The New Deal: what the programs did

Grade 11 Social Studies Worksheet - Challenge Me

Circle the best answer.

1. Read this first

   Use this

   Two counts of unemployment. Card A, a table of unemployment rates (percent) from two estimates. Columns: Year | Lebergott | Darby. 1929 | 3.2 | 3.2; 1930 | 8.7 | 8.7; 1931 | 15.9 | 15.3; 1932 | 23.6 | 22.9; 1933 | 24.9 | 20.6; 1934 | 21.7 | 16.0; 1935 | 20.1 | 14.2; 1936 | 16.9 | 9.9; 1937 | 14.3 | 9.1; 1938 | 19.0 | 12.5; 1939 | 17.2 | 11.3; 1940 | 14.6 | 9.5. Data: Robert A. Margo, "Employment and Unemployment in the 1930s," Journal of Economic Perspectives (1993), Table 1. Margo explains the gap: Lebergott counts persons on work relief as unemployed, and Darby counts them as employed.

2. 1.

   A student says: "By 1936 the Depression was nearly over, since unemployment was 9.9 percent." How should Ari respond?

   • The claim is sound, since Darby argues that relief workers held real jobs, so 9.9 percent is the better figure.
   • The claim is unsound, since relief jobs were not real jobs, so Lebergott's 16.9 percent is the true rate.
   • The claim counts relief jobs as employment, as Darby does; Lebergott's 16.9 percent counts them as jobless.
   • The claim depends on the 1929 baseline, since a rate is nearly over just when it returns to 3.2 percent.

3. Use this

   Unemployment and relief. Card A, a table of unemployment rates (percent) from two estimates. Columns: Year | Lebergott | Darby. 1929 | 3.2 | 3.2; 1930 | 8.7 | 8.7; 1931 | 15.9 | 15.3; 1932 | 23.6 | 22.9; 1933 | 24.9 | 20.6; 1934 | 21.7 | 16.0; 1935 | 20.1 | 14.2; 1936 | 16.9 | 9.9; 1937 | 14.3 | 9.1; 1938 | 19.0 | 12.5; 1939 | 17.2 | 11.3; 1940 | 14.6 | 9.5. Data: Robert A. Margo, "Employment and Unemployment in the 1930s," Journal of Economic Perspectives (1993), Table 1. Margo explains the gap: Lebergott counts persons on work relief as unemployed, and Darby counts them as employed. Card B, a summary in our words of economist Price Fishback's 2017 review. Unemployment was between about 14 and 25 percent for most of the 1930s (the National Park Service gives 25 percent at the worst). Relief work paid about half to two-thirds of normal earnings. Native Americans in the CCC worked near their reservations, and older veterans also served.

4. 2.

   Card B says relief work paid half to two-thirds of normal earnings and did little for private employment. Which series better tracks private hiring, Bo asks?

   • Neither, because the gap between them is the number of relief workers and private hiring cannot be read from either.
   • Lebergott's for the years up to 1933, because the CCC and WPA changed what counted as employment afterward.
   • Lebergott's, because relief workers are not counted as employed, so its rate follows private hiring more closely.
   • Darby's, because counting relief workers as employed shows how many held paid jobs, private hiring included.

5. Use this

   Unemployment and the New Deal's record. Card A, a table of unemployment rates (percent) from two estimates. Columns: Year | Lebergott | Darby. 1929 | 3.2 | 3.2; 1930 | 8.7 | 8.7; 1931 | 15.9 | 15.3; 1932 | 23.6 | 22.9; 1933 | 24.9 | 20.6; 1934 | 21.7 | 16.0; 1935 | 20.1 | 14.2; 1936 | 16.9 | 9.9; 1937 | 14.3 | 9.1; 1938 | 19.0 | 12.5; 1939 | 17.2 | 11.3; 1940 | 14.6 | 9.5. Data: Robert A. Margo, "Employment and Unemployment in the 1930s," Journal of Economic Perspectives (1993), Table 1. Margo explains the gap: Lebergott counts persons on work relief as unemployed, and Darby counts them as employed. Card B, a summary in our words of economist Price Fishback's 2017 review. Public works and relief spending raised local incomes and spending and lowered crime and several kinds of death rates; it did little to raise private employment. Farm programs mostly aided large farm owners but removed chances for sharecroppers, tenants and farm workers. A second-dip recession came in 1937 to 1938 after spending cuts. Whether the New Deal worked depends on the program, the years and the group studied.

6. 3.

   Card B says a second-dip recession came in 1937 to 1938 after spending cuts. A student writes: "Spending cuts caused the rise from 14.3 to 19.0." What do the cards allow, Esme asks?

   • The cards show the cuts did not matter, since Darby's rate rose even though relief workers count as employed.
   • The cards show the cuts caused the rise, since the review places the recession right after them.
   • The cards show the rise came after spending cuts; they do not show the cuts caused it.
   • The cards show the rise came from lower private hiring, since relief workers stayed employed in Darby's series.

7. Use this

   Banks and work relief. Card A, a summary in our words of FDIC history. Bank suspensions per year: 1929, 659; 1930, 1,350; 1931, 2,293; 1932, 1,453; 1933, 4,000. On March 6, 1933, the President declared a bank holiday. On March 13, 1933, banks began to reopen in stages. The Banking Act of June 16, 1933 created the FDIC. From January 1, 1934, deposits were insured up to $2,500 per depositor. In 1934, nine insured banks failed.

8. 4.

   A student says: "Deposit insurance cut bank failures from 4,000 in 1933 to nine in 1934." What is the weakness, Jun asks?

   • The claim is weak because 1934 was too soon to judge, since insurance began on January 1, 1934.
   • The claim is sound, since the drop from 4,000 to nine is large and insurance began in 1934, as the card says.
   • The numbers count different things, and the bank holiday and reopenings fell between the two years.
   • The claim is weak because the cards give no 1935 figure, so one year of nine cannot show a trend.
9. 5.

   A student says: "Suspensions fell about 37 percent in 1932, so the crisis was easing." Suspensions then rose to 4,000. What does Kira make of the claim?

   • A fall of about 37 percent was followed by a rise of about 175 percent, so one year's change misleads.
   • The 37 percent fall shows the rescue of banks had begun, and the 1933 rise was a separate panic.
   • The changes roughly cancelled, since a fall of about 63 percent in 1932 was followed by a rise of about 64 percent.
   • The 37 percent fall was too small to count, since 1,453 in 1932 was still above the 1929 figure.

10. Use this

    Work relief and the unemployment range. Card A, a summary in our words from the National Park Service. The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), created in 1933, took men from families on relief into work camps for $30 a month, most of it sent home. Crews planted millions of trees and built trails, bridges and campgrounds from more than 4,500 camps; by 1942 more than 2.5 million men had served. The Works Progress Administration (WPA), 1935 to 1943, gave jobs to the unemployed on public projects, including the Federal Art, Theatre and Writers' Projects. Card B, a summary in our words of economist Price Fishback's 2017 review. Unemployment was between about 14 and 25 percent for most of the 1930s (the National Park Service gives 25 percent at the worst). Relief work paid about half to two-thirds of normal earnings. Native Americans in the CCC worked near their reservations, and older veterans also served.

11. 6.

    A student says: "The CCC cured unemployment among young men." Card A gives camps and men served; card B gives the decade's range. What would test it, Luz asks?

    • The number of men served, 2.5 million, set against the decade's range, since a large count shows a large effect.
    • The camps' work records, since 4,500 camps and millions of trees show the program's output.
    • Unemployment rates for young men with and without CCC service; the cards give service counts and a range.
    • Wage records of CCC men, since $30 a month shows what the men gained from joining.

12. Use this

    Two counts of unemployment. Card A, a table of unemployment rates (percent) from two estimates. Columns: Year | Lebergott | Darby. 1929 | 3.2 | 3.2; 1930 | 8.7 | 8.7; 1931 | 15.9 | 15.3; 1932 | 23.6 | 22.9; 1933 | 24.9 | 20.6; 1934 | 21.7 | 16.0; 1935 | 20.1 | 14.2; 1936 | 16.9 | 9.9; 1937 | 14.3 | 9.1; 1938 | 19.0 | 12.5; 1939 | 17.2 | 11.3; 1940 | 14.6 | 9.5. Data: Robert A. Margo, "Employment and Unemployment in the 1930s," Journal of Economic Perspectives (1993), Table 1. Margo explains the gap: Lebergott counts persons on work relief as unemployed, and Darby counts them as employed.

13. 7.

    What separates Lebergott's and Darby's series, Milo asks?

    • Whether discouraged workers who stopped looking for work count as unemployed or outside the labor force.
    • Whether farm workers and other self-employed people count in the labor force or outside it.
    • A judgment about whether a person paid for emergency public work counts as employed, or as jobless.
    • Whether public-sector workers of any kind count as employed when a government pays them.
14. 8.

    Both series give 3.2 percent for 1929 and 8.7 for 1930, then differ. What does that show Pia?

    • They differ from 1931 because Darby revised the data for the hardest years as a later correction.
    • They agree early because both measure the labor force the same way, so the gap shows a different labor force.
    • They agree in 1929 and 1930 and differ from 1931, which fits a dispute over relief jobs, not the early Depression.
    • They agree early because relief work did not exist before 1931, so the gap measures the whole of relief work.

15. Use this

    The Social Security Act. Card A, a summary in our words from Social Security Administration history pages. The Social Security Act was signed on August 14, 1935. It set old-age benefits for workers from age 65, to begin in 1942 (a 1939 law moved monthly payments up to 1940), paid for by taxes on wages and payrolls. It also created unemployment insurance and aid for dependent mothers and children and for people who are blind. The Act's definition of employment leaves out farm labor and domestic service in private homes. Card B, a student's note, made up and not from any source: "The Social Security Act of 1935 paid monthly benefits to every worker starting in 1935."

16. 9.

    Which revision of the student's note on card B fits card A, Tala asks?

    • "The Act, signed in 1935, paid benefits from 1940 to workers in covered jobs, including domestic service."
    • "The Act, signed in 1935, set old-age benefits from 65 for 1942, later 1940, leaving out farm and domestic work."
    • "The Act, signed in 1935, set payments for 1942, and a 1939 law left farm work out."
    • "The Act, signed in 1935, set old-age benefits for 1942 and covered farm laborers once the 1939 law took effect."

17. Use this

    The Supreme Court and the New Deal. Card A, a summary in our words of three Supreme Court rulings (reference summaries checked Nov 14, 2026). In A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (May 27, 1935), the Court struck down the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 by 9 to 0. In United States v. Butler (January 6, 1936), it struck down the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 by 6 to 3. In NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. (April 12, 1937), it upheld the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 by 5 to 4. Card B, a student's note, made up and not from any source: "The Supreme Court struck down the whole New Deal in 1935."

18. 10.

    Which revision of the student's note on card B fits card A, Zee asks?

    • "In 1935 the Court struck down the NIRA 6 to 3, and in 1936 it upheld the AAA unanimously."
    • "In 1935 the Court struck down the NIRA 9 to 0; in 1936 the AAA 6 to 3; and in 1937 it also struck the labor law 5 to 4."
    • "In 1935 the Court struck down the NIRA 9 to 0; in 1936 the AAA 6 to 3; in 1937 it upheld the labor law 5 to 4."
    • "The Court struck down two 1933 laws and so ended the New Deal, until it upheld the labor law 5 to 4 in 1937."