Work Relief in New York State, 1931–1935 9780231899871

Citation preview

WORK

RELIEF

In New York State, 1931-1935

WORK

RELIEF

in New York State, 1 9 3 1 - 1 9 3 5

A L E X A N D E R LEOPOLD RADOMSKI

Submitted, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, in the Faculty of Political Science, Columbia University

Φ KING'S CROWN Morningside

Heights,

*947

PRESS New

York

COPYRIGHT

1947

ALEXANDER L .

Printed

in the United The

Vermont

BY

RADOMSKI

States of Printing

KING S C R O W N

America Co.

PRESS

is a division of Columbia University Press organized for the purpose of making certain scholarly material available at m i n i m u m cost. T o w a r d that end, the publishers have adopted every reasonable economy except such as would interfere with a legible format. T h e work is presented substantially as submitted by the author, without the usual editorial attention of Columbia University Press. HMS

Acknowledgements

I

N addition to the usual references in the corresponding footnotes, the writer hereby acknowledges his indebtedness to the publishers for permission to quote, reproduce or paraphrase copyrighted materials from the following sources: Grace Adams, Workers on Relief, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1939; James H. S. Bossard, Social Change and Social Problems, Revised Edition, New York: Harper & Brothers, 1938; Josephine Chapin Brown, Public Relief 1929-1939, New York: Henry Holt and Company, Inc., 1940; Joanna C. Colcord, assisted by William C. Koplovitz and Russell H. Kurtz, Emergency Work Relief, New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1932; Edward T . Devine, The Principles of Relief, New York: T h e Macmillan Company, 1910; Leah H. Feder, Unemployment Relief in Periods of Depression, New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1936; Arthur D. Gayer, Public Works in Prosperity and Depression, New York: National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., 1935; Homer Folks, "Making Relief Respectable," Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, November, 1934; Harry L. Hopkins, Spending to Save, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1936; Alexander Johnson, The Almshouse, New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1 9 1 1 ; Robert W. Kelso, The Science of Public Welfare, New York: Henry Holt and Company, Inc., 1928; Emma O. Lundberg, "The New York State Temporary Emergency Relief Administration," The Social Service Review (The University of Chicago Press), December, 1932; Robert S. Lynd, Knowledge for What?, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1939; Robert S. Lynd and Helen Merrell Lynd, Middletown in Transition, New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, Inc., 1937; John D. Millett, The Works Progress Administration in New York City, Chicago: Public Administration Service, 1938; Howard W. Odum, "Public Welfare Activities" in Recent Social Trends (Copyrighted, 1933, by the Research Committee on Social Trends, Inc.), New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1933; Howard W. Odum and D. W. Willard, Systems of Public Welfare, Chapel Hill: T h e University of North Carolina Press, 1925; Sydnor H. Walker, "Privately Supported Social Work" in Recent Social Trends (Copyrighted, 1933, by the Research Committee on Social Trends, Inc.),

vi

Work Relief

in New York

State

N e w York: M c G r a w - H i l l Book Company, Inc., 1933; Amos Griswold Warner, Stuart A l f r e d Queen and Ernest Bouldin Harper, American Charities and Social Work, Fourth Edition, 1930; and A r t h u r Woods, " M o b i l i z i n g America to Fight Unemployment," The Neu> York Times November 23, 1930.

Preface outstanding development in the United States during the prewar depression was the expansion of governmental provision for the economically insecure. T w o general phases in this development may be distinguished: the conduct of temporary emergency programs of unemployment relief between 1930 and 1935, and the beginning of the so-called permanent program of "security, work and relief" 1 in the succeeding years. T h e temporary phase was a period of transition during which contributions were made at least to the work and relief components of the permanent program. In 1930, established agencies, public and private, struggled to meet the increased need, amid alarm at the growth of demands for assistance. T h e year of 1931 saw the beginning of state grantsin-aid for emergency unemployment relief. In 1932, the federal government made funds available to the states through the Reconstruction Finance Corporation for direct (home) and work relief. Active federal participation in emergency relief of the states and localities began with the creation of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration in May, 1933. During the winter of 1933-1934, there was emphasis on employment as a substitute for relief under the federal Civil Works Administration. Through the remainder of 1934, under F E R A leadership, a diversified program of emergency relief was developing in the states and localities. T h i s diversified approach was continued in 1935 at the same time that somewhat definite arrangements were made for transition to the longterm program. From the latter part of 1931 through 1935, temporary agencies of the states played an important role in unemployment relief. Outstanding among these was the Temporary Emergency Relief Administration ( T E R A ) of the State of New York. Under the leadership of Governor Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Emergency Relief Act was passed by the New York Legislature in the fall of 1931. It created the T E R A , provided for local channels of relief distribution, and appropriated the first substanI. Consult: National Resources Planning Board (Report of the Committee on LongRange Work and Relief Policies), Security, Work and Relief Policies, Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1942.

viii

Work Relief

in New York State

tial state aid for emergency home relief and work relief. Almost immediately the T E R A began to exercise a profound influence on public aid policy and administration. T h i s influence later assumed national significance when President Roosevelt named T E R A ' s first executive director and later its chairman, Harry L. Hopkins, to head the F E R A in May, 1933· O f the two main forms of recent unemployment relief, work relief is of particular interest for it represents a dramatic and relatively new effort on the part of government to reduce or dispel the stigma attachd to traditional direct (home) relief and to give unemployed employables an opportunity to earn subsistence as a substitute for ordinary relief. It is especially significant as a large-scale social experiment, involving huge public outlays, which gave impetus to the recently articulated "right to work," 2 to the inclusion of expanded public employment as a major component in the permanent program of economic security and to the planning of "public works" for anticipated postwar readjustments. 3 T h e foregoing seems to justify the undertaking of a monographic study of work relief and closely related efforts from various points of view. A n added reason for undertaking such a task arises from the confusion surrounding the concept of work relief largely due to the curious admixture of relief and employment elements. Any study that throws light upon the possible types of "work relief" and the underlying struggle between those who tend to regard the activity as a relief measure and those w h o tend to identify it with more or less "ordinary" employment would seem worthwhile. T h e work relief conducted in New York State under T E R A supervision through 1935 has three outstanding features. First and foremost, it was so closely interwoven with the system of direct (home) relief that no sharp separation is possible without undue artificiality. Second, it bound together hundreds of thousands of participants under an increasingly explicit complex of rules, regulations and procedures which sought to reconcile donor-client and employer-employee relationships. T h i r d , the work relief system was fundamentally oriented towards status quo arrangements at the same time that it admitted of "temporary emergency" departures which served as guideposts for change from pre-existing provisions for economic security. T h e primary purpose of this study is to describe the emergence, development, maintenance and limitation of the work relief system, under supervision of T E R A from November, 1931, through December, 1935. 2. Neis Anderson, The Right to lVork, New York: Modern Age Books, Inc., 1938. 3. See: George B. Galloway, Postwar Planning in the United States, New York: T h e Twentieth Century Fund, 1942.

Preface

ix

While the study is primarily a descriptive survey, it may suggest, on the one hand, considerations that are relevant for a broad understanding of recent work relief and, on the other, problems that may merit more intensive investigation. For one thing, chapters which follow contain data on the history of a large-scale, "temporary emergency" association, the T E R A , and exemplify the usefulness of examining a social phenomenon of relatively short duration against the background of social change. This is an exploratory study. It does not set out to prove or disprove any central thesis. Although it is broadly concerned with the evolution of organization for work relief in New York State chiefly from the standpoint of T E R A , attention is focused on seven more or less specific areas. The introductory chapter considers the major developments in organized welfare work in America prior to 1930 for it is here that the service-relief ideology and practice in recent work relief incubated. While spreading aspects cannot be totally ignored, trends in ordinary and emergency relief are of special significance at least as reference points for comparisons in succeeding chapters. The first part of Chapter II considers the nature of work relief in the light of its history in the United States, type elements associated with emergency employment in pre-1929 depressions and recent definitions of work relief. The second part of the chapter describes the movement that resulted in the inauguration of state-aided work relief in New York State towards the close of 1931. While there was much trial and error in the development of the work relief, the basic plan of organization was laid down in the rather comprehensive Emergency Relief Act. This New York statute intermeshed emergency home and work relief almost inseparably. After dwelling briefly on the national significance of developments in New York State and on the general content and scope of TERA's relief problem, Chapter III analyzes the Relief Act and closely related laws. The legal framework was in part reiterated and in part supplemented by T E R A rules, regulations and instructions. The original rules underwent but few changes through 1935. Those pertaining to work relief were temporarily supplanted, during the winter of 1933-1934» by the considerably more detailed provisos of the federal Civil Works Administration. When T E R A rules resumed effect after the CWA program, they were supplemented by F E R A instructions which, with only occasional revisions, T E R A diffused among its local work relief units in the State. Summary and analysis of these state and federal formulations in Chapter IV throw further light upon the nature of work relief under T E R A supervision. In chronological sequence, Chapter V directs attention to the struggle

χ

Work Relief in New York State

for survival surrounding recent temporary emergency work relief in New York State. T h e supply and distribution of public funds was dominant among the factors impinging upon continuity and duration. Problems connected with the shift of work relief from program to program and the transition to long-term planning are also considered. Chapter VI sketches the administrative setup for emergency relief on the state level. T h e T E R A Commission and the evolution of its staff into a large multicellular structure are given attention first. There follows a description of the work of the divisional units of the T E R A with regard to work relief, special attention being given to the functions of the Project Division. In the next two chapters are considered important aspects of work relief as conducted in the local districts in the State of New York. Chapter V I I is devoted to an outline of local organization for work relief. Chapter V I I I throws light upon the differential use of work relief among the districts, the nature and extent of the work undertaken or accomplished, and some of the major problems surrounding the cost and efficiency of work relief projects. No attempt is made to summarize the study in the concluding chapter. Chapter I X simply seeks to bring together the major threads of the study with special reference to the future of work relief. T h e present investigation would have been impossible without the writer's opportunity to serve as a member of T E R A ' s Project Division for approximately two years. He expresses thanks to the hundreds of T E R A and local bureau personnel who, directly or indirectly, have contributed to this study. T h e author owes much to the members of the Department of Sociology of Columbia University. Deep appreciation is acknowledged for the direction and encouragement received from Professors Theodore Abel, Robert S. Lynd and Robert M. Maclver. Sincere thanks are due to Professor Harold L. Ailing of the University of Rochester, who graciously reviewed a large part of the manuscript and made many useful editorial suggestions. It must be understood, of course, that the writer is alone responsible for the statements of fact and opinion contained in this volume.

Contents I. II.

T h e Historical Context of American Work Relief

. . .

ι

Towards Work Relief in New York State

29

III.

T h e Legal Framework

71

IV.

State and Federal Regulations

103

V.

Duration and Sources of Funds

134

T h e State Relief Agency

183

Work Relief in the Local Districts

234

VI. VII. VIII. IX. Index

Work Relief in the Local Districts (continued) Conclusion

.

.

.

.

273 314 326

CHAPTER

I

The Historical Context of American Work Relief

O

R G A N I Z E D welfare work has included a miscellany of activities variously denominated: mutual aid, pious almsgiving, philanthropy, charity, social uplift, child-saving, reform, humanitarianism, bourgeois benevolence, public and private relief, social service, and the like. O n e source has attempted to make one kind of order out of this heterogeneity in showing: 1

. . . by what stages friendly intervention has graduated into professional service . . . from (1) simple neighborliness in primary groups through (2) organized mutual aid, (3) assistance to detached outsiders, (4) repression of begging and other uses of the police power, (5) the poor law, (6) uplift and reform programs conducted by one social class in the interest (real or assumed) of another, at last to (7) a more or less skilled service available to any unadjusted person or disorganized group. A l t h o u g h these activities "belong to the present as well as to the past," 2 the quoted excerpt suggests their general content and movement down to the depression of 1929. A large part of this content has been directly or indirectly concerned with relief of destitution, and it is particularly within the segment of organized relief giving that the ideology and practice of work relief germinated. 3 1. Amos Griswold Warner, Stuart Alfred Queen, and Ernest Bouldin Harper, American Charities and Social Work, New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 4th edition, 1930, pp. 5-62. Stuart A. Queen, "Backgrounds of Social Work," in Ellsworth Faris, Ferris Laune, and Arthur J. Todd (editors) Intelligent Philanthropy, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1930, p. 263; also see pp. 243-262. 3. T h e changing content of American welfare work is suggested in some detail in the following works: Warner, Queen, and Harper, op. cit., Parts II and III; John Lewis Gillin, Poverty and Dependency, New York: D. Appleton-Century, 3rd edition, 1937, Parts II through V; James H. S. Bossard, Social Change and Social Problems, New York: Harper and Brothers, Revised edition, 1938, Part VIII; and Recent Social Trends, New York; McGraw-Hill, 1933, Chapters XXIII and XXIV. Studies in this field have been confined largely to activities of private (especially non-sectarian) and public "welfare" agencies because of the unrecorded nature of person to person and semi-personal assistance. (See Edward T . Devine, The Principles of Relief, New York: Macmillan, 1910, p. S3')·

2

Work Relief

in New

York State

TRENDS IN PRIVATE "SOCIAL W O R K " TO 1 9 3 0

Privately supported social work has recently been defined as "the activities of organizations supported by the community, not out of tax funds, for the benefit of those individuals who are unable to pay for the services required for their social wellbeing or for the amelioration of specific handicaps and deficiencies." 4 This definition intends to differentiate social work from charity, regarded as "all efforts to alleviate human suffering," and from philanthropy, regarded as including "the wide range of activities voluntarily supported by a private individual or organization without expectation of pecuniary return and for purposes of public interest." 8 Because the three terms tended to be used interchangeably prior to 1900, the ensuing discussion of trends cannot be restricted to any narrow usage of the term: social work. Beginnings and

Expansion

Private "social work" had modest beginnings in America. Its antecedents were nucleated around the concept of charity with the connotation, intertwined with "personal, religious, and social sanctions," of extending assistance to persons outside the primary group.® With relief of the destitute as the spearhead of its development, organized private "social work" seems to postdate public relief in this country, since the foundation of colonial America included adoption of poor laws.7 "With the rise of more populous towns" in the first half of the nineteenth century "there sprang up naturally a number of private charitable agencies, each, as a rule, giving special attention to some particular class of needs." 8 Sectarian relief efforts were of considerable importance in this connection and to this day "a goodly proportion of social work agencies, particularly of the older type, are still maintained and controlled by religious organizations." 0 By 1850, there were at least four general types of private agencies in 4. Sydnor H . Walker, "Privately Supported Social Work," Recent Social Trends, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1935, p. 1170. 5. Ibid., pp. 1168 and 1220. Compare Warner, Queen, and Harper, op. cit., pp. 3-5, and Queen, op. cit., pp. 243-245. 6. Kenneth L. M. Pray, "Charity," Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, New York: Macmillan, 1930, Vol. I l l , p. 340. 7. Gillin, op. cit., p. 204; Devine, op. cit., pp. 314-354; also see page 6 below. 8. Devine, op. cit., p. 314. 9. Bossard, op. cit., p. 676; see also Cecil Clare North, The Community and Social Welfare, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1 9 3 1 , pp. 77-99; Devine, op. cit., pp. 323-330; Theodore Abel, Protestant Home Missions to Catholic Immigrants, New York: Institute of Social and Religious Research, 1933, pp. 20-81; and C. Luther Fry, "Changes in Religious Organizations," Recent Social Trends, op. cit., pp. 1050-1051 and 1058-1059.

Work Relief:

Historical

Context

3

urban centers: (a) those handling cases of need within some limited groupings on such bases as nationality, denomination, or territory; (b) those dealing with particular types of cases, such as children, widows, the sick, or prisoners; (c) those distributing some distinctive item of relief, such as food, clothing, or fuel; and (d) those few, like the New York Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor, that were attempting a "general and constructive" approach to the needs of the community. 10 Through the remainder of the nineteenth century, such enterprises were increasingly sponsored by an emerging wealthy business and industrial class, moved by a practical sentiment often called "middle-class humanitarianism." When America entered the era of high capitalism after the Civil War, 11 facilities for charitable work were augmented. T h e expansion was probably in response to mounting needs connected with problems surrounding the dislocation of the older economic system, rapid growth of cities, large-scale immigration, internal mobility, and recurring depressions. "Bourgeois benevolence" contributed to this expansion of facilities, not altogether without self-regard, by encouraging the continuation, if not extension, of existing church and public work, and especially by financing, as the century progressed, an ever-increasing number of nonsectarian charities. 12 These included "employers' welfare work, housing betterment, prison reform, child-saving, charity organization and social settlements," 13 as well as, orphanages, rescue homes, hospitals, clinics, homes for the aged, temporary shelters, and so forth.14 The motif of the age seems to have been to create many independent agencies, each somewhat unique in its field, to satisfy the interests and enthusiasms of sponsors.16 Coordination T h e rather haphazard growth of welfare agencies made for chaos in the absence of "adequate safeguards of investigation, tests of destitution, or means of hindering duplication of relief . . . or of making relief adequate. . . ." 1β T o correct this condition there emerged in 1874 the 10. Bossard, op. cit., pp. 694-695; Devine, op. cit., pp. 314-323. 11. Charles A. Beard, "Individualism and Capitalism," Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 147. 12. Bossard, op. cit., pp. 685-686; Queen, op. cit., pp. 256-263; Warner, Queen and Harper, op. cit., pp. 20-24. 13. Warner, Queen, and Harper, op. cit., p. 21; also Queen, op. cit., p. 259. 14. Bossard, op. cit., pp. 686-687. 15. Ibid., p. 693. 16. Charles D. Kellogg, "Charity Organization in the United States," in Proceedings of the National Conference of Charities and Correction. 1893, Boston: Geo. H. Ellis, 1893, pp. 53-54.

4

Work Relief in New York State

charity organization m o v e m e n t . 1 7 T h e idea of " c h a r i t y o r g a n i z a t i o n " as a distinctive method " t o aid people to be more charitable m o r e effect i v e l y " was developed first in E n g l a n d in 1869. In 1 8 8 3 there were at least 2 5 charity organization societies in the larger cities of this country; the n u m b e r increased to 100 b y 1 8 9 5 , to 1 5 0 by 1904, and to 5 0 0 by 1 9 1 8 . Despite some opposition to their " m e c h a n i c a l " methods, these societies prospered and by 1900 paved the way for modern casework by formulating the principles of investigation of applicants, registration of cases, cooperation a m o n g social agencies, and " a d e q u a t e and efficient" relief. I n addition, the movement fostered a new interest in the i n d i v i d u a l beneficiary, i n c l u d i n g emphasis on " s e r v i c e " rather than material relief in an effort to minimize the stigma attached to charity. It was u n d e r the leadership of this voluntary and loose federation that private agencies were enabled first to challenge effectively and later to assume a position of dominance towards p u b l i c welfare agencies (see page 1 3 ) . Recent

Social

Trends

S y d n o r H . W a l k e r has described in some detail the changes

taking

place between 1900 a n d 1 9 3 0 in the whole field of privately supported social work. S o m e of the more important trends w e r e : 1 8 ι. Social work had become differentiated from philanthropy. 2. T h e r e was a marked increase in private welfare activities as reflected in the number of agencies, their expenditures, their case loads, and size of their staffs. 3. T h e development of social case work was of "primary importance in shaping the methods and objectives of private social agencies." 4. Emphasis upon prevention of poverty and "degeneracy" was a characteristic development. 5. Promotion of social legislation, surveys and investigations, and preventive programs constituted an unmistakable tendency. 6. Since 1 9 1 5 private agencies moved steadily towards a higher budgetary standard of relief for dependent cases. 7. Despite marked emphasis upon psychiatric approaches and facilities since 1 9 1 5 , there was decreasing belief " i n the possibility of solving the major part of the problem of dependency through understanding of mental processes." 8. Coordination and systematization of social work activities since 1 9 1 5 was pronounced, as evidenced in the "growth of associations and national agencies f o r standardizing work and centralizing authority, of chests f o r the financing of all community social work, of councils for planning a unified community program, in the number and size of conferences, and of social service exchanges." 17. See: Frank Watson, The Charity Organization Movement in the United States, New York: Macmillan, 1922; Bossard, op. cit., pp. 695-714; Gillin, op. cit., pp. 506-516; and Pray, op. cit., pp. 343-344. 18. Recent Social Trends, op. cit., Chapter X X I I I , especially pp. 1220-1223. F o r a comparison of social work in the i8go's with that in the 1920's, see Warner, Queen, and Harper, op. cit., pp. 25-38.

Work Relief: Historical

Context

5

9. A f t e r 1925, " t h e administration of relief g i v i n g " b e c a m e " d e c i d e d l y m o r e a f u n c t i o n of p u b l i c than of private agencies" a n d there was a similar m o v e m e n t r e g a r d i n g other social services. 10. Social workers had m a d e several definite gains in their effort to o b t a i n professional status, a n d there was g r o w t h in social w o r k schools, researches, and publications. TRENDS IN PUBLIC W E L F A R E TO 1 9 3 0

T h e difficulty of defining a functional field such as public welfare is that it reveals both stability and change over time. 19 Public welfare includes two central functions: (a) institutional management and (b) relief of dependency; 20 it has been divided into five sub-fields: 21 (a) the adult delinquent, (b) the mentally deranged or deficient, (c) the economically dependent or insecure, (d) the physically diseased or handicapped, and (e) the child. O d u m defines public welfare in terms of social work: 2 2 P u b l i c w e l f a r e is the social work part of g o v e r n m e n t , o r p u b l i c w e l f a r e c o m p r e h e n d s the greater p a r t of p u b l i c social work. It is social w o r k financed by federal, state, county or city governments a n d controlled a n d directed by them. T h a t is, p u b l i c welfare is an extension or d e v e l o p m e n t of the techniques a n d methods of private social work into the field of g o v e r n m e n t . P u b l i c welfare, therefore tends toward the a d o p t i o n a n d extension of social case w o r k in family a n d child welfare, hospital work, in the courts and in institutions, f o l l o w i n g the trends of [privately supported] social work. . . . Further, it places the emphasis u p o n p r e v e n t i v e and constructive measures, advances the standards of p u b l i c relief, emphasizes, through divisions a n d bureaus of mental h y g i e n e , the psychiatric a p p r o a c h to social adjustment, emphasizes centralization a n d coordination, tends to raise the professional standard a n d tends to supply an increasingly large p a r t of social welfare leadership.

T h e obvious advantage of this formulation for our purposes lies in its regard for the private welfare activities treated above. Typical Elements in the Legal

Framework

As was the case with private social work, the origins of public welfare in the present United States were closely associated with relief of destitution and supporting sanctions. In the absence of conditions in colonial America which made the pattern "unworkable," it is not surprising that ig. Arthur C. Millspaugh, Public Welfare Organization, Washington: T h e Brookings Institution, 1935, pp. 106-107. so. Ibid., p. 107 ff. s i . Ibid., p. 128; see also pp. 224-381. ss. Howard VV. Odum, "Public Welfare Activities," Recent Social Trends, op. cit., p. 1226. T h e footnote pertaining to the first sentence of the quotation has been omitted here.

6

Work Relief in New York State

the colonists modeled their public relief systems after English practice of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Practice under the common law indicated that, within its territorial jurisdiction, government had the responsibility of allowing n o person to die of starvation. 23 W h i l e public relief was not of pressing importance, situations did arise which prompted colonial legislators to incorporate into the statutes Elizabethan principles of relief. After the American Revolution these statutes, buttressed by interpretations of the common and statutory law and in some instances by constitutional provisions, became the poor laws of the states and were carried westward by descendants of the colonists. 24 T h i s poor law heritage "made poverty a disgrace, branded the poor man as unworthy and shiftless, and attached to relief an indelible stigma." 2 5 T h e general administrative framework for poor relief was laid down in colonial times: the town system in New England, the county system in the South, and a combination of the two in the Middle region.2® States w h i c h came into the Union later adopted county or modified countytown systems of poor relief administration, 2 7 paralleling the organization of local government in general. A t least eight principles incorporated early into the poor laws of the American states or otherwise associated with their administration have remarkable survival value. 2 8 These principles may be stated in the following generalized forms: ι . W i t h i n l i m i t s k i n s f o l k h a v e the first r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the care o f n e e d y family members. s. A f t e r f a m i l y l i a b i l i t y , g o v e r n m e n t has the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of p e r m i t t i n g ( w i t h i n its t e r r i t o r i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n ) n o p e r s o n to d i e of s t a r v a t i o n . 3. I n the f e d e r a t i v e State this r e s p o n s i b i l i t y falls a l m o s t e x c l u s i v e l y u p o n the local political unit. 4. T h e l o c a l u n i t s h o u l d e x t e n d relief o n l y t o n e e d y p e r s o n s h a v i n g s e t t l e m e n t w i t h i n its territory. 5. T h e n e e d y p e r s o n has n o l e g a l r i g h t to relief.

legal

«3. Josephine C. B r o w n , Public Relief 1929-1939, New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1940, p. 4. 24. Mary Stevenson Callcott in collaboration with Willoughby C. Waterman, Principles of Social Legislation, New York: Macmillan, 1952, p. 43. Chapters II and III of this work present a brief history of relief legislation in the United States. See also: Gillin, op. cit., p. 156; Robert C . Lowe, State Public Welfare Legislation, Works Progress Administration Research Monograph X X , Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1939, p. 1; and Brown, op. cit., pp. 4-6. »5. Brown, op. cit., p. 3. 26. Lowe, op. cit., p. 1. 27. Gillin, op. cit., pp. 156-157. 28. Bossard, op. cit., pp. 682-684; Robert W . Kelso, The Science of Public Welfare, New York: Henry H o l t , 1928, pp. 89-91 and 151-160: Warner, Queen, and Harper, op. cit., pp. 17-20; and Brown, op. cit., pp. 4-17.

Work Relief: Historical Context 6. The right to extend relief is reserved for the association such aid. 7. Public relief is basically for the benefit of the community the recipient. 8. The tenet of "less eligibility" should govern in order that shall always be below what the lowest paid worker can earn in

η which sanctions and not that of the relief grant the community.

Recipients of poor relief were usually designated "paupers," and it was common practice to post their names in a public place. 2 9 In certain states, they were deprived of the right to vote and to hold public office. 30 Frequently, the state poor laws required "pauper's oaths" and excluded paupers from military duty; occasionally recipients of public relief were forbidden to marry. Alongside the general uniformities, there was considerable variation among the states as to details of statutory provisions, methods of financing and administrative procedure, presumably due to diverse historical experiences of the individual states. Some of this variation was the result of amendatory or supplementary legislation, court decisions, and rulings of attorney generals of the states. Part of it was apparently connected with a "lagging" effort to keep abreast of changing conditions accompanying the urbanization of America. 3 1 T h e confusing patchwork of legislation that resulted is illustrated in the State of New York where 155 "poor laws," primarily affecting counties and towns, were repealed when the new Public W e l f a r e L a w was passed in 1929. Indoor and Outdoor Relief T h e two major forms of public relief in the United States have been "indoor relief" and "outdoor relief." Public outdoor relief antedated indoor relief in most American states simply because the new commonwealths had so little pauperism that it seemed inexpedient to set up almshouses. 32 In the beginning, both forms of public assistance were associated with such marginal devices as boarding out paupers at public expense "among townsmen," "auctioning" them off to bidders submitting the lowest price for their keep, and the apprenticeship or indenture of children. 3 3 29. Loue, op. cit., p. 3. 30. Ibid., and Brown, op. cit., p. 10. 31. Brown, op. cit., pp. 6-7. 33. Devine, op. cit., pp. 281-282, and Kelso, op. cit., pp. 162-163 a n d 411. Gillin (op. cit., p. i8i) notes that for a long time the almshouse "was the one public institution for the care of the poor, there being no public outdoor relief." 33. Kelso, op. cit., pp. 162-168; Devine, op. cit., pp. 281-288; David M. Schneider and Albert Deutsch, The Road Upward, Albany; New York State Department of Social Welfare, 1939, pp. 5-23; Brown, op. cit., pp. 7-8.

8

Work Relief

in New York

State

From the early part of the eighteenth century until the w a n i n g years of the nineteenth, almshouse care was generally considered the best method of providing for the poor, while outdoor aid was largely limited to cases of "temporary emergency." 3 4 In the twentieth century public outdoor relief has gradually assumed quantitative ascendancy over public indoor relief as well as over privately supported relief work. Indoor

Relief

T h e story of public indoor relief in the United States is largely the story of the almshouse, which made its appearance around 1700 and which was the "first and for many years the only public charitable institution." 3 5 As communities "grew in size and the dependents of a single jurisdiction became numerous, almshouses came into existence as the most economical means of housing all the dependents of whatever sort. In connection with the almshouse the house of correction was set up to care for the tramp and the criminal." 3 e Approximately down to 1850 dependent, delinquent, and defective persons received practically the same treatment. 37 Departure from this pattern was uneven so that as late as the twentieth century, in the more rural sections of the country, the almshouse typically remained a small "catchall" institution herding together the young and old, male and female, feeble and strong, physically ill, insane, epileptic, and mentally deficient. 38 In general almshouses have been county institutions, except for the township system in New England (exclusive of New Hampshire) and separate institutions maintained by some of the larger cities. 39 A l t h o u g h down to 1930 the almshouse continued to be the last resort of poor relief, some noteworthy changes had taken place, particularly in the Northern industrial states, since the Civil W a r . State boards of charities, which began to be created in the i86o's, were gradually given powers of inspection and supervision over almshouses, and many regulatory laws were passed, although not always enforced. 40 Classification of dependents did not begin to any great extent until after 1900, but the inmate heterogeneity of the almshouse was reduced as a result of wide recognition after 1850 of the need for differentiation of types of cases among the defective and delinquent groupings. 4 1 34. Brown, op. cit., p. 8, and Lowe, op. cit., p. 3. 35. Alexander Johnson, "Almshouse," Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, op. cit.. Vol. II, p. 8. See also Kelso, op. cit., p. 163. 36. Kelso, op. cit., p. 411. 37. Lowe, op. cit., pp. 1-2. 38. Gillin, op. cit., pp. 182-193, and Johnson, op. cit., p. 9. 39. Gillin, op. cit., pp. 182-183, and Johnson, op. cit., p. 8. 40. Johnson, op. cit., p. 9. 41. Ibid., and Lowe, op. cit., pp. 1-2.

Work Relief: Historical Context

g

The process of differentiation of case types and their removal from among the almshouse population was connected with the establishment of private houses of refuge and child-placing agencies, the trend towards public indoor and outdoor systems of child welfare, the enactment of legislation prohibiting housing of children among paupers, and the success of movements seeking special public or private provision for dependent mothers, the blind, the deaf, the aged and so forth. State institutions were first authorized or established exclusively for the insane in 1842 (New York); 42 for the mentally deficient in 1848 (Massachusetts);43 for dependent children in 1866 (Massachusetts);44 and for epileptics in 1890 (Ohio),45 developments also significant for transfer of responsibility from local to state level of government. Hence in the industrial states the almshouse was gradually becoming an agency for the residual element among the destitute—the aged and the infirm 46 Accompanying trends included cottage plan housing, consolidation of existing almshouses into district homes serving larger areas than formerly, enlargement of recreational, hospital, medical, and other therapeutic facilities, and coordination with other agencies of the communities served.47 Significant for our purposes are attempts, noticeable down to the depression of 1929, to associate indoor relief with labor for the unemployed (page 30).48 The place of work in conjunction with the almshouse was indicated as early as 1743 in the enabling act of Massachusetts.49 In the first half of the nineteenth century auctioning of paupers "actually led in many towns and counties to the establishment of houses of industry."60 Frequently, the plan was grafted onto the almshouse, in the wake of agitation for keeping inmates busy, enactment of laws requiring able-bodied inmates to be kept at work, and efforts of officials to make the "work and poorhouse" or the "poor farm" pay. 61 No marked success has attended the latter goal, but authorities have pointed to "advantages" in requiring work of all inmates "capable of doing anything" because of "the deterrent influence of this policy upon would-be applicants" and because the inmates would be "happier" for having work. 52 42. Gillin, op. cit., p. ago. The "state" hospital at Williamsburg, Virginia, was established shortly before the Revolutionary War (Ibid.). 43. Ibid., p. 334. 44. Ibid., p. 361. 45. Ibid., pp. 318-319. 46. Bossard, op. cit., pp. 722-723, and Gillin, op. cit., pp. 186-189. 47. Gillin, op. cit., pp. 194-203. 48. Johnson, op. cit., pp. 8-9. 49. Kelso, op. cit., p. 172. 50. Devine, op. cit., p. 284. 51. Gillin, op. cit., pp. 192-193, and Johnson, op. cit., p. g. 52. Warner, Queen, and Harper, op. cit., p. 101, and Bossard, op. cit., p. 725. See also:

io

Work Relief

in New

York State

Outdoor Relief Outdoor relief is generally recognized as the initial method of public assistance employed in the American colonies but demands for any sort of relief were slight so long as the country remained largely agricultural. 53 T h e aid was usually given in kind and, unlike the grocery and commissary orders which later became the rule, "often took the form of cattle for a supply of milk or veal," or of building a house for a dependent family. 54 Widespread belief in the superiority of indoor care combined with persistent attacks against outdoor assistance kept outdoor relief from continuous and extensive use until towards the end of the nineteenth century. 55 Nevertheless, the outdoor form was kept alive, if for no other reason, by the function it performed during depressions which, since 1837, recurred about every twenty years; after 1900 it slowly expanded into a continuing and quantitatively ever more important service. Since about 1800, public outdoor relief has been administered, in rural and urban areas alike, through local "overseers of the poor," out of local tax funds and under conditions primarily determined by local authorities.59 T h e theory has been that outdoor aid should be "temporary" and "emergency" and when long continued it should be given only as "supplementation" to those who are nearly self-supporting 57 for, besides being more costly than indoor relief, it encourages idleness and pauperism. 58 Public outdoor relief has been subject to attack "ever since men began to question the propriety of indiscriminate giving." 5 9 T h e well-known Quincy report of 1821 on the pauper laws of Massachusetts concluded that such aid was "of all modes of providing for the poor, the most wasteful, the most expensive, and most injurious to their morals and destructive to their industrious habits." 60 Three years later, the Yates report to the New York legislature proposed "restricting outdoor relief and establishing houses of industry." 61 Most persistent attacks against public outdoor relief were leveled by private charity organization societies whose influence reached a peak in the last quarter of the nineteenth century Alexander Johnson, The Almshouse, New York: Charities Publication Committee, Russell Sage Foundation, 1911, pp. 74-81. 53. Devine, op. cit., pp. 281-282. 54. Kelso, op. cit., pp. 167-168. 55. Brown, op. cit., p. 8, and Lowe, op. cit., p. 3. 56. Devine, op. cit., p. 281, and Bossard, op. cit., p. 728. 57. Gillin, op. cit., p. 157. 58. Brown, op. cit., p. 8. 59. Gillin, op. cit., pp. 157-158. 60. Devine, op. cit., p. 285. 61. Ibid., p. 289.

Work Relief: Historical Context

11

and who found most congenial the notion that government should concern itself exclusively with institutional cases. Around the i88o's, their criticisms combined with general reaction against rapidly mounting public case loads and attendant abuses to force several of the largest cities to discontinue this form of assistance altogether.62 Meanwhile expansion of private and public indoor care reduced somewhat the "pressure" for taxsupported outdoor aid, at least during intervals of prosperity. Despite the onslaughts upon it widely scattered reports since 1900 consistently show that outdoor relief had become the chief method of extending aid to public charges, at least in terms of the number of cases assisted.83 This expansion was partly connected with the differentiation of public outdoor assistance into "general" and "categorical" types. The movement of cases from general to categorical relief which followed was apparently offset by the influx of new cases and "rising standards of care" (page 18). ^ Categorical Assistance: One significant development during the first three decades of the twentieth century was the rise and success of movements seeking to lessen or remove the stigma attached to "paupers" by obtaining for certain categories of "worthy poor" pensions financed at least in part from state funds. It will be recalled that differentiation in types of cases and shifting of responsibility to the state level had been widely recognized after 1850 in public indoor welfare work, and that charity organization societies attempted to remove the stigma surrounding their clients by stressing "service" rather than material aid. State legislation first authorized pensions for the blind in 1898 (Ohio),64 aid for mothers with dependent children in 1911 (Missouri and Illinois),65 and old age pensions in 1923 (Montana, Nevada, and Pennsylvania).66 Judging by their rate of success, these movements gained 62. Devine, op. cit., pp. 291-313; Bossard, op. cit., pp. 728-733; Gillin, op. cit., pp. 204212; E. C. Lindeman, "Public Welfare," Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, op. cit., Vol. XII, p. 688; and Brown, op. cit., pp. 8-9. 63. Bossard, op. cit., pp. 722-729, and Gillin, op. cit., p. 158, and especially pp. 148-151 of the 1926 edition. On trend of state expenditures for indoor and outdoor relief, see Odum, op. cit., Table 8, p. 1267. 64. Harry Best, Blindness and the Blind in the United States, New York: Macmillan, 1934, p. 549. Lowe (op. cit., p. 3) reports that Indiana adopted a county optional law in 1840 and that a statute was enacted for New York City in 1872. Best (loc. cit.) simply notes that the "first public pension system for the blind in the United States was created in the city of New York in the year 1866. . . ." 65. Lowe, op. cit., p. 3. T h e Missouri law applied to the city of St. Louis and Jackson County while the Illinois statute had state-wide application. 66. Ibid., p. 4. A law passed by Arizona in 1914 was declared unconstitutional, as was the 1923 Pennsylvania statute. T h e Nevada Law was repealed the same year it was enacted. T h e Alaska law of 1915 did not go into operation until 1927, according to GilNti (op. cit., p. «66).

12

Work Relief

in New York State

force after the depression of 1907.87 T h e y formed an important part of the background of the federal Social Security Act of 1935. Also, in promoting state aid and state supervision over local relief and in lending "respectability" to the acceptance of public aid, they embraced elements apparently channeled into the administration of recent unemployment relief (page 101). Coordination W i t h unregulated growth of county, town, city, and even state administered "charities" in the course of the nineteenth century, it is not surprising to find the emergence of a movement towards "state-wide" coordination as early as in 1863. N o t wholly dissociated from the development of private charity organization societies, the state-wide movement, which is still in process, began with the creation of unpaid official bodies known as state boards of charities, or state boards of charities and correction. It started in Massachusetts and spread to eleven states by 1880, to 36 by 1913, and to 45 by 1929. 68 These boards were created to deal with "the diversity of practice, inadequacy of equipment, competitive relationships and often wasteful methods characteristic of the care of wards for w h o m institutions, whether state or local, had been established" as well as of the outdoor "care of persons in distress given by the local authorities." 6 9 In the beginning most boards acted in advisory capacities only, but later statutes conferred upon them such powers as inspection, licensing, prescription of rules (regulations and records), control, administration, and management. Since about 1910 many of these boards have been reorganized as departments of social welfare, but after sixty years of effort they revealed "diversity at well-nigh every point, and manifest variations accounted for by differences not only in need, situation, character of work to be done, but by variations due also to inertia, to lack of agreement on certain fundamental principles of effective governmental action and in part, undoubtedly, to lack of such authoritative leadership as might come from a national service. . . ," 70 Organization in 1873 by officials of these state boards of the National Conference of Charities and Correction, which in 1917 became the National Conference of Social 67. Brown, op. cit., p. 26; Best, op. cit., pp. 549-551; Lowe, op. cit., p. 3; and Gillin, op. cit., pp. 266-267 a n < I 4°568. Howard W . O d u m and D. W . Willard, Systems of Public Welfare, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1925, pp. 15-37; Bossard, op. cit., pp. 735-741; and Gillin, op. cit., pp. 227-247. 69. Odum and Willard, op. cit., p. 18. 70. Ibid., pp. 36-37; see also Gillin, op. cit., p. 171.

Work

Relief:

Historical

Context

13

Work, provided a formal arena of interstimulation between public and private agencies. 71 Public-Private

Controversy

T h e long and frequently bitter controversy between private and public agencies reached a peak in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, with the privately supported group becoming the dominant one towards the end of the period. A t the meetings of the National Conference of Charities and Correction (eventually dominated by "private social work interests and philosophy") 7 2 private agencies presented their case against public outdoor relief while public agencies vainly defended it. Against claims of superiority of private over public relief, 7 3 "labor and friends of l a b o r " expressed preference for public assistance to "demoralization at the hands of sentimental almsgivers" whose "capitalistic connections" were not entirely trusted. 74 About the time the movement for aid to mothers with dependent children got under way, some observers definitely felt that public outdoor relief was a necessity because private financial support was inadequate. 7 5 Opposition from the charity organization movement notwithstanding, proponents of mothers' aid legislation favored governmental responsibility for the welfare of all and sought to overcome the weaknesses of local poor relief administration by making the states partly responsible f o r the new category of children. 7 6 B y and large, the distrust of public relief agencies continued down to the depression of 1929, but since the turn of the century the public units slowly gained concessions, the significance of which was probably underestimated by private agencies. Difference in Methods Individualized treatment, which developed in close association with relief activities of charity organization societies, spread into many adjacent areas of welfare work by the 1920's. 77 Yet the outstanding difference between public and private agencies dealing with dependents remained the 7 1 . See Warner, Queen and Harper, op. cit., pp. 29-31; Kelso, op. cit., p. 127; Odum, op. cit., pp. 1235-1242; and Brown, op. cit., p. 24. 72. Brown, op. cit., pp. 41-4«. 73. Ibid., pp. 39-43. For "arguments for and against public outdoor relief" see Gillin, op. cit., pp. 207-20g. 74. Ibid., pp. 43-46; Leah H. Feder, Unemployment Relief in Periods of Depression: A Study of Measures Adopted in Certain American Cities, 185j through 1922, New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1936, pp. 94-97, 1 1 3 , and 132-133. 75. Gillin, op. cit., p. 158, and Brown, op. cit., pp. 49-50. 76. Brown, op. cit., pp. 48-49; also Gillin, op. cit., pp. 407-415. 77. For details see Walker, op. cit., pp. 1170-1178.

14

Work Relief in New York State

relative use of casework and of trained personnel. 78 Significantly, the discrepancy was somewhat less in public categorical relief, for private agencies had considerable success in getting public authorities to adopt casework methods in connection with pensions for mothers. 79 T h i s trend suggested the possibility that the essential difference between public and private approaches could be reduced to negligible proportions under favorable conditions. Division

of Labor

W h i l e "mass methods" of public outdoor relief constituted the point of departure for the public-private controversy, it gradually widened after about 1900 to include the whole problem of the division of labor between the two groups. Discussion of principles that should govern distribution of functions brought forth many rationalizations after the fact. A common formulation of these principles is that when a phase of social work becomes standardized and the problem is one of wide scope and regularity of finance, then it is turned over to public units. 80 In practice, however, the situation has been something like this: 81 W h e n a n d where private agencies have been well-financed, highly-developed, a n d r e l a t i v e l y w e l l e q u i p p e d f o r t h e e x i s t i n g tasks, t h e y h a v e a s s u m e d large r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ; w h e n a n d w h e r e p r e s s e d financially, they h a v e insisted t h a t welld e f i n e d t y p e s of cases w e r e a p u b l i c r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . B e i n g free t o c h o o s e , p r i v a t e s o c i a l w o r k h a s s e l e c t e d cases t h a t w e r e i n t e r e s t i n g a n d full of p r o m i s e , l e a v i n g the residue to p u b l i c social work.

Discussions of division of labor already assumed that public agencies should be accorded a place in the community structure. Following 1907 the principle was widely accepted that during periods of depression public agencies had a definite responsibility for such "special activities" as care of the homeless, work relief, and public works; lack of funds virtually forced a large share of the outdoor relief burden on public agencies. 82 T h r o u g h o u t the first three decades of the twentieth century the transfer of functions, including relief of the destitute, "in increasing number and at an accelerated rate" from private to public agencies proceeded without full recognition of the scope of this change; in the late ig2o's public agencies were carrying about three-fourths of the outdoor relief burden. 8 3 78. Gillin, op. cit., pp. 515-516; see also Odum, op. cit., p. 1226, and Brown, op. cit., pp. 13-17 and 49-51. 79. Gillin, op. cit., p. 407. 80. Bossard, op. cit., p. 744. 81. Ibid., p. 745. 8«. Feder, op. cit., pp. 338, 341-343,345 346. and 35°· 83. Walker, op. cit., pp. 1196-1197 and 1222; Odum, op. cit., p. 1225; Gillin, op. cit.

Work Relief:

Historical

Context

l

5

Collaboration At least after 1900, there were many unifying relationships between public and private agencies alongside the separative tendencies just noted. Transfer of functions presupposed some sort of working arrangement between the two groups, as did the use of public funds by private agencies whether on a continuing basis84 or as a transitory expedient. 85 A certain amount of public "control" had emerged through powers of incorporation, certification, inspection and standardization. In turn, private agencies have been given similar powers in relation to public agencies. Moreover, legislators have occasionally invited the opinion of private agency experts regarding matters affecting public units; also, "pressure politics" has become a recognized technique of private organizations to a point where they have become "an organic though largely extra-constitutional part" of legislative bodies.86 Since public administrative units may also exert such pressure and, to some extent, may legislate through policy determination, both public and private agencies have appreciated the advantage of joint planning, and promotion of legislation. Cooperative relationships have also included consultation regarding regions of overlapping interest, reciprocal lending of personnel, appointment of "interlocking" policy determining bodies, and joint conduct of conferences, training courses, and researches.87 Recent Social

Trends

In Recent Social Trends Howard W. Odum has listed certain "changing concepts, ideals and practices in public welfare administration and procedure"; in public relief the movement has been: 88 1. From boarding out paupers to the lowest bidder to "special homes and supervised outdoor relief." s. From catchall almshouses and workhouses as basic forms of relief to "classified almshouses only an adjunct to other forms." pp. 158 and 407; Feder, op. cit., 350-351; and Brown, op. cit., pp. 55-56. Millspaugh (op. cit., p. 90) describes the process of transfer. 84. Gillin, op. cit., pp. 213-225. Millspaugh (op. cit., p. 357) reports that in 31 states 77 per cent of the dependent and neglected children were given care in 1930 under private auspices, but frequently at public expense. 85. For example of use of public funds by private agencies during times of depression, see Feder, op. cit., pp. 29, 44-45. 49-51, 174, 246-247, and 330. Millspaugh (op. cit., pp. 75 and gi) reports reverse arrangements whereby public agencies have used private funds. 86. Millspaugh, op. cit., pp. 81-89, a n d Belle Zeller, Pressure Politics in New York, New York: Prentice-Hall, 1937, especially pp. 144-153. 87. Millspaugh, op. cit., pp. 89-92. 88. Op. cit.. Table 2, p. 12*6.

i6

Work Relief

in New

York State

3. From "supervisory state board of charity" to "administrative state departments of public welfare." 4. From "indiscriminate giving and eligibility tests" to "adequacy in relief given upon analysis of the need." 5. From "little attention given to the individual" to "emphasis upon case study and individualization." 6. From "goal remedial or to prevent voluntary pauperism from taking root" to "constructive planning for rehabilitation and prevention." 7. From competition between public and private agencies to supplementation of public effort through experimentation by private agencies. 8. From "haphazard, wasteful methods" to "increasing economic emphasis." 9. From "institutional isolation and physical custody" to "community cooperation and social treatment." 10. From unsupervised "administration of outdoor relief" to administration of outdoor relief through trained case workers under state supervision. 11. From "local indoor relief without state supervision" to locally administered indoor relief with state supervision. 12. From "no social planning for mother or child" to "tendency to give mothers' aid in their own homes." 13. From placing of children in institutions to the provision by forty-six states for mothers' aid. 14. From "aged given doles and almshouse" care to "tendency toward . . . old age pensions and group insurance." Cost Estimates Public Costs. In Recent Social Trends, Odum arrived at "a useful estimate of the magnitude of the main body" of public welfare expenditures in this country between 1903 and 1928. 89 According to Odum's data, the nation's bill for public welfare services amounted to $1,293,000,000 in 1928. 90 This sum was approximately five times as great as it was in 1903, but it represented only a 63 per cent increase in per capita deflated costs. During the twenty-five year interval, public welfare expenditures increased at a "much" more moderate rate than the total cost of governmental activities in the United States but grew more rapidly than "the total private income of the nation." Of the $1,293,000,000 expended in 1928, 58 per cent was borne by the federal government, 19 per cent by state governments, 11 per cent by counties, 11 per cent by cities having a population in excess of 30,000, and about one per cent was funded by minor civil divisions. 91 Ninety-five per cent of the federal expenditures in 1928 represented "provisions for military veterans" and there was no contribution for ordinary poor re89. Odum, op. cit., pp. 1256-1269. 90. Ibid., Table 4, p. 1257. 91. This intergovernmental distribution of welfare costs was about the same as it was in 1903. However, per capita costs in cities over 30,000 population grew less rapidly than similar costs of the other governmental units.

Work Relief: Historical

Context

17

92

lief. Of the state expenditures, 1 1 . 6 per cent went for "charities," 5 1 . 9 per cent for "hospitals," 21.9 per cent for "corrections," 1 1 . 3 per cent for "relief to sailors and soldiers," and 3.3 per cent for other purposes. 9 3 Cities h a v i n g a population of 30,000 or over expended 38.1 per cent of their public w e l f a r e dollar for "charities," 46.9 per cent for "hospitals," and 1 1 . 6 per cent for "corrections" in 1928. 9 4 Private Costs. N o comprehensive data are available for private w e l f a r e expenditures. A f t e r examination of several series of data, Sydnor H . W a l k e r , also writing in Recent Social Trends, stated: 9 5 D u r i n g the past 25 years, increasing amounts [of private funds f o r social w e l f a r e ] have been contributed, but the data are not sufficiently complete to p e r m i t general conclusions as to the relation of this increase to changes in population a n d in national income.

U p o n e x a m i n i n g Walker's data, O d u m concluded 9 8 that the " p u b l i c treasury constituted a more important source of support for technical social w e l f a r e activities in the United States in 1928 than did private gifts a n d contributions" and that " d u r i n g the last half dozen years at least, and probably for a longer period, public welfare expenditures have been growing more rapidly than private social welfare expenditures." R e g a r d i n g relief expenditures, W a l k e r called attention to data showing that " a b o u t three-fourths of relief in the areas studied was provided by taxes" in 1928; 9 7 in 120 urban areas where a total of $43,745,000 was e x p e n d e d for outdoor relief in 1929, 76.5 per cent came from public funds and 23.5 per cent from private funds. 9 8 Cost Trends in Outdoor Relief. T o date, A n n e Geckles has made the most comprehensive study of trends in expenditures for outdoor relief. T h e study covers a period of 26 years, beginning with 1910, "as f a r as possible" excludes administrative costs, and is " l i m i t e d . . . to scattered data . . . in selected areas." A f t e r analysis of these data, Geddes noted, a m o n g others, the following "basic tendencies": 9 9 (a) at least since 1 9 1 0 , 92. Odum, op. cit., Table 6, p. 1261; regarding the scope of federal welfare activities, also see Millspaugh, op. cit., p. 300, and Brown, op. cit., pp. 32-38. 93. Odum, op. cit., Table 7, p. 1265. T h e 11.6 per cent expended for "charities" is broken down into three main categories: "poor relief" 1.2 per cent, "care of children" 5.3 per cent, and "care of blind, deaf and mute" 5.1 per cent. Concerning state responsibility, see Brown, op. cit., pp. 17-32. 94. Odum, op. cit., p. 1268. 95. Op. cit., p. 1223; see also pp. 1209-1220. 96. Op. cit., p. 12G8. 97. Op. cit., p. 1198; Table 4, p. 1195: and Table 13, p. 1215. 98. Anne E. Geddes, Trends in Relief Expenditures, 1910-1935, Washington: Works Progress Administration, Division of Social Research, Research Monograph X , 1937, Table 13, p. 3 1 . 99. Ibid., pp. xi-xiv.

Work

ι8

Relief

in New

York

State

a strong u p w a r d s w i n g in relief e x p e n d i t u r e s , (b) " a progressive tendency to w i d e n the base of g o v e r n m e n t a l responsibility f o r relief b e y o n d the local u n i t s , " (c) an increase in both p u b l i c and p r i v a t e relief e x p e n d i tures at a greater rate than g r o w t h in p o p u l a t i o n , (d) at least in large u r b a n areas, a h i g h e r r a t e of increase in p u b l i c relief e x p e n d i t u r e s than in all g o v e r n m e n t a l e x p e n d i t u r e s c o m b i n e d , (e) a more r a p i d e x p a n s i o n in aid to d e p e n d e n t c h i l d r e n t h a n in general p u b l i c relief, (f) a tendency f o r i n f l u x of n e w cases a n d " r i s i n g standards of c a r e " to offset the movem e n t of cases f r o m g e n e r a l to categorical relief, a n d (g) a tendency f o r p u b l i c agencies to b e a r an i m p o r t a n t share of the relief burden l o n g bef o r e the depression of 1929, despite the " w i d e r e g i o n a l and local variations in the r e l a t i v e p r o p o r t i o n s of p u b l i c and private r e l i e f . "

EMERGENCY

REI.IF.F

TN P A S T

DEPRESSIONS

E m e r g e n c y u n e m p l o y m e n t relief d u r i n g the six large-scale dislocations of business p r e c e d i n g that of 1929 was so closely b o u n d u p w i t h trends in p u b l i c a n d p r i v a t e w e l f a r e w o r k that its history is " i n m a n y aspects a history of social w o r k . " 1 0 0 Of special interest here are the roles of established a n d t e m p o r a r y relief agencies d u r i n g periods of depression and the variety of relief p l a n s used. Established

Agencies

D u r i n g times of prosperity, established agencies, p u b l i c and private, characteristically o c c u p i e d a p e r i p h e r a l position in the c o m m u n i t y structure. W h e n depressions struck, their status was temporarily enhanced. E x i s t i n g agencies were not necessarily p r e p a r e d f o r large-scale unemploym e n t relief but at the b e g i n n i n g of each depression they constituted practically the only social m a c h i n e r y a v a i l a b l e f o r amelioration of economic distress. H e n c e , in large n u m b e r s and perhaps h o p e f u l l y , the needy t u r n e d to these agencies f o r h e l p . Moreover, h u m a n i t a r i a n interest tended to concentrate f o r the time b e i n g on relief measures, 1 0 1 as widespread distress was i n d i c a t e d by the n u m b e r of applications f o r assista n c e , 1 0 2 estimates of u n e m p l o y m e n t intensity, 1 0 3 and protests or demonstrations of the u n e m p l o y e d . 1 0 4 T h e return of better times f o u n d estab100. Feder, 101. Ibid., 102. Ibid., pp. 381-382. 103. Ibid.,

p. 382·

op. cit., p. 13. p. 332. pp. 26, 39-40, 48, 80, etc.; see also Index in this source (under Statistics) pp. 19, 38-39, 76-85, 136-139, etc.; see also Index (under

Unemployment)

104. Ibid., pp. 29, 32,34-35,42-43,51-53,94-97, 196, 197-198, 224, and 318-319.

Work Relief:

Historical

Context

19

lished agencies usually relegated to their former or slightly redefined positions in their respective communities. 1 0 5 Perhaps the major problem confronting established agencies was the raising of adequate funds to carry the increased relief loads. 106 T h e problem seems to have been most acute in the case of private agencies which, after exhausting efforts to increase ordinary contributions, resorted to benefit performances and lectures, "tag days," "voluntary taxes," and the like. Sometimes they borrowed funds or tapped their investments, reserve funds and endowments. Newspaper publicity was generally avoided for fear of increased demands for relief and of promoting growth of "poorly planned" emergency agencies. Even in short depressions, the financial troubles were far from negligible. Emergency committees often helped to raise the needed funds. As a last resort, private leadership occasionally turned to public authorities for assistance. Because of financial stringency there was occasional curtailment or discontinuance of services. Such widely accepted procedures as restricting the types of cases an agency would accept, referral of cases to other agencies, thorough investigation, registration of cases to prevent duplication of relief, and avoidance of publicity were sometimes geared to effect a policy of retrenchment, irrespective of the "amount of need." 1 0 7 Public agencies probably made similar adjustments to stay within their appropriations. 1 0 8 A s their relief loads increased, agencies made other typical adjustments. Staffs were expanded, though in n o constant ratio to the movement of the relief load. Volunteer help was used extensively, but after 1873-1879 there was increasing emphasis on paid personnel with training and experience. In order to expedite service to increasing numbers, many refinements of record keeping were abandoned and such cherished principles as "rigid investigation in the home," "individualized treatment," and "proper closing of cases" were compromised more frequently than admitted. As depressions neared their end, and emergency agencies suddenly disappeared, established channels assumed responsibility for the remaining cases. Resumption of interdepression routine frequently found these channels continuing with a larger burden than before. 1 0 9 Relationships between public and private agencies as seen from one depression to the next largely paralleled the general trend already noted. 105. For e x a m p l e see ibid., p. 253. io>6. Ibid., p p . 27, 103, 13.1-136, a n d ( I n d e x u n d e r Money-raising) 374. 107. Ibid., p p . 51-57, 135-136, 203-204, 301, 306, 309, 328, 335, 338 a n d 345. 1018. For e x a m p l e , see Ibid., pp. 49-50, 126, a n d 330. 1019. Ibid., p p . 27-28, 50-58, 114, 139-150, 204-209, 252-256, 306-311, a n d ( I n d e x u n d e r Modification of Procedure) 374. Brown (op. cit., p. 9) c l a i m s t h a t t h e p u b l i c relief b u r d e n increased a f t e r each depression.

20

Work Relief in New York State

If there w a s any d i s t u r b a n c e of the e q u i l i b r i u m d u r i n g u n e m p l o y m e n t crises, the b e a m was tilted in f a v o r of p u b l i c units w h i c h g a i n e d b o t h in n u m e r i c a l strength a n d in status a f t e r 1900. I n the depression of 1 8 7 3 - 1 8 7 9 , opposition between adherents of public a n d private relief was not conspicuous; private agencies generally d o m i n a t e d the s c e n e . 1 1 0 In 1907-1908 the private g r o u p was in c o m m a n d of emergency r e l i e f , 1 1 1 b u t p u b l i c agencies were expected to play a supp l e m e n t a r y r o l e . 1 1 2 B y 1 9 1 4 - 1 9 1 5 , the n u m b e r of p u b l i c agencies h a d increased a n d they h a d m a d e definite gains in p u b l i c c o n f i d e n c e . 1 1 3 T h e e x t r a relief l o a d w a s largely carried by established agencies and it was g e n e r a l l y held that such tasks as p u b l i c works, work relief and care of transients were the l e g i t i m a t e responsibilities of m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . 1 1 4 T h e creation of three official state c o m m i t t e e s 1 1 5 and specially the app o i n t m e n t of m a n y semiofficial mayors' committees to deal with unemp l o y m e n t relief p r o b a b l y f u r t h e r e n h a n c e d the status of p u b l i c agenc i e s . 1 1 0 Yet in some instances p r i v a t e agencies opposed public a p p r o p r i a tions f o r u n e m p l o y m e n t relief d u r i n g the Avar d e p r e s s i o n . 1 1 7 D u r i n g 1 9 2 0 - 1 9 2 2 f i n a n c i a l stringency forced many private agencies to w o r k o u t " a clearer d e f i n i t i o n of their field, with special emphasis u p o n division of responsibility w i t h p u b l i c a g e n c i e s . " 1 1 8 P u b l i c units received f u r t h e r r e c o g n i t i o n as a result of the " r i g i d insistence" of the n a t i o n a l C o m m i t t e e on C i v i c E m e r g e n c y Measures that mayors assume l e a d e r s h i p in local organization f o r u n e m p l o y m e n t r e l i e f . 1 1 9 A t the same time F e d e r f o u n d " r e l u c t a n c e of the p r i v a t e field to regard p u b l i c d e p a r t m e n t s as h a v i n g a c o n t i n u o u s a n d d e v e l o p i n g share in the h a n d l i n g of u n e m p l o y m e n t r e l i e f . " S h e c o n c l u d e d : 1 2 0 " I t is impossible to estimate f o r the country as a w h o l e in w h a t p r o p o r t i o n the b u r d e n of u n e m p l o y m e n t relief w a s d i v i d e d b e t w e e n p u b l i c a n d p r i v a t e agencies d u r i n g 1 9 2 0 - 1 9 2 2 ; b u t it is p r o b a b l e that the p u b l i c treasury was even then bearing a larger part of the costs than p r i v a t e agencies i m a g i n e d ; a n d that, although these cont i n u e d to look askance u p o n the extension of p u b l i c relief, reality h a d already o u t s t r i p p e d their theories." 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. lig. 120.

Ibid., p. 126. Ibid., pp. 193-195. Ibid., p. 338. Ibid., p. 245. Ibid., p. 246. Ibid., pp. 233-235. Ibid., pp. 220, 235-244. Ibid., pp. 245-247. Ibid., pp. 312-313. Ibid., p. 300. Ibiù., p. 313.

Work Relief:

Historical

Temporary

Context

21

Agencies

Each of the six depressions witnessed the rise of temporary emergency relief enterprises under public and private auspices in communities with and without permanent relief organizations. Feder distinguished two types of temporary agencies: (a) emergency agencies, in the form of soup kitchens, free or low-cost food centers, bread lines, lodgings, clothing depots, "newspaper funds," and the like, which generally disregarded the "accepted principles" or "standards of adequate relief" stressed by established agencies, and (b) emergency committees, which more or less oriented their work towards that of existing agencies. Emergency

Agencies

As early as the depressions of 1857-1858 and 1873-1879, the older organizations charged emergency agencies with "inadequacy" and "mismanagement." 1 2 1 Henceforth, as private agencies gained in status, emergency groups of the soup kitchen variety declined in importance. By the time of the World War and postwar depressions comparatively few of these emergency enterprises were set up. 1 2 2 Surrounding their persistence, Feder raises these questions: 123 Were existing resources for relief in such communities really adequate, in spite of repeated statements by established agencies that they were able to carry the load? Or did the emergency agencies serve a heterogeneous mass of people whose real privations were never established and who would have been found ineligible for relief if they had applied to the regularly established agencies?

Most of the emergency agencies quickly passed out of existence with the approach of better times; here and there one lingered to become an established unit. 124 Emergency

Committees

Emergency relief committees made their first noteworthy appearance in the depression of 1893-1897 and, with the exception of 1907-1908, they were prominent features of later unemployment crises. For the most part they were local groups, either unofficial voluntary committees or semiofficial bodies appointed by mayors. 125 Sometimes these committees 121. Ibid., pp. 20-21, 25. 31, 62-63, 88-89, 326-327, and 330. 122. Ibid., pp. 342 and 345; also see pp. 151-188, 209-217, 335, and 338. 123. Ibid., p. 353. 124. Ibid., pp. 23, 31, 59-62, 106-110, 129-130, and 327. 125. Ibid., pp. 89-101, 113-125, 219-221, 233-244, 296-302, 304, 341, 344, and 348. In 1914-1915 the states of California, Colorado, and Massachusetts created official committees (ibid., pp. 233-235) and in 1921 the semi-official Committee on Civic and Emergency Work of President Harding's Conference on Unemployment exerted "powerful pressure

22

Work Relief in New York State

l a u n c h e d direct relief or work programs of their own, the former usually p a t t e r n e d after efforts of established agencies. Occasionally they raised une m p l o y m e n t relief funds for administration by other groups. Most freq u e n t l y they aimed at coordinating effort and mobilizing private and p u b l i c resources in their respective communities. Some combined two or m o r e of these activities. I n contrast to the relations of emergency agencies, those of the committees with established groups were generally cooperative; 1 2 6 the committees frequently endorsed the policies of existing welfare agencies, and their m e m b e r s h i p apparently included the same types of personnel as policy forming bodies of established agencies: "social workers," 1 2 7 business m e n , 1 2 8 public officials, 1 2 9 and other leading citizens. 1 3 0 F e d e r suggests that the work of these committees fitted into the long-term trend towards c o o r d i n a t i o n . 1 3 1 Emergency committees resembled the soup kitchens and bread lines in at least one respect. As soon as the crisis was past, they rapidly went out of existence, leaving to established agencies residual problems. Diversity

of Relief

Aid

I n conformity with the practice of e x t e n d i n g aid to persons temporarily in need during periods of relative prosperity, depression unemployed were given outdoor aid. Indirect relief in cash or in kind was made available to a small proportion of unemployed through "work relief" a n d / o r " p u b l i c works" while a modified type of indirect outdoor assistance was given, usually in the form of food and lodging, to homeless m e n in connection with the "work test". Attempts were made to find regular j o b s for unemployed persons, notably by free employment bureaus, private welfare agencies and relief committees. 1 3 2 J o b creating campaigns of the "share the j o b " and "spruce u p " variety were cond u c t e d , 1 3 3 as well as programs for vocational guidance and training. 1 3 4 . . . upon mayors to take the lead in calling, organizing and guiding local committees on emergency relief" (ibid., p. 297). Private national organizations distributed information and formulated principles concerning emergency relief for the first time in 19141 9 1 5 (ibid., pp. 231-233) and again in 1920-1922 (ibid., pp. 304-305). 126. Ibid., pp. 103, 107, 110, 119, 329, 334, and 335. 127. Ibid., pp. 99, 101, 106-107, ι » 3 - " 7 · >94» ' 9 8 ' 9 9 · 2 ' 6 , 231-233, 237· « 4 1 · z 43· and 300-302. 128. Ibid., pp. 115, 119, 195, 237, 241, and 243. 12g. Ibid., pp. loo, 124, 233-235, 237, 239, 241, 243, and 296-300. 130. Ibid., pp. 99, 101, 1 1 0 - 1 1 1 , 1 1 4 - 1 1 5 , 237, and 241. 1 3 1 . Ibid., pp. 349-350. 132. Ibid., (Index under Employment Service) p. 369. 133. Ibid., pp. 108, 142, 212-213, 272 and 336. 134. Ibid., (Index under Social Service) p. 381.

Work Relief: Historical Context

23

Lodging in jails was a common method of aid to the homeless but a tendency to provide special public shelters was initiated in the 1870's. 1 3 5 Cooperative shelters, managed by the homeless themselves, and barracks arrangements for ex-service men were tried. 136 Cash for transportation to other communities was furnished when there was promise of support from relatives or through employment. 137 In a few places transient programs included special housing, job placement, medical treatment, and transportation to place of legal settlement. 138 Outdoor direct relief in cash was seldom extended to needy unemployed, although a few agencies experimented with the plan on a total or partial basis. 139 Permanent and temporary agencies largely followed the conventional pattern of giving relief in kind (with variations as to details of policy and procedure). 140 Food, of course, was the principal item distributed, usually through grocery or commissary orders. 141 Judging by frequency of reference, distribution of clothing was next in importance. 142 Fuel distribution is also mentioned many times. 143 Occasionally, rent was paid, frequently under threat of eviction, 144 and, when regarded as essential, medical care was provided. 1 4 5 Subsistence gardens, inaugurated in 1894 as means of providing food and employment, were used widely in following depressions. 146 It has been shown that bread, soup, and clothing dispensing centers (emergency agencies) recurred in each crisis despite the strong opposition of established channels. 147 There was distribution of meal tickets, 148 lowcost restaurants were set up and "necessities" were sold to the jobless at or below cost. 149 Attempts were even made to organize lending agencies for benefit of the unemployed, and loans were made at low rates of interest to those considered good risks. 150 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 381. 148. 149. 150.

Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid.,

(Index under Shelters for the homeless) p. 3 8 1 . pp. 242, 268-274, 3 1 7 - 3 1 8 , and 3 4 3 . 108, 142, 2 1 2 - 2 1 3 , 2 7 2 and 3 3 6 . p p . 1 6 5 - 1 6 6 , 2 1 2 - 2 1 3 , 267-274, and (Index under Homeless) 3 7 1 . pp. 5 7 - 5 8 , 1 4 2 - 1 4 3 , and (Index under Cash Relief} 3 6 5 . (Index under Relief in kind) pp. 379-380. pp. 30, 50, 7 3 , 104, etc.; see also Index. pp. 93, 1 1 5 , 1 1 8 , etc.; see also Index. pp. 2 3 , 29, 30, etc.; see also Index. pp. 104, 1 2 2 , 1 4 2 - 1 4 3 , 2 1 6 , 2 3 g , 260, 303, and 308. pp. 30, 63, 1 3 4 , and (Index under Medical care) 3 7 3 . pp. 98, 1 5 4 , 1 5 8 - 1 6 1 , 3 3 5 , and 347. (Index u n d e r Bread Lines, Clothing, and Soup Kitchens) pp. 365, 368, and

Ibid., (Index) p . 3 7 3 . Ibid., pp. 1 5 5 - 1 5 6 . Ibid., (Index under Loan

Funds)

p. 3 7 3 .

24

Work Relief in New

York State

OUTDOOR R E L I E F J U S T B E F O R E

1930

On the eve of the depression of 1929, a large part of the relief burden rested on private organizations. These agencies were concentrated in urban areas. They were frequently coordinated through such units as councils of social agencies and community chests. 151 As already shown, the trends in private relief were towards prevention, higher budgetary standards, and progressive transfer of the burden to public agencies. At the end of 1929, 152 all 48 states had general poor relief laws on their statute books, 45 state laws provided aid to dependent children in foster homes or institutions, 44 states had veteran relief laws, 43 had provisions for care of dependent children in their own homes, 22 state laws provided assistance to the blind and 10 states had laws for old age assistance. Outside the institutional care provided for children and veterans, decentralization of administration and local responsibility were typical of all types of relief legislation; poor relief was almost entirely a local function. 153 In January, 1930, Queen wrote: "On the whole the American poor laws have followed the English legislation and practise down to about a hundred years ago. Most of our states still cling to the settlement law, the liability of relatives, local autonomy, and the principles of less eligibility." 154 State financial participation in categorical relief was small as compared with subsequent developments and it was negligible regarding outdoor general relief. Even where provisions for state aid existed, their effectiveness was often reduced by the size of actual appropriations and the permissive character of the laws. 155 Since the federal government was spending about 95 per cent of its appropriations for aid to veterans, it remained for local agencies, public and private, to absorb nearly the whole cost of general poor relief. 158 The increase of governmental responsibility for economic insecurity through periods of prosperity and depression had enhanced the status of public relief agencies. Yet they lagged behind private practice in the 1 5 1 . Millspaugh, op. cit., p. 278. 152. Robert C. Lowe and John L . Holcombe, Legislative Trends in Public Relief and Assistance, Washington: Works Progress Administration, Research Bulletin Series III, No. 2, 1936, T a b l e 1, p. 6. 153. Ibid., pp. 2-3. 154. Op. cit., pp. 19-20. 155. Edward Ainsworth Williams, Federal Aid for Relief, New York: Columbia University Press, 1939, pp. 12-13; and Brown, op. cit., pp. 26-27. 156. See also: Millspaugh, op. cit., pp. 277-278.

Work Relief: Historical Context

25

use of casework, trained staff, and similar principles of charity organization. In 1929, American society reserved but a small place for welfare institutions as compared with those of the family, business, government, education, and religion. T h e "business of relief" tended to be regarded as a necessary evil. It was not so much a "permanent subsidy to industry" 1 5 7 as it was a safety valve for reduction of pressure on all of the major institutions. Presumably large sections of the population held in 1929, and perhaps still hold, combinations of the attitudes suggested by the statements which follow. Social Welfare "is the result of . . . the natural law of progress and the individual law of initiative, hard work, and thrift— and therefore . . . any interference with either of the two is undesirable." 1 5 8 Society "should not coddle the man who does not work hard and save, for if a man does not 'get on' it is his own fault." 1 5 9 W h i l e the family is "our basic institution and the sacred core of our national life," business "is our most important institution, and, since national welfare depends upon it, other institutions must conform to its needs." 1 6 0 Economic conditions "are the result of a natural order which cannot be changed by man-made laws." 1 6 1 Economic depressions "are regrettable but nevertheless a normal aspect of business." 162 T h e role of government should be limited; ". . . taxes should be kept down."1®3 O f course, "you can't let people starve." 1 6 4 "Everyone should try to be successful." 165 Hard work and thrift "are signs of character and the way to get ahead." 1 6 6 Leisure "is a fine thing, but work comes first."167 America is a land of unlimited opportunity. 1 6 8 T h e working man 157. T h i s was the view of an emergency committee in the depression of 1914-1915 (Feder, op. cit., p. 221). 158. Robert S. L y n d and Helen Merrell Lynd, Middletown in Transition, New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1937, p. 407. For an estimate of the general applicability of these characterizations, see Robert S. L y n d , Knowledge For What}, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 193g, p. 62 (footnote). 159. Ibid. 160. R. S. Lynd, op. cit., p. 60. 161. Lynd and Lynd, op. cit., p. 408. 162. Ibid. 163. Ibid., p. 414. 164. R. S. Lynd, op. cit., p. 62. 165. Ibid., p. 60. 166. Ibid., p. 61. 167. Lynd and Lynd, op. cit., p. 412. 168. Joanna C. Colcord, " T h e Challenge of the Continuing Depression," The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 176, November, 1934, p. 17.

26

Work Relief

in New York State

here is "the best paid in the world,"1®9 and usually "any man willing to work can get a j o b . " 1 7 0 But "not everybody can be boss, and factories can't give jobs if there aren't jobs to give." 1 7 1 Everybody "should be self-supporting." 1 7 2 If a man "can't manage," there is "something wrong with him." 1 7 3 Since people won't work unless they have to, 174 the "pinch of poverty" has a corrective effect. 175 T h e r e "will always be some people too lazy to work, too spendthrift to save, too shortsighted to plan." 1 7 6 "Poverty is deplorable and should be abolished." 1 7 7 T h e poor are a burden "accruing from the very nature of things"; 1 7 8 also, " T h e Bible tells us that 'the poor you have always with you.' " 1 7 9 Relatives have the first responsibility for the support of family members in need. 1 8 0 Outsiders should leave well enough alone until there is clear evidence that someone is in real need. 1 8 1 T h e larger part of the "burden of relief" is "carried by the privately supported agencies." 1 8 2 Of course, "it is a fine thing for rich people to be philanthropic." 1 8 3 T h e y "are, by and large, more intelligent and industrious than the poor." 1 8 4 Public "relief cost must always mum." 1 8 5 Indeed, "a 'government different thing from charity to an system which prescribes an exact . . . is demoralizing.' " 1 8 e

be kept at the least possible minidole' on a large scale is an entirelyindividual, and . . . 'a paternalistic method of aiding our unfortunate

Care of the poor is essentially a local responsibility. 187 A community should aid its own poor only. 188 Strangers claiming need should be re169. 170. 171. 172. 173. 174. 175. 176. 177. 178. 179. 180. 181. 182. 183. 184. 185. 186. 187. 188.

Ibid. Lynd and Lynd, op. cit., p. 409. R. S. Lynd, op. cit., p. 61. Gillin, op. cit., p. 157. Ibid., pp. 45-50 and 157. Lynd and Lynd, op. cit., p. 409. Gillin, op. cit., p. 157. Lynd and Lynd, op. cit., p. 415; see also Gillin, op. cit., p. 157. R. S. Lynd, op. cit., p. 62. Bossard, op. cit., p. 690. R. S. Lynd, op. cit., p. 62. Bossard, op. cit., p. 684. Ibid., p. 687. Colcord, op. cit., p. 17. Lynd and Lynd, op. cit., p. 415. Ibid., p. 409. Brown, op. cit., p. 16. Lynd and Lynd, op. cit., p. 415. Colcord, op. cit., p. 17 Brown, op. cit., p. 6.

Work Relief:

Historical

Context

27

garded with suspicion. 189 T h e y should be sent "out of t o w n " as soon as possible, for that saves the public money. 1 9 0 Certain cases of need should be cared for in state institutions because it is less costly. 191 T h e cost of relief to some classes of "worthy poor" is more than the local treasury can bear; the state should help. 1 0 2 T h e individual has no "right to relief," 1 9 3 but "in a real emergency anyone . . . will 'share his shirt with an unfortunate w h o needs it.' " 1 9 4 Ordinarily, public relief is "emergency and temporary relief." 1 9 5 Since "poor folks have poor ways," relief should cover just enough to keep them from starving.19® In n o case, should a man on relief get more than persons working for a living. 1 9 7 T h e r e should be no waste of public funds; every cent should go for what the client needs most at the time. 1 9 8 In emergencies, "relief need cover no more than . . . food." If paupers are given relief in cash, they "waste money or spend it unwisely." 1 9 9 T h e " t o w n " has a right to tell people it supports " w h a t they should eat and wear and where they should live." 200 Moreover, these people should behave themselves. If relief is made "too easy," people "will impose on you" 2 0 1 and "idleness and thriftlessness" will be encouraged. 202 " N o man deserves to have what he hasn't worked for." 203 Indeed, "it 'undermines a man's character' for h i m to get what he doesn't earn." 204 "Relief extended to the able-bodied unemployed should be repaid to the community in some form of work." 2 0 5 " T h e receipt of public relief is, in itself, highly demoralizing." 2 0 0 T h e man "who gets public relief gets something for nothing." 2 0 7 Application 189. Ibid., p. η . 190. Ibid., p. 13. 191. Ibid., pp. 17 and 21. 192. Ibid., p. 21. 193. Bossard, op. cit., p. 683. 194. Lynd and Lynd, op. cit., p. 415. 195. Gillin, op. cit., p. 157. 196. Ibid. 197. Colcord, op. cit., pp. 18-19 Brown, p. 17. 198. Homer Folks, " M a k i n g Relief Respectable," The Annals of the Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 176, November, 1934, p. 156. 199. Brown, op. cit., p. 17. 200. Ibid. 201. Lynd and Lynd, op. cit., p. 409. 202. Ibid., p. 415. 203. R. S. Lynd, p. 62. 204. Lynd and Lynd, op. cit., p. 415. 205. Colcord, op. cit., p. 18. S06. Folks, op. cit., p. 156. 207. Ibid., p. 155.

American

28

Work

Relief

in Neiv

York

State

f o r p u b l i c relief " i s o n e of the greatest h u m i l i a t i o n s . . . ." 2 0 8 It is almost as b a d as g o i n g to j a i l 2 0 9 a n d " s h o u l d b e a v o i d e d . . . any o t h e r possible

as l o n g as there is

recourse."210

A n y t h o r o u g h i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the relief a p p l i c a n t ' s needs " m u s t be of necessity a ruthless i n v a s i o n of one's most personal and p r i v a t e afa i r s . " 2 1 1 I n order to k e e p the costs d o w n a n d to p r e v e n t c o m m u n i t y - w i d e d e m o r a l i z a t i o n , " r e l i e f m u s t b e so s k i m p y , so hard-boiled, so u n p l e a s a n t a n d distressing, t h a t o n l y those w h o positively h a v e n o other means of livi n g w i l l e n d u r e i t . " 2 1 2 I n any case, " . . . recipients of charity should be grateful."213 T h e a t t i t u d e s a n d v a l u e s suggested by the f o r e g o i n g probably received d i f f e r e n t e m p h a s i s a m o n g v a r i o u s social g r o u p i n g s . Yet, the

pre-1929

relief system o p e r a t e d i n m a n y places as if it were s u p p o r t e d by such " s t e r e o t y p e s . " A n d , t e m p o r a r y e m e r g e n c y relief d u r i n g the great depression f r e q u e n t l y o p e r a t e d in the name of m a n y of these very same verbalizations. 208. sog. sio. su. 212. 213.

Ibid. Brown, o p . cit., p. 15. Folks, o p . cit., p . 155. Ibid. Ibid., pp. 155-156; see also Brown, o p . cit., p. 17. Lynd and Lynd, o p . cit., p. 416; see also Folks, op. cit., p. 155.

CHAPTER

II

Towards Work Relief in New York State

T

H E incidental reference to work relief in the preceding chapter has not greatly underestimated its role in America. 1 Prior to the recent depression, it was a relatively minor method of assistance used almost exclusively during periods of large-scale unemployment. W o r k relief is a hybrid of relief and employment features which has been gradually differentiated from the work test and from public works. T h e longterm tendency to give aid through employment combined with more immediate influences to put work relief on a par with direct relief in N e w York State during the recent depression.

H I S T O R Y AND D E F I N I T I O N

OF W O R K

RELIEF

As the term suggests, work relief has a double connotation. O n the one hand, it has been dominated by a service relief philosophy stemming from the more inclusive context of organized giving and, on the other, it has, from the economic point of view, been regarded primarily as an employment enterprise. Insight into the nature of work relief may be gained from its history in this country, with special reference to typical features, and from recent definitions of work relief. ι. For accounts of work relief experience in Europe, see: John Maurice Clark, Economics of Planning Public Works, A Study made for the National Planning Board of the Federal Emergency Administration of Public Works, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1935, pp. 3-12; Joanna C. Colcord, William C. Koplovitz, and Russell H . Kurtz, Emergency Work Relief, New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1932, pp. 11-12; A. C. C. Hill Jr., and Isador Lubin, The British Attack on Unemployment, Washington: Brookings Institution, 1934, pp. 53-86; Hertha Kraus, Work Relief in Germany, New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1934. especially pp. 7-14; C. J. Ratzlaff, The Scandinavian Unemployment Relief Program, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1934, especially pp. 41-63; Reports on Public Assistance to the Administrator, Works Progress Administration for the City of New York of the Advisory Council, Oswald W. Knauth, Chairman, and of the Research Staff, Don. D. Lescohier, Director, New York: Works Progress Administration for the City of New York, 1939, pp. 125-126; and R o y a l Institute of International Affairs, Unemployment—An International Problem, L o n d o n : O x f o r d University Press, 1935, especially pp. 310-318. For a comprehensive survey of English poor relief practice, consult: Sidney and Beatrice W e b b , English Local Government: English Poor Law History: Part I, The Old Poor Laxo, London: Longmans, Green, 1927; Part II (2 vols.), The Last Hundred Years, Edinburgh: R . and R. Clark, 1929.

Work

3°

Relief History

General

Employment

in Neu< York of Work

State

Relief

Bias

T h e emergence of work relief is related to the high e v a l u a t i o n placed u p o n toil in A m e r i c a . T h e central element of the Protestant ethic was " t h e ascetic devotion to impersonal tasks for their own sake." T h e core of this ethic tended to remain largely intact, despite the gradual replacem e n t of the religious background by a "utilitarian m o t i v a t i o n " w i t h the rise of the spirit of capitalism. 2 Some of the typical attitudes towards work are suggested in the concludi n g paragraphs of the preceding chapter. Congenial to the u n f o l d i n g of capitalistic enterprise, such attitudes helped to foster a social organization in w h i c h most Americans have spent a large proportion of their w a k i n g hours in w o r k or in preparation for work. Besides being looked u p o n as the duty of every " e m p l o y a b l e " individual, for the great m a j o r i t y "hard w o r k " has been the only culturally approved channel for g a i n i n g the means of subsistence. It has been practically the only acceptable way of securing means for satisfying the many specific wants people have. T h e n , too, toil has been generally regarded as the "right and j u s t " avenue towards attainment of a measure of distinction or success; perhaps, as T a n n e n b a u m suggests, 3 the only avenue of escape from increasing anonymity i n a rapidly e x p a n d i n g and highly dynamic society. Hence the emphasis on i n d i v i d u a l initiative, hard work, and thrift. Associated beliefs had it that work, as such, makes people " h a p p i e r , " that it is an essential element in character formation and reformation, and that it is an effective means of p u n i s h m e n t and deterrence. T h e compulsive character of these beliefs is indicated by why people " w o r k so hard" 4 and by the a m o u n t of effort exp e n d e d to keep people busy. In the welfare field alone, m u c h has been said, written, and done about the provision of, preparation for, or therapy t h r o u g h work. The

Work Element

in Indoor

Relief

W i t h i n the relief area, the idea that able-bodied paupers should be g i v e n work prevailed as far back as the Elizabethan era. T r a n s f e r e n c e of this pattern of thought to A m e r i c a n shores saw the work element introa. T a l c o t t Parsons, The Structure of Social Action, New Y o r k : M c G r a w - H i l l , 1937, p . 532; see also p p . 515, 518, and 527. In addition consult Max W e b e r , The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, translated by T a l c o t t Parsons, L o n d o n : George A l l e n a n d U n w i n , 1930, pp. 48-55. See also Erich Fromm, Escape from Freedom, New York a n d T o r o n t o : Farrar and R i n e h a r t , 1941, pp. 92-94. 3. F r a n k T a n n e n b a u m , Crime and the Community, Boston: G i n n , 193S, pp. 27-28. 4. R o b e r t S. L y n d a n d H e l e n Merrell L y n d , Middle town, New Y o r k : H a r c o u r t , Brace, 19S9, p p . 73-89. A l s o see Fromm, op. cit., pp. 58, 118-119, and 282.

Towards

Work Relief

in New

York State

31

duced into such procedures as "farming out," or "auctioning off" the poor to the lowest bidder, with the tacit understanding that the keeper was entitled to whatever work he could get out of the paupers. Moreover, indenture and apprenticeship of orphans and other "needy" children in part embodied the same rationale. 5 As late as 1932, attention was directed to the "venerable rule of common law that a municipality called upon to support its residents has a right to their services in return. . . ." e After almshouses began to be erected, a similar emphasis was placed on work in these institutions (page 9). T o quote Brown: 7 C o m p u l s o r y labor was believed by the puritan a n d pioneer individualist to i m p r o v e the character of the poor. T h i s theory was a phase of their conviction that no one should eat w h o did not work. D u r i n g the nineteenth century, workhouses multiplied over the U n i t e d States, not only for these reasons, but because " t h e only righteous a n d practical check on adult pauperism, the o n l y check a t once just and efficient" was held to be " t h e compulsory imposition of l a b o r o n every [employable] p a u p e r . . . . "

T h e Quincy report (page 10) concluded in 1821 that the most economical method of relief was through care in almshouses or houses of industry, "in which work is provided for every degree of ability in the pauper. . . ." 8 Three years later, the Yates report (page 10) recommended that the worthy poor were to be "relieved in an almshouse . . . and in a workhouse or house of correction conducted in cooperation with the almshouse, compulsory employment was to be given to the idle." 9 Similarly, in its annual reports for the years 1818-1824, T h e Society for the Suppression of Pauperism (of New York City) suggested as one remedy for pauperism "aid in giving employment . . . by establishing houses of employment, or by supplying materials for domestic labor." 1 0 As late as 1 9 1 1 , an authority on the almshouse wrote, in part: 1 1 "It may be stated as a rule to which there is no exception that every inmate, except the bed-ridden ones, should have some employment during a part of every day, and the more fully the usual working hours are occupied the better. . . . No one should be ne5. Robert W. Kelso, The Science of Public Welfare, New York: Henry Holt, 1928, pp. 162-1G8; Edward T . Devine, The Principles of Relief, New York: Macmillan, 1910, pp. 281-288; and David M. Schneider and Albert Deutsch, The Road Upward, Albany: New York State Department of Social Welfare, 1939, pp. 5-23. 6. Temporary Emergency Relief Administration and Attorney General's Office of the State of New York, Emergency Unemployment Relief Laws in the State of New York, 1931-1932, Albany, October 1, 1932, p. 142. 7. Josephine Chapín Brown, Public

Relief

1929-1939,

New York: Henry Holt, 1940,

P· 9· 8. Devine, op. cit., p. 285. 9. Ibid., p. 289. 10. Ibid., p. 292. 1 1 . Alexander Johnson, The Almshouse: Construction and Management, New York: Charities Publication Committee, Russell Sage Foundation, 1 9 1 1 , pp. 75 and 79-81; quoted by permission.

32

Work Relief in New York State

glected in the matter of assigning occupation, because of mental or bodily defect." A footnote refers to a list of Occupations for Defectives. T h e continued stress on employment in almshouses, with perhaps some changes in emphasis, is indicated by (a) the names applied to such institutions—"poor f a r m , " "workhouse and poorhouse," etc., (b) the pressure on almshouse officials " t o make the poor farm pay," (c) the implications of leasing poor farms and paupers to lowest bidders, (d) the emphasis on the " d e t e r r e n t " and " t h e r a p e u t i c " values of work, and (e) the fact that (as late as 1930) many states had laws requiring that all able-bodied inmates be kept at w o r k . 1 2 Work Relief in Past Depressions I n a social context placing such strong emphasis on toil, it is not surprising that efforts should have been made to inject the indirect or work element into relief given outside of institutions. T h e "temporary, emergency and s u p p l e m e n t a r y " nature of outdoor relief largely precluded use of the indirect method except d u r i n g periods of depression. In hard times three o v e r l a p p i n g sets of practices, which have been denominated "work tests," " p u b l i c works," and " w o r k r e l i e f , " 1 3 gained noteworthy usage in the United States, at least after 1850. Because of the fusion among them, the three forms of assistance to "the unemployed" cannot be regarded in historical retrospect as clearly distinct species of endeavor, for they have been attaining definition only gradually. Since Feder's work is d r a w n upon heavily here, it is essential to note the definitions that she f o u n d u s e f u l : 1 4 P u b l i c works as used in this study are needed public improvements, w h i c h may h a v e been a d v a n c e d to give w o r k in times of unusual unemployment, but which must have been u n d e r t a k e n in the near future regardless of the depression. Selection of workers f o r true p u b l i c works is made on the basis of competence, not need; the work is full-time a n d the wages those commonly paid o n p u b l i c construction. W o r k relief consists of operations definitely undertaken to provide employm e n t f o r those whose need of relief has been established, a n d who are e x p e c t e d to m a k e a return f o r it through the work thus performed. H o u r s of work o r rate i s . See Alexander Johnson, "Almshouse," Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, New York: Macmillan, 1930, Vol. II, p. 9; John Lewis Gillin, Poverty and Dependency, New York: Appleton-Century, 1937, pp. 182-184 a n d ' 9 2 : Kelso, op. cit., pp. 171-172; and Amos Griswold Warner, Stuart Alfred Queen, and Ernest Bouldin Harper, American Charities and Social Work, New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1930, pp. 100-101. 13. Other terms which have been used with reference to these or similar practices include: work house assignment, enforced labor, made work, work-for-relief, work-forwages, industrial wage subsidy, employment relief, rehabilitation program, relief employment, and reemployment program. 14. Leah H. Feder, Unemployment Relief in Periods of Depression, New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1936, p. 3 1 , footnote 3, continued on p. 32; quoted by permission.

Towards Work Relief

in New York State

33

of p a y o r b o t h are thus m o r e o r less a r b i t r a r i l y fixed i n r e l a t i o n to t h e s u p p o s e d o r d e t e r m i n e d relief n e e d s of the w o r k e r s selected.

Feder has not been so explicit in the use of the term work test. W o r k tests, work relief, and public works were used in each of the six depression periods preceding that of 1929. 15 In the depression of 18571858 a private agency in Boston filled jobs which offered "only board in return for work" or, sometimes, for "moderate wages," 1 6 N e w York City employed u p to 1100 men in Central Park, Philadelphia authorized construction of culverts and reservoirs, and Newton, Massachusetts, gave work to 60 men and 25 teams on road construction. 1 7 In summary it is noted that labor demonstrations helped to secure appropriations for work relief or public works, that legal restrictions delayed use of an appropriation for work relief in New York City and that, on the basis of "the limited evidence available, the distinction between public works and work relief is not always clear." 1 8 D u r i n g the next depression (1873-1879) the homeless were given work in return for shelter and food in New York City and in Boston, an organization of skilled workers requested public works in Indianapolis, the N e w York legislature granted Kingston permission " t o raise funds to employ idle men in breaking stone for public roads," and men were employed on public road work in Boston where also a private agency sponsored several work relief projects. 19 Establishment of the work test in Boston reduced the number of applications for aid from homeless persons. 20 T h e distinction between public works and work relief was supposedly clearer during the seventies than in the previous depression. 21 In the five-year depression beginning with 1893, w o r k tests were used in Denver, Chicago, Baltimore, Cleveland, Indianapolis, Boston, and Philadelphia, largely in treatment of the homeless. 22 W o r k relief became a major form of assistance to the unemployed during this depression, proj15. Schneider and Deutsch (op. cit., p. 6) report that the "first known instance of work relief in the present United States was instituted at New Amstel . . . in the years of 1658-59 . . ." and Bryce M. Stewart (in collaboration with Jeanne C. Barber, Mary B. Gilson, and Margaret L. Stecker, Unemployment Benefits in the United States: The Plans and Their Setting, New York: Industrial Relations Counselors, 1930, p. 53) states that in the depression of 1855 the New York Commissioners of Immigration "hit u p o n the scheme of requiring all able-bodied male applicants (for alms) to work on the Erie Canal enlargement." 16. Feder, op. cit., pp. 27-28. 17. Ibid., pp. 31-33. 18. Ibid., p. 327. 19. Ibid., pp. 64-70. 20. Ibid., p. 331. 21. Ibid. 22. Ibid., pp. 73, 93, 100, 119, 164-166, 167, and 170,

34

Work Relief in New York State

ects being reported in N e w Y o r k , C h i c a g o , P h i l a d e l p h i a , Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, C l e v e l a n d , Indianapolis, and other cities. 2 3 In addition, public works w e r e undertaken in cities like N e w Y o r k , M i l w a u k e e , St. Louis, and Indianapolis. 2 4 W i t h regard to this depression Feder's summary

brings

out, a m o n g others, these p o i n t s : 2 5 ι . T h e r e was hearty endorsement of higher standards of care for the homeless. T h e major concern, however, was to make the work test sufficiently severe "to discourage new arrivals" and to give adequate temporary care, "rather than to emphasize social treatment." 2. U n d e r public, private or joint auspices, work relief emerged as a major f o r m of assistance and was regarded as a means of maintaining the independence a n d morale of " d e s e r v i n g " unemployed employables. 3. Noted among the "disadvantages" of work relief at this time were: (a) inadequate investigation of applicants as to needs because of large numbers, attributed, in turn, to the surrounding publicity, (b) the "uneconomic basis of work relief," including small total earnings, disregard of prevailing wage rates, disregard of the worker's ability or fitness for the job, interference of winter weather with project prosecution, and limitation of the work to heavy labor, (c) expensiveness of work relief fostered " t h e feeling that relief rather than real work was being offered," and (d) disproportionate reliance on the "intangible g a i n s " f r o m employment rather than on adequate income to support a family. 4. "Occasionally the line between work relief and public works was not kept clear." I n Boston, where over $ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 was e x p e n d e d for work relief, it was felt that "established agencies, p u b l i c a n d private, could have handled the situation in their o w n w a y w i t h better results." In 1 9 0 7 - 1 9 0 8 some communities required work f r o m the homeless for relief, " m o s t cities" proceeded to develop small work relief projects, and p u b l i c works were prosecuted at least in C l e v e l a n d , C i n c i n n a t i , Philadelphia, and N e w a r k . 2 6 C a r e for transients seems to have been more individualized than in previous depressions 2 7 a n d p u b l i c agencies were expected to assume responsibility for care of the homeless (page 36). W h i l e joint p l a n n i n g was promoted, administration of relief efforts was largely decentralized. " W o r k relief, for e x a m p l e , was carried on in small units, w i t h n o attempt to meet large-scale need in this particular w a y . " 2 8 T h e u n e m p l o y m e n t situation in 1 9 1 4 - 1 9 1 5 was met m u c h in the same 83. Ibid., pp. 1 1 3 , 120, 168-188 and 336; Stewart, op. cit., p. 54: and Don D. Lescohier and Elizabeth Brandeis, History of Labor in the United States, 1896-1932, Vol. Ill, New York: Macmillan, 1935, pp. 166-167. 24. Feder, op. cit., pp. 171 and 186-187. 25. Ibid., pp. 335-337· 26. Ibid., pp. 211-217. 27. Ibid., pp. 338-339· 28. Ibid., p. 338.

Towards Work Relief in New York State

35

way as in preceding depressions, w i t h about 100 cities undertaking work relief or public works. 2 9 T h e outstanding developments w e r e : 3 0 1. Public agencies assumed "the major responsibility f o r the homeless" and there was recognition of the inter-locality implications of the problem. 2. "Share-the-job" programs were promoted. 3. In some instances public employment bureaus played a large part in the management of work relief and public works. 4. Work relief was of a diversified character, partly as the result of demands for clothing and medical supplies f r o m war-stricken countries. 5. As compared with efforts in earlier depressions, work relief exhibited gains in attempts to study individual needs, in placement of personnel according to ability and fitness, " i n successful experimentation with small units," and in concern for " f u t u r e industrial possibilities" of project workers. 6. Questions raised on the economic implications of work relief surrounded: (a) the competitive nature of the projects, (b) the effect of wage rates under work relief on the labor market and (c) the relative costliness of the output because of lack of skilled and supervisory personnel. 7. T h e distinction between work relief and public works was "clear." 8. Legal and financial problems delayed prosecution of public works projects; there was recognition of the need for reserve funds and advance planning for such works. In the postwar depression of 1 9 2 1 - 1 9 2 2 work tests for the homeless were limited by the amount of " a v a i l a b l e " projects, work relief was conducted in small units and a few cities instituted public works. 3 1 Standards of care for the homeless, including work test regulations, received more frequent emphasis than in preceding crises. 32 W o r k relief was a small-scale phenomenon and a few private agencies used it "as an adjunct to their casework services." 3 3 A s in former depressions, technical and legal delays surrounded public works, although a few cities managed to employ large numbers on such projects. 3 4

Search for Typical Features Largely on the basis of the specific details in Feder's work, w e may bring together typical features associated with past work tests, public works, and work relief. Insofar as data permit, this analysis is organized about (a) stated purposes, (b) general aspects of administration and control, (c) types of projects prosecuted,

(d) selection of personnel to m a n

the projects, (e) conditions of employment, and (f) a residual category of 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34.

Ibid., pp. 267-291 and Stewart, op. cit., p. 56. Feder, op. cit., pp. 342-343. Ibid., pp. 315-324. Ibid., pp. 345-346. Ibid., p. 346. Ibid.

Work Relief in New York State

36

recurring or " i m p o r t a n t " problems. N o attempt is made to give the date and locale of each piece of evidence. Work Tests T h e " w o r k test" was sometimes conceived, not as a form of relief, but as an examination of the applicant prior to extending relief. Its aims were variously described as assessing the applicant's "willingness to w o r k , " "worthiness," "desert," or "genuineness," and as " f o r c i n g " the applicant to go to work. 3 5 W o r k tests were administered and financed under public, private, or joint auspices in past depressions. T h e y were applied chiefly, but not exclusively, to persons without residence or dependents in a given community. Care of such persons came to be regarded as primarily the responsibility of local public agencies, although the feasibility of state and even federal responsibility was discussed. 36 W o r k tests were regarded as more temporary and as requiring less continuous and complex administrative machinery, than, for example, work relief, 3 7 but there was the problem of defining and coordinating, in given communities, the roles of various agencies dealing with possible work test " a p p l i c a n t s . " 3 8 T h e types of work test assignments included employment at woodyards and stoneyards, maintenance of shelters, and, occasionally, street-cleaning. 3 9 Generally, the homeless applicant for relief was required to work a certain n u m b e r of hours per day at the woodyard or sioneyard before relief in kind was extended to him for a limited number of days. Instances are on record, however, where work tests were given local residents with family responsibilities, the work was diversified, cash wages were paid, and care was not limited to just a few days. 40 Public

Works

I n the last two depressions preceding 1929, public works tended to be regarded simply as a means of absorbing some of the unemployed, 4 1 but early efforts in this direction were sometimes looked upon as large-scale work tests 42 and incorporated at least some of the aims, such as keeping families off the relief rolls and preserving their self-respect, 43 commonly 35. Ibid., pp. 65 and 169-170; Charles Richmond Henderson, Social Elements, New York: Charles Scribner's, 1898, pp. 222-223; and Colcord et al, op. cit., pp. 12 and 247-248. 36. Feder, op. cit., pp. 268 and 317. 37. Ibid., p. 170. 38. Ibid., pp. 212-213. 39. Ibid., pp. 66, 73, 163-168, 2 1 1 - 2 1 2 , and 317-318. 40. For details see ibid. (Index under Work Tests), p. 384. 4 1 . Ibid., pp. 287 and 324. 42. Stewart, op. cit., pp. 4 and 54. 43. Feder, op. cit., pp. 67-69.

Towards Work Relief in New York State

37

associated with so-called work relief. On the whole, planning ahead for public works to make them serve "as a balance wheel of industry" was more of an academic than a practical question, before the recent depression. 44 Public works were usually carried on under public auspices, although it has been ambiguously noted that in the depressions of 1857 and 1875 "public work" was frequently administered by charity societies 45 and at least in one instance private funds were contributed for public works. 46 T h e concept of local responsibility was closely tied in with actual projects, but that a broader view was emerging is exemplified by the state and federal legislation enacted or proposed. 47 T h e administration of emergency public works presumably involved less trial and error than work relief, since most projects were let out to contractors in the "usual manner" or were operated under "force account" by municipal authorities ordinarily concerned with such work. 48 Most of the specific projects mentioned by Feder can be classified as construction, repair, or maintenance of (a) streets, roads, or highways, (b) sewers, (c) parks, (d) buildings, and (e) water-supply systems.4® Only scattered information exists on the number of persons employed and on the amounts expended or appropriated for emergency undertakings of this nature. 50 T h e selection of personnel to man the projects was chiefly on the basis of occupational qualification, although in some instances employment preference was given "residents" of a given community, men with families, or persons having a certain "needs" status. 51 T h e wages paid tended to approximate prevailing wage rates for similar work in private industry. 52 Delay in putting projects into actual operation growing out of difficulties surrounding money raising and passage of legislation, 53 opposition 44. Ibid., pp. 290-291, and Arthur D. Gayer, "Public Works," Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, op. cit., Vol. X I I , pp. 694-695 and Stewart, op. cit., p. 54. 45. Stewart, op. cit., p. 4. 46. Feder, op. cit., p. 171. 47. State measures were enacted or proposed in 1915 (Idaho, Massachusetts, and New Jersey), 1917 (Pennsylvania), 1921 (New York, California, and Louisiana), 1923 (Wisconsin) and »924 (Massachusetts); federal measures were proposed in 1919, 1923, 1925, 1926, and 1928 (consult Feder, op. cit., pp. 288-289; G ayer, op. cit., p. 695; Arthur D. Gayer, Public Works in Prosperity and Depression, New York: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1935, pp. 7-13; Lescohier and Brandeis, op. cit., pp. 169-178; and Stewart, op. cit., pp. 56-60). 48. Feder, op. cit., pp. 186 and 289. 49. Ibid., pp. 32, 67, 124, 171, 186-187, 217, 288-289, and 323-324. 50. Ibid. 51. Ibid., pp. 1 7 1 , 217, 288-289, and 323. 52. Ibid., pp. 33, 217, 288-289 and 323. 53. Ibid., pp. 186, 188, 287-288, 291, and 323.

38

Work Relief

in Neio York

State

of various interest groups, 5 4 lack of plans for specific projects, 5 " 1 and legal restrictions in receiving of bids and in letting of contracts" 6 constituted perhaps the most outstanding problems. Other problems included limitation of the work to unskilled labor, 5 7 interference of winter weather, 58 and use of hand labor instead of machinery. 5 9 Work

Relief

Past work relief has been regarded variously as "the surest way of preventing pauperism," 6 0 as a device for providing families with minimum subsistence without the loss of self-respect attending receipt of direct relief, 61 as a test of "willingness to work," 6 2 as consistent with the belief that "any work" is better than "charity," 6 3 as constituting the best form of charity because the community received some return for the money invested and because the recipient thus indicated his "willingness to work" and saved himself from identification with "chronic dependents," 6 4 as a method of assistance permitting maintenance of "independence" on the part of the recipient, 6 5 as developing "additional character" in the worker because of its "hardships," 6 6 as one way of "doing away with unemployment," 6 7 as comprising the nearest, although a "charitable," approach to regular employment,® 8 and as useful for reinforcing "casework" 6 9 or for "therapy." 7 0 Past work relief provides many instances of sharing of responsibility among various public and private agencies with reference to such aspects as financing, determination of policy, sponsorship and supervision of projects, and registration, investigation, and assignment of workers. 71 W h i l e there was recurrent discussion concerning the superiority of public versus private auspices, the trend was towards general acceptance of the view that work relief should be primarily the responsibility of public au54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 6î. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71.

Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid.,

pp. 187, 288, and 323. pp. 67, 188, and 287. p. 323. pp. 67 and 288. pp. 186 and 288. pp. 171 and 324. pp. 100 and 171. pp. 217 and 278. pp. 68-69, 123, and 217. pp. 68-69, a n d 2 1 5 p. 123. p. 172. p. 175. p. 171. p. 278. pp. 322-323. p. 321. pp. 172-174, 177-178, 184, 215-217, 278-279, 281-282, 284, and 321-322.

Towards Work Relief in New York State

39

72

thorities. Local conditions and local leadership generally determined the pattern of specific projects, in line with the emphasis upon local responsibility. Recognition of inter-locality implications became manifest in the creation of a few special state commissions on unemployment relief in the depressions of 1914-1915 and 1920-1922, 73 together with the interest shown by the federal government in the latter depression. 74 Raising of funds for work relief was perhaps the most important preliminary problem; the amount of money "available" seems to have affected such policies as the scale of wages paid and the total earnings permitted each client. 75 As compared with the conduct of work tests, work relief necessitated more complex administrative machinery. 76 In general, there seemed to be more trial and error surrounding work relief than in the case of public works. Work relief raised questions relating to coordination of participating agencies, 77 setting up of administrative or supervisory staffs, 78 degree of centralization, 79 and costs of administration. 80 A recurrent problem connected with the planning of work relief programs was that of selecting projects which would not compete with private industry. 81 In the earlier depressions the emphasis was on heavy outdoor work, especially suited for the employment of unskilled labor. In later depressions somewhat more attention was given to diversification of projects in order to utilize special skills 82 and provide lighter indoor work for women as well as some men. 83 T h e varieties of work relief projects undertaken in past depressions may be classified as follows: 84 Construction, repair, or maintenance of alleys, roads, streets and highways, including street-cleaning and snow removal. 72. Ibid., pp. 174, 246, and 278. 73. Ibid., pp. 233-235 and 321. Special commissions were set up in Colorado and Massachusetts in 1914-1915 and again in the latter state in 1921-1922. During the depression of 1914 the existing California Commission of Immigration and Housing was delegated the task of studying the unemployment problem. In Massachusetts in 1921-1922 state funds were appropriated and used for work relief. 74. Ibid., pp. 296-297. 75. Ibid., pp. 170, 179, and 280-284. 76. Ibid., p. 170. 77. For example, ibid., pp. 172-174, and 279. 78. Ibid., pp. 1 1 1 , 124-125, 278, 279-280, 287, and 321. 79. Ibid., pp. 185, 278-280, and 287. 80. Ibid., pp. 1 1 1 - 1 1 2 , and 279. 81. Ibid., pp. 171-172, 177, 279, and 281. 82. Ibid., pp. 171-175, 279-280, and 322. 83. Ibid., pp. 174-183, 215-216, 242, 266, and 284-287. 84. For specific types of projects, see: Ibid., pp. 33, 67-70, 92, 103, 108, 1 1 1 , 123-124, 149, 170, 174-176, 182-184, 215-216, 242, 266, 279-287, and 321-322.

4o

Work Relief

in New York State

C o n s t r u c t i o n , repair, or m a i n t e n a n c e of b u i l d i n g s , i n c l u d i n g r e n o v a t i o n of tenements. C o n s t r u c t i o n , repair, o r m a i n t e n a n c e of sewers. C o n s t r u c t i o n , repair, or m a i n t e n a n c e of water-supply systems. C o n s t r u c t i o n , repair, or m a i n t e n a n c e of parks a n d p l a y g r o u n d s . L a n d s c a p i n g , g r a d i n g , a n d g r o u n d clearance, i n c l u d i n g c l e a n i n g of v a c a n t lots a n d d e m o l i t i o n of b u i l d i n g s . P r o d u c t i o n , repair, or m a i n t e n a n c e of c l o t h i n g , i n c l u d i n g sewing, k n i t t i n g , tailoring, l a u n d e r i n g , a n d shoe r e p a i r i n g projects. P r o d u c t i o n a n d repair of h o u s e h o l d goods, such as rugs, quilts, a n d f u r n i t u r e . P r o d u c t i o n of f u e l — w o o d c u t t i n g . P r o d u c t i o n of construction materials—stone b r e a k i n g or crushing a n d d i g g i n g gravel. M i s c e l l a n e o u s projects, i n c l u d i n g those p r o v i d i n g instruction in s e w i n g a n d cooking, those p r o v i d i n g a " h o u s e k e e p i n g service," a n d those i n v o l v i n g production of surgical dressings a n d r o l l i n g of bandages.

Surrounding the operation of these projects, Feeler's treatment suggests the problems of "excessive" costs,85 "low efficiency," 80 need of close supervision of the work in progress, 87 interference of inclement weather, 88 necessity of providing some workers with training on the job, 89 and importance of having workers "feel" that they are doing something "worthwhile." 9 0 Data concerning the extent of work relief programs in depressions preceding that of 1929 in terms of expenditures or number of persons employed are extremely inadequate. 9 1 T h e selection of workers for the projects was usually based on the "need" of relief by the applicant. However, since the number qualifying for aid tended to exceed the number of jobs available, a further selection was necessary on the basis of other criteria, among which were: number of dependents, 92 length of unemployment, 9 3 length of residence in a given community, 9 4 citizenship, 93 past work experience or skill, 96 and physical fitness.97 It is not improbable that various political, religious, nationality, 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. ibid., 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97.

Ibid., pp. 124 and 279. Ibid., pp. 175, 179, 217, and 281. Ibid., pp. 184, 279, and 321. Ibid., pp. 124 and 175. Ibid., pp. 177, 215, 279. and 285-287. Ibid., p. 320. For scattered employment figures on various projects or groups of projects see pp. 33, 67, 69, 123 and (Index under Work Relief) 383. Ibid., pp. 124 and 177-178. Ibid., p. 124. Ibid., p. 177. Ibid., p. 134. Ibid., pp. 124, 280, and 322. Ibid., pp. 175, 183, 280 and 321.

Towards Work Relief

in New York State

41

and "racial" biases characteristic of particular communities further colored the distribution of jobs. Selection of workers on the basis of need presupposed, at least in theory, some criterion of "minimum subsistence" for determining after investigation of the client's resources, the amount that he might be permitted to earn during a given period. A n approximation of such systematic procedure is suggested by Feder's accounts of the clearance of work relief applicants through social service exchanges, 98 visits to their homes by "qualified" investigators," and limitation of their working time in order to provide for subsistence or budgetary needs only. 100 In other instances, "inadequate" investigation of needs or of individual problems 1 0 1 and total earnings of the client considerably below budgetary requirements 102 are mentioned. T h e wage rates paid on work relief constituted another outstanding problem. It was frequently argued that the wage level should be below that in private employment because otherwise people would be encouraged to seek work relief jobs on which the required standard of efficiency was lower. 103 Supposedly for this reason, but probably supported by such others as the desire to extend work relief only to the "deserving" and to stretch the available funds as far as possible, 104 work relief wages tended to be fixed below the rates paid in private industry for similar work. In later depressions another aspect of the wage problem was given some emphasis, namely, that submarket wage levels on work relief constituted a threat to wage rates in regular employment. 1 0 5 W h e r e both aspects were given consideration, the fixing of wage rates for relief workers became somewhat of a dilemma, the solution to which was attempted in some instances by paying standard rates but limiting the number of work hours (or days), and thus restricting total earnings within a given period.10® W h i l e some communities paid relief workers in cash, in whole or in part, others gave them only relief in kind. 1 0 7 Problems relating to conditions of 98. Ibid., pp. 178 and 284. 99. Ibid., pp. 178 and 179. 100. Ibid., pp. 170-171, 280-284, and 321-322. 101. Ibid., pp. 178, 279, and 321. 102. Ibid., pp. 69, 181, and 280. 103. Ibid., pp. 171-172, 179-180, 215, and 260. Scattered data on the actual wage rates paid on particular projects or groups of projects are available in the same source: pp. 33. 67-7°. •SS- 180-182, 215-217, 266-267, 280-285, 287, and 321-322. 104. Ibid., pp. 179 and 280. 105. Ibid., pp. 179-180, 279, 280, 343, and 352. 106. Ibid., p. 180. T h e earnings of a relief worker were usually calculated on the basis of an hourly or a daily rate, but in a few instances "piece w o r k " rates were paid (ibid., pp. 173 and 182). 107. Ibid., pp. 70, 108, 120, 125, 173, 180-181, and (Index under Work Relief) 383.

42

Work Relief

in New York State

e m p l o y m e n t included those incident to hardships on workers of winter weather, 1 0 8 d e m a n d s of organized labor, 1 0 9 and distance of j o b sites from the residence of relief clients. 1 1 0 Recent

Definitions

of Work

Relief

Each instance of work tests, work relief, or public works may be regarded as representing an interadjustment of elements so that they function more or less harmoniously towards assistance of " t h e u n e m p l o y e d . " Analysis of recent definitions of work relief suggests that the essential difference a m o n g the three systems is o n e of the degree to which each incorporates (or excludes) relief and e m p l o y m e n t features. T h u s work relief represents an intermediate area a l o n g the relief-employment c o n t i n u u m . It is a h y b r i d system which tends to harbor, at points, internal conflicts between the two types of elements. M a n y subtypes of work relief may be distinguished w h e n it is viewed as a system of relief or as a system of employment. T h e subtypes suggest a w i d e variety of theoretically possible arrangements in the conduct of work relief. However, clue to a combination of long-term trends and more i m m e d i a t e historical concomitants, work relief has h a d a special direction of movement in the U n i t e d States, despite a few deviations into peripheral channels. Recent

Definitions

In general, relief procedure involves: (a) distribution of assistance (means), (b) in the form of cash or in kind or both, (c) to persons or families selected o n the basis of need, (d) expressed in a " b u d g e t deficit" (calculated or assumed and supposedly representing the difference between the available resources of the client and some standard of m i n i m u m subsistence), (e) in order to reduce or r e m o v e such need. Perhaps somewhat more roughly, employment procedure ordinarily involves: (a) distribution of wages or salaries (means), (b) in cash, (c) to persons selected on the basis of ability and fitness, (d) as compensation earned by the work output, (e) o n customary projects (frequently with measurable completion points leading to emphasis on q u a n t i t y production), (f) under customary w o r k i n g conditions, (g) at customary rates of pay, (h) in order to m a i n t a i n a f u n c t i o n or to make profits. It now appears that the essential differences, at least a m o n g past work tests, work relief and public works, lie in the degree to w h i c h each system incorporated elements from the relief series or from the e m p l o y m e n t series, or f r o m both. A t one extreme, w o r k tests encompassed relief ideology 108. Ibid., p. 175. 109. Ibid., p. 184. 110. Ibid., pp. 69 and 183.

Towards

Work Relief

in New York State

43

and practice, particularly of the older type, with little or no regard to the employment features. A t the other extreme, public works tended to emphasize customary employment aims and procedures in selection of workers, work output, wage payments, and general conditions of employment, with minimum consideration for relief elements. Ideally, work relief occupied an intermediate position between these extremes, with primary emphasis on the relief traits and secondary regard for the employment features. Actual programs of work relief only approximated this " p u r e type"; this may be one reason why Feder suggests, on the one hand, presence of work test elements in work relief 1 1 1 and, on the other, difficulty in distinguishing between instances of work relief and public works. 1 1 2 Recent definitions of work relief seem, in general, to support the above formulation. T h a t of Feder has been presented on page 32 above; like most definers of work relief, she used public works as a standard of reference but made n o explicit comparison with work test. Besides Feder's, the definitions analyzed here are those of Colcord and associates, 113 A r t h u r D. Gayer, 1 1 4 Arthur E. Burns, 1 1 5 a study group of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1 1 6 Don. D. Lescohier, 1 1 7 and the New York Governor's Commission on Unemployment Relief. 1 1 8 For this purpose, it is not necessary to reproduce each of these definitions of work relief. However, that of Governor Lehman's Commission (page 171) is of special interest since it was formulated in connection with a study of the post-CWA program in New York State. T h e Commission defined work relief as "a device for rendering public assistance, during a major economic emergency, to the destitute unemployed." Its objectives include: " (1) the conservation of the morale of the worker and his family through the prevention of idleness and by means of giving him the satisfaction of rendering service in return for the assistance received by him, (2) the conservation and development of the skills and work habits of the workers, and (3) a partial return to the community by the recipient for the value received by him, in the form of services, thus meeting the public desire to see its dependents work for what they receive." Concomitants of these aims are: " (a) the provision of work where i n . Ibid., pp. 68, 73, 119, 143, 169-170, 180, 215, 283 and 352. 112. Ibid., pp. 185, 217, and 323. 113. Colcord, Koplovitz and Kurtz, op. cit., p. 247; see also p. 248. 114. Public Works in Prosperity and Depression, op. cit., p. 5; see also A r t h u r D . Gayer, "Public Works," op. cit., p. 694. 115. " W o r k Relief Wage Policies" in Monthly Report of the FERA, June, 1936, p. 22, including footnote 2. 116. Op. cit., p. 308. 117. Reports on Public Assistance to the Administrator, op. cit., pp. 125 and 143. 118. Work Relief in the State of New York, A Review of Its Characteristics, Functioning and Value, Albany: J. B. Lyon Company, 1936, p. 99.

44

Work Relief in New York State

the needy persons happen to live, (b) the approximately uniform distribution of such work over the calendar year, (c) the conformity of the work of each individual with his occupational antecedents, and (d) the pursuit of activities supplementing but not supplanting the usual activities of government, thus preserving a noncompetitive character for the work relief enterprise." T h e intent has also been "to avoid competition with private industry, except for (a) the production of certain goods for the use of the unemployed, and (b) the effect of work relief upon private contractors engaged in governmental work." T h e distinctive aim of work relief as compared with ordinary public employment "is the direction of the benefit to the most needy residents of the community for the purpose of relieving destitution." Most of the above definitions indicate the prominence of relief characteristics in work relief by the inclusion of such phrases as these: (a) "to provide employment for those whose need of relief has been established" (Feder), (b) "men are selected on the basis of need" (Colcord), (c) "employment . . . provided . . . as the inescapable condition of relief" (Royal Institute), (d) "affording employment to the destitute unemployed" (Burns), (e) "need is the primary basis for determining eligibility of employment" (Burns), (f) "need is usually established by the 'means' test" (Burns), (g) "a device for rendering public assistance . . . to the destitute unemployed" (Governor's Commission), (h) "direction of the benefit to the most needy" (Governor's Commission), (i) "relief . . . is the first objective" (Lescohier), (j) "relief . . . is the primary consideration" (Lescohier), (k) "hours of work or rate of pay . . . fixed in relation to the supposed or determined relief needs" (Feder), (1) "persons are employed . . . at relief wages" (Gayer), and (m) "wages . . . are calculated on a relief basis" (Royal Institute). While fairly general agreement is apparent here, Lescohier objects to the limiting effect of "destitute" and Burns observes, apparently in deference to part of the CWA experience, that "sometimes unemployment status alone has been sufficient" in establishing "need." T h e very fact that public works, with its tendency to incorporate "ordinary" employment features, is used as a "standard of reference" in the definitions alone suggests the secondary role of these elements in work relief. More or less consistent with this, some of the characterizations of work relief contain such inclusions as: (a) "economic value of the completed work relief projects is of secondary importance" (Burns), (b) "work undertaken . . . only secondarily to a demand for the project" (Burns), (c) "created solely for the purpose of keeping men busy" (Gayer), (d) "partial . . . return for the value received" (Governor's Commis-

Towards

Work Relief

in New York State

45

sxon), (e) after eligibility for relief, "ability and fitness for the specific work [are] next in importance" (Burns), (f) not "work of the usual kind in the usual way under the usual conditions" (Lescohier), (g) "supplementing but not supplanting the usual activities of government" (Governor's Commission), (h) "to avoid competition with private industry" (Governor's Commission), and (i) "preserving a noncompetitive character for the work relief enterprise" (Governor's Commission). Apparently with special reference to programs of the recent depression, Burns notes: . . as the programs develop, increasing emphasis is usually placed on the value of the completed project. Hence . . . the distinction between public works and work relief is primarily a matter of emphasis." Certainly the quoted definitions suggest n o inconsistency with the proposition that, ideally, the three forms of "employment aid" represent points along the relief-employment scale. It seems worth repeating, however, that specific work test, work relief, or public works undertakings would only tend to approximate " p u r e " cases and would presumably incorporate certain elaborations which would give each program a somewhat distinctive character. T h e definitions seem to emphasize the dominance of relief over employment elements in work relief. A n important implication of the dualism in work relief is that the system exhibits conflict between the giving of relief and the performance of work. T h e Governor's Commission concluded that there "is substantial reason for believing that the admixture . . . has engendered a significant confusion in the objectives of government, has produced an unceasing internal conflict . . . and has yielded a substance whose component elements are immiscible. . . . T h e difficulty is particularly great when conflicting conditions enter, as in the case of (1) the efficient performance of work and (2) the selection of workers upon a basis of need rather than fitness."119 Because of its hybrid character, work relief cannot escape this internal conflict and, whatever compromises are necessary to permit more or less smooth functioning the result is a confusing mixture of donor-client and employer-employee relationships. Possible and Actual

Patterns

T h e definitions of work relief imply a subclassification of the employment field as a whole. Interestingly enough, there has been a similar tendency to subdivide the field of organized relief giving. These groupings suggest that there are 36 possible types of work relief in the relief field and 54 possible types in the employment field. n g . Ibid., p. 100.

46

Work Relief in New York State

T h e f o u r f o l d c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the relief field i n c o r p o r a t e s t w e l v e t e r m s : 1 2 0 1. O n the basis of whether the source of financial support and/or administrative control is public, private, or (in some degree) both— (a) public, (b) private, and (c) public-private. 2. O n the basis of whether the relief is given inside an "institution," outside an "institution," or (in some degree) both— (d) indoor, (e) outdoor, and (f) indoor-outdoor. 3. O n the basis of whether the relief recipients are regarded as an undifferentiated grouping, as divided into special groups, or (in some degree) both—(g) general, (h) categorical, and (i) general-categorical. 4. On the basis of whether the relief recipients are given aid without expectation (and/or compulsion) to make a service return (work input and/or output) for (or as a condition of) the aid extended, with such expectation (and/or compulsion), or (in some degree) both— (j) direct, (k) indirect, and (1) directindirect. A m o n g t h e 81 p o s s i b l e types of r e l i e f , the 36 classes w h i c h i n c o r p o r a t e t h e t e r m s outdoor

( s y m b o l e), indirect

( s y m b o l k), a n d direct-indirect

(sym-

b o l I) a r e t h e classes i n t o w h i c h " w o r k r e l i e f " w o u l d be p l a c e d . It is n o t c e r t a i n , h o w e v e r , t h a t e a c h of the 36 classes has h a d m e m b e r s , s i m p l y bec a u s e p a s t w o r k r e l i e f h a s n o t b e e n r e p o r t e d f r o m the s t a n d p o i n t of the a b o v e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . F e d e r ' s s t u d y i n d i c a t e s t h a t in most instances past w o r k r e l i e f p r o g r a m s w e r e of the aeik

type:

financed

from public funds

a n d / o r c o n t r o l l e d b y p u b l i c a u t h o r i t i e s , the aid b e i n g e x t e n d e d o u t s i d e a n i n s t i t u t i o n t o t h e " u n e m p l o y e d " as a special class a n d others, w i t h the e x p e c t a t i o n of a service r e t u r n . T h i s w a s also the p r e v a l e n t t y p e d u r i n g the recent depression. I n t h e d e f i n i t i o n s of w o r k r e l i e f s u c h phrases as " s p e c i a l p u b l i c w o r k s projects"

( C o l c o r d ) , " i n t i m e s of u n u s u a l u n e m p l o y m e n t "

dinary work" vate industry" "construction

(Feder), "or-

( R o y a l Institute), "emergency public w o r k s " (Burns), "pri(Governor's Commission), "useful projects" i n d u s t r y of t h e c o u n t r y "

(Gayer), and

( L e s c o h i e r ) suggest a

fourfold

c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f p o s s i b l e e m p l o y m e n t types i n v o l v i n g t w e l v e t e r m s as follows: 1. O n the basis of whether the source of funds and/or administrative control is public, private, or (in some degree) both— (o) public, (p) private, and (q) public-private. 2. O n the basis of whether the employment is on (what are customarily regarded as) useful, useless, or (in some degree) both kinds of projects—(r) useful, (s) useless, or (t) useful-useless. 3. O n the basis of whether the employment was the result of the regular course of events, of artificial stimulation to meet an unemployment crisis, or (in 120. The limitation to one hyphenated or middle term to represent mixed or residual cases in each series is only a matter of convenience for brevity.

Towards Work Relief in New York State

47

some degree) of both— (u) ordinary, (v) emergency, and (w) ordinary-emergency. 4. On the basis of whether the employees are selected by application of efficiency (ability-fitness) criteria, considerations of "need" for a job (or, perhaps, for relief), or (in some degree) both— (x) efficiency, (y) need, and (z) efficiencyneed. T h e o r e t i c a l l y , specific instances of w o r k relief m i g h t be classified und e r 54 of the 81 classes of e m p l o y m e n t , if selection of workers p u r e l y o n the efficiency (ability-fitness, symbol x) basis is e x c l u d e d . A v a i l a b l e d a t a suggest that past w o r k relief has been p r i m a r i l y of the p u b l i c , usefuluseless, emergency, efficiency-need (symbol otvz) type, a n d this is the category to w h i c h the recent large-scale p r o g r a m s seem to belong. W h e t h e r o r not all 54 classes h a v e been represented is an o p e n question. T h e degree to w h i c h instances of work relief m a y vary f r o m the most p r e v a l e n t types may be illustrated briefly. I n 1 9 2 1 - 1 9 2 2 p r i v a t e social agencies m a d e a r r a n g e m e n t s with private e m p l o y e r s w h e r e b y the latter g a v e jobs to persons w i t h relief status at current w a g e levels f o r a sufficient n u m b e r of days d u r i n g a p e r i o d to cover the b u d g e t a r y deficits of such workers, w h o sometimes " w o r k e d side by side w i t h r e g u l a r e m p l o y e e s . " 1 2 1 It is also certain that w o r k relief programs h a v e b e e n c o n d u c t e d in periods of relative p r o s p e r i t y . 1 2 2 M o r e o v e r , a plan u n d e r w h i c h p r i v a t e persons w o u l d give w o r k to the u n e m p l o y e d " o n the c o n d i t i o n that 60 p e r cent of the wages p a i d by t h e m [would] be credited to them as p a i d u p o n their t a x e s " a n d similar plans w e r e presented to N e w Y o r k State T E R A b u t rejected because this was not possible w i t h i n the letter of the l a w . 1 2 3 I n addition, T E R A had occasion to adopt the r u l i n g that " e m p l o y m e n t of day l a bor by f a r m e r s could not possibly be a w o r k relief project u n d e r the l a w " w h e n certain f a r m e r s . . . offered to pay 50 cents a d a y a n d meals f o r f a r m labor if the p u b l i c authorities w o u l d pay the r e m a i n i n g 50 cents of the current v a l u e of a day's w o r k on a f a r m . 1 2 4 A l s o , in the late w i n t e r of 1 9 3 5 , T E R A a w a r d e d contracts to m a n u f a c t u r e r s f o r m a k i n g items of clothing on the c o n d i t i o n that, exclusive of supervision, they hire the req u i r e d l a b o r f r o m a m o n g those with relief e l i g i b i l i t y . 1 2 6 T h e r e seems to be n o p a r t i c u l a r a d v a n t a g e in m a k i n g the two classifications more p a r a l l e l o r in c o m b i n i n g them. B e c a u s e of the h y b r i d nature of w o r k relief, the o v e r l a p between the two by v i r t u e of the "direct121. Feder, op. cit., pp. 320-321. 122. An order to discontinue WPA projects was not issued until December 4, 1942. 123. Temporary Emergency Relief Administration, Emergency Relief in the State of New York: Statutes, Regulations, and Opinions and Interpretations of Counsel, second edition revised to November i, 1934, Albany, November, 1934, p. 107; see also p. 106. 124. Ibid., pp. 40-41 and 1931-1932 edition, op. cit., p. 164. 125. TF.RA, News Letter, February 15, 1935, p. 4 and March 15, 1935, p. 5. The contracts were let in connection with Federal Surplus cotton.

48

Work Relief

in New York State

indirect" and "efficiency-need" extremes is presupposed. T h e i r correspondence with reference to the "public-private" auspices is incidental for our purposes, although it probably harbors deeper significance in terms of basic social arrangements. T h e r e is no a priori reason why any single type of work relief is superior to another, except on the basis of choice of values. T h r o u g h the recent depression, the experience of work relief in the United States seems to have moved in these directions: (a) from the relief towards the employment extreme, (b) towards the public-outdoor-categorical-indirect type of relief, and (c) towards the public-usejul-uselcss-ordinary-emergency-efficiency-need kind of employment. T h e r e was slight departure from pre-1929 tendencies by making work relief available for a time to "unemployed employables" and by continuing the work relief under Works Projects Administration into a period of relative prosperity. T h e choice of the type of work relief in the United States has been the combined result of long-term tendencies as conditioned by special circumstances during unemployment crises. T h i s hypothesis is useful in tracing the emergence of work relief in New York State during the recent depression. TOWARDS WORK

RELIEF

IN N E W

YORK

STATE

T h e relief legislation of New York State paralleled the stabilities and changes in other states. Enacted just a few months before the depression, the Public Welfare L a w of 1929 put N e w York in a position of leadership in public welfare. W i t h the adoption of the old age security provisions in 1930, these changes formed the immediate legislative background for the passage of the Emergency Relief Act of 1931 which placed work relief on a par with direct (home) relief. Legislative

Background

in New York Stale

T h e trend in N e w York's relief legislation has been described as "typical of the changes in public policy relating to the care of the dependent poor";12® in this country it is probably most characteristic of the situation in the older, wealthier and thoroughly urbanized states. New York State was frequently in the lead in changes of relief policy and, as the depression of 1929 broke, it was more conspicuous than before. Pre-1929

Trends

Chronologically, 1 2 7 it is apparent that New York kept well abreast of is6. Mary Stevenson Callcott, Principles of Social Legislation, New York: Macmillan,

»9J2, p. 61.

»27. T h e sources consulted in this connection are: Elsie M. Bond, Public Relief

in

Tcnvards Work Relief

in New York State

49

the g e n e r a l trends, s u m m a r i z e d in the p r e c e d i n g chapter. T h e m o v e m e n t was by spurts a n d in no single direction. M o r e o v e r , certain old ideas a n d practices persisted and, as w i l l be s h o w n , were not discarded in the legisl a t i o n of 1929-1931. L o c a l responsibility

and legal settlement

remained

basic

principles

t h r o u g h 1931, a l t h o u g h the state assumed total responsibility for care of "nonresidents"

(1873), destitute I n d i a n s

(1894) and certain types of in-

stitutional care. Partial responsibility connected w i t h subsidies to p r i v a t e agencies

(see b e l o w ) and the aged

t e m p t in 1824

to

(1930) were f u r t h e r assumed. A n at-

transfer f r o m cities and towns to counties responsibility

f o r almshouse care of the local p o o r was short-lived; b e g i n n i n g w i t h 1843, i n d i v i d u a l counties were permitted to restore the distinction

between

" t o w n p o o r " a n d " c o u n t y p o o r . " N o t u n t i l the law of 1929 was the c o u n t y p e r m i t t e d the larger share in relief a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . State subsidies to private charities b e g a n as early as 1811 and the practice e x p e r i e n c e d great e x p a n s i o n u n t i l limited by constitutional amendm e n t in 1875. A f t e r 1835, almshouse care became the basic f o r m of p u b l i c aid w i t h o u t d o o r relief used only as a temporary e x p e d i e n t . T h e almshouse was g r a d u a l l y transformed f r o m a " c a t c h a l l " to a " r e s i d u a l " instit u t i o n t h r o u g h d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of the types of cases w h i c h led to the est a b l i s h m e n t of state institutions, such as those for the insane (1842), juvenile offenders blind

(1849),

(1865), epileptics

deformed children

feeble-minded

(1851, 1885, and 1893), the

(1892), the t u b e r c u l a r

(1900), and c r i p p l e d or

(1900), and t h r o u g h restrictive legislation o n alms-

house care for c h i l d r e n

(1875) and f o r the m e n t a l l y deranged

(1895).

P u b l i c o u t d o o r relief was suspended in N e w Y o r k City d u r i n g the last q u a r t e r of the n i n e t e e n t h century (1876 and 1897) but r e m a i n e d effective in upstate areas. A f t e r the b e g i n n i n g of the W o r l d W a r p u b l i c categorical relief was authorized for certain classes of i n d i g e n t mothers (1915), needy blind

(1922), physically h a n d i c a p p e d children

(1926), and for the aged

(»93°)·

Use of state boards in the relief field dates back to 1840 and 1847 in New York State, A l b a n y : N e w Y o r k State D e p a r t m e n t of Social W e l f a r e , 1936, p p . 5-8; Callcott, o p . cit., p p . 58· 104; Devine, o p . cit., p p . 285 and 294; J o h n L e w i s G i l l i n , Poverty and Dependency, N e w Y o r k : A p p l c t o n - C e n t u r y , 3rd e d i t i o n , 1937, p p . 228-229, 290-291, 318-319, 334. 361-362, a n d , in the 1926 e d i t i o n of the same w o r k , p. 151; and Schneider a n d Deutsch, o p . cit., p p . 14-51. For data c o v e r i n g d e v e l o p m e n t s a f t e r 1930 consult Bond, o p . cit., p p . 9-51; A r t h u r C . M i l l s p a u g h , Public IY elf tire Organization, Washington: T h e B r o o k i n g s I n s t i t u t i o n , 1935, p p . 163-164, 220-221, 280, 286-288, 296, 299, 335, 338-340, 342, 351-352, a n d 359-360, and Schneider and Deutsch, o p . cit., p p . 51-59. For c o m p r e h e n s i v e t r e a t m e n t , see D a v i d M. Schneider, The History of Public Welfare in New York State, ISÓJ-IQJO, C h i c a g o : University of C h i c a g o Press, 1938 (Vol. I) a n d , w i t h A l b e r t D e u t s c h as c o - a u t h o r , 1941 (Vol. II).

50

Work Relief

in New

York State

New York State, although a "state board of charities" was not created until 1867. T h e original board's main function was to advise the legislature in making appropriations to institutions. It also had inspectional powers over state-aided charitable and correctional institutions (the prisons excluded) and over all public almshouses. In 1896, a statute went so far as to give the board supervision over all private welfare agencies as well. Litigation started in 1896 finally ended in limiting the supervision to agencies receiving public funds. In 1926, amid a general reorganization of state administrative machinery, the board was put at the head of a newly created department, three years later renamed the "State Department of Social Welfare." 1 2 8 Laws of 1929 and

1930

T h e new Public Welfare Law of 1929 was hailed as "epoch-making" by the State Charities Aid Association, whose special Committee on the Revision of the Poor Law, established in 1925, played a large part in the law's formulation and enactment. 129 The new law was regarded as "coherent in arrangement and simple in language" and "practically uniform" in state-wide application. It repealed, in whole or in part, a total of 155 laws, 45 of general or unspecified application, 26 applying to individual towns, 85 applying to one or more counties. T h e new law embraced new social objectives. It discarded much of the old poor law terminology—"pauper," "bastard," etc., and substituted such terms as "public welfare officer" for "overseer of the poor." In the place of negative safeguards, the new law assumed a positive "responsibility for comprehensive relief and service at public expense." Almshouse care was relegated to the "last resort" category and emphasis was put on "the necessity of adequate home relief, of keeping families together and of service for the purpose of adequately relieving distress and of preventing dependency." T h e Public Welfare Law also made significant changes in administration. T h e county was made responsible for care of (a) adults in institutions, (b) dependent children not with their families, (c) defective, physically handicapped and illegitimate children, and (d) hospitalization for town cases. T o w n responsibility was largely limited to resident home re128. F o r a tabular s u m m a r y of the statutory placement of financial a n d administrative responsibility in N e w Y o r k State at the close of 1929, see R o b e r t C. Lowe and J o h n L . Holcombe, Legislative Trends in Public Relief and Assistance, Washington: W P A Research Bulletin I I I , N o . 2, 1936, T a b l e 1, pp. 26-27. 129. State Charities A i d Association, Annual Report, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 1929, A Year of Citizen Service in Health and Welfare, New Y o r k : State Charities A i d Association, 1929, pp. 5 and 68-71; see also Belle Zeller, Pressure Politics irt New York, New Y o r k : Prentice-Hall, 1937, Chapter V, especially pp. 144-153.

Towards Work Relief in New York State

51

lief cases. Cities were required to administer home relief, as well as medical and hospital care to resident cases, while the county assumed residual responsibility unless, under charter or local laws, the city cared for its dependent children. T o w n welfare officers were made appointive and were put under the general supervision of the County Commissioner of Public Welfare. Permissive features of the Public W e l f a r e L a w provided for "complete centralization of administrative responsibility in the county" without further state legislation. T h e Public W e l f a r e L a w retained such reminders of older state poor laws as provisions covering (a) local financial and administrative responsibility, (b) gain and loss of settlement in a town or city within a county and procedures for charge back of relief costs to the district of settlement or for removal of a relief client to his welfare unit of settlement, (c) liability of relatives for the support of persons in need of public aid, (d) power of public welfare officials to administer "pauper's oaths," and (e) penalties for fraud or false representation, interference with relief administration, and disposal of relief items furnished " i n any other way than as directed." In A p r i l , 1929, the month of the passage of the Welfare Statute, the New York State Commission on Old A g e Security was created, upon the recommendation of Governor Franklin D. Roosevelt. W o r k i n g closely with the Commission was a special Committee on the Care of the A g e d of the State Charities A i d Association. 1 3 0 T h e new system provided for allowances according to need (cash home relief) to citizens over 70 w h o are proper subjects for outdoor aid, w h o have been residents of the State for ten years and of the locality for one year preceding application for old age assistance, and w h o have no children or grandchildren able to support them. Under general supervision of the State Department of Social Welfare, county and city welfare districts were to administer the provisions through regular public welfare officials. Half of the cost of this assistance, including administrative outlays, was made reimbursable from state funds. T h e State Department of Social Welfare was to approve each relief grant prior to state refund and was given the power to make governing rules and regulations. T h i s was the outstanding change made in the new Welfare L a w prior to the enactment of the N e w York Emergency Relief Act in September, 1931.1 31 130. State C h a r i t i e s A i d A s s o c i a t i o n , Annual t e m b e r 30, 1930, The

Year in Review,

Report,

f o r t h e fiscal y e a r e n d e d

Sep-

N e w Y o r k : State C h a r i t i e s A i d A s s o c i a t i o n , 1930,

P P · 57-58· 131. F o r o t h e r c h a n g e s , see N e w Y o r k State D e p a r t m e n t of Social W e l f a r e , Welfare Law ( R e v i s e d to J u l y 1, 1934), A l b a n y : J . B . L y o n C o m p a n y , 1934.

Public

52

Work Relief in New York State

T h e P u b l i c W e l f a r e L a w was significant f o r the administration of the N e w Y o r k Emergency R e l i e f A c t in that many interpretations of the latter were integrated w i t h those of the former. However, if one searches the L a w of 1929 f o r elements which may h a v e foreshadowed the provisions of the L a w of «931, the similarities are chiefly of f o r m rather than of content. R e s e m b l a n c e between the two m a y be seen in the fact that each includes sections relating to definitions, w e l f a r e districts, administrative authorities, records, reports, accounts, penalties, raising of funds, need a n d settlement (or residence) r e q u i r e m e n t s , veteran relief, investigation a n d reinvestigation of relief applicants, a n d cooperation a m o n g p u b l i c a n d private agencies to avoid d u p l i c a t i o n of relief. T h e chief similarities of content are in the old age sections of the W e l f a r e L a w concerning reimbursement f r o m state funds, and supervisory and rule m a k i n g powers of a state agency. It is quite possible, h o w e v e r , that the circumstances s u r r o u n d i n g the passage of the W e l f a r e L a w and its old age provisions aided in prep a r i n g the way f o r the i n a u g u r a t i o n of a state-wide system of emergency u n e m p l o y m e n t relief. Unemployment

Crisis

A n u n i n t e n d e d result of a c o m p l e x i t y of factors, 1 3 2 the depression of 1929 upset the o n g o i n g processes of A m e r i c a n society. 1 3 3 T h e stock market crash precipitated an u n e m p l o y m e n t trend that continued to increase, almost without interruption, f o r three and one-half years; there f o l l o w e d a g r a d u a l d o w n w a r d m o v e m e n t of the u n e m p l o y m e n t curve through part of 1 9 3 7 , w h e n again an increase was registered. Increasing

Unemployment

It has been estimated that the per cent of g a i n f u l workers u n e m p l o y e d in the U n i t e d States rose f r o m 1.0 in 1929 to 7.9 in 1930, to 16.4 in 1 9 3 1 , to 24.9 in 1 9 3 2 and to 25.1 in 1 9 3 3 , f o l l o w e d by declines to 20.5 in 1934, to 18.9 in 1935, to 15.5 in 1936 a n d to 13.2 in 1 9 3 7 ; a rise to 19.4 per cent was recorded f o r 1 9 3 8 . 1 3 4 W i t h u n e m p l o y m e n t reaching u n p r e c e d e n t e d proportions, the observation that the A m e r i c a n p u b l i c was more concerned with this p r o b l e m in the thirties than d u r i n g any previous depress i o n 1 3 5 is quite plausible. Estimates are a v a i l a b l e on the trend of u n e m p l o y m e n t a m o n g nonagri132. F o r e x a m p l e , see L o u i s M . H a c k e r , American Problems of Today, New York: F. S. C r o f t s a n d Co., 1938, p p . 1 7 9 - 1 9 1 . 133. See I b i d . , p . 178. 134. L e s c o h i e r , Reports on Public Assistance, o p . cit., T a b l e I, p . 28. 135. Lescohier a n d Brandeis, o p . cit., p . 156. F o r a d d i t i o n a l d a t a see H o r n e l l H a r t , " C h a n g i n g Social A t t i t u d e s a n d I n t e r e s t s , " in Recent Social Trends, N e w York: McG r a w - H i l l , 1933, p p . 433-435-

Towards Work Relief in New York State

53

c u l t u r a l workers f r o m 1 9 3 0 through 1 9 3 3 in N e w Y o r k S t a t e . 1 3 8 D u r i n g the f o u r years, an average of 27.8 per cent of these workers was unemp l o y e d . A v e r a g e u n e m p l o y m e n t mounted f r o m 12.4 per cent in 1 9 3 0 to 24.0 p e r cent in 1 9 3 1 , to 36.4 per cent in 1 9 3 2 , a n d to 38.1 per cent in 1 9 3 3 . O v e r the f o u r years, N e w York ranked eighth a m o n g all the states, in average percentage of unemployment, with an average of 7.3 per cent a b o v e that for the country as a w h o l e . 1 3 7 Large-scale u n e m p l o y m e n t brought hardships u p o n millions of people by c o m p e l l i n g them to assume day-to-day living, near or below the level of sheer subsistence. A c t u a l or threatened riots, hunger marches,

and

other demonstrations in various parts of the country accompanied w h a t H a r r y L . H o p k i n s called the "misery of the n a t i o n " until public relief s o m e w h a t more commensurate in scope with the u n e m p l o y m e n t began to alleviate the situation. 1 3 8 Initial

Adjustments

I n accordance w i t h the traditional pattern, assistance to the needy 136. Committee on Economic Security, Social Security in America, Washington: Social Security Board, 1937, Table 5, facing p. 58. According to the Fifteenth Census of the United States: (Vol. IV, Occupations, By States, Table 3, p. 1085), there was a total °f 5'5 2 3'337 gainful workers 10 years old and over in New York State in 1930. Of this total, 267,373 (or 4.8 per cent) were in agriculture, leaving 5*~55'9^1 9 5 - per cent) in nonagricultural pursuits. 137. Committee on Economic Security, op. cit., Table 6, pp. 60-61, and Table 1-17, pp. 400-401. The array mentioned above deals with the "compensable labor force" only. Malone states that the "highly industrialized charactcr of New York made the problem of aid for the aged, unattached youths, and unemployed greater than for any other Stale in the union" (Paul E. Malone, The Fiscal Aspects of State and Local Relationships in New York, Albany: State of New York, Special Report of the State Tax Commission, No. 13, 1937, p. 323)· In November, 1931, the month during which New York State's unemployment relief program went into operation, sample unemployment Surveys were conducted in the cities of Buffalo and Syracuse. Of 15,039 gainful workers enumerated in Buffalo, 54.5 per cent were employed full time, 21.8 per cent were employed part time, and 23.7 per cent were unemployed. For the 7,302 workers similarly surveyed in Syracuse, the respective percentages were 58.7, 19.2, and 22.1 (Committee on Economic Security, op. cit.. Table 11, p. 67). During the month, the employment index in factories (with 1925-1927 taken as 100) was 63.7 in the Buffalo industrial area and 60.9 in the Syracuse area; the index was 68.8 for New York State, 67.7 for New York City, 70.8 for the Albany-Schenectady-Troy area, 110.0 for the Binghamton-Endicott-Johnson City area, 71.1 for the Rochester area, and 67.8 for the Utica area (New York State Department of Labor, Trend of Employment in New York State Factories from ipij to 19)9, Special Bulletin No. 206, 1940, pp. 108, 176-182). At the same time (with the 1929 level taken as 100 and without regard for seasonal variations), New York City's index of unemployment stood at 990; while that of employment in distribution enterprises stood at 85.4, that of employment in manufacturing at 74.0, and that of employment in construction at 38.0 (Lescohier, Reports on Public Assistance, op. cit.. Table 24, p. 266, and Table 25, p. 267). 138. Harry L. Hopkins, Spending W. W. Norton, 1936, pp. 73-96.

to Save, The Complete

Story of Relief,

New York:

54

Work Relief in New York State

tended to be looked upon as an exclusive local responsibility during the first years of the depression; both federal and state aid were negligible. 1 3 9 As if in part compensation for the curtailment of usual activity in the economic structure, there followed an elaboration of the relief giving machinery. Much as in previous depressions, existing public and private relief agencies expanded their facilities and strained to maintain control over the situation, but the appearance of new agencies, including such "emergency" makeshifts as soup kitchens and bread lines, attests to the "inadequacy" of established arrangements. Direct outdoor relief, usually in kind, was by far the chief method of aiding the needy unemployed at the beginning of the depression. Perhaps this was due to a combination of such factors as the general bias of "control group" mores on the ground that direct relief was cheaper and the fact that relief-giving agencies specialized in direct relief. Annual amounts expended for direct relief and work relief in 120 urban areas of the United States from 1929 through 1932 have been compiled by Geddes. 140 Not until the last quarter of 1930 was work relief to be found in significant quantities in the 120 areas. "There were some small work projects in operation but these were conducted primarily for purposes of administering a 'work test' rather than as a means of providing systematic work opportunity to the needy unemployed." 1 4 1 In 1929, work relief expenditures accounted for only 0.1 per cent of the $25,149,000 expended for relief. T h e proportion rose to 7.6 per cent of $50,181,000 in 1930 and hovered around the 25.0 per cent level in 1931 and 1932, when total expenditures reached $138,023,000 and $265,775,000 respectively. Towards

Work

Relief

T h e r e appears to be no satisfactory explanation of the rise of work relief to a prominent place in the early years of the depression. However, Colcord writes: 1 4 2 D u r i n g the summer of 1930, some of the large private agencies, their funds 139. State aid for unemployment relief did not begin in any substantial amounts until November, 1931. Prior to May, 1933, the role of the federal government was definitely limited in relation to unemployment and relief. For details, see: Lescohier and Brandeis, op. cit., pp. 156-162; Hopkins, op. cit., pp. 14-96: J . Kerwin Williams, Grantsin-Aid Under the Public Works Administration, New York: Columbia University Press, 1939, pp. 14-40; and Edward Ainsworth Williams, Federal Aid For Relief, New York: Columbia University Press, 1939, pp. 20-57. 140. Anne E. Geddes, Trends in Relief Expenditures, 1910-193;, Works Progress Administration, Division of Social Research, Research Monograph X, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1937, Table 16, p. 38. 141. Ibid., p. 38. 14s. Colcord, Koplovitz, and Kurtz, op. cit., pp. 14-15.

Towards Work Relief in New York State

55

exhausted, had to cease receiving new applications. By fall, the "conspiracy of optimism" had quite generally broken down, and a wave of organizing for a winter of distress swept the cities. Cincinnati, a convinced believer in work relief, had been giving energetic publicity to its plan, and the idea took root and sprang up literally from coast to coast. A n o t h e r writer believes that the revival of interest in w o r k relief w h i c h occurred in 1930 was partially d u e to the p u b l i c i t y g i v e n the C i n c i n n a t i p l a n but probably more to the general r e c o g n i t i o n that the p r o b l e m of u n e m p l o y m e n t relief was not one of c u r i n g v a g r a n c y . 1 4 3 Someday it is h o p e d that someone may piece together bits of evidence to provide a m o r e adequate e x p l a n a t i o n . M e a n w h i l e , a few suggestions in this direction, w i t h particular reference to N e w Y o r k State, are presented here. General

Bias of American

Mores

T h e general bias of A m e r i c a n mores was f a v o r a b l e to the g r o w t h of w o r k relief. First, there were the attitudes w h i c h placed h i g h v a l u a t i o n o n work (page 30). N e x t , specific programs c o u l d be interpreted as serving a variety of actual or i m a g i n e d purposes such as those associated w i t h w o r k relief in past depressions (page 38). T h e s e factors h e l p to a c c o u n t f o r the fact that, despite the absence of continuity of o r g a n i z a t i o n f o r w o r k relief between crises, such efforts m a d e their a p p e a r a n c e in every o n e of the past six depressions. It is something of this nature that the N e w Y o r k Governor's Commission apparently h a d in m i n d w h e n it noted " t h e circumstances a n d forces" that led t o the d e v e l o p m e n t of work relief in N e w Y o r k State in the 1930's: 1 4 4 Perhaps the strongest and the most basic force operating in this connection at the beginning of the depression was the strong abhorrence felt toward the "dole." This attitude was only partially grounded in the belief that needy people should earn whatever assistance they might receive; more significantly, perhaps, it grew out of the characteristically American spirit of independence and out of the traditional stigma attached to the receipt of ordinary "poor relief." T h e opposition to direct relief or the "dole" was so strong during this period, both because of its supposed disadvantages to the recipients and to the community, that relatively little consideration was given to possible disadvantages or defects in the work relief principle. In addition to the abhorrence of the dole, there was considerable feeling that no one should receive public money without putting forth suitable effort in return and a substantial fear of potential abuse of the procedure of distributing cash without work in return. . . . Interwoven among the other forces was the desire to prevent the deterioration of the morale of destitute people. 143. Henrietta Liebman, " W o r k Relief in Certain States, 1930-1933," in FERA Monthly Report, M a y , 1936, p. 34. 144. Governor's Commission on Unemployment Relief.. Work Relief in the State of New York, op. cit., p. 11.

56

Work Relief in New York State

S u c h attitudes c o u l d easily be c o m b i n e d with others to give an acceptable r a t i o n a l e f o r a p p l y i n g the " w o r k p r i n c i p l e " to relief. In short, work relief p r o v i d e d an o p p o r t u n i t y to deal with the " p r o b l e m of u n e m p l o y m e n t " w i t h o u t m a j o r disturbance to the beliefs of the people concerned. T h e r e a p p e a r a n c e of work relief in the depression of 1929 may be accounted for largely on the basis of A m e r i c a n mores. T h e fact that the f o r m became so widespread seems to be connected with the nature of the circumstances and pressures w h i c h facilitated or hindered the expression of the general attitude in a given situation. H o w the "economy i d e o l o g y " a n d the direct-relief orientation of established agencies was replaced is largely told in the b a l a n c e of this chapter. Special

Circumstances

A t the very b e g i n n i n g of the depression, action was attempted on the s i m p l e f o r m u l a : " E m p l o y m e n t is the best cure for u n e m p l o y m e n t . " As early as D e c e m b e r 5, 1929, leaders of business and industry, meeting at the suggestion of President H o o v e r , articulated, among others, these objectives:143 Promotion of prudent public and private construction through trade associations and chambers of commerce, in cooperation with the Department of Commerce. Stimulation of repairs, replacements and betterments in industrial and business plants and in the home. T h e plan d i d not work, for " u r g i n g employers not to cut pay rolls or discharge w o r k e r s " was " e q u i v a l e n t to asking them to change the entire business structure of the U n i t e d States into a philanthropic machine, to assume the responsibility f o r their workers, and to pay wages out of d i m i n i s h i n g p r o f i t s . " 1 4 6 H o w e v e r , the early emphasis on work seems significant. President Hoover's Emergency C o m m i t t e e for E m p l o y m e n t , created in October, 1930, probably played a c o n t r i b u t i n g role in the spread of w o r k relief. T h e committee was specifically designed to stimulate the creation of jobs. D u r i n g the eleven months of its existence a p p r o x i m a t e l y $ 1 5 7 , 0 0 0 was spent (a) f u r n i s h i n g i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t job-creating measures w h i c h seemed effective in various localities, (b) encouraging state a n d local construction work, (c) urging industry to spread and otherwise increase emp l o y m e n t , and (d) publicizing " g i v e a j o b " and "spruce u p " c a m p a i g n s to f u r t h e r e m p l o y m e n t . 1 4 7 C o l o n e l A r t h u r Woods, chairman of this com· 145. Hopkins, op. cit., p. 15. 146. Ibid., p. 16. 147. E. A. Williams, op. cit., pp. 24-28, and Hopkins, 40-41.

op. cit., pp. 17-25, 31-33, and

Towards Work Relief in New York State

57

mittee, devoted considerable space in an article in the New York Times148 to the Cincinnati plan for coordination of resources, under which "every other device and method is first tried before direct relief is turned to." He regarded the plan as typical of the spirit of our cities "to afford relief by supplying a maximum of jobs for their unemployed. . . ." Mr. Woods reported that his committee was "doing all it can to hasten construction activity" by federal, state, county, city, and town governments. "It is simply a matter of cooperation by everybody concerned. There is no politics in this. It is an American problem and we must and will solve it in the American way. This is a matter of building, a matter of bricks and mortar, of picks and shovels. Work is going ahead—more and more of it every day." He referred to the press campaign, then actively under way in various cities, "where the citizenship has rallied to the support of their local authorities in the effort to provide as many jobs as possible and to afford the needed relief to those who must face the Winter months jobless and destitute." Similar emphasis on work was continued by T h e President's Organization on Unemployment Relief, created on August 19, 1931, and in the discussions of public works in Congress. In the State of New York, Governor Roosevelt's unofficial Committee on Stabilization of Industry for the Prevention of Unemployment, much like the Woods Committee, had been attempting to stimulate and coordinate local employment efforts since its creation in April, 1930 (page 64). It appears tenable that when mounting unemployment began to discredit leaders who minimized the severity of the depression or predicted an early business upswing, and when local relief funds began to dwindle or disappear, job creating campaigns helped to maintain the morale of the unemployed. People began to look hopefully to new "definers of the situation"—leaders who not only told them "what was wrong" but who had plans for action which promised more adequate alleviation with minimum disturbance of the deep-seated convictions of these people. Job campaigns promised a "solution" generally more congenial than traditional direct relief. Perhaps more important than the actual number of jobs created, these early campaigns built up widespread expectations among the unemployed regarding jobs in a measure somewhat more in line with the volume of need. As will be shown, Governor Roosevelt typified the new leadership which went a long way in satisfying the spreading readiness for jobs, particularly through his proposals for state-supported work relief. By the summer of 1931, at least 200 communities in the United States 148. November 23, 1930, section 10, p. 1.

58

Work Relief in Nezu York State

h a d experimented with work relief. 1 4 9 In N e w York State, 48 of the 59 upstate cities investigated, by a joint committee of the State Department of Social W e l f a r e and the State Charities A i d Association, had emergency committees on unemployment at the close of 1930. Thirty-three of these cities had provided extra employment on city work,1·"'0 although " w o r k relief . . . was found to be functioning in only six cities." 1 3 1 A subsequent report by this committee revealed that at least 27 of the 59 upstate cities provided work relief during the winter of 1 9 3 0 - 1 9 3 1 , city funds being appropriated by 17 of them for this purpose. 1 5 2 At this time N e w Y o r k City was operating two large work relief programs, one financed by private sources and the other supported from public funds. 1 5 3 It seems plausible that these early efforts helped to prepare the way for a statewide public program to be instituted in November, 1 9 3 1 . T h e deliberate promotion of work relief by the State Charities A i d Association and the J o i n t Committee was another factor in the spread of work relief in the State of New York. In its first report the Joint Committee recommended increased use of work relief. T h i s report probably had effect on the thinking of the Governor, the Governor's Commission on Unemployment Problems, legislative leaders, and local welfare and other officials. 1 5 4 A n excerpt from the a n n u a l report of the S C A A for 1 9 3 1 is relevant:155 A s the S C A A continued to keep in touch with emergency relief developments throughout the State, it became increasingly convinced of the practicability and desirability of work relief as a major instrument for unemployment relief. For the purpose of promoting its wider use, the J o i n t Committee published in J u n e , 1 9 3 1 , a manual pointing out the advantages of work relief and the ways in which it might be most successfully organized, based on the experiences of those N e w York State cities which had most effectively employed this method during the preceding winter. T h i s publication was first presented before the annual meeting of the State Association of Public W e l f a r e Officials in J u n e , 1 9 3 1 , the program of which was largely devoted to unemployment relief. T h e W o r k Relief 149. Colcord, Koplovitz, and Kurtz, op. cit., pp. 11 and 253-255. 150. Inquiry on Unemployment and Emergency Relief in the 59 up-State New York Cities (mimeographed), J a n u a r y 13, 1 9 3 1 , pp. 7, 1 1 , 29, and 33-34. 1 5 1 . State Charities Aid Association, Annual Report, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 1931, Forward Steps in Health and Welfare, New York: State Charities Aid Association, p. 14. 152. Prospects for Unemployment Relief iti 1031-1932 in Cities of Neu> York State (mimeographed), August, 1931, pp. 8-9. Compare the Governor's Commission on Unemployment Relief, op. cit., p. 12. 153. Colcord, Koplovitz, and Kurtz, op. cit., pp. 136-160. See also J o h n D. Millett, The Works Progress Administration in New York City, Chicago: Public Administration Service, 1938, pp. 2-13; and Reports on Public Assistance, op. cit., pp. 127-129. 154. State Charities A i d Association, Annual Report, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 1931, op. cit. 155. Ibid.

Towards Work Relief in New York State

59

pamphlet was widely distributed. It secured State-wide publicity and undoubtedly played an important part in making work relief a major factor in the present emergency relief program of the State. T h e J o i n t C o m m i t t e e also advocated a d v a n c e m e n t of construction w o r k by the state departments. It seems very likely that the concept of work relief received further impetus because, w i t h increasing u n e m p l o y m e n t in 1930, there d e v e l o p e d "agitation for enlarged programs of p u b l i c works . . . increasingly motivated by the desire to have work p r o v i d e d for the u n e m p l o y e d . " 1 5 6 Public works efforts tended to create an association between work a n d relief w h i c h " e v e n t u a l l y became a force c o n t r i b u t i n g strongly to the initiation of work r e l i e f . " 1 5 7 Moreover, w h e r e local pressures " d e m a n d e d " jobs for the u n e m p l o y e d " w i t h o u t d e l a y , " the chances favored work relief over public works. I n the absence of advance p l a n n i n g a n d w i t h legal entanglements w h i c h usually surround such projects, public works c o u l d not be u n d e r t a k e n as quickly as w o r k relief. Also, "economically m i n d e d " persons p o i n t e d to the relatively larger "man-year" costs as a f u r t h e r disadvantage of p u b l i c works. O t h e r factors t e n d i n g towards w o r k relief in N e w Y o r k State d u r i n g 1930-1931 were u n d o u b t e d l y present. For e x a m p l e , it may be argued that the highly u r b a n character of the State was an important factor. In A m e r i c a , relief problems and experiments h a v e been largely city phenomena. N e w Y o r k , w i t h its concentrations of p o p u l a t i o n in the G r e a t Lakes-Hudson Valley and, particularly, in and a r o u n d N e w Y o r k C i t y , was peculiarly a center of pressure f r o m u n e m p l o y e d masses. As n o r m a l relief machinery suffered general b r e a k d o w n , mass insecurity led to "rand o m b e h a v i o r " a n d encouraged e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n w i t h new approaches until this release of energy, amid fears of o p e n revolt, was finally b r o u g h t u n d e r a measure of control t h r o u g h the a d o p t i o n of " e x t r a o r d i n a r y " 156. Arthur D . Gayer, Public Works in Prosperity and Depression, op. cit., p. 15. Gayer's study shows (pp. 129-133) that public works expenditures of the New York State government in 1930 "were no less than 25 per cent higher than in 1929, while in 1931 they had increased by 30 per cent over the preceding year, and in 1932 dropped relatively little." In New York City, per capita construction expenditures increased sharply, year by year, from around $20 in 1928 to $29 in 1931. T h i s increase of almost 50 per cent did not "reflect successful efforts to expand construction work deliberately for the purpose of affording unemployment relief," for "contracts awarded fell 40 per cent" (Ibid., p. 207). In Rochester, "total contracts awarded for public construction in 1930 and 1931 show increases of approximately 11 and 15 per cent, respectively, above the 1929 level" (Ibid., p. 198). T h e "absence of definite attempts to accelerate public works" was noted in B u f f a l o (Ibid., p. 190) where by 1932 "the volume of contracts had declined approximately 72 per cent from the 1929 level." 157. Governor's Commission on Unemployment Relief, op. cit., p. 12.

6o

Work Relief

in Neiv York State

measures. T h u s cities were more likely than average to try work relief first. Towards State

Aid

T h e trend towards work relief in N e w Y o r k State, and elsewhere, was i n t e r w o v e n with and reinforced by a movement for financial aid from the u p p e r levels of government in support of local relief activities. T h i s m o v e m e n t gained m o m e n t u m as the increasing volume of relief placed localities under such heavy financial strain that many were n e a r i n g the end of their resources. 1 5 8 T h e rapid expansion of the relief burden is r o u g h l y gauged by data o n the numbers aided and on relief expenditures. T h e convergence of several factors raised the problem of state-aided emergency relief to the level of a m a j o r issue in N e w York State by August, 1931. Rise in

Relief

V a r i o u s reports indicate country-wide expansion of urban relief early in the depression. Cities of over 30,000 population reported a

monthly

average of 201,269 families on outdoor relief d u r i n g the first quarter of 1929 a n d an average of 690,268 families for the corresponding period of 1931, or an increase of 243 per cent. 1 5 0 T h e i r relief expenditures rose prop o r t i o n a l l y from $16,621,341 to $56,669,124 or by 241 per cent. 1 6 0 Sixtyfive per cent of the former sum came from public sources and the rem a i n d e r f r o m private sources, while expenditures for the 1931 quarter represented an increase of 217 per cent in public and 286 per cent in private outlays. In 120 u r b a n areas public agencies carried a monthly average of 34,180 general relief cases in 1929, 73,244 in 1930 and 178,066 in 1931; over the p r e c e d i n g year, the increase was 114 per cent in 1930 and 143 per cent in 1931. 1 8 1

Exclusive of public outlays for categorical relief, pub-

lic and private expenditures for direct and work relief totalled $25,148,917 in 1929, $50,180,754 in 1930 and $138,022,811 in 1931, just about 158. For an account of "the fight for a more vigorous federal policy with respect to public works and relief" which began near the close of 1931, see: E. A. Williams, op. cit., pp. 36-57. 159. U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Special Report, Relief Expenditures by Governmental and Private Organizations, 1929 and 1931, Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1932, T a b l e II, p. 15. 160. Ibid., T a b l e I, p. 8. T h e s e expenditures include administrative costs and other "non-relief" items. In some instances reports were not secured for both 1929 and 1931. 161. E m m a A . Winslow, Trends in Different Types of Public and Private Relief in Urban Areas, 1929-35, Washington: U. S. Department of Labor, Children's Bureau, 1937, B u r e a u Publication No. 237, T a b l e 8, pp. 29-30.

Towards Work Relief in New York State

61

162

doubling each succeeding year. Of the 1929 total, 59 per cent came from public and 41 per cent from private funds. Over the previous year, the public costs increased 126 per cent in 1930 and 164 per cent in 1931, while, in turn, the private outlays went up by 62 and 197 per cent. New York cities of over 30,000 population reported a monthly average of 34,472 families on outdoor relief during the first quarter of 1929 and an average of 101,024 families during the first three months of 1931, or a rise of 193 per cent. 1 6 3 These cities showed relief expenditures of $3,835,797 during the 1929 quarter and $ 1 5 , 1 3 1 , 9 3 3 during the 1931 quarter, for an increase of 295 per cent. T h e rise in cases was somewhat below the nation-wide trend for this class of cities but that in expenditures was somewhat above the national trend. Of the $3,835,797 expended by the New York cities, 71 per cent came from public and 29 per cent from private sources. Between the 1929 and 1931 quarters, public disbursements rose by 184 per cent and private expenditures rose by 567 per cent. 164 As compiled by the State Department of Social Welfare, disbursements in New York State for general public home relief, including relief to veterans and cost of transportation for needy persons but excluding administrative expenses, show similar expansion. For fiscal years ending J u n e 30, these expenditures were: $3,723,206 in 1929, $4,943,655 in 1930 and $8,839,872 in 1 9 3 1 . 1 6 5 T h e increase was 33 per cent in 1930 and 7g per cent more in 1931. However, analysis shows that there were wide intrastate variations. 162. Computed from Ibid., Table 1, p. 10. These outlays exclude administrative costs and other "non-relief" items. 163. Census Bureau, Special Report, op. cit.. Table II, p. 17. 164. T h e rise in public expenditures is probably affected by the beginning of payments to old age assistance cases in New York State in January, 1931. T h e sharp increase in private outlays reflects, in part, the New York City situation, where there was no provision for general public direct relief and where public work relief did not get underway until April, 1931. Hence, private sources were more or less compelled to make relatively heavy contributions; public outlays in New York City largely represented relief to special classes (categories) at least through the first three months of 1931. Geddes (op. cit., Table 7, p. s i ) has compiled data, excluding administrative costs, on expenditures in New York City for outdoor relief. These outlays totalled $10,387,000 in 1929, $12,926,000 in 1930 and $48,164,000 in 1931, representing an increase of 24 per cent in 1930 and 273 per cent more in 1931. In 1929, public funds accounted for approximately 75 per cent of the outlay and private funds for 25 per cent. Over the preceding year, the public expenditures increased 20 per cent in 1930 and 242 per cent in 1931, while the private expenditures increased 39 per cent in 1930 and 352 per cent in 1931. 165. Annual Report of the State Board of Social Welfare, For the Year Ending June jo, 1929, pp. 238-248; 19)0, pp. 138-149; and 1931, pp. 108-120. These are the 63rd-65th annual reports, published as New York State Legislative Documents No. 22, in 1930, 1931 and 1932.

Work Relief

62

in Neru York

State

Of t h e a b o v e state-wide totals, t h e cities of N e w York. 160 e x p e n d e d app r o x i m a t e l y 67 p e r cent i n 1929, 69 per cent in 1930 a n d 75 per cent in 1931; t h e r e s p e c t i v e r e m a i n d e r s of 33, 31, a n d 25 per cent r e p r e s e n t c o u n t y - t o w n u n i t e x p e n d i t u r e s . As c o m p a r e d w i t h those of the p r e c e d i n g year, t h e city o u t l a y s rose by 37 p e r cent in 1930 a n d by 94 per cent in 1931, w h i l e c o u n t y - t o w n o u t l a y s increased by 23 per cent in 1930 a n d by 46 p e r cent i n 1931. F o r 56 N e w York cities, 1 6 7 t h e average ( m e d i a n ) change in these h o m e relief costs was a n increase of a p p r o x i m a t e l y 33 per cent in 1930 a n d 73 p e r cent m o r e in 1931. E x c l u d i n g e x t r e m e variations, 1 6 8 the p e r c e n t a g e c h a n g e s r a n g e d f r o m —39.9 ( B i n g h a m t o n ) to -j-111.5 ( O n e o n t a ) in 1930 a n d f r o m —4.7 ( M i d d l e t o w n ) t o -{-276.9 (Kingston) in 1931. For 28 cities w i t h i n t e r m e d i a t e r a t e s of c h a n g e , this r a n g e r a n f r o m —2.0 (Schenectady) to + 4 7 · ° ( K i n g s t o n ) i n 1930, a n d f r o m + 4 7 . 1 (Troy) to 4-110.5 (Hornell) i n 1931. A m o n g 53 N e w York c o u n t y - t o w n units, 1 6 9 the average ( m e d i a n ) c h a n g e i n r e l a t i o n to e x p e n d i t u r e s d u r i n g the p r e c e d i n g fiscal year was a n increase of a p p r o x i m a t e l y 26 p e r cent in 1930 a n d 37 p e r cent in 1931. E x t r e m e cases e x c l u d e d , 1 7 0 t h e p e r c e n t a g e r a n g e was f r o m —26.6 (Steub e n ) t o 4 - 1 7 3 . 6 ( M a d i s o n ) i n 1930 a n d f r o m —8.6 (Albany) to -(-154.1 (Schoharie) i n 1931. F o r 27 c o u n t y - t o w n u n i t s w i t h i n t e r m e d i a t e rates of c h a n g e , t h e p e r c e n t a g e s p a n was f r o m 4-2.5 (Cayuga) to 4-51.3 (Montg o m e r y ) i n 1930 a n d f r o m 4 - 1 3 . 3 ( C h e n a n g o ) t o 4-62.0 ( O n o n d a g a ) in 1931· State-aid

Becomes

a Major

Issue

T h e m o v e m e n t t o w a r d s s t a t e - s u p p o r t e d u n e m p l o y m e n t relief h a d a n u m b e r of obstacles t o o v e r c o m e . T h e r e was the initial r e l u c t a n c e of est a b l i s h e d agencies, p u b l i c a n d private, to a d m i t t h e i r inability to cope w i t h t h e s i t u a t i o n . E a r l y i n t h e depression the Association of P u b l i c Welf a r e Officials, the F a m i l y W e l f a r e Association of America a n d t h e Associa t i o n of C o m m u n i t y Chests a n d Councils agreed t h a t state f u n d s s h o u l d b e used for e m e r g e n c y relief " o n l y if local f u n d s proved i n a d e q u a t e . " 1 7 1 T h e l a t t e r o r g a n i z a t i o n s o u g h t to s t i m u l a t e local p u b l i c a p p r o p r i a t i o n s 166. Including New York City but excluding Canandaigua and Geneva whose expenditures are included with those of Ontario County. 167. Excluded are the cities of Canandaigua, Geneva, Long Beach and Sherrill. 168. Excluded for 1930 are changes in Tonawanda, Oneida, Utica, Elmira and Gloversville. Excluded for 1931 are changes in Oneida and Tonawanda. 169. Excluded are the county-town units of Columbia, Cortland, Fulton and Lewis. T h e Ontario unit includes the cities of Canandaigua and Geneva. 170. Excluded for 1930 are changes in the county-town units of Sullivan and Dutchess. T h e 1931 exclusions are for the units of Oswego, Putnam, Washington and Greene. 1 7 1 . Josephine C. Brouin, op. cit., pp. 86-87.

Towards Work Relief in New York State

63

"with reluctance and only when it became inevitable." 1 7 2 Chests had practiced a sort of unintended deception in leading people to believe that their member agencies took care of "all community needs" and by their heavy use of "the relief a p p e a l " as the easist way to raise funds. Actually, the relief function was becoming increasingly public and most chest agencies spent their funds for "administration," "service," "character building" and such, rather than for relief. 1 7 3 T o admit the need for public relief funds was in a sense a threat to chest existence. 1 7 4 T h e concept of "local responsibility" for relief was strongly intrenched, 1 7 8 but rapidly mounting public costs in the face of decreasing local revenues, chiefly taxes on real estate, favored spreading of the burden. Since state funds were derived from other sources, one way out of the difficulty was to apply the already widely used principle of state grants-in-aid 176 to unemployment relief. 1 7 7 Such a move was not altogether novel for interlocal implications of the problem had been recognized at least vaguely in past depressions (page 39). In the New York situation, although specific relations are difficult to establish, it would seem that the relief legislation of 1929 and 1930 and the early aggressive steps taken by the state government with reference to unemployment under the leadership of Governor Roosevelt exerted additional influence upon the movement towards state aid for unemployment relief. A n awakening to the problems of a highly specialized industrial order, 1 7 8 aided by a well-planned campaign of "pressure politics" by the New York State Charities A i d Association, resulted in the passage of the 172. Ibid., p. 78. 173. Ibid., pp. 78-79. 174. Ibid. 175. See E. A. Williams, op. cit., pp. 22-52. New York's relief legislation of 1929-1931, despite departure from the principle, expressed considerable respect for "local responsibility." A n d , in large measure, home relief continued to be a town function in most upstate New York counties; see Russell John Hinckley, Special Report of the State T a x Commission, No. 9, State Grants-in-Aid, Albany: J. B. Lyon Company, 1935, p. 158. 176. Hinckley, op. cit., pp. 29-30. 177. See: E. A. Williams, op. cit., p. 18; Paul E. Malone, op. cit., p. 323; Russell John Hinckley, op. cit., p. 156; J. Kerwin Williams, op. cit., p. 16 and Governor's Commission Work Relief in the State of New York, op. cit., p. 12. 178. Some of these problems are suggested by Malone (op. cit., p. 344): "mobility of population, unemployment due to technological changes and drying up of markets, solvency of local units, relationship of fiscal policies to monetary problems, and the desirability of spreading the tax burden in the most equitable manner . . ." and by Hinckley (op. cit., p. 151): " I n a broad sense, social welfare is tied up with the defects of our industrial and distributive systems. T h e business cycle, technological and seasonal unemployment, low incomes, and the early discharge of individuals from productive work are among the causes of poverty; social maladjustments of all kinds may proceed from these factors."

64

Work Relief in New York State

P u b l i c W e l f a r e L a w on A p r i l 12, 1929. T h i s law superseded some 1 5 5 " a n t i q u a t e d poor l a w s " on the statute books and "implicit in the all-embracing character of the statute was the recognition of state responsibility, direct and indirect, in many branches of public welfare that had hitherto been considered outside its p r o v i n c e . " 1 7 9 If the re-education among state and local officials and others, which made passage of the Welfare L a w possible, had a continuing effcct or momentum to reinforce (or be absorbed by) another movement in the same general direction, the creation of the State Commission on O l d Age Security in April, 1929, upon the recommendation of G o v e r n o r Roosevelt, provided such opportunity. T h e commission's state-wide investigation of public almshouses kept interest alive in the relief area, and this interest was further accentuated by the rising v o l u m e of need attending the onrushing depression. On A p r i l 10, 1930, the Security Against O l d Age W a n t bill established an old age security allowance system. A l t h o u g h local in administration, this system was state-wide in application and subject to the supervision of the New Y o r k State Department of Social Welfare. Besides thus reinforcing the W e l f a r e L a w , the O l d A g e measure went a step further by providing state reimbursement, likewise subject to the supervision of the state department, for 50 per cent of the cost of old age relief and its local administration. T h i s state reimbursement, with state supervision, was similar to that later incorporated into the Emergency Relief Act of New York State. State-supported u n e m p l o y m e n t relief was foreshadowed by the active role the state government assumed under the leadership of Governor Roosevelt. T h e very month the old age assistance law was enacted, the G o v e r n o r created an unofficial Committee on Stabilization of Industry for the Prevention of U n e m p l o y m e n t . T h i s committee was concerned with obtaining information on the extent of unemployment, stabilization of employment, cooperation with and supervision of philanthropic efforts, active stimulation of "small j o b " campaigns in communities throughout the state, coordination and encouragement of local re-employment undertakings, and finding of jobs through public and private employment agencies. In his a n n u a l message to the New York Legislature on J a n u a r y 7, 1 9 3 1 , and again in a special message to that body on March 25, 1 9 3 1 , the G o v e r n o r urged that this committee be given official status and funds to carry on its emergency w o r k . 1 8 0 In the J a n u a r y message, lie commented on " t h e futility and folly of attempting to gloss over or conceal the real situation" and announced that he had invited the Governors of six neighboring states to meet in A l b a n y on the twenty-third of the month to dis179. Schneider and Deutsch, op. cit., p. 49. 180. No final action was taken by the Legislature regarding this proposal.

Towards Work Relief in Neiu York State

65

cuss the problem of unemployment "in its broader aspects" with a view towards planning state legislation coordinated with that of adjacent states. 181 As an outgrowth of the conference of Governors, the March message contained a recommendation that the Legislature "create a commission to investigate this whole subject and report to the Legislature of 1932 a plan for accomplishing some kind of scientific unemployment insurance." 1 8 2 While no final action was taken on this proposal, the State Senate and Assembly did pass, on April 9, 1931, a joint resolution for the creation of a legislative committee "to investigate the cause of unemployment in its every aspect" in order to recommend a policy and necessary legislation. 183 Meanwhile, the Joint Committee of the New York State Department of Social Welfare and the New York State Charities Aid Association rendered its first report on January 13, 1931, in which it gave evidence of rapidly mounting relief costs in upstate cities but at this time saw no reason why "local authorities and people" were "unable to carry this burden." T h e report went on to suggest that the state could help in "suitable ways . . . by increasing the volume of available employment through the advancement of public works." 184 Seven months later, the second report was rendered by the Joint Committee on the situation in 45 of the 59 upstate cities. Among other things, the report noted that practically every city had spent "nearly as much or more for public home relief" in the first half of 1931 as during the entire year of 1930, that current appropriations were "nearly or entirely exhausted," and that both relief grants to clients and private relief funds were inadequate. 1 8 3 Prospects for the coming winter were discouraging in that a greater number of people would need relief. 186 T h e major part of relief funds had to come from 181. T E R A , Emergency Unemployment Relief Laws in the State of New York, 1931-19)2, op. cit., p. 17. 182. Ibid., pp. 18-19. 183. Ibid., pp. 20-21. 184. Inquiry on Unemployment and Emergency Relief in the ¡9 Up-State New York Cities, op. cit., p. 37. Between January 26 and 28, 1931, the Legislature passed a joint resolution urging the state departments to speed up transmission of plans for public construction and later expedited its appropriations for such undertakings. Moreover, Chapter 284 of the Laws of 1931 amended subdivision 8 of Section 188 of the Greater New York Charter to permit New York City to borrow $10,000,000 for public work to relieve unemployment (Emergency Unemployment Relief Laws in the State of New York, 19)1-1932, op. cit., p. 10). 185. Meanwhile the financial condition of New York City was rapidly approaching a crisis (Millett, op. cit., pp. 6-8. and Leschoier, Reports on Public Assistance, op. cit., pp. 128-129). 186. Prospects for Unemployment Relief in 1931-1932 in j ; Cities of New York State, op. cit., pp. 3-4.

Work Relief in New York State

66

p u b l i c sources a n d it was d o u b t f u l w h e t h e r cities could p r o v i d e the sums needed f o r h o m e relief through taxes on real estate. 1 8 7 T h e c o m m i t t e e felt that in some cases state aid w o u l d p r o b a b l y be necessary. 1 8 8 B y A u g u s t , 1 9 3 1 , state aid to localities f o r u n e m p l o y m e n t relief became a m a j o r issue in the State of N e w Y o r k . F r o m this point f o r w a r d , events m o v e d r a p i d l y , a n d w i t h i n two months state f u n d s became available for local h o m e relief and w o r k relief. It r e m a i n e d for G o v e r n o r R o o s e v e l t to redefine the situation a n d articulate a course of action. Roosevelt

Leadership

C o n v i n c e d that " t h e time f o r platitudes . . . has p a s s e d " a n d that " t h e time f o r i m m e d i a t e action is at h a n d , " G o v e r n o r R o o s e v e l t c o n v e n e d the L e g i s l a t u r e in e x t r a o r d i n a r y session. O n A u g u s t 28, 1 9 3 1 , he d e l i v e r e d to that body a special message in w h i c h he o u t l i n e d his philosophy of " t h e state," a n d pictured the prospect of the c o m i n g w i n t e r . H e set f o r t h the p r i n c i p l e that part of the responsibility rests u p o n the state a n d recomm e n d e d a concrete p r o g r a m " t o care for the relief of distress a n d the alleviation of u n e m p l o y m e n t . " 1 8 9 Philosophy

of

Government

T h e state was regarded by G o v e r n o r R o o s e v e l t as " a positive agency of social w e l f a r e , " 1 9 0 the excerpts f r o m his special message reveal. T h e state is " t h e duly constituted representative of an organized society of h u m a n beings created by them f o r their m u t u a l protection a n d well-being. ' T h e State' or 'the g o v e r n m e n t ' is b u t the m a c h i n e r y through w h i c h such mutual aid and protection is achieved. . . ." H e conceived one d u t y of the state to be "that of caring f o r those of its citizens w h o find themselves the victims of such adverse circumstances as m a k e them u n a b l e to o b t a i n even the necessities f o r mere existence w i t h o u t the aid of others. . . . " T h e G o v e r n o r b r i d g e d the g a p between " e s t a b l i s h e d " a n d " t e m p o r a r y " arrangements without difficulty. " W h i l e it is true that we h a v e h i t h e r t o p r i n c i p a l l y considered those w h o through accident or old age w e r e permanently incapacitated, the same responsibility of the State u n d o u b t e d l y applies w h e n widespread economic conditions render large n u m b e r s of m e n and w o m e n i n c a p a b l e of s u p p o r t i n g either themselves or their families because of circumstances b e y o n d their control w h i c h m a k e it im187. Ibid. 188. Ibid. 189. T h e special message of the Governor to the Legislature, August 28, 1931, is reproduced in Emergency Unemployment Relief Laws in the State of Neu· York, 1931· ipj2, op. cit., pp. 23-30. 190. R . M. Maclver, Society, Its Structure and Changes, New York: Ray Long and Richard R. Smith, 1932, p. 195.

Towards Work Relief in New York Stale

67

possible for them to find remunerative labor. T o these unfortunate citizens aid must be extended by government—not as a matter of charity but as a matter of social duty." Although the Governor failed to indicate whether he was referring only to New York State, he took the view that the responsibilities of government have not remained static but have been "enlarged from year to year as we have grown to a better understanding of governmntal functions." Prospects

for the Winter

of

1931-1932

T h e Governor outlined the outlook for the winter of 1931-1932 to the special session of the Legislature. He observed that in the winter of 19301931, distress in New York State was "to a great extent alleviated" (a) through efforts of the Commission on Stabilization to get employers to stagger employment and its efforts to coordinate local public and private relief work, (b) by expansion of state and local public works, and (c) by generous private contributions for relief. Reports from the Committee on Stabilization of Employment, from the State Department of Social Welfare and from many private agencies now indicated that the relief needs in the winter of 1931-1932 would be almost double those of the previous one. T h e Governor expressed the view that the lines of attack followed thus far would not be adequate for the coming winter, even if private donations for relief equalled those of last winter. 1 9 1 Employers who "have continued to use their resources to prevent the laying off of workers, are finding that they can no longer do so. . . ." It was probable that public works would not be further expanded greatly in the "average" New York locality, since many were approaching their statutory debt limitations and since local borrowing for public works placed an added load on already over-burdened real estate. T h u s it was clear to Governor Roosevelt that "very large additional funds must be looked for this winter to supplement the lines of assistance given last year." State Responsibility

and

Program

At this point, Franklin D. Roosevelt concluded that by "a process of 191. According to data in the report compiled by Emma A. Winslow (op. cit.. Table B. p. 79) per capita expenditures from private funds for relief rose between 1931 and 1932 from $0.68 to $1.03 in Erie County, including Buffalo, and from $2.26 to $2.99 in New York City, but declined from $0.89 to $0.62 in Albany, from $0.11 to $0.09 in New Rochelle, from Ç0.59 to $0.27 in Niagara Falls, from $0.90 to $0.50 in Rochester, from $0.31 to $0.23 in Syracuse, from $ 1 4 8 to $0.77 in Utica, and from $1.49 to Jo.66 in Yonkers. Of course, availability of state funds for local unemployment relief may have contributed to the declines.

68

Work Relief in Neu> York State

elimination, if by nothing else, the responsibility also rests upon the State." H e took the position that New York State could not wait for whatever action the federal government might take in the future, inasmuch as " I face and you face and thirteen million people face the problem of providing immediate relief." In order " t o supplement and in no way cut down the existing sources of relief, the State must itself make available at once a large sum of public moneys to provide work for its residents this winter where useful public work can be found; and where such work cannot be found, to provide them with food against starvation and with clothing and shelter against suffering." " T o carry out with the greatest possible effectiveness the high duty which is the State's," the Governor recommended, 1 9 2 "the administration of unemployment and distress relief within the state be placed in the hands of a temporary emergency commission of three persons to be appointed by the Governor to serve without pay." T h e state commission was to be known as the T e m p o r a r y Emergency Relief Administration. T h e suggestion was that the T E R A " b e empowered to recommend to the Governor the appointment of local subsidiary commissions of three or more men and women in such cities and counties as it deems advisable." T h e state executive further proposed that $20,000,000 of state funds be appropriated for apportionment by the T E R A among the various counties and cities of the state. T h e state commission was to "be given the widest latitude" in apportioning and distributing the $20,000,000, including permission to retain $1,000,000 " o r more within its discretion" for work projects sponsored by state agencies. Apportionment of funds among the local units was to be based on such factors as: (a) the number of needy unemployed in the locality, and (b) "the amount of local effort and initiative as shown by the money raised in the municipality by public and private means, consistent with the financial ability of the municipality and its people." T h e assumption was that the distribution of poor relief is essentially a local function and that the state in supplementing local funds should "seek . . . to encourage local initiative by matching local effort; so that the larger the amount raised locally, the larger the contribution by the State." Actual disbursement of state relief funds was to be placed in the hands of local officers, subject to the approval of T E R A . T h e local commissions 192. T h e Governor also recommended, in his special message, legislation providing (a) a graduated state tax on personal incomes to raise the necessary money for unemployment relief, (b) a five day week f o r nonsupervisory labor in f u t u r e contracts for state and municipal public works, (c) payment of a state bonus to war veterans, and (d) counties and cities with power to borrow money for the employment of "local residents on local public works."

Towards Work Relief in New York State

69

were to act in an advisory capacity to the local welfare officers and to the T E R A , coordinate private relief, and stimulate odd job campaigns. T h e Governor suggested that the state laws should provide "that the money be expended as follows: If any form of employment can be found for the public use, prevailing rate of wages should be paid for such work; if, however, it is impossible to locate or provide work of this kind, then the local welfare officer may purchase and give to the unemployed . . . necessary food, clothing, fuel, and shelter for them and their families." Moreover, the statute should embody these restrictions: (a) "under no circumstances shall any actual money be paid in the form of a dole or in any other form by the local welfare officer to any unemployed or his family," (b) "this relief should be restricted to persons w h o have resided in New York State for at least two years prior to the enactment of the statute," and (c) " n o employment or relief be undertaken except in accordance with rules and regulations laid down by" the T E R A . Finally, the legislature was informed about "another requirement for a scientific and proper system of relief." It "must have a thoroughly organized, enthusiastic and tireless department of investigation, constantly seeking out those" deserving cases w h o "not only refuse to apply for relief until actual starvation has set in, but allow the future health of their children to become permanently undermined by undernourishment rather than seek community help." T h e Governor suggested "that this phase of the work be laid as a primary duty upon the women of our State." T h e importance of the specific items in this program proposed by Governor Roosevelt lay precisely in the fact that nearly every one of them was subsequently incorporated, at least in part, into New York's Emergency Relief Act. A new "definition of the situation" had been made, a way out of the difficulty had been suggested. It is reported, however, that the State Charities A i d Association largely drafted the Relief Act. 1 9 3 Final

Steps

Nearly a month was consumed before the Emergency Relief Act, commonly known as the Wicks A c t (after its sponsor in the Legislature), was enacted into law. Both m a j o r parties were in substantial agreement regarding the major objective, but cleavage developed over the means for its attainment. Republican leaders introduced various bills designed to supersede specific items suggested by the Governor. T h e y wanted the Department of Social Welfare to handle the state relief fund 1 9 4 and to have 193. SCAA News, Vol. X X I , No. 8, May, 1942, p. 7. 194. New York Times, September 2, 1931.

ο S >2 Ο. ? «

υ •c c

c h «

l i UH

s.

I »4 «

en ?

.!

c

*

e £

"2 ε 3 h.

m C

a •o

>n 0

O O 0 O evi r - 0 O ecî Csî f—«

0 0

añ00 00

—

0 0 0

0 0 0 10

0 0 0 0 CM

c

•o c

O

Ξ S o M

£ ~· S Q L. ^

s I

© » r i k n O O ^ c m o © m o © o » í í rfí CM

O o ©_ w

O O O O O o o o o © 0 0 0 o 00 o o o ™ .-1 « J

ζ

S

•

H

D

s

δ

s M S w «

a 3

o b tA Ζ o

•y] (A υ •a 3 e e s «J te. S-, ^ O " S ν s ν a a o ν «ο ο

w 3 e

S

ft

>>ΙΛΙΛΙΛ V }> Jflflxl'B'ä U-Q . »5

-3 c (« IÄ 3 o •S

_

-

^ ^ c e c e e ^ e ' S ' S O O O O O — o S G « « M M « S e a υ u υ c c e ν ν ν

ο

ο

a.

•a

s S· eu

•S

—

3

u g a

Ξ χ h

C

ν,

Κ

IO

\ 1 0

fei

N Ν NCM "— r ^_ —< M CM Ν

w

Γ^" Γ * CM Ν

— — CM

o 3

ζ o

S ¡i

-

S;

« τ - — . m

fej

Ν Ν Ν Λ β Ο Ϊ ^ Λ ι η 0Ο«Β(1βΟ0Οβίί*ϊβίϊΑΟΛ

ΟΙ * >

«

—

"ι «

β

m

λ

IM -Η IM CSI

Ρ

< Ξ cu O «

§βΟ

h

βΟ efl ΟΟ 9(1 βο βο βό ops βο

« - Η η - ο ι Ο Μ η ο i L N W l W e n a O ^ N " - 1 ^ 0 0 S N W ^ W ^ N W

S M H Í t/5

e - j j «

ο •α ο

"8

β

c ο

R β

· ~

m CM CM « — CM — 0 0 r-T t-T f-T ι β σ Γ c i 10 10 ιΛ tCM Ό 10

-a υ -o η ε

->

on

r-T IM ν M io tN (NI

Q . 11 η £

3

u υ o

w

-

o .a

42,

§ »

cu

I s o

« Ε

δ-

ϊ

6

a

^

o

°

10

a .5 . (A ^

η S « - W «u -S

§

ΰ U M

« •e

H

C

o

•Ό . 2

S « S ε c ? Si 0 - o S «5 c

g . s b

•α Β 3

s

w

α a

ε

s

S

η S

\ ^ T3 efï C " TÍ 1 1 o e

l

.

•

2 ^ fc S o S > •α O c 3 ο ι*, _o "u u c -

*

¥S Λ

»

e

a

O .

S S

.2 « -

aos:U

.y UH " cm" o j; o S 5 û «oo 2 ^ û. fc « s S « s ° S OJ 01 j = . ä s a - g ^ c u o o _ υ w GO rt C ·> tt! u •β - a . 3 ν « o S .Sfo S ü 'C c ^ M o s tí

60

« · Τ2c «

>

«

ü ·β

>Μ r j

έ

« S i 03 •α », M ra •g a

ΐ O

ï

5

c

fc « O ">

Si

r § υ its 'o* « Ih ·

I- o•sdj ~-a R . S 'C = n S s M

á

i

m V 00

'Ôj «M

. o CM

Μ S

a s

i

*

s

e 2

« a

s · *

s

2

c

3 ω a uc l·· ——

s

c

•S S E c .0 w (Λ u t â Er 0 2 ß Si 2 12 fc* l . ·> ~ O «M Λ *> υ = -S 3 η

J S u

Λ m

I

o

υ

2

c — u -= ε 10 a « o ·—ι μ, υ í ¡ Í e α Ό Λ £ ι- Ο υ « J3 Ρ J3 3 £ 5 « υ J5 Ο im QJ S ε C 3 Λ •α * ε i ο S -η « S o î g e * t . Im · δ -α υ Ξ •ο Κ c 5 S (Λ = α «λ CL•'Ξ § s « c ε 3 U - ν « ε h ίο u 2 O " en ^t « σι u . C >-. η •β ε « cuco O u > - γ » w "β 5 •s I u u ε ι * E Γ- -Ή Ο ω S - o S. S- m S ε « ε s C υ 3 u 2 « -o £ 2 0 m υ υ 3 es c a S 0 ku ^ o c υ —• c c— o 5 a "> 1 ° n i « !M u _ c « -s u - -c S « < 2 i T H - 2 «Λ 3 crt • § • S S t t rt 15 2 S

£ 2 —i «Λ

ε

2 ί

.1

«

S í á

u

Ö

3

π

ε 3 ja

δ S.

00" o ^

•a c

.o -

3. S. X

ν> « βο ^ S C h, υ 1

•o

o

| Έ

933·

59. Mimeograph Nos. 1043 and 1044.

156

Work Relief in New York State

A p p r o v a l is f o r period of time ending February 15, 1934. It is further understood, should the Federal Civil Works Administration discontinue this undertaking prior to F e b r u a r y 15, 1934· our approval is correspondingly rescinded and no further obligation is assumed by the Civil Works Administration of the State of N e w Y o r k because of this action. Should it be necessary because of unforeseen delays to continue the operation of this project beyond February 15, 1934, the Civil Works Administration of the State of New Y o r k assumes 110 responsibility for payment beyond said date. L a t e r , the project application f o r m adopted simply indicated that

ap-

p r o v a l was u n d e r C W A rules a n d regulations. N e w s p a p e r i t e m s s u p p l i e d the S t a t e C W A by a press c l i p p i n g service o c c a s i o n a l l y c a r r i e d r e p o r t s of o p t i m i s m a m o n g N e w Y o r k officials conc e r n i n g t h e f u t u r e of t h e C W A . 6 0 M o r e f r e q u e n t l y , officials b e t r a y e d uneasiness. T h u s , e v e n b e f o r e M r . H o p k i n s trenchment on J a n u a r y

announced

h i s p o l i c y of

1 8 , h u n d r e d s of c o m m u n i c a t i o n s w e r e s e n t

reto

N e w Y o r k C o n g r e s s m e n , F e d e r a l C W A officials, a n d the P r e s i d e n t u r g i n g c o n t i n u a t i o n of the p r o g r a m . 6 1 U n d e r the d a t e of J a n u a r y 1 7 , 1 9 3 4 , G o v ernor Herbert

H. Lehman

wrote President

R o o s e v e l t , i n p a r t , as fol-

lows:62 O n many occasions, I have noted in the press that the Federal Government intends to extend the Civil Works program until the people who have been given work under it can be absorbed by private industry. I believe, however, that no additional appropriations for this purpose have as yet been made by Congress. I feel so strongly that the discontinuance or substantial reduction of this p r o g r a m undertaken by the Federal G o v e r n m e n t might lead to serious social and economic consequences, that I feel it is my duty to write you personally my views. I h o p e that sufficient f u n d s will be made available by the Federal Government to carry on the program. T h e people have become accustomed to it and are now d e p e n d i n g upon it. A termination of it before its beneficiaries have been absorbed into industry would result in a serious and economic reaction. As you know, the State of New Y o r k is already doing as much as it possibly can. It has been forced to take over a larger and larger part of the municipal expenditures because of the withdrawal of Federal aid for home relief. As a result, the State's share for home relief alone, it is estimated, will be at the 60. One local administrator began planning projects for the following summer (Albany Knickerbocker Press, December 24, 1933); see also Buffalo Courier-Express, January 1 1 , 1934, and Elmira Star Gazette, January 17, 1934. 61. For example, see, as of January 14, 1934, reports in Albany Knickerbocker Press and Buffalo Courier-Express, and, as of January 17, 1934, reports in Mount Vernon Argus and Poughkeepsie Star. Some of these communications were stimulated by a telegram to local officials from the President of the New York State Conference of Mayors, who reminded them that funds for CWA would soon become exhausted and that this would mean discontinuance of the program; he warned that such discontinuance "would create a serious social disturbance throughout the country" (Buffalo Courier-Express, January 14, 1934). 62. T E R A News Letter, January 29, 1934, pp. 2 and 5.

Duration

and Sources of

Funds

157

rate of |6,000,000 a month for at least the next several months. This is vastly more than was heretofore spent by the State of New York for home and work relief combined. I deem the matter of such importance to the State of New York that I will be only too glad to come down to Washington to lay my views before you at any time agreeable to you. . . . T h e G o v e r n o r wrote as if he anticipated at least a m i n o r social u p h e a v a l unless the C W A was continued; earlier, h e h a d written t o M r . H o p k i n s o n the subject. Retrenchment

Phase

W h e n M r . H o p k i n s made public his r e t r e n c h m e n t policy, the resulting v o l u m e of protest was enormous. A n Associated Press dispatch dated January 23, 1934, reported that the W a s h i n g t o n C W A headquarters alone received a b o u t 9,000 letters per day in o b j e c t i o n to the curtailment or discontinuation of C W A . Similarly, f r o m all parts of N e w Y o r k State came c o m m u n i c a t i o n s from mayors, p u b l i c welfare officers, C W A officials and employees,

labor organizations,

and

chambers of

commerce

ad-

dressed to President Roosevelt, Mr. H o p k i n s , a n d N e w Y o r k Congressmen, u r g i n g an additional a p p r o p r i a t i o n for the program. 6 3 Presumably not unrelated were reports of unrest a m o n g C W A employees in widely separated areas of the state. 64 T h e State C W A

( - T E R A ) Commission lost n o time r e p l y i n g to the

"curtail the w o r k w e e k " and "stop-hiring" telegram of M r . H o p k i n s . Its c o m m u n i c a t i o n read thus: 6 5 Your telegram to Daniels of January 18th received at five o'clock this afternoon during a meeting of this Administration. We will endeavor to carry out your instructions but you must realize that such a radical change in policy affecting more than 300,000 workers engaged on over 5,000 projects scattered over a hundred districts throughout the entire State cannot be practically accomplished on a few hours notice. We also assume that you realize fully not only the serious dislocation of valuable projects requiring continuity of labor and careful planning this change will produce, but also the discouragement to 63. For example, see: Jamestown Evening Journal, January 19, 1934: North T o n o wanda Evening News, January 20, 1934; Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, January s i , 1934; Nyack Journal-News, Januar)· 22, 1934; Albany News, January 22, 1934; New York Times, January 22, 1934; Middietown Times-Herald, January 23, 1934; P i t t s burgh Republican, January 23, 1934: Watertown Times, January 23, 1934; Patchogue Argus, January 24, 1934; Lyons Republican, January 25, 1934; Stateli Island Advance, January 27, 1934; T E R A News Letter, January 29, 1934; and Rome Sentinel, January

SO- »934· 64. T E R A News Letter, January 29, 1934, pp. 2-3; Staten Island Advance, 27, 1934; Rochester Journal, January 26, 1934; and Rochester Democrat and January 27, 1934. 65. T E R A News Letter, January 29, 1934, pp. 1-2.

January Chronicle,

158

Work Relief

in New York State

and impairment of morale of the unemployed, not only those on the pay roll but many thousands who had every reason confidently to expect to be added. O n J a n u a r y 20, 1934, two members of the State Commission and the State A d m i n i s t r a t o r expressed " t h o r o u g h sympathy" with the protests of a special committee representing an organized g r o u p of Civil W o r k s Service W o r k e r s of N e w Y o r k C i t y , approximately 1,500 of w h o m staged an impressive demonstration a r o u n d the state headquarters. O n e of the officials stated that the Commission " w i l l be glad to make further protests [to W a s h i n g t o n ] and e x p l a i n just how dangerous the situation has bec o m e . " M T w o days later, in a news release from his office in N e w Y o r k C i t y , the State Administrator " m a d e it clear that the State C i v i l W o r k s A d m i n i s t r a t i o n functions as a part of the N a t i o n a l Civil W o r k s A d m i n istration, that the money it has disbursed is Federal money and that the State organization has n o part in the determination of policy." 6 7 T h e very same day the G o v e r n o r of N e w Y o r k telegraphed President Roosevelt, in part, that the effect of the H o p k i n s order "served strongly to confirm the views previously expressed" in the letter q u o t e d above. 08 L o c a l C W A officials became concerned with the approach of the date o n w h i c h the approval on projects expired and with Congressional action still p e n d i n g . Expressions of relief followed w h e n they received from the state organization, a request to submit lists of projects w h i c h w o u l d not b e c o m p l e t e d by February 15, 1934, together with assurances that the C W A w o u l d b e extended to the first of May. 6 9 Because of Congressional delay, the State C W A did not send, until the expiration date of original commitments, orders to " c o n t i n u e all g o i n g projects p e n d i n g further instructions." A t least in one instance, workers were notified not to report for w o r k the next day unless "special orders" were received. 7 0 Demobilization

Phase

T h e " f u r t h e r instructions" set the new expiration date as of May 1, 1934, by w h i c h time C W A was supposed to be completely

disbanded.

T h i s was consistent w i t h a report from W a s h i n g t o n that workers w h o rem a i n e d o n C W A pay rolls were to be " d r o p p e d at the rate of 10 per cent a week u n t i l May 1 w h e n the last of the 4,000,000 employees was sched66. Ibid., p. 3. O n January s i , 1934, a protest meeting attended by some 10,000 persons was held in New York City, at which Mayor LaGuardia predicted "serious trouble" if the C W A curtailed or discontinued its program. 67. N e w York State C W A Press Release, January 22, 1934. 68. For text of this telegram, see T E R A News Letter, January 29, 1934, p. 2. 69. For example, see, under the date of February 7, 1934: Cooperstown Journal, Syracuse Herald, and Binghamton Press. 70. Elmira Star Gazette, February 15, 1934.

Duration and Sources of Funds

159

uled to be let out." 7 1 Already reductions were in process among C W A forces on federal projects. 72 A brief flurry of optimism followed news that a "tapering off" would begin in the southern states and move northwards as spring advanced and that industrial centers would escape reductions "at least until the end of March." 73 O n February 17, 1934, state C W A sent to all local administrations a full-page communication which began with an authorization to continue C W A operations and ended with the statement: "There will be a reduction in quotas effective February 23rd, concerning which information will be sent you as soon as possible." T h e same message advised local units: "Where more than one person from the immediate family is now employed on a Civil Works project, all except one person shall be released immediately and replaced by a needy unemployed person." Probably before such replacements could be made, the subordinate administrations were sent orders, on February 20, 1934, to reduce by a stated amount the number on their payrolls, effective three days later. "Industrial centers" (i.e., urban areas in general) were not excepted from the cut, although theirs was relatively smaller than that of rural areas in the state. Further curtailments were ordered during the month of March, and, despite occasional protests, the realization grew that federal authorities were determined to abandon C W A . Speculation now turned towards probable superseding arrangements. It was not clear until March that the major portion of C W A employees and projects were to be transferred from one administration to another at the end of that month. As late as February 28, 1934, the date of the White House outline of the superseding program, the state C W A issued the statement: "It is apparent that demobilization of the Civil Works program is to be carried out rapidly until complete as of May ist, 1934." 74 Definite word of the possible transfer as of the end of March came on March 6th. A series of negotiations between New York State and federal officials followed, and it was not until March 20, 1934, that state authorities issued explicit instructions for "disbanding of Civil Works" and "establishment of new works program." 711 71. Associated Press dispatch, February 15, 1934. 72. Concerning curtailment of employment on federal projects in New York State, see, as of February 16, 1934, Oneonta Star, Glens Falls Post Star, and Hornell TribuneTimes. 73. For example, see, as of February 16, 1934: Rochester Times-Union, Portchester Item, T a r r y t o w n News, and Ossining Citizen-Register. 74. Letter from New York State C W A to local C W A s and Commissioners of Public Welfare. 75. T E R A Official Bulletin, No. 32, Item 162.

i6o State

Work Relief

in New York State

Legislation

T h e only laws enacted by the N e w Y o r k legislature pertaining to the C W A were C h a p t e r 15, approved o n February 14, 1934, and C h a p t e r 39, approved on M a r c h 6, 1934. C h a p t e r 15 added (a) one sentence to section 3 of the Emergency R e l i e f Act, authorizing the T E R A , with the governor's a p p r o v a l , to "accept a designation as the agency of duly authorized federal relief or like bodies" w i t h i n the state, and (b) one sentence to section 7 of the A c t , p r o v i d i n g that, in T E R A ' s discretion, a local work b u r e a u m i g h t be designated by it " t o act as the local agency of federal relief or related b o d i e s " under the supervision and control of the T E R A . C h a p t e r 39 a m e n d e d N e w York's Recovery Act (Chapter 782, L a w s of 1933) to e m p o w e r municipalities to raise funds for nonlabor expenditures on projects and to "legalize, validate, ratify and confirm all acts and proceedings heretofore taken by muncipalities in raising or using funds for such purpose." O b v i o u s l y , these amendments exemplify legislation designed to come abreast of the situation. Sources of CWA

Expenditures

A c c o r d i n g to the latest available report, C W A expenditures in N e w Y o r k State reached a grand total of $100,120,000 ( T a b l e IV). Federal sources, a subclassification of w h i c h is given in the a c c o m p a n y i n g table, p r o v i d e d $88,412,000, or 88 per cent of the total; local contributions came to $10,870,000, or 11 per cent; and state sources contributed $838,000, or 1 per cent. N o n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e earnings a m o u n t e d to $77,728,000, or 78 per cent TABLE CIVIL WORKS

P R O G R A M EXPENDITURES

Source

of

IV

IN N E W

YORK

STATE B Y

Amount (thousands')

Funds

Grand total Total federal funds N I R A funds allotted by P W A FERA funds transferred to CWA Appropriation of February 15, 1934 FERA grants to New York State Liquidations in Washington b State contributions Local contributions

$100,120 88,412 30,461 9,952 39,014 8,818 167 838 10,870

SOURCES O F

Per

FUNDS

cent

100.0 88.3

0.8 10.9

* Each figure rounded independently to the nearest thousand. Percentages are based on unrounded figures. b Distribution among funds unspecified. Source:

Pamela B r o w n , Analysis

of Civil

Works

Program

Works Progress Administration, 1939, Table 17, pp. 30-31.

Statistics,

Washington:

Duration and Sources of Funds

161

of the grand total. 76 O n l y $922,000, or 1 per cent of the wages, was earned after March 31, 1934. A l l C W A wage expenditures were paid from federal funds. Proportion

for Wages

From November, 1933, through March, 1934, the sum of $121,008,000 was expended for relief or wages under the T E R A - C W A in New York State: $76,806,000, or 64 per cent, for C W A nonadministrative earnings; $38,010,000, or 31 per cent, for T E R A - a p p r o v e d home relief; and $6,ig2,000, or 5 per cent, for T E R A - a p p r o v e d work relief wages. Since effective transfers from T E R A ' s original program to the C W A began on November 20, 1933, the bulk of T E R A wages was paid during that month, when of the $15,370,000 total, $6,217,000, or 40 per cent, was for home relief; $5,686,000, or 37 per cent, was for T E R A wages; and $3,468,000, or 23 per cent, was for C W A wages. In December, the total was $22,286,000, of which $15,179,000, or 68 per cent, was for C W A wages; $6,786,000, or 31 per cent was for home relief; and only $320,000, or 1 per cent, was for wages under T E R A ' s program. O f the $83,352,000 expended during the first quarter of 1934, only $186,000 went for T E R A wages, $58,159,000, or 70 per cent, going for C W A nonadministrative earnings and $25,007,000, or 30 per cent, for home relief. Distribution

Among the Local

Districts

T h e C W A started operations in N e w York State with the idea that the project pay rolls would be met from federal funds, while the localities would furnish the necessary materials, supplies and equipment unless specific approval was granted for the non-labor costs.77 Probably to reduce the shirking of responsibility by the localities, the T E R A eventually made reimbursement at 66 2/3 per cent on local expenditures for home relief contingent upon local provision for the non-labor costs under the C W A (page 146). Despite such pressure on the local units, it was found necessary to provide federal funds for the non-labor costs by the end of January, 1934, particularly since Washington insisted on the improvement in the quality of the projects (page 122). T h e local districts expended in the neighborhood of $5,000,000 from federal funds for project materials and equipment 76. Brown, op. cit., T a b l e 10, p. 24. 77. F C W A and T E R A Official Bulletin No. 11, Item 73, December 16, 1933. O n December 14, 1933, the Flushing Journal reported that the State C W A had granted $135,000 to the L o n g Island State Park Commission for the purchase of materials and equipment under pressure from Park Commissioner Robert Moses; it was felt that "it would be unfair to other districts to grant more," although his request for more funds for such purchases was under study.

162

Work Relief in New York State

hire." It will be remembered that all but 12 per cent o£ the $100,120,000 expended under the C W A in New York State came from the federal treasury. Unlike the T E R A system of reimbursement on the outlays for wages, the federal C W A adopted a quota system of job allocation, involving subsequent translation into money requirements from the federal treasury (page 116). Patterned after that of the PWA, 7 9 the quota system sought the equitable distribution of C W A moneys among the states by giving one-fourth weight to the number of cases on relief and threefourths weight to the population. T h e states were instructed to employ this formula in assigning the quotas of jobs and in making allotments of money to their subordinate administrations.80 T h e quota for New York State was fixed at 396,000 workers but the authorization was never completely used. In its basic distribution, effective December 12, 1933, the New York State C W A apportioned nearly 360,000 jobs among the local districts; before that, allocations were apparently gauged to cover the transfer of personnel from the pre-CWA program. T h e basic quota was subsequently raised to around 365,000 but, apart from small increases for approximately one-third of the 100 local C W A s , no significant changes were made until Washington ordered the reduction of quotas under demobilization. New York State was directed to reduce forces at the rate of 22,000-25,000 per week; including workers on education and other federal projects, which were to be reduced through Washington, the State C W A apportioned among its local units these quotas of jobs: February March March March March

23, 1934 2 g 16 31

S*14H 3»9·344 296,991 273,788 258,238

These totals represent, in turn, reductions of approximately 10.2, 2.5, 7.0, 7.8 and 5.7 per cent. T h e first total constituted a crucial reapportionment in the sense that the state agency increased or virtually left unchanged the allocations to 15 districts, while 85 local units received quota reductions; New York City was cut by 4.2 per cent and 58 upstate dis78. It is reported that the federal expenditures for "materials and other costs, including the administrative project" totalled 56,082,935. See T E R A , Five Million People-One Billion Dollars, op. cit., p. 49. 79. J. Kerwin Williams, Grants-in-Aid Under the Public Works Administration, New York: Columbia University Press, 1939, pp. 1 1 5 - 1 1 6 . 80. Carothers, op. cit., p. 3 1 .

Duration and Sources of Funds

163

tricts received cuts ranging from 11 to 40 per cent. W i t h noteworthy exceptions, 81 each district, henceforth, absorbed successive cuts of approximately 5.5, 7.0, 7.8 and 17.0 per cent. T h e local job maxima fixed for the last day of March were to serve as the opening quotas under the W o r k Division. Uncertainties

Under the

CWA

W h i l e on both state and local levels there was anxiety about the duration of the C W A , the effects are not so clear-cut as under T E R A ' s original program. One reason for the absence of such effects may have been the feeling that it was always possible to fall back upon pre-CWA arrangements, since thus far only one-fifth of the proceeds to be raised from the $60,000,000 bond issue for unemployment relief had been actually appropriated (Table II), even though there might have been some question concerning federal aid in such event. Another reason may have been the greater willingness on the part of New York officials to experiment with more than usual freedom under a program which was 88-per cent financed from the federal treasury. But by far the most important factors counteracting the influences of the uncertainty seem to have been connected with elaboration of state and local administrative staffs, centralization of control, uniformization of procedure, and insistence on "more substantial" projects. In short, the thorough processing that the previous approach to work relief received under the C W A appears to have counterbalanced the results of duration-anxiety. These changes also made available through the state agency more information about state-wide "work relief" than ever before. Unlike the transitions from one statutory period to the next, more than mere "paper work" was involved in the transfer of activities from T E R A ' s original work relief program to the C W A . As much could have been expected from the fact that C W A contemplated, within a few weeks, a vastly expanded program, simultaneously with noteworthy departure from past policies and changes in administrative organization. T w o possible sources of trouble were virtually removed in that the federal funds were available immediately and in that C W A accepted, as a starting nucleus, workers with prior work relief status, without further tests of eligibility. T h e chief problem concerned the provision of a suf81. For the week of March s, no changes were made in the quotas of New York City, Palisades Park and Long Island State Park. Effective March 31, New York City received a quota increase of 4.7 per cent and Niagara Falls was given an increase of ϊ . ι per cent; Albany Co. was cut 18.7 per cent, while Elmira, Ontario Co., C h e m u n g Co., Jamestown, Saratoga Springs, Utica and Buffalo received cuts ranging from 8.6 to 15.0 per cent.

164

Work Relief

in New York

State

ficient n u m b e r of jobs on acceptable projects, as quickly as possible. For the early lag in expected employment, Mr. Hopkins blamed local officials for their failure to provide projects and the "inability to obtain necessary equipment." 8 2 H e ordered the state administrators to act on all project applications the day received and to transmit the verdict to the local units by telegram rather than by mail. 83 Even before this directive, the states were warned that the unused portions of their quotas might be transferred elsewhere after December 15, 1933. 84 Somewhat later, the N e w York State C W A issued a similar warning to its subordinate administrations. 85 Before the end of December, Mr. Hopkins announced that all states, except New York and Oklahoma, had filled their quotas. 86 It was further reported that New York had filled 360,000 jobs out of a quota of 396,000." N o t all local officials accepted the new program wholeheartedly. 8 8 Yet most of them got on the "band wagon" and urged full speed in order to get "their" share of the federal funds. 89 T h o s e on work relief projects clamored for quick transfer in anticipation of higher earnings under the C W A . Also, thousands not on the relief rolls were probably becoming somewhat impatient about the "real jobs" which the C W A promised. However, under C W A arrangements, employment presupposed an adequate number of formally approved projects. T h e state C W A was charged with the responsibility of approving each project on the basis of information submitted by the local C W A on a special application "blank. But there was delay in the formulation, printing and distribution of these applications. In order to get the operations started and to transfer to the new program those already on work relief, the New York State C W A approved by telegram over 700 of the 960 projects in operation under the preceding program. T h i s was a tentative approval; there still remained the problem of submitting the necessary application forms and their review and analysis with reference to the somewhat new criteria of eligibility. T h e trans8a. Assodateci Press dispatch from Washington, December 9, 1933. 83. Ibid. 84. Carothers, op. cit., p. 33. T h e date of the warning was November 25, 1933. 85. F C W A and T E R A Official Bulletin No. n , Item 72, December 16, 1933. 86. United Press dispatch from Washington, December 23, 1933. 87. Ibid. Actually, the New York State C W A had apportioned a quota of 360,000 jobs a m o n g the local units; C W A employment was around 233,000 in New York State at this time. 88. Perhaps the most formidable list of doubts was expressed by the mayor of Syracuse; see Syracuse Post-Standard,

November 20, 1933. See also Batavia News, November 18,

»933· 89. For example, see Olean Times Herald, November 27, 1933; Hudson Daily November 21, 1933; and Newburgh News, November 27, 1933.

Star,

Duration and Sources of Funds

165

ferred group of projects was obviously inadequate because (a) it was not planned for a program of CWA's intensity, (b) many were in advanced stages of completion, and (c) the "backlog" of unstarted projects was negligible. Hence, the burden of quickly "planning" thousands of new undertakings and the preparation of applications covering each was thrown upon the local units. The fact that these units were being bombarded with new rules and regulations and that many of them were being reorganized did not facilitate matters. As localities began to make headway with their tasks, state headquarters became deluged with project applications. It soon became apparent that the existing state structure was unequal to the demands made upon it, long overtime hours notwithstanding. Thus, amid hundreds of telephone calls, telegrams, and personal visits from local officials inquiring about the status of their projects, the rate of approvals was increased only gradually, as the state agency expanded its facilities to cope with the situation. When men were finally put to work at a rapid rate, a "bottleneck" developed surrounding the preparation of pay rolls. In some cases, the men had not been paid for weeks. The jam was finally broken in New York State around mid-December so that there was a sudden release of a "golden flood" for Christmas of 1933, with Uncle Sam in the role of Santa Claus to thousands. The stop-hiring order of mid-Jariuary was a source of disappointment to the thousands who had hoped to get CWA jobs. Subsequent orders to reduce working forces also made thousands of the fortunate, who had been added only recently, unhappy at the prospects of being separated from the pay roll. Their unhappiness was heightened when it became clear that in order to keep these "real jobs" one had to be eligible for relief, after all. W O R K DIVISION PROGRAM

The Work Division program of the F E R A and T E R A was in operation on a state-wide basis during the sixteen months ending July 31, 1935. This final work relief program under the T E R A embraced parts of the fifth and sixth statutory emergency periods. Statutory periods resumed their pre-CWA relevance, because the new program, like the original one, operated under the provisions of the New York Emergency Relief Act. State and local administrative staffs, project workers, and projects were transferred from the CWA to the Work Division. There was a partial emancipation from the ideology of brief duration as consideration was given to "long-term" planning and to the possibility of "permanent" or-

ι66

Work Relief

in New York State

ganization for relief. T h e a m o u n t of money available through T E R A for a g i v e n period was more explicitly recognized as the controlling factor in b o t h d u r a t i o n and scale of all relief activities. T h e F E R A paid approximately one-half of the state's total relief bill, and federal policy was of o u t s t a n d i n g importance, particularly w i t h respect to work relief. Indeed, a drastic change in federal policy b r o u g h t to a close T E R A ' s concern w i t h large-scale work relief. Fifth Statutory

Period

A s already shown, N e w York's "emergency period" was continued to F e b r u a r y 15, 1934, by C h a p t e r 2 of the L a w s of 1933, whereby it was possible for the T E R A to carry o n its aid for direct relief concurrently w i t h the first part of the C W A effort. Also, preparation had been made for a f u r t h e r continuation of the statutory emergency in connection w i t h the $60,000,000 b o n d issue, a p p r o v e d by voters on the eve of C W A ' s creation ( T a b l e II). Because of the uncertainty s u r r o u n d i n g Congressional appropriation of f u n d s for the C W A and for emergency relief, N e w York's C h a p t e r 15, c o n t i n u i n g the emergency period for another year to February 15, 1935, was not approved until the day before expiration of the fourth statutory period. 9 0 T h i s state law made it possible to carry on direct relief activities u n d e r N e w York's Emengecy Relief A c t d u r i n g the remainder of C W A ' s life span and paved the way for the transfer of C W A activities to the superseding work relief program. N o new appropriation of state funds was f o r t h c o m i n g until there h a d been a clarification of federal aid policy, a r o u n d the middle of March, 1934. T h e F E R A - T E R A emergency work relief (Work Division) program f o r m a l l y came into b e i n g on A p r i l 1, 1934, as the result of the decision by federal authorities to substitute for C W A an enterprise under a more decentralized plan of administrative control, involving a large emphasis o n relief and reduced financial participation on the part of the federal 90. T h e uncertainty s u r r o u n d i n g the financing of direct relief in N e w Y o r k is ill u s t r a t e d by the fact t h a t the T E R A advised local units that it w o u l d r e i m b u r s e at t h e r a t e of 6 6 % per cent of a p p r o v e d e x p e n d i t u r e s f o r t h e m o n t h s of D e c e m b e r , 1933, a n d J a n u a r y , 1934, a b o u t the m i d d l e of the latter m o n t h ; see l e t t e r f r o m F. I. D a n i e l s to C h a i r m a n of E m e r g e n c y W o r k B u r e a u s and C o m m i s s i o n e r s of P u b l i c W e l f a r e d a t e d J a n u a r y 13, 1934. S i m i l a r d e l a y occurred w i t h respect to r e i m b u r s e m e n t s f o r F e b r u a r y , 1934, at w h i c h time it was asserted t h a t T E R A c o u l d " m a k e n o c o m m i t m e n t s . . . f o r the m o n t h of M a r c h or for succeeding m o n t h s " a b o v e t h e s t a t u t o r y forty per c e n t u m u n t i l w o r d h a d been received f r o m the F E R A as to the e x t e n t of its financial p a r t i c i p a t i o n ; see T E R A Official Bulletin No. 28, I t e m 131, Febr u a r y 16, 1934. T h e M a r c h rate of r e i m b u r s e m e n t was a n n o u n c e d o n A p r i l 3. 1934 ' n T E R A Official Bulletin N o . 40, I t e m 187.

Duration and Sources of Funds

167

government. But, just as T E R A ' s original work relief program was reduced to insignificance by C W A , this new work relief venture was to be superseded, beginning August 1, 1935, by a new federally administered undertaking: the Works Progress Administration (WPA). T h e Work Division program constituted the dominant part of a threefold effort undertaken by the FERA on a nationwide basis in the spring of 1934: (a) work relief for "able-bodied" unemployed in urban areas of more than 5,000 population, (b) "rural rehabilitation" for farmers in distress, and (c) "resettlement" of "stranded populations." In addition, direct relief was continued for otherwise uncared-for employables and unemployables. Because of New York's highly urbanized character, work relief was a state-wide undertaking. T h e programs of "rural rehabilitation" and "resettlement" were insignificant in the State of New York (page 78). Since no move could be made without a ready supply of funds, New York officials addressed themselves to the problem of financing unemployment relief in March, 1934. It became increasingly clear that, after C W A , the financing of work relief would revert to the pre-CWA arrangement of tripartite (federal-state-local) responsibility for unemployment relief as a whole. O n March 12, 1934, Governor Lehman held a conference with New York T E R A (-CWA) officials and legislative leaders, at which it was generally agreed that any attempt to map future relief efforts must await explicit formulation of plans by the federal government. 91 Three days later, Mr. Hopkins discussed post-CWA plans with state relief authorities in New York City. 92 T h e day following, New York's Governor, SolicitorGeneral, legislative leaders, and T E R A chairman conferred with President Roosevelt about the financial arrangements which were to obtain under the new F E R A unemployment relief program. After this conference, Governor Lehman reported that, inasmuch as $48,000,000, remained from the $60,000,000 state bond issue approved by the electorate the preceding November, New York localities need only collectively contribute between April 1, 1934, and February 1, 1935, at the then current rate of about $5,000,000 per month, since "we are assured by the Federal administration that the balance required to carry out the program will be met with Federal funds." 93 Unofficially, it was estimated that over the ten-month period the federal government would make available through the T E R A $100,000,000, or about 50 per cent of the cost of New York's 91. Albany Knickerbocker Press, March 13, 1934. 92. Associated Press dispatch from New York City, dated March 15, 1934. 93. Associated Press dispatch from Washington, March 16, 1934.

Work Relief in New York State

ι68

u n e m p l o y m e n t r e l i e f u n d e r t a k i n g . 9 4 O n M a r c h 2 0 , 1 9 3 4 , C h a p t e r 7 1 , app r o p r i a t i n g t h e $ 4 8 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 of state f u n d s f o r t h e y e a r e n d i n g 1 5 , 1 9 3 5 , w a s a p p r o v e d b y the g o v e r n o r The

d a y of t h e c o n f e r e n c e w i t h

CWA-TERA

February

( T a b l e II).

t h e P r e s i d e n t , the N e w

York

State

c h a i r m a n w r o t e m a y o r s a n d c h a i r m e n of b o a r d s of super-

visors, r e m i n d i n g t h e m of t h e relief p r o g r a m in f o r c e j u s t b e f o r e

CWA

w a s o r g a n i z e d , i n o r d e r t o " c l a r i f y t h e s i t u a t i o n o n p u b l i c e m e r g e n c y emp l o y m e n t at this t i m e w h e n t h e F e d e r a l C i v i l W o r k s A d m i n i s t r a t i o n is b e i n g demobilized a n d to p r o v i d e assurance that constructive

measures

f o r r e l i e f of t h e n e e d y h a v e b e e n c o n c e i v e d . " 9 5 T h i s c o m m u n i c a t i o n continued: In October [ 1 9 3 3 ] . . . work relief was in the form of wages paid for work on useful public improvements, this work distributed in amounts sufficient for the needs of each family given aid. In November [ 1 9 3 3 ] the Federal Civil W o r k s Administration was started primarily as an employment measure. A t its inception it employed the great majority of those w h o were on W o r k Relief, but from then on . . . only ability to do the work was considered in placing those w h o applied. . . . N o w the Federal Civil W o r k s program, which was extended more than a month longer than originally announced, is being discontinued. Beginning the first of next month the relief need in the State is to be met once more by a combination of W o r k Relief and H o m e Relief paid for by the Federal, State and local governments. D u r i n g the transitional period, under orders from the Federal government, those not in need are being dropped from the Federal Civil Works Administration, it being the plan to have the emergency employment program entirely on a relief basis by the first of the month so that it can be transferred and carried forward as work relief. W o r k given on the basis of need will then again be the form of emergency employment in the State. 94. Ibid., and United Press dispatch from Albany, dated April 2, 1934. T h e federal aid was made contingent upon the passage by the New York legislature of a bill, sponsored by Mayor L a G u a r d i a , granting the New York City Board of Estimate broad powers of economy to help balance the New York City budget. 95. One day after the announcement of March 6, 1934, concerning the post-CWA program, Chairman Schoellkopf wrote local C W A officials in New York State (a) expressing appreciation for their cooperation in conducting C W A , (b) assuring them that he had been in close touch with Washington and had been advised that a constructive program to be aided by federal and state funds was being formulated, and (c) informing them that more definite information would follow as soon as it was available. According to newspaper reports about this time, local officials advanced the hypothesis that there would be a return to the tripartite, pre-CWA arrangement; for example, see: Rochester Times-Union, March 6, 1934, and Albany News, March 8, 1934. T h e s e officials began to contact State C W A headquarters to obtain additional information about the new program; f o r example, see: Albany News, March 12, 1934; Syracuse Journal, March 10, 1934; and Rochester Times-Union, March 15, 1934. Perhaps the most explicit information distributed at this time about the work relief program to succeed C W A was contained in a letter, dated March 8, 1934. to New York mavors f r o m W . P. Capes, executive secretary of the New York State Mayors' Conference.

Duration

and Sources of Funds

169

O n M a r c h so, 1934, C h a i r m a n S c h o e l l k o p f wrote these same officials, i n part, as follows: As a first step in the new Program, it will be necessary to designate local Civil Works Administrations as local Emergency Work Bureaus. . . . T h e new works program which is essentially the same as the former work relief program, will again be carried on under the provisions of the Wicks Act as amended. T h e administrative bureaus will be vested with the duties and responsibilities as defined in the Wicks Act, and in addition will be authorized as Work Divisions of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration. . . . Rules and regulations under which the works program will be continued after April ist will be forwarded to you within a few days. T h u s , by reference to p r e - C W A a n d C W A experience, tentative guideposts were set u p for the transfer of projects a n d workers to the new program. Search for Stability

and.

Permanence

Assurances f r o m authorities in W a s h i n g t o n c o n c e r n i n g the level of federal financial participation over an e x t e n d e d period encouraged t h o u g h t about the possibility of a p r o g r a m more stable than theretofore. A concrete step in this direction was taken o n M a r c h 26, 1934, w h e n G o v e r n o r L e h m a n , legislative leaders, a n d T E R A officials established the policy of 75 per cent r e i m b u r s e m e n t f r o m state a n d federal f u n d s o n T E R A - a p p r o v e d local u n e m p l o y m e n t relief e x p e n d i t u r e s for the f o l l o w i n g ten months; m o n t h l y b u d g e t i n g of " a v a i l a b l e " f u n d s was also instituted at this time. A c t u a l l y , the rate of r e i m b u r s e m e n t c o n t i n u e d in effect b e y o n d A u g u s t ι , 1935, w h e n the W P A b e g a n f u n c t i o n i n g in N e w Y o r k State. In a r a d i o interview o n M a y 19, 1934, the executive director of the T E R A r e p l i e d t o the question " D o y o u still regard p u b l i c relief as only an emergency activity of the g o v e r n m e n t . . . ?" as follows: 9 6 Public relief agencies are not emergency agencies. They are, it is true, attempting to meet an emergency today. We have in New York State, however, with the exception of New York City, a long history and tradition of governmental responsibility for the relief of needy persons and established public agencies for the administration of that relief. These agencies will never, in my opinion, cease to be a part of government responsibility. It is my feeling that we shall cease to regard governmental relief activities as emergency functions in the near future and thereby establish stronger, more efficient and more effective units in meeting governmetal social and economic responsibility. I think we may well assume that national, state and local governments will have learned much from the experience of the last four years and will therefore hold a continued and direct interest in the problem of relief to needy and unemployed citizens with machinery available and flexibility enough to prepare for similar conditions when they may arise. 96. T E R A Press Release,

May 19, 1934.

170

Work Relief in New York State

The reply seems to have pointed in the general direction if a course about to be initiated by T E R A officials which led to the appointment of the Governor's Commission on Unemployment Relief. Preparation for a stable work relief program was specificaly urged by T E R A ' s executive director in a speech before the conference o New York mayors held in Jamestown on June 14, 1934. Relevant paragaphs from the speech follow: 97 T h e point I am leading up to is obvious. If Federal monies mrv be pooled with State and local monies, may it not be possible to carry ou a form of decentralized public works on a relief basis to make it possible fir every city and county to carry out well-planned projects over a stated period of time and to completion. In other words, to establish a level of projects in every commmity, which level would guarantee in men and money, sound municipal project of new and major construction. Such a program, parallel to public works proj.xts, but immediately possible to undertake under force account with relief labo\ My Administration is not in a position, until it has assurances fr»m Washington, to propose this to you. I feel that I am safe in saying to you, lowever, that such is the hope and possibility. As preparation for this, we must irrive at the minimum program in men and in money. We must begin at once to plan and prepare sound, worthwhile projects, to be ready by the fall when su'h a program would logically go into effect. . . . Subject to the will of our Legislature and the Governor, as well as upon our Chief Executive and representatives in Washington, the State Temporary Emergency Relief Administration will in the future throw its veight into a program of sound, constructive, worthwhile projects; the extent ind scope of this program dependent upon funds available from local, state and federal governments. . . .

The director was probably looking into the future a greaer distance than had been customary. At the same time, the qualifications listed in the last paragraph were inescapable. Monthly Budget System. Armed with a fairly accurate eslimate of its total resources during the next ten months, the T E R A adop ed a system of monthly budgets, beginning with April, 1934. The budgets were simply estimates of the total unemployment relief expenditures on which T E R A would reimburse at the rate of 75 per cent out of federal and state moneys. The system may be viewed as one attempt to stabilize the whole relief enterprise through initiative on the state level of government. Significantly, figures for the state were indicated for the entire tenmonth period. The sum for the month of April was fixed at $25,000,000 and was to be reduced each succeeding month, by stated amounts, until August, 1934, when a level of $19,500,000 would be reached. The gradual 97. T E R A Mimeograph No. 2274; see also T E R A Press Release, June 14, 1934.

Duration

and Sources

of Funds

171

reduction was deliberately planned on the theory that "it will require some time o reduce the total numbers on home relief and on Civil Works to the nunber of cases necessary to stay within the money available." 98 Monthly hidgets within which the T E R A would reimburse were also prepared airrently by the state agency for individual welfare districts, leaving it argely for local officials to decide how the total was to be divided betveen home and work relief. This bulget system probably made most explicit the controlling role of money η the administration of relief. T h e system was continued in effect throighout the life of the Work Division program. Governors Commission on Unemployment Relief. T h e search for stability was translated into a modified bid for permanence on June 19, 1934, whet members of the T E R A Commission petitioned Governor Lehman to form "a nonpartisan committee of experts to investigate present methots of relief, to evaluate them, and to make recommendations to the Go^rnor and the Legislature on meeting a relief problem that will be facfd by the State for at least several years to come,"·· T h e petition expres¡ed the opinion that "this present period upon which we are now embarung may be viewed as a point at the crossroads of emergency planning aid long period planning," and that the aforementioned recommendatbns be made "as to the vehicle for the administration of un· employmert relief which shall best meet the situation" after February 15, 1935, wien the fifth statutory emergency period expires.100 Following T E R A ' s rcommendation, the Governor's Commission on Unemploynent Relief was appointed on August 4, 1934. It rendered a preliminar) report on January 19, 1935,101 and a few days later announced that an inttnsive study of the T E R A and the State Department of Social Welfare would begin as of February 1, 1935.102 The general task of the Commission is indicated in the following paragraph from its Preliminary Report:103 It m a y be i c c e p t e d as a x i o m a t i c that since the state g o v e r n m e n t must c o n t i n u e 98. T E R A Official Bulletin No. 34, Item 167, March 28, 1934. 99. Letter torn Alfred H. Schoellkopf to Governor Herbert H. Lehman. Previously, Mr. Schoellkopf had appointed "a committee of six people to act as a planning bod) for T E R A to look into our program as it exists, and give thought to what can be developed in the future" but, while T E R A executives regarded this step "as one of great impor.ance," the move '.vas apparently absorbed by the creation of the Governor's Commission. S:e: T E R A News Letter, April 27, 1934, p. 1. 100. Ibid., sie also T E R A Press Release, June 21, 1934. 101. Governor's Commission on Unemployment Relief, Preliminary Report, January ig, 1935, New York Legislative Document (1935) No. 55, Albany: J. B. Lyon Company, >935· ιοί. Governor's Commission Press Release, January 29, 1935. 1 0 J . Op. cit.. p. 17.

172

Work Relief in New York State

to share in the financing of relief, it must insist upon some administrative and supervisory control over these expenditures. T h e only remaining question is whether a temporary state agency should be continued or whether this p r o g r a m should be merged at this time with other state welfare activities in 1 p e r m a n e n t state welfare organization.

In short, the Commission redefined the situation, with a view to recommending some sort of integration between temporary and established agencies that would be acceptable to the various groups concerned. It approached this problem by making various technical studies and by holding hearings and securing the opinions of the State Board of Social Welfare, T E R A , State Association of Local Welfare Officials, and "private social agencies throughout the State, through their Councils of Social Agencies." 104 Its problem was not unique, for by January, 1935, " a t least twelve states [had] appointed commissions in recent months to explore the possibility of devising permanent relief machinery," 105 and the movement gained momentum in 1935 and 1936. 106 By the time of the Commission's Preliminary Report, President Roosevelt announced107 that the federal government would presently abandon the direct relief business and instead would seek to give work to all employables with relief status under what turned out to be tht; WPA. Absorption of work relief by the WPA eventually simplified the Commission's problem, in the sense that it did not have to face the task of indicating what should be done about weaving into the structure of established agencies the administrative mechanism for work relief, which was, after all, least compatible with the "way of life" of the established agencies. Imminence of the WPA did not deter the Commission from making studies of certain aspects of the Work Division program (chiefly), presumably on the theory that "these findings now assume even greater significance." 108 Much data that otherwise would not have been available were brought together in these studies, which were carried on into the year of 1936. Meanwhile, unemployment relief continued to be administered under emergency arrangements. T o trace the steps by which temporary and established elements were interlaced into a new permanent constellation of law, organization, and 104. Ibid. 105. Ibid. 106. Robert C. Lowe and John L. Holcombe, Legislative Trends in Public Relief and Assistance, December jr, 1929 to July 1, 19)6, Washington: WPA Research Bulletin Series III No. 2, 1936, p. 18, Table 6, p. 19. and Table 7» P- 21. 107. Annual message to Congress, January 4, 1935. Also, an outline of the federal social security program was submitted to Congress on January 17, 1935,, just two days before the preliminary report was issued. 108. Preliminary Report, op. cit., p. 24.

Duration and Sources of Funds

173

procedure lies outside the scope of this study. It may be observed, however, that conversion of temporary relief objectives into ones unlimited by a time span had parallels, on a small scale, in past depressions. Sixth Statutory

Period

Chapter 718, approved May 17, 1934, authorized an additional state debt of $40,000,000 for unemployment relief between November 15, 1934, and February 15, 1936. T h e same day Chapter 717 appropriated, from moneys to be raised by this bond issue, the sum of $10,000,000 to be available immediately upon approval of the issue by voters, through February 15. 1935 (Table II). New York's third bond issue received approximately the same popular support as the first, the ratio of votes in favor to those against being slightly under four to one. T h i s was a reversal of trend noted in the five and one-half to one ratio of the second bond issue. O f the 3,814,498 ballots cast on November 6, 1934, 37.3 per cent favored the loan, 9.7 opposed it, and 53.0 per cent were recorded as "blank and void." 1 0 9 T h e approval set the stage for legislation authorizing the sixth emergency. In its preliminary report, the Governor's Commission recommended that the T E R A be continued for at least another year, which was practically equivalent to a request for another extension of the statutory emergency. Reasons behind the recommendation were given in these two paragraphs: 1 1 0 We are in complete accord with the fundamental view that ultimately all state welfare functions should be combined under the direction of one agency. For the following reasons, however, we do not believe that this change in the relief structure could or should be made at the present time. In the first place, it seems to us extremely unwise to attempt to transfer the control of an organization as large as the T E R A at a time when the relief load is at the very peak of expenditures to date, and when such great uncertainty exists concerning the effect of the activities to be undertaken by the Federal government. A major part of the present staff would have to be continued, even if control of the organization should be vested in other hands, and the shifting of such control at this time would only accentuate and increase the confusion which has resulted from the numerous changes in State and Federal policy during the past two years. There is danger in crystallizing in a permanent state agency an organization built up on an emergency basis. A further reason for the continuance of the T E R A is that we are not certain at the moment at to the probable future responsibilities of the State itself in the relief field and hence are not certain as to the most desirable permanent form of organización to perform such duties. T h e question of the degree of responsi109. The absolute figures are given in New York State Legislative Manual, Albany: J. B. Lyon Co., 1935, pp. 979-980· 110. Governor's Commission, Preliminary Report, op. cit., pp. 17-18.

174

Work Relief in New York State

bility resting o n the State g o v e r n m e n t f o r the care of its needy has not yet been f u l l y determined. It m a y well be that the f u t u r e demands on the State f o r the security of its citizens requires an entirely new type of social w e l f a r e machinery which does not exist at the present time in either emergency or p e r m a n e n t form.

The report promised further recommendations to the governor "in time for action by the next legislative session in the event that fundamental changes in basic policy seem desirable at that time." 1 1 1 On February 4, 1935, sixteen days after submission of the Commission's initial report, Governor Lehman and Republican legislative leaders reached an agreement to continue the T E R A for another year. 112 Accordingly, two laws were approved by the governor on February 14, 1935: Chapter 25, which extended the emergency period to February 15, 1936, and Chapter 32, which appropriated $10,000,000 out of general state funds for relief purposes during the year. The $30,000,000 remaining out of the third bond issue was also appropriated for the year ending February 15, 1936, by Chapter 264, which became a law on March 30, 1935 (Table II). Although another state bond issue, amounting this time to $55,000,000, was authorized 113 and approved 114 in 1935 and the life of the T E R A was eventually extended to June 30, 1937, these developments are of incidental importance here, since T E R A ' s concern with large-scale work relief came rapidly to an end when the federal WPA began to take over the activity as of August 1, 1935. Threat of Legislative

Investigation

The agreements among state officials with regard to unemployment relief which the foregoing measures involved came near to being upset when, on April 4, 1935, two resolutions, partly stimulated by "revelations" of the Aldermanic Investigation of unemployment relief in New York City, 115 were introduced in the New York Legislature, proposing a broad investigation of the T E R A and the handling of relief throughout 1 1 1 . Ibid., p. 18. 1 1 2 . New York Times, February 5, 1935. 1 1 3 . Chapter 505, approved April 25, 1935. 114. On November 5, 1935, New York voters approved this fourth bond issue, but as compared with previous results a noteworthy smaller proportion expressed themselves in favor of it. Of 4,055,646 voters, 29.7 per cent supported the bond issue, 13.4 per cent voted against it, and 56.9 per cent of the ballots were registered as "blank and void." For the precise figures, see New York State Legislative Manual, Albany: J. B. Lyon Company, 1936, pp. 1046-1047. 1 1 5 . See Lloyd P. Stryker, Report, In the Matter of the Investigation of the Administration of Unemployment Relief in the City of New York, July 8, 1935.

Duration and Sources of Funds

175

11

the state. ® These attacks were short-lived, however, perhaps because of the inescapable fact that the Governor's Commission was making a "nonpartisan" inquiry into certain aspects of this matter. Educational

Publicity

In an effort to gain support of voters for state bond issues, "educational publicity" was used, notably by the T E R A and the State Charities A i d Association. T h e practice was consistent with recent trends in the welfare field generally. T E R A chiefly limited its efforts to release of a report and follow-up press stories shortly before each of the general elections. 117 In general, these releases reviewed relief trends and activities in N e w York State and indicated that more state funds were necessary to meet the continuing need. A n example of the kind of appeal made to voters may be taken from a section entitled "Sinews of State A i d " of the 1934 report. After a brief summary of state funds made available thus far, the T E R A report continued: 1 1 8 At the present rate of State expenditure under the current policy of Federal moneys supplementing State aid to the communities. State relief funds now available will be exhausted by February 15 next. Federal grants to the State for relief are dependent upon the State contributing its share, according to the frequently reiterated policy of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration. Consequently, State relief funds are necessary not only for their aid to the communities but to insure continued Federal aid for the relief programs of the communities. At the coming general election in November, the people are to pass upon a further relief bond issue of $40,000,000 to be available for State aid to the municipalities up to February 15, 1936. Reduction in the amount asked for did not reflect any reliance upon a reduction in the anticipated need in the next year but followed the policy enunciated by the Honorable Herbert H. Lehman, Governor, in his special message, after consultation and agreement with the Legislative leaders, advising that the State should not "continue indefinitely to pay for its relief out of the proceeds of bond issues" but that "gradually the amount obtained from bond moneys should be reduced until within a reasonable time the entire cost of'unemployment relief will be borne from current revenues." Contingent upon approval of this $40,000,000 relief bond issue by the electorate, the Legislature has appropriated $10,000,000 of it to be available in case of emergency need until February 15 next, when the Legislature will have had an opportunity to act. 116. New York Times, April 5, 1935. 117. See the following T E R A reports: Relief Needs in New York, October 15, 193«; Relief Today in New York State, October 15, 1933; Three Years of Public Unemployment Relief in New York State, October 15, 1934; and Public Unemployment Relief in New York State—Fourth Year, October 15, 1935. 118. Three Years of Public Unemployment Relief in New York State, op. cit., p. 7.

Work Relief

176

in New York State

T h e f u t u r e of State a i d i n relief rests w i t h the p e o p l e of N e w Y o r k State at the polls. N e e d l e s s t o a d d , the case was presented in a s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d , factual m a n ner. T h e r o l e of the State C h a r i t i e s A i d Association w i t h respect to the loans f o r u n e m p l o y m e n t r e l i e f is s u m m a r i z e d i n o n e o f its a n n u a l

reports:118

A s i n 193s a n d 1933, at the request of the G o v e r n o r the S C A A organized a Special C i t i z e n s ' C o m m i t t e e to s u p p o r t the 1934 b o n d issue of $40,000,000 f o r u n e m p l o y m e n t relief. . . . U n d e r the auspices of the C o m m i t t e e , over 1,170,000 c o p i e s of a b o n d issue leaflet p r e p a r e d b y the C o m m i t t e e , w e r e distributed t h r o u g h o u t the State b y p u b l i c w e l f a r e officials a n d agencies, the political p a r t y o r g a n i z a t i o n s , a n d civil a n d social bodies. P u b l i c i t y was secured t h r o u g h newspapers, a n d radio, a n d also by free a d v e r t i s i n g in the transportation systems i n N e w Y o r k C i t y . T h e b o n d issue of $40,000,000 was a p p r o v e d by a vote of nearly 4 to 1. I n N e w Y o r k C i t y , the b o n d issue carried by a vote of n e a r l y 8 to 1, a n d o v e r 4 t o 1 i n the up-State cities. T h e r u r a l vote, however, was less f a v o r a b l e , w i t h three small c o u n t i e s s h o w i n g an adverse m a j o r i t y . I n the s u m m e r of 1935, the G o v e r n o r again asked the S C A A to give its active s u p p o r t to the $55,000,000 b o n d issue, w h i c h was to come b e f o r e the voters at the 1935 e l e c t i o n . A f t e r most c a r e f u l consideration, the Board of M a n a g e r s of the S C A A a g r e e d to carry o n a similar effort o n behalf of the $55,000,000 b o n d issue. A C i t i z e n s ' C o m m i t t e e , w i t h the same officers a n d substantially the same m e m b e r s as i n 1934, a g a i n sponsored the b o n d issue c a m p a i g n . T h e S C A A B o a r d , h o w e v e r , f e l t it essential that there should be a clear statement of its o p i n i o n that the State s h o u l d n o t c o n t i n u e indefinitely to mortgage its f u t u r e i n c o m e a n d that t h e r e a f t e r necessary relief f u n d s should be p r o v i d e d f r o m c u r r e n t r e v e n u e . T h i s statement a p p e a r e d o n the leaflets distributed by the A s s o c i a t i o n w h i c h u r g e d s u p p o r t of the 1935 b o n d issue. As noted in another connection

( p a g e 50), t h e S C A A h a d l o n g

ence w i t h "pressure politics" in the welfare

field.

Federal,

1935

From

State,

and

January

Local 1,

Funds

1933,

in 19)4

through

and

December

31,

1935,

experi-

obligations

in-

c u r r e d f o r relief p u r p o s e s i n N e w Y o r k State, e x c l u s i v e of C W A a n d W P A e x p e n d i t u r e s , t o t a l l e d $725,300,000, of w h i c h 55 p e r c e n t w a s f r o m fede r a l f u n d s , 30 p e r c e n t f r o m l o c a l f u n d s , 1 2 0 a n d 1 5 p e r c e n t f r o m

state

119. State Charities Aid Association, Sixty-third Annual Report, 1935, New York, pp. 9-1°· 120. A n indication of the quantitative importance of various revenue sources in the raising of local cash for unemployment relief is provided by the results of a study conducted by F E R A . T h e New York data were obtained from the larger welfare districts, which in the aggregate accounted for approximately 72 per cent of total obligations ($144,426,000) from local funds in the state during the two years ending June 30, 1935. Of $36,861,000 obligated by the sample districts during the first of the two years, $32,920,000, or 89 per cent, was derived from bonds and $3,941,000, or 11 per cent, from property taxes. Of $67,178,000 thus obligated during the second year, $25,-

Duration and Sources of Funds

177

funds. O f $275,427,000 thus obligated in 1934, the respective percentages were 57, 26, and 17. A total of $309,141,000 was so encumbered in 1935, the percentages being approximately the same as for the preceding year: 57, 27, and 16 (Table III). It will be remembered that federal aid to New York State for general relief purposes practically ceased during the C W A period. Proportion

for Work Relief

Wages

From April, 1934, through December, 1935, a total of $428,563,000 was expended for TERA-approved assistance to cases on relief rolls. Of this total, $240,457,000, or 56 per cent, was for home relief and $188,106,000, or 44 per cent, was for work relief wages. In addition, non administrative earnings under the C W A amounted to $914,000 in April and $8,000 in May, 1934. 121 During the period undisturbed by W P A (April, 1934, through July, 1935), the total, exclusive of C W A earnings, was $354,346,000, of which $•83.153,000, or 52 per cent, went for home relief and $171,193,000, or 48 per cent, went for work relief wages. Between August 1, 1935, and December 31, 1935, the total expenditure was $74,216,000, of which $57,304,000, or 77 per cent, was for home relief and $16,912,000, or 23 per cent, was paid out in work relief wages. T h e transfer of work relief to the W P A which commenced on the former date, was virtually completed by December 1, 1935. State Distribution

of Funds

As indicated above, T E R A adopted a general policy of 75 per cent re258,000, or 38 per cent, was derived f r o m bond issues; $23,590,000, or 35 per cent, f r o m sales taxes; $10,121,000, or 15 per cent, from utility taxes; $4,303,000, or 6 per cent, from property taxes; and $3,913,000, or 6 per cent, f r o m a business tax. T h e three new levies were instituted in New York City on December 10, 1934 under provisions of Chapter 873, authorizing New York City to levy, between August 18, 1934, and December 31, 1935, any tax within the power of the state legislature. Restriction of the sample to the larger districts probably underestimated the relative importance of property taxes as sources of local revenue for emergency relief. (L. Laizló Ecker-R., "Sources of Local Emergency Relief Funds," Monthly Report of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, December, 1935, pp. 34-58, especially T a b l e s B-5, B-6, and B-7, pp. 51-53.) In addition to cash obligations, the sample districts made contributions in kind (materials, supplies, equipment, and services) valued at $270,000 during the first of the two years and $145,000 d u r i n g the second year (ibid.). T h e relative unimportance of these sums was in all probability connected with T E R A policy of not honoring as claims for reimbursement other than "out of pocket" outlays, which, in turn, led to no adequate accounting system concerning contributed items. In short, there is reason to suppose that reported contributions in kind cover only part of the total value of such contributions. u i . Data on C W A wages for the first quarter of page 161 above.

1934 have been presented

on

i j8

Work Relief in New York State

imbursement on approved local expenditures through the Work Division period. Monthly allotments, originally called "quotas," were assigned each welfare district for home relief, work relief (wages), administrative and other non-relief pay rolls, and project materials, supplies and e q u i p ment. Each allotment simply represented the maximum approved expenditures which T E R A would reimburse at the agreed rate. Reimbursement above the statutory forty per centum was regarded as a grant, just as before the C W A . In the absence of appropriate state legislation, refund on expenditures for project materials was managed through payment from federal funds. Of $431,471,000 obligated in New York State for relief (or related) purposes, including special federal programs, from April, 1934, through June, 1935, 1 2 2 the proportion from federal and state funds was 74.7 per cent. Allotments to local units were now handled by an assistant executive director of the T E R A staff. New York City generally presented a monthly estimate of its needs and a monetary maximum was decided upon in conference between state and local officials. Upstate units were usually assigned a quota based on "very general indices of needs"; 1 2 3 indications are that relief loads, expenditures, status of projects, cost of living differentials, seasonal trends and "particular local conditions" were given more or less consideration in this connection. 124 T h e Governor's Commission reported: 1 2 8 . . . T E R A makes such changes in the original allotments as a p p e a r to it to be warranted by the complaints of the local district officiais or the T E R A field staff. O v e r a period of one year 42 per cent of all original allotments were adjusted either u p w a r d or downward. T h e net increase made in the protested allotments through the adjustment procedure amounted to 15 per cent.

In some instances reimbursement in excess of the usual rate was allowed; this was effected, in part, through allocations for state or federal projects at 100 per cent reimbursement outside the monthly budgets assigned to local districts. During the six months beginning November, 1934, each local budget was supplemented by a (partial or total) "winters needs allotment." 122. Federal Works Agency, Works Progress Administration, Final Statistical Report of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, Washington, 1942, Table XVIII, p.

515·

123. Governor's Commission on Unemployment Relief, State and Local Welfare Organization, Albany: J . B. Lyon Co., 1936, p. 49. 124. See communications of F. I. Daniels to local officials under the dates of March 19, and May 15, 1934, and February 8, 1935. 125. Loc. cit.

Duration and Sources of Funds

179

Local districts were allowed considerable freedom in apportioning the sums available between home relief and work relief:12® . . . the Administration is leaving largely to the municipality the judgment as to the emphasis which will be put u p o n the two different forms of relief. N o W o r k Division quotas are being definitely set from this office, and no limit is being placed upon the home relief case load. T h e Administration expects officials in each municipality to divide its total expenditures between those necessary to operate the W o r k s Division with a definite maximum number of cases at a carefully estimated cost, and to leave sufficient margin to care for all other families in need through home relief.

Somewhat later, it was indicated that expansion in relief rolls was to be carried through a reduction in the work relief program 127 and that "the fundamental basis of relief throughout the State is home relief, and as a result home relief claims must have priority, as to reimbursement, over claims resulting from a work program, which causes an overrun in allotment." 128 Among other steps to prevent such overruns, the T E R A limited pay roll advances to three-fourths of one-half of the monthly allotment to each district. 129 Outside the monthly budgets, localities were free to assume additional costs but entirely at their own expense. So far as they were reimbursable at 75 per cent within the monthly allocations to individual districts, the T E R A placed limitations on local non-relief expenditures under the Work Division. Prior to November, 1934, the monthly sum expended by each district for non-relief (administrative and supervisory) labor, materials, and equipment hire or rental was not to exceed one-third of the total each paid out in work relief wages during the month. Thereafter, the monthly non-relief maximum (within the reimbursable monthly quota) for each district was generally a fixed sum, determined by taking 18 3/4 per cent of the total allotment assigned each district during the month of October, 1934. Determination of what specific local expenditures were reimbursable by T E R A was a matter of law, legal interpretation, and T E R A (-FERA) regulations and rulings. 130 A considerable proportion of the deliberations of the T E R A Commission converged on the reimbursement of local claims, while the surrounding details were generally delegated to the lesser staff personnel. For example, within the framework of the Comiî6. 127. 128. 129. 130. April,

T E R A Official Bulletin No. 37, Item 183, March 31, 1934. Memorandum to local officials from A. H. Schoellkopf, December 20, 1934. Memorandum to local officials from F. I. Daniels, April 30, 1935. Ibid. T E R A , Manual of Procedure for Local Relief Administrations, Items 042-043, 1935.

18o

Work Relief

in New

York State

mission's policies and rulings, the Project Division determined what specific project materials or equipment would be reimbursable and the Finance Division was charged with the responsibility of auditing the local claims submitted for reimbursement, which were further audited by a special unit of the State Comptroller's Office before actual payment. When transfer of work relief to the W P A was completed in December, 1935, federal aid was withdrawn and T E R A reimbursement for the residual home relief program reverted to the original forty per cent refund from state funds. Transfer of Activities At no previous time was there greater reason for confidence respecting the future of work relief than under the Work Division program. New York's unemployment relief was at least redefined in the general direction of "long-term" planning. Announcement in January, 1935, of the new federal policy which eventuated in the WPA did introduce elements of uncertainty, but their influence was probably held in check, for some time at least, by recall of experience with wholesale transfers of activities from T E R A to C W A and from C W A to the Work Division. While there is no clear-cut evidence of its effect on the Work Division program, it seems probable that extended duration-expectancy entered as a factor in preventing regression to the decentralized arrangements of the pre-CWA period, on the one hand, and in stimulating general systematization of procdeure, on the other. Problems surrounding the transfer of activities from C W A to the Work Division chiefly concerned projects and work relief personnel, since arrangements for financing had been made before the C W A ended and transfer of state and local administrative staffs was a relatively minor task. On March 24, 1934, the state agency instructed local units to advise its Project Division by the night of March 28 which C W A projects they intended to continue. 131 Within the next few days the state Project Division analyzed a flood of communications from the subordinate administrations and returned to them lists of officially approved "projects to be continued," showing a new pay roll classification number for each project. 132 While this procedure was somewhat out of line with F E R A instructions, 133 requiring submission of new application forms for each 131. Telegram from F. I. Daniels to all local CWA chairmen. 132. For relevant data, consult in T E R A Project Division files: CWA-TERA transfer list, project applications, project registers, CWA forms S-i6, and "dispatchers' records." 133. FERA Advance Bulletin, No. 4, Item 2, March 27, 1934.

Duration and Sources of Funds

181

Works Division project to be approved in the usual manner, it obviated extended suspension of operations which would otherwise have been inescapable. At the same time, the simplified procedure created, with respect to project records, difficulties which required months of effort to eliminate. T h e chief difficulty surrounding the transfer of personnel to Work Division projects centered about the requirement that employees under the new program possess relief status as determined by investigation. Thousands who had been on a non-relief basis still remained on CWA pay rolls at the end of March, despite gradual elimination of those whose needs appeared least under quota reductions which began on February 23, 1934. 134 While "hurried" investigations and/or paupers' oaths helped, the shift of approximately one-quarter of a million persons to the Work Division during April, 1934, probably could not have been accomplished without the tacit assumption that, eventually, systematic investigations would eliminate workers not eligible for relief. Presumably related to this assumption was T E R A ' s policy of fixing larger budgets for the initial months of the Work Division period. Once the funds had been made available, there was no problem concerning the transition from the fifth to sixth emergency period. On February 15, 1935, the T E R A Commission resolved to extend the projects for a maximum of another year, the close of the sixth period. The executive director of the T E R A formally notified local administrations of this action, and Work Division operation continued without a break until the WPA became active on August 1, 1935. Transfer of Works Division activities to the WPA was not completed until December, 1935. The new federal agency created two separate administrative units, one for New York City and one for the remainder of the state. The New York City unit absorbed (and eventually reorganized) the local staff concerned with the administration of work relief, while the upstate unit was built up gradually without implementing existing work bureau staffs. As of August 1, the New York City WPA removed from T E R A jurisdiction, with the exception of a few projects, the city's entire Work Division program. The upstate WPA began operations gradually, the peak transfer of project personnel from the Works Division being 134. The New York State CWA advised local CWAs on February 24, 1934 that Commissioners of Public Welfare "shall take immediate steps to investigate all present CWA employees as to their need" and that "the first group to be investigated shall be those who were employed from the lists of the National Reemployment Service, and for whom there is no previous record available in a public or private relief agency" (N.Y.S. CWA Official Bulletin, No. 4, Item 73).

i82

Work Relief

in New York

State

accomplished in November. Except for closing out records, this marked the conclusion of concern with large-scale work relief on the part of T E R A and its local units. W h e n it became clear that large-scale work relief was no longer to be the concern of the T E R A , its chairman pointed to the still important home relief function which would remain under T E R A jurisdiction, "the all important task of giving the individualized treatment . . . that will be needed to prevent those on home relief from genuinely becoming permanently unemployable." 1 3 5 135. R a d i o speech of Alfred H. Schoellkopf, July 1, 1935; see T E R A No. 4464 and T E R A Press Release, July 2, 1935.

Mimeograph

CHAPTER

VI

The State Relief Agency

T

HE organization for emergency relief in the State of New York consisted of the T E R A and approximately one hundred local units each for the administration of home relief and work relief. This state-local structure was tied to federal agencies through the creation of the F E R A in May, 1933. This chapter describes the general organization of the T E R A and the role of the various divisions of the state executive staff with special reference to work relief. T h e general organization for work relief in New York counties and cities is treated in Chapter VII.

ORGANIZATION OF THE STATE AGENCY

For approximately four years, including the period when it acted as the Federal Civil Works Administration of the State of New York, the T E R A was the central organ of advice, supervision, direction and control with respect to the state-wide emergency relief. T h e state agency was composed of an administrative Commission, frequently called the Administration, and the Commission's executive staff. T h e most important aides of the Commission were the T E R A counsel and the topmost functionaries of the executive staff. T h e general function around which the T E R A operated was the distribution of state and federal funds among New York localities for relief and closely related purposes. The TERA

Commission

Membership of the Commission T h e Relief Act specified no qualifications for membership on the T E R A Commission. 1 Most of those appointed were listed in Who's Who in America with high prestige rating outside the field of public welfare. 2 1. T h i s was consistent with general practice regarding the selection of m e m b e r s of state welfare boards; see R o b e r t C . Lowe, State Public Welfare Legislation, Washington: W o r k s Progress A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , Research M o n o g r a p h X X , 1939, p p . 37-38 and ( T a b l e 34) 210-220. 2. For relevant generalizations, see: Everett C. Hughes, "Institutional Office a n d the Person," The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. X L I I I , No. 3 (November, 1937), p . 411.

184

Work Relief

in New

York State

T h e indications are that the appointees were in sympathy with the relief enterprise and deemed it an honor to render this public service. T h e i r work required more or less continuous attention at "personal sacrifice"; only expenses were allowed members, except the chairman, who received a salary. T h e usual reason given for the resignation of members was "pressure of personal business." So far as is known, the Governor had no occasion to exercise his prerogative of member removal; Governor Lehman's Commission on Unemployment Relief concluded that administration of relief on the state level was "honest, high-minded and nonpolitical." 3 T h e retirement of members of the Commission, particularly of T E R A chairmen, elicited remarks of appreciation and praise from the Governor and laudatory newspaper comment. As a rule, the biographical sketches of the Commission members in Who's Who make reference to their affiliation with the T E R A . It is probable that Governors Roosevelt and Lehman consulted at least with legislative leaders of both parties in making appointments to the Commission. So far as groupings are discernible, Commission members seem to have represented "business," "labor," "social work" and "the general public" but it is probable that other "interests" were also involved. Messrs. Jesse Isidor Straus, president of R . H. Macy & Co., John Sullivan, president of the New York State Federation of Labor, and Philip J . Wickser, prominent lawyer from Buffalo, comprised the original Commission. Mr. Straus served as chairman until his retirement in March, 1932; Mr. Wickser resigned a month later, meanwhile serving as chairman. In April, 1932, Harry L. Hopkins, first executive director of T E R A and before that executive director of the New York City Tuberculosis and Public Health Society, assumed the chairmanship of the Commission, while Charles D. Osborne, newspaper publisher and former mayor of Auburn, New York, filled the remaining vacancy. 4 Presumably because of the increasing volume of work, the Law was changed in March, 1933, enlarging the Commission from three to five members; also a salary of $11,500 a year was fixed for the chairman. T o fill the new posts, Governor Lehman appointed Henry Root Stern of 3. State and Local Welfare Organization in the State of New York (Legislative Document No. 56), Albany: J . B. Lyon Co., 1936, p. 43. An upstate Hearst paper (Rochester Journal, January 30, 1934) reported a conflict between the "Republican-controlled State C W A and the Democratic-controlled city and county administrations." of Rochester-Monroe County. Occasionally T E R A was the object of political pressure; for example, see New York Times, January 30, 1936. 4. T h e vacancy created by the resignation of Mr. Straus and elevation tio chairman of Mr. Wickscr was filled by Mr. Hopkins. Mr. Osborne resigned in September, 1935, to run for the mayoralty again and Frederick I. Daniels was named to succeed him.

The State Relief Agency

185

Nassau County and Alfred H. Schoellkopf, vice-president of the NiagaraHudson Power Company. Upon Mr. Hopkins' departure in May, 1933, to become the Federal Emergency Relief Administrator, Mr. Schoellkopf was designated chairman, serving in that capacity through CWA and virtually to the end of T E R A ' s concern with large-scale work relief. The fourth chairman, who accepted the position on condition that he serve without salary, reverted to ordinary membership status on October 15, 1935, and Frederick I. Daniels, former commissioner of public welfare in Syracuse and executive director of T E R A since March, 1933, assumed, in addition, the high office. Thus the chairmanship alternated between high ranking businessmen and social workers with administrative experience. Other members of the Commission included: (a) Joseph P. Ryan (May 1933-June 1937), president of the Central Trades and Labor Council of New York City, who succeeded John Sullivan, (b) Robert J . Cuddihy (November 1934-November 1935), publisher of the Literary Digest, who succeeded Henry Root Stern, (c) William Hodson (June 1933-December 1933) of the Russell Sage Foundation, who filled the vacancy resulting from the Hopkins-Schoellkopf change, (d) Solomon Lowenstein (January 1934-June 1937), Executive Director of the Federation of Jewish Philanthropic Societies of New York City, who succeeded William Hodson, and (e) Thomas Crimmins (January 1936-June 1937) of New York City who filled the vacancy left by Robert J . Cuddihy. On February 14, 1935, as recommended by the Governor's Commission,5 the Emergency Relief Act was changed to add a member of the State Board of Social Welfare as the sixth member of the T E R A Commission and, in addition, to permit the State Commissioner of Social Welfare to attend the meetings of the T E R A Commission as member ex officio, without the right to vote. President of the State Board and publisher of the New Yorker Staats-Zeitung, Victor F. Ridder was selected as the sixth member, while David C. Aide occupied the ex officio post. In October, 1935, Mr. Ridder was succeeded by State Welfare Board member Paul S. Livermore who, with Daniels, Schoellkopf, Ryan, Lowenstein, Crimmins, and Aide, served until the T E R A was dissolved on June 30, 1937. During CWA, Chairman Schoellkopf and members Osborne, Ryan, Stern, and Hodson or Lowenstein, in effect, comprised the New York State TERA-CWA Commission. The arrangement was perhaps somewhat unique since the Federal CWA was apparently organized to operate directly through a single state administrator. Among the 32 persons comprising Governor Lehman's Commission on 5. Preliminary Report pany, 1935, p. 11.

(Legislative Document No. 55), Albany: J . B. Lyon Com-

i86

Work Relief

in Nexu York

State

Unemployment Relief were Messrs. Wickser and Ridder. Former T E R A member Wickser served as vice-chairman of the investigative body and as a member of its Committee on Home Relief and W o r k Relief. Commission Aides. Closely identified with the T E R A Commission were its counsel, executive directors and assistant executive directors. T h e role of State Solicitor-General Henry Epstein as technical interpreter of relief and related laws has been indicated (page 94); he served as counsel to T E R A throughout its life span. In general, the role of the staff aides involved three overlapping responsibilities: (a) to contribute toward and be familiar with Commission decisions and policies, (b) to supervise the execution of such policies, and (c) to serve as a channel of communication between the Commission and the lesser staff functionaries. D u r i n g the C W A period, two other staff posts approached Commission-aide status: the comptroller or head of the Finance Division, and the director of the Project Division. T h e Commission, T E R A counsel and the top executives formed an "inner circle" of direction and control within the T E R A . O n matters of prime importance, such as the supply and distribution of federal and state funds for relief, this inner circle consulted with the Governor, legislative leaders, members of the Governor's Commission on Unemployment Relief and high federal officials. Goals of the

TERA

It has been shown (page 85) that the Emergency Relief Act of New York State concentrated a large array of powers in the T E R A Commission, thus placing it at the apex of the machinery for emergency relief in the State. Together with the rules, regulations and instructions presented in Chapter IV, this array of statutory powers covers in detail the more or less specific goals of the T E R A . If it is feasible to restate them in general terms with reference to emphasis in practice, the major objectives of the state agency included the following: ι. T o estimate and seek to obtain the amounts of federal and state funds needed to carry forward the programs of relief. 2. T o so distribute these funds as to "supplement, encourage and stimulate" local effort. 3. T o render a strict accounting for the disbursement of state and federal funds. 4. T o set forth the conditions or restrictions under which such funds might be expended by the localities. 5. T o assist the local units to satisfy these conditions. 6. T o check upon the compliance of the local units with the conditions or restrictions.

The State Relief

Agency

187

7. T o assume rather direct administration of such activities as relief for transients and disability allowances for relief workers injured in the performance of their jobs (under the Work Division). 8. T o serve as a clearance house of information and as a center of advice concerning the state-wide programs of relief. In general, the T E R A Commission and every unit of its executive staff functioned with reference to these complex and intermeshing aims. Activities

of the

Commission

T h e principal activities of the Commission, usually involving participation of the aides, concerned the formation or adoption of policies and the more important external relations of the T E R A . T h e chairman and executive director were the symbolic leaders of the state agency; others of the inner circle played less conspicuous roles. T h e supervision and direction of internal operations of the T E R A was largely delegated to staff administrators or specialists. T h e T E R A Commission was generally regarded as a policy determining body. W i t h the advice of its aides and others, the Commission articulated the basic rules and regulations of the T E R A and adopted, with or without change, the relevant provisos of the cooperating federal agencies. T h i s body also reviewed and handed down rulings on numerous problems which arose in the course of relief operations and which generally required further interpretation of policy. T h e general scope of these problems, many of which raised the question of reimbursement or nonreimbursement by T E R A , has been indicated in another connection (page 94). T h e details of procedure for local administrations were, as a rule, devised by staff officers; during the closing months of the W o r k Division period such details were cleared through the T E R A Division of Methods and Systems, under whose direction the T E R A Manual of Procedures for Local Relief Administrations was compiled. Deliberations and discussions formed a large part of the Commission's work; by April, 1934, its minutes ran close to 9,000 pages. T h e nature of the external relations of the Commission may be suggested briefly. T h e r e were conferences with the Governor, legislative leaders and federal authorities concerning major policies, and the supply or distribution of funds. W h i l e the T E R A field staff handled more or less recurrent problems of state-local relations, contacts with local officials about important matters could not easily be delegated. Presence of members of the inner circle at conferences of local officials or at the dedication of completed projects tended to promote mutual understanding and friendly feeling. Representation of the T E R A to various private groups required services of Commission members or aides; use of advisory committees,

188

Work Relief in New York State

a l t h o u g h limited, f u r t h e r e x p a n d e d external relations. Interpretation of its policies and p r o t e c t i o n of T E R A status before investigative bodies or against attacks f r o m miscellaneous sources could best be d o n e by high T E R A officials. A l s o , there were occasions w h e n it seemed wise for the Commissioners or aides to receive delegations of project workers involved in l a b o r disputes. F u r t h e r m o r e , there was the p r o b l e m of cordial relations w i t h the press a n d release of publicity concerning the accomplishments a n d needs of T E R A a n d its subordinate units. T h e T E R A Publicity Division was accordingly established a n d f u n c t i o n e d well. T h e most i m p o r t a n t policies of the Commission centered on the dist r i b u t i o n of state a n d federal moneys a m o n g the local welfare districts. T h e relative i m p o r t a n c e of any policy tended t o be j u d g e d by the implications it had for such distribution. O f course, the actual mechanics of d i s t r i b u t i o n were delegated by the Commission to staff aides. Commission-Staff

Relations

W i t h i n appropriations but w i t h o u t civil service restrictions, the T E R A C o m m i s s i o n was free to decide the n u m b e r , r a n k or grade, and compensation of staff m e m b e r s and to accept volunteer help. T h e s e powers were delegated at least in the selection of the lesser employees to a personnel department. I n p l a n n i n g a n d setting in m o t i o n T E R A activities, the Commission received, besides that f r o m its counsel, noteworthy assistance from D r . E u g e n e B. Patton (Director of the Division of Statistics and Information) of the State D e p a r t m e n t of L a b o r , Dr. H . Jackson Davis of the State Dep a r t m e n t of H e a l t h , Frederick R o y M a r t i n (former general manager of the Associated Press) as volunteer director of publicity, and r a n k i n g social workers whose services were contributed by a n u m b e r of national a n d local welfare organizations.® In addition, it is reported: 7 T h e firm of public accountants Touche, Niven and Company, as a public service without charge, set up the accounting system, gave the services of experienced auditors, and supervised the financial operations of the Administration. . . . In order to expedite action on reimbursement claims, the State Comptroller established an office in the New York office of the T E R A . A f t e r a year's experience, Commission members stated: ". . . we h a v e h a d i n v a l u a b l e assistance from so many sources that it w o u l d be quite impossible to list here o u r i n d i v i d u a l indebtedness." 8 6. T E R A , Report of the New York State Temporary Emergency Relief tion, A l b a n y : J. B. Lyon Company, October 15, 1932, pp. 13-14. 7. Ibid., p. 14. 8. T E R A , Emergency Unemployment Relief Latus in the S to te of Nfw 1932, A l b a n y , 1932, p. 5.

Administra-

York,

/pj/·

The State Relief Agency

189

Although it is reasonable to suppose that differences existed on the basis of division of labor and prestige-rating, the hypothesis seems warranted that the early relations between Commission and staff were relatively close. In a sense the new enterprise was an experiment in cooperative learning, planning and doing. Barriers to more or less direct association among key functionaries, including members of the initial field staff of the T E R A , would hardly result in the mutual processing which appears necessary until policies and participant roles attain considerable definition. T h e early policies adopted by the T E R A Commission suggest rather direct contact with the volunteer and paid experts. It is also probable that the relative smallness of the total organization during the first year reduced "social distance" in general. Once the T E R A began to canalize its activity, the necessity for close contact between Commission and staff diminished. One can speculate that as key policies became part of their thinking and as the role of each attained definite form, leading staff members were given greater responsibility and assumed the task of training subordinates and new members of the staff. T h e rapid expansion of the staff under the C W A , which transformed the state agency into a large organization within three months, left a gap between the staff and Commission that was never bridged. At the close of 1935, Governor Lehman's Commission on Unemployment Relief reported:® D u r i n g recent years the Administration has not taken full advantage of opportunities to secure outside advice and has not always realized the f u l l potentialities of those advisory services which it has established. Moreover it has been remote from direct contact with the technical and professional persons employed on its o w n staff. Practically all its guidance in policy m a k i n g has recently come from the three m a j o r staff executives w h o are necessarily preoccupied with administrative duties a n d hence not favorably situated for the rendering of such technical guidance. T h e results of these conditions are apparent in the Administration's rulings.

T h e greater organization was in a sense a specialized hierarchy, characterized by indirect and formal relationships. T h e division of labor between the Administration and staff was frequently described as formulation of the policy versus putting such into effect. T h e Governor's Commission observed: 10 A clear division of authority and responsibility between the Administration a n d the paid staff has never existed. T h e Administration is really the controlling force and it has seldom delegated any real authority to the persons in its employ. 9. Governor's Commission, State and Local Welfare Organization, op. cit., p. 44. 10. Ibid.

i9¿>

Work Relief in New York State

Actually, however, its paid staff has been compelled to assume considerable responsibility under emergency conditions in order to keep the program under way. As a result, the Administration has frequently concerned itself with details which should have been left to the staff, and the staff has on occasion enunciated policies and taken major steps which should have been passed upon by the Administration.

As the policies became increasingly specific, their formation tended to seep down into the executive substratum. The TERA

Executive Staff

Despite points of vagueness regarding the division of responsibility between the T E R A Commission and its executive staff, the latter obviously had to absorb the great mass of detail involved in the attempt to attain the goals of the state agency. T h e expansion and diversification of relief activities in New York State (page 74) prompted the growth of the staff from about 100 persons at the close of 1932 to around 1,000 employees beginning with the early part of 1934. While the size of the staff remained near the latter level through J u n e , 1935, there was continuing change in the form of specialization of function and differentiation of structure. An Overall View As Of Figure 1 shows the organization of the T E R A executive staff as of June, j935, when the administrative mechanism was at its fullest development just prior to the conclusion of its concern with large-scale work relief. Headed by an executive director and two assistant executive directors, this mechanism was basically divided into a central office staff and a field staff. Both branches had undergone significant changes between 1931 and 1935 and eventually showed parallel articulation. At peak development, the central staff was composed of 14 major Divisions, each of which was headed by a director. T h e r e were seven "program divisions": Social Service, 1 1 Project, Disability Claims, Transient, Rural Activities, Information and Review, and Publicity, and seven "operation divisions": Finance, Purchase, Safety, Federal Surplus Commodities, Research and Statistics, Methods and Systems, and Office Management and Personnel. T h e directors of the program divisions reported to the first assistant executive director, while the operation divisions came under the general supervision of the second assistant executive director. l i . Until placed under a director in J u n e , 1935, this " u n i t " was a collection of such "divisions" or " d e p a r t m e n t s " as Medical Care, Insurance (Adjustment), Social Service Personnel, R u r a l Rehabilitation, and C a m p T E R A . Also conceived as belonging to this collection were T E R A field representatives (later superseded by district directors), a representative on race relations and a representative of the Civilian Conservation Corps. See: T E R A Organization Chart, October 1 , 1934.

The State Relief


4) c s ·—1

E E




υυ χ

u

Agency

ig2

Work Relief

in New York State

T h e Project, Safety, Disability C l a i m s and at least a large part of the Purchase and Finance divisions were primarily concerned with the work relief effort. T h e r e m a i n i n g divisions of the T E R A staff h a d a less direct relationship to this effort, as w i l l be shown below. As might have been expected, most of the T E R A divisions were subdivided into departments or sections. By 1935, the field staff was distributed a m o n g nine districts into w h i c h the State was divided for purposes of T E R A supervision. Each of the nine field organizations was headed by a district director who, along w i t h the directors of the program divisions, reported to the first assistant executive director of the T E R A . U n d e r the general guidance of the district director was a corps of technical representatives of the Social Service, Project, Safety, Disability Claims, Federal Surplus and Finance divisions. 1 2 T h e technical field agents also m a i n t a i n e d contact w i t h their respective divisions at the central office; this relationship is indicated in Figure 1 by the broken lines. T h e executive staff of the T E R A evolved under the direction of social workers w h o had h a d a certain a m o u n t of administrative experience. Prior t o the C W A , the staff was e x p a n d e d slowly w i t h emphasis on the social service and financial aspects of relief. U n d e r the federal C W A , a semia u t o n o m o u s state organization was b u i l t u p very rapidly with emphasis o n the e m p l o y m e n t a n d business aspects, a n d the new staff soon overshadowed the older one in numbers. W h e n the semi-autonomous agency was taken over by the T E R A under the W o r k Division, the greater staff e x h i b i t e d considerable "disorganization" u n t i l various interadjustments established an unmistakeable trend towards integration. The

Chief

Executives

T h e general role of the h i g h executives in their capacity as aides to the T E R A Commission has been indicated above. T h e post of executive director, at the apex of the staff hierarchy, was occupied by three men: Harry L. Hopkins Walter W. Pettit Frederick I. Daniels

October, 1931—March, 1932 April, 1932—March, 1933 March, 1933—June, 1937

Messrs. H o p k i n s and Daniels were promoted to the chairmanship of the Commission and the latter acted b o t h as T E R A chairman and executive director, b e g i n n i n g October, 1935. T h e executive director was presumably responsible for the p l a n n i n g 12. T h e Transient Division maintained a separate field staff both for purposes of supervision and for the direct operation of the program for transients; see Governor's Commission, Public Relief for Transient and Non-Settled Persons in the State of Neu> York, A l b a n y : J. B. Lyon Company, 1936.

The State Relief Agency

193

and coordination of staff activities in the light of the policies of the Commission and the experience of his staff. It may be assumed that each of the directors was an able man; 1 3 each had been successful as an administrator in the field of social work. However, investigation in 1935 found the director's role limited because of the powers retained by the Commission and his effectiveness reduced by "the tendency . . . to deal almost completely with individuals rather than the staff as a whole"; 1 4 merging of the offices of the T E R A chairman and executive director may have diminished these difficulties. Both Messrs. Pettit and Daniels were appointed to the directorship of the T E R A during the chairmanship of Mr. Hopkins. After leaving, Mr. Pettit, Associate Director of the New York School of Social Work, served as special T E R A representative for New York City through the remainder of 1933. Next in authority were the two assistant executive directors. 15 Messrs. Conrad Van Hyning and Homer Borst, both with wide experience in social work, joined the T E R A in June, 1933, to fill these newly-created posts. Mr. Van Hyning was important in directing the field staff and the program divisions of the T E R A during the difficult period of readjustment after the C W A ; he resigned in January, 1935, t o head public welfare activities in Florida. T h e successor, Mr. Glen Jackson, had been a member of the T E R A field staff since 1933 and before that an executive of the YMCA. T h e vacancy created by Mr. Borst's assuming the directorship of the T E R A Transient Division at the beginning of 1934, was eventually filled by Mr. Paul H. Mayer, who had had several years of experience in business. Mr. Mayer joined the T E R A in March, 1933, as assistant to the chairman and to the executive director. Among his functions were the allotment of funds to the local units, hearing of "labor complaints," and the correlation of T E R A instructions to the localities. When named assistant executive director in September, 1934, Mr. Mayer officially assumed, in addition, the general direction of the operation divisions. A t 13. For a characterization of the personality of Mr. Hopkins as Works Progress Administrator, see: A r t h u r W . MacMahon, John D. Millett, and Gladys Ogden, The Administration of Federal Work Relief, Chicago: Public Administration Service, 1941. pp. i 8 g - i g i . For comment on fhe able leadership of Mr. Daniels as Public Welfare Commissioner in Syracuse, see: James Mickel Williams, Human Aspects of Unemployment and Relief, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1933, pp. 182-183 and 230. 14. Governor's Commission, State and Local Welfare Organization, op. cit., p . 45. 15. Douglas P. Falconer of the B u f f a l o Children's Aid and Protective Society was associate director for about six months b u t the office was abolished upon his departure in April, 193s.

194

Work Relief in New York State

this time it was understood that the post of Mr. V a n H y n i n g took precedence over that of Mr. Mayer. Pre-CWA

Staff

T h e nature of its task generally determined the number and types of personnel required by the state agency. Surrounded by uncertainties of duration and conceptions of limited responsibility, the p r e - C W A organization remained relatively small, was characterized by semi-formal relationships and reflected emphasis on finances, and social service with noteworthy promotional activities. A t the beginning of the work of T E R A in November, 1931, the staff consisted of 60 persons. T h e "rapid organization" of activities was " o n a business as well as a social basis. . . ." 1 β D u r i n g the first year, there had been "a m a x i m u m of about ninety employees, including field staff and supervisors, accountants, auditors, information service, research staff, and general-office staff"; 1 7 approximately one-third of this personnel might be classed as "social workers." 1 8 U n t i l the summer of 1933, the total staff numbered fewer than 150 persons. 19 T h e general pattern of the state organization was indicated by the initial assemblage of personnel (page 184). T h e staff setup of the T E R A in April, 1933, was reported by the Family Welfare Association of America as follows: 2 0 Executive Director. A c c o u n t i n g D e p a r t m e n t — i n c l u d i n g staff of accountants, office a n d field auditors, clerical a n d s t e n o g r a p h i c , a n d staff of auditors f o r the State C o m p t r o l l e r ' s Office. R e s e a r c h a n d Statistics d e p a r t m e n t . I n f o r m a t i o n service (publicity). P e r s o n n e l service (Joint V o c a t i o n a l S e r v i c e — p a r t time). Office administration—office m a n a g e r a n d staff of stenographers, etc. M e d i c a l service ( D o c t o r f r o m the State H e a l t h D e p a r t m e n t a n d temporary staff of nurses f r o m the State H e a l t h D e p a r t m e n t ) . E n g i n e e r (field) a n d t w o special assistants (office) o n w o r k projects. F i e l d Service D e p a r t m e n t :

field

T w o r e g i o n a l directors (each in c h a r g e of n i n e or ten field representatives). N i n e t e e n field representatives (each assigned f r o m six to ten districts). F i e l d service also by field a u d i t o r s a n d t w o or m o r e "case investigators" f o r special check-up of relief m e t h o d s . 16. Emma O. Lundberg, " T h e New York State Temporary Emergency Relief Administration," The Social Service Review, Vol. VI, No. 4 (December, 1932) p. 54g. 17. Ibid., p. 550. 18. Ibid. 19. Governor's Commission, State and Local Welfare Organization, op. cit., p. 44. so. Josephine Chapín Brown, Public Relief, 1929-1939, New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1940, p. 458.

The State Relief

Agency

!95

" L i a i s o n w o r k e r " cooperating with all departments of the Administration. Nutrition consultants. T h e p o s t of " a d v i s e r o n s u b s i s t e n c e g a r d e n s " m i g h t h a v e b e e n i n c l u d e d i n t h e a b o v e o u t l i n e . I n a n y case, it is c l e a r t h a t c o n s i d e r a b l e e m p h a s i s w a s placed on

field

a g e n t s , w h i l e t h e staff r e l a t i n g t o p r o j e c t s w a s a l l

but

negligible. With TERA

the a i d of L i l l i a n Q u i n n field

of the J o i n t V o c a t i o n a l

staff w a s o r g a n i z e d e a r l y i n N o v e m b e r ,

that the "real w o r k . . . will be done in the field

s e r v i c e w a s d e s c r i b e d as

field."21

Bureau,

the

1931, o n the basis

A year later, T E R A ' s

follows:22

A t the b e g i n n i n g of its activities the Administration . . . mobilized a field staff of nineteen m e n a n d women w h o h a d h a d experience in d e a l i n g with relief problems and in other forms of social service. T h e course was uncharted, b u t the Administration proceeded on the theory that immediate first-hand assistance should be given to the public welfare commissioners and the newly organized emergency work bureaus in interpreting the terms of the u n e m p l o y m e n t relief act and assisting them to e q u i p themselves to take advantage of the state's financial aid. T h e field service was conceived as a practical means of cooperation between the state and local officials in b r i n g i n g a b o u t standards of relief administration that w o u l d conserve state and local funds and at the same time give to the destitute families kindly consideration and aid in accordance with their real needs. T h e administration deals with the local officials through the field representatives. T h e state was divided into two areas, outside of N e w Y o r k City, each with a regional director in charge of the field service. Each of the regional directors has a staff of nine or ten field representatives, three field auditors and two case investigators. T h e field representatives are each assigned from six to eight welfare districts in w h i c h they work continuously in cooperation with the public welfare commissioners and emergency work bureaus, assisting them in problems of organization and administration of relief. T h e field auditors visit the communities to examine the accounts a n d to assist the officiais in improving their accounting systems, a n d the social investigators, working in co-operation with the auditors, check u p o n family relief by visits to the homes and inquiry into the actual application of h o m e relief and work relief. F r o m a n o r i g i n a l 21, the n u m b e r of " T E R A

districts" in upstate

New

Y o r k w a s g r a d u a l l y r e d u c e d t o 16 b y t h e s p r i n g o f 1 9 3 3 . 2 3 N e w Y o r k C i t y w a s t r e a t e d as a " s p e c i a l p r o b l e m , " i n v o l v i n g d i r e c t n e g o t i a t i o n h i g h T E R A a n d c i t y officials; M r . P e t t i t a c t e d as s p e c i a l T E R A

between represen-

t a t i v e d u r i n g p a r t o f 1 9 3 3 ( p a g e 193). V a r i o u s o r a l reports suggest that intra-staff r e l a t i o n s h i p s p r i o r to the 21. Douglas P. Falconer, " T h e Temporary Emergency Relief Administration," The Quarterly Bulletin of the New York State Conference on Social Work, Vol. Ill, No. 1 (January, 193«), p. 17· 82. Emma O. Lundberg, op. cit., pp. 550-551. 23. T E R A News Letter, May 31, 1935, p. 6.

196

Work Relief in New York State

C W A tended to be rather direct and, at most, semiformal. Also, it appears that the dynamic, personal elements of face-to-face association were of outstanding importance, at least to "rank and file" members. Loyalty and enthusiasm were at a peak. Pre-CWA affiliation carried informal prestige in later stages and reference to "the early days" seemed to serve as a psychological cushion for those w h o were not ready to accept later the more formal patterns of procedure. Expansion and Diversification Under the CWA When the T E R A was designated as the New York State C W A , Washington-prescribed responsibilities called for a relatively large, and, technically, independent staff to "supervise, direct and control" the operations within the State. T h e T E R A and state C W A staffs tended to function, however loosely, as a single agency, although all C W A pay rolls, accounts, records and the like were maintained separately. At this time, the special federal programs for the relief of transients and for the distribution of surplus commodities among the needy added a division each to the T E R A staff. A nucleus of T E R A employees concerned with projects, accounting and general office work was transferred to the state C W A pay roll. Growth, particularly on the C W A side, was so rapid that a personnel study was undertaken in J a n u a r y , 1934, to learn more about the joint staff. T h e average number on the State C W A pay roll, between November 20, 1933, and March 29, 1934, was 367 and, on the latter date, the number was 751. 2 4 Some of these employees performed functions for the T E R A in exchange for services rendered to the C W A by personnel on the T E R A pay roll; office facilities were also shared. T h e T E R A "inner circle" of commission members, chief executives and T E R A counsel assumed, in addition, corresponding roles with reference to the C W A in New York State. At this time, two new positions: comptroller (occupied by J o h n A . Williams) and director of the Project Division (occupied by William H. Jones who was succeeded in February, 1934, by Aldrich Durant, Chief Engineer) were included within the inner circle. T h e basic policies and a large proportion of detailed procedures, however, were formulated in Washington under the C W A . T h e comptroller, who took charge of the state agency's accounting, auditing and financial operations, laid the foundations for the T E R A Finance Division of the post-CWA period. 2 5 Directors of the Project Division similarly fashioned the pattern of project approval and field super24. T E R A , Relief and Emergency Employment Table X, p. si. 25. See page 204 below.

in New York State, March, 1934,

The State Relief Agency

197

vision which was to have continuing effect. Virtually new, the latter Division became the center of "work relief" activity on the state level. In line with federal instructions, the state C W A staff also included a purchasing agent who headed the Purchasing Division and had charge of a large proportion of the purchases for C W A projects, a director of the Safety Division who guided the safety campaign on projects in the State, and a director of the Compensation Division (later known as the Disability Claims Division) who coordinated the handling of C W A accident cases and claims. T h e Transient and Surplus Commodity directors, added to the T E R A staff just as C W A operations got underway, headed major new units which were to be part of the greater executive staff of the Work Division period. T o w a r d s the close of C W A , an office management and personnel unit known as the Executive Division was created by placing a number of miscellaneous departments 2 6 under a director. While the bulk of State C W A employees was of the general office type (clerks, typists, stenographers and so forth), the new divisions added such specialists as a director of "women's projects," an airport adviser, statisticians, and personnel with training and experience in purchasing, accounting, auditing, engineering, safety work, and accident compensation; the last four types were also included among members of the field staff of the state C W A . T h e number of state districts was now reduced to 12 T E R A - C W A territorial units. T h e T E R A field representatives, whose number was correspondingly reduced, acted in the same capacity as before on T E R A matters and, in addition, served the state C W A on problems of a general administrative character. With the addition of the new professional-technical field agents, the role of the field representative became somewhat blurred, at least with respect to the "work r e l i e f " activities. T h e C W A program left the State T E R A - C W A staff at the peak of numerical strength but in a somewhat loosely organized condition. T h e chief problem under the Work Division was to make various internal adjustments to increase the degree of integration. Emergent Staff Organization On April 1, 1934, most of the personnel on the pay roll of the state C W A was transferred to the pay roll of the older state agency to form the greater T E R A staff of the W o r k Division period. T h i s greater staff numbered close to 1,000 persons, 27 approximately three-fourths of whom were *6. Personnel, Building Management, Stenographic, Mimeograph, Mailing, Messenger Service, and Telephone departments. 27. In addition, a number of clerical and other aides was employed on work relief

198

Work Relief

in New York State

concerned with the general (home and work) relief programs and onefourth with special federal (chiefly Transient and Surplus Commodity) programs; 2 8 also, about three-fourths were attached to the central office in N e w York City and the remainder comprised the field staff. 29 Aside from internal shifts, 30 the general character of staff personnel largely remained as qualified by the additions under the C W A . 3 1 It is estimated that approximately one-half of the total T E R A personnel was employed by the Finance, Project, and Purchase divisions. 32 T h e general nature of the many-sided movement towards staff integration may be suggested briefly. By regrouping and addition of activities, new divisions were created to give a total of 14, divided between an equal number of "program" and "operation" divisions (see Figure 1). Each g r o u p of divisions came under the supervision of an assistant executive director. T h e division of responsibility among the units of the staff became clearer as the more specific instructions to the local districts took the form of Departmental Letters and in the process of compiling the T E R A Manual of Procedure for Local Relief Administrations under the direction of the Division of Methods and Systems. T h e roles of the employees gradually attained more precise definition as the functions performed by each were reduced to writing. Intra-staff relations took on a decidedly formal character. 38 T h e march towards smoother functioning continued p r o j e c t s . O n S e p t e m b e r 1, 1935. o n e m o n t h a f t e r the W P A b e g a n to take over w o r k relief in N e w Y o r k State, t h e n u m b e r of T E R A e m p l o y e e s was 681, as c o m p a r e d w i t h 922 e m p l o y e e s as of July 1, 1935 ( T E R A Press Release, S e p t e m b e r 13, 1935). R e t e n tion by t h e T E R A , b e y o n d D e c e m b e r i , 1935, of c e r t a i n p e r s o n n e l p r i m a r i l y conc e r n e d w i t h w o r k relief was c o n n e c t e d w i t h the c o n t i n u a t i o n u n d e r T E R A supervision of local " a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o j e c t s " for direct relief (see D e p a r t m e n t a l L e t t e r , Project Series N o . 33, N o v e m b e r 22, 1935) a n d the necessity to c o m p l e t e the records of the W o r k Division program. 28. Based o n d i s t r i b u t i o n as of July 1, 1935, as r e p o r t e d in T E R A Press Release, S e p t e m b e r 13, 1935. 29. I b i d . 30. C o m p a r i s o n of T E R A central office t e l e p h o n e directories suggests p e r s o n n e l t u r n o v e r a n d s h i f t s in status. T h e directory of J u l y , 1934, listed 322 n a m e s of T E R A e m ployees, w h i l e t h a t of F e b r u a r y , 1935, listed 380. Of t h e 322 n a m e s , 256 also a p p e a r e d in t h e F e b r u a r y issue; d u r i n g t h e seven m o n t h i n t e r v a l , t h e c h a n g e s i n v o l v e d a t o t a l of 190 names. 31. O f 994 persons e m p l o y e d by t h e T E R A on M a r c h 20, 1935, the a n n u a l rate of c o m p e n s a t i o n for 12 was at $4,500 or a b o v e , w h i l e t h a t for 90 was u n d e r $1,000; t h e 892 e m p l o y e e s r e m a i n i n g were d i s t r i b u t e d a m o n g t h e a n n u a l salary classes shown in parenthesis, as follows: 13 ($4,ooo-$449g), 22 ($3.5°°-$3.999)> 1 8 ($3.°°°-$3 499). 84 ($2,5oo-$2,999), 131 ($2,ooo-$2^99), 263 ($1,500$ 1,999) and 3 6 ' ($i,ooo-$i,499). See T E R A Administration of Public Unemployment Relief in New York State: Its Scope, Accomplishments and Cost, April 1, 1934—March 31, 1935, A l b a n y : J. B . L y o n C o m p a n y , M a y ι , 1935, p. 14. 32. Since it n o t only supervised b u t also o p e r a t e d the greater p a r t of its state-wide p r o g r a m , t h e T r a n s i e n t D i v i s i o n was likewise a large e m p l o y e r of p e r s o n n e l . 33. I n t e r w o v e n , h o w e v e r , w e r e i n f o r m a l e l e m e n t s of various k i n d s ; f o r n u m e r o u s

The State Relief

Agency

!99

as a body of precedent accumulated and type procedures emerged for the handling of most problems. T h e volume of "rush jobs" declined perceptibly and each day's business became rather predictable. At least, a large part of the business relating to work relief became reduced to a set of routines. T h e reorganization of T E R A ' s field staff in November, 1934, was part of this integrative process. T h e number of state districts was further reduced to nine and a district director was placed in charge of the field staff in each area; the post of "field representative" was abolished. Under each district director were a district social worker, a district engineer, a district auditor, a district disability claims agent, a safety representative, and (eventually) a surplus commodity representative; 84 district engineers, district auditors and, in some instances, other divisional representatives had a corps of assistants. T h e aims of the reorganization are revealed in two paragraphs of a communication to local officials: 38 T h e Administration believes that this form of organization will greatly improve the coordination of its field staff and will be more satisfactory to local public officials in that it provides a definite head to the district staff to whom all questions relating to the work within the district may be directed. T h e District Director will be kept fully informed of the policies of the Administration at all times, and will be able to answer questions of policy and to make decisions in the field which formerly required direct correspondence or consultation with Divisional Heads in the New York office. T h e reorganization has been planned primarily to improve the service to local public officials. W e believe that the District Director, having available the services of staff members in the field who are fully acquainted with the work of the divisions whose special functions they represent, and, being himself directly in touch with the New York office, will be able to assist you in setüing immediately many questions which have heretofore required contact with the New York office.

U p to this time, there had been a considerable amount of shifting of field agents among the districts; 38 T E R A now pledged to "make every effort to maintain the permanent assignment of staff members to each district." On the eve of the reorganization, the post of district engineer, representing the Project Division, had risen to such prominence as to rival that of the field representative. Under the reorganization, six of the nine disclues

and

examples,

see

TERA

Publicity

Division's

monthly

News

Letter

"for

T E R A employees only." 34. T h e T E R A Transient Division also had a field staff for supervision and operation of its program; the State was divided into nine districts which were organized around treatment centers and had little relation to the nine T E R A districts. 35. Letter from A. H . Schoellkopf, November 14, 1934. 36. For details, see T E R A News Letter, May 31, 1935, p. 6.

200

Work Relief

in New York

State

trict directorships went to former field representatives 3 7

(with social serv-

ice background), while the remaining three, i n c l u d i n g that for the "special p r o b l e m " district of N e w York C i t y (page 195), w e n t to engineers. In general, the district directors had status on a par w i t h that of division directors (Figure 1). T h e process of integration had proceeded far by 1935. Nevertheless, the Governor's Commission reported as follows: 3 8 . . . T h i s staff is d i v i d e d i n t o f o u r t e e n m a i n divisions, m a n y of w h i c h a p p e a r t o h a v e b e e n set u p w i t h o u t m u c h t h o u g h t as to w h e t h e r they m i g h t n o t better b e i n c l u d e d in some existing u n i t of the o r g a n i z a t i o n . T h e result is a loosej o i n t e d structure w h i c h usually operates satisfactorily w i t h i n i n d i v i d u a l divisions, b u t f r e q u e n t l y fails to b r i n g the o r g a n i z a t i o n as a w h o l e i n t o play. Few staff m e e t i n g s h a v e b e e n held in recent years to i n s u r e co-ordinated action o n policies or procedures. . . . . . . [ T h e " p r o g r a m - o p e r a t i o n " ] basis of s e p a r a t i o n is a r b i t r a r y a n d illogical. U n d e r this organization plan, such diverse activities as the supervision of w o r k projects, p u b l i c i t y , social service functions, a n d rural activities are c o m b i n e d u n d e r the jurisdiction of o n e assistant e x e c u t i v e director. M o r e o v e r , the P r o j e c t Division is f o u n d u n d e r o n e assistant e x e c u t i v e d i r e c t o r w h i l e the Safety D i v i s i o n is u n d e r the other, t h o u g h the latter division s h o u l d b e a s u b o r d i n a t e d e p a r t m e n t of the f o r m e r . O n the o t h e r h a n d , the Disability C l a i m s D i v i s i o n is an i n d e p e n d e n t c o m p a r t m e n t o n the " p r o g r a m " side of the o r g a n i z a t i o n , a l t h o u g h it m o r e p r o p e r l y s h o u l d b e either a s u b o r d i n a t e fiscal " o p e r a t i o n " o r a p a r t of the c o m b i n e d p r o j e c t a n d safety u n i t . . . . T h e h e a d s of the divisions, m a n y of w h o m h a v e b e e n chosen for their technical q u a l i f i c a t i o n s a n d special e x p e r i e n c e , h a v e little o p p o r t u n i t y to deal directly w i t h the A d m i n i s t r a t i o n w h e n m a j o r p r o b l e m s or policies affecting their w o r k are resolved or f o r m u l a t e d by that b o d y . T h e central staff c o u l d m o r e logically be d i v i d e d i n t o the f o l l o w i n g n a t u r a l divisions: Social Service Activities, W o r k R e l i e f Activities, F i n a n c i a l a n d Fiscal C o n t r o l Activities, w i t h a f o u r t h m a j o r u n i t c o n t a i n i n g the g e n e r a l administrative services. T h e heads of these f u n c t i o n a l divisions, w h o s h o u l d be e x p e r i e n c e d specialists, w o u l d be the staff p l a n n i n g a n d e x e c u t i v e g r o u p . . . . T h e T E R A field staff has been d e v e l o p e d i n t o a n elaborate organization. . . . S o m e m e m b e r s of this g r o u p h a v e b e e n too i n e x p e r i e n c e d a n d too i n e p t to be effective. T h e r e has b e e n a t e n d e n c y to transfer m e m b e r s of the field staff too f r e q u e n t l y . T h e district director ( u n t i l N o v e m b e r , 1934, k n o w n as "field r e p r e s e n t a t i v e " ) is the key to all m a j o r relationships b e t w e e n the A d m i n i s t r a t i o n a n d t h e local district. . . . D u r i n g the past year the o r g a n i z a t i o n of the field staff has b e e n i m p r o v e d through the establishment of district offices w i t h a d i r e c t o r in charge of a staff representi n g t h e m a i n branches of the e m e r g e n c y relief p r o g r a m . W i t h this reorganization has come a clearer u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the relative responsibilities a n d powers of t h e field staff a n d the central office. O n the o t h e r h a n d , the field staff plays a less significant p a r t in p l a n n i n g a n d p o l i c y m a k i n g t h a n it d i d o r i g i n a l l y . 57. Or regional directors. 38. State and Local

Welfare

Organization,

op. cit., p p . 45-52.

The State Relief Agency

201

A t least some of the problems noted by the Governor's Commission had reached the level of discussion within the T E R A staff by mid-1935.

S T A T E A G E N C Y DIVISIONS A N D W O R K

RELIEF

With only feeble roots before, the Project Division emerged as the central "work relief" unit on the state level during the C W A period. Concentration in it of the functions of project approval, project inspection, and related activities assured the Project Division a position of importance to the end of the Work Division program. In order to locate somewhat more accurately the functional role of this central unit, it is first necessary to consider in what way the activities of the other divisions converged on work relief. The Converging

Functions

Aside from matters largely reserved for the Commission and the chief executives, most T E R A - C W A divisions contributed significantly towards the maintenance of New York State's system of work relief. T h e Social Service and Finance divisions or their predecessors were mainstays of the state agency from the very beginning. T h e Transient and Surplus Commodities divisions were chiefly related by virtue of their interest in relevant work relief projects. T h e Purchase, Safety, and Disability Claims divisions may be regarded as auxiliary units of the Project Division. Social Service Bias T h e control of the T E R A over work relief has been outlined as follows: 38 . . . the T F . R A promulgated rules applicable to the conduct of the work relief enterprise until the latter was supplanted by the W P A . . . . It also maintained a supervisory staff to assure conformity with those rules on the part of local authorities. . . . T h e control exercised by the T E R A over work relief [as of April 1, 1935] included (a) the approval of all proposed projects before they were undertaken, (b) the field inspection by engineers of both proposed and operating construction projects, (c) a partial control over local work bureau personnel, (d) the detailed control over the purchase of materials and equipment for work relief projects, and (e) other miscellaneous control exercised through reports, correspondence, and interviews.

It has been shown that formulation or adoption of work relief policies, including the apportionment of state and federal funds for work relief 39. Governor's Commission, Work Relief in the State of New York: A Review of Its Characteristics, Functioning, and Value, Albany: J. B. Lyon Company, 1936, pp. 16-17.

202

Work Relief

in New York

State

purposes, was largely a function of the T E R A - C W A Commission and the chief executives. In short, the work of each staff division was limited by the powers retained by the Commission. Prior to the C W A , the supervision of the T E R A was largely limited to the approval of projects and certain of the miscellaneous controls. T h e limited control was probably the result of such now familiar factors as the expectation of a short duration, inadequacy of funds, small staff, organizational immaturity and deference to local responsibility. Generally speaking, the Social Service units of the T E R A addressed themselves to problems surrounding the relief aspects of work relief. Most significant was T E R A ' s continuing emphasis upon these aspects: 40 I n general, it a p p e a r s that the T E R A has tended to emphasize the relief aspect of w o r k relief, r a t h e r t h a n p r o j e c t s a n d the d o i n g of w o r k . T h i s is reflected in the w o r k relief r e p o r t i n g system, in w h i c h all of the emphasis is o n the i n p u t elements of dollars a n d m a n - h o u r s of l a b o r a n d little or n o n e is u p o n the o u t p u t e l e m e n t of w o r k actually a c c o m p l i s h e d . T h e p r o j e c t division m a n a g e m e n t has sought greater e m p h a s i s u p o n p e r f o r m a n c e , b u t the d i r e c t i n g staff of the T E R A has held a c o n c e p t w h i c h attaches the g r e a t e r w e i g h t to the relief side of the enterprise, c o n t e n d i n g that such e m p h a s i s was necessary to c o u n t e r a c t the m a g n i f i e d i m p o r t a n c e w h i c h they feel is f r e q u e n t l y p l a c e d u p o n the construction or p u b l i c works side by l o c a l authorities.

Probably connected was the fact that the chief executives, the field representatives and other key personnel of the T E R A were of social service background. Behind the social service bias of the T E R A was the limitation of available funds. A n early report of the state agency expressed the hope that it should become increasingly possible to provide work relief for all applicants eligible for relief " w h o are able to work." 4 1 However, the funds were always insufficient to permit the attainment of such a goal. Even the C W A , which placed such emphasis upon the employment aspects, was eventually forced, as funds ran low, to resort to the concept of budgetary deficiency in the retention of workers on the projects. During the early history of the T E R A the field representatives were especially active in promoting work relief in the localities. T h e y advised on the organization of local units for work relief and discussed with local officials various proposed projects which, for a time, had to be recommended by these field agents before approval at the central office of the T E R A . 4 2 T h e work of the field representatives also helped local officials 40. Governor's Commission, State and Local Welfare Organization, op. cit., p. 48. 41. T E R A , Report of the New York State Temporary Emergency Relief Administration, op. cit., pp. 7-8. 42. D. S. Otis, Report on TERA Supeivision of Work Relief (typewritten), September 17, 1935.

The State Relief

Agency

203

to make the transition to the C W A and, then, to the Work Division. Under the latter program, social service members of the reorganized field staff began to take active interest in the white collar projects of the localities, foreshadowing the development of a similar interest in the Social Service Division at headquarters. 43 In addition, the district directors and the assistant executive director concerned with the "program" gave some attention to the setup of local administrative projects when the covering applications were submitted to the Project Division for approval. Three units which were closely identified with the Social Service group had special relation to work relief. T h a t on Medical Care advised in regard to the approval by the T E R A of various health projects. It played the leading role, for example, in developing bedside nursing projects particularly in the rural areas of New York State. T h i s unit also assisted the Division of Disability Claims to formulate regulations covering necessary medical services for persons injured on work relief projects. T h e Division of Information and Review, created in mid-1934, might be considered as a special social service unit of the T E R A since its inspectorial staff "concentrated on detailed check-ups of the actual procedures used in local districts to determine eligibility for relief." 4 4 Occasionally, this division inquired into labor relations, allegations of the theft of materials and other problems close to local work relief operations. A proportion of its investigations was regarded as "confidential." T h e Division of R u r a l Activities emerged out of the promotion of subsistence gardens by T E R A ' s agricultural adviser since 1932. 4 5 It issued instructions on the setting up of gardens and canning centers as work relief projects and was consulted by the Project Division in connection with the approval of such projects. 48 43. See T E R A News Letter, J u l y 15, 1935, p . 3. 44. G o v e r n o r ' s C o m m i s s i o n , State and Local Welfare Organization, o p . cit., p . 50. 45. For details, see: T E R A , Subsistence Gardens in New York State in 19)1, Albany: J . B. Lyon C o m p a n y , 1933, Report on Subsistence Gardens in New York State For 19)}, Albany: J . B. L y o n C o m p a n y , 1934, a n d Five Million People—One Billion Dollars, Albany a n d N e w York, J u n e 30, 1937, p p . 53-54. 46. A p l a n for t h e r e m o v a l of d e a d a n d i n f e r i o r f r u i t trees as work relief p r o j e c t s did not materialize; see: T E R A D e p a r t m e n t a l L e t t e r Project Series No. 2, J u l y 24, 1934, a n d No. 6, A u g u s t 17, 1934. Associated w i t h this division was t h e F E R A p r o g r a m of r u r a l r e h a b i l i t a t i o n . I n New York State, r u r a l r e h a b i l i t a t i o n got only a press release s t a r t by t h e fall of 1934; see: T E R A Press Release, S e p t e m b e r 29-30, 1934. I n 1935, t h e New York State R u r a l R e h a b i l i t a t i o n C o r p o r a t i o n was f o r m e d as p a r t of t h e T E R A u n d e r legislative c h a r t e r b u t aid to s u b - m a r g i n a l f a r m f a m i l i e s barely s t a r t e d w h e n , o n J u l y 1, 1935, t h e p r o g r a m was taken over by t h e Federal R e s e t t l e m e n t A d m i n i s t r a t i o n : see: T E R A , Public Unemployment Relief in New York State—Fourth Year, N e w York a n d A l b a n y , O c t o b e r '5- '935. PP· »9 a n d 32-33. A n i n t e r e s t i n g p r o j e c t s p o n s o r e d by t h e C o r p o r a t i o n was t h e " d e m o n s t r a t i o n in

204 The Finance

Work Relief in New York State Division

T h e Finance Division, originally known as the Accounting Department, was most closely identified with the T E R A goal of strictly accounting for the state and federal funds disbursed under the supervision of the state agency. Because of the central importance of money in relief, this division spread its tentacles in every conceivable direction. T h e financial statements or reports prepared for or by the other divisions of the state agency were based upon the records of the Finance Division or of the corresponding units of the local relief agencies. T o help the local units to meet the relevant requirements of the state relief agency, as well as to guard against possible irregularities, the Finance Division employed a staff of field auditors whose responsibility was to review continuously the accounting practices of the local agencies. From the very begnining, a key function of the Finance Division was to audit for compliance with the rules and regulations of the T E R A the home and work relief claims submitted by the local agencies to the T E R A for reimbursement. T h e work relief claims consisted of project pay rolls and, under the C W A and the W o r k Division, also covered the approved expenditures for project materials and equipment. Upon certification in the Finance Division, such claims were forwarded to representatives of the State comptroller whose office made another audit before final payment. T h e arrangements for payments from federal funds under the C W A differed somewhat from the foregoing; the auditing and accounting was a responsibility of the Finance Division, but the actual disbursement of the federal funds was under the supervision of the United States Veterans Administration. T h e project application as approved by the Project Division was the fundamental standard of reference surrounding the reimbursement of the claims for work relief. Under the Work Division program, for example, the Project Division insisted that the auditors of the Finance Division make certain that the occupational classifications listed on the pay rolls correspond with those approved in the project application. 47 Similarly the rates of pay shown on the pay rolls were to conform with the rates approved in the application or with the subsequently revised scheddevelopment" of T o m p k i n s County, the guiding idea being " t o replan one county completely . . to promote the beautification of farmsteads and countryside; to develop not only the land but the people on it," although " t h e immediate motive of the demonstration was to supply work relief . . ."; see: T h e T o m p k i n s County Development Association and T h e T e m p o r a r y Emergency Relief Administration, Toward A Better Life: A Demonstration in County Development, Tompkins County, New York, July, 1935. T h e director of the Division of R u r a l Activities was an officer of the Corporation. 47. T E R A Departmental Letter Accounting Series No. 29, May 10, 1935.

The State Relief Agency

205

ule of rates which was filed with the Project Division by the local W a g e Rate Committee. 48 Also, the claims for reimbursement covering materials and equipment costs were to be identical with the non-labor items specifically approved as reimburseable in the project application. 4 9 With the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars to be accounted for to the cent, the Finance Division had perhaps the hardest task of all of the state divisions. T h i s task was complicated no end by the restrictions surrounding the expenditure of the moneys from the various sources and by changes of policy. It is small wonder, then, that the T E R A constantly "experienced difficulty in the administration of its accounting system." 90 A step in the direction of cost accounting was taken beginning with the C W A when a project register for each project was installed on a statewide basis; a copy of these registers was maintained at the central office of the state agency by a department of the Finance Division. Modeled after information requested in the project application at the time of the approval of each project, the project register provided for the classification of actual expenditures according to the sources of the funds (or of the contributions) and according to: (a) wages and salaries, (b) teams, trucks and equipment, (c) materials and supplies, and (d) other (direct) costs T h e project register was the basic accounting record for each project operated under the C W A and, with slight revisions, under the Work Division. Its utility was diminished somewhat by the time lag involved before all the costs of a project could be classified accurately. T h e register was used for the preparation of various reports on individual projects and for the detection of expenditures in excess of the estimated costs approved by the Project Division for the project as a whole or for each class of expenditure. T h e management of the Project Division recognized that a state-wide system of cost accounting by the feature of work as well as by the project would be useful in the making of comparative studies of efficiency. For various reasons, including the costs that such a system would entail, nothing came of this recognition. Nevertheless, the project registers contain much data that, upon careful analysis, should prove extremely useful for the planning of work relief programs in the future. Miscellaneous

Divisions

T h e r e were a number of divisions on the staff of the state relief agency that had only an incidental relation to the programs of work relief. T h e 48. Ibid. 49. Ibid. 50. Governor's Commission, State and Local Welfare Organization, op. cit., p. 49.

2o6

Work Relief

in New York State

Office M a n a g e m e n t a n d Personnel Division was largely a general administrative service w h i c h c o n t r i b u t e d little to the work relief as such. T h e Publicity Division p e r f o r m e d the usual f u n c t i o n of public relations for the state agency; its press releases a n d reports were largely based u p o n important statements of policy a n d u p o n i n f o r m a t i o n secured from the other divisions about the relief effort in N e w Y o r k State. T h e Division of Research and Statistics issued, since its establishment in M a y , 1932, a m o n t h l y b u l l e t i n on relief statistics 5 1 and published various administrative studies particularly w i t h reference to social service activities; 5 2 towards the end of the W o r k D i v i s i o n period, its director was consulted by the Project D i v i s i o n in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h the a p p r o v a l of statistical a n d research projects. T h e Division of M e t h o d s and Systems sought, w i t h the aid of the T E R A divisions concerned, t o standardize the procedure surr o u n d i n g direct and w o r k relief; its m a g n u m o p u s was the T E R A Manual of Procedures for Local Relief Administrations w h i c h appeared shortly before the W P A absorbed the program of w o r k relief. T h e Surplus C o m m o d i t i e s Division, an agency of the Federal Surplus Relief C o r p o r a t i o n , was responsible for the distribution of surplus f o o d and other c o m m o d i t i e s a m o n g the welfare districts in N e w Y o r k State. Some of these materials were processed under w o r k relief projects a n d "distribution of . . . food a n d c l o t h i n g was t h r o u g h local authorities w h o organized 2,000 d i s t r i b u t i n g stations m a n n e d by persons employed on work relief . . . projects." 5 3 B y 1935, there was regular consultation between the Surplus C o m m o d i t i e s a n d Project divisions in regard to the approval of such projects. T h e T r a n s i e n t Division, a federal enterprise as to policy and financial support, both supervised a n d o p e r a t e d the p r o g r a m for needy persons without settlement in N e w Y o r k State. 8 4 T h e relation of the T r a n s i e n t Division to w o r k relief has been succintly stated: 5 5 During the early part of the program, shelter alterations and camp construction were carried on under the C W A according to plans prepared by the design department of the . . . Project Division. Later, these undertakings were accomplished largely with the assistance of the Project Division, through a special unit set up within it to meet the T r a n s i e n t Division's problems of construction 5«. Since July, 1934, this bulletin was called Monthly Bulletin on Public Relief Statistics. 52. See also Governor's Commission, State and Local Welfare Organization, op. cit., p. 50. 53. T E R A , Five Million People—One Billion Dollars, op. cit., p. 50; consult this source for details on the surplus commodity program. 54. For details, consult perhaps the outstanding study of the Governor's Commission: Public Relief for Transient and Non-Settled Persons in the State of New York, op. cit. 55. Ibid., p. 71.

The

State Relief

Agency

207

and design. Most of the improvements were carried on as local work relief projects, and were performed by local works division labor, except that the final stages of the work were frequently performed by transient labor.

T h e division also developed a work program for transients in camps and in city shelters; the Project Division facilitated selection of such projects in cooperation with the local work bureaus. The Purchase Division T h e procurement of materials, supplies and equipment for local projects was. entirely a local responsibility under the original program of work relief because only local funds were used in this connection. When federal funds became available for such non-labor costs in January, 1934, the Purchase Division was established as the buying center for the C W A projects in New York State. As has already been suggested (page 202), the federal C W A in Washington prescribed in considerable detail the purchasing and voucher procedure which was to be followed. In time, the state division took over the purchasing for the T E R A and for such special programs in New York State as those for relief to transients and for the distribution of surplus commodities. Meanwhile, the general role of the Purchase Division was changed somewhat. There was a return to decentralized purchasing for local projects under the Work Division. However, the T E R A adopted the policy of reimbursing on non-relief expenditures, within a specified quota of funds set by T E R A for each district (page 179), at the regular rate of 75 per cent. Accordingly, the Purchase Division, in cooperation with the Finance and Project divisions and representatives of the State Comptroller, formulated the purchasing and voucher procedure which was to be followed by the local units in order to obtain reimbursement. This procedure was partly modeled after that prescribed under the C W A . T h e general policies of the T E R A governing the purchases or rentals for work relief projects have been summarized in the T E R A Manual. Item 355 of the Manual reads, in part, as follows: After C W A , the F E R A made available funds which could be used for the reimbursement of approved material, tool and equipment costs. It is the policy of the T E R A to approve as reimbursable from the above funds, the purchase of actual construction materials of an economical type for use on approved projects. Final decision, however, is made on the basis of the merits and the character of the project and the situation. Generally, however, such items as permanent equipment, fixtures and furnishings are not reimbursable. Heavy equipment purchases are not reimbursable. Small tools and light equipment will only be reimbursed when the project division has reviewed and approved each request for such purchases. T h e rental of blasting equipment, including blasters, will be reimbursed when such rental has been approved by the T E R A .

2o8

Work Relief

in New York State

Reimbursable material and equipment items shall be included and marked as such in an approved project application . . . and shall be purchased in compliance with the requirements stated in . . . this M a n u a l . Claims for reimbursem e n t shall be prepared as stated in . . . this M a n u a l . Non-reimbursable material and equipment purchased by the work bureau shall be secured and accounted for according to the usual requirements of the local municipal corporation. T h e Project Division assumed the responsibility of designating in each p r o j e c t a p p l i c a t i o n w h i c h it a p p r o v e d t h e s p e c i f i c i t e m s t o b e p u r c h a s e d or rented that w o u l d be reimbursable. I t e m s 801-803 i n t h e T E R A Manual

c o n t a i n f u r t h e r r e l e v a n t passages:

. . . Reimbursement will be allowed at the agreed rate only when disbursements have been made on an out-of-pocket basis and when commodities have been purchased in full conformity with the procedure herein set forth. U n d e r n o circumstances will the T E R A reimburse for commodities and contractual services used in the administrative offices of work bureaus, or for any purpose other than direct use on specific projects previously formally approved by the Project Division of the T E R A . Such approval will be only to the extent of funds allocated to or available for such specific purpose. A l l purchases must be for particular projects, and normally essential to their needs. T h e use of the forms specified herein is prescribed if reimbursement on purchases is to be sought. . . . W h e n the purchasing agent of the T E R A can make purchases more advantageously, or when it is considered advisable for other reasons, local relief bureaus may submit requisitions for purchase. . . . T h e State Purchase Division will then make the purchase, instructing the vendor to mail the invoice to the local bureau, and payment must be made locally. . . . Claims for reimbursement shall be submitted in the usual manner. . . . A l l purchases made by the T E R A are subject to the same limitations as those made by local authorities. Purchases of materials for " 1 0 0 % reimbursable" projects must be made through the State Purchase Division. . . . In the absence of an organized city or county purchasing department, the relief bureau shall requisition through the State Purchase Division. . . . T h e " 1 0 0 p e r c e n t r e i m b u r s e a b l e " p r o j e c t s t o w h i c h t h e m a n d a t o r y prov i s o a t t a c h e d w e r e u s u a l l y t h o s e s p o n s o r e d b y state a n d f e d e r a l a g e n c i e s . I n o n e connection or another, a n u m b e r of local districts m a d e chases t h r o u g h the Purchase D i v i s i o n of the T E R A .

pur-

I n t h e s p r i n g of

1 9 3 5 , t h e p u r c h a s i n g f o r N e w Y o r k C i t y p r o j e c t s w a s a s s u m e d b y t h e state division.56 T h e requisitions for purchases or rentals passed f r o m the local b u r e a u s t h r o u g h t h e h a n d s of t h e T E R A

field

e n g i n e e r s w h o s e responsi-

b i l i t y it was to d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r the specified items w e r e necessary f o r t h e p r o s e c u t i o n of p a r t i c u l a r p r o j e c t s . W i t h t h e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s o f t h e field

engineer, these requisitions w e r e t h e n f o r w a r d e d to t h e P r o j e c t D i v i -

56. T h e arrangement with New York City came on the heels of testimony before the Aldermanic Investigation concerning "red tape" surrounding the purchases for projects.

The

State Relief

Agency

209

sion where officers concerned w i t h the a p p r o v a l of projects further checked the items ordered against the approved project application. U p o n approval in the P r o j e c t Division, the requisitions were sent to the Purchase Division for action. A f t e r the local unit h a d paid for the purchases or rentals, the relevant vouchers were submitted to the Finance D i v i s i o n in support of the claims for reimbursement. The Safety

Division

C h a r g e d w i t h the responsibility of p r o m o t i n g safe w o r k i n g conditions o n all projects in N e w Y o r k State, the Safety Division developed the prog r a m initiated u n d e r the C W A . 5 T Chief personnel of the division consisted of a director, t w o assistants, and (eventually) nine district supervisors of safety (Figure 1). T h e efforts of the Safety Division were implemented by a large force of persons e m p l o y e d by the local work relief agencies. T h e Governor's C o m m i s s i o n reported in 1935 as follows: 5 8 T h e p r o m o t i o n of w o r k e r safety is an activity w h i c h falls p r o p e r l y w i t h i n the scope of a p r o j e c t d i v i s i o n . T h e T E R A , h o w e v e r , m a i n t a i n s a Safety D i v i s i o n i n d e p e n d e n t of the P r o j e c t D i v i s i o n . T h e s e t w o units h a v e n o t co-operated f u l l y , a n d some lack of c o m m o n p u r p o s e has d e v e l o p e d a m o n g their field staffs. Because of the latter reason, a n d because of the necessarily close relation b e t w e e n the two activities, the i n d e p e n d e n t status of the safety division is u n f o r t u n a t e . T h e accident f r e q u e n c y rate o n w o r k relief u n d e r t a k i n g s has b e e n low, h o w e v e r .

A t t e m p t s by the m a n a g e m e n t of the Project Division to b r i n g the Safety Division under its supervision met with failure. W i t h those d e v e l o p e d under the C W A as points of departure, the regulations of the T E R A (pages 126-127) required each local work relief u n i t to employ a chief safety inspector and to have on each operating p r o j e c t persons responsible for m a i n t e n a n c e of safe w o r k i n g conditions a n d f o r administering first-aid in case of accidents. T h e local chief inspector reported to the executive director of the local work bureau but was certified as to his qualifications by the T E R A Safety Division. Moreover, the inspector came u n d e r the general supervision of the appropriate field agent of the state Safety Division. T h e local units were supposed to furnish project workers w i t h the necessary safety appliances a n d supplies. Delays in meeting this requirement prompted the T E R A to assume, b e g i n n i n g August, 1934, the cost of such materials at an outlay of approximately $2,600 per m o n t h d u r i n g 57. Exccpt as otherwise noted, this section is based upon typewritten reports of the T E R A Director of Safety (Robert L. Morrow). See also: W. O. Wheary, "Safety Policies on Federal Work Relief Programs," FERA Monthly Report, March, 1936, pp. 18-24. 58. State and Local Welfare Organization, op. cit., p. 48.

2 io

Work Relief

in New

York State

the period undisturbed by the W P A . T h e requisitions for these appliances and supplies were approved by the Safety Division. T h e major activities under the direction of the Safety Division were safety education, the inspection of projects, and the preparation of reports. There were periodic conferences and meetings of state and local safety personnel and there was the distribution of safety bulletins, codes, and posters, including original materials prepared by the Safety Division. Some of the posters were produced under a work relief project. As part of the education, local chapters of the American Red Cross trained approximately 7,000 project employees in New York State in first-aid work. T h e inspection of projects, including relief offices and the facilities of the transient and surplus commodity programs, was a major duty of the chief inspectors. T E R A ' s district supervisors of safety also inspected the projects as circumstances permitted or warranted. Copies of inspection reports filed by the chief inspector with the chief executive of the local work bureau were submitted to the T E R A Director of Safety and his appropriate field agent. These reports, together with weekly accident summaries and supporting details on lost time accidents and fatalities formed the basis for follow-up work on the safety measures recommended, for gauging the coverage of the local inspectors, and for discovering the needs of safety education. T h e T E R A district supervisors of safety sometimes had to negotiate with various local officials in order to secure the desired cooperation. However, these field agents seldom had to resort to their authority to remove workers from any project because of unsafe conditions of work. T h e safety program affected the welfare of hundreds of thousands of workers in New York State. Of 22,669 accidents reported under the C W A , about 12 per cent were classified as lost time accidents; there were 37 fatalities, of which nine were attributed to unsafe working conditions and 28 to "natural causes." 50 Lost time accidents decreased from 42.9 per million man-hours in January, to 40.5 in February and to 31.7 in March, 1934.ee Under the Work Division, 97,449 accidents were reported for the fifteen months ending June 30, 1935; 4.2 per cent of these were classed as lost time accidents. A total of 42 accidents resulted in death or permanent total disability. T h e lost time accident rate declined steadily from approximately 20 per million man-hours in April to 15 in August, 1934. Henceforth, the movement was uneven within the limits of 10 to 15 lost time accidents per million man-hours. 59. T E R A , Relief and Emergency Employment in New York State, March, 1934, p. 5. 60. Ibid.

The State Relief

Agency

211

The Disability Claims Division Both the T E R A and the F E R A required accident compensation coverage for project workers under the pre-CWA program. Except for state liability on projects sponsored by state agencies, compensation insurance was regarded as a local matter since under the Workmen's Compensation Law the city or county was liable for any injuries suffered by project employees in the event that no insurance was taken out. 61 In general, the pre-CWA arrangement was revived under the Work Division for the project workers with non-relief status.62 It is reported that insurance costs ran as high as 15 and 20 per cent of total pay rolls under the pre-CWA system, while actual compensation awards were below the level of subsistence.68 T h e Compensation Division, later known as the Disability Claims Division, was created to supervise operations in New York State under the compensation regulations of the C W A (page 120). T h e division was the channel of communication between the local districts and the U. S. Employees' Compensation Commission in Washington. 64 In cooperation with local agents, the Compensation Division sought proper care, investigation, certification, and reporting surrounding benefit cases. As might be expected, interest focused on lost time accidents; fatalities and cases of permanent (partial or total) disability required special attention. Most cases of temporary disability were cared for under local pay roll procedure during the first eighteen benefit-days, while all other payments were made by the federal Commission on the basis of claims filed through the state division. Apparently with the general approval of the FERA, the New York Legislature established a state system of accident compensation for relief workers under the Work Division (page 92); such workers were to be specifically excepted from provisions of the regular Compensation Law. 65 Those who suffered temporary disability received budgetary and medical needs under the usual home relief arrangements locally. In cases involving permanent (partial or total) disability or death, the director of the T E R A Disability Claims Division determined the amount and method 61. T E R A , Emergency Relief Laws, op. cit., 1932, pp. 95-97. 62. T E R A Official Bulletin No. 45, Item 201, A p r i l 28, 1934. 63. New York Times, April 4, 1934, p. 2 and T E R A News Letter,

April 27, 1934, pp.

6-7· 64. See T E R A - C W A Official Bulletin No. 18, Items 98-100 (27-29), January 16. 1934 and No. 23, Item 120(48), January 27, 1934; and New York State C W A Official Bulletin No. 2, Items 60-61, February 21, 1934, No. 7, Item 80, March 9, 1934, No. 8, Item 81, March 13, 1934 and No. 10, Item 88, March 24, 1934. 65. T E R A , Emergency Relief Laws, op. cit., 1934, p. 110. See also page 132 above.

212

Work Relief

in New

York State

of cash allowances up to the statutory limit of $3,500 per case. T h e furnishing of such relief or payment of such allowance absolved the public agencies from all further liability. T h e state division was particularly interested in cash allowances, although its nine district representatives (Figure 1) supervised the handling of all disability cases in accordance with the law and the requirements of the T E R A . e e Except that the state unit was now their terminus, the claims were handled much as under the CWA. T h e field agents of the T E R A checked all case investigations and reported to their central office all cases likely to come under consideration for cash allowances. T h e scale of compensation was based upon the New York Workmen's Compensation Law. It appears that a huge saving was effected under this self-insurance plan. On the state-wide relief pay roll of $159,061,805 for the fifteen months ending June 30, 1935, the normal compensation premium under the Workmen's Compensation Law would have come to $7,908,314. Under the self-insurance plan, the state comptroller estimated premium risk at $1,733,108 for the fifteen months, or at one-fifth (0.21915) of the normal premium rate. Because of good experience, it was possible to reduce the comptroller's estimate by 50 per cent and thus bring the disability fund down to the relatively small figure of $866,554. T h e actual cost of allowances granted (plus reserves) through June 30, 1935, was $501,055. The balance of $365,498 was considered so substantial that a surplus of at least $250,000 was expected. T h e cost of 42 cases of death or permanent total disability came to $117,050, for an average of $2,787 per case, while the cost of 662 permanent partial disability cases totalled $384,005, for an average of $580 per case. These figures do not include the cost of temporary disability cases handled under home relief arrangements. There was close cooperation between the Disability Claims and Safety divisions, while the Project Division supplied the pay roll data on the basis of which current contributions to the disability fund were made. It will be recalled that the Governor's Commission suggested either that the claims function be regarded as a subordinate fiscal operation or that the Claims Division be consolidated with the proposed Project-Safety division (page 200). The Project Division T h e Project Division was established as a major unit of the state organization under the semi-independent, semi-relief program of the CWA. 66. Except as otherwise noted, the remainder of this section is based upon typewritten reports of the T E R A Director of Disability Claims (Clarence M. Whipple). See

The State Relief Agency

21 g

T h e interest of this division was generally biased in favor of the employment aspects of work relief but its role was limited in many respects. T h e Project Division was charged with the responsibility of approving all work relief projects in New York State, of inspecting such projects and of p e r f o r m i n g certain miscellaneous functions. Organization of the Project

Division

T h e Project Division sprang from humble beginnings under the original program of work relief. In the outline of the administrative setup of the T E R A as of April, 1933, only three relevant posts were recognized: two special assistants concerned with the approval of projects and a field engineer (page 194). Mr. Robert Straus, an "executive assistant" of the T E R A , " h a d special charge of the work relief program" at the beginning. 6 7 In A p r i l , 1932, he was succeeded by Mr. James P. Lee, a promising young man with some business experience. In November, 1932, Mr. A r t h u r Myers, a young man with training and experience in engineering, j o i n e d the T E R A staff as "project field worker" but, in a short time, he was assisting Mr. Lee at the central office with the approval of the applications for projects. Together with a small clerical staff, including a Director of Project Records and Statistics, Messrs. Lee and Myers comprised the central office staff of what was then called the "Project Department." T h e field staff connected with this department eventually consisted of two engineers. A "counselling engineer" was appointed in J u l y , 1932; he was given an assistant in the spring of 1933. T h e engineers were consulted with regard to the larger and more complicated projects submitted to the T E R A f o r approval. T h e y also inspected the projects under operation as time permitted. As noted above, the main contacts with the local units were maintained through the T E R A field representatives at this time. W i t h this small office and field staff as a starting nucleus, the Project Division was established as the central unit of the New York State C W A . Mr. W i l l i a m H . Jones, an engineer from Buffalo, was named the director of the division in November, 1933, and Messrs. Lee and Myers became his assistants. Miss Inez Dane Ross was appointed Director of Women's Projects shortly thereafter. W i t h i n the next four months the staff of the Project Division was expanded to about 150 persons; subsequently about 25 clerks were added also William Aicher, "Workmen's Compensation on Work Relief Programs," FERA Monthly Report, July, 1935, pp. 1-16 and T E R A , Five Million People—One Billion Dollars, op. cit., pp. 43-44. 67. D. S. Otis, op. cit.; data on the pre-CWA organization of the Project Department are largely from this report.

214

Work Relief in New York State

under a work relief project. Approximately three-fifths of the 150 were personnel of the general office type; about 30 per cent were engineers and the remaining 10 per cent were "supervisors" or "specialists" of other types. T h e basic organizational plan of the Project Division was laid down d u r i n g the period of the C W A . Figure 2 shows the plan of organization of the Project Division as of April, 1935, when it had reached peak development; the changes were not particularly great since the C W A . Mr. Jones was succeeded in February, 1934, by Mr. Aldrich Durant, w h o was named Chief Engineer. U p o n the latter's departure in July, 1934, the directorship of the division was divided between Mr. Lee, w h o was designated director for upstate projects and office manager of the Project Division, and Mr. Robert W . Boyd, an engineer, w h o was named director for N e w York City projects. A t the time of the reorganization of the field staff in November, 1934, Mr. Lee became the director of the Project D i v i s i o n while Mr. Boyd became the district director for the New York City district. Henceforth, Mr. Myers was known as Associate Director of the Project Division and Chief Engineer with general supervision over the field engineers of the division, while Miss Ross was known as Associate Director concerned with the approval of white-collar, professional and women's projects. W h e n it became clear that Messrs. Jones, Lee and Myers and Miss Ross could not handle the approval of the great volume of project applications under the C W A , a number of special approval officers, most of whom were young engineers, was added to the staff of the division. Under the supervision of Associate Director Myers, one approval officer was mainly concerned with the review and analysis of the applications covering projects sponsored by state and federal agencies. Five or six approval officers were similarly occupied w i t h applications for manual projects sponsored by local agencies; the division of labor among them was upon a territorial basis, except that an adviser on aeronautical projects was concerned with the approval of airport projects. Miss Ross continued to approve white-collar projects with the assistance of one or two application analysts, while a special adviser was similarly concerned with educational and recreational projects. A special assistant was employed under the W o r k Division program for the maintenance of a current file of the wage and salary rates filed with the T E R A by the local Wage Rate Committees. In addition, he approved applications covering those C W A projects which were subsequently found to have been underestimated as to the costs. Apparently under pressure from Washington, a field staff of engineers was built u p under the C W A largely for the inspection of manual proj-

The State Relief

Agency

215 I

g 3 fr S

S-C Ζ oM en mm

so I

>

o Ë w

S S. (δ M a 614

ιCL. 2M H « a s E i ft O 3· < Ζ O

SÍ •3 « I ¿3i •S

o V a S

,3

111 s« s Ρ o Pi O

60 V .g E s. e η HS· Q

934 '935 (Bar Building, Mineóla, L. I., New York). 112. Ibid., 1934-1935. p p . 5-6.

266

Work Relief in Neu' York State

together w i t h all work incidental to the submission of the claims of the C o u n t y to the State for reimbursement." 1 1 3 T h e Works Division, headed by a chief, was divided into five departments: project estimates, inspection service, safety, accident compensation, and personnel. Its responsibilities have been described as follows: 1 1 4 T h e W o r k s Division was given jurisdiction over work relief projects. T h i s work involved cooperation with the county departments, the towns, the villages and the school districts in o b t a i n i n g the data u p o n which the decisions of the Bureau, the Board of Supervisors and the [ T E R A ] in a p p r o v i n g the projects were based. T h e Division was responsible for determining what projects were to be commenced, the starting dates and the n u m b e r of m e n to be assigned to them. T h e Division was further responsible for the inspection of projects as regards efficiency, progress, safety and time checking. . . .

T h e r e was n o special department for service projects but, among the staff members not attached to any of the three divisions, were supervisors for certain groups (adult education and recreation, traffic survey, housing survey, sewing rooms, surplus food distribution, etc.) of the "whitecollar" projects. T h e E R B merely supplied the relief labor for the projects under the supervision of the L I S P C which received direct grants from the state relief agency for materials and the cost of administration. Westchester County. T h e r e was an average of approximately 4,250 cases per month on work relief in Westchester County during the year ending October 31, 1933, and around 3,400 per month during the year ending June 30, 1935. Unlike that of Nassau County, the E W B of Westchester County adopted a centralized system of investigation, etc. for the 18 towns on the theory that it "would yield a greater uniformity of treatment to the individual applicants and promote greater efficiency in operations." 1 1 5 In the summer of 1933, the office organization i n c l u d e d : 1 1 ' 1. A n Executive office with Director, Assistant Director and two stenographers. 2. A Division of Registration and Investigation, under a Chief Investigator, with a D e p u t y and five District Investigators, registrars, interviewers, investigators, stenographers, file clerks, posting clerks, etc. 3. A Division of Classification and Placement, under a Placement Manager with two deputies, stenographers, file clerks, reception clerk, etc. 4. A Field Division under a Field Superintendent with a deputy, assistant paymasters, record clerks, stenographers, etc. . . . 5. A Finance Division under an Auditor, with bookkeepers, assistants, typists a n d clerks. 113. Ibid., p. 5. 114. Ibid. 115. Emergency Work Bureau of Westchester County, What Your Dollars Bought For You, White Plains, Ν. Y., November, 1933, p. 15. 116. Ibid.; also p. 14 (for organization chart).

Work

Relief

Work Relief: Local Districts

267

T h e administrative pay roll of 98 persons as of October 18, 1934, suggests that these remained the essential units under the post-CWA program, except that the Division of Registration and Investigation was transferred to the agency for home relief. T h e county E W B served the area outside of the cities in Westchester County, except for a brief interlude. When the E W B was named the C W A of Westchester County the city districts of Mount Vernon, New Rochelle and, after some delay, White Plains were brought under its jurisdiction. T h e consolidation was abandoned in the spring of 1934 and the county organization reverted to its original E W B status of serving the 18 towns only. In addition to the more or less usual ones (page 256), the report of the bureau listed such tasks as the following: 1 1 7 T o prevent county and town departments f r o m capitalizing the needs of the u n e m p l o y e d by using them at relief rates to p e r f o r m w o r k that should be done b y regular employees. T o see that the m a n w h o reported for work is the man w h o was assigned a n d n o t a substitute. . . . T o finance the entire operation b y securing the synchronized fiscal action of o n e state government, o n e county government, eighteen town governments, twenty-four village governments and a score or more boards of school, water a n d sanitary sewer districts. . . . T o conduct the whole operation without fear or favor, without politics of any k i n d and as justly as possible; and to meet daily h u n d r e d s of desperate persons to w h o m no relief can be given because the f u n d s are insufficient to care f o r all a p p r o v e d cases.

Such problems were undoubtedly also encountered in other districts. Rochester-Monroe County. Shortly after the enabling legislation was enacted in April, 1933 (page 88), one of the few Joint E W B s in New York State (page 240) was established in Monroe County. Henceforth work relief was administered on a county-wide basis, while separate home relief bureaus continued to serve the city of Rochester and the Monroe County welfare district (covering the 19 towns). T h e Joint RochesterMonroe E W B on the average provided work relief wages to approximately 6,500 cases per month during the year ending J u n e 30, 1935. T h e basic structure of the J E W B staff was laid down under the C W A , 1 1 8 when the employment on projects was at a peak. A t the head of the staff, which was divided into seven departments, was an executive director, who was aided by an assistant executive director. 1 1 7 . Ibid., pp. 11-12. 118. Consult: Organization Chart dated March 12, 1934; typewritten report to the T E R A dated October 6, 1934; and the classification and rates of pay administrative pay roll for the week ending October 18, 1934; and the schedule of rates of pay for administrative, executive and supervisory personnel approved on January 3, 1935.

268

Work Relief in New York State

A Chief Engineer was in charge of the department for construction projects. He was assisted by an engineer in charge of "night checkers" and of progress reports, a director of transportation, a supervisor of tools and equipment, a supervisor of materials and "plant rents," a project engineer with responsibility for the preparation of the estimates and plans for the "construction" projects, a supervisor of the division for the construction, alteration, repair and maintenance of public buildings (or other structures "above ground"), and supervisor of the division for work on highways, sewers, waterlines and other "heavy construction and repair." Under the two division heads were a number of "assistant construction superintendents" who had charge of project operations and issued orders to the project foremen. A t the beginning of the C W A program a separate department was organized for service projects. T h i s unit was under the supervision of a "superintendent" who was aided by an "assistant superintendent." Under the latter were "assistant supervisors" who maintained direct contact with the "foreman" of the "white-collar" projects. T h e Accounting and Disbursing Department was concerned with the usual functions of timekeeping, preparation and distribution of pay rolls, preparation of claims for reimbursement, and accounting. T h e statistical work and, apparently, the functions surrounding accident compensation were also located in this department. Other departments of the Rochester-Monroe staff were concerned with the purchasing of supplies, promotion of safe working conditions, publicity, and the assignment of workers to the various projects. T h e latter, known as the Personnel Department, had to work closely with the departments for "construction" and "white-collar" projects, the Public Employment Center, and the city and county home relief bureaus. Under a procedure worked out at the beginning of the Work Division program the Personnel Department handled requisitions for workers, reclassifications of employees, the layoff or transfer of workers, changes in the budgets of the relief personnel, and the removal of clients from relief pay rolls. A n interesting feature of the organization for work relief in Monroe County was the division of responsibility for different aspects of the work among the three members of the local commission. A t least under the C W A , one member was responsible for the financial aspects, another for staff headquarters, and the third for the various projects where work was underway. 119 Schenectady. Under the Works Division of the E R B in the city of 119. R o c h e s t e r Journal

(article b y J a m e s N e l s o n ) , D e c e m b e r 22, 1933.

Work Relief: Local Districts

269

Schenectady the monthly load averaged about 1,650 work relief cases during the year ending J u n e 30, 1935. Among the 50 persons on the administrative pay roll for work relief as of October 18, 1934, were an assistant director, three engineers, three draftsmen, an assignment clerk, a general foreman, a head night watchman, a chief safety inspector, and a firstaid man. T h e 50 administrative workers constituted in the neighborhood of a fourth of the total E R B staff. On the basis of a "flow chart" prepared by it in March, 1935, the operations of the Schenectady Works Division may be summarized as follows: I. T h e Project Department checks the estimates of quantities and the blueprints submitted (as a rule) by the City Engineer for the proposed project, prepares a project application and submits it to the T E R A for approval. 3. T h e Project Department prepares schedules for the supply of labor, materials and equipment to the project according to plan. 3. Upon receipt of the approved project application from the T E R A , the Project Department transmits the relevant information to the various units of the Works Division in order that they limit expenditures to the specific items as approved by the state agency and keep expenditures within the monthly allocations to the district. 4. T h e Order Section requisitions the necessary materials and equipment with due regard for the schedule of operation and the monthly allotment for such expenditures. 5. T h e Purchasing Agent makes out a purchase order (to the successful bidder) which is then certified by the Disbursing Officer as to the availability of funds. 6. T h e General Foreman determines the starting date for the project (in consultation with the Project Department), selects a superintendent and foremen, requisitions the necessary labor force, and gives general supervision to the work in progress. 7. After checking the requisition against the classifications of labor approved in the application, the Personnel Clerk assigns workers to the project under arrangements with the Home Relief Division of the E R B and the Public Employment Service. A list of the persons assigned is sent to both the Project and Pay Roll Departments. 8. The Timekeeper for the project sends daily time reports to the Pay Roll Department, receives daily reports from the Foreman on the number of persons employed on each operation, maintains a register of job and unit costs, and submits weekly progress reports to the Project Department. 9. The representative of the Material Supervisor checks the material delivered to (or taken from) the project. 10. The Equipment Supervisor orders in the equipment as it is needed and makes up the time sheets covering its use on the job. II. T h e Pay Roll Department goes over the time reports, makes certain that the sum approved for labor on the project will not be exceeded, prepares the pay roll and turns it over to the Paymaster for payment. Also, pay roll reports or analyses are transmitted to the Project Department, the Accounting Department, and the T E R A Project Division.

270

Work Relief

in New York

State

12. T h e Project Department checks the weekly progress report from the T i m e keeper and the weekly pay roll report from the Pay R o l l Department and compiles a monthly progress report which is submitted to the T E R A Project Division. 13. T h e A c c o u n t i n g Department maintains a register for the project covering the expenditures for labor, materials, equipment, and other costs. It prepares vendors' vouchers for payment which, in turn, g o to the Purchasing Agent, the City Comptroller, and the E R B Disbursing Officer. T h e A c c o u n t i n g Department also prepares the claims for reimbursement from the state T E R A . 14. W h e n the project is completed (or discontinued) the Project Department notifies all parties concerned in order to prevent any further charges against the project. A completion report, prepared jointly by the A c c o u n t i n g and Project departments, is submitted to the T E R A Project Division.

T h i s description emphasizes the controls established in order to meet the requirements of the state T E R A . Amsterdam. T h e work relief load in the city of Amsterdam averaged about 490 cases for the twelve monthly periods ending with June, 1935. T h e principal functionaries under the executive director of the E R B were a senior investigator, an auditor, an office manager, a purchasing agent, and a project engineer. 1 2 0 T h e senior investigator was in charge of the home relief unit which, in cooperation with the public employment service, supplied the personnel for the projects. T h e auditor was aided by an assistant disbursing officer w h o had supervision over the paymaster and E R B accounting, including timekeeping and preparation of pay rolls. One of the functions of the office manager was to act as a liaison officer between the auditor, paymaster, and purchasing agent. T h e staff of the project engineer included an architect, a field party, a safety inspector, an injury clerk, a field superintendent, and the foreman of projects. Troy. T h e city of T r o y had a monthly average of approximately 600 cases on work relief during the year ending June 30, 1935. Its E W B staff was departmentalized as follows: 1 2 1 1. A n executive director, assisted by an office manager and a secretary, headed the work performed by six departments. 2. Engineering Department: a chief engineer, two senior engineers, an assistant engineer, an estimator, a draftsman, and a stenographer. 3. Personnel Department: a personnel supervisor, and a clerk. 4. Safety Department: a safety inspector and an injury clerk. 5. Purchasing Department: a purchasing agent, a clerk, and a tool and materials supervisor. 120. See organization chart of the ERB as of the spring of 1935. l i t . Based on organization chart dated May 28, 1935.

Work Relief: Local Districts 6. Pay Roll Department: a paymaster, an assistant paymaster, a master timekeeper, a clerk, and two typists. 7. Accounting Department: an accountant. T h e r e was close cooperation between City and E W B officials in the planning and supervision of projects. 122 Frequently the original data were supplied by the City Engineer, while the Planning Section of the E W B Engineering Department made detailed estimates and prepared the applications which were submitted to the T E R A for approval. Project operations were supervised by the Field Section, consisting of one senior engineer and the assistant engineer, with technical assistance on street and sewer projects from city engineers. Broome County. T h e E W B of Broome County furnished work relief to a monthly average of somewhat over 450 cases during the year ending J u n e 30, 1935. Directly under the executive director of the E W B staff 1 2 3 was a chief engineer, a personnel clerk, a purchasing agent-injury clerk, and an accountant. T h e personnel clerk was responsible for "reception," and "assignment" (of workers to projects). T h e "purchasing agent," aided by a stenographer, not only procured the materials, etc. but also handled cases of accident compensation. T h e accountant, assisted by the secretary to the executive director and by the three stenographer-typists, was responsible for statistics, pay rolls, bookkeeping and disbursing; two members of the E W B commission acted as certifying officers. Aided by two assistants and two construction superintendents, the chief engineer was responsible for new projects, "layout" work, and job-cost data. T h e two superintendents, assisted by a timekeeper-paymaster, were responsible for the supervision of operations, safety program, approval of materials etc., checking time, and paying; their work involved contact with some thirty foremen or project supervisors and ten highway superintendents and village engineers. Wayne County. T h e r e were 306 cases on work relief during October, 1934, in Wayne County. On its administrative pay roll for the week ending October 18, 1934, the E W B employed an executive director, two accountants, two stenographers, a bookkeeper, three engineers, two supervisory foremen, and a safety engineer. T h e responsibilities of the supervisory foremen and of engineers have been described in some detail by the executive director. 124 T h e county was divided into an "eastern" and a "western" district, 122. Based on field report on T E R A District No. 6 for May-June, 1935. 123. See organization chart of the E W B prepared in the spring of 1935. 124. Letter from H. B . Rogers to F. I. Daniels, October 8, 1934.

272

Work Relief in New York State

with a supervising foreman assigned to each. A s a representative of the executive director each supervising foreman was expected to contact all projects in his district at least once a week and to render a report on each inspection, to convey the director's instructions or advice to project supervisors and to county, town or village officials, and to report to the director any irregularities (or other matters requiring special consideration) encountered. Under the immediate supervision of the executive director one of the three engineers was in charge of the Engineering Department. It was the responsibility of this department to draw the plans and determine the construction specifications for projects, to prepare the project applications for submission to the T E R A , to make "engineering inspections, to requisition all materials, equipment, etc. required for the projects, and to maintain job cost records." Small-scale Staffs. Of 100 upstate work bureaus or divisions, 42 employed less than ten persons on their respective administrative pay rolls for the week ending October 18, 1934 (page 263). O f the 42, a total of 19 county and 10 city agencies retained the E W B form of organization, while seven county and six city agencies eventually adopted the E R B plan (page 239). T h e 42 agencies employed a total of 267 administrative workers on the above-named pay rolls. Thirty-six of the 42 agencies employed a "director" each, 29 employed a total of 44 stenographers or secretaries, 26 employed a "safety inspector" each, 23 employed a total of 31 accountants, 18 employed a total of 27 "clerks," 14 employed a total of 19 typists, 10 employed a total of 12 "engineers," and nine employed an "injury clerk" each. 1 2 5 T h e 63 remaining workers appeared in decreasing frequencies among other already familiar classifications. L i k e many of the large ones, the small agencies did not require a ipecial department for the administration of service projects since the few such projects were generally turned over to the sponsoring agencies for supervision, with the work relief bureau simply acting as timekeeper and paymaster. 125. These classifications are somewhat broader than the actual pay roll titles.

CHAPTER

Vili

Work Relief in the Local Districts (Continued)

T H E DIFFERENTIAL U S E OF W O R K RELIEF

reflected in the numbers aided and in relief expenditures, the relief problem in New York State tended to follow the distribution of the 1930 population among the local welfare districts (page 236). T h e analysis which follows simply seeks to give some notion of the variation among the districts in the use of work relief. In order to bring the C W A program within the scope of this analysis, it is necessary to employ the C W A arrangement of 97 local districts1 instead of the original 115 statutory districts. T h e data on numbers aided and on expenditures supplement each other and those for the C W A period are only roughly comparable with those for the pre- and post-CWA periods. Numbers Aided Through Work Relief In the analysis of the numbers aided through work relief in the 97 local districts, both monthly case loads and weekly employment have been used. T h e former, consisting of the total number of families or unattached individuals given assistance during any part of the month, have been averaged for the pre-CWA year ending October 31, 1933, and for the post-CWA year ending June 30, 1935; such monthly averages have been computed both for work relief cases and for the unduplicated total of home and work relief cases. T h e numbers on the weekly C W A pay rolls, including employees on "clerical and administrative" projects, 2 have been averaged for the period extending from November 20, 1933, 1. T h e following cities were consolidated with their respective counties: Albany, Cohoes, and Watervliet; Cortland; Beacon, and Poughkeepsie; Lackawanna, and, for the present purpose, Tonawanda; Batavia; Little Falls; Rochester; Glen Cove, and Long Beach; Syracuse; Mount Vernon, New Rochelle, and White Plains; and Sherrill. Under the C W A the Long Island State Park Commission and the Palisades Interstate Park Commission operated as separate districts, the former largely in Nassau and Suffolk counties and the latter largely in Orange and Rockland counties. s. For the present purpose, the weekly average of employment on "labor" projects and that of employment on "clerical and administrative" projects have been added to give the total average weekly employment for each of the 97 local C W A districts.

Work Relief in New York

274

State

through March 29, 1934. T h e average weekly number of workers employed on all C W A pay rolls is only roughly comparable with the average monthly number of cases on work relief because of the different bases of the data.

Average Numbers

Aided

T h e average number aided through work relief in N e w York City was 65,919 cases per month during the p r e - C W A year, 128,198 employees per week under the C W A , and 107,730 cases per month during the post-CWA

TABLE

X

DISTRIBUTION O F L O C A L C W A DISTRICTS IN N E W YORK STATE B Y AVERAGE M O N T H L Y N U M B E R OF W O R K R E L I E F CASES AND AVERAGE W E E K L Y CWA

E M P L O Y M E N T , SPECIFIED PERIODS

Number Average

Number

10,000 or more 5,000-9,999 2,000-4,999 1,500-1,999 1,000-1,499

Pre-CWA (Cases') 1 4 5 3 4

of Districts CWA Post-CWA (Workers") (Cases') 3 5 4 3 16

900800700600500-

999 899 799 699 599

1 5 1 6 2

5 4 6 8 12

400300200100Under

499 399 299 199 100

5 9 14 24 13"

12 9 9 1

Total

97"

2 4 5 1 3 1 —

3 8 10

—

10 13 18 12 7f

97'

97'

•Monthly average, year ending October 31, 1933. ' Weekly average, November 20, 1933-March 29, 1934; includes workers on "clerical and administrative" projects. • Monthly average, year ending June 30, 1935. 4 Includes Oswego and Yates counties with no work relief program. • A weekly average of 15,454 workers was employed by special administrations not included here. ' Includes Oswego County with no work relief program. Source: Based on data from TERA, Relief Activities of City and County Welfare Districts . . ., 1934, Table 3, pp. 86-93; and TERA Monthly Bulletin On Public Relief Statistics, Vol. Ill, No. 3, March, 1934, through Vol. IV, No. 6, June, 1935.

Work Relief:

Local Districts (Cont.)

275

year. In the same order, the averages for the remainder of New York State were 80,899 cases, 131,627 CWA workers,3 and 86,594 cases. T h e 97 local C W A districts are classified according to the average numbers aided in Table X . When the averages for the 97 districts are ranked from highest to lowest by periods, the average at the center of the distribution is 270 cases (Cattaraugus Co.) for pre-CWA, 654 workers (Ithaca) for CWA, and 367 cases (Lewis Co.) for post-CWA. In the same sequence of periods, the middle half of the districts fall between4 averages of 129 and 698 cases per month, 433 and 1,106 workers per week, and 232 and 627 cases per month. T h e highest average number aided through work relief was reached under the CWA in practically every local district. The post-CWA average exceeded that for the pre-CWA period in most districts, with the reverse true for about half of the city districts5 and approximately a fifth of the county districts.6 Averages Per 10,000

Population

T h e preceding averages simply indicate the volume of aid through work relief in the local districts during the three periods. Other things being equal, one would expect the numbers aided to follow the population of the districts (page 236). When allowances are made for population, it is clear that the "other things" were not equal. Table X I classifies the 97 districts according to the average numbers aided through work relief per 10,000 of the 1930 population. T h e rate for New York City was 95.1 cases per month per 10,000 population for the pre-CWA year, 185.0 workers per week for the CWA period, and 155.4 cases per month for the post CWA year. The corresponding rates for upstate New York were 143.0 cases, 232.7 CWA workers,7 and 153.3 cases. When the rates are ranked from highest to lowest by periods, the one at the center of the array is 86.9 cases per month (Oneonta) for pre-CWA, 214.5 workers per week (Lewis Co.) for CWA, and 124.5 c a s e s per month (Dutchess Co.) for post-CWA. The middle half of the rates ranged be3. Excluding a weekly average of 15454 workers employed under "special administrations" but drawn largely from the counties of Nassau, Suffolk, Orange and Rockland. 4. Lower and upper quartiles. 5. Utica, Schenectady, Binghamton, Troy, Auburn, Newburgh, Amsterdam, Watertown, Kingston, Lockport, Oswego, Olean, Middletown, Dunkirk, Hornell, Corning, Fulton, Hudson, Port Jervis, Salamanca, Norwich, and Mechanicville. 6. CWA County districts of Monroe, Westchester, Onondaga, Nassau, Suffolk, Orange, Ontario, Franklin, Rensselaer, Essex, Schenectady, Chenango, and Schuyler. 7. Excluding those undistributed among the 97 districts; see Table X I , footnote f.

376

Work Relief in New York State 8

tween 49.8 and 184.5 cases for the first period, 168.8 and 277.1 workers for the second, and 92.1 and 167.3 for the third. W h i l e still far from negligible, the range of variation was markedly reduced by the time of the post-CWA period. Eight districts® averaged

TABLE

XI

DISTRIBUTION O F L O C A L C W A DISTRICTS IN N E W YORK S T A T E B Y AVERAGE NUMBER AIDED T H R O U G H W O R K R E L I E F P E R

10,000

INHABITANTS,'

SPECIFIED PERIODS

Average Number Per 10,000 400.0 or more 375.0-399.9 350.0-374.9 325.0-349.9 300.0-324.9

Pre-CWA ( Cases") 2

Number of Districts CWA Post-CWA (Workers') (Cases") — 7

2

3 1 2 6

275.0-299.9 250.0-274.9 225.0-249.9 200.0-224.9

2 3 1 5

5 9 11 10

2 3 6 2

175.0-199.9 150.0-174.9 125.0-149.9 100.0-124.9

8 7 4 5

17 11 10 3

7 13 13 16

2 t

20 7 2 4'

97

97«

75.050.025.0Under Total

99.9 74.9 49.9 25.0

1 3 —

18 12 15 9' 97*

— —

1 1 —

• Population as of 1930. 6 Monthly average, year ending October 31, 1933. c Weekly average, November 20, 1933-March 29, 1934; includes workers on "clerical and administrative" projects. 4 Monthly average, year ending June 30, 1935. • Includes Oswego and Yates counties with no work relief program. ' A weekly average of 12.3 workers per 10,000 of the State population undistributed by local districts. • Includes Oswego County with no work relief program. Source: Based on data from TERA, Relief Activities of City and County Welfare Districts . . . , 1934, Table 3, pp. 86-93; and TERA Monthly Bulletin On Public Relief Statistics, Vol. Ill, No. 3, March, 1934, through Vol. IV, No. 6, June, 1935. 8. Lower and upper quartiles. 9. Onondaga County and city districts of Fulton, Oswego, Port Jervis, Lockport, Mechanicville, Hudson, and Ringston.

Work Relief: Local Districts (Cont.)

277

300 or more cases on work relief per month per 10,000 inhabitants during the pre-CWA year, while only two districts10 reached this level during the post-CWA year. At the other extreme, about a quarter of the districts 11 had pre-CWA rates under 50 cases, whereas only six districts12 fell below this level under the Work Divison. The CWA rates represented a general rise over the preceding program; seven districts13 averaged 400 or more workers per week per 10,000 inhabitants, but only five districts14 averaged less than 125 workers. Proportion

of Cases Receiving

Work

Relief

The preceding rates do not simply reflect the differential need among the 97 districts, for there was also wide variation in the proportion of (unduplicated) total home and work relief cases who received work relief. On the average 40.3 per cent of average monthly total cases were given work relief in New York City during the pre-CWA year and 33.a per cent during the post-CWA year. The respective proportions for the remainder of the State were 48.5 and 41.4 per cent. The distribution of the local districts according to such percentages is given in Table X I I . When the proportions are ranked in descending order by periods, the one at the center of the pre-CWA distribution is 48.4 per cent (Cortland Co.) and the post-CWA median is 45.2 per cent (St. Lawrence Co.). The middle half of the pre-CWA array falls between 37.6 and 65.5 per cent and the interquartile range for the post-CWA year is from 36.7 to 51.2 per cent. Table X I I shows clearly that the range of variations was reduced considerably between the two periods. Further analysis of these data reveals that approximately two-thirds of the local districts extended work relief to a smaller proportion of the total cases during the post-CWA year than during the pre-CWA year. Only eleven county districts and eight city districts15 had more than half of their total cases (on the average) on the work relief rolls during both 10. Hamilton County and Port Jervis. 11. County districts of Genesee, Niagara, Lewis, Clinton, Oneida, Greene, Rensselaer, Madison, Broome, Tioga, Washington, Warren, Rockland, Chautauqua, Wayne, Orleans, Delaware, Sullivan, and (non-participating) Yates and Oswego; and city districts of Plattsburg, Oneida, Elmira, and Johnstown. ι». County districts of Oneida, Rensselaer, Yates, and (non-participating) Oswego; and city districts of Binghamton and Norwich. 13. County districts of Hamilton, and Schenectady; and city districts of Fulton, Oswego, Mechanicville, Salamanca, and Port Jervis. 14. County districts of Sullivan, Suffolk (excluding workers under Long Island State Park Commission), and Tioga; and city districts of Yonkers, and Elmira. 15. County districts of Lewis, Montgomery, Tompkins, Otsego, Ulster, Columbia, Suffolk, Nassau, Hamilton, Orange, and Schoharie; and city districts of Corning, Olean, Lockport, Ithaca, Port Jervis, Ogdensburg, Oneonta, and Fulton.

Work Relief in New York State

278

periods. In many districts the number of cases on work relief was larger for the second period than for the first, but the proportion of those on work relief was smaller due to an even greater increase in the cases on home relief. TABLE DISTRIBUTION OF LOCAL C W A

XII

D I S T R I C T S IN N E W Y O R K S T A T E

PERCENTAGE OF AVERAGE M O N T H L Y T O T A L R E L I E F RECEIVING W O R K

Per Cent 90.0-94.9 85.0-89.9 80.0-84.9 75.0-79.9 70.0-74.9

RELIEF,·

SPECIFIED

PERIODS

Number of Districts PrePostCWA CWAb — 1 —

—

5 4 9

— —

3

65.0-69.9 60.0-64.9 55.0-59.9 50.0-54.9 45.0-49.9

6 3 9 7 10

3 2 6 14 21

40.0-44.9 35.0-39.9 30.0-34.9 25.0-29.9 20.0-24.9

15 6 6 2 4

14 15 7 5 3

15.0-19.9 10.0-14.9 5.0- 9.9 Under 5.0

3 4

Total

BY

CASES

—

— —

3"

4«

97"

97'

• T h e average monthly number of work relief cases divided by the average monthly (unduplicated) total of home and work relief cases. "Year ending October 31, 1933. • Year ending June 30, 1935. " Includes Oswego and Yates counties with no work relief program. • Includes Oswego County with no work relief program. Source: Based on data from T E R A , Relief Activities of City and County Welfare Districts . . . , 1934, T a b l e 3, pp. 86-93; and T E R A Monthly Bulletin On Public Relief Statistics, Vol. I l l , No. 7, July, 1934, through Vol. IV, No. 6, June, 1935.

Proportion

Also Receiving

Home

Relief

A certain proportion of a district's monthly load of work relief cases also appeared on the monthly home relief rolls. T h i s was due to the fact

Work Relief: Local Districts (Cont.)

279

that m a n y of the w o r k relief cases received h o m e relief concurrently because their earnings were considered i n a d e q u a t e or the cases were shifted f r o m o n e f o r m of relief to the o t h e r d u r i n g the m o n t h . 1 6 Some estimate is therefore necessary o f the a m o u n t o f this " d u p l i c a t i o n . "

TABLE

XIII

DISTRIBUTION O F L O C A L C W A DISTRICTS IN N E W YORK STATE B Y PERCENTAGE O F AVERAGE M O N T H L Y W O R K R E L I E F CASES ALSO RECEIVING H O M E R E L I E F , * SPECIFIED PERIODS

Per

Cent

85.0-89.9 80.0-84.9 75.0-79.9 70.0-74.9 65.0-69.9

Number PreCWA"

of

Districts PostCWA 1

—

1 1

— —

3

1 4

60.0-64.9 55.0-59.9 50.0-54.9 45.0-49.9 40.0-44.9

3 1 5 10 7

2 5 12 12 11

35.0-39.9 30.0-34.9 25.0-29.9 20.0-24.9 15.0-19.9

6 10 6 13 9

6 7 6 11 9

10.0-14.9 5.0- 9.9 Under 5.0 Total

—

8 4 10"

3 2 5*

97 d

97*

• The average monthly duplicated total of (home and work) relief cases minus the average monthly unduplicated total divided by the average monthly number of work relief cases. "Year ending October 31, 1933. • Year ending June 30, 1935. ' Includes Oswego and Yates counties with no work relief program. • Includes Oswego County with no work relief program. Source: Based on data from TERA, Relief Activities of City and County Welfare Districts . . . , 1934, Table 3, pp. 86-93; and TERA Monthly Bulletin On Public Relief Statistics, Vol. Ill, No. 7, July, 1934, through Vol. IV, No. 6, June, 1935. 16. For a somewhat detailed study of this problem, see TERA, "Comparative Study of Home Relief and Work Relief in Nine Districts," Research Bulletin, December, >934· especially Table I, p. i6.

28ο

Work Relief in New York State

The proportion of the average monthly number of work relief cases who also received home relief averaged 3.0 per cent for the pre-CWA year in New York City and 6.6 per cent for the post-CWA year. The respective proportions for upstate New York were 32.1 and 39.5 per cent. The low percentages for New York City may be explained largely in terms of the transfer of cases from home relief to work relief or vice versa during the course of each month. On the other hand, the upstate districts used "supplementation" extensively. In Table X I I I the 97 districts are distributed according to the average proportion of average monthly work relief cases who also appeared on the home relief rolls. The pre-CWA median is 28.2 per cent (Wyoming Co.) and the post-CWA median is 37.6 per cent (Mechanicville). The middle half of the districts fall between 16.7 and 44.8 per cent in the array for the pre-CWA year and between 23.5 and 50.8 per cent in that for the post-CWA year. Forty-four districts during the first period and 30 during the second averaged less than 25 per cent of the work relief cases on home relief, while 14 districts during the first and 25 during the second averaged more than 50 per cent. It appears that some of the upstate districts used work relief as a means of providing home relief clients with some cash for rent and other necessities. It is also possible that supplementation of work relief wages through home relief, however small, facilitated the periodic reinvestigation of work relief clients. Expenditures

For Wages and Salaries

While clouded somewhat by different standards of relief, an analysis of expenditures for "wages and salaries" throws further light on the differential use of work relief by the 97 local districts. For purposes of this analysis the pre- and post-CWA time spans have been extended to cover all but a small proportion of the outlays for wages through June 30, 1935. The basic data used in this connection may be summarized briefly. Of approximately $339,155,000 expended in New York State, $100,113,000 was for work relief wages during the pre-CWA period of two years, ending October 31, 1933, $78,430,000 was for all CWA earnings (including wages and salaries of those employed on administrative and clerical projects) from November 20, 1933, through March 29, 1934, and $160,612,000 was for work relief wages during the first fifteen months of the post-CWA (or Work Division) period, ending June 30, 1935. The combined expenditures (or obligations) for direct (largely home) relief and work relief wages amounted to $190,252,000 during the pre-CWA period of

Work Relief: Local Districts (Cont.)

281

two years and to $335,101,000 during the post-CWA period of fifteen months. T h e ensuing analysis concerns the distribution of these expenditures among the gy districts. T h e indexes of the differential use of work relief should be regarded as only rough approximations. Different Standards of Aid Whatever other factors influenced it, the distribution of work relief wages was affected by the amounts which relief workers were permitted to earn (page 250) and by local policies with regard to the supplementation of work relief wages through home relief grants (page 278). T h e examples which follow indicate the nature of these differences among districts. For the month of July, 1934, the average work relief wage per case was $55.08 in New York City and $48.09 for the upstate districts. 17 During the same period the relief grant in nine upstate districts averaged $50.81 for families receiving work relief only and $52.77 for families receiving both home and work relief. 1 8 For the months of September, October, and November, 1934, the average work relief wages per week for a family of four persons amounted to $10.30 in Oswego, $11.11 in Auburn, $11.12 in Corning, $11.94 i n Syracuse, $12.04 i n Binghamton, $15.30 in Buffalo, and $15.38 in Port Jervis. 19 In the same order, these average wages were, on the average, supplemented by weekly home relief grants of $0.85, $1.00, $1.07, $0.99, $1.54, $0.58, and $0.13. 20 It is quite probable that the range of variation would be much greater if county districts were included in this survey. T h e proportion of total relief expenditures going for work relief wages was affected not only by the variations just noted but also by differences between average home and work relief grants. Whereas during the lastnamed period a family of four was granted $1.00 in home relief, the work relief wages (including supplementation) for a four-member family averaged $0.99 in Oswego, $1.17 in Auburn, $1.19 in Corning, $1.31 in Syracuse, $1.39 in Port Jervis, $1.51 in Binghamton, and $1.51 in Buffalo." T h e average earnings per week per worker also varied widely during the C W A period. For example, they were between $10 and $11 for one 17. T E R A Monthly Bulletin On Public Relief Statistics, Vol. Ill, No. 7, July, 1934, Table VI, p. 19. 18. For further details, see T E R A , "Comparative Study of Home Relief and Work Relief in Nine Districts," op. cit., pp. 15-24. 19. Governor's Commission, Work Relief in the State of New York, Albany: J. B. Lyon Co., 1936, Table III, pp. 49-50 and, for further details, pp. 43-60. so. Ibid. si. Ibid., Table IV, p. 52.

282

Work Relief in New York State

g r o u p of districts 2 2 a n d b e t w e e n $15 a n d $16 for a n o t h e r g r o u p districts.

of

28

Expenditures

Per

Inhabitant

T h e e x p e n d i t u r e s per i n h a b i t a n t i n N e w York City were $7.57 for w o r k relief wages d u r i n g the p r e - C W A p e r i o d of t w o years, $5.69 for C W A w a g e s a n d salaries ( i n c l u d i n g e a r n i n g s of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p e r s o n n e l ) d u r i n g the n i n e t e e n weeks of the federal p r o g r a m , a n d $ 1 4 . 1 3 for work relief w a g e s d u r i n g the first fifteen m o n t h s of t h e W o r k D i v i s i o n program. T h e per c a p i t a outlays for u p s t a t e N e w York w e r e $8.43 for p r e - C W A TABLE

XIV

DISTRIBUTION O F L O C A L C W A DISTRICTS IN N E W YORK S T A T E B Y W O R K

RELIEF

W A G E S AND C W A EARNINGS P E R INHABITANT,* SPECIFIED PERIODS

Expenditures Per Inhabitant $27.50-29.99 25.00-27.49 22.50-24.99 20.00-22.49 17.50-19.99 15.00-17.49 12.50-14.99 10.00-12.49 7.505.002.50Under Total

9.99 7.49 4.99 2.50

Number of CWA PreCWA CWA (Earnings') (Wages") 2

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

Districts PostCWA (Wages') —

1 —

1

2 3 7 10

3 1 1 4

5 7 11 6

9 11 22 31'

12 25 47 4

15 24 23 4·

97*

97'

97«

* Population as of 1930. "November 1, 1931-October 31, 1933. ' November 20, 1933-March 29, 1934; includes earnings on administrative projects. "April 1, 1934-June 30, 1935. e Includes Oswego and Yates counties with no work relief wages. 'Earnings not distributed by districts are omitted; these amounted to $0.39 per inhabitant in the State. * Includes Oswego County with no work relief wages. Source: Based on data from TERA, Relief Activities of City and County Welfare Districts . . . , 1934, Table 2, pp. 80-83; and TERA Monthly Bulletin On Public Relief Statistics, Vol. Ill, No. 3, March, 1934, through Vol. IV, No. 6, June, 1935. 22. Counties of Ulster, Sullivan, Greene, Schuyler, Schoharie, and Oswego. «3. Cities of Yonkers, Ogdensburg, Binghamton, Newburgh, Hornell, Rome, and Rensselaer, and Westchester County.

Work Relief: Local Districts (Cont.)

283

wages, $6.03 for CWA earnings (excluding the amount undistributed by local districts), and $11.07 f ° r wages under the Work Division. The 97 local CWA districts are classified according to the per capita rates in Table XIV. When the 97 rates for each period are ranked the one at the center is $4.47 (St. Lawrence Co.) for pre-CWA, $4.87 (Wyoming Co.) for CWA, and $7.19 (Washington Co.) for post-CWA. In the same order of periods, the middle half of the ranked rates fall between24 $2.12 and $9.98, $3.70 and $7.34, and $4.86 and $12.52. Table XIV shows that the distribution for CWA was somewhat less heterogeneous than those for the first and third periods. No comparisons should be attempted between Tables X I and XIV because of the different standards of relief (page 281) and because of the different periods of time covered. Proportion For Work Relief

Wages

The proportion of combined expenditures for direct (largely home) relief and work relief wages devoted to the latter purpose in New York City was 53.7 per cent during the two years of the pre-CWA program and 45.1 per cent during the fifteen months of the Work Division program. The respective proportions for upstate New York were 51.4 and 53.3 per cent. The distribution of the 97 local districts according to these percentages is summarized in Table XV. When the percentages are ranked from highest to lowest, the median for the pre-CWA period is 51.6 per cent (Saratoga Springs) and that for the post-CWA period is 55.8 per cent (Fulton Co.). In the array for the first period the middle half of the districts fall between (lower and upper quartiles) 39.2 and 62.6 per cent and in that for the Work Division period the middle half falls between 49.4 and 64.8 per cent. No direct comparisons can be made between Tables X I I and XV because of the different periods of time involved and because of undetermined differences in standards of relief. Index of the Use of Work Relief

On the basis of the data summarized in Tables XIV and XV, an attempt has been made to secure a rough index of the relative use of work relief for each of the 97 local CWA districts, as well as, for the upstate districts combined and for the State as a whole. For each of the five sets of data, the district (or combination of districts) having the highest wages per inhabitant or the highest percentage of total outlays devoted to work relief wages was assigned rank No. 1 and the district (or combina24. Lower and upper quartiles.

284

Work Relief in New York State TABLE

XV

DISTRIBUTION OF LOCAL C W A DISTRICTS IN N E W YORK STATE B Y PERCENTAGE OF T O T A L R E L I E F OUTLAYS* EXPENDED FOR W O R K R E L I E F WAGES, SPECIFIED PERIODS

Per Cent 85.0-89.9 80.0-84.9 75.0-79.9 70.0-74.9 65.0-69.9

Number of Districts PrePostCWA" CWA — 2 6 1 3 2 4 8 5 11

60.0-64.9 55.0-59.9 50.0-54.9 45.0-49.9 40.0-44.9

11 11 10 14 8

15 14 20 9 4

35.0-39.9 30.0-34.9 25.0-29.9 20.0-24.9 15.0-19.9

2 9 4 4

3 3 2

10.0-14.9 5.0- 9.9 Under 5.0 Total

—

— —

2 3"

1 1 2·

97"

97·

—

* Combined expenditures (or obligations) for direct (largely home) relief and work relief wages. "November 1, 1931-October 31, 1933. «April 1, 1934-June 30, 1935. 4 Includes Oswego and Yates counties with no work relief wages. * Includes Oswego County with no work relief wages. Source: Based on data from T E R A , Relief Activities of City and County Welfare Districts . . . , 1934, Table 2, pp. 80-83; and T E R A Monthly Bulletin On Public Relief Statistics, Vol. I l l , No. 3, March, 1934, through Vol. IV, No. 6, June, 1935.

tion) having the lowest rate or percentage was assigned rank No. 99. T h e five ranks for each district (or combination) were then averaged to give an index of the relative use of work relief. T h e results are presented in Table XVI. T h e average ranks should not be taken too seriously but they do show which districts were prominent in the use of work relief and which ones were not. T h e wide scatter of indexes, ranging from 5.0 for the city of Port Jervis to 98.4 for the County of Oswego, suggests that the districts

Work

Relief:

Local Districts TABLE

(Cont.)

285

XVI

W O R K R E L I E F R A N K OF L O C A L C W A DISTRICTS IN N E W Y O R K S T A T E N O V E M B E R 1 , 1 9 3 1 , THROUGH J U N E 3 0 ,

Average Rank District

5.0 Port Jervis 9.8 Hudson

Average Rank District

Average Rank District

40.2 Tompkins Co. 41.4 Newburgh

61.6 Cattaraugus Co. 62.4 Washington Co. 63.8 Wyoming Co.

42.0

10.4 12.0 12.2 14.4

Ogdensburg Fulton Oswego Ithaca

16.6 18.2 18.2 18.4 19.6

Nassau Co.*b Kingston Schenectady Hamilton Co. North Tonawanda

21.8 Hornell 23.2 Olean 26.2 27.0 29.0 29.8

Niagara Falls Onondaga Co.* Mechanicville Orange Co."

30.0 30.8 30.8 31.2 31.4 31.8 31.8 33.4 34.8

Oneonta Erie Co.* Essex Co. Westchester Co.* Dunkirk Auburn Saratoga Springs Schenectady Co. Albany Co.*

35.4 35.4 35.6 35.8 36.0 37.6 38.2

Coming Rome Yonkers Suffolk Co." Rockland Co." Columbia Co. Watertown

1935

Upstate

Districts

42.4 Monroe Co.* 43.0 Lockport 44.0 Glens Falls

442

New York State

45.0 45.6 46.0 46.2 46.8 47.6 48.4 49.4 49.8

Amsterdam Utica Rensselaer Middletown Salamanca Buffalo Schoharie Co. Putnam Co. Cayuga Co.

50.6 51.8 52.0 52.0 53.4 53.8

Saratoga Co. Norwich Chenango Co. Steuben Co. Montgomery Co. Ulster Co.

55.0 55.2 55.4 55.6 55.8 56.0 56.8 57.2 58.4 58.4

St. Lawrence Co. Lewis Co. Dutchess Co.* Plattsburg Niagara Co. Herkimer Co.* Franklin Co. Cortland Co.* Binghamton Orleans Co.

44.8 New York City

60.6 Chemung Co. 60.6 Gloversville

65.8 66.2 66.2 69.0 69.4 69.6 69.8

Genesee Co.* Fulton Co. Jamestown Johnstown Troy Clinton Co. Oneida

70.4 71.4 73.0 73.4 73.6 74.2

Otsego Co. Oneida Co. Madison Co. Rensselaer Co. Broome Co. Chautauqua Co.

75.0 75.2 75.4 76.6 78.0 78.2 78.4

Ontario Co. Seneca Co. Livingston Co. Jefferson Co. Sullivan Co. Warren Co. Allegany Co.

80.4 81.0 82.2 84.0

Schuyler Co. Elmira Delaware Co. Wayne Co.

85.8 Greene Co. 91.8 Tioga Co. 92.6 Yates Co.' 98.4 Oswego Co.4

• Includes one or more cities. Average rank is lowered somewhat by undistributed CWA earnings; see Table XIV, footnote /. * Participated in the CWA and post-CWA programs only. 4 Participated in the CWA program only. Source: Based on data summarized in Tables XIV and XV. b

286

Work Relief in New York State

tended to follow a consistent course in their relative use of work relief throughout the three programs as reflected by the five measures averaged here. If the reverse were true, there would be a more pronounced clustering of average ranks around 49-50. In Table X V I the index for Schenectady County (33.4) ranks 25th, that for Cayuga County (49.8) is at the center of the distribution, and that for the city of Johnstown (69.0) holds 75th place. City districts predominate in the upper half of the distribution, while county districts are concentrated in the lower half. Most of the county districts which rank above Cayuga County either include one or more cities or are suburban districts. Of the thirty-nine city districts, only nine rank below the county of Cayuga. T h e index for upstate New York (42.0) ranks 36th in the array, that for New York State as a whole (44.2) ranks 40th, and that for New York City (44.8) ranks 41st. T h e ninety-nine districts (or combinations) may now be grouped into a number of classes on the basis of the indexes. For example, one can roughly distinguish districts with high (5.0-29.8), moderately high (30.044.8), intermediate (45.0-53.8), moderately low (55.0-69.8), and low (70.498.4) average ranks in the use of work relief.

T H E W O R K UNDERTAKEN OR ACCOMPLISHED

Relatively little is known on a state-wide basis about the work undertaken or accomplished on work relief projects prior to the Work Division period, beginning April 1, 1934. Under the post-CWA program the Project Division of the T E R A made an analysis of the weekly (relief and non-relief) pay rolls according to a detailed classification of fields of activity. These analyses (page 232) give some idea of the distribution of work relief effort. In addition, the Project Division compiled information on accomplishments under Work Division projects. The Distribution

of Effort

Pre-CWA Program Some notion of the distribution of effort under the pre-CWA program of two years is gained from reports submitted by the local bureaus to the T E R A . Of approximately 23,000,000 "man-days" of work reported, 26 per cent was on parks and playgrounds, etc., 20 per cent on roads, streets, highways, etc., 15 per cent on "clerical and professional" projects (including administrative assistance), 14 per cent on "general public improvements," 12 per cent on sanitation and water supply systems, 8 per cent on

Work

Relief:

Local

Districts

(Cont.)

287

buildings and other "utilities and structures," and the remaining 5 per cent on other activities. 25 N o direct comparisons can be made between the distributions of effort for the pre- and post-CWA programs because of changes in the system of classification. N o similar analyses were made for the C W A program. Work Division

Program

T h e distribution of work relief activity in the state of New York according to minor fields of activity on the basis of wages and man-hours, combining relief and non-relief payrolls but excluding administrative projects, during the year ending August 1, 1935, is shown in T a b l e X V I I . In terms of man-hours over half (54.6 per cent) of the work consisted of five types of activity: work in parks, etc. (Br), improvement of roads (Bb), repair of buildings (Bd), clerical assistance, etc. (Fd), and construction of sewers, etc. (Bg). In descending order of quantitative importance the next ten types (Ba, Fb, Aa, Bm, etc.) accounted for somewhat over a fourth (28.8 per cent) of the work. It is clear that projects of the public works type ("work on public property" or " B projects") covered about 70 per cent of the man-hours; it is roughly estimated that this proportion would be reduced to about 53 per cent if the number of manhours worked under administrative projects had been included. T h e distribution of wages among the minor fields of activity follows closely that of man-hours in T a b l e X V I I . T h e differences between the two sets of data are the result of variations in prevailing wage rates for the classes of personnel employed among the fields of activity. T h e percentages given in T a b l e X V I I are for New York State as a whole and thus hide the wide variations between districts in the distribution of effort. Some light is thrown on this problem in the next section, although for a somewhat limited period. Distribution

of Man-hours Within

Districts

Of the 19,408,000 man-hours worked in New York State during the four pay roll weeks in March, 1935 (page 254), 55.8 per cent was expended under projects for maintenance, repairs or construction on public property (B projects), including 12.3 per cent for work on roads, streets, highways, etc. (Ba and Bb projects), 17.2 per cent for administration (for both direct and work relief), 13.8 per cent for public recreation, arts, and research, 6.0 per cent for the production and distribution of commodities needed by the unemployed, 3.5 per cent for public welfare, health, and »5· Special report prepared for the T E R A Project Division by its Department of Research (page 233 above); it is estimated that about 1,500,000 of the £3,000,000 man-days covers work on 13a projects under the C W A .

288

Work Relief in New York State TABLE

XVII

PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF R E L I E F AND N O N - R E L I E F W A G E S AND MAN-HOURS IN N E W YORK S T A T E B Y MINOR FIELDS OF A C T I V I T Y , EXCLUDING ADMINISTRATIVE PROJECTS, AUGUST S, 1 9 3 4 THROUGH AUGUST 1 ,

Code

Minor Field of Activity Field

Br Bb Bd Fd Bg

Landscaping, grading, work in parks, etc. Repair or maintenance of roads, streets, etc. Repair or maintenance of public buildings Records and clerical work, investigators, etc. New construction of sewers, drainage, etc.

Ba Fb Aa Bm Bk

1935

Per Cent* Wages Hours 21.3 10.1 11.4 7.1 6.0

20.5 11.5 8.5 7.3 6.8

New construction of roads, streets, etc. Research and special surveys Planning projects New construction of recreational facilities Repair or maintenance of waterworks, etc.

4.2 4.7 4.1 2.8 2.4

5.8 4.2 3.3 3.0 2.8

Fa Bj Db Ed Be

Education-nursery, adult, nutrition, etc. New construction of waterworks, reservoirs, etc. Production or distribution of food Public recreation, instruction, etc. New construction of public buildings

3.5 1.8 1.6 2.0 1.9

2.6 2.0 1.9 1.6 1.6

Da Bq Bu Ea Eb

Production or distribution of clothing Repair or maintenance of waterways Eradication and control of pests Nursing, medical, dental, etc. Nutritional-child feeding, etc.

1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.9

1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.2

Dc Fg Fc Bn Ff

Production or distribution of fuel Libraries and museums Music Repair or maintenance of recreational facilities Dramatic activities

0.9 0.9 1.1 0.8 0.8

1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7

Dd Cd Bh

Garden products, etc. Demolition of houses Repair or maintenance of sewers, drainage, etc.

0.2 0.6 0.4

0.7 0.6 0.5

96.3 3.7

96.3 3.7

100.0

100.0

Sub-total All other minor fields of activity Grand Total

* The total wages amounted to $124,266,696.95 and the total man-hours amounted to 201,788,520. Source: Governor's Commission, Work Relief in the State of New York, Albany: J. B. Lyon Co., 1936. Table II, pp. 33-34.

Work Relief: Local Districts (Cont.)

289

recreation, 2.7 per cent for planning, 0.7 per cent for the provision of housing, 0.3 per cent for the care of tools and equipment. Under the arrangements in March, 1935, New York City and 100 upstate districts participated in work relief, while three upstate districts did not participate. 28 Projects concerned with public property, housing, and care of tools and equipment comprised the "construction or manual" phase of the work relief program. On the other hand, projects for administration, planning, distribution, education, welfare, etc. provided the bulk of the employment for women, white-collar workers, and professional persons. Administrative and Planning Projects. In New York City 20.5 per cent of the total man-hours in March, 1935, was devoted to administration (for both direct and work relief). Of the 100 upstate districts, only nine 27 exceeded the proportion of New York City, while at the other extreme ten districts 28 used less than four per cent of their respective man-hours for administration. W h e n the 100 percentages are arranged from highest to lowest, 13.6 per cent (Dutchess Co.) ranks 25th, 9.9 per cent (Franklin Co.) ranks 50th, and 5.5 per cent (Essex Co.) ranks 75th. During March, 1935, a total of 39 districts operated planning projects which frequently supplemented those for the administration of work relief. Of the respective total man-hours, 3.5 per cent went for planning in New York City and between 3.0 and 5.5 per cent in eight upstate districts.29 T h e proportions were between 2.1 and 2.6 per cent in six districts,80 between 1.1 and 1.8 per cent in eleven districts,81 and under one per cent in thirteen districts.82 Projects of the Public Works Type. More than half of the man-hours in March, 1935, went for work on public property (B projects) in all but. s6. T h e city of Norwich and the counties of Oswego and Yates did not participate. T h e data for this section are from T E R A Monthly Bulletin on Public Relief Statistics, Vol. IV, No. 3, March, 1935, Table XIII, pp. 22-24. 27. County districts of Schenectady, Columbia, Erie, and Rensselaer, and city districts of Jamestown, Amsterdam, Binghamton, Schenectady, and White Plains. s8. Counties of Steuben, Wayne, Ulster, Orleans, Lewis, Genesee, St. Lawrence, Allegany, and Saratoga, and the city of Ogdensburg. 29. Counties of Orange, Suffolk, Monroe, Nassau, and Erie, and cities of Rensselaer, Auburn, and Port Jervis. 30. Counties of Tompkins, and Montgomery, and cities of Olean, Binghamton, Oneonta, and Salamanca. 31. Counties of Steuben, Chemung, Broome, Putnam, and Westchester, and cities of Niagara Falls, Utica, Ithaca, Dunkirk, No. Tonawanda, and Corning. 32. Counties of Onondaga, St. Lawrence, Allegany, Cortland, and Seneca, and cities of Fulton, Yonkers, New Rochelle, Buffalo, Mt. Vernon, Elmira, Newburgh, and Schcnectady.

ago

Work Relief in New York State

thirteen 33 of the local districts; New York City, Mt. Vernon, and White Plains were barely over the mark with 50.6 per cent each. A t the other extreme, ninety or more per cent of the man-hours was devoted to work of this nature in eleven county (and no city) districts.34 When the percentages for upstate New York are arranged in descending order of magnitude, 84.5 per cent (Johnstown) ranks 25th, 70.7 per cent (Hornell) 50th, 58.9 (Jamestown) 75th. Characteristically, the larger proportions were for the county rather than the city districts. In many of the county districts work relief was largely a program of road (Ba and Bb) work. Between one-half and three-fourths of the manhours was devoted to the maintenance, repair or construction of roads, highways, etc. in seventeen counties 35 (and no cities), and between 75 and 91 per cent in eight others. 36 On the other hand, fifteen districts 37 had no employment on roads, streets, etc. in March, 1935, while fourteen districts38 registered proportions below the 7.3 per cent for New York City. A n important part of the work on public property (B projects, see T a b l e XVII) in New York City consisted of the improvement of parks (Br activity), repair of public buildings (Bd), and construction of recreational facilities (Bm). These also constituted quantitatively important classes of work in upstate cities, together with the construction of sewers, drainage, etc. (Bg). Park work was also important in county districts including parts of the state system of parks; this was particularly true for Nassau and Suffolk counties. Closely allied to work on public property were projects concerned with housing (including demolition of tenements, etc.) and the care of tools and equipment. In March, 1935, housing projects were prosecuted only in New York City and five upstate districts 39 and accounted for one per cent or less of their man-hours except in Port Jervis (8.4) and Corning (9.5). Projects for the care of tools, etc. were operated in New York City and 33. Counties of Chenango (none), Rensselaer (none), Orleans, Schuyler, Erie, Monroe, and Wayne, and cities of Oneida, Amsterdam, Binghamton, Schenectady, Fulton, and Mechanicville. 34. Otsego, Cattaraugus, Delaware, Ontario, Essex, Warren, Ulster, Sullivan, Hamilton, Lewis, and Allegany. 35. Essex, Allegany, Greene, Niagara, Fulton, Cayuga, Cattaraugus, Schoharie, Chemung, Cortland, Saratoga, Madison, St. Lawrence, Orange, Hamilton, Jefferson, and Washington. 36. Putnam, Steuben, Sullivan, Otsego, Lewis, Tioga, Delaware, and Ulster. 37. Counties of Chenango, Orleans, and Rensselaer, and cities of Olean, Salamanca, Dunkirk, Buffalo, White Plains, Johnstown, Oneida, Schenectady, Fulton, Oneonta, Rensselaer, and Saratoga Springs. 38. Counties of Monroe, Suffolk, and Erie, and cities of Auburn, Little Falls, Mechanicville, Poughkeepsie, Rome, Mt. Vernon, Elmira, Jamestown, Kingston, Hudson, and Middletown. 3g. Monroe County and cities of Buffalo, Port Jervis, Corning, and Hornell.

Work Relief: Local Districts (Cont.)

291

forty upstate districts at this time but the proportion of the corresponding man-hours was generally less than one per cent, and two or more per cent in only six districts. 40 Projects of the Public

Service Type.

Projects for public education, arts

and research (Fa, F b etc.; see T a b l e X V I I ) absorbed 15.8 per cent of the man-hours in N e w York City during March, 1935, and somewhat larger proportions in twelve upstate districts. 41 T h i s type of activity was most prevalent in the urban districts; less than three per cent of the man-hours went for this work in somewhat over half of the county districts, including the six 4 2 with no operations in this field in March. T h e proportions were between three and five per cent in thirteen districts, 43 between five and ten per cent in twenty-six districts, 44 and between ten and fifteen per cent in seven districts. 45 Only 4.4 per cent of the total man-hours was used under projects for the production or distribution of commodities needed by the unemployed in N e w York City. More than twenty per cent of their respective total manhours was used for this purpose in eleven districts, 46 between fifteen and twenty per cent in nine districts, 47 between ten and fifteen per cent in twelve districts, 48 between five and ten per cent in twenty-three districts, 49 and five per cent or less in the remaining districts. 90 40. Counties of Suffolk, and Putnam, and cities of Ogdensburg, Mechanicville, Rensselaer, and Schenectady. 41. Counties of Rockland, Erie, Chenango, and Rensselaer, and cities of Utica, White Plains, Amsterdam, Schenectady, Little Falls, Binghamton, Oneida, and Mt. Vernon. 42. Cayuga, Hamilton, Livingston, Seneca, Sullivan, and Tioga. 43. Counties of Clinton, Columbia, Schenectady, and Onondaga, and cities of Hudson, Corning, Plattsburg, Ogdensburg, Fulton, Watertown, Salamanca, No. Tonawanda, and Saratoga Springs. 44. Counties of Chemung, Albany, Fulton, Putnam, Nassau, Chautauqua, Wyoming, Cortland, Herkimer, and Oneida, and cities of Middletown, Mechanicville, Auburn, Jamestown, Port Jervis, Hornell, New Rochelle, Poughkeepsie, Niagara Falls, Elmira, Troy, Dunkirk, Kingston, Beacon, Ithaca, and Yonkers. 45. Counties of Tompkins, Westchester, and Monroe, and cities of Rome, Rensselaer, Buffalo, and Lockport. 46. Counties of Tompkins, Monroe, Fulton, Oneida, Franklin, Orleans, Wayne, and Schuyler, and cities of Troy, Gloversville, and Fulton. 47. Counties of Livingston, Genesee, Wyoming, and Herkimer, and cities of Plattsburg, Utica, Amsterdam, Poughkeepsie, and Mechanicville. 48. Counties of Erie, and Chenango, and cities of Rensselaer, Rome, Jamestown, Binghamton, Elmira, Port Jervis, Middletown, Newburgh, Schenectady, and Lockport. 4g. Counties of Chautauqua, Cayuga, Chemung, Nassau, Columbia, Albany, Saratoga, Suffolk, Onondaga, Washington, Niagara, and Dutchess, and cities of Kingston, Niagara Falls, Buffalo, Hornell, Ogdensburg, Dunkirk, Watertown, Auburn, Corning, Beacon, and Mt. Vernon. 50. The cities of Johnstown, Little Falls and Oneonta, and the counties of Allegany, Hamilton, Lewis, Madison, Otsego, Rensselaer, Schoharie, Sullivan, and Tioga had no projects for production or distribution in operation in March, 1935.

292

Work Relief in New York State

A m o n g the major classes of "white-collar" projects those for public welfare, health and recreation generally claimed the smallest share of the total man-hours in March, 1935. T h e proportion in New York City was 4.2 per cent. Upstate, more than ten per cent of the man-hours was devoted to this field of activity in only three districts, 51 between five and ten per cent in fourteen districts, 52 and less than five per cent in the remainder. W i t h i n the latter group were twenty-one districts 53 with less than one per cent of their man-hours devoted to this work and seven districts 54 with no activity in this field in March. Accomplishments

Under the Work

Division

During the summer of 1935 data were compiled in the Project Division of the T E R A on the specific nature of the work conducted or accomplished under work relief projects from April, 1934 through June, 1935. Partially complete reports were obtained on quantities of work performed during this period from the Works Division in New York City and from upstate districts. For projects of the public works type in the upstate districts, estimates of accomplishments were prepared on the basis of the descriptions of the work as approved on the project applications and the latest available reports on per cent of the work completed. Because of the nature of some of the projects of the service type barely more than brief descriptions of the work were possible. T h e ensuing summary is based upon the data compiled in the Project Division. 55 Accomplishments

of the Public

Works

Type

T a b l e X V I I I shows the major accomplishments under the projects of the public works type during the Work Division period. It is estimated that 1,170 miles of roads, streets and highways were constructed (or reconstructed) and 2,304 miles were improved or repaired; approximately half of the mileage in each case pertains to gravel roads in upstate districts. Related work involved the construction of 153 miles of sidewalks, 109 miles of paths and trails, 81 miles of curbs and gutters, 47 miles of 51. Counties of Rensselaer, and Chenango, and the city of Utica. 52. Counties of Onondaga, Niagara, Schuyler, Dutchess, and Oneida, and cities of Amsterdam, Hornell, No. Tonawanda, Little Falls, Binghamton, Mechanicville, Elmira, Salamanca, and Fulton. 53. Counties of Herkimer, St. Lawrence, Ulster, Chemung, Essex, Orleans, Putnam, Nassau, Clinton, Suffolk, Warren, Allegany, Schenectady, and Orange, and cities of White Plains, Hudson, Schenectady, Yonkers, Port Jervis, Corning, and Mt. Vernon. 54. Counties of Cayuga, Hamilton, Seneca, and Sullivan, and cities of Cohoes, Beacon, and Poughkeepsie. 55. See also TERLA, Five Million People—One Billion Dollars, Albany and New York, June 30, 1937, pp. 44-45.

Work Relief: Local Districts (Cont.) TABLE

293

XVIII

ESTIMATES OF MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS UNDER PROJECTS OF THE PUBLIC WORKS T Y P E IN N E W YORK STATE, APRIL, 1934 THROUGH JUNE, 1 9 3 5

Miles Miles Miles Miles Miles

of of of of of

roads, streets, highways constructed or improved sidewalks, paths and trails constructed or improved curbs and gutters constructed or improved guard rails constructed retaining walls constructed

4,094 405 278 47 13

Number of public buildings constructed or improved

4,878

Thousands of trees, shrubs, vines, etc. planted

1,013

Number of major recreational facilities constructed Miles of Miles of Miles of Number Number Number Number Miles of

sewer lines constructed water lines constructed drainage ditches constructed of sewage disposal plants constructed or improved of garbage disposal plants constructed or improved of reservoirs constructed or improved of fire hydrants installed or improved stream bed improved

630 506 273 1,942 48 47 141 542 224

Number of bridges constructed or improved

313

Number of airports constructed or improved

27

Number of old tenements demolished

338

Source: Unpublished data compiled in the Project Division of the T E R A .

guard rails, 13 miles of retaining walls, 511 catch basins, 979 small culverts, and five underpasses; in general somewhat smaller quantities of these items were improved or repaired. Relief workers also painted 72 miles of center and zone lines, cleaned and tarred 25 miles of expansion joints on highways, quarried 304,000 cubic feet of stone, removed 32 miles of single car track, and erected 54,200 guideposts, 1,430 direction signs, and 975 right-of-way markers. Exclusive of airport and recreational facilities, the construction of public buildings (or additions) included 74 garages, 48 storage houses, 33 cabins, 31 schools, 27 comfort stations, 21 shop buildings or tool houses, 18 structures on the grounds of penal institutions, 17 office buildings and many others. Among the 4,490 public buildings which involved minor alterations, painting, or repairs were 1,585 schools, 1,056 office buildings, 507 firehouses, 308 hospital buildings, 170 police stations, 78 libraries, 66 town halls, and 56 garages. Activities involving landscaping and improvement of grounds at least

294

Work Relief in New

York State

included the planting of 862,000 trees, 308,000 shrubs, 30,000 annuals, 1,100 vines, and 1,000 acres of grass; the removal of 58,000 tree stumps, and 2,200 acres of poison ivy and other noxious weeds; the clearance and grading of 16,000 acres of land; the reclamation of 20 acres of swampland; and the improvement of 700 acres of woodland. In addition, 39 public cemeteries were improved, 47 miles of wire and rail fence were erected, and 1 1 7 miles of fire lanes were constructed. A wide variety of new recreational facilities were built through work relief: 169 tennis courts, 112 playgrounds, 89 handball courts, 75 baseball diamonds, 60 athletic fields, 36 basketball courts, 39 wading pools, 33 fair-ground buildings, 26 skating rinks, 17 track fields, 14 swimming pools, 14 shuffleboard courts, 12 grandstands or bleachers, 11 golf courses, 9 football fields, and many others. Related work involved the construction or repair of 4,600 beach umbrellas, 3,400 beach chairs, 1,750 picnic tables, 200 cabins, 155 fireplaces, 150 life buoys, 135 rowboats and canoes, 10 picnic grounds, 9 camp buildings, 8 refreshment stands and so forth. T h e construction of public utilities included 273 miles of sanitary sewers, 233 miles of storm sewers, 273 miles of water mains, 60 reservoirs for water supply and 47 for fire protection, 77 cess pools, and 46 sewage or garbage disposal plants; many public utilities were also improved. Other accomplishments involved the excavation of 1,942 miles of drainage ditches for mosquito control, the digging of 23 wells, and the installation of 14 miles of telephone cable (underground), 10 miles of electric conduit and 249 fire hydrants. It is further estimated that 224 miles of streams were widened, straightened or deepened and that 14 miles of riprap and 12 miles of retaining walls were constructed or improved. Also, 145 docks were repaired, 29 dams were built or improved, and an artificial lake was constructed. The work on bridges included 190 improved, 123 (small ones) constructed, and six demolished. Five new airports were constructed and 22 were improved with relief labor. This work involved the grading or seeding of approximately 2,000 acres of land, the improvement of 21 hangers and 33 runways, and the construction of 12 new runways. Also, there was the construction of four glider fields, an.emergency landing field, and a sea ramp. Under projects for the provision of housing a total of 2,686 dwelling units of the tenement type were demolished and 133 were remodeled. Moreover, 20 camps were built for the housing of needy transients. Under other projects work relief labor produced 16,381 concrete building blocks, 24,390 feet of sewer and culvert pipe, 3,411 manhole blocks, 2,601 feet of stone curbing, 2,475 concrete benches, 1,537 concrete bench-ends, 50,000

Work Relief: Local Districts (Cont.)

295

square feet of wood trim and so forth. When one of the worst floods in its history hit southeastern New York on July 8 and g, 1935, relief labor was used extensively in making temporary repairs to damaged public property and in helping with the work of sanitation. Work Under Non-manual Projects T h e percentage distribution of man-hours already given in Table X V I I indicates the quantitative importance of the various types of projects during the Work Division period in terms of input of effort. Among the nonmanual projects those for clerical assistance (Fd), research and surveys (Fb), planning (Aa), education (Fa), production and distribution (Da, Db and Dd), public recreation (Ed), and nursing, medical and dental services (Ea) absorbed the largest proportion of the man-hours. Because of the nature of the services rendered virtually no data are available on the output under many of the nonmanual projects. White-collar projects were used widely to "supplement" the work of various village, town, county, city, state, and federal offices throughout the state. Relief workers performed clerical, investigational, and related tasks in such offices as those of various courts, probation officers, city attorneys, county clerks, fire and police departments, and departments of finance. Many of the state departments in Albany sought to bring their records up-to-date or to improve their services with the aid of relief projects for clerical assistance. Also the local bureaus occasionally furnished stenographic or other clerical aid to the regional or local offices of federal agencies. During the week ending May 16, 1935, such clerical projects employed 9,652 persons or about one-fourth of the white-collar workers (on D, E, and F projects). T h e planning, survey and research projects under the post-CWA program of work relief involved many lines of investigation. Many districts developed projects specifically for the planning of other work relief projects.Be There were surveys concerning physical, economic or social resources,67 topographical features and boundaries,®8 housing and slum clearance, 59 general mapping and zoning of communities, 80 maps of traf56. County districts of Albany, Allegany, Broome, Dutchess, Erie, Franklin, Hamilton, Monroe, Schenectady, Schoharie, Seneca, Steuben, Suffolk, Tompkins, Washington, and Westchester, and cities of Corning, Dunkirk, Fulton, Hudson, Ithaca, Jamestown, Kingston, New York, No. Tonawanda, Olean, Port Jervis, Rome, Schenectady, and Troy. 57. Counties of Dutchess, Erie, Monroe, Orange, Putnam, Tompkins, and Westchester, and cities of Auburn, Ithaca, Mt. Vernon, New York, and Utica. 58. Counties of Chautauqua, Erie, Nassau, Orange, and Westchester, and cities of New York, Rensselaer, and Yonkers. 59Westchester County and cities of Buffalo, New Rochelle, and New York. 60. Counties of Broome, Erie, Saratoga, St. Lawrence, and Westchester, and cities of Buffalo, Newburgh, New York, No. Tonawanda, and Salamanca.

2g6

Work Relief in New York State 81

fic facilities, and existing or proposed drainage, sewage or water systems.62 T h e state Department of Highways sponsored traffic counts in various parts of New York for the purpose of determining coefficients as a prospective basis for allocating gasoline tax receipts among the counties and cities.63 Other state agencies developed projects for the study of job specifications in industry, the effects of increased rates of pay on the ultimate consumer, the history of public welfare, and various aspects of relief and welfare organization. Also, a study was conducted to lay the foundations for the unification and standardization of building codes. Federal agencies used relief labor in New York State for studies of the occupational characteristics of workers on relief, retail prices, characteristics of rural population on relief, and local archives bearing on military or naval history. In New York City federal agencies cooperated in making studies of inter-American affairs, of the foreign language press, of the volume of immigration from 1812 to 1897, of the employment history of railroad employees, of marine metereological data, of stream flow and water resources, and of weather conditions in order to forecast visibility in New York harbor. T h e municipal departments or other agencies of New York City carried on researches of many sorts. The Board of Education undertook to test the hearing of over 500,000 children, to survey the resources and needs of neighborhoods exhibiting high rates of delinquency, and to improve and extend the data on child population. T h e Department of Public Welfare made a study of the employment and educational status of young people, 16 to 24 years of age. The Mayor's Committee on Unemployment Relief initiated an analysis of existing information on the number of single and unattached women as a step in discovering their needs and formulating a policy for their care. The Board of Transportation sponsored a survey of the trend of real estate values from 1900 to 1930 for properties adjacent to rapid transit lines. The Department of Public Markets undertook a survey of existing pushcart and open markets and an investigation of the live poultry industry. 61. Counties of Albany, Chautauqua, Erie, Monroe, Montgomery, Putnam, Rensselaer, Steuben, Suffolk, Sullivan, and Westchester, and cities of Buffalo, Glens Falls, Mt. Vernon, New York, and Saratoga Springs. 62. Counties of Albany, Broome, Chautauqua, Clinton, Genesee, Livingston, Onondaga, Rensselaer, and Westchester, and cities of Auburn, Buffalo, Mt. Vernon, New Rochelle, Niagara Falls, Oneonta, Port Jervis, Rome, Saratoga Springs, Troy, and Watertown. 63. Special traffic surveys were undertaken in Niagara Falls and in Nassau County. In New York City such surveys covered transportation via subway, street car, bus, bridge, ferry, and tunnel.

Work Relief: Local Districts (Cont.)

297

Members of the teaching staffs of Columbia University, New York University and College of the City of New York conducted many kinds of researches with the aid of work relief personnel. A t the latter institution, for example, there were in progress as of January, 1935, studies of the investment system, of dealer-manufacturer cooperation, of the history of power in the United States, of consumer research and marketing, of the influence of money metals on the economic life of nations, of the development of slum clearance and housing activities in the United States, of the relative ratings of high school students as compared with their grades in elementary and junior high schools, of the development of public utility regulations between 1891 and 1907, and of the influence of public utilities on politics in New York State during this period. In 1934-1935 some 500 jobless teachers in New York City and about 1,500 upstate were employed under projects for adult education. In the neighborhood of 70,000 persons in New York City and 55,000 in the upstate districts attended classes each week in such subjects as art, agriculture, commerce, dance, dramatics, homemaking, and music. In 1935 there were twenty-two collegiate centers staffed with formerly jobless teachers offering courses to students who could not afford to attend regular colleges or universities. Also, a project was conducted in New York City for the promotion of workers' education. In July, 1935, nineteen nursery schools with an average enrollment of thirty children were in operation in New York City, while twenty upstate districts conducted forty-four such schools with an average attendance of twenty-four children. T h e program included health inspections, and play, rest, and feeding periods. A t this time parent education was an integral part of the program, involving home visits, conferences with parents, and group discussions. In New York City there were a number of projects for experimental education. As of May, 1935, some 400 persons were employed in connection with remedial reading and arithmetic, lip reading, correction of speech defects, development of new reading materials, and preparation of occupational exhibits. Nearly 1,650 recreation workers were employed under work relief projects in New York City as of May, 1935. T h e local Board of Education used approximately two-thirds of these workers at some 115 school locations and 145 welfare institutions. T h e Department of Parks employed about 400 leaders in its system of parks and playgrounds. T h e Crime Prevention Bureau of the Police Department had in the neighborhood of 870 suçh workers at some 80 street-play centers. Handicrafts formed a

298

Work Relief

in New

York State

prominent feature of the recreational program in New York City during the winter of 1934-1935, when total participation was estimated at 365,000 persons per week. In the area outside New York City recreation for grownups was developed as part of the program of adult education. Besides, in the summer of 1934 over 800 leaders were employed in 39 districts to supply or augment programs of recreation for juveniles in 66 communities; the number of leaders was reduced to some 250 the following winter, when attendance averaged in the neighborhood of 175,000 per week. T h e program for juveniles covered the usual repertoire of activities: swimming, games, handicrafts, plays, pageants, hobbies, puppetry, storytelling, folk dancing and the like. Projects in the fields of nursing, medical, and dental care or research were conducted in various parts of the state. Under the sponsorship and coordination of the state Department of Health about 550 nurses were employed in upstate districts; between January, 1934, and June, 1935, these nurses augmented the state nursing service by some forty per cent in making over a million visits, distributed as follows: 247,194 for care of infants and preschool children, 139,997 for school children, 59,707 for post partum care, 50,125 for prenatal care, 41,193 for miscellaneous communicable diseases, 32,780 for tuberculosis, 16,555 f ° r venereal diseases, and 425,480 for other purposes. T h e Department of Health of New York City supplemented its services by employing some 150 nurses and about 50 doctors under the work relief program in connection with clinics, baby health stations, hygiene work in schools and the like. T h e Department of Hospitals in New York City thus employed besides clerical and maintenance help, some 250 nurses and attendants, 100 investigators, 50 orderlies, 40 technicians, 35 social service workers, 30 pharmacists, 25 doctors, 10 dieticians, and others. T h e two departments also employed under work relief in the neighborhood of 200 dentists and 75 dental hygienists whose services included 151,083 fillings, 95,002 treatments, 56,437 extractions, 28,699 prophylaxes, and over 5,000 X rays. Under twenty-two dental projects upstate the principal services were 6,262 fillings, 2,663 treatments, 10,985 extractions, 5,725 prophylaxes, and 15 X rays. Several of the "health surveys" conducted in New York City are of interest. Under one project, employing about 100 persons, over 550,000 schedules were filed with the Welfare Council of New York City concerning patients discharged from 108 hospitals and 34 convalescent homes in order to get information on the characteristics of patients in private and public hospitals and to determine what services were being rendered.

Work Relief: Local Districts (Cont.)

299

The Commissioner of Health sponsored a project for the discovery of tuberculosis; of 25,170 persons X-rayed, 3,352 required further clinical investigation, 951 had definite tuberculosis, and 610 were discovered to have cardiac conditions. The Bureau of Public Health Education sought to determine the reasons for the high incidence of diphtheria in certain areas of New York City and to arrange for the immunization of children. The Bureau of Foods and Drugs hired formerly unemployed pharmacists to find out how various potentially dangerous preparations were being sold by drugstores, beauty parlors, candy stores and so forth as a guide for the enactment of legislation. The Department of Hospitals surveyed the procedures used in determining eligibility of applicants for outpatient care and instituted a search for an improved system of classification of mental defectives. The state Department of Mental Hygiene used relief labor in an effort to ascertain the prevalence of mental disease among various nationality and racial groupings. Under the sponsorship or supervision of the state Department of Health a biologist made a study of an epidemic of Vincent's angina in Livingston County; thirty three-hour clinics for venereal diseases were held in thirteen upstate communities; and twelve physicians examined 10,000 children in three rural counties to determine the physical and nutritional status of children in relief families, resulting in a liberalization of relief budgets. A program of school lunches and nutrition was conducted in several districts®4 with the aid of persons on work relief. In March, 1935, approximately 93,000 needy and undernourished school children were fed daily in New York City alone. Also, at this time in New York City about 190 Negro women were employed under work relief as housekeeping aides to serve a monthly average of 370 homes in which either or both parents were disabled. Work relief projects in the fields of art, drama and music were chiefly conducted in New York City. Formerly unemployed artists produced at least 403 etchings and drawings, 76 oil paintings, 43 water colors, 22 murals or frescoes, and 19 sculptures. Approximately 75 groups of actors gave some 8,800 performances to an estimated combined audience of 4,250,000 persons during the Work Division period. Some twenty orchestras, bands or choruses entertained from 115,000 to over 650,000 persons a month in New York City during the spring and summer of 1935. 65 64. Counties of Greene, Nassau, and Schoharie, and cities of New York, Mt. Vernon, Hornell, Niagara Falls, and Rochester. 65. Under the Educational and Social Music Unit of the Works Division in New York City in the summer of 1935, among other activities, musical education was being given to more than 13,000 students per week.

goo

Work Relief in New York State

It is estimated that over 500,000 books were redressed, rebound or otherwise repaired in New York City between April, 1934, and July, 1935. During this period 120,459 books were repaired in Syracuse, 29,349 Rochester, 12,183 in Cortland County, 5,787 in Plattsburg and smaller numbers in other districts.68 Library extension work was also conducted with the aid of work projects. T h e production and distribution of commodities needed by the unemployed likewise formed a significant part of the work relief effort in New York State. Many of the 33,525 "subsistence gardens" of the season of 1934 were operated with the help of relief projects; somewhat over 1,750,000 pints of vegetables were canned or preserved, 232,437 pints at twenty-one centers operated as work projects. Practically every district had at least one project for the distribution of food and other commodities furnished by the Federal Surplus Food Corporation. 67 This agency supplied much of the materials required by some 350 sewing or manufacturing projects whose output included 37,876 dresses, 5,097 slips, 2,344 shirts, 368,000 towels, 143,000 quilts, and 5,500 mattresses. Communities throughout New York State used a combination of manual and white-collar projects to make many worthwhile improvements. In Tompkins County the immediate purpose of supplying work relief to the needy was woven into a comprehensive demonstration in rural development with the idea of replanning the entire county as to land use, highways, rural electrification, education, health and so forth. 88 T h e major achievement in Tompkins County for the year ending in July, 1935, simply consisted of work relief output of the type described in the preceding pages.89 PROBLEMS OF COST AND EFFICIENCY

It has been generally recognized that work relief is more costly than the "dole" (home relief) and that it is a less efficient method of production than the output of commodities and services under ordinary arrangements. Such comparisons are frequently misleading because important factors are minimized, ignored or improperly related. Above all, it is necessary to remember that work relief arises under "extraordinary" con66. Counties of C h a t a u q u a , O n e i d a , M o n t g o m e r y , and O r a n g e , and cities of M t . Vernon, C o r n i n g , R o m e , Utica, Port Jervis, A u b u r n , O n e i d a , T r o y , and Schenectady. 67. Between October, 1933, and A p r i l , 1935, the federal agency allocated t h r o u g h the State Division (page 206) to the local districts 239,540,221 p o u n d s of food a n d 13,333,960 yards of cloth. 68. T o m p k i n s C o u n t y D e v e l o p m e n t Association, T E R A , a n d New Y o r k State R u r a l R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Corporation, Toward a Better Life: A Demonstration in County Development, Tompkins County, New York, J u l y , 1935 (Preface). 69. Ibid., p p . 6-38.

Work Relief: Local Districts ( Cont.)

go χ

ditions of widespread unemployment and that it embraces the dual and often conflicting objectives of relief and of work. Comparison

With the Cost of Home

Relief

Home relief involves the provision in some measure of a minimum living to destitute families or individuals in cash or in kind with no immediate return to the community from the recipient. O n the other hand, work relief involves the provision of such assistance in the form of hourly wages in cash for presumably useful work. In any comparison of the costs of work relief with those of home relief it is essential to consider the "morale value" of work relief, to distinguish between home relief allowances and work relief wages, to gain some notion of the added costs for materials and supervision which work relief entails, and to keep in mind the output of work relief in the form of commodities or services. Morale Value of Work

Relief

N o monetary value can be placed upon the psychological advantage of work relief over home relief from the standpoint of the recipient and his family. W h i l e "in no respect equal to those flowing out of normal employment," the intangible values of work relief include the preservation of "morale, skills, work habits, employability, normal family relationships, self-respect, self-reliance, initiative, and independence." 70 In some cases "thoroughly needy people" who refused to accept the "dole" did accept work relief and there were constantly more candidates than there were work relief openings. T h e "morale value" of work relief is enhanced when the projects are "worthwhile" and the operations are generally "useful and purposeful," when the supervision of the workers is "adequate" and "the management of the work efficient," and when "the implications and atmosphere of relief" are in degree dissociated from the enterprise. 71 " T h e tendency of some of the workers to regard work relief as permanent, satisfactory, and a rightful possession" has been regarded as a serious element detracting from the value of work relief. 72 It also has been observed that the merits of work relief tend to be "inversely proportional to the duration of its life," diminishing as "the concept of lasting employment begins to infiltrate" and as "the awareness of the shortcomings of the enterprise grows cummulatively to sizeable proportions." 7 8 70. Governor's Commission, Work Relief in the State of New York, op. cit., pp. 19 and 28. 71. Ibid., pp. 23-24. 7>. Ibid., p. 28. 73. Ibid., pp. 25 and 28.

go2

Work Relief in New York State

In general it may be said that work relief goes a long way in removing the deleterious effects of protracted unemployment and idleness. In practice, the alleged "morale value" of work relief has been an important consideration both in the initiation and the continued support of work programs. Comparative

Costs

One T E R A official estimated that the cost of work relief was perhaps seventy-five per cent greater than that of home relief. 74 Subsequent studies indicate that this estimate was not far from the truth. Special investigations of local expenditures in New York State for the month of October, 1934, suggest that the cost of work relief approached twice that of home relief. 75 During the month it cost $28,153,708 to extend relief to a total of 517,855 cases. Of the latter total, 323,254 cases or 63 per cent received home relief allowances only, 156,115 or 30 per cent received work relief wages only, and 38,486 or seven per cent received both forms of aid. Of $12,269,115 expended for home relief purposes, $11,226,057 or 91.5 per cent was for relief allowances and $1,043,058 or 8.5 per cent was for local administration. O n the other hand, of $15,884,593 expended during October for work relief purposes, $10,899,323 or 68.6 per cent was for relief wages, $872,862 or 5.5 per cent for "local administration," $1,030,532 or 6.5 per cent for "technical and supervisory salaries" and $3,081,866 or 19.4 per cent for materials (supplies, tools and equipment). In an effort to determine more accurately than previous studies "the actual cost in providing home and work relief," research workers of the Governor's Commission analyzed for the three months ending November 30, 1934, a carefully selected sample of 1,991 home relief cases and 1,753 work relief cases in seven upstate cities. 78 T h e excess "of the total work relief outlay per case" ranged "all the way from 14 per cent to 251 per cent for cases of varying size." 77 O n the basis of an estimated distribution of families of each size in the upstate relief population a composite comparison, derived from the data for the seven cities, shows that the average home relief grant was $10.12 per week, the average work relief wages amounted to $13.48, the average work relief wages plus supplementary home relief came to $14.58, and the average total of work relief wages, supplementary home relief and incidental work relief costs (materials, 74. Conrad Van Hyning, "Work Program From the State of Point of View," Public Works Engineers' Yearbook, Chicago, 1935, p. 68. 75. T E R A , Administration of Public Unemployment Relief in New York State, Albany: J. B. Lyon Co., May 1, 1935, Table III, p. 18 and pp. 18-20. 76. Governor's Commission, Work Relief in the Stale of New York, op. cit., pp. 43-47. 77. Ibid., p. 58.

Work Relief: Local Districts (Cont.)

303

equipment and nonrelief wages paid in connection with work relief administration and project supervision) was $18.43 P e r week. 78 Quite apart from the question of the adequacy of the relief, it is apparent that work relief cases at least in the seven upstate cities received 44 per cent more aid than comparable home relief cases (see page 281 above); in short, the larger part of the excess cost of work relief is simply due to the different standards of aid applied in practice under the two systems. W h e n the incidental costs of work relief are added, "the outlay per work relief case" exceeds "the corresponding home relief outlays by 82 per cent." 79 T h e preceding analysis did not take into account the adequacy of the relief given, nor, what is more important in this connection, the value of commodities and services derived from work relief. 80 It can be argued, in the first place, that the excess cost of 44 per cent is not an excess at all but rather an index of the extent to which home relief allowances lagged behind the more or less "decent" standard of subsistence extended to cases on work relief. In the second place, it can be argued that the residual excess cost of work relief of 38 (82 minus 44) per cent is more than compensated for by the products of relief labor, as the following example suggests: 81 A cost analysis of work relief projects drawn up by the Utica Work Division for the period from April 1, 1934 to December 27, 1934 . . . gives an indication of what is probably illustrative of work relief throughout the State. The total of relief wages paid was $431,362 while other costs, the non-relief costs for materials and supervision, amounted to $295,193. Substantially the amount of the relief wages would have had to be paid in any case in home relief allowances to the destitute if there had been no work program at all. By spending an additional $295,193 from local, State and Federal funds, the community obtained improvements whose value or contract price totaled $528,441.

Assuming that the projects are reasonably useful, work relief appears to be cheaper than doing the job under usual arrangements on the one hand and furnishing home relief allowances on the other. T h i s brings us to the connected question of the utility and efficiency of work relief projects. Utility and Efficiency of the

Projects

Work relief has had many critics, and charges of extravagance, waste and inefficiency have been frequent. T h e r e have been the familiar comments about "boondoggling" particularly with reference to projects of 78. Ibid., pp. 59-60. 79. Ibid., p. 60. 80. Ibid., pp. 43-44. 81. TERA,

cit., p. 21.

Administration

of Public

Unemployment

Relief

in New York State, op.

304

Work Relief in New York State

the white-collar type. It has been said that work relief projects in general are of little social value and that the few worthwhile ones are too costly in comparison with similar work conducted under the usual arrangements. T h e best answers to such criticisms have been provided by careful studies of Governor Lehman's Commission. White-Collar

Projects

T h e Governor's Commission selected a sample of 100 white-collar projects, 67 in New York City and 33 in upstate New York, in the spring of 1935 for study as to their value to the community. T h e 100 projects inspected and rated represented 7.9 per cent of all white collar projects then currently active and employed 23 per cent of all persons engaged on such projects. T h e results of this survey may be summarized briefly. 82 1. T h e purpose was evaluated as good for 68 projects, as fair for 31 projects, and as poor for one project. 2. T h e accomplishments (without regard to the efficiency attained) were rated as excellent for 32 projects, as good for 26, as fair for 37, and as poor for 5. 3. T h e general efficiency prevalent was rated as good on 43 projects, as fair on 45, and as poor on is. 4. T h e general worth (a composite rating) was scored as excellent for 4» projects, as good for 31, as fair for 23, and as poor for 4 projects.

While such evaluations are rough estimates at best, they probably are more trustworthy than general impressions of hit-and-miss sort. It is certain that many white-collar projects, such as those in public health, library service, recreation, and distribution of clothing to relief clients, have been of real public value. Many of the white-collar projects of the W o r k Division period were transferred to the new W P A program in the summer and fall of 1935. In New York City the so-called N a m m Committee examined local whitecollar activities and approved all but 24 of the 334 operating or proposed projects. 83 T h e committee expressed the belief that "any fair-minded person, aware of the circumstances that have attended the development of project plans, cannot escape the conclusion that in the main the energy . . . is being directed toward activities that are as of much usefulness to the community as are other activities that compose the work life of the people of this city." T h e report stated further that "these projects are a representative cross section of the kinds of service that regular governmental organizations and cultural organizations think it worthwhile to finance with funds other than those derived from relief sources. It is hardly to be expected that work relief activities would escape entirely 8«. Governor's Commission, Work Relief in the State of New York, op. cit., pp. 36-40. 83. New York Times, October 13, 1935.

Work Relief:

Local Districts (Cont.)

305

f r o m the mistakes a n d futilities that are f o u n d in n o r m a l activities of all k i n d s . In other words, it seems to us there is n o more—and probably less — b o o n d o g g l i n g in the w o r k relief administration than in private business or i n the trades and professions generally." 8 4 Projects

of the Public

Works

Type

I n " a n estimate of their w o r t h a n d of the effectiveness of their managem e n t a n d prosecution," the researchers of the Governor's Commission c a r e f u l l y selected a sample of 599 projects of the public works type "dist r i b u t e d a m o n g the jurisdictions of each and every emergency work bureau in N e w Y o r k State." 8 5 T h e 599 projects inspected a n d rated by "comp e t e n t civil engineers" d u r i n g the late f a l l a n d early winter of 1934-1935 represented almost one-third of all projects of the public works type then currently active in upstate N e w Y o r k and about 10 per cent of such sub-projects or " j o b s " in N e w Y o r k City. T h e projects or jobs inspected i n c l u d e d about 50 per cent of all employees on such projects i n the upstate area a n d a p p r o x i m a t e l y 35 per cent in N e w Y o r k City. F o r one reason o r another n o t all of the 599 projects were evaluated w i t h regard to each a n d every criterion considered. T h e results of these inspections a n d evaluations are summarized in the sub-sections w h i c h follow. "Desirability

and

Worthwhileness."

A f t e r three years of

experience

w i t h w o r k relief in N e w Y o r k State, undertakings of the " m a d e - w o r k " type h a d been rather t h o r o u g h l y supplanted by those emphasizing capital improvements i n v o l v i n g an intermediate level of materials cost. T h e relevant findings of the C o m m i s s i o n follow: 8 8 1. Of 599 projects, 572 or 95.5 per cent were rated as "worthwhile and desirable," 20 or 3.3 per cent as "not particularly useful or necessary," and seven or 1.2 per cent as "definitely not worthwhile or desirable." 2. Of 577 projects, 496 or 85.9 per cent had "a definitely satisfactory survival value," 76 or 13.2 per cent had "fair survival value," and five or 0.9 per cent had "no survival value;" approximately 96 per cent of the projects were "neither unduly elaborate nor of an unduly inexpensive type of construction." 3. Of 594 projects, 575 or 96.8 per cent conformed with community development (formal or informal plans), 15 or 2.5 per cent were "not definitely objectionable" in this connection, and four or 0.7 per cent were "definitely out of line with community development." 4. Of 555 projects, 54 or 9.7 per cent were to "require excessively high future costs, value considered," 338 or 60.9 per cent were to "require little or no serious 84. Ibid. 85. Governor's Commission, Work Relief Projects of the Public Works Type in the State of New York, Albany: J. B. Lyon Co., 1935, pp. 21-23. 86. Ibid., pp. 37-44.

go6

Work Relief in New York State

future costs," and 163 or »9.4 per cent were to "require no additional costs, and in some cases a decrease." 5. Of 588 projects, 34a or 58 per cent were for "new construction," 170 or 29 per cent for "reconstruction," 20 or three per cent for "repairs," and 56 or 10 per cent for "maintenance." N o study was made of the distribution of w o r k relief i m p r o v e m e n t s w i t h i n communities f r o m the standpoint of the benefit a c c r u i n g to particular owners of properties. It is k n o w n that certain i n e q u i t i e s did dev e l o p in many c o m m u n i t i e s w i t h regard to the types of projects which are ordinarily financed by special assessment b u t w h i c h were carried under w o r k relief w i t h o u t charge against the benefited property. 8 7 Project Planning and Supervision. T h e r e is n o d o u b t that considerable progress h a d been m a d e in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h the p l a n n i n g a n d supervision of projects of the p u b l i c w o r k s type d u r i n g three years of experience w i t h w o r k relief. T h e m a j o r findings of the G o v e r n o r ' s C o m m i s s i o n w i t h reg a r d t o the p l a n n i n g a n d supervision of the sample of 599 projects at the e n d of the three year p e r i o d are g i v e n below: 8 8 1. Of 474 projects (requiring formal plans), 427 or 90.1 per cent had "competent and sufficient" plans and designs, 39 or 8.2 per cent did not have "fully competent and sufficient" plans and designs, and eight or 1.7 per cent had no plans although "definitely necessary." 2. Of 599 projects, 528 or 88.2 per cent had a "reasonably satisfactory number" of supervisory personnel, 42 or 7.0 per cent had "definitely too many such persons," and 29 or 4.8 per cent had "definitely too few such persons." 3. Of 594 projects, 176 or 29.6 per cent were given a joint rating of excellent for the qualifications of supervisory personnel and their supervision (with emphasis on the latter), 273 or 46.0 per cent were rated as having "good supervision," 127 or 21.4 per cent were rated as having "fair supervision," and 18 or 3.0 per cent were rated as having "poor supervision." A s reported previously, the prosecution of w o r k relief projects required the cooperation of m a n y authorities; excellent cooperation a n d h a r m o n y existed w i t h regard to 556 or 93.5 per cent of the 596 projects observed o n this point. It should be n o t e d that there was m u c h r o o m for improvem e n t in the quality of supervision—one of the p r i m a r y elements entering into the success of construction o u t p u t and m a i n t e n a n c e of morale a m o n g the workers. Project

Labor.

By fall of 1934 the former indiscriminate selection of

needy workers for w o r k relief projects was b e i n g replaced by attempts to m a t c h the j o b assigned w i t h the ability a n d fitness of each worker. T h e observations of the G o v e r n o r ' s Commission r e g a r d i n g " t h e p e r f o r m a n c e 87. Ibid., pp. 42-43. 88. Ibid., pp. 45-59.

Work Relief: Local Districts (Cont.)

307

of labor upon projects and . . . certain employment circumstances under which the workers function" may be briefly summarized: 89 1. O f 59* projects, 43* or 74.8 per cent had workers "apparently well-suited to tasks," 135 or 22.8 per cent had workers "reasonably, b u t not fully suited," and 18 or 3.0 per cent had workers "apparently largely unsuited." 2. O f 592 projects, 410 or 69.2 per cent were rated as good on "the character of industry and energy displayed" by the workers, 134 or 22.7 per cent were rated as fair, and 48 or 8.1 per cent were rated as poor. 3. O f 591 projects, 414 or 70.0 per cent were "properly manned," 147 or 24.9 per cent were "overmanned," and 30 or 5.1 per cent "undermanned." 4. O f 596 projects, 591 or 99.2 per cent exhibited "adequate" safety provisions and "conduct of the work from the standpoint of avoiding unnecessary hazards," while five or 0.8 per cent manifested "some inadequacy." T h e s e findings are consistent with the low ratios of accident frequency already reported in another connection (page 210).

Beginning with the initiation of the C W A program in the autumn of 1933, there was a definite trend away from need as the sole consideration in the selection of project workers and toward the recognition of occupational fitness as a criterion of equal importance. T h e report of the Commission states that the "industry, energy, and enthusiasm of the work relief employees appeared to be very largely dependent upon the morale of these workers, which, in turn, depended upon three factors, viz.: (a) the stimulation supplied by an energetic and qualified supervising personnel; (b) the usefulness or substantial character of the project, and (c) the public interest in and scrutiny over the project. T h e absence of the normal worker incentives makes these factors peculiarly important." 90 T h e Commission recognized that its findings regarding the industry and energy displayed by the workers were probably affected by "a temporary spurt in effort during the presence of the engineer representing the Commission." 91 Another relevant consideration is the fact that the autumn and winter of 1934-1935, when the Commission conducted its investigations, was a period of relative tranquility among project workers throughout New York State. T h e Work Division program had been in operation for over seven months during which time project workers had probably learned to understand and accept the basic arrangements. Moreover, new machinery in the form of Wage Rate Committees and Grievance Committees had been in action for a sufficient time to fix reasonably acceptable schedules of "prevailing wages" and to review and adjust various pressing grievances surrounding conditions of employment. 8g. Ibid., pp. 60-67. 90. Ibid., p. 63. 91. Ibid.

3o8

Work Relief in New York State

If the Commission's survey of project labor had been made in the late winter and early spring of 1933-1934, the results might well have been less favorable than those just reported. Changes initiated during the closing weeks of the C W A and the opening ones of the superseding Work Division program precipitated, among other manifestations of unrest, a wave of strikes. There was widespread dissatisfaction among project workers due to the shortening of the work week, the reduction of working forces, the largely downward revision of wage rates to "prevailing" levels, and uncertainties surrounding the change-over from the C W A to the succeeding program. In March and April, 1934, project workers resorted to demonstrations, protest marches and picketing in many communities and called strikes in Albion, Buffalo, Canandaigua, Geneva, Rochester, Schenectady, Syracuse, Utica and other places. Project Equipment and Materials. During the early period of work relief there was a tendency to hold expenditures for materials and equipment to a minimum in order to conserve relief funds and thus channel as much of the money as possible to clients in the form of work relief wages and in order to create as many job opportunities as possible through the use of hand labor instead of construction equipment. A reconciliation of relief objectives with the desire for substantial improvements led to the liberalization of policy as exemplified by the increase of the allowable proportion of expenditures on state projects for materials and equipment from io to 15 and, eventually, to 20 per cent. A n appraisal of the situation with regard to equipment and materials on the sample of projects of the public works type revealed these findings: 92 1. Of 512 projects, 386 or 75.4 per cent had "sufficient equipment to permit of the attainment of a reasonable efficiency," 70 or 13.7 per cent had "equipment in fairly satisfactory amounts, upon which potentially improved efficiency and worker morale would, however, have warranted the use of more equipment," and 56 or 10.9 per cent had insufficient equipment "to permit of reasonable efficiency." 2. Of 585 projects, 533 or 91.1 per cent had "sufficient funds for materials provided in the project set-up," 15 or 2.6 per cent had "barely sufficient funds for materials provided" and "more would have enhanced the value of the work," 21 or 3.6 per cent had "definitely insufficient" funds for materials, and 16 or 2.7 per cent had adequate materials in the project set-up but "monthly quota for all projects results in material shortage." 3. Of 579 projects, 484 or 83.6 per cent suffered no delays because of belated ordering or delivery of materials, and 95 or 16.4 per cent "were interrupted because of materials shortage arising out of either the exhaustion of the monthly material funds quotas or the belated ordering and/or delivery of materials." 92. Ibid., pp. 68-72.

Work Relief: Local Districts (Cont.)

309

Apparently the Commission assumed that the "proper extent of use of construction machinery and equipment" on work relief projects of the public works type "may find a middle level, and need not necessarily approach a minimum as a means of creating more labor nor a maximum as a means of optimum efficiency." 93 It also held that a "sufficiency of materials upon all projects would not necessarily mean that a better works program could not be undertaken if funds for material procurement were available upon a more generous basis."94 Lags in the delivery of materials were particularly serious in New York City due to cumbersome procurement procedure partly growing out of the tri-partite (federal, state and local) financing of work relief. Efficiency of Project Prosecution. T h e work underway on 580 projects of the public works type was inspected by engineers of the Governor's Commission for conformity with "approved engineering and construction practice." Of the total, 484 projects or 83.5 per cent were rated as satisfactory, 47 or 8.1 per cent as fair, and 49 or 8.4 per cent as poor in this regard. 95 O n the theory that an efficiency index would sum up "all of the gauges employed in evaluating the merits and demerits of the conduct of work relief projects, including, for example, such elements as labor performance, standard of organization, labor and technical supervision, conformity with approved practices, and the balance between hand and machine labor," each of 574 projects examined was appraised by the inspecting engineer "with the view of estimating the general efficiency with which the project was being carried on." 98 In this connection, the ratings were based on "the arbitrary assumption that 100 per cent efficiency would prevail under average [not best] contract methods." 97 Of the 574 projects, 17 or 3.0 per cent were given an efficiency rating of between 15 and 35 per cent. 98 T h e efficiency rating was 40 per cent for 13 projects (or 2.3 per cent of the total number), 50 per cent for 50 projects (or 8.7 per cent), 60 per cent for 96 projects (or 16.7 per cent), and 70 per cent for 62 projects (or 10.8 per cent).99 It was 75 per cent for 69 projects (or 12.0 per cent), 80 per cent for 84 projects (or 14.6 per cent), 85 per cent for 20 projects (or 3.5 per cent), 90 per cent for 50 projects (or 8.7 per cent), and 100 per cent for 113 projects (or 19.7 per cent).100 93. Ibid., p. 69. 94. Ibid., p. 70. 95. Ibid., pp. 73-74. 96. Ibid., p. 75. 97. Ibid. 98. Ibid., p. 76. 99. Ibid. 100. Ibid.

3io

Work Relief in New York State

With large and small projects weighted alike, the average efficiency upon all of the 574 projects amounted to 74.8 per cent. 1 0 1 This average efficiency indicates that the cost of the execution of the projects runs approximately 35 per cent more than under average contract methods. 102 Without regard for desirability, operating efficiency or cost, each of 591 projects in the sample of 599 was evaluated as to the quality of the completed work. In this respect, 136 projects or 23.0 per cent were designated as very good, 427 or 72.2 per cent as satisfactory, and 28 or 4.8 per cent as poor. 1 0 3 With special reference to the ratings of efficiency, the report of the Governor's Commission noted that "the ratings are based merely upon intelligent observation of operations during a part of a single day on each project" and, therefore, some of "the influence of a lack of continuity of prosecution" escaped observation. 104 Among the influences which tend to reduce the efficiency of work relief as compared with regular procedures the report mentions such factors as: (a) the basic purpose of work relief is relief and the accomplishments are incidental, (b) the workers are chosen (largely) on the basis of need rather than ability and efficiency, (c) "the absence or limitation of the unqualified right to hire and fire," (d) the lack of "normal worker incentives," (e) "the demoralization suffered by many victims of the depression," (f) the priority frequently given to projects which can be undertaken quickly, irrespective of the attainable efficiency with a given group of workers, and (g) the restricted use of equipment. 1 0 5 T h e conclusion that work relief projects of the public works type tend to cost approximately 35 per cent more than similar projects conducted under average conract methods was confirmed by the general opinion of the inspecting engineers. 106 It was noted, however, that "any determination of the relative costs is complicated by the fact that the maintenance of work relief employees upon a home relief basis would entail expenditure irrespective of the work done" but that "it is scarcely sound to conclude . . . that the real cost of work projects is merely the excess over the alternative home relief charges." 107 Substitution for Regular Work Among the dominant principles surrounding recent work relief was one 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107.

Ibid. Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid.

p. p. p. p. p.

82. 83. 76. 77. 82.

Work Relief: Local Districts (Cont.)

311

to the effect that the projects undertaken should neither compete with private enterprise nor with regular governmental activities. Since the projects were financed out of public funds, they were generally of the public works or public service type. They were conducted under force account (and not under contract) in accordance with the governing rules and regulations. Insofar as such work was ordinarily performed by private contractors, work relief was obviously in competition with private enterprise. Outside the " n o contract" limitation, relief authorities in New York State generally disapproved all proposals for work which seemed to encroach upon the private field. With regard to public activities, the theory was that work relief projects should supplement rather than supplant regular public works or services in order that additional public employment over and above the usual level would result. Governor Lehman's Commission on Unemployment Relief made detailed studies of actual experience in this connection in the cities of New York, Rochester, Syracuse, Schenectady, Auburn, and Kingston. 108 T h e studies were based partly on the assumption that "a reduction of the volume of work upon a given activity, together with the execution of comparable though not identical work by means of work relief, constitutes substitution." 109 T h e findings indicate that work relief disturbed most "the construction and rehabilitation of public improvements" for there was an appreciable decline in the volume of regularly financed public works in each of the cities studied. 110 While part of the decline was entirely due to usual budgetary retrenchments during a depression, part of it was undoubtedly made possible through the substitution of work relief projects (which in some measure served to compensate for such reductions). 111 For the calendar year of 1934, C W A and Work Division funds accounted for close to 69 per cent of total expenditures for "normal construction and property rehabilitation" in New York City 1 1 2 and approximately the same proportion of the total expended for work on sewers, drains, streets, sidewalks, bridges and snow removal in Kingston. 118 Somewhat less complete data for Rochester, Syracuse, Schenectady, and Auburn suggest that in varying degrees such replacement had occurred during 1934 in certain of their respective construction and repair activities. 114 Moreover, it has 108. 109. 110. 111. 11s. 113. 114.

Governor's Commission, Work Relief in the State of New York, op. cit., pp. 61-98. Ibid., p. 95. Ibid., p. 96. Ibid. Ibid., p. 88. Ibid., pp. 63-64. Ibid., pp. 66-67.

312

Work Relief in New York State

been reported that "in most rural areas" of New York State much of the relief personnel appeared to have been shifted from regular highway pay rolls to emergency relief pay rolls. 115 T h e data concerning the replacement of regular city services by clerical and other white-collar projects of work relief are rather sketchy. At best they suggest that appreciable substitution took place in particular instances: continuation schools, retirement system, and the departments of finance, hospitals, and health in New York City;11® adult education, city court, and municipal museum in Rochester; 117 the departments of education, health and police in Syracuse; 118 and the offices of certain municipal officials in Schenectady. 119 It is also highly probable that many of such units within the state government as the Department of Social Welfare 120 used work relief employees to discharge functions which ordinarily would be performed by regular civil servants. On the other hand, it appears that a large proportion of the white-collar projects merely served to supplement the regular public services in the sense that they represented either relatively new work or the expansion of existing activities without compensating for reductions in regular appropriations. T h e Governor's Commission expressed the conviction that "substitution of work relief for regular governmental activities is distinctly undesirable." 121 Among the "evil effects" noted in this connection were confusion as to the purpose and the respective costs of governmental functions, introduction of the criterion of need in the selection of employees, and displacement of regular public servants which in the long run tends to increase the number on the relief rolls. 122 T h e compensatory role of work relief in relation to regular public activities was the result of at least three interrelated factors: the demand for "useful" projects, the shifting of the costs of improvements from the owners of the benefitted property to the wider community, and the practicalities of relief administration. Widespread demands from taxpayers for "useful" projects tended towards the selection of work relief undertakings which turned out to be much the same kinds of works and services that had always been the concern of regular public agencies. Projects of the public works type were at a premium because the completed work 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122.

Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid.,

p. 96. pp. 77-82. pp. 72-74. pp. 69-70. p. 68. p. 96. p. 97. pp. 97-98.

Work Relief: Local Districts (Cont.)

313

frequently enhanced the value of adjacent real estate at relatively small cost to the owners. Work relief paid a double dividend to many owners of real property. In the first place, from 40 to 75 per cent of the cost was absorbed by the state and federal governments. This meant that at most only the local share of the costs was directly chargeable against real estate (which constituted practically the only source of local revenues). In the second place, the practice of levying special assessments against the benefitted property was widely abandoned with regard to work relief improvements in favor of community-wide levies covering the local share of the costs. Thus a new pattern of financing encouraged substitution through work relief to the point that it became "virtually impossible to launch a special assessment improvement." 123 In short, the fiscal policies surrounding work relief were so obviously advantageous to owners of the benefitted property that they refused to seek improvements under ordinary arrangements. The substitution of work relief for regular public activities could have been reduced substantially by careful regulation and control on the part of relief authorities.124 But any strict exclusion of work for which an annual appropriation had been customary would probably have reduced the program of work relief to insignificant proportions. From the standpoint of maintaining a large-scale program, it was probably more practicable to verbalize against substitution but allow a considerable amount of it than to dissipate energies in constantly combatting widespread charges of "boondoggling" or in conducting an intensive campaign for acceptance by the public of special conceptions of "worthwhileness" with regard to work relief projects. 113. Ibid., p. 9s. 124. Ibid., p. 98.

CHAPTER

IX

Conclusion

T

HE year 1931 was a milestone in the history of public welfare in the United States. For, under the leadership of Governor Franklin D. Roosevelt, the passage of the Emergency Relief Act of New York marked the first acceptance by a state of an important share of the responsibility for general assistance to its needy residents and established work relief, alongside traditional home relief, as a major method of public aid to the unemployed. Both innovations assumed nation-wide significance partly through direct imitation of the New York plan by other states and partly through the adoption of similar relief policies by the federal government with the creation of the F E R A , the lineal descendant of the TERAofNewYork. T h e various state and federal relief measures of 1931-1935 formed the temporary phase of governmental attacks on economic insecurity during the "depression decade." Moreover, they constituted the core of the proximate background out of which the succeeding "permanent" program of "security, work and relief" was evolved. T h e three pre-WPA programs of work relief in New York State comprised an important cross section of the temporary measures. T h e highlights surrounding these three experiments are sufficiently obvious from the preceding account to make further review unnecessary, except as they seem to have a bearing upon the future of work relief.

T H E G E N E R A L R O L E OF R E C E N T W O R K

RELIEF

T h e economic depression of 1929 was unique in its severity and duration. At the beginning of 1935 approximately one-fifth of the population was on the relief rolls and as late as 1939 there were still some ten million unemployed in the United States. After certain preparatory steps, the continuing urgency of the problem of unemployment gave rise to an unprecedented series of largely ameliorative measures. Among the preliminary steps was the deflation of the 1929-1930 "conspiracy of optimism" which predicted imminent economic recovery. Next, the established relief-giving machinery, with a history of relatively slow

Conclusion

315

change behind it, proved to be neither of sufficient size nor resourcefulness to cope adequately with the problem of widespread need. T h e "lags" in existing arrangements became more and more apparent as increasing demands for relief placed a mounting tax burden on real estate in the face of spreading financial stringency, as bread and soup lines grew longer, as hunger marches and other demonstrations of the unemployed dramatized need, and as "fly-by-night" relief agencies, reminiscent of trial and error efforts in past depressions, appeared on the scene. By the summer of 1 9 3 1 , conservative leadership was discredited appreciably and many communities were emotionally ready for "moderately progressive" change. T h e situation was generally ripe for "redefinition" by some strong personality. Governor Roosevelt proved to be that leader. Under his guidance, the Emergency Relief Act, enacted by the New York Legislature in September, 1 9 3 1 , paid respects to the ancient principle of local responsibility but also provided for state-aid and established work relief on a par with traditional home relief as a method of unemployment assistance. T h i s L a w became a model for the nation and was the first in a series of major developments in governmental attacks on the problem of economic insecurity. T h e major developments which followed the Emergency Relief A c t of New York are summarized below: 1. In 1932, federal "loans" for relief became available through the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. i. Under Roosevelt leadership, federal aid became available for emergency relief with the creation of the F E R A in May, 1933. 3. On June 6, 1933, the President signed the Wagner-Peyser Act creating a federal-state employment service and soon thereafter the United States Employment Service organized the National Reemployment Service to supplement existing facilities in recruiting labor for the federal public works program and, as it turned out, for the CWA and, with the cooperation of home relief agencies, for the programs of the Work Division and the WPA. 4. The federal Public Works Administration was created on June 16, 1933. under T i d e II of the National Industrial Recovery Act. 5. November 9, 1933, marked the creation of the federal CWA which functioned largely through March, 1934. Federal programs of relief to transients and of the surplus commodity distribution got underway during this period. 6. In April, 1934, the Work Division began to absorb work relief activities and the F E R A inaugurated its programs of rural rehabilitation and of resettlement of stranded populations. 7. Governor Lehman of New York appointed the Commission on Unemployment Relief in August, 1934, for exploring the possibility of devising permanent relief machinery which could adequately handle the continuing problem of widespread need. Similar steps were taken in several other states.

3i6

Work Relief in New York State

8. In January, 1935, President Roosevelt announced plans for the so-called permanent program of "security, work and relief." (a) With the passage of the federal Social Security Act in August, 1935, foundations were laid for the present federal-state system of unemployment compensation and for public assistance, chiefly in the form of old age pensions and children's allowances. In 1939, a program of old age and survivor's insurance was added. (b) Created in May, 1935, the federal WPA became active during the latter half of 1935 with a program of work projects for needy employables. At the same time the F E R A began to withdraw federal aid for home relief and to turn back to the states (and localities) full responsibility for assistance to needy unemployables and, as it turned out, to the residual group of employables for whom W P A employment could not be found. In July, 1939· the WPA, the P W A and other federal works agencies were consolidated into the Federal Works Agency. R o u g h l y reflecting changes in business activity, e m p l o y m e n t o n W P A projects declined f r o m around 3,000,000 persons for the country as a w h o l e in March, 1936, to 1,462,000 in September, 1937, a n d then rose t o a peak of 3,334,000 in N o v e m b e r , 1938. T h e r e f o l l o w e d a rather steady downw a r d m o v e m e n t to 3,009,000 employees in M a r c h , 1939, 2,310,000 in M a r c h , 1940, 1,753,000 in March, 1941, 963,000 in M a r c h , 1942, a n d 355.000 in N o v e m b e r , 1942. O n December 4, 1942, President R o o s e v e l t authorized the l i q u i d a t i o n of the W P A and the p r o g r a m was b r o u g h t to an end shortly thereafter. H a d it not been for the initiative of federal authorities in d e v e l o p i n g the W P A program, work relief m i g h t well h a v e been p a r e d d o w n to insignificant proportions at least by the time of the business u p t u r n in the summer of 1937. T h e state searches for or " p l a n s for the p l a n n i n g " of long-term programs of relief, not excepting the sophisticated a p p r o a c h of the Governor's Commission o n U n e m p l o y m e n t R e l i e f in N e w Y o r k , w o u l d probably have contributed much of the rationale for " g r a d u a l l y " g o i n g back entirely to h o m e relief, "the basic f o r m of p u b l i c assistance." T h e N e w Y o r k Commission, f o r example, r e p o r t e d "differences of opini o n " a m o n g its members as t o " t h e f u n d a m e n t a l wisdom of the continuance of w o r k r e l i e f " but was unanimous in the belief that any such program " s h o u l d be clearly recognized and labeled as a relief measure," that it " s h o u l d be limited to the supplementing of regular g o v e r n m e n t a l activity a n d consequently it must be carefully limited in e x t e n t a n d scope" and that " w o r k relief cannot properly be carried o n at the same scale w h i c h has existed in the recent past." 1 I n fact, as shown o n page 80, the p a r i n g d o w n of work relief rolls had been in progress in N e w Y o r k 1. Governor's Commission, Work

Lyon Co., igj6, p. 111.

Relief

in the State of New

York,

A l b a n y : J. B.

Conclusion

317

State for some months prior to the inauguration of the WPA in August, »935T o such leaders as President Roosevelt and Harry L. Hopkins belongs much of the credit for keeping work relief a major method of public assistance until the very end of the long depression cycle, despite direct attacks or oblique pressures against that form of aid. Moreover, these leaders played an important role in maintaining work relief as the principal method of "emergency employment." When the PWA was created in mid-1933, there was the possibility that a huge public works program of the federal government would soon remove the need for work relief by creating "regular" job opportunities and by serving as "the balance wheel of industry." But, unlike work relief, heavy construction work, carried on under contract in the usual manner, could not be speedily expanded or curtailed as the immediate situation demanded due to various legal, technical and administrative difficulties and it involved much greater costs per man-year than work relief. On the other hand, work relief projects could be "rationed" though such arrangements as the selection of workers on the basis of various degrees of need, the restriction of the number of hours of work during a given period, the rotation of workers, the payment of wages somewhat below prevailing levels, and the selection of projects requiring relatively much hand labor and little materials and equipment. For such reasons, the federal public works program was clearly subordinated to work relief and played a relatively minor role in the attack upon the recent depression. As compared with that of WPA, the preceding programs of work relief had both the advantages and disadvantages of being rather closely intermeshed with the uninterrupted program of home relief. The principle advantage of this close relationship was the enhancement of the possibility of integrated planning for both employables and non-employables in need of relief. But this advantage was offset to a large extent by the psychology of temporary emergency which prevailed as illustrated by the story of the financing of unemployment relief in general and of work relief in particular. As shown in Chapter V, it was a story of a confusing patchwork of inadequate laws and of shifting relationships between federal, state and local authorities. Also, involved here was the inherent difficulty of predicting within some reasonable margin of error the trend of relief needs for any considerable period of time. T h e principal disadvantage of close integration between the two methods of public assistance was the tendency for traditional home relief to dominate "upstart" work relief through the tenacity of tradition and the influence of institutions and specialized personnel with a professional

318

Work Relief in New York State

stake in home relief and its body of "principles." When responsibility for home relief was turned back to the states and localities, the separately administered WPA was in large measure emancipated from these pressures at least from within. The experiments of 1931-1935 will go down in welfare history as demonstrating for the first time the feasibility of work relief on a large scale. As a method of "mass relief," they were clearly the first noteworthy competitors of the "dole." The WPA was far more important than its immediate precursors, at least in the number of man-days of work provided. This "long-term" program lasted almost twice as long as the three preceeding ones combined. Moreover, the WPA was a much improved program due in large measure to lessons learned particularly from the CWA and Work Division experiences. In fact, the earlier ventures constituted the laboratory out of which the WPA emerged. Any general appraisal of the pre-WPA programs is extremely difficult. They have been most praised and most damned ventures. In general, people on relief preferred work to the "dole" and none of the programs was really large enough to give jobs to all those on the relief rolls who were willing and able to work. T h e feature of the cash wage was widely praised by merchants and retailers dealing in foodstuffs and other necessities. The majority of state and local public officials seemed to favor work relief over home relief. Owners of real estate preferred improvements through work relief as a form of tax relief on their property. Both political parties appeared to be afraid to oppose work relief because of its general popularity at least at the height of the depression. The chief criticisms against work relief were on the score of high costs and mediocre output. T h e principal critics were members of conservative business and welfare organizations. In any evaluation of pre-WPA work relief it is necessary to remember the essentially temporary and emergency character of the measures and the limitations imposed upon them by the general culture. T h e prevailing framework of morality could not easily accept planning for unemployment relief on a long-term basis without casting considerable doubt upon the soundness of at least some of the institutional arrangements. Thus, the early experiments largely operated on the underlying assumption that the emergency would soon be over and that the first business of "mass relief" is to put itself out of business as soon as possible. As the depression wore on, the long-term plans which did emerge were heavily weighted, as most sociologists probably would have predicted, with the prior claims of pre-existing institutions.

Conclusion

319

Work relief did accomplish its expressed aim by providing "wage assistance" to a large proportion of those on the relief rolls in a manner which was more acceptable to most recipients than under arrangements for the receipt of the "dole." It helped people to maintain psychological equilibrium by providing an outlet for their work habits and means for somewhat normal social relationships. It supplied communities across the land with many useful services and improvements. It satisfied a fundamental bias of our culture to the effect that people should work for what they receive. Above all, it contributed much to the dissipation of mass hysteria and similar threats to our form of democracy. After all, the latter was by and large the unexpressed aim of all of the emergency relief measures. Due to such factors as lack of experience, absence of organizational models, uncertainties surrounding financing and life span, and speed of implementation, the pre-WPA programs of work relief suffered from at least some glaring errors. Mention need be made only of the trial and error fumbling under the first program, the relief and non-relief duality of the CWA, tripartite responsibility under the Work Division, lack of time for planning projects, and frequent changes in rules and regulations. But, pre-WPA work relief needs no apology. It stands out as an amazing example of cooperation between different levels of government in a common cause. Only in time of war has anything similar ever been witnessed in this country. T h e final tribute is due the T E R A of New York whose work was outstanding from the standpoint of "trail-blazing" and of honest and conscientious public service. While not subject to the Civil Service Law, it steadfastly adhered to a merie basis for its employees and insisted upon scrupulous honesty at all times. In view of the biases of the culture, one wise policy of the T E R A was that it gave wide scope to local administration and interest. Future Aid to the

Unemployed

As preparations have been made for post-War readjustments in our economic machine, there has been a tendency to attack vigorously the defeatist thinking of the pre-War depression which assumed that we cannot afford full production and full employment. What the world now needs, it is held, is the implementation of some theory of an ever-expanding economy which will usher in a new era of huge public and private investments that, among other things, would provide the flow of income necessary to sustain full employment. If such a theory should work in practice, the phenomenon of periodic widespread unemployment would

320

Work Relief in New York State

at last become a historical curiosity along with all ameliorative measures designed to aid unemployed employables. The proposed reorientation of our economic system may indeed be far more than an expression of emerging post-War idealism. But, on the score of the tenacity of traditions alone, is such reorientation likely to take place within the next generation? Perhaps, if economic dislocations press upon our society with sufficient continuity and urgency. On the other hand, if we somehow manage "to muddle along" the chances are that the theory of an expanding economy will remain for some time to come more of an academic than a practical question. In any event, past experience strongly suggests that hard times may come again at least within the next decade or two and it would be sheer folly to be unprepared for large-scale aid to the unemployed. The United States will be somewhat better prepared to deal with the next prolonged wave of unemployment than in the 1930's. For, despite a general settling back into traditional molds, the recent economic crisis has left its mark upon the culture. The depression-born Social Security Act of 1935 with its federal-state system of unemployment compensation should cushion the shock at least through the periods of benefit payments. The various public assistance programs of the Security Act have undergone improvement and should keep aged citizens and mothers receiving children's allowances from crowding onto unemployment relief rolls. Some of the states have extended and improved their home relief systems. The notion of local responsibility has been modified to the extent that federal and state grants-in-aid will probably be expected. The myth of the basic role of private agencies in relieving distress in crises has been exploded and will not retard public action on the theory that private agencies can do the job. The public employment services have accumulated much experience in connecting people with jobs. There has been much planning for public works. Moreover, it is quite possible that other significant improvements will be made in the established social machinery to help meet the problem of mass unemployment. If and when the next one strikes, the experiences of the recent depression should prove useful in guiding policy. In future searches for models of work relief to be avoided, imitated or improved upon the original state-local program of New York, the federal CWA, and the federalstate-local Work Division program may each well receive considerable attention along with the "long-term" venture of the federal WPA. For, besides exemplifying different administrative arrangements, these programs in a sense represent a movement away from the concept that relief should be given at a subsistence level solely to those passing a means

Conclusion

321

test for only so long as the need continues and a movement towards the customary standards of employment surrounding programs of public works. It is, of course, impossible to do more than speculate about the shape of future attacks upon the problem of widespread unemployment. The chances are that a considerable share of the burden will fall upon home relief, the institutionalized form of general assistance. With its continuity of organization, specialized personnel and tried principles, the "basic form of assistance" may be expected to exert much pressure against infringements upon its traditional province. This approach has been strengthened in some states since the early thirties, partly through systematization of procedures, adoption of state grants-in-aid, introduction of cash relief, and wide recognition that the unemployed are largely normal people in need of money rather than "case work" or "mental therapy." T h e system of "the dole" will have the support especially of those who believe that "relief is highly demoralizing but, after all, necessary in hard times" and that "the costs should be held down to the lowest possible minimum." A number of developments suggest that a huge program of public works may be the outstanding feature during the next period of mass unemployment. These include the obsolescence of the work test, the movement of recent work relief away from home relief towards public works orientation, the recent federal program of public works, the consolidation of both public works and work relief into the Federal Works Agency in 1939, the creation of the Public Work Reserve in 1941 for the development and keeping up-to-date "a reservoir of needed public works and services which might be undertaken after the reduction of . . . defense activities," 2 the activities of state bodies in the planning of public works projects,8 the authorization of the Federal Works Administrator in 1944 to make advances to non-federal agencies for the planning of public works to be undertaken "when labor and materials become available," the replacement of demands for the "right to relief" by those for the "right to work," and recent federal legislation designed to provide "real" job opportunities for all who are able and willing to work through the device of a national "full employment budget" which would act as a sort of "economic gyroscope." Although the next program of emergency public works in the United States may be unprecedented in scope, the chances are that, as a practical 2. George B. Galloway, Postwar Planning tieth Century Fund, 1942, p. 47. 3. Ibid., pp. 101-103.

in the United States, New York: Twen-

328

Work Relief in Nerv York State

matter, it will turn out to be a limited program after all. Aside from the advance planning of projects, it generally takes considerable time for a program of heavy construction to get underway and such a program usually does not possess the flexibility of the "dole" or of work relief in the sense of quick response to rapid shifts in intensity of unemployment. Moreover, there is serious doubt that, if prosecuted along conventional lines, public works can be sufficiently diversified to absorb on a strictly competitive basis the skills of a large proportion of unemployed factory workers who have had no previous experience in construction work. But, the basic obstacle in the way of a colossal expansion of public works is likely to be the relatively high costs per man-year and the staggering total appropriations which would be necessary to provide jobs for millions over, let us say, a period of years. T h e guess is that a long period of education will be required before thrift-minded Americans and their legislators, schooled in an "economy of scarcity" and emotionally identified with the rationing of "available" relief funds, will give the support needed for a program of more or less "unlimited" governmental spending, regardless of the theoretic justifications for such a course of action in times of depression. It is assumed here, as mentioned previously, that at least through the next depression our economic difficulties will not have forced a complete reorientation of the present system in accordance with some theory of an ever-expanding economy. Of course, this assumption may be somewhat over-optimistic. Public works of the next large-scale depression may well employ less than a fifth of those who would otherwise be forced to accept relief. In such an event, the chances seem good that work relief or, by any other name, something akin to it will be tried as a major method of public assistance, assuming that government will respect the wishes of the unemployed. For, experience of the recent depression strongly suggests that the majority of the needy unemployed will not be satisfied with the conventional "dole" but will demand work in some form. It has been estimated, for example, that in the state of New York the unprecedented volume of emergency jobs provided by the C W A constituted only in the neighborhood of one sixth of the total number of applicants for such jobs. 4 Moreover, it is now generally recognized that the unemployed prefer work to ordinary relief. Shortly after the conclusion of the C W A , the executive director of the T E R A told a conference of New York mayors that the unemployed "are becoming increasingly restive, progressively more vocal and better organized" and expressed the opinion 4. T E R A , The State in Public Unemployment Relief, March i, 1934, State Legislative Document (1934) No. 59, Albany: J. B, Lyon Co., p. 8.

Conclusion

3«3

that " w e m a y soon find ourselves faced w i t h a decision as to w h e t h e r w e shall p r o v i d e w o r k in some f o r m , or provide the equivalent in cash allowances." 8 T h e widespread provision of the equivalent of work relief wages i n the f o r m of a "cash d o l e " w o u l d u n d o u b t e d l y constitute a f o r m i d a b l e threat to the f u t u r e of work relief.® B u t , any large-scale use of the " e q u i v alent cash d o l e " seems remote as l o n g as the culture ranks thrift and work a m o n g its highest values. For, i m p o r t a n t cross sections of the p o p u l a t i o n w i l l p r o b a b l y continue to c l i n g tenaciously to and oppose measures inconsistent w i t h such beliefs as the f o l l o w i n g : 1. Relief should not be made too easy for that encourages idleness and thriftlessness. 2. T h e "dole" in any form is demoralizing and the only excuse for it is its "cheapness." 3. People should work for what they receive; it is degrading to accept "something for nothing." 4. Work in most any form helps to maintain "morale," "initiative," "selfrespect" and so forth. 5. T h e work habits and skills of people should be preserved. 6. Communities have the right to receive "worthwhile" improvements in return for the relief extended. 7. T h e "available emergency jobs" should be rationed among "as many as possible." 8. State and federal programs of work can be manipulated to effect (through circumvention of special assessment financing and substitution of emergency projects for budgetary work) substantial reductions in local taxes on real estate. 9. It is "smart politics" to recognize that the unemployed prefer work to ordinary relief. 10. It may be "a political necessity" to satisfy at least in part widespread demands for "the right to work." O f course, some such beliefs m a y be aired in the o p e n and others m a y simply operate as tacit assumptions. In the e x c i t e m e n t of crisis a n d the a c c o m p a n y i n g f u m b l i n g t o get "suitable" p r o g r a m s u n d e r w a y " b e f o r e it is too late," proponents are likely to emphasize the " a d v a n t a g e s " of this or that approach and minimize whatever "disadvantages" are b r o u g h t to light. Moreover, experiences of the recent depression suggest that more or less open competition between the various approaches results in a chaotic p a t c h w o r k of 5. TERA Mimeograph No. ÎS74, June 14, 1934. 6. Such a move might well increase demands among the unemployed for "real jobs" under a program of public works, and lead to the obsolescence of emergency unemployment relief altogether inasmuch as the next step suggested is the use of public subsidies to so extend the system of unemployment compensation that all employables would receive subsistence-level benefits for so long as they cannot find jobs.

324

Work Relief in New York State

programs. There appears, hence, to be a need, at least on the state and federal levels of government, for the development and periodic review of plans envisaging the probable use of some combination of home relief, work relief, and public works as the major attacks upon the next largescale wave of unemployment. T h e primary task of such comprehensive advance planning would be to promote functional integration between what may well turn out to be separately administered programs, each involving important differences in governmental financing and control, timing schedules, scope, flexibility, and so forth. T h e important point is that such master planning be not limited to a single aspect, such as the recent tendency to emphasize public works projects, but rather consist of several alternative interdigitated plans in anticipation of the implementation of any one of several combinations. Within the larger context of such plans, the work relief components would take into account such possibilities as the following: ι. Work relief may continue the trend of moving away from the relief and towards the employment (public works) pole. ï . T h e work relief and public works complexes may be differentiated into loosely integrated programs of relief projects (conducted under force account and involving low material costs), non-relief white-collar and professional projects, "light" public works construction, and "heavy" public works construction. 3. Work relief and home relief may become the exclusive responsibility of state and local governments, while public works is largely financed and controlled by the federal government. 4. Work relief may be regarded as only moderately flexible in the sense of quick expansion or contraction in response to sudden shifts in the amount of unemployment, with home relief being most flexible and public works least flexible. 5. T h e scope of work relief may be at low, moderate or high levels in relation to that of home relief and of public works.

As suggested in the classifications of types of relief and of employment activity in Chapter II, work relief may be conducted under a wide variety of arrangements and the ones used most frequently in the past need not be considered as "best." Whether or not work relief becomes largely the responsibility of the states and localities, its major issues in the future will, by and large, be the same as those raised during the recent depression. One important new problem will center around the timing and distribution of work relief in view of the fact that unemployment compensation will be received by industrial workers during varying periods. Another new issue is likely to be raised by the proposal that the basic program of work should be a public

Conclusion

325

works program of light construction conducted under contract (and not force account) but recruiting something like three-fourths of the personnel from the relief rolls. T h e planners of future work relief may find it useful to give some attention to the pre-WPA experiences of work relief in New York State. It is hoped that the preceding pages will facilitate such review. Of special interest in this connection might be the sections on work relief in past depressions (page 32), typical features (page 35) and definitions (page 42) of work relief, the movement towards work relief (page 54), the legislative basis of work relief (page 83), the rules and regulations of the C W A (page 114) and the Work Division (page 124), duration and sources of funds (Chapter V), the organization of the T E R A and the functions of its divisions with special reference to work relief (Chapter VI), local organization for work relief (Chapter VII), the types of work projects approved (page 225) and prosecuted (page 286), and the problems of costs and efficiency (page 300). Of course, the oft-quoted publications of the T E R A and of Governor Lehman's Commission on Unemployment Relief should also be consulted. T h e T E R A Manual of Procedure For Local Relief Administrations (pages 124 and 130) likewise merits close study. T h e makers of future work relief policy should give special attention to the so-called "disadvantages" of work relief at the outset. These tended to be minimized or ignored during the recent depression until they were "discovered" by investigators of one sort or another when the time seemed appropriate to curtail or liquidate the program. Advance planning for work relief should take into consideration the added costs for materials and supervision, the sub-par efficiency of relief projects, their competition with regular public activities and private enterprise, the lag in work incentive among the employees, the confusion of work and relief objectives and the like. Of course, work relief cannot be a success except as an emergency measure for, after all, it exhibits basic conflicts with the long-term orientations in the culture. A work relief engineer in New York City once remarked to the writer: "You don't believe that anybody really wants work relief to be successful. . . . What we want is our old jobs back with our private employers!" T H E END

Index Abel, Theodore, χ, χ η. Accident compensation, 75· 77· 9 Ζ · 10®, tog, 113, 120-121, 122, 125, 13s, 2 1 1 - 2 1 2 Accomplishments on projects, of the public service type, 295-300, 304; of t h e public works type, 292, 293, 294-295 Acknowledgements, v-vi, χ Adequacy of relief, 104, 106, 1 1 1 - 1 1 2 , 125. See also Standards of relief Administration, T h e , see T E R A Commission Administrative costs, 77, 244, 302-303 Administrative personnel, local, 87, 110, 114, 118, 129-130, 131, 149, 240-244, 245, 263-264; state, 194-195· i97->9 8 · * l 3 s » 4 Administrative projects, 118, 129, 203, 242, 245, 254, 259 260, 286, 287, 289 Advantages and disadvantages of work relief. 34. 35· 39-4*. 301-302 Advisory committees of T E R A , 187-188 Aide, David C., 185 Aims, of early work relief, 36, 37, 38; of recent work relief, 43-45, 151-153; of state relief authorities, 171-172, 186-187, 199, 202, 204; of local work bureaus, 88, 130-131, 253-255, 256 Aldermanic investigation of relief in New York City, 174-175, 208 n. Ailing, Harold L., χ Allotments, see Budget system; Distribution of funds; Quota system American Red Cross, 210 Approval of projects, 149, 150, 155, 156, 164, 165, 180-181, 196, 201, 202-203, 206· 207, 208, 209, 214, 217-230, 231, 233 Approved estimated costs, for local state a n d federal projects, 227; for materials and equipment, 227, 228; for wages and salaries, 227, 228; inflation of, 224-225 Association of Community Chests and Councils, 62-63 Association of Public Welfare Officials, 62 Attitudes toward work and relief, 25-28, 30-3». 55-56. 3«3

Backlog of projects, 224-225 Baker, Jacob, 153 n. Biases of the culture, 55-56, 317, 318, 319, 325 Bond issues, see Funds for relief; Vote for state bond issues Borst, Homer, 193 Boyd, R o b e r t W„ 214 Budget system for local districts, 170-171, 177-180 Budgetary deficit, 40, 41, 99, 104, 105, 109, 112, 113, 114, 115, 123, 125, 129, 130, 202, 249-251; limitation waived, 129-130, 243 C a m p T E R A , 76, 190 n. Capes, W. P., 168 n. Cases on relief, see Numbers aided Cash relief, 41, 101-102, 106, 108, 1 1 1 , 112, 113, 322-323 Categorical assistance, 11-12, 46 Central indexes, 105, 106, 112, 125, 246, 249 Central-office staff of T E R A , 190, 197-198, 200, 201-233 Charity organization, 3-4, 13, 109-110, 125, 321 Cincinnati plan, 55, 57 City College of New York, 297 Civil Works Administration (CWA), vii, 73, 74, 90, 114-123, 126-127, 150-165, 196197, 212-214, 315 Civil Works Administrations (CWAs), local, see Emergency Work Bureaus Civil Works and Civil Works Service projects, 76, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 151, 225, 226, 227, 228. See also Construction projects; Service projects Claims for reimbursement, 105, 204-205, 208, 209. See also Reimbursement Classification and Compensation Plan of T E R A , 132, 258-260 Classification of projects, 128,129, 131, 180, 219, 233. See also Fields of project activity Clerical and professional personnel, 114,

Index 11g, ι » , 130, 197, «17. See also Service projects Collective bargaining under work relief, >3* Columbia University, x, »97 Commission on Old Age Security, 64 Commissioners of public welfare, city and county, 8182, 85, 86, 87, 88, 104, 105, 166 n„ 195, 237. *4» Commissions, local, see Local emergency relief commissions Committee on Stabilization of Industry, 57· 6 4 Compensation Division, see Program divisions of TERA Conditions of employment, 36-37, 40-42, 118, 123, 125-126, 130, 132. See also Accident compensation; Collective bargaining; Grievance Committees; Hours; Safety program; Wages; Wage Rate Committees Conference of mayors, 136, 168 n., 170, 3223*5 Conferences of relief and other officials, 137, 138, 14g, 151-152, 155, 159, 167, 168, 169, 174, 178, 186, 187 Consolidation of relief activities within or between districts, 88, 238-240 Constitution, state, 96-97, 138 Construction projects, 36, 37, 39-40, 115117, 118, 120, 121, 122, 151, 219, 220, 223, 227, 228, 22g, 286-287, 288, 289-290, *9*-*95. 3°5'3IO> 3 M " 3 , S Coordination in welfare work, 3-4, 12-13 Costs, see Expenditures or obligations Councils of social agencies, 62, 172 Counsel of TERA, see Epstein, Henry Crimmins, Thomas, 185 Cuddihy, Robert J., 185 Curtailment, of CWA employment, 157158; of Work Division employment, 80, S»6-3i7 Daniels, Frederick I., 155, 159, 166 n., 169170, 178 n., 180 n., 181, 184 n., 185, 186, 192, 193, 221 n., 322-323 Davis, H. Jackson, 188, 223 Death benefits, see Accident compensation Definition, of home relief, 74-75; of private and public welfare work, 2, 5; of work relief and related activities, 29, 32-33, 4*"45. 75 Demobilization of CWA, 122-123, 158-159. See also Transfer of work relief

327 Departmental Letters of TERA, 107, 124, 125, 128, 198 Direct relief, 23, 46, 112-113, 166, 172. See also Home relief Disability benefits, see Accident compensation Disadvantages of work relief, see Advantages Discretionary fund, see Funds for relief Discrimination prohibited, 104, 105, 106, 113, 117, 125 Distribution of funds, among local districts, 68, 90-91, 92, 116, 126-127, 138-139, 148-149, 161-163, 170-171, 177-180, 183, 186, 188, 224; within local districts, 179, «57 Districts for relief administration, local, 87, 234-237, 273, 287-292, 295-296; state, 192, 195, 197, 199 Divisions of TERA executive staff, see Operation divisions; Program divisions Duplication of relief, see Central indexes Durant, Aldrich, 196, 214, 216 Duration of emergency relief, and sources of funds, 134-182; and welfare effect, 92, '38 Earnings of project workers, 41, 114, 118119, 130, 250-251, 281, 302-303. See also Budgetary deficit; Hours of work; Wages Educational publicity, see Public relations Efficiency of projects, 304, 305, 306-310 Eligibility, for relief, 88-89, l o s · I 0 4· I 1 2 · 125, 164, 165, 203; of projects, 102, 104, 105, 113, 116-117, 125, 126, 132, 164, 219220 Emergency Committee for Employment, 56-57 Emergency periods, statutory, 84, 85, 134146, 166-182 Emergency relief before 1929, 18-23 Emergency Relief Act, vii, ix, 51-52, 74, 82, 83-93, 98-102, 103, 104-105, 107, 113, 124-125, 134-135, 160, 165-166, 183, 185, 186, 211, 234, 237, 314, 315 Emergency Relief Bureaus (ERBs), 88, 108, 238-240. See also Consolidation of relief activities Emergency Work Bureaus (EWBs), 74, 8182, 87-88, 102, 104, 105, 109, 114, 124 n., 128-131, 133, 153, 154, 169, 195, 204, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 218, 219, 221, 222, 232, 237 238, 239, 240, 253-272 Employability of workers, 104, 105, 108, 113, 125, 172, 202, 220

328

Index

Employment, emphasis on elements of, 4245, 46-48, 192, 202, 2 1 6 - 2 1 7 ; under work relief and related programs, 80, 152-153, 302, 316. See also Numbers aided Engineering personnel, 147, 194, 195, 196, 197, 199, 200, 2 1 3 , 214, 216, 230-231, 232, 259, 261-262, 268, 270, 271, 272. See also Field staff of T E R A Epstein, Henrv, 83, 93-98, 99-100, 167, 186, 188 Equipment, see Materials and equipment Executive staff of T E R A , x , 183, 188-233. See also Central-office staff; Field staff; Operation divisions; Program divisions; Project division Expansion of C W A , 154-157 Expenditures (or obligations) for relief, before 1929, 16-18; 1929-1931, 60-62; 1 9 3 1 - 1 9 3 5 , 76-79; divided between home relief and wage assistance, 76-79, 142, 146-147, 160-161, 177, 283-284; expressed as wages per inhabitant, 282-283; under home relief and work relief compared, 250-251, 281-282, 300-303, 3 1 0 Falconer, Douglas P., 193 n.; quoted or paraphrased, 109, 1 1 3 , 195 Family Welfare Association of America, 62, 194 Feder, Leah H., quoted or paraphrased, 20, 2 1 , 32-33, 34, 35; cited, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 2 1 , 22, 23, 25, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 4 1 , 42, 43, 47 Federal Emergency Relief Administration ( F E R A ) vii, 7 1 , 72, 73, 76, 8 1 , 107, 1101 1 4 , 1 1 5 , 1 1 6 , 123, 1 2 7 - 1 3 1 , 144-145· 149. 1 5 1 , 153, 165-166, 167, 175, 179, 180-181, 183. 185, 233, 3 1 5 Federal Surplus Relief Corporation, 206, 300 Federal Works Agency, 316, 321 Field staff of T E R A , 187, 192, 193, 194-195, 197, 198, igg-2oo, 202-203, 204, 2 1 3 , 2142 1 6 , 222, 230-231, 232 Fields of project activity, 129, 1 3 1 , 228, 229, 232, 287, 288, 289-292 Financial procedure, 1 2 1 - 1 2 2 , 127-128, 1 3 1 , 204-205 Force account, 37, 102, 104, 1 1 3 , 1 1 6 , 125, 219, 3 1 1 Formal and informal relationships within T E R A staff, 189, 194, 195-196, 198, 199 Funds for relief and related purposes, appropriations, 92, 135-136, 138-139, 1401 4 1 , 143, 168, 173, 174; bond issues, 92,

» 3 7 1 3 8 , 139. '42. ' 4 3 > 4 4 · >65-166, 173, 174, 175, 176; C W A , 1 1 5 , 122, 1 5 1 - 1 5 2 , 160, 161-162; F E R A gTants, 93, 1 1 0 - 1 1 1 , 125, 127, 145-146, 153, 167; from federal, state and local sources, 142, 145-146, 1601 6 1 , 167-168, 176-177; local borrowing of, 89-90, 97. 1 76. See also Distribution of funds; Reimbursement Future of work relief, 319-325 Goals, see Aims Governor Lehman's Commission on Unemployment Relief, 43-44, 45, 1 7 1 - 1 7 2 , 1 7 3 " 1 7 4 ' 189-190, 200, 2 0 1 , 202, 206-207, 209, 288, 301, 302-303, 304-313, 3 1 6 Grievance Committees, 128, 129, 256, 258 Historical background, of public relief in New York State, 48-52; of relief measures in the United States before 1930, 1-28; of work relief, 29-35, 48-60 Hodson, William, 185 Home relief and its administration, vii, viii, ix, 69, 7 1 , 73, 74, 77, 78, 79, 80, 8182, 87, 88-89, 106-107, ' 0 8 - 1 1 0 , 1 1 1 - 1 1 3 , 13g, 142, 144, 146, 148, 1 6 1 , 166, 167, 1 7 1 , •77· '79· l 8 ' · >82, 183, 2 1 1 , 2 1 2 , 237-238, 239, 240, 245-251, 301-303, 3 1 5 , 3 1 7 - 3 1 8 , 320, 3 2 1 , 322-323. See also Budgetary deficit; Eligibility for relief; Investigation of relief applicants; Social service personnel Hoover, Herbert, 56 Hopkins, Harry L., viii, 53, 56, 7 1 , 72, 73, 1 1 4 - 1 1 5 , 117 n., 122, 123 n., 152, 153-154, 155. 1 5 6 . ' 5 7 - ' 5 8 · i 6 4 . '67' l 8 4 . >92· ' 9 3 . 317 Hours of work, 109, 1 1 5 , 1 1 8 , 122, 129-130 Improvement of public property, see Construction projects Index, of project efficiency, 309-310; of the use of work relief in local districts, 283286 Indirect relief, 22, 32 Indoor relief, 8-9, 30-32, 46 Industry and business, competition of work relief with, 39, 44, 105, 125, 3 1 1 ; and work under contract, 102, 104, 1 1 3 , »25. 303. 3 ° 9 - 3 ' ° Informal relationships, see Formal and informal relationships Inspection of projects, 196-197, 201, 2 1 3 , 216, 223, 230-231, 255, 256 Integration of T E R A staff, 197, 198-200

Index Interpretation of relief laws, see Epstein, Henry Interrelationship between relief activities, 8.-83 Investigation of relief applicants, 4 1 , 89, 102, 104, 106, 107, 109, 1 1 2 - 1 1 3 , 118, 152, 1 8 1 , 238, 239-240, 245-246, 247, 248, 249 Jackson, Glen, 193 J o i n t Committee of the New York State Department of Social Welfare and the State Charities A i d Association, 57, 58, 59, 65-66 Joint Emergency Relief Bureaus, 88, 239, 240. See also Consolidation of relief activities Joint Emergency Work Bureaus, 88, 239, 240. See also Emergency Work Bureaus Joint Vocational Bureau, 194, 195 Jones, William H., 186, 196, 2 1 3 , 214, 216 Labor on work relief projects, 39, 76, 1 1 3 , 1 1 8 , 128-129, 132, 187, 203, 225, 227, 307308 I.aGuardia, Fiorello H., 158 η., ι68 η. Lee, James P., 2 1 3 , 214 Legal framework for emergency relief, see Emergency Relief Act; Epstein, Henry Lehman, Herbert H., 155, 156-157, 158, 167, 168, 169, 170, 1 7 1 , 174, 175, 176, 184, 3 1 5 . See also Governor Lehman's Commission on Unemployment Relief Livermore, Paul S., 185 Local emergency relief commissions, 82, 87· 89, 101, 108, 166 n., 237-238, 240-241, 2,(i, 256-258, 268 Local executive staffs, 237-238, 245, 258-272 Local financing of relief, 89-90, 134 n., 160, 161-162, 167, 176 n., 257. See also Budget system: Distribution of funds; Funds f o r relief; Quota system; Reimbursement; Substitution of work relief Local responsibility, 6, 7, 9, 10, 24, 26-27, 49, 50-51, 63, 67, 84, 87-88, 99, 202, 234, 256-258, 3 1 5 . 320 Lowenstein, Solomon, 185 Lynd, Robert S., x, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30 Maclver, Robert M., x , 66 n. Man-hours of work distributed by fields of activity. 286-292 Manual projects, see Construction projects Manuals of procedure, C W A , 1 2 1 - 1 2 2 ; F E R A , 124, 127-128, 130, 1 3 1 ; T E R A ,

3*9

124-125, 128, 130, 1 3 1 , 1 3 3 , 187, 198, 206, 207-208 Martin, Frederick R o y , 188 Materials and equipment, approved estimated costs for, 227, 228, 308; delivery of, 30g; expenditures for, 77, 1 6 1 , 162, 244, 302, 303; funds for, 122, 1 6 1 , 162, 178, 207-208, 2 1 7 , 308; purchase of, 1 2 1 , 122, 127, 1 3 1 , 207-209, 2 3 1 ; reimbursement on, 132, 178, 179-180, 204-205, 207208, 223-224, 308; f o r state projects, g2, 308. See also Operation divisions Mayer, Paul H., 178, 193, 194 Mayor's (LaGuardia) Committee on Unemployment R e l i e f , 249, 250, 261, 296 Minimum wage rate, 1 1 3 , 1 1 9 , 123, 126 Morale value of work relief, 30, 31-32, 38, 40, 43, 152, 301-302, 307-308 Morrow, Robert L., 340 n. Moses, Robert, 161 n. Movement towards state-aided work relief, 54-7° Myers, Arthur, 2 1 3 , 214, 2 1 6 " N a m m " Committee, 304 National Conference of Social Work, 1 2 - 1 3 National Industrial Recovery Act, 90, 1 1 5 , 1 1 6 , 1 1 7 , 1 1 9 , 150, 1 5 1 National Reemployment Service (NRS), 76, 78 n., 1 1 7 , 126, 129, 181 n., 241, 2 5 1 «53. 3 ' 5 New York City, 33, 49, 53, 59, 6 1 , 65, 67, 90, 102, 108, 158, 162, 163, 167, 168, 169, 174, 176, 178, 1 8 1 , 195, 199, 208. 236, 237, 242, 250, 2 5 1 , 260-262, 274, 275, 277, 280, 2 8 1 , 282, 283, 285, 286, 289, 290, 291, 292, 295, 296, 298, 299, 304, 305, 309, 3 1 1 , 325 New York State, Board or Department of Social Welfare, 50, 5 1 , 58, 6 1 , 64, 65, 67, 69, 70, 1 7 1 , 172, 185, 3 1 2 ; Comptroller's Office, 180, 188, 194, 204, 207, 2 1 2 , 2 1 9 ; Department of Education, 222; Department of Health, 188, 194, 222, 298, 299; Department of Labor, 188; Department of Mental Hygiene, 299; Department of Public Works, 222 New York State Employment Service (NYSES), 1 1 7 , 126, 12g. 241, 251-253 New York University, 2g7 Non-manual projects, see Service projects Non-relief costs, 75, 149, 178, 179, 242, 243 Numbers aided, 60-61, 80-81, 273-280 Objectives, see Aims Obligations for relief, see Expenditures

33°

Index

Operation divisions of T E R A staff, igo, 191, í g j , 198, 200; Federal Surplus Commodities, 19s, 196, 197, soi; Finance, 180, 186, 192, 194, 197, 198, soi, 204-205, S07, S19; Methods and Systems, 187, 198, 206; Office Management and Personnel, 188, 194, 197; Purchase, 197, 198, 201, 207S09, 231; Research and Statistics, 194, 206, 223; Safety, 192, 197, 200, 201, 209210, S12, 231. See also Program divisions; Project Division Organization chart, of T E R A , 191; of T E R A Project Division, 215 Organization on Unemployment Relief, President Hoover's, 57 Original work relief program of T E R A , 73, 104-107, 1 1 0 - 1 1 4 , 134-150, 163, 166167, 168, 169, 286, 287, 319, 320 Osborne, Charles D., 184, 185 Outdoor relief, 10-11, 17-18, 14-18, 3», 46 Participation of local districts, 235-236, 283-286 Patterns of work relief, 45-48 Patton, Eugene B., 188 Permanent program of work relief suggested, vii, 155, 165-166, 169-170, 3 1 6 Personnel standards, 105, 106, 107, 108-109, 110, 125, 1 3 1 , 244-245, 319 Pettit, Walter W., 192, 193, 195 Planning Committee of T E R A , 171 n. Planning projects, 130, 1 3 1 , 149, 164-165, *54· 255, 256, 288, 289, 295-296, 305, 306 Policies, changes in, 73, 81, 103, 107-109, 122-123, 124, 134, 144-145, 154, 161, 170, 172, 173-174; formation of, 66-70, 94-96, 1 1 3 - 1 1 4 , 136, 137-138, 167-169, 187, 189190, 200, 201, 217, 231, 256-258. See also Aims; Distribution of funds; Emergency Relief Act; Rules and regulations Poor laws, 5-7, 48-52, 98-100 Population of local districts, 236-237 Private "social work," 2-5, 12-15, 19-20, 320 Program divisions of T E R A staff, 190, 191, 193, 198, 200, 216; Disability Claims, 192, 197, 201, 203, 211-212; Information and Review, 203; Medical Care, 194, 203, 223; Publicity, 175, 188, 194, 206; Rural Activities, 194, 203, 223; Social Service, 192, 201, 203, 216, 223; Transient, 193, 196, 197, 198, 199 n., 201, 206-207, 223. See also Operation divisions; Project Division Project activities, see Construction projects; Service projects

Project applications, 105, 1 3 1 , 149-150, 155156, 164, 165, 204, 205, 208, 209, 217-220, 256. See also Approval of projects; Approved estimated costs Project Division, x, 180, 186, 191, 190, 192, 194-195, 196-197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 204210, 212-233. See also Operation divisions; Program divisions Public relations, 63-64, 82, 138, 139, 142, »43· «75-'7 6 · >87· l 8 8 · '94. »06. «3«. »57«58- 3>3 Public welfare, 5-18, 19-20, 320 Public welfare laws of New York State, 50-52, 82, 97-98 Public Work Reserve, 321 Public works, vii, 22, 32-35, 36-38, 315, 317, 319, 321-322. See also Construction projects Public Works Administration (PWA), 115, 116-117, >» 8 ' >* 6 . ^ » » S S · « ° · 3>5· 3*7 Purchasing procedure, see Materials and equipment Purposes, see Aims Quality of projects, 45, 149, 161, 163, 304305.3>° Quincy report of 1821, 10, 31 Quinn, Lillian, 195 Quota system of CWA, 116, 162-163, 164. See also Budget system Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC), vii, 143, 144, 145, 315 Recovery Act of New York State, 90, 160 Reimbursement of local expenditures, go92, 104, 105, 106, 108, 125, 131-132, 136, 148-149, 161, 162, 166 n., 186-187, 207208, 223-224, 241, 258. See also Distribution of funds; Funds for relief Rejection of project applications, 216, 218, 220, 222 Relief, emphasis on elements of, 42-45, 4648, 192, 194, 202, 216, 317-318 Resubmission of project applications, 150, 154, 225 n. Ridder, Victor F., 185, 186 Right, to relief, 7, 99; to work, viii, 323 Roosevelt, Franklin D., vii, viii, 51, 57, 6465, 66-70, 72, 1 1 3 , 135, 136, 137, 141, 150, 152, 154, 157, 158, 159, 167, 170, 172, 184 314, 315, 316, 317 Ross, Inez Dane, 197, 213, 214, 216 Rules and regulations, CWA, ix, 114-123, 126-127; F E R A , ix, 106-107, '°8> 110-114,

Index 1*6-131; T E R A , ix, 103-107, 107-110, >*4>33 Rural demonstration project, 203 η., 300 Rural Rehabilitation Corporation of New York State, 203 n. Ryan, Joseph P., 185 Safety program, 120, 126-1*7, 209-210, 231, 256 Salaries of T E R A employees, 198 n. Schoellkopf, Alfred H., 103, 168-169, 171. 179, 182, 185, 199 Selection of project workers, 36, 37, 40-41, 76, 104, 114, 117-118, 122, 125, 126, 129, 163, 248, 252-253, 256, 261, 265. 266, 268, 269, 271, 307 Service projects, 77, 114, 115, 118, 119, 121, 122, 129, 151, 216, 222, 223, 228, 229, 230, 254, 291-292, 295-300, 304-305, 312 Social Security Act, 316, 320 Social service exchanges, see Central indexes Social service personnel, 22, 105, 106, 109, n o , 112, 125, 185, 192, 193, 194. '95- >99200, 202, 216, 222, 223, 242 Socilitor-General of New York State, see Epstein, Henry Sources of funds, see Funds for relief Society for the Suppression of Pauperism, The, 31-3* Special programs of relief, 75-76, 77, 78, 108, 167, 203. See also Surplus commodity program; Transient program Sponsorship of projects, 83, 102, 105, 113, 117, 130-131, 148, 241, 255 Standards of relief, 108-109, 110, 249-251, 281-282 Sute aid, 11-12, 18, 24, 49, 52, 62-66. See also Funds for relief; Reimbursement State Association of Local Welfare Officials, 172 State Charities Aid Association, 50, 5 1 , 65, 69, 139, 143, 175, 176 Status of project workers, 106, 107, 113, 120, 125, 132, 163, 172, 181 Stern, Henry Root, 184, 185 Straus, Jesse Isador, 184 Straus, Robert, 213 Strikes, 308 Subsistence gardens, 195, 203, 300 Substitution of work relief for regular public activities, 44, 102, 104, 113, 117, 125. «57- 3Ό-313 Sullivan, John, 184

33 1

Supervision of projects, 254, 255, 256, 302303, 306. See also Inspection of projects Supervisory and technical personnel, 110, 119, 122, 130, 227, 242-243, 306 Surplus commodity program, federal, 76, 78 n., 196, 198, 300, 315 Tables, 77, 140-141, 146, 160, 226, 227, 229, 274, 276, 278, 279, 282, 284, 285, 288, 293 Temporary Emergency Relief Administration (TERA) of the State of New York, vii-x, 71 ff. See also Central-office staff; Executive staff; Field staff; Operation divisions; Program divisions; Project Division; T E R A Commission T E R A Commission, x, 85-86, 93, 103, 104, " 3 · ' 3 ' - ' 3 3 · ·35> ' 3 6 · >4». «46, 154, 157, 158, 171, 179-180, 181, 183-190, 216, 257, 258 Tools and sundry equipment, projects for, 129, 290-291. See also Materials and equipment Touche, Niven and Company, 188 Town welfare officers, 89, 237, 241 Transfer of work relief, 73, 80, 124, 159, 163-166, 169, 180-181, 182, 197, 203, 238, 247, 252, 263. 304 Transient program, 76, 78 n., 1 1 1 , 118 n., 196, 198, 206-207, 232, 294, 315 Unemployment crisis, 52-70 United States Employment Service, 252, S>5 University of Rochester, χ United States Employees' Compensation Commission, 120, 121, 211 United States Veterans Administration, 204 Upstate New York city and county districts, 53. 59, 62, 67, 162-163, 236-257, 238, 239-240, 250, 263-272, 273-286, 287292, 295-296, 300, 303, 308, 311-312. See also New York City Value of projects, 105, 116, 125, 131, 221, 223, 228, 229, 303-306. See also complishments on projects Van Hyning, Conrad, 193, 194, 218, 302 Volunteers, use of, 19, 147, 148, 188 Vote for state bond issues, 138, 139, 143-144, 166, 173, 174, 175, 176

219, Ac230, 142,

Wage Rate Committees, 128-129, 132, 205, 214, 223, 256, 258

332

Index

Wages, 41, 91-92. 101, ios, 104, 105,106, 10g, 113, 114, 118-119, lz 3> 125126, 128129, 132, 204-205, 214, 222-223, s ï 8 · 3 0 ï " 303· S»8 Whipple, Clarence Μ., 212 η. Wicks Act, see Emergency Relief Act Wickser, Philip J., 184, 185 Williams, John, 186, 196 Work Bureaus, see Emergency Work Bureaus Work Division program, 73, 107-110, 123-

•33. 165-182, 287-300, 302-313, 315, 318, 3'9· 3 2 1 Work Divisions, local, see Emergency Work Bureaus Workmen's Compensation Law, New York State, 211, 212 Work tests, 22, 33-36 Works Progress Administration (WPA), 74, 167, 169, 172, 174, 176, 177, 180, 181, 201, 206, 304, 316, 317, 318 Yates report of 1824, 10, 31

VITA Alexander Leopold Radomski was born on March 13, 1905, at Himrod, Illinois. He attended the public schools at Georgetown, Illinois, graduating from the Georgetown Township High School in 1924. During the next five years, he attended the University of Illinois, where he obtained the degree of B.A. in 1928 and that of M.A. in 1929. He was a regular graduate student under the Department of Sociology at Columbia University from July, 1932 until June, 1933.