• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Table of Contents
 Preface
 Summary and conclusions
 Introduction
 Economic conditions and trends
 Area population situation...
 Area employment and income conditions...
 Some measures of resource...
 Income differences by rurality...
 Adjustment potentials
 Appendix






Title: Income, resources and adjustment potential among rural families in North and West Florida
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00026908/00001
 Material Information
Title: Income, resources and adjustment potential among rural families in North and West Florida
Alternate Title: Bulletin 649 ; Florida Agricultural Experiment Station
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Reuss, Lawrence Adkins
Gilbraith, K. M.
Publisher: University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: December, 1962
Copyright Date: 1962
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00026908
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aen9794 - LTUF
18353399 - OCLC
000929030 - AlephBibNum

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Page 1
        Page 2
    Table of Contents
        Page 3
    Preface
        Page 4
    Summary and conclusions
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
    Introduction
        Page 9
        Page 10
    Economic conditions and trends
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
    Area population situation and trends
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
    Area employment and income conditions and trends
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
    Some measures of resource limitations
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
    Income differences by rurality of areas, farm and nonfarm households
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
    Adjustment potentials
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
    Appendix
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
Full Text
Bulletin 649
December 1962






I 1












Income, Resources, and
Adjustment Potentials \
among Rural Families in
North and West Florida

L. A. Reuss and K. M. Gilbraith


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 0 AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS 0 GAINESVILLE
J. R. BECKENB tLH, [ii'ethi
In cooperation vitih the Unired Sr.jt:c E c.a'rrr 'nt- :If .A.iriculturE























Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations, in Cooperation
with the United States Department of Agriculture, Economic
Research Service, Farm Economics Division.












CONTENTS
Page

Preface ----.... ..... .. ...................... ....... ....... 4

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ..........--....... .. .................. 5
Summary ..---........... .......------ ..............-- ..........-- ......- 5
Conclusions .-----------.---. ............-. -...--........-. 7

INTRODUCTION ....... --.......- ----- -------.............. 9
Purpose of Study ....-.. ...---------------.......................-- ...-- ..... 9
M ethod of Procedure ........................................ ............... 10

ECONOMIC CONDITIONS AND TRENDS ........-..-...--.......- ...........--- .... 11
The Physical Setting .........--.....-- .............-. .............. ..... 11
The Rural Economy ........---- ----....... ---....... .....----..... 12
The Survey Farms .----- ......------.....-----............- -------... 13
Type of farm ---.........----.. ----.......... ...--.......... .... 14
Size of farm .. -...... .... ---------.....................................- 15
Assets and net worth ............. -- --- ........... .... .................. 15
The Nonfarm Units of the Survey ................------....... -------......... 16

AREA POPULATION SITUATION AND TRENDS .......-- ---..... .... .....----------.... 18
The 1956 Population of the Survey Households .................................. 20
Size of household .---------.. -.. ... ... ...... ..------ ..... ...... 21

AREA EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME CONDITIONS AND TRENDS .................--------...... 22
Sources and Levels of Income of Survey Households ..........-................ 24
Cash income per capital ---------......----- -.... -- ...................... 27
Work Status of Survey Population --.......... ---....-- .........--......... 28
Work Status and Personal Income Levels .....---........-........-- ...-- ......... 29

SOME MEASURES OF RESOURCE LIMITATIONS ............--........------ ............ 31
Age, Education, and Disability of Heads of Households ................... ... 31

INCOME DIFFERENCES BY RURALITY OF AREAS, FARM AND
NONFARM HOUSEHOLDS ....... ......---.-- ....-....-----.. .............. .. 34

ADJUSTMENT POTENTIALS --....--......... ..-- .. ........ ---- ------.................. 37
General Adjustment Groups ........--............------ .......-------- .. 38

A PPENDIX ....-- ......----- -------............... ..............- -.....................- 43





















PREFACE

Public interest in the Rural Areas Development Program
and in resource use adjustment potentials for low-income prob-
lem areas prompted the publication of two mimeographed reports
containing preliminary statistics and analyses. The first ap-
peared in October 1958 under the title "Sources and Levels of
Income, Rural Households, North and West Florida, 1956" (Mim-
eo Report 59-4, Department of Agricultural Economics, Florida
Agricultural Experiment Stations). The second was entitled
"Resource Characteristics and Utilization and Level of Living
Items, Rural Households, North and West Florida, 1956" (Mimeo
Report 60-11, Department of Agricultural Economics, Florida
Agricultural Experiment Stations, March 1960). This, the final
printed report, analyzes and summarizes the findings of the
study and draws upon basic statistics contained in the mime-
ographed reports.










SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Summary
Despite substantial economic progress in the country, region,
and state, low-production and low-income situations persist in
rural areas of North and West Florida. The agriculture of the
area faces an adjustment problem arising partly from the trend
toward specialized agriculture nationally, the movement of cotton
production farther west, and the acreage-control programs for
the high-value crops. Few farms in the area are either large
scale or highly mechanized. There are limited numbers of high-
producing dairy, poultry, tobacco, and general farms, but many
small scale and subsistence farms remain. Capital values rest
mainly in real property with small additions for livestock, ma-
chinery, and equipment. The number of nonfarm households
in the study area approximately equals the number of farms
including the number of part-time and residential farms. Nearly
half of all households have net worths below $3,000. Family
net worths among the nonfarm households were substantially
below those of the farm households.
Population in the study area has increased more rapidly
than in the United States as a whole, but not as rapidly as
in the state itself. The parts of the area in which population
density is high are growing rapidly, while population in the
more rural counties has decreased. Among the sample house-
holds, the proportion of the population either below working
age or above the age of maximum physical effort is relatively
high, especially in the nonwhite households.
Employment is limited and incomes are low in the area.
Agriculture, forestry, and governmental employment, which
have been basic factors in the economy of the area for some
time, are augmented by rising employment in manufacturing,
trades, and services. The cash income of 730 survey house-
holds averaged $2,430 in 1956, exclusive of the values of housing
on farms and of the home-grown products consumed in the home.
Income from farming operations accounted for only 13.6 percent
of total income. Nonfarm employment was by far the most
important source of income. Nonemployment income consti-
tuted 20.5 percent of all income. Higher percentages of farm
than nonfarm households had family incomes of $3,000 and
successively higher levels.







6 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

Household average per capital incomes ranged upward to
almost $12,000 but averaged only $614. The per capital income
of nonfarm households exceeded that of farm households.
The proportion of the survey population in the labor force
was substantially below the national average. Among paid
workers, heads of nonfarm households attained higher levels
of personal income than did either heads of farm households
or household members other than heads of households.
Households headed by individuals with low levels of edu-
cation, with physical disabilities, and with low levels of capital
resources, as measured by household net worth, tended to fall
in the lower household average per capital income classes, as did
also the households headed by individuals 65 years of age or
older. Among the heads of households, 419 out of 730 heads of
households (57%) had six years or less of schooling. Of the
heads of households, 201 (28%) were 65 years of age or older,
and 76 (10%) were disabled. Two hundred fifty-eight heads of
households (35%) were under 65 years of age, had had seven
years or more of schooling, and were not physically disabled.
Household average per capital income levels tended to be
higher in the group of more urban counties and to decrease as
the counties increased in rurality.
The percentage of households containing someone inter-
ested in adult education was higher among the households headed
by the younger and better educated individuals than among
the older families, and higher among the farm households than
the nonfarm households.
The proportion of farmers who classified their farms as "too
small" tended to increase directly with household average per
capital income level, family net worth, educational level of the
head of the family, and commerciality of the farm. The propor-
tion tended to decrease with age of head of household and ru-
rality of the group of counties. Plans to enlarge farms con-
sidered too small were reported for 19 percent of the large-
scale commercial farms, 13 to 14 percent of the small-scale
commercial farms and the part-time farms, and 5 percent of the
residential farms.
"Cropland not in crops" as a measure of imbalance between
land, labor, and capital tended to increase directly with age and
disability of the head of the family and rurality of the area.
It decreased with increased level of schooling, family net worth,
and commerciality of the farm.








Adjustment Potentials Among Rural Families 7

The mobility of labor is believed to decrease with age and
the accompanying assumption of family and household respon-
sibilities and area affiliations. Among the survey population
14 years of age and older, 293 persons, or 15 percent, were still
in school. The adjustment opportunities of this group are con-
sidered to be of prime importance. Exclusive of the students,
more than half of the population (14 years and older) had per
capital incomes below $1,500 and were 45 years or more of age.
General adjustment groupings based on age, head of household
responsibility, marital status, and income level are considered
to represent problem situations differing sufficiently to make
desirable the formulation of programs of adjustment aid tailored
to the needs of the particular group.

Conclusions
The higher per capital incomes reported in the group of urban
counties, compared to the other groups of more rural counties,
suggest the importance of urban centers in program planning
and operation. Development areas should be delineated with
due reference to Gainesville, Tallahassee, Pensacola, and Jack-
sonville as centers of trade, job opportunities, education, and
leadership.
The low levels of schooling revealed in this study suggest
the need for more training, education, career exploration, and
aptitude testing. An educational program might include such
things as a campaign to reduce drop-outs, student assistance
by grant and scholarship, redirection of vocational training,
and instruction and supervision to farmers. The educational
institutions and facilities of the urban centers of the area should
be able to contribute greatly to such a program.
The interest in farm enlargement displayed by the younger
and more commercial farmers suggests that lenders of capital
might give special attention to the needs of this group who have
the will to enlarge their operations and expand production. The
credit needs of farmers with adjustment potentials in commer-
cial agriculture differ from those of farmers who likely cannot
attain scale but can adopt better practices and techniques.
The presence of small farms, idle cropland, and the desire
of some operators to expand production suggests group action
to promote farm enlargement. An improved community infor-
mation center or other means might be found to encourage resi-
dential, part-time, and subsistence farmers to make their idle







8 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

lands available to commercial farmers by sale or lease and to
promote custom use of machinery where beneficial. Forestry,
conservation, and other agencies and groups might develop
means of increasing the planting of pine on small holdings which
would otherwise remain idle.
In brief, this study suggests the need for: more and better
education, testing, and vocational guidance, especially for the
youth of the area; credit, farm enlargement, and land consol-
idation assistance for farmers with a potential to increase prof-
itable production; credit and management supervision for farm-
ers who cannot attain large scale of operation; and justifiable
expansion in coverage of social security, welfare, and other
transfer programs for the low income groups who are unable
to make other adjustments.









INCOME, RESOURCES, AND ADJUST-
MENT POTENTIALS AMONG RURAL
FAMILIES IN NORTH AND
WEST FLORIDA

L. A. REUSS AND K. M. GILBRAITH1

INTRODUCTION
Although high levels of production and income have been
widely attained in the United States, many low-income families
are found throughout the nation. In certain areas, especially
in agriculture, concentrations of these low-income families have
long persisted. They cause increasing concern at national, state,
and local levels. Florida contains a part of the low-income area
that has persisted in the Southeast for several decades. It is
with the rural segment of this low-income area that this report
is concerned.
To help alleviate the low-income problem, the cooperative
Federal-State Rural Areas Development Program and other
programs oriented specifically to economic development through
adjustments in resource uses are being carried on by govern-
mental and civic organizations in many parts of the country.
The successful development and implementation of both local
and national programs require more detailed knowledge than
is provided by the usual sources of secondary data.

Purpose of Study
The study reported was designed to obtain detailed infor-
mation concerning the incomes, resources, and personal char-
actertistics of rural people living in low-income areas in North
and West Florida and the interrelationships among these income
and resource characteristics. Its specific objectives were as
follows:
(1) To ascertain the levels and sources of cash income of farm
and nonfarm families living in the area.
(2) To relate the characteristics, organization, and utilization
of resources to sources and levels of income.
Reuss: Agricultural Economist, Farm Economics Division, Economic
Research Service. Gilbraith: formerly Agricultural Economist, Farm Eco-
nomics Division, Economic Research Service; presently Associate Market-
ing Specialist in Vegetable Crops, Florida Agricultural Extension Service.







10 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

(3) To provide a classification of low-income problem situ-
ations based on adjustment potentials.

Method of Procedure
For purposes of the study, a special delineation was made
of the open country portion of North and West Florida. Twenty
counties were involved. Five Gulf Coast counties (Bay, Gulf,
Franklin, Liberty, and Wakulla) were excluded because of the
indicated low number of farms and rural residents. Within the 20
counties, identifiable irrelevant and unimportant territories were
excluded from the area to be studied. Excluded areas consisted
of incorporated towns, cities, and villages; other closely settled
or built-up areas; national and state forests and purchase units;
military reservations; Gulf Coast fringe and beach zones; and
large swamp areas with few inhabitants (Fig. 1).
Key Map


West Florida
West Florida North Florida










Figure 1.-Location of study area.
SURVEY COUNTIES
Alachua Escambia Holmes Leon Suwannee
Baker Gadsden Jackson Madison Union
Calhoun Gilchrist Jefferson Okaloosa Walton
Columbia Hamilton Lafayette Santa Rosa Washington

The sampling plan in the survey made use of basic materials
and techniques developed in connection with the Master Sample
of Agriculture.2 In broad terms, the procedures constituted
a two-stage geographically stratified area probability sample.
The delineated open-country zone was divided into counting

2 See Agricultural Handbook 67, "Application of Probability Area
Sampling to Farm Surveys," by Earl E. Houseman and J. J. Reed, Agri-
cultural Marketing Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, May 1954.







Adjustment Potentials Among Rural Families 11

units; in turn, these units were divided into segments or sub-
areas. In the absence of a list of farms and dwellings, these
procedures provided the basis for unambiguous definition and
identification of clusters of houses indicated on the map. Thus,
small areas of land were used as sampling units, and each had
a known probability of being selected. The information required
for the survey was obtained in the summer of 1956 by personal
interview by trained enumerators who visited all dwellings in
the sample segments. Seven hundred thirty usable schedules
of information were obtained. Data refer to the year 1956.

ECONOMIC CONDITIONS AND TRENDS
In recent decades, the North and West Florida areas have
been subject to many of the same forces that have been at work
in other agricultural areas of the United States and have shown
many of the same basic trends. Farms have become fewer in
number and larger in size. The acreage of cropland harvested
has declined a little. More important, however, it has tended
to become concentrated on the larger commercial farms. Young
people and nonwhites especially have been leaving the farms
and rural areas. During the last two decades, military estab-
lishments and new industries have increased employment di-
rectly and have stimulated related growth in trades and ser-
vices. Some counties in the study area have gained population
and are reaping the cumulative effects of trends toward more
intensive use of labor and capital in urban and industrial pur-
suits. Others have lost population as they shifted to a less
intensive use of land resources, such as grazing and forestry.

The Physical Setting
In natural fertility, the soils of the study area are reasonably
comparable to those in other parts of the Coastal Plain of the
Southeast. They are predominantly well-drained sands, sandy
loams, and loamy sands of the upland and ridge areas of the
state. Deep sands occur on the higher ridges. The poorly
drained flatlands lie largely outside the study area.
The average annual rainfall of 50 to 60 inches is ample for
agriculture. However, sandy soils, high temperatures, and
ridge topography are conducive to development of drought-
like conditions in a short time. Sprinkler irrigation is used on







12 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

limited acreages of such high value crops as tobacco and spring
vegetables.
North and West Florida enjoy a relatively long growing
season, usually exceeding 240 days. Because killing frosts are
likely annually, spring and summer crops predominate rather
than the specialized winter crops found in Central and South
Florida.
The Rural Economy
Cropland, grazing land, and forest land are intermingled in
the study area. About a third of the land area in West Florida
is in farms. A relatively large proportion of the limited farm-
land is used for crops, particularly field crops, which include
those grown for feed and forage and such others as cotton, to-
bacco, and peanuts. Most of the rural land outside farms is
commercial forest land with a moderate-to-high proportion of
well-stocked commercial stands of pine. In North Florida about
half the land is in farms and more of the farmland is idle crop-
land and woodland grazed than in West Florida. Present land
cover and land use conditions, as well as the economic situation,
have been influenced by depletion of saw-timber stands and
naval stores and by the declining production of cotton. Recently,
however, forestry has increased in importance. The stumpage
value of slash pine for pulp and other uses has risen substan-
tially. Active tree planting programs are underway. Paper
companies and other corporations have increased their holdings
of forestland and have raised the average level of timber man-
agement.
Compared with the prewar period, crop values in recent years
in North and West Florida have benefited from higher yields
and higher prices for the products. Tobacco is the dominant
source of crop receipts, but tobacco acreage expansions are sub-
ject to an allotment program. Peanuts, another allotment crop,
rank second in crops receipts. Farmers have been faced with the
problem of deciding upon other uses for acreages previously
used for cotton. The harvested acreage of cotton declined by
60,000 acres from 1935 to 1959, and present acreages are allotted.
Soybeans have been introduced in the area; they are important
in Escambia and Okaloosa counties. The acreage of oats has
increased in recent years. A large acreage is planted to corn,
more than half of which is harvested for grain. The rest is
hogged-off or grazed. Corn and peanuts planted alone or inter-








Adjustment Potentials Among Rural Families 13

planted constitute a major source of feed for hogs. Low levels
of fertilization and very low yields are common on fields of corn
and peanuts grown for this purpose.
In 1954 area receipts from the sale of livestock and livestock
products amounted approximately to $21 million. Although
nearly a third of the receipts came from the sale of hogs and
pigs, the proportion of livestock receipts from sales of cattle
and calves, chickens, eggs, and milk increased in relative im-
portance from 1949 to 1954. Receipts from the sale of milk,
cattle, and calves have increased.
Many factors have contributed to the changes in agriculture
in the study area. Important among these factors are acreage
allotments, a rise in the farm wage rate, and competition from
highly mechanized farms in other areas. Some farmers with
small allotments have stopped growing cotton, while others
continue on a reduced scale. Many have placed their cotton
land in the Soil Bank. Some operators have consolidated allot-
ments through lease or purchase and have mechanized their
operations to reduce labor requirements. Because grain and
livestock require less labor per dollar of output, increases in
wage rates have tended to increase the net income position of
these products relative to cotton, tobacco, and peanuts. Changes
in the direction of more grain and livestock have been aided
by incentive payments and technical aid under such programs
as the Agricultural Conservation Program, Soil Conservation
Districts, and the Soil Bank Program.

The Survey Farms
The 368 survey farms consisted largely of low production
farms, small units, and full or part ownership of farmland. There
were more white than nonwhite operators, also more field-crop
farming than livestock farming. Nevertheless, farms were
found in a wide variety of categories of tenure, production, type,
and size. Differences existed in such things as land use, level
of mechanization, farm and nonfarm assets, and net worth. In
many of these respects, there were significant differences be-
tween the 283 farms operated by white families and the 85 farms
operated by nonwhite families.3

"See the Appendix to this report and earlier mimeographed reports
listed in the Preface for more detailed information concerning the char-
acteristics of the farms surveyed.








14 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

TYPE OF FARM
Tobacco, peanuts, and hogs were important farm enterprises.
Because farms with a balanced combination of enterprises tended
to be classified as "general farms," this was the type most fre-
quently found in the survey (Table 1). There were 65 of these
farms followed in descending order by 53 tobacco, 28 peanut,
25 hog, 12 cotton, 10 dairy, and 21 farms of all other types.
Farms of nonwhite operators were mainly tobacco and peanut
farms with some general farms and cotton farms. Although
the farms of the white operators included many classified as
general, tobacco, hog, and peanut farms, a variety of other types
were included also. All or nearly all of the dairy, hog, poultry,
other livestock, and cash grain farms were operated by white
families. Within the same type of farming, the white operators
tended to attain higher economic levels than the nonwhite oper-
ators. The more profitable farms varied considerably in type.
Apparently no particular type or size of farm that is highly
profitable prevails throughout the area.

TABLE 1.-TYPE OF FARM, 214 COMMERCIAL FARMS, NORTH AND WEST
FLORIDA, 1956.*

Farms Percentage
Type of Farm Reporting of Total

Number Percent
Crop farms ---------- .....-----------.............. 99 46
Tobacco farms ......---.....................--------.. 53 25
Peanut farms ..----.....................------.. ---.... 28 13
Cotton farms .............................------------------ 12 5
Cash grain farms ..- .............................. 4 2
Other field crop farms .................. ......... 2 1
Livestock farms --....---... ...........------- --- 43 20
Hog farms .-..-----.................. -------.. 25 12
Dairy farms ........ ................. 10 5
Poultry farms ------ ----------------- 3 1
Other ................. ----- .. 5 2
Vegetables, fruit, and nut farms ..........------.......... 5 2
General farms ..................... --------------- 65 31
Miscellaneous farms ............................... ......... 2 1

TOTAL ........................ .............................. 214 100

For definitions of type of farm see U. S. Bureau of Census, 1954 Census of Agriculture,
Volume I, Part 10.








Adjustment Potentials Among Rural Families 15

SIZE OF FARM
The average size of farm was 150 acres, but the farms oper-
ated by whites averaged 174, and those operated by nonwhites
averaged 73 acres. Among the commercial farms, average acres
operated and average cropland acreage tended to be progres-
sively larger as the economic class increased. The 48 farms in
Economic Classes I, II, and III constituted 13 percent of all
farms and contained 40 percent of all land in farms.4 White
farmers in Economic Classes IV, V, and VI compared with non-
white farmers in the same economic classes had about the same
average acreage of cropland but had more land in pasture and
woods.
In the study area, the size of farm is often measured in terms
of acres of cropland used. One-fourth of the commercial farmers
and more than five-sixths of the noncommercial farmers reported
less than 30 acres of cropland used. At the other extreme,
only 30 farmers, 8 percent of all farmers, reported cropland in
excess of 150 acres. In general terms, as the gross value of
products sold increased, there was an increase in average acre-
age of cropland used.

ASSETS AND NET WORTH
Farm assets owned by the operator averaged $13,600 and
consisted mainly of the value of farm real estate (Table 2). Farm
assets were unevenly distributed among the farms, with the
48 farms (13 percent) in Ecomonic Classes I, II, and III inclusive
having nearly 50 percent of the value of total resources reported
by the 368 farm operators. As might be expected, average
investments increased with farm productivity and ranged from
an average of $4,700 for 91 residential farms to an average of
$123,000 for the three farms in Economic Class I. Among farms
in the same economic class, average investments were lower on
farms with nonwhite operators than on farms with white oper-
ators. However, as shown earlier, tenancy was higher among
the nonwhite than among the white farmers.
Although the farm families surveyed reported nonfarm as-
sets valued at about a half million dollars in 1956, two-thirds
of this total was reported by only 17 farm families. Sixteen
of these families were commercial farm families and 15 were
white. At the other extreme, almost 45 percent of the farm

SSee Appendix Table 2 for definitions of economic classes of farms.








16 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

households reported no nonfarm assets. Ninety-five percent
of the nonfarm assets were held by white farm families.
The net worth position (assets less liabilities) of the farm
families was quite low. About a third of the white farm fam-
ilies and four-fifths of the nonwhite farm families had net worth
of less than $5,000. As might be expected, net worth increased
with the economic level of the farm.

TABLE 2.-AVERAGE VALUE OF MAJOR FARM ASSETS, 868 FARM HOUSEHOLDS,
NORTH AND WEST FLORIDA, 1956.

Average Value Percentage
Item of Assets of Total
Dollars Percent
Farm real estate ..................... ---.... ... 10,700 79
Livestock ..........---- ................. ..... 1,400 10
Machinery and equipment ..----.............. ........... 1,500 11
TOTAL ........... ..... -...... ---- ...... --- 13,600 100


The Nonfarm Units of the Survey
The 1956 survey included 362 nonfarm households. Of these,
226 consisted of "house-and-lot" units and 136 of acreagess,"
that is, nonfarm units of 3 acres or more. Nearly three-fifths
of the nonfarm units were fully owned. An additional one-
fourth were provided for the occupant rent-free by employers
or others (Table 3). Among the survey nonfarm units, low-
value dwellings predominated, with 35 percent valued at less
than $500 and 68 percent at less than $2,000. The low cash cost

TABLE 3.-TENURE OF 362 NONFARM UNITS, NORTH AND WEST
FLORIDA, 1956.
Nonfarm Units
Tenure House and Lot Acreages
Number Number
Owned .......-................... .... ----------- 88 122
Provided free by employer or other person .......... 88 2
Rented ...................-- ...-- .. --.. -.. .---.-- --- 43 5
Undivided estates ...... ---...------..... ---------. 0 7
Not ascertained ......................-....... .. ----- 7 0
TOTAL .... -----...-..-..-----.. ....-.--------- 226 136








Adjustment Potentials Among Rural Families 17

of housing including heating probably tends to keep people in
the area.
The average net worth of nonfarm families was low. Fifty-
five percent of the nonwhite families on nonfarm units reported
net worths of less than $500, and less than 7 percent reported
$5,000 or more. By comparison, 30 percent of the white house-
holds reported less than $500 and 30 percent more than $5,000.
The average net worth of nonfarm families was substantially
below that of farm families (Fig. 2).

Percent

100

Farm households
80 \




SI
60 /
40 i
/

20 /
Nonfarm
..-- households






O O O O 008
0 0 0 8 000
O 0 0 0 ) -









Figure 2.--Percentage of farm and nonfarm households above selected
levels of family net worth0000 North and West Florida 1956.
0 0 0 0000-4
0 0 0 0000
0 0 0 0 000

*5



Family net worth
Figure 2.-Percentage of farm and nonfarm households above selected
levels of family net worth, North and West Florida, 1956.







18 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

AREA POPULATION SITUATION AND TRENDS
Average population densities ranged from 5 to 265 persons
per square mile in 1960 in the survey counties. Only Escambia
and Leon counties exceeded the state average of 91. Most of
the counties in the study area fell within the density range of
10 to 30 persons per square mile. Such densities were low rel-
ative to other areas in the Southeast but were substantially
higher than those in some rural counties in Central and South
Florida.
In the United States and in the State of Florida, population
rose at an increasing rate during the period 1930-60. The same
type of change occurred in the study area, but the rate of change
was not as great as it was in the state as a whole. Disparate
trends within the area are revealed by comparing aggregate
population changes for a group of five counties with rapidly
increasing populations, a group of seven counties with relatively
stable to slightly increasing populations, and a group of eight
counties with declining populations. In general, the five coun-
ties (with increasing population) contain or are located near
urban centers, and the eight counties (with declining popula-
tion) are basically rural in character. For the latter group,
total population increased slightly from 1930 to 1940 and then
decreased at an increasing rate from 1940 to 1960 (Table 4).
The rural farm population of Florida increased from 1930
to 1940 and then decreased from 1940 to 1950. Compared with
the trend in the state as a whole, North and West Florida coun-
ties experienced a substantially smaller percentage increase
from 1930 to 1940 and a slightly smaller percentage decrease
from 1940 to 1950. This resulted in a net decline, from 1930
to 1950, that was slightly above the state average. The five
more urban counties lost rural farm population at a substan-
tially higher rate from 1940 to 1950 than did the other, more
rural counties.
Increases in population from 1930 to 1960 came in the non-
farm segment. In this respect, the counties in the study area
lagged behind the state, largely because of the modest increases
occurring in the eight more rural counties where over-all popu-
lation was on the decline. The percentage increases occurring
in the five urban counties were large.
Further decreases in population are indicated for some coun-
ties in North and West Florida, barring high immigration into
these counties or great change in other population factors. This








Adjustment Potentials Among Rural Families 19

is because of the recent decreases in numbers in the high fer-
tility age class and in numbers attaining marriageable age. Be-
tween 1940 and 1950, the eight-county group in the study area
had a decrease of nearly 3,500 in the number of females aged
15 through 39 years.

TABLE 4.-TOTAL POPULATION IN 1960 AND ANNUAL RATE OF CHANGE IN
UNITED STATES, FLORIDA, AND STUDY AREA, NORTH AND WEST FLORIDA,
1930-40, 1940-50, AND 1950-60.*

Total Annual Rate of Change
Area Population
1960 1930-40 1940-50 1950-60

Thousands Percent Percent Percent
United States ......---..-... --.. ............ 179,323 +0.7 +1.4 +1.9
Florida ...................................... 4,952 +2.9 +4.6 +7.9
North and West Florida
study area (20 counties) ........ 622 +1.5 +2.4 +3.0
5 counties with rapidly in-
creasing populations .-- 413 +2.8 +5.4 +5.4
7 counties with fairly stable
to moderately increasing
populations ..-.. ----........... ----141 +0.5 +0.5 +0.6
8 counties with declining
populations. .............-----... ..... 68 +0.5 -0.8 -1.2

Source: U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census.
** Alachua, Escambia, Leon, Okaloosa, and Santa Rosa counties.
SBaker, Columbia, Gadsden, Jackson, Madison, Union, and Walton counties.
$ Calhoun, Gilchrist, Hamilton, Holmes, Jefferson, Lafayette, Suwannee, and Washing-
ton counties.

In 1960, more than a fourth of the population of the sample
counties was nonwhite. This exceeded the proportion in Flor-
ida and in the United States. Nearly two-thirds of the non-
white population was concentrated in the four counties of Ala-
chua, Escambia, Leon, and Jackson. In the more urban counties,
the absolute number of nonwhites tended to be very high and
the proportion of the population that was nonwhite tended to
be only moderately high. The more rural counties had low ab-
solute numbers compared to the more urban counties, but in 1960
they had proportion of nonwhite population ranging from 4 per-
cent in one county to 59 percent in another. In the United States,
the nonwhite population increased more rapidly than the white
population from 1940 to 1960. The reverse was true in Florida
and in the study area.







20 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

The 1956 Population of the Survey Households5
The 730 sample households contained a total of 2,887 indi-
viduals. While nonwhite households constituted 32 percent of
all households, nonwhite individuals accounted for 36 percent of
the total population because of the larger size of nonwhite
families.
Almost three-fifths of the sample population-compared with
about half in the United States as a whole-consisted of persons
below 20 or over 64 years of age. The proportions of the popu-
lation below working age and above the age of maximum physical
effort were substantially higher among the nonwhite than among
the white population. Persons aged 20 through 64 years made
up 46 percent of the white population compared with 35 percent
of the nonwhite population. Thus emigration appears to be
more selective with respect to age among members of the non-
whites than among members of the white survey households.
The male population had larger proportions both below the
age of 20 and beyond 64 years of age, and conversely, a smaller
proportion in the working age groups than the female popula-
tion. This was true for both the white and nonwhite popula-
tions. However, among individuals in the working age groups
(20 to 64 years) the ratio of females to males was 1.1 to 1 in the
white population and 1.4 to 1 in the nonwhite population, indi-
cating that emigration was somewhat more selective with respect
to sex among the nonwhite population than among the white
population of the survey households.
Population distribution based on relationship to the family
head is shown in Table 5. The nuclear family (fathers, mothers,
and their offspring) constituted 95 of each 100 individuals in
the total population. The remaining 5 percent consisted of
parents, other relatives, and other persons. The nonwhite popu-
lation had greater proportions of children, other relatives, and
other persons, and a smaller proportion of family heads and
spouses than the white population. Within the nonwhite popu-
lation, there were 550 offspring at home for each 1,000 persons
compared with 466 offspring at home per 1,000 white persons.
Relatives, including parents of the household heads, and unre-
lated persons accounted for 7.2 percent of the nonwhite popula-
tion compared with 3.9 percent of the white population. Other

S See Appendix to this report and earlier mimeographed reports listed
in the Preface for more detailed information concerning the characteristics
of the families surveyed.








Adjustment Potentials Among Rural Families 21

relatives and other persons in the household frequently repre-
sented added financial burdens on the workers.

TABLE 5.-NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL POPULATION
BY RELATIONSHIP TO HOUSEHOLD HEAD AND BY RACE, 730 RURAL HOUSE-
HOLDS, NORTH AND WEST FLORIDA, 1956.

Relationship of Population Percentage of Total
Relationship of
Household Member Non- Non-
to Family Head Total White white Total White white

Number Number Number Percent Percent Percent
Head of household .... 730 496 234 25.3 27.0 22.3
Spouse ....................... 576 413 163 19.9 22.5 15.5
Children ..................... 1,433 857 576 49.6 46.6 55.0
Parent ........................ 34 21 13 1.2 1.1 1.2
Other relative ........... 103 50 53 3.6 2.7 5.1
Other persons ........... 11 2 9 0.4 0.1 0.9
TOTAL .................... 2,887 1,839 1,048 100.0 100.0 100.0


Among the white population, there were approximately five
couples (heads of household and spouse) to each head of house-
hold unaccompanied by a spouse. Among the nonwhite popu-
lation, almost a third of the household heads were unaccompa-
nied by a spouse (single, separated, divorced, widowed). Of
the 730 sample households, 14.6 percent had female family
heads. The female heads were equally divided (53 to 52) be-
tween white and nonwhite households. However, females con-
stituted 10 percent of white family heads and 22 percent of non-
white family heads.

SIZE OF HOUSEHOLD
Average family size by type of household and race is shown
in Table 6. Family size averaged slightly less than four mem-
bers for the 730 households. On the average, farm families
were considerably larger than nonfarm families. Within the
farm households, commercial farm families averaged smallest
and part-time farm families largest. This was true for white
and nonwhite households, although, as mentioned earlier, non-
white families were substantially larger than white families
for all household types.
While family size averaged approximately four persons, a
large number of the households had six or more members. House-








22 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

holds of six or more members accounted for 18 percent of all
white households compared with 31 percent of nonwhite house-
holds. White families of two, three, and four members were
especially numerous, as were nonwhite families of eight or more
members. More than one in six of the nonwhite households
had eight or more members compared with about one house-
hold of this size for each 20 white households. Most of the
households having only one member were located on nonfarm
units. Most of the commercial farms were operated by white
families with two to five members; and families on part-time
farms had relatively larger proportions in the larger family
size classes than did the other types of households.

TABLE 6.-AVERAGE FAMILY SIZE BY TYPE OF HOUSEHOLD AND RACE, 730
RURAL HOUSEHOLDS, NORTH AND WEST FLORIDA, 1956.

Average Family Size
Type of Household All White Nonwhite
Households Households Households
Number Number Number
Farms:
Residential ....... .................... 4.34 3.84 5.52
Part time ................................ 5.27 5.07 5.67
Commercial .-..................... 3.86 3.75 4.38
All farms ................... ... .......... 4.22 3.97 5.06
Nonfarms ...... ......................... .... 3.68 3.36 4.15
ALL HOUSEHOLDS ............... 3.95 3.71 4.48


AREA EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME CONDITIONS
AND TRENDS

Reports of the Florida Industrial Commission concerning
the numbers of employees reveal the importance of agriculture,
the low level of manufacturing, and the importance of govern-
ment employment in North and West Florida. Employment has
been on the increase in all major industry groups except agricul-
ture, forestry, and fishing. Greatest percentage increases have
taken place in trades, services and related industries, and in the
manufacturing and construction group.
From 1950 to 1956, workers covered by the Florida Unem-
ployment Compensation Act in units with eight or more em-
ployees increased by more than 20,000 including about 6,300
in manufacturing establishments. Employment in manufactur-







Adjustment Potentials Among Rural Families 23

ing increased, especially in Escambia County. Employment in
nonmanufacturing establishments, which includes substantial
numbers in trades and services, increased by about 14,000. The
bulk of this increase occurred in the five more urban counties
of the study area.
Personal income remains low relative to averages for Flor-
ida and for the United States. This is true despite substan-
tial increases in recent years. Per capital income in the sample
counties in 1958 averaged $1,395 compared with $1,878 in Flor-
ida and $2,057 in the United States. However, the area increase
in per capital income from 1950 to 1958 was 53 percent compared
with 46 percent in all of Florida and 38 percent in the United
States.
In the more urban counties with increasing populations, per
capital income increased by $472, or 43 percent, from the 1950
level of $1,097. The group of eight rural counties had a lower
percentage increase in total personal income, but with a declin-
ing population, they had an increase in per capital income of
$356, which was 61 percent of the 1950 income of $584. With
a 53 percent increase in income, the group of seven counties of
rather stable population realized a somewhat similar increase
($373 or 51 percent) in per capital income, since their popula-
tions increased only slightly. Within each group of counties,
there were marked differences among the counties.
About seven-tenths of all income consisted of labor income
in the form of net wages, salaries, and other labor income. The
more urban counties were high in this regard, whereas the more
rural counties were quite low. The proportion of all income
from property (dividends, interest, rents, and royalties) tended
to be low in the more rural counties. Conversely, proprietors'
income (net income of proprietors or unincorporated businesses
including farmers) and transfer payments tended to be high
in the more rural counties of the study area.
Data concerning sources of income in the study area reveal
the dependence of the rural counties on agriculture and the im-
portance of incomes from governments to Florida, especially in
the five more urban counties of the study area. It is to be
noted that this group of five counties includes the sites of the
state capital, the University of Florida, and several major mil-
itary installations.








24 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

Sources and Levels of Income of Survey Households
The 730 survey households reported total cash income of
$1.77 million in 1956. The average was $2,430, and the range
was from -$2,186 to +$39,510.
The cases of negative cash incomes, numbering 22 in all,
arose from excesses of cash costs over farm sales because of
such things as crop damage from drought or flood, production
for home consumption rather than for sale, and increases in
inventories of crops, livestock, or feed.
Income from farming operations accounted for only 13.6
percent of total income, and farms accounted for only 50 per-
cent of the households (Tables 7 and 8). The combined income
from farm operations and farm wage work amounted to less
than one-fifth of all income and less than income from non-
employment (other) sources. By far the most important source
was income from nonfarm employment.

TABLE 7.-AGGREGATE CASH INCOME BY MAJOR SOURCES, 730 RURAL HOUSE-
HOLDS, NORTH AND WEST FLORIDA, 1956.

Major Sources Cash Income Percentage of Total
Dollars Percent
Farm operation ................................ 241,705 13.6
Work on (other) farms ...................... 102,193 5.8
Nonfarm employment ........................ 1,065,488 60.1
Other ................................. ......... 364,432 20.5
ALL SOURCES .................................. 1,773,818 100.0

TABLE 8.-CASH INCOME, BY TYPE OF HOUSEHOLD, 730 RURAL HOUSEHOLDS,
NORTH AND WEST FLORIDA, 1956.

Per- Cash Income
Per-
Type of House- centage Per- Per
Household holds of Total Total centage House-
of Total hold

Number Percent Dollars Percent Dollars
Farms
Residential .............. 91 12.5 209,140 11.8 2,298
Part time* ............... 63 8.6 162,834 9.2 2,585
Commercial ............. 214 29.3 555,429 31.3 2,595
All farms ................... 368 50.4 927,403 52.3 2,520
Nonfarms ..................-. 362 49.6 846,415 47.7 2,338
ALL HOUSEHOLDS 730 100.0 1,773,818 100.0 2,430

As defined by Census of Agriculture, 1954.







Adjustment Potentials Among Rural Families 25

The importance of different income sources varied consider-
ably between types of households (Table 9). As was to be ex-
pected, income from nonfarm employment was of greater im-
portance to nonfarm than farm families. Income from farm
wage work was also of greater importance to nonfarm families
and, although it accounted for only 5.8 percent of total income,
nonfarm families who reported this source averaged a significant
$862. Total income from "other" sources (other than farm
operation and employment) included property income; military
payments; social security; public assistance items of aid to de-
pendent children, the aged, blind, and disabled along with un-
employment insurance; and miscellaneous items such as aid
from relatives and unspecified sources (Figs. 3 and 4). The
total was almost equally divided between farm and nonfarm
households and was almost equally important from a percentage
standpoint. However, it was higher on the average for farm
households.

TABLE 9.-AVERAGE CASH FAMILY INCOME BY TYPE OF HOUSEHOLD AND
BY MAJOR INCOME SOURCES, 730 RURAL HOUSEHOLDS, NORTH AND WEST
FLORIDA, 1956.

Income Sources
Type of House- Farm Work on Non-
Household holds All Oper- Other farm Other
Sources ation Farms Work

Number Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars
Farms
Residential ........... 91 2,298 -112 60 1,837 513
Part time .............. 63 2,585 -16 198 1,860 543
Commercial .......... 214 2,595 1,182 27 905 481
All farms ....-.....-...... 368 2,520 657 65 1,299 499
Nonfarms ........-........ 362 2,338 ........ 216 1,623 499
ALL HOUSEHOLDS 730 2,430 331 140 1,460 499


Five hundred thirty-six (74 percent) of the families had
cash incomes below $3,000. Proportionally more farm than non-
farm households registered family incomes at the $3,000 and
succeedingly higher levels (Fig. 5). It will be recalled that
farm families had substantially higher levels of net worth to
make contributions to the family income.








26 Florida .4l,, ;,,lt ,,, ol Experiment Stations




Social security -------- 4 Military benefits
11.4%.z. ."x 19.6%
Unemployment ----
insurance .
.8%

Property ----+*/
income
20.3% :: Other


f Old age
assistance
42.8%





Figure 3.-Percentage distribution of aggregate income from non-
employment sources by major source, 730 rural households, North and
West Florida, 1956.




Military $1,114
benefits


Social security $784



Property income $772


Old age $719
assistance


Miscellaneous $450



Unemployment $264
insurance

Figure 4.-Average income per reporting household from nonemploy-
ment sources by major source, survey households, North and West Flor-
ida, 1956.







Adjustment Potentials Among Rural Families 27

CASH INCOME PER CAPITAL
Five hundred eight (70 percent) of the households had aver-
age cash per capital incomes below $750. The average for all
households was $614, and the range was from -$1,093 to
+$11,914.
Percent
100 /
Nonfarm /
households ...
80


60 Farm
households

40 I


20 / /







0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 -4
000000 00
oo o o o o so





Family cash income levels
Figure 5.-Family cash incomes above selected levels, farm and nonfarm
households, North and West Florida, 1956.

In comparing per capital incomes of households in the same
family income group, substantial differences appear. Since non-
white families had more members per household than did white
families, similar levels of family cash income per household re-
sulted in lower per capital incomes for nonwhite than for white
families.







28 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

As mentioned previously, fewer nonfarm than farm house-
holds were in the higher family income groups. However, in
terms of household average per capital income, more nonfarm
than farm households were in the higher per capital income
classes (Fig. 6).
Percent
100

S80/
8 Nonfarm households


60 -


40 /
40/ -- Farm households

20


0 -AI




0 0 0 0 0 0 0

household average per capital income







farm and nonfarm households north and West Florida, 1956.
The proportion of the survey population in the labor force
in u orr) r i ( 0


Household average per capital income
levels
Figure 6.-Household average per capital incomes above selected levels,
farm and nonfarm households, North and West Florida, 1956.

Work Status of Survey Population
The proportion of the survey population in the labor force
(excluding student workers) was 33 percent in 1956 (Table 10).
This is substantially below the United States average of nearly
40 percent. Workers, paid and unpaid (again excepting stu-








Adjustment Potentials Among Rural Families 29

TABLE 10.-WORK STATUS OF POPULATION OF SURVEY FARM AND NONFARM
HOUSEHOLDS, NORTH AND WEST FLORIDA, 1956.

Population of Farm Nonfarm
Work Status and Age Groups All Households Population Population
Number Number Number
14 years of age and older ............ 1,912 1,064 848
Paid workers* ........................... 876 502 374
Unpaid workers ........................ 91 90 1
Not working ........ --..................... 652 277 375
With nonwork income ......-.. (234) (56) (178)
Without nonwork income .... (418) (221) (197)
Still in school .....................-.... 293 195** 98t
Under 14 years of age .................. 975 489 486
TOTAL ...................................... 2,887 1,553 1,334

Percentage Percentage Percentage
of total of total of total
14 years of age and older ........... 66 69 64
Paid workers* ............................ 30 32 28
Unpaid workers ........................ 3 6 $
Not working .............................. 23 18 28
With nonwork income ...------ (8) (4) (13)
Without nonwork income .... (15) (14) (15)
Still in school ............................ 10 13 8
Under 14 years of age ................ 34 31 36
TOTAL .................................-..... .. 100 100 100

Includes three heads of households studying under the Veteran's Administration
program.
** Includes 73 unpaid family laborers and 54 paid workers.
t Includes 30 paid workers
$ Less than half of 1 percent.

dents), amounted to 38 percent of the farm population compared
with 28 percent of the population of the nonfarm units. Non-
workers with outside sources of income were substantially more
numerous, relative to the total labor force, on nonfarm units
than on farms. Those not working and not receiving outside
income were present in about equal proportions on farm and
nonfarm units. Relative to the total population, there were more
students 14 years of age or older on farms than on nonfarm
units and more individuals under 14 years of age in the nonfarm
than in the farm households.

Work Status and Personal Income Levels
Comparing work-status groups, the highest levels of per-
sonal income occurred among the paid workers who were heads
of nonfarm households followed by the heads of farm house-








30 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

holds and other paid workers in that order (Fig. 7). For ex-
ample, income of $2,000 or more were reported by 53 percent
of the heads of nonfarm households, 35 percent of the heads
of farm households, and 20 percent of the other paid workers.
Personal incomes of nonworkers and student workers were still
lower, with only 18 percent and 4 percent, respectively, having
incomes of $1,000 or more.

Percent
100



Paid workers heads of /
80 nonfarm households /




60


Paid workers heads of /
farm households /
40

Sher/ Students
workers working
20 \ / Household
members not
working
Si













ida, 1956.
o o 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 *0 0
C ) 0 0 0 a c .C



Income levels

Figure 7.-Proportion of recipients of income receiving incomes above
selected levels, by work status, survey households, North and West Flor-
ida, 1956.







Adjustment Potentials Among Rural Families 31

SOME MEASURES OF RESOURCE LIMITATIONS

Resource levels of households and individuals were classified
on the basis of (1) levels of personal capabilities or human re-
sources and (2) levels of capital or nonhuman resources. Group-
ings by personal employment capabilities were based on age,
education, and physical capacity for work. Advanced age, limited
formal education, and physical disability were taken as primary
limitations on personal capabilities or human resources. Avail-
able capital resources were measured in terms of household
net worth.

Age, Education, and Disability of Heads of Households
Four hundred seventy-two (65 percent) of the heads of house-
holds were limited either by advanced age (65 years or older),
low levels of formal education (six years or less), physical dis-
ability, or some combination of these restrictions. The other
258 heads of households, who were younger, better schooled,
and not disabled, included 115 in the age group 45 to 64 years
and 143 under 45 years of age. A low level of schooling was
the dominant limitation of the heads of households; it was pres-
ent in 419 cases. Two hundred one heads of households were
65 years of age or older, and 76 were disabled.
Comparing farm and nonfarm households, proportionally
more farmers than nonfarmers were in the age class 45 to 64
years and proportionally more nonfarmers than farmers were
limited by low levels of education and physical disabilities
(Tables 11 and 12).
The associations of age, education, and disability of heads
of households and levels of net worth with the average per capital
income of households is shown graphically in Figure 8. House-
holds headed by individuals with low levels of education, with
physical disabilities, and with low levels of capital resources
tend to fall in the lower household average per capital income
classes. Similarly, lower incomes are shown for households
headed by individuals 65 years of age or older with only minor
differences between the two classes "45 to 64 years of age" and
"under 45 years of age."









TABLE 11.-NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF HEADS OF FARM HOUSEHOLDS DISTRIBUTED BY AGE-EDUCATION-DISABILITY CLASSES
AND BY HOUSEHOLD AVERAGE PER CAPITAL INCOME CLASSES, NORTH AND WEST FLORIDA, 1956.

Number of Heads of Households Percentage of Heads of House-
by Per Capita Income holds by Per Capita Income
Age-Education-Disability Class
Under $500- $1,000 Under $500- $1,000
Total $500 999 or more Total $500 999 or more
Number Number Number Number Percent Percent Percent Percent
Under 45 years of age, not disabled:
With 7 years or more of schooling----..-......---- 74 29 26 19 100 39 35 26
With less than 7 years of schooling ....-....----.. 34 18 12 4 100 53 35 12
45-64 years of age, not disabled:
With 7 years or more of schooling ..-------.....-- 77 32 19 26 100 41 25 34
With less than 7 years of schooling ...--.--- -. 102 72 19 11 100 70 19 11
65 years of age or older, not disabled:
With 7 years or more of schooling .---.....---......-- 24 7 8 9 100 29 33 38
With less than 7 years of schooling .---.....--.. 45 28 13 4 100 62 29 9
Disabled (all ages and levels of schooling) ........... 12 8 2 2 100 66 17 17.
TOTAL .......--.......------------.- ..------- 368 194 99 75 100 53 27 20 2

Recapitulation and Elaboration
By age (includes disabled):
Under 45 years of age ..-----.------------- 110 49 38 23 100 44 35 21
45-64 years of age -........--......---....---.. --..... 182 106 39 37 100 58 22 20
65 years of age or older ---.............-..... ......--.---. 76 39 22 15 100 51 29 20
By education (includes disabled):
7 years or more of schooling ....--...--.......--....--. 177 69 54 54 100 39 31 30
Less than 7 years of schooling ..--..-----------.. 191 125 45 21 100 65 24 11









TABLE 12.-NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF HEADS OF NONFARM HOUSEHOLDS DISTRIBUTED BY AGE-EDUCATION-DISABILITY
CLASSES AND BY HOUSEHOLD AVERAGE PER CAPITAL INCOME CLASSES, NORTH AND WEST FLORIDA, 1956.

Number of Heads of Households Percentage of Heads of House-
Age-Education-Disability Class by Per Capita Income holds by Per Capita Income
Age-Education-Disability Class
Under $500- $1,000 Under $500- $1,000
Total $500 999 or more Total $500 999 or more
Number Number Number Number Percent Percent Percent Percent
Under 45 years of age, not disabled:
With 7 years or more of schooling ................... 69 21 19 29 100 30 28 42
With less than 7 years of schooling ............. 45 29 14 2 100 64 31 5
45-64 years of age, not disabled:
With 7 years or more of schooling ................. 38 6 11 21 100 16 29 55
With less than 7 years of schooling ............... 69 28 26 15 100 40 38 22
65 years of age or older, not disabled:
With 7 years or more of schooling .--......--..--.... 16 5 6 5 100 31 38 31
With less than 7 years of schooling .-..-.......... 61 21 32 8 100 34 53 13
Disabled (all ages and levels of schooling) ....... 64 38 24 2 100 59 38 3
TOTAL ........... ....... .. .... .... ............ 362 148 132 82 100 41 36 23
TOTAL---------------------------------------------------- 3 -62 148 132 82 100 41 36 23

Recapitulation and Elaboration .
By age (includes disabled):
Under 45 years of age ....................................... 119 51 37 31 100 43 31 26
45-64 years of age ..-----------... ......-.......... --.- 118 44 38 36 100 37 32 31
65 years of age or older ..................---...-- 125 53 57 15 100 42 46 12
By education (includes disabled):
7 years or more of schooling .......--................... 134 37 42 55 100 28 31 41
Less than 7 years of schooling .....---.................... 228 111 90 27 100 49 39 12
co








34 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


Age of head Education of head Disability of head Net worth of
of household of household of household household
100 -

90 /
90

80 under 45 or years Not disabled $5,000 or



45-64 than 7 1 $1,000 -
y50 of age schooling

SII


Wi Under
20 / 65 years of / Un
age or older / /





g g a y m 8y g a g s y ya a y g sa a e y f
of households and family net worth with household average per capital



Household average Househ d average Household average Household average
per capioyta income per capities income per capital income per capital income
Figure 8of -The associations of age, education, and disability of heads
of households and family net worth with household average per capital
tiones, North and West Florida, 1956.


INCOME DIFFERENCES BY RURALITY OF AREAS,

FARM AND NONFARM HOUSEHOLDS

It was to be expected that proximity to urban areas and
to reduce their employment opportunities in North and West Florida would
be reflected in income levels of farm and nonfarm households.
Comparisons of groups of counties were made, including groups
consisting of the five more urban counties of growing population,
the seven moderately rural counties with generally stable popu-
lation, and the eight more rural counties with declining popu-
lations. Comparisons were made within age classes in order
to reduce the effects of differences in education and physical
ability. Also, comparisons were made within farm and nonfarm
groups in order to reduce the effects of farm capital upon income.
SAmong nonfarm households headed by individuals under 45








Adjustment Potentials Among Rural Families 35


years of age, income levels were distinctly superior in the group
of more urban counties (five-county area) than in the other
groups of counties (Fig. 9). Differences between the seven-
county area and the eight-county area were rather modest, al-
though income levels in the former exceeded those in the latter.
Somewhat similar relationships existed between areas with re-
gard to income levels of heads of nonfarm households 45 to 64
years of age, except that the superiority of the group of more
urban counties over the other group of counties was less marked.
A number of nonfarm households headed by individuals 65 years
of age or older had household average per capital incomes in
excess of $750 in the five-county area; otherwise, the income
distribution of nonfarm households headed by individuals in
this age class seemed similar regardless of the rurality of the
area.
In summary, there appears to be an inverse association be-
tween household average per capital income levels in the non-
farm households and rurality of the counties. Income differences

Nonfarm households Honfarm households Nonfarm households
headed by individuals headed by individuals headed by individuals
under 45 years of age 45-64 years of age 65 years of age or older
100

90 5 county
5 county area S county


S 70 7 county o- 7 unt -
SIt 7 county
60 re


8 county


S 30 area
a a 7 o u ty
60









SFlorida 1956.only
*8 county


10 '








Household average Household average Household average
par capita income per capital income per capital inecome
Figure 9.-Area differences in household average per capital income
of survey nonfarm households by age of head of household, North and West
Florida, 1956.








36 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

are greater between the five-county area and the seven-county
area than between the seven-county area and the eight-county
area. In general, area differences decline with age of the head
of the household.
Per capital income levels among farm households also appear
to be inversely associated with rurality of the counties (Fig.
10). Again, income differences tend to be greater between
the five-county area and the seven-county area than between
the seven-county area and the eight-county area. However,
instead of decreasing with age as in the case of the nonfarm
households, differences appear to increase with age, possibly
reflecting the effects of capital accumulations.
In general terms, there are proportionately more young
heads of households (under 45 years of age) and also somewhat
higher levels of education in the more urban counties (five-
county area) on both farms and nonfarm units. Thus the
higher incomes in the more urban areas reflect earnings of the
younger and better educated heads of households in conjunction
with off-farm employment opportunities.
Farm households Farm households Farm households
headed by individuals headed by individuals headed by individuals
under 45 years of age 45-64 f ae 65 years of age or older
100

90
S5 county
80 5 county y area
area area
70 /

60 -7 county
Sareaar
50 area -area

g 40
a / /a
30 /
a I B roay aI a a I a










Household average Household average Household average
per capital income per capital income per capital income




Figure 10.-Area difference in household average per capital incomes of

survey farms, by age of head of household, North and West Florida, 1956.







Adjustment Potentials Among Rural Families 37

ADJUSTMENT POTENTIALS

Determination of the economic alternatives available to in-
dividuals and households is beyond the scope of this report.
However, the survey indicates the extent and the distribution
of interest in adult education and in farm enlargement. Also,
information is provided concerning the extent and location of
idle cropland as an indication of imbalance in the combination of
resources. Furthermore, a general grouping of population 14
years of age and older by adjustment groups is provided.
Among the survey households, 29 percent of the respondents
stated that one or more members of their households would be
interested in attending adult education classes if such classes
were available. Forty-eight percent replied "No" to this ques-
tion, and 23 percent replied "Don't Know" or did not answer
the question.
Interest in adult education did not seem to be associated with
per capital household income or family net worth. However,
there was proportionally higher interest among households
headed by younger and better educated individuals. Also, there
was greater interest among farm than among nonfarm house-
holds.
Thirty percent of the farmers interviewed classified their
farms as "too small". In general terms, the proportion of farms
so designated increased directly with per capital income level,
family net worth, educational level of head of household, and
commerciality of the farm. The proportion tended to decrease
directly with age of the head of the household and with rurality
of the area.
Among the operators who thought their farms were "too
small," some 41 percent (12 percent of all farmers) stated that
they planned to enlarge their farms. Relative to the number
of farms reporting, plans for farm enlargement tended to de-
crease with increasing age of head of household; to be irregu-
larly associated with levels of income and net worth; and to
vary but little with educational level or with rurality of the
area. Farms proposed for enlargement were about 13 or 14
percent of the part time and small scale commercial farms, 5
percent of the residential farms, and 19 percent of the large
scale commercial farms (Economic classes I, II, and III).
More than half the farms in the area reported "cropland not
in crops," apparently cropland idle, fallow, or pastured. Cropland







38 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

not in crops accounted for more than 25 percent of all cropland.
Idle cropland presumably represents in some degree an imbalance
in the combination of resources of land, labor, and capital. In the
study area, the percentage of all cropland reported as "cropland
not in crops" increased directly with age of the household
head, disability of the household head, and rurality of the area.
It decreased with level of education of the farmer, family net
worth, and level of commerciality of the farm. "Cropland not in
crops" decreased and then increased with increases in the level
of household average per capital income.

General Adjustment Groups
It was assumed that the feasibility of personal and group
adjustment such as training, re-training, new jobs, and migra-
tion decreases with age, and that the mobility of labor decreases
with age and with the obtaining of family and household re-
sponsibilities and neighborhood and area ties and affiliations.
On the basis of age alone, 51 percent of the population 14 years
of age and older were 45 years of age or older (Table 13). The
two younger age groups (14 to 29 years and 30 to 44 years) or
49 percent in all, included male heads of households and their
wives, 22 percent; heads of households without spouses present,
1 percent; members other than heads of households or their
spouses, 11 percent; and persons still in school, 15 percent.
In terms of family and household responsibilities, 59 percent
of the population consisted of male heads of households and their
wives. The remaining 41 percent were mainly single persons
(unmarried, widowed, divorced, separated, etc.) although cou-
ples who did not head households were also included in the group.
The young people, those in the group 14 to 29 years of age,
received significant proportions of the income from work on
other farms and from nonfarm employment. This was true also
for the group 30 to 44 years of age. The latter group received,
in addition, substantial income from farm operations. Although
neither group received a large proportion of the total nonwork
income, the 30 to 44 year age group received 25 percent of the
nonwork income originating from military sources. Most of
the nonwork income accrued to the age group "45 years and
older," along with substantial proportions of the work income,
especially work income from the operation of farms.
When the children under 14 years of age were included with
the heads of their respective households, average per capital








Adjustment Potentials Among Rural Families 39

incomes by adjustment groups other than the group "still in
school" were rather uniform. The range in group averages was
from $515 to $765. Within the same groups with respect to
family household responsibility, per capital income tended to
decline with age.

TABLE 13.-POPULATION OF SURVEY HOUSEHOLDS BY GENERAL ADJUSTMENT
GROUPS BASED ON AGE AND FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY STATUS, NORTH AND
WEST FLORIDA, 1956.

Population of Survey Households
Adjustment Groups Under 14
14 years of age and years
older of age*
Number Percent Number
14-29 years of age ...---.....-.......-.......... 529 27.7
(1) Still in school .-......-............- .... 293 15.3
(2) Members other than heads of
households or their spouses-. 156 8.2
(3) Male heads of households
and their wives** ..............--- 80 4.2 82
30-44 years of age .....----.............-..- .... 404 21.1
(4) Members other than head of
households or their spouses-. 48 2.5
(5) Heads of households without
spouse present .................-- ..... 22 1.1 31
(6) Male heads of households
and their wives** ...........-..... 334 17.5 435
45 years of age and older ....-...-......... 979 51.2
(7) Members other than heads of
households or their spouses... 109 5.7
(8) Heads of households without
spouse present ....................... 132 6.9 56
(9) Male heads of households
and their wives** --.................. 738 38.6 371
TOTALS ................ ... ......---.. 1,912 100.0 975

Recapitulation
Male heads of households and
their wives (3) (6) (9) ................. 1,152 60.3 888
Other individuals except students
(2) (4) (5) (7) (8) ----...............---- 467 24.4 87
Still in school (1) -............................ 293 15.3

Children under 14 years of age are shown opposite their respective heads of households.
** The wife of the head of the household was included in the same age group as the
husband.

Average income of persons 14 years of age or older (in this
calculation, income of the individual or half the income of the








40 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


married couple in the case of the male head of household and
his wife) differed greatly by adjustment groups. Incomes were
high in the 30 to 44 year age group and in the groups of male
heads of households with their wives. Nonwork income per
capital increased with increased group age and was especially
high for heads of households (male or female) without spouse
present in the household.
It is recognized that the adjustment potentials of individuals
and couples in any given general adjustment group may range
from high to low. However, it is believed that this does not
invalidate the general relationship between groups. The im-
portant point is that the general adjustment groups may reason-
ably be assumed to have problems that differ sufficiently to make
it desirable to formulate programs of adjustment-aid tailored to
the needs of each particular group.
Numbers of individuals 14 years of age and older with in-
comes of less than $1,500 and those with incomes of $1,500 or
more are shown graphically by adjustment groups in Figure 11.
With per capital income With per capital income
less than $1,500a $1.500 or more
14 29 years of age:
(1) Still in school. 292

(2) Members other chan heads of 1 1
households or their spouses.

(3) Male heads of useholds
and their wives. 42 i
30 44 years of age:
(4) Members other than heads of 7
households or their spouses.

(5) Heads of households without 14
spouse present.

(6) Male heads of households 196 F 13
and their wives. _
45 )ears of a .e and older:
(7) Members other than heads of 11
households or their spouses.

(8) Heads of households without 120 12
spouse present.

(9) Male heads of households 598 l
and their wives.
0 200 400 600 0 200
aIncome of individual or one-half of the income of male heads of households and their
wives.
Figure 11.-Population 14 years of age and older with per capital income
above $1,500, and below $1,500, by adjustment group, North and West
Florida, 1956.






TABLE 14.-PERSONS 14 YEARS OF AGE AND OLDER WITH PER CAPITAL INCOMES BELOW $1,500, BY TYPE OF HOUSEHOLD AND
GENERAL ADJUSTMENT GROUP, NORTH AND WEST FLORIDA, 1956.*

Farm Households
Economic class
General Adjustment Group Economic class
I, II, IV, V, Part- Residen-
Total Nonfarm Total and III and VI time tial
Number Number Number Number Number Number Number
14-29 years of age ..-....---....--.....--------- ....--...-... 459 173 286 40 98 69 79
(1) Still in school .----...-..---- -..----- ..---... -292 98 194 29 62 46 57
(2) Members other than heads of households
or their spouses .-..............-...................-... 125 53 72 9 24 21 18
(3) Male heads of households and their wives .... 42 22 20 2 12 2 4

30-44 years of age ......-................-- -...--..-...-..-.. 251 125 126 19 54 19 34
(4) Members other than heads of households
or their spouses .....--......-- ...............---- ....-..-... -41 16 25 5 10 3 7
(5) Heads of households without spouse present 14 9 5 0 4 0 1
(6) Male heads of households and their wives ... 196 100 96 14 40 16 26

45 years of age and older ..........-..-.............-...- ..- 819 364 455 32 216 98 109
(7) Members other than heads of households
or their spouses .....-..---....--......-- ..........-- ... 101 38 63 4 34 14 11
(8) Heads of households without spouse present 120 86 34 0 6 12 16 1
(9) Male heads of households and their wives ... 598 240 358 28 176 72 82

TOTAL


Percentage ................--..---------............... 100 43 57 6 24 12 15

Income of individual or half the income of male heads of households and their wives.







42 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

Persons still in school, who account for 15 percent of the popu-
lation, understandably have low incomes. However, this group
should offer adjustment opportunities of the first order of im-
portance through their ability to adapt to changes required for
training and new employment either in the local area or out-
side the study area.
Exclusive of the students, more than half the population
was in the low-income group and also in the age group "45 years
and older." Adjustment opportunities for this group are limited
by age and by the low level of education associated with ad-
vanced age in the study area and perhaps by ties of household
and community which may prevent full freedom of action.
Low income problem situations are more numerous for farm
than for nonfarm households among the young people 14 to 29
years of age and among those 45 years of age or older (Table
14). Within agriculture, problem situations are found among
all except the highest economic class of farms but are especially
prevalent among the farms in Economic Classes IV through VI.











APPENDIX



APPENDIX TABLE 1.-TENURE STATUS OF FARM OPERATORS, 368 SURVEY
FARMS, NORTH AND WEST FLORIDA, 1956.

Tenure Operators Percentage of Total

Number Percent

Full owners .............-..---- ..-- ..-.. 233 63
Renting out .-........-....--- .......... 34 9

Part owners .--..-...................... ...-..... 83 23
Renting in ..................................... 71 20
Renting in and out .................... 4 1
Undivided estates ..-..-..............-..... 8 2

Full tenants ...............- ..- ........ 42 11

Others ...............-....-... ......... 10 3

TOTAL .....................----- .......... 368 100




APPENDIX TABLE 2.-SURVEY FARMS, BY ECONOMIC CLASS, NORTH AND
WEST FLORIDA, 1956.

Farms Percentage
Economic Class* Reporting of Total

Number Percent

Commercial .............. ---............ .............- 214 58
Class I (Sales-$25,000 or more) ..... 3 1
Class II (Sales- 10,000-24,999) .......... 16 4
Class III (Sales- 5,000- 9,999) ......... 29 8
Class IV (Sales- 2,500- 4,999) ........6 66 18
Class V (Sales- 1,200- 2,499) ......... 64 17
Class VI (Sales- 250- 1,199) ......... 36 10

Part-tim e .........................--- -- ...-- ..-- ...- 63 17

Residential ................ .. ............- ....... 91 25

TOTAL ..-- ........-..-...- ..- ..-- .. ...- .......-.. 368 100

"* "Commercial farms were divided into six groups on the basis of the total value of
all farm products sold as shown above.
"Farms with a value of sales of farm products of $250 to $1,199 were classified as
part-time if the farm operator reported (a) 100 or more days of work off the farm, or
(b) the nonfarm income received by him and members of his family was greater than
the value of farm products sold.
"Residential farms include all farms except abnormal farms with a total value of sales
of farm products of less than $250."
(From U. S. Bureau of Census, 1954 Census of Agriculture, Volume I, Part 10, Florida.)








44 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations



APPENDIX TABLE 3.-MAJOR USES OF FARMLAND, 368 FARMS, NORTH
AND WEST FLORIDA, 1956.

Percentage
Land Use Acreage of Total

Acres Percent
Cropland in crops -----.---............. ............... 19,246 35

Cropland idle or pastured .....................-....-..... 6,526 12

Total cropland ...- .............-....... ..........--- 25,772 47
Improved pasture ..............-- ..-.. ...--...-... .. -5,523 10
Other permanent pasture .....--.........-.. ....---.... 1,978 3
Total pastureland .................- .....---.... ... 7,501 13
W oodland .. .........---- .............--..--- ...- 22,043 40
TOTAL LAND OPERATED ............................. 55,316 100





APPENDIX TABLE 4.-ACREAGES OF MAJOR CROPS AND VALUE OF CROP
SALES, 368 FARMS, NORTH AND WEST FLORIDA, 1956.

Percent-
Value of age of
Crop Sales Percent- Total
Crops Acreage age of Value
Total Per acre Acreage of Crop
Sales
Acres Dollars Dollars Percent Percent
Allotment crops
Peanuts ................... 1,434 126,396 88 7 26
Cotton ............... 913 66,098 72 4 13
Tobacco* ---------.... 324 202,811 626 2 41
Total ..-......-...-... 2,671 395,305 148 13 80
Other crops including
feed crops not sold
Corn ....................-..... 11,284 54
100,178 5 20
Other** .................... 7,065 33
TOTAL CROPS .......... 21,020 495,483 24 100 100

Flue-cured tobacco except for 10 acres of shade tobacco.
** Includes oats, peanuts for forage, watermelons, soybeans, and miscellaneous crops.








Adjustment Potentials Among Rural Families 45



APPENDIX TABLE 5.-NUMBER OF FARMS BY SIZE OF FARM IN TERMS OF
ACREAGE OF CROPLAND USED, 368 FARMS, NORTH AND WEST FLORIDA, 1956.

Size Class All Commercial Part-time Residential
Farms Farms Farms Farms

Number Number Number Number
Under 50 acres:
Less than 10 acres ........... 93 14 19 60
10-29 .............---...-................ 92 40 26 26
30-49 .................................... 49 34 10 5
Total ..-...............-.....--...... 234 88 55 91

50 acres and over:
50- 99 ............................... 69 61 8 0
100-149 ................................ 35 35 0 0
150-199 .....-..---.. ........ --- -.. 17 17 0 0
200 and over ....-................ 13 13 0 0

Total ............................. 134 126 8 0

TOTAL .--...--.......---.. ............ 368 214 63 91




APPENDIX TABLE 6.-PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF 368 FARM HOUSE-
HOLDS BY NET WORTH AND BY CLASS OF FARM, CUMULATIVE TOTALS BY
CLASSES UP TO $20,000, NORTH AND WEST FLORIDA, 1955.

Class of Farm
Commercial
Value Classes All Resi- Part- Economic Economic
Farms dential time Classes Classes
IV, V, I, II,
and VI and III

Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent

Less than $500 ............ 11 15 13 11 0
Less than $1,000 ....... 14 20 21 13 0
Less than $2,000 ........ 21 37 30 14 2
Less than $3,000 ....... 30 52 44 21 2
Less than $5,000 ........ 44 71 62 34 4
Less than $10,000 ...... 68 91 83 63 19
Less than $20,000 ...... 83 96 94 83 44


$20,000 or more ....-..... 17 4 6 17 56


TOTAL ....................... 100 100 100 100 100








46 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations






APPENDIX TABLE 7.-PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF 362 NONFARM
HOUSEHOLDS, BY VALUE OF DWELLING OCCUPIED, FAMILY ASSETS, AND
NET WORTH, CUMULATIVE TOTALS BY CLASSES TO $5,000, NORTH AND
WEST FLORIDA, 1956.

Value of
Value Classes Dwelling Family Family
Used Assets Net Worth
Percent Percent Percent
Less than $500 ............................ 35 84 40
Less than $1,000 ........................ 52 88 49
Less than $2,000 ........................ 68 92 64
Less than $3,000 ........................ 74 95 70
Less than $5,000 ....................... 85 96 80


$5,000 or more ............................ 8 3 18


Not ascertained ..........-............... 7 1 2

TOTAL .....................-.............. 100 100 100







APPENDIX TABLE 8.-NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SUR-
VEY HOUSEHOLDS AND POPULATION BY RACE, 730 RURAL HOUSEHOLDS,
NORTH AND WEST FLORIDA, 1956.

Percentage Percentage
Race Total of of Total
Households Population Households Population
Number Number Percent Percent
W hite .......................... 496 1,839 68 64
Nonwhite ...................... 234 1,048 32 36
TOTAL .......................... 730 2,887 100 100








Adjustment Potentials Among Rural Families 47



APPENDIX TABLE 9.-POPULATION DISTRIBUTION BY AGE CLASSES AND
RACE, 730 RURAL HOUSEHOLDS, NORTH AND WEST FLORIDA, 1956.

Age Total White Nonwhite
Number Number Number
Under 6 years .................................... 398 213 185
6-9 years .............................................. 254 147 107
10-13 years .......................---.........---- ..323 205 118
14-19 years ......................................... 358 225 133
20-24 years ........................................ 100 66 34
25-29 years .......................................... 102 66 36
30-34 years .---_....... ...... ........... ........ 133 77 56
35-39 years .......................................... 156 109 47
40-44 years ......................................... 173 125 48
45-49 years ...................................... 186 142 44
50-54 years ....................-............... ... 135 98 37
55-59 years ..................................-...... 113 79 34
60-64 years .......................................... 109 77 32
65-69 years ................- ........................ 128 73 55
70-74 years ......................................... 98 60 38
75 years and over .............................. 111 72 39
Not ascertained .................................. 10 5 5
ALL AGES .....................-.....-....... 2,887 1,839 1,048





APPENDIX TABLE 10.-NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES COVERED BY FLORIDA UN-
EMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACT IN EMPLOYMENT UNITS WITH EIGHT
OR MORE WORKERS, STUDY AREA OF NORTH AND WEST FLORIDA, 1956, AND
PERCENTAGE CHANGE 1950-56.*

1956 1950-56
Non- Non-
Area Total Manu- manu- Manu- manu-
facturing facturing facturing facturing
Number Number Number Percent Percent
North and West
Florida study area
(20 counties) ..--...-.. 57,599 19,089 38,510 +49.7 +59.3
5 counties** ................ 43,854 13,790 30,064 +79.4 +65.0
(Escambia County) (26,031) (9,917) (16,114) (+114.7) (+68.0)
(Other 4 counties) (17,823) (3,873) (13,950) ( +26.3) (+61.5)
7 counties** ................ 10,435 3,828 6,607 +26.8 +32.5
8 counties** ............... 3,310 1,471 1,839 -28.3 +89.6

Source: Florida Industrial Commission.
** See footnotes to Table 4 for names of counties.








48 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations






APPENDIX TABLE 11.-NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS, BY
FAMILY CASH INCOME CLASSES, NORTH AND WEST FLORIDA, 1956.

Family Cash Income Classes Households Reporting Percentage of Total

Number Percent
Negative or none --................-........... 27 4
$1-$ 999 ...-- -................................ 191 26
1,000- 1,999 ---------..................-..... ... 187 26
2,000- 2,999 ---. ............ ................... 131 18
3,000- 3,999 ----- .......- --. ........... ,.. 65 9
4,000- 4,999 ..... ............... ........-.. 45 6
5,000- 5,999 ..--.................................. 41 6
6,000- 6,999 ...................................... 18 2
7,000- 7,999 ..................................... 7 1
8,000 or m ore ..----.............................. 18 2
TOTA L ................... ........... ........ 730 100







APPENDIX TABLE 12.-NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS, BY
PER CAPITAL INCOME CLASSES, NORTH AND WEST FLORIDA, 1956.

Household Average
Per Capita Income Households Reporting Percentage of Total

Number Percent
Negative or none .............................. 27 4
$1-$ 249 .............-..............-- ........ 135 18
250- 499 ...................................... 180 25
500- 749 ...................................... 166 23
750- 999 ...................................... 65 9
1,000- 1,249 ...................................... 54 7
1,250- 1,499 ...................................... 37 5
1,500 or m ore .................................. 66 9

TOTAL .......................................... 730 100









Adjustment Potentials Among Rural Families 49






APPENDIX TABLE 13.-NUMBER OF INCOME RECIPIENTS BY INCOME LEVEL
AND WORK STATUS, SURVEY HOUSEHOLDS, NORTH AND WEST FLORIDA, 1956.

Paid Workers
(other than students)
Personal Heads Heads Not Stu-
Income Level Total of of non- Work- dents*
Total farm farm Other ing
house- house-
holds holds

No. No. No. No. No. No. No.
Below $100 ...... 122 81 41 1 39 3 38
$ 100-$ 499 ... 231 142 46 12 84 47 42
500- 999 ..... 289 147 55 28 64 141 1
1,000- 1,499 ..... 137 107 35 40 32 28 2
1,500- 1,999 .... 106 98 48 24 26 8 0
2,000- 2,999 ..... 140 135 49 50 36 5 0
3,000- 3,999 ... 73 70 27 29 14 2 1
4,000- 4,999 .... 43 43 14 22 7 0 0
$5,000 or more .. 53 53 30 18 5 0 0
TOTAL .............. 1,194 876 345 224 307 234 84

Excludes three heads of households studying under the Veteran's Administration
Education Program.







APPENDIX TABLE 14.-EXTENT OF INTEREST IN ADULT EDUCATION CLASSES AMONG SURVEY HOUSEHOLDS, BY SELECTED
HOUSEHOLD CLASSIFICATIONS, NORTH AND WEST FLORIDA, 1956.

Answers to Question "Would Household Members
Attend Adult Classes ?"
"Don't "Don't
Item know" know"
Yes No or not Yes No or not
answered answered
Number Number Number Percent Percent Percent
TOTAL ..--.....----..--....- --... ----......... 212 350 168 29 48 23
By household average per capital income:
Under $500 ........--.......--........--....--... ---- 105 162 75 31 47 22
$500-$999 .....--. .................-...-----------....--.....-- .. .. 58 114 59 25 49 26
$1,000 or more .......---------------......-....... ------. 49 74 34 31 47 22
By household net worth class:
Under $1,000 ..........--... ... .........-.....- ..---- .......-- 60 93 83 26 39 35
$1,000-$4,999 .--..-------.....---- --................. ---..... .. 64 107 50 29 48 23
$5,000 or more ---------------------------------- 88 150 35 32 55 13
$5,000 or m ore ........................... ........... ......... ...... 88 150 35 32 55 13
By age of head of household:
Under 45 years of age ......---........-- ..................-.... 97 69 63 42 30 28
45-64 years of age ..---.................--.----.....-...-....... 100 138 62 33 46 21
65 years of age and older .................----...-...-...---.... 15 143 43 8 71 21
By education of head of household:
7 years or more of schooling .......-.......-................ 109 132 70 35 42 23
Less than 7 years of schooling .--..-..-..--.......--..... 103 218 98 25 52 23
By geographic areas:*
5-county area .-----.................... --------.........--- ..... 54 114 61 23 50 27
7-county area .....--..--.........................--.............. 92 143 56 32 49 19
8-county area .---.....................-....... ....-............ 66 93 51 32 44 24
By type of household:
Farm ..---.........--........--- .. .. ---.....---.. .....-. ........ 141 187 40 38 51 11
Nonfarm .......................-.... ...-...-...-........-....... 71 163 128 20 45 35
"* See footnotes to Table 4 for names of counties.









Adjustment Potentials Among Rural Families 51



APPENDIX TABLE 15.-FARMERS' INTEREST IN ENLARGING THEIR FARMS,
BY VARIOUS HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS, NORTH AND WEST FLORIDA, 1956.

Farms Designated "Too Small"

Farm enlargement
Percentage planned
Item of all
Farms farms in Percentage
reporting each Farms of
class reporting "Too small"
farms
Number Percent Number Percent
ALL FARMS .................. 111 30 45 41

By household average
per capital income
classes:
Under $500 ................. 54 28 18 33
$500-$999 ...................... 31 30 16 52
$1,000 or more .............. 26 35 11 42
By age of head of
household:
Under 45 years ......... 54 49 28 52
45-64 years .................. 46 25 17 37
65 years or more ....... 11 14 0 0
By education of head
of household:
7 years or more of
schooling .................. 64 36 26 41
Less than 7 years of
schooling ................. -47 25 19 40
By family net worth:
Under $1,000 ................ 12 23 6 50
$1,000-$4,999 .-..-.....-- .... 27 25 7 26
$5,000 or more .............. 72 35 32 44
By areas:
5-county area ................ 35 42 14 40
7-county area ................ 45 29 18 40
8-county area ................ 31 24 13 42

By economic class of
farm:
Residential .................... 14 15 5 36
Part-time .-...--..--.. ......- 16 25 9 56
Commercial
(IV, V and VI) ....... 47 28 22 47
Commercial
(I, II and III) .......... 34 71 9 26









52 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


APPENDIX TABLE 16.-CROPLAND NOT IN CROPS, BY VARIOUS HOUSEHOLD
CHARACTERISTICS, NORTH AND WEST FLORIDA, 1956.

Cropland Not in Crops
Percentage
Item Percentage of all
Farms of farms Acreage cropland
reporting in each reported in each
class class
Number Percent Acres Percent
ALL FARMS ................. 193 52 6,526 25

By household average
per capital income
classes:
Under $500 ...........---... 103 53 3,399 25
$500-$999 .................... 52 53 1,547 24
$1,000 or more .... 38 51 1,580 28
By age of head of
household:
Under 45 years of age 49 45 1,451 18
45-64 years .................. 97 53 3,187 25
65 years or more ....... 47 62 1,888 40
By education of head of
household:
7 years or more of
schooling .................. 86 49 3,208 23
Less than 7 years of
schooling .................. 107 56 3,318 29
By disability of head of
household:
Not disabled ................ 184 52 6,321 25
Disabled ........................ 9 75 205 48

By family net worth:
Under $1,000 ................ 25 32 646 31
$1,000-$4,999 .-.-----.. 58 67 1,107 29
$5,000 or more .-............ 110 54 4,773 24
By areas:
5-county area .............. 35 42 758 18
7-county area ............. 85 55 2,845 26
8-county area .............. 73 57 2,923 29
By economic class of
farm:
Residential .................... 46 51 810 52
Part-time ...................... 33 52 630 32
Commercial
(IV, V and VI) ....... 90 54 3,597 26
Commercial
(I, II and III) ....... 24 50 1,489 18









Adjustment Potentials Among Rural Families 53

APPENDIX TABLE 17.-PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME AMONG
ADJUSTMENT GROUPS, BY MAJOR SOURCES OF INCOME, NORTH AND WEST
FLORIDA.

Major Sources of Income
Work Non-
Adjustment Groups All Farm on farm Non-
sources oper- other employ- work
ation farms ment sources
Percentages except as indicated
14-29 years of age ........... 14 2 28 20 2
(1) Still in school .......... 1 0 6 1 0
(2) Members other than
heads of households
or their spouses .... 7 0 10 10 1
(3) Male heads of
households and
their wives ....-....... 6 2 12 9 1
30-44 years of age ............ 34 47 35 38 12
(4) Members other than
heads of households
and their spouses .. 2 0 4 3 1
(5) Heads of house-
holds without
spouse present ...... 2 1 2 1 2
(6) Male heads of
households and
their wives .............. 30 46 29 34 9
45 years of age and older 52 51 37 42 86
(7) Members other than
heads of households
and their spouses .. 4 0 2 9
(8) Heads of house-
holds without
spouse present ...... 6 5 5 2 20
(9) Male heads of
households and
their wives .--......... 42 46 32 38 57
TOTAL
Percent ...................... 100 100 100 100 100
Thousand dollars ..........$1,774 $242 $102 $1,066 $364

Recapitulation of
percentages
Male heads of households
and their wives
(3)(6)(9) ................-...... 78 94 73 81 67
Other individuals except
students
(2) (4) (5) (7) (8) ......... 21 6 21 18 33
Still in school (1) ............. 1 0 6 1 0

Less than half of one percent.









54 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

APPENDIX TABLE 18.-AVERAGE PER CAPITAL INCOME ALL AGES, WORK
AND NONWORK INCOME FOR POPULATION 14 YEARS AND OLDER, BY AD-
JUSTMENT GROUPS, NORTH AND WEST FLORIDA, 1956.

Income per Person

Adjustment Group All 14 years and older
ages* All Work Nonwork
income income** income
Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars
14-29 years of age ................. 416 481 469 12
(1) Still in school .........-- 57 57 57 0
(2) Members other than
heads of households
or their spouses ........ 765 765 754 11
(3) Male heads of house-
holds and their
wives .......................... 730 1,478 1,423 55
30-44 years of age .------............ 688 1,479 1,372 107
(4) Members other than
heads of households
or their spouses .......... 679 679 623 56
(5) Heads of households
without spouse present 515 1,240 855 385
(6) Male heads of
households and their
wives ......................... 699 1,609 1,513 96
45 years of age and older .... 656 942 620 322
(7) Members other than
heads of households
or their spouses .......... 544 544 227 317
(8) Heads of households
without spouse present 581 828 277 551
(9) Male heads of
households and their
wivest ......................... 679 1,022 740 282
TOTAL ........----........ ................ 614 928 737 191


Recapitulation
Male heads of households and
their wives (3) (6) (9) ........ 691 1,224 1,012 212
Other individuals except
students (2)(4)(5)(7)(8).- 628 745 488 257
Still in school (1) .........-....... 57 57 57 0

Children under 14 years of age were grouped with their respective heads of households.
** Includes income from farm operation, work on other farms, and nonfarm employment.
t The wife of the head of the household was included in the same age group as the
husband.





University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs