JANUARY ‘I958 Ymentg a \ Luénptium e § Payslnts \ i a \ \\ § § . Q _ r‘ l \\\\\\\ M . \\ _ _ — \\\\ Qlpt 1 \\\\\§ Q p 1 \ T i % / c hi’? o \\\\\\\\\\\ l‘ ,\ TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT? STATION R. D. LEWIS. DIRECTOR, COLLEGE STATION. TEXAS IN COOPERATION WITI-I THE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SUMMARY This bulletin presents a portion of the results of a field study conducted in Texas during the sum- i mer of 1956 in Wharton and Cherokee counties. Five hundred farm operators — 250 in each county— a were interviewed. Approximately 7 out of 10 farm operators stated they were eligible for OASI coverage. One out of 10 declared he was not eligible, with the remaining 20 percent being uncertain about their eligibility . status. Seventy-seven percent of those who said they were eligible stated that they had obtained cov- erage through the operation of their farms. v_ s The percentage of operators stating they were eligible for Old Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) a coverage decreased with age. Fewer than half who were 65 years of age or older felt that they quali- ‘ fied for coverage. p Croppers had the smallest proportions of all tenure groups who felt they were eligible for OASI I coverage. More operators of the largest farms and with the highest net worth qualified for coverjage : than did smaller farmers and operators whose net worth was comparatively small. "i l Seventy-one percent of the farm operators were either paying a social security tax or receiving benefit payments. An additional 14 percent qualified by having the necessary income but failed to pay the tax. The remaining 15 percent did not have enough income to qualify. Twelve operators in the sample were drawing monthly benefits through the OASI program, all of a them receiving the money from earnings made in nonfarm occupations. Less than half of the farm operators knew enough about OASI to make wise decisions regarding-v their possible alternatives in the program. a a Older farmers were not as familiar as younger farmers with specific provisions of the OASI pro< gram. Owner operators knew more about the program than tenants, with croppers being the least in: formed. Larger operators were better informed than smaller farmers, with Negroes knowing less than any other racial or nationality group. ,1 Nine out of 10 farm operators were favorable toward the OASI program. Only 6 percent disapw proved of it, and 4 percent expressed no opinion. Younger operators were more in favor of the OASI program than older operators. Tenants ex- _” pressed approval of it more often than owner operators. Farmers with highest net worth expressed the least approval. Operators who relied on nonfarm jobs in addition to farming were more favorabl, toward the program than those who depended solely on farming. " 1 f Ninety percent of the operators interviewed favored OASI coverage for hired farm workers. How-g ever, only 70 percent approved without some reservation of the operator making a financial contribu tion to OASI for the farm workers’ benefit. ‘f Of the 500 operators interviewed, 361 felt that the program was acceptable as it existed at th , time of the interview and had no suggestions for changes. Forty-one operators felt the program shou i: be broadened so more people could qualify. i " CONTENTS SUMMARY .............................. .; ................................................................................................................................................................. .. { INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................................................ ._ Scope and Method of Study ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __ ' ELIGIBILITY FOR COVERAGE ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __= * Eligibility in Relation to Selected Characteristics of Operators ____________________________________________________________________________________________ __ g Eligibility and Age ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __ ~ i Eligibility and Tenure Status ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __ Eligibility and Size of Farming Operations ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __ » Eligibility and Other Factors ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __ Eligibility, and OASI Payments ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __ KNOWLEDGE OF OASI ................. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __ Knowledge in Relation to Selected Characteristics of Farm Operators ______________________ ______________________________________________________ __ , Knowledge in Relation to Age ........... .; ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __ , Knowledge in Relation to Tenure Status _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __ ' Knowledge in Relation to Size of Farming Operations __________________________________________________________________________________________________ __ a Knowledge in Relation to Other Characteristics ________________________________________________________________________________________________ _; _____________ ATTITUDES TOWARD OASI ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __~_ ____ __ Attitudes in Relation to Selected Characteristics of Farm Operators ______ ..' ________________________________________________________________________ __ Attitudes in Relation to Age .............................. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __ ._ Attitudes in Relation to Tenure Status ........................... .. i Attitudes in Relation to Size of Farming Operations ..... .. Attitudes of Other Groups ........................................................ ._ Attitude Toward OASI Coverage of Hired Farm Workers ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ Changes in the OASI Program Suggested by Farm Operators ___________________________________________________________________________________ ,_'_ _________ : ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................................................................................................................................................... __ A REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................................................................ __ 0' cifically engaged in. agriculture. Texas Farmers and Uld Age and Survivors Insurance R. L. SKRABANEK, LOYD B. KEEL and LOUIS J. DUCOFF* SAN AMENDMENT To THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT in 1950 provided for Old Age and Survivors Insur- ance (OASI) for a specific group of persons spe- However, only those persons employed as “regular” hired farm workers were included inthe program. Studies which were sponsored cooperatively by the Agri- cultural Marketing Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture and the Agricultural Experiment Sta- tions of Connecticut, Kentucky, Texas and Wis- consin during 1951-54 indicated that a majority n of the farm operators surveyed in all four states expressed a desire for the extension of OASI cov- erage to include their group. They reasoned that people in most other occupations were covered and that, in their opinions, farmers enjoyed no . greater security than people in other lines of work and also should be covered. In September 1954 the Social Security Act was amended by the 83rd Congress. This amend- ment extended OASI protection to self-employed farmers on essentially the same basis as had been provided previously for self-employed business- men. Beginning in 1955, self-employed farm op- erators with annual net earnings from self-em- ployment of $400 or more were required by law to be included in the program. In addition, if the .farmer’s net profit from farm self-employment g was less than $400 but the gross income was from ‘ $800 to $1,800, he had the option of reporting one- half of his gross income for social security instead of his actual net farm earnings. If his gross in- come was more than $1,800 and his actual net i earnings were less than $900, he could report $900 for social security and pay the tax on this amount. . Operators who became 65 years of age before July Si 1, 1954 needed only six quarters of coverage in order to qualify for benefit payments. Normally an operator could meet this requirement in 2 crop years. Scope and Method of Study . This report is based on a study conducted in ithe summer of 1956 by the AMS, USDA, and the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. Similar studies also were made at the agricultural experi- ent stations in Kentucky and Maine with the co- operation of the USDA. While the scope of the exas study was relatively broad, this report is ._» ‘t. ¢Respectively, professor and research assistant, Depart- cement of Agricultural Economics and Sociology, Texas ‘Farm Population and Rural Life‘ Branch, Agricultural ‘Marketing Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Experiment Station; and assistant chief, - limited to some of the main aspects of insurance protection, knowledge and attitudes regarding the OASI program as they existed at the time the field study was completed} Interviews with a sample of farm operators were conducted during the first 3 weeks of June 1956 in Wharton county and during the latter part of the same month and the first 3 weeks of July in Cherokee county. Area sampling was em- ployed, and sample segments for each county were drawn from the master sample materials of the AMS. Essentially the same segments constituted the sample area in Wharton county in 1956 that were used in 1952. Because of migration, a num- ber of deaths and other factors, the respondents were not altogether thesame in both studies. A total of 500 usable schedules was obtained—250 from each of the two counties, or approximately 10 percent of the farm operators in each county. The two counties were selected as represent- ative of diverse types of situations. Wharton county is located in Economic Area 14 on the Gulf Coastal Plain, Figure 1, where cotton, rice and the beef cattle industry are the main sources of 1A few minor changes have been made in OASI regula- tions since the field work was completed. For example, the age at which women may become eligible for pay- ments has been lowered from 65 to 62. Thus some of the farmers’ objections to certain phases of the program have been met by subsequent changes in the law. l i a_ f: ' 2+.- Figure 1. Location of study counties. Cherokee county is approximately 200 miles north of Wharton county. income. Residentsbf the county include the de- scendents of some of the oldest Anglo-American families, early Czech and other European immi- grants, Latin Americans and Negroes. Cherokee county, some 200 miles to the north, is in Eco- nomic Area 13 in the East Texas Piney Woods area. Its agriculture is highly diversified, with truck crops (particularly tomatoes, peaches and watermelons), cotton, livestock and timber being the important crops. Its inhabitants consist en- tirely of decendants of Anglo-American families and Negroes. Approximately one-fourth of its total farm population is Negro. A comparison of Cherokee and Wharton coun- ties shows that in Wharton county the soils are more fertile; farm irrigation systems are used more extensively; farming operations are con- ducted on a larger scale and are more highly mechanized; farm operators are younger and rep- resent more diverse nationality groups; greater use is made of seasonal and migratory farm work- ers; and its farm people have a greater net worth and also receive a higher percentage of their to- tal income from farming even though oil, gas and sulfur resources add substantially to their farm incomes. In general, Wharton county stands high in comparison with the rest of the ‘State in agri- cultural and nonagricultural indices, and the level of living of its farm people. Cherokee county has been designated as the pilot county for low-pro- duction farm studies in East Texas by agricul- tural experiment station personnel and also for the rural development program in the State. The sample group included both part-time and full-time operators. In the two counties, 44 op- erators also classed themselves as business or pro- fessional persons, with a total of 77 eligible for OASI coverage as the result of earnings from some type of work or occupation other than the operation of their farm. ELIGIBILITY FOR COVERAGE Farm operators were asked to state whether they were qualified for OASI coverage in accord- ance with eligibility requirements in effect at the time of their interviews. Their answers in each case depended largely on whether they had been previously covered through some nonfarm em- TABLE 1. PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF FARM OPERA- TOR OPINIONS CONCERNING THEIR ELIGIBILITY FOR OASI COVERAGE Cherokee Total Opinion as to Wharton eligibilty county county (N=25U) (N=25U) (N=500) Percent Eligible i through farming operations 65.6 42.0 53.8 Eligible through other than farming operations 9.2 21.6 15.4 Not eligible 4.8 15.6 10.2 Uncertain 20.4 20.8 20.6 had obtained coverage through nonfarm work N=Number oi iarm operators in each group. 4 ployment and were now receiving benefit pay- p ments, or had the required minimum earnings for g coverage at the time they were interviewed. i Approximately 7 out of 10 operators declar- ed that they were eligible for OASI coverage, with the proportion being considerably higher in Wharton than in Cherokee county, Table 1. One out of 10 stated that he was not eligible, with the remaining 20 percent expressing uncertainty ~ about their eligibility status. A few in the two latter groups might have qualified but did not know enough about the program to realize it. Seventy-seven percent of those who said they. were eligible stated that they had obtained their: coverage through the operation of their farms..- Since few worked on other people’s farms for; wages, the remainder gave nonfarm employment; as the source of their eligibility. A considerably higher proportion of the Cherokee county opera- tors stated they were eligible through nonfarm work than did the operators in Wharton county. Approximately 1 out of 3 operators in Cheroke county who thought they were eligible stated they, compared with only 1 out of 8 "in Wharton county. - Only 1 out of 20 operators in Wharton county- stated that he was not eligible for OASI coverag '1 as compared with a considerably higher propor tion, 1 out of 6 in Cherokee county. i Eligibility in Relation to Selected Characteristics of Operators Some of the findings of this study are su ‘ marized according to selected characteristics o, the operators, since it is important to determin which groups of farm operators felt that they di‘ not qualify for OASI coverage. . Eligibility and Age p In both counties the percentage of operato -, who thought they were eligible for OASI cove _ age decreased with age, Table 2. Over 92 perce‘ of the younger operators, those under 35, thoug that they were eligible. At the other extre l, fewer than one-half of those 65 years of age ~ older stated that they qualified for coverag Thus persons in the age groups which potentiall had the greatest immediate opportunity to r ceive social security payments because of reac ing retirement age felt they were able to qual' I least. The failure of so many older persons to -.. they were qualified for OASI coverage is - plained chiefly by two factors. First, in gene "~ they possess less knowledge of how the progr operates. The second is the peculiar situation‘ 5 a number of Texas farm operators in this a bracket. It was not unusual to interview an _ derly couple on a fa-rm which, it appeared 0 wardly, could be turned easily into an econo cally productive unit. Yet the operators A _ A GE BY AGE GROUPS Opinion as to I LE 2. PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF FARM OPERATOR OPINIONS CONCERNING THEIR ELIGIBILITY FOR OASI COV- Age of operator eligibility Under as as 1° 44 4s 10 s4 s5 10 04 Sig?‘ T“! (10:09) (N=109) (N=132) (N=l43) (10:11) (N=500) Percent ~ 'ble through _: v ing operations 84.6 62.4 54.5 46.2 38.9 53.8 Vgible through other than farming operations 7.7 15.6 16.6 16.1 15.6 15.4 11 011.0010 2.0‘ 10.1 12.2 0.9 10.9 10.2 ' 00110111 5.1 11.9 10.1 90.9 20.0 20.0 vg-Number of farm operators in each group. aking no visible effort to derive any income the farm. In some cases both the farm op- ' 0: tor and his wife-were drawing monthly bene- L's through the Old Age Assistance (OAA) pro- m. Since in Texas, the size of the OAA pay- ent is determined in part by one’s income and ancial condition, many of the couples felt they “re better off financially not producing any- ing for a profit. They felt that they would be pnning the risk of having their “old age pen- n” payments either cut off or reduced. Con- uently, they did not have enough income as 1 result of their farming operations to qualify a er the OASI program. The OASI eligibility of younger operators ually was achieved through the operation of a m. A larger percentage of operators over 35 lrs of age had established eligibility through i, farm jobs than those who had not yet reached ‘ir 35th birthday. , Twelve operators in the sample who were 65 rs of age or older were drawing monthly bene- j- s through the OASI program at the time of the ,ld study. Of this number, 9 were farming in erokee county, 3 in Wharton county. All of e 12 operators received the money as a return .m earnings made in nonfarm occupation. Ac- rding to the respondents, the smallest monthly ‘yment received was $30, the average monthly yment being $58.38. gibility and Tenure Status Among all of the tenure groups, share-cash ants had the highest percentage who stated x g GE BY TENURE STATUS they were eligible for OASI coverage, Table 3. Three out of 4 in this group said they were eli- gible, and qualified through the operation of their farm. Croppers had the smallest percentage stating they were eligible. Only about 2 out of 5 in this group felt they were eligible through farming. Other than croppers, full owners had the smallest percentage who felt that they quali- fied for OASI coverage. This is caused chiefly by the number of older operators who live on farms 10 to 50 acres in size. Several in this group do not feel that it is advantageous to produce a profitable crop in order to qualify for OASI cov- -- ' erage. A fuller explanation of this was made in the previous section. Eligibility and Size oi Farming Operations The proportions of operators stating they were eligible for OASI coverage were progres- sively higher as the size of operations increased, Table 4. Less than 3 out of 5 who operated less than 80 acres thought they were eligible. At the other extreme, more than 4 out of 5 who operated 260 acres or more felt they were eligible for cov- erage under OASI regulations. In bothcounties a close relationship existed between the size of farm and the percentage who stated they were eligible through earnings from their farming operations. In Cherokee county the proportion who stated they were eligible specif- ically through farming increased progressively from 23 percent for operators with less than 50 acres to 67 percent for those with 260 acres or more. In Wharton county the percentages ran l LE 3. PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF FARM OPERATOR OPINIONS CONCERNING THEIR ELIGIBILITY FOR OASI COV- Tenure status .Opinion as to eligibility 05:11; 05$; tselrhcclrrrft 123221 5113;015:815 Cropper Total s, (N=184) (N=149) (N=105) (N=24) (N=20) ' (N=18) (N=500) l Percent ‘ble through W- - ing operations ‘»_‘_ 1..- 46.7 61.7 54.3 50.0 75.0 41.7 53.8 'le through other 4'" [arming operations 19.5 10.7 15.3 20.8 0.0 _ 16.6 15.4 . eligible 13.1 8.0 7.5 12.5 5.0 8.3 10.2 [0110111 20.7 19.0 22.9 10.1 20.0 39.4 20.0 I umber ol farm operators in each group. TABLE 4. PERCENTDISTRIBUTION OF FARM OPERATOR OPINIONS CONCERNING THEIR ELIGIBILITY FOR OASI COV- ERAGE BY SIZE OF FARMING OPERATIONS Opinion as to Size oi operation (acres) eligibility Under 50 50-79 00-159 160-259 25° ‘md Tm“! - over (N=128) (N272) ' (N=l45) (N=72) (N283) (N=500) Percent _ Eligible through a farming operations 29.7 c 43.1 60.0 72.2 -._ 73.5 53.8 Eligible through other than farming operations 26.5 16.6 9.0 12.5 I 10.8 15.4 Not eligible 11.7 9.7 12.4 5.6 6.4 10.2‘ Uncertain 32.1 30.6 18.6 9.7 7.3 20.6 NzzNumber of iarm operators in each group. from a 10w of 37 for the operators of the smallest acreages to over 80 for the larger operators. Those who stated they were qualified as a result of nonfarm employment also operated smaller farms. More than one-fourth of those operating 50 acres or less felt they were eligible through operations other than farming. There is also a direct relationship between size of op- eration and uncertainty about one’s eligibility, the smallest operators being less certain and larg- er operators more positive about their eligibility status. Eligibility and Other Factors Four nationality groups constituted the sam- ple interviewed in this study. These were Negro. Mexican, Czech and “other Whites.” All of the operators interviewed of Czech or Mexican ex- traction were in Wharton county. Cherokee county operators were classified into only two groups—Negro and other whites. A higher proportion of Czech operators (84 percent) stated that they were covered than any other nationalitv group. They were followed by other whites (77 percent), Mexicans (50 percent) and Negroes (39 percent). Eligibility for OASI coverage appears to be fairly closely related to the net worth of farm operators. Only 41 percent of those interviewed with a net worth of less than $1,000 thought they were eligible for OASI coverage. At the other extreme, 97 percent of the operators classed in the $50,000-or-over category stated they were eli- gible. * In both counties the highest percentages of operators who felt they were covered were among those who reported that their farming operations accounted for a relatively small portion of their total income. For example, 83 percent of the farm operators who derived less than one-fourth of their total income from operation of their farms stated they were covered, as contrasted with 66 percent of those deriving all of their in- come from farming. Eligibility and OASI Payments About 70 percent of all operators interviewed stated that they were eligible for OASI coverage. However, a check of replies given to other ques- 6 tions indicated that 71 percent actually had qua] ified and either paid their social security tax 0 were receiving benefit payments. An addition‘ 14 percent qualified by virtue of having the mi ~ imum income necessary for coverage but fail to pay the tax. The remaining 15 percent di not have enough income to qualify. Operators i the latter category were three times as numerou in Cherokee county as compared with Whart county. l One series of questions was designed to d termine how respondents found out they we eligible for OASI coverage and whether they h any difficulty in figuring their payments. t; of those employed in nonfarm jobs stated th they found out about their eligibility throu their nonfarm work. But most of the operato stated they found out they would have to payi social security tax from. a person in their .._ munity who figured their income tax. When 0 erators were asked if they had any difficulty t, termining the amount of social security tax I be paid, a stock answer was: “No, I don’t ha to worry about things like that, so I don’t evl try to understand it. The fellow who works ., my income tax does all of my figuring for me. Practically all of the farm operators in t, two study counties depend on persons in th communities to work out their income tax =g OASI statements and payments. Discussi with some operators regarding their OASI p i lems revealed that some of these persons were . Well informed on the finer points. If those '7 perform these services locally are not compet some farmers may unknowingly fail to conf with certain laws and some farmers who c‘ qualify for OASI may not be covered in the q gram. Since it is so important that persons work out income tax ‘and social security s I ments for farm operators be well informed,‘ these subjects, professional employees might of more service indirectly to farmers by hel these persons understand the OASI program t. fully than by working directly with farmers.- KNOWLEDGE OF OASI In the early part of each interview, res ents were asked. a series of questions t0 d1 mine the extent of their knowledge of the t. l, BLE 5. PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF FARM OPER- _ tTORS ACCORDING TO THEIR KNOWLEDGE OF OASI Knowledge of OASI Wharton Chemkee Total county county ' (N=250) I (1~1=2so) (N=500) _ Percent .11 informed 18.8 17.2 18.0 fliilY well informed 29.2 25.6 27.4 l me knowledge 16.0 21.2 18.6 tile or no knowledge 36.0 36.0 36.0 =Number of farm operators in each group. ogram. This was considered an important hase of the study, since persons need to have a fcertain amount of information about any type of program before they can avail themselves of the portunities it has to offer. It is also highly obable that a close relationship exists between owledge of a program and the degree of its ac- ptance among farmers. Respondents were graded in accordance with q e answers they gave to 17 questions which were iidesigned to test how much they knew about ASI. Responses to the 17 questions were class- ied into one of four broad categories: well in- ormed, fairly well informed, some knowledge and "ttle or no knowledge. To be classified in the “well informed” group, e respondent had to answer 14 of the 17 ques- ns correctly. Those who answered 11 to 13 luestions correctly were considered “fairly well formed.” Two key questions also had to be lnswered correctly before a farm operator was laced in either of the two top categories, regard- ss of the total number of correct responses. He 4d to know ( 1) that farm operators were eligible 5' or OASI coverage and (2) that they must make pireport of their earnings once a year for social ‘curity purposes. v Operators with scores in either of the top _w0 categories generally were considered well ' nough informed about the program to make in- lligent decisions concerning almost any OASI s'tuation that might arise. It is doubtful that those falling in the third category understood nough about their OASI problems to cope with hem intelligently. Those in the least informed oup did not profess to know the answer to a question such as: “As you understand it, farmers take part in the Old Age and Sur- A ABLE 6. PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF FARM OPERATORS vivors Insurance program, or are they left out of the program?” Only two operators definitely stated that farmers were still left out of the pro- gram and could not take part in it. But 146 out ofthe 500 interviewed (29 percent) did not know if farmers were included. Several in this group replied that they had heard they would have to pay a “social security” tax sooner or later, but they were not sure whether this information was true. One of the basic problems involved in ob- taining information about farmer knowledge of the OASI program was the respondent's inability to identify it specifically by its official title of “Old Age and Survivors Insurance Program.” They had all heard. of the‘ broader term, “social security.” But each enumerator was instructed to skip the knowledge questions if the respondent revealed, through answers he gave to preliminary questions, that he did not understand OASI to be an insurance program for older persons and their survivors. Consequently 131 of the re- spondents (26 percent) were not asked the 17 knowledge questions and were automatically placed in the “little or no knowledge” category. At a later point in each interview in order to as- certain farmer attitudes toward the program, a short statement of the general plan of the OASI 1' l program was read to those operators who ap- peared to know very little about it. In some cases this review stirred the memory of the operator and it developed that they sometimes were not as uninformed as they appeared to be at this point of their interviews. In the two sample counties, 45 percent of the operators interviewed knew enough about OASI to be classed as well or fairly well informed, Table 5. A slightly higher percentage of farmers in Wharton county knew more about the program than the farmers in Cherokee county. At the other extreme, 36 percent of the operators in each of the two counties had little or no knowledge about OASI. Knowledge in Relation to Selected Characteristics of Farm Operators There is a comparatively high degree of cor- relation between the extent of knowledge about OASI and certain characteristics of the respond- ents. ACCORDING TO THEIR KNOWLEDGE OF OASI. BY AGE x44 Knowledge oi OASI Age of operator Under as as to 44 4s to s4 ss l0 s4 Bivzfd Tm‘ (1~1=a9) (N=109) (N=132) (N=143) (N=77) (N=500) :1 - Percent 511 11114111144 22.1 23.9 14.4 1s.1 111.9 1a.o -- ly well informed 43.6 31.2 28.8 21.7 22.1 27.4 pme knowledge 11.9 17.4 20.5 20.3 14.3 1a.s e or no knowledge 15.4 27.5 36.3 41.9 46.7 36.0 Number of farm operators in each group. _ formation possessed by farmers in the sample in- 7. PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF FARM OPERATORS ACCORDING TO THEIR KNOWLEDGE OF OASI. BY TENURE a US ,. Tenure status Krwwledge of 0A5! Full ~ Part Share Cash Share-cash TWII owner owner tenant tenant tenant Cropper (N=184) (N=149) (N=105) (N=24) (N=20) (N=l8) (N=500) Percent Well iniormed 18.5 24.2 12.4 20.8 10.0 0.0 18.0 Fairly well informed 29.9 24.2 26.7 25.0 40.0 16.7 27.4 Some knowledge 19.0 20.1 15.2 25.0 20.0 l t 0.0 18.6 r Little or no knowledge 32.6 31.5 45.7 29.2 30.0 83.3 ~ 36.0 g ‘ N=Number o1 farm operators in each group. Knowledge in Relation to Age ‘ more education a farmer had, the more he kiéw. _ There was a direct relationship in both coun- about OASI‘ » tlee between age and extent of knowledge of tne Race or nationality derivation of the respond-l OASI program- Tne older farmers Were least ln" ents also influenced knowledge of OASI. Negro» formed and tne Younger» pest lntormeo» Table 6- operators knew the least about the program, 93f Over 6o pereent of tne operators lees than :35 percent being in the poorly informed or least in- years of age were well informed or fairly well 1n- formed grow» Czechs and other Whites (chiefly formed on tne program? almost tne Same propor" of Anglo-Saxon extraction) knew the most abou I tlon of operntors m tne o5 and older age group the program, with 55 and 58 percent, respectively, Were poorly lnformelr in the well informed and fairly well informed Knowledge in Relation to Tenure Status groups‘ In general, owner operators knew more about OASI than did tenant operators in both of the survey counties, Table 7. Croppers knew less about the program than did any other tenure group, 83 percent falling in the least informed category and none in the best informed. Cash and share-cash tenants knew more about the OASI program than did share tenants. Operators with the smallest net worth als knew the least about OASI and its operation. Among those whose net worth was less tha $1,000, only 10 percent were fairly well inform or well informed on the program. At the other extreme, 75 percent of those with a net worth o $50,000 or more were in the same category. n ATTITUDES TOWARD OASI During the interviews, an attempt was mad to determine the attitudes of farm operators I ward the OASI program. For those who -j peared to have little knowledge of its operation. ' short statement was read which described th plan in general. Each respondent was then ask how he felt about the program. Table 9 contai >~ a summary of their attitudes. Knowledge in Relation to Size of Farming Operations Knowledge of OASI is closely related to the size of farming operations. The amount of in- creased progressively with each next larger size of operation. More than 2 out of 3 farmers op- erating 260 acres or more were among the well and fairly well informed groups, Table 8. About 3 0111'. Of 4 W110 WGPG operating farms Of lGSS than Ninety percent 0f the farm Operators in 50 acres did not have enough knowledge to make sample approved the general idea of the intelligent decisions about OASI problems. program as it existed at that time This 1st . . h‘ h 'd ' h b t 1 Knowledge in Relation to Other Characteristics 31groggscsélttigilfgxShtgéngbgufititaazuthe g2; Education of the farm operator was closely ning of the interview. Only 4 percent disa related to knowledge of OASI. In general, the proved of the program, and the remaining 6 p. TABLE 8. PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF FARM OPERATORS ACCORDING TO THEIR KNOWLEDGE OF OASI. BY SIZE T: FARMING OPERATIONS , Size ot operation (acres) T t li o a Kmwledge °l OASI Under so 50-19 80-159 160-259 26o and over (N=128) (19:72) (N=145) ' (N=72) (N=83) (N=5l Percent -. Well informed 7.8 8.3 19.3 26.4 32.5 18.0 Y Fairly well informed 18.0 27.8 26.2 36.1 36.1 27.4 Some knowledge 18.0 16.7 20.0 18.1 _ 19.4 18.6 g Little or no knowledge 56.2 47.2 34.5 19.4 12.0 36.0 r N=Number o1 tarm operators in each group. 8 if TABLE 9. PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF FARM OPERA- , JTORS ACCORDING TO THEIR ATTITUDES TOWARD OASI Attitude Wharton Cherokee Total county county (N=250) (N=250) (N=500) v Percent Approval 71.2 51.2 61.2 L; Qualified approval 15.5 41.2 25.4 No position 6.8 6.0 6.4 Qualified disapproval 5.2 1.6 3.4 Disapproval 1.2 0.0“ 0.6 =Number of farm operators in each group. cent took no position on the question. In Wharton county, 83 percent of the operators interviewed in 1952 approved of the program at that time, as compared with 87 percent in 1956. This slight ‘increase in approval may be partly because they had been brought in under the OASI program dur- ing the interim or because they had become more conscious of its benefits through the previous sur- vey and through other means. All 12 farm operators receiving monthly VgOASI benefit payments had a highly favorable attitude toward the program. One appeared to express the sentiments of the recipients through the statement: “This is one of the best things _- that ever happened to us older folks. It’s too bad all of the people can’t understand how good a Ything this is.” When asked to single out the specific provi- sions they particularly liked about OASI, the re- spondents usually failed to mention any one fea- ture but replied in general terms. Most of those who approved the program felt that farmers definitely needed the protection provided Ior 01d age security. A few of the younger farmers fa- vored it chiefly because it offered security for their wives and children. Others felt that they were contributing through taxes toward the OA.SI program for the nonfarming portion of the na- tion’s population and approved the plan for farm- ers chiefly because they were being taxed for it regardless of whether they were included. A larger number of the Cherokee county farm operators approved of the program than in lWharton county, but they also qualified their ap- aproval more frequently. Those who qualified their approval were usually dissatisfied with some minor aspect of the program. One comment of- fered frequently was: “It’s okay in general, but it ought to be fixed so we could draw money when we get to be 60 instead of 65.” Another was: “I like it all right, but it could be improved if they would let the little fellow in on it more. This way, the fellow who needs it the most can't get it, and the big farmers who don’t really need it get the most out of it.” Some of the younger men who qualified their approval showed a lack of under- standing of how the program operates. Most of those in this group felt that they would pay in considerably more than they would get back. Some revealed through their comments that they thought of OASI in terms of an old age assistance plan, failing to realize its insurance features. The chief reason given by those who disap- proved is typified by the statement: “The Fed- eral Government is just getting too big. It ought to stay out of our private business. This is just another step towards socialism.” Attitudes in Relation to Selected Characteristics of Farm Operators Although farm operators in the sample usu- ally approved of the OASI program in general, certain relationships may be noted between dis- tinguishing features of the respondents and their attitudes. Attitudes in Relation to Age Generally speaking, the younger farm oper- ators (under 45 years of age) approved the OASI program more than did the older operators, Table 10. Those who have the greatest immediate op- portunity to receive social security payments be- cause of reaching retirement age were the least willing to approve it. This situation can be ex- plained partially by the fact that the older oper- ators also had the least knowledge of how the pro- gram worked. In addition, they had the least education and were less able to qualify for cov- erage because of insufficient farm earnings. A greater proportion of the farm operators less than 35 years of age gave the program their unconditional approval than did any other age group interviewed. Only about half of those 65 years old or over approved of the program uncon- ditionally. QTABLE 10. PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF FARM OPERATORS ACCORDING TO THEIR ATTITUDES TOWARD OASI, BY AGE Age of operator A Attitude Under 55 55.44 45-54 55-54 55 and over Tm‘ (11:55) (N=l09) (u=152) (n=145) (N=77) (N=500) I Percent a f~ 55.2 52.4 55.1 55.0 54.5 51.2 .ualitied approval " 25.2 50.5 25.5 25.7 55.5 25.4 » 0.0 2.1 1.5 5.4 5.1 5.4 _ alitied disapproval 2.5 4.5 5.0 4.2 1.5 5.4 v approval - 0.0 0.0 =Number of farm operators in each group. 0.8 0.7 1.3 0.6 TABLE 11. PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF I-‘ARM OPERATORS ACCORDING TO THEIR ATTITUDES TOWARD OASI. BY i TENURE STATUS Tenure of Operator Attitude Tenant Total Full owner Part owner All Cash Share Share-cash Cropper (N=184) (N=149) (N=167) (N=105) (N=24) (N=20) (N=18) (N=500) I Percent 1;. Approval 54.3 63.7 67.8 50.0 69.5 65.0 ‘Y 3i 91.7 61.2 Qualified approval 33.1 25.5 24.2 37.5 23.8 20.0 8.3 h 28.4 No position . 8.2 6.1 4.9 4.2 4.8 10.0 0.0 6.4 Qualified disapproval 3.9 3.4 3.1 8.3 1.9 5.0 0.0 3.4 Disapproval 0.5 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 b,’ N=Number of farm operators in each group. Wharton county farm operators reversed their positions in the two surveys of 1952 and 1956. In 1956, a greater proportion of younger persons approved the OASI program than did the older operators. In 1952, the opposite situation existed. Attitudes in Relation to Tenure Status There is a definite relationship between ten- ure status and the operator’s attitude toward the OASI program. Proportionately fewer full own- ers approved the program than did part owners and all tenants combined. Tenants expressed the greatest degree of approval, with part owners falling between the two extremes, Table 11. The degree of economic security each group enjoys may be found in the attitudes of different classes of tenants toward the OASI program. The order of their approval, from lowest to highest was: (1) share-cash tenants, (2) cash tenants, (3) share tenants and (4) cropper tenants. Crop- pers were the only group of tenants giving unani- mous approval to the program, with only 8 per- cent qualifying their approval. In general, Wharton county farmers enjoy greater economic security-than farmers in Chero- kee county. The relationship between attitudes and economic security is pointed out by the fact that in all three tenure classes—full owners, part owners and tenants—Cherokee county operators approved the OASI program to a greater extent than did Wharton county operators. TABLE 12. PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF FARM OPERATORS ACCORDING TO THEIR ATTITUDES TOWARD OASI. SIZE OF OPERATION I Attitudes in Relation to Size oi Farming Operations Approval of the OASI program did not ap- pear to be closely related to the size of farmingl operations. However, larger farm operators qual- ified their approval more often than did the" smaller farm operators, Table 12. A typical state- ment of a number of large operators was: “Th program is all right in general, but a fellow ough to have a chance to say if he wants to participa = or not. Maybe some of the smaller farmers ough j to be made to get in the program, but those wh can take care of themselves ought to have a choic of either getting in or staying out.” ‘ Attitudes of Other Groups _ In general, the less farm operators were d", pendent on agriculture for their total income, th more they approved of OASI. Only 85 percent ’ the operators whose only source of income w from their farming operations approved it. A the other extreme, 96 percent of the operatoi who received less than one-fourth of their incom‘ from farming approved it. Those whose oni source of income was from farming disapprov the program more than did any other group. " i Some of these differences appear to be r lated to the degree of contact with and knowled of the OASI program. The survey data indica =V that farm operators who derived an income fro sources other than farming also understood t, program better than those who depended sole,“ Size of operation (acres) Attitude Total Under 50 50-79 80-159 160-259 260 and over . (N=128) (N=72) (N:145) (N=72) (N=83) (N=5 l . l‘ Percent a Approval 64.0 62.5 62.1 58.3 56.7 61.2 Qualified approval 26.6 23.6 28.8 33.3 30.1 28.4 Y No position 8.6 9.7 5.6 2.8 4.8 6.4 ,» Qualified disapproval 0.8 4.2 2.8 5.6 l _ 6.0 3.4” Disapproval 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 2.4 0.6 a N=Number oi tarm operators in each group. 10 on farming for their incomes. They also probably had more contact with the program as a result of their nonfarm occupational experiences. The net worth of farm operators also appears to be related to the relative approval or disap- proval of the OASI program. In the field sur- vey, farm operators were asked to estimate their approximate worth if they were to sell their pos- sessions and pay off all their debts. Over 90 per- cent of those with a net Worth of less than $5,000 approved the OASI program. The proportions approving the program remained about the same in each successive net work group until the $20, 000 level was reached. At this level, 83 percent of the farm operators approved the program. Of all race or nationality groups interviewed, p Mexican operators were the most favorable to- 1 Ward OASI, with 100 percent either approving i the program outright or expressing approval but being dissatisfied with some minor phase of it. At the other extreme, only 82 percent of the Czech a farm operators approved of the program. The de- i, gree of acceptance on the part of Negroes and 1 other whites was about the same. The low rate * of acceptance among the Czech farmers may be i‘ explained largely by their feeling of independence, while the high rate of acceptance among Mexi- i cans probably results from their feeling of econo- .1 mic insecurity. Attitude Toward OASI Coverage for Hired Farm Workers 1f; Only a small proportion of the farm opera- a tors thought that hired farm workers should not be covered under the OASI program, Table 13. a Disregarding those who were uncertain, more than 9 out of 10 of the rest of the farm operators , approved OASI coverage for farm workers. This is approximately the same percentage of opera- . tors who approved the OASI program in general. needed OASI coverage more than did industrial workers. They felt farm workers were less pro- itected in old age and that if nonfarm workers * were entitled to it, farm workers also should be entitled to it. One operator pointed out that it might be more difficult to get hired labor on farms if OASI coverage were not extended to this oup, as they would then prefer nonfarm work here they could be covered. Some operators felt 13. PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF FARM OPERA- - RS ACCORDING TO THEIR ATTITUDES TOWARD OASI COVERAGE OF HIRED FARM WORKERS ttttttttt. ‘I ‘ffggge Cjjtjgjge wtttttt (fi=zsn> (N=250) (N=500) y Percent be covered 89.2 89.6 89.4 = uld not be covered 4.4 2.8 3.6 -_ ertain 6.4 ' 7.6 7.0 . Number oi tarm operators in each group. Several operators stated that farm workers t TABLE 14. PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF FARM OPERA- TORS ACCORDING TO THEIR ATTITUDES TOWARD PAYING IN OASI PROGRAM FOR HIRED FARM WORKERS Wharton Cherokee Attitude Total county county (N=250) (N=250) (N=500) Percent Approval 66.8 74.0 70.4 Qualified approval 3.2 11.2 7.2 No position 8.0 9.2 8.6 Qualified disapproval 21.6 5.2 13.4 Disapproval 0.4 0.4 0.4 N =Number of farm operators in each group. the workers did not want money held out of their wages for OASI charges. At least five operators in Wharton county, where a large number of Mex- ican migratory laborers are employed during the cotton harvest, complained that bosses of some migrant crews let their workers pick cotton only as long as the wages received from any one farm- er were not enough to require them to make an OASI payment. As soon as workers approached this point, the crew leaders insisted that they move on, thereby leaving the unharvested por- tions behind. After the respondents were queried about their feelings toward farm wage workers being included in the OASI program, they were asked how they felt about paying the employee’s part of the payment for the workers they hired. Approximately 3 out of 4 farm operators ap- proved of the employer making a contribution to OASI for the farm worker’s benefit. This is ‘a lower percentage than approved of the farm worker being included in the program, Table 14. About 14 percent of the farm operators disap- proved of having to pay for the farm worker’s benefit. Some in this group expressed the fear that farm workers would sooner or later use this as a bargaining tool, eventually forcing the em- ployer to pay both his part and the worker’s part in order to hold their farm labor. Others expressed an intense dislike for what they called “having to keep books and hold money out of their wages.” One operator expressed his dislike for the idea fairly clearly by stating, “If they want it, they ought to pay for it themselves. Nobody pays mine for me.” A direct relationship existed between the 0perator’s approval of his contributing to OASI for the farm worker’s benefit and the size of the farm he operated. The larger the farming operation, the less likely was the operator to ap- . prove of this phase of the program. Changes in the OASI Program Suggested by Farm Operators Although farm operators in the sample areas generally approved the OASI program, they were asked to state what changes they thought should be made to make it more acceptable. Of the 500 farm operators interviewed, 361 (72 percent) could think of no changes they want- 11 ed in the program. The most frequent suggestion was that OASI requirements should be lowered so more persons could qualify. Forty-one opera- tors made this suggestion. In almost every case, the respondents had in mind a widowed aunt or a close relative or neighbor. A number of per- sons, because of insufficient income from farming operations or because the deceased had not quali- fied for OASI coverage, are not qualifying for benefit payments. The farm operators who sug- gested lowering OASI- requirements had in mind a program closely related to the Old Age Assist- ance program as it operates in Texas. Several suggested going even further and not having any age restrictions for receiving benefits for those persons who are crippled, sick or otherwise in- capacitated. Eleven farm operators suggested that an em- ployer be required to contribute both his and his workers’ share of the payment to the OASI pro- gram. Those who made this suggestion, how- ever, were working in nonfarm jobs in addition to their farming operations. It was also noted that none of these persons was making OASI pay- ments for farm workers. Although at the time the field work was be- ing done for this study Congress was considering lowering the age limit at which female survivors could be eligible for OASI payments, only 9 per- sons suggested the age limit be lowered. ‘Six per- sons thought an improvement in the program would be the passage of a provision making it op- tional for a person to participate in the OASI program. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study is one of a series on problems of farmers in connection with the Old Age and Sur- vivors Insurance Program made by the Farm Population and Rural Life Branch, Agricultural Marketing Service, U. S. Department of Agricul- l2 ture, in cooperation with state land-grant colleges. The study was made under the direction of R. L.- Skrabanek of the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station and Louis J. Ducoff of the Agricultural Marketing Service. Acknowledgment is made to Margaret Jar? man Hagood and Sheridan Maitland, respectively; chief and acting head, Farmg-Manpower Sectio' Farm Population and Rural *Life Branch, AMS‘. USDA, for technical advice in planning the study: Roy L. Roberts of the Social Security Administr w! tion provided helpful assistance in reviewing th, manuscript for technical accuracy. Field enumer‘ ators, besides the first two authors, were Jam“ Boone, Melvin Brooks and Robert S. Feragen, Te as Agricultural Experiment Station, and To Lorimer, AMS, USDA. Special credit is due '; L. Smith, Jr., statistical supervisor, Texas Agri cultural Experiment Station, and June Robso Dorena B. Adams, Doris Melson and Sarita Mar land. I REFERENCES 1. Adkins, W. G., and J. R. Motheral, 1954. The Fa ~- Looks at His Economic Security. Tex. Agr. Exp. S Bulletin 774. , 2. Baill, I. M., 1955. The Farmer and Old-Age Securi ' AMS, USDA Agr. Info. Bull. 151. » 3. Coughenour, C. M., and J. R. Christiansen, 1956. Ke, tucky Farmers and Social Security. Ky. Agr. Exp. S Progress Report 44. ‘ 4. Galloway, R. E., 1955. Farmers’ Plans for Econo' Security in Old Age. Ky. Agr. Exp. Sta., Bulletin 5. McKain, W. C., and E. D. Baldwin, 1953. Old Age 1 ‘ Retirement in Rural Connecticut. Conn. Agr. E ~ Sta., Bulletin 299. i 6. Ploch, L. A., and L. J. Ducoff, 1957. Old Age and vivors Insurance Program. Maine Agr. Exp. S Mimeo. Report 69. 7. Sewell, W. H., C. E. Ramsey, and L. J. Ducoff, 19 Farmers Conceptions and Plans for Economic Sec ‘3 in Old Age. Wise. Agr. Exp. Sta., Bulletin 183.