INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1.The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find ja good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material, it is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. 5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received. University Microfilms International 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 USA St. John’s Road, Tyler's Green High Wycombe, Bucks, England H P10 8HR 77-5803 GOEBEL, Karen Peting, 1940THE RELATIONSHIP OF COMMUNITY SERVICE USE AND FAMILY FACTORS AMONG LOW-INCOME FAMILIES IN TWO RURAL MICHIGAN COUNTIES. Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1976 Home Economics Xerox University Microfilms, A n n Arbor, M ichigan 48106 THE RELATIONSHIP OF COMMUNITY SERVICE USE AND FAMILY FACTORS AMONG LOW-INCOME FAMILIES IN TWO RURAL MICHIGAN COUNTIES By Karen Peting Goebel A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Family Ecology 1976 ABSTRACT THE RELATIONSHIP OF COMMUNITY SERVICE USE AND FAMILY FACTORS AMONG LOW-INCOME FAMILIES IN TWO RURAL MICHIGAN COUNTIES By Karen Peting Goebel The purpose of this study was to obtain information about the extent, kind, and variety of community service use by rural low-income families and to examine relationships between community service use and certain family factors. Community services are an important source of additional resources for low-income families. Eligible families often do not take advantage of available community services. This study was concerned with the way in which social psychological and socioeconomic-demographic characteristics of families influence community service use. Data on community service use, social psychological and socioeconomic-demographic characteristics were col­ lected from 123 low-income families in two rural Michigan counties. Families were selected from food stamp or com­ modity distribution rolls using a stratified random sam­ pling procedure. Three family size strata: one person, two-four person, and five or greater person were used. Sample sizes within each stratum were equal within counties. Karen Peting Goebel Lower interviewing costs permitted a sample of 93 families in Lake county while in Montmorency county 30 families were interviewed. Interviews were conducted with a one adult family member. Respondents were asked to provide information on the number of contacts their family had with a group of selected welfare related community services during the most recent 12 months. Information was also collected on family, goals and fears, subjective level of goal attainment, value orientations, future orientation, social optimism, and areas of satisfaction in life. The perceived level of goal attainment without community service use was also deter­ mined. Socioeconomic-demographic factors examined were: family size, race, socioeconomic status, employment status, sex of household head, and family income. Multivariate analysis of covariance was used to analyze differences in extent, kind, and variety of com­ munity service use between counties. Multiple regression analysis was used to determine the relationship between extent, kind, and variety of community service use and social psychological and socioeconomic-demographic family factors. Multiple regression analysis was also used to determine the relationship between the perceived impact of service use and the extent, kind, and variety of community service use. Results indicated that differences in extent and Karen Peting Goebel variety of community service use between counties could be explained by differences in socioeconomic'demographic family factors. Extent of community service use was sig­ nificantly related to race, family size, socioeconomic status, social optimism, and employment status. Kind of community service use was significantly related to socio­ economic status and race. Variety o f 'community service use was significantly related to family size, race, and socioeconomic status. The perceived impact of community service use was significantly related to the extent of use. Families reported that health services, the social services department, and food programs were most important in helping them reach their goals. These same services were most often listed as in need of improvement. Sug­ gested improvements indicated were liberalized eligibility, improved courtesy in service provision, and improved super­ vision of services. Additional service needs reported generally included services to supplement current consump­ tion and employment. Results of this study generally indicated that among the sample of rural low-income families studied service use patterns were most related to immediate consumption needs. The results also offer implications for additional research on community service use, family factors related to commun­ ity service use, and to service agencies attempting to aid rural low-income families. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express gratitude to those who offered assistance and encouragement in the completion of this project. committee: Sincere appreciation is extended to the guidance Dr. Carol Shaffer, Dr. Beatrice Paolucci, Dr. James Shaffer, Dr. Jane Oyer, and Dr. Donald Melcer. 1 am especially grateful to Dr. Carol Shaffer, chairman of my committee, for continuous support and encouragement. Special appreciation is also extended to Dr. Beatrice Paolucci who became the thesis director after the death of Dr. Carol Shaffer. Dr. Paolucci was an inspiration during very difficult times. Dr. Linda Nelson, who participated in the examination, made a special contribution through questions posed and assistance given. 1 wish to give special thanks to those who made particular contributions to the research endeavor: Jo Lynn Cunningham for assistance in refinement'of the problem and statistical guidance; Judy Pfaff for assistance in computa­ tion ; the social service agencies in Lake and Montmorency counties for assistance in sample selection and interview­ ing; the Center for Rural Manpower and Public Affairs and the Agricultural Economics Department for financial sup­ port; the families in Lake and Montmorency counties for ii their gracious cooperation; and friends and coworkers for their encouragement. I deeply appreciate the patience, support, and comfort provided by my husband, Dr. Gerald Campbell. This project could not have been completed without his willingness to assume many of the traditional home production tasks. Finally, I express sincere appreciation to my parents, Louis and Gertrude Goebel, for their prayers, faith and support throughout my educational career. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF T A B L E S ................ vi LIST OF FIGURES.................................... ix Chapter I. INTRODUCTION .................. Statement of the P r o b l e m ................ Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . Objectives of the Study.................. Conceptual Framework . . . .............. Definitions.............................. Hypotheses . . . . . . .................. Assumptions. . ......... II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE.......... The Low-Income Population of the United States.......................... Approaches and Problems in Aiding Low-income Families. . . . . . . . . . . Community Service Use............ . . . . III. IV. PROCEDURES . . 1 1 3 5 6 3 11 12 13 13 22 24 .......................... 31 Selection of Study Areas ........ Selection of Sample. .................... Description of Sample. . . . . .......... Data Collection Procedure. . . . . . . . . Development of Interview Schedule. . . . . Instrumentation. .................. Analysis of D a t a ........................ 31 33 34 38 40 42 48 FINDINGS.............. Description of Variables ................ Testing of Hypotheses........... Changes in Services Suggested by Respondents............................ iv 51 52 66 82 Page V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS ... Summary of Findings. . . .............. Conclusions and Discussion . . . . . . . . Limitations of the Study . ............ Implications for Further Research.. 98 Implications for Community Service A g e n c i e s ............................... APPENDICES .......................... 89 89 91 96 101 . . . . . . . 107 BIBLIOGRAPHY...................................... 135 ) V LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1. Distribution of Family Sizes by Resi­ 2 . 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. dence Location ...................... 35 Sex of Household Heads by Residence Location and Family Size Category. . 35 Relationship of Respondents to Household Heads by Residence Location and Family Size Category.......................... 36 Average Age of Household Heads by Resi­ dence Location and Family Size Category. 37 Racial Distribution of Families by Resi­ dence Location and Family Size Category. 37 Socioeconomic Status of Family Heads as Indicated by the Hollingshead Two-Factor Index of Social Position by Place of Residence and Family Size Category . . . 38 Description of Instruments 43 8 . Univariate Analysis of Variance of Mean 9. 10 . 11. 12. Differences in Community Service Use Between Lake and Montmorency Counties. . 53 Goals Expressed by Lake and Montmorency County Families. . . . ................ 55 Fears Expressed by Lake and Montmorency County Families...................... . 57 Univariate Analysis of Variance to Com­ pare Self-Anchoring Scale Scores Between Lake and Montmorency Counties........ .. 59 Univariate Analysis of Variance to Compare Family Social Psychological Factors Between Lake and Montmorency Counties. . . 61 vi Table 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Page Univariate Analysis of Variance to Compare Socioeconomic Factors Between Lake and Montmorency Counties................ 67 Multivariate Analysis of Covariance to Compare Community Service Use Between Family Size Categories and Residence Location with Social Psychological Factors as Covariates................................ 69 Multivariate Analysis of Covariance to Compare Community Service Use Between Family Size Categories and Residence Location with Social Psychological and Socioeconomic-Demographic Factors as Covariates .......................... 70 Results of Stepwise Regression to Deter­ mine the Relationship Between Extent of Use and Social Psychological and Socio­ economic-Demographic Variables.............. 73 Results of Stepwise Regression to Deter­ mine the Relationship Between Kind of Use and Social Psychological and Socio­ economic -Demo graphic Variables.............. 76 Results of Stepwise Regression to Deter­ mine the Relationship Between Variety of Use and Social Psychological and Socio­ economic -Demographic Variables ............ 77 Multivariate Analysis of Covariance to Compare Social Psychological Variables Between Family Size Categories and Resi­ dence Location with Extent, Kind, and Variety of Community Service Use as Covariates.................................. "0 Results of Stepwise Regression to Analyze the Perceived Impact of Use as Related to Extent, Kind, and Variety of Community Service Use............ ................ 81 Services Which Most Helped Families Reach Their Goals, Lake and Montmorency Counties.................................... 83 vn Table 22. 23. Al. A2. A3. Bl. B2. B3. B4. B5. Page Allocation of Ten Dollars of Additional Income by Residence Location and Family Size Category............................ 86 Specific Service Needs Reported by Lake and .Montmorency CountyFamilies.............. 87 Demographic and Economic Profile: Lake C o u n t y ............................ 108 Demographic and Economic Profile: Mont­ morency C o u n t y .......... .................... 110 Comparison of Socioeconomic Indicators Between Lake andMontmorencyCounties.......... 112 Average Frequency of Family Contact for Selected Community Services by Family Size Category and Residence Loca t i o n ........ 114 Average Number of Functional Categories Used Per Family by Family Size Category and Residence Location 115 . Average Number of Community Service Agencies Used Per Family by Family Size Category and Residence Location.............. 116 Sample Correlation Matrix for Community Service Use, Social Psychological, and Socioeconomic-Demographic Variables.......... 117 Comparison of Self-Anchoring Striving Scale Scores Among Selected Studies.......... 118 viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Page Geographic Location of the Study Areas . . . . ix 32 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Statement of the Problem During the 1960's there was a movement to expand public services available to United States citizens. This movement was the result of the "War on Poverty," expansion of the food stamp and food distribution programs, develop­ ment of medicare and medicaid programs. These public pro­ grams were supplemented by community services available through church and civic organizations and through pre­ existing programs such as Social Security, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Cooperative Extension and other educational and training programs. The programs may be divided along functional or service lines (food, health, finances, education) but the objective of aiding families is common. During the early 1970's many of these programs came under critical examination. Changing political and economic times caused many questions to be asked concerning the achievements and limitations of public service pro­ grams. The attention focused on these programs concerned not only the productivity of these agencies in meeting their objectives, but also focused on the limited partic­ ipation by eligible citizens (MacDonald, 1975). 2 A prime clientele group for community service programs during the 1960's was the rural poor. Several special programs were created to serve the needs of this diverse group of citizens. The evaluation of these and other com­ munity service programs often centers on determining community needs and analyzing the contribution of services toward meeting those needs. The analysis of needs is generally accomplished through gross demographic and socio­ economic indicators. This analysis may also involve health inventories or other measures of existing levels of family welfare. Community service evaluations often look at before and after measures of family welfare based on demo­ graphic and inventory data. Such evaluations tend to judge the success of services against goals determined by agency administrators. These goals may or may not match the goals of those families for which the programs were intended. If community services are to be effective in meeting family goals then information about family goals and motivations should be helpful in both design and evaluation of com­ munity service programs. One of the concerns of family ecologists is the use of resources by families. Community services represent a particular type of resource which may increase or inhibit the alternatives available to families in attaining their goals. Family ecologists are interested in the use of existing community services and the determinants of 3 community service use (Schlater, 1970, p. 51). They need to know how families use community services, what services are used, the extent of service use, additional services needed, and the effect of social, psychological, and eco­ nomic characteristics of families which affect community service use. This perspective has been reinforced by Mannino (1974) who stresses the need for focusing on family-institutional relationships to assist in planning and modifying intervention programs. Family ecologists may have a particular contribution to make in applying an holistic approach to the examination of familyinstitutional relationships. A specific need exists for examining specific characteristics that are related to community service use so that family ecologists can better assist families in using community resources to enhance levels of living. An examination of these factors or characteristics will also contribute to the human ecolo­ gists ' usefulness in comprehensive evaluations of community service programs. In addition, such an examination could generate new research procedures and skills. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to obtain information about the use of community services by rural low-income families residing in two Michigan counties and to explore the relationships between community service use (extent, kind, variety) and family characteristics. This study was 4 part of a larger effort by the Center for Rural Manpower and Public Affairs which had as its overall purpose the evaluation of the performance of community services. In previous research the Center had focused on comparison of two rural Michigan counties. The comparison of the two counties provides perspective on the generalizability of research results. The earlier efforts of the Center con­ centrated on measuring the effects (outputs) of community services (Kiene, 1972). The present study focused on the user families and characteristics influencing their use of services. The family characteristics studied were social psychological factors (levels of striving, value orienta­ tion, future orientation, social optimism, areas of satis­ faction in life) and socioeconomic-demographic factors (family size, socioeconomic status, sex of head, employment status of head, race, income). The purpose of this study was to provide a more comprehensive examination of family factors which may influence community service use. Thus, this study both complements and supplements earlier studies which concentrated on characteristics of service programs. The purpose of this study was to provide the basis for a more holistic look at community service utilization. This information would be useful to those designing new com­ munity service programs or modifying existing community service programs. There is a need for specific descriptive 5 and analytical information which views the family holisticly in order to provide a realistic basis for planning both direct and indirect community services. This study could also provide a basis for recommendations to current community service personnel concerning specific service changes and additional services needed by the families involved in this study. Specific Objectives of the Study 1. To determine the extent, kind, and variety of community service use of low-income families in Lake and Montmorency counties. 2. To determine the value orientation, future orien­ tation, social optimism, areas of satisfaction in life, and levels of striving of low-income families in Lake and Montmorency counties. 3. To compare community service use and family fac­ tors in Lake and Montmorency counties. 4. To determine the relationship between the extent, kind, and variety of community service use and socioeconomic demographic factors of families. 5. To determine the relationship between selected family social psychological factors and the extent, variety and kind of community services used by rural low-income families in Lake and Montmorency counties. 6. To determine the relationship between community service use (extent, kind, variety) and the families’ 6 perceived impact of community service use. 7. To make recommendations to community service agencies for improving the delivery of services to lowincome families. Conceptual Framework The family is seen here as an ecosystem. It is a coordinated set of parts for accomplishing goals. The family system is also part of the larger community system and both affects and is affected by it. The community system is a part of the environment of the family as are the physical and biological systems surrounding that family. The family system interacts with the community's socio-cultural, economic, and political subsystems. The family system contributes resources to the community and receives resources from it. The family system has both personal and managerial subsystems. The managerial sub­ system functions to plan and implement the use of family resources (Deacon and Firebaugh, 1975, p. 50). This includes the management of resources within the household as well as those available to the household through com­ munity services. Low-income rural families by definition are limited in available monetary resources within the household. Therefore, these families could be expected to use community service resources to complement limited income in meeting their goals. 7 Several factors should be expected to limit or expand the use of community services. These factors include limited alternate resources (income, physical function, education, and skills); legal, economic, or physical barriers to service use; and the extent to which families perceive the community service as relevant to their goal attainment (Deacon and Firebaugh, 1975, pp. 65-104; Gross, Crandall and Knoll, 1973, p. 152). Management of family resources cannot occur unless family decisionmakers believe they have some control over their lives and their futures. The resources used by families will also be affected by their attitudes toward present versus future consumption, their degree of satis­ faction with their current lives, and their attitudes toward the stability of social institutions. Family man­ agement will also be affected by the goal structure of the family and their experience with goal attainment. All of the above factors can be considered indicators of the psychological and social characteristics which influence the preference functions of families. The psychosocial and managerial subsystems of families are linked by family goals. Goals are formulated based on the values of the psychosocial subsystem (Gross, Crandall, Knoll, 1973, p. 165). Thus, the psychosocial subsystem would be expected to influence the extent to which families use community service resources as well as the kinds of 8 service resources chosen and the variety of service resources used. In addition, the use of community services may provide positive or negative feedback which may encour­ age continued use or trigger new behavior patterns (Deacon and Firebaugh, 1975, p. 9). Thus, families' observations about current community services available and potential changes in these services are valuable insights into feed­ back experiences. The knowledge of these observations also aid understanding of past, present, and future community service use patterns. Definitions Family: The family is viewed as synonomous with household. It is defined as a person living in a household and/or a group of persons living together in a household who are viewed as an entity that share some common goals, resources, and everyday functions and have commitment to one another over time. Low-income Families: Low-income families are defined as those families whose financial resources do not allow them to attain levels of living considered minimal by societal standards. Households receiving public assistance in the form of food stamps or food commodities are con­ sidered low-income families for the purposes of this study. Family Size Category: Family size category is defined by the number of persons in the household. categories are used in this study: Three size one person, two to four 9 persons, five or more persons. Residence Location: Residence location is defined as the particular county, Lake or Montmorency, where the family resided during the twelve months preceding data collection (Spring, 1973). Community Services: A selected group of welfare sup­ port services provided by federal, state or local agencies, or nonprofit organizations are the community services examined in this study. These include health, food, education, finances, and other assistance which directly supplement the resources of the family. Extent of Use: Extent of use is the number of con­ tacts the family had with agencies during the twelve months preceding data collection (Spring, 1973). Kind of Use: Kind of use is the number of functional categories representing the types of service received from the agencies contacted (such as medical examinations, information, and counseling) during the twelve months preceding data collection (Spring, 1973). Variety of Use: The variety of use is the number of agencies which the family had contacted during the twelve months preceding data collection (Spring, 1973). Value Orientation: Value orientations are con­ ceptualized as meaningful and affectively charged modes of organizing behavior. They establish the criteria which influence the family’s preferences and goals. They act as 10 measures by which the family sees itself and its environ­ ment (Kluckhohn, 1956; Rosen, 1956). Future Orientation: Future orientation is con­ ceptualized as a family's willingness to sacrifice short­ term goals and day-to-day conveniences for long-term goals. Social Optimism: Social optimism is conceptualized as the belief that there is a certain amount of predict­ ability in the future and faith in the stability of the social order (Srole, 1956). Areas of Satisfaction in Life: Satisfaction in life is conceptualized as the subjective feeling of satisfaction with particular family resources and activities that may critically affect the family's choices of goal directed behavior. Level of Striving: Level of striving is conceptual­ ized as the perceived proximity of a family's actualized or expected goal attainment relative to the family's idealization of their best and worst possible worlds as indicated by their pattern of goals and fears for the future (Cantril, 1965). Perceived Impact of Service Use; Perceived impact of use is conceptualized as the difference in subjective level of striving with and without the use of community services. Socioeconomic Status: Socioeconomic status is defined by the household head's occupation and educational level. 11 Family Income: Family income reflects the monetary resources flowing into a family. It is the net income from all household members. Employment Status of Household Head: Employment status is the share of time employed for the household head during the last twelve months. Race: Race is the interviewer’s perception of the respondent as white or nonwhite (Black, Chicano, other). Hypotheses The hypotheses formulated for this study are stated below in the form of the expected findings: Hypothesis 1 There is no difference in extent, variety, and kind of community service use between family size categories and place of residence if the effects of the social psycho­ logical variables are taken into account. Hypothesis 2 There is no difference in extent, variety, and kind of community service use between family size categories and places of residence if the effects of the social psychological and socioeconomic-demographic variables are taken into account. Hypothesis 3 The extent, kind, and variety of community service use are related to social psychological and socioeconomicdemographic variables. 12 Hypothesis 4 There is no difference in social psychological variables between family size categories and places of residence when the effects of community service use are taken into account. Hypothesis 5 There is a significant relationship between the per­ ceived impact of community service use and the extent, variety, and kind of service use. Assumptions The assumptions upon which this study was based are: 1. An adult family member can accurately report for the family as a whole. 2. Information about community service use by fami­ lies can be accurately attained through interviews. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Three areas of literature will be reviewed here: first, some general aspects of the low-income population of the United States with special attention to the "culture of poverty"; second, several approaches which have been pro­ posed to deal with problems of the low-income population; and third, the use of community services. The Low-income Population in the United States In recent years much debate has centered on the defi­ nition of poverty within the United States (Levine, 1970, p. 12). Pragmatically, an income standard (based on mini­ mum living costs) is commonly accepted as that which defines who the poor are. In 1974 the poverty level for a non-farm family of four was an income of $5038 (U. S. Bureau of Census, 1976, p. 1). The U. S. Census Bureau estimated that 24.3 million Americans, 12 per cent of the population, were living below the poverty level. A further breakdown by the U. S. Census Bureau indi­ cated that over three million families in metropolitan areas and over two million families in non-metropolitan areas were below the low-income level. 13 These low-income 14 families represented approximately 8.8 per cent and 12.77 per cent of the metropolitan and non-metropolitan families, respectively. In general, while urban low-income families were greater in number the proportion of families below the poverty level is greater in rural areas. After an analysis of the 1971 U. S. census Chilman (1975) concluded that several characteristics were likely to prevail among the non-poor; a. A white two-parent family in which both the husband and wife are working; b. A family headed by a person between the ages of 25 and 54 (most certainly not a family in which the head is over 54 or under 25); c. A family with no more than two children; d. Residence in the northeast or western non-farm regions of the country (particularly avoiding the south); e. A family with a white male head employed full-time in a professional, technical, administrative, skilled craft or transport employment; f. Parents with at least some college education, but preferably college graduation or more; g. Income from money sources besides wages (such as property, inherited income, stocks and bonds, interest on savings); and h. Excellent physical and mental health. We can generally conclude from this list that the poor lack 15 one i£ not all o£ these characteristics. Thus, the charac­ teristics most likely to be associated with low-income families are nonwhite, unemployed, single parent families, either young or elderly, living in farm areas with limited education, and poor physical and mental health. The low-income population has been the subject of much research especially since the "War of Poverty" era of the mid-1960's. It is beyond the scope of this study to examine all the studies of poverty. The particular aspect of poverty that is of major importance is the so-called "culture of poverty." While this concept has been the subject of some criticism (see Valentine, 1968) it remains useful. In discussing the culture of poverty Sarbin (1970) wrote: A culture is a set of acquired patterns of con­ duct, a way of life that provides its participants with adaptive techniques to deal with a set of recurring problems. Viewed in this way, the focus is less exclusively on the individual victims of poverty but rather on the social organization that creates specific social types that reproduce and maintain themselves with predictable regularity (p. 31). Sarbin asserts that among the psychological outcomes characteristic of the culture of poverty are present time orientation, an undifferentiated language system, and a belief that events are controlled by external forces. assertion is not uniformly held. This Allen (1970), in a review of personality correlates of poverty, finds little evidence in empirical studies that the poor have shorter time 16 perspectives (p. 242). a He also indicates far from unani­ mous support for the poor being unwilling to delay gratifi­ cation. On the subject of external control Allen does find substantial evidence that those who have low socioeconomic status have feelings of external control. Allen further examines the literature on achievement motivation and selfconcept. With respect to achievement motivation he con­ cludes that while low socioeconomic status is associated with low achievement motivation, higher achievement motiva­ tion may be insufficient to influence performance unless a corresponding set of values and aspirations is also an integral part of the personality organization. With respect to self-concept Allen's review of the available literature led him to conclude that poverty is not neces­ sarily associated with a more negative self-concept. The importance of these psychological characteristics are their effects on behavior. With reference to the difficulty investigators have had in understanding the disinherited Rainwater (1970) has stated: We must strive for a phenomenologically valid account both of the inner reality of personal life and of the social exchanges that constitute the pattern of social life of the disinherited. We must learn to become much more precise about how this inner reality and way of life come into being historically, and about how they are sustained by the larger social system in which they are embedded (p. 26). This emphasizes the importance of understanding indi­ vidual social psychological factors associated with the low income population as well as the economic and social sys­ tems with which they interact. Kar (1966), in a study of the adoption of family planning among low socioeconomic status married women, explored the relationship of aspirations to the early, late, or nonacceptors of family planning. He argued that goal oriented behavior (acceptance of family planning) was influenced by motivational determinants: level of striving toward subjective goal constellations as measured by a self-anchoring striving scale, future orientation, value orientation, social optimism, and areas of satisfaction in life. Direct and significant relationships between the first four of these variables and early adoption of family planning were found. These relationships further were evident beyond socioeconomic status and fertility status. Kar's study was considered extremely -important because of its emphasis on the influence of a variety of motives on goal directed behavior. As Kar pointed out, many earlier studies which found limited effects of social psychological factors examined the "fertility planning success" or the outcome of behavior rather than the behavior itself (1966, p. 310). In a study of needs, motivation, and aspirations of the poor in St. Paul, Minnesota, Holloway and Cardoza (1969) dealt with Maslow's hierarchy of needs and Cantril's Self-Anchoring Striving Scale. They molded the self­ 18 anchoring scale around Maslow's framework. The subjects interviewed were asked to rank themselves on their past, present, and future levels of satisfaction on hierarchical need (position in life, food and drink, safety and security, belongingness and acceptance, self-confidence and selfrespect) . Following assertions by Maslow, it was expected that people would take care of their lowest level of needs first. Thus, the authors felt that the ladder ratings would be lower for the higher level needs, i.e., the food and drink rating would be higher than the safety rating. The results did not confirm the expected^relationship. A modification of the Cantril Self-Anchoring instru­ ment has been used in cost-benefit evaluation of Title V Economic Opportunity Program trainees (Therkildsen and Reno, 1968). The investigators asked people to choose among a series of items reflecting their views of the best and worst possible life situations for themselves and their country. Essentially the subjects were asked to choose from a pre-established list to structure their goal con­ stellations, the questions were thus not really open-ended. Analysis was conducted using Maslow’s need hierarchy theory of motivation. The researchers' technique made possible the identification of shifts in motivation both quantitatively (in terms of ladder levels before and after training) and qualitatively (in terms of the pattern of 19 needs and the relative frequency of varieties of need). Stevens (1964) conducted a study of aspirations of married student husbands and wives at Michigan State University. Using the Cantril Self-Anchoring Striving Scale, information was obtained about aspirations and the relative standing of husbands and wives with respect to these aspirations. In addition, Stevens attempted to elicit information about activities in which the families were engaging that would lead to the achievement of the aspirations which they verbalized. While the study did not directly deal with chronically low-income families it did attempt to examine the relation­ ship between aspirations and activities to attain these aspirations. The researcher found that most husbands and wives were able to name one activity which was helping them attain their aspirations. The kinds of activities that were named were broad rather than specific. Tremendous reliance seemed to be placed on education as an activity to attain aspirations. Although health was mentioned as a hope by 27 per cent of the wives and 18 per cent of the husbands only one per cent in each group named any activity which could be called directly related to the maintenance of health. Wives tended to give responses to hopes, fears, and activities inquiries that were more family centered rather than personal than did the husbands. Sickness, accident, or death of family members were listed as worries 20 by 39 per cent of the husbands and 63 per cent of the wives. A study conducted by Martin and Dunkelberger (1971) gave some support to the assertion that aspirations were related to changes in family level of living. While the Guttman-type scale used to measure intensity of aspiration through dicotomized responses in this study related strictly to the socioeconomic situation as reflected in employment possibilities and mobility, the researchers did find the relationship between aspiration and level of living improvement to be independent of influences of age, education, residence, race, dependency, income satisfac­ tion, and life outlook. The implications of the study were also limited because the aspirations measured were those of the family head alone and may not reflect aspirations of other family members. While focusing on the participation of the poor in the decision processes of poverty planning, Zurcher (1970, p. 69) emphasized the importance of examining the signif­ icant social psychological differences between poor and not-poor members of the community. His investigations, using standardized measurement devices of Srole, Kahl, Dean, Rosen, found that the representatives of the poor were lower in activism, achievement orientation, future orientation, and higher in anomie, isolation, normlessness, powerlessness, alienation, particularism than those of the 21 not-poor. The degree of cooperation in a situation where there are differing attitudes toward self-in-society and differing perceptions of one another can be expected to influence the efficiency of the service mechanism. Ford (1965) in discussing value orientations of a culture of poverty stated: Another consideration of fundamental importance is that the influence of value orientations upon behavior is not deterministic but rather one of establishing priorities and of giving weight to certain alternatives of behavior. Specific situa­ tional factors always enter into the final deci­ sion (p. 58). It is thus important to consider both intrapersonal and situational factors in trying to explain behavior. Feldman and Feldman (1975) examined factors related to whether or not welfare mothers leave welfare programs. This study did not examine specific behaviors associated with leaving welfare programs. The study was an example, however, of the examination of both situational and intra­ personal factors. The researchers examined four sets of factors in attempting to explain variability in exit from welfare programs. These four factors were: family rela­ tions and obligations, community resource use, life set­ ting, and intrapersonal (attitude toward oneself). It was found that life setting was most important in explaining exit. Marital status, education, family size, rural-urban residence, and employment of the woman were the life set­ ting factors. The weakest factor in explaining welfare 22 status was self-view. This led the researchers to con­ clude : There was little support for the theory of the modification of the person's self-concept as a way of predicting welfare status. Self-perceptions of the welfare women were at a much lower level of predictive value than were the situational factors. These self factors, however, may serve as intervening variables, and their higher level of shared vari­ ance suggests that this may be the case. Modifica­ tion of the life setting of these women was the most predictive, and the main impetus of national policy should be directed toward this end. Approaches and Problems in Aiding Low-income Families Many different programs were initiated or revital­ ized during the 1960's to aid low-income families. Often these programs were designed as curative measures rather than preventative ones (Tussing, 1975; Levine, 1970). Rainwater (1975) has argued that it is useful to think of anti-poverty programs as reflecting two kinds of strate­ gies: a service strategy and an income strategy. Within these two strategies poverty may be attacked directly or indirectly. Rainwater indicates that anti-poverty strate­ gies might be classified as follows: Income Strategies Direct (oriented to consumption): public assist­ ance, social insurance, family allowances, negative income tax. Indirect (oriented to increasing human capital): unionization, "black capitalism," community corpora­ tions . Services Strategies Direct: housing, food, medical care, daycare, family planning, neighborhood legal services. 23 Indirect: education, manpower, casework social services, community organization. (p. xi) It was beyond the scope of this study to evaluate or describe all of these strategies. The focus here was on the utilization of services by rural low-income families. In a study of New York's rural counties, Stockdale (1973) indicated the following major problems in service delivery: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. Gaps in services, e.g., no legal aid Lack of coordination among agencies Existing agencies underfunded Agency personnel who are overworked, under­ trained, and overpaid Working hours of most agencies (9-5) are inappropriate for their clientele Very little contact between the agencies and the very poor Transportation needed to jobs and services McCormack and Picou (1972) further criticized com­ munity service programs. They stated: Few of the programs that are,supposed to be for the benefit of the rural disadvantaged are perceived by them to be of benefit. Communication between agencies and their disadvantaged clients has not persuaded the disadvantaged that desirable change or opportunities are real possibilities (p. 10). They concluded that the disadvantaged person and his code of values must be respected by any who plan for and attempt to change his life (p. 10). Crawford (1972), in an introduction to a National Science Foundation Workshop on Communication with the Rural Disadvantaged, posed significant research questions regard­ ing community service programs when he stated: 24 Too often major programs designed to serve the disadvantaged fail to reach any significant portion of the intended beneficiaries. Is it because the programs are ill-designed or ill-administered? Are they based on false premises regarding the needs or aspirations of the rural disadvantaged? Is there an inadequate assessment of the ability of people to meet the minimum requirements for participation? Is there a breakdown in the matter of informing people of the existence of the programs established for their benefit and how best to take advantage of them? (p. 2). Community Service Use As was pointed out above, one of the strategies, to combat problems of the low-income families has been the provision of services designed to meet critical needs. This section of the review examines, first, general studies of community services use; second* studies of the food stamp program; and third, studies of the use of health services. Rojek, et al. (1975) examined correlates of satisfac­ tion with four clusters of local community services: medical, public services, educational services, and com­ mercial services. The researchers examined eleven economic, social, and demographic variables (sex, age, education, residential duration, marital status, household size, organization affiliation, interregional moves, occupation, income, and property value) using covariance analysis. The joint explanatory power of the eleven variables was very low, ranging from 10.4 per cent of variation in satisfaction with public services to 3.6 per 25 cent of variation in satisfaction with educational serv­ ices. The researchers concluded: The results of this study lend credence to the argument of developing social indicators based on the attitudes of individuals toward conditions in a particular environment. The use of only objec­ tive information to measure the social conditions of human existence appears to be inadequate (p. 190). Henshaw (1969), in a study of the use of selected com­ munity services in Appalachian Ohio, found positive rela­ tionships between the use of health and welfare services and age of wife, wife's last grade of schooling, and number of school age children. Kammeyer and Bolton (1968) found that users of a California family service agency tended to come from the 30-50 age range. They also reported that clients were generally socially isolated. The community value system of the clients' home community was also found to affectthe relationship of education to use of the agency. Miller (1974) studied family-community resource link­ ages. Community resources were classified into nine subsystems: business, employment, recreation, culture, religion, education, health, civic, and welfare. The effect of selected family variables on the scope (number of subsystems contacted), penetration (number of contact hours), and flow (relative use of/or contribution to the community) were examined. Miller found that within the community, penetration was positively related to family 26 size. Scope was found to be significantly related to family size and income. Among community anti-poverty services the food stamp program has received extensive attention. Love (1970) studied the dropouts from the St. Louis food stamp program between July, 1966 and April, 1968. The researcher found that during this period there was a 97.6 per cent annual turnover rate in program participants. Love found signif­ icant differences between Negroes and whites in reasons for dropping out of the program: approximately 56 per cent of Negro respondents indicated "food stamps cost too much" as the first reason for dropping out while only 26 per cent of the white respondents did so. Love found that over one- third of the white respondents indicated "income increased, don't need food stamps" as the first reason for discontin­ uing food stamp purchase. An additional 14.6 per cent of the white respondents in Love's study dropped out because their incomes rose above eligibility levels. In contrast, 19.8 per cent of the Negro respondents indicated "income increased, don't need stamps" and 6.2 per cent had income increases which resulted in ineligibility for the program. Other reasons for discontinued use of the service included sickness and transportation problems. Love also found that most low-income dropout families, particularly public assistance families, had inadequate information about food programs. Findings also indicated 27 that many families were afraid to direct inquiries to public agencies for fear that public assistance payment would be affected. Nelson (1972) studied county levels of food stamp participation in Michigan for the period 1966-1970. Nelson found that unemployment rates, past experience with the commodity distribution program, average number of migrant workers, and number of public assistance participants were all significantly related to the number of food program participants. While disposable personal income was not specifically included in the researcher's initial analysis he did determine that counties with less than the combined median disposable income had greater than the median number of food stamp program participants. In a study exploring why eligibles did not use food stamps, MacDonald (1975) found that welfare recipients, households with heads not in the labor force, households with high income/needs ratios, and households„with higher knowledge levels were more likely to participate in the food stamp program. Another community service category which has received considerable attention in recent years is health care. Irelan (1967) described health practices of the poor as follows: They have higher prevalence rates for many dis­ eases, including schizophrenia. They have less accurate health information. Illness is defined differently. They are less inclined to take 28 preventive measures, delay longer in seeking health care, and participate less in community health pro­ grams. When they do approach health practitioners, they are more likely to select subprofessionals. And, under the care of professionals, they are apt to be treated differently from better off patients (p. 51). Riessman (1974) reported that race, income, and educa­ tion were the best predictors of health utilization. Families with a household head who had some college educa­ tion had significantly more visits to a doctor than those with less education. for children. This was especially true for services Differential utilization by color was especially marked again most sharply for children’s serv­ ices. Income was positively related to both doctor visits and dental services. Sociomedical studies have also explored the relation­ ship between social class and use of preventive and screen­ ing services. Sex, age, educational level, income, and color have all been found to be related to participation in preventive health programs. Riessman indicated that two major explanations of the above phenomena have been suggested: one is psychocultural, the other is economic and sociostructural. The first of these approaches has emphasized subjective factors such as the extent of need or the predisposition to seek care while the second has stressed means through which people can obtain services or translate their perceived need into economic demand. 29 Challenging the idea that cultural characteristics associated with poverty are responsible for limited use of health services by the poor, Gartner (1970) cited several examples where services were provided in a meaningful and relevant fashion. Gartner concluded, "Given the need for services and the evidence that when they are hospitably offered and well delivered, the poor utilize them, it may be fair to state that programs not faced with a strong demand may be either offering an irrelevant service or failing to organize the service in the most effective manner" (p. 72). Riessman (1974) came to a similar conclusion after examining some recent attempts to restructure health delivery for the poor and has suggested that future research needs to consider a wide array of structural variables related to health delivery.. In summary, this literature review has indicated that the social psychological characteristics of low-income families may differ from those outside low-income strata. Further these social psychological differences have been shown to be related to goal oriented behavior. With respect to the use of community services it has been shown that both social psychological and economic-demographic factors may be important in effecting utilization rates. Perhaps Alien (1975) provided the most appropriate con­ cluding comment: 30 The problem of research in poverty is to deter­ mine the relative importance of individual (psycho­ logical) and situational factors in accounting for a particular behavior. Internal psychological pre­ dispositions may be paramount in determining some behavior; situational and stimulus factors are doubtless of predominant importance in other behavior (p. 377). CHAPTER III PROCEDURES Selection of Study Areas This study was part of a larger effort to evaluate the effectiveness of community services in meeting the needs of the Michigan rural poor. The study area chosen had been examined earlier with different methods and objectives. The study area selected was composed of Lake and Montmor­ ency counties (see Figure 1). These counties were chosen for comparison in the larger study because they met two main criteria for an evaluation study. First, with the exception of racial composition, the two counties were quite similar in major demographic characteristics (see Appendix A, Tables Al, A2, A3). Thus, the two counties might logically be chosen as similar locations for a social experiment. The other criterion which was used in choosing these locations for comparison was their difference in community service agencies. While both counties have a variety of public and private services available to lowincome families, Lake county had experienced the entry of a new service agency with the development of a federally funded health clinic at Baldwin, Michigan. For this par­ ticular study it was deemed appropriate to compare the two 31 32 C»AfLl\3TSlGc' IALCONA [IOSCO \.?MAWS. ItVUIOPO [ S A B I U A iM IC U A P I MICHIGAN TUSCOLA \SJJOLAZ SCAtC-SUlUlt M.’LIS [SAGINAW [MONTCALM \C LIN W N Study Area \KALAMA. (CALHOUN \jA O < JO N \CASS Figure 1. Geographic Location of the Study Areas 33 counties relative to community service use and family char­ acteristics given that in one county (Lake) new community service inputs had been made. Selection of Sample The study was designed to look at community service use among low-income rural families. It was, therefore, essential that the sample be drawn from a low-income rural population. In the counties involved it was possible to gain access to listings of two limited income population groups with similar characteristics. These two groups were families eligible for the food stamp program or families eligible for the distribution of surplus food commodities. These programs were similar in eligibility requirements with food stamps available in Lake county and commodities available in Montmorency county. Other listings of low- income families could have been used. Pragmatically how­ ever, access could be readily gained to listing of families5 participating in the food programs and this was not the case for other possible sample frames. A stratified random sample based on household size was drawn. Stratifications were divided into one person house­ holds, two to four person households, and five or more person households. A total sample size of ninety-three families and/or households in Lake county was determined to be adequate to give large enough numbers within each stratum for meaningful comparisons. Sample sizes within 34 each stratum were equal (31 in each stratum). This sample distribution among strata underweights the one person households as compared to their share of the overall popu­ lation of families. If however, one looks at the overall population distribution of the county in terms of individ­ uals the sample overweights one person households. Thus, an equal sample from each stratum represents a compromise between weighting proportional to distribution of families and distribution of individuals. In Montmorency county a total sample of thirty was drawn. The sample size was reduced because of the increased cost of interviews in this county. Stratification was the same as in Lake county and each stratum contained ten families. Description of the Sample The sample consisted of 123 rural low-income families and/or households. Ninety-three of these families resided in Lake county and thirty in Montmorency county. Table 1 indicates the family sizes represented in the sample counties. The range in family sizes was slightly greater for Lake county with the largest sample family including twelve members while the largest family in the Montmorency sample included nine members. 35 Table 1.--Distribution of Family Sizes by Residence Location Individuals Per Family Residence Location 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lake 31 16 9 6 7 7 4 7 2 1 2 1 Montmorency 10 4 4 2 1 5 1 2 1 - - - Approximately two-thirds of the one person households were headed by females in the Lake county sample, as shown in Table 2. All of the one person families were females in the Montmorency county sample. In the other two family size categories the distribution between female and male heads was approximately the same for the two counties. Table 2.— Sex of Household Heads by Residence Location and Family Size Category Residence Location Lake Montmorency Family Size Category 1-person 2-4 person 5+ person TOTAL M F M F M F M F 10 21 19 12 22 9 51 42 0 10 6 4 7 3 13 17 36 Those persons interviewed in the two counties were not always heads of households, as shown in Table 3. In the two to four person families and the five and larger person families in Lake county approximately 60 per cent and 31 per cent, respectively, were household heads. In Montmorency county approximately 70 per cent and 20 per cent of the respondents were household heads in the two to four and five and larger person family sizes, respec­ tively. Table 3.--Relationship of Respondents to Household Head by Residence Location and Family Size Category Residence Location Family Size Category 1-person 2-4 person 5+ person TOTAL Head Spouse Head Spouse Head Spouse Head Spouse Lake 31 19 12 13 18 63 30 Montmorency 10 7 3 2 8 19 8 Table 4 indicates that the average age of household heads was slightly lower in Lake county in all but the largest family size category. 37 Table 4,--Average Age of Household Heads by Residence Loca­ tion and Family Size Category Residence Location Family Size Category 1-person 2-4 person 5+ person TOTAL Lake 64.42 54.16 44.64 54.41 Montmorency 71.70 56.50 41.50 56.57 There were no nonwhite families in the Montmorency county sample, however, approximately 52 per cent of the families interviewed in Lake county were nonwhite, as reported in Table 5. The greatest proportion of nonwhite families was found among the one person families. Table 5.--Racial Distribution of Families by Residence Location and Family Size Category Residence Location Family Size Category 1-person 2-4 person 5+ person TOTAL Per Cent Nonwhite Lake Montmorency 70.97 51.61 35.48 52.69 0 0 0 0 Table 6 shows the socioeconomic status scores for the sample families. This score is based on Hollingshead's Two-Factor Index of Social Position (1957) which considers husband's present educational and occupational position. 38 Where husbands were not present in families the index was applied to the family head to give a measure of the family's socioeconomic status. The widest range in mean scores occurs between the five and larger person families. All of these mean scores fall into the lowest category of Hollingshead's groupings with the exception of the Mont­ morency five and larger person families which were in the second lowest grouping. Table 6.--Socioeconomic Status of Family Head as Indicated by the Hollingshead Two-Factor Index of Social Position by Place of Residence and Family Size Category Place of Residence Family Size Category Lake County Montmorency County Two-Factor Index Score3 Mean Standard Deviation Mean Standard Deviation One Person 72.39 4.58 71.00 5.10 2-4 Person 70.32 7.49 68.60 6.29 5+ Person 68.64 6.99 58.10 17.35 Total 70.45 6.59 65.9 12.09 aThe possible range of the two-factor index is 11-77 with 11 indicating the highest status and 77 the lowest status. Data Collection Procedure Data were collected during spring, 1973. with an adult family member were held. Interviews In Lake county these interviews were conducted by the author and two local women with previous interviewing experience. The two supplemental interviewers were trained in a three hour session approximately two weeks before the interviews were taken. Respondents selected in the initial sample were sent a letter indicating the nature of the study (see Appendix C). They were asked to return an enclosed postcard indicating their desire to cooperate in the study and the dates they would be available to be interviewed. Interviews were conducted at the Department of Social Services office in Baldwin when the respondents picked up their food stamps. If this was not possible interviews were conducted in the respondents' homes. Efforts were made to include all those who were a part of the original sample. Those families who were no longer living in the study area or who had resided in the study area less than one year were excluded from the final sample. In order to meet the target sample size random resampling was conducted until the strata samples were com­ plete. In general, data were not available on nonrespond­ ents to give an accurate indication of distinguishing characteristics of this group. In Montmorency county interviews were conducted exclusively by the researcher in the respondents' homes. Again letters were sent explaining the study and seeking 40 cooperation and available interview times. Resampling was also used in Montmorency county.to complete target strata sample sizes. As was noted earlier, total sample size in Montmorency county was placed at thirty families with ten families in each of the strata. The reduced sample size was due mainly to cost considerations. Since there was no convenient central location or time to interview the Montmorency county families travel plus interview time per respondent greatly increased the cost per schedule com­ pleted. For this reason the sample size was reduced in Montmorency county. In addition to interview data, the researcher kept detailed field notes and made tapes of responses for use in coding to assure accuracy and consistency. In addition, field notes and tapes were used to enhance statistical findings. Development of the Interview Schedule The interview schedule was designed to collect data on the social psychological and socioeconomic-demographic characteristics of families; extent, variety, and kind of community service use; and impact of community service use. In addition, data on the goals; and fears of families, meas­ ures of satisfaction with community services, and measures of the need for additional community services were gathered. The majority of questions covered activities during the year preceding spring, 1973. While most of the data 41 collected were related directly to the research hypotheses of the study, there were some questions which were designed to elicit explanatory or general information of use to the Center of Rural Manpower and Public Affairs in its broad study of rural community service use. Data concerning the social psychological variables were gathered utilizing instruments previously developed by Kar (1966). The interview schedule was pretested on a sample (n-10) of low-income families in Lansing. On the basis of the pretest, consultation with the guidance committee, with researchers in the Center for Rural Manpower and Public Affairs, and with Professor Kar of the University of Michigan School of Public Health reorganization and minor changes were made in the question­ naire. The initial phase of the interview schedule (see Appendix C) was designed to check previously available information concerning the families and to screen families who had not lived in the study areas for at least one year. The subsequent phase of the questionnaire elicited informa­ tion about family goals and fears. This set the stage for use of the Self-Anchoring Striving Scale (Cantril, 1965). This was followed by other social psychological measures. The next group of questions sought information on community service use. This section was followed by questions regard­ ing additional service needs and possible improvements in 42 present services. The final section sought information on spcioeconomic status and additional demographic data. Instrumentation The conceptual framework developed earlier links com­ munity service use patterns and social psychological char­ acteristics of families. This linkage can be tested only by operationalizing the theoretical concepts. This study used a multi-faceted approach to determine the family's social psychological set. Measures of past, present and future levels of striving; future orientation; value orientation; social optimism; and areas of satisfaction in life were used (see Table 7). Social psychological measures Levels of striving.— The first part of the set of social psychological characteristics is the Self-Anchoring Striving Scale (Cantril, 1965) which measures the perceived level of goal attainment over time. The scale was admin­ istered by first asking the respondents to list the best and worst of all possible worlds for their families from their own perspectives. The respondents were then asked to rate on a scale from 0 to 10 where their family was five years ago in terms of these best (10) and worst (0) worlds which they had defined. This ranking was also completed for the respondent's perceived current position and the expected position five years in the future. These rankings Table 7.--Description of the Instruments Measures Instrument3 Schedule Itemb Subjective hopes and fears Subjective ladder rating Cantril's (1965) SelfAnchoring Striving Scale no. 3 n o . 4,5,6,7 Preference of long-term vs. short-term goals and delay of gratification for distant goals Projected use of $10.00 income increase Paired comparisons (i-v) Adopted from Kar (1970) no. 10(1-8) Open-end no. 10 Value Orientations Activistic-Passivistic Individualistic-Familistic Future-Present Adopted from Rosen (1956) via Kar (1966) no. 9 Social Optimism Predictability of social order Confidence in future Trustworthiness of personal relationships Confidence in leadership Meaningfulness of life S r o l e ’s (1956) Anomie Scale (reversed) no. 11 Variables Pattern of Striving a. Goal-Constellation b. Level of striving Future Orientation it it ii it Table 7.— Continued Variables Measures Instrument' Schedule Item° Areas of Satisfaction in Life Food, clothing, & entertainment Spare time Children’s education Short-term material goal Long-term material goal Old age security Adopted from Kar (1970) no. 12 Perceived Impact of Use Difference between present subjective ladder rating and respondent's estimate of subjective ladder rat­ ing if services had not been used Cantril's (1965) SelfAnchoring Striving Scale no. 14 Socioeconomic Status Social Position Index a. Head's present occu­ pational status b . Head's educational status Hollingshead's TwoFactor Social Posi­ tion Index (1957) Family Income Net Family Income of all members Constructed for this study no. 23 Family Size Number of household members Constructed for this study no. 2 no. 17 no. 2 Table 7.--Continued Measures Variables Instrument3 Constructed for this study Schedule Item*3 Employment Status of Head Employed full, threequarter, one-half, onequarter time or not employed Sex of Head Male Female Race White Nonwhite (Black, Chicano, other) Recorded by Interviewer no. 24 Extent of Use of Selected Community Services Variety of Agencies Kinds of Services Siam of family contacts last year Constructed for this study no. 13 no. 19 no. 2 Sum of Agency Contacts Stun of Functional Con­ tacts it it 3Scoring Procedures are explained in text of this chapter. ^The interview schedule is contained in Appendix C. n o . 13 no. 13 46 on this 0-10 scale are referred to as past, present and future levels of striving (LOS). This measure indicates both the assessment of progress (present LOS versus past LOS) toward goals and the feeling of potential for further progress (present LOS versus future LOS). Future orientation.— The second part of the social psychological set of characteristics was the family's future orientation (FO) which measured the willingness of the family to sacrifice short-term goals for long-term goals. In this case each preference for a long-term goal was scored as one while each preference for a short-term goal was scored as 0. Value orientation.— The third part of the social psychological set of a family was value orientation (VO) which measured the way the family defines and implements goal motivated behavior. The scale, adopted from Kar (1966), defines activistic, individualistic, and future time orientations as positive and therefore scored as one. Passivistic, familistic, and present time orientations are viewed as negative and scored zero. Social optimism.--Social optimism (SO) was the fourth part of the social psychological set of family character­ istics. The belief in the predictability of the social order, confidence in social collaborators, and that the future has potential for improvement support a socially optimistic point of view. This perspective is expected to result in the willingness to sacrifice present for the sake of future. Social optimism was measured by an adaptation of Srole's (1936) anomie scale. Each disagreement with the scale item was scored as one, each agreement as zero. Areas of satisfaction in life.— The subjective feeling of satisfaction in the areas of food, clothing, entertain­ ment, sparetime, children's education, short-term material goals, long-term material goals and old age security were indicators of areas of satisfaction in life (ASL). measure was an adoption from Kar (1966). This Satisfaction with a particular area was scored as one, other responses as zero. Socioeconomic-demographic measures Community service use measure.--Community service use was measured by three different dimensions: extent, kind, and variety of use. The persons, groups, or agencies providing goods or services to families selected for this study are listed in Appendix C. These were selected for comparability between Lake and Montmorency counties. Thus, if an agency operated in only one county another agency providing similar services was selected to match it in the other county. Extent of service use.--First, extent of service use was measured by counting the total number of contacts by family members with selected community service agencies 48 during the most recent twelve month period. This measure did not attempt to differentiate the importance or intensity of different types of service contacts. While this is a weakness of the measure, no suitable index existed for weighting service contacts. Kind of service use.--Kind of service use was measured by counting the number of different functional categories (constructed to indicate types of service received) stated by the family members. Variety of service use.--Variety of use was measured by counting the number of different service agencies with which the family members had contact during the past twelve months. Perceived impact of service use.--Perceived impact of service use was measured by using an adaptation of the Self-Anchoring Striving Scale. Families were asked to indicate where they would have been today on the 0-10 scale if community services had not been available. This score was then subtracted from their present level of striving score to give a measure of impact. Analysis of Data Data collected on the interview schedule were coded and key-punched for computer analysis. prepared in two sets. Data cards were One set of data cards included those questions where there were single observations for each sample family. The second data set included those 49 questions where there was an observation for each family member. This second data set was primarily composed of observations on community service use where the use pattern of each family member was recorded. A composite data record for each family was developed using both data sets and the scoring procedures outlined earlier. Descriptive tables were developed using both the original data sets and the composite set. Descriptive comparisons of community service use scores, social psycho­ logical variables, and socioeconomic-demographic variables between residence locations were developed using univariate analysis of variance. To test the hypotheses concerning differences in com­ munity service use between residence locations and family size categories multivariate analysis of covariance was used. The program used for these tests was that developed by Finn (1974). The application of this program was aided by personnel of the Institute for Study of Family and Child. The multivariate analysis of covariance procedure was first applied considering only the social psychological variables as covariates. The procedure was then reapplied using social psychological and socioeconomic-demographic variables as covariates. In order to estimate the relationships between com­ munity service use and the social psychological and socioeconomic-demographic variables a stepwise multiple 50 regression procedure was employed. Individual regression equations were developed for extent, variety, and kind of community service use. On the advice of the guidance committee a hypothesis was tested to determine if there were differences between residence locations and family size groupings, in social psychological variables, when differences in community service use were taken into account. This was accomplished using multivariate analysis of covariance techniques with extent, variety, and kind of community service use as covariates. To test the hypothesis that there was a positive relationship between community service use and the per­ ceived impact of community service use multiple regression procedures were used. Indications of additional service needs were tabulated as frequency responses by residence location and family size groupings. CHAPTER IV FINDINGS This chapter presents the findings of this study pro­ ceeding from general descriptive analyses to the more specific testing of the research hypotheses. Analysis of variance was used to provide univariate comparisons of the variables in the sample counties. Multivariate analysis of covariance was used to test the research hypotheses con­ cerning differences between places of residence and family size categories. This is followed by the presentation of the results of a stepwis e multiple regression procedure to identify the importance of specific family factors in explaining variance in community service use. The multiple regression analysis is followed by an analysis of the impact of community service use on family goal attainment. The remainder of the chapter presents family responses on the needed changes in existing com­ munity services as well as their perceptions of additional service needs. 51 52 Description of Variables Extentt kind and variety of community service use The extent of service use, measured as the number of contacts with community services during the past twelve months, was higher for Lake county families than Mont­ morency county families. Table 8 shows that this differ­ ence was significant at the .05 probability level. The average number of contacts for Lake county families was 58.87 per family while for Montmorency county families the average number of contacts was 39.27. The services most frequently used by Lake county families were the Compre­ hensive Health Care Center, private physician paid by public agency, food stamp program and the Department of Social Services. In Montmorency county the food commodi­ ties program, the Department of Social Services and private physician paid by public agency were most frequently used (See Appendix Table Bl). The families who had not used various services reported two primary reasons for non-use. The first reason given was that the family felt no need for the service. The second frequently mentioned reason was that the family did not know about the service. Other reasons for non-use included uncertainty about eligibility for the service and uncertainty as to the purpose of the service or agency. Table 8.--Univariate Analysis o£ Variance of Mean Differences in Community Service Use Between Lake and Montmorency Counties Factor Residence Location Sample Mean Standard Deviation Standard Error of Mean Lake 58.87 36.98 3.83 Montmorency 39.27 24.63 4.50 Extent of Use Significance Probability of Mean Difference .0077 Lake 4.581 1.696 0.176 Montmorency 3.833 1.577 0.288 Lake 4.957 1.847 0.192 Montmorency 4.500 2.271 0.415 Variety of Use .0349 Kind of Use .2682 54 The variety of use score, measured by the number of different agencies with which the family had contact during the last twelve months, was on the average higher for Lake county families than for Montmorency county families. The average score for all sample families, as shown in Table 8, indicates that Lake county families had contacts with over four agencies while Montmorency county families contacted over three agencies. The variety of use scores were also significantly different at the .05 probability level. The kind of use score, measured by the number of different functional service categories (such as medical exam, health information, food) contacted by families, also showed that Lake county families on the average used more functional categories than did Montmorency county families. Lake county families averaged use of nearly five different service functions while Montmorency county fam­ ilies used over four service functions (see Table 8). There was not, however, a significant difference in average kind of use scores. Goals and fears of families Each family reported the five most important goals or hopes associated with their future. Table 9 reports the goals indicated by families in Lake and Montmorency coun­ ties. Good health, being able to maintain an adequate level of living, future welfare of children, and long-term material possessions were leading goals of the Lake county Table 9.— Goals Expressed by Lake and Montmorency County Families Order of Ranking Second First Reported Goals None Health Family Harmony Level of Living Third Fifth Residence Location Lake 1.08 Mont — Lake Mont Lake Mont Lake 12.9 --Per Cent of Families— 16.67 40.8 36.67 76.34 Mont Lake 86.67 92.47 Mont 100 26.88 13.33 18.28 10.00 5.38 6.67 4.30 3.33 1.08 — 6.45 3.33 6.45 10.00 1.08 3.33 1.08 mm w 1.08 — 23.66 16.67 22.58 20.00 18.28 4.30 M 1.08 — 1.08 — 3.23 3.33 1.08 mm mm 1.08 3.33 2.15 mm mm National Economic or Social Situation 1.08 Independence 3.23 — 1.08 13.33 ' 4.30 mm M 1.08 — 2.15 23.34 9.69 15.06 20.00 10.76 Short-Term 2.15 3.33 1.08 — Long-Term 11.83 3.23 6.67 2.15 Children's Welfare Fourth 20.0 6.66 mm — . -- Material Possessions 10.0 » mm — 10.0 — mm mm — — Employment 4.30 6.67 9.68 3.33 3.23 — 1.08 mm mm 1.08 — Other 4.32 13.33 9.69 6.67 16.14 6.67 7.54 3.33 1.08 a mm Ln Ui 56 sample families. This pattern was apparent for the goal listed first and continued to appear in later listed goals. Sample families in Montmorency county ranked children's welfare most important with maintenance of adequate level of living, health, independence, and long-term material possessions also of major importance. This pattern also persisted across the second through fifth most important goals. Families were also asked to indicate their most important fears. Table 10 lists the fears reported by sample families. Health loss is the most frequently reported "first fear" by families in both counties. In Lake county loss of adequate level, of living is second in frequency while in Montmorency children's welfare is second. Lake county families indicated fears for chil­ dren's welfare as third most frequent.. National economic or social conditions were the third most frequently men­ tioned "first fear" among Montmorency families. For both counties the pattern of fears across all five rankings places health, loss of adequate level of living, and chil­ dren's welfare as the most important fears. A typical response mentioned as maintenance of health status was "Hope 1 can keep my health and continue to do my own work." "Just want enough money to get along and keep things as they are," and "want to keep my bills paid" were coded as concern for maintenance of level of living. Table 10.--Fears Expressed by Lake and Montmorency County Families First Reported Fears None Health Loss Family Harmony Level of Living Order of Ranking Second Third Fourth Residence Location Lake Mont Lake Mont Lake Mont Lake Mont 76.67 97.85 93.33 — 3.33 1.08 Lake Mont 6.45 «, — 31.18 — Per Cent of: Families-13.33 61.29 50 89.25 33.33 40 15.05 20.0 3.23 21.51 10 . — 8.60 3.33 2.15 10 am ma 3.33 — — 2.15 6.67 am am am ma — — 2.15 3.33 20.43 16.67 am am am ma 16.67 3.23 3.33 10 Dependence on Others 3.23 w National Economic or Social Situation 8.60 13.33 3.23 mm am 2.15 Children's Welfare 9.7 20.0 7.55 am am 5.38 am ■■ am Fifth — — am am 1.08 13.33 am ma U1 ma am 3.33 Material Possessions Short-Term Long-Term 1.08 2.15 — 6.45 Personal Security 1.08 3.33 2.15 Unemployraent 2.15 3.33 2.15 — 2.15 — Death 5.38 10.0 5.38 10 1.08 3.33 Other 3.23 _ .. 4.31 2.16 am ma 10 5.38 6.67 ■ 2.15 3.33 1.08 am am am 1.08 m am — — 1.08 3.33 mm am — am am am am — 3.33 mama am m 1.08 mm am m 3.33 *> v i Concern over children's "learning the value of a wholesome life," "living away from big cities," and "want them to complete their educations" were typical responses relating to children's welfare. Responses stressing the tax situa­ tion, breakdown of religion, and increased drug use were classified as the concern for the national economic and social situation. The elderly in the sample expressed particular fear about being left alone, failing health or death of family members, going to a home for the elderly, losing homes because of taxes, and incomes not keeping pace with price increases. Level of striving When families had indicated their goals and fears they were asked to indicate on a scale of 0 to 10 where they perceived themselves to have been five years ago, where they were today, and where they expected to be five years in the future in relation to their goals. Average scores for past, present, and future rankings on this selfanchoring scale are shown in Table 11 as past, present, and future level of striving (LOS). Average past LOS scores were higher in Lake county than Montmorency county. ordering was reversed for average future LOS scores. This In neither past nor future scores were mean differences between the counties statistically significant. In the case of present LOS Montmorency county families had average Table 11.— Univariate Analysis of Variance to Compare Self-Anchoring Scale Scores Between Lake and Montmorency Counties Factor Residence Location Sample Mean Standard Deviation Standard Error of Mean Significance Probability of Mean Difference PRESENT Level of Striving Lake Montmorency 4.527 5.700 2.165 1.896 0.224 0.346 .0090 PAST Level of Striving Lake Montmorency 4.824 4.433 2.897 2.445 0.304 0.446 .5076 FUTURE Level of Striving Lake Montmorency 5.978 6.567 2.797 2.269 0.290 0.414 .2981 scores significantly higher than Lake county. In addition, Lake county average present LOS scores were lower than average past LOS scores. An example of answers given in response to specific questions about why a particular level of goal attainment was expected five years from now was "children will be older, they'll be fewer to support here at home, and I'll be freer." Other families expected children to "help out" with financial problems in the future. Responses such as "hope there will be more employment available," "hope my husband finds a new job," or "hope doctors will be able to help us" were not uncommon. Changes, in living arrangements such as "probably will be living with my daughter then," "there will be more room in our new house," were also mentioned as reasons for an improved future. Common among reasons why the future situation did not appear to be improving were that health was expected to get worse, that taxes were increasing and that food prices were rising in the face of fixed incomes. These responses were particularly likely to come from elderly persons. Value orientation Montmorency county families had higher average scores on the positive activistic value orientation scale than did Lake county families (see Table 12). The scores on the value orientations scale showed that families in Lake county averaged 2.57 and the families in Montmorency county M ia B a B H W B M W Table 12.— Univariate Analysis of Variance to Compare Family Social Psychological Factors Between Lake and Montmorency Counties Factor - j — ----------- — - — Activistic Value Orientation (range 0-6) Residence Location Sample Mean Standard Deviation Standard Error of Mean Significance Probability of Mean Difference Lake Montmorency 2.570 3.000 1.591 1.050 0.165 0.192 .1687 Future Goal Orientation (range 0-8) Lake Montmorency 5.269 4.700 1.415 1.489 0.147 0.272 .0611 Social Optimism (range 0-5) Lake Montmorency 1.462 1.767 1.419 1.591 0.147 0.290 .3234 Lake Montmorency 2.957 3.533 1.601 1.795 0.166 0.328 .0987 Areas of Satisfaction in Life (range 0-6) 62 averaged 3.00 cm the scale of 0-6. The difference between counties was not statistically significant at the .05 probability level. A decomposition of the value orientation score pro­ vided additional insight. Ninety-six of the sample families agreed that all they wanted in life for the head of the household was a secure, not too difficult job, with money to own a car and eventually a home. Ninety-one families disagreed with the statement "I would like my family to have more than what my friends and neighbors have." These answers would seem to indicate relatively limited standards of living for these families. Sixty-nine families disagreed that a person's success is already in the cards when he is born. Further, eighty- five families disagreed that success in life is, mainly a matter of luck. Seventy-five families disagreed that plan­ ning only makes a person unhappy since our plans hardly ever work out anyway. While most of the families in the study did not have high standards of living they did not, in general, take a fatalistic attitude about the achieve­ ment of success in life. Future goal orientation Families in Lake county had higher average scores on the future goal orientation scale than did the Montmorency county groups (see Table 12). The average score for the Lake county sample was 5.27 and in Montmorency county the 63 average score was 4.70 on a scale of 0-8. The difference between counties was not significant at the .05 probability level. Responses to the future orientation questions indi­ cated, in general, that when families were given the choice of spending for food, clothing, and entertainment versus saving for other material possessions such as a car, TV, and furniture, they (100 families) would choose current consumption items. However, when given the choice between current consumption and saving for college educations for the children, 60 out of 117 families responding to this question favored the saving for college option. This slight preference for children's educations is further indicated by the fact that 90 families would choose to save for college instead of saving for car, TV, and furniture. Also, 115 families would send their son to an educa­ tional camp as opposed to repairing the TV. In examining choices among long-term consumption patterns it is clear that home ownership is valued strongly. Ninety-six families would save for a home instead of for a car, TV, or furniture. One hundred and four families would sacri­ fice to own a home even if there was only a 50 per cent chance of home ownership. Sixty-seven families would save for a home instead of saving for college. Ninety-four families would sacrifice day-to-day conveniences for long­ term goals. 64 Social optimism The average social optimism scores for Montmorency county families were higher than Lake county families1 average scores (see Table 12). The average social optimism scores for sample families were 1.46 and 1.77 on a scale of 0-5 for Lake and Montmorency county samples, respectively. In general, the social optimism scores were not signifi­ cantly different between counties at the .05 probability level. Responses to the components of social optimism indi­ cate several general tendencies. Most of the families in the study (92) agreed that "nowadays a person has to live pretty much from day to day and let tomorrow take care of itself." This contrasts somewhat with the value orienta­ tions question discussed previously which indicated a generally favorable attitude toward planning. About one- half of the families (60) agreed that "it is hardly fair to bring children into the world the way things look for the future." One hundred and one families agreed that "these days a person does not really know whom he can count on." Just over one-half of the families (68) agreed that "there was little use in writing to public officials because they are not really interested in the problems of the common man. Sixty-nine families agreed that "in spite of what people might say, the lot of the average man is getting worse not better." A further breakdown of the 65 response to this question indicates that while over onehalf of the Lake county families, 56 out of 93, agreed that the lot of the average man is getting worse, less than onehalf, 13 out of 30, agreed with this statement in Mont­ morency county. This result is consistent with the finding that average present level of striving scores were lower than past level of striving scores in Lake county. Areas of satisfaction in life Montmorency county families in the sample had higher average scores on the scale of areas of satisfaction in life (ASL) across all family sizes than did Lake county families (see Table .12). The average ASL scores for all families were 2.96 and 3.53 on a scale of 0-6 for the Lake and Montmorency county samples, respectively. The level of average scores on the ASL scale indicated that there were not significant differences at .05 probability level between counties on ASL. Sixty-three families were dissatisfied with the amount of food and clothes they could afford. Twenty-two families were dissatisfied with the chance they had to own a home while 47 families were dissatisfied with the chance they had to provide the kind of education they wanted for their children. Sixty-eight families were dissatisfied with their chances of buying a late model car, a good TV, and the furniture they would like to own. In general, people were most dissatisfied with current and intermediate 66 consumption items. Their preference for home ownership as indicated under future orientation may be explained by the general level of satisfaction they had with the chance of owning a home. The chance to own a home may have been seen as an event with a much higher probability than the chance they had to provide the kind of education they wanted for their children. This result may also be influenced by the fact that many current home owners were satisfied with their chance to "own a home." This does not mean they were satisfied with the chance to own a "home of their choice." Most families (81) were satisfied with the spare time they had. Only 46 families were satisfied with the chances they had of having a steady income when they grew old. Socioeconomic factors Lake county families were significantly lower on both socioeconomic status and employment status than were Montmorency county families (see Table 13). In the case of average net income Lake county families were also lower. The average net family income was not significantly dif­ ferent at the .05 probability level. Testing of Hypotheses A multivariate analysis of covariance technique was used to analyze differences between place of residence and family size categories (Hypotheses 1, 2, and 4). This Table 13.— Univariate Analysis of Variance to Compare Socioeconomic Factors Between Lake and Montmorency Counties Residence Location Sample Mean Standard Deviation Socioeconomic Status3 Lake Montmorency 70.45 65.90 6.591 12.093 Employment Status'3 Lake Montmorency Factor .1828 .4667 Standard Error of Mean .3886 .5074 0.683 2.208 .0403 .0926 Significance Probability of Mean Difference .0097 .0017 Cn Net Income Groupc Lake Montmorency 4.141 4.800 1.688 1.669 .176 .305 .0651 aSocioeconomic Status is discussed on page 37. ^Employment Status was scored as zero for those employed less than half time and one for those employed more than half time. cNet Income Groups were scored as follows: 1 = no income or less 2 » less than $1,000 3 = $1,000 - $1,999 4 = $2,000 - $2,999 5 = $3,000 - $3,999 6 = 7 = 8 = 9 = 10 = $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,500 $10,000 - $4,999 - $5,999 - $7,499 - $9,999 and over 68 technique allows for the comparison of values of several dependent variables after adjusting for the effect of several independent or covariate variables. This method allows the researcher to ask questions like "if we take into account variations in the social psychological char­ acteristics of families do significant differences in the levels of community service use remain unexplained?" Hypothesis 1 There is no difference in extent, variety, and kind of community service use between family size cate­ gories and place of residence if social psycho­ logical variables are taken into account. Finding: There is a significant difference at the .05 probability level between community service use by differ­ ent family size categories even when social psychological variables have been taken into account. The univariate analysis of covariance with adjustments for social psycho­ logical variables further indicates that significant differences between family size categories do not exist for kind of use. Finding: There is a significant difference at the .05 probability level between place of residence in extent, variety, and kind of community service use even when adjust­ ments have been made for social psychological variables. The univariate analysis of covariance with adjustments for social psychological variables further indicates that sig­ nificant differences between residence locations do not 69 exist for kind of use. The finding that significant differences in community service use exist between place of residence and between family size categories even when social psychological variables are taken into account indicates that variation in social psychological variables does not add to the explanation of differences in community service use. Table 14.--Multivariate Analysis of Covariance to Compare Community Service Use Between Family Size Categories and Residence Location with Social Psychological Factors as- Covariates Variable 1 Between j Mean Square F Ratio Significance Probability Multivariate Analysis Fami'Ly Size Category (6 and 216 degrees o : freedom) Community Service Use 3.2881 .0041 Univariate Analysis Fami;Ly Size Category (2 and 110 degrees oJ: freedom) Extent of Use 3914.67 .0374 3.3890 Variety of Use 16.58 6.4662 .0023 Kind of Use 1.48 .6906 0.3715 Multivariate Analysis Resjidence Location (3 and 108 degrees o:E freedom) Community Service Use 2.4285 .0694 Univariate Analysis Resi.dence Location (2 and 110 degrees o:: freedom) Extent of Use 7104.07 6.1502 .0147 Variety of Use 11.71 4.5685 .0348 Kind of Use 5.88 1.4728 .2267 Note: The multivariate test for interaction between family size category and residence location indicated no significant interaction at the .05 probability level. Hypothesis 2 There is no difference in extent, variety, and kind of community service use between family size cate­ gories and residence location if social psycho­ logical and socioeconomic-demographic variables are taken into account. Table 15.--Multivariate Analysis of Covariance to Compare Community Service Use Between Family Size Categories and Residence Location with Social Psychological and Socioeconomic-Demographic Factors as Covariates Variable Between Mean Square ■F Ratio Significance Probability Multivariate Analysis: Family Size Category (6 and 206 degrees of freedom) Community Service Use 0.9202 .4814 Univariate Analysis: Family Size Category (2 and 105 degrees of freedom) Extent of Use Variety of Use Kind of Use 1529.48 3.03 1.38 1.6671 1.3702 0.3347 .1938 .2586 .6884 Multivariate Analysis: Residence Location (3 anc 103 degrees of freedom) Community Service Use 1.7225 .1888 Univariate Analysis: Residence Location (1 and 105 degrees of freedom) 1330.46 Extent of Use 1.4501 .2313 Variety of Use 10.68 4.8349 .0301 Kind of Use 6.57 1.7832 .1847 Note: The multivariate test for interaction between resi­ dence location and family size category indicated no significant interaction at the .05 probability level. Finding: There is no significant difference at the .05 probability level in levels of community service use between counties when both social psychological and socioeconomicdemographic variables are taken into account. Finding: There is no significant difference at the .05 probability level between community service use levels across family sizes when both social psychological and socioeconomic-demographic variables are taken into account. The finding that significant differences in community service use levels between place of residence and family sizes do not exist when adjustments are made for both social psychological and socioeconomic-demographic vari­ ables were added to the analysis indicate that differences in community service use levels between counties and family sizes can be more fully explained by the use of both social psychological and socioeconomic-demographic variables. Hypothesis 3 The extent, kind, and variety of community service use are related to social psychological and socioeconomic-demographic factors. To determine if there was a relationship between the extent, kind, and variety of community service use and selected family factors, a stepwise regression procedure was used. The multivariate analysis of covariance results indicated that the data for the two counties (place of residence) could be pooled to estimate the relationships between family factors and community service use patterns. 72 The stepwise regression procedure used selects inde­ pendent variables for addition to the regression equation based on the simple correlation between the dependent and the independent variable (see Appendix B). Thus, the inde­ pendent variable with the highest simple correlation is added first, and the regression equation with this single variable is estimated. The routine procedure then adds the variable with the second highest simple correlation and estimates the two variable equation. This routine is continued until all the independent variables enter the equation. The results of this analysis are shown in Tables 16 to 18. Finding: Extent of Use--The stepwise regression procedure shows that race, family size, socioeconomic status of household head, social optimism, and employment status are significantly related at the .05 probability level to extent of community service use. Taken together these five factors explain approximately 34 per cent of the variation in extent of use scores for the sample families (see Table 16). The regression coefficient for these variables, which can be interpreted as the change in family contacts with a one unit change in the independent variable, generally had signs equivalent to those expected through a prior reason­ ing. Thus, the regression equation indicates that being nonwhite would result in 23.66 more contacts, that each unit increase in family size would be expected to increase Table 16.--Results of Stepwise Regression to Determine the Relationship Between Extent of Use and Social Psychological and Socioeconomic-Demographic Variables R2 Change in R^ Significance Level Number of Independent Variables in Regressions 23.66 .0973 .0973 .001 1 4.27 .1899 .0926 .001 2 SES -1.63 .2301 .0403 .014 3 Social Optimism -6.29 .2938 .0636 .001 4 -24.68 .3410 .0472 .005 5 -1.07 .3489 .0079 .237 6 Future LOS 1.57 .3564 .0075 .248 7 Future Orientation 1.54 .3607 .0042 .387 8 Present LOS 00• i .3628 .0021 .539 9 Sex of Head -2.88 .3642 .0014 .627 10 .31 .3643 .0001 .912 11 Value Orientation -.22 .3643 .0001 .912 12 Areas of Satisfaction in Life -.01 .3643 .0000 .996 13 Independent Variable* Race Family Size Employment Status Past LOS Regression Coefficient Income Group *Constant Term = 153.95 contacts per year by 4.27. More difficult to accept is the result that a one unit increase in socioeconomic status score (SES) would indicate 1.63 less contacts. Because the SES score rises for those least well off, one might expect that the relationship would be positive (rising use with rising SES). Social optimism and employment status were both nega­ tively related, to extent of use. The regression coeffi­ cient for social optimism indicates a one unit increase in this score would be expected to be accompanied by a 6.29 unit decrease in annual community service contacts. In the case of employment status, families whose heads were employed would be expected to have 24.68 less community service contacts. Employment status and social optimism score are highly correlated (see Appendix Table B4) and this may help explain why the results indicate that more socially optimistic families had fewer service contacts. The remaining family factors included in the regres­ sion equation did not contribute significantly to explain­ ing variation in extent of community service use. It may, however, be worth noting the direction of the relationship between extent of community service use and these remaining factors. Future orientation, future level of striving, and income group were all positively related to extent of use. Past LOS, present LOS, value orientation, areas of satis­ faction in life and presence of a male household head were 75 all negatively related with extent of use. Finding: Kind of Use— Only two family factors, SES and race, were significantly related at the .05 probability level to the kind of service used as indicated by number of contacts with different functional service categories. The results indicate one unit increase in SES score would be expected to result in a .07 (see Table 17) unit decrease in functional categories used per annum. Being nonwhite indi­ cated an expected .76 unit increase in functional cate­ gories used. Those factors positively related to kind of use but not statistically significant were family size, presence of male head, future LOS, areas of satisfaction in life, and value orientation. Those factors negatively related to kind of use, but not statistically significant were present LOS, income group, future orientation, social optimism, past LOS, and employment status. Finding; Variety of Use— Family size, race, and socio­ economic status were the only family factors significantly related at the .05 probability level to the variety of service use as indicated by number of different services contacted (see Table 18). Results of the stepwise regres­ sion procedure indicate that these three factors accounted for 23.63 per cent of the variation in variety of use score. A one unit increase in family size would be expected to result in a .20 unit increase in variety of Table 17.— Results of Stepwise Regression to Determine the Relationship Between Kind of Use and Social Psychological and Socioeconomic-Demographic Variables R2 -.07 .0667 .0667 .004 1 Race .76 .0974 .0307 .046 2 Family Size .17 .1124 .0150 .159 3 Sex Head .57 .1278 .0154 .151 4 -.18 .1319 .0041 .459 5 Future LOS .16 .1493 .0174 .126 6 Areas of Satisfaction in Life .09 .1554 .0061 .363 7 Income Group “ -13 .1608 .0054 .392 8 Future Orientation -.09 .1658 .0050 .413 9 Social Optimism -.08 .1683 .0025 .564 10 Past LOS -.02 .1696 .0013 .681 11 Value Orientation .03 .1700 .0004 .808 12 Employment Status -.02 .1700 .0000 .972 13 Regression Coefficient SES Head Present LOS *Constant Term = 8.522 Significance Level Number of Variables in Equation Change in R2 Independent Variable* Table 18.--Results of Stepwise Regression to Determine the Relationship Between Variety of Use and Social Psychological and Socioeconomic-Demographic Variables Independent Variable* Regression Coefficient R2 Change in R2 Significance Level Number of Independent Variables in Equation Family Size .20 .1204 .1204 .000 1 Race .98 .2030 .0826 .001 2 SES Head -.05 .2363 .0332 .025 3 Value Orientation -.15 .2574 .0212 .069 4 .41 .2747 .0173 .098 5 -.07 .2881 .0134 .142 6 Income Group .13 .3001 .0120 .163 7 Future LOS .08 .3042 .0041 .412 8 Social Optimism -.12 .3107 .0065 .306 9 Areas of Satisfaction in Life -.07 .3157 .0050 .368 10 Present LOS -.03 .3167 .0011 .678 11 Employment Status -.15 .3176 .0008 .717 12 .01 .3177 .0001 .895 13 Sex of Head Past LOS Future Orientation *Constant Term = 6.32 78 use score. A non white family would be expected to use nearly one additional community service while with a one unit increase in family SES score variety of use score would be expected to decrease .05 units. Value orientation, past LOS, social optimism, areas of satisfaction in life, present LOS, and employment status were all negatively related to variety of service use, but the relationships were not statistically significant. Female head of household, income group, future LOS, and future orientation were all positively related to variety of service use but the relationships were not statistically significant. Social psychological variables as a function of community service use As was pointed out earlier, the theoretical direction of causality between levels of community service use and social psychological characteristics of families is not entirely clear. Up to this point community service use was considered a function of social psychological character­ istics. This generally presumes that behavior follows from a pre-existing social psychological set of characteristics. It was acknowledged, however, that social psychological characteristics are influenced by past experiences. The following analysis looks at social psychological variables as a function of community service use. Thus, the rela­ tionship being examined attempts to measure social 79 psychological changes that may be the result of community service use. Hypothesis 4 . There is no difference in social psychological variables between family size categories or place of residence when community service use is taken into account. Finding: On the basis of the multivariate analysis there are significant differences at the .05 probability level in the set of social psychological variables between family size categories when differences in extent, kind, and variety of community service use are taken into account. The univariate analysis indicates that among the set of social psychological variables significant differences between family size categories exist for social optimism and present LOS. Finding: On the basis of the multivariate analysis there are not significant differences at the ,05 probability level in the set of social psychological variables between residence locations when differences in extent, kind, and variety of community service use are taken into account. The univariate analysis indicates that only in the case of present LOS are there significant differences at the .05 probability level between residence locations. The above findings, in general, do not support a con­ clusion that differences in community service use account for diffetences in social psychological variables. The Table 19.--Multivariate Analysis of Covariance to Compare Social Psychological Variables Between Family Size Categories and Residence Location with Extent, Kind, and Variety of Community Service Use as Covariates Variable Between Mean Square F Ratio Significance Probability Multivariate Analysis: Family Size Category (14 and 216 degrees of freedom) Social Psychological 1.9285 .0249 Univariate Analysis: Family Size Category (2 and 114 degrees of freedom) Value Orientation Future Orientation Social Optimism Areas of Satisfaction in Life Present LOS Past LOS Future LOS 4.15 2.22 6.91 1.8874 1.0592 3.3331 .1562 .3502 .0392 1.05 20.60 13.06 14.58 0.3763 4.9035 1.6209 2.0738 .6873 .0091 .2023 .1305 Multivariate Analysis: Residence Location (7 and 108 degrees of freedom) Social Psychological 2.0325 .0574 Univariate Analysis: Residence Location (1 and 114 degrees of freedom) Value Orientation Future Orientation Social Optimism Areas of Satisfaction in Life Present LOS Past LOS Future LOS Note: 3.07 5.22 0.47 1.3954 2.4931 0.2287 .2400 .1172 .6334 7.29 34.86 5.92 10.13 2.6220 8.2980 0.7346 1.4410 .1082 .0048 .3933 .2325 The multivariate test for interaction between resi­ dence location and family size category indicated no significant interaction at the .05 probability level. 81 results of the multivariate analysis of covariance adjust­ ing for differences in community service use do not differ substantially from the earlier univariate analysis of variance without adjustments for differences in community service use (see Table 11 and Table 12). Impact of community service use As was pointed out earlier a special impact measure was created for this study. This measure compares present levels of perceived goal attainment (PRLOS) with levels of perceived goal attainment without community service use. The relationship between extent, kind, and variety of com­ munity service use and the impact score was of primary interest. Hypothesis 5. There is a significant relationship between the perceived impact of community service use and the extent, variety, and kind of service use. Table 20.— Results of Stepwise Regression to Analyze the Perceived Impact of Use as Related to Extent, Kind, and Variety of Community Service Use Variable Extent of Use Variety of Use Kind of Use Note: Regression Coefficient .0082 .1662 .0834 R2 .0656 .0882 .0913 Change in r 2 .0656 .0226 .0031 Degrees of Freedom Signif­ icance Level 1/121 2/120 3/119 .0043 .0870 .5239 Multivariate F=3.9877, significance level=.0096, with 3 and 119 degrees of freedom. 82 Finding: There is a significant positive relationship at the .05 probability level between perceived impact and the extent of service use. Variety of service use and kind of service use are not significantly related to the perceived impact of service use. While the combined variations in extent, kind, and variety of community service use explain only about nine per cent of the variation in perceived impact the overall equation is significant at less than the .01 probability leveli It can be concluded from this analysis that as community service use increases the perceived impact of use in terms of the family's own goal attainment increases. In order to determine which services were perceived to be of greatest help, families were asked to indicate those services which most helped them reach their goals. The results of these questions are reported in Table 21. Health services, the Social Services Department, and food programs were clearly the most frequently reported as important in helping families attain their goals. not surprising. This is The low-income families in the sample rely on these agencies for the most basic resources of daily life. Changes in Services Suggested by Respondents Service improvements needed Families were also asked to indicate those services Table 21.— Services Which Most Helped Families Reach Their Goals, Lake and Montmorency Counties Services First Service Indicated Second Service Indicated Lake Lake Montmorency Montmorency Number of Families Indicating a Particular Service 8 4 54 18 Social Services Dept. 29 9 14 2 Comp. Health Center 28 0 6 0 Food Program 11 10 10 1 Private Physician publicly funded 10 6 4 7 Other-Public 3 0 1 1 Childcare Facilities 2 0 1 0 Social Security 1 0 0 0 Church or related 1 0 0 0 Other-Fraternal or service 0 1 1 0 Fam. Services Unit of Health Center 0 0 1 0 Senior Citizen Org. 0 0 1 0 None specified 84 which could be improved. The Social Services Department, the Comprehensive Health Care Center and the food program were the services most often listed as first in need of improvement by Lake county families. When families responded to the question of what they would change if they were on the board of directors of a community service agency, 32 families indicated they would expand or gen­ erally improve service. Thirteen of these families would direct this improvement to the Health Center, while six were concerned with improvement of Social Services Depart­ ment, three with the food program and two with the family services unit of the Health Center. Nine families would have improved information about services. Nine families indicated they would try to improve supervision of the services. Seven families each listed liberalized eligibility, improved courtesy in pro­ viding service, and reduction in time required for service. These improvements were directed mainly at the Health Center and the Department of Social Services. Montmorency county families were concerned mainly with improving services of private physicians paid by public agencies, the Department of Social Services, and food programs. The improvements suggested, as in Lake county, involved improved supervision, liberalized eligibility, and improved information about services. 85 Additional service needs Several different questions were asked to gain increased information about additional service needs of families. The first of these questions asked families how they would spend $10.00 of additional income. The answer to this question was expected to give insights into the most pressing needs of families as indicated by their allocation of additional income. Table 22 indicated the patterns of additional consump­ tion chosen by families. The majority of families in both Lake and Montmorency counties indicated the first use of $10.00 would be to spend it on current consumption, primarily food. Other important categories included the repayment of debts and saving for emergencies. These results are not inconsistent with expectations given the limited income nature of the sample families. Families xrere also asked to indicate directly what additional services were needed in their communities. Specific additional service needs reported by families are shown in Table 23. Lake county families requested addi­ tional services in employment and employment information, transportation, health care, and education or training for adults and young people. In Montmorency county, health care, education or training for young people, employment and employment information, and youth recreation were most frequently listed as additional service needs. Table 22.--Allocation of Ten Dollars of Additional Income by Residence Location and Family Size Category Area of Indicated Expenditure 1 person Family Size Category 2-4 person 5+ person Lake Mont. 5 1 8 44 3 3 13 2 8 2 1 0 8 0 1 0 1 2 3 0 20 0 2 1 5 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 3 0 7 2 2 1 1 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 Lake Mont. 13 1 0 5 0 0 17 2 2 3 1 0 14 0 1 Past Consumption Food Medical Treatment Other - debt 0 1 0 7 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 2 Saving Housing Auto Emergencies Burial Other 0 0 0 5 2 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 Contributions to Persons Outside The Household 1 0 0 Current Consumption Food Durable Good Other all family sizes Lake Mont. Lake Mont. Number of Families Indicating Area Table 23.— Specific Service Needs Reported by Lake and Montmorency County Families Service Need Residence Location Lake Montmorency Number of Families Indicating Need None Indicated 23 10 Transportation 11 0 Employment or Employment Information: Youth Adult Elderly Age not specified 2 6 2 4 1 1 0 0 Housing Adult Elderly 0 0 0 2 Health Personnel Facilities Dental Insurance Other 4 4 0 1 7 0 2 0 2 1 Education Youth Adult 4 2 4 0 Recreation Youth Adult Elderly Age not specified 6 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 Reduced Prices for Elderly 2 2 In Home Assistance for Elderly 3 1 10 1 Legal Assistance and Other 88 In both counties additional service needs reported gen­ erally relate to essential services needed by those with limited financial resources. The emphasis on employment information and education indicates that families are look­ ing for additional earning skills and opportunities not just direct handout of goods. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS This chapter includes a summary of the findings pre­ sented in the preceding chapter, conclusions and discussion from the findings, some implications for further research, and implications for community service agencies. Summary of Findings Community service use was found to vary extensively among the families interviewed. The variation in extent, kind, and variety of community service use was found to be related mainly to socioeconomic-demographic factors. Race, socioeconomic status, family size, and employment status were generally most important in explaining the variability in community service use scores. Among the social psycho­ logical variables examined, only social optimism was significantly related to extent of community service use. Families in Lake and Montmorency counties were found to have significantly different levels of community service use. The differences in community service use levels between counties were explained mainly by differences in socioeconomic-demographic family factors. When variations in extent, kind, and variety of 89 90 community service use were adjusted for variations in social psychological factors, significant differences between counties remained. When adjustments were made for social psychological and socioeconomic-demographic factors, differences in community service use scores among the counties were in general not significant. The perceived impact of community service use as measured by expected changes in family goal attainment without service use was found to be significantly related to community service use patterns. The services that were indicated as most important in helping families in Lake county were the Department of Social Services, the Comprehensive Health Center, and the food stamp program. In Montmorency county the Department of Social Services, the food commodities program, and publicly funded private physicians were listed most fre­ quently as services helping families reach their goals. Families expected expenditure patterns with additional income indicated unmet needs in the area of current con­ sumption, mainly food. Specific service needs mentioned by respondents often indicated a desire for additional earning skills and opportunities. Existing community services which were most often listed as needing improvement in Lake county were the Comprehensive Health Center, the social services unit of that center, and the food stamp program. In Montmorency 91 county families were concerned with improving services of private physicians, the Department of Social Services, and the food commodities program. Conclusions and Discussion From the findings of this study several conclusions have been drawn: 1. Even among a population of families with limited economic resources the main determinants of community service use patterns are socioeconomic and demographic factors. Families apparently use community services in response to economic need. Those factors which are related to economic need such as employment status, family size, and income seem most directly responsible for variance in demand for community services. The positive relationship of race to extent of com­ munity service use is contradictory to earlier studies cited in Chapter II. This finding is difficult to explain. No definitive answer was possible, however, some "off the record" comments of white respondents and observations on the history of nonwhite respondents led the researcher to conclude that the structure of service provision and the nature of the black population in Lake county may explain this result. Some white respondents indicated beliefs that the Comprehensive Health Center catered to blacks possibly causing some white residents to avoid use of this facility. The casual observations of the researcher indicated that T 92 many of the nonwhite respondents either had migrated to the study area from metropolitan areas or had experienced living in metropolitan areas. The metropolitan experience of these nonwhite respondents may have added to their experience with community services and improved their skills in seeking out and using these services. 2. The social psychological factors included in this study (future orientation; value orientation; social optimism; areas of satisfaction in life; past, present, and future levels of striving) may affect families' use of community services but such effects are not indicated by the measures of community service use employed in this study. The statistical significance of these variables as reported earlier was quite low. The further examination of the social psychological variables generally indicates that the preferences of families in the sample may be restrained by their economic situation. While the families have rather limited expecta­ tions about adequate standards of living they do not seem to be fatalistic in their outlook. The families seemed willing to save and plan for the future although they were concerned about the future state of society and seemed uncertain as to whom they could trust. They expressed little faith in the interest of political leaders for the lot of the average man. If they were provided (either through aid or earning possibilities) with adequate incomes 93 to meet current consumption needs they appeared to be will­ ing to sacrifice excessive current consumption for longer term possessions such as housing and also would sacrifice for educational opportunities for their children. The sample families were dissatisfied with their current con­ sumption patterns. Their expression of greater satisfac­ tion with home ownership opportunities and educational opportunities may reflect the low priority of these needs when current consumption needs are unmet. It appears that these families would react positively to community service programs if they were able to meet basic consumption needs. Perhaps if a sample of middle to high income families had been chosen the results would have indicated a higher significance for the social psychological factors. Higher income families with more freedom in resource use patterns might be influenced less by pure economic need and thus more likely to be influenced by factors other than socio­ economic. The results of this study echo the results of Feldman and Feldman (see Chapter II, p. 21) that situa­ tional factors may be more important in community service use behavior than are social psychological factors. It may be appropriate to consider some type of a minimum income plan which would bring these families above the threshold of living from day-to-day and allow them to consider longer term actions such as investments in housing and education for their children. 94 3. The Self-Anchoring Striving scores reported in this study are substantially lower than those reported in other studies. In a 1964 Gallup Survey reported by Free and Cantril (1964), average present, past, and future SelfAnchoring Striving scores for a sample of over 3000 persons were higher than those found in this study. For the sub­ sample of families with incomes under $3000 the past, present and future scores were also higher than those reported in the present study (See Appendix Table B5 for comparisons with other studies). In Kar's (1966) study of adoption of family planning among a sample of low-income mothers, the reported SelfAnchoring Striving scores were lower for past LOS but were higher for both present and future LOS than those reported in the current study. It is clear that with respect to other low-income samples the families in this study were worse off relative to their goal attainment, at least with respect to present and future LOS. It is perhaps worth noting that the overall mood of the country was different at the respective times that these studies were completed. Both the Kar and the Free and Cantril studies were com­ pleted in the mid-1960's during rapid expansion of the economy and social programs to aid low-income families. During the period of the current study rapid inflation (bringing on wage and price controls), the winding down of the Vietnam War, and the attempt by the Nixon administration 95 to demolish many o£ the social programs begun earlier all may have contributed to a depressed outlook on future events. Specific questions regarding reasons for expected future goal attainment, in general, indicated an orienta­ tion toward events outside the family as shaping the family's future. There was little evidence of conscious family management efforts as a means of securing a better future. Many of those who expected conditions to be better in the future based that expectation on hope that events outside the family would be more favorable. 4. The use of community services was significantly related to the families' perceived level of goal attain­ ment. In general, the greater the use of community services the greater the impact on family goal attainment. The use of community services does not, however, seem to affect significantly the levels of future orientation, social optimism, areas of satisfaction in life, and value orientation. This conclusion would be supported more strongly if before and after measures for a constant sample of families were available. It is extremely difficult to measure the sequential effect of community service use on social psychological characteristics when data were collected at a single point in time. If services change social psychological char­ acteristics of families these changes may take several 96 years to occur, and thus, it may require a long-term longi­ tudinal study to detect such changes. 5. Those community services most used and most needed by limited resource families were also those most often criticized. Suggestions for improvement not surprisingly involved greater availability of services and increased information on service availability. It was interesting to note that limited resource families were critical of lax enforcement of program guidelines and waste in program operation. This criticism of lax enforcement may have several possible explanations. It is possible that those eligible for services believed that scarce program resources were being '‘wasted" through lax enforcement. It is also plausible that those eligible for service recognize that lax enforcement of program guidelines may reflect poorly on all users of community services and thus further tarnish the image of service users. Limitations of the Study The general objectives of this study were accomplished. t However, there are several limitations of the methodology and findings which should be noted. Findings in this study were based on a sample of rural low-income families selected from food program rolls in two Michigan counties. The extent to which these families are representative of all low-income families is not known. Therefore, generalizations of these results should be 97 accompanied by appropriate caution. While respondents were instructed to respond for the family, the respondent's perceptions of the family's situa­ tion may differ from those of other family members. Further, respondents were asked to describe community service use patterns from recall over the most recent twelve month period. This may result in either under or overestimates of actual use patterns. The description of community service use patterns for each family member may also tax the recall of respondents. However, respondents for large families did not appear less able readily to explain services used. Care must also be taken in inferring that benefit is in direct proportion to use as measured in this study. This study examines use behavior without direct reference to the outcome of that behavior. The measurement of perceived impact does provide some insight into the con­ tribution of use to family goal attainment. However, the technique of asking for subjective goal attainment without service use may be limited in accurately assessing impact of service use. The community services selected for study were a specific set of welfare services. Thus, generalizations to other community services is limited. The data collected in this study are cross-sectional which may cloud the examination of cause and effect 98 relationships. r Implications for Further Research It was assumed in this study that the research instru­ ment accurately measured the concepts of interest. Addi­ tional research is needed on the measurement of community service use. While family contacts are a useful and measurable indicator of extent of use, this measure does not accurately portray the differences in the intensity or aid transferred through different types of contacts. Improvements in the measurement of resource use could aid in improved diagnosis and prediction of the behavioral patterns of community services users. Improved measures of resource use could also indicate the output received from community services. It would make possible the more accurate measurement of cost/benefit relationships in com­ munity service provision. This does not imply that improved resource use measures would be oriented toward those output effects measurable only in dollar terms. In cases such as the provision of counseling and companionship for the elderly or otherwise isolated citizens, a dollar measurement may not be possible, but it is desirable to continue to examine input-output relationships. This improved measurement could more clearly identify the benefits received by users. This could aid the examination of community service use as a rational step toward improved levels of living for families. In other words, are the 99 benefits of use worth the time and effort expended by users ? Further research is also needed to improve the meas­ urement of social psychological factors which influence community service use. Such research could include improved measurement techniques for social psychological factors as well as additional social psychological con­ structs not examined in this study. Other possible psychological studies might include the application of Maslow's (Maslow, 1954) concept of hier­ archy of needs. It would be useful to determine to what extent families identify particular agencies with partic­ ular level need satisfactions. This could aid agencies in determining the perceptions of prospective clients regard­ ing what needs could be met by using the agency. Results of such a study could be extremely helpful in designing outreach programs. A study undertaken which measures the reinforcement which agency clients receive applying the stimulus-response behavioral concepts might provide considerable insight into client satisfaction and dissatisfaction. This information would be helpful in improving the service provision environment, which could enhance the satisfaction, with services with only limited additional costs. It may also be useful to explore the concept of cognitive dissonance as it relates to service provision. 100 The clients of service agencies may require special efforts to ensure that the use of the agency is considered posi­ tively. It is possible that service agencies are con­ sidered with suspicion by their prospective clients. It may be useful to determine if this is true and the extent to which agencies could design activities to reduce any dissonant reaction to service use. This study also points toward the need for a better understanding of the role of race in community service use. Why race showed the level of effect that it did in this study is not clear. Tt is clear that race should be further explored as a factor in explaining community service use patterns. It may also be useful to examine the relationship between community service use and stage in the family life cycle. Using the concept of family life cycle may provide insights into long term patterns of community service use. This would provide data useful in the projection of service demands based on the proportion of potential users at a particular stage in the life cycle. Such research might also investigate the differences in types of com­ munity services useful at particular life cycle stages. Thus, such a study could enable service planners to define more accurately potential clientele groups. This study examined behavioral relationships through the use of a cross-sectional sample. In the measurement of 101 the effect of service use and the perceived impact of service use on goal attainment, behavioral relationships might be more accurately understood through longitudinal studies. In such studies one might be able to measure more precisely before and after characteristics and thus more accurately infer cause-effect relationships. It also seems that the continual investigation of program participants* attitudes toward community services is desirable. Participants indicated concern over lax administration of community service programs. Further analysis of participants' reactions might be especially helpful in the restructuring of programs as well as the political discussions which surround efforts at restruc­ turing. It would also be useful to study the differences between urban and rural populations in their use of com­ munity services. For example, are there values which rural families hold which affect community service use differ­ ently than values of urban resident? Implications for Community Service Agencies Several implications for community service agencies were generated from this study. The goals ranked first in importance by families in this study (health, standard of living, children's welfare) appeared to be consistent with the goals of the community service agencies in the study. Further, the use of community service agencies had a 102 significant impact on families' perceived goal attainments. It is apparent from results of questions on which agencies helped families most that agencies which directly aided current attainment of minimal consumption levels ranked highest. This may imply that agencies which seek to aid families through the provision of indirect aids will have difficulty in attracting clientele groups. This may imply that agencies need to design more effective communi­ cation programs that clearly identify their services with the attainment of family goals. The Cooperative Extension Service may be a case in point. While this agency provides a variety of educational materials and programs to aid family management, none of the Lake county families reported using the Cooperative Extension Service. It is apparent from sample family responses that reaction to indirect community service programs may meet with limited success until basic consumption needs are met. Thus, it seems appropriate that agencies need to develop programs which combine direct aids with indirect (human capital building) aid programs. The importance of minimum levels of living to these families may also indicate that existing agencies which attempt to provide indirect services such as education and training may be more successful in contacting prospective clients by forming linkages with those agencies which provide direct aids. Such a system may encounter some 103 resistance. The existing fragmentation of service pro­ viders, i.e., federal, state, local, may discourage agency personnel from initiatives for combined service programs. Any such initiatives may require the development of improved evaluation systems which insure that separate agencies receive appropriate acknowledgement for their contribution. If appropriate incentive and evaluation systems can be developed, existing agencies may be able to perform their missions more effectively. This may be a less costly and more politically feasible alternative than attempting to replace existing agencies with a “super" agency. Service agencies are also given signals for service improvement by the direct responses of sample families. In both counties, families reported desired improvement in courtesy in provision of service, time required for service and improved supervision. It is clear that the sample families expected to be treated with dignity. It is also clear that while these families have low dollar opportunity costs for their time they do not enjoy spending their time waiting for services. Families also clearly expect the provision of services to be handled professionally with adequate supervision. Additional services which could be provided by exist­ ing or new agencies as indicated by sample families were generally associated with providing basic consumption 104 needs. In general, the reported additional needs could be classified as direct or indirect income needs. Families appeared to be concerned with expanding those services which they saw as direct income aids or expanding income opportunities. It should be pointed out that while families indicated desires for additional levels of benefit from existing agencies, they appeared to be responsive to efforts to provide earning opportunities (employment, job counseling and training) for themselves and their children. It is obvious that such an expression does not guarantee that they would actually use such indirect services if provided. The previous discussion would indicate that on-the-job training programs or other efforts which simul­ taneously provide at least minimal consumption incomes would be accepted more widely than programs that provide training only. It should also be pointed out that one segment of the sample population, the elderly, would not be served ade­ quately through indirect service programs. It is clear that these citizens have need for direct economic aid as well as the need for emotional and psychological support. Thus, it may be important to provide to these families aid which combines both dimensions. For example, the provision of additional income support for food purchases may not be as emotionally satisfying to elderly recipients as programs which involve in-home assistance. It is important to 105 consider the needs of individual households in designing such programs. Flexibility should be maintained in order to allow those households which prefer self-sufficiency and independence to be supported in this goal, while at the same time providing the in-home support for those who desire it. It was clear from family responses that the elderly valued the life-style and stability in their rural com­ munity. problem. They also faced what seemed to be a difficult On the one hand, they feared becoming a burden on others and the possibility of being forced into "old people's homes." On the other hand, many found themselves to be lonely and isolated with time on their hands. Unfortunately, traditional rural living patterns which may encourage intrafamily relationships often result in limited contacts outside of a few close friends. Thus, the elderly are often left with very limited community contacts. The problem of loneliness and isolation is extremely difficult to attack for those currently facing it. It is apparent that long-term solutions to this problem involve broadening the base of social contacts which rural resi­ dents have prior to the onset of old age. Effective programs to deal with this problem will involve improved recognition and planning for the time when one's friends are no longer there. Thus, it may be essential to begin to help families in their early and middle years to broaden their distribution of social contacts across a wider range of age groups. It is important for agencies and professionals work­ ing with families to recognize the need for dealing both with those who are currently facing loneliness and isola­ tion and attempting to prevent this problem from developing in other families. This study attempted to augment previous research and thereby provide a more holistic approach to understanding community service use. Community service agencies should adopt such a holistic perspective if they are to assist families effectively. Viewing the family as a complex ecosystem can aid the provision of services. Such an approach may require a rather large bundle of service resources. However, the different parts of such a comprehensive service approach may be synergistic in problem solving efforts. Unfortu­ nately,' budget pressures may force agencies designed with a comprehensive approach in mind to cut those services with the least apparent pay-offs. As was pointed out previously, this may limit severely the functioning of the agency as an overall model of a comprehensive system of interacting parts. In addition, the services removed may be providing benefits which substantially enhance the levels of living for their specific clientele groups. Appendix A Economic and Demographic Profile of Lake County, and Montmorency County, Michigan 108 Appendix Table Al.--Demographic and Economic Profile: County Lake POPULATION AND AREA Total Population Percent of State County Density/square mile Land Area in square miles 1970 1960 Number Change Percent Change 5,661 .06 9.9 571 5,338 .07 9.3 323 6.1 Net Migration 1960 to 1970 (b) 416 AGE DISTRIBUTION - 1970 Under 18 18-44 45-65 65 and over Total Percent of Total Female Male Male Female 912 650 621 595 914 673 723 573 32.8 23.4 22.4 21.4 31.7 23.3 25.1 19.9 2,778 2,883 100.0 100.0 INCOME 1969 Total Personal Income $11,900 (thousands of dollars) Percent of State .03 Per Capita Income County (b) $ 2,120 1959 Percent Change $5,600 112.5 - .03 $1,049 0.0 102.1 INCOME BY MAJOR SOURCES (thousands of dollars) 1967 Total Personal Income Total Wage & Salary Disbursements + Other Labor Income Proprietors1 Income Property Income Transfer Payments Less Personal Contributions for Social Insurance $8,900 3.800 1.800 1,200 2,000 109 Appendix Table Al .— Continued 1967 Total Earnings Farm Earnings Total Non-Farm Earnings Government Earnings Total Federal State and Local , Private Non-Farm Earnings Manufacturing Mining Contract Construction Trans. Comm. & Public Utilities Wholesale & Retail Trade Finance, Insurance & Real Estate Services Other $5,600 64 5,706 1,904 467 1,437 3,802 656 4 417 247 1,138 190 1,077 73 Source: Kiene, Werner, Evaluation of the Impact of Health Care on Activity Levels of frhe Poor, Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1972, Table B2, p. 212. 110 Appendix Table A 2 .— Demographic and Economic Profile: morency County Mont- POPULATION AND AREA Total Population Percent of State County Density/square mile Land Area in square miles 1970 1960 Number Change Percent Change 5,247 .06 9.5 555 4,424 .06 8.0 823 18.6 Net Migration 1960 to 1970 (b) 685 AGE DISTRIBUTION - 1970 Under 18 18-44 45-65 65 and over Total Percent of Total Male Female Male Female 925 623 623 444 864 658 725 385 35.4 23.8 23.8 17.0 2,615 2,632 100.0 32.8 25.0 27.5 14.7 100.0 INCOME 1969 Total Personal Income $11,900 (thousands of dollars) Percent of State .03 Per Capita Income County (b) 2,294 1959 Percent Change $5,400 120.4 .03 1,234 0.0 85.9 INCOME BY MAJOR SOURCES (thousands of dollars) 1967 Total Personal Income Total Wage & Salary Disbursements + Other Labor Income Proprietors' Income Property Income Transfer Payments Less Personal Contributions for Social Insurance $9,300 4.800 1.800 1,100 1,600 Ill Appendix Table A2.— Continued 1967 Total Earnings Farm Earnings Total Non-Farm Earnings Government Earnings Total Federal State and Local Private Non-Farm Earnings Manufacturing Mining Contract Construction Trans. Comm. & Public Utilities Wholesale & Retail Trade Finance, Insurance & Real Estate Services Other $6,600 11 6,630 1,791 282 1,509 4,839 1,411 440 108 1,676 231 894 79 Source: Kiene, Werner, Evaluation of the Impact of Health Care on Activity Levels_of the~ Poor, Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1972, Table B3, p. 213. 112 Appendix Table A3.--Comparison of Socioeconomic Indicators Between Lake and Montmorency Counties Indicator Lake Poverty Index*3) 129.5 Montmorency 115.1 Poverty rank among 83 Michigan Counties 83 Percent functional illiterate 13.7 4.4 8.6 9.8 1965 7.6 6.1 1966 9.7 5.9 1967 9.8 10.6 1968 13.6 8.8 Median school years 81 Average annual unemployment rate: Population/Physician Ratio 1968 (including M.D.’s and Osteopaths) 1125 4200 a) Adapted from: W. E. Vredevoogd, Rural Poverty in Michigan, Report No. 21, Rural Manpower Center, Michigan State University, November 1970 (East Lansing: Rural Man­ power Center, 1970), pp. 15-65. b) Prepared from 1960 census data. The index consists of the sum of four percentages, % earning $3000 or less, 7o unemployed, % functionally illiterate, % houses in bad repair. Highest possible score is 4 x 100% = 400. Source: Kiene, Werner, Evaluation of the Impact of Health Care on Activity Levels of the Boor,' Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1972, Table B5, p. 213. Appendix B Frequency Distribution for Use of Specific Services. Average Number of Functional Categories and Community Service Agencies Used Per Family by Family Size Cate­ gory and Residence Location. Sample Correlation Matrix for Community Service Use, Social Psychological, and Socioeconomic-Demographic Variables. Comparison of Self-Anchoring Striving Scale Scores Among Selected Studies. Appendix Table Bl. --Average Frequency of Family Contact for Selected Community Serv­ ices by Family Size Category and Residence Location One Person Service Lake Mont. Family Size Category 2-4 Person 5+ Person Residence Location Lake Mont. Lake Mont. All Families Lake Mont. Health Center 15.13 0 17.42 0 23.55 0 18.70 0 Private Physic. 10.58 7.80 13.35 8.10 15.77 4.50 13.24 6.80 Public Health 0.42 0 1.29 0.30 1.77 2.40 1.16 0.90 Family Services Unit 2.71 0 1.32 0 0.48 0 1.50 0 Coop. Extension 0 0 0 0 0 7.80 0 2.60 Social Services 7.80 7.40 9.45 9.30 9.71 7.40 8.99 8.03 Food Program Headstart/Daycare 9.42 0 12.00 0 9.93 0.90 10.80 0 9.38 1.81 10.80 1.70 9.58 0.90 11.20 0.57 c a p /n e m c a 0.52 0.20 0.48 0.30 0.42 2.10 0.47 0.87 Senior Citizens 3.48 3.20 2.90 0 0 0.10 2.13 1.10 Church Related 0.70 0 1.35 0 0.30 0 0.61 0 0.35 0 0 FISH 0.13 0 0 0.33 0 Catholic Fam. Serv. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other: Public 0.64 0.10 0.97 3.10 2.97 15.90 1.53 6.37 Other: Fraternal 0.03 0.20 0.10 0.40 0.03 0.90 0.05 0.50 n equal 31 10 31 10 31 10 93 30 Appendix Table B2.--Average Number of Functional Categories Used Per Family by Family Size Category and Residence Location Residence Location Montmorency Lake Family Size Category 5+ Person One Person 2-4 Person Mean 4.84 5.00 5.03 Minimum 2 1 Maximum 9 Standard Deviation 1.92 2-4 Person 5+ Person 3.80 4.40 5.30 2 1 2 2 9 8 10 7 9 1.95 1.72 1.90 2.21 2.62 115 One Person Appendix Table B3.--Average Number of Community Service Agencies Used Per Family by Family Size Category and Residence Location Family Size Category 2-4 Person 5+ Person One Person Residence Location Lake n 31 4.0 Montmorency 10 3.0 All Families Average Number of Service Agencies Contacted n n n 31 93 4.71 31 5.03 10 3.40 10 5.10 30 4.58 3.83 Apoendix Table E4.— Sanole Correlation Matrix for Community Service Use, Social Psychological, ana Socioeconomic-Demographic Variables SAMPLE CORRELATION MATRIX Family Size Extent of Use Variety of Use Kind of Use Value Orientation Future Orientation Social Optimism Areas cf Satisfaction in life Present IDS Past AOS future ICS S.E.S. of Head Sox of Head Employment Status Pace Income Group Perceived impact Family Size Extent of Use Variety of Use Kind of Use 1.0Q0C00 .219457 .346934 .140666 .182530 .067606 .139637 0S29S1 -.075054 -.093491 .050243 -.242817 -.303076 .459886 -.242732 .710663 .005004 1.000000 .593339 .460274 .015724 .133763 -.139760 .016336 -.036353 -.103508 .041872 -.224180 .037355 -.115427 .311331 .173061 .256108 1.000000 .701124 -.026304 .095719 -.017533 -.069311 .002612 -.138471 .101137 .-.242901 .062714 .107204 .194577 .. 32C 20 2 .273353 1.000000 .081225 .041313 .025329 .042446 -.030193 -.046316 .092573 -.253322' .109399' .074763 .143195 .3652 73 .237575 S.E.S. of Head Sex of Head 1.000000 -.112936 1.000000 .041468 .040334 .036599 -.475334 -.053977 " .119161 .179450 -.192231 .328243 -.014905 1.000000 -.332456 .209116 -.205336 .124749 Future LCS Future LOS S.E.S. of Head Sex of Head Employment Status Race Income Group Perceived Impact Mote: Employten t Status 1.005000 -. 356933 .332097 -.175175 Value Orien­ tation 1.000000 .099870 .379453 -.040190 .070487 -.007775 .0S5213 -.249169 -.030956 .165633 -.007330 .17710 2-.005179 Race 1.000000 -.183441 .142927 Future Orien­ tation 1.000000 .202968 .015119 -.023654 -.052337 .122519 -.201275 .014931 .077467 .077251 .023110 -.019545 Income Group Social Optimism 1.000000 -.122995 .248102 .133001 .309458 -.336932 -.141329 .262002 -.024573 .113945 .073402 Areas of Satis­ faction in Life 1.000000 .247755 -.072913 .161043 .043152 .031071 -.102115 -.033064 -.017662 .138939 Present LOS 1.000000 .035231 .625631 -.103154 .1S97-S6 -.035568 -.031753 .033214 .400703 Perceived Impact 1.000000 -.050799 This correlation matrix is based on the combined sample cf 123 families Cron lake and Montmorency Counties. Past LCS 1.000000 .031606 .005753 ,C3s:eo -.134031 .042593 -.075346 .002651 118 Appendix Table B5.— Comparison of Self-Anchoring Striving Scale Scores Among Selected Studies Study Item Goebel Lake Mont. Free and Cantril*- >2 Kar2 All U. S. Income Below $3000 Low Income Past LOS 4.82 4.44 5.96 6.23 3.94 Present LOS 4.53 5.70 6.85 6.27 6.62 Future LOS 5.98 6.57 7.89 7.06 7.89 *Tree, L. A. and H. C. Cantril. The Political Beliefs of Americans. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1968, p . 229. 2Ibid. %ar, S. B. Individual Aspirations as Related to Acceptance of Family Planning. Unpublished doctoral dis­ sertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1966. Appendix C Survey Correspondence and Survey Instrument 120 January 13, 1973 Dear As part of research being undertaken on rural Michigan communities I am conducting a study of commu­ nity services in your area. This study is sponsored by the Center for Rural Manpower and Public Affairs at Michigan State University. An important part of my study is finding out what a sample of families in the community think of the available community services and their ideas about needed changes in these services. One sample of people has been drawn from the list of families receiving food stamps. I am asking that you please return the enclosed card without delay indicating a time on February 1, 2, 5 or 6 when you would be able to meet with me. Because I am working on a limited budget I have arranged with Social Services to talk with you in their offices. Therefore it might be most convenient for us to meet at the time when you pick up your food stamps. I will contact you (by mail or phone) to confirm the time that you indicate is best for you. X can assure you that our conversation will be kept strictly confidential. I hope that you can find time to help me in this important and useful work. Sincerely, Karen P. Goebel Graduate Student Michigan State University Enel. 121 April 13, 1973 Dear As part of research being undertaken on rural Michigan communities I am conducting a study of commu­ nity services in your area. This study is sponsored by the Center for Rural Manpower and Public Affairs at Michigan State University. An important part of my study is finding out what a sample of families in the community think of the available community services and their ideas about needed changes in these services. One sample of people has been drawn from the list of families receiving food commodities. I am asking that you please return the enclosed card without delay indicating a time on April 30, May 1, 2, 3 or 4 when I could come to your home to discuss this with at least one member of your family. I will contact you (by mail or phone) to confirm the time that you indicate is best for you. I can assure you that our conversation will be kept strictly confidential. I hope that you can find time to help me in this important and useful work. Sincerely, Karen P. Goebel Graduate Student Michigan State University Enel 122 Fa m i l y Hello, I' making a that are vices you N ome . Family m working with Karen Goebel on the Community Service Study. We are study of a number of households In this area to learn about the services used in the community. We think it is important to consider w h a t ser­ want and use. Information that you give m e will be kept confidential and will be used combination wit h information received from other families in the area. family wil l not be identified in any reports from this study. 1. How long have y o u and the members of you r household been Now I need C h e c k (-/*) Respondent some - in this only Your in county? / Longer than 1 year Less than 1 year 2. #_ _ _ _ _ _ "Exit" information about Household Member the people w h o Relationship to H o u s ehold Head live in your Age on Last Birthday interviewer home: Sex Las t Year of School Completed 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 81 9. 10. 3. All fam about w for the best po to be h ilies want an hat really ma future? In ssible light, appy? d e tte oth wh x r e a pect s in r wor t wou certain things ou your own f a m i l y , ds, if you imagin ld this picture l t of life. Wh wha t ere your e your family' ook like, if a en you th wishes an s future ll member ink d hopes in the s ore (Permissible Probes) What are your hopes for the future of your family? What would the lives of the family members have to be like for them to com­ pletely happy? (Use also, if necessary, the w o r d s "dreams" and "desires.") What is most important is mos t --- 1. What . next important— 2 3. 4. 5. (Obligatory Probe ) Anything else? / 123 4. Now, taking the other side of the picture, what are your family’s fears worries about the future? In other words, if you imagine your family's future in the worst possible light, what would this picture look like? (Permissible Probes) What would make the lives of the m e m b e r s family unhappy? ( S t r e s s t h e w o r d s " f e a r s " a n d " w o r r i e s / 1) What is the thing is next you fear most — of and your - 1. What . — - 2 3. 4. •5. (Obligatory 5. Here is (POINTIN (POINTIN hopes an up and d 6. Where o n Probe) a pictu G) repr G) repr d fears own lad the Anything re of esent esent for der) ladder else? a lad s the s the the fu do you der. Suppo best possib worst possi ture, where feel your would you say se we sa le life ble life on the family s that your y fo f la ta tha r y or dde nds t the top of the ladder our family and the bottom them. In light of your r (moving finger rapidly ____ at the present time? Step Number / / family stood five years Step 7. Just as your best guess, where on the ladder do you think ^ f ^ i o a r e j r o m j j o w ? 8. your a g o ? Num b e r family Step / / will £ZJ Number What makes you think that your family wil l be (higher, lower) on the ladder in the f u t u r e 7 _ _ ______ ________________________ __________________ __________________ T3 9. Now I would like to get your reaction to some statements about your future. Do you agree, disagree or are you undecided about these statements? ■ 1. All I wan t in household, is afford a car, 2. When a person is b o m , the success he is going already in the cards, so he might just as well not fight against it. 3. If s u c c e s s in li f e m e a n s that the h e a d of the h o u s e h o l d has to m o v e away from the rest of the family for a couple of years, it's w o r t h it. in life in the way of a career a secure, not too difficult and eventually a home. 4. Success life is mainly 5. Planning only m a k e s a person hardly ever w o r k out anyway. 6. I would like m y family and neighbors have. to a matter for the head of job, wit h m o n e y of luck. unhappy, since have mor e •c Q CO V c -c e £3 Q the to n o n n o n n n o o n n n o n to have is accept it and our than what a CJ u m y plans friends__________ / / f~1 f~ l 124 v.o. 10. Suppose ways of you have spending If y o u were ask these cards whi (Interview Suppose you hav 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) Mr. a want day-t home. this, What 6. 7. f~ l n !~1 [~1 l~1 (a) I~1 [~1 ed to ch wou er giv e to c choose b ld you c es 5 car hoose be w e e k l y income, w i t h it? ______ There etween the alternate ways hoose? ds to res p o n d e n t . ) t w e e n A an d B, w h a t w o u l d listed you m a y o n / be many each of choose? (b) r~ l Save for buying a late model car, color T.V. and good furniture. or (b) n Save for college education of son (or children). Spend for better food, clothes and entertain­ ment. or (b) I~1 Save for college education of son (or children). Save for college educa­ tion of son (or child­ ren) . or (b) n Save for buying a home. Save for late model car, color T.V. and furni­ ture. or (b) 7 ~ 7 Save for buying a home. Spend for better food, clothing and entertain­ ment . or Save for late model color T.V. and good furniture. nd Mrs.'A, to own a h o-day conv Even the the two c do you thi (a) a $10.00 raise in your it. What would you do / and ome. enien n the ouple nk yo Mr. But ces cha s de u wo Mr. & Mrs. A that inspite sacrifice of day comforts chance of ow h o m e is. h a l f But they dec give up daycomfort and hardship for Mr. & since alway be un one's ience plans that s w s a Mrs. our wor ise dayfor hopi re n A pl k to to l ng ot n i t a car, and Mrs. B are in sim they realize that th for five years be f o r e nce of owning a h o m e cide differently. Im uld have done? (Chec realize of the day-tothe ing a and-half. d e to o-day ccept five years. feel that, ans do not out, it would sacrifice -day conven­ ong term for rewards so certain. ilar pos ey will they ma is, say, agine yo k one): (b) T1 Mr. & Mrs. B. re in spite of the of day-to-day co five years, the owning a h ome is half. So they d to give up their day comforts. (b) f~J Mr. & Mrs. B feel though our plans always wor k out, should sacrifice to-day convenienc long term plans h that in the futur hardships w i l l be or or itions. Both couples have to g ive up their y be able to own a 50/50. Inspite of urself in this position; a s m c lize that acrifice forts for hance of half and e c i d p •n o t day-to- that d o n ’t one his dayes for oping e his rewarded. 125 8. Suppose your T.V. needs repairing. A t his school Is taking the students to a and this will cost you roughly the sam t h e r e p a i r of your T.V.' Y o u c a n o n l y What would you choose? f~ l (a) Repair the T.V. o £ the same n educati e amount do one an (b) tine your son says that onal camp for a few days of money that you need for d forget about the other. /~~7 S e n d son to educational P.O. 11. camp / The following statements are m a t t e r s of opinion. Some people agree, some disagree. Please give your own opinion on each of them. 4) 4> U u tfl to •H a y o 03 «rt U <0 01 co «rl m £ home. provide chance you have to buy a furniture you would like T h e chances i h h h f~ l f~ l f~ l have. 4. 6. food t t t C f~ l /~~7 / ~ 7 average man s.o. L2. 0) ■a •H u 41 T3 C D & 4J a o Q a o d d O O D D D D O D D O D D want and nnn when you g row old. A.S.L. / 126 1 3 How i need some information about your . Let's start with narking the number of 1. family's use of some specific community services. times each pernou used the various services. Has anyone in your family used the C o n p r eiirnslv e H e a l t h C H n l c M e d i c a l S ervices within the last year?* W ould you tell m e w h o used it, the t o t a l n u m b e r of tines t h e y u s e d it, and w h a t t hey u s e d it for7 1. Medical or 2. Medical or Dental 3. Medical advice— 4. Medical reading material 5. Other 6. How long Dental No.'of Times Used - Exam Treatment counseling (specify)_____________ has it been since your 7. Do any of your 8. Approximately how far do family began working with friends or relatives you use live from this this this agency? L. YesZZ7 service? N o / T ~ 7 Miles service? *(!£ no reported use) 9. Do you know about (If Yes) Yes/ this service? 7 No/ Approximately how far do you live from this service? 10. A* E x i t Miles 11. D o a n y o f y o u r f r i e n d s o r r e l a t i v e s use 12. this Have you (If Ho) ever used How long 1. Medical or Dental Medical or Dental Treatment 3. Medical advice — ago was I ] o £ Z 7 H o / 7 this service? this? . f Times Used Exam counseling 4. Medical reading material 5. Other (specify)____________________ ' 6. How long 7. Do any of has it b e e n your *(If no reported 8. Yea this service? Has anyone in your family used a Private Fhyslclan or Dentist paid for by Medi­ care, Medicaid or public agency (Circle) vithin the last ytar?* Would you tell me who used this, the total number of times used, and for what purpose? 2. N Y e s £ Z 7 13. W h y hav e n ' t y o u us e d (If Y c s ) l 4 , 2, service? Do since your friends or relatives use 9. 10. began using this this service? service?/. Y e s £ Z 7 N oLU use) you know about (If Yes) family this service? Yes/ I No / H X , Exit Do any of your friends or relatives use this service? Y e s / 7 7 Ho/ IIave y o u e v e r Yes/ N o £ Z 7 (If No) 11. (If Yes)12. used Why haven't this service? you used it? How long ago was this? / 7 127 3. 1. Medical or Dental 2. Medical or Dental Treatment 3. Medical advice — reading material 4. Medical 5. Other 6. 7. How long has Do 8 Approximately . no 9. of Times lined Exam counseling (specify) _____________ It been since your any of your *(If friends or how far do reported Do 10. live this from this 11 Do any of service? 12, Have you (If No) service? 2. Other Advice — Advice — agency?/ ) Yea/ service? Mo/ / ____________Miles how your 13. far Yes/ / M o / do friends used you or this Why haven't you live from this relatives use service? used How long ago was i* E x i t Miles this service? 7 Yes/— 7 No/ Y c b £ Z 7 N oC Z J it? this? H a s anyone in your family used t h e Family Services Unit (The Annex) of t h e Comprehensive Health Clinic with­ in the last year:* Would you tell me w h o U9ed It, the total number of t i m e s t h e y used I t , and what they used I t for? Medical this service? ever (If Yes)14. 1. with use) Approximately . family began working relatives use you you know about this (If Yes) 4. / Has anyone In your family used the s e r v i c e s o f t h e P u b l i c l l e . i l t h A-. . w i t h i n the last y e a r 7* Would you tell me who used these, the total number of tines they ueod these, and for what purpose? . Times Used Counseling Counseling 3. Material Goods (i.e., clothing, food, equipment, etc.) 4. Printed 5. Other reading material (specify) ________________ 6. How long has 7. Do any of 8. Approximately how far do you it been since your your friends family began working with or relatives use live from this this this agency?/ service? . Y e s / '"7 N o service? / / Miles *(If no reported use) 9. Do you know (If Yes) about this 10. Approximately 11. Do any of service? 12. Have you (If No) 13. (If Yes)14. service? your how Yes/ far do you friends or live from relatives use this service? Why haven't this service? you used it? How long ago was this? / /> E x l t M iles this Yes/ ever used / No 7 No / 7 Y e « Z Z 7 No / 7 Has anyone In your family used the a e r v l c o s o f tins C o o p w r n c t v o h ' x t o u a l o n S e r v i c e w i t h i n tlio l a s t y e a r ? T h i s 1 11c I n d u s t h e E x p a n d e d N u t r i t i o n Progrnra; r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s In L a k e C o u n t y I n clude Ms. L o u c l l a Ham i l t o n , Mr. Dostel, Nellie Kanno.* Would y o u t e l l m e w h o u s e d t h e s e , t h e total' n u m b e r o f tiroes t h e y u s e d i t , a n d what they used It for? 1. Advlco — 2. Demonstration, ing, education 3. Printed 4. Other counseling meeting, (specify)________________ 5. How long has Do your friends atyof It been since your 8. 2. 3. 9. you this live use began working with this from this service? agency? / _ _ _ _ _ _ V e s /~~7 this service? No _ _ _ _ _ _ _ service? Yes/ Approximately how far do 10. Do any of service? 11. Have you your friends ever used you live or from relatives use 13. Why haven't you used (If Yes) 14. How long ago was 7 7 / Miles No this service? / 7>E»lfc Miles this this service? (If No) anyone In your family Social Services within r?* Would you toll me total number of tines w h a t t h e y u s e d It for? Advice — frunlly relatives use) Do you know about (If Yes) 1. or Approximately how far do *(If no reported Has of yea the and train­ reading material 6. 7. No. of Times Used Yes/ 7 No/ I Yes/ 7 No/ / It? this? used the D e p t . the last w h o u s e d It, they used It, Times U: counseling Material goods (I.e. clothing, food, equipment, etc.) M o n e y __________________ 4. Printed reading material 5. Other (specify)________________ 6. H o w l o n g h a s I t b e e n s i n c e y o u r f a m i l y b e g a n w o r k i n g w i t h t h i s a g e n c y ? £ _ 7. . 8 Do any of your friends or Approximately how *(If no reported 9. far do 10. 11. 12. you use live from this this Y e s £ Z 7 service? ZZ7 No Klles service? use) Do you know about (If Yes) relatives this Yea / 7 service? A p p r o x i m a t e l y h o w f a r -d o service? Do any of ccrvice? Hove you (If No) 13. (If Yes) 14. you ever used thia APExlt live from this Miles your friends or Why haven't you Ho/ relatives use this service? used this service? How long ago was this? Yen/ 7 No / 7 Yea/ 7 No / / 129 7. Bas anyone In your fnmlly used Che Headstart Childcare Facility within the last year?* Would you tell me who uaeJ It, how long they used it, end what they used It for? t o. _cf Tiroes U s e d Medical or Dental Exam Medical advice — Education, Printed Other counseling training reading material (specify)_________________ 6, Bow long has 7, Do any of 8, Approximately how far do you *(If no 9, it been since your your friends or family began working with relatives use live from this facility?/ this service? Yes L J this service? l— l No M iles reported use) Do you (If Yes) know about this service? 10. Approximately 11. Do any of your service? 12. Have you ever Y e s / . _./ how far do you live from this friends or relatives use this ___ Yes used this (If No) 13. Why haven't (If Yes) 14. How long service? you used ago vas M o / Miles service? £__J Yes/__/ ___ ' No/ / Mo/ / this service? this? _____________ _______________ _____ Northeast Michigan Community Action, Inc. (MEMCA) C r 5-CAP 1. A dvice 2. Printed 3. Oth e r ( s p e c i f y ) ____________ 4. O t h e r ( s p e c i f y ) ____________ 5. How 6 . 7. Do — counseling reading long any has of it b e e n your Approximately (If past 8. H o w use long material Is since friends how far or do your family relatives y o u live use f rom began this this working service? service? with this a g e n c y ? / Yes CD n o Z Z 7 • M i l e s indicated) ago was this? _________ ______________ _________________________ _________ 130 9 ; Senior 1. Citizens ’ Advice — O r g a nization counseling 2. Printed 3. O t h e r ( s p e c i f y ) _____________ A. O t h e r ( s p e c i f y ) _____________ 5. H o w . 6 7. D o reading long any has of it your A pproximately (If past 8. How use long material b e e n since friends how is far or your family relatives do you live use from began this this Church-related 1. Advice — ago was Printed reading A. O t h e r ( s p e c i f y ) ____________ 5. H o w long has 6. Do 7. Approximately of 8. H o w Yes C J service? _ _ _ n o Z H 7 Miles T-»i.nc Moo. counseling O t h e r ( s p e c i f y ) ____________ past service? a g e n c y ? / Agencies 2. (If this __________________________________________________________ this? 3. any w ith indicated) Mr. ' rtf 10. working it your use long material been since friends how is ago far or d o your family relatives you live u s e from began this this working service? service? with this ag e n c y ? / Yes / / N o /~~7 Miles indicated) was this? ____________________ _____________________________________ 131 II. Has anyone In your family used the services of the Friends in Supplying Help (FISH) within the last yeari* Would you tell me who used these, the total number of times they used these, and for what purpose? 1. 2 . Mn. I 1 of . 'ilm.is i II :.Exit Yes/— '.(If No) 10. 12. Yes/ Do any of your friends or relatives use this service? U a .- O f . lin a iS - U s e d Other Advice— counseling 6 How long has it been since your family began working with this agency?/______ 7. Do any of your friends or relatives use this service? Yes/ 8. Approximately how far do you live from this service? 7 No/ 7 Miles *(If no reported use) 9. Do you know about this service? (If Yes) 10. •Yes/ Approximately how far do you live from this service?_ 7 No/ /♦Exit _Miles 11. Do any of your friends or relatives use this service? Yes/37 !!°/ '.1 12. Have you ever used this service? Yes/ (If no) 13. Why haven't you used it? (If Yes)14. How long ago was this? 7 No/ 7 132 There are many other services available in this area, some of which you h a v e probably R a t h e r t h a n w r i t e t h e m o u t s e p a r a t e l y I ’v e l i s t e d s o m e o f t h e o t h e r s o n t h i s Would you look these over and see whi c h ones your family has used? UBed. card. (Interviewer give list to respo n d e n t — wri t e in remainder) 13. 1. . Advice 2 Printed — counseling reading material 3. Other(specify) 4. O t h e r ( s p e c i f y ) ____________ 5. H o w 6 . 7. Do long any has of it your Approximately (If past 8. How use long bee n since friends h o w is or far your family relatives do you live began use working this from wit h this service? this agency?/ CD Yes service? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ n o £ Z 7 M i l ea indicated) ago w a s this? Nn_ T'linficyJlE.efi. nf 14. 1. 2. Advice — Printed counseling r e ading material 3. O t h e r ( s p e c i f y ) ____________ 4. O t h e r ( s p e c i f y ) ____________ 5. How long has it been since 6. D o a n y o f y o u r f r i e n d s o r 7. Approximately (If past 8. How u s e long h o w is ago far do your family relatives you l i v e was this? Functional Cont al/Dental Exam al/Dental treat al advice - cou al printed m a t e this this w ith service? this agency?/ Yes / / service? proceed to w i t h next question) selected agencies 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 acts: ment nsel r i a l a n 3 an A D M O O N o / M iles ■ Total Extent of Use (sum of family contact during last year) Sum of Ag e n c y Contacts (Circle number) of dic dic dic dic her u s e f rom working indicated) (Interviewer Sura Mc Me Me Me Ot began dvice - counsel emo, training, educ. aterial goods _ t h e r ther ________ CCD an an an 1 133 14. Let'8 go back to the ladder that we talked about earlier. You said your fanlly w a s o n R u n g No. ______ at the present time. If you had not used the services v s Just discussed, where d o you think your family would be on that scale? / (If response 1.1 Is less than previously reported Which services helped your family (record w h i c h agency/agencies) (Probe: 1.2 Any reach position on the ladder7 ________________________________________________ ■ __________________________________________ (Probe: response 2.1 Anything is higher else?) than earlier reported Which of these services have kept (record which agency/ agencies) (Probe: 15. current Probe:) others?) 2. 2.2 your LOS— H o w have they helped you? (record kind of service) 1. (If present / A n y you r present family LOS— from Probe:) reaching this higher level? others?) How have they kept your family from reaching this level? (record kind of service) 1_. ; ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ •y 4 L. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ■_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (Probe: Anything else?) Most families h ave needs or problems which the family by itself cannot solve. What other community services do you feel your family needs? Probe: . . (Obligator (interview verbally), help your . For yo . F o r yo y Probe) er revie is ther family a ur ch u and You w ans e any chiev ildren: your h said e wer 0 3 thing t e these usband/wife: arlier that verbally) a hat the comm goals or he y n u l our h d you nity p pre op r co ve e f u n s for the futu ears Included ld provide tha t those things re in (revi t you you supply or cluded ew answer t 4 feel would fear? 134 16. Let's suppose you w e r e o n the Board of D i r e c t o r s of o ne of the community s ervice agencies in your community and you were asked to list the three most important c h a n g e s y o u w o u l d m a k e i n t h e way t h i s a g e n c y s e r v e s t h e f a m i l i e s i n y o u r a r e a . What would the changes be? i.___________ . _______________; ________________________ z._______________________________________ ■ _____________ 3. ;_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 17. What doe s your household d o 18. Speaking in general terms, employment during the past how would year? you FULL-TIME 19. the head ED of 3/4 Does anyone else in Name ___________' TIME your / 7 1/2 household for living? d e s c r i b e TIME wor k a /7 for his/her 1/4 p a y ______ " /7 TIME o utside employment the NO home? or JOB Y e s / self- /7 / N o / / Occupation 20. Speaking in general terms, self-employment during the FULL-TIME / 21. 3/4 TIME ! 7 1/2 TIME / d e s cribe 7 1/4 his/her TIME employment or ED Sometimes having transportationmakes a diffe r e n c e as to what you can do. Does your family have some w a y of getting from your home to places you want to go? Yes / / N o / (If 22. 23. 7 how would you past year? Yes) Does your family own this v id e d by a social service In order to sort use characteristi income. Would yo your TOTAL NET HO (Card 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. given No income L ess than $ 1 , 0 0 0 to $ 2 , 0 0 0 to $ 3 ,000 to $ 4 , 0 0 0 to $5,000 to $6,000 to $7 , 5 0 0 to $10,000 an REMARKS: (by to the cs t u pl USEH information given hat are c o mmon to ease give m e the n OLD income for 197 you relying on transportation y— j pro­ /— b y families cooperating in this study, w e all families like ages, family size, and umber of the group that best describes 2? respondent) / / or a loss $1,000 $1,999 $2,999 $3,999 $4,999 $5,999 $7,499 $9,999 d over observation) 24. White or Nonwhite 25. Date: _________________ 26. Time 27. Interviewer: Taken: vehicle or are organization? (Black, Chicano, ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ] .............. / '_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . Indian, Oriental, Mixed) / / BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Allen, V. L. (ed.) Psychological Factors in Poverty. Institute for Research on Poverty Monograph Series, University of Wisconsin. Chicago: Markham, 1970. Cantril, H. The Patterns of Human Concerns. New Bruns­ wick, New Jersey: kutgers University Press, 1965. Chilman, C. S. Families in Poverty in the Early 1970*s: Rates, Associated Factors, Some Implications. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1975, 37, ~ Crawford, R. H. Communication for Change with Rural Dis­ advantaged. Washington, b. C. National Academy of Sciences, 1972, 1-11. Deacon, R. E., and Firebaugh, F. M. Home Management Context and Concepts. Boston: Houghton-hi£1lin, WTT. ~ ------- Feldman, H., and Feldman, M. Helping Families Leave Welfare: Four Strategies. Human Ecology Forum, Spring, 1975, 5, No. 4 , 16-19. Finn, J. A General Model for Multivariate Analysis. YorFI Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 19/4. New Ford, T. R. Value Orientations of a Culture of Poverty: The Southern Appalachian Case. Working with LowIncome_Families, Washington, D. C.: American Home Economics Association, 1965, 57-70. Free, L. A. and Cantril, H. C. The Political Beliefs of Americans. New York: Simon and Schuster, l9bH. Gartner, A. Services Do the Poor Use Them? 1970, 1, 71-72. Social Policy, Gross, I. H.; Crandall, E. W . ; and Knoll, M. M. Management for Modem Families (3rd. ed.). New York: AppletonCentury-Crofts, 1973. 136 137 Henshaw, B. M. Use of Selected Community Resources in Appalachian Ohio. Unpublished Master's thesis, Ohio State University, Columbus, 1969. Hollingshead, A. B. Two Factor Index of Social Position. United States: by the author, 1957. Mimeographed. Holloway, R. J., and Cardozo, R. N. Consumer Problems and Marketing Patterns in Low-Income Neighborhoods: An Exploratory Study. Minnesota: Universityof Minnesota Graduate School of Business Administra­ tion, May, 1969. Irelan, L. M. Health Practices of the Poor. In L. Irelan (Ed.), Low-Income Life Styles. Washington, D. C.: U. S.. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1967, 51-65. Kammeyer, K. 0., and Bolton, C. D. Community and Family Factors Related to the Use of a Family Service Agency. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1968, 3 0 , no. 3 r m ^ w : ----------------Kar, S. B. Individual Aspirations as Related to Acceptance of Family Planning. Unpublished doctoral disserta­ tion, University of California, Berkeley, 1966. Kiene, W. Evaluation of the Impact of Health Care on Activity Levels of the Rural Poor. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1972. Kluckhohn, F. R. Dominant and Variant Value Orientations. In C. Kluckhohn, et al. (Eds.), Personality in Nature, Society and Culture. New York; Alfred A. Knopf, 1 9 5 6 7 -----------Levine, R. A. The Poor Ye Need Not Have With You. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The M.l.T. Press, 1970. Love, H. G. The Reasons Participants Drop Out of the Food Stamp Program: A Case Study and Its Implications. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 52, N b T '3. 1971T, 387-394. - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ MacDonald, M. Why Don't More Eligibles Use Food Stamps. Discussion Paper 292-75, Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin, 1975. Mannino, F. V. An Ecological Approach to Understanding Family and Community Relationships. Journal of Home Economics, 1974, 66, 9-13. 138 Martin, N. W., and Dunkelberger, J. B. Aspirations and Family Progress. Highlights of Agricultural Research, 18:3, Alabama: Auburn University, 1971, pTTUI Maslow, A. H. Motivation and Personality. Harper, 1954". New York: McCormack, J., and Picou, J. Characteristics of the Disadvantaged. Communication for Change with the Rural Disadvantaged. Washington,' 1). 07 National Academy of Sciences, 1972, 108-110. Miller, B. K. Family-Community Resource Linkages and Their Relation to Selected Family Variables, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1974. Nelson, P. E. Michigan Food Stamp Program: A Partial Analysis of Performance. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1972, 54, No. 1, 51-39. Rainwater, L. Foreword. In J. B. Williamson, et al. Strategies Against Poverty in America. New York: Jdhh"TJiley“ and' Senas 7St’----------Rainwater, L. Neutralizing the Disinherited: Some Psychological Aspects of Understanding the Poor. In V. L. Allen (Ed.), Psychological Factors in Poverty. Institute for Research on Poverty Monograph Series, University of Wisconsin. Chicago: Markham, 1970, 9-28. Reissman, C. K. The Use of Health Services by the Poor. Social Policy, 1974, 5_, No. 1, 41-49. Rojek, D. G.; Clemente, F.; Summers, G. F. Community Satisfaction: A Study of Contentment With Local Service. Rural Sociology, 1975, 40, No. 2, 177-192. Rosen, B. C. Achievement Syndrone: A Psychocultural Dimension of Social Stratification. American Sociological Review, 1956, 21, 203-21T7 Sarbin, T. R. The Culture of Poverty, Social Identity, and Cognitive Outcomes. In V. L. Allen (Ed.), Psychological Factors in Poverty. Institute for Research on Poverty Monograph Series, University of Wisconsin. Chicago: Markham, 1970, 29-46. 139 Schlater, J. D. National Goals and Guidelines for Research in Home Economics, A Study .Sponsored by Association of Administrators of Home Economics, Michigan State University, 1970. Srole, L. Social Integration and Certain Corollaries. American Sociological Review, 1956, 2jL, 709-716. Stevens, C. L. Aspirations of.Married Student Husbands and Their Wives. Unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1964. Stockdale, J. D. Services for the Rural Poor. Working Paper No. H i , Department of kural Sociology, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, May, 1973. Therkildsen, P. and Reno, P. Cost-Benefit Evaluation of the Bernalillo County Work Experience Project. Welfare in Review, 1968, 6_, No. 2, 1-12. Tussing, A. D. Poverty in a Dual Economy. Martin's Press, 1975 . New York: St. U. S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports. Series P-60, No. 102 "Characteristics of the !Population Below the Poverty Level: 1974," U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C., 1976. Valentine, C. A. Culture and Poverty. of Chicago tress, Chicago: University Zurcher, L. A., Jr. Poverty Warriors. Research Series, 19/0. Hogg Foundation