(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "A study of Farm Security Administration record books from Pennsylvania"

Author: Mills, Kathryn Aldrich 

Title: A study of Farm Security Administration record books 

from Pennsylvania 

Place of Publication: 

Copyright Date: 1944 

Master Negative Storage Number: MNS# PSt SNPaAg047.2 



i«^».,^..-.Jl.J-.J-w^.-.«.M>t.ll 



<107202>*OCLC*Form:manuscriptitem2 InputBMM Edit:FMD 

008 ENT: 971013 TYP: s DTI: 1944 DT2: LAN: eng 

035 (OCoLC)37764814 

037 PSt SNPaAg047.2 $bPreservation Office, The Pennsylvania State 

University, Pattee Library, University Park, PA 16802-1805 
090 20 Thesis 1944m $bMills,KA $cst*21 784620 $cax+(Archival) 
090 20 Microfilm D344 reel 47.2 $cmc+(service copy, print master, archival 

master) 

100 1 Milk Kflthrun Aldrirh 

245 12 A study of Farm Security Administration record books from Pennsylvania 
$ba thesis $cby Kathryn A. Mills. 

246 30 Farm Security Administration record books from Pennsylvania. 
260 $c1944. 

300 74 leaves $bmaps $c29 cm. 

502 Thesis (M.S.)-Pennsylvania State College. 

504 Bibliography: leaves 61-62. 

533 Microfilm $bUniversity Park, Pa. : $cPennsylvania State University 

$d1997. $e1 microfilm reel ; 35 mm. $f(USAIN state and local literature 

preservation project. Pennsylvania) $f(Pennsylvania agricultural 

literature on microfilm). 
590 This item is temporarily out of the library during the filming process. 

If you wish to be notified when it returns, please fill out a Personal 

Reserve slip. The slips are available in the Rare Books Room, in the 

Microforms Room, and at the Circulation desk. 
590 Archival master stored at National Agricultural Library, Beltsville, MD 

: print master stored at remote facility. 
610 10 United States. $bFarm Security Administration. 
650 Cost and standard of living $zPennsylvania. 

830 USAIN state and local literature preservation project. $pPennsylvania. 
830 Pennsylvania agricultural literature on microfilm. 



The PennsylTanla State College 
The Graduate School 



Department of Home Economics 



« 

* ' 



A STUDY OF FARM SBCURITY ADMINISTRATION R3C0RD BOOKS 

FROM PBir^SYLTANIA 



A Thesis 



by 
Eathryn A. Mills 



Submitted in partial fulfillment 
of the requirements for the degree of 

MASTER OP SCIBlICa 



Approved. 



^^ 



June 1944 





Director of Home Economics 



Approved 



hi^nf^ dmM^ 




Professor of Home Economics Education 



TABLB OP C0NTBNT5 



Chapter 



II 



IV 



TI 



Introduotlon 



Review of Related Literature 



III Explanation of Terms Used In This Study 



Procedure Used In Making the Study 

An Svaluatlon of the Sample of Farm Families 
Represented in the Record Books Used in this 
Study 



Page 
1 

20 
26 



30 



Patterns of Farm Family Spending in Pennsylvania 

42 



VII Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations 
Blhllography 



57 
61 



Appendix 



63 



LIST OP TABLES 



Table 



II 



Page 



Seoe'apliic Distribution of Sample of Pennsylvania 
Families Furnishing Farm Security Administration 
Record Books Used in Study 



29 



Number of Farm Families in the Agricultural Areas 
Grouped with Reference to Income Level 51 



III Number of Farm Families of 3ach Type Grouped with 

Reference to Income Level 34 



IV A Comparative Study of Pennsylvania Farm Families 

Grouped with Reference to Gross Money Income 36 

Ta A Comparative Study of Rural Farm Families Grouped 

with Referenct to Net Money Income 38 



Yb Distribution of Fa^iily Expenditures In Sample 



VI 



VII 



VIII 



IX 



XI 



39 



A Comparative Study of Farm Families Grouped with 
Reference to the Number of Persons in Family 

Spending Patterns for Farm Families in Each Area 
as Indicated by the Average Expenditure for 
Budget Items 

Spending Pattern for Farm Families in Bach Income 
Level as Indicated by the Average Expenditure for 
Budget Items 

Spending Patterns for Bach Type of Farm Family as 
Indicated by the Average Sxpenditure for Budget 
Items 



40 



43 



45 



48 



Average Expenditures for Pood, Clothing and Medical 

Care of the Various Types of Families Grouped" on 

the Basis of Net Money Income 50 

Average Expenditures for Food, Clothing and Medical 
Care of Families in the Various Agricultural Areas 
Grouped on the Basis of Net Money Income 54 



ACKNOWLEDaSMliIKT 



Appreoiatlon is expressed to Miss Jean ])• Ambersonf 
Professor of Home Eoonomlcs Eduoation, for her assistance 

. _- ji t ja ,. ^ ^ m n w% 4-V%A ^1<iavivi^v»r(» nv^crmn^v. Uf. \nin. TiV CtTi ttP & t i O n 



» 4.' 



and writing of the report; and to Dr* Laura W. Drummond, 
Director of Home Eoonoralos, for her adhdce on the selection 
and value of the study* 



Gratitude is also expressed for the cooperation of 
the following Farm Security Administration personnel whose 
assistance in securing the record books fKrm borrowers made 
this study possible; Mr. Carson P. Mertz, State Director; 
and the District Supervisors, Mr* Carl MorsOf Mr# John Greer, 
and Mr* Claude Myers who promoted interest in the study, and 
especially the County Supervisors from the various Farm 
Security Administration offices in the State whose names 



follow: 

Mr. W. Levant Alcorn and Mrs. Dorothy Wheeler 

Mrs. Katherine D. Ball 

Mr. Arnold L. Blalceslee and Mrs. Helen Wolfe 

Mr. Charles Armstiong and Miss Lavina Helson 

Mr. Lyle A. Crooks 

Mr. William S. Beck 

Mr. A* Rudolph York 

Mr. Mark N. Hanna 

Mr. Kyle Alexander 

Mr. Oakley Havens and Mrs. Dorothy Dore 

Mr. Martin Spangler 

Mr. William Sipple and Miss Slizabeth L. Grove 

Mr. Jacob W. Bartges and Miss Irene Harper 

Mr. Walter M. Gilbert 

Mr. J. Omar Hissley 

Mr. Carl W. Blank 

Mr. Chester P. Hoenstine 



Corry 

Tow an da 

Meadville 

Montrose 

Smethport 

Scranton 

Lewisburg 

Clearfield 

State College 

Huntingdon 

sBensburg 

Somerset 

Masontown 

New Bloomf ield 

Lancaster 

Reading 
Uorristown 



CHAPTER I 



Introdnotlon 



The Farm Security Administration is a New Deal Agency 
created for the purpose of rehabilitating low-income farmers* 

In the period after 1929 popularly known as tho depression 
the problem of agriculture "became of national importance* 
Previous to this period, if any farmer was not financially 
successful it was his own problem; but when in 193E two 
million farmers were on relief , and by 1935 five and a half 
milliont the agricultural problem was recognized by the 
government as a national responsibility. When any family has 
the land and buildings with which to earn a living it seems 
unnecessary that -it; be supported from public funds. The 
Farm Security Administration grew out of the government's 
attempts to help the low- Income farmer solve his financial 
problems and become self-supporting* 

Although Farm Security has had both the functions of a 



relief agency and of a credit agency* it is neither. 



It 



has been a rehabilitation agency, supervising the spending 
of funds loaned for putting into operation farm and home 
management plans* 



One of the objectives of the Farm Security Administration 
was to have all of its borrowers raise as much of their own 



food supply as possible. This policy protects the fanner 
from the hardship of selling his products at wholesale 
prices and buying baoic at retail prices. It also enables 
him to have more oash available for necessary expenditures. 

In order that the supervisory phases of the program 
might be carried out successfully, the Farm Security Admini- 
stration furnished its borrowers record books in which they 
were expected to keep a record of all income, all farm 
expenditures, and all home expenditures. This enabled the 
farmers to know how they stood financially and whether income 
and expenditures were according to plan. 

During the years in which the writer worked for the 
Farm Security Administration she assisted many wives in making 
their home management plans and yearly budgets. These home 
management plans tended to show a similarity for familiefl 
with similar environment, income, and size of family. 

Since no study of the record books in Pennsylvania had 
been made, the writer felt that it would be valuable at this 
time to know how the family living expenditures of Pennsylvania 
families compared with the expenditure patterns shown by 
other extensive studies recently made in this country. The 
writer's experience as an employee of Farm Security, working 
closely with farm families, convinced her that such knowledge 
would be valuable in assisting the supervisor in her guidance 
responsi'bllity* 



s 



It Is hoped that this study will also gire baolcground 
for understanding some of the problems of family living and 
will furnish data which might prove useful to any agencies 
rtii <«>» «w4/iiifii fl w AY«ir4Ti0» with rural families other than 
Farm Security, such as extension, vooational teachers, social 
service and welfare workers and rural ministers. 



31 



The writer then proposes to investigate these hypotheses: 

1, The spending of farm families of given sizes and 
incomes under the guidance of thft Farm Security Administration 
may fall into patterns which demonstrate recognisahle trends 

In spending* 

2. The spending pattern for farm families may vary 

among agricultural areas In Pennsylvania. 

3, The expenditures of farm families for certain 
items (food, clothing, and medical care) may follow the 
trend for expenditures as predicted "by Engel. 

4. The spending pattern for family living for Farm 
Security Administration families in Pennsylvania may he similar 
to the spending pattern of those of the same sise and income 

as shown hy former studies. 



CHAPTER II 

Review of Related Literature 



Since the pre-depression days of 1929 when many 
families have needed to have their Income supplemented with 
some form of funds, relief, charity, loans, etc*, it has 
become necessary to Icnow the general spending needs of families 



s 



o that these supplemental funds appropriated "by the Federal 



and State government s may be allocated wisely. 



According to Reid (9) one of the best sources of data 
on incomes and expenditures is the^ Consumer Purchases Study. 
This Consumer Purchases Study (12) makes the following 

statement: 

The need for a broad investigation of family 
living had long been recognized by both Govern- 
ment and private agencies. ?/hile numerous studies 
of family expenditures had previously been made 
in this country, most of them covered only small 
samples. The few investigations on a relatively 
large scale were restricted to certain groups 
in the population. • •and did not represent all 
Income levels. 

The study of consumer purchases included families 
living in 2 metropolises, 6 large cities, 14 
middle-sized cities, 29 small cities, 140 villages 
and 66 farm counties. . .The Bureau of Home 
Economics was in charge of the work in all villages 
and farm counties and in 19 of the 29 small cities. 
The Bureau of Labor Statistics assumed responsi- 
bility for the work in the 10 other small cities 
and cities of larger size^ 

All further reference to this study will te confined to that 
portion done by the Bureau of Home Economics which related 



to the farm ootinties only, and will be designated as 
The Consximer Purchases Study# 



In this Cons-ujner Purchases Study, 14 types of farming, 
important in the TTation^s business of agriculture, were 
selected to give a cross-section of the families operating 
farms in this country. Thus a small group of counties 
chosen "because of the importance of a specific type of farm- 
ing would net necessarily "be representative of the major 
type of agriculture or of the income received from agriculture 
in the State in which they were located. Because of bases 
of selection, no one farm section can he described as 
typical of a State* 

The county selected in Pennsylvania for this rural 
study was Lancaster County. It is agreed that it is not 
representative of the State as a whole. This study was 

limited to 

only white families in whiah there was a husband and 
a wife, both native born. • .The farm study was 
limited to families of operators* • .who had been 
living on the farm for at least one year. 

The number of non-relief families in the Lancaster 

County sample of Pennsylvania was 2023; This included 84 



pe 



rcent of the eligible families in the county, about one- 



fifth of which were classified as rural-farm* 



Some of the findings of the Consumer Purchase Study 



were as follows: 



6 



The amount of income of a farm family has deter- 
mined In large part the level of living it achieves 
and its chances for financial security* • •This 
survey furnishes a rather detailed picture of the 
income levels of the families of native-white 
operators in 20 different farming sections of the 
country* . .The limitation of the study to native- 
white families of operators serves also to limit 
somewhat the general applioalDility of the data, 
since evidence indicates that their incomes tended 
to he higher than those of the excluded population* 
However, the data concerning the operators* families 
may "be used for estimates of incomes of all levels 
of all families in these sections by adjustments 
"based upon information concerning the excluded 
groups^ 

General income levels of families of the farm 
operators studied in these 20 sections differed 
marlcedly, as would he expected from agricultural 
statistics from other sources* The median Income 
of the operators* families in Pennsylvania v/as 
$1300 or over* Twenty-nine percent of the families 
received less than $1000 and 27 percent received 
$2000 or over* The general level of income in 
each section was determined primarily by net 
money receipts from farming* Non-money farm 
income in the form of occupancy of the farm dwell- 
ing, and home-produced food, fuel and other products 
used hy the household was a substantial proportion 
of total net income in each section (more than 30 
percent J# Farm furnished food for household use 
accounted for a larger part of non-money income 
than housing, fuel and other products* 

Large families tended to have larger incomes than 
small ones* In each of the 20 sections, the family- 
type group having the highest median was one in 
which families had 5 or more members* The two- 
person families ranked lowest or next lowest* 
The highest median income in Pennsylvania was 
$1837 for families of four or more children, while 
the lowest median income was $918 for the two 
member family* Age of husband and the family 
situation usual in certain stages of the family 
cycle seem to have played an important role in 
determining the general income level of a type 
group; but no single factor accounts for one 
group's income position in relation to that of the 
other giD ups* 



Money expenditures for the family^s food increased 
with the family*s size, hut when expressed on e 
per capita basis, the amounts spent for food decreases 
as the family sise becomes larger* At a given 
income level it is more difficult for the large 
than the small families to provide their members* 
needs and wants. Pood is not the only item that 
calls for greater expenditure as the family size 
increases. The wardrobe of the large family costs 
more even though the husband and wife spend less 
on their clothes than parents of one or two 
children. 

However, in this same report a typical consumption pattern 
for the expenditure of farm families at the money income 
level $1000-1499 was given. 



Pood 


^ZZ5 


Housing 


28 


Household Operation 


98 


Furnishings and Equipment 


49 


Clothing 


145 


Automobile 


156 


Personal Care 


S2 


Kedlcal Care 


64 


Recreation 


34 



The Pennsyl vanla-Ohlo section of the report presents 
these Interesting figures and comments. 



Income 



Average Value of Pood 
for Type III Family 



$250- 499 $315 



1000-1249 
2500-2999 



,453 
555 



Purchased Food Home Produced 
#129 $186 

155 296 

278 277 



For any given income class, the value of all food 
increases with the size of family, but not sufficiently, 
as a rule, to maintain the larger families on as 
high a dietary plan as that enjoyed by the 2-person 
family. 

The national Resources Committee has published 
Consumer Expenditures in the Unite d States. (8) using data 
from the Consumer Purchases Study. Data in Table V for 
Rural family spending 1935-36 have been taken from this 



study. 



I 



Po 



od is the largest single oittegory of expense "below 



the $20,000 Income. When the Income Is $500, 65 percent 
Is spent for food. 



^^fA«« urn. <F<) 4- t!% 4^/S <M 4 



Clothing takes fourth place among oonsuinpw j.oa csvegcr^ss 
at most income levels. Because the average amount spent for 
clothing increases more rapidly with Increasing Income 
than average amounts spent for food, housing and household 
operation, the percentage of total expendlttjfe devoted to 
clothing rises as we move up the income scale. The expendi- 
tures for clothing rose from 7.5 percent of Income of $500 
to 15 percent of income of $20,000, therefore, clothing 
expense does not rise as rapidly as income. 

variations in expenditure for medical care resembled 
that expended for food. The percentage of income devoted 
to each decreased as the income rose; for instance, when the 
income was $500, 7 percent was expended but at $20,000, 2 
percent was expended. for medical care. 

The median family Income in 1935-36 was $1160. The 
spending pattern of the median family resembled very closely 
the average spending pattern shown for families of $1000-1250 
income class. This is similar to the pattern as A own in 
the Consumer Purchases Study. 

,. « t^t\ 1012 farm families were used. 
In the study by Muse, (17J, 1012 J^""" 



All data were oolleoted during 1936 as part of the large- 
scale study of consumer purchases conducted "by the Federal 
Bureaus of Home Economics and tabor Statistics* The basis 
for selection of farm families was the same as that used 
in the Lancaster County study« 

One of the chief purposes of this project was to 
investigate the living expenditures in relation 
to family composition and income level, with other 
factors held as nearly constant as possible. 



The findings from this Vermont study that have a 
relationship to the present study follow. 

There were either three or four members in 
41 percent of the families, in 24 percent 
there were two, in 22 percent five or six and 
in less than 15 percent there were seven or 
more members* For the 960 families who received 
no relief in money or in kind during the year, 
total family incomes averaged $1217, of which 
amount $700 (58 percent) was cash and $517 
(42 percent) was non-money income. 

Total family incomes were $2000 or more in 11 
and $2500 or more in 5 percent of the cases. 
They were less than |250 In 3 perdent of the 
cases, less than $500 in 9 percent of the case»# 

he total incomes of less than |1000 averaged 
4 percent cash and 60 percent non-money income, 
while for Incomes of |1000 or mere these 
percentages were 63 and 37. 

For a controlled sample of 538 of these families, 
cash living expenditures averaged $707. One-half 
of them spent less than $632, one-third less 
than $500 and almost two-thirds spent less than 
$750. 

Food expenditures averaged $252 per family, or 
36 percent of the total cash spent for family 
living. Family use of the automobile and cloth- 
ing each accounted for 11 percent and household 
operation for 10 percent of the total, while 12 
other classes of items did for less than 1 to 6 
percents. 



10 



As income rose, the amounte spent for food 
regardless of family composition, and the per- 
centages of total expenditures claimed by it 
tended to decrease. 

« 

Clothing costs ranged from $36 for the lowest 
f>^'K9 frsr the highest of six income levels, or 
from 9 to 12 percents of total expenditures. 
Their range was from §50 for families of two 
to $95 for families of five or six persons, 
regardless of incomes. 



to 



A mo 



is 



re recent study of the same type is Rural Family 
spending and Saving in Wartime (IS). 

This study ... was undertaken to provide ^^H^^' 
tion on the incoiiBs and expenditures of J»e'j8»^ • 
families. . .during the period that immediately 
isreceded the introduction of regulations and 
controls imposed hy war economy on ^°^«^" f^^*' 

• ing. The main purpose was to obtain estimates • 
of the way consumers distribute their incomes 

• among various consumption goods ^^J/"jf j//™ 
of sivings and to provide these estimates for 
each income level within three P^P^^^'^i'^,^ J'^''^" • 
urban, rural non-farm and farm. ^'^%°^J®°* „ 
underlying the collection of ^^^^ ^^^^'^J* '°^ 
to disclose the regularities in the relation 
between incomes and expenditures that may be 
used to predict the response o* ^^'^^f'^" *J_, 
changes in conditions of production and Jie^J^' 

bution and to specific P'°g^^«»%^°; *^? *i'^°' 
tion of income such as taxes and compulsory 

savings* 

These -regular ities- may be regarded as spending 
patterns for family living. The families of this study 
have been grouped as farm and non-farm. The data for 
receipts and disbursements for family living have been 
related to this grouping for the years 1941 and 1942. 
Forty-five counties were included in the sample, arrayed 
into nine population groups and then into three classes 



11 



according to the average value of farms. Each of these 
87 classes was represented In each county In the sample. 
The dwelling was the sampling unit and each county provided 



-_ _- . .,,. ffu»^t-A» o'nA TJauAtte fiountlea In Pennsylvania 

25-3U awoxixngo. v>ii.s>i» »%»* ^..^ — ^«..- 



^ A *- .^^ 



were 



included in the 45 counties studied. Some of the 



more Important findings were as follows: 

For hoth groups, farm and non-farm, the average 
extienditur es for the major categories of con- 
sumption at each successive Income level Increase 
in a way that may he described as closely approach- 
ing a smooth curve. 

Farm families, however, receive an income that 
fluctuates widely from year to year and the higher 
incomes of a given year are prohahly devoted in 
large measure to savings end payments of debts. 
The stability in the consumption pattern is 
illustrated in the following data for the expendi- 
tures of farm families at the money income level 
$1000-1499: 



The 



Food 

Housing 

Household Operation 

Furnishings and Equipment 

Clothing 

Automobile 

Personal Care 

Medical Care 

Recreation 



$295 
25 
97 
74 
152 
103 
21 
65 
32 



Dividing the estimated net cash i^oo^^/'^JJ^^J® 
"* ^ 1 o/Li fog estimated by the 

to persons on farms in ly^J. las f""*""* „.««- 

Bureau of Agricultural Economics) the aj«'*^®. ^^ 
size of family as s&own in the survey. 6;J;jJ^- 
a figure of #860 per farm '*f,iy- ,f ! ^IJ^Jf in 
net farm money i-cme among ^^^f^Jj/^Jii^g^s can 
the sample amounted to #789. ^^f . 7° * _ag\ge4 
be made comparable by adjusting the figures usea 

In arriving at the data, 
average expenditure per family for the total expendl 



ture for family living appears below: 



1« 



fet»l V««t Household Clothing Personal Medical 
All Classes $ Ml $264 | 88 $189 #20 #62 



$ 



•- 249 


8» 


114 


It 


£50- 499 


481 


152 


41 


50 3- 749 


617 


198 


62 


750- 999 


606 


288 


66 


1000-1499 


921 


295 


97 


1500-1999 


1207 


S40 


124 


2000-2999 


1562 


444 


169 


3000-4999 


1836 


467 


208 



86 
88 
112 
128 
152 
180 
234 
808 



7 


80 


11 


85 


15 


41 


19 


60 


21 


68 


29 


96 


87 


116 


50 


186 



An Investigation "based on 1046 Farm and Home Aooount 
Books of Iowa Farm Security Administration Borrowers (10) In 
1939, is similar to the present study* 

Farally records used in this study were supervised 
TDy field supervisors of the Farm Security Admini- 
stration. Bach of the 60 FSA offices was asked 
to submit 25 farm and home record hooks covering 
the period from March 1, 1959 to March 1, 1940. 
Of the books submitted, 1045 were complete enough 
to be used. It seems likely, therefore, that 
the better records may have been sent for the 
study, and that the situations shown may be 
typical only for the more capable FSA families. 

The study indicated that these families used more home pro- 
duced foods than is usual for families of comparable income. 
In 56 percent of these families the head was under age 35 
and the si^e of the low income families was larger than that 

of other studies. 

For many of the lower income families, the living 
took more than the net farm income. however, 
better situated families had margins above living 
costs, making possible payments on debts or 
expansion of farm enterprises. 

Farm furnished goods provided 43 J^^J^* f *^* 
total livinR. This term "value of living is 
used to liSicate cash expenditures plus Purchase 
value of farm goods used for living. * •°'-^t",-j^,4, 
average family's food 66 percent was farm J-nxish.d. 

Home produced and purchased 'of ^^^^/J^JJ ^^a f 
per person and constituted well ever half 

living. 



amlly 



18 



For larger families t neither farm furnished nor 
purchased goods were proportionately larger than 
for the smaller families* The largest families 
averaged only 60 percent more cash and farm 
goods than the smallest familles« whereas there 
were more than four times as many persons to) be 
provided for# 

For families similar in slxsy those with older 
children used only sli^tly more cash and farm 
goods than families with only younger children* 

The value of living and the margin of income 
above the living costs showed marked variations 
from one type-of -farming area to another* 

The living of lOOS Iowa FSA families in 1939 was 
provided by an average of $ZZ6 in cash and $149 
worth of farm products* The sum of these two 
figures f $475, supplied the needs of four people 
in the average family and took 66 percent of tlm 
family net farm Income* 

Thirty-seven percent of the total cash spent 
went for food* * • Food accounted for 59 percent 
of the total value of living* Percent of the 
total living represented by food indicates how 
much or little went to round out the living after 
the food had been provided* In other words, a 
high percent of total living represented by food 
left little for other things that contribute 
to other types of satisfactions in life* 

Sixty-five percent of th# total food, and 43 
percent of the total living was farm furnished* 
The percent of the total food, and percent of the 
total living home produced both indicate that 
these families have gone a long way in becoming 
less dependent upon cash expenditures for their 
living* For the lower Income group, this assured 
a much better living than would otherwise be 
possible* 

Both the cash and farm goods used for living 
appear to be affected by net farm income* Total 
income used varied from an average of |S72 for 
families with incomes under |250 to $819 for 
families with incomes over $1750. However, in 
the higher income groups tho average size of 






14 



family was larger than in the later Income 
groups. The portion of cash expenditures going 
for food rarled only from 33 percent for the 
highest income group to 39 percent for the 
lowest income group* Within a specific family 
type this yarlation was even less and did not 
correspond to income changes at all» 

All items of expenditure Increased with the 
increased incomest The ne^dical and food items 
for the highest group were twice as big as for 
the lowest group. For clothingt household opera- 
tion, and furnishing, the highest income group spent 
three times as much, and for education-recreation- 
giving, four times as much as the lowest income 
groups 

Total farm goods and cash used ranged from $412 
average for the families without children to $661 
for the group with five or more where the oldest 
child was over age 16, This difference of only 
60 percent had to cover the needs of more than 
four times as many persons. 

Both the age and the number of children affected 
the total income used for living. The large 
families used a higher proportion of their net 
farm income than small families in each age 
group. This figure varies from 53 percent for 
the man-and-wife families, to 77 percent for 
the group having 5 or more children. The records 
Indicated that the number of family members had 
more effect on the amount of farm and purchased 
food than did the age of the children. But for 
cash expenditures and most items except food, the 
age of the children had more effect. 



In August 1941 an additional study of the same nature, 
Suiamary of Combined Home Account and Farm Account Records * 
(4) was conducted using Illinois farm families. These 180 
farm families, mostly farm and home bureau members, had 

considerable amount of information and help with 
regard to farm practices and family living. The 
average sized family was 3.9 persons and the average 
number In the household was 4.2. The fact that 
these families were interested In keeping such 



15 



Eooounts would Indicate that they were the more 
progressive type of family* In addition to the 
requirements for the regular account projectst 
they 

account "books at the same t ime f 

(b) made out a complete net worth statement, and 

(c) recorded income and expenses other than those 
for the farm they operated. The figures represent 
the average choices. • .wise or unwise. • •of a 
progressive group of families trying to exercise 
more control over the financial problems of their 
everyday living* 

The families were divided into fice groups accord- 
ing to their net family earnings. The earnings 
varied from an average of $1121 for the laarest 
group to an average of $6000 for the highest* 
The average for all 180 families was $2868» 






The cash available 
and interest varie 
different net fami 
available for thes 
about $1200 for th 
group to over $450 
this highest group 
next-to«the-hlghes 
lowest group* The 
was almost $2100« 



for living, investment 
d considerably among the 
ly earnings groups* The cash 
e three purposes varied from 
lowest net family earnings 
for the highest* Excluding 
the cash available for thiB 
almost doubles that for the 
average for all 180 families 



e 


f 
t 



For the group as a whole t the average cash 
family expenses amounted to |1E72* An interesting 
feature of the family expenditures is the fact 
that transportation* •chiefly automobile expense. • 
ranks next ^ to food In importance* Apparently these 
families travel more than most population groups^ 
Transportation was followed by operating expenseSf 
which includes fuel, power t telephone, supplies, 
paid service and similar items* Hecreation and 
personal care took the smallest amounts of cash 
in all the groups* 

What were the variations In family expenditures 
according to net family earningst The total cash 
outgo ranged from $1186 in the loi^est net family 
earnings group to $4298 in the highest group* 



16 



She Items whioh showed the greatest peroentage 
increase from the loveat to the highest group are o 
foodf sheltert medical caret operating ezpensesf 
giftSf olothlng, transportat lont personal carof 
oommunity welfare* education and recreation* 
As net family earnings increased, the most striking 
changes are in the investmentSf life insurancSf 
and interest payments* These were higher than any 
of the above mentioned* Prom the lowest to the 
highest groups the total cash family expenses 
douhled; the total cash available increased 285 
percent; interest payments, 478 percent; and 
investmentst 1100 percent. Operating expenseSf 
medical care, shelter and food all increased 
less than 100 percent* 



rl 



In the study made by Macklin John of the Sociology 
Department and Paul I* Wrigley of the Department of Agri- 
cultural Economics at The Pennsylvania State College (18) t 
two hundred and fifty new borrowers for Farm Security in 
1939 were visited at intervals over four aaocessive years 
and an interview schedule filled out. The data show the 
status of the families the year before they were on the 
Farm Security Program as well as their status under the 
program. At the end of the four years interview schedulei 
had heen completed for two hundred and six families from 
thirty counties in the State* 



The purp<» e was to make a sociological and economic 
study of these families. The sociological study intended 
to show what constituted rehabilitation and the changed in 
the family and in family living under the Farm Seour ity 
program. This phase of the study has never been completed, 
but the unpublished information from the interviews li avail- 
able for analysis* 



17 



The eoonoxnlo study ty Wrlgley has been completed but 
remaiwunpubllshedt This study relates primarily to the 
farm business rather than to family living* One slgnlfl- 
oant rmamg rex»^j.iitj ^u xaiuxxjr axvxx^q *s w^.^^ v^ws« a.«-« 
Security families increased the amount of food produced 
for home use by 60 percentt mostly the first year of the 
program* 



Many studies of spending patterns have been made over 
the years* Andrews (2) tells us of Brnst Bngel (1824-96) 
who as Head of the Statistical Bureau of Saxony and later 
of Prussiat developed some laws relating to family expendl- 
tuMs out of his economic «tudl«« al>out 1857. Hmxf Hitman 



11)«1 (1) 
1. 



S. 



8* 



quotas his lavs as follows: 

As the income of a family increases t a smaller 
percentage is expended for food* 

la the incoma of a family increases the percent- 
age of expenditure for clothing remains about the 
same* 

The percentages for rent, fuel and light remain 
the same whatever the income. 

As the Income increases In amount a constantly 
increasing percentage is expended for education, 
health, recreation, amusements, etc. 

These proportions are upset when prices become 
deranged, as was seen in the price of food, and 
later clothing and rent in wartime, said Mrs. AMI 
in 1921. 

« 

Kyrk (6) states that many studies of family expendi- 
tures have been made in the past one hundred years and that 



4. 



16 



most of thos« w«r« mad* of families on a low income lerel, 
Bngel's studies are some of the best known, fka pro- 
cedures and analyses of family expenditures, however, 
developed hy Bngel were the same as used today. Kyrk^s 
opinion is that more emphasis neads to be placed oti the 
factors unfluencing the expenditures as few studies have 
teen made (1) of families, in high income brackets (2) 
of the effect of income (3) of the effect of the size of 
family or (4) of the effect of occupation on the expenditure 
alone without other contributing factors. 

Among various studies it appeared that as income 
increased but not at a proportionate rate. As the total 
expenditure increased the proportion of money spent for food 
tended to decline, that for clothing to increase, that for 
Shelter to decline, and that for all other purchases to 



inoreaso* 



In mo 



.t studies it was the change in the disttf bution 



of the total expenditure that was 



own and not the change 



in the distribution of the total incom.. The reason was 
that either the income was not known or the income was 
assumed to be the same a. the total expenditure. This 

■. ^^'^^ant as the first indicates a pattern 
difference was significant as ^ne * 

t,,io the seoond indicates the distribution 
of expenditure while the seoo na 

-.. flenerally speaklne, either method of 
of purchasing power. Generaiiy ov 

*^** -*«t nt> a declining proportion 

_v*-.*/«« the income went up » aww**" o 
computation «hawi/»s T;ne iuv,u 



If 



iras •'bsorbed by the basis neoessitlss ftaA « larger proportion 
was available for savings, eomforts and amenities of life* 



Vhen more than 50 percent of the total budget want for 
food it indicated the ••poverty" level of living in this 
country. Thus Kyrk felt that the expenditure for food 
might be taken as an index of the economic wall-being of 
the family, fwenty-five percent or more of the total 
budget spent for clothing amd shelter indicated that ft 
moderate standard of living was possible. 



Budgets for a family of four or five persons show 
30-40 percent of the income was expended for food and 10-20 
percent for clothing and shelter for a moderate level of 
living. 

These findings by Kyrk were written in 1933 before the 
more comprehensive studies by the Bureau of Home Boonomlcs 
and the Bureau of Labor Statistics were made. 

Summary of general trends in the literature reviewed. 

1, All family living expenses increased with the 

income. 

2. Large families had higher incomes than small families. 

5. Larger families spent more than mall but not proportion- 
ately. 

4. The largest percentage of family Incomes went for 

food, then automobile, household operation and clothing. 

6, The net caah expenditures ranged from ^70t to $1272. 



to 



CHIFTSB HI 






Bxplanation of Terms UBed in This ttmif 

U anral a^habllltation families include all of those 
low-lncom© farm families to vhom the Farm Security Admini- 
stration has made a rehabilitation loan for operating capital 
as provided in a farm and home management plan. This includes 
the supervision of such spending as well as supervision of 
farm and home practices. (See BxhiDit A far description of 
this type of family.) 

8, Tenant Purehas* families are those families who 
have heen given a loan for real estate hy the Farm Security 
Administration under the provisions of the Bankhe ad- Jones 
Farm Tenancy Act. These families may or may not have 
rehahilitation loans for operating goods. (See Bxhibit B 
for description of this type of family.) 



8. 



It^ »^ 






al kr^jis are compared In this atmilT^ 



The accompanying map duplicated from (11) gires the lo<.ation 
Of the areas, as well as the location of the counties fro. 
which the record books were received fcr this study. 

The agricultural areas were s.t up on a basis of physical, 
•conomic. and social characteristics. Th.y were delineated 
by A. R. Mangus of tho Sural Surveys Section of W.P^A. i« 

w . t^\ »*rifttions In soil which determines 
1939. Hftfis showing (1) variations m »w 

««t -^««fti a«d cultural factors •"ttok •• 
the type of farming; (2) social ana ouxTiur 



H 






j-^s 













o 
o 

Ul 



TIGHT BINDING TEXT CUT OFF 




22 



U 



20 



CHAP 



III 



Bxplftn.»tion of Teraa Used in This Study 

1. Surftl Behala illtatlon families Include all of those 
lo«-lnoomd farm faBllies to whom the Farm Ssourity Ad3Bini= 
stratlon has made a rehabilitation loan for operating capital 
as provided in a farm aaA homa management plan. This includes 
the supervision of auoh spending as well as supervision of 
farm and home practices. (See Exhibit A fcr description of 
this type of family.) 

2» Ta nan t Purchase families are those families who 
have heen given a loan for real estate hy the Farm Security 
Administration under the provisions of the Banlche ad- Jones 
Farm Tenancy Act. fk«t« families may or may not have 
rehabilitation loans for operating goods. (See Sxhibit B 
for description of this type of family.) 

8, Agricul tural Areas are compared in this study. 
The accompanying map duplicated from (11) gives the location 
of the areas, as well as the location of the counties from 
which the record books were received fcr this study. 

The agricultural areas were s«t up on a basis of physical, 
economic, and social characteristics. They were delineated 
by A. R. Mangns of the miral surveys Section of W.P.A. In 
1939. Maps showing {!) variations in soil which determines 
the type of favalttg; (2) social and cultural factors such as 



if 



^* 



cc 



o 



<fi 



21 



< z o 









o 



t- 






UJ O 



^ H" 2 . 

n z o t 



O 2 



ct: 



</) o 



»■ 



o 



9E D t 
< o 



Ol 



O OL 



CL 



O 



iiJ 



(/) 



--%■■■■•! 



• ■•••'.' 



CO 

< 

cr 
< 

-J 

:^ o 

-I cr 
cc - 

< 



k ■■■■■■■•■A 

%■■•■•■»•••* 

^ ' '>■■•■■•••■. 



H ^^ ^- o 

n CO CO 2^ r* 

V' ^^ .i^ . r-" 



^ X uJ 

J^ UJ tz 



«MMMkjf 



II] 



■••■•••■•rt 



> 






Ul 



< < 

txi tiJ 



< < 



o < o 



I X z I < I 
_K-^"<h-ZH-UJ 

— QCCrCD CC %)} CC )£. 

< o o a. oio< 



> N 



'^•«r' 






^ :;2:S«:XZ»«:SSSSSSU» 



»»+"« 



> •••■*««■••■•• 



> W fi «■ ■ • • • A ■ w 





I 








V, 










V // 



yy.^^ 



/^"^^j. 



v> 



>v 



v,^. 



yy. 



>» ^, 



• • 



• / 



TIGHT BINDING TEXT CUT OFF 




22 



I 



23 



standards of llrlng, tenancy, birth rate and raoei (3) 
and economic factors auoh as income and land values when 
Buperiniposed upon one another roughly coincided to deter- 
mine the agricultural areas* 

A second map indicates hotr these three agricultural 



are 



as in Pennsylvania extend into the adjoining states. 



For the purposes of this study two of the three areas in 
the state have heen divided bx> that comparison has been 
made of five sections within the state* 

In the Northeast Dairy Area (Areas A and B) 54 percent 
of the Income is derived from dairy products, while 
opportunities for income from other farm enterprises are 
limited. In regard to the homes, the houses are often 
cold, bleak, oversized and deteriorating. Work is needed 
with these people in nutrition and budgetings to raise the 
level of living and to improve the management of money. 
Ihere is conflict between urban and farm life. There is a 
fuel shortage. The people are of mixed nationalities with 
an average of sixth grade education. These families compete 
with urban groups for medical services. Area A of this study 
comprised the northwest section of this Dairy Area. The 
families whose record books represent Area A were located in 
Brie, warren and Crawford Counties. Area B of this study 
comprised the northeast section of this Dairy Area. Th» 
families whose record books represent Area B resided in Wayne, 
Lackawanna, Susquehanna, Wyoming, and Bradford Counties. 



24 



The Shenandoah-Pitdmont area is th© moat prosperous 
In tho northeast region of the United States* This fact 
Is due to fertile soilf favorable climate, closeness to 
markets, deverslfied farming, and many opportuni ties* 
The homes are generally fair and the people generally are 
better educated than those in other areas. Religious sects 



da 



termine the customs. Hural families compete for medical 



s 



ervices. In this study the Shenandoah-Piedmont section 



was designated Area E. It was represented by record books 
from families In CIb ster, Berks, Lancaster, and Lebanon 
Counties* 



-a0- 






The North Allegheny Mountain Area is mountainous. 
General farming is pursued with most emphasis on dairying. 
The farms are more seBf-suff Icient than the Northeast Dairy 
but poorer than the Northeast Dairy and much poorer than the 
Shenandoah-Piedmont. OJhere is lack of opportunity for farm 
labor. The housing is often suh-standard. The food habits 
are poor and buying reveals urban spending patterns. The 
people are of all nationalities in the mining region within 
this area. Interest in farming fluctuates with mining 
activity. People have static attitudes. Medical care is 
often carried by the mining company, and occupational diseases 
are prevalent. For this study, this area was divided by th. 
heavy line as indicated on the map. The central section was 
designated Area C and was represented by books from families 



25 



In Clearflel^f Centra, Huntlngdoxit Miffllnt Juniata, Perry, 
Union Snyder, and Northum'berland Countlest The southwest 



sec 



tlon was designated Area D and the counties from which 



tho family record toolcs were procured were Greene, Payette, 
Somerset, Indiana, Cam"brla and Biair# 

4, flross Honey Income is used In this study to mean 



all cash available from farm and off-farm sources. 

5^ yet Money Income Is the difference "between gross 
money income and the farm operating expenses. This net 

y Income covers family living expenses, plus debts and 



mone 



capital goods. 

6. Family Type as used in this study Is the same 
classification as that used in the North Dakota study (5) 
in which the size of family was used as a basis for grouping. 

Type I - Two-member family with no children. 

Type II - The young small family. Parents were under 

40 years of age and there were three or less children. 

Type III - The older small family. Parents were 40 or 

over with three or less small children. 

Type IV - The young large family. Parents were under 

40 years of age and there were four or more children. 

jype 7 - The older large family. Parents were 40 years 

of age or older with four or more children. 

7. 5?pending Pattern Is Interpreted to mean the regular- 
ity of living expenditures for any level of income, size of 
family, or area. 



26 



CHAPTER 17 



Prooedure Used In Making This Study 



The writer's study of record "books kept by farm families 
under the supervision of the Farm Security Administration in 
Pennsylvania depended upon the procuring of available books 
from the supervisors in the various county offices in the 
State. Therefore, the State Director for the Farm Security 
Administration was contacted "by letter in order to secure 
this assistance* 



oomp 



Since record books of the current year would not be 
lete and as the families would need them for new planning. 



income tax report, and other purposes, it seemed advisable 
to use 1942 crop year record books for analysis. 

In order to secure a representative number of books the 
following procedure was used: 

(aj The case load figures for July 1942 were secured 
from David H. Walter, Regional Program Analyst of Farm 
Security at Upper Darby, Pennsylvania, for both Tenant Purchase 
and Sural Rehabilitation fanillGs. Since this case load 
figure was 4714 for the State, it was decided that a study 
of ten percent of the books of the State, if they were truly 
representative of Farm Security families, would assure a 
good picture of rural farm family spending* 



r 






J.'. 



ftp ,", 'j^ 



^i 



27 



(*b) Further selection of the sample was accomplished 

through consideration of the following factors: 

(1) (^eogrgphlo representation of the State > The case 

loads of farm families of the 29 Farm Security Administration 
county offices v/ere studied* ▲ percentage allotment of books 
was assigned to each county office in proportion to the 
representation of the case load of the county in the total 

state case load* 

(2) Distribution amon^ Income levels * A percentage 
distribution for farm families based upon gross income levels 
as indicated for Pennsylvania in the Consumer Purchases Study 
(12) was used for the selection of books on this basis* Each 
county office was asked to distribute its allotment of books 
according to this criterion. 

(3) Re-presentation of families of various sizes * The 
percentage distribution of farm families by size of household 
as shown in the 1940 Census Heport for Pennsylvania was used 
as the criterion* Each county office was now asked to 
apportion its allotment of books on this basis* 



A 



final summary of the distribution as Indicated by 



these three factors was made and a description of the record 
took need for the study was made for each of the twenty-nine 
offices* 

Letters were then sent to all the district and county 
supervisors asking for their cooperation In providing these 



28 



Ard books. (See Sxhiblt D and E) A summary sheet for 

X* w ■>" 

recording the selection of families who furnished record 
books v/as enclosed with the letter. (See Exhibit Pj 



and 



One hundred and thirty-one record boolcs were received 
inspected for adequacy. It was found that very few 



families from Wrigley^s study (18) were included in the 
boolcs received. Upon examination it was also found that 
there were not enough data on home produced food included 
with the record books to make a representative contribution* 
Cne hundred and twenty-two books were found complete enough 
to use. These books were then separated into groups from 
five areas. The expenditures for family living for each 
family as shown by the record books were tabulated according 
to areas , net income level , and tvi^e of family* (See Exhibit 
G and H for copies of record book sheets from which tabu- 
lations were made.) 

Average spending patterns were calculmtad for the tQtal 
number of families in the state , each area, each of the sevei x 
iTir^omo levels , and the five types of families^ 

An analysis of the three items of expenditure (food, cloth- 
ing and medical care) was made for (a) each family type on 
each income level and (h) each area on each income level. 

Conclusions relating to the spending patte ms of the 
Farm Security Administration families were drawn and recommenda- 
tions made in the light of findings of the study. 



j 



ti 



II 



CO CO CO 10 



o 



■•^m 



n 

u 

to 






tf 



d 



si >> 
« pi 

o a 



r-4 -d 

o o 
o 

o 

O 
JO o 

«a fi 

•H O 

O «S 
•H >« 

Pi SQ 

? « 

o B 
• "d 



&i 










fls 



a 



P 
PS 





r4 









4» 


>d 


O 


e 


E4 


► 




•H 


• 


• 


n 


O 


4» « 





14^ 


(4 


« o 




14 »< 


tt 


• P 


M 


^ N 


O 




o 




|3q 


1 




•H rl 


•d 


<H O 


H 


fH .O iH 


O 


m m 4» 


o 


UjSi i» 





4» 


PEI 


PIPJ-H 




r-l 


•d 


« 


o 


4» 


4* 


O 


a 


C4 










m 


O 


m 





4» c9 


PI 


^^ 




«e o 


n 


A >« 


>l 


• pi 


o 


fH A4 


o 




m 


1 




HI $t 


«d 


«4 o 


(I 


fH P ^ 


o 


d « ^ 


o 


uAm 




m 4» 


5 


PCJ « *H 




r-l 


•d 


il 


il 


4» 


o 


O 


M 


&l 


o 


• 


ca 


n 


fl( 


4» «S 


O 


d^ 




« o 


>i 


>« 


4» 


# 


«H 


t< Pi 


N 









O 


1 


m 


•H « 


00 


<H O 




fH ,Q "^ 


6 


ift H 4> 


N 


>4 ^ «l 





• 4» 


H 


PS PI -H 



VI to CO 



o 



Vl Q* to iH lO 



|Z] 



02 CM 



ca 



M r4 lO HI r-l 



<n 10 O iO 



lO 



<a CM 



'^^ r^ 9^ 



IQ 

IO 



to €M IO 10 



CO ^• 



K>» CO 

CO Qi 
CM 



o> 



IO r^ IO CM ff-4 



CM CM 
fr* o 



IO HI r-l 



O O 



V4 CM r4 



r* 0> r-l CM 



O^ 



Je5 



V 



^ 



|zi 



{23 



9 



4» il 

rH m 

»! 



CM r-l r-l 



CM 



o o 



IO <^ o u> 



^- CO 

flH O 



CO 5|i 



IO 10 



o% 



o% 



r-l r^ ff-l 



CM 
CM 






<o 



CM 

10 

CO 



CM 



iO «o 



o CM ^- 10 



CO 



<0 CO 
CM ri 



Oh ri 



^ C*» <^|i ^ 



CM CO 



Oh iO 



IO 
CO 



o CM a» 10 

• • • • 

CO O^ O CM 
CM r-l 



• 



O 10 ^ r-l iO 

CM O CO CO CM 

IO Oi m to a« 



to C^ O CM 

• • • • 

r-l O i-l H 



o CM ^• IO 
r* ^ x|i IO 

IO 10 O^ H 



Oi 



Ch 



to CO 



0> r-l 



CM r< r^ r4 r-l 



O rA 



to to 



to to IO ca 

CM CO o^ to 



<«4 IQ op 



CO 



s 



IO 



29 



IO 

to 



to 

CM 



IO 

o% 



CM 



4» 4* 



4> ^ -P 
tt d 00 



O0t4r-l0O<9 # 

^O<H€9|»'d0 # 

^^Cll4^(t^ •• 

^49 4> 4> 4> 4> Id 4> 4| 

>4S4»f|tf:|0d0 

«noo0€io#o ff-i 
#|^)q ooco,dco 



I 



Cf) 



5 I 



so 



CHIPTBR T 

An Svaluation of the Sample of Farm Families 
Bepresented in the Record Books Used in this Study 

As the sample of record hooks procured from farm families 
was studied, certain characteristics hecame apparent. Tahle 
I shows the geographic distrihution of the sample* One 
hundred and twenty- two usable books were received, 25.5 per- 
cent of those solicited. These were distributed over the 
areas of the State as follows: northwest (Area A) 23»8 per- 
cent; northeast {Area B) 18.8 percent; central (Area c) 32.8 
percent; southwest (Area D) 12.3 percent; and southeast (Area 
B) 12.3 percent. In the northeast and southwest areas of 
the State, the percentage distribution of the sample is thft 



same as 



for the actual case load distribution. In the nortb- 



w 



est and stautheast areas the samplings are slightly lower 



in percentage than the actual case load distribution, while 
the central area is higher. As the table shows, however, the 
entire state is geographically represented in the sample* 

The number of record books received from the Tenant 

Purchase borrowers was slightly larger than the real case 

circumstance 
lead in all areas. This/was probably due to the fact that 

more emphasis is placed on the keeping of record books by 

Tenant Purchase borrowers, for the repayment of the loan for 

real estate is based on net income, as shown in the record 

^ook. Therefore, books from these borrowers were available 



I 



I 






pi 



a 









!•,•%. 



5 



iS 



I 

in 

s 



/» o 
o 



8 



CO to 10 



r 



M m 



to 



CD «0 

• • • • 

tf> €0 ca est 

01 «-« lO HI 



CM €Sl ^ •"< 



31 



CI 



lO 



tf) H O O 



en 
ca 



ca 
en 



• o 



CM 
€4 



in 



o 



00 



ID ff-i ca oi 



oi 



o 
o 
si 



<^ 
t 



t^ to 



ca 10 



est 



€0 
CM 



CO O CO 10 



lO 









Oi 

o 



lO ^ u> ^ 



rH r^ CM lO 



<^ 



§ 



H M 



O ^ 



^ 



"^ 



a> 



CM 






CM 



lO 



CO 



CO 






^ A Op H 



4* 4* 

•8 n 



•p ;c) 4» 
«i it tt 



JB 



C^ iH • O C9 
P^49 4» 4» 4» 4> «9 <P 

•Hooploooo 
cl^)s; ooo3.c)co 



» 



CQ 



REPRESENTATION OF FAMILIES ON VARIOUS INCOME 32 

LEVELS IN EACH AREA 




AREAS A 



B C D E 
«0 TO 8 499 

FIGURE I 



(I) 

UJ 

_j 

< 

u. 

u. 
O 

cr 

D 
Z 





AREAS 



A B C D E 
«I000 TO §1499 

FIGURE 3 




AREAS ABODE 
8500 TO 8999 

FIGURE 2 




ABODE 
81500 TO 8 1999 
FIGURE 4 



LU 
_J 

u. 

o 

oc 5 

UJ 
OQ 







^ l»lll 



AREAS 



A B C D E 
82000 TO 82499 

FIGURE 5 



to 

UJ 

u. 

u. 
O 

Qc 5 

UJ 
OQ 

^ 
AREAS 




A B C D 
82500 UP 

FIGURE 6 




18 



m a larger percentage. Of the total number of record 
book! received, 16.4 percent were from Tenant Purchase 
faniilies and 83.6 percent from the Rural Rehabilitation 
families, as compared with 6.3 percent and 93.7 percent for 
tte actual case load of tJ» state respectively. 

the dlstril)utlon of families on the hasls of income 
level Is indicated in Tatle II, Most of the families from 
Area C (central area) fall into net Incomes helow $1000. The 
families frcm the dairy sections in the north tend to fall 
between $1000 and $2000 net income levels, while the families 
from the better farming area of the southeast tend to fall 
into higher income brackets than the other areasf For the 
State as a whole, the net income of 64 percent of the families 
falls between $500 and $1500. (See Figaros 1-6) 

fhe distribution of families according to size is shown 
for these same income braclcets in Table III. The types of 
families are fairly well distributed over all income levels. 
Type I. the childless family, is represented by the smallest 
of families. 7.4 percent. Types II and IV. the younger families, 
represent 65 of the 122 families or 55.5 percent. This large 
representation of young families was in accordance with the 
policy of the Farm Security Administration for the selection of 
borrowers. It is apparent then, that 32.8 percent of the 122 
families are the older families* 



a 



pt 



e 



K 

&) 



M 



9 
K 









o 



6 

o 



* 



M 



•H O 



to 

CM 



I 



ca 






|zs 



to 






ig^ 



en 
<n 



lO 






<^ 



1^ 



^ CO CO lO O lO 
• •••#• 

»>• csi ^ o CO <o 

10 tH CM r-l 



a» o CO in CM oD 

^ iH M CM 



rH CM 10 H O H 



O O CM lO r^ O 



O r« U> 10 10 CM 



10 o tt) r* ^• CM 



CM O^ r4 U> a^ 10 



lO ^ CM lO CM O 



H M > 

M IH M M > |r 

o 

m 9 m 9 m n 

fM 9^ Q* fU p*M 

e< e^ e^ ti e^ p 



CM 
CM 



lO 



CD 



CD 

a* 

CM 



^ 



*o 



CM 






CM 



10 






CM 



to 

CO 



34 



CO 



E^ 



I 



I 



85 



The trend In the distribution of family types in thia 
study follows the trend discernible in the 100 Farm Security 
Administration families of North Dakota. (5j The distri- 
bution of families by type in that study T^as as follors: 
Type I. 8 percent? Type II. 52 percent; Type III. 10 percent; 
Typo IV. 20 percent; and Type V, 11 percent. 

in this study v-n ,.• 

Type l/tends to fall into lower income levels, below 

$1500. than the other types. The latter fall into income 

levels from $500 to |2000 indicating that childless families 

have less net income than larger families. This is similar 

to the findings in the Consumer Purchases Study. 

In making a comparison of data of this sample with 

by 
further data contributed/other studies, certain trends in 

the writer's sample may be recognized. 

in Table IV the data from the Consumer Purchases Study 
of 1935-36 (13) shows th. number of familier. were, distributed 
fairly evenly over all income levels. The Farm Security 
Administration Progress Report for 1941 represents a random 
sampling of Pennsylvania farm families in which every fifteenth 
family was chosen. The data from this study shows that the 
bulk of the families fall into gross income levels below $2500. 

m the present study, the ,rro?fl rnr^ne^ inc<?m^, levels 
tend to run higher than the data from these two studies. 



t 



CO 



V 



01 est 
O rH 



:; 



O O O fcO *^ HI W 



# • 



to <^ S}l CM rH r-l Ol 
r-l >-4 r-l fH to rH 



36 



fca 



«0 K^ IS lO ^ CD lO 
tH fH 1-1 r-l lO rH 



s 



8 



1^ 

«9 



cd 






Pi 




CM 
CM 



o o o o o 



ca tOi ^ 

CM CM lO 



lO 



^ to 

in i>- 



5 



O lO 

r-i €0 

to 



m 



;^ 8 

CO o 

OS i:: 

o m 

o o 



to 

to 



£ 



o 
05 to 

O r-l 

1^ I 

lO 
lO 
Qk 





o 



\P^ 



• ••••••• 

CMCMfHOOOOWO 
r-l r-l r-l rH »-l r^ CM 



O 



WI00>O^^»--iS^ 



§ 



lO to lO CM 
CM CM CM CM 



CM r-l 



«D i>- "^ 

CM tI< 



CM 
O 

CM 



m 



« 



e 



o 



M 



O^ <7^ O^ O^ <7^ <J^ CT^ 

r^ r4 CM CM lO 
I I I I I I I I 

oooooooo 
o o o o o o o 
in o i^ o ^ o o 

r^ r^ CM CM to ^ 



6 
1^ 



E4 



87 



ranging from $500 to $3000. This may De partly due to th« 

fact that income levels were higher in 1942 than in previous 

It may also indicate that the books received came 
y oar s* * ** •^ 

f,om the more progressive families. In explaining the lack 

f books from the low- income levels, one supervisor says, 
Hit was difficult to find complete records for the lowest 
income group. They have neither the ability to keep records 
nor the desire to see it down in black and white. « 

Since gross Incomes were higher in 1942 than in 
previous years, and even though the lowest income group 
may not be well represented, the sa«ple seems to be 

^ ... ^* ^-v.-, <-ntai erouD of the Farm Security 
fairly representative of the total group 

families. 

Table Va shows a comparison of the writer's study with 
other studies on a --^ f^'^^^e basis, since analysis of data 
on gross income, according to the reo 



ommendation of the 



consumer purchase. Study, doe, not sho^ the .mount of money 
available for family living. 
as follows: 



This authority may be quoted 




in Lancaster Co., ^a., J- ^ ^^500 and over 

studied had gross farm ^"°°^®^ -J'^^J percent were 
but the net farm incomes of only 40 pero 

as high as $1500. (14) 






(« 



9* 



O 



CO 



6 



6 

Id 



« 



•d 



to 



o 
^ o 

Id M 

O 

o 



^ 



EH 



•d flS 

M «S > 

•• pC4 rH 

r| 

*^ p:1 P< 



CM 



\ei 






CA 



•d O 14 

a 6 o 

PU4» -P 

CO 1B4 OS 

►»^ 

•H (3 o n 

(0 -P 



fid 



•d o^ 



>> to tH © 

VI -d c4 43 

4» i:] ;5 r: 

CO 0$ pc3 p 



O* ^ <7^ ^ a> tq^ t-l 

• •••••• 

10 in r» to (7> cvi ^ 

r-4 CM CM fH 



r- r-l ^ O CM to lO 
•H lO 10 CM 1-4 



V 



o 



CO 



K ^ to 

id cd cTk 

ft > fH 

+> j:: r-l I 

W O P%^ 

•H «> to 

la -p A o> 

o (d d »-* 

CO rH O 

O O CO 

fi^ 6 05 to 

^1 4^ 0> 

1^ d CO iH 



flS ^ rHf^r-l|>.iHCM»H 



^ rH ^ O 10 ^- O* 
CM CM CM r-l 



J2i 



^ 



>sft 






I 

•d lO 



iH <1> to 
to Cd 4^ O^ 
^ •H r4 

o rt 

O P4 ID 



a> 



o 



o 



CM 
CM 



o o o o o o o 

• •••••• 

CM <X> to r-l O O^ ^ 
lO Ci fH r-l 



o^ c^ o a* o -^ CO 



» 00 rH R^ 
CM r-l fH 



^O CM 



r-l ^ CM lO <0 O <7^ 

CO CM t^ O 'O ^ ^- 

^ ^ ^ CM fH fl-4 

O to CM ^ fi^ <D Cn 
• •••••• 

<r) to CM CM to to ^ 

•H lO CM r-l 



to 

10 



36 



to 



00 U> rH CM ff-4 CO O 

^ O lO t^ r-l 10 fcO 

LO O to 00 O lO C^ 

CM to to r-l r-l 



lO 



lO 



M 



O^ Ch GTk Cn» Ck O) 1^ 
C* <J* or* 0> 0> O <D 

•^ <n ^ <r» '•^ a> > 

t-4 r4 Ca CM O 

I I I I I I I 

o o o o o o o 
o o o o o o 

to O lO O lO o 

rH r-l CM CM lO 



3 



I 



39 



In Table Ta^ therit all of tlBse studies skow the bullc 
of the famlllos 77hen oonsldered on net income "basis dlstplbuted 
In the lower Income levels^ When the present study is considered 
in the light of data for 1935-36 and that of 1941, it may be 
seen that, like the Pennsylvania section of the 1935-36 
study, the incomes run slightly higher than the nation as a 
wholes 






In evaluating the distribution of families on expendi- 
ture levels, the chances are that any family picked at 
random would have an expenditure for family living which 
would fall between $0 and #1365 as shown by this data: 



Table Vb Distribution of Family Expenditures in Sample 



number of 
Families 



Average Total 
Range of Family Living 

Expend itu res Expend iture 



S.D 



P«E< 



122 



1167-1501 



$622 



i274»09 il84#81 



The median family expenditure was §600# 

In Table VI a study of the number of persons in the 
families who have supplied the sample of record books of the 
present study has been made. The Census data included one- 
T)erson families while the data of the other studies did not^ 
In the census report 55.3 percent of the families fell into 
two. three, and four-person families. In the present study 
64 percent of the families f dL 1 into the 3. 4. 5 and 6 member 



i| 



y 



ti 



40 



Tal)le 71 1 Comparative Study of Farm Families Grouped 

with Reference to the Numher of Persons in Family 



• 








goupo© 


of Data 










Census 


Report 


Consumer Pur- 






Persons 


In 


Pennsylvania 


chases 


Study 


Author's Study J 


Family 




Rural Farm 


Pennsylvania 


Pennsylvania | 






1940 


1935 


-1936 




1942 








No. 


i 


No. 


i 


No. 


5? 




1 




11,044 


5.3 





0.0 





0.0 


2 




39,046 


18.7 


377 


18.0 


9 


7.9 


5 




40,401 


19.3 


393 


19.0 


19 


16.7 


4 




36,103 


17.3 


292 


19.0 


24 


21.1 


6 




28,351 


13.6 


276 


13.0 


15 


13.1 


i 


6 




20,360 


9.7 


220 


10.0 


15 


13.1 : 1 


7 




13,438 


6.4 


130 


6.0 


11 


9.7 


fl 


8 




8,333 


4.0 


123 


6.0 


8 


7.0 : 


9 




5,318 


2.5 


185(9 


or 9.0 


4 


3.5 1 


10 




3,179 


1.5 


more) 


3 


2.6 


11 or 


mor< 
Lies 


9 3,477 


1.7 






6 


5.2 


li 


All Fami: 


209,050 


100.0 


2,096 


100.0 


*114 


99.9 j 


F| 


•Unknown 


8 














^^1 



41 



1 






fanillea. The median size farm family in the Census report 
was 3.89 persons. The range of the size of tl» household 
in the present study was from 2 to 15 for 114 families, 
comprising 617 persons. The arerage size of family was 5,4 
persons, while the ne dian size was 5.3S persons. 

The figures above as well as those of Table VI show 

that the size of the family m this study tends to run larger 

than either the Census report for Pennsylvania, (3) op 

Lancaster County as shown in the Consumer Purchases Study, (12) 

It is of interest to note, however, at this point that in the 

1941 study of rural families {I4j the average size was 6.4. 

trend in the author's study 
Thi^ might be explained by the fact that the large families 

{Types IV and V) in the writer's study represent 38.5 percent 

of the total number of families and these tend to fall into 

the low income brackets. 






42 



CHAPTER VI 



patterns of Farm Family Spending In Pennsylyanla 

Any discussion of farm family spending might indicate 



4»_ ji ^ « 



that farm ^»mx^i<ss ox tne same size and same level of 
income would tend to spend their income in the same general 
way or '♦pattern**. 

Table VII shows the average spending patterns for 
families by agricultural areas, m each area the largest 
percentage expenditure is for food, t he n/Vlo thing and next for 
household operation. No other item in the budget for any 
area is larger than 8 percent of the total home living 
expenditure. In the Consumer Purchases Study, food occupies 
the first place in amount of expenditure with automobile 
second, and clothing and household operation occupying third 
and fourth places. In the present study, automobile is not 
recorded as a home living expense. In all areas medical care, 
and the item of church, school and recreation, stand in the 
fourth and fifth places, with life insurance high In some areas. 
In these relative positions of amounts expended for various 
items, the records of the various areas are similar. 

The percentage of expenditures for all items fee Area A 
is comparable with the average percentage of expenditures for 
all areas. Area C spent the least for food, with Areas B and D 



*; 



v} 111 






f 



n 



i 



)l 



s 



CO o 
•H ^ 



+^ 

g 

cd 
o 

»4 ^ 



pq 



%A 



£ 



<D 'd 

&4 N 
P5 © 



H 



^ 



n 



^Q 



p 



o 



O) rH U> 00 to C^ CM 
• •••••• 

10 "^ to W lO rH ^ 



\j^^ iH 



^ 



<0 

OS 



cd 



o 



%^ 



« 



o lij ^ r- IN iH Ti< 
to 



CM CV2 lO lO lO CO Ok 



CO CTk CM '54* O 



CM 



o 



o 



U 



\^ 



III 
o 



rH 



^ 



'^^ 



o in to to '^ o to 



C- O CM -^ O 
CM rH r-4 



CM 



^ 






M 






IS 00 c^ ^- to ^ o 



in a» CM to 00 

CM 



CM 



O UD O 

• • • 

-^ r-4 1>- 



V0l0j>-C0mt0t~4 ^CMCM 

CMOCMCMrHfHtO tOr-llO 



lO 



CM0^OO<£itOCO<^ CM'^^ 

• •••••• ••• 

^incMtD^eaio incMCM 



fcOCO^-rHCOC^rH CMUltO 

r-O^rH-^OOiHCM lO»Hr-l 

CM 



lO-^^jicMcMcotoo c^J^-^- 



u> to o 



c^ "^ o 
to 10 '^ 



• •••••• ••• 

^tomuDr-ioto lOtor^ 



r-o^c^oooioo G o to 

tOISlOfcOtO CM lOCM^ 

CM 



«joocniOiNt^<x) ocMco 



CO CO to 



cy>tot«-inoinin iocmo 



lO Cvi CM 



^ in lo 



OtntOlOrJ^rH^ tOtO*d< 



tQCOtOlOcnom OCMCO 



^J» CM CM 



CO) 



C4 QQ Pj 

O •H ;q rH O 

P« cd W O ti 

O p. "H O 1:4 CD 

<D $:! ;r^ o »^ 

r:< en -p «i 



f:jG5r~ro6Dpc4 •d 

OrH © <D O 0-HitPl+*''-< 



to 



o 



o 



CM 
(O 



en 



en 
en 



to 
in 



o 



en 



o 



CO 

to 



o 



o 



CM 
CM 

to 



?jO 



OS 

•H 
0) 



48 



44 



the highest percentage for this item* Areas A and E seem 

to spend more for clothing tut not as high a percent as 

cash 
Areas C and D. Areas B and E spent less/and a lower percent 

for medical purposes than the other areas. Household oper- 
ation appears to he less in Area B# The total spent for 
family living in Areas B and C was less than the average, 
while Areas A and E show more than the average* 



Referring to Table II and Figures 1-6, It may be seen 
that most of the families from Area C fell into lower 
income braclcets, therefore, the spending of less for total 
family living might be expected from this area. 



The spending patterns of families grouped on Income 
levels is shown in Table VIII** In general these patterns 
follow Engal*s laws. The percentage spent for food decreased 
as the Income rose. The percentage for clothing remained 
uncjianged, and that spent for personal care, for school, 
church and recreation, and for life insurance increased* One 
exception to this trend was in the two lowest income levels* 
Here the percentage spent for food was less In the lower 
level than in the next income bracket. This fact may be due 
to a larger number of two-member families falling into this 
lower income level* Another exception is in the $2500 to 
$2999 income level* This level fails to conform to th® law 
in the percentage spent for any item, probably because there 



m 



14 ' 



!■» 



' m 



k 



♦ See also Figure 7. 



A 



•d 






fl 



W 



m 



CO (D 
•H M 



U 

CO *^ 



o fl) 

M •H 

CD 'C^ 

4^ n 

to 
p* > 






I 
o 



lO 

1^ 



$25 






CM 



10 






• #••••• ••• 



^^iCoOiOlQ OiNtO 



^- U> CM IT) CO fH r-l 



<D 



O 



g 






o 
o 

CM 



O 






in 

r-l 

Ch 



</> 



I 



Ov r~l m t#> wM rTk r^ 



t^ -^ CM IS «D O '^ 

to tH r-4 



O iH CM to 10 
lO 



to 



^ 



^ 



lO o 



en 



^ 



CM 



</5 {25 









pq 



lO to rH r-l in 



CM 



to 



lA 



tOlOfiOfHrHISCO fc0^-O 



^ r-l to 



^iO ^lOfeOtoior- <oo*r> 

• •••••• ••• 

<DlOtom^CMCM iO^^ 
to i-i «-i 



"^lOtoa^cMcoo oc^TH 

OOr-lCMlOCMr-lCM lOCMtO 

CM »-l r-l 



• •••••• ••• 

OlOcMtOCMiH^ iOlOfcO 



O^IOO^fOtOtOCM O^CM 

CM r-l 



^iotoio<^a>or-* fcOtOlO 

m r-l 



10rHtOCMCOxj«0 Q* Q% CO 

C^ r- fH CM ^ 



i-l iH CM 



• ••••#• ••• 

CMlOlOlO^OlS ^CMrH 



cMiomcDrHiot- toa^r- 



«t CO 

cd 10 Sh 

]^ m .H r-l 

O pU fl9 <^ O Pt 

1^ C P4*H ^ O 



GS 



a> f4 o •H 



to 



o t:* p:i J^ CO -P 

rH rf OJ 



O 

0) 



Id 



•HfjrtA^PJ ;d>4 M 

Or-4a)000«H^ 4>«H 



CO 
CO 



M> rH CVl i 

• • • 

in M en 



to 



o 



o 

00 



45 



in 

10 



to 



10 

in 



o> 






in 
to 



ii 



PC4 



tf 



E4 



jttf- 



46 



UJ 

D 

h 

5 

z 

UJ 
£L 
X 

u 

J 

< 



h 



UJ 


< 

h 
z 

UJ 

u 

q: 
u 
a. 



PERCENTAGE OF FAMILY LIVING EXPENSE FOR EACH BUDGET 

ITEM AT INCOME LEVELS. 



100 



90 



80 



70 



60 



50 



40 



30- 



20 



10 



.1 




i^ 



••••■••• 

■ •■■••■a 



4491(7 



■■■■■•■• 
■■■■■■■I 







f^m 



z^. 



V', 



•I 



/ /. 



^J^J^'J^ 



INCOME 



ao 



LEVEL 



TO 



8499 



1500 
TO 
S999 



•1000 11500 82000 82500 83000 

TO TO TO TO 

81499 81999 82499 82999 



UP 




FOOD 

CLOTHING 

PERSONAL 



^^ MEDICAL CARE 

h'sh'lD. OPERATION 
HOUSING REPAIR 
FIGURE 7 




iT^ MINOR EQUIPT 

CHURCH, SCHOOL, 
AND RCREATION. 

OTHER 

LIFE INSURANCE 




47 



were only two families represented in this income level* 
The pattern for household operation in general conforms to 
■•gel's lawt showing hut slight variations at each Income 
level. With the Farm Security families this percentage for 
household operation tends to rise somewhat with the 



im«est • 

It is interesting to note that the amount spent for 
food at the higher income levels was about two and one-half 
times tiB t spent on the low income level. a?he same was 
true of the relation "between the high and low Incomes for 
other items In the "budget* 

In general, all expenditure Items in all levels of 
income ran lower in the writer's study than in the study 
of 1941. (13} 

She average spending pattern for the various sizes of 
famine* !• sHowii In Tal)l© IX. The percentage spent for 
food rose with the siae of tho family. The percentage 
spent for clothing rose for tha Urger family, hut tended 
to he larger for the young family than for the older. 
Personal expenses tended to he higher for the two-person 
and older families. Medical care was higher for the younger 
families. 

When comparing the spending for all types of families. 
it may be seen that the total spent for family living was 
less for the two-person family than that spent hy any other 

;3«n*r «^i-h the size of the family 
ount rose steadily w itn zae siat* 



( I 



I 



fi 



» "4 

i t 



type 



This am 



i 



I 

s 



O 4^ 
05 M 

U O 

o ejo 
o o 

4* 

la o 
« -^ 

O P- 
CO P^ 



H 

H 



^ 



^ 



IH 



6 

CO 
1^ 









V 



V? 



J25 



v^ 



|Z3 






EHi 



^ 



to 



ill 



a 



o 



Ctf) 



» 



• •••••• ••• 

"^ r-l t-l 



<0 t^ 10 O U) to CM 



•H O lO 10 CO 



CM 



r- r-l rH ^ C* 

ca r-i 



lO C> fs2 lO Oi 
CM 



CM 



00 r- lO 10 to lO «o 



c^ r*- 10 CM 00 



to 



iH io in to o 



lO 



^ O^ CM lO O CD CM 
CM 



or» ^- 0% 
CM CM iH 



CMlOO^IO^tO iou:)cM 
• •••••• ••• 

CM€OCMa><^r-4CM iCCMrf* 



CM0r»l>-rHcaO>J>- tCot^ 



feO 



CM 



^OOIOHIOIO CMOIO 

• •••••• ••• 

r-toioioiOi-iio okoio 

lO •-! H iH 



^-lOtomu:>cocM lo a% ^ 



O iH to 



^•cM5^l|^•oofcO co-^^ji^ 
• •••#•• ••• 

<oiOto^tocMtn lotoio 



CM^Ot-COrHCr^ CM<T»0 

OCOrHtOCOiHCM tOr-lfcQ 

CM 



l>-r-I^CMr*-0^«0 Ot^tD 

• •••••• ••• 

to rH ri 



CD CM lO 
to ^i* CM 



lOr-f-I^COtOr-4 %0 r4 kS* 

• •••••• ••• 

to r-l r< 



o lo ^. 

'^ CM CM 



ho 




O 

*> U bD 
0) p4 O m o s:^ 

»« O P^ •H ^ O 

o "d •d ^4 to 4> 



^C0rHOOpC4 »0 



O 



OQ 



^ lU €8 ;c3 ^ 



J^ U M 



icJ+> w-H mo90moa>(D 

OiHOOOO-H^ 4*-H 



CD 



to 



to 



t0 



19 



o 



o% 



a* 






o 



48 



to 
to 



o 



«o 



cmo 






c9 



E^ 



11*1 



49 



The same was true of eaoh item of expenditure in the budget. 

The findings Indicated above compare favorably with 
the findings of both tho Consumer Purchase Study (12) and 
tht" Farm Security Study in Iowa (10) for each item of 
expenditure In the Tsudget. 

Table X furnishes further data regarding the expendi- 
tures for food, clothing and medical care for each type of 
family at eaoh income level. Figure 7 is a graphic repre- 
sentation of the data in this table. In interpreting the 
data relating to food expenditure, the writer has defined 
high expenditure to mean 50 percent or more of all money 
spent for family living when farm families of the same size 
and income level are considered. An example of such high 
expenditure may be seen In Figure 7 for income levels $500-999 
and $2500-2999, both of which spent for food more than 50 
percent of the total amount for family living. 

This relation between high and low expenditure* ie 
indicated in Table X. Families in the lower food expenditure 
class. Type II. spent an average of $101 a year for food. 
$173 less than Type III whose expenditure for food is relatively 
high. This difference between the food expenditure of the 
two groups is more than the average spent by all types at this 



*ln this paragraph the discussion concerns amount of money 
rather than percentage nf money spent. 



fi 



i \ 



4 



r 



50 



la^ld X 



and 



Average Expenditures for Pood, Clothing 
Medical care of the Vftrious Types of 
Pontes Grouped on Basis of Het Money Income 




He 



t Income Levels 






0- 499 

500- 999 
1000-1499 
1500-1999 
2000-2499 
2500-2999 

30 00 -Up 
All Levels 



$ 0- 499 
500- 999 
1000-1499 
1500-1999 
2000-2499 
2500-2999 
3000-Up 

ill L?vel 



$ 



0- 499 
500- 999 
1000-1499 
1500-1999 
2000-2499 
2500-2999 
3000-Up 
All Levels 



AU 



55 

71 
105 
118 
113 

66 
149 

96 



25 

73 

47 







329 

77 



16 
2S 

46 
39 
61 
50 
29 
33-38 



13 

34 

20 







44 

23 



152 135 101 

295 203 120 

268 129 223 

284 209 
305 241 
374 307 

285 398 218 
{241-281) 178 202 



P QOd 



274 

132 
183 
229 
273 
244 
248 
237 



129 
233 
29E 
467 
353 


280 
272 



220 

297 

275 

329 

546 





316 




glothing 



62 
53 

110 
88 

10 5 
50 
39 
84 





Medical 

6 
75 
34 
20 
20 
69 

9 
37 



119 
103 

47 
103 
104 

92 
114 

9. 

& 
21 
35 
26 
44 
41 
35 
32 
35 



57 

86 
101 
123 
167 

166 
119 



35 
27 
42 
69 
43 

28 
41 



68 

96 

120 

157 

174 





107 



12 

17 

19 

16 

41 





30 




ii 




51 



Income level. This lower expenditure for food does not 
necessarily mean unsatisfactory diets. On the contrary, by 
raising a generous food supply, whidh the Farm Security 
Administration urges its "borrowers to do, these families have 
a satisfactory diet* Wrigley's study (18) corroborates this 
fact. That Pennsylvania families do raise a large amount 
of subsistence is also shovm in the 1940 Census Report {3)# 
Of the 100 counties in the United States ranked on the basis 
of value of farm products used by farm householdSt the 
following is the position of some of the Pennsylvania 



Counties: 



Lancaster 

York. 

Berks 

Butler 

Crawford 

Washington 

Chester 

Somerset 



1 

7 
39 
53 

58 
70 
89 
91 



Table X indicates that the families that spent a rela- 

tively high amount for food tended to spend a relatively 

practice 

high amount for clothing. This/ would leave a lower percent- 
age of the total expenditure for family living, for other 
items in the budget, and consequently expenditures for other 
items in the budget would be limited. This is indicated 
In the expenditure foj* medical care. 



[.I 

U '■ 



H 



The Consumer Purchases Study presents similar findings: (15) 

The cash released for other items by those making 
the lower outlays for food was distributed among 
all items of the budget although not equally to 



52 



each Item* Clothlngt for example t received 
almost a fifth of tha extra money* Household 
operation expenditures were over twice as high 
among the families whose food expenditures 
were moderate as among the group spending large 
amounts for food* 



The average amounts for medical care spent for each 
family type at each income level as shown in the tahle indicate 
no discernihle trend* 



tN 



In order to interpret whether there was any relationship 
between family size and expenditures, the average number of 
persons for each type of family needed to he known* They 



w 



ere as followst 



Type 


I 


2.0 


Type 


II 


3.9 


Type 


III 


4.0 


Type 


IV 


7.5 


Type 


V 


8.3 



Although Tahle X shows, in general, that the amount spent for 
food rose with the size of the family, when considered on a 
per capita basis, the amount spent decreased* Y/ith each 
additional increase in family ajx* the increr.se in the average 
■*iiey value of the family's food became smaller and smaller. 
Per example, Type I at $1000-1499 income level, the food 
expense was $129 or ^65 per person, but Type III for the same 
income level spent $183 or $46 per person and Type V $275 or 
$33 per person. The same trend may be discerned in the study 
of expenditures for clothing and medical care. The per capita 
expenditure for clothing for all income levels weret 



f . 1 



89 



-4 



Type I #38t Type II $22, Type III $24, Type IV ^ISf and 
Type 7 |13t 



That the family size affects the expenditures for food, 
clothing and medical care as shown in this study was substan- 
tiated by findings in the Consumer Purchases Study. (15) 



These findings as applied to the present study indicatodt 
that since Farm Security families tended to run larger in 
size than that of th& normal population (see Table VI) there 
has been need for the guidance and supervision that Farm 
Security can offer. It also indicated (in the words of the 
Consumer Purchases Study) thats 

The money value of the family food supply expressed 
on a per capita basis also reflects the need 
for economy as the number of members increases^ • • 
If there is little opportunity for increasing 
cash income, families must look to the farm for 
the additional food needed to maintain a satis- 
factory dietary level. The larger th0 family 
the more important it becomes to produce a 
generous share of the households food supply. 



J I 



M 






I 

i 




Table XI also presents data regarding expenditures for 
food, clothing and medical care for each area, with the 
families grouped on the same income levels as used in Tatle 
X. In interpreting Table XI one needs to keep in mind the 
characteristics of each area (see Explanation of Terms, page 
20.) and the income levels into which many of the families of 
each area fall. (See Table II and Figures 1-6.) It is impor 
tant to rememher also that each item on any income level may 
T)e represented hy only one or two families. 



54 



latile XI 



Average Expenditures for Food, Clothing and Medical 
care of Families in the Various Agricultural Areas 
roupod on the Basis of Net Money Income 






^^ Ji A11W# v^iu« AJ 



V * Vi' ••> O' 



I 



0- 499 
500- 999 
1000-1499 
1500-1999 
2000-2499 
2500-2999 
SdDD-Up 
All Levels 



$ 0- 499 
500- 999 
1000-1499 
1500-1999 
2000-2499 
2500-2999 

aooo-up 

All Levels 



f 0- 499 

500- 999 
1000-1499 
1500-1999 
2000-2499 
2500-2999 
3000-Up 
All Levels 



4U 



$152 
295 
26 8 
284 
30 5 
374 
285 
(266-290) 



•ij)55 

71 

105 

113 

113 

66 

149 

95 



§18 
22 
46 
39 
61 
50 
29 
38 



A 



$144 
287 
239 
328 
339 
307 
30 8 
279 



$24 
37 
60 
44 
58 
69 
26 
45 



Areas 



£l 



Food 



^152 



* 



$67 

78 

84 

127 

134 

50 

184 

104 



220 
249 

30 6 
352 


321 
267 



^13 8 
187 
216 
207 
164 




183 



$186 
290 
276 
285 
331 


273 



Clothing 



$48 
52 

121 
91 
63 

e 

95 

78 



$61 

78 
107 
116 

98 





92 



Mftiit qal Care 

$15 $24 



11 

38 

13 

72 



28 

30 



18 

38 

40 

95 





43 



$55 
101 

60 
140 
133 





98 



$13 
41 
63 
75 
15 


41 



A 



$142 
491 
362 
279 
340 
440 
227 
326 



$43 
46 

152 
89 

152 
62 

167 

10 5 



$15 
3 
31 
26 
62 
31 
32 
28 



I 



55 



Area C where the bulk of the lowest Income families 
fallt tended to later the total average amount spent 
for food for all areas. The Dairy Areas, especially Area 
B, might he expected to spend more for food because of 
the shorter growing season and resulting l>y less oppor- 



tunity to raise food for subsistence. Area B with higher 
net income (see Table VII), as would be expected, spent 
more than the average for food and clothing except at 
the lowest income levels# Area B generally spent less 
for medical care than the other areas. Area D showed no 
consistent trend in any item, fooa» clothing or medical 
care. 



The spending for medical care makes an interesting 
study since the health status of rural families has always 
been a primary concern to rural farm agencies. In the 
dairy area the rural population competes with urban popu- 
lation for medical care. In the Shenandoah-Piedmont 
(Area E) rural families compete with themselves, while in 
the Allegheny Mountain Area, medical care is often received 
from a mining company doctor^ In this area there are 
occupational diseases and a prevalence of bad tonsils among 
children* 



If 



To aid its borrowers. Farm Security assisted in setting 
up medical care plans, a kind of health insurance, which 



^^ 



S6 



costs the family from $16 to |20 a year depending upon 
the size of the family. In 1942, the year of this study, 
such a plan was available to all families in Area A whose 
record books were represented in this study and to soma 



n M ^ ^ » .^ A m^ ^ ^ m 



tlfA<l4A^1 A«k«*«k %H*iM«««i •Mtiai%t 



Of tne X em 1. X X t:; S XIl AJTOO. o% mou.xua.x uoACr t/A«*AAo ft 



4fk %• A 

w * i9 



accepted by the County Medical Societies in Centre and 
Huntingdon Counties in Area C about the time of the study. 



It is Interesting to no 



te that the expense for 



m 



edlcal care in Area A, which has the Farm Security medical 



plan ava 



liable was generally higher at each income level 



than the other areas. This probably indicated not more 



Illness but mo 



re adequate medical care in this area« 



57 



CHAPTBR YII 



Summaryt Conclusions and Recommendations 



Summary • The amount of income a farm family has deter- 
mine* in large part the level of living it achfeves and its 
chances for financial security* This study of 122 record 
"books from Farm Security borrowers In Pennsylvania for the 
year 1942 Indicated the level of living for these families* 
These families as shown by their record boolcs represent 
the Farm Security borrowers of the state geographically by 
areas t by Income levels and by family size. 



Average spending patterns for these rural farm families 
have been calculated for five sections of the state repre- 
senting the three agricultural areas* The airerage spending 
pattern for the five areas was: 



Food 


$266 


Clothing 


95 


Personal 


26 


Medical 


37 


Household Operation 


95 


Hous ing Hepairs 


10 


Minor Bqulpment 


25 


School, Church, and Recreation 


36 


Life Insurance 


35 


Other 


20 



The average total family living for this group was §646* 



Average spending patterns were calculated for net 
money income levels for farm families in seven brackets 
ranging from $0 to $3000* The average spending pattern 



I ^ 



•^ 



1^ 






58 



for the total number of 122 families grouped by income 



vast 



Food 

Clothing 

Fers onal 

Medical 

Household Operation 

Housing Eepairs 

Minor Equipment 

School, Church, and Recreation 

Life Insurance 

Other 



2253 



98 
23 
35 
89 



9 



25 

28 
22 



average 
The/total spent for family living for all income levels 

was $622. It was found that the spending for families 

tended to follow Bngel«s laws; that is, the lower the income 

level the higher the percentage spent for food. 

The pattern of spending was determined for family size 
which ranged in this study from 2 to 15 menbers. The average 
size of family was 5.4 persons and the ^ Jian family 5.33 
persons. This size of family Is larger than/census figures 
but not as large as the 1941 sample. It was found that 
expenditures for family living rose with the increase in 
size of families but the proportion per person went down. 

The relation of expenditures *0 family size on various 
income levels was determined for food, clothing and medical 
care. It was found that when relatively large amounts were 
spent for food, relatively large amounts were spent for 
clothing also but these expenditures limited the expenditure 
for other items in the budget. It was found that the amount 



Mi 



'I 



M 



li 



69 



spent for foodf clothing and medloal oare Increased with 
the Increase In family size but decreased on a per capita 
basis* This indicated that it was important that familiest 
especially of large size« raise as much of their living as 



poss 






me 



a satisfactory diet. 

■between 
The relationship /i' the expenditures for food, clothing 

and medical care on ^arlou^ jln<^o:^^ levels for each area was 

found to "be as expected -inr /the characteristics of each area. 

No trend was observable for all areas. The expense for 

dical care was larger in the areas where the Farm security 

Medical care plan was available, probably indicating more 

adequate care, rather than more illness. 

Conclusions . This study shows that families of the 
same size and same income levels under the guidance of the 
Farm Security Administration in Pennsylvania tend to spend 
for family living so that these expenditures fall into a 
pattern. These patterns vary among the agricultural areas 
of the state. It is higher in the dairy and Shenandoah- 
Piedmont areas and lower in the central area. 

The expenditures for the various budget items for family 
living tended to follow Bngel's law* when considered from the 
standpoint of family types on various income levels and also 
for families on various income levels within agricultural 



I! 



f 



60 



areas of Pennsyl vania. The spending pattern for family 
living of those Farm Security Families was similar to 
the spending pattern of other farm families of the same 
size and income level as shown by other studies^ 



Recommendat ions # 

1^ That a study of the relationship of the home 
production of food to family spend ing pattern b^ made« 

£• That long time case studies of families be made in 
order to discover the effect upon spending patterns of 
specific family problems and activities, such as those 
which might arise from change in environment, loss of 
crops, unexpected illness, or marriage of some family 

member* 

g^ That research on farm family spending for other 
groups of rural farm families such as extension. Farm 
Bureau members, or other cooperative groups, be made to 
show the effect of the guidance of the? Farm Security 
Administrat ion# 



1 



i 



« 'm 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 



1« Abel 9 Mary Hinman 

1921 Successful Family Life on the Moderate Income > 

J. B. Llpplncott Co., Philadelphiat Pa. 



c% AziarewB, Deiijamin n« 



1938 



Boonomlcs of the Household . 
Kew Yorkt N. Y. 



The MacMllllan Co. 



3. 16th Census of the U. S« 

1940 Housing; Second Series. General Characteristics, 

Pennsylvania. 

4t Departments of Agricultural Economics and Home Economics 

1941 Summary of Combined Home Account and Farm Account 

Records. Agricultural Experiment Stationt College 
of Agriculture, University of Illinois, Urbana, Ill# 



5. Johansent John P. 

1941 One Hundred ITew Homesteads In the Red River Valley, 

North Dakota. Bulletin 304, Dept. of Rural 
Sociology Agricultural Experiment Station, North 
Dakota Agricultural College in cooperation with 
the Farm Security Administration. Fargo, ITorth Dakota. 



6« Eyrk, 
1933 



Hazel 

Economic Problems of the Family . 



Harper and 



Brothers , 



Hew 



York, N. Y. 



7t 



Mu s e , 
1942 



Marianne 

Farm Families of Two Vermont Counties, Their 
Incomes and Expenditures. Bulletin 490, Vermont 
Agricultural Experiment Station, Burlington, Vermont 



8. National Resources Committee 

1939 Consumer jTxpenditur es In the Ignited States. 

United States Government Printing Office, 
Washington, D. C. 

9. Reid, Margaret G# 

1943 Food for People . John G. Wiley & Sons, Inc. 

Hew York, IT. Y# 



! 'U V-4 



Li 



f 



10. 



!!• 



Simmons, Dorothy, Macy, !• K. & Albaugh, L. G# 
1939 Farm Income and Family Living* Cooperative 

Extension Work in Agriculture and Home 
Bconomics* Iowa State College of Agriculture 
and the U. S* Dept* of Agriculture Cooperating. 



U. S. 
1942 



Dept* of Agriculture, Farm Security Administration. 
A Handbook on the FSA Agricultural Areas, Program 
Analysis Heport ITo. 24. Program and Reports 
Division. 



12. 



1940 



Bureau of fl*ome Economics. 



Consumer Purchases !^tudy. Farm Income and Expendi- 
tures, Part 1 Farm Series, Miscellaneous 
Publications ITo. 383* 



13. 



1943 



Bureau of Human Kutrit ion and Home 

Economics. 

Rural Family Spending and Saving in V/artime. 

Miscellaneous Publication ITo. 520. 



14, 



1938 



Bureau of Agricultural Economics and 

Bureau of Home Economics. 

Agricultural Outlook Charts 1939, Farm Family 

Living. 77ashington, D. G. 



15. 



1940 



Agricultural Outlook Charts 1941, Farm Family 
living, Washington, D. C. 



16. 



1943 



Agricultural Outlook Charts 1944 
Washington, D. C. 



17. 



1942 



Bureau of Home Economics, Rural 

Family Living, The Situation Early 1942. 
Washington, D. C. 



18. V/rigley, Paul I. 

Unpublished An Appraisal of Three Years Progress of a 
1943 Group of Farm Security Administration Clients. 

The Pennsylvania State College, State College, 



pa 



i 

y 
? i 



it J 



APPENDIX 



63 



Exhibit 

A Story of the Jones Family 

B Story of the John Doe Family 

Letter to the Strte Director 

D Letter to trie District Supervisors 

E Letter to the County Supervisoi-s 

P Sheet for Recording-Sele.-tion of Sample Families 

Rcooi-d Book Pa.^.e -Family Living Expenses 

H Record Book page-Annunl Suinin; ry 



Page 
64 
67 
70 
71 
73 
75 
76 
77 



: 



In 



IK 1 



M 



m 



y 



.1 
U 



64 



2zlilblt A 



The Story of Mr. and Mrs. Jones 



Mr. and Mrs. Richard Jones, Tsetter known to the Farm 

Security in 1940« They are a childless couple, getting 
along toward middle age and of native Pennsylvania stockt 
On the first visit the Farm and Home Supervisors found 
Dick and Bessie an interesting couple. Bessie was the 
dominant partner, with a deep masculine voicet dressing in 
slacl^ and usually making the decisions^ 






On this first visit the Joneses were helping some 
relatives on a farm, an arrangement which was not financially 
profitable for the Joneses* Bessie came In from the field 
all out of hreath at the excitement and shaking like a leaf# 
The Supervisors afterwards learned this shaking was a 
characteristic of Bessie* The couple were poorly dressed 
and actually hungry. They had no assets whatsoever* 



The "building where the first farm and home plans were 
tentatively made was uninhabitable, but Dick and Bessie knew 
of a farm they could rent. They had done sd me bargaining for 
this place and it was in their plans when they requested 
assistance from Farm Security* The farm and home management 
plans were based on the operation of this place as a dairy 
farm. The work to be done by these two people was to include 
the raising of their own subsistence in poultry and hogs. 



i\\ 



65 



The farm was tack on the hills on a rather Inacoesslbla 
roadf but it had been occupied and consequently the land 
was in fair condition* The rehabilitation loan was approved 
for this family in the spring of 1940 and the couple, very 
much delighted set out to rehabilitate themselves* 






The house into which Dick and Bessie moved was far 
from a palace, an unpainted five-room affair, with no 
conveniences* But the walls, roof and foundation were 
weather tight and consequently satisfactory for a start* 
By 1942, the year of the records used in this study, the 
rooms had all been papered, and the rough floor were covered 
with linoleum and rag rugs that Bessie had proudly made 
herself* The couple used kerosene lamps for lights, wood 
from the farm for fuel, and water from a pump outside the 
house but near the kitchen* They did have a sink and a drain 
in the kitchen and they had acquired sufficient furniture to be 
comfortable* Some of the items In the following list of 
expenditures include payments on a stove and a radio* 



A typical characteristic of Dick and Bessie is that they 
always work together* Both milk the cows in the morning and 
feed them, then both get breakfast and do the dishes* Then 
both do the farm work, whether It Is planting, cultivating or 
harvesting crops* They both also enjoy hunting, and a rabbit 

was given to a supervisor on one of her visits when Dick and 

Bessie had Just returned from a hunting trip* 



m 



66 



The Jones family had an excellent garden and that yeart 
Bessie conserved her own food supply with a pressure cooker 
which was made available through Farm Security funds* They 
toolc special pride in their flock of poultry, which not 
only paid for itself but the grocery bill as well* They 
also raised a calf for their own meat# 



"I 



The couple participated in community activities and 
occasionally went to a show* 



The year 1942 is the third year for Dick and Bessie 
with Farm Security* They now have a net xkoney income of 
$1345*35. They are a childless couple. Type I, and from 
Area B* This is the way Dick and Bessie spent their $487 
for items of home living in 1942* This can be compared with 
the average for Type 1, Area B and #1000-1499 income levels 
in Tables VII, VIII, and IX* 



Food 
Clothing 

Personal 

Medical Care 

Household Operation 

Housing Repairs 

Furniture and Equipment 

School, Church, He creation 

Other 



This last item includes payments on old bills* 



$S25.67 


46.3^ 


43.81 


9,0 


25.59 


5.3 


17.85 


3.7 


20.11 


4.1 


15.75 


3.2 


25.85 


5.3 


87.15 


7.6 


75.52 


15.4 



!>■ 



I. 



(I: 



67 



Exhibit B 



The Story of the John Does 



In 1939 Susquehanna County was opened for Tenant Purchase 
loans. In order to be eligible a family can own no real 
estate but should have livestock and equipment enough to 
operate a farm* In Susquehanna County real estate does not 
cost much more than the livestock and equipment, and therefordf 
anyone who has livestock and equipment can purchase a farm 
without assistance* Consequently, it is difficult to find 
eligible families that do not need additional livestock and 
equipment to operate any farm purchased under the Tenant 
Purchase Program* 



m 



Such was the case of the John Doe family, accepted for 
this program and assisted In the purchase of a rery good 
farm* Mr* and Mrs. Doe are a young couple in their twenties, 
of native American stock with three small children* The 
future looked promising when they were able to purchase a 
dairy farm, even though they had to borrow for additional 
cows and machinery* They secured a very good dairy farm 
in excellent state of cultivation, with buildings in good 
condition, on a paved highway* The house is a large one 
with all modern conveniences, including electricity, running 

water, and a furnace* 



it,l 



66 



This was an excellent opportunity for any young couplet 
but it was Tery uphill work financially for the first few 
yearst even with the variable payment (pay as you earn) plan 
for both real estate and stocks Among the problems the 
family had to face was the one of additional babies* By 
1942 there were five children, two girls and three boys* 
Meanwhile the mother^s health had become seriously impaired* 
When she was able she took care of the poultry and garden, 
but usually the care of the house and children was all she 
was able to do* 

Mrs* Doe had some labor saving equipment such as 
electric washing machine, electric refrigerator, pressure 
cooker, sewing machine, purchased the first few years of 
the loan* Beds for the children's room were purchased also* 
When the farm was unable to produce all the fruit and vegetables 
needed by the family, peaches, peas, etc*, were purchased 
for canning* 



jiiit 



jllll V. 



The following budget figures represent their expendi- 
tures for family living in 1942* The medical care expense 
includes participation in the medical care plan and tonsillec- 
tomies for two children* Furnishings include payments on 



an 



electric refrigerator* The net money income is $1250 with 



the total home living $1110* It can be seen there is little 
balance to pay on real estate, which indicates that the 
family are still having a difficult financial problem* Yet 



69 



It is believed that they will malce good, for Mr* and Mrs. 
Doe are still only 27 and 25 years of age# 



By comparison with Tables 711, VIU, and IX they are 

Type IV family, in Area B, at the income level of §1000-.1499* 

Pood 

Clothing 

Personal 

Medical Care 

Household Operation 

Housing Repairs 

Purnis hings and Bquipment 

School, Church, Re creation 

life Insurance 

Other 



373,67 


33.6 


230.89 


20.8 


48.64 


4.4 


67.46 


6.1 


160.63 


14.4 


9.89 


0.9 


139.09 


12.5 


72.02 


6.5 


6.43 


0.6 


1.20 


0.1 






70 



Exhibit C 
State College, Pennsylvania 



October 2, 1943 



Mr. Carson F. Kertz 

State Director 

Farm Security Administration 

928 North Third Street 

Harrlsburg, Pennsylvania 

Dear Mr* Mertzi 

Attached is a copy of the letter which I sent to the Sup- 
ervisors requesting the record books- for my study. This is 
in oonfimation of our conversations regarding your approval. 

In order to get a true representative sampling of Farm Sec- 

^r^^L^^LT®'" ^r Pennsylrania. I have requested ten percent 

It ^1 I ,t IV^ ^°^^* ^°*^ ^ ^^<^ '^^ ^^ic^ Is 477 books. 

The distribution requested in income levels and in family sizes 

pre^iorslLre^r""'"*''' *" ""''''''' ^^^"^ ^^^'- ^^-^ °» 

L!\?'i*^''^ * personal letter to the County Supervisors asking 
llliJiJ' °°°P«J^^i°n and also one to the District Supervisors! 
l^^i;^^ ?^ information I need. I do no t intend that the 
Supervisors take any special time to secure these books. It 
is expected that the books can be secured on regular visits. 

Of ?re^?!J?J!''°'! L''.'*'* ^"** '^ necessary, by mail. A list 
rfif^L ? f studied previously by Professor Wrigley of the 

5hi hf V 'r.\*° '^^ respective county offices, requesting 
enable .« .°* ^""tV '^^^^^'^* ^' ^^^y are available. This will 

Brove hJi Jni °r i''''* Professor Wrlgleys study which should 
prove helpful to Farm Security, 

I would appreciate your help in securing these record books. 



i I 



H 



ll 



Sincerely, 



Kathryn aI Mills 



\n 



I 



71 



Exhibit 2) 



State Colleget Pennsylvanl 



October 2, 1943 



I 

ii 






I 



Mr# John areer, 

Dist« FSA Supervisor 

Farm Security Administration 

Post Office Building 

New Castle, Pennsylvania 

Dear Mr* Greerj 

As you know, I am doing graduate work at the Pennsylvania 
State College where I am planning a project on Farm Sec- 
urity Administration record books for my thesis study# I 
have Mr« Mertz^s approval to request the record books from 
the County Supervlaors for this purpose. 

Attached is a copy of the letter to the County Supervisors 
requesting the books* In order to obtain a true representa- 
tive picture of the spending for family living of Farm Sec- 
urity families, I have requested ten percent of the record 
books of the 1942 caseload for both RR and TP borrowers. 
This accounts for the variation in the numbers of books re- 
quested from each office. The total for the State is 477 books 

In order to get a proper distribution of gross income levelSf 
I have based my sampling on gross income figures for Pennsyl- 
vania in 1935-36# Therefore, these levels may be slightly 
low for 1942 and if Supervisors have too much difficulty in 
securing books in the lowest income bracket, please tell them 
to secure the total number of books requested but to distribute 
them in the levels most representative in his counties. 

The 1941 Family Progress reports show higher percentages in 
the two lower brackets and less in the higher income levels. 
I have not indicated this in my letter to the Supervisor for 
I wished him to try to get books at all income levels and ask 
that you guide him if he has difficulty. 



^< I 



M'^ 



72 




The family size distribution is based on 1930 census reports 
for Pennsylvania as the 1940 figures are not available, a 
preliminary report states that for the nation the number -f 

?Qjr«?.K^''^v^''\'*'"* ^" ^^^^ "''' Tirtually the aaxne as^ 
1930 although in Pennsylvania there was a small increase. 

i'he form, Seleotion of Sample Pamilies, is to ¥e used as a 
receipt for the books and also to show distribution of books 

i?ti"r*'°%^"'^ "^^"^^^ '*^* levels. In discussing this form 
with Mr. Havens and Mr. Alexander of the State College office, 
it did not seem that there would be any difficulty with it 

whicrycrcovir!'*''* "° **'' *""* *°'*'^ '°' ^'^^ agricultural a;ea 

The card fcr the recording, of family home prodaoad feed is 
for Information for a nrolsft thaf t «...4- *! ^ ^i '""^ ^^ 
the relitl nr,<,^^T^^^^ Tv? £ ^ ''*"* *° study regarding 

tne relationship of this home produced food to the total -aah 
expenditure for this Item. totax .ash 

This infor:.ation mf not be in the record book, and for this 

I realize the S^.e'rvf °"'* *° ''' *^^ ''^' "^^'"- 0' °-'-. 
«nii!i+ !>, supervisors cannot spend any special time to 

collect these books but it 1. expected that they can be sec- 

if no:L::?f "v'miii'* ?j i^^'i' '°' ^'°«"" reports %;: 

visits the l«*«L«ff / t^^ ^°°^^ *" collected through 
visits the information for home produced ib ods can b« nhf««*,-^ 

ho.eTtnit^'^^' i' '^ "^"^ *^* card, may bisenu ^J.^J*"*"*^ 
hoped that a good proportion of these data may be secured. 

Irn?r ^^^?. Tf* *^® Supervisors the names of the farrlll.s in 
to 1 ^r^rea'ufsJl^'. VyT^ .1' T" '•'^^'^^^ borrower, in 1I39" 

families " the y^fve them ^^rJfjf '\^ '^^^ "°'» *^*" 
^ * uiA^y^ xiave T;n.ein# From these books T m/Lv 1*^ o-ki-^ 

to continue the oollege study oo nduot.d bnjor.^J^'j^fgJ'ey. 
Ooto'.,. ^ "' ""' " P<>"1"« would like the look. In 



IJI 






Sincerely, 



I 



lathryn At Mills 



I 



Exhioit E 

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE COLLEGE 

SCHOOL OF EDUCATION 
STATE COLLEGE. PENNSYLVANIA 



73 



lEPARTMENT OF H O M e'eC O N O M I C S 



i 



:'wr 



■I 



Since the Farm Security Administration has been an agency working very inti- 
mately with rural families, we kn^w there is a great deal of valuable data on farm 
family expenditures which might be procured from record hooks of 1942-43. If these 
data were assembled from the offices over the state, it would undoutedly be help- 
ful to many persons and agencies counseling vfith farm families. We wish, there- 
fore, to make a study of this information at the present time, hoping it will 
assist in the war situation. 

The study is being conducted by Mrs. Kathryn A. Mills, formerly the Associate 
State Director for the Farm Security Administration in Pennsylvania, under the 
supervision of the Department of Home Economics of The Pennsylvania State College. 
The purposes of this study are to discover (1) whether expenditures for farm family 
living differ according to size and income of families among the agricultural areas 
of the state and (2) what relation the home production of food may have to the 
family food expenditure. Mrs. Mills has secured permission from Mr. Carson F. 
Mertz, State Director of Farm Security Administration, to procure through you 
record books from your office in order to make this compilation* May we ask your 
assistance in the manner suggested below? 

In order that a fair sampling ©f books be made so that a true picture of farm 
family living may be shown, it is important that the following factors be con- 
sidered in their selection. A form entitled "Selection of Sample Families" is en- 
closed which will help you to obtain a fair distribution of your books selected. 



i ;. 



In selecting the 



books, 



1. Choose the books of 



K H #n I » I II mi l » 



Tenant Purchase families and of 



Rural Rehabilitation families. 



2. Choose so that within the total number of books the various family 
income levels in gross cash income are represented as indicated below: 



500 - 


$U99 


1500 - 


2499 


2500 - 


3A99 


3500 - 


up 



2. 



74 



M 



it. 



3. Choose so that in the total number of families there is a representa- 
tion of various kinds of family groups as indicated below: 



Group I 
Group n 

Group III 

Group IV 

Group V 



A childless couple 

A rapidly growing family, parents under AO 

and up to 3 children. 

Small older family, parents over .^0 and 

up to 3 children. 

Younger larger family, parents under 40 and 



4 or more children. 



Large older completed family, parents over 
/^Q and A or more children. 



I,. Be sure the names and ages of family members are listed in the front 
of each book. 

5. Be sure the yearly totals in the books are completed and are accurate. 

On the two copies of the form mentioned above, list the names of the families 
you have chosen* Check one column under each heading thus describing each family. 
Please return both copies of this form. One of these will be receipted by Mrs. 
Mills and returned to you. As soon as the needed information is secured from the 
record books, they, too, will be returned to you. 

A second form, "Summary of Home Production of Food," is enclosed for your use 
in compiling the data on the production of food for the home. Kindly fill o^p. out 
as accurately as possible for each family and put it in the record book of that 
family. 

Please send the record books to 

Mrs. Kathryn A. Mills \ 
c/o Miss Jean D. Amber son 
Department of Home Economics 
The Pennsylvania State College 
State College, Pennsylvania 



We will greatly appreciate your cooperation 




Sincerely yours, 



/ 



Jean D. Amber son 



^ 



Professor 

Home Economics Education 





(Mrs.) Kathryn A. Mills 



Exhibit F 



p.» o , , , 




Month of 



Exhibit 

RECORD OF FAMILY LIVING EXPENSES 



Total expenses, $ 



76 9 



# 



Day of 
Month 


Enter in This Column Description of Goods Purchased, 
Number or Quantity, Unit Price, and From Whom Purchased 


Food 


Clothing 


Personal 


Medical Care 


Household 
Operation 


Housing, 

Upkeep, 

Improvement 


furnisfinqs, 
Equipment 


School, 
Church, 
Gifts, Rec- 
reation 


Transporta- 
tion 


Life Insur- 
ance 


Other 






Dollars 


Cents 


Dollars 


Cents 


Dollars 


Cents 


Dollars 


Cents 


Dollars 


Cents 


Dollars 


Cents 


Dollars 


Cents 


Dollars 


Cents 


Dollars 


Cents 


Dollars 


Cents 


Dollars 


Cents 
















































































































































































































































































































































































































































































'- «_M w 






























































































































































































































































































































































































1 




























































































































































































1 
































































































































































































































































































































































































































































T 

To 


TAL (add each column and copy totals on pp. 36, 37) — 















































Exhibit H 
ANNUAL SUMMARY OF FAMILY OPERATING EXPENSES (From monthly famOy expense pages) 



7737 



f 

U' Month 

1 1 


Food 
2 


Clothing 
3 


Personal 

4 


Medical 
Care 

5 


Household 
Operation 

6 


Minor 
Housing 

7 


Minor Fur- 
nishings AND 
Equipment 
8 


School, 
Church, Gifts, Transportation 
Recreation 

9 10 


Life Insurance 
11 


Other 
13 


Total 
13 


(f 


$ 




$- 




$ 




$. 




$ 




$ 




$ 




$ 


.— $ 




$ 




$ 




$ 














































(p — .-..--. 




































1 














*»— >■ w 


















































































i 




















































































































































•""•"" — •-~"™"'" 












































































































































; 
































































Total _.. 


$ 




$ 




$_ 




$_. _. 




$ 




$ 




$ 




$ - 


$ 




$ 




$ 




$ 




Home Plan, RR 14 a 






































tp-_--„_-- 


*M»»»W 


^ Difference (-foR— ) 


$ 




$ 




$ 




$ 




$ - 




$- 




$ - 




$— - 


$ 




$ 




$- 




$ 





\ ANNUAL SUMMARY OF CAPITAL GOODS PURCHASED FOR FARM AND HOME (Fi 


rom monthly 


farm expense and family expense pages) 


1 

Month 
1 


New 
Buii-niNGs 

2 


Land 
Improvements 

3 


New 
Machinery 

4 


Livestock 
Purchased 

5 


Poultry 
Purchased 

6 


Other 
7 


Major House 
Improvements 

8 


Major Fur- 
nishings and fP/VPAT 

Equipment iotal 
9 10 


Payment on Debts 




FSA 
11 


Other 
12 


Total 
13 




$ 




$ 




$ .._ 




$ 




$. 




$ 




$— . 




$ 


$ 




$ 




$ 




$ 




































• 












V- — — - — — - 




















































































1 


















































i 
















































' 








































































































































































































































































> 
































! 

i 
















f Total 


$ 




$ 




$._ 




$ 




$..._ 




$ 




$..... 




$ 




$ 




$ 




$ 




$. _ 




fj Farm and Home Plans 


















































pblFFERENCE (4-OR— ) 


$ 





$ 




$- — 




$ 





$ 




$-- 




$ 




$ 


i $ 




$ 




$ 




$