A COMPARATIVE STUDY; m SELECTED _
RURAL AREAS m MICHIGAN I

or» CONTRIBUTORS AND NON CONTRIBUTORS.

TO VOLUNTARY HEALTHAND ’
WELFARE AGENClES .

Thesis mmmdax A.
.WSTATIW

Stanley More Ma”)!
1955

 

IHESIS

-A CCVPAYATIVE STUUY,

IN SELECTED 'ZUXAI... AQEAS I"? TICHI 3A},
CcNTRIqUTC?S TC

OF CCT‘ITRIHU’C’CRS AH”) PICN-

VCLUNTAQY HEALTH AW? WELFAYE AGENCIES

by

cmANLEY ALLEN NAHAFFY

IJJ.

A Thesis

Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan
State University of Agriculture and Aprlied Science
in partial fulfillment of the requirem,nts

for the degree of

WASTE? Cfj ARTS

Department of Sociology ani AnthrOpology

1955

MR

/39/37

@(Mt

‘ m1? \T/“""T ijnrnw‘fi‘T.
[xvi -‘b‘uiau UuLJJ

The continued interes , guilonce ani inspiration of
Dr. Paul A. Killer has been most helpful in directing and
completing the course of this study. The many additional
hours devoted by him are greatly appreciated.

Of qreat importance to a study of this type is the

encouragement siven, for such work, by those of Michigan

3‘

State University, Dr. D. B. Varner, Dr. Jo.n T. Stone and

t

Assistant Extenxion Director, H. A. Berg. The provision by
Michigan State University for sabbatical leave for further
stuiy is also extremely helpful and the writer is most
grateful for it.

The Ewald assistantship rrovided through the Michi-
gan United Health and Welfare Fund, Incorporated, provided
a portion of the finances necessary to carry out this work.
The writer is appreciative of this and the excellent assist-
ance and cooperation from the United Fund staff, their
board of directors and particularly that of Nr. 0. A.
KcCartney, executive secretary.

To other faculty members Dr. Duane Gibson, Dr. Glen
Taggart, Dr. Robert Crawford and many others who proved
most helpful, goes sincere appreciation for their many

helpful suggestions.

A.Comparative Study, in Selected
Rural Areas in Michigan
of Contributors and Non-Contributors
to Voluntary Health and
welfare Agencies

by
Stanley Allen Mahaffy

an abstract

submitted to the School of Graduate Studies
of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree or
Master of Arts

Department of Sociology and Anthropology

 

Approved

 

 

This study was made to determine why rural people contribute to
health and welfare agencies and.why some groups give more than others.
This investigation was made because there appeared to be a lag in con-
tributions from rural residents, especially for the united Fund or Red
Feather drives throughout the State of Michigan.

Interviews were made with people in Bethney and New Haven Town-
ships in Gratiot County, a.prosperous rural agricultural county in
Michigan. People with a rural background were compared with those
having an urban background or both.

It was found that there are considerable differences in the atti-
tudes of rural peOple toward health and welfare agencies depending
upon the degree to which the people are basically rural or basically
urban.

Rural people, however, are now rapidly combining rural and urban
influences. This is causing them to contribute in cash rather than in
a strictly rural type assistance, namely goods and services to the
needy.

It may be concluded from this study that as urbanization influence
continues cash contribution will increase and attitudes toward centrep
lized social agencies will be more favorable. Attention should be
directed, however, toward better and more information for rural people
concerning the agencies and services included in the voluntary health

and welfare agencies.

*3
[U
H
L~l
C)
Er}
L)
(3
£3
* 3
Lil
+5
0')

CHATTER PAGE
I. It lTRCDUCTIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
History of social welfare . . . . . . . . . . 1

II. THE PROP LET IN IICHIGAN . . . . . . . . . . . . 1}
Purpose of the study . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Review of literature on the subject . . . . . 16

IIII. IIEINUDD if? ‘SIIHIY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Development of schedule . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Selecting area of work . . . . . . . . . . . 19
IV. DIFFERENTIATION I? B 1ST: CRICNDLTICN CF RURAL

IELPICLC AND T”? JIR inllIf‘Ilzi C‘I IN AND ATTI-
TUTMB DCDHXRJ TN?) UNI7I3D FIKID Illx3{A”\I C'T

C )1: IITY , T I I 01.1] ZGIiJ‘t‘I . O C O O O O O O O O I O O

\N
H

Determining Orient? tion C asrification . . . 31
V. A CC; .gArIVZ STUDY OF RURAL TOWNSHIPS E
VARYING DEGREES OF PARTICIPATION . . . . . . 53

VI. FACTORS INFIU' LL. CTCI‘G I “CIT CIIA'L‘IC N OF PIECE LE

0? DIFFERENT C7INNTATIDN AND DIVFE ENT AREAS

0‘
[0

AS ".RJ D BY GROVE AND IRLA JC‘PARISOY" . .

(Y)
F4

VII. SUNNARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
BIPLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ed
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
A. Summary of stuiy as reported to Lichigan United
Health and Welfare Committee

B. Interview schedule

TABLE PAGE
I. Orientation Classification of Interviewees. . 33
II. Givers and Non—givers by Group Orientation. . EC
III. Givers and Non—givers, Including in the Non-
giver Group Those who Didn't Remember
Whether or Not They Had Contributed This
Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
IV. Income Classification by Groups . . . . . . . 38
V. Forty-eight Givers by Income Group . . . . . 39
VI. Classification of 266 Answers of 48 Givers
as to Why They Give . . . . . . . . . . . . Al
VII. Reasons For Giving . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
VIII. weaning of the United Fund in Gratiot
County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
IX. Givers and Non-givers in the 32,000 to 34,000
Income Group and Their Impression of United
Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a4
X. Response to Question: Is the Operation of
These Voluntary Agencies and Solicitation
of Funds a Good Thing for the Country . . . A?
XI. Interest of Interviewees in Knowing More
about Agencies Involved . . . . . . . . . . 45
XII. Reasons 29 Givers Didn't Give . . . . . . . . 46

XIII. Use of Agency Recognition by Groups . . . . . 48

TABLE

XIV.

XVI.

XVII.

XVIII.

XIX.
XX.

XXI.
XXII.
XXIV.

XXV.
XXVI.
XXVII.
XXVIII.
XXIX.

XXX.

XXXI.
XKXII.
XXXIII.

Degree of Organizational Activity . . . . .
Organizational Activity and Participation .
Reading Habits of Differently Oriented
Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Reading Habits and Participation . . . .
Orientation of PeOple of Bethany and New
Haven Townships . . . . . . . . . . .
Givers and Non-givers by Townships . . . .
Participation (Givers and Non-givers) by
Orientation Groups in Townships . . . . .
266 Reasons for Giving . . . . . . . . .
BS Reasons for Not Giving by Townships . .
Attitude Towarl United Fund as measured by
Three Questions . . . . . . . . . . .
Recognition of Use of Agencies by Township.
Organizational Activity (by Townships) .
Reading Habits (by Townships) . . . . . . .
Admitted reasons for Not Giving . . . .
Income of Those Who Can't Afford to Give .
Interviewers Concept of United Fund Agen—
cies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Knowledge and Contributions . . . . . .
Recognized Use of Agency . . . . . .
Effect of Recognition of Use on Participa-

tion 0 O O I O I O O O O O O O O O O

c. 1
til

50
51

64

66

H
p.
U!
f‘
L‘J

XXXV.
XXXVI.
XXXVII.

XXXVIII.

XXXIX.
XL.

XLI.
XLII.
XLIII.
XLIV.

Knowledge and Reconnition of Use of Agen—

Cies O O O I O O 0 O O O O O O O 0
Educational Status and Knowledge . . .
Knowledge and Organizational Activity .

Current Reaiing Material and Knowledge

Interest in Agencies as Indicated by Desire

to Know Eore . . . . . . . . . . . .
(nowledge and Payroll Deduction . . . .
Media Through Which IeOple Learned About

Agency (by Percentage) . . . . . .
Reasons for Giving Classified . . . . .
Agent of Contact . . . . . . . . . . .
Place of Contact . . . . . . . . . . .

Feeling of Obligation Toward Solicitor

L12 3? FIGURES

FIGURE

1.

Agricultural Comparisons of Bethany and New
Haven Townships . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Population Comparisons of Bethany and New
Haven Townships . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Map Showing Location of Bethany and New

Haven Townships in Relation to Nearby

Coal and Results of Bethany and New Haven
TOdenSh-ips O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O

Givers in Bethany and New Haven Townships .

24

26
26

I._ INTRODUCTION
History of Social Welfare

In a nation where peeple are interested in providing
an equal Opportunity for everyone, complete responsibility
for the care of the sick, the unfortunate and the poor has
shifted from the immediate family and the community or the
local unit of government to state and national levels.

Sociological studies of various cultural groups
throughout the world have shown the family or family group
usually to be responsible for the care of their sick, dis-
abled and unfortunate. The degree of care and acceptance
of reaponsibility varies with their ability and knowledge
to provide the necessary care.

In biblical times poor, crippled and diseased were
left on the streets to beg and obtain whatever help chari—
table people might provide. In those times it was consid-
ered their right to be able to beg and accept alms.

Some of the early efforts to provide assistance in
an organized way were through the church. This first oc-
curred in Home in 590 A. D.

Later in England, the poor laws1 were established,

in 1631, which provided governmental help for the destitute

lLowry Nelson, Rural Sociology (Chicago, Ill.: Amer-
ican Book Company, 1948), p. 14-72.

 

but intentionally male the use of such help unpalatable.
The use of such assistance carried with it a certain unde-
sirable stigma and was used only as a last resort. This
type of aid was often referred to as "on the town" or ”go—
ing to the poorhouse."

Aid to the poor and needy in America was designed

similarly to its English prototype.2

3

Public welfare started in the United States primari-

ly to assist orphaned and homeless children and occasional
reference has been made to aid for the blind. Its early be—

ginning, however, was "Irimarily to repress begging and min-

imize the costs of keeping the poor, to the community."4

Dorothy Dix in her appeal to the Consress of the
United States in 1949 for aid for the unfortunate describes
conditions of that time rather well.

I have myself seen more than nine thousand idiots,
epileptics and insane, in these United States, destitute
of appropriate care and protection, and of this vast and
most miserable company, souwht out in jails, in poor-
houses, and in private dwellings, there have been hun—
dreds, nay rather thousands, bound with gelling chains,
boned beneath fetterr, anl heavy iron balls, attached to
drag-chains, lacerated with rcpes, scourged with rods,

2. F ,. . . . ,, .
Wayne Achillen, Cormunity Organization for coolal
Welfare (Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press, 1945),
p. 414.

 

3Public welfare is here referred to as assistance
provided by government apprOpriation.

1+ a 1 . s l v
Louis J. Ducofi and larwaret Jarman Haqood, ”Rural
Welfare," in Carl C. Taylor's Rural Life inmthe United Sta
(New York: 1949), pn. 180-181.

 

5

and terrified beneath storms of profane execrations and
cruel blows; now subject to jibes, and scorn and tortur-
ing kicks, now abandoned to the most loathsome necessi-
ties, or subject to the vilest anl most outrageous vio-
lations. These are stronr terms but lansuafe fails to
convey the astounding truths. I proceed to verify this
assertion, commencing with the state of Naine.5
In the latter part of the nineteenth century sick-
ness, accident, desertion by father, marital difficulties,
juvenile delinquency, charity relief and public welfare,
. . . . 6
led to departments of charity in mun1c1pal governments.)
The first record of any attention being given to
rural welfare work was in New York state in 1907. This was
the bringing together of children's arencies in cooperation
with county government by the State Charities Aid.7
In this same decade, 1304, the New York School of
Q
SOCial WorkU was established for the purpose of training
social workers. The start of World War I brought about the

start of social work in rural areas of the United States.

Enlistments in the war, of fathers and husbands, caused a

 

5Dorothea. Lynde Dix, as found in Senate Hiscellaneous
Documents No. 153 (30 Cong., l Sen.); also in Dictionary of
American Biography by Allen Johnson and Dumas Malone (New
York: 1950).

. 6Selskar M. Gunn and Ihillip S. Flatt, Volunteer
health Agencies (New York: 1945), Ch. 8.

_‘

 

 

71bii., p. 55.

8Ibid.

 

I .l‘lllrvll‘klrll, Fr

l. .l

to c... .... M?! 1 ‘9'... 4

home service department to be deveIOped within the Red

0
Cross agency.“

Since social work in rural areas was considerably
later in starting, by the time it did start a trained staff

was on hand and ready to perform, but they were not trained

. lO . .
in rural work. Sanderson pOints out the lack of, and im-

portarme of, rural training for rural social workers.

In spite of the fact that formal social work was

starfl:ed in rural areas at the time of World War I, it did

not Jreally become accepted and of great importance until the

great: depression of the 1350's. At this time the wideSpread

usagxa of government agencies became necessary and partially

acceyotable. However, in spite of its partial acceptance and

Senezral usage throushout the country, it still lagged far

behirid that of cities.

Since formal welfare followed the growth of cities,

therwa seemed to be several su ,ositions for its la in rural
PP

area S ;

Generally, and especially in the New England and
IIOtthern states where the "Puritan ethic" is probably
‘tlde stronqest, rural people stress thrift and hard work
538 virtues in and of themselves. Acceptance of aid was
Cfllnsidered an admission of weakness and even immoral es—
iFHecially if it was charity. It may have been religious

\

 

91bid.

lOEzra Dwight Sanderson and Robert A. Iolson, Rural
1923), pp. 559-84.

COW‘n . , .
'rrééBility Organization (New York: ,,,

ideology, the frontier, or both which led farr people
to place high value on individual initiative.ll

In cities people were able to sense more readily the
importance of the health of others to themselves and their

community, because they were more closely linked tosether

in their activities. In cities success or failure was recog-

nized.as being dependent worn or less on conditions. Lack

of iricome was not always considered the fault of the indi—

vibial but could be due to the employrent situation, or

othei? situations beyond his control.12

In rural areas the individualistic nature of farming

made the health of others of less concern, because it was

easieer to isolate oneself. Income was always considered a

matteer of hard work and favorable weather. Failure could be

blamsed on a bad season. Farmers refused to accept the eco-

nomic: trend as a factor in success or failure.

Previously, those who failed coull move to new fron-

tierws and start anew, there to overcore failure once more,

t0 bczcome successful throuqh harl work and rugged individ-

11811 Sm.
Taylor points out the false rorular notion of both

Pura1_ and urban people that rurdl people are a healt y,

 

”The Structure of Social Action,”

1 .
Taicott Iarsons, _ , i
Seeial Sys—

1
EMQ*~EVPles P. Loomis and J. Allan Beagle, Rural
~4¥§ (EBay York: 1350), p. 765.

Iaul H. Landis, Rural Life in Process (New York,

 

 

OW

hale and hardy lot. Ierhaps this notion started because

H)
")

they work lone and hard, have lots of re:h food, fresh air

and fresh water.
The facts, however, are that many diseases are more
prevalent in rural people than urban. This may be due to
the fact that more unsanitary conditions exist in rural Tfima

l 5

areas and medical facilities are farther removed. .
- i

“—3

Even after attempts of the Federal government to

proruote social work and welfare assistance among rural

peogfile in the 1953's, rural areas were still far behind the L:—
citiees in social service benefits. "The rural area peeple

were excluded from the benefits of and the Opportunity to

14

Partj_cipate in social security when that law was enacted."

Untijl 1355 and only since 1950, only certain farm workers
and riot farm operators were entitled to the benefits of the
8001231 security act. Only at this time, 1954, has legisla-
tiOn'rnade possible the benefits of social security for fame
Opersztors, starting in January, 1955.

With the national changeover from an agricultural to
an irldustrial nation, rural areas of the nation have also
been tundergoing some changes. Rural society has been chang—

lnE fibon a Gereinschaft to a Gesellschaft type Of society.

I-utllal E311 groups have been [‘1Vln: W'E‘Qf to a contrBCtual SO-

—\

 

15Carl C. Taylor, Rural Sociology (New York, London:
, p. 5429.

l41Ducoff and Hagood, Op. 913-, PP- 179*79-

was )

Ciety. Eviience of change may be notei in the report of

J. Allan Beagle and J. F. Thaien on porulation changes in

15

fichigan.

The rural population of Kichigan increased much more

“apidly than dil the urban population in the last iecade

(1)43‘1953); at the sane time the number of farms declinei ff”

severmeen rer cent as comparei with an increase in rural h

Ixnuilation of 26 per cent. ;
This increase has been partly due to reduced death

rate' anl inoreasei birth rate, but rrimarily due to in- ihr

Cmyasei migration.

Fror the report it can be observed that increasing
Iflpttlation in rural areas is not because the rural popula—
tiori is agricultural, but because of iniustrial expansion

withi n the state .
The number of manufacturing concerns in the state
incrweased 66 per cent from 1959-1947 and the number of pro—
iuctj.on workers increasedf¥3gmnécent.

In the last 20 years 16.9 and 26.2 per cent increase

In chpulation in the last two decades res¢ective1y have been

lat“Z-‘EEJyoutside the corporate limits of the urban centers.

 

 

 

\

”h 15J. Allan Beagle ani I. F. Thaden, Iorulation
%‘ww?*99 in Xichigan 1943-1950, Hichigan State Collee,
~$ecn_a]_1hfll£tin.387, Ccto‘er, 1955

no

Hechanization of forrirm has played an important

rrrt in the reduction of the nurber of farms anl in the

. ,— .
a x, b
.

changing of the rural society.
16
1

states:

Kimbal

It is true farmers are freein: themselves from one
another. scientific atriculture and mechanization make
this possible. But as he is freed from one type of so-
cial system based upon the technolOfiical progress, the
individual finds himself caught up in another system—-
the equally significant svstem of social class.

As rural areas change, the need for a more definite
fCirm of health and welfare program becomes more evident. At
tlie present time several forms of welfare programs exist in
tlnis country. Public welfare is referred to as that type
of‘ assistance rendered people in need by governmental agen—
cies.

Iublic welfare at the present time is handled on the

ccndnty level and financed jointly by Federal, state and

ccndnty money. Previously, when it was the intention of the
Cirbisenry to make this type of assistance unpalatable, it
was; financed and distributed locally. With this method,
loc:al officials, althoufih untrained in any phase of social
WGJMfare work, knew the worthiness of the recipients and

reridered aid accordingly. They also knew how the money was

raidsed.and were more careful, possibly too conservative,

16
C Solon T. Kimball, "Rural Social Organization and
9CDIV3rative Labor," Abstract in The American Journal of So-
Eisllgggz (July, 1945), IV, pp. 50-1?.

9

with its distribution. Without elaborating on this system

further, it can be said that, for the most part, inadequate

. 1
care was prov1ded. 7
In order to speed up the work of assistance to the

‘underprivilesed and handicapped, initiate new programs, and

develOp preventative approach to diseases not now covered by

Imrblic welfare programs, private volunteer agencies were de-

. 18 . . .
xmeloped throughout the nation. The latest listing, now in

prweparation, will include some 387 national agencies alone.

To ‘these must be aided the county, state and local agencies

tfliat are also in operation. Gunn and Flatt state that over
19

2C>,OOO volunteer health agencies exist at the present time.

Some of these agencies are designed to provide direct

seorvice, some education, and others beneficial programs or

tC> obtain government legislation or special assistance where

it is most needed. Several of these agencies devote a large

PCrbtion of their efforts to research in an attempt to pre-

Verit the hardship and handicaps from Occurring. Voluntary

agéencies occur any time, any place. Anyone who is sensitive

to a need and resolved to do something about it, brings to—

 

 

K
17Ducoff and Hagood, op. cit., p. 179.

C 18F. Emerson Andrews, "Attitudes Toward Giving," in

‘V‘q . fi ' a, , , ' v" 1'

_%;Eg;gl Hork Ye.rbook (1954), elitel by Russel H. Kurtz, p.

lgGunn and Flatt, 073° Cit_°

lO

gather some like-rinled citizens and lay. The group devel-
Ops a prograr of action anl begins.

To overcome difficulties involved in equitable dis—
tribution of relief in a secondary society, large scale
private agencies have been organized, such as Community
(Hiests, Community funds, and the like.20 ‘

The Cormunity Chest idea came about as the result of fij
‘fiie tremendous number of ajencies that have been developed.
GUJln and Flatt state that "No other country has produced so [4
jrweat or so v.riei an expression of the universal disposi-
ticon to help others or to advance the common good."21 The
rizse of these agencies has been favored by (l) the American
treadition of freedom, (2) our common asgressive attitude
tovvard all sorts of problems and situations, (3) the new at—
Tfi-tniie toward physical health and (d) the rapid economic ex—
Pfitision throujh industrialization.

The conlucting of these numerous campaiins for funds,
neczessary to finance these many voluntary agencies, has long

hip of the communities as

. . 22
W61_l as conquing the general public.

‘ -
oesen overburdenin: the leaders

Recognition by the public of this lack of coordina—

voluntary health agencies resulted in

4- ' '
”1‘3r1 on the part of

 

22

\N
[D
ID

McMillan, Op. cit., p.

ll

9*
1 Healtn CounCil in 1921.“?

a 0, x 4...
the formation of the Nation

Cl.)

A

althoufih this council fell short of its major objectives,
on the local level coordination has achieved some degree of
success.

In the early 1320's federated fund—raisins got its

start and became known throufhout the larger cities as Com—

runity Chests. The develOpment of these chests came about 4*
‘
l
as a result of previous organization for War C.ests during ?
Norld War I. I”

As stated by the United Health and Welfare Fund of

Kichigan, Inc.,24

United Fund raising became more widespread through—
out Uichigan after the founding of the United Health
and Welfare Fund of Hichigan Inc. in 1347. Before the
actual founding of the United Fund on July 15, 1947, a
group of hichigan conrunity leaders, whose home towns
were annoyed by the multiplicity of fund-raising can—
paigns, decided to see if something could and should be
done. They askel the last president of the Nichigan
United War Fund, A. L. Miller, Battle Creek newspaper
publisher, to call a srall neetino of people represent-
ative of the state. This "meeting of eiqht" resulted
shortly after in the formation of the now existing
"United Health and Welfare Fund of Michigan Inc." Upon
invitation of the board of directors, 19 cf the 24 na-
tional agencies then raising money in Michigan agreed
to join and 6 refused. Another of the national agen-
cies joined two years later, making the figure 1? for
and 5 remaining on their own. many areas locally how-
ever included the entire group in one drive.

Rural participation in the United Fund program in

Michigan has been slow just as the newer concepts of health

 

25Gunn and Flatt,
24

T‘. Cit.

O

Nichigan United Health—Nelfare Fund Inc., Michiggn
Unites to Serve Human Nee s (Iansinr Michigan: 1951}, p.

5.

 

 

 

l2
and welfare proprams were slow to reach the rural areas of

the nation.

II. THE IRCBIEM IN YI CHIGAH

The United Fund of Kichigan has now been in opera—

1

tion for 7 years. It has been observed by the United Fund
directors that there has been a lag in participation on the
part of rural residents.1 For exanple, the average contri—
bution per giver in the city of Lansing, Hichigan, in 1955
was $9.61, compared to >2. PS par giver in two rural town
ships of Michigan and compared to $3.50 per giver of the

. . 2
rural area surrounding Lansing.

./'

With the present increase in rural repulation and

*4.

the decrease in the number of fares it would be expecte;
that urban influences would be felt in the rural area or
that there would not be this difference between city and
rural residents in their response to voluntary health and
welfare ajencies.

Iart of the problem may be phrased: Are these rurr
residents really rural or are they urban peeple livinf in
the rural area? If they are urban people living in rural
areas, have they taken on the characteristics of rural

peOple that make them reject modern social welfare because

 

1 r. . . .
This information was obtained from numerous meet—
with the board of directors of the United Health and

ines
Nelfare Fund of Pichigan.

2Taken from [hi ted Health and telfare records of the
Michigan United Hea lt and .‘e.far re office, lensing, dich—

igan.

- m- pun-1..-

14
of their rurelness or does their backgrouni have anything
to do with their participation through giving?

In the rural area, contributions reared from less
than a dollar to $10.03 per family. In some townships the
contributions amounted to an average of
while in others it averaged 35.29, an increase of 33 per
cent.

Are there certain characteristics which cause one
area and one person to participate more than another?

In urban areas the place of work has long been rec—
ognized as an ideal place of contact for the solicitation of

7
funds The payroll deduction system2 has provided an easy

method of securing contributions. The congregating of
workers in places of employment has provided an excellent
opportunity for contact_to explain the program-~hand out
literature and display posters.

In rural areas the individualistic nature of the oc-
cupation of the farmer and of many rural residents makes it
more difficult to make the contact, both for the purpose of
explanation and collection.

The historical backgrounl of rural people in their

relationship to public and voluntary health and welfare or—

 

3Iayroll deduction system is a system used in places
of employment to secure funds by asking erployees to pledge
a certain amount of each pay check. It is then deducted in
small amounts from each pay check.

15
sanizations, courlei wit; the difficult 1es encountered in
contact n: for contrit:uti01 and r esentinf irzo ornation,
poses a problem in rural areas of the state for the success~

ful operati on of volunt arv health and welfare a
Purpose of the Study

Rural corrunities face a cu.ller7e t‘nat they them-
selves must meet. With the body rolitic as with th
human anatomy, the diagnosis of an ailment is the first
step toward its cure. True the simrle identification
and catalog1ing of its problems will not solve them.
Moreover no community can lift itself by its boot—
straps. Nevertheless a community which has identified
and squarely faced its most yresring problems is in a
fair way to gettin 7 some flt n: done about themflL

After careful observation anl stuly of the Operation
of the United Health and Nelfare Fund in several areas of
Hichigan, and after several discussions with the Ewald As—
sistantship advisory committee,5 there appeared to be two

major areas of study: (1) the organizational structure and

 

4 . . . . .
Laverne Burchf1eld, Our Rural Commun1t1e§ (Chicago:
1347). Foreword by Floyd Reeves, p. vi.

5Ewald Ass istantshin A3visory Cornittee a Special

committee establis hel by the -ichisa -n United Health an n1 ?iel—
fare Fund Inc. for the rurfose of alvis inm anl guiding this
study. it was rale uf of representatives of the United
Fund Advisory Board: C. A. FcCartney, executive secretary
of U.H.%N.; S. S. Hesbit, Iuhlic Relations Director, Gerber
Baby Fools, Fremont; Eldon Robbins, lublic Relations, John
Bean Esnufacturinq Company, lensins; Kenneth Beagle, Super-
intendent of Schools, Granl Ledge; Puth Rasmussen, Ingham
County Rural U. H. °N. Director. From Michigan State Colleje
it included: antens1or Director, N. D. Verne? J. T. Stone,
Irof. of Agrl. Adm.; H. A. Berg, As.ista nt 'lirictor of Ex—
tension; C. F. 10011? , Head of Dart. Sociology anl Anthro-
pology; D. L. Gibson, Asscc. lrof., Sociologv and Anthropol—

03y; and I. A. Killer, Irof.(Ext.§, Socioley and Anthrorol—
QTY-

16

operation of the :ivin: rro ce ess, and (2) tne basic orienta-

tion and attitude of the layman, both the giver ani the non-

giver with

The rea .1 rurpose of this study is to

"J
(3
CT
CD
I ‘i

its of rural ani urban reople

‘ecific emrhasis on the rural resident.
learn what Char—

‘istics anl factors are associatel with the Giving hab—

Since rural Lichigan is -apidly becoming industrial-

. . 6 .
lzed and urban1zed and since a large rercentase of people

living in rural areas are not farmers or are actually city

reople livin: in rural areas, 1; seems more
rural reorle acccrline to their orientation

ed, rurban oriented, or urban oriented (see

Review of Literature on the Subject

logical to study
as rural orient—

Charter IV).

In "Attitules Toward Giving” by F. Emerson Andrews

some important results of 91 interviews are

Among them is the nation or idea that almos

presented.

everyone gives

in one way or another. In the more urbanized society,

gifts are more readily made in the form of

rural areas cartloa's of food or days of 13

cash, whereas in

bor in the form

of sore lirect assistance are the nore 1ke1y and accept—

.-

able form of contribution.

 

 

N. Schroeder, Instructor, sociologj, Kichigan

 

L
Ltate College, ' S. T. Kimball, "Rural bocial Organization
and Coorerat ive Ls. bor"; and Beegle and Thaden, Population
Changes in Fichigrn, l?+3-l?53.

<. V. a- «u..- .

In some cases g'vin; is a result of a feeling of
pressure on the rart of the cornunity or the place of work,
whereas others derive a feeling of satisfaction through

giving ani still others jive because of some benefit they

have recognized to themselves or some benefit that they

feel they may sometime derive. r
In general, social welfare is becoming more accept- a
able although some reOple still seen to rrefer direct care. 3

Some of the givers believe that government could better

provide for all the agencies with less overlapping of du—

“3'7""

ties, while others feel very strongly against such partici

(‘J

p tion by the rovernment-

(7

Andrews states that "Asking is necessary," because
few people ever get arounl to giving unless they are ap-
proached.

Children's agencies have an ar-eal that most peeple
cannot resist. Others jive because of the relationship of
the contact rerscn, a re ationship of either business or
friendship.

A wide concept, which is the general improvement of
the health of mankind and the prevention of the conditions

which make it necessary for peorle to neei help, is seldom

rentionel as a reason for giving.

 

7Andrews, 02. cit., p. 114.

III. TETHQ? OF LEUDY
Develornent of Schedule

To deternine whether or not a difference still ex—
ists between rural anl urban oriental people toward health
and welfare afencies onl the process of giving, an inter—

l . 1 . .
The scnedule was decisned to

View schedule was developed.
reveal the basic orientation of the people interviewed.
This was accomplished by learning the occupational history
and the residential history of both the husband and wife.
Irovision was made in the interview schedule to re-
veal whether the interviewees were contacted this year for

a contribution, whether or not they gave, if not wha their

what their reasons were for

1D

reasons were, if they did jiv
giving and what their attitude was toward the solicitation
of funds and toward the agencies they were being asked to
help. The interview schedule was designed to learn whether
or not they recognized use for themselves or anyone, of any
of the agencies for which collections were being made.

An attempt was made to measure the attitude of the
interviewees by learning what they considered the collec—

tion of the fund to be for, anl whether or .ot they thought

 

l I O O
Cepy of the interv1cw schedule is attached to the
Appendix.

such solicitation for funds and the services rroviled to be
a good thin: for the cerntrf.

A schedule was completed anl rretestinj carried out
in Ingham County. After several corrections and revisions
the final c«x\y was prepared. The schedule was designed
particularly to be used with the head of the house, and the
interviewing was to take place the latter part of the win-
ter and through the spring months. The funl drives take

place late in the fall.2

Selecting Area of Work

Qualifications

 

Two factors were of considerable importance in se-

lect'ns the area in wlich to conduct the study. First,

.J

33

since the reatest rrobler seemed to be centered around
rural areas and since ferri-n is the greatest single occu—
ration of the rural area residents, a strong farming c unty
of the state was desirable. SeCond, in order to reasure
participation, it was necessary to use a county in which an
opportunity to participate exists and is well estsnlishei.

Gratiot County, hichigan, is rated as one of the trr

al counties in Iichigan.5 For the last seven

 

ter ajricnitu JP
2 w -
elzt.ots‘1p of the Inited rzn l drive occurrence 3
the .ire of inferVJcWin was c nsiderei to be 3f sijnificaut
impor mt no e.
7
/

1753 U. S. Ajrl. Census rarest.

20

U)

(

ye‘rs there has been a United Fund Drive throughout th- en—
county. The drives in the county have been conducted by
townships, thus making township comparisons possible.

come townships of the county appeared o be more
successful than others; at least, some of them came nearer

.. . 4 . . . . .
to mating their goal. This ditiSion made possible the

,4
P
Q)
H
G)
n.)
f ’l
’ '5
, -
l '0
Cf
CD
’"5

corparison of successful and unsuccessfi'

D

careful study 0; similarities and di

H,
”*3
'D
"5
(D
’3
O
(D
")
H.
:35
(+—
{3"
(
(”t
O
:3
I

ships and their decree of success in raising funds, two
townships-~Pethany and New Haven-—were selected for the
study. Figuresl.and23;pages21—22,showagricultural and pop—
ulation corparisons of the two townships.

Further typifyini the county as rural are the follow-
5

ing typical, rural towns: Breckenridge , with its eleva-
tors and stock ards, which has a pOpulation of 995 and is
supported mostly by its rural trade; Ithaca, the county
seat with a population of 2,377, located in the center of
this rich farming county and supported by trade of the sur—
rounding area; St. Louis, a town of 5,347 pOpulation, which

in addition to its elevators and stockyards has the manu—

facturing plants, St. Louis Chemical Company and the Michi—

 

iot County 1955 United Fund Report, hichigan
h and Welfare Inc., Hollister Bldg., Lansing,

T‘V

51350 hichigan lopulation Census, t. 8. Dept. of
Commerce, Pureau of Census.

21

 

mmHmmZBOB zm><m 2&2 92d. MVQmBmm mo mzomHmfifiaoo H¢mDEHDOHm0¢

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H EDUHHH
mono< mpoom mag. mmpo¢ mmHo<
it... . ,1? - n: it
Wm
. m .. .-
w . in
W ,... OONQ an.
w. 0
9
a 9
9 n4.
9
U
S

 

 

a

Lf\
H

 

humnpom Fr . q p rd

 

nm>mm Bmz ml... Mr -. A

22

”Hz
12} 55+ 101
1 Ar ’ 1164
271! 21354 ‘ I 248

 

 

—‘.——1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 1 AG4- 165
238 ~ 224
.21%r_ FAFM [32%
500 F JAFM . ( 441
(F.B.-l2 4271 NATIVE WHITE 1592(E.B.-4)
(F.B.=58)594l NATIVE—J WHITE “ :3qu (1.33,.
Male Female 27)
[j’ leew Haven
[f' ] Bethany
FIGURE 2

POPULATION COLTARISONS OF BETHANY AND NEW HAVEN TOWNSHIPS

oz
‘—/

gan Sugar Beet factory; and Alma, the largest town in the
county with a population of 9,341, with several manufactur-
ing plants such as house trailer factories, a piston—

manufacturing company, ani oil refineries. Alma College is

also located in this town.

Description of Townships Selected

 

New Haven township is so locatei that it has no state
highway crossing it or wi,hin six or eight miles of its

.n
v

boundaries. The nearest town is arson City in Montcalm
County, a rural town of 1,168 population, located three
miles from the southwest corner of the township. Ithaca,
the county seat of Gratiot County, is six miles from the
northeast corner of the township.

Bethany tovnship is crossed by the trunk line M46
and is bounied on the west for two miles by U. S. 27. On
the west boundary and extending into the township is the
town of St. Louis. One half mile east of the township is
the rural town of Breckenridge.

There is a small amount of residential building along
M46, one of these trunk lines. Alma is less than two miles
from Bethany township's western border ani more than nin,
miles from New Haven township.

'Some people in Bethany township founi employment in
Yiilani, while some in New Haven are erployei in Lansing as
well as in the smaller towns within the county (see Fig. 3,

page 24).

MAP SHOWING LOCATION O
BETHANY AND NEW HAVEN
TOWNSHIPS IN RELATION

 

 

KEWENAW

 

ALGER

 

scthCRAFT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0“
00°
*
MW"
WTTE
BAR GA
IRON
DICKINSON
\N DEL rA
NOMINEE

FIGURE 3

TO NEARBY CITIES

P\NRH4

   

CPE BOYGAN

 

 

MACKINAC

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Carson City
Ithaca
Alma

St. Louis

. Bethany

a New Haven

 

 

LUCE

24

     
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RE
0
6 '3L
4°“
\v
5
orscco lmmuonzucv AL NA
ANTRIM ‘
3
«7’
AL KA anwrono oscom ALCONA
BENZIE GRAND TI 1‘!!!
—————-——— _—_—-—
MANISTEE wexroao MISSAUKEE noscouuou OGEMAW IOSCO
MA on LAK OSCEOLA CLARE GLADWIN ARENAC
N
in
OCEANA Wo— MW ISABELLA MIDLAND
Tuscan SAW-“c
46 __me
so WN'I'CALM ORA
K NT LAPEEI
1 . amass: m
3 CL
OTTAWA erd IONIA CLINTON SHIAWASSEE
O
Rapids
OAKLAND “Acoua
N BA EATON u L "‘03 0"
'LanSIng
VAN N KALAqufia CAL A K N 'WAsH'rENAw WAY“
§
Q j
5 W“ .JOSEPH BRA cu

 

 

 

 

 

 

25

The townships of Bethany anl New Haven are not exact
duplicates of each other agriculturally.6 They are simi~
1ar, however, anl differ primarily in that Bethany has
slightly more population, harvested crop acres, cows, beans,
wheat, and corn than does New Haven (Fig. 2, page 22).
Their type of farming is about the same, according to the
county's agricultural agent and according to the 195? agri—
cultural census (see Fig. l, p. 21).

The additional size of Bethany is offset by the fact
that it is riven a hither Quote in the fund—raising work.
Bethany with a quota of $767.00 raised 3522.33, which is
about 69% of its quota. New Haven with a quota of “634.03
raised 3301.00, which is 45% of its quota (see Fig. 4, pare
26).

In New Haven township the average contribution per

o a c o .o ' r‘ fin _\
river was 52.40, while in Bethany township the aver.;e cen-

trihution was $5.20.? The contributions of Bethany township
givers of $5.23 average per giver are an increase of 35%

’0
(D
CD

greater than were those of New Haven township ( Fig. 5,
pore 26). Or in Bethany 61% of the givers gave over 31.30,
compared to only 53% in New Haven claiming to have given

over 31.00.

 

6‘ - . A I F -—1
A?F10U1tU?8L ~enSu€ by townships 1153. nfirl. lxtet—
sion 96 t. Fichican itate Colleve.
9 a a

7Gratiot Coun y United Fund deport, thn Naglekirk,
Consurers lower Company, Alma, lichigan.

(“Cl

26

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

43%
I Portion of goal lunmet portion _:]
reached 301 694
69%
[Portion of goal reached [unmet portion]
522 767
FIGURE 4
F Neijaven 1 GOAL AND RESULTS or
BETHANY AND NEW HAVEN
TOWNSHIPS
['7 Bethany J

 

 

 

[g 81.00 or less 571 12?

Average amount per giver 82.40

 

[‘ 31.00 or less I

64 162
Average amount per giver 35.20

FIGURE 5
GIVERS IN BETHANY AND NEW HAVEN TOWNSHIPS

\3

R)

'on of the United Fund Drive in Rural Areas

r)
H
C“)
d‘
t—J

The usual rural area organizational technique was

’3
a
w
"l
n

followed in Gratiot county tennsh fund-raising pur-
poses, namely, the county rural area cinirman selects a

chairman for each tom'nship. The township chairman then

uses the metnoi most suited to t t particular area. Usual—
ly th: township will be divilei accoriing to local school

districts, wherever such districts still ey ist, all the per-
son in charge of each district will select a committee in
the district to assist in the collections. Where school
districts no longer exist because of consolidation, the
township uses other divisional methods such as certain
roads, sections or quarters. In both cases the township
Chairman usually has area chairmen within the township who
(i‘rect the contact of the potential giver.
l§g1ection of R sidents for Interviewing

Since time and money did not permit further work, it
xwas iecidel that 150 heads of households shouli be inter-
Vieewed in order to obtain sufficient information to com pare
thee givers with the non—givers of the two townships. Using

the total number of residents of each township, 62 inter-

 

: ttee mee ings of the U. H .&lV. eri
as ‘esc rihed to the WP] 't r by the cha irmc"n of rural eras? of
\fl"“tict County for the past several veers, JeLn Eagle t.i:rk,
COnSirers Ioner Company Superinter 1 nt 01' Rural Iin ;, Con-
m”“eTC.lower Company, n1 , Michigan.

Qtservei in com.

”('3

views were selected to represent New Haven and 99 to repre~
sent Bethany for the total 150 interviews. This nunber of

interviews representsguyh of the total residents.

Using a 1353 state highway map, in which each of the

residents was numbered, and using a number selection svs-
tam,9 resiients were selected and these residents inter-

viewed. The onlv exception was when a home was not occu-
piel at the tine, in which case an extra selection was made.

Conducting the Interview

 

The interviewer in every case was the writer. The
female head of the household was approached ant the purpose

of the interview was explained. Occasionally the male men-

(0

bar of the resiience was present and offered many answer
and comments; however, for the most part the interviewer re-
corded the answers anl consents of the female head of the
household.

Interview'ng started in Fethany townshir in March of
.d continued there and in New Haven township through

10

the latter part of June.

H
\o
vi
p
(‘3
a

 

9T. C. McCornick, Elementary Social Statistics (New
York: ldal), p. 227.

10"It flakes Sense" "s a 16 mm. rovie which explains
the Operation of conhined collection for voluntary health
and welfare agencies. It is preprrei and distributed by
United Health and Welfare Fund of Kichigan, Lansing, Yichi-
gen. The use of this rovie and the shift of work from one
township to the other is explained on page 75.

ll)
g)

losponse t7 the int‘rv1ew~w3 was consiiered good.
Tne interviewer, after intrciucing hinself as being frzr
Yichigan State College ani explaining that he was attempt-

ing to learn from the peeple of Gratiot Count y how they

felt about the various agencies collecting soney and wheth—
er such work shouli be combinei and continued, was reaiily
almitted. Generally, peeple talkel very freely ani answered
all of the questions. The average length of each interview
was about one ani one-half to two iowrs.

Two names of non—existing tMencies were usei in the
scheiule for the purpose of checking the accuracy of the
answers to the question of Pnowleflge of the different agen—
cies. From the answers to these questions the accuracy of

he interview was consiierel very gooi or about 90% ac-
cur-«ta.

Accorli n: to the snount of the actual contribution11
and the awount speci°ied by the interviewee, the results of

a o o o a fi/
nterView indiCatei people reporting gifts a about 2?;

H.

the
above the actual amount contributed.

150 interviews
3 iiscardei (because of stated knowledge of
false check agencies inserted)

147 presentinf accurate information on knowledge
of agencies

 

llnverace actual c rtci'u ion as to‘: en fro v the
records of the County U.H.%n’.

Accuracy of

72.95W1Ct
4.33 33:0
in
res

' P 4..' «-
1TH 91‘1"??? clam

:1 contributio n from
ortei COdtfllk‘tlHn, W3.
factories ani fl.c 9
1y 1e1uct01 from the

of contributldfi:
countv “zecoris

th those that jrve
cf er ylnvmapt el—

IV. DIFFERETTIATICH 1? BASIC CYIENTATICY OF RURAL EEOTLE
AND THEIR PARTICIPATICY IN AND ATTITTDE TOWARD

THE UNITED PVND IN GRATIOT COJNTY, MICHIGAN
Determining Orientation Classification

Since all of the peeple involved in this study were
rural residents, it becomes evident that differences in the
past and present experiences of these rural people must be
explored to bring to light sore of the reasons for varia—
tion in participation anl attituies.

In some quarters it is a common misconception1 that
rural residents are farmers or that because they live in
rural areas they are rural oriented or have a rural back-
sround.

For purposes of clarification, three classifications
of the peeple studied have been made: (1) Rural Oriented,

(2) Rurban Oriented, and (3) Urban Oriented.2

 

1Observation anl analys s, by the writer, of dis-

1

cussions with U.H.&W. officials.

2The writer acknowledges the fallacies of this clas-
sification because of the possibility of the inclusion of
those in each group who may be actually oriented to another.
In other words, because of rural orientation, it does.not
mean that some of the people in this group could nit have
all or many of the urban characteristics or that some of
those in the urban group coul1 not have those of the rural
Troup. There is a greater possibility, however, that this
inverse orientation does not occur to any great extent.

\u
so

The items considered in classifyin: those inter-
viewed were: place and length of residence and occupation
of both the husband and wife. Consideration was not given
to the residence of a person before the age of ten.

Rural Oriented Group

 

This group included only those, both husband and
wife, who hal lived their entire lifetime in rural areas.
Those who may have moved from other states could qualify,
providing their residence there was rural. In addition to
this residential requirement, the occupation must be that
of a farmer or homemaker and there must have been a minimum
of outside work which would tend to broaden the experiences
of this group. In the event that the husband had lived in
the county several years since age 13 anl the wife's resi-
dence had always been rural or vice versa, they were dis-
qualified from this group.

Urban Oriented Group

 

Although this group will be discussed last of the
three throughout our discussion, we take it up second here
because of the method used to determine its qualifications.

After rural oriented people were selected from the
group, all of those who, both husband and wife, had lived
at least 1) years in the city were selectel. From this
residential selection, those who were not farmers but are

at present professional workers, supervised or supervisory

\ \2
\‘w

employees, self employed or retirei other worker were se-
lected from the group. These we call our Urban group.
Rurban Oriented Group

 

Following the rural anl urban selection, the remain-

ing were those who had some of the characteristics of bet

the rural and urban groups. They could not be classified

with either of the previous sroups. In this group were

those of whom the husband or wife had lived at least

one year in the city or else had a regular job other than
farming.
The classification resulted in the division of those

interviewed according to Table I.

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE I
OYIENTATICN C ASS *ICADION CV INTERVIENEES

Classification Number Per cent
Rural Oriented 41 27.5
Rurban Oriented 71 47.5
Urban Oriented 58 25.4

Total 150 100.0
X2 = 11.87 d. f. = 2 P = less than 1%

Previous chapters have treated the history and de-

VelOpment of voluntary and public health and welfare agen-

Cies as to their acceptance, u

S

e, and participation in

these agencies by peeple in rural and urban areas.

Z 13.,

In this chapter let us look at the effect of differ-
ent orientation of the peOple, in rural areas, on their at-
titude and participation in the voluntary health and wel-
fare activities, with special reference to the United Fund
Drive of Gratiot County, as measured in Bethany and flew
Haven townships.

It may here and now be hypothesized that rural areas
are lagging in their support of voluntary health and wel—
fare agencies because of the rural orientation of the peeple
who inhabit the rural areas.

One of the first measures of participation is wheth—
er or not peOple contribute to the United Fund campaign in
the county.

There were found to be several classifications of
peOple in response to the question of giving and to the
question concerning the amount of the contribution. Part
of the answer developed in the answer to the direct ques-
tion, "Did you contribute this year?” To this question the
interviewee's answers were classified: yes, no, and don't
remember. Iart of the answer developed from the answer to
the question, ”What was the amount of your contribution?”
Under this question the answers were classified: less than
Y71.00, 31.00 to $2.99, $5.00 to $4.99, $5.00 to $9.00, and

310.00 or more, and don't remember.

35

At a time when the market price of wheat is in the
21.80 to $2.23 per bushel range,5 the price of pork is
320.00 to $24.00 per cwt., the price of top beef is 322.00
to 326.00 per cwt., and whole milk is $5.00 to $4.00 per
cwt., or when it is difficult to obtain common labor at
less than $1.00 per hour and common factory wages are from
31.50 to $2.00 per hour, then a a contributor of less than
$5.00 was classified as a non—giver. The writer realizes
the fallacies of this classification. For example, one in-
.terviewee who had been a solicitor stated that "one woman
gave me thirty-seven cents and I really hated to take even
that much." However, for most peeple anything less than
$3.00 does not represent any great effort or sacrifice. It
is also probably true that $10.00 for some would not repre—
sent a true expression of giving. It is the feeling of the
writer, however, that anything over $3.00 begins to become
significant, for the reason that it could usually be used,
in the average home visited, to good advantage. Less than
this amount is often treated rather lightly and would be
given because of the solicitor or many other reasons rather
than the real cause.

There is a difference in each group, in participation

by giving. Since there was a greater nurber of rurban or-

3Estimated by J. Doneth, tichigan State Collese De—
partment of Agricultural Economics, Nichigan State Collefie,
1954.

iented than either the rural or the urban group, the per—
cent in each group of the total givers fails to convey the
true picture. Therefore we shall deal with each group sep-
arately and list the percent of that group that were giv—
era.

In the rural oriented group, a higher percentawe of
the group are non-givers than is the percentage in the rur-

ban or urban group (Table II).

TABLE II

GIVERS AND NON-GIVERS BY GROUP ORIENTATION

 

 

Non-givers Givers Don't remember

 

 

 

Group % % %
Rural oriented (41) 7O 22 8
Rurban " (71) 50.7 58 11.5
Urban " (58) 52.6 51.5 15.9
X2 = 5.5524 d. r. = 4 r = 20-50%

If we were to assume that those who answered, "I
don't remember" were non-givers, which is more than likely,

our table would read as follows:

TABIE III
GIVZRS AN 1 NCN-GIVERS, INCI"? “I G I} THE NOI-GIVER GRCUI‘
THCEE WIIO DIDN'T NTVERRER NHE HE R C? NO'T THEY HAD
CONTRIBUTED THIS YEAR

 

 

 

 

 

Group Non-givers Giéers
Rural oriented (41) 78 22
Rurban " (71) 62 58
Urban " (58) 68.5 51.5
x2 5.0889 d. r. = 2 P = 20—50%

Gamble statesLL that one of the reasons that money is
more easily raised in cities than in farming areas is that
"city residents are twice as prosperous as are those of
farms." The results of our study revealed a much higher
pe ercentaje of the rural oriented group to be in the lower
income bracket (30 to $2,000.00)5 and a much lower percent-
age to be in the higher bracket (14,000.00 and over) as com-

pared to the rurban and urban groups.

Income break

 

The grouping of those with incomes of less than

32,000 annually into the lower income group is based on the

4Char1es W. Gamble, How to Raise Honey (New York:
1942), p. 9. ‘

 

5Income was determined by the direct question and
prefaced with whatever was used for income tax purposes.
The honesty of the interviewee was relied upon entirely.
It is recognized that this method is not without error, but
from the direct interview the interviewer considers the
answers not to be too incorrect.

\N
,0

writer's belief that accordinr to 1954 economic standards
anything less than $2,033 net income annually would hardly
provide a minimum living for the average fiichigan family.
The 32,300 to 3 ,000 net income level would probably
rroviie sufficient funds for satisfactory living for the
average family, whereas those with $4,000 annual income and
over certainly should be able to realize a suitable stand-

ard of living with some available funds for luxuries or

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

charities.
TABLE IV
INCTTE CLASSIFICATION BY GROUIS

pron Less than 32,300 to $4,000

a p 32,000 34,000 and over
Rural oriented (41) 44.0% 5l.2% 4.8%
Turban " (71) 23.9% 50.7% 25.5%
Urban " (5?) 15.7% 55.2% 28.9%
X2 = 36.82 d. f. = 4 P = less than 1%

The study indicated less of the urban oriented group
to be in the lower incore bracket and more of them to be in
the higher bracket.

Income does affect contributions

 

 

Andrews6 states that "the prOportion of non-givers

ircreases with declining income." He also points out that

 

6Andrews, op. cit., p. ll.

39
60.4% of total contributions to such organizations as are
campaisned for in this study come from farilies with net
incomes of $6,)3).30 or less, by 1955 income standards.
The income status of the givers in rural Gratiot county is

shown in Table V.

 

 

 

 

TABLE V
48 :IVERs BY Intern GROUP
Income BIQEIEII Number Per cent of givers
Lower (up to $2,030) 6 12.5
Middle (:2,ooo to 34,000) 27 56.2
Upper ($4,000 and over) 15 51.2

 

 

Farm income for 19557 shows the labor income average
per farm to be 32,500 to 32,400, as compared to 84,507 for
the worker in Michigan manufacturing industry.8

Income is a factor in the giving process

 

However, there are those with higher incomes who

contributed less than those with low incomes. From this it

7Estimated 1955 farm labor income for Nichisan Farm—
ers by J. Doneth, Agricultural Economic Dept., Hichigan
State College.
8m . . -. .. . a
iaxen from monthly rublication by Lichigan smrloy-
ment Security Commission, Lansing, lichigan, 1954.

40
appears that there are other factors, in addition to income
and ability to give, that affect contributions.

Attempts to determine other factors that affect giv—
ing were made by analyzing why the givers contributed and
why the non-givers did not contribute, what they considered
themselves to he doing when they contributed to the U. F.
and what the U. F. really means.

All who made a contribution or were inclined to con-
tribute but hal not been asked, after some thought stated
their reasons for a giving attitude as: that they may need
help themselves, that they just believe in giving, because
others were giving, to help a worthy cause, because they
were asked, community or shop pressure, or to help the poor
down-and-outers.

These responses were classified as: (1) self inter—
est, (2) giving to help others, and (5) giving because of a
feeling of pressure. From this grouping we learn that all
givers described their effort at contributing or looked fa—
vorably upon contributing as indicated in the following

table (Table VI).

TABLE VI

CLASSITICATION OF 266 ANSWERS CF 48 GIVERS
AS TC WHY THJ GIVE

 

 

 

_-.-—_ *-

 

 

Percent Reason for giving
17.2 Selfish
62.4 Giving to help others or worthy cause
21.0 Because of feeling of pressure

 

 

according to Table VII each oriented 5

According to their basic orientation we find that

roup gave the atti-

l

tude of giving to help others in about the same proportion,

60.8% to 65. 576.

TABLE VII

REASON TO? GIVING

(71 interviewees' answers)

 

‘--~.— -. ----.—-_-.- -—.--

 

W‘ , —-.~. - v- --.—— .1...

 

Group Selfish Helpful Pressure

 

 

 

 

 

Rural oriented 15.0 60.8 24.0
Rurban oriented 16.4 61.4 22.0
Urban oriented 21.6 65.5 15.0
X2 = 2.0177 d. f. = 4 P = 50-70%
Fewer rural oriented people gave with the idea of ever ex—

pecting help for themselves and there was a wreater feeling

of pressure in the rural oriented than in the urban orient—

ed.

heveral typical conMents as to why *eople gave helps

to classify the reasons.

42
"'y husberl he: nniulant fever and ft“ neighbors
care in and heavestei his crops."

"I 91m¢fi€ NUVG Contributed t) Lion's CIUb--I hEVQ 8

Still others felt themselves fortunate and therefore in a
way oblifiated t» those less fortunate.

"We're lucky enou h to esc-pe we should help those

,-

who are down. It's kind of our duty."

"It's expectel of us as good citizens--we feel
rather fortunate snl can afford to help." (Income be—
tween 36,330 and $10,000 annually.)

There was the feeling of others:

"Everybody else does." "Everyhody else gives and
y u don't want then to think you're tight--we never ex-
pect to ever get help out of it—-couldn't if we needed
it."

In contrast, another urban oriented lady states, "If my
children needed help, I know they'd yet it somewhere. So
if we can help, we're fla' to do so."

Iarallelinfi the reason for giving is the attitude of
those interviewed on what they considered the U. F. to be
or to what they considered themselves actually contributing
when they pave to the U. F.

Many different answers were also fiven to this ques-

tion anl all were classified as: (l) I don‘t know,

43
(2) help for the poor, anl (3) the correct ilea which in-
cluded research, help for everyone, disaster, help for sick
and disabled and to rromote worthy activities.

Kore rural oriented people admitted they did not

really know (Table VIII), or believed it to be help for the

poor, and fewer of them hai the correct meaning of the U. F.

TABLE VIII

MEANING OF THE UNITED FUND IN GRATIOT ”CUNTY

 

 

 

 

 

Group Don't know Help for poor Correct idea
Rural (41) 9.0 22.4 70
Rurban (71) 4.5 19.0 76
Urban (58) 6.0 16.8 77
x2 = 2.65 d. r. = 4 P = 50-70%

As urbanization increases, it appears that the accu—

racy and knowledge also increase.

It is interesting here to compare the attitude toward
the meaning of the U. F. of the givers and non—givers of the

same income bracket ($2,000 to 34,000). (See Table IX.)

44
TABIE IX

GIVEYS AN NCN—GIVE-S IN TN? 72,330 T3 54,300 TC ME GROUP
AND TH73I12 IPfIQESEaI-C‘Y‘I CF V. F.

l

 

 

 

 

Don't know Help for poor Correct idea
Givers 5.0 18.1 79.5
Non-givers 9.5 21.4 73.2
9
X“ = 1.8791 d. f. = 2 P = 30-50%

There were 94 answers given by the 47 non-giver in—
terviewees and 66 answers niven by 31 giver interviewees in
the income bracket of 32,333 to 34,000.

From Table IX it can be seen that the more accurate
the concept of the agencies the greater the participation,
even though the income remains relatively constant.

Attitude may also be measured by the response to the
ques ion: Is this U. F. Drive and the organisations it rep-
resents a good thing for our country?

Rural oriented peOple were less inclined to approve
of such activity as the U. F. and more inclined to say it

is not good for the country or we'd be better off without

all these agencies (Table X).

TAPI E X
RES CNSE TC‘TUImLJ ~I: IS THE CIIVUYFIDN CF
THEE; VOIFNTAIY G‘TCIE AID SCIICIT TION OF FUNDS
'3

Q
A CKXZD THITK} FOI.‘TIIE JLIIUTLY?

*M

 

 

 

 

 

Group Yes No
Rural 80.0 7.5
Rurban 98.7 5.6
Urban 89.4 5.2
x2 = .9201 d. r. = 1 P = 20-53%

Another reasure of attitude way be male fror.= the an-
swers to the question: Do you feel that you should or
would like to know TOPS about the agencies involved? ”his
question was asked after the interviewee had rated all of
the agencies involved in the fund according to her knowledge
of them and whether she tho um t they deserved her support.
Here it was found that rural oriented people had less desire
to know more about the agencies and wore who indicated that
they definitely were not interested in knowing more about
them (Table XI).

TABLE XI
IWTHIUUT CI} ”(TLIVI VEES I“W‘VI IG.FORE
ABOUT AdosJIno INVOLVED

 

 

 

Group Want to know more Don't want to know more
Rurban 71.8 16.5

Urban 89. 9 10.5

._ .. .. . - .- ..—.—_ h---—_ -w-.. _

 

 

_.__—__,__.--._,-_-,. ---——— ...--.-.'.-—-.. 'M-K—.————- A

n-
L) l

4

What reasons did the non—rivers give for not giving?

The answers to this question were classified into: (1) Not
contacted, (2) don't want to give, and (3) couldn't afford

eive. Several answers were combined under i2) don't

k >

to
want to give, such as, don't believe in giving, or the com—
ment that these things are all gyp outfits anyway, or that
they don't like the way the money is used.

Yural oriented people indicated that relatively few
of them were not contacted, but that a rather high percent-
age don't want to give and a hiaher percentage said they

could not afford to give than in either the Rurban or the

Urban group (Table XII).

TABLE XII

REASCN 29 N N-GIVEQS DIDN'T GIVE

 

 

Group Not contacted Didn't want to give Can't afford

 

 

 

Rural 12.5 57.5 50.0
durban 41.2 17.7 41.2
Urban 69.0 15.4 15.4
X2 = 7.09 d. r. = 4 r = 10-20%

The increase in the nimber of failures to contact
Urban and Rurban oriented may be due to their absence from
home when the solicitor calls or to the “act that they have

not rade themselves a part of the community and the solici—

47
tor consequently failed to recoinize their presence in the
onmunity.

The 50 percent who said they could not afford to
five corresponds with Table IV, page ZR, which shows 44
percent of rural oriented peOple to have less than $2,000
annual income.

Fairly tynital of the attitude of some non-givers
may be that of two or three persons: "We don't even carry
life insurance." ”We've been raised to take care of our-
selves." "I guess 1 just got dissusted with them all com-
ing." "Ever since '46 ry husband has been sick and I've
had to work in the field." "We'd rather take care of our
own locally." "Neighbors always help out."

Those who indicated they knew the true function of
U. F. and the agencies included realized more fully the
benefit derived from it by the _ene-a1 public. Through re-
search everyone benefits, rich or poor, old or young.
Practically all men in the service at some time or other
made use of the Red Cross, Salvation Army or one of the
many branches of the U.S.O. Actually, everyone in this
country benefits from the Operation of some of these agen-
cies. The importance of recognition of use (for our study)
is that the rural people do not recosnize use of these
arencies. In many cases people would compliment or condemn

the Red Cross or Salvation Army for treatment their husband

14-0
or friends hal had in the service, but when asked if they
or their family, or a.yone they knew of, ever had occasion

to use any of these ajencies, they would promptly answer no.

f those who did indicate that they had, or knew of

O

", made use of some one of these agencies,

u)
p. ..

someone who h;
they were confused anl often listed wheel chairs and hos—
pital beds that were supplied by the local veterans organi-

zations. Tore rural oriented people failed to recognise

I)

the use of those agencies and urban oriented people seemed
to recognize use of them the most. Rural oriented people
responded ”no" more frequently when the questionlwas asked,

and urban p3ople answered "no" the least frequently (Table

XIII).

TABLE XIII

 

 

 

USE OF TIE AGLHCY AND RECOGNITION BY GROUPS
Group Recognized use No recojnition of use

 

...-..-- .. .

 

Rural 28.5 70.0

(‘N

Rurban 50.5 67.~

01

Urban 52.9 .5.

.-.----—--- ———-—. 3—- A..- “"

 

It was also found in the study that those recognising

f the arencies indicated 40.0% to be contributors as

0

use

compared to only 24% contributors of those not recognizing

y

use, when in the sfme $2,000 to $4,030 income bracket.

(

fl
4.4
‘I

a V I ’fi I p ’“
1e indicate ii'fersnt degrees of

.' -. + ' .-.'.‘.+ !
Differenol; cc? n-ei pea: ;" __ ,n -1

activity in communitv organizations

Here ,qain is a difference that rural oriented

)

peocle have, as comrared to those of other orientation.

Tore of the rural oriented people were found to be

in the low orcanizational activity classification, and more
of the urban oriented people indicated a larger percentage
of their group to be in the very fictive classification

(Table XIV).

 

 

 

 

333233 C“ CRGA'IJATICTAI ACTIVITY
Grou Low degree Fair d gree High degree
p of activity of activity of activity
Rural 48.7 56.5 14.6

Rurban 28.1 56.6 55.2
Urban 26.5 51.5 42.1

 

 

 

Organizational activity was measured by asking the
interviewees to whet organization they belonged and whether
they were very active, fairly active or inactive. It was
found that some peonle belonsed to several but were inactive
in all of them, while others were members of only two but
very active in both. In the latt-r case they were consid-
ered very active anl in the former they were considered as

having a low degree of activity.

50
How does organizational activity affect rorticipation in
United T--“und of the county or attitude toward U. F. activ—

ities?

o.

H

Those who are consi e ed to show a high degree of
activity in organizations show greater rarticipation in

voluntary health and welfare eeencies (Table XV).

TAPLE XV

QQGAfileTICTAL ACTIVITY Ari IiiTIoIIArIcn

Degree of activity Giver Non-giver

 

Low 14.5 42.2
Fair 27.0 5?.2
High 9.5 18.6

I

 

———-—-——u- --._. _

Readinrr habits affect contributions and attitude and are

' .
h._n

different for differently oriented groups (Table XVI).

TABLE XVI
IEAUIKG HABITS OF DIFFEREWTLY ORIENTED GROUPS

 

-—— ———-.—..__._ —_—.—-— __~_..—_-- - ..__. _-————— § .-

 

' 3V ' ‘ ' '7 .
Daily eekly 1-3 flaQEZIUeS 4 haaazines
paper paper ” '5

Rural 45 85.2 45.9 56.5

Group

Rurban 55 90.0 22.5 45.6
Urban 42 79.8 25.6 59.4

————-— "*w ——..,.. nv-_ --——-———_——..~.—...-

 

51
According to Table XVI, rural oriented people and
urban oriented do not avail themselves of the daily news
and local weekly paper as well as their rurban oriented
mixture. Kore rural oriented recple take rare magazines

than urban oriented people.

)

m‘n ,
.LLi‘D- C ’t‘?

elation of reading habits anl participation throush

0‘

(

(

r- o,
C

contribution of persons o 72,333 to 54,303 annual income

is revealed in Table XVII.

 

 

 

 

 

Daily Neekly l-5 4
paper paper Magazines Magazines
Givers 59.- -5.5 52.2 45.1
0
Summary

The significance of the comparison of the rural or-
iented, rurban oriented and urban oriented groups is that
we have been able to determine from these comparisons that
there is considerable difference not only in the diving
jprocess but also in the attitule, concepts and recognition
(if certain portions of that ,o which contributions are
made.

As rural orientation increases, oivinz decreases,

{Myi the reasons for giving become more the response to the

\ n
F0

actions of others than as a response to the Tenuine need.
Contributions decrease with decreasing income, anl rural
oriented peOple have a higher percentage of peOple with
lower income than other oriented groups living in rural

areas.

As rural oriented continue to decrease in number be-

'9

i.

cause of industrialization, it may be assumed that partici-

pation will increase along with greater urbanization orien-

- “7“” f—-7:r

tation.

l
I. .:

   

V. A ClenxnlIV“ STUDY 0? RURAL TCLNCHIPS

QF M {YIT G DZGYSES OF PARTICIPATICN

The selection of two rural arrieulturol townships
makes possible a comparison of a fairlv success sful fund
carpai rn for voluntarv health anl welfare afiencies in one,
and what mirht be considered an unsuccessful campaign in
the other. Referring to Figures 4 and 5, page 25, we ob—
serve thet actual average contribution per giver is $5.20
for Bethany Township and :;2.40 for New Haven To ownship.
Further, it is revealed that only 45% of the established
quota in New Haven Township was met, whereas 69% of the
quota was realized in Bethany Towns hip.

A cor irarison of the factors which appear to be im-
portant to participation reveals differences in the two
townships which tend to explain the relative degree of suc—
cess or lack of success. Lookins first at the basic orien-
tation of the people of each township we find a higher per-
centage of the pecple of the less successful township (New
Haven) to be rural oriented and a lower percentage of the

residents to be urban oriented (Table XVIII).

’TAFIC XVIII

CYITNTATIOJ OF PECILE CT BETHANY AND YEW HAVEN TONNSHIFS

 

 

 

I . Rural Rurban Urban
Township Oriented Oriented Oriented
Pethany (98) 20.5 51.1 28.4

 

 

New Haven (62) 56.9 42.0 21.0

_ _. -—.__.-—_ —— _-.. _ __ -_ ____.._-__ ._ -_. __ ._ _
_ .- - - »- ~-- ———

Since the previous chapter has indicated lower par-
ticipation, less favorable attitude and a less accurate
knowledge of the United Fund by rural oriented people, it
would therefore follow that higher population of rural or-
iented peeple in a given area would logically result in re-
duced participation.

A measure of participation by each township reveals

{.3

that more of the residents of New Have township are non-
:ivers and fewer of them are givers than are those of Beth-

any township (see Table XIX).

TABLE XIX

GIVERS AW RON-GIVERS BY TCWNSHIIS

.— —- —- "-—.—-—_.-—-—

 

 

 

 

Township Non—@ivers Givers Don't rerenber
Vethany (90) 51.1 55.2 8.0

 

New Haven (62) 64.5 27.4 6.4

-,_.- __._ ._.---_. ....___ _ ...__-_. .._..._.._._.._..-7.--........_.-._-.._.
- ~_—4- _— “*4 u , . - ’M a.“ --—n——-.-— ¢ I 'v - ~u

 

Ttere seens to be difference in the participation

M .1

C.)

y-

- . . - /
of the various oriented groups in the two townships \889

Table XX). Yvrel and Urban oriented of Fethany to*m snip
snowed * greater percentaje participating than dii the safe

.jroups of New Haven tewnship.

TABLE X-

(

PARTICIIATION (GIVEQS AND VON-GIVERS) FY CIIIHMATICN GR3U iIS

m«:.T-.7_~_771-r

 

 

 

 

 

 

           

Non—givers Givers
Township -~-~—~ --—~~"w
Rural Hurban Urban Rural Rurban Urban
Bethany (45) 61. 49. 48 (51) 27.7 58. 56.
New Haven(40) 74. 46.1 84.6 (17) 21.7 42.5 8.

 

 

If we look at the reasons that were given in answer
to why givers gave, we find that people appearel less self—
ish in their giving, more desirous of beinv helpful and

slightly less pressured than did those of New Haven (Table

XXI).

TABLE XXI

CN '02 GIVING
66 reasons)

—- ~-. -—.-.—

 

 

 

Township Selfish Helpful Pressure
Bethany (144) 14.6 64.6 20.8
New Heven(l22) 20.5 58.2 21.5

 

 

X2 " 2.08 d. f. = 4 1:- : 70.43036

From a comparison of Table XXI with Table VII, paqe
41, the Bethany township residents' "reasons for giving"
are in similar proportions to those of the more urban or-
iented group in that they are more concerned with helping
and have less feeling of pressure. The prOportion of Beth-
any township givers showing a selfish attitude toward giv—
ing followed the pattern of rural oriented people.

The reason peorle do not give in New Haven is indi-
cated by the answer that 40% cannot afford to give, as com-
pared with Bethany's 52.1% that said they could not afford

to give (Table XXII) and 50% of those of the rural oriented

group who said they couldn't afford to give.

TABLE XXII

REASONS F0? NOT GIVING
(a TOYHSHIPS)
(58 reasons)

 

 

 

T ‘ chi Not Don't Can't
owns p contacte like to afford to
Bethany (28) 45.0 25.0 52.1
New Haven (10) 50.0 10.0 40.0

 

9......— — ~ -.~___—-- .0—_ ....—- o”-.. -u“ ——--

 

 

Reduced income decreases the contribution (see Table
V, page 59).
Rural oriented people have lower incomes (Table IV,

page 58) than other oriented grgupg. A higher percentage

of rural oriented people rake up the population of New

 

57

Haven township (Table XVIII, page 54) than Bethany township

and a higher percentage of New Haven township residents say
they cannot afford to give (Table XXII, page 56).

According to Table XXIII, it appears that a greater

percentage of New Haven township residents are in the lower

income brackets and fewer of them are in the hioher bracket

than Bethany township residents.

TABLE XXIII

IFCCVE BY TONNBHIPS

 

 

V _ . ‘ ho ,." __ K 1
Township 33 32,303 34,0J9 34,000 34,000 +

 

income income income
Bethany (88) 22.7 54.5 22.5
New Haven (62) 55.8 48.0. 17.6

 

 

In comparing the attitude of the two townships as
measured by the idea of what the U. F. is, should or would
you like to know more about the agencies included, and is
such activity goo; for the country, the township pattern
followed that of orientation attitudes (Tables X and XI,
page 45). Residents of Bethany, the successful township,

indicated a desire to know more and considered these thing

(D

J

{

good for the country. However, in FGmETi to the meaning of
U. F. by townships, as compared with Table VIII (page 47),
residents of the less successful township admitted less

frequently that they did not know what the U. P. really

\71

meant and, less often than Bethany residents, referred to
it as help for the poor. New Haven gave a higher percent-
age of the correct idea of what the U. F. really does rep-

resent (Teble XXIV).

TABLE XXIV

L

ATTITU.3 TOWARD U.F. YEASURED BY T1333 QUESTIONS

y

 

 

- --—.——

 

 

._-_....—-.-.—_.‘—-- mm--- . --_-_-_—_..---.——..-._ ‘.---—-..—.—...— -.._.

' - Don't H l for "orr ct
Question Township e p v e

 

 

 

 

 

 

know poor idea
What interviewee Bethany (164) 7.5 20.1 71.9
considers U.F.
to be New Haven(ll7) 4.2 17.9 76.9
Yes No
Desire of inter— Bethany (80) 78. 4 12.4
viewee to know
nore New Haven (58) 72.5 21.0
Yes No
Is this good for Bethany (PO) 87. 5.4
the country?
New Haven (59) 85. 9.6

Recognition of the use of agencies

 

From Table XXV, township success can be correlated
with the degree of urbanization of the township in the ques-
tion of recognition of use of agencies by the residents.
From Table XIII, page 48, recognition of use increased with
urbanization and decreased with rural orientation. A hijh-

er degree of rurality resulted in less recognition of use

of the agencies and more inclination to report no use

(Table XXV).

TABLE XXV

RECOGJITION OF FEE OF AGENCIES (B TONISHIPS)

 

 

 

 

Township Qecognize use Do not recognize use
Bethany (171) 52.4 65.0
New Haven (121) 27.4 70.1

_-—-_——’ _-—-.___-_.._. __

 

——..- .— 9-—

 

Crganigapional activity

 

This increased with urbanization and decreases as
orientation becomes more rural (see Table XIV, page 49).

In Table XXVI the township (New Haven) with the
higher degree of rurality reveals a lower degree of organi-
zational participation, and Bethany township with a higher
percentage of urbanization indicates a higher organization-

al participation.

TABLE XXVI
ORGAN ZATIONAL ACTIVITY (BY TCTNSHIIS)

 

_. - _..._.......—-»o.—.—.._- -—-- H— ..._..

 

.-——.. —. » -——.-.. ._____

Low degree Medium degree High degree

 

 

Township of activity of activity of activity
Bethany (89) 28.2 58.6 55.0

New Haven (62) 59.8 50.6 29.0

 

 

 

 

 

.—‘.- “-7. c.—- ._ -.—.—_ -_—~.-_. ..

 

 

 

Resdin: habits

 

Another factor which was considered to have a pos—
'sible influence was the reading habits of the residents.
Table XVII (page 51) reveals the relationship of increased
reading material in the form of daily and weekly papers and
magazines to contributions. Here iivers indicated a much
higher percentage to be readersl than were non-readers.
Comparison of readiny patterns of our townships indicates
the more successful, the more urbanized, .he sore organiza—
tionally active people also to be Greater realers of local

current "ffFlPS, whereas the less successful were greater

CA

subscribers to ragazines.

i ABLE XI'VII

READING HABITS (BY TEENSHIPE)

 

 

 

 

Towpnhi Daily Weekly 1‘5 4*
..c. D paper paper Magazines Magazines

 

Bethany (29) 54.5 96. 19. 57.
New Haven (62) 40.0 95.2 41.9 45.1

—- —‘-—- ......._ _ -

 

_ ..

Summary of township comparison

 

 

Tne comparative analysis of township participation
in voluntary health and welfare agencies reveals the rela-

tionship which exists between orientation and participation.

 

hey are here assumed to be readers, because they
subscribers.

E
(D
.3
(D
H
H.
m
d F3]
<0
r2.
U)

61

U)

The correlation between orientation on} participation i
obscured and develOps throughout the chapter with the
greater partici_ation occurring wherever urbanization and
urban characteristics become more prominent.

The more rural oriented the township residents are,
the less favorable their attitude becomes toward voluntary
health and welfare agencies. The more informed they indi—
cated themselves to be about the agencies, the less inter—
ested they are in knowing more about them.

More urbanization of a township indicated greater
recognition of use of the agencies and at the same time
greater organizational activity and wider reading habits.

The differences in each comparison were not great,

but the combination of all the differences reveals some of

the reasons why there are differences between townships.

 

OHS IWFLUENCISG PARTICIPATIOV OW PEOPLE
OF DIFFERENT ORIENTATICV AND DIFFERENT AREAS

AS OBSERVED BY GROUP AND AREA COMPARISONS

Participation in voluntary health and welfare activ-
ities by giving, as pointed out in previous chapters, is
first brought about by asking. The response to this initial

step is influenced by many factors.

. V.L3

In Chapter IV the relationship of basic orientation

_ L ".‘ ‘

to participation appeared as an important factor. In Chap— 3
ter V the influence of orientation is also felt in compari—
son of selected areas.

Within the s00pe of orientation and area there are
factors in common which also affect participation of the
individual in the voluntary ealth and welfare program. An
attempt has been made to measure some of these factors.

The effect of each of the factors, with the excep-
tion of income, appears to be rather minor. However, the
total of these factors appears to have an influence on the
participation to the extent of 55% increase of one area
over another.

The educational level of the wives in the two town-
ships showed the greatest difference, with New Haven town-
ship residents indicating that 42% of the heads of the
households had not gone beyond the 8th grade, in contrast

to 27.2% of those of Bethany township.

m
\N

Selected diff,rences of the givers and non-givers in se—
lected rural areas of Michigan

There are many factors which make it possible for
peeple to give and many other factors which cause them to
give or not to give even though they are able and the
process of giving is made convenient.

One of the first requirements in getting people to
give is stated by Andrews:l "Asking is necessary." This
factor alone makes rural solicitation a problem because of
the distance between residences and the expense on the part
of the solicitor for making return trips in case the poten-
tial giver is not at home when the Solicitor calls.

Farmers are all engaged in an independent business,--
at least independent in the sense that each farmer works
individually and must be contacted as an individual for
voluntary giving. Group contact for explanation and col-
lection is much less likely or is even impossible, as com—
pared with other workers.

Many other people who live in rural areas are away
from home working-—in some cases both the husband and wife
-—which, when added to the greater distances between resi-
dences than in the case of urban residents, makes them dif—

ficult to contact. The interviewer experienced this diffi-

 

l a I n. . a
F. nmerson Andrews, Attitudes Toward uiVing (New
York: 1955).

 

64
culty when he found it necessary to make as many as 8 trips
to some residences, at different times of the day, in order
to find someone at home. It is probable that a solicitor
would not contact this person if this amount of time and
effort were required. The cost of collection in such cases
woull more than likely exceed the contribution. In some
cases the solicitor in rural areas woull know better when
to find these people at home, but in many others he knows
very little about the habits of the families that live in
his neifhborhood.

In spite of what is considered a well organized coun-
ty for the solicitation of funds over a period of 7 years,
Table XXVIII shows that of 58 peeple who said they did not
give, 17 said they were not contacted: 44.7% of the admit—
ted non-givers2 or 11.3% of the total sample indicated they

were not contacted for a contribution.

TADIE XXVIII

ADMITTED REASONS PC? HOT GIVING

-— -s— .-

 

 

 

 

. Not Refused Can't afford
InterV1ewees . . _ .,
contacted to give to give
Non-givers (39) 44.7 21. 54.
Informsnts (150) ll.5 5.3 8.6

 

 

 

2 . ' . . .

Admitted non—rivers are those who said they did not
rive and does not include those who gave less than $5.00 and
are considered in Chapter IV as non-givers.

65
In some cases it is the feelins of the writer that

contact was not made by the solicitor because of a feeling
on the part of the solicitor that that particular person
couldn‘t afford to give. However, included in the group of
those who said they were not contacted were some who indi—
cated they planned to give but did not because they were
not contacted. It may be assumed from this that there were
some who probably could not have afforded to give.

Can't afford to give

3

Income has been pointed out by Gamble as one of the
reasons rural peOple do not give as much as urban peOple.
Of those 59 interviewed who said they did not give, 15 (or
54.2%) of those who said they did not give said they could
not afford to give. These 15 represent 8.6% of the total
number interviewed (Table XXVIII).

Whenever a person said he could not afford to give,
one is immediately concerned with what is involved in a
person's determination of whether or not he considered him-
self able to afford to give or not. Who can afford to
give? Is that which one gives the portion of his incom-
that he can get along without, or does it represent a real
sacrifice on his part? Real giving results when people

give, not that which they do not need, but that WJiCh they

 

3

Gamble, or. cit., p- 9-

 

66
could well use but willingly do without in order to help
othersfL About the only method we have for determining the
accuracy of the reason for not giving (”we can't afford to
give") is by the reported income and average farm income as
reported by the Agricultural Economics Department, Michigan
State College, page 54. Of those thirteen who said they
could not afford to give, only one reported himself to be
in as high an income group as the $4,000 to $6,030 classifi-

cation (Table XXIX).

TABLE XXIX

INCOME OF THOS' WHO CAN'T AFFORD TO GIVE

 

 

Less than $2,000-34,000 34,000-fi6,000

Interviewees , . . .
32,003 income income income

 

Informants(13) 38.5 53.8 7.7

 

 

Many of these informants had families to support,
and their furnishings were such as would indicate that they
‘were in need of every available dollar of their earnings
for their own use. It was the interviewer's observation
that those who said that they could not afford to give were
sflxusere. Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, Dr. Don

Paarlberg,5 stated that, in 1949, 40% of the farm operator

 

4 . .
Author's understanding of "g1v1ng."

5Dr. Don Iaerlberg, Assistant to the Secretary of
,ATFICUltUPG, 1954, in an address to the American Country
LifVa Association at its thirty-third annual conference at
P4111033 Center, Lichigan State College.

.9 mung.

‘3'“? ‘2 .'-

. ‘vA‘. I

new '

67

Q)

families of the United States had gross income from all
sources of less than $2,000.
The inliviiual's concept of U.F. and participation

when people give to such an agency as the U.r., one
would assume that they must have certain concepts of that
agency or organization. It would aprear that they must
picture themselves as contributing to some specific needs

or as helping some particular cause or group of causes.

0

‘ 773-1“? 7‘71. V" . .‘ u
‘ “‘5'

In order to learn what their conce~t of the U.F. was
,

v.
2 .
b...__.

the interviewer asked the question: "What do you think of x
yourself as elping when you contribute to the county U.F.

h
Seldom was the informant ready with an answer and probing

N.-

was usually necessary, such as, "Just what do you think of
your'contributions as helping?"

Table XXX shows that forty-eight givers had a clear-
er ani more accurage concept of what the U.F. really is than
the one hundred and two non-give s. Fewer givers reported
that they didn't know what the U.F. was or what they consid-
ered.themselves as helping. Fewer of them considered their

ccurtributions as help for the poor and a considerably high-

(yr percentage were more correct in their idea of what they

a

wnyre helping. he correct answer would be: to aid re-
searrfih help in case of disaster, help worthy causes, sick

gmyi disabled, and help for everyone.

ea

INTERVIEWEE'S CONCT‘II’m CF U.F. AGENCIES

 

 

 

 

 

Interviewees a§:%e:: Don't know Help poor 22:::;:
Givers (49) 105 2.9 16.5 80.5
Non-givers(102) 178 7.8 20.7 71.3
X2 = 5.03 d. r. = 4 P = 20-50%

Knowledge of agencies of the U.F.

 

One of the objectives of any voluntary health and
welfare agency is to develOp among the people an under-
standing of its services and Operational procedure. It is
hypothesized that generally the lay person knows very little
about the agencies included in the U.F.

In order to measure the knowledge a special device
was constructed with the assistance of Dr. Duane Gibson and
Dr. Joel Smith, Department of Sociology, Michigan State
College.

This device required two operations. First, all of
the agencies included in the United Fund were classified by
the interviewee according to her knowledge of it. This
classification consisted of: (1) These I feel I know what
they are and what they do; (2) these I feel 1 know what they
are but not sure what they do; (5) I have heard of these

but know nothing about them; (4) these I have never heard of.

E "l

The second step, each of the above classifications
was rated by the interviewee as: (l) deserving my whole-
hearted support, (2) deserving some support, and (3) I'd
rather not help. With this device the interviewee was
asked to place the card, representing the organization, in
a certain pocket according to his knowledge of the agency.

In dividing knowledge into uprer knowledge and lower
knowledge group, the upper knowledge group consisted of
those who considered themselves as knowing what five of the
more commonly heard of agencies were and what they do. The
agencies they were expected to know about were the ones
most frequently rated high in the knowledge bracket. They
were Salvation Army, Red Cross, Sister Kenny Foundation,
Boy and Girl Ecouts, and USO. Eighty-five percent of the
informants considered themselves as knowing fairly well or
well what they were and what they did. Deducted from the
count were those who said they knew well or fairly well the
two non-existent agencies,—-Hichigan Association of Animal
Kindness and Convulsion Irevention Association,--which were
listed along with the others.

Givers have a greater knowledge, or a greater per-
centage of those in the upper knowledge group are givers
than those of the lower knowledge group, and a greater per-
centage of the lower knowledge group, anl a greater rer-
'centage of the lower knowledge group are non-rivers than of

the upper knowledge group (Table XXII).

7O

'frfl" 'T." P” .1 ”run . 17*? rear.“
.' -‘.\_/-.\_. 3nd; 11. '3 VS 1.1. 3LT LTikJ‘LJU

 

 

 

 

 

Hnowledg group Number Non-rivers Civers
Upper 76 55.9 53.4

lower 71 69. 95.9

Eliminated* 5

"'"mi‘élc'ailéé' ;7_;~"'1333255;c§3£ 1;}3252155 sagas?“

Recognition of use

I J. ‘
lo; ohe

K

Closely allied to knowledge of the agency
recognition of use of the aeency by the lay person. Al-
thoujh everyone benefits anl makes use of the results of
research, scarcely anyone ever mentioned this when asked if
they or anyone they knew had ever made use of any of the
aeencies included ii the U.F. In many instances people
would talk about the Red Cross and Salvation Army's serving
them coffee while in the Service or mention the USO, but
when.asked whether they had ever made use of any of the
agencies, they were quite likely to answer no. Even though

'their children may have been in Boy or Girl Scout work,

‘they'night still answer no (Table XXKII).

 

TABLE KKKII

 

 

 

133 SN ZED USE C“ AGEECY
Recognized Don't
V T . \T T - u
use humber Yes he think so .0 ansner
By family 153 l7.5 79.5 2.6 .8
By others 150 43.3 54.6 .6 1.6

 

 

Recognition of use affects contribution

This affects contribution by the lay person, accord-

ing to Table XXXIII, which indicates that of those seventy—

nine who do recognize some use of the agencies by them—
selves or others, forty percent were givers, compared to
only twenty-four percent givers for those seventy-one who

did not reconnize use of the agencies.

TABLE XXXIII

~"'“IT'F'JCIFI‘ O? -ECCGNITICN CV USE ON IKRTICIPATION

L

 

'—

 

 

 

 

Informants Givers Non-givers Don’t remember
Recognizing use (79) 40% 52.4 7.6
Not recognizing use (71) 2 % 69. 7.
X2 = 15.64 d. f. = 2 P = less than 1%

I"

In addition to lot recognizing the use of agencies

0!

anceship with neimhbors that formerly existed in rural

When it is extremely common, there is the lack of acquaint—

‘-—»—«—-—_-.-:‘.—~—"‘.'f'=_r: a,

“E.

areas. In one ranticular instance the informant had a son

J

1

who was a victim of cerebral palsy and had been treated for
several years at the institution in Lansing for that pur—
pose. Although this boy was then attending high school and
ridin: the school bus daily, no one in that township knew
anything about anyone sufferinf from cerebral palsy in their
community. Only one rerson questioned guessed who the boy

misht be. This person recalled the rednest of this boy's

parents for bus transportation before he had reached the
necessary grade level to he transrocted automatically.

. r.-
Th1 p rson happened to be on the local school board.fl Ru—

U)
(‘D

ral residents were not as well acquainted with what goes on
in their neishborhood as they were a few decades ago, and
even though these services do come to their community they
do not know about them.3
Connection between knowledge of agency and recognition of
its use

knowledge of agency and recornition of use of the
agencies are rather closely allied. The group having great—
er knowledge indicates more recoenition of use on the part

of their own farilv and of others than does the lower

knowledge group (Table KKXIV).

n1

 

 

 

 

7:2:
TADIE KIKIV
VHCVIE'?B AND YECCGH TICN 0“ USE CF A3320 ES
Use by self & family Use by others
Knowledse
- I
group Y , Don't , Don t
J - es Jo . Yes Do .
think so ‘ think so
Hisher (76) 21. 75 4. 4P.7 51.5 —

\Q

lower (71) 14.6 84 1.6 56.6 63.5 2.

---

Since asking is a part of the physical operation of
the campaign orsanization, we shall omit further discussion

0
in this report. However, there are factors which affect

the concept of the indiviiual, the knowledge and the recog—
nition of use.

Those factors which seemed most obvious were: edu—
cational level of the husbani and wife, organizational ac-
tivity, and current reading material.

The educational level ani knowledge

Those with less than an 9th grade education showed a
considerably higher nercentage in the lower knowledge brack-
et than in the uprer knowledge group, while those who com-
pleted the 8th grade or more showed the reverse order. The
l<nowledge did not increase with education, but rercentage

in the urrer kn3W1ei39 group increased (Table XXXV).

TARIE XKXV

EUUCAT‘ICNAL STATUS A“? P'NC'VLEU’JE

 

Wife .usband

-‘——u—_--.—v .—-..— u)-.~.....—-._—_- -H...o _—

 

Knowledee srour
Q 9 * Less than 9th grade L-
Q

s than 9th grade
8th grade or more r

ad. or more

Uprer (76) 11.8 99.2 1

7 1
Lower (71) 22.5 77.5 59.4 59.3

 

 

Organizational activity

 

Such activity arneared to be a factor influencing
knowledge, or vice versa. Those in the upper knowledge
grouping indicated a considerably higher percentage to be
very active in organizations and a much lower percentafie

TABLE XXXVI

YNCNLE GE AND OYGAHIZATIONAL ACTIVITY

 

 

Low degree Medium degree Hidh degree
iKnowledge group A . . .+ f . . ~' . .
J 01 dCthloy of activ1ty of actiVity

 

'Upper (76) 21 56.8 42.1

Lower (71) 45 5.2 19.7

\N

 

 

Organizational activity does indicate an increase in
“kneadedqe. This increase may be due in part to organize—
-tjonal activity; however, since organizational activity in-

cxreases with educational status and reading habits, it

:m- A k.“
A

V {‘n‘

a?

¥.. ,
~__-n__-,-_

75
rizht be difficult to attribute all of the increased knowl-
edge to increased ongnnizational activity.

It is only fsir to mention here the results of the

use of movies as a means of increasing knowledge of those

in organizations in Bethany township. There are shortcom-

ings in such an eiucationel nsthci. F1

‘..-."3' -
C

After half of the intorvierin in Bethany township

was completei, en attenrt was me e to show the movie, ”It

1"?!” C Hui-71".

Fakes Sense,"6 to township resiients. One showing was re-
53
portei before a Fern Bureau group. Ehe seconi half of the Q

townsnir interviewing was then completed.

Only one person of the remaining forty-four inter-
viewed reported having seen the movie. Only three people
of the total one hundred anl fifty interviewed reported see-
ing the movie ani each of those was the result of organiza-
‘tional activity. From this it can be seen that only through
organizational nctivity did this small number learn of the
voluntary arency activities. The rercenteqe of contact is

rather srrll and the process of elucation is slow.

Realin: habits

 

The reaiinf Habits of peonle also reflect an influ—

ence on the knowleire they have of the r one es.

 

6‘) , r»
see rnje an, note 10.

rnhoco C] '”Cr“:

r'
i l

391 l;CliE”tléfll‘CO sub

It rulst b

I". 6
./ ‘

el in the upper knowlc d5 e group stow

scrihc to a lrrge nuvher of par rs and
e assured that greater availability of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

readins raterinl FT?UltF in more re ding (Table KIXVII).
lAVIE XiXVTI
”"221“?3linlDITT‘I.AT”CllAI ‘TJ VTKEJL
. . l or more 1 or rore
dnowledge 7roup Daily paper ‘ , ,
’ weekly payers majaz res

Upper (76) 51.4 90.7 2.3
Lower (71) 46.4 81.6 67.6
Attituie anl int erest gs reesured by desire to learn more
anl have payroll deduction

Those who give seen to have greater interest in the

ajencies, as indicate
lout them. Perhaps

enough to he interest

through organizations
non-givers show a lac

s.el,

d by their desire to want to know more

the non-givers do not understand

because of their lack of contact

Bud Peaiinfi- -atever the reason,

t of interest by their to the

8 1'1 5‘. 1‘." '3 1‘

question: Do you want to know more? See Te bl_e XXXVIII. )
TABLE XXiVIII
INTEREST IN A“‘”"IEb AS TllflATn FY DESIlE TO KNOW FORE

 

 

’nnt

")T‘n

.— .-.—.-————. fl.—

 

Informants

m
I

 

——-— -———-. ---— --—_._..——— .- --—-—-

to have
inforration

Don't want
inf ation

Indif—
’erent

:3 OPE“.

ZIOI‘

 

’—

Givers

(4°)

Hon~givers(102)

p504 9' LL.1

\N

\

Q

0"

P

71.6

0

\

 

——
—

; I
ILUtln [Ill J \I C n'l 1‘-U/_“L \J.’ ». :.l{)l1[l \; I. \JO be 41‘43""LULeKA- b'v‘ lth"

person'

s attitude toward the svsten of pay roll deductions
for making contributions. Again, Lnawle dge seemed to ef-
fect the person's decision as to whether they give through
pay roll deduction. Those in the upper knowledge group re-
acted more favorably to pay roll deduction and indicated

less resentment of it than did the lower knowledge nroup

(Table KKKIX). E

'lA>LE .KKIX

qfim. en .

 

 

 

FficuuaDuw AND PAY RCLL DEDUCTICH
Knowledge Favor pay roll Resent pay roll don't know
group deduction deduction ”

 

Upper (76) 49.9 44.8 5.2
Lower (71) 36.6 50.7 11.2

 

 

How do_people feel they learn about agencies?

 

How do those in the upper knowledge group feel they
learned about these different agencies, as compared to those
in the lower knowledge group? There did not appear to be
so marked a difference except in newspaper rea iins, talks
an.l other means, which for the most part was referred to as
working wi th the agency.

Those in the upper knowledqe group gave newspaper
publicity much credit for their inforuetion an) rore credit
to other reanr.~, such as werkinn with the asency, than did

tji’jle lov'nveér 1frn0‘,.4'1'3‘i:e CTOLIP (Tab-1-8 2:1!) 0

”1.“. D T“
.Ln. .‘I.~:J

XL

 

 

 

 

FTDIA 7HICF3H flUIJH IEOFIE IEARNED ABOUT AGENCY
(by percentages)
T. ’\T vv ‘ I (‘
hiter- -ew — . , H , f g _ . -
Groun‘ _, ' 5 Indie 9V Talks Lov1es O t don Other
4 sture papers are tact
I-76 1405 9108 55.4 4602 4505 3’09 0 3506 3‘906

11-71 11.2 59.1

 

‘Group I is th

fx

4:308 [#202 A 21.1

F—J

1.4 26.7

a
v1

 

e upper knowledge group; Group II is he

icing]? 1(‘f1(")".71€ige E‘POUPO

fihy they viva

 

v.- ‘ .
what reasons
\ ° -A
the“ say they 31V;

selves acne dry nee

were relatei to a feelinf of pressu

do givers offer for givine? host of
to help; sore feel that they ray ther—

i help, but 21 percent of the reasons
re {flsuile ”11).
TABLE XII
REASONS FOR GIVING
(Classified)

 

~-.——-—..

 

.h-—.—.4—-——_-—- ~- .—-.-- ~.—- -.- -.—..-—-——

 

interest

 

Answers Self Giving to help Pressure
266 17.2 62.4 21

 

 

If pressure seems to have an influence on giving,
why might this be so? Lost rural people were contacted at
home; at least 95 percent of the rivers indica.ed they were
contacted at home, and 27.1 percent were contacted at work,

contacts were male mostly by neiehbors (Table XIII).

TA”1E XIII

1*me ,’\Y? ”Inn 1 n (V
‘v .L \x -_

 

 

n I} .1- ‘J V L‘ 11 v
An- qtranwer Neigh- Fellow Employer Self- “ther
ewers “ ; bor employee or boss solicited V ‘”'

 

154 4.4 73.9

—-—

V._.~..——..-.——-.-———-———.—- --—-v—-—————- --—

.7 12. 9. 3.

“Cc-0..-. cw

 

 

,- ‘ -——.——_.——. .__

 

Contacts were m

Table KLIII.

————.-—————— -_-.___.- .- -,-_. .

Contacts

125

ede mostly at home, as indicated by

TABLE XLIII

FLAG? OF C3NTACT

-..—. '- a-..~.-_--.

Where contacted

 

At home , At work

74.4 25,5

 

Because of the

‘r.J.

g of obliget

feet that an independent rural people

ndicated a feelinj of rressure to some degree, was there

ion toward the solicitor (Table

TABLE XLIV

OBIIGATJON TCWflYD ECLICITOY

 

 

 

Informents Yes No Don't think so
129 25.9 53.9 5.9

 

—-— __._._. ——.-. -——.— A --.—- -.—.-...- .- — -..-..-—

.4

Although only 25.9 percent :lnitted a feeling of

pressure it appeared to the writer that rany more felt the

 

.‘

w. I. 4
. '94 ’ . .

{j n
C)

pressure of resentment of the community if they did not
give. It also appeared that most of the informants were
hesitant to admit that they were ever pressured into doing

anythinq they didn't want to.

 

factors seem to be included in deterrining Why pa
ase givers or non—givers. It appears that no "1

 

 

sinmle factor has a great influence but that many individual
factors each play a definite part in causing people to give
or not to give. L?

ntial as any are income and knowl—

,3
“"3
',._J
C:
a)

Frobably as i

ent factors combine to increase

(+-
:3”
D
FL
H.
"'2
L.”
(D
'1

edge. However, all
giving. Some may be corrected; however others, such as edu-
cational level, nay be difficult to alter without special

.1-

emphasis toward that group.

 

 

 

ll. lllll'.i!.ir¢.l1f

I All! Infi I. LIA alt-E]!!!

VII. ”’UKARY

The history of social welfare in this country indi—
cates :hat, for several reaso_s, tnero has always been a
lag in its deve10prent in rural areas. Some of these rea—
sons it has been pointed out, are due to the very nature of
the rural way of life. Rural peeple, out of necessity,
have been forced to rely on themselves and their neighbors.

Social Welfare has reached rural areas after it hal fil—

--.-. unau—on—a—‘t ‘
- r .-
I . ' A

terel down to these areas from the cities. This too may L3
have been another reason for lack of acceptance due to un-

favorable attitudes rural people have of such activities

started in the city.

As we look at the present day situation of social
welfare we recognize this lag in rural areas. We also note
the changes that have taken place in these rural areas.
Greatest of these may be that rural areas are not made up
of rural people alone, but are made up of both rural and
city people and many that are a combination of rural and
city background. The rural situation of close neighborly
relations is changins with greater farm mechanization, to
one more like that of the cities except that homes are sep—
arated by greater distance.

The problem in Michigan seems to be one of: "Why

does this condition (lag in participation) continue to ex-

 

fibril. .
ltlllilll... If

Ialii|nl ‘In .|

 

Al ll" |l.ll|l ll

82
ist?" Some feel that rural areas are far advanced and have
good income. These rural areas have electricity, radios,
televisions, daily newspapers and practically all city con-
veniences--why then aren't contributions from these areas
as large as those from city peeple?

The method of study as described in Chapter III,
starting with the individuals involved, appeared to be the
most lowical approach. The area was one that had had a
period of years for the fund-raising activity to get under
way. Yet progress is slow and there appears to be not one
large reason but many small reasons for this.

Greatest of all the reasons for lack of participa-
tion might be combined as the ruralness of the people in-
volved. The more rural oriented peOple were the less they
felt the need for such activities, the less they gave, the
less they knew about them and the less they cared. it is
also true that the more rural oriented peOple are the less
their income and the less their organizational activity.
All of these were in correlation with their lower degree of
participation.

A further comparison of townships with varying de-
grees of participation also indicates the more successful
township to have less rural oriented people and more city
or urban oriented. The same general comparison results
were obtained for the township with the lower degree of

participation as for the rural oriented group. The factors

"I” «m1 1: “8"! I”

\r“.
on
fini"

85
which resulted in lower knowledge in rural oriented groups
were also common to the less successful township.

Throughout the entire study it was obvious that the
more rural oriented peeple were, the less had been their 0p-
portunity to become acquainted with social welfare agen-
cies. It was also evident that as the experiences of peeple
increased beyond rural life their attitude became more fa-
vorable toward social agencies both from the giving and ex—
pected receiving.

If one were to closely analyze all of the tables of
this study it would be difficult to arrive at a definite
conclusion other than that either rural people must be fur-
ther enlightened and enthused over social agencies or that
a more suitable collection system be developed for those
who have sufficient income if participation is expected to
increase at a greater rate than does urbanization. Changes
in attitudes that have been a part of rural society for gen-
erations are slowly taking place. They can be expected to
change more rapidly only as the people change or as suffi—

cient information and experience reach them and their income

permits.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Agricultural Census by Townships, Cooperative Extension
SerVice, Lichigan State College.

 

Andrews, F. Emerson, Attitudes Toward Giving (New York:
Russell Sage Foundation, 1955).

 

Beegle, J. Allan, and J. F. Thaden, Tepulation Changes in
Nichigan 1940-1950, Vichigan State College, Special
Bul. #587 (Oct., 1955).

 

 

Rurchfield, Laverne, Our Rural Communities (Chicago, Ill.:
Public Information Service, 1947).

 

Census Report 1950, Bureau of Census, U. S. Dept. of Com-
merce, Washington, D. C.

 

Dix, Dorothea Lynde, in Senate Niscellaneous Documents No.
153 (5D Cong., l Sen.); also in Dictionary of Amer-
ican Bibliography by Johnson, Allen, and Dumas
hallone (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1950).

 

 

Doneth, John, Iichigan Farm Business Analysis (Michigan
State University: 1955).

 

Ducoff, Louis 8., and Margaret Jarman Hagood, "Rural Nel-
fare," found in Carl C. Taylor's Rural life in the
United States (New York: A. A. Knopf, 1949).

 

Gamble, Charles N., How to Raise honey (New York: Associa-
tion Press, 1942).

 

Geode, Jilliam J., and Paul K. Hatt, Methods in Social Re-
seargh (Yew York: NcGraw-Hill vompan Inc., 1952).

 

 

Gunn, Selskar M., and Ihillip S. Flatt, Volunteer Health
Agencies (New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1945).

 

 

Kimball, Solon T., "Rural Social Organization and COOpera-
tive Labor," Abstract in The American Journal of So-

ciology (July, 1945), LV.

Landis, laul H., Rural Life in Irocess.(New York: kcGraw-
Hill Book Company, Inc., 1940)?

 

Loomis, Charles P., and J. Allan Beagle, Rural Social Sys—
tems (New York: Prentice Hall Inc., 1950).

vuifi" ht...”

{if-I

“'5' n . a

95

McMillan, Wayne, Community Organizations fcr Social Welfare
(Chicago, 111.: University of Chicago Tress, 1945).

WcCormick, T. C., Elementary Social Statistics (New York:
1941).

Kichigan United Health-Welfare Fund Inc., Michigan Unites
to Serve Human Needs (Lansing, Michigan, Hollister
Bldg.: United Health and Welfare Fund of Nichigan,

 

 

 

 

 

1951).
Nelson, Lowry, Rura Sociology (Chicago: American Book f:
Company, 1948). h
Sanderson, Ezra Dwight, and Robert A. Polson, Rural Com- é
munity Organization (New York: J. Wiley and Sons, 3
Inc., 1959). '
Taylor, Carl C., Rural Sociology (New York: Harper Broth— i
ers, 1926). L'

Zeisel, Hans, Say it with Figures (New York: Harper Broth-

ers, 1950)i

A Study of the Reaction of People of Select

Townships of Gratiot County, Michigan to the Solicitation of

Funds for Health andeelfare Volunteer Agencies.

This questionnaire is designed to bring to light some of the reasons peOple
in rural areas, do or do not give, to volunteer health and welfare agencies such as,

Community Chest Campaigns, Red Feather Drives, etc.

In order to determine these reasons, it is necessary to learn a great deal
about the individual such as, his background, his associations, and his knowledge of

the agencies themselves.

The following questions are designed to provide those answers:

1. Residential History

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Present Place (Sect.) ( ) Years
Previous places ( ) Years ( )
( )Years ( )

( )Years ( )

( )Years ( )

( )Years ( )

Head of Household

Present place (Sect.) ( ) Years
Previous places ( ) Years ( )
( ) Years ( )

( Years ( )

( Years ( )

2. Occupational History
Present job No.
Previous job No.
No.
No.
Head of Household

Present job No.
Previous job No.
No.
No.

 

3. If not already indicated above:

Country

(
Country é
Country (

Country (
Country (
Country (
Country (

of years
of years
of years
of years

of years
of years
of years
of years

AMA

“AAA

) Town g ) Papulation
) Town ) Population
) Town ( ) Population
) Town ( ) P0pulation
) Town ( ) Population
) Town ( ) Population
) Town ( ) Population
) Town ( ) P0pu1ation
) Town ( ) Population

)

)

)u

)

)

)

)

)

‘were you or your husband or children ever in the armed services?

1-Yes( ) 2-No( ) Who?

---.~.—a—-—-.~—.—..-wy
II

on;

5‘
“W“

 

 

 

 

-
ix
. A
. V l I. ’
‘ o
h . ' ,. o
. . ' '
1 l '. ‘ '
.- .. .
’ . . ..
o 9 .
.~ v. ., .
' ' .l. V . ‘
, k ‘ . .
c. _ f ' IV‘
I ’ '
I ,.
l
l O
I --
1 a
~ I‘ I h t .. ...
- ‘ L4. ' -4 ..,..
‘\ I r ' .. r
. . i
.
.
' ‘ ’1” .-
...- .H ....-. . _
‘ . -,.
. . -. .. - .. - , .. _
'-
.l':
~ :
l
‘-.._._ ..S
. . , . ‘
l 1'. . ' I row
I
b.’ ' ‘
.l..‘- . ,_, ,___~ .
..._.. .. ..
O
,, ...... .
.
‘ .
O
. . .
.. '
. .. ......
I. . , > ‘
- — ........
§ ‘ . .
.
, . . ’ _ .. . .
. ' b.
. l n . V I v
' I
O
- I I ...
. ..
‘t
. ~
' I I ‘ c a ...
r . .. ‘

 

h. Some further information about you and your family that is important to this survey:
lege (H) ( ) 2-Age (W) ( ) 3~Marital Status ( ) h-Number of children ( )
S-Age of oldest ( ) 6-Age of youngest ( )

5. What was the highest grade completed in school?

Ei£2 l-Less than h ( ) 2-h to 8 ( ) 3-Completed grade school ( )
h—Some H. S. ( ) S-Completed H. S. ( ) 6-Some College ( )
7-Completed College ( ) 8-0ther ( )

 

Husband l-Less than.h ( ) 2- h to 8 ( ) 3-Completed 8th ( )
h-Some H. S. ( ) S-Completed H. S. ( ) 6-Some College ( )
7-Completed College ( ) 8-Other ( )

 

6. Were you born in this country?
l-Yes ( ) 2-No ( )

If no, what country were you born in?

 

7. There are many organizations, agencies, or groups soliciting funds through volunteer
giving. Can you recall about how many approached you folks about a contribution
last year, either by mail, through your organizations, or at the door or at work?

l-Number ( ) 2-None ( ) 3-Several ( ) b-Don't recall ( )

Name, if any.

 

 

 

 

8. were you or anyone in your family approached this year for a contribution to the
Gratiot County United Fund Drive?

1-Yes ( ) 2-No ( ) 3-Don't remember ( )
If yes:
9. Where were you when contacted?

l-At home ( ) 2-At work ( ) 3-Some other place ( )

 

10. Who was contacted?

l-You ( ) 2-Your husband ( ) 3-Both ( ) h-Other ( )

 

11. Who was the person who solicited this contribution?
l-Stranger ( ) 2-Neighbor ( ) 3-Fellaw employee ( )

h-Your employer ( ) S-Foreman or supervisor ( ) 6-Other ( )

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 : ' l - . l ,
‘ ) . . .
.-
. .
.
.
' It '
. ‘ . - - <‘ ,_ ..'
' N
O ’ '
‘9‘ . ., . ,
. - . .
u . ' ~.‘. , \ . . .
s . .
I o
\ .
‘ U l
‘.
. .
w‘. ‘Qw . . —.--_- g m. -\ ~ -‘ /
x , . , . ,
. V. 5 . .
C§
» . .
'r 0' - a -
.' . ' ‘ .- . s. | *r ,
U I. .
4 .1 . . g . -
a.

... --.,...._—.. . . . .. ..

.' e , I- -- O. u I .5 I.“
If“. ""‘ . ._ l I ‘v < 1.,
L. , -... ' . x v,

- - r ‘ ~ . .Ig . y
‘. . ' n , .
. .
I u. ' ' .x‘ .U
" ~ ,' 3 ~ , .
' Q A . -- _- >
. ' ‘ ~ .
‘. _ ..-. ‘_ A ! .,._
l r 't ._‘n ~ , \
5 . . . . .. . 2 u
. .-....... ...—. .-..... .. . .. .. . .,.......r._. .4... . u“...
. . . . .- A... -. . .. .. ~. -.... .a— N-.-
. . . . o - .
. , . _ .. . ,, (. 2‘ - .: . _
. ~ ! . ' _ 1 J . 4 n
r: ’ A v
I
.I v _
, . ...
‘ .
.-..--..-.-..~..7. a. .. ....---.. -...,--~ a...
. . .‘ ‘
. ' .4 on"
.- - .-. -... ._._...... .......
‘ I
. ..
. . - v - I ~ .
. . A D , "
I- ~ ' ' '1 ‘
. . ..

~<-..-m-—-. ....--.--

 

.0

 

, . ~ g .-
v ‘a
i'
.
n .CIO“.
' o.
. -
- '-'
,.
n
.. --
0..
I
.
.
, .
‘ o.
.. , . .
—.
o
o.
. .
'- .l-
a
I
~
'vV' .
. . .
. . o ' ’ .
v . ,
a. '.
.- .
.. . . .'
. I ‘.
. ‘ , c v v
A .
I. ' -.
l
. ‘\
.- .
. ’ .I Iv I
' C
_- . 1.41.

12.

13.

lb.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

- 3 -

How do you feel about this manner of being contacted?

 

 

How about other folks you know, did they give this year?
l—Most of them ( ) 2-Some of them ( ) 3-Few of them ( ) h—None of them (
S-Don't know ( )

Comment:

 

If contacted in the place of work, what about other employees? Did they give?
l-Yes ( ) 2-No ( ) 3-Don't know ( )

Comment:

 

In some cases folks are encouraged to give more than they possibly ordinarily would

because of a feeling of obligation to the person soliciting the contribution. ‘Would

you say that the person making the contact, in your case, had any such influence?
l-Yes ( ) 2-No ( ) 3-Don‘t think so ( )

Comment:

)

 

As you undoubtedly know the United Fund Drive of your county provides many services
that are available to the peOple of the county. Have you or any member of your
family ever had occasion to make use of any of these agencies or services?

leYes ( ) 2-No ( ) 3-Don‘t know ( )

If yes, could you name them?

 

 

Do you happen to know of any other people who have had occasion to make use of
any of the agencies?

l-Yes ( ) 2-No ( )

If yes, do you recall which agencies they were?

 

 

 

Did you make a contribution to the United Fund this year?

l-Yes ( ) 2—No ( ) 3-Don't remember ( )

\r-u’u' "'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_., 1 . . ....-..- .—.-. - . ..... ......... 7..-. ..._— .. ... . . . . .-A. ........ _.- .. . . _ .-.-. . ,. ... . , .., ,...... A
i........., i . . ~ v..-...-....-—..--- ,.a .... ...... .. . . . .. —....., -~— . . ..... . . . ,_-
t ‘ . .
. s .
.
' - u * .l ' ‘C
. .
on
' 4
, .
.-.. ......—-..... .. ., .... . - . ..._..... “.1 -..... _. ,- .- . ‘ --.-. - -.. ...... . ....
._ A . v V ‘
' ‘ . ~\ . 4. ~ - . v '.
~ .. . . . . . . . ,
c _,, ' o
\
\
...-. ~—- m n — . ~ 4‘. ... .<. .... . _.. .2. .. . ...m..-.
... .-_ _
.. -

 

 

 

 

.
.
... . ..- -.
t a .. . .
.
, t." ' . -
O . .. ‘ .. F '
.
v ‘ .Q
_ 7 . . .
..
.
.. . ..
.
-........ .._-.,.._....-. -r. . _ ..,--.... .. , .
.M _,... ,. . -.-.
O
..
- 0 -~
.
O "“
.

20.

21.
22.

23.

2h.

25.

26.

27.

- u -

I ‘22, there are many things that affect one's decision to give or not to give.

‘Would you mind telling me your reason?

 

 

I£_ es, what was the amount of your contribution? ( )

People make voluntary contributions for many reasons.

me the reasons for your giving?

Probe:

would you mind telling

 

 

 

 

 

Do you like the idea of a combined collection?

14ms( )
'Why?
£2222.

2-No ( ) 3-Makes no difference ( )

 

 

 

 

 

If no,

 

 

Do you feel that you know the county committee of the County United Chest?

lJWell ( )

2-Fairly well (

)

3-Know who they are ( )

h-Not at all ( )

Some folks who work in a place where they receive a regular weekly'pay'check have

a few cents deducted each week.

rural people, what would you think of it?

l-Approve ( )

Comment:

2-Disapprove (

)

3-No opinion ( )

If some method like this could be worked out for

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

; v
.-.
. .
. ‘ . 1
I I . - ’.
-.- u. . . . . , .. .- ,. u-.. ~.'~.. .. ... . . A . .._ ‘,
n.-.‘ -. . ... A . .-. ... o. . n.- . ._.,,_ ..,..... .. ..-.- “no .u-n. W’s-v» -- - -. , A--4--- r~ .. . ‘-. . . . .
\ . » v '. .... . y
o a - . ' g . ’
. u "a . *.
... . . . . . 4 , _ , ' , _ .
. . . A. . , l . A , . , .. .
,' ‘ . - _
.7- . .. .v. n . , . A . . . - .. . .A . A . - . ....
.. .VA4-- . ..- . . -.. ._ .-.-._ . ~. . . ._.. .._. . ..-
7.- ...~.- . . .A. H . . , . .._. ,.., M, .. . . A ., . _. , . ..~ , .-
o. -., .. .. - .. .. - .. .._. - - . .. , U. ., A. . . . _ . _ . . ., . ,
. , . ». , . .» . . - A : . . ,. ,-, . « , . .. ,.A, ..
‘ ‘ , ~. . _
. . _ ' _ g
a .
D. O O.
.
.
~ « .. g
.. 1. .- . . .. ., .. ,. p.'.-. . .. . 7. . . v .. . . .. .p-
- . - .4 . . . ..... . . .. . . .. . . . . . . ,. , ., . .- . .
. .. _. . ._.. . ...... . . . m . ,, . -. ..... r. A r . .. A , .
. H. ....-. ....- ...- .. .... .. . . a. , ~.‘ . - .. :...... .- .\ -- .» A . . A. .
07'. ... ,. .... - .. . ~.. g... .. ...... . .. -. . ..... . .. . l...A.. .... . , . .
' a
.-. . .. VA n. . .._. .. .— k. c. . . . . . . ~... . . u. ... _ . .. . . _
. . . . . , .. - J., . u- . . . , .
. .
. ‘ . , . , . 4 ' 7 . .
. - A
\ . v. ‘ 1
. . . U
I ‘ I
. - . , ,
.0. . 4 9-. ‘ nu .
. A '
. . . .
. .
. . , . ' » ~ I
. l - ‘ ~ I '
.,/ . _ - .V .3 > . . . n. .‘n , , ~ .
. . .
. .
u- ‘ o. ’ uni
. > _ . A -,
-fl ._ . .- . . - . .. . , - n H..- . . . . ,, . .~. . , . . A ... . , . 4 . .A , . . ,. . - . . ...,.r
.. ...~...,. .._, . . . .r- . , , . . ., -. , , a. . . A, . . . -~-
.

 

- 5 -

28. ‘Which of the following organizations do you or some member of your family'belong

to and to what degree are you active?
Very active Fairly active Inactive

Farm Bureau
Farmers' Union
Grange

h—H Clubs

VV

)

)

)

)

) Scouts

) Labor Union
) Home Ec. Club
) Church

)
)
)
)

P. T. A.
Lodges
Social Clubs
Other

 

A AAA/N AMA “AAA

V VVVV VVVV VV

A

 

29. What does the United Fund Drive of the County mean to you?

 

 

 

30. 'What does the name of the "United Health and welfare Fund" mean to you?

 

 

 

31. There are a great many agencies in the campaign in your county. ‘Would you rate
them.A, B, C, or D as to how you feel about their value and 1, 2, 3, or h as to
how much you know about each?

County.Agengz Value Knowledge

32. Boy &.Girl Scouts

33. Salvation Army ~

3’40 U0 so 00

35. Michigan Childrens.Aid
36. County Cancer Chapter

m
m

37. Red Cross

38. Michigan Heart Ass'n

39. Michigan Chapter Arthritis and Rheumatism
ho. Sister Elizabeth.Kenny Foundation

hl. United Cerebral Palsy.Ass'n of Michigan

o
u
a

r

u

—-..
..,
o..

A - . ..
l. .0.» ‘ ---.. . . —
. U ..,A.
‘ .
' f
.. r~..-_..l-o. s. ..
. r-.~—.--- . “o...
.a. -. .. ~.- ...—..
.. - .. g
I , i ‘
. .. ‘4
a

 

,, ,.
y.
,-'...\I .

 

. ....-.——-.

A ..-...-~. .
---.‘.--I '
o .. .. u...

so-..-

..._ .—

 

-¢o n-... .

 

 

 

I
\
|
I
\
.o. -
. .-.
.— o.. .
o .7.-.

n».-

.
_‘ I
.
o J ‘n
.
‘ n
A...”
. .......
.-.- .. .
Ahhd—I .l~.4
. --.-..~.
. m ..~ .

.. v”...
....- --.
~u .——-- .._.

0-.

 

-- 'q -

 

 

.A ..,.-.o.-. .u

...—..-_. -.,

. ‘u>~a> . —-..
. v’
- ,.. o~
_..-........ .....
. . ....~.......
-.. ._ . “7.-.... .-
o
‘ .(..
. I ‘-
. v s.
a
t‘ .

 

 

 

.n. ~--

, v . ..... mo."-

. .a. .,

 

 

.
' -. 7 l .
A I ' .
.‘~I -0 -l A full v-C. .O.
. .0. n . . . ....---...- . o
_ .
l ‘ ' .
. . , t '
..,. -.- . .
.... . . A . . ‘
. . . - , r - - , , .. ..
. ,.
_ , . .. , ,‘
. . .---........._..--.-..-......r.-..- ..
........V........- ~-.~.....~. .‘-..‘ . .- ..
II‘--AOD ‘0‘”.01.‘ O“ I - ,- ‘
o .
'. ’ 1 . a
-. ' n ‘ u
I
.
- . . ;'- A:
‘7 .. "n .' A n A
,g . - _ .
‘ v
. .

 

. .
. . .l- . . ~
‘ . .
.-. m .. v
. '. 1 r. ‘.
.n v .
,7-
. u
v r
.
I
.
..,

 

 

 

 

“-m.

 

o
n
.
. .
-0”-
. u..
0
u
. o
.
.1.

 

. n“...

u. _.,

v

31. (Continued)

County Agency Value Knowledge

 

1:2. Michigan Society for Mental Health

143. National Multiple Sclerosis Society
. Leader Dogs for the Blind

b5. Michigan Ass‘n for Better Hearing

16. Michigan Epilepsy Center

h7. Rosco B. Jackson Memorial Laboratory
LL8. National League for Nursing

h9. National Probation and Parole Ass'n
50. Big Brothers of America

51. Child Welfare League of America

52. National Child Labor Committee
53. Family Service Ass'n of America
5h, International Social Service
55. National Urban league

56. National Travelers' Aid

57. National Federation of Settlements and
Neighborhood Centers

58. National Legal Aid Ass'n

59. Michigan Welfare League

60. Michigan Ass'n of Animal Kindness

61. Convulsion Prevention Ass'n

62.
63.

 

ll Hlll

 

61;. There are many ways that people learn about the various agencies. Would you say
that of those you are acquainted with, that you learned about them by any or all
of the following means:

l-Literature ( ) 2-New3paper ( ) 3-Radio ( ) h-TV ( )
5-Talks ( ) 6-Movies ( ) 7-Posters ( )

8-Actua1 contact with the agency ( ) 9-Other ( )

 

65. What newspaper do you regularly subscribe to?
W. D.

 

 

 

 

 

——v—.' v]

 

 

 

I
.0
n
.-
.--'
v"
u
n "
, u- ..
.’IP . r'
.-
.-
.,... .
. ' '
. . ',
, a A
.
d"
.-
.
-l'
-4»
. -"
..-'
_ --
,.
.. ‘ t
p'“
“.0
' .

 

 

 

66.

67.

' 68.

. 69.

70.

. 71.

- 7 u

'Would you.mind checking this card, indicating in.which income bracket you consider
yourself: (Use income tax report.)

190p to $2,000 ( ) 2-32,000 up to h,000 ( ) 3—3h,000 up to 6,000 ( )

h-36,000 up to 10,000 ( ) 5~$10,000 and over ( )
'With all these different agencies and the money that is being raised do you really
think this voluntary collection of funds for Health andeelfare Services is a good
thing for our country?

lees ( ) 2-No ( ) 3-Don't know ( )

Comment:

 

 

'What would be your idea as to ways and.means of raising money?
1~Voluntarily as is ( ) 2-Government appr0priation ( )

3-Don‘t raise any money ( ) h-Other ideas ( )

 

 

Comment:

 

Do you feel that you should know more about these agencies or groups that are
included in the fund drive?

l-Yes ( ) 2-No ( ) 3-Don't know ( )

Comment:

 

If yes, how can this best be done?
léMeetings ( ) 24Movies ( ) 3-Leaflets ( ) h-Radio ( )

5-TV ( ) 6-Newspapers ( ) 7-Other ( )

 

 

Do you have any suggestions that you would like to.make to the United Fund of
Gratiot County?

 

 

 

 

,.
.
>~

72.

Additional Comments:

(I)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

W395i? .

5881 USE [EMU

 

Date Due

 

Demco-293

t'a

n

 

 

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY LIB

l I IIIIIIIIIIIIII

3 1193 03 45 0400

A

RIES
’l
I