OVERDUE FINES: 25¢ per day per in. RETURNING LIBRARY MATERIALS: Place in book return to remove charge fro. circulation "cords W 100 A167 WES'S This is to certify that the thesis entitled A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF THE CHARACTERISTICS, GOALS AND VALUES OF SMALL FARM FAMILIES AS COMPARED WITH COMMERCIAL FARM FAMILIES, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR CONTINUING EDUCATION presented by Damodaran Nair has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Administration and Higher Education flvfigm Major professor Date May 9 g 1980 0-7639 OVERDUE FINES: 25¢ per W per ite- RETURNING LIBRARY MATERIALS: Place in book return to remove charge fro- circulation records A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF THE CHARACTERISTICS, GOALS AND VALUES OF SMALL FARM FAMILIES AS COMPARED WITH COMMERCIAL FARM FAMILIES, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR CONTINUING EDUCATION By Damodaran Nair A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education I980 ABSTRACT A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF THE CHARACTERISTICS, GOALS AND VALUES OF SMALL FARM FAMILIES AS COMPARED WITH COMMERCIAL FARM FAMILIES, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR CONTINUING EDUCATION By Damodaran Nair There has been growing concern for the plight of the small farm families in recent years among governmental agencies, land- grant institutions and some private groups. Questions have been raised about the organizational and resource capabilities of the Cooperative Extension Service to deal with the problem of small farm families which constitute approximately three-fourths of the total rural population. Lack of adequate empirical data has been pointed out as a major obstacle in formulating realistic plans and policies. Questions have been raised whether and how small farm families differ from the commercial farm families. What redirec- tions are needed in the research and extension programs of land- grant institutions? The purpose of this study was to identify the salient charac- teristics, goal and value orientations of small farm families in comparison with commercial farm families. An assumption was made that the small farm families differed in characteristics, goals and Damodaran Nair values and that the specific differences would have implications for continuing education in general, and Cooperative Extension Service in particular. The population for the study consisted of nine townships in three counties of southeastern Michigan. A highly structured ques- tionnaire was mailed to a sample of 495 heads of households in the nine townships. Data furnished by ll4 respondents--80 small farm families and 34 commercial farm families--have been analysed and presented using descriptive statistics. Comparisons between major groups as well as subgroups have been made through the display of the data and in the summary of findings. The study has concluded that the small farm families are generally different from commercial farm families with regard to characteristics, goals and values. The highlights of the distinc- tive differences as identified in the study include (1) small farm families as a group consist of several subgroups with certain dis- tinct characteristics; (2) an overwhelming majority earn their first largest portion of income from sources other than farming; (3) attachment to farming is an important non-economic variable to a large number of them; (4) their farming practices are diversified, no clearcut groupings based on types of farming are possible; (5) a considerable percentage of them are less educated since 32 percent of them never completed high school; (6) a substantial number of the heads of small farm families are older adults, 65 or more years of age; (7) they are much less involved in Cooperative Extension Service activities than commercial farm families; (8) they are generally Damodaran Nair more family-oriented than individual or community-oriented; (9) their economic interests appear to be less dominant than their social, health or aesthetic interests; (10) they are divided over goal categories and arenas of concern; there is no particular category of goals or arena of concern to which an overwhelming majority of them attach primary importance; and (ll) overall, the small farm families, as a group, are more heterogeneous rather than homogeneous. These findings have their implications for program planning and further research. It is suggested that the extension education for small farm families be approached from the broad perspective of family and community development. With this approach in view, a suggestive, and not exhaustive, list of various extension methods and techniques has been recommended. It is also proposed, in this study, that the Cooperative Extension Service functions as a coordinating and facilitating agency also for the educational advancement and development of small farm families. Internal coordination between various components of CES is also emphasized. A number of recommendations have been made for further research since empirical data are needed in several problem areas. DEDICATION This work is dedicated to the memory of'Russell J. Kleis, Professor-Emeritus, Michigan State University, who was a friend, philosopher and guide for me during the last decade of his life; and to Dr. G. Ramachandran, co-founder of'Ghndhigram and Vice- Chancellor of’Gandhigram (Deemed) University (India), who supported, encouraged and inspired me to strive for greater accomplishments and leadership. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Deepest gratitude is hereby expressed to Professor-Emeritus Russell J. Kleis, my doctoral program advisor and first chairman of my Guidance Committee, for his personal, professional and profes- sorial support which played a significant role in my growth and development as a continuing educator. Professor Kleis passed away in November of 1979, when the draft of all but the final chapter of this dissertation was completed. This created a sudden vacuum in my life; it was indeed a personal loss for me. Fortunately, Dr. Floyd G. Parker, a member of my Guidance Committee, agreed to replace Professor Kleis as the Chairman in the midst of his busy schedule in Life-long Education Programs. Special gratitude is due to him for his kind support and guidance which certainly helped to bring this effort to its completion without interruption. Thanks are also due to other members of the committee-- Dr. Louise M. Sause and Dr. S. Joseph Levine of the College of Education, and Dr. James B. McKee of the Department of Sociology-- for their valuable suggestions for clarity and refinement of the final draft. Identification of the research problem and the follow-up became possible because of my involvement as an Extension/Evaluation iii Assistant with the 4-H Evaluation Office at Michigan State University during 1978-l979. I am thankful to Dr. Norman Brown, Mr. Thomas Thorburn and Mr. Ralph Abbott of the Cooperative Extension Service for their administrative support and approval of some of the needs related to the mechanics of the study. Special thanks are due to Mr. Art Tabachneck, who was my colleague at the 4-H Evaluation Office and who later became a good friend, for his assistance with the statistical analysis. Successful completion of my doctoral program would not have been a reality without the patience, understanding and sacrifice exhibited by my wife, Savitri and daughter, Latha. My love and appreciation are extended to both of them. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ........................ viii Chapter I. INTRODUCTION ...................... l The Problem ..................... 1 Motivation for the Study .............. 8 Purpose of the Study ................ 8 Specific Objectives of the Study .......... 8 Assumptions ..................... 9 Definition of Terms ................. 9 II. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND RELATED LITERATURE 0N GOALS AND VALUES .................... 15 Concept of Values .................. l5 Value Systems .................... l7 Hierarchies of Values, Goals or Needs ........ l7 Criteria of Goal Selection ............. 18 Study of Values, Goals and Attitudes of Farm Families ..................... l9 Study of the Goals and Values of Small Farm Families ..................... 2l Techniques of Studying Values and Goals ....... 22 III. METHODOLOGY ...................... 25 Population and Sampling ............... 25 Research Method ................... 26 Research Instrument ................. 27 Questionnaire Construction ............ 27 Pretesting the Questionnaire ........... 27 Data Collection ................... 28 Mailing of the Questionnaire and Letter of Transmittal ................... 28 Responses and follow up ............. 28 Chapter Page Data Analysis Procedure ............... 29 Limitations of the Study ............... 30 IV. ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA ........... 32 Introduction ..................... 32 Small Farm Families ................. 33 Characteristics of the Small Farm Families . . . . 35 Farms Where The Small Farm Families Lived ..... 43 Extent of Involvement in Farming: Full- Time vs. Part-Time ................ 51 Non-Farm Occupation and Non-Farm Income ...... 54 Sources of Income ................. 57 Gross Non-Farm Income ............... 59 Social Participation ............... 61 Involvement in Programs of Cooperative Extension Service ................. 65 Non-Farm Rural Resident Families ........... 7O Characteristics of the Non-Farm Rural Resident Families ................. 7O Extent of Land Holdings and Involvement in Farming .................... 75 Major Occupation and Sources of Income ...... 75 Social Participation ............... 78 Commercial Farm Families ............... 81 Characteristics of the Commercial Farm Families. . 82 Farms Where the Families Lived (Large and Medium Farms) ................... 87 Extent of Involvement in Farming Vis-A-Vis Non-Farm Occupations ............... 97 Non-Farm Occupations and Non-Farm Income ..... lOO Sources of Income ................. A 102 Non-Farm Gross Income ............... 105 Social Participation ............... 107 Involvement in Programs of Cooperative Extension Service ................. 117 Goal Orientation of the Rural Family Groups ..... 119 Economic Goals .................. 121 Social Goals ................... 131 Health Goals ................... 139 Aesthetic Goals .................. 147 An Aggregate Analysis of Goal Orientation by Goal Categories .................. 151 An Aggregate Analysis of Goal Orientation by Arena of Concern .................. 157 Personal Feelings, Beliefs and Values ........ 160 The Most Important Reasons Why They Live in the Country .................. 160 vi Chapter Page The Things Their Children Do or Could Do to Make Them Happy .................. 161 The Things They Are Happiest to Have, or Most Want to Have, in This Life ............ 163 As Americans, the Things They Like Best, or Would Like Best, About Their Country ....... 165 As Americans, the Things They Dislike About Their Country ................... 165 Summary of Analysis and Findings ........... 168 General Characteristics .............. 168 Specific Characteristics ............. 171 Goal Orientation ................. 183 Personal Feelings, Beliefs and Values ....... 185 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................... 189 Summary ....................... 189 Conclusions ..................... 191 Implications and Recommendations ........... 196 BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................... 204 APPENDIX A: Letter of Transmittal ............... 209 APPENDIX B: Questionnaire ................... 211 APPENDIX C: Follow-Up Letter ................. 222 vii Table 10. 11. 12. 13. LIST OF TABLES Distribution of Small Farm Families by Subgroups on the Basis of Annual Gross Agricultural Sales ....... Distribution of Heads of Households by Sex--Sma11 Farm Families ....................... Distribution of Heads of Households by Marital Status-- Small Farm Families ................. Distribution of Family Members by Age-Group--Sma11 Farm Families .................... Distribution of Heads of Households by Age-Group--Sma11 Farm Families .................... Distribution of Heads of Households by Educational Levels--Sma11 Farm Families ............. Distribution of Spouses by Educational Leve1--Sma11 Farm Families ............. . ....... Distribution of Heads of Households by the Extent of Non-Rural Background--Sma11 Farm Families ...... Distribution of Small Farm Size (in Acreage) and Tenure Status .................... Distribution of Small Farms by Kinds of Crops Raised and Acreage for Each Crop .............. Distribution of Small Farms by Kinds and Size of Livestock Raised ................... Extent of Contribution to Farm Labor by Family Members and Outside Labor (Average Number of Days)--Sma11 Farms .................. Distribution of Small Farm Families by Gross Agricultural Sales and by the Extent of Time Spent for Farming .................. viii Page 34 34 36 36 38 39 41 42 43 47 49 50 52 Table 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. Distribution of Small Farm Families Whose Members Working or Not Working Off the Farm ........ Distribution of Heads of Small Farm Families Working or Not Working Off the Farm ............ Average Person Days Working Off the Farm by Members of Small Farm Families ............... Frequency Distribution of Types of Off-Farm Work-— Small Farm Families ................ Distribution of Small Farm Families Reporting the Level of Each Source of Income ........... Distribution of Small Farm Families by Gross Non- Farm Category ................... Frequency Distribution of the Extent of Participation in Voluntary Organizations by Heads of Household and Spouses of Small Farm Families ......... Kinds and Extent of Public Offices Held by Heads of Households and Spouses of Small Farm Families . . . . Impact of 4-H as Expressed by Heads of Households-- Small Farm Families ................ Reasons for Children Not Belonging to 4—H--Sma11 Farm Families ................... Effects of 4-H on Later Life as Listed by Heads of Households--Sma11 Farm Families .......... Involvement in Cooperative Extension Service-~Sma11 Farm Families ................... Interest in Cooperative Extension Service--Sma11 Farm Families ................... Kinds of CES Programs as Suggested by Heads of Households-~Sma11 Farm Families .......... Kinds of Needed Assistance in Farming--Sma11 Farm Families ...................... Kinds of Needed Assistance in Family Living--Sma11 Farm Families ................... ix Page 52 52 55 55 58 6O 62 63 63 63 66 66 68 68 69 69 Table 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. Distribution of Heads of Households by Sex and Marital Status--Non-Farm Rural Resident Families. . . . Distribution of Heads of Households and Family Members by Age-Group--Non-Farm Rural Resident Families. . . . Distribution of Heads of Households and Spouses by Educational Leve1--Non-Farm Rural Resident Families . . Frequency Distribution of Types of Off-Farm Work—- Non-Farm Rural Resident Families ........... Distribution of Non-Farm Rural Resident Families Reporting the Level of Each Source of Income ..... Distribution of Non-Farm Rural Resident Families by Gross Non—Farm Income Category .......... Frequency Distribution of the Extent of Participation in Voluntary Organizations by Heads of Households and Spouses--Non-Farm Rural Resident Families . . . . Distribution of Heads of Households by Sex-~Large and Medium Farm Families ............... Distribution of Heads of Households by Marital Status-- Large and Medium Farm Families ............ Distribution of Family Members by Age-Group--Large and Medium Farm Families ............... Distribution of Heads of Households by Age-Group-- Large and Medium Farm Families ............ Distribution of Heads of Households and Spouses by Educational Level-~Large and Medium Farm Families . . . Distribution of Heads of Households by the Extent of Non-Rural Background-~Large and Medium Farm Families. . Distribution of Large Farms by Farm Size (in Acreage) and Tenure Status .................. Distribution of Medium Farms by Farm Size (in Acreage) and Tenure Status .................. Page 71 71 74 76 76 76 79 83 83 85 85 88 89 89 91 Table 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. Page Distribution of Large and Medium Farms by Kinds of Crops Raised and Acreage for Each Crop ......... 93 Distribution of Large and Medium Farms by Kinds and Size of Livestock Raised ................ 95 Extent of Contribution to Farm Labor by Family Members and Outside Labor (Average Number of Days)--Large and Medium Farms .................... 96 Distribution of Large and Medium Farm Families Whose Members are Working or Not Working Off the Farm . . . . 101 Average Number of Person Days Working Off the Farm by Members of Large and Medium Farm Families ....... 101 Frequency Distribution of Types of Off-Farm Work-- Large and Medium Farm Families ............. 103 Distribution of Large and Medium Farm Families Reporting the Level of Each Source of Income ........... 104 Distribution of Large and Medium Farm Families by Non- Farm Gross Income Category ............... 106 Frequency Distribution of the Extent of Participation in Voluntary Organizations by Heads of Households and Spouses--Large Farm Families ............ 108 Frequency Distribution of the Extent of Participation in Voluntary Organizations by Heads of Households and Spouses--Medium Farm Families ........... 109 Kinds and Extent of Public Offices Held by Heads of Households and Spouses--Large and Medium Farm Families ........................ 111 Distribution of Families Reporting Children’s Participation in Various Organizations and Activities--Large Farm Families ............ 112 Distribution of Families Reporting Children's Participation in Various Organizations and Activities--Medium Farm Families ............ 114 Effects of 4-H on Later Life as Listed by Heads of Households--Large and Medium Farm Families ....... 115 xi Table 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. Impact of 4-H as Expressed by Heads of Households-- Page Large and Medium Farm Families ............. 115 Involvement in Cooperative Extension Serivce-—Large and Medium Farm Families ................ 118 Interest in Cooperative Extension Service-~Large and Medium Farm Families .................. 118 Kinds of CES Programs as Suggested by Heads of House- holds--Large and Medium Farm Families ......... 120 Kinds of Needed Assistance as Expressed by Large and Medium Farm Families .................. 120 Distribution of Respondents by the Level of Importance Attached to Goal 1, Broken Down by Family Groups. . . . 122 Distribution of Respondents by the Level of Importance Attached to Goal 2, Broken Down by Family Groups. . . . 123 Distribution of Respondents by the Level of Importance Attached to Goal 3, Broken Down by Family Groups. . . . 125 Distribution of Respondents by the Level of Importance Attached to Goal 4, Broken Down by Family Groups. . . . 126 Distribution of Respondents by the Level of Importance Attached to Goal 5, Broken Down by Family Groups. . . . 128 Distribution of Respondents by the Level of Importance Attached to Goal 6, Broken Down by Family Groups. . . . 129 Distribution of Respondents by the Level of Importance Attached to Goal 7, Broken Down by Family Groups. . . . 130 Distribution of Respondents by the Level of Importance Attached to Goal 8, Broken Down by Family Groups. . . . 132 Distribution of Respondents by the Level of Importance Attached to Goal 9, Broken Down by Family Groups. . . . 133 Distribution of Respondents by the Level of Importance Attached to Goal 10, Broken Down by Family Groups . . . 134 Distribution of Respondents by the Level of Importance Attached to Goal 11, Broken Down by Family Groups . . . 136 xii Table 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. Distribution of Respondents by Attached to Goal 12, Broken Distribution of Respondents by Attached to Goal 13, Broken Distribution of Respondents by Attached to Goal 14, Broken Distribution of Respondents by Attached to Goal 15, Broken Distribution of Respondents by Attached to Goal 16, Broken Distribution of Respondents by Attached to Goal 17, Broken Distribution of Respondents by Attached to Goal 18, Broken Distribution of Respondents by Attached to Goal 19, Broken Distribution of Respondents by Attached to Goal 20, Broken Distribution of Respondents by Attached to Goal 21, Broken Distribution of Respondents by Attached to Goal 22, Broken Distribution of Respondents by Attached to Goal 23, Broken Distribution of Respondents by Attached to Goal 24, Broken Distribution of Respondents by Attached to Goal 25, Broken the Level of Importance Down by Family Groups. . . the Level of Importance Down by Family Groups. . . the Level of Importance Down by Family Groups. . . the Level of Importance Down by Family Groups. . . the Level of Importance Down by Family Groups. . . the Level of Importance Down by Family Groups. . . the Level of Importance Down by Family Groups. . . the Level of Importance Down by Family Groups. . . the Level of Importance Down by Family Groups. . . the Level of Importance Down by Family Groups. . . the Level of Importance Down by Family Groups. . . the Level of Importance Down by Family Groups. . . the Level of Importance Down by Family Groups. . . the Level of Importance Down by Family Groups. . . An Aggregate Analysis of Goal-Orientation by Goal Categories ...................... An Aggregate Analysis of Goal Orientation by Arenas of Concern ........................ xiii Page 137 138 140 141 142 144 145 146 148 149 150 152 153 154 156 158 Table Page 91. Summary of Reasons for Living in the Countryside, Broken Down by Family Groups ............. 162 92. Summary of Responses Regarding the Things Children Do or Could Do to Make Their Parents Happy, Broken Down by Family Groups ................ 164 93. Summary of Responses Regarding the Things They are Happy to Have in this Life, Broken Down by Family Groups .................... 166 94. Summary of Responses Regarding Things They Like Best About Their Country, Broken Down by Family Groups . . 167 95. Summary of Responses Regarding the Things They Dislike About Their Country, Broken Down by Family Groups . . 169 xiv CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The Problem The Cooperative Extension Service, established by the Smith-Lever Act of 1914, is the bridge between agricultural research and the farmer. The basic mission of Cooperative Extension is to help rural people identify and solve their farm, home and community problems through research findings and USDA programs. The programs are financed cooperatively by federal, state, and local governments and conducted through land-grant colleges and universities. According to Edgar J. Boone, "the Cooperative Extension Service, often referred to as 'Agricultural Extension' is the world's largest publicly supported, informal adult education and develop- ment organization."1 It is important to state here the fact that there were several historical forces and developments that took place for about half a century which led to the establishment of the Cooperative Extension Service as a national system of adult education for rural people. The major forces included movements and organizations such as land-grant colleges, cooperative demonstration work, Country Life Movement, the economic power and prosperity of the period 1880 to 1910, home economics legislation of 1909, and youth — (9.“ .rAA 4 work through boys' and girls' clubs, and many others. The idea of better agriculture, better family living and development of youth were all demonstrated during the above historical period and were incorporated into the Act of 1914 which formed the legal basis for the establishment of the Cooperative Extension Service. Land-grant colleges and universities, through continuing research, training and extension, over a period of more than half a century, have revolutionized American agriculture to the extent that the United States has become the largest producer and supplier of food and fiber in the world. Higher productivity, economies of scale, mechanization and vertical integration have become basic principles of farming and, as a result, Cooperative Extension Service has been concentrating on farmers who have the willingness and resources to accept and apply the principles of commercial farming. Consequently, many family farms have gone out of business and disappeared. From 1950 to 1975, the number of farms decreased by about 50 percent. At the same time, the total land in farms decreased only about 10 percent and the average farm size increased about 81 percent.2 Although the number of smaller farms has declined and many of those remaining are operated by part-time or semi-retired farmers, many small farms are operated by farm families in their productive years who depend primarily on farm income for their livelihood. Available information indicates that many of these families may be subsisting on incomes at or below the poverty level. work through boys' and girls' clubs, and many others. The idea of better agriculture, better family living and development of youth were all demonstrated during the above historical period and were incorporated into the Act of 1914 which formed the legal basis for the establishment of the Cooperative Extension Service. Land-grant colleges and universities, through continuing research, training and extension, over a period of more than half a century, have revolutionized American agriculture to the extent that the United States has become the largest producer and supplier of food and fiber in the world. Higher productivity, economies of scale, mechanization and vertical integration have become basic principles of farming and, as a result, Cooperative Extension Service has been concentrating on farmers who have the willingness and resources to accept and apply the principles of commercial farming. Consequently, many family farms have gone out of business and disappeared. From 1950 to 1975, the number of farms decreased by about 50 percent. At the same time, the total land in farms decreased only about 10 percent and the average farm size increased about 81 percent.2 Although the number of smaller farms has declined and many of those remaining are operated by part-time or semi-retired farmers, many small farms are operated by farm families in their productive years who depend primarily on farm income for their livelihood. Available information indicates that many of these families may be subsisting on incomes at or below the poverty level. The People Left Behind, a report by the President's National Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty which was published in 1967, identified a problemP-the problem of rural poverty which affected some 14 million Americans. The report points out the fact that "the nation has been largely oblivious to these 14 million impover- ished people left behind in rural America. Our programs for rural America are woefully out of date."3 The Commission recommended, "that the Federal Government reexamine its commercial farm programs in order to make sure that adjustments in the supply of farm products are not made at the expense of the rural poor."4 Hard Tomatoes, Hard Times vehemently criticizes the land- grant colleges and universities for their failure to adhere to the mission of serving and educating the total rural community. Although the land-grant college complex was created to be the people's university to reach out to serve the various needs of a broad rural constituency, the system has, in fact, become the sidekick and frequent servant of agriculture's industrialized elite. . . . The focus of Extension Service is on rural clients who need it least, ignoring the obvious needs of the vast majority of rural Americans.5 The book, quoting statistics regarding the state of affairs in the rural sector, further points out that "the rural poor, in particular, are badly served by Extension; receiving a pitiful percentage of 6 USDA has also been criti- the time of extension professionals." cized in its failure to exercise its power to redirect the priorities and programs of the state extension services. During recent years, much concern has been expressed about whether enough of research and extension activity has been directed r+ [(3) a? to the problems of the small farmers. During deliberations on the Rural Development Act of 1972, several senators indicated that special research and extension efforts were needed to assist in improving small farm conditions and thereby encourage them to remain on their farms. The Report to the Coggress by the Comptroller General of the United States dated August 15, 1975, discusses among other things the need for research and extension efforts of USDA and land-grant colleges for improving the farming operations of small farm operators. This report admits the fact that although some publicly supported extension and research projects have related to the needs of small-farm operators, USDA and the land-grant colleges have not made a concerted effort to solve the problems impeding the economic improve- ment of small-farm operations. During the Hearing Before the Sub-Committee on Family Farms and Rural Development of the Committee on Agriculture (House of Representatives) on H.R. 12917 on June 10, 1976, several representa— tives supported the need for assisting small farm families and recommended the provision of additional staff and resources for the purpose. Several of the members felt that the educational needs of small farmers were different from those of the larger producers. A Regional Small Farms Conference, held August 16-17, 1978, in Des Moines, Iowa, which was co-sponsored by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Community Services Admin- istration (CSA), sought to "identify what small farm operators need, 8 There is an increasing as contrasted with what other farmers need." interest at the federal level as well as in some states and land- grant universities to define more accurately who the small farmers are; what their problems and needs are; and how their needs are different from the commercial farmers. Small Farm Profile, a paper presented by Donald K. Larson and James A. Lewis of USDA at the Small Farm Workshop sponsored by the Economics, Statistics and Cooperative Service in Washington, D.C. on May 3-4, 1978, and another paper on Perspectives on the Small Farm by David F. Brewster of the National Economic Analysis Division at the same workshop are examples in this regard. These two papers have alluded to the emergence of two schools of thought about the ideal approach to small-farm issues. One school of thought suggests the need for creating an environment that will allow farmers and non- farmers alike to carry on full lives in non-metropolitan areas. Attention has focused on services, nonfarm job opportunities, and the special problems facing low—income citizens outside the cities. She stress, in other words, has been on rural development. The other school of thought holds the view that what distinguishes the small-scale operator from the rest of the rural population is his farm-~a unique package of resources with economic potentials that need to be realized no matter how modest. This school stresses the need for basic changes in agriculture itself. ESCS seems to be heading toward a middle course. They believe that "small farmers have different resources and aspirations, which suggests that a diversity of programs may be called for."11 However, there has been no adequate empirical evidence to support these assumptions. , Description and Analysis of Michigan Small Farms is a study conducted by Ronald L. Thompson, Graduate Assistant and Ralph E. Hepp, Professor of Agricultural Economics at Michigan State Univer- sity in 1976. This study has provided an economic profile of small farmers in Michigan and set the stage for further research. North Carolina State University completed a study which was published in December, 1976, "to determine the decision-making and communication patterns of disadvantaged farm families and the linkage between interpersonal sources of information used by them and research-based information sources.”12 This study focused on the characteristics, decision-making processes, relationship of selected sociopsychological variables to decision-making processes, use of media, credibility of information source, etc., and the kinds of major decisions made by disadvantaged farm families. The sample consisted of only one segment of the limited resource farmers, i.e., low-income farm families who were at or below sub- sistence level and who were on public assistance. As part of the same project, Darl Everett Snyder studied selected factors associated with the value orientations of dis- advantaged farm families in the same population. This study con- cluded that the population under study had no clear-cut tendency toward either a present or a future value orientation. Within the sample, 85 percent of the farm Operators and 91 percent of the homemakers were moderately to highly anomic. The most recent study in Michigan related to the problem of small farmers was conducted by Tom Olson under the guidance of Ralph Hepp, Professor of Agricultural Economics at Michigan State University. One of the objectives of this study was "to examine the importance of various types of information as perceived by "13 small farmers . . . The finding showed that "in general small farmers placed less importance on technical information and insti- tutional information than do larger farmers, while there was no significant difference between farm size categories regarding human "14 information. This, according to Olson, could lead to the following conclusion: small farmers differ in goals and objectives from larger farmers and thus problems perceived as important by larger farmers may not be perceived as important in terms of the goals of small farmers.15 Further research was suggested to clarify this issue. The above review of literature and background of the problem of small farmers brings up the following major conclusions: 1. Being predominantly involved with the social need for large scale production and higher productivity, the Cooperative Extension Service has increasingly focused its attention on large scale commercial farmers and as a result, the mission of serving other rural families has been relegated to the background. 2. There has been growing concern for the small, low- income and disadvantaged farm families among research and extension service personnel at governmental as well as university levels. 3. At the same time, there is lack of empirical data available with regard to the problems, goals and values of families living on smaller farms in compar- ison with commercial or large-scale farmers. 4. It is not clear whether the goals of all the small farmers are the same or whether there is wide diversity based on certain identifiable socioeconomic variables. Motivation for the Study The problem as stated above demonstrates the need and potential for research in several areas related to families living on smaller farms.r This researcher's interest in undertaking a study related to small farm families evolved as a result of his involve- ment, as a research and evaluation assistant, with the evaluation of the special projects sponsored by Michigan State University 4-H Program in conjunction with Michigan Department of Social Services. One of these projects was in the problem area of small and part- time farm families and piloted an extension education program in Lenawee, Monroe and Washtenaw counties in southeastern Michigan. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to understand the character- istics, goals and values of small farm families as a group in comparison with commercial farm families and to identify the dis- tinctive elements that are significant for continuing education. Specific Objectives of the Study More specifically, the study was undertaken to seek answers to the following questions: 1. What are the significant differences, if any, in selected characteristics, goals and values between families living on smaller farms and families living on larger or commercial farms? 2. Do the families living on small farms possess common characteristics so that they are a homogenous group or, are there subgroups with distinct characteristics? 3. Are the differences, if any, important enough to have implications for continuing education, especially Cooperative Extension Service? Assumptions Based on the review of background literature related to the problem, it is assumed that the families living on smaller farms consist of various subgroups with possible differences in character- istics and life-styles. These subgroups may include full-time farm families, part-time farm families, subsistence farm families, semi-retired farm families, rural resident families with very limited or no farming interests, and possibly other groups. With regard to commercial farm families, it is assumed that they possess more of the similar characteristics and therefore may be considered as a homogenous group; their major goal being the management of a successful commercial farming enterprise. Definition of Terms The study covers rural families which may be divided into two broad categories: non-commercial or small farm families and commercial or larger farm families. The small farm families may be further divided into two major groups, i.e. rural residents with limited or no farming activities and others who will be designated as families living on small farms. The large farm families are also divided into two major groups based on their farm size, i.e. large farms and medium sized farms. There is another division based on the number of person days worked off the farm by the heads of house- holds, i.e. full-time farm families and part-time farm families. 10 Subgroups within families living on small farms are identified on the basis of their size of farm operations. A clear definition of these various terms that will be used in the analysis and findings is presented below: Large Farm Family (or, family living on a large farm): a family whose major occupation is farming and whose annual gross agricultural sales total $100,000 or over. Medium Farm Family: a family whose major occupation is farming and whose annual gross agricultural sales fall within the range of $40,000 to $99,999. Commercial Farm Family: for the purpose of this study, both large farm families and medium farm families together are generally considered as commercial farm families. Small Farm Family: a family who is engaged in farming operations, whether a major or minor occupation, and whose annual gross agricultural sales fall within the range of $1,000 to $39,999. Rural Resident Family: a family who resides in the rural area normally on a few acres of land and whose involvement in farming is limited to production for home consumption and an annual gross agricultural sales totaling less than $1,000. Rural resident families are also often referred to as non-farm rural residents. Part-Time Farm Family: a family residing on a farm, and engaged in farming operations, but at the same time, working 100 days or more per year in non-farming related occupations. 11 Small Farm Family Subgroups: small farm families are further divided into four subgroups on the basis of the extent of annual gross agricultural sales. Subgroup I consists of all small farm families whose gross agricultural sales fall within the category of 20,000 to $39,999. Subgroup II consists of all small farm families whose gross agricultural annual sales fall within the range of $10,000 to $19,999. Subgroup III consists of all small farm families whose annual gross agricultural sales fall within the range of $2,500 to $9,999. Subgroup IV consists of all small farm families whose annual gross agricultural sales fall within the range of $1,000 to $2,499. These definitions have been derived as per guidelines pro- vided in the final report of 1974 Census of Agriculture, U.S. 16 and also from the Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census definitions used in the studies conducted under the direction of Ralph Hepp, Professor of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State 17 All the sales figures included in the University, East Lansing. definitions are for sales conducted in the year 1978 by the heads of households who are the respondents for this study. .GQlez goals are defined as objects or ends which one strives to attain. Both needs and goals are sources of motivation for human behavior. However, while needs are a continuing source of motivation for the individual, goals are the empirical referent, or operationalization of the need. Needs and goals are inter- dependent to the extent that the goal of the individual is the 12 specific method, or manner, by which the individual seeks to satisfy a need. Vglgegg values may be defined as the social principles and standards held by an individual, class or society. Values are a subjective interpretation of the relationship which ought to exist between phenomena. Values are functionally related to the beliefs of individuals but, unlike beliefs, values involve an expression of approval or disapproval. Values need not necessarily be supported by scientifically validated facts, rather they indicate what an individual believes to be true or what conditions ought to be. Values are the criteria by which goals are chosen by an individual or a society. The above definitions demonstrate a cause-effect relation- ship between values, goals and needs. Chapter I FOOTNOTES 1Edgar J. Boone, "The Cooperative Extension Service," in Handbook of Adult Education, a publication of the Adult Education AssoCiation 0f7the U.S.A., 1970, p. 265. 2U.S. General Accounting Office, Comptroller General, Report to the Congress: Some Problems Impeding_Economic Improvement of Small”Farm Operations: What the Department of Agriculture Couldw Op, RED-76-2:“AUQust 15, 1975, p. 2. 3The People Left Behind, a report by the President's National Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty, Washington, D.C., September, 1967, p. ix. 4 Ibid., p. xii. 5Jim Hightower, Hard Tomatoes, Hard Times, a report of the Agri-Business Accountability Project on the Failure of America's Land-Grant College Complex, Cambridge, Mass.: Schenkman Publishing Company, 1972, pp. 1-2. 61bid.. pp. 208-209. 7U.S. General Accounting Office, Report to the Congress, 8Regional Small Farms Conferences, National Summary. Co- sponsored by U.S. Department of’Agriculture, Community Services Administration and Action, Washington, D.C., December 1978, p. 3. 9David E. Brewster, Perepectives on the Small Farm, National Economic Analysis Division, paper presented at the ESCS Small Farm Workshop, Washington, D.C., May 3-4, 1978, pp. 4-6. 10 11 Ibid., p. 5. Ibid., p. 6. 13 14 12"Decision-Making and Communication Patterns of Disadvantaged Farm Families in the North Carolina Coastal Plains Area,” North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station, Technical Bulletin No. 245, December 1976, p. iii. 13Thomas M. Olson, "Non-Formal Education Delivery Systems to Reach Limited Resource Farmers in Michigan," Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1978, p. 14. 14Ibid., p. 168. 151bid., p. 169. 16U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1974 Census of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., p. x. 17Ralph E. Hepp, "Characteristics of Michigan's Small Farms," Staff Paper No. 77-73, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, pp. 1-2. CHAPTER II CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND RELATED LITERATURE ON GOALS AND VALUES The main focus of this study was on the value- and goal- orientations of small farm families in comparison with medium sized and large farm families. This section is, therefore, devoted to a discussion of the concepts of values and goals, their interrelation- ship and also a presentation of available related literature. Concept of Values In the preface to his book, The Nature of Human Values, Rokeach states: The concept of values, more than any other, is the core concept across all the social sciences. It is the main dependent variable in the study of culture, society, and personality, and the main independent variable in the study of social attitudes and behavior. It is difficult for me to conceive of any problem social scientists might be interested in that would not deeply implicate human values.1 He lists five assumptions about the nature of human values which may be summarized as follows: (1) the total number of values that a person possesses is relatively small; (2) all men everywhere possess the same values to different degrees; (3) values are organized into value systems; (4) the antecedents of human values can be traced to 15 CHAPTER II CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND RELATED LITERATURE ON GOALS AND VALUES The main focus of this study was on the value- and goal- orientations of small farm families in comparison with medium sized and large farm families. This section is, therefore, devoted to a discussion of the concepts of values and goals, their interrelation- ship and also a presentation of available related literature. Concept of Values In the preface to his book, The Nature of Human Values, Rokeach states: The concept of values, more than any other, is the core concept across all the social sciences. It is the main dependent variable in the study of culture, society, and personality, and the main independent variable in the study of social attitudes and behavior. It is difficult for me to conceive of any problem social scientists might be interested in that would not deeply implicate human values.1 He lists five assumptions about the nature of human values which may be summarized as follows: (1) the total number of values that a person possesses is relatively small; (2) all men everywhere possess the same values to different degrees; (3) values are organized into value systems; (4) the antecedents of human values can be traced to 15 16 culture, society and its institutions, and personality; and (5) the consequences of human values will be manifested in virtually all phenomena that social scientists might consider worth investi- gating and understanding. Rokeach concludes that "values are guides and determinants of social attitudes and ideologies on the one hand and of social behavior on the other."2 According to Clyde Kluckhohn, a value is a hypothetical construct assigned to that class of hypothetical constructs known as the individual's phenomenology--the way one views the world and himself in relation to it. Thus, a value is 'conscious' and verbal- izable by the person who holds it; though insufficient thought and intellectual limitation may make his spon- taneous verbalization less than adequate, he is at least capable of assenting to the statement of a value he espouses. While reviewing Values and Value Orientations in the Theory of Action by Clyde Kluckhohn, William A. Scott defines a value as an individual's concept of an ideal relationship (or state of affairs), which he uses to assess the 'goodness' or 'badness,’ the 'rightness' or 'wrongness,‘ of actual relationships that he observes or contem- plates.4 The meaning of value is clearer and empirically applicable when it is defined as a state that the person who holds it can at least express. R.M. Williams, Jr. discusses the relationship between values and goals: A value provides more than a concrete goal of action; it provides a criterion by which goals are chosen. It does not simply represent something that is preferred, but something the person feels ought to be preferred.5 16 culture, society and its institutions, and personality; and (5) the consequences of human values will be manifested in virtually all phenomena that social scientists might consider worth investi- gating and understanding. Rokeach concludes that "values are guides and determinants of social attitudes and ideologies on the one hand and of social behavior on the other.”2 According to Clyde Kluckhohn, a value is a hypothetical construct assigned to that class of hypothetical constructs known as the individual's phenomenology--the way one views the world and himself in relation to it. Thus, a value is 'conscious' and verbal- izable by the person who holds it; though insufficient thought and intellectual limitation may make his spon- taneous verbalization less than adequate, he is at least capable of assenting to the statement of a value he espouses. While reviewing Values and Value Orientations in the Thepgy of Action by Clyde Kluckhohn, William A. Scott defines a value as an individual's concept of an ideal relationship (or state of affairs), which he uses to assess the 'goodness' or 'badness,‘ the 'rightness' or 'wrongness,‘ of actual relationships that he observes or contem- plates.4 The meaning of value is clearer and empirically applicable when it is defined as a state that the person who holds it can at least express. R.M. Williams, Jr. discusses the relationship between values and goals: A value provides more than a concrete goal of action; it provides a criterion by which goals are chosen. It does not simply represent something that is preferred, but something the person feels ought to be preferred.5 17 Value Systems After a value is learned, it becomes integrated into an organized system of values previously learned. In that system, each value is ordered in priority with respect to other values; thus a hierarchy of values becomes established. Rokeach observed that such a conception of values enables one to define change as a reordering of priorities and, at the same time, to see the total system as relatively stable over time. A value system is a learned organization of principles and rules that helps its holder choose between alternatives, resolve conflicts, and make decisions (Rokeach, 1973). Sargent and Williamson (1958) believed that most individuals erect, both con- sciously and unconsciously, an organization of values--a values hierarchy--which guides their lives in some degree by a not altogether consistent system of goals. Williams (1960) called this arrangement a value system, which implies that values are not simply distributed at random, but instead are interdependent, arranged in a pattern, and subject to reciprocal or mutual variation. Hierarchies of Values, Goals or Needs Abraham Maslow is probably the most widely accepted psy- chologist of modern era who has expounded a theory of hierarchy of goals or needs based on the concept of value systems. He uses the concepts of values, goals and needs interchangeably, suggesting that in terms of human action they are interdependent and inter- related. 18 Although behavior is assumed to be goal-oriented, the action of the individual over time indicates that he is not oriented solely toward the satisfaction or accomplishment of any single goal or want, but rather the actor is positively oriented toward the attainment of a multiplicity of goals which can be arranged hierarchically according to various criteria. According to Ian Davison (1977) these criteria depend upon the situation in which the individual or the group of individuals are placed and the resources available to attain the particular goal or goals. One such cri— terion of ordering of goals is proposed by Maslow (1962) who suggests that lower order needs are dominant until satisfied and that only upon satisfaction of these lower order, or basic, needs does the individual seek satisfaction of higher order needs. But they are, according to Maslow, related to each other in a hier- archical and developmental way, in an order of strength and of priority. Safety is a more prepotent, or stronger, more pressing, more vital need than love, for instance, and the need for it is usually stronger than either. Furthermore, all these basic needs may be considered to be simply steps along the path to general self-agtualization, under which all ba51c needs can be subsumed. Criteria of Goal Selection According to Krech et a1. (1948) the criteria by which an individual selects particular goals and rank-orders them for attain- ment are as follows: (1) cultural norms and values, (2) biological capacity of the individual, and (3) accessibility in the physical and social environment.7 19 Merton, in his book on Social Theory and Social Structure, discusses patterns of cultural goals and institutional norms that guide and influence individual's choices of goals. Among the several elements of social and cultural struc- tures, two are of immediate importance. . . . The first consists of culturally defined goals, purposes and interests, held out as legitimate objectives for all or for diversely located members of the society. The goals are more or less integrated--the degree is a question of empirical fact--and roughly ordered in some hierarchy of value. Involving various degrees of sentiment and significance, the prevailing goals com- rise a frame of aspirational reference. They are the things 'worth striving for.‘ They are a basic, though not the exclusive, component of what Linton called 'designs for the group living.‘ 'A second element of the cultural structure defines, regulates, and controls the acceptable modes of reaching out for these goals, . In all instances, the choice of expedients for striving toward cultural goals is limited by institu- tionalized norms.8 Study of Values, Goals and Attitudes of Farm Families The related literature on the research on the values, goals, aspirations and attitudes of farm families is scanty and sketchy and this investigator could not find much empirical evidence which suggest the value orientations of different groups of farm families based on socioeconomic status. The available literature can be summarized briefly. Rushing suggests that lower class and middle-to-upper class persons, as represented by farm workers and farmers, differ con— siderably in their goal orientations. Three trends are noteworthy: (a) The goal orientation of most farm workers revolves around matters of basic physical and economic survival, whereas farmers (farm operators and managers) are more 20 apt to be concerned with economic enhancement and con- tinued monetary success, with peace, and quality of government. (b) At the same time, a minority of lower class farm workers have economic and materialistic goals that are similar to goals already achieved by the higher-status farmers and by members of middle-class society generally (self- employment, home ownership, and comfortable housing). These two trends suggest that the orientations of lower— class persons are determined to a greater extent by the physical and economic conditions of their existence than by the cultural values of the broader society. (c) Even in areas of similar goal-orientations, the level aspired to is lower for the lower class farm workers. At the same time, however, trends suggest that the assimilation of middle class goals reaches to the very bottom of the rural class structure.9 Ramsey, Polson and Spencer studied the relationship between value orientation and adoption of improved practices in farming. Twelve value orientations were tested in relation to each of two adoption scales. Six value orientations were hypothesized as posi- tively related to the practice adoption and the lime scales; six others were hypothesized as negatively related to the two adoption scales. Significant linear negative relationships were found between the behavioral adoption scale and two of the value orienta- tions: security and traditionalism. Significant linear relation- ships were found between the cognitive adoption and five value orientations: positive relationships with achievement, science, and material comfort and negative relationships with security and traditionalism. All relationships were low in magnitude.10 Mather suggests that low status people participate in fewer organized activities and know fewer people. As far as membership in clubs and organizations goes, one illustration among many is 21 provided by a study made in Franklin, Indiana. The percentage of men in the income class earning less than $100 per month who had no group affiliations at all was eight times as great as that of men in the higher income class. In every type of group without excep- tion--church, fraternal, service, recreational, patriotic, political, cultural--membership on the part of lower income class was markedly lower.n Study of the Goals and Values of Small Farm Families Based on the rationale presented in Chapter I and the review of literature presented in Chapter II, this investigator felt that it was important to treat the small farm families as a subculture within the rural cultural system and inquire into their goals, values and beliefs in comparison with other subcultural systems of rural life. Do the small farm families as a group hold distinct characteristics, goals and values? What are the differences, if any, in goals, values and general characteristics between small farm families, medium farm families, large farm families, non-farm rural resident families? More specifically, the study concentrated on finding out the differences and similarities with regard to goals and values of defined groups of rural families along with selected socioeconomic characteristics. The study also covered the nature and degree of social participation by small farm families in comparison with other groups. Social participation is an overt behavior and reflects value orientation, particularly social values. 22 Techniques of Studying Values and Goals For the purpose of studying goals, a list of 25 goal state- ments was prepared and distributed over four goal categories: economic, social, health and aesthetic. Each goal category included three arenas of concern, viz. individual, family and community. The respondents were asked to indicate their relative importance for each goal on a scale of 5 to l, 5 being the highest importance and 1 being the lowest importance. The relative importance assigned by each defined group of respondents to each of the goals was measured and the degree of differences was analysed. The categories of goals—- economic, social, health and aesthetic--were formulated on the principles suggested by Allport, Vernon and Lindzey in their Spudy of Values and by Maslow in his hierarchy of needs concept. The arenas of concern were derived from Merton's local and cosmopolitan type of classification which Rogers used in his study of diffusion of innovations among rural people. For purposes of studying the value orientation, open-ended questions were asked on the same arenas of concern and the responses were categorized both on the basis of three arenas of concern-- individual, family and community--and four value categories-- economic, social, health and aesthetic. The open-ended questions did not allow for relative importance rating; rather they provided opportunity for the respondents to freely express their likes and dislikes, their feelings and attitudes from which values were inferred. The responses were rank-ordered in terms of frequencies and compared between groups. 23 A schematic presentation of the distribution of goals and values is given below: ARENAS OF CONCERN Goal Category Individual Family Community Economic Social Health Aesthetic Figure l.--A Schematic Presentation of the Distribution of Goals and Values. Chapter II FOOTNOTES 1M. Rokeach, The Nature of Human Values, New York: The Free Press, 1973, p. iv. 2 Ibid., p. 24. 3Clyde Kluckhohn, "Values and Value Orientations in the Theory of Action," in T. Parsons and E.A. Shib (eds.) Toward a General Theory of Action, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1951. PP. 338-433. 4William A. Scott, Values and Organizations, Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1965, p. 5. 5R.M. Williams Jr., American Society: A Sociological Interpretation, New York: Knopf, 1951, pp. 166-167. 6Abraham H. Maslow, Toward a P§yehology of Being, Princeton, New Jersey: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1962, pp. 141-145. 7David Krech and Egerton L. Ballachey, Individual in Society, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1962, pp. 111-112. 8Robert K. Merton, Social Theopy and Social Structure, Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1966, p. 132. (Revised and enlarged edition, pp. 263-264). 9Rushing, "Class Differences in Goal Orientations and Aspirations: Rural Patterns," in Rural Sociology 35 (September, 1970):377-395. 10Charles E. Ramsey, Robert A. Polson and George E. Spencer, ”Values and the Adoption of Practices,” in Rural Sociology 24 (l959):35-47. 11W.G. Mather, Jr., "Income and Social Participation," American Sociological Review 6, pp. 380-383. 24 CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY Having discussed the objectives of the study in the first chapter and conceptual framework in the second chapter, the next logical step is to state the methods and procedures that were applied in conducting the investigation, collecting the data and analysing the data. Included in this chapter are (1) population and sampling; (2) research method; (3) research instrument; (4) data collection process; (5) data analysis procedure; and (6) limitations of the study. ngulation and Sampling The population for the study consisted of nine townships in the urbanizing southeastern portion of Michigan: Lenawee, Monroe and Washtenaw counties. It was assumed that, due to the increasing influence of the major urban centers such as Detroit and Toledo, these counties would include families with diversified socioeconomic background and varied interest in farming, particularly a large proportion of part-time farmers. In each county, three townships were selected; one with a major proportion (more than 50 percent) of small, but full-time farm families; one with a major proportion (more than 50 percent) of small, but part-time farm families and 25 26 rural resident farm families with little or no involvement in farming and one with a major proportion (more than 50 percent) of commercial farm (large and medium) families. The experience of the county staff, particularly of the Agricultural Extension Agent and Small Farm Program Assistant, and the data available with the county were utilized in selecting the three townships in each county. As per lists provided by the Agricultural and Soil Conservation Service Offices of the three counties, the nine townships selected for the study consisted of a total of 1485 rural households. A sample size of 33 1/3 percent of the population of each of the nine townships was drawn using random table numbers generated by the computer. A larger sample size was determined on the expec- tation that the sample drawn would include adequate number of households from each of the family groups as defined in Chapter I. The study, therefore, included a sample of 495 rural families covering nine townships in the three counties of Lenawee, Monroe and Washtenaw. Research Method Educational and social science research may be classified, in terms of research design, into (1) the descriptive method; (2) the causal-comparative method; (3) the correlational method; and (4) the experimental method. The causal-comparative method is also called the explanatory method. In this study, both the descriptive method and explanatory method have been applied for investigation. According to Hyman.1 these two types of research constitute what is 27 called survery method of investigation which accounts for a sub- stantial proportion of the research done in the field of education. Research Instrument ,Questionnaire Construction A highly structured questionnaire was constructed in four parts: Part A--Genera1 Socioeconomic Characteristics; Part B——Social Participation Characteristics; Part C--A listing of 25 goal state- ments; and Part D--Five open-ended questions related to general value orientation. Nearly every question could be answered by a check mark or a circle or a few words, and the length was limited to a manageable size so that an average respondent was expected to complete the questionnaire in about 30-35 minutes. With regard to Part C--goal statements, the listing included statements of four categories of goals, i.e. economic, social, aesthetic and health, and also three arenascH'concern, i.e. individual, family and community. The heads of households were asked to indicate their preference on each of the goal statements on a scale of 5-1 following the scale developed by Likert. Pretesting the Questionnaire As part of the process of pretesting the questionnaire, this researcher administered the draft questionnaire personally to five selected heads of farm families in Lenawee county, from townships not included for the study. These five pretest respondents included two commercial farmers, two small and part-time farmers and one 28 retired rural resident. The questionnaire was generally well received. The time they took for completing the questionnaire varied between 25 minutes to 40 minutes. After completion of answering the questionnaire, each of them was asked to make their comments on the content and language of the questionnaire. Their comments were taken into consideration in finalizing the question- naire for the final study. Data Collection Mailing_of the Questionnaire and Letter of Transmittal After making necessary changes and corrections as a result of the pretesting, the questionnaire was finalized and printed for mailing. Questionnaires were mailed to 495 heads of households selected for the study during the third week of April, 1979, with a letter of transmittal signed jointly by Tom Thorburn, Program Leader for Agriculture and Marketing Program at Michigan State University (who was in charge of small and part-time farm families program), Ralph Abbott, Evaluation Specialist for State 4-H programs and this researcher. A self-addressed and stamped return envelope was provided. Respondents were requested to return the completed questionnaire within ten days after receipt. Both the questionnaire and the letter of transmittal are exhibited in Appendices A and 8. Responses and Follow Up Within the three weeks following the mailing of the ques- tionnaire, 105 questionnaires were returned duly completed and 16 29 questionnaires were returned unanswered for the reasons such as: (l) the addressee moved out of the area; (2) both the head of the household and the spouse deceased; (3) the addressee was in the hospital; and (4) not interested in participating. A follow up letter was mailed to those who did not return the questionnaire, emphasizing the importance of their participation in the study. Consequently, 28 more questionnaires were returned duly completed. Thus, we received a total of 133 completed ques- tionnaires. However, 19 of them did not include the most important information regarding farm size and annual gross agricultural sales which is the criterion for dividing the respondents into various farm family groups, and therefore, could not be included for analysis. The balance of 114 questionnaires were included for analysis. Thus, the study covers a total of 114 rural families in the tri-county areas of Lenawee, Monroe and Washtenaw in the south- eastern portion of Michigan. Data Analysis Procedure The study being basically a descriptive one, data have been analysed and presented using descriptive statistics such as fre- quency distribution, ranges, means and percentages. Measures of central tendency and dispersion have been computed and presented within one and multiple dimensional matrix formats allowing for easy comparisons between groups as well as within groups. A causal- comparative method was used in comparing subgroups within major 30 groups with regard to general characteristics (socioeconomic vari- ables), and also between major groups with regard to goal and value orientations. Limitations of the Study The study was limited to a geographical area consisting of nine townships in three counties of southeastern Michigan. The findings and conclusions are derived from the data furnished by 114 respondents who may not be representative of the rural families of the region, or the state or the entire country. Caution is, therefore, made against the generalizability of the findings and conclusions. Also, data have been gathered through a predominately struc- tured questionnaire which was mailed to the respondents. There was no opportunity for probing into the accuracy of the responses. This is, of course, an inherent shortcoming of the technique of mailed questionnaires. However, it is felt that the counties selected for the study do represent the trend of rural community life that is prevalent in the urbanizing metropolitan counties of the Midwestern region of the United States. Chapter III FOOTNOTES 1H.H. Hyman, Interviewing in Social Research, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1954, pp. 26-27. 31 CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA Introduction Analysis and interpretation of data collected through the questionnaire are presented in this chapter as are the inferences and findings from those data. As stated in Chapter III, the find- ings are drawn on the basis of the data furnished by 114 heads of rural households representing 114 rural families in nine townships. The respondents have been divided into four groups, for the purpose of comparison, i.e. (1) large farm families (17 in number); (2) medium farm families (another 17 in number); (3) small farm families (58 in number); and (4) rural resident families (22 in number). Data for each of the groups have been analysed and interpreted separately with regard to the characteristics. Large and medium farm families are presented together in one section. Small farm families and rural resident families are presented separately. With regard to goal and value orientations, all the groups are presented together in two separate sections for easy comparison. The principal focus of the study having been on small farm families, attempts have been made to bring out as clearly as possible 32 33 the distinctive characteristics, goals and values of this group both in the analysis as well as in the summary of findings. A complete summary of the analysis and findings are pre- sented at the end of the chapter for all the groups in a comparative format. Again, emphasis has been given to the summary of analysis and findings related to small farm families. Small Farm Families As stated earlier in the chapter as part of the Introduction, the population includes 58 families living on smaller farms which may be generally classified as non-commercial farms. A small farm is defined, for purpose of comparison with commercial farms, as an enterprise of farming having an annual gross agricultural sales not less than $1,000 and not more than $39,999. For purposes of internal comparisons this group of 58 families is further divided into four subgroups, again on the basis of annual gross agricultural sales (see Table 1, page 34). A description of the characteristics of the families, the type and size of farms on which they live, extent of involvement in farming as well as non-farming occupations, extent of involvement in organizations and Cooperative Extension Service etc., will be presented in this section. Attempts also will be made to compare subgroups to identify differences, if any, internally wherever such comparisons are appropriate. 34 Table 1.--Distribution of Small Farm Families by Subgroups on the Basis of Annual Gross Agricultural Sales. Annual Gross Sales Number of Families Percentage $2ozgggg;ofiggie99 1] 19.0 $lozgggg;ofig9iee9 9 15.5 $ 22233.net: 22 $ swim ., -——- Table 2.--Distribution of Heads of Households by Sex--Sma11 Farm Families. Subgroup Subgroup Subgroup Subgroup Total I II III IV # % # % # % # % # % Male 9 81.8 7 77.8 18 90.0 14 87.5 48 85.7 Female 2 18.2 2 22.2 2 10.0 2 12.5 8 14.3 11 100.0 9 100.0 20 100.0 16 100.0 56 100.0 35 Characteristics of the Small Farm Families l§e5.--Fifty six heads of households identified their sex; 48 (85.7%) were males and 8 (14.3%) were females. It is interesting to note that the 8 female heads of households are equally distrib- uted, in terms of number, over the 4 subgroups. However, subgroup II has the largest percentage of female heads of households--22.2%. The data are presented in Table 2, page 34. Marital Status.--As is indicated by Table 3, page 36, of the 56 heads of households who responded on the marital status, 41 (73.2%) were married, 5 (8.9%) were single, 8 (14.3%) were widowed, and 2 (3.6%) were divorced. In terms of subgroups, subgroup IV has the largest percentage of married heads of households (81.3%); sub— group I has the largest percentage of single heads of households (20%); and subgroup III has the largest percentage of widowed heads of households (23. %). Number and Age of Heads of Household and Other Family Members.--As is indicated by Table 4, page 36, the 58 small farm families consisted of a total of 168 members--an average of 3 per family. The number and age of family members are as follows: 55 (32.7%) of them were 19 or less years of age; 29 (17.3%) of them were 20-34 years of age; 49 229.1%) of them were 35-54 years of age; 13 7.7%) of them were 55-64 years of age; 22 (13.1%) of them were 65 years of age or over. The largest percentage of adults (i.e. 29.1%) belonged to age-group 35-54; however, there was a considerable percentage of older adults 36 Table 3.--Distribution of Heads of Households by Marital Status-- Small Farm Families. Subgroup Subgroup Subgroup Subgroup I II III IV # % # % # % # % # % Total Single 2 20.0 1 11.1 1 4.8 1 6.3 5 8.9 Married 7 70.0 7 77.8 14 66.6 13 81.3 41 73.2 Widowed 1 10.0 1 11.1 5 23.8 1 6.3 8 14.3 Divorced O O O O l 4.8 1 6.3 2 3.6 Separated O O O O O O O O O O 10 100.0 9 100.0 21 100.0 16 100.0 56 100.0 Table 4.--Distribution of Family Members by Age-Group--Small Farm Families. Age-Group Number Percentage Under 5 years 9 5.4 5- 9 11 6.5 10-14 19 11.3 15-19 16 9.5 20-24 18 10.7 25-34 11 6.5 35-44 16 9.5 45-54 33 19.6 55-64 13 7.7 65-74 5.3 75 and over ._l§ _Z;Z 168 100 O Av/Family 3 37 (13.1%) in the age-group 65 or over. Of all the subgroups, subgroup II had the largest percentage of younger adults, i.e. 20-24 age- group--while subgroup IV had the largest percentage of older adults--17.4%. Regarding the age of heads of households, 4 (6.9%) of them were in the age-group of 20-34; 28 (48.3%) were in the age-group of 35-54; 9 (15.5%) were in the age-group of 55-64, and 17 (29.3%) were in the age-group of 65 or over. The largest percentage of heads of households belong to the age-group of 35-54, followed by the age- group of 65 or over with a percentage of 29.3%. It is noteworthy that a sizeable number of older adults are heading the households and also are involved in limited farming operations. Table 5, page 38, displays these data. Education Level of Heads of Households and Their Spouses.-- Of the 56 heads of households who responded on their education level, 18 (32.1%) had less than a high school diploma; 22 (39.3%) had completed a high school diploma; 8 (14.3%) had some college; and 8 (14.3%) had one or more college degrees. The data reveal that there is a considerable percentage of adults who dropped out of school before they completed high school. Same is the status of the four subgroups with regard to the percentage of non-high school graduates. Subgroup IV had the largest percentage of adults without a high school diploma; this group is followed by subgroup II with 33.3%, then group III with 22.7% and group I with 20.0%. Table 6, page 39, displays these data. 38 o.oo~ mm o.ooF op 0.00? NN o.oop m 0.00_ —_ w.mp w w.m— m —.m N m.NN N P.m _ Lm>o new mm m.mp m m.NF N N.mp v F.PP P N.w~ N ¢N|m© m.m~ m N.© P N.mp v F.FP F m.mN m Goumm m.Nm m— m.mm o m.NN o ¢.¢¢ e N.NN m emumv m.mp m w.wp m m.NN m o o F.m F ecimm N.m m N.c P m.¢ P o o F.m P «mimN N.F P o o o o P.F~ F o o vNION mpum— e—iop m um memo» m Love: & n N % N * N * & * _muoh >H asogmazm HHH azocmnam HH azogmnzm H asogmnsm aaogwumm< .mmPFwEma same ppmsmluasoewumm< he muFogmmaor mo memo: mo cowuznwcpmwalu.m mPnMH 39 om o.oop o.oop my o.oo_ NN o.oo_ m o.oo_ o— m.¢_ m o.ON m o.m~ m N.NN N o o Amvmmgmwo ama_Fou aFoz m.ep m m.m_ N N.m_ v o o o.ON N mmmppou meow umpwpaeou m.mm NN m.mp N m.me OP ¢.¢¢ e 0.00 o Foocum gum: _oo;am new: _.Nm mp m.mm w N.NN m m.mm m o.ON N can» mmmu N N N N N N N N N _m>m4 Fmgo» >H azocmnzm HHH asocmnam HH asogmnsm H asocmnzm chomumuaum maaogmnsm Na mopogmmso: no memo: .mmmeEmu aged FPmEmuumpm>m4 chowumuzum an muposmmzoz No memo: No cowpanwgumwouu.m mPnMH 40 As is indicated by Table 7, page 41, educational levels of spouses appear to be generally higher than that of the heads of households. Of the 47 spouses who responded, 8 (17.0%) had less than high school completion; 25 (53.2%) had completed high school; 6 (12.8%) had some college and 8 (17.0%) had one or more college degrees. The data show that 83.0% of the spouses had at least a high school diploma, while only 67.9% of the heads of households had at least a high school diploma. Of all the subgroups of spouses, subgroup I had the largest percentage of non-high school graduates-- 22.2%. Residential Background.--Of the 43 who furnished data on their non-rural background, 16 (37.2%) reported to have never lived in a non-rural area. Of the rest of the 27, 4 (9.3%) had lived less than 10 years, 4 (9.3%) had lived 10-19 years, 10 (23.3%) had lived 20-29 years, 7 (16.3%) had lived 30-39 years, and 2 (4.7%) had lived 40-49 years. The figures indicate that a considerable number of the heads of families, presently living on small farms had lived in non- rural background for a number of years before they moved into the rural areas. The ratio of non-rural to rural background for the total group of families living on small farms is 32:68. The average number of years of non-rural background per family living on a small farm is 15.13 years. The data are presented in Table 8, page 42. 41 o.oop Ne c.oop e_ o.oop NF o.oo_ N o.oo_ N . . . . . Amvmmemmo 0 NF N 4 FN N N __ N o NN N P _F F dad,_ou v.0: N.N_ e e._N m N._F N m.e_ P o o dmdp_oo deem . . . . . uddeasou N mm mN m Ne e N Nm o_ m Ne N N me e .oogdm au_: . . . . . Poogum saw: o N_ N m e_ N e N_ m m s, P N NN N gasp and; N N N N N N N N N ~o>m4 _aNON >H azoamaam HNN asoamaam NH azoamngm N aaoamaam Facacpauzum manoemnam an mmmonWT .mmwFPEwd seed PFmEmuupm>m4 Pacowumuzum an mmmaoam mo companweumwnuu.m «Pack 42 o.oop mq o.oo_ NF o.oo_ op o.oo_ N o.oo_ m N.Nm or P.w_ N m.me N m.NN m m.¢e N ocoz m.Nm NN m.~w m .mm m N.Nm N m.mm m N.N N N.m_ N o o o o o o melee N.mp N N.m_ N o.mN N o o P.NF N mmuom m.mN ON N.om N m.wN m o.wN N F.~_ N mN-oN m.m N _.m N m.NN N m.ep N o o mpuop m.m N o o o o m.N— F m.mm m op coca mam; N N N N N N N N N N mumm> Page» >H aaoemnzm HHH azogmnzm NH azogmnzm H asocmasm No consaz .mmNPNEmm seed NPNEm unccaogmxomm Nagamncoz No ucmpxm esp Np mufiogmmzoz No mummz No cowpznwspmmoun.m mpnmp 43 Farms Where The Small Farm Families Lived' This section describes the size of farms, in terms of both sales and acres, operated by the families; kinds of crops and live- stock raised and the extent of involvement by the members of families through contribution of labor for farming operations and other relevant matters pertaining to farms which may help in understanding the families living on small farms. The farm size in terms of acreage owned, rented, and operated only as well as the composite size maintained and operated is pre- sented in Table 9, page 44. All the 58 families either owned, rented or operated only lands of varying sizes with a minimum of 20 acres and a maximum of 700 acres. There is one farm with 700 acres—-200 acres were owned and 500 acres were rented. The rest of them were less than 400 acres. There were two families who did not own any land--they either rented or just operated lands owned by others. Fourteen (24.1%) of the families rented lands of varying sizes and 3 (5. %) of the families operated only lands of small sizes. In terms of composite sizes (i.e. owned plus rented plus operated only): as can be seen from the table, 9 of the families (15.6%) had acreage in the range of less than 50 acres; 15 (25.8%) families had acreage in the range of 50-99; 18 (31.0%) had acreage in the range of lOO-l99; 12 (20.7%) had acreage in the range of 200-299; and 4 (6.9%) had acreage in the range of 300 and over. 44 Table 9.--Distribution of Small Farms by Farm Size (in Acreage) and Tenure Status. Number and Percentage of Farms Izzgegggein Range) Owned Rented 0p8:?;Ed Composite # % # % # % # % Less than 50 17 29.3 6 10.3 1 1.7 9 15.6 50- 99 14 24.1 3 5.2 2 3.5 15 25.8 100-199 14 24.1 4 6.9 O O 18 31.0 200-299 11 19.0 0 O O O 12 20.7 300 and over 0 o 1 1.7 o o 4 I 6.9 56 96.5 14 24.1 3 5.2 58 100.0 None 2 3.5 44 75.9 55 94.8 0 O 58 100.0 58 100.0 58 100.0 58 100.0 45 The largest percentage of families (i.e. 32.0%) had lands in the range of 100-199 acres, while the smallest percentage (i.e. 6.9%) had lands in the range of 300 or over. The averages for the 56 small farms in terms of acreage are: owned--97.63 acres; rented--24.51 acres; operated--3.27 acres, and the composite of all the three-~125.41 acres. Kinds of Crops Raised and the Acredge for Each Crop.—- Forty one (70.7%) of the small farms raised gppn in 1978. Fourteen (24.1%) of them raised corn on acreage in the range of less than 25 acres; 15 (25.9%) in the range of 25-49 acres; 7 (12.1%) in the range of 50-99 acres and 5 (8.6%) in the range of 100-199 acres. The average number of acres for corn per small farm was 29.60 acres. Twenty one (36.2%) of the small farms raised 111331;. Twenty (34.5%) raised on acreage less than 50 acres and 1 (1.7%) on acreage in the range of lOO-199 acres. The average for wheat per family is 7.21 acres. Fourteen (21.3%) of the small farms were involved in raising gels, Twleve (20.7%) raised on less than 25 acres each and l (1.7%) raised on acreage in the range of 25-49 and another 1 (1.7%) in the range of 50-99 acres. The average for oats per family was 5.05 acres. Thirty two (55.2%) of the farms raised soybeans on an average of 29.66 acres per family. Eighteen (31.0%) raised on acreages less than 50 acres; 10 (17.2%) in the range of 50-99 acres; and 4 (6.9%) in the range of lOO-l99 acres. 46 The rest of the crops which they raised in 1978 include hey, improved_pasture, native pasture, home gardening and woodlot. Twenty (34.5%) raised hay; 6 (10.3%) raised improved pasture; 11 (19.0%) raised native pasture; 17 (29.3%) were involved in home gardening and 20 (35.5%) maintained woodlot. Twenty of the families left part of their lands uncultivated during 1978. Average acreage left idle per family was 8.34 acres. Table 10, page 47, displays these data. Kinds of Livestock Raised by Families Living on Small Farms.-- Families living on small farms were involved in raising beef cattle, dairy cows, sheep and lambs, hogs, chickens, and horses. The families who raised these kinds of livestock included those who raised for purpose of self-consumption and also those who raised for self-consumption and sales. There is a smaller number of families who raised a sizeable number of each kind of livestock. This is revealed through the data presented below: Eight (13.6%) of the families raised beef cattle. Six (10.2%) raised less than 50 beef cattle, while 2 (3.4%) raised 50-99 beef cattle. Seven (12.1%) of the families raised sheep and lambs. Two (3.5%) raised less than 50; 2 (3.5%) raised lOO-199; l (1.7%) raised 300-399; and 2 (3.5%) raised as many as 400-499. Ten (17.2%) were engaged in raising chickens. Six of them (10.2%) raised less than 50 each; 4 (6.9%) raised more than 50, up 47 NNN NN NNN NN NNN NN NNN NN NNN NN NNN NN NNN NN NNN NN NNN NN NNN NN N.NN NN .N.NN NN N.NN NN N.NN NN N.NN NN N.NN NN N.NN NN N.NN NN N.NN NN N.NN NN NNNN N.NN NN N.NN NN N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN NN N.NN NN N.NN NN N.NN NN N.NN NN N.NN NN N N N N N N N.N N N N N N N.N N N N N N N.N N NHMNWNN N N N N N N N N N.N N N.NN N N.NN N N.N N N.N N N.NN N NN-NN N.N N N.N N N N N.N N N.N N N.N N N.NN NN N.N N N.N N N.NN NN NN-NN N.NN NN N.NN NN N.NN NN N.N N N.NN N N.NN N N.NN N N.NN NN N.NN NN N.NN NN NNNN mmwm N N N N NmNNNNNNM WNNNNNM NWNNNNM N N N N N N N N N N mNuN NNNN NoNuooz use: cw>oNNEN Ne: Ncemnxou NNNo News: :Nou mmNmNoq dsNNNz I... ‘41 II’I'P’ III II'11.RxII11II'lI1I11i1| I- w--1.1| In! 1.1 III I- I -10 1.1.1 1111: 11 -1111 .Nogu NUNN Low omNmNu< new uwNNmm NNoNu No chNx Na NENNN NNNEm No :oNNNNNNNNNo--.oN NNNNN 48 to a number over 500. There was one family who raised approximately 700 chicken, evidently as a major enterprise. Four (7.0%) families operated dairy farms. Two (3.5%) operated farms with less than 50 cows, while the other 2 (3.5%) operated bigger farms with 100-199 dairy cows. Four (7.0%) raised hogs. Two (3.5%) with less than 50 hogs; and the other 2 (3.5%) with 50-99 hogs. Seven of the families maintained horses. Except one, the rest of the families had one or two horses per family. One family had 12 horses, evidently riding horses used for commercial purposes. Table 11, page 49, displays these data. Contribution of Family Labor for Farming Operations.--As is indicated by Table 12, page 50, the small farms seem to be operating using the manpower of the family members, rather than hiring out- side labor. The data indicates that all the members of the family were involved in the operations of the farm. Obviously heads of households and spouses contributed the major share of the labor followed by the eldest child. Each of the families, on an average, contributed 147.6 person days for farming operations--7O person days by the heads of households; 28 person days by spouses; 39 person days by the children and 11 person days by other members of the family. In terms of subgroups of families: subgroup I appears to be contributing more labor (largest number of person days) compared to other groups. Subgroup I contributed 247 person days per family 49 o.oop mm o.oo— mm o.oop mm o.oop mm o.oop mm o.oo~ mm .Ndmwl NN N..le mm .NJINNNI NN .mquININ. an. NN WINNI NN N.NN: N.NN N N.NN NN N.NN N N.N N N.N N N.NN N N.N N - - NN>N NNN NNN N N N.N N NNN-NNN N N N.N N NNN-NNN N.N N - - NNN-NNN N.N N - - N.N N NNN-NNN N.N N N.N N N.N N - - N.N N NN -NN N.NN N N.NN N N.N N N.N N N.N N N.NN N NN NNNN NNNS N N N N N N N N N N N N NmNs=z coxuNcu DEN; N gmmzm moo: zoo NgNNo NNNNNU Noam 1.1, I 1 '1 11.1 I I 1 I. I I 11 1 '11:. 1111 11 1111... 1404111 IVII,II1III9 .NNNNNN NNNNNN>NN No NNNN NNN NNNNN NN mated NNNEN No NNNNNNNNNNNN--.NN NNNNN 50 - - - - - chommmm N.N N.N - - - NNNNN NNNN Noam; muwmpzo m.nvp w.vw v.o¢_ o.o¢— m.m¢m zNN-:N-NmumNm m.N . m.o m.oN No.o 3NN-:N-Lm;pon - u - u . 3NNucwugmspoz m.m N.N N.NN w.oN . zNNucwugmcumu N.N o.N N.o m.mN - cmNuNNsu gmgpo N.N N.N N.N N.N N.NN cNNcu NNNNN m.NN N.N o.N N.N N.NN NNNNU ocoumm o.NN N.NN N.N o.N N.NN NNNNU ammuNu w.NN N.NN w.om «.mm m.NN mmaoam . . . . . cNo; m ON N Nu m NN m cm N NNN -mmzoz No NNm: Nanemz NNNHZN NNNuzN NNNuzv NNuzN NNNuzN aaogw Nmuoh >N aaogmnzm NNN qzogmnam NH azogmnzm N asogmnzm .mELNm NNNEm-uAm»No mo NmaENZ mmmgm>NN N N N NN 1 1 N 1 N NN 1 1 N N N 1 N N N 1 N NNNNNNNN NNNNNNNNNN 1 1 1 NN 1 1 1 1 1 NN 1 1 1 1 N 1 1 1 1 1 NN NNNNENNN NNNNNNNNNNNNNN 1 1 1 NN 1 1 1 1 1 NN 1 1 1 1 N 1 1 N 1 1 NN NNNNNNNN N.NNNNNNN 1 1 1 NN 1 1 1 1 1 NN 1 1 1 1 N 1 1 1 1 1 NN NLNNNNN NNNNNNNNNNNNN 1 1 1 NN 1 1 1 1 1 mm 1 1 1 1 N 1 1 1 1 1 oN NNNNENNN acmENoNNemca 1 1 1 NN 1 1 1 1 1 mm 1 1 1 1 N 1 1 1 1 1 oN NoNoNNN ENNN NN NmNNz .Nmmsoam 1 1 1 NN 1 1 1 1 1 mm 1 1 1 1 N 1 1 1 1 1 oN NmNoNNN ENNN NN mmNmz Nzo> 1 1 1 NN 1 1 1 1 1 NN 1 1 1 1 N 1 1 1 1 1 NN NNNNN ENNNN N.NNNNNNNN 1 1 1 NN 1 1 1 1 1 mm 1 1 1 1 N 1 1 1 1 1 oN AmEoNNELNN Eogmv N.mm:oam N N 1 N 1 N N NN N N N N N N 1 1 1 N N N N ELNN ENNN NNNNNN Nmz N 1 1 NN 1 1 N 1 N NN N 1 N 1 N N 1 1 1 N NNENN ENNN Nszv N.NNNNNNNN 1 N 1 NN 1 N N N N NN 1 1 N 1 N 1 N N 1 N NNNNNN ENNN1NNN N.NNNNNN 1 1 NN N 1 1 1 N NN N N 1 N N N 1 1 1 N N NENNNN ENNN1NNN NNNN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N A3 Amv ANV A: 9:02: 1+0 mmogzom ELNN NNNEm ELNN NNNEm ENNN NNNEm ELNN NNNEm .msoucN No mugsom Noam No Nm>m4 mgp NcNuNonm NmNNNsNN ENNN NNNEN No :oNNNNNNNNNo11.wN mNNNN 59 III and IV. They are predominantly part-time farmers and also smallest of the small farmers. However, for a substantial number of families of these two groups, farming is an important supplemental (second largest source) source of income and therefore constitutes an inportant part of their lives. It is noteworthy that a considerable percentage of families depend on a combination of sources of income. Forty nine (86%) of them appear to be receiving income from two major sources and 34 (50%) of the 57 families appear to be receiving income from three major sources. Of all the sources listed above, non-farm income earned by the heads of households and net income from farm appear to be the two major sources on which the largest number of families depend. Gross Non-Farm Income Fifty three (91%) small farm families furnished information on their gross non-farm income for 1978, which is presented in Table 19, page 60. Eleven (21%) had no income from sources other than farming. Twenty three (43%) had non-farm income of less than $8,000; 16 (30%) had income in the range of $8,000 to $19,999; and 3 (6%) had income $20,000 or over. In view of the fact that approximately 80% of the families receive their first largest income from sources other than farming, it may be inferred that a considerable percentage of families live on an income which is at or below subsistence level. 60 ooN mm ooN NN ooN NN ooN N ooN N N.N N o o N.N N N.NN N o o Nm>o can ooo.omm N. N N N N N .N N N N N N NNN.NNN1NNN.NNN N.N N N.NN N N.N N N.NN N o o NNN.NNN1ooo.oNN N.N N N.N N N.N N o o N.NN N NNN.NNN1ooo.NNm N.NN m N.NN m N.N N o o N.NN m NNN.NNm1ooo.wm N.NN NN N.NN m N.NN m N.NN m N.NN N NNN.NN1ooo.N» w.oN NN N.NN m N.NN m N.NN N N.NN m ooo.em cusp mum; w.ON NN N.NN N N.NN o N.NN N N.NN N mcoz N NNNoN N >w NNoNNNNM NWN NNNNNNNM NW NNNNNNNM NNNNNNNNNM NgonNNo msoucN .NgonpNu msoucN ELNN1coz NNoNu an NmNNNENN ELNN NNNEm No coNNNNNNNNNo11.NN mNNNN 61 Social Participation Participation in Voluntary Organizations.--As is indicated by Table 20, page 62, 27 (47%) of the heads of households and 22 (54%) of the spouses reported to have participated in one or more voluntary organizations in 1978. Church, community/service clubs, farm organizations and labor unions are the major four categories of voluntary organizations in which the heads of households partici- pated more frequently than others. They participated, on an average, in two organizations with an attendance of one to two meetings the whole year. Committee memberships or holding offices was very negligible. Community/service clubs, church, and farm organizations are the three major organizations in which spouse participated, with an average frequency of one participation and average of two attendance at meetings. In this case also, holding office or com- mittee membership was very negligible. Public Offices Held.--Four (7%) of the heads of households have held public office since 1970. With regard to spouses, only 1 (2%) of the spouses held a public office. The types of offices are listed in Table 21, page 63. It is clear that the families living on small farms are either not interested in holding public offices or did not have the opportunity of getting involved in conducting the affairs of public institutions. 62 1 N N 1 N N mNNNo>< N NN Nm N Nm NN o N N o N N coNNNmeNNI1N o o o o o N coNNNmNumNNNNNoNN o o o o o N umNNNmm1Noosum umNNNmN o o o o o N 1pcme:gm>ow NNuoN o o N o N N NcoNc: NoNNN :oNuNNNNNNNo o o o o o o NNcLNNNNN o N N o N N coNNNNNNNNNo ENNN coNNNNNNNNNo o o o o o N NNNNNNNmNoNN NNNN wuN>Nmm N NN NN N NN NN gugzsu NcNNmmz NNNNmmz muNNNo No :oNNNNNuNNNNN NNNNNo No coNNNNNuNNNNN \mmNNNEEou gmaezz No Nocmscmgm \mmNNNEEou Nonszz No Nucmzcmgu mNNNm>< mNNNm>< NNNuzv mmsoam NNNuzN NNNNNNNNN: No NNNNN .NmNNNENN ENNN NNNEm No mmmzoam can uNosmmzo: No Nummx Na NcoNNNNNNNNNo NNNNNNNN> :N :oNNNNNuNNNNN No ucmpxm asp No :oNuanLNNNo Nucmzawgu11.oN mNNNN 63 Table 21.--Kinds and Extent of Public Offices Held by Heads of Households and Spouses of Small Farm Families. Head of Household Spouse School Board 1 Township Election Board 1 County Fair Board 1 Township Trustee l 1 Township Supervisor Table 22.--Impact of 4-H as Expressed by Heads of Households-- Small Farm Families. Number of Impact of 4-H Frequency Learn Responsibility 3 Skills in crafts 2 Personal growth 2 Develop leadership 1 Develop work ethic 1 Learn general skills and ideas 1 Generally positive 1 Basic skills in farming 1 No effect 1 13 Table 23.—-Reasons for Children Not Belonging to 4-H--Small Farm Families. Number Reason Responding Children are too old or too young 5 Nobody invited us Our children are not interested Our children are too busy with other things 4-H activities are not related to our family's interests and goals We never heard about 4-H We do not know enough about 4-H We do not think 4-H does any good dooom N-h-b 64 Children's Participation in Organizations and Activities.-- Children living on small farms participated in various organizations such as FFA or FHA, JETS and other school clubs, 4-H clubs, Junior Achievement, Church and church groups. They participated an average of 4.62 hours per week per family. Of all the organizations, JETs and other school clubs stand first in terms of number of hours of participation per week--1.95 per week. The extent of participa- tion in other organizations are: FFA or FHA--.98 hours; Junior Achievement--.7l hours; 4-H--.29 hours and Church--.29 hours. Church and 4-H appear to be enlisting the least participation in terms of number of hours per week. With regard to activities not included as part of the above organizations, children participated on an average of 1.45 hours per family in music, dramatics, sports, crafts and hobbies-- crafts and hobbies being at the top with .53 hours per family. Participation In, and Perception of the Impact of 4-H Program.--Respondents were asked to list briefly the effects 4-H programs had produced in the lives of their children who belonged to 4-H. The responses are summarized in Table 22, page 63. The heads of families who had children, but did not belong to a 4-H were asked to check, from a list provided, the reasons for not belonging to 4-H. The reasons are summarized in Table 23, page 63. These respondents were asked whether they would like to be contacted by a 4-H representative, only 3 (17.6%) answered in the affirmative. 65 All the respondents were asked whether they belonged to 4-H as a child. Of the 53 who answered this question, 41 (77.4%) of them said they did not belong. The 12 heads of households who had belonged to 4-H during their childhood were asked to list briefly the effects of 4-H on their later lives. The effects which they listed are summarized in Table 24, page 66. Asked whether they believed that every child should belong to a 4-H club, 45.8% of those responding answered in the affirmative. Forty eight heads of households answered this question. Of all the subgroups, subgroup IV had the largest percentage of those who hold this belief--64.0%, while subgroup I had the smallest percentage-- 12.5%. The percentage of those who hold this belief that every child should belong to a 4-H club declines when the farm size in terms of gross agricultural sales increases. Involvement in Programs of Cooperative Extension Service Respondents were asked whether they or their spouses were involved in any program of the Cooperative Extension Service (CES) in l978. Forty nine (84.48%) of the heads of households and 40 (92%) of the spouses responded. 4.1% of the heads of households and 7.5% of the spouses said that they were involved in Cooperative Extension Service programs in 1978. Data are displayed in Table 25, page 66. 66 Table 24.--Effects of 4-H on Later Life as Listed by Heads of Households--Small Farm Families. Number Effects Frequencies Skills in crafts and use of tools 3 Helped develop friendship 2 Skills in farming 1 Opportunity for recreation l Developed cooperative spirit 1 Developed confidence 1 Training in leadership 1 Training in management 1 Develop responsibility 1 Basic knowledge of electricity 1 Learning through actual doing __1 l4 Table 25.--Involvement in Cooperative Extension Service--Small Farm Families. Head of Household Spouse # % # % Involved in CES 2 4.1 3 7.5 Not Involved in CES 47 95.9 37 92.5 49 100.0 40 100.0 67 Asked whether they would like to become involved, or more involved, in CES, 11.36% of the heads of households and 13.9% of the spouses responded positively. In terms of subgroups, subgroup III and IV appear to be more interested in CES than the other two groups. There appears to be a reverse relationship between gross agricultural sales and interest in the programs of the Cooperative Extension Service with regard to families living on small farms. Data are displayed in Table 26, page 68. Only 8% of the heads of households expressed their views on the kinds of CES programs they would like to see started or expanded in their respective counties. Their views are summarized in Table 27, page 68. Respondents were also asked to express the kinds of assistance which they would like to receive for (l) farming; (2) family living; (3) children; and (4) other areas. Seventeen (29.3%) of the respondents expressed the kinds of assistance they would like to receive in the area of farming and they are listed in Table 28, page 69. Seven of the responses (36.8%) are of economic nature--how to stay on with the farming may be their major problem. All the other responses do reflect the needs of the small and part-time farm families involved in limited farming. They are also indicative of the generalized nature of farming operations in which they are involved. 68 Table 26.--Interest in Cooperative Extension Service--Small Farm Families. Head of Household Spouse # % # % Interested in CES 5 11.4 5 13.9 Not Interested in CES 39 88.6 31 86.1 44 100.0 36 100.0 Table 27.--Kinds of CES Programs as Suggested by Heads of Households-— Small Farm Families. . N mber Suggestions Resgonding Farm Safety Methods 2 Program for Senior Citizens 1 Basic Farming Skills 2 General Program Information Assistance for Part-Time Farmers 69 Table 28.--Kinds of Needed Assistance in Farming--Small Farm Families. Number Kinds of A551stance Responding Reduce taxes Guaranteed prices and better income Loan and finance Drainage problems Soil analysis Fruit disease control Farming information by mail Special assistance for small farmers Management of small farms Bookkeeping on share crop Forestry Permanent pasture Crop rotation Information on farm labor and repairmen Hog farm operation for small farms Woodlot management General agricultural methods Save the family farm .4 \O Table 29.--Kinds of Needed Assistance in Family Living--Sma11 Farm Families. Number Responding Assistance in wood-burning furnaces 2 Assistance in home gardening 1 Assistance in rental of tools 1 Nb 70 With regard to assistance in the area of family living, four of the respondents expressed the kinds of assistance listed in Table 29, page 69. No needs were expressed by anyone in the area of children nor in other general areas. Non-Farm Rural Resident Families Description of 58 small farm families has been presented in the last section. This section presents a description of the 22 non-farm rural resident families. A non-farm rural resident family may be defined as a family who maintains a household in the rural area but whose interest in farming is so negligible that the total agricultural sales for 1978, if at all there was any sale, was to the extent of less than $1,000. Farming does not form a significant occupation nor does it provide a significant source of income. It is assumed they live in the rural area for other reasons than the primary purpose of farming. The extent of their involvement in farming, therefore, will not be discussed in detail as it was in the case of the small farm family and will be discussed in the case of the commercial farm families. Characteristics of the Non-Farm Rural Resident Families Sex and Marital Status.--As is indicated by Table 30, page 71, the heads of households consisted of 18 males and 4 females. In terms of marital status, 15 (68.2%) were married, 2 (9.0%) were single and 5 (22.8%) were widowed. The important characteristic 70 With regard to assistance in the area of family living, four of the respondents expressed the kinds of assistance listed in Table 29, page 69. No needs were expressed by anyone in the area of children nor in other general areas. Non-Farm Rural Resident Families Description of 58 small farm families has been presented in the last section. This section presents a description of the 22 non-farm rural resident families. A non-farm rural resident family may be defined as a family who maintains a household in the rural area but whose interest in farming is so negligible that the total agricultural sales for 1978, if at all there was any sale, was to the extent of less than $1,000. Farming does not form a significant occupation nor does it provide a significant source of income. It is assumed they live in the rural area for other reasons than the primary purpose of farming. The extent of their involvement in farming, therefore, will not be discussed in detail as it was in the case of the small farm family and will be discussed in the case of the commercial farm families. Characteristics of the Non-Farm Rural Resident Families Sex and Marital Status.--As is indicated by Table 30, page 71, the heads of households consisted of 18 males and 4 females. In terms of marital status, 15 (68.2%) were married, 2 (9.0%) were single and 5 (22.8%) were widowed. The important characteristic 71 Table 30.--Distribution of Heads of Households by Sex and Marital Status--Non-Farm Rural Resident Families. SEX Marital Status Male Female Total # # # % Single 1 1 2 9.0 Married 14 l 15 68.2 Widowed 3 2 5 22.8 Divorced - - - Separated - - - Total 18 (81.8%) 4 (18.2%) 22 100.0 Table 3l.--Distribution of Heads of Households and Family Members by Age-Group--Non-Farm Rural Resident Families. Number of Persons in Eacthge-Group Age-Group Total Family Head of Household # % # % Under 5 years - - - - 5-9 - - - lO-l4 - - - - 15-19 3 7.3 - 20-24 3 7.3 - - 25-34 1 2.4 l 4.5 35-44 3 7.3 l 4.5 45-54 4 9.8 l 4.5 55-64 10 24.4 6 27.3 65-74 10 24.4 7 31.8 75 and over 7 17.1 6 27.3 41 100.0 22 100.0 N Average per family 71 Table 30.--Distribution of Heads of Households by Sex and Marital Status--Non-Farm Rural Resident Families. SEX Marital Status Male Female Total # # # % Single 1 l 2 9.0 Married 14 l 15 68.2 Widowed 3 2 5 22.8 Divorced - - - Separated - - - Total 18 (81.8%) 4 (18.2%) 22 100.0 Table 31.--Distribution of Heads of Households and Family Members by Age-Group--Non-Farm Rural Resident Families. Number of Persons in Each Age-Group Age-Group Total Family Head of Household # % # % Under 5 years - - - - 5-9 - - - - lO-l4 - - - - 15-19 3 7.3 - - 20-24 3 7.3 - - 25-34 1 2.4 1 4.5 35-44 3 7.3 l 4.5 45-54 4 9.8 l 4.5 55-64 10 24.4 6 27.3 65-74 10 24.4 7 31.8 75 and over 7 17.1 6 27.3 41 100.0 22 100.0 Average per family 2 72 to be noted is that the group included a considerable number of heads of households who were widowed. Further review of the data revealed that those who are widowed also lived alone. It is immediately evident, as is indicated by Table 31, page 71, that this group includes a considerable number of older adults: 17 (41.5%) of the total members of families are persons 65 years of age or older. Only 3 (7.3%) persons are in the age group below 20 who may be classified as children. There is also a considerable number of persons who may be classified as middle-aged--about one third. Middle-aged and older adults together constitute approxi- mately three-fourths of the total population. With regard to heads of households, approximately 60% of them are older adults, 65 or more years of age; 27% of them are middle-aged and approximately 13% of them are younger adults. For the purpose of within group comparisons whereever appropriate, the total group of heads of households may be divided into two major groups, i.e. retirees or older adults (65 years of age or older) and non-retirees or actively employed (below 65 years of age). Thirteen (59.1%) of them belong to the first subgroup and 9 (40.9%) of them belong to the second subgroup. Educational Level.--Regarding the educational level of heads of households, more than half of them did not complete their high school education. At the same time, about one third of them have either college degree(s) or some college experience. With regard to their spouses, more than half of them have completed high school 73 education and about one fifth of them went beyond high school. Spouses generally appear to be better educated than the heads of households. A comparison between retirees and non-retirees indicates that the retirees include a greater percentage of those who had less than a high school education than the non-retirees. At the same time, there are equal percentages of those who went beyond high school in both of the subgroups. Non-retirees generally appear to be better educated than the retirees. The data are displayed in Table 32, page 74. Extent of Non-Rural Background of Heads of Households.-—Of those 16 who responded, 6 (37.5%) had no background of having lived in a non-rural setting. 0f the 10 who had background of having lived in a non-rural area, 4 of them lived 10-19 years; 5 of them lived 30-39 years, and l of them lived 70-79 years in a place which may be classified as non-rural or urban setting. On an average, this group lived in the non-rural area approximately 20 years and 35% of their total life span lived so far. This analysis reveals the fact that a considerable number of non-farm rural residents may have first lived in a non-rural area and then moved to a rural area either for retirement or for other reasons. 74 Table 32.--Distribution of Heads of Households and Spouses by Educational Level--Non-Farm Rural Resident Families. Retirees Non-Retirees Head of Head of Educational Level Household Spouse Household Spouse # % # % # % # % Less than 8 61 6 4 50 o 4 44 5 3 42 8 high school ' ' ' ' High School completion 1 7.7 3 37.5 2 22.3 2 28.6 Some College 2 15.4 - 3 33.3 1 14.3 , College Degree 2 15.4 1 12.5 - - 1 14.3 13 100.0 8 100.0 9 100.0 7 100.0 Total Group Head of Household Spouse # % # % Less than high school 12 54.5 7 46.7 High School completion 3 13.6 5 33.4 Some College 5 22.8 1 6.6 College Degree 2 9.1 2 13.3 22 100.0 15 100.0 75 Extent of Land Holdings and Involvement in Farming Of the total of 22 respondents, 3 (13.6%) of them did not own any farm land at all; all that they had was the lot on which their house was built. Eleven (50.0%) of them owned in the range of less than 50 acres; 7 (31.8%) owned in the range of 50-99 acres and l (4.5%) owned little more than 100 acres. Three (13.6%) of them also rented some lands within the range of less than 100 acres. On an average, the total group operated 46.9 acres of land per family. According to the information provided by them, except one family which had involvement in raising 3 or 4 horses, none of them was engaged in raising any livestock. Nineteen of them were involved, though to a limited degree, in raising crops such as corn, soybean, wheat, home gardens, pasture and woodlot, on a few acres. Their total sales ranged from approxi- mately $100 to $900 for the year 1978. These are typically the family farms where the members of the family work during their leisure hours or weekends in raising some crops, mostly for their own consumption; they hire little or no outside labor for farming purposes. Major Occupation and Sources of Income Eight (36.4%) of them worked off the farm in 1978. The kinds of work which they did are presented in Table 33, page 76. They worked, on an average, 75 person days. This indicates that several of them worked either part-time or seasonal. Five of the 76 Table 33.-~Frequency Distribution of Types of Off-Farm Work-- Non-Farm Rural Resident Families. Occupation Number Factory Work 4 Engineering 1 Service Station Manager 1 Private Business 1 Unspecified 1 Total 8 Table 34.-~Distribution of Non-Farm Rural Resident Families Reporting the Level of Each Source of Income. Number of Families Reporting and the Level of Each Source of Income Source First Second Third No Total Largest Largest Largest . Source Source Source Source Reporting Retirement Payments 7 10 2 l 20 Non-Farm Occupations 13 7 ' ' 20 Investments out- 12 20 side the Farm N|—-J _3 20 Table 35.--Distribution of Non-Farm Rural Resident Families by Gross Non-Farm Income Category. Income Category Number Percentage $ 4.ooo-$ 7.999 5 22.8 $ 8,000-$ll,999 5 22.8 $12,000-$15,999 3 13.6 $16.OOO-$l91999 4 18.2 $20,000-$29,999 2 9.0 $30,000 and over ‘_3 13.6 22 100.0 77 spouses also worked off the farm, 32 person days on an average. All of the children—-three--also worked part-time, on an average of 15 person days. The entire group of families worked, on an average, 122 person days per family in 1978. With regard to sources of income, 20 of the respondents provided information on the sources of income and the degree of their dependence on each source of income. The data are presented in Table 34, page 76. Retirement payments was the first largest source of income for half of the respondents; non-farm occupations which were listed earlier on page 76 was the first largest source for 35% of the respondents and investments outside the farm was the first largest source for the rest of the 15% of the respondents. Six of the families had a second source of income-~retirement payments for two of them and investments outside the farm for four of them. Two of the families had a third source of income--one from retirement payments and the other from investments outside the farm. Those seven families who primarily depended on non-farm occupations did not have a second source of income at all. The gross non-farm income for the year 1978 is presented in Table 35, page 76. The data indicate that the non-farm rural resident families consist of families with different income levels--low, middle, and high. Approximately one-fourth of them had an income of less than $8,000; approximately half of them had an income of less than 78 $12,000 and another half of them had an income of $12,000 or more. Three (13.6%) had income of $30,000 or more. It appears that a few of them were on limited income of social security or pension; a few of them were on a combined income of retirement payments and invest- ments; a few of them were dependent entirely on low income wages earned from off farm employment and also a few of them had higher level income from professional jobs and/or investments. Thus, we find a heterogeneous group of non-farm residents as far as their income level and sources of income are concerned. Social Participation Do the non-farm rural residents participate in voluntary organizations? What type of organizations do they participate and to what extent? Did they hold any public office(s) in recent years? The answers to these questions are discussed in this section, and are displayed in Table 36, page 79. Thirteen of the heads of households reported having parti- cipated in one or more voluntary organizations in 1978. Church, community/service clubs and fraternal organizations are the three major broad categories of organizations in which they have par- ticipated. Each head of household participated, on an average, in two voluntary organizations in 1978. Similarly ll of the spouses also participated in one or more voluntary organizations in 1978. Church and community/service clubs are the two organizations mentioned more than once in which 79 1 NN N 1 N N NNNENNNNNNNN>< N NNN NN N NoN NN 1 N N :oNNNmeNNz1N 1 om N N N N NNNNNmNumNNNNNon NwNNNmN Noozum NmpNNmN 1NcmENNm>oN NNuoN NcoNca NoNNN 1 oN N N NN N NcoNuNNNNNNgo chgmpmgm N oN N 1 N N NcoNNNNNcNNgo ELNN NcoNNNNNNNNNo 1 oN N 1 oN N chonmmwoNN NNNN muN>Nmm N NN N N NN N \NNchesou m Nm N N ON oN NUNNNN NNcNNmoz NNcNNwmz mwflwuo No :oNNNNNuNNNNN wwwwno No :oNNNNNuNNNNN . Nunezz No Nunsaz . NmNsaz No Nunsaz \meuNsEou wNNNm>< \mmNNNEEoN mNNNm>< coNNNNNNNNNo ANNuzv wmzoqm coNNNNNuNNNNN No Ncmuxm No coNNNNNNNNNN NUNNNNNNN NmNuzv uNonmmso: No cam: .NmNNNENN NcmNNNmN NNNNN ELNN1NNZ11NNNNNNN NNN NNNosmmzo: No mama: Na NNNNNNNNNNNNN NNNNNNNN> :N NoNNNNNNNNNNN No Ncmuxu NNN No :oNNNNNNNNNN Nucmaamgm11.Nm mNNNN 80 respondents participated. Each spouse participated, on an average, in one voluntary organization. Public Office Held.--Only one head of household reported having held a public office in recent years--Co-Chairman of Planning Commission for the township. Children's Participation in Organizations and Activities.-- As was revealed earlier, the total members of all the families of non-farm rural residents included only three children belonging to two families. It was reported that they participated in church, sports, and crafts on an average of 13 hours per week. They did not belong to 4-H because they were not interested. Asked whether they would like to be contacted by a 4-H representa- tive, they answered negatively. Only two of the heads of households belonged to 4-H while they were children. The effect of 4-H on them was stated as: (1) developed community spirit; (2) helped develop friendship; and (3) training in leadership. Sixteen (80%) of the heads of households believed that every child should belong to a 4-H club and that 4-H had a positive influ- ence on children's behavior and personality. Involvement in Cooperative Extension Service All of the heads of households reported having no involvement in any program of Cooperative Extension Service in 1978. With regard to spouses, only one spouse reported having participated; all others did not participate. 81 Also, none of the heads of households and spouses expressed an interest in getting involved in CES programs. Asked what kinds of CES programs would they like to see started or expanded in their county(s), three of them responded with the following suggestions: (1) help with gardening; (2) flower arrangement; and (3) organic manuring. Asked what kinds of assistance would they like to receive in (a) farming, (b) family living, (c) children, and (d) any other, only one wanted assistance in the area of farming, i.e. loan and finance. Commercial Farm Families The population included 17 families living on large sized farms and another 17 families living on medium sized farms. A large farm is defined, for purpose of comparison with medium or small farm, as an enterprise of farming having an annual gross agricul- tural sales of $100,000 or more. A medium sized farm is defined, for purpose of comparison with large farm or small farm, as an enterprise of farming having an annual gross agricultural sales not less than $40,000 and not more than $99,999. These two groups of families which make up approximately 30 percent of the total pop- ulation may generally be classified as "commercial" farm families. This section is devoted to an analysis and interpretation of data pertaining to the characteristics of these two groups of families, the type and size of farms on which they live, extent of involve- ment in non-farm occupations, extent of involvement in organizations 82 and cooperative extension service and other relevant matters that may be significant to understand these families. Important differ- ences between the two groups, if any, will be brought out wherever appropriate for the purpose of this study. Characteristics of the Commercial Farm Families Sex of Heads of Households.--As is indicated by Table 37, page 83, except for one female head of household living on a large farm, all heads of households of both large and medium farms are males. Commercial farming appears to be strongly a male-dominant enterprise. Marital Status.-—Except one head of household who is widowed, all other heads of households living on large farms are married; the widowed is a male. Of the 17 heads of households liVing on medium farms, 2 (11.2%) are single and all others are married. There were no divorced or separated head of household in either of the groups, which probably reflects a value of the com- mercial farm families. Data are displayed in Table 38, page 83. Number in Each Age-Group: Total Families and Heads of Households.--For practical purposes, the various age-groups as pre- sented in Table 38 may be compressed into 4 major age-groups: ages through 19 (children); ages 20-44 (younger adults); ages 45-64 (middle-aged); and 65 and over (older adults). Families living on large farms appear to have a larger percentage of children compared 83 Table 37.--Distribution of Heads of Households by Sex-~Large and Medium Farm Families. Large Farms Medium Farms Total # % # % # % Male 16 94.0 17 100.0 33 97.0 Female 1 6.0 0 0 l 3.0 17 100.0 17 100.0 34 100.0 Table 38.—-Distribution of Heads of Households by Marital Status-- Large and Medium Farm Families. Marital Large Farms Medium Farms Total ‘Status # % # % # % Single 0 O 2 11.8 2 5.8 Married 16 94.0 15 88.2 31 91.2 Widowed l 6.0 O 0 l 3.0 Divorced 0 O O O O O Separated O O O 0 O O 17 100.0 17 100.0 34 100.0 84 to families living on medium farms--44% and 30% respectively. With regard to younger adults, both the groups seem to have more or less the same percentage, 33-34%. 0f the members of families living on large farms, 21.3% belong to the middle-aged group as compared to the 30.4% of the members of families living on medium farms. After the age of 64 there appears to be a sudden drop in the per- centage for both the groups of families. Of the total of 61 members belonging to all of the families living on large farms, there was only one member belonging to older adults (i.e. 65 or over). Of the total of 56 members of all the families living on medium farms, there were only 3 members belonging to the older adults group. Younger adults and middle-aged adults together constitute 54% of the members of families living on large farms and 64% of the members of 'the families living on medium farms. The average family size for both the groups is more or less the same, though the large farm families in general have an average slightly higher than that of the medium farm families. Data are displayed in Table 39, page 85. With regard to heads of households, as the data in Table 40, page 85, have revealed, families living on large farms consist of 9 (53%) heads of households belonging to younger adults; 7 (41%) heads of households belonging to the middle-aged group; and l (6%) belonging to the older adult group. Heads of households living on medium farms consist of 6 (35%) younger adults; 8 (47%) middle-aged adults; and 3 (18%) older adults. Medium farm families have larger number of middle—aged and older adults as heads of households 85 Table 39.--Distribution of Family Members by Age-Group--Large and Medium Farm Families. Number of Persons in Each Age-Group Age-Group Large Farms Medium Farms Total # % # % # % Under 5 years 4 6.6 4 7.1 8 6.8 5- 9 8 13.1 8 14.2 16 13.7 lO-l4 9 14.8 2 3.6 11 9.1 15-19 6 9.8 3 5.4 9 7.8 20-24 5 8.2 6 10.7 11 9.0 25-34 7 11.5 10 17.9 17 15.5 35-44 8 13.1 3 5.4 11 9.0 45-54 7 11.5 7 12.5 14 12.0 55-64 6 9.8 10 17.9 16 13.6 65-74 1 1.6 3 5.4 4 3.5 75 and over 0 O O O O 0.0 61 100.0 56 100.0 117 100.0 Table 40.--Distribution of Heads of Households by Age-Group-- Large and Medium Farm Families. Age-Group Large Farms Medium Farms # # ' % 20-24 0 0 0 0 25-34 3 17.7 3 17.7 35-44 6 35.4 3 17.7 45-54 3 17.6 3 17.7 55-64 4 23.5 5 29.4 65-74 1 5.9 3 17.7 75 or over 0 O O 0 17 100.0 17 100.0 86 compared to large farm families. All of the heads of households of both the groups are at least 25 years of age. Of the 34 heads of families living on commercial farms, 4 (11.7%) are older adults engaged in full-time commercial farming enterprises. There is no head of household in the age group 75 or over in either large farm families or medium farm families. Educational Level of Heads of Households and Their Spouses.-- Except 2 (11.8%), all other heads of households of large farms possess at least a high school diploma. Ten (58.7%) have high school diplomas and 5 (29.5%) have some college experience or college degrees. All of the spouses of large farms have at least a high school diploma, while 37.5% of them have some college experience or college degrees. Overall, spouses are better educated than the heads of households. Except 3 (17.7%), all other heads of households of medium farms possess at least a high school diploma. One (5.9%) has some college experience and none has college degree(s). With regard to spouses of medium farms, except 1 (6.8%), all others have high school diploma or college degree(s). Four (26.6%) have college degree(s) and 10 (66.6%) have high school diplomas. In this case also, spouses are generally better educated than the heads of house- holds. While none of the heads of households of medium farms possess a college degree, four spouses do possess college degree(s). 87 Overall, it appears that the heads of households and the spouses of large farms are more educated than their counterparts of medium farms. Data are displayed in Table 41, page 88. Extent of Non-Rural Background.--Thirteen of the heads of households of large farms and 10 of the heads of household of medium farms furnished information on the extent of their non-rural back- ground. Of the 13 heads of households of large farms, only 1 (7.7%) had any non-rural background--somewhere between 30 to 39 years of residence. 0f the 10 heads of households of medium farms, 2 (20%) had any non-rural background--one with less than 10 years of resi- dence and the other with 10 to 19 years of residence. It appears, therefore, that overwhelmingly the heads of households of commercial farms were born and raised and continued to live in rural areas. Data are presented in Table 42, page 89. Farms Where the Families Lived (Large and Medium Farmsli This section describes the size of farms, in terms of annual gross agricultural sales and also acreage, operated by the families living on large and medium farms, kinds of crops and livestock raised and the extent of involvement in farming operations by the members of families and other relevant matters pertaining to farms which may help us understand the families living on large and medium farms. Farm Size in Terms of Acreage.--Except three of the families, all the others living on large farms have owned and rented lands of 88 o.ooN NN N.NNN NN N.NNN NN N.NNN NN N.NN N N.NN m o o N.NN N NNmeNNmN mNmNNoN NNo: N N N.NN N N.N N N.NN N NNNNNNN NEON N.NN NN N.NN oN N.NN mN N.NN oN umumNaeoo Noozum NNN: . . . NmNmNNsou N N N N N N N N NELNN EaNumz NELNN mNNNN NELNN EsNumz NsNNN mNNNN Nm>m4 NNcoNuNuzcm Nwmsoaw NNNogmmso: No NNNm: .NmNNNENN ENNN ENNNwz Ncm NNNNN11Nm>mN NNNNNNNNNNN Na mmmaonm new NNNosmmao: No NNNm: No :oNNNNNNNNNN11.NN mNNNN 89 Table 42.--Distribution of Heads of Households by the Extent of Non—Rural Background--Large and Medium Farm Families. Heads of Households of Number of Years Large Farms Medium Farms # % # % Less than 10 0 O 1 10.0 10-19 0 O 1 10.0 20-29 0 O O 0 30-39 1 7.7 O 0 None 12_ 92.3 ._8 80.0 13 100.0 10 100.0 No Answer _4_ _Z_ l7 l7 Table 43.--Distribution of Large Farms by Farm Size (In Acreage) and Tenure Status. Number and Percentage of Farms (Large) Owned Rented Operated Composite Only # % # % # % # % Less than 100 2 11.8 3 17.7 0 O O 0 100-199 6 35.4 4 23.5 2 11.8 0 0 200-299 3 17.7 1 5.9 O O 3 17.7 300-399 2 11.8 1 5.9 O O 4 23.5 400-499 1 5.9 O O O O l 5.9 500-599 3 17.7 5 29.4 0 O 5 29.4 1000 and over ._9 O _9_ O Q_ 0 4_ 23.5 17 100.0 14 82.3 2 11.8 17 100.0 None ._9 O ._3 17.7 15 88.2 ._p O 1 1 i I ...n N _.a O O O _.a \J ._a O O O 1.; \l .4 o O O ._n \l ...a O O O 90 varying sizes of less than 100 acres to less than 1000 acres. The three families just own all their lands. Two of the farms included acreage being operated only on behalf of others ranging from 100-199 acres. In terms of the composite size of farms (owned, rented, and operated only together) there are nine farms of the size of less than 500 acres and eight farms of the size of more than 500 acres. There is no composite farm of the size of less than 200 acres. Data are displayed in Table 43, page 89. Data, as presented in Table 44, page 91, indicate that one family living on a medium size farm did not own any land at all. Except three families, all others have rented lands of the sizes of less than 100 acres to less than 400 acres. Five of the families have added lands for the purpose of just operating on behalf of others. With regard to the composite sizes of farms operated by families living on medium farms, of the 17 farms, ll farms were of the size of less than 500 acres and six farms were of the size of 500 acres or over. There is no composite medium size farm which is more than 999 acres in size. The average land holding for the families living on large farms was 703 acres, while that for the families living on medium farms was 423 acres. There were four large farms in the size of 1,000 acres or over, while there was no medium farm in that size. Kinds of Crpps and the Acreage for Each Crop.--The total picture of the kinds of crops raised, and the acreage for each of the crops, by both large and medium size farm families is presented 91 Table 44.--Distribution of Medium Farms by Farm Size (In Acreage) and Tenure Status. Number and Percentage of Farms (Medium) Acreage Owned Rented Opgza;ed Composite # % # % # % # % Less than 100 5 29.4 4 23.5 0 0 O 0 100-199 5 29.4 3 17.7 1 5.9 O 0 200-299 3 17.7 3 17.7 0 O 5 29.4 300-399 2 11.8 4 23.5 2 ll 8 5 29.4 400-499 1 5.9 O 0 O O 1 5.9 500-599 0 0 O O 2 11.7 6 35.4 1000 and over ___ _Ji_ _J; _iL_ _Ji ._Jl_ _JQ ._Q___ 16 94.1 14 82.3 5 29.4 17 100.0 None _1_ _.§;2 _3_ _L7_-_7 12. _7_CL6_ _0_ ___o__ 17 100.0 17 100.0 17 100.0 17 100.0 92 in Table 45, page 93. Corn, soybean, wheat, and hay appear to be the four major crops cultivated by both groups. There seems to be a marked difference between large farms and medium farms in the case of corn cultivation--all the large farms were involved, while three of the medium farms were not involved in corn cultivation in 1978. In the case of soybean, medium farmers were more involved than large farmers in 1978. With regard to wheat, hay, and oats, the number of families involved was more or less the same for both groups. Large farmers left much larger number of acres idle, 61 acres on an average, compared to medium farmers who left only one acre, on an average, idle in 1978. In terms of number of families involved, only two of the medium farmers left a portion of their lands idle, while six of the large farmers left a portion of their lands idle. These data are also displayed in Table 45, page 93. Kinds and Size of Livestock Raised--Large and Medium Farms.-- Beef cattle, dairy cows, hogs, and sheep and lambs appear to be the major kinds of livestock in which both groups are involved, although the number of families involved are limited and far less than the number of families involved in crop farming. Four of the large farms were engaged in raising beef cattle; four of the large farms were engaged in raising dairy cows; three of the large farms were engaged in raising hogs and one of the large farms was engaged in raising sheep and lambs.- Two of the medium farms were involved in raising beef cattle; six of the medium farms were involved in raising dairy cows; ENNN ENNNmz "N: ENNN NNNNN "NA £93 .NNNUN N1NN N NNN NN N NNN NN N NNN NN N NNN NN N.NNN NN N.NNN NN N N N.NNN NN N.NNN NN N.NNN NN N.NN ma. N.NN NH N.NN .mN N.NN .NN N.NN NH. NNNN NH. N1 N. N.NN NH N.NN 1NN N.NN NH. NNNz N N N.NN N N.N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N “WNWNN N N N.N N N N N.N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NN -NN N.NN N N.NN N N.NN N N.NN N N.NN «N N.NN NN N N N.NN N N.NN N N.NN N NNNN WMNN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N2 NN N2 N4 N2 N2 N2 N4 N2 N4 NNNMMHMNN mNuN No4 Noe: NNNNNN mac: mgauNNN Nm>ogNEN NNNNNNN m>NNNz . N NNN NN N NNN NN N NNN ,NN N NNN NN N NNN NN N NNN NN N.NNN NN N.NNN NN N.NNN NN N.NNN NN NNNNN N.NN N N.NN NN N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN N N.NN N N.NN N N.NN N N.NN N N N Ncoz N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N.NN N LMLmMNN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N.N N NNN1NNN N N N N N N N N N N N.N N N.NN N N.NN N N.N N N.NN N NNN1NNN N N N N N.NN N N.NN N N.NN N N.NN N N.NN N N.NN N N.NN NN N.NN N NNN1NNN N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN N N.NN N N.NN N N.NN N N.NN N N.NN N N.NN N N.NN N NNNNNMMNN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N2 NN N2 2N N2 2N N2 NN N2 NN NNNNwmwmv NNNo Ne: News: Ncmmnaom :Lou , 14111.1 H1" 111.” ".1111 ".1” H 1141“ *W.u1au.flu1.n.1l1l "”41"” 1111144..” N111 1.1 d111, Wlu W 1.. a .1 11111111141 ”Haul .NNNN NNNN NON NNNNNNN NCN NNNNNN NNNLN No NNNNN Na NENNN ENNNmz New NNNNN No :oNNNNNNNNNN11.NN NNNNN 94 three of the medium farms were involved in raising hogs and one of the medium farms were involved in raising sheep and lambs. All the livestock farms of medium farmers had the size of less than 200 in numbers, while those of large farms had the size up to a maximum of more than 500. The average for the large farms is higher than that of the medium farms in cases of all of the four kinds of livestock described above. The other kinds of livestock in which both the groups are engaged on a smaller scale include chicken and horses. Three of the large farms were involved in raising chicken--one with less than 50, two with 50-99. Two of the medium farms included chicken--one with 50-99 and one with lOO-l99. One large farm also raised 12 riding horses for commercial purposes, while one medium raised two horses-- maybe for recreational and hobby purposes. Data are displayed in Table 46, page 95. The data in Table 47, page 96, clearly demonstrate the fact that both the groups involve members of their families and close relatives for farming operations. The extent of family labor for farming operations on large farms is much higher in terms of person days than that of medium farms. This may simply be explained by the fact that the size of farm operations for the large farms generally is much larger than that of medium farms. However, the noteworthy difference between the two groups is with regard to the use of outside labor. The large farms, on an average, hired outside labor--year-round and seasonal--equivalent to l,002 person days, while medium farms, on an average, hired outside labor equivalent 95 NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NNIN N.N. N.N. .3 fl WIN. «IN .3. .NA mN. .NH fl 952 N N N m N N m m m e N N d: :N: m: m. .N... fl. m: .N... m. NI a: .NI :3 NNN NNN o o o o o o o o o o o o mmeuooc o o o o o o o o o o o N ammuoom o o o o o o o o o N o N mm~-oo~ o o N o N o o o N m o o mmNuooN o o N N o o o N N o o N mm -om N N o N o o m o N o N N om can» NNN; NmmmgomN mwNuNgmN man”; a qmwgm Nszo1N4 nuu NNNMM mflwumu Nmmm Ammmmmaqu .umNNNm Nuoumm>NN No NNNm NNN NNNNN an NsNNN ENNNmz NNN mmNNN No coNNNNNNuNNo--.o¢ mNNNN 96 Table 47.--Extent of Contribution to Farm Labor by Family Members and Outside Labor (Average Number of Days)--Large and Medium Farms. Average Number of Person Days Source Per Year Large Farms Medium Farms Head of Household 343 262 Spouse lOl 78 Eldest Child 82 l8 Second Child lO8 4 Third Child 43 O Other Children 1 O Father-in-Law 47 28 Mother-in-Law l7 4 Brother-in-Law 3 7 Sister-in-Law 3 ll 748 4l2 Outside Labor: Year-Round Workers 225 0 Seasonal Workers 777 21 1002 21 97 to just 2l person days. This means that while the medium farms generally manage all or most of their farming operations with the help of family members, the large farms utilize the labor of family members and also hire a substantial number of person days of outside labor. Extent of Involvement in Farming Vis-A-Vis Non-Farm Occupations Part-Time Farmers.--According to the definition of full—time farmers versus part-time farmers, the group of families living on large farms included two part-time farmers and the group of families living on medium farms also included two part-time farmers. It is, therefore, necessary that a description of these four part-time farm families is presented and differences, if any, are identified. Large Farm Part-Time Farmer-A.--0ne of the two large farm part-time farmers is a male, married and both the husband and wife possess high school diploma. Both are in their 30's, the head of household has lived all his life in rural areas only. They have children, 5-l4 years of age. The family operate a total of 232 acres-—l30 acres owned and 102 acres rented. Their major farming enterprise in l978 was livestock--200 beef cattle and 80 hogs. The whole family is involved in farming operations. Corn, soybeans, and hay were the crops cul- tivated on the 232 acre land. Both the husband and wife were engaged in off-farm work-- "sales,“ had earnings in the range of $l6,000-$l9,999. The first 98 largest source of income was from non-farm work followed by net income from farming and spouse's earnings off the farm. The head of household was very involved in Farm Bureau-- attended six meetings and held one office. Spouse was active in church sorority, Extension Club, PTO, and also Farm Bureau. Both of them held no public office. Two of the children belonged to 4-H club, Junior Achievement, and also participated in music, sports, and crafts. The head of household belonged to 4-H while he was a child. The spouse was involved with Cooperative Extension Service in 1978 but not the head of the household. Large Farm Part-Time Farmer-B.--The other part-time farmer living on a large farm also was a male, married and both of them possessed high school diplomas. Both had lived all their lives in rural areas. They were in the age-group 55-64. They had no children living with them. They operated a total of 1,000 acres-—860 owned and 140 rented. Corn, wheat and soybeans were the major crops cultivated in l978. They were not involved with livestock of any kind. Both had off-farm work; the head of household was involved in ”sales" and the spouse was a secretary. Both together earned more than $30,000 from their off-farm work. They also gave non- farm work as their first largest source of income. Net income from farm was the second largest source and investments outside the farm was the third largest source of income. 99 Both attended church every week. The wife attended a German Study Group also. The head of household did not belong to a 4-H when he was a child. The spouse was involved in CES programs in 1978. Medium Farm Part-Time Farmer-A.--One of the two medium farm part-time farmers was a male, married, and both were in their 30's. Both had completed high school. They had two children under ten years of age. Both of them lived all their lives in rural areas. They operated a total of 800 acres--240 owned and 560 operated only. They had no livestock of any kind. Wheat and soy- beans were the major crops cultivated in 1978. Both worked off the farm--he in aviation and she in part- time sales. His work in aviation was a full time job. Both together earned more than $30,000 in l978 from these off—farm work. Non-farm work was their first largest source of income, followed by net income from farm and spouse's earnings from non-farm work. Both of them held no public office. He participated in the Aviation Association, attended six meetings and held one committee membership. One child participated in school clubs, Junior Achieve- ment, and sports, on an average seven hours a week. The child did not join 4-H because "nobody invited us" and "we do not know enough about 4-H." However, they would like to be contacted by a 4-H representative. They were not involved with any CES programs in l978. The head of household never participated in 4-H while he was a child. 100 Medium Farm Part-Time Farmer-B.--The other part-time farmer living on a medium farm was also a male, married, had lived all his life in rural areas. Both had completed high school. The head of household was 33 years old and the spouse, 28 years old. They had two children under ten years of age. They operated a crop farm with 26l acres, all owned. Soy- bean was the principal crop cultivated. No livestock was included. Both husband and wife and two of the relatives were involved in farming operations. Only the husband worked off the farm; pattern-making was the work. He worked 40 weeks at the rate of 30 hours per week, in l978 off the farm, and earned an income of $l2,000-$l5,999. Non-farm work and net income from farm were the only two major sources of income—-non-farm work being the first largest source. Both of them attended church on an average of ten times and held committee memberships. They held no public office. Children also attend church and Sunday school. They are too young to be in 4-H. The head of household did belong to 4-H when he was a child. Both of them were not involved in any CES programs in l978. Non-Farm Occupations and Non-Farm M The number of families having one or more members who worked off the farm in l978 is presented in Table 48, page lOl. It can be clearly seen in the table that one or more members of six families living on large farms and nine families living on 101 Table 48.--Distribution of Large and Medium Farm Families Whose Members Are Working or Not Working Off the Farm. Large Farm Medium Farm Category # % # % Working off the farm 6 35.3 9 53.0 Not working off the farm ll 64.7 8 47.0 l7 l00.0 l7 l00.0 Table 49.--Average Number of Person Days Working Off the Farm by Members of Large and Medium Farm Families. Large Farms Medium Farms “2233.2: 336339 ”am: 3333?? of days of days Head of Household 2 128 6 90 Spouse 5 l47 4 l74 Children l 357 4 65 Others 0 O l ll5 102 .medium farms worked off the farm in 1978. This reveals the fact that a considerable number of members of families living on commer- cial farms do work and earn from non-farm occupations, although most of them work either part-time or during off-seasons. The extent of their off-farm work is presented in Table 49, page lOl. Participation in off-farm work by members of families living on medium farms is clearly greater than that of families living on large farms. It is particularly important to note that 6 (35%) of the heads of households of medium farms were involved in working off the farm in 1978, on an average of 90 person days. Type of Off-Farm Work.--The type of off-farm work in which the families living on large farms and medium farms were involved is presented in Table 50, page lO3. It is again clear that medium farm families are involved more in off-farm work and in a wide variety of jobs. Sources of Income The various sources of income, the level of each source of income and the number of families reporting each source are displayed in Table 51, page 104. An overwhelming number of families of both the groups depended on net income from farm as their first largest source of income. Head of household's non-farm income was the first largest source for two families living on large farms and for three families living on medium farms. Three of the families living on large farms had other sources as the first largest source of income. This means 103 Table 50.--Frequency Distribution of Types of Off-Farm Work-- Large and Medium Farm Families. giggli Large Farms Medium Farms Head of Household: Sales 2 Administrator l Office work 1 Auto Screw Operator l Tool & Die 1 Pattern Maker 1 Telephone Lineman l Spouse: Teacher 2 Office l Secretary 1 Sales 1 Sales l Teacher 1 Nursing 1 Children: Security Guard 1 Teacher 1 Accountant l Mechanic 1 Hairdresser l 1 Factory 104 .ww .mw .m: .w.. Mr. “H. mm. ”w. Nu. Nu. N_ NF 0 o N e _ o o _ «P o_ Etna mutabso monogamm>cH N. NF o o F o N o o o a, N_ mpcmeaaa newsmawomm NF NF o o o c o o o o N_ N. mpcaexma compapwpwnagam N. N_ o o o o o o o o N_ N, mppcmcam m.=mamom> N, N_ o o o o o o o o N_ N_ “Loaaam u_wsu\»=osvp< N_ N, o o o o o o o o N_ NP mpemsxea acmsao_aem== NF N_ P P o o o o o o o? op mmaoam-cmaonap same we mean: NF NP F o o F F o o o mF or .:.:-Lmtonmp same we mama: N. N_ o o o o o P o F N_ m_ Lounges same we Ngepam N, N. o o o o N o o o mF N_ Aaso; soccv m.=mcepwgu NF N_ o P o o o _ o 0 NF mp Ausc;\stmc seedy m.mm=oam N_ N_ o o o o m 4 NF NP F F seat scam mecca? bmz cowpmaauuo cowpmaauoo N, N_ o o P o N F _ . NF mp ecmc-co= m.mam=oam N_ NP 0 o m o N F m N m a, cowumazuuo eeac-=o= L=o> a: as a: do L2 L4 e: do a: a; a: a; mcwugoamm “women; pmmmgmb pmmmgmb pmmmcmg mugsom mousse Pooch euczoa ugwgh aeoumm “mew; m .wEoucH mo mogsom comm mo Pm>w4 map mcwpgoamm mmwpwsmm Ego; Eswumz new wage; mo compsnwgumwa--._m mpamh 105 that five of the families living on large farms had first largest source of income other than net income from farming. Four of the families living on medium farms also had their first largest source of income other than net income from farming. A considerable number of families of both the groups had a second and third source of income. A very small number of them had a fourth source of income also. The major difference to be noted between the two groups is that a larger number of families living on medium farms depended on a second and third source of income compared to families living on large farms. Non-Farm Gross Income Table 52, page 106, presents the gross non-farm income level received by families of both the groups in 1978 from all sources other than farming. Information on the non-farm gross income was furnished by l5 of the large farm families and l2 of the medium farm families. The fact that approximately 53% of the large farm families and 83% of the medium farm families had some non-farm income in l978 is very revealing. Six of the 8 large farm families had non-farm income of less than $8,000 and 2 had in the range of $30,000 and over. We already know that these 2 are part-time farm families, spending more than lOO person days on non-farm occupations. Of these medium farm families who had non-farm income in 1978, a sub- stantial number of them earned less than $12,000. Only 25% of them earned more than $12,000. 106 Table 52.--Distribution of Large and Medium Farm Families by Non- Farm Gross Income Category. Income Category %arge Fargs medium Fargs None 7 46.7 2 l6.7 Less than $4,000 3 20.0 4 33.3 $4,000-$7,999 3 20.0 0 0 $ 8,000-$ll,999 O O 3 25.0 $12,000-$l5,999 0 O 0 O $l6,000-$19,999 o o 1 8.3 $20,000-$29,999 0 o 1 8.3 $30,000 and over _2 _l_3_._§ _l __8_._4 lS l00.0 12 100.0 107 The point to be noted here is that one or more members of a considerable number of commercial families are engaged in off-farm occupations (either part-time or seasonal or even full-time) and earn supplemental income. Social Participation Tables 53 (page l08) and 54 (page 109) present information on the extent to which the heads of households and their spouses were involved in voluntary organizations in 1978. The information gathered through an open-ended question has been organized and pre- sented under a broad group of organizations which are relevant to the population under reference. In terms of number of families participating in voluntary organizations, medium farm families appear to have better partici- pation than large farm families. Farm organizations and church are the two organizations clearly standing dominant in terms of fre- quency of participation by both groups. Both heads of households and spouses seem to be jointly participating in farm organizations and church. Large farm families seem to be concentrating on farm organ- izations by holding membership in the organizations, holding com- mittee memberships or offices and also attending meetings. The participation of medium farm families is more extensive compared to large farm families. Medium farm families have, generally, gone beyond their individual interests and participated in organizations constituted for community welfare. 108 P w m P m w xpweNm\>< 0 mm mm op Nm Fm fl N.N. M. Fl mm .PI 53:35.24 . - - u - - cowpmmgumm\mugoam . - - - - . umumpmm poosum . - u - - - umpmpmm -pcmscgm>ow Paco; - - - - u - mcowcz conmb . n - - u - meowum~mcmmgo chcmuogm . F n m m Fm mcompmecmmgo Exam . N N u - . mcowum~wcmmco chowmmmwogq N E N .. o P azuhflnfiwoo . m. u - Fm w :ugacu mmcwumwz mmcmumwz wwwwno mo :oNNMQwumwcmm wwwwmo mo compmawuwpgma \mwpuwezou mmwmwna mo gem: mg; \mmupwEEou wmmmfina we zanmzomgm cowpm~wcmmco Auuzv wmzoqm cowymawuwpgmm mo pampxm mo cowpznwcpmwo aucmacmgu Awuquvpogmmzo: mo new: .mmwpwsmm Egan mm»m4--mmm=oam new mcFocmmao: go mumm: >5 mcowumecmmLo xgmpcspo> cw cowpmawuwugmm mo pcmuxm mcp mo compznwgpmwo zanmscmcu--.mm mpnmp 109 - m P _ e N prsme\>< m Nm ow m omw eN . . - - - - - eewmeeuxm\:-e - - - F N _ eewpeegeem\mpgeem w ow w u - .. emuewem peezem - e w - - - eeuepem -pemsege>eu Peeee . - - - - . meewcz gene; . - n w oN N meewpm~weemgo weegeueew P ow e m N N meoweanemeLe game - - - meewae~weemgo F m N Pmeewmmeweee - ezwu eew>emm - mN m N me o_ geeeeu e mmewpeez e mmewueez ewwwuo we cewueewewpeee ewwwuo we :ewpeewewpeee \eeuwweseu mmmmwma we xeeeeeegw \eeuwwEEeu emmmfina we xeeeeeeew :ewNNNweemLo A_Fuzv emammm Nwwnzv epocemzo: we ewe: cewpeewewpeee we weepxm we eewueewepmwo zeeeeeeem .mewpwEeu age; Eeweez--mem=eem eee mewezemee: we meme: an mcewuenweemeo xgeucepe> cw eewueewewpgee we peeuxm ecu we eewpeewgumwo aeeeeeegwuu.em eweew llO Public 0ffice(s) Held.--Five of the heads of households of large farm families held one or more public offices since l970. None of the spouses reported to have held any public office at all. Four of the heads of households and two of the spouses of medium farm families held one or more public office since l970. The types of public offices held by both the groups are presented in Table 55, page lll. As the data indicate, a considerable number of both the groups held public offices of various kinds. Medium farm families appear to have limited themselves to localized institutions, while large farm families held offices at all levels. Are they more local community-minded than large farm families? Children's Participation in Organizations and Activities.-- Eleven of the large farm families reported that their children par- ticipated in at least one organization and/or an activity. The kinds of organizations or activities in which the children partici- pated, and the number of children and the extent of participation in each of the organizations or activities are presented in Table 56, page ll2. Children of a considerable number of families living on large farms appear to have participated in 4-H clubs, church and church-related groups and Junior Achievement. Children seem to be participating more hours per week in Junior Achievement than any other organization. 111 Table 55.--Kinds and Extent of Public Offices Held by Heads of Households and Spouses--Large and Medium Farm Families. Large Farm Families School Board Member County Government State Government National Government Agricultrual Soil Conservation Township Committee Board of Review Intermediate School District Community College District Township Government Doom—J—l—J—J—l Medium Farm Families School Board President 1 Township Government Zoning Board Clerk Trustee Planning Board Spouse Township Dy. Clerk 1 Township Clerk 1 llZ NN.N _m m _ N N_ PN NP.e _ - - - F - mpme can 0 N w u - - w meweeeew Le mewueez o e w u - N m meweeez eee mpweee N_.e m P e N F N meeeem . u u - u u - mewueEeLo N_.e m P - - N P ewmzz m>ee< eee=_e=H eoz mmwpw>wee< em.e __ P - N e e mezoee see=;e\;eesee mm.N e - - N N N pemEe>ewce< Lewcee NN.e __ - _ P N e me=_e =-e ee.P m - - P F P me=_e _eo;em Loewe - - - - - - - mwme _¢.F _ - - - - _ <=e\< we cewpeewewugee mcwuceewm mmwpwsew we geese: .mewwwseu Ewen emceeuumewuw>wpe< eee mcewpereemgo meewge> cw :ewaeewewpeee m.:ece_w;u mewpgeeem mewwwsew we eewpzewepmwouu.om eweew 113 With regard to activities not covered by the organizations listed above, crafts/hobbies, sports and music are probably the ones which have attracted the children. On an average, the children per family have participated 9.23 hours per week in all the organizations and activities. Eight of the medium farm families reported having their children participate in at least one organization and/or activity. The kinds of organizations or activities in which children of medium farm families participated and the extent of their participation are presented in Table 57, page ll4. Church is clearly the most prominent organization in which children of medium farm families generally participate. Though 4-H clubs come second, the number of participation is far less than the participation in church. Overall, children of large farm families appear to be par- ticipating in organizations and activities better than their counter- parts of medium farm families in terms of number participating, extent of participation and average hours of participation per week. Asked whether they belonged to 4-H as a child, 7 (4l%) of the heads of large farm families and 5 (33%) of the heads of medium farm families said that they belonged. Those who belonged to 4-H as children were asked to list briefly the effects of 4-H on their lives as adults. The effects which they listed are summarized in Table 58, page llS. ll4 eF.m om F F m m eF - u - - u - - mFee ewe o u u a l n F meFeeeLw\meFu::: o N - - - F F meFeeez\muweeu NF.o e - - F F N mpeeem NF.o N u - . F F mewaeseeo mm.o N F - u . F ewmez e>ee< emeeFeeF Fez meFuF>Fue< eo.F FF . F F e m meeeeu gee:;u\cegegu oo.F F u - u n F pee2e>ewee< LeFeee mN.o e n - F F N meeFu zue mm.F m u - - F N meeFu Feezem segue . - u - n u . meme - u - - - - - <:w\< we eewueeFeFugee mewugeeem meFFFEew we Leesez .meFFFEew Seem Eeweez--meF»F>wue< eee meewueuwcemgo meewee> eF eeFueeFercee m.eegeFF;u mewugeeem mmFFFEem we eewueewgpmwa--.um eFeew 115 Table 58.-~Effects of 4-H on Later Life as Listed by Heads of Households--Large and Medium Farm Families. Number of Freguencies Effects LFF , MFF Training in human relations - 2 Basic skills in farming 2 - Overall learning experience 2 l _Helped develop friendship l 1 Training in parliamentary procedure - l Helped develop interest in livestock - 1 Skills in livestock judging - l Learned responsibility - 1 Training in money management - 1 Training in leadership - l 5 l0 LFF= Large Farm Families; MFF=Medium Farm Families. Table 59.--Impact of 4-H as Expressed by Heads of Households--Large and Medium Farm Families. Number of Frequencies Impact of 4-H LFF MFF (N=ll) (N=5) Learn responsibility 3 - Learn general skills/ideas 4 - Skills in Crafts - - Skills in farming 2 2 Personal growth 3 - Leadership l 2 Community spirit 2 - Develop work ethic - 1 Generally positive 2 - No effect - - l7 5 LFF=Large Farm Families; MFF=Medium Farm Families. 116 Those heads of medium farm families who belonged to 4-H during their childhood appear to be more expressive on the effects of 4-H in their lives as adults. They listed more number of effects than their counterparts of large farm families. Asked whether they believed that every child should belong to a 4-H club, 40 percent of the heads of large farm families, and 54 percent of the heads of medium farm families answered in the affirmative. It is difficult to explain why a lesser percentage of heads of large farm families held the belief that every child should belong to a 4-H in view of the fact that a larger percentage of them had belonged to 4-H during their childhood and also that a larger percentage of their children currently belong to 4-H, as compared to their counterparts of medium farm families. Participation In, and Perception of the Impact Of 4-H Programs.--Respondents were asked to list briefly the effects of 4-H programs in the behavior of their children who belonged to 4-H. Their responses are summarized in Table 59, page ll5. All of those who responded to this question listed one or more effects of 4-H in the lives of their children. The number of children of medium farm families participating in 4-H, as we already know, is much less than those of the large farm families and therefore, the perceptions of the heads of medium farm families with regard to the impact of 4-H are also limited. The data reveal a strong sense of support for the positive effect of 4-H on the ll7 children on the part of both the groups, especially on the part of large farm families. The heads of families who had children, but did not belong to a 4-H club were asked to check, from a list provided, the reasons for not belonging to 4-H. Only three of the heads of medium farm families gave reasons; the three families of large farms whose children did not belong to 4-H did not give a reason for not belonging. The reasons given by the medium farm families included: (l) nobody invited us; (2) we do not know enough about 4-H; and (3) children are too young, These respondents were asked whether they would like to be contacted by a 4-H representative, one each of both the groups answered in the affirmative. Involvement in Programs of Cooperative Extension Service Respondents were asked whether they or their spouses were involved in any program of the Cooperative Extension Service in l978. 3l.2% of the heads of households and l5.4% of the spouses of large farm families said that they were involved. With regard to medium farm families, l5.4% of the heads of households and none of the spouses were involved. Data are displayed in Table 60, page ll8. Asked whether they would like to become involved, or more involved, in CES, l6.6% of the heads of households and l6.5% of the spouses belonging to large farm families answered in the affirmative. 118 Table 60.--Involvement in Cooperative Extension Service--Large and Medium Farm Families. Large Farm Families Medium Farm Families Head of Head of Household Spouse Household Spouse # % # % # % # % Involved in CES 5 31.2 2 15.4 2 15.4 0 0 Not involved in CES 11_ 68.8 11. 84.6 13_ 84.6 13' 100.0 16 100.0 13 100.0 15 100.0 13 100.0 Table 6l.--Interest in Cooperative Extension Service--Large and Medium Farm Families. Large Farm Families Head of (Medium Farm Families Head of Household Sp°use Household Sp°use # % # % # % # % Interested in CES 2 16.6 2 16.7 l 8.3 1 9.1 Not interested in CES _l_2_ 83.4 l_O 83.3 l_l_ 91.7 1_0_ 90.9 14 100.0 12 100.0 12 100.0 11 100.0 118 Table 60.--Involvement in Cooperative Extension Service--Large and Medium Farm Families. Large Farm Families Medium Farm Families Head of Head of HOU59h01d Spouse Househ0]d Spouse # % # % # z # % Involved 5 3] 2 2 15 4 2 15 4 0 0 in CES - . , Not involved in CES 11_ 68.8 11 84.6 13 84.6 13 100.0 16 1004) 13 100.0 15 100.0 13 100.0 Table 61.--Interest in Cooperative Extension Service--Large and Medium Farm Families. Large Farm Families Medium Farm Families Head of Head of Household Sp°use Household Sp°use # % # % # % # % IntereStEd 2 16.6 2 16.7 1 8.3 1 9.1 in CES Not interested in egg 1% M 1.9. §3_-2 l_l_ 91.7 10 90.9 14 100.0 12 100.0 12 100.0 11 100.0 119 Of the medium farm families, 8.3% of the heads of households and 9.1% of the spouses also answered in the affirmative. Data are displayed in Table 61, page 118. Respondents were asked to express their views on the kinds of CES programs to be started or expanded in their respective counties. Only one head of household of large farm families expressed his view, while three of the medium farm families expressed their views, as presented in Table 62, page 120. Kinds of assistance which they would like to receive were expressed and are presented in Table 63, page 120. Goal Orientation of the Rural ’Family’GFoups Part of the study consists of an investigation into the goal orientation of the respondent families overall, and between family groups. For this purpose, a list of 25 goal statements dis- tributed over four categories of goals, i.e. economic, social, health and aesthetic and of three arenas of concern, i.e. individual, family and community, were developed. Each respondent was asked to indicate the relative importance which he/she placed on each of the 25 goals on a scale of 5 to 1. Five meaning “highest importance" and 1 meaning "unimportant" or even "wrong." In the final analysis, ratings of 4 or 5 were treated as primary or of prime importance; ratings of 2 or 3 were taken as secondary or of secondary importance; and ratings of 1 were treated as meaning not a goal. 120 Table 62.--Kinds of CES Programs as Suggested by Heads of Households-- Large and Medium Farm Families. Large Farm Family Medium Farm Family More assistance for younger farmers Information on Farm 1 Markets 1 Information on Price Reports 1 Education on Market Fluctuations ._l 3 Table 63.--Kinds of Needed Assistance as Expressed by Large and Medium Farm Families. Large Farm Family Medium Farm Family Farming Loan and Finance 1 Guaranteed Prices Hog operation Woodlot management .133... Family Living None None Children Simple crafts 1 None How to raise farm kids _1_ 2 Other Improved roads 1 Revival of State 4-H Fair 1 121 Frequency distribution of the responses on each of the 25 goals broken down by family groups is presented in this section and also a brief analysis of responses on each of the goals. Goal l.--Leave Farm and Move to a Town or City.--A very large percentage of the total respondents as well as the different groups have either attached lowest importance to this goal or con- sider it as a wrong goal. Only 4, or 8.3% of the SFF and 2, or 11.8% of RRF, have attached higher level importance. However, 4, or 8.3% of the SFF, and l, or 6.2% of the LFF have attached middle level importance. The highest percentage of respondents who are thinking of leaving the farm belongs to the SFF--16.6%. None of the MFF is thinking of leaving the farm at all; while 1, or 6.2% of the LFF, has attached middle level importance to the goal of moving to a town or city (see Table 64, page 122). Economic Goals Goal 2.--Expand Size of Farming Operations.--To expand size of farming operations appears to be a goal of highest level import- ance for 22, or 24.4% of the total respondents. 0f the four groups, MFF seem to be attaching greater importance than any other group; 78.6% of them have assigned moderate or higher level importance to this goal. Eleven, or 68.8% of LFF; 24, or 53.3% of SFF; and 4, or 26.7% of RRF, have attached moderate or higher level of importance. Generally speaking, it is a very important goal for the farm family groups--LFF, MFF, and SFF, although MFF appear to be attaching more importance than the other two groups (see Table 65, page 123). 122 NFFENN NemeFmam Facam u NNN NFFsmN Etna FFasm u mam NFFENN Egeu Eeweez n mm: waEeu Seem wage; u NNN e.eeF mm e.eeF NF e.eeF Ne e.eeF NF e.eeF eF N.NN Hm. N.NN NH. N.NN mm. e.eeF .NN N.NN NH. usage to Nmezoe N.N N e e N.N N e e e e “maze; 0» Fxmz F.m m o e N.N e e e N.N F Fa>e4 eFeer F.F F N.N F e e o e e e pmeseF; op Nxez N.N e N.FF N N.N e e e e e FmNIeF: N N N N N N N N N N FmNeF NNN NNN NNN NNN Fe>ee eeeaeeeeeF .meeegu aFFEem Ne exec cmxegm .F Feeo e» eegeepp< eeeeugequ we Fe>e4 esp Ne mueeeeeemem we :ewgeewgumwn--.eo eFeeh 123 NFFENN NeeeFmeN Fmgem u NNN NFFENN ENNN FFmsm u NNN NFFsmN ENNN aaFeez u Nu: NFFENN Egeu wage; u NNN e.eeF em e.eeF NF e.eeF me e.eeF NF e.eeF NF N.NN mm. N.NN NH. N.NN NH. N.NF N1. N.NF NI. meogz No Nmezoe N.N N e e F.FF m F.N F N.NF N NmmzoF op Nxez N.NN NN N.NF N N.NN oF N.NN N N.NN e Fa>a4 eFeer N.N o N.N F N.N N F.N F e e Nmeemwe ON Nxmz N.NN NN N.N F N.NN eF N.NN m N.Fm m NmmcmF: N N N N N N N N N N e FNNOF NNN NNN Nu: NNN Fe>eN eucaNNe EH .meeegu NFFENN Ne czeo eexegm .N Fmeo ep eeeemup< eeeepgeaEF we Fe>e4 we“ Ne mueeeeeammm we eewpeewgpmwo--.mo eFeew 124 Goal 3.--Help Children Develop Independence Through Farm Resppnsibilities and Earnings.--Thirty seven, or 41.6% of the total respondents, appear to be attaching highest importance to this goal. 0f the four groups, MFF in general appear to be attaching higher importance than any other group; 84.6% of them have assigned higher than middle level importance, compared to LFF with 73.3%, SFF with 46.7%, and RRF with 62.5%. At the same time, 33.3% of SFF have assigned less than middle level importance, and this is the highest of all the four groups (see Table 66, page 125). Goal 4.--Obain Best Possible Crop Yields and/or Livestock Production.--Except for RRF, all other groups appear to be attaching greater importance to this goal. Fifteen, or 93.8% of LFF, 13 or 92.8% of MFF, and 31 or 68.9% of the SFF attach higher than middle level importance. Overall, 64 or 71.9% of the total respondents also attach higher than middle level importance (see Table 67, page 126). Goal 5.--Seek or Expand Non-Farm 0ccupations.--This goal is either wrong or of lowest importance to 11 or 68.8% of the LFF, 9 or 64.3% of the MFF, 14 or 31.8% of the SFF and 7 or 50% of the RRF. Overall, 41 or 46.6% of the total respondents assign "lowest or wrong" importance level. Thirteen or 29.6% of the SFF, and 4 or 28.6% of the RRF have attached more than middle level importance. It is therefore clear that, generally speaking, the SFF and RRF seem to be seeking or expanding non-farm occupations. LFF and MFF 125 NFFENN NNNNFNNN FNN=N u NNN NFFENN ENNN FFNEN u NNN NFFENN ENNN Ezweez u NNz NFFENN ELNN mmLNN u NNN N.NNF NN e.eeF NF e.eeF NN N.NNF NF N.NNF NF HJNH. NH. .wqmfl .N1 .mqmm .mm Nmmm. Ml. MJMHI. M1. Neat: No NmazeN N.N N N.N F N.N N e e N.N F NNNNOF op Nxmz N.NF NF N.NF N N.NN N e e N.N F FN>eF NFNNFz e.NF NF N.NN N N.NF N N.N F N.NN N NNNNNF: ON Nxmz N.FN NN N.NN N N.NN NF N.NN eF N.NN N NNNNNFI N N N N N N N N N N Fe>e4 euempeeaeF FNNOF NNN NNN NNN NNN .meeego NFFENN he czeo sexegm .m FNew op vmsemuu< eeemugeasF we Fe>e4 ecu an muceeeegmem we eewuenwgumwa--.mm eFeNN 126 NewFFENm peeuwmem Fmgam meFFFENN ENNN FFNEm NeFFFENN Egon sswuez NeFFFENN ELNN wage; mmm mum mm: mm; N.NNF NN e.eeF NF e.eeF NN e.eeF NF e.eeF NF wleF 1F1F. a .NI «#1 N1 [FANI 1F1 1m. .el 9.8: .3 N833 N.N N F.N F N.N N e e e e NmezeF eN pxmz N.FF OF N e N.NN N e e N.N F Fe>mF eFeer N.N N e e N.NF N F.N F N.N F NNNNNF; eN Nxmz N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN NN N.NN NF N.NN NF NNNNNFI N N N N N N N N N N Fe>e4 meempgenEH FNNeF NNN NNN NNN NNN .quego NFFENN he exec eexegm .e Fmeo ep emceNNN< eeempgeaeF we Fe>e4 esp an Npeeeeeammm we :ewgznwgamwauu.no eFeNN 127 want to stay where they are with regard to their occupation (see Table 68, page 128). Goal 6.--Work for a Sound Zoningpand Land-Use Plan for the Township.--This is a goal for which the total respondents as well as the groups are divided and spread over different importance levels. However, 12 or 75% of LFF, 7 or 50% of MFF, 24 or 54% of the SFF and 7 or 46.7% of the RRF seem to be attaching more than middle level importance. In terms of percentage, there seems to be a substantial difference between LFF and the other three groups-- LFF having the highest level of interest in this goal (see Table 69, page 129). Goal 7.--Have Good Farm Machinery_and Keep It In Good Repai§.--Practically all of the LFF and MFF have given highest importance to this goal; 42.6% of SFF, and 70.1% of the RRF also have given either highest or next to highest importance. The fact that SFF have the least percentage of respondents giving higher level importance to this goal may be explained by the fact that SFF includes a substantial number of part-time farmers who are not involved in commercial farming (see Table 70, page 130). Goal 8.--Have Children Share in Making_Farm Plans and Decisions.--This is another goal for which the total respondents as well as the groups are divided and spread over different importance levels as can be seen in Table 71, page 132. However, 62.6% of LFF, 76.9% of MFF, 56.5% of SFF, and 50% of the RRF have given more than 128 NFFENN NNNNFNNN FNNNN u NNN NFFENN ENNN FFNEN u NNN NFFENN ENNN ENFNaz u NNN NFFENN ELNN magmg u NNN N.NNF NN N.NNF NF N.NNF NN N.NNF NF N.NNF NF N.NN .NN N.NN N». N.FN mm. N.NN .1. N.NN MN. Neat; No NmmzoN N.NF NF e e N.NF N N.NF N.NF N NmmzeF ON Nxmz N.NF NF N.FN N N.NN N N.NF N.N F FN>NF NFNNNz N.NF N N.NF N N.FF N F.N N.N F NNaNNF; ON Nxmz N.FF eF N.NF N N.NF N e e o NNNNNFN N N N N N N N N N Fe>e4 meeougeaefi FNNeF NNN NNN NNN .Ngaego NFFENN Ne ezeo eexegm .m FNem e“ eenempp< eeeNpNeNEF we Fe>e4 mg» mg mpeeveeamem we :eFuenFNumwo--.mo eFer 129 NFNEON NOOOFNON FONON u NNN NFNEON ENNN FFOeN u NNN NFFENN ENNN Eswuez n ma: NFFENN ELNN emNNN u NNN e.eeF NN N.NNF NF 0.00F NN N.NNF NF N.NNF NF N.NF 1N. N.NN N1. F.N Nu. N.FN m1. N.NF N1. NNONz NO umOzON N.N N N.N F N.N N F.N F e e NmszF ON Nsz N.NN FN N.NN N N.NN NF N.FN N N.NF N FN>OF OFONFz N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN NF N.NF N N.NN N NNNNNFN ON NXOz N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN FF N.NN N N.NN N NNONNF: N N N N N N N N N N Fm>w4 meempxeasm FNNOF NNN NNN .Naeegu NFFENN an ezeo emxegm .N FNeo ep Necempp< meempgeNEF we Fm>e4 esp Na mNeeeceamem we eewuanLpNFoul.mN mFeNN 130 NFFENN ucmuFNmm Fmgem NFFENN ENNN FFNEm NFFENN ELNN EzFumz NFFENN ENNN emNNN mam mum um: um; e.eeF NN O.eOF NF N.NOF NN e.eeF NF N.NOF NF .Immmm .Nm .ngmm Na. .MNNN .m. .quu .N. .le. mm. NNONz NO NNNzON N.NF NF N.N F N.NN FF e N e O NNOzOF ON Nxmz N.NF NF N.NF N N.FN OF N O N.N F FO>OF OFNOFz N.N N N.N F e N e O N.NF N ONONNFN ON Nsz N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN ON N.NN NF N.NN NF NNONNFI N N N N N N N N N N Fm>e4 eeemugeaEH FONOF NNN NNN NNN NNN .N FNew ea eegemup< meeNuNeNEH we .Naeegu NFFENN Ne :zeo emxogm Fe>e4 ecu Ne Npcmueeamem we eewuanwgpmwouu.oN NFNNN 131 middle level importance in having children share in farm planning and decision-making. But, for approximately 70% of the respondents, this goal is not of highest level importance (see Table 71, page 132). Social Goals Goal 9.--Encourage Children to Participate in 4-H Activities.--Only 18 or 20.9% of the total respondents have given highest level importance to this goal. Of the four groups, MFF generally seem to be giving greater importance (50% of them) than any other group; 46.7% of the LFF, 58.3% of the MFF, 21% of the SFF, and 43.8% of the RRF have given highest or next to highest level of importance. SFF has the lowest percentage of respondents giving importance to this goal (see Table 72, page 133). Goal 10.--Serve in Public Office.--For 61 or 67.8% of the total respondents, this goal is either wrong or of lowest importance. With regard to various groups: 87.5% of LFF, 50% of MFF, 64.4% of SFF, and 73.3% of RRF have given lowest importance or consider it a wrong goal. Two or 14.2% of the MFF have given either highest or next to highest importance, and this is the highest of all per- centages in this category (see Table 73, page 134). Goal ll.--Lead or Assist a 4-H C1ub.--0n1y 12 or 13.7% of the total respondents have given highest or next to highest level importance to this goal. Similarly, only 6.3% of LFF, 21.4% of MFF, 9.1% of SFF, and 28.5% of RRF have given highest or next to 132 NFNEON NNOONNON FONON u NNN NFFEON ENON FFOEN u NNN NFNENN ENON EOFNOz u NNz NFFENN ENNN emNNN u NNN N.NOF NN e.eeF e.eeF NN O.OOF e.eeF NF N.NF NH. N.NN Nu. N.FN .m: N.N N.N N1. NNONz NO NNONON N.N N F.N N.N N O N.N F NNOzOF ON NXOz N.NF NF N.NF N.NF N N.NF N.NN N FO>OF OFNNNz N.NN NN N.FN F.NN NF N.NN N.FN N NNONNFN ON Nsz N.NN NN N.NN N.NN NF F.NN N.FN N NNNNNF: N N N N N N N Fe>e4 eueNNNeasH FNNeN NNN .maeegw NFNENN Na ezeo cmxegm .w Fmeo eN negeeuu< eeemugeaem we Fe>e4 ecu Na Nueeuceammm we eewpaewgumwauu.FN mFeNN 133 NFFENN NeecFNmm Fmgem NFFENN ENNN FFNEm NFFENN ENNN EzNeez NFNENN ENNN emNNN Nam mam um: um; 0.00F NN N.NNF NF N.NNF NN e.eeF NF e.eeF NF 4.1mm flN. .Nufim N1 Nam N.N 31 d. N.NN .NI NOON: NO N823 F.N N N.NF N N.FF N e o e e NNOzOF ON Nsz N.NN NN N.FN N N.NN NF N.NN N N.NN N FO>OF OFONFz N.NF NF N.NF N N.NF N N.N F N.NN N NNONNFN ON Nxmz N.NN NF N.FN N N.N N N.NN N N.NN N NNONNF: N N N N N N N N N N Fe>m4 eeeNNNensH FONOF NNN .N FNew eN NegeNNN< eeeNNNeQEN we .Nazegu NFFENN Na czeo emxegm Fm>e4 mzN Na Npeeeeeamem we :eFuaewNNNFn--.NN eFeNN 134 NFFEON NNONFNON FONON n NNN NFFEON ENON FFOeN u NNN NFFEON ENON ENFOON u NNN NFFENN ELNN emgee u NNN e.eeF ON e.eeF NF e.eeF NN N.NN NF F.eeF NF 3 .FIN a I: «43 mm a .N1 N.NN 3 N8; NO N833 N.NF NF N.N F N.NF N N.FN N N.N F NNOzOF ON Nsz N.N N N.NF N N.N N N.NF N N.N F FO>OF OFONFz N.N N N.N F N.N F F.N F e e NNNNNFN ON Nsz N.N N e e N.N N F.N F e e NNONNF: N FNNOF N N NNN N N NNN N N NNN N N NNN N FO>ON OOOONNOOEN .Neeegw NFFENN Ne ezec eexegm .oF Feeo eN emeUNNN< meeNNNeasF we Fe>me eeN Ne Nuceeeeemem we cewueewNNNFoul.mN eFeeN 135 highest level importance to this goal. MFF generally seem to be having greater interest in this goal than any other group (see Table 74, page 136). Goal 12.--Help Children Go To College and Earn A College .Degree,—-A substantial number of respondents--total and groups-- have given higher level importance to this goal; 50.1% of the LFF, 50% of the MFF, 64.1% of the SFF and 50% of the RRF have given highest or next highest level of importance. SFF appear to be giving greater importance than any other group. Among those who give the highest importance, SFF stand first and MFF stand second (see Table 75, page 137). Goal l3.--Treat My Land 50 That It Will Be Better When I Leave It Than It Was When I Came To It.--There seems to be existing a high level of social consciousness with regard to this goal among all the groups as well as the total respondents. Of all the groups, MFF generally seem to be attaching the highest importance to this goal; 93.8% of the LFF, 92.9% of the MFF, 55.3% of the SFF and 60% of the RRF have given highest or next to highest level of importance--LFF and MFF having more or less the same percentage, while SFF and RRF having more or less the same level of percentage (see Table 76, page 138). Goal l4.--He1p Children Ppepare for Non-Farm Occupations.-- The total respondents as well as the groups widely dispersed over all levels of importance. A considerable percentage of respondents 136 NFFEON NNNNFNNN FNNON u NNN NFNENN ENON FFOEN u NNN NFFENN ENNN EeFuez u Nu: NFFENN ELNN emNNe u NNN e.eeF NN e.eeF NF N.NNF NN N.NNF NF e.eeF NF N.NN .mm N.NN M1. N.NN .mN N.NN mm. N.NN N1. NOON; NO NNNzOe N.NF NF F.N F N.NN FF F.N F N.NF N NNO3OF ON Nsz N.NF NF N.NF N F.FF N N.NN N N.NF N FN>OF OFONNz N.N N F.N F N.N F N.NF N N.N F NNONNFN ON Nxmz N.N N N.FN N N.N N F.N F e NNONNN: N N N N N N N N N N FNNOF NNN NNN NNN FO>ON NONONNOOEN .Naeegw NFFENN Ne exec eexegm .FF Feeo eN emceepp< eeceNNeNEH we Fe>me eeN Ne Npeeeeeammm we :eFuzeNNNNNauu.NN epeeh 137 NFFENN NOOOFNNN FONON u NNN NFFEON ENON FFOEN u NNN NFFEON ENON ENFOOZ u NNN NFFENN seem emgee u NNN e.eeF FN N.NOF NF e.eeF NN N.NNF NF e.eeF NF F.NN .NN N.FN N1. N.NN .IN N.NF .Nn N.NN N1. NOON: NO NNOzOe N.N N N e N.N F F.N F O O NNO3OF ON Nsz N.NF NF N.NF N F.FF N N.NN N N.NN N FOOOF OFONFz F.NF FF N.NF N N.NF N N e N.NF N NNONNFN ON Nsz F.NN FN N.NN N F.FN NN N.NN N N.FN N NNONNF: N N N N N N N N N N Fe>ee eeeeugeaEF FNNeN ume .Naeego NFFENN Ne ezeo eexegm .NF FNeo eN emeeepp< eeceugeeeH we Fe>me we» Ne Npeeeceemea we eewueewspmwoul.mN eFeNN 138 NFFENN NeeeNNem Fegem NFFEON ENON FFOsN NFFENN ELNN seweez NFFENN Egan emuee Nam mum mu: mue e.eeF NN O.eeF NF O.eOF NN 0.00F NF N.NOF NF .NNNI .MT .mqma. .NI .NNNI Mn. emum. .N. .mqml .NI NOON: NO NNOzOe N.N N O O N.N N e e e e NNONOF ON Nsz N.FF OF N.NF N N.NF N e O e e FO>OF NFOOFz N.NF NF N.NF N N.NF N e e N.NN N NNNNNFN ON Nsz F.NN NN N.NN N N.NN NN N.NN NF N.NN FF NNONNF: N N N N N N N N N N Fe>ee eeeNNNeeEH FONON NNN NNN Ne: NNN .Naeeew NFFENN Ne exec eexegm .NF Feew eN eeeeNNN< eeeeugeeefi we Fe>ee eeN Ne Nueeeeeemem we eeFueeFNNNwe--.NN eFeNN 139 seem undecided--particularly MFF group having 50% indicating middle level importance. Of all the groups, SFF generally seem to be attaching higher level (highest or next to highest) importance than any other group. MFF has equal percentage of respondents giving more than middle level and less than middle level importance-- 25% in each category (see Table 77, page 140). Goal 15.--Support Local Agricultural C00peratives.--Here again, the respondents-~total and groups--are widely dispersed over various importance levels; 30.3% of the total respondents have taken a middle level position. MFF has the highest percentage of respondents giving more than middle level importance-~64.3% com— pared to LFF with 43.8%, SFF with 34.1% and RRF with 40% (see Table 78, page 141). Health Goals Goal 16.--Present or Control Diseases in Farm Animals.-- 62.5% of the LFF, 76.9% of the MFF, 34.1% of the SFF, and 43.8% of the RRF have given highest level importance to this health goal. This compares with the total respondents with 47.2% giving the highest importance. Both LFF and MFF in general seem to be attaching higher level importance to this goal than the other two groups which consists of a considerable percentage attaching lowest level importance or considering it a wrong goal for them (see Table 79, page 142). 140 NFFEON NOONFNON FONON u NNN NFNEON ENON FFOsN u NNN NFFEON ENON ENFOOz u NNN NFFENN ENNN emgee u NNN N.NNF NN e.eeF NF e.eeF NN e.OeF NF N.NOF NF N.NN .NN N.FN N1. N.NF N». N.NF .N. N.NN .wu NOON: NO NNOzON F.N N e N N.N N N.N F N.NN N NNezOF ON Nsz N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN NF N.NN N N.NF N FO>NF OFNOFz N.NF NF N.N F N.NF N N.NF N N.NN N NNNNNFN ON Nsz N.NN NN N.NN N F.NN NF N.N F N.NF N NNONNFN N N N N N N N N N N Fe>we eeeeugeeeN FNNON NNN NNN NNN .NF FNeN eN eeeeNNN< eeceNNeeEF we .Neeegw NFNENN Ne :zeo eexegm Fe>ee eeN Ne Nueeeeeemem we :eFaeeFNNNwo--.NN eFeNN 141 NFFENN NeeeFNem Feeem u NNN NFFENN ENON FFOEN n NNN NFFENN ENNN Eeweez n mu: NFFENN ENNN emNee n NNN e.eeF NN N.NOF NF N.NOF NN e.eeF NF O.eOF NF N.FF .mNT N.NN m1. N.FF N1. F.N .N: N.N N». NNONN NO NNOzON N.NF NF N.NF N N.NF N N.NF N N.NF N NNszF ON Nsz N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN NF N.NF N N.FN N FOOOF OFNOFz N.NF NF N.NN N N.NF N N.FN N e e NNONNFN ON Nsz N.NN NN N.NN N N.NF N N.NN N N.NN N NNONNF: N N N N N N N N N N Fe>ee eeeNNNeNEN FONOF NNN NNN NNN NNN .mF Feeo e» eeeeeup< eecepgeaEH we .Neeegu NFFENN Ne ezee eexegm FNOON NNN Ne NNOOOOOONON NO OONNONNNNNFN--.NN NFNON 142 NNNENN pcmcwmmm ngzm NFNENN Egan _NmEm NPNENN Egan Eswcmz NPNENN ELNN mmLNN umm mum mm: mm; o.ooN mm o.oop NF o.oo~ NN o.oop mN o.oo_ NF NINM N.N. N.NN” .N1 3 IF NINA M. a NI NOE; LO N333 m.N N m.m F m.¢ N N.N N o o pmmzop ou uxwz N.N N N.N N N.m N o o N.N P Fm>mp mpuch N.NN NF m.o P m.om m o o m.N N “macaw: o» uxmz N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN N— m.oN op N.NN ON ummcmwz N N N N N N N N N N Nm>m4 mucmpganH Pouch NNN .Nasogm NPNENN Na czon :mxogm .NN _Now op umzumup< mocmuganH No Nm>m4 NSN Na Nucmoconmmm No cowpznwgummo--.mu mpnmh 143 Goal l7.—-Provide Economical and Nutritious Food for the family,--59.3% of the total respondents have attached highest level importance of providing economical and nutritious food for the family. MFF and RRF stand very close in giving the highest importance--7l.4% and 68.8% respectively. The two of the higher level categories combined, LFF stands first with 93.8% followed by MFF with 78.5%, SFF with 75.6%, and RRF with 75.l%. The point to be noted here is that all the groups in general are giving higher level importance to this goal (see Table 80, page 144). Goal 18.--Help to Reduce Air, Water and Soil Pollution in Our Neighborhood.--Only 26.4% of the total respondents consider this goal as of highest importance. 0f the four groups, MFF seems to be standing first with 7l.4% of them attaching either highest or next to highest importance, followed by RRF with 62.5%, LFF with 56.3%, and SFF with 40%. A considerable percentage of respondents in all the groups have taken a middle level position. Of those who attach highest importance, RRF stands first with 50% of respondents (see Table 81, page l45). Goal l9.--Insure that Home Water and Sanitary Systems Are §afg,--The total respondents as well as the different groups in general seem to be giving higher level importance to this goal. 0f the four groups, MFF stands first, with 92.9% of them giving either highest or next to highest importance followed by LFF with 87.5%, SFF with 78.7%, and RRF with 77.9% (see Table 82, page l46). 144 NFNENN NNNONNNN FNLON u NNN NFNENN ELNN FFNeN n NNN NFNENN ELNN anvmz u mm: NFNENN ELNN wage; u NNN o.ooF Fm o.ooN NF o.ooF NN o.ooF NF o.ooF N— ww.|Nl «I flol H: flwl NI IFJMI .FI Ilol .ol 9.83 .8 «$33 N.N m m.o F N.N N F.N F N.N F “mmzoF op uxmz o.FF oF N.NF N N.NF N F.N F o o Fm>mF mFuuNz w.mF wF N.N F o.om m F.N N N.NN N pmmsmN; op uxmz m.mm Nm m.wo FF N.NN mm N.FN oF 0.0m m ummcawz N N N N N N N N N N Fm>m4 mocmugoasH FNNoN mum NNN .NF Fmou o“ coconuu< mucmpganH No .Nasogo NFNENN Na czon cmxogm FO>NN NNN NN NNNNONONNNN NO NONNONNNNNNN--.ON OFNNN NFNENN NONNNNNN FNNON u NNN NFNENN ELNN FFNsN u NNN NFNEON scON EONNmz u NNE NFNENN Esau mmLNA u NNN 145 O OOF FN O OOF NF O.OOF NN O OOF NF O OOF NF .NINI wt N|.N| .FI .F.|F~ .NI Id: .Ol NINA NI NOON: .8 N833 N.N N O O N.N N O O O O NNOzOF ON Nxmz N.NN NN N.FN N N.NN OF N.NN N N.FN N FO>NF NFOONz N.NN NN N.NF N N.NN OF N.NN N N.NN N NNONNNN ON Nxmz N.NN NN O.ON N N.NF N N.NN N N.NF N NNNNNNN N N N N N N N N N N Fm>m4 mucmggoqu FNNON NNN NNN NNN .mF Fmom o» umzumuu< mocmugoasF No .Nqsogu NNNENN Na czoo cwxogm Fm>m4 mgp Na Nucmucoammm No companwgumwa--.Fm mFNNN 146 NFNENN pcmuwmmm Fagsm NFNENN ELNN FFNEm NFNENN ELNN Ezwcmz NFNENN ELNN mmgmg mam mum mm: mm; o.ooF mm 06? NF 92: NN 92: NF o.ooF NF .ml .flnflm Mm. mflmw. .MI Jflmmu Aw. .INfl. ml. acogz Lo ummzog m N.N F N.N N o o o o ammzoF o» pxmz m N.N F N.NF N o o N.NF N Fm>mF mFuuNz ON N.FF N N.NN NF N.NF N O.NN N NNONNNN OO NNOZ mm N.NN NF N.NN NN N.NN FF N.NN oF ummsmwz N N N N N N N N N Fm>m4 mucmugoasm Nmuoh Nam mum um: NNN .Nazogm NFNENN Na 2309 cmxogm .mF Face on cmsumwu< mucmpgonEF No Fm>m4 on» an Nucmucoammm No :oNN:n_LNmNn--.Nm anNN l47 Goal 20.--Insure the Purity and Cleanliness of all Food Produced for Human Consumption.--In this case also, the total respondents as well as the groups attach great importance; 84.6% of all the respondents give either highest or next to highest importance to this goal. In this respect, MFF stands first with 92.8% of them giving highest or next to highest level of importance followed by RRF with 88.2%, SFF with 84.1%, and LFF with 75.1% (see Table 83, page 148). Goal 21.--work for an Adequate Health Care Program for all Rural Residents.--Highest level importance is attached to this goal by 35.9% of the total residents, 18.8% of the LFF, 57.1% of the MFF, 26.1% of the SFF, and 62.5% of the RRF. Among those who attach highest or next to highest importance, RRF stands first with 62.5% followed by MFF with 57.1%, SFF with 45.7%, and LFF with 37.6%—- LFF being the lowest. A considerable percentage of respondents have taken a middle level position (see Table 84, page 149). Aesthetic Goals Goal 22.--He1p Our Family to Enjoy Nature Through the Changing Seasons.--46.7% of the RRF, 23.1% of the MFF, 17.4% of the SFF and 12.5% of the LFF have attached highest importance to this aesthetic goal. Highest and next to highest combined, RRF stands first with 73.4%, followed by MFF with 53.9%, LFF with 43.8%, and SFF with 37%. A considerable percentage of the total respondents have given middle level importance--SFF being the highest with 45.7% (see Table 85, page 150). 148 NFNENN ucmuNNmm Fmgzm NFNENN ENNN FFNEm NFNENN ELNN szNumz NNNENN Egan mmLmN Nam mum mu: NNN O.OOF FN O OOF NF O OOF NN O.OOF NF O OOF NF m4. m. 3 MI lOl NI 3 .Fl .IOI m1 NOON: NO N833 N.N N O O N.N N O O O O NmszF ON Nsz N.N N O O F.N N O O O.NN N FN>OF OFOONz 0.0N OF N.NF N N.NN NF N.FN N N.N F NNNNNNN ON Nxmz N.NN NN N.ON NF N.NN NN N.FN OF N.NN FF NNNNNN: N N N N N N N N N N Nm>mN wucmpgoqEF FNNON NNN NNN NNN .oN Fmoo 0N vmcumpp< mucmpgoasfi No .masogw NFNENN Na czoo :mxogm Fm>mN msa Na mucmucoammm No cowpaawcumwoun.mm mFNNN 149 NFNENN NONONNNN FNNON u NNN NFNENN ENNN FFNEN u NNN NFNENN ENNN EONOmz n Nu: NFNENN ENNN mmgNN u NNN O OOF NN 0.00F NF 0.00F NN 0.00F NF O.OOF NF N.N .N: N.NF .M. O.OF .m: O NI. N.NF .N: NOON; NO NmszN N.N O O O N.N N N.NF N N.NF N NNNzOF ON Nxmz N.FN NN O.NN N N.NN NF N.NN N N.FN N FNNOF OFOONz O.NF NF O O N.NF N O O N.NF N NNNNONN ON Nxmz O.NN NN N.NN OF F.NN NF F.NN N N.NF N NNNNON: N N N N N N N N N N Fm>mN mucmugoasa FNNON NNN NNN NNz NNN .Naaogw NFNENN Na czoo cmxogm .NN Fmow ON NNNUNNN< mucmugoaeH No Fm>mN ch Na Npcmucoammm No :oNuanNNNNNo--.NN «Fan» 150 NFN ENN NcmuNNmm Fmgsm n NNN NFNENN ENNN FFNEN u NNN NFNENN ENNN EsNumz n Nu: NNNENN ELNN mmcmN u NNN 0.00F om o.ooF NF 0.00F NN 0.00F mF o.ooF NF Nmel. m1 filo... HI MJH Mn .N4NI .Fl 3 «I 28.3 .8 N333 m.w w o o o.mF m o o m.NN N ummzoF o» uxmz N.NN Nm 0.0N m N.NN FN N.NN m N.NF m Fm>mp vauNz N.NN NN N.NN N N.NF O N.ON N N.FN N NNONNNN ON Nxmz N.NN oN N.NN N N.NF m F.NN m N.NF N NmmgmN: N N N N N N N N N N Fm>mN mucNNNoaeH NNN .mqaogw NFNENN an czoo :mxogm .NN FNou ON umguNNN< mucmNNoasF No Fm>mN NNN an mucmucoammm No cowuznwgumwo--.mw mFNNN lSl Goal 23.--Keep Farm Neat and Attractive.--77.1% of the total respondents indicated either highest or next to highest level of importance to this goal. Of the groups, MFF stands first with 92.8%, followed by RRF with 77.8%, LFF with 81.3%, and SFF with 70.8% (see Table 86, page 152). Goal 24.--Suppgrt Music, Art and Theater Production in the Community.--36.8% of the total respondents either attach lowest importance to this goal or consider it a wrong goal, while only 14.9% attach highest importance. Of those who attach highest level importance, RRF stand first with 31.3%, and LFF the last with 0%. A substantial number of respondents in all of the four groups have indicated less than middle level (lowest or next to lowest or wrong) importance to this goal (see Table 87, page 153). Goal 25.--Permit Children to Observe the Processes of Birth, Life and Death on the Farm.--As is evident in Table 88, page 154, the responses are widely dispersed over various levels of importance. However, 54.1% of the total respondents attach either highest or next to highest level of importance to this goal. Among the groups, MFF stand first with 77% followed by RRF with 57.1%, LFF with 56.3%, and SFF with 45.2%. An Aggregate Analysis of Goal Orientation by_Goal Categories Having analysed the data on each of the goals within each of the four categories of goals, it is now necessary to summarize 152 NFNENN NONONNON FNNON u NNN NFNEON ENNN FFOEN u NNN NFNENN ENNN EONOOz u NNz NFNENN Egan mmNNN u NNN 0.00F NO O OOF NF 0.00F NN 0.00F NF 0.00F NF N.N Nu. N.N NI. F.N NI. F.N .N. N.N NI. NOON: NO NNNzON N.N N N.NF N N.N N O O O O NNOzOF ON Nsz N.NF NF O O N.ON OF O O N.NF N FONOF NFOONz N.FN FN N.NF N O.NN FF N.FN N O.NN N NNONONN ON Nsz N.NN NN F.FN FF N.ON NN N.FN OF N.NN O NNONONI N N N N N N N N N N Fm>mN mucmpNanH FONON NNN NNN NNz NNN .NQOONN NFNENN an exam cNNONm .mN Fmow op umgumpp< mucmuNanH No Fw>mN ms“ Na szmucoammm No cowpanNNNmNaiu.oN mFNNN 153 NFNENN acchNmm Fagsm NFNENN ENNN FFNEm NFNENN ENNN anumz NFNENN ENNN mmNNN Nam mam mm: NNN O.OOF NN 0.00F NF O.OOF NN 0.00F NF O.OOF NF N.NNNI N .N....F.NI NI m...N.NI NF O.NN NI N.NN. MI NOON: NO N333 N.NF FF N.NF N N.N N F.N F 0.0N N NNOzOF ON Nsz N.NN NN N.NF N N.NN NF N.NN N N.NF N FO>OF OFOOE N.N N N.N F N.N N O O 0.0N N NNONOE ON Nsz N.NF NF N.FN N N.NF N N.NF N O O NNONOE N FNNON N N be N N NNN N N t: N N N: N F23 OOONNNOOE .NQOONN NFNENN Na egos :NNONN .NN Fmou oN NNNUNNN< mucmNNogEH No Fm>mN NNN Na mNcmucoammm No comuanNNmNaii.Nw NFNNN 154 NFNENN NOONNNON FONON NFNENN ENON FFmEm NFNEON ENON EONvmz NFNEON ENON meON mam mum mu: NNN 0.00F NN 0.00F NF 0.00F NN 0.00F NF 0.00F NF MAINI .NA .N|.FINI m: INT.le fl Md! .FI marl .NI NOON: NO N833 F.N N O O F.N N N.N F N.NF N NNOzOF ON Nxmz N.NF NF N.FN N N.FN N N.N F N.NF N FONOF OFOONz O.NN NN N.FN N 0.0F N N.ON N N.NN N NNONONN ON Nsz N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN FF N.NN N N.NF N NNONONI N N N N N N N N N N FO>ON OOONNNOOEH FONON NNN NNN NNz NNN .NNOONo NFNENN Na czoo :meNm .NN FNON ON umzuNNN< mucNNNOQEF NO FO>ON NNN Na NNcmuOOQNON NO :ONNOONNNNNQT-.NN OFNNN 155 the data by categories of goals as well as by compressing the impor- tance levels into three major levels, i.e. Primary Importance ("Highest" and "Next to Highest" levels), Secondary Importance (middle level and next to lowest levels), and No Importance (lowest or wrong level). This will help comparison easier and more meaning- ful. The data are presented in Table 89, page 156. An overwhelming percentage of Commercial Farm Families (Large and Medium) appear to have attached primary importance to economic goals, while less than 50 percent of the Small Farm Families and Rural Resident Families have attached primary importance. A considerable percentage of Small Farm Families have attached secondary importance, while a considerable percentage of Rural Resident Families have attached no importance at all. With regard to social goal category, all the four groups have less than 50 percent of the families attaching primary impor- tance. Small Farm Families and Rural Resident Families are more or less equally divided between the three levels of importance--primary, secondary, and no importance. Medium Farm Families consist of the highest percentage of those who have attached primary importance to social goal category. It must be pointed out here that social goal category in this respect largely represents participation in community/group activities by the family members. An overwhelming majority of all the four groups have attached primary importance to health goal category--Medium Farm Families having the highest percentage and Small Farm Family having the lowest percentage. Table 89.--An Aggregate Analysis of Goal-Orientation by Goal Categories. 156 Aggregate Percentage of Families by GF°HP5 Total LFF MFF SFF RRF Economic Goals Primary Importance 62 65 47 44 55 Secondary Importance 24 16 37 18 24 Not Important/ 14 19 16 38 2] ”0 50a‘ 100 100 100 100 100 Social Goals Primary Importance 4O 46 37 36 40 Secondary Importance 26 33 32 26 29 Not Important/ 34 2] 3] 38 3] N° 6°31 100 100 100 100 100 Health Goals Primary Importance 69 75 59 66 67 Secondary Importance 20 19 22 2O 16 Not Important/ 1] 6 19 14 17 N° G°a1 100 100 100 100 100 Aesthetic Goals Primary Importance SO 60 45 62 54 Secondary Importance 26 24 39 23 28 Not Important/ No Goal 24 l6 16 15 18 100 100 100 100 100 LFF = Large Farm Family MFF = Medium Farm Family SFF = Small Farm Family RRF = Rural Resident Family 157 Rural Resident Families consist of the highest percentage of those who attach primary importance to aesthetic goal category followed by Medium Farm Families. Looking at each family group in terms of percentages attach- ing primary importance to each goal category: Small Farm Families have the highest percentage for health goal category and smallest percentage for social goal category; Rural Resident Families have the highest percentage for health goal category and smallest per- centage for social goal category; Medium Farm Families have the highest percentage for health goal category and smallest percentage for social goal and Large Farm Families have the highest percentage for health and the lowest percentage for social goals. It is important to note that the Small Farm Families appear to be divided over the four goal categories with regard to the per— centages attaching primary importance. Except health goal category, all the other categories have been attached primary importance by less than 50 percent of the respondents; health category is attached primary importance by 59 percent of the respondents. An Aggregate Analysis of Goal Orientation by Arenas of Concern The suggested schema of analysis of goal orientation also include another approach--i.e. by arenas of concern--individual, family, and community. A summary of data related to goal orienta- tion by arenas of concern is presented in Table 90, page 158. 158 Table 90.—-An Aggregate Analysis of Goal Orientation by Arenas of Concern. Aggregate Percentage of Families by Groups LFF MFF SFF RRF T°ta‘ Individual Goals Primary Importance 67 72 49 52 60 Secondary Importance 15 10 ' 26 27 20 Not Important/ 18 18 25 2] 20 ”0 60a‘ 100 100 100 100 100 Family Goals Primary Importance 62 6O 53 68 61 Secondary Importance 23 23 23 22 23 Not Important/ No Goal 15 17 24 10 16 100 100 100 100 100 Community Goals Primary Importance 37 51 37 47 ‘43 Secondary Importance 34 29 37 24 31 Not Important/ No Goal 29 20 26 29 26 100 100 100 100 100 LFF Large Farm Family MFF = Medium Farm Family SFF = Small Farm Family RRF = Rural Resident Family 159 In the Individual Arenacfl=Concern, Medium Farm Families stand first with 72 percent attaching primary importance followed immediately by Large Farm Families with 67 percent. Both Small Farm Families and Rural Resident Families stand way behind with 40 percent and 52 percent respectively. In the Family Arena.ofConcern, Rural Resident Families stand first with 68 percent and Small Farm Families standing last with 53 percent. In the Community ArenaNF NNNFOO; .NNO chmmNmiithNN NON NOONOmm NO NNOEEOm--.Fm OFOON 163 matters which their children do or could to to make them happy. They seem to be expecting their children to be working hard on the farm and be economically productive. Matters which may be generally classified as sggial seem to be the second category listed by the total population as well as the three groups (except families living on medium farms). There is a strong indication that the parents living in the rural areas generally expect their children to be religious-minded, god-fearing, having good morals and be responsible. Rural resi- dents as a group has emphasized this value stronger than any other group. Families living on small farms as a group stands second in this reSpect. Data are displayed in Table 92, page 164. The Things They Are Happiest to Have, or Most Want to Have, in This Life The respondents were asked to list the things which they were happiest to have, or most want to have, in this life. Ninety seven of them listed a total of 220 items. Social and economic items equally dominated the total listing by the entire population. In the list provided by families living on small farms, economic and social items dominated; in the list provided by rural residents, social and health items dominated; in the list provided by families living on medium farms, economic items clearly dominated; and in the list provided by families living on large farms, economic and social items equally dominated. However, a good percentage of 164 .upw .gmuumgmcu .mchos uoom .cpzogm chomcma .mmmuuzm .mpawmcogmmc we .voo cw umsgp .msowmwpwg mm "mmzpo .uum .zuammn mumpuwgaam .mgaumc cw pmmgmucm "umhmzhmm< .upm .m=w>P_ xgupem; new. .»;p_mm; mm "=h4wpu:uogn ma ..uum .mmgogu .mcwsgmm saw; arm: "umzozoum o.cop «NF o.oop om o.oo_ mo o.oo_ m_ 0.00F «N 0.0m _m o.mo m_ o.Pm mm o.¢m o o.mm m tango o.m a o o o.m N a.“ F o.e F oppmgpmm< o.m e o o o.o q o o o o gapmmz o.m~ am o.mN m o.mm mp a.“ F o.mm m meuom o.PN mm 0.0. N o.~_ PP o.~¢ N o.mN o uwsocoum & e x a e e x e g * Axonzv Amuzv Aemuzv Ampuzv Am_uzv mmpcommuau Pouch cam cum on: an; mmmcoqmmm mo cowuznwgpmwo xucmacmcm .maaogo zpwsmm ma czoo coxogm .aaam: mpcmgma mech mxmz ow co u_:ou co co :mgcpwnu mmcmgp mg» mcwugmmmm mmmcoammm mo accessmul.mm mpnmp 165 items listed by all the groups included items which are general and may be reflecting their desire for peace and relaxation. Data are presented in Table 93, page 166. As Americans, the Things They Like Best, or WouldfiLike Best, About Their Country Ninety one of the respondents listed a total of l65 items which they liked best, or would like best, about their country. The social category appears to be dominant in the total listing for the entire population. Social category in this respect includes fundamental rights, freedoms, opportunities and matters which are related to opportunities for individual growth. Except families living on large farms, all the other groups have overwhelmingly emphasized the social environment (more specifically political) of their country established by the provisions in the constitution and common laws of the country. Economic environment seems to be the most pleasing aspect of their country as far as families living on large farms are concerned. Data are displayed in Table 94, page l67. As Americans, the Things They Dis- like About Their Country The respondents were asked to also list the things which they disliked about their country. Ninety of them listed a total of lSl items which they disliked about their country. Economic category dominated the listing with 77 or 5l% of the total listing. The economic category, in this respect, consists of items such as 166 .uum .mmNuNPNumN :omummcumc .cugsgu uoom .pcmsmcwumg Nana; .cowumum> .mmocwaam; Fmgwcmw "gumbo .uum .mcmucmm .mmwgh "uahuzhmm< .;u_mm; uoow uzh4mz op mama: mgm xwgh mmcwsh ash mcwugmmmm mmmcoammm No xgmsssm--.mm wpnmh 167 mmmcoammm No cowusnmgpmwo aucmzcmgu .uum .momma .Ewgmxm chowgmuzum .mwucowcm>coo .zgpczou mFozz mzp "mmzho .muwmxgpcaou _zNNusmmm ”umhmzhmm< .uum .mumoL cmmpu .acmEcoLN>cm cmm_u ":h4om mmmp .cwzopaswuNpmm we on ,mmmuwczugoaao umeocoum .Emumzm mmwgagmpcm mag; ”onozouN 0.00F mop 0.00F Nm o.oop NB o.oop Ne 0.00F NF o.op op o.o N m.mp op o.op e o o mcngo o._ N o o o.P P o o o.N N ovumspmm< o.N N o.m F o._ P o.m N o o cppmw: o.mo «FF o.mN «N O.NN mm o.FN om O.Nm m meoom O.NN mN O.NN m m.mp o_ O.NN o O.Nm N UNEocoum NA 1. NA VN NA VN NA VN NA NN Fonz anz Nenz mpuz anz a Peach NNN Nam Na: NNN mawao apmu .maaogo a_msmm an exam cmxogm .xgucsou mech Nzon< ummm me4 much mmcwch mcwvgmmmm mmmcoammm mo zgmsszmuu.vm mpamh 168 higher taxes, waste in public spending, governmental interference in private lives, foreign aid, big business, big unions, etc. Fifty nine or 39% of their responses reflect their displeasure of the politics, politicians and the bureaucrats, which may be classi- fied as social category. Economic and social (or political) together constituted 87% of the total items listed. While economic category stands out prominent for families living on large and medium farms, social category stands out prom- inent for rural residents. Families living on small farms are divided with divergent opinions, although 83% of their items con- stitute economic and social categories combined; economic being slightly larger than social. Data are displayed in Table 95, page l69. Summagy of Analysis and Findiags General Characteristics l. About 14 percent of the small farm families and 23 per- cent of the rural resident families were headed by a female, while only 3 percent of the commercial farm families were headed by a female in l978. 2. A considerable percentage of the heads of households of small farm families and rural resident families were widowed (l4 percent and 23 percent respectively). At the same time, only 3 percent of the heads of households of commercial farm families were widowed. 169 .opm .msmcmoga mgmumz .mcmeLmN New “Loaazm No Numfi .xpwpmcosew .agvomwn .vmmgu ”mmmzpo .upm .mummgpm was .amgmcm owsopm .comusppom “:b4om “gagged .maaogm ummcmpcw umymm> .cowpamumu .pcmsmucoNcm zap Nam: .mewgu .xumgusmmgam HNom .mcwccmam _stpmmz .mwxmu gum: ”quozoum o.oo— Nmp 0.00F mm o.oo_ Nu o.oo_ NN o.oop m_ o.N PP o.m N O.NN m o o o o mcmguo o o o o o o o o o o ovumgumm< o.m e o o o.m N o o o o cppmm: O.NN mm o.mm oN O.NN mN O.NN N o.nm N meuom o._m NN O.NN NF O.NN mm O.NN m_ O.NN N— UNEocouw NN VN N N VN N N VN N A VN N A H omuz mpnz Nmuz opnz N_uz m omm N _38 “am “am :2 “r: m .E N u mmmcoammm No :osznwcpmNo xucmzcmgm .maaogu x—NENN an czoo cmxogm .zgucsou mech “son< mxw_mwo Amgh mmcwzp an» mcwusmmmm mmmcoammm mo agm253m--.mm mpnmh 170 3. There appeared to be existing a direct relationship between farm size and average family size--the larger the farm size, the higher the average family size. The average family sizes for the four groups were: rural resident family--2; small farm family-- 3; medium farm family--3; and large farm family--4. 4. There appeared to be existing a reverse linear relation- ship between farm size and average age level of family members as well as the heads of households--the larger farm size, the lower average age-level. 0f the Rural Resident group, 60% of the heads of households were older adults, 65 or more years of age, and for the small farm family group 30%; while only l2% of the commercial farm family heads of households were in that age group. 5. The educational level of the rural families generally presents an alarming picture. 0f the rural resident family heads of households, 55% never completed a high school diploma; 32% of the small farm family heads of households never completed a high school diploma, while about l5% of the commercial farm family heads of households quit school before they could complete the high school. However, heads of households of rural resident families and small farm families consisted of a larger percentage of college graduates than that of the commercial farmers. Spouses generally appeared to be better educated than the heads of households in all the groups. Overall, it appeared that there existed a direct linear relationship between farm size and the average educational level of 171 heads of households of farm families--larger the farm size, higher the average educational level. 6. A considerable percentage of heads of households of small farm families had lived in a non-rural setting for a substan- tial number of years during their lives. The ratio of non-rural to rural background for them is found to be 32:68 and average number of years of non-rural background was approximately 15 years. However, it is to be pointed out that about 37% of them never lived in a non-rural background at all. A high percentage of heads of households of rural resident families also appeared to have lived in a non-rural setting, with an average of 20 years. The picture of the heads of households of commercial farm families is a completely different one. Overwhelmingly, the heads of households of commercial farm families (both large and medium farm families) were born and raised, and continued to live, in a rural area. The percentage of heads of households who never lived in a non-rural setting at all were: 92% large farm families, and 80% medium farm families. Specific Characteristics 7. There appeared to be wide variations among the small farm families regarding their extent of involvement in farming in l978. The extent of involvement is determined on the basis of the gross agricultural sales. 28% of them had a gross agricultural sales of less than $2,500; 38% of them had in the range of $2,500-$9,999; 172 l6% of them had in the range of $l0,000-$l9,999; and about l9% of them had sales in the range of $20,000-$39,999. The fact that about two-thirds of them had gross agricultural sales of less than $l0,000 reveals the very limited involvement of the bulk of the small farm families in farming operations. The average landholding for a small farm family in l978 was l25 acres (owned, rented, and operated). The principal crops which they generally raised included corn, soy- bean, wheat, oats, and hay, while the principal livestock included sheep, lambs, and chicken. A very limited percentage of them were involved in raising beef cattle and dairy cows, that too in small numbers. Though rural resident families are not considered farmers technically speaking, it may be useful to indicate their involvement in any farming. They had on an average 47 acres of land. Except l4 percent of the families, all the others were involved, though to a very limited extent, in raising one or more crops such as corn, soybean, wheat, home gardens, pasture, and wood- lot on a few acres. They sold produce worth somewhere between $l00 and $900. However, they were not involved in any livestock at all, except one family which raised three-four riding horses. On the contrary, commercial farm families generally were involved in a much higher level of farming enterprise. The large farm families operated on an average 703 acres and the medium farm families operated on an average 423 acres. Corn, soybean, wheat, and hay were the four principal crops raised by commercial farm 173 families. Large farm families were generally more oriented toward livestock than medium farm families; 53% of the large farm families were primarily livestock farmers; and 47% were primarily crop farmers. At the same time, 65% of the medium farm families were involved only in raising crops and the rest of the 35% of them had a combin- ation of crops and livestock. 8. According to our definition of full time versus part time farming, one-half of the small farm families were part time farm families in 1978. Approximately 79% of the part time farm families had sales in the range of $l,000 to $9,999, while at the same time, about 48% of the full time farm families had sales in the range of $l0,000 to $39,999. It is quite clear that an over- whelming number of part time farm families are engaged primarily in non-farming occupations and only secondarily in farming operations. Corn and soybean were two common crops raised generally by both full time and part time small farm families. With regard to other craps, while full time small farm families concentrated more on oats, hay, improved, and native pasture, part time small farm families concentrated more on home orchards and woodlot. While 50% of the part time small farm families left a portion of their lands idle, only l7% of the full time small farm families left a portion of their lands idle. A limited percentage of full time small farm families were involved in raising livestock; only l (about 3%) part time farmer was involved in raising livestock as a farming enterprise--a hog farmer with 200 hogs. 174 All the commercial farm families had a minimum gross agricultural sale of $40,000, while half of them (large farm families) had a sale of $100,000 or more. Except l2% of them, all the others were involved in full time farming as a business enter- prise. There was not much difference between full time commercial farm families and part time commercial farm families with regard to type of farming enterprise; the only difference was that the heads of households of part time commercial farm families worked more than l00 person days off the farm in other occupations. 9. Except in the case of a small percentage of small farms, all the other small farms were generally operated solely with the manpower of the family members. On an average, each small farm family contributed approximately 148 person days, of which 70 person days were contributed by the heads of households. With regard to rural resident families, whatever farming is done is Operated by the family members. 0n the contrary, large farm families hired, on an average, outside labor equivalent to l,002 person days in addition to the use of family labor equivalent to 748 person days on an average per family. The medium farm families hired just 2l person days of outside labor in addition to the use of 412 person days of family labor. Heads of households of large farm families contributed 343 person days, while heads of households of medium farm families contributed 262 person days. While medium farm families generally manage all or most of the farming operations with family labor, 175 large farm families hired a substantial amount of outside labor besides the use of family labor. l0. 0f the total of 58 small farm families, 38 (66%) had at least one member of the family working off the farm in l978. Each family, on an average, worked 236 person days off the farm; that includes l35 days by head of household; 47 days by spouse; 45 days by children and 9 by other relatives. The data for various sub- groups within the small farm families group indicate that there is a reverse linear relationship between the number of person days worked off the farm by the heads of households and the gross agri- cultural annual sales--those who had less agricultural sales worked more person days off the farm. Thirty three (63%) of the heads of households of small farm families worked off the farm on an average of l35 person days. They reported 37 job designations which may be classified into four categories: factory work--30%; technicians--12%; professional- technical--l6%; and the rest of the 42% were in miscellaneous kinds of work. Spouses generally were engaged in either office work or sales work. Children were mostly involved in office work, general farm labor, and technician type of work. 0f the heads of rural resident families, 36% worked off the farm; half of them in factory work and the other half in professional/technical type of job. They worked on an average 75 person days. More than half of them worked either part time or seasonal; 33% of the spouses also worked, 32 person days on an 176 average. All of the children also worked--l5 person days on an average. The total families worked, on an average, l22 person days. One or more members of 35% of the large farm families and 53% of the medium farm families worked off the farm. While only l2% of the heads of households of large farm families (the two part time farmers described earlier) worked off the farm, 35% of the medium farm families heads of households worked off the farm on a part time or seasonal basis. Two of the heads of large farm families were involved in sales business. The jobs in which the heads of medium farm families were engaged included: technicians-- 4; professional--l; and office--l. Spouses of commercial farm families were generally engaged in jobs such as teaching, sales, office or nursing. Only one of the children of large farm families worked off the farm--as a security guard. Five of the medium farm families worked in jobs such as teaching, accounting, mechanic, hairdresser, factory, etc. Evidently, they must be unmarried young adults (not children) living with the parent(s). ll. Non-farm income earned by heads of households was reported to be the first largest source of income for more than half of the families living on small farms. Only about 20% of the families depended on net-farm income as the first largest source of income. The rest of them (about one-fourth) earned their largest portion of income from retirement payments, spouses non-farm income or investments outside the farm. Though net income from farming was not the first largest source of income for a high percentage of 177 families, it was an important source of supplemental income for about 40% of the small farm families. It is noteworthy that a considerable percentage of them depended on a combination of income sources; 86% of them appeared to be receiving income from two major sources and 60% of them from three major sources. Of all the sources listed, non-farm income earned by the heads of households and net-income from farming appeared to be the two major sources on which the largest percentage of small farm families depended. With regard to rural resident families: retirement payments was reported to be the first largest source of income for about 50% of them; non-farm occupations for about 35% of them; and investments outside the farm for the rest of the l5% of them. Retirement income and/or investments formed the second and third source of income for about 65% of the rural resident families. An overwhelming percentage of commercial farm families had net income from farming as their first largest source of income. A considerable number of them had a second and third source of income. The major difference between large farm families and medium farm families was that the medium farm families included a higher percentage of those who had a second and third source of income such as non-farm occupations of the family members as compared to large farm families. 12. With regard to the income level from non-farm sources: about 43% of the small farm families had less than $8,000; about 30% had in the range of $8,000-$l9,999; about 6% had $20,000 or more and 2l% had no income from sources other than farming. The 178 fact that about 80% of the small farm families had their first largest source of income from non-farm sources (as we saw earlier) coupled with the fact that about 80% of them had gross agricultural sales of less than $l0,000 reveals a reality: a substantial per- centage of them belong to the low-income category. As far as rural resident families were concerned, 23% of them earned less than $8,000; another 23% had $8,000 to $l2,000; 32% had $l2,000 to $20,000 and the rest of the 23% had $20,000 or over. The fact that approximately 53% of the large farm families and 8 % of the medium farm families had income from non-farm sources at some level in l978 is very revealing; 75% of those large farm families who had non-farm income earned less than $8,000 and 25% of them earned $30,000 or more. A substantial percentage of medium farm families earned less than $l2,000, while about 2 % of them earned more than $l2,000. l3. 47% of the heads of households of small farm families and 54% of their spouses appeared to have participated in one or more of the voluntary organizations in l978. Church, community/ service clubs, farm organizations, and labor unions were the four broad categories of organizations in which they generally participated. They participated, on an average, in two specific organizations and attended, on an average, one or two meetings in l978. Community/service clubs, church, and farm organizations were the three major categories of organizations in which the spouses 179 generally participated, with an average of one specific organization and two attendance at meetings. Holding committee memberships or offices was very negligible for both heads of households as well as their spouses. Only 7% of the heads of households and 2% of their spouses belonging to small farm families held any public office since 1970, all at the local community level (i.e. in township/ village council); 59% of the heads of households and 73% of the spouses of rural resident families reported having participated in one or more voluntary organizations in l978. Church and community/ service clubs were the two major categories of organizations in which they participated. Each head of household participated, on an average, in two organizations, and each spouse in one organization. Only one of the heads of households reported having held any public office at all in recent years. At the same time, 47% of the heads of households and 44% of the spouses of large farm families reported to have partici- pated, on an average, in four specific organizations and in three specific organizations respectively. With regard to medium farm families, 88% of the heads of households and 73% of the spouses reported to have participated, on an average, in two and one specific organizations, respectively. Farm organizations and church appeared to be the two broad categories of organizations clearly standing dominant in terms of frequency of participation by both the groups. Both the heads of households and spouses seemed to be 180 participating jointly in farm organizations and church. Large farm families seemed to be concentrating more on farm organizations by holding memberships, committee memberships or offices and by attend- ing meetings regularly. Participation of medium farm families is more extensive in that they have generally gone beyond their individual interests and participated in organizations that are established for general community welfare also. Of the large farm families, 29% of the heads of house- holds, and none of the spouses, held any public office since l970. At the same time, 24% of the heads of households and 13% of the spouses of medium farm families held public offices. Medium farm families appeared to have limited themselves to localized institu- tions such as townships and local school boards, while large farm families held offices at all levels. Overall, it appeared that small farm families generally participated less in voluntary organizations and public offices than the other groups of rural families. l4. With regard to children's participation in activities and organizations: children of 30% of the small farm families reported to have participated in organizations such as FFA/FHA, JETS and other school clubs, 4-H clubs, Junior Achievement, church and church-related groups in 1978. They participated on an average of five hours per week per family. School related clubs and church were the two organizations in which the largest percentage of children seemed to have participated. 181 All of the three children of rural resident families reported having participated in church, sports and crafts on an average of l3 hours per week. Of the large farm families, 65% reported having their children participate in at least one organization or activity. 4-H clubs, church, and Junior Achievement were the three organizations in which the largest number of children participated. They seemed to have participated more hours per week in Junior Achievement than any other organization. On an average, they participated nine hours per week in all of the organizations and activities. Of the medium farm families, 47% reported having their children participate in a least one organization and/or activity. Church is clearly the most prominent organization in which children of medium farm families generally participated. 4-H stands second, but way behind. They participated, on an average, eight hours per week in all of the organizations and activities. Overall, it appears that the children of small farm families participated less in organizations--in terms of percentage of families participating, extent of participation, and average number of hours per week--than their counterparts of the other three groups. 15. With regard to participation in 4-H specifically, children of small farm families appeared to have generally partici- pated in 4-H less than their counterparts of commercial farm families. There appears to be a direct relationship between farm 182 size and the degree of participation in 4-H by children of rural family groups. There also appeared to be existing a relationship between farm size and the percentage of the heads of households who participated in 4-H during their childhood--large farm families had the highest percentage of heads of households who participated in 4-H during their childhood than the other groups. However, there appeared to be existing no relationship between childhood participation in 4-H by the heads of households and percentages of households belonging to different groups cur- rently expressing an interest in 4-H programs. In fact, rural resident families had the highest percentage of heads of households holding the belief that every child should belong to a 4-H club. l6. Data clearly demonstrate that non-commercial farmers are much less involved in Cooperative Extension Service than com- mercial farmers. There seems to be no surprise about this finding. However, it may be surprising to know that about 8% of the spouses of small farm families were involved in Cooperative Extension 7 Service activities while only 6% of all the spouses of commercial farm families were involved in any activity of the Cooperative Extension Service. It is also encouraging to note that ll% of the heads of households and 14% of their spouses expressed an interest in getting involved or more involved in Cooperative Extension Service as com- pared to 9% of the heads of households and spouses of commercial farm families. 183 . Another very interesting finding was that those heads of households of small farm families whose annual agricultural gross sales was less than $l0,000 (this subgroup consisted of 65% of all the small farm families) included a higher percentage of those who expressed an interest in Cooperative Extension Service than those whose gross agricultural sales was $l0,000 or more. Overall, it appears that a larger percentage of those heads of households who live on smaller farms are more interested in getting involved with Cooperative Extension Service than those who live on larger farms. This is a highly encouraging phenomenon for those who are specially interested in small farm families. This may be explained by the assumption that they have more ques- tions regarding farming and life in rural areas in general for which they might be interested in seeking answers. Also, the kinds of assistance which the small farm families would like to receive from external agencies generally differed from those suggested by commercial farm families. I Goal Orientation l7. The aggregate analysis of data related to general goal- orientation indicates that the small farm families are somewhat equally or near-equally divided over the four goal-categories-- economic, social, health, and aesthetic--in terms of percentages of those attaching primary importance. Except in the case of health goal category for which more than half of them assigned primary importance, all the other three categories were attached primary 184 importance by less than half of the small farm families. Also, a considerable percentage of families attached secondary importance to each of the categories, while about one-fifth of them attached no importance at all. 7 On the contrary, commercial farm families appear to have demonstrated a general consensus for attaching primary importance to each of the goal categories. An overwhelming majority of them have attached primary importance to health and economic goal cate- gories. Less than 50% of them attached primary importance to social goal category and 55% of them attached primary importance to aesthetic goal category. With regard to rural resident families, an overwhelming majority of them have attached primary importance to health and aesthetic goal categories, while a small percentage of them attached primary importance to economic and social goals. On the general goal of "leaving the farm and moving to a city," overwhelmingly all the four groups attached no importance or considered it a wrong goal. Only about 8% of the small farm families attached primary importance to this goal and l2% of them attached secondary importance. 18. Divided the same list of goals into arenascfiiconcern, the data reveal that small farm families generally are more family- oriented than individual or community oriented. More than half of them have attached primary importance to family arenacn’concern; slightly less than half of them have attached primary importance 185 to individual arena of concern and slightly more than one-third of them attached primary importance to community arena of concern. As in the case of goal categories, in the case of arena of concern also, the group appears to be divided with no clear preference for a particular arena of concern. The commercial farm families appear to be more individ- ual oriented than family or community oriented. About two-thirds of them have attached primary importance to individual arena of con- cern. They are also strongly oriented toward family arena of concern. However, the percentage of those who have attached primary impor— tance to community arena of concern is much behind the percentages for the other two arenas of concern. Rural residents appear to be much stronger in family arena of concern than in the other two arenas of concern, with more than two-thirds of them attaching primary importance to family arena of concern. The percentages of those attaching primary importance for other arenas of concern are much behind that of family arena of concern. Personal Feelings, Beliefs and Values l9. Aesthetic and social factors were cited more than other factors as reasons why the rural families as a whole live in the countryside instead of living in the urban centers. Small farm families as a group appear to have emphasized first, social (family-related) and second, aesthetic reasons for being in the countryside. 186 Rural resident farm families appear to have emphasized first, aesthetic and second, health reasons. Medium farm families appear to have emphasized first economic, and second, social reasons for being in the countryside. Large farm families appear to have emphasized first, social and second, economic reasons for being in the countryside. Aesthetic reasons appear to be common for all the four groups, although rural resident families emphasized them more than others. It is important to note that, for small farm families and rural resident families, economic reasons do not appear to be constituting a major factor for being in the countryside instead of being in the urban setting. 20. Among the things which the children do or could do to make the parents happy, the total population emphasized religious/ ethical matters first, and social matters second. While small farm families, rural resident families, and large farm families also followed the same trend of the total pop- A ulation, medium farm families emphasized economic contribution by children more than other categories of things. There is a strong indication that the parents of rural families generally expect their children to be religious, responsi— ble, and having good morals. Small farm families and rural resident families have emphasized this value stronger than commercial farm families. 187 2l. The things which they are happiest to have, or most want to have, in this life included: For small farm families, economic (occupational) and social (family-related) categories dominated the list. For rural resident families, social (family-related) and health categories dominated the list. For medium farm families, economic (occupational) category clearly dominated; social category being second, but way behind. For large farm families, economic (occupational) and social (family-related) dominated the list. Rural resident families as a group appear to be clearly different in this regard. Peace, happiness and good life constitute a general category which was given importance by all the four groups. 22. Except large farm families, all other groups over- whelmingly emphasized the social (political) environment established by Bill of Rights and Common Law as the main thing which they liked best about their country. Independence and opportunities for advance— ment were emphasized by all the groups, particularly by small farm families. As far as large farm families were concerned, the economic system of free enterprise appear to be the most pleasing aspect of their country. 23. With regard to the things which they disliked about their country: Small farm families cited economic matters first and social (political) matters second, together constituting about 83% of their listing. 188 Social (political) matters clearly dominated the list provided by rural resident families. Economic matters clearly dominated the list furnished by the commercial farm families (large and medium farm families). All the four groups seem to be displeased with high taxes, government spending, governmental controls, inflation, bureau- cracy, corruption in politics and many other related issues. The desire for independence and local autonomy appears uJbe a very dominant value among all the groups, particularly rural resident families. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary Publicly supported research and extension programs conducted through land-grant colleges and universities have, over a period of time, brought about rapid social and technological change in the rural sector. Growth of capitalist economic philosophy had its tremendous impact on the agricultural sector also. Emphasis on higher productivity, economies of scale, mechanization and other characteristics of production economics resulted in the highly dominant role of commercial agriculture in the fabric of rural life in America. Cooperative Extension Service, though originally was entrusted with the mission of serving the total rural population, has come to be focusing its attention on commercial farm families and consequently, the small farm families generally have been relegated to the background. This situation has been brought to national attention in recent years by those leaders and groups who became interested in a stronger and healthier rural America. USDA and land-grant institutions have been frequently criticized, and even made account- able by some, for the adversity of small farm families as a group. 189 190 There has been growing concern for the small farm families in the late l960's and l970's at governmental as well as land-grant institutional levels as a result of some of the findings and criti- cisms. Policies and programs have been proposed to remedy the situation. However, questions have been raised about the organiza- tional and resource capabilities of the Cooperative Extension Ser- vice to deal with the problem. Lack of adequate empirical data about the small farm families has been pointed out as a major obstacle in effectively formulating the necessary policies and plans. Questions have been raised whether and how small farm families differ from the commercial farm families. What redirec- tions are needed in the research and extension programs of land- grant institutions? This study is an attempt to make a contribution, in a small way, toward the task of finding answers to the questions raised above. The purpose of this study was to identify the salient characteristics, goal, and value orientation of small farm families in comparison with commercial farm families. An assumption was made that the small farm families differed in characteristics, goals, and values and that the differences would have implications for continuing education in general and Cooperative Extension Service in particular. The p0pulation for the study consisted of nine townships in three counties of southern Michigan--Lenawee, Monroe and Washtenaw--which have an ever increasing influence of urbanization due particularly to the proximity of the two major cities of Detroit 191 and Toledo. Both the descriptive method and explanatory method have been used for investigation. A highly structured questionnaire was constructed to cover the three major components of the study-- characteristics, goals, and values--and after pretest and revision, it was mailed to a sample of 495 heads of households in the nine townships. After eliminating the incomplete ones, ll4 usable ques- tionnaires were included for final analysis. Data have been analysed and presented using descriptive statistics such as fre- quency distribution, ranges, means and percentages for the total group as well as subgroups which were identified for comparison. The ll4 respondents consisted of 58 respondents representing small farm families, 22 respondents representing rural resident families and 34 respondents representing commercial farm families. For the purpose of implications and recommendations, the rural resident families are considered as a sub-system within the small farm families group. Conclusions Based on the available data it can be concluded that small farm families and rural resident families are generally different from commercial farm families with regard to characteristics, goals and general value orientations. The small farm families as defined as a group for the pur- pose of this study may be divided into several subgroups with dis- tinct characteristics. The subgroups, as identified in this study, include full time farm families, part time farm families, 192 supplemental income farm families, retired or semi-retired farm families, and non-farm rural residents. In terms of annual gross agricultural sales, the small farm families consists of four sub- groups: (l) those with an annual sale in the range of $l,000 to $2,500 which constitutes 28 percent of the total group; (2) those with an annual gross sale in the range of $2,500-$9,999 which con- stitutes 38 percent of the total group; (3) those with an annual sale of $l0,000-$l9,999 which constitutes l5 percent of the total group; and (4) those with an annual sale of $20,000-$39.999 which constitutes the balance of l9 percent of the total group. It is important to note that about two-thirds of the small farm families had an annual gross sale of agricultural produce of less than $10,000. Is farming the major occupation and the major source of lincome for small farm families? About 80 percent of them earned their first largest portion of income from sources other than farming. They were engaged in a wide variety of non-farm occupa- tions; 72 percent of them were engaged in unskilled factory and farm-related jobs, and the remaining 28 percent were engaged in skilled technician and professional-technical jobs. One-half of the sample studied may be classified as full time farm families and the other half as part time farm families, in terms of the number of person days worked off the farm. The farming practices of small farm families appear to be diversified; no clearcut groupings are possible. In l978, many of 193 them were involved in crops such as corn, soybean, wheat, hay, etc., as in the case of commercial farm families, though on a limited scale. A large number of them were also involved in raising oats, hay, improved and native pasture, home orchards and woodlot. A few of them were involved in raising livestock such as beef cow, dairy cow, hogs, chicken and lamb--the bulk of them being involved in raising chicken and lamb. It is, therefore, a myth that all the small farm families raise only melons, vegetables, woodlot and chickens. A considerable percentage of them are less educated since 32 percent had never completed high school. At the same time, there is a small percentage of them with college degrees and involved in part-time farming. Overall, small farm families participate less in voluntary organizations and public offices than commercial farm families. The children of small farm families also participate less in group activities and organizations including 4-H than their counterparts of commercial farm families. With regard to their involvement with the activities of Cooperative Extension Service, both the heads of households and the spouses were much less involved in 1978 compared to their counter- parts of the commercial farm families. At the same time, a higher percentage of them expressed an interest in getting involved, or more involved, in the programs of Cooperative Extension Service than the percentage for commercial farm families. 194 Regarding their general goal of being in the countryside as opposed to being in the urban areas, an overwhelming percentage of them expressed their determination to stay in the countryside. Only a very small percentage of them are considering moving out of the countryside to a city. About one-third of them have attached pri- mary importance to the goal of expanding their farming operations, while at the same time, another one-third of them have attached pri- mary importance to the goal of expanding their non-farm occupations. The data also indicate that the small farm families, in general, are more family oriented than individual or community oriented. Their concern for the health and happiness of the family seems to be strong. An overwhelming majority considered it a pri- mary goal to help their children go to college and earn a college degree. Also, about one-half considered helping their children pre- pare for non-farm occupations as a primary goal. Their economic (or occupational) interests appear to be less dominant than their social, health, and aesthetic interests. The reasons which they listed for being in the countryside included more of the social and aesthetic reasons rather than economic (or occupational) reasons. Attachment to farming, for them, seems to be an important non-economic variable. One very important conclusion that may be drawn in relation to the goal orientation of small farm families is that they are divided over various goal categories--economic, social, health, and aesthetic--as well as areas of concern--individual, family, and 195 community. There is no particular category of goals or area of concern to which an overwhelming majority of them attached primary importance. The overall findings related to characteristics, goal, and value orientation lead themselves to a general conclusion that the small farm families as a group are more heterogeneous rather than homogeneous. Rural resident families as a separate group consists of two clear subgroups: one, retirees--fully retired from farming or non- farm occupations; and two, younger and middle-aged adults who are actively involved in non-farm occupations. For them, farming is not an occupation, rather an interest or a hobby. However, it is a minor source of supplemental income for a limited number of rural resident families. Their characteristics and values are certainly different from the commercial farm families, but closer to the characteristics and values of small farm families in general. Aesthetic and health are the two major categories of goals to which an overwhelming majority attached primary importance. Attachment to countryside is an important non-economic variable to the rural resident families. For all planning purposes, rural resident families could be treated as a subgroup within small farm families group. Commercial farm families (medium and large) as a group are highly homogeneous in their characteristics, goals, and general values. Farming, as the major occupation and the major source of 196 income for almost every one of them, is the focal point of their lives around which all other aspects of life revolve. Implications and Recommendations The conclusion that small farm families as a group differ from commercial farm families in socioeconomic characteristics, goal and value orientation suggests the importance of a different approach and focus with regard to program planning. Another important con- clusion that the small farm families consist of several subgroups with distinct characteristics points up the need for a diversity of program components within the overall framework of programs for small farm families. For the purpose of broad policy-making and resource alloca- tion, it is useful to consider small farm families (on the basis of gross agricultural sales) as one group. However, it is unrealistic to consider them as one group for the purpose of specific assistance and delivery of services. Extension education for small farm families, in this researcher's view, has to be approached from the broad perspective of rural family and community development, rather than from the limited angle of agricultural extension. For the small farm family, farming constitutes just one dimension of its total life. The small farm family must be perceived as a holistic system composed of several parts, some of which may be mutually conflicting. For example, interest in farming and non-farm occupations can be con- tradicting each other; but at the same time, ways have to be found 197 for bringing reconciliation between the two interests. An integrated approach to problem-solving and development may, therefore, be more apprOpriate for the planning and implementation of programs for the small farm families. A number of strategies and programs may be considered. It is the opinion of this writer that the major issue needing to be addressed is that of increasing and improving the human resources of the small farm families. There are several possible areas of human resource development needing attention and exploration on the part of educators, particularly continuing educators. The fact that a large percentage of the heads of households and their spouses of small farm families are engaged in a variety of unskilled or semiskilled non-farm related jobs demonstrates the need for helping them develop and improve occupational skills in those fields of employment that may be available in and around the rural areas. Data have revealed that about one-third of the heads of small farm families never completed their high school diploma, which is a prerequisite for admission into many of the occupational educa- tion programs. Steps may have to be taken to provide opportunities as well as motivation for them to pursue completion of their high school diplomas through the rural school districts and other agencies. The data regarding their previous residential background indicate that a sizeable number of the small farm families have moved into rural areas in recent years. Many of them may have 198 problems of adjustment to a new environment of rural life and living. Extension education as a method of human resource develop- ment may be able to help them develop the skills and knowledge that are needed for their successful transition. How to survive and be successful as a small farmer in the midst of the dominant commercial farming environment can be a real problem. Data have shown that the small farm families have little or no participation in major farm organizations. This probably suggests the need for organizing on the part of the small farm families for mutual help and strength. Cooperatives for small farms may be a method of dealing with this question. Small farm families consist of a considerable number of families headed by retired or semi-retired farmers. Transition from full time farming or off-farm employment to retirement with no farming or limited farming requires skills for adjustment. Develop- ment of skills for economic, social and psychological adjustment is crucial to a happy retired life. The findings that the small farm families as a group are tended to be more family oriented and that they attach greater importance to family related goals demonstrate the potential for exploration of the whole area of family living of small farm families. Educational assistance in this particular area may have to be emphasized. However, data are not adequate enough to make specific recommendations. What are, if any, the consequences of holding off-farm employment by the head of household or the spouse 199 or by both, while at the same time managing the farming operations? Are those holding dual careers between farming and non-farming different from those who are engaged in full time farming with regard to their goals and values? These and other related questions may have implications for continuing education and therefore need to be investigated. A number of extension educational methods and techniques may be proposed in order to help them develop the different skills that are necessary for their growth and development. The list below is again suggestive and not exhaustive. --Group sessions on value clarifications and goal-setting --Rap sessions on specific issues, problems and possible solutions --Development and distribution of informational materials related to farming, non-farming, and family matters --Demonstrations related to small farming techniques and practices --Group sessions on small farm management techniques, marketing, small farm machinery, maintenance and repairs of small farm equipments, availability of labor, etc. --Group sessions on health and nutrition --Group sessions on family living and effective parenting in the rural context -—Formation of cooperatives and other voluntary organiza- tions that promote self-help, mutual help, and exchange of experiences among small farm families --Special sessions for older adults on the services and programs available to them in and around rural areas --Utilize the experience and expertise of retired farmers as volunteer resource persons for the benefit of young small farm families and new comers 200 --Broaden the 4-H programs and activities to accommodate the interests of children from various groups of families, especially small farm families --Sessions on governmental policies, programs, taxation and financing that affect small farm families Some of these sessions may have to be conducted on a sub- group basis to cater to the particular needs of a subgroup such as part time farm families, hobby farmers, retirees or full time farm families with specific interests and needs. In addition to various group sessions or contacts, individual family contact will also be necessary depending upon the needs and problems of individual families. The question that arises now is this: Can the Cooperative Extension Service handle all the problems of small farm families? Can it effectively and realistically address itself to the needs of different subgroups within the total group of small farm families? Because the problems are multifarious and some of them are within the purview of other agencies and institutions, this writer feels that it is important that the Cooperative Extension Service works cooperatively with other appropriate agencies in each county for needs assessment as well as delivery of services. As the Cooperative Extension Service has established two way channels of communication between the field, land-grant institutions and USDA vertically, it may be necessary to develop two way channels of communication with other parallel agencies horizontally within the service area. It may be important that Cooperative Extension Service works with the adult education programs of the local school systems; it may be 201 important that CES works with the local community colleges in pro- viding post-secondary level education and training that may be readily available at the doors of the needy families at less cost; it may also be necessary that CES works closely with other social agencies such as the department of social services, the county planning commission, the health department, the department of labor, commission/council on aging, community action agencies and many others that are appropriate for the development of small farm families. At the university level, it may be useful to explore the possibility of establishing functional relationship between CES and general extension or continuing education programs in extending formal continuing education opportunities to those youths and adults of small farm families who may not be presently aware of, or utilizing, the opportunities due to lack of information, guidance and resources. In short, the C00perative Extension Service has to function as a coordinating and facilitating agency in the educational advancement of, and delivery of services to, the small farm families. Internally, CES needs to establish a coordinated approach by integrating the resources of various components such as agriculture, family living, 4-H, public policy, resource development, and others. For the purpose of internal and external coordination of resources for program delivery, each county extension service must assign a full time extension agent exclusively for small farm family pro- gramming. This agent must work cooperatively with other extension 202 personnel within the organization. It would be appropriate to have an administrator at the land-grant university level in the capacity of an assistant director to provide overall supervision and assist- ance. All these measures as suggested above require changes in organization and policies as well as resource allocation. In order to effectively formulate and conduct a program of non-formal education for the small farm families, it is crucially important to have the needed knowledge and know-how. Empirical data are very few and far between. This study has brought up more ques- tions than answers about the problem of small farm families. Further research is needed in many areas, some of which as related to this study are suggested below: (1) Indepth studies of subgroups within small farm families in specific areas such as needs assessment, occupational goals and interests, goals for the family, interaction between groups, con- tact with and involvement in continuing education organizations and programs. ' (2) Case studies of selected families representing various subgroups through in-depth interviews. (3) Impact of dual careers of the heads of households or spouses on the family life and relationships. (4) Job Opportunities available in and around rural areas that are apprOpriate for small farm families, particularly part time farm families. 203 Needless to say that land-grant institutions, USDA, and other organizations that are interested in the development and stability of small farm families must be engaged in continuing research and experiment in a number of areas. Development of effective extension techniques, informational materials, small farm technology, small farm produce marketing, small farm cooperatives, inter-agency cooperation and possibly others appear to be important for reaching and assisting small farm families. Stability of rural America, which is important for the health of the total country, depends upon the stability of the small farm families which are currently caught in between the indus- trialized urban sector on one side and the commercialized farm sector on the other side. BIBLIOGRAPHY 204 BIBLIOGRAPHY Allport, G.; Vernon, P.; and Lindzey, G. Stuay of Values. 3rd. Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1960. Boone, Edgar J. "The Cooperative Exentsion Service." Handbook of Adult Education. A publication of the Adult Education Association of the USA, l970. Brewster, David F. Perspectives on the Small Farm. A paper pre- sented at the ESCS Small Farm Workshop. Washington, D.C., May 3-4, l978. Davison, Ian. Values, Ends and Society. University of Queensland Press. QueensTand, 1977. Decision-Making and Communication Patterns of Disadvantaged Farm Families in the North Carolina Coastal Plains Area. North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station, North Carolina State University at Raleight. Tech. Bul. No. 245. December, l976. Fliegel, F.C. "Aspirations of Low-Income Farmers and Their Per- formance and Potential for Change." Rural Sociology 24 (l959). . "Obstacles to Changes for the Low-Income Farmer.“ Rural Sociology 25 (1960). Fliegel, F.C. and Brown, E.J. Low-Income Farm People. 0. Ext. 4 (l), l966. Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Family Farms and Rural Development of the Committee on Agriculture. House of Representatives, Ninety-fourth Congress, Second Session on H.R. l29l7. June 10, 1976. Hepp, Ralph E. "Characteristics of Michigan's Small Farms." Staff Paper No. 77-73. Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing. 205 206 Hightower, J. Hard Tomatoes, Hard Times: The Failure of a Land- Grant College Complex. TAgribusiness Accountability Project. Schenkanan Publishing Company, Cambridge, Massachusetts. l973. Kluckhohn, Clyde. "Values and Value Orientations in the Theory of Action." In T. Parsons and E.A. Shib (eds.) Toward a General Theory of Action. Cambridge, Harvard University Press. l951. Krech, David and Crutchfield, R.S. Theory and Problems of Social _Paychology. McGraw and Hill Book Company, Inc., 1948. Krech, David and Egerton, L. Ballachey. Individual in Society. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.,TT962. Larson, Donald K. and Lewis, James A. Small Farm Profile. A paper presented at the ESCS Small Farm Workshop. Washington, D.C. May 3-4, l978. Maslow, Abraham H. Toward a Psychology of Being. Princeton, New Jersey: 0. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., l962. Mather, W.G., Jr. "Income and Social Participation." American Sociological Review 6. Merton, Robert K. Social Theory and Social Structure. Glenco, Illinois: TheTFree Press, 1966. (Revised and Enlarged Edition.) Olson, Thomas M. "Non-Formal Education Delivery Systems to Reach Limited Resource Farmers in Michigan." Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. l978. A People and a Spirit. Printing and Publication Service. Colorado State University, Fort Collins. l968. The People Left Behind: Report of the President's National Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967. Ramsey, Charles E.; Polson, Robert A.; and Spencer, George E. "Values and the Adoption of Practices." Rural Sociology 24 (l959). Regional Small Farms Confernece: Results of Work Group Sessions. August l6-l7, l978. Des Moines, Iowa: USDA and CSA. 207 Regional Small Farms Concerences, National Summary. Co-sponsored by U.S. Department of Agriculture, Community Services Administration and Action. Washington, D.C., December, l978. Rokeach, M. The Nature of Human Values. New York: The Free Press, l973. Rushing. “Class Differences in Goal Orientations and Aspirations: Rural Patterns." Rural Sociology 35 (September, l970). Sargent, S. and Williamson, R.C. Social Psychology: An Introduction to the Study of Human Relations. 2nd Edition. New York: TheTRonald—Press Company, T958. ‘ Scott, William A. Values and Organizations. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, T965. Snyder, D.E. "Selected Factors Associated with the Value Orienta- tions of Disadvantaged Farm Families Located in the Coastal Plains Area of North Carolina." Ph.D. thesis, North Carolina State University at Raleigh, l976. Thompson, Ronald L. and Hepp, Ralph E. Description and Analysis of Michigan Small Farms. Michigan State University Agriculture Experiment Station, East Lansing. Research Report #296, March l976. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1974 Census of Agriculture. Washington, D.C. U.S. General Accounting Office, Comptroller General. Report to the Congress. Some Problems Impeding Economic Improvement of Small Farm Operations: What the Department of Agriculture Could Do. RED-76-2. August 15, 1975. Williams, R.M. Jr. American Society: A Sociological Interpretation. New York: KnOpf, l95l. American Society. 2nd Edition. New York: Knopf, l960. APPENDICES 208 APPENDIX A Letter of Transmittal 209 COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE mmwnoax SIAianHVERMTY um L's. DhPAR'I'MFVI or AGRICL‘LI’L‘RE coomuxnxc 4JI-—Y0LIIIPRIKJLAHS .CL\IIR or tnnxx AtIAIKS FASI L%\M\(»'%HCHK.A\- “._, new om \ ”All (ax‘;is34‘sx April 12, 1979 Dear Friend: The Cooperative Extension Service of Michigan State University wants to keep its program in step with the changes in farming and family living in rural communities of Michigan. We need to know more about likenesses and differences in size and type of farming, ages and size of families, sources of family income, community activities, and goals and values among different groups of rural residents. To help do that, we are conducting a survey of full-time and part- time farmers in Southern Michigan. Your name has been drawn as part of a sample to participate in the survey. We hope that you will be willing to help us by answering the questions we have enclosed. By doing so, you will help your group of rural people to be represented; and you will help the Cooperative Extension Service to serve you better. We ask that the head of the household provide the answers, though other members of the household may be invited to help. It will probably take about .20 to 30 minutes. Please do not identify yourself in any way. All information will be treated as confidential and no information on individual farms will be reported. A avers will be grouped and analyzed by researchers at Michigan State University. Will you please take a few minutes to complete the questionnaire and return it within 10 days in the enclosed self-addressed and stamped envelope. If you have any questions, please call Michigan State University (517) 333-4753 collect and ask for either Linda Salemka or Dom Nair. Thank you very much. Respectfully, , /. ,1", , / Jig 2/ t -——" I ’ . if F 75""- . ', 62“] (“ML /om7 /W ‘ 1 Tom Thorburn Ralph Abbott Dom Nair Program Leader Evaluation Specialist Research Associate Agriculture 6 Marketing Program State 4-H Programs State 4-H Programs 210 APPENDIX B Questionnaire 211 212 TO BE ANSWERED BY THE HEAD OF THE HOUSEHOLD. OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS MAY BE INVITED TO HELP. Part A 1. Please check (40 if you are: (a) Male Female- (b) . Single Married Widowed Divorced Separated (c) A Full-time farmer A retired farmer A part-time farmer Employed as a farm manager A rural non-farm resident Other (specify) 2. Please circle for yourself and your spouse the highest grades completed in school: Yourself: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 16+ Spouse: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 16+ 3. Please write for yourself and your spouse the number of years each has lived as child or adult in each of these places: YOURSELF SPOUSE Before Since Before Since Age 18 Age 18 Age 18 Age 18 Where you live now Previous locations: Another farm or farms Rural non-farm home(s) Small town(s) (like Chelsea or Milan or smaller) Small city(s) (like Monroe, Ypsilanti, or smaller) Midsize city(s) (like Ann Arbor, Desrborn, or smaller) Large city(s) (larger than Ann Arbor or Dearborn) Any other plsee(s): (Please specify): 4. 213 I Please give the number of persons in each age-group who live in your home and te11 the relationship of each person to you. (BE SURE TO INCLUDE YOURSELF.) Age-group Number under 5 years Relationship to you 5-9 _ 10-14 _ 15-19 __ 20-24 _ 25-34 _ 35.-u. __ 45-54 _ 55-64 __ 65-74 75 or over How many acres do you own? , rent? , Operate, but not own or rent? Please write the number of each kind of livestock you had on your farm(s) last year: dairy cows and heifers beef cattle sheep and lambs hogs horses Any other (specify): chickens turkeys _____aducks geese . Any other (specify): Please write the number of acres of each kind of crop you had on your farm(s) last year: corn wheat oats soybeans navy beans sugar beets hay improved pasture native pasture Other (specify): commercial orchard home orchard commercial garden home garden vineyard woodlot left idle Other (specify): 4. 213 Please give the number of persons in each age-group who live in your home and tell the relationship of each person to you. Number Age-group under 5 years (BE SURE TO INCLUDE YOURSELF.) Relationship to you 5- 9 _ 10- 14 _ 15- 19 _ 20- 24 __ 25'- 34 _ 35- 1.4 _ 1.5- 5:. _ 55- 64 _ 65- 74 75 or over How many acres do you own? , rent? , Operate, but not own or rent? Please write the number of each kind of livestock you had on your farm(s) last year: dairy cows and heifers beef cattle sheep and lambs hogs horses Any other (specify): chickens turkeys _____fiucks _geese . Any other (specify): Please write the number of acres of each kind of crop you had on your farm(s) last year: corn wheat oats soybeans navy beans sugar beets hay improved pasture native pasture Other (specify): commercial orchard home orchard commercial garden home garden vineyard woodlot left idle Other (specify): 214 Please give the number of weeks and the average hours per week that each of the following worked on your farm(s) last year: . Number of Average hours weeks rrper week Yourself Spouse Brother or brother-in-law Sister or sister-in-law Father or father-in-law Mother or mother-in-law Eldest child Second child Third child Other children: Number Year around worker(s) Seasonal worker(s) Neighbor(s) Other: Please write below the quantity for each of the home produced items consumed by your household last year: Percentage of Total Item Quantity Raised on Your Farm (a) Beef and veal Number for the year Pork Number for the year Poultry Number for the year (b) Eggs Number per week Milk Gallons per week Vegetables 5 Dollars for the year Fruits $ Dollars for the year (c) wood and fuel Cords for the year Lumber Board feet for the year (d) Other items: Please check GI) the category which reflects your gross agricultural sales for the past year: $100,000 or over $2,500 to 4.999 5 40,000 to 99,999 $1,000 to 2,499 $ 20,000 to 39.999 S 500 to 999 3 10,000 to 19,999 $ 100 to 499 5 5,000 to 9,999 3 under 100 None 11. 12. 215 (a) Do you or other members in your household work off the farm? Yes No (b) If you or others in your household do work other than farming (e.g. job, business, profession, etc.), please give the following information for last year: Total No. of weeks Average number of Type of work worked last year hours per week Yourself 1 2 — — 3 — — Spouse 1 2 — _— 3 __ _ Chi1d(ren) 1 2 —— .— 3 _ _ Other(s) l 2 —— _— 3 __ __ Please check GI) the category which reflects your gross non-farm income (income earned from sources such as non-farm job, business, profession, retirement payments, etc. by all the members of your household,for the past year: None $ 8,000 to 11,999 $ 1 to 999 $12,000 to 15,999 $1,000 to 1,999 $16,000 to 19,999 $2,000 to 3,999 $20,000 to 29,999 $4,000 to 7,999 $30,000 and over 216 We need to know the sources you depend upon for income. Here is a list of possible sources. Will you please follow these steps: Step 1: Place "0" on the line beside each source which does not provide any part of your household income. Step 2: Number the remaining sources in order, placing "l" beside the largest source, "2" beside the next largest source, and so on until each source has a number or a "0" Step 3: Place "X" beside the number of any source(s) which provide(s) one-fourth or more of your household income. Your non-farm job, business or profession Spouse's non-farm job, business or profession Children's earnings away from home Net income from your farm operation Spouse's earnings from farm or home projects (if separate from yours) ______Child(ren)'s earnings at home Salary or commission as a farm manager Your salary or wages as a farm laborer Spouse's salary or wages as a farm laborer _____Dnemployment payments _____Alimony and/or child support Veteran's benefits ______Rehabilitation payments Retirement payments (pension, annuity, social security, etc.) Investments outside your farm operation Other: 14. 15. 217 Part 8 Please list below all the voluntary organizations (such as church, farm organizations, community clubs, unions, fraternal groups) to which you and your spouse belonged and the extent of your involvement in each of the organizations the past year: (Please write full names.) If you and your spouse do not belong to any organization, check here and go on to question #15. Number of meetings Number of committee attended past year memberships or offices heldgpastgyear Yourself Spouse (If more space needed, attach extra sheet.) Please list any public office(s) that you or your spouse have held at any level of government since 1970. Include both elective and appointive office(s). If you and your spouse held no public office, check here and go to question #16. SELF SPOUSE Government Unit Office Years Office Years School district Intermediate School District Community College District Township County State National Other: 218 (QUESTIONS 16 THROUGH 20 ARE RELATED TO CHILDREN. IF YOU HAVE NO CHILDREN LIVING WITH YOU, PLEASE GO ON TO QUESTION #21.) 16. On an average, about how many hours each week do the children in your household devote to activities of the following: First Second Third Fourth Fifth » Child Child Child Child Child School or out-of-school organization: EPA or FHA JETS Other School Clubs 4-H Clubs Junior Achievement Church and Church Groups Others: (specify) Activities not included above: Music Dramatics Sports Crafts or Hobbies Hunting or Trapping Pen Pals Others: (specify) 17. If your children belong to é-H, please list below (briefly) the effects a-u has produced in the lives of your children: 18. If your children do not belong to b-H, could you check (15 below the reasons for not belonging? - We never heard about 4-H Nobody invited us We do not know enough about é—H Our children are too busy with other things Our children are not interested We do not think 4-H does any good The b-H activities are not related to our family's goals and interests Other reasons: (specify) 19. If your children do not belong to 6-H, would you like to be contacted by a 4-8 representative in your county? Yes No 20. What ki. . of activities, not now provided, would you like to have provided through lo-H clubs in your community? 21. 22. 23. 219 (a) Did you belong to 4-H while yOu were a child? Yes No (b) If you belong to 4-H while you were a child, please list below (briefly) the effects it has produced in your life as an adult: Do you believe that every child should belong to a 4-H club? Yes No (a) Are you or your spouse currently involved in any programs of the Cooperative Extension Service? 'Yourself Yes No Spouse Yes No (b) Would you or your spouse like to become involved, or more involved, in programs of Cooperative Extension Service? Yourself Yes No Spouse Yes No (c) What kinds of Cooperative Extension Service programs would you like to see started or expanded in your county? (d) What kinds of assistance would you like to receive for the following: 1. Farming: 2. Family Living: 3. Child(ren): 4. Other: (Please specify) 24. U‘U'U'IU'U‘UIU‘U‘ U‘U‘U‘U‘U‘U‘ U‘UIUiUIU'U'U' UU‘IM a~a~c~s~o ‘\ L‘L‘L‘bbbbb bb§b§bb c~c~e~ 220 Part C Different people have different goals. Each of us has some goals that are more important than some other goals. Given below are a list of 25 goals. PLEASE EXAMINE ALL THE GOALS FIRST and then follow these steps: Step 1: Step 2: Step 3: 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 P‘h‘k‘h‘h‘h‘h‘ h‘hlh‘hihlhihihl hlh‘hih‘h‘h‘ 5.: Lap H Take one goal at a time. Think and decide how important that goal is for you. Then, rate the importance of that goal for you by circ1ing the appropriate number on the scale of 5 to 1 provided on the lefthand side of each goal. Scale of 5 to 1 Highest importance for you Next highest importance for you Middle level importance for you Next to lowest importance for you Lowest importance, or even wrong, for you. HNWbU' Continue rating each goal until you complete all the 25 goals. 5mm: 5 z. 3 2 G Quit farming 5 3 2 1 Build a new home Leave farm and move to a town or city Encourage child(ren) to participate in 4-H activities Expand size of farming operations Help our family to enjoy nature through the changing seasons Serve in public office Help child(ren) develop independence thrOugh farm responsibilities and earnings Obtain best possible crop yields and/or livestock production Lead or assist a 4-H club Keep farm neat and attractive . Prevent or control diseases in farm animals Help child(ren) go to college and earn a college degree Provide economical and nutritious food for family Seek or expand non-farm occupations Treat my land so that it will be better when I leave it than it was when I came to it. Support music, art and theater production in the community Help to reduce air, water and soil pollution in our neighborhood Help child(ren) prepare for non-farm occupations werk for a sound zoning and land-use plan for the township Have good farm machinery and keep it in good repair Support local agricultural cooperatives Permit child(ren) to observe the processes of birth, life and death on the farm Insure that home water and sanitary systems are safe Have child(ren) share in making farm plans and decisions Insure the purity and cleanliness of all food produced for human consumption Work for an adequate health care program for all rural residents 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 221 Part 0 Given below are five questions related to your personal feelings, beliefs and values. Please list your answers to each question briefly. If more space is needed, please attach extra sheet. The most important reasons why I live in the country are: The things my children do or could do to make me most happy are: (If you have no children, please go on to the next question.) Things I am happiest to have, or most want to have, in this life are: As an American, the things I like best, or would like best, about my country are: As an American, the things I dislike about my country are: Any other comments: Thank you for your cooperation. 4/16/79 APPENDIX C Fo11ow-Up Letter 222 COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE MICHIGM S'I‘AI‘E L‘NIVIiRSII‘Y and L5.DEPARTMFV1(MIAGRKiiitRictxnwwsulxc J-H—NOL 1H PROLNAHS - (|\|i-R (H l RBA\ AH AIRS i-ASI l-\\Sl\(: ' \II(H|(.-\\ ' U“): “-310 ()“l \ HM I fl)" 4‘ LJ'SA May 17, 1979 Dear Friend, A few weeks ago, we mailed a questionnaire to you in connection with a survey of rural families which the Cooperative Extension Service of Michigan State University is conducting in Southern Michigan. So far we have not received your completed questionnaire. You must be busy with your many responsibilities, especially at this time of the year; but the questionnaire will take only about 30 minutes to complete. Since this research is intended to cover a cross section of the rural people (full—time and part-time farmers, rural residents, retirees, and others), your participation will help ensure representation of your group of peOple. As you know, you were drawn as part of a sample to participate in the survey. Your responses will be a valuable input for our future programming. We therefore request that you kindly take a few minutes of your time to complete the questionnaire and return it to us at your earliest convenience. he would like you to complete the questionnaire even if you are not presently farming. If you have already mailed it. please accept our sincere thanks and disregard this reminder. If you have any questions concerning the project, or if you need another copy of the questionnaire, please don't hesitate to call collect at (51?) 353-4753 and ask for Linda Salemka, our office secretary. Thank you for your help. Respectfully, .’ ___.a a“) l/g I”? /'/W Tom Thorburn Program Leader Agriculture & Marketing Program N ' I 4m\(uzfify}x “I‘l1gt' Ralph Abbott Evaluation Specialist State 4—H Programs ,L/A Dom Nair Research Associate 223