092

16, 087

100.0

2 0.2

49.9

49.9

1935 .

64, 914

45, 617

19, 297

100.0

70 3

9Q 7

1936 . .

155, 239

66, 407

69, 948

18, 884

100.0

42.8

45.0

12.2

1937 _

309, 200

150, 006

129, 658

29, 536

100.0

48.5

41.9

9.6

1938 _

394, 230

188, 941

165, 733

39, 556

100.0

47.9

42. 1

10.0

1939 .

432, 919

208. 005

181, 659

43, 255

100.0

48.0

42.0

10.0

1940 _

472, 027

234, 881

190, 241

46, 905

100.0

49.8

40.3

9.9

1941 .

539, 260

268, 377

221, 058

49, 825

100.0

49.8

41.0

9.2

> Amounts differ from annual totals based on monthly series, tables 1, 2, and
5, pp. 1, 2, 4, and tables lS-18, pp. 16-19. Excludes administrative expenditures.
For definitions of terms see 1940 Yearbook, pp. 309-311; Public Assistance,
19i0 (preprinted from 1940 Yearbook), pp. 39-41; or Social Security Bulletin,
Vol. 4, No. 9 (September 1941), pp. 50-52.

’ From Federal Emergency Relief Administration funds.

Source: Totals for 1930-35 based on State and trend data in Parker,
Florence E., “Experience Under State Old-Age Pension Acts in 1935,”
Monthly Labor Review, Vol. 43, No. 4 (October 1936), pp. 835-837. Distribu¬
tion by source of funds: for 1930-33, estimated on basis of provisions in State
old-age assistance laws; for 1934, based on State data in Parker, Florence E.,
“Experience Under State Old-Age Pension Acts in 1934,” Monthly Labor
Review, Vol. 41, No. 2 (August 1935), p. 315; for 1935, from “Financing Old-Age
Assistance in the United States Prior to the Federal Social Security Act,”
Monthly Labor Review, Vol. 43, No. 4 (October 1936), p. 861.

increase in State participation reflects the tendency
of the States to relieve the localities of some or all
financial responsibility for this progi-am.

The amounts made available by the States for
old-age assistance increased from $1 million to
$16 million from 1930 to 1934. In anticipation of
Federal funds. State expenditures jumped to $46
million in 1935 and mounted rapidly under the
Social Security Act to $221 million in 1941. The
local share, which had exceeded one-half until 1934,
decreased to less than one-third in 1935 and has
been fluctuating around one-fifth of State-local costs
for this program under the Social Security Act.
In absolute amounts, however, local expenditures
increased from $19 million in 1935 to almost $50
million in 1941.

The Federal share of old-age assistance rose
steadily from 43 percent in the first year of
Federal grants-in-aid to almost 50 percent in 1941.
This increase reflects chiefly the extension of
Federal funds to additional States.

Aid to Dependent Children

Prior to the Social Security Act, aid to de¬
pendent children, in contrast to old-age assistance,
was primarily a locally financed program. Ex¬
penditures for aid to dependent children ran from
$34 million to $42 million, of which the localities
contributed more than four-fifths (table 25).

Table 25. — Public expenditures^ for aid to dependent
children in the continental United States, by source
of funds, calendar years 1930—41

Year

Amount (in thousands)

Percentage distribution

Total

Federal

funds

State

funds

Local

funds

Total

Fed¬

eral

funds

State

funds

Local

funds

1930 _

$33,811

$4, 899

$28, 912

100.0

14 ^

85 5

1931 _

33, 878

4,915

28; 963

100.0

14 5

85 5

1932 _

42, 680

7, 256

35; 424

100 0

17 0

QQ A

1933 .

40, 602

7,042

33, 560

10QJ3

17 3

1934 _

40, 782

7, 121

33, 661

100. n

17

82 5

1935 _

41, 833

7, 342

34, 491

100 0

17 6

1936 .

49, 654

$6, 391

12, 979

30, 284

100.0

12.9

26. 1

61.0

1937 _

70, 297

17, 190

26, 762

26, 345

100.0

24.4

38.1

37.5

1938 _

97, 312

25, 400

43, 418

28, 494

100.0

26. 1

44.6

29.3

1939 . .

114, 918

29, 348

53, 069

32, 501

100.0

25.5

46.2

28.3

1940 _

133,058

52,110

50,191

30, 757

100.0

39.2

37.7

23. 1

1941 . .

152, 747

60. 357

61, 258

31, 132

100.0

39.5

40.2

20.3

‘ See footnote 1, table 24.

Source: Totals for 1930-31 estimated primarily on basis of data for urban
areas and on U. S. Children’s Bureau, Mothers’ Aid, 1931, Publication No.
^0, pp. 28-29; totals for 1932-35 obtained primarily from Bucklin, Dorothy
R., “Public Aid for Care of Dependent Children,” Social Security Bulletin,
Vol. 2, No. 4 (April 1939), p. 30, table 5; distribution by source of funds based
on Federal Emergency Relief Administration, “Digest of State and Terri¬
torial Laws Granting Aid to Dependent Children in Their Own Homes ”
Monthly Report, September 1935, p. 48, and U. S. Children’s Bureau, op. cit ,
p. 16. Primary sources for all years supplemented by data published in
State annual reports and special publications.

1

27

Under the Social Security Act this prog^ram
became predominantly State-financed. The State
share increased from less than one-fifth of State-
local costs in 1935 to nearly a third in 1936.
Further large increases in State participation were
registered in 1937 and 1938, and smaller increases
thereafter. By 1941 two-thirds of the non-
Federal cost of aid to dependent children was paid
from State funds.

In absolute amounts, State expenditures for
aid to dependent children almost doubled in the
first year under the Social Security Act and by
1941 had increased to $61 million as compared
with $5 million in 1930.

Conversely, the share borne by the localities
declined from 86 percent in 1930 to 34 percent of
State-local costs in 1941, when local expenditures
for the program were only $2 million above 1930.
The amounts expended by the localities since the
passage of the Social Security Act have never
reached the amounts spent in the years immedi¬
ately preceding 1936,

The Federal Government has always assumed a
smaller proportion of costs of aid to dependent
children than of old-age assistance. In 1936,
only 13 percent of the amount for aid to dependent
children was met from Federal funds. As addi¬
tional States came under the Social Security Act,
this proportion rose to about 25 percent in 1937-39.
When the Federal Government increased its
matching ratio from one-third to one-half as of
January 1940, the share paid from Federal funds
rose to almost 40 percent. Two major factors
have operated to keep the Federal share well be¬
low the matching ratio. Several States have not
qualified for Federal grants for aid to dependent
children under the Social Security Act. In partic¬
ipating States, moreover, many individual pay¬
ments were made toward which the Federal Gov¬
ernment contributed less than half because of the

Act expenditures increased to $13 million, and rose
steadily thereafter to $23 million in 1941 (table 26).

State funds met less than half the cost until
1935, when they represented 54 percent of the
total. Under the Social Security Act, the States
increased their contribution to the non-Federal
share from two-thirds in 1936 to three-fourths in
1941. State expenditures ran between $3 million
and $4 million annually before the Social Security
Act ; thereafter they increased rapidly and reached
$12 million in 1941.

Table 26. — Public expenditures^ for aid to the blind in
the continental United States, by source of funds,
calendar years 1930-41

Year

1930.

1931.

1932.

1933.

1934.

1935.

193G.

1937.

1938.

1939.

1940.

1941.

Amount (in thousands)

Total

$5, 461
5, 699
6,202
6,423
7,024
8,017

12, 814
16, 170
18, 944
20, 765
21, 725
22, 843

Federal

funds

$2, 752
4, 975
4,746
5, 377
6, 259
6,698

State

funds

$2,580
2,667
2,905
3,028
3, 508
4,342

6, 778
8, 134
10, 615
11,501
11,592
12, 220

Local

funds

$2, 881
3,032
3, 297
3, 395
3, 516
3,675

3, 284
3,061
3,583
3,887
3,874
3,925

Percentage distribution

Total

Fed¬

eral

funds

State

funds

Local

funds

100.0

47.2

52.8

100.0

46.8

53.2

100.0

46.8

53.2

100.0

47.2

52.8

100.0

49.9

50.1

100.0

54.2

45.8

100.0

21.5

52.9

25.6

100.0

30.8

50.3

18.9

100.0

25.1

56.0

18.9

100.0

25.9

55.4

18.7

100.0

28.8

53.4

17.8

100.0

29.3

53.5

17.2

‘ See footnote 1, table 24.

Source: Totals for 1930-33 estimated primarily on basis of data for urban
areas; distribution by source of funds for these years estimated on basis of
provisions of State laws. Data for 1934 based on “Public Provision for Pen¬
sions for the Blind in 1934,” Monthly Labor Review, Vol. 41, No. 3 (September
1935), p. 592; for 1935, “Public Pensions for the Blind in 1935,” Monthly Labor
Review, Vol. 43, No. 2 (August 1936), p. 315. Primary sources for all years
supplemented by data published in State annual reports and special pub¬
lications.

There was a corresponding decline in local ex¬
penditures, which were more than half the total
in 1930 and less than one-fourth the non-Federal
share in 1941. The level of local expenditures
under the Social Security Act has been somewhat
higher than in the period prior to 1936, and in the
last few years has totaled almost $4 million annu-

provisions governing the maximum amounts
matchable by Federal funds.

Aid to the Blind

The histoiy of financing aid to the blind closely
parallels that of old-age assistance, but the increase
in the State share of State-local costs has been
more gradual and not as great as for old-age assist¬
ance. Total expenditures for aid to the blind
increased from $5 million in 1930 to $8 million in
1935. In the first year under the Social Security

ally.

The Federal share of aid to the blind has fluc¬
tuated between a low of 22 percent and a high of
31 percent. The comparatively small proportion
of total costs paid by the Federal Government for
this program, for which Federal grants represent
approximately half the amounts expended under
approved State plans, is explained by the fact that
two of the States with the largest programs for aid
to the blind do not participate in programs under
the Social Security Act.

28

General Relief

The cost of general relief rose rapidly from $57
million in 1930 to almost $1.4 billion in 1935, re¬
flecting the prolonged effects of the depression.
During this period Federal responsibility, which
was nonexistent prior to 1932, was expanded to
meet almost three-fourths of the cost in 1935, the
last year of Federal grants under the FEKA. In

Table 27. — Public expenditures^ for general relief in the
continental United States, by source of funds, calen¬
dar years 1930-41

Amount (in thousands)

Percentage distribution

Year

Total

Federal

State

Local

Total

Fed¬

eral

funds

State

Local

funds

funds

funds

funds

funds

1930...

$56, 700

$224

$56, 476
137, 516
203, 320

100.0

0.4

99.6

1931...

161,300

23, 784
70, 648

100.0

14.7

85.3

1932...

347, 491
766,071

$73, 523

100.0

21.2

20.3

58.5

1933...

456, 385

100,470

209, 216

100.0

59.6

13.1

27.3

1934...

1, 142, 896

792, 140

149, 712

201,044

100.0

69.3

13.1

17.6

1935...

1,373,908

989, 746

185, 673

198, 489

100.0

72.0

13.5

14.5

1936...

437, 134

12, 538

246, 534
231, 519

178,062

100.0

2.9

56.4

40.7

1937...

406, 721

532

174, 670

100.0

.1

56.9

43.0

1938...

475, 606

5

275, 816

199, 785

100.0

e)

58.0

42.0

1939...

481,531
392, 972
273, 166

(»)

285, 201

196, 330

100.0

(?)

59.2

40.8

1940 ..

226,611
145, 368

166, 361
127, 798

100.0

57.7

42.3

1941...

100.0

53.2

46.8

' See footnote 1, table 24.

’ Less than 0.05 percent.

3 Less than $500.

Source: Totals for 1930-31 based on Cone, Frederick M., Monthly Income
Payments in the United States, 1929-iO, U. S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Economic Series No. 6, 1940,
pp. 22-23; for 1932-36, on Whiting, Theodore E., and Woofter, T. J., Jr.,
Summary of Relief and Federal Work Program Statistics, 19SS-iO, Work Proj¬
ects Administration, Divisions of Statistics and Research, 1941, pp. 30, 51.
Distribution of State and local funds for 1930-32 based on Laszloecker, R. L.,
“Sources of State Emergency Relief Funds, July 1, 1930, through June 30,
1935,” Federal Emergency Relief Administration, Monthly Report, July
1935, pp. 61-73. Federal funds for 1932 and distribution for 1933-36, from
WPA, Division of Statistics.

1936-38 a negligible proportion of the costs of
direct relief was paid by the balances of FERA
funds, and none thereafter (table 27).

State financial participation increased from
practically nothing in 1930 to 48 percent of State-
local costs m 1935. When Federal funds for
direct relief were withdrawn. State financing
went up to 58 percent and stayed at about this
level through 1940. The State proportion of
State-local costs fell to 53 percent in 1941. State
funds reached their first peak in 1936, when they
approximated $247 million as compared with
$224 thousand in 1930. After decreasing in
1937, State funds reached their all-time peak of
$285 million in 1939 and thereafter decreased
sharply to $145 million in 1941.

Local expenditures, which represented almost
100 percent of relief payments in 1930, amounted
to slightly more than 40 percent for each of the
years 1936 through 1940. However, the amounts
expended by local governments for general relief
increased from $56 million in 1930 to about $200
million in 1935. After declining to about $175
million in 1936 and 1937, local funds returned to
the 1935 level and remained there until 1940.
Sharp declines after 1939 brought local costs to
$128 million in 1941, the smallest amount since
1931. Because of the greater decrease in State
expenditures for general relief in the last 2 years,
however, the proportion of local expenditures
increased to 47 percent.

29

Eligibility for Public Assistance Under
Approved State Plans, as of December 1941* *

Programs for old-age assistance, aid to dependent
children, and aid to the blind are administered by
States under plans approved by the Social Security
Board pursuant to the provisions of the Social
Security Actd Subject to the requirements in the
act, the States determine the scope of their
programs, which is largely measured by the con¬
ditions of eligibility established for each.

Federal grants-in-aid are made available to
States administering approved State plans.^
Though State plans do not yet take full advantage
of the maximum Federal funds authorized under
the act, legislative action in the 46 jurisdictions
which had legislative sessions in 1941 continued to
show a trend toward liberalization of conditions of
eligibility.^ The effect of such legislative action
on existing provisions is indicated in this summary
of the eligibility provisions in approved plans for
public assistance.^ These State plans, while based
on legislation, include provisions established by
administrative action pursuant to the statutory
authority vested in the State agency responsible for
the administration of the programs. A somewhat
arbitrary classification of the various State eligi¬
bility requirements has been adopted for this
discussion. In the actual operation of the plans,
administrative practices are affected by the avail¬
ability of funds and by determinations within the
discretion of the agency. There is also a greater
degree of relationship among many of the condi¬
tions of eligibility than might appear to be the
case, particularly in relation to need, income and
property limitations, and the responsibility of
applicants’ relatives for their support.

At the end of 1941, 142 approved plans were
in operation. All 51 jurisdictions had approved

•Prepared in the Division of Plans and Grants. Statements in this article
are based upon factual analysis and interpretation of data in approved State
plans and do not necessarily reflect practices recommended by the Social
Security Board.

• Titles I, IV, and X.

3 Sections 3, 403, and 1003 of the Social Security Act, as amended.

3 Of the 51 jurisdictions (48 States, Alaska, District of Columbia, and
Hawaii) eligible to participate in Federal grants, only Alabama, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Virginia had no legislative sessions in 1941.

* For a summary of conditions of eligibility, by individual States, see Social
Security Board, Characteristics of Slate Plans for Old-Age Assistance . . ..for
Aid to the Blind . . ., and/or Aid to Dependent Children, Revised July 1, 1940.

plans for old-age assistance; 44, for aid to the
blind;® and 47, for aid to dependent children.®
Three States (Alaska, Kentucky, and Nevada)
had approved plans for old-age assistance only;
Iowa had approved plans for aged and blind only;
4 (Delaware, Illinois, Missouri, and Pennsylvania)
had approved plans for aged and children only;
and the remaining 43 States had approved plans
for all three special types of public assistance.

During 1941, more new plans were approved by
the Social Security Board than during any other
year since 1937, the second year of operation of
the Social Security Act. One new plan for aid to
the blind (Texas) and four new plans for aid to
dependent children (Connecticut, Illinois, Missis¬
sippi,^ and Texas) were approved.

Conditions Relevant to Need
Need as a Condition of Eligibility

The Social Security Act provides for assistance
to “needy” individuals,® and “need” is the only
limiting condition of eligibility required under
the act for each of the gi'oups for whom assistance
is available — the aged, the blind, and dependent
children. The term “need,” however, is not
defined in the Federal act, and, within broad
limitations, the decision as to what constitutes
need is left to the States. Effective July 1, 1941,
the 1939 amendments to the act required specifi¬
cally that “the State agency shall, in determining
need, take into consideration any other income
and resources” of an individual claiming assist¬
ance.®

Need as a condition of eligibility is usually
described in general terms in the State plans. The
determination whether the condition of need has
been met is based on more detailed provisions in
the State plans relating to standards of assistance,
including the requirements of applicants, amount

3 All but Alaska, Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, Nevada, and
Pennsylvania.

« All but Alaska, Iowa, Kentucky, and Nevada.

3 A Mississippi plan for aid to dependent children was approved previously
but was inoperative after March 1936.

8 Sections 1 and 6, 401 and 406, and 1001 and 1006.

• Sections 2 (a) (7), 402 (a) (7), and 1002 (a) (8).

30

of income, personal property, real property, “or
other resources” of an applicant, the existence of
relatives and others who support or are able to
support the applicant, and the amount of assist¬
ance that may be granted. In many States, one
or more of these individual factors form the basis
of separate conditions of eligibility apart from that
of “need”; for example, in some States, the appli¬
cant’s ownership of property in excess of a speci¬
fied amount or the existence of legally liable
relatives who are found able to support the appli¬
cant would of themselves disqualify the applicant.

General Definitions of ‘‘Needy Persons’*

A needy person is most frequently characterized
in State plans as a person with insufficient or in¬
adequate income or other resources “to provide a
reasonable subsistence compatible with decency
and health.” This standard of need is found in
29 of the 51 old-age assistance plans,^° in 27 of the
44 plans for aid to the blind, and in 17 of the 47
State plans for aid to dependent children.^^

A needy person is defined in other plans in a
variety of ways, as one who is “deprived of the
essentials of life,” “rendered permanently unable
to provide properly for self,” “in need of relief and
support,” “without adequate support and is un¬
able to support self,” or “unable to support self in
whole or in part, having no one liable for and able
to support, and without other means or sources of
income by which he can be maintained.”

The standard of need is also expressed in many
different ways. A needy person is described, for
example, as one whose income or resources are
insufficient “to provide a reasonable subsistence in
accordance with accustomed standard of living,”
“to maintain self on reasonable standard of health
and decency,” “to provide a reasonable standard
of health and well-being,” “ . . . for mainte¬

nance in decency and health,” “to provide a rea¬
sonable subsistence compatible with decency, health
and needs,” “to meet requirements necessary to

Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana,
Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Missis¬
sippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina,
North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, West
Virginia, and Wyoming.

n Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii,
Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, South
Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

>2 Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana,
Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New
Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, and Washington.

maintain a standard of health and decency,” “to
provide necessary food, clothing, fuel, and shelter
and incidentals,” “to provide reasonable sub¬
sistence,” “to provide a living consistent with
standards of decency and health,” “to provide
the necessities of life,” or “to provide a reasonable
subsistence compatible with health and well¬
being.”

In addition to the phrases “insufficient income”
and “insufficient income or any other resources,”
which are used most frequently in the definitions,
inadequacy of income and resources is variously
described as “income inadequate, including con¬
tributions in money, subsistence, or services,”
“insufficient means,” “inadequate income and
support,” “inadequate earning capacity, income
or resources, from whatever source derived,”
“insufficient income from all sources,” “inadequate
income, when added to contributions from rela¬
tives or others,” or “inadequate means of support.”

In three States (Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming)
income or resources of the spouse of an applicant
for old-age assistance are specifically mentioned
in the definition of need as being included in de¬
termining the need of the applicant. In three
States (California, New Jersey, and Ohio) inability
of a needy blind person to support himself must be
due to loss or impairment of sight. In addition
to general definitions of need appearing in some of
the plans for aid to dependent children, a de¬
pendent child is usually defined in terms of being
deprived of parental support or care. These defi¬
nitions are discussed subsequently.

In 17 States,^^ the plans contain no specific
limitations on the amount and types of income and
property of an applicant as a condition of eligi¬
bility for assistance in any category. In the re¬
maining States there is little uniformity with
regard to these conditions of eligibility ; the provi¬
sions include various limitations on the amount
and type of income, real property, or personal
property, or combinations of such assets.

Specific Income Limitations

Nine States limit eligibility to persons whose
income does not exceed a specified amount. With
the exception of Florida, these provisions are all
statutory and apply only to old-age assistance.

13 Arkansas, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky,
Mississippi, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, South
Dakota, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia.

31

In Colorado the law provides that a person may be
eligible if he has a net income of less than $45 a
month. Alabama and Ohio set the maximum
income at $480 a year. The Washington law speci¬
fies a yearly income of less than $480 and a month¬
ly income of less than $40. In Arizona an appli¬
cant is disqualified if his income exceeds $360 a
year. In Utah an applicant may be eligible for
assistance if his income from all sources does not
exceed “a yearly average of $30 per month'’; if the
applicant is married, the combined income of hus¬
band and wife living together is considered in
determining the need of each. In Vermont an
applicant may be eligible for old-age assistance if
his own income does not exceed $360 a year or the
joint income is not more than $500 a year. In
South Carolina an applicant may be eligible if his
income is less than $240 a year. The Florida plans
for all three programs provide that liquid assets
and income “should not usually be in excess of
$360 a year.” This provision is not statutory.

Real Property Limitations

Maximum amount. — The limitations on amounts
of real property are frequently qualified in one or
more respects. It is necessary, therefore, to
consider additional limitations in relation to the
money valuations given in the tabulation:

Maximum amount State and program i

$5,000 _ Connecticut (ABC); Rhode Island (AC);

Minnesota and Wisconsin (A).

3.500 _ Vermont (B).

3,000 _ California, Massachusetts, and Montana

(ABC); New Jersey and Ohio (A); New

Hampshire (C).

2.500 _ Oklahoma (ABC); Michigan and Vermont

(A).

2,000 _ Iowa (AB).

1.500 _ Maine (AB); Maryland (A); Missouri

(AC).

1,000 _ New Hampshire (AB).

500 _ Alaska and Colorado (A).

Other _ Florida and South Carolina (ABC) ; Idaho,

I Nebraska, and Tennessee (AB) ; Penn¬

sylvania (AC) ; Delaware, Maine, Min¬
nesota, Washington, and Wisconsin
(C); North Dakota (A).

> A means old-age assistance; B, aid to the blind; C, aid to dependent
children.

In Rhode Island (children), the specified maximum
is further limited to property occupied as a resi¬
dence. In Massachusetts (aged), the maximum is
further limited to equity in vacant land from which

no income is derived, or in property in which the
applicant resides.

Of the 12 States with “other” maximums,
Idaho (aged and blind) defines the maximum as a
“reasonable amount”; the remaining States, in
general, limit the ownership of property of an
applicant, to qualify for assistance, to the home in
which he is living. In Maine and Wisconsin
(children), the applicant may be eligible in sucn
case, if the cost of maintaining the property does
not exceed rental costs for living quarters.

In a few States, ownership of property in excess
of the maximum will not disqualify an applicant if
the sale of the property would result in a loss, if
the property produces no income or insufficient
income to meet the needs of the applicant, or if
unusual circumstances exist.

In nine States,^^ real and personal property
are not distinguished with respect to the maximum
assets of an applicant in determining eligibility for
assistance.

Ejffect oj marital status on maximum. — In five
States the property owned by the spouse is in¬
cluded in determining the maximum. In Cali¬
fornia (blind), the applicant's share of community
property is similarly included. In five States a
higher maximum is prescribed if the applicant is
married. In Colorado (aged), an applicant may
be eligible if property owned by the spouse does
not exceed $1,000.

Exempt property. — In four States,property owned
and occupied as a residence is not considered in
determining the maximum limitation. Alaska
(aged) exempts patents to homestead lands; and
Pennsylvania (aged and children), property re¬
sources not convertible into cash.

Assignment and transfer of property to agency. —
Eight States include provisions for assigning or
transferring real property to the agency as a con¬
dition of eligibility. In four of these States the
maximum limitation on real property may be
waived if the applicant conveys or transfers the
property to the agency, to the extent and in the

n Minnesota, New Jersey, Ohio, Ehode Island, and Vermont (aged);
California (blind); Missouri (aged and children); Tennessee (aged and blind);
and Montana (aged, blind, and children).

1* California, Michigan, Minnesota, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin (aged).

w Ohio and Vermont (aged), $4,000; Iowa (aged and blind), $3,000; New
Hampshire (aged and blind), $2,000; and Missouri (aged), $2,000.

” Colorado (aged), property owned by applicant or spouse; Connecticut
and Montana (aged, blind, and children); Vermont (aged), of value up to
$1,000.

1* Connecticut (aged and blind); Massachusetts, North Dakota, and Ohio
(aged).

32

manner required by the agency; and in the other
four,^® conveyance or transfer of property may be
required as a condition to receiving assistance,
when no maximum limitation is imposed, or re¬
gardless of the maximum.

Determining the value oj property. — In prescrib¬
ing the maximum limitations on real property as a
condition of eligibility, the amount is variously
characterized as “net value,” “equity in prop¬
erty,” “market value,” 22“assessed valuation,” ^
“assessed value, less recorded liens,” “assessed
valuation of unencumbered property,” “value
with mortgages and encumbrances deducted,” ^
“county assessed valuation, less encumbrances of
record.”

Personal Property Limitations

Personal property limitations other than those
discussed earlier with regard to specific income
limitations and those which do not distinguish be¬
tween personal and real property appear in 28
State plans for old-age assistance, 17 plans for aid
to the blind, and 16 plans for aid to dependent
children.

In six States, ownership of personal property up
to $300 in value does not disqualify an applicant.
In Wyoming (aged and blind), an applicant may
be eligible for assistance if he owns up to $150 in
cash; for aid to the blind, carrying charges not ex¬
ceeding a reasonable rental may also be allowed
when the applicant owns his home. In Louisiana,
provision is made in all three programs for a maxi¬
mum of $200 in bank accounts or postal savings.
In four jurisdictions the maximum is $250; in the
District of Columbia (aged and blind), an appli¬
cant may be eligible if he has insurance or an
estate or bank account up to this amount, held for
funeral expenses, but insurance in excess of this
amount must be assigned to the agency; in Colo¬
rado (aged), the spouse of the applicant may also
own personal property up to $500, and personal
property exempt from execution or attachment is

New York (aged and blind); Iowa, New Hampshire, and New Jersey
(aged).

»i> Minnesota and Ohio (aged); Vermont (blind).

Connecticut (aged, blind, and children); Rhode Island (aged and chil¬
dren); Massachusetts (aged, blind, and children); New Hampshire (aged and
blind); Oklahoma (children); Maryland, New Jersey, and Vermont (aged).

Alaska (aged); and Oklahoma (aged and blind).

M California (aged and children).

“ Iowa (aged and blind).

« Montana (aged, blind, and children).

M Michigan (aged).

•^California (blind).

not considered in determining the maximums; in
Utah (blind and children), the maximum for the
applicant and spouse together is $500; and in
California (children), an increased maximum of
$500 is established for the family.

In establishing eligibility, the maximum amount
of personal property of an applicant is most fre¬
quently set at $300. This basic maximum is
found in 16 plans in 12 States. In 6 States, the
maximum is merely designated as $300 in cash or
other assets.^® In 6 States, an increased maxi¬
mum ranging from $450 to $600 is permitted when
the applicant is married.^® In North Dakota
(aged), an applicant may be eligible when he or
his spouse owns insurance with cash surrender
value up to $300, or personal property up to $200.
In Florida (aged, blind, and children), if an appli¬
cant owns $250 in insurance, liquid assets “should
not usually” exceed $110. Three States®® have
established a maximum of $500. In Maine
(blind) , an applicant who has up to $600 in liquid
assets may be eligible.

Five States in this group specifically exclude
certain personal property in determining the maxi¬
mum. In three States, such items as household
goods, wearing apparel, and personal effects are
specifically excluded.®^ In California (aged), the
cash surrender value of life insurance of face value
of $1,000 is excluded if the insurance was in effect
at least 5 years prior to application. Massachu¬
setts (aged) specifically excludes the amount of the
minimum admission fee for persons on waiting
lists of private institutions, and certain life insur¬
ance with face value up to $1,000 or $3, 000, depend¬
ing on the age of the policies, or certain group
insurance with premiums of not more than 50
cents a week.

In four States ®® provision is made for trans¬
ferring or assigning to the agency personal prop¬
erty in excess of the maximum, which may
constitute a waiver of the maximum as a condition
of eligibility.

« Delaware and Maryland (aged); Massachusetts (blind and children);
Minnesota and Rhode Island (children); and Vermont (aged) includes life
insurance.

« Iowa and Nebraska (aged and blind); Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada (if
husband and wife are both applicants), and New Hampshire (aged). In
Minnesota, the maximums refer to the net value of assets convertible into
cash, but conversion may be waived if undue loss would result.

so California (aged); Missouri (aged and children); and New Hampshire
(blind), $750 for applicant and spouse.

SI Michigan and North Dakota (aged); and Minnesota (aged and
children).

»s Iowa, Massachusetts. New Hampshire, and North Dakota (aged).

33

Some plans specifically provide that the prop¬
erty of the applicant is to be retained for funeral
expenses.

In six States, the maximum limitation on per¬
sonal property ranges from $600 to $1,000. In
Alaska (aged) , the maximum is set at $200 in cash
and $500 in other personal property, and the
applicant may be required to pledge property in
excess of $200 to the agency. In Arizona (aged),
the maximum is $1,000 in cash and other personal
property, excluding household furniture. In Del¬
aware (children), an applicant, to be eligible for
aid, may have cash not exceedmg $1,000. The
maximums in Oklahoma apply to all three cate¬
gories; $250 in resources and $500 cash or loan
value of insurance, increased to $400 and $1,000,
respectively, if the husband and wife both apply
and are otherwise eligible. In Utah (aged), an
applicant may be eligible when he owns insurance
with a cash value up to $500 and $300 in personal
property (market value) , exclusive of clothing and
household furnishings. Washington (aged) pro¬
vides a maximum of $500 cash or loan value of
insurance and $200 in cash and personal property,
includmg livestock.

In Connecticut, ownership of cash equivalent to
a year’s maintenance does not disqualify an appli¬
cant for any of the three special types of public
assistance. The applicant may be eligible, more¬
over, if he assigns personal property and life insur¬
ance, if in excess of $500, to the agency as required.
In Idaho (aged and blind), the maximum is merely
specified as a “reasonable amount.” In Maine, an
applicant for old-age assistance with liquid assets
up to an amount necessary for a year’s mainte¬
nance may be eligible; children may be eligible for
aid to dependent children when their parent owns
life insurance up to $500, with insurance on each
child up to $250. Bank deposits up to $350 are
also allowed, but a larger amount will not disqual¬
ify the applicant if the amount is approved by the
supervisor of aid to dependent children.

In Pennsylvania (aged and children), an appli¬
cant will not be disqualified for ownership of prop¬
erty not convertible into cash, excluding household
goods, automobile necessary for transportation,
compensation and damages for medical care, and
veteran’s bonus; an applicant may also ovui $500
insurance ($300 for children under 16 in aid to
dependent children), with insurance over $500 to
be assigned to the State agency. In Rhode

Island, an applicant may be eligible for old-age
assistance if the life insurance for husband and
wife does not exceed $5,000 in face value; in both
old-age assistance and aid to the blind, assignment
of all insurance in excess of $300 is required, al¬
though an applicant for old-age assistance may
retain up to $300 in cash or other assets for burial
expenses. In California (blind), ownership of
insurance up to $1,000 maturity value will not
disqualify an applicant if the policy was in effect
at least 5 years prior to application.

In New Hampshire (children), the maximum is
$500 in personal property and insurance up to $500
for the parent and up to $150 straight life insur¬
ance for the child. In Washington (blind and
children) , an applicant is not disqualified by owner¬
ship of household goods, personal effects, livestock
up to $150 in value, certain foodstuffs, and insur¬
ance with a maximum cash surrender value of
$300 and loan value of $100, if the policy has been
in effect for more than 5 years. In Vermont
(blind and children), ownership of household fur¬
nishings and certain other property that permit
the family to maintain standards of living com¬
parable with previous standards will not disqualify
an applicant from receiving aid; in aid to depend¬
ent children, $1,000 insurance for the head of the
family and $250 for the child are established
maximums, but may be waived.

Changes in Property Limitations in 1941

The State legislation enacted in 1941 has general¬
ly relaxed property limitations as a condition of
eligibility for assistance. During 1941, Alaska
exempted personal property to the amount of $200
under the provision of the old-age assistance law
which could require an applicant to pledge his
property as a guarantee for reunbursement of
assistance granted. In Mmnesota, the provision
that old-age assistance may not be paid to a person
with property exceeding $5,000 was amended to
add that, if the net value of his assets convertible
into cash exceeds $300, or the combined convertible
assets of husband and wife exceed $450, the appli¬
cant is similarly disqualified unless liquidation of
assets would cause undue loss. Ohio amended the
property limitation in the old-age assistance law to
permit a waiver of the maximum upon assignment
of the property in trust to the Division for Aid to
the Aged. Utah amended the old-age assistance

34

law to increase the amount of assets an applicant
may own and still qualify.

Disposal of Property to Qualify for Assistance

Most States provide in one or more of their plans
that an applicant may be eligible if he has not dis¬
posed of property for the purpose of qualifying for
assistance. Provisions of this type are found in 47
of the 51 plans for old-age assistance, in 31 of the
44 plans for aid to the blind, and in but 7 of the 47
plans for aid to dependent children (table 28).
Only 4 (Hawaii, Idaho, Louisiana, and Texas)
exclude such a provision from all three types of
assistance.

While the most common provision is not limited
as to time, many States provide a time limit,
ranging from 2 to 5 years prior to application for
assistance, during which a transfer of property for
the purpose of qualifying for aid would disqualify
the applicant:

Time limit (years)

Old-age

assistance

Aid to the
blind

Aid to
dependent
children

Total _ _ _ _ -

47

31

7

2 .

10

10

3

3 . . .

2

1

0

5

9

8

1

None

1 26

12

3

1 Includes Minnesota, which provides, in effect, that a transfer of property
tor the purpose of qualifying for assistance, made within 2 years prior to the
passage of act of January 27, 1936, will disqualify applicant.

In several of these State plans the provisions
differ somewhat from the prevailing pattern.

In California (aged), under an amendment en¬
acted in 1941 a transfer of property to qualify for
aid does not of itself disqualify an applicant if the
transfer does not deprive the applicant of the
present use, enjoyment, or iucome of such prop¬
erty. In Michigan (blind), an applicant is not
eligible if he disposed of property to qualify for
assistance, or conveyed property to any person
under a condition or agreement that such person
should furnish support and maintenance, and such
person is then living and able to support applicant,
or if the property conveyed is subject to per¬
formance of the conditions or agreement.

While most plans refer to disposal of property by
the applicant, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wyoming
(aged) include transfer of property by the spouse
as well, and Arkansas requires that, to qualify for
aid to dependent children, the guardian or custo¬
dian of the child must not have disposed of prop¬
erty for that purpose.

In addition to the disposal of property to
qualify, Ohio (aged), and Vermont (aged and
blind) include disposal of income as well, and
Wyoming (aged and blind) includes also the dis¬
posal of “resources.” Connecticut (under a 1941
amendment for aged and blind) and Pennsylvania
(children) disqualify an applicant if the disposal of
property was without reasonable consideration.
In Pennsylvania (aged) , the provision is limited to
property of $500 or more disposed of without fair
consideration. In Maine (aged), an applicant is
not eligible if he disposed of property to qualify or
disposed of it without reasonable compensation.

In addition to the usual provision that the
applicant, to be eligible for assistance, must not
have disposed of property “for the purpose of
qualifying for aid,” in some States disposal of
property for the purpose of getting increased
assistance,®* or to preclude recovery for assistance
granted,®^ or to evade the law ®® will disqualify an
applicant. During 1941 , three jurisdictions deleted
provisions on disposal of property from their laws.®®

Responsibility of Relatives and Others

Many State plans provide that an applicant
may be eligible for assistance if he has no relatives
who are legally responsible and able to support
him. This type of provision is frequently related
to other provisions in poor laws or in the general
laws of a State requiring specified relatives of a
“poor person” or a “destitute person” to support
him if they are financially able to do so, and
authorizing judicial action to enforce such support
if the relative refuses.

Under a strict interpretation of the provisions
constituting a condition of eligibility, the mere
existence of legally responsible relatives able to
support the applicant disqualifies him whether or
not he is in fact receiving such support. In
many States the construction given to the re¬
quirement is tempered by the circumstances in
individual cases. Many States without a specific
requirement of this type give consideration under
other provisions of law to the ability of relatives
to support the applicant, in determining the extent
of the applicant’s need and the amount of assist¬
ance to be granted. In some instances the agency

33 Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio (aged).

3* Michigan and Iowa (aged).

35 Rhode Island (blind) and Ohio (aged).

35 Hawaii (aged, blind, and children), Idaho (aged and blind), and Wyo¬
ming (children).

35

grants assistance and may bring action against
relatives who are able to support the applicant but
refuse to do so, and thus attempts to recover the
amount of assistance granted.

No clear line can be drawn between provisions
w'hich constitute conditions of eligibility and those
which are considered in relation to determining
the extent of need and amount of assistance.
Somewhat less than half the States, for example,
provide that an applicant may be eligible for
assistance if he has no legally responsible relatives
who are able to support him. In a few other

States the provision is worded to include relatives
who may not be legally responsible for the support
of the applicant, or to include only relatives or
other persons able and willing to support the
applicant. Sometunes the requirement is limited
to relatives able to support the applicant “without
undue sacrifice,” or able to support him without
depriving themselves or their families of necessi¬
ties and conveniences ordinarily included in the
standard of living in the community. Under other
provisions in State plans, a person may be eligible
if he is not receiving adequate support from legally

Table 28. — Requirements relating to disposal of property to qualify for special types of public assistance, by State

and program, December 1941

State

No provision

Time limit preceding application i

2 years

3 years

5 years

No time limit

A

B

c

A

B

c

A

B

A

B

c

A

B

0

Alabama . . .

X

Alaska _ _ _ _ _

(’)

(0

Arizona.. _ _ _

X

X

Arkansas . . . . .

X

X

X

California . . . . .

■

^ —

Colorado . . . .

X

X

Connecticut _ _

X

■

Delaware _ _ _ _

(2)

X

District of Columbia . . .

X

X

Florida. . .

X

X

X

Georgia.. . . . . . .

X

X

X

Hawaii. _ _

X

X

X

Idaho . . . . .

X

X

X

Illinois . . . . . .

X

X

Indiana.. _ _ _

X

X

X

Iowa _ _ _ _

(>)

X

Kansas _ _ _

X

X

X

Kentucky _ _ _

(*)

Louisiana.. _ _

X

X

X

Maine _

X

X

Maryland . . . ...

X

X

X

M assaehuset ts . . . .

X

X

X

Michigan _ _

X

X

X

Minnesota _ _ _ _ _

X

X

X

Mississippi _ . .

X

X

X

Missouri. _ _ _ .

(>)

X

X

Montana _ _ . .

X

X

X

Nebraska ..........

X

X

X

Nevada ....

(0

(*)

X

New Hampshire _

X

X

X

New Jersey

X

X

X

Nfiw TVTpxiro

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

N’nrfh Dfilrnla

X

X

X

Ohin

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

m

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

TTtflh

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

* No disposal of property, by assignment, transfer, or otherwise, within
specified period preceding application. See text discussion of “Disposal of
Property to Qualify for Assistance” for details. A signifies old-age assistance;

B, aid to the blind; C, aid to dependent children,
s No approved plan.

36

responsible relatives, and in Texas and Utah the
plans specify that no investigation shall be made
into the financial ability of relatives of an applicant
for old-age assistance. In some States provision
is made that a child may be eligible for aid to
dependent children if relatives (limited in some
instances to legally responsible relatives) are un¬
able to provide adequate care and support without
public assistance.

The plans generally specify liable relatives to
include spouse, parents, grandparents, children,
and grandchildren; and, occasionally, relatives of
other degrees of relationship such as brother and
sister. Iowa and Michigan have somewhat simi¬
lar provisions to the effect that an applicant for
old-age assistance may be eligible if he has no
person, municipality, society, association, or cor¬
poration legally or contractually responsible and
able to support him.

During 1941, several States enacted legislation
regarding the responsibility of relatives to support
applicants for public assistance. Nearly all the
amendments permit the agency to take a more
realistic position in considering the resources of
relatives as affecting an applicant's eligibility.
Arizona and California adopted a provision that
the granting or continued receipt of old-age
assistance is not to be contingent upon recovery
from relatives for the support of the applicant or
recipient. Hawaii removed for all three types of
assistance the restriction that an applicant may
be eligible only if he has no spouse, child, or
parent financially able and legally responsible for
his support. North Dakota amended the pro¬
vision that a child may be eligible for aid to
dependent children if his “relatives liable under
the law for his support are not able to provide
adequate care and support for such child without
public assistance,” to read “whose parent, guardian
or custodian neglects or refuses to provide proper
or necessary subsistence, education, medical or
surgical care or other care necessary for his
health, morals or well-being.” Ohio amended the
old-age assistance law to provide that an appli¬
cant may be eligible if he does not have available
to him sufficient income and resources from
responsible relatives. Washington amended legis¬
lation for aid to the blind to provide that no
relative, except of a minor, shall be legally respon¬
sible for supporting the applicant, and that aid
to the blind shall not be denied on account of

any obligation or duty of relatives to support
the applicant.

Receipt of Two or More Types of Assistance

The Social Security Act requires that a State
plan for aid to the blind must “provide that no
aid will be furnished any individual under the
plan with respect to any period with respect to
which he is receiving old-age assistance” under an
approved State plan.®^ This provision prohibits
the simultaneous furnishing to any individual of
money payments under approved plans for aid
to the blind and old-age assistance. Several
States, however, have adopted more extensive
provisions.

Aid to the blind. — All approved State plans for
aid to the blind contain provisions meeting the
Federal requirement. In 27 States ^ a person
may not receive aid to the blind if he is receiving
old-age assistance, in Massachusetts a person
eligible for old-age assistance may not receive aid
to the blind, and in Ohio provision is made for an
eligible applicant to receive either old-age assist¬
ance or aid to the blind, but not both. In Mon¬
tana, New York, and North Carolina, an applicant
is not permitted to receive aid to the blind if he is
receiving old-age assistance or aid in behalf of
dependent children. Twelve States^® provide
that a person may not receive any other form of
public assistance (including old-age assistance),
except for temporary medical and surgical care;
Nebraska also excepts vocational rehabilitation,
fuel, and food. In Louisiana a person is not
eligible for aid if he has been assigned to the
W^ork Projects Administration.

During 1941 Arizona, Idaho, and Wyoming
added a provision in the law for aid to the blind
that a person may not be receiving old-age assist¬
ance. North Dakota removed this provision but
established a maximum age limitation of 65 years
for aid to the blind. New Mexico and Ohio
deleted from their laws the provision that a person
receiving aid to the blind may not receive any
other public assistance except medical or surgical
care.

>7 Section 1002 (a) (7).

Alabama, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, District of Columbia,
Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Michi¬
gan, Mississippi, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin,
and Wyoming.

” Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nebraska, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, Virginia, and West Vir¬
ginia.

37

Old-age assisiance. — Several State plans dis¬
qualify from old-age assistance a person who is
receiving other forms of public assistance. Six
States have similar provisions, permitting, how¬
ever, receipt of assistance such as temporary
medical or surgical care. In Georgia, a recipient
of old-age assistance may not receive aid to the
blind; Iowa has a similar provision, exempting,
however, preventive or remedial treatment for
blindness. In Illinois a recipient of any county
blind benefits is not eligible for old-age assistance.
Louisiana disqualifies a person who has been
assigned to the Work Projects Administration.
During 1941, New Mexico removed from its old-
age assistance law a requirement that a person
may not receive any other public assistance, except
for temporary medical or surgical care.

Aid to dependent children. — Hawaii requires that
a recipient of aid to dependent children may not
receive any other public assistance except for tem¬
porary medical, dental, and surgical care, while
New Mexico removed a similar provision from its
law during 1941. Louisiana disqualifies a person
who has been assigned to the Work Projects
Administration.

Other Eligibility Conditions

Age Limitations

Old-age assistance. — Under the Social Security
Act, a plan for old-age assistance may not impose
a minimum age requirement of more than 65 years.
A State is not prohibited from establishing a lower
age limit, but Federal matching is not available
for old-age assistance payments to anyone who is
less than 65 years of age.

All jurisdictions except Colorado have a mini¬
mum age requirement of 65 years; Colorado also
provides for assistance in certain cases to persons
at ages 60-64, but these payments are not match-
able by Federal funds. The laws of four States
provide for lowering the age requirement in the
event that the age limitation in the Social Security
Act is reduced (table 29). Hawaii enacted such a
provision in 1941.

Aid to the blind. — The Social Security Act con¬
tains no age requirements or age limitations with
respect to Federal matching in aid to the blind.
In the 44 approved plans for aid to the blind,

« Arizona, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Vermont, and
Virginia.

19 States provide no age limitations; 12 States re¬
quire a minimum age of 16 years; 7 States, of 18

Table 29.— Age requirements for special types of public
assistance, by State and program, December 1941

State

Old-

age

assist¬

ance,

65

years

or

over

Aid to the blind

Aid to dependent
children

None

Minimum of—

Un¬

der

16

years

Under
16 years
or, if
attend¬
ing
school
regu¬
larly,
under
18 years

other

16

years

18

years

21

years

Alabama _

X

X

X

Alaska _ _

X

(•)

(')

Arizona _ .

X

X

X

Arkansas _

X

X

X

California... .

3 X

X

3 X

Colorado _

‘ X

X

X

Connecticut...

X

X

X

Delaware _

X

(‘)

X

District of Columbia

X

2 X

X

Florida _

X

X

X

Georgia _

X

X

X

Hawaii _

a X

X

3 X

Idaho _

X

X

X

Illinois _

X

(■)

X

Indiana _

X

X

X

Iowa _

X

X

(■)

Kansas _ _

X

X

X

Kentucky

X

(')

(■)

Tyonisiana

X

X

X

Maine

X

X

X

Marvland

X

X

X

M assachu.setts

X

X

X

Michigan

X

X

3 X

Minnesota

X

X

3 X

Mi.s.sis.sippi

X

X

X

Mis.sonri

X

(1)

3 X

Montana

X

X

X

Nebraska

X

X

X

Nevada

0)

(‘)

X

X

New .Tersey

X

X

X

X

X

X

New Vorlr

X

X

X

X

X

« X

l»x

3 X

Ohio

X

X

X

(11)

X

X

X

X

(0

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

"X

Utah

X

X

X

X

X

X

» X

13 X

X

X

X

X

l‘X

X

X

‘ INO auprovBU piau. . ........ ,

« Wiil be reduced to 60 if Federal requirement set at that level.

> Under 18. . , , j oc / •

* Assistance also provided to individuals between 60 and 65 years of age in
certain cases; not matched with Federal funds.

* For persons who become blind while residents! for others, 21 years.

® For females; 21 years for males.

f Under 17. , ^ • j •, vu •

8 Under 14, or if under 16, regular school attendance required if child is not
physically or mentally incapacitated.

» Will be reduced to correspond to any reduction in Federal requirement.
IK Eligible up to 65 years of age. . ^ .

For persons who become blind while residents! for others, 5 years.

13 Under 14.

i> If not acceptable for education at State school for blind ; otherwise 21 years.
>8 Or at discretion of local agency.

38

years; and 6 States, of 21 years (table 29).^^ North
Dakota is the only State with a maximum age
limitation. This provision, enacted in 1941,
specifies that aid may be granted to persons only
until age 65. In four States (Florida, Massa¬
chusetts, New Mexico, and Oklahoma), which
have no statutory provision with respect to age,
limitations have been established by administra¬
tive action (table 29). During 1941, 4 States
removed the minimum age requirements from their
laws, and Ohio repealed its maximum age require¬
ment of 65 years.

Aid to dependent children. — The Federal act de¬
fines a dependent child, in part, as one who is
“under the age of sixteen, or under the age of
eighteen if found by the State agency to be regu¬
larly attending school.” While States may
establish more liberal age requirements. Federal
matching is not available for aid to dependent
children other than as defined in the Federal act.

Twenty-seven of the 47 approved plans for aid
to dependent children have adopted age limitations
coextensive with those in the Federal act (table 29),
and 5 of these States (Delaware, Idaho, Kansas,
Washington, and West Virginia) have made pro¬
vision for liberalizing this requirement to accord
with a change in the Federal act. Florida and
New Mexico, which have no statutory provision,
have established the age requirements by admin¬
istrative action. In the remaining 20 States, aid
may be granted to children to age 18 in 4 States
(California, Hawaii, Minnesota, and North Da¬
kota); to 17 years in Michigan; to 16 years in

13 States; to 14 years in Texas; and to 14 years, or
16 years if the child is found to be regularly
attending school, in Missouri (table 29).

During 1941, five States (Maine, Maryland,
North Carolina, West Virginia, and Wyoming)
amended their laws to include children from 16
to 18 years of age when regularly attending school;
New Mexico removed its age requirement from the
law; Missouri lowered the 16-year age limitation to

14 years, with provision for assistance to children
up to 16 if they were regularly attending school or
physically or mentally incapable of attending
school; and Utah raised the statutory age limita¬
tion to 18 years.

*> See footnotes 5, 6, 11, and 13, table 29, for particular State exceptions.

« Vermont and West Virginia (21 years), Wyoming (17 years), and Oregon
(16 years).

« Section 406.

Residence Requirements

To be approved, a State plan must have no resi¬
dence requirement more restrictive than those
permitted under the Social Security Act. For
old-age assistance and aid to the blind, the maxi¬
mum Federal requirement is residence in the State
for 5 out of the 9 years immediately preceding ap¬
plication and 1 year immediately preceding appli¬
cation.^ An approved plan for aid to dependent
children may not impose a residence requirement
which excludes “any child residing in the State (1)
who has resided in the State for one year immedi¬
ately preceding the application for such aid, or
(2) who was born within the State within one year
immediately preceding the application, if its
mother has resided in the State for one year imme¬
diately preceding the birth.” The Federal act
merely establishes maximums that a State may
not exceed; matching Federal funds are therefore
available to States with more liberal provisions
and to those which have no residence requirement.

Old-age assistance. — Thirty-eight States require,
as a condition of eligibility, the maximum per¬
mitted under the Social Security Act (table 30).

In five of these States, however, alternative provi¬
sions have been established. In Iowa a person ‘
may be eligible if “domiciled” in the State for 5 of
the 9 years immediately preceding application. |
Minnesota provides that a person who has resided
in the State for 2 continuous years immediately
preceding application may add the years of actual
residence in the State prior to the 9 years preceding
application to establish 5 years’ residence in the
State. Nebraska provides, as an alternative, that
a person may be eligible if he has resided in the
State for 25 consecutive years at any time, and 1
year immediately preceding application. In North
Carolina, a person may also be eligible for old-age
assistance if he has resided in the State for 2 of the
5 years preceding application and 1 year immedi¬
ately preceding application. In Wisconsin, an
applicant who has resided in the State for 1 year
may be eligible for assistance if the State from j
which he moved has undertaken to grant assistance
to any resident of Wisconsin who has moved to and
continuously resided in such State for 1 year.

Three other jurisdictions also require 5 years’
residence. In Alaska, a person, to be eligible for
assistance, must have resided there for 5 years out

Sections 2 (b) and 1002 (b).

M Section 402 (b).

39

of the 9 yeais immediately preceding application.
Vermont and Washington require residence in the
State for 5 years within the 10 years preceding
application.

In Louisiana, the required period of residence
in the State is 3 years, and in South Dakota 2
years, during the 9 years preceding application,
with 1 year immediately preceding the application.
Six States require merely that a person must have
resided in the State for 1 year immediately pre¬
ceding application. In addition, Georgia provides
that a person must have been a “bona fide resi¬
dent” of the State for not less than 1 year. New
Hampshire has the most liberal residence require¬
ment for eligibility for old-age assistance, residence
in the State for 6 months.

During 1941, Hawaii amended the old-age
assistance law, reducing the residence requirement
from the maximum permitted under the Federal
act to 1 year’s residence in the Territory imme¬
diately preceding application for assistance.

Aid to the blind. — Thirty-three of the 44
approved plans for aid to the blind require the
maximum residence permitted under the Federal
act (table 30), but 17 of these States provide
alternatives for meeting this requirement. In
Oregon, a child under 5 years of age may be eligible
for assistance if bom within the State. In the
remaining 16 States, the residence requirement
need not be met if the applicant lost his sight
while a resident of the State. A similar provision
is qualified in 3 jurisdictions: Colorado specifies
that the applicant must have continued to reside
in the State and the District of Columbia that he
must have resided therein for 1 year next preceding
application; and in Washmgton, the loss of vision
must have resulted from a cause that could not
have been known to exist at the time of entry into
the State. In 2 of the 16 States, applicants may
also be eligible if they were blind residents in the
State on a particular date: in Iowa, on July 4,
1937 (date of passage of act); and in South
Carolina, on May 13, 1937 (date of passage of
State Public Welfare Act of 1937).

In Louisiana the required period of residence in
the State is 3 years, and in South Dakota 2 years,
during the 9 years preceding application, with 1
year immediately preceding application.

Five States require residence in the State for 1
year immediately preceding application, and 2
States, Arkansas and Georgia, merely require 1

year’s residence in the State. In Rhode Island
and Arkansas, the residence requirement need not
be met if the applicant lost his sight while a
resident of the State. New Hampshire requires

Table 30. — Residence requirements for special types
of public assistance, by State and program, Decem¬
ber 1941 i

State

Federal

maximum

‘‘6-

year”

provi¬

sion

“1-year”

provision

Other

Ai

B2

C3

A

A

B

c

A

B

0

Alabama _

* X

X

X

Alaska _ _

0)

(0

X

Arizona _

X

<x

X

Arkansas _ _

X

* X

X

California _

X

X

X

Colorado _

X

X

X

Connecticut- _ _

X

X

X

Delaware _ _

X

(»)

«x

X

District of Columbia _

X

X

Florida . . . .

X

X

X

Georgia.- _ _

X

X

(0

Hawaii . .

X

X

X

Idaho .

X

X

X

Illinois _ _

X

(0

< X

X

Indiana _ .

X

X

Iowa . . . .

® X

«x

(*)

Kansas _ _

X

X

X

Kentucky . . .

X

0)

(0

Louisiana. . _

X

8 X

4 8 X

Maine _ ...

X

X

X

Maryland .

X

X

X

Ma.ssachusetts- . .

X

X

X

Michigan.

X

^x

X

Minnesota

0 X

< x

X

Mississippi.

X

(')

Missouri

X

0)

X

X

ATnTit.fi,na

X

X

Nebraska

® X

X

X

"MAVAda

X

G)

(')

New Hampshire _

X

»x

»x

Maw .TAFSPy

X

X

X

New Mexico

X

*x

X

Maw Vork

X

X

X

Mnrt.h Pnrnlina

® X

X

X

Mort.h Dakota

X

X

X

Ohio

X

X

X

Oklahoma

X

<x

X

OrAyoTi

X

® X

X

Pafi n syl van i a

X

0)

X

"Rhoda Island

X

X

‘x

.Qnnth Oarolina

X

fl X

X

South Dakota

X

10 X

4 lOx

TAnnAs.sAA

X

X

X

T'Aras

X

X

X

TTtah

X

X

X

VArmont

<x

X

X

Virg'inia

X

X

X

'Wachinaton

® X

X

X

TV OOXJli-ig tV/i-l---*

WAst. Virginia

X

X

X

WiQAonsin

® X

* X

X

Wyoming . . .

X

X

X

t Schematic presentation of general provisions; see text discussion of “Resi¬
dence Requirements” for details.

*5 of 9 years immediately preceding application and 1 continuous year
immediately preceding application. A signifies old-age assistance; B, aid to

^^fl^year immediately preceding application or born within State within 1
year immediately preceding application if mother has resided in State for
1 year immediately preceding child’s birth. C signifies aid to dependent

< Not required if person became blind while resident of State.

‘ No approved plan.

« Alternative sometimes provided; see text discussion.

1 No residence requirement. , ...

* 3 years during 9 years immediately precedmg application, and 1 year
Immediately preceding application.

« 6 months.

ID 2 years during 9 years immediately precedmg application and 1 year
immediately preceding application.

40

only 6 months’ residence in the State. Mississippi
has no residence requirements for aid to the blind ;
however, it is not the agency’s policy to accept
applications from “transient blind.”

During 1941, Hawaii and Oregon amended the
residence requirements for aid to the blind. Ha¬
waii reduced the requirement from the Federal
maximum to 1 year immediately preceding appli¬
cation. Oregon repealed a provision under which
a person may be eligible if he lost his sight while
a resident of Oregon, and added one under which
a child aged less than 5 years may be eligible if
born within the State.

Aid to dependent children. — In 26 of the 47 ap¬
proved plans for aid to dependent children, the
residence requirement is the same as the maximum
permitted in the Federal act (table 30). Georgia
and Mississippi have no residence requirement for
aid to dependent children. The remaining 19
States have several different types of residence
requirements: 14 include a provision that the
child must have resided in the State for 1 year
immediately preceding application; and 5 (Cali¬
fornia, Delaware, Florida, New Jersey, and Wis¬
consin) include a provision which, with slight vari¬
ations in wording, has substantially the same effect.

Thirteen of the 19 States include more liberal
alternatives under which 1 year’s residence in the
State of certain persons other than the child may
qualify the child for aid: residence of parent or rela¬
tive (6 States),^® parent or guardian (Delaware),
parent (California and Maryland), mother (Ala¬
bama, Michigan, and New Jersey), and person
caring for the child (Wisconsin). The 1 year’s
residence in the State is variously described as
“preceding application,” “immediately preceding
application,” “immediately preceding birth,” “im¬
mediately preceding grant of assistance,” and
“continuous resident of State for 1 year.”

In California a child may also be eligible merely
if born in the State, and in Pennsylvania eligibility
may be established if the child and parent or rela¬
tive standing in loco parentis have legal settlement
or quasi settlement.

With respect to children born within the year
prior to application, the 26 State plans with the
'maximum residence requirement permitted under
j the Federal act include the provision that the child,
to be eligible, must have been born in the State

M Idaho. Louiaiana, New Hampshire, Ohio, Washington, and Wyoming.

and its mother must have resided in the
State for the year immediately preceding the birth.
The remaining 2 1 plans include provisions of vary¬
ing degrees of liberality, ranging from the maxi¬
mum permitted under the Social Security Act to
no restriction whatever. Eligibility of children
under 1 year of age for aid under these provisions
is based on the birth of the child within the State,
residence of the child in the State substantially
from time of birth, residence of mother, residence
of person caring for child, or some combination of
these factors.

During 1941, five States ‘ enacted legislation
liberalizing the residence requirements for aid to
dependent children. Washington, Idaho, Wyo¬
ming, and Ohio amended their laws, which were
previously coextensive with the Federal maximum,
to include children whose parents or relatives had
resided in the State for the year immediately
preceding application ; and in all these States
except Washington, to include children under
1 year of age if they were born in the State or had
resided in the State substantially from time of
birth. Idaho and Wyoming require also, in such
cases, that the parent or relative must have resided
in the State for the year immediately preceding
the birth of the child. North Dakota amended its
law with respect to children under 1 year of age to
include a child who was born in the State and whose
mother had resided in the State for the number of
months immediately preceding birth which, when
added to the age of the child, aggregates 1 year
immediately preceding application.

Citizenship Requirements

The Social Security Act does not require, for
approval of State plans, a citizenship requirement
for assistance under any of the three programs.
The act, however, prohibits a State from imposing
any citizenship requirement for old-age assistance
or aid to the blind which excludes any citizen of the
United States.^^

Old-age assistance. — Twenty-nine of the 51 ap¬
proved plans for old-age assistance require that a
person, to be eligible for assistance, must be a citi¬
zen of the United States (table 31). In 5 of these
States, however, this requirement may be waived
if the applicant has resided in the United States for
a period varying among the States from 15 to 30

« Sections 2 (b) (3) and 1002 (b) (2).

41

years/® North Carolina requires, as an alternative
to citizenship in the United States, 10 years’
residence in the United States and a legal decla¬
ration by the applicant of his intention of becom¬
ing a citizen. Wisconsin provides that an appli-

Iowa and Minnesota (25 years); North Dakota (30 years, 5 of which are
continuous and immediately preceding application); Rhode Island (20 years);
and Wyoming (15 years).

Table 31. — Citizenship requirements for old-age assist¬
ance and aid to the blind, by State, December 1941

U. S. citizenship

State

Not re¬
quired

Required

A ‘

B

A

B

Alabama _

X

X

Alaska _

(8)

X '

X

Arizona _

X

Arkansas _ _

X

X

California _

X

X

Colorado _

X

X

Connecticut _

X

X

Delaware _

(»)

X

District of Columbia _ \ _

X

X

Florida - _ _ _

X

X

Georgia _

X

X

Hawaii _ - _ - _

X

X

Idaho _

X

X

Illinois _

(?)

X

Indiana _

X

X

Iowa _

3 X

4x

ICaDsas _ _

X

X

Kentucky _

(»)

X

X

LfOuisiana _

X

Maine-- _

X

X

Maryland _

X

X

Massachusetts _

X

X

Michigan- _

X

X

ATinriAsnt.a ... . . .

X

s X

Missi.ssippi _ i - _ _ - - _

X

X

Missouri _

X

(8)

X

Montana _ - _ _

X

Nebraska _

X

X

Nevada _ _ _

(8)

X

X

Npw Hamp.shire _ _

X

New Jersey _

X

X

New Mexico _ _

X

X

New York- _

X

X

North Carolina _

X

® X

North Dakota . _ _ _

f X

X

Ohio - _

X

X

Oklahoma _ - _ _ - _

X

X

Orppon _

X

X

X

(=*)

X

Rhode Island _ _

® X

South Carolina _

X

X

Ronth Dakota _ _ -

X

X

Tennessee _

X

X

Toxas ... _ _

X

X

Utah . . . -• _ -- _

X

X

Vermont _

X

X

X

X

Washington _ _

X

X

West Virginia _

X

X

Wi^rioTi.«:in . . . __ _

X

«x

WyoTTiing . . _

X

10 X

1 A signifies old-age assistance; B, aid to the blind.

» No approved plan.

» Or 25 years’ continuous residence in United States.

< Or application for citizenship filed.

* Or 25 years’ residence in United States.

« Or 10 years’ residence in United States and legally declared Intention of
becoming citizen.

’’ Or 30 years’ residence in United States, 5 of which are continuous and
immediately preceding application.

8 Or 20 years’ continuous residence in United States.

® Or born in United States.

Or 15 years’ residence in United States.

cant may be eligible for assistance if he is a citizen
of the United States or was born in the United
States. During 1941, Idaho enacted legislation
eliminating the requirement in the law limiting
old-age assistance to citizens of the United States.

Aid to the blind. — Only 8 of the 44 approved
plans for aid to the blmd require that an applicant
must be a citizen of the United States (table 31).
One of these States, Iowa, provides also that a
person may be eligible for aid if he has applied
for citizenship.

Aid to dependent children. — Texas is the only
State providing that a chUd, to be ehgible for aid
to dependent children, must be a citizen of the
United States. In Montana, a child is disqualified
from receiving aid if its parents are aliens illegally
within the United States.

Institutional Status

Under the Social Security Act, Federal match¬
ing is not available with respect to old-age assist¬
ance and aid to the blind to an individual who is
an inmate of a pubUc institution.^® Federal
matching is available for old-age assistance and
aid to the blind payments made to residents of
private institutions, if such payments are not
prohibited under the State law. In aid to depend¬
ent children. Federal matching is limited to assist¬
ance payments with respect to children who are
living with a relative “in a place of residence
maintained by one or more of such relatives as
his or their own home.”®®

Inmates of public institutions. — -All State plans
for old-age assistance and aid to the blind contain
some provision with respect to institutional status
as a condition of eligibility. In 1 1 State plans for
old-age assistance ®^ and in 9 for aid to the blind,®®
an applicant is disqualified if he is an inmate of,
or being maintained by, a public institution,
commonly described as “any municipal. State, or
Federal institution.” In 12 State plans for old-
age assistance ®® and in 5 plans for aid to the blind
(Connecticut, Hawaii, Nebraska, North Carolina,
and Ohio), the types of institutions are specified
and include public institutions of a charitable,

8® Sections 3 (a) (1) and 1003 (a) (1).

»o Section 406. See pp. 42-44.

M Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Virginia.

8® Arizona, Colorado, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota,
Oklahoma, Vermont, and Virginia.

M California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Iowa,
Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, Washington, and Wisconsin.

42

custodial, correctional, and curative nature; in
some instances, these institutions are described in
greater detail as almshouses, jails, prisons, work-
houses, infirmaries, or insane asylums. The re¬
maining States have a more general provision,
usually to the effect that a person may not be an
inmate of a public institution at the time of re¬
ceiving old-age assistance or aid to the blind.

Inmates of 'private institutions. — Five States deny
old-age assistance (Connecticut, Kentucky, Mis¬
sissippi, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin), and 6 deny
aid to the blind to inmates of private institutions.
In 10 State plans for old-age assistance and in 8
plans for aid to the blind,®® provision is made for
granting assistance to inmates of private institu¬
tions in certain cases, as, for example, when the
private institutions are approved, licensed and
supervised, or visited and inspected by the State
agency, or when residence in the private institu¬
tion is not on a contractual basis. The remaining
States provide no disqualification for residents of
private institutions.

During 1941, Arizona, California, and Texas
removed provisions in their laws which disqualified
inmates of private institutions from receiving old-
age assistance.

Persons in need of continued institutional care. —
Eleven State plans for old-age assistance include
provisions which disqualify persons who are in
need of continued institutional care; generally a
person is disqualified if in need of such care because
of his physical or mental condition. In 4 of these
States (Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, and Minnesota)
applicants are not disqualified unless institutional
care is reasonably available; and in Michigan a
person who needs continued institutional care may
be eligible for assistance when properly cared for by
certain relatives.

Twelve State plans for aid to the blind ®® con¬
tain provisions which disqualify applicants who are
in need of continued institutional care; three of
these States (Alabama, Iowa, and Rhode Island)
add “if such care is reasonably available.” New
Jersey and Washington disqualify an applicant if
he is afflicted mentally or physically so as to be a
charge on a public institution or agency.

M Arizona, Connecticut, Michigan, Okiahoma, Vermont, and West
Virginia.

“Arkansas, Illinois, and Massachusetts (aged); Alabama (blind); Cali¬
fornia, Florida, Iowa, New York, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Ten¬
nessee (aged and blind) .

“ Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana,
Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, and Rhode Island.

Montana is the only State which provides that a
child, to be eligible for aid to dependent children,
must not be in need of continued care in a public
institution because of physical or mental condition.

During 1941, Idaho (aged and blind) and Oregon
(blind) removed provisions of their laws which dis¬
qualified applicants in need of continued institu¬
tional care.

Special Conditions Applicable to Aid to De¬
pendent Children

Deprivation of parental support or care. — A de¬
pendent child is defined in the Social Security Act,
in part, as one who “has been deprived of parental
support or care by reason of the death, contmued
absence from the home, or physical or mental
incapacity of a parent.” ®^

With the exception of California and New York,
all State plans include an eligibility requirement
with substantially the same wording as the Federal
act. In Hawaii, deprivation of parental support
or care may also arise out of the cruelty, neglect, or
depravity of a parent; and in North Dakota, a
child may also be eligible for aid if he is abandoned
by his parent, guardian, or custodian, or if the
child’s parent, guardian, or custodian neglects
him, or refuses to provide proper or necessary sub¬
sistence, education, medical or surgical care, or
other care necessary for his health, morals, or
well-being.

In California, children may be eligible for aid if
they are orphans, half orphans, abandoned chil¬
dren, or children of a father incapacitated for gain¬
ful work by permanent physical disability or by
tuberculosis; orphans and half orphans include
foundlings, children whose father’s whereabouts
has been unknown for 3 years, dependent illegiti¬
mate children whose paternity has not been
acknowledged or legally established, and children
whose parent is imprisoned or committed to a
Federal or State hospital.

In New York, a mother may receive aid on
behalf of her child or children if she is a widow or
has been deserted by her husband for at least 1
year; or her husband is under care in or on parole
from an institution under the jurisdiction of the
State Department of Mental Hygiene and is men¬
tally or physically incapacitated for providing
support, or is confined under a sentence of 2 years

« Section 406.

/

43

or more in a penal or correctional institution, or is
permanently incapacitated and under care, or has
tuberculosis and is receiving treatment in an insti¬
tution or discharged from such institution under
certain conditions; or her marriage has been an¬
nulled or dissolved, or she has been granted a
divorce valid m the State; or she is the mother of a
child born out of wedlock, if it is to the interest of
the child to remain under her care. Similar con¬
ditions with respect to the mother make the father
or another relative eligible for assistance on behalf
of dependent children.

Relatives with whom child may live. — The Social
Security Act defines a dependent child, in part, as
one who “is living with his father, mother, grand¬
father, grandmother, brother, sister, stepfather,
stepmother, stepbrother, stepsister, uncle, or
aunt.”®® While States are not prohibited from
granting assistance to children living with relatives
and others not included within the scope of the
Federal act. Federal matching is not available with
respect to assistance in such cases.

In only 2 of the 47 States with approved plans
for aid to dependent children are the conditions
of eligibility, with respect to the relative with
whom a child may live, less inclusive than the
list of enumerated relatives in the Federal act.
In these 2 States, Minnesota and New Jersey,
eligibility for aid is limited to dependent children
who live with certain female relatives.

The relatives specified in the Social Security
Act have been interpreted to include the following:
adoptive father, adoptive mother, grandfather-in¬
law (meaning the subsequent husband of the
child’s natural grandmother, i. e., stepgrand-
father), great-grandfather, grandmother-in-law
(meaning the subsequent wife of the child’s
natural grandfather, i. e., stepgrandmother) ,
great-grandmother, brother-of-half-blood, brother-
in-law, adoptive brother, sister-of-half-blood,
sister-in-law, adoptive sister, uncle-in-law, aunt-
in-law, great-uncle, and great-aunt (including great-
great and more remote uncles and aunts). An
adoptive grandparent relationship may be iucluded
if the grandchild is the natural child of a parent
who was adopted. If the grandchild is the adopt¬
ed child of a parent who was a natural child of the
grandparent, the payment is not matchable by
Federal funds unless under State law the adoption

»« Section 406.

creates a relationship between the child and the
parent of the one who adopted it.

More than half the States with approved plans
for aid to dependent children extend eligibility to
children who are liviug with one or more of these
relatives; iu a few instances, the States have
included some but not all these relatives.

In some States, a child may be eligible for aid
if he is living with one or more enumerated rela¬
tives, or “any other relative” approved by the
agency, while the programs in a few States permit
assistance to children regardless of their relation¬
ship to the person with whom they live; in such
cases. Federal matching is available only for assist¬
ance to children who come withm the scope of
the Federal act.

During 1941, North Carolina enacted legisla¬
tion to include the relatives interpreted as coming
mthin the scope of the Social Security Act.
North Dakota amended its law to define a de¬
pendent child as one “living with a relative by
birth, marriage, or adoption”; the law previously
enumerated the relatives.

Place of residence. — Under the Social Security
Act, a dependent child is defined, in part, as one
who is living with a relative “in a place of residence
maintained by one or more of such relatives as his
or their own home.”

All but 3 (California, Delaware, and New York)
of the 47 approved plans for aid to dependent
children include a provision of this type as a con¬
dition of eligibility for aid. In 2 of the plans with
such a provision, an alternative provision is added:
In Hawaii, a child may be eligible for aid if he is
living in a place of residence maintained by the
relative as his own home, or in a family home or
institution conforming to the standards fixed by
the director of public assistance; and in North
Dakota, the child may be eligible if living with a
relative in a place of residence maintained as his
own home, or in a licensed boarding home, or in a
home maintained or provided by any child-caring
or child-placing agency authorized under the State
law. Federal matching is available, however,
only with respect to assistance payments for
children who come within the Federal definition.

Seventeen States require that the child, to be
eligible, must be living in a home or “suitable
family home” meeting standards of care and health

Section 406.

44

fixed by law and by the rules and regulations of the
State agency.®® Ten other States include pro¬
vision to the effect that the home in which the
child is living must be “suitable,” or “satisfactory,”
or beneficial for the upbringing of the child. ®^

Durmg 1941, Wyoming and Idaho repealed
provisions that the home in which the child is
living must meet the standards of care and health
fixed by law and rules and regulations of the
agency. North Dakota repealed the provision
that the child may be eligible for aid if living in a
“suitable home.”

Definition of Blindness

• Title X of the Social Security Act provides for
aid “to needy individuals who are blind,” but the
term “blind” is not defined in the act. Approved
State plans for aid to the blind, however, contain
definitions of blindness as criteria for determining
the eligibility of applicants for assistance. These
definitions reflect the recommendations of the
Social Security Board, which has encouraged State
agencies to adopt a definition of blindness which
permits the inclusion of persons with economic
blindness, i. e., with insufficient vision to perform
tasks for which sight is essential. In terms of
ophthalmic measurement, central visual acuity of
20/200 or less in the better eye with correctmg
glasses is generally considered economic blindness.
An individual with a central visual acuity of 20/200
can identify a standard object at a distance of 20
feet, while an individual with normal vision can
identify the same object at a distance of 200 feet.
This statement relates to distance vision. A field
defect in which the peripheral field has contracted
to such an extent that the widest diameter of visual
field subtends an angular distance of no greater
than 20 degrees is considered equally disabling.

A definition of economic blindness in general
terms is included in the majority of plans for aid
to the blind; the one most frequently found in
State plans defines a blind person as “one whose
vision with correcting glasses is so defective as
to prevent performance of ordinary activities for
which eyesight is essential.” Blindness or eco¬
nomic blindness is further defined in State plans
in terms of ophthalmic measurements. The pro-

Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Maine,
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, South
Dakota, Tennessee, and West Virginia.

•» Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Illinois, Maryland, Massa¬
chusetts. New Jersey, North Carolina. Ohio, and Oklahoma.

vision which appears most frequently in State
plans defines a blind person as one with central
visual acuity of 20/200 or less in the better eye
with correcting glasses. All State plans include
this or a similar definition.

All but 8 States®^ also consider as blind, indi¬
viduals who have a restricted field of vision. In
22 States,®® the definition which is in terms of a
maximum angular field of 20 degrees appears most
frequently in the following form: “a field defect in
which the peripheral field has contracted to such
an extent that the widest diameter of visual field
subtends an angular distance no greater than 20
degrees.” In 7 States®^ a person may be deemed
blind if he has a visual field defect comparable to
20/200 or less visual acuity in the better eye with
correcting glasses. Ten States®® define blindness
of this type as a disqualifying visual field defect, or
in similar terms, pursuant to which the judgment
of the examining ophthalmologist or physician
skilled in diseases of the eye is considered in making
a determination of blindness.

An examination by an ophthalmologist or a
physician skilled in diseases of the eye is a require¬
ment in all approved State plans for aid to the
blind, and the report of such examination is con¬
sidered in the agency’s determination whether the
applicant is blind within the terms of the State
plan.

During 1941, Oregon removed from its law
the definition of blmdness in terms of specified
ophthalmic measurements and substituted a
definition in economic terms, with the specific
definition to be established by rules of the agency.

Miscellaneous Provisions

Many States include as conditions of eligibility
certain requhements with a somewhat moralistic
basis; the trend, however, has been toward the
elimination of this type of requirement.

Old-age assistance. — Three States have condi¬
tions of eligibility directed toward disqualifying
criminals: In Georgia, a person is not eligible if

M Arkansas, District of Columbia, New Mexico, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming.

M Alabama, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho,
Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Texas, Vermont, and West Virginia.

M Louisiana, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, Vermont, Washington, and
Wisconsin.

** Colorado, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Missis¬
sippi, New York, and Oregon.

45

he is detained by the State for the conviction of a
crime; in Maine, conviction for a felony disquali¬
fies an applicant; and in Texas, “an habitual
criminal’’ may not receive assistance.

Four States disqualify “tramps,” “beggars,”
or “drunkards.” In Texas, an “habitual drunk¬
ard” is not eligible for old-age assistance; in the
District of Columbia, an applicant is not eligible
if he is “an habitual tramp or beggar”; in Dela¬
ware, an applicant is disqualified if he has been a
“professional tramp or beggar” within 1 year
preceding application; and in New Hampshire, if
he has been “an habitual tramp, beggar, or
drunkard” within 1 year preceding application.

In Iowa, an applicant is not eligible for old-age
assistance if he or she has, without just cause,
deserted the spouse or faded to support the spouse
and chddren under age 15 for 6 months during the
preceding 10 years. In New Hampshde, an appli¬
cant is not eligible if he has faded, without just
cause, to support his wife and chddren aged less
than 16 years for more than 6 months during the
10 years preceding application.

In Massachusetts, an applicant must be “de¬
serving.” In New Jersey, the applicant must be
capable of deriving substantial benefit from the
assistance provided.

Aid to the blind. — In 8 States,®® refusal of treat¬
ment for the condition of blindness constitutes
ground for denial of aid to the blind, ordinardy
after a determination has been made that treat¬
ment may result in the improvement or restoration
of vision. In 22 States,®^ an applicant is not eligi¬
ble for aid to the blind if he publicly solicits
alms.

In the District of Columbia, an applicant is not
eligible if he can be rehabditated for self-support,
if he has deprived himself of sight, or if he lost
his sight during the perpetration of a criminal
offense or by reason of vicious habits ; applicants
who are between 16 and 65 years of age and
capable of working may be disqualified if they

Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, District of Columbia, Minnesota, New
York, South Carolina, and Tennessee.

67 Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Florida,
Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Miimesota, New Jersey, New
York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,
Washington, and Wisconsin.

refuse work. In New York, an applicant is not
eligible if he refuses to accept employment under
reasonable conditions or to receive training to
improve his condition. In New Jersey, an appli¬
cant is not eligible for aid to the blind if he has
married another blind person since Aprd 7, 1921;
if both blind persons were beneficiaries up to the
date of the marriage, only one may continue to
receive aid. In Texas, an “habitual criminal” or
“habitual drunkard” may not receive aid to the
blind. In Utah, assistance may be denied for
refusal to accept rehabilitation services. Georgia
disqualifies a person detained by the State for the
conviction of a crime.

Aid to dependent children. — In 5 States (District
of Columbia, Massachusetts, Ohio, Vermont, and
Wisconsin) a chUd may be eligible for aid to de¬
pendent children if living with a “proper” person,
and in New York and New Jersey, if living with a
person who is “mentally, morally and physically
fit.” In Vermont, it must be to the benefit of the
child to remain with the relative.

In Wisconsin, the period of aid must be likely
to continue longer than 1 year.

1941 legislation. — Pennsylvania enacted legisla¬
tion during 1941, applicable to old-age assistance
and aid to dependent children, providing that an
applicant or recipient shall not “hereafter advocate
and actively participate by an overt act or acts in a
movement proposing a change in the form of
Government of the United States by means not
provided for in the Constitution of the United
States.”

Connecticut removed an earlier provision in the
old-age assistance law which required payment of a
poll tax as a condition of eligibility, and one which
disqualified applicants who were on probation.
Ohio similarly removed a provision which dis¬
qualified a person from receiving old-age assistance
because of desertion and nonsupport, and also
repealed a provision in the law for aid to dependent
children wMch required that the person with whom
the child lives must be morally, mentally, and
physically fit. Khode Island and Oregon repealed
provisions in their laws disqualifying a person from
receiving aid to the blind for refusmg treatment
to restore sight.

o

• .r

V. 1

MfJ*v w i'-i.. -.t’ v^’ v jj0

'If'**-- -ll .•

' *> ^ /• ‘ ^ 4

If

"'»■>'!■:' ■> , v', '^••

' f.

h

'4 I t •

. V

. i)

4 > •»

•V

. ll

' A' ' ’ "' '''iS ' '• '■' ■' '*■ ' ■ ♦r -^ ••• •• '

. ' * '■ t*'' i
.•‘ m-,-. s'-

‘t ;.

• I.

- .4 ^ I jm

V. '''1!

t \

.♦v

V

{

< r-

>\i .rv'

tK*

i '*

r>V>' ^ .-1

fv, " #...4 ; . . .

kr *

: i\ ■ <

.4 < ‘4

■■:,!

V ... .

. ' ■; •■< •'1.

•■ ■ t- .

A' K * » .\N > * *

^ ^ - i '

' *• ■' .r. 1- •«

’ ;n

• ' 4*»
t > *

< ‘ 4 '

vr

vv.

•/

V

'(-rv ■’ , :' ,

-mV '

f f ■

I •

r. «

• '

.♦ A

‘ *. f

f •. I • J * W 4

■'■ ' :- l

I ,

f

/ 0 - Ji .n‘ .;

... N

'"'-■ ■ r '.'

^ mV ■ <
i /

I 't

A ' \\*‘

.fe". mo ' ' ,-• ! '.<*«

' (

r yAi' ' .^, . V. /

' .* t.V.i ^

\ t '

< k

< T '

»J • - 1,

w

I

^ V
'T-

T- •'*' <.. !^'i..'; v.r J'r ■>, ”■ (';*!.■ • ■•■W

•A ' MB r

< j

0 ■:* .'.»»•/••(

ij

'’r

•4 ^ ^

I

1 ;

0.

•-4

' ■ 'rr» ■:

. i' ' /

;f

\ -• J '/ r

<■ •>-

;: 1

', A • /

.v(>

T /' .. .

/

»

\

. /

. r

< I

' ^

■ ' .'■!!;) '4.^4;'' ,.,v*^

•»i 1 / r^* ‘ ^

. ■ , ■ » ' f “ii

• * »*** j.*»

f \ r

i ' l'

-.■■■'■'»< .vm

■ - -■• “* . V:

jj/« ■?

"MKi

, J .4
J, s

' ’ ■ '" . ' .'•■'A > ;■ •" W'V' 5/' ■

J.

\

X , i'. . V.v.’..'' • '.:■ ; ,.;,

^'■..''S'_,n .■ . . ..

■' A.^.A;VA^ :t,-: V, J

FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY

SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD
Arthur J. Altmeyer, Chairman
George E. Bigge Ellen S. Woodward

BUREAU OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE

Jane M. Hoey, Director

Geoffrey May,* Associate Director Peter Kasius, Associate Director
Anne E. Geddes, Associate Director

Division of Operating Statistics and Analysis Division of Assistance Analysis

Joel Gordon, Chief Anne E. Geddes, Acting Chief

Division of Standards and Procedures
Elizabeth Long, Chief

Division of Plans and Grants
Gertrude S. Gates, Chief

Division of Administrative Surveys
Rose J. McHugh, Chief

Division of Technical Training
Agnes Van Driel, Chief

Field Division
Mary E. Austin, Chief

•On leave.

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1942

ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS

Under the

SOCIAL SECURITY ACT
November 1942

federal security agency
SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD
BUREAU OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE
Public Assistance Report No. 6

FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY

SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Arthur J. Altmeyer, Chairman

George E. Bigge

Ellen S. Woodwaurd

BUREAU OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE

Jane M. Hoey, Director
Gertrude S. Gates, Assistant Director

a

STANDAEDS AND PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT DIVISION STATE PLANS AND MANAGEMENT DIVISION

j. Sheldon Turner, Chief

Gertrude S. Gates, Chief

FIELD DB'ISION

STATISTICS AND ANALYSIS DIVISION

Mary E. Austin, Chief

Anne E. Geddes, Chief

TECHNICAL TRAINING SERVICE

Agnes Van Driel, Chief

FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY
SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD
BUREAU OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE

ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS UNDER THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT

NOVEMBER 1942

Thomas G. Hutton and Elizabeth T. Ailing
Statistics and Analysis Division

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE REPORT NO. 6

WASHINGTON, D.C.

MARCH 1944-

r

m

mmsot

■ : V-

hm *««# (^UMrtola^ iiewiwtv 8iafr #

j^ltenrq irt# iris 4iw4iii8^ rriE«f ^ #«Jbi xtofri

fl» 4i-K3t ♦wwrtjii^ •rfi 1^' «>idr«^eljaisb*; baa

oJtJ

Oi* 8‘W «#x5PBti»q ait;«a«*

f<h#jn5 ^ is^t xUjumsm:'

'^f I8d' i^i^r iMtXw is*. iwi- U ‘

Ito airi<m 'a b«i«N^ ia:)fbdiiT4Mii»ji '-.taw^il aor

i<#048- '15(64 ^ttXmifji

bSJ9^ . » wi . wfm0t<M nT 66Sa^ii,r-«ai^,

Ahrm^'Ac^ ;|sa!>n«irClX{X rto^oal mijr XJbajab

' ..Hms^ «ai3[|«iM<4‘ :te» 'iri jmf<S bXwfa

0«iV Jfiif li-ijairtan lt» »4^f^»o«» i^Cif ffJt tixm ^^all injiJ

*»0|||*'.’

:iAimmm^ih!^ •rwbwwqi'.'ri exsoi^at

Wliuiaab 9rjA t» AWi^AilmJaB, ai j^

. ^ceta*»l •ai’ JtUdp <r«l«t erf^ *re>t

jRis ii(rikiy‘S»^ai8,' art^ /rtbriof bti6«jr?'^‘ aart aiax£aaii a
i.v tda4tj^3 •oa/^ilaab adcf to 16

•aObaJhfiH

.;^9#:MnUQ

•dlbiNfaiaai obl^^ ta inittniaf

■ - ^S: -M

■*' I *

CONTENTS

ZSfie

Payments in November 1942 . 2

State Differences . 6

Additional Assistance in Certain States . 10

Changes Since November 1940 . . . . . 12

Regional Variations In Payment Levels . 13

Patterns of Need . l8

Relationship Between Patterns of Assistance and of Need . 21

Reasons for Differences in Patterns . 25

Administrative Standards Reflected In Assistance Patterns . 25

State Maxlmums . 23

Legally Defined Levels of Living . 29

Inadequacy of State Funds . 31

Federal Matching Provisions . 32

Supplementary Assistance . 39

Conclusion . 4l

Charts

Chart 1. — Old-age assistance; Range of payments, November 1942..,. 7

Chart 2. — Aid to the blind: Range* of payments, November 1942 . 8

Chart 5. --Aid to dependent children: Range of payments to

families, November 1942 . 9

Chart 4. --Old-age assistance; Relative levels of payments, by

State, November 1942 . 15

Chart 5.-^Ald to the blind: Relative levels of payments, by

State, November 1942 . 1^

Chart 6.— Aid to dependent children: Relative levels of

payments, by State, November 1942 . 17

Page

Chart 7. — Distribution of amounts of assistance needed as

established by agencies in two States . 19

Chart 8. --Types of assistance patterns . 22

Chart 9. --Old-age assistance: Payments in relation to Federal

matching maximum, November 19^2 . 33

ChsLTt 10. --Aid to the blind: Payments in relation to Federal

matching maximum, November 19^2 . 3^

Chart 11. — Aid to dependent children: Payments in relation to

Federal matching max imums, November 19^2 . 35

Chart 12. --Aid to dependent children: Payments in relation to
Federal matching maxlmums, by number of children, for all
States, November 19^2 . 36

Tables

Table 1. — Old-age assistance: Distribution of payments to

recipients, November 19^2 . 3

Table 2. — Aid to the blind: Distribution of payments to

recipients, November 19^2 . . . . . 4

Table 3. --Aid to dependent children: Distribution of payments to

families, November 1942 . 5

Table 4. --Old-age assistance: Payments in relation to State

maxlmums, November 1942 . 24

Table 5. — Aid to the blind: Payments in relation to State

maxlmums, November 1942 . 25

Table 6. --Aid to dependent children:. Payments in relation to

State maxlmums, November 1942... . 27

Table 7. — Old-age assistance; Estimated Federal contribution
to average payments in November 1942, by State,
classified according to per capita income . . . 38

ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS UNDER
THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT
November 19^2

All groups concerned with public -asel8tance--reclplent8, staffs of pub¬
lic assistance agencies, legislators, and the general public alike, want to
know how much assistance Is given to Individuals. The average payment,
commonly used to Indicate the general level of assistance, obscures the great
variations In actual payments. The most comprehensive Information available
on the size of payments Is the number of monthly payments made at each dollar
Interval. Once a year, through the cooperation of the State agencies adminis¬
tering State-Federal programs of old-age assistance, aid to the blind, and aid
to dependent children, this Information Is assembled for each State. For the
most part, the payments analyzed In this report cure those made for November
19^2.

Various patterns emerge from the array of payments by amount. Some
I reflect the need of recipients, others the effects of legislative, fiscal, or
I administrative provisions. To understand how each of these factors affects
the size of payments Is Important In considering proposals for changes In pro-
I visions for assistance,

I The Influence of some factors, such as Inadequacy of funds or specified

I limits for payments, can be seen more clearly In statistical data than can the
I Influence of administrative procedures. National summaries of assistance pay¬
ments, as of any other aspect of the operation of the State-Federal public
assistance programs, can be made only at the national level, where certain
uniform data from all \inlte are available. On the other hand, the lack of
uniformity In the practices of the State and local units makes analysis diffi¬
cult at the Federal level and may sometimes result In Incomplete Interpreta¬
tion.

Assistance payments frequently do not represent the total Incomes of
recipients; assistance often supplements Income from other sources. To relate
amounts of assistance to the need of recipients, statistical data on the living
arrangements of recipients, the amounts of their requirements, and the amounts
of their Income from other sources are needed. The Social Security Board has
only fragmentary Information of this kind. Fortunately, understanding of
assistance patterns and of their Implications for recipients Is furthered from
time to time by research In State agencies. A few State studies have been
drawn upon as Illustrative material.

This report Is regarded merely as one step In the long process of
developing comprehensive Information on assistance payments. Since that
process requires pooling all currently available Information, further State
contributions are Invited to a common fund of much-needed Information on
assistance payments.

- 2 -

PajrmentB In November 19^2

The amoimte of payments made to recipients for Novemher 19^2 spread over
a wide range — from $1 to $170 per recipient of old-age assistance, from $1 to
$102 per recipient of aid to the blind, and from $1 to $193 P«r family for aid
to dependent chlldren.l/ Despite this great spread, the hulk of the payments
made In the various States were concentrated within much narrower limits
(tables 1-3)., The following tabulation shows, for each program, the proportion
of payments made In the country as a whole at amounts grouped by $10 Intervals.

Percent of payments

Amount of payments

OAA

m

ADC

Total -------------

100.0

100.0

100.0

Less than $10.00 ------------

10.7

8.9

5.4

31.1

29.8

26.8

20.00-29.99 .

31.1

26.7

15 .5

50.00-39.99 .

16.4

17.2

18.2

10.6

8.4

13.1

50,00 or more -------------

.1 .

9.0

21.0

The majority of the payments for old-age assistance and for aid to the
blind were In amounts ranging from $10 to $50, The most conspicuous differ¬
ence In the distribution of payments was that only a negligible proportion of
aged, as compared with 9 percent of the recipients of aid to the blind,
received payments of $50 or more. Nearly 97 percent of such payments of aid
to the blind, however, were made In California,

Aid to dependent children differs from the other two programs In that a
single payment Is made In behalf of all children aided In a family, whereas for
old-age assistance and aid to the blind, two eligible Individuals In a family
usually receive two separate payments. This difference between programs Is
reflected In the tabulation at two points. More payments were made for aid to
dependent children In amounts ranging from $10 to $20 than at any other Inter¬
val, This conce^ntratlon Is due to the fact that the largest group of families
cdded receive assistance for only one child.

Payments for all programs are reported by State agencies by $1 Intervals.
Since data on actual amounts of payments In dollars and cents are not
available, for the purposes of this report all payments are regarded as
made at the lower level of the Intervad, For example, an actual payment
of $40.85 is reported as a payment made In the Interval of $40,00-40,99.
Such a payment In this report Is regarded as a $4o payment.

Table 1.— Oldf^age aeelstance: Dlatrlbuiiua of paYmente to recipients, NoTember 1942

State

Total, 51 States.

Alabama .

Alaslca . .

Arizona..*.. .

Arkansas. . . •

California. . . •

Ooloreido* * . .

Connecticut..........

i^el aware. .

District of Columbia.
Tlorida .

Georgia....

Hawaii.. . . .

Idaho......

Illinois...

Indiana*...

Iowa*. .

HeAsas.....

Kentucky...

Louisiana*.

Maine......

Maryland. .

Massachusetts 2/*

Michigan. .

Minnesota*. .

Mississippi 1/.
Missouri \j t
Montana... ..

Hebraska.... .

Meyada* ......

Hew Hampshire

Hew Jersey......

Hew Mexico......

Hew York 2/*«*>*
Horth Carolina*.
Horth Dakota....

Ohio .

Oklahoma........

Oregon.. .

Pennsylyania 2/*
Rhode Island....

South Carolina.
South Dakota...
Tennessee 1/...

Texas*. .

Utah*. . ........

Vermont..*.....

Virginia.......

Washington.....

West Virginia..
Wisconsin......

Wyoming. .*.*.*.

Humber

of

payments

2,241,615

21,483

1,565

9,595

24,717

15‘^.395

42,304

17,098

2,183

3.360

43,454

70,841

1,587

9.773

150,811

69,600

55,692

30,646

53.99‘^

38,124

l6,l4o

15,400

85,098

90,082

62,660

26,712

113,381

12,245

29,308

2,148

7,239

29,008

5,109

117,210

38,966

9,308

138,548

78,331

20,871

94,685

7,395

21,609

14,681

40,667

181,55*+

14,250

5,393

19,180

64,005

22,811

52,886

3,513

Percent

Less

than

$10.00

$10.00-

$20.00-

$30.00-

$40.00-

$50.00

19.99

29.99

39.99

49.99

Bora

10.7

31.1

31.1

16.4

10.6

0.1

62.1

31.8

2.6

3.3

.2

(2)

—

12.8

30.1

27.3

29.7

.1

• 1

.9

5.9

30.7

62,4

—

37.7

52.5

9.0

.8

e^-

—

.3

2.6

7.4

26.1

63.6

.1

1.3

4.8

31.6

62.2

1.5

7.8

33.2

39.7

17.8

—

26.5

56.8

16.7

6176

—

—

.3

8.5

29.6

—

18.6

64.2

14.7

2.3

.2

66.7

29.8

2.9

.6

—

—

6.1

73-5

17.1

2.2

1.1

1.3

17.8

42.8

25.6

12.5

1.0

16.2

41.8

30.6

10,4

3.*+

42.4

42.8

9.3

2.1

'.2)

3.0

24.0

70.5

2.5

—

-a—

2.3

33.2

38.9

18.9

5.9

.8

41.5

58.4

.1

—

•a-e-

23.9

58.6

l4.1

2.9

.4

.1

2.0

37.5

40.0

20.5

■

7.5

•41.4

37.9

12.2

1.0

2.9

.8

5.3

17.2

37.1

36.7

3.6

45.2

40.1

10.0

1.1

1.9

27.0

48.9

22.2

Jz)

60.3

38.8

.8

.1

21.6

63.8

13.8

.8

1.0

28.2

49.8

15.6

1.4

45.4

44,1

9.1

9.2

.1

10.3

14.5

65.9

2.4

30.2

42.9

18.7

5.8

•*—

1.4

25.7

55.*+

15.3

2,2

—

12.9

48.8

25.3

9.4

2,9

•7

1.2

22.1

41,4

27.1

7.8

.4

48.0

46.2

*+.9

.9

—

5.8

51.8

31.1

7.1

4,2

-a—

.6

9.7

59.2

28.0

2*5.

aaa*

3.8

49.2

31.9

11.1

4,0

.9

27.9

4o.8

22,4

8.0

2.3

24.1

44,9

25.6

(2)

1.7

26.0

38.7

29.3

*+.3

52.5

43,8

^.7

— —

. —

—

3.8

46.1

47.2

2.9

38.3

52.6

9.1

- —

2.7

48.5

48.8

— —

2.8

a—

1.3

8.5

35.0

52.2

•2

6.1

49.8

34.4

9.7

■ ■ ■ '

45.9

1.1

45.3

4.2

8.8

13.3

42.7

38.7

—

10.2

58.8

22.9

H

2.4

1.6

26.5

42,0

24.4

5.5

.7,

16.8

47.0

30.4

5.1

^ L“fro:nrs“o^:Jrrt:tr;:«i::i.'s b^udSf ^e z s zuizii uXii izz:

2/ Less than O.O5 percent. , , v ^

recipients. Distribution is as follows!
0.05 percent.

Less than $5.00, 37.0 percent; $5.00-9.99. 63.O percent; $10.00 or more, lees than

s lees than minimum amount proscribed

5/ I^cLd^'p^ents of general assistance to another person in family if his budget deficit i
for ouch payments - $3.90 per month.

601139 0 - 44 -2

Tal>le 2.*— Hd to the hllndi Dletrlhutlon of pajaente to reclplente, Eoreahor 1942

State

Total, 44 States.

Alahama*. .

Arizona*.. . .

Arkaxisas .

Calif omla**-.....*... .

Colorado*. .

Connecticut* .

District of Columhla*..

Tlorlda*. .

Georgia*. .

Hawaii ^ .

Idaho... .

Indiana... . . . .

Iowa . . .

lansae.... .

Louisiana.. .

Maine...... .

MarT'land...... .

Massachusetts.. .

Michigan* . . .

Minnesota. ....... ......

Mississippi....... .

Montana*. . .

Nebraska* . .

New Haaip shire*. . .

New Jersey... .

New Mexico. .

Now fork ^ . . .

North Carolina*. .

North Dakota*..........

Ohio............ .

Oklahoma. . .

Oregon. . . .

Hhode Island 2/« .

South Carolina .

South Dakota. .

Tennessee.... .

Texas. .

Utah . . .

Vermont........ .

Virginia... .

Washington*. . . .

West Virginia .

Wisconsin*. .

Wyoming. . .

Percent

Number

of

Less

$10.00-

$20.00-

$30.00-

$40.00-

$50.00

peymentt

than

19.99

2y.99

39.99

49.99

or

$10.00

more

54,205

8.9

29.8

26.7

17*2

8,4

1/ 9.0

645

55.8

39.2

4.3

.5

.2

-

4l4

2.9

16*4

31.7

49.0

—

1.159

25.5

56.0

15.4

3.1

6,748

*2

.9

2.7

6.0

20.5

^ 69.7

632

1.6

3.8

11.9

41.9

40,8

—

173

1.2

8.1

28.3

38.1

24,3

291

3.8

19.9

51.6

24.7

2.704

11.4

68.1

17.0

3.2

.3

2,189

42.7

46.7

7.5

3.1

76

5.3

52.6

31.6

9.2

1.3

—

275

1.8

21.8

31.7

24.0

20.7

2.350

.5

9*1

50.6

31.0

8.8

(4)

1.529

2.0

17.3

4o,4

23.4

16.9

—

1.295

29.3

35.1

21.5

9.0

1.9

1.434

14.1

51.5

23.6

8.4

1.9

1} .5

1.035

1.3

28*5

42*4

27.8

564

3.2

29.6

36*2

30.1

.9

—

1,062

2.8

13.2

39.9

44,1

—

—

1.369

22.9

37.0

28*4

10.4

1.030

.4

11.1

44.1

33.5

9.8

gj 1.1

1,352

39.8

56.4

*8

314

1.0

26.7

34.1

25.5

12.7

721

1.3

37.7

46,2

i4,8

- - -

326

1.8

23.9

40*5

29.5

4.3

— —

696

.9

16.5

54.9

23.0

4.7

24i

12.4

36.9

26.6

12.9

8.3

2.9

2.728

1.1

17.3

38.9

28.9

11.6

2*2

2.239

6*6

70.1

17.3

6.0

137

4*4

37.9

40.9

12,4

4*4

3,882

4,0

31.9

435^

16*8

4*2

—

2,153

3.5

39.9

26.8

13.6 •

16,2

rr T-

438

13.9

27*2

41.3

10.5

7.1

96

1.0

37.5

33.3

21.9

6.3

818

52.3

42.2

5.5

260

l4,6

62.3

18.1

5.0

„ -

—

1,659

38.3

48.7

13.0

3.879

.6

28.2

46.6

24,6

- -

153

2.0

17.0

20,9

43.8

9.8

6.5

156

5.8

20.5

36.5

37.2

1.057

25.8

56.6

l4,6

3-0

—

—

933

.2

2.0

10.2

29.6

58.0

1,008

5.5

40,7

30,2

12.5

11.1

-a—

1,857

1.1

19.6

37.8

4i.o

.5

...

128

“““

12.5

36.0

37.5

10.9

2/ 3.1

Payments In excess of $9C were made to only 0*2 percent of all recipients.
^ Bepresents payments of exactly $90.

V Computed on base lees than 100.

^ Less than 0.03 percent.

Xxcludes q>eclal payments for Items not regularly budgeted.

5

^ dapVBdMt «Mldr*&t DlctrlVatloa of p«7MDto lo faailloo, loToabor 19^

I

i

Lmo thAD 0»09 poreont.

Sat« aro for Ootobor 19^2.

Data ara for Saptoabor X9^.

Sselodoi ipoelal pa»«aat« for ItOBo not roc^ilarl/ bad«ato4. . - ,

5/ ^Soa payiwnto to sanaral aaalotonco raolplaata «bo art aoabora of faalUaa raoalTla« aid to dapandaat ehlldw. ordara,

6/ Data from a apodal Incli^lo* 94 paroant of actoal naabar of ftfdUaa raoolTiiic aaalatanea la Ootobar 1942,

\

. 6 -

There is a second concentration at $50 or more; 21 percent of the
families received payments in this range. These payments, however, are
spread over a wide range of amounts as follows:

Amount

Percent

of total payments

$ 50.00-59.99 . 8.9

60.00-69.99 . 5.9

70.00-79.99 . 2.9

80.00-89.99 . 1.5

90.00-99.99 . .9

100.00 or more ------------ .9

Although other factors have doubtless influenced some of the payments, these
larger amounts generally were paid to larger families.

State Differences

A national distribution is necessarily a compoeite of varied State dis¬
tributions but it obscures differences among States. State differences in
payments are shown in charts 1-3. 1110 bar for each State represents the total

range of payments, from the lowest to the highest. The shaded segment of the
bar represents the interquartile range, that is, the middle half of the total
range. One-fourth of the payments fall below and one-foiirth above the inter¬
quartile range. ^ The median, or middle payment, is marked off on the bar by
the heavy vertical line. Hie variation in payment distributions among States
is illustrated by comparison of the range, interquartile range, and median of
payments in one State with those in another.

States may make virtually the same range of payments but because of
concentration of payments at one or several points the pattern within the
range may vary considerably. For example, California made payments for old-
age assistance ranging from $1 to $40, while the range in Mlesleslppl was
from $4 to $40. In California, however, the middle half of the- range of pay¬
ments was from $36 to $40, with a median of $40, whereas in Mlesleeippi the
interquartile range was from $7 to $10 and the median, $8 (chart 1).

17 - — -

In a few States where there are great concentrations of payments at the
maximum amount, no payments are above the median or upper quartile.

- 7 -

CHART I

OLD-AGE ASSISTANCE; RANGE OF PAYMENTS, NOV. I942t

DOLLARS

0 10 20 30 40 50

51

STATES
COLO.

ARIZ.

CALIF.

NEV.

WASH.

MASS.

CONN.

ALASKA
D.C.

UTAH
ILL.

WYO.

IDAHO
N.Y.

OHIO
PA.

R. l.

N.J.

OREG.

WIS.

KANS.

MINN.

MONT.

N.H.

IOWA
MAINE
IND.

MD.

V1ICH.

NEBR.

3. DAK.

OKLA.

TEXAS
N.DAK.

N.MEX.

/T.

W.VA,

HAWAII
FLA.

MO.

DEL.

LA.

ARK.

TENN.

KY.

N.C.

VA.

S. C.

ALA.

GA.

MISS.

m

— m

1

1

■

1

1

1

1

1

- - WM/MWM -

114

- ; . WM/zM/M/m -

^

60

170

- 1 -

116

78

— - -

- v/AmM\ — -

68

MEDIAN

V -

INTERQUARTILE RANGE

f SEE FOOTNOTES, TABLE /.

- 8 -

CHART 2

AID TO THE BLIND: RANGE OF PAYMENTS. NOV. 1942+

DOLLARS

0 10 20 30 40 50

44

STATES
CALIF.

WASH.

ARIZ.*

COLO.

D.C.

CONN.

OREG.

UTAH
WYO.

IDAHO
MASS.

MINN.

N.Y.
iNO.

IOWA
MICH.

MONT.

N.H.

N.J.

VT.

WIS.

KANS.

MAINE
MD.

R. l.

TEXAS
OKLA.

NEBR.

OHIO
N.MEX.

N.DAK.

W.VA.

HAWAII
LA.

N.C.

FLA.

S. DAK.

ARK.

VA.

TENN.

6A.

MISS.

ALA.

S.C.

LOW

MEDIAN

INTERQUARTILE RANGE

tSEE FOOTNOTES, TABLE 2.

- 9 -

CHART 3

AID TO DEPENDENT CHILDREN: RANGE OF
PAYMENTS TO FAMILIES. NOV. I942t

DOLLARS

0 25 50 75 100 125 150

47

STATES

MASS.

CONN.

R. l.

CALIF.

N.Y.

N.H.

OREG.

WASH.

UTAH

D.C.

MAINE

HAWAII

PA.

WIS.

MICH.

OHIO

KANS.

MINN.

N.MEX.

ARIZ.

COLO.

DEL.

IDAHO

ILL;

MD.

MO.

MONT.

NEBR.

N.J.

N.DAK.

VT.

W.VA.

WYO.

S. DAK.
FLA.
IND.

LA.

TENN.

OKLA.

GA.

VA.

MISS.

ALA.

ARK.

N.C.

S.C.

TEXAS

LOW

MEDIAN

I

y/////////////,

INTERQUARTILE RANGE

HIGH

'f'SEE FOOTNOTES, TABLE 3.

- 10 -

Under all three programs, States showed great variation In the amounts
paid to recipients. This variation is illustrated by the following compari¬
son of the Interquartile range of payments in the highest and lowest ranking

.States. 2/

Interquartile range of payments
Progr^Tn Lowest State Highest State

OAA

$7

- 10

$38

- 44

AB

7

- 12

47

- 50

ADC

V 6

- Ik

44

- 80

Payments in all other States ranged between the extremes of the highest and
lowest ranking States (tables 1-3 and charts 1-3). This report is largely-
devoted to dlBCueslon of factors which are at least partly responsible for
these marked State differences.

Additional Assistance in Certain States

For four States the payments shown in tables and charts do not
Include all assistance given under the special types of public assistance.

In most instances -the amounts omitted could not readily be added to the
regular payment in the annual report on amounts of assistance. Between 1
and 2 percent of the total payments for old-age assistance and aid to
dependent children and a smaller proportion of the payments of aid to the
blind are omitted. Although the additional payments represented a small
fraction of the totals for these types of assistance in the United States,
they were significant in the States in which such payments were made.

In Missouri, a special legislative appropriation in December 19^2 per¬
mitted eiddltional payments of old-age assistance to restore assistance to
100 percent of the amount of established need for November and December.
Eetroactlve. payments for November, averaging about $5.50^ were made to aged
recipients still on the rolls in December. The amount paid retroactively
added 4l percent to the total payments made in November in this State.

About 85 percent of the families receiving aid to dependent children
in Pen^ylvanla had milk orders in addition to money payments. The State
agency estimated that the cash equivalent of these orders added more than
8 percent to the toted money payments.

New York and Massachusetts made additional money payments because of
emergency needs, usually medical. Massachusetts made such payments to about
one-twelfth of the recipients of old-age assistance and to about one-eighth
of the families receiving aid to dependent children; New York, to about

Eank determined by the median (charts 1-3).

Payments were unusually low in Texas because of a $10 cut in September,
October, and November. Under new State policy, the reduction in payments
was restored in December, but assistance was limited to families whose
other resources did not meet as much as 30 percent of their requirements.
This situation affected all data in this report for aid to dependent
children in Texas.

- 11 -

one-seventh of the recipients of old-age assistance and about one-eighth of
the recipients of aid to dependent children and of aid to the blind. The
distribution of the amounts of the additional mon^ payments in
Massachusetts, Missouri, and New York is shown below, ty |10 intervals.^

Percent

Less Uian
$10.00

110.00-

19.99

120.00-

29.99

$30.00-

39.99

$40.00-

49.99

$50.00
or more

OAA:

Massachusetts -

- 74.2

13.6

4.1

2.2

1.3

4.6

Missouri - - -

- 99.9

(6)

(6)

—

—

—

New York -

- 77.0

15.2

4.6

1.9

.7

.6

ADC:

Massachusetts -

- 72.6

14.6

7.4

2.1

Q

3.0

New York - - -

- 54.0

21.1

8.9

5.6

4.2

6.2

AB:

New York -

- 71.6

15.8

7.8

3.0

.9

.9

Although the majority of the additional payments were small, some in
Massachusetts and New York were much larger than the regular payments which
they supplemented, especially in Massachusetts, where the entire cost of a
period of emergency medical care mey be included in one monthly payment.

The average monthly payments reported in the Social Security Bulle'M.n
include the additional payments for these States and Pennsylvania.

6/

Less than 0.05 percent.

- 12

Changes Since November 19^0

Information on amounts of individual payments was first assembled in
November 19^0. Between that date and November 19^2, prices and, in some
States, revenues rose markedly* Assistance payments also were higher in
November 1942. The median payment for the United States rose from $19 to
$22 for old-age assistance, from $20 to $25 for aid to the blind, and from
$29 to $50 per family receiving aid to dependent children. Median payments
of old-age assistance increased in nearly all States; those for aid to the
blind and aid to dependent children, in a majority of States.?/

In both old-age assistance and aid to the blind, the proportion of
payments below $20 was smaller in November 1942 than in November 1940. The
proportion at $50 or more Increased one-half for old-age assistance, and
more than one-fifth for aid to the blind. In aid to dependent children,
likewise, relatively more payments were made at higher amounts; the propor¬
tion at $50 or more was one -fifth above that in November 1940, in spite of a
slight Increase in payments under $20.

These comparisons for the United States do not reveal the full extent
of the rise in the level of payments because of the effect of differences in
the representation of individual States in the national case load. In some
States the number of recipients increased; these were mostly States that made
relatively low payments. Large declines in case loads, especially for aid to
dependent children, occurred more often in States with high payments. During
this period, therefore, many cases that had received relatively high payments
were closed, whereas many of the new cases received relatively low payments.

Only l8 States made payments for old-age assistance of as much as $40
in November 1940; the nvmber of such States had risen to 54 by November 1942.
Thirty-one States made payments at $40 or more for aid to the blind in the
latter month as compared with 18 States in the earlier month.

Median payments in November 1942 were at least $5 higher than in November
1940 in the following States:

Old-age assistance ; Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Montana,
Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, Washington.

Aid to the blind: Arizona, Arkansas) Colorado, District of Columbia,
Indiana, Kansas, Montana, Oklahoma, Washington.

Aid to dependent children; California, District of Columbia, Indiana,
Kansas, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, O^gon,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Washington, West Virginia.

- 13 -

Regional Vprlatlone In Payment Levels

The cost of living varies from one section of the coimtry to another.
In part, because of variation In the cost of goods and services and in part
because of climatic dlf f erences <, The need of Individuals varies with the
cost of living and also with differences in consumption habits. Need also
varies among areas with differences in general levels of income. Thus,
individual need varies with geographic location. It would be extremely
valuable to know to what extent these socio-economic factors influence need
in specific geographic areas. While much work has been done in defining
socio-economic regions, the present state of knowledge does not permit
quantitative determination of the extent of regional differences in need.

Any marked tendency for pajcnent levels to vary regionally could, however, be
interpreted as resulting at least partly from regional differences in need.

1 Levels of assistance payments have usually been defined in terms of

I the average assistance payment for the State and the relation of that figure
! to the national average. Since detedled information on payments is avall-
j able, it seems advisable to broaden the definition beyond a single measure,
j Consequently, States have been classified as making payments for each program
1 at one of three levels on the basis of the interquartile range and median of
; their payments, measures which disregard the extremely high and low payments,

! For convenience these levels have been designated as upper, middle, and lower.
States have been classified according to the interval in which the quartlles
! and median fall. Class intervals were chosen arbitrarily, using the same
limits for old-age assistance and aid to the blind. 8/ Because payments for aid
to dependent children are reported in terms of amounts per family, different
j intervale have been used for this program. 9/ States in which the quartlles and
the median did not fall in the same level have been classified according to the
level in which two of these three measures fell. 10/ Since the boundaries of
I these levels wore chosen arbitrarily and the selection of different intervals
I would result in a somewhat different grouping of States, these levels must be
j regarded as relative and are so used in this report.

ST -

Class intervals used for old-age assistance and aid to the blind are as
follows ;

Level of payment

Lower

Middle

Upper

2/

Class intervale used for aid
Level of payment

Lower

Middle

Upper

sFlrst quartile

^10 or less

11 - 20
21 or more

Median
$15 or less
16 - 25
26 or more

to dependent children are as
First quartile Median

$15 or lees $25 or less
16 - 50 26 - 40

51 or more ^1 or more

Third quartile

$20 or less
21 - 50
51 or more

follows :

Third quartile

$55 or less
56 - 50
51 or more

10/

The States In which one measure fell at a level above that In which the

State was classified are:

Old-age assistance: Hawaii, Rhode Island

Aid to the blind: Florida, Kansas, Oklahoma, South Dakota

Aid to dependent children: Hawaii, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin

A geographic dlstrihutlon of the relative levels of pajmente for old-
age aaslstance la shown In chart 4. The area In which pegrments were made at
the lower level Is largely confined to the Southern States, Delaware "being
the chief exception. In contrast, payments made at the upper level were not
confined primarily to contiguous States. Two "blocks of States In opposite
parts of the country and some scattered States made payments at the upper
level. Eight States In the West, two In the Middle West, and four In the
East made payments at the higher level. Payments In the remaining States were
at the middle level. Alaska made old-age assistance payments at the upper
level; Hawaii, at the lower.

With few exceptions, payments to the blind In all but one region were
at the same general level as to the aged. The exceptions Include widely
separated States — Louisiana, Oregon, and Hawaii; In these three jurisdictions,
payments to the blind were at a higher level than to the aged. In the Middle
West, fou-T States (Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, and Minnesota) made payments to
the aged at the middle level and payments to the blind at the upper. One
State In the Middle West, Ohio, made lowsr payments to the blind than to the
aged (chart 5)*

The majority of States, 2h out of hj, made payments for aid to depend¬
ent children at the middle level; 12 made them at the lower level and 11 at
the upper level, as these levels arb defined for this program. The States
with payments at the lower level form a contiguous block covering the South¬
east and part of the Southwest. Four Western States and six Atlantic States
made payments at the upper level (chart 6),

It Is possible to distinguish a few areas in which groups of States
made payments at a common level. The solid block of Southern States, with
lower-level payments, is the most clearly defined area. A lees well-defined
area of upper-level payments is In the Far West, and a similar area appears
In the Northeast. Payment levels for the rest of the Nation show little
regional uniformity. Despite the areas mentioned, there would seem to be
little justification, therefore, for positive conclusions regarding regional
differences in need.

- 15 -

CHART 5

AID TO THE BLIND:

RELATIVE LEVELS OF PAYMENTS. BY STATE. NOV. 1942

16

f NO STATE- FED ERA L PROOF A M

17

i

I

- 18 -

Patterns of Need

If putllc assistance is properly to achieve the objective established
by an agency, the amounts of assistance paid to recipients should correspond
to the amounts needed by them as determined by the application of the agency’s
standards. Whether payments correspond to the amounts needed can be Judged
by arraying the amoxmts of assistance needed by individual recipients in
patterns corresponding to the distributions of assistance payments and by
comparing the two patterns.

Decision on the amount of assistance needed by a recipient involves
the determination of his minimum requirements for maintaining health and
self-respect, estimates of the cost of these requirements, and consideration
of the resources that can be applied toward meeting these costs. In most
agencies, the amount of assistance needed is determined by a visitor, who
interviews the applicant or recipient and applies standards developed by the
State agency to his individual situation to determine his "budget deficit,"

In Massachusetts, Information was compiled on the amounts of assist¬
ance needed for a sample of the old-age assistance case load. Similar
material was prepared for all families receiving aid to dependent children
in New Mexico, ll/ From these State data a chart was prepared to show the
veirylng amounts of assistance needed by recipients in these two States as
established by the assistance agencies (chart 7)* Such arrays of the amounts
needed by the individual recipients or families provide a pattern of assist¬
ance needed, as contrasted with a pattern of assistance, obtained by arraying
the amounts of payments. To maice the general outline of these patterns of
need stand out clearly, a smoothed curve has been superimposed on each dis¬
tribution; for all practical purposes these curves may be regarded as the
patterns of need established in the two States represented.

Obviously patterns of need can be expected to differ from State to
State, at least in range and detail because of some differences in the methods
of determining need. Variations occur because of different standards for
requirements and resources and because of differences in the cost of goods
and services, the resources available to recipients, and the number of persons
for whom an assistance payment is planned. 12/ State standards differ in the

w

The data on budget deficits in New Ifexico Include medical assistance when
needed; those for Massachusetts Include the cost of certain types of
medical care for chronic cases but exclude emergency medical €U5eistance.

12/

Information received from Texas for a sample comprising about 7 percent of
the case load in September 1942 showed the following distribution of the
amounts of budget deficits by $10 Intervals. Need for medical care wais
Included in computing the budget deficits.

Amount

of deficit Percent of families

Amount

of

deficit

Percent of families

Less than $10.00 - - -

1.2

^ZbVoo

69.99 -

. 10.0

10.00

- 19.99 -

9.5

70.00

79.99 -

. 4.0

20.00

- 29.99 -

- - 17.0

80.00

-

89.99 -

. 2.6

30.00

- 39,99 -

- - 20.2

90.00

99.99 -

. 2.3

40.00

- 49.99 -

- - 18.0

100.00

or

more -

- .7

50.00

- 59.99 -

Chart 7

DISTRIBUTION OF AMOUNTS OF ASSISTANCE NEEDED

AS ESTABLISHED BY AGENCIES IN TWO STATES

tBASED ON 6% SAMPLE OF THE CASELOAD

t+0.5% OF PAYMENTS IN EXCESS OF $125

- 20

extent to which they recognize the requirements of members of the family for
whom the recipient is responsible or who are necessary to his care. The
range in the amounts of assistance needed and, presumably, the proportion of
recipients with high amounts are greater where such requirements are recog¬
nized, The inclusion of requirements for medical care also widens the range
of need and, in aid to dependent children, tends to obscure the differences
between the requirements of families of different sizes. Ususilly only one
member in a family requires costly medical care in any one month, and such
costs for a one-child family frequently equal the subsistence costs for a
larger family.

As shown by the distributions for the two States in chart 1 , rela¬
tively few persons in these States were found to need the same amounts of
assistance. In New Mexico, where budget deficits of the families receiving
aid to dependent children were determined in amounts that ranged from $6 to
$l66, only 2 families In 100 needed the same amount. In Massachusetts the
amoimt of old-age assistance needed by recipients was established in amounts
ranging from $1 to $82, with hardly more than 7 recipients in 100 needing
the same amount. These distributions also show that the need of relatively
few recipients was established at very small or very large amounts. Recip¬
ients with small amounts of need ai’e chiefly those whose resources nearly .
equal their requirements. Those needing greatest amounts of assistance are
recipients with unusual requirements and with small or no resources other
than assistance. These two characteristics of the patterns of need — a wide
range of amounts of assistance needed with few recipients needing the same
amounts, and a relatively small proportion of persons in need of very small
or very large amounts — can be regarded as common to all States, From this
limited point of view, the patterns for Massachusetts and New Mexico can be
regarded as illustrative of State patterns of need in general.

Just as State differences in the detail of the pattern of need can be
expected, so it can be anticipated that the patterns will differ for the
various programs. In aid to dependent children, assistance is planned for
families of varying sizes; the resulting distribution of amounts of assist¬
ance needed is significantly different from that in old-age assistance, as
can be seen by a comparison of the two curves in chart 7. The general
pattern of assistance needed for aid to the blind, however, can be assumed
to be rather similar to that for old-age assistance, except that the major
part of the distribution would probably fall at somewhat higher amounts in
aid to the blind. Because seldom more than one member of a family receives
aid to the blind, the requirements of an individual more often include the
total cost of such household items as rent and fuel, which, in old-age
assistance, is frequently divided between two recipients.

- 21

Relationship Between Patterns of Agslstance axd of Need

In a few States the dlstrihutlons of the amounts of pajinents for
November 1942 form patterns vhich are generally similar to the smoothed
curves shovn in the Illustrative patterns of need. In most States, how¬
ever, the distributions of payments, or assistance patterns, differ sig¬
nificantly from the Illustrative patteras of need. The nature of this
divergence can be seen from a description of the types of assistance pat¬
terns, several of which are shown in chart 8, Type A represents an assist¬
ance pattern that conforms generally to the illustrative pattern of need
for old-age assistance shown in chart 7. In some States, part of the pay¬
ments are distributed as in type A, but the range is suddenly cut off and
the remainder of the payments pile up at the highest dollar amount (type B).
The distributions in certain other States follow this pattern except for the
fact that a few payments exceed the amount which seems to have cut short the
general distribution (type C), In still other States, all payments are
concentrated at a few low amounts, or most are concentrated at relatively
high amounts (types D and E). The distributions in some States are
characterized by clusters of payments at amounts which vary from State to
State but are frequently in multiples of $5 or $10. Especially in patterns
for aid to dependent children, clustering is likely to occur at the amounts
of the Federal matching maximums, even in States which permit payments at
any amount needed (type F).

Relatively few State assistance patterns in November 1942 exhibited
general conformity to the illustrative patterns of need. Obviously other
factors as well as need frequently Influence amounts of payments. Whether
a State’s assistance pattern is of one or another of the types described
depends only in part on the need of recipients; often it depends more on the
legislative and administrative policies of the State. and of the Federal
Government, the fiscal ability of the State and local units, and on the
public concept of the purpose of the program.

- 22 -

CHART 8

TYPES OF ASSISTANCE PATTERNS

PERCENT

- 23 -

Heasong for rifferencee In Patterns

Information available at the present time is not sufficiently detailed
to explain fully the differences "between the distrihutlon of need and of
assistance. Only the more obvious factors influencing the size of payments
can be discuBsed.

Administrative Standards Reflected in Assistance Patterns

In the States in which the even gradation of payments at successive
dollar amounts is interrupted by concentrations at multiples of $5 and $10,
need is apparently determined less exactly than by dollar laterals for a
considerable number of recipients, or payments are made at multiples of p
desuite more exact determination of need. A comparison p as^stance pat-
ter^is in 19U2 with those in 19^0 shows progress in a number of Statp
toward more evenly graduated distributions of payments as pe of

need has become more Individualized. Concentrations at other inte^^e^e

nrohably determined, as was suggested for the distributions of establlshe
Led, the general application of specific State standards without ^ch
adjustment to Individual situations. Both these deviations from smooth
distributions represent approximate, rather than close, oonfo^ty o pay
ments to established need, but they present less serious problems for
recipients than certain other assistance patterns.

State ivlaxifflums

Few State patcems of assistance showed as wide a r^e as the Illus¬
trative patterns of need In chart 7. The pattern of need for
ance shoL that nearly three-fifths of the recipients in

more than $30 per month, over one-fifth needed more th^ $1*0, md 1 recipient
In 25 needed mLe than $50. Although the proportion of payments needed ac
iLL or higher amounts can be expected to differ In

LveLLless,^Sate laws or policies limit the monthly payment, thus
cutting off the range permitted.

In November 19U2, the maximum old-age assistance
$45 a iLrin 2 StaLs $40 In 23 States, $30 In 15 States, $^ In 3 States,
Ld $20 in 2 States. State maxlmums l^^ed parents of ^d ^^he blind

cal care; somewhat lower maxlmums anplled to most recipient- ag

aaslstance and aid to the blind (taolee 4 and 5).

S'of5!s;‘

assistance in January 19^5.

24

Tftbl# U*— atalttaae«: Pa7B«nt« 1a rAlatloA to Stato Baxlnjit, VoToabar 19U2 ^

Stata

fatal* Stataa

Total* U6 Stataa
with aazijaaaa.

llataaa . .

llaaka .

▲risona .

Arkaaaaa«* . .

California* . . .

Colorado* . .

Coanaotleut .

Dalavara .

Dlatrlct of Colnabia* *...*• •
Tlorlda .

Oaorgla .

Hawaii .

Idaho . . .

Illlnola .

Indiana . ••••*•* .

Iowa .

Kanaaa .

Kantaeky . .

LonlalaBA .

Maina .

Mar^rland .

Naaaaahuaatta* . * . . .

Miohlcan . . .

Minnaaota*.*** .

Mloalaaippi . . . .

Miaaoarl.* . . . .

Montana .

Vahra«a. . . .

VaTjtda .

law biiapablra .

F Jaraap .

law Maxloo .

law Tork . * .

forth Carolina*.** *•••*• ***•

lorth Dakota .

Ohio .

Oklahona .

Orafon*.* . .

PannajlTania .

Bhoda lalaad* •••*..••****••*

South Carolina* .

South Dakota* . . .

Tannaaaaa . .

. . .

Utah .

Taraont.* . * .

Tlrglnia .

Vaahiafton* . •••*.* .

Vaat Tirslnia . •**••

Wiaoonain .

V^oaia^ . .

Uaual

naxiaua

Pa reant

It uaual

aaziaoa

▲howa uaual
aaziauB

Izeaptlona to uaual aaxiana

—

9.8

0.6

—

11.2

.7

$U0

•2

...

.

>^5

ik.k

— •

ho

62.4

—

.9

63*6

0

—

1

40

17.8

...

25

6.4

—

30

61.6

40

*2

...

30

.6

...

40

1.1

...

40

12.5

40

10.4

Indiana: Paymanta Day azcaad $40 In aaount nacaaaary to

40

1.9

.3

include medical aaaiatanca

25

20.6

15.3

Iowa: $22 aaxiaua for raaipiant llrln^ in fauily. Additional

lo nazinua

- -

aaount up to $5 for ehronie aadieal naada

30

0

—

Ho aaziauB

—

...

30

20.5

30

10.9

2.2

$40 BaziauB for raeipianta naadin^ aadieal eara

lo aazlaua

...

40

1.1

...

30

22.2

...

30

*1

...

30

•8

Total payaanta to huahand and wife nay not azaaad $45

30

9.1

11*9

$40 aaziauB for raeipianta naadin^ aadieal eara

9.1

...

9.2

...

35

.7

7-9

$40 aaziaua for raeipianta naadin^ aaar^aaey aadieal eaira

30

11.2

6.3

$40 naxiaua for raeipianta naadinf aadieal eara

lo aaxiaua

...

lo aaxiauB

...

30

.9

...

40

4.2

...

40

2.5

...

40

4.0

...

40

8.0

...

40

?•'

$30 aaziaua par raelpiant if 2 in faaily

40

4.2

(2!

Ri^ar pa^Fuanta paraittad in iaataneaa of azeaptional naad

20

3.7

..*

a

30

2.<

25

3.5

...

30

0

Utahi $40 aaziaua if aadieal eara naadad: no aaziaua if

30

50.2

5.0

raelpiant eupporta la^l dapaadaata la houaahold

30

9.7

...

Total payaanta to huahand and vifa nay net azaaad $45

20

8.8

40

38.7

....

$34 aaziaua par raelpiant if 2 in faaily

40

2.4

...

♦

40

5.5

...

40

J

5.1

...

y Ixeludaa aaounta owar the aaxiaoaa for a faw papaanta in Alahaaa* Miaaiaaippl* and PannalTTania haeanoa not char^ahla to old-a^e aaalatanca.
y Dnaa than 0.0^ percant*

sut*

Voisl,

TotAl, 37 SUtM
viih BaziaoBt...*

Alabama . .

Arltoaa .

Arkanaaa . . . .

California .

Colorado*.*** . .

ConBoetloBt . .

Dlalriet of Coluibia*.**

Tlorlda .

Coor^la .

Ha>fail .

Idaho * .

Indiana. *. . . . .

Iowa .

Eantat* . .

Loui alana. . .

Halna .

Mar/laad .

Maaoaehuaotta .

Nlchlfan .

Mlnnoaota* . . . .

Kiaaiosippl .

Montana . . .

lobraoka*.** . .

Vow Hanpahlro* • * . .

Vow Joroo/ .

Vow Nozloo .

Vow . .

Vortb Carolina .

Vorth Sakota .

Ohio .

OklahoBa .

Orofon . . .

Bhodo Inland . .

South Carolina .

South Dakota .

Tonnooooo .

. .

Utah .

Tomont . . . .

Tirglaia .

Vaohlnuton .

foot Tlrclnla .

. .

VjOBla# .

Tahlo 3***did to tho bllndt PajBOBto Ib rolatlon to Stato bbzIbbbo, Vowoabor 19HB

Poroont

BazlBQB

At uonal

AboTO nonal

Xze^tiono to uoual BazlBoa

BazlBoa

BaZiBUB

—

19.2

0.3

*

22.Z

.3

$40

.2

40

49.0

—

30

3.1

—

69.7

—

ko

40*S

40

8>*.3

40

2>*.7

...

40

.3

3.1

kO

1.3

—

40

20.7

Indiana: PaTBonto may excoed $U0 in aaount nocotaary to

40

8.4

.4

include medical aaai stance

40

i6,9

Vo BazlBUB

—

—

Vo aazlBua

— -

30

27.8

...

$40 BazlBUB for roolpionta noodinc Bodleal earn

30

28.2

2.8

44.1

io

10.4

Vo aaziBQB

“

— -

30

.8

30

16.9

21.3

$40 BazlBUB for roolpionta noodlnv Bodloal ears

30

35

lU.«

$40 BaziauB for roelplants noedlnc OBorconoy Bodleal earo

.3

7.4

40

4.7

Vo BaxlBUB

—

Vo BazlBUB

—

—

30

6.0

40

4.4

40

4.2

— -

40

16.2

Vo aaziaraB

•—

Hi^er payBonto pomittod la Inotaneoa of ozeoptional nood

30

13.5

14,6

25

1.8

- —

30

5.0

“

25

6.0

—

30

24.6

•••

Vo BaziaoB

—

—

30

37.2

30

3.0

40

58.0

40

30

11.1

40.7

.9

$40 BazlBUB for roolpionta both blind and doaf

50

3.1

1 - - -

- P6 -

Many States prescribe a maximum payment for families receiving aid for
only one dependent cHlld and a smaller uniform amount for maximum Increases
In payments for each additional child aided. Of the 28 States with some type
of maximum for aid to dependent children In November 19^2, 17 limited pay¬
ments for the first child to $l8 per month even though the payments In a
one -child family often must provide for expenses of maintaining the home and
for the requirements of the mother or other supervising adult. Maxlmums for
the first child In the other States ranged from $10 In Mississippi to $56,95
In the counties In which prices were highest In Pennsylvania. Maxlmums for
each additional child ranged from $6 In the District of Columbia to $15 In
Minnesota, In the District of Columbia and Pennsylvania, however, a higher
maximum was provided for families In which two parents were In the home.

Five States limit the application of the Increases In payments for the
largest families by prescribing a family maximum. This was set at $65 In
North Carolina, $60 in the District of Columbia and Missouri, $30 in
Arkansas, and $24 in Texas (table 6). The District of Columbia was the only
Jurisdiction with maxlmums for both old-age assistance and aid to dependent
children which permitted as large a payment to a mother and one child as to
one aged person.

Arbitrary limits for payments of old-age assistance and aid to the
blind cut off the range of payments and often result in the accumulation of
many payments at the highest amount permitted. Assistance patterns for aid
to dependent children In most of the States with maxlmums show very marked
clustering of payments at the several maxlmums for families with specified
numbers of children.

The fact that a State places a maximum on payments Is not In itself
evidence that such a raaxlinum restricts payments significantly. The number
of recipients affected by maxlmums depends on the extent of Individual
need In a State, the amoimts of the maxlmums, the ability and willingness
of the State and local agencies to provide payments up to the prescribed
limits, and on legal provisions discussed In the following section.

Because maxlmums are generally higher for old-age assistance and aid to the
blind than for aid to dependent children, they affect smaller proportions
of payments In most States. Although most States had a maximum and some
had. In addition, a higher maximum for recipients with exceptional needs,
only about one-tenth of all payments' of old-age assistance In the
United States and only one -fifth of those for aid to the blind were at
either maximum. In contrast, more than 28 percent of the payments of aid
to dependent children in the 46 States for which information is available
were at the prescribed limits, even though only 27 of these States had

limits. In 26 of these 27 States, 45 percent of the payments for aid
to dependent children were at maximum amounts, 14/

In aid to dependent children, payments at the maximum are most com¬
mon for families with only one or two eligible children, and least common
for the largest families. Families with one or two children, however,

W ^

Texas made no payments at maximum amounts In November because of a $10
cut In payments. In the following month more than 98 percent of all
payments were at maximum amoiints.

27 -

T«bl« 6. --Aid to dependant children: PaTBante In relation to State naxlBnaa, hoTenher 19^

State

Total, U6 States

Total, 27 States with
Baxlnnas ^ .

AlabeMa .

Arisona* . . .

Arkansas ^ .

California..* .

Colorado . .

Connoetieat*. . .........

Delaware. . .

District of Colunbia ^

Tlorlda*. . . .

Georgia*... .

Hawaii. .

Idaho .

Illinois .

Indiana Jj .

Kansas . .

Louisiana. .

• •• • ••eeeeeeaeae

Marjland .

Msissachasetts . .

Michigan 9/ .

Minnesota .

Miseisslppl... . .

Missouri. .

Montana* ...............

Vebraska .

low Hainshlre.. ....... .

lew Jerser ^ .

lew Mexico.... .

lew Tork... .

lorth Carolina. .

lorth Dakota. ..........

Ohio .

Oklahoaeu .

Oregon. .

PennsxlTanla. .

Bhode Island* . .

South Carolina. .

South Dakota 11/ . .

Tennessee .

Texas .

Utah. . . . .

Tenont*... .

Tirginia*. . . . .

Washington .

West Tirginia 4/* .

Wisconsin uy . .

Ifoalng... .

State maxlmuas

?6rc«nt

ftt

First child

Sach additional
child

Family

maxi ana

—

—

—

28.6

—

—

—

45.0

Ho maxlmums 3/

$18

$12

1 —

68*1

IS

12

$30

2.3

Ho maxlmums 5/

as—.

18

12

68.3

Ho aaxlanas

—

Ho maxlmuas

—

30

6

60

78.4

18

12

4l*9

18

12

—

30.6

Ho maxlmums

—

18

12

80.0

18

12

93.4

20

(8)

—

56.6

Ho maxlmums

—

Ho maxlmuas

—

Ho maxlmuas

—

18

12

- —

62.9

Ho maxlmuas

—

28

(10)

—

38*7

20

15

•a*..

66.7

10

7.50

82*0

18

12

60

77.2

18

12

- -

63.3

18

12

—

»5.0

Ho maxlmums

—

Ho maxlmuas

—

Ho maxlmuas

—

Ho maximnas

—

18

12

65

10*0

30

12

7*3

Ho maxlmuas

—

18

12

“

12.0

Ho maximume

- -

(12)

(12)

(2)

Ho maximnas

- -

15

10

.a -

10.1

18

12

—

48,7

12

8

55.4

16

8

24

0

Ho maxlmums

—

17.33

(13)

—

67.3

18

12

15.5

Ho maxlmuas

—

18

12 1

—

38*5

Ho maximum

18

” .J

72*9

^ Ixcludes aaovmts oTor the maxlauBs for a few paTaents in Georgia and South Carolina because not
chargeable to aid to dependent children.

2/ Nuaber of payaents at DaxlauBs in Pennsyl Tania not awallable.

V Wo maiimuns prescribed but State participates In paynents only to aaount of Tederal matching maxlnrams,

^ Data are for October 1942.

5/ Ho maxlnums prescribed but State participates In payaents only to $?1.5P for the first child, and $28.00
for each additional child.

^ Maxlnmms stated In terms of number of persons. Maximum for one-child family $3® if for throe persons.
Data are for October 1942.

jJ Payments may exceed maxlmuas In amount necessary to include medical assistance.

g/ Second child, $18; each additional child, $12.

1/ Hi^er maxlmums authorised In October did not affect NoTomber payments. Ho maxlmums In Wayns County.

10/ Kaxlsmm additional amounts for successlTo children after first: $6, $11, $10, $12, $11, and $12 for
each additional child.

VU Data are for September 1942.

\^l state agency prescribes maxlmuas for families of different sice in each of 15 groups of counties
classified by cost of llwing. Hange for •two-person* families, $29.35 $36.95.

^ Second child, $12.67; ‘ech additional child, $12.

- 28 -

represented more than three-fifths of all families receiving aid to depend¬
ent children in the United States, More than nine-tenths of the one-child
families received maxlinum payments in Arizona, Illinois, and Wyoming in
November 19^2. Although maximums for old-age assistance constitute a
serious bar to meeting the need of some recipients, the proportion of pay¬
ments affected in the Nation is relatively small. In aid to the blind,
maximums create a somewhat greater problem, and in aid to dependent chil¬
dren they restrict payments seriously in many States.

Evidence of the inadequaoles of maximum payments of aid to depend¬
ent children is supplied by sample studies made by the State agencies in
Nebraska and Minnesota, which show the difference between payments £uid the
amounts of established need in the families receiving maximum payments in
a month late in 19^2. In this month six-sevenths of all families aided in
Nebraska and two-thirds of all families aided in Minnesota received maxi¬
mum amounts. The maximums in Nebraska were identical with the maximums for
Federal matching; those in Minnesota were $20 and $15, higher than the
Federal maximums by $2 for one -child families and higher by $5 for each
additional child. Maximum payments were found to be too small to meet
need 6ie established by the agency for more than 88 percent of the families
receiving these amoimts in Nebraska and for more than 85 percent of such
families in Minnesota. The average amount of need not met by the maximum
payments in the families for whom such payments were insufficient was
nearly $l8 in Nebraska and nearly $15 in Minnesota. The proportion of
to'cri need cut off by maximum payments was noticeably larger in one -child
f-imllies than in other families in both States. In Minnesota the average
amount of unmet need in one -child families was $19.80 in the urban areas
of the sample, and $11,10 in the rural areas. The average assistance
needed and received by the families in which maximum payments failed to
meet established need and the percent of need met by these payments were
as follows for the families with one to four children in the samples

studied I

Neb

r a s k a

M i

n n e s c

5 t a

Number of

Average

Percent

Average

Percent

eligible

amount of

Amount

of need

amount of

Amount

of need

children

need estab¬

of

met by

need estab¬

of

met by

in family

lished

payment

payment

lished

payment

payment

1 -

- $53.96

$18.00

53.0

$33.92

$20.00

59.0

2 -

- **7.30

30.00

63.4

51.40

35.00

68.1

3 -

- 61.10

42.00

68.6

66.50

50.00

75.2

4 -

- 7k M

54.00

72.1

81.00

65.00

80.2

It

is apjjarent that maximums

1 for aid to dependent

children

often

preclude adequate provision for the needs of the supervising adult and for
maintaining the home. Such requirements are a major part of total need in
a one-child family but a smaller proportion in larger families where house¬
hold expenses are spread over a larger number of children. In 19^5 the
legislature partly remedied the situation in Minnesota by Increasing the
maximum for the first child in a family from $20 to $25,

- 29 -

Majclmume for any type of aseietance preclude payments commensurate
with need for recipients with unusxial requirements and with least oppor¬
tunity to meet their requirements through other resources. Experience has J
convinced many agencies and State legislatures that more flexible provi- 1
' slons are necessary, particularly If recipients are to he enabled to pay for
medical services. Maxlmiims have been raised in many States, deleted in
some, and adjusted In others. Adjustments In maximum payments commonly pro¬
vide a higher maximum or none at all for cases of exceptional need. Some
type of adjustment of the maximum was permitted for old-age assistance in
eight States, for aid to the blind In six States, and for aid to dependent
children in one State (Indiana) in November (tables 4-6)

Many States have recognized the Impossibility of meeting the need of
families under maximums prescribed in terms of the number of eligible chil¬
dren. In ' ‘November 1942, 19 States Imposed no limits for payments of aid to
dependent children; 2 of these States (Alabama and Cslifomia) limited the
amounts that the State would match but encoiiraged counties to make payments
to meet total need. The Inflexibility of maximums prevents Increases In
the payments already at these limits when the need of the recipient
Increases. The relatively small increase in median payments for aid to
dependent children from November 1940 to November 1942 Is explained in part
by the fact that so many 1940 payments were at highest amounts permitted.
Legally Defined Levels of Living

Instead of limiting payments by prescribing maximums, legislatures In
I six States have attempted to guarantee a specific amount of total Income to
I all recipients of old-age assistance and .sometimes of aid to the blind.

These States are Cellfomla, Colorado, Massachusetts, Nevada, Utah, and
Vashlngton. Two distinct methods of computation are used to achieve this
I result. One Is to provide a precise total which the sum of assistance and
other Income must meet; the other, to provide a minimum amount below which
the sum of assistance and other Income must not fall. This underwriting of
specific amounts of Income plus assistance explains the high level of pay¬
ments of old-age assistance and aid to the blind in these six States (charts
j 4 and 5).

The amounts prescribed and the specific provisions varied in these
States and resiilted In quite different patterns of assistance in November
1942. For old-age assistance, Colorado prescribed that Income plus assist¬
ance should be $45 for all recipients. Washington set this total at $40;
Nevada, at not less than $50 and not more than $40. California and Utah set
^0 and $30, respectively, but provided for certain exceptions. At least
$40 In Income plus aseietance was guaranteed to all recipients in
California, but Income plus assistance could exceed this amount for recip¬
ients with requirements In excess of $40 who also had Income other than
as si stance. 15/ At least $50 In income plus assistance was guaranteed to all
recipients In Utah, but recipients with certain types of larger requirements

California also initiated a plan In November 1942 under which recipients
could elect to have their payments determined by the budget -deficit
method. Payments to some 5,000 recipients, 5 percent of the case load,
were so determined in this month.

- 30 -

were not limited to this amount (table ^4-), Massachusetts was the only one oT
these States to prescribe no maximum for any aged recipient. This State pro¬
vided a minimum of in Income plus eissistance for each recipient living
alone and $30 for those living in family groups, of more than two per sons. 16/
Requirements greater than these amounts are recognized and, when not met by
other resources, are met by assistance.

Provisions for aid to the blind in California and Washington were
similar to the provisions for old-age assistance in these States, but
California prescribed $50 in income plus assistance for the blind.

Uniform amounts for income plus assistance assume that the require¬
ments of all recipients are equal in amount. In the States with such provi¬
sions, the income of individual recipients is determined, but individual
requirements are not usually determined. Total income for some recipients
with low requirements, therefore, may be larger than it would be if actual
need were determined. On the other hand, uniform' totals for Income plus
assistance make it Impossible to meet the need of recipients with excep¬
tionally large requirements just as do other types of maximums.Thle difficulty
was met for some, but not for all, recipients by the exceptions to the
uniform amounts for income plus assistance provided in California and Utah
(tables 4 and 5) >17/

In the six States under discussion, the method of determining payments
as a total of income plus assistance tends to make more payments cluster at
the prescribed amounts than at the maximums in States prescribing other types
of limits. In California, nearly 64 percent of the payments for old-age .
assistance were at $40 in November, and nearly 70 percent of payments of aid
to the blind were at $50. In Washington, about 39 percent of payments of
old-age assistance and 58 percent of those for aid to the blind were at $40.
Half the payments for old-age assistance in Utah were at $30. In Colorado,
the yield of taxes earmarked for old-age assistance has been Inadequate in
most months to provide the specified total of $45 for Income plus assistance.
Fluctuations in these revenues require^ varying deductions from this total
from month to month. In November 1942 the deduction was $1, and 46.5 percent
of the payments were at $44. In Nevada, where the total for income plus
assistance could vary from $30 to $40 according to individual circumstances,
about 13 percent of the payments were at $30 and more than 60 percent were
higher. The absence of any State maximums in Massachusetts permits flexi¬
bility in meeting unusual need and in adjusting for rising living costs.

Some of the local unitd, however, prescribe maximums. In this State, 30 per¬
cent of the assistance payments, excluding the additional payments made
because of medical or other exceptional needs were at the $40 set as a mini¬
mum for Income plus assistance, and 9 percent were more than $4o.

W ^

$65 for a man and wife alone, $50 if they lived in a larger household
group,
ii/

After November 1942, Washington provided for determining payments on the
basis of individual requirements and resources within the limitation of
the $40 State maximum.

- 51 -

The six States with legislative guarantees of specific amounts In
Income plus assistance were among the 10 States with the highest payments
for old-age assistance In November 1942.3^ Four of these six States —
those which did not limit their payments for aid to dependent children by
maxlmums (California, Massachusetts, Utah, and Washington) also ranked
among the ten States with highest levels of payments for aid to dependent
children. These States relied on administrative standards and procedures,
rather than on a specific legislative guarantee, for determining the
amounts of payments In the latter program. The provision of a reasonably
high level of living for recipients of assistance does not necessarily
depend, therefore, on legislative guarantees of a specific amount of
Income. It can be achieved by appropriate standards and procedures. If
sufficient funds are available and payments are not limited arbitrarily.

Inadequacy of State Funds

Another factor responsible for some of the lack of conformity
between assistance and need patterns is that the funds of some State
agencies are sufficient to make payments only at the level described as
the lower In the accompanying charts. The Insufficiency of the funds may
result from the failure of the State legislature to provide adequate funds
or may be due to the low fiscal, capacity of the State,

The extent to which limited State fiscal capacity Is responsible for
Insufficient assistance funds is difficult to establish. It can be shown,
however, that nearly all the States making payments at the lower level
(charts 4-6) are States that rank low in fiscal capacity. To Indicate
relative flscaJL capacity, per capita income of the States is used as an
Index. In 1942, per capita Income for the United States was $852. Per
capita income In the lowest third of the States, ranked according to amount
of such Income, Is shown below:

Vermont ----- $698 North Carolina - - $525

Virginia - 697 Arkansas - 514

Texas ------ 677 Georgia ----- 498

Florida ----- 655 Tennessee - - - - 492

niri whorrift _ - - - 598 Alabama ----- 480

West Virginia - - 598 Kentucky - 477

New Mexico - 558 South Carolina - - 459

Louisiana - - - - 554 Mississippi - - - 407

Only three States that made lower-level payments In November 1942 in one or
more programs fail to appear among this group of States with low fiscal
capacity; these States are Delaware, Missouri, 19/ and South Dakota. On the
other hand, three States In the low per capita Income group made payments
at a higher level for all programs — Vermont, West Virginia, and New Mexico.

W

i2/

As measured by the median payment (chart 1).

Level based on payments made In November 1942, If retroactive payments
made In December 1942 had been Included, Missouri would have been shown
as making payments for old-age assistance at the middle level.

- 32 -

In general, therefore, the States that made low payments are those with the
lowest per capita indome. This finding is in a^eement with other studies
of the relationship "between average payments and per capita income.

While a relationship "between the size of payments and fiscal capac¬
ity is not conclusive proof that fiscal capacity determines the level of •
payments, it is unlikely that this relationship is due to chance. Other
factors, however, often combine to offset this effect of limited fiscal
capacity. Important among these other factors are the measure of fiscal
effort exerted to provide adequate funds and the choice between accepting
many applicants for low payments or restricting the case load in order to
give higher payments.

States with insufficient funds have adopted a variety of methods
for limiting individual payments in order to keep within available fimds.

Some State legislatures have accomplished this end by eetsblishlng espe¬
cially low maximums on individual payments. In other States the method
is left to the administrative agency. Some agencies set administrative
maximums. Others limit payments by excluding from standards for require¬
ments some of the needs of recipients that are considered in other States,
or restrict the amounts that can be Included for specific requirements.

Still other States determine the amount of assistance needed on the basis
of reasonably comprehensive requirements but restrict the payment to a
specified proportion of the established need. Still another method is to
make a uniform reduction in payments. One or more of these methods of-
reducing assistance when funds are Insufficient to meet need was in opera¬
tion in all the State programs under which payments were lowest. Similar
practices were in effect also in some of the other States, although, in
general, they resulted in l^ss drastic reductions in assistance.

Federal Matching Provisions

Even though Federal financial participation has resulted in generally
higher payments in the States which had programs for assisting the needy-
aged, blind, and dependent children before the peissage of the Social Security
Act, nevertheless the provisions for Federal matching are partly responsible
for much of the Inadequacy of current payments. The act, as amended in 1939#
provides that the Federal Government shall pay one -half of the payments made
in conformity with the act up to a total of $40 per month for old-age
assistance and aid to the blind, and to a total of $l8 for the first child
and $12 for each additional child for aid to dependent children. Both the
equal -matching provision and the maximum amounts that may be matched by -the
Federal Government have tended to limit the amounts of payments.

Although the matching maximums do not limit the payments States may
make, they have had a marked Influence on the amounts set as State maximums,
as is evident from the frequency of these amounts among State maximums shown
in tables 4-6, Even in States with higher maximums or no maximums, payments
are sometimes restricted to the amounts for which Federal matching is avsdl-
able. About 9 percent of all payments of old-age assistance, about 5*5
percent of those for aid to the blind, and about 20 percent of -those for aid
to dependent children in November 1942 were at the maximums for Federal
matching (charts 9-11). More than one -third of the payments for aid to
dependent children in 15 States and more than two-thirds in 7 States were at
these limits.

- 33

CHAf^T 9

OLD-AGE ASSISTANCE: PAYMENTS IN RELATION TO
FEDERAL MATCHING MAXIMUM, NOV. I942t

PERCENT

0 20 40 60 80 100

51

STATES
CALIF.

ARIZ.

COLO.

MASS.

WASH.

ALASKA
CONN.

IDAHO
ILL.

NEV.

N.Y.

OREG.

KANS.

N.H.

WIS.

MONT.

WYO.

R. l.

N.DAK.

OKLA.

N.MEX.

PA.

UTAH
OHIO
W.VA.

N.J.

IND.

HAWAII
MICH.

MD.

LA.

ALA.

FLA.

ARK.

DEL.

D.C.

GA.

IOWA

KY.

MAINE
MINN.

MISS.

MO.

NEBR.

N.C.

S. C.

S. DAK.

TENN.

TEXAS
VT.

VA.

LESS THAN $40.00

$40.00-40.99

$41.00 a OVER

fSEE FOOTNOTES, TABLE /.

- 34 -

CHART 10

AID TO THE BLIND: PAYMENTS IN RELATION TO
FEDERAL MATCHING MAXIMUM, NOV. 1942+

PERCENT

44

STATES

CALIF.

WASH.

ARIZ,

COLO.

D.C.

CONN.

IDAHO

OREG.

IOWA

UTAH

OKLA.

WYO.

N.Y.

MONT.

N.MEX.

W.VA.

KANS.

MINN.

MICH.

IND.

R. l.

N.J.

N.DAK.

N.H.

OHIO

LA.

HAWAII

MD.

WIS.

FLA.

ALA.

ARK.

GA. .

MAINE

MASS.

MISS.

NEBR.

N.C.

S. C.
S.DAK.
TENN.
TEXAS
VT.

VA.

LESS THAN $40.00 Om] $40.00-40.99
fSEE FOOTNOTES, TABLE 2.

$41.00, a OVER

35

CHART I I

AID TO DEPENDENT CHILDREN: PAYMENTS IN
RELATION TO FEDERAL MATCHING MAXIMUMS,
NOV. I942t

PERCENT

0 20 40 60 80 100

47

STATES

ILL.

MASS.

CALIF.

N.Y.

NEBR.

OR EG.
WASH.

' CONN.

R. l.
MICH.
IDAHO
N.H.
MINN.
WYO.

MO.

IND.

UTAH

WIS.

COLO.

ARI2.

PA.

MAINE

MONT.

MD.

KANS.

OHIO

DEL.

D.C.

N.J.

: N.DAK.

HAWAII

I S.DAK.

VT.

FLA.

N.MEX.

W.VA.

LA.

GA.

VA.

OKLA.

N.C.

ALA.

ARK.

MISS.

S. C.
TENN.
TEXAS

LESS THAN FEDEkAL MAXIMUMS
SAME AS FEDERAL MAXIMUMS
MORE THAN FEDERAL MAXIMUMS

'^S£E FOOTNOTES, TABLE 3

- 36 -

The Inadequacy of payments at the Federal majclimimfi is reflec-^d in
the fact that some States found It necessary to make payments from State
and local funds in excess of these maxlmums. Eleven States made some
payments to the aged, and the same number some payments to the blind, in
excess of Federal maxinrums. TVenty-five States made such payments for aid
to dependent children. In these States nearly .two -third of the payments
exceeded the Federeil matching limits in contrast to only one -tenth of the
payments for the aged in those States which made payments in excess of $40,
California’s $50 payments largely account for the 38 percent of the pay¬
ments of aid to the blind in excess of the Federal maximums in the States
that made such payments. Federal Tnaxintums were exceeded in 73 percent of
all payments to one -child families in the States that do not limit assist¬
ance to the Federal matching maximums (chert 12). Progressively smaller

chart 12

AID TO DEPENDENT CHILDREN: PAYMENTS IN
RELATION TO FEDERAL MATCHING MAXIMUMS, BY
NUMBER OF CHILDREN, FOR ALL STATES, NOV. I942t

PERCENT

B8888 LESS THAN FEDERAL MAXIMUMS
SAME AS FEDERAL MAXIMUMS

[v:v:v:i more than federal maximums

'/'SEE FOOTNOTES, TABLE 3.

- 37 -

proportions of payments above the Federal maximums for families with
■ore than one eligible child are explained, in part, by the greater
adequacy of the Federal maximums for the larger families* 20/ They
are also due in part to the inabilily or unwillingness of some States
to make payments for the larger families in the full amount for which
Federal matching is available. In the second half of 1942, the Federal
Government contributed 99 cents for each dollar spent by State and local
units for old-age assistance in all States, 92 cents for each dollar spent
for aid to the blind, and only 67 cents for aid to dependent children. The
relatively small Federal share for aid to dependent children indicates the
extent to which some States have met need in excess of the Federal matching
maximums.

Under an equal-matching percentage the Federal Government cannot
contribute more, although it maj contribute less, than the State is both
willing and able to provide. In November 1942 the Federal Government con¬
tributed less than $10 per recipient for each of the three types of assist¬
ance in Alabama, Arkansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee,
but more than $15 per recipient of each type in Arizona, California,
Colorado, and Washington. In general. Federal expenditures per recipient
were lowest in the States that were least able to finance adequate assist*
ance. For example, in only 2 of the 15 States with high per capita income
did the Federal contribution to payments of old-age assistance average less
than $10 per recipient. In only 1 of the 16 States with the lowest per
capita income was the Federal share as much as $10 (table 7)*

2o7

The New Mexico State agenqr estimated that 72 percent of all families
receiving aid to dependent children in November 1941 needed more than
the maximums for Federal matching. The proportions for different
numbers of eligible children were:

Number of
children aided

Percent needing more
than Federal maximum

1

2

3

4

5

6

7 and over

91

83

72

60

50

40

16

Table 7, — Old-age assi stance: Estlaiated Federal contribution to average payments in November 1942
State, classified according to per capita income

- 38 -

x;

4->

00

a>

■8

&

e

O O

U O
9

O -P

rH ^

&

O

'3

<D

*0

r®

1*4

+>

a

"S

o

o

i

o

•p

g o

& ^

« o

P4

05

■p

•p

•H

o5

•P

%H

•H

•d

S

a

S

aS

0

o

■p

e

o

o

o

0) q) ^ d

S'"

•p

O *3) 05

&S

■P -H +>

05 XJ •H

S’

O

VOOOCJOOOOVOOOOOOCUONh-r-lt^rHCVJ
0^ CVJ OmH ^ tOv-iJ- OOJiHlPviHCOt^Oirs

00 ITNOn t-*CO O On r- lf\vo ^ ^

iH

1 1

1

1

1

1

I

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1 1

1

1

1

1

1

1

o5

1

1

1

1

1

05

1

1 1

1

1

c5

1

1

1

3

1

1

1

1

I

d

1

•H

«H

•H

1 1

1

1

d

1

1

rH

1

1

1

1

1

rH

•H

o

O

O

Pi

1

o5

1

1

(30

O

o5

h

1

o

1

H

Pi

Pi

d

•H

d

3

CQ

od

o

S3

3

o

•H

a ri

1

CQ

S

3

o

o5

00

CO

(30

<D •H CD <H CQ

:e: CO ^ g t)0 o
-P S 5h
I4 M

o m

pj rd «H
4-> +> ffl

B irR >3^1 S S'§^ 3 S

^^S^SSS2SMSS^SSS

H VO O ^ JTNVO CO O CVJ -:t VO OJ K>C0 VO H 0\
rOv ir\ (O On OnOO O 0-4-

CVJ |0\ r^ ^r^00 OOHOCVJCOO(7NrHK\(JsONrH
rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH ^ rH rH rH rH rH

-W-

I I I
I I I

05 I I

I ■ ■

'Sg’l

s^al

I I
I I
I I
I I

s

I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I

o

I I I I I i i 05 cd Pi

•P H-» vj

I III I O O ;cd
cj ai ^ ^ <0

01 S'S'S^S

05QOp405ooO.i::3;aM

M<H05CQi:iOOPl

COC0)<H'O>(i*HC0rH,O«»^«,^rn»>

CD d ,q H-> 4j

ca 3 d d Pi >

VOVOO(M-4-COCVJOt^lfN KNOO -4- IPv
VOVO CMTNKM^t^CVJ OnCVJ^ tOvr^iri-4-

ITN rH -4- VO 00 VO ir\^ (7n CVJ VO CU lO\ O K\
rH rH rH rH rH rH rH ^ rH iH rH rH rH

-ee-

I

I

I

o5

CD

■P

i s

CO

d CO CO d

J4 M ^ 3
y o (30

o a> d *H
>> (30 CO '6 >H A o
rHrHa)CO;»5U<»COOrHO«H

g s s a <5 5 a li I s I s u a g

- 59 -

Supplementary AEsletance

The variation in payments under the special types of public as 'dist¬
ance does not reflect accurately the variation in the total assistance
' available to the persons who receive these payments. The categorical
approach to assistance has resulted in a division of public responsibility
for needy people among various funds and often among different agencies*

The part each plays and the adequacy of the total assistance received by
needy individuals and families differ from State to State and community to
i community.

The variety of plans for meeting the requirements of recipients of
assistance is illustrated by the numerous arrangements for medic€il aid. Many
j agencies administering the special types of public assistance include small
; amounts for predictable health needs among the requirements of recipients.

! Some agencies also provide for emergency medical care by increasing payments
i when the need arises. Such Increases are often distributed over several
j months to avoid exceeding the State maximums or the Federal matching limits.

' Instead of meeting medical needs through payments to recipients, a few States
|i permit agencies to make payments directly to physicians and hospitals from
I appropriations for the special types of public assistance. In the Jurlsdlc-
; tlons which have no provisions for financing medical assistance throtigh such
I funds, recipients must depend upon other uneven provisions in their respec¬
tive communities. In many States, most of the cost of medical services
received by recipients is financed from general assistance funds.

Sometimes Inadequate payments for old-age assistance, aid to dependent
children, and aid to the blind are eked out by simultaneous payments of
genered assistance. Such supplementary payments may be made, for example, to
families whose aid for dependent children is limited by the maximum, or may
be made to other members of the families of aged or blind recipients.

General asslLtance, however, is not avedlable in all communities and is
extremely limited in many other communities. In more than one-fouj^h of the
States, local governmental units carry full financial responsibility for
general assistance, and in nearly half the States local funds accounted for
more than two-thirde of the expenditures for this program in 19^2, Fre¬
quently general assistance is not provided in many of the Jurisdictions that
make the lowest payments for the special types of public assistance.

The studies of families ixi Nebraska and Minnesota receiving maximum
payments for aid to dependent children included an inquiry into the number
receiving general assistance, Nebrax^a reported that about 7«5 percent of
the families included in the study received such additional assistance in
amounts averaging $10.20 a month per family. The Minnesota study found that
in the urban counties studied approximately 55 percent of the need not met
by aid to dependent children was met by genered assistance; in the rural
counties, genersd assistance met only about 26 percent of such need.

- 1^0 -

In 11 of 15 other States for which Information is available, 21/ lees
than 5 percent of the families receiving aid to dependent children in
September or October 19^2 also received general assistance. In South Dakota,
Montana, Arizona, and Illinois, this percentage ranged from 8 to 39.

Although the majority of families aided in these states had some cash Income
other than public aid, half the families in Arkansas had less than $26 per
month and half the faznilles in Missouri, less than $35 In total cash Income,
including both assistance and other resources. Despite the exceptionally
high living costs in the District of Columbia, the total cash Income of half
the families receiving aid to dependent children was less than $57 pen month.

Many recipients supplemented their assistance payments in November
1942 through participation in the food stamp plan or in the plan for direct
distribution of certedn commodities. These provisions, which were not to be
considered in determining the amounts of assistance payments, made avail¬
able, under certain conditions, foods currently declared by the U.S. Depart¬
ment of Agriculture to be surplus fam products. Information for 40 States
shows that in December 1942 more than half of all families receiving aid to
dependent children in these States, but a considerably smaller proportion
of recipients of old-age assistance and aid to the blind, received such food
though one of these plans. The average value of the food received through
free stamps was nearly $6 for recipients of old-age assistance, more then $7
for recipients of aid to the blind, and more than $12 per family for recip¬
ients of aid to dependent children. By the end of 1942 some of the surplus
foods available for purchase through the stamp plan were not available
through direct distribution.

In some Individual situations, provisions for additional assistance
compensate for Inadequate payments made under the three special types of
assistance. V/here the general level of such .payments is low, however, addi¬
tional assistance is not generally available. In spite of additional provi¬
sions for assistance in some places, payments frequently fall to meet the
need of recipients. Often the problem of Inadequate assistance remains,
despite piecemeal attempts on the part of States to meet need through two or
even more programs.

liirouj^ a study of the characteristics of the families receiving edd to
dependent children. The 11 States are: Arkansas, District of Columbia,
Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma,
Utah. West Virginia, and Wisconsin. In Arkansas, District of Columbia,
Oklahomn, and Uteih, less than 1 percent of the families in the aid to
aepenoent children case load received both types of assistcmce.

- 41 -

Conclusion

Since State programs for the special types of public assistance
operate under varying laws, policies, and procedures, differences In pay¬
ments from State to State are Inevitable. It is Impossible to trace the
Influence of ell differences In law or policy, but certain factors are
obvious .

Insufficiency of funds, resulting from either low fiscal capacity or
lack of public support as expressed through appropriations, or a combina¬
tion of both. Is a basic cause of Inadequate payments. Insufficiency of
funds frequently leads to the establishment of State maximums as a conven¬
ient administrative or legal device for controlling total expenditures.
Behind the maximums in one State may lie the inability of the State to
finance assistance at a hl^er level; in another State, the maximum may
-reflect public attitudes toward assistance. The historical development of
the programs also has Influence; the limits on the extent of Federal
participation in the Social Security Act have served as a model which most
States have followed by Incorporating similar limits In their own laws.

Many of these States have found it difficult to depart from the precedent
of maximums on payments, once established.

The basis of Federal reimbursement to States for assistance payments
established by the Social Security Act has also served indirectly to
Influence the size of payments in that it disregards the relative fiscal
capacities of the States. In effect, therefore, the amount of Federal funds
made available to States for assistance is determined in relation not to the
need of recipients but to the funds which the States are able and willing to
provide for these programs.

It is evident that both Federal and State factors have Influenced the
general level of payments. Where payments have failed to meet need, the
failure should be regarded not solely as the product of State operation but
also as the effect of legislation, governing Federal participation. The pro¬
vision of special Federal aid to States with low fiscal capacity, which has
been recommended by many different groups and organizations, and the elimi¬
nation of Federal matching maximums, especially for aid to dependent chil¬
dren, would go far toward overcoming the handicaps imposed by the Federal
Act. These changes would enable the States to remove their maximums and to
give assistance more nearly in accord with the need of recipients.

^

IWSi

-

.: ,iOsji to

; CifftJ'cit

i;'3'5^t5
-’f Bbm:

;.r'

: !70*i<l

i.'.'L^T.'ri

-in ,oaL’’

•■rx rtOO:V

noJU-a ;

.tv A

Families Receiving

Aid to Dependent Children

October 1942

Part /. Race, Size, and
Composition of Families and
Reasons for Dependency

FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY
SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD
Bureau of Public Assistance

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE REPORT NO. 7

Federal Security Agency
SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD

Arthur J, Altmeyer, Chairman
George E. Bigge Ellen S. Woodward

Oscar M. Powell, Executive Director

BUREAU OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE
Jane M. Hoey, Director

FAMILIES RECEIVING

AID TO DEPENDENT CHILDREN
OCTOBER 19U2

part I. Race, Size, and Composition of Families,
and Reasons for Dependency

by

Agnes Leisy

Statistics and Analysis Division
Biireau of Public Assistance

Public Assistance Report No. 7

Federal Security Agency
SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD
Washington, D. C.

PORMORD

Until July 19U2, State public assistance agencies were required to supply
information annually to the Social Security Board on, the characteristics of
recipients accepted for aid. These data were extremely valuable in the early
years of the public assistance programs but, as the programs developed, infor¬
mation for only the new cases added to the rolls became increasingly less
representative of the total case load and was inadequate for the intensive
study of particular phases of public assistance administration. Consequently,
it was decided to discontinue this series of reports and to substitute special
studies representative of the entire case load, to be made by States from time
to time on a voluntary basis. Wartime changes in the program for aid to
dependent children and the need for more complete information about the char¬
acteristics of families receiving aid resulted in the selection of this
program for the first of these special studies, which was made in the fall of
19U2 in 16 States.

Although the findings of the study summarized in this report are not in
all respects representative of recipients of aid to dependent children in the
United States as a whole, the study throws light on the extent to which the
objectives of the program are being achieved in l6 States and reveals the
effect on State programs of both Federal provisions and various State laws,
policies, and practices. The findings will be useful to all States by suggest¬
ing certain changes in administrative practice that will improve and expand
the program. The Bureau wishes to express its appreciation to the staff of
the State and local public assistance agencies whose collection and con^jila-
tion of the State data made this study possible.

March 19U5

Jane M. Hoey, Director
Bureau of Public Assistance

CONTENTS

Page

I. Introduction . ^

II. Racial Differences in Recipient Rates . 3

III. Size and Coinposition of Families . 6

Number of persons per family. . . 6

Persons in addition to ADC unit . 6

Other persons in household . 8

Age of persons in family . 8

Persons I8 years and over . 9

• Children under 18 years of age . . 9

Distribution of families by number of children . 11

IV. Children Not Approved for Aid. . . l5

Children under I6 years not approved . 15

Children I6-I7 years not approved . I9

V. Relatives With Y/hom Children Were Living . 21

Relative to whom payment was made . 23

VI. Reasons for Lack of Support or Care . 2$

Major^ reasons . 2^

Lack of support or care by the father . 26

Death of the father . 2?

Absence of the father because of estrangement from family . . 28

Diyorce and legal separation . 29

Desertion or separation without court decree . 30

Father not married to the mother . 31

Incapacity of the father . 31

Lack of support or care ty the father for reasons other than

death, estrangement from family, and incapacity . 35

Imprisoned . ' . . . . 36

Serving in armed forces . ^. . . 36

Absent for other reasons . 36

Unemployed or with insufficient earnings . 37

Incapacity in relation to absence . 37

Lack of support or care by the mother . 37

Needed in the home and unemployed or with insufficient

earnings . 38

Dead, incapacitated, or absent for other reason . iiO

VII. Conclusions .

Appendix . ^3

GH/IRTS

Page

I, — White and nonwrhite children receiving aid per 1,000 population

under age 18, ADC families, for 16 States, October 19h2 . , . k

II. — ADC fcunilies, by number of children, for 16 States, October 19U2 13

III. — Children in specified age groups not approved for aid, ADC fami¬
lies, for 16 States, October 19U2 . l6

IV. — -White and nonwhite children under age l6 not approved for aid,

ADC families, for l6 States, October 19h2 . 17

V. — ^Percent of children aged 16-1? not approved for aid, by school

attendance status, ADC families, for 10 States, October 19U2. 19

VI. — Relative with whom children receiving aid were living, ADC fami¬
lies, for 16 States, October 19^2 . 22

VII. — Relative receiving payment in ADC families with both parents in

the home, for 16 States, October 19U2 . 2U

VIII. — ^ADC families with widovfed mother per 100 families in population
with children and widowed female head, for 16 States, Octo¬
ber 19U2 . 28

IX. — Fathers absent because of estrangement from family per 100

fathers dead, ADC families, for l6 States, October 19U2 ... 29

X. — Fathers absent because of estrangement from family per 100

fathers dead, by type of esc.rangement, ADC families, for l6
States, October 19U2. . 30

XI. — Incapacitated fathers per 100 fathers dead, ADC families, for 16

States October I9U2. * . 32

• •

XII. — ^Reason for lack of support by the mother in ADC families with

nonincapacitated mother in home, for I6 States, October 19U2. 39

XIII. — -ADC families dependent primarily because of lack of care by the

mother, for I6 States, October 19U2 . I4.O

APPENDIX lABLES

Page

Table 1. — Size of sample and month to vdiich data relate, study of

aid to dependent children in l6 States, 19h2, by State . U;

Racial Differences in Recipient Rates

Table 2. — Race of population under age 18, for 16 States, I9U0

Census . )|]|

Table 3* — Race of children approved for aid to dependent children,

for 16 States, October 19^2 . I4.5

Table U. — Children receiving aid to dependent children per 1,000
population under age I8, by race, for I6 States, Octo¬
ber 19U2 .

Size and Composition of Families

Table 5* — ^Average number of persons, by aid status and age, ADC

families, for I6 States, October 19U2 . U6

Table 6. — ^ADC families with persons of specified age, other than
children approved for aid, parent(s) or relative in loco
parentis, for I6 States, October 19U2 . U6

Table 7. — ^ADC families with brothers and sisters under age I8 not
approved for aid, by person with whom approved children
were living, for I6 States, October 19U2 . . ' . hi

Table 8. — ADC families with specified persons in household who

were not members of the family, for I6 States, October

I9U2 . U7

Table 9. — ^Age of persons in ADC families, for I6 States, October

I9U2 . U8

Table 10. — Sex and relationship to children approved for aid of

persons I8 years and over, ADC families, for I6 States,

October 19U2 .

Table 11. — Age of children under age I8, ADC families, for I6

States, October 19U2 . h9

Table 12. — ADC families, by number of children under I8 years, for
16 States, October 19U2 .

Table 13.— ADC families, by number of children under age I8,

adjusted for differences among State populations in the
number of children per family, for I6 States, October

19U2 . 50

Appendix Tables, continued

Page

Children Not Approved for Aid

Table lU. — ADC families, by number of children approved for aid,

for l6 States, October 19U2 . 50

Table 1$, — Children under 16 years not approved for aid, age

group and race, ADC families, for 16 States, October 19U2 5l

Relatives With Whom Children Were Living

Table l6. — ADC families, by relative with whom children were living,

for l6 States, October 19U2 . 5l

Table 17. — Parent to whom payment was made when both parents were

in the home, ADC families, for 16 States, October 19U2 . 52

Reasons for Lack of Support or Care

Table 18. — ADC families with widowed mother per 100 families in
population with children and widowed female head, for
16 States, October 19i|.2 . 52

Table 19. — ADC families: Reasons for lack of support or care by the

father and by the mother, l6 States, October 19U2. ... 53

Table 20, — Children approved for ADC: Reasons for lack of support
or care by the father and by the mother, l6 States,

October 19ii2 . 53

Table 21. — ADC families ivith specified reason for lack of support

or care by one and by both parents, for 16 States, Octo¬
ber :j.9U2 . 5U

Table 22. — ^Reason for lack of support or care by the father, ADC

families, for l6 States, October 19i;2 . 55

Table 23. — ADC families deprived of support or care by the father
for specified reason per 100 ADC families with father
dead, for l6 States,, October 19i4.2 . 56

Table 2U. — Reason for lack of support or care by the mother, ADC

families, for 16 States, October 19l^ . . . . 57

Table 25. — ^Reason for lack of support or care by the mother,

according to reason for lack of support or care by the
father, ADC families, l6 States, October 19U2 . 58

Table 26. — ^Reason for lack of support or care by the father,
according to reason for lack of support or ca:
mother, ADC families, l6 States, October 19U2

58

I, INTRODUCTION

Children deprived of support or care because either the father or mother
is dead, out of the home, or incapacitated, frequently need financial assist¬
ance to ensure for them the continuance of a normal family life. To enable
States to furnish such assistance, the Social Security Act passed by the
Congress in 1935 provides grants-in-aid to States for aid to dependent chil¬
dren. A ^dependent child" for the purposes of the act is defined as a child
under the age of ’l6, or under the age of 18 if attending school, who is
•deprived of parental support or care by reason of the death, continued absence
from the home, or physical or mental incapacity of a parent and is living with
a parent or other specified relative. The Federal Government reimburses the
States for half the amount they expend for aid to dependent children up to $18
a month for the first child and $12 for each additional child aided in the
family. Such grants are made to States that administer programs approved by
the Social Security Board. Since the States are allowed considerable freedom
under the act, the laws and regulations governifig the program vary greatly
from State to State.

The effects of the various State laws, policies, and practices, as well
as the provisions of the Social Security Act, are reflected in the character¬
istics of the families receiving aid. Consequently, an analysis of these
characteristics provides one of the most profitable means of appraising the
operation of aid to dependent children. To provide such information, the
Social Security Board planned a study of the characteristics of recipients of
aid to dependent children to be made by States on a voluntary basis. Sixteen
States made the study in the fall of 19k2; eight of these States included the
section on family incomes in the study.

The l6 States are located in all socio-economic regions of the United
States except the Far West. They are:

Arizona Kansas

' Arkansas Louisiana

District of Columbia l/ Massachusetts
Illinois Jiissouri

Montana South Dakota

Nebraska Utah

North Carolina West Virginia
Oklahoma Wisconsin

These States vary widely not only in geographic location and in social and
economic conditions but also in laws and policies governing the administration
of aid to dependent children. They contain 29 percent of the population under
18 years of age in the United States, and in October 1942 were providing aid
to dependent children to 37 percent of the families receiving such assistance
in the country as a whole.

1/ In this report the District of Columbia is referred to and treated as a
” State. The fact that the District is completely urban and for this reason
is not entirely comparable with the other 1$ jurisdictions should be kept
in mind.

- 1 -

- 2 -

The study was made as of September 19U2 by U States and as of October
I9U2 by the other 12 States. 2/ In U States, the entire case load was
analyzed. The size of the samples in the remaining States varied with the
size of the case load. From two-thirds to one-sixth of the case load was
studied in 11 States and one-eighth in 1 State. Each sample was selected
from the State's total case load on a basis intended to assure representative
results. The sample data were inflated for purposes of analysis so that each
State has its appropriate weight in data for the I6 States combined. The
families represented in this study total 138,060. They contained 331, 9U0
children who had been approved for aid. 3/

This report presents the findings of the study on race, size, and compo¬
sition of families, the reasons for lack of support or care, and related
topics. The study also contains information, on the employment status of the
family, the school and work status of children, and family incomes. The next
report to be published will discuss family incomes.

2/ October 19U2 is referred to as the date of the study since the majority of
the States reported information for that month.

3/ For particulars of the State studies, see appendix table 1.

II. RACIHL DIFFERENCES IN RECIPIENT RAIES

I Race is an important factor in any consideration of the effectiveness of

public assistance in meeting need, because of a greater prevalence of need
among minority races. The combined population under 18 years in the l6 States
participating; in this study contains the major racial groups in almost exactly
the same proportions as are found in the child population of the United
States: 88 percent white, 11 percent Negro, and 1 percent other races. Negro
children, however, constitute more than one-fifth of all children in each of
U States (Louisiana, District of Columbia, North Carolina, and Arkansas) and
less than one-thirteenth in each of the other 12 States. The children of
"other races" are predominantly Indian and are concentrated for the most part
in U States (Arizona, Montana, South Dakota, and Oklahoma). In these States
I the proportion of Indian children ranges from 3 percent in Oklahoma to 15
I percent in Arizona. 1/

In October 19U2, approximately 29 of every 1,000 children under age 18 in
the 16 States combined had been approved for aid to dependent children; the
rate ranged from 16 in North Carolina to 52 in Oklahoma. 2/ Because of the
greater incidence of mortality, morbidity, and desertion among nonwhite fami¬
lies and their less favorable economic status, it is to be expected that
relatively more nonwhite than white children will be eligible for aid to
dependent children. In the 16 States combined, 52 nonwhite children per 1,000
had been approved for aid in contrast to 25 white children per 1,000. The
rate for Negro children was 52 per 1,000 Negro children in the population, and
for Indian children, U7 per 1,000.

As chart I shows, there is considerably more disparity among States in
the proportion of nonwhite children aided (from 8 per 1,000 in Arizona to 198
in Nebraska), than in the proportion of white children aided (from 5 per 1,000
in the District of Columbia to I4.5 in West- Virginia) . 3/

In the 10 States with more than 5,000 Negro children in the population,
the recipient rate for Negro children ranged from lU per 1,000 in North Caro¬
lina to 173 in Illinois. In these 10 States, the rate for Negro children
compares with that for white children as follows:

1/ Race of the population is shown for each State* in appendix table 2.

?/ The recipient rate of some States would be somewhat higher than that shown
" if all eligible children for whom the payment was intended had been ap¬
proved for aid. By including the estimated number of children under I6
years who were eligible but not approved, the recipient rate for Oklahoma
is raised 1; per 1,000; for North Carolina and Vfest Virginia, 2 per 1,000;
and for Louisiana and l^ssouri, 1 per 1,000. For discussion of children
not approved for aid, see page 15*

.3/ See appendix table U.

- u -

Negro

?fhite

Illinois .

173

17

Oklahoma .

1U8

kh

Kansas .

125

2h

lilssouri .

8U

26

Massachusetts. . .

76

21

District of Columbia

5U

5

West Virginia .

50

1;5

Louisiana . ;

U6

39

Arkansas .

22

22

North Carolina .

lU

17

In the 6 States at the top of the list, the rate for Negro children was
approximately from 3 to 10. times that for white children. In West Virginia
and Louisiana, however, the rate for Negro children was little higher; in
Arkansas, it was the same; and in North Carolina, it was less than that for
white children. Since the conditions which render children eligible for aid
are much more prevalent among Negro than white families, it seems a safe
assumption that in at least these last U States relatively fewei needy Negro
children than white children are being aided.

Chart I. — White and nonwhite children receiving aid per 1,000 population
under age 18, ADC families, for 16 States, October 19^2

ALL RACES

N.C.

S.DAK.

ARK.

D.C.

MASS.

ILL.

WIS.

KANS.

NEBR.

MO.

ARIZ.

MONT.

UTAH

LA.

W.VA.

OKLA.

n— 3

V/ZZ//A

V//////X

V7777\

1

Yzzzzm

V//777/A

’////////A

Tzzzzzzzm

^zzzzzzzzzzx

zzzzzzzzzzzzzx

’/7/7V//////77\

WHITE

Z1

...... .1

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZA

YZL

c\ ....’A

V//////X

V7/77/////A

'////////\

y/77/77///7A

y/y/Y/jz/zz/A

_L

25

25

NONWHITE

7ZZZZZZZZZA

y/zyzA

//////7//7y/7/7777///A

TZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZA

’777777777777777777777777777777777777A

777777777777777A

V/77Z7ZZZ7:ZZyY7/7777/Zyjyyjy7777777777777777y/777/7A

Y7/7777777777/77777777777Z/y77777777777777/7y/77777y7yyy7/yA

y77777777777777777777777A

7A

7ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZA

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZA

V7777777777777X

'77777777777/7/////////777777777777777X

0 50 100

.NUMBER PER 1,000 POPULATION UNDER AGE 18

150

200

'Rie States show a similar disparity in the proportion of Indian children
aided. In the 6 States with more than 5,000 Indian children in the popula¬
tion, the rates for Indian children ranged from less than 1 per 1,000 in
Arizona to 11? in Montana. In these 6 States the recipient rate for Indian
children compares with that for white children as follows:

Indian

White

Montana .

117

30

Wisconsin .

106

Oklahoma .

76

hh

South Dakota..

36

19

North Carolina

’10

17

Arizona .

less than 1

36

The extent of need among Indians varies greatly from State to State. The
number of needy Indian children is affected by such factors as the proportion
that are living on reservations, the amount of tribal funds and other re¬
sources of the reservations, and the availability of boarding schools for
Indian children. Furthermore, the proportion of families lacking support or
care because of the death, incapacity, or absence of a parent that are in need
of assistance varies with the ability of members of the family to compete in
the labor market. The rates, therefore, may not always show accurately the
relative degree to which a State is aiding needy Indian children. In Montana
and Wisconsin, where the recipient rate for Indian children is approximately
four times that for white children, it may be assiuned that needy Indian chil¬
dren are not being deprived of aid. In Oklahoma, South Dakota, and North
Carolina, although the rate for Indian children in the first two is only about
twice and in the latter less than that for w'hite children, it might be found
that needy Indian children were receiving aid to the same extent as white
children, if all factors are taken into account. In Arizona, however, it is
obvious that Indian children are not receiving the same consideration as needy
children of other races.

III. SIZE AND CCMflPOSITION OF FAMILIES

For the purposes of this study a family was defined as a group of persons
living together and sharing a common income, which may be received by one
member of the group or may result from pooling the income of several members*
Unmarried children and o1^er relatives were counted as members df the family,
if they were considered as part of the family group and economic unit and not
as a separate family, even though they paid a definite amount for board and
room instead of sharing a common family income. "ADC unit" and "assistance
unit," as used in this analysis, refer to the parent, parents, or supervising
relative and the children approved for aid.

Number of Persons per Family

Ihe families receiving aid to dependent children in the l6 States com¬
bined averaged li.5 persons — 2»k children approved for aid, 0*U children under
18 years not approved for aid, and 1.7 persons aged 18 years and over.

The number of persons per family and the average number of children
approved for aid were the same for nonwhite and white families. Nonwhite
families, however, had slightly more children under 18 years not approved
(0.5 in contrast to O.ii) and slightly fewer persons 18 years and over (i.6 in
contrast to 1.8) than white families .

As shown by the ranges given below, the 16 States varied considerably
in the number of persons per family; 1/

Aid status and age

All persons .

Children approved for aid

Other persons .

Under l8 years .

18 years and over .

Lowest

U.l (Ill. 5 Mass.)

2.3 (Ill., Nebr., N.C.,
1.6 (D.C.)

.1 (Utah)

1.3 (D.C.)

Highest
5.0 (W.Va.)

Okla., Wis.) 3.1 (D.C.)

2.6 (N.C.)

.8 (N.C.)
1.9 (Okla.)

One factor which affects the average number of children approved or not
approved for aid is the Statens maximum age for eligibility for aid to depend¬
ent children. 2/ Although in some States failure to approve all eligible
children JLn the family 3/ offsets the effect of the maximum age limitation,

ADC farflilies in the 6 States in which children must be under 16 years to be
eligible for aid had a smaller average number of children approved (2.3 in
contrast to 2.U) and a larger number of children under 18 years not approved
for aid (0.5 in contrast to 0.3) than ADC families in the other 10 States.

Persons in Addition to ADC Unit

The small proportion of ADC families that had an adult outside the assist¬
ance unit is in itself evidence of the lack of earning power in most of these
families. Of every 10 ADC families, 5 included only the children approved for

1/ See appendix table 5* 3/ See discussion, page l5.

?/ See discussion, pages 10-11.

- 6 -

- 7 -

aid and the parent, parents, or relative in loco parentis; in 2 families all
additional members were children \mder age 18 or persons aged 65 and over; and
only 3 families contained additional members between the ages of 18 and 65.

As might be expected, the proportion of families containing adults in
addition to the ADC unit was larger for families in which children were living
with relatives other than a parent (72 percent) than for families with one or
both parents in the home (1+7 and hi percent, respectively).

The difference among States in the composition of families receiving aid
to dependent children is shown by the following ranges in the percent of
families having specified persons in addition to the ADC unit: h/

16 States Lowest Highest

No other person .

51.6

3l;.l (N.C.)

72.1;

(Utah)

Other person(s) .

All iinder 18 years or 65 years and over
One or more 18-61; years .

1;8.1;

lO

31.6

27.6 (Utah)
7.5 (Utah)
17.1 (D.C.)

65.9

28.7

Ui.U

(N.C.)

(N.C.)

(Okla.)

Any other person: 5/

Under 18 years .

18-61; years .

65 years and over .

25.U

31.6

7.1

9.1 (Utah)
17.1 (D.C.)
1.6 (D.C.)

hS.3

hl.h

9.0

(N.C.)
(Okla.)
(Okla. )

The proportion of families which contain persons in addition to the ADC
unit is affected by the two factors previously mentioned — the State's age
limit for aid to dependent children and the State's practice in regard to
approving all eligible children in ADC families. Obviously, States which do
not aid children over 16 years should have a higher proportion of families
with persons not in the ADC unit. In the 6 States with an age limit of 16
years, 56. U percent of the ADC families contained additional persons in
contrast to i;ii.9 percent in the other 10 States. Ihe percent of ADC families
with children under 18 years who were not included in the ADC unit was 35*2
for the 6 States and 21.1 for the 10 States.

Seventeen percent of the ADC families in the 16 States contained children
under 18 years who were brothers or sisters of the children approved for aid.
The proportion of families with brothers and sisters who had not been approved
for aid was 21; percent for families 7d.th both parents in the home, 17 percent
for families with one parent in the home, and only 8 percent for families with
neither parent in the home. The range in the proportion of families contain¬
ing brothers and sisters who had not been approved was from 6 percent in Utah
to 37 percent in North Carolina. 6/ In half of the l6 States, more than 20
percent of the families contained such children. State variations in the
proportion of children not approved for aid are discussed later.

k/ See appendix table 6.

5^/ Ihe sum of these percentages is more than the percent of total families
” .containing other persons since some families contained additional persons
in different age groups.

6/ See appendix table 7.

- 8 -

Other Persons in Household

Most of the families receiving aid to dependent children (9U percent)
lived in households which contained no person outside the family as previously
defined, liie District of Columbia had the smallest proportion of families
living alone (86 percent) and North Carolina, next to the smallest (89 per¬
cent); Arizona had the largest (99 percent). 7/

Three percent of the families had lodgers, the proportion ranging from
less than 1 percent in Arizona and Utah to more than lU percent in the
District of Columbia. Ihe next to the highest proportion was less than 6
percent, in Missouri.

More than 3 percent of the families had persons other than lodgers,
chiefly other family units, living in the same household. This proportion
ranged from less than 1 percent in Arizona, District of Columbia, and Missouri
to more than 7 percent in. North Carolina.

Age of Persons in Family

From the character of the program it is not surprising that ADC families
have a much larger proportion of children under 18 years and a much smaller
proportion of persons 18 years and over than families in the general popula¬
tion. In the 16 States, as is shown by the following comparison, three-fifths
of the persons in ADC families were under 18 years in contrast to only one-
third in all families:

ADC families 8/ Population

Under 18 years . . .

61.7

32.8

18-Uli years .

23.3

Ul.2

U5-6U years ..*....

12.3

19.3

65 years and over

2.7

6.7

White families receiving aid had a slightly smaller proportion of persons
in the age groups under U5 years and a larger proportion of persons years
and over than nonwhite families receiving aid:

White 9/

Nonwhite

Under 18 years...

61.0

6U.2

18-Iili years .

22.9

2U.9

U5-6U years .

13.2

8.9

65 years and over

2.9

2.0

From the 9 States for which population data are available, most of this dis¬
similarity seems to parallel differences between white and nonwhite families
in the general population.

7/ See appendix table 8.

H/ For State data, see appendix table 9.

£/ Includes some persons of nonwhite races other than Negro. Kie families

represented by such persons constitute only 0.3 percent of all ADC families.

The District of Columbia was exceptional in the age distribution of
persons in ADC 'families, having a much larger proportion under 18 years and a
much smaller proportion years and over than any of the other States. The
age distribution of persons in ADC families in the District and the range of
the proportion in each age group for the other 15 States were as follows:

Range for 15 States

District of

Columbia Lowest Highest

Under 18 years... 71. 14.

18-UU years . 22.6

U5-6i| years . 5.1

65 years and over .9

58.8 (Wis.)
19.6 (Mont.)
10.2 (Mass.)
1.7 Ikrlz.)

65.8 (Ariz.)
25.6 (Mass.)
lU.U (Utah)
U.2 (Nebr.)

The disparity between the District and other States in this respect is not
explained by differences in the age distribution .of the general population nor
by the large proportion of nonwhite families in the District’s ADC case load.
The unusually large proportion of children under I8 years in the District's
ADC families can largely be accounted for, however, by the fact that ADC
families in the District had a much smaller proportion of one and two-child
families than those in other States. 10/

Persons 18 Years and Over

Women greatly predominate among the adults in ADC families. Of every 100
persons aged I8 years and over, 72 were women. 11/ White and nonwhite fami¬
lies, however, differ strikingly in this respect. The percent of females in
each age group, by race, was as ‘follows:

Total

White 12/

Nonwhite

TDtal .

71.7

70.0

79.0

18-UU years .

76.2

71*. 2

83.3

h^-6k years .

69.1*

68.7

73.0

65 years and over

U3.6

1*2.0

52.U

• Of the persons I8 years and .over, 69 percent were parents or relatives in

■ loco parentis, 13 percent were brothers and sisters, and I8 percent were other
I relatives of the children receiving aid. n/ Approximately four-fifths of the
[ parents or relatives in loco parentis were women, while half of all other
^ persons I8 years and over were women.

I Children Under I8 Years of Age

I Of every 100 children in ADC families, 20 were under school age, 37 were

I aged 6-11 years, and U3, aged 12-17 years. Since the majority of children in
y one-child families are very young and- a smaller proportion of one-child^

I “ 10/ See discussion, page 11.
t 11/ For State data, see appendix table 10.
I 12/ See footnote 9, page 8.

- 10 -

families than families with more children are eligible for aid to dependent
children, it is not strange that a smaller percentage of the children in ADC
families than in the general population are under 6 years of age. The distri¬
bution of children under 18 years, by age, in ADC families and in the popu¬
lation of the l6 States was as follows;

ADC families Population

Under 6 years 20.3
6-11 years... 36.8
12-17 years.. U2.9

31.7
32.5

35.8

VIhite and nonwhite families receiving aid to dependent children are quite
dissimilar in the age distribution of children, particularly in the proportion
of children under 6 years and 12-1? years. As is shown by the age distribu¬
tion, according to race, of children in ADC families and in the population,
very little .of this difference between white and nonwhite ADC families can be
accounted for by differences in the general population:

ADC families Population

White 13/

Nonwhite

Tdiite

Nonwhite

Under 6 years

18.9

25.ii

31.5

33.1

6-11 years...

36.6

37.2

32. U

32.8-

12-17 years . .

14^.5

37. U

36.1

3U.1

No explanation has been found for the large difference between white and
nonwhite ADC faimilies in the proportion of children under 6 years. The*
smaller proportion of children 12-17 years in nonwhite families might be
accounted for partly by a tendency to reject applications for older nonwhite
children, but data on this point are not available from this study.

The great differences among States in the age distribution of children
in ADC families is shown by the following ranges in the percentages in each
age group; 0^/

16 States

Lowest

Highest

Under 6 years.

20.3

15.U

(iris.)

26.5

(D.C.)

6-11 years....

36.8

33.6

(Wis.)

39.8

(D.C.)

12-17 years...

U2.9

33.7

(D.C.)

51.0

(Wis. )

12-13 years

15.5

lU.U

(ir.Va.)

17.2

(S.Dak.)

lU-l5 years

16.1

12.6

(D.C.)

18.9

(iris.)

16-17 years

11.3

6.2

(D.C.)

15.0

(Wis.)

One factor accounting for differences in the proportion of children aged
16-17 is the maximuin age for eligibility for aid to dependent children. The
Social Security Act originally -limited assistance to children aged 16 but was

13/ See footnote 9, page 8.
m/ See appendix table 11.

- 11 -

amended in 1939 to extend eligibility to children aged 16 and 1? provided they
were attending school regularly. At the time of this study, 6 of the 16
States (Arizona, District of Columbia, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and South
Dakota) had not taken advantage of this amendment and did not aid children
&ged 16 years and over. The families in each of these 6 States had rela¬

tively fewer children aged 16-17 years than families in any of the other
States. The ADC families in States that aid children up to 18 years are
likely to have a larger proportion of children 16-1? years than those in
States that aid only children under 16 years. The first group of States will
aid some families in which the only children are aged 16 or over. Moreover
there may be a tendency for children 16 years and over to leave home in search
of work if aid is discontinued at 16 years and’ no other resource is available
to help them stay ‘in school.

Variations in the proportion of children aged 16-1? years are not respon¬
sible, however, for the wide differences among States in the proportion of
children at other ages. The age distribution of children under 16 years
varied among States as follows:

16 States Lowest Highest

Under 6 years... 22.9 17.9 (S.Dak.) 28.2 (D.C.)

6-11 years . Ul.5 39.5 (Wis.) 1|3.2 (Mass.)

12-13 years . 17. 5 15.9 (D.C.) 20.2 (Wis.)

114-15 years . 18. 1 I3.5 (D.C.) 22.2 (Wis.)

The disparity among States in the age distribution of children under I6 years
cannot be accounted for ly the differences in the proportion of white and
nomrtiite families receiving aid, since the age distributioiBof white children
under I6 years are correspondingly dissimilar.

Distribution of Families by Number of Children

One-fourth of the families receiving aid to dependent children in the 16
States had only one ckild under 18 years, slightly more than one-fourth had
two children, and slightly less than half had three or more children. In the
number of children under I8 years, ADC families differ from families in the
general population as follows:

Percent having specified number
of children under I8 years

1 child

2 children

3 or more
children

Families receiving aid to dependent
children, I6 States, October 19i;2..

21*. 6

27.6

1*7.8

Total families in general population
having children under I8 years,

16 States, 19140 census .

1*0.7

28.0

31.3

15/ In Wisconsin, although the age limit was 21 years, aiding children over I6
was optional with counties.

638074 O-

-3

- 12 -

It is only natural for ADC families to have a smaller proportion of
one-child families and a larger proportion of families with three or more
children than families in the general population, since families with only one
child deprived of support or care are more often able to get along without
public aid than families with more than one dependent child. The great dis¬
similarity among States in the relative number of ADC families having one
child raises a question, however, whether some States have not overestimated
the ability of small fajnilies to make their own way when the support or care
of a parent is lacking. Ihe difference among the 16 States in the percent
of ADC families with specified number of children is shoym ty the following
ranges: 16/

l6 States

Lowest

Highest

1 child .

2U.6

12.0 (D.C.,

31.7 (Ill.)

2 children .

27.6

22.6 (D.C.)

32.5 (Mass.)

3 children .

20.1

18.7 (Kans.)

26.2 (D.C.)

U children .

12.8

10.1 (Wis.)

17.9 (D.C.)

5 children .

7.6

i;.9 (Mass,, Wis.)

11.2 (Ariz.)

6 children .

3.9

1.8 (Mass.)

6.7 (Ariz.)

7 or more children. .

3.U

2.0 O'Jass,, S.Dak.)

6.0 (W.Va.)

Some of these differences are attributable to differences among States
in population characteristics. According to the 19h0 census, the average
number of children per family having children \mder 18 years varied in the l6
States from 1.9 in the District of Columbia to 2.6 in North Carolina and West
Virginia, The next to the lowest State was Illinois, with 2.0. Another fact
which might possibly account for differences in the distribution of ADC
families by number of children is that in some States these families draw
more heavily from nonwhite families, which have more children per family than
white families. For example, in the District of Columbia nonwhite families
represent 81; percent of the ADC families, but only 25 percent of the families
in the population with children under 18 years; the average number of children
under 18 year's in the District is 1.8 per white family in contrast to 2,5 per
nonwhite family. If the effect of such differences is eliminated, the pro¬
portion of ADC families with one child, with two children, and with three or
more children might be expected to be moderately constant from State to State,
provided the same policies were followed with respect to the acceptance of
one-child and larger families.

When the data are adjusted for State differences in the number of chil¬
dren per family in the total population, the proportion of ADC families with
fewer than three children was 26 percent in the District of Columbia and k3
percent in Arizona, in contrast to proportions varying from 1;9 to 58 percent
in the other States. Excluding the District and Arizona, the ranges in the
relative proportion of ADC families with specified numbers of children were as
follows for the other lU States: with one child, from 20 to 33 percent; with
two children, from 2k to 33 percent; and for three or more children, from 1;2
to 52 percent. Chart II shows this adjusted distribution of ADC families with
specified number of children foi each State. Ij/

16/ See appendix table 12.
17/ See appendix table 13.

- 13 -

Chart II. — kDC families, by number of children,*
for 16 States, October 19U2'

0

20

40

60

D.C.

ARIZ.

MO.

N.C.

OKLA.

MASS.

S.DAK.

W.VA.

KANS.

ARK.

ILL.

LA.

NEBR.

MONT.

WIS.

UTAH

m^ytiyiiiimmL'y/yyyyyy/yy/7//yyyy/zzL

^^mmmmm^yyyyyyy/yyyyyyyyyyyzzE.

ymmmmmmmi'yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyT;^.

i

mmmm^mwz<'y22zyyyyyyyyyyyyy^

m^^mmmmmm^yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyin

myy^<m^ymm^^m^yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyz^

80

100

yy^mymmmmt'yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyzzzEi

■'^■y<<ym^^^m^y^yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy^

yyyym^y^mmm^m^yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy^^^^

TWO CHILDREN

i:-:;:!:! THREE OR MORE CHILDREN

* Adjusted for differences among State ooDulations In tne numoer of cnlldren per family.

It is not possible to adjust the data for all States to eliminate dif¬
ferences resulting from the fact that nonwhite families on the ADC rolls were
disproportionate to their number in the population, because the census gives
information on the number of nonwhite families with children under 18 years
only for selected States. . However, since the previous adjustment indicated
underrepresentation of one and two— child families among those receiving aid in
only the District of Columbia and Arizona, it is not so important to consider
the effect of this factor in the other lU States.

Adjustment of the data for the District of Columbia for the overrepresen¬
tation of nonwhite families in the ADC case load only partially explains the
small proportion of one— child families. Even after this adjustment the
District has a much smaller proportion of ADC families with one child (less
than 12 percent) than any of the other States. Although the population of the
District of Columbia increased considerably between the time of the 1940
census and the date of this study, a large part of the increase consisted of
single persons. It seems unlikely that the incoming families with children
under 18 years were sufficiently different from the family population of 19U0
in number of children to account for the disparity between the District of
Columbia and the other States in the distribution of ADC families by number
of children.

- 11; -

Census data are not 'available to make a similar adjustment of the data
for Arizona. On the other hand, since ADC families in Arizona had a smaller
proportion of nonwhite families than are found in its population, it may
safely be assiimed that this further adjustment would tend to decrease rather
than increase the proportion of one and two-child families among those receiv¬
ing aid. Thfere is another circumstance, however, which is probably respon¬
sible for the fact that Arizona was unlike' the majority of the States in the
distribution of ADC families by number of children. Spanish-American fami¬
lies, which in general have more children than other v/hite families, consti¬
tuted percent of the ADC families. In 1930, only 26 percent of Arizona's
population was Spanish-American. Although the population in October 19U2 may
have contained a larger proportion of Spanish-American families than in 1930,
\inquestionably the proportion of Spanish-American families was much higher
among ADC families than among total families in the State. It seems most
likely that if the data could be adjusted to take into account the character¬
istics of the separate segments of the population from which the ADC families
are drawn, Arizona would not be found to have a smaller proportion of one and
two-child families than the majority of the 15 other States.

As shown below, among ADC families the proportion having only one child
under 18 years was much smaller than the proportion with one chila approved
for aid, and the proportion having three or more children was much larger than
the proportion with this number of children approved.

Percent of ADC families
having specified number of —

Children under
18 years

Children approved
for aid 18/

1 child . 21;. 6 33.9

2 children . 27.6 28.2

3 or more children... U7.8 37.9

This great disparity is explained by the facts previously mentioned that (1)
some children of eligible age under the Federal act are not eligible in
certain States, and (2) a considerable number of children of eligible age
under the State plan were not approved. for aid in some States.

1^/ For State data, see appendix table ll;.

IV. CHILDREN NOT APPROVED FOR AID

In many of the l6 States, agencies fail to approve for assistance all
eligible children who are supported in whole or. in part by aid to dependent
children. The payment approved for many families is less than the maximum
monthly payment permissible under the State plan for the number of dependent
chil^en in the family. A variety of circumstances may account for this fact.
Some families have income and other resources and so do not require the
maximum amount of assistance; other families may need the maximum amount, but
the agency’s finances do not permit meeting need in full for any families; and
sometimes, usually when funds are limited, agency standards for determining
need are so low as to result in maximum paymerfts for only a few cases, even
though need, as determined by the agency, is met in full. When the monthly
payment to be approved is less than the State maximum, it is more or less the
practice in some States to determine eligibility and approve for aid only the
number of children necessary to justify the monthly payment approved. In
States that have a maximum which is the same as the Federal matching maximum
of ^^18 for one child and ^12 for each additional child or is higher, certifi¬
cation of only the number of children necessary to obtain full Federal match¬
ing will be in conformity with the State plan. For exan5>le, if a monthly
payment of ^30 is to be given to a family including four eligible children,
the State can* comply with the provisions of its plan and receive full Federal
matching of the pajnnent by certifying only two of the children.

Another practice which results in approval of fewer than the total number
of children actually aided is the failure to certify children born l/ or
returned from foster care after approval of the family’s application for aid.
Failure to certify such a child does not always deprive the family of addi¬
tional assistance because a few States have a limit on the total payment to a
family which would present an increase in the payment to some families even
though another dependent child is added to the family group.

Since the plans of 6 States participating in the study provide for
assistance only to age l6, children under and over that age are considered
separately in the folidwing discussion.

Children Under 16 Years Not Approved

Missoiiri is the only State which prescribed school attendance as a con¬
dition of eligibility for children Ih and l5 years of age. The ADC families
in all States contained other children under age l6 who, for various reasons,
were ineligible for aid to dependent children. For example, some children in
ADC families are self-supporting; some children approved for aid are not
living with a parent, but in the home of another relative who is able to
support his own children; and, in a few instances, the family may consist of
an ADC unit sharing a common income with a group of self-supporting persons,
including children who do not need aid. Consequently, a small number of

1/ None of the approved children were born after family's application in 8
- “ States, less than 1 percent in 3 States, and from 1.2 to 3.7 percent in
U States.

- 15 -

- 16 -

children of eligible age who have not been approved for aid would normally be
expected in families receiving aid to dependent children. The disparity among
the States in the proportion not approved indicates, however, that in some
States a considerable number of children of eligible age have failed to be
approved for reasons other than those mentioned above. In the families receiv¬
ing aid in the 16 States, alii»st 9 percent of the children under l6 years had
not been approved for assistance. In North Carolina almost 20 percent had not
been approved for aid, but in Massachusetts only a little more than 2 percent.

Chart III. — Children in specified age groups not approved for aid,

ADC families, for l6 States, October 19k2

UNDER 6 YEARS 6-11 YEARS 12-15 YEARS

N.C.

OKLA.

ARIZ.

W.VA.

LA.

MO.

WIS.

NEBR.

ARK.

ILL.

S.DAK.

MONT.

KANS.

MASS.

D.C.

UTAH

0 10 20 30 0 10 0 10

PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT

Die highest proportion of children under age 16 not approved was in the
group aged less than 6 years. In t States, more than 20 percent of the chil¬
dren under 6 years were not approved; in 6 States, between 10 and 20 percent;
and in 6 States, less than 10 percent (chart III). The percent of children of
specified age in ADC families who were not approved for aid, by race, was as
follows; 2/

Ibtal

VOiite 3/

Nonv/hite

Under l6 years .

8.8

7.7

12.3

Under 6 years . . .

17.1;

16.3

20.3

6-11 years .

6.1

5.3

8.7

12-15 years .

6.3

5.5 •

9.8

2/ For State data, see appendix table l5.

3/ See footnote 9, page 8.

- 17 -

Approximately 7,700 children aged 12-15 years were not approved for aid.
Of these, ^UO children, most of them lU and 15 years old, were not attending
school and were working. Some of these children may have been self-supporting.

As shown above, relatively more nonwhite children than white children in
each age group were not approved. These differences may be explained partly
by the greater difficulties in establishing the eligibility of nonwhite chil¬
dren; the required evidence of age or relationship to the payee is sometimes
not easily obtainable. Failure to approve very many children cannot be
attributed to this fact, however, because the proportion of white children not
approved, especially in the group aged less than 6 years, also was high. The
percent of white and of nonwhite children under age 16 who were not approved
for aid is shown for each State in chart IV.

Chart IV. — White* and nonwhite children
under age l6 not approved for aid, ADC
fanilies, for l6 States, October 19U2

PERCENT OF CHILDREN

0 10 20 30

* Includes, In 10 States, some children of nonwhite races other
than Negro. ’-The families represented by such children constitute
less than 1 percent of the ADC families In 8 States and approxi¬
mately 2 percent In tne other 2 States.

When the eligibility of some children has been established, aid for them
should not be delayed if it is apparent that establishing eligibility for
other children in the family will require considerable time. On the other
hand, the practice of determining eligibility for some but not aU
children whose eligibility can be determined promptly, while saving the
worker's time, has serious disadvantages. Ihe practice of not approving all
children for aid does not at the time directly affect the f^lies receiving

- 18 -

aid, if it can be assumed' that the payment to the family would be the same no
matter how many more children were approved. Failure to certify all the
eligible children in ADC families is eventually detrimental to the fainilies,
however, because it may conceal tlie inadequacies of the prograun and may hamper
intelligent administrative planning and legislative action. Ihe State may not
know the total number of needy children in families receiving aid to dependent
children or the total amount of funds required to finance the program in
accordance with State standards. The recipient rate for children and the
average payment per child cannot be compared validly with those in other
States. liYhile the average payment per child does not take into account many
factors pertinent to a consideration of adequacy, it is useful as a rough
meas'ure of the relative level of assistance among localities and States and is
frequently used in demonstrating to legislatures the need for additional funds
for assistance.

It is estimated that the families receiving aid to dependent children in
5 States (North Carolina, Oklahoma, nest Virginia, Louisiana, and Missouri)
contained an aggregate of more than 9,000 eligible children under 16 years who
were not approved for aid. k/

Children 16-17 Years Not Approved

More than half of all children aged 16-1? in the families receiving aid
to dependent children in the 16 States had not been approved for aid. In the
10 States that set the age limit at 18 years or above, more than one-third of
the children 16-17 years had not been approved for aid. The proportion of
nonwhite children 16-17 years who had not been approved was only slightly
higher than the proportion of white children. In the 10 States vdiich’ gave aid
to children until age 18, the percent of children 16-17 years in ADC families
who were not approved for aid, by race, was as follows:

Total Vjhite 5/ Nonwhite

Ibtal, 10 States

36.7

36.2

38.9

North Carolina .

63o

62.6

66.2

ViJest Virginia .

51.2

52.2

39.7

Arkansas .

U6,3

U5.3

1;9.7

Louisiana .

35.3

33. U

38.7

Massachusetts .

31.9

31.7

35.5

Illinois .

29.8

30.1

28.7

Wisconsin .

26.2

26.5

7.1

Kansas . .

2U.6

21;. 9

22.1;

itontana .

22.1

20.9

33.3

Utah .

13.1

13.1

....

h/ Ihis estimate assumes that 7 percent of the children under 16 years in ADC
families in these States were ineligible for various reasons. This allow¬
ance is generous, since two other States with less than 6 percent of the
children under 16 years not approved found upon investigation that some of
the children not approved were eligible, and since in ^ States k percent
or less of' the children under l6 years were not approved for aid.

5/ See footnote 9, page 8.

- 19 -

,3^t- is not surprising that even in the States that have an age limit of
18 years a higher proportion of children were not approved among those I6-I7
years than in younger age groups, since relatively more of these children are
self-supporting or are ineligible for aid because they are not attending
school. Of the 11,800 children aged I6-I7 not approved for aid in these 10
States, 2,U00 or 20 percent were attending school. Nineteen percent of the
not approved white children were attending school, in contrast to 26 percent
of the nonwhite children. A child was considered as attending school even
though because of illness, vacation, or other reason, he was not in school
during the month of the study, if he was enrolled and expected to return,
llie proportion of children I6-I7 years who h^ not been approved for aid,
according to school attendance status, is shoim for each of the 10 States in
chart V.

Chart V. — ^Percent of children aged I6- ‘
17 not approved for aid, by school
attendance status, ADC families ,
for 10 States, October 19U2*

PERCENT

0 20 40 60

N.C.

W.VA.

ARK.

LA.

MASS.

ILL.

WIS.

KANS.

MONT.

UTAH

mM^y//// /////// //////// ////// A

I I

'ymy/y/yyyy7y///y//yyy//zzm

myyyyyyyyy/y/yy/yT/TA

m^yyyyyyyyyyy/yjx

7myyy/yyyyyy/A

^x^/////////A

ATTENDING SCHOOL
NOT ATTENDING SCHOOL

J _ ^ _

* Age limit for aid .was 18 years In all 10 States except Wis¬
consin, which had limit of 21 years but left to counties option
of aiding children 16 years and over. School attendance was
eligibility requirement for this age group In all 10 States,

exceot Wisconsin. t x* 'al.

TWO factors doubtless partially responsible for lack of approval of the
children 16-17 years who were in school are the relatively greater difficulty
of proving age of older children and the necessity of determining school
attendance. In the States which approve fewer than the total number of chil¬
dren for whom the assistance payment is intended, there may be a tendency in
some cases to approve younger rather than older children.

In the 10 States that aid children 16-17 years of age if they are attend¬
ing school, 80 percent of the children of this age not approved for aid, or
approximately 9,U00 children, were not in school. Eighty-one percent of the
white children, in contrast to only Ik percent of the nonwhite children, were
not in school. Presumably, most of these children would be eligible for aid

if they were in school.

- 20 -

Lack of appropriate school facilities, particularly in rural areas,
undoubtedly prevented some of these children from continuing their education.
Furthermore, where schools were available, some ADC families may not have been
able to afford the additional expense involved in the children's school
attendance. In view of the increased job opportunities for children aged l6
and 17 in the autumn of 19h2, it is surprising that more than half of the
children 16-17 years who were not* attending school were also not working.
Children reported as working, however, do not include those who were engaged
in work which was part of a family enterprise, such as a store operated by the
family or a farm.

•Die requirement of school attendance in the Social Security Act was
adopted on the assun^tion that children l6 and 17 years of age could choose
between working or going to school and that the availability of assistance
would encourage them to stay in school. The Social Security Board has recom¬
mended the deletion of the school attendance clause, since it is apparent that
assistance must be denied certain needy children under the age of 18 who can
neither attend school nor work.

V. RELA.TIVES WITH WHOM CHILDREN WERE LIVING

Although the Social Security Act provides for Federal participation in
payments to children living with specified relatives other than parents the
great majority of children receiving aid are living with parents. Of every
100 families aided in the 16 States in the fall of 19U2, 90 had one or both
parents in the home (the mother only in 69, both parents in 19, and the father
only in 2) and 10 comprised children who were living in the homes of other
relatives .

In this report a child is considered to be living with a parent if that
parent was in the home. 1/ A child living vfith his mother and stepfather or
father and stepmother is classified as living with both parents. A child
living with a stepparent, if no natural parent was in the home, is classified
as living with a parent. Ihe children were living with a stepparent in rela¬
tively few families, lU in every 1,000 — 12 with mother and stepfather, 1 with
father and stepmother, and 1 with a stepparent with no natural parent in the
home.

The small proportion of families in which the children were living with
the father only and the range among States in the proportion of such families
(from 0.3 percent in the District of Columbia to 3.2 percent in Oklahoma)
raises a question whether families deprived of the® support or care of the
mother are being assisted by some States in numbers proportionate to the need
of this group.

The 16 States vary greatly in the proportion of families in which chil¬
dren were living with father or mother or a relative in loco parentis. The
States having the lowest and highest percent of families in which children
were living with specified relative yieve as follows: 2/

Lowest Highest

Mother only . 36.8 (La.) Q2,h (D.C.)

Both parents . 9.7 (Ill.) 33.0 (W.Va.)

Father only . .3 (D.C.) 3-2 (Okla.)

Other relatives... 6.0 (S.Dak.) 13.2 (Nebr.)

Chart VI shows, for each State, the proportion of families in which chil¬
dren were living with one parent, both parents, or neither parent. Certain
factors which account for some of these differences among States will be con¬
sidered in the discussion of reasons for dependency.

V^Tiile the number of children receiving aid was 2.U per family, the
average for families in which the children were living with both parents
was 3.1; with mother only, 2,3; with father only, 2.U; and with other

1/ In some instances, even though a parent is in the home, another relative
receives the payment and is looked upon by the agency as the supervising
relative. Ihe relative to whom the payment was made is discussed later.
£/ See appendix table l6.

- 21 -

- 22 -

Chart VI. — Relative with whom children receiving aid were
living, ADC families, for 16 States, October 19ii.2

. PERCENT OF FAMILIES

0 20 40 60 80 100

D.C.

ILL.

MASS.

S. OAK,

WIS.

KANS.

N.C.

ARIZ.

OKLA.

MO.

MONT.

NEBR.

ARK.

UTAH

W. VA.

LA.

relatives, 1.7. Because of these differences in the average number of chil¬
dren, the percentage distribution of children according to the relative with
whom they were living differs from the corresponding distribution of families
as follows :

Percent of families in

Relative with whom which children were living Percent of children living

child was living with specified relatives with specified relative

Mother . 69.2 66.6

Both parents . 19. 6 2^.1

Neither parent.... 9.6 6.6

Father . 1.6 1*7

Of every 20 homes in which neither parent was present, 12 were maintained
by a grandparent of the children receiving aid, 5 by an aunt or uncle, 2 by a
brother or sister, and 1 by other relatives. The percentage distribution of
families with a relative in loco parentis, by sex and relationship to children
of this person, was as follows:

till

1 1 1 1

\

K

\

\

\

X

1

i

1

1 1 1 1

1 1 ! 1

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

\

\

!

\

I

j

1

1

1 1 1 1

III!

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

I I 1 1

1 1 1 1

I'll

ONE PARENT V//A TWO PARENTS (MMlI OTHER RELATIVE

t

23 -

Families Percent with specified

with neither relative in loco parentig

Relative in parent

loco parentis

in home

Total

Male

Female

Ibtal .

13,191*

100.0

17.7

82.3

Grandparent .

8,111

61.5

10.5

^1.0

Aunt or uncle .

3,137

23.8

h.l

19.1

Sister or brother...

1,268

9.6

1.6

8.0

Other relatives .

678

5.1

.9

U.2

Relative to 7/hom Payment Was Made

Of every 20 families receiving aid to dependent children, the assistance
payment was made to the mother in 16, to the father in 2, to a grandmother in
1, and to another relative in 1. The "other relative" was most often an aunt,
with grandfather and sister next in frequency. As indicated below, the mother
received the payment in 62 percent of the families in which the children were
living with both parents, but this proportion varied from 26 percent in
Arkansas to 99 percent in Massachusetts and Wisconsin. The mother received
the payment in 99 percent of the families when she was the only parent in the
home, while the father received the payment in 96 percent of the families
when he was the only parent in the home.

Percent with payee of

Relative with
whom child
was living

Total

families

Specified relationship to

children

Mother

Father

Grand¬

mother

Other

relative

Total .

138,060

80.7

9.1

ill

3/

Both parents .

27,005

61.7

38.2

.1

(U)

Mother only .

95,586

99.1

(U)

.6

.3

Father only .

2,275

.2

96.1

2.8

.9

Other relative...

13,191*

.1

.1

51.0

U8.8

The practice of making the payment to the mother when both parents are in
the home and of sometimes making the payment to a female relative when the
father is the only parent in the home' is undoubtedly the result of the
emphasis placed upon the mother by the old mothers '-aid programs. In order to
uphold the father's status as head of the family, some States make thel payment
to him whenever possible. Bie Illinois Division of Public Assistance declares:

"In many cases where both father and mother are in the home,
the father is incapacitated and unable to support his family but is
still able to act as the head of the group in planning for their
welfare. In such circumstances, although the mother woiad actually
assume the major responsibility for the care of the children, it
may be best for the father to file the application and to act as

3/ Aunt, 1.8; grandfather, 1.2; sister, 0.8; all other relatives, 1.1.
5/ Less than 0.05 percent.

- 2U -

grantee relative. It is important that normal relationships in
the family group be maintained insofar as possible. If the assist¬
ance grant is made in the name of the father, he may still be looked
upon by the children as the source of their support." £/

The l6 States differ strikingly in the relative number of families with
both parents (natural or adoptive) in the home in which the father was the
payee. The proportion ranged from 1 percent in Wisconsin to 76 percent in
Arkansas. The father received the payment in less than one-fifth of these
•families in 6 States, and in more than two-thirds in 3 States (chart VII). 6/

c

Chart VII.— Relative receiving payment in ADC families with
both parents-Jt in the home, for I6 States, October 19h2

PERCENT OF FAMILIES

20 40 60 80 100

WIS.

MASS.

S. DAK.

D.C.

NEBR.

N.C.

MONT.

ARIZ.

MO.

OKLA.

ILL.

W. VA.

KANS.

UTAH

LA.

ARK.

1 1 1 1

%^7777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777Z

1 1 I I

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

1 1 1 1

^^^^^77777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777Z

1 1 1 1

’^S^^^V777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777

1

\

\

\

$

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

1

till

\

1

\

\

\

\

1 1 1 1

'^^^^^^^^777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777'y

1 1 1 1

"^^^^^^^^^^^7777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777/

1 1 1 1

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^V7777777777V77777777V77777777777777777V777777Y77T7777/

1 1 1 1

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

1 1 1 1

,

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

1

1 1 1 1

1

I

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

!

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

FATHER \///0i mother HH OTHER

* Natural or adoptive.

5/ Illinois Division of Public Assistance, Manual of Policy and Procedure,
revised January I9I4.2.

6/ See appendix table 17. '

VI. REASONS FOR LACK OF SUPPORT OR CARE

Title IV of the Social Security Act authorizes Federal financial partici¬
pation in assistance granted by State public assistance agencies in behalf of
needy children who have been "deprived of parental support or care by reason
of the death, continued absence from the home, or physical or mental inca¬
pacity of a parent" and who are living with one or both parents or with other
specified relatives. The Social Security Act, however, does not define
"continued absence" and "incapacity" and therefore is susceptible to broad or
narrow interpretation of these provisions.

State public assistance agencies have formulated policies and developed
rules and regulations for detennining eligibility that range from very general
provisions to specific definitions. States which have detailed and specific
provisions for the determination of eligibility vary greatly in many particu-
lars. In States vrith broad and general provisions, the practice in particular
situations may vary among local agencies and can .be ascertained only by
detailed review of local practices. The exhaustive examination of practice
necessary to explain all State differences is beyond the scope of this study,
but the findings here suggest areas in which more detailed study might be
profitable.

This study confirms what less comprehensive data previously have indi¬
cated — that the differences arrwng States in defining absence and incapacity
result in great lack of uniformity in the types of families receiving aid to
dependent children, and that many States are far from making full use of the
provisions of the Social Security Act.

Major Reasons

To show the various factors contributing to the dependency of children
receiving aid to dependent cliildren in the l6 States, information was
collected on the status of each parent, without regard to the reason for lack
of support or care which was used as the basis for eligibility. 1/

Of the reasons for lack of support or care recognized by the Social
Security Act, death was the most important single factor in the dependency of
families aided in the 16 States in the fall of 19^2:. In 39 percent of the
families one parent was dead, and in an additional 3 percent, the children
were full orphans. Absence from the home for reasons other than incapacity
ranked second. What may be summarized as estrangement from family 2/
accounted for the great preponderance of such absences, but a few parents
were absent in the armed forces, or imprisoned, or absent for other reasons.
In 37 percent of the families, one or both parents were absent because of
estrangement from the family. Incapacity ranked third as a reason for
dependency. In 28 percent of the families, lack of support or care of the

1/ The proportion of all ADC families in the l6 States having each combina-
~ tion of reasons'for lack of support or care by father and by mother is
shown in appendix table 19.

2/ Includes divorce, desertion, separation, and the father not married to the
” mother.

- 25 -

- 26 -

children was occasioned or intensified by incapacity of one or both parents,
living either in the home or elsewhere, 3/

As shown below, lack of support or care by the father was a far more
important cause of dependency than loss of support or care by the mother.

Percent of

Reason for lack of support or care total families 3/

Death . Ul.U

Father only . 3U.6

Mo ther only . . U . 2

Bo th parents . 2.6

Absence from home (for reasons other than incapacity) Ii-0«1

Father only . . . 36. U

Mother only . 1.2

Both parents . 2,6

Incapacity. . 27.6

Father only . 21.0

Mother only . 6.6

Both parents . 1.1

Ordinarily the mother of young children is needed full time in the home
to care for the children and to maintain the home. If the father dies, throv^s
off family ties ’or responsibilities, or becomes incapacitated, the dual
burdens of support and care usually fall upon the mother. Unless there is
another person in the home to care for the children, the mother is frequently
unable to assume the additional burden of support. Sometimes she is able to
work on a part-time basis but often not at all. Hence, for many families the
inevitable consequence of loss of support by the father is dependency.

In the discussion v^hich follows the reasons for lack of support or care
by the father and by the mother are considered separately. Since 98 percent
of the fathers were dead, absent from the home, or incapacitated, in contrast
to only 17 percent of the mothers, the more detailed analysis of State differ¬
ences in reasons for dependency will be based largely on the reasons for lack
of support or care by the father. ^

Lack of Support or Care by the Father

In almost four-fifths of the families receiving aid to dependent children
in the 16 States, the father was not in the home. Among the families in which
the father was not in the home, death was the most important single factor,
and estrangement from family ranked second in loss of the father’s support or
care. In families in which the father was in the home, incapacity was the
principal reason, k/

3/ liie percentages shown total more than 100, since families in which the

father was unable to provide support or care for one reason and the mother,
for another, have been counted twice. For State data, see appendix table 2L
k/ For State data, see appendix table 22.

- 27 -

Reason for lack of support Percent of

or care by the father total families

All reasons . 100,0

Not in the home . * . 78.8

Dead . 37.2

Estranged from family ^/. ... 3^.8

Incapacitated . 2.7

Absent for other reasons.... 3«1

In the home . 21.2

Incapacitated . 19. U

Other reasons . 1,8

Death of the Father

Under the programs of mothers' aid antedating the Social Security Act,
the children of widowed mothers were frequently the only children, and always
the major group, eligible for aid. It may be assumed that all States adminis¬
tering aid to dependent children are assisting the children of widows to the
extent that such children are determined to be economically needy in accord¬
ance with the State's practices in establishing need. Presumably State
programs of aid to dependent children are more uniform in the acceptance of
families in which the father is dead than in the acceptance of families lack¬
ing support or care for any other reason. In establishing lack of parental
support or care, both incapacity and continued absence are variously defined
by the States, but death is hardly subject to qualification.

The number of widows receiving aid to dependent children in the I6 States
in October 19h2 was 17 per 100 families in the population having a female
widowed head and children. 6/ The number ranged from 6 in the District of
Columbia to 30 in Arizona (chart VIII). 7/ The variation among States in the
recipient rate of widows is attributable partly to differences in the propor¬
tion of widows with c'hildren who are needy, but largely to differ^ces in
agency practice in determining need. Unfortunately, it is impossible from
available data to separate these factors and to determine the effect of each.

Although benefits under old age and survivors insurance are not paid on
the basis of individual determination of need, this program might be e^qpected
to have an effect on aid to dependent children by providing for some orphaned
children who otherwise would be eligible for assistance. Possibly because of
the newness of the program and its coverage limitations, old age and sur¬
vivors insurance had not affected aid to dependent children significantly in

5/ See footnote 2, page 25 .

i/ The number of families with female widowed heads and children is estimated
“ by applying I9U0 census data on percent of female widowed heads with chil¬
dren in urban, rural-nonfarm, and rural-farm population in North East,
North Central, South, and West regions to corresponding State figures on
the number of female widowed heads,

7/ See appendix table I8.

- 28 -

October I9I4.2. The rates for fatherless children receiving payments under the
two programs show no correlation in the I6 States.

Chart VIII. — ADC families with widowed mother
per 100 families in population with
children and widowed female head,
for 16 States, October 19U2

NUMBER PER 100 FAMILIES IN POPULATION
0 10 20 30

D.C.

ARK.

MASS.

N.C.

ILL.

LA.

KANS.

NEBR.

MO.

OKLA.

MONT.

WIS.

UTAH
W.VA.

S.DAK
ARIZ.

I

I

'/yy/y>y////////y////y///?i

/yyy/yy/y//////////////////7x

1

>////////y///yy/yyyyyy//yyyzyyyy/yM\

I

w/yyyy/yyyvv/y/yyyyyy/yy/y/yAyyyyyyTTTA

Absence of >the Father Because of Estrangement From Family 8/

For every 100 ADC families in which the father was dead, 96 families were
assisted in which the father was absent because of estrangement from the
family. ^/ In UO families, he had deserted or the parents were separated
without c^ourt decree 5 in 30, he was divorced or legally separated from the
mother; and in 26, he was not married to the mother. The great variation
among State agencies in policy and practice with respect to assisting families
which were dependent for any of these reasons is reflected in the wide range
in the relative numbers of such families assisted — from 33 North Carolina
to 167 in Oklahoma (chart IX). 10/ Even wider ratnges are found in the number
of families in the three subgroups — divorce, desertion, and unmarried.

8/ See footnote 2, page 25.

9/ Because of the relative uniformity among States in the acceptance of fami¬
lies in which the father is dead, interstate comparisons of families aided
for reasons other than death will be based upon the number of families aided
in which the father was dead rather than upon the total families aided.

10/ See appendix table 23.

- 29 -

Chart IX. — Fathers absent because of estrangement from
family* per 100 fathers dead, ADC families,
for l6 States, October 19U2

NUMBER PER 100 FATHERS DEAD

0 40 80 120 160

N.C.

ARIZ.

MASS.

WIS.

S.DAK,

W.VA.

ARK.

UTAH
LA.

MONT.

MO.

KANS.

ILL.

NEBR.

D.C.

OKLA.

YZZZZZZZZZZZA

777////////////////////7A

^J//Z//Z////yZ///y//Z//7777A

^jyyyyyyyyyy/yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy\

yyyy/yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyTTTT^

V7?yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy/77A

v/yyyyyyy/yyyyyyyyyyyy/z/yy/yyy/777A

'/yy/yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyzr/7777yyyA

vyyyyy//yy77yyyyyyyyyyyyyyy/yyyyyyyyyyyyyyy\

zzzj2zjzz/zz2zyyyyyyyyyyyy/-y?y77yz/y/7yyzzm

vyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyT/7777/7yyyyyyyyyyyyy7777A

yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyx

vyyy//yy/y7/yyyyyyyyyyyyyy/yy//yyyyy//yy/ZZ/y/y///yyyyyy7ZZ/yA

I

vyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy7yyyyyyyyy/yy/yyy\

• Includes divorce, desertion, seoaratlon, and the father not married to the mother.

Divorce and legal separation. — The relative number of ADC families in
which the father was divorced or legally separated from the mother ranged from
5 in North Carolina to 66 in Oklahoma (chart X). 11/ Only slight differences
among States may be attributed to variations in the incidence of divorce and
legal separation in their general populations. The range in the proportion of
all families with wife present, in which the husband and wife were divorced,
was from 0.6 percent in North Carolina to 2,k percent in the District of
Columbia. Oklahoma was next highest, with 1.9 percent. 12/

In some States no specific period of time need elapse after a divorce
decree has been granted before eligibility for aid to dependent children may
be established, while in other States periods ranging from 3 months to a year
are required. In one State, if the father fails to pay alimony awarded by the
court and the mother is unwilling to institute legal proceedings for its pay-

11/ See appendix table 23.

I?/ Bureau of the Census, 19U0 population. It should be noted that these per-
centages are based on all families with wife present, including those
v/ithout children. The range for families with children undoubtedly would
be even smaller. Also, divorces do not include legal separations.

- 30 -

Chart X. — Fathers absent . because of .estrangement from family, per 100 fathers
dead, by type of estrangement, ADC families, for 16 States, October 1942

DIVORCE OR LEGAL SEPARATION

N.C.

W.VA.

D.C.

LA.

ARIZ.

ILL.

ARK.

MASS.

WIS.

S. DAK.

MO.

KANS.

MONT.

UTAH

NEBR.

OKLA.

sa

V//////7X

>ZZZZZZ/ZZZZ//////////ZA

^ZZZZZZ//Z//ZZZZZZZZZZ/7A

>ZZZZZZZZZ/ZZZ/////Z/Z//?/7X

^ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ//777i

>ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ/ZZ//ZZZZZZZ/A

DESERTION OR SEPARATION WITHOUT COURT DECREE

N.C.

WIS.

S.DAK.

MASS.

UTAH

ARIZ.

'N.Wk.

ARK.

MONT.

MO.

LA.

KANS.

OKLA.

NEBR.

ILL.

D.C.

v/z/zZ/ZX

ZZZZZZZZTi

7ZZZZZZL

ZZZZZZZzzTTi

ZZZZZZZZ/zz77\

Z/ZZZZZZZZ/ZZ\

ZZZZZZZZZZZz///ZaZX

ZZZZZZ/////ZZZZZ/ZZ7A

\'ZZZZZZZZZZZZ//////A

ZZZZZZZZZZ/Z//y////y/A

VZZZZZZZZZ///////////A

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ/ZA

ZZZZZZZZZ//Z/ZZZZ/ZZ////777X

7ZZZZZZZZZ

^zzzzzzzzzzzzzzm

ZZZZZZZZZZzZZZZZZZZZZ/ZZ///Z77A

/ZZZZZZZZZZ/ZZZZZZZZZZ//ZZZZZZZZZZ///ZzzzzzZ//X

FATHER NOT MARRIED TO MOTHER

UTAH

MASS.

N.C.

S.DAK.

MONT.

ARIZ.

WIS.

KANS.

ARK.

NEBR.

MO.

W.VA.

LA.

ILL.

OKLA.

D.C.

7ZZA

TZZA

TZZZZZA

ZZZZZA

V/ZZZ/l

TVTTm

ZZZZZZZZzzZA

^ZZZZZZZZZZ/ZX

>ZZZZ/Z/Z/Z/Zm

ZZZZZZZZZZ///7A

7ZZZZZZZZzzzzz/////X

7ZZZZZ/Z///ZZZZZZZ/Z777\

ZZZZZZZZ/Z//ZZZZZZZZ/ZZ77A

NUMBER PER 100 FATHERS DEAD

20 40 60 80

NUMBER PER 100 FATHERS DEAD

0 20 40

NUMBER PER 100 FATHERS DEAD

payment, the amount of alimony is considered as a resource in determining need
and the amount of assistance. In some other States, the child of a divorced
father \vho is able-bodied is not eligible for aid unless the mother is unable
by law to compel her former husband to support the child.

Desertion or separation vriLthout court "decree. — ^Among families receiving
aid to dependent children the number of fathers who had deserted or were
separated from the mother without legal sanction per 100 fathers dead ranged
from 18 in North Carolina to 93 in the District of Columbia. The next highest
rate was 62 in Illinois (chart X). 13/ In the population as a 7;hole, the
range in the proportion of families having a vdfe present and the husband
absent was from 1.0 in Vi/isconsin to 5.2 in the District of Columbia. The next
highest viras 3*3 in Louisiana, li;/ With the possible exception of the

13/ See appendix table 23.

m/ Bureau of the Census, 19U0 population. These percentages are based on all
families, including those without children. “Husband absent” includes
husbands who are legally separated from their wives but not divorced, who
are in institutions, or whose residence is not the same as their wives,
such as soldiers, sailors, and men in labor camps. Except for the Dis¬
trict of Columbia, it is assumed that the inclusion of these other
absences makes little difference in the relative proportion of families
with husband deserting or separated without court decree.

- 31 -

District of Columbia, there appears to be little, if any, correlation between
abiSence of fathers in the general population and in ADC families. State
differences in policy and practice in determining eligibility in cases of
desertion and informal separation seem to have more effect in determining the
relative number of ADC families in which children are deprived of support or
care for this reason than the incidence of such absences in the population.

In cases of desertion in the District of Columbia, absence from the home
must have been continuous for at least 1 month before the payment is approved,
with the probability of continuing for 3 months thereafter. At the other
extreme, in Wisconsin, the record must show abandonment to have been for a
period of 1 year, and the filing of a warrant must be verified through the
official who issued it. In South Dakota, which had the second lowest relative
number of fathers who had deserted or were separated by mutual agreement,
desertion must be verified by obtaining sworn documents from three disinter¬
ested individuals, such as businessmen, professional men, clergymen, or city-
officials.

State policies and practices vary in insisting that legal steps must have
been taken to try to compel parental support and oh the length of time which
must elapse sufter desertion before aid is given. The time varies from no
specified period up to a year, with 6 months the most usual requirement.

Father not married to the mother. — For every 100 ADC families in which
the father was dead, the number in which the father was not married to the
mother ranged from 8 in Utah to 53 in the District of Columbia. The next
highest rate was U8 in Oklahoma (cliart X) . l5/ Comparative da-ba on the inci¬
dence of illegitimacy are not available, but it may safely be assumed that
illegitimacy, like desertion and separation without court decree, is highest
in States where large proportions of the population are socially or economi¬
cally disadvantaged. State differences in the extent of illegitimacy are not
sufficient, however, to account for the wide range in the relative number of
ADC families in which the mother is unmarried. It is evident that in many
States moral attitudes make it more difficult for needy illegitimate children
•bo get assistance than for children dependent for other reasons.

State policies and practices concerning the length of time an unmarried
father must have deserted vary as much as for a married deserting father.
Policies and practices also vary in the pressures exerted to establish pater¬
nity. Furthermore, although the State plan may specifically provide that
illegitimate children are eligible for aid, restrictive practices in some
local agencies result in the acceptance of few children of unmarried mothers.

Incapacity of the Father

Incapacity was a less frequent reason for dependency among families
receiving aid in the fall of 19U2 than either of the other reasons specified
by the Social Security Act. The father was incapacitated in 22 percent of
the families— in 19 percent he was living in the home and in 3 percent he was
receiving care elsewhere. 16/

15/ See appendix table 23*
16/ See appendix table 22,

- 32 -

Under mothers* aid, some States authorized aid for children whose fathers
were physically or mentally incapable of earning a living, but in popular
conception and in actual practice mothers' aid w^as extended in large part only
to widows. Consequently, there has been less experience with incapacity as a
basis of eligibility for a special type of aid than with death or continued
absence. Furthermore, determining loss of support or care because of inca¬
pacity presents certain problems not encountered in determining eligibility
for other reasons. It is not surprising, therefore, to find great diversity
among States in defining deprivation of support or care because of incapacity
as an eligibility requirement for aid to dependent children. These differ¬
ences in interpretation naturally result in great dissimilarity among States
in the relative number of ADC families with an incapacitated father. For
every 100 ADC families deprived of support because of the father's death, the
number deprived of support because of his incapacity ranged from 31 in Illi¬
nois to 110 in West Virginia. In 6 States the number with an incapacitated
father was less than half j in 7 States, from three-fifths to somewhat more
than four-fifths; and in 3 States, more than the number in which the father
was dead (chart XI). 17/

Chart XI. — Incapacitated fathers per 100 fathers dead, ADC
families, for 16 States, October 19k2

NUMBER PER 100 FATHERS DEAD

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

ILL.

MASS.

NX.

S.DAK,

WIS.

D.C.

ARIZ.

KANS.

OKLA.

MO.

MONT.

ARK.

NEBR.

LA.

UTAH
W.VA.

I I

AT HOME

\'///\ ELSEWHERE

17/ See appendix table 23.

- 33 -

Some differences among States in the relative number of ADC families in
which the father is incapacitated may be attributed to differences in the
prevalence of incapacity in the population. The health of the population is
affected by many factors which vary from State to State, among them social and
economic conditions, degree of urbanization, major types of industry, the
extent of public health activities, facilities for medical care, and so on.

The census shows, for each State, the proportion of males aged I4 years and
over who in March I9U0 were unable to work because of permanent disability,
chronic illness, or old age, and who were not in institutions for medical care
or treatment. V/hile the amount of disabling illness would probably be differ¬
ent for married men with children, these data afford an index of variations
that might be expected among States. In the 2 States having the lowest pro¬
portion of incapacitated males in the population, this fact may partly explain
their also having a low proportion of ADC families with an incapacitated
father in the home. Among the other 14 States, however, the range in the
proportion of incapacitated males was very small (5.8 to 7*4 percent) and the
position of .the States within that range appears to have little, if any,
effect on the proportion of ADC families having an incapacitated father. It
may be assumed, therefore, that most of the disparity among States in the
relative number of families receiving aid because the father is incapacitated
results from differences in policy and practice in determining eligibility
with respect to incapacity.

State definitions of physical and mental incapacity in determining
eligibility for aid vary in many respects. A State may have a relatively
liberal policy in one respect but be restrictive in another. Moreover, lack
of specific instructions on certain points in the plan and procedural material
of, many States may result in a variety of practice in local units within the
States. The following illustrations indicate the wide range in policy or
practice of the ‘'6 States with respect to some of the factors involved in
determining incapacity as a factor in eligibility. 18/

(a) Degree of incapacity: In South Dakota, children deprived of support
or care because of the incapacity of a parent receive aid to dependent children
only if the parent is totally, and relatively permanently, incapacitated. In
West Virginia, on the other hand, incapacity is defined to cover realistically
all cases of dependency resulting from a parent's incapacity, irrespective of
the nature or degree of incapacity. Emphasis is placed upon the dependency
resulting from the physical or mental incapacity of the wage earner, rather
than upon the degree of incapacity. Although the provisions of another State
iii5)Ose no restrictions on eligibility because of the degree of incapacity, the
general lack of awareness of the implications of health problems on the part
of local agencies results in their determining incapacity largely in terms of
employability. As a consequence, needy children who are actually lacking
support or care ly reason of incapacity may be deprived of aid to dependent
children. FurthenoDre, this emphasis may deny assistance at a time when its

18/ The illustrations of policy are taken from State plan material, and the
— illustrations of practice from the reports of the administrative review by
the staff of the Social Security Board. The illustrations of neither
policy nor practice are necessarily the most restrictive or the most
liberal to be found in the I6 States, and similar policies and practices
may obtain in States which are not mentioned.

- 3U -

provision would help to reduce the duration or the extent of the parent’s
incapacity and thus prevent long-time dependency for the family.

Other restrictions, closely related, to degree, are placed on incapacity
as an eligibility requirement by some States. According to policy, children
whose parents have certain disabilities which can be improved by operative
care or treatment are generally not eligible for aid in Nebraska and South
Dakota. Both States sa-y that in practice the application of this policy is
restricted to cases of hernia. The South Dakota manual states that obtaining
remedial treatment in these cases is considered the responsibility of the
family.

South Dakota also refuses aid to dependent children in cases in which
sanatorium care has been recommended but is refused by the patient; and a
child whose parent is mentally incapacitated is eligible for aid only if the
parent is institutionalized.

(b) Time limitations: Children whose parents are temporarily incapaci¬
tated are ineligible for aid in Wisconsin unless the incapacity is expected to
continue for a year. In other States, the required duration of incapacity
varies from 3 to 6 months.

A few States permit the continuation of payments during a period of
observation, usually not longer than three months, after the apparent dis¬
appearance of incapacity follovring treatment, in order to be assured that
incapacity no longer exists.

(c) Provisions for medical and psychiatric examinations: In some States
the public assistance agency arranges and pays for medical or psychiatric
examinations, while others hold it more or less the responsibility of the
applicant to obtain the required physician’s statement. In some local units,
lack of medical facilities sometimes renders it difficult to establish inca¬
pacity and restricts the number of cases based on this eligibility requirement.
North Carolina requires a notarized statement by the physician attesting to
unemployability. Physicians are reluctant to give such statements. In some
local agencies in another State the statement of the applicant, without a
physician’s report, is sufficient to establish his incapacity.

(d) Responsibility for determining eligibility: Some agencies rely
entirely on the physician’s statement as a means of determining eligibility
with respect to incapacity rather than consider the medical statement as part
of the evidence on which they make a decision. The final responsibility for
determining whether needy children are dependent because of the parent’s
incapacity, although properly the agency’s function, is thereby placed on the
physician.

(e) Consideration of other factors: Some States specify that social,
psychological, and occupational factors, as well as the report of medical
findings, should be taken into account in reaching a decision about the inca¬
pacity of 'a parent, though they differ in evaluating these factors. Other
States ignore some of these factors entirely. For example, job opportunities
are not considered in Illinois. If a partially incapacitated parent is
capable of performing certain jobs, even though such jobs are not available
in the community, he is considered unemployed, rather than incapacitated, and

- 35 -

the children are therefore ineligible for aid to dependent children. Both
the tendency to transfer to the physician the responsibility for determining
eligibility with respect to incapacity and the failure to consider other
factors may be attributed at least in part to the fact that in some States the
instructions for determining eligibility in cases of incapacity deal only with
the physiciq^i's report.

(f) Deprivation of care: In at least three States cases of physical or
mental incapacity are eligible for aid 'to dependent children only when the
breadwinner is disabled. Consequently, some needy families in which the
mother is incapacitated are ineligible for aid. V/hile other States do not
specifically. prohibit aid in such cases, as is shown later, many States give
aid to very few children, if any, who have been deprived of the mother's care
because of her incapacity.

Lack of Support or Care by the Father for Reasons Other
Than Death, Estrangement From Family, and Incapacity

Information on the reasons for lack of parental support or care was based
on the status of the parent with whom the child vfas living or last lived. For
the majority of fathers, the status corresponds with a reason for deprivation
of support or care specified in the Social Security Act and presumably, in
most cases, with the reason from which the eligibility of the children stems.
Ninety-five percent of the families were deprived of the father's support or
care for one of the reasons thus far discussed — death, continued absence
because of estrangement from the family, and incapacity. The reasons for lack
of support or care by the father in the remaining 5 percent of the families
were as follows: 19/

Reason for lack of support or care by the father, Percent of

other than death, estrangement from family, or incapacity families

Ibtal . U.9

No t in the home . 3*1

Imprisoned . 2.0

Serving in armed forces . •h

Absent for other reason . .7

In the home .

Unemployed or with insufficient earnings . 1.0

Not legally responsible . *5

Needed in the home . *2

Support or care not lacking . .1

For every 100 fathers dead, the support of 13 fathers was lacking for one
of these minor reasons. The relative number ranged from 7 in Arkansas,
Missouri, and South Dakota to 29 in Oklahoma. 20/

19/ For State data, see appendix table 22.
20/ See appendix table 23.

- 36 -

•Families in which the father was imprisoned or serving in the armed
forces (2.U percent) would be eligible for aid to dependent children under the
Social Security Act because of his continued absence, and those in which the
stepfather was not legally responsible (0,5 percent) would likewise be eligi¬
ble, because the natural father was dead or continuously absent. Only 2
percent of the ADC families thus remain in which the status of the father does
not in itself indicate eligibility in terms of the Social Security Act. In
more than half of these families the mother was either dead, continuously
absent, or incapacitated. 21/ Lack of support or care according to the eli¬
gibility requirements of the Social Security Act therefore failed to be
apparent from the status of either the father or the mother in less than 1
percent of all families receiving aid. Only ‘ 2 States had more than 2 percent
of such families — 2.2 and 2,8 percent. Seven States had between 1 and 2
percent, and seven, less than 1 percent.

The presence of these apparently ineligible children on the ADC rolls
is to be expected for two reasons. At any time when a cross section is taken
of an assistance case load, some ineligible persons will be found if the
sample is representative. One purpose of a' periodic reinvestigation of cases
is to discontinue assistance to persons who have become ineligible as a result
of changed circumstances. Of necessity, there is some lag between the time
when changed conditions make a person ineligible for aid and the time when he
ceases to receive aid. Moreover, State programs of aid to dependent children
may and do assist some children ineligible under the Social Security Act for
whom reimbursement is not claimed.

Imprisoned. — In 2 percent of the families receiving aid to dependent
children the father was unable to provide support because he was imprisoned.
The number of fathers imprisoned w^as 5 per 100 fathers dead and ranged from 2
in Arkansas to l5 in the District of Columbia. The next highest number was
9 in West Virginia. Part of the difference among States in the relative
number of imprisoned fathers is the result of lack of uniformity in the length
of sentence required to establish the fact that ‘a child has been deprived of
support or care. Ihis varies from no specified time up to a year.

Serving in armed forces. — Only O.U percent of the fathers in ADC families
were serving in the armed forces. Ihe number of such fathers per 100 fathers
dead was 1 and ranged from none in Oklahoma and Wisconsin to 6 in Montana.

Most of these families were receiving aid to dependent children temporarily
while awaiting the first payment under the Servicemen’s Dependents Allowance
Act. A fev/ families may have been receiving aid to supplement dependents'
allowances. Since the time of the study, the Servicemen's Dependents Allow¬
ance Act has been amended to shorten the time between induction of the
serviceman and issuance of the first allowance check to his dependents and to
increase the amount of the allowance for families with children.

Absent for other reasons. — In less than 1 percent of the families the
father was absent from the home for reasons not specified. Ihese cases
include those in which the father is living away from home because of employ¬
ment or for any other reason not previously mentioned. The number per 100

21/ Reason for lack of support or care by the mother, according to status of
the father, by State, is shown in appendix table 2^.

- 37

dead was 2 and ranged from less than 1 in Missouri to 6 in Utah. In almost
three-fourths of these families the mother was dead, absent, or incapacitated.

Unemployed or with insufficient earnings. — Less than 2 percent of all
fathers were at home and not incapacitated. More than half of these were
classified as unemployed or with insufficient earnings. The number of fathers
unemployed or with insufficient earnings was 3 per 100 fathers dead, ranging
from none in South Dakota to 9 per 100 in Oklahoma. In more than two-fifths
of the families in which unemployment or insufficient earnings was given as
the reason for lack of support by the father, the mother was dead, absent, or
incapacitated; and in about one-fifth, the father was a stepparent.

Incapacity in Relation to Absence

Using as a base the number of ADC families in which the father was dead,
the distributions of the relative number of families with the father inca¬
pacitated and with the father absent indicate that the l6 States differ
greatly in the extent to which they were using the provisions of the Social
Sec\irity Act with respect to children deprived of support or care for each
of these reasons. Have the States which have more fully utilized the inca¬
pacity provisions taken equal advantage of the absence provisions? As shown
by the following analysis, there is no uniformity among the 16 States in the
relationship between the importance of incapacity and of absence as reasons
for dependency.

Of the 6 States with the lowest relative number of families with an
incapacitated father, k also had a relatively low, and 2 a high, number of
families with the father absent. 22/ Of the 6 States approximating the aver¬
age in number of incapacitated fathers, 1 had a low, U near the average, and
1, a high number of fathers absent. Of the States with the highest relative
number of incapacitated fathers, 3 had approximately the average, and only 1
a high, number of fathers absent.

Lack of Support or Care by the Mother

The mother's death, incapacity, or absence from the home was a factor
in the dependency of only a little more than one-sixth of the ADC families.

In three-fifths of the families the mother was considered to be needed full
time in the home, and in more than one-fifth of the families the mother was
classified as unemployed or with insufficient earnings. 23/ As sho7m by the
following table, incapacity ranked next to death as a reason for lack of
care by the mother and, unlike the corresponding reasons for lack of support
by the father, absence of the mother because of estrangement from the family
was a much less important reason for lack of care than her incapacity.

22/ The States were classified by dividing the total range for each of these
reasons into three equal parts; the middle third of the range was con¬
sidered "average."

^/ For State data, see appendix table 2U.

- 38 -

Percent of

Reason for lack of support or care by the mother families

All reasons . 100.0

Mot in the home... . 11.2

Dead . ^ . 6.8

Incapacitated . .7

Estranged from family . ; . 2.3

Absent for other reasons . . . ' l.U

In the home . 88.8

Needed in the home . . . 60.1

Unemployed or with insufficient earnings . 22.7

incapacitated . 5.9

Other reason . *1

Needed in the home and unemployed or with insufficient earnings. — ViThen
the mother was not actually employed, the judgment that she was in the labor
force was that of the worker in the agency carrying the case. -According to
instructions for the study, mothers were not to be reported as being in the
labor force if they were not employed and were needed full time in the home to
care for the children or for other family members who were too old or too dis¬
abled to care for themselves, or if the mothers were needed full time in the
home to perform household tasks. A mother not actually employed was to be
reported as available for work only if the children were deemed to be old or
mature enough to look after themselves while the mother worked or it was
believed that some other suitable arrangement could be made for their care. , .
In some families, another adult was in the home and could assume responsi¬
bility for the children.

The mother was needed full time in the home more often when the father
was in the home than when he was absent. The percent of ADC families deprived
of the mother’s support or care for specified reason, according to whether or
not the father was in the home, was as follows:

Total

Father

Father not

families

in home

in home

Needed full time in home.

77.7

55.U ■

Unemployed or with insufficient earnings 22.7

9.8

26.2

Other reason .

. . 17.2

12.5

18. U

Although sometimes an

incapacitated father may be

able to

supervise the

children while the mother is at work, generally the presence of an incapaci¬
tated father in the home makes it more important for the mother to remain full
time in the home. Also, the larger number of children in these homes would
make it necessary for more mothers to devote full time to home duties. The
average number of dependent children per family was 3.1 when the father was
in the home, in contrast to 2.3 when he was absent.

Individual States differ v/idely in the extent to which mothers were
classified as needed full time in 'the home (chart XII). In Massachusetts,
Utah, and YIest Virginia, more than 9 of every 10 mothers who lived at home and

- 39 -

were able-bodied were considered to. be needed full time in the home. On the
other hand, in the District of Columbia, Arkansas, and North Carolina, only
about 5 of every 10 such mothers were judged to be needed full time at home.

Chart XII. — Reason for lack of support by the mother in ADC
families with nonincapacitated mother in home,
for 16 States, October 19k2

PERCENT

0 20 40 60 80 100

W.VA.

MASS.

UTAH

LA.

ILL.

KANS.

ARIZ.

MO.

OKLA.

NEBR.

MONT.

S.DAK.

WIS.

N.C.

ARK.

D.C.

UNEMPLOYED OR WITH INSUFFICIENT EARNINGS Y///X NEEDED IN THE HOME

The great range among States in the proportion of mothers who were
reported as unemployed or with insufficient earnings indicates that the
practices in some States encourage many mothers who would be considered as
needed in the home in other States to supplement the family income by work¬
ing. Undoubtedly the smallness of the assistance payment has forced some of
these mothers to accept employment. The fact that in some States a consider¬
able proportion of the mothers receiving aid were v/orking or seeking v.^ork also
suggests that, v/ithout due consideration of its effect on the welfare of the
children, other mothers were probably denied or dissuaded from applying for
assistance because they were considered employable.

The importance of permitting mothers with young children to remain in
the home has been recognized in national wartime policy. Despite acute labor
shortages, the policy adopted by the V/ar Manpower Commission is that "no woman
responsible for the care of young children should be encouraged or compelled
to seek employment which deprives her children of her essential care until
after all other sources of labor supply have 'been exhausted." 2I4./

'^^^^7777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777.

1 1 1 1

'^^^7777777777777777777777777777777777/7777777777777777777777777777777/

1 1 1 1

m7^7m7777777777777777777V7V7777777V777r7V77777V777V77V7777777y7777777777.

till

W^7^^^V777V77V777777777777V77V7V777V7y777/7777777V777777777777777777y

1 1 1 1

77^^7^^^^^^M77777777V777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777

1 r 1 1

'7777^7^W^7^^^^W7777V7777777777V7V77777777777V77777777777777777777/

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

^^7^^7^^^^^^^^rV7777777777777V77777777777777777777777777777777/

1 1 1 1

^^^^^^^^^^^^^777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777.

till

'^^^^^^^^^^^^^^77777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777/

1 1 1 1

’^777^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^777777777777777V7V777V777777V77V77V7V77V7V7V7777

1 1 1 1

77^^7^^^^^^^!^^77777777777777777777V7V77777777777777777777777/

1 1 1 1

99S6SS6SS6>9S66S666666^$S6666/S>6!$97$7S^/// ////////////// /////////////////////7/////

till

'7^7^77777^^^^^7^^^^^M^7^777777777777777V7V777777777777777777777^

1 1 1 1

'^7^^’'^^^^^^^^^^^^^W777777777777777777777777777777777777/

1 1 1 1

_ 1 _ ^ ^ ^ _

2l|/ Directive No. IX, issued August 12, 19^2.

Dead, incapacitated, or absent for other reason. — While 17 percent of the
families were deprived of the mother's support or care because of her death,
incapacity’', or absence, more than 93 percent of these families were also
deprived of the father's support or care. 25/ Approximately 1 percent of all
families were dependent primarily because deprived of the mother's care.

A mother can usually manage to keep the children with her if the, father's
function of support is assumed by the Agency. It may be more difficult to
find a substitute for the mother's care vfhen she is absent or incapacitated.

In some instances, however, supplementing the father's earnings by assistance
enables him to purchase the services a mother would perform and thereby main¬
tain a home for his children. The influence of the old mothers '-aid philos¬
ophy is apparent in the reluctance of many States to give aid to dependent
children to fathers whose children have been deprived of a mother's care.

In every 1,000 families receiving aid in Oklahoma, there were 26 in which
the mother's death, incapacity, or absence was the chief reason for need
(father was in the home and not incapacitated). In 11 of the other l5 States
(chart XIII), the corresponding rate was less than 5 per 1,000.

Chart XIII. — ADC families dependent primarily because of lack
of care by the mother,* for l6 S'bates, October 19k2

NUMBER PER 1,000 FAMILIES AIDED

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

OKLA.

NEBR,

KANS.

MONT.

ARIZ.

ARK.

N.C.

UTAH

ILL.

MO.

LA.

W.VA.

D.C.

MASS.

WIS.

S.DAK.

* Nonlncapacltated father In the home; mother dead, Incapacitated, or absent for other reason.

25/ Reason for lack of support or care by the father, according to status of
the mother, by State, is shown in appendix table 26.

VII. CONCLUSIONS

Analysis of the characteristics of families receiving aid to dependent
children in l6 States in the fall of 1942 indicates some respects in which,
under the existing provisions of the Social Security Act, States could aid'
more needy children and more effectively serve children already receiving aid.

1. In some States, aid to dependent children is frequently not available
to all children who are eligible to receive it under the State plan. For
example :

(a) Practices in the administration of aid to dependent children in some
States apparently result in assistance to fewer Negro and Indian children than
white children in relation to the number of needy children in the respective
populations. The disparity among the 16 States in the proportion of Negro and
Indian children receiving aid is far too great to be explained by differences
among States in the extent of need aroong children of these minority groups.
Furthermore, a low recipient rate for Negro or Indian children is not always
explained by a generally restricted program in the State; it occurs in some
States with a relatively high recipient rate for white children.

(b) The relatively small proportion of one-child families receiving aid
suggests a tendency to reject such cases in at least one of the 16 States.

2. In several States, certain needy children fail to receive aid because
by law, policy, or practice, some eligibility requirements of the State
program are narrower than those specified for Federal matching under the
Social Security Act. For example:

(a) The wide discrepancy among the l6 States in the number of families
receiving aid to dependent children that were deprived of parental support
or care because if incapacity indicates that many children who are dependent
for this reason were not receiving this type of aid. Although the Federal
act places no conditions on incapacity as a factor in eligibility, for admin¬
istrative purposes it is important for States to define this factor specif¬
ically. Some State plans, however, require an undue degree or duration of
incapacity, or otherwise restrict eligibility in such cases. Tlie provisions
of some other States are so general that in practice their application may be
equally limited.

(b) Similarly, a more limited interpre.tation of what constitutes lack
of parental support or care because of absence results in some States' deny¬
ing aid to dependent children to certain children who would be eligible for
this type of aid in other States. In such cases, eligibility is restricted
by a requirement that the absence shall have continued as long, as a year or
that legal steps have been taken to try to con^^el parental support.

*(c) In some States, the relatively small proportion of fathers receiving
aid on behalf of dependent children deprived of the care of the mother may
indicate failure to recognize deprivation of care as an eligibility factor
when support is not lacking. A father who ordinarily would be able to support

- Ill -

- U2 -

his family may be unable to maintain a home for his children if services to
substitute for the mother’s care must be purchased.

(d) The Social Security Act provides for aid to children who are other¬
wise eligible up to age l6 and to age l8 if they are attending school. In
6 of the l6 States, children over 16 years were ineligible for aid whether or
not they were in school; in 1 State, school attendance was a requirement for
children ll; and l5 years of age.

3. The findings of the study suggest the following ways in which the
program could be made more effective:

(a) The right of mothers to choose aid rather than employment v>rhen
employment will result in neglect or inadequate care of the children is
implicit in the objectives of the program and conforms with the employment
policy of the War Manpower Commission. The large proportion of mothers in
some States who were working or were judged to. be available for work seems to
indicate, however, that the agencies encouraged some mothers who had young
children and vfere needed full time in the home to seek employment. Higher
assistance payments are a prerequisite to releasing mothers from employment
when they are needed in the home.

(b) Making the father the payee whenever possible helps to uphold his
status in the family. The infrequency of payee fathers in some States
suggests that the desirability of this practice may not always have been
considered.

(c) Determining the eligibility of all children in families in which
any child receives aid to dependent children, and certifying them for aid if
eligible, contribute to good administration of the program. The practice in
some States of failing to approve large numbers of eligible children in fami¬
lies receiving aid has concealed important facts about the program — the number
of children for whom aid was intended and the amount of assistance per child.
This situation makes it difficult to evaluate the program and to justify the
need for additional funds, and thus directly affects the children who are
receiving aid.

By modifying the laws, policies, and practices that deny aid to children
who. are eligible under the Social Security Act and adversely affect the chil¬
dren who are receiving aid. States can realize more fully the objectives of
the act's provisions for aid to dependent children.

APPENDIX

- 44 -

TaM* of uuaplo and nonth to idiich data relate, study of

aid to dependent ohlldren in l6 States, 19^> ^7 State

State

Sampling

proportion

Humber scheduled

Humber represented
by sample ij

Month
to tdilch
data relate,

1942

Families

Children

Families

Ohlldren

Total .

..

42,300

103.433

138,060

331.940

irlsona .

-^'3

1.377

3.738

2,066

5.607

October

Arkansas .

2/5

2,407.

6,262

6,018

15.655

October

District of Columbia

all

1,029

3,159

1.029

3.159

October

Illinois .

1/6

3.776

8,525

22,656

51.150

September

Kansas .

2/5

2,44o

6,119

6,100

15.298

October

Louisiana .

1/4

3.412

8,745

13,648

34.980

October

Massachusetts .

1/4

2,627

6,234

10,508

24.936

October

Missouri .

1/8

1,687

3.967

13.833

32.529

October

Montana .

all

2,283

5.731

2,283

5.731

October

Hebraska .

H 1/2

4,922

11,274

4,922

11.274

September

North Carolina. .

1/3

3.179

7.371

9.537

22,113

October

Oklahoma .

1/6

3.095

7,016

18,570

42,096

October

South Dakota... .

all

1,84o

4,336

1,84o

4,336

September

Utah . .

all

2,6l8

6,916

2,6l8

6,916

October

West Virginia.'.' .

1/4

3,016

8,102

12,064

32,408

October

Wisconsin .

1/4

2,592

5.938

10,368

23,752

September

^ ?or rarloue reasons, these Inflated totals do not correspond exactly vith the number of
families and children reported as reeelTln^ aid In surrey month.

2/ Since only l/>4 of Souclas County oases were sampled, the proportion was only 4$ peroent.

Table 2. — Bace of population under a^e 18 for l6 States, 1^40 census

State

Population
under
age 18

Percent

of epeelfled race

White

Honwhlte

Total

Hegro

Indian

1/ •

All

other

Total..., .

11,708,390

88.1

11.9

11.1

0.8

(2)

Arlsona .

182,723

82.7

• 17.3

2.3

14.5

0.5

Arkansas . '. . .

727.726

75.0

25.0

25.0

' (2)

(2)

District of Columbia

145,403

65.0

35.0

34.7

.1

.2

Illinois .

2,103.511

.94.9

5.1

5.0

. (2)

.1

Ksasas .

540,779

96.4

3.6

3.5

.1

Louisiana .

846,011

61.6

38.4

38.2

.1

.1

Massachusetts .

1,169,601

98.5

1.5

1.4

(2)

.1

Missouri..., .

1.085,679

93.7

6.3

6,3

(2)

(2)

Montana .

171,967

95.0

5.0

.1

4.7

.2

Hebraska .

407,090

98.6

1.4

.9

. .4

.1

Horth Carolina .

1,402,824

69.4

30.6

29.8

.8

(2)

Oklahoma .

827,953

89.3

10.7

7.4

3.3

(2)

South Ikikota .

217,223

95.0

5.0

.1

4.9

(2)

Utah .

207,831

98.5

1.5

.1

.9

.5

West Virginia .

718,360

94.3

5.7

5.7

(2)

(2)

Wisconsin .

953.709

99.0

1.0

.4

.6

(2)

}J Humber of Indians under a«;e 18 estimated for 8 States (Arkansas,
District of Columbia, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts,
Missouri, and Vest Virginia) .

2/ Less than 0.05 percent.

. 45 -

T»41* 3>— of ehildron approrod for aid to da^ndaat ohlldraa,
for l6 Statoa, Ootobor 1942

Stata

Chlldran
approrad
fdr aid

Psreant

of spaelflad raea

Whlta

lonwhlta

Total

Macro

Indian

All

othar

Total .

331. g'w

78,6

21.4

20.1

1.3

(1)

Arlsona .

5.607

95.6

4.4

3.8

. .2

.4

Arkansas .

15.655

7'v.4

25,6

25.6

D1 strict of Oolunbla

3.159

15.2

84.8

84.8

Illinois .

51.150

65.4

34.6

34.6

Kansas .

15,293

83.9

16.1

15.9

.2

Louisiana .

3U.930

57.9

42.1

41.9

.1

.1

Nasssichusetts .

24,936

94.9

5.1

5.0

.1

Missouri .

32,5J^9

82.0

18.0

18,0

(1)

Montana .

5.731

83.4

16.6

.4

16.1

.1

Kabraska .

11.274

89.7

10.3

7.9

2.0

.4

Horth Carolina .

22.113

73.7

26.3

25.8

.5

Oklahoaa .

42,096

74.3

25.7

20.9

4.8

South Dakota .

4,336

90.7

9.3.

.4

8.9

Utah .

6,916

99.4

.6

.1

.5

(1)

VIsat Tlr^lnla. .....

32,408

93.7

6,3

6.3

Wisconsin .

23^752

96.1

3.9

1.4

2.5

\J Las* than 0.05 pareant.

Tahla 4.— Chlldran raoalrln^; ADC ^ par 1,000 population
undar a^e 18, bj raea, for l6 Statas; Ootobar 1942

Ohildran raealrlnf ADC par 1,000 .
population undar ac* 18

Stata

ill

Whlta

Monvhlta

Total

Macro

All

other

Total .

29

25

52

52

45

Arlsona . \

31

36

8

52

1

Arkansas . .

22

22

22

22

Dlstrlot of Coluabla

22

5

54

54

Illinois .

25

17

171

173

Kansas .

27

24

123

125

5«

Louisiana .

42

39

46

46

56

Massacfausatts .

22

21

73

76

25 '

Missouri. .

29

26

84

84

33

Montana .

34

30

113

104

ll4

Mobraska .

27

24

198

224

i42

forth Carolina .

16

17

13

l4

10

OklahoM .

52

44

126

148

76

South lUota .

20

19

37

137

36

Utah .

35

l4

26

13

Wist Tlrclnla. .

45

V

50

50 '

WLsoonala .

25

24

100

95

104

_

ij Ohildran raportad as rsoalTln* ADO In Ootobar 1942 uara
dlstrlbotad aooordlns to raea as In saapla studlad In
ourra/ aonth.

- 46 -

■feble 5* — ^Average number of persons, by aid status and age,
ADC families, for l6 States, October 19U2

Number per family

State

All

persons

Children
approved
for ADC 1/

Other than children
approved for ADC

TtoUl

Under 18
/ears

l8 years
and over

Tbtal .

k.5

2.4

2.1

0.4

1.7

Arizona .

4.9

2.7

2.2

.5

1.7

Arkansas .

4.5

2.6

J..9

.3

1.6

District of Columbia.

4.7

3.1

1.6

.3

1.3

Illinois .

4.1

2.3

1.8

.2

1.6

Kansas . . .

4.2

2.5

1.7

.2

1.5

Louisiana .

4.7

2.5

2.2

.4

1.8

Mas sachusetts .

4.1

2.4

1.7

.2

1.5

Missouri .

4.6

2.4 '

2.2

.5

1.7

Montana .

4.2

2.5

1.7

.2

1.5

Nebraska . . .

4.4

2.3

2.1

.4

1.7

North Carolina.. .

4.9

2.3

2.6

.8

1.8

Oklahoma .

4.8

2.3

2.5

.6

1.9

South Dakota . .

4.3

2.4

1.9

.3

1.6

Utah .

4>4

2.7

1.7

.1

1.6

West Virginia . .

5.0

2.7

2.3

.5

1.8

Wisconsin . . .

4.3

2.3

2.0

.2

1.8

1/ In 6 States (Arisona, District of Columbia, Missouri, Nebraska, Okla¬
homa, and South Dakota), the age limit for aid was 16 years; in Wiscon¬
sin, 21 years, but aiding children over l6 was optional with counties;
in the other 9 States, 18 years.

Table 6. — ADC families with persons of specified age, other than children
approved for aid, parent(s) or relative in loco parentis,
for 16 States, October 19U2

State

ADC

familleB

Percent with —

No

other

person

2/

Other person(i

)

Any other
person 1/

Tbtal

All

under 18
years or

65 years
and over 2/

Any

other

person

18-64

years

Under

18

years

y

65

years

and

over

Tbtal .

138,060

51.6

48.4

16.8

31.6

25.4

7.1

Arise na . .

2,066

49.4

50.6

23.6

27.0

37.4

3.3

Arkansas .

6,018

57.8

42.2

17.1

25.1

20.5

5.9

District of Columbia

1,029

67.4

32.6

15.5

17.1

22.4

1.6

Illinois .

22,656

57.5

42.5

11.3

31.2

15.5

7.7

Kansas .

6,100

66.4

33.6

9.5

24.1

U.9

4.5

Louisiana... . .

13,648

53.6

46.4

15.7

30.7

23.4

6.0

Massachusetts . .

10,508

65.0

35.0

9.1

25.9

12.2

5.2

Missouri.... . .

13,833

43.3

56.7

24.2

32.5

35.3

9.0

Montana .

2,283

67.7

32.3

11.0

21.3

12.9

5.5

Nebraska. . .

4,922

48.8

51.2

22.5

28.7

30.3

7.8

North Carolina .

9,537

34.1

65.9

28.7

37.2

45.3

7.9

Oklahoma .

18,570

39.7

60.3

18.9

41.4

37.3

9.0

South Dakota .

1,840

50.8

49.2

' 21.8

27.4

30.0

7.8

Utah .

2,618

72.4

27.6

7.5

20.1

9.1

2.7

West Virginia.......

12,064

48.4

51.6

20.6

31.0

31.0

5.0

Wisconsin . '. .

10,368

53.8

46.2

11.4

34.8

16.0

9.2

1/ The avn of these percentages and those for "any other person 18-64 years" la more
than the percent of total families coutainlng other persons, since some families
contained additional persons in different age groups.

2/ See footnote 1, table 5.

- -

Ift'bl* faailies with brothers and sisters under a^e 18 not

approred for aid, by person with whom approved children were
living, for l6 States, October 19^2

State

AOC

families

Percent of specified type with
brothers and sisters under
age 18 not approved for aid ^

All

families

Both

parents

One

parent

Neither

pso'ent

Total .

138,060

17.4

24.2

16.8

8.3

Arl tone .

2,066

31.7

32.7

32.0

25.3

Arkansas .

6,018

16.8

23.0

16.2

7,3

01 strict of Columbia

1.029

20.5

30.6

19.3

18.5

Illinois .

22,656

8.6

12.6

8.5

5.0

Ksinaas . . .

6,100

7.6

10.4

7.6

1.0

Louisiana .

13,648

l4.l

16.3

14. p

5.1

Massachusetts .

10,508

9.3

11.1

9.^*

5.4

Missouri. .

13.833

26.3

36.1

25.4

10.8

Montana .

2,283

7.8

12.4

7.3

2.4

Hebraska . .

4,922

24.0

28.0

25.4

11.4

forth Carolina......

9.537

36.8

49.9

37.1

19.1

Oklahoma .

18,570

21.4

29.8

21.3

8.9

South ikkota. .

l,84o

24.7

31.6

24.5

11.7

Utah. .

2,6l8

5.8

8.7

4.7

2.5

Ns St Virginia .

12,064

24.7

32.3

22.4

10.3

Wsconsln .

10,368

7.8

9.7

8.1

4.1

^ See footnote 1, table

e

Table 8. — i.DC families with specified persons in household lAo were not
nenbers of the family, for l6 States, October 1942

State

ADC

families

Percent with specified
other persons In household

None

Lodgers

Oth«r

pertoni

Lodgers
and other
persons

Total .

138,060

93.6

3.0

3.4

(1)

2,066

99.2

.4

.4

Arkansas .

6^018

96.7

1.7

1.6

HI strict of Columbia

1.029

85.7

i4.2

.1

Illinois .

22,656

90.3

3.4

6.3

(1)

r.-..-

6,100

95.0

2.1

2.9

Louisiana .

13^648

92.1

3.1

4.7

.1

Massachusetts .

10,508

96.8

1.6

1.6

13,833

93.5

5.7

2,283

94.0

2.8

3.2

4.922

93.4

3.9

2.7

forth Carolina .

9.537

88.9

4.0

7.1

18,570

97.0

1.1

1.9

South Dakota .

1,840

94.1

3.9

1.9

.1

Utah .

2,6l8

95.5

.6

3.8

.1

1? o64

95.1

1.0

3.9

10,368

91.9

5.5

2.6

Ij Less them 0.05 percent

- 48 -

VaM« 9. — JLgp of porooas In ASC faallloa,
for 16 Statoa, Oetotar 1942

Stata

Faraona

In ADC
faalliaa

Fareant of apaelflad ac*

TTndar

18

18-44

45-64

65 and
oaar

Total^ .

622.557

61.7

23.3

12.3

2.7

Arlaona. .

10.216

65.8

a. 9

10.6

1.7

Arkanaaa . ;

27.332

63,4

a.i

U.3

4.2

Olatrlot of Oolnatola

4.842

71.4

22.6

5.1

.9

Illlnola .

93.306

60.4

25.2

11.9

2.5

lanaaa .

25.835

63.2

20.8

13.9

2.1

Lonlalana. .

64.728

61.5

23.9

12.3

2.3

Naaaaehtiaatta .

42.716

62.1

25.6

10.2

2.1

Mlaaonrl .

63.698

61.8

22.5

12.6

3.1

Montana. .

9.673.

63.7

19.6

13.3

Habraaka. . .

a. 610

61.4

20.9

13.5

4.2

lorth Oarollna. . .

46,449

63.3

23.0

10.8

2.4

Oklahona. .

88.506

60.2

24.5

12.9

2.4

South Dakota. .

7.936

63.1

a. 6

12.Y

3.0

TTtnh .

11.466

63^2

20.0

l4.4

2.4

Vaat Yirclaia. .

60.036

63.4

22.6

12.2

1.8

Vlteonain .

44.208

58.8

22.8

l4.6

3.8

Tablo 10. — Sox and' relatlonahlp . to ehlldran approrod for aid of x>*raoBO 18 paara
and oTar, ADC faalliaa, for 16 8tata», Ooto^r 1942

Stata

' Faraona

18 ^aara
and OTar

Fareant of apaolflad

Sax

Halatlonahlp

Mala

Tam ala

Faranta or
ralatlraa
in loco
parantla

Brothara

and

alatara

Othar

ralatlTaa

Total .

238,468

28.3

71.7

69.2

12.8

18.0

Arlaona. .

3.499

26.9.

73.1

72.9

18. 3

8.8

Arkanaaa .

10,007

28.9

71.1

74.9

9.2

15.9

Dlatrlet of Columbia

1.386

16.0

84.0

82.0

11.3

6.7

Illlnola .

36.990

22.9

77.1

67.2

14.5

18. 5

Kanaaa .

J*5ao

25.7

74.3

76.9

11.2

11.9

Loulalana. .

24,948

31.7

68.3

71.8

11.8

16.4

Masaaohuaatta .

16,200

22.0

78.0

73-1

i4.9

12.0

Missouri .

24,346

28.9

71.1

68.8

10.7

20.5

Montana. .

3.517

27.5

72.5

78.4

8.7

12.9

Nebraaka. .

8,344

30.2

69.8

70.2

12.3

17.5

Forth Carolina. .....

17.067

27.5

72.5

64.6

16.6

18.8

Oklahoma. .

35.268

31.7

68.3

62.5

10.3

27.2

South Dakota. .

2.933

24.4

75.6

71.5

13.(5

15.5

Utah .

4,215

31.5

68.5

82.0

10.8

7.2

Vast Tlri^nla .

22,000

33-5

66.5

72.9

13.5

13.6

Wisconsin .

18,228

28.2

71.8

65.4

15.7

18. 9

TaM« 11. — i^e of children nnder a^e 18, ADC faalllee,
for l6 States, October 1942

State

Children
under
age 18

Percent of specified age

Under

6

6-11

12-17

Total

12-13

i4-15

16-17

Total . .

38*^.089,

20.3

36.8

42.9

15.5

16.1

11.3

Arisona. .

1

6.717

18.6

37.7

43.7

17.0

16.4

10.3

Arkansas .

17.325

21.0

38.1

40.9

15.4

i4.9

10.6

District of Columbia

3.456

26.5

39.8

33.7

i4.9

12.6

6.2

Illinois .

56.316

19.5

35.8

44.7

15.5

16.1

13.1

KansM .

16.315

18.4

36.6

45.0

15.8

16.5

12.7

Louisiana. .

^.78p

22.1

36.5

4l.4

15.2

15.1

11.1

Massachusetts .

216,516

16.2

37.8

46.0

15.8

17.7

12.5

Missouri .

39.352

20.6

3*. 5

40.9

15.8

16.0

9.1

Montana. .

6,156

a. 8

36.2

42.0

15.2

11.6

Hebraska. .

13,266

17.4

37.7

44.9

16.6

17.9

10.4

Horth Carolina. .

29.382

19.0

37.9

43.1

15.5

15.9

11.7

Oklahoma. .

53.23*

23.8

36.7

39.5

15.0

15.2

9.3

South Dakota. .

5.003

16.1

38.2

45.7

17.2

18.1

10.4

Utah .

7.251

20.4

36.2

43.4

i4.q

15.5

13.0

West Tlrglnla. .

38.036

23.0

36.1

4o.9

i4.4

15.5

11.0

Wisconsin . .

25.980

15.4

33.6

51.0

17.1

18. 9

15.0

Table 12. — ADC families, bj number of children untler 18 :rears,
for l6 States, October 1942

State

ADC

families

Percent with specified number of children

1

2

3

4

.5

6

7 or

more

Total .

138.060

24.6

27.6

20.1

12.8

7.6

3.9

3.4

Arl Eona .

2.066

l4.l

23.6

24.3

15.8

11.2

6.7

4.3

Arkansas .

6,018

22.3

25.8

21.5

14.5

8.5

4.6

2.8

District of Columbia

1.029

12.0

22.6

26.2

17.9

9.2

6.3

5.8

Illinois .

22,656

31.7

28.4

19.1

10.5

5.7

.2.5

2.1

Kansas .

6,100

26.3

29.4

18.7

11.8

7.8

3.4

2.6

Louisiana. .

13,648

24.4

25.2

19.6

12.7

8.8

5.2

4.1

Massachusetts .

10,508

25.4

32.5

22.6

10.8

4.9

1.8

^0

Missouri .

13. *33

22.5

27.8

20.5

13.8

8.2

3.*

3.4

Montana. .

2,283

27.3

27.1

19.9

12.0

6.9

?-4

3.4

Kebraeka. ....1 .

4,922

26.3

29.1

18.8

12.3

6.5

4.0

3.0

forth Carollnsu-. .. . .

9.537

16.5

27.3

a.i

15.9

10.3

5.6

Oklahoma. .

18.570

22.2

27.9

19.8

l4.o

8.0

4.1

4.0

South Dakota. .

l,84o

22.7

31.0

20.6

12.5

7.2

4.0

2.0

Utah .

2,6l8

26.4

25.7

19.7

13.2

7.5

4.2

West Tlrglala. .

12,064

19.5

24.4

19.6

15.3

10.1

5.1

6.0

Wlsoonein .

10,368

31.4

28.4

18.8

10.1

4.9

2.9

3.0

y 0.5 percent of ADC faalllee had no children under a^ 18; some counties la
Vlsconsln give aid to children up to 21 years.

-.50 -

fabla 13. — iDC fMlliM, by ntuiber of ^lldron imdor mg* 18.
•dJtLotod for difforoneoa eaon^ Stato 1>oimlatlons
In tho mibor of diildron par faally.
for 16 Statoa, Ootobar 19U2

Stata

Pareant of faMlllaa with

apaclflad naabar of ehlldran

1

1 child

2 ehlldran

3 or Bora
ehlldran

Arlaona. .

17.1

25.9

57.0

Arkanaaia .

25.6

28.7

45.7

Olatrlct of Colnabla

8.0

18.4

73.6

Illlnola .

25.8

24.5

49.7

Kanaaa .

25.3

28.8

45.9

Loiiiolana. .

26.0

28.5

45.5

Naaaadbnaatta .

24.5

30.4

45.1

Nlaaoori .

20*. 3

27.4

52.3

Montana. .

28.8

24.8

46.4

Habraaka .

26.4

27.4

46.2

Hortb Carolina. .

a. 7

32.3

46.0

Oklabona. .

23.6

29.5

46.9

Sooth Dakota. .

24.6

33.1

42.3

Utah .

33.2

24.0

4^8

Vaat Virginia. .

25.0

28.1

4^.9

Vleeonaln .

30.8

27.6

4i:6

Sabla l4.— ADO faadliaa, bp moibar of ohlldr'a approrad far aid,
for 16 Stato a, Ootobar 1942

" stata

▲DC

fanilloa

Pareant with apaolflad

Boabar of ahlldran approrad y

1

2

3

4

5

6

7 br

aoro

total .

138,060

33.9

28.2

17.8

10.5

5.^

2.6

1.6

Arlaona .

2.066

24.0

27.9

21.0

13.6

8.6

3.6

1.3

Arkanaaa .

6,018

27.3

27.8

20.3

13.5

6.4

3.4

1.3

Uotrlot of Ooltiabla

1,029

16.3

^.5

25.5

17.0

8.4

4.8

3.5

Illlnola .

22,656

38.7

27.8

16.5

9.‘»

4.2

1.9

1.5

Kanaaa .

6,100

30.9

29.0

17.9

10.9

6.4

2.9

2.0

Looialana .

13,648

30.8

27.4

18.0

11.5

6.5

3.7

2.1

Naaaaohnaatta .

10,508

29.5

32.8

21.0

9.5

4.5

1.1

1.6

Klaaoorl .

13.833

34.8

28.6

16.7

11.0

5.4

2.5

1.0

Montana .

2,283

32.1

26.9

18.7

11.0

6.1

2.9

2.3

lobraaka .

4.922

38.2

27.5

16.2

9.1

2.8

1.1

lorth Oarollna.

9.537

32.0

31.4

19.0

10.7

4.8

1.5

.6

Oklahoaa .

18,570

39.5

26.8

15.6

9.5

2.5

1.2

Sooth Ikkota .

1,84o

33.5

30.1

17.6

9.9

5.5

*2.5

.9

Utah .

2,618

29.6

26.4

18.2

12.6

6.8

3.6

2.8

Vi at Virginia .

12,064

27.6

26.4

19.7

12.6

7.1

Co

2.6

Vlaoonaln .

10,368

38.4

27.9

16.4

8.5

4.5

2.1

2.2

^ Soo footnota 1, tabla 5'

- 51 -

Table 19. — Childrea aader 16 jreara not approTod for add, gronp amd raiea,

IDC fnalliaa, for 16 Staitas, October 1342

Percent of children in epecified a^ gronp net approred for add

State

All races

White 1/

lonidilte

Tinder

16

Tinder

6

6-11

12-15

Tinder

16

Tinder

6

6-11

12-15

Tinder

16

Under

6

6-11

12-15

Total .

8.8

17.4

6.1

6.3

7.7

16.3

5.3

5.5

12.3

20.3

8.7

9.8

Arisona. . .

7.9

20.3

4.7

4.6

7.6

19.7

4.6

‘^.3

14.5

31.0

6.1

12.3

Arkansas .

5.3

12.7

3.1

3.0

4.7

11.1

2.9

2.9

6.8

16.7

3.6

3.2

District of Columbia

2.7

6.8

.9

1.5

2.0

8.5

sees

• sees

2.8

6.5

1.0

1.8

Illinois. .- .

6.1

1.2.2

4.3

4.3

5.‘^

13.

3.5

3.8

7.2

10.9

5.7

5.6

lansaa .

5-Z

7.1

2.7

2.9

3.0

5.6

2.3

2.5

7.0

12.3

4.8

5.6

Louisiana....' .

19.4

6.i

5.9

7.8

18.1

5.3

4.2

11.4

20.8

7.5

8.5

lUssadiusetts .

2.3

7.1

1.4

.9

2.4

7.6

1.4

.9

.3

.7

Missouri .

9.2

18.2

5.3

8.2

8.4

15.6

5.0

8.2

12.7

^.1

6.9

8.1

Montana. .

5.1

4.2

9.2

3.2

8.8

10.5

6.3

10.3

■ebraska. .

5.7

14.1

3.H

4.0

5.2

11.9

3.^

3.9

11.5

3.8

5*?

forth Carolina. .

19.7

35.9

lb. 2

14.1

17.3

33.8

13.4

12.5

25.9

W.6

23.4

18.6

Oklahoma. .

13.2

21.2

9.5

11.3

11.3

18.9

8.6

9.2

18.2

26.0

12.1

17.9

South Dakota. .

4.0

9.6

2.6

3.0

3.6

9.3

2.3

2.8

7.7

10.6

5.5

6.7

Utah .

3.‘‘

5.7

2.2

3.2

3.‘»

5.7

2.2

e e t e e

a e e e e

sees

e e • e a

West Tirginia. .

10.3

20.3

6.^

7.1

10.1

20.2

6.4

6.8

13.

21.5

9.2

11.6

Wiseonsin . .

6.7

16.0

5.*^

3.«

6.6

15.7

5.5

3.8

11.2

(2)

....

8.6

Xj Inelndea. in 10 Stntea, eone children of nonidilto rncea other than Hegro. The faniliee represented by anch
children constitute 0. 3 percent of adl ADO feailiea; less than 1 percent of the ADC families in 8 States
(Arisona, lansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, Horth Carolina, and Utah) and iqpproxinataly
2 percent in the other 2 States (Vebraiska and Wisconsin).

2/ lot oonputed; bates too small.

Table 16. — ADC families, by relatire with whom children were liring, for 16 States, October 1942

Percent in ^ich children are living with —

State

ADC

families

Both parents

Mother

only

lather

only

Step¬

parent

other

relative

Total

latnral

or

adoptive

Mother

and

step¬

father

lather

and

step¬

mother

Total .

138,060

19.6

18. 3

1.2

0.1

69.2

1.6

0.1

9.5

2,066

23.5

23.0

.4

.1

68.6

1.3

6.6

Arkaneae .

6ioi8

24.5

23.1

1.2

.2

62.6

2.0

(1)

10.9

District of Columbia

1.029

10.5

10.2

.3

82.4

.3

.1

6.7

Illinois .

22,656

9.7

8.3

1.3

.1

81.1

.8

.1

6,3

6,100

20.1

19.8

.3

■ (1)

70.4

1.5

8.0

13.648

31.3

29.1

2.0

.2

56.8

2.1

9.8

10,508

13.833

12.7

21.1

ii.5

20.3

1.2

80.2

.7

.2

6.2

.7

.1

68.1

1.5

9.3

Montana. .

2,283

20.8

20.0

.6

.2

66.5

1.8

.1

10.8

lebraska. .

4,922

19.0

18.2

.7

.1

66.2

1.6

.2

13*^

Worth Carolina. .

9.537

15.6

15.1

.4

.1

70.1

1.5

• 3

12.5

18.'i70

18.6

15.8

2.5

.3

66. 5

3.2

11.7

South Dakota. .

1,840

13.9

13.5

.3

.1

''VI

.8

6.0

Utah . .

2.618

32.1

31.3

.8

(1)

58.6

Xa 6

.1

7.4

West Virginia. .

12,064

33.0

32.1

.6

.3

57.1

2.2

(1)

7.7

Wisconsin .

10,368

15.0

i4.9

.1

(1)

72.3

.8

.1

XXe S

if Less than 0.0^ percent.

- 52 -

T&ble 17. — Parent to whom payaent was made fdien
both parents were in the hone, ISC fanilles,
for 16 States. October 1942

State

Fanilles
with both
parents
in home 1/

Percent in «Aich
paynent was nade to —

Mother

Father

Other

relatlre

Total

Ixisona .

ixkansas .

District of Ooltmbla
Illlnol .

25.281

60.3

39.6 .1

475

1.393

105

1.896

77.6

24.2

92.4

65.5

21.8

75.8

7.6

34.5

Kansas .

Louid sma. ...
Massachusetts
Missouri .

1.205

3,972

1,212

2,813

43.8
26.0
98.7

74.9

56.2

73.9

1.3

25.1

. . . 1
.1

Montana .

Hebraska . .

Horth Carolina,
Oklahoma . .

456

898

1.437

2,94o

79.4

84.0

80.8

71.0

20.6

14.9

19.2

28.8

1.1

.2

South Dakota. .

Utah . .

West Tirginla,
Wi soon sin. . . . .

24s

8I9

3.872

1.540

.95.2

33.2

49.7

99.2

4.8

66.7

50.3

.8

\] Both natural or adoptire; does not include families in
idiich one parent is a stepparent.

Table 18.-~A.SC families with widowed mother per 100 families
in population with children and widowed female head,
for 16 States, October 1942

State

Families in
population
with ohlldren
and female
Widowed head

y

ADC families
with widowed mother

■umber

Bsr 100 families
with children
and female
widowed bead

Total .

277,969

46,589

16.8

Arisona .

2,720

824

30.3'

Arkansas .

18,643

2,015

10.8

District of Columbia

4,972

292

5.9

Illinois .

51.519

7,992

15.5

Kansas .

12,124

1.920

15.8

Louisiana .

25,016

3.924

15.7

Nassacfau setts .

32.516

4.656

14.3

Missouri. . .

26,191

4.354

16.6

Montsina .

3.099

683

22.0

Nebraska .

7.906

1,288

16.3

North Carolina .

31.578

4,680

14.8

Oklahcma .

22,710

4,452

19.6

South Dakota .

3,029

818

27.0

Utah . . .

3.135

771

24.6

West Virginia .

14.673

3,604

24.6

Wisconsin .

18,138

4.316

23.8

^ Istloiated by applying 1940 census data on percent of femsde
widowed beads with children in urban, rural-nonfam, and
rural- farm population in North last. North Central, South,
and West regions to corresponding State figures on the
npmber of female widowed heads.

- 53 -

Cable 19. — UW faalllea: Baaeont for lack of eupport or caro b/ the father and bp the aothor,

16 States, October 1942

Beaeon for lack
of the father's
support or care

Bircent of

faallles

with

epecifled
reasea for
lack of
the father's
support
or care

Bircent of faallles with specified reason for lack
. the aether's support or care

of

let In hoae

In home

Cetal

Bead

>s-

traaced

1/

Inca¬

paci¬

tated

Other

reason

Cotal

leeded

la

hesie

Unea-

ploped

?/

•

laca-

pacl-

tated

Other

reason

Setal .

100.0

11.2

6.8

2.3

0.7

1.4

88.8

60.1

22.7

5.9

0.1

■either parent

la hoae

Nether onlp in

noae

■et la hoae .

7«.«

9.5

5.6

1.9

0.6

1.4

69.3

>♦3.7

20.6

>♦.9

0.1

Bead .

37.2

3.5

2.6

.4

.2

.3

33.7

21.4

9.9

2.4

(4)

lotranced

35. «

2.3

1.4

.3

.9

30.9

18.8

9.7

2.3

.1

lacapacltated

2.7

.4

.2

(4)

.1

.1

2.3

1.7

,5

.1

Other reasea.

3.1

.7

.5

.1

(3)

.1

2.4

1.8

.5

.1

(4)

Ihtber ealp la hoae

Beth parents la hoae

In hoae . .

21.2

1.7

1.2

0.4

0.1

(k)

19^

16.4

2.1

1.0

(4)

laoivaoltated

ISA

1.1

.8

.3

(4)

(4)

18.3

15.4

2.0

.9

Oaeaploped 2/

1.0

.4

.3

.1

(4)

(4)

.6

.5

(4)

.1

(4)

Other reason.

.8

.2

.1

(4)

.1

.6

.5

.1

(4)

^ laolndes dlroroe, desertion, and aeparatloa.

^ Or with Insofflelent eamlncs.

V Inolndes dlroroe, desertion, separation, and the father not aarrled to the aether,
^ Less than 0.0$ percent.

Cable 20.-~Chlldren ^prored for ASC; Beasons for lack of support or care bp the father and bp the aother,

16 States, October 19^

Bsroent of
children

Bsroent of children with specified reason for lack of
the Mother's support or care

Beason for lack
of the father's
etqppert or care

wna

tp«olfl«d
reasea for
IsbCk of
the father's
support
or care

lot In hoae

In hoae

Cotal

Bead

Xs-

tran^ed

1/

Inca¬

paci¬

tated

Other

reason

Total

Heeded

In

hoae

Oaea-

ploped

2/

lacsi-

paci-

tated

Other

reason

Total .

100.0

8.3

5.2

1.6

0.6

0.9

91.7

6«I.O

19.0

4.6

0.1

■either parent

in hoae

Mother onlp In hoae

lot la hoae .

73.3

6.6

4.0

1.3

0.4

0.9

66.7

46.2

17.1

3.3

0.1

Bead .

36.1

2.5

1.9

.3

.1

.2

33.6

23.4

8.6

1.6

(4)

lstraa<ed

31.2

3.2

1.5

.2

.6

2g.O

18.8

7.6

1.5

.1

laoapacl tated

2.7

.3

.2

(4)

.1

(4)

2.4

1.9

.4

.1

Other reason.

3.3

.6

.4

.1

(4)

.1

2.7

2.1

.5

.1

(4)

Ihther onlp In hoae

Both parents la hoae

la hoae .

26.7

1.7

1.2

0.3

0.2

(4)

25.0

21.8

1.9

1.3

(4)

lacapacltated

24.9

1.1

.8

.2

.1

(4)

23.8

20.8

1.8

1.2

Uaeaploped 2/

1.1

.4

.3

.1

(4)

(4)

.7

.6

(4)

.1

(4)

Other reason.

.7

.2

.1

(4)

.1

(>♦)

.5

.4

.1

(4)

ij Includes dlroroe, desertion, and separation.

2/ Or with Insufficient eamlncs.

V Includes dlrorce, desertion, separation, and the father not aarrled to the aother.
^ Less than 0.0$ percent.

Tablt 21.— JLDC fudlitt with sp#oifl«d r«Moa for look of oopport or e«ro kj ono and bj both paroato* for l6 Statos» Oetobor 19^

u

o

I

Vt

o

I

xi

49

t

9

d

8

>4

iS

>« ^

a d

3||

&

A

I

s|

*1

A «

* ••
n

d

e

■

4

O

M

e

5

cul

^ K

ti

^ %4

4* ^

mi

t

4» S

s

i

n

O

04

-I

«5

A

S

w

i

I

*il

O S

sl

49

I

d

49 5

n

o

VO

•

K\

M

M

S

KN

kC\

irv

(\i

VO

r*^

KN

tr\

•

VO

CM

VO

CM

d

o

49

s

i

4*

d

4»

00

00

00

ir\ KNVO <H irv 9N fH

CM

K\

«H CM

O w

• ITN

^CM^

trv •

m if\

^ VO 00 CM

00 ICVd" K\

CM VO OJt

00 00 oxd*

VO 00 00 K\ vOKVOOr^ OVOOVOOV CMOOr^rM
CM»^K>(M CMi-4 cm CMCMKVCM KV

VO o irvvo

* • • •

00 «-t H

OVOO CM h-

Jd rHVO Jd VOI^CM*iC^ Cm'h^W^

Tfv jt K>^ if\vo 00 m irv uSif ifv

irvi# ifv irvh-

ITNCM CM

• • •

o

ss

JdOvCMH^ »<>OCM00

a> ON 00
f 1 <H CM*

r^jt H 00

ovcM crvo

• • • •

CM »H

• • • •

ovvo irv

• • •

00 K\K\

vocMvor^ h-ocr^ ^ oo oo lo f-iooirvav

CMKVd'jd KVhSi^KV k>cmcmcm

evCMjd* ov

« • • •

CM

^ 00 ir\

• • • •

CM ^ CM

oo irvvo o

• • • •

KMTVp-I kv

irvCM r^Jt

• » • •

IH CM CM KV

JO ovf^ ir\

• * • •

— KVOO

CM VO VO

O 1-4 <-IVO

QCMKVf^ OVONH-vr^ ^ H ^ »-4

HS KV \C\Jt Jt KV ^ KVKVCMjd T^KVCMKV

ir\ o

CM CM CM

00 0\Jt KV

OM

O OJtVO ov

•H iH KV

K\jt CM CM
• • • •

K\|H 00 ir\

KVKVCM I-I

Mvo 00 r^
• • • •

00 CTVOQ
CM «H N

O oo rH C7V

• • • •

00 r^vo o

CM CM CM CM

OVVD IfVO

* • • •

ON Q 00

I-I^ K\CM

KVONCTVJt

• « • •

CM CM IH f-l

cno Jt r«-

• • • •

iH KV CM CM

KVjt ovo

• • • •

CM CM ITVCM

ON o iTv

• • • •

p-t fH CM K\

VO ITVCM VO

• • • •

KVOVCM <rv

Jt KVKVKV

w ^ %

irvjt h-
K>f»\)t

CM ^

• •

h-vD
KV

r^iHvor^ jtooh^iH

ITVCM ITSfH

KV KVITV KV

Kvjt VO

Jt KvKVjt

49

d

tl

• d

• «H

• o

•

• o

• o

•

• Vi

• O

•

m 49 m
d O «H

• ^ o
u d

49

4»

ij t

• <H o d

d <• d o
d •H • •

3ljs

d

d

il§ I

d

4>

o

d jq 4
4» d

• o ^

X OB OB o

d

li

_ d

Id ^

§

^ d

o

49 O

• •

O • w

M D > X

?-s

s

d

o

•

d

s

8

O

>«

o

>4

o

I

u

A

l4

A

a

49

o

I

Vi

U

JB

49

o

a

o

49

I S

4»

O

d

u

s

4»

u o

o

a d

•

iH •

d o

4>

o •

gi

o •

•ss

• £

• o

y a

4»

d u

• o

O Vi
Vi

8,a

jq

•

e %

d

s

aa

i

d

fO

it

4>

o

o

Vi

o

5

>4

e

S M

#d

4>

M

A

R

•H _

A a CVd

W

Pi

aa a

a d
• u a

§■

81! .
#H 4* d

^a

A

O

d *d •H

J 5 d

a o A

d

§

s

ji

49

u

o

Vt

a>

d

%*

t,

A

49

o

A

Vi

O

•

o

O

8

A

g*

A

O

I

• 4*

d • d

• •

• MO
d d d
O f

d A

'C 9 ITV • d

8d O ^
« d

• 4> O d 4»

*6 d o d

• d Vi a

* •r4 d a o
a o o A 84
o «-! 4> a
84 Vi. ITV A
O Vi a o

► da 4^4

rl • • o •

^ d r-l O

>9 ^ ■8 £ 8

d Ti d d
iH a iH a i-i
O o a o
d V* d a d

l-l O IH M HI

\

Table 22.— .Reason for lack of support or care b/ the father, ADC faalllest for l6 States, October 1942

55

d

o

•

d

s

•d

e

.H

Vi

o

1

u

o

Vi

U

s

4»

' e

5.

e

\i

O

$*

o

4>

84

O

1

1]

O

e

iH

a

e

.H

1

4>

d

e

o

u

£

^ d 1
e 'H o

iS

K>

•

0

eg 41^^ eg • k\ ^ ^ 4f\ • eg •

• •• •••* ••«•

: : :

*H i •

4» ^ O r-l

£42*5

5 s • ,

l£\

•

0

• • • c • •

• ^ KNNo ttxri • 4 •cgje •

• • • • ^ *

• • • • • «

• • • • • •

* *2 %1 ^ j. •

g ^844ag* E w
Seo4>6^ad

0

•

0H

e

cgsoerxso eg irv^e irt * cr\ 0 r-i

HrHCg •iHpi

•

e

4* 84 d

d e 2

s

5 ® 2

•

0

■H soj4 ir\ osor-iH ir\o\r^o

eg H fH

i ^ •
r 2 o

«i5a

jt

•

0

K%F-^«oeg fHegiTviTN f-^o^cg • t-ur 0 •

• •• •••• ••••

eg ♦ »H •

• •

• •

1 • ^

■ ^ s

M 84 2
dl ®

0

•

eg

js o>eg ITS irNh»cg 0 lojr sova
#•«• •••• •••• ••••
f4 ^ fH eg KNi^ eg«H^cg eg ih eg eg

*d

e

4»

«

4»

.H

1

d

sS

S!-S

•

eg

eg tfMO K> 0 K\ je so so ITk K>h-cg r1

• ••• •••• ••••

ir\i-ije eg eg eg je eg eg trNK\f-i K>rHcg^

^ i

Jt

0

o^•

fH

K\K\VO ri ^OOKNCg K\034VC r*» Cg

• ••• •••• •••• ••••

pir\^as OiHegcg r-t 9>vi> vx> jd eg kmtv

^eg FiKNHeg egiHp^iH «-ik\k\i-i

4>

e

ei

f-l

SI

ir\wjtJt VC H dNiTN to eg f4 oervHSo

• ••••
ITiVC je iH iH K\vc ^ Kvjt 0 SO SO KNVD OV

egegr-iF-4 cgKNF^cg egegegf-t

K

.H

9

Vi

g

8«

Vi

<i

e

1

84

4>

•

SS

• S! ^

tT:o£-si »

* 9 o •• r -

H H .9

r—

•

cr>

r-4VCKNO ONVO O H

• «•• •••• «••• ••••

VO r— VO u\ jdh-ifNKN meg 0 f—

fH fH fH i-I ^

0 • e ^ ^

^ 4> 4» d 4> e

4* . d 4 0 M J

8« b • u <d d

a 0 4 4» e 2

a

0

•

iTi

Kvov-deg vor^sum H%K>egr- fhvo 0 m

• ••• •••• ••••

egmsQKv irvjt 0 m ^voojd eyssoKvso

FHM^Cg F^F4F^r^ fHfHfHfS F-f

• 0 a as* a

9Sg

P4 3 (H

»-l

•

rH

or^egvo kmooo ^^voeg vojeKNe—

• ••• •••• •«•• ••••

so o^eg 9v vo^ Itvkn vovoegso vpf.>egjt|-

F^F^ ^ M

•3

4*

£

SO

•

ir\

K\

^ eg er^40 vo f4 F-e ov ^ eg meg vovomm

• ••• •••• ••«• ••••

VO mvo r*- r—oor— mosovo iHsomo

eg KvHSmm k\^ meg eg m

'9

«S

eg

•

K\

avdvojd f4 ^^vovo OF-ioveg

e

4*

4

4*

CO

Total .

Arisona .

Arkansas .

District of Coluabla
Illinois .

Kansas .

Louisiana .

Maseachusetts .

Missouri .

Montana .

Nebraska .

North Carolina .

OklahcBM .

South Dakota .

Utah . :

Vest Tirginia .

Visoonsin .

S

4»

O

ii

ii

e

tt t

u

o

u

o

I

m M
- e

5t:

4» O

^ 9<

is

-S&

•H

Vi

fl

JB

•*» 4*

8^

|4 ^

8.^

ir\ d •

o ^

• Q

8

Je u

2 8.

** &in

• o

e • o

--I-

d d d

o o • o
d d e d

M 1^ M »H

I

e .

/

0*9 percent in which the father

Table 23. — ADC faalliee deprlred of support or .care bj the father for epeclfled reason
per 100 ADC fanllles with father dead, for 16 States* Octgber 1942

aj-si

0 *

iH

• • • •

*^4 • 4 4

M SI e

4* H 0 H

H

• 444 44

4 , 4 4 4 4

4 H 4-1 <>J >N.HCM 4 • ,^10 ^4

4 KV •4•^4^ 4»0*4

• 4 4 4 4 4

*^■3.

4

rraojKvai je tf>iH e>

0 9^

4

4

4

4» >4 g

SSi 3

e ^ S

^ o •

CM

IOCgtf>i-4 K\CMM^ ITMTVH K> i^vO M M

K\

iH

4 4

VO K\^ , ^ H K\ ?

K\ KV 4 K\ 4

4 4

4 4

ii I

M I4 ^

fk 0

IfN

v-vo w voje ov4>

S

M p,4»

ON

(TN

FlS'JSv.S' ^13-^

1

k4

m

z

•o

S)

9

>4

•

M

^ l4 *

S i s

'«

■3 8RS ^iK?SJ? 2“* 8.“?

3* • 4» -

^ 4» ^ 0 4» •

ssfSiM
1 2.1*“*

5

5'!R5R S'JTSS

*1

If sals

ri CVJ cO Jt M KVK> Jt ^ VO KMf\ K^

4*

£

VO

ON

wmKvw 0 cvj K\«> vovo Kvr^ h^ovr-vo
vD w irv cvj H o^vo 0 0 ^ Kvvo vD w r«-v2>

e

4>

e

4»

<0

* ••0, •••• ,4,, ••••

e e s e eeee eeee eeee

• **•£* «••• ••••

• **B*

• ••p* *••• ••••

• ♦•M* •••• ••j* ••••

• *•«$• ♦••• ••e,

• ••O, •••« ••0,

• •••H, e,«0,

• ••>4, ••4*, 44«fl,

Q ••o« ••e, ••0, 04t4,

S : S 5^* : w Jj J :SI

£ -••1*3 «4Jo3 <S * Urn

S4 da«Ho v^od Pe 0 ,^0

odM0 eaeg 35jg^ M 1 0

tIiS i^s- g'3-s

£S£5i ££&^

In hone or elseehere.

Heeded in hone and support not
l«eos then 0.9 percent.

57

U

•

5

S

•

5

a

O

>4

o

u

o

V4

o

s

&

I

I

auoeee^

jei^o

rrr

«

o

•••• •••• ... P- • ^ 4 «

•••• •••• *•.. •...

•••• ... • ,,
'•••• •••• •• *•^1,. ,

• ••• •••• «• •jsi « • .

*••• . ..
**•* ••.. ... • «•

0

O

m

0

s

U

e

S'

u

<8

9

a

o

u

o

4*

■

u

9

ja

4»

O

fl

•

5

0

U

3

m

9

1

O

V4

o

♦»

0

e

o

u

6

e

Pi •

p-

ol

Oi

VO 0>H irv ^ to KNH o VO VO ON tOj^ONKN

^ 2 •

^ 0

: 0^

M

5

tfNONlTVVO P->r^(\lVO KNf^Oiri ^ KNCU Oi

_.***_^ .«•«
^ovo^ vor<«c\jir\ cmkncvjkn h-ooto

UN^ KNvo irvvo to ifN irv un^ in m ^ to js*

IS »« 9

** • S

s

^ ® •

•

f*-ONKNh- VO H mON 1-4 ovsr ON r4KNC\lO

•4 *4 44 • • cvIrA4 • 4cJ4oJ

pH

M »4 0

Pi O

rH

• • •• . • •

• r4..« *fH.r4

• •

«d

•

4*

0

4»

<rt

s

g*

o

0

1 e
e 0

9 9

•

o

' ON^ o r— r^ifNiHje* voooNin to^r^oN

•H 1-4

0 S

•H O

A

ON

•

IfN

to KNKNh- KNtO mm iH ON-0* m O O O 1-4

H to to KN totoojvo P-KNtO^ KNKNKNtO

iH r4 iH

H

4*

o

•

VP

r— r-HV0* o knvo ON p-onknio to^ ^-o

..«• ••••

OJ to ON^ ON ON KNVO K- ON^ KNKNKNON

iH H

•H

9

Vi

B

e

u

Vi

1

♦»

•

S • • •S e

^ 0 2
h s e K ^ 0 g

0 e H 0 4* o S

0 0 p,^ o e

9 Pi# h ^

P 0

O

#-i m;0 m vocumh- vo knk-ih ON^-om

• ••# *•••

r4C\l iH HOJ CJ MCVJHKN CUOJ

0 ^ ►*

4» o *H L i0

S £ ® 5 F 0

0 2 • 0 P

p« s -*

K\

•

O

•

f4 (Vj .CM mH«-l€V m^J«-4^»

• •«.. r4..p4

• Vxi-

•

*

«

-i

4>

o

KN

o!

OJ t— f— r4 knvo on r4mt0t0 ONONCVim

4oj*4 oJo3*c3 rAoj4fA **c\!cJ

■s

5

to

•

VO

KN a\jt H OJ to r— VO to jt o\;t o vo to o
«••• •«.. ««•«
mr— mm mr-^vo vor^ONON ja'mmf^

9

4>

0

4>

CO

Total .

Irisona. .

Arkaneae .

District of Columbia
Illinois .

Kansas .

Louislansu .

Massachusetts .

Missouri . . .

Montana. .

Nebraskeu .

North Carolina, .

Oklahoma. .

South Dakota. .

Utah .

Vest Tirginia. .

Wisconsin .

3

8

2

•s

n

4»

a

9

o

u

9

Pi

• ITN
O

8

O
o

i 9

Pi^

m

o •

d •

9

-•g

• iH
tt O
9 0
tA »-•

I

Support not lac)cing» 0*X percent; not legally responeil)le, leee than 0*05 percent
Support not lacking, 0*7 percent; not legally reeponelble, leee than 0*0^ percent
Not legally reeponelhle.

- 58 -

Ta^)le 25. _ Eeason for lack of support or care liy the mother, according to reason for lack of support or care hy

the father, ADC families, I6 States, October 1942

Percent lacking the mother's support or care
for specified reason

Reason for lack of the father's

ADC

families

Dead, incapacitated,
and absent for other
specified reason

Needed
in the
home

Unem¬

ployed

or

All

support or care

Total

Dead

Inca¬

paci¬

tated

Absent,

other

speci¬

fied

reason

wlti

insuf¬

ficient

earn¬

ings

other

reasons

1/

Total .

138,060

15.7

6,8

6.6

2.3

60.1

22.7

1.5

Dead. .

51,406

15.0

6.9

7.0

1.1

57.4

26.7

.9

Estranged from family 2/ .

49.316

17.6

6.3

7.4

3.9

52.6

27.1

2.7

Incapacitated .

30,537

11.2

4.8

5.1

2:5

77.3

11.3

.2

Imprisoned .

2,809

l4,l

8.3

3.‘^-

67. Q

18.2

.7

Serving in armed forces .

546

11.3

3.1

5.2

3.0

71.9

15.3

1.5

ITot legally responsible .

629

1.6

1.0

.6

89.7

7.8

.9

.All other .

2,817

51.5

37.8

7.0

6.7

38. 8

5.8

3.9

Unemployed or with insufficient earnings

1.419

‘+3.5

28.6

7.9

7.0

51.0

5.0

.5

Absent, reason not specified .

990

, 61.8

52.9

3.2

22.0

6.0

10.2

Support not lacking .

208

18. 3

8.6

2.9

6.8

67.^

l4.4

Needed in the home .

200

92.6

58.0

24.9

9.7

5.6

1.8

ly Absent for reasons not specified, not legally responsible, and support not lacking.
2/ Includes divorce, desertion, separation, and the father not married to the mother.

Table 26. — Reason for lack of support or care by the father, according to reason for lack of support or care by

the mother, ADC families, 16 States, October 1042

Reason for lack of the mother 's
support or care

ADC

families

Percent

lacking the father's support or care
for specified reason

Dead

Es¬

tranged

from

family

1/

Inca¬

paci¬

tated

Im¬

pris¬

oned

Serv¬
ing in
armed
forces

Not

legally

respon¬

sible

All

other

reasons

2/

Total .

138,060

37.2

35.8

22.1

2.0

0.4

0.5

2.0

Dead, incapacitated, and absent for other

specified reason .

21.703

35.4

4o.o

15.8

1.8

.3

(3)

6.7

Dead .

9.432

37.5

33.1

15.3

2.5

.2

.1

11.3

Incapacitated .

9.114

39.2

4o.i

17.2

1.0

.3

(3)

2.2

Absent, other reason .

3.157

18. 1

60.4

12. 9

?. 1

R

Needed in the home .

82.956

;35.6

31.2

28.4

^ K

.7

1.3

Unemployed or with insufficient earnings...

31.356

43.8

42.6

11.0

1.6

^ 1

,2

.5

All other reasons 4/ .

2,045

23.6

66.3

3.1

.9

.3

5.4

1/ Includes divorce, desertion, separation, end the father not married to the mother.

2/ Unemployed or with insufficient earnings, absent for reasons not specified, support not lacking, and needed in
the home,

3/ Less them 0,05 percent.

^ Absent for reasons not specified, not legally responsible, and support not lacking.

■A U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 0—1945'

1

Families Receiving

Aid to Dependent Children

October 1942

Part 11. Family Income

f-*

liK

muBRMiy Of
CON6RE8S_
tEmSGCORO

SEP 4 ^945

tsm - —

tOVT. SOUiCI

FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY

SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD
Bureau of Public Assistance

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE REPORT NO. 7

Federal Security Agency
SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD
Arthur J. Altmeyer, Chairman
George E. Bigge Ellen S. Woodward

Oscar M. Powell, Executive Director

BUREAU OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE

Jane M. Hoey, Director

CONTENTS

■ - - -c;:' ^ Page

I. Introduction . 1

II. Total Income of Families Receiving Aid to

Dependent Children . 3

Types and sources of income . 4

Total cash income . 4

State differences in total cash income • 9

Relation of income and family

composition . 10

Total cash income of white and Negro

families . 13

III. Cash Income from Public Aid . 15

Aid to dependent children . 15

Otlier Dublic aid . . 17

IV. Cash Income from Soui'ces Other Than Public Aid 21

Income from earnings . 22

Other income . 23

V. Nonmonetary Income from Public Aid ...... 25

Surplus commodities and related programs 25

Medical care . 26

VI. Nonmonetary Income from Sources Other Than

Public Aid . 28

VII. Summary . * . 30

I. INTRODUCTION

Under the Social Seciirity Act, the Federal Govemraent makes grants-
in-aid to States to assist them in financing programs of aid to dependent
children. State public assistance agencies provide assistance to needy
children deprived of parental support or care through the death, continued
absence from home, or incapacity of a parent. The purpose of aid to depend¬
ent children is to ensure such children continuance of as normal a family
life as is possible. Assistance is intended to enable the mother or other
relative responsible for the supervision of the children to remain in the
home to care for them and to enable children of school age to remain in
school. These objectives can be realized for families v/ith dependent chil¬
dren only if their incomes from assistance end other sources are large
enough to supply them with the essentials of living.

Until now, any conclusions regarding the adequacy of aid to depend¬
ent children have necessarily been based on data on the amounts of assist¬
ance payments — even though assistance often supplements other family income
and is not necessarily the sole source of support. To obtain information
on the amounts that families receiving aid to dependent children have to
live on, the Social Security Board planned a sample study of the incomes
of families receiving aid to dependent children to be made on a voluntary
basis by State public assistance agencies. This study v/as a part of a
larger study of the characteristics of children receiving aid to dependent
children, y The income study was made in the autumn months of 1942 in the
following ei^t States: 2j

Arkansas Massachusetts Montana Oklahoma

District of Columbia ' Missouri North Carolina Wisconsin

The year 1942 was the first full year of the Nation's participation
in World War II and was characterized by expanding industrial production,
mounting demands for manpower, and rising living costs. Tlie war economy
had its impact on families receiving aid to 'dependent children as on all
groups in the population. New employment opportunities gave mothers and
older children in families receiving aid to dependent children opportunity
to increase their family income and to raise their standard of living,
which in most instances was extremely low. The inadequacy of the incomes
of families who were dependent in whole or in part on assistance had been
sharply accentuated by the rapid rise in the cost of living. For the most
part, public assistance agencies — despite decreases in the number of fami¬
lies on the rolls— had insufficient funds to adjust assistance payments
upwards rapidly enough or in large enough amounts to keep pace with climb¬
ing prices. Many mothers and children were thus forced to work. The urge
to participate in the war effort was an additional factor influencing some
mothers and children to take advantage of job openings.

1/ See Families Receiving Aid to Dependent Children, October ^94^. t. Psrt I
RaceTsiiiT and Composition of Families and Reasons for Dependen^,

Public Assistance Report No. 7, Bureau of Public Assistance, Social

obtain income data.

- 1 -

2 -

In 1942, earnings from employment were available to a larger portion
of the families receiving aid to dependent children and constituted a larger
share of their total incomes than would be possible except under conditions
of acute labor shortage. The increase in family incomes from earnings was
gained in many instances through the sacrifice of values which the aid to
dependent children program is intended to assure. Many mothers who worked
outside the home and who were unable to arrange for the care of their
young children frequently left them for long hours without supervision.

Many boys and girls who had been receiving aid to dependent children gave
up school in order to work. Since many of these children will not return
to school, their contribution to the family income during the war period
may have been at the expense of preparation for earning a li'^ring in a more
competitive labor market and may result in increased dependency at a later
date. Thus, consideration of the adequacy of aid to dependent children
should be directed toward both the total amount of income of families on
the rolls and the sources of that income.

II. TOTAL INCOME OF FAMILIES RECEIVING AID TO DEPENDENT CHILDREN

In the autumn months of 19^k2, when the largest part of the wartime
rise in living costs had taken place, cash income averaged $63 in house¬
holds on the rolls of aid to dependent children in 8 States. ^ Many of
these families also had some Income in kind. That from public sources was
most frequently in the form of surplus food distributed under the Food
Stamp Plan, then still in operation. Some had noncash income from private
sources, such as farm or garden produce or living quarters given them rent-
free or in return for services. For the group as a whole, however, it is
apparent that even in this war year, when chances for work and hence total
family resources were unusually great, children receiving aid in these 8
States were living in homes where means were very limited.

In these homes, the average family consisted of 4*5 persons, includ¬
ing the children for whom assistance was given, the mother or relative
responsible for their care, and any other persons who lived in the same
household, shared income, and were regarded as members of the family, ij
In some households, the group approved for aid to dependent children un¬
doubtedly shared in the resources of other members; in some, persons other
than those for whom the assistance payment was planned benefited from it.

In such households, it is not possible to determine just what part of total
1 income was available to the assistance unit. ^ Family income for the
purposes of this report, therefore, is that of all members of the family
and reflects the level of living in homes where income included aid to
dependent children.

2/ Arkansas, District of Columbia, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana,
North Carolina, Oklahoma, Wisconsin. In aU. States but Wisconsin,
the data cover families receiving aid in October 1942; in Wisconsin,
September 1942.

ij For the purpose of this study, a family was defined as a group of
persons living together and sharing a common income, which may be
received by one member of the group or may result from pooling the
income of several members. Ifemarried children and other relatives
were counted as members of a family, if they were considered as part
of the family group and economic unit and not as a separate family,
even though they paid a definite amount for board and room instead
of sharing a common family income.

^ Parent, parents, or supervising relative and children approved for
aid.

- 3 -

- 4 -

The information here summarized for 8 States is the first which has
become available on total income of families receiving assistance under the
State-Federal program of aid to dependent children. Though the States are
widely scattered and diverse, they include only a fraction of all States
administering this type of aid. The findings of the study therefore do
not necessarily reflect the situation of all families receiving aid to
dependent children.

Since aid is given to supplement whatever resoiirces families them¬
selves may have, total income in these households with dependent children
represented many different combinations of income of various types and from
various sources.

Types and Sources of Income

For the majority of the families in the 8 States combined, total in¬
come came from both public and private sources and included both cash and
kind (table 1). All families, of courso, had cash income from aid to
dependent children. About 68 percent received money from both public aid
and other sources. More than half these families had nonmonetary income
as well. Each of several tj^pes of nonmonetary income, such as food stamps,
farm and garden produce, or housing, supplemented the cash income of more
then one-fourth of the families (chart I). About 28 percent of the families
had no cash income other than the ADC payment; more than half of these,
however, had some nonmonetary income. Nearly 11 percent of all the families
7/ere wholly dependent on aid to dependent children.

Total Cash Income

In 7 States combined, families receiving aid to dependent children
derived a little more than half their total cash income from aid to depend¬
ent children and nearly 40 percent from earnings; all other sources there¬
fore accounted for less than 10 percent. ^

^ Complete data on source of income for Missouri not available

Table 1.— Percent of families on ADC rolls with and without nonmonetary Income,
by source of cash income for g States, October 19^2

5

j

»d «) w

d ^ -M «

3 -d a o

OJ

1 cvj o VO m CO m

^ d > ^

•

1 ••(!«•••

o -S » •H d
PS o

CO

' 1 rH fH rH rH

V

^ P< CD

i 1

•d «s

^ ^ rt ^

0 k

« P ® a 2

o

0

,:i-C\ibOcnCUb0KM50

G p

^ f-i

o d +» 5 •§ co

VC

OCOOCOOVD-d-O

O <H

a

•rH 4)

9 S ° H.

VO CO ^ r<>-d- CO ^

e

>* o

>4 O

•rt

a ^

O -d ® IJ 'd

9 §5.§-3

o ft

bO

•

fH

r-i^ CO h-co h-r-o

fH CO fH vO fH ro

1

O (0

1

£ Cl}

S o

ir>

r^iTviPr^fH

•

• •••••••

O

rH COVOVO ir>CO r<Mr\

•H

o

rH

fH CO rH fH rH rH fH

>

CO

fH

ir\

CO K\UCMf\OVOCOVO

q;

cO

•

•H

4>

r-

C0r~-O-d-VOrHrHC0

o

m

r- uTivo vD ir\vo ^ vo

•H

EH

tM

•d ® «

rt ® ®

Vi

3 ^ 'd 0) o

fH

1 ^ iH CO KACO

o

d > »H

•

1 •••»•••

o *2 «<J d

CO

1 fH CO K>»C0

-M

PS o

^ [

^ P p, ®

C

t>

u

<]>

« s

tJ ®

S p

3 o ® 2 •d

QO

cr»-d^ooor^coif^

O M

#

• •••••••

O <M

o d -p ^ e aj

9 g ° ^

1 —

cr* 1 — CO r— ^ iTvifN

rH CO CO CO CO CO r<>CO

^ (D

a

>» o

CO

o

Cl) Ej

_ ^ -H _

o d © nil 'd

r*-

1 crwD o u^r^vo i —

o

a xi

9 ^ ^ *d

0

I •••••#•

1 rH rH CO fH

o u

a 0)

® P

d o

o

d 'd

o ^

•

crvo CO i^cor^i — o

s

0 d

o

-d* icS CO vo 1^ CO

O CO

•=< o

fH

fH iH iH

ITk

cor«-lr^lf^o-=^ coj^

•

«•••••••

4>

CO

r— CO cr\ oo co

o

CO -d ro u^

EH

•

•

•

•

•

• ©••••••

•

©

• •H •* •• ••

©

• ^jQ

4>

tg »•*•••

CO

©

*»

• iH******

4»

Vi

• ©•••cO**

oO

• o © • • d • •

4>

CO

• 4> • • •H • •

C/1

. tH 43 • • rH • •

•k

• o © * o • •

rH

• © • CO| M • d

©

tt 43 d "H CD © fH

4*

©043>^COOS©

O

© nH o d d o d

EC

dd©o3^;dO

343 ©©43 43 ©0
i4©©©ddrH©

1

dfH ©fH O O^fH
•iJPSSIS^O^

l/ Includes families with nonmonetary income valued at leas than $5-
^ Families receiving food stamps not included; data not available.

CHART L- PERCENT OF FAMILIES ON ADC ROLLS WITH CASH INCOME AND
NONMONETARY INCOME FROM PUBLIC AID AND OTHER SOURCES, 8 STATES, OCT 1942

PERCENT PERCENT

FOOD SURPLUS MEDICAL PROCESSED OTHER FARM AND HOUSING OTHER

STAMPS COMMODITIES CARE CLOTHING-WPA GARDEN PRODUCE

m

- 7 -•

Percent of

Soiirce of income total cash income

I

Total, 7 States . 1QQ,0

Aid to dependent children . 51,3

Earnings . 39.5

Other public assistance 2/ . 2.7

Contributions from relatives . 2.3

Pensions, social insurance, etc . 1,5

Investments or property . 1.1

Other sources . 1.6

The average family receiving aid to dependent children had an income
of $62.88 in cash in the survey month, $31-86 of which represented the as¬
sistance payment and $2.10 other public aid; $28.92 was from earnings, con¬
tributions from relatives, social insurance benefits, investments or property,
and all other sources of monetary income (chart II).

Conclusions as to whether the incomes of families receiving aid to
dependent children are large or small can be drawn only by comparing the in¬
comes of 'these families v/ith information on what it would cost them to buy
the goods and services deemed necessary for healthful growth and develop¬
ment. Unfortunately, no information is available by Y/hich the adequacy or
inadequacy of the incomes of families on the AUC rolls can satisfactorily
be measured. In 1942, however, the Bureau of Labor Statistics published cur¬
rent information on the cost of living at a maintenance level of a 4-person
manual worker^ s family in large cities. The maintenance budget — developed
by the Works Progress Administration — is described as not so liberal as that
for a ’’health and decency” level which the skilled worker may hope to obtain,
but it affords more than a ’’minimiun of subsistence” living. The maintenance
level is below what may be considered a satisfactory' American standard of
living. ^

ij Cash income from public assistance throughout the remainder of this
report includes the value of orders on vendors for subsistence goods,
and the value of commodities, other than siirplus commodities. Families
with such income are included with those receiving cash income from pub¬
lic assistance. It should be noted, hoY^ever, that less than 2 percent
of the ADC families received this type of income, and it represented
only 0.8 percent of the total income of all families from assistance.

^ For a definition of the maintenance level, see Stecker, Margaret Loomis,
Intercity Differences in Costs of Living. March 1935. 59 Cities, pp. XII-
XIV, Research Monograph XII, Vforks Progress Administration,

651052 0 - 45 -2

CHART n.-AVERA6E AMOUNT OF CASH INCOME PER FAMILY ON ADC ROLLS
BY SPECIFIED TYPE OF INCOME, 8 STATES, OCT. 1942

-'8

- 9 -

The average family- receiving aid to dependent children is not a
2-parent, 2-child family. It consists of 4.5 persons and includes 1.7
persons 18 years of age and over and 2.8 children under 18 years of age.
In 1942, the Consumer Income and Demand Branch of the Office of Price
Administration developed a methodology for deriving from the cost of -the
maintenance budget for the 4-person family with both parents in the home,
the cost of living for a wife and for each child in a family in which -the
father is absent. This information is available as of December 15, 1942,
for four cities in States participating in the study of ADC incomes, and
is given below. 2/

Boston .

District of Columbia

Milwaukee . .

St. Louis .

Estimated monthly cost
of maintenance budget

Each

Wife

child

$64.26

$19.53

66.80

20.30

62.73

19.06

62.93

19.12

On the assumption that the adults in the ADC families other than the
mother or other person supervising the children are for the most part older
boys and girls — and to err on the conservative side — the cost of living for
the 4.5-person family has been computed by adding to the cost of living for
a wife the cost for 3.5 children (of y/hom 2.8 children are under 18 years
of age). This gives a crude estimate of the monthly cost of living at a
maintenance level in the 4 cities for the average ADC family of 4.5 persons,
as follows:

Boston . $133 Milwaiikee. $129

District of Columbia. 138 St. Louis. 130

It may be assumed that living costs are somewhat lower in rural than in
urban areas, and consequently these figures may to some extent overstate
the average cost of the maintenance budget for the 4.5-person family in
the States of Massachusetts, Wisconsin, and Missouri. They afford, how¬
ever, perspective for considering the incomes of families on the ADC rolls
and for making some rough judgments as to their adequacy.

State Differences in Total Cash Income

Considerable difference existed among the States in both the aver¬
age amount and sources of the cash income of families recei-ving aid "to
dependent children (table 2).

^ Hearings Before the Committee on Military Affairs. House of Represen¬

tatives. Seventy-eighth Congress. First Session, on S. 1279
Various House Bills, p. 60.

- 10 -

Table 2. — Average amount of total cash income per family on ADC rolls and
percent of such income from specified source,

8 States, October 1942

'State

Average

total

cash

income

Percent of total cash income
from specified source

All

sources

ADC

Other

public

aid

Sources
other than
public aid

Total, 8 , States. . .

$62.88

100.0

50.7

3.3

' 46.0

Arkansas . * .

29.71

100.0

52.6

.1

47.3

District of Columbia....

63.42

100.0

61.2

1.8

37.0

Massachusetts . .

100.92

100.0

62.0

2.1

35.9

Missouri .

65.27

100,0

43.1

3.9

48.0

Montana .

60.07

100.0

52.7

8.3

39.0

North Carolina .

44.20

100.0

33.9

1.9

59.2

Oklahoma. .

46.85

100.0

43.1

4.8

47.1

Wisconsin . . .

86.84

100.0

46.4

3.6

50.0

State differences in income from sources other than the ADC payment were less
marked than differences in the ADC average payment. Consequently, State
variations in total cash income can be attributed largely to variations from
State to State in the amount of the ADC payment.

States also differ greatly in the distribution of the amounts of cash
income of individual families receiving aid '(chart III). In some States,
money Incomes were concentrated at very low amounts; in others, at consider¬
ably higher levels. More than half the families in Arkansas, North Carolina,
and Oklahoma had less than $40 per month in cash while in Wisconsin almost
half had over $70 and in Massachusetts, over $80. The higher amoimt in
Massachusetts reflects in part the policy of the State in including medical
needs in the requirements of recipients in determining the amount of the
assistance payment.

Relation of Income and Family Composition

The significance of the average amoimt of cash income within a State,
and of the differences in State averages must be considered in relation to
the size and composition of the families receiving aid to dependent children
(table 3) • The size of the family affects the extent of its need, and the
composition of the family affects its potential earning capacity. Those
factors, therefore, affect both the amount of the income derived from assist¬
ance and that derived from private earnings.

In the 8 States combined, the, average family receiving aid to depend¬
ent children was composed of 4.5 persons. In North Carolina, the average was
4.9 perspns, and in Massachusetts, where average total cash income, including

- 11 -

CHART m- PERCENT OF FAMILIES ON ADC ROLLS WITH
SPECIFIED AMOUNTS OF CASH INCOME. 8 STATES. OCT. 1942

PERCENT

30

20

MASSACHUSETTS

30

20

10

0

40

30

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

NORTH CAROLINA

20

10

0

- 12 -

Table 3* — Average size of family, maximum age for ADC, and percent
of families with persons in specified age groups other
than children approved for aid and person responsible
for their care, for 8 States, October 1942

State

Average

number

of

persons

per

family

Maximum
age for
ADC y

Percent of families with —

No person
other than
assistance
unit y

Other persons

Under

18 years
or 65 years
and over,
only

18-64
years y -

Total, 8 States. .

4.5

—

Ug.2

18.3

33.5

Arkansas .

4.5

18

57.8

17.1

25.1'

District of Columbia.

4.7

16

bl.k

15.5

17.1

Massachusetts .

4.1

18

65.0

9.1

25.9

Missouri .

4.6

16

‘*3.3

24.2

32.5

Montana . .

4.2

18

67.7

11.0

21.3

North Carolina .

4.9

18

3H.I

28.7

37.2

Oklahoma .

4.8

16

39.7

18.9

41.4

Wisconsin .

^.3

21

53.8

11.4

3^.8

^ Regular school attendance was required for children l6 and 17 in all
States, except Wisconsin, vdiich aided children of tho'se ages and in
Missouri for children l4 and 15- Wisconsin permitted counties to
discontinue aid at l6 at the discretion of the local agency.

2/ Children approved for aid and parents or other relative in loco .
parentis.

2/ In a few instances, some families classified as having persons 18-64
years of age also contained persons under 18, and/or persons 65
years of age and over.

- 13 -

the ADC payment, was twice as high, families averaged only 4.1 persons. In
7 of the 8 States, nearly 40 percent of the families consisted of only one
parent or other supervising relative and the children approved for aid; in
the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, and Montana, more than half were
composed of only one adult and the children approved for aid. Additional
groups of families, ranging from less than 6 percent of the total in North
Carolina to 16 percent in Arkansas, included both parents, one of whom usually
was disabled.

Differences in the amount of the income of families in the various
States were affected by State differences in the maximum age at which chil¬
dren were eligible for this type of assistance and in the proportion of fami¬
lies including persons other than parents or another supervising relative
and the children approved for aid. The age through which children are eli¬
gible for aid to dependent children ranged from 15 years in the District of
Columbia, Missouri, and Oklahoma to 20 years in Wisconsin. Because the maxi¬
mum assistance payment is usually determined by the number of eligible chil¬
dren in the family. States that provide for the eligibility of older children
naturally can make larger payments to some families than States having a
lower maximum age.

A little more than half the families included persons other than the
children approved for aid and the parents or another relative vho was
responsible for care of children. One-third of all the families included
such other members in the ages 18-64, and about one-fifth had other members
who were under age 18 or aged 65 or more. Families with other members of
working age obviously had a greater opportunity for income from earnings
than those consisting of only the children approved for aid and the parent
or other relative who cared for them.

Total Cash Income of White and Negro Families

The greater prevalence of need among minority races was discussed in
Part I of this report* It is well known that there is a wide variation in
income from private sources among various races. It is important to deter¬
mine whether there are also significant differences in total income among
families of different races receiving aid to dependent children. In all
States except Arkansas for which this computation could be made, Negro fami¬
lies had a lower average total cash income than white families (table 4)*

_ u -

Table 4« — ^Average total cash income of white and Negro families on ADC rolls,
and average size of such families, for 8 States, October 1942

State

Average total cash income
1

Average size

of family

White 3/

Negro

White iJ

Negro

Total, 8 States..

171.50

^$67.59

4.5

4.8

Arkansas .

29.08

35.05

4.5

4.8

District of Columbia...

74.59

62.79

4.5

4.8

Massachusetts .

103.91

85.71

4.1

3.8

Missouri . .

70.14

67.50

4.6

4.5

Montana . .

60.83

(3)

4.2

(3)

North Carolina .

46.20

41.51

4.7

5.4

Oklahoma . .

48.18 ,

‘ 44.27

4.8

4.8

Wisconsin .

92.62

(3)

4.3

4.0

“iJ Races other than white or Negro are included with white.

Adjusted to compensate for variation among States in proportion of Negroes
in recipient population.

2J Not computed; base too small.

In States with a lower average for Negro families, the differences betT^een the
average for Negro and that for white families ranged from less than $3 in
Missouri to about $18 in Massachusetts. In Arkansas, the average- for Negro
families was about $6 more than that for white families. The lower average
total cash income of Negro families in Massachusetts can be explained in
part by the fact that there were relatively fewer large Negro families in
that State. On the other hand, the higher average for Negro families in
Arkansas is partly explained by the greater average size of Negro families
in that State, as compared Ydth Thite families.

Comparison of total cash income of families of one race and of fami¬
lies of another race implies comparison of the relative level of living of
the two groups. At best, average total cash income serves as an extremely
rough basis for such comparison* It does not take into account family size
or composition, both of which affect the need of the family and its ability
to produce income. Without more information than is available, definite
conclusions cannot be drawn regarding the relative income levels of the two
racial groups. In the 8 States combined, Negro families had an average total
cash income of about $68, Ydiile that for white families was about $71. 10/

10/ The average for Negro families has been adjusted to compensate for the
weighting that results from the marked variation among States in the
proportion of Negroes in ihe recipient population. To adjust for this
weighting, the average was computed on the assimiption that as many
Negro as white families in each State received assistance.

III. CASH INCOME FROM PUBLIC AID

Income in cash from public aid was obtained from aid to dependent
chil^en, from payments for other types of public assistance, and in a
few instances from WPA earnings and other programs financed by public
funds.

Aid to Dependent Children

Aid to dependent children is provided in the form of a money pay¬
ment to be spent as the parent or other supervising adult thinks best.
Payment of assistance in cash enables the family to use this income just
as it would use earnings or other income from private sources. It thus
can buy goods and services through regular trade channels without being
identified as receiving assistance.

t

Aid to dependent children was the most important single source of
cash income and represented almost 94 percent of all cash income from
public aid. The median payment was $25, in the 8 States combined, and
ranged from a little more than half this amount in Arkansas and North
Carolina to more than |60 in Massachusetts. 11/ The range in median pay¬
ments for families with 6 or •more children approved for aid was even
greater than that for all families. For these large families, the median
amounts ranged from $24 in Arkansas and $30 in North Carolina to $110
in Massachusetts (table 5). Median payments in the District of Columbia
and Missouri were undoubtedly influenced by the maximum limits in these
States. Relatively few payments were made at the maximum in Arkansas
and Oklahoma. Massachusetts and Wisconsin do not have maxiraums. 12/

11/ To ensure greater comparability in the data, workers were instructed
to report the amounts of the regular monthly payments, excluding
any amo\mts added to the regular payment for the month of the study
to meet such special emergency needs as medical services or, in a
few instances, burials. Such additional payments were made in two
States as follows:

Percent of families receiving specified amounts
of additional payments from ADC funds

' state

Total

Less than
$10.00

$10.00-24.99

$25.00
or more

Massachusetts

12.8

9.3

2.5

1.0

Wisconsin

2.9

2.1

.8

(*)

(*) Less than 0.05 percent.

12/ Maximums on payments in October 1942 in Arkansas, Missouri, Montana,
North Carolina, and Oklahoma were $18 for the first child and $12 for
each additional child. The maximum payment to a family, however, was
limited to $30 in Arkansas, to $60 in Missouri, and to $65 in North
Carolina. Maximums in the District of Columbia were $30 for the first
, - child and $6 for each additional child, with a family maximum of $60.

- 16 -

Table 5. — Median ADC payment, excluding amounts for special needs, by number
of children approved for aid, for 8 States, October 1942

State

All

families

Families with specified number of
children approved for aid

1

2

3

4

5

6 or
more

Total, 8 States. . .

§25

$18

$26

$35

140

$45

$58

Arkansas . .

15

12

U

16

18

20

24

District of Columbia...

42

30

36

42

48

54

60

Massachusetts .

63

47

64

77

89

95

110

Missoiori .

30

18

30

42

54

60.

60

Montana. . . .

30

18

30

42

50

55

60

North Carolina .

15

12

15

18

20

25

30

Oklahoma .

18 .

13

21

28

34

41

50

Wisconsin. . .

38

23

37

47

54

60

71

In each of the 8 States, the average ADC payment to Negro families
differed little from that to white families. For Negro families, the aver¬
age ranged from about $16 in Arkansas to more than $65 in Massachusetts;
for white families, from less than $16 in Arkansas to almost $63 in Massa¬
chusetts. Average payments for Negro families were higher than for white
families in Arkansas and the District of Columbia, but the average Negro
family was larger in those States than the average white family. In Missouri,
Negro families were smaller and received a lower average payment than white
families. The average payment for white and for Negro families in each of
the States was as follows:

White 13/

Negro

Total, 8 States....

$33.39

$34.00

Arkansas . .

15.96

16.04

District of Columbia....

38.58

40.32

Massachusetts .

62.98

65.15

Missouri . .

31.68

31.38

Montana . . . . .

32.13

(15)

North Carolina .

17.99

16.77

Oklahoma .

22.92

20.92

Wisconsin . . .

40.59

(15)

13/ Races other than white or Negro are included with white.

14/ Adjusted to compensate for variation among States in proportion of
Negroes in recipient population.

15/ Not computed, base too small.

- 17 -

The average for Negro families in the 8 States combined was $34, while that
for white families was more than $33.

Other Public Aid

Public aid other than aid to dependent children was relatively unim¬
portant as a source of money income. Such aid accounted for only slightly
more than 6 percent of the cash income from public aid (table 6).

Table 6, — Percentage distribution of cash income of families on ADC rolls,
by type of public aid for 8 States, October 1942

State

Total

Type of public

aid

ADC

OAA

AB

GA

WPA

Other

Total, 8 States..

100.0

93.8

3.7

0.2

1.1

0.9

0.3

Arkansas . . . .

100.0

99.9

(1)

(1)

.1

District of Columbia..

100.0 •

97.2

1.8

.7

(1)

.3

—

Massachusetts .

100,0

96.7

1.8

.2

.4

.5

.4

Missoisri, . . . • ,

100.0

92.6

3.6

—

2.3

1.2

.3

Montana .

100.0

86.3

6.1

.6

6.0

.6

.4

North Carolina .

100.0

96.0

1.7

.3

.7

1.1

.2

Oklahoma .

100.0

91.0

6.9

.2

.7

1.1

.1

Wisconsin . .

100.0

92.8

4.5

.5

1.1

1.0

.1

Less than 0.05 percent.

Only 9 percent of the families received such income, and these payments
represented only 3,3 percent of the total cash income of all families. In
all the States except Montana, relatively few families received other pub¬
lic aid in cash; the proportion ranged from 0,2 percent in Arkansas to 13
percent in Missouri and Wisconsin, In Montana, however, about 26 percent
of the families received such public aid (table 7), Because some of the
other public aid was paid to family members other than the payee for aid to
dependent children, the additional income may not always have been avail¬
able to the dependent children and the parent or relative caring for them.
In the families receiving other aid, however, it represented a substantial
addition to total family income.

~ 18 -

Table 7. — Percent of families on ADC rolls receiving other cash income from
specified type of public aid, for eight States, October 1942

State

One

or

more

types

of

addi¬

tional

public

aid

Percent of families receiving
one type of additional
public aid

Two

or

more

types

of

addi¬

tional

public

aid

OAA

AB

GA

WPA

Other

public

aid

Total, 8 States .

9.2

4.8

0.4

2.3

0.6

0.6

0.5

Arkansas .

.2

(1)

.1

.1

^ ,

District of Columbia .

3.9

2.5

.8

.1

.4

■

.1

Massachusetts .

6.0

3.1

.5

1.2

.4

.4

.4

Missouri .

13.1

5.9

.3

4.4

1.0

.2

1.3

Montana . .

25.7

8.7

.6

15.1

.3

.5

.5

North Carolina .

6.2

2.8

.4

1.6

.6

.6

.2

Oklahoma. . .

S.5

5.6

.3

.2

.6

1.6

.2

Wisconsin . .

13.0

7.2

.9

3.6

.9

.1

.3

'ij Less than 0.05 percent.

Old-age assistance was the most common type of additional public aid
in cash. The proportion of families receiving old-age assistance ranged
from less than 1 percent in Arkansas to 9 percent in Montana. Fifteen per¬
cent of the families in Montana received general assistance. This type of
assistance was received by some families, also, in each of the other States.
A few families received aid to the blind, ISPA earnings, or some other public
aid in cash. None of these types was received by much more than 1 percent
of the families in any of the States.

Whether families received assistance in addition to aid to depend¬
ent children was determined by the composition of the family, agency policy,
and the adequacy of agency funds. Such other payments were more frequent
in families with both parents than in those with one parent, and were
relatively more frequent in families that included persons in addition to
the parent or parents and the children who had been approved for aid
(table 8). In the States in Tdiich ADC payments were limited to the require¬
ments of the payee and of the approved children, the presence of additional
needy persons in the family increased the need for additional assistance.

In most States, it also increased the possibility that some member of the
family was eligible for another type of aid.

Table 8.— Percent of families on ADC rolls with other public aid in cash, by type

of family, for 8 States, October 19^2

- 19 -

u

o

o

4*

«>

CQ

ce

,o

♦

0)

TJ rH
0> ^
42 <£

rH
ft •H

g 0$

O ►

o cS

4» +2

o o
tzi

- 20 -

Statutory limits on ADC payments in 6 of the 8 States made it impos¬
sible to meet the full amount of the need of the dependent children in
some families. Montana, however, was the only one of these States provid- .
ing general assistance to any substantial extent to meet requirements
exceeding the maximum payment for aid to dependent children. This policy
largely accounts for the fact that in Montana, 20.4 percent of families
consisting of only one parent and the children approved for aid received
another type of payment. In Massachusetts and Wisconsin, the absence of
State maximimis made it possible to meet the full amount of need through
the ADC payment.

\

IV. CASH INCOME FROM SOURCES OTHER THAN PUBLIC AID

A substantial share of the income of the families included in the
study was received in cash from private sources, such as earnings, cash
contributions from friends or relatives, and income from property.

These families also had small amounts of cash income from public sources,
such as old-age and survivors insurance and unemployment compensation.

For convenience, both these types of income will be referred to as cash
income from sources other than public aid.

Inevitably an inquiry made during wartime, when many persons of
marginal employability had jobs, reveals greater earnings and a higher
ratio of such cash income in relation to assistance than would be found
under less favorable economic conditions.

More than two-thirds of all families on ADC rolls of the 8 States
had some cash income from sources other than public aid. Massachusetts
had the smallest proportion of families with such income, less than one-
half. At the other extreme were Arkansas and North Carolina with four-
fifths. While a substantial proportion of the families had cash income
from sources other than public aid, such income represented a much smaller
proportion of all cash income. This is true both in the 8 States combined
and in each of the States. In each of the States except North Carolina
and Wisconsin, and in the 8 States combined, sources other than public aid
furnished less than half the cash income of the ADC families.

Cash income from sources
other thain public aid

Percent

Percent

of total

of total

cash income

families

of all

State

receiving

families

Total, 8 States . .

68.1

46.0

Arkansas . . .

79.9

47.3

District of Columbia . .

61.2

37.0

Massachusetts . .

45.1

35.9

Missouri..... . .

.. 75.7

4S.0

Montana. . . .

.. ■ 62.8 .

39.0

North Carolina . . .

79.5

59.2

Oklahoma . .

64.5

47.1

Wisconsin .

.. 72.0

50.0

- 21 -

- 22 -

Income from Earnings

Earnings constituted the most common type of cash income from sources
other than public aid. About tliree-fifths of the families had some earn¬
ings, including payments from boarders or lodgers, and proceeds from the
sale of crops as well as wages. 16/

Arkansas, Missouri, and North Carolina reported cash income from
private emplo3nnent for spproximately 70 percent of the families on ADC
rolls. North Carolina not only had the second largest proportion of
families with income from earnings but was also second among the S States
in the proportion of families with persons 18-64 years of age, other than
parents, or the adult in loco parentis (37.2 percent). In this State,
therefore, the larger percentage of potential wage earners may account
to some extent for the greater proportion of families with income from
employment. It may be assumed that in many instances, especially in
Arkansas and North Carolina, aid to dependent children was inadequate to
meet the family* s needs and the employment of older children, and fre¬
quently of the mother, became necessary particularly as living costs rose*.
Arkansas and North Carolina had the largest proportion of v/orking mothers —
46.8 and 40.0 percent, I'e spec lively. These percentages are 9 and 8 times
that of Massachusetts, which had the lowest proportion of employed mothers
and the highest median payment for aid to dependent children.

In Arkansas and North Carolina, average earnings in the families
with such income were ^17.00 and $33. 40^ respectively. Arkansas had the
lowest average earnings as well as the lowest average ADC payment. North
Carolina, on the other hand, was the only State where earnings averaged
nearly twice the ADC payment.

Average

State ea^mings

Total, 7 States 17/ $43 >33

Arkansas . 17.00

District of Columbia.... 38. 4^

Massachusetts . 98.00

Montana . 39.26

North Carolina . • 33.40

Oklahoma . 33.00

Wisconsin . 61.93

Massachusetts, where the smallest proportion of families had earnings,
shov/ed the highest average earnings of any State for such families,
namely, $98.00, doubtless in part because of higher wage standards and
levels.

16/* For some families in a few States, income from the sale of crops in
the study month was not prorated on a 12-month basis and thus may
have included a substantial proportion .of annual income from such
sales.

17/ Data for Missouri not available.

- 23 -

Other Income

After earnings, help from relatives outside the household and from
friends was the most common type of cash income other than public aid.

Less than 10 percent of the families, however, benefited from such con¬
tributions. Income from the ownership of real or personal property,
pensions, dependents^ allowances, and so on, were even rarer sources of
cash income (table 9)* Since servicemen* s allowances are much higher than
the payments permissible under the standards of aid to dependent children,
it is not surprising that many families in receipt of allowances are in¬
eligible for aid to dependent children. The payment to a serviceman* s
wife and one child is $80 a month as compared y/ith the maximums of $30
payable to a mother and one child under aid to dependent children in
Arkansas, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, and Oklahoma.

Table 9*— Percent of families on ADC rolls with cash income of specified type from sources other

than public aid, for 8 States, October 19^2

- 24 -

•

K^

0

h-

m

ITv

CVJ

1

KV

eo

4

•

•

•

•

•

•

1

•

rH

rH

• ir\

K>

rH

1

>

vr>

rH

•

•

C\J

to

h-

IfV

!

1

to

05

«

•

#

•

•

•

•

i

1

•

to

rH

rH

1

1

M

ir\

0

•

CVi

ir\

r-

to

1

rH

0

•

•

•

•

♦

•

rH

1

•

•

0

CVJ

rH

1

!zi

iH

•

cr»

0

IfN

0

rH

CVJ

•

•

e

•

•

•

•

rH

•

d

rH

rH

to

rH

rH

rH

0

rH

rH

cu

r*~

•>

rH

to

rH

rH

0

•

•

♦

«

•

•

•

•

•

0

cr»

0

cu

<VJ

CVJ

KO

. rH

•

IC\

CTi

CTi

0

cr\

1

00

m

•

•

•

•

•

9

rH

1

•

OB

rH

rH

CVl

1

rH

05

K\

S

•

rH

0

r<>

to

rH

1

cr\

0

•

•

•

•

•

#

•

1

•

e

to

rH

rH

)

0

rH

•

C\J

ir>

irv

VP

rH

rH

CVJ

KV

M

•

#

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

U

cr»

KD

cu

rH

cr\

rH

0

rH

(TV

o5

•

e

•

•

•

•

•

rH

+»

o^

CTi

to

fH

rH

rH

0

El

•

•

•

•

«

d •

•

•

•

•

•

*

•

0)

®

•H •

•

•

•

•

•

•

W •

d

0

•

•

«

•

«

•

•

+» •

0

d

d •

•

•

•

•

® •

•

d •

•ri

a

® •

CD •

(0

>> •

•

43 •

•

® •

w

>

a •

Vi •

4a

0 •

•

05 •

•

a •

d

0

•

0 •

•H

d •

♦

ea ffi ®

> • *

a

4a •

®

rH

>

® •

•H 0

0

w •

Pi

rH

0 •

h4 •

®

«»D •

•

0 43 «

Vi 4»

u

® •

c3

0

^ •

d

(h *

•

Pi ®

'H

► •

Vi

m •

M •

®

® •

•

••

U •

d •

0

-d

4a w

d •

,0

a *

•

0 ® •§

a •

Wo*

•H >*

d

d 0

CD •

<D •

•

S Q,

0 4a

d •

4*

d

®

® 0

•

4a

e

•

® 0 ^

Vi d

0 w •

a

0

Tj Vi

•d ®

d

Vi •

•

8* SJ d

«H ®

•H ® •

0 ®

•H

w

d 0

d 0

®

OO CD

•

*>» d a

I

4* ► «

^ Pi

4a

4a

® Ch

® d

a

^ 4^

•

EH •H S

® ^

d -H -rt

<H 0

05

d

Pi

a

•rH

•

4^

,Q +» fl

CD

®

® 'd

® H

0

fH Ch

•

W rH

•H ® ®

® Pi

d

a

'd ®

M d

rH

05 ®

«

tJ &

rH nH

a .

®

4a

g

d «

Pi

p d

u

d a.

4* ®

0 Vi

Pi

0

0 P

I d

a

® ®

®

Vi ®

d Vi <M

0 0

a

rH

4a c6

'd "H

®

jd

CO

0

d

0

rH

rH

d

®

4a

w

0

t-H

0

■*A

0

t> *

0

l/ Less than O.O5 percent.

V. NONMONETARY INCOME FROM PUBLIC AID

More than half the families receiving aid to dependent children in
the 8 States had some form of nonmonetary income from public aid. The
proportion of families with this type of income was as follows:

Percent of

State families

Total, 8 States.... 56.2

Arkansas . 87.1

District of Columbia . 84.2

Massachusetts . 75.3

Missouri . 48,3

Montana . 51.8

North Carolina . 43.6

Oklahoma . 46.4

Wisconsin . 56.7

SuiT>lus Commodities and Related Programs

Surplus food provided through the Food Distribution Administration
of the U.S. Department of Agricultiire was the most frequent type of non¬
monetary aid received by these families. The proportion of families
receiving free food either through the Stamp Plan or through direct dis¬
tribution of surplus agricultural products ranged from about 42 percent in
North Carolina and Oklahoma to more than 96 percent in Massachusetts
(table 10). Nearly one-third of the families in the 8 States participated
in the Stamp Plan, buying orange stamps in amounts presumably equal to
their ^normal” food purchases and thus becoming entitled to free blue stamps
of equal value exchangeable for food to supplement purchases. The Stamp
Plan was not Statevdde in 6 of the 8 States. Nearly one-fourth of the fami¬
lies in these States received surplus foods through direct distribution.

Surplus-food distribution was fairly substantial in amount as well
as in extent. Although the value of such foods was not reported in this
study, information from the Food Distribution Administration shows that
the average value of the free stamps issued in December 1942 to families
receiving aid to dependent children was between $10 and $15 in each of the
States operating under the Stamp Plan except Massachusetts, where it was
$19.

In Arkansas and North Carolina, a few families received cotton stamps
in the month of the study, although in most parts of the country the cotton
stamp program had been suspended. Clothing produced on WPA projects was
distributed to some families in each State and to about two-fifths of the
families in the District of Columbia and Montana,

- 25 -

- 26 -

Table 10* — Percent of families on ADC rolls vdth specified type of
nonmonetary income from public sources,
for 3 States, October 1942

State

Surplus

commodities

Food

stamps

Cotton

stamps

WPA

processed

clothing

Other

Total, 8 States.

23.2

32.5

8.8

1.0

Arkansas .

37.5

48.4

.2

4.9

4.7

District of Columbia.

82.6

—

—

39.0

—

Massachusetts .

49.3

47.1

—

14.8

.6

Missouri .

26.5

17.1

—

11.1

.2

Montana . .

7.0

2/47.8

—

40.6

1.2

North Carolina.......

25.3

16.4

.1

6.2

.4

Oklahoma .

.9 -

40.9

—

4.9

1.5

Wisconsin . .

19.8

29.4 .

1.5

.2

\J Less than 0,05 percent.

2J Not available from study. Percent shown for December 1942; source,
Food Distribution Administration, Civilian Food Requirements Branch.

Medical Care

Some States included medical care among the budgeted requirements
in computing the amount of the regular monthly payment when inclusion of
this requirement did not bring the total amount above the State *s maximum
payment. Because of maximums, however, 6 States could provide very little
medical care through the monthly assistance payment. In the other 2 States,
Massachusetts and Vdsconsin, ADC payments included the cost of emergency
medical services for about 12 percent and 3 percent of the families, respec¬
tively. About 10 percent of all the families received medical services
provided through general assistance or services in public hospitals or
clinics financed from public funds. The proportion of families receiving
such services ranged from about 2 percent in Arkansas to about 29 percent
in the District of Columbia (table 11). Medical services were provided
some families by voluntary health or welfare agencies. Only in the District
of Columbia did a substantial proportion of the families receive medical
services from this source.

N

/

- 27

Table 11. — Percent of families on ADC rolls with medical care financed
from specified source, for 8 States, October 1942

State

ADC

payments

Other

public

funds

Voluntary

agencies

Total, 8 States .

2.2

10.2

1.8

Arkansas .

— —

2.1

•4

District of Columbia .

—

28.6

15.0

Massachusetts .

12.0

u.o

.6

Missouri .

—

12.7

2.6

Montana. . .

—

22.6

4.3

North Carolina .

—

2.6

1.7

Oklahoma .

—

5.4

1.8

Wisconsin .

2.8

18.6

1.0

: The percent of families receiving medical care financed through
the specified sources is probably smaller than the sum of the
percents for each source, since a family may receive care through
more than one source.

Note

VI.

NONMOWETARY INCOME FROM SOURCES OTHER THAN PUBLIC AID

About two-fifths of the families had nonmonetary income from pri¬
vate sources (table 12). Living quarters and food comprised the b\ilk of
such income. About one-fourth of the families had shelter, owned, pro¬
vided by relatives, or obtained in exchange for services. Some food other
than surplus food of the Food Distribution Administration was available
without purchase to a fourth of the families. More than 7 percent of the
families received clothing, fuel, or other income in kind.

Table 12.— Percent of families on ADC rolls with specified type of non¬
monetary income from sources other than public aid,
for 8 States, October 1942

State

Housing

Food

Other

Total

Rent-free

In return
for services

Total, 8 States..

25.4

20.1

5.3

25.8

7.4

Arkansas. . . . .

85.0

77.6

7.4

67.8

2.2

District of Columbia..

1.4

1.0

.4

1.7

.3

Massachusetts .

1.9

1.3

.6

.4

1.5

Missouri. . . . .

13.7

7.2

6.5

50.0

18.6

Montana . .

37.1

33.9

3.2

20.8

7.8

North Carolina .

36.3

25.0

11.3

35.2

10.5

Oklahoma .

17.9

12.1

5.8

7.1

4.6

Wisconsin..... .

33.8

31.9

1.9

23.5

4.3

Comparable estimates of the current income value of such resoxurces
as the ownership of a home, shelter provided by relatives, and farm and
garden produce consumed could not be obtained from the many scattered
workers who participated in the study. The only appraisals of such income
were estimates by the case workers as to whether such income was wor-Dh
less than or v/as valued at $5 or more.

For soDiewhat more than 1 family in 4 in the 8 States, the nonmonetary
income reported had a value of at least $5. The percent of families in
each State with nonmonetary income from sources other than public aid valued
at $5 or more was as follows:

18/ Private agencies may have been the source of nonmonetary income in
some families, but judging by the small amount of cash income from
this source it can be assumed that the amount of nonmonetary income
from private agencies was negligible.

- 29 -

Percent

State of families

Total, 8 States.... 27.7

Arkansas . 52.5

District of Columbia.... 2.5

• Massachusetts . . 3.1

Missouri . 35.7

Montana . 47.4

North Carolina . -43.1

Oklahoma . 13.0

Wisconsin . 37.5

The very small proportions shown for the District of Columbia and
Massachusetts, the most urbanized States studied, suggest that such in¬
come is more prevalent in rural States.

y

VII. SUMMARY

In a period when employment was expanding and jobs were open to
persons not normally in the labor market, families receiving aid to
dependent children in 8 States had an average total cash income for a
month of less than $63 for an average family of 4.5. persons, including
the childrep for whom aid was planned and others living as a family in
the same household. A little more than half of this ^ount came from
the ADC payment, the most important single source of income. About 11
percent of the families had no appreciable income other than this assist¬
ance payment. About 3 percent of the total family Income c^e from o^er
public aid and about 46 percent from all other sources combined, chiefly
earnings. Three-fifths of all families had some income from earnings.

In all States except Arkansas and the District of Columbia, a few
families received general assistance in the form of commodities or orders
on vendors. More than half of the families shared in the Food Stamp Plan
or direct distribution of surplus agriciatural products. Other studies
have shovm that the value of this aid was fairly substantial.

The importance of different types of income and the proportion of
total income from public aid and from other sources varied greatly from
State to State. This variation is an inevitable consequence not only of
differences in State policies and practices but also of differences in
family composition, degree of urbanization, and labor market conditions.

Wartime economic conditions are reflected in the importance of
earnings as a source of income for these families with dependent children.
The proportion of families reporting income from earnings ranged from a
little less than one-third in Massachusetts to nearly three-fourths in
Arkansas and North Carolina. These last two States also had the largest
proportion of working mothers. The war has had the effect not only of
increasing employment but also of raising living costs. Assistance pay¬
ments, insufficient to meet need in many States because of maximums on
payments, low standards of assistance, or inadequate appropriations, have
been, in some instances, less adequate as living costs have mounted. The
combination of inadequate assistance and rising living costs undoubtedly
has forced many mothers to seek employment even when they were needed in
the home to care for their children. In such households, earnings were
probably received at the expense of the care and supervision of the
children.

The opportunities offered by a tight labor market for employment
of persons not normally employed may not continue indefinitely. If the
current demand for labor slackens, unemployment will undoubtedly result
for many families with members of low employability. At that time the
importance of earnings as a source of income for these families will
decline, and more families than at present will probably be entirely de¬
pendent for their livelihood on the assistance payment.

- 30 -

U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1945 O - *51052

The Nature of Service

in

Public Assistance Administration

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE REPORT No. 10

FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Bureau of Public Assistance

FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMEVISTRATION

Arthur J. Altmeyer, Commissioner

William L. Mitchell, Deputy Commissioner

BLUEAU OF PUBUC ASSISTANCE

Jane M. Hoey, Director

The Nature of Service

in

ublic Assistance Administration

. By GRACE F. MARCUS

Special Consultant, Bureau of Public Assistance

FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Bureau of Public Assistance

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE REPORT No. 10

iiiited States Government Printingr 0£Sce

Washinjrton: 1946

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing OflBce
Washington 25, D. C. - Price 10 cents

fy..

f

0

. ^ .

t * I

I

I

♦

i

f

V

CONTENTS

Page

Foreword . HI

Introduction

i The purpose of the statement . VII

j Order of presentation . VII

Limitation of presentation . VII

! I, Purposes of Public Assistance as a Program of
i Social Security

I Effect on the agency’s operation of its idea of its underlying
1 purposes . 1

j Purpose of social security and its implications for agency
i operations . 2

I Statutory basis for the right to assistance . . 3

j Implications of the right to assistance for eligibility
i determination . 3

! How the right to assistance affects the relationship
I between agency and individual . 4

i Fairness and dependability in the administration of assistance . 5

^ Summary . 6

in. Service in Public Assistance Administration

Eligibility determination as the base for public
] assistance service . 8

The individual’s problem in establishing eligibility . 9

i Explaining eligibility requirements 11

Value to the individual in understanding eligibility

j requirements . 12

I Explaining policy and procedure in eligibility determination 13

I Discussing choices under agency policy and procedure 13

I Understanding the meaning of dependency in dealing with

j the applicant . 14

I Providing opportunity for the applicant to take responsibility 15

j Respecting the individual as a factor in eligibility
I determination .

I

V

CONTENTS

Page

Concern for the individual in his relationships . 17

Range of individual needs . 19

Responsibility for identifying special needs . 20

Defining the conditions and obligations of continuing

eligibility . 22

Service in referral to other programs or agencies . 25

Service in situations involving problems of behavior

and personal relationships . 26

Defining the agency’s responsibility in problems

of personal relationships . 28

Conclusion . 31

VI

Iiitrofliiction

purpose of the Statement

This statement is offered for use in developing the elements in admin -
I stration of public assistance that will promote the welfare of people in
leed and the public interest in having need met. The statement is
, ;ntended to assist in making and interpreting policy for the guidance
)f ^v'orkers and in directing staff development. Its purpose is to suggest
' vays in which the objectives of public assistance may be more effectively
•ealized in a service rendered to individuals.

* Jrder of Presehtation

1 This analysis of service in public assistance is based on the belief
^Ihat an agency is responsible for offering service that meets the essential
[; requirements of the task that the agency is set up to perform. -
I In public assistance, the primary task of the agency is to provide
issistance. This is the practical reason why the public furnishes the
[agency with assistance funds and why people in need apply to the
jigency. To determine how it must operate to provide assistance properly,
Jhe agency must clearly realize the social purposes it is expected to advance,
rhe agency and its workers should be able to distinguish these purposes
Torn other purposes inconsistent or unconnected with them. The agency
nust also appraise the various means it employs to make sure that they
are suitable to its purposes and are used in a way that brings about
Jie intended result: a helpful service to the people who seek its assistance.

For these reasons, this statement, in defining service, examines the
imderlying purposes of the Social Security Act in providing grants-in-aid
for public assistance and analyzes the responsibility that consequently
jEalls upon the agency and its workers in doing the job that is faithful
these purposes.

! Underlying the statement is the belief that the agency and its workers
mrill find it easier to perform the task of administering assistance to
individuals if they are agreed on the purposes for which they are working
ind if they can test what they do by its effect in achieving these purposes.

Limitation of Presentation

The emphasis in this statement has been placed on common minimum
JSsentials of service in public assistance administration. It is to be expected
Slat as the administration of assistance becomes firmly grounded in agree-
aaent on the demands of the job, and as skill develops in satisfying these
flemands. the social usefulness of public assistance as a service to

vn

■J

■i'

individuals will be extended and deepened. Agencies will naturally de-j
velop effectivness in service at the pace and to the degree permitteBj
by their special conditions and opportunities. Differences in the qualitt
of service will result while workers are in the process of learning ti
orient themselves to this kind of administration of assistance. An elemenJ
tary definition should therefore provide agencies with a means for aw
praising the soundness of their service, that is, the extent to whici
the ser^'ice is geared to carrying out the basic job of providing publilj
assistance.

■1

I

I

: p

I

' a

a

t

■ f

! ^
1 a

VIII

a

Purposes of Public Assistance as
Program of Social Security

Effect on the Agency^s Operation of Its
Idea of Its Underlying Purposes
The agency^ administering assistance is continually faced with ques¬
tions which it will answer in accordance with its conception of its social
purposes. Because individual ideas of the ends to be ser\'ed in providing
issistance will vary wddely both inside and outside the agency, it needs
to w'ork through the variations of opinion and attitude within its own
Staff to secure a social consistency in the formulation, and then in the
Individual interpretation and application, of its policies.

\^Tien the agency and its staff have arrived at decisions about funda¬
mental purposes, the task of maintaining and strengthening them begins,
rhe desired objectives may be difficult to achieve. The conditions hamper¬
ing full achievement are often external. They may include legal restric¬
tions, inadequacy of funds, and lacks or defects in other local w'elfare
services. There may be internal problems in the agency’s structure, ad¬
ministrative operation, and stage of staff development. In any case, the
igency and its workers must frequently take into account handicapping
factors and w'ork out practical adjustments to them.

Tlie agency’s current situation may force certain compromises in
policy that restrict or partly obscure the underlying social purpose. Because
the social purpose does not find full and unmistakable expression in
practical policy, the agency is under the more urgent need to create
and preserve an understanding of fundamental objectives. There are
;8everal reasons why the agency must cultivate this understanding: (1) to
obtain the maximum realization of the positive possibilities within the
'Recognized restrictions in its current policies; (2) to assure unity in
administrative direction and consistency in W'ork with clients; (3) to
give direction to changes in external and internal conditions that affect
practice adversely; and (4) to improve policies that affect the worker’s
Opacity for satisfactory performance in assisting people in need.

■ 1 Since few public welfare agencies administer public assistance alone and can therefore properly
fie called public assistance agencies, for the sake of brevity the term agency administering assistance,
or simply agency, is used in this statement. Public welfare agencies carrying a number of functions
may divide them differently under departmental administrations or combine them under one administra¬
tion. These differences may result, in turn, in different combinations of responsibility for workers.
This discussion will not attempt to go intb the organization and coordination of different services,
)kor will it deal in detail with the basis on which a worker carrying an integrated case load may
render both public assistance and other functional services to the client at the same time. For a
brief general discussion of this subject, see, however, pp. 28—31.

696972—46—2

1

2

Purpose of Social Security and Its

' Implications for Agency Operations

The public stake in protecting the economic security of individual;
extends beyond ensuring their physical survival. Well-being in a demo<
cratic society must include the individual’s maintenance of his capacity
for independent functioning. General security requires that individual
be shielded against hazards that may undermine this capacity or thwarl
its development. Good public policy demands that opportunity for indi¬
viduals to carry their personal responsibilities be the more carefully safe
guarded because these personal responsibilities are of such a nature thal
no external organization, public or voluntary, can undertake them will
equivalent adequacy and economy.

Under the Social Security Act, the purpose of public assistance is tc
supply the necessary minimum of economic security to persons in specified
groups of the population who lack resources of their own to meet then
essential needs. Since the well-being of the community depends on th(
well-being of its individual members, the agency, in furnishing assistance
to people unable to support themselves, is serving at one and the same
time the welfare of these individuals and the welfare of the genera!
public of which they are a part.

This concept of social security has practical usefulness for the agency
It provides a positive and stable position from which to deal with contra
dictory ideas about the purpose that should determine the agency’s cours<
in a given situation. This definition of social security disposes of th(
conflict often assumed to exist between the essential welfare of the genera l
group and the essential welfare of particular members. If the basic interests
of the community and the basic interests of the individual are properl)
defined, they are not at odds, and the agency can have an inner assurancs
that in serving the good of the individual it is also serving the good o:
society.

The purpose of social security gives the agency an active, constructs
function in providing assistance: to employ every available resource o;
its own and to furnish access to every available resource in the com i
munity needed and desired by the individual to maintain and improvi i
his independent command of his situation. This aim requires that th( :
agency make assistance available to all who can be proved eligible and i
in addition, make this assistance as sufficient to their need as is possibh
within the agency’s legal sanctions and financial ability. The agency’i '
objective includes preservation of the values that accrue to society fron
the individual’s attaining and conserving his maximum capacity' anc
opportunity for self-direction. Effectiveness of administration can there j
fore be measured by the degree to which it allows the individual t< ,

3

move under his own power and to manage his own personal and social
relationships.

Statutory Basis for the Right to Assistance

Associated with the objectives of social security and reinforcing them
are two major operating purposes: (1) to administer assistance as a
right, and (2) to achieve social fairness and dependability in the dis¬
tribution of funds to individuals. Three provisions of the Social Security
Act furnish a definite statutory basis for administering assistance as a
right.

The requirement that the individual have an opportunity for a fair
hearing establishes his claim on the agency for a review of its proceed¬
ings when he is dissatisfied with its decisions. This right to appeal
enables the individual to challenge the factual basis on which the agency
has operated in his case and the validity of its judgments. Eligibility
requirements thus acquire a distinct and tangible value for the individual
by providing the ground on which he can hold the agency responsible
under the law and regulation for the action it has taken on his appli¬
cation or in determining his payment.

The provision restricting the agency’s use of information about the
individual to the purpose of serving him establishes another aspect of
his right. His affairs may not become public property, nor his personal
status or his welfare be damaged by disclosures about them. His business
with the agency remains his private business, and the agency is obligated
to respect it as such.

The provision for payment of assistance in money recognizes that once
the agency has determined his eligibility and the amount of his payment,
the money belongs to the individual. He is free to decide for himself,
on his own responsibility, how he will spend it, and having spent it,
he is free of any obligation to account for his use of it.

The provision of the act requiring the establishment of methods for
proper and efficient operation has played an indirect part in strengthening
and extending the meaning of the right implicit in the three provisions
mentioned above. Efficiency in administration naturally demands con¬
sistency throughout administration and therefore makes all of administra¬
tion responsible for respecting and safeguarding the right to assistance
in its various implications.

Implications of the Right to Assistance
for Eligibility Determination

^ The right to assistance implied in the provisions for fair hearing,
‘protection of confidential information, and the money payment gives
support to basic elements in social security. The fair hearing safeguards

4

the material claim of those who are eligible for assistance and, in addition,
their claim to the full amount of assistance due them under the agency’s
defined policies. The other provisions safeguard the social claim of
people in need to protection of their private status and to personal free¬
dom in spending their money. The right to assistance is, however, con¬
ditional on meeting eligibility requirements. It therefore depends on
the way in which eligibility is determined.

To meet its responsibility for administering assistance as a right, the
agency must bring eligibility determination under objective controls,
defining the conditions binding on the individual in obtaining assistance
and on itself in disbursing assistance. In defining these conditions, the
agency is fixing and limiting the nature and scope of its legitimate
concern in what the individual does in his individual situation. In stating
definitely the obligations which the individual must meet to obtain assist¬
ance, the agency is also restricting the demands which it can properly
make on him as a recipient. Thus the right to assistance rests on two
related and essential conditions, the availability of assistance to eligible
persons and the definition of the mutual obligations of the agency and
the individuals, it serves.

How the Right to Assistance Affects the Relationship
Between Agency and Individual

The relationship between the agency and the individual that is dictated
by the principle of assistance as a right also predicates a series of beliefs
about people in need. People in need vary from one another as other
people vary. Individuals in need, like most others in the population,
usually have a capacity to understand and respect the purposes animating
their Government in relation to them and have a similar ability to deal
responsibly with that Government. Like the majority of people, individuals
in need generally prefer to support themselves unaided and therefore
will use any opportunity to lessen or end their dependence on public
assistance. Like other people, they ordinarily have both the wish and
the capacity to direct their own affairs and manage their personal re¬
sponsibilities, and they do not differ from other human beings in an
active and independent concern to improve their living situations and
to master problems that interfere with their effective personal functioning.
In short, the condition of financial need and dependence does not mark
a difference in the kind or quality of people whom it overtakes.

Implicit in the views stated above is the belief that people in need
possess the same range of differences as the financially independent and
have a similar right to these differences. Those with whom the agencv
is concerned, however, have certain common characteristics: their need
and request for help and other factors that make them eligible for assist-

5

ance. The agency’s requirements are consequently designed to identify
them as eligible, and the specific obligations it defines for them will be
strictly related to its own need to make sure that it is providing assist¬
ance only to eligible persons. The agency establishes its relationship with
individuals on a basis that enables them to know what they can expect
from it and what it expects from them, and it endeavors to supply assist¬
ance adequate to their need. These proceedings have a special virtue in
releasing and stimulating the motives that usually animate people to
assume responsibility for their own lives.

The agency’s course is directed by its responsibility to see that the
right to assistance acquires meaning and value to each individual. To
make such a relationship possible and socially effective, the individual’s
use of any service of the agency must be voluntary, shaped by his own
conscious choice and by his independent decision to bring about some
modification in his situation. The agency’s service in administering assist¬
ance should be directed toward enabling the individual to find and act
on his own incentives, to better his condition, and to provide him with
whatever help within its reach is necessary to achieve this end. To
develop the values implicit in the right to assistance, the agency and its
workers give up activities that regulate his relationships or entail super¬
vision of his affairs. Such activities undermine the individual’s ability
to function self-responsibly and to assert his own intelligence and initiative
in ordering his personal life.

Fairness and Dependability in the
Administration of Assistance

The agency’s responsibility for giving reality to the right to assist¬
ance makes dependability a dominant objective in disbursing assistance
efficiently. To provide assistance to different individuals in different cir¬
cumstances on a basis that is fair and reliable, the agency governs its
administration by law, principle, and policy.

Policy is the agency’s practical instrument —

ii 1. For seeing that people in similar circumstances actually receive
similar treatment from their government;

1^ 2. For acquainting all individuals who deal with the agency with what

^ it can do for them in their specific situation and under what con-
K ditions and on what terms its assistance can be provided;

■ 3. For placing at each worker’s command the agency’s guides for pro-
jt ceeding surely at points of doubt or difficulty in individual situations;

4. For furnishing each worker with knowledge indispensable to action
ft that can be sustained by the agency; and

K 5. For assuring that its business in each case is conducted in such a

6

way that the agency, as an office of government, can account for.^
what it has done and submit its actions to impartial scrutiny.

Policy is used in the agency’s operation to bulwark the agency’s purpose
in administering assistance as a right in the following ways:

1. To enable the person in need to find out what his right to assistance is; 1

2. To serve as a source of clear and reliable information for the
individual;

3. To help the worker recognize the individual’s stake in exercising
his right by —

a. Permitting him to know and meet responsibly the requirements ^
and condition on which eligibility rests, and

b. Giving him a ground for holding the agency to its obligation if
he questions its decisions; and

4. To provide the agency with a necessary foundation for fulfilling

its responsibility to the public by — ^

a. Explaining the basis on which need is currently met, and

b. Indicating the value and defects of the agency’s present means
of supplying assistance.

Even though policy has the general value of achieving dependability
in administering assistance, any specific policy may be socially or admin¬
istratively defective. Understanding of the social uses for which all policy
is intended enables the agency’s staff to make existent policy work to the
maximum advantage and yet to be critically aware of its deficiencies.
Testing what it is doing against its social purposes helps to assure progres- i
sive development of policy in the agency. Through this method, the
agency can continue striving for whatever changes in internal or external
conditions are necessary to improve its usefulness.

Summary

The underlying purposes of public assistance as a social security pro¬
gram prescribe for the agency what it must do if the result is to be
a service to individuals in need:

The individual should be enabled to meet his essential needs prompt¬
ly and adequately, through the money payment and through help in
obtaining, from other sources within or outside the agency, supplemen¬
tary means and other services that are necessary to his physical and
social welfare.

People in need should have appropriate opportunity to strengthen, :
recover, or develop their personal capacities so that they may lead |
self-directing and self-sufficient lives within any inevitable limitations i
of a personal or environmental nature.

7

The agency should develop methods of administration that permit
its clients to maintain their personal status in a manner consistent
with the central purposes involved in providing assistance as a right.

I Service may include various kinds of help in meeting various types
of needs that are related to the necessity for obtaining and living on
assistance. The distinctive characteristics of this seryice derive from the
right to assistance. It is necessary, therefore, to differentiate this service
{rom other services that may be rendered in the public welfare agency
t>r in voluntary agencies, such as those deriving from authoritative and
protective functions.

Service in Public Assistance i
Administration

^ Eligibility Determination as the Base for
Public Assistance Service

In administering assistance as a right, the agency has to take into
account an essential but complicating feature: the right must be established
by meeting certain terms defined by law and policy. Since eligibility!
establishes the individual’s right, the processes through which eligibility!
is determined have primary importance both for the agency and for th«
people who request or receive assistance. The right to assistance has!
reality only insofar as eligibility determination is conducted with accuracy, |
fairness, and social judgment. To make that right an actuality, the agency:
and its workers must develop full understanding of what is required ofj
them for the proper handling of initial and continuing determination ofj
eligibility.

The actual claim to assistance as well as the amount of the payment
depends on combinations of circumstance that differ from individual to
individual. For any individual, these combinations of circumstance are
also subject to change from time to time. Agency policy furnishes genera
guides for workers, but workers must still carry responsibility for seeing]
how general policies apply to the specific circumstances of specific appli-|
cants. Determination of eligibility therefore cannot be satisfactorily perj
formed through routine procedures. Financial and other needs cannot be
expected to remain fixed in kind or degree. Therefore, concern witll
eligibility cannot be limited to an isolated series of procedures and toi
periodic reviews and recalculations. i||

The significance which eligibility holds for the agency does not end wit6
these material aspects of the right to assistance. The individual’s potenti»
or actual eligibility is the indispensable practical foundation on which thi
relationship between him and the agency rests. His maintenance and us^
of his eligibility status are bound up with the changing course of hi
circumstances, relationships, and events and with what he needs and want
to do in managing them. Bound up in his eligibility are the vital an<
varied considerations about which his business with the agency and thi
agency’s business with him continue to revolve. The agency’s service o;
granting assistance, therefore, can be enriched and deepened by the wai
in which it determines initial and continuing eligibility and handles re
lated requests.

8

9

In determining eligibility, the agency and its workers have responsi¬
bility for enabling each individual to —

1. Establish his eligibility promptly and obtain all the assistance avail¬
able to him in his specific circumstances;

2. Conduct his relations with the agency under conditions that permit
him to exercise his full right to assistance and to meet the specific
obligations through which the right must be maintained;

3. Have opportunity, throughout his contact with the agency, to know
! what other resources and services for meeting his individual needs

are available within other programs of the public welfare agency
i and in the community, and to utilize these as his individual necessity
and desire indicate.

In practice, the reliable determination of initial and continuing eligibility
calls for a process of collaboration between the agency worker and the
individual. Through the worker the agency must supply the individual with
information and guidance about ^vhat needs to be done. The individual,
in his turn, must supply the worker with facts or access to facts on which
decisions may then be based. Agency and individual are thus dependent
on each other for practical knowledge and reliable action in their related
jspheres of responsibility. Since the process of eligibility determination
jrequires intelligent activity from the individual, the agency must provide
him with an objective basis for carrying out his part in the process as
effectively as possible. To give him the help that is necessary, it is
importairt to see what his difficulties are likely to be in taking on his
proper role in relation to the agency.

The Individual’s Problem in Establishing Eligibility

Certain natural disabilities may seriously hamper the applicant in estab¬
lishing his claim to assistance. In many instances his practical hold on
his own affairs has been weakened by an increasing lack or sudden loss
of essential resources, and he has a sense of helplessness and failure in
irunning his owm affairs. He is often beset by fears that his need may
hot be understood or accepted as legitimate. He may think that he will
have to submit to humiliating and socially disturbing procedures or that
|he may be forced to surrender control over his own manner of living. He
I usually has little knowdedge of how the agency proceeds, or w^hat its
'reasons are for its particular proceedings with him, or w'hat it can do
for him or wdll expect from him. The agency’s necessar}' inquiries enter
jinto various phases of his private life that involve or are involved in his
'finances^ — his household management, his relations with his immediate family
and relatives, and his personal living arrangements. These are matters
affecting him so intimately that without help he may not succeed in pre¬
senting a realistic picture of his situation. To qualify for assistance under

696972— 4 e— 3

the agency’s conditions and standards or to live on the amount of assist-^
ance available, he may have to make various changes in his plan or scale;
of living, and this prospect may further upset his hope of keeping any^
grasp on his affairs.

In addition, problems arise for any individual in becoming dependent
on an external agency for all or part of his subsistence. Normally, for
the independent person, control over his financial economy is the basis
on which he determines and meets his own needs, manages his affairs,
and conducts his personal and social relationships. When the agency becomes
an active factor in this financial economy, its operation affects the struc¬
ture on which the rest of the individual’s existence depends. Because public
assistance can supply only an established minimum, money is bound to i
be a more immediate factor in every part of the life of recipients than
of persons who have a financial margin. Agency control over his means
of subsistence may therefore disturb or overthrow the individual’s habitual
basis for management. A correspondingly greater responsibility falls on
the agency to forestall this turn of events and to make it possible for
the individual to assert his powers of doing for himself, making his own
decisions, and devising his own plans.

The aim of the agency is to enable the individual to use its assistance
in a plan of living that is determined by his particular circumstances and
interests. It must therefore help him to find an accommodation to its i
mode of operation that permits him to work with it to this end. To ;
extend this help, the agency must realize that its organized, systematic
proceedings are very different from those an individual would follow in
appraising and trying to solve his own financial problems. The scope of
the agency’s concern in the individual’s affairs and the restrictions on its
assistance may seem to leave him with little or no room for using his
practical judgment and initiative. To be helpful to the client in main¬
taining or regaining his self-control, the agency should be aware of the
possibility that his feelings about his need for assistance and about the
agency’s position of economic control are factors that may hamper him
in assuming an active role in dealing with his affairs. An essential remedy
for these difficulties lies in the w'orker’s undertaking to make the agency’s
role intelligible to him. i

To deal planfully with the agency, the individual must have an oppor¬
tunity to understand the considerations that determine its specific acts ;
and decisions in his case, the financial reliance he can place on the I
agency, and the requirements he must meet in order to maintain his
relation to it. The individual needs this definite understanding so that
he can choose and plot his course with aw'areness of the possibilities and
responsibility for consequences. He needs it also to discover concretely

11

i how a way of living that will be feasible from his point of view can
be managed within the scheme through ^v'hich the agency provides assist¬
ance. The service performed by the worker in providing this under¬
standing has a crucial value in enabling the individual to deal with the
agency itself as a comprehensible and reliable factor in his economy, that
is, as the instrument through which his need may be met as a matter
of right.

Explaining Eligibility Requirements

The first and basic need of the individual is for a simple and practical
explanation that makes it possible for him to understand the agency’s
eligibility requirements as they apply to him. This explanation furnishes
the ground on which he can enter into an active, self-reliant relationship
with the agency. In developing explanation as an interviewing skill
essential to its service, the agency transforms a one-sided investigation
of the individual’s circumstances into a joint enterprise in which he is
recognized as an indispensable direct partner. As the agency’s workers
acquire proficiency in this distinctive skill, inquiry into the individual’s
eligibility ceases to be an investigation conducted about and around him
as an inert object that is without interest and responsibility. Instead,
responsibility for establishing eligibility is shared with him to the limit
of his capacity. In the application interview, the worker should make
plain that in proving eligibility the individual is establishing his right
and should also inform him from point to point what he may expect
the agency to do as its conditions are met.

If the individual is obviously ineligible according to his own clear state¬
ment, the need that has prompted him to make inquiry or request assist¬
ance imposes an obligation on the worker to indicate other resources
within or outside the agency in which he may be interested, as well as
to inform him of the circumstances that make him ineligible. Before con-
, eluding that he is obviously ineligible, however, the worker should be
careful to distinguish fact from unjustified assumptions, such as an assump¬
tion that he should be able to earn what he needs or that his relatives
should support him. When the applicant is not needy according to the
agency’s standards, the worker’s review of his circumstances with him
may occasionally reveal that he could relieve or meet his particular difficulty
i by using other resources or services in the community for which he may
be eligible.

If the individual is potentially eligible, the worker is responsible for
explaining each factor affecting his eligibility, the facts necessary to
establish it, and the means by which he may most readily obtain proof.
; It is important to recognize that applicants vary in their ability to follow
detailed discussion. The worker who is concerned with making the

12

individual’s right accessible to him will be sensitive to difficulties. For
example an individual may be unable to give attention because he has
delayed application until his need has become critical and he is deeply,
distressed. If the worker is able to identify this anxiety, discussion of J
emergency assistance or referral to a community resource for temporary |
aid may relieve the applicant so that he can put his mind on the I
application process. Another person’s difficulty in producing information ^
may be indecision and reluctance in pursuing his application, and he i
may want time to reconsider his situation. Another person may not ,

volunteer information because he thinks that he can have little part :

to play in the agency’s inquiry into his circumstances. In interviewing 'i
him, the worker will make clear that the agency customarily obtains 1
necessary facts from or through applicants and will make sure to consult
him on all points in which there may be questions of choice. The applicant ^
should have an opportunity to know whether the facts so far given or •
obtained are meeting the agency’s requirements and whether the meaning .j
they have for the agency agrees with his understanding of his situation. |
If he is found to be eligible but believes that the amount of his pay- 1

ment is less than he needs or is entitled to, he should have an opportunity |

for further explanation of the basis of the payment. He should also be i
informed of any resources or services in the community that might enable i
him to supplement the money payment and meet needs for which he |
wants attention. If he wishes to appeal any action of the agency, he I
should be aided in doing so.

Value to the Individual in ^

Understanding Eligibility Requirements )

Development of skill in interviewing applicants is essential. If harsh
eligibility lequirements and low standards are part of the reality that
the applicant confronts in seeking assistance, it is the more important f"
that the agency’s workers give him a foothold for coping with these }
difficulties as effectively as possible. Even when the agency’s circum-
stances are favorable and the conditions to be met in establishing eligibility ^
are fair, it is essential that he know what conditions apply specifically
to him, why the agency is obliged or chooses to lay down these conditions,
and what it can do for him if and when he meets the conditions.

From the information he gains about the agency’s eligibility require¬
ments as the workers tells him of the concrete steps required of him, the
applicant may begin to understand that once he accomplishes what is
necessary he acquires a definite position in relation to the agency that,
is built on his eligibility. He sees that he can hold the agency responsible
for what it does under its rules and standards just as it can hold him
to his obligations. He knows what he is expected to do and that what

13

is expected of him is expected of all others in the same general circum¬
stances. He can deal with the worker in a businesslike way not unlike
the ways familiar to him in other transactions in which, to get what
he wants, he expects to meet terms. When he knows that the worker
is bound by official requirements and policies, he realizes that he does
not have to rely on the voluntary good will and judgment of another
individual for the essentials of life and that he has not become subject
to a person who has uncontrolled power to give or deny him assistance.

Explaining Policy and Procedure in Eligibility Determination

The worker may discover from the applicant’s questions or suspect
from his behavior that he does not understand or accept the agency’s
policies and procedures for establishing eligibility and for determining
the amount of the assistance payment. If so, it may be necessary to
explain further exactly how a particular factor affects the individual’s
eligibility or the amount of his payment, or to make clear why the agency
requires the particular information from persons in his circumstances.
The individual may feel that the condition in question is unnecessary
in his case, but even when he does, the opportunity to understand the
general purpose of the condition frequently results in his accepting it
as protection of a public interest in which he, as a member of the com¬
munity, also shares. Occasionally an applicant will object to some step
in the process that is unavoidable in his particular case. For example,
the agency may require that relatives be sought out and asked to support
him, and he may decide to interrupt his application until he can decide
Avhether he will agree to this requirement. In such instances, it is im¬
portant that the worker be able to identify his reservation and to respect
his feeling about it, so that he may discover that the agency recognizes
his full right to decide for himself whether he can accept the rules under
which the agency must operate.

Discussing Choices Under Agency Policy and Procedure

Since the intent of the agency is to enable the applicant to pursue his
own plan of living, the worker should inform the applicant of any latitudes
or alternatives under agency policy or procedure that may bear on his
choice of a course of action. For example, the old-age recipient who
needs physical care may not know that the agency provides assistance
for sheltered care; the applicant for aid to dependent children may not
know tliat an older child who has been brought up by his grandmother
may be eligible for aid in the grandmother’s home.

The applicant should also have as much voice as possible in determining
how procedures are to be carried out, especially when his family relation¬
ships or his status with other persons ip the community are at stake

14

or his privacy is involved. If the applicant’s stake is to be properly con¬
sidered, the worker must be able to define for him the specific facts
needed from outside sources. Knowing what these are, he has less reason j
to fear that personal opinions are being sought from his intimates or
acquaintances or that his private life is being investigated. In addition,
when he learns the purpose of such procedures, he may be able to make
suggestions that save effort or time, or to devise feasible ways for ac¬
complishing the necessary objective and protecting his legitimate personal ;
interests. In accordance with the agency’s concern to take the individual
into account as an active collaborator, the worker will give the applicant
an opportunity to consider such questions as how an absent father or
other legally responsible relatives may best be approached or how informa¬
tion on earnings should be obtained. Among the alternatives that may
require such attention is that of the spouse’s giving directly certain kinds
of information or having a part in deciding some question that arises in
the interview. This issue is usually more than an issue of procedure
and may entail regard for the usual roles of different members of the
family. In aid to dependent children cases, for example, there may be
need to provide opportunities for both the mother and the father to
participate in decisions.

Understanding the Meaning of Dependency in
Dealing With the Applicant

For the average person, financial independence constitutes an essen¬
tial title to self-esteem and the respect of others. This independence estab- I
lishes his individual adequacy in the realm of work, in his family role,
in his neighborhood, and in his relations with relatives and friends.
His capacity to provide for himself has given him freedom to pursue his :
preferences, to select the duties he will emphasize and those he will minimize,
to give importance to certain needs and problems, and to endure or ignore
others. In brief, economic self-suflSciency, however marginal or uncertain,
is for most individuals a necessary sanction for independent judgment
and action. They count on their capacity to meet their own needs as a
protection against outside interference with their private living.

If an individual is to be free to act in his own behalf, he must be
assured that the worker accepts him as a person with the ability and
the right to think for himself. To grasp the part such assurance must
play in helping the individual to regain an independent footing, the
worker must understand the position into which he has been forced by;
his need of assistance, and the power over him that this seems to him
to give the representative of the agency on which he must now depend.
However self-respecting he has been, his need to apply for assistance
marks a loss of status because of the value commonly placed on economic'

..t

ii

15

self-sufficiency. On the other hand, the individual’s own sense of the mean¬
ing of financial independence, if that meaning is not dulled by inadequate
’ assistance and disturbing experiences with the agency, may be counted
; on to motivate him to recover insofar as he can the capacity to satisfy
his own wants. Assistance itself, however liberal, is no substitute for the
personal advantages of having one’s owm resources. Therefore, if assist-
' ance is to serve its social purposes, workers must take responsibility for
! recognizing in their dealings with individuals the capacities for action
and judgment that are shaken by the loss of independence. It is only
as people in need discover, through their experience with the agency, that
they can still think and act for themselves, that they retain full incentive
to master their situations, in whatever ways and to whatever degree their
specific circumstances of age, health, and abilities permit.

Providing Opportunity for the Applicant To Take Responsibility

In administering assistance as a right, it becomes a matter of prime
importance that the worker does not take from the individual his re¬
sponsibility for conducting his part in his business with the agency. The
worker’s task is to make it clear in w'ords and behavior that the agency
recognizes that the applicant’s affairs remain his own and that responsi¬
bility for decisions about them is ultimately his. The worker may show
steady interest in and respect for the applicant’s capacity to do for him¬
self without discounting the need the particular individual may have
for help in obtaining certain facts or documentary evidence. Judgment
is required of the worker in estimating the physical and mental capacity
of the individual to do some of the necessary things effectively and promptly,
i The worker needs to determine with the individual what responsibility
he can take for obtaining proof or investigating potential resources or
j settling questions that may affect his arrangement and the agency’s assist-
i ance. Planning the tasks to be performed and allocating responsibility
■ for them serve a positive purpose. The applicant has a chance to take
practical hold of his role in the process and to choose what he will do
rfor himself and Avhat help he will accept from the agency. Moreover,
Phis sense of responsibility is strengthened by a proceeding that accepts
I him as a trustworthy and self-sufficient person.

Respecting the Individual as a Factor in
\ Eligibility Determination

f Respect for individuals is founded on the worker’s capacity to accept
I individual differences and to control prejudiced reactions to them. The
[ differences may be those of national origin, color, religious belief, or
' economic background, or they may be more individual in nature. Respect
I for the applicant requires that his peculiar feelings, ideas, standards, be-

16

havior, and relationships be accepted as natural and reasonable for him.
This disciplined attitude is necessary if the worker is to recognize each
individual’s particular capacities and his right to protect his personal
status and integrity from injury. Thus what the applicant feels or thinks
is not open to criticism or in need of justification.

The accurate and fair performance of eligibility determination often
hinges on the worker’s development of a capacity to respect the individual j
in his differences. The worker’s attitudes may directly affect the reliability 1
of the facts on which decisions are based, the understanding the individual J
gains of the agency, or the recognition of a problem with which he ^
needs practical help. The worker’s expression of her real respect for ,
the applicant as a person will be an important factor in his recognition j
of his right to express his own feelings or to ask that they be given ,
whatever consideration is possible under the agency’s policies. i

The worker’s ability to maintain a discipline over personal reactions !
and prejudices is frequently put to the test. The applicant may belong ||
to a community group that live in severe poverty. If the worker therefore |
concludes that his standards are inherently low and that he would not j
use assistance to raise his level of living, she will tend automatically to
exclude certain aspects of need from the inquiry. Another applicant may )
demand unusual concessions to personal tastes and preferences. If the j
worker thinks such behavior unsuitable in one who is dependent, the !
result may be a failure to see what provision the agency may properly ■
make for what is special in the applicant’s need. If the worker is antagonized |
by a mother’s complaint that she is tired of struggling for her children, *
she may fail to explain the various arrangements under which aid to ■ i
dependent children might be provided. An old-age applicant may greet i
the mention of each step in the process with immediate protest. If the
Avorker does not overcome annoyance at this belligerence, interpretation
of agency requirements and policies will go by the board. i

On the other hand, when workers respect the feelings of individuals,
the service they render may include help in meeting the difficulty that •
sometimes arises out of the conflict between those feelings and the policies j
of the agency. The following case is an example of service in the ad¬
ministration of public assistance: j

A disturbed young woman applied for aid to dependent children, j
She had secretly had an illegitimate child 2 years before and had left j
her mother to take responsibility for him from the time of his birth. 1
Now her mother was dead, and her sister would send the child to her !
unless she found some place to put him. She wanted the agency to , !
board the child somewhere and relieve her of the danger that others |
would discover the irregularity in her past. The worker explained ■
to her the purposes for which aid to dependent children is intended and :
told her briefly what the agency’s requirements were.

I

17

The applicant became extremely upset. She could not permit any
inquiry, nor could she afford to spend any of her money on the child.
She had to protect her position in this community that had become
home to her. No one knew that she had a baby except the doctor and
several members of her family. Whatever happened, no one was going
to know.

When the young woman became calmer, the worker told her that
it was difficult to see what could be done under these conditions, but
discussed with her the possibility of applying to a child-placement agency.
The applicant was momentarily interested in this suggestion but re¬
jected it because sbe could not risk any further disclosure. The child
was a stranger to her; though she knew that she owed him something,
she could not allow her future to be ruined.

The worker remarked that the applicant had taken a risk in coming
to this agency when she might have thought of some other way of
disposing of the child. At this point the applicant wept bitterly. Even
though she wanted to get rid of the .child, she could not quite bring
herself to abandon him: after all, he was her child and it was not
his fault that he was born.

When her tears subsided, the worker said that the applicant’s problem
was to find out what she could do with the child without too much
cost to him or herself. After a pause, the applicant asked the worker
to repeat all that she had previously told about foster-home placement
and adoption. When she had thought over what might reasonably be
required of her by the child-placement agency, she remarked that she
would have to face it; probably her fears were exaggerated; this talk
with the worker made her realize that she did not want to throw
the baby away, and she would go to the placement agency and see
whether he could be considered for adoption.

In this situation, help was founded on the worker’s ability to control
personal reactions to the young woman’s behavior and, after identifying
I the applicant’s conflicting purposes, to furnish her with a practical basis
pfor deciding what she would do.

\Concern for the Individual in His Relationships

W- The agency and its workers must see that applicants are not handi¬
capped in making decisions and choices that they need to recognize as
■ their own if they are to remain accountable for the conduct of their
affairs. Because the conditions under which assistance is given may affect
the individual’s relationships and those relationships may play a part in
'increasing or decreasing the need to be met by assistance, the agency
carries a heavy responsibility for its influence on this phase of his welfare.

The agency is confronted with the problem of determining how, under
requirements and restrictions that affect personal and family relationships,
its proceedings with individuals may be so conducted as to give them all
possible choices. It is not within the province of the agency or its workers
to determine whether a mother should keep or place her child, an absent

4

18

father return to his family, an old-age applicant live with or apart from
a spouse, a widow marry a man who is unable and unwilling to support
her children. The agency’s responsibility is for its requirements, policies,
and standards as they relate to the objective conditions under which
assistance may be obtained.

In situations like those above, the agency should enable its workers ^
to make clear to individuals how its policies bear on their specific
problems and affect the choices open to them. In all proceedings involving 1
personal and family relationships, the crucial element to be safeguarded
by the agency is the individual’s responsibility for decision wherever J
actual room for decision exists. In short, the decision must be made by '!
the individual and not by the agency worker. In such situations, the ‘
obligation of the agency is to define where the agency will stand on points
that the individual should take into account in weighing alternatives. If
the agency provides the means to its workers, they may use explanation
of conditions and policies to give the individual an opportunity to compare :
advantages and disadvantages in different plans and to balance personal ‘i
desires against practical consequences. |

An applicant for aid to dependent children was taken into her par- |
ents’ household when her husband became ill. Her husband has died, j i
and her parents are willing to help her by letting her remain with !
them rent-free. She would prefer, however, to relinquish this resource ;
if any other arrangement is possible because her overindulgent parents
do not allow her to discipline her boys and, in effect, deprive her of .
parental control. When she learns that the agency would not expect
her to use this resource under these conditions, her problem is to find
out whether, under a maximum that will make part-time work necessary,
she can make other living arrangements that will ensure supervision
for the children. Her course is marked by practical calculations based
on information about what the agency can do under differing circum¬
stances, and her eventual decision is her own.

An applicant for old-age assistance whose health has been failing
and who can no longer safely live alone does not wish to enter an
institution. The daughter who might take him into her home cannot
give him the attention he needs and also continue the part-time job
through which she is keeping her son in high school. Information
about the financial provision the agency could make for his personal
care if he entered her home provides him with ground for seeing what
rearrangement his daughter can make.

Realism in administration requires that the agency recognize that the '
amount of its assistance is a basic and conditioning element in its
service, affecting the capacity of adults to maintain their roles in the
family and the chance of children and youth to have the care and oppor- ;
tunities necessary at their stage of development. The willingness and
capacity of the recipient to make full use of the agency’s service are likely

19

j to depend on the extent to which his financial need is met. The agency’s
ability to meet financial need may therefore determine the kind and
i quality of the agency’s service.

The agency should not remain content with efforts to make up through
other kinds of help of its own or of other services for difficulties that
would be more effectively met or would not arise at ail if the money-
payment were adequate. In aid to dependent children, for example, adequate
assistance should provide for the need of parents, for it is their place
in the life of the child that the program is designed to preserve and
strengthen. When the mother is compelled to work for essential income,
the care and supervision she can give the children are ordinarily limited
and her relationships with them may be subjected to undesirable strains.
When the money payment does not provide for the needs of the incapaci¬
tated father, he suffers not only the loss of his wage-earning role and
the hardships of his illness but also the sense of burdening his family
with his unmet needs without power to change their situation or his own.
In such circumstances, the inadequacy of assistance permits relation¬
ships within the family to be distorted and prejudices the chance of the
father to come to positive terms with his incapacity. When assistance
is insufficient, parents are unable to give their children what they need
for later competition with their fellows and for escape from the hazards
of a marginal existence. When older children are forced to contribute
a large percentage of their earnings to the family exchequer, the natural
impulse toward emancipation may be unwholesomely checked or stimu¬
lated and their feelings for their family may be alienated.

Range of Individual Needs

Individuals who come to the agency have a wide range of needs. One
frequent source of need is physical and mental illness or defect. Special
needs of the aged result from the waning of their strength and capacity,
the narrowing circle of their contemporary relatives and friends, and their
desire to maintain their patterns of independence and self-direction despite
itheir infirmities. In families applying for aid to dependent children,
Iwhen a parent has died or is absent or has become incapacitated, the
changes in parental roles and responsibilities give rise to a variety of
'special needs. These shifts in family relationships create problems both
for the adults and for the children, who are often deprived of a previously
sustaining relationship and lose as well some measure of the supervision
[and care to which they were accustomed from the other parent,
el i In undertaking to meet special needs, the agency should again be aware
that the practical usefulness of assistance provision will be proportionate
to the adequacy of the money payment to meet basic needs. If recipients
are at a loss to obtain Basic necessities, they may have to divert money

20

requested for special needs to pay the rent or grocery bill. Insufficiency
of assistance for elementary needs may also make it impossible for
the individual to profit from special services to which the agency provides
access. Continuing instability in his financial affairs may impede him
in organizing himself and in mobilizing the energy required to work out
other problems in his situation.

People requesting or receiving public assistance may need various
kinds of medical and psychiatric care, special physical appliances and j
jequipment, psychological examinations and diagnosis, special diets, vocation¬
al rehabilitation. They may require specialized services for help in child
training and care, housekeeping techniques, behavior difficulties, educational
problems and plans, vocational guidance and training, employment and
recreation. Some common individual needs, such as needs for health care, j
are specific to particular situations. Other needs are special in the sense
that they involve use of highly specialized resources and services and may
demand from the worker specialized knowledge of facilities and special j
planning. If, because of the agency’s financial limitations, the worker
cannot provide the resources or services that are needed and desired j
by the individual, the worker is under an obligation to help him to .
locate any available agency or source from which they may be obtained. I
The worker is responsible for acquainting the individual with the existence
of specialized resources and services of whose purpose and possible use¬
fulness to him he might not otherwise know. In addition, the worker is
under an obligation to give the individual any help he may require in
applying properly for them.

Responsibility for Identifying Special Needs

In many cases the individual feels no necessity or desire for service
to meet special needs or, if he does, is capable of asking for what he
wants or of getting it on his own initiative. On the other hand, the
applicant does not always know what the agency is able to do. His
difficulty may be of a sort unfamiliar to his experience, or he may be
so used to it that he does not define it as a need or problem for which
help may be obtained. The worker, therefore, bears an active responsi¬
bility for observing indications of special needs and for bringing them
up for sufficient discussion to discover whether the individual is interested
in them and wants some help in meeting them.

Skill in identifying needs for which the individual may require special
resources or services rests on several factors. Primary among these is
the importance which the agency and its workers attach to the process
of eligibility determination. In the different considerations embraced in
eligibility, workers are dealing particularly with the vital meanings of
need to the individual. When workers realize that the fundamentals of

21

the individual’s living are affected by assistance, they are bound to be
sensitive to problems with which he may need special kinds of help.

An old-age assistance applicant refers to dizzy spells as a reason
for decreasing ability to support himself by odd jobs. In discussing
his needs, he does not mention medical care. He has not been in the
habit of consulting a doctor and, in his losing struggle to remain
independent, he has had neither the energy nor the freedom of mind
to consider his health. When the worker asks whether he has gone
or wishes to go to a doctor, his response is casual and indifferent.
He must straighten out his financial affairs before he can attend to
anything else. The worker’s responsibility, however, is to let him
know that the agency does take care of medical needs or that it can
refer him to a source that does provide them, if and when he so desires.

A father applies for aid to dependent children on the eve of going
to a hospital for an indefinite period. He explains that he should have

gone a year ago, and that he is still uncertain about remaining any

' length of time. Neither he nor his wife can bear the thought of his

‘ separation from the family. The worker realizes that it is important

E! to discuss the possibility of the family’s visiting him at the hospital

and the possible need for money for transportation. She also notes
the father’s anxiety about the welfare of his wife and children. The
,| interview' is planned to provide him with opportunity to satisfy himself
I that in his absence both he and his wife can count on the agency
for practical consideration of need and a reliable interest in enabling
-• the wife to meet it,

\^Tien w'orkers recognize their responsibility for helping the applicant
to obtain assistance, they wdll be interested in the meaning of the applicant’s
situation. This interest will make it possible for them to proceed freely
in identifying possible needs and in examining with the applicant what
he himself wants to do about them.

, A mother who has had a serious operation can no longer support

her two children. She applies for aid to dependent children. The w orker
i notes that this young woman has had great pride in not depending on
" anyone in providing for her children and that she carefully cuts down
be every estimate she offers. When the worker visits the home, the mother
,ti has just finished a large washing and seems exhausted by a task beyond
i her strength. The worker comments that there has been no discussion
j of the need for laundry or other domestic services, and explains that
™ it is the agency’s practice to recognize the cost of such services when
a health condition such as hers requires them. The applicant hesitates,
I.’ and then says that if the agency does this for other people, it would
be sensible for her to have her laundry and heavy cleaning done until
jj she is well enough to do them herself.

,5, The workers may observe evidence of severe malnutrition in children;
ij the apparent deafness of a girl who is not doing well in school; the
i unsuitability of a third-floor furnished room for an old-age recipient
i w'ith cardiac disease; or the need for recreation for children of parents

22

whose health limits their capacity to furnish the youngsters with occupa¬
tion or pastimes.

If the purposes for which assistance is intended in the individual case
are being fulfilled, the responsibility of the worker to identify needs
and inform the applicant of available provisions for them should be
progressively lightened. The individual will have been enabled to deter¬
mine what his own needs are, to take the initiative in bringing them up,
and to decide for himself with which of them he wishes to concern him¬
self. The worker cannot presume to make these decisions for him, but at
the start she should take the initiative in letting the individual know what
resources and services the agency can put at his disposal.

Defining the Conditions and Obligations of
Continuing Eligibility

The application process should include explanation to the individual
of the conditions to be met in maintaining continuing eligibility. This
explanation should be made at a time and in a way that permits the
individual to consider these conditions as definitions of the obligations
of all recipients in circumstances similar to his, in accordance with the
public purpose in providing assistance. Agency and individual continue
in a partnership directed by a concern to keep assistance and other elements
in the agency’s service accurately adjusted to the facts of need and in line
with the agency’s policies. The agency should therefore define for its
workers the conditions about which the individual should be informed
and some agreement reached with him. These conditions will cover the
various kinds of changes to be reported by the recipient because of their
bearing on his eligibility and the amount of his payment. The agency
will also include its general requirements, such as for periodic review,
information about the current physical condition of the incapacitated
individual, and the acceptance of employment if physically able.

The more complete the information given the applicant, the more
effective it wall be in defining for him the nature of his relationship to
the agency. Knowing that he has both rights and obligations in con¬
nection with the agency enables the individual to maintain the self-respect
that is a basic element in personal security. The agency’s definition of
his role assures him that he will not forfeit the responsibilities and privileges
that belong to the independent status. Instead the agency recognizes that
as a self-directing person he has a right to know what commitments ha
is assuming in receiving assistance, where he stands, and what moves
he is free to make. It is then possible for him to see his new position
in practical terms and use his own resourcefulness to improve it.

The value to the individual of knowing his rights and. obligation!'
as a recipient of assistance does not end with an initial determination ol

23

•eligibility and the receipt of a payment but continues as long as his
need continues. Agency and recipient have to reckon with change as
a persisting factor in their relationship. The agency’s policies and standards
may be modified. Increase in age may render one individual in the house¬
hold eligible and another ineligible for public assistance. Supporting rela¬
tives may marry or die, or their contributions may grow larger or smaller
for other reasons. Changes in health may affect the need for assistance.
The recipient may wish to make different living arrangements, or he may
have more or less capacity to earn income of his own. As he works out
a new scheme of living he may want to improve his situation by taking
hold of problems that previously he felt compelled to overlook, or he
may wish to plan ways in which he might supply some of his own needs,
or he may become interested in developing the capacities of his children.

If the recipient is to chart his course in a continuing relationship to
the agency, and if he is to do this with proper regard for its requirements
and for his obligations, he needs to understand what his responsibilities
will be under whatever contingencies are likely in his particular situation.
Information about his continuing obligations, carefuUy given in advance,
equips him to take consequences into account on points in which his
seligibility is involved, or to consult the agency to find out what his
position would be if he takes this or that step. Knowledge of the differing
conditions under which his assistance may be increased or decreased
allows him to plan more freely on his own initiative. To the extent that
he has accurate understanding from the start of the matters on which
he is responsible for reporting to the agency, and of the things he must
do periodically to maintain his eligibility, he is helped to differentiate
the concerns in which the agency’s interest is involved from those that
remain within his independent discretion and choice.

Agencies have developed various devices to acquaint the individual
both with the general requirements and obligations he is expected to
observe and with the changes in his specific situation about which he
should inform the agency. For example, one agency has devised a
form that is given to the individual in advance of detailed discussion
[with him of the conditions that apply in his relation to the agency. The
J^discussion is planned to take place after his initial eligibility has been
established and the amount of the payment settled, when he will be able
to give it his full attention. Frequently this discussion brings up ques¬
tions that enable the worker to clarify not only the obligations of the
individual to the agency but the agency’s obligations to him. Careful
discussion of the terms of continuing eligibility has the value of defining
the scope and limits of the agency’s concern in the individual’s affairs
and helping him to use the agency appropriately and adequately. If his
plans are not permanently settled, clarification of the respects in which

24

a future decision would affect his eligibility or payment enables him to
proceed more securely.

When eligibility rests on the existence of a defect or incapacity, agency
policy should define for the worker the exact nature and extent of the
agency’s interest in medical diagnosis, possible reexaminations, and any
further action that may be required of the individual to determine his
continuing eligibility. Once these distinctions are made plain, the worker
may offer the individual service in connection with some problem be¬
setting him.

A father whose incapacity derives from a condition in which improve¬
ment has been anticipated fails to have the medical reexamination re¬
quired by the agency at the time originally suggested by the physician.
The worker talks with him about his delay in submitting to reexamination
and finds that he thinks his illness due to a progressive and incurable
disease that has struck down several members of his family. He has
accordingly renounced all hope as well as all effort for recovery. ' The
worker also discovers that this man, who has felt acutely his loss of
position as the family wage earner, is the person who formerly managed
the family affairs. He needs not only reliable information about the
condition that precipitated his severe illness but also recognition of
his proper role in family planning.

An elderly woman had been receiving assistance for several years
in behalf of two grandchildren. On several recent occasions she had
failed to notify the agency of changes in her situation, which hitherto
she had been punctilious in reporting. At the time of review she was
unable to concentrate on discussion of either her resources or the
children’s needs, although she had said at the outset that she could
not manage and would have to have an increase in the payment. The
worker asked whether she was finding it hard to deal with two active
growing boys. This was actually the crux of her difficulty, and she
really wanted to make some other plan for the boys. The worker’s
matter-of-fact acceptance of the grandmother’s real feelings enabled the
latter to undertake on her own responsibility to consult other near
relatives of the children and to work out a plan resulting in an uncle’s
applying for aid to dependent children to maintain the children in his
home.

A mother was having difficulty with her IS-year-oId son. His loss
of interest in school was threatening her plan to have him continue
his education until he w'as 18. At the worker’s suggestion, the mother
interviewed his teacher to learn more about his abilities and the possi¬
bility of some change in plan. When she was informed that his
abilities did not warrant continuation of an academic or commercial
course, her first thought was to have him transferred to^ a trade school,
though there was no evidence that the boy had any special aptitudes
or interests of this sort. The worker then brought up a question that
had previously concerned the mother, asking whether she was worried
about the cessation of the payment. The mother admitted that the pros¬
pect Avorried her and that perhaps she Avas forcing the boy to stay

25

in school to assure herself of assistance. Having faced the real source
of her conflict with her son, the mother, with the worker’s help, pro¬
ceeded to consider ways and means by Avhich, during the remaining
year, she might increase her earning capacity. Eventually she used her
exceptional ability in sewing to work up a promising repair and re¬
modeling service.

Service in Referral to Other Programs or Agencies

Opportunity for service through referring the individual to another pro¬
gram, either within the agency or under separate auspices, obviously
depends on the extent and development of local welfare services. Making
appropriate referrals requires certain skills, including:

1. Accurate knowledge of community agencies, their services and intake
policies. The worker must be careful to see that the individual under¬
stands that such programs will furnish resources or services only
in accordance with the specifications they set directly and independ¬
ently with the individual.

2. Self-discipline in workers, to avoid using other agencies as subsidiary
arms of their own. Both the other agency and the individual need
an opportunity to establish a responsible basis for the individual’s
use of its service.

3. Ability to distinguish between furnishing information about another
agency and persuasions that leave the individual in doubt about his
freedom to use or ignore a suggested resource or to discontinue
use of it without penalties.

The worker may properly supply assistance for special needs discovered
by the other agency and presented by the individual or may provide
assistance under some plan which the individual wishes to effect with the
aid of another agency. The responsibility for determining and providing
assistance, however, must continue to rest with the public assistance
worker, operating under the policies governing the administration of
assistance, exactly as the responsibility for establishing and maintaining
the relationship to the other agency rests Avith the worker in that agency.

When the individual has difficulty in using another resource the agency
may occasionally be helpful to him.

A mother who was receiving aid to dependent children asked about
medical facilities but made no move to use them in spite of the' increasing
pain and disability she was experiencing. When the worker commented
on her indecision, the mother admitted to a fear that she might have
to be hospitalized and her home broken up. The Avorker s discussion
of the various arrangements that might be made gave her the con¬
fidence she needed to consult a physician, and later to proceed with
. plans for the operation he recommended.

\ Another mother was deeply upset by a request from the school
that her boy have a psychological examination. Without asking for
an explanation, she concluded that he was going insane, as his father

■I!'

26

had. This had been her persistent fear and had taken the form of
excessive supervision of the child and a nagging concern about his
school performance. The worker raised a question about the school’s
reasons for asking for the psychological examination and was asked
by the mother to interview the school principal. The worker discovered
that the boy had excellent abilities but that lately he had been making
little use of them. When she discussed this report with the mother,
the latter wondered what effect her own excessive concern had been
having on the boy, and the worker agreed that this might be disturbing
to him. The mother remarked that perhaps she was the one who needed
psychological advice and decided that she would take herself and the
child to a child guidance clinic.

In the rural agency the frequent necessity for depending on resources
not organized as social services requires that the worker play a more
active and extended role in referring recipients. Specialized services may
be located at a distance and may become available only through special
arrangements made by the w^orker. Usually the agency has established
access to voluntary resources in the community, such as physicians ^villing
to give free services, and knows what kinds of service they are prepared
to give recipients and how much responsibility they will be willing to
take. The agency has organized information about the various civic organi¬
zations, fraternal societies, and church groups that dispense funds for
special purposes, and usually has worked out simple procedures for
getting in touch with designated persons to learn whether money can be
made available and to discuss an anticipated referral.

In utilizing resources of this sort the worker should be aware that such j
groups are not organized on a basis that assures consistent action on
referrals to them, and that the recipient may not know where to turn if |
the particular need for which he was referred is not met appropriately
or adequately. She may therefore have to take responsibility for ascertaining
what aid such resources have given to the individual so as to understand
the possible necessity for further efforts in his behalf. In some cases the j
worker may also have to plan with the voluntary group in order to
organize and coordinate joint efforts to meet the recipient’s needs. The
worker’s concern in carrying this responsibility is to keep the recipient from
becoming confused about the basis on which he is receiving aid from
these different sources, about his continued claim on the public agency,
or about his obligations to the agency as a source of assistance.

Service in Situations Involving Problems of
Behavior and Personal Relationships

In every case load there are some situations in which poverty, chronic
illness, or marital conflict produce a bewildering number of consequences,
such as bad housing, undernourishment, insufficient household equipment.

27

slovenly housekeeping, negligence in the training and supervision of the

children, or unregulated management. In such situations the agency is
I tempted to shift from providmg assistance, as adequate to need as the
. agency’s general standards and funds permit, to regulating or managing
5, the individual’s affairs. Assistance is used as a base for disciplinary
er, relationship to the recipient, and emphasis is placed on his conformity
i to the agency’s plans. The agency’s doubt of the ability or desire of
such individuals to improve their lot often results in their receiving less
assistance than others known to the agency. When that occurs the agency
and its w'orkers are not fulfilling their essential obligation to meet need
on a basis that gives individuals the wherewithal to change externals in
their situation and leaves with them the ultimate responsibility for de-
termining their mode of life.

When the agency sees that its main task is to provide assistance, the
‘ relations of workers to individuals in need may follow a sounder course
and the latent capacity of these people to take hold of their o^vm affairs
may have a chance to assert itself. Two of many examples show how
change in the individual’s attitudes to^vard his own situation followed a
change in the agency’s dealings with him.

The incapacitated father of children receiving aid to dependent chil-
dren had been under continued pressure from the agency to pursue
for , ^ medical treatment and follow precautions to protect his family from

jje If' infection. The mother, careless in her housekeeping and negligent in

her care and supervision of the children, had been subjected to

, j| inspections of her household and warned that assistance would be

stopped if she could not make her husband meet the agency’s demands.
01^ !§ After several years of unsuccessful effort to control the recipients in
if ^1-. these ways, the case was transferred to a neAv worker for the express
elvJ.^ purpose of changing the agency’s way of handling this particular
ijj situation. Hitherto the payment had been measured to the family’s
lowered standards. The worker redetermined need on a realistic basis,
li and the payment was raised to the agency’s maximum, with supple-
mentation from general assistance. The Avorker discontinued effort to
regulate the family’s affairs.

rbe Six months later the mother volunteered that she found it difficult
Q51 to keep her home clean and orderly. The worker asked her and the
1 father what they thought could be done to make housekeeping easier.
P Both eagerly discussed fundamental repairs and essential equipment
needed for the house and engaged in working out a plan of their own
te.' for using the assistance that the agency could provide over a 6-month
f period. At this point the father showed his first independent interest
in his health, an interest which the worker acknowledged without exerting

agency pressure on him to follow it up.

Within another 6 months the home was noticeably improved through
the effort and ingenuity invested by both parents in remodeling and
furnishing it. There was also evidence of ambition on the part of
each to master problems to which they had formerly been indifferent.

28

Provision of adequate assistance gave material opportunity to the re¬
cipients. The respect and confidence of the worker, as the agency’s
representative, stimulated their ability to think and act for themselves.

In another home, a succession of workers had tried in vain to
influence an unresponsive and apparently dull young mother. Her problem
of managing on inadequate assistance was complicated by the father’s
alcoholic deterioration and mental irresponsibility. Her excuses for
general neglect of her children were her inability to meet needs con¬
sistently and the father’s interference with any attempts to plan.

The agency had acted on the belief that neither she nor the father
would be able to profit by assistance greater than his always insufficient
and uncertain earnings. In addition to close supervision of her house¬
keeping and care of the children, an unavailing effort had been made
to help her understand her husband and deal with a disturbed relationship
with him.

When the agency decided to change its approach in this case, the
first step was to reconsider need. The recipient was initially at a loss
in describing the kinds of things for which she needed money. Several
discussions were held before she was able to collect herself effectively
and finish the business in hand. The worker concentrated exclusively
on questions of need and what the mother herself wanted to do about
practical problems of concern to her. The worker’s respect for the young
woman’s capacity to work on concrete questions of need supported her
in taking hold of her own responsibility for managing her household and
finding her own way of changing a situation that was no longer tolerable.

Later, this previously inert young woman came to the agency to say
that she could not do what she should for her children if her husband
remained in his present condition. Recently she realized that either
he would have to change his ways and give the children a chance, or
she would have to leave him. She could not let everything slip back
into the old state.

The subsequent course of action was directed from point to point
by the mother’s resolution to gain control of her situation. The worker
supplied information about possible procedures and what would be
involved in following them. The father had no belief in psychiatric
treatment. An involuntary commitment to a State hospital was not
possible, although the psychiatrist who was consulted had no doubt
that he was psychotic. The mother failed on one attempt to move to
another neighborhood and conceal her whereabouts from him and also
in an attempt to settle in a neighboring county. After a stalemate, the
mother decided to act on a suggestion from the worker and present a
plan she had devised for herself to a family agency in a larger city
of the State — to take training for a job in which her manual dexterity
would be useful. The family agency agreed to help her in carrying it
out. The development in this case was of the recipient’s determination
to find an active solution to her problems.

Defining the Agency^s Responsibility in
Problems of Personal Relationships

To establish the proper basis for service, the agency must define for

29

tself and its workers what responsibility it takes for problems in the
)ersonal relationships and behavior of persons to whom it is providing

issistance.

Questions about agency responsibility for dealing with personal problems
irise in various connections. Difficulties in family relationships may be
nentioned by the individual who is requesting or receiving assistance, or
hey may be known to the worker even though the recipient makes no
reference to them. In some cases the agency and its workers may have
lirect reason to be concerned about problems in relationships and be-
lavior that affect the individual’s eligibility or his obligations as applicant
3r recipient. In other situations, the worker feels a concern about a
aaarital disagreement, or the parent’s attitude toward a child, or a daughter s
treatment of an aged parent, or a widow’s relations with a masculine
friend. Sometimes another agency, such as the court or school, asks the
agency providing assistance to take responsibility for supervising some
member of the family in meeting an educational or health regulation or
some standard of conduct. Questions about obligations for dealing with

personal problems in assistance cases may arise because the agency com¬
bines various services under a single administration and assigns to one
worker responsibility for providing several different types of sefvice to
the same family. For example, the agency may have to administer aid
to dependent children under a “suitability of home” requirement.^

Though the administration of assistance as a right excludes the imposi¬
tion or giving of help on undefined and indirect grounds, the public
assistance agency may have its own particular usefulness to individuals
beset with personal difficulties in relationships or behavior. The occasions
for this service occur when personal difficulties affect the individual’s
[discharge of his defined and known obligations to the agency or when
the action the individual might take about his problem involves some
issue of eligibility and the amount of the assistance payment. The first
responsibility of the worker in such situations is to make clear to individual
applicants and recipients whatever connections there may be between
these problems and the conditions affecting eligibility. If decisions are
involved for the individual, the worker should make sure that he under¬
stands the concrete considerations that bear on them.

The purpose of the worker is to enable the individual to find his own
way to deal with his difficulty. To accomplish this purpose, the worker
must have the capacity to recognize and respect the feelings of the
individual and to clarify the practical alternatives open to him so that
he may have the opportunity to measure possibilities and consequences

2 See ‘“Suitable Home’ Provisione of Stale Plana for Aid to Dependent Children ’’

Bulletin, April 1945, pp. 19-21. summarized from statement with the same title, sent by the Bureau
of Public Assistance under date of March 5, 1945, to State agencies.

30

and so to objectify his problem and deal with it rationally. Such service
was given to the following family, which was receiving aid to dependent
children. (

The mother had repeatedly deserted three children under 6. Shi
had married for a second time a man for whom her children were ai *
obstacle to the roving life he wanted. He left her but periodically ji
yielded to her overtures by sending her money to join him wherevef j
he happened to be. When she had been with him for a month or so^ jj
however, she would quarrel with him about his refusal to live with the I
children, and these quarrels would end by his sending her home. ; f
On the mother’s return, the worker explained to her that the particulaj? I*
purpose of aid to dependent children was to enable a mother to care t
for her children if she wished, and that the agency could not continue li
to grant her aid to dependent children when it was so uncertain that [
the children were really going to have a home with her. ^

The mother told the worker about her troubles with her husband
and her inability to decide whether there was any way of settling them.
The worker recognized her dilemma and how it made it difficult fol !•
her to stay home and give the children the care they required. The 1
worker mentioned several other possibilities for caring for the children: f
there might be relatives who would take them, or foster home or insti* j
tutional care might be possible if the mother wanted to be free of ^
them to work out her problem with her husband. The mother soberly !
inquired into these possibilities but concluded that her problem
with her husband was that she wanted the children and could not get
along without them. She had not realized before that she had been
deserting them. She wanted to write to her husband to see whether
this new development would affect his attitude, and she asked whether
the worker could arrange to have him interviewed. Within 6 weeks she
made her decision to stay with her children and seemed to have settled
with herself that both her responsibility and her desire were to maintain
a home for them.

Similar service was given in another home where a husband and wife
were recipients of old-age assistance.

The husband and . wife quarreled incessantly, to the detriment of
their health and any order in their regime. Each tried to enlist the
agency in an alliance against the other. Their loss of control was
evident in violent scenes in the presence of the worker. Each accused
the other of constant abuse and demanded that the worker make the
other behave. After several episodes in which the wife threatened to
leave her husband, the worker followed up the wife’s talk of leaving !
him, defining the different arrangements possible under the agency’s
policies and standards and indicating to the husband a willingness to
discuss what he wished to do if they decided on a separation. The
recipients considered their situation and later presented to the worker
the plan they had worked out together. They wished to move to a
neighborhood within easier access of old friends. Increased social oppor¬
tunities, they said, would keep them from getting on each other’s nerves

31

so much. The wife had decided to reneAv neglected medical treatments,

and the husband wanted help with plans for keeping himself occupied.

Conclusion

The agency has a responsibility for defining the basis on which it
furnishes assistance and for differentiating this from the basis on which
Its workers may undertake other activities for the same individual. To
3:eep clear the basis on which it makes assistance payments, the agency
foust have a precise understanding of the responsibility imposed upon it
.•n administering assistance as a right. The agency and its workers must
ee that eligibility for assistance is established and maintained according
o requirements and obligations it defines in advance as applicable to all
individuals in similar circumstances. The agency’s service includes what-
!ver help the individual desires in establishing and maintaining his eligibility
ind in obtaining other service from the agency or from other sources.
\n essential characteristic of this service is that the individual is free
i o accept or reject it, and that the worker in offering it recognizes with
iiim his liberty to take or leave it as he thinks best. This basis for service
tijxcludes any activity on the part of the worker that would lead the
I individual to believe that he must comply with special suggestions or
tiemands for changes in his relationships or conduct in order to maintain
• lis eligibility for assistance.

if The agency has a responsibility to make a clear distinction between
i; lie requirements and obligations it has defined for all individuals in similar
5 jircumstances and any demands for changed behavior that would be special
I to the individual situation. In administering assistance as a right, the

I agency is bound not to use the individual’s economic helplessness for
purposes that have not been generally declared and defined even though

I I these purposes are presumably inspired by interest in the individual’s wel¬
fare or the welfare of his dependents. Since the agency is an agency of
government, its workers should not employ the powers and resources of
government for purposes that are individually determined by them. Service
that is directed to changing the individual’s behavior or relationships or

I to supervising or regulating his management of his affairs is therefore
at odds with fulfillment of the agency’s primary duty, the provision of
assistance as a right, that is, on a basis of mutual obligation that is
plainly stated by the agency and can be made known in advance to
the individual.

When the agency has responsibility for follow-up or supervisory services
to courts, schools, or other authoritative agencies, its basis for these
activities in assistance cases should be carefully distinguished from its
basis for providing assistance, and the difference should be made clear
both to the referring authoritative agency and to the recipients concerned.

I

32

The agency should be careful to distinguish between the requiremenfi
of school or court and its own eligibility requirements and to make deal
the difference between the individual’s obligations to the ' agency as i
recipient of assistance and his obligations to conform to the regulation
of the school or to obey the orders of the court. In these instances tltf
workers would again have to differentiate between a real responsibility
for informing the individual about the possible effects of his decisionii
on his eligiblity and payment and an improper pressure on him tfl
meet school or court requirements in order to maintain his eligibili^:
status with the agency. I

When the agency directs and regulates its services in providing assistancB
in accordance with the dictates of a right, the course that it will take in
problems of individual relationships and behavior becomes clear. The
agency and its workers will see that neither persuasion nor compulsion
is exercised on an individual to accept help with a personal problem as
a condition to establishing or maintaining his eligibility for assistance. It|
will restrain itself and its workers in this regard, whether the help in ques*; ;
tion would be provided by the worker who administers assistance, a !
worker in another department of the agency, or by another public or ;
private agency. Pursuit of this course does not exclude discussion by
the worker of a possible need and desire of the individual for help with j
a personal problem, but requires that such discussion leave to the individual '
the freedom and responsibility for deciding whether he wants to obtain)!
the help available. A recipient may ask the agency for a special service,-
such as help in making a plan outside the home for a child, or finding i
out what can be done about a serious health problem in the family, or
considering what action might be taken in a marital difficulty. In such |
circumstances the worker needs to distinguish between her direct responsi¬
bility for telling the recipient what action is possible and how any particular
action may affect his eligibility or payment and the very different pro-^ ,
ceeding of telling him what he should or must do. If the recipient’s
difficulty is an inability to decide what he wants to do and he desires i
special help in understanding and solving this difficulty, the agency’s re-i !
sponsibility is to help him locate the appropriate special service in an
agency assuming responsibility for treating such personal problems.

Washington, D. C.

September 1944.

☆u. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1946 - 696972 ]

I

Ihe Implications of the Federal Social Security
Act for Social Work Agency Practice

Money-Giving in Social Work Agencies -
in Retrospect and in Prospect

JUL 311947

Federal Security Agency
Social Security Administration
Bureau of Public Assistance

Public Assistance Report No, 11

-K - V> . • «

,,=■,-/» •'i.- v r3»»‘

■'-.aS-s*' . m'-:'--.

.■%«. ^ ^ J • , . • . !<

■ '4 ' . ^ • ' '. .T ' . . _

> \

■ /r./ "

*

. ? •'
*> t j • "

rf: .

r •

' *isrf- ^yA¥v.;-.

Ifcr^ -** ^

‘■' 1 ‘4: <5/«^

:• - ji-tsp’

••, ’''V-* i ■',

■*.y

/ < i 1 . -^4 • . ^ ’

! % ^

*■4 •

.•jf V ' . :

, ?jMi '-v "

•aOf •*’ *

. ■“ " V. *^y . -,

vs?;

s:

i 0t

t.

v ''■.'I'. . *<!> ■^'‘. ^V'A

> »

, ,''j .■' •■'fin

A- 'n -Li ,..

^

'» ’ .’I

♦ -* '
Jm»

A'"!*

Uie Implications of the Federal Social Security-
Act for Social Woric Agency Practice

Money-Gi-Ting in Social Woiic Agencies -
in Retrospect and in Prospect

By,

Elma Ashton

h

Federal Security Agency
Social Security Administration
Bureau of Public Assistance

Public Assistance Report No. 11

FOREWORD

The Bureau of Public Assistance is glad to add to the slowly accumulating
literature in public assistance these two papers by Elma H. Ashton: "The
In^jlications of the Federal Social Security Act for Social Work Agency
Practice," and "Money-Giving in Social Work Agencies - in Retrospect and in
Prospect," The author is now Fellowship Counselor with the Fellowship
Branch of UNRRA. She was on the staff of the Bureau of Public Assistance
from 1944 to 1946 when the Bureau undertook intensive work in the area of
standards of assistance. These papers embody a statement of some of the
ideas that were influential in this phase of the Bureau’s work, as well as
new paths of inquiry that need further exploration. Miss Ashton’s own
interest led her to an analysis of the philosophical implications of the
Social Security Act and of the problems that professional social workers
encounter in carrying responsibility for money giving. The statements she
developed were found to be clarifying and provocative to Miss Ashton’s
immediate associates. They are, therefore, being offered to a wider profes¬
sional audience, including the staff of the Bureau of Public Assistance and
of State and local agencies administering assistance, and to persons in
teaching and related fields who have an interest in public assistance and
its meaning to the field of social work as a whole. In making these state¬
ments generally available, it is our hope that they will be helpful to
social workers in putting into practice the objectives suggested, with the
resultant benefits to those whom these programs are designed to serve,

Jane M. Hoey, Director

Bureau of Public Assistance

ACKNOWLEDCMEl^T

These two papers grew out of ray experience as a member of the staff of the
Bureau of Public Assistance and express my own conviction that in our kind
of democracy there are certain basic essentials in the relationship of
government and citizens in every governmental service, including the
service of financial assistance. My convictions have been strengthened
as I have worked in the UNRRA fellowship program with trainees from certain
foreign countries and have gained a sense of the foreigners’ deep apprecia¬
tion of the nature of the relationship of government and citizen in this
country,

I should like to express my appreciation to Jane M, Hoey and Pauline Miller
for their interest in this material as it was developed and also in its
distribution; and my especial appreciation to Vocille M, Pratt for her
specific and invaluable help throughout the period of the development of
the ideas and in the actual formulation of the statements,

' Elma H. Ashton

February 1947

The Implications of the Federal Social Security Act

For Social 7fork Agency Practice

(Kie Federal Social Security Act speaks significantly to social
■workers in its expression of -v^at our government intends for its people
■who seek financial help from government and also in the implications of
that expression for practice of private and public agencies that offer
any kind of service to any member of our democracy, Ihis paper speaks
to social Tforkers from ■bhese t^wo points of view and attempts to present
a -way of thinlcing about social work agency practice in our democracy.

Social workers have had ten years of experience in categorical
assistance programs established by the Social Security Act; ten years of
learning to represent government, as staff members of agencies, in
administering assistance to the groups specified in the act. This year,
as we evaluate the accomplishments and progress of the decade, it seems
timely to review -fehe Federal act, explore its implications, and look at
our practice in terms of those implications.

The Federal Act - An Expression of a Democracy

Basic to our democratic way of life is the provision of opportunity
for every indi-vidual to become a responsible, participating member of the
democracy, participating ■sd.th his government in matters that pertain to
his personal welfare and the Nation's general vrelfare, participating in
the life of his community in the sense of belonging to his community. The
democratic principle in operation allows opportunity to the individual to
be or become vdiatever he is capable of being or becoming through the active
use of his abilities ■within the democratic framework.

In such a societal setting, each individual contributes of himself
and his resources and thus participates in creating the whole from which
each derives whatever benefit he is capable of using. Every indi'\n.dual has
a right to share bo^fch as a contributor to and as a recipient of the benefits
of the Nation,

To maintain a ■vital, creative democracy, the governmental structure
and its way of functioning must enable every person to achieve maximum
productivity, to carry his part of the responsibility for the functioning
of the democracy, and to make effective his right to receive the benefits.
Any law -within the governmental pattern must be an organic part of the
democratic structure, contributing directly or indirectly to the welfare of
the individual as a responsible participating member of his community and
the Nation,

The Social Security Act, a law -within -this democratic pattern, is an
expression of the interdependence of the whole and its parts, of government
and its people. Government has created a money service for the benefit of

- 2 -

itself, and the benefits are therefore available as a citizen's right*
Significant Provisions of the Assistance lltles

Tne Social Security Act is designed to provide for the general
welfare, and the assistance provisions were established to enable States
to furnish financial assistance to certain needy individuals (the aged,
^pendent children, and the blind) .

The act requires that States assure the client's right to appeal to
the State agency against the decision of the local agency or individual
staff worker; the client's right to have the information about his circum¬
stances kept confidential; and the client's right to money payments,
interpreted to mean pajonents unrestricted as to the way the money is spent.

Writing a general welfare purpose into the Federal legislation that
includes financial assistance to individuals is an indication that the
representatives of the people of these United States saw an intimate rela¬
tion between our government's accepting responsibility to provide money to
people in need and its responsibility for the general welfare. Requiring
the administering agencies to observe the right to appeal, confidentiality
of information, and unrestricted money payments implies a recognition that
the way States give money to needy individuals has significance for the
general welfare; or more specifically, that in carrying out the responsi¬
bility of providing such assistance States must preserve certain individual
values essential to the general welfare.

General Implications as Regards "Needj^ People

By assuming responsibility for the preservation of certain rights of
needy individuals, the government implied a knowledge of the burden of
stigma that has been borne by recipients of assistance and of its intention
to assume responsibility for creating a program directed toward lightening
that burden.

The fact that an individual receives his means of support from an
assistance agency rather than from wages or other recognized income is a
fact of difference from his neighbors that cannot be denied or dismissed
lightly. Ihere is a deeply rooted tradition in this country that the person
Tidio is "anybody" supports himself by his own efforts. There is, therefore,
a general feeling that it is right for an individual to work for his living,
to gain his source of support through investment or business enterprise, or
to be supported by relatives. Inherent in this sense of the rightness of
these ways of providing one's livelihood is the feeling that there is some¬
thing wrong about getting one's support from a source created by the idiole,
but to which one has not directly contributed his labor or his money; thus,
the individual -vdio gets his support from a social agency is considered in a
group "apart," culturally different from his neighbors. Ihis feeling exists
in the client, in his neighbors, and sometimes in the representative of the
agency.

- 3 -

!I!he provisions of the Social Security Act that establish specific
rights of the needy individual express the Nation's recognition of the
fact that the needy individual's belonging to and responsible participa¬
tion in the life of his community are essential to the democracy of that
community. Ihese specific provisions recognize the needy individual's
strength and abilities 3 the fact that he is like his neighbors and belongs
to his community; and, because of the differences in his source of support,
the necessity for his government to be actively interested in providing him
the opportunity to achieve and maintain a feeling of likeness to his
neighbors and a sense of belonging to and being an active participant in
his community.

Implication of Specific Provisions for Administrative Action

Three specific provisions of the Social Security Act require admin¬
istrative action in relation to certain claims a needy individual may make
upon the governmental agency. Ihe dominant component of each requirement
is an individual value that must be assured the citizen if he is to achieve
an active, responsible relationship to his government and be a vital par¬
ticipant in the democratic -way of life.

The appeal provision. — The appeal provision is tangible evidence of
the government's assumption of responsibility to assure to the needy indi¬
vidual the opportunity of self-assertion in his relations vath the govern¬
mental agency — just as any other citizen is assured the opportunity to
speak for himself in presenting his demands to his government. Ihe right
of individual self-assertion -with government is essential to democratic
functioning and significantly differentiates democracy from certain other
types of governmental pattern. If we dislike what our leaders do and say,
we have ways of expressing our dissent. If we have ideas, we have ways of
making them known. If a decision concerning us seems unfair, we can appeal.
All of these ways of assertion are open to all citizens.

Ihe needy individual, because he lacks economic independence in a
culture in which economic independence gives status, may feel insecure in
expressing himself, and may even feel he has no right to express himself.
For him, therefore, it is in^jortant that his government not only give
tangible evidence of his right to sp*eak for himself but assure him the
opportunity to do so. The right of appeal has value for the individual to
the extent that he knows udiat he can claim from his government, and under
what circumstances; to the extent that he knows he is expected to assert
his rights as he sees them. He needs to know that government itself gives
him the right to go beyond the person who made the decision, to go to
higher authorities and participate with the fina'l authority in decisions
that affect him. To make its provision for individual appeal a reality,
the government must be actively concerned that the administering agency is
actually making the provision effective.

- 4 -

Ihe confidentiality provision^ — The confidentiality provision
expresses our government’s assumption of responsibility for protecting
individual privacy in a citizen’s relationship ydth his government. An
individual must share with his government by giving information about
himself to "whatever extent is necessary for him to gain the benefits of
governmental service. A person who applies for an automobile license, a
driver’s license, a passport, must give certain information specific to
the request.

For many reasons that we need not review here, the fact of asking
for public "relief" has, in the past, placed "the "needy" individual in the
position of revealing his own affairs to vhatever extent an agency
requested^ and his "need" was often regarded as creating a necessity for
the agency to inquire into those affairs beyond the limited area that would
establish eligibility for the service. The Social Security Act sets up
certain eligibility requirements, and the administrative agency must get
sufficient information to establish the fact of eligibility. However, the
act both limits the facts that a State agency must ascertain and attempts
to assure that the information given will be held confidential. That
government has accepted its responsibility thus to protect the needy indi¬
vidual indicates its recognition "that he has more difficulty than others
in protecting his own privacy.

The confidentiality provision has significance for the needy individ¬
ual to the extent that he kno"ws that his government -will inquire of him only
what is essential to establishing his claim; that his government expects
him to protect his own privacy and -will support him in so doing; that his
government will treat as confidential whatever information he gives. To
make real the government’s interest in assuring the individual an opportu¬
nity for privacy, the government must assume responsibility for seeing that
its representative carries out the purpose of the provision.

The unrestricted money payment. — The unrestricted money payment
expresses government’s intent to the individual to exercise personal
responsibility in a money economy. The usual medium of exchange in our
society is money. A person buys what he wishes and can afford of the
available commodities. In general, he gains his status as a community
member by his active participation in the money economy; securing for him¬
self and his family the goods and services that he considers the essentials
of TjLfe and contributing his part to community institutions. He hxjys from
his grocer and his clothier, pays rent to his landlord, pays for his ticket
to the movies, his carfare, and so forth, and contributes to his church, his
club, his community fund. He provides for his old age and for periods of
ill health and unemployment through purchase of insurance or contributions
to some sort of fund; and he contributes to his government through payment
of taxes. The extent to -which an individual purchases and contributes is
determined by what he has, what he wants for himself, and what he is willing
to contribute, except that his contribution to his government is determined
by the government on the basis of his income and possessions.

- 5 -

Communities accept in individuals a wide range of differences in
source of income and ability and willingness to participat.e in community
affairs through use of money. Two groups that risk being rejected by the
community, however, are those who lack money and cannot, and those who
have money and will not, carry what the community considers their reason¬
able share of community responsibilities. The person who has money but
keeps his participation in the community below a reasonable level brings
himself, into conflict with his conmunity. If he does not pay his debts or
displays other antisocial behavior, the' force of law goes into action
against him. If he does not provide himself with clothing and housing
that the conmunity considers decent, the force of community attitudes will
move against him either by active protest or by ostracism. If he fails to
avail himself of community services and to contribute to community life,
his fellow citizens have ways of showing their disfavor. Within certain
limits he is free to defy the community way of life and 'thus isolate him¬
self, or enter into conflict with his fellow citizens. He vails to be
different and vdlls to take the consequences. Tie government takes its
proper responsibility toward this citizen when it sets up ways in which he
may, if he wishes, become a responsible participating member of the commu¬
nity. The government also takes its proper responsibility in relation to
the general welfare — the protection of individuals in their personal
freedom — vhen it makes no further demand on that individual except when he
fails to meet governmental obligations or endangers others.

The individual vdio has no money, or so little that he cannot pur¬
chase what he needs and cannot contribute to his community, is in no
position to be a responsible participant in his community. His participa¬
tion is limited not by his own will but by his economic circumstances. He
cannot keep himself adequately fed, housed, and clothed and in good health.
He cannot pay his church dues or contribute to other community institutions.
Because he has no money and cannot participate and because he is aware of
the accepted way of life and his difference from that way, he feels his own
inadequacy, and his neighbors "look down on him." Because the community
cannot justify its rejection of him, its attitudes and behavior toward him
are confused and conflicting but generally disapproving. Toward this indi¬
vidual, the government has a responsibility to make sufficient money
available so that he can participate in the money economy and buy what he
needs for decent living and for making a reasonable contribution to the life
of the community. In addition, the government should make that money
available in such a way that he can achieve a sense of belonging by the
very fact that he is sharing in one important aspect of the democratic way
of life. In carrying out this responsibility toward him, the government is
fulfilling its responsibility for the general vrelfare, in that democracy
is made real only as all members have opportunity to and do become respon¬
sible participants in its functioning.

Implications for Social Yfork Agency Practice

Social workers in public assistance have learned more and more about
how to carry out the intent of the Social Security Act throxigh thoughtful

- 6 -

administration of its provisions* Experience has established for us the
"rightness* of the public assistance provisions. Have we, however,
examined the act and its provisions for the implications for all social
work agency practice? Let us look at the fact that we tell only part of
the story when we say, "these provisions are appropriate for public
assistance clients." Kie vdiole story is that these provisions are in the
act for public assistance recipients because they are appropriate for all
citizens of our democracy.

llie Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the democratic folkways and
mores, the verbal expressions of a people establish a base out of viiich
the Nation takes form. Laws are the tangible expression of the Nation that
set an organic pattern mthin which its people move. The citizens' relation
to government is made tangible through law, but law is merely an expression
of the citizens* proper relation to any part of the democratic pattern — any
of democracy's institutions.

Social work agencies, vdiether private or public and vdiether they give
money or "service," are integral parts of the democratic pattern. They are
expressions of a community, a State, or a Nation, lliey have grown out of
and upon our constitutional base. They are part of a society in which
giving and taking are correlative, in which the individual contributes to
the whole in various ways and in varying degrees, in which the whole
establishes services, in which the individual benefits from the whole through
its services that he can use.

The client of any of our agencies is a member of his government and
his community and has rights and privileges as such. He has a right to
express himself about the services his community or State or Nation will
provide; to know the established services of the established public and
private agencies and the conditions under which he can avail himself of
those services; to express himself within and outside the agency concerning
the kind and quality of the service he and his fellow citizens are receiv¬
ing; to expect confidential handling of matters that pertain to him and
protection of his privacy; and to use the community services or money pro¬
vided for him in the way that suits his purposes.

Every experience in life is important to each of us, for it is
through our experiences that we gain or lose our sense of our own strengths,
capacities, and value, and establish our relationship to the world in which
we live. The client's experience with the agency is a significant life expe¬
rience, one in which he will get some kind of feeling about himself as a
person and in which he will, at least in part, establish his relation to his
community or his government. Any agency that has a "helping" function has a
responsibility for setting up a structure and effecting a process that will
give to every person who seeks its service an opportunity to gain and main¬
tain a sense of his own value as a person and as a functioning member of our
democracy, with the rights, privileges, and responsibilities that are
inherent in the democratic way of life. Only when an agency achieves this
way of operating does it become a vital part of our democratic pattern.

August 1946
Washington, D.C

Money-Giving in Social »*ork Agencies -

in Retrospect and in Prospect

Money is an essential in our economy# With it we not only purchase
the commodities we need and want but we establish our status as citizens of
the coamiunity » ’Without it we cannot purchase what we need to live decently#
Without it we are likely to lose our sense of our own value to ourselves,
to those near to us, and to our fellow citizens#

Because of the essential quality of money and its psychological
concomitants, it is difficult for us to ask for or accept money, especially
when we need it, or to offer it as help to another, or to withhold it from
one who asks for it# In social work practice the problems that arise in
giving financial assistance reflect our personal problems in giving money,
for the profession has not yet developed a body of knowledge, a way of think¬
ing and a way of operating in this area that help us make the shift from
giving money as a private individual to giving agency money as a professional
person# A cursory glance at our professional history shows that at the
beginning we failed to recognize that the giving of money was a proper area
of professional practice# Later, having recognized that it was an inevitable
part of agency responsibility, we struggled to learn how to give it profes¬
sionally when helping with money presented both the agency and the worker
with demands and problems that had not been recognized as present in other
areas of helping#

Social workers began to identify their profession when they began
to focus on the individual's needs, feelings, and behavior, and to think
of the profession as one of helping the individual# The significance of
this focus cannot be overestimated, for it was throu^ the exploration of
the dynamics of human behavior and the development of skill in working
with human beings that social work established itself as the profession
equipped to work in programs offering help to individuals# However, our
efforts to understand and help individuals plunged us into a period in
which we were so absorbed in our own learning in the psychological area
that we lost our connection with agency and community and thus did not
carry what we now regard as proper professional responsibility in our
jobs# During that early period the worker, directed by her concern for
the individual and his problem, worked as an individual with an individual
and thou^t of herself as working with her client in a process in which
she was limited only ly her own skill# “^e was oriented to the psychologi¬
cal problem of her client 5 thus, when the problem the client presented was
lack of money, she tried to relate his need for money to some psychological
or emotional disturbance# In attempting to give money on an “individual
basis,** she made money incidental to some kind of deeper help and measured
her success and status ty her ability to ** treat’* on this deeper level#

In retrospect we see that money would not yield to this subjedtive,
highly individual handling and that in reality money cannot be relegated
to an incidental poAition when the client’s need for it is real and
immediate# Social work has been attempting to force into an alliance two
incompatible processes — the social worker’s highly individualized practice

- 2 -

as traditionally conceived, and the giving of agency money which is
not available for the worker's unlimited use#

When the economic depression of the thirties created an unprece¬
dented necessity for the provision of money to individuals, social workers
in public and private assistance agencies had to find a way of working
with clients in an agency setting in which the giving of money was the
immediate objective and the worker's activity, including the amount of
money she could give, was governed by agency-determined limits# Workers
who had focused on functioning on an "individual basis" had reason to
protest daily at what seemed like the agency's interference in matters '
that they thou^t concerned only two individuals — the worker and her
client.

Social workers in the policy-making positions in both public and
private agencies tried to handle agency money-limits in such a way as to
preserve as far as possible what they conceived of as "individual treat¬
ment" of the client. Home economists were brou^t into agencies to work
on the problem of how to set reasonable limits on assistance payments,
and the objective data they provided were generally regarded as guides#

Some agencies used the figures on specific items as maximum amounts,
varying the payment up to the maximum in accordance with the individual
client's estimate# Some limited the kind or number of items that could
be considered and, on the basis of the client's estimate of his needs,
varied both the amount per item and the number of items within the list
accepted by the agency# Some allowed each worker a specific amount of
money per month for her case load and let her determine the amount for
each client# Other agencies left the worker free to "consider" any
amount or any number of items but set limits on the totals by reducing
payments to a percentage of the total, for example, or subtracting a
specific amount from the total. Still others predetermined the amounts
for certain classifications of individuals but allowed the worker some
leeway for "special needs" not included in a classification#

Within the framework of these various agency-determined ways of
giving money, workers continued to encourage their clients to discuss
in detail their needs, item by item, and to estimate how much money they
needed for each item# The worker could keep the illusion of giving
money on an "individual basis" if she could get the client's long list
of items and his money estimates, despite the actuality that the amount
the agency would provide mi^t buy oniy one item-food, for example — in
the client's estimate. The worker lived both 'in a "dream world" of
considering the client's individual need, and in a factual existence of
the agency's giving and the client's receiving money on an agency-determined
basis •

The Social Security Act was passed at a time when agencies and
social workers were in this dilemma of reaching for the star of "indivi¬
dual need" and having to keep their feet on the ground in giving money
within the limits determined by the agency# In only a few programs of
old-age assistance did any real departure from traditional theory and

- 3 -

practice develop# ' ^st of the States' methods for determining both
need and the amount of the payment within the categorical assistance
programs continued to emphasize the necessity for exploring the client's
individual needs, giving the client every opportunity to list in detail
his full needs item by item, and estimating the cost of each item*

Our experience in social work made us aware that "needs" and
"wants" are often so inextricably interwoven in an individual's feelings
that he cannot isolate one from the other and that each individual's
needs and wants vary from time to time. Actually, no individual can
really determine all of his needs at a given moment, and certainly no
worker can determine another person's — the client's — needs. More and
more refinement of skill in helping clients estimate needs has led agen¬
cies into the curious position of discovering more and more about what
they cannot give money for and how much they cannot give, since a really
sympathetic and detailed estimate of the need of any one of us will almost
inevitably reach a total that no agency can meet. This probing into
"needs," especially when the "needs" cannot be met, is wasteful. Staff
effort and time and thus agency money have gone into gathering informa¬
tion not necessary for the agency's immediate business with an individual
client. More important still has been the harmful effect on the client
and on his relationship with the agency. The client has become distrust¬
ful and fearful of the agency because of the false setting in which he
and the worker have operated. Workers have been laboring under the
delusion that they were considering "individual need," but in fact they
were exploring needs as far as the worker knew how and the client was
willing to probe for them, and then were determining the assistance pay¬
ment on a very different basis.

In line with our social work tradition, some of us have continued
to believe that to do our "best work" we must polish our method of prob¬
ing into the client's needs, while the prosaic fact of agency function
and limitation of funds has led to the establishment of agency determinants
for administering assistance. As soon as agency determinants move in,
"individual needs" as traditionally conceived become subordinated. The
social work theory and practice that have created these difficulties for
agencies and client in the administration of financial assistance have
carried certain implicaticns that some social workers are now beginning
to question, in sach terras as the following examples.

Does not the Implication that the worker's effectiveness with her
client is in direct proportion to her freedom to operate as an individual

with an individual suggest that a social worker can be a free agent?

Most social workers recognize today that the worker, who in her profes¬
sional role gives agency money to people, must operate as a representa¬
tive of an agency. She is giving money that is not her own and giving
it because it is her Job to give it, and she is free only within the
limits of her agency. If she had a private practice of her own, she
would not have these limitations, but neither v/ould she be able to draw
on the resources of the community or government; nor would she and the
client have the protections and the positive values of a definite
agency structure.

- ii -

l3 It ■good** for an Individual (the client) to expose all the
de tails of his life to a social worker? To examine this question we
should consider the fact that the client, like the rest of us, finds
his positive relation to living throu^ truly sharing with others; and
he truly shares only when, in the sharing, he has a sense of his own
control in his activity*

The agency that places upon the worker responsibility for determin¬
ing what information she will require of the client places her in the posi¬
tion of making personal demands on the agency’s client and places the
client in the position of submitting to or struggling against another
person’s will. In submitting, he gains no strength for himself; in strug¬
gling he uses his strength in the fi^t and cannot use the worker in her
capacity as helper*

Ihe agency has a responsibility to establish the specific informa¬
tion that must be sought— information directly related to the service—
and to limit the inquiry to those specific items* In so doing, the
agency gives the worker a setting in iriiich she can be a representative
speaking for the agency, rather than an individual speaking for herself*
Released from the struggle against the worker’s will to know him, the
client can feel free to use the worker’s help in meeting the agency— in
focusing on the conditions of its service* With her help he may be able
to move throu^ his own inner struggle and confusion to a decision
whether he can or cannot share the information the agency requires and
whether or not he wishes to use the agency*

If he decides he wishes to use the agency, knowing what he must
share, he may by the very act of sharing gain a sense of his own posi¬
tive move, of his own activity, of his own control in the sharing, and
of his cwn control of himself* He can know the boundaries of his
relationship with the agency and can know also that he has a private
life that he may keep to himself or share in other relationships as he
sees fit*

In the process of determining the need of the individual, must a
worker discuss needs item by item in order to "individualize the client**?

It seems important to point out tkai, no matter what service is offered,

the agency that claims a helping function has an obligation to so render
its service that the applicant or recipient will get a sense of the
agency’s recognition of him as an individual who has his own ri^ts,
privileges, and strengths and who can make his own choices with some feel¬
ing of confidence in his choice* This kind of relationship can be estab¬
lished whether the client is asking for much or little, for money or some
other kind of service, provided the agency takes its proper responsibility
in making clear to him what the agency can do, helping him define his own
request, making clear what he must do to avail himself of the agency’s
service, helping him in the process of making his choices; and, if he
chooses to use the agency’s service, helping him use that service to his
own best advantage*

- 5 -

Are law and policy negative forces in social work? Earlier
^liefs that law and policy are inherently "negative” have given way
increasingly to the recognition that government, operating throu^ law
and public agency policy, and the community, operating through private
agency policy, are responsible positive forces that provide the money
that social workers as agency representatives administer to individuals.

If we, as social workers, are to carry out the purposes of government
and community, it seems essential that we recognize the positive nature
of the responsibility that government and community have assumed and
that we use our knowledge, experience, and skill in creating policies
and procedures that reflect the positive nature of the responsibility*

Government (local, State, and Federal) has assximed responsibility
for making money available to certain needy people throu^ public assist¬
ance and has given social workers an opportunity to work in agencies
designed to carry out this responsibility. As social workers in those
agencies, we have the responsibility to establish a method that will not
rely solely on our personal ability to work with people but will utilize
our professional skill in administering a program so that we express
government’s intent to give this service in such a way that citizens who
use it can have the same sense of governmental protection and of individ¬
ual freedom that they have in using other types of governmental service,

• At any point at which government recognizes that a specific kind
of public service is necessarj'- for the good of all, it generally assumes
that specific responsibility. In services other than assistance, govern¬
ment establishes what it will do and what the individual must do to
benefit from the service. Both the government’s and the individual’s roles
are known or knowable to all, Ihe requirements placed upon the individual
are related specifically to the service. No agent has freedom to make
additional requirements or to deqy the service to any individual who meets
the established requirements.

This pattern of known and specific relationship between government
and its citizens gives the citizen a sense of government’s concern for
him, its protection of him, its recognition of him as a responsible member
of a democracy. The citizen can know that he must assume certain responsi¬
bilities if he is to use the services, and he can be free to use or not
use them because he knows both what government will do and what he must do.

Government can make possible this same quality of relationship
with its citizens who seek financial assistance if it establishes what
it considers a basic content of living that should be available to all

its citizens; if it establislies the amount oi* money required to

purchase this basic content^ and if it also establishes how mucK
money it will provide and vfhat the individual must do to avail himself
of this governmental service — that is, money.

- 6 -

Thus far, under the public assistance titles of the Social
Security Act, the Federal Government has assumed the responsibility for
granting money to States "to furnish assistance, as far as practicable,
under the conditions in such State" to certain groups of needy individ¬
uals only# Each State therefore now has the responsibility of estab¬
lishing what it considers the content of living that its citizens should
have money to purchase. The Federal Government, moreover, is now making
studies to establish a Nation-wide basic content of living, ^.^len such
a "content” is established, it will be available to all governmental
agencies. Federal, State, and local, for use in their various programs#
State public assistance agencies will then know what the Federal Govern¬
ment considers the essentials for assuring that its people are decently
fed, clothed, and housed, are in good health and have an opportunity
for participation in the normal activities of the conmunity. A State
agency can determine what this content of living will cost in the
various sections of the State and can determine what part of this content
it will make available to its citizens throu^ its assistance programs.

Mth the development of this basic content of living, social
workers will have an additional knowledge that thej*- can use in formulat¬
ing agency policy and in working with the people v/ho seek financial
assistance. The known fact that there is a recognized content that
everybody must have in order to live decently is a focus of operation
very different from the focus of "what do you need." In the latter, the,
client carries a burden of proving that he , in his state of "not having,"
needs certain things. In the former, the agency asserts its own knowl¬
edge that everybody needs certain basic essentials and that the agency's
reason for being is to make money available to supplement what an individ¬
ual has, so that he can purchase the basic 'minimum that everybody needs*

In the realm of policy, the social worker will have as a focus
what the agency knows about basic needs of people and what the agency
can do within that known. State policy and procedures will reflect this
shift in focus throu^ a reorganization of procedural material with new
emphases, and through clear presentation of the knowns, and clear instruc¬
tions concerning the worker's explorations with the client. Specifically,
there would be a presentation of the basic essentials that everybody has
to have, with a detailed description, for the worker's reference, of the
elements that make up those essentials, as well as the details of the
agency's plan for determining eligibility and granting assistance.

The known facts that the worker can share with persons applying
for assistance and that will put something different into the relation¬
ship are (1) what the Nation has decided are the basic requirements for
people in this country tb live decently, and (2) what part of those
requirements her agency will be responsible for providing when the individ¬
ual's own resources will not do so. Ihe client can get a sense of his

- 7 -

own value as an individual in the worker's recognition of him as a
person who needs money to secure a basic content of living in order to
live decently and to be a participating member of our democracy# This
recognition establishes his "likeness" to his fellow citizens, in a
situation in which he feels keenly the burden of his difference, in not
being able to proviae for himself the essentials that he, like his fellow
citizens, needs#

No matter how an agency gives money to "needy" individuals, the
client will have feelings about asking for money, about taking it from
another, about taking it on another's terms, about using it on his own
terms when he feels that it belongs to another* Once the agency has
established the terms of its responsibility, however, the client will
no longer have to struggle with the vforker to establish what ^ needs
and can concentrate on establishing what he has* He will no longer have
to be involved in the feeling struggle of "Should I ask for much or
little?" '*\Yill the worker like me if I ask for much?" ""^iill she think
I am not 'in need' if I ask for little?" and the like# He can make
clear what he has, and be free to express his feelings about having to
ask and take, and about using what is given by another* He and the
worker will have a more concrete working basis and can more easily find
the real bases of his conflicting feelings. The client will be in a
known relationship with the agency, and the very clarity of that relation¬
ship will give him more freedom in it — freedom to take or leave, for he
can know what he is taking or leavingj freedom to express his concern
about what he is receiving, for he and the worker, throu^ their common
knowledge of what people in his circumstances and in that community need
and what the agency can give, have established a mutual understanding and
confidence. He will feel free to seek information about other sources of
help, for the quality of the relationship assures him that the worker
both knows the limit of her own service and accepts his necessity to seek
other services* He can sense the worker's respect for him in the way
she shares with hljn what the agency knows and can do and in the way she
works with him in relation to whatever he expresses about himself.

By force of necessity, government assumed the money- giving func¬
tion on a large scale through assistance programs that affected the
entire Nation# ‘.’iith that big job on their hands, representatives of
government have had to work out more and more effective methods of parry¬
ing their responsibilities# Thus, most social work thinking about money¬
giving has been focused on public assistance#

Vie see a trend in public assistance toward methods and practices
that are becoming more constructive for the client and more in harmony
with the democratic principles underlying our governmental structure and
operation, and this trend has implications for all social work agencies
engaged in giving money to "needy" individuals. The Federal Government
is moving toward greater responsibility for making money available so
that its citizens can purchase -things necessary for decency and health#
S-ba-be governments have furnished money for groups not yet covered by
Federal legislation#

- 8 -

Private agencies will continue to give money for those groups of
persons who fall between the various government programs and for special
purposes beyond the scope of governmental service# These agencies will
need to look at their money- giving function in terms of its relation to
governmental functions and also examine their methods of giving money.

They must ask themselves such questions as: Do we duplicate a govern¬
mental service? Does the community including the client know the basis
on which we give money? Can we establish with our client a clear working
basis so that he, as well as we, understands why he is or is not eligible
for our money, why he gets a specific amount for a specific purpose? Is
our client free to speak as a member of the community and say what he
thirdcs or feels about the agency’s purposes and practices in the area of
giving money? Can the citizen take money from us and maintain his sense of
his own value as a citizen?

The private agency client is a citizen of his community and of
his government just as is the public agency client. Private agencies
are part of the democratic pattern and have responsibilities inherent in
such a pattern# They do not operate under a specific law, but they have
the democratic principles of our society upon which to base the structure
within which they work vdth the citizen who seeks help#

As long as there are, in our society, groups of "needy” people
sufficient in number to require the Nation’s expressed concern through
assistance agencies, as long as social workers carry responsibility for
administering financial assistance in those agencies, we must continue to
search for better and better methods of giving money.

August 19U6
Washington, D.C#

PERSONNEL IN LOCAL OFFICES
OF STATE PUBLIC ASSISTANCE AGENCIES
1946

FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Bureau of Public Asslstaunce

Public Assistance Report No. 12

iMlsiitisM

PERSONNEL IN LOCAL OFFICES
OF STATE PUBLIC ASSISTANCE AGENCIES

19 4 6

PART I. SALARIES

by

Vivian B. Norman
and

Dorothy R, Bucklin

Statistics and Analysis Division
Bureau of Public Assistence

Public Assistance Report No. 12

FEDERAL SECUPJTY AGENCY
Social Security Administration
Washington, D.C.

August 1947

r

CONTENTS

Page

Introduction. . . 1

Directors.. . 4

Supervisors.... . . . . . . . . 11

Visitors . 17

Clerks.... . 27

Interclass Comparisons . 32

Field Representatives . 37

Appendix A; Excluded ErnploTees . 39

Appendix B: Definitions . 40

Appendix C: Scheduled Hours of Work...... . . . 41

Appendix D: Reporting Period . . . . . 42

Appendix E: Local Offices with Supervisors . 43

Appendix Tables . . 44

TABLES

Table Pag<

1. Distribution of directors* salaries...... . . 4

2. Distribution of 33 agencies by average (median) salary

of directors . . . 6

3. Distribution of 33 agencies by interquartile range in

directors* salatries. . . . . . . . . . 7

4. Number of offices, number v/ith 10 or more employees, end

average salary of director, in selected State agencies.. 3

5. Monthly salaries of directors, by size of local office

staff . 9

6. Distribtition of supervisors* salaries..... . 13

O

<

r

r

Table

Page

7. Distrib\;tion of 25 agencies by e.verage (median) salary

of super'/iv‘;crE . 13

8. Distribution of 25 agencies by interc|usrtile range in

supervisors* salaries . 14

9. Comparison of salaries of supervisors and visitors in

selected cities . 15

10. Average (median) sala.rj’- of supervisors in high and low-

income States . . . . . 16

11. Average number of visitors per supervisor and average

fciedian) salary for supervisors in 25 agencies . . 16

12. Distribution of visitors* salaries . 17

13* Distribution of 4S agencies by average (median) salary of

visitors. ...» . . . • . * . . . . . . • 19

14. Distribution of 4S agencies by interquartile range in

visitors* salaries... . . . . . 20

15. Distribution of 41 offices serving cities of 250,000 or

more population by average (median) salary of

visitors..... . 21

16. Distribution of 45 a..gencies by amoimt of difference

between average (median) salary of visitors and of

clerks . 22

17. Average (median) saltiry of visitors in agencies classified

by proportion of large offices and per capita income

of State . . 24

18. Comparison of average (medicn) salary of visitors in

large-city offices and all other offices in the same

State agency . 26

19. Distribution of clerical workers’ salaries . 27

20. Distribution of 45 agencies by average (medicn) salary

of clerical workers . . 29

21. Distribution of 45 agencies by interquartile range in

clerical v.'orkers * salaries . 30

22. Distribution of 40 offices serving cities of 250,000 or

more by average (median) salary of clerical workers.... 31

Table

Page

23* Percentage distribution of salaries, by class of worker...# 32

24» Number of agencies with specified average (median) salary,

by class of worker... 34

25* Relative position of large-office agencies with respect to
average (median) salary for all agencies combined, by
class of worker . . 35

26. Relative position of small-office agencies with respect to

average (median) salary for all agencies combined, by
class of worker... . 36

27. Distribution of field representatives' salaries............ 37

28. Distribution of I4 agencies by average (median) salary of

field representatives . . . 38

29. Distribution of I4 agencies by interquartile range in

field representatives' salaries . 38

Appendix Table

I. Distribution of local offices, by State and number of full¬
time employees, for a pay-roll period ended December 31,
1945-April 30, 1946 . 44

II. Distribution of directors in local public assistance

agencies, by State and amoiant of monthly salary, for a
pay-roll period ended December 31> 1945~April 30, 1946.. 46

III. Distribution of supervisors in local public assistance

agencies, by State and amount of monthly salary, for a
pay-roll period ended December 31, 1945-April 30, 1946.. 4^

IV. Distribution pf visitors in local public assistance agencies,
by State and amount of monthly salary, for a pay-roll
period ended December 31, 1945-April 30, 1946 . . 50

V. Distribution of clerks in local public assistance agencies,
by State and amount of monthly salary, for a pay-roll
period ended December 31, 1945-April 30, 1946 . . 52

VI. Distribution of supervisors in local public assistance
offices serving cities of 250,000 or more population,
by State and amount of monthly salary, for a pay-roll
period ended December 31, 1945-April 30, 1946..... •••... 54

Appendix Table Page

VII. Distribution of visitors in local public assistance

offices serving cities of 250,000 or more population,
by State and amount of monthly salary, for a pay-roll
period ended December 31, 1945-April 30, 1946 . 56

VIII. Distribution of clerks in local public assistance offices
serving cities of 250,000 or more population, by
State and amount of monthly salary, for a pay-roll
period ended December 31, 1945-April 30, 1946 . 58

IX. Distribution of field representatives in State public
assistance agencies, by State and amount of monthly
salary, for a pay-roll period ended December 31,

1945-April 30, 1946 . 60

CHAKTS

Chart Page

1. Directors: Average (median) salary, 38 agencies . . 5

Supervisors: Average (median) salary, 25 agencies . 12

3. Visitors: Average (median) salary, 48 agencies*.. . 18

4* Clerks: Average (median) salary, 45 agencies........ . 28

* 5. Percentage distribution and interquartile range of

salaries, by class of worker . 33

INTRODUCTION

The personnel of local public assistance offices carry on the day
to day administration of public assistance and other welfare programs.
Their work is of decisive importance in determining irtiether these pro¬
grams meet the needs of the individuals they are designed to serve* The
staff of the local office must give concrete expression to the laws of
the Nation and of the State as they affect particular individuals in
particular circumstances. Satisfactory perfoimance of this difficult
task demands a basic understanding of people and of the objectives of
social legislation.

Recognition of the importance of the function of the local office
in the euiministration of public assistance and of the need to pay salaries
that will attract and hold coi^petent workers in these offices led the
Bureau of Public Assistance to undertake an inquiry into the salaries
being paid local office personnel of State public assistance agencies
early in the calendar year 1946. The State public assistance agencies in
47 States fldilch cooperated with the Bureau in conducting this inquiry
si:q>pliod information on the salaries paid upwards of 30,000 full-time
employees in about 3>000 loceil offices.]/ These employees represent
approximately three-fourths of all personnel in local offices of State
public assistance agencies. State agencies also reported the monthly
salaries paid their field representatives idio supervise local offices
with respect to general administration, the determination of eligibility,
and the provision of assistance and service.

Part I of this report presents a summary and analysis of the salary
information obtained in the inquiry. In addition to salary information,
the study yielded data about the number of local offices and the size and
composition of local office staffs. This information, which has hitherto
not been available in summary form, is summarized in Part II.

Biroughout this report, the terms "agency** or "State agency" are
used to refer to the single State agency responsible for administering
assistance or for supervising the administration of assistance by local
agencies. The term "local office" as used in this report refers to both
the local offices of a State agency idiich administers assistance and the
local agencies which administer assistance under the supervision of a
State agency. For purposes of this study the District of Columbia was
considered to be a local office serving a city of 250,000 or more popu¬
lation. Including the District of Columbia, the number of agencies

9

1/ See appendix table I for detail on State agencies participating in
the study. Agencies in Alaska, Hawaii, Massachusetts, and Oklahoma
did not participate. For information on types of local office
personnel for which salary information was not requested, see
appendix A.

- 1 -

participating in the study was 49;^ for the States having more ttian
one State agency included in the study, the programs for idiich each is
responsible are indicated by the letter A for old-age assistance, B
for aid to the blind, C for aid to dependent children, and G for
general assistance.

Of the 30,600 local office employees whose monthly salaries were
reported, almost half were visitors* These are the staff members who are
immediately responsible for working with individuals to determine their
need for assistance or other welfare services* Clerical workers comprised
almost two-fifths of local office employees. The others were either
directors or director— workers, who are the administrative heads of local
offices, and supervisors, who supervise the activities of visitors* The
number of workers in each of these four major classes was as follpws:

■Cla..aa 1/

Number

Percent

Total .

. 2/ 30,631

100*0

Director* . .

. 2,491

S*1

Supervisor* •••*•••

. 1,675

5.5

Visitor .

. U,830

4B*4

Clerk . .

. U,635

38.0

For definition of each type of worker, see
appendix B.

^ For detail on types of local office per-
' sonnel not included, see appendix A*

Though local offices with 10 or more full-time employees repre¬
sent only about a fifth of all local offices, they employ almost three-
fourths of the local office personnel* Except for directors, therefore,
the great majority of workers whose salaries were reported represent
personnel of these larger offices*

The salary information has been summarized and analyzed
separately for each class of worker* Evaluation of the salaries paid
iio employees in a particular State agency as "high” or “low” is
necessarily based on comparisons with salaries paid to workers in similar
jx/sitions in other State agencies* These comparisons are subject to
certain qualifications that must be considered in interpreting the data.

In the first place, the comparisons are based on broad groupings of
workers* To some extent within each class, and to a considerable extent
within the class of director, differences in the duties performed may
account for part of the differences in salaries paid* Secondly, variations
•'r.'ug agencies in the length of service of employees may account for some

In addition, salary data were reported for visitors working out of the
State office of the Delaware Old Age Welfare Commission; no local
offices are maintained*

- 2 -

salary differences. Thus, agencies paying comparatively high salaries
may have experienced less turn-over and may have relatively more personnel
whose periods of service entitle them to maximum rates of pay. Since the
age of the agency itself is also a factor in determining length of service,
other things being equal, older agencies might be expected to have more
employees at maximum rates of pay than those more recently established.

In interpreting the data, consideration should also be given to
the fact that salaries that appear to be relatively high on this limited
basis of evaluation may actually be inadequate in relation to the salaries
paid for comparable jobs in other fields of work, to the qualifications re¬
quired for the job, or to the coat of living. Moreover, use of salary
data alone as the measure of the economic value of a particular position
omits from consideration conditions of employment other than salary.

Though salary is undoubtedly the deciding factor, most workers in their
choice of a position are influenced to some extent by the hours of work,
opportunities for promotion, and provisions for vacation and sick leave,
security of tenure, retirement, and compensation for overtime. Infor¬
mation on hours of work in locaJL offices was collected as part of the
study i but analysis of the data did not reveal any consistent relation¬
ship between the number of hours worked and salaries paid.^

State agencies were requested to report monthly salaries for a
pay-roll period ended betv;een December 31, 1945, April 30, 194^.

For 28 agencies, the information was taken from the December pay roll and
for the remaining 21 agencies, from a pay roll for a month early in 1946.^
Since the date of this inquiry, a number of agencies have made upward
adjustirsents in salaries. The procedures for granting salary Increases
are so varied that no estimate of their effect on the distribution of
salaries could be attempted even if complete information were available
on the changes that have taken place. For example, some agencies In¬
creased salaries for an unspecified period, others, for only a temporary
period; in some agencies, ell salaries were increased, in others, only
those of selected classes of workers; some agencies granted "bonuses”
to help employees meet -the rise in cost of living, others gave percentage
increases, and still others raised salaries by a flat amount per T^eek,
month, or year.

The average used in comparisons is the medien, that is, the
middle salary for each group when all salaries v/ithln the group are
arranged in order of size.

y For State detail on hours of work, see appendix C.

4/ For State detail on month for which data were reported, see appendix D.

- 3 -

Dlf^XJTORS

Monthly salaries were reported for 2,491 directors of local public
assistance offices. The class of directors includes the resjponsible head
of each local office, regardless of the size of the office or the title
of the position — such as commissioner, superintendent, secretary, director,
or director-worker — in a particular State or locality. Salaries reported,
therefore, include at one extreme those paid to the responsible heads of
large metropolitan offices staffed ttith hundreds of workers end at the
other, salaries paid to individuals who work alone or direct only the
activities of a single clerk.

Average (Median) Salary and Range in Directors* Salaries

For the 2,491 directors, the average (medien) salary was 1^185. At
the extremes were 1 percent at less than |;120 and 1 percent at $3^0 or
more. Salaries of the middle half fell between $165 and ^>230.^ Table 1
shows the heavy concentration of salaries in the lower amounts and the
small proportion included in the wide range above 1240. As will be shown
later, size of staff more than any other factor influences the amount of
a director's salary. This distribution therefore undoubtedly reflects the
fact that 80 percent of the local offices had less than 10 full-time
employees.

Table 1.— Distribution of directors* salaries

Monthly

salary

Number

Percent

Total .

2,491

100.0

Less than $120 .

33

1.3

120-139.99 .

253

10.2

UO-159.99 .

315

12.6

160-179.99 .

473

19.0

180-199.99..; .

422

16.9

200-219.99 .

357

14.3

220-239.99 .

268

10.8

240-259.99 .

154

6.2

260-279.99 .

59

2.4

280-299.99 . .

28

1.1

300-319.99 .

57

2.3

320-339.99 .

24

1.0

340-359.99 .

13

.5

360-379.99 .

10

.4

380 or more........

25

1.0

^ Appendix table II shows the distribution of salaries paid full-tiffie
directors by ^10 and |20 intervals for 47 agencies and the median and
first and third quartiles for 38 agencies with 10 or more directors.

- 4 -

CHART I.

DIRECTORS: AVERAGE (MEDIAN) SALARY. 38 AGENCIES

DOLLARS

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

N.J.(AB)

PA.

WASH.

ARIZ.

CALIF.

FLA.

ILL.

LA.

MD.

MICH.

N.J.(C)

TEX.

WIS.

MINN.

N.C.

OREG.

IDAHO
IOWA
UTAH
ALA.

KANS.

OHIO (A)

S. DAK.

WYO.

IND.

MO.

MONT.

NEBR.

N.MEX.

N. DAK.

VA.

COLO.

S.C.

OHIO (BCG)

TENN.

MISS.

ARK.

GA.

Interstate comparisons of the average salary and the range in
amounts paid directors reveal marked dissimilarities among agencies*
Though the average (median) salary for all States combined was $185>
among State agencies the average varied from a low of $135 to a high of
$290 with a clustering at $175 and at $230 (table 2 and chart 1)*

Table 2*— Distribution of 38 agencies by average
(median) salary of directors

Average

(median)

salary

Niunber

of

agencies

State agency

$135 .

2

Ark., Ga.

U5 .

1

Miss.

155 . .

2

Ohio (BCG), Tenn.

165 .

2

Colo • , S. C.

175 .

7

Ind., Mo., Mont., Nebr.,

N.Mex., N.Dak., Va.

185 .

5

Aln*^ Kans., Ohio(A), S.Dak.,
Wyo.

195 .

3

Idaho, Iowa, Utah

210 .

3

Minn., N.C., Oreg.

230 .

8

Fla., Ill., La., Md., Mich.,
N.J.(C), Tex., Wis.

240 .

1

Calif.

250 .

1

Ariz.

270 .

1

Wash.

290 .

2

N.J.(AB), Pa.

In 3 agencies — Arkansas, New Hampshire, and South Carolina — all
directors received salaries below the national average of $185; in
Mississippi, only one of the 81 directors received as much as this average.
On the other hand, all directors in 11 States received salaries in excess
of the national average as follows:

State Number of Type of

agency directors office

Arizona. . .

Connecticut. . . . . .

Florida . .

Maine •..•••••••••

Maryland . .

Michigan. .•.•••••
Nevada .•«.*••.•.•

New Jersey (AB) . .

(C)...

Pennsylvania .

Washington .

West Virginia.,..

U

Comty

4

District

11

District

9

District

21

County

81

County

2

District

15

County

13

District

66

County

25

County

8

District

- 6 -

Some agencies paid almost the same salaries to all directors;
others paid salaries covering a wide range in amounts. For example, in
South Carolina, the middle half of the salaries fell within the same |10
class interval. In California, however, the middle half included amounts
from $210 to $330, a spread extending over 13 class intervals of $10. The
interquartile range in salaries, which provides a crude measure of the
spread in salaries, is shown by State in table 3.

Table 3* — Distribution of 3^ agencies by interquartile
range in directors* salaries

Interquartile

range

Number of
agencies

State agency

$0 .

2

S.C., Tex.

10 . .

5

Ala., Ark., Miss., S.Dak., Tenn.

20 .

6

Fla., Ill., La., Mo., N.J.(C),
Ohio (a)

.

3

Idaho, Iowa, Utah

30 .

6

Colo., Ga., Ksns., Mont., Nebr.,
N.Mex.

35 .

1

V/yo.

40 .

4

Ariz., Mich., Ohio (BCG),

Oreg.

45 .

4

Ind., Minn., N.Dak., Va.

55 .

3

Md., N.G., Wis.

80 .

3

N.J.(AB), Pa., Wash.

120 .

1

Celif.

Factors Affecting Directors* Salaries

The analysis which follows indicates that size of staff influences
the salary paid a director more than any other factor or combination of
factors. Size of staff, however, is related to size of case load, which
in turn is determined to a considerable extent by the number of persons in
the community served by the local office. In the last analysis it is
probably the size of the community and the salaries paid the responsible
heads of other local govemmenteil departments in the same community that
Influence the salary paid the director of a local office. Intrastate
differences in salaries paid directors are attributable almost entirely
to differences in size of staff, since the directors in the larger offices
in most States usually receive higher salaries than other directors in
the same State. Though other factors may also account for intrastate
differences, the influence of size of staff is so overwhelming as to
obscure their effect.

- 7 -

Similarly, the extent to which interstate differences in directors*
salaries may be attributable to factors other than size of staff is diffi¬
cult to determine. States v/ith relatively high fiscal ability might be
expected to pay better salaries. The data indicate, however, that what¬
ever effect fiscal ability may have on directors* salaries, it is sub¬
ordinate to the effect of size of staff. Agencies in 15 States, including
6 States with below-average per capita income, had a relatively large
proportion of large offices (table 4)* In all but 4 of these agencies
the average salary of directors was substantially above the average of
^185 for the country as a whole; 2 of the 4 — Indiana and Ohio (A), with
averages of only $175 and $185, respectively — v/ere in high-income States.

Among the 22 "small-office” agencies, including 4 in States with
above-average per capita income, 7 had an average salary for director
above the national average. Two of these 7 States — Oregon and V/isconsin —
were above average in per capita income, and 5 — Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota,
North Carolina, and Utah — were below average.

Table 4*— Number of offices, number with 10 or more employees, and
average salary of director, in selected Sta.te agencies 1/

State

agency

Number of offices

Average (median)
salary of
director

Total

10 or more
employees

States with above-average per capita income tJ

Calif omia.......

53

26

1240

Illinois .

102

37

230

Indiana . .

92

24

175

Maryland. ........

24

11

230

Michigan . .

83

22

230

New Jersey(A3)...

21

16

290

(C)....

13

13

230

Ohio (A) .

88

27

185

Pennsylvania .

67

50

290

Washington.

39

20

270

States with below-average per capita income TJ

Arizona.

U

4

250

Colorado

63

13

165

Florida.

12

12

230

Louisiana.

61

26

230

South Carolina...

46

10

165

Texas.

40

33

230

1/ Agencies in which at least one-fifth of the local offices employ 10
or more workers.

tJ On basis of income data for 1945.

- 8 -

Table 5. — Montlily salaries of directors, by size of local office staff

Montlily
salary and
que.rtile

All

directors

Number of full-time employees of office

Director

only

2-4

5-9

10-19

20 or
more

Number of directors

Total 1/

2,474

159

1,U5

664

324

182

Monthly salary:

Less than ^120..

33

16

17

0

0

0

120-129.99 .

58

15

43

0

0

0

130-139.99 .

195

47

134

13

1

0

U0-U9.99 .

112

U

77

21

0

0

150-159.99 .

203

28

151

24

0

0

160-169.99 .

209

14

119

65

10

1

170-179.99......

263

16

146

87

12

2

180-139.99 .

247

7

169

59

12

0

190-199.99 .

171

0

85

65

20

1

200-219.99 .

353

1

159

130

49

u

220-239.99......

262

1

35

115

97

u

240-259.99 .

153

0

8

63

59

23

260-279.99 .

58

0

1

7

25

25

230-299.99 .

23

0

0

^ i

1 ^'7

7

300 or more .

129

0

1

11

22

95

Monthly salary of directors

Quartile :

First quartile..

fpl65

$135

$155

$175 ^

. $210

$250

Median. . .

185

U5

175

195 i

: 230

310

Third quartile..

230

155

19-5

230 I

1 250

330

1/ Excludes 17 directors of child welfare offices — 2 in Maine and 15
in Texas.

The findings of this study do not indicate that directors of local
offices administering several assistance programs, or welfare programs in
addition to the assistance programs, receive higher salaries than those
administering a smaller number of programs. Differences in the degree of
supervision exercised by State agencies over the appointment of local
office personnel or in the extent of local financial participation in
salaries may account in part for interagency differences in the average
salaries for directors or in the range of salaries paid. Because of the
predominant effect of size of office it is impossible to determine the

- 9 -

Influence of these two factors* For other classes of workers, however,
these factors do not appear to be of major importance in accounting for
interagency differences in average salaries or in the range of seilaries
paid.

The high degree of correlation between number of employees and
directors! salaries for all States combined is shown in table 5» All of
the 91 directors receiving less than |130 a month were in charge of
offices with less than 5 employees; on the other hand, all but 1 of the
129 directors with salaries of |300 or more directed offices with 5 or
more employees. Only 35 percent of the directors in offices with less
than 20 employees were paid $200 or more; 93 percent of the directors in
these larger offices received such salaries. The median salary is pro¬
gressively higher as the size of the staff increases — from $145 for
offices with the director as the only full-time worker to $310 for the
182 offices staffed with at least 20 employees.

- 10 -

SUPERVISORS

Both the number of supervisore and the number of local offices
which employ such personnel are relatively small , Only 1,675
employees were supervisors; they comprised less than 6 percent of all
local office personnel and less than 9 percent of local office personnel
other than clerks. The 440 offices to which they were attached represented
only 15 percent of all off ices. V For purposes of this study the class
of supervisor ?ras defined to include only employees whose major fiinction
is the supervision of either visitors or supervisors of visitors. To the
extent, therefore, that supervision is provided in local agencies by
personnel, such as county directors or senior case workers, whose major
function is the performance of other duties, these data understate the
amount of supervision provided in local offices.

Most supervisors work in large offices. Over half were attached
to offices with 100 or, more employees and about one-fifth to offices of
less than 25 employees. As a result, supervisory I'erscnnel is heavily
concentrated in the States with large offices. About 1,000, or three-
fifths, were employed in the five States with the largest numbers of
supervisors — California, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington;
New York alone employed 469* Three States — Connecticut, Florida, West
Virginia — which Fire organized on a district basis had supervisors in all
local offices. At the other extreme were nine States 7/ with no super¬
visory staff employed in any of their 353 local offices, the majority of
which are small county offices in rural areas.

Average (Median) Salary and Range in Supervisors* Salaries

For the country as a whole, salaries of supervisors generally are
higher and more nearly uniform than those paid directors or visitors.

The median salary of |210 for supervisors is considerably above the
medians of $185 for directors and $165 for visitors. The higher average
salary for supervisor than for director is accounted for by the fact that
the average for director is heavily weighted by the lower salaries paid
directors of small offices. Within the same office the director’s salary
was always higher than the supervisors’. The interquartile range of $35
for supervisors, which includes the middle half of their salaries, shows
considerably less spread than the $65 and $50 ranges for directors and
visitors, respectively. Salaries of the middle half fell between $195
and $230.^ Extremes included 1 percent below $160 and 2 percent at $320
or more (table 6).

^ The number of offices with supeivisors is shown, by State, in appendix E.

7/ Idaho, Miss., Mont., Nev., N.Dak., S.Dak., Tex., Vt., Wyo.

^ Appendix table III shows the distribution of salaries paid full-time
supervisors by $10 and $20 intervals for 40 agencies and the median
and first and third quartiles for 25 agencies with 10 or more super¬
visors.

- 11 -

CHART 2.

SUPERVISORS: AVERAGE (MEDIAN) SALARY. 25 AGENCIES

DOLLARS

0 50 , 100 150 200

MICH.

WASH.

ILL.

MINN.

N.Y.

UTAH

CALIF.

KANS.

LA.

MD.

N. J. (AB)
OHIO (BCG)
* OREG.

PA.

R.l.

VA.

FLA.

MAINE

MO.

N.J. (C)
OHIO (A)
COLO. .
N.C.

GA.

Table 6*— Diatribution of supervisors* salaries

Monthly

salary

Number

Percent

Total .

1,675

100.0

Less than $160.«**»

23

1.4

160-179.99 .

134

8.0

180-199.99 .

328

19.6

200-219.99 .

449

26.8

220-239.99 .

414

24.7

240-259.99 . .

172

10.3

260-279.99 .

50

3.0

280-299.99 .

19

1.1

300-319.99 .

61

3.6

320 or more* •••••••

25

1.5

Among agencies, the average salary for supervisors varied from
a loT/ of |185 to a high of $250, with a bunching at $210 (table 7 and_
chart 2), Differences in the uniformity of salaries within each agency,
roughly measured by the interquartile range, are shown in table 8,

Table 7* — ^Distribution of 25 agencies by average
(median) salary of supervisors

Average

(median)

salary

Number

of

agencies

State

agency

$185 .

2

Ga., Ind.

190 .

2

Colo., N.C*

195 .

5

Fla., Maine, Mo.,
N.J.(C), Ohio(A)

210 .

10

Calif Kans., La.,
Md., N.J.(AB),

Ohio (BCG), Oreg.,
Pa., ft.Xa, Va.

230 .

4

Ill., Minn., N.Y.,
Utah

250 .

2

Mich., T/ash.

- 13 -

Table 8.— Distribution of 25 agencies by interquartile
range in supervisors* salaries

Interquartile

range

Number of
agencies

State agency

$0 .

1

N.J.(C)

10. . .

2

Colo,, Maine

15 .

1

Kans.

20 .

7

Calif., Minn., N.I., N.G.,
Orsg., Utah, Wash.

25 .

4

iMo., Ohio(A), lUI., Va.

35 .

6

i Fla., Ga., Ill., Ind.,

Ohio (BCG), Pa.

40 .

2

Md., Mich.

45 .

1

La.

55 .

1

N.J.(AB)

Comparison with Visitors* Salaries

Although supervisors* salaries in general are considerably higher
than those paid visitors, many supervisors receive monthly amounts no
higher than some visitors in the same office. Over half the supervisors
whose salaries were reported worked in 39 offices serving areas that in¬
clude a city of 250,000 or more. Almost three-fourths of these 39 offices
reported salaries for some supervisors no higher than that paid at least
one visitor on the staff.^/ In most of these offices the numbers of
supervisors and visitors whose salaries were comparable were small. In
the offices in Buffalo, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, and New York City, how¬
ever, the extent of overlapping in salaries paid workers in the two
classifications was greater than in other large offices. As shown in
table 9> both the proportion of supervisors Y^ose salaries were equaled
by some visitors and the proportion of visitors paid at rates comparable
to those for supervisors were relatively large in these four cities.

2/ Appendix table VT shows the distribution of salaries paid supervisors
by $10 and $20 intervals for 39 local offices serving areas that
include cities of 250,000 or more population, and the median and
first and third quartiles for 16 offices with 10 or more supervisors.
Appendix table VII shows similar data for visitors.

- U -

Table 9 Comparison of salaries of supervisors and
visitors in selected cities

City

Supervisors

Visitors

Total

number

Number
receiving
salaries
no higher
than those
paid some
visitors

Total

number

Number
receiving
salaries at
least as
high as
those paid
some

supervisors

Buffalo. ......

33

22

183

76

Los Angeles...

83

81

553

287

Minneapolis. . .

20

15

113

62

New York .

272

233

1,365

1,720

Factors Affecting Supervisors* Salaries

Differences in fiscal ability among States to some extent may-
account for interstate differences in supervisors* salaries. Agencies
in States with above-average per capita income tend -bo pay higher
salaries than those in other S-bates, Thus 11 of the 14 agencies in
high-income States had average salaries at or above the median of $210
for all States. In contrast, the average salary for supervisors was
at or above the national average in only 5 of the 11 agencies in low-
income States (table 10). The influence of factors other than fiscal
ability is indicated by the fact that in New Jersey and Ohio, which
have two sets of local offices, tlie average salary for supemdsors in
one set of local offices is at the nationel average, and in the other
it is below.

The findings of this study indicate that differences in the average
number of visitors supervised do not account for interagency differences
in supervisors* salaries. On -the average, the 440 offices to which super¬
visors were attached had 6 visitors per supervisor. Among the 10 agencies
with a median salary equaJ. to the national median of $210, supervisors had
on the average from 4 to 8 visitors under their supervision. In the Ohio
Division of Aid to the Aged, Tibich has the largest number of visitors per
supervisor, the average salary was only $195* On the other hand, among
the 3 agencies averaging less than 5 visitors per supervisor, the
median salary \:as $210 in the Ohio Division of Social Administration and
$230 in Minnesota end Utah. Table 11 shows the average number of visitors
per supervisor and the median sedary for supervisors in -bhe 25 agencies
employing 10 or more supervisors.

- 15 -

Table lO,— Average (median)' salary of supervisors in
high and low-income States 1/

State

agency

Average

(median)

salary

State

agency

Average

(median)

salary

States with above-

States with below-

average per capita

average per capita

income:

income :

r.nl 1 f'rvm^ n.

1210

Colorado ••••••••••••

vl90

T1 1 iTlnl R .

230

Florida .............

195

TnHi Rnn

185

Georgia .............

185

IrtfiT^irT finr^ _ _ _ _ _

210

Kansas

210

rh"! crfl.n ............

250

Loui siana •••••••••••

210

Naw .Tai*aavi tlR I . ^ ^

210

Maine ••••«••••••••••

195

fc) .

195

Minnesota. .•••••••«•

230

TJpw Vr^TV

230

Missouri ............

195

Ohlo(A) .............

195

North Carolina. •

190

rpcG) .

210

Utah. ...............

230

Oreg<^n

210

Virginia. ...........

210

Pennsylvania ••••••••

210

Bhode Inland . .

210

Washington. • . . .

250

i/ On the basis of income data for 1945.

Table 11, —Average' number of visitors per supervisor and average
(median) salary for supervisors in 25 agencies

Less than 6 visitors

6 visitors

More tlian 6 visitors

State

agency

Visitors

per

super¬

visor

Average

(median)

salary

State

agency

Average

(median)

salary

State

agency

Visitors

per

super¬

visor

Average

(median)

salary

Ga .

5

^185

Calif..

$210

Ind. ...

7

1185

Mo .

5

195

Colo . . •

190

N.C _

7

190

La .

5

210

Kans. . .

210

Fla....

8

195

Ud .

5

210

Ra....

210

Maine . •

7

195

N.J.(AB)

5

210

Va .

210

N.J.(C)

9

195

Ohio(ECG)

4

210

Ill....

230

Ohio (A)

10

195

Pa .

5

210

N.Y....

230

Oreg. . .

8

210

Minn. • • •

4

230

Mich. . .

250

Utah. • . •

4

230

Wa sh • . • •

5

250

- 16 -

VISITORS

The 14,^30 visiters whose salaries were reported comprised almost
half the local office employees. About three-fourths of the offices
employed one or more full-time visitors. Only the very small offices had
no fiill-time visitors; in these offices either an employee classified as
director or a part-time visitor performed the functions usually assigned
to visitors. More than 3 >000, or a fifth of all visitors, worked in
Hew York State.

Average (Median) Salary and Range in Visitors* Salaries

For the country as a whole, wide differences exist in the salaries
paid visitors. These differences are revealed by the considerable pro¬
portion of salaries falling in each class interval between |120 and $220
and by the fact that 4 percent were at the extremes below or above these
amounts (table 12). The average (median) salary was $165 with the middle
half falling between |145 and 1195.10/

Table 12. — Distribution of visitors » salaries

Monthly

salary

Number

Percent

Total .

14.830

100.0

Less than $120... ••

450

3.0

120-139.99 .

2,570

17.3

140-159.99 .

3,895

26.3

160-179.99 .

3,414

23.0

180-199.99 .

2,163

14.6

200-219.99 .

2,160

14.6

220 or more... .

178

1.2

The average (median) sala^ of $165 for all visitors is higher
than the average in almost two-thirds of the agencies. This situation
results from the relatively high salaries paid in New York State and the
large proportion of all visitors employed in that State. For this reason
the average (median) salary in the median agency — $155 — has been used as
a more valid measure of central tendency for purposes of interagency corn-
prison. As shown in table 13 and chart 3> the leirgest single group of
agencies — 11 — had an average of $155; in another 10, the average was $135 •
The highest average ($210 in New York) exceeded the lowest ($115 in
Arkansas and Mississippi) by more than 80 percent.

10/ Appendix table IV shows the distribution of salaries paid visitors by
$10 and $20 intervals for 50 agencies and the median and first and
third quartiles for the 49 agencies with 10 or more visitors.

- 17 -

CHART 3.

VISITORS: AVERAGE (MEDIAN) SALARY, 48 AGENCIES

DOLLARS

0 50 100 150 200 250

N.Y.

MICH.

NEV.

TEX.

WASH.

ARIZ.

CALIF.

ILL.

MINN.

S. DAK.

VT.

DEL. (A)
FLA.

IDAHO

UTAH

WYO.

KANS.

KY.

MAINE
N.J. (AB)
N.J. (C)
OHIO (A)
OHIO (BCG)
OREG.

PA.

W.VA.

WIS.

N. DAK.
IND.

IOWA

LA.

MD.

MONT.

R. l.

ALA.

COLO.

CONN.

MO.

NEBR.

N. MEX.
N.C.

S. C.
TENN.

VA.

GA.

N. H.

ARK.

MISS.

- 18 -

Table 13. — Distribution of 48 agencies by average
(median) salary of visitors

Average

(median)

salary

Number

of

agencies

State agency

tU5 .

2

Ark., Miss.

125 .

2

Ga., N.H.

135 .

10

Ala., Colo., Conn., Mo., Nebr.,
N.Mex., N.C., S.C., Tenn., Va.

U5 .

6

Ind., Iowa, La., Md., Mont.,

R.I.

150 .

1

N.Dak.

155 .

11

Kans., Ky., Maine, N.J.(AB),
N.J.(C), Ohio(A), Ohio(BCG),
Oreg., Pa., W.Va., Wis.

165 .

5

Fla., Idaho, Del.(A), Utah, Wyo.

175 .

5

Calif., Ill., Minn., S.Dak., Vt.

185 .

1

Ariz.

195 .

4

Mich., Nev., Tex., Wash.

210 .

1

- i

N.Y.

All visitors in five States— Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, Texas, and
Washington — ^were paid at a rate above the average of $155. At the other
extreme , all visitors in four southern States — ^Arkansas, Georgia,
liississippi, and South Carolina— received less than this amount.

Though interagency differences in salaries paid visitors were
considerable, variations in salary among visitors in the same agency were
not so great. In about two- thirds of the agencies, the middle half of
salaries in each agenpy fell within a range of $20 or less (table 14) .

Of the three agencies in which the middle half of salaries fell within a
single $10 class inteirval, only Kentucky had a uniform salary for all
visitors. At the time a revised pay scale for visitors was adopted in
this State, salaries of all visitors were raised to the bottom of the
new range.

- 19 -

Table 14.— Distribution of 48 agencies by interquartile
range in visitors* salaries

Interquartile

range

Number of
agencies

State agency

$0 .

3

Ky., N.J.(C), Tex.

10 .

9

Ala., Ark., Ga., Mich., Mo.,
N.H., S.C., Tenn., TJyo.

20 .

19

Del. (a), Idaho, Iowa, La,,
Maine, Md,, Minn., Miss.,
Nebr., N.Mex,, Ohio (A),
Oreg., Pa., R.I., S.Dak.,
Utah, Vt., W.Va., Wis.

25 .

2

Nev., Wash.

30 .

8

Ariz., Colo., Fla., Ill,,

Ind., Mont., N.C., Va.

35 .

1

Conn.

40 .

5

Calif., Kans., N,J.(AB),
N.Dak,, Ohio (bCG)

45 .

1

N.y.

For offices serving cities with a population of 250, CXX) or more,
the average Uediea) salary for all visitors was $185* 11/ Here again,
the influence of the' higher salaries in New York State is apparent, for
New York City vdth more than a third of all visitors attached to large-
city offices had an average salary of $210. The average salary in the
median office was $165, with 9 offices falling at this average and half
the remaining offices falling above, and half below $165 (table 15) .

In general, the average (median) salary was relatively high if the
office was in a State agency with above-average salaries, and it was
low in other offices* Thus, 22 of the 30 large- city offices in State
agencies with salaries average or above had hig^ averages, whereas 8
of the 10 large-city offices in State agencies with below-average
salaries had low salaries.

11/ Appendix table VII show^s the distribution of salaries paid visitors
by $10 and $20 intervals for 48 offices serving areas that include
cities of 250,000 or more population and the median and first and
third quartiles for the 41 offices with 10 or more visitors.

- 20 -

Table 15. — Distribution of 41 offices serving cities of 250,000
or more population by average (median) salary of visitors

/I signifies a^nistration of old-age assistance; B, aid to the
blind; C, aid to dependent children; and G, general assistance^

Average
(median)
salary ,

Number

of

offices

City served

$125 .

1

Denver

Atlanta, Birmingham, Memphis,
Providence

Baltimore, St. Louis

Cincinnati (G) , Cleveland(G) , Jersey
City(AB), Louisville, Nev/ark(C),

New Orleans, Pittsburgh, Portland
Cleveland (BG)

Buffalo, Cincinnati (a) , Cleveland(A) ,
Columbus (A) , Indianapolis,

Kansas City, Philadelphia, St. Paul,
Toledo (a)

Rochester

Cincinnati (C) , Los Angeles, Newark(jiB)
Chicago, Dallas, Detroit, District
of Columbia, Houston, Minneapolis,
San Antonio, Seattle

Cleveland(C) , New York

Milwaukee (A) and (CB)

135 .

/

145 .

2

155 .

8

160 . .

1

165 .

9

175 .

7

1

185 . . .

3

195 .

8

210 .

2

230 .

2

Comparison with Salaries Paid Clerical Workers

Visitors* salaries usually exceed those paid clerical workers
within the same agency. The median salary of tl65 for visitors tos $30
higher than that for clerks. In two-thirds of the agencies the average
for visitors was $20 - $30 above the average clerical salary. The re¬
maining agencies, however, showed marked variations in the extent to which
salaries for these two classes differed. Connecticut, for example, had
the same average salary — $135 — for workers in both classifications, whereas
the average salary for visitors exceeded that for clerks by $70 in South
Dakota and Texas. Table 16 shows the difference in medians for these two
classes of workers for each of 45 agencies for which both medians could
be computed.

- 21 -

Table 16. — Distribution of 45 agencies bj amount of
difference between average (median) salary of
visitors and of clerks

Amount

of

difference

Number

of

agencies

State agency

«0 .

1

Conn.

10 .

2

Md., W.Va.

20 .

17

Ala., Colo., Ga., Ind.,

Iowa, La., Miss., Mont.,

N.H., N.Mex., N.C.,

Ohio(ECG), Oreg., S.C.,

Utah, Va., Wash.

30 .

13

Ariz., Ark., Calif., Idaho,
Kans., Mo., Nebr., N.J.(AB),
Ohio(A), Pa., R.I., Wis.,

Wyo.

35 .

1

N.Dak.

40 .

6

Ha., Ill., Maine, Mich.,

N.J.(C), Tenn.

50 .

2

Minn., Vt.

65 .

1

N.Y.

70 .

2

S.Dak., Tex.

Although visitors* salaries on the average are higher than clerks*
within the same State agency, 12/ the average salary for visitors in some
agencies is considerably belo7/ the average for clerks in other agencies.
Thus, in 27 agencies the average salary for clerks exceeded the average
for visitors in Arkansas and Mississippi. 13/ Agencies in three States—
Arizona, Michigan, and Washington — ^had average salaries for clerks of
$155 or more; these were higher than the average for Tisitors in 21
agencies (table 13).

Interstate Comparison of Salaries Paid Visitors and Teachers

In the comparison which follows, salaries paid visitors and
salaries paid elementary and secondary public school teachers in each
State are considered high or low relative to amounts paid visitors and
teachers, respectively, in other States. In such a comparison, to say
a State is relatively hi^ in salaries paid visitors and relatively low
in salaries paid teachers does not necessarily mean that visitors receive
more than teachers in that State. The comparison indicates only that the-
State pays visitors mor% and teachers less, relative to what other States
pay visitors and teachers, respectively.

Except for Connecticut.
See table 20.

- 22 -

The most recent comprehensive inforju'ition on teachers’ salaries
indicates that 24 States paid 6 percent or more of their teachers less
than $1,200 in the school year 1945-46. 14/ For purposes of comparison,
these States were considered as paying ’’low” salaries to teachers.
Similarly, States in which visitors* salaries averaged less than $155
were considered as paying ”low” salaries to visitors. As shovm in the
suoaraary below, salaries of both teachers and visitors were relatively
”lov/” in 15 States and relatively ’’high” in 16 States. The remaining
15 States included 9 with ’’high” salaries for visitors and ”low”
salaries for teachers and 6 States in which teachers fared relatively
better than visitors.

States in which salaries are relatively —

Low for both
visitors and
teachers
(15 States)

Ala.

Ark.

Colo.

Ga.

Iowa
La •

Miss.

Mo.

Nebr.

N.H.

N.C.

N.Dak.

S.C.

Tenn.

Va.

High for both
visitors and
teachers
(16 States)

Ariz.

Calif.

Del. (A)

Idaho

Mich.

Minn.

Nev.

N.J.

N.Y.

Ohio

Oreg.

Pa.

Utah

Wash.

Wis.

Wyo.

High for
visitors, low
for teachers
(9 States)

Fla.

Ill.

Kans.

Ky.

Maine
S . Dak .
Tex.

Vt.

W.Va.

Low for
visitors, high
for teachers
(6 States)

Conn.

Ind.

Md.

Mont.

N.Max.

R.I.

Factors Affecting Visitors’ Salaries

Visitors’ salaries tended to be higher in agencies that have a
relatively high proportion of large offices and are located in States
that rank above average in per capita income. Thus the median salary was
at or above the average in 9 of the 12 agencies that met both these con¬
ditions. On the other hand, the median salary was average or above in
only 8 of the 20 States that are below average in per capita income and

yj National Education Association, The Continuing Crisis in Sducation.
October 1946, ?. 9.

- 23 -

Table 17. — ^Average (median) salary of visitors in agencies
classified by proportion of large offices and per capita
Income of State

Large-office agencies

Small -office agencies 1/

State

Median salary

State

Median salary

agency

High

Low

agency

High

Low

States with above-ave

.•age per capita income

Calif .

1175

Mont. .......

Conn. ......

$135

I Nev. . . .

1195

Ill .

175

Ohio(BCG)...

155

Ind .

Li5

Or eg- ^ f . . . . .

155

Md .

U5

Wifi .

155

Mich .

195

R.I .

U5

S.J.Ub)...

155

(c)....

155

N.T .

210

Ohio (A)...

155

Pa .

155

Wash .

195

1

1

States with below-average per capita income

Ariz . .

^85

Ala .

1135

Colo. ......

1135

A T'k

115

Fla .

165

r,a . .

125

La .

U5

Iriabo , , ^ ^ ,

1165

Maine. . ....

'155

X OWa

U5

N.H .

125

Kanp - , . ^ ^ ,

155

s.c .

135

Kv .

155

Tex. .......

195

Mi nn

175

W*Va* •«••••

155

Mififi . .

115

Mo .

135

Nebr .

135

N.Mex .

135

N.C . .

135

N.Dak .

150

S.Dak .

175

Tenn .

135

Utah .

165

Vt . .

1^5

Va .

135

jWyo... .

165

1/ Agencies in idiich at least one-fifth of the local offices

employ 10 or more workers are classified as large-office agen¬
cies; those with less than one-fifth, as small-office agencies.

- 24 -

have a relatively small proportion of large offices (table 17)#

Agencies in 11 States, however, bad an average salary that ran con-
trarj’^ to the pattern set by botli income and size of office, Tliese
v/ere :

(1) The large-office agencies in the high-income States of
Connecticut, Indiana, and Maryland, in v/hich the median
salary was below average; and

(2) The small-office agencies in the low-income States of
Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, South Dakota, Utah,

Vermont, and Wyoming, in which the median salary was
above average.

Within States, visitors working in offices tliat serve cities with
a population of 250,000 or more usually received higher sslaries than
those in other offices in the same agency. In 25 large-city offices,
the average salary was higher than that for other offices in the same
agency (table IS) • Twelve large-city offices, however, had the same
average as the rest of the agency, and 3 — ^Baltimore, Denver, and Prov¬
idence - ^had a lower average. Four State agencies — ^Minnesota, New York,

Ohio, and Pennsylvania — included both large-city offices in which the
average was above, and laxge-city offices in which it was the same as
that for other offices in the agency.

The fact that visitors in larger offices usually received higher
salaries than those in small offices probably does not, as it does in
the case of directors, represent a significant difference in the content
of the job or degree of responsibility. Rather, it probably reflects
the need to pay higher salaries in urban areas where the cost of living
is higher than elsewhere in the States,

State agencies in which visitors on the average are responsible
for a relatively large number of cases do not necessarily pay higher
salaries. For example, among the 11 agencies with an average (median)
salary of $155, tiie average number of cases per visitor ranged from
less than 100 to 267 in December 1945. Though interagency differences
in salaries apparently are not attributable to differences in case
loads, it is entirely possible that within agencies visitors who receive
higher salaries may carry more cases.

25 -

Table 18.— Comparieon of average (median) salary of visitors in large-
city offices and all other offices in the same State agency

Large-city office

Average

(median)

Percent of all

State

City

visitors in State

Average

salary in

agency

served

agency employed

(median)

all other

in specified

salary

offices

office

AT phfimfl , ^ ^ T ^

Birmingham

Los Angeles

18.6

61.6

$135

185

$125

175

California. . .

Colorado .

Denver

29.4

125

U5

Georgia .

Atlanta

25.7

43.5

135

195

125

175

Illinois .

Indiana ......

Chicago
Indianapolis
Louisvil] e

9.9

8.6

165

155

145

155

Kentucky .

Louisiana. . . .

New Orleans

21.4

155

145

Maryland .

Baltimore

50.4

145

155

Michigan. . . . .

Detroit

24.3

195

195

Minnesota. .

Minneapolis

St. Paul

46.5

195

165

165

Missouri .

Kansas City

St. Louis

38.4

165

145

• 135

New Jersey...

Jersey City(AB)

155

145

Newark (AB)

23.6

135

Nev7ark(C)

27.9

155

155

New lork.r.'. ,

Buffalo

165

New fork

68.4

210

165

Rochester

175

Ohio .

Cincinnati (a)

165

Cleveland (a)

26.1

165

155.

Coliunbus(A)

165

Toledo(A)

165

Cincinnati (C)

185

Cincinnati (G)

155

Cleveland! C)

57.4

210

155

Cleveland! G)

155

Gleveland(BG)

160

Oregon .

Portland

51.5

155

145

Pennsylvcinia.

Philadelphia

42.9

I65

155

Rhode Island.

Pittsburgh

155

Providence

50.0

135

145

Tennessee. . . .
Texas .

Memphis

Dallas

Houston

13.2

135

195

195

125

17.8

195

San Antonio

195

Washington. . .

Seattle

26.3

195

195

Wisconsin. , . .

Milwaukee (A)

13.1

230

Milwaukee(GB)

230

155

- 26 -

CLERKS

Clericel personnel, including secretaries, stenographers, typists,
file clerks, statistical and accounting clerks, and others engaged in
similar activities, represented 33 percent of the employees in local
public assistance offices. Almost 15 percent of the offices had no
clerical staff. About a fourth of these were in Kentucky, where all
offices at the time of this inquiry operated without clerical personnel;
most of the others were one-person offices wiiich usually employ a
director only. The 2,800 clerical workers in the loccil offices in New
York represented almost a fourth of all clerical personnel.

The average (median) monthly salary for the 11,635 clerical
workers included in the study was $135; about half the salaries fell
within $20 of this average, that is, between $115 and $155 • Though some
workers — about 2 percent of the total — received $200 or more, about a
third received less than $120, and almost two-thirds, less than $140
(table 19) . li/

Table 19. — Distribution of clerical workers' salaries

Monthly salary

Number

Percent

Total .

11,635

100.0

Less than $100*.

1,000

8.6

100 119.99 .

2,965

25.5

120-139.99 .

3,582

30.8

UO-159.99 .

1,953

16.8

160-179.99 .

853

7.3

180-199.99 .

1,023

8.8

200-219.99 .

134

1.2

220 or more .

125

1.1

The average (median) salary of $135 for all clerical workers was
higher than the average (median) salary in two-thirds of the agencies.
As in the case of visitors, this situation reflects the relatively high
salaries paid in New York State and the heavy concentration of clerical
personnel in that State. The average (median) salary in the median
agency - $125 - , therefore, has been used as the measure of central
tendency. Thirteen agencies had an average of $125, with 18 fa3J.ing
below, and 14 above this amount (table 20 and chart 4). All clerks in
Arkansas received less than this sum and in Washington all received
salaries in excess of $125.

15/ Appendix table V shows the distribution of salaries paid clerks ty
$l0 end $20 intervals for 48 agencies and the median and first and
third quartiles for 46 agencies with 10 or more clerical workers.

- 27 -

CHART 4.

CLERKS: AVERAGE (MEDIAN) SALARY, 45 AGENCIES

DOLLARS

0

50

100

150

200

WASH.

ARIZ.

MICH.

CALIF.

N.Y.

UTAH

W.VA.

CONN.

IDAHO

ILL.

MD.

OHIO (BCG)

OREG.

WYO.

FLA.

IND.

IOWA

KANS.

LA.

MINN.

MONT.

N.J. (AB)
OHIO (A)
PA.

TEX.

VT.

WIS.

ALA.

COLO.

MAINE

N.J. (C)

N.MEX.

N.C.

N. DAK.

R. I.

S. C.

VA.

GA.

MO.

NEBR.

N.H.

S. DAK.
MISS.
TENN.
ARK.

Table 20 •—Distribution of 45 agencies by average (median)
S€ilary of clerical workers

Average

(median)

salary

Number

of

agencies

State agenqy

185 .

1

Ark,

95 .

2

Miss., Tenn.

105 .

5

Ga . , Mo., Nebr • , N,H,, S.Dak.

115 .

10

Ala., Colo., Maine, N.J. (C),

N .Mex. , N.C., N.Dak., R.I.,
S,C,, Va.

125 .

13

Fla., Ind., Iowa, Kans., La,,
Minn., Mont., N.J, (AB),

Ohio (A), Pa,, Tex., Vt.,

Wis.

135 .

7

Conn., Idaho, Ill., Md.,

Ohio (BCG), Oreg., Wyo.

U5 .

4

Calif., N.I,, Utah, W.Va.

155 .

2

Ariz,, Mich.

175 .

1

Wash,

In high- income States, 16/ only two agencies~New Jersey Board of
Children's Guardians and Rhode Island Division of Public Assistance —
paid salaries that averaged less than $125* Six other agencies in high-
income States, however, had an average of only $125; these were the old-
age assistance agencies in Nev/ Jersey and Ohio and the agencies in
Indiana, Montana, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. On the other hand, five
agencies in low-income States — ^Arizona, Idaho, Utah, West Virginia, and
Wyoming— reported average salaries in excess of $125.

South Carolina and Texas showed the least variation in salaries,
with the middle half falling within one $10 class interval. In con¬
trast, the large number of clerical workers in New York received
salaries that varied enough to require a $60 range to include the
middle half. The usual range was $20 or $30 (table 21),

16/ Those with the above-average per capita income in 1945*

- 29 -

Table 21. — Distribation of 45 agencies by interquartile
range in clerical workers* salaries

Interquartile

range

Number of
agencies

State agency

10 .

2

S.C., Tex.

10 .

8

Ark., Ga., Idaho, Iowa, Mich.,
N.Mex., R.I., Tenn.

20 .

13

Calif., Colo., Fla., Ind.,
Miss., Mo., Nebr., N.C.,
N.Dak., Ohio (A), S.Dak.,
Utah, Va.

30 .

17

Ala., Ariz., Conn., Kans.,

La., Maine, Md., Minn.,

N.H., N.J. (AB), Ohio (BCG),
Oreg. , Pa., Wash., W.Va.,
Wis., ??yo.

40 .

4

lU., Mont., Vt., N.J. (C)

60 .

1

N.Y.

Somewhat more than a third of all clerical workers included in
the study were attached to 46 offices which serve areas including a
city of 250,000 or more population. 17/ Among the 40 of these offices
that employed 10 or more clerks, the average (median) salary was $125
in about a fourth, and $135 in another fourth. Memphis was lowest with
an average of $110, and New York Oily and Seattle were highest with
$175. The 7 offices serving southern cities — Atlanta, Birmingham,
Dallas, Houston, Memphis, New Orleans, and San Antonio—all had sal¬
aries averaging less than $135* Of the remaining 33 offices, clerical
saLleiries averaged less than $135 in 12- and $135 or more in 21
(table 22).

"inj Appendix table VIII shows the distribution of salaries paid clerical
workers by $10 and $20 intervals for 46 local offices serving areas
that include cities of 250,000 or more population, and the median
and first and third quartiles for the 40 offices with 10 or more
clerical workers.

- 30 -

Table 22. — Distribution of 40 offices serving cities of 250,000
or more by average (median) salary of clerical workers

[k signifies administration of old-age assistance; B, aid to the
blind; C, aid to dependent children; and G, general assistanc^

Average

(median)

salary

Number

of

offices

City served

$110... . .

1

Memphis

Birmingham, Denver, Kansas City,
Newark (C), Providence, St. Louis
Atlanta, Baltimore, Buffalo,

115 .

6

125 . .

11

130 .

1

Columbus (a), Dallas, Houston,
Jersey City (AB), New Orleans,
Rochester, St. Paul, San Antonio
Columbus (BG)

Cincinnati (a), Cleveland (A) and
(G), Indianapolis, Los Angeles,
Newark (AB), Philadelphia,
Pittsburgh, Portland, Toledo (A)
Cleveland (C)

Cincinnati (C) and (G)

Cleveland (BG)

Detroit, Milwaukee (A) ,

Minneapolis

Chicago, District of Columbia

New York, Seattle

135 .

10

140 .

1

■•45 .

2

•Af > •••••••••••

150 .

1

155 .

3

165 .

2

175 .

2

- 31 -

INTlf-^CLASS COMPARISONS

This section of the report brings together selected data from
the preceding sections for purposes of interclass comparisons.

The average (median) salary and the percentage distribution of
salaries for each class of worker for all States combined is shown in
ta-ble 23. The same data are presented in graphic form in chart 5*

Table 23* — Percentage distribution of salaries, by class of worker

Monthly salary
and quartile

Directors

Supervisors

- .

Visitors

Clerks

Total .

Percentage distribution

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

Monthly SEilary:

Less than ^120...

1.3

—

3.0

34.1

120-139.99 .

10.2

.2

17.3

30.3

140-159.99 .

12.6

1.2

26.3

16.3

160-179.99 .

19.0

8.0

23.0

7.3

iao-199.99 .

16.9

19.6

14.6

8.3

200-219.99 .

U.3

26.8

14.6

1.2

220-239.99 .

10.3

24.7

1.0

.7

240-259.99 .

6.2

10.3

.2

.2

260-279.99 .

2.4

3.0

(1)

.1

280-299.99 .

1.1

1.1

(1)

(1)

300 or more. .

5.2

5.1

(1)

(1)

Monthly salary

Quartile;

First quartile...

$165

$195

$145

$115

Median .

1S5

210

165

135

Third quartile...

230

230

195

155

Interquartile

range..........

65

35

50

40

iJ Less than 0.05 percent.

- 32 -

CHART 5.

PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION AND INTERQUARTILE RANGE OF
SALARIES, BY CLASS OF WORKER

PERCENT

$120 139.99 159.99 179.99 199.99 219.99 239.99 259.99 279.99 299.99 OVER

Y /y\ MIDDLE HALF

UPPER AND LOWER FOURTH

- 53 -

Interagency variations in salaries for each class of worker
are shown in table 24, which indicates how many agencies had average
salaries of specified amounts.

Table 24. — Number of agencies with specified average
(median) salary, by class of worker

^ signifies national median l/7

Average

(median)

salary

Directors

Supervisors

Visitors

Clerks

Total. .

18

21

48

41

^35 •••*.••

1

95 .

—

—

—

2

105 .

—

—

5

115 .

—

—

2

10

125 .•••••.

—

—

2

13 M

135 .

2

—

10

7

145 .

1

—

6

4

150

—

—

1

—

155 .

2

—

11 M

2

165 .

2

—

5 i

—

175 .

7

—

5 i

1 1

135 .

5 M

2

1 i

—

190 .

—

2

1

195 .

3

5

4 i

210 .

3

10 M

1

230 .

8

4

—

—

240 .

1

—

—

250 .

1

2

270 .

1

—

290 .

2

—

—

—

1/ For directors and 8\q)ervl8or8, represents the national average
(median) for all agencies combined; for visitors and clerks,
represents the average (median) salary for the median agency.

In table 25 the relative position of each agency with respect
to the average (median) salary for each class of worker is shown for
“large-office” agencies classified by the per capita income of the
States in which they are located. Table 26 presents similar data for
"small-office” agencies.

- 34 -

Table 25. — Relative position of large-office agencies l/
with respect to average (mediein) salary for all agencies
combined, by class of worker

/kA signifies above average; BA, below average; and M, median/

State agency

Directors

Supervisors

- 1

Visitors

1 -

Clerks

Average (median)
salary 2/ .

<135

$210

$155

i

i <125

High-income States j/

Calif .

1

AA

1 1

M

AA

AA

Conn .

(4)

(4)

BA

AA

D.C .

(4)

(4)

AA

AA

Ill .

AA

AA

AA

AA

Ind .

BA

BA

BA

M

Md .

AA

M

BA

AA

Mich .

AA

AA

AA

AA

N.J. (AB) .

AA

M

M

U

(C) .

AA

BA

M

BA

N.Y .

(5)

AA

AA

AA

Ohio (a) .

M

BA

M

M

Pa .

AA

M

M

M

Wash .

AA

AA

AA

1

AA

Low-income States 2/

Ariz .

AA

(4).

AA

AA

Colo . . . .

BA

BA

BA

BA

Fla .

AA

BA

AA

M

La .

AA j

i M

BA

M

Maine .

(4) !

i BA

M

BA

N.H .

(4)

1 U)

BA

BA

S.C .

BA

(4)

BA

- BA

Tex .

AA

—

AA

M

W.Va .

(4)

(4)

M

AA

1/ Agencies in which at least one-fifth of the local offices
employ 10 or more v/orkers.

2/ For directors and supervisors, represents the natiomil

average (median) for all agencies combined; for visitors and
clerks, represents average (median) salary for median agency.
See pp. 17 and 27 for explanation.

2^ States classified according to whether their 1945 per capita
income was above or below the national average.

4/ Not computed; base less than 10.

2'' Not computed; data incomplete. See appendix table 1,
footnote 7.

- 35 -

Table 26. — Relative position of small-office agencies 3/
with respect to average (median) salary for all agencies
combined, by class of worker

signifies above average; BA, below average; and M, medial^

State agency

Directors

Supervisors

Visitors

Clerks

Average (median)
salary ^ .

5135

$210

5155

$125

High-income States ^

Del. (C) .

—

(4)

(4)

(4)

Mont . .

BA

—

BA

M

Nev .

(4)

—

AA

(4)

Ohio (BCG) .

BA

M

M

AA

Oreg . .

AA

M

M

AA

R.I .

(5)

M

BA

BA

Wis .

AA

(4)

H

M

Low-income States ^

Ala .

M

(4)

BA

BA

Ark.« .

BA

(4)

BA

BA

Ga .

BA

BA

BA

BA

Idaho .

AA

AA

AA

Iowa .

AA

(4)

BA

M

Kans . . .

M

H

M

M

Ky .

—

(4)

M

—

Minn .

AA

AA

AA

M

Miss.............

BA

BA

BA

Mo .

BA

BA

BA

BA

Nebr .

BA

(4)

BA

BA

N.Mex .

BA

(4)

BA

BA

N.C .

AA

BA

BA

BA

N.Dak .

BA

—

BA

BA

S.Dak .

M

AA

BA

Tenn .

BA

(4)

BA

BA

Utah .

AA

AA

AA

AA

Vt .

—

—

AA

M

Va .

BA

M

BA

BA

Vl^o .

M

—

AA

AA

3/ Agencies in which less than one-fifth of the local offices

employ 10 or more workers.

2/ For directors and supervisors, represents the national
average (median) for all agencies combined; for visitors
and clerks, represents average (median) salary for median
agency. See pp, I7 and 27 for explanation.

2/ States classified according to whether their 1945 per capita
income was above or below the national average.
ij Not computed; base less than 10.

V Data not available. See appendix table II, footnote 6.

- 36 -

FIELD REPRESENTATIVES

In addition to information on salaries of local office employees,
similar data were collected on State office field representatives, the
group of State office employees whose positions are most nearly com¬
parable from State to State. Field representatives were defined as
the employees with supervisory responsibility for the general adminis¬
tration of local offices and for the activities of local office per¬
sonnel in determining eligibility and providing assistance and service.

A total of 439 field representatives were reported by 45
agencies. 18/ Among these agencies, the number of representatives
ranged from 1 each in Maine and Nevada to 62 in California. Only 14
agencies had 10 or more field representatives, and more than one-
fifth of the total were employed by the two agencies with the largest
numbers — California and New York.

Average Qiiedian) Salary and Range in Field Representatives* Salaries

The average (median) salary for all field representatives was
|250. The middle h^f of the salaries fell between ^30 and ^90 — |60
range. 19/ The wide variation in salaries for this class of employee
is further indicated by the extremes, which included 4 percent paid
less than $200 a month and 9 percent receiving |320 or more (table 27) .

Table 27.— Distribution of field
representatives* salaries

Monthly salary

Number

Percent

Total .

439

100.0

Less than $200....

18

4.1

200-219.99 .

71

16.2

220-239.99 .

94

21.4

240-259.99 .

97

22.1

260-279.99 .

40

9.1

280-299.99 .

46

10.5

300-319.99 .

34

7.7

320 or more .

39

8.9

Much of the variation in salaries is the resiilt of interagency
differences. Among the 14 agencies employing 10 or more field

18/ The Vermont Department of Public Welfare and the West Virginia
agency, both of which administer the programs through district
offices, and the Delaware Board of Welfare b£.d no field
representatives.

]^/ Appendix table IX shows the distribution of salaries paid field
representatives by $10 and |20 intervals for 45 agencies and the
median and first and third quartiles for the 14 agencies with 10
or more field reoresentatives.

- 37 -

repres©ntativ6B, the average (median) salary varied from $210 in
2 agencies to $37^ in one (table 28).

Table 28. — Distribution of 14 agencies by average
(median) salary of field representatives

Average

(median)

salary

Number

of

agencies

State agoicy

$210 .

2

Ky., Ohio (A)

230 .

2

Mo., Ohio (BCG)

250 .

3

Iowa, Kans., Nebr.

270 .

4

Calif., Ill., Minn., Tex.

290 .

1

N.Y.

310 .

1

Pa.

370 .

1

Mich.

Intra-agency differences in salaries, however, are not so great.
In 29 agencies all salaries fell either within a single $20 class
interval or within two or three consecutive intervals. Moreover, among
10 of the 14 agencies oaploying 10 or more field representatives, the
middle half of salaries fell within a range of $20 or less (table 29).
Only the California agency paid salaries that covered a wide range in
amounts.

Table 29. — Distribution of 14 agencies by interquartile
range in field representatives* salaries

Inter¬

quartile

range

Number

of

agencies

State agency

$0 .

4

Ky., N.I., Ohio (BCG), Tex.

20 .

6

Iowa, Kans., Mich., Nebr*,

Ohio (iU,Pa.

40 .

3

Ill., Minn., Mo.

60 .

1

Calif.

- 38 -

APPENDIX A

EXCLUDED EMPLOYEES

Salary data weienot collected for the following local office positions:

1. Approximately 1,000 part-time workers in 660 local offices cf
59 agencies. Only in Kentucky, where part-time visitors repre¬
sented en equivalent of 21 full-time workers and in the State Board
of Welfare cf Delaware where part-time v/orkers represented an
equivalent of 4 full-time vjorkers, was the proportion of part-time
workers measured in full-time equivalents as great as 10 percent

of employees. An employee working on a part-time basis in several
different local offices was considered a part-time worker even
though his ccmibined time constituted a full-time job,

2. An estimated 2,500 unfilled positions.

3. Approximately 1,300 full-time positions not classified as directors,
supervisors, visitors, or clerks; this group included positions
such as assistant administrators, specialists, technicians, end
maintenance and custodial workers.

- 39 -

APPn.T'IX E

DEFINITIONS

For purposet of the report on stderiee, the four me.jor classee
of employees ?;ere defined as followe:

Directors: Employees rho are the responsible head of the
local office and who are commonly referred to as county
director, administrator, superintendent, secretary, or
director-worker •

Supervisors; Workers whose mejor function is supervision
of (1) visitors or (l) supervisors of visitors. Does not
include director-Y^crkers, consultants, or senior case
workers who have some supervisory functions but whose major
function is to carry assigned case loads or perform other
duties.

Visitors; Employees in socieJ-work position involving the
direct determination of original and continuing eligi¬
bility to receive assistance or the direct provision of
service. Includes the social -work employees who are
directly responsible for assigned case loads and who engage
directly in social investigation and case-work services,
who are responsible for intake 'end application investiga¬
tions, or who perform special investigations to determine
age, employment, bank end insurance assets, and other
facts pertinent to eligibility. Includes employees ccmiaonly
referred to as visitors, case workers, investigators, and
child welfare workers who carry assigned case loads; super¬
visors and consultants other than director-workers, when
the maj or part of their work consists of directly carrying
' assigned case loads; and intake w'orkers, application

interviewers, and resource workers, provided they are
regarded as being in social-work positions.

Clerks; Employees in seci*etarial, stenographic, typing,
filing, bookkeeping, and clerical positions, including
auditing, accounting, and statistical clerks.

- 40 -

APPIMDII C

SCHEDULED HOURS OF WORK

The number of hours of work per week required of full -tine
employees in local offices varied from 33 to 43. More than half the
agencies had a work week of less than 40 hours; the remainder include
9 with a 40-hour week, 7 with a work week of more than 40 hours, and
3 in which there was variation among local offices. The usxial number
of hoiirs of work per week in local offices in 49 agencies was as
follows:

Less than 40 40 or more Yariation

Agency

Hours

Agency

Hours

Agency

Hours

Ariz.

39

Ala.

40

Calif.

37i-42

Ark.

39

D.C.

40

Ind.

40 -44

Colo.

33

Ga.

40

Iowa

40 -43

Conn.

36h

Idaho

40

Mo.

38i-41

Del. (C)

37|

Kans.

44

Nebr.

38 -43

Fla.

39J

La.

4ii

N.J.(AB)

33-331

Ill.

33i

Maine

40

N.Y.

35 -40

Ky.

39

Mich.

40

Wis.

40 -44

Md.

35i

Minn.

40

Mont.

38

Miss.

41

Nev.

33

Ohio (A)

41

N.H.

33?

S.C.

U

N.J. (C)

36|

S.Dak.

44

N.Mex.

39

Tex.

44

N.C.

39

Va.

40

N.Dak. 33

Ohio (BCG) 33j

Oreg. 38

Pa. 37i

R.I. 37i

Term. 38i

Dtah 39

Vt. 39

Wash. 39

W.Va. 39j

Wyo.- 38

41 -

APPEWDII D

REPORTIi'IG PERIOD

The month for which salary data, were reported by the various
agencies was the pay-roll period ended in —

1945 124i

December

January

February

March

April

Total ^

1

1

A

n

Ala.

N.I.

Colo.

Calif. 1/

Ariz.

Ark.

Idedio

N.Mex.

Iowa

Conn.

Ky.

Tex*

Kans.

Del.

La.

T?.Va.

Maine

D.C.

Wyo.

Md.

Fla.

Mich.

Ga.

Mo.

Ill.

Nev.

Ind.

R.I.

Minn.

S.Dak.

Miss.

Vt.

Mont.

Nebr.

N.H.

N.J.(AB)

(C)

N.C.

N.Dak.

Ohio(A)

(BCG)

Oreg.

Pe.

S.C,

Tenn.

Utah

Va.

Vash.

Wis.

}J Except Los Angeles county which reported as of December 1945 •

- 42 -

APPENDIX E

LOCAL OFFICES WITH SUPERVISOPS

The number of local offices in each State which employ super¬
visors was as follows:

Number of local offices

Number of local offices

Agency Total With super- Agency Total With super

visors

Total

440

Ala,

67

5

Ariz,

14

2

Ark.

75

1

Calif.

53

23

Colo.

63

8

Conn.

4

4

Del. (C)

3

1

D.C.

1

1

Fla.

12

12

Ga .

159

4

Idaho

30

0

Ill.

102

33

Ind.

92

19

Iowa

99

4

Kans.

105

8

Ky.

120

6

La.

61

20

Maine

22

7

Md.

24

6

Mich.

83

21

Minn.

87

4

Miss.

82

0

Mo.

115

7

Mont.

49

0

visors

Nebr.

93

2

Nev.

9

0

N.H.

7

2

N.J. (AB)

21

15

(c)

13

12

N.Mex.

32

2

N.Y.

128

65

N.C.

100

10

N.Dak.

53

0

Ohio (A)

88

8

(BCG)

207

13

Or eg.

36

1

Pa.

67

47

R.I.

38

9

S.C.

46

5

S.Dak.

58

0

Tenn.

95

4

Tex.

40

0

Utah

29

3

Vt.

9

0

Va.

123

9

Wash.

39

23

W.Va.

8

8

Wis.

72

6

Wyo.

23

0

- 43 -

Ta%I« I.— Ciatrl^tlon of local office*, 'by State and ember of folL-tla*

state

Agency

Type of local office

Administering y

Three
special
types of
public
aesiet-
aaee 2/

General assistance

All

local

offices

Some

local

offices

Totiil • - 1 * T - -

Alabama

Department of Public Welfare

County

I

X

Aritona

Department of Social Security and Welfare

County

X

X

Arkansas

Department of Public Welfare

County

X

X

California

Department of Social Welfare

County

X

X

Colorado

Department of Public Welfare

County

X

X

Connecticut

Office of Commissioner of Welfare;

Dirlsion of Public Assistance

District 5/

X

Delaware

Board of Welfare

County

C only

District of Columbia

Board of Public Welfare:

Public Assistance and Children's Serricss

City

X

X

Tlorida

Welfare Board

District 5/

X

X

Georgia

Department of Public Welfare

County

X

X

Idaho

Department of Public Assistance

County ^

X

X

Illinois

Public Aid CosmiiBslon

County

X

IndiifcAA

Department of Public Welfare

County

I

X

X

tansas

Department of Social Welfare

County

X

X

Kentucky

Department of Public Welfare:

Coniitj

X

Louisiana

Department of Public Welfare

Parish

X

X

Maine

Department of Health' and Welfare

District y

X

Maryland

Department of Public Welfare

County

X

X

Michigan

Department of Social Welfare

County

X

X

Minnesota

Department of Social Security:

Diwislon of Social Welfare

County

X

X

Mississippi

Department of Public Welfare

County

X

Missouri

Social Security Commission

County

AAC

X

Montana

Department of Public Welfare

County 6/

X

X

Hebraska

Department of Assistance and Child Welfare

County

X

X

Newada

Welfare Department:

Diflslon of Old Age Assistance

District 5/

A only

Haw KikVtpfhirA

Department of Public Welfare

District 2,/

X

Hew Jersey

Department of Institutions and Agencies:

DlTision of Old Age Assistance

County

aab

Board of Children's Guardians

District y

C only

Hew Mexico

Department of Public Welfare

County

X

X

. . .

Hew Tork >

Department of Social Welfare

County and city

1/ X

1/ X

Horth Carolina

Board of Public Welfare

County

X

X

Horth Dakota

Public Welfare Board

County

X

X

Ohio

Department of Public Welfare:

A only

DiTision of Social Administration

County and city y

8/ B&C'

g/x

Oregon

Public Welfare Commi'sion

County

X

X

PennsylTanla

Department of Public Aseistano*

County

X

X

Bhode Island

Department of Social Welfare:

DiTision of Public Assistance

Toen

X

X

South Carolina

Department of Public Welfare

County

X

X

South Dakota

Department of Social Security

County 6/

X

X

X

Texas

Department of Public Welfare

District 5/

X

Utah

Department of Public Welfare

County

X

X

Vermont

Depso’tment of Public Welfare

District y

B&O

Virginia

Department of Public Welfare

County and city

X

X

Washington

Department of Social Security

County

X

X

Vest Virginia

Department of Public Assistance

District y

X

X

Wisconsin

Department of Public Welfare:

DiTision of Public Assistance

Co\inty

9/ X

X

Wyoming

Department of Public Welfare

County

X

X

y In addition to programs specified, staff of most offices spend some time on the administration of other welfare program*.

2/ A signlfle* old-age aselstance; B, aid to the blind; C, aid to dependent children.

V Part-time employees only or all positions raeant as of date of report.

y Sxcludes offices la Alameda, Sacramento, San Diego, San Praaciseo, and Santa Clara Coonties irtilch serr* about one-fifth of the
State's case load.

2/ Por Connecticut, Maine, Sew Eai^shire, and Temont, the office serres an area ordinarily comprising ssTeral cities and towns.
Tor all other States, ''district* is used to designate those offices ordinarily serring an area comprising more on*
county; in the Hew Jersey Board of Children's Guardians half the district offices serre only one county.

44

•oployeea, for a pajr-roll period ended December 31 1 30, 19^

Total

number

of

local
of flee B
reported

Number of local offlcee with specified number of full-time eioployees

Less than 6

6-9

10-14

15-19

20-24

25-49

50

and

oTsr

State

Total

None ^

1

2

3

4

5

1,896

93

276

520

489

282

236

474

243

91

60

133

59

Total

46

.

4

18

13

11

15

3

1

1

1

aiabema

7

3

3

1

3

2

1

1

Arliona

66

9

40

XI

6

g

1

ArkAQsaft

23

1

2

7

5

3

5

4

5

7

3

8

3

California

4i

2

10

17

4

6

2

9

6

3

2

1

1

Colorado

1

3

Connecticut

•t

ee....

1

X

Delaware (C )

1

District of Columbia

1

9

3

norlda

150

1

38

47

34

23

7

2

4

1

1

1

Oeorgla

24

13

9

X

X

3

3

Idaho

31

1

7

9

9

5

3J

20

7

3

6

1

Illinois

35

1

2

8

14

10

33

13

4

1

4

2

Indiana

82

X

38

20

13

10

9

6

1

1

Iowa

80

2

15

18

16

17

12

12

6

2

2

2

1

Kansas

^^Q

16

57

33

11

2

1

Kentucky

4

2

2

31

16

4

1

4

1

Louisiana

IR

2

15

4

4

2

4

1

Maine

7

1

2

3

1

6

4

2

3

1

1

Maryland

37

1

7

13

12

24

10

4

4

2

2

Michigan

SI

23

12

13

22

9

2

3

Minnesota

6z

16

4l

7

c

XX

3

Mleslsslppl

S6

10

11

15

20

44

9

4

2

Missouri

42

7P(

1

Q

18

10

4

4

3

Montana

12

g

21

24

6

7

13

1

1

Nebraska

8

X

g

X

X

Newada

3

2

1

1

New Hampshire

X

1

4

5

3

2

5

1

New Jersey (AB)

6

5

1

1

New Jersey (C)

Q

C

R

g

1

1

2

New Mexico

36

1

15

y

9

A

5

y

6

17

24

14

l4

14

9

New fork

66

2

11

27

15

11

22

6

2

1

3

North Carolina

ff

20

in

4

2

4

North Dakota

49

2

9

14

11

25

18

2

4

3

Ohio (a)

.✓0

150

42

68

49

18

7

6

5

3

1

2

4

2

Ohio (SCO)

28

4

4

5

3

3

9

3

1

1

1

1

1

Oregon

10

4

3

3

7

13

10

4

16

7

Penneylyanla

29

17

6

2

4

4

1

1

1

1

1

Bhode Island

8

21

8

1

1

South Carolina

ly

2

TQ

1 n

4

X

X

X

South Dakota

5b

■T

22

16

7

R

1

3

Tennessee

oD

J

7

8

3

5

15

2

Texas

23

c

c.

T

4

2

2

T

1

1

1

Utah

2

e^

T

2

Vermont (BC )

9

100

3

9

38

J

27

11

12

14

5

2

1

1

Virginia

13

2

6

2

1

2

6

5

3

1

7

4

Washington

8

West Virginia

TT

7

C

8

13

25

10

2

1

1

Wisconsin

T

1 A

X

2

2

.

Wyoming

21

J

2.956

67

Ik
75
!i/ 53
63

4

3

1

12

159

30

102

92

99

105

120

6l

22

24

83

87
82

115

49

93

9

7

21

13

32

1/ 128

100

53

88

BJ 207
36
67

58

95

40

29

9

123

39

8

72

23

^ i. ~i... u»>

^ “fleet (.o.tlr tom .«enole;) In eblch tnleile. pUd we net rel.knre.Me kp tke State; the.e etflce. eerre ekent ene per-

8/ ttwllmtet'tttltltt." ttt!'t.e, er three ef the epecltled pre*r..e In ewl.ne ee.tl»tlene; eld t. dependent children «d

2/ t“ep“t “„MlSh:“;tt“ttete”'tnt'.:r2Jt“t:»r. eld-ede ...letwce, wd ene edhlnleter. eld P, dependent children wd
aid to the blind.

- 45 -

Table II .—Distribution of directors in local public assistance agencies, by State and

- r

State

... _ ...

Interquartile range
of salaries

(—■ - - -

Total

number

First

quartile

r

Mediaoi

Third

quartile

of

directors

Total. ..

$165

$185

$230

2.491

Ala .

185

185

195

67

Arit .

230

250

270

14

e a

125

135

135

75

Calif....

210

240 •

330

2/ 52

Colo . !

155

165 t

185

58

Conn . I

l3) ,

(3) ,

(3)

4

Del. (0).'

_ 1

0

D.C .

(3) 1

(3)

(3)

1

Fla .

230

230

250

11

Sa .

135 ,

135 ,

165

156

XcLstlO • e e e

185

195

210

29

III . ■

210 1

230

230

98

Ind .

165

175

210

92

lova .

185

195

210

99

Kans .

165

185

195

101

Ky .

—

—

0

La .

210

230

230

60

Maine. . . .

(3)

(3)

(3)

Q

Md .

195

230

250

21

Mich .

210

230

250

I

Minn .

185

210

230

' 85

Mies .

135

145

145

1 «1

Mo .

165

175

135

; 111

Mont .

165

175

195

48

Nebr .

155

175

185

79

Nev .

(3)

(3)

(3)

‘ 2

N.H .

(3)

(3)

(3)

1 6

n.j.iab;.

250

290

330

15

N.J.^C)..

230

230

250

13

N . Mex . . .

155

175

185

30

N.T .

_

i (4)

N.C .

175

210

230

97

N.Dak. . . .

165

175

210

43

Ohlo( a) . .

175

135

195

87

0hlo(BC0)i 145

155

185

11/ 158

Oreg .

210

210

250

1 25

?a .

230

290

310

66

H.l .

_ _

, (6)

S.C .

165

165

165

' 46

S.Dak -

185

155

195

55

Tenn .

145

155

155

i 83

Tex .

230

230

230

! 73

Utah .

185

195

210

i 26

vt.uc)..

—

—

! 0

Va .

165

175

210

( lU

V:.sh .

250

270

330

1 25

V.Va .

(3)

(3)

(3)

1 8

Wis .

195

230

250

! 64

Wyo .

175

_

185

_

210

1

_

Number of directors receiTlng—

Less than ^$110,00- '$120.00- '$130.00- $140.00- '$150.00-' $l60. 00- ' $170.00.

$110.00 119.99 129.99 139.99 1^9.99 159.99 169.99 179.99

12 21 58 195 112 203 210 263

5 10

1 23 38 12 . 1 .

. . 1 1 . 2

. 2 1 3 15 11 3

9 . 6 . 92 . ^ • . . . ^ 5 20 * 2

. 2 2 1 7 16 35

. . . 3 6 12

1 ! 1 6 6 ' 7 11 13

. 3

I

I

. 4

6

25

35

13

5

2

R

9

14

10

14

16

6

37

11

17

1

1 3

2

8

7

,

m\

'

.... *5

s

! 1 ' .

• t •

1

y

r

i

2

1

8

8

7

" J

14

11

2

J

8

24

1

12

5

j

14

8

1

14

28

»

*

•

' t ;

7

xx

. 1 .

1

0

4

i

13

,

49

\

T i

1

1

1

2 t

T

1

J

J 1

1 6 :

4

14

1C 1

1 7

!

\

1

4 !

1

1 (

1

0 ;

g

J

j

y !

1

\j Hapresents midpoint of intervals in ^dxidi quartilss fall. Because of high concentration of salaries at multiples
of $5 and $10, use of midpoints may be overstatement of $5 for salaries classified by $10 intervals and of from
$5 to $10 for salaries classified by $20 intervals.

2/ Sxcludes directors in 5 counties. See table 1, footnote 4.

- 46

amount of monthly ■alary, for a pay>roll period ended December 31* 1943-Aprll 30, 1946

Humber of dlreetore recelring—

I $180,00- ' $190.00- ' $200.00- $220.00- ' $240.00- ' $260.00- ' $280,00- ’ $300,00- $320.00- ' $340,00- ' $360.00- ' $380.00

i 1S9.99 199.99 219.99 239.99 259.99 279.99 299.99 319.99 339.99 359.99 379.99 or more

state

251

171

357

268

154

59

28

57

24

13

10

25

Total

24

13

3

i 4 ,

8

7

1

3

i

7

5

2

2

5

9

1 '

7

2

3

1

' 1

2

2

Ala.

Aris.

Ark.

Calif.

Colo.

Conn.

Del.(C)

D.C.

Pla.

Oa.

2

10

7

7

1

23

24

11

1

7

7

8

9

1

1

16

9

8

27

9

20

12

19

4

3

17

6

1

38

32

9

10

3

44

12

11

4

19

1

4

3

21

1

4

4

10

5

27

Idaho

Ill.

Ind.

I ova
Kane.

Ky.

La.

Maine

Md.

Mich.

Minn.

Mies.

Mo.

Mont.

Nebr.

Her.

N.H.

N.J.^AB)

N.J.(C)

H.Mez.

10

N.T.

N.C.

N.Dak.

Ohio(A)

Ohlo(BCO)

Oreg.

Pa.

R. I.

S. C.
S.Dak.

13

4

33

3

22

3

lb

12

5

18

12

9

lb

1

1

2

3

6

11

5

3

17

24

‘4**1

6

14

13

4

3

3

59

1

Tenn.

Tex.

Utah

Vt.(BC)

Va.

Wash.

V.Ta.

Vie.

Vyo,

12

17

10

2

13

2

12

5

15

J.

1/

Not computed; base leas than 10.

Data incotsplete. See table I, footnote 7* '

Includea 21 workers such as viaitors, specialists, and techniciane temporarily in charge of office.
Salary data not available for 38 directors.

- 47

Table III.—Dlotribution of eupervieore in local public assletajice agencies, by State and

Interquartile range

of salaries 1/ Total

_ _ _ numb er

state

First
' quartile

- r

Median

of

Tnird siiqjervisors

quartile

Total .

$195

$210

f

$230 ’

1,675

^.laboma .

(2)

(2)

(2) 1

7

Arizona .

(2)

(2)

(2) 1

7

Arkansas .

' (2)

(2)

(2) 1

1

California .

210

210

230 '

U 13^

Colorado .

185

190

195 i

22

Connecticut .

(2)

(2)

(2)

9

Delaware (C) .

(2)

(2)

(2) '

1

District of Columbia. ••

(2)

(2)

(2) j

9

Florida. . .

175

195 ^

210 ;

37

Georgia .

1 ^75

185

210 !

13

Idaho .

**** 1

0

Illinois .

195

230

230 !

Indiana .

175

185

210 ;

44

Iowa . . .

(2)

(2)

(2) .

7

Kansas .

195

210

210 1

16

Kentucky .

(2)

(2)

(2) ,

7

Louisiana .

185

210

230 1

52

Maine . . .

185

195

195 1

10

Maryland .

190

210 i

230 !

36

Michigan .

210

250

250 ;

61

Minnesota .

210

230

230 1

54

Mississippi .

—

—

— 1

0

Missouri. . . .

185

195

210 :

68

Montana. . .

—

—

— '

0

Nebraska . . .

(2)

(2)

(2) ;

9

_ ^

_

0

New Hampshire .

(2)

(2)

(2) !

3

New Jersey (aB) .

195

210

250 j

30

New Jersey (C) .

195

195

195 ■

l4

New Mexico . . .

(2)

(2)

(2) 1

4

New York .

210

230

230 !

469

North Carol54ia .

175

19c

195 !

12

North Dakota .

—

—

— i

0

Ohio (a).. .

185

195

210 1

22

Ohio (BCG) .

195

210

230

34

Oregon..... . .

210

210

230 '

11

Pennsylvania .

195

210

230 1

199

Rhode Island.. .

205

210

230 '

16

South Carolina.........

(2)

(2)

(2)

7

South Dakota .

—

—

1

0

Tennessee . .

(2)

(2)

(

(2) '

7

Texas .

—

—

- !

0

Utah .

210

230

230 ;

17

Vermont (BC) .

—

- —

—

0

Virginia .

185

210

210 :

14

V/ashlngton. ............

230

250

250 1

94

West Virginia .

(2)

(2)

(2) 1

8

Vlisconsin . . .

(2)

(2)

(2) j

7

Wyoming . . .

! —

—

_ 1

0

Number of supervisors

receiving-

Less than

$150.00-

-| T

$160.00-

$170.00-

$180.00-

$150.00

1

159.99

169.99

179.99

189.99

1

i ^

15

30

104

109

—

4

!

1 {

1

4

\

1

1

q

i

12

1

1

5

1

1

9

4

1 . 3

4

5

12

i <

1

i .

3

1

7

6

6

2

3

1

4

5

r

'I

3

8

13

2

2

3

. 1

2

. 2

1

1

3

2 1

i 1 2 7 22 24

1 . 4 1

(

• . 8

1 . 1 5 .

I,,, .

' . . . 6

. . 1

2 5 .

1] Represents midpoint of intervale in which quartilee fall. Because of high concentration of salaries at multiples
of $5 $10, use of midpoints may be overstatement of $5 for salaries classified by $10 intervals and of from

to $10 for salaries classified by $20 intervals.

48

amount of monthly salary, for a pay-roll period ended December 31, 19^-ADrll }0, 19^6

Ihunber of supervisors

receiving-

- r

(

i

State

1

$190.00-
199.59 ,

i

1

$200.00- ;
219.99 1

$220.00-
239.99 i

r

$240.00- 1

259.99 ,

$260.00- 1
279.99 i

$280.00- $300. CO-
299. 99 319.99

r

$320.00- '
339.99

j

1

$340.00 '

or more j

1 219

1

449

i

4l4

_

—

i

50 I

19 i

61

1

7

- i

1

Total

t 1 1

:

1

(

Alabama

1

5 :

1

i

^ieona

f .

. :...j

. . . . . J _

Arkansas

j l4

15

11

4

1 i

8

3

California

i

* 1

1

Colorado

1

9

\

Connecticut

1 )

. j

1

. I . J

1

Delaware (C)

6

1

1 i

1

District O'f fiftinmbift

1

14

Florida

i. 2

2

1

1

Georgia

\

1

. i . .

Idaho

22

Q

52

7

. 1 . 1.

Illinois

5

J

9

3

2

1

Indiana

3

2

1

Iowa

1

Q

3

Kansas

I ^

Kentucky

1 9

13

8

4

1

1

2

Loui siana

7

Maine

1

9

17

Maryleind

2

20

23

1

4

4

Michigan

1

1 R

ac

J

16

^ J

4

7

1

Minnesota

.

Mississippi

OX

R

11

3

2 ' .

Missouri

-7

J

1

. .

.

1

New Hamn shire

g

X

. ;** '

1

1 '

i

New Jersey (aB)

1 P

2

P

New Jersey (C)

1

1

. i .

. . .

1

New Mexico

! .

23

*

S6

194

51

12

5

28

6

8

New York

2

1

North Carolina

! i

North Dakota

* fl!

4

1

Ohio (a)

! p

Q

10

X

2

Ohio (BCO)

7

3

J

1

Oregon

I

07

J

16

11

8

■X

12

Pennsylvania

Ho

7f

7

R

J

Bhode Island

3

1

7

1

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

c

8

1

Utah

d

D

Vermont (BC)

fl

2

Virginia

15

7

25

1

TP

' 10

5

X

Washington

3

3*-

J

West Virginia

1

1

Wisconsin

1

3

Wyoming

2/ Kot computed; base less than 10.

2/ Excludes supervisors in 5 counties; see table I, footnote 4.

- 49

Table IT.--Metrlbution of ▼isltore in local public assistance a^ncies, by State and

state

Interouqrtile range
of salaries 1/

Total

number

First '

quartlle :

i

Median

Third

quartile

of

visitors

Total .

$145

$165

$195

14,830

Alabama .

125

135

135

177

Arisona .

165 :

185

195

90

Arkansas .

105 '

115

115

112

California .

155

175

195

2/ 897

Colorado . .

125

135

155

201

Connecticut .

130

135

165

80

Delaware (a) 2/ .

165

165

185

11

Delawsire ( C) .

(4)

(4)

(4)

4

District of Columbia .

175

195

195

49

71orida .

145

165

175

291

Oeorgia .

115

125

125

183

Idaho .

155

165

175

46

Illinois .

155

175

185

818

Indiana .

135

145

165

536

Iowa .

135

145

155

167

K’ATMfAA ....A...,.......-.--

135

155

175

209

Kentucky .

155

155

155

174

T.nul . . .

135

145

155

421

Msdne .

145

155

165

98

M*ryl&n(f . . . .

145

145

165

238

Michigan .

185

195

195

575

Minnesota .

155

175

175

398'

Mississippi .

115

115

135

119

Missouri .

135

135

145

622

Mon t^nA . .

135

145

165

39

WAttrAflrfi . .................

125

135

145

155

Hava/4 A _ ..................

185

195

210

11

B«;w Hampshire .

125

125

135

57

New Jersey (aB) .

135

155

175

174

Hew Jersey (C) .

155

155

155

129

New Mexico .

135

135

155

90

New York. . . .

165

210

210

3,056

North Carolina .

125

135

155

236

hAlrntA . . .

135

150

175

24

Ohio (a) .

145

155

165

532

Ohio (BCO) .

155

155

175

209

Oregon .

145

155

165

169

Pennsylvania .

145

155

165

1,113

Bhode Island..* .

135

145

155

110

South Carolina .

125

135

135

187

South Dakota .

155

175

175

30

Tennessee .

125

135

135

212

Texas .

195

195

195

552

Utah .

155

165

175

105

Vermont (BC) .

lb5

175

185

21

Virginia .

125

135

155

207

Washington .

185

195

210

476

West Virginia .

145

155

165

176

Wisconsin .

145

155

165

229

Wyoming .

155

165

165

15

45

.

Nunber of ▼ieitors receiiring^

Less than
$100.00

$100.00-

109.99

$110.00-

119.99

! 94 ! 347

t

4 -

42

2

2

49

32

*16*

11

6

10

63

10

10

3

5

16

13

46

16

$120,00-

129.99

$130.00-

139.99

1,074 ' 1,496

S2

25

7*^

20

96

76

U

6

90

8

18

133

43

24

13

81

56

4

23

4

17

4g

96

1

48

8

15

51

9

27

26

71

3?

3

32

78

40

39

50

20

1

14

34

213

15

37

9

30

47

137

51

5

57

31

17

31

123

%

2

32

11

20

1/ Represents midpoint of intervals in which quartiles fall. Because of high concentration of salaries at multiples
~ of $5 and $10, use of midpoints may oe overstatement of $5 for salaries classified by $10 Intervale and of from
$9 to $10 for salaries classified by $20 intervals.

50 -

aoount of monthly sadary, for a pay-roll period ended Decerber 31» 1945-Aprll 30| 1946

Hunger of Tleitors receWlng—

$li+0.C)0- ’

149.99 ■

$150. 00b.

159.99

$160.00- !

169.99 ,

$170.00- '
179.99 i

$180.00- ’
189.99

$190.00- 1 $200.00-

199.99 ' 219.99 !

$220.00- '
239.99

$240.00
or more

l.7li: 1

l

2.183

1,682

1,732

648 '

1.515 1

2,160 1

1

143

35

1

6

. i . 1

!

23 ‘

18 i

16 1

15

17 1

1

23 i
*»3 ■

^ 1

217

3“

7

2

15b

b

67

11

9

73 :

2

283 ’

1

62

2

. I

3

s

** t

*5 ,

3

.

5 '

1

*5

1

1

1

2 !

*

^ 1

l4

7 !

26 '

1 1

1

. 1

?6 ;

i

16

42 !

125

^ 1
D

1

1 ,

3

j

1

1 ‘

1

i

15

go

74

14

12

12

. i

2

2

,

100 '

1

74 .

go ■

139

143

14

. !L.

256

30 ,

24

157

9

. j""!

6 '

3

!

53

J '

174

142

12

28

. . ; . ! . .

73

28

1 Off

to

32

4

2 i

34

i

51

. i' ■

1

1

.

Xco j

1

1 1

S2

J

79 i
20

»

340

26

49

4

21

33

9b

42

115

36

5

. 1

.

145

in

5

3

.

52

8

7

69

2

2 1

3

1

1 j

iU

IQ

b

** 1

1 1

. ^

t I

i .

4 '

2

5

9

Off

1 1

1 20

' c

14

11

1 1

. 1

13

1

CO

in

4

11

99

35

Xv X

19

271

J

1 . .

5

221

q

2

1

.

1 209

131

p:

176

1.629

68

•1

i 2

J

7

J

’ U

3

125

1C

83

282

15

3

123

49

38

29fa

17

p

' 152

13

69

32

16

4

2

1 l4

' 1

10

11

4

9

11

2

j 18

1 301

.

,

3

1

R

il

(

1

, , . .

7

3

1,

1 T

IQ

.

1

5

1 3

1 ff

;

C

1 ®

92

20

1 1 7

433

7

5

1

3

26

’J

R

Xo

R

I 7

! P

y

14

5

47

14

113

ff

t

56

7

121

162

19

5

39

49

67

6

51

39

7

1

-

f

c

3

2

27

29

lo

D

2

2/ Exclude
3/ Repress
4/ Not com

s visitors in 5 counties. See table I, footnote 4
nta visitors working out of State office; no local
puted; base less than 10.

offices are maintained.

State

jn

"1

Total

Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware (a) J/
Delaware (C)

District of Columbia
Tlorida

Georgia

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Eonsas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Michigan

Minnesota

Miesissippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio (a)

Ohio (BCG)
Oregon

Pennsylvania
Bhode Island
South Carolina

South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah

Termont (BC)

Virginia

Washington

Vest Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

A

51 -

Ta^le V.— Distribution of dorks in local public assistance agencies, by State and

State

Interquartile range
of salaries ij

First

Third

Total

number

of

Number of clerks recelving-

quartile i | quartile

- 1 - -

Lees than $80.00- $90.00-

$80.00 89.99 . 99.99

$100.00- '$110.00- $120.00-
109.99 1 119.99 129.99

3?- 353 1 615

1

1 * ^

1,218 ! 1,747 1,700

!

12 1 39 25

. 70 22

7 i .

. ; . 4

. 6

2 45 49

56 21 52 1

1 ■' 7 4 ■

1 . 1

. ^5

50 23 55

77 61 19

. ' . . 13

68 43 50

4i 62 68

9 77 56

25 40 53

2 10 13

S 4 10

Total,

iila .

arit. ,

drk .

Calif...
Colo... .
Conn. . . .
Eel.(C).

D.C .

ila .

Oa . .

Idaho.
Ill...
Ind. . .
Iowa. ,
Kane. .

Ky.. . ,

La. . . ,

Maine ,
Md. . . .

Mich..

Minn .

Kiss . .

Mo ....... .

Mont. . . . . .

Nebr . .

uev .

K.E . .

n.j.(ab).,

N.J.(C)..,

N.Kex. . . . .

N.y .

H.C .

N.Cak . .

Ohio (A ) .

Ohio(BC(x). . .

Oreg . .

Pa .

R.I .

S.Dak . .

Tenn. . .
Tez. . . ,
Utah...
Vt(BC).

Va .

Wash. . .
W.Va...
Wis. . . .
Wyo....

$115

95

135

S5

135

105

115

(3)

155

105

105

125

125

115

115

115

105

105

115

145

115

65

95

105

95

(3)

95

105

115

115

125

105

105

115

115

115

115

105

115

95

95

125

135

95

105

155

125

115

115

$135

$155 11,635

115

125

1U3

155

165

59

85

95

99

145

155

2/ 855

115

125

194

135

145

38

(3)

(3)

3

165

170

44

125

125

171

105

115

205

135

135

4l

135

165

561

125

135

296

125

125

181

125

145

248

0

125

135

333

115

135

70

135

145

139

155

155

24l

125

145

431

95

105

108

105

115

i^36

125

145

65

105

115

l4i

(3)

(3)

1

105

125

30

125

135

174

115

155

78

115

125

72

145

185

2,814

115 ■

125

23s

115

125

60

125 1

135

245

135

145

249

135

145

145

125

145

818

115 .

115

95

115

115

105

105

115

60

95 :

105

137

125

282

.

1^5 .

155

65

125 ,

135

10

115 ■

125

206

175 '

185

362

145

155

51

125 ‘

145

201

135

145

29

1

1

22

13

5

51

12

48

36

16

38

S3

4

22

1

16

37

38

68

73

33

32

31

11

1

87

53

161

58

4i

17

10

11

9

11

4l

33

22

10

7

l6

6

24

16

3

22

33

1

2

1

27

l4

3

59

34

8

1

119 ■
48

^7 :

180

56

8

92

37

2

4

10

19 '

11 !

33

l4

18

47

80

17

24

24

50

233

40

63

l6

9 I
6l '

3

20

42

34

3 1 17

23

9

37

9

10

28

3

19

403

42

13

59

41
23

S2

12

6

1

6

159

9

3

42

5

36

2

ly Represents mi(^olnt of intervals in which quartiles fall. Because of high concentration of salaries at
multiples of $5 and $10, use of midpoint maj' be overstatement of $5 for salaries classified by $10
intervale and of from $5 to $10 for salaries classified by $20 intervals.

52

amount of monthly salary for a pay-roll period ended December 31# 19^-'^ril 30, 19^6

Somber of clerks recelvlng-

$130.00-

139.99

$l40.00-

149.99

$150.00-

159.99

$160.00-

169.99

$170.00-

179.99

$180.00-

189.99

$190.00-

199.99

$200,00-

219.99

$220.00-

239.99

$240.00
or more

SUte

1,882

990

963

544

309

855

168

134

87

38

Total

Ala.

Axis.

Ark.

Calif.

Colo.

Conn.

Del.(C)

D. C.

Fla.

Ga.

Idaho

Ill.

Ind.

Iowa

Fans.

Ky.

La.

Maine

Md.

Mich.

Minn.

Miss.

Mo.

Mont.

Nebr .

Nev,

H.H.

h.j.Cab)

N.J.(C)

S.Mex.

H.Y.

N.C.

H.Dak.

Ohio (a)
Ohio (BCG)
Oreg,

Fa.

E. I.

S.C.

S.Dak.

Tenn.

Tex.

Utah

7t.(BC)

Va.

Wash.

W.7a.

Wis.

Wyo.

16

14

1

7

1

2

1

9

1

1

8

13

276

11

5

1

98

22

7

201

5

1

42

5

2

36

1

2

28

42

13

11

8

2

1

9

17

1

10

50

13

9

30

10

16

3

14

1

6

i

1

2

9

12

18

157

55

26

38

1

2

50

9

91

9

2

12

52

2

8

1

10

1

1

3

3

13

1

1

4o

21

16

4o

63

20

1

26

53

32

22

23

2

2

1

8

95

33

lU i 3

9

4

13

18

3^;

26

1 e

4

7

6

1

1

15

9

11

l4

8

3

1

4

1

3 i 3

1

1

6

.

1

36

12

1

8

290

12

2

26

46

20

60

5

5

19

7

1

2

2

5

1

2

2

2

4

.

4

551

22

5

57

35

38

121

2

10

1 2

3

19

7

76

1

2

107

2

1

7

7

12

65

1

60

671

1

57

4l

56

1

17

5

4

11

1

5

4

1

7

1

15

1

19

2

56

*11

4

26

1

9

24

3

12

4

3

2

9

12

111

10

20

5

3

4o

1

74

1

5

60

28

7

1

39

seaeesssee

3

teeeaeeee

7

see ••♦•e«

8

31

10

11

20

3

6

1

i

2/ Excludes clerks in 5 counties. See table I, footnote 4,
^ Not computed; base less than 10,

53

Table VI.— Distrlbutloa of supervisors in local public assistance offices serving cities of 250,000 or luors

state and city

- r

Interquartile range
of salaries ^

Jirst i . „ ( Third

quartile j j quavtile

Total .

$210 1 $230 ■ $230

T

Total
number
of

Juiflbor of supervisors receivlng-

sunervisors bess than $170,00— |$1B0.0C— i>190,00-

^ $170.00 i 179.99 J 139.99 h99.99

855

22

33

20

Ala.

: Birmingham . 1

(2) i

(2)

(2)

2

Calif.

3/1 Los Angeles .

210 i

210

230

33

Colo.

: Denver .

185 '

195

195

lU

D.C. . .

(2) *

(2)

(2)

9

Ga.

t Atlanta .

(2) '

(2)

(2)

9

Ill.

: Chicago .

230 ,

230

230

59

Ind.

: Indianapolis . j

(2) '

(2)

(2)

9

Ky.

t Louisville . .

(2) !

(2)

(2)

2

La.

: New Orleans .

210 !

230

250

22

Md.

: Baltimore .

185 ;

230

230

27

Mich.

; Detroit . '

230

25c

250

22

Minn.

: Minneapolis . .

230 '

230

250

20

St. Paul .

210 i

210

250

21

Mo.

: Kansas City .

185

135

210

22

St. Louis .

195

195

220

28

N.J.

: Jersey City (AB)...

(2)

(2)

(2)

2

(c)....

—

—

—

0

Newark (aB) .

(2) i

(2)

(2)

8

(C) .

(2)

(2)

(2)

3

a.T.

t Buffalo... .

210

210

250

33

New York .

230

230

250

272

Rochester .

(2) ■

(2)

(2)

9

Ohio

: Cincinnati (A) .

(2)

(2)

(2)

5

(c) .

(2)

(2)

(2)

3

(B) .

—

. —

0

(0) .

(2)

(2)

(2)

5

Cleveland (a) .

(2)

(2)

(2)

5

(C) .

(2)

(2)

(2)

5

(B&) .

(2)

(2)

(2)

4

(&) .

(2)

(2)

(2)

4

Columbus (a) .

(2)

(2)

(2)

4

(C) .

1

—

_

0

' (BO) .

(2)

(2)

(2)

4

Toledo (a) .

(2)

(2)

(2)

1

(C) .

• -

- —

0

(B) .

I _ _

_

—

0

(0) .

; (2)

(2)

(2)

2

Oreg.

: Portland .

i 210

210

230

11

Pa.

: Philadelphia .

j 195

210

230

43

Pittsbiirgh . .

210

210

210

45

E.I.

: Providence . .

(2)

(2)

(2)

6

Tenn.

: Memphis . .

(2)

(2)

(2)

2

Tex.

: Dallas....... .

—

—

0

Houston. . . . .

—

—

—

0

San Antonio .

—

—

0

Wash.

: Seattle .

220

240

250

8

Wis.

: Milwaukee (a) .

! (2)

(2)

(2)

2

(CB) .

—

—

0

.

1

2 1 . .

1

1

13

9

. . . ' 1

1 1 i .

.

_ 1

1 . 1

^ Bepresents midpoint of intervals in tdiich quartiles fall. Because of high concentration of salaries at

multiples of $5 &nd $10, use of midpoints may be overstatement of $5 for salaries classified by $10 intervals
and of from $5 to $10 for salaries classified by $20 intervale.

54

popxilatlon, by State and aaount of monthly salary, for a pay-roll period ended December 31 1 19^3-April 30t 19^

ti

1

of sv^ervisors receiving —

state and city

$200. CO-
219. S9

I $220.00-
I 239.99

$240.00-

259.99

$260.C0-

279.99

i $280.00-
- 299.99

$300. CO-
319. 99

’ $320.00-
* 339.00

$340.00
or more

1

1 22U

i

I 288

103

21

1

i 7

53

i

6

13

Total

Ala.

Birmingham

6

1

1

8

2

Calif

• y

Lob Angeles

1

Colo.

Denver

6

1

1

1

D.C.

2

1

1

Oa.

Atlanta

7

45

7

Ill.

Chicago

5

1

1

Ind.

Indianapolis

2y.

Louisville

8

5

3

1

1

2

La.

New Orleans

6

l4

Md.

Baltimore

3

3

13

3

Mich.

Deti'oit

2

12

u

1

Klnn.

Minneapolis

14

1

4

2

St. Paul

2

3

1

1

Ko.

Kansas City

2

5

1

1

St. Louis

N.J.

Jersey City (aB)

(C)

1

5

1

1

Hework (aB)

(c)

l6

2

6

1

. 2

H.Y.

Buffalo

39

16C

35

4

1

26

2

5

New York

\

u

. 1

Bochester

1

Ohio

{ Cincinnati (A)

2

1

(C)

(B)

2

1

(G)

1

•

Cleveland (a)

1

2

1

1

(C)

1

. 2

1

,

(BG)

"T

;

(o)

J

1

Colvtmbua (a)

Cc)

(BG)

Toledo !a)

(C)

•1

(0)

' 7

n sr

*2

1 '. . .

■

: Portland

i' 5

7 .

: Philadelphia

i 1®

• 25

o

5

\ _ _

5 .

Pittsburgh

T

; Providence

1 j

'

: Memphis

. .

i 6

1 1

1

7

1

8

p ‘ j ‘ 7 . . Vash. ; Seattle

r .

1 _

.

.

i_ 1_ 1 - 1 - \ -

2/ Hot computed; base lees than 10. . c * v-. t ^ k

2/ Data not available for offices serving citlee of Oakland and San Francisco. See table I, footno.e 4.

55

laibl* TIl.~Dl*tribution of ritltora in local pal>lio assistance offices serving cities of 250*000 or more

state and city

)

Interquartile range
of salaries 1/

Total

number

of

ri si tors

Tirst

quartlle

Median

Third

quartile

Total . 1

$155

$185

$210

5.266

Ala

:

»

Birmingham .

135

135

145

33

Calif.

Zjx

Los Angeles . j

155

185

195

553

Colo.

Denrer .

125

125

155

59

D.C...

175

195

195

49

Oa

t

Atlanta .

135

135

135

47

Ill.

1

Chicago .

165

195

210

356

Ind.

t

Indianapolis . >

1U5

165

165

53

Ky.

:

Louisrille .

155

155

155

15

La.

t

Hew Orleans . ,

135

155

165

90

Md.

t

Baltimore . . i

145

145

155

120

Mich.

t

Detroit . ,

i

175

195

195

140

Minn.

Minneapolis .

165

195

210

113

St. Paul . ,

155

165

175

72

Mo.

:

EansM City .

145

165

175

93

St. Louis .

135

145

165

146

S.J.

•

Jersey City (aB) .

(0 .

14^

(3)

W

13

5

Mewark (aB) .

185

185

195

28

(C) .

155

155

155

31

H.T.

t

Buffalo .

155

165

185

183

Hew York .

210

210

210

1,865

Bochester .

175

175

175

42

Ohio

Cincinnati (a) .

145

165

165

39

(c) .

175

185

185

10

(B) .

(3)

(3)

(3)

1

(a) .

135

155

195

20

Clereland (a) .

145

165

175

49

(C) .

175

210

230

26

(BO) .

135

160

165

22

(0) .

145

155

155

18

Columhus (a) .

165

165

175

35

(0) .

(3)

(3)

(3)

5

(BO) .

(3)

(3)

(3)

7

Toledo (a) .

160

165

175

16

(0 .

(3)

(3)

(3)

3

(B) .

(3)

(3)

(3)

1

(0) .

(3)

(3)

(3)

7

Oreg.

:

Portland .

145

155

165

87

Pa.

t

Philadelphia .

145

165

185

270

Pittsburgh .

145

155

165

208

E.l.

1

Proridenee .

135

135

165

55

Tenn.

e

Memphis . . .

125

135

135

28

Tez.

t

Dallas .

195

195

195

38

Houston .

175

195

195

34

San Antonio . .

195

195

195

?6

Wash.

e

e

Seattle .

175

195

210

125

Wis.

t

Milwaukee (a) .

230

230

230

20

(CB) .

210

_

230

_

230

10

T

j Humber of risitors receiTing>--

; Less than
[ $120,00

$120.00-

129.99

$130,00-

139.99

$140.00-

149.99

4

97

199

487

1

7

12

13

1 . .

3U

. 3‘'”

6

11

35

4^

7

4

✓ »

16

79

.

1

.

. 1

I . . . . ....

.

i

5

23

44

3

16

51

1

1 .

.

i

.

.

3

2 > t

1

L .

11

^ ....

^ .

5

2

15

1

1

1 .

3

2

1 1 2

4

7

2

39

100

62

7

.

6

1

23

18

1

5

6

3

1

1/ Bepresents midpoint of interrals in which quartiles fall. Becaxise of hi^ concentration of salaries at

multiples of $5 and $10, use of midpointe may he OTerstatement of $5 for salaries classified hy $10 intervals
and of from $5 to $10 for salaries classified hy $20 interrals*

56 -

population, by Stata and anount of monthly aalary, for a pay-roll period anded December 31 » 1945-Aprll 30# 19*<^

Himber of Tlsltora receiving—

State and city

$150.00- i
159.99 1

$160.00-

169.99

$170.00-

179.99

$180.00-

189.99

$190.00- .

199.99 1

}

$200.00-

219.99

I $220.00-

1 239.99 •

$240.00
or more

1

■

424 ;

1

507

307

647

1.843

— n

; 105 7

Total

t

1

t

t

Birmingham

Los Angeles

Denver

1 164 ,

1 6

78

1

24

8

13

1

252 ,

18

1

3

Calif. 2/
Colo .

; . '

14

7

26

1

1 .

D.C,

Oa.

i

Atlanta

■ 39

. 8

15

. 26

1

43

31

18

30

24

157

Ill.

Chicago

Indianapolis

Louisville

Ind.

t

Ky.

La.

:

7

15

19

38

7

2

New Orleans

R

3

1

Md.

a

Baltimore

J

31

12

1

60

23

1

11

Kloh.

t

Detroit

24

25

7

34

1

5 .

Minn.

:

Minneapolis

St. Paul

1

6

32

35

31

19

18

Mo.

s

Kansas City

St. Louis

2

' 7

V.J.

1

Jersey City (ab)

(0)

2

1

2

2

2

2

11

1

11

Newark (aB)

25

87

37

4

4

1

(0

16

13

1

46

39

3

27

1,544

N.T.

:

Buffalo

56

32

T

111

1

61

4

New Tork

Rochester

8

16

1

j.

Ohio

i

Cincinnati (a)

y

1

7

(C)

(B)

c

1

6

(0).

17

15

4

1

,

Cleveland (a)

P

i 2

3

4

10

(C)

U.

3

1

1 ^

1

1

(BO)

\

11

T

1 .

(0)

IQ

8

i 1

Columbus (a)

; P

> R

1

(0

P

1::::::::::

(BO)

0

7

1

Toledo (a)

• y

1

* 2

, 1

(C)

1

(B)

(,

1 1

(0)

I

^ P

1

' 1

i R

2

Oreg.

Pa.

Portland

1 11

52

ho

* 17

\ 71

1 y

' 2

:

Philadelphia

1 M

1

,

Pittsburg

» W

1

! 4

i 2

R.I.

.

Providence

. ^

' 1

i ^

1

Tenn.

:

Memphis

i

5

9

i 33
i 25

1 . 22

Tex.

t

Dallas

1

i

Houston

4

1 .

' 1

*

San Antonio

1 ^

34

i 21

1

1 30

40

Wash.

:

Seattle

.i 20 .

Wis.

t

Milwaukee (a)

1 _ I _ I _ '***1 _ I _ _ _ i - 1 - — — j -

2/ Data not available for offices eerring cities of Oakland and San Trancieoo. See table I, footnote 4.
2^/ Not computed; baee lees than 10»

57

Tal)le 7111. — Siatrl'butioc of clerks in local public aselstance offices serving cities of 230,000 or more i

Interquartile range
of salaries ^

state and city

Jirst

quartile

Median

Third

quartile

1

To tal . . .

$125

$145

—

$175 i

Birmingham .

95

115

125

Calif. 2/

Los Angeles .

135

135

155

Colo.

Denver . .

105

115

125

D.C .

Ga.

Atlanta .

155

115

165

125

170

135

Ill.

Chicago .

145

165

165

Ind.

Indianapolis.. . .

125

135

165

£y.

Louisville. . ....

—

—

- —

La.

New Orleans .

105

125

125

tid.

Dal tifflor e .

115

125

145

Mich.

Detroit. . .

l>t5

155

175 1

Minn.

Minneapolis .

125

155

175

St. Paul........

115

125

135

Mo .

Kansas City .

105

115

125

St. Louis. . .....

105

115

125 1

N.J.

Jersey City (AB)

125

125

135 :

(C)

(3)

(3)

Newark (AB) .

135

135

145

(C) .

105

115

155

N.Y.

Buffalo .

125

125

155

New York . .

135

175

185

Eochsster . .

125

125

135 1

Ohio

Cincinnati (a)..

125

135

145 1

(C)..

125

145

155 i

(3)..

(3) !

(Cr). .

145

195 ,

Cleveland (a)...

115

135

135

(C)...

135

l4o

155 !

(BG)..

135

150

165 1

(d). . .

115

135

135 '

Columbus (a)....

125

125

(3)

i4o t

' (C)..,.

(3)

(3)

(BG)...

115

130

145

Toledo (a) .

125

135

135

(C) .

(3)

(3)

(3)

(B) .

- —

- —

(d) .

(3)

(3)

(3)

Oreg.

Portlsuid .

125

135

1U5

1'45 1

Pa.

Philadelphia....

115

135

Pittsburgh. .....

115

135

155 i

E.I.

Providence . .

105

115

115 1

Tenn.

Meurahis. . .

105

no

115

Tex.

Dallas .

115

125

135

Houston. . . . .

115

125

130

San Antonio. . . . .

125

125

135

Wash.

Seattle. ........

155

175

1S5

Wis.

Milwaukee (a)...

135

155

155 ;

(CB)..

_

(3)

_

(3)

_

(3) :

L

Total

number

of

clerks

Number of clerks receiving —

4,lU0

15
557

68

U4

4

28

0

90

58

57

81

84

53

99

11

6

30

18

152

1.516

45

22

11

1

4i

25

10

20

21

20

2

16
11

2

0

9

Less than
$100.00

$100.00-

109.35

$110.00-

119.95

$120.00-

129.99

$130.00-

139.99

169

365

508

808

5

5

3

.

5

i4

VX> CM •

•

CM

11

.

20

.

17

15

2

5

l6

6

17

3

16

17

26

12

8

l6

35.

16

15

14

26

‘ . ' ^

1

. 1

...: 5

. . .) 16

8

13

9

30

11

22

8

11

16

11

7

11

11

c

15

7

4

1

1

18

69

5

12s

295

24

i 5

1

3
11

4
4
8

69 1..

j

10

' 13

20

209 ...

40

. 27

49

139 ...

, 45

22

39 i

5

1 7

i ^9

!

10 1

2

' 3

1 3

1 1

^ 1

21 L . .

.1 7

, 7

4

20 [..

6

1 9

3

17 t..

.1 4

1 7

2

93 t...

1

12 |...

.! 1

, 2

Ij Eepresents midpoint of intervale in which quartlles fall. Because of high concentration of salaries at intiltlples
of $5 and. $10, use of midpoints ma7 be overstatement of $5 for salaries classified by $10 Intervals and of from
$5 to $10 for salaries classified by $20 intervals.

58

population, by State and amount of monthly ealary, for a pay-roll period ended December 31 • 19^3'^ril 19*^^

Kuaber of olerks reeeiTin^-

$l40.00-

149.99

$150.00-

159.99

$160.00-

165.59

$170.00-

179.99

$180.00-

189.99

—

$190.00-

195.99

r - 1

$200.00-

219.95

$220.00-

239.99

' $240,00

1 or more

434

428

257

161

723

96

66

I .

J _

1

1

. 1 .

40

g

i45

4

10

16

1

16

31

6

4

5

Q

10

l4

1

. r *

1

1

0

1

3

33

32

91

52

State and city

3

7

lU

9

5

2

8
1

3

161

20

U

2

2

3

3

9

11

U

1

1

12

10

1

1

1

i 4

20

93

i 1

38

4

4

1

1

30

3

s

646

4

31

1

1

10

17

1

2

51

Total

' Ala.

t Birminghum

Calif. 2/

1 Los Angeles

Colo.

■ D.C.

: Denver

' Qa.

t Atlanta

. Ill.

t Chicago

i Ind.

! Indianapolis

1 Ky.

: Louisville

La.

: New Orleans

1 Md.

: Baltimore

' Mich.

i Detroit

/ Minn.

! Minneapolis

3t. Paul

Mo.

! Kanaaa City

St. Louie

, N.J.

! Jersey City (aB)

N.Y.

Ohio

1 . ;**“::* :

. ;•••*' .

..... ..

1

' 1

.... . ^

5:4,9

23 i 8 1 26

7 ' 17 ' 15

9 1 1

1

!

1

j i

3 j ^

9 i 9

2

9

7

. • ' ■ 1

1

. ' S.I.

1

" ! . 1 . ::::::

2

20

- -

l4

6

12

1 j Wash

0 ' T i

1

^ 1 5 ! .

1 - ! - - -

L_ 1 -

1

Newark (A3)

(C)

Buffalo
New York
Bu Chester

Clacinrati (a)
(0
(B)
(0)

Cleveland (a)
(C)
(BO)
(0)

Columbus (a)
(C)
(BO)

Toledo (a)

(C)

(B)

(0)

?or tlaud
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Providence
Memphis
Dallas
Fouston
San antonio
Seattle
nilwaokse (a)
(CB)

2/ Data not available for offices serving cities of Oakland and San Francisco. See table I, footnote 4,
y Not computed; base less than 10.

59

Table IX.—Dietrlbutlon of field representatlTee In State piiblic aseletance agencies, by State and aBOunt of
monthly salary, for a pay-roll period ended December 1945-i‘Prll 30t 1946

state

Interquartile range
of salaries ij

—

Total

number

of

field

repre-

sent-

atires

Number of field representatires receirlng —

First

queurtile

Median

Third
quart! le

Less

than

$200.00

$200.00i>

219.99

$220.00.

239.99

$240.00-

259.99

$260.00.

279.99

$280,00-

299.99

$300,00-

319.99

$320.00

or more

Total. . .

$230

$250

$290

507

57

«3

111

97

4o

46

34

39

a ....

(2)

(2)

(2)

7

3

4

kTi ........

(2)

(2)

(2)

4

\

2

1

Ark .

(2)

(2)

(2)

6

3

3

Calif .

250

270

31b

62

15

12

11

3

13

g

Colo .......

(2)

(2)

(S

9

9

Conn

(2)

(2)

(2)

3

1

1

1

.

Del. (c)...

0

D.C .

0

.

ria .

(2)

(2)

(2)

2

2

Ga .

(2)

(2)

(2)

g

1

1

6

.

.

Idaho .

(2)

(2)

(2)

4

1

3

.

.

.

Ill .

250

276

290

87

39

12

21

2

.

Ind .

(2)

(2)

(2)

4

4

Iowa .

230

250

250

11

6

Kans .

230

250

250

13

1

5

7

Xy .

210

2io

210

21

1

19

1

La .

(2)

(2)

(2)

g

1

R

1

1

Mains .

(2)

(2)

(2)

1

1

Md .

(2)

(2)

(2)

5

• 4

1

Mich .

350

370

370

18

2

16

Minn .

250

270

290

11

.

3

.

Miss .

(2)

(2)

(2)

7

3

.

4

Mo .

210

230

250

16

4

5

7

Mont .

(2)

(2)

(2)

6

2

4

. j .

Nebr .

230

250

250

10

.

4

5

1

_ ! _

Ner .

(2)

(2)

(2)

1

.

1

N.H .

(2)

(2)

(2)

2

1

1

N.J. (iB)..

(2)

(2)

(2)

5

2

3

'

N.J. (C)...

(2)

(2)

(2)

3

3

1 i

N. Mei .

(2)

(2)

(2)

3

1

1

. i “■

>

N.T .

290

290

2«K)

38

9

23

6

N.C .

(2)

(2)

(2)

g

1

2

4

1

N.Dalc .

(2)

(2)

(2)

6

1

3

2

.

Ohio (▲)...

210

210

230

22

2

10

10

(BOO).

230

230

230

19

4

12

2

1

Or eg .

(2)

(2)

(2)

2

2

Pa .

310

310

330

l4

^ 9

R

R.I .

tz)

(2)

(2)

5

1

1

3

S.C .

(2)

(2)

(2)

6

6

S.Dafc .

(2)

(2)

(2)

2

i

1

Tenn .

(2)

(2)

(2)

g

2

6

Tex .

270

270

270

10

1

9

Utah .

(2)

(2)

(2)

5

2

3

Vt. (BO...

b

Ta .

(2)

(2)

(2)

9

1

g

Wash .

(2)

(2)

(2)

6

1

2

3

W.Va .

0

Wis .

(2)

(2)

(2)

g

a

1

R

Wyo .

(2)

(2)

2

2

J

j (2)

_

- 1

1

_

1/ Bepresents midpoint of Interrale in idilch quartlles fall. Because of high concentration of salaries at multiples
of and $10, use of midpoints may bo orerotatement of $5 for salaries classified by $10 Interrals and of from
$3 to $10 for salaries classified by $<^0 interrals.

2/ Not computed; base less than 10.

60 -

PERSONNEL IN LOCAL OFFICES
OF STATE PUBLIC ASSISTANCE AGENCIES
1946

PART II. SIZE AND COMPOSITION
OF LOCAL OFFICE STAFFS

FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Bureau of Public Assistance

Public Assistance Report No. 12

i

f

}

>

*4

I

$

V

j

«•'

*«

I

r-

»»

, »

«

*>

I

. f

t

'li

/.

/•

• «

V

V '

I'-

%

**«

/•

m

s

.•

I

k

♦

r

1

I

i

■>

> I I

r,

'V '

I

:k-

PERSONNEL IN LOCAL OFFICES

OF STATE PUBLIC ASSISTANCE AGENCIES

19 4 6

PART II. SIZE AND COMPOSITION
OF LOCAL OFFICE STAFFS

by

Vivian B. Norman
and

Dorothy R. Bucklin

Statistics and Analysis Division
Bureau of Public Assistance

Public Assistance Report No. 12

FEDERAL SECURITT AGENCY
Social Security Administration
Vfeshington, D.C.

April 194s

CONTENTS

Introduction .

Number and types of local offices and programs administered...

Size of loceJ. office staffs .

Composition of local office staffs .

Part-time employees .

Appendix tables .

Definitions .

Chart 1. Distribution of local offices and employees by

size of staff .

TEXT TABLES

1. Local offices and employees in agencies administering

specified groups of programs .

2. Comparison of number of coimties and number of local

offices in agencies with noncounty administrative
units .

3. Distribution of local offices and employees by size

of staff .

U. Small and large-office agencies .

5. Staffing patterns in local offices with one, two, three,

or four full-time employees .

6. Number of full-time employees responsible to the director

in local offices serving cities with a population of
500,000 or more, by type of position .

7. Distribution of hi reporting offices serving cities of

250,000 or more population, by average number of
clerks for every 10 visitors .

8. Offices with supervisors .

9. Average num-faer of visitors per supervisor In 25 agencies..

10. Distribution of part-tljie emploTees, by type of position..

APPENDIX TABLES

Page

I. Distribution of local offices, by State and number of
full-time employees, for a pay-roll period ended
December 31, 1945-April 30, 194^ . . l8

II. Number of local offices with one, two, three, or
four full-time employees, by State and type of
position for a pay-roll period ended December 31>

1945-April 30, 1946 . 20

III. Number of full-time employees in local offices, by
State and type of position for a pay-roll period
ended December 31, 1945-April 30, 1946...... . 22

IV. Number of local offices with part-time employees

and number of part-time employees and equivalent
full-time of such employees, by State and type of
position for a pay-roll period ended December 31 >

1945-April 30, 1946 . 23

>3

INTRODUCTION

Information on the number and types of personnel in each of 2,956
local offices is available from the reports submitted by 49 State public
assistance agencies in a study of salaries paid employees of local public
assistance offices, conducted by tiie Bureau of Public Assistance early
in 1946 .ly The salary data were presented in Part I of the report on
the study; this section — Part II — discusses the size and composition of
local office staffs.

Throughout Part II, as in Part I, the terms "agency" or "State
agency" refer to the State agency responsible for administering assistance
or for supervising the administration of assistance by local agencies.

The terra "local office" designates both the local offices of a State
agency administering assistance and the local agencies that administer
assistance under the supervision of a State agency. A "local office" may,
in areas of large population, maintain several branch or district offices;
for piirposes of this study the staffs of all such offices were considered
to comprise a single local office. For States having more than one State
agency included in the study, the programs for which each agency is re¬
sponsible are identified by the letter A for old-age assistance, B for
aid to the blind, C for aid to dependent children, and G for general
assistance.

Only employees on the pay roll are included in the analysis;
vacant positions are not considered in either tlie size of the office or
the staffing pattern. Since vacancies probably represent between 5 and
10 percent of all established positions, the data reported may in some
instances not show staffing as planned. They do show, however, the
nmber of workers on the job and carrying out the functions of the local
office at the time of the study. In general, therefore, the data may be
said to represent usual staffing patterns. Because part-time employment
is difficult to measure and is relatively insignificant, the analysis,
unless otherwise indicated, is limited to full-time workers. Part-time
workers, measured in full-time equivalents, represented only 1 percent
of the total number of local office employees.

Includes 4B State agencies and the District of Columbia. See appendix
table I for detail on agencies participating in the study. Agencies
administering the special types of public assistuice in Alaska, Hawaii,
Massachusetts, and Oklahoma did not participate. In addition, the
State agencies adn ini staring general assist-nnee in New Jersey and
Oklahoma are not included in the study. Data on local office personnel
engaged in the administration of general assistance are reasonably com¬
plete only for Ohio and Nev/ York and for the 21 States in vdiich, as
shown in appendix table I, all local offices administering the special
types of public assistance also administer general assistance.

- 1 -

NUMBER MB TIPES OF LOCAL OFFICES AND
PROGRAMS ADMINISTERED

The special types of public assistance are usually administered by
local offices serving a county area. Thus, of the 3»272 local offices ^
administering one or more of these programs, 2,695 (about 82 percent)
operate on a county-wide basis. ^ Of the other offices, 478 or 15 percent
serve areas smaller than a county unit, i.e., cities or towns or districts
including several cities or towns; 93 or 3 percent serve areas comprising
more than one county; and one office serves the District of Columbia.

Though data on the number and types of local offices engaged in
the administration of general assistance are incomplete, it is known that
the county is the usxial administrative imit in most States. For the
country as a lAiole, however, the many cities, towns, or townships adminis¬
tering this program in a dozen or so States far outnumber the county units
that are typical of most States.

The very considerable extent to which administration of the three
special types of public assistance has been imified in local offices is
shown in table 1. About four-fifths of the 2,956 local offices included
in this study administer these three programs in combination, end about
half ^ also administer general assistance as well. Programs other than
these four major types of assistance are exiministered by a large propor¬
tion of the local offices, but information on the other programs was not
collected as part of this study.

The number of local offices through fhich the State *s public
assistance programs are administered is a factor of considerable im¬
portance in obtaining imiform administration of the programs. Other
things being equal, the larger the number of local offices, the more com-
^ plex and costly becomes the problem of securing uniform interpretation
and application of State-wide standards. More than half the State

7j This is the total for the country as a idiole. Of tiie 2,956 offices
included in the study, 122 administer general assistance only, 3 admin¬
ister veterans* assistance. The total of 3>272 includes, therefore,
2,831 local offices reported in this study as administering one or more
of the special types of public assistance, and in addition, 5 non¬
participating county offices in California, and 436 offices in juris¬
dictions not participating in the study, viz., Alaska with 4 district
offices, Hawaii with 4 county offices, Massachusetts with 351 city or
town offices, and Oklahoma Tdth 77 county offices.

Most (2,308) of these county offices administer all 3 of the special
types of public assistance, and 1,464 of them also administer general
assistance.

ij Includes 1,006 offices in agencies with ABCG in all offices, 491 of
793 offices in agencies administering ABC in all offices and G in some,
and 42 offices of the New York agency administering the 4 programs in
combination.

- 2 -

agencies— 26 of 4S — ^have more than 50 offices. For most State agencies,
the n\3inber of coiJnties in the State determines the number of offices,
end tvio-thirds of the agencies operate only throi^gh county opices. Xet
even among the State agencies operating only on a county basis, 6 States—
Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, and North Carolina— have 100
or more local offices. In addition. New York, Ohio (BCG), and Virginia,
with both city and county offices, have more thnn 100
The local offices in these 9 States represent about two-^iiths of all
local offices included in this study.

Table 1.— Local offices and employees in agencies
administering specified groups of programs

Programs
administered 1/

Himiber

Of

agencies

Offices

Full-time employees^

Number

percentage

distribution

Number

Percentage

distribution

Total .••••«•

49

2,956

lOO.C

2/31,970

100.0

ABC in all offices..

40

2,363

79.9

21,412

67.0

G in all offices..

21

1,006

34.0

11,443

35. S

G in some offices.

10

793

26.8

5,232

16.4

G in no offices...

9

564

19.1

4,737

14.^

Other combinations

9

593

20.1

10,558

33.0

C. aid to de-

"U A represents old-age assistance; B, aid to the blind;

pendent children, and G, general assistance.

^ Excludes 152 child welfare v.'orkers in offices separate from those
administering public assistance. ^ . j.-

3/ Local offices administer one to four tjnes in various combinations.
Includes the following agencies: Delaware (C), Missouri, Nevaaa,
Jersey (AB and C), New York, Ohio (A and BCG), and VerLiont.

New

The State agencies in viiich some or all local offices serve ^
area either larger or smaller tlian a county are shov.n in ^ble 2. ^i.

group of 16 agencies includes 3— New York, Ohio (EGG), and Bhode Isl^d
in which the local offices greatly exceed the nmber of counties in the
State. On the other hand, Florida, Texas, and ^^est Virginia, eu.ch with
a large number of counties, have district offices serving an area larger
than a county; in these States, therefore, the number of locad offices
is small relative to the number of counties.

- 3 -

Table 2. — Comparison of number of counties and number of local
offices in agencies with noncounty administrative units \/

State

agency

Programs

administered

u

Number

of

coimties

Number of
local
offices

Type of
office

Connecticut. . .

ABC

8

4

District

Florida. ..•••.

ABC

67

12

District

Idaho . .

ABCG 2/

45

30

County ij

LouivSiana. • « . .

ABCG

64

61

Parish ij

Maine •••••»•••

ABC

16

22

District

Montana. ......

ABCG

57

49

County y

Nevada. . .

A

17

9

District

New Hampshire.

ABC

10

7

District

New Jersey (C)

C

21

13

District ^

New York. .....

ABCG ^

62

2/128

City and county

Ohio (BCG)....

BCG ^

88

207

City and county

Rhode Island. .

ABCG

5

33

Tov/n

South Dakota..

ABCG i/

68

53

County y

Texas . .

ABC

254

40

District

Vermont .

BC

U

9

District

West Virginia.

ABCG

55

8

District

1/ Excludes Massachusetts (with 351 city and town units) viiich did not
participate in the study and Virginia, which has county-wide adminis¬
tration in all 99 counties, city-wide administration in the 23 in¬
dependent cities which are not part of any coionty, and one office
serving a county and city combined.

2j A signifies old-age assistance; B, aid to the blind; C, aid to de¬
pendent children; and G, general assistance.

^ General assistance in some offices only.

Ij Some offices serve areas incliiding more than one county.

J/ About half are one-county districts.

^ Offices administer prograjns in various combinations.

2J In addition, there are local offices (mostly town agencies) for
which data were not available; these offices serve about 1 percent
of the State *s case load.

SIZE OF LOCAL OFFICE STAFFS

Local public assistance offices vary greatly in the number of
workers employed* Some have a staff of several himdred, but most have
very small staffs. More than half the 2,956 offices included in this
study had less than 5 fiill-time workers and about 80 percent had less
than 10. Seventy-three offices were operated by part-time workers only.^

Thoiigh small offices predominate, the great majority of public
assistance employees work in large offices. Thus, three-fourths of all
local office personnel are needed to staff the large offices — those with
10 or more employees — ^which comprise only a fifth of all offices (table
3 and chart 1). About one-sixth of all local office employees work in
New York City — 4>000 — and Los Angeles — ^1,328.

Table 3* — Distribution of local offices and
employees by size of staff

Number of
full-time
employees

Offices

Full-time

employees

Number

Percentage

distribution

Number

Percentage

distribution

Total. ..

2,956

100.0

1/31,970

100.0

None 7j .

93

3.1

0

0

1 .

276

9.3

276

.9

2 .

520

17.6

1,040

3.3

3 .

4S9

16.5

1,467

4.6

4 .

282

9.5

1,128

3.5

5 .

236

8.0

1,180

3.7

6-9 .

474

16.0

3,394

10.6

10-49 .

527

17.8

10,066

31.5

50 or more.

59

2.0

13,419

42.0

\J Excludes 152 child welfare workers for whom information
on size of office was not comparable.

TJ Part-time employees only, or all positions vacant as of
date of report.

All but 4 agencies— Connecticut, Florida, New Jersey (C), and
West Virginia — reported some small offices, i.e., offices with less than
10 employees. The proportion of small offices, however, is much larger
in some agencies than in others. In table agencies in which less than

^ Appendix table I shows the number of offices of each specified size,
by agency.

786386 0 - 48 -2

- 5 -

CHART I.

DISTRIBUTION OF LOCAL OFFICES AND EMPLOYEES BY SIZE OF STAFF

OFFICES

PERCENT OF ALL OFFICES

NUMBER OF
FULL TIME
EMPLOYEES

20 10 0 0

EMPLOYEES

PERCENT OF ALL FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES

10 20 30 40

50

1

2

3

4-5

6-9

10-49

50 OR
MORE

one-fifth of the locel offices employ 10 or more workers are classified
as small-office agencies, sjid those in which a fifth or more of the of¬
fices employ 10 or more workers, as large-office agencies,^ Included
among the 27 small-office agencies are 5— Delaware (C) , Nevada, North
Dakota, Vermont, end T?vyomlng — in which all offices had less than 10
employees.

The size of local office staffs reflects the combined effect of
many factors. Even factors that obviously influence the size of staff,
such as population and population density, cannot be isolated and their
influence separately appraised. Similarly it is impossible to determine
the effect on size of staff and the standards of work each agency expects
to maintain; of the varying numbers of ?/orkers, depending on their com¬
petence, that are required to meet a specified standard of work, and of
the amount of funds available for salaries. Consideration of these factors
would underlie an agency* s decision as to the number of cases each worker
would be expected to carry. " The following discussion, therefore, is con¬
fined to an enumeration of the more obvious factors, with illustrations,
drawn from the study, of their probable effect on size of local office
staffs.

^ This criterion for classifying agencies resulted in a division of
the agencies included in the study into two groups of approximately
equal size.

Table 4* — Small and large-office agencies \J

Small-office agencies

Large-office agencies

Agency

NiJmber of offices *

Agency

Number

of offices

Total

10 or more
employees

Total

10 or more
employees

Total, 27

Total, 21

agencies.

1,968

U5

agencies.

987

440

AT

67

6

Ariz. . .....

14

4

Ark .

75

1

Calif .2/...

53

26

Del . (c) .«.#

3

0

Colo . .

63

13

Ga .

159

7

Cnnn

4

4

Xnflho* . t r « «

30

3

Fla .

12

12

Towa. ......

99

s

HI.. .

102

37

Kan s. ......

105

13

Ind .

92

24

120

1

La .

61

26

Minn .

87

14

Maine ......

22

5

Ml KS .

82

3

Md .

24

11

Mn .

115

15

Mich .

83

22

49

3

N.E .

7

4

^ .

Nebr .

93

2

N.J.(AB)...

21

16

Nev.. •«.•••

9

0

(C)....

13

13

32

4

N.T .

128

75

.....

N.C .

100

12

Ohio (a) ....

88

27

N.Pfilc .

53

0

Pa .

67

50

Ohio (BCG)..

207

12

S.C .

46

10

nT»c»cr _ _ _

36

5

Tex........

40

33

R.T. .

38

5

Wash. ......

39

20

7/.Va .

8

8

S.Dak .

58

1

Tenn. ••••••

95

4

Utah .

29

3

Vt .

9

0

Va .

123

9

Wis .

72

U

Wyo........

23

0

Agencies in ^ich less than one-fifth of the local offices employ 10 or
more workers are classified as small— office agencies, and those in which
one-fifth or more of the local offices employ 10 or more workers are
classified as large-office agencies. Exclxides District of Columbia.

2/ Excludes data for 5 counties^ see appendix table footnote 4*

- 7 -

Size of staff obviously is related to the number of people living
in the area served. Most local public assistance offices serve areas
corresponding to established minor civil divisions, such as counties,
cities, or towns, which differ widely in population size. For this
reason, staff requirements vary more widely than they would if each office
served an area comprising about the same .population.

Density of population may also be a factor affecting size of staff.
Local offices in densely populated areas should be able to serve rela¬
tively more people with the same number of employees because the propor¬
tion of staff time spent in travel should be less, and greater speciali¬
zation and attendant economy in the performance of local office functions
should be possible. Population per square mile in the 46 States included
in the study ranges from 1,0 in Nevada to almost 700 in Rhode Island,
Arizona and Colorado, both large-office agencies serving areas with
relatively small pop^ations, are below average in population density.

Variations in the proportion of the population in receipt of
assistance in areas with the same total population also influence the
size of staff, Unfortmately data showing the effect of such variations
on size of staff are not available. Moreover, funds to provide the staff
required may be a factor of some importance. Thus, three of the lowest
income States — Alabama,, Mississippi, and North Carolina — have relatively
small offices despite the relatively large population served. In addition,
case loads per individual employee are above average in these States.

Limited program coverage may account for small offices in some
areas with large populations. For example, the Delaware Board of Welfare,
which administers aid to dependent children and child welfare services
only, and the Ohio Division of Social Administration (BCG), with some
offices responsible for only one program, have small offices serving
areas with relatively large populations.

- 8 -

COIJPOSITION OF LOCAL OFFICE STAFFS

Einployees in local public assistance offices include those
classified in one of four major groups— director, supervisor, visitor,
and clerk. In addition, some local offices reported employees in other
classifications, such as technician, administrative assistant, spe¬
cialist, or maintenance and custodial worker. The number of full-time
employees in each of these five groups 2/ was as follof^s:

Type of
Dosition 1/

Number

Percentage

distribution

Total ....

32.122

100.0

Director. . . .

2,657

8.3

Supervisor, •

1,675

5.2

Visitor.. . • .

U,819

46.1

Clerk . . .

11,635

36.2

Other . .

1,336

4.2

1/ For definition of each type of
worker, see page 24,

Directors, visitors, end clerks are found in most offices, super¬
visors and other workers, in relatively few. Offices without employees
in each of the three most common positions are, with fev; exceptions, veiy
small. These ver^’- small offices, i.e,, those vdth less than five full¬
time employees, represent more than half the total. Staffing patterns
in these offices are summarized in table 5*

There is considerable uniformity among States in the types of
positions filled by full-time employees in these small offices. Usually
the one-person office includes a director; the tw’o-person office, a
director and clerk; the three-person office, a director, visitor, and
clerk; and the four-person office, a director with either tv/o visitors
and a clerk or two clerks and a visitor. Kentucky is the only State
with many small offices that showed an entirely different pattern; it
had no director or clerical position in any local office. In most States,
deviation from the usual staffing pattern probably resulted from vacan¬
cies.

Most offices have a director as the responsible head. About 90
percent of the 2,956 offices included in the study employed a full-time
director. About a third of the offices without a full-time director had
a part-time director; such offices were scattered among 14 States.

7/ Appendix table III shows the number of full-time workers in each
classification, by agency. For number of part-time employees in
these positions, see page 16.

^ Appendix table II show^s the classification of fiill-time employees
of one, two, three, and four-person offices, by agency.

- 9 -

Most of the remaining offices with no director were in the three agen¬
cies— Delaware (C), Kentucky, and Vermont — that do not provide for thas
position in any local office, ^ The rest of the offices without a
director presumably had vacant positions. 10/

Table 5. — Staffing patterns in local offices with one,
two, three, or four full-time employees

Size of office
and type of position

Offices

Number

Percentage

distribution

Onp— •nf'.rsnn of flee, ,

177

100.0

Director. «... . .

64.1

Visitor . «... . .

65

23.6

Clerk .

33

12.0

Other.

1

.4

Two— person off ice.**.

^20

406

100.0

Director-clerk. •**• .

78.1

Director-visitor. .*..*..*,•.

56

10.8

Visitor-clerk. •.•*•••.*•.••«

20

3.8

Other combinations.

38

7.3

Three— person office

489

403

100.0

Director- visitor-clerk .

82.4

Director-2 clerks... .

39

8.0

2 visitors-1 clerk.......,,.

14

2.9

Other combinations..

33

6.7

Four-person office

282

100.0

Director-2 visitors-l clerk.

U5

51.4"

Director-1 visitor-2 clerks.

103

36.5

Other combinations,. . .

34'

12.1

In these States, the programs are State-administered. In Kentuclcy
more than half the local offices have only one employee; in the
offices vath more than one employee, it is possible that one staff
member may carry responsibility that in other States would be
assimied by an employee ctctually classified as a director. In
Delawai'e and Vermont the number of local offices is small; becauvse
the States also are small, it seems likely that direction is sup¬
plied through State office personnel,

10/ Appendix table III shows the nuEiber of full-time directors reported
by each agency.

- 10 -

Approximately a fourth of the directors either worked alone or
had only a clerical staff. More than 90 percent of those directors
were in the one or two-person offices of 32 State agencies, 11/ At the
other extreme, a few directors had office staffs of hundreds of workers
in many different types of positions (table 6),

Table 6, — ^Niimber of full-time employees responsible to the
director in local offices serving cities with a population
of 500,000 or more, by type of position

1 City served

Number of full-time employees

Total

Supervisors

Visitors

Clerical

workers

Others

y

New York,,,,, . .

3,999

272

1,865

1,516

346

Los Angeles,**#.**,,.

1,327

83

553

557

134

Chicago,

685

59

356

245

25

Philadelphia . . . .

560

43

270

209

■ 38

Pittsburgh, ,,,•*,,,,«

442

45

208

139

50

Buffalo ,••**,.,, .

395

33

183

152

Z1

St, Louis,,, . .

281

28

146

99

8

Detroit .

222

22

140

57

3

Baltimore .

221

27

120

58

16

District of Columbia.

115

9

49

44

13

Milwaukee (A),,.,,,..

35

2

20

12

1

(BC) .

16

0 .

10

6

0

Cleveland (A). **•..,.

82

5

49

25

3

(C) .

43

5

26

10

2

1 (BG) .

50

4

22

20

4

' (G) .

46

4

18

21

3

"y Includes administrative assistants, technicians, specialists, and main¬
tenance and custodial workers.

Visitors were employed by local offices of all State agencies 12/
and represented the largest group of workers in most offices. Neverthe¬
less, a fourth of the local offices, usually the one or two-person office
in which a director-w'orker performed the social work activities, included
no fiill-time visitors, 12/

11/ See appendix table II for number of offices, by agency, in which the
director had only clerical staff,

12/ Appendix table III shows the nimiber of full-time y/orkers in each
classification, by agency,

13/ Appendix table II shows positions in one and two-person offices, by
agency.

- 11 -

Most offices with full-time visitors also employed clerical per¬
sonnel. Only 15 percent of the offices had no full-time clerical help,
and less' than 2 percent of the visitors were in these offices. About
a fourth of such offices and a large proportion of the visitors in such
offices were in Kentucky. Most of the others were "director- only" of¬
fices in other States. For each full-time visitor there was, for all
agencies combined, less than one full-time clerk; more precisely, there
were 8 clerks for every 10 visitors. Data for the large-city offices
illustrate the extent to which individual offices differed in providing
clerical help (table 7).

Table 7. --Distribution of i^l reporting offices serving cities
of 250,000 or more population, by average number of clerks
for every 10 visitors l/

Clerks
per 10
visitors

Number

of

offices

City served

0 .

1

Louisville

k .

3

Cleveland(C), Detroit, Memphis

5 .

k

Baltimore, Birminj^am, Cleveland(A),
Indisnapolis

6 .

8

Cincinnati(A), Columbus ( A), Dallas,
Houston, Kansas City, Milwaukee(A;
and BC), Newark(C)

7 .

8

Chicago, Minneapolis, Pittsburgh,
Providence, St. Louis, San Antonio,
Seattle, Toledo(A)

8 .

6

Atlanta, Buffalo, Jersey City(AB),

New York, Philadelphia, Portland

9 .

2

Cleveland(BG), District of Columbia

10 .

2

Los Angeles, New Orleans

11 .

3

Clncinnati(C), Newark(AB), Rochester

12 .

3

Cleveland(G), Denver, St. Paul

20 .

1

Cincinnatl(G)

1/ Excludes Cincinnati (B), Columbus (C and BG), Jersey City (C),
and Toledo (B, C, and G) — all offices that employed less than
10 visitors.

More than half of these large-city offices averaged 6 to 8 clerks
for every 10 visitors. Extremes above and below the average probably re¬
flected some differences in responsibilities of local offices as well as
different staffing policies among State agencies. Vacancies also may have
acco\mted for some of the variation. Within agencies, however, ratios
were usuedly similar. For example, in Ohio the local offices of the
Division of Aid for the Aged serving Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, and
Toledo had fewer clerks than visitors, whereas in the Division of Social

12 -

Administration, fliiich has several small offices serving each area,
clerks usiially were more nvimerous than visitors. The Philadelphia-
Pittsburgh, Kansas City-St. Louis, and Dallas-Houston-San Antonio
offices as groups, were similarly staffed. On the other hand, marked
differences in the ratio of clerks and visitors existed between Minne¬
apolis and St. Paul and bet?/een the local offices administering old-age
assistance and aid to the blind in Jersey City and Newark.

Personnel classified as supervisors are for the most part employed
only in a few large offices. For the purpose of this study, the class
of supervisor was defined to include only employees whose major function
is the supervision of either visitors or other supervisors of visitors.

To the extent that supervision is provided by other personnel, such as
a State field representative, or a director or senior case worker, the
data on number of supervisors understate the amount of supervision in
local offices.

Table 8. — Offices with supervisors

Agency

Number of
local offices

Agency

Number of
locsil offices

Total

With

siQ>ervisors

Total

With

supervisors

Total 1/

2.603

440

Ala .

67

5

Mo .

115

7

Ariz- f . . . . .

14

2

Nebr. .....

93

2

Ark .

75

1

N.H .

7

2

Calif .^...

53

23

N.J.(AB)..

21

15

Colo« #•.•••

63

8

(0...

13

12

Conn « . t . . ^

4

4

N.Mex. ....

32

2

Del . ( C) ....

3

1

N.I .

128

65

D.O .

1

1

N.C .

100

10

Fla .

12

12

Ohio (A)...

88

8

Ga .

159

4

(BCG) .

207

13

Til .

102

33

Oreg. • • • . •

36

1

Tnd .

92

19

Pa .

67

47

Town . . . t r t t

99

4

R.I .

38

9

K^rS « t t r r r t

105

8

s.c .

46

5

Kv .

120

6

Tenn. . • • • •

95

4

La .

61

20

Utah. • • . • •

29

3

Mn

22

7

Va. .......

123

9

.

24

6

Wash

39

23

Mi ch ^ f ^ .

83

21

W.Va .

8

8

Minn .

87

4

Wis .

72

6

\J Excludes 353 offices in 9 States with no supervisors in local offices:
Idaho, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota,

Texas, Vermont, Wyoming.

7j Excludes data for 5 counties; see appendix table I, footnote 4.

- 13 -

The 440 offices with supervisors represented about a sixtli of all
offices. Table 8 shows the distribution of offices, by agency. More than
half the 1,675 supervisors reported were attached to the few offices with
100 or more employees, and only a fifth, to those frith less than 25* 1^/
California, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington, the five
States with the largest numbers of supervisors, employed three-fifths of the
total. New York alone employed 469* 15/ Connecticut, Florida, and West
Virginia, which are organized on a district basis, had supervisors in all
local offices. At the other extreme, nine States had no supervisor in any
of their 353 local offices.

Some differences in supervisors* responsibilities are shown by
their number in relation to the number of visitors in the same offices
(table 9). The combined average was six visitors per supervisor.

Table 9* — Average number of visitors per
supervisor in 25 agencies 1/

Visitors

per

si^rvisor

2/

Agency

L .

Minn., Ohio (BCG), Utah

Ga., La., Md., Mo., N.J.(AB),
Pa., Wash.

Calif., Colo., Ill., Kans . ,
Mich., N.Y., R.I., Va.

Ind., Maine, N.C.

Fla., Oreg.

N.H. (C)

Ohio (A)

5. . .

6 .

7 . .

S . .

q... .

10. *••.•••••••

\J Agencies with at least 10 supervisors.
Average number of visitors in offices with
supervisors.

l4/ The position of supervisor is not usually found in the staffing
pattern of local offices until the number of full-time employees
reaches 13* Thus, of the offices with fewer than 10 employees,
less than 2 percent had supervisors; of those with 10-12 employees,
the proportion with supeindsors ranged from a fourth to a third;
among the 13-person offices, however, more than two-thirds had
supervisors.

15/ Appendix table III shows the number of full-time workers in each
classification, by agency.

- U -

PART-TIME MPLOYEES

Part-time employees meet only a small part of local office staff¬
ing needs. Measured in full-time equivalents, they represented only 1
percent of the total number of local office employees and were employed
by less than a fourth of all local offices. 16/

Ten 17/ of the 49 agencies had no part-time workers, and a
majority of the 39 agencies with some part-time personnel employed them
in only a few local offices. Only one agency, the Delaware Board of
Welfare with 3 locsil offices, had part-time workers in each local of¬
fice .18/ ^ The status of offices with respect to part-time employment
was as follows:

Total. . .

No part-time employees..
Some part-time employees
Part-time employees only

Local offices

Number

Percentage

distribution

1/2, 9?6

100

2,275

78

588

20

73

2

3^ Excludes 20 offices in which all positions
were reported vacant.

The 863 part-time workers reported were equivalent to approx¬
imately 391 full-time workers (table 10). Though they comprised 3
percent of all employees, their time on the job represented only 1 per¬
cent of total staff time.

Many of the part-time employees reported were in the miscel-
laneoiis "other” classification, which includes the specialists and main¬
tenance and custodial workers. This group, however, represented less than
one-fifth of the part-time staff measured in terms of full-time equivalents
(table 10). Twenty agencies included workers in this group; Louisiana,
Maine, and New Mexico employed local office staff on a part-time basis
in only IJiese miscellaneoiis classifications.

16/ Part-time employees include both those working part time and those
working on a part-time basis in more than one office whose com¬
bined time amounted to a full-time job.

17/ Alabama, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Idaho, Michigan, New
Jersey(C), Ohio(A), South Carolina, West Virginia, Wyoming.

18/ Appendix table IV shows part-time employees in each classification,
by agency.

- 15 -

Table 10.— Distribution of part-time employees by type of position

Type of
position

Full-time

employees

Part-time employees

Total

number

Full-time equivalents

Number

Percent¬
age dis¬
tribution

Percent
of all
employees

Total

32,122

1/ 863

391

100,0

1.2

Director. . .

2,657

99

U

11.3

1.6

Supervisor.

1,675

17

9

2.3

.5

Visitor. . • •

H,319

231

116

29.7

.3

Clerk. .....

11,635

303

150

33.4

1.3

Other. .

1,336

1/ 213

72

18.4

5.1

\J Excludes 94 part-time workers for whom information on full-time equiv¬
alents was not available. See appendix table IV, footnote 2.

Only five agencies — California, Maryland, Ohio (BCG), Oregon, and
Washington — reported some part-time workers in each of the major classes
of positions. The number of agencies with part-time workers in each
specified classification was as follo7/s;

Type of Number of agencies

position with part-time workers

Directors.... 14

Supervisor... 9

Visitor . 29

Clerk. . . 34

Other. 20

Of the usual local office positions — that is, the four major
classes, excluding those in the miscellaneous ’’other” group — the clerical
position was the one most frequently filled by part-time employees.

More agencies employed such workers, and the largest number of part-time
personnel was in this group, which totaled almost half the part-time
employees in the four groups. Texas made the most use of part-time
clerical staff; about a fifth of all these workers were in the Texas
offices. Part-time clerks accounted for nearly 10 percent of all clerical
time in that agency and were employed in about half the offices.

Visitors represented a little more than a third of the four major
classes of positions filled by part-time workers. Almost a thii^i of the
part-time visitors were in Kentucky where they represented more than 10
percent of total visitor time. All these visitors, however, were

- 16 -

actually full-time employees who worked part time in more than one local
office. Seventy- two of the 120 local offices in Kentucky had some part-
time visitors, including 12 in which they were the only persons in the
office*

Tliere were relatively few part-time local office directors— only
99 in 14 agencies. Two-thirds of the part-time directors were in three
agencies — ^Nebraska, Ohio (BCG), and Washington*

Seventy-three offices operated with part-time workers only* For
the most part, these workers were classified as visitors or directors*
Offices in Kentuclcy, Nebraska, and Ohio (BCG) accounted for about three-
fourths of the total; there were a few others in each of eight other
States — California, Colorado, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon,
Utah, and Virginia*

- 17 -

Table I.— Distribution of loc^l offices, by

State and number of full-time

State

Agency

Administering 1/

Type of loc&l office

‘fhree

special

General assistance

ty u e s o f
public
aeeiet”*
ance 2/

All

local

offices

Some

local

offices

Alabama

Department of Public Welfare

County

X

X

Ar isona

Department of Social Security and Welfare

County

X

X

Arkansas

Department of Public Welfare

County

X

X

California

Department of Social Welfare

County

X

X

Colorado

Department of Public Welfare

County

X

X

Connecticut

Office of Commissioner of Welfare:

Division of Public Assistance

District ^

X

Delaware

Board of Welfare

County

C only

District of Columbia

Board of Public Welfare:

Public Assistance end Children's Services

City

X

X

Florida

Welfare Board

District ^

X

X

Georgia

Department of Public Welfare

County

X

Idaho

Department of Public Assistance

County 6/

X

X

Illinois

Public Aid Commission

County

X

ludiazia

Department of Public Welfare

County

X

Iowa

Department of Social Welfare

Co’inty

X

X

iCansas

Department of Social Welfexs

County

X

X

Kentucky

Department of Public Welfare:

Division oi' Pxibllc Auolstance

Cox:nt7

X

Louisiana

Department of Public Welfare

Farleh ^

X

X

Maine

Departz&ent of Health and Welfare

District ^

X

Maryland

Department of Public Welfare

County

X

X

Michigan

Denartment of Social Welfare

County

X

X

Minnesota

Department of Social Security:

Division of Social Welfare

Coun ty

X

X

Mississippi

Department of Public Welfare

County

X

Missouri

Social Security Commission

County

A&C

X

Montana

Department of Public Welfare

County 6/

X

X

Nebra(d:a

Department of Assistance and Child Welfare

County

X

X

Nevada

Welfare Department:

Division of Old Age Assistance

District 5/

A only

New Hampshire

Department of Public Welfare

District 5/

X

Mew Jersey

Department of Institutions and Agencies:

Division of Old Age Assistance

County

D 1 a t.r 1 r t. ^

C nnly

New Mexico

Deoartment of Public Welfare

County

X

X

New York

Department of Social Welfare

County and city

77 X

V X

North Carolina

Board of Public Welfare ^

County

X

X

North Dakota

Public Welfare Board

County

X

X

Ohio

Department of Public Welfare;

County

A only

Division of Social Administration

County and city ^

6/ Mc'

^ X.

Oregon

Public Welfare Commission

County

X

X

Pennsylvania

Department of Public Assistance

County

X

X

Hhode Island

Department of Social Welfare:

Division of Public Assistance

Town

X

X

South Carolina

Denartment of Public Welfare

County

X •

X

South Dakota

Department of Social Security

County ^

X

X

Dflpart.tnfint. nf Public Welfare

Coun ty

X

Deoartment of Public W'elfare

District 5/

X

Utah

Department of Public Welfare

County

X

X

Department of Public W'elfare

District 5/

B<^C

Virginia

Department of Public Welfare

County and city

X

X

Washington

Department of Social Security

County

X

X

West Virginia

Department of Public Assistance

District 5/

X

X

Wisconsin

Department of Public Welfare:

Division of Public Assistance

County

a/ X

X

Wyoming

Depfirtment of Public Welfare

County

X

X

1/ In addition to programs specified, staff of most offices spend some time on the administration of other welfare programs.

?.! a signifies old-age assistance; B, aid to the blind; C, aid to dependent children.

3/ Part-time employees only or all positions vacant as of date of report.

^ Excludes offices in alameda, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, and Santa Clara Counties which serve about one-fifth of the
State's case load.

*)/ For Connecticut, MrJ.ne, New Hampshire, and Vermont, the office serves an area ordinarily comprising several cities and towns.
For all other States, "district" is used to designate those offices ordinarily serving an area cooiprising more than one
county; in the Hew Jersey Board of Children's Guardians half the district offices serve only one county.

18

er.ployees, for a pay-roll period ended December 31. 19^5-A.pril 3®. 19^6

Total

number

of

local

Number

of local offices with specified number of full-time employees

Less than 6

50

and

over

State

offices

reported

Total

None

1

2

3

4

5

6-9

10-14

15-19

20-24

25-49

2.996

1.896

93

276

520

489

282

236

474

243

91

60

133

59

Total

67

14

46

4

18

13

3

11

11

15

3

3

2 .

1

1 ,

1

iilabama

7

3

40

1

1 .

1

Aritona

75
‘♦Z 53

63

66

9

6

8 .

1

Aricansas

23

4l

1

2

f

I*.

7

17

5

4

3

6

5

2

4

9

5

6

7

3

3

2

8

1

3

1

California

Coloredo

4

1

3 .

Connecticut

3

1

3

1

1

1

Delaware (O)

1

District of Columb^

12

9

3

1

Florida

159

150

1

38

47

34

23

7

2

4

1

1

Georgia

30

102

92

99

105

24

13

7

9

1

1

3

3 .

Idaho

31

35

82

80

1

9

9

5

3^

33

9

20

7

3

6

1

Illinois

1

2

g

l4

10

13

6 .

4

1

U

2

Indiana

1

38

18

20

13

17

10

1

1

Iowa

2

15

16

12

12

b

2

2

2

1

Kansas

120

61

22

24

S3

S7

82

115

49

93

119

4

16

57

33

11

2

1

Kentucky

Louisiana

2

2

31

2

16

4

1

4

1

15

7

37

51

68

56

42

78

2

5

2

4

4

4 .

1

Maine

1

3

4

1

6

4

2

3

1

1

Maryland

1

7

13

23

41

11

12

24

10

4

4

2

2

Michigan

3

16

10

12

13

4

22

9

2 .

3

Minnesota

7

15

4

11

3 ,

Mississippi

20

44

9 .

4

2

Missouri

1

9

8

18

21

10

24

4

3

Montana

6

7

13 .

1

1

Nebraska

9

7

21

13

32

1/ 12s

100

53

88

^ 207

36

67

38

46
' 58

95

40

29

8

1

L

1

1 .

Nevada

3

4

2 .

1

1

New Hampshire

X

1

b

3

2

5

1

Nev Jersey (aB)

6

5

1 .

1

New Jersey ( C)

22

36

66

49

36

190

25

10

29

15

5b

86

1

1

1

9

15

XI

5

9

1

5

6

b

1

1

2 .

New Mrxico

5

17

24

14

14

14

9

New York

2

27

15

4

11

p

22

b

2

1

3 .

North Carolina

on

in

4

North Dakota

5

0

2

9

l4

11

25

5

3

7

18

2 .

•

4

3

Ohio (a)

42

4

68

4

49

5

18

3

4

7

3

3

4

6

9

3

3

1

13

1

1

10

2

1

4

4

1

16

2

1

7

Ohio (ECG)

Oregon

Pennsylvania

17

6

2

4

1

1

1

1

1

Rhode Island

1

39

22

b

g

21

8

1

1

South Carolina

0

10

4

1

1

1 ,

South Dakota

3

38

16

7

5 .
7

1 .

3 -

Tennessee

» » » w • « *

8

3

5

15

2

Texas

23

9

2

b

6

p

3

3

27

2

4

2

X

1 .

1

1

Utah

2

2

? *

Vermont (BC)

9

9

2

38

b

12

2

l4

b

5

5

2 .

1

1

Virginia

123

39

8

72

100

13

3

1 i

1

3

1

7

4

Washington

8

West Virginia

33

c;

7

c

g

13

25

10

2

1

1

Wisconsin

3

j

T

P

2

Wyoming

23

21

lU

5

6/ Some offices serve areas including more than one county. v. v 7pr

7/ Local offices administer one. Uo. three, or four of the specified programs in various combinations. Excludes 720 local
~ offices (mostly town agencies) in which salaries paid are not reimbursable by the State; these offices serve about one per-

^ Locll^offlceratoi^ner one! ’two, or three of the specified programs in various combinations; aid to dependent children and

9/ E^cepl old.age assistance, and one administers aid to dependent children end

** aid to the blind.

19

Table II. --Number of local offices vlth one, tvo, three, or four full-time employees.

Nxmber of local offices vlth--

State

Total

number

of

local

offices

Cne-xcur

en^o^ees

One en5>loyee

Two enqjloyees

Number

Percent

of

total

Total

Direc¬

tor

Visitor

Clerk

Sxiper-

vleor

Total

Direc¬

tor

and

clerk

Direc¬

tor

and

vis Itor

Visitor

and

clerk

Other

combi¬

nations

Total .

1/ 2,961

1,567

52.9

276

177

65

33

1

520*

406

56

20

38

Alabama . * .

67

35

52.2

0

4

4

Arizona. . .

Ik

6

(2)

0

0

Arkansas . .

75

60

80.0

0

9

8

1

Cfti 1 fnrnla .

1/ 56

17

29.3

2

2

7

4

3

Colorado . . .

63

37

58.7

10

9

1

17

12

4

1

Connecticut ..........

0

0

0

Delaware (C) .

(2)

1

1

0

District of Columbia*

1

0

0

0

Florida .

12

0

0

0

Georgia. . .

159

1U2

89.3

38

36

2

47

42

5

Idaho. . . .

30

23

(2)

0

13

10

2

1

Illinois .

102

26

25.5

1

1

7

4

2

1

Indiana. . . .

92

25

27.2

1

1

2

2

Iowa . . .

99

72

72.7

1

1

38

37

1

Kansas . . .

105

66

62.9

15

13

0

18

16

2

Kentucky . .

120

103

85.8

57

56

. 1

33

33

Louisiana . . .

61

2

3*3

0

0

Maine. . .

22

11

(2)

0

2

2

Maryland . . .

2*4-

6

(2)

0

1

1

Michigan. . .

83

25

30.1

1

1

7

5

1

1

Minnesota .

87

38

43,7

0

3

2

1

Mississippi . .

32

6k

78.0

0

16

16

/

Missouri .

115

36

31.3

0

10

8

1

1

Montena. . . .

k9

41

(2)

9

9

18

18

Nebraska. - . .

93

59

63.4

8

6

2

21

15

6

. .

9

7

(2)

6

6

1

1

New Hampshire . .

7

0

0

0

New Jersey (a) .

21

0

_

0

0

New Jersey (C). ......

13

0

_

0

0

New Mexico . .

32

16

(2)

1

1

9

9

New York .............

3/ 128

30

23.4

1

1

15

9

5

1

North Carolina . . .

100

55

55.0

2

2

11

11

Nort.b Dakota. ........

53

42

79.2

8

4

4

20

18

1

1

Ohio .

88

25

28,4

0

2

1

1

Ohio (BCG) .

207

142

68.6

68

6'3

1

4

49

40

9

Oregon. . . .

36

15

(2)

4

1

3

5

3

2

Pennsylvania .

67

7

10.4

0 w

0

Rhode Island . .

38

29

(2)

17

17

6

4

2

South Carolina. ......

h6

7

(2)

0

1

1

South Dakota. ••.*.•••

58

55

94.8-

2

2

39

36

3

Tennessee. ...........

95

79

83.2

3

1

2

22

15

1

6

Texas . .

ho

0

0

0

Utah .

29

19

(2)

6

b

6

6

Vermont ( BC ) . .

9

7

(2)

0

2

2

Vlrfirlr _ ...

123

85

69.1

9

1

8

38

36

2

W.aflhington .

39

11

(2)

2

1

1

6

1

5

West Virginia. •••«.*.

8

0

0

0

W1 scons In . .

72

20

27.8

0

5

3

2

Wyoming. . . .

23

19

(a)

3

3

10

10

^ Includes 5 large local offices In California for \rtiich data were not reported. See table I, footnote U.
2/ Not computed; base less than 50*

20

ty State and type of position, for a pay-ix)ll period ended December 31, 19^4-5- April 30, 191*6

Number of local offices vlth —

State

Three employees

Four employees

Total

Director,

visitor,

and

clerk

Director
and tvo
clerks

Two

visitors
and one
clerk

Other

combi¬

nations

Total

Director,

tvo

visitors,
and one
clerk

Director,
visitor,
and tvo
clerks

Other

combi¬

nations

U89

403

39

14

33

282

145

103

34

Total

18

18

13

4

9

3

3

3

2

1

1*0

40

11

9

2

Arknnffap

5

5

3

2

1

Cftl Ifoml a

1*

3

1

6

3

1

2

Col orado

0

0

Connecticut

1

1

1

1

Delaware (C)

0

0

District of Columbia

0

0

Florida

34

33

1

23

16

7

Georgia

9

9

1

1

Idaho

9

8

1

0

5

4

minolfl

8

8

14

11

3

Indiana

20

17

3

13

4

9

Iowa

16

9

7

• •••eeeee

17

1

11

5

Kansas

11

11

2

2

Kentucky

0

2

1

1

Louisiana

*5

5

4

1

3

Maine

2

2

3

2

1

Maryland

1^

13

4

4

Michigan

2^

n

10

2

12

1

11

Minnesota

j

41

39

1

1

7

4

3

Mississippi

11

yy

10

1

15

7

7

1

Missouri

10

6

k

4

1

3

Montana

24

23

1

6

3

2

1

Nebraska

0

0

Nevada

0

0

New Hampshire

0

0

New Jersey (a)

0

0

New Jersey (C)

K

1

1

1

New Mexico

7

Q

6

3

5

1

2

2

New York

27

21

.4

2

15

4

8

3

North Carolina

1 o

K

3

3

4

4

North Dakota

Q

A

j

1

14

14

Ohio (A)

y

18

l6

2

7

6

1

Ohio (BCG)

2

1

3

1

1

1

Oregon

0

k

9

1

3

2

1

Pennsylvania

P

3

1

1

4

1

3

Rhode Island

a

6

6

South Carolina

10

10

4

3

1

South Dakota

3

l6

14

2

Tennessee

jO

o

0

Texas

O

o

4

3

1

Utah

j

o

3

3

2

2

Vermont (BC)

0

o

1

11

3

8

Virginia

27

1

1

1

Washington

c,

(\

w w W *

0

West Virginia

\J

7

2

8

6

1

1

Wisconsin

1

y

o

1

1

Wyoming

5

3

^ Excludes 720 local offices. See table I, footnote 7.

21

Table 111,— Number of full-time emploTees In local offices, by State and type of position,
for a pay-roll period ended December 31> 19^5“Aprll 30, 19^6

State

Total

Directors

Supervisors

Vlaltors

Clerks

Others

Total .

32,122

1/ 2,657

1.675

2/ 14,819

11.635

1.336

Alabama .

396

67

7

177

143

2

Arizona .

175

14

7

90

59

5

Arkaivsae .

287

75

1

112

99

0

California J/ .

2,088

52

134

897

855

150

Colorado .

499

58

22

201

194

24

Connecticut . .

133

4

9

SO

38

2

Delaware (C) .

8

0

1

4

3

0

District of Columbia....

Il6

1

9

49

44

13

Florida .

511

11

37

291

171

1

Ctoorgia .

571

156

13

183

205

l4

Idaho .

116

29

0

46

4i

0

Illinois .

1,605

98

103

818

561

25

Indiana .

971

92

44

536

296

3

Iowa .

455

99

7

167

181

1

Kansas .

609

101

16

209

248

35

Kentucky .

181

0

7

174

0

0

Louisiana .

392

60

52

421

333

26

Maine .

187

9

10

98

70

0

Maryland .

452

21

36

238

139

18

Michigan .

961

81

61

575

24l

3

Minnesota .

1,010

85

54

398

431

42

Mississippi .

308

81

0

119

108

0

Missouri .

1,261 ^

111

68

622

436

24

Montana .

152

48

0

39

65

0

Nebraska .

384

79

9

155

l4l

0

Nevada .

14

2

0

11

0

New Hampshire .

96

6

3

57

30

0

New Jersey (A5) .

400

15

30

174

174

7

New Jersey (C) .

234

13

14

125

78

0

New Mexico .

196

30

4

90

72

0

New York .

7,039

128

469

3,056

2,Sl4

572

North Carolina .

609

97

12

236

238

26

North Dakota .

134

43

0

24

60

7

Ohio (a) .

894

87

22

532

245

8

Ohio (BCO) .

677

4/ 158

34

209

249

27

Oregon .

361

25

11

169

145

11

Pennsylvania .

2,384

66

199

1.113

818

188

Rhode Island .

279

38

16

110

95

20

South Carolina .

345

7

187

105

0

South Dakota .

i48

58

0

30

60

0

Tennessee .

442

83

7

212-

137

3

Texas .

926

73

0

552

288

13

Utah .

219

26

17

105

65

6

Vermont .

31

0

0

21

10

0

Virginia .

541

111

14

207

206

T

hashing ton .

991

25

94

476

362

34

West Virginia .

260

8

8

176

51

17

Wisconsin .

507

64

7

229

201

6

Wyoming .

67

23

0

15

29

0

Xj Includes l66 directors — 128 In New York and 3S In Rhode Island — for ^om complete data on salaries were not available.
2/ Excludes 11 visitors in Delaware (a) for which agency no other data were reported.

V Excludes es^loyees In 3 countlos. See table I, footnote 4.

4/ Includes 21 workers such as visitors, specialists, and technicians tes^orarily in charge of office.

- 22 -

T&bl« IT. — NuBb«r of local officos with part<-tiBe eo^loyeet and number of part-time ea^loyeee and equlTalent fall time of each ee^loyees, bj State and

type of poBitlon, for a pay-roll period ended December 3I9 19^^^-^rll 30* 19^

State

Number

of local

offices with —

u

1

of part-time e^loyees

Total

number

of

local

offloei

No

par t-
tlme
employ¬
ees

Some
par t-

tiae

employ¬

ees

Part-

time

employ¬

ees

only

No

employ¬
ees re¬
ported

V

Total

Directors

S^^errisors

Tisitors

Clerks

All others

Par t-
time

SqniT-

aleat

full¬

time

Part-

tims

SqqiT-

alsnt

fhll-

tlme

Part-

time

EqulT¬

alent

full¬

time

Part-

time

EqulT-

alsnt

fuU-

tlme

Part-

time

XquiT-

alent

full¬

time

Part-

time

EquiT-

alent

full¬

time

Total...

2,956

2,275

588

73

20

2/ 863

390.9

99

44.3

17

8.7

231

115.8

303

150.0

if a3

72.1

A1 A

67

67

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

&t>4 •

0 1

l4

7R

R

q

0

0

12

6.0

0

0

1

.3

4

2.0

7

3.5

kr)r

TX

2

0

0

2

1.0

0

0

1

1

0

Calif. If.

53

29

1

0

62

30.7

1

.8

2

1.2

28

15.3

25

11.5

6

1.9

63

54

7

2

0

11

5.5

2

1.0

0

_ _

3

1.5

0

3.0

0

_ ,

i

4

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Del. (C)..

y

0

3

0

0

8

4.0

0

....

2

1.0

2

1.0

4

2.0

0

D.C •

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

—

0

—

0

— -

0

—

Tla« • a . • .»

12

1

11

0

0

38

10.0

0

0

3

1.7

6

2.8

29

5.5

Oa .

159

127

31

0

1

37

20.5

1

K

0

___

9

5.2

27

14,8

0

-

Idaho .

30

30

0

0

0

0

am

0

0

0

0

0

ni

102

92

99

3

0

0

3

1.5

0

— _ .

0

_

1

•5

2

1.0

0

_ — ,

53

39

0

0

4/ 13

5.5

0

_

1

,5

6

2.5

6

2.5

53

(5)

99

6

0

0

3.0

0

0

4

2.6

2

1.0

0

yy

q

0

2

13

6.3

27.0

0

0

3

1.5

10

4.8

0

•••

120

44

60

12

0

4

72

0

0

_

72

27.0

0

0

ay . .

T.A ,

61

20

4l

0

4l

(5)

0

0

0

0

_ _

4i

(5)

Maine. ....

22

13

9

0

0

9

2.0

0

...

0

...

0

—

0

9

2.0

Md .

24

11

13

0

0

40

27.2

1

.5

1

.7

21

16.7

4

3.2

13

6.1

Hioh .

83

83

0

0

0

0

—

0

— -

0

0

0

.—

0

—

Mian. . .

87

81

6

0

0

7

3.5

0

.....

1

.5

0

...

4

2.0

2

1.0

W1 , , , .

82

80

2

0

0

2

1.0

0

_

0

...

0

2

1.0

0

— M

Mo .

115

100

15

0

0

zy

12.5

0

0

6

3.0

15

7.5

4

2.C

Mont

49

43

5

1

0

6

3.0

1

.5

0

—

1

.5

4

2.0

0

—

Nebr .

93

63

18

12

0

39

19.5

14

7.0

0

—

9

4.5

15

7.5

1

.5

YJav

q

7

4

1

1

0

2

1.0

0

• — ^

0

...

1

.5

1

.5

0

K.H. •••...

7

3

0

0

3

1.5

0

...

0

—

0

3

1.5

0

—

K.J. (A)..

21

6

15

0

0

23

11.0

6

3.0

0

—

1

.3

4

1.8

12

5.9

S.J. (0)..

13

13

0

0

0

0

—

0

0

0

0

— -

0

—

S.Mex .

32

8

23

0

1

25

8.0

0

— .

0

—

0

—

0

— —

25

8.0

S.T. 6/...

128

97

31

0

0

47

17.5

0

—

5

1.2

12

5.8

20

8.9

12

. 1.6

s.c .

100

97

3

0

0

3

1.5

0

—

0

—

1

.5

2

1.0

0

—

M.Dalc .

53

4i

7

4

1

15

7.5

9

‘^.5

0

—

0

6

3.0

0

Ohio U)..

88

88

0

0

0

0

—

0

- -

0

— -

0

— -

0

...

0

Ohio (BOO)

207

138

27

32

10

77

31.6

39

14.0

2

1.2

13

6.0

18

8.3

5

1.5

Oree .

36

15

17

3

1

33

13.0

4

2.0

1

.7

5

2.8

12

11

2.2

Pa .

67

32

35

0

0

39

15.3

1

.5

0

—

3

1.9

1

34

12.5

H.I .

38

32

6

0

0

6

3.0

0

—

0

—

3

1.5

3

1.5

0

---

S.C .

46

46

0

0

0

0

- —

0

—

0

...

0

—

0

—

0

S.Dak .

58

53

5

0

0

5

2.5

0

0

1

.5

4

2.0

0

lenn .

95

94

1

0

0

1

.5

0

...

0

. —

1

.5

0

—

0

—

Tex. .

4o

18

22

0

0

59

29.5

0

—

0

— .

0

—

59

29.5

0

““

Utah .

29

17

10

2

0

14

7.0

2

1.0

0

—

0

1

.5

11

5.5

Tt. (BC)..

9

7

2

0

0

2

1.1

0

—

0

—

0

— .

2

1.1

0

—

Ta .

123

100

20

3

0

26

13.3

6

3.0

0

• —

3

1.5

11

5.8

6

3.0

39

9

30

0

0

64

29.3

12

6.0

4

1.7

l4

8.4

10

5.3

24

7.9

W.Ta .

8

8

0

0

0

0

— •

0

—

0

0

. —

0

0

—

Wls .

72

60

12

0

0

14

7.1

0

—

0

—

3

1.7

9

3.9

2

1.5

.

23

23

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

^ fcclutoe 94 part-time eB5)loyeee— 53 in Indiana and 4l in Loulalazka — for whom Information with reject to fUll-tlma equiralenta
3/ Ixcludee 5 offices. See table I, footnote 4.

y Xxcludea 53 part-time emoloyees for whom Information with respect to full-time aqulralents was not aTallable.

%

was not available

Data not aTallable.
^ Excludes 720 offices*

See table I. footnote 7*

23

DEFINITIONS

For pur]X)ses of the report on salaries, the four major classes
of employees were defined as follows:

Directors: Snployees who are the responsible head of tlie
local office and who are commonly referred to as county
director, administrator, superintendent, secretary, or
director-v;orker .

Supervisors: Workers whose major function is supervision
of (1) visitors or (2) supervisors of visitors. Does not
Include director-workers, consultants, or senior case
workers vrtio have some supervisory functions but whose
major function is to carry assigned case loads or perform
other duties.

Visitors: Snployees in a social-work position involving
the direct determination of original end continuing eligi¬
bility to receive assistance or the direct provision of
service. Includes the social-work employees who are
directly responsible for assigned case loads and who en¬
gage directly in social investigation and case-work services,
fiho are responsible for intake and application investiga¬
tions, or who perform special investigations to determine
age, employment, bank and insurance assets, and other
facts pertinent to eligibility. Includes employees commonly
referred to as visitors, case workers, investigators, and
child welfare workers who carry assigned case loads; super¬
visors and consultants other than director-workers, idien
the major part of their work consists of directly carrying
assigned case loads; and intake workers, application
interviewers, and resource workers, provided they are
regarded as being in social-work positions.

Clerks : Bnployees in secretarial, stenographic, typing
filing, bookkeeping, and clerical positions, including
auditing, accoianting, and statistical clerks.

- 24 -

U, S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : O — 1948

REQUIREMENTS AND INCOMES OF RECIPIENTS
OF OLD-AGE ASSISTANCE IN 21 STATES IN 1944

6

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE REPORT NO. 13

FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Bureau of Public Assistance

^r< vv;r

m

i' '.-i- ■'^

15 • >Vr. •

JiK-f

'I'

• • ;\ ,‘tr

\ ■ V.I v' >'"i ) . . ■•'

'•'V'

. -'■•• T ■/.•‘'■'■•r. r' f

' ’f* - ■':' .V . ’^v ..'■ • ., ..i.;* •

X":- ■‘ r’.''rt^':

» '.' -A- '■’>* ' l\'' '. *’' .'•v''*'

{*»>*»' 1/^'/.' 5 ■ , f* ' i, ^ '

*-.• '.'• ; : -f; - -.•- ;■ ■,, ».-•

;v /A- '■■■•■ ■

.• '

A •••'-■ ■/

' • r ► ^ » ' • ■ • . • ^ • *

v';. .'

i. -'ir ' v';> ■■‘'\ / /« .■' "i.

^ V A:.i; A ■:

.V .

REQUIREMENTS

AND INCOMES OF

RECIPIENTS

0 F

OLD

-AGE

ASSISTANCE

IN 2 1

S T A

T E S

I N

19 4 4

ty

Ruth White
and

Thomas G. Hutton

Statistics and Analysis Division
Bureau of Public Assistance

Public Assistance Report No, 13

FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY
Social Security Administration
Washington, D.C.

March 194®

t

*

I

t

f •

1

r* ,

I

c '

I

}

'V-:-

"f-

‘V*

>:

I

<•

r£..,

I

< /

•/ ^

•/

. .

tt ,

►

; f ■

.N

A t

i

CONTENTS

k

I. Introduction . 1

II. Classification of Cases . 4

III. Requirements . . . 5

Average cost of requirements . 5

Requirements of cases with the cost of all requirements

known . 6

Variation in individual requirements . . 8

Relation of budgeting policies to variations in require¬
ments . 10

IV. Income . 12

Cash income otlier than assistance . 12

Cash income of recipient- only cases . 13

Source of cash income of recipient-only cases. 13

Earnings . 13

Cash contributions from relatives .... 18

Other cash income . . . 19

Cash income of cases that included recipient and

spouse . 19

Total cash income including assistance . 21

Sources of total cash income . 26

Income in kind . • . . . 29

Effect of place of residence and of living arrange¬
ments on receipt of income in kind . 29

Shelter provided by relatives . 29

Other shelter provisions . 31

Cases to which relatives contributed income in

kind . 33

Value of income in kind . 33

Total income including the value of income in kind ... 36

V

Appendix: Samples on Which the Data Are Based

42

ft.' ^

I

1

I

J

I

t

I. INTROEUCTICN

Under title I of the Social Security Act, grants-in-aid are niade
to States to enable them to furnish old-age assistance, as far as prac¬
ticable under the conditions in the State, to aged needy individuals.
Each State established its own standards, policies, and procedures lor
determining v;ho is needy and the amomt of assistance needed. The
Federal act requires, however, that in determining need the State
shall take into consideration any income and resources of an individual
claiming assistance. As would be expected in view of the fact that
responsibility rests with the States for establishing assistance
standards and that the States differ greatly both in their attitudes
toward meeting need and their ability to finance a share of the cost,
great variation exists among the States in the amounts and relative
adequacy of assistance payments.

Although some States have from time to time made detailed
studies of the requirements and resources, including assistance, of
their recipients of old-age assistance, uniform inlormation of this
type has not in the past been available for a substantial number of
States. Consequently, the Bureau of Public Assistance has been forced
to rely heavily on data on the amounts of individual payanents and on
average payments as reflecting State differences in what public assist¬
ance agencies determine that old people require and what they have to
live on.

To supply a more nearly adequate basis for evaluating State
differences in assistance payments, the Bureau of Public Assistance,
with the voluntary cooperation of 21 State public assist&nce agencies,
undertooK in 1944 to obtain information on the amounts that recipients
required to meet their needs, the amounts and sources oi their iiicomes,
and the aiaoimts of their assistance.!^/ In December 194:? a preliminary
report was issued summarizing the results of the State studies,
which were conducted on a sample basis in some month within the
period April-Nov ember 1944. This report presents an analysis of in¬
formation contained in the preliminary report.

U The participating States were:

Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri

Montana also supplied some information compiled in an independent
State-wide study before the plan for the Bureau’s study was completed.

California
District of Columbia
Illinois
Kansas
Maine

New Hampshire
New Mexico
North Carolina
North Dakota
Oklahoma

Piiode Island
Tennessee
Vermont
Virginia
West Virginia

2J Public Assistance Report No. '9, Preliminary Tables on Incomes and
Living Arrangements of Recipients of Old-Age Assistance in 21 States »

1944.

y The sample data have been inflated to give each State its proper weight
in the data for all States combined. For a statement on the size of
the State samples and on the sampling method, see the appendix, p. 42.

Since the time of the study, assistance levels have risen
sharply, reflecting primarily the effects of changes in the federal
law find mounting living costs. In 194^, Congress amended title I of
the Social Security Act to provide a larger Federal contribution.

The maximum on the individual monthly payment in which the Federal
Government will participate was increased from t40 to $4b, and the
federal share of expenditures for assistance also was raised. Al-
though payments are generally higher than in 1944> the variation
in State average payments has not been significantly narrov»ed. To
reduce the degree of variation, the Social Security’ Adiiiinistration
has recommended to Congress further amendiaent of the Social Security *
Act to authorize special Federal aid to low-income States, taking
into account the State's fiscal ability .4/

■ -T

With the availa.bility of additional Federal funds, the Bureau
of Public Assistance and State public assistance agencies placed re¬
newed emphasis on the achievement of the requirement, implicit in
the Social Security Act, of equitable treatment of needy individuals'^-
in similar circumstances within a State. Assistance standards that
are definite and capable of reasonably uniform application through¬
out the State are essential to reaching this goal.^ Since the
amendments became effective, 'most States have made progressive
changes in their State plans and procedures relating to the deteraiina-
tion of requirements and consideration oi resources. Through its
continuing reviev/ of State administration, the Bureau has had oppor¬
tunity to ascertain that these changes are generally resulting in
greater uniformity within States in the amounts of assistance re¬
ceived by persons in similar circumstances, ffill attainment of this
objective, however, will necessitate not only a larger Federal con¬
tribution to low-income States but also basic changes in methods of
financing public assistance in some States in which the localities
contribute funds

ij See Annual Report of the Feder.-fL Security Agency. Section Six.

Social Security Board. 1946. pp. 496-500, and The Principle of
Equalization Applied to the Allocation of Grcints-in-Aid . Bureau
of Research and Statistics Memorandum No. 66, Social Security
Administration.

^ See "State Responsibility for Definiteness in Assistance Standards,''
Social Security Bulletin. March 1947, pp. 29-34.

^ The Principle of Equalization Applied to the Allocation of Grants-

in-Aid. Social Security Administration, Bureau of Research and
Statistics Memorandum No. 66, pp. 181-206.

- 2 -

Since 1944, it is probable that changes have occurred in the
amounts of income of recipients from sources other than assistance,
as well as in the amounts oi their assistance, fewer part-time jobs
are open to aged persons of limited employability th?^n in 1944, which
was a war year. Higher living costs may have lessened the ability
of many relatives to contribute to the support ol needy old persons.
On the other hand, in some States more restrictive policies may have
resulted in greater efforts to obtain contributions from relatives.
Thus the assistance payment may represent a larger or smaller com¬
ponent of total income than in 1944 •

Despite the important changes that have occurred since 1944,
the data here presented should prove useful in illustrating the
differences from State to State and within States in what recipients
then had to live on and the sources of tlieir incomes. The report
shows also the substantial inequities resulting in 1944 in certain
States from lack of uniformity in stajidards, policies, cjcid procedures
for determining amounts of assistance. The report, moreover, serves
as a bench mark for measuring progress in achieving the objective
of equitable treatment of persons in similar circumstences.

- 3 -

II. CLASSIFICATION OF CASES

In determining the amounts of assistance payments, public
assistance agencies commonly follow the practice of preparing a
budget for each recipient or case. A budget is prepared in accord¬
ance vdth agency policies for the determination of requirements and
their cost and for the consideration of the resources that can be
applied to meeting the requirements. In some States, at the tijiie
of the study, it was the policy to include in a budget the require¬
ments of only one individual, and to consider resources available
to meet his neads. Policies in other States permitted the inclusion
of requirements and resources of additional members of the family.

To assure maximm comparability in the data, a uniform
definition of a case was established, and cases were classified
according to their composition. A case was defined as consisting
of all persons in the assistance group; that is, all individuals
whose personal requirements were included in the budget in determin¬
ing the assistance payment or payments. Cases consisting of the
recipient only — or "the recipient and spouse only — and of the re¬
cipient and others, with or without spouse, were separately classified.

In recipient-only cases, the requirements and resources of
one recipient were included in the budget and the assistance payment
was intended to meet the needs of this recipient only. For cases
of recipient and spouse only, the requirements and resources of both
husband and vdfe were included in the budget. The spouse may have
been eligible for assistance or may have been included as essential
to the well-being of the recipient. Similarly, the cases that in¬
cluded the recipient and others, with or without the spouse, might
have included one or more persons — other than the recipient — eligible
for old-age assistance.

V/hether separate payments were made to individuals in cases
that included tuo or more persons depended on the eligibility of each
individual in the case, and on agency practice. If only one in¬
dividual was eligible, one payment was made to the case. When there
were two or more eligible individuals, the number of assistance pay¬
ments depended on the practice of the State. Some States usually
made a separate payment to each eligible individual, while several
others met the needs of two or more eligible individuals through one
assistance payment.

Most of the analysis in this report relates to recipient-only
cases and to those that included the recipient and spouse only. Thus
the influence of differences both in budgeting practices and in com¬
position of the case load is minimized in State comparisons.

- 4 -

III. REQUIREME3JTS

Since each State agency establishes its o'An standards lor
requirements, they vary widely from State to State, State agencies
commonly designate specific basic items that people require for
living, such as food, shelter, clothing, and household operating-
expense. Often the standards s^jecify the circumstances under which
additional items are to be included. Some reci^^ients, for example,
need uioney -with which to obtain medical care. Other recipients
may not require medical care or may be able to obtain it by means
other than through the money payment.

Differences exist not only in the content of the standards
for a given item but also in the range of items recognized. Some
ox the variations reflect differences in the economic resources of
the States end their ability to appropriate funds for assistance.
Public assistance agencies with comparatively adequate funds have
tended to include larger amounts for the basic requirements and to
recognize a greater variety of specified circumstances necessitating
additional amounts of money for certain groups of individuals than
agencies with less adequate appropriations.

In some States, at the time of tlie study, all items recognized
as reouirements v/ere mandatory in part or in whole with the local
agency; in a few States all items were optional vlth the local agency.
State agencies varied also in their cost figures for a given item.
These may have been for a fixed amount, varied only for differences
in local costs, or they may have represented either a range of
amounts or a maximum or minimum amount that might be included by
the local agency. Sometimes cost figures were intended only as
guides to workers. States differed, moreover, in the frequency
with which cost figures were revised to take account of price changes.

Although the current policy of the Bureau of Public Assistance
calls for the establishment of State-wide standards governing the
requirements common to all recipients and tne requirements common
to recipients in certain specifisd circumstances, in 1944 some of
the States participating in the study did nor have standards for
all requirements tiiat were State-wide or definite.

AVERAGE COST OF REQUIREMENTS

Other State differences in budgeting practices affect the
comparability of information on the cost of requirements. Some States
do not include the cost of requirements that are available to the re¬
cipient — for example, free shelter. Other States include the cost of
requirements and offset as resources the value of the items available

786346 0 - 48 -2

- 5 -

in kind. Three of the 21 States — California, New Mexico, and North
Dakota — included the cost of all requirements for all cases. Massa¬
chusetts, Iittissouri, North Carolina, and Vifest Virginia placed a money-
value on income in kind in nearly all cases vdth such income. In
the other States, however, a substantial proportion of the cases had
income in kind on which no exact value was placed, with the result
that the item available in kind was not included in the requirements.?/
To obtain comparability in the State data on the cost of requirements,
cases for which the money value of items available in kind was not
included in the requirements were excluded from this analysis. Tlie
amounts shown, therefore, represent the total cost of all require¬
ments, as determined by the agency under standards in effect at the
time -the study was made for cases in which the total cost was known.

The number of persons in the assistance group also influenced
the variation in amounts reported as requirements. California, the
District of Columbia, Illinois, Michigan, and Minnesota took into
account only the requirements of -the recipient, while the other 16
States included the requirements of more than one person in -the
budgets for some cases. As stated previously, cases in these 16
States have been classified as recipient-only cases, cases that in¬
cluded the recipient and spouse, and those that included other per¬
sons, with or T/ithout the spouse. The analysis has been confined
largely to data for the first two types of cases.

REQUIREMENTS OF CASES WITH THE COST OF ALL REQUIRE^IENTS KNOWN

The amounts of requirements of cases consisting of the re¬
cipient only, with the total cost of requirements known, represent
the amounts, in cash or in kind, that the agencies determined these
recipients needed to live on. The average monthly cost of require¬
ments for such cases for -the 21 States combined (excluding flat- gran t-
minus-income cases in California) was ^^35. 64. The average was lowest
in Tennessee ($18.31) and highest for budget cases in California
($61.11), and ranged between $30 and $40 in I4 of the 21 States
(table 1) .

Similar variation occurred among States in cases consisting
of the recipient and spouse, Yd.th the cost of all requirements known.

In the 16 States that computed these requirements jointly the average
amount ranged from $30.38 in Tennessee to $73.4? in Massachusetts.

In each of these States except Kansas the average was more than 30
percent greater than the average amount for recipient-only cases, and

7/ Cases for which the value of relatively small amounts of income in
kind (less than $3) was not known are classified as having the total
cost of requirements known.

- 6 -

Table 1.— Average requirements for cases with all requirements
known, by type of assistance case, in a month in 1944

State

Average per

case for —

Recipient-
only
cases ^

Recipient-
and- spouse
cases 2/

Total .

i/ $35.64

$49.25

California, budget cases 4/..

61.11

V -

District of Columbia .

37.75

—

Illinois .

34.26

—

Kaneat .

30.14

44.21

Maine .

34.14

55.16

Massachusetts .

46.36

75.47

Michigan .

34.61 .

—

Minnesota .

33.22

—

Mississippi .

24.37

39.55

Missouri .

30.O8 ■

53.71

Montana .

37.24

60.12

New Hampshire .

31.72

53.96

New Mexico .

31.17

51.22

North Carolina .

28.27

44.93

North Dakota .

38.63

63.16

Oklahoma . .

31.57

51.25 •

Rhode Island .

39.02

65.53

Tennessee .

18. 51

30.58

Vermont .

33.78

51.82

Virginia .

24.61

4h.i7

West Virginia .

22.07

36.75

1/ 21 States.

2/ 16 States; excludes 5 States that made separate budgets for each
” eligible individual.

2/ Excludes flat-grant cases in California, for which payments were
determined by deducting income, if any, from $50*

4/ Represents budget cases for which payments were determined, with-
” in the $50 maximum, by deducting income from the amount of total
need computed according to a standard budgetary guidp ,

in Missouri and Virginia it was almost 80 percent greater. The per¬
centage by which the average amount of requirements of recipient-and-
spouse cases was greater than the average amount for recipient-only
cases was as follows;

Percent State

Less than 50.0 . Kansas.

50.0 - 54.9 . Vermont.

55.0 - 59.9 . North Carolina.

60.0 - 64.9 . Massachusetts, Maine,

Mississippi, Montana,

New Mexico, North Dakota,
Oklahoma.

65.0 - 69.9 . Rhode Island, Tennessee,

7/est Virginia.

70.0 - 74.9 . New Hampshire.

75.0 - 79.9 . Mssouri, Virginia

VARIATION IN INDIVIDUAL REQUIREMEl^TS . ,

In recipient-only cases with the cost of all requirements
known, the amount of requirements ranged from less than ^10 in 4
States to $100 or more in 13 States. The larger ligures resulted,
for the most part, from the inclusion in some States of substantial
amounts to cover requirements for medical care in a few cases. The
distribution of cases by cimount of requirements varied greatly from
State to State. In Massachusetts, lor example, the requirements of
more then one-third of the cases were $40-49-; and relatively few
had requirements of less tiian |30 or more than |60 (table 2) . At
the other extreme, almost two-thirds of the cases in Tennessee were
determined to have requirements of less than $20, and only about
1 percent had requirements of $40 or more. Not only does the dis¬
tribution vary among States, but it also varies among recipients
in each of the States, except for the flat-grant-minus-income cases
in California.

Some variation is to be expected in the amounts individuals
need to live on. If substantial amounts for medical care were in¬
cluded, the individual requirements would differ greatly within a
State. Considerable variation might be expected in States with both
large urban centers end highly rural areas, where costs of shelter
differ substantially. In all States, however, marked variation was
found in the amounts of requirements not accounted lor by either of
these factors. In West Virginia, for example, though no medical
care was included, the total requirements of almost 11 percent of
the cases were determined to be $10 to $14, while for somewhat more
than 11 percent they ranged from $30 to $49. In the District of
Columbia, an entirely urban area, medical care was included for very
few cases; yet the requirements ranged from $1^ to $19 in O.4 percent
of the cases to $60 or more in 1.9 percent of the cases.

- 8 -

ible 2, — ^Percentage distribution of recipient-only cases with all requirements
mown, by specified amount of total requirements, for 21 States in a month in 1944

Percentage distribution of cases with
total requirements of —

S

j

Less

than

$20

$20-29

$30-39

$40-49

$50-59

$60

or more

j Total l! .

1

5*9

29.2

33.1

18.2

8.6

5.0

1

slifornia 2/ .

...

60.9

39.1

Istrict of Columbia.

.4

10.9

53.7

25.8

7.4

1.9

Ilinois .

1.2

26.9

42.7

27.7

.9

.7

aaeas .

7.1

47.2

31.7

10.9

2.2

.9

aine .

5.8

28.3

38.8

20.8

3.0

3.3

lassachusetts .

(3)

7.2

24.2

33.9

22.9

11.7

Ichigan .

1.3

28.2

43.5

21.9

3.5

1.5

lime so ta .

2.0

32.5

41.5

22.3

1.2

.4

Ississippi .

15.3

71.2

10.9

2.1

.3

.3

issouri .

8.1

42.4

39.3

6.8

2.1

1.2

on tana .

(3)

10.2

62.1

21.5

2.9

3.3

ew Hampshire .

4,g

35.3

43.2

12.9

2.1

1.8

ew Mexico .

1.3

48.2

36.9

9.4

2.8

1.3

Orth Carolina .

3.4

63.4

28.2

3.9

.7

.4

orth Dakota .

—

14.7

57.6

20.6

3.1-

4.0

Iclahoma .

3.2

38.6

42.2

13.9

1.2

.3

hode Island .

2.7

11.2

34.1

43.9

6.2

1.8

ennessee .

64.6

30.4

3.9

.8

.2

—

ermont .

2.7

34.7

43.4

11.0

3.9

4.3

irginia .

28.7

46.0

20.1

3.5

1.2

.4

eat Virginia .

35.6

53.2

9.2

2.1

/ Excludes flat-grant cases in California, for which payments were determined by
deducting income, if any, from $5^.

/ Represents budget cases for which payments were determined, within the $50
maximum, by deducting income from the amount of total need computed according
to a standard budgetary guide,

/ Less than 0,05 percent.

IV. INCOME

As has already been indicated, the Social Security Act re¬
quires that in determining need lor old-age assistance the State
agency shall talce into account any income and resources oi the per¬
son requesting assistance. Such income may be in the form of cash
or of goods or services available to recipients without cost. The
Bureau of Public Assistance has alv/ays recommended that, in inter¬
preting this requirement, the income or resource should be real
and available to meet in part the needs of the recipient.

CASH INCOIuE OTHER TIM ASSISTANCE

This section of the report presents data on cash income that
v;as considered in determining the ajnount of assistance. Table 4
shows the percentage of cases with cash income and the distribution
of cases and of income by type ol assistance case.

Table 4- — Distribution oi cases with cash income other than
assistance, and of such cash income, by type oi case,
for 21 States in a month in 1944

Type

of

case

All cases

Cases v'ltli
cash income

Amount of
cash income

Number

Percent¬

age

distri¬

bution

Number

Percent
of all

cases

Total

Percent¬

age

distri¬

bution

Total .

374.906

100.0

26.8

S3.57i.971

100.0

Recipient only.
Recipient and

7a,39f>

84.7

159,560

21.3

1,821,373

30.9

spouse only. .
Recipient and
others, with
or without

83,163

9.5

43,037

31.8

624,041

17.3

spouse

50,348

5.8

32,103

63.8

1,130,332

31.6

- 12 -

As might be expected, the proportion of cases with cash in¬
come increased with the size of the assistance group. Slightly more
than one-fiith of the recipient-only cases, and more than half those
including recipient and spouse, had cash income other than assist¬
ance.^ For cases that included the recipient and others, with or
without spouse, the proportion was almost two- thirds. Although this
latter group constituted only 6 percent of all cases in the study,
the group had almost one- third of the total cash incoflie. Five States
had no assistance cases falling in this classification > and in a
few States the number was relatively small. Significant State dif¬
ferences, therefore, are reflected more closely if cases that con¬
sisted of the recipient only and those including the recipient and
spouse are considered separately.

Cash Income of Recipient-Only Cases

Slightly more than one-fifth of the recipient-only cases hfd
cash income from soui’ces other than assistance. The proportion
ranged from about 7 percent in West Virginia to approximately 4O
percent in the adjoining State of Virginia (table 5). The wide
range and the position of the States in the array are somewhat
difficult to explain. It might have been assu:Tied that relatively
more recipients would have cash income of their own in States where
assistance standards as reflected by average requirements are moder¬
ately high, since more cases with some income would presumably be
eligible in those States. In some States with low average require¬
ments, however, large proportions of the recipients were rexjorted
as having cash income. The four States that reported the largest
proportion of recipients with cash income — Virginia, Missouri,
Mississippi, and Nortli Caroline. — are among those with relatively
low average requirements.

On the other hand, Tennessee and West Virginia, which also
had low average requirements, reported that only 19 and 7 percent,
respectively, of their recipients had cash income.

Variations that cannot be explained also occurred among
States with relatively high average requirements. In Massachusetts,
more than one-fourth of the recipient-only cases had some cash in¬
come otbier than assistance. In California, which ranked highest
in average requirements of recipients, only one aged person in five
had cash income that w'as considered a resource in determining need.
Riiode Island, which ranked third in the ainount of average require¬
ments of recipient-only cases, reported only one recipient in eight
with cash income other tliEin assistance.

^ For States that prepared a separate budget for each eligible in¬
dividual, husbands and wives each receiving old-age assistance
are classified as recipient-only cases.

- 13 -

786346 0 - 48 -3

Table 3* — Percent of recipient-only cases vith cash income
other than assistance, and average amount of such income,
for 21 States in a month in 19H4

State

Cases with cash
income other
than assistance

Average per case for —

Percent
of all

cases

State

rank

All

recipient-
only cases

Recipient-
only cases
with cash
income
other than
assistance

Total .

21.5

—

$2.46

$11.42

Virginia . .

39.5

-1

3.74

9.46

Missouri .

3^.7

2

3.10

8.94

Mississippi .

30.1

3

. 1.65

5.^7

North Carolina .

29.1

4

2.16

7.43

Massachusetts .

27.4

5

4.94

18.01

Xsjisas .

25.5

6

' 1.91

7.50

Michigan . .

24.8

7

2.55

10.28

Vermont .

23.8

8

3.12

13 .08

District of Columbia..

21.5

9

3.04

14.13

Montana .

21.5

10

2.33

10.85

California .

21.0

11

3.39

16.11

North Dakota .

20.9

12

2.21

10.58

Tennessee .

19.4

13

.79

4.06

Illinois .

18.6

14

1.69

9.09

New Hampshire .

14.6

15

1.45

9.98

Minnesota .

13.6

16

1.29

9.52

New Mexico .

12.6

17

.72

5.73

Maine .

12.5

18

1.7s

14.28

Bhode Island .

12.2

19

2.08

17.06

Oklahoma .

11.7

20

.93

7.91

West Virginia .

6.7

21

.41

(1)

y Not computed because number of cases included in this claasif ication
in sample was less than ^0,

- U -

These wide differences undoubtedly reflect, in part, varia¬
tions in policies and practices with respect to consideration and
evaluation of income. An examination of data on the average amount
of cash income of recipient-only cases throws some light on these
differences. For all such cases in the 21 States the average cash
income was only $2.46. For cases with cash income the average was
$11.42, with the highest averages occurring in the wealthier States.
The average for Massachusetts was $13; for Rhode Island, $17; and
for California, $16.

In Virginia, Missouri, and North Carolina, ^ich had a large
proportion of cases with cash income, the averages for such cases
were about half those in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and California.
Mississippi's average was about one- third that in each of these
States. Three of the States in which a high proportion of the cases
had cash income — Virginia, Mississippi, and North Carolina — have
very limited funds for assistance. In an effort to spread assist¬
ance funds as far as possible among all recipients, these States
may have considered very small amounts of income that did not con¬
tribute materially to meeting the needs of recipients on a continuing
basis.

Source of Cash Income of Recipient-Only Cases

Recipients derived their cash income, other than that pro¬
vided through assistance, from a variety of sources, such as earn¬
ings, contributions from relatives, servicemen's allowances, benefits
under the program of old-age and survivors insurance, and income
from property. The various types of income were not eqxially impor¬
tant as a resource, whether measured in terms of the number of re¬
cipients with income from a particular source or in terms of the
amount of that income. The following discussion, limited to cases
of recipients only, attempts to evaluate the relative importance of
several types of cash income from both these standpoints. In some
instances the importance of a particular source varies with the
composition of the assistance case.

Earnings. — Despite the handicap age places on employability,

5 percent of the recipients in the 20 States for which, data are
available had income from employment (table 6) . Average earnings
for recipients with earnings were $8.27 (table 7). The average
ranged from $3-55 in Tennessee to $13.64 in Massachusetts and $13.72
in the District of Columbia. Income from earnings represented 17
percent of all cash income other than assistance.

The proportion of cases with income from earnings ranged from
2 percent in California, Minnesota, Rhode Island, and West Virginia
to approximately I6 percent in North Carolina and Virginia (table 6).
Although there doubtless was some variation among the States in em¬
ployment conditions in 1944, this would not appear to account for the
wide range in the proportion of recipients with earnings. Reports

- 15 -

Tal>le 6.-«-Ferceiit of recipient •only cases with cash income other than assistance from specified

sources for 20 States in a month in 1944

z

<M

«

a

o

o

d

•H

cd

o

■*>

o

M

at

o

Vi

O

d

9

o

u

9

(4

J3

O

•H 1 •

5 Sc

Vi

C

.O

CO

VO

o^

r^vo VO CM CO

• • * • •

VO iH VO ir\

KM^vO

• • • • •

^ cr\vo in<d-

cvj<=»' r— cvj CO

• • « • •

r<^vO ifv

U^CVl CO K\#-»

t • • • •

ro VO cvj

^ VO
KN H rH

VO

h-O

i 1

i "

11:39

CO

K\

O

iH| liHCVJ VDICOCVJI

• •••« •••!• •ii**

i> I :

^ CD "ti
O ^ »4

CTi

O KMO ino

• * • • •

O v£> VO rH ^

K\r^CTV CVI C7V

o • • • ■

CO rH CVI O

CO CVJ KV rH CO

• • • • •

ifvcvj Kvr^

CVJ CVJ CVJ

» • • « •

iTiin CO CVJ CVJ
CVJ

I

u «

o «
« 2 ®
. •H ^

S S’

«

m

CVJ

h- irvo CVJ

• • • •

^ r^O K\

(TV rH o VO CO

« • • • •

CVJ^ CVJ ^ CVJ

VO r^crv CVJ CO

• • • • •

^ iTvirvco ^

CO IfVVO VO o

• • • • •

rH crv O irv CVJ

d

o

«

8 5

o

e

UPl

•

rH

CU

O irvvD irv ifv

• • • • •

rH rH CO ITv CVJ
CVJ CVJ rH CVJ rH

^COvOrHl^

• • • • •

h— -It ro O

CVJ CVJ rH KVr^S

vo ^o rH o^

^ CVJ (TV O rH
rH rH ra CVJ rH

cvJjd-coirvh-

• • • • •

CVJ cr* Kvcrvvo
rH rH CU

Dt § • 3 « S
O ® Jd 55 •H 2

S ^ 5 « 9

» «4

»rv

CO

O Ifv^ IfMfV

• • • • •

0^ CO rH ^ h—

CO CO

VO CU ^ <Tv
• ■ • • •

CU irv VO CTV IT*

1^ r— CO vo VO

^ ;d’ CTV rH r<V

• • * • •

irv O <Tv

CO CO h- CO

CO VO CU irvKv

• • • o •

r~-0 VD o KV
CO CO r^vo CTv

® O Vi

irv

r^

8r«Mrvo irv
Kvcu irv CO

CU r--arv-d- CO

m m m m m

CU irv i»-ov

irv CU rH

vO CU

^ irvKv (TV irv

« •> «

irv irvvo

o irvo o irv
^ CO o ^ CU
3- CTV ov3-

rH irvvO O Q
VO CU r>-<d‘ ®

o KV03-VO

• •>

CO
rH ^

» m

-d- CU

21.

m •

iTvcrv

irv

«C dC dc

irv

CU

• 9

• •

•

•

•

•

9 «

• •

• •

•

•

•

•

9

• •

« •

•

•

•

•

• 9

• •

• •

•

•

•

%

• •

• •

•

*

•

•

• 9

• •

« •

D •

• e

•

•

•

•

s

•

•

•

• *

9 9

• •

• •

• •

• •

«

d

•

•

*

•

•

•

• 9

9 s

• •

9 *

d

•

•

9

• 9

• •

Ih •

•H

d

•

'd

9

•H •

•H •

rH

■p

•

d

9

PC •

4:1 0

0

p

•

d

9 •

Pi •

9 t>

u

H

9

rH

9 •

•H •iH

Pi •h

d

9

d

9

9 •

9 J4

a H

0

n

n

M

9 +>

9 d

d 9

0

9 d

•H 0

» X

9

9 0

9 9

•p

«8

•d

9 9

> >

J4

u

rH

0

d u

•H •ri

9 9

0

0

M

0

9 9

X :s:

izi SQ

I3i

0

«

£4 >

4>

d

4*

in

rH

d

*»

o

e^

d

•H

o
o

d o

d 4> «
U O tA
o •H o
•M >4 d

ta

d 9
• d

rH 9 rH d
d •H rH d d

o c:) »-i M S

m

■p

-P

9

a

S

d

9

9

d

9

d
•H
d
•H
CO

d u

•H "H

d >

•rl

CO -P
IH 9
Tt 9

- 16 -

1/ Excludes Montana, for \<hich comparable data on source of income are not arallahle

Tal>l6 J • — ~ A'yft rftgft caBh income other than assistance and percentage
distribution of income by type of case and source of income,

in a month in 19^4

All cases

Cases with cash
income other
than assistance

Source of income

Recipient
only l/

Recipient and
spouse ^

Recipient
only 1/

Recipient

Average

per

case

Percent¬

age

distri¬

bution

Average

per

case

Percent¬

age

distri¬

bution

and

spouse 2/

Total .

$2.46

100.0

$7 .**9

100.0

$11.42

$14.43

Earnings of-

Recipient .

Other person in
assistance group
Contributions from

relatives .

Servicemen* 8

allowances .

OASI benefits .

Other .

.42

.98

.06

.31

.68

17.2

40.0

2.5

12.8

27.6

2.40

1.50

1.16

.32

.41

1.69

32.0

20.1

15.5

4.2

5.5
22.6

8.27

10.83

22.28
16. 89
9.96

11.32

12.26

9.31

30.42

23.68

11.27

1/ 20 States; excludes Montana, for which comparable data on source of Income are

' 2/ excludes Montana and 5 States that made separate budgets for each

eligible Individual.

- 17 -

from a few agencies that made the study indicate that, for some cases,
the amount of income reported from earnings or other sources may have
been in excess of that actually available. One agency remarked that
small amounts of temporary or intermittent cash resources were too
frequently considered as existing permanently; another agency indi- 1
cated that the amounts of cash income from earnings seemed to be
overstated in many instances . Similar situations have been found
in some other States or local areas.

Cash contributions from relatives. — Contributions from rel¬
atives constituted the most important source of cash income other
than assistance, from the standpoint of both the number of cases in
which such income was taJcen into account and the amount of this in¬
come. Tlie significance of income from relatives varied widely among
the States. Part of the variation doubtless stemmed from differences
in the ability of relatives to assist their aged kin. On the other
hand, some of the differences are attributable to specific provisions
of State laws or agency policies regarding the responsibility of rel¬
atives. A few States set up objective scales for amounts of contri¬
butions bgsed on the relative's income, number of other dependents,
and other financial responsibilities. In other States, agencies have
policies to be followed on an individual-case basis in exploring this
resource.

Somewhat less than one-tenth of all cases were shown as re¬
ceiving cash contributions from relatives (table '6), and the average
contribution amounted to about $11 a month (table 7). Income from
this source represented 40 percent of the cash income, other than
assist£ince, availa^ble. Most of the States with a high proportion of
recipients with cash income from earnings ranked 'high also in the
relative number who received contributions from relatives (table 6).
These States included some with comparatively low economic resources,
v/here it may be assumed that relatives are least able to make regular
cash contributions to recipients and v:here assistance pa.yments are
low. In Virginia, such contributions were considered a resource of
more than one-fifth oi the recit-dents . In Mississippi and North
Carolina, also, comparatively high proportions of recipients were
reported as receiving cash income from relatives. The average con¬
tribution — from 15.00 to ^7.50 in these States — v:as considerably less
than in some of the States vdth comparatively large economic resources.
In contrast, some other States in which per capita income was low re¬
ported relatively few recipients with contributions from relatives,
and even when such support was provided the amounts were small. In
Tennessee, New Mexico, V<est Virginia, ajid Oklahoma, only 5.4, 2.2, 2.2,
and 0.8 percent, respectively, of the cases had such income.

Among the States witn relatively high per capita incomes, where
relatives would presmnably be better able to make cash contributions,
the percentage of cases with sucn income varied widely. In Massachusett
almost one-fifth; in California one-tenth; and in Rhode Island one-
tv/entieth of the recipients had such income. The average contribution
was substantial in these States — $13 per case receiving such contribu¬
tions in California and $16 in the other two States.

- 18 -

other cash income. — Other c&sh income included servicemen's
allov/auces, old-age and survivors insurtnce benefits, said income from
investments, annuities, or other sources. Relatively few recipients
h&d income from servicemen's allowances. Some persons who had re¬
ceived old-age assistance left the rolls wiien the allowances became
available, and doubtless others, who might have been in need, did
not find it necessary to request assistance while receiving allow¬
ances. In the 20 States, only 0.3 percent of the cases received
servicemen's allowances, and 3 States reported no income from this
source. For the few cases receiving such income the average amount
was 122.28.

A somewhat larger proportion of recipients — 1,^ percent —
received old-age and survivors insurance benefits, which averaged
$16.89 per beneficiary. In general, the proportion receiving in¬
surance benefits w^as larger in the States with the highest industrial
development and was extremelj^ small in some of the Southern and
middle ’Western States.

Some income from investments, rentals, annuities (other than
old-age and survivors insurance) , and other sources was received by
6.8 percent of the cases. In the District of Colui-ibia and in '.Vest
Virginia, about 2 percent had such income, while the percentage in
Missouri, 14.6, w'as greatly in excess of that in any other State and
is the principle reason for I.Iissouri's ranging second in the percent¬
age of cases with cash income. More than one-iourth of all cash in¬
come, excluding assistance, came from these sources, and the average
amount per case wdth such income was approximately $10.

Cash Income of Cases That Included Recipient and Spouse

Of the cases that included tlie recipient and spouse, more than
half had cash income other than assistance, as compared wdth slightly
more than one-fifth of the recipient-only cases (tables 3 end 8).

The greatest differences between the two groups were in tne propor¬
tions with income from earnings and from other sources, such as in¬
vestments, rentals, and annuities (other than old-age and survivors
insurance) . Recipients in cases that included husband and wife were
doubtless younger on the average than those in the recipient-only
group. Moreover, these cases generally included the person who had

been the family's chief breadwinner and who may have continued to

have slight earning capacity. Although, in recipient-ouly cases,
the recipient frequently had been the fandly wage earner, the group
includes a substantial number of unattached w'omen with little or no
earning capacity.

In recipient-and-vspouse cases the recipient had earnings in
more than 20 percent, and the spouse in 12 percent, of the cases .2/
Fifteen percent of the recipient-and-spouse caises had "other" income,
as compared with 7 percent of the recipient-only ca^-es. This differ¬
ence was to be expected since normal family units are xnov.n to be

more likely to conserve their resources than .are unattached individuals.

2/ In some cases the spouse elso v/as a recipient. See the appendix, p. 42.

- 19 -

Table 8. — Percent of recipient-and-spouse cases with cash income other
than assistance, and average amount of cash income, for
l6 States in a month in 19^4

State

Cases with
cash income
other than
assistance

Average per case for--

Percent

of

all

cases

State

rank

All

recipient-

and-spouse

cases

Recipient-

and-spouse

cases

with cash
income
other than
assistance

Total 1/ .

51.8

--

$7.50

$14.49

Virginia .

75.3

1

11.10

14.73

Missouri . .

70.7

2

11.83

16.72

North Carolina .

69.9

3

8.99

12.87

Mississippi .

69.5

4

7.60

10.94

Tennessee .

kS,0

5

3.32

6.93

Vermont .

k6.h.

6

6.74

(2/)

Montana .

i^5.1

7

7.96

17.65

Massachusetts . .

14^.9

8

12.11

26.98

Kansas .

i^2.8

9

5.03

11.77

North Dakota. . . .

1^2.5

• 10

7.86

18.52

Rhode Island .

31.2

11

9.01

(2/)

Maine .

31.0

12

5.74

18.50

New Hampshire .

29A

13

4.05

(2/)

Oklahoma .

29.2

14

3.64

12.44

New Mexico .

26.0

15

3.40

13.09

West Virginia .

18.0

16

1.3^

(2/)

1/ Excludes 5 States that made separate budgets for each eligible
individual .

2/ Not computed because number of cases included in this classification
in sample was less than 50.

- 20 -

I

Average cash income of cases that included the recipient's

I spouse was considerably higher than that for recipient-only cases.

For these two types ol cases with cash income, the averages v/ere
$14.43 and $11.42, respectively. If the averages are computed on
the basis of the total number 01 cases in each group, the differen¬
tial is 3 to Ij or $7.49 in contrast to $2.46 (table 7).

The relative importance of each type of income varied con¬
siderably between the two groups. For example, earnings in recipient-
only cases represented 17 percent of the cash income from sources
other than assistance. In cases consisting of the recipient and

I spouse, which had relatively more employment, 32 percent of the cash

income was from earnings of the recipient and an additional 20 per¬
cent from earnings of the spouse. Income from contributions of
relatives represented a smaller share of toteil income for recipient-
and-spouse cases, even though proportionately more of them thrn of
recipient-only cases received such income.

Data showing the percentage of recipient-end-spouse cases
v/ith cash income from sources other than assistance are presented
by source for each State in table 9. The State variations in the
relative number of cases with such income and in the sources of in¬
come are similar to those foi recipient-only cases.

TOT/^X CASH INCOME INCLUDING ASSISTANCE

Total cash income available to meet the needs of assistance
cases averaged $33.33 for the 21 States combined. For cases in which
the requirements of only one recipient were included in the budget,
the average amount of cash income, including assistence, was $34.13
(table 10). This cash income does not represent all that the re¬
cipients had to live on, since more than a third had income in kind,
in the form of rent-free shelter, garden or farm produce, fuel, or
other goods or services. The exact proportion of total income repre¬
sented by income in kind is not Known, because not all States placed
a money value on income in kind. The proportion ol cr-‘ses receiving-
income in kind, and an indication of the value for selected States,
is discussed later.

The average cash income of $34*13 for recipient-only cases was
heavily weighted by cases in Calilornia and Massachusetts where a
large number of recipients had high average cash incomes. The average
for California was $30.39 end for Massachusetts, $43.31 (table 10).

In only two additional States— North Dakota and Rhode Island— did
the average exceed that for all States combined. For 12 vStates the
average cash income per recipient ranged from $23 to $34* lu the
other 3 States the average ranged from $13 to |16. The range among
the States reflects differences in standards of assistance, in some

21 -

■P

A

S §

(d

5

IS

00

o

.d m

+> «)
«H 4^

> 40
•P
00 CO
0)

8»

u

0) ^
00 Vi

§ ^
Pi 00
00 0)

li

I n
p

d •d
«> o

p p
Pi Vi
P P

o o

e K

00

Sf;

o

O 9)

U o

£ 9

• P
I 00

• p

(7n 00

CO

O 00
r-i

■S

E-i

0

a

o

o

1

d

1

p

XI

d

0

Vi

0

o

0

O

XI

d

p

0

p

p

>

0

p

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

o

§

Vi

XI

O

p

P

d

d

0

0

X3

o

P

d

O

0

fd

U

<D

Xi

P

O

M 0) (0
CO d p
< 0) P
O ,0 Vi

1

(1)

O 00

>

<D S
CO

I

> 00

- o a)

d H o

*■3 §

I

p d _ I w

d O 6 C0 0)

P P O H >■

d p d a> p

O d V) d p

o

I

I

<d

O

00

bO

d

p

e

p>q

0

0

(NO

d

•

o

CM

CU

fH

CO

I

Pi P
P d
O 0
0 P
«

d

O

0

8

0

0

0 o

o
m

a

^ 0

m a

d O
o o
d

o P

§

p

d

0

Si

p

o

p

m

p

0

0

0

d

p

0

0

o

0

X

Vi

0

CO

P

O

0

P

3

0

P

B

d

O

00

0

P

0

P

CO

lA

P

CX)

fH

ir\

OJ

OJ

•

rS

OJ

On

•

H

lA

CO

J-CJnCOOnCVJ CO CO O VO

ON On 00 CM
cn

coco C7N o C-

-4- H -:t CO O
lA t^CO CM 00

-4 H O

I CO

I

H CO CJN I H

O I -4- lA-4

• I ♦ • •

lA I H P

CM 00 P On-4

• • • • •

VD CM P

P O 00 P VC

• • • • •

P P P

VD lA O 00 lA

• • • • •

CM P CM CM

00 CM CM VO

• • • • •

P CO

OOfOCJNOP 00-4-CM COVO CT\ C— lA lA

CJ\-4 CM CO CO
CM CM P

00 CO-4- CM
CM P

o cyN-4- CO p

P P -4

VO P t-- O VD

• • • • •

t- O CO ON t-
P P P

ITN j4 00 CO lA

• • • • ♦

t--,4 O P -4
CM P

O .4 t-- P lA

00 CM CO CM P

P P CM

VD r- P CO CM ONOO o t-- o

On 00 -4 VO -4
P CO CM

VO (On C-- CO lA
CO p P

CM lA CM CO

• • • • •

CM VD ON P C-
CM CO

00O(0\lAt— -4O<0NlACM CMOCOCOO

CM P -4 ON O
^ CO-4 VO

ONVO (ON CM On
CM CM VO -4 CM

P CO VO lACO
CO-4 -4 C-— P

CMOPACO VOOPL^'.OO O

CJN lA O (On
AVO A CO CM

O -4 O O
r— t-— CO A t^

00 CM CO-4 CM
VO A A CM CO

O O Q O VO
O CO O CO P
ON A (On COVO

•« Vy -V Vv *\

VO CM -4 A CM
CM

O O O MO O
VO CM CO ^ A
(OnO t-VO P

•n •v

P A P CM

-4 O CM -4 A
00 VO O VO P
t--VD A-4 ON

(On

CM CO

V>

o

0

0
0 0
0 d
d p
0 0

0

•

•

0

•

d

• *

0 •

•

'Ki

•

•

•

0

P

•

•

d

•

p

•

•

•

P

P

p

•

P

•

p

P •

d

•

•

•

d

0

Pi

•

XI

O

o

o •

0

•

•

•

p

0

Pi

♦

0

o

d

^ 0

P

0

•

•

w

d

P

p

|i

p

0

0

0

•

0

d

X!

0

d

X

o

P

0

P

P

P

o

0

d

w

0

o

0

d

d

>

0

P

O

s

xi

X X

0

0

o

p

0

0

0

p

P 0

'd

d

s

P

0

0

0

>

>

d

o

d

M

d

0

0

•H

P

0

0

O

X

0

P

0

s

s

X

O

S

B

>

- 22 -

l/ Excludes Montana, for which comparable data on source of income are not available and 5 States that
made separate budgets for each eligible individual.

SteteF lirnitations^ imposed by maximums on individual payments and in
others, inability to make pajmients to meet the iull amount ol the
budget deficit.

Variations in the amount of average assistance payments were
largely responsible for differences in the proportion of cash income
irora each source. For recipient-only cases, for example, average
cash income from sources other than assistance vifas approximately the
same for North Dakota and North Carolina — ^2.21 and |2.l6, respectively.
Because assistance paynients in North Dakota averaged $33 *27 for re¬
cipient-only cases, the $2.21 from other sources represented only 6
percent of total cash income; in North Carolina, where assistance pay¬
ments averaged only $10.46, cash income from other sources represented
17 percent of- total cash income. In five other States, cash income
other than assistance represented 10 percent or more of total cash
income, and in Virginia it amounted to 23 percent (table 10) .

The average total cash income and other financial data for
recipient-only cases are not fully comparable for all States, because
of differences in budgetary policy, as stated previously, in Cali¬
fornia, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Michigan, and Minnesota,
a separate budget was prepared for each eligible individual in a
family. The combined requirements of tY;o individuals living together
are usually less than those for two maintaining separate establish¬
ments, and result in a lower average assistance payment to recipients
with such living arrangements than to recipients living alone. If
ca.ses in which two recipients lived in one household had been elimi¬
nated before the averages were computed in the District of Columbia,
Illinois, ilichigan, and Minnesota, the average amount of total cash
income for the rest of the recipient-only cases in each of these
States would have been somewhat higher. The same may be true for
those cases in California for which need was determined on a budg¬
etary basis. Hov^ever, total income of a large proportion of the
cases in this State was governed by the provision that assistance
plus other income must amount to at least $50 for each eligible
individual .

In Oklahoma, at the time the study was made, a separate budget
was usually prepared for each eligible individual in the family, and
in Massachusetts and Vermont tnis practice was followed frequently.

As a result, averages for recipient-only cases in these States also
are somewhat understated.

The range among the States in average total cash income of
cases consisting of the recipient and spouse was similar to that for
recipient-only cases (table 11). Of the 21 States, 16 included the
requirements of both recipient and spouse in a single budget. The
States with lowest average cash income had relatively large numbers
of cases. This resulted in an average of $39.04 for the 16 States
combined that v/as lower than tne averages of 10 of them. Average

• - 23 -

Table 10 -Average cash income, including assistance, of recipient -only cases,
by source of income, for 21 States in a month in 19^^

State

State

rank

Average amount

Percentage distributior

Total

Assist¬

ance

payments

Other

cash

income

Total

Assist¬

ance

payments

Other

cash

income

Total .

--

$31.67

$2.46

100.0

92.8

7.2

California .

1

50.59

47.20

3.39

100.0

93.3

6.7

Massachusetts .

2

i+5.8l

40.87

4.94

100.0

89.2

10.8

North Dakota .

3

35. W

33.27

2.21

100.0

93.8

6.2 •

Rhode Island .

4

35.18

33.10

2.08

100.0

94.1

5.9

District of Columbia. .

5

33.90

30.86

3.04

100.0

91.0

9.0

Montana .

6

32.64

30,31

2.33

100.0

92.9

7.1

Illinois .

7

32.51

30.82

1.69

100.0

94.8

5.2

Mich-i gan .

8

31.96

29.41

2.55

100.0

92.0

8.0

Minnesota .

9

30.52

29.23

1.29

100.0

95.8

4.2

Maine .

10

29.87

28.09

1.78

100.0

94.0

6.0

New Hampshire .

11

28.72

27.27

1.45

100.0

95.0

5.0

Kansas .

12

27.56

25.65

1.91

100.0

93.1

6.9

New Mexico .

13

27.30

26.58

.72

100.0

97.4

2.6

Missouri .

Ik

27.03

23.93

3.10 '

100.0

88.5

11.5

Vermont .

15

25.24

22.12

3.12

100.0

87.6

12.4

Oklahoma .

16

25.05

24.12

.93

100.0

96.3

3.7

Virginia .

17

16.38

12.64

3.74

100.0

77.2

22.8

West Virginia .

18

15.25

14.84

.41

100.0

97.3

2.7

Mississippi .

19

15.02

13.37

1.65

100.0

89.0

11.0

Tennessee .

20

14.65

13.86

.79

100.0

94.6

5.4

North Carolina .

21

12.62

10.46

2.16

100.0

82.8

17.2

- 24 -

Table 11. --Average cash income, including assistance, of recipient- and- spouse
cases, by source of income, for l6 States in a month in 19U1<-

- - — - — - -

r

^ State

s

State

rank

Average amount.

Percentage distribution

Total

Assist¬

ance

pajTnents

Other

cash

income

Total

Assist¬

ance

payments

Other

cash

income

Total 1/ .

--

$39.04

$31.54

$7.50

100.0

80.8

19.2

Massachusetts .

1

Ik, 32

62.21

12.11

100.0

83.7

16.3

Rhode Island .

2

62.88

53.8?

9.01

100.0

85.7

14.3

tTorth Dakota .

3

58.51

50.65

7.86

100.0

86.6

13.4

Montana .

h

52.63

44.67

7.96

100.0

84.9

15.1

[ Maine .

5

51.21

45.47

5.74

100.0

88.8

11.2

)

) New Hampshire .

6

k9,6l

45.56

4.05

100.0

91.8

8.2

3 Missouri .

7

k3,Qk

32.01

11.83

100.0

73-0

27.0

j New Mexico .

8

^3.19

39.79

3.40

100.0

92.1

7.9

Kansas .

9

41.96

36.93

5.03

100.0

88.0

12.0

^ Vermont .

10

41.90

35.16

6.74

100.0

83.9

16.1

! Oklahoma .

11

38.85

35-21

3.64

100.0

90.6

9.4

’ Virginia .

12

27.97

16.87

11.10

100.0

60.3

39.7

) Mississippi .

13

24.81

17.21

7.60

100.0

69.4

30.6

1 Tennessee .

Ik

22.87

19.55

3.32

100.0

85.5

14.5

North Carolina .

15

22.38

13.39

8.99

100.0

59.8

40.2

West Virginia .

16

22.00

20.66

1.34

100.0

93.9

6.1

1/ Excludes 5 States that made separate budgets for each eligible individual.

- 25 -

cash incOiTie for each of the 6 States at the top of the range was
at least twice that for each of the 4 at the bottom. The average
for Massachusetts was more than 3 tiiaes that in the 3 States at the
lower end of the scale and was substcntially higher than that in
any other State. In Massachusetts, where funds for assistance are
relatively adequate, the amount of assistance plus other income
that each recipient is to receive is underwritten by minimums
specified in the State law, and there are no raaximums on individual
payments. Moreover, the inclusion in the budget of amounts to meet
the cost 01 relatively large medical bills for some recipients in
this State tended to raise the average amount of total income. ,

North Dakota, Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia,
wnich ranked high in average amount of total cash income, also had
no maximuras on individual payments. In North Dakota and Rhode
Island the cost of medical care frequently was met through the
money payment. In the District of Columbia, an urban area, medical
care was provided largely by other agencies, and as a result the
cash income of recipients was for maintenance needs only. Although
Kansas had no maximums on individual payments, the average income
was only $27.36 for recipient-only cases and $41*96 for cases that
included the recipient's spouse.

All States that had a raaximuiii of $30 on individual payments
fell in the lower half of the range when States were arrayed by the
average amount of total cash income of recipient-only cases. The
fact that a number of States with a $40 Hiaximura, and New Mexico with
a $30 maximum, also fell in the lower half indicates that the maxi¬
mum on individual assistance payments was not the only factor affect¬
ing the amount of cash income. Here again the controlling factors
seem to be the differences in standards of assistance, in the appli¬
cation of the standards, and in the availability of funds to meet
need in full. Also influencing the variations but to a lesser ex¬
tent was the degree of urbanization of the States, which affects
the cost of certain goods and services, particularly tiie cost of
shelter.

Sources of Total Cash Income

Assistance payments constituted the major share — 38.3 percent —
of the total cash income of old-age assistance cases in 20 of the 21
States. As has been said previously, about one-fourth of the re¬
cipients had cash income from earnings or other sources, but the
average amount per case receiving assistance was relatively low. In¬
come from these sources, which amounted to only 11.3 percent of the
total, included cash income of other members of the assistance case
in States where budgeting frequently was done on a family basis. For
cases consisting of only one person, assistance payments constituted
about 93 percent of total income in contrast to 81 percent for cases
that included a recipient and spouse (table 12).

- 26 -

! Table 12. --Percentage distribution of cash Income, including assistance, from
j specified sources by type of case, in a month in 19^4-4

i

!

1 Source of cash income

All cases l/

Recipient-

only

cases 1/

Recipient-
and-
spouse
cases 2/

Total .

100.0

100.0

100.0

Assistance payments .

88.5

92.8

80.7

OAA to recipient .

86.1

92.7

64.1

OAA to other person in case .

2.1

—

16.3

1 Other assistance .

.3

.1

.3

Other income .

Earnings of —

11.5

7.2

19.3

Recipient .

2.0

1.2

6.2

Other person .

2.6

—

3.9

Contributions from relatives. ,. .

2.9

2.9

3.0

Servicemen’s allotments .

.4

.2

.8

OASI .

.9

.9

1.1

' All other .

2.6

2.0

4.4

I 1/ 20 States; excludes Montana because classification of cash income other than
‘ assistance differs from that in other States.

; 2/ 15 States; excludes Montana and 5 States that made separate budgets for each
eligible individual..

Assistance other than old-age assistance represented an extremely small
proportion of total cash income — 0.1 percent for recipient- only cases and 0.3
percent for cases that Included the recipient euid spouse. The total assistance
reported does not represent all assistance going into households in vhich
recipients of old-age assistance lived. If it was the agency’s practice to
prepare separate budgets for needy blind persons, children, or other persons
in the household, the amount of such assistance was not Included. The data are
significant, therefore, only for the one-recipient cases. Payments from general
asalsteuice funds to supplement old-alge assistance were made to a very small
number of recipient- only cases in nine States. In a few Instances, supplemental
assistance was provided by private agencies or organizations.

- 27 -

The proportion of cash income from each source other than
assistance was higher for cases that included the recipient and
spouse than for recipient-onl7 cases (table 12) . Income from earn¬
ings accounted for a considerable part of this difference.

The relative importance of cash income other than assist¬
ance in States with comparatively low assistance payments suggests
that some cash income may sometimes have been included when it was
not regularly available. On the other hand, some cash income of
recipients was not considered in determining their needs in certain
States. Six States exempted from consideration certain income from
agricultural employment, as authorized by Federal law. 10/ Since
the number of recipients for whom such income was waived was small,
and the amount of their earnings probably was not large, the pro¬
vision had a negligible effect on average income.

Some States have adopted the policy of permitting a recipient
with specified dependents to allocate certain amounts of income for
their support. Income so allocated is not considered available to
meet the recipient's own need. In three States, a substantial amount
of the cash income of recipients was allocated to meet the needs of
dependents not included in the assistance group.

Percent of cases

Average amount

that allocated

per case

income to a

making such

State

dependent

allocation

California . .

2.0

♦19.07

Massachusetts . .

2.2

17.53

Minnesota . .

3.9

15.36

In California and Minnesota the budget included the require¬
ments of the recipient only, but income could be allocated to meet
the needs of a spouse not eligible for old-age assistance or of
other dependents. Although in a number of additional States cash
income of the recipient could be allocated to meet the needs of
dependents, Massachusetts was the only other State represented in
the study in which appreciable amounts were so allocated.

10/ Public Laws 43 and 67, 78th Congress, and Public Law 40, 79th
Congress.

- 28 -

INCOME IN KIND

The development of effective standards governing the treat¬
ment of resources in kind has been slow and in 1944 few States had
such standards. Even in States that had developed State-wide
policies the bases of evaluation may not have been uniformly under¬
stood by the workers in the local agency. If funds are meager,
even very small amounts of income in kind are likely to be consid¬
ered in order that available funds may be spread as far as possible
among all eligible persons. The agency in one State, in which a
large proportion of the recipients were reported as having income
in kind, comments that these data must be interpreted 7d.th caution
because of a widespread tendency in that State to overvalue such
income.

According to the reports, more than one- third of the re¬
cipients in 20 States had income in kind. The proportion of cases
with such income ranged from 9 percent in Massachusetts to 84 per¬
cent in North Carolina (table 13). In 3 States more than three-
fourths, and in 4 States less than one-fourth, of the recipients
were reported as having income in kind.

Effect of Place of Residence and of Living

Arrangements on Receipt of Income in Kind

As might be expected, the relative number of cases with in¬
come in kind was higher in States in which a fairly large propor¬
tion of the recipients lived on farms. Five States in which more
than one-fourth of the recipients lived on farms — ^North Carolina,
Mississippi, Virginia, Tennessee, and Missouri — ranked high in the
proportion of cases with either free shelter or other types of in¬
come in- kind or wi-th both. All these States except Missouri also
ranked high in -the proportion of cases in which the recipient was
living with relatives. In Missouri, almost half the cases had
produce or other types of income in kind, but the number with free
shelter was relatively small. In three addi-bional S-bates — New
Mexico, Oklahoma, and Vermon-b — -bhe proportion of cases wi-bh income
in kind exceeded 50 percent. In -bhese S-bates, from 18 -bo 23 percent
of the recipients lived on farms.

Living arrangements of recipients are directly related to
the prevalence of income in kind. Table 13 shows that when the re¬
cipient was living with relatives, shelter was usually provided
without charge.

Shelter Provided by Relatives

Almost 15 percent of all recipients were given shelter by
relatives, but State proportions varied widely. The extremes are
represented by California and Mississippi, wi-bh 5 and 44 percent,
respectively, of -the recipients ha-vlng -bhis type of income.

- 29 -

Table I3. — Percent of cases with income in kind, by type of income and selected
factors affecting receipt of such income, for 20 States in a month in 1944

State

Percent of cases with specified
type of income in kind

Percent of
cases livini^

Total

Shelter

Prod¬

uce

On

farms

With

sonsJ

Percent l/

b tate
rank

Total

Pro¬

vided

by

rela¬

tives

Other

provi¬

sion

rai sed
and

con¬

sumed

and

other

f .

daug^<

ters,

or

other

relft-

tivea

Total 2/ .

38.4

—

26.0

14.8

11.1

21.S

15.5

21.7

North Carolina .

83.7

1

59.1

43.8

15.3

75.9

43.3

43.9,

Mississippi .

83.0

2

60.0

44.4

15.6

66.2

54.2

4i.o!

New Mexico .

77.0

3

72.2

22.6

49.6

45.9

22.5

13.3

Virginia .

73.6

4

48.6

31.9,

16.7

64. R

33.5

33.4

Oklahoma .

65.8

5

60.1

20.5

39.7

27.1

17.6

15.5;

Tennessee .

58.3

6

34.7

26.4

8.3

38.7

31.9

36.8

Missouri .

53.0

7

8.8

6.9

1.9

49.5

27.0

15.5

Vermont .

52.0

8

32.4

27.9

4.5

34.2

17.8

31.8

North Dakota .

4l.g

9

21.3

17.9

3.4

26.4

10.0

19.8

Kansas .

38.3

10

19.7

l4.0

5.7

25.6

8.5

14.0

Maine .

37.3

11

30.4

25.9

4.5

8.7

19.1

26.5

Michigan .

31.8

12

23.1

I8.3

4.8

14.7

10.7

20.5

West Virginia .

31.3

13

11.0

6.3-

4.7

22.5

23.2

• 16.0

Minnesota .

30.0

14

18.6

14.6

4.0

17.5

15-7

20.9

California .

26.9

15

25.2

5.4

19.8

3.7

4.4

17.1

Rhode Isldjid .

25.7

16

18.9

16.5

2.4

10.5

2.0

21.7

New Hampshire .

24.9

17

17.7

14.5

3-3

12.7

12.3

19.6

Illinois .

20.0

18

14.9

11.2

3.8

6.4

8.3

22.6

District of Columbia.

17.6

19

9.1

8.0

1.1

9.2

0

20.4

Massachusetts .

9.0

20

6.9

6.0

.9

2.7

2.2

23.2

1/ Represents percent with income in kind from’ one or more sources.

^ Excludes Montana, for which comparable data are not available.

- 30 -

Although, in general, relatives in the States with rela¬
tively low economic resoxirces are presumably less able to provide
shelter without cost to recipients than those in States with greater
resources, relatives actually were providing free shelter to a high
proportion of recipients in the low-income States. It is evident
that, where funds for assistance are very inadequate and assistance
payments low, recipients have little choice as to living arrange¬
ments and relatives who share their homes with recipients frequently
do so at considerable sacrifice.

On the other hand, it is apparent that in several States an
amount was included in the budget for shelter for many recipients
who lived with relatives. Although almost one-fourth of the re¬
cipients in Massachusetts lived with relatives, only 6 percent of
all recipients got shelter without cost. In this State, contribu¬
tions of responsible relatives are determined on the basis of a
fixed scale that considers both income and living arrangements
of the relatives. In California, where 17 percent of the recipients
lived with relatives, shelter was given without cost in only 5 per¬
cent of all cases. In a number of other States, and particularly
in the District of Colmbia, Illinois, West Virginia, and Missouri,
it is evident that amounts were frequently included in budgets to
meet the cost of shelter of recipients who lived with relatives.

Other Shelter Provisions

It may be assumed that most of tne cases with free shelter^
that was not provided by relatives, owned their own homes, although
in some instances shelter was received in return for work performed,
and occasionally persons other than relatives provided shelter with¬
out cost to recipients. The number of cases that were reported as
having "other provisions” for shelter, however, may represent an
understatement of the extent of home ownership. According to in¬
structions for the study, the value of free rent was to represent
the difference between the amount the agency under its standards
would allow for rent and the amount included in the assistance
plan for upkeep, taxes, or installment payments on property. If
these expenses equalled or exceeded the amount the agency would
have included for rent, home ownership would not actually consti¬
tute income in kind. Inhere such costs were included in the budget,
the proportion of cases with "other provision” for shelter was
reduced substantially. In Massachusetts, for example, only 0.9
percent of the cases had "other provision” for shelter, though
a special study made in 1941 showed that 21 percent of the

- 31 -

recipients in the State owned their own homes* 11/ The proportion
of cases with shelter in kind not provided by relatives in 1944
ranged from 0.9 percent in Massachusetts to 40 percent in Oklahoma
and 50 percent in New Mexico. In half the States, however, the
proportions varied within a very narrow range — from 2.4 percent
in Rhode Island to 5.7 in Kansas.

The extremely high incidence of home ownership indicated by
the data for Nev; Mexico and Oklahoma cannot be explained fully from
the information available. In almost one-fourth of the cases in
New Mexico, persons other than the recipient or spouse were included
in the assistance group. With the inclusion of additional persons
in a case, there is greater likelihood that shelter will be avail¬
able through home ownership. However, in Virginia and West Virginia,
where requirements and resources of other persons were included in
the budget in 20-25 percent of the assistance cases, the proportion
of cases witli other provivsion for shelter was much less than in
New Mexico. In Oklahoma, budgeting on a fajuily basis did not
occur to the same extent as in New Mexico, Virginia, West Virginia,
or several other States, and requirements and resources of other
persons were included in the budgets of only 6 percent of the cases.
However, the tentative conclusion that an unusually large number
of recipients in Oklahoma owned their homes is supported by a re¬
port of the St^ite agency that shows that 3^ percent of the recipi¬
ents of the three special types of public assistance in selected
counties in 1945 lived in homes that they owned. 12/

In California, where the agency collected information on
home ownership in November 1944, 20 percent of the recipients owned
their homes. Tlie relatively high level of assistence in this State
probably accounts, in part, for the opportunity to maintain home
ownership. 13/

11/ Special report of the Coim.dssioner of Public Welfare concern¬
ing an investigation and study of the administration of the
old-age assistance law, December 1942, p. 56. ^

12/ Unpublished report of the Oklahoma State Department of Public
Welfare.

13/ "Income and Living Arrangements of Old Age Security Recipients,"
Public Assistance in California. January-December 1944, p. 4.

- 32 -

Cases to Which Relatives Contributed Income in Kind

, The following tab\LLation shows the States arrayed by the
percent of cases that received income in kind from relatives:

I

Percent of cases Percent of cases

with income in with income in

kind contributed kind contributed

State

by relatives

State

by relatives

Total , 20 States

North Carolina..

18.3

60.1

Rhode Island...

21.7

Mississippi .

52.4

Kansas . .

18.8

Virginia .

49.5

New Hampshire..

18.4

Vermont .

40.6

Minnesota .

17.9

Tennessee .

30.0

Diet, of Col. . .

14.5

Maine .

28.4

24. 5

Illinoip * * > ^ T ^ ,

13.0

11.2

New Mexico .

Missouri .

Oklahoma .

23.7

West Virginia. .

7.2

North Dakota. . . .

23.1

Massachusetts. .

6.7

Michigan .

22.2

California . . . : .

5.6

The extremely wide range obviously reflects, in part, differences in
policies or practices with regard to the responsibility of relatives
for support of the aged.

Value of Income in Kind

The value of income in kind can be computed for only the 7
States that included the money value of such income in the budget
for all, or practically all, cases that had income in kind. Table 14
presents these data for recipient-only cases and for those that in¬
cluded the recipient and spouse.

Since income in kind is unadaptable to more than one use, the
freedom that individuals have for making a choice of purchases and
for managing their own lives depends to a considerable extent on the
amount of cash income available to them. In California and Massa¬
chusetts, income in kind represented a very small part of total in¬
come and recipients had substantial amounts of cash income. In
North Cairolina, on the other hand, where average income was low.

- 33 -

Table 14 . — Average total income, including estimated value of income
in kind, by type of case, in 7 States in a month in 1944

State

Recipient-only cases

, Recipient-and-

-spouse cases

Average

total

income

Average

total

cash

income

Estimated aver¬
age value of
income in kind

Average

total

income

Average

total

cash

income

Estiiriated aver¬
age value of
income in kind

Amount

Percent
of total

Amount

Percent
of total

Calif.

$52.04

$50.59

$1.45

2.8

...

...

Mass.

46.68

45.81

.87

1.9

$75.79

$74.32

$1.47

1.9

Mo.

29. CO

27.03

1.97

6.8

50.83

43.84

6.99

13.8

N. Mex.

31.38

27.30

4.08

13.0

51.06

43.19

7.87

15.4

N. C.

20.56

12.62

7.94

38.6

32.14

22.38

9.76

30.4

N. Dek.

38.48

35.48

3.00

7.8

62.46

53.51

3.95

6.3

W. Va.

15.60

15.25

.35

2.2

24.19

22.00

2.19

9.1

1

the value of income in kind represented about 39 percent of the
total income for recipient-only cases. Average cash income amounted
to $12.60 per month, or about 40 cents per day per recipient. Since
this figure is an average, some recipients had less than this amount.

In Massachusetts and California, the average recipient in recipient-
only cases had cash income of more than |1.50 per day.

Although 14 States do not have definite information on the
value of income in kind, some conclusions may be drawn from data
that are available. In most of the States where both assistance
payments and total incomes of recipients were low, a large propor¬
tion of the recipients had income in kind. Since the value of this
income was frequently estimated to be $5 or more, it obviously repre¬
sented a substantial portion of total income. Tnere were notable
exceptions, however. In West Virginia, for ex;unple, less than one-
third of the cases had income in kind, and this income was valued
at $5 or more in only one-sixth of all cases. Therefore, though the
average income of old-age assistance cases in the State was low, it
must have consisted largely of cash. Table 15 shows the proportion
of cases having income in kind with an estimated value of less than
$5, and of |5 or more, and provides a basis for estimating roughly
the relative importance of cash and kind income to recipients in
each State .

- 34 -

Table I5. --Percentage distribution of cases with income in kind and
estimated value of such income, for 20 States in a month in 19^i4-

State

All

cases

No

income
in kind

Income in kind

All

cases

Estimated value

Less

than

$5

$5 or
more

Total 1/ .

100.0

61.6

38.4

12.9

25.5

North Carolina .

100.0

16.3

83.7

13.2

• 70.5

Mississippi .

100.0

17.0

83.0

30.8

52.2

New Mexico .

100.0

23.0

77.0

26 .6

50.5

Virginia .

100.0

26. h

73.6

17.0

56 .6

Oklahoma .

100.0

3^.2

65.8

7.5

58.3

Tennessee .

100.0

i^l.7

58.3

31.2

27.2

Missouri .

100.0

1^7.0

53.0

22.9

30.1

Vermont .

100.0

1^8.0

52.0

7.2

44.7

North Dakota .

100.0

58.2

41.8

12.8

29.0

Kansas .

100.0

61.7

38.3

14.3

24.0

Maine .

100.0

62.7

37.3

5.7

31.6

Michigan .

100.0

68.2

31.8

8.1

23.7

West Virginia .

100.0

68.7

31.3

15.2

16.1

Minnesota .

100.0

70.0

30.0

11.2

18.8

California .

100.0

73.1

26.9

17.5

9.4

Rhode Island .

100.0

7^.3

25.7

4.S

21.4

New Hampshire .

100.0

75.1

24.9

6.8

18.0

Illinois .

100.0

80.0

20.0

5.3

14.7

District of Columbia. . . .

100.0

82.4

17.6

4.0

13.6

Massachusetts .

100.0

91.0

9.0

1.0

8.0

1/ Excludes Montana, for which comparable data are not available.

- 35 -

TOTAL INCOME INCLUDING THE VALUE OF INCOME IN KIND

Total income available to recipients includes assistance pay¬
ments, cash income from earnings or other sources, and the value of
income in kind. An exact money value was not placed on income in
kind for each case with such income, but for etich such case States
were able to estimate whether the value amounted to more or less
than $5* In computing average income, cases with income in kind
valued at $5 or more, but on which no exact money value had been
placed by the agency, were excluded. Cases with income in kind
valued at less than $5 were included. However, the average value
of such income per assistance case was negligible since both the
estimated value of the income and the proportion of cases with such
income were small.

The study supports the conclusion that differences in fiscal
capacities of the States are the greatest single cause of differences
in levels of assistance. Vdien total income of assistance cases is
considered, the low averages generally occur in States with low per
capita income. Table 16 shows the States ranked (l) by average in¬
come of cases consisting of recipient only and of recipient and
spouse and (2) by per capita income in 1944*

The average amoiants of total income in the States ranged from
$52.04 to $15.58 for recipient-only cases end from $75.79 to $24.19
for cases that included the recipient and spouse (table I6) . In
other words, on the average, assistance cases in the State with the
highest per capita income had three times as much to live on as those
in the State with the lowest per capita income. The six States with
the lowest per capita incomes had the lowest average amounts of total
income available to recipients.

Factors contributing to the wide range among the States in
average amounts of total income are the same as those discussed
previously under differences in amounts of requirements, assistance
payments, and total cash incomes. The added factor is the differ¬
ence in the value of income in kind. Because the amount of income
in kind was relatively large in some States, the ranking of States
by average income differs somewhat from the ranking ty amo\mt of
cash income.

For a number of reasons, the State variations in the average
amount of total income of assistance cases cannot be considered as
representing absolute differences in what recipients have to live
on. The extent to which the cost of medical care is included in
determining the amount of assistance payments affects the averages.

As already indicated, there is great diversity in State methods of
meeting the cost of medical care for recipients. In some States,

- 36 -

Table l6. --Average Income of cases for which total income was reported,
by type of case in a month in 19^> and State rank in average
per capita income for 19^4

Recipient only l/

Recipient and spouse 2/

State

Average

income

State rank
in average
income

State rank
in

per capita
income,

1944

Average

income

State rank
in average
income

State rank
in

per capita
income,

1944

Total .

$37.17

---

$38.02

—

jlifomia .

52.04

1

1

—

—

tssachusetts .

46.68

2

5

75.79

1

1

bode Island .

38.81

3

6

65.01

2

2

prth Dakota .

38.48

4

10

62.46

3

6

Dntana . .

37.25

5

7

59.10

4

3

^strict of Columbia.

35.30

6

4

—

—

---

ichigan .

34.0?

7

3

—

—

---

llinois .

33.67

8

2

—

—

—

aine .

33.28

9

9

53.29

5

5

Innesota .

32.64

10

13

---

ew Mexico .

31.38

11

19

51.06

7

14

few Hampshire .

30.87

12

14

51.84

6

9

femont .

30.78

13

12

46.82

9 -

8

ansas .

30.10

14

8

44.15

10

4

Ussouri .

29.00

15

11

50.83

8

7

Idahoma .

28.59

16

16

41.76

11

11

'irginia .

21.01

17

15

38.05

12

10

brth Carolina .

20.56

18

20

32.14

14

15

jlssissippi .

18.69

19

21

32.33

13

16

bet Virginia .

15.60

20

17

24.19

16

12

bnnessee .

15.58

21

18

25.37

15

13

./ 21 States.

1/ 16 States; excludes 5 States that made separate budgets for each eligible individual.

relatively large medical bills, including the cost of hospital care j
during acute illnesses, may be met through the money payment to the
recipient. In other States, amounts included for medical care may |

be small and intended to enable the recipient to pay for an occasional
visit to the doctor or for drugs in case of chronic disability. The
agency may meet the cost of additional medical care through payments .
to vendors from general assistance or other funds, or free care may
be provided in public hospitals. The cost of care met through these
sources is not reflected in the total income of recipients. In ti^o '

of the States included in the study, practically all the income of
recipients was available to meet maintenance needs. In West Virginia,
the agency met the cost of medical care by payments to vendors from
general assist^uice funds. In the District of Columbia, medical care
was provided largely by public hospitals and other community agencies.

Although the inclusion of amounts for medical care tends to
raise the average payments and average incomes of cases, it does not
necessarily result in high averages. For example, amounts ranging
from $3 to |9 to meet medical bills were included in the budgets of
more th^ two-fifths of the cases in one State. Yet assistance pay¬
ments were extremely low because the agency was unable to meet the
budget deficits in full. '

Practices with respect to evaluation of cash income and of
income in kind also significantly affect the average total income
of cases. State agencies have placed increasing emphasis in policy
materials on the fact that resources considered in determining need
should be actually available to recipients and should be received
with regularity. As has already been pointed out, however, it is
evident that in 1944 policy or practice in evaluating income differed
very substantially among the States. HI

Average income for recipient-only cases in the States that
prepare a separate budget for each recipient would have been some-
what higher if data for cases in which two or more persons in a
family received old-age assistance had been excluded before the
averages were computed.

Although the factors discussed above affect the ranking of
States by average amount of total income of old-age assistance cases,
it is evident that, even if State practices had been more nearly
uniform, the States that rank high would still be in the top portion
of the scale, though possibly in different order. Similarly, the j

other States would change ranx only within a. limited area on the ,1

scale. The \ride range among the States in the amounts recipients
had to live on would not be substantially less than is revealed by »

the data presented here. Significant narrowing of the range could
be achieved only by the adoption of more nearly uniform standards
for requirements and policies for considering resources, coupled
with sufficient funds to meet need ^ full.

- 38 -

Table 1?. — Percentage distribution of recipient- only cases by specified amount
of total income, for 21 States in a month in 19^4 l/

Q

<0

CVJ

CM

1

CM CM

rH

1 1

,

1

H VO

1 4-

1

b— 1

1

I

o

•

•

1

• •

• •

1 1

•

1

1

•

•

1 •

1

• 1

1

iH

O

o

o

1

CMl

CMl

1 1

1

1

rH

1

1

1

a

ON

On

OJ

CM

1

1 CM

VO CM

1 iH

-4

1

1

1

rH

1 CM

1

iTN 1

1

1

♦

•

1

1 •

• ^****>N. •

1 ♦

•

1

•

1

«

1 •

1

1

• 1

1

1

1

O

o

1

CM|

CMl

I

1

1

1

1

ON

-<e-

ON

00

CO

1

1 iTN

rH

1 iH

CM

1

1

1

CO

1 1

1

CM 1

1

1

•

•

1

1 •

• •

1 •

•

1

1

1

•

1 1

1

• 1

1

1

o

o

1

CM|

1

H CM|

1

1

1

1

1 1

1

1

CO

■ce-

On

VO

I>-

VO

CO

1

iH

CM

ro CM 1

1 iH

1

CM

1

1 1

1

1

1

1

•

•

1

•

• •

• ♦ 1

1

•

1

•

1

•

1 1

1

• 1

1

1

O

o

iH

1

CM 1

1

1

1

1 1

1

-ce-

ON

VO

OJ

CM

CO rH

iTN rH

ON H

1 00

VO

1

O

1

IfN

rH On

1

VO CM

1

•

•

•

•

• •

• • •

1

•

•

1

»

• •

«

• •

1

o

OJ

iTN rH

iH

VO

1

iH

1

fH

1

rH

1

H

i

VD

•ce-

ON

ITN

CO

IfN ir\ CO CM 00

CO -:d- -=f

O VO

CM

CM

<3N

VO CM

1

1

IfN CM

1

1

1

CO

lOv

CM

lO

CM H

CM CM

rH

CO rH

CO

CM

VO

CM

iTN

OJ

(ON

CM

-ce-

CJN

o

1

o

CM

Q\ ITN

CO rH ITN CO ITN

COCO

rH

ITNVO

-4 -4 00

rH VO

CM

1

o

ir\

1

f

c>>oo

<D CM

CJN CO <VN

CO CM

o

O

CO

r-i

rH

iH

#H

CM

H CM

CO CM CM

CM

iH

iH

CM

4

ON

m

.VO

1

iTN iH

O IfNOO

CO CM

t— t^-4

IfN

O CO

CM 00

ON

1

•

1

1

4 4

o

ITN

O

CO rH CO

IfN CO C

CO CM

CTN COOO -4

t--

fH

O 00

CO

CO

CM

VO

CO CO

CM -=}■ -=^

-d"

ITN -4

m

IfN

CO CO

4

-fe-

<0N

C\J

H

1

iH

CM -4- ir\

C— -=»■ VO

C^-d-

t-- CO CM -4

ON

CM 4 4

CO VO

CM

1

o

1

1

CC| c- N-CO

00 CM

H CM

O VO VO

CJn-4

O rH 4

On h- CJN

CM

CM

fH

CM CM

CM CO CO_:i-

iH

CO -4 -4

iH

IfN rH

iH

C04

-«/?-

CJN

iH

t--

1

VO

O

CM 0-

1 CO CM

CTn H

H

ITN O

rH

1

1

t-- 1-- O

H VO

t—

1

1

1

«

•

• •

1 • •

• •

•

•

•

•

o

00

fH

t— ITN

1 H CM

COCO

IfN rH -4

1

t— CM

CM

On VO

r^

VO

-4

00

CO '

-ce-

00

CO

s

o

CM

1

1

1

1 1

1 1 1

-4- 1

1

1

1

o

1

rH 1

CM

CM 00

O

®

A H
-P

•

O

1

1

1

1

1

1

1 1

1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

• 1

1

1

1

1

1

•

•H

1

1

1

•

rH

• •

iH

ON

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

03

•

•

•

• •

• •

• •

• • •

• • ♦

• • •

• •

• •

• •

•

•

•

#

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

• •

• •

• •

« •

• •

• •

•

•

•

#

•

•H

•

• •

• • •

• •

•

•

•

• ♦

•

•

•

•

•

•

• •

• •

# • •

• • •

• •

• •

•

•

•

•

•

•

• «

• •

• •

•

•

State

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

rH

O

O

•

•

•

•

• •

• •

• •

• •

• •

• • •

• • •

00 • •

• •

• •

• •

• •

• •

• •

•

«

•

•

•

•

®

U

•

•

•

•

od

33

•H

•

•

•

03

• •

• •

• •

• *03

• •

• •

• •

• •

•

•

03

•H

•

♦

•

05

O

•

•

•

♦ «

• •

• •

H-> • •

® • •

00 • 03

•H •

^ •

•

•

•

•H

43

ro

•

o

o

H

O

P

■P

O

■a

: 9

• iH

®

• «

• •

• a5

(3

•H

bO

•P

m

• •

*rH *rH

•

03

ft -H

03

00

®

P

o

•H

• •

43 3 o

00 h

O

p

'a M

ro

■P -H

•H

Q

o

(h

•H

§

00 •

(d ®

o bO (0
03 -H ®

ro 3
•H O

§

3

w

43

43

o

ro

®

§s

>

EH

•H

■P

CO

•H

00 cl
fl •H

CO 43 S
to u n

ro ro
ro m

a

>

>

-P

+3

05 'Ci
H O

§ g ffa

Oi

o

•H

ffj ff}

(d "H *H

•H “H

o

®

<D

O

O

M 43

<D

® vH

<D

p

M

M S

S X X

X X

X

tz;

o pa

- 39 -

l/ Excludes cases for which total income was not known.
2/ Less than 0.05 percent.

Table 18. --Percentage distribution of recipient- and- spouse cases by specified amount of

total income, for l6 States in a month in 19^4 l/

o

0

o

U

u

IfN

-4- 00

on

1

O 1 IPx

1 On

« o

1

»

1 1

iH

o

o

•

•

•

•

1 •

• 1 •

1

1 •

1

1

1 1

-«e-

6

o

on

1

rH 1

1 rH

1 rH

!

f

1 1

On

I o

On

t--

1

lOx

'O'

1 ON

O 1 I

1 On

1

1

1 1

•

1

•

•

1 •

• 1 1

1 ♦

1

!

t

1 1

O

o

1

-4-

1

rH 1 t

1 H

1 OJ

1

1

( 1

On

-ce-

ON

00

CO

^ VO

1 on

OJ o

1 on

1 o

1

!

1 1

1

•

«

•

•

1 •

• • •

1 •

I •

1

1

I 1

o

OJ

on OJ

1 OJ

on on OJ

1 on

I On

r

1

1 1

CO

a'

On

On

iTN H .4- 00

VO ITx OJ

~=t- O

1

o

CVI 1

•

•

•

•

• •

• • •

• •

• •

!

•

• 1

O

ITN

OJ

ON O

CO OJ OJ

on

OJ a.

1

VC

OJ I

r-

-ij-

rH

H

On

VO

O

on On ON On 00

ON O 00

O -d-

OJ O

OJ

o

OJ 1

1

•

•

•

•

• •

• • •

• •

• •

«

•

• »

o

ON

ITN VO

iH

O ITN h- rH -4-

H ITN

VC

OJ 1

VO

rH

OJ

•H

on rH

on

on

■te-

On

ir\

on

CO

ON OJ

on OJ

t-- ^ 00

LfNVO

on o

O! VO »

1

•

•

•

•

• •

• • •

• •

• •

•

•

» f

o

-:J-

on m H

(H O

CO t- ITN on ON

ITn OJ

VC CO 1

ITN

iH

fH

OJ

OJ

on on on

on

OJ

rH

-ee-

On

-d-

iH

rH

OJ CO -:t

VD -:d- O

u'n t-

H O

iH

t--

aN-:d-

•

•

•

•

• •

• • •

• •

• •

•

•

• •

O

VO

on H

O, ON

L''N OJ On rH

C--00

rH VO

o

OJ

on

on

H OJ

H

On on

-m-

On

on

on

On

1

rH O

C r- im H ON

ITN O

c ^

ON-^

O

d

on On

[

VO iTN

rH OJ -4-

0^1 on ON on _:J- CM

on

OJ

on

irx rH

rH

.4-

rH '

rH

rH

on rH

ax

OJ

o

00 CO

1

O rH

rH 1

ON 1

VD O

ON on rH

1

•

•

•

1

• •

• • 1

• 1

o

CO

1

ITN

iH 1

on 1

rH

o

rH

t— CO

OJ

iH

m

on

rH

a:

q

00

o

iH

1

on

1

~=i- 1

1 1 1

OJ 1

1 1

ON

on oi

o

OJ

•

1

•

1

• 1

1 1 1

• 1

1 1

•

• •

-ee-

CV'

1

1

1

1 1 1

ITN 1

1 1

00

-d- (On

0)

•

♦

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

»

•

•

•

• •

• •

• •

• «

• •

• •

• •

• •

• •

• • •

* • *

• • •

• • •

• • •

• • •

• • •

• • •

• • •

• •

• •

• •

• •

• •

• •

• •

• •

0 •

• •

• •

• •

« •

♦ •

• •

• •

« •

• •

•

•

♦

♦

•

•

•

•

•

' • •

• •

• •

• •

• •

• •

•

• •

• •

•

•

•

CO

• •

» <D t

Pi •

• •

•

• cd

cd

•

•

■p

• •

• •

•H 0

•

• •H

+3

evil

•

•

-p

•H •

• •H •

rH -P

• B

•

* Pi

ca

•

•

0

p< •

• xi o

o o

* 0

«

«

rH

•

•

m

ft •

• 0 O

♦ rH

0

• tiO

cti

•

P

•H •H

• ft hH

0 0

0

0 Pi

-p

•

•

x:

0 ^

0 fi «

O ft

a M

0

-p

•H •H

O

m

#

o

CO p

C 0 0

o

0

Pi

Eh

cd

0

0

•H O

0 w s

,C1 XI

^ 0

0

o

m

a

•iH

CD

CD

m CO

CD CO

•p

Pi >

■p -p

Pi Pi

0 '0
r-j O

§ g

bO -P

Pi 0

W

0

•H •H

O 0 0

O O

^ Xi

(1)

0

•H 0

s

S

S 2

s & s

S #2;

O ft

Eh

>

>

HIOJI

Excludes cases for which total income was not known.

Excludes 5 States that made separate budgets for each eligible individual

A distribution of cases by amount of total income tiiro?/s
additional light on variations among the States in total income
available to old-age assistance cases. In addition, it reflects
the variations in the total income of recipients within each State.
The distribution for recipient-only cases by amoimt of total income
is shown in table 17, and for cases that included the recipient and
spouse, in table 18.

Because the California law provided a minimum below which
total income may not fall and sufficient funds were made available
to carry out the intent of the law, each recipient had at least $50.
Recipients vd.th more than |50 income are those with income from earn¬
ings or other sources whose requirements, determined on a budgetary
basis, exceeded $50. Massachusetts, which has a minimura for assist¬
ance plus other income, shows a wider distribution of cases by amount
of income, because the minimum varies according to the recipient’s
living arrangements. Three-fourths of the recipient-only cases in
Massachusetts had incomes of $40 or more. Those falling below that
amount were recipient-only cases living in family groups, or husband
and wife living together for each of whom income was determined
separately. In Rhode Island, one-half of the recipients had total
incomes of $40 or more. In contrast with these States, two States
reported that four-fifths of the recipients in recipient-only cases
had total incomes of less than $20; in Mississippi, approximately
two- thirds of the recipients had less than this amount. In two
additional States, more than two-fifths of the recipients had less
than $20. In the remaining States the majority of the recipients
had from $20 to $40.

- 41 -

V. APPENDIX

SAMPLES ON THE DATA ARE BASED

Data for 20 of the 21 States were recorded for a sample of
recipients selected by random sampling methods. In introducing
plans for the study, the Bureau of Public Assistance recommended
to State agencies that the sample include at least 1,000 recipients.

A larger sample, not to exceed 5,000, was suggested lor States with
relatively large case loads. The proportion of the recipients in¬
cluded in the sample, the actual size of the sample in each State,
and the month to which the data relate are shown in table 19.

Because of budgetary practices in some States, it was nec¬
essary to adjust the sample of "recipients" to obtain a sample of
assistance "cases." For purposes of the study, an assistance group
or "case" was defined to include those individuals whose personal
requirements and resources were included in the budget. Cases were
classified as recipient-only, recipient and spouse, and recipient
and others, with or without spouse.

In recipient-only cases, the requirements of one recipient
were included in the budget, and the old-age assistance payment
was intended to meet the needs of this recipient only. For recip-
ient-and- spouse cases, tlie requirements of botli husband and wife
were included in the budget. The spouse may have been eligible
for assistance or may have been included as essential to the well¬
being of the recipient. Similarly, the cases that included the
recipient and others, with or without spouse, might include one
or more other persons eligible for old-age assistance.

Whether separate payments were made to individuals in cases
that included two or more persons depended on two factors — the
eligibility of each individual in the case and agency practice.

If only one individual was eligible for old-age assistance, one pay¬
ment was made to the case. If the case included two or more eligible
individuals, the number of old-age assistance payments made to the
case depended on the practice in the particular State. In some States
the usual practice was to make a separate payment to each eligible
individual. In a number of States, however, the needs of two or more
eligible individuals were usually met through one assistance payment.

Since the original sample w^as based on recipients, "cases"
that included two or more recipients had more chance of being drawn
in the sajaple than cases that included only one recipient. To cor¬
rect the sample for the overrepresentation of cases that included

- 42 -

two or more recipients, one-half
selected on a random basis, were
sample of ”cases," therefore, is
cipients in States that followed
more old-age assistance payments
Financial data presented in this
recipients.

the schedules for such cases,
eliminated. 14/ The resulting
smaller than the sample of re-
the practice of basing two or
on a single budget (table 19).
report are for cases rather than

14/ Since the number of cases in which more than two payments were
based on a single budget vTas negligible, no further adjustment
was made for these cases.

- 43 -

Table 19.--Size of sample and month in 19^4 to which data

<D

On -p

H ^ o!

O iH
CJ (D
•H ^ J.,

>

XS cC
-P O -P
C +> (d
O •xi
S

u

P

0

0

p

P

P

P

B

0

0

P

0

P

P

0

0

>

0

bO

P

&)

P

>

0

<

<:

p:;

>5

-P

CO

<

U

pH

<

0)

•i

>> -p
rH P<

P 0) .

ca h)

t>^

'3

p

u

0

0

0)

p

p

,9

a

0

0

p

tn >> >> p

>

o

<D

ca

^ pi
•-0 i-a

I

>>
Ph fH
<D P
CO ^

0

-p

0^

H

0

U

0

0

0

c3

O

0

-P

P

0

•H

P^

•H

O

0

«

■s

On

00

O m L'^ LTN L^N
O OO OJ OJ VJD
OJ C-- On^ <M

•s •v ^ n

oj c— m

LTN CVl OJ rH

iH iH

O O O O m
C\joocOCC'-4-
-4- ITN OO OJ 00

•v ^ ^ •s

H irwo VC MD

r— 00 ir\ oj CO

00 00 O O VO

8 H 10.00 on

CM no LTx

•s •s

o ir\ iTN m

iH ro

iTN on o on CM o

CM (On t-- ltn

CM CJnVD 00 -4

•\ •v •v ^ •v

VO c^-:t ITNCC

cn H iH

OJ

-4-

CVJ

m

o

<?\

8 00 ir\ m o

roc\JC^-4-

OJ t-- On OJ H

•V •s •v ^ Vv

ai ir\ CO itn
IfV CM CM rH
cH iH

O O O O CM
VD 00 OC' 00 -4
4- LTn on CM CO

•\ •v

•N

VO ITS VO VO CM
CO L'^ CM O

iH

VO -4 ITN C CO
CM 00 4 CO VO
ononmonr—

•S •v

H VO ir\cr) CO

•H on

ir\ o o CM o

CM o ir\ CM ir\
O CTn CM CO 4

•V •v ^ ^ ^ •s

VD IfN iTNOO

CO H rH

0?

rH

Ph

0

P

u

0

rP

0

0

0

o3

O

0

-P

P

0

•H

Ph

•H

O

0

K

on

ITN

iH

4

■sR

o r-i r— on
4 H on On LTn
CM CT\ O O VO

•v

ir\ LTN iH CM

H ON 4 00
rH fH on
lA CM CO on VO

•s •«» •>

on 4 CM

•V •v

^ CM

CO on o ON CM
O tr\ ITN VC 4
O CT\ O VO (On

•\ •v •x

O iH rH

On (On O LA CM O
VA CTn onoo (On on
O CO lACO On CM

on

CM

•N

rH

O rH rH CO
4 rH on on CM
CM CJN O rH O

•V •s

ITN LTn H on

on On ON -d-
CVJ C — iH rH CV'
QD CM 00 on rH

•V •v

on 4 CM rH on

VO 4 ON (On VO
CM VO VO VO (On
on o O VO O

•v

rH rH iH rH rH

ON Q O O CM O
VO O on (On ON on
O O LA (ON On CM

•v •V

on rH CM rH

O UA (A
on on CM CM tA

rH rH rH rH rH

o o c o on

CO CM CM CM on

rH rH rH rH rH

o

iH VO lA CM CO

^ rH rH rH rH

LA lA VO lA
lA rH rH

rH rH rH rH rH iH

0

03

■P

CO

0^

•H

A

H

C

o

rH

cd

-p

o

Eh

cd O

ep 0

O -H

O -H O 0

<P P P Cd 0

•H p tH 0 p

rH © iH P -H

Oj •H rH S Cd

O P M M S

0 •

p

•

•

•

• • •

cd

p

p

♦

Ti

• • •

•H

•H •

rH

4^

•

p

♦ • •

P

P 0

0

0

•

0

• • •

P

0 0

U

•

P

W)

P4 -H

cd

od

0

0 • P

Jh

S X

0

P

a

M

0 p •H

P

B 0

0

® P P

>

m s

P

P

A

0

0 0

p

P

0

T3

p i

4-^

> >

u

u

H

0

P P ^

0

0 0

0

0

P

0 0 P

0

&

&

0

s

Eh > >

>

- 44 -

U. S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 0-1948

ij Approximate figures; actual proportion for Missouri was 1/32.92; for Vermont, I/5.28.

"ils 27

THE APPLICATION PROCESS
IN

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE REPORT NO. 14

C

FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Bureau of Public Assistance >

Aii,

&lh A/ £

V

; Foreword _ ii

Definitions _

Understanding the Application Process _

‘ Interviewing Applicants. _ _

: The Opportunity to Apply _

Safeguarding the Opportunity to Apply _ 7

I Public Information, Office Facilities, and Staffing _ 8

P Promptness and Efficiency in the Application Process _ 9

’ Expediting the Application Process _ 9

i' Controls _ 11

• Determination of Initial Eligibility _ 11

Exploring Eligibility _ 12

The Decision _ _ _ 14

Payments to Eligible Applicants _ 15

Procedures Safeguarding an Applicant’s Rights _ 15

Staff Development and the Application Process _ j - 17

L‘ Selected References - 19

(I)

|.

M w CO

Foreword

This statement on the application process in public assistance ad¬
ministration was developed in the Bureau of Public Assistance to meet
the need for a policy statement in an area not adequately covered by
previous Bureau materials or fully discussed in professional literature.
The standards are based on the Bureau’s knowledge of State public
assistance agency operations secured from State reports and continuous
negotiations with State agency staffs. The Bureau acknowledges the
contribution made to this statement by State agencies through use of
their material and through comments made by State agency staffs on
the draft statement.

The Bureau's requirements for the operation of State plans under
the Social Security Act as they relate to determination of initial eligi¬
bility and the application process are set forth here as minimum stand¬
ards. Each standard is interpreted and commented on, and recom¬
mendations are made concerning effective methods of establishing the
standards in agency practice. F rom the standpoint of the client and of
the agency, the application process in any program, public or private,
family or child welfare, constitutes one of the most important areas
of agency activity. These standards are offered for consideration by
staff members of public and private agencies and by faculty and
students of schools of social work in the hope that they mfiy con¬
tribute toward delineation and clarification of the principles involved
in receiving and acting on applications in all fields of social case work.
A significant contribution to professional practice can be made, par¬
ticularly by public welfare staffs, if their experiences in the prepara¬
tion of standards in relation to these proposals, and their discoveries
in the use of such standards, are written down and made available for
study and discussion.

Jane M. Hoey, Director^

Bureau of Public Assistance.

May 1, 1948

(ii)

THE APPLICATION PROCESS

IN

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION

The application process in public assistance administration is an
important focus of agency operation because it is the means by which
an individual asserts his claim to assistance. The application process
encompasses all activity related to an application, from an individual’s
first indication to the agency that he wishes to receive assistance or to
have his eligibility considered to the receipt of payment or other dis¬
position of his application. The purpose of the application process,
therefore, is to receive applications, to assist applicants in exploring
eligibility for assistance, to determine initial eligibility or ineligibility,
and to assure the issuance of initial payments to eligible persons.

Democratic principles of equity require that eligibility for benefits
in publicly supported programs be defined by law. State laws, there¬
fore, specify the eligibility requirements in effect in the public as¬
sistance programs. This specification removes from the discretion
of the administration the right to exclude persons who come within
the scope of the program. All persons meeting the eligibility qualifi¬
cations are equal before the law and have a right to receive assistance
under a uniform application of the law. The right of eligible persons
to receive assistance is also inherent in the requirements of the Social
Security Act for the development and operation of State public as¬
sistance plans. Methods of administration necessary for proper and
efficient operation of State plans under the Social Security Act ^ are
interpreted to include standards and procedures that protect this right
for each individual by making the opportunity to apply for assistance
freely available and by granting assistance promptly to each eligible
individual. Also, under the Social Security Act, State agencies are
responsible for establishing methods of administration that provide
for a determination of eligibility or ineligibility on an equitable basis
for each applicant and recipient.

The State plan, as required under the Social Security Act,^ is con¬
sidered to be a means of achieving efficient administration of the public

1 Social Security Act as amended, title I, sec. 2 (a) (5), title IV, sec. 402 (a) (5), and
title X, sec. 1002 (a) (5).

’ Ibid title I, sec. 1, title IV, sec. 401, and title X, sec. 1001.

(1)

2

assistance programs. Therefore, ceilain minimum requirements forS
State plans® have been established as essential to attaining efficiency |
in determining eligibility and in carrying out the application process.)!
In these activities the administration of public assistance agencies is|
appraised not only by the provisions of the State plan but also by |j
agency practice in carrying out the provisions.

The five criteria that follow offer a means of evaluating the applica¬
tion process as it is carried on in public assistance agencies : ,

1. All persons desiring to receive assistance have an opportunity
to apply to the agency administering assistance.

2. All applications for assistance are given prompt and efficient
consideration and action by the agency administering assist¬
ance.

3. Eligibility or ineligibility to receive assistance is determined
for each individual application.

4. All applicants determined to be eligible receive an assistance
payment.

5. All activity of the agency in receiving and acting upon appli¬
cations is carried on in a manner that enables each individual
to maintain his personal dignity and integrity.

Carrying out the application process in accordance with these
criteria depends largely on the establishment of State-v;ide policies
and procedures that clearly define the methods of handling applica¬
tions and the job of each individual staff member in the total process —
policies that make it possible for each agency worker to act on indi¬
vidual applications promptly and with confidence. Supervision is
important in the entire process to assure the agency that staff members
understand the principles on which policies are based, have knowledge
of agency policies and procedures, and apply the policies appropri¬
ately in individual situations with confidence and dispatch.

In using this document as a guide in working with applicants,
agency workers are reminded that these standards and recommenda¬
tions do not supersede any State agency’s instructions to its staff. To
the extent that social workers can apply these principles within the
framework of agency standards and procedures, the proposals have
validity for staff use. In instances in which agency standards and
procedures may not have been as fully developed as recommended here,
staff can apply these principles only within agency limitations.

I

If

® The requirements for State plans under the Social Security Act are issued to State
agencies administering public assistance under the act by the Bureau of Public Assistance,
Social Security Administration, Federal Security Agency, in the Handbook of Public Assist¬
ance Administration. This handbook is not available for general distribution.

3

Definitions

For clarity, certain words used repeatedly throughout this paper are
defined as follows :

An applicant is a person who has expressed to the agency adminis¬
tering public assistance a desire to receive assistance and whose appli¬
cation has not been terminated. For aid to dependent children, the
relative with whom a child will live is the applicant in the child’s
behalf.’

An application is an action by which an individual indicates his
desire to receive assistance to the agency administering public assis¬
tance. Applications, which are construed to include reapplications,
continue in effect until terminated. An individual may present his
application through another person authorized to act in his behalf.

Termination of an application is effected by one of the following
actions :

1. Written notification to the applicant that a payment in a
stated amount has been authorized.

2. Written notification to the applicant that his application is
denied, including the reason for the denial.

3. Notation in the individual or family record that the appli¬
cation has been disposed of because of death or inability to
locate the applicant, or because the applicant has decided
he does not want to pursue his application further.

Understanding the Application Process

Before an agency can develop satisfactory standards and procedures
relating to the application process and before agency staff can carry
them out in a manner that meets the criteria for evaluating agency
action, each member of the staff should understand fully the purpose
of the process, its essential elements or basic steps, and its meaning
to both the applicant and the agency. The analysis of the applica¬
tion process presented here will, it is believed, help agencies to develop
standards and procedures that provide for a better quality of service
to applicants and for more efficient administration of the programs.
The mere fact of analysis tends to make the application process ap¬
pear somewhat formidable and routine; in reality, however, it cannot
be routine in nature nor is it usually complicated. On the contrary,
the methods of handling applications need to be adustable to the
varying circumstances of each individual applicant.

The application process usually consists of three more or less clearly
defined steps.

4

1. During the first step the applicant with the help of the worker
tells the agency why he is applying and relates his circumstances in
sufficient detail to substantiate his request for assistance. In the course
of this discussion the worker informs the applicant about the assistance
programs for which he may be eligible and the conditions of eligibility
that must be established. The applicant needs to know what infor¬
mation is necessary to establish his eligibility and also the extent to
which he is expected to participate in establishing his eligibility. He
must, furthermore, know what help the agency is prepared to give him
in establishing it. When, in addition, he has gained an understanding
of the agency’s responsibility for carrying out the provisions of the
law in accordance with its established standards and procedures he
then is in a position both to assume his responsibilities and to protect '
his rights, particularly with respect to fair hearings and the jirotec- ■
tion of confidential data furnished or otherwise made available to the
agency.

On the basis of the information received or already known to the '
applicant, he decides whether or not he wishes to pursue his applica¬
tion further. If so, it is the agency’s responsibility to inform the appli¬
cant that he may be eligible for assistance under more than one pro¬
gram, and thereby enable him to decide for which type of assistance he •'
wishes to apply. The applicant may need, depending on his previous i
experience and knowledge of the programs and his intelligence and *
emotional condition, varying amounts of help from the agency in i
relating to his own particular circumstances what he knows or learns i
about the agency and the programs. The decision to continue the '
application or to terminate it is the applicant’s and his alone. This ;
fact does not, however, relieve the agency of responsibility for giving
every applicant whatever help he may need and wish to use in arriving
at a decision.

The degree to which the first step can be distinguished from the next :
depends on the applicant’s accurate knowledge of the agency and the '
assistance programs, his ability to relate this knowledge to his own •
circumstances, and the agency’s procedure for receiving and recording r
api)lications. If the agency requires a written application, there is no j
difficulty in determining when the first step in the application process ,
ends. It ends when the applicant decides to formalize his application ^
in writing. I

The time needed to complete the first step depends largely on the 1
applicant, even though it is considered advisable for the agency to set a i
reasonable time limit. For example, a person who has previously |
applied for or received assistance may know enough about the pro- |
grams to decide immediately to carry his application through to a
final decision by the agency. In such cases, the first step takes only a
few moments. Another applicant, after talking with the worker, may i

o

wisli to think the matter over and discuss it with his family before
proceeding further. The agency should give him that opportunity,
with the understanding that applications cannot pend indefinitely
and that he should notify the agency of his decision at a date agreed
upon.

2. The second step begins when the applicant decides to continue
the process of establishing his eligibility. During this step, the ex¬
ploration of eligibility is completed, and the agency reaches a decision
to authorize assistance or to deny the application, subject, of course,
to the applicant’s right to terminate his application at any point. The
consideration of initial eligibility continues without delay in accord¬
ance with a plan worked out jointly by the applicant and the worker.
The second step is terminated by one of three actions— ^authorization
of the amount of assistance, denial of assistance, or the applicant’s
decision not to pursue his application further.

3. The third step in the process concerns only approved applica¬
tions, since it begins with the authorization of assistance. This step
does not involve direct contact with the applicant but, rather, includes
the administrative procedures involved in getting the payment into
the hands of the new recipient. In general, public welfare agencies
have not fully recognized that the degree of efficiency with which this
step is carried out affects the quality of service to applicants quite as
much as does the case worker's sensitivity in interviewing applicants.
The removal of barriers to prompt action in issuing payments, whether
they result from organizational structure or administrative or fiscal
procedures, should receive the immediate attention of each State
agency.

Interviewing Applicants

The first and second steps are carried out by one or more interviews
with the applicant and by whatever other means may be necessary to
supplement the information the applicant can furnish to establish his
eligibility.

Each individual interview follows its own pattern and no two inter¬
views, even between the same two persons, can be identical. Since an
interview is a joint undertaking, it develops in accordance with the
needs of the moment and not according to a set plan. Application
interviews are planning sessions. While the applicant is being en¬
couraged and assisted to tell his story and while the worker is bringing
IQ in, at appropriate points, the information that the applicant needs to
know, both are initiating the exploration of eligibility and are reach¬
ing an agreement on future plans and the activity of each.

The number of interviews needed to determine eligibility depends
_ on the individual situation. In general, if procedural requirements
^ for determining eligibility are simplified, skilled interviewers should

6

be able in a larg:e number of instances to establish eligibility or in¬
eligibility in one interview.

The purpose of the interview, the applicant’s specific situation, and
agency facilities influence the choice of setting for the interview. In
some instances an office interview may be more satisfactory than a
home visit. The office setting is free from the distractions that exist
in some homes and may be especially appropriate for persons who live
in boarding homes or institutions. If, for some reason, the agency is
unable to interview applicants when they first come to the office, the
agency should arrange an appointment with the least possible delay.

In the course of the application process, the worker should tell the
applicant about the agency and the progi’ams and about his rights
and responsibilities under the State plan. Some of this information
is provided during the first step and some during the second. Many
agencies give the applicants a descriptive pamphlet^ that includes
much of the necessary information. A pamphlet is a helpful tool, but
its use does not relieve the agency of the responsibility for oral inter¬
pretation of the programs during the course of interviews if applicants
do not fully understand the agency’s functions and operation.

An agency should make sure that, at appropriate points in the appli¬
cation process and as needed, each applicant is informed concerning :

1. The programs administered by the agency, including :

a. Conditions of eligibility, and

b. Factual information required to establish eligibility, and to
determine the amount of payment.

2. How the agency operates, including :

a. The participation of the agency in exploring eligibility,

b. The agency’s responsibility for making the decision regard¬
ing eligibility or ineligibility,

c. The method of determining the amount of payment, and

d. When the applicant can expect a decision and how he will be
notified.

3. Provisions safeguarding an applicant’s right, including :

a. F air hearing,

b. Confidentiality of information, and

c. The money payment.

4. A client’s responsibilities, including:

a. The extent of the applicant’s participation in presenting
facts to establish his eligibility,

b. A recipient’s obligation to keep the agency informed of
changes in his circumstances that affect continuing eligibil¬
ity or amount of payment.

See Public Information, p. 8.

7

5. Other services and assistance available within the agency or
from other sources to supplement or complement the assist¬
ance for which he has applied.

In providing the foregoing information the worker’s concern is with
the validity and extent of the applicant’s knowledge about agency and
program, especially with the additional information he needs to under¬
stand fully the meaning of the application process to him personally.
If the worker has this concern he will correct misunderstandings about
the programs and will give the additional information the applicant
needs. Even more important, the worker will give this information
in simple terms and, to the best of his ability, at a logical and appro¬
priate point so that the applicant can relate the explanation to his
own circumstances.

The Opportunity to Apply

The following minimum standards are essential to making the op¬
portunity to apply for assistance freely available to all persons :

No person is refused the opportunity to apply for assistance. Oh-
stacles to making application.^ such as requiring the presentation of
preapplication proofs of eligibility or of information that indicates
conclusively or presumptively the eligibility of the applicant as a
condition to accepting the application.^ are inconsistent with this pro¬
vision. As one way of safeguarding the opportunity to apply ^ agen¬
cies define and differentiate between applications and inquiries.

Safeguarding the Opportunity to Apply

Safeguarding the opportunity to apply for assistance depends on
providing maximum assurance that no inquiry or application is ig¬
nored. It is necessary, therefore, that an agency’s instructions to
staff distinguish clearly between inquiries and applications and em¬
phasize the importance of any appropriate follow-up, both on appli¬
cations and on inquiries that appear to be potential applications. It is
recommended that, in defining and differentiating between inquiries
and applications, agencies use some such definition of an inquiry as
the following: An inquiry is a request for information unrelated to
a request for assistance or, if related in general, not identifiable as such
because the person inquiring does not go on to say specifically how the
information requested applies to a specific individual’s need for assist¬
ance. An inquiry cannot be distinguished from an application merely
by the method of requesting the information because both inquiries
and applications may be received in identical ways. An inquiry is
"■distinguished from an application by the intent of the person making
the request to receive information rather than to receive assistance.

Inquiries and applications sometimes come to the agency in the form

791809*-

8

of referrals. A referral is a request for information, service, or
assistance in behalf of an individual, made by an agency, an institu¬
tion, or another person. A referral received by an agency is classed as
an inquiry unless or until the person making the referral states that he
is acting for an applicant with the applicant's knowledge and consent.

An important element in safeguarding the opportunity to apply is
emphasizing to staff that an application has been made when the indi¬
vidual expresses to the agency either his desire to receive assistance or
an interest in having his eligibility considered. Applications may be
made orally or in writing, in person, or through another individual.
Although both inquiries and applications are most frequently made at
the agency’s office, they may also occur in a person’s home or in the
home of a friend, on the street, over the telephone, .through the mail, or
in other ways.

As a further measure in safeguarding the opportunity to apply, it is
recommended that, as soon as an applicant decides that he wishes an
official determination of his eligibility or ineligibility, the application
be formalized in writing on an application form. It is further recom¬
mended that the application form be as simple in content as possible
and include a statement that the applicant wishes to receive a specific
kind of assistance, believes he is eligible, and is willing to give the
information that will help establish eligibility. When an application
form or other statement in writing is used, it is usually signed by the
applicant or by his guardian if the applicant is legally incompetent. It
is recommended that notarization of signatures not be required. Each
blind applicant or other person unable to read will need to have the
application read to him, both to ensure that his statement is correctly
recorded and that it represents the applicant’s wishes. Other data
needed by the agency to begin the process of determining eligibility and
the amount of the payment is best recorded on a separate form, such as
a face sheet, that permits revision as conditions change or additional
facts become available ; or this information maj^ simply be included in
the narrative. It should not cumber the application form.

Public Information, Office Facilities, and Staffing

Agencies may need to review their public relations programs to
determine how best they can inform the community at large, and
potential applicants in particular, about the assistance and services
available through the public assistance agency. A method that is par¬
ticularly useful and pertinent to the application process is the distribu¬
tion of simply worded informational pamphlets to all applicants or
persons visiting agency offices, and to other individuals, agencies, and
institutions interested in and seeking specific information about the
programs. Such pamphlets should describe the agency and its pro-

9

grams and tell how to apply, the conditions of eligibility, the methods
of establishing eligibility, the rights and responsibilities of the
applicant and recipient under the law, and the provisions of the law
that safeguard their rights.

Another factor in making the opportunity to apply available to
all individuals relates to the facilities for interviewing applicants.
A public assistance agency is responsible fcr providing office space
that is readily accessible in the community and affords the applicant
privacy and, so far as possible, freedom from inhibiting distractions
and discomforts during interviews. The needs of the community may
require itinerant interviewing points within a local administrative
unit to supplement the facilities of the local office. Local agencies
should schedule frequent and regular periods during which the office
and interviewing points are open for interviewing, post the schedule
conspicuously in public places, identify the office by outside signs
bearing the exact name of the agency, and through other appropriate
means inform the community served of the agency’s location and office
, hours.

An equally important element is the competence and adequacy of
staff. It is recommended that applicants be interviewed by experi¬
enced and qualified members of the social work staff and, so far as
^ possible, by the most skilled workers available. To assure that re¬
ceptionists in clerical positions are not assigned duties that should be
assumed by members of the social work staff, the agency needs to de¬
fine and clarify the function of a receptionist as it relates to the ap-
■ plication process. If assistance is to be made available effectively, it
I is necessary to have sufficient staff to allow adequate and unhurried
initial interviews with applicants and to complete the exploration of
§ eligibility promptly.

1. Promptness and Efficiency in the Application Process

iThe following minimum standards are essential to prompt and
efficient consideration and action on applications :

Agerwy policies and procedures p^'ovide for prompt and efficient
carrying out of the application process. Agencies establish standards
for evaluating and methods of controlling the length of time expended
during the application pi'ocess. Included are methods by which the
agency is kept regularly infoimied concerning the points in the ap¬
plication process at which delays are occurring and the reasons for
delays.

, Expediting the Application Process

Public assistance programs under the Social Security Act are in-
; tended to meet the needs of eligible applicants when that need occurs

and the agency is informed of it, without applicants’ having to rely on
other types of interim assistance from public or private social agencies.
To achieve this purpose, the application process must be continuous
and uninterrupted, without gaps in action either within or between
the various steps. Agencies have a responsibility for eliminating con¬
ditions that hamper prompt action and for setting up procedures that
make prompt staff action possible. Studying and planning how to
eliminate delay may indicate the need for legislative amendments ; the
overhauling of cumbersome organizational, administrative, and fiscal
policies and procedures ; and the simplification of procedures for con¬
sidering and determining eligibility. Special attention will need to
be directed toward such factors as the responsibility of the board in
the organizational structure ; decentralization of decisions relating to
eligibility and amount of assistance; fiscal procedures for preparing
authorization of payment and recipient pay rolls ; issuance of checks ■
or warrants to recipients ; and the exploration of eligibility.

Prompt action on applications will come about more rapidly if each
member of the staff whose work relates to any part of the process
feels a definite responsibility for completing his part in the quickest
time compatible with accepted standards of service to applicants. At
the same time, he must know the standard of promptness that the
agency expects of him. In setting such a standard, the agency
must study the various aspects of the application process to determine
what the delaying factors are and how they can be eliminated or re¬
duced, and to determine what the agency can reasonably expect of
staff members. There appear to be four areas of activity in which
delays are occurring. These are: (1) before assignment to a visitor
for exploration of eligibility; (2) during the field exploration; (3)
after the field work is completed but before the foitmal action which
completes determination of eligibility is taken; and (4) after the
determination of eligibility is made and during the preparation of
authorization and issuance of checks or warrants.

Study of the application process will enable agencies to determine
what standard of promptness can reasonably be expected for the en¬
tire process and for its component parts. As factors causing delay
are eliminated, the standard of promptness for each aspect and for
the whole process can be reduced in length. Any standard established
by the agency should be realistic in the light of conditions that cannot
immediately be changed or remedied, but it also should be subject
to revision as delaying factors are removed. A standard of prompt¬
ness should be related to the time needed to act on an average applica¬
tion. It will not represent the quickest nor the slowest time but will
be reasonable for the majority of applications.

When agencies emphasize the necessity for prompt action on appli-

11

cations and implement this by simplifying procedures for determining
eligibility and making payments to eligible persons, it is reasonable
to expect that the standard of promptness will gradually improve until
only exceptional applications remain pending longer than a week.

Controls

A standard of promptness for all or parts of the application process
has been found to be ineffective if it is relied on as the only method of
speeding up the process. Consequently it is necessary to establish
controls by which the agency is kept regularly informed concerning
the points at which delays are occurring. In developing methods of
controlling the time required to terminate applications, it is suggested
that agencies consider as one method the establishment of a monthly
reporting system, which will show the number of applications pending
beyond the standard period and will indicate just where and why
the delay has occurred for each application. By such a report the
agency will discover weaknesses in administration toward which
special attention should be directed both in supervision and in re¬
vision of procedures. Supervisors can use such a report to help staff'
members recognize the causes of delays in their own activity and
develop a plan of work that will result in more efficient and effective
service to applicants.

Various types of supervisory or administrative case reviews may
be used. These reviews vary considerably in their effectiveness, de¬
pending on staff time available and the adequacy of over-all planning.
To be of maximum value for the application process the reviews must
provide for reading both approved and denied applications.

Another method of getting information about action on applications
is analysis of the causes of grievances, including both those handled by
grievance procedures only and those that result in requests for a
hearing. Isolation and study of grievances that result in delays may
be used to locate inefficient procedures, to provide a basis for revision
of policy and procedure, and to improve staff performance.

Determination of Initial Eligibility

The following minimum standards are essential to a sound deter¬
mination of initial eligibility :

Agency 'policy provides for a determination of initial eligibility or
ineligibility 'with respect to eojch application^ subject to an applicants
right to decide not to pursue his application further. To implement
this provision the agency:

1. identifies the conditions of eligibility.,

2. provides that the application process shall include at least
one interview with the applicant., and

12

3. indicates the kinds and sources of factual information that
are acceptable as a basis for establishing eligibility and that
meet the minimum essentials described in the following para¬
graph.

A determination of eligibility is a decision by the agency on the
basis of factual information that eligibility to receive assistance exists.
The kinds of factual information that are acceptable as a basis for
a decision concerning eligibility are oral statements., written material.,
and the observations of the icorker. Acceptable sources of factued
information relating to eligibility include the applicant, members of
his family, the agency worker, and other qualified persons. Informa¬
tion presented by the applicant concerning a condition of eligibility,
if it is pertinent, consistent, and complete, is a satisfactory basis for
the agency decision insofar as that condition is concerned.

Exploring Eligibility

In order to secure Federal financial participation in assistance pay¬
ments made under the Social Security Act, eligibility must be estab¬
lished individually for each recipient. The decision of the agency
concerning eligibility or ineligibility is based on the facts and sound
decisions cannot be achieved uniformly unless the agency identifies the
eligibility conditions and indicates the kinds and sources of factual
information that are acceptable to support a claim to assistance. The
agency must also clarify for the worker and the applicant the re¬
sponsibility of each for obtaining factual information to support the
applicant’s claim to eligibility and set forth the criteria for judging
the adequacy of the facts obtained.

Economy of operation and prompt action as well as other consider¬
ations of sound practice require the use of the best informed and most
accessible sources of information. Among these the applicant may
ordinarily be expected to rank first and, therefore, he should be utilized
as the first and usually the principal source of facts. When the factual
material the applicant presents meets the agency’s criteria of adequacy
and is therefore judged to be pertinent, consistent, and complete with
regard to all conditions of eligibility, it will not be necessary to consult
additional sources. In most instances full utilization of the applicant’s i
data will reduce the amount of exploration of other sources that the
agency will need to undertake. The agency thus eliminates mineces-
sary work and unproductive investigations of eligibility that often i
delay the granting of assistance to eligible applicants and reviews of
continuing eligibility. Prompt action on applications will thus be ;
possible with no sacrifice of essential legal or administrative responsi¬
bility and without loss of Federal participation in initial payments.

The use of the applicant as the primary source of information in
determining eligibility means that the applicant and the worker are '

13

jointly responsible for the facts and that, in many instances, the agency
can determine eligibility or ineligibility on the basis of facts supplied
by the applicant. Moreover, the agency criteria for determining
when the facts presented are pertinent, consistent, and complete may
properly include acceptance of facts presented orally by the applicant
concerning his current circumstances or his personal and family his¬
tory that, when related to other known facts and combined with the
observations of the worker, substantiate the applicant’s assertions con¬
cerning specific conditions of eligibility. In other words, the worker
tells the applicant what conditions of eligibility he must meet and the
factual information necessary to establish each condition. The ap¬
plicant and the worker review and discuss such information as the
applicant has at hand, and determine for what conditions of eligibility
information does not meet the agency’s criteria of adequacy or is not
in the applicant’s possession. They then agree as to what additional
information must be obtained from readily available sources and who
will obtain it — the applicant or the worker at the applicant’s request.

If an applicant is unprepared, physically or otherwise, to give in¬
formation to support his eligibility, kinds and sources of information
may be selected from the agency’s suggested listing of acceptable
sources of factual information, using those that can readily be obtained,
and, whenever possible, those preferred by the applicant.

The worker takes no step in the exploration of eligibility to which
the applicant does not agree. If, however, as is true in some cases,
the information that an applicant is prepared to present is incomplete,
inconsistent, or indeterminate, the agency should tell him that addi¬
tional information is required. Usually, in such instances, the appli¬
cant and the worker can reach an agreement as to the sources to be
used. Occasionally, however, the issue may be such that the applicant
must decide whether to permit the agency to seek essential information,
to drop his application, or to face having his application denied.

In indicating the factual information that is acceptable, agencies
will wish to include kinds that are frequently in the possession of
applicants or readily obtainable and sources that have been discovered
or previously used by the agency. A listing of acceptable kinds and
sources of information will have greatest value if it serves the dual
purpose of suggesting a variety of sources to the staff and at the same
time stimulating their resourcefulness in using similar but less com¬
monly found sources when necessary.

Furthermore, it is recommended that in preparing standards and
procedures for determining eligibility, agencies avoid any of the fol¬
lowing actions : perfunctory visits to the home, to relatives or to refer¬
ences ; routine checking of public records ; routine form letters or cor¬
respondence with employers, relatives, insurance companies, banks ;
listing, as preferred evidence, legal, official, or formal documents and

14

affidavits to be secured, wbether or not other acceptable factual in¬
formation is at hand or more readily available ; requiring the appli¬
cant to sign a statement giving the agency blanket permission to in¬
vestigate any or all of his affairs that bear on his eligibility ; and plac¬
ing more responsibility on the applicant than he is physically or
mentally able to assume in establishing eligibility.

The Decision

The agency is responsible for coming to a definite decision concern¬
ing eligibility or ineligibility by either authorizing or denying assist¬
ance. To assure just and equitable determinations of eligibility, the
agency’s decisions should be based on clearly defined policy. Estab¬
lishment of definite policies and procedures for exploring and deter¬
mining eligibility makes it possible to place upon the worker the re¬
sponsibility for reaching a decision on behalf of the agency. Giving
this responsibility to the worker does not imply the removal of super¬
visory consultation and review. On the contrary, it places greater
responsibility on the agency to give each worker the amount and kind
of supervision that will help him develop the skills necessary to make
valid decisions. Furthermore, it demands the development of super¬
visory processes that will keep the agency informed about the judgment
and skill of each worker and that will aid in improving his .work.

Capable and regular supervisory consultation and review, in general,
provide the agency with satisfactory assurance that the facts of
eligibility have been adequately explored, that agency policy has been
suitably applied, and that a sound determination of eligibility has been
made. The imposition of routine administrative decisions by means
of case review units, boards, and other administrative devices cannot
be justified. Too frequently, the substitution of such decisions for
those of a worker and his supervisor prevents full consideration of all
the facts and results in capricious actions rather than actions based on
policy. Each added step in the agency determination of eligibility
also lengthens the time required to act on applications.

An agency should expect its workers to refrain from influencing 19
applicants who are known or believed to be ineligible to withdraw
their applications. A decision to withdraw an application can be
valid only when it is, in fact, the applicant’s decision. Because the use
of signed withdrawals has been abused, and dissatisfied applicants who
sign withdrawals thereby often lose their opportunity for a hearing,
the discontinuance of this practice is recommended. It is suggested
that agencies substitute the practice of giving the applicant a statement
confirming the agency’s understanding of his decision not to pursue his
application further. In most cases, applicants welcome a written
confirmation that verifies the conditions under which the application
was terminated and establishes a basis upon which to present possible

15

grievances. Written confirmation of the applicant’s decision need not
be a cumbersome or time-consuming process. It may be accomplished
by a simple form filled in by the worker at the time of an interview and
given to the applicant then, or completed after the interview and mailed
to him. The agency’s confirmation of an applicant’s decision not to
pursue his application is most useful if it contains the agency’s under¬
standing of the basis on which the decision was made.

Payments to Eligible Applicants

The following standard assures the initiation of assistance to appli¬
cants determined to be eligible :

Assistance is paid to each eligible applicant and assistance is not
(withheld from an eligible person so long as any payments whatever
are being made under the specific category.

Under the Social Security Act, agencies may not establish policies
or procedures that result in failure to receive applications, to explore
eligibility, to determine eligibility or ineligibility, or to make pay¬
ments to persons determined to be eligible ; nor may they develop plans
that result in undue delay in carrying out all or any part of the appli¬
cation process. This provision is particularly important for agencies
that have chosen to deny or delay the granting of assistance to appli¬
cants because of insufficient funds. When funds are insufficient to
make full payments in accordance with determined need, agencies are
expected to devise a method of adjusting payments in such a way that
all eligible persons will receive assistance. This provision is estab¬
lished with full recognition of the fact that inadequate payments to
recipients frustrate the purpose of assistance programs as does the
withholding of assistance from eligible persons. The imposition of
formulas to limit the amounts of assistance payments is often neces¬
sary, but agencies need to study the effect of various methods of limit¬
ing payments, particularly the effect of maximum payments, in order
to establish the most equitable way of administering inadequate funds.
Wliile concerning itself with making the necessary adjustments to in¬
sufficient funds the agency can at the same time renew its efforts to
secure appropriations adequate to meet the established need of all
eligible individuals.

Procedures Safeguarding an Applicant’s Rights

In addition to the standards set forth above, it is important that
agencies establish the following procedures essential to making the
basic provisions more effective:

1. Establish a basis for review of action on applications by providing
for the mainteTiance of identifiable records co'nceming all
applications.

16

2. Provide applicants with a basis for taking appropriate steps to
express dissatisfaction with agency action or failure to act by:

a. Establishing procedures for notifying applicants in writ¬
ing that assistance has been authorized in a stated amount
or that it has been denied^ giving the reason for the denial,

b. Establishing methods of notifying each applicant in
writing of his right to a fair hearing ar\d the method by
which he can obtain a hearing.

In stating that there shall be an identifiable record with respect to
each applicant for assistance, no specification is made as to its form.
An identifiable record is one that can be located by number, alphabeti¬
cal listing, or some other systematic device. So long as a method of
identification is provided, the recorded facts may be shown in any
form the agency desires and may be filed by whatever system the agency
finds most convenient. Usually the facts are recorded in the individual
or family case record but a master file or special card form is sometimes
used, especially when the interview has been short and the informa¬
tion brief. Whatever the form of the record, and however filed, it is
essential that it be identifiable and readily accessible and that it con¬
tain current information concerning the status of the application. The
record includes evidence that the agency has assumed responsibility
for making available the opportunity to apply; pertinent, complete,
and dated information concerning the facts that establish eligibility
or ineligibility; and information concerning other services desired by
the applicant and the plans and activity involved in providing such
services.

It is recommended that, as a measure to promote efficiency in the
exploration of eligibility and in recording, agencies examine and
evaluate the forms required in all records, for the purpose of reducing
the number to a minimum, removing duplications, and eliminating
nonessential information.

Various methods are used to notify applicants in writing of the
decision on their applications. The one used should provide assurance
that such notifications are made promptly and consistently on all
applications. Notification of decision is the only way an applicant
can loiow where he stands with the agency and is the basis upon which
he can complain about or appeal against a decision he considers unfair.
Informing applicants in writing of the final decision is not a substitute
for keeping the applicant informed concerning the status of his appli¬
cation during the entire application process.

At the very beginning of his relations with the agency, an applicant
should know about his right to request a fair hearing if the agency
fails to act on his application or if he is dissatisfied with the agency’s
decision. Notification of the right to a hearing should include full

17

information concerning the method of requesting it. An informa¬
tional pamphlet ® including simply worded facts about the hearing
process can be given out at the initial interview and is a handy ref¬
erence for applicants and recipients as questions arise concerning their
rights and responsibilities. Written notification of the right to a hear¬
ing should be supplemented by oral interpretation at the earliest
appropriate point.

Staff Development and the Application Process

As agencies improve and strengthen their standards and procedures
relating to the application process and to the determination of
eligibility, a parallel emphasis should be placed on staff development.
The staff will need to understand the objectives of the standards,
their meaning to individuals applying for and receiving assistance,
and specific ways to use the standards in the day-by-day job.

Too frequently, changes in policy are delayed on the grounds that
staff are unable to apply them, whereas an accompanying staff develop¬
ment plan, designed to equip staff, might well prepare the way for the
desirable change. Conversely, changes in policy are sometimes put
into effect without sufficient consideration of the preparation required
by staff for making effective use of the policy. It is recommended,
therefore, that agencies initiate a reevaluation of their staff-develop¬
ment activities as they relate to the application process and determi¬
nation of inital eligibility. This should include consideration of both
content and method in orientation of staff, in regular supervisory
practices, in group conferences planned for special training purposes,
and in other phases of staff development.

Initial efforts to improve standards for the application process
should be accompanied by a plan that identifies the areas in which the
effectiveness of the application of the standards depends on the under¬
standing and acceptance of staff and the quality of their performance.
The use of the applicant as the primary source of information in
determining eligibility, for example, requires competence in inter¬
viewing. Securing facts necessary to determine eligibility, accuracy
in evaluating these facts, and ability to develop a joint plan with the
applicant for getting supplementary information are essential skills
in using this standard. The supervisor should direct special attention
toward helping staff members relate the policies and standards to
individual situations. Supplementary training sessions may be re¬
quired in which emphasis is placed on clear understanding of the
policy and its purpose, application of the policy in individual situa¬
tions through planned and well-focused discussion of selected case

® See Public Information, p. 8.

18

materials, and case work principles that are applied in establishing a
constructive working relationship with applicants.

A standard of promptness with respect to the application process
cannot be implemented unless the staff is convinced of the importance
of promptness. They will be convinced as they understand the pur¬
pose of an assistance program in providing economic security and the
demoralizing effect that delay in receiving assistance has on the appli¬
cant. If, for any reason, the staff has become insensitive to the effect j
of delay on the applicant, the agency will need to provide an oppor- i
tunity for them to reconsider the significance of such standards for I
the individual. Special attention should be directed toward helping j
workers develop and use constructive work plans that will enable them
to achieve the standard without sacrificing quality of work. If staff
vacancies or high rates of turnover exist in particular local offices,
the supervisory staff may require assistance in developing a realistic
work plan to get the job done. In the initial effort to establish a
standard of promptness, the cooperation and contribution of com¬
petent staff members may be secured in setting a realistic standard
based on their experience in eliminating unproductive activity. These
experiences and concrete suggestions should be useful for the purpose
of interpretation at the time the specific standard is introduced.

The analysis of the application process, presented on pages 3-5, may
be used as a guide to agencies in reevaluating the staff development pro¬
gram and may suggest areas of content that should receive special
attention in interpretation to staff.

Considerable progress has been made in the development of clearly
defined policy and in improving the application of policy to individual
case situations. No agency will claim that all its policies are fully
refined and complete, and each worker knows that his performance is
improved by continuous supervision and other opportunities for
learning. Each agency has made progress along certain lines and
needs to work further in other areas. For agencies that have estab¬
lished the basic structure and effective methods of staff development,
the introduction of new policies relating to applications means util¬
izing the available structure to explain new content. In agencies that
have laid the groundwork for understanding current concepts of ad¬
ministering public assistance, but have delayed in developing applica¬
tion policies entirely consistent with their philosophy, the task of staff
development lies in helping staff to relate new policies and procedures
to familiar principles. If, in some instances, basic philosophy and
principles are not firmly established, the agency has a much larger job,
tliat of reorienting its staff to current concepts while at the same time
improving its initial orientation toward the same goal. Under such
conditions the agency needs to assume greater responsibility for guid-

19

ing workers in order to achieve a uniform interpretation of all pro¬
gram objectives. Helping staff to understand and use new policy
relating to applications will be only one phase of an over-all reevalua¬
tion and revamping of the staff-development program.

Policies and procedures and staff competence are inextricably in¬
terrelated and dependent one on the other. The smooth interaction of
policies and staff performance support and carry forward the purpose
of i)ublic assistance. The failure of either means weaknesses in the
program and distress for needy applicants and recipients.

Selected References

1. Bishop, Margaret K. “Study of the Application Process.” Caseload Report,

September 19'i6. Pennsylvania Department of Public Assistance, Philadel¬
phia County Board of Public Welfare, 112 North Broad Street, Philadelphia
2, Penn.sylvania. September 1946. Processed, 10 pp.

2. — “The Visitor’s Job in a Public Assistance Agency.” Pennsylvania Depart¬

ment of Public Assistance, Philadelphia County Board of Public Welfare,
May 1947. Processed, 7 pp.

3. Garrett, Annette. Intervieiving , Its Principles and Methods. New York ;

The Family Welfare Association of America, 1942. 123 pp.

4. Goetz, John L. “Local Public Relations.” Public Welfare. Vol. 4, No. 9,

September 1946. pp. 194—197.

5. Hamilton, Gordon. Principles of Social Case Recording. New York : Colum¬

bia University Press. 1946. 142 pp.

6. Kahn, Dorothy C. “Democratic Principles and Public Assistance : Case Work

in Determining Eligibility.” The Compass. Vol. XX, No. 10, August 1939.
pp. 3-8.

7. Lindeman, Eduard C. “Social Case Work Matures in a Confused World.”

The Compass. Vol. XXVIII, No. 2, January 1947. pp. 3-5.

8. Marcus, Grace. The Mature of Service in Public Assistance Administration.

Washington, D, C. : U. S. Government Printing Office. (U. S. Social Security
Administration, Bureau of Public Assistance Report No. 10) 1946. 31 pp.

9. Nixon, Evanell. “Current Emphases in Public Assistance.” Mimeographed

paper given at In-Service Training Meeting, December 1945. Topeka, Kan¬
sas : Kansas State Board of Social Welfare, March 1946. 21pp.

10. Smith, A. Delafield. “Community Prerogative and the Legal Rights and

Freedom of the Individual.” Reprint from Social Security Bulletin, Au¬
gust 1946. 6 pp.

11. Sontheimer, Morton. “The Better Mousetrap.” Journal of Social Casework.

Vol. XXVIII, No. 9, November 1947. pp. 354^355.

12. Towle, Charlotte. Common Human Needs; An Interpretation for Staff in

Public Assistance Agencies. Washington, D. C. : U. S. Government Print¬
ing Office, 1945. (U. S. Social Security Board, Bureau of Public Assistance

Report No. 8) 1945. 132 pp.

13. Turner, J. Sheldon. “Considerations Basic to the Review of Policy and

Practice in the Administration of Public Assistance.” August 1946. Proc¬
essed, 10 pp.'

14. Tyler, Inez. Intake in a Public Agency. Chicago : American Public Wel¬

fare Association. 1941. 14 pp.

20

15. U. S. Department of Labor. (Retraining and Re-Employment Administra¬

tion) The Intervieio in Counseling. Washington, D. C. : Government Print¬
ing Office, July 1946. 25 pp.

16. U. S. Social Security Administration. (Bureau of Public Assistance) “Case

Records in Public Assistance ; A Series of Case Materials Selected From
Public Welfare Agencies.” Vol. I, No. 1, Technical Training Service, July
1947. Proces.sed, 71 pp.

17. — “Public Assistance Goals — 1947.” November 1946. Processed, 21 pp,

18. Voiland, Alice L. ; Martha Lou Gundelach, Mildred Corner. Developing In¬

sight in Initial Intervieios. New York : Family Service Association of
America. 1947. 54 pp.

19. Webber, Alice. “Interviewing.” Social Security Bulletin. Vol. 3, No. 4,

April 1940. Federal Security Agency, pp. 11-16.

U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE; I9J«

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington 25, D. C.

Price 10 cents

SOURCES OF REVENUE

FOR THE STATE SHARE
OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE
1939-47

I

4K

FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
BUREAU OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE REPORT NO. 15

FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY

Oscar R. Ewing, Administrator

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Arthur J. Altmeyer, Commissioner

BUREAU OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE

Jane M. Hoey, Director

SOURCES OF REVENUE

FOR THE STATE SHARE
OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE
1939-47

By ELIZABETH G. EPLER

FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
BUREAU OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE REPORT NO. 15

H Vs-s-

./1 3-7^

TfUtW9

FOREWORD

r

Information on sources of State revenues for public assistance pre¬
sented in this report brings up to date, through the fiscal year 1947,
information previously summarized for the special types of public
assistance for 1939 and for general assistance as of January 1940.
With the great rise in total State revenues during the war years, the
States tended increasingly to rely on general-fund revenues rather
than earmarked revenues in meeting the State share of assistance.
Earmarked revenues continue, however, to play a major part in the
financing of public assistance in a number of States.

The information on revenue som'ces is one segment of a study of
State appropriations for assistance. The data should be useful in
special analyses of the adequacy of the public assistance programs in
relation to fiscal capacity. The data should be of value also in assist-
mg States to devise more nearly equitable methods of allocating State
and Federal funds among local units.

For purposes of this study, the information on State appropriations
compiled by the Bureau of Public Assistance was checked and supple¬
mented by staff members of the State assistance agencies, who also
provided much valuable interpretive information. Every effort has
been made to assure accuracy of the data and comparability from
State to State in the classification of earmarked revenues.

Special acknowledgment is due to members of the Bm-eau staff who
participated in work on the report — to Gladys AI. Krueger, who helped
compile the data for individual States; to Herman W. Gruber, who
helped classify and tabulate tbe data on sources of revenue; and to the
Bureau’s Regional Research Consultants, who checked the data with
the State agencies. Our special thanks go to all staff members of
State public assistance agencies who made this stud.y possible.

Jane AI. Hoey, Director
Bureau of Public Assista nce

June 1948.

Ill

/s*

CONTENTS

Page

Introduction _ 1

General-Fund and Earmarked Revenues _ 3

Methods of Earmarking Revenues for Public Assistance- _ 4

Effects of Earmarking Revenues _ 5

Trends in Use of General and Earmarked Revenues, 1 939-47 _ 7

Types of Revenues Earmarked, 1939-47 _ 10

Patterns in the Fiscal Year 1947 _ 13

Conclusion _ 16

Appendix A. — Year and month in which Federal funds were
first used for assistance payments under currently approved
plans (as of fiscal year ended June 30, 1947) _

Appendix B. — Financial responsibility for the non-Federal
share of public assistance, by State, as of fiscal year ended
June 30, 1947 _ _

Appendix C.^ — Programs for which State funds were not avail¬
able for part or all of the period 1939-47, by State and fiscal
year _

Appendix tables:

Table 1.- — Sources of State revenues — general and earmarked —
for public assistance, 1939-47 _

Table 2. — Types of State revenues earmarked wholly or partly
for public assistance, 1939-47 _

Table 3. — Number of States with earmarked revenues for public
assistance derived from specified sources, 1939-47 _

Table 4. — Number of programs with earmarked revenues for
public assistance derived from specified sources, 1939-47 _

17

18

18

19

24

!

24

IV

INTRODUCTION

The broad program of social security established under the Social
Security Act includes assistance programs for the needy aged, depend¬
ent children, and the needy blind. Under provisions of titles I, IV,
and X of the act, Federal grants for these special types of public
assistance are made available to States with plans approved by the
Social Security Administration. One of the requirements that the
States must meet in order to claim Federal funds is State financial
participation in the cost of the special types of public assistance.
Whether the non-Federal share of the cost is met enthely from State
funds or from both State and local funds is determined by the State.

General assistance is administered without Federal financial
participation. Since its financing is entirely a State and local respon¬
sibility, each State determines whether the costs are to be met from
State funds or local funds or both. Patterns of State-local financial
participation in the special types of public assistance and general
! assistance not only vary from State to State but often differ among
F programs within a State.

Although a large number of States had enacted enabling legislation
■ for old-age assistance, aid to the blind, and aid to dependent children
(or “mothers’ aid”) before the Social Security Act was passed, many
of the State laws were optional in chai-acter and operative in relatively
few counties. The requhement of the Social Security Act that
programs for which Federal grants-in-aid are claimed must be oper¬
ative in all political subdivisions of the State made for substantial
increase in the geographical coverage of many programs. With the
provision of Federal funds and the requirement for State financial
participation, there was rapid expansion in total funds available for
the programs previously financed enthely from State and/or local
funds. In addition, new programs were established under the stimulus
of the Social Security Act.

By September 1938, about three years after the Social Security
Act was passed, all States were making old-age assistance payments
under approved plans, with Federal financial participation. The
other special types of public assistance expanded somewhat less
rapidly than old-age assistance (appendix A). By January 1944, all
States except Nevada were claiming Federal funds for aid to depend¬
ent children; in Nevada the localities continue to assume the sole
financial responsibility for this program. Tliree States (Missouri,
Nevada, and Pennsylvania) continue to administer aid to the blind
under State laws with State or State and local funds but without
Federal participation. By November 1945, all the other States were
administering aid to the blind under plans approved by the Social
Security Administration.

1

Tims in the fiscal year 1947, a total of 147 progi-ams for the special C!
types of public assistance were in operation in the continental United J
States. Federal funds were provided under approved plans for all S
but four of these programs and State funds for all but one. Local
funds were provided for 65 of the 147 programs (appendix B).

In addition, some funds for general assistance were available in all
States. The general assistance programs were financed entirely from
State funds in 2 States and the District of Columbia, from both a
State and local funds in 31 States, and entirely from local funds in a
the other 15 States (appendix B). »

Although local funds, typically derived from property taxes, are of
considerable importance in financing programs in some States, they t
constitute a relatively small part of the total expenditures for assist- •
ance. In the fiscal year ended June 30, 1947, only about 11 percent
of the total bill for all types of assistance payments to recipients was
' met from local funds, in contrast to almost 46 percent met from State
funds and 43 percent from Federal funds. Percentage-wise, local a
funds were considerably more important in financing general assistance
than in financing the special types of public assistance. In terms of I
total dollar amounts, however, the special types of public assistance f
drew more heavily than general assistance on local funds. The $58
million spent for general assistance from local funds was about two- f
fifths of total expenditures for this type of aid; local funds of $88 I
million for the special types of public assistance made up about a '
seventh of all State-local expenditures for these programs. A con- i
siderably larger share of the total cost of all types of public assistance
was met from State funds than from local funds not only in the Nation
as a whole but in almost every State.

This report summarizes for the fiscal years 1939-47 the basic som’ces
of State revenues — general funds, earmarked taxes, or both — for all
public assistance programs in the continental United States in which
there was State financial participation, whether or not Federal funds
were provided.^ In addition, the report includes information on the ;
specific types of taxes earmarked for assistance by the States that used |
_

1 The sources of revenue reported are those from which funds were made available for the State share of
assistance payments to recipients. Generally, costs of administration and assistance are met from the same
sources in any given State, but insofar as sources of revenue for assistance payments differ from those for ,
administrative costs the latter are not covered by this report.

Fiscal year, as used in this report, is the State fiscal year ending within the given calendar year. For most
States, each fiscal year ended on June 30. A few States shifted, within the years 1939-47, from other fiscal
periods to those ending on June 30. One State shifted from a July- June fiscal year to a fiscal year ending with
March. The 1947 fiscal year covered the period July 1, 194fr-June 30, 1947, for all States except the following:

State 1947 fiscal year

Alabama _ _ _ _ Oct. 1, 1946-Sept. 30, 1947

New York, Washington, Wyoming... . . Apr. 1, 1946-Mar. 31, 1947

Ohio _ _ _ Jan. 1, 1947-Dec. 31, 1947

Pennsylvania _ _ _ June 1, 1946-May 31, 1947

Texas.. . . . . Sept. 1, 1946-Aug. 31, 1947

2

earmarked revenues alone or in combination with general-fund reve¬
nues to finance the State share of one or more assistance programs.
Sources of local revenue are not included.

All programs for which State funds were made available are covered
by this report, even though in a few instances no State funds were used
within a given year for assistance payments to recipients.^ State
funds were available throughout the period for old-age assistance in
all 49 States (including the District of Columbia), for aid to the blind
in 46 States, for aid to dependent children in 43 States, and for general
assistance in 33 States.®

The information presented here on the sources of State revenues was
collected as part of a study which covered also the total amounts of
State funds made available for public assistance programs in each
State. The data on actual amounts available are useful in analysis
of fiscal patterns for given States but will not be summarized for all
States because of lack of comparability of data from State to State
and from year to year.

Comparability is affected particularly by variation in periods covered
by appropriations and by the wide variety of, and changes in, programs
for which lump-sum appropriations are made. Some appropriations
are for annual, others for biennial, periods. Although the fiscal year
for most States is July-June, total available funds relate to other
fiscal periods in a few States.^ Some of the States that make lump¬
sum appropriations provide such over-all amounts for two or more
assistance programs; some other States provide lump-sum appropri¬
ations for assistance programs and various other welfare purposes.
Such appropriations, in contrast to separate appropriations for specified
programs, of course make for greater flexibility in the use of assistance
funds.®

General-Fund and Farmarked Revenues

In each State, general-fund revenues, in contrast to earmarked
revenues, include all funds not specifically set aside for special pur¬
poses. “Earmarking’’ is the term most frequently used to describe
the various methods of assigning proceeds of certain designated taxes
or assessments to special purposes. In some instances, the relation¬
ship between the type of tax and the purpose for which the proceeds
are reserved is a direct one, as in the case of the pay-roll taxes for
unemployment insurance and old-age and survivors insurance.

2 See table 1, footnotes 7, 11, and 12 for Kentucky, South Dakota, and Texas.

2 See appendix C for list of programs for which State funds were not available during part or all of the
period 1939-^7.

* See footnote 1, page 2.

• A brief discussion of the use of lump-sum appropriations is included in “Sources of Revenue and Types
of Appropriation for the State Share of Assistance Programs, Fiscal Year 1947,” Social Security Bulletin,
May 1948.

3

Proceeds from motor-vehicle and gasoline taxes have typically been
assigned to highway funds reserved for construction and maintenance
of roads, presumably on the assumption of a reasonably direct rela¬
tionship between the amount of such taxes paid by the automobile
owner and his use of the highways. The earmarking of a given tax
for a directly related purpose has been known as the benefit theory of
taxation.

No such direct relationship exists, however, between the many types
of taxes earmarked for public assistance and the purpose for which they
are earmarked, and undoubtedly the factors determining the types of
taxes so earmarked differ greatly from State to State.

The number of States that earmark a given type of tax for assistance
is not necessarily, of course, the total number of States using such
taxes in financing public assistance. Wlien assistance is financed from
general-fund revenues, each type of revenue paid into the State general
fund may be assumed to contribute toward such financing. General
sales taxes, for example, were in effect during the 1947 fiscal year in a
total of 23 States, including 7 that earmarked such taxes for assistance.
In all 23, sales tax revenues were undoubtedly of considerable impor¬
tance to the assistance programs.

For purposes of this report, the listing of specific types of revenue
is limited to those earmarked for assistance and does not include those
paid into the general funds of the States that financed assistance
wholly or partly from general-fund revenues. Types of taxes earmarked
for the State share of assistance have been classified insofar as possible
in accordance with classifications and definitions followed by the Bureau
of the Census. The listed earmarked taxes include all those from
which collections for a given year were to be set aside for public
assistance, although in a few instances no receipts were actually
available for this purpose.® Taxes from which only the collections of
penalties and delinquent taxes due in earlier years became available
for assistance have not been included in the list of taxes earmarked for
any given year.

Methods of Earmarking Revenues for Public Assistance

Most commonly, when revenues are earmarked for assistance, all
revenues from certain taxes (except costs of collection) or specified
percentages of such revenues are assigned to one or more programs.
In some instances, specified dollar amounts or specified proportions
of revenues up to given dollar maximums are so assigned, or a specified
amount or proportion of the proceeds in excess of the amount assigned
to other purposes may be earmarked for assistance. In other instances,
the assistance programs are “charges” against the earmarked revenues,

« For example, there were no collections from the earmarked taxes on racing in Arkansas in 1945, when
no racing meet was held.

4

although no amount or proportion of such revenues is specifically set
aside for these programs except by regular legislative appropriation.

In some States, collections from earmarked revenues are transferred
directly to assistance funds and determine the amounts available for
one or more programs. Revenues may be allotted to a single program
or as a lump-sum to two or more programs; in two of the States that
earmark the same revenues for several programs the proportions to be
allocated to various programs are specified by law.

In some other States, legislative appropriations from earmarked
revenues rather than collections determine the amounts available for
assistance. In these instances, unless provision is made for use of
general-fund revenues when earmarked revenues are insufficient, col¬
lections limit the amounts available if they are less than the appro¬
priations, but the appropriations limit amounts available when col¬
lections exceed appropriations. For example, in Arkansas, where all
public assistance programs are financed from revenues allocated to the
public welfare fund, revenues earmarked for the fund were insufficient
to meet the appropriations in 1939-41 ; in subsequent years, revenues
assigned to this fund exceeded the amounts appropriated, but accumu¬
lated balances remaining in the fund were not available for
expenditure.^

Florida, on the other hand, has attempted to guarantee availability
of specified amounts by providing that the appropriations minus any
amounts available from earmarked revenues shall be met from general
revenues. Connecticut has each year provided $2,225,000 for old-age
assistance and aid to the blind from assessments on the towns, to be
met from the State per capita tax levy. The State provided first for
loans, then for outright transfers, from the general fund to make up
differences between the totals of the assessments and the amounts
appropriated.

Some other States that use both general and earmarked revenues to
finance assistance programs appropriate specific amounts from general
revenues, in addition to whatever amounts become available from
earmarked revenues.

Effects of Earmarking Revenues

The earmarking of revenues for assistance is intended to assure their
availability for this purpose, and undoubtedly in some States, when
general funds have been depleted, earmarked revenues have provided
more nearly adequate funds for assistance than would otherwise have
been made available from general-fund appropriations. But earmark¬
ing is not without serious disadvantages. The assistance agency’s
problem of budgeting funds is increased when the amounts available

’’ Through 1945, the public welfare fund consisted of earmarked revenues. In 1946 and 1947, specified
percentages of all general revenues were allocated to the public welfare fund.

793415°— 48 - 2

5

depend on tax collections that vary from month to month. Further¬
more, earmarking sometimes results in limiting unnecessarily the i
amount available for assistance. Tax yields are generally affected by
changes in economic conditions, and some types of taxes are subject
to greater fluctuation than others. The earmarking of taxes unusually !i
sensitive to business fluctuations leads inevitably to sharp declines in
available funds at the very time when the need for public assistance is i
greatest. Earmarking of revenues may result in either disproportion- j
ately high or disproportionately low amounts for public assistance in '
relation to funds available for other important functions of govern¬
ment. On the whole, general-fund revenues are more likely than ear¬
marked revenues to provide a sound financial base for the public
assistance programs.

6

TRENDS IN USE OF GENERAL AND EARMARKED

REVENUES, 1939-47

Most of the States met their share of the cost of each public
assistance program in which there was State financial participation
from the same basic source or soiu'ces of revenue tliroughout the period
1939-47. Twenty-three States financed all programs from general
revenues throughout the period, five financed all programs entirely
from earmarked revenues, and one drew on both general and ear¬
marked revenues for all programs (table 1). Five other States,
which drew on general revenues only for one or more programs and
on earmarked revenues only or a combination of general and ear¬
marked revenues for other programs, followed the same pattern of
financing each program in all years in which State funds were pro¬
vided. The 34 States that used the same sources of revenue through¬
out the period were:

Source of State funds for public assistance, fiscal
years 1939-47

Number of
States

States

All programs financed entirely from general rev¬
enues. '

23

California, Delaware, District of Co¬
lumbia, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana,
Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi,
Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire,
New Jersey, New York, North
Carolina, Peimsylvania, South Caro¬
lina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia,
Washington, West Virginia, Wis¬
consin.

All programs financed entirely from earmarked
revenues.

5

Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico,
Texas, Utah.

All programs financed from both general and ear¬
marked revenues.

1

Alabama.

1 or more programs financed entirely from general
revenues, others entirely from earmarked rev¬
enues.

2

Colorado, Nevada.

Some programs financed entirely from general
revenues, others from general and earmarked
revenues.

3

Comiecticut, Illinois, Ohio.

The remaining 15 States changed the sources of revenue for the
State- share of one or more of the public assistance programs within
the period. Twelve of these States shifted to general-fund financing
for one or more programs within the period 1939-47. Only three
States (Iowa, North Dakota, and Oregon) made changes in the direc¬
tion of relatively greater use of earmarked revenues.

Among the 12 States that shifted from earmarked to general
revenues, the 10 listed below made changes resulting in general-fund
financing of all assistance programs by 1946.

7

State

Fiscal years in
which all pro¬
grams were fi¬
nanced from gen¬
eral revenues
only

Programs ' financed wholly or partly
from earmarked revenues, by fiscal
years

Arizona _ _

1946, 1947 _

BCG, 1939-43; A, 1939-45.

ABCG, 1939-45.

ABCG, 1939, 1940; AG, 1943, 1944.

A, 1942-45.

ABCG, 1939.

A, 1939-45.

G, 1939^5.

G, 1939.

ABC, 1939.

ABCG, 1939.

Arkansas _ _

1946, 1947 _

Louisiana _

1941, 1942, 1945-47.

1939- 41, 1946, 1947.

1940- 47 . -

Maine _ - - _ _

Maryland _

Massachusetts _ _ _

1946, 1947 _

lVTinrip.80t,a . .

1946, 1947 . -

Rhode Island _ _

1940-47 _

South Dakota _ - - _

1940-47 .

Wvoming' .

1940-47 _

1 A designates old-age assistance; B, aid to the blind; C, aid to dependent children; G, general assistance.

In addition to these 10 States, Oklahoma shifted from earmarked
to general revenues for general assistance, but continued to meet the
State share of the special types of public assistance entirely from ear¬
marked revenues. Florida, which previously had used earmarked
revenues for both old-age assistance and aid to the blind, in 1945
made an appropriation for aid to the blind and old-age assistance
available from the general fund only; an additional appropriation for
old-age assistance was to be met from earmarked revenues and, insofar
as necessary, the general fund.

The three States that shifted to more extensive use of earmarked
revenues all changed from using both general and earmarked revenues
to using earmarked revenues exclusively. In Iowa, only the general
assistance program was affected. The change in the method of
financing the State share of general assistance in 1942 coincided with
a sharp drop in expenditures; Iowa made no expenditures from State
funds for this program after 1945. North Dakota and Oregon, which
had earlier drawn on both general and earmarked revenues for all
programs, from 1944 on used earmarked revenues only. In both of
these States the exclusive use of earmarked revenues was presumably
due to the rise in collections of earmarked taxes rather than to any
change in the legal base for financing the programs. The North
Dakota sales tax legislation and legislation appropriating funds for
public assistance continue to be interpreted to mean that, if that part
of the sales tax allocated to the public welfare fund is insufficient to
meet the specific appropriations for assistance, the general fund may
be drawn upon. In Oregon, assistance funds have been made available
by legislative transfers from receipts from liquor taxes and insofar as
necessary from the general fund.

A total of 33 States financed the State share of all programs entirely
from general revenues in 1946 and 1947, in contrast to 24 States using
general revenues only in 1939.

8

Number of States meeting State share of public
assistance from —

General and earmarked revenues

Year

General
revenues
only, all
programs

Earmarked
revenues
only, all
programs

General revenues
only, 1 or more
programs; ear¬
marked only or
general and ear¬
marked, other
programs

Other com¬
binations of
general and
earmarked
revenues

1939 _ _

24

9

10

6

1940 _ _ _ _ _

29

8

8

4

1941 _ _ _ _

29

8

8

4

1942.. _ _ _

28

7

10

4

1943 _ _

27

7

11

4

1944... _ _

27

8

12

2

1945 . . . . . . .

28

8

11

2

1946... _ _ _ _

33

7

8

1

1947.. . . . .

33

7

8

1

In terms of programs, the State share of assistance for 136 of the
180 public assistance programs was met entirely from general revenues
in 1947; by contrast, general revenues only were used for 106 of the
176 programs in which there was State financial participation in 1939.
Shifts from earmarked revenues to general-fund financing consider¬
ably more than offset the few changes in the opposite direction.

Year

Number of programs with State funds
from general revenues only

Number of programs with State funds
from earmarked revenues only or from
general and earmarked revenues

Total

OAA

AB

ADC

GA

Total

OAA

AB

ADC

GA

1939 _

106

28

29

28

21

70

21

17

16

16

1940 _

120

32

33

31

24

55

17

13

12

13

1941 _

122

32

33

33

24

57

17

14

13

13

1942 _

121

31

34

33

23

57

18

14

13

12

1943 _

120

30

34

34

22

59

19

14

13

13

1944 _

123

30

35

36

22

55

19

13

12

11

1945 _

125

31

35

36

23

53

18

13

12

10

1946 _

136

35

38

37

26

44

14

11

11

8

1947 _

136

35

38

37

26

44

14

11

11

8

Partly because of the much greater volume of expenditures for old-
age assistance than for the other special types of public assistance, and
the consequently greater need for drawing on new sources of revenue to
finance this program, taxes were somewhat more frequently ear¬
marked for old-age assistance than for the other programs during the
period 1939-47. Similarly, a relatively high proportion of the States
earmarked revenues for general assistance in 1939, when total expendi¬
tures from State funds for this program were higher than State ex¬
penditures for all the special types of public assistance combined.

In 1939, State funds for 21 of the 49 old-age assistance programs
and 16 of the 37 general assistance programs came wholly or partly
from earmarked revenues; in the same year, the State share was,met
wholly or partly from earmarked revenues for 17 of the 46 aid to the

9

blind programs and 16 of the 44 programs for aid to dependent chil¬
dren. By 1947, the total number of programs financed entirely or
partly from earmarked revenues had dropped to 44, from a high of 70
in 1939. This decrease reflected the drop in the use of earmarked
revenues for assistance programs of each type. Revenues continued,
however, to be earmarked for a relatively high proportion of old-age
assistance programs. State funds from earmarked revenues were
provided, in 1947, for 14 of the 49 old-age assistance programs, 11 of
the 49 aid to the blind programs, 1 1 of the 48 aid to dependent children
programs, and 8 of the 34 general assistance programs in which there
was State financial participation.

During the war years, when State tax revenues in general rose to
unprecedented levels, collections both of revenues assigned to general
funds and of types of revenues earmarked for public assistance showed
increases in most States.^ Perhaps for this reason, there was some
tendency to meet the State share of assistance either entirely from
general revenues or entirely from earmarked revenues. Within the
period 1939-47, there was a relatively greater decline in the number
of programs financed from both general and earmarked revenues than
in the number financed entirely from earmarked revenues. By 1947,
5 States were financing a total of 10 programs from general and ear¬
marked revenues; in 1939, 10 States financed 20 programs from both
these sources of revenues. In the same period, 1939-47, the number
of programs financed entirely from earmarked revenues dropped from
50 in 18 States to 34 in 11 States,

TYPES OF REVENUES EARMARKED, 1939-47

Of the 26 States that made use of earmarked revenues in financing
public assistance within the period 1939-47, a total of 22 earmarked
general sales or use taxes and/or sales taxes on selected commodities
or services, such as liquor or tobacco or public-utility receipts (tables
2 and 3). The general sales taxes are of course levied on the whole
buying population; they frequently include taxes on specifically
enumerated commodities or services, such as taxes on admissions and
amusements, on public-utility receipts, and on restaurant meals,
but they differ from the separately imposed taxes on selected com¬
modities in that the general sales or gross receipts taxes are imposed
also on retail sales of all commodities not specifically exempted. The
selective sales taxes are separately imposed taxes on specified com¬
modities and services, many of which may be considered “luxuries.”

For purposes of this report, earmarked taxes have been broadly
classified as follows: general sales, use, or gross receipts taxes; sales
- { -

S Revenues from some types of taxes, including sales taxes on gasoline and tobacco, and the various types
of racing revenues typically declined in some years because of war-time shortages and restrictions.

10

taxes on selected commodities and services; license and privilege taxes;
and other types of revenue, including individual and corporation
income taxes, property taxes, and per capita taxes. Per capita taxes,
like the general sales taxes, may be said to be imposed on the general
population, whereas most of the others are presumed to be related to
ability to pay.

General and selective sales taxes and license and privilege taxes,
chiefly liquor license fees, have been more commonly earmarked for
public assistance than have other types of taxes. A total of 13 States
earmarked general sales taxes for 43 programs during all or part of the
period 1939-47 (tables 3 and 4). All but two of these States (North
Dakota and Utah) earmarked also sales taxes on selected commodities
and/or services, and nine additional States earmarked selective sales
taxes.

Among the various types of sales taxes on selected commodities
and services, those on alcoholic beverages have been most commonly
earmarked for public assistance. A total of 15 States assigned sales
taxes on alcoholic beverages to one or more of the assistance programs
during all or part of the period 1939^7. Other types of selective sales
taxes earmarked for public assistance include tobacco taxes (six
States), taxes on admissions and amusements (four States), taxes on
motor fuels, public-utility receipts, and pari-mutuels (each type of
tax earmarked by three States), and taxes on cosmetics, restaurant
meals, sale of used cars, motor vehicles in general, radios, playing
cards, carbon black, cement, oil and gas-well servicing, and insurance
premiums.

In general, earmarking of sales taxes on alcoholic beverages was
accompanied by earmarking of liquor license fees. Eleven of the 15
States that assigned sales taxes on alcoholic beverages to public assist¬
ance similarly earmarked various types of license and privilege taxes
on alcoholic beverages. Two of these same States (Oregon and
Wyoming) and one additional State (Alabama) earmarked also pro¬
ceeds from the State liquor monopolies.

License and privilege taxes on amusements and/or race tracks were
earmarked by five States; corporation-franchise taxes or taxes on cor¬
poration assets were earmarked by three States, and other types of
license fees, such as vending-machine and special types of automobile
licenses, by four States.

Less commonly earmarked for public assistance were the various
types of taxes other than sales and license and privilege taxes. Four
States earmarked taxes on real property, and one additional State
(Maryland) earmarked, in 1939 only, taxes on personal property.
Both individual and corporation income taxes were assigned to public
assistance programs by four States, death and gift taxes by three
States, severance taxes on the extraction of oil or other minerals by

11

three States, per capita taxes by two States, and other miscellaneous
taxes, including taxes on stock transfers and the recording of legal
documents, by three States.

Most of the 26 States that have financed public assistance from any
sources of revenue other than the State general fund have earmarked
more than one type of tax. Only one State (Utah) met the entire
cost of the State share of all public assistance programs throughout
the period 1939-47 from a single type of earmarked taxes — general
sales and use taxes. Only four other States earmarked a single type
of tax within the period:

Type of earmarked tax State

Per capita tax _ Connecticut.

Selective sales tax on tobacco products _ Maine.

Selective sales tax on motor fuels _ Rhode Island.

Property tax- _ Minnesota.

The remaining 21 States have earmarked various combinations of
taxes as follows:

Types of taxes earmarked within the period 1939-47
for 1 or more assistance programs

Number of
States

States

General and selective sales taxes, license and privilege
taxes, other revenues.

5

Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, New Mexi¬
co, Wyoming.

General and selective sales taxes and revenues other

1

Arizona.

than sales taxes or license and privilege taxes.

General and selective sales taxes, license and privilege

1

South Dakota.

taxes.

General and selective sales taxes. -- _ _

4

Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma.

General sales taxes, license and privilege taxes _

1

North Dakota.

Selective sales taxes, license and privilege taxes, other
revenues.

5

Maryland, Massachusetts, Nebraska,
Oregon, Texas.

Selective sales taxes, license and privilege taxes _

1

Florida.

Various selective sales taxes _

1

Ohio.

Revenues other than sales taxes or license and priv-

2

Alabama, Nevada.

ilege taxes.

In general, the States that have earmarked taxes for more than one
of the assistance programs have earmarked the same types of taxes
for all these programs. Several States, however, have earmarked
additional taxes for old-age assistance. For example, Alabama pro¬
vides 10 percent (up to a maximum of $200,000) of the net proceeds
of State liquor stores, as well as lump-sum general-fund appropria¬
tions, for various welfare programs; in addition, after payments are
made to pensioners from the Confederate veterans’ pension fund,
derived from a 1-mill property tax, the balance in the fund is made
available for old-age assistance. Colorado assigns to old-age assist¬
ance the revenues from certain corporation-franchise and death and
gift taxes, in addition to revenues from general sales taxes and liquor
sales taxes and license fees, earmarked also for aid to the blind, aid to
dependent children, and child welfare services. New Mexico since
1944 has allotted to old-age assistance the proceeds from a tobacco

12

tax, in addition to any allocations to this program from revenues ear¬
marked for all welfare programs, from the compensating use tax, sales
and license taxes on alcoholic beverages, the corporation-franchise
tax, and the oil severance tax. In North Dakota, which earmarks
general sales taxes for all assistance programs, an amusement-device
tax imposed in 1942 has been earmarked for old-age assistance only.
Oregon has also earmarked a tax on coin-operated machines and other
amusement devices for old-age assistance only, although expenditures
for this program as well as the other assistance programs are met
almost entirely from legislative appropriations from the liquor reve¬
nues. In Texas, funds for all assistance programs are provided from
the omnibus tax clearance fund, consisting of revenues from a wide
variety of taxes, chiefly selective sales taxes; additional taxes on
tobacco, amusements, and coin-operated machines are available for
old-age assistance only.

PATTERNS IN THE FISCAL YEAR 1947

In the fiscal year 1947, 33 States financed the State share of all
their public assistance programs entirely from general revenues.
These 33 States provided State funds for a total of 122 programs —
the special types of public assistance in all States and general assist¬
ance in 23 States.

Seven of the 16 States using earmarked revenues for public assist¬
ance drew on these revenues only for all programs; the others used
general-fund revenues solely or in combination with earmarked reve¬
nues for one or more programs.

These 16 States provided State funds for a total of 58 programs — ■
all four assistance programs in 11 States, the three special types only
in 4 States, and old-age assistance and aid to the blind only in 1
State. State funds for 34 of the 58 programs were made available
solely from earmarked revenues; 14 were financed enthely from gen¬
eral-fund revenues, and 10 from combined earmarked and general
revenues.

Various taxes were earmarked for public assistance, but as was
generally true in earlier years sales taxes were more frequently ear¬
marked than other types of revenues. Thirteen States earmarked
either general sales or use taxes or selective sales taxes or both. Most
of these same States earmarked other types of taxes as well.

In only a minority of the States earmarking revenues for public
assistance in 1947 did the receipts from such revenues directly deter¬
mine the amounts available for the State share of assistance payments.
In most States either legislative action was required to transfer ear¬
marked revenues to the assistance agencies or general-fund appropria¬
tions were provided in addition to the earmarked revenues.

13

Sources oj State Revenues for Public Assistance, 1947

Of course, earmarked revenues are generally subject to legislative
control, in that State legislation determines the types of revenues,
and the proportions of such revenues, to be set aside for public assist-
ance. When additional legislative control is exercised over funds
available from earmarked revenues, appropriations from such reve¬
nues usually bear some relationship to the amount of anticipated
collections. Thus in all States using earmarked revenues, both legis¬
lation and receipts influence the amount of available funds. Never¬
theless, a distinction may be made between the programs for which
amounts available are directly contingent on collections from ear¬
marked revenues and those for which specific legislative appropria¬
tions are made from earmarked revenues.

Factors determining total amounts avaUable for assistance in States financing 1 or more programs entirely

from earmarked revenues, fiscal year 1947

Legislative appropriations

Colorado _ _ BC i

Colorado _

Nebraska _

Collections

... A
... ABC

Iowa . . A

Kansas _ ABCG

North Dakota _ _ ABCG

Oregon _ A^ BCG

Texas . . . . . ABC

Utah _ _ _ ABCG 3

Nevada _

New Mexico...
Oklahoma _

... A

... ABCG 3
... ABC

' Legislative maximums on amounts made available from earmarked revenues.

2 In addition to the lump-sum appropriation from earmarked revenues for all programs, a relatively
small amount determined by collections was available for old-age assistance only from the amusement-
device tax.

2 Beginning with April 1947, amounts available were determined by appropriations; previously the
emergency relief fund, consisting of earmarked revenues, was appropriated to the governor for welfare
purposes.

< Specified amount made available from severance tax; specified percentages of collections available from
other earmarked taxes.

14

Alaximum amounts to be made available from earmarked revenues
were set by legislative action for 22 of the 34 programs financed entirely
from earmarked revenues in 1947 ; receipts from the specified percent¬
ages of revenues earmarked for public assistance determined amounts
available for the other 12 programs. Except for Colorado, in all States
that provided funds from earmarked rev^enues only for more than one
assistance program, amounts available for each program were deter¬
mined in the same general way — that is, either by legislative appropria¬
tions or by collections.

Colorado’s constitution provides for the allocation to old-age assist¬
ance of 85 percent of net revenues from all general sales or use taxes and
all alcoholic-beverage sales and license and privilege taxes “now or
hereafter levied” and 100 percent of net revenues from certain surtaxes
on inheritances and incorporation fees. Continuing appropriations for
aid to dependent children, aid to the blind, child welfare services, and
an emergency and contingent fund are made from the remaining 15
percent of the general sales and use taxes and the taxes on alcoholic
beverages.

In Utah, before the 1946 fiscal year, all revenues earmarked for pub¬
lic assistance and other welfare purposes and assigned to the emergency
relief fund were “appropriated to the governor” for the specified pur¬
poses, and thus amounts determined by collections became dhectly
available to the assistance agency. In 1945 the State legislature
limited the amount which could become available by an act, effective
until July 1, 1947, which provided for transferring to the State general
fund at the beginning of each quarter any amount over $6 million in
the emergency relief fund. In 1947 the legislation that had provided
for appropriation of the emergency relief fund to the gov^ernor was
amended to read, in part, “Expenditures from said fund shall be made
as provided by legislative appropriations . . . ,” and specific appro¬
priations were made for the months of April, May, and June 1947.
Thus during the first 3 calendar quarters of the fiscal year amounts
available to the Utah agency were contingent on receipts from the
earmarked sales and use taxes, subject to legislative limitation on the
total amount that might be retained in the emergency relief fund.
During the last quarter of the year, however, amounts were directly
controlled by legislation. Amounts available were similarly deter¬
mined by legislative appropriations in Iowa, Kansas, North Dakota,
Oregon, and Texas.

Of the five States in which amounts available depended on collections
from earmarked revenues, one State (Nebraska) appropriated the esti¬
mated total receipts from earmarked revenues; actual receipts rather
than the estimated total included in the appropriation act determined
the amount available for assistance. In Oklahoma, amounts becom¬
ing available to the State assistance fund from the general sales and

15

tobacco taxes are limited only by receipts, but the proportions of total
earmarked revenues to be available for each program are specified by
the State legislature. For 1947, 75 percent of the total was for old-age
assistance only, 17 percent for aid to dependent children, 2 percent for
aid to the blind, 1 percent for child welfare services and services for
crippled children, and the remaining 5 percent for administration of
all these programs.

In Nevada, the rate of the property tax levy for old-age assistance is
determined by the legislature on the basis of the estimated needs of
the program; collections from this additional tax levy then determine
the amount available.

CONCLUSION

Throughout the period 1939-47, State funds for most of the public
assistance programs were derived from general revenues. There was a
trend during the period away from the use of earmarked revenues.
Whether this trend, which accompanied the significant increase in
State revenues during the war years, would continue in a period of
declining revenues is problematical.

Typically the State legislatures have exercised direct control over
funds available for public assistance. Even when revenues were
specifically set aside for public assistance, amounts made available
for assistance within a given period were often limited by direct
legislative appropriations or by legislative maximums set on amounts
to be available or on balances to be retained in assistance funds.

Declines in the number of States earmarking particular types of
taxes corresponded roughly to the decrease in the total number of
States using earmarked revenues for public assistance. There were
no identifiable trends in the earmarking of any given type of tax.
Tlu-oughout the period covered by this report, general and selective
sales taxes were most frequently earmarked for public assistance.
Types of taxes earmarked in any given State were influenced by a
great variety of factors, analysis of which would necessarily involve
consideration of the whole pattern of revenues and expenditures and
the fiscal capacity of the State.

16

Appendix A

Year and month in which Federal funds were first used for assistance 'payments under

currently approved plans

(as of fiscal year ended June 30, 1947)

state

OAA

AB

ADC

Alabama _ _

Feh. 1936

Apr. 1937

Feb. 1936
July 1945
June 1936
Apr. 1936
July 1936
Apr. 1936
Dec. 1941
Aug. 1936
Feb 1936

Alaska _

July 1937
July 1937
Mar. 1936

Arizona. . .

Jime 1936
Apr. 1936
July 1936
Apr. 1936
July 19381

Arkansas. .

California _ _ .

Apr. 1936
Apr. 1936
Apr. 1936
Feb. 1936

Colorado _

Connecticut _ .

Delaware _

District of Columbia. . .

Mar. 1936

Apr. 1936
Jan. 1938

July 1937
Nov. 1937

Florida _ _

Oct. 1936

Sept. 1938

July 1937
.Tnnp, 1937

Georgia . . . . . .

July 1937
Sept. 1936
Feb. 1936

Hawaii . . .

Idaho _ _ _

Feb. 1936

Feb. 1936

Illinois _ _

July 1936
Apr. 1936
Feb. 1936

Oct. 1943

Oct. 1941

Indiana _ _ _ ...

Apr. 1936
Nov. 1937

Sept. 1936
Jan. 1944

Iowa . . .

Kansas _ _ _ .

Aug. 1937
Aug. 1936
June 1936

Sept. 1937
Dec. 1942

Aug. 1937
Jan. 1943

Kentucky _ _ _ ...

Louisiana _ _ _ _ _ _

July 1937
Feb. 1936

June 1936

Maine _ _ _ .. _ _ _ _ _ ...

Dec. 19372

Feb. 1936

Maryland.. _ _ _

Feb. 1936

May 1936
Apr. 1936
July 1936
July 1937
Nov. 19383

Feb. 1936

Massachusetts _ . . _ _

Feb. 1936

Apr. 1936
Sept. 1936
Sept. 1937
3 Mar. 1941

Michigan _ _ _

Feb. 1936

Minnesota _ _ ... _

Mar. 1936

Mississippi _ _ _ _

Feb. 19.36

Missouri _ _ _

Feb. 1936

Jan. 1938

Montana _ _ _ _ _

June 1936

May 1938
Mar. 1936

Apr. 1937
Apr. 1936

Nebraska _ _ _ _

Feb. 1936

Nevada _ _ _

Aug. 1937

New Hampshire . _ _ _ _

Feb. 1936

Feb. 1936

Feb. 1936

New Jersey _

Apr. 1936
May 1936
May 1936
July 1937
May 1936
Feb. 1936

July 1936
Jtme 1936

Apr. 1936
June 1936

New Mexico . _ .. .. _

New York _

May 1937
July 1937 ‘
Jan. 1937

May 1937
July 1937
Oct. 1937

North Carolina _ _

North Dakota _ _ _

Ohio.. _ _

July 1936
Feb. 1937

July 1936
*Oct. 1936

Oklahoma.. _

Apr. 1936
Apr. 1936

Oregon _ _ _ _ _ _

May 1936

June 1937

Pennsylvania . _ _ _

July 1936
Feb. 1936

(®)

Aug. 1936

Rhode' Island _ _ _ _

July 1939

Jan. 1937

South Carolina _ _

Aug. 1937

Aug. 1937

Aug. 1937

South Dakota _ _

Oct. 1936

Feb. 1938

Nov. 1940

Tennessee _ _ .

July 1937
July 1936

July 1937

July 1937

Oct. 1941

Oct. 1941

Utah _ _ _ .. _

Mar. 1936

Mar. 1936

Mar. 1936

Vermont - . _ _ _ _

Feb. 1936

Apr. 1936

Mar. 1936

Virginia _ _ . > _ _ _

Sept. 1938

Sept. 1938

Sept. 1938

Washington . _ _

Feb. 1936

Apr. 1936

Feb. 1936

West Virginia _ .

Wisconsin _ . _

Nov. 1936
Feb. 1936

Jan. 1937
Feb. 1936

Jan. 1937
Feb. 1936

Wvominp’ . _ . _

Feb. 1936

Feb. 1936

Feb. 1936

> Federal funds previously used for assistance payments in February-June 1936.

2 Federal funds previously used for assistance payments in May 1936-August 1937

3 Federal funds previously used for assistance payments in February-March 1936.

< Federal funds previously used for assistance payments in April-July 1936.

5 Federal funds used for assistance payments in February 1936-December 1937 only.

17

Appendix B

Financial responsibility for the non-Federal share of public assistance, by State,

as of fiscal year ended June SO, 1947

Financial responsi¬
bility for general
assistance pay¬
ments

Non-Federal share of special types of public assistance financed from —

State funds only

State and local funds

State fimds only, 1 or more
programs; State and local
funds, other programs 1

State funds only _

State and local
funds.

Ariz.j D. n.j Pa

Ark., Ill., La., Mich.,
Mo., N. Mex., Okla.,
R. I., S. C., Wash., W,
Va.

Ala., Kans., Md., Mont.,
N. J., N. Y., Oreg.,
Utah, Va., Wis.

Colo., Conn., Del., Me.,
Mass., Minn., N. Dak.,
Ohio, Vt., Wyo.

Local funds only....

Fla., Idaho, Ky., Miss.,
Nebr., S. Dak., Tex.

Calif., Ga., Nev.,^ N. C.,
Term.

Ind., Iowa, N. H.

1 In the listed States, programs financed from State or State and local funds as follows:

State

State fmids
only

State and
local funds

Colo _

OAA
OAA, AB
OAA, AB
OAA, AB
AB

AB

AB

ADC, AB
ADC
ADC
ADC

OAA, ADC
OAA, ADC
OAA, ADC

/ Corm _

Del . . .

Me . . . .

Mass .

Minn. _

N. Dak. _

State

State funds
only

State and
local funds

Ohio - . .

OAA, AB

ADO

Vt _ _ _

OAA, AB

ADC

Wyo . .

AB

OAA, ADC

Ind . .

AB

OAA, ADC

Iowa . . .

OAA

ADO, AB

N. H... . . . .

ADO, AB

OAA

2 State and local funds for old-age assistance and aid to the blind, local funds only for aid to dependent
children.

Appendix C

Programs for which State funds were not available for part or all of the period 1939-

47, by State and fiscal year

Program and State

Years for
which State
funds not
available

Program and State

Years for
which State
funds not
available

Aid to the blind

General assistance

Delaware . . .

1939-45

California _ _ ...

1942^7

Nevada . . . .

1939-41

Florida ....

1 939-47

Texas . .

1939-40

Georgia . .

1939-47

Idaho _ _

1942-47

Indiana _

1939-47

Aid to dependent children

Iowa _ _

1944-47

Kentucky _

1939-47

Iowa _ _ _ _

1939-43

Mississippi

1 9.‘^9-47

Kentucky . . .

1939-42

N ebraska

1 a‘^9-47

Mississippi . . .

1939-40

N e vada

1944^7

Nevada... . . . .

1939-47

New Hamp.shire

1 a‘^9-47

South Dakota . . . .

1940

North Carolina

1 9.'^<M.7

Texas _ _ _ _

1939-40

South Dakota

1 a'^9-47

Tennessee . . .

1939-47

Texas . . . . .

1939-47

Vermont . .

1939^5

18

Table 1. — Sources of State revenues — general and earmarked — for 'public

assistance, 19S9-47

state

Source of
revenue

Fiscal year ending in —

1939

1940

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

1947

Ala__..

GF and ER

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

Ariz-.-

OF only

BCG

BCG

ABCG

ABCG

GFand ER

G

ER only

ABC

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

A

A

Ark _

GF only

ABCG

ABCG

ER only

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

Calif...

GF only

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC 1

ABC I

Colo...

GF only

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

ER only

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

A2BC

A2BC

A2BC

Conn..

GF only

CG

CG

CG

CG

. CG

CG

CG

CG

CG

GF and ER

AB

AB

AB

AB

AB

AB

AB

AB

AB

Del....

GF only

A CG3

A CG3

A CG3

A CG3

A CG3

A CG3

A CG3

ABCG3

ABCG3

D. C...

GF only

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

Fla....

GF only

B

B

GFand ER

C

C

C

C 1

C 3

C *

A Cl

A P, 4

A Cl

ER only

AB 5

AB 5

AB 5

AB 5

AB 5

AB 5

B 5

Ga. _

GF only

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

Idaho. -

GF only

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

Ill _

GF only

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

GF and ER

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

Ind _

GF only

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

Iowa...

GF only

B

B

B

B

B

BC

BC

BC

BC

GFand ER

G

G

ER only

A G

A

A

A G

A G

A 6

A 6

A 6

A 6

Kans. .

ER only

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

Ky.._.

GF only

AB 7

AB 7

AB 7

AB 7

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

La _

GF only

ABCG

ABCG

BC

BC

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

GFandER

ABCG

A G

A G

ER only

ABCG

Me _

GF only

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

BCG

BCG

BCG

BCG

ABCG

ABCG

GFandER

A

A

A

A

Md....

GF only

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ER only

ABCG

Mass..

GF only

BCG

BCG

BCG

BCG

BCG

BCG

BCG

ABCG

ABCG

GFandER

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

Mich-.

GF only

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

Minn.

GF only

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABCG

ABCG

GFandER

Qs

Gs

G8

G8

G8

G8

ER only

G8

Miss...

GF only

AB

AB

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

Mo _

GF only

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

Mont..

GF only

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

Nebr..

ER only

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

Nev ..

GF only

G

G

G

B G

B G

B

B

B

B

ER only

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N. H-_

GF only

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

N. J-.-.

GF only

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

N.Mex

ER only

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

N. Y._

GF only

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

N. C_-

GF only

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

N.Dak.

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG®

ABCGo

ABCG®

ER only

ABCG®

ABCG®

ABCG®

ABCG®

Ohio...

GF only

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

GFandER

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

Okla

GF only

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

ER only

ABC

ABCG

ABCG

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

HF anH FT?

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ER only

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

Pa _

GF only

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

R. I...

GF only

ABC

G

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

S. C.._

GF only

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

S.Dak.

GF only

AB

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

B

ER only

A 10 C 11

See footnotes at end of table.

19

Table 1. — Sources of State revenues — general and earmarked — for public
assistance, 1939-4? — Continued

State

Fiscal year ending in —

revenue

1939

1940

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

1947

Term..

GF only

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

Tex _

ER only

A

A

ABC 12

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

Utah

ER only

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

Vt .

GF only

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABCG

ABCG

Va .

GF only

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

Wash..

GF only

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

W. Va.

GF only

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

AVis....

GF only

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

AVyo...

GF only

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ER only

ABCG

«

Note: For source of revenue: GF designates general-fund revenues; ER earmarked revenues.

For programs: A designates old-age assistance; B, aid to the blind; C, aid to dependent children;

G, general assistance.

1 No State funds made available for general assistance after 1941, but legislation effective July 14, 1945,
provides for State participation in direct and administrative costs of welfare activities in any county in which
annual expenditure rate for such activities exceeds 8/100 of 1 percent of total assessed valuation of property
subject to county tax.

2 For old-age assistance only, general-fund appropriations of $500,000 for January-June 1945 and $1,500,000
for each of the fiscal years 1946 and 1947 could have been made available under specified conditions if needed
to make payments in full.

3 Regular legislative appropriations for general assistance for 1939, 1942, and 1943; in other years and in 1939
amounts made available for this program by Permanent Budget Commission from State Emergency Fund.

‘ Use of general revenues for aid to dependent children authorized to make up difference between appro¬
priations and receipts from earmarked revenues; general revenues not available for all years.

® Appropriations for old-age assistance and aid to the blind could be met from both earmarked and general
revenues, but actual source of funds earmarked revenues only for old-age assistance 1939-44 and for aid to the
blind 1939-45.

® No funds appropriated or earmarked for general assistance after 1943, but balances remained available;
no expenditures from State funds for this program in 1946 or 1947.

' No payments from State funds for aid to the blind before 1943, but aid to the blind included among
programs covered by lump-sum appropriations for welfare activities.

s Financed as needed by issuance of certificates of indebtedness to be redeemed by property-tax levy;
levy could be reduced when any portion of appropriation met from general revenues.

* Use of general revenues authorized for all programs to make up difference between appropriations and
receipts from earmarked revenues.

10 Use of general revenues authorized to make up difference between appropriation and receipts from ear¬
marked revenues.

a Earmarked revenues available in 1939 for aid to dependent children transferred to old-age assistance in
1940; no expenditures for aid to dependent children from State funds until 1941.

a Funds made available for aid to dependent children and aid to the blind by legislation effective May
1941, but no expenditures for these programs until October 1941.

Table 2. — Types of State revenues earmarked wholly or partly for public assistance,

1939-4?

State

Fiscal year ending in —

1939

1940

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

1947

A. General sales, use, or gross receipts taxes:

Arizona . .

BCG

ABCG

ABC

G

A G
ABCG
ABCG

ABCG

ABC

ABC

ABCG

ABCG

BCG

ABCG

ABC

G

A G
ABCG
ABCG
ABCG

ABCG

BCG

ABCG

ABC

G

A

ABCG

BCG

ABCG

ABC

BCG

ABCG

ABC

Arkansas... .

Colorado... . . .

Illinois . .

ABCG

ABC

ABCG

ABC

ABC

ABC

Iowa . .

Kansas.. . . . .

Louisiana _ _ _

A G
ABCG

A

ABCG
A G
ABCG
ABCG
ABC

A

ABCG
A G
ABCG
ABCG
ABC

A

ABCG

A

ABCG

A

ABCG

New Mexico i _

North Dakota . .

Oklahoma 2 _ _

South Dakota _

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABC

ABCG

ABCG

ABC

ABCG

ABCG

ABC

ABCG

ABCG

ABC

Utah _

Wyoming _ _ _

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

See footnotes at end of table.

20

Table 2. — Types of State revenues earmarked wholly or partly for public assistance,

1 9S9-47 — Continued

State

1939

Fiscal year ending in —

1940

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

1947

B. Sales taxes on selected commodities and services: 3

Arizona— .

Arkansas _

Colorado _

Florida _

Iowa _ _ _

Kansas _

Maryland _

Massachusetts.

Nebraska _

New Mexico...

Ohio _

Oregon _

South Dakota.

Texas _

W yoming _

Louisiana _

Nebraska _

Rhode Island.

Arizona _

Illinois _

Maine _

New Mexico.
Oklahoma.
Texas _

nilnois

Ohio...

Texas..

Arkansas _

Florida _

Massachusetts

Arkansas .
Maryland

Ohio _

Texas _

Maryland _

Massachusetts

Oklahoma _

Texas _

BCG

ABCG

ABC

ABC

BCG

ABCG

ABC

ABC

BCG

ABCG

ABC

ABC

G

ABCG

B>CG

ABCG

ABC

ABC

G

ABCG

BCG

ABCG

ABC

ABC

G

ABCG

ABCG

ABC

ABC

ABCG

ABC

ABC

ABO"

Tb'c"‘

ABCG

ABCG

A

ABC

ABCG

G

ABCG

ABC

A

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

A

ABC

ABCG

G

ABCG

A

ABC

ABCG

G

ABCG

A

ABC

ABCG

A

ABC

ABCG

A

ABC

ABCG

A

ABC

ABCG

ABC

ABCG

ABC

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

A

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

Motor -vehicle fuels

ABCG

ABC

G

ABCG

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

Alcoholic beverages

Tobacco products

BCG

BCG

BCG

A

A

A

BCG

G

A

BCG

G

A

G

A

A

ABC

G

A

A

ABC

G

O

A

ABC

A

ABC

ABC

ABC

Public utilities <

G

G

G

G

ABC

ABC

ABC

G

ABC

G

ABC

G

ABC

G

ABC

Pari-mutuels

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

A

A

A

ABCG

A

A

ABCG

A

A

ABCG

A

ABCG

A

A

Admissions and amusements <

ABCG

ABCG

G

A

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

G

A

G

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

Other *

ABCG

A

A

A

A

G

G

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

See footnotes at end of table.

21

Table 2. — Types of State revenues earmarked wholly or partly for public assistance,

1 939-47 — Continued

Fiscal year ending in—

state

1939

1940

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

C. License and privilege taxes:

Arkansas . . .

Colorado— . .

Florida _ _ _

Iowa_. . . .

Alcoholic beverages

ABCQ

ABC

ABC

ABCG

ABC

ABC

ABCQ

ABC

ABC

Q

A

ABC

ABCQ

ABCG

ABCQ

ABC

ABC

G

A

ABC

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABC

ABC

Q

A

ABC

ABCQ

ABCQ

ABCQ

ABC

ABC

ABCG

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

Massachusetts .

Nebraska . .

New Mexico— . .

Oregon _ _ _

South Dakota.. . .

A

ABC

ABCG

ABCQ

ABC

A

ABCG

A

ABC

ABCQ

ABCG

A

ABC

ABCG

ABCG

A

ABC

ABCQ

ABCG

ABC

ABCG

ABCQ

ABC

ABCQ

ABCG

Texas . .

Wyoming . . .

A

A

A

A

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

Arkansas _

Massachusetts _ _

North Dakota . .

Amusements and race tracks

ABCG

A

ABCG

A

ABCG

A

ABCQ

A

A

ABCG

A

A

ABCG

A

A

ABCG

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

Oregon . .

Texas . . .

Colorado _ _ _

Massachusetts _

A

A

A

A

A

A

Corporations in general

A

A

A

A

A

ABCG

A

A

ABCG

A

A

ABCQ

A

A

ABCG

A

A

New Mexico . . .

Arkansas _

Florida _

ABCQ

ABCG

ABCQ

ABCQ

ABCQ

Other 8

ABCG

A

A

A

C

A

C

A

C

A

C

C

C

Maryland. . . .

ABCG

A

Texas _ _

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

D. Other types of revenue:

Property taxes

Alabama _ _

Arizona _

Maryland A.. _ _

A

A

ABCG

G

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

Minnesota . . .

Nevada. . .

Arkansas . .

Iowa _ _

Maryland . . .

G

A

Q

A

G

A

G

A

G

A

Q

A

A

A

Individual and corporation income taxes

A G
ABCG

A Q

ABCG

A

ABCG
A G

ABCG

A

ABCG

A

ABCG

A

A

A

Massachusetts _ _

A

A

A

A

Colorado... ... . .
Massachusetts _ .

Death and gift taxes

A

A

A

A

A

ABC

A

A

ABC

A

A

ABC

A

A

ABC

A

A

Nebraska _ .

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

See footnotes at end of table.

22

Table 2. — Types of State revenues earmarked wholly or partly for public assistance,

1 939-47 — Continued

State

Fiscal year ending in—

1939

1940

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

1947

D. Other types of revenue — Continued _

Severance taxes

Nevada _

A

ABCG

A

ABCG

A

ABCG

ABC

A

ABCG

ABC

A

ABCG

ABC

A

ABCG

ABC

A

ABCG

ABC

A

ABCG

ABC

A

ABCG

ABC

New Mexico _

Texas _

Connecticut _ _

Nebraska _

Per capita taxes

AB

ABC

AB

ABC

AB

ABC

AB

ABC

AB

ABC

AB

ABC

AB

ABC

AB

ABC

AB

ABC

Alabama _

Other revenues *

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

ABCG

Oregon _ _

ABCG

ABCG

ABC

ABCG

ABC

ABCG

ABC

ABCG

ABC

ABCG

ABC

ABCG

ABC

ABCG

ABC

Tpxas .... _ _

ABCG

Note: A designates old-age assistance; B, aid to the blind; C, aid to dependent children; G, general
assistance.

1 Compensating use tax only.

2 Use tax only earmarked for general assistance; sales tax earmarked for 3 special types of public assistance.

3 States listed under B include only those that earmarked tor public assistance separately imposed sales
taxes on selected commodities and services; see footnotes 4 and 5 for lists of States in which given selected
commodities and services are specifically covered by general sales taxes earmarked for public assistance.

‘ Certain types of public-utility receipts and admissions and amusements are subject to the earmarked
general sales taxes in the following States listed in section A of this tabulation: Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado,
Iowa, Kansas, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.

^ Includes commodities and services as follows: Maryland, cosmetics; Massachusetts, certam restaurant
meals; Oklahoma, used cars; Texas, motor vehicles, radios, cosmetics, playing cards, carbon black, cement,
oil and gas-well servicing, and insurance premiums. Restaurant meals are subject to the earmarked general
sales taxes in Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming.

3 Includes license and privilege taxes as follows: Arkansas, license fees for certain itinerant merchants
(old-age assistance only), vending-machine licenses (1939 only), and travel bureau taxes (old-age assistance
only, 1939-45) ; Florida, truck maintenance tag fees and special automobile licenses; Maryland, coin-operated
machine licenses, motor-vehicle operators’ licenses, and motor-vehicle titling tax; Texas, coin-operated
niachine licenses

2 Property tax' earmarked for Confederate pensions, but most of the Confederate pension fund used for
old-age assistance.

* Personal property tax only. , „

« Includes revenues as follows: Alabama, Oregon, and Wyoming, proceeds of alcoholic-bperage mo-
nopoly systems; Arkansas, proceeds from sale of State-owned land; Maryland, tax on recording of docu-
ments; Texas, tax on stock transfers.

23

Table 3. — Number of States with earmarked revenues for public assistance derived

from specified sources, 1939-47

In any

Fiscal year ending in—

Type of revenue

year,

1939-47

1939

1940

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

1947

Total . . .

26

25

20

20

21

22

22

21

16

16

Sales taxes... . . .

22

21

16

16

17

18

17

16

13

13

General sales taxes . .

13

12

10

10

9

10

9

8

7

7

Selective sales taxes.. .

20

17

14

14

15

15

13

13

10

10

Alcoholic beverages... _

15

14

11

12

11

11

9

9

6

6

Motor-vehicle fuels . .

3

3

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Tobacco products. .

6

2

2

2

4

4

4

4

3

3

Public utilities . . .

3

2

2

3

3

3

2

2

2

2

Pari-mutuels _

3

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

1

1

Admissions and amusements...

4

4

3

3

2

2

2

2

1

1

Other selective sales taxes _

4

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

License and privilege taxes .

13

11

8

9

10

10

9

9

7

7

Alcoholic beverages . . . . .

11

10

8

9

9

9

8

8

5

5

Amusements and race tracks _

5

3

3

3

4

4

4

5

3

3

Corporations in general . .

3

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

2

2

Other license and privilege taxes..

4

3

2

2

3

3

3

3

2

2

1

Property taxes _ _

5

5

4

4

4

4

4

4

2

2

Individual and corporation income

taxes . .

4

2

1

2

3

3

3

3

1

1

Death and gift taxes . .

3

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

2

2

Severance taxes _ _ _

3

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

Per capita taxes . . . .

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

Other revenues . .

6

4

2

3

4

4

4

4

3

3

Table 4. — Number of programs with earmarked revenues for public assistance

derived from specified sources, 1939-47

Type of revenue

In any

Fiscal year ending in-

y till f

1939^7

1939

1940

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

19t7

Total. _ _ _ _

74

70

55

57

57

59

55

53

44

44

General sales taxes... .

43

39

33

32

31

32

29

27

23

23

Selective sales taxes:

Alcoholic beverages . .

45

42

31

34

33

33

29

29

21

21

Motor-vehicle fuels _ _

8

8

7

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

Tobacco products _

10

4

4

4

8

8

6

6

5

5

Public utilities _

5

2

2

5

5

5

4

4

4

4

Pari-mutuels _ _ _

6

5

5

5

6

6

6

6

1

1

Admissions and amusements .

10

10

6

6

5

5

5

5

1

1

Other selective sales taxes . .

9

4

1

4

4

4

4

4

3

3

License and privilege taxes;

Alcoholic beverages _

33

30

23

24

24

24

25

25

17

17

Amusements and race tracks _

8

6

6

6

7

7

7

8

3

3

Corporations in general. .

6

5

5

5

6

6

6

6

5

5

Other license and privilege taxes. .

10

9

2

2

3

3

3

3

2

2

Property taxes _

8

8

4

4

4

4

4

4

2

2

Individual and corporation income

taxes . .

11

6

2

5

7

6

6

6

1

1

Death and gift taxes . .

5

4

4

4

5

5

5

5

4

4

Severance taxes . .

8

5

5

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

Per capita taxes _ _

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

Other revenues . . . .

23

16

8

11

15

15

15

15

11

11

24

U. S. 50VERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE; 1948

SOURCES OF REVENUE
FOR THE STATE SHARE
OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE
1947-49

»

FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY
Social Security Administration
Bureau of Public Assistance

Supplement 1 to Public Assistance Report No. 16

SOURCES OF REVENUE FOR THE STATE SHARE OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE,
FISCAL YEARS 1947-1949

I This release which is a supplement to an earlier report on this subject '\J

j^brings up to date the information on the basic sources of State revenues — general
[ funds, earmarked taxes, or both — for all public assistance programs in the conti-
: nental United States, Alaska, and Hawaii. Data have been summarized for all pro¬
grams in which there was State financial participation, whether or not Federal
' funds were provided. In addition, information is presented on the specific types
; of taxes earmarked for assistance by the States that used earmarked revenues alone,
or in combination with general revenues to finance the State share of one or more
assistance programs. No information in included on the sources of local revenue.

During the fiscal year 1949 State funds accounted for $871 million, or 44o7
percent of the $1,950 million expended for assistance payments; about $889 million
(45 06 percent) came from Federal funds and $190 million (9® 7 percent) from local
funds. The expenditures from State funds for assistance payments in 1949 repre¬
sented a 42 percent increase over the amount spent in 1947® These funds are de¬
rived from general revenues, earmarked taxes, or a combination of both. General
revenues include all funds not specifically set aside for particular purposes. In
1949 more than three-fourths of the State funds came from the general revenues of
44 States, including the 12 that used general funds in combination with earmarked
revenues. On the other hand, earmarked taxes include all those sources from which
the proceeds, in whole or in part, were to be set aside for public assistance.

For the country as a whole, the sources of State funds were practically the
same in 1949 as in 1947® Among the six States that had changes in revenue sources,
three made greater use of general revenues whereas three other States used earmark¬
ed revenues more extensively (table 1).

Basic Sources in 1949

In 1949 about three-fifths of the States tJ met the State share of public
assistance entirely from general revenues. These 32 States provided State funds
for a total of 118 programs— the 3 special types of public assistance in all 32
States, and general assistance in 23 States.

The remaining 19 States "earmarked'* State revenues for one or more of their
assistance programs, ij Seven of these States depended entirely on earmarked funds
for all assistance programs; the others used a combination of earmarked and general
revenues, or general revenues alone for one or more programs. These 19 States pro¬
vided State funds for 69 programs — all 4 assistance programs in 13 States, the 3
special types only in 5 States, and old-age assistance and aid to the blind only

"ij Epler, Elizabeth G., Sources of Revenue for the State Share of Public Assistanc'
1939-47. Federal Security Agency, Social Security Administration, Bureau of Pub'
lie Assistance, Public Assistance Report No. 15, June 1948.

Includes Alaska and Hawaii.
y For Alaska, includes only old-age assistance and aid to dependent children; no ^
program for aid to the blind.

y See discussion of "earmarking" in Public Assistance Report No. 15, Sources of
Revenue for the State Share of Public Assistance, 1939-47. pp. 3-4®

Si'

I ml •

- 2 -

in 1 State, For 34 of these programs only earmarked revenues were used; 20 pro¬
grams were financed by a combination of earmarked and general revenues; and 13
were financed entirely from general revenues.

Source of State funds for public assistance, fiscal year 1949

Source of

Number

States ^

State funds

of States

General revenues

32

Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Con- ^

only, all programs

necticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, ’ i
Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, 1
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,!

Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire]
New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Penn¬
sylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Ver-

mont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia,
Wisconsin, Wyoming

Hawaii, Kansas, New Mexico, North Dakota,
Oregon, Texas, Utah

Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Iowa,
Louisiana, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, /
Rhode Island, Tennessee

Shifts Between 1947 and 1949

During the last 2 years, six States changed the sources of revenue
State share of public assistance. In 1949 relatively greater use of general rev¬
enues was made by three States — Connecticut, Iowa, and Nebraska, Connecticut
which had used the proceeds from a poll tax in combination with general funds for
old-age assistance and aid to the blind, shifted in 1948 to the use of general |
revenues only for these two programs. The change in Iowa affected only the old-
age assistance program. From 1939 through 1947, this program was financed entire¬
ly by the proceeds of certain sales, individual and corporation income taxes and j
special corporation taxes; in 1948 and 1949, however, the legislature appropri¬
ated an annual amount of $2 million from the general fund to supplement the |l0
million derived annually from earmarked revenues.

Earmarked revenues 7

only, all programs

Various combinations 12

of general and ear¬
marked revenues

Nebraska which had earlier relied solely on earmarked revenues for the
three special types of public assistance continued to use some earmarked funds
but also drew heavily on general revenues for 1948 and 1949* Prior to 1948, the
taxes earmarked for public assistance included certain alcoholic beverage taxes,
motor fuel taxes, excise and estate taxes, and per capita taxes; only the two
last-named groups of taxes were earmarked for public assistance in 1948 and 1949*

On the other hand, earmarked revenues were used to a larger extent by thr«
other States — Louisiana, Rhode Island, and Tennessee, In 1949 Louisiana shifted
from the use of general funds only, to a combination of general and earmarked rev
enues for financing all four assistance programs, thus reverting to the pattern I

- 3 “

that existed in 1940. As a result of a liberalization of the old-age assistance
law, and of changes in general public welfare legislation, expenditures from State
funds for public assistance in Louisiana during 1949 were about four times as
large as in 194S. To provide additional funds for this greatly expanded program,
the State legislature assigned the proceeds of a general sales tax to the welfare
fund. In addition to these earmarked funds, the welfare fund had an unexpended
balance of $25 million which previously had been appropriated from general revenues.

From 1940 through 1947, Rhode Island used general revenues for all four as¬
sistance programs; in 1948 and 1949, however, a public assistance reserve fund,
established in 1942 and derived in part from earmarked revenues, was drawn upon to
supplement general funds for the general assistance program.

Tennessee, which had previously used only general funds for the three spe¬
cial types of public assistance, began in 1948 to use both general and earmarked
revenues. Through a ruling of the State attorney general, about $2 million from
sales tax revenues was released to the welfare department effective April 1, 1948,
and another $2 million from the same source for the fiscal year 1949 •

Trends in Revenue Sources

Over the past 10 years, the number of States using general revenues only
for all assistance programs advanced significantly in 1940 and again in 1946. As
shown in the tabulation below, in each instance the number remained the same in
the succeeding year, but declined in the next 2 years. It remains to be seen
whether the next few years will show a further drop or another upward shift.

Number of States meeting State share of public assistance from specified source,

1939-1949

Fiscal

year

General
revenues
only, all
programs

Earmarked
revenues
only, all
programs

General and earmarked revenues

General revenues
only, 1 or more
programs; earmark¬
ed only or general
and earmarked,
other programs

Other combinations
of general and
earmarked revenues

1939o...o

25

9

10

7

1940 .

30

9

8

4

19a.....

30

9

8

4

1942 .

29

8

10

4

1943 .

28

8

11

4

1944.0...

28

9

12

2

1945 .

29

9

11

2

1946 .

34

8

8

1

1947 .

34

8

8

1

1948.....

33

7

6

3

1949 .

32

7

8

4

- 4 -

In terms of programs the trend in revenue sources is similar to that for
States. Thus, the number of programs financed entirely from general revenues rose
from 109 in 1939, to 125 in 1941; and from 128 in 1945, to 139 in 1946 and 1947 •
The decline to 133 that occurred in 1949 was somewhat greater, however, than that
in the early forties.

Number of programs with State share of public assistance financed
from specified source, 1939-1949

Fiscal year

General revenues only

iiarmarked revenues only or
general and earmarked revenues

Total

OAA

AB

ADC

GA

Total

OAA

AB

ADC

GA

1939 .

109

29

29

29

22

74

22

18

17

17

1940 .

123

33

33

32

25

59

18

14

13

14

1941 . .

125

33

33

34

25

61

18

15

14

14

1942 .

124

32

34

34

24

61

19

15

14

13

1943 .

123

31

34

35

23

63

20

15

14

14

1944.......

126

31

35

37

23

59

20

14

13

12

1945 .

128

32

35

37

24

57

19

14

13

11

1946 .

139

36

38

38

27

48

15

12

12

9

1947 .

139

36

38

38

27

48

15

12

12

9

1948 .

137

36

38

37

26

50

15

12

13

10

1949 .

133

35

37

36

25

54

16

13

14

11

Types of Earmarked Taxes

Of the 19 States earmarking revenues for 54 assistance programs in 1949, 14
earmarked general sales or use taxes, or sales taxes on selected commodities. Gen¬
eral sales or use taxes were earmarked for nine States; four of these States and
five others earmarked selective sales taxes, frequently on alcoholic beverages.
Most of the States earmarking general or selective sales taxes earmarked other
types of revenues. Other types of taxes earmarked for public assistance included
license and privilege taxes, death and gift taxes, severance taxes, income taxes,
and various others (table 2).

The States which earmark certain taxes for public assistance are not the
only ones that use the proceeds of such taxes for assistance. In States using
general revenues for the assistance programs, the financing actually is shared by
all State revenues assigned to the general fund. For example, of the 29 States
with general sales taxes in 1949, only 9 earmarked such taxes for assistance. In
all 29 States, however, general sales tax revenues were undoubtedly very important
to public assistance.

- 5 -

Table 1. Sources of State revenues — general and earaarked—for public assistance, 1947-49

State

Fiscal year
ending in

►

GF only

GF and SR

ZR only

Alabama .

1947-49

ABCG

Alaska . .

1947-49

A CG

Arlsona .

1947-49

ABCG

Arkansas .

1947-49

ABCG

California .

1947-49

ABC 1/

Colorado .

1947-49

G

ABC

Connecticut . .

1947

CG

AB

1943-49

ABCG

Delaware .

1947-49

ABCG 2/

District of Columbia . .

1947-49

ABCG

Florida .

1947-49

B

A C

Georgia .

1947-49

ABC

Hawaii .

1947-49

•

ABCG 2/

Idaho .

1947-49

ABC

Illinois .

1947-49

ABC

G

Indisma .

1947-49

ABC

Iowa ^ .

1947

BC

A

1943-49

BC

A

Kansas . . .

1947-49

ABCG

Kentucky .

1947-49

ABC

Louisiana . . .

1947-43

ABCG

1949

ABCG

Maine . .

1947-49

ABCG

Maryland .

1947-49

ABCG

Massachusetts. . .

1947-49

ABCG

Michigan . .

1947-49

ABCG

Minnesota.... .

1947-49

ABCG

Mi ssissippi . .

1J47-49

ABC

Missouri .

1947-49

ABCG

Montana .

1947-49

ABCG

Nebraska .

191^7

ABC

1943-49

ABC

Nevada. . .

1947-49

B

A

New Hampshire .

1947-49

ABC

New Jersey .

1947-49

ABCG

New Mexico .

1947-49

ABCG

New York .

1947-49

ABCG

North Carolina .

19^7-49

ABC

North Dakota .

1947-J^9

ABCG 5/

Ohio .

1947-49

AB(f

G

Oklahoma .

1947-49

Ig

ABC

Oregon .

1947-49

ABCG

Pennsylvania .

1947-49

ABCG

Rhode Island. . . .

1947

ABCG

1943-49

ABC

0 6/

South Carolina .

1947-49

ABCG

South Dakota .

1947-49

ABC

Tennessee .

1947

ABC

1943-49

ABC

Texas .

1947-49

ABO

Utah .

1947-49

ABCG

Vermont. . .

1947-49

ABCG

Virginia .

1947-49

ABCG

Washington . .

1947-49

ABCG

West Virginia........ .

1947-49

ABCG

Wisconsin. . . .

1947-49

ABCG

Wyoming. . .

1947-49

ABCG

Note Tor Source of Revenue; OF designates general-fund revenues; KR earnarked revenues. For

programs: A designates old-age assistance; B, aid to the blind; C, aid to dependent children;

0, general assistance.

\J No State funds made available for general assistance after 1941, but legislation effective
July l4, 194^, provides for State participation in direct and administrative costs of
welfare activities in amy county in which annual expenditure rate for such activities ex¬
ceeds 8/100 of 1 percent of total assessed valuation of property subject to county tsiz.

2/ Amounts made available for general assistance by Permanent Budget Commission from State
iiaergency Fund.

Jj $90,000 from general revenues for a 6-inonth period may be transferred by the Governor on a
non-re fundable basis to the public welfare fund used for all programs.

^ No funds appropriated or earmarked for general assistance after 1943, but balances remained
available; no expenditures from State funds for this program in 1946-^+9.

^ Use of general revenues authorised for all programs to make up difference between appropri¬
ations and receipts from earmarked revenues.

6/ Certain inheritance tax collections allocated to State Public Assistance Reserve Fund

( establ ished. July 1942); proceeds for 1943 only available to Fund; no appropriation from *
Fund made by legislature until 1948.

- 6 -

fablv 2.— >T3rp«s of Stats rsvsnues aaraarkied VI10II7 or partly for public

assistancs, 1947-^9

Fiscal

year

General
sales,
use, or

Sales taxes om
selected commodi¬
ties and services

Licenses and
privilege taxes

Other

SUte

ending

gross

. roTenu*t

in

receipts

Alcoholic

Other \J

Alcoholic

Other

taxes

beverages

beverages

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

11 fh .......

1947-49

1947-49

ABCO ^

A 4/ /

Colorado . .

ABC

ABC

ABC

Connecticut. . .
Florida .

1947

1947-49

1947-49

A6/

.AB 2/

01/

Hawaii .

ABCO ^

Illinois .

Iowa. . .

1947-49

1947-49

1947-49

1949

A

A ^

Kn-nsSS. .......

ABCO

ABCO

Louisiana. ....

ABCO

ABC 11/

Babraatra ,,,,,,

1947

1948-49

ABC

ABC

ABC ^

ABC ^

\

Hawada. . .

1947-49

1947-49

AB^Ig/

New Mexico. . . .

ABCO 14/

ABCO

A2/

ABCO

ABCO U

North Dakota..

Ohi n ^ ,

1947-49

1947-49

1947-49

1947-49

ABCO

A 1^

0 m

ABC 2/

ABC

^ .

Oregon .

ABCO

ABCO

A 16/

ABCO y/

0 5/

Hhode Island..

Tennessee .

eawfia, .

194frJ49

1948-49

1947-49

1947-49

ABC

ABC

ABC 12/

ABC

A ^

ABC 21/

Utah .

ABCO

u

States with programii listed in this column include only those that earmarked for
public assistance separately imposed taxes on selected conaodlties and serrices.
Public utility receipts and admissions and amusements, on which separately-
imposed taxes are earmarked for public assistance in two of these States, au-e
subject to the earmarked general sales tax in the following States for which pro¬
grams are listed in column 2 of this table: Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana,
Korth Dakota, CMahoma, Tennessee, and Utah.

For all programs, proceeds of alcoholic beverage monopoly systems; for A, property
tax earmarked for Confederate pension fUnd, most of which is used for old-age
assistance.

Corporations in general.

Death and gift taxes.

Per capita taxes.

Parl-Butuels.

Truck maintenance tag fees and special automobile licenses.

IndiTldual income taxes.

Tobacco products.

IndiTldual and corporation income taxes.

Motor-rehicle fuels.

Death and gift taxes and per capita taxes.

Property and severance taxes.

Coiq;>ensating use tax only.

Severance taxes.

Amusements and race tracks.

Public utilities.

Proceeds of alcoholic beverage monopoly systems.

For all programs; public utilities, motor vehicles, radios, cosmetics, playing
cards, csu-bon black, cement, oil and gas-well servicing, and insurance premiums;
for A only: admissions and amusements.

Amusements and racs tracks, and coin-operated machine licensee.

Severance taxes and tax on stock transfers.

I

I

3

I

A

ct-

V

/

0 • / 1 * . V

0 ■ ‘

° ’ f ®

C' ,0^ *1,*°' ^

• <V^

•■ ,n C^

A ‘

^ o

" -l'

■■‘0

vT* ®

^ <{.^ O 0

. <j) ^ ° " ®

O >

V^

I *»

vPS

* /&

* '» •<?'-. ^

' \'^' ‘ ’ \'^ -c*:* .

.i^r-

0'’ * '^o ^ °

\y' ^

j^a/M^'^ Ai .-fy- !. »??». ^ . ' t ^ >iV' ^ .=1 a - • . . '^

A? ^o>' o V J)§.\K ■* A V • ^iilS ■» A? oX/ JS.Xy * aV

^ ^ •• '!' oX ci- • ^ V r? -'V ^Va. .

,0^ 'o..'» A ^ 0^ -

" ^ a^ o ® ^ ° -9 (V * ^ ^O ® ^ ^ ^ ^

\0 V^, " “ .,-1 P>.

O * 0 O

o *

-i* " A"' ^

C\ .0^ v

'^>v A^ A ^ ^ •

• -<^0 C.^

- . - ^-^uuwx^ .

- 0 HO .

:A\ XX

-»r^CT^ ^ <L^ •

<:> Jy %r '

T>.

• ^ 0

^ " V^ . s

C yce/r??:^^ ^ 4'^ y.s:^y

' • -O # »

A

'^ot.-*' .

/ aO ^ h

«o ,0 ^ ,,^- Xi-

A^ ''1,‘cf- V^ **•'

^ 5^ • V j- Vi

* ^ ^ cC<\MA‘'o * '

-i « 3S

a'

'>X v"^

o V

//IWj^ V
/jr^ ^

-

\

A,*-

A^

'V ^ A'

A<^ %. '‘’“^ .\^ <-

0^ '^o v^ :

X '*•-»’■ ^.o'’ %

'. X -'k'i'- x-i^- =:

• c,'^ ♦ rA'^r A, '' A «>■

*• .n C^

'-u

<? XXzA<

■ X X >'X
■- XX :£m

'.■' r'^'' ** .'^ ^ '-

‘ * A

O c ® ® 't

J»: "bv*' :

';»o A 'Vt. *■'5!^

^0 ^

rO • / 1 • <X^

%■& -

S

•* •"

<* btL^ ^

^ <CL* ^ •

^ * . , , • ^ O * „ , 0 ’

• ^
r . rk ^ -'

♦ o^v ■* A > '*^>.. ♦

7. * ' ,0^ o^ "o . » * A

_4

^ 0

.6^ t • "JJ ^ <> fcL'' ^

l. ^ O .1^ • <► ^

■p ^

'^o ^

. t / IT ,

v^ /-O t* - o

-7^ . ^ -*■

^4
0

>

’'^ a'^ '■

• *

VA

o . . - A ^ -

*» <i <5o\\\ri'^ '*‘

o V

^ O

"> ■^/ A

^ o'

“ ^ '^V V

A'' ° ° *

'I*®'

'S'<p i^^/A\

® oT/y/^^'‘ ■> ^^GMiii^^ o A'^n

o^ ^ 'o . » - A ^

(j^ yJ/TT^,- °o 0°"^

.Ov-:

• 4 0 •

N A > ^ sft o

• y "-o’ 0^

<-A »

o • A

y/fij'^ 't

/Jr^ ^

^ *»

/I * 4

-

v'

Vo "V

A *

o V

' TLn

/ 'V %> \

w * \y A' 'o^ -o.*

^ A*^ c ° ^ ® ^ fV 0 « c

'J*- y ^ vv* A^

A^^' A’*°

* ^

•- vP

° S-O-V -

»«o’ ^0 " » ' ’ • *o;oO

“ <b‘^v ° ,

" A -e. ^o. 'o-.A A

r<>

' A^

■'o V

o A -TV ”

'^o'

“■ ■'^V A *■ 0^Mz<y^ ^

Ao’

.• ^0' V-^-/ V'--”’ ,-o

• < O^ •

V ^ «

* ' o - °

cO^’-^

■" "tu A

cy .-'^y 0 d* <.K O ^

-O'’- "o-oo ^0 o

'■t(C\WA o ^ A^ * c^

Vv

> 4^ • ^ ^ -%Pyir/» A ^ A •<#'

'o.A A *v_s^ ^ 'c . ^ .A

OOBBtBSOS- ,

library BINOINO A ^ ^

A ^

if,UG 7 0 _<^

ST. AUGUSTINE ,

32084 „