A658 SUMMARY Workers Dropped from UFA in Accordance with the 18-ilonths Provision in the 1939 Relief Act In July and August more than 775,000 WPA project workers j£&re dropned from tlicir johs in accordance with the 18-raonths provision of tne 1939 Relief Act, A survey covering more than 138,000 of these workers, in 33 large and representative cities, disclosed that 3 to 4 weeks after their ley—off 7.6 percent were employed in private jobs. In November, a second interview with the same group showed that 2 to 3 months after dismissed 12.7 percent, or fewer than 100,000 of the 775,000 workers, were employed in private industry. In industrial centers like Buffalo, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Detroit and Birmingham, the proportion with jobs was about one in six, in eight of the 23 cities it was about one in ten. The discharged WPA workers have not benefited to any great extent from the industrial recovery this fall; they are not the first to be hired when business improves. Employers tend generally to recall work¬ ers recently laid off, most of whom have not yet been forced to seek assistance. When there are 8 to 10 million persons seeking work, TIPA and relief workers, with their longer periods of unemployment, have to wait. < Slightly more than half of the 12.7 percent who were currently employed were earning as much as or more than their former WPA project wage. Most of these workers would undoubtedly have left WPA voluntarily since every month 100,000 or more WPA workers leave of their own volition in order to accept private employment at wages which permit a minimum standard of living. The others who wore employed, some 45,000 of the laid-off workers, were earning less than their former WPA project wages. £.658 These workers were receiving substandard wages or working at part-tine jobs. 3y Ivovenbor considerably more than half of the separated workers were again dependent on public assistance* About a fourth were back on WPX and more than a fourth were on local relief rolls* Large numbers were living on federal surplus commodities because in many areas no local relief is available for employable cases* Others, unable to find jobs or to secure public assistance, were dependent upon miscellaneous sources of income, or were without .any income whatever. The small earnings of secondary family members, categorical aid received by other members of the family, the asistance of friends and relatives-thcse means had to suffice to support large numbers of sep¬ arated workers* Approximately 100,000 of all those cut off received no income during the two weoks before they wero interviewed* Some Y/ere living on savings from earlier short-lived jobs or on credit extended by grocers; others were forced to sell personal property or even to bog for left-over and unsalable food* The decrease in appropriations necessitated reductions in "7?A employment quotas at the time these lay-offs were being made. Hcuco, only about a fourth of the separated workers had gone back to W?A two to three months later, though many more had boon recertified as eligible for re-employnent• Difficulties in assignment meant also that relatively for; of those Y/ho had boon awaiting assignment could bo out on as replacements; it is probable that by mid-ITovonbor loss than half of the vacancies left by those laid off in accordance with the 13—months provision had been filled by nevjs workers. FPDEkAL PCHXS AC-3KCY Plorlz Projects Administration Division of E.osearch January PA, 1940 A 658 Workers Dr«pr>cd fron W?A In Accordance with the 18—Months Provision in the 1939 Relief Act In accordance with the orovision in the 1939 Relief Act which forbids continuous employment of certified workers on TPA projects for longer than 18 months, more than 775,000 workers were dropped from vJPA employment during July and August. The proportion cut off was in some areas greater than two-fifths of all those employed on July 1st and for the country as a whole was nearly one-third. To learn how the workers had been affected by these lay—effs, the 7IPA Division of Research conducted surveys in 23 large and represen¬ tative cities distributed throughout the country. The workers were inter¬ viewed about three weeks after their lay-off, o.nd those not reassigned to WPA by the end of 2 to 3 months were again interviewed in November. The survey covered a total of more than 138,000 workers, or nearly one-fifth of all those separated for this reason. Table 1 shows the cities where the study was conducted end the number of workers included. The Pirst Interview These lay-offs brought immediate widespread distress to thousands of workers and their families. In many cases children had to bo kept home from school for want of food and clothing, small insurance policies were lost, and it was no longer possible to pay for needed medical care. When interviewed about three weeks after their lay-off 7.6 percent wore em¬ ployed in private industry, of whom considerably more than half were earn¬ ing loss 'than the TP A security wage. Of all those laid off almost half reported no cash income whatever for the two wcoks prior to the time they were interviewed, o„nd 90 percent received less income from all sources A658 - 2 - than they had previously earned on WPA, Twenty percent of those laid off had boon arointod direct relief. None had boon re-employed oy WPA because the Act required that thoy be separated from project employment for at least 30 days. The Second Interview The situation of the dismissed workers was examined again in November in order to find out whether they had substantially bettered their condition several months after separation from WPA. It was found that the great majority had not been benefited by the improvement in general econo¬ mic conditions which occurred this autumn. In November, 12.7 percent of those laid off had private employment; 28.4 percent were on local relief rolls, and 26.7 percent had been reassigned to WPA (table l). Of those not reassigned to WPA, 77.2 percent had total incomes which were smaller than their previous earnings on WPA (table 3). Proportion Currently Employed The study indicates that of the 775,000 workers laid off in July and August, fewer than 100,000 had jobs by the end of November. In cities such as Cleveland and Buffalo where industry has been stimulated by war orders, and in Detroit where automobile manufacturing was seasonally active, about one out of every six of the workers had a private job. In Jacksonville the proportion employed was loss than one in fourteen and in Boston, Milwaukee and Denver was about one in eleven (telle l). Although the workers interviewed had made persistent efforts to find jobs; in the vast majority of instances no work was to be found. One young man, experienced as a welder's helper, says, "I leave at 5:30 in the mornings and come back about one o'clock. I've been to every junk yard and every A658 - 3 - shop. You con ash for work "but they won't give it to you. They say, 'We don't need nobody today.' Some places won't oven talk to you about it. They soo you coming and holler, 'Wo don't nood. nobody, boy.'" When 8 to 10 million persons aro seeking work employers have their pick of workers. Their preference usually follows tho principle of "last fired, first hired." In the main it is the recently unemployed, those who have not yet been forced, to seek relief, who are the first to get jobs when business improves. WPA and relief workers, with their longer periods of unemployment, have to wait. The return of WPA workers to pri¬ vate employment requires a re-employment program adapted to the current employment policies of industry. Many surveys have demonstrated that individual-qualifications, training, geographical differences in employ¬ ment opportunities and. in the demand for specific skills must be taken into account if such programs aro to be effective. Character of the Jobs At tho time of the November interviews only 6.7 percent of all workers separated because of the 18-months provision were employed in private jobs which paid as much as their former WPA jobs. Most of these workers would undoubtedly have been included in the normal WPA turnover to private employment since each month more than 100,000 workers leave WPA voluntarily to accept private employment at wages which permit a minimum standard of living. The others who were employed, 6 percent of all the workers lead off, or about 45,000 workers, were earning less than their former WPA project wages—in many instances a great deal less. To cite but two examples of lev? earnings from among many; one man selling fountain pens A658 _ 4 - at a profit of 10# a pen made $2.00 in two weeks, and a huckster peddling vegetables in his homo-made pushcart reported earnings of about 15# a day. Variations in earnings from city to city reflect the different wage standards prevailing in various parts of the country. Average wages were found to be relatively high in Milwaukee, Buffalo, Cleveland, and Detroit, and lowest in the Southern cities. Jr Port Uorth, for example, average weekly earnings were $6.00; in Nashville, $7.27; and in the indus¬ trial city of Birmingham they were $8.8?,. for the 23 cities combined, earnings of those workers who were employed averaged $17.22. More than one-fifth were earning less than $10 per week (table 2). The temporary nature of much of this work is shown by the fact that 10 percent of those who wore currently employed had been working for less than a week. Now, with winter coming on, opportunities for odd jobs are decreasing. As a skilled painter said, who had been picking up enough can- and two-day jobs to keep his family supplied with groceries, "I got ono day last week and none this week, and you can't live two weeks on one day *" Those Dependent upon Pqblic Assistance Unable to find jobs of any kind, most of the dismissed workers again sought public aid, endeavoring to get back on WPA or to get on to local direct relief rolls. Two to three months after they were separated, 26.7 percent had been re—employed on WPA projects and 28.4 percent were receiving local relief (table l). Thus considerably more than half the workers were again dependent upon public aid. In areas where local relief was relatively adequate the proportion receiving those forms of public A653 - 5 - assistance was ordinarily as high as 60 to 70 percent. The proportion was highest in Milwaukee where almost 80 percent were either back on W?A or were receiving local relief. Inasmuch as practically all of those who reapplied were in need, the proportion re-employed by WFA would have been much larger had not return to WPA been slowed up by certification difficulties, by the closing of many projects, and by reductions in available funds. Instead of re¬ turning to work soon after the expiration of the so-called "30-day furlough," tho majority of the dismissed workers were still off WPA several months after separation. For the many who could not return to WPA and who did not have jobs tho only recourse was local relief in areas where relief is provided for employable cases, and surplus commodities in those areas where employ¬ ables arc not ordinarily given relief. In six cities, Buffalo, Philadelphia, Detroit, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, and Seattle more than 45 percent of ell the separated workers were receiving relief (table l). In the Southern cities, with the exception of Fort Worth and Richmond, scarcely any work¬ ers were getting local aid even of an emergency character. In these areas, surplus commodities distributed by the Federal Surplus Commodity Corpora¬ tion constituted the only relief course of any significance. Wherever there was hope of obtaining relief many more had applied than wore currently receiving assistance; where relief is totally inadequate, there is smell incentive to apply oven when need is desperate. "We would have asked for relief, but I heard from my neighbors it wouldn't do any good" is a common explanation of why even destitute families have not made application. For the 23 cities taken together, 62 percent of those not A658 6 — "back on T7PA had applied for relief, as against only 40 percent who wore currently receiving relief. A few (less than 4 percent) had been granted relief at some time since separation, hut were no longer receiving it. Those TJithout Private or NPA Johs and Not on Lpcal Relief Rolls It has sometimes been assumed that those separated workers who have not been reassigned to UFA or who are not receiving local relief are self-supporting. This survey shows, however, that over 70 percent of those without any public assistance except surplus commodities were unemployed when interviewed in November. These workers constituted nearly a third of all those separated (table l). Two-fifths of them, or approximately 100,000 of all those cut off in July and August, received no incomes what¬ ever during a period of two weeks before they were interviewed; they were living on small earnings from earlier brief jobs or were forced to rely on credit, to sell personal property, or to beg. The others were living on the small earnings of secondary members of the family, on categorical aid or CCC and NYA earnings received by other members of the family, on aid from friends and relatives, and on surplus commodities. Family Incomes - All Those Not Reassigned to TPA Total incomes of the families of those separated who were not re-employed on TTPA in November were very low. Seventy—seven percent were receiving less than their 7JPA security wages had brought them (table. 3). weekly income varied widely from city to city, but the average was nowhere higher than $14, and in 10 cities was less than $5. In St. Louis, Charleston, Jacksonville and Louisville average weekly income was less than $2.50. For the entire group of families average total weekly income was $8.23 (table 4). A658 - 7 - Family Incomes - Those Not Reassigned, to WPA and. Not on Local Relief Rolls Family income of that portion of the separated workers who were not on local relief rolls was on the average considerably lower than that of the whole group not reassigned to WPA. At one extreme were the few families v/ho had secured good private jobs; some of these had weekly in¬ comes of $25 or more. At the other extreme were the 29,5 percent without any cash incomes, and an additional 19.2 percent with incomes of less than $5 per week (table 5), Thus, almost one-half of those not dependent on WPA or local relief were living on less than $5 per week some 2 to 3 months after being separated from WPA. The proportion primarily dependent on surplus commodities pro¬ vides an indication of the severe decline in living standards which many of these workers and their families faced, and furnishes evidence of the lack of adequate direct relief in many areo,s. In Birmingham 60 percent of these families derived the major part of their income from surplus commodi¬ ties, and in five other cities more than 15 percent of the families depended almost exclusively on this source of livelihood. Though essential for the existence of many of these families, surplus commodities are ordinarily not available in such proportions as to provide an adequate balanced diet. For example, in Omaha, where 16 percent of the families reported surplus commodities as their major source of income, the only commodities distri¬ buted during Uovember were flour, apples, and onions. Most of the house¬ wives say that the commodities have "helped a lot," but they do comnlain of the inadequate variety of foods. "We got flour, but what good is the flour without lard and baking powder?" one woman asks. "You can't eat it raw. And we got 5 pounds of dry beans, but I had to get a piece of meat to grease 'em with." A658 - 8 - Families without regular incomes are of course finding it pro¬ gressively more difficult to secure even minimum essentials. What has happened to hundreds of these families is told in the story of Joe Richards, who writes: "The first month was not so had, I held hack the rent and used my last pay check on groceries and other necessities. The second month I could not pay the rent and used my credit for groceries and had to borrow from my friends. "This last month I have been forced to the wall. My friends are beginning to avoid me. My creditors have closed in on me, I have beer- forced to break up my homo, give up my children, and sell all my furniture. The prices I have had to take for my furniture have been ridiculous. It has averaged about 10 percent of what I paid for it." Many grocers who were willing to extend credit while they believed that the workers would be reassigned at the end of 30 days shut off credit when the expected reassignments did not occur. In November, only about one- fifth of the families without regular incomes reported buying groceries on credit. The curtailment of credit and the mounting unpaid bills had their effect on the storekeepers as well as the families. A report from Texas states: "These WPA workers have traded regularly for merchandise and paid the bills from check to check. While the amounts bought have not been large, their inability to continue these accounts and regular payments of them has greatly reduced the income of the merchant." As a result, many merchants have called regarding possible reassignment of individual workers. With credit exhausted, families had to make further readjustments. Many depended on loans ma.de by friends or relatives frequently not much A658 - 9 - "better off than they. Some families doubled up; other families were broken up, the children going to the country or the wife returning to her hone- while the husband continued to look for work. The lay-off from WPA shifted responsibility for these families directly onto other workers and their families. Effects on living Levels The effects of the dismissals are reflected not only in the reduc¬ tion of incomes, but also in the general lowering of levels of living with loss of income and resources. In many cases children have been kept out of school for lack of warm clothing, books and pencils, or even adequate food. Medical care and special diets for the chronically ill have boon among the first items eliminated, when expenditures must be reduced. Insur¬ ance policies have lapsed.; hoxisehold equipment bought on the installment plan has been, lost; personal property has been sold, gas and electricity have been shut off and many families are gathering up scraps of wood for fuel. Many families have been faced with evictions or the fear of evictions. Securing food remains a major problem for many families even after they have cut practically all other expenditures from their budgets. In Omaha one family in every 19 reporting no regular income has resorted to canvassing markets, bakeries, or restaurants for leftover and unsalable food. Recertification and Reassignment By November 24, 54 percent of all the dismissed, workers had been recertified as eligible for WPA employment.1 Referral for certification "'"This percentage excludes New York City whore certifications are made only on requisition and where, in consequence, the proportion recerti¬ fied only very indirectly reflects need. A658 - 10 - is in most cities a duty of the local agency administering relief. Hence, the large proportion recertified within two to three months after separa¬ tion provides local evidence that the great majority of the separated work¬ ers continued to "be in need of assistance. The proportion recertified ran as high as four-fifths in 5 cities and was nine-tenths in Jacksonville. At the other extreme, only 31 percent had been recertified in Los Angeles and 19 percent in Buffalo. In Los Angeles, no recertifications were made until October 17 because of diffi¬ culties in developing procedural arrangements with the referral agency, and in Buffalo, where the majority of recertif ications are ma.de on requi¬ sition, none at all were made until after completion of a general review of need. Loss serious administrative difficulties in a number of other cities resulted in the proportion recertified being considerably below what it would havo boon if recertification had been entirely open. Rcassignments did not keep pace with recertifications; only slightly more than one-fourth of the separated workers had been reassigned 60 to 90 days after separation (table l)."1" The slow rate of reassignment is accounted for by the fact that in most areas, because of reductions in appropriations, quotas were reduced simultaneously with tho 18-months lay¬ offs. Lor tho same reason tho assignment of others was also impeded. It is probable that less than half of the places left vacant by the man¬ datory separation of those employed contirruorslyf or 18 months or longcr v/crc filled by mid-November by ncrsons awaiting assignment at that tine. 1 A subsequent report, providing information on this point only shows that oven a.s late as December 16 fewer than one-half had returned to WPA. A658 - 11 - Effects on Project Operation Though this survey has concentrated, on the effects of the IB- months provision on the discharged workers, these effects are by no means the only ones. State administrators have reported that the immediate effect of the requirement was to increase administrative work and to reduce project efficiency. In some areas the loss of skilled key personnel forced i the suspension of certain types of projects and badly hampered the operation' of many others. Some sponsors have protested that their investments in projects have been jeopardized by the substitution of new workers for per¬ sonnel known to be capable of producing satisfactory results. Consideration must also be given to the possibility that these enforced lay-offs may endanger some of the gains in project efficiency attained as a result of many months of steady effort. PSDERAL WORKS ACEi'CY Work Projects Administration Division of Research January 24, 1940 A658 Table 1.—Proportion ef Workers Separated in July and August in Accordance with the 18-Months Provision, Who by November were Employed in Private Industry, Reassigned to 1PA, Receiving Direct Relief, or were without Jobs or Public Assistance - Twenty-three Cities Total xvorkers Reas¬ Without private separated Currently / signed Receiving or HP A jobs and 23 cities employed to IP A relief not on. direct July and August relief Number Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Total 138,074—/ 100.0 12.7 26.7 28.4 32.2 Region I Boston 6,480 100.0 8.7 25.9 22.0 43.4 New Haven 1,332 100.0 11.9 60.4 11.1 16,6 Region II Buffalo 2,739 100.0 16.2 * 65.8 20.0 New York City 58,696 100.0 13.3 31.1 23.6 32.0 Philadelphia 6,074 100.0 9.2 26.3 46.2 13.3 Region III Richmond 961 100.0 9.6 47.8 15.6 27.0 Washington, D. C. 3,188 100.0 10.5 26.1 1.8 61.6 legion IY Cincinnati 3,619 100.0 15.5 16.9 38.2 29.4 . Cleveland 7,023 100.0 16.0 38.1 25.2 20.7 Detroit 8,962 100. c 17.0 16.5 46.4 20.1 Indianapolis 3,497 100.0 13.5 19.0 48.5 19.0 St. Louis 7,612 100.0 10.2 27.3 1.7 60.3 Region Y Birmingham 2,287 100.0 15.7 6.6 0.1 77.6 Charleston 1,006 100.0 14.4 26.8 0 58.8 Jacksonville 1,118 100.0 6.7 25.9 0.2 67.2 Louisville 1,541 100.0 13.2 19.2 0.9 66.7 Nashville 1,028 100.0 14.8 12.5 0.7 72.0 Region YI Port Worth 983 100.0 11.1 14.9 25.9 43.1 Region YII Milwaukee 6,803 100.0 P.9 37.1 42.1 11.9 ©maha 2,646 100.0 13.2 18.3 9.4 59.1 Region VIII Denver 2,074 100.0 CD • CO 58.1 17.7 15.3 Region IX Los Angeles 6,989 100.0 12.3 * 69.6 18.1 Seattle 1,416 100.0 11.0 19.5 47.3 22.2 X The Currently Employed include a small proportion (0.8 percent) who were members cf families receiving direct relief. These workers were excluded from the Column "Receiving Relief." 9 In 11 cities all workers separated were interviewed; in each cf the remaining cities a random sample, including at least one-third of the separated workers, were interviewed. The total number cf workers interviewed was 69,001, All percent ages are based, on cases actually interviewed. Less than 0.05 percent. A653 Table 2.—Earnings of Workers Separated in Accordance with the 18-Months Provision who in November were Employed in Frivate Industry - Twenty-three Cities—' Percent of Employed Percent of Average weekly employed workers in total earnings of with weekly November separations employed workers^' earnings of less than $10 Total 17,620 12,7 $17.22 21.2 Region I Boston 564 *.7 16.34 7.7 New Haven 158 11.9 16.90 17.0 Region II Buffalo 443 16.2 22.52 7.4 New York City 7,808 13.3 16.73 20.1 Philadelphia 560 '9.2 12.76 31.6 Region III Richmond 92 9.6 12.19 31.5 Washington, P. C. 335 10.5 16.10 25.0 Region IV Cincinnati 561 15.5 16.78 21.0 Cleveland 1,126 16.0 21.29 14.7 Detroit 1,523 17.0 28.93 9.0 Indianapolis 472 13.5 15.15 32.7 St. Louis 781 10.2 15.00 27.6 Region V Birmingham 359 15.7 8.82 52.6 Charleston 145 14.4 9.79 50.7 Jacksonville 76 6.7 12.50 36.8 Louisville 20,3 • 13.2 13.36 20. 6 Nashville 152 14.8 7.27 58.9 Region VI Port Worth 109 11.1 6.00 67.8 Region VII Milwaukee 605 8.9 20.00 17.5 Omaha 349 13.2 14.58 31.8 Region VIII Denver 184 8.9 15.42 28.0 Region IX Los Angeles 859 12.3 17.14 22.9 Seattle 156 11.0 19.50 26.0 * ' ' ' 1 ' " * r— — ■—-v—'— 1/ All averages and percentages are based on cases actually interviewed. 2] The average used is the median. A658 Table 3.—Total Weekly Family Income in November Compared, with Previous WPA Troject Wage; Workers Separated in Accordance with the 18-Months Provision and Not Reassigned - Twenty-three Citiesn/ Percent distribution Proportion with family income which was Higher than Approximately Lower than Workers not reassigned same as IF A WPA Number Percent Pro ject wage project wage project ■ Total 101,180 100.0 • 20.5 2.3 77.2 Region I Boston 4,802 100.0 16.4 2.9 80.7 New Haven 527 100.0 30.6 3.3 66.1 Region II Buffalo 2,738 100.0 41.7 4.2 54.1 New York City 40,454 100.0 21.7 2.2 76.1 Philadelphia 4,478 100.0 13.8 2.9 83.3 Region III Ri chmcnd 502 100.0 14.4 1.9 83.7 Washington,D.C. 2,356 100.0 13.4 1.5 85.1 Region IV Cincinnati 3,006 100.0 14.4 1.1 84.5 Cleveland 4,348 100.0 30.0 2.2 67.8 Detroit 7,482 100.0 32.5 3.5 64.0 Indianapolis 2,832 100.0 11.1 1.3 '87.6 St. Louis 5,537 100.0 9.9 1.2 83.9 Region V Birmingham 2,136 100.00 9.6 1.4 89.0 Charleston 736 100.0 11.1 1.7 87.2 Jacksonville 828 100.0 5.6 0.9 93.5 Louisville 1,245 100.0 10.4 1.7 87.9 Nashville 900 100.0 11.7 1.3 87.0 Region VI Fort Worth 837 100.0 11.0 2.5 86.5 Region VII Milwaukee 4,278 100.0 31.6 2.5 65.9 Omaha 2,162 100.0 8.3 2.1 39.6 Region VIII Denver 870 100.0 16.2 1.2 82.6 Region IX Los Angeles 6,986 100.0 17.4 3.6 79.0 Seattle 1,140 100.0 14.9 1.4 83.7 1/ Income information was secured for the two-week period prior to interview. Interviews were conducted for the most part in November. All percentages are based on cases actually interviewed. A658 Table 4.—Total Weekly Family Income of Workers Separated in Accordance With the 18-Months Provision who were net Reassigned Twenty-three Cities Percentage Distribution of Total Weekly Income Workers Not Reassigned No in- $0.01 $5.00 $10.00 $15.00 $20.00 $25.00 come 4.99 9.99 14.99 19.99 24.99 or more No. - 4, $ Average weekly income November^/ To tal 101,180 100.0 ••17.7 18.3 21.7 17.2 11. 6 6.3 7.2 $ 8.23 Region I Boston 4,802 100.0 23.2 18.0 24.2 17.0 10. 1 3.3 4.2 6.82 New Haven 527 100.0 17.1 9.4 18.6 17.6 15. 9 11.6 9.8 11.40 Region II Buffalo 2,738 100.0 9.7 3.6 15.9 26.2 20. 7 12.3 11.6 13.99 New York City 40,454 100.0 21.9 7.0 20.3 19.9 14. 7 8.2 8.0 10.20 Philadelphia 4,478 100.0 7.7 16.6 28.1 30.1 9. 6 4.1 3.8 9.58 Region III Richmond 502 100.0 25.4- 35.6 16.5 11.5 6. 0 2.6 2.4 3.47 Washington, D. C. 2,356 100.0 20.4 44.7 16.9 6.5 6. 3 2.7 2.5 3.32 Region IV Cincinnati 3,006 100.0 12.2 32.6 28.3 10.1 7. 7 4.7 4.4 5.91 Cleveland 4,348 100.0 16.0 15.6 22.1 13.4 11. 1 8.8 13.0 9.16 Detroit 7,482 100.0 9.6 12.7 21.6 20.5 12. 6 6.5 16.5 11.48 . Indianapolis 2,832 100,0 8.8 33.2 33.8 11.8 6. 6 2.8 3.0 6.19 St. Louis 5,537 100.0 40.9 30.1 11.9 7.0 5. 7 2.3 2.1 1.52 Region V Birmingham 2,136 100.0 3.0 69.9 13.7 5.5 3. 5 1.6 2.8 3.37 Charleston 736 100.0 28.2 44.0 11.0 8.1 4. 7 1.0 3.0 2.49 Jacksonville 828 100.0 27.0 55.7 10.3 2.6 0. 9 2.1 1.4 2.08 -Louisville 1,245 100.0 28.6 44.8 10.4 8.4 4. 6 1.7 1.5 2.40 Nashville 900 100.0 14.7 54.6 15.9 7.2 • 4 1.2 2.0 3.25 Region VI Fort Worth 837 100.0 6.5 50.4 29.6 7.9 3. 2 1.2 1.2 4.33 Region VII Milwaukee 4,278 100.0 9.4 23.3 12.8 17.9 15. 7 9.4 11.5 11.27 Omaha 2,162 100,0' 28.5 40.7 15.2 6.5 A •he • 2 3.6 1.3 2.65 Region VIII Denver 870 100.0 14.2 32.8 24.5 12.3 6. 6 5.4 4.2 5.62 Region IX Los Angeles 6y986 100.0 7.8 9.0 39.0 22.3 12. 0 5.7 4.2 9.26 Seattle 1,140 100.0 9.9 30.5 29.3 13.4 6. 4 3.6 6.9 6.65 \J Income information was secured for the two-week r:riod prior to interview. Inter¬ views were conducted for the most part in November. The average used is the median. All averages and percentages arc based on cases actually interviewed. A658 Table 5.—Total Weekly Family Income of Workers Separated in Accordance with the.18-Months Provision who were Hot Reassigned and were Hot Receiving Direct Relief - Twenty-three Cities Hot reassigned Percentage distribution of total weekly case Inc. Average and not on Ho in-$0.01 $5.00 $10.00 $15.00 $20.00 $25.00 weekly direct relief come 4.99 9.99 14.99 19.99 24.59 or more income Ho. ~ ^