xt7sf766709r https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7sf766709r/data/mets.xml Kentucky University of Kentucky. Center for Developmental Change 1968 Other contributors include Sutton, Willis A. 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 8: Leadership and Community Relations text Community Action in Appalachia: An Appraisal of the "War on Poverty" in a Rural Setting of Southeastern Kentucky, August 1968; Unit 8: Leadership and Community Relations 1968 2016 true xt7sf766709r section xt7sf766709r LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNITY
RELATIONS
Unit 8
  Willis A. Sutton, Jr. I
August 1968  

 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"
U in a Rural Setting of Southeastern Kentucky P
(Report of a study by an interdisciplinary team 0f the University
of Kentucky, performed under Contract #693 between the University
of Kentucky Research Foundation and the Office of Economic
Opportunity, 1965-68)
UNIT 8
LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNITY RELATIONS
by
Willis A. Sutton, Jr.
  `
f

 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
L An Appraisal of the "War on Poverty"
in a Rural Setting of Southeastern Kentucky V
(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)
UNIT 8
LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNITY RELATIONS
by
Willis A. Sutton, Jr.
 

 · Contents of Entire Report:
COMMUNITY ACTION IN APPALACHIA
This is one unit of a report which includes the following units,
each separately bound as is this one:
~ Unit l-—Paul Street, Introduction and Synthesis
Quality of Life in Rural Poverty Areas
Unit 2——Lowndes F, Stephens, Economic Progress in an Appalachiap
Counpy: The Relationship Between Economic
` @L§eeiaL.Q1;2.t¤ .2
Unit 3——Stephen R. Cain, A Selective Description of a Knox County
Mouppain Neighborhood
Unit A--James W. Gladden, Family_Life Styles, Social Participation
and Socio—Cultural Change
Change and Impacts of Community Action
Unit 5——Herbert Hirsch, PovertyL_Participation, and Polipical
Socialization: A Study of the Relationship
Qetween Participation in the Commppity Action
Program and the Political Socialization pf
the Appalachian Child.
Unit 6-—Morris K. Caudill, The Youth Development Program
Unit 7--Lewis Donohew and B. Krishna Singh, Modernization of
Life Styles
Unit 8-—Willis A. Sutton, Jr., Leadership and Community Relations
Unit 9——Ottis Murphy and Paul Street, The "Image" of the Knox County
Community Action Program
VJ
[ `E
tf Specific Community Action Programs
{X
tl Unit lO——Ottis Murphy, The Knog_County Economic Opportunity Anti-
. Poverty Arts apd Crafts Store Project
`S Unit ll--Paul Street and Linda Tomes, The Early Childhood Program
Q Unit l2--Paul Street, The Health Education Program
Q? Unit l3——Thomas P. Field, Wilford Bladen, and Burtis Webb, Recent
QQ Home Construction in Two Appalachian Counties
\~ ""`_""—`
\
_x.
Gi `
iw
s;
"lb Q; A
i<»
,9 .

 O
ACKNO LEDGMENTS
The part of the Knox County report contained in this unit,
"Leadership and Community Relations," is the result of the labors
of many people over almost three years. A number of students not
here specifically mentioned have helped in various ways; a large
number of interviewers in Knox County and certainly numbers of
persons in the county itself who gave of their time and thought
should be gratefully acknowledged.
The author is indebted to all his colleagues on the Knox
County Research Staff, but especially to Paul Street for his un-
failing encouragement and willing provision of both guidance and
resources, to Lew Donohew and Herb Hirsch for stimulating exchanges
and especially for help with statistical and computer methodologies,
and to Ottis Murphy for helpful direction of field operations and
for insightful observations on the Knox County scene.
Particular appreciation is expressed to Research Associates
Robert Chanteloup and B. Krishna Singh for their special services
far beyond the call of duty in fashioning computer programs for
leadership nomination and organizational-relations data and for
handling the numerous details of such operations so carefully.
Thanks are also expressed to Dr. Robert Anderson, Assistant
Director of the Institute for Community Development and Services of
Michigan State University, both for the idea of the sociometry of
O
ii

 inter—organizational relations and for his help with some of the
computer program problems encountered in this phase of work.
· To Mrs. Patsy Huff Judd, great thanks are expressed for carrying
out most of the detailed search of newspaper material and of reports
and organizational minutes and for developing from these the basic
contents for the Major Event Chronology found in the appendix to this
unit. In addition,she provided much help in organizing and sum-
marizing the answers to many of the "open—ended" questions in
the Community Relations Interview Schedule and in typing early drafts
and tables.
In connection with the collection and analysis of data on leaders
identified within the three pre-CAP and the three post—CAP issues
in Knox County, the author acknowledges a dual debt. These materials
were originally assembled by the following graduate students in two
seminars on "Community Action Analyses": B. Krishna Singh, Robert
h L. Rees, Sam Sears, Lee Rathbone, Jane Melton, Donald Stasberg,
and Elizabeth S. Andrachek. Their help in interviewing and in the
development of papers on each of the six issues was most important
to this phase of the study.
The compilation of leader nominations from these papers and
from some additional sources and a preliminary write-up of this
material was the work of Miss Roslea. Johnston. Appreciation is
expressed to her not only for this preliminary analysis, but also for
much of the substantive content to be found in this particular phase,
the County Leadership section of this unit.
To Robert Gally for his special services in coding and tabulating
leadership and community activities data, and to a series of part- and
O
iii 1

 full-time coders go thanks that only those who have had to cope with
details of a large data operation can fully appreciate.
· A special debt of gratitude indeed is happily acknowledged to
my special associates, Mrs. Vibba Saiyed and Miss Lynne Lackey, who
provided much invaluable assistance during the last few weeks of the
pr0ject's life. For Mrs. Saiyed's long hours supervising special
computer operations, developing summaries of this and preliminary
write—ups,especially on perceptions of impact data, I am very
appreciative. Miss Lackey had a major part in the preparation of
the materials dealing with neighborhood leaders, and participation
in different types of activities. For these contributions and her
unselfish assistance on various detailstno numerous to list, I am
greatly in her debt.
Finally, as always in such undertakings, much is owed to an
unselfish and cooperative secretarial staff. Special appreciation
L must go to Mrs. Julia Fleming and to Miss Linda Donaldson who headed
these operations. Their pleasant helpfulness will always be
remembered.
O
iv

 TABLE OF CONTENTS
· Page
ACKNOWLEDGM NTS ........................., ii
LIST OF TABLES .......................... vii
LIST OF CHARTS .......................... x
INTRODUCTION ........................... 1
a) Orientation
b) Methodological Note
1. COUNTY LEADERSHIP PATTERNS ................... 10
a) Introduction
b) County Leader Nominations
c) Power Source Attributions
d) Leaders Through Issue Analysis
e) Impressions of Change in County Leadership
2. NEIGHBORHOOD LEADERSHIP PATTERNS ................ 45
a) Perception of Neighborhood Leaders
b) Activity Leaders
3. PARTICIPATION IN ACTIVITIES .................. 57
a) Level of Participation
b) Types of Activity
4. LEADER-POOR RELATIONSHIPS ................... 68
a) Introduction
b) An Overview of Maximum Feasible Participation Efforts in
Knox County
A c) Reactions to Maximum Feasible Participation
d) Impressions of Program Impact on County Decision Dynamics
v
I

 Page
e) Images of Poor-Leader Relationships
· f) Indices of Program Impacts on Poor—Leader Relations
5. PERCEPTIONS OF PROGRAM IMPACT . ................. 115
a) Introduction
b) Measures of Perception of Impact
c) Perception of Impact of All Respondents
d) Differential Perception by Types of Respondents
e) Closeness to Program and Perception of Impact
f) Perception of Impact: Program Content 4
CONCLUSIONS ............................ 140
REFERENCES ............................ 153
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
vi
O

 O
LIST OP TABLES
Table Page
y l. County Leader Perceptions ................... l2
  2. County Leader Perceptions in New Bethel Neighborhood ..... [4
T 3. Rank Order of Top l2 Leaders 1966 and 1968 .......... 16
4. Rank of Top County Leaders by Neighborhood .......... 18
5. Types of Power Sources Attributed to Top County Leaders .... 20
6. Total Persons Taking Part in Issues .............. 26
7. Non—OEO Total Persons Taking Part in Issues .......... 26
8. Number and Change in Different Types of Leaders Pre to Post. . 29
9- Excluding OEO Personnel--Number and Change in Different Types
of Leaders Pre to Post ................... 29
10. Pre—CAP Leaders in One, Two, and All Three Issues ....... 31
· ll. Post-CAP Leaders in One, Two, and All Three Issues ...... 31
12. Gains and Losses in Leadership Status by Leaders Com on to
Both Periods ........................ 32 .
13. Pre—ani Post-CAP Influentials by Societal Sector ....... 34
14. Pre-CAP Influentials by Societal Sector and Influence Level . . 35
15. Post-CAP Influentials by Societal Sector and Influence Level . 36
16. Pre- andPost—CAP Influentials by Inside or Outside Location . . 38
l7. Pre—zud Post-CAP Influentials by Inside or Outside Location
and by Level of Influence .................. 38
l8. Pre- mk1Post—CAP Outside Infiuentials by Societal Sector . . . 39
l9. Impressions of Leadership Change Since Start of KCEOC ..... 40
20. Perception of Neighborhood Leaders: Three Center Areas .... 46
21. Perception of Neighborhood Leaders: Three Non—Center Areas . . 47
22. Perception of Neighbrohood Leaders: All Areas ........ 48
· 23. Perception of Neighborhood Leaders: Net Bethel ........ 49
vii
i

 I
Table Page
24. Activity Leaders: Three Center Areas ............ 51
25. Activity Leaders: Three Non—Center Areas .......... 52
l 26. Activity Leaders: All Areas ................. gg
. 27. Activity Leaders: New Bethel ................ $4
28. Collective Participation: Three Center Areas ........ 58
29. Collective Participation: Eight Non-Center Areas ...... 59
30. Collective Participation: All Areas ............. 60
3l. Collective Participation: New Bethel ............ 6l
32. Types of Group Projects: Three Center Areas ......... 64
33. Types of Group Projects: Eight Non—Center Areas ....... 65
34. Types of Group Projects: All Areas .......... ,. . . 66
35. Types of Group Projects: New Bethel ............. 67
I
36. Reactions to Local Action Groups ............... 76
p 37. Reactions to Association of Local Action Groups ....... 78
38. Reaction to Involvement of Poor in KCEOC Program ....... 80
39. Importance of Different Divisions and Alignments ....... 84
40. Recent Change in Divisions and Alignments .......... 85
4l. Effects of KCEOC on Changes in Divisions and Alignments . . . 87
42. Characterizations of Poor—Leader Relationships ........ 95
43. Emergent Cooperation Characterizations of the Poor-Leader
Relationship ........................ 97
44. Emergent Tension Characterizations of the Poor—Leader
Relationship ........................ 98
45. Change in Poor-Leader Relations ............... l0O
46. Leader Relations Seen by Those Holding They Had Not Changed . 102
· 47. Poor-Leader Relations Seen by Those Holding They Had Changed . 103
viii

 Table Page
48. Role of Staff in Poor-Leader Relations ............ lg;
49. Satisfaction-Dissatisfaction with Role of Staff in Poor-Leader
Relations ......................... 107
50. Indices of Change ...................... 109
5l. Extent of Favorable Perception of General and Directional
Effects .......................... 119
52. Information Sequence Against General Effectiveness ...... 126
53. Information Sequence Against Directional Effectiveness .... 127
54. Attachment Sequence Against General Effectiveness ...... 128
55. Attachment Sequence Against Directional Effectiveness .... 129
56. Extent of Favorable Perception of Impact on Seventeen Selected
Items by All Respondents .................. 132
57. Extent of Favorable Perception of Impact on Seventeen Selected
· Items by Six Types of Respondents .......... . . . 135
{lla ix

 LIST OF CHARTS
Chart Page
l. Formal Organization of the KCEOC Structure of Participation . . . 71
2. Types of Social Relationships .................. 89
x
  -

 I
LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNITY RELATIONS
Introduction
a) Orientation. This unit of the Knox County report brings
together data and interpretations concerned with the relationships
between the Knox County Economic Opportunity Council Program and
the local county viewed in its communal dimensions. It seeks to
assess some of the meaning the Community Action Program had for the
county's leadership and collective action abilities, and it seeks
to suggest some of the ways the county's socio-cultural structure
exerted influence on the KCEOC operation.
Interest in leadership, decision—making, and citizen participa-
tion, particularly in relation to the poorer parts of the U.S. l
population was a major aspect of the general strategy of the Com-
munity Action Program of the Office of Economic Opportunity from
its inception. While it seems clear that no very specific intent
was behind Congress' writing into the act the phrase, "maximum
feasible participation" from which much of this interest is said to
stem (Rubin, 1967), the thrust of Community Action's concern with
participation and organization of the poor can scarcely be doubted.
This interest was clearly manifest in the Knox County Economic
Opportunity Program. A part of the community center strategy was the
idea of placing a multi-service type institution close enough to the
uninvolved people living in the isolated hollows to attract them to
{Ir l

 2
· take part in a larger social life. In each of these center areas
neighborhood councils were organized, their names being changed
later to "Local Action Groups," and representatives of these different
local groups were brought together to form a county “Association of
Local Action Groups." An open-membership county "Council" was
brought into being, and a majority of the memberships on the Board
of Directors, the legal policy-controlling community action agency,
was given to persons elected to the Board from the Associations, a
unit specifically representing the poor,and from the Council, a unit
open to all county residents.
The KCEOC program actively sought more involvement of the poor
population, particularly in the areas where it established community
centers. Through these and through the county-wide organizational
units,it sought to give experience to the poor about the procedures
of citizenship and information about the needs and issues facing the
county and neighborhood and about the position of leaders with re-
gard to these matters.
This unit focuses attention mainly upon certain indications of
the results of these efforts. But a word of caution is in order.
While every effort possible, within the time and resources available,
has been made to obtain reliable information and to analyze it care-
fully, a certain built-in limitation demands considerable caution in
drawing firm conclusions. This is the inability of researchers to
separate the effects of the operation of KCEOC in Knox County from
l the effects of various other programs going on at the same time.
D

 3
The major means used by the research staff to apply controls to
· these effects have been the collection of data both specifically
within parts of the county served by the community centers of KCEOC
and in other parts of the county gg; so served. But two facts must
be remembered with regard to this effort at comparison of the two
areas. First, these two sets of neighborhoods——called "center areas"
and "non—center areas"-—were in no wise totally insulated from each
other. Knowledge, ideas, attitudes and events were transmitted back
and forth among them. Second, both sets of areas were subject to
various county-wide, state, and federal programs of diverse origins
and purposes throughout the period under study. Welfare, education,
food stamp programs, industrial development activities, political
campaigns, vocational education, employment and social security
services, to mention just a few, operated over all the county through-
out the period. To separate from this diverse context of factors
the particular strains of cause and effect resulting only from
KCEOC is manifestly impossible. Measures of certain characteristics
deemed strategic have been taken at one or another point in time, and
these have been reviewed with special reference to community action
programs and organization, but the conclusions regarding the connec-
tion between these results and the community action program remain
inferences of a relatively gross variety.
A more realistic goal for this unit is the illustration of
probable relationships and a piecing together of certain facts and
interpretations which seem best to fit the logic of the emerging A
social situation.
O

 4
· Three main themes structure the organization of this unit of the
report. The first, containing the greatest part of the volume, sum-
marizes observations on the significance of the KCEOC program to the
leadership and collective action situation of the county. It con-
sists of three sub-parts. Data have been grouped to yield insight
on the program's probable re1evance,first,for change in patterns of
county leadership, second, for change in the neighborhood leadership
patterns, thirdly, for change in the character of participation in
certain types of collective activities. The second theme concerns
the change in the relationships between those two segments of the
population often labeled "The Poor and the Powerfu1." The third
theme focuses on perception of program impact and summarizes the
findings of a survey of the perceptions held by different parts of
the county population in 1968 of the impact of the KCEOC program.
b) Methodological Note. Three sources of data have been used
in this unit. The first is a compilation of answers to certain of
the questions asked in the interview schedule administered in both
1966 and 1968 to the head-of—household and homemaker sample. The
selection of this sample is described in detail elsewhere in the
general methodology section of this report and need not be repeated
here.
The second source of information used here is comprised of
answers to interview questions asked of respondents representing
five different segments of the community deemed important in under-
standing the community relationships involved with the KCEOC program.
· These particular interviews are referred to as the "Community Relations

 5
Schedules" (a copy is Appendix "B" of the present unit). The five
O
categories of persons interviewed in this connection were KCEOC
Professional Staff members, KCEOC General (non-professional) Staff
members, members of the KCEOC Board of Directors, certain officers of
organizations representing the poor labeled Leaders of the Poor, and
certain individuals of major influence in the county labeled County
Leaders. A brief note is in order regarding each of these categories
of respondents.
In February-March, 1968, when the community relations interviews
were executed, there were ten persons occupying major supervisory
positions directing the program staff of the KCEOC. These ten persons
constitute the Professional Staff respondents.
At the same time, 18 persons were serving as the main general
staff persons (not including cooks and drivers) at the four community
center areas used in the head-of—household and homemaker samples--
Kay Jay, Messer, Middlefork, and New Bethel. These 18 persons con-
stitute the General Staff category of respondents. In this group were
center directors, Early Childhood Program teachers and part- and full-
time community and teacher aides. In some instances below, both
professional and general staff personnel are grouped together as
"staff" respondents.
The process of securing representative samples of respondents
within the other three categories, the Board Members, Leaders of the
Poor, and County Leaders, was somewhat complicated. A two-thirds
random sample was drawn from the universe of each of these three, but
since a number of persons in each sample were also drawn in one of the
O

 6
· other two samples, additional steps were taken to determine the final
category to which each was assigned.
Ultimately the Board of Directors sample contained 23 respondents.
Thirty—eight persons were first drawn at random from the universe of
53, but nine of these were more appropriately classed as Leaders of
the Poor. Three others had, after serving on the Board awhile, be-
come KCEOC employees, and hence had to be classed as general staff
members. In addition, one refused to be interviewed, one had moved
away from the county, and one, it was later found, had not served on
the Board the minimum period of three months to qualify him as a
Board respondent.
The Leader of the Poor is a category established to tap the
opinions of persons holding non—paying leadership positions on either
the Board of Directors, the neighborhood Local Action Groups, or
the county-level Association of Local Action Groups--all organizations
created by the Community Action Program as forums or action units
to represent or work closely with the poor. From a list of QO per-
sons who, at one time or another, had been officers of one of the four
Local Action Groups in the sample area (Kay Jay, Messer, Middlefork,
and New Bethel neighborhoods), a two—thirds sample was first drawn.
Another two—thirds random sample was selected from a list of 29
persons who were either officers of the county-level Association of
Local Action Groups or were members of the Board of Directors
representing the poor. This roster, however, was reduced to 36 as
a result of two factors——some of the individuals were drawn on both
lists,and some were later found also to have become employees of
I

 7
· the agency and. hence, could not be classed as volunteer Leaders of
the Poor.
The County Leaders category was selected not by sampling, but
was the end product of two steps. First, those persons named four
or more times by the head—of-household and homemaker sample in l966,
or two or more times by some 37 respondents who had been identified,
themselves, as county leaders in 1968 by a previous series of re-
spondents,were listed.1 The second step was to remove from this
list any who were members of the Board of Directors of KCEOC. This
resulted in a list of 29 persons who could be aptly designated County
Leaders.
Not all the questions found in the Community Relations Interview
Schedule were asked of all respondents. Certain questions were
appropriate only for the Professional Staff and Board members, and
others only for the Leaders of the Poor, etc. Numbers before each
question indbmmed which category of respondents (by code listed on
the schedule face sheet) were to be given that query.
Since the community relations interviews often touched topics
which were somewhat controversial, at least within the local scene,
and since they often involved contact with influential local people,
all these ll6 interviews, with only two or three special exceptions
involving unique circumstances, were conducted by personnel of the
University of Kentucky rather than by Knox County resident; as was
the more general practice. p
The final source of data utilized in this unit is that of news-
paper and other documents with content useful to the understanding
O

 8
· of collective policy phenomena in Knox County. More specifically,
these data consist of official minutes of the Board of Directors of
the KCEOC and of the Council and of the Association of Local Action
Groups, various reports from one or another segment of the program,
and newspaper accounts from the Barbourville Mountain Advocate, the
A weekly paper published in Knox County, and from the two daily papers
in adjacent counties, the Middlesboro Daily News, and the Corbin Daily
Tribune and Sunday Times.
O

 9
· FOOTNOTE
1The precise method of identifying these major County Leaders
was as follows: All respondents in the head—of-household and home-
maker sample in 1966 were asked who they felt the most influential
leaders of the county were. From these responses, 21 persons were
found to have each received four or more nominations. These 21
were interviewed in 1968 and their responses to the same question
were tabulated. Interviews proceeded in "snowball" fashion with
persons named most until 16 additional persons had been interviewed.
At this point everyone who had been nominated two or more times by
these 37 respondents had been interviewed except three who could
not be reached. This process produced a list of 72 different
persons, 41 of whom received only one nomination. The 29 County
Leaders are all those persons from among the 37 interviewed who
were not on the Board of Directors of KCEOC but who were named
either two or more times by the 37 or four or more times by the
1966 sample.

 O
l. COUNTY LEADERSHIP PATTERNS
a) Introduction. To observe the county leadership situation and
changes within it in the last few years,three sets of data have been
marshalled. First, the number and distribution of perceptions of
county leaders held by the different parts of the county population
in the spring and summer of 1966 are compared with comparable per-
ceptions from the same respondents in early spring of 1968. Second,
leaders identified through the observation of three county-wide
issues or projects which took place prior to the summer of 1965 are
compared with those identified through comparable observations of
three similar issues or projects which took place mainly in the summer
and fall of 1967. Third, a summary of the impressions that county
and CAP-related leaders and personnel held about whether leadership
has shifted in any appreciable manner in the last few years since the
KCEOC program came to Knox County is presented. A brief summary of
all three parts of this evidence will then close the section.
b) County Leader Nominations. To assess the change in leader-
ship in Knox County in the early and later stages of the CAP program,
answers to the question, "Who would you say are the main leaders in
Knox County?" were sought from respondents in the general head—of—
household and homemaker sample in 1966 and in 1968.1 The number of
persons named, the total number of nominations made and the percentage
10
O

 11
given by the sample to different echelons of the leadership roster
O
were then calculated for each period for all areas of the county
together and separately for center and for n0n—center areas. (See
Table 1.)
Clearly, a marked change in leadership perceptions has taken
place between 1966 and 1968 in Knox County.2 lt seems equally clear
that the differences between the center areas on the one hand and
the n0n—center areas on the other in regard to these changes are
relatively small. The direction of the change between 1966 and
1968 is the same on all measures in both sets of areas.
Thus, between 1966 and 1968, though the ability to name leaders
increased somewhat,as indicated by the shift upward of the average
number of nominations made per respondent, both the size of the
leader roster and the distribution of nominations among the different
segments of it reveal a narrowing of the range of leadership choice.
To be more specific, between 1966 and 1968, while the number of
respondents declined 13 and 11 per cent in the center and non-center
areas respectively, the total roster of persons named as county
leaders declined 51 and 32 per cent respectively in the two areas,
and this, in spite of the fact that in this period the average
number of persons named by each respondent in each area increased
from around one to around one and one—ha1f. This resulted in a
substantial increase in total nominations of 1968 over 1966 for all
areas. Thus, in both center and n0n—center areas, fewer different
people were named as leaders in 1968 than in 1966 even though the
number of persons named by the average respondent increased
· appreciab ly.

 TABLE l
COUNTY LEADERS PERCEPTIONS
(The Number and Percentage of All Persons Nominated and of A11 Nominations Made Per Respondent ~
and Given to Different Proportions of the Total Leader Roster for 1966 and 1968 and the Per
Cent Change Between the Two Years in "Center" and "Non-Center" Areas and for A11 County Areas)
A11 County Areas Center Areas* Non—Center Areas*
Change Change Change
1966 1968 66-68 as 1966 1968 66-68 as 1966 1968 66-68 as
a % of'66 a % of'66 a % of'66
Number of Respondents 727 639 -12.1 307 266 -13.3 420 373 -11.2
Number of Different Persons
Named 113 57 -49.6 67 33 -50.7 69 47 -31.8
Total Number of Nominations
Given to Persons 793 953 +20.2 323 400 +20.7 470 553 +17.6
Average Number of Nominations E
per Respondent 1.090 1.491 1.052 1.503 1.119 1.482
Number of Persons Constitutin;
10% of A11 Persons Nominated 12 6 -50.0 7 4 -42.8 7 5 -29.6
Nominations Received by the
Top 10% of Persons Nominated 600 722 +20.3 218 276 +26.6 309 393 +27.2
Nominations Received by Top
10% of Persons as a Per Cent
of All Nominations 75.7 75.8 67.5 69.0 65.7 71.1
Number of Persons Receiving
Only One Nomination 57 23 -59.6 37 14 -62.2 33 18 -45.4
‘ Persons Nominated Only Once
as a Percentage of A11
Persons 50.4 40.4 55.2 42.4 47.8 38.3
Nominations Received by
Persons Nominated Only Once
as a % of All Nominations 9.54 7.95 11.5 3.5 7.0 3.3
[ ·~   .:...,1,,;. 441.. N'!.-T.JT»~C,\—-Y,· vm. T1]., {gpl vp.-- -» **~·— $~»¤•—h *-4-·—~ -—-—-J-—»’-— in ¤·—=*•-»~ ~P ‘·‘~ feat

 13
When attention is turned to the distribution of these nominations
I
between those at the top——defined as that 10 per cent of all persons
who received the largest number of nominations--and those at the
bottom——defined as all those who each received only one nomination--
the same pattern of narrowing choice between 1966 and 1968 is evident
in both areas. While both the number of persons nominated only once
and the number of persons comprising the top 10 per cent showed a
marked decline, the number of nominations of persons ranking in the
top 10 per cent increased about 27 per cent in both areas, and the
per cent that these nominations of top leaders were of all nominations
rose slightly in all areas.
While the major pattern exhibited is essentially similar for
both center and non—center areas, one difference between the two is
worthy of note. It is evident that the county trend is much stronger
in the center areas than in the non-center areas. Indeed, except
for the data on nominations given to the top leaders, where the pattern
for the two areas is almost identical, center areas clearly show a
greater focussing of choice than non—center areas.
The New Bethel neighborhood warrants special attention. It is
one neighborhood where to some degree a "before" and "after" situation
is available for ana1ysis,since its community center was organized
after the 1966 interviewing took place but long before the 1968 data
were collected.3
Comparing the Bethel data (see Table 2) to the others, it can be
seen that total persons named, total nominations, and average number
of nominations per respondent were less in Bethel in 1968 than in
I

 14
I TABLE 2
COUNTY LEADER PERCEPTIONS IN NEW BETHEL NEIGHBORHOOD
(The Number and Percentage of All Persons Nominated and of A11
Nominations Made Per Respondent and Given to Diff