xt7c862bc906 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7c862bc906/data/mets.xml Kentucky University of Kentucky. Center for Developmental Change 1968 Other contributors include Gladden, James W. Photocopies. Unit 1, copy 2 is a photocopy issued by the clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information. Report of a study by an interdisciplinary team of the University of Kentucky, performed under Contract 693 between the University of Kentucky Research Foundation and the Office of Economic Opportunity, 1965-68. Includes bibliographical references. Part of the Bert T. Combs Appalachian Collection. books English Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Community Action Program (U.S.) Economic assistance, Domestic--Kentucky--Knox county. Poor--Kentucky--Knox County Community Action in Appalachia: An Appraisal of the "War on Poverty" in a Rural Setting of Southeastern Kentucky, August 1968; Unit 4: Family Life Styles, Social Participation, and Socio-Cultural Change text Community Action in Appalachia: An Appraisal of the "War on Poverty" in a Rural Setting of Southeastern Kentucky, August 1968; Unit 4: Family Life Styles, Social Participation, and Socio-Cultural Change 1968 2016 true xt7c862bc906 section xt7c862bc906 ¤ z C O M M U N I T Y A C T I O N I N A P P A L A C H I A An Appraisal of the "War on Poverty" in a Rural Setting of Southeastern Kentucky (Report of a study by an interdisciplinary team of the University of Kentucky, performed under Contract #693 between the University of Kentucky Research Foundation and the Office of Economic /Qpportunity, 1965-1968) UNIT 4 I FAMILY LIFE STYLES, SOCIAL PARTICIPATION, AND SOCIO-CULTURAL CHANGE (Profiles of Selected Knox County Families-—Patterns of , Family Behavior, Belief and Value Systems and Their Re- _ I lation to Participation in Community Action Programs). by b' James W. Gladden o! Contents of Entire Report: l COMMUNITY ACTION [N APPALACHIA This is one unit of a report which includes the following units, ||ch separately bound an ia this ono: Unit 1--Paul Street, Lntgoducgion and Synthesis Quality of Life In Rural Poverty Areas Unit 2--Lowndes F. Stephens, Economic Progress in an Aggalechtag County; The Relationshig Between Economlc end Social Change Unit 3--Stephen R. Cain, g Selective Descrigtion of a Knox County Mountain Neighborhood Unit 4-·James W. Gladden, [emily Llfe Styles, Social Particigatgog and 8ocgo—Cultural Change it Chango and Impacts of Community Action _? Unit 5--Herbert Hirsch, Poyergy, Particigatlon, and Political · Socialization: A Study of the Relatiogshig Qetween Perticigation in the Community éctjog Program and the Political Socgalizatiog of thg_Agga1echian Chtlg. Unit 6--Morris K. Caudill, The Youth Develogment Program t Unit 7--Lewis Donohew and B. Krishna Singh, Modernization of Life Styles Unit 8--Willis A. Sutton, Jr., Leedersn1g_£nd Community Relgttvnl Unit 9··0tt1S Murphy and Paul Street, The "lmegc" of the Kyo; Cogngy Community Action Program · Spec1flC Community Action Programa Unit IO--Ottls Murphy, [he Kyo; County Economic Oggortunyty Anti- Poyerty Arts and Crafts Store Project Unit II··Paul Strétt and Linda Tomes, The Early Childhood Program Unit 12--Paul StfB¤t. [hg Health Education Program Unit 13——Thomas P. Field. Wilford Bladen, and Burtis Webb. Recent Homg Construction in Two APB9Iech1an Qoggttsg h ABSTRACT FAMHLY LIFE STYLES, SOCIAL PARTICIPATION, AND SOCIO-CULTURAL CHANGE (PROFILES OF SELECTED KNOX COUNTY FAM LIES--PATTERNS OF FAM LY BEHAVIOR, BELIEF AND VALUE SYSTEMS AND THEIR RELATION TO PARTICIPATION IN COM UNITY ACTION PROGRAMS) by James W. Gladden What are families like that actively participate in an OEO Community Action Program in a predominantly rural county in Appalachian Kentucky? Why do some families refuse or fail to take part in a government- sponsored local com unity effort for rehabilitation? Are those that support the enterprise and use new social services significantly dif- ferent from the non-participating families? These were some of the questions that this portion of the evalua- tion of Knox County's Community Action Program (KCCAP), by the University of Kentucky research team, tried to answer. A purposive sample of 131 intact families was studied to discover features of the family life styles of three. catagorical types. Nearly three-fourths (95) of the selected families re- ported a sub-standard income of less than $3,500 for the year 1966-67. The remaining 36 had self—earned incomes for the same period of more than $3,000 but less than $6,000. Those with sub-standard incomes were divided into two sets: Participating Poor (PP) families numbering 39 and Non- participating Poor (NP) units totaling 56. The research design was to contrast the two Poor groups and com- pare them, together and separately, with the 36 relatively autonomous A families to see which of the Poor types, PP or NP, were more similar 2 to the Above Poor (AP). The hypothesis was that PP would be more V like the control group (AP) and would show promise of real improvement in the early future because of their disposition to co—operate. The hypothesis was generally supported in that, more frequently than not, PP proved to be more similar to AP in family ideology, upward mobility, and future goals. Two sets of questionnaires each were administered, a year apart, to the mothers in their homes and to sixth·grade sons in their schools. Data analysis showed both PP and NP were quite fatalistic because of their espousal of fundamentalistic and sectarian religious views. Q Majorities in both types were affiliated with, and regular attenders of, small churches. Both were also highly familistic in their loyal- _ ties and associational activity. The two types were headed by parents (only whole families were studied) with very low educational levels and, on the average, in the 40-44 age group. PP families had longer histories of financial difficulty. The participating families differed substantially from NP in their voluntary association, having much higher records of social interaction with kin- folks and neighbors and in religious activities. Neither group belonged to formal organizations to any measurable extent. PP families were older, larger, and had more unemployed or underemployed members. Their major objective in supporting KCCAP was economic. Considerably less l geographically mobile than NP, they desired, for both fathers and sons, job opportunities in Knox County or nearby. They felt that the OEO assistance had been providential and were generally enthusiastic about 3 changes that had been made in the county in the wake of CAP. NP were critical of the endeavor and chose to abstain because of cultural scruples and a narrow version of the American doctrine of self·help. They were opposed to government intervention, accepting welfare and only for reasons of physical survival. NP mothers had higher aspirations and expectations for their sons than did PP; their boys also aspired highly and seem to be headed toward more frustra- tion than the PP lads. NP, more stable, believe in status quo; PP, more vertically mobile, support change. The study concludes that the Poor in Knox County need jobs, vocational training (for the boys perhaps as early as the elementary grades) and a much improved plan for community organization. KCCAP has helped a minority of families who are very grateful. The great majority are still resisting chronic dependency. The region needs most a creative, imaginative provision for economic development which the national OEO decided, in l965 and again in 1968, not to implement. D PREFACE In a sense, this study is a continuation of an observation of family life in Eastern Kentucky started nearly two decades ago. Shortly after coming to the University of Kentucky in 1949, I conducted research on families in two small industrial communities in Harlan and Floyd counties to determine the effects on the family culture of the shift in occupation of the household head. Very little cultural change was discovered de- spite the fact that some of the men were second and third generation miners. The durability of the mountain farm culture was impressive. I had intended to follow up that study with another ten years later. To my dismay, the great majority of the families observed in 1950 had migrated out of the state by 1960 and were too dispersed to contact. But my interest had been whetted in the family patterns of this relatively isolated mountain region. Consequently, when the opportunity for an adequately supported investigation of contemporary families in nearby Knox County was made possible, I was quite ready to accept. An equal interest in the religious behavior of the area's population alerted me to the likelihood of its importance in under- standing the possibility of cultural and social change in Appalachia. I urged an inclusion of some kind of examination of religious beliefs in Knox County. As it turned out, we probably should have stressed this aspect more than we did. Fortunately, this crucial pattern was not l completely ignored. D iii This portion of the inter—disciplinary investigation of the effectiveness of the Knox County Community Action Program concentrated on the county's intact families. Initiated in the spring of 1966, shortly after the program was founded, the research design was de- veloped to provide a Time I field study that fall. This step sought to ascertain the characteristics of rural families which were the target groups of the innovative Federal project. The following summer, a second set of questionnaires was perfected to probe the social participation of the families selected for the study. The field work was completed in the fall and winter of 1967 with another round of visits to the county. Data analysis and preparation of the report of our findings were completed by July 15, 1968. It should be noted that the actual study of family behavior and associational activity covered only a period of approximately eighteen months of the three-year pro- gram. It would have been more appropriate to have made the second investigation, i.e., the study of center participation, late in the current year in order to secure a completely valid account of the involvement of the families in the co—operative enterprise. However, this was impossible in the time allotted for the research. I am indebted to a number of people for the completion of the study. Two graduate students in Sociology at the University con- tributed largely. Lynn Lackey participated in the development of the first questionnaires and in the administration of the schedules to the grade school boys. Mrs. Vibba Saiyed has done so much in the two years in which she has worked with this part of the evaluation that the ’ discussion which ensues is expressed in the plural first person to iv denote her involvement in both the data gathering and the data analysis. I especially thank Dr. Paul Street for granting me the privilege to deal with the research problems as I saw fit and for his support throughout. Gratitude is due to several of my colleagues who have strengthened my knowledge of the area. In both their writings and in conversation, Drs. James Brown and Harry Schwarzweller have immeasurably aided me. ‘ I am deeply appreciative of the faith my department chairman, Dr. Thomas Ford, has had in the worthwhileness of the project and the re- leased time, over the period, from teaching duties. No one who writes can ever fully express his thanks to the secretaries who labor long to help bring research to publication. In this case, my thanks go to Linda Donaldson and Mrs. Julia Fleming. I am especially grateful to the various persons in Knox County who greatly facilitated my work. The OEO personnel, the school administrators, and the classroom teachers were models of hospitality. To Dr. Ottis Murphy, our liaison representative at Barbourville, and his secretarial U staff, I owe much for their innumerable assists. Finally, I wish to thank in this way, my wife who admirably co—operated from the inception of the research design to its final fruition. ——J. W. Gladden August 1968 v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PREFACE iii LIST or TABLES viii LIST OF FIGURES xii INTRODUCTION 1 Chapter I. RESEARCH DESIGN ................... 6 Family Types: Description of the Sample Research Objectives Sampling Procedures and Sourcescf Data Treatment of Data II. DEMOGRAPHIC COMPOSITION AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS ................. 19 Ethnic and Racial Origin Age and Sex Composition Selected Social Features Economic Characteristics III. SOCIAL CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENTAL PROGRAMS ...... 40 The Progress of Change Programs Fostering Family Development Readiness for Change IV. FAMILY SUB—CULTURES AND PLANNING FOR SOCIAL CHANGE .................. 58 Family Sub—Cultures of the Poor Planning for Social Change V. RELIGIOUS FACTOR AND SOCIAL CHANGE ......... 82 Church Membership in Knox County Church Membership in the Sample ` Trends in Reactionary Religious Forms ,Church Membership and Community Improvement VI. FAMILY STRUCTURE AND MOBILITY ........... 99 Structure of the Sample Families Family Mobility and Participation Differences in the Sample vi Chapter Page VII. ASSOCIATIONAL AND RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY ...... 116 Personal Mobility of Knox Countians Associational Patterns of the Selected Families Spare Time Activities Ideational Mobility——Exposure to Mass Media Typical Trends and Differences VIII. CONJUGAL ROLES, CONCEPTS OF PARENTHOOD AND , CHILD—REARING PRACTICES ............. 130 Conjugal Role Acceptance and Performance Planned Parenthood Child·Rearing Concepts and Practices IX. SOCIALIZATION PROCESS——ASPIRATIONS AND EXPECTATIONS .................. 160 Boys' Aspirations for Mobility Mothers' Aspirations for their Boys Typical Trends and Differences Sharers in the Socialization Process X. PROSPECTS FOR SOCIAL CHANGE ............ 188 Reasons Why Poor Families Do Not Participate Reasons Why PP Families Do Participate Towards A Profile of Participating Families KCCAP and Participating Families KCCAP and Grade School Children The School as a Vehicle for Mobility Suggestions for Planned Social Change Prospects for Adoption of Social Change NOTES ........................... 216 LIST OF WORKS CITED .................... 220 APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C vii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Number of Families not Included and Reasons for Exclusion ..................... l4 2. Number of Families in Three Sample Types .. ........ 15 3. Closest Center by Family Types .............. 17 4. Percentage Distribution of the Population, by Marital Status and by Sex, in Knox County, its Rural Portion, and in the U. S., 1960. ...... 22 5. Selected Labor Force Characteristics of the Sample as Compared with Those of the County in 1960 ........................ 31 6. Selected Economic Characteristics by Family Types and by Total Sample ............... 33 7. Housing and Residential Mobility by Family Types .................... 38 8. Contacts with and Participation in the Various ...... Programs of KCCAP by Family Types and by Total Sample ..................... 49 9. Opinions About Centers and About Improvements that Have Been Brought About in Knox County by Family Types and by Total Sample .......... 50 10. Reasons for Never Participating by Family Types and by Total Non Participating ............. 53 ll. Participation in Selected Formal Organizations (other than those now promoted by KCCAP) by Family Types and by Total Sample .......... 54 12. Differences Between Poor and AP Respondents in Fatalistic Orientation as Revealed by Responses (in percentages) to the Various Statements Indicating Fatalism .................. 64 13. Orientation to the Present as Revealed by Poor Respondents, AP Respondents and Total Respondents . . . 66 viii Table Page 14. Joint Decision Making and Sharing of Parental Roles by Family Types and by Total Sample ....... 70 15. Evidence of Parental Authoritarianism by Family Types and by Total Sample ............... 71 16. Extent of Practicality (Concreteness) by Family Types and by Total Sample ............... 76 17. Kinship Network and Familism by Family Types and by Total Sample .................. 77 18. Shift in Church Affiliations in the Last Two Decades . . . 84 19. Attendance at Religious Services by Family Types and by Total Sample ............... 85 20. Differences Between AP and Poor Respondents in their Agreement with Certain Beliefs of Fundamentalistic Nature ............... 88 21. Intensity of Religious Resolutions by Family Types and by Total Sample .................. 89 22. Religion in Home Activities by Family Types and by Total Sample .................... 90 23. Ideas Regarding the Future of Protestant Church by Family Types and by Total Sample ......... 91 24. Conception Regarding Social Programs in Churches by Family Types and by Total Samples ......... 92 25. Extent of Baptist Domination by Family Types and by Total Sample .................... 93 26. Willingness to let a Family Member Become a Missionary , to a Foreign Country by Family Types and by Total Sample ..................... 96 27. Extent of Religiosity in Family and of the Wife by Family Types and by Total Sample ........... 97 28. Age Composition of Wives and Husbands by Family Types and by Total Sample ...... . ....... 103 29. Family Size by Family Types and by Total Sample ..... 104 30. Size of Wife's Mother's Family by Present Family Size . . 106 ix Table Page 31. Differences Between NP and PP in Inter- generational Education Mobility ........... 109 32. Occupational Stability and Mobility by Family Types and by Total Sample .......... 112 33. Mutual Help with Relatives and Neighbors by Family Types and by Total Sample .......... 121 34. Informal Meeting Places by Family Types and by Total Sample ..... . .......... 122 35. Participation in Civic Organizations by Family Types and by Total Sample .......... 123 36. Sparetime Activities by Family Types and by Total Sample ................... 124 37. Contact with Mass Media by Family Types and by Total Sample ...... . ............ 125 38. Informal Associational Interaction by Family Types and by Total Sample .............. 128 39. Intensity of Participation in Formal Association by Family Types and by Total Sample ......... 128 40. Overall Conjugal Role Index by Family Types and by Total Sample ................. 137 41. Wife's Deference in Certain Selected Matters by Family Types and by Total Sample ......... 139 42. Help Received by Wife in Fulfilling her Feminine Obligation by Family Types and by Total Sample . . . 139 43. Wife°s Sense of Satisfaction with Mother—Wife Role by Family Types and by Total Sample ......... 140 44. Control of Family Size by Family Type and by Total Sample ................. . . . 143 45. Reasons for Desiring Children by Family Types and by Total Sample ................ . 144 46. Parental Permissiveness by Family Types and by Total Sample ................... 149 47. Consistency Between Spouses in Handling Children by Family Types and by Total Sample ......... 150 X Table Page 48. Boy's Identification with Father by Family Types and by Total Samples 151 49. Dependency in Children by Family Types and by Total Sample 154 50. Status Awareness and Aspirations of Boys by Family Types and by Total Sample 166 51. Potential Occupational Mobility by Family Types and by Total Sample 167 52. Educational Aspirations of Boys by Family Types and by Total Sample 169 53. Potential Spatial Mobility by Family Types and by Total Sample 170 54. Consensus on Son”s Career by Types of Poor Families 174 55. Desiderata in Choice of Son's Job by Family Types and by Total Sample 175 56. Behavior Qualities in Child Desired by Mothers and Sons by Types of Poor Families 176 57. Schooling Desired by Family Types and by Total Sample 179 58. Importance of Education for Boy”s Later Life by Family Types and by Total Sample 181 59. Distance Between Home and Closest Community Center by Family Types and by Total Sample 191 60. Perception of OEO Goals by Boy by Family Types and Total Sample 202 61. Boys° Opinions on Government Policy for Treatment of Poor by Family Types and by Total Sample 203 62. Specific Help Received by Boys who have been to Centers by Family Types and by Total Sample 209 63. Siblings Educational Attainment as Compared to Possible Level of Schooling for their Age by Family Types and by Total Sample 211 xi LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Mixed Tendencies in Progression or Regression in NP, PP, and AP Families in the Degree of Husband's Contribution .............. 139 2. Mixed Tendencies in Progression or Regression in NP, PP, and AP Boys in the Degree of Aspiration .................... 168 3. Progressive Tendencies From NP to AP Boys on Items Indicative of Potential Upward Mobility ..................... 169 xii INTRODUCTION The Knox County Community Action Program (KCCAP) has been in opera- tion much too short a period to expect significant and measurable changes in family organization and behavior. The institution of the family is too tradition~1aden to undergo rapid alteration in a free society. Change emerges more slowly "in the more basic, more emotionally charged, more A sacred aspects of a culture." (Berelson and Steiner, 1964) Still, the family situation is felt to be both a leading cause and a serious effect of poverty conditions. Some conclusions are desired concerning the impact of the KCCAP on families and through these social units on individual members. It is an accepted fact that existing families, and those yet to be created, must be more self-sustaining if the war on poverty is to be won. However, there is little consensus yet among social analysts on what constitutes family improvement or what the indicators are that justify the assertion that families have left the ranks of the poverty-stricken. Some say, as did David Moynihan, "The essential fact about family stability is that as individuals become more prosperous, in the sense of having greater incomes, their marriages become more stable." (Myrdal, 1968) Hence, since poverty is basically defined in monetary terms by the Office of Economic Opportunity, it would seem that a major goal is being achieved if more families are found to be receiving annual incomes over the arbitrarily set poverty line. Others counter, as did the President's Commission on the problem, that poverty is only partially due to low income. Their report (The People Left Behind, 1965) cites the paramount needs in Appalachia of a general lifting of the educational level and "crash" training in market- 1 2 able skills for youth and unemployed adults, Persons can then be expected to earn enough to make themselves and their families self~supporting, i,en, no longer so dependent on government subsidy for their economic welfare, Can we claim improvement in family and individual well—being has occurred if more children are in school, and they stay there longer than their parents? Or if more young males and females are getting job training? Some social scientists claim that the large number of dependents is the root of the plight of most poor families. (Ornati, 1965) These critics would seek confirmation of the salutary effects of KCCAP in the increasing numbers of women who secure contraceptive guidance to limit their offspring. High rates of family dissolution are also known to be M concommitants of poverty. Therefore, fewer couples voluntarily breaking their marital ties or lower morbidity and mortality rates could serve as proof of the worth of the new programs, Out·migration is so highly recommended, by many who see the area as over~populated for its economic potential, that a general exodus from the county might demonstrate KCCAP”s effectiveness, Quite apart from such presumed indications of renewed family stability·and some of the above have occurred in Knox County in the past three years — the question remains whether cultural change will be sufficient to maintain the social changes promoted by the ameliorative agencies and personnel, Can communities which are invigorated by governmental intervention become viable enough to continue on their own? Are present families being prepared to wage their own battles against the specter of poverty? Have there been enough changes in Knox County to justify the expenditures of time, energy, and money? 3 If families continue to cherish beliefs that are not conducive to social health, to say nothing of progress, if they retain attitudes that resist or prevent mutual cooperation and, if they cling to values different _ from those said to be in the mainstream of their society, the poverty Q cycle may persist or resume if and when the help from the larger society is curtailed or withdrawnl These aspects of the local and regional I sub~culture, as adaptive as they may have been for previous physical subsistence and psychic survival, have served to make the people who live by them appear to a native analyst as the Permanent Pocrq (Caudill, 196Q; The possible persistence of these cultural elements into the future prevents an easy reliance on the evidence furnished by social indices such as a rise in family income (perhaps by greater transfers of wealth), an increase in ` the county school system"s retention power, a drop in proportions of families disrupted or even a decrease in family size (as important as all of these seem in the social context of the county). The removal or withdrawal of people from the county, in the years ahead, may continue to act so selectively of age and productivity as to make the problem of those remaining far more insolublen One might add that many migrants from southeastern Kentucky have joined thousands of others to produce and aggravate urban poverty elsewhere because of their inability or refusal to acculturate or become assimilated in the cities to which they movedl This is not to state that we cannot ever know if the Knox Countv CAP has "worked" to improve families. It says rather that we shall need more socio·psychological depth analyses and more extensive longitudinal study to document the impact KCCAP may have had on families in such straightened circumstances as those known to exist in this target area, 4 A "Planning of necessity implies the future and the elements of prognosis inherent in a program can never be exposed to the ultimate empirical check before they become history." (Myrdal, 1968) But the difficulties involved _ in evaluating, as well as those encountered in planning, are no excuse for a disclaimer that programs cannot be rationally formulated and then care- V fully checked. 4 In light of the foregoing, it seemed more feasible and more appropriate to examine a sample of Knox County families and their relative participation in various community activities. The aim would be to make l some assessment of the poor people's acceptance of the innovative community E enterprise rather than try to measure the early effects of the programs Q on families and individual members. It should be a real contribution to · planners on all levels of the national society to have information about i those families, in this predominantly rural county, which were more likely l than others to accept l) proffered governmental assistance of a non-dole g nature, 2) a larger opportunity to help one another to enhance their life- i chances, and 3) guidance and grants for neighborhood and local community j development toward more effective democratic action. In addition, some " understanding of the features of resisting families, of those seemingly 5 devoted to exclusiveness or handicapped by isolation, should inform T future strategies for aiding other disadvantaged sections of the country. I The purpose of this portion of the Evaluation progect is to offer V profiles of several types of families, derived from data obtained in a Q study of the relation of participation, in the various KCOEO—sponsored · programs, and selected personal and family characteristics.l Where clues _ were discovered and inferences might be drawn about the achievement of 5 KCCAP goals they will be suggested, But, until future studies can be made g to test emerging perceptions, our statements concerning the impact of r KCCAP, in stimulating basic changes in the area°s sub·culture or in enabling ` families to escape now or avoid later the entrapment of poverty, must V largely remain speculative and hypotheticalo 2 CHAPTER I » THE RESEARCH DESIGN An hypothesis is advanced in the general research design for v_ evaluating the effectiveness of Knox County CAP that i "Those who participate in the community centers, d while generally of the low income groups perhaps, I are nevertheless distinguishable from the ”hard “, core" poverty group·~are more qmiddle class° in i attitudes, aspirations and living standard than ? those of low income who do not participate." ii This portion of the research project was largely designed to `é· operationalize and test this hypothesis. The study is focused on the 1 life styles of a purposive sample of Knox County families to ascertain L? if there are discernible and significantly discriminating differences lll that distinguish low income families who are willing to participate in lx; the various activities sponsored by the KCEOC (Knox County Economic =i Opportunity Council) from the poor families who refuse or fail to become , involved. jlg Q,. It is presumed that a major reason why poverty has persisted in ’— some sections of the country and may be perpetuated in rural areas, is Q: the lack of engagement in extra·familial association and community {i" organization by those who are suffering from limited and insufficient ' income. This non—involvement is thought to result from a kind of adap— ji lx I tation by people of lower incomes who tend to rely heavily on their kin- f. ship system and narrow neighborhood ties for the satisfaction of most i of their needs. They may eventually be compelled by their marginal i 6 A . gx 1 ?% { . if 7 economic position to venture out of their seclusion to secure governmental assistance to survive. The one formal organization in which they par- ticipate, outside of the family, is likely to be a religious association. A But this social group, rather than acting to improve the community situation, has frequently adopted sectarian tactics of an anti-societal nature and has · usually promoted individual reform instead. It generally operates only indirectly to resolve social problems and may serve to create or exacerbate local divisiveness. Of course, their children attend schools and, for a V while at least, have contact with the larger society in a systematic way. 3 To attack this alienation said to prevail among the lowest economic i strata in rural areas, attempts are now being made in numerous places in g Knox County to conduct variegated activities which will elicit the par- 5 ticipation of heads of families, homemakers, and their children. Such i group endeavors, some restricted to particular age—levels, aim to help i persons to work out more effective solutions to particular problems Q which accompany or result from inadequate income and limited socialization. I Family Types: Description of the Sample 5 For one reason or another, sometimes freely expressed but often - carefully guarded, many families do not support the new programs. Re- I ports on general participation (elsewhere in this Evaluation) indicate i a majority of the county's target population have attended very in- I frequently or not at all. To determine some of the factors that shape this 3 rejecting disposition, as well as those accounting for the positive atti— A tude of the minority that has become involved, we undertook to examine L the life styles of the two groupings. Assuming that decisions concerning l participation are family-made and related to the belief systems of the A homes, we selected representative families, divided them on the basis of E, participation, and studied their behavior, their perceptions, and their y ` goals and aspirations. d ` Also found in our research sample (chosen with this purpose in mind) ·: is a third kind of family. The first two types represent those groups Ii, announced to be the target of the national war on poverty--those whose E E` . total annual incomes were less than $3,000* or, if more, received a Yi— portion of their income, in l966, in some form of governmental welfare cj subsidy. Our third group of families are headed by a father who is ‘g;% presently employed in an occupation usually taken to indicate sub- J: stantial membership