A STUDY OF ELECTED OFFICIALS" AND RESIDENTS’ OPINIONS 0N FUTURE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Thesis for the Degree of M. S. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ALAN ROGERS KIRK 1975 I5 JHE" ABSTRACT A STUDY OF ELECTED OFFICIALS' AND RESIDENTS' OPINIONS ON FUTURE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BY Alan Rogers Kirk A major problem encountered in the practice of rural community development on the county or regional level is the identification of goals for future community deve10pment. Because of the relatively great amount of territory and population covered in county and regional development pro- grams, the identification of collective goals tends to be more difficult than it is for local CD efforts.. One pOSsible means of identifying such collective goals with a minimum of difficulty would be to poll the elected officials of the. county or region, assuming that they would adequately reflect the collective goals of their constituents. It was the primary purpose of this study to investigate this assumption: Given the findings of other researchers in related fields of study, a number of operational hypotheses were drawn up to investigate the general research question stated above. These hypotheses were tested, using survey data gathered by mail questionnaire in three rural Michigan Alan Rogers Kirk counties. The data consisted of the Opinions of a random 55ample of 1,401 residents and a sample of 167 elected offi- <:ials on some general and specific issues related to future cievelopment in their area. It also included information on serveral socioeconomic characteristics of the two groups sampled. The research findings showed that elected officials rmay'serve as an indicator of residents' views concerning qeuueral goals for future development but not in specific goals. Having first established that elected officials cliffered from residents in many socioeconomic character- istics, further analyses were undertaken to determine how (mertain independent variables might influence the degree of concurrence between elected officials and residents on Specific issues of develOpment. The influence of three independent variables was investigated: residents' education, family income, and social/political participation levels. All three of these socioeconomic characteristics ‘Were.fOund to be positively related to elected official/ reSident concurrence levels. In addition, several indepen- dent relationships were found: education and income were. Positively related to concurrence when participation levels ‘Wene held constant, and participation was positively related to concurrence when education and income levels, respectively, were held constant. Alan Rogers Kirk Finally residents were found to demonstrate an awareness of whether or not their elected officials were representative of their views. Those residents who per- ceived their elected officials as unresponsive to their desires also had low levels of concurrence with elected officials on issues of future development, and vice versa. The major implications of these findings are (1) that the rural community development practitioner may obtain a fairly reliable picture of the general development goals of an area by contacting the readily identifiable elected officials of the area; (2) that the level of citizen participation does have an effect on the represen- tativeness of rural elected officials; and (3) that constituents' perceptions of the representativeness of their elected officials tend to be accurate. A STUDY OF ELECTED OFFICIALS' AND RESIDENTS' OPINIONS ON FUTURE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BY Alan Rogers Kirk A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Resource Development 1975 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author of this study wishes to express his sin- cere appreciation and gratitude to the following people, without whose support and assistance this paper would not have been possible: To Dr. William Kimball, his major advisor, and Dr. Richard Rodefeld, his minor advisor, for their interest, guidance, and valuable assistance in all stages of this research. To Gordon Szlachetka and Fritz Sauer, trusty co-workers in this research. They, more than anyone else, have truly shared in suffering through the frustrations of survey research. To the staff and governing board of the Human :Development Commission in Caro, Michigan, which provided the :fumding for this study. Special thanks go to Sally Atchinson for her help and dedication. To Dr. Raymond Vlasin, department chairman,' ccxlrdinator of the research project of which this study was a Ewart” and a dear friend. His positive support and encouragement are greatly appreciated. ii De vs desi in n. H To Edmond Alchin and Manfred Thullen, Community Development Specialists, for their valuable help in the design and conduct of this study. To all of the residents and elected officials of Huron, Sanilac, and Tuscola Counties who participated in the survey. To Anthony Rapes, Rex Sieting, William Bortel, and Leland Warschefsky of the Cooperative Extension Service in Huron, Sanilac, and Tuscola Counties, for their cooperation and valuable assistance. To Linda Gebhard for her speedy and excellent work in the typing of this paper. To Carla Ann Moore, a dear friend, for her patience, kindness, and understanding. To the One who always is. LTQ': LIST Cha; F—I v .I] TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . Discussion of the Problem . . . . . The General Research Design . . . . The "Community". . . . . . . "Goals for Future Development" . . . "Elected Officials" . . . . "Residents" . . . . . The Determination of Goals . . II. REVIEW OF RELATED RESEARCH . . . . . Research Concerning Elected Officials versus the Public . . . . . Research Concerning Leaders in ' General versus the Public . . . . III. RESEARCH METHODS. . . . . . . . . Methods of Data Collection. . . . . Design of the Survey Questionnaire . Pretest of Questionnaire. . . . . Sampling Methods . . . . . .' . Mail-Out and Follow-up Procedures. . Non-Respondent Check . . . . . . Data Processing and Analysis Procedures Ill. RESEARCH FINDINGS . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . Overview of the Survey Results . . iv Page vi viii mH 14 15 l6 l6 l9 19 3O 46 46 46 50 51 53 54 '60 62 62 64 Chapter II. C "D“ \- 0'1. "E EDI \ I‘". C) [T] G) Chapter V. BIBLIOG APPENDI Appendi A. D. E. F. G. H. Future Population. . Land Use. . . . . . . . . . . Industrial Development . . . . Commercial Development . . . . Residential Development. . . . . . Recreational Development . . . . . Testing of the Research Hypotheses. Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis mxlmU'lthI-J O O 0 Summary of Research Findings. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions and Implications of the Research. . . Limitations of This Study. . . . RAP HY O O O O O O O O O O 0 CES X Economic and Social Characteristics of the Study Area . . . . . . . . . Elected Official versus Constituent Opinion and Suburban Social Rank Survey Questionnaire and Mail-Out Materials 0' o o o o o 0 .Survey Pretest Materials. . . . Sample Size Determination Survey Questions Used in the Non- Respondent Check. . . . . . Survey Return Rate. Percentage Responses to Survey Questions . Page 64 65 67 69 7O 72 72 75 87 108 114 115 122 128 131 139 139 152 156 160 162 163 172 178 180 182 183 PNJ LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Rank Order of Need or Problem Areas Named by Reconnaissance Leaders and Random Sample Respondents, Dublin-Laurens County, Georgia, 1966. . . . . . . . . . . . 35 2. Results of Efforts Made to Contact the First 114 Non—Respondents. . . . . . . . 56 3. Results of Efforts Made to Contact 74 Additional Non-Respondents . . . . . . . 56 4. Background Characteristics of Residents and Elected Leaders. . . . . . . . . . 73 5. Comparison of the Opinions of Elected Officials and Residents on General Issues of Community Development . . . . . . . . 74 6. Comparisons of the Opinions of Elected Officials and Residents on Specific Issues of Community Development. . . . . . 76 7. Evaluation of Hypothesis 2 by Issue . . . . . 80 8. Degree of Disagreement between Elected Officials and Residents on Four Types of Questions Concerning DevelOpment . . . 9. Relationship between Issue Area and Degree of Disagreement between Elected Officials and Residents . . . . 10. .Age of Elected Officials and Residents Surveyed, With Census Figures for Household Heads in the Study Area . . . . . 89 11. Sex of Elected Officials and Residents Surveyed, with Census Figures for Persons Aged 21 Years or More in the Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . 91 vi 13 II 15 16 21 Table Page 12. Average Family Size of Elected Officials and ' Residents Surveyed with Census Figures for the Study Area. . . . . . . . . . . 92 13. Education of Elected Officials and Residents Surveyed, with Census Figures for Persons Aged 21 or More in the Study Area . . . . 93 14. Occupation of Elected Officials and Residents Surveyed, with Census Figures for the Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 15. Annual Family Income of Elected Officials and Residents Surveyed, with Census Figures for the Study Area. . . . . . . 97 16. Marital Status of Elected Officials and Residents . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 17. Length of Residence of Elected Officials and Residents . . . . . . . . . . . 100 18. Political Party Affiliation of Elected Officials and Residents. . . . . . . . 103 19. Formal and Informal Group Membership of Elected Officials and Residents . . . . . 105 20. Evaluation of Hypothesis 3 on Ten Socio- , economic Characteristics . . . . . . . 107 21. Subgrouping of Residents by Levels of Education, Income, and Participation . . . 109 A-l. Economic and Social Characteristics of the Study Area. . . . ..- . . . . . . 160 8-1. Elected Officials' Versus Residents' Opinions on the Importance of Local Issues in 16 Philadelphia Suburbs of Differing Social Rank . . . . . . . 162 IT-l. Percentage Responses to Survey Questions. . . 183 vii Figure 1. LIST OF FIGURES Map of Michigan Showing the Study Area. . Education, Income, and Participation versus the Degree of Concurrence between Elected Officials and Residents on Land Use Control . . . . . . . . . . . . Education, Income, and Participation versus the Degree of Concurrence between Elected Officials and Residents on Control over Industrial Development . . . . . . . Education, Income, and Participation versus the Degree of Concurrence between Elected Officials and Residents on Control over Residential Development . . . . . . . Education and Income versus the Degree of Concurrence between Elected Officials and Residents on Land Use Control, Controlling for Participation . . . . . . . . Education and Income versus the Degree of Concurrence between Elected Officials and Residents on Control over Industrial Development, Controlling for Participation. Education and Income versus the Degree of Concurrence between Elected Officials and Residents on Control over Residential Development, Controlling for Participation. Summary Graphs of Education and Income versus the Degree of Concurrence between Elected Officials and Residents Controlling for Participation . . . . . . . . . . viii Page 11 110 112 113 116 117 119 121 Figure 9. 10. ll. 12. l3. 14. Participation versus the Degree of Concur- rence between Elected Officials and Residents on Land Use Control, Controlling for Education and Income. . . . . . Participation versus the Degree of Dis- agreement between Elected Officials and Residents, on Control over Industrial Development, Controlling for Education and Income . . . . . . . . . . Participation versus the Degree of Concur- rence between Elected Officials and Residents on Control Over Residential DevelOpment, Controlling for Education and Income . . . . . . . . . . Summary Graphs of Participation versus the Degree of Concurrence between Elected Officials and Residents, Controlling for Education and Income. . Resident Opinions on Governmental Respon- siveness versus the Degree of Concurrence between Elected Officials and Residents, on Three Issues of Development. . . . Summary Graph of Resident Opinions on Governmental Responsiveness versus the Degree of Concurrence between Elected Officials and Residents . . . . . . Survey Return Rate . . . . . . . ix Page 123 124 126 127 130 132 182 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Discussion of the Problem Practically any community, local to international in sc0pe, faces numerous problems affecting the well-being of its members. As conditions permit, and with the necessary motivation of community members, certain changes may be sought in order to solve these problems and thereby improve the lives of the community members. Over the last three decades, the term "community development" has come to signify the process, practice, and profession of planned change to solve local community problems, and, more generally, to . improve the well-being of the members of the community. Many definitions of the term "community development" have been advanced, focusing upon the process of organizing resources for the improvement of a community, or groups of individuals within a community. J. D. Mezirow proposed the :fiollowing definition of community development as a process of organi zed assistance: The community development process is, in essence, Ia.planned and organized effort to assist individuals to . 1Community DevelOpment--A Handbook (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1948), p. 1. 2 acquire the attitudes, skills and concepts required for their democratic participation in the effective solution of as wide a range of community improvement problems as possible in an order of priority determined by their increasing levels of competence. William and Loureide Biddle stressed the importance of the personality growth of community members in their definition of community development: Basically, community development is a social process by which human beings can become more competent to live with and gain some control over local aspects of a frustrating and changing world. It is a group method for expediting personality growth, which can occur when geographic neighbors work together to serve their growing concept of the good of all. It involves c00perative study, group decisions, collective action, and joint evaluation that leads to continuing action. It calls for the utilization of all helping professions and agencies (from local to international), that can assist in problem solving. But personality growth through group responsibility for the local common good is the focus. In another minor variation in definition, the Inter- national Cooperation Administration emphasized stages of social action: Community Development is a process of social action in which the people of a community organize themselves for planning and action; define their common and individual needs and problems; . . . execute these plans with a maximum of reliance upon community resources; and supplement these resources when necessary with services and materials from governmental and non— governmental agencies outside the community. 4 2J. D. Mezirow, "Community Development as an Educa- tirnmal Process," Community Development, National Training” Imflxaratories Reading Series, No. 4, 1961, p. 16. 3William W. Biddle and Loureide J. Biddle, The _C_0mmunity Development Process: The Rediscovery of Local Initj_ative (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1965) , p. 78. International Cooperation Administration, Community PEVelopmentReview, No. 3, 1956, p. 1. Other more specific program-oriented definitions of community development emphasize the external evidences of the social processes described above. Such definitions focus upon the accomplishment of physical development in a com- munity (roads, health facilities, etc.), or upon the tangible evidence of a certain degree of community organization (program participants, interest groups, etc.).5 On the whole, the various definitions of community development differ from one another in relatively minor ways. They consistently center on organizing the community for problem-solving and self-improvement. In many rural areas of the United States today, the process of community development is undertaken at the county and multi-county level as well as at the local level.6 This area approach to rural community development makes sense in light of the relative sparseness of rural populations, the land extensive nature of the economy, and a relatively low tax base for provision of public services. In fact, a variety of public programs in rural areas are administered by county government or by multi-county district, rather than by local units of government. SBiddle et al., p. 78. 6See Sar A. Levitan, Federal Aid to Depressed Areas; An Evaluation of the Area Redevelopment Administration (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1964), pp. 204-205; or James L. Sundquist and David W. Davis, Making Federalism Work; A Study of Program Coordination at the Community Level (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1959), pp. 130-66. 7 ) Ill. In the practice of community development on the county or multi-county level, just as in a single population center, one of the primary tasks of the professional is to determine the existing goals of this larger community for its future development.7 These goals are simply the posi- tive changes which community members wish to pursue, such as improvements in the provision of certain services, or economic development in the area. The community development (CD) profeSSional also seeks to understand whether a general consensus exists among community members regarding the desired directions of change, or if there are a number of competing goals relating to future development in the area. It is important for the CD professional to be aware of these goals in order to be able to understand and evalu- ate the actions he observes in the course of his work with the community. For example, the CD worker might check to 'see if the policy decisions made in the area reflect the identified goals, or if there exists any conflict between long-term area goals and more immediate, localized policies. This understanding of the area helps the CD worker to better understand the nature of the community problems with which he is faced. 7Edmond W. Alchin, "A Reconnaissance Research Plan for Community Development," Technical Bulletin B-49, Insti- tute for Community Development and Services, Continuing Education Service, Michigan State University, October 1965, p. l; and William Biddle and Loureide Biddle, Encouraging Community Development; A Traininnguide for Local Workers (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1968), pp. 40- 41. goals decide plish: relat him; Confronted with the task of identifying community goals for future development, the CD professional must first decide what would be the most appropriate means of accom- plishing the task. In making this decision he assesses the relative costs and effectiveneSs of the alternatives open to him; i.e., the time and expense of contacting alternative groups in a large rural area versus the reliability and representativeness of the information on community goals gained from those alternative sources. For example, the CD professional could undertake a study of community decision-making and select key power figures to interview; or he could analyze policy decisions made in an area over a period of time and make inferences regarding community goals; or he could poll a representative sample of area resi- dents. These approaches could yield fairly reliable information on various perspectives of community goals, but for a wide rural area they could entail a relatively great amount of time and expense as well. The CD worker seeks to ruinindze this time and expense without sacrificing too much reliability. One possible solution to the above dilemma is to cxillect information on community goals from a group that is bcnfl1 readily identifiable and is of a manageable size as Ivellxr-the elected governmental officials. It would seem reasonable to hypothesize that in this nation's system of representative government, the development goals of the elected governmental officials should reflect the goals of their constituents. The purpose of this study was to inves- tigate this general hypothesis. 1‘ Before introducing the study's general research design, it is important to briefly consider an underlying issue related to the preposition that elected officials may be expected to reflect the goals of their constituents for future community development. The American system of representative government cited above serves as a philosophical and ideological rationale for the general research hypothesis. The under- lying assumption in this rationale is that the role of elected officials is in fact to represent the desires of their constituents. This assumption, however, is Open to challenge by competing schools_of thought regarding the concept of representative government. Warren Miller and Donald Stokes describe three-such ' schools of thought.8 The "instructed-delegate" model of representative government, corresponding to the above assump- 'tion, states that the role of an elected official is to serfine the desires of his constituency. The "Burkean" model (scrqnamed from the writings of Edmund Burke) proposes that the role of an elected official is to serve the general intxarests of his constituency, albeit not necessarily their vwill; 'that is, the elected official may know better than his 8Warren E. Miller and Donald E. Stokes, "Constitu- ency Influence in Congress," in Elections and the Political Order, by Angus Campbell et al. (New York: John Wiley and €535:- Inc., 1966), pp. 351—72. constituents what is in their best interests. Finally, there is the "responsible party" model which prOposes that the role of the elected official is to represent the policies of his political party. In actual practice, an elected official may conform to more than one of these models, as social and political conditions seem to warrant. There exists some philOSOphical debate, however, as to which role elected officials should play, vis-a-vis their constituents. It was not the purpose of this study to enter this debate over the normative aspects of these models of repre- sentative government, but rather to come to a determination of whether or not the elected officials of a rural area do in fact represent the preferences of area residents con- cerning goals for future development. To the extent that they do, the goals of the elected officials could then serve as an indicator of the goals of the residents of the area. .Tflue findings of this research could also have some implica- tions concerning the situation of representatiVe government ix1:rural areas today, but the study was not designed to determine which of the three models of representative govern- ment predominates . Another more obvious issue concerning the idea of representative government also arises: is it not probable that the elected officials of an area may represent the interests of some residents more than others? If so, how do these residents differ from other residents? And on what issues do the elected officials represent some interests more strongly than others? These questions challenge the validity of the rationale used to introduce the general research hypothesis of this paper. Be that as it may, the following chapter shows that empirical evidence does exist to support the hypothesis. The fact that the elected officials of an area may be more responsive to certain interests over those of residents in general does not neces- sarily mean that those special interests eclipse those of the rest of the public. An elected official must maintain fairly wide support for assuring his re-election, so a cer- tain degree of alignment (however obtained) must be expected ' between him and a sizeable proportion of his constituents. This study did address itself to the issue of agreement between elected officials and residents of varying socio- economic status. The study did not, however, deal with what specific political or economic interests in the community ’Ihave more influence on elected officials than others. Agairh the main purpose of this research was to determine nflusther the expressed goals of the elected officials of a rural area may serve as an adequate indicator of the goals of'tflue residents in general. The research findings, though, cxnild have secondary implications concerning issues in representative government in rural areas today. The General Research Design This research involved a comparison of the develop- ment goals of the elected officials in a rural area with those of residents in general, in order to investigate the hypothesis that the elected Officials' expressed goals can serve as an indicator of those of the general public. In developing an operational approach to test this hypothesis, it is necessary to first define some concepts used in this study and to operationalize those definitions. The "Community" As indicated in the discussion of the problem, the -1 community, for the purposes of this study, was (1) the rural county and (2) a rural multi-county region. The study centered on three counties in east central Michigan-fHuron, Sanilac, and Tuscola Counties. They com- prise a relatively homogeneous region forming the "thumb" of the state. This area is a predominantly rural region of Michigan, covering 2,595 square miles, with a 1970 population ,of 117,867 persons.9 This is an average of 45.4 persons per square mile. (The largest incorporated area of the three counties has only 3,701 inhabitants.)10 This area is bounded, however, on the west and south by several large population centers-~Bay City, Saginaw, Flint, Pontiac, 9U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, United States Census of Agriculture: 1969, vol. 1, Area Reports, pt. 13, Michigan; and U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, United States Census of Population: 1970, Number of Inhabitants, Michigan, PC(l)-A24, pp. 21-34. 10Ibid., U.S. Census of Population: 1970. 10 Detroit and its suburbs, and Port Huron. To the north and east, the thumb is bounded by the waters of Lake Huron. A map of the study area is provided in Figure 1. Nearly 75 percent of the land area of these three counties is farmland, and agriculture is a major factor in the economy of the region. In addition, the economic base of the area includes food processing, manufacture of pro- ducts for the automotive industry, and some tourist enterprises. Some basic indicators of economic and social condi- tions in the counties of the Thumb serve to further characterize the study area. The rate of population growth in the region from 1960 to 1970 ranges from 0.2 percent in Huron County to 12.2 percent in Tuscola County, averaging 7.5 percent for the three counties as a whole. The popula- tion of the state increased by 13.4 percent.during this time; the state's rural population increased by 11.4 percent. Most remote from the urban centers adjacent to the region, IHuron.County shows a net out-migration, while Sanilac and Tuscola Counties show a small net .in-migration from 1960 to .1970. Ih.age composition, the percentages of the population 1 1 the study area aged sixty-five years or older and eighteen years or younger tend to be slightly greater than the 11East Central Michigan Economic Development Distnzict, Overall Economic Development Program, 1969, pp. 86— 95. Figure l. 11 I . I chcmrr- __. . ..-....l—' War/MC 1.--. __ iCA'r"? It: .- «at r25~15wu~1 I j I 'FWFSWI l$£ 0:915:37} I Q ‘1Mmflfifimmmammm- 0 ark/u I I [.50 I I . ‘_ -_..-.._.--._. ._.... ._.._.. (ti—“f I‘M MS“ i07.4»'I’LuIL'J'IuosI:94M Incovu {VII I'MIV . ‘ I ' 194.4534 I , . I . .~u‘———_—‘- —--‘-. ‘. -‘..-—- --.--~-- ‘-—I— “lb/CH?'rflme-I-M'SSA.‘MIETRJSCCu- I‘D-1.7t'HJn I IC’SCO V.‘ V ’ I I I I J - I .._. .._I_.. . ._.. .-L... -'-. _.._.. UASONT cur '— r714?! Ennis/734““ I I I I I I 1 - ' I I; I“ a —- o . ... -_ . . — p...- -._ . —. . l u —. 0 ‘r can“ wruraa III—(505m I ISAEILLATZIOL MEI . I I I I -~-I L --Ll_ '.—I1“1 Alt/5x2; - uavrCALu marl/or 35‘9“” The Study Area , ' 75?? I I .. J __ I _____I_______I_____I—&Mstt "AIM, ' ION/A -cu~ro~ [SAM-'15- ’ I St! ' I I I . I — .1 .-_I-.._._L-..._J...,..I._-I_oi«u'~"'I"l'-'I 10.11.56.457 04km I [Arm I'mauzu IUVWGSVOVI . I . ; méEkElam ma" 'c‘u~'oZE ' F127;; ‘lfisk‘rfiu I 1 . I . . . II 1 I Ifi-ILI DIM”! I ' Map of Michigan Showing the Study Area. I I L... mam! I‘VE? . 5:705:31 3355738111 an max-'5‘ T was; \ 12 figures for the state as a whole. They are more similar to the figures for the rural population of the state. The educational and family income levels of the Thumb Area fall below overall state averages; they are fairly similar to the figures for rural populations of the state. The median number of years of school completed by persons aged twenty-five years and over averages 11.2 years for the region compared to 12.1 years for the state as a whole and 11.9 years for the rural population of the state. The median annual family income for the region is $8,754, while that for the state as a whole is $11,032, and the figure for the rural population is $9,837. In summary, the Thumb Area is a largely rural, agri- cultural region bounded by several large urban centers. Although the demographic and social characteristics of this area tend to differ from the state as a whole, when they are 'compared with figures for the rural population of the state they are found to be quite similar. The area is character- izexi by low population growth, higher than average dependent population, and lower than average educational and family incxmne levels. Thus, in comparison with rural (and particu- Ilardgr rural farm) populations of the state, the study area is ruyt atypical. A table is included in Appendix A detailing the primary demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of the study area. An organization in the Thumb Area that has been actiAnely involved in working to improve the economic and 13 social well-being of the area is the Human Development Commission. The stated purpose of this non-profit organi- zation is "to assist low income and disadvantaged people to improve their own circumstances and live independently."12 The Commission accomplishes this purpose by conducting pro- grams in aging, education, child care, youth training, and employment.13 The Commission receives federal funding for. its programs through the Office of Economic Opportunity, the Department of Labor, and the Office of Child Development (Department of Health, Education, and Welfare); local matching funds are provided also.14 In 1972, the Commission recognized that its efforts in rural community development could be significantly aided by research into the major problems and possible opportuni- ties for development in the Thumb Area. The findings of such research could help the Commission, and other local I agencies and decision-makers, to move ahead in planning and ifiuilementing community development programs. Through a number of discussions between the Commission and Michigan State University personnel, a research project was designed, based upon some of the major needs of the Thumb Area and on time resources MSU could provide in a project of this kind. 12 13Ibid. 14Ibid., pp. 8-10. Human Development Commission, Annual Report, 1973,» 14 Four areas of research were outlined in the research pro- posal. Three departments in MSU's College of Agriculture .and Natural Resources would be involved in the project. One of the research efforts included.in the project was termed the Community Development Analysis. This research would seek to determine the opinions of Thumb Area Citizens and elected officials toward various aspects of development, in order to help community development agencies make plans for the future development of the Thumb Area. Since the support of local citizens is needed for successful community development, the decision-makers and planners of the Thumb Area could benefit from knowing what local citi- zens do and do not support, and also what their level of awareness is, regarding local issues relating to community develOpment. An assessment of elected officials' opinions towards development would provide a comparison of their Igoals regarding local community development issues with those of local residents. This study thus grew out of the Community Develop- ment Analysis component of the reSearch project conducted in the Thumb Area of Michigan. "Goals for Future Community Development" ’ This was defined simply as the desired ends of planned change in a community. Two basic alternatives were evident at this point, concerning the determination of goals: one was to simply ask 15 residents and elected officials what their goals for future community development are; and the other was to pose ques- Itions on some pre-selected issues, the answers to which- would indicate the respondents' community development goals. The latter alternative was chosen for this study, for the reason that the clients of the research project were interested in peOple's opinions on certain issues common to all three counties. Through a series of meetings with the client and various resource peOple, the following issue areas regarding future community development were chosen: population, land use, industrial develOpment, commercial develOpment, residential development, and tourism develop- ment. Thus, this study of elected Officials' versus residents' goals for future community development was based upon a survey of opinions on these issues. "Elected Officials" This study designated as elected officials those individuals at municipal, township, and county levels of governnent, who are elected to office by a vote of the eligible registered adult residents of the given unit of governnmmt. This definition thus included county commis- sioners, clerks, treasurers, drain commissioners, registers of deeds, and sheriffs; township supervisors, trustees, clerks, and treasurers; incorporated city mayors, council or commissicm.members, clerks, and treasurers; and incorporated village presidents, trustees, clerks, and treasurers. 16 Elected officials from special community jurisdictions, such as school board members and circuit and district justices, ‘were not included in this definition. The officials desig- nated above constituted the population from which a sample was drawn. The details of the sampling procedure will be discussed later in this paper. "Residents" The population of adult individuals from all house- holds in the three-county study area were the residents referred to in this study. Telephone directories were chosen as the sampling frame for the study. As explained in Chapter III, Research Methods, they were found to be a readily obtainable source of names of the adult population of the study area. Furthermore, telephone directories were determined to have _the least amount of potential bias among various other possible listings of adult residents. Adult individuals were designated rather than house- hold heads in an effort to provide the option for spouses, not listed in telephone directories, to express their opinions as well, in the survey on future community develop- ment. The Determination of Goals Various approaches were possible regarding the determination of elected Officials' goals as compared to residents' goals. One set of alternatives concerned the 17 direct versus indirect determination of people's goals. People could be asked directly about their goals, or an indirect inference could be made about people's goals on the basis of other information on behavior or opinions. The direct approach would yield expressed opinions from respon- dents; the indirect approach would be used to determine unarticulated attitudes or predispositions of respondents, inferred by the researcher from the information on behavior or opinions. The more direct approach was used in this study because of the needs of the client and because of the greater technical complexities of the indirect approach. Another set of alternatives regarding the determina- tion of goals has already been discussed: the open-ended soliciting of people's goals versus the specifying of cer— tain issues about which people may give an opinion. The_ desires of the client of the research project, to focus upon I certain salient issues in the Thumb Area, resulted in the Choice of the latter alternative in this study. The choice also existed as to hgw to obtain people's cuxinions on the issues selected for this study. Three dif- 'fierent approaches were considered: face-to-face interview, tuslephone interview, and mail questionnaire.' Since the research project was conducted with very limited personnel anflzfinancial resources, and at a considerable distance from time study area itself, the mail questionnaire approach was chosen. This approach could allow reasonably comprehensive 18 coverage of the three-county area at significantly less expense and time than the other techniques. Thus, a mail survey of elected Officials' and resi- dents' Opinions was conducted in the Thumb Area of Michigan. This survey, posing questions on six topics related to future community development, served as a basis for the comparison of the expressed goals of a sample of elected officials with those of a sample of residents. This compar- ison was the means by which a determination was made as to whether the goals of elected officials in these rural counties could serve as an indicator of the goals of the residents in general. Before discussing the details of this survey, it is first necessary to examine the findings of some previous related research, which serve as a rational basis for advancing some specific subhypotheses tested in the course of this study. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED RESEARCH In examining the question of whether the opinions of the elected officials of an area can serve as an indicator_ of their constituents' opinions, it is worthwhile and impor- tant to investigate what other researchers have found about how these two groups compare in their Opinions, and also how they compare in other ways which might be related to opinion differences. The findings of this previous research serve as'a basis for advancing several specific hypotheses in this study. Research Concerning Elected Officials versus the Public Previous research involving comparisons of elected (officials and their constituents appears to be relatively ljJnited, and as the reader shall see, many of these studies werra oriented towards issues or problems that are only ixuiirectly related to the purposes of this study. Three ‘typess of comparisons between elected Officials and their constuituents are discussed: (1) comparisons regarding Opinirons on various issues; (2) comparisons regarding 19 20 certain sociOpolitical attitudes; and (3) comparisons regarding various socioeconomic characteristics of elected officials versus their constituents. In national level research, the roll-call behavior of U.S. Congressmen was compared with the policy preferences of their constituents and With the Congressmen's perceptions of those preferences.1 Three issues of national interest were used in these comparisons--social welfare, foreign involvement, and civil rights. Although roll-call behavior was found to be partially influenced by the Congressmen's perceptions of their constituents' preferences, nevertheless the Congressmen tended to be largely unrepresentative of their districts. On the local level, the opinions of elected offi- cials on important goals for local government were compared ‘with those of randomly sampled residents in a study con- ducted in sixteen Philadelphia suburban areas.2 These Opinirn1 surveys were conducted as a minor component of a study of the correlation between local public expenditures and,t1ue relative socioeconomic rank of these suburban An examination of the results showed that in communities. the suburbs of middle socioeconomic rank, most of the 1Miller and Stokes, pp. 351-72. 2Oliver P. Williams, Harold Herman, Charles S. ILiebnwu1, and Thomas R. Dye, Suburban Differences and Metro— ‘politxu1 Policies: A Philadelphia Story (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1965) , pp. 213-19. opiI tho ran St. ma; and C . 21 Opinions of elected officials differed very little from those of the sample of residents. In the lower and higher ranked suburbs, however, the opinions of the two groups tended to diverge much more. These findings were the pro- duct of a visual comparison of the percentage responses of the two groups on issues considered "very important" in their communities. The table in Appendix B shows the com- parisons of the two groups and the issues covered in the surveys. When these issues were ranked according to percentage, only in the suburbs of high socioeconomic status did the opinion-ranking of elected officials differ markedly from residents; in both the middle and lower class suburbs the ranking of issues for officials versus residents was significantly correlated (p_<_.05).3 Furthermore, when the percentages for the three types of suburbs were averaged together for each issue, the ranking of the issues for1 elected.officials was found to be correlated with that of residents. Further evidence of how the opinions of elected Ifoicials compare with those of their constituents was foruui in a study of issues related to metropolitan govern- nmun:, conducted in metropolitan areas in five eastern and. 3A Spearman's Rank Correlation test Was used by the investigator in this analysis of the Williams et a1. survey results. 22 midwestern states.4 A line of reasoning was presented in the study that relates well to the discussion in Chapter I regarding the concept of representative government: It might be expected that their [governmental offi- cials'] views on the character of metropolitan problems and the methods for dealing with them should correspond fairly closely with those of citizens in their respec- tive jurisdictions. That should certainly be true, if the officials take the position that their responsi- bility is to translate public opinion into administra- tive policy and action. If, however, officials believe that their task is to guide and shape the formulation of Opinion, then any appreciable discrepancy between their attitudes and those of their constituencies wOuld seem to indicate a lack of success in leadership on the part of the officials.5 - The results of this study showed that elected officials both agreed and disagreed with household heads on issues of metrOpolitan areas. .Comparisons between the two groups were made in central cities and suburbs, and in different sized metropolitan areas. The opinions of central EEEQL elected officials and household heads tended to be Isimilar'on the issue of metrOpolitan-wide sharing of central city pnflflir:service costs; suburban officials and household heads, however, differed on this issue.6 On the other hand, suburban elected officials and household heads tended to agree on the wastefulness of numerous governmental units in 4Amos H. Hawley and Basil G. Zimmer, The Metropoli- tan Cknmnunity: Its People and Government (Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1970). 51bid., p. 126. ’6Ibid., pp. 93, 134. 51 Ch 5. IHU 23 metro areas and on alternative future policies for metro areas, while central city officials and household heads disagreed with each other on these issues.7 Size of the metropolitan area did not appear to have any clear effect upon these differences between elected officials and house—~ hold heads. These previous studies show that findings have not been consistent regarding opinions of elected officials versus those of their constituents. _Unfortunately, none of the three studies were concerned with What independent varie ables may have influenced the amount of agreement between elected officials and their constituents. An examination of the Williams et a1. survey data has revealed the possibility that community socioeconomic rank may have an effect upon the agreement between elected officials and residents; but the study itself did not explore this possibility. This ‘situation will be at least partially remedied later in this chapter in the presentation of some evidence in a related ‘fielticaf research. It is necessary, though, to first com- plete the review of literature relating to comparisons between elected Officials and their constituents. In the study cited above which dealt with sixteen. Philadelphia suburbs, some information was gained on the socitmxalitical attitudes of elected officials and their 7Ibid., pp. 108-109, 131-33. and ‘IIEI‘I I85 COT, 24 constituents.8 Elected officials were found to exhibit greater degrees of parochialism or localism than residents (concern over local affairs to the exclusion of those out- side their community); and officials exhibited less anomie or alienation from state and national political institutions and less non-partianship than their constituents. There were mixed results concerning the degrees of conservatism and ethnocentrism exhibited by the two groups, depending upon the socioeconomic rank of the area. Elected officials tended to have higher levels of political conservatism than residents in suburbs of high social rank and lower levels of conservatism than residents in suburbs of middle and lower social rank. Regarding ethnocentrism (attitudes toward social out-groups), elected officials were more negative than residents in the suburbs of low social rank and were less negative than residents in suburbs of middle and high social rank. As was the case with opinion comparisons, no research was done on possible factors influencing these attitude differences between elected officials and their constituents. Of all the literature reviewed, concerning elected Offirxial/constituent differences, the most information was found on (differences in socioeconomic characteristics. Summarizing these findings, it was generally the case that 8Williams et al., p. 215. 25 elected officials had higher levels of the following char- acteristics than did their constituents:9 0 educational attainment 0 income 0 professional or managerial occupations o formal group membership 0-organizational office-holding a social and political participation It was also reported that elected officials tended to have a slightly higher median age than household head constitu- ents;10 and that elected officials had higher proportions of white, male, and native-born individuals than the general population.11 Previous research strongly indicated, though, that the socioeconomic status of elected officials tended to vary positively with the relative socioeconomic status of I the community to whiCh they belonged.12 Since the literature search concerning elected officials versus constituents yielded somewhat limited 9Hawley et al., p. 130; Williams et al., pp. 228-29; and Kenneth Prewitt, The Recruitment of Political Leaders: .A Study of Citizen Politicians (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill CO., Inc., 1970), PP. 25-26. 10Hawley et al., p. 127. llPrewitt, p. 26. 123. T. Downes, "Municipal Social Rank and the Char- acteristics of Local Political Leaders," Midwest Journal of Poliizical Science 12, No. 4 (1968): 514-37. 26 information, it seemed advisable to look into some related areas of study. Much of the related research has dealt with comparisons of leaders and residents rather than with elected officials per se versus residents. The following question immediately comes to mind: can the findings of research on leaders be legitimately applied to the purposes of this study involving elected officials? Several points may be made on both sides of this question. On the positive side of the question, it may be argued that the elected officials of an area constitute, at least nominally, a subset of the overall leadership of the area. They are elected by the voters to represent them and lead them in matters of government; so by this definition the elected officials are leaders. Due to their relatively high degree of visibility to the public, political office- holders tend to be looked upon by community members as, leaders of the community.13 Furthermore, local government is usually recognized as one major source of power in com- munity decisionsmaking, especially in more recent times, since it has accumulated responsibilities and duties regarding the administration of more public funds.14 l3Robert Presthus, Men at the Top (New York: Oxford [university Press, 1964), p. 210; and Harold L. Nix, Ram N. SiJugh, and Paula L. Cheatham, "Views of Leader Respondents Cknnpared with Random Respondents' Views," Journal of the cxnmnunity Development Society_5, No. l (1974): 88-89. 14William Spinrad, "Power in Local Communities," Social Problems 12, No. 3 (1965): 352-53. S olU AU . V“ r S Cs fhu rs .. a II rI~ A... .....u v. a C; I «\ .vu AI. h... ‘3. a?" \IVI .II‘ t ukg \Q 2‘ h .s. s Th; 27 Studies comparing the representativeness of various groups of community leaders have found that elected leaders tend to be no more or less representative of the public than non- elected leaders.15 Finally, it has been observed that elected leaders tend to have socioeconomic characteristics similar to leaders in general.16 On the negative side of the question, there is evidence to indicate that in the identification of leaders or influentials in a study of community power structure, although many of the leaders may be office-holders, not all office-holders are necessarily identified as leaders.17 Various techniques or approaches are used for the identifi- cation of leaders in a community-Pthe "positional" approach, the "reputational" approach, the "decisional" approach. The particular approach used has been found to influence which individuals are identified as leaders; for example, 15Norman R. Luttbeg, "Belief Conflict in the Com- munity: Leader and Follower Differences in Policy Preferences" (Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1965), pp. 36-39; and Sidney Verba and Norman H. Nie, Par- ‘ticipation in America: Political Democracy and Social _—— Equalityj(New York: Harper and Row, 1972), p. 301n. 16Presthus, pp. 183-84, 287-88.‘ 17Robert O. Schulze, "The Bifurcation of Power in a Satellite City," in Community Political Systems, ed. Morris Jarmmvitz (Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1961), p. 45. 18Irwin T. Sanders, The Community: An Introduction to a Social System (New York: The Ronald Press CO., 1966), pp. 442-43. rej COI rank lead 28 the positional approach tends to overrate the impact of formal position on the actual decision-making process;19 and it has_been found that leaders identified through the reputational approach tend to be titular heads of major community organizations, but they may not be especially active in community decision-making.20 This evidence thus , suggests that office-holders may be identified as leaders. in a positional or reputational sense but may not neces-' -sarily be leaders in a decision—making sense. Other research has suggested that elected leaders tend to be more marginal members of the local power structure due to their usually temporary stay in office.21 It has also been noted that, among key informants, political office-holders do not rank as high in reputation as economic leaders do.22 (Among the general public, though, as mentioned above, office holders do tend to rank higher in reputation than economic leaders.)23 It is suggested that economic success is more .lgL. C. Freeman, Patterns of Local Community Leadership (New York: Bobbs-Merrill CO., Inc., 1968), P. 7. 201bid., p. 38. 21Presthus, p. 205. 22Nix et al., pp. 88-89; and Paul A. Smith, "The Games of Community Politics," Midwest Journal of Political Science 9, No. l (1965): 46. . 23Nix et al., pp. 88-89. whet may wit‘: thaI QEDE €002 . OED 29 generally accepted among influentials as a legitimate cri- terion of leadership than is political office-holding.24 Thus there are these two sides to the question of whether research findings pertaining to leaders in general may or may not be acceptable to use in this study dealing with elected officials. It is the judgment of the author that the inclusion and use of the literature on leaders in general is acceptable for the following reasons: (1) there is evidence that elected officials comprise a major segment of the leadership in communities;25 (2) research findings have indicated that elected leaders tend to have socio- economic characteristics similar to leaders in general;26 and (3) there is evidence that elected leaders are not necessarily any more or less representative of the public than non-elected leaders.27 In this use of literature concerning leaders in general, the author has taken care to Inote whether this more general body Of research has yielded findings similar to the literature on elected officials versus constituents reviewed above. 24Presthus, p. 205. 25Spinrad; and Richard Laskin and Serena Phillett, "Formal.versus Reputational Leadership Identification," I paperfliresented at the Annual Meeting of the Pacific Socio- logirnal Association, Portland, Oregon, April 1963. 26Presthus, pp. 183-84, 287-88. 27Luttbeg; and Verba et a1. aha . F .5“ I- v I E Di a\u s I At U. d r .C L .2 3. s .. at .4 a .1. «it 2 .2 4:. r t I III \I r.... was AD DJ HI. .3 I. w I r «my. . a I . u .. Qt . - 11 Yr 2... C and C C 1 F“ e In» ..L F. a. .L at «Q . .3 .wIi I. rt 5.? x ... . I I m 0 «C Y. a {It 0 r 3 a3 1. a t s I.“ .II w . hug PM. xv. Tn 1.. d 30 Research Concerning Leaders in General versus the Public One of the products of power structure research in American communities has been the examination of how leaders. differ from non-leaders. In terms of socioeconomic back- ground differences, leaders have been consistently found to: (a) have higher levels of education; (b) have higher incomes; (c) hold more professional and managerial occupations; (d) belong to more formal organizations; (e) be generally more socially and politically active; and (f) consist mostly of males and whites.28 (These differences between leaders and community members in general are consistent with the research findings concerning elected officials discussed above.) The literature reviewed presented inconsistent findings regarding leaders versus non-leaders in age, length of residence, and political party affiliation. While some research found no significant differences in these vari- ables, other research found that leaders tended to be somewhat older, have longer lengths of residence, and have larger majorities of dominant local party representation tiuni residents.29 The literature surveyed also indicated 28Robert A. Dahl, Who Governs? (New Haven, Conn.: ‘Yale [kniversity Press, 1961), pp. 170, 172, 230; Aaron Wildavsky, Leadership in a Small Town (Totowa, N.J.: Bed- minister Press, 1964), pp. 283-88, 291—93, 298-300; Presthus, pp. 286-88; Nix et al., p. 83; and Freeman, pp. 65-69. 29Dahl, p. 170; Presthus, p. 287; and Wildavsky, pp. 298-300. the to si; LOI e1": in: of: MI V8 j 31 that a greater proportion of leaders owned homes and belonged to a Protestant church, compared to non-leaders.30 No significant differences between leaders and non-leaders were found concerning marital status or family size.31 It was evident from this review of research findings that more information existed for leaders in general than for elected officials. This was also found to be the case in the exami- nation of research on attitudes and opinions of leaders versus community residents in general. The review of literature dealing with attitudes showed that researchers tended to agree that leaders' generally exhibit a higher sense of "political efficacy" than community residents in general.32 This sense of political efficacy was measured through the responses obtained from a series of agree-disagree statements con- cerning an individual's feelings about the impact he has 'upon local politics and government. As one might expect- from.leaders' higher levels of formal group membership and socflxal/political activity, leaders expressed higher levels of'itherest in public affairs, especially on the local scene.33 Controlling for education and income levels was 30Freeman,,p. 69; and Presthus, p. 287. 31Wildavsky, pp. 298-300. 32Dahl, pp. 287-89; Wildavsky, p. 294; and Presthus, pp.‘334-36. 33Dahl, p. 173; and Wildavsky, pp. 287—88. not betw evii 32 not found to affect this difference in interest levels between leaders and non-leaders.34 Finally, there was some evidence to suggest that leaders tended to be more change- oriented than non-leaders.35 The degree of change- orientation was derived from a measure of the number of proposed changes in a community favored by leaders versus randomly sampled residents. None of the findings on attitudes discussed above are directly comparable to the research findings on elected officials versus constituents discussed earlier in_this chapter. The only similarity between the two bodies of information is the evidence on political alienation con- cerning elected officials and the evidence On political efficacy concerning leaders in general. The finding that elected officials exhibited less alienation from state and national political institutions than did their constituents 'seems consistent with the finding that leaders felt a greater sense of political efficacy than did non-leaders. Turning now to opinion differences between leaders and non-leaders, one source of information is research in 'the field of political science, in comparisons of political parrqz leaders and their followers. In a 1960 study of odenions on twenty-three national issues, Democratic Party leaders (national convention delegates) were found to differ 34132:1111, p. 173. 3SNix et al., pp. 83-84. 0 «Mil puny \ EU. 33 very little from Democratic Party followers; but the dif- ferences in opinion between Republican Party leaders and followers on these issues were quite large.36 The Demo- cratic leaders were slightly more liberal than their followers on the issues involved, while the Republican leaders were markedly more conservative than their followers. These relative political differences between party leaders and their followers have been found in research conducted at the local level as well.37 These findings suggest, then, that leaders as a grOup may tend to exhibit wider ranges of policy preferences than non-leaders. Research dealing with elected officials has supported this suggestion;38 but studies concerning leaders in general have not had consistent results, both supporting and contra- dicting the findings concerning party leaders and followers.39 Two studies have been found, which compared the opinions of leaders and non-leaders on local community 36Herbert McClosky, Paul J. Hoffman, and Rosemary O'Hara, "Issue Conflict and Consensus Among Party Leaders and Iflallowers," American Political Science Review 54, No. 2 (1960): 406-27. 37Samuel J. Eldersveld, Political Parties: A Behavioral Analysis (Chicago: Rand McNally and CO., 1964) p. 192. 38Hawley et al., pp. 108-109, 132-33. 39Presthus, pp. 328, 329; and Luttbeg, p. 109. 34 develOpment issues. In one study, conducted in a rural Georgia county, it was found that the views of a sample of leaders (identified through a combined positional and repu- tational method) were not significantly correlated with the views of randomly sampled residents, regarding thirty specific felt needs in the community.40 When these needs were grouped together, however, to make ten general areas Of community need, the rank ordering of needs expressed by leaders was significantly correlated with that of the residents.41 Table 1 shows this comparison of need areas between leaders and residents. As indicated in Table 1, the comparisons were made using a Spearman's Rank Correlation test. On the basis of these findings, the study drew the following conclusion regarding the representativeness of the opinions of community leaders when a "reconnaissance" approach is used to identify the expressed needs of a community: The implications of the higher correlation of need areas as opposed to specific needs is that greater confidence can be placed in the "reconnaissance" method of sampling for community studies if the aim is to generate educa- tional programs or depth studies of problem areas. However, for the purpose of determining public reaction to specific proposed needs and changes, an indication from leaders only may be very misleading. 4ONix et al., p. 86. 4lIbid. 42Ibid. 35 Table 1.--Rank Order of Need or Problem Areas Named by Reconnaissance Leaders and Random Sample Respon- dents, Dublin—Laurens County, Georgia, 19663. Reconnaissance Random Need or Problem Area No. of No. of Mentions Rank Mentions Rank Education 54 l 100 3 Political-governmental 36 2 56 5.5 Relationships and attitudes 34 3 56 5.5 Economic 31 4 111 2 Health and housing 28 5 95 4 Transportation 24 6 145 1 Community planning and physical development 22 7 43 8 Tax 20 8 26 9 Recreation 11 9 52 ' 7 Welfare 1 10 14 10 74 N = 324 Source: Harold L. Nix et al., "Views of Leader Respondents Compared with Random Respondents' Views," Journal of the Community Development Society 5, No. l (1974): 87. ars = .646; N = 10; significant at .05 level (one- tailed test). (I) II U) 36 Thus there is evidence to suggest that the views of com- munity leaders may be quite similar to those of residents, concerning general issues of community develOpment, but that]I the two groups may nevertheless differ on specific issues. The other study found which compared the opinions of leaders and non-leaders was conducted in two Oregon cities and dealt with nine issues of specific local concern.43 The study concluded that leaders were not representative of the community, in their opinions on these issues.44 This con- clusion, however, was only based upon a visual comparison of numerical scores, meaningless in and of themselves. TheSe scores were derived from a five-point scale, corresponding to the following response categories: "Strongly Approve, Approve, Uncertain, Disapprove, Strongly Disapprove."45 When the differing mean scores of leaders and non-leaders were translated by the author into their corresponding response categories, in no issue did there result a mean "approval" for one group versus a mean "disapproval" for the- cother group. In fact, the greatest difference between leaders and non—leaders turned out to be a situation in “fluich the leader sample "approved" of the issue while the sample of non-leaders remained ”uncertain." This situation Ocnzurred in two iséues. In all other issues both leaders _ 43Luttbeg. 44Ibid., p. 108. 451bid., p. 60. 37' and non-leaders were on the same side of the five-point continuum. Thus, in spite of the conclusion made in the study, a closer examination of the findings suggested that leaders did not substantially differ from non-leaders in their OpiniOns on local issues. It is difficult to compare these findings on leader/ non-leader Opinion differences with those previously dis-v cussed concerning elected officials versus constituents. The types of issues covered, the types of communities, and the criteria used for comparing groups vary too greatly from one study to another. Suffice it to say, though, that the findings are inconsistent for both areas of research: both elected officials and leaders in general have been found to agree with residents in many issues, and both have been found to disagree with residents in some issues. Issue specificity seems to be an important variable in the simi- larity of leaders' and residents' opinions; and the socfixmeconomic rank of the community may be a factor in the sinfiLLarity of elected Officials' and residents' Opinions. Two studies have been found which dealt with some ixutrvidual socioeconomic characteristics which may influence 'the (moncurrence of Opinion between leaders and non-leaders cn1 ccmununity issues. The Oregon study concluded that leaders were more representative of persons with higher socioeconomic status than of those with lower socioeconomic 38 status.46 A later study also demonstrated that non-leaders' socioeconomic status was positively related to the concur- rence between leaders and non-leaders. With social/political participation as an indepen- dent variable, Luttbeg found that leaders were more representative of the more active residents in one city he studied, but that this relationship was not present in the other city.48 Verba and Nie also determined that there was a positive relationship between non-leaders' participation and concurrence between leaders and non-leaders.49 It has been well documented that the independent variables discussed above are strongly intercorrelated: the primary components of socioeconomic status——income and education-~have been found to be intercorrelated, and each one has been found to be correlated with various measures of 50 participation. Thus the question arises as to which Of 46Ibid., pp. 125, 126. 47Verba et al., pp. 305-308. 48Luttbeg, pp. 132-33. 49Verba et al., pp. 305-308. 50See David G. Hay, "The Social Participation of Iflousefluolds in Selected Rural Communities of the Northeast," Rurefil Sociology 15 (June 1950); John M. Foskett, "Social Strwurture and Social Participation," American Sociological Revienv 20 (August 1955); Morris Axelrod, "Urban Structure and Social Participation," American Sociological Review 21 (Fetnmaary’l956); and Lester W. Milbraith, Political Parti- cipation: How and Why Do People Get Involved in Politics? (Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1965) . 39 these variables is (are) the basic determinant(s) of concur- rence between leaders and non-leaders. The socioeconomic characteristics of income and education may be logically perceived as temporally preceding an individual's partici- pation level. Thus it might be postulated that income and education are the basic determinants of citizen-leader con- currence, and that participation is related to concurrence only as a function of its correlation with the other two variables. One would expect from the above model that if the effects of education and income were controlled, then the observed relationship between participation and citizen- leader concurrence would disappear (or be greatly reduced). Conversely, if participation were controlled, the effects of education and income on concurrence would be expected to persist. The findings of previous research, however, do not I support this model. In fact, the exact‘opposite has been found in the research conducted by Verba and Nie: a positive relationship was found between citizens' participation levels and citizen-leader concurrence, even when controlling for citizens' SES levels; and when participation levels were controlled, the relationship between SES and citizen-leader concurrence virtually disappeared.51 On the basis of these findings Verba and Nie concluded that an individual's 51Verba et al., pp. 305-308. 40 participation in community affairs, not his socioeconomic status, was the prime determinant of his concurrence with . 52 leaders on local issues. The relationship between participation and citizen- leader concurrence was researched further in a comparison of communities of varying levels of social/political activity. In communities with generally high levels of activity, the positive relationship between individual participation and citizen-leader concurrence was observed; but in communities with low levels of activity, increasing individual participation was not necessarily accompanied by greater citizen-leader concurrence on local issues.53 Thus, not only were individual participation levels related to citizen-leader concurrence, but the community setting was evidently also a factor influencing the degree to which citizen Opinion agreed with leader opinion. A final factor that was found to be related to citizen-leader concurrence on local issues was citizen ¢ Gmm.HHw mem.osm oeooca seesaw ceases Ammav Amev mmamm\HmOHumHo cmEmHom\cmEmummno Awmmv Awomv Show HoumnuchHEUM\ummmcmE AWhNV OOH>HOm mmsoum Hmcoflumdsooo Awmev Show \HOHOQOH\O>H¢OHOOO pmumaa maucoocmum.pmoz .mum ma .mnm NH coflumoopm mo whom» cmapmz .mum mm .mH> mm mom scape: mom mum mOHmE mo mmmucmoumm mumpmmq pmuomam muampflmmm .mququ pmuomam can wucwpflmmm mo moflumflnmuomumbo pcsoumxommII.s canoe 74 general goals for future community development. To test this hypothesis, the views of elected officials and residents were compared in the survey questions dealing with the general issues of community development--future county population, industrial development, commercial development, residential development, and tourism growth. These compari~ sons were made for the three-county area as a Whole and for each county separately (see Appendix H). As indicated in Chapter III, a chi square test was used to determine if the difference between elected officials and residents were statistically significant (a=.10). Table 5 shows the results of the chi square tests for the five questions on general issues of development. Table 5.--Comparison of the Opinions of Elected Officials and Residents on General Issues of Community Development. Region Huron Sanilac Tuscola Future county population * ns ns ns Industrial development ns ns ns ns Commercial development . ns ns ns ns Residential development ns‘ ns ns ns Tourism development ns ns ns ns' Key: ns--no significant difference at a=.10. *—-significant difference at d=.10. 75 As the table shows, the only case in which a statis- tically significant difference was found was in the issue of future county population for the three-county region. This difference was found to be primarily due to the differences in "Don't Know" responses between residents and elected officials. When the two groups were compared Without the "Don't Know" responses, there was no longer any statisti- cally significant difference between them on this issue. Thus, on the basis of the findings displayed in Table 5, Hypothesis 1 was supported. Hypothesis 2 To test Hypothesis 2, that the views of elected Officials would be significantly different from those of residents on specific issues of community development, opinions expressed on fifteen survey questions were com- pared. The percentage responses to these questions have been included in Appendix H. The results of the comparisons between elected officials and residents are shown in Tablei6. This table shows that although there were in fact many significant differences between the opinions of elected officials and residents on specific issues concerning development, nevertheless the results tended to vary widely. This variation occurred in three dimensions: (1) from the three-county region to individual counties; (2) from one 76 Table 6.--Comparisons of the Opinions of Elected Officials and Residents on Specific Issue of Community Development. Region Huron Sanilac Tuscola Control over future county poulation ns ns ns ns Land use planning * * * * Level of government for land use planning * * * * Ordinances to enforce land use planning * * ns * Zoning ordinances * * * * Subdivision regulations * * ns * Building regulations * ns ns * Level of government for ‘zoning ordinances * * * * Level of government for , subdivision regulations * ns ns ,* Level of government for building regulations * * ns * Zoning to protect farmland * * * * Control over location of industrial development * ns ns ns Control over location of commercial development * ns ns * Control over location of . single-family housing * * ns ns Control over location of mobile homes * ns ns * Key: ns--no significant differences at d=.10. *--significant different at d=.10. 77 Table 6.--Continued. Note: In order to generate a valid contingency table (i.e., one in which no more than 20 percent of the cells had an expected frequency of less than 5) it was sometimes necessary to either drop the "Don't Know" category or collapse related categories together. A low number of observations in one or more counties in some of the survey questions made this necessary. When this had to be done in any county, the other counties were treated likewise to preserve comparability from one county to another. individual county to another; and (3) from one issue to another. It can be seen from Table 6 that the comparisons for the three-county region resulted in significant dif— ferences in all but one case. (As with Hypothesis 1, this exception concerned Opinions on the issue of county popula- tion.) In the individual counties, however, the table shows that there were numerous cases in which no significant, difference existed between elected Officials' and residents' opinions on these issues of control over development. In Huron County six out of fifteen comparions resulted in no significant differences; such was the case in Sanilac County for ten out of fifteen comparisons; but Tuscola County had only three comparisons which showed no significant differ- ences. Thus, 58 percent of the comparisons between Officials' and residents' opinions in the individual coun- ties did show significant differences; and 93 percent of the comparisons for the three-county region showed significant differences. 78 Turning now to the various issues concerning .development, the issue of control over population growth elicited very similar opinions from bOth elected officials and residents. As Table 6 shows, this was the case for the three-county region and for each county individually. Thus Hypothesis 2 was not supported in this issue. The issue of land use planning was dealt with in two questions, and significant differences were found between elected Officials' and residents' opinions in all counties and in the region as a whole. Therefore Hypothesis 2 was supported in this issue. The next eight questions in Table 6 concerned the issue of land use control. Comparisons between elected officialsIand residents' views revealed significant dif- ferences in all questions for the region as a whole and for Tuscola County. In Huron County, however, there were two Iinstances in which no significant difference was found; and Sanilac County had four such instances. Among all three individual counties, then, 75 percent of the comparisons did reveal significant differences. Thus Hypothesis 2 was largely supported for this issue as well. One question was posed on the subject of control over industrial development. Although a significant difference was found between the two groups for the three-county region as a whole, none of the individual counties exhibited this difference. Hypothesis 2 was thus supported in the region 79 but had to be rejected for the individual counties in this issue. There was also one question in the survey concerning control over commercial development. For the region, the opinions of elected officials on this issue differed signi- ficantly from those of residents. This was also the case fOr Tuscola County; but no such difference was found in the other two counties. Thus, Hypothesis 2 could be supported for the three-county region, but the situation in two out of three of the individual counties did not support the hypothesis. Finally, two questions in the survey dealt with control over residential development. The same situation was observed with these two questions as was the case with commercial development. Thus Hypothesis 2 was supported for the region but had to be rejected for individual counties, since two out of three showed no significant differences between the Opinions of elected officials and residents. Table 7 summarizes the findings concerning Hypothe- sis 2, on an issue-by-issue basis. This table indicates that Hypothesis 2 was generally supported at the multi- county level but should probably have been rejected at the county level. These results also suggest the possibility that concurrence in opinion between elected officials and residents may well depend upon the issue involved, local conditions, and the degree of specificity within any given issue. The following paragraphs expand upon this point. Table 7.--Evaluation of Hypothesis 2 by Issue. Issue Area Three-County Individual Region 'Counties Population Control rejected rejected Land use planning supported supported Land use control supported supported Industrial development control supported rejected Commercial development control supported rejected Residential develOpment control supported rejected The questions used in testing Hypothesis 1 and 2 can be sorted into four generic types: (1) the "to develop or not to develOp" type of questions used for testing Hypothe- sis 1; (2) "to control development or not" type questiOns; (3) "how much to control development" type questiOns; and (4) "at which level of government to control development" type questions. The latter three types were used for testing Hypothesis 2. Table 8 shows the differing degrees of disagreement between elected officials and residents on these four types of questions. The higher a percentage is in Table 8, the greater the number of cases in which elected officials differed significantly from residents in their Opinions. In the three-county region the distinction between the general issues of development (Type A questions) and the specific 81 Table 8.-—Degrees of Disagreement between Elected Officials and Residents on Four Types of Questions Concer- ning Development. Percent of Cases with Signifi- cant Difference between Opinions of Elected Officials Type Of Quest1on and Residents Three-County Individual Region Counties A. To develOp or not - to develop 20% 0% B. To control develop- ment or not 86% 67% C. How much to control develOpment 100% 25% D. At what level of government to con- trol development 100% 75% issues of control over development (Type B, C, D questions) ,is quite clear. The degree of disagreement between elected officials and residents is quite small in the general issues and quite large in the specific issues. At the county level, however, there appears to be an anomalous situation concerning the Type C questions on how much to control development. In only 25 percent of the cases did elected officials differ significantly from residents. One may question why such a small difference occurs with this type of question, while a relatively large difference exists with the Type B questions. After all, the question of how much to control develOpment would seem to be more specific in 82 natuna than the question of whether to control development or notn. The Type C question would thus be expected to result.in TEES differences between elected officials and residents rather than less. No ready explanation for this situation can be offered. There are, however, some points that do shed some light on the matter. First, the two types of questions deal with different issues. The Type B questions deal with population and land use, while the Type C questions deal with industrial, commercial, and residential development. It may be that this difference in issue areas contributes to the difference in elected official/resident concurrence levels. Two crude bits of evidence indirectly support this point: (1) Two land use questions in Type B (on subdivision regulations and building regulations) which happen to be most closely related to a Type C issue (residential develop- ment) do in fact also exhibit a percentage of official/ resident disagreement which is closer to the percentage for the Type C residential develOpment questions than for the other Type B land use questions. Table 9 shows this relationship.' The point is that maybe the issue area does have some bearing on the concurrence between elected offi- cials and residents, overriding the differing levels of issue specificity. (2) The specific Type B questions which deal with the same subjects as the Type D questions do in fact also 83 Table 9.--Relationship between Issue Area and Degree of Disagreement between Elected Officials and Residents. Percent of Cases with Significant Type of Question and Differences between Opinions of Issue Area Elected Officials and Residents Individual Counties B. To control develop- ment or not. Subdivision regu- lations, building regulations 50% Other land use questions 92% C. How much to control development. Residential develop- ment 33% exhibit the same percentage of official/resident difference (75 percent). Thus, it would seem that a similarity of Lissues from one type of question to another is accompanied by a similarity in percentage of official/resident disagree- ment. If this is true, then the converse may also be true, that a difference in issue areas can result in differing degrees of official/resident concurrence. Another point may shed some light on the situation of the low level of official/resident differences in Type C questions. These questions are essentially multiple choice, with one choice being equivalent to saying "no control over development" and then two or more other choices on what degree of control. When the statistical comparisons 84 between elected officials and residents are rerun with the categories collapsed into a control/no control choice (as in Type B questions), the percentage of cases in which elected officials differ significantly from residents rises from 25 percent to 42 percent! Thus, part of the reason for the low degree of difference between officials and residents is the effect of multiple choice question on the statistical test of comparison. (The effect of the multiple categories is to "dampen" the effect of the control/no control differ- ences of opinion between residents and elected officials.) A third point on the reason for the low degree of disagreement between elected officials and residents in Type C questions concerns the "Don't Know" responses. An examination of the table in Appendix H reveals that one of the most sizeable and consistent differences between elected officials and residents in many of the survey questions is Ithe difference in the proportions of "Don't Know" responses. This difference, then, is part of what contributes to the chi square statistic used in comparing the opinions of elected officials and residents. The fact is, though, that it was necessary to drop the "DOn't Know" category in three-fourths of the Type C questions in order to meet the technical requirements of the chi square tests (see Note, Table 6). In the Type B questions, only two Out of seven cases necessitated dropping the "Don't Know" category. If all "Don't Know" responses were dropped in both Type C and Type B questions the percentage of significant differences 85 between officials and residents would (still) be 25 percent for the Type C questions but down to 57 percent (from 67 percent) for the Type B questions. If, in addition to this adjustment, the Type C questions were analyzed with a dichotomous control/no control breakdown, the percentage of significant differences would rise again to 42 percent, only a 15 percent difference between them and the Type B questions. As a final point, the psychological effect of the Type C ("how much to control development") questions on the resident respondents must be examined. It has already been noted that residents commonly differ from elected officials in their proportions of "Don't Know" responses. In fact, residents almost always have higher proportions of "Don't Know" responses in the questions of control over development (see table in Appendix H). This situation suggests that residents as a group are probably less sure about these issues than are elected officials. A comparison of official versus resident "Don't Know" responses in Type C questions with those in Type B questions reveals that in every county the average difference between officials and residents is somewhat lower in the Type C questions than in the Type B. questions. It is also the case that the average difference between Officials' and residents' "No" (or "no control") response is less in Type C questions than in Type B questions. Thus it would seem reasonable to suggest that the choice of alternative kinds of "yes" answers in the 86 Type C question probably serves to inform the respondents and thereby decreases the tendency for them to Opt for a "Don't Know" or a "no control" response. The statistical outcome of this situation is just what is shown in Table 8-- fewer significant differences between officials and resi- dents occur in the multiple choice Type C questions than in the yes-no Type B questions. This phenomenon apparently overrides the greater issue specificity of the Type C questions. An evaluation of Hypothesis 2 was made on an issue- by-issue basis (see Table 7). This hypothesis was supported on the multi-county level, but it was not supported on the individual county level in four out of six issues. When the hypothesis is reevaluated, though, on the basis of the generic types of survey questions (Table 8), it continues to be supported on the multi-county level gpg in two out Of three cases on the individual county level. Evidently, elected officials and residents do tend to differ on specific issues of control over develOpment, but it has been fOund that the subject area and the manner in which the I questions are posed appears to markedly affect this differ- ence. It may be concluded from the preceding discussion - that various factors may influence the hypothesized effect cof issue specificity upon official/resident concurrence. 'Thus, on the county level, elected officials may adequately represent the views of residents on some specific issues regarding future community develOpment.‘ On the Whole, 87 however, too many differences in opinion have been found to exist, to warrant rejection of Hypothesis 2. The hypothesis is thus supported. Since differences in opinion between elected offi- cials and residents have been found to exist, some possible reasons for these differences should be explored. It is logical to suppose that if elected officials were found to differ frOm residents in various socioeconomic character- istics, then some of these socioeconomic differences may influence opinion differences between the two groups. Hypothesis 3 concerns the socioeconomic differences between elected officials and residents; then Hypothesis 4 explores some possible relationships between socioeconomic and opinion differences. Hypothesis 3 Before taking up the analyses involved in testing Hypothesis 3, it is necessary to recall a point made in the 'previous chapter, concerning the representativeness of the returns from the random sample of households in the study area. The point was made that although there were no reversals of Opinion from the survey results to the non- respondent check, nevertheless there were in fact some marked differences in socioeconomic characteristics between survey respondents and non-respondents. Survey respondents, on the whole, were more highly educated, had greater incomes, had more white collar and farm occupations, and 88 consisted of more males than females, when compared with noncrespondents. When a comparison is made between survey respondents and census information, these same differences are found to apply. Because of this bias present in the survey results, it was decided that comparisons between the socioeconomic characteristics of elected officials and those of residents would be more meaningful using census informa- tion rather than survey results. Thus, comparisons of socioeconomic characteristics of elected officials with those of residents were conducted in two ways. For those variables for which there was comparable information in U.S. Census publications, the census data was used in making the comparisons. For variables that had no comparable census information, the survey results were used in making the com- parisons between elected officials and residents. In compar- isons involving elected officials and the census, the survey results are also displayed so the reader may Observe how they differ from both the census and the elected officials. The first socioeconomic characteristic is age; Table 10 shows how this variable differed between elected Officials, the census, and the sample of residents surveyed. As one might guess from an examination of this table, elected officials Were found to differ significantly (a=.10) from the census in age distribution. Generally speaking, the source of this difference was the relative scarcity of elected officials below the age of thirty-five and the large proportion of officials aged forty-five to sixty-four, 89 Table 10.--Age of Elected Officials and Residents Surveyed, with Census Figures for Household Heads in the Study Area. 14-24 25-34 35-44 45-64 65+ Huron Co. Census (Household Heads) 5.2% 13.7% 15.7% 38.5% 27.0% Residents Surveyed 4.1% 14.6% 14.0% 38.1% 29.2% Elected Officials 0.0% 7.1% 21.4% 44.6% 26.8% Sanilac Co. Census-(Household Heads) 6.0% 15.6% 16.3% 36.6% 25.4% Residents Surveyed 2.6% 13.4% 17.9% 38.9% I 27.0% Elected Officials 0.0% 10.7% 14.3% 51.8% 23.2% Tuscola Co. Censusv(Household Heads) 7.0% 19.7% 18.0% 35.7% 19.7% Residents Surveyed 5.5% 19.9% 20.9% 36.8% 18.9% Elected Officials 0.0% 12.2% 12.2% 51.0% 24.5% Thumb Area Census (Household Heads) 6.2% 16.6% 16.8% 36.8% 23.6% Residents Surveyed 4.1% 15.3% 17.5% 37.9% 25.0% Elected Officials 0.0% 9.9% 16.1% 49.0% 24.8% 90 compared to the percentage of household heads in those age groups. Accordingly, the median age of elected leaders in the Thumb Area was fifty:five years, while that of household heads was only fifty-one years. (Table 10 also shows, incidentally, that the age distribution of survey respon- dents was quite similar to that of the census.) This finding, that elected officials tended to be somewhat older than residents in general is consistent with the findings of Hawley and with those of Presthus and Dahl concerning com- munity leaders versus residents.3 As stated in Chapter II, though, not all researchers have found this difference to exist. A comparison was made of elected officials with census figures (on adults 21 years and over) on the basis of sex distribution. The results of this comparison are shown in Table 11. While the census consisted of an almost even distribution between males and females, the sex distribution of elected officials was more than four to one in favOr of males in two out of three counties and more than two to one in the Other county. This finding is consistent with vir- tually all the previous research reviewed.' Table 12 shows that the average family size of elected officials tended to be slightly larger than the cen- sus figures for Huron and Sanilac Counties and slightly 3Hawley, p. 127; Presthus, p. 287; and Dahl, p. 170. Table ll.--Sex of Elected Officials and Residents Surveyed, with Census Figures for Persons Aged 21 Years or more in the Study Area. M F Huron Co. Census 48.5% 51.5% Residents Surveyed 67.6% 32.4% Elected Officials 85.0% 14.0% Sanilac Co. Census 48.6% 51.4% Residents Surveyed 66.0% 34.0% Elected Officials 84.2% 15.8% TuscOla Co. Census 48.3% 51.7% Residents Surveyed 68.6% 31.4% VElected Officials 69.4% 30.6% Thumb Area Census 48.4% 51.6% Residents Surveyed 67.4% 32.6% Elected Officials 80.4% 19.6% 92 Table 12.--Average Family Size of Elected Officials and Residents Surveyed with Census Figures for the Study Area. Huron Sanilac Tuscola Thumb Census 3.27 3.29 3.41 3.33 Residents Surveyed 3.15 3.17 3.46 3.26 Elected Officials 3.40 3.36 3.37 3.38 smaller than the census figure for Tuscola County. For the region as a whole, the average family size of elected offi- cials differed from the census figure by only .05. This finding is consistent with the findings reported in the literature reviewed by the author. Previous research has also indicated that elected officials tend to have higher levels of educational attain- ment. This has also been found to be the case in this study. As shown in Table 13, the proportions of elected officials with twelve years or more of education exceeded 'those of the census in almost every case. Likewise, the percentages of elected officials with less than twelve years of education were consistently lower than those of the general population. I These differences were found to be statistically significant at d=.10. Survey respondents usually fell somewhere in between the census figures and elected offi- cials in educational attainment. Table 13.--Education of Elected Officials and Residents 93 Surveyed, with Census Figures for Persons Aged 25 Years or More in the Study Area. 0-8 9-11 12 13-15 16+ yrs. yrs. yrs. yrs. yrs. Huron Co. Census 42.4% 15.7% 30.4% 6.7% 4.8% Residents Surveyed 22.4% 12.3% 37.5% 13.0% 14.7% Elected Officials 13.6% 13.6% 50.9% 20.3% 1.7% Sanilac Co. Census 34.4% 19.0% 35.5% 7.0% 4.1% Residents Surveyed . 17.9% 14.5% 45.1% 14.3% 8.3% Elected Officials 10.7% 10.7% 53.6% 16.1% 8.9% Tuscola Co. Census 32.4% 20.6% 34.5% 7.5% 5.1% Residents Surveyed 15.3% 11.7% 49.4% 12.2% 11.4% Elected Officials 8.2% 8.2% 53.1% 22.4% 8.2% Thumb Area- Census 36.0% 18.7% 33.6% 7.1% 4.7% Residents Surveyed 18.6% 12.7% 44.1% 13.1% 11.6% Elected Officials- 11.0% 11.0%. 52.4% 19.5% 6.1% 94 Survey respondents were classified by occupation according to the definitions of the major occupational categories in the 1970 U.S. Census of P0pu1ation.4 A comparison of the occupations of elected officials with those of the (census) general population yielded mixed results in the three counties. As shown in Table 14, the proportion of elected officials in the "professional- technical" category exceeded the census figure in only one county and fell far below the census in the other two. The greatest proportions of elected officials in all three counties fell in the "manager-administrator" and "farm" categories, exceeding the census figures by 13-40 percentage points. The prOportions of elected officials with "crafts- man, foreman" and "operative, laborer, service worker" occupations were very small compared to the census figures of the three counties. The only category with consistent similarities between elected officials and the general population was the "sales, clerical" category. Thus, while the elected officials could, in general, be said to have a greater proportion of white collar occupations than did the general public, nevertheless, this was not always the case when the white collar occupations were subdivided into their component categories. And, in an area where farming 4U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, United States Census of P0pu1ation: 1970, General Social and Economic Characteristics, Michigan, PC (1)-C24, App. 19-21. 95 wm.hv wmnm Wh.H wH.mH wm.NN wa.m mHMflOHmmO.fimuomHm wm.0m $0.0N .w0.va wm.NH wm.ma w0.NH wwmm>uflm mucmfiflmmm wH.HH wm.mv wm.0H wm.¢H wm.m $0.0 msmcmu mmum hence wm.am wm.0 wH.m wo.mH. wm.am wm.ma mHmHUHmmO Umpomam wm.ms wm.Hm am.mfl wv.ma wm.HH wm.~H, cmsm>usm mucmoflmmm wm.v wh.hv wv.hd wm.mH wm.v $0.0H msmcmu .OU mHoomsB wm.mm w0.h $0.0 wm.0H mm.0H wm.N mamflowmmo Umuumam wv.hm w5.mm wm.m wm.ha wo.ma wm.m Umhm>HDm mucmflflmmm wh.mH wm.mm wo.wa wm.mH wm.m wm.h mamcmo .ou omaflcmm wm.Hm $0.5 wm.m wm.0a $0.0m wm.m mHMHOmeO Uwuomam wm.am_ wm.vm wm.aa ws.n wm.mfi mm.mH um>m>usm mucmwflmmm wm.ma wm.mm wm.mH Wm.vs. wm.s wm.m mzmcmo .mMImmmmm Esau 00fl>umm .oum HmoHHmHU .CHEU< .opm .mumuonmq .GOEwHom .mmamm w .man .Hmoflcnooe .mm>fiumuomo .mummuu . .HMCmemomoum .mmra snsum may now mouomflm momcwu zuflz .©m>m>usm mucopflmom pom mamfloflmmo wouooam mo coflummoooO|l.va manme 96 comprises a major portion of the economic base, the farm occupation category was heavily represented among the sample of elected officials (primarily consisting of rural town- ship officials), as Table 14 clearly shows. These findings, then, only partially support the evidence presented in the review of previous research related to this subject, that higher proportions of elected officials (and leaders in general) have professional or managerial occupations, as compared to the general public. (It is worth noting, though, that the previous research cited dealt with more urbanized areas.) The last socioeconomic characteristic for which comparisons could be made with census information was annual family income. The review of previous related research indicated that elected officials as a group tend to have higher incomes than the general public. Consistent with this evidence, Table 15 reveals that the prOportion of elected officials with annual family incomes of over $12,000 was almost double that of the census figures in all three counties and in the region as a whole. Among the individual income categories below $12,000, however, the results tended to vary from one county to another. In Huron County, for eutample, the percentage of elected officials with incomes Of $6,001-$9,000 slightly exceeded the census percentage; but in Sanilac and Tuscola Counties, the elected official Percentage was far below the census in the $6,001-$9,000 category. Other such variations may also be observed. On 97 $v.m $N.VN $m.0a $H.0N $v.ma $m.HH $0.0 mHMflUflmmO cwuowam $m.b $N.0H $m.va $0.0H $v.0H $m.vH $v.m ©m>m>HSm wucmwflmmm $v.m $0.HH $H.MH $0.0m $0.NN $0.0H $m.NH msmcwo mmud gauze $N.v $N.mm $H.hm $0.0m $m.0 $m.NH $0.0 mamfloflmmo Umpomam $0.0 $m.vm $m.mH $v.ma $v.ma $m.oa $H.n ommm>usm mucmpflmmm $0.m $v.va $0.mH $m.NN $h.mm $m.NH $N.m msmcmu .oo mHoomsB $h.m $¢.0N $0.5H $v.0N $m.h $0.0H $0.0 mHMHUHmmO Gmuomam $0.0 $m.va $v.aa $n.ma $v.hH $0.0H $m.oa ©m>o>uom mucopflmom $0.N $0.0H $v.NH $0.HN $0.NN $0.5H $m.NH msmcmu .oo omHflcmm $0J0 $m.ha $m.NH $0.0m $0.mm $v.m $0.0 mHMHOHmmO Umuowam $0.0 $m.ma $v.MH $0.0H $M.0H $m.va $0.0H pmwm>usm m#cm©Hmmm $N.N $0.0 $M.HH $5.0H $N.NN $m.0N $v.mH msmcwu .ou couom ooo.mmm ooo.mmm ooo.mwm 000.Nam ooo.mw 000.0w 000.mm sons who: Iaoo.maw IHoo.me Iaoo.mm IHoo.ww Iooo.mw cone mmmq .mmna mpopm onu Mom mousmflm msmcmo cpflz .om>m>usm mucmoflmmm cam mamfloflwmo omuowam mo mEoocH kHHEmm Hmsccdsl.ma mamas 98 the whole, though, the distribution of annual family incomes of elected officials significantly differed from that of the general population (a=.10), and the source of this differ- ence was that the elected officials tended to have higher incomes than the general public. One might expect that the marital status of elected 'officials could also be compared to that of the general population, using the census. The census figures, however, were compiled from a population aged fourteen years and older, and thus it in effect overstated the proportion of single persons, compared to the survey of elected officials, none of whom were younger than twenty-five years old. For this reason, the marital status of the elected officials 'was compared with that of the sample of resident respondents in Table 16. The differences in marital status between elected officials and residents were consistent in alli counties: a greater percentage of elected officials were married and lesser percentages were single or separated/ divorced/widowed. These differences were found to be sta- tistically significant at a=.10 in all but Sanilac County. This finding of significant differences is contrary to that found in the review of preVious research concerning leaders in general versus non-leaders, which noted little differ- ences in marital status. Elected officials also differed significantly from resident respondents as to their length of residence in their county. Table 17 shows that the source of this 99 Table l6.--Marita1 Status of Elected Officials and Residents. Separated, Divorced, Single Married Widowed Huron Co. Residents 4.6% 80.4% 15.0% Elected Officials 0.0% 98.3% 1.8% Sanilac Co. Residents 4.2% 81.9% 13.9% Elected Officials 3.5% 87.7% . 8.8% Tuscola Co. Residents 4.2% 84.3% 11.5% Elected Officials 0.0% 100.0%. 0.0% Thumb Area Residents 4.3% 82.2% 13.5% Elected Officials 1.2% 95.1% 3.7% Table 17.--Length of Residence of Elected Officials and Residents. 100 Number of Years 1—4 5-14 15-24 25-34 35-49 50+ Huron Co. Residents 8.6% 14.0% 12.5% 13.7% 19.6% 31.5% Elected Officials 0.0% 3.9%' 5.9% 15.7% 31.4% 43.1% Sanilac Co. Residents 13.5% 15.8% 11.9% 14.1% 17.0% 27.7% Elected Officials 4.1% 6.1% 2.0% 10.2% 26.5% 51.0% Tuscola Co. Residents 7.6% 14.4% 15.9% 17.9% 23.8% 20.3% Elected Officials 4.5% 4.5% 11.4% 15.9% 22.7% 40.9% Thumb Area Residents 9.8% 14.7% 13.5% 15.3% 20.3% 26.4% Elected Officials 2.8% 4.9% 6.3% 13.9% 27.1% 45.1% 101 difference was that the elected officials tended to have lived in their county longer than the sample of resident respondents. In the Thumb Area as a whole and in each individual county the percentages of officials with less than twenty-five years of residence consistently fell below the percentages of residents in those categories. Percen- tages of elected officials with twenty-five to thirty-four years of residence were quite similar to those of the resi- dent sample. And the percentages of officials with thirty- five or more years of residence exceeded those of the residents in all but one case. The median length of residence for the sample of elected officials in the three- county area was thus forty-seven years, while the median for the resident sample was only thirty-three years. This finding logically coincided with the finding that elected officials were older than residents. The finding that the elected officials tended to have longer lengths of residence than the resident sample is consistent with the findings of Presthus concerning community leaders versus the general public, but no such difference is noted in the research done by Wildavsky on this subject.5 The findings of previous research have also been - inconsistent concerning the distribution of political party affiliation among community leaders as compared to those of the general public. Some studies have found significant 5Presthus, pp. 183-84; and Wildavsky, pp. 398-400. 102 differences between the two groups regarding this variable, and others have found leaders and non—leaders to be quite similar in their party affiliation.6 No evidence was found in the review of literature that specifically related to local elected officials versus the general population on this variable. In seeking to explain the probable nature of the relationship between elected officials and the general public regarding this variable, two alternative lines of reasoning come to mind. It is possible that, if the voters of an area tended to be quite party-oriented due to strong party allegiances and/or some clear differences in party platforms, then the majority affiliation of the voters would likely be reflected in the affiliation of most of the elected officials. If, on the other hand, the voters tended to be more oriented toward the individual candidates rather than to a party affiliation, then it would seem possible that the distribution of party affiliation among the voters would not have much of a relationship to the affiliation of the elected officials. The comparison of the elected officials with the resident sample shown in Table 18 seemed to point toward the former possibility mentioned above. That is, the majority preference among residents was reflected in the great majority of elected officials in the same category. Furthermore, the ranking of the categories according to 6Ibid. 103 Table 18.5-Political Party Affiliation of Elected Officials and Residents. Demo- Repub— American cratic lican Independent Party Party Party et a1. None Huron Co. Residents 26.3% 48.9% 4.0% 20.8% Elected Officials 17.5% 71.9% 1.8% 8.8% Sanilac Co. Residents 27.0% 48.8% 3.5% 20.7% Elected Officials 12.3% 80.7% 3.5% 3.5% Tuscola Co. Residents 29.4% 41.9% 4.1% 24.6% Elected Officials 6.3% 87.5% 0.0% 6.3% Thumb Area Residents 27.6% 46.5% 3.9% 22.0% Elected Officials 12.3% 79.6% 1.9% 6.2% 104 their respective percentages is virtually the same for elected officials as it is for residents in all three coun- ties and in the Thumb Area as a whole. Nevertheless, the statistical comparison of the distributions of elected. officials with those of the resident sample did result in significant differences. The percentages of elected offi- cials who identified with the Republican party were much larger than the Republican percentages among residents; and the proportions of elected officials in the other categories were markedly lower than the corresponding categories in the resident sample. I In order to determine the extent of formal and informal group membership, the following question was included in the survey questionnaire: "Are you active in any of the following types of organizations or groups which are active in your county?" Eight general types of formal and informal groups were listed with a yes-no response choice and also an instruction to include the number of groups to which the respondent belonged in that type (see Appendix C-l). The total number of groups was tabulated for each respondent, and elected officials were compared with the resident sample on this basis in Table 19. It is clear from an examination of these results that the sample of elected ‘ officials had significantly higher levels of group member- ship than did the resident sample. The proportion of residents belonging to a total of three or more groups ranged from 37.7 percent in Sanilac County to 47.1 percent 105 $0.0H $0.vm $0.0H $0.ma $0.0 $0.5 $w.0 mamfl0flmmo vmpomam $v.m $H.HH $0.0H $H.MH $0.0H $5.0H $N.0N muamfiflmmm mmu< haste $m.¢H $v.wa $m.vH $v.ma $N.0H $m.0H $N.m mHmHUflMMO Umuomam $0.0 $0.0 $0.0H $H.mH $m.0H $0.Hm $0.5H mucmpflmom .ou mHoomSB $0.HH $v.mm $0.NN $0.MH $N.0H $0.0 $N.0H mHMHOHmmo @muomam $m.m $¢.HH $v.m $H.HH $m.mH $m.0N $m.mm mucopflmmm .oo omawcmm $h.mm $0.0m $0.0H $0.MH $0.0 $h.H $0.0 mamwoflmmo quomam $m.m $¢.NH $v.NH $0.NH $m.va $m.ha $H.HN mucmwflmmm .ou cons: +h mum v m N H 0 mmsouo mo HOQESZ .muCOOHmwm UGO mHMflonmO Omuomam mo magmHmQsz msouw HmEH0mcH cam HMEHOMIr.mH manme 106 in Huron County, while the proportion of elected officials belonging to a total of three or more groups ranged from 65.3 percent in Tuscola County to 84.7 percent in Huron County. These findings are consistent with previous research findings concerning both elected officials and community leaders in general. In summary, to test Hypothesis 3, comparisons were made between elected officials and residents surveyed or census figures on ten socioeconomic characteristics. Hypo- thesis 3 specifically prOposed that elected officials as a group would exhibit higher levels of the following charac- teristics: -age -pr0portion of males -educational attainment -proportion of professional and managerial occupations -family income -1ength of residence -prOportion of dominant local political party affiliation -formal and informal group membership The hypothesis also stated that there would be no difference between elected officials and residents in family size and Inarital status. Table 20 summarizes the outcomes of these tests of Hypothesis 3. The only socioeconomic variable for which the Ihypothesis was not supported at all was marital status. 107 Table 20.-—Eva1uation of Hypothesis 3 on Ten Socioeconomic Characteristics. Socioeconomic Three-County Individual Characteristics Region Counties Age supported supported Sex supported supported Education supported supported Occupation rejected rejected Family Income supported supported Length of Residence supported supported Political Party Affiliation supported supported Group Membership supported supported Family Size supported supported Marital Status rejected rejected Elected officials were found to differ significantly from residents when it was hypothesized that they would not. The' variable for which the hypothesis was only partially sup- ported was occupation. It was hypothesized that elected officials would have higher proportions of professional and managerial occupations than residents would. It was found, ”however, that elected offiCials had lower proportions of professional occupations in two out of three counties and in _the region as a whole, though they did have higher prOpor- tions of managerial occupations than did residents. It was galso found that elected officials had higher proportions of farm occupations. This finding was not surprising, since agriculture was a dominant factor in the economy of the study area. 108 Hypothesis 3 was thus supported for eight out of ten of the socioeconomic variables, and could be said to be par- tially supported for one other variable. Given these socioeconomic differences between elected officials and residents, hypotheses could be set forth which suggest how these differences may influence the opinion differences that were found between the two groups. On the basis of litera- ture cited in Chapter II, Hypothesis 4 was set forth. Hypothesis 4 Hypothesis 4 stated thatas residents? levels of education, income, and participation increased, the degree of concurrence inopinion between elected officials and residents on specific issues would increase. Only specific .issues were included in this hypothesis because Hypothesis 1- stated that elected officials and residents would not differ in their opinions on general issues; and Hypothesis 1 was in fact supported. Thus, there was no reason to investigate concurrence on genral issues any further. To test Hypothesis 4, three questions on specific issues of develOpment were selected from the survey. The three issues chosen were land use control, control over the location of industrial development, and control over the location of residential development. The number of formal and informal groups to which a resident belonged was used as a measure of participation; the measures of education and income had already been established in the survey. 109 Residents were grouped into low, medium, and high levels of education, income, and participation according to the criteria shown in Table 21. The percentages in paren- theses after each subgroup indicate the proportion of- residents comprising the subgroup, according to information in Tables 13, 15, and 19. Table 21--Subgrouping of Residents by Levels of Education, Income, and Participation. . Variable Subgroupings Education Low--1ess than 4 years of high school (31.3%) Medium--high school graduate, and any voca- tional training (44.1%) High--any college education (24.7%) Income ' Low--$9,000 per year or less (40.3%) Medium--$9,001-$15,000 per year (33.7%) High--over $15,000 per year (25.0%) Participation Low--belong to no groups (20.2%) Medium-~belong to 1-3 groups (49.6%) High-—belong to 4 or more groups (30.3%) The opinions of each subgroup of residents were compared with those of the total sample of elected offi- cials, and the chi square statistic that was calculated for each comparison served as a measure of concurrence between officials and residents. Figure 2 shows the relationship between education, income, and participation, and the amount of disagreement between elected officials and residents on the issue of land use control. The greater the X2 quantity on the y axis Degree of Disagreement between Elected Officials and Residents Figure 2. 32. 24. 16. 32. 24. 16. 32 24 16 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 00 00 00 00 110 Education A _A Low Med. High Income I A Low Med. High Participation L A Low Med. High Education, Income, and Participation versus the Degree of Concurrence between Elected Officials and Residents on Land Use Control. 111 of each graph, the greater the disagreement between elected officials and residents. It is quite clear from Figure 2 that as residents' education, income, and participation levels increased, their levels of disagreement with elected officials decreased greatly on the issue of land use control. Figure 3 shows the relationship between these three independent variables and the amount of disagreement between elected officials and residents on the issue of control over industrial development. As education and income increased, the degree of disagreement first decreased sharply, then increased again somewhat. As participation increased, the degree of disagreement between elected officials and resi- dents consistently decreased. Figure 4 shows the relationship between residents' education, income, and participation levels and the degree of disagreement between elected officials and residents on the issue of control over residential development. It can be seen from Figure 4 that the hypothesized relationship between education and concurrence and partici- pation and concurrence was found to occur. In the case of income, however, the amount of disagreement was found to - increase gradually as income levels increased. ' Figures 2, 3, and 4 thus show that Hypothesis 4 was generally supported, although not strongly in every case. The hypothesis was clearly supported regarding the rela- tionships between resident participation levels and Degree of Disagreement between Elected Officials and Residents Figure 3. 112 16.00 . 12.00 ' Education ‘ J Low Med. High 16.00 * 12.00 ’ JIncome L I J Low Med. High 16.00 - 12.00 r Participation n _1_ A_ Low Med. High Education, Income, and Participation versus the -Degree of Concurrence between Elected Officials and Residents on Control over Industrial DevelOpment. Degree of Disagreement between Elected Officials and Residents Figure 4 . 113 W 16.00 I 12.00 4.00 F Education A #L_ A Low Med. High I 16.00 /‘ V 12.00 8.00 ’ 4.00 ’ . 1 . Income Low Med. High 16.00 ' 12.00 11 . . Participation Low Med. High Education, Income, and Participation versus the Degree of Concurrence between Elected Officials and Residents on Control over Residential Development. 114 official-resident concurrence. It was also supported in the observed relationships between education and concurrence. The hypothesis was only partially supported, however, in the relationships between residents' income levels and official- resident concurrence levels. As stated in Chapter II, it has been found in previous research that these three independent variables are themselves strongly intercorrelated. Hypothesis 5 was derived from this finding. Hypothesis 5 It was stated in Hypothesis 5 that residents' educa- tion, income, and participation levels would be positively intercorrelated. Product-moment correlations were calcu- lated for each combination of these three variables, and they were in fact found to be significantly (O=.05) inter- ‘correlated. -The correlation between education and income was .45; the correlation between education and participation was .39; and the correlation between income and participa- tion was .38. Hypothesis 5 was thus supported. Since residents' education, income, and participa- tion levels have been found to be intercorrelated, the question arises as to which of these variables is(are) most strongly related to the degree of concurrence between I elected officials and residents. Previous research reviewed in Chapter II has shown that the effects of education and income levels on concurrence virtually disappear when 115 participation levels are controlled. It has also been found that the effects of participation on concurrence do not disappear when education and income levels are controlled. Hypotheses 6 and 7 were derived from these findings. Hypothesis 6 Hypothesis 6 stated that the degree of concurrence in opinion between elected officials and residents on specific issues would not be affected by residents' income or education, when their social/political participation was controlled. The three specific issues used in testing Hypothesis 4 were used to test this hypothesis, and the measures of income, education, participation, and concur- rence were the same as those described in Hypothesis 4. Figure 5 shows the relationship between education and income and the amount of disagreement between elected officials and residents on the issue of land use control, with the various levels of participation held constant. As education and income levels increased, the amount of dis- agreement between officials and residents decreased sharply in the low and medium participation groups. In the high participation group, the relationship between income and concurrence was less evident than that between education and concurrence. Figure 6 shows the relationship between education and income and the amount of disagreement between elected officials and residents on the issue of control over 116 Omuomam cmmemn mononusocoo mo common man m5mum> oEoocH 0cm coflpmosom foam .002 304 OEOUCHIIIliflNFIUIIlIH 4/ a an /// .00.v ,/ 1 . .ec.ma 00.0N loo.mm . a o m 100 mm .coflucm IHOHuHmm How mcflaaouucoo .HOHDCOO on: mama so mucochmm cam mamfloflmmo scam .cmz 30g coflumoopm // , / m Hm . . oo.v /. /, x // m 602 J . oc.ma ’ a . ‘ I a 00.0N ' . a ’ p i 00.0N , fi fi ' ’ i oo.wm . . . .m 04 x .m musmflm squeptsed PUP 519101330 p913313 uaemqsq quemeexbesiq jo aexbeq Figure '6 . 117 16.00 , 12.00 .Med p\\ 8 \ \ 4.1 \ 8 8 00 P \\ \\ ,r 23 H' P \’\/ 4.00 b 1 \\\\\vf:><’ $6 039452. 1 l \. Education +lm Low Med- High mro n-H 'U) u 0 so: 0 ET) 2 G) C: X 8‘3 L0 P U‘m \ 3'3 16.00 . .\ E18 Med P \ .5 \ 444. 12.00 T \ O‘H \ O ‘\\ Q) . 8 8.00 - ' \ 3 Hi P \\ / o 4.00 r \\\\:ézé;< 1 . - Income Low Med. High' Education and Income versus the Degree of Concur- rence between Elected Officials and Residents on Control over Industrial Development, Controlling for Participation. 118 industrial development, with the various levels of partici- pation held constant. 1 It is apparent from Figure 6 that the amount of disagreement between elected officials and residents was influenced by residents' educational and income levels, at all levels of participation. This relationship was most evident in the low participation group. In the medium and high participation groups, the level of disagreement first decreased, then increased again, as education and income increased. Figure 7 shows the relationship between education and income and the amount of disagreement between elected officials and residents on the issue of control over resi- dential develOpment, with the different levels of participation held constant. At the low level of participation, the amount Of disagreement between elected officials and residents first decreased, then increased as education increased. As income increased, the level of disagreement was found to increase slightly. At the medium level of participation, the amount of .disagreement between officials and residents on this issue of residential development first increased, then decreased as education and income levels increased. Among residents with high participation, their degree of disagreement with elected officials decreased as Figure 7. Degree of Disagreement between Elected Officials and Residents 119 x Lo P \ 24.00 - \ \ 20.00 - \ / \ / \ I 16.00 - \ [I Hi P V 12.00 ' / \ 8 00 r [I \\ Wed P 4.00 . 1 ,4; Education Low Med. High 2 X 24.00 ~ 20.00 . ____./"' Lo 16.00 F 12.00 ' /\ , / . 8 00 /' Med P 4.00 ' Hi P 1 . Income Low' Med. High Education and Income versus the Degree of Concur- rence between Elected Officials and Residents on Control over Residential Development, Controlling for Participation. 120 education increased. As income increased, however, the degree of disagreement increased as well. It would seem from Figures 5, 6, and 7 that Hypo- thesis 6 was not supported in these issues of control over development. The analysis above showed that the degree of concurrence between elected officials and residents was related to residents' education and income levels, when their participation levels were controlled. The nature of this relationship though, was unclear, since different trends occur at different levels of participation, in different issues, and with different independent variables. In an effort to clarify the nature of the relationship the data for the six comparisons above were averaged to create two summary graphs--one for education versus concurrence and one for income versus concurrence. These graphs, shown in Figure 8, give an overall picture of the relationship between these socioeconomic variables and elected official/ resident concurrence, controlling for participation. Figure 8 shows that as educational levels increased, the amount of disagreement between officials and residents decreased steadily, at all levels of participation. As family income levels increased, the amount of disagreement between officials and residents decreased at the low and medium participation levels but not at the high participa- tion level. It is clear from these findings that Hypothesis 6 was not supported. 28 1“} C 24. Q) E m 200 Q) 0: vs 16 :3 r0 0) 12 H (U -.-+ U 8 -.-1 «H ”5 4 “O Q) 4..) U (D H [L] C G) (l) 3 4.) (D Q 28. *5: c1) 24. E Q) 8 20 U“ 23 «4 16 C3 '44 O 12 (D 8 m 8 (u Q 4 Figure‘B. .OO 00 00 .00 .00 .00 .00 00 00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 121 Education P Low Med. High Income Low Med. High Summary Graphs of Education and Income versus the Degree of Concurrence between Elected Officials and Residents Controlling for Participation. 122 Hypothesis 7 Hypothesis 7 stated that the degree of concurrence in opinion between elected officials and residents would be positively related to residents' social/political partici- pation, when their education or income was controlled. The same survey questions that were used with Hypothesis 6 were used to test this hypothesis. Figure 9 shows the relationship between residents' participation levels and the amount Of disagreement between them and elected officials on the issue of land use control, with education and income levels held constant. 'As parti- cipation increased, the level of disagreement between the two groups decreased markedly in the low and medium educa- tion and income groups. In the high education and income groups, however, this relationship was less evident. Figure 10 shows the relationship between residents' levels of participation and the amount of disagreement. between them and elected leaders on the issue of control over industrial development, controlling for education and income. As in the case of land use control, the hypothesized relationship between concurrence and participation was evident inFigure 10 at the low and medium levels of educa- tion and income, respectively. At the high levels of education and income, however, the level of disagreement first increased, then decreased again as participation increased. 123 .mEoocH cam cofiumoscm How mcHHHouucou .HOHpcoo on: mama so mucocflmmm can mamflowmmo omuomam cmmSuon mocmuusocou mo mmummo onu msmum> coflummflofiuumm scam .602 30g swam .002 309 .m musmflh 00.v 00.NH 00.0w ce.mm 00.0m scauncaoasunMIIIIwflWIIIIIIILH am scapndaoaanmd // n.I/4m am ,/ / L / x / / -100.LV / / 1 L H cm: x L x / L L / L co.ma L m 602. L L L L L L L L tec.em L . L L L L L L L .cc.mm . L . L L L L L L w ca .cc.cm J . L _ee.ee Lm on Umaaouucoo OEOOCH x codaouucou coflumospm Nx m 00.vv SQUGPISGH PUP SIPISIJJO peqoaIg uesmqeq quemeelbesrq go eexbeq 124 2 Education Controlled X 16.00 r LO\\ \ 12.00 - \\\ , \ 8 00 Med\ \ \ 4.00 - \ \ . \\. H1 . . . iParticipation Low Med. High U) H m .H . o -H m LH o c w .p o w f.) Li] C m m nip 3 c u m oro nus , U) u o C“. m m 2 E'g X Income Controlled 8 Lo \ g 16.00 t \\ m \ .8 \ m 12.00 L \ o \ . \ 8 8.00 \ 3 \ g 4.00 *Med .\\ . Participation Low Med. High Figure 10. Participation versus the Degree of Disagreement between Elected Officials and Residents, on Control over Industrial Development, Controlling for Education and Income. 125 The relationship between participation and official/ resident concurrence on the issue of control over residen- tial develOpment is shown in Figure 11. At the low level of education, the amount of disagreement was found to decrease sharply, then increase again as participation increased. At the medium and high levels of education, the amount of dis— agreement decreased constantly as participation increased. This decrease in disagreement as participation increased was also observed at the low and medium levels of income. At the high level of income, however, the amount of disagree- ment first decreased, then increased again, with increasing levels of participation. As was the case with Hypothesis 6, the results of this analysis have been found to vary from one issue to another. Thus, in order to give an overall picture of the relationship between participation and elected official/ resident concurrence (holding education and income levels constant) the data for the three issues were averaged together in Figure 12. These summary graphs show quite clearly that as residents' participation levels increased, the amount of disagreement between them and elected offi- cials decreased in all education and income groups. On the basis of these findings, Hypothesis 7 was supported. The findings concerning Hypotheses 6 and 7 indicated that both participation and education/income variables could be regarded as independently influencing elected official/ resident concurrence levels. What is more, an examination Degree of Disagreement between Elected Officials and Residents Figure 11. 126 x2 Education Controlled Lo 24.00 L 20.00 - 16.00 P 12.00 ‘ 8.00 L 4.00 ’ . L, , Participation Low Med. High 2 x Income Controlled 24.00 . 20.00 - 16.00 L 12.00 ’ 8.00 ' 4.00 ' \ ' 1, _ g4 Participation Low Med. High Participation versus the Degree of Concurrence between Elected Officials and Residents on Con- trol Over Residential Development, Controlling for Education and Income. 127 X2 Education Controlled ' Lo E 28.00 i ‘\ m ' \ b \ ‘5 \ %_ 20.00 r \ '8 6 \ c g 12.00 LMed E \\ U) \ \\ .3 {Hi E \\\ .3 4 00 ‘\. E ’ ‘ 0 Participation [U A_ A L 3 Low Med. High 0 m H m 8 o 5 2 Income Controlled m X n g 28.00 “LO 1 2 \ _ 8 ' ‘ 3 \ m 20 00 - \ U) -a \ Q \ m D \ O‘ \ 8 12.00 .,Med 1 \ H \\~ \ m .Hi I ‘\ 8 \ \ 4.00 L \ Participation Lcw Med. High Figure 12. 'Summary Graphs of Participation versus the . Degree of Concurrence between Elected Officials and Residents, Controlling for Education and Income. 128 of the summary graphs in Figures 8 and 12 revealed that the amounts of decrease in disagreement between the two groups was quite similar with each independent variable. That is to say, both participation and education/income appeared to contribute about the same to the variation in concurrence. When the aVerage decrease in disagreement due to participa- tion was compared with that due to education/income, however, it was found that participation contributed somewhat more to the variation in concurrence that did education/income. The average decrease in disagreement from low to high participa- tion was 11.26, while that from low to high education/income was 8.86. Thus, even though Hypothesis 6 was not supported, the findings were nevertheless partially consistent with those of Verba and Nie, that the variation in resident parti- cipation contributed more to the variation in elected official/resident concurrence than did the variation in. residents' education and income (socioeconomic status vari- ables).7 Hypothesis 8 Hypothesis 8 stated that the degree of concurrence in opinion between elected officials and residents would be positively related to residents' opinions on the responsive- ness of elected officials. That is, the more responsive elected officials were thought to be, the more concurrence there would be on issues of future development. 7 Verba et al., pp. 305-308. 129 To obtain opinions on the responsiveness of elected officials, the surVey questionnaire contained the following - question: "How responsive do you feel county governmental officials are to your needs and desires?" Survey respon- dents were given five response choices: "not responsive at all; somewhat responsive; responsive; very responsive; don't know." To test Hypothesis 8, the residents were first grouped according to their response to this question (those who said "don't know" were dropped); then within each group their opinions on several issues of development were com- pared with those of the sample of elected officials. The issues chosen were those used in the tests of Hypotheses 4, 6, and 7: land use control, control over the location of industry, and control over the location of single family housing. Figure 13 shows how the amount of disagreement between elected officials and residents varied as residents' opinions of governmental responsiveness increased. In the issues of land use control and control over industrial development, the amount of disagreement declined sharply, levelled off, and then rose again, as perceived governmental responsiveness increased. In the issue of control over residential develOpment, the amount of disagreement between elected officials and residents declined smoothly as per- ceived governmental responsiveness increased. Thus, Hypothesis 8 was more strongly supported in the issue of Degree of Disagreement between Elected Officials and Residents Figure 13. 130 X ----- land use control _ indust. devel. —— —— control . residential 24‘00 devel. control 16.00 , b 8.00 r F Perceived . - L LL Responsiveness l 2 3 4 Key: 1 = not responsive at all 2 = somewhat responsive 3 = responsive 4 = very responsive Resident Opinions on Governmental Responsiveness versus the Degree of Concurrence between Elected Officials and Residents, on Three Issues _of Development. 131 residential development control than in the issues of land use control or industrial development control. In order to obtain an overall indication of the relationship between perceived governmental responsiveness and elected official/resident concurrence, the data from the three issues in Figure 13 were averaged to produce one curve, as shown in Figure 14. As perceived governmental responsive- ness increased, the level of disagreement between officials and residents first decreased sharply, then increased again somewhat. Thus, it can be seen from Figure 14 that Hypo- thesis 8 was supported, though not strongly. The foregoing analyses, shown in Figures 13 and 14, have generally confirmed the findings of Luttbeg, that low levels of concurrence between residents and leaders were accompanied by residents' opinions that leaders were not responsive to their desires.8 Although the findings of. Athis study were not entirely consistent from one issue to another, nevertheless the overall trend was in support of the findings of previous research. Summary of Research Findings In an investigation of whether or not the views of the elected officials in a rural area could serve as an indicator of the views of their constituents, regarding goals for future community development, eight research hypotheses were tested. Each hypothesis was derived from 8Luttbeg, p. 191. Degree of Disagreement between Elected Officials and Residents Figure 14. 132 2 X 20.00 F 12.00 m 4'00 Perceived . . . , Responsiveness 1 2 3 4 Key. not responsive at all somewhat responsive responsive very responsive thH Summary Graph of Resident Opinions on Govern? mental Responsiveness versus the Degree of Concurrence between Elected Officials and Residents. 133 the findings of past research in related subject areas. The data used to test the hypotheses was gathered using a survey questionnaire, mailed to a sample of elected officials and randomly selected residents in the three-county study area. Previous research had found that community leaders tended to reflect the desires of residents in general areas 'of need but not in specific issues. Drawing from this research, the first hypothesis stated that the opinions of elected officials would be the same as those of residents, regarding general goals for future community development. Five questions in the survey questionnaire dealt with general goals related to development, i.e. questions of simply whether or not to have various general kinds of development. The hypothesis was tested (at 0=.10) for each issue at the county and multi-county level; it was supported in 95% of the cases. Thus Hypothesis 1 was supported; the elected Officials' views were found to be virtually no different from those of the residents in these general issues of development. It was also hypothesized that the views of elected officials would BEE be the same as those of residents, regarding specific policies related to goals for future development. Fifteen survey questions dealing with several specific issues of develOpment were used to test this hypothesis. The specific issues were of three types: (1) whether or not to control development; (2) how much to control development; and (3) at what level of government to 134 control development. As with Hypothesis 1, this hypothesis was tested (at a=.10) for each issue at the county and multi- county level: it was supported in 67 percent of the cases. Thus Hypothesis 2 was largely supported; the opinions of elected officials on specific issues of development were found to usually differ from those of residents. Given that elected officials were found to differ from residents on specific issues of development, the logical next step was to investigate what independent variables might influence this difference. Previous research had shown that elected officials differed from residents in various socioeconomic characteristics. On the basis of this research, a third hypothesis stated that elected officials would tend to be older, con- sist more of males, and exhibit higher levels of education, professional and managerial occupations, family income,‘ [length of residence, dominant political party affiliation, and group membership, when compared to residents. The hypothesis also stated that elected officials would not differ from residents in family size and marital status. This hypothesis was tested for each socioeconomic character- istic at the county and multi-county level: it was supported in 83 percent of the cases. The only socioeconomic variables for which the hypothesis was not supported were occupation and marital status. The proportion of elected officials with professional occupations did not exceed that of resi- dents, as hypothesized. Elected officials did, however, have 135 higher proportions of managerial occupations, thus partially supporting the hypothesis. In marital status, there was a statistically significant difference between elected offi- cials and residents in all cases but one, thus refuting the hypothesis. One the whole, though, Hypothesis 3 was sup- ported: elected officials usually did differ from or were similar to residents as predicted. Previous research had shown that the degree of concurrence between leaders and non-leaders was in fact influenced by certain socioeconomic characteristics of non- leaders. Verba and Nie and Luttbeg had found that both socioeconomic status and participation leVels Of non-leaders were positively related to leader/non-leader concurrence levels.9 On the basis of these findings, Hypothesis 4 stated that residents' education, income, and participation levels would be positively related to the degree of concur- rence between elected officials and residents. Three specific issues of develOpment were used in teSting this hypothesis. The hypothesis was supported. It had been well documented that the three indepen- dent variables discussed above were themselves strongly intercorrelated. Hypothesis 5 stated that this would be the case in this study as well, and it was found to be supported. Given this finding, the question arose as to which variable(s) was(were) primarily responsible for the 0r 9Verba et al., pp. 305-308; and Luttbeg, pp. 125, 126, 132-33. 136 variation in concurrence between elected officials and residents on issues of future community development. Previous research had indicated that the degree of concur- rence between leaders and non-leaders on issues of importance was not related to the socioeconomic status of non-leaders when participation levels were held constant but that leader/non-leader concurrence was positively related to political participation when socioeconomic status was held constant. On the basis of these findings HypOthe- ses 6 and 7 were set forth. It was stated in Hypothesis 6 that the degree of concurrence between elected officials and residents would not be affected by residents' education or income levels, when their level of social/political participation was con- trolled. This hypothesis was tested using the three specific issues of development used in testing Hypothesis 4. 'In many cases, the amount of agreement was found to increase as education and income increased; it varied irregularly in other cases; and it decreased in a few cases as education or income increased. In the final analysis (Figure 8) the amount of concurrence between elected officials and residents was found to generally increase as residents' education and income levels increased. Thus Hypothesis 6 was not supported. As a complement to Hypothesis 6, Hypothesis 7 stated that the degree of concurrence between elected officials and residents would increase as residents' participation levels 137 increased, controlling for their education and income levels. The hypothesis was tested using the same survey questions as in Hypothesis 6. It was found that the amount of agreement did increase as participation increased. Thus Hypothesis 7 was supported. A comparison of the relative effects of socioeconomic status versus participation upon official/ resident concurrence levels showed that the findings of this study did tend to coincide with those of previous researchers, even though Hypothesis 6 was not supported and Hypothesis 7 was. Finally, the findings of previous research.had indicated that citizens whose opinions On local issues hap- pened to differ from those of their leaders demonstrated an awareness of this fact, expressing the opinion that their leaders were generally nOt responsive to their views. On the basis of this finding, Hypothesis 8 stated that the‘ amount of agreement between elected officials and residents would be positively related to residents' opinions on the responsiveness of elected officials. The hypothesis was tested using the same survey questions used in Hypotheses 4, 6, and 7; in addition, the survey questionnaire had included a question on the responsiveness of governmental officials. The analysis showed that, on the whole, the more responsive officials were perceived to be, the more agree— ment there was between officials and residents on the issues of development. The results tended to vary, however, from one issue to another, with the hypothesis being strongly 138 supported in the issue of residential development control, but not so strongly in the issues of land use control and industrial development control. Averaging the data together for the three issues resulted in Hypothesis 8 being generally supported, though not strongly. The results of the analyses undertaken in this study have thus generally supported the findings of previous research concerning community leaders and elected officials versus non-leaders or constituents. Chapter V discusses the' conclusions that may be drawn from these findings and the implications of these findings for the practice of rural community development and for the concept of representative government in rural areas today. CHAPTER V CONCLUSION Conclusions and Implications of the Research This study addressed itself to a major problem encountered in the practice of rural community development on the county and regional (multi-county) leve14-the identi- fication of goals for future community develOpment. Because of the relatively great amount of territory and population covered in county and regional development programs, the identification of collective goals tends to be more difficult than it is for local CD efforts. One possible means of identifying such collective goals with a minimum of diffi- culty is to poll the elected officials of the county or region, assuming that they adequately reflect the collective goals of their constituents. It was the primary purpose of this study to investigate this assumption. The rationale behind the assumption stated above was that in this system of representative government, the- elected officials could reasonably be expected to reflect the desires of their constituency. In Chapter I of this study, the author acknowledged that there are some competing 139 140 schools of thought regarding this concept of representative government and that this study may have implications for these theoretical issues. The primary purpose of this study, though, was simply to address itself to the question: can the elected officials of a rural area serve as an indicator of the views of the residents in general, on issues of future community development? Given the findings of other researchers in related fields of study, a number of Operational hypotheses could be drawn up to investigate the general research question stated above. These hypotheses were tested, using survey data gathered in three rural Michigan counties. The data consisted of the opinions of a random sample of residents and a sample of elected officials on some general and specific issues related to future development in their area. It also included information on several socioeconomic characteristics of the two groups sampled. The results of the hypothesis testing have led the investigator to draw a number of conclusions, regarding the notion that the elected officials of a rural area can serve as an indicator of the views of their constituents on goals for future development: 1. Rural elected officials may serve as an indicator \of residents' views concerning general goals for future development but not in specific goals. 2. Rural elected officials tend to be older than residents, consist more of males, have a higher 141 educational attainment, consist of more managerial and farm occupations, have higher family incomes, have longer lengths of residence, and belong to more formal and informal groups than rural resi- dents in general. The greater the educational, family income, and participation level of rural residents, the more likely there will be a high degree of concurrence between them and their elected officials on issues of future development. The representativeness of rural elected officials is independently influenced by residents' educa- tion, income, and participation levels, but it tends to be somewhat more strongly influenced by residents' participation levels than by their education or family income levels. Rural residents are generally aware of how repre— sentative their elected officials are, on issues of future development. Following is a discussion of each of these conclusions and their implications for the practice of community develOpment and for further research in this and related fields. 1. Rural elected officials may serve as an indicator of residents' views concerning general goals for future development but not in specific goals. The implications of this conclusion for the practice of rural community development on a county or regional level 142 are that the CD professional may obtain a fairly reliable picture of the general development goals of an area by contacting the readily identifiable elected officials of the area. More specifically, this study provides evidence that the elected officials of a rural area may serve as an indicator of the generally desired direction of change among the residents of the area (i.e., whether or not to have certain kinds of develOpment). Elected officials, however, cannot serve as a reliable indicator of residents' opinions on specific issues related to rural development, such as whether to control development or not; how much to control development; or at what level of government to control development. In considering the use of elected Officials' views as indicators of area goals for future develOpment, the community development practitioner is confronted with the question of what distinguishes between a "general" and a ,"specific" issue; or how specific can an issue be and still elicit opinions from elected officials which will accurately reflect the views of residents in general? Unfortunately, this study cannot provide definite answers to these ques- tions. The findings of this study and other research cited above, however, do indicate that various broad areas of concern such as industrial development, residential develop- ment, education, transportation, and the like are 143 sufficiently general.1 It would seen that as long as a community development practitioner kept to this level of generality, it could be safely assumed that the elected officials of a rural county or multi-county area would adequately reflect the views of their constituents.2 The findings of this research have implications not only for the practice of rural community development but also for the concept of representative government in rural areas today. It is not unreasonable to conclude from this study that rural elected officials are representative of their constituents in some issues of development but not in others. Thus, this research serves to emphasize the point that an analysis of representative government must take into account the issues involved (both in subject area and in level Of generality) as well as the possible philosophical positions of the elected officials (as discussed in Chapter I). Since this study did not inquire into what 1In this study several close-ended yes-no questions were asked on the desirability of general areas of develop- ment; in a previous study (Nix et al., p. 86) the general issues were the product of grouping items of concern elicited by open-ended questions. 2The problem of issue specificity seems to arise . quite easily, though, if this study is any indication. For example, the question of whether or not to control develop- ment is evidently too specific to be able to expect a high degree of concurrence between elected officials and the residents. This finding cannot be considered conclusive, though, since the topics in this type of question were dif- ferent than the tOpics in the general questions in this -study. (Included in this type of question in this study were yes-no questions on the desirability of population control, land use planning, and various land use control measures.) 144 elected officials conceive their role(s) to be, no conclu- sions can be drawn regarding the dynamics of representative government in rural areas. But no matter what role(s) rural elected officials may play vis-a-vis their consti- tuents, the research suggests that a fairly representative system of government does in fact exist, concerning general goals for community development. Given that elected officials were not representative of area residents in specific issues of develOpment, the research sought to determine why this was the case. A possible explanation for this opinion difference was that certain socioeconomic characteristics may affect opinions, and that socioeconomic differences between elected officials and residents would thus account fOr the differences in _opinion. The survey data was first analyzed to determine if elected officials differed from residents in several sOcio- economic characteristics. In this regard, the following conclusion may be drawn from these research findings: 2. Rural elected officials tend to be older than residents, COnsist more of males, have a higher educational attainment, consist of more mana- gerial and farm occupations, have higher family incomes, have longer lengths of resi- dence, and belong to more formal and informal groups than rural residents in general. Three possible links between these socioeconomic differences and Opinion differences between elected 145 officials and their constituents were then explored. The findings of previous research had suggested hypotheses that could be made concerning these three socioeconomic variables: education, family income, and formal/informal group parti- cipation. On the basis of this hypothesis testing another conclusion can be drawn: 3. The greater the education, family income, and‘ participation level of rural residents, the more likely there will be a high degree of concur- rence between them and their elected officials on issues of future develgpment. Another way of stating this conclusion is to say that rural elected officials tend to be more representative of people who have social backgrounds similar to them. Given more time and resOurces, this study might have gone beyond the precedents set by previous research and investigated relationships between several other socio- economic variables and elected official/constituent represen- tativeness. For instance, drawing from the second conclusion of this study, it might be postulated that rural elected officials would tend to be more representative of males than females on the issues covered in this study. They might also be expected to be more representative of older constituents, those with longer lengths of residence, and those with managerial and farm occupations. Future research on this subject could explore these postulated relationships. 146 Having established the link between education, income, participation, and elected official/resident concur- . rence, this study went on to point out that the three socioeconomic variables were themselves intercorrelated. This finding raised the question as to which of the three was(were) primarily responsible for the variation in concur? rence between elected officials and residents. One might logically expect that residents' education and/or income levels would be primary determinants of concurrence, with participation as an intervening variable between education or income and concurrence. _The reasoning behind this model is that a person's education and income level logically precedes his participation in community affairs. Therefore the positive relationship between resident participation and official/resident concurrence would be expected to dis- appear (or be greatly reduced) when resident education and/or income levels were held constant. On the other hand, the positive relationship between resident education and income levels and concurrence would be expected to persist when participation was held constant. The review of previous research revealed that just the Opposite of the above model has been observed. Resie dents' participation levels were found to independently influence citizen/leader concurrence levels far more than were residents' socioeconomic status variables (education, income, occupation). The logic behind this alternative model is that a person's involvement in community affairs ‘ a“ 147 is much more likely to determine the similarity of his views with those of leaders than is the person's socio- economic status. Concurrence in opinion is thought to be much more a function of similar experience than of similar social class. In this study the investigator conducted analyses which alternatively controlled for education or income and participation while observing the relationship between the. other independent variable and elected official/resident concurrence. Although the findings of these analyses did not strongly support either of the models discussed above, a tentative conclusion may be made: 4. The representativeness of rural elected officials is independently influenced by reSidents' educa- tion, income, and participation levels, but it tends to be somewhat more strongly influenced by residents'gparticipation levels than by their education or family income levels. This research thus tends to support the notion that a person's level of involvement in community affairs has more to do with the amount of agreement between him and his elected leaders than does his level of education or income. This is not to say that education and income have no indepen- dent bearing on the matter; this research indicates that they too play a definite role. The conclusion above has particularly interesting implications for the practice of rural community development. 148 If people's participation tends to affect the representa- tiveness of their leaders, independently of the people's educational backgrounds or their income levels, then the .functional effectiveness of representative government may be .improved through increased citizen participation. This research thus reinforces the concept of the value of citizen participation in community development programs. Mention was made in the discussion following the third conclusion that there are several other possible independent variables that could be examined in the study of elected official/resident concurrence. In addition to the simple analysis suggested in that discussion, a more complex analysis could also be undertaken, to determine the indepenf dgnt effects of these variables upon concurrence. Instead of using the method of cross-tabulation used in this study, a more SOphisticated technique of multivariate analysis could be undertaken.3 With such an approach, more defini- tive conclusions could be made concerning the relative 3Such a technique was not used in this study because of difficulties encountered in the measure of con- currence. This measure was simply the chi square statistic which resulted from the comparisons of two independent samples.6 The analyses conducted in this study would require the generation of partial correlations of concurrence with residents' socioeconomic variables. No packaged computer programs could be found which could compare the Opinions of two groups and then correlate the product of the first comparison with independent variables from one of the groups. A lack of time and resources prevented the author from having such a program written for this purpose. 149 effects of a whole range of independent variables, including of course, the three used in this study. It is possible that variables other than participation, education, and income are strongly related to the degree of concurrence between elected officials and residents. This study has dealt with one other issue in the question of the representativeness of elected Officials' views on future rural development. It has investigated constituents' perceptions of how representative their elected leaders are. From this investigation the following conclusion may be drawn: 5. Rural residents are generally aware of how repgesentative their elected leaders are, on issues of future development. This research found that where elected officials and residents had high levels of disagreement, the residents tended to express the opinion that their leaders were not very responsive to residents' desires. Likewise, where there was a high level of concurrence between elected officials and residents on issues of future development, there was also the tendency for residents to express favorable views on leader responsiveness. This finding suggests to the community develOpment practitioner that even though elected officials as a group tend to differ from their constituents on specific issues of development, nevertheless a definite communication link between the two groups evidently exists, since the 150 constituents indicate an awareness of how their views cOm- pare with those of their elected leaders. Further research on this subject might explore various socioeconomic charac- teristics which might possibly intervene in the relationship between elected official/resident concurrence and residents' perceptions of leader responsiveness. The findings of this study have implications for another field of research related to community develOpment. The reader will recall that one of the major sources of information in the review of literature for this study was in the field of community power structure. Accordingly, the findings of this study have potential use in that field, adding to the body of knowledge on how leaders differ from non-leaders. In this case, though, a specific subset of leaders is used. As mentioned in Chapter IV and earlier in this. chapter, elected officials have been found to differ from residents in general in many Socioeconomic characteristics. The nature of these differences are very similar to those extensively documented in the literature on community power structures. In confirming this previous research, these findings thus serve to further strengthen the body of knowledge on this Subject. What is more, this research has dealt specifically with a rural area, while the majority of past research (cited in Chapter II) concerned itself with urban settings. Thus, in this way, too, this study contri- butes to the field of community power structure research. 151 This study also presents evidence that elected offi- cials differ from residents on specific issues of future development, though not on general issues.' Just how the two groups differ is reported in the second section of Chapter IV, Overview of the Survey Results. Although there are inconsistencies, the survey results generally indicate that elected officials tend to be more strongly in favor of various kinds of control over development than are residents. A possible reason for this difference is that since elected officials are charged with the responsibility of public policy-making, they are more familiar than residents with the existing conflicts of private interests and the need for coordinated development. The survey results also show that elected Officials are more strongly in favor than residents of local governmental control, as opposed to county, multi- county, or state control over development policies. This difference may be due to the fact that elected officials are more familiar than residents with the greater complexity and lesser degree of flexibility and responsiveness of higher levels of government, relative to the local level; (It should be noted, too, that most of the elected officials in 'the sample were legal (township and municipal) governmental officials.) Thus, although this study was not designed to investigate leader/non-leader differences, the findings do have some relevance to this aspect of community power structure research. 152 Limitations of This Study There are several limitations in this study that deserve mention. First, the choice of study area, although basically acceptable for the stated purposes of the study, was not incorporated into the research design itself and thus limits the generalizability of the findings. In future research on this subject, the demographic characteristics of various areas could be considered in the design of the research, as having possible effects upon the representative- ness of elected officials of area goals for future community development. A second limitation of this study is that the sample of elected officials surveyed was not random. It was very fortunate that useful results were obtained with a non- random sample, and there was a definite value in being able to find that just the major elected officials could serve as 'an indicator of general area goals; but the lack ofla random sample of elected officials has left the question of what would have happened if the sample had included all county officials, township treasurers and trustees, and city and village treasurers and council members.4 Would elected officials have been any more or less representative of resi- dents' views? Future research might answer this question. 4The elected officials that were included in the sample were county commissioners and clerks, township super- visors and clerks, and city mayors and village presidents and clerks. 153 A third limitation of this study involves the design of the survey. The issues covered in the survey were pre- selected, and closed-ended questions were asked on these issues. Thus, elected officials and residents were being compared only on certain kinds of goals for future develOp- ment, both groups being forced to consider the same issues.‘ Although it might be more difficult to analyze, future research on this subject should probably allow for an open-' ended approach to identifying goals, to determine if elected officials still accurately reflect residents' concerns. Another related limitation of this study is that not all of the specific issues of future develOpment had a counterpart in the general issues, and vice versa. This lack of direct comparability of results from general to specific issues contributes an element of uncertainty to. the findings. In fact, if Hypothesis 2 (stating that elected officials will not be representative of residents on specific issues) is reevaluated only on those issues for which there is a general-issue counterpart, the hypOthesis must be rejected on the county level, though still supported on the multi-county level (see Table 7). An interesting counterpoint to this observation, however, is that for the purposes of this study the actual topics were not really important; the distinction between general and specific issues was the focus of the research, no matter what the topics were. That is why the analysis and final evaluation of Hypothesis 2 was carried out the way it was. In addition, 154 the typg of question in the comparable topics was usually different than the type of question in the non-comparable topics, affecting the hypothesis evaluation more than topic comparability itself (see Tables 8 and 9, and accompanying text). Future research may be able to resolve this argu- ment, through use of open-ended questions concerning goals or more carefully designed closed-ended questions. A final limitation of this study concerns the method Of analysis used in the evaluation of Hypotheses 6 and 7. Because of limitations in the measure of concurrence used and limited time and resources, it was not possible during the course of this research to be more definitive concerning the relationships between socioeconomic charac- teristics and official/resident concurrence levels. Although the analyses in this study were adequate for the hypothesis testing, they tended to be cumbersome and somewhat confusing. Future research on this subject could use mOre sophisticated statistical techniques and present a clearer picture of the relationships between variables. In summary, there are several specific limitations to this study, and they impinge upon the degree to which these research findings may be generalized to all rural areas and all goals for future community development. On balance, though, it is important to note that the findings of this study are, for the most part, consistent with the findings of other researchers in related fields of study. 155 In the final analysis, the most significant implica- tions of this research for the practice of rural community development are (1) that the community development profes- sional may regard the general views of county and regional elected leaders as representative of those of their consti- tuents, regarding future development; and (2) that the representativeness of elected leaders may be enhanced by increasing citizen participation.5 The most significant implications of this research for future research on elected leader/citizen concurrence and related subjects are (1) that rural elected leader/citizen differences tend to be similar in many ways to those in urban settings; and (2) that citizens' levels of social participation may play a role equal to or greater in importance than income or educatiOn, in influencing the degree of concurrence between them and their elected leaders. It is hoped that the findings Of 1 this research will serve as a useful contribution to the field of rural community development and to related disci? plines. 5For an excellent discussion of this second point, the reader is encouraged to see Verba et al. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Alchin, Edmond W. "A Reconnaissance Research Plan for Community Development.” Technical Bulletin B-49, Institute for Community Development and Services, Continuing Education Service, Michigan State University, October 1965. Axelrod, Morris. "Urban Structure and Social Participation." American Sociological Review 21 (February 1956): 13-18. Biddle, William W., and Biddle, Loureide J. The Community Development Process: The Rediscovery of Local Initiative. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1965. . Encouraging Community Development; A Training Guide for Local Workers. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1968. Christenson, James A. "A Procedure for Conducting Mail Surveys with the General Public." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Community Development Society, Wilmington, N.C., 7 August 1974.' Cochran, William G. Sampling Techniques. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1963. Community Development--A Handbook. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1948. Dahl, Robert A. Who Governs? New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1961. Downes, B. T. "Municipal Social Rank and the Characteris- tics of Local Political Leaders." Midwest Journal of Political Science 12, No. 4 (l968):514-37. East Central Michigan Economic Development District. "Overall Economic Development Program." 1969. 156 157 Eldersveld, Samuel J. Political Parties: A Behavioral Analysis. Chicago: Rand McNally & CO., 1964. Foskett, John M. "Social Structure and Social Participa- tion." American Sociological Review 20 (August 1955):431-38. Freeman, L. C. Patterns of Local Community Leadership. New York: Bobbs-Merrill CO., Inc., 1968. Hawley, Amos H., and Zimmer, Basil G. The MetrOpolitan Community: Its People and Government. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1970. Hay, Donald G. "The Social Participation of Households in Selected Rural Communities of the Northeast." Rural Sociology 15 (June l950):l41-48. Human DevelOpment Commission. "Annual Report." 1973. International COOperation Administration. Community Development Review. No. 3, 1956. Laskin, Richard, and Phillett, Serena. "Formal versus Reputational Leadership Identification." Paper present at the Annual Meeting of the Pacific Sociological Association, Portland, Ore., April, 1963. Levitan, Sar A. Federal Aid to Depressed Areas; An Evaan- tion of the Area Redevelopment Administration. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1964. Luttbeg, Norman R. "Belief Conflict in the Community: Leader and Follower Differences in Policy Prefer- ences." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1965. McCloskey, Herbert; Hoffman, Paul J.; and O'Hara, Rosemary. "Issue Conflict and Consensus Among Party Leaders and Followers." American Political Science Review 54, No. 2 (l960):406-27. Mezirow, J. D. "Community Development as an Educational . Process." 'Community Development. National Training Laboratories Reading Series, No. 4, 1961. Michigan Department of Public Health, Michigan Center for Health Statistics. Births and Deaths by County of Residence, Michigan, 1960-1969. 158 Milbraith, Lester W. Political Participation: How and Why Do PeOple Get Involved in Politics? Chicago: Rand McNally and CO., 1965. Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E. "Constituency Influence in Congress." In Elections and the Political Order, pp. 351-72. Edited by Angus Campbell, Philip Converse, W. E. Miller, and Donald E. Stokes. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1966. Nix, Harold L.; Singh, Ram N.; and Cheatham, Paula L. "Views of Leader Respondents Compared with Random Respondents' Views." Journal of Community Develop- ment Society_5, No. 1 (l974):81-9l. Presthus, Robert. Men at the Top. New York: Oxford Uni- versity Press, 1964. Prewitt, Kenneth. The Recruitment of Political Leaders: A Study of Citizen Politicians. Indianapolis: Bobbs- Merrill CO., Inc., 1970. Price, Leighton A. "A Filebuilding Routine for Standardized CISSR Library Programs (DATASET)." Technical Report 72-3, Computer Institute for Social Science Research, Michigan State University, 22 May 1972. , and Ingvaldson. "Four-Dimensional Contingency Tables (NUCROS)." Technical Report 72-9, Computer Institute for Social Science Research, Michigan State University, 17 May 1972. , and O'Hare, William P. "Percentage and Frequency Distributions (PFCOUNT)." Technical Report 72-6, Computer Institute for Social Science Research, Michigan State University, 28 June 1972. . "Analysis of Contingency Tables-(ACT)." Techni- cal Report 72-8, Computer Institute for Social Science Research, Michigan State University, 17 May 1972. Sanders, Irwin T. ,The Community: An Introduction to a Social System. New York: The Ronald Press CO., 1966. Schulze, Robert O. "The Bifurcation of Power in a Satellite City." In Community Political Systems, pp. 19-80. Edited by Morris Janowitz. Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1961. 159 Siegel, Sidney. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: McGraw Hill Book CO., 1956. Smith, Paul A. "The Games of Community Politics." Midwest Journal of Political Science 9, No. l (l965):37-60. Spinrad, William. "Power in Local Communities." Social Problems 12, No. 3 (l965):335-56. Sundquist, James L., and Davis, David W. Making Federalism Work; A Study of Program Coordination at the Com- munity Level. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1969. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. United States Census of Agriculture: 1969. Vol. 1, Area Reports, pt. 13, Michigan. . United States Census of Population: 1970. Number of Inhabitants, Michigan, PC(l)-A24. . United States Census of Population: 1970. General Population Characteristics, Michigan, PC(l)- 824. ' . United States Census of Population: 1970. General Social and Economic Characteristics, Michigan, PC(l)-C24. Verba, Sidney, and Nie, Norman H. Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality. New York: Harper & Row, 1972. Warren, Roland L. The Community in America. Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1963. Wildavsky, Aaron. Leadership in a Small Town. Totowa, N.J.: Bedminster Press, 1964. Williams, Oliver P.; Herman, H.; Liebman, C. S.; and Dye, T. R. Suburban Differences and MetrOpolitan PoliCies: A Philadelphia Story. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1965. APPENDICES APPENDIX A ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STUDY AREA 160 wm.mm am.mm we.em ac.mm ac.cm am.cm mums» ma moons comm coflumaomom we.m ao.ma am.ma wo.afl am.m ac.m sm>o can aunts mm comm coflumasmom m.mm o.mm m.mm ~.nm m.cm H.6m can enact: c.am c.cm c.He e.me m.cmH wa.am Loans mumscm\ncomn6dL huflmcop coflumasmom an.a we.o am.mn wm.au we.o n- onmaumcma .cOaumumas ou osp omcmno coflumasmom w~.ma am.m am.o am.s we.ma ae.aa cnmfiuccaa . .omcmno coaumasmom mec.me Hma.mm mmc.em ncm.sas mmo.mem.m cam.amm.m coaunasQOQ cams a~.ma am.cm wc.am wa.mm 86.6 -1 spam Hausa we.sc aa.mn ac.mm am.cc as.am I- Ennmcoz Hausa we.ma wo.e ww.m wa.m am.mm .. canncluucconmd coHumHSQom cofipmaomom . sauce Hmnsm MHOUmSB OMAHcmm COHDm COHmwm UHumHH®#OMHm£U cacasoaz .moum xpsum d mezmmm¢ onu mo moflpmfluouomumnu Hmfloom paw OHEocoomll.HI¢ oHQmB 161 .cc .c .smmuLHLOd .cncacoaz .ncflunanmuonnmco scaumHsEOE annmcco .ceaa “scaunasmcd mo msmcou moumpm couHCD .msmcou ocu mo smousm .oOHoEEOO mo ucofiunmmoo .m.: can “msumem .omueem .mcm .ccnmcm .emummm .dc .emouLHLom .cncacoa: .moannanmu Iomumcu OHEocoom paw Hosoom Hmuocou .onma "coflumasmom mo momcou moumum pouHcD .msmsoo on» NO smousm .oouoEEOU mo ucoEuuomoQ .m.D “dmmH30Hz .ma .pm .muuomom comm .H .Ho> .mwma "ououasommmm mo noncoo moumum Oopmca .msmcoO ocu mo soouom .oouoEEou mo ucoEuummoo .m.D “mmmalomma .comflnoflz .oocopflmom mo wucsou an mnumoo can mnuufim .moflumflumum zuamom How Houcou cmmflnoaz .nuamom oflandm mo ucofiuummoo camacOaz Lemuam .cd .emduLHLom .cmmHEOHE .mucmuanmccH no sonssz .cema ”scauma somom mo msmcou moumum pouwco .mSmcoU onu mo ooousm .oouoEEou mo ucoEuummoQ .m.D “moousom mmm.mw mmm.mm mmnthw emh.mw Nm0.HHm nmm.mm moo» Mom oEoocH mHflEmm cmflpoz c.Ha . e.HH m.ea N.HH H.NH a.HH nm>o can nuns» mm cams . mcomuom mp oouonEoo Hoonom mo undo» cospoz coHumHsmom coflumasmom Hmuoe Housm mHoomDB ooaflcmm cousm coflmom ofiumfluouomumnu stances: .OoocfluCOUII.HI< oanms APPENDIX B ELECTED OFFICIAL VERSUS CONSTITUENT OPINION AND SUBURBAN SOCIAL RANK 162 .cH1mam .mm .mema .mmmnd macn>asnccmn mo suamum>aco mnacmficcmaacnl hmoum MHLmHopoHflnm d "moHOHHom cmufiaomouuoz can moocoquMHo cmnusnom ..Hm no mEmHHHAB .m Ho>HHO "oousom \- o.cc m.oc o.ee c.cc o.me o.nm mucccamcn to ssuaanscs cacucnnz o.mc c.mc m.cs m.ms o.mn m.mm coo mcannnammccs mans c.om m.nc m.mm m.nm H.mm m.mm mmapattft sanctumm cca>ond m.ee m.cm N.Le 6.66 n.mm m.0m , m00a>nmn OHHQSQ Oo>oumefl Canadamz c.m o.ma m.mm c.6m 0.0m m.sc suumscsa mam mmocamsn oHHSOo¢ c.6m m.mc m.mc 0.0m c.mm o.mn c366 cums xmn dams LwL LwL LwL L$L Lav L$L mucmcamcm macacamuo mucmcamcm namaoammo nucccamcm manaoammo _ canocam cmuucam capstan mosmmH Hmooq xcmm Hoaoom Loam xcmm Hmfloom oaccaz xcmm Hmfloom BOA :ucmuuomEH >uo>= mm osmmH oLu mcflumcmflmoo muzopcommom mo ucoouom .xcmm Hmfloom mcfiuomuflo mo mausnom magmaoponcm 0H as mosmmH Hmooq mo oocmuHOQEH o5» co mCOACHmO .mucocflmom m5muo> .mamfloflmmo couooamal.alm oHQoB m xHozmmm¢ APPENDIX C SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE AND MAIL-OUT MATERIALS C-l. Survey Questionnaire DO NOT mums AREA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SURVEY WRITE IN THIS SPACE The purpose of this survey is to obtain your opinions about various possible kinds of development and land use planning and control in your area. The results of this survey will be made available to lhunb Area residents and leaders to help better plan for future cormunity development. DIRECTIONS: For each question, please check (#3 the blank next to the answer that most closely matches your feelings on the Subject. Space is provided for your comments at the end of the questionnaire. so please feel free to give your views on any of the topics covvred. his questionnaire was addressed to the person listed in the telephone directory. However any adult member of the household nay complete the questionnaire. . ' A. Future Population 1.a. what would you like to see happen to the population of your county over the next 5 years? I' d like to see the population: decrease atay about the same increase don't know b. Do you think there should be any definite action taken to encourage or discourage population growth at the county level? No Yes Don't Know 2.a. Hhat would yOu like to see happen to the population of your tom ship over the next 5 years? I' d like to see the population: decrease stay about the same increase don't know b. Do you think there should be any definite action taken to encourage or discourage population growth at the township level? No Yes Don't Know 3. Land Use 1. Do you feel there is any competition between different uses of land in your area? (For Example: Agricultural Land being sought for Residential Development; Industrial Development taking place in Residential Areas). No Yes Don' t Know 2. Do you feel you understand what land use planning is? No Yes _Don't Know 3. Hhat do you think of the idea of having a general overall public plan for the future uses of land? (For Example: A plan thich says ::hat land should be used for different kinds of housing. what land should be used for farming, what land should be used for industry. etc.) ____ I don't like the idea .____ I don't care one way or the other _____ I like the idea _____ I don't know _______ 0. If such a plan were developed (even though you may not favor the idea), at which level of government would it be most acceptable to you? township or municipal ____ nulti-county region ____.no preference county ____.state ____ don't know 5. \ Do you know of any such plan within this county? No Yes ' . 6. Do you feel you understand what zoning means? No 1 Yes ____ Don't Know 7. Do you support the general concept of having ordinances to enforce a land use plan? No Yes __ Don' t Know 8. In order to control and regulate land use and development. do you favor: a. Zoning ordinances? No Yes Don't Know 163 b. C. lO.a. b. 12. 13. 164 DO NOT - 2 - WRITE IN THIS SPACE Subdivision regulations? Ho Yes Don't Know luilding regulations? No Yes Don't Know If such land use regulations were established (even though you may not favor the idea), at which level of government would they be most acceptable to you? (CHECK ONE BLANK IN EACH GROUP) Zoningg Building Regulations Subdivision Regulations ____township or municipal ___ township or municipal ____township or municipal _ county _ county __ county ____Iulti-county region ___ multi-eounty region '___ multi-county region __ stats __ state __ state no preference no preference no preference don't know don't know don't know Generally speaking, do you feel that the different levels of government in this area cooperate in matters of land use planning and control? No Yes Don't Know If pg, between which levels of government does this lack of cooperation exist? (For Example: Between townships; between township and city). Should the different levels of government in this area (county. township, city, village) cooperate in: Land use planning? Do Yes " Don't Know Land use control. such as zoning? lo . Yea Don't Know Is there any need to have zoning for the protection of farmland from other kinds of development? No Yes Don't Know Should more shoreline areas in this county be acquired and reserved for public use? No Yes Don't Know C. Industrial Development l.a. b. 2.s. Shauld more efforts be made to increase industry within this county? No Yes Don't Know "by? Should efforts be made to increase industry in yOur local area (within your township or city or village)? No Yes Don't Know why? If more industrial development took place in this ecunty (even though you may not favor the idea). which type of location wOuld be nest acceptable to you? no restriction on only in controlled. specified location; anywhere industrial parks within incorporated don't know cities and villages other; please explain below: D. 165 DO NOT ' 3 - "RITE IN THIS SPACE Commercial Developront 1.s. Would you favor having more commercial shopping and service facilities in your county? No Yes Don't Know b. If yes, what kinds woold you like to have? 2. If more shopping and service facilities were established in this county, where should they be located? . _ ~1- downtown areas of cities and villages no preference; anywhere ‘ shopping centers at the outskirts of don't know cities and villages Residential Development 1. Do you feel that the addition of more housing wOuld be desirable: s. in your county? No Yes .____ Don't Know b. in your township (or local community)? __ No Yes __ Don't Know 2. If more housing were built, which type would you prefer built in your area? (PLEASE CHECK 9:3; BLANK). _____ mobile homes _____ condominiums (apartment to buy) _____single family homes ____ a six of varioos type of housing __ duplexes __ no preference ' apartments 3. If more single family, non-farm homes were built (even though you may not favor the idea), which type of location would be most acceptable to you? ____.large rural lots _____no restrictions on location; anywhere ____ rural subdivisions _____subdivisions adjacent to or within villages or _ don't know “‘1" 4. If more mobile homes were added (even thOugh you may not favor the idea), which type of location would be best? _____ rural mobile home parks _____ no restrictions on location; anywhere _____don't know _____nobile home parks adjacent to or within villages or cities Recreational Developrort 1.a. Generally speaking, are the majority of the recreation needs of your family being met at the present time? No Yes Don't Know I? SEQ": b. What additional types of recreation facilities do you feel are needed for your family? (For Example: Swiwmdng areas, playgrounds, winter sports area, trails, skating rinks, etc.) Within your COUNTY: Reasons Needed: ‘ within your TONNSHIP: Reasons Needed: 1.s. b. 166 - g - What additional types of recreation activity programs do you feel are needed for your family? (For Example: Playground activities, senior citizen recreation programs. handicapped recreation programs. types of cultural entertainment programs, etc.) Within your COUNTY: Reasons Needed: Within yOur TOUNSHIP: Reasons Needed: Do you feel that the growth of tourism in your county would be beneficial? No Yes Don't Know th? General Information One of the major purposes of this survey is to find out the opinions of different groups of people. For this reason. we are asking a few questions abOut y0u and your family. This information will enable us to better understand the background of the respondents. All information will be regarded as confidential. and individual responses will not be revealed. 1. "hat is your age? 2. What is your sex? __ Male _ Female 3. "hat is yOur marital Status? _____ single ______ married separated, divorced. or widowed ‘.a. Nhst is your major full-time occupation? b. If you have a second job, please name it: e. “hat was or is your father's primary occupation? 5. Are you active in any of the following types of organizations or groups which are active within your county? s. Fraternal service organizations (such as Lions, Rotary. Kiwanis. Elks, Moose. Masons, VFW, etc.) No Yes Number of organizations: b. Other community service organizations (such as PTA. church service organizations, Boy Scouts. 4-H, etc.) No Yes Number of organizations: c. Farm organizations (such as Grange. Farm Bureau. NFO, etc.) No Yes Number of organizations: d. Formal social or recreational organizations (such as sportsmen's clubs. country clubs, etc.) No ____ Yes Number of organizations: e. Unions (such as UAW, AFL-CIO. Teamsters, etc.) No Yes Number of organizations: f. Professional organizations (such as AHA, MEA, AAUP. etc.) No Yes Number of organizations: DO NOT "RITE IN 1315 SPACE b. I. 7.a. b. b. 10. il.a. I2. 13. Republican Party Other: Huron Sanilac Yuscola Other: 167 DO NOT - 5 - WRITE IN THIS SPACE Political organizations (such as the Republican Party, Democratic Party, etc.) . No Yes Number of organizations: Other social or service grOups, formal or informal (such as card clubs, discussion groups, etc.) {HI No Yes Number of organizations: Are you a registered voter? No Yes Which political party do you feel that you most closely identify with? Democratic Party American Independent Party None (feel no strong affiliation with any single party) Did you vote in the last National Election (1972)? No Yes Did you vote in the last County Election? No Yes Did yOu vote in the last Local Election (Village. City, or Township)? No Yes In general, do you vote in NONE (OZ)‘_____, SOME (1-502) _____. MOST (51-99!) All. (1002) __ elections? Row responsive do you feel county governmental officials are to your needs and desires? not responsive at all very responsive somewhat responsive don't know responsive Now responsive do you feel local governmental officials are to yOur needs and desires? not responsive at all very responsive somewhat responsive don't know responsive In what county do you live? In what township or incorporated village or city do you live? no_you live: (carer eat) in the open countryside? in a built up area not within the boundaries of a village or city (an unincorporated settlement)? within an incorporated village or city? How many years have you lived: a. in this township or local community? b. in the ecunty? ___________ c. in the Thumb Area (huron, Sanilac, or Tuscola Caunty)? If you have lived in the Thumb Area less than 10 years, where did you live previ0usly? Why did you choose to live here? Now many people are there living at home: a. less than school age (under 5 years old)? b. school age children? C. adUItS? Which of the following applies to you? (CHECK ONE) own or are buying a home renting or leasing a home (or apartment) 1‘. 15. 16. 168 DO NOT - 6 - WRITE IN TRIS SPACE Please indicate how much total Real [rogerty you have in this 3-county Thumb Area (Huron, Sanilac, Tuscola). (BOTH ”own/buying" AND "renting/leasing"): (PLEASE CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BLAfiK(S)). Own/Buying Renting/Leasing UP TO 1 ACRE...................... ............... over 1 but less than 10 acres..... ............... 11 - 40 acres....;................ ............... b1 - 80 acres..................... ............... 81 - 160 acres.................... ............... 161 - 320 acres................... ............... 321 - 640 acres................... ............... over 640 acres.................... ............... g is the highest number of years you have completed in school? some elementary school (but did not complete: less than 6 years) completed elementary school (6 years) some junior high school (but did not complete: less than eighth grade) completed junior high school (eighth grade) some high school (but did not complete: 1 - 3 years) completed high school (4 years) vocational school or other training. college: 1 - 3 years college: 6 years or more lllllllll 5 at is your approximate yearly total family income? less than $3.000 $9.001 - $12,000 $25,001 - $50,000 $3,000 - $6,000 $12,001 - $15,000 more than $50,000 $6,001 - $9,000 $15,001 - $25,000 _ General Outlook . 1. 2. What are your feelings about the changes you have seen in this area over the past 10 years? (Changes you feel are important; whether they've been generally for the better or for the worse; reasons why you feel this way; etc.). What do y0u feel are the important iSSues the people of this area are faced with. concerning the future betterment of the Thumb? Thank you for your cooperation! Please return this questionnaire as soon as possible in the enclosed postpaid envelope. Alan Kirk 323 natural Resources Bldg. Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824 169 C-2. Survey Cover Letter MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT or RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT NATURAL RESOURCES s'uuomo EAST LANSING ' MICHIGAN ' 48820 April I5, I974 Dear Thumb Area Resident: In many parts of Michigan dramatic changes are underway, involving population growth, commercial and industrial development, residential development, and increased demand for land use planning and control.- The Thumb Area is also faced with these issues. Your help is needed in determining how people in the Thumb Area feel on these subjects. The enclosed questionnaire is being sent to a sample of residents randomly chosen from telephone listings in Huron, Tuscola, and Sanilac Counties, and to a selection of officials in these counties. This survey is being con- ducted by Michigan State University, with the cooperation of your county Boarc of Commissioners, your Cooperative Extension Service office, and the Thumb Area Human DevelOpment Commission. The questionnaire should take about l5 or 20 minutes to complete, based on pilot study findings. if you are married, either you or your spouse may fill out the questionnaire. All responses will be confidential; no names will be identified with individual responses or with tabulated results. I With the findings of this survey, local leaders and community groups shoald be better able to represent citizen interests and desires. The more people who reply to this questionnaire, the more reliable and useful the results will be. Please take time to fill it out and return it as soon as possible in the enclosed business reply envelope. Thank you very much for your cooperation. .Sincerely, wcwé Alan Kirk Research Coordinator Thumb Area Community Development Survey AK/jo 170 C-3. Request Form for Summary of Survey Results The general findings of the Community Development Survey will be presented in local newspapers. If, however. you would like a summary of the survey findings, please fill out this form and return it with your completed questionnaire. NAME ADDRESS ‘ (zip code) 1.... min ' A. 51““ C-4. First Follow-up Reminder Postcard Dear Resident: A questionnaire concerning community develop- ment was recently mailed to you from Michigan State University. Your response is needed in order to make accurate conclusions. - ‘ If you have not yet responded, I hope you will please take a few minutes now to fill out the ques- tionnaire and return it in the prepaid envelope. If you have already completed and returned the ques- tionnaire, thank you for your cooperation. Thank you, Alan Kirk Research Coordinator .. , ‘ . 171 C-5. Second Follow—up Reminder Note Dear Thumb Area Resident, Several weeks ago a questionnaire concerning issues in commity development was mailed to you from Michigan State University. If you have not had a chance to respond, I hope you will take a few minutes to fill it out and return it to us. A greater number of responses will make the results of the study much more useful. I am.enclosing an extra copy of the questionnaire for your convenience. Thank you very much for your help. Sincerely, Hiram Research Coordinator Thumb Area Community - Development Survey APPENDIX D SURVEY PRETEST MATERIALS D41. Letter Requesting Prior Consent BUNKER HILL TOWNSHIP November 9, 1973 Dear Bunker Hill Township Property Owners: Al Kirk and Bob Roller are graduate students in Resource Development, M.S.U., who have prepared an Opinion survey for purposes of being distributed in the township. This survey is designed to determine how property owners of Bunker Hill Township feel about township zoning ordinances, land use activities, and community services. These are issues which growing communities like ours must consider in planning for im- mediate and future community needs. I hope you will fill out and return the survey when it comes to you so that the Planning and Zoning Committee can better evaluate the desires of the people of Bunker Hill Township concerning the above issues. Sincerely,h WW 'Ward Vicary Supervisor, Bunker Hill Twp. 172 173 D-2. Prior Consent Form COOPERATIVE EXTENSION WORK IN AGRICULTURE AND HOME ECONOMICS U I. DC'AIYH‘NI’ OF AGIICULYUI! AND HICHIGAN STAT! UNIVIROITY COOPIIAYINC November 9, 1973 Please complete this card and mail it back as soon as possible. would you be willing to participatexin this project, by completing a survey questionnaire? _yes no - -_‘ e If you choose to participate, would you be interested in ‘receiving a summary of the survey findings? _yes no Thank you. Information requeSted by Wnuo E %&M James E. Mulvany ’ ‘ County Extension Di tor 174 D-3. Survey Cover Letter for Prior Consent COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE NICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY AND INGHAM COUNTY Cooperative Extension Bldg. U. I. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE COOPERATING 3.70:! ”flint: 48854 Tel-non 677-901 November 21, 1973 Dear Bunker Hill Township Preperty Owner: Thank you for responding to my letter of November 9, and in- dicating your willingness to complete this questionnaire. Your participation will greatly help Bunker Hill Township elected officials to have a better picture of how property owners feel about such issues as population growth, land use planning and control, and community development. Please fill out the enclosed questionnaire and return it as .soon as possible in the enclosed postpaid enve10pe. Your responses will be confidential, and you need not sign your name on the questionnaire. The returned questionnaires will be tabulated, and a summary of the survey findings will be mailed to you as soon as it is available. [Thank you again for your cooperation. Sincerely yours, . -s E. Mulvany nty Extension Director JEfizkb. encl. 175 D-4. Prior Notification of Forthcoming Survey COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE IN GH AM COUNTY IICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY AND Cooperative Extension Bldg. I27 E. Maple St. U. 8. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE COOPERATING Ila-on. NichlzIfl 48854 Telephone 677-941! November 24, 1973 Dear Bunker Hill Township Property Owner: The Bunker 3111 Township officials are currently evalu- ating the present zoning ordinances and a need for other land use ordinances. They are interested in how Bunker Hill property owners feel about many issues relative to zoning ordinances, population growth, community services, and kinds of growth the community desires. Therefore: they have asked the COOperative Extension Service to assist them in conducting a survey of property owners. In a few days you will receive a questionnaire in the mail. It will take about 10 to 15 minutes of your time to complete. The information you volunteer on this questionnaire will be categorized and presented back to your elected township offic- ials to consider in their task of studying land use planning. If you choose to participate you will also receive a summary of the survey findings as soon as it is available. The survey will be confidential as you will not be asked to identify yourself on the questionnaire. fir. Bob Roller and Allen Kirk, Michigan State University graduate students, will be conducting the surVey and summariz- ing the results. Si cerely yours, fl/mw E yM/V/ nes E. Mulvany unty Extension Director Jmlzkb IICIICII . III! IIIDIISI" 0‘" nun-6 176 D-S. Survey Cover Letter for Prior Notification COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE INGI-IAM COUNTY HICHICAN STATE UNIVERSITY AND Coopetuiva E t ' Bld x canon g. 127 E. Hapla SI. Halon. Muchlgan 48854 Talephona 677-94” U. 8. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE COOPERATINC November 27, 1973 r— Dear Bunker Hill Township Preperty Owner: Enclosed is a survey questionnaire to find out .your opinions on such issues as population growth, land use planning and control, and community develOpment in Bunker Hill Township. Your participation in this survey will greatly help elected township officials in their task of evaluating present ordin- ences and in planning for the future. Nbuld you please fill out the questionnaire and return it as soon as possible in the enclosed postpaid envelope? Your responses will be confidential, and you need not sign your name on the questionnaire. The returned questionnaires will be tabulated, and a summary of the survey findings will be mailed to you as soon as it is available. Thank you for your c00peration! Sincerely yours, Wk, A. . J 3 E. Mulvany C unty Extension Director JEM:kb encl. a . v" uni-«I0 177 D-6. Survey Cover Letter for No Prior Notification COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE INGHAM COUNTY IlCHlGAN sun: UNIVERSITY mo Cooperative Extenaion am’ 127 E. Maple 5!. Name. Michigan 48854 Telephone 677:9411 U. 8. DEPARTIENT OF AGRICULTURE COOPERATING November 27 , 1973 Dear Bunker Hill Township Property Owner: The Bunker Hill Township Officials are currently evaluating the present zoning ordinances and a need for other land use ordinances. They are interested in how Bunker Hill prOperty owners feel about many issues relative to zoning ordinances, population growth, community services, and kinds of growth the community desires. Therefore, they have asked the Coop- erative Extension Service to assist them in conducting a survey of property owners. Enclosed is a questionnaire which will take about 10 to \ 15 minutes of your time to complete. The information you volunteer on this questionnaire will be categorized and pre- sented back to your elected township officials to consider in their task of studying land use planning. If you wish, you may also receive a summary of the survey findings. The survey will be confidential as you will not be asked to identify yourself on the questionnaire. Mr. Bob Roller and Alan Kirk, Michigan State University grad- uate students, will be conducting the survey and summarizing the results. Sincerely yours, Wfim es E. lulvany ounty Extension Director ' JEfl:kb encl. ~ 0“” sun-w“ lIT‘I'." an ”~— , - “"1 APPENDIX E SAMPLE SIZE DETERMINATION APPENDIX E SAMPLE SIZE DETERMINATION Formula for an unbiased estimate of the variance of 2 v(p)=s = N-n pq=—-—( P (n-lIN N n-l where N is the population size, n is the sample size, p is the proportion of one response in a two-response choice (yes-no), and q is the prOportion of the other response. (Cochran, 1963, p. 51.) =§:9.P£I. Thus sp // N (n-l) The confidence interval, 8, is calculated from the standard deviation, sp, and the value from the 2 distribution corres- ponding with the chosen level of significance, a. s = 2 (sp) (Cochran, 1963, p. 75) Thus 6 = z //E:E (29.) The confidence interval is expressed as a plus or minus quality: 178 179 or z/L (253T) The above formula for the confidence interval is solved for n, the sample size. m/——s— 82 - 22 (--—-) (Pl) 52 = 22 (—)(P—9) 2 e = zZ<-r1;-I%) (pq) 2 2 E2 2 2 (pg) _ 2 (pg) n N, Let a=.10; thus z=l.65 €=.05 p=.5 q=.5 N=total number of households in each county Huron Co. --10,325 Sanilac‘Co.--10,551 Tuscola Co.--l3,709 Thus n=265, 266, and 267. 1“an APPENDIX F SURVEY QUESTIONS USED IN THE NON-RESPONDENT CHECK APPENDIX F SURVEY QUESTIONS USED IN THE NON-RESPONDENT CHECK What would you like to see happen to the population of your county over the next 5 years? I'd like to see the population: decrease stay about the same increase don't-know What do you think of the idea of having a general overall public plan for the future uses of land? I don't like the idea I don't care one way I like the idea or the other I don't know Do you support the general concept of having ordinances to enforce a land use plan? No Yes Don't Know Should more efforts be made to increase industry within this county? . No Yes Don't Know Do you feel that the addition of more housing would be desirable: in your count ? No Yes Don't Know Do you feel that the growth of tourism in your county would be beneficial? No . Yes Don't Know What is your age? What is your sex? Male Female What is your major full-time occupation? 180 10. ll. 12. 181 Do you live: (CHECK ONE) in the open countryside? in a built up area not within the boundary of a village or city (an unincorporated settlement)? within an incorporated village or city? What is the highest number of years you have completed in school? some elementary school (but did not complete: less than 6 years) completed elementary school (6 years) some junior high school (but did not complete: less than eighth grade) completed junior high school (eighth grade) some high school (but did not complete l-3 years) completed high school (4 years) vocational school or other training college: l-3 years college: 4 years or more What is your approximate yearly total family income? less than $3,000 $12,001-$15,000 $3,000-$6,000 $15,001-$25,000 $6,00l-$9:000 $25,001-550,000 $9,001-$12,000 more than $50,000 APPENDIX G SURVEY RETURN RATE Awhma Awhma Avhma .mumm swsumm.>m>usm .HIU musmfim Axmms howl o>amv msaaamz HmauasH EOHM whoa mo Honfisz mm om me oe mm om mm om ma om m .mm has .me .mm .woa .wma .m sense mm smoundsuzoaaom emcee . . .om Handev e smoIIesIsoHHom osmoumom wee .NN HHHmdv o mmallmcfiaflmz HMHDHCH peuanea selreuuoraseno go aueoied 182 APPENDIX H PERCENTAGE RESPONSES TO SURVEY QUESTIONS 183 uncommon 0: ma a m o h a 0 o on.h oo.o oo.m oo.o om.m oh.a oo.h ao.o zbcx u.c00 «moucocuvuo oo.mh cv.mm om.mb oo.mm cm.nh av.~m ov.mp am.am mo> ochON u0>mu 20> 0v .ucosao~o>op 0:0 oo.o~ oo.o o~.oH oo.~ 0m.ma oo.o oo.m~ am.m 0: on: pcoa ouomsoou use Acuucoo cu nopuo :H om A m o w H m o uncommon o: 3.0 $.m 8;. 8.~ 3.: 86 8.0 8.0 305. p.000 ~53 oo.mo a0.mm am.mo om.0m am.~w o~.vn ¢~.mo rm.mm no» on: papa a auscucw 0» moococapuo mcs>on '0.mm om.mH v~.mm o~.oH om.o~ ah.o~ ov.>~ v~.o~ o: u0 umoocoo Houocom 0:0 uuoeasm 20> 00 mm a OH 0 o H m o wmcoammu 0: oh.- ov.m «m.HH so.o oo.~a ov.n a0.o~ ov.m 300x u.coo ..uqu o: 8.0 84 8.: 8.m 8.0 8.0 8.0 :4 33m «no» 3 0339.02. and 8.0 and 8.~ :4 8.0 3.... 8.0 0203 3.58-33... $9.. on 3 030: 0525080 .6 32: 0H.mfl Oh.vm vM.HN Ov.NN 0N.0N Ov.NN o@.~.N 0@.mN >UCDOU 50%;) an .Amwfiu 0:0 h0>flu uoc >9: 50> o~.mv o~.~n mo.mv am.mh 4H.om o~.vh vo.mv o~.oo Homwoflcse 00 .m:» cases» 00>o. vomoflo>up one) any“ 0 zoom CH we a o o H m n o uncommon 0c o~.o~ om.v av.AH o~.o am.m 00.0 o~.m an.” rosx u.cov ..uqu 0: meson no new: 00.0m 00.00 av.mm 40.50 o~.ov «N.no om.mm om.~h nova ecu axed H unsusu on» new code owansm ~H0u0>0 «ouocom on.mn o~.v~ '~.on «n.o~ «m.nv vm.mm om.hn ov.mn 100* on» axed u.coo H a aca>mn «0 nova ecu no zaps» 30> on won: mm c o o v a ma ~ uncommon o: . am.- o~.v~ om.m~ am.vn om.- ou.a~ on.- oo.h 300x u.cOp -o>on Nwdmmm ecu up nuIOHo cowuodsmom v~.ov o~.om vm.~v oh.~m 0m.ov Iv.00 om.hm va.mm we) somusoomwv no unannoucm 0a coxou cosmos ¢~.nv 40.00 om.nv 4H.mm 00.0v vo.mn om.~m om.nm 0c ouficwuwp >cs on cdsonm ouonu xcwnu 20> oo - m n o n H m a oncommou oc o~.e «0.0 vv.m 00.0 om.v on.“ o~.v 90.0 30cx u.:00 oo.v~ 0m.0m em.Hm ao.m~ on.vm om.mm 00.nm an.m~ oaoouocw "ceauoasmom on» com 00 oxaq p.n «annex ao.oo om.mo 0m.ho ov.ho o~.oo o~.mo ¢A.oo o~.no «so» sea ozone >cum m uxoc ozu uo>o Nucsou usox uo cOMuoms oh.v oo.n v5.0 «H.v pn.v em.m on.~ rm.m oncohuoc Imam saw an comma: won cu mxua 00> u~003 yon: .0nm.~uz. .hofinz. Amdvuz. Amvnz. Ammmuz. Ammuz. .Hmvuz. Ammnz. aucooamum aaoauauuo nucopanom adequauuo uucopwmoz uaoausuuo nucooamsm nachosuuo oouooam pouooam pouooam couuofim ovuocu nodumoso cououm ououuzh uouucom coho: I xHszmA4 .u:o«uuoso aoausm cu noucoauom oooucounomII.~I: munch T I.Iu-.I. 104E”! .1qu u: NM 0 00 A as n AH n omcodmcu o: 00.00 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.00 00.n 00.00 00.H 300x 0.000 00cosao~o>o0 «0 n0cwx 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00> 00:00 8000 00005000 00 0000000000 000 00.0~ 00.0 0o.m~ 00.0 00.00 0H.0 00.00 00.~H 00 000 000000 0>00 00 0000 >00 00000 mu 000 Na 00 0 0n 0 00 0 omcodmms 0: 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 300x 0.000 ..0000 00 m0000u~0000 00000>00000 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00000 II000> 00 0000000000 0002 on >000 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 000000 >00000I00005 00003 0008000>00 no ~0>0~ 00003 00 ..000« 00.00 00.00 00.0~ 00.0 00.00 00.00 0n.~0 00.00 >ocsou 0:0 00>00 000 >06 00> 000000 00>o. 000000 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 ”00000005 to .030 Indumu 0003 00000000000 000 0000 2000 an 00 00 0m 0 mN 0 en 0 oncogene 0: 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 30:0 0.000 ..000; 0: 00000003000 0:000030 00.o~ 00.0 00.0" 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0H 00.0 00000 II000> 00 0~00000000 0090 on >050 00.~ 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 000000 >00000I00~05 vase) 0002000>00 no H0>0~ 000:3 00 ..0000 00.00 00.0n 00.0~ 0~.- 0~.~m 00.0w 00.~N 0N.0~ >00000 0:0 00>00 00: >05 00> cvsozu 00>0. vmzmaa 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0040 00.00 00.00 00.00 Homwuacae no .030 Inn-.300 0.00) 000000150» 00: 0.004 0000 an 00 0 00 a 0m 0 0H 0 00000000 00 . 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0n.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 30:0 0.000 ..0000 on A0 0~.m 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00000 mcacouunkao> o0 canaudmuuu umos on 0000 00 00.0 00.0 0~.n 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 000000 >00000I00~02 00003 000£cuo>00 uo ~o>0~ 00003 00 ..0004 1; 00.0w 0~.0~ 00.00 00.00 00.- 0~.0~ 00.- 00.00 >00000 000 00>ou 00c >00 00> 200000 00>0. 00:00H 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 ”00000006 00 .030 I00000 000) 000000~00ou «00 0000 0000 an 00 «0 00 0 on n ma 0 00000000 00 00.0 00." 00.0 00.0 0~.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 300x 0.000 mmco~0oaaouh 00.00 0m.~0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00> 00000000 uo>su 00> 00 .000600~0>00 000 00.00 00.0 00.0a 0H.N 00.0” 00.0 00.0“ 00.0 00 000 000m 00000000 000 Hauucou 00 00000 0H 00 NH 00 0 0m 0 0m 0 00000000 00 00.0 00.~ 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 300x 0.000 000000000000 00000>00 00.00 00.n0 0n.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0n.00 00.00 was Inna uo>oe nos 00 .0:o£do~o>uo 0cm 00.00 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.- 00.0 00.00 00.0 00 000 000" 00000000 0:0 0000000 00 00000 0» .00N.~uz. .00Huz. AOH0uzv A00uz. .000uz. .00u2. AHNOnz. .00u2. 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 0000000 0000000 0000000 0o0uo~m 000000 00000000 00000: 0000000 0000000 0000: .000000000II.~I= sands 185 00 0 00 o 00 0 00 o uncommou o: 00.0 00.n 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.n on.0 00.m 30:0 0.:00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00300 00 000000>00a=m 0=0> 00 0000000000 0006 00 00:01 00.00 00.0 00.n0 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 000000>0onsm auuau cofiuouofi 00 00>0 2000: .00000 0:0 uo>a0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0000 000:0 00000 0o: >00 30> zmaocu c0>0. 000:0 000: 00.00 00.0 00.n0 00.0 00.n0 00.0 00.00 00.n 000000000000 o: 0000: aunuucoc .>00000 000200 00oz 00 00 0 0H 0 0 m 00 0 00000000 00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 on.00 00.00 00.00 socx 0.coo «Nucaoo 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 mo> 030> :0 000000m00 00 002°: madmso; 00.0n 00.00 00.nm 00.0n om.~m 00.mn 00.00 00.00 o: 0000 00 cofluqooa 0:0 0azu 0000 ao> on no 0 m0 0 a v 00 0 omcoamwu o: 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.0 0o.0 zocx 0.:00 00.00 00.v0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.nm 00.00 .0000 .00 0000 00:00“ ~000muo0 on >020 00aozm 00.00 00.0n 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00000 c300c300 000;: .>0::ou 00:0 :0 002m000m0m0 000: 00.00 00.0 00.00 0m.v 0o.o~ 00.0 00.n0 00.0 00003>ca ..0000 on 0000000000 000>00m can 0cfimaonm 00o: 00 00 n 00 0 0 0 e0 0 amzommmu oc 00.00 00.00 00.0 0n.0 00.00 00.00 0n.00 00.00 30:0 0.:00 ~>0csou uao> 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0m.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 m0> c0 m00000~uou 000>00m can ocdauocm 00.on 00.0m 00.0n 00.0n 00.00 00.0n 00.0n 00.0m 0: 0afiouuesoo 0000 ocd>cg uo>ou 50> o0=oz 0m 00 00 n 00 n 00 n oucoawmh o: 00.00 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.0 30:0 0.:00 k005a ~=o> 00 00na0aouuo 0moa on 00:03 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 .000 .0msoc0 c0 >0co :o00auo0 00 00>0 £0003 ..u000 0:0 uo>n0 0m.m0 00.00 0m.~0 0m.0~ 00.00 00.00 0n.m~ 00.00 00000 .000000 :0\: 00: >oe so> 002000 c0>00 >00300 00:0 :0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.n 000000000000 00 00000 x000 00050000>00 0000000000 000E 00 pm 0 00 0 00 n 00 n oncoauou o: 00.“ 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 30:0 0.:00 00.m0 oo.oo 00.00 0m.om 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00> 000:500 m0z0 c0000: >00mgcc0 00.n0 0n.o~ ao.m~ 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0: omuouuc0 o0 cons on m0uouuu «000 00aonm .vn0.0nz. 0000.2. 0000.2. Ame-z. .mmnaz. .00.:. .000.2. .00-z. muconwmox «00000000 muconwmum 000000000 000000000 n00000000 a0cov0m0¢ 000000000 0000000 0000000 0000000 0000000 ouuogu 00000000 000000 0000028 0100000 0000: .0oac0ucou--.n-= ounce 186 omcommou o: an a ma o mm m o~ v o~.- ¢~.h~ ¢m.- ¢m.oa o~.m~ a~.~m ao.mfl ;h.- 30:; u.cou vm.om .~.~v ¢~.~n .m.- vo.mm om.oe ¢~.mv ,n.~m mo» «Hadufluocon on case: >ucsoo usox a“ oo.mm om.~v ¢H.mv o~.Ho om.mm em.~m .m.~n .o.vm o: amfiusou uo nuzoum wnu uazu noon 30> on we n ma o AH n m” o amcommuu oc nm.o ov.~ oh.v oo.~ ao.o ¢m.~ ¢m.m ;e.n socx u.:oc ,m.nv .o.do ¢m.nv o~.Ho vo.Hm vn.vo .m.mv ¢o.hm mczou :« nxunm .; .e humus an udsoz cofiuauofl ao.om ¢~.vm vm.om an.om vm.mm av.om 'm.sm oo.mm axuum .n .2 Hanan no waxy suds: ..mood onu uo>ou uoc xqs 20> an.o~ av.~ vm.H~ ao.b a~.m om.m ¢~.oH ov.m aconuufiuumou 0: gases» co>o. cocoa who: mason wafinas ouoe «H .on~.~n:. Abofinz. Amflquz. Amvuz. .mmmuz. .mmuz. .Hmvnz. A¢mnzv mu:onwmmm mdmfiofluuo mucwcflmaa unadoduuo mucocfimum maafiuduuo muceowmua adaflowuuo vouuomw CouUOHu vvuowam vauueau woaogu ceaumwao cowoux «doumah uoawcam sous: .voacfiucoou-.~u: eggs» ”'Tflrfimlfltg MIMI:fliflhflflflfliflfljflflflfiWI“