'LI B R.ARY OF THE UNIVERSITY or ILLINOIS 53O.7 AGRICULTURE 1 BIRCULATING CHECK FOR UNBOUND CIRCULATING COPY LI UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AGRICULTURE LIBRARY. BULLETIN 630 UWERS NEED FOR LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS Dmparison of farm leaders' and members' opinions in 1930 and 1952 BY D. E. LINDSTROM 93< 79% Most farm leaders in both periods wanted local organizations 1930 1952 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION CONTENTS PURPOSE AND METHOD OF STUDY 3 THE GROUPS IN WHICH FARM PEOPLE TAKE PART. . . 5 THE EXPRESSED NEEDS 6 REASONS LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS ARE NEEDED 7 WHO SHOULD BE MEMBERS 8 FREQUENCY OF MEETINGS 9 PROGRAMS FOR MEETINGS 10 RELATIONSHIP WITH OVERHEAD AGENCIES 11 PARTICIPATION IN POLICY-MAKING 12 SUMMARY 13 CONCLUSION.. .16 Urbana, Illinois June, 1958 Publications in the Bulletin series report the results of investigations made or sponsored by the Experiment Station FARMERS' NEED FOR LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS A Comparison of Farm Leaders' and Members' Opinions in 1930 and 1952 By D. E. LINDSTROM, Professor of Rural Sociology FARM PEOPLE have increasingly become a minority group, making up less than 9 percent of the total population in Illinois in 1950 as compared with 13 percent in 1930. Advances in technology have made unnecessary many of the mutual-aid activities that were still prevalent 20 years ago. As many schools, churches, and other institu- tions reorganize on a community basis, farmers are becoming more and more an integral part of their community. These changes in rural life raise serious questions as to whether there is a need for formal or semi- formal organizations for farmers on the community level. Should special efforts be made to develop local organizations for farm people where there are none, or to strengthen those organizations that are now functioning? PURPOSE AND METHOD OF STUDY In order to answer these questions, a study was made in 1952 of organizations in which farm people take part. This study was similar to one made in 1930 so that comparisons could be made. In both studies^ farm leaders and others were asked to give their opinions as to the need for local farm organizations. This publication is a report of these opinions. The year 1930 marked the beginning of a severe economic depres- sion in the United States. Farmers especially were hard pressed, and, as in the past, they organized local groups as a way out of their finan- cial difficulties. In 1930 questionnaires were submitted to about 500 farm people. Of the 433 who answered the questionnaire, 284 were either officers or leaders of 234 local farm organizations; the remain- ing respondents were classified as nonmembers of these organizations. 1 (See Table 1 for a listing of the organizations to which these 284 mem- bers and those questioned in 1952 belonged.) In 1952 the questionnaire was answered by 234 officers, leaders, and members of 234 groups in about the same areas of the state. Those answering the questionnaire in 1930 lived in 306 localities in 1 D. E. Lindstrom. Local group organization among Illinois farm people. 111. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 392, Table 2. 1933. BULLETIN NO. 630 [June, Table 1. Respondents Classified by Organizational Membership Percent of total number Types of organizations 1930 (Number 284) 1952 (Number 234) Community clubs Farm bureau units Parent-Teachers' Associations. . Home bureau units Granges Women's clubs 4-H clubs Rural youth groups Social and service organizations. Cooperatives Miscellaneous. . 24 29 17 14 10 2 2 15 10 8 37 2 4 11 2 7 2 2 60 counties; those who answered in 1952 lived in 187 localities in 58 counties (Fig. 1). In 1930 two-thirds of the respondents were mem- bers of the groups on which data were secured 1 ; in 1952 all of the respondents were either officers or members of the groups listed in Table 1. In both periods an effort was made to get data from all groups in each county cooperating with county extension agents. Although this sample is selective rather than complete, it is representative of the types of groups in the localities shown in Fig. 1. The respondents represented open-country community clubs, farmers' clubs, farm bu- reau units, home bureau units, subordinate granges, women's clubs, 4-H clubs, and similar groups. 2 Forty-four percent of the leaders were officers (president, chairman, etc.); 14 percent were members of com- mittees; and the remaining 42 percent were active members of these groups. The character of the groups studied changed between 1930 and 1952. In 1930 many of the groups included all members of the family; but by 1952, more of these groups had become specialized and ap- pealed to men only, women only, boys only, or girls only (see Table 1). The types of groups represented were the kinds of voluntary com- munity organizations in which one would expect most farm people to participate. Most of the groups, except PTA's, were farm people's organizations, and the people who answered the questionnaire were farmers, farm homemakers, and others directly concerned with farming. 1 The opinions of only those who were members in 1930 are included here. 2 The questionnaires were sent to leaders of local groups. The names of these leaders were secured from farm and home advisers. 1958] FARMERS' NEED FOR LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS ONE LOCALITY. 1930 o ONE LOCALITY, 1952 Localities and counties represented by the data submitted in the 1930 and 1952 studies. More than half of the Illinois counties were represented in both periods. (Fig- 1) THE GROUPS IN WHICH FARM PEOPLE TAKE PART Each of those questioned was asked to list the number and kinds of organizations in his community in which farm people are active. The results are shown in Table 2. Since this list includes only those groups that the respondents had knowledge of or experience with, it is representative rather than complete. These groups, which include both special-interest 1 and common- interest 2 groups, are operated primarily by voluntary leaders from the community. Of especial importance to farm people as an occupational group are the home bureau units, 4-H clubs, farm bureau units, rural youth groups, and granges. All of these, as well as service organiza- 1 Special-interest groups serve one class of people (men only, women only, boys only, or girls only), and their objectives and programs are rather specialized. 2 Common-interest groups (farmers' clubs, farm bureau units, granges, and country community clubs) include all members of the family, and their objec- tives and programs are broad and varied. 6 BULLETIN NO. 630 [June, tions women's clubs, PTA's, community clubs, garden clubs, civic clubs, and social and service organizations are concerned with edu- cation of members in group participation and community betterment. A service agency, such as the county Extension Service, must work with all of these groups if it is adequately to serve the needs of rural people. Table 2. Number and Percentage of Different Kinds of Local Organizations in 187 Communities in Which 234 Rural Leaders Lived, 1952 Types of organizations Number (1,373) Percent of total clubs Number per community Home bureau units 202 15 1.08 Community clubs , 100 7 .54 4-H clubs 413 30 2.21 Social and service organizations. . 147 11 .79 Parent -Teachers' Associations 139 10 .74 Farm bureau units , 135 10 .72 Women's clubs , 113 8 .60 Granges 29 2 .16 Rural youth groups .... 95 7 .51 THE EXPRESSED NEEDS According to the 1952 study, farm leaders in Illinois still believe that local organizations for farm people are needed in the community. More respondents favored local organizations in 1930 than in 1952 (93 percent as compared with 79 percent). With improved transporta- tion and roads, a farmer can easily travel to a county meeting 20 or 30 miles away, and it is reasonable to assume that county-wide groups can function better today than in the past. Yet the data show a definite and continuing need for local groups meeting nearer the homes of members as well as for county organizations. A higher percentage of the people belonging to common-interest groups (88 percent) than those belonging to special-interest groups (74 percent) felt the need for local organizations. It may be argued that special-interest groups such as the home bureau, 4-H club, rural youth, women's club, and buying or selling cooperatives serve all needed interests in the community. Nevertheless, the data in this study show that a need also exists for -the common-interest group. The special-interest groups undoubtedly serve the specialized needs of farm people; but since farming is a family affair and rural community matters are of common concern, the common-interest group has its part to play as well. J958] FARMERS' NEED FOR LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS REASONS LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS ARE NEEDED Since 1930 a change has occurred in the basic needs to be met by local farm organizations. A much higher percentage of the respondents in 1952 than in 1930 stressed the need for promotion of friendship, the common welfare, community spirit, intergroup relations, recrea- tion, and sociability (see Fig. 2 and Table 3). As farming processes have become individualized, and mutual aid, such as the trading of machines and tools, has become minimized, the need for conscious effort to form local organizations for farm people is greater than ever before. Farmers need an organized medium through which to meet with other farmers in their community and discuss important social and economic policies and issues. In 1952 the percentage of respondents reporting the need for edu- cation and service to members was 20 points lower than in 1930. This fact is not surprising. Opportunities for adult education have increased to such an extent that farmers no longer depend as much upon local groups for specialized information such as new farming and home- making methods. Probably the kind of education farmers need most PERCENT too 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 REASONS FOR FORMING LOCAL FARM ORGANIZATIONS SOCIABILITY AND COMMUNITY BETTERMENT EDUCATION AND SERVICE FOR MEMBERS ECONOMIC ADVANCEMENT RELIGIOUS DEVELOPMENT The percentage of respondents favoring education and service to members dropped from 64 percent in 1930 to 44 percent in 1952. (Fig. 2) BULLETIN NO. 630 [June, Table 3. Purposes of Local Farm Organizations Indicated by Rural Leaders, 1952 a Purpose All groups (Number 234) Common- interest (Number 82) b Special- interest (Number 152) b Sociability and community betterment perct. . . 77 perct. 78 perct. 76 To promote sociability 23 32 18 To advance community betterment 15 12 16 To advance common welfare 7 7 6 To promote friendship 11 7 13 To provide recreation . . . ... 12 6 16 To promote community spirit 7 9 6 To promote intergroup relations 2 5 1 Education and service to members 44 45 43 To provide education 39 38 39 To provide service to members 5 7 4 . Economic advancement 4 1 Religious development 2 2 1 a Since many leaders suggested more than one purpose, percentages total more than 100 percent. b See page 5 in the text, footnotes 1 and 2. today is to learn how to cooperate in understanding issues and making decisions on those issues that require group action. Only a small percentage of the respondents in both periods men- tioned economic advancement and religious development as reasons for organizing local farm groups. The data seem to show that these needs are being fulfilled satisfactorily by other agencies; but experience with local farm organizations indicates that the members need to know more about the importance of economic cooperation. Such infor- mation, if provided by farm bureau units, granges, and farmers' union locals, would unquestionably improve understanding among farmers as to the purpose and importance of cooperation. WHO SHOULD BE MEMBERS Membership in any organization is based on certain requirements. Thirty-six percent of the respondents in 1930 and 32 percent in 1952 mentioned residence in the community as a requirement for member- ship in a local farm organization. Two-fifths or more (46 percent in 1930 and 41 percent in 1952) believed that an interest in farming was requisite for membership. Only a few respondents (6 percent in 1930; 3 percent in 1952) cited being of responsible age as an important requirement. Perhaps most of the respondents assumed that this requirement was an obvious one. The percentages of the respondents designating these three require- 7958] FARMERS' NEED FOR LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS ments were about the same in 1930 and 1952. But 22 percent of the respondents in 1952 would admit to membership any town or country resident who was interested in the local community. The fact that almost one- fourth of the respondents would accept any interested person as a member is indicative of the changing character of the rural community. (See Table 4.) Nineteen percent of the 1930 re- spondents would admit to membership anyone of good character who demonstrated an interest in the organization. The primary concern of farm bureau units, granges, and farmers' clubs is, of course, the farmer, and many of the leaders of these organizations believed that membership should be limited to farmers. Yet in 1952 one-fourth of the farm bureau leaders and one-sixth of the grange leaders questioned were in favor of allowing any inter- ested person (regardless of occupation) to join their organization. Of course, most leaders of community clubs and parent-teachers' associations make no occupational restrictions for membership. Since the work of many of these local groups relates to broader objectives than serving purely occupational needs, most farmers do not approve of setting up rigid occupational class lines for membership. FREQUENCY OF MEETINGS If local organizations are to develop and carry on programs of lasting benefit to the members, meetings should be held regularly. Both in 1930 and 1952, 99 percent of the respondents indicated a need for regular meetings. Most respondents in both periods preferred to have meetings monthly, the percentage being higher in 1952 than in 1930 (Fig. 3 and Table 5). Very few respondents were in favor of having meetings Table 4. Requirements for Membership in Local Farm Organizations Indicated by Rural Leaders, 1952 (Percentages based on number responding) Membership requirements All groups (Number 234) Common- interest (Number 82) a Special- interest (Number 152) a Number responding 179 71 108 Farm people only perct. 41 perct. 42 perct. 40 Anyone in community interested. . . 32 34 31 Anyone interested . . . . 22 20 24 Adults in community 3 4 3 Merchants 2 3 See page 5 in the text, footnotes 1 and 2. 10 BULLETIN NO. 630 [June, HOW OFTEN MEETINGS SHOULD BE HELD 30 - 20 - 10 - REGULARLY WEEKLY OR TWICE MONTHLY MONTHLY LESS OFTEN THAN MONTHLY The percentage of respondents who preferred monthly meetings increased from 76 percent in 1930 to 85 percent in 1952. Very few respondents in both periods wanted meetings held less frequently or more frequently than once a month. (Fig. 3) either more often or less often than once a month. Monthly meetings would be frequent enough to enable long-term plans to be formulated, members to be assigned various jobs, and a sense of fellowship and belonging to be established. PROGRAMS FOR MEETINGS Eighty-seven percent of the leaders in 1952 and 95 percent of the leaders in 1930 believed that education of members should be the pri- mary program feature for meetings of local organizations. About three- fifths of the respondents in both periods (59 percent in 1930; 64 per- cent in 1952) favored the inclusion of entertainment and recreation in the program. None of the respondents in 1930 and only 8 percent of those in 1952 wanted to include business matters in the program. Most respondents believed that business matters should be discussed at a meeting of the officers or executive committee. Reports would then be made and approval secured in regular meetings. A variety of features was desired in the educational programs, including discussion of current farm and home problems and other 1958] FARMERS' NEED FOR LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS 11 Table 5. Frequency of Meetings of Local Farm Organizations as Indicated by Rural Leaders, 1952 (Percentages based on number responding) Frequency of meetings All groups (Number 234) Common- interest (Number 82) a Special- interest (Number 152) a Number responding 182 72 110 Regularly b perct. 99 perct. 100 perct. 98 Monthly 85 94 78 Weekly or twice monthly 6 3 8 Quarterly 4 7 Twice yearly 2 1 2 tt See page 5 in the text, footnotes 1 and 2. b A few of those who believed that meetings should be held regularly did not indicate how frequently meetings should be held. matters of common concern to the community. A slightly higher per- centage of the special-interest groups, such as home bureau units, desired discussion (Table 6). These groups are small and the topics to be discussed rather specialized. Speakers, including those from the group itself, were preferred by a higher percentage of the common-interest than the special-interest groups. Common-interest groups usually have larger attendance, and the members have varying interests. Special-interest groups, on the other hand, have fewer members, and the nature of their interests lends itself readily to group discussion. Nevertheless, 9 percent of the respondents belonging to common-interest groups believed that discus- sion should be a part of the programs. RELATIONSHIP WITH OVERHEAD AGENCIES A high percentage of the respondents in both periods (92 percent in 1930 and 90 percent in 1952) wanted to be affiliated with an over- head or service agency. 1 The nature of this affiliation depended, of course, upon the type of overhead organization. For example, the relationship between the community farm bureau units and the county farm bureau is an organic one the local is the community unit of organization for the county. Relationship with the Extension Service, however, is solely a service one: the service agency provides aid in leader training or program planning. The nature of the affiliation desired is shown in Fig. 4 and Table 7. By far the largest number of respondents both in 1930 and 1952 1 The county, state, and national organizations of the farm bureau, grange, PTA, and similar bodies, and the Extension Service in Agriculture and Home Economics fall into the category of overhead or service agencies. 12 BULLETIN NO. 630 [June, Table 6. Nature of Programs Desirable for Local Farm Organizations Indicated by Rural Leaders," 1952 Nature of programs All groups (Number 234) Common- interest (Number 82) b Special- interest (Number 152) b Kducational perct. 87 perct. 101 perct. 79 Education 39 52 32 Current problems 14 12 15 Farm and home matters 14 13 14 Discussion ... 10 9 10 Religious matters . . 4 6 3 Speakers 6 9 5 Kntertainment and recreation 64 82 55 Recreation 34 37 32 Entertainment (including music) 25 35 20 Local talent 5 10 3 Business matters 8 4 11 a Some respondents listed more than one type of feature as desirable. b See page 5 in the text, footnotes 1 and 2. wanted advisory relations only. The percentage favoring supervisory relations dropped almost half from 1930 to 1952. The percentage of respondents wishing for a controlling relationship dropped from 12 percent in 1930 to 3 percent in 1952. Only 1 in 30 respondents in 1952 believed that an overhead organization or agency should exercise control over the local group. Only about 6 percent of the respondents believed that even those organizations having organic ties with the overhead system should be controlled by the county or other overhead organization. PARTICIPATION IN POLICY-MAKING How should policies affecting agriculture and rural life be made? If the general farmers' organizations are truly to represent the think- ing of a cross-section of farmers, it would appear desirable that (1) most farmers be members of one or another of these groups; and (2) that members actually participate in policy-making. No data were secured in 1930 on this important issue. In 1952, however, the local leaders responding to this question were almost unanimous in asserting that the local organization should take part in policy-making (Table 8). It is through the local unit holding regular meetings in the community that effective membership contact and opinion, formed on the basis of group discussion and deliberation, can be made. It is significant, therefore, that all but 4 percent of the rural leaders questioned believed that the local group should participate in policy determination. 1958] PERCENT 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 FARMERS' NEED FOR LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS 13 RELATIONSHIP WITH OVERHEAD OR SERVICE AGENCIES SOME RELATION- SHIP OR POSSIBLY SOME NO RELATION- SHIP NEEDED ADVISORY SUPERVISORY CONTROLLING The percentage of respondents desiring supervisory relations with an over- head or service agency decreased from 43 percent in 1930 to 26 percent in 1952. Most of the respondents in both periods wanted advisory relations only. (Fig. 4) Over half of the respondents (58 percent) were in favor of having the local unit represented on the county governing board probably by a representative elected by the local group. The representative would be an intermediary, bringing issues to the local group for dis- cussion, and taking the group's decisions to the county body. But interestingly enough, one-fourth of the respondents indicated that issues should be discussed by the local group, suggestions should come from it, and it should vote on desired programs. The two parts, then, of local representation in policy-making are (1) to have a mem- ber from the local unit on the county body; and (2) for the local unit to discuss the issues, and through the representative, report on desired action. Even with service agencies such as the Extension Service, this social process, if effectively used, would be of great value in planning programs to meet the needs of those people in the community who participate in this process. SUMMARY Ninety-three percent of farm leaders in 1930 and 79 percent in 1952 believed that there was a definite need for local community or- 14 BULLETIN NO. 630 [June, Table 7. Nature of Affiliation of Local Farm Organizations With Overhead or Service Agencies Indicated by Rural Leaders, 1952 (Percentages based on number responding) Nature of affiliation All groups (Number 234) Common- interest (Number 82) a Special- interest (Number- 152) a Number responding 175 66 109 perct. perct. perct. Some affiliation needed 78 73 82 Possibly some 12 11 12 None needed 10 17 6 Advisory 77 73 79 Supervisory 26 23 28 Controlling 3 6 2 Cooperative only 5 2 7 Special organizations Farm Home 4-H and bureau bureau rural youth (Number - (Number (Number 23) 86) 31) Number responding 22 57 25 perct. perct. perct. Some needed 100 86 84 Poesibly some 11 12 None needed 4 4 Advisory 91 82 80 Supervisory 50 33 16 Controlling 904 Cooperative 5 7 a See page 5 in the text, footnotes 1 and 2. ganizations. Sociability and member education were the reasons most frequently given for forming these organizations. About a third of the respondents in both periods cited residence in the community as a necessary qualification for membership. A somewhat higher number (46 percent in 1930 and 41 percent in 1952) favored limiting the membership to those interested in farming. It is significant, however, that almost one-fourth of the respondents in 1952 would place no restrictions upon membership. They believed that since local farm organizations serve broader interests than purely occupational needs, membership should be open to anyone interested. Obviously the primary concern of farmer-oriented groups should be the farmer. If local organizations are to develop and carry on pro- grams of lasting benefit to farmers, meetings should be held regularly. Ninety-nine percent of the respondents in both periods believed that meetings should be held regularly, and 76 percent in 1930 and 85 per- 7958] FARMERS' NEED FOR LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS 15 Table 8. Participation of Local Farm Organizations in Policy-making of Overhead or Service Agencies Indicated by Rural Leaders, 1952 (Percentages based on number responding) Nature of participation All groups (Number 234) Common- interest (Number 82)* Special- interest (Number- 152) a Number responding 154 57 97 perct. perct. perct. Should take part b 96 98 95 How they should take part b Through members on governing board .. 37 33 39 Through committees 21 16 24 By vote of members 11 11 11 Through suggestions 7 9 6 By discussing issues 6 4 7 By voting on programs 2 2 2 Should not take part 4 2 5 Farm Home 4-H and Snprial nrroniVfltJonc;- bureau bureau rural youth Special organizations. (Number (Number (Number 23) 86) 31) Number responding 22 54 20 perct. perct. perct. Should take part b 95 96 90 How they should take part b Through members on governing board 23 44 25 Through committees 18 24 15 By vote of members 5 9 30 Through suggestions 9 6 5 By discussing issues 5 7 10 By voting on programs 2 Should not take part 5 4 10 a See page 5 in the text, footnotes 1 and 2. b Not all of the respondents who stated that local farm organizations should participate in policy-making indicated how this participation should take place. cent in 1952 favored monthly meetings. By meeting regularly each month, these groups can satisfy educational and sociability needs. Education of members should be the primary program feature for meetings of local organizations, according to 95 percent of those ques- tioned in 1930 and 87 percent in 1952. These programs should be supplemented by entertainment and recreation; for it is through these activities, as well as through participation in the educational programs, that experience in group activity can take place. Local organizations should have some affiliation with overhead (county) organizations or service agencies, according to 92 percent of the respondents in 1930 and 90 percent in 1952. They believed, how- ever, that these relationships should be advisory or supervisory, and not controlling. The local unit needs the help of the overhead agency, but its programs or activities should not be determined by the agency. 16 BULLETIN NO. 630 Table 9. Number and Percentage of Local Farm Organizations Included in the Study 1952 1930 Types of organizations Number Percent Number Percent Common-interest groups . 82 35 190 81 Community clubs . 35 15 74 32 Parent-Teachers' Associations . 18- 8 45 19 Farm bureau units . 23 10 46 19 Granges 6 2 25 11 Special-interest groups . 152 65 44 19 Home bureau units . 86 37 31 13 4-H clubs . 25 11 4 2 Social and service organizations. . . . 16 7 Women's clubs . 10 4 4 2 Rural youth groups 6 3 Cooperatives . 5 2 Miscellaneous . 4 1 5 2 All groups . 234 100 234 100 If local groups, such as farm bureau units or subordinate granges, are to be affiliated with the overhead agency, some means should be provided for the members of the local group to take part in policy- making. It may reasonably be assumed that a larger percentage of members attend and take part in a local group than in a county group. Since policy issues are discussed in this local group, its members should have a voice in policy-making. The two principal methods through which members of a local organization can participate in policy-making are (1) by having a representative on the county board; and (2) by discussing issues at local meetings and having the representative carry the members' deci- sions to the overhead organization. CONCLUSION The organizational system of a farmers' group is not complete until it has a unit functioning in the rural community. Without this community unit, the majority of the members are denied experience and action in the affairs of the organization. Meetings must be held regularly month after month, year after year, before members become an integral part of any organization. By gaining this experience, the members learn to work together in groups. They learn to develop a means through which member opinion and action, based on intelligent participation, can be brought to bear on policy determination and the solution of the many problems requiring group action in agriculture and rural life. 5M6-S8 65731