I .5: v. .... I ‘73:.— v t‘.wnerv_.v.._r.v..r 12.35. czw‘zw .v. .31... «5;. _.Y..¢::..~ 7...: _..~v...- . 3'... 3.11.; 7.9:v .9.Y\rr ..rs.v.~ 1.31:1 .rvmiubJV Wan. John. 5.335.?! 5.9.»..3r‘... ‘ . r r: . ~ . . $723153V 3.9;: «v.1...wnvd v u i r H . . V. . . .2 n“. www.mumfi .. .. ”‘63-'0ivrnvj9 .dk......¥u..ur. I 1 . e u _ 1....ynvvrfJW-J..Jf . » v. 1 .3 u . . r ._ v a. TI: .v; . v 37.3.1... , 9. I . a? o.._n;v., . v: :32 2.0 a 7. 'fl':..5 .. 7! hair?” . v rilln v .7. .fic‘ ire . .. , .3. 5,35 .Irvv‘vv .1 :1... at: Z. q. .1. . 3:11: .2 :11; r-tuv-acvv 5.....1. 3....610 m 1...: luv: 33‘. Ir: s$uq \cutt..x:¢‘s .zv3\":. t: C f:|:.: \ $1 I: l.....\ v. 7(‘.V .... 5.3:... ~34. Aer}. . .2... t . .u.‘ If 21:; 1.253;,» :14 .r .c...1r...‘p;. t .5; 1‘3. 2‘: if. .. :195 fir flail I f... .ktla «13% c»: .053... . 13...... v. 3.5....31... r t. 13: 42.} }.-b;.!t-.ub...o.f¢ SIOVI..CB. {.1.»I.ébl. .355 3:71.05 31 is; a y a. “an: $235.».réaifibufi. ‘6». 3", , O . ‘ y t 1 Eel y. a. . . .ttvu: . .5 V. .. . $.32}. .10 2;..‘QA .3. ‘ poi . z . 1....» 13.... . .r . .2. 2 {.il t :l :7 x...- . . z. I >v!“\‘ .6 ‘ $.11 {$314. .62. u. .2 .. r 1...: ; 1...; >.r..v:.:;...:).vr. f: .379 a 3.9.... .‘ :.r.a.i I: II.)|\ {Afici- ,. )5)- ‘1}!ch 1:?! Ct!" 35 63$ €3.93}! tillifiéo .32- u... an. aw. : .V 1.1.53.1; .9. ‘ _. .v ' O L; .53.. . D . mung?! .r. ‘ .5. . thL... in... 2a: brb.x,.v‘§.Y—' v s; ‘(ll 1 I . 2243‘; )Oiu-O f 4 «:2: v0 .13.) ‘i..- :1 l. ~;I\t ‘1.KL“5 .i' 5.5 :All) u!l¢&3i6 , s. :..:E.1..t:.u‘: .IFI‘Q.Z¢ 1.6-5...) g... lab! 1...: .. 5.x. 4. A....)|15i33 if? .3... «1.6.0:? . . X 711.11.»; 2.4 . :1: 4.5!... .2. v .1 2:31.... .z 9... 9 3. .21 9> . “tiff-2 :3 ~ it". v hizi... 1;»... :13; . I... 1‘... £15.91}? fol-1!. 73., 3.2-. s 01:91:... ‘1 hil..lil"bi§ fittl...“ is. .Yl... Ave)vl...|| .3... ‘11- PA. slit. .2... .51 .i . a .9»... 1 an}: .5 :75‘ {:91 p‘tvthlc. {II II o 6? «$333.3... . 251.. .I .5. ‘.:£.:. .1 .1 10.93:}, i: .415 9...)..3 Ifti..);.t15;3:§>:a :$n§50\1.x': .31.?! ( .123; :.:...~.L . ,3. . , , . .h .3. J . {E . . .\i|r|'; . ‘ unnfnwficjvlimxmanin amt-victim! iuuv .i.. 11.3.1113: 3/43 )11 . 1):! .ll. . .I. 3.1.9 .1 .9. I... :1.S«i?t¢o5....v 1‘5'4 u":’i L..$K[.)u .(‘rli-l. . .zt’.-}¢..I.\\‘()-..)ia fie; . 5.12:2)..Ifilbi. a v: 13;..5 . ..yw>.Nt..w . ELE§ » ycvul I. . .! ."F‘.«.»:.n.§..~wt.w3.\n.¢...unm)wy . I £§§ \ {Ad . L. . . . THESE; This is to certify that the thesis entitled "The Level of Formal and Informal Integrafion of Negroes in The External Community of ' Lansing, Michigan" presented by Benjamin C. Dennis has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for LIBRARY Michigan State University ph.D. Sociology and Anthropologv l degree in Q //MM [9 / Major professor ”if/j u/ \j Ihne August, l964 0-169 A ‘ ~ .." . , ' i.) I l : .. MW §g§1fi99 05 2 2 r" 1 0 ABSTRACT THE LEVEL OF FORMAL AND INFORMAL INTEGRATION OF NEGROES IN 'IHE EXTERNAL COMMUNITY OF LANSING, MICHIGAN by Benjamin G. Dennis This study investigates a narrowly defined problem within the general area of migration. It focuses upon the problem of integration of Negroes in a Midwestern industrial city. Among the dramatic changes in the American society has been the shift from a rural oriented social order to that of an urban industrialized one. One of the many facets of this change has been the movement of the Negro from the rural South to the urban industrial North. The present study seeks to explore the level of integration and the forces which elevate or depress it. The level of integration is measured in terms of formal and informal inter- action with white persons in the larger. "external" urban community. A sample of 125 male heads of households were randomly selected from the total Negro population of Lansing. Michigan. The sample con- sisted of Negro males only. and was made up of 25 cases each of the following: nonmigrants, urban-early migrants. urban-recent migrants, rural-early migrants. and rural-recent migrants. Four general hypotheses were testei. The first predicted that the level of formal and informal integraticn in the external community would vary directly with the extent of urban contact. Thus, it was hypothesized that integration level would be higher for nonmigrants than migrants, -higher for urban than for rural migrants. higher for urban-early than Benjamin G. Dennis for urban-recent migrants. and higher for rural-early than for rural- recent migrants. The second hypothesis predicted that the level of formal and informal integration would vary inversely with the amount of socialization in the rural South. Thus, it was predicted that those residing on farms as youths would have the lowest level of urban integration. while those residing in cities as youths would have the highest level of urban inte- gration. The third general hypothesis anticipated that socioeconomic charac- teristics would vary directly with the level of integration. Socio- economic characteristics explored included the number of years of school- ing completed, occupational status. status of informant's wife, direction of occupational mobility. and weekly income. The fourth. and final, general hypothesis predicted that certain personal and family characteristics would be related to the level of integration in the external community. It was assumed that age. degree ' of residential segregation. and number of children in the family would be inversely related to the level of integration. Further. that the extent of prior knowledge of the city would be directly related to the level of integration. The findings in this study were largely negative. That is. rela- tively few of the variables considered were related to level of integra- tion in the manner anticipated. Nonmigrants were found to be significantly higher in formal integration than migrants, for example, but other migrant types did not differ significantly in level of integration. Migrants also differed significantly in level of formal integration but not in Benjamin G. Dennis the expected direction. Those reared in small villages and towns were significantly higher in formal integration than those reared in cities or on farms. THE LEVEL OF FORMAL AND INFORMAL INTEGRATION OF NEGROES IN THE EXTERNAL COMMUNITY OF LANSING, MICHIGAN . L. . l‘ Benjamin G9 Dennis A THESIS submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Sociology 1964 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to express sincere gratitude to Dr. J. Allan Beegle, chair- man of my graduate committee, for advice and guidance throughout this study. I am deeply indebted to him for his kindness, ever-willingness and constant encouragements far beyond the call of duty during the time this study was in preparation. His wide and thorough knowledge. his scholarly approach to research. his insistence on accuracy. his accessi- bility and willingness to help whenever needed has made a deep mark on this work and on me. My grateful acknowledgement is due Dr. William H. Form, Dr. James B. McKee. and Dr. Jay W. Artis, members of my graduate committee. for their interest and suggestions during the early stages of this study. My appreciation goes to Mrs. Nancy Hammond for editing the manuscript and to the secretarial staff of the African Studies Center for helping With the typing in the early stages and to Miss Janice Fuller. who typed the final work. Finally. I wish to thank my wife for helping with the interview and statistical calculations and my daughter, Winona, for giving me moments of pleasure and relaxation when things seemed bleak. My thanks also goes to the informants who willingly gave the information on which this study is based. ii Chapter I. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . The Problem . . . . . . . . . Background of the Problem . . Formulation of Hypotheses . . Methods and Procedure . . . . Selecting the Sample . . . The Variables and Their Operationalization The Independent Variables . . . . . . (l) (2) (3) (h) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (ll) (12) (l?) J Method of Scoring . State of Birth Place of Early Socialization and Orientation . . . . . . . . . . . Age or Life Cycle Stage . . . . . Level of Education 0 O O O O O 9 O O I O O 9 O O O O The Level of Informant's Occupation Level of Informant's Weekly Income Direction of Occupational Mbbility Family Composition . . . . . . . . The Occupational Level of Informant's Total Weekly Family Income Prior Knowledge of Lansing O O O O O The Number of Previous Trip; to Lansing . . Ecological Segregation . . . . O O O O O 0 iii 0 O O O C O O Page 13 l3 15 16 16 19 19 19 Chapter Page Formal Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Informal Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Other Details of Scoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Data Processing and Tests of Significance . . . . . 26 Order of Presentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 II. DESCRIPTION OF THE SAMPLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Background Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 State of Birth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Place of Early Socialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Personal and Family Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . 32 Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Level of Schooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Level of Occupation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Level of Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Occupational Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Family Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Wife's Occupation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Total Family Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Knowledge of Lansing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “2 Prior Knowledge of Lansing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Previous Trips to Lansing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Home Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . #4 Level of Integration: Formal and Informal Integration. . 40 Best Friends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Mime-timepriend5eeeeeeeeeeeeoeee 4'6 iv Chapter Relationships with White Persons or Families Visits to White Homes . . . . . . . . . . . . Ecological Segregation . . . . . . . . . . . On-the-job Contacts with White Persons . . . Off-the-job Contacts with White Persons . . . Church Membership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Church Attendance and Membership . . . . . . Church Offices Held . . . . . . . . . . . . . Participation in Church-related Groups by Wives and Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . Level of Labor Union Participation . . . . . Frequency of Labor Union Attendance . . . . . Labor Union Offices Held . . . . . . . . . . SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Characteristics of the Total Sample . . . . . . . . . Characteristics of the Five Subsamples . . . . . . . Personal and Family Characteristics . . . . . . . . . Level of Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Level of Occupation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Level of Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Occupational Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Family Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wife's Occupation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total Family Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prior Knowledge of Lansing . . . . . . . . . . . Previous Trips to Lansing . . . . . . . . . . . . Home Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V Page 46 15,9 Chapter Best Friends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IBlSIlre-Tlme Friends 0 e e e o e e o e e e 0 Relationships with White Persons or Families Visits to White Homes . . . . . . . . . . . . EcolOgical Segregation . . . . . . . . . On-the-job Contact with White Persons . . Off-the-job Contact with White Persons . ChurchMembership............ Church Attendance and.Membership . . . . Church Offices Held . . . . . . . . . . . 0 Participation in Church-related Groups by Wives and Children 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O Level of Labor Union Participation . . . . . Frequency of Labor Union Attendance . . . . . Labor Union Offices Held . . . . . . . . . . III. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS LEVEL OF INTEGRATION IN THE EXTERNAL COMMUNITY Migrant Type and Integration . . . . . . . . . . Early Socialization and Integration . . . . . . . Socioeconomic Status and Integration . . . . . . AND Personal and Family Characteristics and Integration . SWY O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 IV. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discussion of the Findings . . . . . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY ................... APPEI‘C'DIxog.eeeeeeeeeeeoeeeeee Page 72 72 72 73 73 73 74 7h 74 7h LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. State and Region of Birth of Migrants. Classified by mgrmt me O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 30 2. Place of Early Socialization of Migrants When 1 to 6 Years Old. When 7 to 12 Years Old. and When 13 to 18 Years Old. And Summary. Classified by Migrant Type . . . . . . . . . . 31 3. Age of Migrants Classified by Migrant Type . . . . . . . . . 34 h. Level of Schooling Completed by Migrants. Classified by MigrmtmeeeOeeeooeeeeeeeooeeeeeee 3"" 5. Level of Migrant‘s Occupation. by Migrant Type . . . . . . . 35 6. Level of Migrant's Income, Classified by Migrant Type . . . 37 7. Direction of Migrant's Occupational Mbbility Classified by Migrant Type O O O C 0 C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 39 8. Number of Children of Migrants. Classified by Migrant Type . 39 9. Occupation of the Wife of the Migrant. Classified by Migr mt me O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O “l 10. Total weekly Family Income of Migrants Classified by Migrant me O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 [+15 11. Extent of Migrant‘s Previous Knowledge of Lansing. Classified bymgrmtmeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee [*3 12. Number of Migrant's Previous Trips to lensing. Classified by Migrant me O O O O O O C O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 0 1+5 13. Home Ownership of Migrants. Classified by Migrant Type . . . “5 14. Best Friend and leisure-time Friends of Migrants. Classified by 5010!. and Migrant me O O O O O O O O O 0 O D O O O O O 247 15. Relationship with White Persons or Families Reported by A Migrants. Classified by Migrant Type . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 16. Ecological Distribution of Migrants by Nearest White Neighbors and Distance from White Neighbors. by Migrant Type . . . . . 51 Table l7. l8. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 2Q. 25s 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. Level and Nature of On-the-job and Off-the-job Contacts of Migrants with White Persons, Classified by Migrant Type . . Membership and Attendance in Church and Related Activities by Migrants. Classified by Migrant Type . . Membership and Interaction in Labor Union by Classified by Migrant Type . . . . . . . . . Level of Formal and Informal Integration. by Level of Formal and Informal Integration. by O O O O O O O O Migrant, O O O O O O O O Migrant Type. . Place of Early Socialization When 1 to 6 Years Old and by Migrant Type . . Level of Formal and Informal Integration, by Place of Early Socialization When 7 to 12 Years Old and by Migrant Type . . Level of Formal and Informal Integration. by Place of Early Socialization When 13 to 18 Years Old and by Level of Fermal and Informal Integration. by ing Completed and by Migrant Type . . . . . Level of Formal and Informal Integration. by Occupational Status and by Migrant Type . . Level of Formal and Informal Integration. by Wife's Occupation and by Migrant Type . . . Level of Formal and Informal Integration. by Occupational Mobility and by Migrant Type . Level of Formal and Informal Integration. by 'Weekly Income and by Migrant Type . . . . . Level of Formal and Informal Integration. by Stage or Age and by Migrant Type . . . . . . Level of Formal and Informal Integration. by of Lansing and by Migrant Type . . . . . . . Level of Formal and Informal Integration. by sition - Number of Children - and by Migrant Level of Formal and Informal Integration. by Segregation and by Migrant Type . . . . . . viii Migrant Type. . Years of School- . O C O O O O O Informant‘s O O O I O O O O Informant's Direction of O O O O O O O O Informant's O O O O O O O 0 Life Cycle Prior Knowledge 0 O O O O O O 0 Family Compo- I” pa 0 O O 0 0 Ecological Page 53 55 59 78 87 9O 94 97 99 101 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Th9 Problem This dissertation is concerned with the general problem of inte- gration of Negroes in a middle western. industrial city. While many of the ethnic subcommunities have disappeared. Negro subcommunities are to be found in all major cities of America. While considerable variation exists. the Negro subcommunity is usually. although not always. spatially segregated. Essential to the problem of this dissertation is the con- cept of two communities. one composed of Negroes (the internal community) and the other composed of Negroes and whites (the external community). 0f crucial interest in this dissertation is the problem of the extent of integration of urban Negroes in the external community. ‘We are specifi- cally interested in interaction with whites and participation in formal and in informal situations. as well as the extent to which these phenomena are limited to the Negro subcommunity. The general questions to which this study is addressed are the following: 1. What level of integration has been achieved by Negroes in the larger community of a midwestern industrial city? 2. What attributes tend to elevate or retard that level of integration? 3. What is the relationship of formal integration to informal integration in the external community? 2 Bacggggggd of the gxgblem Among the most important changes in population distribution in the last three decades has been the mass movement of Negroes from the rural south to the urban centers of the north and west. For instance. the net movement of Negroes into the North Central States alone in the past decade numbered well over one million persons. E. Franklin Frazier tells us that the urbanization of the Negro population during the present century has effected the most momentous changes in the life of the Negro since his emancipation.l During the first decades of the present century. nearly two and one-half million Negroes moved from the rural south into the urban areas of both south and north. But public attention has been directed mainly to the northward movements because they were dramatized by the mass migration to northern industrial centers during and after the Second'World war. This drift from country to city in the north has been accompanied by profound changes in the Negro's behavior and general outlook on life.2 The great majority of Negroes who migrate to urban areas have been simple peasant folk accustomed only to manual labor as field hands in the rural south. In this environment. racial segregation is a fact never questioned. and therefore. the problem of integration can scarcely arise. Economic activities center on the family or kinship group in which each member is expected to work with the rest of the family in the field. The family structure in this rural environment exhibits the traditional 1E. Franklin Frazier. "The Impact of urban Civilization upon Negroes Family Life." in Paul K. Hatt and Albert J. Reiss. Jr.. (eds.). Qitigs find Society. Glencoe: The Free Press. 1957. p. 390. 2Ibid.. p. “91. 3 maternal family pattern in its purest and most primitive form. Frazier defines the maternal pattern of family organization as a family that is based primarily upon the affectional ties and.common interest existing between the offspring and the mother. who is the head of the family.3 The type of economic system which is based upon communal life required . very little effort on the part of the individual in such an environment. because the family has a right and obligation.involving each member of the kin group.“ One cannot go hungry. naked. or homeless as long as one lives among his kinfolk. Conrad and Irene Taeuber report that the great mass of Negro migrants who moved to urban centers in both.south and north came from such an environment. either in family groups or in remnants of family groups. as described above.5 It is little wonder that the migrant Negroes must of necessity change their rural orientation in an urban setting.6 The economic situ- ation and.the general structure of city are not conducive to the type of rural homogeneity in which the Negroes have been socialized. Therefore. the migrant Negroes are forced to change or modify most of their folkways and customs.7 They have to learn new skills which have value in the L 3E. Franklin Frazier. "Traditions and Patterns of Negro Family in the United States." in Edward B. Router. (ed.). flgce and letg;g Qontacts. New York: Thomas I. Crowell. 193k. pp. 191-207. “E. T. Thompson. "The Natural History of Agriculture Labor in the South.” in David K. Jackson. (ed.). American Studies. Durham: Duke Univer- sity Press. 19h0. p. 114. SConrad and Irene Taeuber. The Changing Po ulation of the United States. New York: John'Wilsy and Sons. Inc.. 195g. p. :51. 6Marcus Lee Hansen. e ant Ame is H sto . Cambridge: Harvard university Press. . p. 3. 7Maurice a. Davie. World Immigration. New York: The Machinan Co.. 1936. p. #61. # urban labor market. The communal family ties cannot be maintained because a livelihood now'depends upon individual earnings from this labor market.8 Living facilities which these migrants can afford provide accommodation only for two adults and perhaps for a child or two. This means that they cannot maintain the rural values and sentiments by furnishing accommodation for other kinfolk. Therefore. they are forced to adapt themselves to entirely new values demanded by city life. Formal education was necessary but not required in the rural milieu. but in the city it becomes a prerequisite for earning daily bread. These eco- nomic and cultural differences among migrant groups determines largely the kinds of change and the consequent accommodation necessary for their new environment. In fact. these economic and cultural differences are the criteria which distinguish rural migrants from urban migrants and migrants fromnonmigrants.9 Thus. the process of social change inherent in most migration ultimately involves not only the attainment of specific economic goals. but also. a re—socialization and reformulation of status and role. It is from this standpoint that the main features of the process of integration can be understood. rThe process of integration is one of institutionalizing the migrant's role expectations. The fulfill- ment of role expectation in the urban environment depends upon the acquisition of various mechanisms foreign to the migrant's rural back- ground.1d7'Southern-born Negroes must learn new technical skills which 8Gunner Myrdal. "The Negro Problem and American Democracy.” in Ag_Angzig§n_2ilggmg. New‘Iork: Harper and Brothers, l9hh, pp. 207-208. 9Davie. 22 git" p. l+62. 10Everett and Helen Hughes. ”Racial and Ethnic Frontiers." in Where hqhsmu.flmwuTMFmehuml%Lp.%. 5 provide Job opportunities. They must change their habits of living and adapt to new ecological orientations. In short. their success in the urban milieu depends upon their ability to change; without this change they can hardly exist for long in the new community.11 Heberle and.Alvin viewed the question of change through which the migrant must pass in the nature of modern industrial life itself. Modern industrial systems. they assert. require a maximum of interchangeability of workers. particularly for the unskilled and semiskilled jobs. Although just as unskilled as the work in the rural south. industry does not employ kinship groups as a work unit. Rather. individual ability and performance are the important criteria for holding a job. Therefore. migrants who have had some orientation in southern cities. or other cities. would be expected to have experienced the initial change which is necessary for adaptation to the urban environment. The migrants with city experience are expected to need to change less than those who have had no such experience. For them. the nature of modern industrialization tends to break down barriers between them and nonmigrants or any other group.12 Zimmer concerned himself with the questions of whether or not migrants to an urban center ever become participants in the activities of the community to the same extent as the nonmigrants. and if so. how long a period of time is required to do so. Do specific types of migrants enter the activities of the community more rapidly than other types of migrants?13 A A 11E.‘W. Hofstee. Some figggrks on §elective Migration. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. 1952. p. 19. 12R. Heberle and B. Alvin. "Social Consequences of Industrializa- tion of Southern Cities." in Hatt and Reiss. 22, git.. p. #56. 6 According to Thompson.andHWhe1pton. migrants coming from environments culturally similar to the present community participate more rapidly than migrants coming.from dissimilar environments.1h If there is any single element common in the citations above. it is that migrants who have had.different socializing experience and orien- tation than.the host community need to make the greatest changes.15 flhis. indeed. is the case of our sample of Negro migrants. for most of whom Lansing. Michigan. is the first urban industrial center that has ever been encountered. Therefore. integration in the larger community. based upon.friendship and mutual understanding. which were common to relationships in their former environment. can scarcely be expected to be high for migrants. particularly rural migrants.16 However. not all Negroes residing today in the north came.from the south. Increasingly large.proportions cf Negroes in the north have always lived in cities. There has been a tendency for most of them to reside in the large cities and metrOpolitan areas. As a result. little attention has been.given to the comparatively small Negro communities in the medium-sized northern industrial cities. Yet. it is in these northern cities. such as Lansing. that the Negro has been faced with more acute problems of integration into the community than in the larger urban areas. The acuteness of this situation may be due in part to the fact that the Negro population has been too small to develop a community and A 1“w. S. Thompson and P. K. Whelpton. Pogulation Treads in the fln;§§g_§§gtg§. New'York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.. Inc.. 1933. p. . 15Charles Tilly. "The Assimilation of Rural and Urban Migrants to Wilmington. Delaware." University of Delaware (unpublished paper). 1962. 1 4.. p. 3. 7 yet it is not an.integral part of the larger community in terms of inter- action and participation in both formal and informal activities in such a community.17 It is felt that Lansing. as a comparatively small urban industrial city. fits the above description. in that in the recent past it has had a small preportion of Negroes in its population. However. the Negro pepulation.in.Lansing has been steadily increasing. The population of Michigan. and the.City of Lansing has more than tripled between 1940 and 1960. For instance. in.l9hO. there.were 208.345 Negroes in Michigan. as compared with 717.581.1n 1960.18 This increase also holds for the City of Lansing. In 1950 there were 2.971 Negroes in Lansing. as com- pared with 6.715 in 1960.19 While the numerical aspect of Negro migration is important in itself. it is the problems surrounding the integration of Negroes in a new and unfamiliar environment that is of major concern here.20 Negroes residing in many urban.centers of the north were born and socialized. by and large. in the rural south; many of them arrived in the north possessing little formal education and few skills of use in the urban labormarket.21 A A 17E. Franklin Frazier. Th9 New in the United figtgs. New York: The MacMillan Co.. 1951. pp. 252-253. . 180. 3. Bureau of the Census. 1250 flighigan anggg of gogglgtiog. p-c. Table 53. p. 8. and U. S. Bureau of the Census. 1 60 i n s of Egpglgtion. 208. Table 21. p. 79. 190. 3. Bureau of the Census. 1250 gnited §§a ta; gensus of fiopulgtiog a = gfaiaaa.»r.;:ge.aw.e-t. p‘c. pp. 22-172: also _2_2_ui_ais__ angus 2f fiopulgtion. 'B. Table 21. p. 79. zoAnnie M. Maclean. W. Philadelphia: J. B. lippincott 00.. 1925, p. 220 21Louie 1. Dublin. mg agate of Life, Ems Bith}; 1.2 932th .New York: The Maoznllan Co.. 1951. p. 10. 8 In a.majority of cases. the Negroes arrived impoverished to face all sorts of restrictions. In.numerous respects. the problem of Negro inte- . gration parallels. that of imigrants from abroad.22 while most imigrants from abroad spoke a different language. they did not have the problem of color. Differences between.the area of origin and destination in most instances were greater for. the Negro than for the maropean imigrants. We shall attempt to analyse the. level and extent of Negro integration in both formal and informal association in the external comunity of Lansing. Michigan. 0 o s The hypotheses of this stucw stem largely from the literature of several decades ago concerning the assimilation and adjustment of immi- grants from abroad. Generally. these studies found that the process of adjustment and integration was directly related to the extent to which immigrant characteristics deviated from those of the native pepulation. Such attributes as skin color. religion. mores. customs and folkqu were important variables in determining the extent and rate of assimila- tion. Furthermore. the extent of segregation of immigrant groups was important to the level of interaction and to the eventual absorption into the dominant groups.23 The general problem of Negro integration in urban areas - the problem of this dissertation - is conceived as parallel to that of the immigrants. 22Hansen, 2;. £13., p. ll. ”Francis J. Brown and James W. Johnson. file glories. New York: Prentice-Hall. Inc.. 1914-6, p. 31. 9 Negroes residing in northern middle-sized cities are all relatively recent arrivals. but some have had urban contact while others came directly from the rural south. They are highly visible due to color and style of life. and they arrive having been socialized in a predominantly ’ nonurban environment. 'we knOW'that residential segregation is characteris- ; tic of most. if not allhnorthern centers. From this general background. it was concluded that the level of integration in the larger urban community (the external community) could rarely be high. In his work on the absorption of immigrants to Israel. Eisenstadt identifies three phases or stages involved in migration. These are: (l) the motivation to migrate. (2) the social structure of the migratory process. and (3) the integration of the migrants into the new'community.2h The concerns of this investigation fall into the third phase as deline- ated by Eisenstadtt It should be pointed out that integration of migrants is often incomplete. if one has in mind the full spectrum of life and institutions. Complete integration in this sense frequently is not sought by migrants and a high degree of satisfaction may be perceived by migrants if the area of destination fulfills limited aspirations not possible in the area of origin.25 These observations by Eisenstadt led to a.distinction between integration as measured by formal and informal _--.———_- u . interaction and.participation. The extent to which these two kinds of :~heae£roe of integration are related becomes one of the questions/of interest in this dissertation. These and other considerations have led 2&8. N. Eisenstadt. The AbSOEEtiog of Igmigrggts. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Ltd.. l95h. p. l. 252.19." p- 2. 10 to the decision in this study to categorize informants by migration status; that is. origin and time of arrival in Lansing prior to sampling. Lipset. for example. shows that the current position in the occupational structure is closely related to size of community of origin.26 And of (course. the work of Zimmer concludes that those coming from an environ- ment culturally similar to the present community will participate more rapidly than migrants coming from dissimilar environments. A large body of literature demonstrates the relevance of length of residence following migration and nature of community of socialization \‘ to the level of integration achieved. This is especially well supported \\\\~in Charles Tilly's conclusions regarding assimilation of Negro migrants. He says. Much of an individual's urban experience is cumula- tive. so that he does not have to be entirely re- integrated or re-assimilated when he moves from one city to the next. The greater_the previous experience of the migrant in urban.cro§$e the-greater his trans. fer 6f”?3le§ aha behavior at migration. conversely. the more significant the process of integration.2 Based upon these considerations. therefore. it is anticipated that the level of integration in the external community will vary directly with the extent of urban contact. The first hypothesis assumes that the level of integration will depend upon the extent of prior urban contact and recency of migration. Thus. it is anticipated that nonmigrants will exhibit more integration in the external community than migrants. that urban migrants will exhibit 2612a- . p. 459. 27Tlny. 220 ‘22-‘20. p. 20 11 more integration than rural migrants. and that early migrants will exhibit more integration than recent migrants. Freedman points out that migrants most closely resembling the nonmigrants in characteristics will tend to be more successful in their integration.28 Thus. the first hypothesis is as follows: The level of integration. both formal and informal. in the external community will vary directly with the extent of urban contact. such that the level will be: a) higher for nonmigrants than for migrants b) higher for urban than for rural migrants c) higher fer urban-early than for urban-recent migrants d) higher for rural-early than for rural-recent migrants. The second hypothesis is designed to test the assumption that place of early socialization and orientation will be closely related to the level of integration in the external community. Tilly reports that integration in urban centers by migrants depends upon previous place of socialization and orientation and that the greater the previous experience \ hug—an.“ of the migrant in urban areas. the greater will be his interaction in another urban area and the more complete will be his integration. Like- wise. the greater the experience in rural areas the less will be his 29 transfer of role. 253. Freedman. "Migration Differentials in Southern Cities." in Hatt and Reiss,(eds.). gities and §ociety. 22. §i§.. p. 2. 29m. 22. 9.13., p. 2. 12 Hence. the second hypothesis is as follows: \ ‘The level of integration. both formal and informal. in the P I! external community of all migrant types will.vary inversely 'with the amount of socialization in the rural south. \NXThe third hypothesis tests the assumption that the level of socio- economic status of migrants. as measured by level of education. income and occupation. for example. is closely related to the level of integra- tion in the external community. Seudder and Anderson. as well as others. have maintained that integration of migrants in the external community is related to socioeconomic status of the migrants.30 Thus. the third hypothesis is as follows: The level of integration. both formal and informal. in the external community will vary directly with the level of socioeconomic status such that the level will be: a) directly related to years of schooling of the informant b) directly related to the level of the informant's occupation c) directly related to the level of the informant's wife's occupation d) directly related to the direction of occupational mobility of the informant e) directly related to the level of the informant's 'weekly income. ‘—A 30R. Seudder and C. A. Anderson. "Migration and vertical Occupa- $12351 Mobility.“ WM. 19: 329-334- m. 9 . 13 The fourth hypothesis is designed to test the assumption that ‘ selected personal and family characteristics are related to integration level in the external community. Rogoff points out that consideration of community integration in relation to age and other personal and family characteristics is important.31 Hence. the fourth hypothesis is as follows: The level of integration. both formal and informal. in the external community will Vary directly with personal and family characteristics such that the level will be: a) inversely related to age b) directly related to the extent of prior knowledge ‘ of Lansing c) inyersely related to the degree of ecological segregation d) inversely related to the number of children in the family. Methods and Ezggedgrgs Selecting the Sample For reasons of the author's prior knowledge of Lansing. recent legislatiVe acts relating to civil rights. and the increase in the Negro population in Lansing. it was decided to study the level of integration of Negroes in Lansing. Michigan. The first problem was that of locating all Negro households and to select from these the required sample. 31N. Ro off. "Recent Trends in Occupational mobility." in Hatt and Raise. (eds. . gtieg and Sogety. pp. 14-32-439. 14 A list of all Negro households prepared by previous investigators for the City of Lansing32 was obtained and was brought up to date by the present writer. At the time of sampling it contained 1372 Negro house- holds. A random sample of 200 infonmants who were male heads of house- holds was drawn for intensive interviewing. It was decided to draw an original sample sufficiently large so that it would be possible randomly to draw 50 cases representing urban migrants. 50 cases representing rural migrants and 25 cases representing nonmigrants. The next step was to randomly select from the urban migrants 25 cases who came to Lansing before 1955 and 25 cases who came to Lansing after 1955. These cases were designated as "urban-early“ and "urban-recent." respectively. Similarly. 25 rural-migrants who came to Lansing before 1955 were selected to represent the I"rural-early" migrant type. as were 25 who came to Lansing after 1955. who represented the "rural-recent" migrant type. Finally. 25 cases were selected randomly from the native-born Negro population - the "nonmigrant" type. In this way 125 cases were obtained for this study. A structured interview schedule was used. with some "open-ended" questions. Although the schedule Was fairly long and time consuming. no informant refused to be interviewed. However. it was necessany at times to make several trips in order to obtain an interview. For example. in nine cases. it required six trips to find the informant: in five cases. four trips were necessary to find the informant: in four cases three trips were made. and in three cases. it took two trips to find the informant at home. Sometimes it was necessary to schedule an 3ZRose T. Brunson. "Socialization Experiences and Socio-Economic Characteristics of urban Negroes as Related to Use of Selected Southern Foods and Medical Remedies." Ph.D. Thesis. Michigan State University. pp. 10-11. 1962. 15 appointment suitable to the informant if he was really too busy at first contact. In other cases. several trips were made before contact with the informant was possible. or with any member of his family who knew and was willing to offer any information concerning his whereabouts. This was more true of the rural-recent and urban-recent migrants than of the rural-early and urban-early migrants. for different reasons. The rural-recent migrants were often away from home but with no particular time schedule of their return. Their whereabouts was only a speculation. since no one was really sure of any particular place where they could be found. The urban-recent migrants had. in most cases, a definite schedule to be at home. and/or information could be obtained concerning their whereabouts. If in the event they were urgently needed. they could be reached at a designated place. The rural-recent migrants often could not be reached unless found at home. EVen when found at home. they were often more reluctant to respond to the questions than any other group. While reluctant in their responses. they were frequently more careful OVer particulars than other groups of informants. Success in meeting these situations depended to some extent upon the skill of the inter- viewer. and to a greater extent. perhaps, to the accent of the inter- viewer. who was identified immediately as a foreigner. The variables and Their Operationalization The dependent variable in this study is integration. It is measured in terms of formal integzation and igfggggl integggtion in the external community in specific areas of community life. The number of activities which could be included in each are indeed numerous. but as it was neither practical nor the aim of this study to analyze all possible 16 forms of interaction. it was decided to limit the measurement to five kinds of activities. Formal integration in this study is measured by: (l) the participation in labor unions and related activities and (2) the participation in church and church-related groups. Informal inte- gration is measured by: (1) frequency of visits and the pattern of friendship with white persons. (2) leisure-time and recreational inter- action with white persons. and (3) the level of informal contact on the jdb and outside the job with white persons. Questions on these measures of integration were devised in such a manner that they were rated either "high" or "low". In this way. it became possible to assign individual scores as well as total scores. Details of the method.of scoring are found in the following section. The independent variables utilized in this study are the following: (1) state of birth. (2) place of early socialization and orientation. (3) age or life cycle stage. (h) years of school completed. (5) level of informant's occupation. (6) level of informant’s'weekly income. (7) direction of informant's occupational mobility. (8) family composition. (9) the occupational level of the informant's wife. (10) total weekly family income. (11) prior knowledge of Lansing. (12) the number of previous trips to Lansing. and (13) ecological segregation in Lansing. ,/ The lgdependent Variables. The variables. and the mode of operationalizing them,are explained in the following paragraphs. (1) State of Birth. The informant was asked in which state he was born. and the states were then grouped as follows: (a) Southern states. (b) all other states. and (c) State of Michigan. These categories were then used as controls in the measurement of formal and informal integra- tion in the external community. l7 (2) glacg of Early Socialization and Origgtation. Questions on this variable were formulated to ascertain the place of the informant's early residence. The question was asked. " where did you live when you were: (a) one to six years of age; (b) seven to twelve years of age; and (c) thirteen to eighteen years of age?" The following were the categories of residence used: (a) city. (b) suburb, (0) small town or village, (d) country not on farm. and (e) on farm. (3) Age or Life gycle Stags. Questions about this Variable were designed to test whether or not age level was related to integration. Informants were asked to give their age at the nearest birthday. The ages of all informants were then grouped as follows: (a) under 29 years of age: (b) 30 to 44-years of age: (c) #5 to 59 years of age: (d) 60 years of age and over. (#) Level of Eggcation. Each informant was requested to indicate the highest grade completed in school. These data were then grouped as follows: (a) grade school or less; (b) some high school or high school graduation; and (c) some college or more. (5) The Level of Infozmént's Occupation. Informants were asked to describe their present job. These occupations reported were then classi- fied into the following categories: (a) professional and self-employed; (b) skilled laborers; (c) semiskilled laborers; (d) unskilled laborers; and (e) unemployed. (6) Level 9; [gfozmant's Weekly Ingome. This variable was obtained by asking the informants for the exact amount of their weekly income. The reports from all informants were then classified into the following categoriesz (a) $30-49: (b) $50-69: (c) $70-89; (d) $90-109: and (e3 $110 and over. 18 (7) flrgction of Occgpgtloggl Mobllity. This variable focuses upon the general movement and/ or lack of such movement in occupation over time. Informants were requested to report jobs held for the past 15 years. The general pattern of movement was determined and then categorized in the following manner: (a) general movement upward; (b) general movement downward: and (o) no change in movement. (8) W Each informant was asked to list the number of children in the family. The number of children per family was grouped in the following manner: (a) one to three children: (b) four to six children: (c) seven or more children: and (d) no children. (9) go OMional Evel of glomgt's W322. This variable was obtained by asking the informant to indicate the "present job" of his wife. These were then grouped into the following categories: (a) nurses. practical and registered: (b) teachers; (c) domestic workers; and (d) housewife... or not working. (10) W. This variable was obtained by requesting the informants to indicate whether or not there was any other person and/or persons in the household who was gainfully employed and together as a family. what was the total weekly income. Responses from the informants were grouped as follow: (a) the same as informant's weekly income; (b) $112 to $172; (c) $173 to $232; (d) $233 to $292: (6) $293 to $352: and (f) $353 to $h12. (11) W; This variable was obtained by asking the informant the following question: "Before coming to Lansing. would you say you knew Lansing well?" The responses to this question were grouped as follows: (a) very well; (b) somewhat; and (c) hardly knew it. 19 (12) The Number of Prgvious Trips to Lanslgg. Each informant was asked to list the number of previous trips he had made to Lansing. The responses to this question were categorized as follows: (a) no previous trip to Lansing; (b) one previous trip to Lansing; (c) two to three previous trips to Lansing; (d) four to nine previous trips to Lansing; and (a) ten or more previous trips to Lansing. (13) Egologlcgl §egpeggtion. This variable was designed to measure the extent of residential.segregation in the sample. It was obtained by asking each informant to indicate his nearest neighbors as follows: (a) Negroes; (b) whites; and (c) both Negroes and whites. Method of Sgozlng. The method of assigning individual and total scores for formal and informal integration in the external community called for the formulation of sets of relevant questions. Two sets of such questions were designed to measure formal integration. The nature of responses to the sets of questions allowed the ranking of informants as "high" or "low". Those informants who had a high frequency of formal interaction in the external ooumunity with white persons were rated “high" and those who hadligh frequency of formal interaction with Negroes were rated "low". Likewise. those informants who indicated high frequency of informal interaction with white persons were rated "high“ and those indicating high frequency of informal interaction with Negroes were rated "low". In this way. it was possible to obtain a score for each informant with respect to his level of integration as measured by formal and informal interaction. The total scores were obtained by adding the number of "high" and "low" formal and informal integration scores in the manner described above. The sets of questions designed to measure formal inte- gration in the external community follow. 20 Eozgg; :ntggzation. For the purposes of this study. formal integrap tion was limited to two areas of formal participation. namely. (1) figligiggs Participgtion and (2) Epigg Eggtigipétign. SeVen questions concerned religious participation and eight questions concerned union participation. The questions for religious participation were formulated to ascertain the following: The first was designed to find out whether the informant belonged to a religious organization. The second was designed to ascertain the frequency of attending church, and the third was designed to pinpoint the location of church. that is. whether in a Negro or white neighborhood. Question four was designed to measure inte- gration from responses in questions one. two and three. It read: "Is the membership of your church mostly Negroes? Mostly white? or Both?" If the membership of the informant's church was mostly Negro, his inte- gration score was designated as "low". However. if the informant belonged to a mostly white or mixed membership church. he Was rated "high", but only if he frequently interacted with white persons in churcherelated groups beyond the mere attendance of church services. This distinction was made because we are interested in integration as measured by inter- action and Very little interaction takes place during church services. In question five we wanted to know if the informant was an officer in the church. Closely related to this was question six. which asked: "What office do you hold?" Likewise. question seven was designed to measure the responses from questions five and six. It read as follows: "As an officer. do you deal mostly with Negroes? Mostly with whites? Mbstly with mixed groups?" Here again. if the informant indicated his interaction as mostly with Negroes. his integration score was rated "low.” but if he indicated interation with whites his score was rated 21 "high". This holds true also for the mixed membership groups. As mentioned earlier, the criterion for rating integration "high" and "low" is based upon interaction with white persons or Negroes. The second area of formal participation is union membership. Out of the eight questions formulated for this portion of formal integration, five were relevant to formal integration. and of the five. two were basic to this section of the study. The first question determined whether or not the informant was a union member. The third question was asked to find out whether the informant knew how often his union held meetings. Closely related to the third was the fourth question. which asked: "How often do you attend union meetings?" The two basic questions asked were questions two and five. Question two read: "Are you an officer?" "What office do you hold?" With this question we probe to find out whether in his official capacity he interacted more with Negroes than with white persons. In question five. we were concerned with interaction at union meetings. The question read: " At meetings. with when do you mostly sit and talk things over? Mostly Negroes? Mestly whites? 0r mostly mixed groups?" Here again. interaction with mostly Negroes was rated "low" but interaction with mostly whites was rated "high". In this way. it was possible to obtain integration scores based upon formal interaction in unions. Lagomal Intggation. Informal integration was measured by: (1) Visiting and friendship patterns. and {2) Leisure-time and recreational patterns. There were seven questions designed to examine informal inte- gration. Four of these questions were formulated to deal with interaction based upon visiting and friendship patterns of interaction. three of 22 which were crucial to informal interaction. Three such questions were designed to deal with leisure time and recreational patterns of inter- action and two were basic to informal integration. For the section dealing with visiting and friendship patterns. the first question requested the informant to list the names of his three closest friends and to indicate the number of white persons among the closest friends. Question two was designed to list the number of white persons or families with whom the informant frequently visited as friends. Closely related was question three. an attempt to bring out whether the informant made frequent visits to the homes of white persons. rather than simply meeting them in the street or their place of work. The fourth question read: "About how many white families in the Lansing area would you say you know well?" In each of these questions. if interaction with white persons was more frequent in the abOVe situations than with Negroes. they were scored as "high“, whereas if these interactions were more frequent with Negroes. they were scored as "low". The second area of informal integration is leisure-time and recrear tional patterns. There were three questions formulated for this section. The first question was designed to find out how the informant spent his free time. The second question asked the informant to list the names of persons with whom he spent his free time and to indicate the number of white persons or families with whom the informant most frequently spent his free time. The responses to these questions were classified as either "high" or "low". Through this method we were able to rank inte- gration measured in terms of informal interaction as "high" and "low". 23 Other Qetgils of Scoging. Responses relating to formal and informal interaction were scored variously. in some cases from 1 to 5. and in other cases from 1 to 7. In this way. it was possible to take into account all gradations of responses. As can be recalled. the questions concerning formal integration.were limited to religious and union par- ticipation. The scoring of responses for religious participation as a measure of integration in the external community is as follows: The first area of concern was the type of church membership. which was given a score ranging from 1 to 5. The score of l was assigned to all responses indicating no affiliation with a religious organization. Scores of 2 and 3 indicated "low" scores. A score of 2 represents membership in all- Negro churches. and 3 represents membership in mixed Negro and white churches. but mostly Negro. Similarly, scores ofih and 5 designated "high" scores. in that h was assigned to mixed.Negro and white membership churches, with a.mostly white congregation. whereas 5 represented member- ship in an all-white church. Closely related to church membership was the W. A total score ranging from 1 to 7 was assigned to this item. The score of l was assigned to nonmembership and nonattendance. Scores of 2 and 3 desig- nated "low“ scores, since 2 represented interaction with only Negroes and attendance about once per week, while 3 indicated interaction with mixed Negroes and whites (but mostly Negroes) and attendance about two to three times per month. Likewise, 4 represented "low" score. although interaction was with mixed Negroes and whites. but attendance of less than once per month. Scores of 5, 6 and 7 were considered "high" scores. with 5 representing interaction with mixed Negroes and whites, but mostly whites, and attendance about once per week. A score of 6 2h indicated that interaction was with mixed Negroes and whites. but mostly whites. and attendance was two to three times per month. A score of 7 was given if interaction was with all whites despite attendance of less than three times per month. The third part of formal.participation in religious organization.was concerned with W ted o 5. Total scores here ranged from 1 to h. A score of l and 2 represented ”low" scores. in that l designated membership and activi- ties in such groups with all Negroes and 2 designated membership and activities with mixed Negroes and white groups, but mostLy Negroes. 0n the other hand, 3 and h were given "high" scores. with 3 indicating membership and activities with mixed Negro and white groups. but mostly whites. while the score of h was assigned to membership and activities in such groups with all white persons. The second area of formal integration concerns the level of partici- pation in the labor union, Interest was focused on the type of member- ship and interaction. A total score ranging from 1 to 6 was assigned to this category. The score of 1 represented nonunion membership. Scores of 2 and 3 were "low" scores, since 2 indicated union membership. but interaction only with other Negroes. and 3 indicated union membership and interaction with mixed Negroes and whites. but mostly Negroes. Scores of h, 5, and 6 represented "high" scores. because 4 represented union membership and interaction with mixed Negro and whites in about equal numbers. Similarly. 5 represented union membership and interaction with Negroes and whites. but mostly whites. and 6 represented union membership and interaction with all white persons. 25 The scores for nine separate questions relating to interaction with whites in religious and union.organizations were then added to obtain a total score. Total formal integration scores were divided at the midpoint. thus obtaining high and low scores for formal integration. These high and low formal integration scores were used as one of the dependent variables in this study. We now turn to the method of scoring based on ip£0pmal participation. The first measure in this category is the visiting and fpiendship ppttepns of interaction. A total score ranging from 1 to 7 was assigned to number and frequency of visits with white persons in the Lansing area. and a total score of l to 6 was assigned to best friends. 'With regard to visits with white persons, the score of l was assigned to no visits with white persons. Scores of 2, 3, and 4 were considered "low". A score of 2 represented visits with one white person. t only two or three times per year; 3 indicated visits with two white persons but not more than four times per year; and 4 represented visits with two or three white persons but less than once per month. A score of 5 or 6 was considered "high" since 5 represented visits with two or more white persons and more than one visit per month, and 6 indicated visits with two or more white persons but visits more than once per week. ‘With respect to the selection of bpgt fpignds, scores could range from 1 to 6. The score of l was given to responses indicating that no white person was a best friend. Scores of 2, 3 and 4 represented "low"" scores also. A score of 2 represented only one white person listed as a best friend; 3 represented some white persons but no specific names were given; and 4 listed both Negro and white persons. but mostly Negroes as best friends. Scores of 5 and 6 were considered "high" scores. A score 26 of 5 represented both Negro and.whites. but mostly white persons. for best friends. and 6 represented only white persons as best friends. The final category of informal measure of interaction.is the selection of leisure-time friends. A total score of l to 6 was assigned to this measure. The score of 1 represented no white person as a leisure-time friend. Scores of 2, 3 and 4 represented "low" scores. A score of 2 indicated the selection of all Negroes as leisure-time friends. A score of 3 designated one or two white persons as leisure-time friends. and a score of 4 was assigned to both Negro and white. but mostly Negroes. as leisure-time friends. Scores of 5 and 6 were considered "high" scores. A score of 5 represented mixed Negro and white. but mostly white persons. and a score of 6 indicated all white persons as leisure-time friends. The scores for eight individual questions relating to informal relations with whites were added to obtain a total score. Total informal integration scores were divided at or near the midpoint, thus obtaining high and low scores for informal integration. These high and low infor- mal integration scores were used as one of the dependent variables in this study. Data Eppcessipg gpd Ipsts of Sigpificance. After the interviews were completed. the schedules were edited. coded and the data were transferred to punch cards. Tables and percentage distributions were computed for nonmigrants and migrant types. Percentages were also computed for the subcategories of the migrant types for each variable. Chi-square tests of significance were made for each of the migrant types for each variable. Because of the small size of the sample. it was decided to utilize two levels of chi-square tests. one significant at the .05 level and the other significant at the .10 level. 27 ngpp_p§_£:g§pp£§§igp. This dissertation is divided into four chapters as follows: In addition to this introductory chapter. Chapter II is a description of the sample: Chapter III is concerned with factors related to level of formal and informal integration in the external community: and Chapter IV contains a summary and the conclusions. CHAPTER II DESCRIPTION OF THE SAMPLE Iptpodpption As indicated previously. the sample in this study was drawn randomly from male. Negro heads of households in Lansing. Michigan. The infor- xnants were preselected so that the sample would contain five distinct classes: (1) 25 nonmigrants; (2) 25 migrants having an urban background who came to Lansing prior to 1955; (3) 25 migrants having an urban back- ground who came to Lansing after 1955; (4) 25 migrants having a rural background who came to Lansing prior to 1955; and (5) 25 migrants having a rural background who came to Lansing after 1955. ‘In this chapter. we are particularly interested in showing the extent to which the subsamples are similar to and different from each other. Accordingly. the sample will be described in terms of selected background characteristics. including state of origin and place of early socialization; personal and family characteristics. including age. level of education, occupation and income; and other selected items. including familiarity with Lansing and present residential segregation. The sample will also be examined to determine level of integration, both formal and informal. 29 Background Qhéractezisticg State of Birth A large percentage of the total sample was born in southern states. As shown in TABLE 1. 81 of the 100 migrants listed a state in the South as their place of birth. The majority of these migrants were born in Mississippi. Arkansas. Alabama. Tennessee and Texas. with the largest number - 22 - born in Mississippi. These southern migrants came primarily from the East South Central region. with 44 born in this area. Twenty-four migrants were born in the West South Central states. and only 13 came from the South Atlantic region. The 19 migrants who came from regions outside the south came from a widely dispersed area. with six from Michigan. two from Illinois. and the remainder from other states. Of the subgroups of migrants. the urban-recent type differs markedly from the other types with respect to state of origin. Less than half this group was born in the South. Other subgroups of migrants differed only slightly with respect to state of birth. Place of Early Socialization - The residence of the migrant portion of the sample was classified according to three categories: (1) when very young (under six years of age: (2) when some older (from seven to twelve years of agel: and (3) when youth (from 13 to 18 years of age). The reaponses were categorized as (1) city. (2) small town or village. (3) in the country but not on a farm. and (h) on a farm. The results. classified by migrant type. are shown in TABLE 2. 30 TABLE l.--State and region of birth of migrants. classified by migrant type ========================================================================= Total urban g%§§:93_l%figil Rural State and gegion Migrants Early Recent §é£$l Recent TOTAL STAI§§ 100 25 25 25 25 Alabama 10 - l l 8 Arkansas 12 2 l u 5 Florida 2 l - l - Georgia 1 - l 2 Illinois 2 l l - - Kentucky 3 2 - - 1 Louisiana 2 - - 2 - Michigan 6 - 6 a - Mississippi 22 u 5 6 7 Missouri 1 - l - - NOrth Carolina 2 - - l 1 Oklahoma 1 - - 1 - South Carolina 1 - - l - Tennessee 9 4 3 1 1 Texas 9 5 1 3 ‘ Virginia 2 - l l - Virgin Islands 1 - - 1 - West Virginia 2 l - l - All Other States 9 b 5 ' ‘ mam South Atlantic 13 3 l 6 3 East South Central as 10 9 9 16 ‘West South Central 2h 7 2 10 5 R_Qgions Outside South 19 5 13 ' 1 31 TABLE 2.--P1ace of primary socialization of migrants when 1 to 6 years old. when 7 to 12 years old. and when 13 to 18 years old. and summary. classi- fied by migrant type Migrant Type Urban Urban Rural Rural Place of Esra Basset Earls Bessni Socialization at Total Selected Ages Migagnts No. i . NC. % No. % No. % At Aggg 1 to 6 Total 100 25 100 25 100 25 100 25 100 City 36 11 44 l? 68 7 28 1 4 Small Town or Village 26 8 32 3 12 7 28 8 32 In Country. not Farm 11 2 8 3 12 2 8 4 16 On Farm 27 4 l6 2 8 9 36 12 48 At Aggs z to 12 Total 100 25 100 25 100 25 100 25 100 City 39 10 4O 20 80 8 32 l 4 Small Town or Village 26 9 36 2 8 7 28 8 32 In Country. not Farm 11 2 8 3 12 2 8 4 16 On Farm 24 4 l6 - - 8 32 12 48 At Ages 13 to 18 Total 100 25 100 25 100 25 100 25 100 City 53 18 72 21 84 10 40 4 16 Small Town or Village 20 3 12 3 12 7 28 7 28 In Country. not Farm 7 2 8 l 4 1 4 3 12 On Farm 20 2 8 - - 7 28 ll 44 Sggmggg of 3 Age Periodg Total 100 25 100 25 100 25 100 25 100 City Only 35 10 no 17 68 7 28 1 r. Small Town or Village Only 15 2 8 1 4 6 22+ 6 24 In Country. Not Farm On Farm Only 19 2 8 - - 7 28 10 4O Combinations of Two or More 26 10 4O 6 24 5 20 5 20 / 32 The migrants in the sample resided predominantly in rural areas when they were small children and adolescents. When between the ages of 13 and 18. however, more than half reported residence in a city. For example. when the informants were under six years of age. only 36 per cent liVed in a city, but when 13 to 18 years of age. 53 per cent lived in a city. The overall migratory character of the sample is suggested by the summary of the three age periods. Slightly more than one-fourth of the informants reported residing in two or more residence types. as is shown in TABLE 2. Only one-fifth (19 per cent) had resided only on a farm during the three age periods. The two urban migrant types were similar in the residence history and had much more exposure to city life than the two rural migrant types. Of the two rural types. the rural-recent migrants had the most rural background. with 40 per cent having lived only on a farm during the three age periods. Personal and Family Characteristics In this section. a description of the personal characteristics of the migrants will include age. level of education. occupation. income and occupational mobility. etc.. while family composition. wife's occupation and total family income will be considered as family characteristics. Each of these attributes will be examined according to migrant type. §g_. Most of the informants in this sample were between the ages of 30 and 44. with 42 per cent of the sample in this age group. While the groups including under 29 and the 45 to 59-year-olds each contained about one-fourth of the sample. only seven per cent fell in the 60 years of age and over category. The nonmigrants were distinctly the youngest 33 age group. with 56 per cent in this category. The urban-earl migrants were the only group having the largest percentage of informants in the older age categories; 56 per cent of this group were 45 to 59 years of age. and 16 per cent was 60 years old or over. A description of the total sample by age characteristics is given in TABLE 3. Level of Schooligg. Only about one-fourth of the total sample (24 per cent) had a formal education of eight grades or less. The largest per- centage had had some high school education or were high school graduates: 18 per cent of the sample had gone to college or were college graduates. while 12 per cent had done graduate work. The urban-early and rural- recent migrants had the least amount of education. with 44 and 40 per cent. respectively, completing only eight grades or less. The urban- recent group had the most formal education: 32 per cent had attended college or were college graduates. and 40 per cent had done graduate work. TABLE 4 gives a complete description of the level of schooling of migrants and nonmigrants. Lgvel of Occupation. The majority of the sample was classified in the skilled. semiskilled and unskilled laborer categories, with 16. 34. and 25 per cent. respectively. in each of these groups. Only 14 per cent of the total sample were professional or self-employed men. and 11 per cent were not employed at the time of the interview. As shown in TABLE 5. the urban recent migrants were unique from the rest of the sample in two respects: 40 per cent of this group was classi- fied as professional and self-employed. yet 16 per cent was unemployed. Approximately three-fourths of both the rural groups were semiskilled and unskilled laborers. while over half (56 per cent) of both the nonmigrant TABLE 3.--Age of migrants classified by migration type Migzant Type Non- Urban Urban Rural Rural Total Migrant Early Recent Early Recent Age Group No. i No. No. % No. No. No. Total 125 100 25 100 25 100 25 100 25 100 25 100 Under 29 31 25 14 56 2' 8 5 20 3 12 7 28 30 to 44 55 42 8 32 5 20 17 68 11 44 12 48 45 to 59 32 26 3 12 14 56 2 8 8 32 5 20 60 and over 9 7 - - 4 16 l 4 3 12 1 4 TABLE 4.-—Level of schooling completed by migrants. classified by migrant type ant e Level of Non- Urban Urban Rural Rural Schooling Total Migrant Early Recent Early Recent Completed No. % No. No. No. No. % No. % Total 125 100 25 100 25 100 25 100 25 100 25 100 Eight grades or less 30 24 - - 11 44 2 8 7 28 10 40 Some High School or High School Graduation 58 46 19 76 10 4O 5 20 14 56 10 40 Some College or Coll. Graduate 22 18 5 20 - - 8 32 4 16 5 20 Graduate Work 15 12 l 4 4 16 10 4O - - - - i_a_‘ 35 TABLE 5.--Level of migrant's occupation. by migrant types ‘— —‘.— ‘— Non- Urban Urban Rural Rural Level of Total Migrant Early Recent Early Recent Occupation No. % No. g No. % No. % No. % No. g Total 125 100 25 100 25 100 25 100 25 100 25 100 Professional & Self-employed 20 14 2 8 4 16 10 40 l 4 3 12 Skilled Laborer 18 16 8 32 3 12 3 12 4 16 - Semi-skilled Laborer 42 34 6 24 8 32 5 20 12 48 ll 44 Unskilled Laborer 31 25 8 32 6 24 3 12 7 28 7 28 Unemployed 14 ll 1 4 4 l6 4 l6 1 4 4 16 36 and urban-early groups were so classified. With the exception of the urban-recent migrants already described. only the nonmigrants had a sizeable proportion in the professional/self-employed and skilled laborer categories level of Incgme. As shown in TABLE 6. the majority of the informants in the sample had weekly incomes ranging between $70 and $129, with 25 per cent in the $90 to $109 range, 19 per cent receiving $70 to $89 and 18 per cent in the $110 to $129 category. Few informants were found at the two extremes of the income range: only 5 per cent of the sample had weekly incomes in the two highest categories. and just 6 per cent had a weekly income in the lowest group. As in the preceding section. the urban-recent migrants differed noticeably from the rest of the sample. Sixteen per cent of the urban- recent migrants had a weekly income of $190 and over. twice the number of urban-early migrants. the only other informants in this salary range. In addition. the urban-recent migrants had more informants than any other group in each of the next three salary ranges: $170 to $189. $150 to $169, and $130 to $149. No urban-recent migrant earned less than $70 per week. By and large. the remainder of the sample had fairLy similar income patterns. corresponding roughly to the sample as a whole. None of the rural migrants nor the nonmigrants had a weekly income of $190 or over. and only one of this group had a weekly income in the $170 to $189 range. The urban-early migrants had more informants in the three highest salary ranges than did the nenmigrants or the two rural groups. but interestingly enough. there were no urban-early migrants in the $130 to $149 category. 37 TABLE 6.--Level of migrant's income classified by migrant types fi1grant Types Levels of Non- Urban Urban Rural Rural Informant's Total Migrant Early Recent Early Recent Income Aggg. % 4M2: No. i No. __!2:, figs: Total 125 100 25 100 25 100 25 100 25 100 25 100 $ 30-49 8 6 2 8 1 4 - - 2 8 3 12 3 50-69 10 8 2 8 3 12 - - 2 8 3 12 $ 70-89 24 19 5 20 9 36 2 8 5 20 3 12 $ 90-109 31 25 6 24 3 12 4 16 10 4O 8 32 8110-129 22 18 5 20 1+ 16 1+ 16 a 16 5 20 $130-149 8 6 2 8 - - 3 12 1 4 2 8 $150-169 10 8 3 12 l 4 5 20 l 4 - - 8170-189 6 5 - - 2 8 3 12 - - 1 4 $190 & over 6 5 - - 2 8 4 16 - - - - 38 Occupational Mobility. Only 18 per cent of the total sample was judged to have experienced downward mobility in the past 15 years: of the remainder. 4? per cent indicated upward occupational mobility. and 35 per cent had not experienced either upward or downward mobility. The rural-recent migrants had the greatest number, 28 per cent of whom were downwardly mobile. followed by the urban-early migrants with 20 per cent. Urban-recent migrants experienced the greatest upward mobility. with 72 per cent in this category. while the rural-early migrants. with 60 per cent. had the greatest number by far who had no change in their occupational mobility. Here again. the urban-recent migrants show the most outstanding characteristics in this category (see TABLE 7). Family Qomposition. As can be seen from TABLE 8. small families were more prevalent than were large families among the sample. There were no children in 23 per cent of all families. and one to two children in 34 per cent of the families. Only five per cent of the total sample had seven children or more. The two rural classes of migrants had the largest families. with 8 per cent of the rural-early group and 12 per cent of the rural-recent migrants having seven or more children. The rural-recent migrants also had the greatest number of families. with five to six children - 24 per cent. However. the urban-recent migrants had the next largest number in this category, with 20 per cent; but they also had the greatest number of families with no children - 28 per cent. Wife's Occupation. Very few of the wives of informants in the sample held jobs of a professional or semiprofessional nature. Eight wives were nurses. 11 were teachers. and one was a social worker. About one-third 39 TABLE 7.--Direction of migrant's occupational mobility classified by migrant types ii ant es Direction of Non- Urban Urban Rural Rural Occupational Total Migrants Early Recent Early Recent Movement No. 0. % No. No. No. % No. Total 125 100 25 100 25 100 25 100 25 100 25 100 Upward 59 47 15 60 ll 44 18 72 6 24 9 36 Downward 22 18 4 16 5 20 2 8 4 16 7 28 No Change 44 35 6 24 9 36 5 20 15 60 9 36 TABLE 8.--Number of children of migrants classified by migrant type ___.____- Migrgt Types Non- Urban Urban Rural Rural Number of Total Migrant Early Recent Early Recent Children No. No. % No. % No. No. % No. Total 125 100 25 100 25 100 25 100 25 100 25 100 No Children 29 23 5 20 5 20 7 28 6 24 6 24 l or 2 42 34 12 48 7 28 7 28 10 4O 6 24 3 or a 32 25 7 28 11 an 5 20 5 20 u 16 5 or 6 l6 13 l 4 2 8 5 20 2 8 6 24 7 or more 6 5 - - - - l 4 2 8 3 12 40 of the wives in the total sample were domestic workers. and approximately one-third listed their occupations as ”housewife". 0f the professional and semiprofessional wives. only the urban- recent migrants had a substantial number in this category - a total of 48 per cent. The rural-recent migrants had no one at all in this conbined category. while the urban-early migrants had but one. TABLE 9 gives more complete information about the level of occupa- tion of wives in the sample. The category labeled "other" included occu- pations such as secretaries. saleswomen. etc. Of the 19 per cent of the total sample in-this category. the greatest number - 40 per cent - were wives of urban-early migrants. Total Family Income. In contrast to TABLE 6. which shows level of informant's income. TABLE 10 shows the total weekly income of families in the sample. Here. it can be seen that 50 per cent of the informants had some supplemental income. Whereas only six per cent of the total sample received a weekly income of $130 to $149 and eight per cent of this total had a weekly income of $150 to $169. 19 per cent of the informants with supplemental income had weekly wages in these two ranges. Furthermore. over 15 per cent of the latter group had weekly wages above the range covered in TABLE 6. with eight per cent received $230 to $269. and seven per cent receiving $270 or more per week. The two urban groups had the greatest number of families whose only income was the informant's income. with 68 per cent of the urban-early migrants and 60 per cent of the urban-recent migrants in this category. The rural-recent migrants had the greatest number - 68 per cent - receiving additional income. While only eight per cent of the rural-recent 41 TABLE 9.--0ccupation of the wife of the migrant. classified by migrant types — 1 Migrant Types Non- Urban Urban Rural Rural Wife's Total Migrant Early Recent Early Recent Occupation No. % No. i No. % No. % No. % No. Total 125 100 25 100 25 100 25 100 25 100 25 100 Nurses (Prac- tical and Reg.) 18 6 l 4 l 4 4 16 2 8 - Teachers 11 9 3 12 - - 7 28 1 4 - Domestic workers 39 31 6 24 3 12 4 16 12 48 14 56 Housewives 42 34 9 36 ll 44 9 36 6 24 7 28 Others 2 5 20 6 24 10 40 l 4 4 l6 4 l6 TABLE lO.--Total weekly family income of migrants classified by migrant type —- ._— Migrant upes Weekly Non- Urban Urban Rural Rural Family Total Migrant Early Recent Early Recent Income No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. Total 125 100 25 100 25 100 25 100 25 100 25 100 Same as Informant‘ s 62 50 10 40 l? 68 15 60 12 48 8 32 Different from Informant's: $130-16? 24 19 5 20 3 12 4 16 5 20 7 28 $170-209 20 17 5 20 2 8 4 l6 3 12 6 24 $230-269 10 8 2 8 l 4 l 4 3 12 3 12 $270 or over 9 7 3 12 2 8 1 4 2 8 l 4 42 migrants received a weekly income of between $130 and $169. 28 per cent had a 3235; family income in that range. In addition. 36 per cent of the rural-recent migrants had a total weekly income of between $170 and $269. and four per cent had a total family income of $270 or more. while only four per cent of the informants in the group had an income above $150 per week. The nonmigrants show a similar pattern of difference between infor- mant's and family income. No nonmigrant earned over $169 per week. yet the 32331 family income for the nonmigrant group rose above that figure in 40 pep cent of these families. The total family income for the other migrant types was also quite different. but not as markedly so as in the rural-recent and nonmigrant groups (see TABLE 10). Knowledge of Lansing Prior Knowledge of Lansing. Very few of the migrants in this sample had much familiarity with Lansing before making their homes there. Of the total sample. 67 per cent knew nothing about Lansing. and 14 per cent knew very little about the city. Only six per cent of the migrants indicated that they knew Lansing "very well“. The urban migrants were more familiar with Lansing than were the rural migrants; 12 per cent of the urban-recent group and eight per cent of the urban-early migrants said they knew Lansing "very well". while only four per cent of the rural-early group and none of the rural-recent migrants judged their prior knowledge of the city in this way. In fact. over three-fourths of both rural groups had no knowledge whatsoever of Lansing before settling there (see TABLE 11). “3 TABLE ll.--Extent of migrant's previous knowledge of Lansing. classified by migrant types L—w Migrant mes Total Urban Urban Rural Rural Familiarity Migrants Early Recent Early Recent with Lansing No. % No. g No. i No. % No. Total 100 100 25 100 25 100 25 100 25 100 Very well 6 6 2 8 3 12 l 4 - - Somewhat 13 13 2 8 3+ 16 4 l6 3 12 Hardly knew it 14 11+ 6 21+ 7 28 l 1+ — - Knew nothing about it 67 67 15 6O 11 b4 19 76 22 88 44 E:23i23§_2;i2§_§g_ggg§ing. As one might infer from the preceding section. over half of the migrant sample had not been to Lansing before moving there. In addition. 12 per cent had made only one visit to the city and 11 per cent had made two or three trips. As TABLE 12 shows. the rural migrants were again the least familiar with lensing; over 75 per cent of both rural groups had not visited Lansing before settling there. Contrary to their prior knowledge of the city. however. the urban-early migrants had the greatest percentage. making 10 or more trips to Lansing. even though 56 per cent had made no previous trips. as opposed to 32 per cent of the urban-recent migrants who had made no previous trips. Except for minor variations. the two tables show fairly consistent data regarding prior knowledge of lensing and number of previous trips to the city. ,1 -.‘\\ I Home Ownezship. Home ownership was common to almost three-fourths of the total sample. as shown in TABLE 13. The greatest number of home \ owners were the urban-early and rural-early migrants. with 88 per cent each. Only the rural-recent migrants fell noticeably below the average for the sample. as just an per cent of this group were buying or owned their own homes. while 56 per cent were renting. Level of Integration: Formal and Informal Interaction Best Friends. When asked to name their best friends. 35 per cent of the total sample named all Negroes. both kin and non-kin. and #9 per cent named all Negroes. only non-kin. Ten per cent named as their best friends both Negroes and whites. but mostly whites. while just 2 per cent named only white persons as best friends. 45 TABLE 12.--Number of migrant's previous trips to Lansing. classified by migrant types Migrant Types Total Urban Urban Rural Rural Number of Frevious Migrants Early Recent Early Recent Trips to Lansing No. % No. % No. % No. % No. Total 100 100 25 100 25 100 25 100 25 100 No previous trip 61 61 14 56 8 32 19 76 20 80 1 trip 12 12 3 12 3 12 3 12 3 12 2 or 3 trips 11 ll 1 4 7 28 l 4 2 8 h to 9 trips 5 5 1 h h 16 - - - - 10 or more trips 11 ll 6 24 3 12 2 8 - — TABLE 13.--Home ownership of migrants classified by migrant types 4 J ______M.i.s23n.ic_m.e.§______ Non- Urban Urban Rural Rural Home Total Migrants Early Recent Early Recent Ownership No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. Total 125 100 25 100 25 100 25 100 25 100 25 100 Owned or buying 92 74 18 72 22 88 19 76 22 88 ll “4 Renting 33 26 7 28 3 12 6 2h 3 12 14 56 #6 The nonmigrants and the urban-early migrants were the only groups to name only whites as their best friends, and the two urban groups and the rural-early migrants were the only groups indicating that most of their best friends were white. Unlike the other groups in the sample. the rural-recent migrants named only Negroes as best friends (TABLE 14). Leisure-time friends. In order to determine whether leisure-time friends were identical to best friends. the informants were asked to indicate who their leisure-time friends were. As might be expected. more non-kin Negroes were named as leisure-time friends, but also. seven per cent more of the sample said that their best friends were both Negroes and whites. mostly whites. In this category. only the nonmigrants indicated only white leisure- time friends. although all five groups named friends both Negro and white, but mostly white. There were no outstanding differences between best friends and leisure-time friends with respect to color. although all groups had slightly more non-kin Negro leisure-time friends than best friends. as shown in TABLE 14. Relationships with White Persons 0: Eggilies. TABLE 15 gives three related categories of information: number of white families known well. number and frequency of visits with white persons or families, and number and frequency of social visits in white homes. About one-third of the sample said they knew several white families well, with 27 per cent in the 5 to 19 range. and 5 per cent in the 20 or more category. However. over half the sample knew very few white families well: 29 per cent said they knew no white families well, and 32 per cent said they knew one or two white families well. Whereas. 7 per cent knew three or four white families well. .— TABLE lh.--Best friend and leisure-time friends of migrants. classified “7 by color and migrant type Best friends & leisure-time To friends g1 color No. est iends Total 125 All Negroes. both kin & non-kin #3 All Negroes. only non-kin 62 Mixed Negroes & whites. mostly Negroes Mixed Negroes & whites. mostly whites 12 A11 whites 3 Leisure-time Eriends Total 125 All Negroes. both kin & non-kin 32 All Negroes. only non-kin 66 Mixed Negroes & whites. mostly Negroes Mixed Negroes & whites. mostly whites 21 All whites l tal % 100 35 #9 10 100 25 53 17 Non- Migrants Urban Early r§L3 % No. 25 100 12 #8 8 32 3 12 25 100. 25 7 1h 25 13 Mi ant es Urban Recent % N91, % 100 25 100 28 4 16 56 15 60 12 5 20 100 25 100 52 15 60 2h 7 28 Rural Early No.3 25 100 9 36 11 an 25 100 15 60 h 16 Rural Recent O. 25 ll 14 25 12 12 100 m. 56 100 as TABLE 15.-Relationship with white persons or families reported by migrants, classified by migrant type Relationships to Non- white persons Total Number of white families known 32;; Total 125 100 25 100 None 36 29 20 l or 2 39 32 28 3 or 4 9 7 5 t0 19 34 27 20 or more 7 5 32 12 WCONflkn 00 Number and fire; guengy of visits with whites Total 125 100 25 100 None 67 5“ 9 36 1 person. less than once per week 9 7 4 16 1 person, more than once per week 10 8 2 8 More than 1 per- sone less than once per week 28 22 6 24 More than 1 per- son. more than once per week 11 9 4 16 Ngmbg; ggd fre- guency of social visits in white asses Total 125 100 25 100 None 52 42 Yes. infrequent 21 16 7 Yes. frequent 52 42 14 \J’t N F’ 0‘ (I) 0\ Urban Migrants Early or families N2. % No. Ajé No. MONO)? 25 l4 25 12 100 16 32 12 36 100 56 12 20 12 w_-— e ant es Urban Rural Rural Recent Early Recent No; 1217 i la- 25 100 25 100 25 100 6 24 4 16 17 62 9 36 8 32 7 28 3 12 2 8 - - 6 24 10 40 l 4 l 4 1 4 - - 25 100 25 100 25 100 9 36 13 52 22 88 - .. 2 8 .. - 1 4 4 16 3 12 11 44 6 24 - - 4 16 - - - - 25 100 25 100 25 100 8 32 9 36 22 88 8 32 l 4 l 4 9 36 15 6O 2 8 49 The rural-recent migrants were the least familiar with white families: 68 per cent knew no white families well. and only 28 per cent knew one or two white families well. In contrast. 40 per cent of the rural-early migrants knew 5 to 19 white families well and 16 per cent did not know any white family at all. Likewise. 36 per cent of the urban- early group indicated 5 to 19 white families as compared with 16 per cent who knew no white family; 36 per cent of the urban-recent group knew one to three white families well. but 24 per cent of this group knew 5 to 19 families well. As might be expected. the nonmigrants knew slightly more white families, followed by the urban-early migrants with 12 and 8 per cent respectively. On the other hand. 20 per cent of the nonmigrants knew no white families. 32 per cent 5 to 19 and 28 per cent knew only one to two white families. Visits to White Homes. Again. the majority of informants in the sample did not visit with white persons: 54 per cent of the informants did not visit white persons. and of those who did visit white persons. the greatest number - 22 per cent - visited with more than one white person. but the visits were less often than once per week. Only 9 per cent visited more than one white person. and more often than once per week. In a slight departure from the number of whites known well. the urban-recent. rather than the rural-early. visited white persons the most, but these visits were less often than once per week. Similarly. while only four per cent of the urban-recent migrants knew 20 or more white persons well. 16 per cent visited more than one person more than once per week. 50 The rural-recent migrants remained the least familiar with white persons and families. as 88 per cent made no social visits with white persons or to white homes. ‘While #2 per cent of the total sample made frequent visits to white homes, the nonmigrants and the rural-early migrants. with 56 and 60 per cent. respectively. made the majority of such visits followed by the urban-early and urban-recent. with #8 per cent and 36 per cent. respectively. More complete information about the informants' relationships with whites can be found in TABLE 15. Egglogiga; Segxgggtion. While it appears from the data in TABLE 16 that the majority of Negroes in the sample have Negro neighbors. it would appear that extreme segregation is not characteristic of the majority of neighborhoods in which the informants reside. That is. while 70 per cent of the sample said that Negroes were their neighbors. 66 per cent also indicated that the nearest white home was only one-half block away. The urban-recent migrants had the greatest number - 32 per cent - of white next-door neighbors. while the nonmigrants had the largest percentage - 20 per cent - of informants with only white neighbors. The two rural groups had slightly higher numbers of all-Negro neighbors than did the remainder of the sample. but the number living only one-half block away from a white household was approximately the same as the total sample. However. the rural-recent migrants were slightly higher than the rural-early migrants - 84 per cent - as compared.with 76 per cent. respectively. The urban-early and rural-early migrants lived likewise. slightly more urban-early and rural-early migrants - 20 per cent each - lived farther away from white neighbors. 51 TABLE 16.-Ecologica1 distribution of migrants by nearest white neighbors and distance from white neighbors. by migrant types Migrant Types Residence in re- Non- Urban Urban Rural Rural lation to color of Total Migrant Early Recent Early Recent . nearest neighbors No. .6 No. 6 No. 1 No. % No. 6 ~ No. % _ Nearest neighborg Total 125 100 25 100 25 100 25 100 25 100 25 100 Negroes 87 7o 16 6a 18 72 13 52 19 76 21 88 Whites 16 12 5 20 h 16 a 16 2 8 l # Both 22 18 4 16 3 12 8 32 u 16 3 12 Distance from nearest white neighbors Total 125 100 25 100 25 100 25 100 25 100 25 100 Next door 22 18 4 l6 3 12 8 32 4 16 3 12 % block away 83 66 18' 72 17 68 14 56 16 64 18 72 3-4 blocks away 20 16 3 12 5 20 3 12 5 20 4 16 52 9n:thgzjg;Lj3ggggflgggggglgflhi§g_§gr§gg§. The majority of the informants in the sample had some on-the-job contact with white persons. and accord- ing to 36 per cent of the sample, these relationships were good. On the other hand. relations were considered "poor" or "fair" by lb per cent of the sample. Only two per cent of the sample did not work with white people. The nonmigrants overwhelmingly judged their contacts with white people as "good", with 68 per cent of this group making this judgment. By contrast, only 8 per cent of both urban-early and rural-early migrants said relations with white persons on the job were "poor". The rural- recent migrants were like the urban-early migrants in having similar working relations with white persons which went from one extreme to the other. That is, relationships were either "poor" or "good". TWenty per cent of the rural-recent migrants indicated "poor" relations as compared with only four per cent indicating "good" relations (see TABLE 17). Off-the-job Contacts with White Persons. Three-fourths of the sample had some contact outside of their jobs with white persons. and “0 per cent of the group had "frequent" contact with whites. The nonmigrants and the urban-recent migrants had the most frequent off-the-job contact with white persons. yet nonmigrants also had the greatest number whose contacts outside of their jobs were with other Negroes. The urban-early and the rural-early migrants had identical rates of frequent contact with white persons outside their jobs - 36 per cent each. Over half of both rural groups had "some" contacts with whites. yet the rural-early migrants had the fewest number whose contact was mostly with other Negroes - 4 per cent. TABLE 17 describes both on-the-job and off-the-job contacts with whites in greater detail. 53 TABLE 17.--Leve1 and nature of on-the-job and off-the-job contacts of migrants with white persons. classified by migrant types Level and nature of on-the-job & off-the-job con- tacts with white Total persons No. % On-the-job contacts with whit ersons Totzl 125 100 Does not work with white persons 3 2 Mestly with Negroes 11 9 Mostly with both Negroes & whites #9 39 Mostly with white persons. relation poor 9 7 Mostly with white persons, relation fair 9 7 Mostly with white persons. relation good #4 36 Q:f-the~§ob contacts with white pgrsons kngwn at work Total 125 100 Does not work with white persons 3 2 Mostly with Negroes 29 23 Some contact with white persons #3 35 Frequent contact with white persons ' 50 40 Non- Migrant No. 17 25 1h % 100 16 16 68 36 Migrant Types Urban Urban * Eel Early Recent Early No. % No. % No. % 25 100 25 100 25 lo 25 100 25 100 25 10 O O 0 6 Rural Recent No. % 25 100 13 52 25 100 lb 56 54 TABLE 18 presents four different kinds of data relating to the infor- mant's participation in religious activities: (1) church membership and church composition; (2) frequency of attendance and type of membership; (3) church offices held; and (4) wives' and children's membership in church-related groups. Chggch Nembgzship. Over half the sample - 58 per cent - reported member- ship in churches whOSe congregations were Negroes. while only 11 per cent were members of churches with both Negro and white persons as mem- bers; 31 per cent of the sample did not belong to a church. The group having the greatest number of members in both Negro and white congregations was the urban-recent migrants group with 32 per cent indicating such membership followed by the urban-early migrants with 16 per cent. The nonmigrants and the rural-early migrants were the least represented in mixed congregation churches. Both the rural groups had 68 per cent of their informants belonging to all-Negro churches, but none of the rural-recent migrants belonged to a mixed congregation church. The nonmigrants had the fewest number of mixed church members - only four per cent (TABLE 18). Church Attendance and Membership. TABLE 18 reveals a slight discrepancy in the reporting of information by the informants in the sample. Whereas 31 per cent of the total sample reported no church membership in the first section of the table. only 28 per cent said that they did not belong and never attended in the second portion of the table. Of those who did attend church. 39 per cent attended two or three times each month, but the congregation of the church was mostly Negro. while 20 per cent attended once per week at all-Negro churches. In 55 TABLE l8.-—Membership and attendance in church and related activities by migrants classified by migrant types Eigrant Tvpes Non- Urban Urban Rural Rural Total Migrant Early Recent Early Recent No. % No. N2, % N2: % N9. jg Na: Church membership W Total 125 100 25 100 25 100 25 100 25 100 25 100 Does not belong 38 31 8 32 9 36 7 28 6 24 8 32 Yes. members Negroes 72 58 16 64 12 48 10 4O 17 68 17 68 Yes, members Negroes & whites 15 ll 1 4 4 16 8 32 2 8 - - Ezggugngx of atten- dange Q type of membership Total 125 100 25 100 25 100 25 100 25 100 25 100 Does not belong. never attends 35 28 8 32 7 28 6 24 6 24 8 32 Once per week. members Negro 25 20 5 20 4 l6 2 8 7 28 7 28 Two or three times per month. members Negro 49 39 ll 44 9 36 9 36 10 40 10 40 Once per week. members Negroes & whites ll 9 l 4 4 l6 5 20 l 4 - - Two or three times per month, mem- bers Negroes & whites 5 4 - - l 4 3 12 l 4 - - Qhfllsh 9:219; held by infogmggt mgmbezs Total 90 100 l? 100 18 100 19 100 19 100 17 100 Office held 33 37 6 36 7 38 lo 53 6 32 4 24 No office held 57 63 ll 64 ll 62 9 4? 13 68 13 76 56 TABLE 18-Continued Mi rant es Non- Urban Urban Rural Rural Total Migrant Early Recent Early Recent _Ng.%No.%ug.%M.%N_oi%fl.$ Membership in church- ;glgtgg g; 22 1 o s b W Total 91 100 15 100 18 100 19 100 19 100 20 100 Yes, member 24 29 3 20 5 29 2 15 6 35 8 40 Yes, officer 11 12 2 l3 2 11 4 20 2 10 l 5 No 56 59 10 67 ll 60 13 65 ll 55 ll 55 57 those churches whose congregations were both Negro and white, nine per cent of the sample attended once per week. while just four per cent attended two or three times a month. None of the rural-recent migrants attended a church whose congrega- tion was both Negro and white, and 32 per cent of this group did.not attend.church at all. The urban-recent migrants had the most members in mixed congregation churches, with 20 per cent attending once per week and 12 per cent attending two or three times a.month. Likewise, 32 per cent of the nonmigrants did not belong to church, as compared with 28 per cent of urban-early migrants, whereas 24 per cent of the urban-recent and rural-early migrants were nonchurch members (TABLE 18). ghgrch Offices Held. Sixty-three per cent of the sample did not hold a church office. with the rural-recent migrants having the greatest number in this category - 76 per cent. Likewise. 68 per cent of the rural-early migrants did not hold office, followed by the nonmigrants and the urban- early migrants with 64 and 62 per cent, respectively. The urban-recent migrants had the greatest number of church office-holders - 53 Per cent. The next highest office-holders were the urban-early group. followed closely by the nonmigrants with 38 and 36 per cent, respectively. Whereas. 32 per cent of the rural-early migrants did hold office and only 24 per cent of the rural-recent migrants were office-holders (TABLE 18). Pattigipgtion in Church-[elated grogpg bx Wives and ghilgggn. The most significant aspect of the last section of TABLE 18 is the larger percen- tage of wives and children of informants who did not participate in any church-related groups. Over half of the wives and children did not par- ticipate in these activities, with the nonmigrants having the highest 58 highest percentage of nonparticipants - 67 per cent. or the 41 per cent who did participate in church activities. 29 per cent were members and only 12 per cent were officers in their groups. Although the rural-recent migrants had one of the highest percentages of nonmembers, the ines and children of these migrants had the highest percentage of membership in church activities — 40 per cent. Of these 40 per cent, however. only five per cent were officers of groups. By contrast, the lowest percentage of membership by wives and children - 15 per cent - were in the urban-recent group, yet of these 15 per cent, 20 per cent were office-holders. They were followed by the nonmigrants with 13 per cent holding offices. The urban-early migrants and the rural—early migrants were aLmost identical in having 11 per cent and 10 per cent office-holders, respectively (see TABLE 18). The last section of this chapter is concerned with participation in labor unions and interaction within the unions with white persons, as follows: (1) level of participation, (2) frequency of attendance at union meetings. and (3) per cent of informants holding union offices. Level of Lgbor Union ngtigipgtion. The majority of the sample were either inactive or nonunion members: 10 per cent were only dues-paying members and 41 per cent did not belong to a union. One-fourth of the more active union members interacted mostly with white persons. As shown in TABLE 19. the urban-recent migrants had the highest percentage of nonunion members - 52 per cent. Rural-recent migrants had the greatest number of union members interacting mostly with Negroes - 16 per cent - but none of this group interacted mostly with white persons. The non- migrants had the highest number who interacted mostly with white persons - 59 TABLE l9.--Membership and interaction in labor union by migrant classi- fied by migrant type Union membership & interaction with white people Union membership & intezaction Total Does not belong Belongs, inter- acts mostly with Negroes Belongs, inter- acts mostly with both Negroes & whites ' N0. 52 12 32 Belongs . inter- acts mostly with whites Belongs. only pays dues 12 Belongs, N.A. 4 13 Fre non of ion attendépce and inperactiop Total Does not belong 52 Belongs and attends seldom. interacts mostly with Negroes 7 Belongs & attends some, interacts mostly with Negroes Belongs & attends seldom, interacts mostly with both Negroes & whites 11 33 Total Migrant 125 100 25 125 100 Urban Early % No. % No. % Non- 100 100 32 25 41 12 10 2 8 3 12 36 11 6‘ 28 3 12 10 4 l6 2 8 25 100 100 12 25 41 9 2 8 2 8 26 l 4 9 Urban Recent N_o. j; 25 100 13 52 3 12 100 52 25 13 3 12 t 08 Rural Early m». 25 25 14 100 28 56 100 28 56 Rural Recent No. i 25 100 12 48 25 100 12 60 TABLE l9--Continugg ant s Union membership & Non— Urban Urban Rural Rural interaction with Total Migrant Early Recent Early Recent white people 7N9. % N9. % N2, % No. %, N9. % No Belongs & attends some. interacts mostly with whites 13 ll 7 28 2 8 2 8 2 8 - - Union office held py informant & inperaption Total 125 100 25 100 25 100 25 100 25 100 25 100 Does not belong 52 41 12 44 8 32 13 52 7 28 12 52 Belongs, no office held Belongs. office held & interacts mostly with Negroes 3 2 2 8 1 4 - - - Belongs , office held & interacts mostly with both Negroes & whites 5 4 - - 2 8 - 2 8 1 4 Belongs. office held & interacts mostly with whites 5 4 3 12 2 8 ! g 61 28 per cent - and also the lowest numbers interacting mostly with other Negroes and with mixed Negro-white groups - eight and four per cent, respectively. Only the rural-early migrants had no union members who interacted only with other Negroes. Freguengy of Labor Union Attendance. Only 13 per cent of the active union members attended meetings infrequently: the remainder attended meetings to "some" degree. An approximately equal number of those who attended only seldom interacted with other Negroes and with mixed Negro and white members. Those who attended some meetings interacted in almost equal numbers with all-Negro or allewhite groups. while the members who attended some meetings and interacted mostly with both Negroes and whites had the highest single percentage - 26 per cent. As shown in TABLE 19. the rural-recent migrants show the lpppp interaction with white persons, a consistent trend in the latter part of this section. None of the ruralsrecent informants who attended some union meetings interacted mostly with any white persons, and only four per cent of those seldom in attendance at union meetings interacted mostly with a mixed group of members. In contrast, the rural-early migrant union members, whether they attended some or few meetings, had no interaction with other Negroes. Of those who attended some union meetings. the nonmigrants had the highest percentage who interacted mostly with white persons - 28 per cent (TABLE l9).' Labop Union Offices Held. Only 10 per cent of the total sample held an office in the union in which they had a membership. and four per cent interacted mostly with white persons, while an equal number interacted 62 with both Negroes and whites. The officers who interacted mostly with either Negroes or whites were from the nonmigrants and the urban—early groups; none of the other groups had officers whose relationships were primarily with either Negroes or whites. In fact, there were no officers among the urban-recent migrants, whereas there were three officers in the two rural migrant groups. TABLE 19 gives a detailed account of union participation and interaction according to the categories discussed. SUMMARY Characteristics of the Total Sample A large percentage of the total sample was born in a southern state. Eighty-one of the 100 migrants listed a state in the south as their place of birth. The majority of these migrants were born in Mississippi. Arkansas, Alabama. Tennessee, and Texas. with the largest number being 22. born in Mississippi. These southern migrants came primarily from the East South Central Region. with #4 born in this area. Twenty-four migrants were born in the west South Central states. and only 13 came from the South Atlantic region. The 19 migrants who came from regions outside the south came from a widely dispersed area. with six from Michigan, two from Illinois and the remainder from other states. more- over, the migrants in the sample resided predominantly in rural areas when they were small children and adolescents. When between the ages of 13 and 18, 53 per cent lived in a city. The overall migratory character of the sample is suggested by the summary of three age periods. Slightly more than one-fourth of the informants reported residing in two or more residence types, as is shown in TABLE 2. Only one-fifth (19 per cent) had resided only on a farm during the three age periods. 63 Most of the informants in this sample were between the ages of 30 and 4%, with 42 per cent of the sample in this age group. While the under 30 and the #5- to 59+year-old groups each contained about one-fourth of the sample. only seven per cent fell into the 60 years of age and over category. With respect to level of schooling, only about one-fourth of the total sample (24 per cent) had a formal education of eight grades or less. The largest percentage had some high school education or were high school graduates; 18 per cent of the sample had gone to college or were college graduates. while 12 per cent had done graduate work. The informants were classified by occupational status as follows: skilled. semiskilled. and unskilled laborer. with 16, 3% and 25 per cent, respectively. in each of these groups. Only lb per cent of the total sample were professional or self-employed men. and 11 per cent were not employed at the time of the interview. In regard to level of income. the majority of the informants in the sample had weekly incomes ranging between $70 and $129, with 25 per cent in the $90 to $109 range. 19 per cent receiving $70 to $89, and 18 per cent in the $110 to $129 category. Few informants were found at the two extremes of the income range: only five per cent of the sample had weekly incomes in the two highest categories, and just six per cent had a weekly income in the lowest group. For occupational mobility, only 18 per cent f the total sample was judged to have experienced downward mobility in the past 15 years; of the remainder, 47 per cent indicated upward occu- pational mobility and 35 per cent had experienced either upward or down- ward mobility. 6h The family composition of the informants indicates small families were more prevalent than were large families among the sample. There were no children in 23 per cent of all families and one to two children in 34 per cent of the families. Only five per cent of the total sample had seven children or more. In terms of ines' occupations. very few of the wives of informants in the sample held jobs of a professional or semiprofessional nature. Eight wives were nurses. 11 were teachers. and one was a social worker. About one-third of the wives in the total sample were domestic workers. and approximately one-third listed their wives' occupations as housewives. When total family income is considered. it can be seen that 50 per cent of the informants had some supplemental income. whereas only six per cent of the total sample received a weekly income of $130 to $149 and eight per cent of this total had a weekly wage above the range covered in TABLE 6. with eight per cent receiving $230 to $269 and seven per cent receiving $270 or more per week. With respect to prior knowledge of lensing. very few of the migrants in this sample had much familiarity with Lansing before making their homes there. 0f the total sample, 67 per cent knew nothing about Lansing. and lb per cent knew very little about the city. Only six per cent of. the migrants indicated that they knew Lansing "very well". As for pre- vious trips to Lansing, one might infer from the preceding section over half of the migrant sample had not been to Lansing before moving there. In addition. 12 per cent had made only one visit to the city. and ll ' *" per cent had made two or three trips. ‘With respect to the level of formal and informal integration. taking the latter first (informal integration). when asked to name their best friends. 35 per cent of the total sample named all Negroes. both kin and 65 non-kin. and 49 per cent named all Negroes, only non-kin. Ten per cent named as their best friends both Negroes and whites. but most whites. while just two per cent named only white persons as best friends. Mbreover. it was decided to ascertain whether best friends were identical to leisure-time friends. In order to determine this. the informants were asked to indicate who their leisure-time friends were. As might be expected. more non—kin Negroes were named as leisure-time friends. but also. seven per cent more of the sample said that their best friends were both Negroes and whites, mostly whites. In regard to relationship with white persons or families. about one-third of the sample said they knew several white families well. with 27 per cent knowing 5 to 19 and five per cent knowing 20 or more white families. However. over half of the sample knew very few white families well: 29 per cent said they knew no white families well. and 32 per cent said they knew only one or two white families well. With respect to visits to white homes. again. the majority of the informants in the sample did not visit with white persons. Of those who did visit white persons. the greatest number - 22 per cent - visited with more than one white person. but the visits were less often than once per week. It was also decided to detenuine the nature of the residential distribution of the informants. It was found that a majority of Negroes in the sample have Negro neighbors: it would appear that extreme segregation is not characteristic of the majority of neighborhoods in which the informants reside. That is. while 70 per cent of the sample said that Negroes were their nearest neighbors. 66 per cent also indicated that the nearest white home was only one-half block away. 66 With regard to on-the-job contacts with white persons. the majority of the informants in the sample had some on-the-job contact with white persons. and according to 36 per cent of the sample. these relationships were good. Relations were considered "poor" or "fair" by 14 per cent of the sample. Only two per cent of the sample did not work with white people. On the other hand. only three-fourths of the sample had some contact outside of their jobs with white persons. and 40 per cent of the group had "frequent" contact with whites. With regard to formal integration. church membership and church composition. frequency of attendance and type of membership. church offices held. and wives' and children's membership in church- related groups were considered. Over half the sample reported member- ship in churches whose congregations were Negro. while only 11 per cent were members of churches with both Negroes and white persons as members. Thirty-one per cent of the sample did not belong to a church. is for church attendance and membership. 31 per cent of the total sample reported no church membership. Only 28 per cent said that they did not belong and never attended church. Of those who did attend church. 39 per cent attended two or three times each month, but the congregation of the church was mostly Negro. while 20 per cent attended once per week at all-Negro churches. In those churches whOSe congregations were both Negro and white. nine per cent of the sample attended once per week. while just three per cent attended two or three times a month. In regard to church offices held, 63 per cent of the sample did not hold a church office. as compared with 37 per cent who did. Finally. participation in church- related groups by wives and children revealed that over half of the wives and children did not participate in these activities. Of the 41 per 67 cent who did participate in church activities. 29 per cent were members and only 12 per cent were officers in their group. The final portion of formal integration is concerned with partici- pation in labor unions and interaction within the unions with white persons. Level of participation. frequency of attendance at union meetings and per cent of informants holding union offices were considered. Level of labor union participation indicates that the majority of the sample were either inactive or nonunion members: 10 per cent were only dues-paying members and #1 per cent did not belong to a union. One-fourth of the more active union members interacted mostly with white persons. In regard to frequency of labor union attendance. only 13 per cent of the active union members attended meetings infrequently: the remainder attended meetings to "some" degree. Approximately equal numbers of those who attended only seldom interacted with other Negroes and with both Negro and white members. Those who attended some meetings interacted in almost equal numbers with all-Negro or all—white groups, while the members who attended some meetings and interacted mostly with both Negroes and whites had the highest single percentage - 26 per cent. Finally. with respect to labor union offices held. only 10 per cent of the total sample held an office in the union in which they had a member- ship. and four per cent interacted mostly with white persons. while an equal number interacted with both Negroes and whites. Chagacteristigs of the Five Subsggples Of the subgroups of migrants. the urban-recent type differs markedly from the other types with respect to state of origin. Less than half this group was born in the south. Other subgroups of migrants differed 68 only slightly with respect to state of birth. The two urban migrant types were similar in the residence history and had much more exposure to city life than the two rural migrant groups. Of the two rural types. the rural-recent migrants had the most rural background. with 40 per cent having lived only on a farm during the ages 1 to 6. 7 to 12 and 13 to 18 years. P on d amil Characte isti A description of (1) age. (2) education. (3) occupation. (a) income. (5) occupational mobility. etc.. was considered in this section. With respect to age. the nonmigrants were distinctively the youngest age group. with 56 per cent in this category. The urban-early migrants were the only group having the largest percentage of informants in the older age categories: 56 per cent of this group were 45 to 59 years of age. and 16 per cent were 60 years old and over (see TABLE 3). Level of Education The urban-early and rural-recent migrants had the least amount of education. with an and #0 per cent. respectively. completing only eight grades or less. The urban-recent group had the most formal education: 32 per cent had attended college or were college graduates. and no per cent had done graduate work (see TABLE a). level of Occupation The urban-recent migrants were unique from the rest of the sample in two respects: 40 per cent of this group was classified as professional and self-employed. yet 16 per cent was unemployed. Approximately three- fourths of both the rural groups were semiskilled and unskilled laborers. while over half (26 per cent} of both the nonmigrants and urban-early 69 groups were so classified. With the exception of the urban-recent migrants already described. only the nonmigrants had a sizeable propor- tion in the professional self-employed and skilled laborer categories (see TABLE 5). Level of Income Here again. the urban-recent migrants differed noticeably from the rest of the sample. Sixteen per cent of the urban-recent migrants had a weekly income of $190 and over. twice the number of urban-early migrants. the only other informants in this salary range. In addition. the urban- recent migrants had more informants than any other group in each of the next three salary ranges - $170-l89. $150-lé9, and $130-lh9. No urban- recent migrant earned less than $70 per week. None of the rural migrants nor the nonmigrants had a weekly income in the $170-189 range. The urban- early migrants had more informants in the three highest salary ranges than did the nonmigrants or the two rural groups. but interestingly enough. there were no urban-early migrants in the $130-1b9 category. Occupational Mobility The rural—recent migrants had the greatest number - 28 per cent - who were downwardly mobile. followed by the urban-early migrants with 20 per cent. Urban:recent migrants experienced the greatest upward mobility, with 72 per cent in this category. while the rural-early mi- grants. with 60 per cent. had the greatest number by far who had no change in their occupational mobility. Here again. the urban-recent migrants had the most outstanding characteristics in this category (see TABLE 7). 70 Family Composition The two rural classes of migrants had the largest families. with eight per cent of the rural-early group and 12 per cent of the rural- recent migrants having seven or more children. The rural-recent migrants also had the greatest number of families with five to six children - 2“ per cent. However. the urban-recent migrants had the next largest number in this category. with 20 per cent. but they also had the greatest number of families with no children - 28 per cent.(see TABLE 8). Wife's Occupation Of the professional and semiprofessional wives. only the urban- recent migrants had a substantial number in this category. a total of #8 per cent. The rural-recent migrants had no one at all in this com- bined category. while the urban—early migrants had but one. The category labeled "other" included occupations such as secretaries. saleswomen. etc. Of the 19 per cent of the total sample in this category. the greatest number - 40 per cent - were wives of urban-early migrants {See TABLE 9 ). Total Family Income The two urban groups had the greatest number of families whose only income was the informant's income, with 68 per cent of the urban-early migrants and 60 per cent of the urban-recent migrants in this category. The rural-recent migrants had the greatest number - 68 per cent - receiving additional income. While only eight per cent of the rural-recent migrants receiVed a weekly income between $130 and $169. 28 per cent had a total family income in that range. In addition. 36 per cent of the rural-recent migrants had a total weekly income between $170 and $269. and four per 71 centof the informants in this group had an income above $150 per week. The nonmigrants show a similar pattern of difference between the infor- mant's and family income. No nonmigrant earned over $169 per week. yet the family income for the nonmigrant group rose above that figure in 40 per cent of these families. The total family income for the other migrant types was also quite different. but not as markedly so as in the rural-recent and nonmigrant group (see TABLE 10). Prior Knowledge of Lansing The urban migrants were more familiar with Lansing than were the rural migrants: 12 per cent of the urban-recent group and eight per cent of the urban-early migrants said they knew Lansing "Very well". while only four per cent of the rural-early group and none of the rural- recent migrants judged their prior knowledge of the city in this way. In fact. over three-fourths of both rural groups had no knowledge what- ever of Lansing before settling there (see TABLE 11). Previous Trips to Lansing The rural migrants were again the least familiar with Lansing: over 75 per cent of both rural groups had not visited Lansing before settling there. Contrary to their prior knowledge of the cit , however. the urban-early migrants had the greatest percentage, making 10 or more trips to Lansing, even though 56 per cent had made no previous trips as opposed to 32 per cent of the urban-recent migrants who had made no preVious trips (see TABLE 12). 72 Home Ownership The greatest number of home owners were the urban-early and rural- early migrants. with 88 per cent each.‘ Only the rural-recent migrants fell noticeably below the average for the sample. as just 44 per cent of this group were buying or owned their own homes. while 56 per cent were renting. Best Friends The nonmigrants and the urban-early migrants were the only groups to name only whites as their best friends. and the two urban groups and the rural-early migrants were the only groups indicating that most of their best friends were whites (see TABLE 14). Leisure-time Friends In this category. only the nonmigrants indicated only white leisure- time friends, although all five groups named friends in the Negro and white. mostly white. category. There were no outstanding differences between best and leisure-time friends with respect to color. although all groups had slightly more nonnkin Negro leisure-time friends than best friends (see TABLE lb). Relationships with White Persons or Families The rural-recent migrants were the least familiar with white families: 68 per cent knew no white families well. and only 28 per cent knew one or two white families well. In contrast. 40 per cent of the rural-early migrants knew five to 19 white families well. and 36 per cent of the urban—early group indicated the same number of white families (seer TABLE 15). 73 Visits to White Homes The urban-recent visited white persons the most. but the visits were less often than once per week. Similarly. while only four per cent of the urban-recent migrants knew 20 or more white persons well. 16 per cent visited more than one person more than once per week. The rural- recent migrants remained the least familiar with white persons and families. as 88 per cent made no social visits to white homes. While 42 per cent of the total sample made frequent visits to white homes. the nonmigrants and the rural-early migrants. with 56 and 60 per cent. respectively. made the majority of such visits (see TABLE 15). Ecological Segregation The urban-recent migrants had the greatest number of white next- door neighbors. while the nonmigrants had the largest percentage of informants with only white neighbors. The two rural groups had slightly higher numbers of all-Negro neighbors than did the remainder of the sample. but the number living only one-half block away from a white household was approximately the same as for the total sample. On-the-job Contact with White Persons The nonmigrants overwhelmingly judged their contacts with white people as "good". with 68 per cent of this group making this judgment. By contrast. only eight per cent of both the urban-early and the rural- early migrants said their relations with white persons on the job were "poor". The rural-recent migrants were the only group who did not work with whites (see TABLE 17). 7h Off-the-job Contact with White Persons The nonmigrants and the urban-recent migrants had the most frequent off-the-job contact with white persons. yet the nonmigrants also had the greatest number whose contacts outside of their jobs were with other Negroes. Over half of both rural groups had "some" contacts with whites. yet the rural migrants had the fewest number whose contact was mostly with other Negroes - four per cent (see TABLE 17). Church Membership The group having the greatest number of members in both Negro and white congregations was the urban-recent migrant group. Both the rural groups had 68 per cent of their informants belonging to all-Negro churches. but none of the rural-recent migrants belonged to a Negro and white congregation church. The nonmigrants had the fewest number of Negro and white members - only four per cent (see TABLE 18). Church Attendance and Membership None of the rural-recent migrants attended a church whose congre- gation was both Negro and white. and 32 per cent of this group did not attend church at all. The urban-recent migrants had the most members in Negro and white congregation churches. with 20 per cent attending once per week and 12 per cent attending two or three times a month (see TABLE 18). Church Offices Held Sixty-three per cent of the sample did not hold a church office. with the rural-recent migrants having the greatest number in this cate- gory - 76 per cent. The urban-recent migrants had the greatest number of church office-holders - 53 per cent. 75 Participation in Church-related Groups by Wives and Children Although the rural-recent migrants had one of the highest percen- tages of nonmembers. the wives and children of these migrants had the highest percentage of membership in church activities - 40 per cent. of these 40 per cent, however. only five per cent were officers of church groups. By contrast. the lowest percentage of membership by ‘wives and children - 15 per cent - were in the urban-recent group. Yet of these 15 per cent. 20 per cent were office-holders (see TABLE 19). Level of Labor Union Participation As shown in TABLE 19. the urbanurecent migrants had the highest percentage of nonunion members - 52 per cent. The nonmigrants had the highest number who interacted mostly with white persons - 28 per cent - and also the lowest numbers interacting mostly with other Negroes and with Negro and white groups: eight and four per cent. respectively. Only the rural-early migrants had no union members who interacted only with other Negroes. Frequency of Labor Union Attendance The rural-recent migrants Show the least interaction with white persons. a consistent trend in the latter part of this section. None of the rural-recent informants who attended some union meetings interacted mostly with white persons. and only four per cent of those seldom in attendance at union meetings interacted mostly with Negro and white groups of members. In contrast, the rural-early union members. whether they attended some or few meetings. had no interaction primarily with other Negroes. Of those who attended some union meetings. the nonmigrants 76 had the highest percentage who interacted mostly with white persons - 28 per cent (see TABLE 19). Labor Union Offices Held The officers who interacted mostly with either Negroes or whites were from the nonmigrant and urban-early groups only; none of the other groups had officers whose relationships were primarily with either Negroes or whites. In fact. there were no officers at all among the urban-recent migrants and a total of only three officers in the two rural groups of migrants (see TABLE 19). enema II: THE RELATIONSHIP EEHWEEN SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS AND IEVEL OF INTEGRATION IN THE EXTERNAL COMMUNITY This chapter is devoted to an analysis of the data bearing upon the hypotheses formulated in this study. The hypotheses stated explicitly in Chapter I concern the forces which are considered to be important determinants of the level of integration of Negroes in the external community. As suggested earlier. the relationships examined will be subjected to the Chi-square test in order to determine significance. Two levels are utilized here. namely. a .05 and a .10 level. primarily because the controls introduced often yield cells of small size. Further- more. in order to increase the number of cases in cells before testing. categories were combined. Thus. the details reported in many tables in Chapter II have been combined in the present chapter. We turn now to an analysis of data concerned with the hypotheses of this study. Mi n t d t ation The first major hypothesis assumes that the types of migrants will differ in the level of integration in the external community. length of time in Lansing in combination with rural or urban background was assumed to be important in determining the level of formal and informal integra- tion. Hence, the first subhypothesis tests the proposition that non- migrants will exhibit a higher level of integration than migrants in the external community. The data bearing upon this proposition. reported in TABLE 20. show that nonmigrants are higher than migrants with respect to formal integration. This difference is significant at the .05 level. 77 78 TABLE 20.-Level of formal and informal integration. by migrant type m .1.___222L____nf°ml Int Hon Migrant Total High LOW'Chiesqnare _ Total High Iow'Chi-square Type value value Total 121 100 61 h.88* 125 50 75 .21 Nonmigrants 21 15 6 25 11 lb Migrants ' 100 45 55 100 39 61 Total 95 #0 55 .02 100 39 61 .Oh Urban Migrants 50 21 29 5O 20 30 Rural Migrants #5 19 26 5O 19 31 Total #5 16 26 1.57 50 20 30 .00 Urban-Early Mig. 21 ll 10 25 10 15 Urban-Recent Mig. 2h 8 16 . 25 10 15 Total 50 21 29 .08 5o 18 32 .35 Rural-Early M13. 25 10 15 25 8 17 Rural-Recent Mig. 25 11 14 25 10 15 ‘Significant at .05 level: 1 d.f. 79 While nonmigrants possess a higher level of informal integration than migrants. the difference is not statistically significant. The second subhypothesis tests the proposition that urban migrants will show higher levels of integration than rural migrants in the external community (TABLE 20). but this proposition is not supported. Differences between leVels of integration for rural and urban migrants are so small that no statistically significant differences are revealed. The third subhypothesis tests the assumption that urban-early migrants will have higher levels of integration than urban-recent migrants. As indicated in TABLE 20. urban-early migrants do haVe higher levels of formal integration than urban-recent migrants. However. while the difference with respect to formal integration is large. the difference is not statistically significant. even at the .10 leVel. No difference whatsoever is apparent in the two migrant types in informal integration. The fourth subhypothesis tests the proposition that rural-early migrants will have higher levels of integration than rural-recent migrants in the external community. As shown in TABLE 20. differences in both formal and informal integration are so small that they are not signifi- cantly different. Contrary to the hypothesis. however. the differences that do exist indicate that rural-recent migrants possess higher levels of integration than rural-early migrants. In summary. only one of the subhypotheses as proposed can be accepted: nonmigrants differ from migrants in having a significantly higher level of formal integration. The same direction is also true of informal integration. Urban migrants do not differ from rural migrants in level of integration. While urban-early migrants have higher formal integration than urban-recent migrants. the difference is not significant. 80 I Further. while rural-recent migrants tend to have a higher level of integration than rural-early migrants. the differences are very small. Ea S i 2 tion te tion The second general hypothesis was designed to test the proposition that place of early socialization and orientation will be closely related to the levels of formal and informal integration in the external community. Consequently. we anticipate the level‘of formal and informal integration of all migrant types to vary inversely with the amount of socialization in the rural areas. Each infonmant was asked to indicate where he lived between the ages of l to 6. 7 to 12 and l3 to 18 years. The responses were grouped as follows: city; small town. village or open country; or on a farm. Each age category was then tested for each place of early socialization and orientation. and the results are summarized below. The place of socialization when informants were 1 to 6 years old is closely related to the level of formal integration as measured in this study. As shown in TABLE 21. those migrants having lived in small towns. villages and open country areas when l to 6 years of age possess the highest level of formal integration. This group is followed by those who resided on farms. and finally. those who resided in cities. These differences are highly significant. The level of informal integration. however. is not significantly related to place of residence when migrants were 1 to 6 years old. While differences were not significant. those residing on a farm at this age had the highest level of informal integration. and those residing in a city at this age had the lowest level of informal integration. 81 TABLE 21.--Level of formal and informal integration. by place of early socialization when 1 to 6 years old and by migrant type Place of socialization “Mnb6fla .123L222££L__.JflamLmknfluL. old and mi- Total High Low Chi-square Total High Low Chi-square grant type value Value Total 100 #2 58 7.61* 100 ho 60 1.42 City 36 8 28 36 12 2# Small town. vil- lage or open country 36 20 16 37 15 22 Farm 28 1a 14 27 13 14 Total socialized in city 36 8 28 .59 36 12 24 2.08 Rural Migrants 8 7 8 1 7 Urban Migrants 28 7 21 28 7 17 Total socialized in small town. village. or Open country 36 20 16 1.3“ 37 15 22 .12 Rural Migrants 21 10 ll 21 9 12 Urban Migrants 15 10 5 l6 6 10 Total socialized on farm 28 14 14 .19 27 13 1h .01 Rural Migrants 21 10 ll 21 10 11 Urban Migrants 7 U 3 6 3 3 ‘Significant at .05 level; 2 d.f. 82 When the level of both formal and informal integration of rural and urban migrants is controlled for place of residence when l to 6 years old. no significant relationships emerge. Urban migrants socialized in the city when 1 to 6 years of age. however. had higher levels of formal and informal integration than rural migrants. Rural migrants socialized in the two residence groups. on the other hand. exhibited higher levels of formal and informal integration than urban migrants socialized outside the city (see TABLE 22). The place of socialization when informants were 7 to 12 years old is closely related to the level of formal integration as measured in this study. As shown in TABLE 22. those migrants who lived in small towns. villages and open country when 7 to 12 years of age possess the highest level of formal integration. There was no difference in the level of integration between those who resided in cities and those who resided on farm: for this age group. However. the differences between those who resided in small towns. villages or open country and on farms are highly significant. The level of informal integration. nevertheless. is not significantly related to place of residence when migrants were 7 to 12 years old. While differences were not significant. those residing in small towns. villages or open country at this age had the highest level of informal integration. while those residing on a farm at this age had the lowest level of in- formal integration. When the level of formal and informal integration of rural and urban migrants is controlled for place of residence when 7 to 12 years old. there is no significant relationship between migrant types. However. 83 TABLE 22.--Level of formal and informal integration by place of early socialization when 7 to 12 years old and by migrant type Place of socialization when 7-12 yrs. Eprmal Integration Lagogmél Integration old and mi- Total High Low Chi-square Total High Low Chi-square grant type value value Total 100 45 55 6.71* 100 40 60 1.73 City 39 12 27 39 12 27 lags or Open country 37 21 16 37 17 20 Farm 29 12 12 24 ll 13 Total socialized in city 39 12 27 2.19 39 12 27 2.19 Rural Migrants 9 l 8 9 1 8 Urban Migrants 3O 11 19 30 11 19 Total socialized in small town. village or Open country 37 21 16 1.20 37 17 20 .16 Rural Migrants 21 10 11 21 9 12 Urban Migrants 16 11 5 16 8 8 Total socialized on farm 24 12 12 .00 2h 11 13 1.h2 Rural Migrants 20 10 10 20 10 10 Urban Migrants # 2 2 u 1 3 I'Significant at .05 level; 2 d.f. 84 urban migrants socialized in the city when 7 to 12 years of age had higher leVels of formal and informal integration than rural migrants. These differences are/not statistically significant. In general. urban migrants socialized in the rural areas at this age exhibited higher levels of formal and informal integration than the rural migrants (See TABLE 22). The place of socialization when informants were 13 to 18 years old showed no significant relationships with the levels of formal or informal integration. although the relationships were slightly higher for informal integration as indicated by the measures in this study. As shown in TABLE 23. those migrants who lived in cities when 13 to 18 years of age had the highest level of both informal and formal integration. They were followed by migrants socialized in small towns. villages or open country. while those who lived on farms had the lowest level of integra- tion for this age level. When the level of both formal and informal integration of rural and urban migrants is controlled for place of residence when 13 to 18 years old. no significant relationship emerges. Urban migrants socialized in the city when 13 to 18 years old tend to have higher levels of informal and formal integration than rural migrants. Rural migrants socialized in the two rural residence groups. on the other hand. tended to have higher levels of formal and informal integration than urban migrants socialized in these areas (see TABLE 23). Socioeco mi t tu and e at on The third general hypothesis tests the preposition that the level of socioeconomic status. including level of education. informant's occupation. wife's occupation. nature of informant's occupational 85 TABLE 23.--Leve1 of formal and informal integration by place of early socialization when 13 to 18 years old and by migrant type Place of socialization when 13-18 yrs. Formal Integgation Infogmal Integration old and mi- Total High Low Chi-square Total High Low Chi-square grant type value ' value Total 100 40 61 2.30 100 40 60 2.48 City 51 17 34 53 l? 36 Small town. vil- lage or open country 28 14 14 27 12 15 Farm 21 9 12 20 11 1 Total socialized in city 51 17 34 .79 53 17 36 1.00 Rural Migrants 13 3 10 14 3 11 Urban Migrants 36 14 24 39 14 25 Total socialized in small town. village or open country 28 14 14 .65 27 12 15 .68 Rural Migrants 18 10 8 18 7 11 Urban Migrants 10 4 6 9 5 4 Tetal socialized on farm 21 9 12 .02 20 11 9 .02 Rural Migrants l9 8 ll 18 10 8 Urban Migrants 2 1 1 2 1 1 86 mobility. and level of weekly income is c10se1y related to the level of integration in the external community. Thus. the third hypothesis is as follows: The level of integration as measured in terms of formal and‘7 informal interaction in the external community will Vary directly with the level of socioeconomic status. The first subhypothesis maintains that the higher the level of informant's education. the higher will be his level of integration. lnformants were grouped into three categories of education in terms of years of school completed: 8 grades or less: 1 to 4 years of high school; and some college or more. The leVel of schooling of informants is closely related to the 1eVel' of formal and informal integration. As indicated in TABLE 24. informants having 1 to 4 years of high school were highest in level of formal inte- gration. This group was followed by those having 8 years or less of schooling and then by those having some college education or more. While these differences do not conform to the expectation of the hypothesis. they are significant at the .10 per cent level. The level of informal integration. on the other hand. is not signifi- cantly related to level of education. Contrary to the direction hypothe- sized. the data show an inverse association between informal integration and level of education. When formal and informal integration of nonmigrants. rural migrants and urban migrants is controlled for educational level. few significant differences are found. Nonmigrants having college education or more differ significantly at the .10 per cent level from rural migrants with respect to informal integration. In this comparison. nonmigrants possess higher levels of informal integration. Further. nonmigrants having one to four years of high school have higher levels of formal integration than N“, 87 TABLE 24.--Level of formal and informal integration by years of schooling completed and by migrant type Years of school- ing completed Formal Integzatiog Informal Integration and migrant Total High Low Chi-square Total High low Chi-square type Value value Total 125 55 7o 1.. 59* 125 51+ 71 .88 8.grades or less 32 15 17 32 16 16 1-4 years of high school 56 29 27 55 23 32 Some college or more 37 ll 26 38 15 23 Total 8 grades or less 32 32 17 32 16 16 Total 18 8 10 .00 18 8 10 Nonmigrants O 0 O O 0 0 Rural migrants 18 8 10 18 8 10 Total In 7 7 .00 lh 8 6 .00 Nonmigrants O 0 O O 0 0 urban migrants 14 7 7 1h 8 6 Total 32 15 17 .00 32 16 16 .52 Rural migrants l8 8 10 18 8 10 Urban migrants 1h 7 7 1h 8 6 Total 1-4 years of high school 56 29 27 55 23 32 Total #2 23 19 2.62 42 18 2“ .47 Nonmigrants l9 l3 6 l9 7 12 Rural migrants 23 10 6 l9 7 l2 Total 33 19 11+ 2. 2a 32 12 20 . 01 Nonmigrants 19 13 6 19 7 12 Urban migrants lb 6 8 13 5 8 88 TABLE 2h-gontinued Years of school- ing completed £05251 Integzatiog Informal Integration and migrant Total High Low Chi-square Total High Low Chi-square type value value Total 37 16 21 .09 36 16 20 .31 Rural migrants 23 10 13 23 ll 12 Urban migrants 14 6 8 l3 5 8 Total some college or more 37 ll 26 38 15 23 Total 15 h 11 .11 15 6 9 2.96“ Nonmigrants 6 2 h 6 h 2 Rural migrants 9 2 7 9 2 7 Total 38 9 19 .Ol 29 13 16 l.#4 Nonmigrants 6 2 a 6 a 2 Urban migrants 22 7 15 23 9 14 Total 31 9 22 .Ol 32 ll 21 .55 Rural migrants 9 2 7 9 2 7 Urban migrants 22 7 15 22 9 1h *Significant at the .05 1eVel; 2 d.f. HSignificant at the .10 level; 1 d.f. 89 either rural or urban migrants with the same amount of schooling. These differences. however, are not significant, even at the .10 per cent level (see TABLE 24). The second subhypothesis states that the higher the level of occupa- tional status. the higher will be the level of formal and informal inte- gration. The occupational status of all informants was classified into four broad categories as follows: professional and skilled workers; semiskilled workers; unskilled workers. and informants not gainfully employed. The occupational level of informants bears some relationship to formal and informal integration levels. but this relationship is not statistically significant. nor is it in the anticipated direction. As indicated in TABLE 25. the semiskilled and the unemployed workers exhibit the highest formal integration. while the unskilled workers show the lowest formal integration. 0n the other hand. the unskilled and semiskilled workers exhibit about the same relatively high levels of informal inte- gration. while the professional category possesses the lowest level of informal integration. is indicated before. these results are both insignificant and unanticipated. When formal and informal levels of integration of migrant types are controlled for occupational level. some significant differences emerge. Nonmigrants who are professonal and skilled workers possess significantly higher levels of formal integration than do rural migrants in the same occupational category. This difference is significant at the .05 per cent level. Urban.migrants who are professional and skilled workers are also significantly higher (at the .10 per cent level) in formal integra- tion than rural migrants in the same occupational category. None of the 90 TABLE 25.--Level of formal and informal integration by informant's occupational status and by migrant type Informant's occu- wEarmalfi—I—ntggrgtion Infogmgl Igtegzation pational status Total High Low Chi-square Total High Low Chi-square and migrant type value value Total 125 59 66 2.28 125 51 74 2.90 Professional & skilled workers 36 18 18 36 11 25 Semiskilled workers #3 22 21 #2 19 23 Unskilled workers 31 11 20 32 15 17 Not employed l5 8 7 15 6 9 Total professional & skilled workers 36 18 18 36 ll 25 Total 17 9 5.16* 17 6 ll .27 Nonmigrants 10 7 3 10 4 6 Rural migrants 7 1 6 7 2 5 Total 29 17 12 .76 29 9 20 .58 Nonmigrants 10 7 3 10 4 6 Urban migrants 19 10 9 l9 5 14 Total 26 ll 15 3.20** 26 7 19 .02 Rural migrant 7 l 7 2 5 Urban migrants 19 10 9 l9 5 14 Total semiskilled workers #3 22 21 42 19 23 Total 30 15 15 .15 29 12 17 1.9h Nonmigrants 7 4 3 6 4 2 Rural migrants 23 11 12 23 8 l5 91 TABLE 25--Qontinued Informant's occup FB?;;I Integration Informal Integration pational status Total High Low Chi-square Total High Low Chi-square and migrant type value value Total 20 ll 9 .01 19 ll .22 Nonmigrants 7 4 3 6 4 2 Rural migrants 23 11 12 23 8 15 Total 20 ll 9 .01 19 ll 8 .22 Nonmigrants 7 4 3 6 4 2 Urban migrants l3 7 6 13 7 6 Total 36 18 18 .52 36 15 21 1.27 Rural migrants 23 11 12 23 8 15 Urban migrants 13 7 6 l3 7 6 Total unskilled workers 31 11 20 32 15 17 Total 22 9 13 .07 23 10 13 .60 Nonmigrants 8 3 5 9 3 6 Rural migrants 14 6 8 l4 7 7 Total 17 5 12 .38 18 8 10 1.00 Nonmigrants 8 3 5 9 3 6 Urban migrants 9 2 7 9 Total 23 8 15 .98 23 12 11 .07 Rural migrants 14 6 8 14 7 7 Urban migrants 9 2 7 9 5 4 92 TABLE 25--9mxz:im.ea Informant's occu- EPIEEI Integration Lagormal—lntggzgtion pational status Total High Low Chi-square Total High Low Chi-square and migrant type value value Total not employed 15 8 7 15 6 9 Total 3 3 .00 3 3 .00 Nonmigrants O O O 0 Rural migrants 6 3 3 6 3 3 Total 9 5 .00 9 3 6 .00 NOnmigrante O 0 O O 0 Urban migrants 9 5 4 9 3 Total 15 8 7 .16 15 6 9 .42 Rural migrants 6 3 3 6 3 Urban migrants 9 5 4 9 3 6 *Significant at the .05 level: 1 d.f. “Significant at the .10 level; 1 d.f. 93 comparisons of informal integration in relation to occupational level ever approach significant difference (see TABLE 25). The third subhypothesis holds that the higher the level of the wife’s occupational status. the higher will be the level of integration of the informants. The occupational status of each informant's wife was grouped into three broad categories in the following manner: domestic workers; nondomestic workers. including teachers. nurses and social and clerical ‘workers: and housewives and/or wives not gainfully employed. The level of the wife's occupational status is significantly related to husband's level of informal integration but not in the hypothesized direction. The level of informal integration is highest for those informants whose wives were domestic workers. next highest for those whose wives were employed in a variety of nondomestic occupations and lowest for those whose wives were housewives or unemployed. While the same relationship held true for the formal integration level, the differen- ces were not statistically significant (see TABLE 26). One additional relationship. significant at the .10 per cent level. should be pointed out. Nonmigrants whose wives are housewives or unem- ployed possess a significantly higher level of informal integration than rural migrants with wives in this occupational category. All other com- parisons shown in TABLE 26 are not significant and reveal only small differences. The fourth subhypothesis maintains that the nature of informant's occupational mobility is related to the level of his integration. so that upward mobility'was classified in terms of the direction of general occu- pational movement into three categories. as follows: upward mobility; downward mobility: and no change in mobility. 94 TABLE 26.--Leve1 of formal and informal integration by informant's wife's occupation and by migrant type Informant‘s wide—3 Formal Integration Informal Integration occupation & Total High Low Chi-square Total High Low Chi-square migrant type value _f value Total 123 5? 66 2.76 123 51 72 7.99” Domestic workers 41 23 18 34 21 13 Nondomestic workers 37 17 20 35 13 22 Housewife or not employed 45 17 28 54 17 37 Total domestic workers 41 23_ 18 34 21 13 Total 34 19 15 .30 25 15 10 .00 Nonmigrants 6 4 Z 5 3 2 Rural migrants 28 15 18 20 12 8 Total 13 8 5 .12 14 5 .06 Nonmigrants 6 4 2 5 3 2 Urban migrants 7 4 3 9 6 3 Total 35 l9 16 .03 29 18 ll .53 Rural migrants 28 15 13 20 12 8 Urban migrants 7 4 6 9 6 Total nondomestic workers 37 17 20 35 13 22 Total 10 6 4 .10 17 5 12 .02 Nonmigrants 2 1 1 3 1 2 Rural migrants 8 5 3 _ 1a a 10 Total 29 12 17 1.44 21 9 12 .14 Nonmigrants 2 11 6 18 8 10 95 TABLE 26--Qontinued Informanfls'wifds Formal Intgggation Informal Lgtggrgtiog occupation & Total.High Low Chi~square Total High Low Chi-square migrant type value value Total 35 l6 19 1.44 32 12 20 .92 Rural migrants 8 5 3 14 4 10 Urban migrants 27 ll 16 18 8 10 Total housewives and unemployed 45 17 28 54 17 37 Total 31 12 19 3.16“ 33 ll 22 .92 Nonmigrants l7 9 8 17 7 10 Rural migrants 14 3 11 16 4 12 Total 31 14 17 .89 38 13 25 .67 Nonmigrants 17 9 17 7 10 Urban migrants l4 5 21 6 15 Total 28 8 20 .70 37 10 27 .04 Rural migrants 14 3 ll 16 4 12 rban migrants 14 5 9 21 6 15 *Significant at the .05 level. **Significant at the .10 level. 96 The nature of informant's level of occupational mobility bears some relationship to formal and informal integration level, but the relation- ships are not statistically significant, nor in the anticipated direction. As shown in TABLE 27, migrants having downward mobility exhibit the highest formal integration. Differences are very slight in relation to informal integration. When formal and informal levels of integration of migrant types are controlled for the nature of occupational mobility level, some significant differences occur. Rural migrants and urban migrants who experienced downward mobility possess significantly higher levels of informal inte- gration than nonmigrants. These differences are significant at the .05 per cent level. Nonmigrants differ significantly from urban migrants in formal integration level when both categories have experienced no change in occupational mobility.(see TABLE 27‘. The fifth subhypothesis maintains that the higher the level of infor- mant's weekly income, the higher will be his level of integration. Infor- mants were grouped into two categories on the bases of weekly income as follows: informants earning less than $90 per week and those with a weekly income of $90 or more. The weekly income of informants is inversely related to formal inte- gration but bears no relationship to informal integration. While differen- ces in neither instance are significant, informants having weekly incomes under $90 per week had higher levels of formal integration than those with incomes of $90 or more per week. This direction, of course. is con- trary to the hypothesized relationship (see TABLE 28). 97 TABLE 2?.--Level of formal and informal integration by direction of occu- pational mobility and by migrant types Occupational ficrmal Integzation Informal Lnteggation mobility & Total High Low Chi-square Total High Low Chi-square migrant type value value Total 125 58 67 .45 125 50 75 2.09 General move- ment upward 54 24 30 56 22 34 General move- ment downward 22 12 10 25 10 15 No change in mobility 1+9 22 27 41+ 18 26 Total movement upward 54 24 30 56 22 34 Total 27 10 17 1.26 27 ll 16 .01 Nonmigrants l5 7 8 15 6 9 Rural migrants 12 3 9 12 5 7 Total 42 21 21 .10 44 17 27 .31 Nonmigrants l5 7 8 15 6 9 Urban migrants 27 l4 13 29 11 18 Total 39 17 22 2.37 41 16 25 .04 Rural migrants 12 3 9 12 5 7 Urban migrants 27 14 13 29 ll 18 Total movement downward 22 12 10 25 10 15 Total 17 9 8 1.06 18 9 9 4.13* Nonmigrants 4 3 1 4 3 1 Rural migrants 13 6 7 14 6 8 Total 9 6 3 .18 11 u, 7 l 3.80 " Nonmigrants 4 3 l 4 3 1 Urban migrants 3 2 l 6 98 TABLE 27---Continued Occupational Earmal Integration Informal Lntegration mobility & Total High Low Chi-square Total High Low Chi-square migrant type value value Total 18 9 9 .27 21 7 14 2.54 Rural migrants 13 6 7 ‘ 14 6 8 Urban migrants 5 3 2 7 1 6 Total no change 49 22 27 44 18 26 Total 31 l7 l4 2 .41 3O 10 21 . 00 Nonmigrants 6 5 l 6 2 4 Rural migrants 25 12 13 24 8 16 Total 24 10 14 5.71* 20 10 10 .95 Nonmigrants 6 5 1 6 2 4 Urban migrants 18 5 13 14 8 6 Total 43 17 26 1.76 38 16 22 2.05 Rural migrants 25 12 13 24 8 16 Urban migrants 18 5 13 14 8 l6 99 TABLE 28.n-Leve1 of formal and informal integration by informant's weekly income and by migrant type Informant's ___Forma1 Integration Informal Integration weekly income Total High Low Chi-square Total High Low Chi-square & migrant type value value Total 124 55 69 1.35 124 49 75 .00 Under $90 per week 56 28 28 38 15 23 $90 and over per week 68 27 41 86 34 52 Total under $90 per week 56 28 28 38 15 23 Total 40 24 16 .00 23 10 13 .19 Nonmigrants 25 15 10 8 3 5 Rural migrants 15 9 6 15 7 8 Total 41 19 22 4.33‘I 23 8 15 .03 Nonmigrants 25 15 10 8 3 5 Urban migrants l6 4 12 15 5 10 Total 31 13 18 3.87‘ 30 12 18 .56 Rural migrants 15 9 6 15 7 8 Urban migrants 16 4 12 15 5 10 Total $90 and over per week 68 27 41 86 34 52 Total 35 13 22 .00 51 19 32 1.09 Nonmigrants 0 0 O 17 8 9 Rural migrants 35 13 22 34 11 23 Total 33 14 19 .00 52 23 29 .09 Nonmigrants 0 0 O 17 8 9 urban migrants 33 14 19 .20 35 15 21 Total 68 27 41 .20 69 26 43 .80 Rural migrants 35 13 22 34 11 23 Urban migrants 35 19 19 35 15 20 *Significant at .05 level; 1 d.f. 100 A comparison of the level of formal integration for nonmigrants versus urban migrants and for rural migrants versus urban migrants in the under $90 income group revealed significant differences; Nonmigrants had significantly higher levels of formal integration than urban migrants and rural migrants had significantly higher levels of formal integration than urban migrants. All other relationships shown in TABLE 28 were not significant. on d Famil h e i tic t atio The fourth general hypothesis was designed to test the assumption that personal and family characteristics. such as life cycle stage or age. prior knowledge of Lansing. family composition or number of children, and ecological segregation are related to formal and informal integration in the external community. Thus. the fourth general hypothesis is as follows: The level of integration as measured in terms of formal and informal integration in the external community will Vary directly with personal and family characteristics. The first subhypothesis holds that life cycle stage or age of infor- mant is inversely related to his level of integration in the external community. Informants were grouped into three categories of age levels as follows: under 30 years of age: 30 to 44 years of age; and 45 years and over. The level of life cycle stage or age of informants is not signifi- cantly related to either formal or informal integration. ‘While differences in neither instance are significant, informants who were under 30 years old had the highest level of formal and informal integration. Those in the older ages differed little in level of integration. as shown in TABLE 29. 101 TABLE 29.--Level of formal and informal integration by life cycle stage or age and by migrant type Life cycle stage or age Fommal Lmtegration Infozmal Integration and migrant Total High Low Chi-square Total High Low Chi-square type value value Total 125 56 69 .79 125 51 74 .93 Under 30 years old 31 16 15 31 14 17 30-44 years old 55 23 32 53 19 34 45-60 years and over 39 17 22 41 18 23 Total under 30 years old 31 16 15 31 14 17 Total 22 13 9 .07 24 13 11 1.77 Nonmigrants 13 8 5 14 6 8 Rural migrants 9 5 4 10 7 3 Total 21 11 10 1.09 21 7 14 1.62 Nonmigrants l3 8 5 14 6 8 Urban migrants 8 3 5 7 1 6 Total 18 8 10 .31 17 8 9 4.11‘ Rural migrants 10 5 5 10 7 3 Urban migrants 8 3 5 7 1 6 Total 30-44 years 01d 55 23 32 53 19 34 Total 33 14 19 3.03** 31 10 21 1.51 Nonmigrants 9 6 3 8 4 4 Rural migrants 24 8 16 23 6 17 Total 30 15 15 1.43 30 13 1? .18 Nonmigrants 9 6 3 8 4 4 Urban migrants 21 9 12 22 9 13 102 TABLE 29--Continued Life cycle . stage or age Formal Integration Informal Imgggmatmon and migrant Total High Low Chi-square Total High Low Chi-square type value value Total 46 17 29 .54 45 15 30 1.30 Rural migrants 25 8 17 .54 23 6 17 Urban migrants 21 9 12 22 9 13 Total 45-60 years and over 39 17 22 .57 41 18 23 .07 Total 20 10 10 21 8 12 Nonmigrants 3 2 1 3 1 2 Rural migrants 17 8 17 7 10 Total 18 8 10 .80 24 11 13 .25 Nonmigrants 3 2 1 3 1 2 Urban migrants 15 6 9 21 10 11 Total 36 15 21 .04 *8 :7 21 Rural migrants 15 6 9 l7 7 10 Urban migrants 21 9 12 21 10 11 *Significant at the .05 level. **Significant at the .10 level. 103 When formal and informal levels of integration of migrant types are controlled for life cycle stage or age level, some significances emerge. Rural migrants who were under 30 years old had significantly higher informal integration than urban migrants of the same age. Non- migrants who were 30 to 44 years of age had significantly higher formal integration level than rural migrants in this age group. The second subhypothesis states that prior knowledge of Lansing is directly related to the level of integration in the external community. Prior knowledge of Lansing was classified into four broad categories as follows: knew Lansing very well; knew Lansing somewhat; hardly knew Lansing: and knew nothing of Lansing. The level of informant's prior knowledge of Lansing generally is inversely related to the level of formal integration. As shown in TABLE 30. informants who knew Lansing well were highest in formal inte- gration level. This group was followed by informants who hardly knew Lansing. Those who knew Lansing somewhat had the lowest level of formal integration. The level of informal integration, on the other hand, is not signifi- cantly related to level of prior knowledge of Lansing. Contrary to the direction hypothesized, the data show an inverse association between informal integration and level of prior knowledge of Lansing. When formal and informal integration of rural and urban migrants are controlled for prior knowledge of Lansing, little or no significant differences are found. Rural migrants having no prior knowledge of Lansing are slightly higher with respect to formal integration than urban migrants. but the reverse is true in regard to informal integration. All other comparisons show no difference in the level of integration (see TABLE 30). 10b TABLE 30.--Level of formal and informal integration by prior knowledge of Lansing and by migrant type Prior knowledge Ebrmal Integration Informal Integration of Lansing & Total High Low Chi-square Total High Low Chi-square migrant type value value Total 100 A2 58 ugh-u 100 no 60 2.7a Knew Lansing very well 6 h 2 6 l 5 Knew Lansing somewhat l3 3 10 13 4 9 Hardly knew Lansing 15 8 7 14 5 9 Knew nothing about Lansing 66 27 39 67 30 37 Total knew Lansing very well 6 a 2 .00 6 h 2 .00 Rural migrants 1 0 Urban migrants 5 u 1 5 1 4 Total knew Lansing somewhat l3 3 10 .OO 13 4 9 .00 Rural migrants 7 3 4 7 3 Urban migrants 6 O 6 6 1 Total hardly knew Lansing 15 8 7 .00 1h 5 9 .00 Rural migrants l l 0 1 Urban migrants l# 7 7 13 b Total knew nothing about Lansing '66 27 39 1.29 67 30 37 1.47 Rural migrants b1 19 22 #1 16 25 Urban migrants 25 8 17 26 1h 12 **Significant at the .10 level. 105 The third subhypothesis holds that family composition - the number of children in the family - is inversely related to the level of inte- gration in the external cormnunity. Informants were classified into three categories in terms of number of children per family. The first category includes informants without children; the second had 1 to 3 children: and the third includes informants with Av or more children. The number of informant's children bears some relationship to formal integration level, but this relationship is not statistically significant. As shown in TABLE 31, informants nor is it in the anticipated direction. having 1 to 3 children exhibit the highest formal integration followed by those who have 1+ or more children. Informants with no children are characterized by the lowest formal integration. Informants with l to 3 Children were also higher for informal integration. When formal and informal levels of integration of the migrant types are controlled for number of children in the family . some differences are f(Nanci. Nonmigrants with no children possess higher levels of formal integration than urban migrants. but this difference is not statistically Significant. Among informants with l to 3 children. nonmigrants also eXhibit higher level of formal integration than urban migrants. and this difference is significant at the .10 per cent level. All other comparisons show no significant difference (see TABLE 31). The fourth subhypothesis maintains that the greater the extent of e<’<:’10gical segregation the lower ' ill be the level of formal and informal int“figration in the external community. A simplified measure of segrega- tion is based upon responses concerning the color of nearest neighbors. Hence, the sample was classified as follows: nearest neighbors Negro; n ea'z‘est neighbors white; and nearest neighbors both Negro and white. -_ 106 TABLE 31.--Level of formal and informal integration by family composition - number of children - and by migrant type Number of Formal Integzation . Informal Inte ation children 8: Total High Low Chi-square Total High Low Chi-square migrant type value value Total 12 5 5 5 70 l . 71 12 5 51 74 . 84 No children 32 12 20 32 13 19 1-3 children 60 3O 3O 61 27 34 Total no children 32 12 20 32 13 19 Total 18 8 10 .72 18 8 10 .72 Nonmigrants 5 3 2 5 3 2 Rural migrants l3 5 8 13 5 8 Total 19 7 12 2.04 19 8 ll .71 Nonmigrants 5 3 2 5 3 2 Urban migrants 14 1'. 10 11+ 5 9 Total 27 9 18 . 33 27 10 17 . 03 Urban migrants l3 5 8 13 5 Rural migrants 11+ 14 10 ll; 5 9 Total 1-3 children 60 30 30 61 27 34 Total 36 20 16 2.01 37 16 21 .07 Nonmigrants 16 11 5 17 7 10 Rural migrants 20 9 11 2-3 9 1.1 To tal 40 21 19 2 . 82 * "‘ 141 18 23 . lO Nonmigrants 16 ll 5 l7 7 10 Urban migrants 21+ 10 14 2h ll 13 Total an 19 25 .06 41+ 20 2a .00 Urban migrants 24 10 11+ 21; 11 13 Rllral migrants 20 9 11 20 9 ll 107 TABLE Zl-sContfinued —:__ A— j Number of Fomalfirlntegrati?‘ Inrogmalfn tegration 3" children & Total High Low Chi-square Total High Low Chi-square migrant type value value Total 8 or more children 33 13 20 32 ll 21 Total 21 8 13 .33 20 7 13 .02 Nonmigrants u 1 3 3 1 2 Rural migrants 17 7 10 17 6 11 Total 16 6 10 .23 15 5 10 .oo Nonmigrants 4 1 3 1 2 urban migrants 12 5 12 4 8 Total 29 12 17 .00 29 10 19 .01 Urban migrants 12 5 7 12 U 8 Rural migrants 17 7 10 17 6 ll uSignificant at the .10 level: 1 d.f. 108 As shown in TABLE 32, informants having whites for neighbors possess significantly higher levels of formal integration than those having Negro neighbors or than having both white and Negro neighbors. The level of informal integration differed little regardless of the color of nearest neighbors. Among informants who had Negroes for nearest neighbors. nonmigrants possessed significantly higher formal integration levels than rural migrants and urban migrants. The same direction applies with respect to informal integration. but the differences are not statisti- cally significant (see TABLE 32). SUMMARY The results of the preceding analysis of determinants of level of Eintegration on the part of urban Negroes is largely negative. That is. relatively few of the hypothesized relationships were supported by sig- nificant differences. The relationships expected with formal integration ‘Were somewhat more frequent than with informal integration. Thus. con- trary to expectation. the two measures of integration were not often related in the same way to the independent variables. The first hypothesis predicted that level of integration. both fermal and informal. would vary directly with the extent of urban con- Thus, each of the migrant types were expected to possess different tact, leVels of integration. The data. however, show only one significant nonmigrants possess a significantly higher level of formal None of the remaining expected differences difference 2 in tegration than migrants. were significant . 109 TABLE 32.--Level of formal and informal integration by ec010gical segregation and by migrant types Ecological segre- gation 8: (nearest Formal Integration mortal Intgggatiog neighbor) migrant Total High low Chi-square Total High Low Chi-square types . value value Total 125 55 70 14.02 125 53 72 . 50 Nearest neighbor Negroes 83 38 1+5 87 38 ’49 Nearest neighbor whites l6 9 7 16 7 9 Nearest neighbors Negroes & whites 26 8 18 23 8 14 Total Negroes near- 0 st neighbor 83 38 145 87 38 1&9 Total 52 28 21+ 3. O7" 56 26 30 . 59 Nonmigrants 12 9 3 16 9 7 Rural migrants 1&0 19 21 lb 17 23 Total 1&3 19 24 6.142 * 1&7 21 26 l . 39 Nomigrants 12 9 3 l6 9 7 Urban migrants 31 10 21 31 12 19 Total 71 29 42 1.73 71 29 1&2 .12 Rural migrants 1+0 19 21 1+0 17 23 Urban migrants 3l 10 21 31 12 19 Total white near- est neighbors l6 9 7 l6 7 9 Total 8 5 3 .23 8 it u .153 Nonmigrants 5 3 2 5 2 3 Rural migrants 3 2 l 3 2 1 Total 13 7 6 .12 13 5 8 .01 Nonmigrants 5 3 2 5 2 3 Urban migrants 3 3 . ‘3: 110 TABLE ‘2 - -Continued Ecological segre- gation & (nearest ficrmal Integration Informal Integration neighbor) migrant Total High Low Chi-square Total High Low Chi-square type value value Total ll 6 5 .29 ll 5 6 .66 Rural migrants 3 2 l 3 2 1 Urban migrants 8 b u 8 3 5 Total Negroes & whites 26 8 18 23 8 14 Total 15 3 12 .oo 11 3 8 .26 Nonmigrants 8 3 5 k 2 2 Rural migrants 7 O 7 7 l 6 Total 19 8 ll .14 15 7 8 .36 Nonmigrants 8 3 u 2 2 Urban migrants ll 5 6 ll 5 6 Total 18 5 13 .00 18 6 12 1.78 Rural migrants 7 O 7 7 l 6 *Significant at .05 level; 1 d.f. **Significant at .10 level; 1 d.f. 111 The second hypothesis predicted that level of integration would vary inversely with the amount of socialization in the rural south. Thus, it was predicted that informants who grew up on farms would have the highest levels of integration, and those who grew up in small towns and villages would have intermediate levels of integration. Responses were obtained for three periods, namely when informants were 1 to 6. when 7 to 12. and when 13 to 18 years old. Contrary to the hypothesis. those who lived in small towns and villages when 1 to 6 years old and when 7 to 12 years old had significantly higher levels of formal integration than those who lived either on farms or in cities during these ages. Levels of formal integration for the farm residents at both ages were higher than for city residents. No significant differences in the level of informal integration were found. 0f the 24 relationships bearing upon this hypo- thesis, only the two mentioned above were significant. Hence. the hypo- thesis was not supported by the findings of this study. The third hypothesis stated that the level of integration would vary directly with socioeconomic characteristics of the sample. Five measures were utilized. Contrary to the hypothesis concerning educational level and integration, those having 1 to h years of high school were significantly higher in formal integration than those having less or more education. In keeping with the hypothesis. however, nonmigrants having some college or more had significantly higher informal integrations than rural migrants having a comparable educational level. Again. contrary to expectation. informants whose wives were domestic wOrkers had a significantly higher level of informal integration than the cither occupational categories of wives. In line with the hypothesized 112 ' associations, nonmigrants whose spouses were housewives were significantly higher in formal integration than rural migrants whose spouses were in this category. Contrary to expectation. no significant association in the total sample was found between occupational level of the informant and level of integration. However. two significant relationships emerged when occupation was controlled for migrant status. Nonmigrants who were professional and skilled workers were significantly higher in formal integration than rural migrants in this occupational category. Likewise. urban migrants who were professional and skilled workers were signifi- cantly higher in formal integration than rural migrants in this occupa- tional grouping. Direction of occupational mobility. contrary to expectation, was not significantly related to the leVel of integration. Nonmigrants classed as having been downwardly mobile, however. were significantly higher in informal integration than rural as well as urban migrants of the same category. Further. nonmigrants classified as having been stable occupationally were significantly higher in formal integration than were urban migrants of the same class. Income is not significantly related to level of integration. as anticipated. in the total sample. However, nonmigrants making less than $90 per week were significantly higher than urban migrants of this class in formal integration. Rural migrants in this income category were significantly higher than urban migrants of this class in formal integra- tion. Thus, considering all five variables related to this hypothesis. Juittle evidence was found to support it. 113 The fourth hypothesis predicted that certain personal and family characteristics would be related to level of integration. Age. contrary to expectation was not significantly related to level of integration in the total sample. However. rural migrants under 30 years of age had a higher level of informal integration than urban migrants of this age. Further. nonmigrants 30 to hfi-years of age had a higher level of formal integration than rural migrants of this age. Knowledge of Lansing prior to coming was significantly related to the level of formal integration but not entirely in the predicted direction. Those who knew Lansing "very well" had the highest level of formal integration, but those who knew Lansing "somewhat" had a lower level of formal integration than those who "knew nothing" about Lansing. The number of children in the family proved to be unrelated to leVel of integration in the total sample. Only for nonmigrants having 1 to 3 children was the level of formal integration significantly higher than for urban migrants of the same class. Ecological segregation as measured by the color of the nearest neighbors proved to be strongly, though not significantly. related to level of formal integration but not entirely in the anticipated direc- tion. The level of formal integration was highest for those reporting white neighbors. but was lowest for those reporting both white and Negro neighbors. However, nonmigrants having Negroes as neighbors were signifi- cantly higher in formal integration than rural migrants and urban migrants having Negroes as nearest neighbors. Thus. considering the four variables subsumed under this hypothesis, little evidence has been found to Support it. CHAPTER IV SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION Summgx This study is concerned with the investigation of a narrowly defined problem within the general area of migration. It is specifically interested in the general problem of integration of Negroes in a midwestern industrial city. While many of the ethnic subcommunities of the larger cities have disappeared. Negro subcommunities are to be found in almost all major cities of America. While considerable variation exists. the Negro sub- community is usually. although not always. spatially segregated. Essen- tial to the problem of this study is the concept of two communities. one composed of Negroes (the internal community) and the other composed of Negroes and whites (the external commity). The study focuses upon the problem of the extent of integration of urban Negroes in the external community in terms of participation in formal and informal situations. Hence. the general questions to which this study is addressed are the following: (1) What level of integration has been achieved by Negroes in Lansing. Mchigan? (2) What attributes tend to elevate or retard that level of integration? (3) What difference is there in the level of inte- gration between nonmigrants and migrants. urban and rural migrants and early and recent migrants? A sample of 125 Negro males residing in Lansing. Michigan. was inter- , Viewed for this study. Informants were selected randomly from the total Negro population and consisted of male heads of households only. The 11.1; 115 informants were first divided into two broad categories: (1) nonmigrants and (2) migrants. They were further divided by criteria of previous residence into two categories: urban migrants and rural migrants. Finally. they were classified by recency of arrival in Lansing. Michigan. as follows: (1) urban-early migrants. (2) urban-recent migrants. (3) rural-early migrants. and (4) rural—recent migrants. The year 1955 was selected as the cut-off point. because the decade 1950 to 1960 showed the greatest increase in the Negro population of Lansing. Michigan. Migrants coming to Lansing from urban areas before 1955 constituted the urban-early migrants. and those who came from similar areas after 1955 were designated urban-recent migrants. Migrants coming from rural areas befbre 1955 made up the rural-early migrants. while migrants who came from rural areas after 1955 constituted the rural-recent migrants. Informants born and socialized in Lansing. Michigan. were referred to as nonmigrants. Five major variables were examined in relation to the two dependent variables. 32:35; and informal integration in the external community. The first independent variable used was the place of early sogializgtion and orientatign. The second independent variable was socioeconomic status, in which five subvariables were used. They include: (a) leVel of education; (b) informant's occupational status; (c) occupational status of informant's wife; (d) direction of occupational mobility; and (9) level of informant's weekly income. The third independent variable. personal and family characteristicg contains four subvariables. as follows: (a) life cycle stage or age of informant; (b) informant's Iprior knowledge of Lansing; (c) family c0mposition or number of children 5&1 the family; and (d) ecological segregation or nearest neighbors. 116 Four general hypotheses were tested. First. the relationship between migrant types and the level of fggmél and informal integration in the external community was examined. It was anticipated that non- migrants will exhibit a higher level of formal and informal integration than migrants in the external community; that urban migrants will exhibit a higher level of integration than rural migrants; and that early migrants will exhibit a higher level of integration than recent migrants. The second hypothesis tested the assumption that place of early socialization and orientation is related to formal and informal integra- tion in the external community. It was hypothesized that the exposure to nonrural environments would be directly related to the level of formal and informal integration in the external community. The third general hypothesis tested the relationship between socioeggnomic status and the level of formal and informal integration in the external community. It was anticipated that the number of years of schooling completed. informant's occupational status, occupational status of informant's wife, direction of occupational mobility and leVel of weekly income would be directly associated with the level of formal and informal integration in the external community. The fourth and final general hypothesis tested the relationship between personal and family characteristics and the level of integration in the external community. It was anticipated that life cycle stage or age, prior knowledge of Lansing. Michigan. family composition or number of children in the family and ecological segregation would be related to the level of formal and informal integration in the external community. 117 The main findings. enumerated more fully in Chapter III. are summarized briefly here as follows: 1. Nonmigrants possess a significantly higher level of formal integration than migrants. No significant differences were found in the level of integration as between rural and urban migrants or early and recent migrants. 2. Early socialization was significantly related to level of for- mal integration but not in the expected direction. Those who had lived in small towns. villages and open country nonfarm areas when l to 6 and when 7 to 12 years of age were significantly higher in formal integration than those living on farms or in cities at these ages. 3. The direct relationship anticipated between the measures of socioeconomic status and level of integration were largely unconfirmed by the present data. Those having 1 to 4 years of high school were significantly higher in formal integration than those having more or less education. Informants whose wives were domestic workers. contrary to expectation, had a higher level of informal integration than nondomestic workers or housewives. Only when controls were instituted for migrant status and occupation were two significant relationships found. Non- migrants who were professional and skilled workers were significantly higher in formal integration than rural migrants in this occupational category. Likewise. urban migrants in this occupation also were signifi- cantly higher in formal integration than rural migrants who were profes- sional and skilled workers. Similarly, income was related to integration only in a few controlled categories. Nonmigrants making less than $90 per week were significantly higher than urban.migrants of this class in formal integration. Rural migrants of this income class were higher in informal integration than comparable urban migrants. 118 4. Personal and family characteristics generally were not related in the expected way to the level of integration in this study. Knowledge of Lansing prior to migration was significantky related to formal inte- gration but not entirely as anticipated. Those who knew Lansing "very well" had the highest level of formal integration. but those who knew Lansing "somewhat" had a lower level of integration than those who "knew nothing" about Lansing. Also, the level of formal integration was highest for those reporting white neighbors but was lowest for those having both white and Negro neighbors. This difference, however. was not statistically significant. Only in a few subgroups was age or family composition significantly related to the level of integration. Discussion of the Findings ///, As indicated in Chapter III. the data from this study did not often // support the hypothesized relationships between selected characteristics of the sample and level of integration as measured in this study. Further- more. the relationship between formal and informal measures of integra- tion was not often great. This portion of the thesis will be devoted to an attempt to offer some explanations for the results obtained. The generally unexpected results obtained in this study may be due to one or a combination of conditions. The discussion will be restricted to the following: 1. The Negro pepulation of Lansing may be a unique pOpulation. different in numerous ways from Negro populations in other urban centers. 2. The responses obtained may be incomplete or inaccurate. or 3. The measures of integration employed may be inadequate. especially when devised to measure both formal and informal dimensions of inter- action in the external community. 119 There is considerable evidence that the Negro population of Lansing. from which the present sample was drawn. is relatively undifferentiated. A large percentage of the sample was employed in skilled or semiskilled occupations. and.more than 60 per cent had weekly incomes between $70 and $129. Also. a large preportion of the sample arrived in Lansing in the recent past from the East South Central states. The Negro population of Lansing is small in relation to the total population of the city. Employment rates have been relatively high. housing relatively good. and the extent of segregation has been less great than in many urban centers. Thus, the Negro community in Lansing has been marked by comparative passivity and protest activities have scarcely been in evidence. Insofar as this description is accurate of the Negro community of Lansing. such variables as socioeconomic status and migrant types may reflect nominal but not real differentiation among Negroes. It may well be that the implied lack of differentiation is a phenomenon of the moment. and our findings reflect the situation at one point in time in the development of a more highly differentiated community. In any study of this type. there is always the possibility that informants are not giving complete and accurate responses. There is the possibility that Negroes are unwilling to speak openly and truthfully concerning their interaction with white persons. especially during this : period of national turmoil over civil rights. Furthermore. it is possible :_that many of the questions concerning frequency of interaction in various [formal and informal situations were subject to individual interpretation and thus relatively nonobjective. While it is impossible to evaluate the importance of response error in the findings of this study. the author feels that it cannot be great. 120 The results obtained in this study may also be traced to an inade- quate and incomplete measure of interaction with whites. In the first place. it may not have been wise.to attempt to separate formal from informal interaction. This appears to be the case. since the two measures were not often related in the same way with the independent variables. Fonmal integration. it will be recalled, was based upon participation in only two types of organizational structures - the church and the labor union. Informal integration was based upon visiting and friendship patterns and leisure and recreational activities. Both measures. there— fore. merely sample the total range of formal organizations and informal situations which are relevant to the problem. Perhaps a larger spectrum of arenas of interaction should have been utilized in the measurement of integration. BIBLIOGRAPHY Brown, Francis J.. and Johnson. James N.. One America. New York: Prentice- Hall. Inc.. l9ht. Brunson. Rose T.. "Socialization EXperiences and Socio-Economic Characteris- tics of Urban Negroes as Related to Use of Selected Southern Foods and Medical Remedies." unpublished Ph.D. thesis. Michigan State University. 1962. Davis. ‘Maurice R..'World Immigration. New York: The MacMillan Company. 1936. Dublin. Louis 1.. The Facts of LifeI From Birth to Death. New York: The MacMillan Company. 1951. Eisenstadt. S. N.. The Absorption of Immigrants. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Ltd.. 195b. Frazier. Franklin E.. "The Impact of Urban Civilization Upon Negro Family Life." in Paul K. Hatt. and Albert J. Reiss. Jr.. (eds.) Cities and Society. Glencoe: The Free Press. 1957. ------- . "Traditions and Patterns of Negro Family in the United States." in Edward B. Reuter (ed.) fiace and Culture Contacts. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell. 1934. ------- . The Negro in the United States. New York: The MacMillan Company. 1951. Freedman. R.. "Migration Differentials in Southern Cities." in Hatt and Raise. Cities and Societg. 1957. Hansen. Marcus L.. The Immigrant in American History. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1998. Heberle. R.. and Alvin. B.. "Social Consequences of Industrialization of Southern Cities." in Hatt and Reiss. 1957. Hofstee. E. N.. Some Remarkswgn Selective Migration. the Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. 1952. Hughes. EVerett. and Hellen. "Racial and Ethnic Frontiers." in Where Peogles Meet. Glencoe: The Free Press. 1952. MacLean. Annie M.. Modern Immigration. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company. 1925. 121 122 Myrdal. Gunnar. "The Negro Problem and American Democracy." in An American Dilemma. New York: Harper and Brothers. l9#4. Rogoff. N.. "Recent Trends in Occupational Mobility." in Hatt and Reiss. Cities and Society. 1957. Seudder. R.. and Anderson. A. C.. "Migration and Vertical Occupational Mobility." American Socialization Review. 19: May. 196#. Taeuber. Conrad. and Irene. Thp Changing Pepulation of the United §tates, New York: John Wiley and Sons. Inc.. 1958. Thompson. T. L.. "The Natural History of Agriculture Labor in the South." in David K. Jackson (ed.). American Studies. Durham: Duke University Press. 1940. Thompson. w. 3.. and Whelpton. P. K.. Pepulation Trends in the United Stateg. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Inc.. 1933. Tilly. Charles. "The Assimilation of Rural and Urban Migrants to Wilming- ton. Delaware." unpublished paper. University of Delaware. 1962. U. 3. Bureau of the Census. 1250 Michigpp Cpnsus og PopulationI p- . Table 53. p. 8. and U. 3. Bureau of the Census. Census of Population. ZuB, Table 21, p. 790 U. S. Bureau of the Census. 1250 United States Census of Population Detail Charactepistics Report. D-C. pp. 22-17. also 12 0 Michigpp Census of Papulation. 238. Table 21. p. 79. Zimmer. B. 6.. "Participation of Migrants in Urban Structure." Amepican Sociological Review. 20: 1955. APPENDIX STUDY OF INTEGRATION. LANSING. MICHIGAN DEFINITIONS AND EXPLANATIONS Rural and urban migrant types - The two categories of migrant types were sometimes difficult to separate. Urban migrants were those who had been residing in an urban place prior to migrating to Lansing. Many migrants in this category had been born in rural areas. Scoring system - The scoring system utilized made use of a number of questions in order to ascertain the integration score. In retrospect. it would seem that the level of infonnal integration worked out as intended. The level of formal integration. based upon membership and participation in church and labor union only is doubtless inadequate for the ends of this study. The scoring system used tended to give spuriously low scores to those informants who were not members of a church or labor union. A part of the differences between formal and informal level of integra- tion is probably due to this fact. Furthermore. it is probable that some of the findings. inconsistent with our expectation. are due to the weakness of the scoring system on formal integration. Occupational mobility (TABLE 7 and 27) - The direction of occupa- tional mobility was based upon infonnant's occupational history. While occupational classifications and the North-Hatt scale were utilized. some judgments had to be made by the writer. Income level (TABLE 6 and 281 - Total weekly income includes welfare and pension payments as well as earned income. 125 Knowledge of Lansing (TABLE 11 and 30) - Knowledge of Lansing is based upon the informant's response or perception of the situation. Responses here are not fully congruent with responses regarding number of trips to Lansing. Ecological segregation (TABLE 16) - Responses concerning "nearest neighbors” and "distance from nearest white neighbors" appear to be conflicting. Apparently it was possible for some informants who said their nearest white neighbors were "next door” to report that nearest neighbors were Negroes or both. gyov or. INTEGRATION. LANSING. MICHIGAN Department of Sociology and Anthropology Michigan State University Questionnaire No. Interviewer Date Name of Head of Household Address Born in Lansing? Yes . No Jj_pp, what year did you arrive in Lansing? Before Jan. I955 After Jan. l955. “—— If no, before coming to Lansing, did you ever work in a Northern city? Yes No Migrant Type (Please check) I. Non-Migrant (Born in Lansing) 2. Migrant a) Rural-Recent b) Rural-Early c) Urban-Recent d) Urban-Early (wlthout Northern work experience; arrived l955 or later) (without Northern work experience; ‘arrived before I955) (wlth Northern work experlence; arrived I955 or later) (with Northern work experience; arrived before l955) .vfi ewiennOEJGSUp M- _......... . ‘ltfieeuun In 959$ nu aflEW .wlnlllu-il.lnlnh.Nwl.-um-li.lln_lhllnnh-l.wi_ Pasazsa i A-..lml - ...... ... m ..i .l ”will_~lm -HW-.mml_imnliowwwv_Mm. . . . , ._L rev :Ht:fiEJ n4 V‘O H . ., __- _ .. .,.. 4 J _ . ? .neL duels. . u. up; n: Aw; up neg his lnqv penw .04 I! .9". .net 1:.le 4 n: v‘"wh v n* finuw '¢V~ -4. 1.. .in:c“;;‘3? @Csmfifi efioéei .on Tl all 3:3? 1 ,. ‘ » ‘3‘ “J"! ".E‘p'l ill“‘ ‘ . e . -. . ~.. ' f 1"_. H] In») . | 1 1.31;,;,.0r.01p , , ‘ . , 33., -.-.; V C“ I o .n-Du . x ’ l , .54 :wquin JuuaeR-in~u. (a ‘ I. ‘ ..:*)"-':“. . . ,1 ‘ . ‘1 . -: ' ‘ i in .‘~:~ 51:5: _.:a: l”? lfin"l‘-llh (c z .- i ,. . l .. , .. . . i .59. . ‘12: ,3’>;"”-;‘1. thr'r Jun-3 5‘. ‘rp my. .3....,\ ,‘rt:;:)c;‘,'i.~=":',d'1" (_ . .i h- "‘ ...Hlm_..in 3 ‘ . :11” .0 ’ (I . a . \ V " ‘ ‘ (31E 23:12Qx; L~-w '2 Iwr ”!ll.—nbvlu |L : _. alum» _ mace—a .lxo no em: <0: moan anomalo:m 0m mocmnmno as.” mcmwnaoanmv :ocmmxoro .zwoxz>4.oz mecca can: sesame 0m <0c1 rocmo:0_a. A.:n_cam 0mo max mam: 003: not» mnmnov mam mow onncomnloaa :o.a new u_onoa ao st armw n we poem «on ale oamxww ., 1+. up, we cmm ;# W. :. .u m. m. 1. ll .; .Hh. ll .tl m. ll m. .I .1: o. noomm mom mpmn_m_mo norczzm >wo1 ‘1 ' I ‘ ,, . ~ . A -, b v ,. .r ‘ ~\ . i‘ ‘ i i.‘ ; I .’ J . . 'v i V "V ‘- , * in ‘ l , v (p, ‘ ,v' i ; . l ,.J . .._ / . . l0. ll l. 2. 3. - 4 - How many trips had you made before moving to Lansing? None ; One ; Two or three ; Four to nine Ten or more . How many trips have you made back home since moving to Lansing? None ; One ; Two or three ; Four to nine Ten or more__, . ___i l. Housms When did you move into this house? Month; Year. Do you own or pay rent?__ own or are buying; pay rent. if resgondent has not lived in this house all time since January l955, ask about other residences, in reverse order back to January I955 or to time he came to Lansing. . . Time | Why did you move Prevnous Residence From -?;--d Own or rent from that place? -5- h. For all informants, where do you expect to be living (take (a) and (b) separately) (a) (b) Resudence 6 months from now 5 years from now Same Residence Elsewhere in Lansing Lansing suburbs Outside Lansing area Don't know 3 Other (specify) ..i . . . i C! . . . .1- . .4). 11..-... . i .i. 1 Th v . ~ .: . . w J _ . . ,. . . t . . . * u .2 5 w J . . , ., . w n . . . Tim .C . ... y u w .L 1 9. fl “ _ _ 3 . .. . v . i .. L J _ A .r i A. . . Hi . D h. w ,. . . . . e ., . i -. . i . .. . _ .. . . .. . . r)” .... . m T. _ A . . » . _ t- i. i. , _ m ., . . H _ .. i . . , , . . .H ,. n w r __ . m .. .. m . .\ . 4 . _ a J w M . . . L _ . . a _. __ A M W . H . . h m . . . _ . v .. , _ . _ H .. m _ L , m n q . v _ _ _ , . . . . A. 4 a n , r . . . v . ‘ w . . n 0 n _ ~ . i . . i. M V ._ . . . . ., . . . . . i a , w , .. . . .. . u . w . . .. . ,_ . I v . r n V n . . x, ‘ ~ . . _ . 4 .. . W o H ,, . ,_ A .. . . . , c .i . w . .i ... . V . m . i q... ..( _. u _ . .. ,u i. . . , c .. . H w . , s . . _ ,. n _ a . . , fl. . . w _ . . i . . . ,i . .3.}: . - i. i i . V i .. . _ . L .h m u . m . _ _ : N , _ .. . . . . . vi .. 9 U . . L . . . . H. . U . _ . . . 7. w M H u H q .u i N m . M V m L c . w v w . _., .. . . , n .. L . M w m __ _ M n i . , I W . . , _ M . G . L . u .i _ . fl . . . > . u _ .. 2 . , . . . . . . fl . _ . .. . “ ... s. t _ . .1 . . M v a _ a . _, _ . . V . _ s < 1 . _ . V n w a. H i h , . t. n i . , H u . . . .. .. . m . ._ W _ n m u H .. .. ..m.. _<. rm<_oz. A_:mogam. .anowmnnmoav >. cmmfleflam,msa mqmnaamsmo omnnowam _. 2:0.m0 <0: noammaow <0:1 va a 4:100 n_0mmmn mwmozmm. n nyomo umwmoam 01 fimam.mmm zmn: 2:03 <0: use <0:q «ma__< aaanmm xmzw {runn\zmmwo\zmxmnms _< :0” rent :05 em: <0: man no :50: :ma. :01. "303» m. >10 ”swam ma< zymnm unam03m on «mam.mom am": £303 <0: vocn :0: ama< zrmno «mam_mom ”3 ~30 rmammam meow zo:_a <0: mm< <0: :30: zn__a i . x . . s i . . : .. p . r .. . . t. .. p . . . xt....li.- iii.|..v,. -.il...,.i|l- iiilildlwill illi. .l T . . . . .uw _ H“ . ~ n . .. .... ,. I. I . . r. n I» .. _ my... Ii .. . all..l..l..al.. . i .(li. . Ill... 7 . .-...- .. . . . . r . 1...... ..i... . . ... iiii . ... . I . y I ...-il .... ...lii . lull .illliiiililillliil. ... .... . .._ . . .,. . .../0 . 7L... . i I .. ... . ..... . . ,u. . . . . . . i ... 7. . . . .. a. . y i t < b . . .. . x. 2‘. .. . . , i . i . fl . . . . , . \ ., . . ..» .. . 1 ...lfl. . ..l.l: .~ 4. r. ._ t . . .....Iz . ... . i. w r. ... . A. s ”u. ..w . . .. .... . . . ..v .. i ,r.. _ .m; ...... , .0. A [L.. ...“. . .. .. 1.).11 W. ....P , _ . . 1.. . , . . .. . 4 . ... V . V . . . . . t . . . r . .. .. . . . . . . . I .. it. 1.. . . . .13 . .iiii .. ,. Zilllllrf i ...?! i i . . . . -.. ......3 . 1.1:. . f . i. .. -...iilu...llllvllll. illi . . ..-..- i . . .. l . . - .....ll...!.. . .1 .i1 . v . . v. . iii ... .. l i. ..-. .. .-.i.i iii..i....l7l.|lillll 1.. i J ;.il...l.isi.li...<.-:..4.,x.-: . ....l.... ,. l ..-}... ...... i: .l v I. i i. ...l). .i ii . 3 . l1 .. 11.9-10. E .. i r . ill! .I .. . all... .... illicill}. Il|ri..l.. .. . i . . I ... .i . Q. .. .. . . . . .... . . . r.N ..r . . . \ ;.,. 9., . .. h a. x. . .\. .1 .. .N. .. i ._ .. J . .7 .. . . w y . fill... .11: .. . . m .7. _. t . . . .. .2 ; ... .. . . . .. i y. . ...... t. .r . .. . . iii ,. 4. _. .. ., any... 7 .. r .r . .11. IN..- m. rmmmcwo a qmso ma: xmnaomamo:m_ vmnnmwam _. :02 no <0: moose <0:w made «man» nymn .m. m: wonnomnmoac :hcmn "0.x”:mc: mam nymamm .mro nymn» m. 2030 "3100 nowmoam in»: 2:03 <0: moose 30m" 0m <0:: meow "meow. mcn: mm m: 001: t_m10 Hyman ma< (rmnm nmwmoam 01 mmam_mnm m: arm.rm:mm:m 0100 in": 2:03 <0: moose . .,,,,,. ~vk .. - .... -. - - .. . ._' . _ C ‘ 'A . . . .. a - .- -- _ . ‘ . I“ \ ’ r p~l'. ' ‘ n .r -.- . . . . .-. . . . .-~-... -._.. .. . .- . . . . . t. . 0». 4 v . l ‘ .2 ‘ ' , ‘ ..I ' - ‘L .’ ..' , - - . to 3. .J ‘ . . . - i V . ' ,. . .‘ ‘ , .‘ ‘ ’ i - s. \l 'I v . \- ' ¢ I g ,0 . c l ' I u . . ,1, l , I ,, I . . , . u " "~. " - . ..-. . ‘ .. -— . . _. , . ‘ .. _ _ ,- I i. . ... . ‘ \. 'I' o . . _ .1 ' ... - v ‘V . . . . \ ,1. -- ~ -.- . . Q t , .. . .— . - . .. . .. . ... . ' s ‘ '. ‘ . '.’ ‘ ' “ . ' ‘ . ‘ 0 0‘ < R I . ; v l--~~,— — ( . i 4 .... . .o i a. co <0: use m:< 303001 0m <0:w «033_< v0.03m no ma< 000mm. mwocom m: noasonnmoa 2”»: ~30 03:10: 01 Adm maamnmnoev. 0:0: mm Anromwt nmwn_0m. 0033:3000y 03a nyflamm _mx0 "rm”. <00 20 A_m <03V 0100000" 2030 0m :0: 0mn0: >vo:n :0: ofin0: £3010 000m >30 <0: .3 <00. >10 enrmn 303001m 0.. mnocvm 000m ”H 3003» no <0: mnn0aaw m" 30033 0: 03mm- tron 20m100mw 30x00n£33n00w _. evocn 0.. 001” 03mm00~ zmxoniz0xmnmamw m. 3010 ":0: :m_* <0mt 30w w. _0mm n30: 30.3 :00a 0+ :0:m0:o_a _. m. We Emmm .. m. w. arm—010: _. I o o OWQNONV‘I‘F‘WN v .u - 1] - B. School Participation i. From page l if children are in school, ask, is the school yourchildren attend somewhere in your neighborhood? Other Negrosi neighborhood? Whites' neighborhood? Other (specify) I u u . I_. .- -— ‘.. - .... .. .--. .. ... -.. -. -.:‘I . “.-.-... - ...... .. I: - . . : - - - .2 I : 1,, n It . _ ...... ...... _ '.-_': ,;-' Anon-‘3 a. 41 - ..-...-_.. ..-._-.-_.__ -- . t.‘ ‘ - ' .- u‘ -|- ";. - .41 '1'.‘-_; . . _ .. . :2 .‘I..-'iil:.“'|'lfi! ban-pa "i nu." 'l 'u..'. __ '9‘." ' 13“.": n .m i m. :0 <0: 0:: 0:< 303001 01 <0:1 103m.< v0.0:m no 0:< 0onm0. 010:00 m: 00::0nnmo: :.n: 00:00.. 0:03 00 A14>vc <01m0:0 naasmnn000. 0:0 arm3m0 .mx0 0:003 <00 20 “.1 <00V. 0100000" 2030 01 :0: omn0: >000” :02 0100: 00 $3010 >10 <0: .0 <00 >10 0n301 3030010. 0.. m10:00 0000 m" <0: 01n030~ 0000 mn 0: 011mn01 2:00 20m1000» sz0aitrmn00» 300"» _. 000:" 0.. 300"». <00V no» 0mmmn0w :mx0eiz0xmnmsmw . m. 3010 n70: 30.1 rw. .000 ":0: 30.1 1000 0m 30:00roda _. NO w. (”10 u. m. w. Ons010 .. w. w. - Inn- Q1": 0 .I.Il'I. . .III. 2.0. 9.1!; .5: .70-50.. I . it! . \I ., I‘Irz‘ 41¢ . a . . . . .3.. I . '1 I I .0. a n . . Oh .’ IuirIs .0: : (lit! . .il.» l . 0 _ . . i . . . . . c \ . i . .n . I. ID! I D n - . _ u u "u ... J . ... I . ... .. - 1 .11.: .u. . . . . . 1 . t . .. I . . .I I . . . ... 3 .i1 . . . s . . , .. . .o .. ‘11.. ll. ‘I0 0:. Iii ’5: 6. 3. - l3 - Do you ever meet with any of these persons or families for other social activities? Yes No (if yes), with whom do you meet? mostly Negroes? Mostly Whites? Mostly Mexicans Where do you usually meet? In your home? in the house of others? Other (specify) How often do you meet? (I) about every week (2) 2 or 3 times per month (3) about once a month (h) less than once a month m~~ u ...-.. I. - » ‘.... ..-. V) .\ v-I - lh - C. Union Participation Do you belong to a labor union? Yes No (If yes), how long have you been a member? Are you an officer in this union? Yes No (If yes), what office do you hold? How often does your union meet? (l) about every week (2) 2 or 3 times per month (3) about once a month (A) less than once a month How often do you attend? regularly, that is, every time it meets Once in a while (specify) Never Only pay dues (if attend meetings ask), at meetings, with whom do you mostly sit and talk things over? mostly Negroes? mostly Whites mostly Mexicans mixed Negroes-Whites mixed Whites-Mexicans Do you some times get together with these persons on other social occasions? Yes No (If yes), how often do you meet? 2 or 3 times a week once a month less than once a month other (specify) Where do you usually meet? in your home in the house of others Other (specify) somewhere in your neighborhood in other Negroes' neighborhood Whites' neighborhood Other (specify) ‘ . . 1 1 . I. u u .v . i . . . . . . .. 3 . . . r - u . It . u . . ... . . l o. . A . I a . . . I . ... . _ p I . t . O M .. . . A . I. i . . 3 ~ H . . o . g . . . D . . . . y . . v . . . . I. . I a . . . . . . a. —...— So - 15 - Are you working now? Yes No (If yes),wlll you please describe your present job or jobs? (If no), how do you support your family? (If not stated), for whom do you work? Negro employer? White employer? Government? Self employed Other, (specify) OCCUPATIONAL MOBILITY What kind of work were you doing 5 years ago? What did you do 5 years prior to that? What did you do 5 years prior to that? W Income of respondent Total income of family (Use range on Income Card) ECOLOGICAL SEGREGATION Who are your nearest neighbors?.Negroes Whites (If Negroes), how far away are you fron the nearest White neighbors? (In blocks) (If Whites), how far away are you from the nearest Negro neighbors? (In blocks) ’l . a . v -n- _. 4 ‘ I" \ I nc-~ . I O y ,-... u .- .ca. .4 S'-' ' ‘ .. .... ' , . _. ‘ _ 7.. ‘. .. \. . v . > . .d . 0 _ c - ‘. .v-~o. '- . .~~ - ~. I...‘ yu- ..." . P ‘. AW . I . l BR IES mini 5 I‘IIC liiiiiiiiiiii I