_ . 1. ...... » ... ... 5.1:... . . . . . ..7 11:73.5. . 9...... ....1...~..(. .52....1 . .. : ...... . .7... ~ . .... ... . ...... ”...... L E M. s. 5. PEOPLE RAL szU _ b to” cc ARAC ...-.. 3.x... 2.. . . v 4.]. .. ...,. .......f,...;. 11...... ... .. .r»..r.... ... . .. ......r . ............... ...: .. .H—l.l..). - . ...Jn...o“l...'. 3.... , ... .... . .. ......1... t..4.......r.1........9 ..............:. .. ... . . . .... _ . . T y .. .. . . . 1:. . .. . ......2 . . .. ........) .. ,. .. .. .....- .. r... :. ... ...; .. .3... .4......... . -1... . e ‘ ...... 6 z... 1.1.1.... ......r... f g} e HQ_ 973 eD .....a . .U . t.N:1 .....4‘...r;..x..._. .....w...1.......v.41....... .... _...._.,r.. ... ,A , .. . H. N... ..w m . .m Nfl A a . ,._nm um .. _,..«w :., -; .....- ......171118. . .....‘.).......... .,....)v)..1.....1..:.A... .11 11.3.... ‘1‘: ......S...nfl..¢r, .1 115;... ti:..: .. ($1.... .11. 1.. .....b......xv1.. .11....11»....i 9:35.22. .3 1...?er rttuslaittxturtn .....3; T .. . ...... - ......f......u.-i.. .32.}... ...”......:....w......................... .. ”4.3.... 1 2.. 3.92. an»... . 4\.IPIII it)??? 4% E Ii. .........4......../....:..... ........... ...... .... ......fu..........4. ..r..........:.r... . .... ......ZF. ..Jf, v.1 1.... 4:1... ..4 ....v.........:. 7.3910»! n 1 I.- >)r.. p....(... . ..r. .............. z... .....Z... ..r... ; ..v...v... . ......- ......x1... ...-.....47 l-l‘.k-v.'.'r I J '7 r. '1 . q . ‘ I 1.4 f ’ L‘ ‘- .-; 4m- 5': A . V v 1 ‘ ' '. 4 5' 2.) 3' “ “- a] w m ;....- -.... ,_, .. . . n1 .. . 2-. It‘ . L, n, .' ‘ 3.. ; h '__ \. 23531: 1'3 — W” ' V \ This is to certify that the thesis entitled ' OCCUPATIONAL ADJUSTMENTS AND SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF RURAL PEOPLE MIGRATING TO AND FROM URBAN AREAS presented by DAVID JUAN HOUSTON, JR. has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for PhoD degree in Agricultural Education 0-7639 . i ‘ A" J amfi”v3* , t 000 H105 ...,“ .1 ’ ‘. -._/ a. fiJM M”: - 17h A153 ABSTRACT OCCUBATIONAL ADJUSTMENTS AND SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF RURAL PEOPLE MIGRATING TO AND FROM URBAN AREAS By David Juan Houston, Jr° Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to determine the attitudes, kinds of skills, and knowledge related to occupational adjustments made by rural pe0ple migrating to urban centers or returning from urban areas to rural areas. Methodology The sample of this study consisted of 111 persons divided into two groups. The first group included persons reared and educated in rural areas and who migrated to an urban area. The second included those who migrated to urban areas and returned to rural areas. Two questionnaires, rural and urban, were used to gather information in the following categories: (1) a general description of reSpondents, (2) education and vocational-technical training received, (3) relocating and commuting, and (4) problems and difficulties on jobs. Data were collected through personal interviews over a two month period. David Juan Houston, Jr. The analysis of this study included the use of Chi Square and the Univariate Analysis of Variance statistical techniques. Major Findings A major portion of the rural migrants grew up and migrated to their present residence from out-of—state. Ethnically, white respondents had a higher concentration of in—state births and migration than other racial groups. Prior to migrating to urban areas, rural migrants had a history of underemployment and employment as unskilled laborers on farms. After migrating to urban areas, over one-half of the rural migrants were unemployed. Those employed worked as laborers or semi- skilled workers in local factories. Fewer rural respondents were unemployed compared to persons in urban areas. Occupational adjustments when measured by racial groups and residence differed significantly. Attitudes toward education, training, and work as perceived by rural migrants were found to be significantly different on two of twenty items when analyzed on a basis of racial groups and on four of twenty items when analyzed on a basis of present residence. When attitudes were measured in terms of levels of agreement, both rural and urban respondents' overall attitudes were slightly more in disagreement than agreement. Ethnically, Blacks and Mexican Americans had a slightly negative attitude, while White Americans attitudes were neutral when viewed as a composite over the entire twenty items. Nearly one-half of the rural migrants were satisfied with high school vocational courses as being helpful in getting jobs. However, they were dissatisfied with the help perceived from the high school vocational courses in holding and performing on jobs. The few rural David Juan Houston, Jr. migrants who participated in programs other than high school and/or post high school programs felt the skilled training received was satisfactory in getting, holding, and performing a job. Nearly three-fourths of the rural migrants had participated in one or more vocational-technical courses offered in high school. However, few respondents participated in skilled training programs beyond the high school level. The most common programs participated in, other than vocational-technical programs, were on-the—job training and CEO programs. Rural migrants now residing in rural areas felt their decisions to commute and/or migrate were based solely on occupations and were derived primarily from the lack of available jobs and the lack of suitable salaries in urban areas. Also, problems of the city, a preference for rural life, and general family problems influenced their decisions to return to rural areas. In determining a place to migrate or commute, rural respondents indicated they would prefer to migrate to an open country area or to another area similar to their present residence. Rural migrants felt they had no real problems in moving vertically on a job. Mexican Americans, however, felt poor educational training 'was the most serious problem and difficulty for them. Many Black and white respondents believe poor skill training was also a problem in moving vertically. When moving horizontally, black and white respondents felt they had no initial problems. Mexican Americans considered poor educational training as a major hinderance. David Juan Houston, Jr. Rural migrants felt transportation, lack of available jobs, and poor salaries in rural areas were their major areas for occupational adjustments. Urban respondents indicated their occupational adjustments were the same as persons in rural areas, only priorities were different. They were listed as poor salaries, transportation, and lack of available jobs. Nearly two—thirds of the rural migrants adjusted to their jobs less than a week. Less than one—fourth took between one to twelve weeks to adjust. OCCUPATIONAL ADJUSTMENTS AND SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF RURAL PEOPLE MIGRATING TO AND FROM URBAN AREAS BY David Juan Houston, Jr. A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum 1973 DED ICAT ION This work is dedicated to ”mom" and "dad" whose devotion and insight gave me the will power to make it thus far. This work is also dedicated to the millions of people who are victims of rural poverty and who with the help of GOD and country, may someday become the beneficiaries. ii AC KNOWLEDGEMENT The writer wishes to express his sincere appreciation to those persons and organizations that contributed to the development and successful completion of this study. Deep appreciation is expressed to Dr. 0. Donald Meaders, Chairman of the Guidance Committee, for his constant encouragement, hours of assistance, and guidance in the planning and conducting of this study. A special thanks is expressed to Dr. J. Frank Bobbitt for his direction and encouragement during the development and funding of this study. An appreciation is also expressed to Dr. Daniel H. Kruger and Dr. Rex E. Ray, who served as members of the Guidance Committee. Finally grateful appreciation is expressed to the writer's family. To "Liz", his wife and Angela, his daughter, without whose understanding, patience, encouragement, and assistance this study could not have been completed. SPECIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The research reported herein was supported by the Center for Rural Manpower and Public Affairs at Michigan State University. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 1. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NEED FOR THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BACKGROUND FOR THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY . . . HYPOTHESES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DEFINITION OF TERMS USED . . . . . . . . . . . . BASIC ASSUMPTIONS . . . . . . . . . LIMITATIONS AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY . . . . . 2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AMERICA' S RURAL POPULATION . . . . . . . . . . . The Underprivileged POpulation . . . . . . . . Occupational Opportunities in Rural America . EDUCATIONAL AND OCCUPATIONAL PREPARATION OF RURAL PEOPLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MIGRATION AND MOBILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . Factors Influencing Rural Migration . . . . . Commuting, Job Mobility, and Racial Migration ASPIRATIONS, EXPECTATIONS AND PROBLEMS OF RURAL YOUTH IN THE LABOR FORCE . . . . . . . . . . . SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. DESIGN OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . SELECTION OF THE POPULATION . . . . DEVELOPMENT AND REFINEMENT OF THE INSTRUMENTS . . PROCEDURES FOR COLLECTING DATA . . . . . . . . . Interviewing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Page iii vi l3 l3 17 19 21 28 30 32 36 41 43 43 43 44 46 46 Chapter Interviewing Procedures . . . . . . . . Selection of Useable Returns . . . . . . . . HYPOTHESES . . . . . . . . . . . . . PROCEDURES FOR DATA ANALYSIS . . SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . PROFILE OF THE TARGET AREAS . . . Grand Rapids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Employment Trends and Characteristics . . . Unemployment Trends and Characteristics . Area.Manpower Problems . . . . . . . . . . Allegan County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Employment Trends and Characteristics . . . Unemployment Trends and Characteristics . Area Manpower Resources . . . . . . . . . SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES AND RELEVANT DATA . Characteristics of the Respondents . . . . . . General Description of the Respondents . . Education and Vocational-Technical Training Received by Respondents . . . . . . . . RelOcating and Commuting . . . . . . . . . Occupational Adjustments by Rural Migrants . . Employment Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . Other Adjustments by Rural Migrants . . . . . TESTING THE HYPOTHESES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... PURPOSE OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SUMMARY OF FINDINGS . . . . - . . . - . - . Characreristics of the Respondents . . . . . General Descriptions of the Respondents Education and Vocational-Technical Training Received by Respondents . . . . . . Relocating and Commuting . . . . . . . Occupational Adjustments by Rural Migrants . Employment Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . TESTING THE HYPOTHESES . . . . . . . . . . . CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY . . . . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . Page 46 47 47 48 49 51 51 51 52 52 56 58 58 59 61 62 63 65 65 69 80 86 86 95 98 107 107 108 110 110 110 110 111 112 113 114 114 115 118 119 123 Table 2.1 2.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 LIST OF TABLES The Estimated Impact of Parental and Environmental Factors Associated with Rural Poverty of Educational Attainment of Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Specific Worker Adjustment Problems Mentioned by Youth Opportunity Center Counselors . . . . . . . . . . . Selected POpulation, Labor Force and Employment Data for the United States, MiChigan, and Grand Rapids Labor Market Area (Kent and Ottawa Counties) . . . . . . Comparison of Seasonally Unadjusted Unemployment Rates Percentage Distribution by Occupations of Persons with Active Files in Grand Rapids, Holland, and Grand Haven MESC Branch Offices in July 31, 1971 O O O O O O O O O O C O 0 O O O O C O 0 O O 0 Selected Population, Labor Force, and Employment Data for the United States, Michigan, and Allegan County Labor Market Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sample Size, Number and Percent of Useable Responses Number of Rural Migrants by Residence and Family Status Comparison of Birth Places and Size of Community Where Reared Based on Ethnic Background and Present Res idence O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Type and Size of School Attended by Rural Migrants Based on Present Residence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Highest Level of Schooling Completed by Rural Migrants Based on Present Residence . , . . . . . . . . 4.10 Participation in Vocational Programs Courses While in School Based on Residence . . . . . . . . . 4.11 Participation in Adult Training Programs Based on Present Residence . . . . . . . . . . . vi Page 25 4O 53 56 57 6O 66 68 70 71 72 72 Table 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.18 4.19 4.20 4.21 4.22 4.23 4.24 4.25 4.26 vii level of Satisfaction of Rural Migrants Toward Training in High School Programs in Holding and 'Performing on Jobs Based on Present Residence . . Level of Satisfaction of Rural Migrants Toward Post High School VOcational-Technical Programs Assisting in Holding and Performing a Job Based on Present ReSidence O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O A Comparison of Means Responses by Ethnic Groups to Twenty Selected Opinion Statements Toward Education, Training, and Work . . . . . . . . . . A Comparison of Means Responses by Rural Migrants to Twenty Selected Opinion Statements Toward Education Training and Work Based on Present Residence . . Changes in Rural High Schools Recommended by Rural Migrants O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Most Desired Items of Rural Migrants When Confronted with Relocating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mbst Desired Items of Rural Migrants When Confronted With Comting O O O O O O O O O O O I O C O O 0 Problems and Difficulties Other than Occupational Influencing Rural Reapondents to Return to Rural Areas 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Present Take Home Pay by Rural Migrants Based on Present Residence . . . . . . . . . . . . . Methods Used by Rural Migrants in Finding Employment by Present Residence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Strategies Most Useful in Finding Employment Based on Present Residence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Items of Importance in a Job by Rural Respondents When Looking for Employment . . . . . . . . . . Items of Importance in a Job by Urban Respondents When Looking for Employment . . . . . . . . . . Special Problems or Difficulties Confronted in Getting a Job Based on Present Residence . . . . . . . Special Problems or Difficulties Confronted in Holding a Job Based on Present Residence . . . . Page 75 77 78 79 79 81 82 85 87 88 89 91 91 92 93 Table 4.27 4.28 4.29 4.30 4.31 4.32 4.33 4.34 4.35 4.36 4.37 4.38 4.39 4.40 4.41 4.42 4.43 viii Problems and Difficulties in Moving Upward on a Job Problems and Difficulties in Moving Horizontally on a Job Based on Present Residence and Ethnic Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Period of Time Before Rural Migrants Adjust to Jobs Based on Present Residence . . . . . . . . . . . Factors Contributing to the Period of Time in .Adjusting to a Job . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Occupational Problems Confronted by Rural Migrants While in the City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 'Comparison of Ethnic Groups and Employment . . . . . Comparison of Ethnic Groups and Residence and Sex Attitudes of Rural Migrants Toward Education and Training Based on Present Residence . . . . . . . Attitudes of Racial Groups Toward Education and Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . comparison of levels of Education Between Rural Migrants Based on Racial Groups . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Level of Employment of Rural Migrants Based on Racial Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Problems and Difficulties Confronted by Male and Female Rural Migrants in Getting Jobs Comparison of Problems and Difficulties Confronted by Male and Femathural Migrants in Holding Jobs Univariate Analysis of Variance (Fixed Effect Model) for Three Sources of Variation Based on Education . Univariate Analysis of Variance (Fixed Effect Model) for Three Sources of Variation Based on Training Univariate Analysis of Variance (Fixed Effect Model) for Three Sources of Variation Based on Occupational Adjustment . . . . . . . . . . . . . Univariate Analysis of Variance (Fixed Effect Model) for Three Sources of Variation Based on Occupational Information . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 101 102 102 103 104 105 105 105 106 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Courses Taken in Vocational—Technical Education at the High School Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 2 Geographical Location of Allegan County and Distances for Travel in Labor Market Areas Outside the County. . 84 ix CHAPTER I THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE STUDY Introduction A major problem confronting America during the 1970's has to do with the continuous migration to urban areas of rural people who do not have skills needed to participate in the urban labor force, and are unable to adjust to urban-type jobs. Since they cannot find suitable employment, they have two immediate alternatives. The first alternative is to return to a rural area to seek employment. However, employment usually is not available or the wages are so low many people must resort to county and state assistance to provide for their families. The second alternative is to remain in the urban area on assistance or substandard jobs and wages with little hope for advancement in the labor market. Another segment of the problem facing rural American was revealed by Bruce King, Governor of New Mexico, in his statement at the Hearing on Rural Development by the 92nd Congress in 1972. He stated that: The solution to the problem is not more people on the farm since there is no livelihood for them there. It is rather to keep the small towns, those from 1,000 to 30,000 alive and growing. It means creating in these areas the type of health care, education, cultural advantages, jobs, services, living standards, etc., that are available in metropolitan areas. People now leave the rural area in order to have these things. Only the infusion of substantial sums l of money, both public and private, can provide these essential amenities of life that Americans demand today.1 Edward Breathitt, former Governor of Kentucky, also addressing the Hearing on Rural Development stated that: Through a complete lack of any governmental policy we have permitted rural America to deteriorate like a rusting hand plow languishing in a fallen down barn, while the social and economic problem once scattered across the thousands of square miles of our great land have become more evident and more volatile.2 The dramatic change in American rural population over the past 25 years can be compared to the great agrarian convulsion at the turn of the century. Advances in technology and changes in the structure of agriculture have led to rapid unemployment facing millions of farm laborers and small farmers forcing them to seek non-farm jobs in areas other than their own communities. For many rural workers the changes have meant a geographical move as well as an occupational move. However, the literature shows that a growing proportion of this rural labor force is commuting to non- farm type jobs. The Rural Task Force on Vocational and Technical Education in 1970 reported that approximately 58 million people, or 29 percent of 1Bruce King (Governor of New Mexico), "Voices for Rural America", Rural Development, 92nd Congress, 2nd Session, (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office), May 31, 1972, p. 6. 2Edward Breathitt (former Governor of Kentucky), "Voices for Rural America", Rural Development, 92nd Congress, 2nd Session, May 31, 1972, (Washington, D. C., 1972), p. 6. 3 the nation's 202 million people resided in rural America. In the late 1960's 14 to 15 million people were classified as rural poor.3 Although only 40.9 percent of the poor lived in rural areas, almost half of them were youth and were expected to migrate to an urban area. As a result of this expected migration, two major questions are confronting manpower and education experts: (1) Who is responsible for preparing these youth for the future positions in urban jobs? and, (2) How should rural migrants be helped? Research has shown that a vast number of persons on assistance in urban areas are products of rural backgrounds.) This view is supported by the Rural Task Force on Vocational and Technical Education. The Task Force concluded that many youth and adults in rural areas are products of educational systems which failed to meet their needs, especially in providing skilled training and occupational information.4 The literature also reveals that problems of occupational adjustments accompanying the "urbanizing process" are often.neither known or understood by those who hire, fire, educate, or counsel rural migrants in the city. This results in many other problems for both employer and employee, but which frequently are assumed to be "problems of the rural migrants". 3Rural Task Force on Vocational and Technical Education, Vocational and Technical in Rural America: Employment Opportunities, TraininggNeeds, Progress, Problems, New Ideas, Recommendations, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office), 1970, pp. 3-5. 41971Manpower Report of the President, Rural Manpower Dilemmas, Department of Labor, (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office), 1971, p. 6. 4 Need for the Study Prior to the civil rights movement and the riot years of the sixties, the public focused little attention on the problems of rural migrants in America's inner cities. However the problems and difficulties hampering the occupational adjustment of rural migrants in non-farm jobs are becoming more apparent as the problems of urban America increase. Although there is a growing list of studies that in time may permit a better understanding and concern for the problems of people in rural America, additional research is needed in understanding problems related to employment, unemployment, occupational adjustment, training, and education of rural migrants. Reports of studies by Fuller indicate an urgent need for further research into the migration and education problems of people in rural America. He says that the ‘migration of rural peOple to urban areas reveals a heavy flow back to disadvantaged areas. This reverse flow, he contends, is prompted by inadequate education and skills, and values inconsistent with smooth integration into urban.America, especially job orientation.5 Such corrections involve an expansion of awareness of the urban world of work by youth and adults. It is obvious that rural schools are no longer made up of students seeking goals requiring rural skills, but with students who have widely diversified objectives and goals, many of which, require urban-type occupations and living. 5Varden Fuller, "Opportunities and Limitations of Employment Services and Other Informational Aids", Problems and Policies of American Agriculture, (Ames Iowa State University Press, 1967), pp. 180-195. 5 The importance of occupational adjustment of rural migrants cannot be overemphasized. The patterns of migration from rural to urban areas make it a major concern in America. It is evident that fewer jobs are available to rural migrants in urban areas as compared to urbanites. If rural Americans must look to urban America for employment, there is a need to provide knowledge and training about the occupational problems likely to be encountered. In addition, those who hire, fire, educate, and council youth and adults must be better informed about the problems of the rural migrants in urban areas. Background for the Study This study derived its bases from the following assumptions: (1) the geographical movement of rural migrants is an economic adjustment nmmhanism in which labor moves from areas where it is worth less to areas where it is worth more; (2) traditionally, rural workers move from areas where their services are in low demand to areas where the demand is believe to be greater; (3) occupational adjustment factors interfere with the "natural" trends in migration patterns causing socioeconomic dilemmas in the inner cities and rural areas; (4) the key variable for rural migration is employment and people move to increase the amount of work they can get (or move where the probability of getting a job is highest); or where there are both unemployment and wage differentials, people move to increase their expected income; and (5) better education of rural migrants will stimulate migration from economically depressed areas and relieve occupational, social, and population pressures. The assumptions of 6 this study were derived from general problems of rural education and generally accepted theories of rural migration (net migration, gross migration, and Keysenians Economic Model).6 Renshaw suggests a key variable leading to migration is wage differences between regions. As an arbitrary or trading model, he believes movement of labor to high wage areas should result in a reduction of differential to the point where the cost of transferring labor services to high wage markets makes further movement uneconomic.7 In the Keysians Economic Model the main variable is employment and people move to increase the amount of work they can get. Where there are both unemployment and wage differentials, people might be expected to move if they anticipated an increase in their expected income. Net migration is believed to respond to differential changes in the demand for labor in different areas in such ways as to help achieve stable configuration of relative unemployment rates in all areas. Many essentially random events influence migration flows. These include job vacancies and information flows, or other aspects of processes in.matching workers to jobs. For the most part these random 6Net Migration--refers generally to distinctive changes in demand for labor in areas toassist in achieving stable patterns of relative unemployment rates in all areas. Gross migration--pertains generally to the movement of workers from areas where their services are in low demand to areas where the demand is greater. Keysenian Economic‘Model--refers generally to people who move to increase the amount of work they can get or move where the chances of getting a job is highest. 7Vernon Renshaw, "The Role of Migration in Labor Market Adjustment" (published doctoral dissertation, Massachusett Institute of Technology, Department of Sociology, June 1970), pp. 41-45. 7 events have been discussed by agricultural economists largely in context of a labor market operation within a set of institutionally determined wage constraints rather than in the context of a labor market offering continual market clearing without non-price rationing.8 9 rationing, says Renshaw, induces random gross 10 Short-run price migration not found in a market-clearing-system. This is because movement might occur by people who are processed through a series of second best jobs while waiting to hear about a job of the right type. In a market clearing system the worker could have gotten the type job he desired initially by simply bidding the right price. The literature reveals additional information on reasons for 'migration other than.those expressed in the economic theories indicated earlier. Some of these studies point to inadequate education and occupation preparation of rural people prior to urban migration as a reason for poor employment in urban centers. Maitland and Knebel suggest that moving almost always involves some trauma, but the length of time required to make the adjustment depends on the migrant's characteristics, skills, knowledge of the factors involved, and economic resources. Another chief handicap they note concerning the disadvantaged in our society is their vague notion of how society is 8Non-price rationing in this study refers to wage prices that are not normally fixed, i.e. supply and demand are not in equilibrium. 9Short-run price rationipg in this study refers to wages paid in a labor market in short durations. 1oMarket clearing system in this study refers to a system of information and bidding exchange so prices are adjusted until supply equal demand. 8 11 This applies to the poor of all organized or how it is operated. ethnic groups and races. The poorly educatedand unskilled rural migrants are ill-equipped to make the adjustments required by urban occupations and social conditions. Burchinal reported that many rural youth and adults are seriously disadvantaged socially, economically, and educationally, and these disadvantages are compounded because this group lacks the training to become working citizens in 12 Therefore, migration becomes a serious problem an urban society. for the rural migrants and their primary alternatives become either to remain in an urban area or return to a rural area. Statement of the Problem This study was concerned with the various aspects of the problem which emerges when rural people migrate to urban areas and fail to make the necessary occupational adjustments. It focused on problems and occupational adjustments of people who were reared and educated in rural areas, then migrated to an urban center and remained there, and on those who returned to a rural area. I Purposes of Objectives of the Study The purpose of this study was to determine the attitude, skills, and knowledge of rural migrants about occupational adjustments, when 11Sheridan T. Maitland and Stanley M. Knebel, "Rural to Urban Transition", Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. 91, No. 6, (June, 1968). 12Lee G. Burchinal, "Rural Youth Crisis: Facts, Myths, and Social Changes", Department of Health, Education and Welfare, (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1965), pp. 4-5. 9 people migrating to an urban center or returning from urban areas to a rural area. Objectives of this study were: 1. To determine the attitude of rural migrants toward education, training, and work. 2. To describe the education and training received by rural L//’ migrants. 3. To determine the present employment and employment history of rural migrants. (‘- 4. To determine the reasons given by rural migrants for migrating and/or commuting to an urban area for employment. 5. To describe the differences in occupational and skilled p// levels of rural peOple before and after migrating to urban areas. 6. To determine the extent to which training received by rural migrants in high schools, vocational schools, or other voca- tional programs was satisfactory and was perceived to affect the adjustments on jobs. 7. To determine the barriers encountered by rural migrants as they adjusted or failed to adjust to urban jobs. 8. To describe the differences in occupational adjustments on jobs according to present place of residence of rural migrants 9. To determine the place of residence rural migrants prefer when confronted with the problem of whether to "migrate or commute" to find employment. 10. To determine the period of time on a job before adjustment occurs . 11. 12. The following general hypotheses were: 1. 10 To describe the problems and difficulties that influenced / (/’ rural migrants to return to rural areas to live. To describe the difficulties faced by rural migrants in moving vertically and horizontally in the urban and rural labor market. Hypotheses 13 There tends to be a direct relationship between the amount of education received and the employment levels of skills ‘ of rural migrants regardless of the ethnic group to which they belong. The attitudes of rural migrants in the city toward education and training tends to differ from the attitudes of those migrants who returned to rural areas. There tends to be a positive relationship between employment and levels of skill and education of rural migrants based on racial backgrounds. The levels of importance of problems and difficulties per- ceived by men tend to be different than levels perceived by women. There tends to be a difference in the attitudes of rural migrants between ethnic groups and residence as measured by factors associated with education and training. Definition of Terms Used Rural areas. Rural as used in this study refers to farms, farm communities, and incorporated areas with populations up to 25,000. 13The hypotheses are restated in testable form in Chapter III. ti ll Hgbgpflaregs. Urban as used in this study refers to incorporated areas with populations over 25,000. Migration. The physical transition of an individual or groups of individuals from one place to another. Occupational adjustment. The process by which an individual adapts to or overcomes barriers, problems, and difficulties leading to or maintaining employment. Commuting. In this study refers to the traveling back and forth regularly from a home base associated with employment. Relocating. In this study is synonomous with migration. Mobility. In this study is synonomous with commuting. Rural migrants. Refers to people reared, educated and who have migrated and presently residing in urban areas; and these who returned from urban areas and are presently residing in rural areas. Basic Assumptions The following assumption was considered to be essential to the understanding and purpose of this study. Additional assumptions were made in the section of this chapter on Background for the Study. 1. The respondents reliably reported their true feelings and opinions and were not influenced by the interviewer or institutional image. Limitations and Scope of the Study This study was limited to: (1) a rural county and an urban area in Michigan; (2) people who grew up and were educated in rural areas and migrated to Grand Rapids comprised the urban group, and those returning to Allegan County from urban areas comprised the rural group; 12 (3) persons who left rural areas after the age of 16 and at the time of the study were 20 to 35 years of age, and (4) persons returning to Allegan County who had lived in an urban center 1 to 15 years and had been in Allegan County one month to 15 years, and persons from rural areas in Grand Rapids who lived in that urban area from 1 to 15 years. Questionnaires used in this study may be limited to the extent they were semantically different. Also, the instruments were designed in such ways that items were not exactly the same for both groups, but dealttwith the same general idea, may have resulted in differences in interpretations of items by respondents. Generalizing the findings from this study should be limited to populations and conditions similar to those in this study. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Introduction This review is limited to literature dealing directly or indirectly with rural migration. It includes literature pertaining to the rural population and the educational and occupational preparation of the rural migrant. This review is organized into four categories. The first category focuses on the rural population and its relationship to urban populations. The second category deals with educational and occupational preparation of rural migrants entering the urban or rural labor market. A third category pertains to the circular mobility and migration of rural migrants. The final category focuses on the problems, difficulties, and aspirations of rural youth and adults in rural and urban areas. America's Rural Population America's rural population has undergone a vast transition since the introduction of rural-farm and urban-industrial technology. Farm jobs are no longer available as they once were. Occupations once available in urban centers for the unemployed rural person have also vanished; or the educational and skill requirements for available positions make them out of reach for the majority of rural migrants. 13 14 The rural population has made no attempt to rise up for political or social change. Therefore, rural America has remained as the "silent population". Prior to 1958 little public attention was given to the social and economical problems facing rural migrants. As a result, little progress has been made in alleviating their problems. In response to this lack of awareness by the public, the President of the United States created a National Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty. The Commission Report, The People Left Behind, which was released in late 1967, did much to heighten the awareness about rural problems and difficulties and their role as the foundation of much urban poverty. The commission reported that in the mid 1960's approximately 59 million people, or 29 percent of the nation's 202 million people resided in rural America based on information from the Census Bureau. Between 1950 and 1968, the Commission reported, the urban population rose 40 percent while the rural population rose only 7.5 percent. The proportion of persons living on farms had decreased to less than 20 percent of the rural papulation. In 1967, 11 million people were farm residents down from 16 million in 1960 and 23 million in 1950.1 The Commission estimated that about 80 percent of the rural population did not live on farms. Of these, 28 percent were employed 1President's National Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty, The Peeple Left Behind, (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1967), pp. 3-7. 15 in manufacturing; others were in mining, lumbering, recreation, or were employed at colleges, institutions, and military installations. Some workers employed in occupations or business closely linked to agriculture such as processors of agricultural products and distributors or sellers of supplies, services, and equipment.2 It should be noted that many "urban dwellers" can be considered as "rural". The Rural Task Force indicated that many peOple live in towns with1populations between 2,500 and 25,000 but work on nearby farms. The reverse is also true, many rural dwellers commute to urban employment. There are "urban dwellers" who are non- farm workers but who, because they live in small, isolated towns, share the same economic problems and levels of services with the functionally rural portion of the population.3 The Commission also reported in 1960, the median age of rural residents was 27.3 years compared with 30.4 years for urban dwellers.4 Rural areas have a higher proportion of children and lower proportion of adults of working age than urban areas. However, the median age for the farm population has advanced, due to the heavy out-migration of young adults. A large proportion of children on farms are under the age of 18, but the adult population is middle-aged. 2Ibid., p. 4. 3Rural Task Force on Vocational and Technical Education, Vocational and Technical Education in Rural America, U. S. Office of Education, (washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1970), pp. 1-2. 4Ibid. , p. 3. 16 The report by the Rural Task Force on Vocational and Technical Education emphasized that the rural non-white population has been decreasing since world War 11. Also, between 1940 and 1950 the non-white residents in the rural population decreased from.52 to 38 percent. A large proportion of rural nonrwhites migrated to cities during world War 11 because of the increasing need for manpower in defense industries. In addition, as technological changes were adopted in agriculture less manpower was required. By 1960, only 28 percent of the 20.5 million non-whites remained rural residents. ‘Most non-whites now reside in urban areas. Indians are the exception because most live on reservations in rural areas.5 The Rural Task Force on Vocational and Technical Education reports that since 1960 the rural non-white population has been declining more rapidly than the rural white.6 However, Dr. Tarver argues that the rates of in~migration and out-migration to and from the South are much greater for the rural whites than for nonrwhites. He reported that the 1950 and 1960 in-migration rates to the South were 5.8 and 1.4 respectively for whites and 0.6 and 2.4 for nondwhites. He says the only difference in these groups is that two southern whites I leave for every one person that moves to the South. Whereas about three southern nondwhites leave for about every one that returns to the South.7 5President's National Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty, fl. CitO’ p. 5. 6Rural Task Force on Vocational and Technical Education, pp. cit. ' 7James D. Tarver, "Occupational Migration Differentials" (A speech presented at the National‘Manpower Conference on Population Shift at Oklahoma State University), (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1968), pp. 16-27. 17 It is obvious that rural America is changing and will continue to change. To enhance this change rural jobs must be different from what is generally known. Also, educational and skill preparation must meet the needs of each rural migrant. Some changes are occurring in many forms as in the myth of the declining rural population. The rural population is not declining in number, but the number of people who live and work on farms is declining. Prosperous urban dwellers are finding it a luxury to migrate to rural areas; while rural migrants are escaping from deprevations in rural areas to "Inner city, U.S.A.'l The Underprivileged Population It seems that in every society there is a certain segment of the population that is less advantaged and less discussed than others. This is true in American society. A specific portion of the population has been labeled as poor, disadvantaged, or welfare loafers. Regardless of circumstances leading to their so-called rural disadvantagements, some Americans on certain occasions appear to forget those individuals less fortunate than themselves; and therefore, consider the circumstances as "problems of the poor". The President's National Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty in a report on Rural Poverty in the United States, described the existence and scope of rural poverty. It concluded: 1. From 14 to 15 million persons in our country are classified as rural poor; 78 percent of these are white. Although only 29 percent of the nation's pop- ulation lives in rural areas, 43 percent of its poor live in rural America. In metropolitan areas one person in eight is poor; in rural areas one person in four is poor. 2. The national rate of unemployment is 3 to 4 percent; the rural rate is 18 percent. The rural rate of underemployment is around 37 percent. From 1950 to 18 1965, modern technology increased farm output by 45 percent but decreased the needed farm manpower by approximately 45 percent. ‘3. Every thirteenth house in rural America is classified as inadequate for habitation. Of the inadequate housing in the United States, 44 percent is located in rural areas. 4. Less than 7 percent of the rural poor participate in the food stamp program. Thirty percent of rural schools have no facilitaties for preparing lunches, therefore, the school lunch program is unavailable to many rural students. 5. Since the Federal Welfare Program requires matching funds from States, less than one-fourth of the rural poor are wel fare rec ip ients . ~ Research shows that the concentration of social and political functions in large towns and villages and the out-migration of thousands of rural people have resulted in the breakdown of many rural social and political organizations which residents had used for interaction and for contact with the "outside" world. Consequently, rural poverty means more than inadequate incomes. It means isolation from.education and occupational opportunity, from respected positions in society, from.acquaintance with stable homes and family arrangements, and from.eocial interaction with successful people.9 The rural poor has remained as the "unheard group". They have not burned, looted, or rioted. They are too scattered and most are 8President's National Advisory Commission, Rural Poverty in the United States, (washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, May, 1968), pp. 3-4. 91bid. 19 unaware of their disadvantagements. They have benefited little from this generation's effort to change the lot of the nation's oor.10 P Occupational Opportunities in Rural America Dating primarily from 1950, a considerable body of research has been developed which deals with technological change in agriculture-- rising labor productivity, the declining demand for farm labor, the level of farm employment (including underemployment), and the inter- relations among these variables. Even without this literature the average citizen would have been conscious of the virtually truistic main finding of thosewritings. Namely, that careers and opportunities in farming have been sharply declining. Former farm residents and their relatives and friends in urban areas are sources of lay information on individual situations and experiences, including explanations as to why some farm youth did not entertain careers and why some farmers quit, and why some returned to farming. The lay information may have lacked ultimate explanatory sophistication, however, it has been sufficient to instill the understanding that departure from farms was not entirely a matter of freely elected preference for urban life and non-farm occupations. Occupational opportunities in the United States have been almost entirely in cities. Between 1950 and 1960, urban employment rose 9.2 million while employment in rural areas declined 4 million, employment increased 2.9 million in rural non-farm jobs, farm employment decreased 3.3 million, a trend which continued through the 1960's.11 10The People Left Behind, op, cit. 11Rural Task Force on Vocational and Technical Education, op. cit. 20 The Rural Task Force reported that an estimated 20 million persons made up the rural labor force in 1968 of Which nearly one fifth or 4 million were farm.workers. This marked a 50 percent decline in farm workers paid wages or salaries in 1968, and represented a decrease of about 5 percent from the estimated 3.1 million paid farm workers in 1967. Between 1960 and 1968, employment in farming dropped from an average of 5.5 to 3.8 million, an average decline of 200,000 per year.12 In the past two decades, a lack of employment in rural America has stimulated thousands of workers each year to mdgrate to urban areas. Some of the migrants were well educated and able to cope with economic and occupational opportunities in urban areas. However, many were ill-equipped for urban jobs and had little or no knowledge of the urban job market. It is estimated that over 200,000 new jobs must be created each year in rural areas or nearby towns to stem the out-migration. Usually farm labor is abundant, but many regions with seasonal harvests need workers and there is a shortage of skilled year-round farm labor, especially in dairying. Such shortages are also due to the reluctance of many workers to accept farm jobs because of low wages, long hours, other limited job benefits, and low social status of the job.13 lzlbid. 13President's National Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty, op. cit., p. 6. 21 The United States Department of Agriculture reported a significant development in rural America in the growing integration of farm and non-farm economics and labor forces. As farm employment declined four out of five workers in the rural labor force shifted to non-farm jobs. Even among farm workers, a combination of farm and non-farm employment is common. The USDA also indicated that rural workers usually have less education and cannot compete for skilled or semi-skilled jobs in manufacturing. Therefore, nearly 4 million rural persons in the rural labor force need to upgrade their skills.14 To assist rural people in making the adjustment to non-farm occupations, the educational systems should equip rural migrants with the educational and occupational skills necessary to cope with urban life, according to the USDA report. Educational and Occupational Preparation of Rural PeOple There is widespread acceptance that rural youth and adults do not or have not received the necessary occupational and educational skills needed to enter and maintain urban type jobs. The literature shows that creation of jobs in rural areas has not kept pace with the nation's economic growth. For decades rural people have found it necessary to migrate to urban areas for employment, thus often finding themselves without skills needed to compete in the urban labor market.15 14Ib1d. 15James 0. Gibson, "Rural Poverty: Challenge to the Urban Society" in American Vocational Association Concepts in Vocational Education, (Washington, D. C.: American Vocational Association, 1972), pp. 74-81. 22 President Kennedy emphasized the importance of education and employment preparation in a message to the United States Congress when he said " . . . Ignorance and illiteracy, unskilled workers and school dropouts . . . breed failure in our social and economic systems. The loss of only one year's income due to unemployment is more than the total cost of twelve years of education through high school. Failure to improve educational performance is thus not only poor social policy, it is poor economics."16 The literature shows that people in rural areas exhibit inadequate educational and job preparation skills. These inadequacies have resulted in substantial migration to more prosperous rural and urban areas. Manpower and educational experts agree there is a growing need for training rural workers in order to facilitate the attraction of new industrial plants or for successful migration to new jobs. The success of education and occupational performance depends in part upon the role the rural school takes in preparing its youth for the world of work. The questions then become: Who is responsible for training youth? Should the school prepare youth for a post high school career for the immediate labor force? Can a rural school provide skilled training successfully? Is it necessary to provide vocational training since many rural and urban employers retrain their 16D. S. President (Kennedy) "Message to the United States Congress", Washington Post, (January 3, 1963), Section I, p. l. 23 new employees? How well rural youth adjust to the urban labor market depends in part, upon the rural schoolfis answer to what is the role of the school. Kreitlow says the philosophy undergirding the school moved from a demand for an education of strict and practical.necessity to one of an often theoretically based futurity. Actually the shifts in the philosophy of the rural school have changed only in respect to what citizens believe to be essentials of learning. He added that the professional rural educator has always attempted to keep abreast of this change. Yet the bulk of rural leadership in education now places its emphasis on the community school.17 Brembeck says school roles are definable from social needs growing out of man's increasingly complex way of living. He added that the school performs a variety of social roles; (I) the school socializes the young and helps them learn the way of life into which they are born; (2) to transmit its culture; and (3) the school selects and sorts students into various educational and vocational streams. He concludes by stating that the role of the school is defined differently by people, groups, and localities.18 Although rural localities differ in philosophies and general goals, there are similarities in curriculums. Therefore. in general rural school roles are defined and reacted upon the same. 17Burton W. Kreitlow, Rural Education: Community Background, (New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1954), p. 241-242. 18Cole 8. Brembeck, Social Foundation of Education: A Cross- Cultural Approach, (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966), p. 244. 24 Attempting to examine the role of education in rural areas, Conner and Magil suggest the role it can play in the process of rural development. They found, in Canadian rural schools, that students in their project, were thinking about their future job plans, but because of the lack of communication about many of the educational opportunities, the range of alternatives from which they could choose was limited. They concluded that teachers in their daily interaction with students did not transmit knowledge about the educational and occupational world outside the sChool system. Hence students depend on information from their parents, mass media, and informal methods such as the display of vocational guidance material.19 The generalizations by Conner and Magil support the findings by Haller, Burchinal, and Tarves. The latter stated that " . . . many rural youth receive little or no occupational counseling. As a consequence, the average rural youth is less informed about job opportunities and less prepared to compete effectively for available jobs. Many rural youth may face a future of job insecurity."20 Brazer and David agree that.education alone will not lead to success in employment. They believe the influence of parents and environment had a great impact on a student's years of schooling and 19Desmond M. Conner and Dennis W. Magil, The Role of Education in Rural Development, (Ottawa: The Honourable Maturice Sauve, 1965), p. 167. 20A. O. Haller, Lee G. Burchinal, and M. J. Tarves, Rural Youth Need Help in Choosing Occupations, Bulletin No. 235, (East Lansing: Michigan State University Experiment Station, 1963), pp. 4-5. 25 occupational success.21 Based on a U. S. sample of 939 families, multivariate analysis was used to account for the variance in completed education of youth as related to characteristics of their parents and environment. Table 2.1 shows the influence of parents and the years completed. Table 2.1 The Estimated Impact of Parental and Environmental Factors Associated with Rural Poverty of Educational Attainment of Children Items Years of School Completed Overall Mean 11.82 Adjustment for Uneducated father -1.60 Father's a farmer ' - .13 Father always lived on farm - .06 Large family - .54 Low success drive of father - .26 Fundamentalist religious - .55 Young father - .92 Home in South - .54 Negro family - .52 Maximum Adjustment 5.12 Group mean if all above factors are free 6.70 Source: Luther G. Tweeten, ”Role of Education in Alleviating Rural Poverty" Economic Research Service, June, 1967. Their findings show that the mean education level was 11.82 years. Other things being equal, having an uneducated father reduced 21Harvey E. Brazer and Martin David, "Social and Economic Determinants of the Demands for Education”, Economics of Higher Education, (1967), pp. 5-6. 26 by 1.6 years the completed education of the children. Growing up in a household where the breadwinner was a farmer and had always been a farmer reduced education by 0.19 years. Being from a large family and being from the South each reduced education of children 0.54 years. If the family possessed little motivation for achievement and believed that hard work was less important than luck, educational attainment of children dropped 0.26 years. Being from a fundamentalist church background lowered the education level another 0.55 years. Having a father who was young when the youth was born tended to take another 0.92 years from the educational level. Being in a Black family reduced education another 0.52 years.22 These findings indicate that the influence of a parent can reduce the educational level of a youth. However, the researcher questions the findings on a practical basis. .It is doubtful that such a variable can be isolated without considering other influences. Tweeten re-emphasizes the fact that education has a two-fold effect on rural poverty. He says it increases the skills of persons, potentially raising farm.management ability levels as well as increasing suitability for non-farm jobs. But equally important may be the second effect of education. It enhances motivation and aspirations for improved earnings and living standards, and changes attitudes more consistent with reasonably frictionless assimilation into a new environment.23 221bid. 23Luther G. Tweeten, "The Role of Education in Alleviating Rural Poverty", Economic Research Service, Agriculture Economic Report No. 114, U. S. Department of Agriculture, (June, 1967), p. 47. 27 The literature suggests that other factors in the environment influence the total process of entering occupations. These include the facilities available to youth or adults and the expectations other people have for them. They also include the quality of schools, financial resources, expectations of others and one's self-image, parents, peers, teachers, school counselors, and cultural influences.24 Mauch further supports the allegation that rural migrants are ill-prepared to cope within an urban labor market. He says schooling in low income areas is as inadequate as incomes. Rural people generally receive schooling that is inferior to that received by city people. Few rural adults attain the general rural average of 8.8 years of school. Mauch adds that it is difficult for rural people who are handicapped educationally to acquire new skills, or get new jobs, or otherwise adjust to a highly urbanized society. He emphasizes that this is true on the farm as well as in urban industry for modern farming requires specialized skills.25 The studies provided ample evidence to suggest that rural migrants have not received the necessary occupational and educational skills to maintain or enter urban type jobs. To improve these skills requires that the roles and goals of rural schools generally be redirected. 24A. o. ,Haller, et. al., 92. cit., pp. 8-11. 25Art Mauch, I‘Low Income Farmers, Rural Youth, Farm.Labor -- Problems and Opportunities", People and Income in Rural America. What are the Choices? (Leaflet No. 6). Agriculture Policy Institute, «crth Carolina State University, 1969), pp. 1-3. 28 Migration and Mobility Migration has always been a major factor in America's occupational life. For some Americans this transfer has meant a form of luxury. For others it has been a traumatic experience, one of merely staying alive. The rural migrant has had to constantly adjust and readjust to both urban and rural ways of life and withstand influences and pressures from occupational and educational sources. Thereby rural migrants have been forced to cope with urban occupations and social integration they often were not prepared to handle. Cowgill says this effect of migration is difficult to generalize because the term encompasses so many experiences and so many varieties of people with many different reasons for moving and living under widely varying circumstances. However it does include moving from one original home base to another area, regardless of the length of stay.26 Ozaki indicates that migration is a normal activity and that it is a basic component in the demographic equation. He adds that together with mortality and fertility it plays a major role in the rate of population growth as well as pOpulation composition.27 Although Ozaki's position is true it does not convey the full ‘message. Migration entails more than a normal activity among the . 26Donald 0. Cowgill, "The Effect of Mobility Children and Youth in the 1960's." (Whitehouse Conference on Children and Youth), (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1960), p. 33. 27Utako Ozaki, "Migration Selectivity by Age, Sex, and Color and Relationship Between Patterns of Selectivity and Metropolitan Area Characteristics, SMSA", (unpublished master's thesis, Michigan State University: Department of Sociology, 1971), p. 42. 29 working society. It involves poverty,vprosperity, unemployment, underemployment, and hardship in both rural and urban areaS. Therefore, some people move out of desperation to find prosperity in other localities. Economic theory presumes that geographical migration is an adjustment mechanism in which labor moves from.areas where it is worth less to areas where it is worth more. Therefore, according to this theory employment becomes the key factor in rural migration. In the last few years, proponents, into place emphasis of mobility, have shifted from the mere encouragement of rural out- migration to the redirection of rural out-migration from larger cities to smaller population centers. Some researchers point to the Watts riots in Los Angeles as the turning point in the concern over rural- urban-rural migration. Prior to this time the general public and rural 'migrants were not aware of the widespread inner city problems and difficulties. It is apparent to the investigator that the concern is more for rural white migrants to central cities than for rural non-white migrants from depressed rural areas. Therefore, the "natural" population flow must stress circula mobility shifts of ‘minority groups. The ability to be mobile depends considerably on the kind of job skills possessed by the individual, the perceived demand for those skills elsewhere, and the ease with which the individual can free himself from fixed assets and family ties. 28R. D. Geshwind and V. M. Ruttan, Job Mobility and Migration in a Low Income Rural Community, Bulletin No. 730, (Lafayette, Indiana: Agriculture Experiment Station, Purdue University, 1961), p. 6. 30 The most common characteristics of persons who move from rural to urban counties are youth. A study of the relatively prosperous North Central States showed that adjustment problems can be expected among a group of youth not considered to be disadvantaged. Miles indicated that many rural youth are capable of making an adequate occupational adjustment, but find social integration difficult. Consequently the return of disillusioned youth from urban areas was found to be significant.29 Factors Influencing Rural Migration Several economic theories and models have shown that factors influencing migration center around the labor market. The Keynesian Economic theory implies that a key variable to migration is unemployment. People migrate to increase the amount of work they can get (or move where the probability of getting a job is highest). They also migrate if they can increase their expected income.30 This theory also presumes that geographical migration is an adjustment mechanism in which labor moves from areas where it is worth less to areas where it is worth more. In the Classical Theory of Hicks, the key factor influencing migration is wage 31 differences between regions. Sjaasted suggested another influence 29Guy'Miles, et. al., Optimizing Benefits of Neighborhood Youth Corps Projects for Rural Youth, (Minneapolis, Minnesota: North Star Research and Development Institute, 1970), pp. 23-24. 30M. P. Tadaro, "A Model of Labor Migration and Urban Unemploy- ‘ment in Less Developed Countries”, American Economic Review, (March, 1969), pp. 132-148. 311b1d. 31 which is based on the Gross Migration Theory. Here the factor centered on the movement of workers from areas where their services are in low demand to areas where the demand is greater. He explains that most geographic areas tend to have labor market sectors experiencing relative excess supply, and it is more efficient for workers to migrate than to adjust to available local jobs. Then aggregation across labor market sectors for a geographic area will obscure some of the net forces formovement.32 Payne says the decision among rural adolescent males to migrate is almost wholly dependent upon the occupational decision. He adds that occupational decision is dependent upon and follows in sequence the decision concerning projected school attainment.33 Although migration factors are generally explained by fluctuating economic conditions, there are always major demographic and social forces that are also incentives. Examples of this can be found in the studies of Phelps and Henderson. They indicated that the chief and obvious influence within population itself is over- population or population pressures, and the most apparent specific causes are high rates of fertility and net reproduction. Still another influence is the expanding industrial opportunities and the ease and economy of transportation.34 32Larry A. Sjaasted, "The Cost and Returns of Human.Migration", Journal of Political Economy, (October, 1962), pp. 80-82. 33Raymond Payne, "Development of Occupational Migration Expectation and Choices Among Urban Small Towns and Rural Adolescent Boys", Rural Sociology, XXI, (June, 1956), pp. 117-125. 3("Harold A. Phelps and David Henderson, ngulation in Its Human A8pects, (New York: Appleton-Century-Craft, Inc., 1958), pp. 149- 152. 32 Scharweller and Brown also found in noneconomic conditions, that in a rural low income area with a high rate of out-migration, the social class position of a family influences the pattern of out- migration, the structured migration process, and the economic life chances of individual migrants and families in the area of destination.35 Lansing, however, asserted that the decision to move is closely associated with the factors such as age, education, and life cycle phenomena, but not generally related to the distribution of economic opportunities over space. He says that migration involves a two-step decision process--a decision to move and a decision about where to 36 move . Commuting, Job Mobility, and Racial Migration Commuting, like migration is said to be a type of labor mobility. (Relocation in this study is synonymous with migration.) Geschwender says commuting is a partial substitute for migration.37 Whenever new opportunities for better employment arise, commuting can be found within tolerable limits of travel time and distance. By using modern methods of transportation the rural resident today can avail himself of advantages or urban employment and avoid some of the disadvantages of technological and labor market 35Harry K. Schwarzeller and James S. Brown, ”Social Class Origins, Rural and Urban Migration and Economic Change: A Case Study", Rural Sociology, XXXVI, (September, 1967), pp. 269-277. 36John B. Lansing, et. al., The Geographic Mobility of Labor Institute for Social Research, (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1967), p. 67. 37James A. Geschwinder, ”Occupational Mobility, Job Satisfaction, and Social References", (unpublished master's thesis, Michigan State University, Department of Sociology and Antropology, 1939), p. 43. 33 changes. Lowry has suggested that the daily journey to work might tend to supercede migration as a means of adjusting to change, since the lengthening commuting radius of the automobile has reduced the amount of migration necessary within local areas.38 Kaufman, Wilkinson, and Cole suggest that to find training and jobs, it is necessary for rural people, especially those in the open country, to migrate to places where there is greater opportunity.39 Research indicates, however, that individuals and families have a strong attachment to local community and a strong desire, if they are farmers, to continue in their occupation therefore commuting becomes an essential component in the occupational life of rural people. Relocating has long been advanced for the rural migrant as being "the solution” to labor movement from farm to non-farm employment. This solution is still advanced as the most obvious one, even though the high exodus rates of the past apparently have not resulted in changing either the income distribution within agriculture or the relative income position of farm and non-farm people. Chaldin and Trout, in describing the transition of Mexican Americans in.Michigan, note that in moving to the first permanent place in Michigan, many seasonal migrants moved to a community larger than the one in which they had previously resided. Their study was concerned with the migrating farm worker. They added 38Ira S. Lowry, Migration and Metropolitan Growth: Two Analytical Models, (Institute of Government and Public Affairs, UCLA, 1966), pp. 8-9. 39Harold F. Kaufman, Kenneth P. Wilkinson, and Lucy W. Cole, Povertngrograms and Social Mobility, Report No. 13, (Mississippi State University, Science Center, 1966), pp. 32-36. 34 that forty percent of the rural seasonal workers made such a move. Another one fourth moved to a place in the same size range and the remaining one third to a community in Michigan which was smaller than the one they left.40 Maitland and Knebel describing the rural migrant in general say most rural migrants, except Southern Blacks, remained in their region of origin.41 Somers indicated that rural Blacks are more likely than other rural migrants to relocate in cities over 500,000 in size. Hathaway concurs with Somers. He says the probability of a rural Black ending up in a city over 500,000 is seven to one. Also Blacks who migrate from southern rural areas to the North are much more likely than rural whites to remain in the North.42 Hathaway notes that a large proportion of rural migrants from farms return to the farm, but this is much less likely in the case of Blacks. Although the south gained about as many whites as they lost through migration between 1955-1960, there was only about one non-white in-migrants for every three out-migrants. He added that in spite of the congestion and other problems of large cities, there is evidence that rural migrants moving to large cities are likely to enjoy a greater gain in income than those who move to smaller urban areas. The principle barriers to mobility for Blacks 40Harvey‘M. Chaldin and Grafton D. Trout, Social Character- istics and Migration Experience: Migration and Employment in Michigan Cities, Part II. (Michigan State University, Center for Rural Manpower and Public Affairs, April, 1971), p. 2. 41Sheridan T. Maitland and Stanley M. Knebel, "Rural to Urban Transition”, Journal of Farm Economics, LXXXXI, (June, 1968), pp. 28-32. 42Gerald S. Somers, ”Migration and Training in Rural Areas", (background paper for the National Manpower Advisory Commission, June 20, 1969). 35 and Mexican Americans who migrate to areas similar to those of Blacks were listed as: (1) emotion, (2) discrimination, (3) family ties to particular locality, and (4) uneasiness about unfamiliar surroundings.44 Consistent with evidence on mobility, Hathaway and Perkins indicated that Blacks exhibit a lower off-farm mobility rate than non-blacks.45 The opposite findings in other studies on racial mobility is attributed to the failure to allow for much higher proportion of young persons and wage workers among Blacks, and to the fact they generally have measured migration, not mobility. Hathaway and Perkins indicated that the lower mobility rate of Blacks might be attributed to racial skill differentials. Their analysis was specifically between Blacks and Whites in the same farm employment category and in the same region (South). However, they argue that in their study they believed an element of discrimination in the labor market was involved.46 Researchers seem to concur that the process of migration to large migratory areas operates substantially through informal channels. As a result of Congressional hearing and findings of researchers, it was concluded that established Black ghettos and Mexican American settlements to some extent help to eaazadjustment 44Dale E. Hathaway, The Rural to Urban Population Shift: A National Problem, National Manpower Conference, (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1968), pp. 9-10. 45Dale E. Hathaway and Brian B. Perkins, "Farm Labor Mobility, Migration, and Income Distribution", American Journal of Agricultural Economics, (May, 1968), pp. 342-353. 451bid. 36 problems for newly arrived members of those minority groups. Lacking such help from other groups, e. g. rural southern whites and American Indians, in-migrants find difficulties in social and industrial integration.47 Aspirations, Expectations and Problems of Rural Youth in the Labor Force Aiton reports that nine out of ten farm and non-farm youth graduating from high school must find jobs outside of farming. Also, sixty percent of all graduates do not plan to attend college; eighty percent are not ready to take jobs. He adds that these youth score significantly lower on academic tests. They do not react to certain personality tests as do college bound youth.48 It follows that serious concern must be given to the aspirations, expectations, and problems facing rural youth on urban jobs. The concerns must be attuned to their capabilities, personality characteristics, and interests. There is a general understanding that rural youth expectations and aspirations are below par with urban youth. Also rural youth and adults confront more problems and difficulties entering and maintaining urban-type jobs than do their urban counterparts. 47H. 8. Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, The Migratory Farm Labor Problem in the United States, 92nd Congress, 2nd Session, (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1969), p. 136. 48Edward W. Aiton, "Myths and Myopia--Blocks to Progress", Extension Service Review, (August, 1963), p. 140. 37 Lipset attempted to determine differences in aspirations in a study involving 12th grade students. His hypothesis that rural youth have lower occupational and education aspirations than youth in the cities received partial support from his study. This support was significant only for the rural white population and particularly for the rural white male segment. The failure to obtain any significant rural-urban differences in the aspirations of rural blacks is not surprising, since Haller and Sewell pointed out less advantaged rural Black youth had higher occupational and educational aspirations than rural white youth. One would expect rural-urban differences to be more pronounced among less well educated and economically backward population groups. However Lipset appeared to justify the differences. The Blacks, he says, who remained in school through the 12th grade were a very select group among Blacks who had uniformly high occupational and educational aspirations.49 Although Lipset research procedures were sound, it appears his conclusions of the rural Black population is a "put down" for Black rural youth. That is, his reasoning for high occupational and educational aspirations does not account for possible desires, needs, hopes and dreams by the average rural black youth. Gist and Bennet reported a difference in their study of aspirations of Black and white students. Their study was comprised of 873 Black and white urban high students. They reported no differences 49Seymour M. Lipset, "Social Mobility and Urbanization", Rural Sociology, XX (1955), pp. 220-228. 38 were found between Blacks and whites in terms of aspirations or plans for an occupation and education. But Blacks did reveal higher occupational mobility aspiration than.whites, as measured by a revision of the North-Hatt Scale. Black females showed particularly high mobility aspirations, therefore confirming earlier beliefs of Hathaway. In terms of social influences of mobility on educational and occupational aspiration, evidence showed a strong maternal influence among Blacks. However they added that this material influence was not as strong as among whites.50 The literature which was reviewed substantiates the theory that when factors like socio-economic status, levels of education of parents, and occupations of parents are considered, there is little difference in the occupational and educational aspirations of rural and urban youth. Contradictory to many findings, Landis reports that rural youth migrating to urban areas are better educated than rural youth who remained behind, but less educated than urban youth with whom they take up residence. He also found that urban youth moving to rural areas are less well educated than urban youth who remained in cities, but are better educated than rural youth with whom they compete occupationally in rural areas. In spite of initial educational disadvantages, rural youth migrating to cities surpass urban youth when they compete in income. Urban youth, on the other hand, Who move to rural areas surpass rural youth in income. Urban girls 50Noel P. Gist and William S. Bennet, Jr., "Aspirations of Negro and White Students", Social Force, XL, (October, 1963), pp. 40-48. 39 moving to rural areas are especially successful as measured by economic criteria, from the standpoint of status giving occupations for rural youth.51 There is a serious question as to the population used in this study. Was it from a special selection of disadvantaged youth? There is an apparent difference in the time of the study from other studies mentioned. Perhaps this can account for contradictions among Landis' findings and those of other studies. Haller, however, adds another dimension to the question of educational and occupational aspirations of rural youth. He says farm-reared people are relatively unsuccessful in urban occupations. He contends youth who have low levels of occupational and educational aspirations are low achievers. He believes since farm reared people have low levels of aspiration it suggests the environment provided by rural society limits the horizons of the farm youth.52 However, later research disapproves his hypothesis by showing that only those boys who plan to farm have low levels of aspirations. It appears the literature supports the allegation that rural youth confront certain problems and difficulties in urban type jobs not confronted by other youth. 51Paul H. Landis, ”Education Selectivity of Rural-Urban Migration and Its Bearing on Wage and Occupational Adjustment", Rural Sociology, XXIII, No. 4, (December, 1958), pp. 321-324. 52A. 0. Haller, "The Occupational Achievement Process of Farm Reared Youth in Urban-Industrial Societies", Rural Sociology, XXIII, No. 4, (December, 1958), pp. 321-324. 40 Carbin, et. al., identifies several worker adjustment problems of youth in their transitions from school to work.53 Although these problems may not be identified specifically with migrant rural youth, they can be identified as problems of all youth. Table 2.2 shows nine broad categories and nearly 50 categories are identified in Appendix D. A majority(86.0 percent)0f the respondents indicated that job preparation is one of the major problemssof youth in transition from school to work. Seventy-eight percent felt that personality variables were the second important problem in the transition. Nearly seventy-one percent indicated that vocational behavior was also a serious worker adjustment problem of youth. Less than fifty percent of the respondent indicated discrimination factors, family background, community factors and factors inherent on the job as worker adjustment problems. Table 2.2 Specific Worker Adjustment Problems Mentioned by Youth Opportunity Center Counselors (n=736) Worker Adjustment Number of Percent of Counselors Who Counselors Who Mentioned It Mentioned It Job Preparation 656 86.0 Personality Variables 597 78.2 Vocational Behavior 547 71.1 53Albeno P. Garbin, Robert E. Campbell, and Donald F. Eggerman, Problems in the Transition from School to Work: As Perceived by Youth Opportunity Center Counselors, A National Survey, (Ohio State University: The Center for Vocational and Technical Education, 1969), pp. 29-33. 41 Table 2.2 (continued) Worker Adjustment Number of Percent of Counselors Who Counselors Who Mentioned It Mentioned It School Programs 358 46.9 Discrimination Factors 256 33.6 Family Background 221 29.0 Community Factors 165 21.6 Factors Inherent on the Job 59 7.8 Military Obligation 46 6.0 Source: Albeno P. Garbin et. al., Problems in the Transition From School to Work: As Perceived by Youth Opportunity Center Counselors. Ohio State University: Center for Vocational and Technical Education, 1969. Bauner reported that those youth eventually receiving jobs found four factors which seems to have the most influence on job satisfaction. They were: (1) occupational prestige directly related to skills, education, and training necessary for a particular job; (2) cultural values; (3) the degree of integration characteristics of work group; and (4) the degree of control a worker has over his physical movement. Summary In summary, the review of literature has provided a review of the four major areas which most directly relate to the topic of this research: (1) America's rural population, (2) educational and occupational preparation of rural people, (3) migration and mobility, and (4) aspirations, expectations, and problems of rural youth in the labor force. 42 Studies cited on the American rural population focused on the underpriviledged population and the occupational opportunities in rural America. Research indicated that a large segment of this population is less advantaged than others. Also that there is a need for upgrading and revitalizing the awareness of the public to the social and economical problems facing rural migrants. The review of literature on educational and occupational preparation on rural people indicated rural migrants are less prepared educationally and technically to adjust to urban as well as rural occupations. Also revealed, was the need for understanding and determining precisely the problems and difficulties confronted by rural migrants on urban occupations. However, research showed the flight of rural people to urban areas and their inabilities to cope with urban occupations is widely known by educators and manpower authorities. Studies on migration and mobility focused primarily on factors influencing rural migration and commuting, job mobility, and racial migration. The literature showed a need for providing information to alleviating and curtailing problems facing rural migrants in their flight to urban areas. Also to forntpossible redirection of migration and mobility from large urban areas to smaller ones! Literature reviewed concerning aspirations, expectations, and problems of rural youth in the labor force indicated that they were not prepared educationally to cope with urban society. Also, their aspirations and expectations were higher than urban youth. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY Introduction This chapter contains a description of the procedures for collecting information and analysis of data. These steps included: (1) selection of the p0pulation; (2) development and refinementiof the instrument; (3) procedures for collecting data; (4) selection of useable returns; (5) hypotheses, and (6) procedures for data analysis. Selection of the ngulation The pOpulation was comprised of two groups. The first group included persons reared and educated in rural areas who had migrated to Grand Rapids, Michigan. The second included rural residents who migrated to an urban area and returned to rural areas in Allegan County, Michigan. It was decided to collect data from an estimated population of 5500 rural migrants in Allegan County and Grand Rapids. It was estimated that nearly 1900 rural migrants were in Allegan County and 3600 in Grand Rapids based on information from state agencies and local groups in the areas. A random sample of 163 persons was determined by calculating three percent of the estimated population. The random sample consisted of four percent of the actual population which was stratified on three ethnic groups, Blacks, Mexican, and white Americans. The sample was divided into two groups 43 44 which consisted of 54 persons in Allegan County and 109 in Grand Rapids. To provide the necessary estimated population for selection, names were secured from reliable established local and state organiza- tions. Approximately 4050 names were secured from federal, state and local agencies, and groups and individuals. Some of those organizations were: Social Services, Manpower Development Training Programs, Michigan Employment Security Commission, Operation Mainstream, Community Action Programs, Urban League, Rural Manpower Development Office, and the United States Postal Services. In addition, the general public such as ministers, supermarkets, teachers, bartenders, etc. were also contacted. Lists secured included names, addresses, approximate ages, and telephone numbers as current as 1969. Changes were made in addresses and telephone numbers as the study progressed. Development and Refinement of the Instruments Since no suitable instrument was available to collect the kind of data sought in this study it was necessary to deve10p an instrument which would gather the required data and perhaps be of use to other researchers in gathering similar data from other groups. The steps in formulating the questions, after the objectives were established, were to examine the literature, areas of techniques of questionnaire construction, areas of social science methodology, and various conferences on questionnaire design with consultants in the Office of Research Consultation, College of Education, Michigan State University. 45 Certain steps and procedures were used to obtain information about the ability of the respondents to understand and respond to the instruments. First a list of jurors in vocational education and rural manpower were selected based upon their background and under- standing in their areas of concentration. A letter was prepared and sent to each member explaining the study and asking for assistance in evaluating the instruments. All jury members responded, agreeing to evaluate the questionnaires. A draft of the questionnaires was sent with specific instructions as to their function in evaluating the instruments. All jury members responded with few changes. Changes having the consensus of the jurors were incorporated into a second draft of the questionnaires. Second, a pilot study was administered to a similar popula- tion in the Lansing area. Comments including word changes and selection of questions were tabulated and reviewed. The third draft of the questionnaires was develOped for use in a two-day workshOp held to train workers to collect data. Purposes of the workshop were to familarize interviewers with: (l) the questionnaires, (2) procedures used in interviewing, (3) answering probable questions during an interview, and (4) collecting data. Practice sessions were also held for the interviewers during the workshop. After the workshop, a final draft (Appendices A, B, and C) of the questionnaires was printed and given to each interviewer. The total length of the printed questionnaires consisted of 83 items for the rural group and 74 items for the urban group. 46 Procedures for Collecting Data The following techniques and procedures were used in collecting data for this study. Interviewing The data were collected through the use of personal interviews. An interview schedule using two questionnaires one for rural respondents an one for urban respondents was developed to serve as a guide in the interview. Most of the items in the questionnaires were closed- ended questions, though several key questions were open-ended. In situations in which respondents were reluctant to answer one of both types of questions, interviewers probed for answers. The average interview lasted 39 minutes for urban respondents and 44 minutes for rural respondents. Interviewing Procedures The interviews were conducted over a two-month period. Respondents were contacted first by telephone and a suitable tine for an interview was arranged. Respondents who did not have telephones were contacted through home visits. During the early stages of the interviewing sessions, the researcher was in constant contact with each interviewer and supervised the method used in collecting data. Interviews were recorded openly and in long—hand during the interview. In situations in which respondents did not speak English, Spanish-speaking interviewers were used. Cards revealing names, addresses, telephones (if available), and the ethnic background of each respondent were provided for the interviewers. 47 Two white, one Black, and four Mexican American interviewers were used in the study. Three were assigned to the rural area and four to the urban area. Selection of Useable Returns After the initial selection of respondents to be interviewed, it was necessary to continue one step further in the selection of useable returns. Upon receipt of all questionnaires from the interviewers, several items on the instrument were compared to determine the reliable answers by respondents. An example was: "where were you born?" compared with ”what was the size of community, town, open country, etc. where you grew up?" or "where were you born?"; "how long did you live in the urban area (rural area) before coming to Allegan County (Grand Rapids)?". If any discrepancies were found in answers, those instruments were not used in the study. Other criteria were used similar in determining who was born or educated in rural areas. Combinations of items one through ten tended to indicate whether instruments were useable. Hypotheses The following five null hypotheses were tested: Hypothesis 1: There is no difference in the relationship between employment status and ethnic groups based on residence and sex, Hypothesis 2: There is no difference in the attitudes toward education and training between rural migrants in urban areas and returning migrants in rural areas. 48 Hypothesis 3: There is no difference in the relationship between ethnic groups and levels of employment skills and levels of education. Hypothesis 4: There is no difference between the perceived problems and difficulties in getting and holding jobs measured by men and women. Hypothesis 5: There is no difference in the attitudes of rural migrants between racial groups and residence as measured by education, training, occupational adjustment, andfoccupational information. Procedures for Data Analysis Using procedures recommended by the Office of Research Consultation, College of Education, Michigan State University, the following plan of analysis and treatment of data were agreed upon. Data obtained from.questionnaires were placed on Fortran Coding Forms and keypunched onto computer cards and verified. Data were then processed by the CDC 6500 and 3600 computers in the Computer Laboratory, Michigan State University. Various programs ‘were written and processed during the analysis stage of the study. The contingency analysis programs were written using the CDC 6500 computer. One program described data on two variables, rural and urban. ‘Print-outs included the number of respondents in each group and the responses for each question in the instrument. Included in the analysis were the expected frequencies, means, standard deviations, and Chi Squares. Questions were grouped into five sections: (1) commuting and relocating, (2) methods in finding 49 employment, (3) general data, (4) problems and difficulties in occupational adjustments and (5) education and vocational and technical training. These sections were scored according to a ranking percentage order. The second program used to describe data on six variables: employment, respondents, sex, age, place of birth, and racial groups. Print-outs included responses to each question in the instruments. Expected frequency, means, standard deviations, and Chi Square were also included in the print-outs. The first three hypotheses were tested by Chi Square.1 Significant difference from these analyses provided conclusions pertaining to independence of the respondents at the 0.05 level of confidence. The nonparametric Chi Square CI?) statistics were used as a result of data reported in frequencies. Hypothesis 4 was investigated through observations. Hypothesis five was investigated by the Univariate Analysis (fixed effect model). The nonorthogonal design was used in the fixed effect model. Tables have been presented from findings of objectives directly pertaining to the hypotheses. Hypothesis five was tested at 0.05 level. Summary This chapter concluded a detailed description of the methodology of this study in order that the reader might have a basis for evaluating the findings presented in Chapter IV. The purpose of this study was to determine the attitudes, skills and knowledge related to occupational adjustments made by rural people 1N. M. Downie and R. W. Heath, Basic Statistical Methods, 3rd edition, (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1970), pp. 196-214. 50 migrating to and from urban areas. Data were collected and analyzed from people who were reared and educated in rural areas, then migrated to an urban center and remained there and those who returned to a rural area. The sample population for the study consisted of 163 persons, 109 in Grand Rapids and 54 in Allegan County, Michigan. The sampling frame constituted a stratified sample based on racial backgrounds-- whites, Blacks, and Mexican Americans from an estimated population of 5500 persons in Allegan County and Grand Rapids. Two instrwments were developed for collecting data. One for rural respondents and the second for urban respondents. Data were gathered by personal interviews. Interviewers were from the general areas where the data were gathered. Interviews were conducted over a two month period and were recorded openly. Data were analyzed through the use of CDC 3600 and 6500 computers at the Computer Laboratory, Michigan State University. The Chi Square Test of Independence, Contingency Analysis, and Univariate Analysis of Variance were used in analyzing the data presented in Chapter IV. CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS Introduction The principal findings of this study are introduced and discussed in three sections. The first section deals with a profile of the target areas. Section two deals with data about specific objectives presented in two major categories: (1) characteristics of the respondents, and(2) occupational adjustment by rural migrants. Characteristics of the respondents are presented in three sub- categories; (1) a general description of the respondents, (2) education and vocational-technical education received, (3) relocating and commuting. Occupational adjustments of rural migrants are presented in two sub—categories: (1) employment mobility and (2) other adjustments by rural migrants. The final section focuses on testing of hypotheses. Profile of the Target Areas This section deals primarily with employment data for Grand Rapids and Allegan County. Several characteristics of the labor market in the geographical areas for the study were identified because of their potential relationship to occupational adjustments of rural migrants. The profile for the target areas includes: (1) employment trends and characteristics, (2) unemployment trends and characteristics, 51 52 and (3) area manpower problems for Grand Rapids and area manpower resources for Allegan County. Grand Rapids Data for the study in the urban areas were collected from Grand Rapids' inner city. Respondents were employed within the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) while their residence was confined basically to the inner city area of Grand Rapids. TheGrand RapidsSMSA is comprised of Kent and Ottawa counties and is located in the West Central part of Michigan's lower peninsula. During the 1960-1970 decade the population grew by 16.7 percent reaching 539,225 in April, 1970.1 Table 4.1 (page53) shows a comparison of trends and changes of the population of Grand Rapids, the State of Michigan, and the United States in 1960 to 1970 and the labor force in 1969 to 1970. Employpent trends and characteristics. During late summer 1971,2 total employment reached 213,500 in Grand Rapids SMSA: 20,400 'workers were unemployed; and 800 were involved in labor disputes. Compared to a year earlier, employment dropped by 1,300 and unemployment rose 3,900. 1Michigan Employment Security Commission, Grand Rapids Labor Market Area (Kent and Ottawa counties), Area Manpower Review, Affliated with the United States Training and Employment Service, U. S. Department of Labor MESC, 1971), pp. 4—6. 21971 data are introduced to provide a basis for comparison with conditions one year later when data were collected for the study, and to show implications of availability in both Grand Rapids and Allegan County labor market areas. 53 Table 4.1 Selected Population, Labor Force and Employment Data for the United States, Michigan, and Grand Rapids Labor Market Area (Kent and Ottawa Counties) 1970 1960 % Change Population United States 203,184,800 180,700,000 +12.4 Michigan 8,875,100 7,823,200 +13.4 Grand Rapids 539,200 461,900 +16.7 1970 1969 Z Change Labor Force United States 82,715,000 80,733,000 + 2.5 Michigan 3,618,700 3,597,600 + 0.6 Grand Rapids 228,900 228,300 + 0.3 Nonfarm Employment United States 75,165 000 74,296,000 + 1.2 Michigan 3,272,700 3,386,700 - 3.4 Grand Rapids 209,500 214,400 - 2.3 Manufacturing Employment as a Percent of Nonfarm Employpent United States 25.8 27.1 XXX Michigan 32.8 35.2 XXX Grand Rapids 34.3 36.4 XXX Unemployment as a Percent of the Total Labor Force United States 4.9 3.5 XXX Michigan 7.0 4.0 XXX Grand Rapids 6.5 4.4 XX 54 Table 4.1 (continued) 1970 1969 % Change Employment in Important Industries in the Grand Rapids Labor Market Area Furniture 10,900 11,500 - 5.2 Metal Industries 17,400 19,700 -11.7 Nonelectrical Machinery 12,000 12,500 - 4.0 Trade (Wholesale & Retail) 44,700 44,100 + 1.4 Services 26,000 26,400 + 0.8 Source: Michigan Employment Security Commission, Grand Rapids ‘Labor Market Area (Kent and Ottawa Counties), Area Manpower Review, September, 1971. The average hourly earnings of Grand Rapids Area production workers increased $0.24 per hour in 1971 after a 1970 increase earning of $0.75 per hour. Model changeover and vacation layoffs in durable goods industries were thought to be responsible for most of the employment cutbacks. The manufacturing industries were the hardest hit in the nationwide economic slowdown and constituted only 34.3 percent of all non-farm employment in 1970 compared to 36.4 percent in 1969. August's manufacturing employment remained 4,800 below a year ago levels and was also 500 less than the July total. Manufacturing employment is divided into two major categories: durable goods (about 75 percent of the manufacturing employment) and nondurable goods (the remaining 25 percent). The three key manufac- turing industries in the Grand Rapids labor market area were in the durable goods sector, namely, the furniture, metal, and nonelectrical machinery industries. 55 The furniture industries continued to move upward in employment registering an increase of 200 in late winter of 1971. However, employment in August 1971 was still 600 less than a year earlier. ”Much of the employment upswing was seasonal in nature with many of the gains coming from rehiring experienced workers who had been laid-off. The metal industries represented approximately 25 percent of all manufacturing employment. Primary metal products, which includes basic processing operations, had been dominated by strikes and plants closing during the first six months of 1971. Fabricated metal products was 600 workers below the employment level for the previous year. The ending of a layoff caused by the automobile model change-over caused employment to move upward by 400 from July to August 1971, a trend which lasted for two months. Food processing employment usually peaked during the summer and early fall corresponding to fruit and vegetable harvesting seasons. August 1971 employment at 5,200 was 400 greater than during July 1971 and 900 greater than June with nearly 150 workers involved. Nonmanufacturing employment totaled 121,000 in August 1971 and during 1970 presented 56.5 percent of all non-farm employment. There were 98,400 employed in the private manufacturing sector in August 1971 which was 1,200 above the 1970 level, with most of the growth in trade and services. Government employment at 23,000 in.August 1971 continued to grow with most of the increases in the local components. The August 1971 government employment was 1,600, the same as in the previous year and 500 greater than during May 1971. 56 Unemployment trends and characteristics. The 20,400 jobless workers in the Grand Rapids SMSA during the summer of 1971 represented 8.7 percent of the civilian labor force. There were 1,600 more employed in July 1971 and 1,300 less unemployed in May 1971. The unemployment rate of 8.7 percent (the rate when the study was being conducted) was highest since the summer of 1959 when the rate was 10.4 percent. Unemployment levels in Grand Rapids were slightly below state level as a whole in 1970-1971, but several percentage points higher than the United States rate. A comparison of the United States, Michigan and Grand Rapids SMSA is shown in Table 4.2. Table 4.2 Comparison of Seasonally Unadjusted Unemployment Rates Labor Market August July June May August Areas 1971 1971 1971 1971 1970 United States 5.9 6.2 6.5 5.3 5.0 Michigan 9.6 10.2 9.3 7.9 8.2 Grand Rapids (SMSA) 8.7 9.3 9.9 8.2 7.1 Source: MESC, Grand Rapids Labor Market Area, Area Manpower Review, September, 1971. According to August 1971 area trends in employment and unemployment, the Grand Rapids SMSA was classified as an area of "substantial unemployment group"; this area had been classified in the group since April 1970. In order to be classed in-this group the unemployment rate must have been between 6.0 and 8.9 percent and expected to remain at that level for the following two months. 57 The Grand Rapids, Holland, and Grand Haven branch offices of the Michigan Employment Security Commission had 11,225 persons in the "active files" as of July 1971. The active files include unemployed persons seeking other employment, insurance claimants, nonclaimants, and some employed persons seeking other employment. Table 4.3 gives a percentage distribution of the active files by occupation and race. Table 4.3 Percentage Distribution by Occupations of Persons with Active Files in Grand Rapids, Holland and Grand Haven MESC Branch Offices in July 31, 1971 A11 Occupations Total Negrob Spanish Surnamesa 100.0 100.0 100.0 Male 64.5 57.7 69.7 Female 35.5 42.3 30.3 Professional, Tech., Mg. 7.1 2.0 1.7 Clerical and Sales 19.0 14.9 8.3 Service 12.4 24.9 11.9 Farming, Fishing, Forest 0.8 0.7 5.6 Processing 4.5 7.3 7.5 Machine Trades 14.9 9.4 11.1 Bench Work 13.6 14.9 16.4 Structural Work 11.5 10.4 11.7 Miscellaneous 15.9 15.2 24.2 Source: MESC, Grand Rapids Labor Market Area, Area Manpower Review, September, 1971. aRelative to total, and Negro and Spanish surnamed minority groups. American Indians percentage breakdown using occupations were not included except in totals. (N was not given) bNegroes comprised 12.2 percent of total active file, Spanish surnamed 3.2 and American Indian 0.6 percent. (N was not given) Table 4.3 shows a considerably larger percentage of Negro women in the total active file than for Spanish surnamed women. There 58 were not many Negro or Spanish surnamed professional, technical, or managerial people in the active file (2.0 percent and 1.7 percent respectively compared to 7.1 percent for the total active file). A large percentage of Spanish surnamed individuals were concentrated in farming, fishery, and forest occupations. There were more Negroes and Spanish surnamed individuals in processing occupations than for the total active files. Area manpower problems. The depressed state of the economy during 1970 and 1971 created a surplus of workers in practically all occupational categories, with a considerable surplus of workers in major occupational areas during the summer of 1971. Layoffs of production workers in the manufacturing industries are reflected in the processing, machine trades, bench work, and structural occupations. Positions for clerical, sales, and services occupations are in excess supply as the result of low wage levels and/or different working conditions. The factors appeared to contribute to a high labor turnover rate. Job opportunities for skilled workers in the metal, nonelectrical and furniture industries improved somewhat during late Spring and early Summer 1971. However, there were shortages of minority peOple in many technical and managerial occupations. Allegan County The Allegan County Labor Market area is comprised solely of Allegan County, which is located in Southwestern lower Michigan. The county is bordered on the West by Lake Michigan, the North by the Grand Rapids labor market area, the East by-a portion of the Battle 59 Greek labor market area, and on the South by Kalamazoo labor market area. Lake Michigan along with numerous inland lakes makes the county an ideal resort area. The climate and soil conditions in the area makes Allegan County a leading agricultural area in the state. Preliminary 1970 census data indicate that the county's current population was 65,781. The largest city in the county was Allegan, which recorded a population of 4,492 in 1970, a 6.9 percent drop since 1960. The cities of Otsego and Plainwell were the two remaining largest cities in the county. Plainwell's population had shown a gain of 3.4 percent over the last ten years, while Otsego showed no gain. Table 4.4 shows the selected population, labor force, and employment data for the United States, Michigan and Allegan County labor market area. The local economy is represented by several major employers. Approximately forty-three percent of the area's wage and salary workers were engaged in manufacturing employment. Employment in the nonmanufacturing sector accounts for about thirty-four percent of the area's wage and salary employment and 23 percent were engaged in government employment. The area's fertile soil condition contributes to Allegan County being one of the state's leading growers of fruits and vegetables. Therefore, it attracts several thousand migrant farm workers during late summer when the crops are to be harvested. Employment trends and characteristics. A period of growth ended in Allegan County labor market area when a minor cutback in the annual monthly average wage and salary workers was recorded 60 Table 4.4 United States, Michigan, and Allegan County Labor Market Area Selected POpulation, Labor Force and Employment Data for the 1970 1960 % Change P0pu1ation united States 203,184,800 180,700,000 +12.4 Michigan 8,875,000 7,823,000 +13.4 Allegan County 65,781 57,729 +13.9 1970 1969 % Change Labor Force United States 82,715,000 80,733,000 + 2.5 Michigan 3,603,300 3,585,700 + 0.5 Allegan County 16,825 16,325 + 3.7 Nonfarm Employment united States 75,165,000 74,296,000 + 1.2 Michigan 3,257,700 3,374,800 - 3.5 Allegan County 13,725 13,950 - 1.1 Manufacturing Employment as 3 Percent of Nonfarm Employment United States 25.8 27.1 XXX Michigan 33.1 35.3 XXX Allegan County 37.5 39.1 XXX unemployment as a Percent of the Total Labor Force United States 4.9 3.5 XXX Michigan 7.0 4.0 XXX Allegan County 9.7 5.2 XXX Source: MESC, Allegan County Labor Market Area, Area Manpower Review, (February, 1971). in 1970. This was the first year there was a decline in the four year period between 1967 and 1970 for which labor force estimates were available The reduction in wage and salary employment was caused by a loss of jobs within the manufacturing sector. It also represented 61 the first loss in employment recorded during the period by any of the three sectors, manufacturing, nonmanufacturing, and government which were included in the wage and salary total. Allegan County's monthly average of 12,050 wage and salary workers in 1970 was a modest decline of 200 from the 1969 average of 5,450. The manufacturing sectors did not exhibit any sharp seasonal fluctuation, although the fourth quarter was normally the time of peak employment in this sector. Within the manufacturing sector, compared to 1969, the 1970 decline of 200 in durable goods employment and 100 in nondurable while not large, were significant due to their underlying causes. The reduction in durable goods employment was contained in two areas of employment: the metal industries and the nonelectrical machinery industry. In both industries only a few major employers congjxutethe majority of each industrial employment level. Overall, comparing annual monthly averages for 1970 and 1969, the metal industries declined by 175 in 1970. Of this loss in employment, 150 was accounted for by two firms in the primary metal products industry. The nonelectrical machinery accounted for a drop of 75 in durable goods employment. Small gains in furniture and fixtures and electrical machinery offset part of the job loss within the durable goods sector. Unemployment trends and characteristics. Unemployment in the Allegan County labor market area reached its highest recorded level over the last four years during 1970 and 1971. The annual monthly unemployment average of 1,625 individuals, or 9.7 percent was nearly 62 double the 1969 average of 850 jobless individuals, or 5.2 percent of the labor force. Two factors were related to the high unemployment levels in Allegan County. One was the loss of jobs in the manufacturing sector, and the second was the large number of residents commuting to surrounding counties for employment. It was feared that persons laid off from jobs in the nearby labor market areas were swelling the unemployment figures in Allegan County. The slowdown in the state and national economics and the General Motors - United Auto Workers layoff and strike limited industrial activities during 1970-1971. The 1970 census showed approximately a third of Allegan County's workers were employed outside of the county. With few workers from neighboring areas employed within the county, Allegan was left with a large out flux of commuters. Area manpower resources. The level of unemployment left an excess supply of labor available for work. Most of the workers available were relatively unskilled and had less than 12 years of education. With the curtailment of the operation of the textile mills and closing of metal manufacturing, there was an availability of workers with experience in these two industries. Allegan County did not have a branch office of the MESC, therefore, workers collecting unemployment compensation or individuals registering for work reported to an office outside the county. A report on the characteristics of branch office registrants was available for Kalamazoo and Holland areas and their applicants included many from Allegan County. The characteristics of the 63 unemployed in these two areas were considered to be representative of the unemployed in Allegan County. Most of those registered were in the under 22, or the 22 to 39 years of age bracket with most persons having less than 12 years of education. The areas had a small minority population so most applicants were white. Those classified disadvantaged in the Kalamazoo area had a higher proportion of individuals with less than 12 years of education compared to the typical registrants and a higher proportion were nonWhite. Specific Objectives and Relevant Data This section deals with findings based on specific objectives involving rural people migrating to and from.urban areas. The specific objectives were: 1. To determine the attitude of rural migrants toward education, training, and work. 2. To describe the education and training received by rural migrants. 3. To determine the present employment and employment history of rural migrants. 4. To determine the reasons given by rural migrants for migrating and/or commuting to an urban area for employment. 5. To describe the differences in occupational skill levels of rural pe0p1e before and after migrating to urban areas. 6. To determine the extent to which training received by rural migrants in high schools, vocational schools, or 64 other vocational programs was satisfactory and was perceived to affect the adjustment on jobs. 7. To determine the barriers encountered by rural migrants as they adjust or fail to adjust to urban jobs. 8. To describe the differences in occupational adjustments on jobs according to present place of residence of rural migrants. 9. To determine the place of residence rural migrants prefer when confronted with the problem of whether to "migrate' or commute" to find employment. 10. To determine the period of time on a job before adjustment occurs. 11. To describe the problems and difficulties that influenced rural migrants to return to rural areas. 12. To describe the difficulties faced by rural migrants moving vertically and horizontally in urban and rural labor markets. Data were collected through responses to the questionnaires and grouped into two major categories: (1) characteristics of the respondents, and (2) occupational adjustments by rural migrants. For reporting purposes characteristics of respondents and occupational adjustments were presented in five sub-categories. Characteristics of respondents dealt with: (1) general description of respondents, (2) educational and vocational-technical training received, and (3) relocating and commuting. Occupational adjustments deals with: (1) occupational mobility and (2) adjustments in employment by rural migrants. 65 The analysis of data included in this section were based on responses to the questionnaires by rural migrants in rural and urban areas . Characteristics of the Respondents General description of the respondents. The sample of respondents consisted of 54 persons living in a rural area and 109 persons living in an urban area. The rural residents who responded consisted of 20 whites, l7 Blacks, and 11 Mexican Americans. These and other data about the 111 useable responses are shown in Table 4.5. Table 4.5 summarizes the number and percent of returns by present residence and ethnic group based on sample size. Fifty-one (51) of the 54 respondents interviewed in the rural areas responded. Three respondents were reared and educated outside the United States, therefore their questionnaires were not included in the study. The forty-eight useable instruments represented interviews from 88.9 percent of the rural respondents in the sample. Seventy-two (72) of the 109 potential respondents were contacted and interviewed in the urban area. Nine questionnaires were not included because the respondents were reared and educated outside the United States or did not qualify under the criteria for useable instruments. The 63 useable questionnaires represented interviews from 57.8 percent of the potential urban respondents in the sample. The final return of responses amounted to 111 useable zeturnsfor a response rate of 68.1 percent of the sample. 66 Table 4.5 Sample Size, Number and Percent of Useable Responses Ethnic Sample Number of Percent Useable Percent Group Size Returns Return Returns Used Rural White 20 20 100 20 100 Black l8 17 94.4 17 94.4 MexicanrAmerican 16’ 14 87.5 11 68.8 Sub-Total 54 51 94.4 48 88.9 Urban White 39 29 74.4 29 74.4 Black 37 24 64.9 21 56.7 Mexican-American 33_ 12. 57.6 13 39.4 Sub-Total 109 72 66.1 63 57.8 Total 163 123 75.5 111 68.1 Respondents were classified into five groups on a basis of the status of individuals in the household. The five groups were: (1) head of household, (2) spouse, (3) dependent, (4) relative of family, and (5) others in household. Table 4.6 shows the number of rural migrants by residence and family status. Thirty-one of the rural respondents were heads of household, wherein 35 of the urban respondents were heads of household. Respondents in the urban area showed a higher percentage of spouse responding than those in rural areas. Though, spouse on the questionnaire indicated female, over 67 one third of the female respondents were listed as heads of household. (If the respondent was female and Head of Household, the interviewer automatically classified the respondent under "Head of Household".) Table 4.6 Number of Rural Migrants by Residence and Family Status Residence Head of Spouse Dependent Relative Others in Household Household Rural 31 9 2 6 None Urban 35 24 1_ 2’ 1 Total 66 33 3 8 1 Twenty-five of the 48 rural respondents were male and 23 were females. Twenty of the 63 urban respondents were males and 43 were females. There were no specific age differences indicated among the respondents based on their present place of residence. Twenty-four of the rural respondents were between the ages of 20—27 and 24 were ages 28-35. Thirty-four of the respondents from urban areas were 20-27 years of age and 29 were 28-35 years of age. The respondents consisted of 59 persons born and reared out—of—state and the other 50 persons were born and reared in Michigan. Twenty-three of the rural respondent's birth places were out-of—state compared to 36 of those now living in the urban area. Blacks and Mexican Americans showed a higher percent of out-of—state birth places than white respondents. A higher percentage 68 of the white respondents from both rural and urban areas were born in Michigan.- Table 4.7 contains data for a comparison of residence and ethnic background based on place of birth and size of community where reared. Table 4.7 Comparison of Birth Places and Size of Community Where Reared Based on Ethnic Background and Present Residence Ethnic _ Place of Birth8 Size of Community Where Reared Background Out-of-State Instate 1 2 3 4 5 6 Rural White 4 16 1 2 5 8 3 3 Black 13 4 O 6 6 2 3 0 Mex.-Amer. 6 5 l 3 l 2 1 3 Urban White 10 19 0 2 2 9 9 7 BlaCk 18 2 0 0 3 12 1 3 Mex.-Amer. 8 4 l 1 0 5 6 0 Total 59 50 3 14 17 38 23 16 8Two no responses 125,000 or more 210,000-24,999 35,000-9,999 42,500-4,999 5less than 2,500 6Open county Data in Table 4.7 also indicate that over three-fourth of the respondents grew up in areas with populations less than 10,000. Nearly two-thirds (65 percent) of the urban Blacks were born and reared in 69 areas with populations of 2,500 to 5,000. Other groups both rural and urban, showed a more diversified background from areas with 10,000 or less pOpulation. More than one half of the rural respondents indicated they had lived in urban areas 6-15 years before returning to rural areas. Also, Blacks remained in urban areas longer before returning than other rural groups. Urban respondents indicated that 48 persons came to Grand Rapids when less than 25 years of age. Also 21 persons had been in Grand Rapids less than 5 years. Education and vocational-technical training received by resPondents. The specific objectives answered in this section includes: (1) to describe the education and training received by rural migrants, (2) to determine the extent to which training was satisfactorily received by rural migrants in rural schools, vocational schools, or other vocational programs affected the adjustments on jobs, and (3) to determine the attitude of rural migrants toward education training, and work. This section deals primarily with information pertaining to education and vocational-technical training received by rural migrants while in rural areas. Also included in this section are attitudes of respondents on the effect of training toward employment and their recommendations for changes in rural school programs. Table 4.8 contains data about the size and type of schools rural migrants attended. It showed that 33 of the rural respondents and 46 of the urban respondents had attended schools ‘with student bodies of 301-600 in size. Data showed that fewer 70 rural respondents had attended consolidated schools than urban respondents. Table 4.8 Type and Size of School Attended by Rural Migrants Based on Present Residence Present Attended Residence Consolidated Size of School Attended School Less Than 150-300 301-600 600-900 901 or Yes No 150 Students Students Students Students Mere Rural 15 33 1 12 20 6 9 Urban 22 .13: 2 1_9_ a; 1.1. _6. Total 60 51 6 31 42 17 15 Based on the information about the education completed by rural migrants, all 111 persons had attended and/or completed some formal training in the rural area. Table 4.9 provides data about the educational levels completed by rural migrants during their schooling career. Twenty-five of the rural respondents had entered or completed high school. Fifteen.(1£0 had completed grade eight or less. Also, five entered college and three attended some form of vocational and technical training programs. Responses from urban areas showed 43 of the respondents had entered or completed high school. Eight entered, or completed grade school (0-8). In comparison with respondents from rural areas, urban responses on post high education showed 12 had entered vocational-technical schools and college. This included two urban respondents who attended some form of vocational and technical training program. 71 Table 4.9 Highest Level of Schooling Completed by Rural Migrants Based on Present Residence Present Levels of Schooling Residence Grade eight High School Vocational Some College, Total or Less or High Technical Plus Degree, School School or More Graduate (Adult Level) Rural 15 25 3 5 48 Urban 8 43 2 10 63 Respondents were asked to respond to the question on whether they participated in vocational and/or practical arts courses while in school. Table 4.10 shows the responses of both groups. Nearly 81.9 percent of the urban and rural respondents indicated they participated in one or more courses areas listed at the high school or grade school levels. Vocational Home Economics, Office Education, and Health Occupations were the course areas most frequently participated in by rural respondents. Urban respondents indicated Vocational Home Economics, Distributive Education, and Industrial Arts as the course areas in which they most frequently had participated. Figure 1 shows a graph indicating the number of courses taken in vocational-technical education by rural and urban respondents. In describing adult skilled training received in out-of—school programs or in some other form of training, whether formal or informal, 28 or the 48 rural respondents indicated that they had received training before or after migrating to and from urban areas. Similarly 20 of the 63 urban respondents indicated they had received some form of training. Table 4.11 contains data about those programs which rural migrants had participated in during their adult life. 72 Table 4.10 Participation in Vocational Programs while in School Based on Residence Courses Number Participating Total Rural Urban (n=48) (n=63) Vocational Home Economics 24 35 59 Vocational Agriculture 2 8 10 Industrial Arts 11 19 30 Trade and Industrial 7 10 17 Office Education 23 16 39 Health Occupation Education 20 6 26 Distributive Education 6 22 28 Number of Persons Who Partici- pated in one or more of the above courses 41 50 91 Table 4.11 Participation in Adult Training Programs Based on Present Residence Training Programs Number Participating Total Rural Urban (n=48) (n=63) Apprenticeship Training On-the-Job Training Adult VOcational Training in -l-\r—- U1 \0 High School 5 11 16 Vocational Training in Post High School 4 2 6 MDTA Programs 7 1 8 0E0 Programs 7 1 8 Number of Persons Who Partici- pated in One or More of the Above Programs 12 16 28 ‘w-n oosowfimom ueomoym so venom Ho>oq Hoosom swam osu um Hmofissooanamcowuooo> :H soxmfi momusoo H ouswfim mwou< omuooo .oswm .umao nnnnnnn .asooo .m .oopm .omo ....... .......... ........ ...................... ........................................ ............................................ ............................................ ..................................... ................................... ................................... ................................... ................................... ............................. ...... ....... ....... no. ------------------- on o .................................. ..... ............................... ....... ....... -------- ....... ooooooooooooooooooooo .......... .......................... o a o ........... ...... uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu ....... ........ ...- ........... ........... ......................... ........... ......................... .......... ................. .......... ................. ......... ................... ....... .............. ....... .............. ..... ............. ....... ............... ....... ....... ...... ....... ------- 73 Amsucv swans mmmmmm Amquav Hausa wcfiummfiofiuumm mCOmuom mo u z 74 Three areas of questions were used to determine the attitudes of rural migrants toward training in getting, holding, and performing on a job: (1) vocational programs at high school levels, (2) post high schools, vocational programs, and (3) other vocational or training programs, e. g. apprenticeship training, MDTA Programs, OEO Program, etc. When asked ”was training received in high school and post high school satisfactory in helping you get a job?" nearly one half of the rural respondents who responded to this question indicated "yes" for high school programs and one-fourth for post high school programs. Urban responses showed that one half of the respondents indicated "yes" for high school and nearly two thirds for post high school. Table 4.12 shows the satisfaction of rural migrants toward training programs in high school in holding and performing a job. Seventeen of the 48 rural respondents indicated that high school voca- tional-technical programs were unsatisfactory in holding a job. Eleven were not sure, and six indicated high school programs were satisfactory in holding a job. Thirty-four 0f the 63 urban respondents were unsatisfied, eight were not sure, and five were satisfied with the training in holding a job. Less than one half of the rural respondents indicated unsatisfactory in high school programs on performing jobs nearly three fifths for the urban respondents. Rural migrants indicated that training received in post secondary vocational programs was unsatisfactory in holding and performing jobs. Data indicated that 19 of the rural migrants responding were satisfied with training received in vocational- technical programs. Ninety-five percent of the respondents 75 a mm m NH 0 Amonav can“: 0H ea H qH ma m H Aquav Hausa :wmbon so wsflauomuom aw HooSom swam Hook aw wo>wmoou 50% mafiawmuu ofiu mp3 huouosmmwumm 3oz: S m mm m a H 8o "av amps: S N 2 S m a Assume amuse :wnom m mawpaos aw Hoonom swan 950% aw po>wooou ooh wswdwmuu mp3 huouommmfiumm Bow: omcommom oz %uouowmmqumaD %uo> huouomwmwusmab ousm uoz zuouommmflumm knouommmwumm mno> cowuomwmwumm mo Ho>oa monopflmom oucwwflmom unmmoum so wommm meow co wcwEuomuom paw magmaom cw mamumoum Hoosom swam aw wcwcwmuH pumBoH museum“: Housm mo cowuomwmwumm mo mao>og NH.¢ maan 76 responding indicated training was not satisfactory in holding and per- forming jobs. Only persons who had participated in vocational-technical programs answered questions in this section. Table 4.13 contains data about the attitudes of rural migrants toward vocational-technical programs in assisting in holding and performing jobs. Responses indicated a positive attitude by rural migrants toward training programs other than those in high school and post high school programs. Only respondents who participated in training programs other than high school and post high school programs answered questions in this section. Fifty-nine percent of those responding indicated training received from programs sponsored by federal and industrial organizations was satisfactory in getting, holding, and performing jobs (see Appendix G, item 21). In determining the attitudes toward education, training, and work rural migrants were asked to respond to twenty Likert scaled questions. Chi Square was used to measure the differences in responses based on present residence (see Appendix E). The responses on four statements which dealt with education and occupational information were found to be significantly different when compared by present residence of the respondents. The responses to the remaining statements were found to be not significantly different between the two groups of respondents. In comparing the responses of the twenty Likert scaled questions based on ethnic background, the responses to two statements 'Which dealt with employment in cities were found to be significantly different (see Appendix F). The attitudes of the rural migrants toward education, training, and work were examined further through their responses to the twenty 77 as m m H m o Hmouav can“: mm m m o o o Amoncv amusm :wnon m wswpaofi cw mHoonom Hmaowumoo> aw wo>fiooou no» waHsflmuu moa huouosmmwumm Sow: as a o H m o Hmouav amass mm m m o o o Hweuav Hausa :wmQOH so mswanowuom sH mHoonom Hmaowumoo> aw uo>flooon 50% mawaflmuu mma huouowmmHuMm 30m: omcommom oz hpOu0MmmHuMmsD huo> hHOuommmHuMmaD sham uoz huouowmmqum kuouommeumm huo> coHuommmwumm mo Ho>og ousmpwmom monopfimom usomoum so venom com o wcHEuomuom can wswwaom :H wsflumwmm< mEmeOHm HmoflcsooHnHmcowumoo> Hoonom smwm umom pumaoe muomuwwz Housm mo sowuommnHumm mo mHo>oH MH.s «Hams 78 Likert scaled items. Four levels of agreement (strongly agree, agree disagree, strongly disagree) were used to determine agreement or dis- agreement toward the twenty selected items. Data in Table 4.14 show that the 2.4 mean response value by rural respondents, urban respondents, and both rural and urban indicated they were somewhat more in disagreement than agreement with twenty items. Therefore the data show that rural migrants have a slightly negative attitude toward education, training, and work as measured by the twenty items. Table 4.14 A Comparison of Mean Responses by Rural Migrants to Twenty Selected Opinion Statements Toward Education, Training and Work Based on Present Residence Level of Agreementa SA A * D SD Residence (4) ------- (3) ------------------- (2) -------- (1) Rural (n=48) 2.4b Urban (n=6l) 2.4b Total (n=109) 2.4b aSA - Strongly Agree; A - Agree; D - Disagree; SD — Strongly Disagree bMean Response Value *Nine out of the potential 2180 responses to the 20 selected opinion statements were not answered. Table 4.15 shows a comparison of the responses to the twenty selected opinion statements based on ethnic background of the rural migrants. The 2.4 mean response value by Black and Mexican Americans indicated their attitudes to be slightly negative. The 2.5 mean response value by White Americans indicate that their attitude to be neutral, 79 A Comparison of Mean Responses by Ethnic Groups to Twenty Selected Opinion Statements Toward Education, Training, and WOrk — L Ethnic Background Level of Agreementa SA A * D SD (4) - - - - ~(3) ----- (2) ----- (1) Black American (n=36) 2.4b b Mexican American (n=24) 2.4 White American (n=49) 2.5 aSA - Strongly Agree; A - Agree; D - Disagree; SD - Strongly Disagree bMean Response value To determine the kinds of changes that should be incorporated in a rural high school program, respondents were asked to reapond to an open-ended question, "What would you change or recommend to rural high school to better prepare young peOple for the future?". Table 4.16 shows rural migrants gave a high priority to items involving improving vocational training. Upgrading or changing the school curriculum was the second most important item. They also recommended improving counseling and guidance and improving teaching Table 4.16 Changes in Rural High Schools Recommended by Rural Migrants (n=109) Recommended Change Number Percent Improving Vocational Training 40 36.04 Upgrading or Changing Curriculum 33 29.70 Improving Counseling and Guidance 11 9.90 Improving Teaching 9 6.10 Include more Bilingual Programs 3 2.80 No Changes in Regular Programs 13 11.70 80 Relocating and commuting. This section presents relevant findings pertaining to persons coming to urban areas and returning to rural areas. Items in this section were asked only of rural respondents. The criterion for determining the most desired answers in this section were numbers and percent of responses. Specific objectives answered in this section were: (1) to determine the reasons given by rural respondents for migrating and/or commuting to an urban area for employment, (2) to determine the place of residence rural people prefer when confronted with the problem of whether to "migrate or commute" to find employment, (3) to describe the difference in occupational skill levels of rural people before and after migrating to an urban area, and (4) to describe the problems and difficulties that influenced rural migrants to return to rural areas. Ten questions dealt with concepts related to relocating and commuting to and from urban areas for employment (Appendix A items 53-62). Responses indicated rural respondents were employed prior to returning to rural areas. Also, migration back to rural areas was based solely on occupational reasons. Data in Table 4.17 reveal that respondents considered several items as being most desired when asked if they would "relocate or commute" for a job after returning from an urban area. Twenty-eight indicated they would not relocate under any conditions. However, 33 emphasized a desire to commute (see Appendix G). Given a preference to relocate or commute providing certain variables could be included, 28 preferred not to relocate. Twelve respondents stated more money and six better job opportunities would enhance their desire to relocate. When compared with commuting, 19 persons did not respond; however, 51 percent of those responding indicated they would commute for better jobs and an increase in salary. 81 Table 4.17 Most Desired Items of Rural Migrants When Confronted with Relocating Items of Relocation Number Percent Responding Responses ”Why would you relocate?" Would not relocate 28 59.18 More money 12 24.49 Better job opportunities 6 12.24 Better educational opportunities 2 4.08 ”What is the farthest you would travel to relocate”. No response to question 33 69.39 Less than 100 miles 5 10.20 100 - 300 miles 5 10.20 301 - 600 miles 5 10.20 Mbre than 600 miles 0 0.00 "What minimum salary you would accept to relocate.” Would not relocate 18 36.73 No response to question 12 24.45 $6,000 - 10,000 per year 8 16.33 $2,000 - 6,000 per year 6 12.24 Above $10,000 4 10.20 "Which of the following statements best describe the type of community you prefer if you relocatedagain?" On a farm in the open country 28 59.18 In a town 2,500 to 10,000 population 6 12.24 In a city over 100,000 6 12.24 No response to question 6 12.24 In a city 25,000 - 100,000 1 2.04 In a city 10,000 - 25,000 1 2.04 In the open country but not on a farm 0 0 In a suburb outside a large city 0 0 In response to reasons for not commuting, Table 4.18 indicates that ten indicated poor transportation and six a preference of rural life 82 as their prime decision for not leaving the rural area. It is believed the no response from the twentyrsix respondents revealed a decision for not commuting based on the prior question "would you commute to an urban area for a job?". Twenty-six of the respondents did not respond to the items on travel. No responses, again, appeared to be related to the number of persons preferring not to relocate. In comparing those who preferred commuting, 23 showed a desire to commute a distance of 75 miles or less rOund trip. Thirty-eight percent of those indicating a willingness to commute 75 miles or less really preferred to commute 25 miles or less for a job. Figure 2 shows a map of Allegan COunty, the sur- rounding labor market'areas, and the approximate distance from towns and communities to labor market areas outside the county from where data were collected. This map appears to indicate the presence of labor market areas surrounding Allegan County makes commuting possible for a large segment of the population in the county. Table 4.18 Most Desired Items of Rural Migrants When Confronted With Commuting Items of Commuting Number Percent Responding Responses ". . . Why would you commute for a job?" Not responding 20 40.82 Better jobs 16 32.65 Increase in salary 8 18.37 Improve working conditions 2 4.08 Chance for Advancement 2 4.08 83 Table 4.18 (continued) Items of Commuting Number Percent Responding Responses "Reasons for not commuting" 26 40.82 Not responding 26 55.10 Poor or lack of transportation 10 20.41 Prefer rural life 6 12.24 No reasons 4 8.12 Personal 2 4.08 "Minimum salary accepted to commute" Would not commute 14 28.57 No acceptable salary 11 22.45 $6,000 - 10,000 11 22.45 $2,000 - 6,000 8 18.37 Above 10,000 4 8.16 "Farthest you would commute for a job." No response 22 44.90 Less than 25 miles 19 38.78 51 - 75 miles 4 8.16 26 - 50 miles 3 6.12 More than 75 miles 0 0.00 In comparing and ranking items of acceptable salaries in commuting and relocating, most of the rural respondents indicated they would not relocate. High responses of no acceptable salary showed . consistency with their desires of not wanting to relocate. Also of those who indicated that if they were to relocate, 28 or 59 percent would chose a farm in the Open country. (see Table 4.17). In an open-ended questions respondents were asked, ”What were some problems and difficulties other than a job that influenced your decision to leave the city?" Twenty-nine respondents indicated "family problems", "preferred rural life", and "problems of the city”. 84 Muskegnn Labor Market Area Grand Rapids SMSA Labor Market Area \ 25 m \ \ / 30 miles Lake \ \ Michigan \ I X X \\~\\ / \ \ \ / \ O Allegnn\ \ OOtsego \ \\. - . ~ / \ OPlainwell 35\mlleb / \ \ 25 miles \ / \ I Creek Labo. { \ 0 miles Kalamazoo Labor Ma rke t Area Figure 2 Geographical Location of Allegan County. Distances for Travel in Labor Market Areas Outside the County X The origin of travel is from a theoretical point in the center of the county. 85 Table 4.19 shows the problems indicated by rural respondents as having the greatest influence on their returning to rural areas. Table 4.19 Problems and Difficulties Other than Occupational Influencing Rural ReSpondents to Return to the Rural Area _ t; Items Influencing Return Number Percent Responding Responses Problems of the city 17 34.69 Preferred rural life 13 28.57 Family problems 6 12.24 No response 3 6.12 No problems 9 18.37 Response to the differences in occupations and skilled levels before and after migrating were important in understanding reasons for relocating. In reaponse to the question concerning jobs to be_held before leaving the rural area, many of the rural respondents indicated they were unemployed; others worked as laborers, i. e., as maids, janitors, waitresses, or doing field work; and still-others worked part-time in clerical work, most often as cashiers. One- half of these jobs held before leaving a rural area were unskilled. After returning from urban areas, three to four were unemployed, 19 were laborers, and 12 were employed in clerical jobs or worked as para- professionals in educational institutions. Fifty-five percent of the jobs secured since returning were semi-skilled and 24.5 percent were unskilled. There appeared to be an increase in the kind and level of work by rural migrants since returning from urban areas. 86 Occupational Adjustments by Rural Migrants Employment mobility. This section deals with the occupational adjustment encountered in moving from one job to another. What strategies and methods were used in locating jobs? What items were important on a job when seeking employment? What were some of the problems and difficulties found in moving vertically and horizontally on a job? Findings about these and other problems of vertical and horizontal mobility and job search are presented in this section. The following objectives were also used in providing specific findings in this section: (1) to describe the difficulties faced by rural migrants moving vertically and horizontally in urban and rural labor markets, (2) to determine the present employment and employment history of the rural migrants. Responses to questions "what jobs have you held since coming to Allegan County or Grand Rapids?" and "what jobs did you hold prior to coming to Allegan County or Grand Rapids?" indicated that prior to migrating to urban areas rural migrants were either underemployed or worked as unskilled laborers. Rural respondents indicated having recieved no formal or specialized training for the work performed; urban respondents indicated having received some specialized training (see Appendix G). Table 4.20 shows a comparison of the take home pay between rural and urban re8pondents. ReSponses to an open-ended question showed that twenty-three of the rural respondents indicated having take home pay from $2,000 to $6,000 per year. Eleven had take home pay of $6,000 or more. The remaining 12 were either unemployed or underemployed with salaries less than $2,000 per year. 87 Twenty-six of the respondents from urban areas had take home pay of $2,000 to $6,000; 3 had incomes of $6,000 and above, and the remaining 26 were either unemployed or underemployed with incomes of less than $2,000 per year. Table 4.20 Present Take Home Pay by Rural Migrants Based on Present Residence Net Incomes Rural Urban Total Total Percent Below $2,000 4 2 6 5. $2,000 — $4,000 18 15 33 29.7 $4,001 - $6,000 5 ll 16 14.4 $6,001 - $8,000 6 2 8 7. Above $8,000 5 l 6 5. Unemployed or no salary 8 24 32 28.8 Confidential _2_ _§L_ 19_ 9. Total 48 63 110 Both rural and urban respondents indicated that the chief reasons for leaving their lastjobs were: (1) personal problems, (2) laid off or fired, and (3) better positions (see Appendix G). Procedures used by rural migrants in looking for employment appears to be a major concern in job mobility. Urban and rural respondents considered three specific strategies to be important in finding employment. Urban respondents considered: (1) going directly to employers, (2) social services, and (3) newspaper. 88 Rural respondents indicated: (1) going directly to employers, (2) news- papers, and (3) going to Michigan Employment Security Commission. Table 4.21 illustrates methods used by rural migrants in finding employment. Table 4.21 Methods Used by Rural Migrants in Finding Employment by Present Residence Items Used Number Percent Responding, Regponses "...Do you use any of the following items?" Go directly to employers 28 58.3 Check Newspaper 11 22.9 G0 to public employment office 4 8.3 Depend on friends and relatives 2 4.2 Others: Social Services 0 0.0 Go to Unions 2 4.1 Go to Private Employment Office 1 2.1 Urban (n=63) "...which of the following methods have helped you secure a job” Going directly to employers 22 34.9 Others: Social Services 16 25.4 Checking Newspaper 12 19.1 G0 to Public Employment Office 10 15.9 Depend on friends and relatives 2 3.2 Go to Private Employment Office 0 0.0 Going to Unions 1 1.6 89 When asked in an open-ended question about the strategies most useful in getting a job (Table 4.22) 36 or 75 percent of the rural respondents indicated going directly to the employer. Six or 43 percents of the rural respondents preferred going to the Michigan Employment Security Commission. Friends and relatives, newspapers and unions comprised 12.6 percent of the strategies used in finding employment. Thirty or 48.4 percent of the urban respondents indicated going directly to the employer. Fifteen or 24.2 percent indicated going to the Michigan Employment Security Commission, and 12 or 19.4 percent relied on friends and relatives. Newspaper, private employment office, and high school counselors were used less in looking for employment. Table 4.22 Strategies Most Useful in Finding Employment by Rural Respondents Items Used Number Percent Responding Responses Rural (n=48) Going directly to employer 36 75. Going to MESC 6 12.5 Friends and relatives 3 6.3 Newspapers 2 4.17 Unions 1 2.08 90 Table 4.22 (continued) Items Used Number Percent Responding Responses Urban (n=63) Going directly to employer 30 48.39 Going to MESC 15 24.19 Friends and relatives 12 19.35 Newspapers 4 4,84 Private employment office 1 1.61 High school counselors l 1.61 After finding employment, rural migrants indicated being uncertain whether the job secured was really the job they wanted. Less than one fifth were certain they had found the job they wanted. Tables 4.23 and 4.24 show items believed important in a job when looking for employment as indicated by rural migrants. Comparing rural and urban respondents, rural respondents indicated freedom of behavior, chances for advancement, and friendship with fellow employees as being important in a job. Power and authority was considered less important in a job than the other items mentioned. Urban respondents indicated freedom of behavior, chances for advancement, intellectual challenges, prestige and respect, security of a job, and money to be important on a job. However, friendship with fellow employees and power and authority were considered to be less important than the other items. Also benefits 91 to humanity was not considered in either category by urban respondents. Differences among the two groups appeared in items on friendship with fellow employees. Table 4.23 Items of Importannce in a Job by Rural Respondents When Looking for Employment Items Not Somewhat Important Important Important Freedom of behavior 12 16 20 Chances for advancement 1 9 38 Friendship with fellow employees 2 10 36 Power and authority 20 22 6 Intellectual challenge 4 12 32 Prestige and respect 2 ll 35 Security of job 0 9 39 Money l 10 32 Benefit to humanity 1 6 41 Table 4.24 Items of Importance in a Job by Urban Respondents When Looking for Employment Items Not Somewhat Important Important Important Freedom of behavior 9 9 45 Chances for advancement 2 2 59 Friendship with fellow employees 2 34 27 Power and authority 18 24 21 Intellectual challenges 6 ll 46 Prestige and respect 2 13 48 Security of a job 0 12 51 Money 1 8 54 Benefit to humanity 0 0 0 92 In identifying problems and difficulties in getting and holding jobs, a majority of the.urban respondents indicated that the items listed were not considered as problems in getting jobs. However, a majority of the rural respondents indicated a lack of educational skills was a special problem in getting a job. When items were based on ethnic backgrounds, Black and Mexican Americans felt that in addition to education and skills racial discrimination was a major problem for them in getting jobs (see Appendix G). Table 4.25 indicates special problems or difficulties in getting jobs based on present residence. Table 4.25 Special Problems or Difficulties Confronted in Getting a Job Based on Present Residence Items in Getting a Job Rural Urban Yes No Yes No (n=48) (n=63) Lacking educational skills 25 23 25 38 Failure to pass tests (by employer) 8 40 ll 52 No high school diploma 19 29 18 45 Sex discrimination 9 39 10 53 Racial discrimination 12 36 18 45 Religious discrimination 5 43 6 57 Physical disabilities 9 39 10 53 Table 4.26 contains information about the problems of holding a job. Both rural and urban groups indicated the items listed were not special problems for them in holding a job. 93 Table 4.26 Special Problems or Difficulties Confronted in Holding a Job Based on Present Residence Items in Holding a Job Rural Urban Yes No Yes No (n-48) (n=63) Inadequate training or lack of skills 20 28 12 51 Lack of information about work training opportunities 18 30 12 51 Unrealistic expectations by employerl 13 35 o 0 Lack of responsibility 6 42 17 46 Poor work habits, tardiness, absenteeism, etc. 0 48 2 61 Lack of educational requirements 14 34 l 62 Not sure of responsibilities2 0 0 10 53 1,3,4,5 Did not appear on urban questionnaire (see Appendix G, # 27) 2Did not appear on rural questionnaire. When questioned about personal hang-ups or problems hindering adjustment to jobs, urban respondents indicated they had no personal hang-ups. Rural respondents, however, indicated being easy going was somewhat of a personal hang-up. (see Appendix C) Table 4.27 contains information about problems and difficulties encountered in moving vertically on a job. Ethnically, a majority of the white and Black respondents believed moving upward on a job was not a problem. Mexican Americans felt poor educational training was the most serious problem and difficulty in moving upward on a job. Among those who considered having problems and difficulties, white and Black respondents most frequently indicated their problem and difficulty, 94 in terms of percent return, was poor training. When combining rural and urban respondents on problems and difficulties, one-half of the white and Mexican Americans respondents indicated they had no problems, while poor educational training was second among Black responses. Table 4.27 Problems and Difficulties in Moving Upward on a Job i-===== Categories of Items Rural Urban Listed by Respondents WA BA MA WA BA ‘MA (n=20)(n=lZ)(n=ll) (n=29)(n=21)(n;13) Personality conflict with supervisor 1 0 0 l 0 0 Poor educational training 6 5 9 3 5 2 Racial discrimination 0 2 O 2 0 1 More responsibility 0 2 0 3 l 1 No room for advancement O 1 1 3 5 0 Language 0 0 0 l 0 0 Family responsibility 1 O 0 1 0 0 No problems 19 _Z_ _l 16 _§_ _1 Total 18 17 11 29 19 11 WAWhite American BABlack American MAMexican American Table 4.28 shows problems and difficulties encountered in moving horizontally on a job. A majority of the white and Black respondents indicated they had no problems in moving horizontally on a job. Mexican Americans, however, indicated racial discrimination most frequent- ly as a problem. Most of the urban respondents also indicated they had no problems moving vertically on jobs. 95 Table 4.28 Problems and Difficulties in Moving Horizontally on a Job Based on Present Residence and Ethnic Background Categories of Items Rural Urban Listed by Respondents WA BA MA WA BA MA (n=20)(n=17)(n=11) (n529)(n=21)(n=13) Poor educational training 0 4 O l 2 1 Personality conflicts l 0 0 l O 1 Racial discrimination O l 5 l O 1 More responsibilities 6 0 O l 0 1 No place for advancements 0 O 0 1 0 1 No responses 4 2 2 O l O No special problems 14 10 2 23 16 7 WAWhite Americans BABlack Americans MAMexican Americans Other Adjustments by Rural Migrants Findings have been presented in this section about the following three objectives: (1) to determine barriers encountered by rural people as they adjust or fail to adjust to jobs, (2) to determine the differences between the occupational adjustment in rural and urban jobs, and (3) to determine the period of time on a job before adjustment occurs. In identifying problems and barriers by rural respondents, percent response, and number responding were used to determine preferences. In identifying lengths of adjustments on a job, Table 4.29 shows the period of time needed to adjust to a job. Thirty-three or 68.8 percent of the rural respondents indicated they adjusted 96 in less than a week. Fourteen or 29 percent adjusted in one to twelve weeks only one rural respondent took more than twelve weeks to adjust. Thirty‘five or 55 percent of the urban respondents adjusted in less than a week; twenty or 31.75 percent adjusted in one to twelve weeks and 10 percent in 3-6 months. Table 4.29 Period of Time Before Rural Migrants Adjust to Jobs Based on Persent Residence Length of Time Rural Urban Percent (n=48) (n=63) of . , Total ' Less than a week 33 (68.75) 35 (55.56) 61.26 One to twelve weeks 14 (29.17) 20 (31.75) 30.63 3 - 6 months 1 ( 2.08) 6 ( 9.52) 6.31 7 - 12 months 0 1 ( 1.59) 0.90 1 - 3 years 0 O 3 or more years 0 0 Never 0 1 (1.59) 0.90 In identifying factors contributing to the length of adjustment, both rural and urban respondents considered job preparation as the number one factor. No specific factors or not having any problems ranked number two among rural respondents. Discrimination and no specific factors were considered number three by rural and urban respondents respectively. Both groups ranked personality conflicts as fourth. The overall contributing factor by combined groups were as follows: (1) job preparation, (2) educational 97 background, and no specific factors or no problems, (3) personality conflicts, (4) discrimination, (5) language barriers and family background, and (6) change of hours. Table 4.30 shows percent response and number responding of rural and urban respondents in factors contributing to the length of adjustment on a job. Table 4.30 Factors Contributing to the Period of Time in Adjusting to a Job Based on Present Residence Factors Percent Number Rank Based on Response Responding Frequency Of Responses Rural Job preparation 50.00 24 1 Discrimination 8.33 4 3 Family background 6.25 3 4 Personality conflict 8.33 4 3 Language barrier 4.17 2 5 Educational background 8.33 4 3 Change of hours 0.00 0 6 No factors 14.58 7 2 Urban Job preparation 67.86 43 l Discrimination 1.79 1 6 Family background 0.00 0 7 Personality conflict 5.36 3 4 Language barrier 1.79 l 6 Educational background 12.50 8 2 Change of hours 3.57 2 5 No factors 7.14 5 3 In identifying Special occupational problems (Table 4.31) associated with rural and urban jobs, rural respondents identified the following items as the most important special 98 problems: (1) no problems, (2) poor salary, (3) lack of available 30b3, and (4) transportation. Nearly three-fourth of the rural respondents indicated they had no occupational problems. The most important occupational problems encountered on urban jobs according to urban respondents were: (1) no specific problems, (2) transportation, (3) lack of available jobs, and (4) poor salary. Over two-third of the urban respondents indicated not having any occupational Pr0b1ems. Table 4.31 Occupational Problems Confronted by Rural Migrants While in the City Occupational Problems Number of Response Urban (n=63) Transportation 3 Jobs not available 3 Poor salary 10 No problems 43 No response Rural (n=48) Poor salary Transportation Lack of available jobs No problem 3 U‘IUlONN Testing the Hypotheses The testable hypotheses were listed in the null form and were tested at the 0.05 level of confidence. For clarity, each null 99 hypothesis was restated before analyzing. Several hypotheses were reported in two parts, sub~hypotheses, to facilitate understanding. Hypothesis 1: There is no difference in the relationship between employment status and ethnic groups based on residence and sex. Sub-hypOthesis 1: There is no difference in the relationship between employment status and ethnic groups. As indicated in Table 4.32 therevuusno significant difference between the relationship of ethnic groups and employment status. Therefore, the null form of the sub-hypothesis 1 was not rejected. Table 4.32 Comparison of Ethnic Groups and Employment (n=111) Ethnic Background Employment Status Total Employment unemployment White Americans 34 15 49 Black Americans 21 17 38 Mexican Americans 15 9 24 x27: 3.2926 with 2 df is not significant for x2 with 2 df at .05 = 5.991 Sub-hypothesis 2: There is no difference in the relationship between residence, and sex, based on ethnic background. Table 4.33 shows that no significant difference was found in comparing ethnic groups to residence and sex. The null sub- hypothesis 2 was not rejected. 100 Table 4.33 Comparison of Ethnic Groups and Residence and Sex (n=lll) Ethnic Background Rural Urban - Male Female Male Female Total White Americans 9 11 9 20 49 Black Americans 10 7 7 14 38 Mexican Americans 6 5 6 7 24 x2 = 2.3382 with 6 df is not significant forlxszith 6 df at .05 = 12.592 Hypothesis 2: There is no difference in the attitudes toward education and training between rural migrants in urban areas and returning migrants in rural areas. Table 4.34 indicates a significant difference in the attitudes toward education and training as seen by rural migrants in urban and rural areas. The null hypothesis was rejected. This indicated a difference between the attitudes of rural migrants toward education and training based on present residence. The rural migrants now living in rural areas were found to have a more positive attitude toward education and training. Differences were found to be between positive and negative responses from urban areas. Table 4,35 indicates a significant difference between the attitudes of ethnic groups when compared by education and training. Differences were found to be between the positive and negative direction of the responses. 101 Table 4.34 Attitudes of Rural Migrants Toward Education and Training Based on Present Residence Level of Agreement Residence SA A D SD Total Rural (n=48) 39 386 473 62 960 Urban (n=63) 123 429 482 177 1211 Total 2171 x2 = 73.402399 with 3 df is significant for x2 with 3 df at .01 = 11.341. Table 4.35 Attitudes of Racial Groups Toward Education and Training (n=109) Ethnic Groups Level of Agreement SA A D SD Total White Americans (n=49) 82 452 343 93 970 Black Americans (n=36) 51 289 318 52 720 Mexican Americans (n=24) 65 167 172 63 435 §2*= 43.135832 with 6 df is significant for x1 with 6 df at .01 = 31.264 Hypothesis 3: There is no difference in the relationship between ethnic groups and levels of employment and levels of education. Sub-hypothesis 1: There is no difference in the relationship between ethnic backgrounds and levels of education. 102 Table 4.36 indicates that there is a significant difference in the relationship between levels of education received and racial groups in favor of the white Americans who had achieved highest levels of education and the Mexican Americans who had achieved the lowest level of education. The sub-hypothesis, null form, was rejected. The significant differences were found to be between Blacks, and Mexican Americans. Table 4.36 Comparison of Levels of Education Between Rural Migrants Based on Racial Groups Racial Groups Level of Schooling Grade High School College Vocational Total Eight Technical or Programs Less White Americans 7 27 11 4 49 Black Americans 6 27 3 2 38 Mexican Americans 10 12 2 0 24 x2 = 14.765 with 6 df is significant for x2 with 6 df = 12.592 Sub-hypothesis 2: There is no difference in the relationship between ethnic background and levels of employment skills. Table 4.37 indicates that no significant differences were found between the employment levels of skills and racial groups. The null hypothesis was not rejected. Hypothesis 4: There is no difference between the perceived problems and difficulties between males and females in getting and holding jobs. 103 Table 4.37 Comparison of Levels of Employment by Rural Migrants Based on Ethnic Groups Racial Groups Level of Employment Skills Skilled Semi-Skilled Unskilled Total White Americans 7 28 14 49 Black Americans 5 19 14 33 Mexican Americans 2 10 ll 23 x27: 1.669 with is not significant for x2 with 4 df at .05 = 9.488. Tables 4.38 and 4.39 indicate a comparison of problems and difficulties confronted by male and female rural migrants in getting and holding jobs. Table 4.38 indicates that the responses from.a majority of both the males and females considered the items were no problems in getting and holding jobs. Also no difference was observed between the perceived problems or difficulties by men and women in getting jobs. Table 4.38 Comparison of Problems and Difficulties Confronted by Male and Female Rural Migrants in Getting Jobs Perceived Problems and Difficulties Male Female Yes No Yes No Lacking educational skills 21 26 24 40 Failure to pass test on jobs 11 36 8 56 No high school diploma 16 31 16 47 Sex discrimination 10 36 8 56 Racial discrimination 13 34 14 51 Religious discrimination 13 44 4 60 Physical disabilities _6_ 40_ _§ 58 Total Responses 90 247 80 368 104 Table 4.39 indicates that the responses from.a majority of both the men and women show that no problems or difficulties were found in holding a job. No significant difference was found concerning the perceived problems and difficulties by men and women in holding a job. Since there were observable differences between the problems and difficulties perceived by men and women in getting and holding a job. Table 4.39 Comparison of Problems and Difficulties Confronted by Male and Female Rural Migrants in Holding Jobs List Problems and Difficulties Male Female Yes No Yes No Inadequate training, lack of skills 20 25 12 50 Lack of information about work training opportunities 14 29 8 51 Unrealistic expectation by employer 12 30 7 12 Lack of responsibility 9 34 8 52 Poor work habits (absenteeism) 3 40 l 58 Lack educational requirement _8 '35 ._2 '56 Total Responses 66 193 38 279 Hypothesis 5: There is no difference in the attitudes of rural migrants between racial groups and residence as measured by education, training, occupational adjustment, and occupational information. NOTE: The twenty items listed in Appendix C were separated into four categories: Education; 1, 9, 12, 16, 17 & 19; Skilled training; 6, 14, 15 2, 3, & 5; occupational adjustment; 4, 7, 1Q 11 & l8; and occupational information 8, 13 & 20. 105 Table 4.40 Univariate Analysis of Variance (Fixed Effect Model) for Three Sources of Variation Based on Education Source of Variation df M.S. F P Less Than A 2 9.0994 2.7195 0.0707 N.S. B 1 7.4588 2.2292 0.1385 N.S. A x B Interaction 2 6.7969 2.0314 0.1364 N.S. Error 103 3.3460 Total 108 A-Race, B-Residence, N.S.-not significant (p=.05) Table 4.41 Univariate Analysis of Variance (Fixed Effect Model) for Three Sources of Variation Based on Training Source of Variation df M.S. F P Less Than A 2 13.2513 1.8177 0.0644 N.S. B 1 0.1034 0.0220 0.8825 N.S. A x B interaction 2 2.9511 2.3101 0.1044 N.S. Error 103 4.7030 Total 108 A-Race, B-Residence, N.S.-not significant (p=.05) Table 4.42 Univariate Analysis of Variance (Fixed Effect Model) for Three Sources of Variation Based on Occupational Adjustment Source of Variation df M.S. F P Less Than A 2 6.1888 3.2333 0.0435 S. B 1 0.8223 0.4296 0.5137 N.S A x B interaction 2 4.4218 2.3101 0.1044 N.S Error 103 1.9140 Total 108 AJRace, BtResidence, N.S.-not Significant,‘3451gniricafif‘TpETUS) 106 The F value of 3.08 and 105 df indicates a significant difference between racial groups and residence when measured by education, skilled training, occupational adjustment and occupational information. The Univariate Analysis of Variance (fixed effect model) was used to determine the area of difference. Tables 4.40, 4.41, and 4.42 indicate no significant difference in attitudes between racial groups and residence measured by education, training, and occupational information. However, Table 4.42 indicates a significant difference in attitudes between race and residence when measured by occupational adjustment. Therefore, the null hypothesis for no difference in the attitudes based on race and residence measured by occupational adjustment was rejected. Table 4.43 Univariate Analysis of Variance (Fixed Effect Medel) for Three Sources of Variation Based on Occupational Information Source of Variation df M.S. F P Less Than A 2 4.6430 2.5133 0.0860 N.S. B 1 3.3983 1.8395 0.1780 N.S A x B interaction 2 0.0117 0.0063 0.9937 N.S. Error 193 1.8474 Total 108 A-Race, B-Residence, N.S.—not significant (p=.05) CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary Purpose of the Study The main purpose of this study was to determine the attitudes, kinds of skills, and knowledge related to occupational adjustments made by people migrating to urban centers or returning to rural areas. This purpose was examined as it pertained to the specific objectives of the study. They were as follows: 1. To determine the attitude of rural migrants toward education, training, and work. 2. To described the education and training received by rural migrants. 3. To determine the present employment and employment history of rural migrants. 4. To determine the reasons given by rural migrants for migrating and/or commuting to urban areas for employment. 5. To describe the differences in occupational and skilled levels of rural people before and after migrating to urban areas. 6. To determine the extent to which training received by rural migrants in high schools, vocational schools, or other vocational programs was satisfactory and was perceived to affect the adjustments on jobs. 107 108 7. To determine the barriers encountered by rural migrants as they adjust or fail to adjust to urban jobs. 8. To describe the differences in occupational adjustments on jobs according to present place of residence of rural migrants. 9. To determine the place of residence rural migrants prefer when confronted with the problem of whether to "migrate or commute" to find employment. 10. To determine the period of time on a job before adjust- ment occurs. 11. To describe the problems and difficulties that influ- enced rural migrants to return to rural areas. 12. To describe the difficulties faced by rural migrants in moving vertically and horizontally in the urban and rural labor market. Methodology The population of this study consisted of two groups. The first group included persons reared and educated in rural areas who had migrated to Grand Rapids, Michigan. The second included those who had migrated to urban areas and then returned to rural areas in Allegan County, Michigan. Data were collected from an estimated population of rural migrants. The random sample was divided into two groups which consisted of 54 persons in Allegan County, and 109 persons in Grand Rapids. Two questionnaires were develOped, one for rural respondents and the other for urban respondents. They were also designed in two parts. Part one was intended to gather information concerning the 109 general background, education and vocational training received, relocating and commuting, occupational mobility, and problems and barriers encountered on jobs by rural migrants. Part two was designed to obtain the respondent's opinions concerning education and training. The twenty items were planned to cover four dimensions of attitudes measuring education and training: education, occupational adjustment, occupational information, and training. Data were collected through the use of personal interviews over a two-month period. Respondents were contacted first by telephone and a suitable time for an interview was arranged. Respon- dents without telephones were contacted by home visits. Thus, the overall reply, for a total contact of 123 respondents, resulted in a total of 111 usable responses. These included 48 respondents from the rural area and 63 respondents from the urban area. The percent of respondents ranged from a high of 100 percent of the rural white sample to about 40 percent of the urban Mexican-American sample. The data were analyzed with the aid of the CDC 3600 and 6500 computers at Michigan State University. Data obtained from question- naires were keypunched and verified. Programs were written describing data on two variables, rural and urban. Included in the analysis were expected frequencies, means, standard deviations, and Chi Squares. Questions were grouped into five sections; (1) commuting and relocating, (2) education and vocational technical training, (3) occupational mobility, (4) the rural population, and (5) problems and barriers. A second program was used to analyze data on six variables: employment, respondents, sex, age, place of birth, and racial groups. Print-outs 110 included responses to each question in the instruments. Expected frequencies, means standard deviations, and Chi Squares were also included in the print-outs. The first three hypotheses were tested by Chi Square. The fourth hypothesis was analyzed through obServations. Hypothesis five was investigated by the Univariate Analysis of Variance. Hypotheses one, two, three, and five were tested at the .05 level of confidence . Summary of Findings The major findings were summarized as they pertained to the three categories identified in Chapter IV, Presentation and Analysis of Findings. Characteristics of the Respondents General Descriptions of the respondents. Over two-thirds of the 163 respondents in the sample were identified and interviewed. Male responsents made up over one-half of the responses in rural areas and one—third of those in urban areas. The respondents were identified according to family status. Respondents were predominately the heads of households. Nearly two- thrids of the reapondents in urban areas were considered as females and one-half were heads of households. In rural areas the heads of households who responded were predominately males. The majority of the respondents in both rural and urban areas were born, reared, and migrated to their present residence from out-of- state. Ethnically,whites had a higher concentration of in-state births and migration than other groups in the study. Blacks and Mexican Americans, 111 however, were born and reared out-of—state, Blacks migrated primarily from communities and towns with populations.of less than 2,500 - 5,000, Most often these communities and towns were located in the South wheredxxMexican Americans, with backgrounds simdlar to Black Americans, had migrated primilary from Texas. Age differences among rural respondents were evenly distributed among the 20—27 and 28-35 age groups. A higher pr0portion of the urban respondents were in the age group 20-27 than in the age group 28-35. urban respondents had migrated to urban area at an earlier age, than rural respondents. Also rural respondents‘had lived longer in urban areas before returning to rural areas, than those of the same age group in urban areas. Blacks, based on length of stay by ethnic groups, lived longer in urban areas before returning to rural areas than other ethnic groups. More than one-half of the reapondents interviewed were employed at the time of the interview. Education and vocational-technical training received by respon- .dgn£§, Most rural migrants had either entered or completed high school. But less than one-fifth had entered or completed vocational—technical school or college. While in elementary and high school they attended school with student bodies of 301-600 in size. Few rural reSpondents had attended a consolidated school compared with urban respondents. Nearly three-fourths of the respondents had participated in one or more vocational—technical courses offered in high school. The courses they participated in most were; Home Economics, Office or Business, and Industrial Arts. When questioned about whether they received skilled training through adult programs, nearly everyone indicated not having . received any formal or informal training before or after migrating. 112 Few rural migrants participated in skilled training programs beyond the high school level. The most common program they participated in, other than vocational-technical programs, were on-the-job training and CEO programs. Nearly one-half of the rural migrants believed high school vocational-technical programs were satisfactory in getting jobs, but were unsatisfactory in holding and performing on jobs. Similar opinions were exhibited among those who participated in post high school vocational-technical programs. Persons participating in programs other than high school programs or post high school programs felt the skilled training received was satisfactory in getting, holding, and performing on jobs. Both rural and urban respondents indicated their overall attitude toward education, training, and work to be slightly negative. Ethnically, Black and Mexican Americans exhibited slightly negative attitudes twoard education, training, and work while white Americans exhibited neutral attitudes. Relocating and commuting. Rural respondents considered their reasons for commuting and migrating to be based solely on occupation, and it stemmed primarily from the lack of available jobs and suitable salaries. Many of them believed a second migration back to urban areas for employment might increase their income. However when confronted with the possibility of migration they completely ruled it out in favor of another alternative, commuting for short distances. If all resources fail and the only choice left was to migrate, they would migrate to an open country area or to another are similar to their present residence. 113 Many of the problems influencing rural migrants not to return to urban areas were similar to the problems which hfluenced them to return to rural areas. Some of those problems and difficulties were: A lack of available jobs, problems of the city, a preference for rural living and general family problems. Prior to migrating to urban areas most of the rural migrants were either unemployed or underemployed. Those who were employed as full time workers, worked primarily as unskilled workers, e.g., laborers, maids, janitors, day—laborers, etc. After returning from urban areas, fewer persons were unemployed. They worked as laborers, semi-skilled or para-professionals and in many cases skilled workers. Occupational Adjustments by Rural Migrants Employment mobility. Rural migrants had a history, prior to migrating to urban areas, of unemployment, underemployment and employ- ment as unskilled laborers on farms. Few persons received formal or informal training in adult programs to prepare them for semi skilled or skilled jobs. After migrating to urban areas, over one-half of the rural migrants were unemployed. Those employed worked as laborers, or semi—skilled workers in local factories. Fewer rural respondents were unemployed compared to persons in urban areas. The rural respondents worked primarily as laborers, para-professionals and skilled workers in local rural factories. Most of the rural migrants felt they had no real problems in moving vertically on a job. Mexican Americans, however, felt poor education training was the most serious problem and difficulty for them. Those Black and white respondents who reported some problems, indicated poor skilled training was the cause for problems in moving vertically on jobs. 114 When moving horizontally, most Black and white respondents felt they had no initial problems. Mexican Americans considered poor educational training as a major hinderance. Other adjustments by rural migrants. The following were considered as important or contributing barriers encountered by rural migrants in adjusting or failing to adjust to jobs: job preparation; poor education backgrounds; personality conflicts with supervisor or immediate superior, racial, sex, or religious discrimination; language barriers; and family background. Also identified were differences in occupational adjustments on jobs based on present residence. Rural residents most frequently reported transportation, lack of available;pbs, and poor salaries as contributing to occupational adjustments. Occupational adjustments reported by respondents in urban areas were the same except the frequency with which they were reported was different; poor salaries, transportation and lack of available jobs. In determining a period of time needed to adjust to jobs, nearly two-thirds of the rural migrants reported they adjusted to their jobs in less than a week. Less than one-fourth took between one to twelve weeks to adjust. Testing the Hypotheses Based on evidence from testing the hypotheses, the following findings were: 1. There is no difference in the relationship between employ- ment, sex, and ethnic group when measured by residence. 115 There is a significant difference in the attitudes of rural migrants between levels of agreement and dis- agreement on twenty items. There is also a significant difference in the amount of education received between racial groups. No significant differences were found in employment levels of skills and racial groups. No observable differences were noted between the problems and difficulties perceived by men and women in holding and performing on jobs. No differences were found between ethnic groups and residence when measured by education, skilled training, and occupational information. A significant difference was found between racial groups and occupational adjustment. Conclusions On the basis of findings presented in this study, the following conclusions seem to be justified: 1. Ethnic background, sex, or residence do not determine whether a rural migrant is employed or unemployed. There is no difference in the levels of agreement and dis- agreements toward education and training between rural migrants in urban areas and those in rural areas on most of twenty items. The amount of education received by rural migrants in urban and rural areas has been affected by racial background. Race has little affect on employment level when the levels of schooling is held constant. 10. ll. 12. 116 Women have the same kinds of problems and difficulties as men in getting, holding, and performing jobs. Occupational adjustments are affected by race and residence of rural migrants. The lack of skilled training is a major factor contibuting to the occupational adjustment confronted by rural migrants. When confronted with relocating and commuting, the lack of transportation or poor transportation, indecisiveness and apprehensions about problems in the city are specific occupational adjustment factors rural migrants must confront. The lack of sufficient occupational information and knowledge about finding jobs, personal problems on the jobs, and the lack of education skills are occupational adjustment factors rural migrants are confronted with when moving from one job to another, whether vertical or horizontal. Transportation, lack of available jobs, and poor salaries are occupational adjustment factors confronted most by rural migrant in adjusting to a job. Inadequate education and transportation are the chief occupational adjustment factors confronted by rural migrants when adjusting to most jobs in the city. Rural migrants are generally dissatisfied with the kinds of skills received from high schools and post high school programs. 13. 117 The leading factors affecting occupational adjustment through commuting and relocating are: the lack of trans- portation or poor transportation, indecisiveness to commute or relocate where employment is highest, and problems of the city. Recommendations and General Observations by the Author of the Study Better counseling and guidance, changing or improving the present curriculum, and improved methods of teaching vocational-technical education is a necessity if rural schools are to meet the needs of all its students. Person involved with rural high school should be aware of more than the mere size of the graduation class, e.g., they should provide the students with skills needed in entering the world of work from all levels of school, especially from.middle grades through high school. Vocational education should be made available to all students regardless of their educational goals. Individuals who hire, fire, educate, and counsel rural migrants should suggest and/or provide programs to enhance the occupational adjustments in urban and rural employment. Rural schools, participating in adult programs, should not limit their adult out-of—school programs to the three R's and general vocational-technical skills; it should include nearly all facets of life long education. 118 Recommendations for Further Study It is recommended that: 1. Areas of disagreement of occupational adjustments between rural migrants and urban reared dwellers should be further explored to determine additional problems and difficulties identified by rural migrants and urban reared dwellers in their present jobs. A study should be undertaken to identify the kinds of occupational adjustments rural youth would have to make if contemplating specific occupations, i.e., masonry. Levels of satisfactions and adjustments should be explored between rural migrants and urban dwellers in specific occupational areas. A study should be undertaken using a multiple regression model in forecasting problems and difficulties by rural and urban youth. A study should be undertaken to determine ways of increasing the occupational mobility rate of disadvantaged people from large urban centers to smaller urban areas. A study should be developed to determine the extent of the effectiveness of vocational programs in small, medium, and large schools. It should determine the effect of vocational-technical programs on students who remain at the home school versus those who participate at the area skill center. B IBL IOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Boole and Major Sources Brembeck, Cole S. Social Foundation of Education: A Cross-Cultural Approach. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966. Conner, Desmond and Magill, Dennis W. The Role of Education in Rural Development. Ottawa: The Hournable Maturice Sauve, 1965. Downie, N. M., and Heath, R. W. Basic Statistical Methods. 3rd edition. New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1970. Goleson, Walter and Lipset, Seymour M. Labor and Trade Unionism: An Interdisciplinary Reader. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1960. Keitlow, Burton. Rural Education: Community Background. New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1954. Phelps, Harold A., and Henderson, David. Population in Its Human Aspects. New York: Appleton-Century-Croft, 1958. Government Documents 1971 Manpower Report to the President. Rural Manpower Dilemmas. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1971. Breathitt, Edward (former Governor of Kentucky). "Voices for Rural America", Rural Development. 92nd Congress, 2nd Session, Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, May 31, 1972. Burchinal, Lee G. Rural YOuth Crisis: Fact§,Myths and Social Changes. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1965. Cowgill, Donald 0. ”The Effect of Mobility on Children and Youth in the 1960's”. Whitehouse Conference on Children and Youth.. washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1960. Hathaway, Dale E. The Rural to Urban Population Shift: A National Problem. National Manpower Conference. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1968. King, Bruce. "Voices for Rural America”, Rural Development. 92nd Congress, 2nd Session. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, May 31, 1972. 119 120 President's National Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty. The Pegple Left Behind. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1967. Rural Poverty in the United States. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1968. Rural Task Force on Vocational and Technical Education. Vocational and Technical Education in Rural America. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1970. Vocational and Technical Education in Rural America: Employment Opportunities, Training Needs, Progress, Problems, New Ideas, and Recommendations. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1971. Periodicals Aiton, Edward W. ”Myths and Myopia - Blocks to Progress", Extension Service Review, August, 1963. Brazer, Harvey E., and David, Martin. "Social and Economic Determinants of the Demand for Education", Economics of Higher Education, 1967. Gist, Noel P., and Bennett, William 8., Jr. "Aspirations of Negro and White Students", Social Forces, LII, (October, 1963). Haller, A. O. ”The Occupational Achievement Process of Farm Reared Youth in Urban Industrial Societies", Rural Sociology, XXIII, (December, 1958). Hathaway, Dale E., and Perkins, Brian B. "Farm Labor Mobility, Migration, and Income Distribution”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, May, 1968. Kennedy, John F. (U. S. President). "Message to the United States Congress", Washington Post, January 31, 1963, Section I, Part 1. Landis, Paul H. "Education Selectivity of Rural-Urban.Migration and Its Bearing on Wage and Occupational Adjustment", Rural Sociology, II, (September, 1946). Lipset, Seymour M. "Social Mobility and Urbanization", Rural Sociology, XX, 1955. Maitland, Sheridan and Knebel, Stanley M. ”Rural to Urban Transition", Journal of Farm Economics, XCI, (June, 1968). Payne, Raymond. "Development of Occupation Migration Expectations and Choices Among Urban Small Towns and Rural Adolescent Boys", Rural Sociology, XXI, (June, 1956). 121 Sjaasted, Larry A. "The Cost and Returns of Human Migration", Journal of Politcal Economy, October, 1962. Schwarzeller, Harry K., and Brown, James S. "Social Class Origins, Rural and Urban.Migration and Economic Change: A Case Study", Rural Sociology, XXXVI, (September, 1967). Tadaro, M. P. VModel of Labor Migration and Urban Unemployment in Less Developed Countries", American Economic Review,'Marcy, 1969. Tweeten, Luther G. ”The Role of Education in Alleviating Rural Poverty", Economic Research Service, Agricultural Report No. 114, June, 1967. United States Department of Agriculture. ”The Hired Farm Working Force of 1968", Agricultural Report No. 164. Economic Research Service, June, 1969. Other Sources Caldin, Harvey M., and Trout, Grafton D. Social Characteristics and Migration Experience: Migration and Employment in Michigan Cities, Part II. Michigan State University: Center for Rural Manpower and Public Affairs, April, 1971. Fuller, Varden. "Opportunities and Limitations of Employment Services and Informational Aids", Problems and Policies of American Agriculture. Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1960. Garbin, Albeno P., Cambel; Robert E.; and Efferman, Donald R. Problems in the Transition from.School to Work: As Perceived by Youth Opportunity Center Counselors. Ohio State University: Center for Vocational and Technical Education, December, 1969. Geshwind, R. D.,and Ruttan, V. M. Job Mobility and Migration in a Low Income Rural Community. Bulletin No. 730. Purdue University: Indiana Agricultural Experiment Station, 1961. Haller, A. O. "The Occupational Achievement Process of Farm Reared Youth in Urban Industrial Societies", Rural Sociology, XXIII, (December, 1958). Kaufman, Harold F.; Wilkingson, Kenneth F.; and Cole, Lucy W. Poverty Programs and Social Mobility. Report No. 13. Mississippi State University: Science Center, 1966. Lansing, John B., et. al., The Geographic Mobility of Labor. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan: Institute for Social Research, 1967. Lowry, Ira S. Migration and Metropolitan Growth: Two Analytical Models. UCLA: Institute of Government and Public Affairs, 1966. 122 Unpublished and Published Works Geschwinder, James A. "Occupational Mobility, Job Satisfaction and Social References". Unpublished Master's Thesis, Michigan State University, Department of Sociology and Antropology, 1969. Ozaki, Utako. "Migration Selectivity by Age, Sex, and Color and Relationship Between Patterns of Selectivity and Metropolitan Area Characteristics, SMSA". Unpublished Master's Thesis, Michigan State University, Department of Sociology, 1971. Renshaw, Vernon. "The Role of Migration in.Labor Market Adjustment". Published Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, June, 1970. APPENDIX A APPENDIX A A STUDY TO DETERMINE THE OCCUPATIONAL ADJUSTMENTS OF RURAL PEOPLE MIGRATING TO URBAN AREAS RURAL RESPONDENTS ONLY The purpose of this study is to collect and analyze informa- tion from people who were educated in rural areas about the occupa- tional adjustments, i.e., problems and difficulties they have incoun— tered in the city. In order to understand problems rural people have in locating, holding, and adjusting to city jobs, it is necessary to ask a series of questions about your opinions on this subject. Names are not taken and your answers will be kept confidential. There are no right or wrong answers to any of these questions. 80 feel free to speak your mind. we are visiting a number of people from the country who went to the city and returned to Allegan County. We need your coopera- tion only for a short while. 1. Respondents 1. Head of household 2. Spouse 3. Dependent of head of household 4. Relative of head of household 5. Person living with family 2. Sex of Respondent 1. Male 2. Female 3. How long did you live in the Urban Area before coming to Allegan County? 1. Less than a year 2. 1-5 years 3. 6-10 years 4. 11-15 years 5. More than 15 years 4. Where were you born? 1. Out-of-state (specify city and state) 2. In-state (specify city) 123 How long have you lived in Allegan County? Less than one month 2 months to 5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years More than 15 years UIJ-‘UJNH When were you born? How old are you? 1. 1937-41 2. 1942-45 3. .1946-49 4. 1950-52 What was the size of community, town, open country, etc., where you grew up? 1. a city of 25,000 or more peOple 2. a city of 10,000-25,000 peOple 3. a city of 5,000-10,000 people 4. a town of 2,500—5,000 people 5. a town of 2,500 or less 6. open country Discontinue interview if number §_is more than 15 or less than one year, number §_is less than 16 or over 35, and Z_is more than 25,000 people. What racial group do you consider yourself a part? 1. _Anglo American (White) 2. Black American (Negro) 3. Mexican American We are interested in knowing something about your educational background in the rural area and your opinion about the school program. What was the highest grade in school you completed? 1. grade school 2. high school 3. college 4. other vocational programs, e.g. vocational schools, trade school, technical institute 100 11. 12. l3. 14. 15. 125 What was the size of school you attended? (9-12) or (1-8) 1. Less than 150 students 2. 150-300 students 3. 301-600 students 4. 601-900 students 5. More than 900 students Was your school combined with other schools in the county or district to form a consolidated school? 1. Yes 2. No Did you participate in any of the following vocational school programs while in school? yes no Semesters in Course Vocational Home Economics Vocational Agriculture Industrial Arts Trade and Industrial Office Education (typing, shorthand, etc.) Health Occupational Education Distributive Education Others (specify) mNONMJ-‘UJNH What kind of skilled training did you receive while you were in school? yes no 1. Apprenticeship training 2. On-the-job training 3. Vocational training at the high school level 4. Vocational training at the post high school level 5. Manpower Development programs (MDTA) 6. 0E0 Programs 7. Others (specify) Did the training you received in high school help you in getting a job? 1. Yes 2. No How satisfactory was the training you received in high school in holding a job? 1. very satisfactory 2. satisfactory 3. not sure 4. unsatisfactory 5 . very unsatisfactory 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 126 How satisfactory was the training you received in your high school in performing on the job? 1. very satisfactory 2. satisfactory 3. _not sure 4. unsatisfactory 5. very unsatisfactory Ask only if respondents attended 3 Vocational School or Technical Program, e.g. Technical Institute, Business school, etc. Was the training you received in the Vocational School satisfactory in getting a job? 1. Yes 2. No How satisfactory was the training you received in Vocational School in performing on the job? 1. very satisfactory 2. satisfactory 3. not sure 4. unsatisfactory 5. very unsatisfactory Ask only if respondents attended other vocational programs, such as MDTA, 0E0, Armed Forces, On-the—job training, etc. was the training you received in other programs satisfactory in getting, holding, and performing on the job? 1. Yes 2. No In looking back at our home schools, we sometimes get the feeling that we could change things to better educate and train the youth in school for the true world of work. Then again as we think about it further, would they really be different or better. Anyway, I would like to know since the period you were in school What would you change or recommend to rural high schools to better prepare young people for the future? 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 127 In your opinion, should the following areas be taught in rural high schools? yes no Home Economics Vocational Agriculture Health Occupational Education Business Education Trade and Industrial Distributive Education General Education (e.g. math, history, etc.) Others (specify) CDNO‘U'I-l—‘wNH we would like to know something about your decision to come to Allegan County, your present job, and the jobs you have held. Why did you come to Allegan County? Who influenced your decision to come to Allegan County? yes no Relatives or friends An employer Advertising on T.V. or newspaper The county itself Others (specify) Ul-l-‘UJNH Prior to coming to Allegan County, did you have any advance information concerning the job situation here? 1. Yes 2. No Are you employed? 1. Yes (if yes, ask questions 27, 28) 2. No (if no, ask question 29) Have you received any formal training or special training for this job? 1. Yes (specify) 2. No How much is your take home pay? ,jper amount in dollars hour, week, month 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 128 Why did you leave your last job? What jobs have you held since coming to Allegan County? name of job employer 1. 2 Did you receive any training for these jobs? 1. Yes 2. No What job did you hold prior to coming to Allegan County? name of job employer 1. 2 We all at some point in our lives look for a job. Through our searching, it has been found that persons who are best equipped with knowledge of where to and what to look for seemingly end up with the best job. In the following series of questions, we are interested in the strategies you use in finding jobs. Remember there are no right or wrong answers. How do you go about looking for a job? Do you use any of the following items? (CheCk only one.) yes no . Check newspaper Go to the union Go to private employment offices Go directly to employers Go to public employment office Depend on friends and relatives Others (specify) \IO‘U15UONH Which one was most useful to you? After locating a job, how sure were you that you have identified the kind of job you wanted to make your life's work? 1. Very sure 2. Sure 3. Not sure 4. Unsure 5. Very unsure 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 129 Which of the following items do you thing are important on a job? Important Somewhat Important Not Important 1. Freedom of behavior 2. Chance for advancement 3. Friendship with fellow ' workers Power and authority Intellectual challenge . Prestige and respect . Security of a job . Mbney . Good supervision \OQNOU'Ib Are you familiar with the Michigan Employment Security Commission office in Allegan County? 1. Yes 2. No Would you like further training? 1. Yes 2 No If you wanted skilled training to get a specific kind of job, where would you go to obtain this training? we all have problems we think are special when it comes to getting, holding, and performing on the job. In your opinion, do the followr ing items identify some of the special problems and difficulties you have faced in getting jobs? yes no Lacking educational skills Failure to pass test given on jobs No high school diploma Sex discrimination Racial discrimination Religious discrimination Physical disabilities Others (specify) How long did it take you to become adjusted or get the hang of things you had to do on the job? ®\IO\UI-bLONP-‘ 3 or more years never 1. Less than a week 2. 1—12 weeks 3. 3-6 months 4. 7-12 months 5. 1-3 years 6 7 41. 42. 43. 44. 130 What factors contributed to the time it took you in adjusting to your job? yes no 1. Job preparation 2. Discrimination 3. Family background 4. Language barrier 5. Personality conflicts 6. Educational background 7. Others (specify) What about the following statements, do they cover speéific problems or difficulties you have faced in holding a job? yes no Inadequate training, lack of skills Lack of information about work training opportunities Unrealistic expectations by employer Lack of responsibility Poor work habits (abstenteeism, tardiness, etc.) . Lack of educational requirements Others (specify) \IO‘UJ—‘WNH To what extent do you feel deprived of the following items while on the job? some none lots l. A chance to be myself 2. Freedom to perform at my own pace 3. A decent salary 4. Open space like in the country 5. Others (specify) The following are points some people feel are personal hang-ups or problems that hinder their adjustment to a job. To what extent do these apply to you? some none lots Short temperedness Impatience Too easy going Open space in the country Late for work some mornings Language Others (specify) \lO‘U‘I&UJNl-‘ There are two ways a person can move in a job and gain status and prestige, including income and position. They are vertical and horizontal movement. 1) Vertical movement is moving upward on a job, e.g. a plant worker to become plant foreman. 2) Horizontal 45. 46. 47. 48. 494 50. 51. 52. 131 movement is the process of moving from one position within the same company or profession without moving upward or downward in the company or job. we would like to know the difficulties and problems you have encountered in these two movements. What problems or difficulties have you found in moving upward on a job? What problems or difficulties have you found in moving horizon- tally on a job? We would like to know about the problems and difficulties that caused you to return or come to Allegan County after living in the city for a while. Why did you leave the city? Were you employed at the time you decided to leave the city? 1. Yes 2. No What problems occupationally, if any, were you confronted with while in the city? What were some problems or difficulties other than a job that influenced your decision to leave the city? When you decided to return to the country, was your decision based solely on occupational reasons? 1. Yes 2. No What was your take home pay while in the city? 1. welfare 2. none 3. ,per amount in dollars hours, week, month 53. 55. 56. S7. 58. 59. 60. 132 It is common practice to drive a long distance to work or move hundred of miles to where jobs are available. we would like to know, what would you do if you were confronted again with the question, ”to commute or relocate?". Would you commute to an urban area for a job? 1. Yes (if yes, ask question 55 and 56) 2. No (if no, ask question 57) Why would you commute? What is the farthest you would commute? 1. Less than 25 miles 2. 26-50 miles 3. 51-75 miles 4. More than 75 miles Why would you not commute? WOuld you relocate in an urban area for a job? 1. Yes (if yes, ask questions 58 and 59) 2. No (if no, ask question 61) What is the minimum salary you would accept if asked to commute? ,per amount in dollars hour, week, month Why would you relocate? yes no 1. More money 2. Better living conditions 3. Better social opportunities for self and family 4. Chances for getting jobs are much better in the city than the rural area 5. Better education opportunities for children 6. Others (specify) "would not relocate". What is the farthest you would travel to relocate? Less than 100 miles 100-300'miles 301-600 miles 600 or more miles J-‘UJNH 61. 62. 63. 133 Why would you not relocate? yes no O‘U‘lbWNH Too many uncertainties in getting jobs in the city Poor housing in the city Rural family ties Schools are better in the country The country is a better place to raise children Others (specify) What minimum salary would you accept if asked to relocate? yper amount in dollars hour, week, month Which of the following statements best describe the type of community you would prefer to live if you relocated again? 1 2. In 3. In 4. In 5. In 6. In 7. In . On a farm in the open country the open country, but not on a farm a a a a a town 2,500 to 10,000 people city 10,000 to 25,000 people city 25,000 to 100,000 people city over 100,000 people suburb outside a large city APPEND IX B APPENDIX B A SURVEY TO DETERMINE THE OCCUPATIONAL ADJUSTMENTS OF RURAL PEOPLE MIGRATING TO URBAN AREAS URBAN RESPONDENTS ONLY The purpose of this study is to collect and analyze informa- tion from people who were reared and educated in rural areas about the occupational adjustment, i.e., problems and difficulties, they have encountered in the city. In order to understand problems rural people have in locating, holding, and adjusting to city jobs, it is necessary to ask a series of questions about your opinion on this subject. Names are not taken and your answers will be kept confidential. There are no right or wrong answers to any questions, so feel free to speak your mind. We are visiting a number of people who came to Grand Rapids in the past 15 years from the country. 1. Respondents 1. head of household 2 spouse 3. dependent of head 4. relative of family 5. others in the household 2. Sex of the respondent 1. male 2. female 3. How many years have you lived in Grand Rapids? 1. less than one year 2. 1—5 years 3. 6—10 years 4. 11—15 years 5. more than 15 years 4. What age were you when you came to Grand Rapids? . under 16 16-20 . 21-25 26-29 30-35 . more than 35 @kflbLDNr-d 134 10. 11. 135 When were you born? (How old are you?) 1. 1937—41 2. 1942—45 3. 1946-50 4. 1951-52 Where were you born? 1. out-of—state (specify city and state) 2. in-state (specify city) What was the size of the community, town, city, etc., where you grew up? city of 25,000 or more people city of 10,000 to 25,000 people town of 5,000 to 10,000 people town of 2,500 to 5,000 peOple town less than 2,500 people . open country omwar-I summon: Discontinue interview if number 3 is more than 15 or less than one year, number 4 is less than 16 or over 35; 5 is less than 37 or more than 52; and 7 more than 10,000 peOple. What racial group do you consider yourself a part? 1. Anglo American 2. Black American 3. Mexican American or Chicano What are the highest grades in school you completed? (Be SPECifiC) . grade school (0‘8) . high school (9’12) . college . other vocational programs, e.g., vocational schools, trade schools, technical institute, company program, etc. DWNH What size of school did you attend? (9-12) or (1-8) less than 150 students 150 to 300 students 301 to 600 students . 601 to 900 students . more than 900 students Ui-I-‘UJNH Did you attend a consolidated school? 1. yes 2. no 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 136 While in school did you participate in any of the following vocational programs? yes no Semesters in Course Vocational Home Economics Vocational Agriculture Industrial Arts Trade and Industrial Health Occupational Education Distributive Education Office Education . Others (Specify) CDNOU'IbLUNP—J What kind of training did you receive while in school? yes no Apprenticeship training On-the-job training Vocational at the high school level Vocational training at the post high school level Manpower Programs OEO Programs Other (specify) None (”NONU'IbUONH Was the training you received in high school satisfactory in helping you get a job? 1. yes 2. no How satisfactory was the training you received in your high school in performing on jobs? . very satisfactory satisfactory not sure . unsatisfactory . very unsatisfactory U'l-l-‘lAJNl-J How satisfactory was the training you received in your high school in holding a job? . very satisfactory satisfactory not sure . unsatisfactory . very unsatisfactory Ui-L‘LJJNH Asked only if respondents attended a vocational school, post high school or trade or technical school, business school, etc. Was the training you received in vocational school satisfactory in getting a job? 1. yes 2. no 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 137 How satisfactory was the training you received in the vocational school in performing on the job? . very satisfactory . satisfactory . not sure . unsatisfactory . very unsatisfactory til-DWNH How satisfactory was the training you received in the vocational school in holding a job? . very satisfactory . satisfactory . not sure . unsatisfactory . very unsatisfactory Ul-PUONI-J Asked only if the respondent attended programs other than vocational or trade, industrial schools, e.g., MDTA or OEO, employer training school, or on—the—job, etc. After school, that is graduating (or drOpping out), did you partici- pate in any of the following programs? yes no_ MDTA (manpower training) Apprenticeship training On-the-job training OEO training programs others (specify) Military training O‘UI-DUJNH Was the training you received in these other programs satisfactory in getting, performing, and holding a job? 1. yes 2. no In looking back at our home schools, we sometime get the feeling that we could change things to better educate and train the youth in school for the true world of work. Then again as we think about it further, would they really be different or better. Anyway, I would like to know since the period you were in school. What would you change or recommend to rural schools to better prepare young peOple for the future? 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 138 In your Opinion, should the following areas be taught in rural high school? yes no Home Economics Vocational Agriculture Health Occupational Education Business Education Cooperative Education Distributive Education General Education Others (specify) CONGWDUJNH Why did you come to Grand Rapids? Who influenced your decision to come to Grand Rapids? . relatives or friends . an employer . advertising on television, etc. . the city itself others (specify) Ui-L‘UJNH Prior to coming to Grand Rapids, did you have any advance information concerning the job situation here? 1. yes 2. no Are you employed? 1. yes (if yes, answer questions 28-30) 2. no (if no, answers questions 31-33) What is the title of your job? Have you received any formal or Special training for this job? 1. yes (specify what kind) 2. no About how much is your take home pay? jper amt. in dollars wk., mon., yr. When were you last employed? Why did you leave your last job? Describe your last job. What did you do? What jobs have you held since coming to Grand Rapids? 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 139 Did you receive any training for these jobs? What jobs did you hold prior to coming to Grand Rapids? We all have some point in our lives looked for a job. Through our searching, many peOple have found that the person best equipped with the knowledge of where to look and what to look for in a job seemingly end up with the best job. In the following series of questions, we would like to know the strategies you use in finding employment. Remember there are no right or wrong answers. How do you go about looking for a job? Which of the following. methods have helped you to secure a job? yes no checking newspaper go to the union go to the public employment office go to private employment office go directly to the employer . depend on friends and relatives others (Specify) \JONUIbbJNr—l Which strategy is most useful to you? After locating the job, how sure are you that you have identified the kind of job you want to make your life's work? 1. very sure 2. sure 3. not sure 4. unsure 5. very unsure Which of the following items do you think are important in a job? important somewhat important not important 1. Freedom of behavior 2. chance for advancement 3. friendship with fellow employees 4. power and authority 5. intellectual challenge 6. prestige & respect 7. security of job 8. money 9. benefits to humanity Are you familiar with Michigan Employment Security Commission in Grand Rapids? 1. yes 2. no 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 140 Would you like further skill training? 1. yes 2. no If you wanted skilled training to get a special kind of job, where would you go to obtain this training? We all have problems we think are special when it comes to getting, holding, and performing on the job. In your opinion, do the follow- ing considerations identify special problems and difficulties you have faced in getting jobs? yes no lacking educational skills, e.g. reading, writing, etc. failure to pass company tests no high school diploma sex discrimination race discrimination religious discrimination physical disabilities . others (specify) m\l0\U1-L\UONH How long did it take you to become adjusted or get the hang of things you had to do on your present (or last) job? 1. less than a week . 1—12 weeks . 3-6 months . 7-12 months . 1-3 years . 3 or more years . other (specify) \IONU'IDUON What factors contributed to the time it took you in adjusting to your job? . job preparation . discrimination . family background . personality conflict . language barrier . educational background . others (specify) \IONU'IJ-‘WNH What about the following statements, do they cover specific problems or difficulties you have faced in holding a job? yes no inadequate training, i.e. lacking job skills lack of information about work training opportunities . not sure of reSponsibilities employer expects too much from me failure to accept discipline of job inability to accept supervision on the job others (specify) \IC‘U'IJ-‘LONH 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 141 To some peOple the following items are personal hang—ups that hinder their adjusting to a job. To what extend to these apply to you? some none lots 1. short temperedness 2. impatience 3. too easy going 4. moody 5. listening 6. others There are two ways a person can move in a job gaining status and prestige, including income and position. They are vertical and horizontal movement. (1) Vertical movement is moving upward on a job, e.g., a plant worker becomes a plant foreman. (2) Hori- zontal movement is the process of moving from one position within the same company or profession without moving upward or downward in the company or job. We would like to know the difficulties and problems you have encountered in these two movements. What problems or difficulties have you found in moving upward on a job? What problems or diffiCUlties have you found in moving horizontally on a.job? We would like to know about problems and difficulties that caused you to come to Grand Rapids. Were you employed at the time you decided to come to Grand Rapids? 1. yes 2. no What occupational problems, if any, were you confronted with while on the job in the country? What were some problems or difficulties other than occupational that influenced your decision to leave the country? When you decided to leave the country, was your decision based solely on occupational reasons? 1. yes 2. no APPENDIX C APPENDIX C OPINIONS TOWARD EDUCATION, TRAINING, AND WORK IN RURAL SCHOOLS I would like to get your Opinion about the education and training you received in school and what you think of work. We would like to get a picture of the views pe0p1e have about education in rural areas. Please answer the following statements according to whether you Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, or Strongly Disagree. 1. PeOple from rural areas living in the city are SA A D SD usually less educated than urban reared people. 2. Employers prefer hiring rural peOple rather than SA A D SD city people. 3. People educated in rural areas have more skilled SA A D SD training than city educated people. 4. Rural pe0p1e living in the city have about the same occupational adjustment problems as anyone SA A D SD else. 5. Rural high schools are concerned primarily with SA A D SD preparing its students for the world of work. 6. Vocational Education in rural high schools pro— SA A D SD vides a better preparation for more jobs than does the college preparatory courses. 7. Discrimination because of a rural background is a SA A D SD major factory in occupational adjustments of racial groups in the city. 8. In your opinion does the employment office have SA A D SD the same responsibility as the Michigan Employ— ment Service? 9. It is harder to get a job if the employer knows SA A D SD you were educated in a rural school. 10. A large portion of people unemployed knows you SA A D SD were educated in a rural school. 11. Rural people are usually the last hired and the SA A D SD first fired. 142 12. l3. 14. 15. l6. 17. 18. 19. 20. 143 PeOple educated in rural areas have problems adjusting to city jobs. PeOple who come to Grand Rapids and return home or to some other rural areas with little or no training, could not adjust to the fast pace and pressures of city jobs. Rural youth do not have adequate exposure to vocational offering as urban youth. Employers or supervisorsinadequately inform workers about information leading to training on or off the job. College preparatory courses are more useful than vocational .courses to rural youth. High schools with less than 150 students should be abandoned or consolidated with other schools of the same size to bring about quality education for rural youth. Increased vocational education hi the school would be an important means of solving the occupational adjustment problems of rural people. Secondary schools should not be accredited unless they offered a comprehensive program of vocational education. There is little chance for promotion on the job unless a man get a break. SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA: SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD APPENDIX D APPENDIX D Specific Wbrker Adjustment Problems Mentioned Youth Opportunity Center Counselors (n=763) Worker Adjustment Problems Counselors Who Mentioned It Number Of Percent of Counselors Who Mentioned It Job Preparation Inadequate training, job skills Lack of information about work and training Opportunities Lack of knowledge about real demand of work employer expectations Lack of educational requirements Lack of prior work experiences Personality Variables Unrealistic aspirations and expectation Lack of responsibility, self— discipline, initiative-general immaturity Lack of, or poor, self—concept, self- awareness, self-esteem Lack of future orientations of long range goals Lack of experience in forming and maintaining relationship Fear of leaving school, lose of status, security Personality, other (poor neurological origin, unclear value systems, drugs addiction, etc. Vocational Behavior Poor work habits (absenteeism, tardiness, etc.) Inability to fill out forms, pass test, handle interview, etc. 144 656 428 378 155 148 115 597 299 247 185 178 25 18 32 547 293 169 86.0 56.1 49.5 20.3 19.4 15.1 78.2 39.2 32.4 24.2 23.3 3.3 2.4 4.2 71.7 28.4 22.1 145 Inability to accept supervision Unrealistic wage and/or promotion demands; tendency to overrate contribution Poor occupational choice or inability to make choice Inability to get along with fellow workers Poor attitudes toward work Job skipping; poor work record Inability to c0pe with real demands of work (8 hr. day, 40 hr. week, etc.) VOcational behavior, Others School Programs Inadequate preparations in basic subject . Lack of communication skills School too permissive, create false sense of competence Inadequate guidance and placement Academic over emphasis School does not relocate to real work Inadequate teachers Others Discrimination Factors Racial, ethnic, sex discrimination Reluctance of employers to hire youth Child labor laws Police Record Insurance policies Handicapped physically or mentally Negative image of youth Union policies Others FamilygBackground Disadvantage, minority group family background Parents unrealistic vocational aspirations causes Family situations causes emotional problems Family fails to relate school to work Loyalty to family interferes with work Others 161 125 109 75 98 37 358 145 145 111 91 69 42 10 256 127 117 51 23 15 14 221 190 ONONH O OOI—‘I—‘NWO‘U‘ION 0.... O mHOmOONWO N \D O 24.9 OOOH oowoob 146 Community Factors Ghetto conditions Lack of local job opportunities Lack of training opportunities Inadequate transportation, immobility of youth Community wage structure Others Factors Inherent in Jobs Unnecessarily high job requirements Monotonous work, dirty work Impersonality of large organizations Employers! unrealistic expectations Tendency to ignore training and previous experience Other (poor supervision, lack of opportunities for advancement, etc.) Military Obligation Employers' reluctance to hire because of draft Lack of motivation due to draft 165 58 54 36 28 24 59 27 12 10 [3.6 36 18 APPENDIX E APPENDIX E Rural - Urban Responses to the Opinionnaire on Education and Training SA A D SD x2 P People from rural areas living in the city are usually less educated than urban reared 4 29 13 2 3.379 peOple- 10 29 16 6 Employer prefer hiring rural people rather than city 2 35 10 1 4.581 people. 8 34 13 4 People educated in rural areas have more skilled training 5 31 11 1 3.926 than city educated peOple. 10 32 13 5 Rural peOple living in the city have about the same occupa- tional adjustment problems as o 12 32 4, 5.243 anyone. 2 20 29 10 Rural high schools are concerned primarily with preparing its 2 18 25 3 4.167 students for the world of work.10 20 27 4 Vocational education in rural high schools for more jobs than does the college 3 18 25 2 2.448 preparatory courses. 4 27 23 6 Discrimination because of rural background is a major factor in occupational 2 27 18 1 7.784 adjustment of racial groups. 7 25 17 8 The unemployment office has about the same responsibility as the employment security 0 6 37 5 5.786 commission. 4 6 39 12 It is harder to get a job if the employer knows you were 0 16 26 6 5.462 educated in the rural area. 3 11 35 12 146 A 147 A large portion of the people unemployed in the city can be 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. a man gets a break. identified as having moved from 4 31 ll 2 3-726 R the country. 11 29 18 3 Rural people are usually the 2 6 33 7 5.592 ”last hired and the first fired 4 9 29 19 Pe0ple educated in rural areas usually have problems 1 20 26 1 8 718 XX: in adjusting to city jobs. 3 33 18 7 Rural people who come to the city and returned to the country with little job training could not adjust to the fast pace and pressures 1 21 24 2 8.147 XX. of the city job. 8 29 18 6 Rural youth do not have adquate exposure to vocational offering as urban 0 17 27 4 7.606 youth. 5 16 29 12 Employers or supervisors in the city inadequately inform workers about information about training that can be 0 10 35 3 13.968 XX obtained on the job. 5 22 24 9 College preparatory courses are more useful than voca- 7 33 13 0 5.070 tional courses to rural youth. 6 3i 1“ 4 Rural high schools with less than 150 students should be abandoned or consolidated with other schools it's size to bring about quality education 2 22 19 5 14.389 XX for rural youth. 8 10 26 17 Increased vocational education in the school would be an important means of solving the occupational adjustments of rural people in the cities of 4 38 6 4.458 America. 6 37 16 There is little chance for promotion on the job unless I 15 27 5 3.910 3 17 31 10 148 20. Rural youth should be taught about the situations in the cities before they leave high school. x2 at 3 df is significant at 7.815 R=Rura1 U=Urban XX=Significant 8 13 25 2 12 20 21 8 4.750 APPENDIX F 10. APP END IX l~' ReSponses to the Opinionnaire on Education and Training Based cn Ethnic Background People from rural areas living in the city are usually less educated than urban reared people. Employer prefer hiring rural people rather than city people. People educated in rural areas have more skilled training than city educated people. Rural people living in the city have about the same occupational adjustment problems as anyone. Rural high schools are concerned primarily with preparing its students for the world Of work. Vocational education in rural high schools for more jobs than does the college preparatory courses. Discrimination because of rural background is a major factor in occupational adjustment of racial groups. The unemployment office has about the same responsibility as the employment security commission. It is harder to get a job if the employer knows you were educated in the rural area. A large portion of the people unemployed in the city can be identified as having moved from the country. SA 9 U.) HON (pvt-‘3‘ 901-‘9 WDH NH 11.677 5.62 11.669 4.916 4.436 7.439 5.243 4.387 5.856 17.024 XX Emit E032 :17: E328 ng goof. H MA MA 11. Rural people are usually are the last 12 30 13 1 4.521 xx . W hired and the first fired. 10 20 5 1 B 4 12 6 2 MA 12. PeOple educated in rural areas usually 2 26 ' 17 4 4.077 xx_ W have problems in adjusting to city jobs. 2 15 16 3 B l 10 12 1 MA 13. Rural people who came to the city and returned to the country with little 4 22 21 2 6.651 xx W job training could not adjust to the 2 18 14 2 B fast pace and pressures of the city job. 2 10 8 4 MA 14. Rural youth do not have adequate 3 20 19 710.222 xx W exposure to vocational offering as 1 3 23 4 B .urban youth. 1 5 13 5 MA 15. Employers or supervisors in the city inadequately inform workers about in- 3 16 24 5 9.385 xx W formation about training that can be 1 11 22 2 B obtained on the job. 2 4 12 6 MA 16. College preparatory courses are more 2 36 7 3 11.304 xx W useful than vocational courses to 3 17 16 0 B rural youth. 3 13 7 1 MA 17. Rural high schools with less than 150 students should be abandoned or » consolidated with other schools it's 7 18 14 1010.094. xx W size to bring about quality education 1 8 20 7 B for rural youth. 2 6 ll 5. MA 18. Increased vocational education in the school would be an.important means of solving the occupational adjustments 0 3 32 106.577 XX W of rural people in the cities of 0 2 27 7 B America. 1 2 16 5 MA 19. There is little chance for promotion 1 '15 24 9 3.940 W on the job unless a man gets a break. 2 9 20 5 B l 6 . ll 6 MA 20. Rural youth should be taught about 4 14 23 8 25.4445 W the situations in the cities before 12 is ;6 i 3 they leave high school. x2 at 6 df is significaniat 12.592. XX - Not Significant W - White, B - Black, MA - Mexican American APPENDIX C APPENDIX G DATA OF ANALYSIS OF CONTINGENCY Compilation of Data Based on Residence Rural Urban Respondents 1. Head Of household 31 34 2. Spouse 9 24 3. Dependent 2 1 4. Relative 6 2 5. Others in the household 0 1 Sex of Respondents 1. Male 25 20 2. Female 23 43 Years lived in Allegan County (Grand Rapids) 1. Less than one year 0 O 2. 1 - 5 years 16 37 3. 6 - 10 years 11 13 4. ll - 15 years 21 13 5. More than 15 years Length of time in urban are before coming to rural 1. Less than a year 5 2. 1 - 5 years 18 3. 6 - 10 years 15 4. 11 — 15 years 10 5. 15 or more years 0 Age coming to Grand Rapids 1. Under 16 o 2. 17 - 20 27 3. 21 - 25 21 4. 26 - 3O 12 5. 31 - 35 3 6. More than 35 O 151 10. 11. 12. 152 When were you born 1. 1937 ~ 1941 2. 1942 - 1945 3. 1946 - 1950 4. 1951 - 1952 5. NO response Place of birth 1. Out of—state 2. In—state Size of residence where you grew up 25,000 or more . 10,000 - 25,000 5,000 - 9,999 2,500 - 4,999 2,500 or less Open country Chm-Doomed Racial group 1. Anglo American (white) 2. Black Americans 3. Mexican Americans Education completed Grade level High school College Other vocational programs 17 or more years in college . No response ONUI-l-‘LDNH Size Of school attended Less than 150 students . 150 - 300 students 1 301 - 600 students . 601 - 900 students More than 900 students m-PwNn—I Attended consolidated school 1. Yes 2. No 12 12 14 10 23 25 11 10 12 10 20 17 11 15 N OOUJUIU'I N \OC\O 14 34 18 16 20 38 25 U1L.OO 27 11 30 21 12 I—‘UJNO‘sWCD 19 22 11 45 18 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 153 Programs or courses participated in while in school Home Economics . Vocational Agriculture Industrial Arts Trade and Industrial Office Education Health Occupational Education Distributive Education \xoxm-Dri—I Skilled training in school 1. Apprenticeship training 2. On-the-job training 3. Vocational training in high school 4. Vocational training in P.H.S. 5. M.D.T.A. 6. OEO was training satisfactory in getting jobs 1. Yes 2. No 3. No response How satisfactory in holding on job Very Satisfactory No response 1. Very unsatisfactory 2. Unsatisfactory 3. Not sure 4. Satisfactory 5 6 How satisfactory in performing on jobs very satisfactory NO response 1. Very unsatisfactory 2. Unsatisfactory 3. Not sure 4. Satisfactory 5 6 Was training satisfactory in getting a job 1. Yes 2. NO 3. NO response Yes 23 11 24 20 \IN-l-‘m-DH 15 33 r—Ir—I NWOWNN 19 23 N_o_ 25 46 37 41 24 28 42 47 44 48 46 41 Yes 36 18 10 15 22 H HNNl—‘U'IO 24 33 23 10 14 24 10 15 13 41 g9 27 55 45 53 48 57 41 63 58 52 61 61 62 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 154 How satisfactory in performing on a job very satisfactory No reSponse 1. Very satisfactory 2. Unsatisfactory 3. Not sure 4. Satisfactory 5 6 How satisfactory in holding a job Very satisfactory . No response 1. Very unsatisfactory 2. Unsatisfactory 3. Not sure 4. Satisfactory 5. 6 Was training satisfactory in getting holding and performing on jobs 1. Yes 2. No 3. No reSponse Recommended changes Upgrading curriculum Improving vocational training More bilingual classes Improved teaching Improved counseling and guidance No change Chm-Pump: Should the following areas be taught in rural high schools Home Economics VOcational Agriculture Health Occupational Education Business Education Trade and Industrial Distributive Education . General Education \lC‘kfl-l—‘UDNH 0 16 12 20 If? NONNUTNO NOOWGG NOMNVV OUTCI) 21 N oauaa>n>cp re. 60 55 6O 61 59 58 61 re. Nmwaoou 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 155 Why did you come to Allegan County Improved job Opportunities Family influence To be near job Job unavailable in city Preferred rural life Problems of the city ONm-Dth-I O .0 S y did you come to Grand Rapids Improved job Opportunities Family influence To be near job Jobs unavailable in rural area Preferred city life . Personal ChUI-DOJNH 0 Who influenced your decision to come to Allegan County 1. Relatives and friends 2. Employers 3. Advertising 4. The county 5. Personal Influence Who influenced your decision to come to Grand Rapids 1. Relatives and friends 2. Employer 3. Advertising 4. The city 5. Personal influence Advanced information about job situations 1. Yes 2. No Are you employed 1. Yes 2. NO 10 \l\DOl-‘ 23 20 10 NVOVN 26 22 37 11 Dbomw 26 37 38 25 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 156 Formal or Special training 1. 2. 3. Yes No No response Take home pay \onUI-L‘ri—I E“ O \OWNO‘U‘l-PWNH Below $2,000 per year $2,000 - 4,000 per year $4,001 - 6,000 per year $6,001 - 8,000 per year Above $8,000 Confidential Unemployed or no salary did you leave your last job Poor education Laid off or fired Better position Poor transportation To continue education Personal (Automation Poor pay No response Method used to find job 0 oouoan-Pri-I Newspaper Union Michigan Employment Security Com. GO directly to employer Private employment office Friends and relatives All of the above Social services Which strategy is most useful to you \lO‘Ul-pUNl-d O O. 0 Newspaper Unions Michigan Employment Security Com. Go directly to employer Private employment office Friends and relatives High school counselor 31 13 (DNU‘IO‘U'Im-P H H ~4nac>hauwc>oasst+ w OWOO‘Ol—‘N 17 15 31 H MbH-l-‘I-‘NO‘OH N 12 10 22 16 15 30 12 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 157 How sure are you that the job wanted has been identified 1. Very sure 2. Sure 3. Not sure 4. Unsure 5. Very unsure Items important in a job 1. Freedom of behavior 2. Chance for advancement 3. Friendship with fellow employers 4. Power and authority 5. Intellectual challenge 6. Prestige and respect 7. Security of job 8. Money 9. Benefits Familiarity with MESC 1. Yes 2. No Further skilled training 1. Yes 2. No Special problems or difficulties in getting jobs. ' Lacking educational skills Failure to pass test . No high school diploma Sex discrimination Race discrimination Religious discrimination Physical disabilities \lChUI-PDJNH Length of adjustment Less than a week One to twelve weeks 3 - 6 months 7 - 12 months 1 - 3 years More than 3 years Never \Jmmwat—I o O O 13 16 12 |—l N HHON-POHNOO 24 24 34 14 Yes 25 19 12 33 H OOOOH-P 2 17 22 ;12 '11 10 No 23 4O 29 38 36 43 39 1 19 38 32 35 39 37 41 8 8 28 11 8 3 2 l 9 9 45 2 2 59 18 24 21 6 11 46 2 13 48 1 3 59 l 8 54 0 0 0 47 16 . 53 10 Yes No 25 38 ll 52 18 45 10 53 18 44 6 57 10 53 35 2O 6 O 0 0 O 41. 42. 43. 44. 158 Factors contributing to the length of adjustments Job preparation Discrimination Family background Personality conflict Language barriers Educational background Change of hour (urban) No factors m\lC\UI-I-\UONH Special problems or difficulties in holding job (rural) 1. Inadequate training, lack of training 2. Lack of information about work training opportunities 3. Unrealistic expectation by employers (rural) 4. Lack of responsibility 5. Poor work habits 6. Lack educational requirements 7. Not sure of responsibility (urban) Personal hang-ups or problem hendering adjustments 1. Short temperedness 2. Impatience 3. Easy going 4. Open space 5. Late for work 6. Language Problems of difficulties in moving upward on jobs. Conflicts with supervisors Poor educational training Race discrimination More responsibility No room for advancement Language Family responsibility No problems No responses KomNOU'I-PUJNH \lO-l-‘N-J-‘w-P-P Yes 20 18 None Some Lots None Some Lots 29 24 15 33 36 43 H ONHONNNCXJH N NO 28 3O 35 42 48 34 15 19 26 11 11 4 [OH-Dumb L‘NNHWOI—‘m Yes 12 12 10 49 38 39 48 40 58 H b.) HMD—‘OWU‘IWON NO 51 51 46 61 53 14 21 l9 l3 9 5 opium-PO 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. H 159 Problems or difficulties in moving horizontally on a job ...: Personality conflicts with supervisor Poor educational training Race discrimination MOre responsibility Family responsibility No problems No responses \onm-l-‘wN .00. Were you employed when you decided to leave the city 1. Yes 2. No Were you employed at the time you decided to come to Grand Rapids 1. Yes 2. No Problems of difficulties other than occupational that influenced your decision to leave the country (city) 1. Family and personal problems 2. Preferred City Life (rural life) 3. Social services more abundant 4. Boredom 5. Transportation 6. Job availability (urban) 7. Problems of the city (rural) 8. Discrimination 9. No problems 0. No response Occupational problems confronted with on rural (urban) jobs Poor salary Transportation Racial discrimination Lack of jobs available Laid off or fired No problems . No response \IOU'I-I-‘LQNH O O O ONOOl—‘OH 9N 15 33 31 32 OU|OU1C>ONN Hoowwmbm NNN-PU'IkO '—I er—IOOt—‘Loo 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 160 Where would you go to obtain skilled training MESC Junior college Vocational or skill centers High school counselors Social services Community action program Four year college Employer Telephone yellow pages 10. Job corps 11. Operation mainstream 12. Don't know 13. No response \DOONONLn-PLONr—I 0 o O 0 Upon leaving the city (rural) was reason based solely on occupations 1. Yes 2. No Would you commute for a job 1. Yes 2. NO Why would you commute Better jobs Improved working conditions . Chances for advancement . Increased salary . NO response Ln-L‘OoNr—I Farthest you would commute . Less than 25 miles 26 - 50 miles 51 - 75 miles More than 75 miles NO response Ln-I-‘UJNH Reason for not commuting Poor or lack of transportation Preferred rural life Personal No reasons No response Ln-PWNH \l WU.) 0&1)de 33 15 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 161 Minimum salary accepted to commute @m-PWNH Below $2,000 per year $2,000 - 6,000 $6,001 - 10,000 Above $10,000 Would not commute No salary Would you relocate 1...: \lO‘U‘I-l-‘LADNH O O I I Yes No would you relocate MOre money Better job opportunity Better educational opportunities Better social opportunities Better living conditions Would not relocate No response Farthest you would travel to relocate m-war—I Less than 100 miles 100 - 300 miles 301-- 600 miles More than 600 miles No response Minimum salary accepted to relocate om-wal—l O O O O O 0 Below $2,000 per year $2,000 - 6,000 per year $6,001 - 10,000 per year More than $10,000 per year No response Would not relocate Type of community preferred to live if asked to relocate wow-Pump; o O. .0 On a farm in open country In a town 2,500 to 10,000 In a city 10,000 to 25,000 A city 25,00 - 100,000 In a city over 100,000 In a surburb outside a large city No response 11 14 11 23 26 ¢~C>U1U1U1 C’a’c>c>b>0‘n> (DI-‘UIWONO l—‘H U'IOC‘OP-‘O‘KO HICHIGQN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES mWWWHI“MlWW"WWWWW 31293104614486