The New Deal: what the programs did

Grade 11 Social Studies Worksheet

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.

   Both series give 3.2 percent for 1929 and 8.7 for 1930, but 16.9 and 9.9 for 1936. What best accounts for the gap that opens, Ari asks?

   • Lebergott counts work relief as employment, which raises his rate by adding people to the labor force.
   • They count people on work relief differently: Lebergott as unemployed, Darby as employed.
   • Darby leaves people on relief out of the labor force, while Lebergott includes them as jobless.
   • They count part-time workers differently, so Darby counts part-time as employed and Lebergott does not.
3. 2.

   Lebergott's rate fell from 24.9 to 14.6 and Darby's from 20.6 to 9.5, 1933 to 1940. Which comparison is fair, Esme asks?

   • Lebergott shows the larger recovery, since a fall from 24.9 is a bigger drop than one from 20.6.
   • Neither shows a recovery, since both 1940 rates are still above the 1929 rate.
   • Lebergott shows the more complete recovery, since its 1940 rate is nearer the 1929 rate of 3.2.
   • The falls are close, about 10 to 11 points, so the series differ more in level than in the size of the recovery.

4. Use this

   Social Security and work relief. 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 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.

5. 3.

   Marta turns 65 in 1940 after years as a farm laborer. Under card A, what is Marta's position, Kira asks?

   • Covered from 1942, since the Act set that start and farm workers were to be added later.
   • Covered from 1940, since the 1939 law moved monthly payments up to the year Marta turns 65.
   • Covered through unemployment insurance, since the Act created insurance for workers who lost jobs.
   • Not covered for old-age benefits, since farm labor was left out, whatever the 1940 start date.
6. 4.

   A made-up painter and a made-up 19-year-old are on relief in 1936. Using card B, which program fits whom, Luz asks?

   • The painter fits the WPA's Federal Art Project, and the 19-year-old fits the CCC if the family is on relief.
   • Both fit the CCC, since it took any worker on relief into its camps.
   • The painter fits the CCC, since camp crews built trails and campgrounds that needed design skill.
   • The painter fits the WPA, but the 19-year-old fits neither, since the CCC took older men.

7. Use this

   Three Supreme Court rulings. 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.

8. 5.

   Which description of the three rulings fits card A, Milo asks?

   • The Court struck down two laws by large margins, then upheld a 1933 law by one vote.
   • The Court struck down two 1933 laws, then upheld a 1935 labor law by one vote.
   • The Court struck down the NIRA by 6 to 3 and the AAA unanimously, then upheld the labor law by one vote.
   • The Court rejected two New Deal laws, then gave way on a labor law by one vote, so it had changed its mind on each of them.
9. 6.

   The labor-law ruling in 1937 was 5 to 4. What does that margin let Noah say?

   • The ruling shows the Court was evenly divided on the New Deal, since four justices disagreed.
   • The margin shows the labor law was barely constitutional, since a one-vote win is a narrow reading.
   • The ruling was more settled than Schechter's 9 to 0, since it upheld a law instead of striking one down.
   • One justice's change would have reversed it, so the result was less settled than the 6-to-3 or 9-to-0 rulings.
10. 7.

    Butler (1936) struck down a farm law 6 to 3, and Jones & Laughlin (1937) upheld a labor law 5 to 4. What do the cards show about why the Court's direction differed, Pia asks?

    • The Court changed because new justices joined between 1936 and 1937, since the votes shifted.
    • The Court treats labor laws as valid and farm laws as invalid, since the rulings went opposite ways.
    • Nothing about why: the cards give the votes and the laws, not the justices' reasons.
    • The Court changed because the labor law was narrower, since a union rule is easier to defend than a farm program.

11. Use this

    Card A, 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.

12. 8.

    Fishback's review says public works and relief raised local incomes and spending but did little for private employment. What does that mean for a town with a new public project, Ren asks?

    • More local income and spending, which led firms to hire again, since higher spending raises demand for workers.
    • More private hiring but lower local incomes, since public wages were below private pay.
    • Lower crime and death rates but no change in local income, since the review lists those benefits first.
    • More local income and spending, but not necessarily more private hiring.
13. 9.

    The review says farm programs mostly aided large farm owners and removed chances for sharecroppers, tenants and farm workers. Which group lost chances, Tala asks?

    • Farm families alike, since the review says the programs aided farm incomes overall.
    • Small farm owners, who lacked the land to take part, since the programs paid owners by the acre.
    • Sharecroppers, tenants and farm workers, whose chances were removed while large owners gained.
    • Large farm owners, who gave up the use of land to the programs and so lost income from it.
14. 10.

    The review ends: whether the New Deal worked depends on the program, the years and the group studied. What does that imply for the claim "The New Deal worked," Zee asks?

    • It is too broad: it needs a program, a period and a group to be judged against the evidence.
    • It is true, since the review lists several gains such as local incomes and lower crime.
    • It is false, since the review says private employment barely rose.
    • It cannot be judged from the review, since it lists effects without saying which program caused each.