• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Table of Contents
 Main
 Reference














Group Title: Bulletin - University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station ; no. 671
Title: Rural areas in transition
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027169/00001
 Material Information
Title: Rural areas in transition
Series Title: Bulletin University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station
Physical Description: 36 p. : charts, map ; 23 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Alleger, Daniel E
Publisher: University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: 1964
 Subjects
Subject: Farmers -- Economic conditions -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Farmers -- Employment -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Bibliography: p. 35-36.
Statement of Responsibility: Daniel E. Alleger.
General Note: Cover title.
General Note: "A study of the impact of off-farm employment in a low-income farm area of Florida"--T. p.
Funding: Bulletin (University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station) ;
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00027169
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 000929054
oclc - 18353805
notis - AEN9822

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Table of Contents
        Table of Contents
    Main
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
    Reference
        Page 33
        Page 34
Full Text

.---. ....I T fI n .I

,: .... --. ..-
..,- *. ".- : '. *- C .



SRural Areas
Transition
Sk Transition


Daniel E. Alleger


~"l"~~L-~s;~L~~
I













CONTENTS


Page


INTRODUCTION .................

OBJECTIVES AND PROCEDURES


..... .......................... ............ 3


SKETCH OF A REAS ................................
Differences in Income Sources ..................

THE FAMILIES SURVEYED: RESEARCH FINDINGS ..
Econom ic Class of Farm ..................................
Occupations and Employment ........................
Fam ily Incom es ..........................
Levels of Living ... ....................
Incom e Obstacles ..................... ..........
Rural Pessim ism .... ..................
Social Participation ...............

PERSONAL ADJUSTMENTS ..............
Residential Changes ......................................
Off-Farm Migration................
SOccupational Changes ...............

IMPACT OF OFF-FARM EMPLOYMENT ....................
Incom e by Source ........................
A agriculture ...............................
E m ploym ent ................. ... .................
Population Change Relationships ..................

E DUCATION ...... ..........................

S U M M ARY ...................................

CONCLUSIONS ..........................

LITERATURE CITED ...........................


........ ... .......... ..... 5
................ .. ..... ... .... 6


9



.............. 13
.............. 15
............ 16
19


------- -... .. 2 6
...... ..... ............ 2 7
...... ..... .... ........ .. 2 9
............. .. 3 0
....... ..... .. ........ ... 30


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thanks are hereby extended to 1955 members of the Southeast Regional
Land Tenure Committee for assisting in establishing procedures for the
1955 survey; to members of the Southern Regional Rural Sociological Re-
search S-44 Committee for advice regarding 1960 resurvey procedures; and
to various county officials and the many rural families who freely supplied
the data upon which this study is based.
The aerial photograph on the cover was provided by the Chemstrand
Company, Pensacola.









RURAL AREAS IN TRANSITION

A Study of the Impact of Off-Farm Employment in a
Low-Income Farm Area of Florida

DANIEL E. ALLEGER

INTRODUCTION
Economic opportunities are unequal between Florida's low-
income farm areas and the state and nation. For quite a num-
ber of years, most of the counties lying immediately south of
Georgia and Alabama have been classified as low-income farm-
ing areas. Typically the farms in these counties have had ex-
cessive labor resources in relation to their land resources. More-
over, small farms are often less productive than large farms.
Families on these farms are usually hard pressed for money.
These irregularities precipitate economic and social adjustment
problems that are perplexing and difficult to resolve.
This report deals with the impact of gainful nonfarm em-
ployment opportunities, or their non-existence, on the agricul-
tural and human resources in four counties of northern Florida.2
Two of the four counties, Holmes and Walton, are rural counties
with negligible nonfarm employment (Fig. 1). The other two
counties, Escambia and Santa Rosa, have recently experienced
a rapid rise in industrial growth. In subsequent discussions the
first two counties will be referred to either as Area 1 or the
HoImes-Walton area, and the second two counties as Area 2,
or the Pensacola area.

OBJECTIVES AND PROCEDURES
Florida's low-income rural areas are now in economic and
social transition.3 Thus, effective planning for rural area de-
velopment implies an appraisal of the income opportunities and
aspirations of disadvantaged rural people. In order to assess

1Associate Agricultural Economist, Florida Agricultural Experiment
Station.
2 The Florida study is a contributing project of the Southern Region al
P ... Q.. 'P.; "....l irch Project S-44, "Factors in the Adjustment of
IF.j.. 1... ..,.I i.l. '.l,.i,-. in Low-Income Rural Areas of the South." The
member states and agencies are Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Puerto Rico, and
the Economic Research Service (Ky.), USDA.
SMany of north and northwest Florida counties have been classified as
low-income farm areas by the USDA (2). See Literature Cited.








Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


the opportunities available to them and to understand their
hopes and expectations the two following objectives were form-
ulated:

1. To determine the impact of off-farm employment
opportunities on the use of agricultural and human re-
sources in a low-income area of Florida.


AREA 1


AREA 2


*S*.*...
* 0
* 0
* 0 0



SANTA ROSA
*


Fig. 1.-Areas of study and location of rural families interviewed.







Rural Areas in Transition


2. To analyze these opportunities in relation to rel-
evant economic, social, and demographic factors and to
point up ways of using area resources more advanta-
geously.
A sampling procedure was designed to provide about 300
rural family records; but in some instances, farm houses were
found empty, or they had been razed.4 The number of usable
records secured was 205; yet the final results appeared to be
reasonably representative of area changes.5


SKETCH OF AREAS
The combined land area of the four counties totals 2,054,000
acres, according to the 1960 U. S. Census. Nearly four-fifths
of this or 1,594,900 acres was forested in 1959. In both areas
industrial users of forestry products manage extensive hold-
ings.
Between 1930 and 1960, the number of inhabitants in the
Pensacola Area rose from 67,677 to 203,376, or by 200 percent.
During this same generation the population in the Holmes-Wal-
ton Area dropped from 27,500 to 26,420, or by 3.9 percent.
Between 1954 and 1959 the number of farms in the four
counties fell from 5,231 to 3,345, or by 1,886. Of this number,
1,282 presumably represented retirement and occupational with-
drawals from agriculture, but 604 resulted from changes in
U. S. Census definition of farms. Until recent times farmers
in both study areas placed a heavy reliance upon cotton for cash
income; but cotton is now largely displaced by other cash crops,
livestock, and livestock products.

In order to select a random sample, use was made of USDA master
sample maps on which minor civil sub-division and count units were de-
lineated. After identifying and deleting public, corporation, and urban
lands, rural areas of eligibility remained. Count units for eligible areas
were outlined (264 in Area 1, and 237 in Area 2) on official county maps,
then numbered in a serpentine fashion, north and south, beginning in the
southeast corner of the northeast township and thereafter continuing to
the western extremity of the county. Every kth count unit after a ran-
dom start) was selected for the sample in each county.
The number of records taken in Areas 1 (99) and 2 (106) represented
5.8 and 6.5 percent, respectively, of all farms enumerated in the 1960 cen-
sus. The sample was designed to yield an expected 6 percent of the 1955
census count, but the outcome was 31.7 percent under that expected. Still,
in view of the 1955-1960 census drop of 36.1 percent in numbers of farms
enumerated, the results suggest that the sample actually reflects the
changing rural situation.
The criteria for defining a farm for survey purposes were (a) any land
holding of 3 acres or more and (b) no holding of under 3 acres unless the
value of farm products sold in 1955 amounted to $250 or more.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


Differences in Income Sources

For quite some years realized income opportunities between
the Holmes-Walton and Pensacola areas have been unequal.
Subsequent to 1940, paper, nylon, and chemical industries, among
others, located in the Pensacola Area but bypassed the Holmes-
Walton Area. For the past decade per capital incomes in Area 2
have been more than double those of Area 1. In Table 1, income
differences are expressed by per capital income ratios.
Per capital income ratios for each county are expressed as
a percentage of the state average. This ratio indicates that

INCOME CLASS PERCENT--
AND AREA 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
TRANSFER PAYMENTS
STATE

AREA I

AREA 2
PROPRIETORS INCOME
STATE

AREA I

AREA 2

PROPERTY INCOME
STATE

AREA I

AREA 2
ALL LABOR INCOME *
STATE

AREA I


AREA 2


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Net wages, salaries, and other labor income.
Fig. 2.-Percent distribution of personal income, by primary classes,
for Florida and Areas 1 and 2, Northwest Florida, 1960.
Source: Data from Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Florida.


li~W8S(~8~1~~








Rural Areas in Transition


the average Area 1 resident secured only 41 percent of Florida's
per capital income in both 1950 and 1960, although average per
capital incomes in Area 1 rose from $542 to $819.

TABLE 1.-PERSONAL INCOME PER CAPITAL RATIOS, AREAS 1 AND 2.
NORTHWEST FLORIDA, 1950 AND 1960.

County Personal Income Income*
and Area Per Capita Ratio
1950 1960 1950 1960

H olm es .................. .................. $ 520 $ 789 40 60
W alton ..................................... 564 840 43 64

A rea 1 .................................. 542 819 41 62
Escambia ...... .... ...... ..... 1,217 1,909 93 145
Santa Rosa .............................. 720 985 55 75
Area 2 ....................................... 1,147 1,774 87 135

State ...................................... 1,314 1,988 100 151

1950 per capital state income of $1,314 equals base of 100.
Source: Data from Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Florida. See
Economic Leaflets, Vol. XIV, No. 9, 1955 and Vol. XXI. No. 2, 1962.

In the Pensacola Area the 1950 and 1960 per capital incomes
of $1,147 and $1,774, respectively, equalled 87.3 and 89.2 percent
of the 1950 and 1960 state averages. This suggests that per
capital incomes in the Pensacola Area, while lower than the state
averages, have remained at nearly double those of the Holmes-
Walton Area for at least a decade.
Figure 2 shows that nearly 48 percent of the 1960 personal
income for Area 1 arose from proprietors' income and transfer
payments combined, as compared to 16 percent for Area 2, and
around 23 percent for the state as a whole.6 Three fourths of
all personal income stemmed from various types of labor income
in Area 2 as against less than half for Area 1.

THE FAMILIES SURVEYED: RESEARCH FINDINGS

Two hundred five families and 795 persons were included in
the 1955 survey. More farms were occupied by gainfully em-
ployed non-farmers for residential purposes than for income
farming. Most of the occupiers were in their late maturities,

Incomes may be classified by industrial source when dividends, interest,
rent, transfer payments, social security payments, and military compensa-
tion are excluded from personal incomes.








Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


were moderately educated, and supported two to four persons,
usually children or youths (Table 2).

TABLE 2.-GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SURVEY FAMILIES BY AREAS,
NORTHWEST FLORIDA, 1955.

Numerical
Item Families Reporting Distribution
Number Percent Area 1 Area 2


Number of records taken ....... ...

Farm Tenure ....... ..-. ...... ........
O w ners ......... ..- .......- .. .....--
Part-ow ners ................................
Cash renters .... .....- ..-- ....
Share renters ................. ... ...
O others -.... ........-- .-... ..... ..
Living Offspring at Home .......
Under 5 years .... ... ........
5 to 14 years ................ ............
15 to 24 years .....................
25 and over ............ ... .......
-Families with Male

R ace ............... .. ..... .. .... .
W hite .......... .. ..... ..-.. ...
C olored ...... ...... ..-... ...-.. .
Years in Present Residence ......
Under 1 year ............................
1 to 5 years ............. ............
6 to 10 years ........ ..............
11 years or m ore ............ .......
Age of Family Head ........................
39 years and under ................
40 to 49 years ................-...
50 to 64 years ..... .... .......
65 and over ............ ..- ... ... .
Education of Family Head .......
N one ............ .. -.... .. ..
1 to 4 years ........... ..... ....- ...-..
5 to 8 years ................................
9 to 12 years ............ .. ..........
13 years or more ......................
Size of Household .........- ..... ....
One person .............. ..... ..........
2 to 4 persons ..........................
5 to 8 persons .........................
9 persons or m ore .....................


205 100.0


205
160
36
5
3
1
355
54
205
81
15
Heads
197
185
12
195
4
37
50
104
195
41
50
67
37
177
14
39
87
29
8
197
4
126
62
5


100.0
78.0
17.6
2.4
1.5
0.5
100.0
15.2
57.8
22.8
4.2

Reporting
100.0
93.9
6.1
100.0
2.1
19.0
25.6
53.3
100.0
21.0
25.6
34.4
19.0
100.0
7.9
22.0
49.2
16.4
4.5
100.0
2.0
64.0
31.5
2.5


99 106







Rural Airas in Traosition


Family incomes were modest, and the level of living enjoyed
by the average family was about 75 percent of possible attain-
ment, as measured by a level of living scale. In spite of inade-
quate levels of living, housewives were reluctant to leave their
home areas for possible higher family incomes elsewhere. While
averse to migrating, many families were, however, discouraged
by circumstances beyond their control. They generally took
little part in formal community activities, except for participa-
tion in religious services.


Economic Class of Farm
For comparative purposes all rural holdings were classified
into two categories: income producing units and non-producing
units. Producing units consisted of commercial, low-income, and
part-time farms. Commercial farms were farms reporting the
annual value of farm products sold at $5,000 or more. Only
13.6 percent were so classified (Table 3). In numbers, part-
time and low-income farmers exceeded commercial farmers.

TABLE 3.-PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF 205 RURAL FAMILY HEADS
ACCORDING TO GROSS FARM INCOME, AREAS 1 AND 2 COMPARED, 1955.

Percentage Distribution
Income Class Area 1 Area 2 Both Areas

No farm income ...... ............ .. 46.5 40.7 43.5
S 1 to 249 ............................ 6.0 7.5 6.8
250 to 1,199 .................. ..... 20.2 15.0 17.5
1,200 to 2,499 ....... .........8.1 11.3 9.8
2,500 to 4,999 ....... ..... 8.1 9.4 8.8
5,000 and over ........ ... .... 11.1 16.1 13.6


Total .......... .................. 100.0 100.0 100.0


Number reporting ............... 99 106 205


Non-producing farms were rural residential units occupied
mainly by gainfully employed off-farm workers, retirees, and
other non-producers (the disabled, the unemployed, etc.). Ap-
proximately 45 percent of the 1955 survey farms were rural
residential, 24 percent low-income, 18 percent part-time and 14
percent commercial (Table 4). Deaths and removals reduced








Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


the number of family heads surveyed from 205 to 150 between
1955 and 1960. For the 150 remaining in 1960, 61 percent in
Area 1 and 49 percent in Area 2 were reclassified as rural resi-
dential (Table 5). There were shifts in all the farm economic
categories, differing somewhat between the two areas. The
increase in the proportion of commercial farmers in Area 1
resulted from farm and family adjustments, rather than from
an increased activity in commercial farming. Family adjust-
ments were also responsible for drops in low-income farming
in both areas.

TABLE 4.-CLASSIFICATION OF 205 RURAL HOLDINGS, NORTHWEST FLORIDA,
ACCORDING TO FARM ECONOMIC CLASS, 1955, AND OPERATOR DEATHS
AND FAMILY REMOVALS, 1955-1960.

Operators Deaths and Removals
Farm Economic 1955 1955-1960 Number
Class End of
No. Pet. Deaths Removals 1960

Rural residential
non-farming:
Gainfully
employed .............. 52 25.4 1 11 40
Retired ........--.......... 22 10.7 5 2 15
All others -............. 18 8.8 3 5 10

Limited farming:
Part-time** ............ 24 11.7 1 5 18
Part-retirementt .... 12 .5.9 2 2 8

Low-income farming:
Sales
$50 to $2,499 .... 31 15.1 2 7 22
Sales
$2,500 to $4,999 .. 18 8.8 2 3 13

Commercial farming:
Sales
$5,000 and over .. 28 13.6 4 24


Totals ................ 205 100.0 16 39 150

*Value of farm products sold ranging from none up to $49.
Operator under 65 years of age, working off farm 100 or more days, and with sales
of farm products ranging from $50 to $2,499.
t Operator 65 years old or over and with sales of farm products ranging from $50 to
$2,499.
: Operator under 65 years of age, (a) with less than 100 days off-farm work, and with
sales of farm products ranging from $50 to $2,499, and (b) all operators with sales of farm
products ranging between $2,500 and $4,999.
Value of farm products sold ranging from $5,000 upward.
Note: The dollar values of gross farm incomes were estimated by the respective respondents.
Number remaining 1960 (150 individuals) does not reflect their 1960 farm economic
classification. See Table 5.








Rural Areas in Transition


TABLE 5.-PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF 205 RURAL FARM FAMILIES, 1955,
AND 150 REMAINING, 1960, BY FARM ECONOMIC CLASS, AND BY AREAS
1 AND 2, NORTHWEST FLORIDA.

Percent by Area and by Year
_,Area 1 1 Area 2
Farm Economic Class* Area 1 Area 2
1955 1960 1955 1960


Rural residential, non-farming:
Gainfully employed ..........................
Retired ............................................
All others .................................... ...... ..
Limited farming: ..................................
Part-time .............................................-
Part-retirement .............................
Low-income farming: ............................
Sales $50 to $2,499 .........................
Sales $2,500 to $4,999 .....................
Commercial farming: ...........................


Sales $5,000 and over ......


48.5 60.9


13.1
5.1
22.2
14.1
8.1
11.1
11.1


Total Percentage .................. .............. 100.0


Total Number


100.0


............. 99 69


41.5 49.4
26.4 27.2
9.4 17.3
5.7 4.9
17.0 22.2
10.4 9.9
6.6 12.3
25.4 14.8
16.0 4.9
9.4 9.9
16.1 13.6
16.1 13.6

100.0 100.0


106 81


*See Table 4 for definitions of farm economic classes.


Occupations and Employment

Data presented herein suggest that transitional forces are
constantly in motion. As a result, many former farm people
today are part-time farm operators or rural residential non-
farmers. Only about 40 percent of the respondents in 1955
were farmers of some degree. Of 83 classified as farmers, three
were also in the active non-farm labor force.' In the Holmes-
Walton Area, where a military reservation was located, nearly
32 percent of employed non-farmers were craftsmen, foremen,
and kindred workers. In the Pensacola Area, employment cen-
tered in the paper and nylon industries.
Rural residential non-farm workers and part-time farmers
were in general gainfully employed throughout the year; the
range was from 20 to 52 weeks. Slightly more than half of
all family heads reported no off-farm employment; 31 percent,
regular off-farm employment; and the remainder, varying

SBased upon Alphabetical Index of Occupations and Industries, USDC
Bureau of the Census, Washington. 1950. pp. XV-XX.


.........







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


amounts of sporadic employment. Differences in the propor-
tional distribution of off-farm employment by duration of em-
ployment between Areas 1 and 2 were slight.
According to these findings only 7 percent (14 of 198) of the
female heads (homemakers) were gainfully employed. Most of
them, as did also the employed daughters, worked as mill hands
in shirtwaist, nylon, and paper plants. The fully employed sons
were largely craftsmen, operatives, and professionals; the par-
tially employed were woodsmen and laborers. Although the
total dollar contributions of wives and children to family sup-
port were limited, they nevertheless were of considerable im-
portance to individual families.

Family Incomes
Family incomes (3) strongly point up disparities between
Areas 1 and 2 (Table 6). The larger average family income
of $3,260 in the Pensacola Area as against $1,905 in the Holmes-
Walton Area was associated with gainful employment. Place
of residence did not appear to have much influence on the aver-
age incomes of 48 families not in the labor force.

TABLE 6.-AVERAGE FAMILY INCOME BY AREA AND BY SOURCE OF INCOME,
171 OPEN COUNTRY FAMILIES, NORTHWEST FLORIDA, 1956.

Per Family
Total Average Income
Families
Item Reporting Area 1 Area 2
(No.) ($) ($)
Average, all families ...... ........... 171 1,905 3,260
Employment status:
In labor force ..... .. .. .... ....--.--- 121 2,174 3,865
Not in labor force ........................... 48 1,457 1,365
Unclassified .......-... ... ......------ ------ 2 163
Source of income (average, all families)
Farming (net cash) ..--...-...-. ...--.- 218 180
Paid farm worker ............ .........-----------. 45 76
Non-farm employment ...- .. ........- 1,123 2,640
Non-employment ......... ...--. ...- .. .. ---- -- 519 364

Source: See Literature Cited (3).

In 1960 estimates of actual cash needs per week per family,
in addition to any values for items produced for home use,
ranged from $15 to $90. About a third of the families indicated
that their family incomes were too small. In such instances,







Rural Areas in Transition


extra cash income was needed to increase food purchases, buy
clothing, pay medical expenses, make home improvements, or
acquire new farm equipment, or for a combination of these.


Levels of Living

More than half the families in this survey lived in unpainted
frame houses. Nearly a third were without running water in
their homes, and less than a fourth possessed telephones (Table
7). They frequently placed a considerable degree of depend-
ence upon radio broadcasts and television programs for infor-

TABLE 7.-PERCENT POSSESSING SPECIFIED LEVEL OF LIVING ITEMS, OBTAINED
SCORES, AND SCALE SCORES POSSIBLE, 205 FAMILIES IN 1955 AND 144
FAMILIES IN 1960, SURVEY AREAS 1 AND 2, FLORIDA.


Scale Items


Percent Obtained
Possessing Score
1955 1960 1960


Scale Scores
Possible, 1960
High Low


1. Electric service in home ....
2. T telephone ..........................
3. R adio ................ ..... ..........
4. Television ..............................
5. Water piped into house ....
6. Installed hot water ............
7. Installed kitchen sink ........
8. Automatic washing machine
9. Inside bath ............................
10. Inside flush toilet .... ........
11. Gas or electric range ..........
12. Frozen food locker
(deep freeze) ......................
13. Electric sewing machine ......
14. Electric vacuum cleaner ......
15. Automobile .......................
16. Truck (home use) .............
17. Subscribes to newspapers)
18. Subscribes to magazines)
19. Construction of home: .........
Block, brick, etc. ...............
Painted frame ..................
Unpainted frame ..................
20. Husband's education: ..........
8 years or m ore ....................
7 years or less ......................
N ot reported .........................
21. Wife's education: ................
8 years or more ...................
7 years or less ....................
N ot reported ..........................


96.1 97.9
23.9 25.0
88.3 91.0
34.1 35.4
70.7 77.1
57.6
81.9
31.2
56.9
57.6
95.1

66.7
43.0
37.5
45.4 44.4
50.2 53.5
* 66.0
* 79.2

10.3 12.5
30.7 31.2
59.0 56.3

34.1 34.7
63.9 55.6
2.0 9.7

46.8 52.1
50.2 47.2
3.0 0.7


3.8 5.0 3.0


3.6 5.0 2.0


Totals or averages .........


144 75.3 100.0 39.0


Items not recorded in 1955. The scale is based on both 1955 and 1960 possessions or
cultural attributes.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


nation about current events. Only about two-thirds subscribed
to one or more daily or weekly newspapers. Magazines, mostly
relating to farming or church matters, were found in about
four-fifths of the homes. For most part the survey homes were
equipped with gas or electric kitchen ranges, electric refrigera-
tors, and, in remote rural areas, with deep freeze units. The
possession of these material items provided a basis for construct-
ing a level of living scale (6).
The scale as developed applied to all eligible open-country
families in both areas.s In its final form it contained 21 items,
which permitted possible high scores of 100 and low scores of
39. Obtained scores ranged the full length of the scale, and
averaged 75.
In Table 8 level of living scores are given for each farm eco-
nomic class. In general, high and low scores were widely dis-
tributed within any given category; two exceptions were the re-
tired people and the commercial farmers. Among retirees low
scores and low educational levels (less than fourth grade) were
the rule, while the reverse held for commercial farmers. For
the latter a three-grade educational difference (from grades
8 to 11) existed between low and high scorers. Although
scores were rather evenly distributed among the gainfully em-
ployed, those that scored highest (83 to 100) averaged better
than an eighth grade education, as against a fifth to sixth grade

s Having selected an initial number of items to be used in the scale, each
item was arbitrarily assigned the value of one for possession and zero for
non-possession. After all records had been taken, it was necessary to de-
termine if the items were valid for the purpose intended, and what high
and low scores should be assigned to each item. Accordingly, scores were
summed for each record, and all records were then arrayed from the lowest
to the highest scores. The lower and upper 27 percent were the two groups
used for item validation. Each item was validated or rejected by the fol-
lowing t-test formula:
Pu 1
CR -
U Qu + P1 1
S Nu N,

where IR cr,-'T 1- atio
S- the percentai; e of o, ui-rence of an ite'- in thl- uLp- Nioup
Pl = the per:,-ntae of o turren:c o' an ite- in the lower _-rop
Qu 1 Pu
Q1 i Fl
N = the number of sm-o in the spp- o
NI = the number oi :a-c in the lowe- -'oUR
All items with a critical ratio of less than two were rejected.
Sigma values, high and low, were determined for each of the items re-
tained. All minus signs were eliminated by adding a constant to all sigma
values, and these became the score values used in the scale.







Rural Areas in Transition 15

education for those that scored lowest (39 to 67). Educational
attainments of family heads and better than average levels
of living were very closely related (1).

TABLE 8.-LEVEL OF LIVING SCORES BY FARM ECONOMIC CLASS AND BY
AREA, 144 RURAL FAMILIES, AREAS 1 AND 2, NORTHWEST FLORIDA, 1960.

Average Score by Area
Farm Economic Class Area 1 Area 2 Both

Gainfully employed ............... ................... 73 78 76
R retired ........................... ...... .......................... 66 62 64
Disabled, etc. ........................ ........................... 72 69 71
Part-tim e farm ers .......................................... 73 80 78
Part-retirement farmers ................................. 83 82 82
Low-income farmers:
(Sales $50 to 2,499) ................................... 65 65 65
(Sales $2,500 to 4,999) .................................. 85 80 81
Commercial farmers:
Sales $5,000 and over .................................... 82 94 87

Average all classes ....................... ................ 73 77 75

Number reporting ..................... ................. 65 79 144


Income Obstacles
Implicit in all studies or programs concerning low-income
areas is that average per capital incomes must be increased and
widely distributed if levels of living are to be raised. A sec-
ondary assumption is that people generally are willing to make
the sacrifices needed to better their economic positions, given the
opportunities. The findings in this study were contrary to the
second assumption. Housewives revealed an unwillingness ei-
ther to impose extra work burdens on their husbands, or to dis-
rupt their community associations if these were the sacrifices
to be exacted for upgrading family incomes. These conclu-
sions were drawn from the use of an income-obstacle scale.9

SThe Income-Obstacle scale consisted of nine statements designed for
answers, "agree", "disagree", or "no opinion". The answer "agree" indicated
a willingness on the part of a housewife to make the sacrifices implied by
a given statement; that of "disagree" showed a desire or determination to
maintain an existing situation and that of "no opinion" measured a neutral
position where circumstances could make for decisions in either direction.
A scale score was established by assigning a weight of four (4) to
"agree" two to "disagree" and three to "no opinion". Since nine statements
were incorporated into the scale, scores of 18 to 26 measured disagree or
unwillingness to accept the stated conditions, 27 measured the neutral po-
sition, and 28 to 36 the agree, or favor acceptance position.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


The proportion of housewives willing to accept specified ad-
justment situations implied in the scale was small (Table 9).

TABLE 9.-PROPORTION OF HOUSEWIVES WILLING TO ACCEPT SPECIFIED CON-
DITIONS FOR DOUBLING OF INCOMES OF HUSBANDS, AREAS 1 AND 2 COM-
PARED, NORTHWEST FLORIDA, 1960.

Percent Agreeing


Conditions*


Area 1 Area 2 Both


1. Your husband would have to work at night
instead of in the day time -................ ........
2. Your husband would have to work harder
than he does now ..--.. .. ....- ........- ...- ..... -
3. Your husband would have to give up
his spare tim e ...... -.......... ........ ......- .
4. Your husband would have to take on
m ore responsibility .... -. ......... ..........
5. Your husband would have to be away from
the family for some time ..............................
6. Your family would have to move
around the country a lot ......................
7. You would have to leave your community ....
8. You would have to leave your friends in
this com m unity ....... .. ........- ....
9. You would have to keep quiet about your
political view s .. ...... .-.. .. .. ....... ..


Number of respondents ............. ........

All statements used were statistically reliable (critic
households; husband not retired or disabled.


41.0 36.5


20.7 20.6 20.6

31,0 26.5 28.6

51.7 32.4 41.3

13.8 20.6 17.5

24.1 14.7 19.0
.1.4 35.3 38.1

44.8 35.3 39.7

51.7 67.6 60.3


29 34 63

al ratio test). Husband-wife


When they were scored by summing the values of individual
statements, the unwillingness of the majority of them to make
drastic family readjustments or sever community ties was be-
yond doubt (Table 10). In Area 2 no housewife assumed a
neutral position on the scale, indicating that an attitude one
way or the other was firmly established, although a neutral
position was taken in respect to certain statements which com-
posed the scale.
Rural Pessimism

Several studies in the United States have shown that when
individuals lack access to the means for the achievement of life
goals, expectation and hope give way to discouragement and/or







Rural Areas in Transition


TABLE 10.--NUMERICAL DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEWIVES ACCORDING TO DEGREE
OF WILLINGNESS TO ACCEPT SPECIFIED INCOME-OBSTACLE CONDITIONS FOR
IMPROVING FAMILY INCOMES, 63 HOUSEWIVES, AREA 1 AND 2, 1960.

Number by Willingness to Accept Specified
Income-Obstacle Conditions


Area 1


Area 2


Economic
Classification


Would Uncer-
accept tain


Rural residential:
Gainfully employed......
R retired ........... .............
Others (disabled, etc.)
Limited farming:
Part-tim e ........................
Part-retirement ............
Small-scale farming:
Sales $50 to $2,499 ...
Sales 2,500 to 4,999 ......
Commercial:
Sales $5,000 and over....

Number reporting .........


Probability that results
were not due to chance
(Chi square test)


3 2
- I1


Would
not
accept


Would Uncer-
accept tain


11 5

-- 1


- 1


1 2
1 1 1


- 3


- 6


4 17 12


98 in 100


99 in 100


* Excludes wives of retirees and the disabled; families


broken by death of one family


head, families changing residence, 1955-1960, and wives not interviewed for various reasons.

deep despair. To determine if such was the situation in the
study areas an attitude test, known as the Srole scale, was em-
ployed (7). In final form the scale consisted of six statements.
The first five measured anonmie, which is deep despair; the last,
or No. 6, tested authoritarianism of the male head (Table 11).
Scoring was done by the 2, 3, 4, method (Footnote 9) used
for Table 10. Scores 12 to 17 registered adjustment, 18 a neu-
tral or uncertain position, and 19 to 24 an anomic, or pessimistic
attitude. Independently each statement is presumed to test one
distinct element of the total concept of anomie. They imply the
following situations:


Statement
1.


Implied Content
Belief that family heads are retrogressing from life goals
already attained (36 percent agreement).


2. Weakening of specific social values (31 percent agreement).


Would
not
accept


- 3







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


3. Social order fickle and unpredictable (32 percent agreement).
4. Immediate personal relationships no longer predictive (67 per-
cent agreement).
5 Community leaders are detached and indifferent (29 percent
agreement).
6. Family decisions should be made by male head (74 percent
agreement).

The composite score for all heads was 18.6, but of those who
supported the thesis of male authoritarianism, two-thirds were
anomic (56 in 85) as compared to 14 percent (4 in 29) who be-
lieved wives should share in family decisions.10

TABLE 11.-SCALE STATEMENTS TO MEASURE DESPAIR, 114 RESPONDENTS,
AREAS 1 AND 2, NORTHWEST FLORIDA, 1960.

No
Item Statements Agree Disagree Opinion
Percent
1. In spite of what some people say, the
lot of the average man is getting worse,
not better ...... ............. .................. ..... 36.0 27.2 36.8
2. It's hardly fair to bring children into
the world with the way things look for
the future .................... .................. 30.7 39.5 29.8
3. Nowadays a person has to live pretty
much for today and let tomorrow take
care of itself ......................... -.... .. 31.6 50.9 17.5
4. These days a person doesn't really know
on whom he can count ......................... 67.5 18.5 14.0
5. There's little use writing to public offi-
cials because often they aren't really
interested in the problems of the av-
erage m an ................... .......... ............. 28.9 42.2 28.9
C. Even if his family objects a man should
choose a job that he thinks is best for
him ..................... ....... ... ...- ..- .......... .... 73.7 15.8 10.5


When total scale scores were related to farm economic class,
it was found that over 50 percent of the total measured on the
pessimistic side (Table 12). However, commercial and part-
time farmers were more optimistic in Area 2 than in Area 1,
possibly because of differences in personal and family incomes.
Lack of alternative income opportunities partially accounted for
the adherence to commercial farming in Area 1 (Table 5), even

Statements were answered by either male or female heads, according
to circumstances. Percentage anomic: males, 58.5; females, 47.6.







Rural Areas in Transition


though continuance in farming was fraught with discourage-
ment. It should also be noted that the soils of Area 1 are not
comparable to those of Area 2, and that grain and milk produc-
tion is more common in Area 2 than in Area 1.

TABLE 12.-NUMERICAL DISTRIBUTION OF 114 RESPONDENTS AS SCORED FOR
DISCOURAGEMENT BY FARM EcoNOMIC CLASS AND BY AREA, NORTHWEST
FLORIDA, 1960.

Numerical Distribution
Area 1 Area 2
Economic Dis- Dis-
Classification cour- Neu- Recon- cour- Neu- Recon-
aged tral ciled aged tral ciled

Rural residential:
Gainfully employed ...... 6 1 10 8 1 7
Retired ............................ 6 3 2 6 -
Others (disabled, etc.) 3 1 2 1
Limited farming:
Part-time ............................ 4 1 2 5
Part-retirement ........... 1 6 1 1
Low-income farming:
Sales $50 to $2,499 ...... 4 2 1 -
Sales 2,500 to 4,999 ...... 2 6 1 1
Commercial:
Sales $5,000 and over .... 6 3 1 1 2 6

Number reporting ............ 31 7 15 32 8 21

Probability that results
were not due to chance 99 in 100 99 in 100
(Chi square test)


In both areas low-income farmers were discouraged, as were
the retired and the disabled. But since these three categories
include many older persons, the pessimism noted may in part
be an age relationship, a possibility not fully confirmed by the
data.
Social Participation
Commercial farmers and their wives were usually more
active in leadership roles in church, civic, and other community
activities than other rural family heads. Altogether around 82
percent of the housewives and 78 percent of the male bread-
winners were church members (Table 13).








Florida Agricultural E., p .n,. t Stations


TABLE 13.-CHURCH MEMBERSHIP, ATTENDANCE AT SERVICES, AND OFFICER
POSITIONS OF 144 RURAL FAMILIES, BY FARM ECONOMIC CLASSIFICATION,
AREAS 1 AND 2, 1960.

m E c C s Percentage Participating*
Farm Economic Class
and Sex of Family Head As members In attendance As officers

Rural residential:
Male heads ..................... 75.5 58.5 7.5
Female heads .......-...... 79.7 69.5 3.4
Limited farming:
Male heads ..................... 100.0 81.3 6.2
Female heads ................ 88.5 76.9 3.8
Low-income farming:
Male heads ...................... 66.7 70.0 10.0
Female heads ............. 81.8 66.7 6.1
Commercial farming:
Male heads ........ ....... 85.0 75.0 20.0
Female heads .........-... 82.6 78.3 13.0

All classes
Male ................................ 78.2 67.2 10.0
Fem ale ...... .... ........ ....... 82.3 71.6 5.0


Number reporting:
Male ............. All 119 93 80 12
Female ......... All 141 116 101 7

Reported church membership, church attendance averaging at least one in four Sun-
lays, and officers as deacons, Sunday School superintendents, teachers, etc.



TABLE 14.-SOCIAL PARTICIPATION IN NON-RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS AS
REPORTED BY 277 RURAL MEN AND WOMEN, AREAS 1 AND 2, NORTHWEST
FLORIDA, 1960.

Number by Sex

Organization* Male Female Total

Parent-Teachers Association ................................... 10 16 26
Fraternal Orders, etc. ............................................ 18 4 22
Cattlemens Association .................................-....... 4 4
Home Demonstration Clubs ..................................... 4 4
Service Clubs -- .....--....... ......................--............ 2 2
Labor Organizations ................................... ........ 2 2
County School Board ...................................... 1 1
M miscellaneous ............. ......... ............................... 2 3 5
N ot reported .......................................... .............. 3 3

Totals ........... ............ -- -.................. 39 30 69

Membership in Farm Bureau excluded, because membership often was merely an in-
surance feature.







Rural Areas in Transition


Nearly 48 percent of the commercial farmers were active
in one or more non-religious activities as compared to 12 per-
cent for low-income farmers, 19 percent for part-time opera-
tors, and 14.5 percent for the rural residential non-farmers.
Collectively, commercial farmers participated in a half dozen
types of organizations, while other rural residents confined their
non-religious activities chiefly to lodges or equivalent and PTA.
Membership in fraternal orders and PTA constituted 69 per-
cent (48 of 69) of the combined affiliations of both male and
female heads (Table 14), but possibly some under-reporting of
participation occurred.

PERSONAL ADJUSTMENTS
Changes in residence and occupation by individuals and fam-
ilies are two ways human adjustment takes place. Census data
provide a conception of family disappearance during intercensal
periods, but this study outlines what happened to a given popu-
lation over the five years, from 1955 to 1960.

Residential Changes
In addition to family changes caused by deaths of bread-
winner (Table 4), 19 percent of the total, or 39, moved from the
survey areas. While exact causes for removal were not ascer-
tained, economic adjustment appeared as the most likely. In
support of this view, two relationships were revealed as signifi-
cant (5). The first was that families owning or operating 100
acres or less moved in a ratio of 2 to 1 over families operating
100 acres or more. Second, the rate of movement from farms
relative to length of residence on them was different in Area 1
and Area 2. Families in the Holmes-Walton Area residing
five years or less on survey farms, and families in the Pensa-
cola Area dwelling over five years on their farms, moved in
double the number of others.
Residential changes of families appeared to assume a spiral
motion. Usually new entrants replaced the departers, accord-
ing to 1955 survey findings. Altogether 41 families, or 20 per-
cent of those interviewed, had been in the survey areas five
years or less, and 82 percent of them were living on small hold-
ings (100 acres or less). These relative newcomers approxi-
mated the number of families leaving between 1955 and 1960.
Thus, over a 10-year period 80 changes in family residence took
place among the 205 families studied.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


Off-Farm Migration

The 205 families interviewed in 1955 reported a total of
749 living offspring, 355 of whom were still at home, and the
remainder, or 394, were living elsewhere (Table 15). Of those
who quit their parental hearths, 45 percent stayed in their home
counties, 26 percent migrated from the state, 21 percent located
in other Florida counties, and the remainder joined the U. S.
armed services.

TABLE 15.-NUMERICAL DISTRIBUTION OF 749 LINEAL OFFSPRING OF 205
RURAL FAMILIES BY PLACE OF RESIDENCE OR ORIGIN, NORTHWEST FLOR-
IDA, 1955.
Number by Residence or
Place of Residence Place of Origin
of Children*
Area 1 Area 2 Both Areas

Living at home .................- .............. 159 196 355
Living away from home:
A ll** ............................. ... 224 170 394
In home county ............................... 90 89 179
Other Florida county ....................... 60 21 81
Out of state ..................................... 57 46 103
Armed services ............................... 17 14 31

Totals ....--............ ............................... 383 366 749

Lineal descendents of one or both family heads.
** Individuals who lived in Florida at time of out-migration.
t Some are out-migrants; others are temporarily away.

All children under age 15 were at home when this survey was
made, but there was a sharp drop in the proportion remaining
after age 19. Daughters began leaving home around 16 years
of age, and the exodus was virtually 100 percent complete with-
in three years. Rarely had a daughter remained at home as a
spinster, although a few married daughters returned with their
husbands and families when parents were in advanced years.
Sons began leaving home between 17 and 19, and 8 out of 10
had departed by age 25. Others left at older ages, and some
former migrants returned.
The process of migration from Area 1 differed somewhat
from that of Area 2 and was significant in some aspects (5).
Proportionately more young people from Area 1 migrated from
their home counties than from Area 2 (Table 16). The ratio
of migration of daughters to sons was 10 to 7, and in 6 out of
10 times daughters left the state. Three of every five out-





TABLE 16.-PERCENTAGE DiSTRIBUTION or 394 SURVIVING O'FSPRING oF 205 RURAL FAMILIES, AREAS I
FLORIDA, BY AGE CLASSES AND BY DESTINATION OF OUT-MIGRANTS, 1955.


AND 2, NORTHWEST


Area and Number
Age of
Classes Offspring
Area 1, All ......... 224
Holmes Co.: ......... 121
15 to 19 yrs ..... 11
20 to 24 yrs ...... 20
25 to 29 yrs. ...... 22
:10 to 44 yrs. ...... 50
15 and over ........ 15
Unknown ............ 3
Walton Co.: ......... 103
15 to 19 yrs. ...... (;
20 to 24 yrs. ..... 15
25 to 29 yrs. ...... 21
30 to 44 yrs. ..... 4.1
45 and over ........ 2
Unknown ............ 15
Area 2, All ............ 170
Escambia Co......... 103
15 to 19 yrs. ...... 9
20 to 24 yrs ...... 1(
25 to 29 yrs. ..... 15
30 to 44 yrs ...... 40
45 and over ...... 7
Unknown ............ 16
Santa Rosa Co.: .... 67
15 to 19 yrs. ..... 3
20 to 24 yrs ..... 12
25 to 29 yrs. ..... 12
30 to 44 yrs. ...... 28
45 and over ....... 2
Unknown ............ 10
Areas 1 and 2 ...... 394


Total
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0


Percentage Distribution of Offspring by Residence
In home Out-county Out of
county in state state
40.2 26.8 25.4
34.8 26.4 28.9
18.2 9.1 54.5
15.0 20.0 35.0
27.3 45.1 18.2
44.0 2;.0 26.0
60.0 26.7 13.3
(100.0


7.8



10.0

12.5

19.4

33.3
8.3
21.4
100.0


45.4 20.6


Armed
services
7.6
9.9
18.2
30.0
9.1


4.0


4.8
16.7
20.0

2.3


8.2 2
6.8 2
33.3 2
12.5 2


13.3






Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


migrant sons of Area 2 left the state; whereas, out-migrant
sons of Area 1 moved either in or out of the state in non-signifi-
cant ratios. About 70 percent of the sons who left the state
to accept or to seek employment migrated alone. Nearly three-
fourths of the daughters were married when they migrated,
leaving either with their husbands or to join them.
Out-migrants frequently located in counties close to their
home areas. Fifty-eight percent of the sons and 67 percent of
the daughters who settled in Florida remained in northwest
Florida, or between Jefferson and Escambia counties, inclusive.
Out-of-state migrants showed a preference for Alabama and
Georgia. Area 1 youth usually settled in Georgia, and Area 2
youth in Alabama. This movement held for 62 percent of the
out-of-state migrant sons and 52 percent of the daughters. Many
of the other daughters married servicemen who had been sta-
tioned in the survey area. After marriage they migrated with
their husbands to a number of states, principally in the North.

Occupational Changes
The 170 heads actively employed in 1955 were reduced to
126 by 1960 because of deaths or removals, but small propor-
tions not in the labor force in 1955 had re-entered it by 1960.
Except for retirement, removals, and farm operator drop-outs,
changes in the occupational status of family heads seldom oc-
curred.
As a result of the various individual and family changes, the
rural residential category rose from about 45 percent (92 of
205) in 1955 to nearly 55 percent (82 of 150) in 1960 (Table 17).
Part-time operators tended to become rural residential non-
farmers; about half the low-income farmers shifted to part-
time farming or rural residential non-farming, and 14 percent
(5 of 35) to commercial farming; two-thirds of the commercial
farmers remained as commercial farmers, and one-third trans-
ferred in about equal proportions to low-income, part-time, and
rural residential categories.
Changes in Farming.-When occupational and farm economic
classification changes occurred, the influence of age was evi-
dent. For example, five low-income farmers, or 14 percent of
those interviewed in 1955, had become commercial farmers by
1960. They were the younger operators-farmers who ranged
in age from 24 to 45. An additional 40 percent of the low-
income farmers, or 14, had virtually abandoned farming by 1960.







Rural Areas in Transition


Half were over 65 and retired or semi-retired. Of the other half,
two approached 60 and stopped farming, four (33 to 45 years of
age) had taken gainful non-farm employment, and another
(age 33) had become disabled.

TABLE 17.-NUMERICAL REDISTRIBUTION OF 150 FAMILY HEADS BY 1960
FARM ECONOMIC CLASS STATUS AND AS COMPARED TO THE 1955 DISTRI-
BUTION, AREAS 1 AND 2, NORTHWEST FLORIDA, 1960.

Redistribution by Status, 1960
1955 Rural Low- Corn-
Farm Economic Status resi- Limited income mercial
Class, 1955* (Number) dential farming farming farming

Rural residential: All 5 59 4 2 -
Employed ............. 40 36 3 1 -
Retired .................... 15 14 1 -
Others ....................... 10 9 1
Limited farming: All 26 13 12 1
Part-time ........... 18 9 8 1
Part-retirement ..... 8 4 4 -
Low-income: All 35 7 7 16 5
Sales $50 to S2,499 22 7 4 9 2
Sales 2,500 to 4,999 13 3 7 3
Commercial: All 24 3 3 2 16
Sales 5,000 and up.... 24 3 3 2 16

Totals: Number .... 150 82 26 20 22
Percent .... 100.0 54.7 17.3 13.3 14.7

'See Table 4 for definitions, and Table 3 for proportional changes within areas.

While age was a factor influencing decisions regarding move-
ment from farming, upward changes in cost of production, low-
ered net returns, and limited prospects for farm enlargement
discouraged others. Some farmers placed land in the soil bank
to pay off old debts or to avoid new production risks. Except
for the farmers with the highest gross farm incomes, returns
to family labor were reported as low or wanting. The younger
people quit the unrewarding farms for the most part; the older
held on in spite of disadvantages because of lack of employment
alternatives.
Five case studies provide some insight of movement into
commercial farming between 1955 and 1960 (Table 18). The
youngest of the five stated that a Farmers Home Administra-
tion loan, hard work, and good management were the keys to
his success. Without exception, the quintet placed stress upon







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


cotton for cash income. All "fed out" swine for market and
sold a few steers. In general they believed their chances of
gaining the equivalent of industrial wages for farm labor and
management centered upon pasture improvement and beef cat-
tle production, assuming a reasonable volume of business opera-
tion. Labor shortages set maximum limits to cotton harvest-
ing, and little hope was held for further per farm expansion of
that product.

TABLE 18.-AVERAGE FARM RECORD FOR FIVE OPERATORS CHANGING FROM
LOW-INCOME TO COMMERCIAL FARMING, AREAS 1 AND 2, 1955 AND 1960.

Schedule Year
Item 1955 1960

Approximate gross farm income...........dollars $3,000 $5,600
Total land in farms............................ average acres 331 303
Cash crop acreage, average:
Cotton .............................................................acres 9.0 23.8
Peanuts ...........................................................acres 11.4 13.3
Corn ..........----.......................-- ---..... ........ acres 73.6 68.4
W aterm elons ..................................................-- acres 2.2 4.8
Livestock for income:
Cattle, all ......------..............................average number 22 25
Swine ........................................ average number 41 69
Poultry ... -----.............. -- ---................... average number 140 50


IMPACT OF OFF-FARM EMPLOYMENT

History suggests that both the Pensacola and the Holmes-
Walton areas were originally endowed with similar forestry
resources. Both areas went through the process of establish-
ing farms on "cut-over" land when virgin timber supplies dwin-
dled. Over the years, however, trends in economic develop-
ment between the two areas became unequal. Perhaps because
of its harbor facilities the Pensacola Area early shared in the
main stream of national growth, while the Holmes-Walton Area,
lacking equal locational advantages, lagged behind. The low-
income status of Area 1 probably has been derived more largely
from failure to move ahead than from loss of previously at-
tained gains.
Between 1940 and 1960 the number of employed persons of
14 years of age and over rose from 27,385 to 61,657 in the Pen-
sacola Area, an increase of 125 percent, according to U. S. Cen-







Rural Areas in Transition


sus data. For the Holmes-Walton Area the comparable figures
were 6,996 and 7,543, an increase of less than 8 percent.
Income from manufacturing from 1952 to 1960 rose from
about $20,000,000 to over $75,000,000 in the Pensacola Area, and
dropped from $885,000 to $776,000 in the Holmes-Walton Area.
Concurrently with increases in income from manufacturing
in the Pensacola Area, the income from agriculture mounted
from $3,336,000 in 1952 to nearly $4,100,000 in 1960. Although
the Holmes-Walton Area with its relatively poor soils remained
predominantly agricultural, gross income payments to agricul-
ture fell from $3,352,000 in 1952 to around $3,100,000 in 1960.
With changes in income by major industrial source, there
were numerical and percentage changes in the distribution of
workers by employment status and by specific population cate-
gories. Other data, such as percentage changes in the value of
retail sales, further document the impact of industrial develop-
ment upon Area 2 as contrasted to Area 1.

Income By Source
Income from manufacturing is the most important major
industrial source of income in the Pensacola Area, and agricul-
ture the least important major source of income (Table 19).
Income from manufacturing rose by over 277 percent between
1952 and 1960; construction, by nearly 107 percent. Retail and
wholesale trades, service trades and professions, transporta-
tion, communication and utilities, and agriculture followed in
the order named. Income from government and all other sources
dropped, but decreases may be due in part to the accounting pro-
cedures used. Nevertheless data do show agriculture is rapidly
becoming of minor importance in Area 2, as compared to total
income.
In the Holmes-Walton Area income from government, agri-
culture, and retail and wholesale trades were the three major
sources of civilian production income in 1960, each contributing
in excess of $3 million.
Between 1952 and 1960 construction provided the highest
percentage growth, with transportation, communication and util-
ities, service trades and professions, and retail and wholesale
trades following. Manufacturing, agriculture, and all other
categories collectively registered losses in income.
For the eight-year period for which comparisons are given,
total major industrial source income in Area 2 rose from ap-








TABLE 19.-TOTAL GROSS INCOME PAYMENTS, 1952, AND TOTAL CIVILIAN PRODUCTION INCOME, 1960, FOR THE HOLMES-
WALTON AND PENSACOLA AREAS, NORTHWEST FLORIDA.


Total Amount (Thousands of dollars)


Major Industrial Source


1952 *


Holmes-Walton Area:
Manufacturing ............... ...................... 858
Agriculture ........................ ........ 3,352
Construction ................................ 541
Transportation, communication and utilities ..........- .. 535
Retail and wholesale trades ....................................... .... 2,381
Service trades and professions ......... .............................. 974
Governm ents .... .. .. ............... ... ..... .... --.. -... 5,010
All others ............................-.......... -... 1,030


$ 14,681


Pensacola Area:
Manufacturing ... .--- ......... ....
Agriculture ...------.. ----
Construction .......... .. ... ..... ... ...
Transportation, communication and utilities
Retail and wholesale trades ............................
Service trades and professions ...........
Governm ents ..................... .... .. ................
A ll others .. ......--. ... ....... ......

Totals .. ... ....


.$ 19,920
3,336
12,911
9,692
25,161
14,526
78,306
17,399

. $181,251


1960 **


$ 777
3,092
1,278
898
3,072
1,516
3,822
683

$ 15,138


$ 75,150
4,084
26,695
14,735
46,752
25,031
64,144
13,226

$269,817


Change 1952-1960
In Thousands Percent


$ 81
260
737
363
691
542
1,188
347


+ $ 457


55,230
748
13,784
5,043
21,591
10,505
14,162
4,173


+ $ 88,566


9.4 3.
7.8
- 136.2
+ 67.8
+ 29.0
+ 55.6
C
23.7
- 33.7 z

+ 3.1


+ 277.3
+ 22.4
+ 106.8
+ 52.0 C
+ 85.8
+ 72.3
- 18.1
24.0 -
o+ 48.9
+ 48.9


Calculated from estimates of income payments to individuals. These estimates are on a gross basis (includes employee contribution to retirement
and other social insurance funds).
** Civilian production income consists of civilian wages and salaries (including personal contributions to social insurance), but excludes income front
dividends, interest, rent, transfer payments and military compensation.
Sources: Elise C. Jones, "Income Payments to Individuals in Florida," Economic Leaflets, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of
Florida, Gainesville: Aug. 19.55; Madelyn L. Kafoglis, "Personal Income Received in Florida Counties, 1960", Economic Leaflets, Bureau of
Economic and Rusiness Research, UTniversity of Florida. Feb. 1962.







Rural Areas in Transition


proximately $181.2 to $269.8 millions, an increase of nearly 49
percent; for Area 1 from $14.7 to $15.1 millions, an increase of
only 3.1 percent. Thus, on a percentage basis, the increase in
industrial source income was nearly 16 times greater in Area 2
than in Area 1.
Agriculture

Changes in income from agriculture over time and between
areas took place as the number of farms decreased in both the
Pensacola and Holmes-Walton areas.
In 1960 an estimated 1,550 farmers were located in the
Holmes-Walton Area as against 2,880 in 1952. The per farm
income from agriculture, as calculated from Table 19, averaged
approximately $2,000 in 1960 as compared to $1,165 in 1952.
This represented a gain of 71 percent per farm.
The 1960 and 1952 estimated numbers of farmers in the
Pensacola Area were 1,475 and 2,730. The per farm income for
each of the two years was $2,770 and $1,222, respectively, or a
127 percent increase. The spread in farm incomes between Area
1 and 2 in 1952 approximated 5 percent; in 1960, over 38 per-
cent.
These data clearly show that in Area 2, where industrializa-
tion developed rapidly, agriculture also expanded both in total
value and in income per farm. In Area 1, where a manufactur-
ing income loss was reported, total income payments to agricul-
ture dropped. Perhaps these relationships reflect differences
in local marketing potentials between the two areas, as well as
differences in soils.
The general effect of gainful employment upon farm enter-
prise combinations is shown in Table 20. On the average, rural
land holders who were engaged in off-farm employment special-
ized largely in non-commercial livestock and poultry enterprises,
or combinations thereof. These small enterprises were adjusted
more readily than the growing of crops to off-farm work sched-
ules of family heads. They were also within the work perform-
ance ability of women and children.
The typical retiree, the disabled, the widowed, and other non-
workers generally retained one or two dairy or pork animals or
both, and 15 to 30 chickens, but about one in 10 of them aban-
doned agriculture completely, as did 5 percent of the gainfully
employed.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

TABLE 20.-FARM ENTERPRISES BY OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORIES,
205 RURAL FAMILIES, NORTHWEST FLORIDA, 1955.


Farm Enterprise


Crops, livestock, and/or poultry ....
Crop production only .....................
Livestock only .....................................
Poultry only ....................................
Livestock and poultry only ...............
Garden, livestock, and/or poultry ...
Garden only .......................................
Neither crops, garden, livestock,
nor poultry ...............................

Total ................- ..---- ......

Number (total 205) .........................

Acres operated ................ ...............


Occupational Categories
Gainfully Not
Farmers employed employed

Percent
..-...-..- 89.2 56.5 27.0
.. 3.6 1.2 -
..-- 1.2 8.1
.... 2.4 8.2 18.9
........... 4.8 24.7 27.0
S 3.5 5.4
....- 2.7
4.7 10.9


100.0 100.0 100.0

83 85 37


...... 161.0


Employment

Farm work constituted over 40 percent of total employment
in the Holmes-Walton Area in 1940 as compared to less than
8 percent in the Pensacola Area. By 1960 the dependence upon
farm employment had dropped to around 15 percent in Area 1,
and to less than 2 percent in Area 2 (Fig. 3). Craftsmen, op-
eratives, and clerical and sales workers had superseded the farm
workers. In both areas the rank and file of the farmers and
laborers of all types realized low incomes relative to other work-
ers. Since Area 1 has a larger share in the low-income brackets
than Area 2, its per capital income disadvantage is in part occu-
pational.
Population Change Relationships

Figure 4 shows graphically how the age structures of Areas
1 and 2 changed from 1940 to 1960. Area 1 lost children, youth,
and young adults, leaving proportionally more old people behind.
Losses of youth and adults in Area 2 were relative only, and
the large increase in children under five is evidence of the youth-
fulness of its population. In general an expanding population,
such as that of Area 2, increases the development-acceleration





Rural Areas in. Transition


0


0-
ro

0-
_O-
L-


HOLMES-WALTON


FiP


nn


Fir'


Fl


AREA


Fin


PENSACOLA AREA
o
o
1 0
o -
^ ^
Ldr-
^"-a O .- -


ini


HF1


I--I 1960
I 1940


Fig. 3.-Proportional distribution of workers compared by occupational
groups, by areas, and by years, 1940 and 1960.


fnn


" ' '


'


'


'' '


'







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


processes, and a diminishing or stationary population retards
them."


AREA I





IIZ





[ ^;-- ^
,-. .





c


________________________ 1


THE
ELDERLY
65+

MATURE
ADULTS
45 -64

YOUNG
ADULTS
25--44

YOUTH
15-24

CHILDREN
14 AND
UNDER


- PERCENT-


II



~~1



I


II


1960
1940


o PERCENT
------PERCENT------"


Fig. 4.-Age pyramid comparing the 1940 populations of Areas 1 and 2
with those of 1960.

Theoretically per capital incomes should rise in areas of pop-
ulation loss, because of the balancing effect of population losses
upon various resources. Although this did come about in the
Holmes-Walton Area for the periods under study, per capital in-
come gains did not exceed state averages. Too many factors
interfered to prevent the elimination of inequities. For example,
the aging and the aged were the least educated; were principally
oriented toward either agriculture or rural-farm retirement;
were becoming proportionately more numerous among the popu-
lation; and were, because of age, education, and skills, unfitted
for the nonfarm labor market. Thus, although differences in
opportunities do influence the direction of migration, institu-
tional factors within the community mitigate against increases
in real income. These factors seem to weaken the regional ob-
jectives of uplifting real incomes and levels of living.

SRetail sales of selected items (food, general merchandise, furniture,
household appliances, and drugs) rose from $92 to $160 million in Area 2
from 1950 to 1959 as contrasted to $12.4 million in Area 1 for each of the
years given (8). On a per capital basis there was scarcely any change in
Area 1 ($432 to $425), but in Area 2 an increase of 11 percent was noted
($702 to $780).


I ~~~1


r~rl






Rural Areas in Transition


EDUCATION
Education is one factor which helps to determine migration
tendencies and employment in that it trains young people in
knowledge and skills not always shared by parents. Signifi-
cantly, educational levels of fathers influenced aspirations of
sons, because the educational levels of fathers were found to
be directly related to out-county migration of sons. Education
also appeared to be the principal avenue for vertical mobility
and for maximizing the innate capacities of the recipients.

SUMMARY
1. This study embraced four counties divided into two areas
of two counties each. The first was called Area 1, or the Holmes-
Walton Area; the second, Area 2 or the Pensacola Area, con-
sisted of Santa Rosa and Escambia counties.
Area 1 is a rural non-industrialized area; Area 2 is industrial-
ized deep within rural areas. The objective was to test the im-
pact of industrialization upon agricultural and human resources
in low-income farm areas.
2. Economic opportunity, as measured by family and per
capital incomes, was twice as great in Area 2 under expanding
industrialization as in Area 1, where rurality persists. Skilled,
semi-skilled, clerical, sales, and kindred workers had in general
become the more important occupational groups, in both areas,
on a proportional basis.
3. Analyses of records of 205 rural households indicated that
only 14 percent of all rural farm heads in the area studied were
commercial farmers. About 24 percent were low-income farm-
ers, 18 percent part-time or part-retirement farmers, and the
remainder rural residential nonfarmers.
4. Of 205 rural households studied in 1955, over 43 percent
sold no farm products at all, 24 percent up to $1,199, 19 percent
from $1,200 to $4,999, and the remainder from $5,000 upwards.
Of the latter category, 75 percent reported annual gross in-
comes in excess of $10,000.
5. In both Areas 1 and 2 recent intra-area adjustments have
taken place. Over the five-year period studied-1955 to 1960-
8 percent of the 205 family heads surveyed died; 19 percent of
the unbroken families moved from the survey areas, but most
remained in their home counties. Except for removals, drop-
outs from farming, and retirement, personal occupational ad-
justments seldom occurred.






Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


6. Attitude tests clearly emphasized the unwillingness of
many families to quit their home areas, even to upgrade family
incomes. About half were deeply pessimistic and discouraged
in respect to achievement of personal goals. This may reflect
fear of venture, unwillingness to break with the familiar, and
mistrust of personal capabilities.
7. Between 1952 and 1960 the estimated average per farm
income in the Holmes-Walton Area rose from $1,165 to $2,000,
or by 71 percent; and in the Pensacola Area, from $1,222 to
$2,770. Concurrently, income from agriculture dropped from
about $3.4 million to $3.1 million in the Holmes-Walton Area
and rose from $3.3 million to $4.1 million in the Pensacola Area.
Thus, improvement in income per farm appears to rise with
area increases in manufacturing income.
8. The impact of industrialization upon Area 2 was noted
in (a) a 277 percent increase (1952 to 1960) in the dollar value
of manufacturing and a 17 percent increase in the proportional
value of manufacturing (11 to 28 percent) to the total economy;
(b) rapid growth in construction, trades, services, transporta-
tion, and kindred services; (c) heavy proportional shifts of
workers by occupation groups, reflecting employment of in-
migrants; and (d) heavy in-migration of young adults.
In general, the reverse situation held for Area 1, except that
per farm income improved primarily because of a reduction in
the number of farm operators. Farm income in Area 2 rose
concurrently with industrial expansion, both in total income and
in income per farm.

CONCLUSIONS
A survey of the open-country households in both a rural
farm area and in an industrial area indicated that they differed
in their potentials for rural area development.
Survey data clearly revealed that agricultural income per
farm rose and fell with increases and declines in industrial in-
come. Theoretically, therefore, low-income farm areas should
strive for industrial expansion. While an unbalanced age struc-
ture may reduce the attractiveness of an area for new industry,
it should not be a determining factor for the location of industry,
since people do migrate to areas of industrial expansion.
In both areas family heads of 45 years of age or older who
reported low levels of educational attainment, low levels of liv-
ing, and general lack of non-farm employment opportunities






Rural Areas in Transition


were more often engaged in low-income agriculture than better-
educated younger persons. Retirement or death will eventually
remove these older individuals from the scene. In the mean-
time, even though they possess skills of value to industry or
could acquire them through adult vocational training, their
ages and lack of formal education will generally bar them from
it. This would seem to defeat in advance rehabilitation training
programs specifically designed to place older people in factory
jobs.
When large segments of open-country populations in a rural
area are aged or aging, they actually reduce chances for rapid
economic adjustment. Moreover, older people might discover
that low-income areas-areas where average per capital incomes
are below state and national averages-can become havens for
retirement. Conceivably, ways could be found to provide the
elderly with greater opportunities for disposal of unused farm
land and for possibilities of congregate living and community
services, and thus alleviate the financial strain for their support
upon society.
Economic and social problems in low-income areas are so
complex that no simple remedial answer presents itself. In the
long run, high school graduation will become an increasingly
necessary condition for early job placement. Occupational as-
pirations, spatial mobility, and advancement in social status
appear to be directly related to educational levels. Hence, the
educational process becomes a dominant factor in the economic
adjustment of low-income farm areas.

LITERATURE CITED
1. Downie, N. M., and R. W. Heath. "The Tetrachoric Correlation Method"
Basic Statistical Methods. Harper and Brothers, 1959, pp. 177-178.
2. Ducoff, Louis J. Trends and Characteristics of Farm Populations in
Low-Income Farm Areas. USDA (Mimeographed) p. 1. Aug. 1955.
The Florida counties studied were adjudged low-income by one or more
of the following criteria:
a. Average annual residual income per farm is less than $1,000.
b. Fifty percent or more of the commercial farms, as classified by
the U.S. Census, are rated "low-production" farms.
c. Rural family level of living indexes are among the lowest fifth of
the Nation, based on ratings by the USDA.
3. Gilbraith, K. M., and L. A. Reuss. Sources and Levels of Income, Rural
Households of North and West Florida. 1956. Univ. Fla. Agr. Econ.
Mimeo Report No. 59-4. 1959.
4. Likert, Rensis. A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes. Co-
lumbia University, Archives of Psychology. No. 140: 27-28. 1932.







36 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

5. Pearson, Frank A., and Kenneth R. Bennett. Statistical Methods.
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1942. p. 343.
6. Sewell, William H. The Construction and Standardization of a Scale for
the Measurement of the Socio-Economic Status of Oklahoma Farm Fam-
ilies. Okla. Agr. Exp. Stat. Tec. Bul. 9. 1940.
7Srole. Leo. "Social Integration and Certain Corollaries: An Explora-
tory Study," American Sociological Review. Vol. 21 (1956), 709-716.
8. Statistical Abstract of Florida Counties. Florida State Chamber of
commerce Jacksonville, Florida.




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