team of horses or equivalent power. In like manner, class II farms are remaining units with a gross farm income of $750 to $1,499, and other units that had $4,000 to $7,999 worth of land and buildings and at least a team of horses or equivalent power. Class III farms are all remaining units. This class contains all farms with gross farm income under $750, except those that had land and buildings worth $4,000 or more and at least a team of horses or equivalent power. All class I farms were considered to be sufficiently productive to finance accept`able dwellings without off-farm employment. Class II and III farms were not. Class I farms comprised about one-fourth of all 5,760,000 units, class II about one-fifth, and class III slightly more than one-half (see table 4). To be able to support an acceptable dwelling from the proceeds of their employment, it is estimated that in 1939 farm-operator families of class II farms needed on the average at least 100 days of off-farm employment in addition to employment on their farms, while families on class III farms needed about 200 days.

About one-fourth of the 1,200,000 operator families on class II farms had at least 100 days of off-farm employment and nearly one-fourth of the 3,000,000 operator families on class III farms had 200 days (see table 4). In other words, as of 1940, of the 5,760,000 farm-operator families on farms, less than half, about 2,560,000, could finance acceptable dwellings. About one-fourth, 1,560,000, could do so from farm employment alone, while about one-sixth, 1,000,000, could do so from a combination of farm and off-farm employment. This leaves more than half, 3,200,000, who could not finance acceptable dwellings either from farm or a combination of farm and off-farm work, as indicated in table 4.

TABLE 4.-Class of farm related to ability of farm-operator families living on farms to finance an acceptable dwelling from farm or combination of farm and off-farm employment in 19401

1 Estimated by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Based in part on U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, and the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, a cooperative study, technical monograph, Analysis of Specified Farm Characteristics for Farms Classified by Total Value of Products, table 3, p. 21, and table 1, p. 31. Based in part on unpublished data obtained through a joint study made by the Bureau of the Census and the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. 2 U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, and U. S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics; Series Census-BAE No. 1 Estimates of Farm Population and Farm Households, April 1944 and April 1940, Jan. 14, 1945.

HOUSING ON DIFFERENT CLASSES OF FARMS

In general the quality of farm housing corresponds with the capacity of the farm or combination of farm and off-farm employment to support the dwelling. Of 5,760,000 farm-operator dwellings on farms in 1940, approximately one-third were classified as "acceptable," one-third as "repairable," and one-third as "nonrepairable" (see table 5). In the case of 2,560,000 of these farms, where either farm or farm and off-farm employment was sufficient to support acceptable housing, about two-fifths of these dwellings needed either replacement or major overhauling. In more detail, about 3 of every 5 were classified as "acceptable," 1 of every 4 as "repairable," and only 1 out of every 6 as "nonrepairable."

On the remaining 3,200,000 farms, approximately 5 of every 6 dwellings needed either replacing or major overhauling. In more detail, approximately half the dwellings were classified as "nonrepairable," 1 of 3 was "repairable," while only 1 of 6 was "acceptable."

In case of the 3,200,000 farms where neither farm income nor a combination of income from farm and off-farm employment would finance acceptable housing, the problem of improving or replacing dwellings under 1939 conditions, whether the occupants were owners or tenants, was a difficult problem indeed. Fortunately, 560,000 of these farms already had "acceptable" housing. On the remaining 2,640,000 farms, houses of about a million operators were classified as "repairable" and those of more than 11⁄2 million as "nonrepairable."

TABLE 5.-Estimated number and condition of occupied farm-operator dwellings on farms, related to adequacy of farm and off-farm employment to finance an acceptable dwelling, for the United States, April 19401

1 Estimated by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics on the basis of class of farms and class of dwellings shown in preceding tables and relationships shown by unpublished data obtained through a joint study made by the Bureau of the Census and the Bureau of Agricultural Economics.

DWELLINGS OF RURAL FARM NON-OPERATORS

In addition to the 5,760,000 faim operators living on farms it has been estimated that in 1940 there were 1,400,000 households on farms which did not include a farm operator. In about 600,000 the head was employed in agriculture, in about 300,000 the head was employed in nonfarm occupations, while in the remaining families the head was either unemployed or not in the labor force. Nearly three-fourths of the families where the head was employed in agriculture reported less than $500 in family wages and salaries in 1939, a sum too small to support acceptable housing.

Dwellings on farms occupied by nonoperators were substantially inferior to those occupied by farm operators. About 1 in 7 was classed as 'acceptable" as indicated in table 6. Over half of these nonoperator dwellings were classed as "nonrepairable" as compared with about one-third in the case of farm operators.

TABLE 6.-Class and estimated numbers of occupied rural-farm, non-operator dwellings, for the United States, 19401

1 Estimated by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Based in part on U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Population and Housing, Characteristics of Rural-Farm Families, tables 2 and 12. Based in part on unpublished data obtained through a joint study made by the Bureau of the Census and the Bureau of Agricultural Economics.

THE SITUATION IN 1944

Since 1940 probably no net improvement has been made in the quality of farm dwellings, owing to the difficulty of obtaining materials during the war emergency. However, several forces have reduced the number of houses needed on farms and have enhanced the ability of farm families to afford better dwellings. There has been a reduction in farm population, a reduction in the number of farm operators living on farms, an increase in both full-time and part-time offfarm employment opportunities for farm people, and an increase in farm income due both to higher production and higher prices.

It has been estimated that there was a reduction of about 4% millions (15 percent) in rural-farm population from April 1940 to April 1944 and a reduction of about three-quarter million in the number of farm operator households on farms.5 By 1944 the total volume of farm production had increased about one-third from the average production in 1935-39 and farm prices had nearly doubled. Many more part-time and full-time off-farm jobs had become available to farm families. The opportunity for more regular and productive employment, either on or off the farm, and to earn bigher incomes obviously has increased the number of farm families that can afford acceptable housing under present conditions.

Also the number of houses needed on farms under present conditions is smaller than the number needed in 1940. As compared with about 2,640,000 operator families who were living in "repairable" or "nonrepairable" houses in 1940, and were unable to finance "acceptable" dwellings at that time, either from farm or a combination of farm with off-farm employment, only around 2,000,000 such families were living in the same type of houses in 1944, if we take into account the reduction in the number of farm-operator households and assume that not many operator families living in "acceptable" houses were involved in this reduction. A rough estimate indicates that about half of these families, or around 1,000,000, were able to finance acceptable dwellings under 1944 conditions, while 1,000,000 still were unable to do so.

In summary, under 1944 conditions of practically full employment, about 5,000,000 operator families were in need of housing on farms. Approximately 2,000,000 now occupy "acceptable" houses, and about 3,000,000 are in "repairable' and "nonrepairable" houses, approximately half in each class. Of this 3,000,000 about 2,000,000 are in position to finance acceptable housing,if appropriate housing credit can be made available to serve their needs, while about 1,000,000, even under 1944 conditions, had insufficient incomes to finance acceptable housing. About half of these 2,000,000 who can finance acceptable housing need to replace their dwellings, and about half of the million who cannot finance acceptable housing also need new houses.

Available information did not permit an estimate of the number of nonoperator families, including many farm laborer families, liivng on farms in "repairable" and "nonrepairable" houses who still are unable, under present conditions, to finance the replacement or improvement of their homes. Neither did it permit an analysis of the special housing problems of farm laborers and tenants. It may be pointed out, however, that while an owner-operator with sufficient income is free to go ahead and improve or replace his dwelling if he desires to do so, unless he

Series Census-BAE No. 1, Estimates of Farm Population and Farm Households, April 1944, and April 1940, January 14, 1945.

needs and is unable to obtain a type of credit which is suitable to his situation, a tenant-operator usually is not. His problem of getting acceptable housing is often very difficult, because, even though he may have an ample income, his ability to obtain acceptable housing may be dependent in part upon the willingness of the landlord to invest in acceptabl tenant housing and in part upon availability to the landlord of suitable housing credit.

Measures to bring about needed adjustments and improvements in farming practices to increase efficiency and thus to make the farm operator's labor more productive should be generally helpful, as should measures to reduce the cost and to expedite the construction of acceptable housing. Modifications of the credit mechanism and other devices may prove to be helpful in remedying housing conditions on the farms of operator families who have adequate incomes. However, if a substantial portion of the million farm-operator families who, even under 1944 conditions, could not afford acceptable housing are to be adequately housed, it appears that such additional steps as the following may be required.

1. Increase the income of some of these families from farming by enlargement of small farms or by some other means.

2. Increase the income of other families in this group from supplementary sources or by full-time off-farm employment.

3. Use temporary subsidies, in accordance with some agreed-upon minimum standards, particularly with reference to health, until the more basic measures take sufficient effect and in cases in which such measures are not fully applicable. Senator TAFT. General Grant.

STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. U. S. GRANT 3D, FIRST VICE PRESIDENT, AMERICAN PLANNING AND CIVIC ASSOCIATION

General GRANT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to explain that I am appearing here as vice president of the American Planning and Civic Association in lieu of Mr. Delano, the president, because of his illness. The American Planning and Civic Association is very glad to respond to your invitation to set forth before your subcommittee its ideas on the subjects listed in your letter. Fortunately, the association has recently held a board meeting at which many of these problems were discussed.

1. Concerning the nature of the permanent Federal administrative organization of the housing agencies, we submit that the best first move of Congress would be to confirm the existing arrangement, brought about by Executive order, which will automatically expire 6 months after the emergency. No doubt the organization set-up can be improved and we shall have some suggestions along that line; but we predict that it will not be easy to secure sufficient unanimity of opinion to bring about drastic changes in time to permit continuous planning and functioning of the Federal Government in the housing field. We therefore advocate immediate action to make sure of continuity of service and policy. Modifications can be worked out as they are agreed upon by housing officials and public opinion. Indeed, Congress may wish to specify that the National Housing Agency, after adequate surveys, make definite recommendations to Congress for improvements in the handling of housing by the Federal Government. Perhaps some of the agencies may prefer to operate independently, but, from the point of view of the public good, it would seem that the consolidation, while preserving a large degree of autonomy in the component units, has already accomplished some of the desired objectives, and, with further experience, can iron out overlaps and supply omissions.

2. Most authorities are agreed that the four-hundred-thousand-odd temporary housing units, at least in their present substandard 91183-45-pt. 12-10

condition, should not be used for permanent post-war housing. This would seem to be the intent of Congress. But it seems to us that sufficient discretion should be given N. H. A. to utilize them during a transition period and to prevent all from being put on the market at one time. We look with favor, also, on the experiments and proposals of the F. P. H. A. to reuse the materials, as far as possible, in permanent buildings for other types of utility. We are also impressed with the various proposals of F. P. H. A. for salvaging the demountable dwellings..

The disposal of war housing involves a number of considerations dependent in part on conditions which cannot be predicted accurately at this time; but, in the main, the various permanent housing units erected under various agencies can probably make their best contribution to post-war housing if they are turned over to such local housing authorities as desire to acquire them and use them for permanent low-rent housing. The Government should retire from the ownership and management of projects built to command high rentals. But the sooner the diverse ownership and operation of housing within the Federal Government is either consolidated or turned back to local communities, the better. We favor the local community whenever it is able and willing to take over.

Senator TAFT. Those projects, built for high rentals, would apply to the Green Hills project, and things of that kind, is that not so? General GRANT. It would apply to any house with a rental over what a poor man could pay. I am not certain what the rentals are in that project which you mention, but I should imagine many of the houses

Senator TAFT. About $50.

General GRANT. Yes. Many of the houses are above what we would call low rentals. The fixing of a low-rental limit is something that is very difficult, because manifestly what is a low rental for a two-room dwelling unit, that may be evident to anyone, but what is a low rental for a five-room dwelling unit might be a high rental for a two-room unit. So it is difficult to put a figure on it, but I believe you have nearly hit the average in most people's mind, and that is somewhere near $50.

3. The Government's activities in the field of housing should be such as to foster the revival of the home-building industry. We all look forward to the time when there shall be abundant building materials and labor so that private enterprise can proceed to supply the market with an adequate number of dwellings to meet the needs of different income groups, but we think that priorities and price controls will have to be relaxed gradually if we are to avoid unduly high prices and other excesses of scarcity.

4. As to the role of the Federal Government in future public housing, an excellent start has been made in developing the three principal types of Government service-the F. H. A., with its insured loans for private lending institutions; the Federal Home Loan Bank Administration, which provides a national credit reserve through the F. H. L. Bank System, insures savings of investors in home financing institutions through the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, and supervises the Home Owners' Loan Corporation; and the Federal Public Housing Authority. The first two have had a profound effect on stabilizing home loans and in reducing the number