HIID ‘HIE ‘IEJGIS FHBTIEB \l SUBJHL SEBUBII ‘I BULLETIN 928 APRIL ‘I959 9 F ‘L 9 Ll L’ TEXAS AGRECULTURAL EXPEREMLENT §TAT§UN CQLLEGE $TATZ€1BN, TEIXA?» ,,,¢*“’“' R.D.L..1E-WiS, EIHREICZTOR, v ‘ iN QQQPEQAQEYQN Wiwffi THE iujs $9 QEIFALQT§I§EINY Q? XQQREQULYUWE SUMMARY An amendment t0 the Social Security Act in the summer of 1954 provided Old Age and Sur- vivors Insurance coverage for self-employed farmers. This report presents the results of in- terviews conducted in Wharton and Cherokee counties during the summer of 1956, approxi- mately a year and a half after this phase of the program went into effect. About half of the farmers in the sample did not know enough about the OASI program to make wise decisions regarding their possible al- ternatives in the program. Operators who knew t'he least about the program were usually older persons, had little formal education, operated smaller farms, were tenants and had a low net worth figure. Operators relied upon publications (partic- ularly newspapers and magazines) and friends and other people for most of their OASI infor- mation. However, Social Security representa- tives and county agents were the most effective sources used. Local income tax consultants oc- cupied a key role insofar as the relative success of the OASI program for farmers is concerned. About 2 out of 5 operators followed the advice of local income tax personnel in income tax and so- cial security tax matters. Approximately 7 out of 10 farm oper- ators were either paying a Social Security tax or receiving benefit payments, with 15 percent not having enough income to qualify. Twelve oper- ators were receiving monthly OASI benefit - ments. ’ Eighty percent of the‘ farm operators tween 50 and 64 years of age expected to tinue living on a farm after they reached 65, the same proportion expected to continue f p ing after they reached this age. Only one f er at this age level had made a change in= farming operations in order to either qualif-A the OASI program or to increase his benefit M‘ ments. However, 11 operators between 50 , 64 years of age planned to carry out far changes in order to qualify more fully for O benefits. a Eighty-eight percent of the farm opera 65 years of age or older planned to continue ing on their farms, but only 13 percent pla to retire from farming altogether. Only five erators who planned changes in their farming erations said they would do so in order to qu for OASI benefits. Only 24 (31 percent) of: 77 operators who were 65 years of age and o stated that they expected to receive OASI » I fits at any time in future years. ’ Approximately 9 out of 10 operators proved of the OASI program in general, " only 3 out of the 500 interviwed stating that '~ were definitely opposed to the program. T operators who approved of OASI more others were younger, operated smaller =2 had a lower net worth and had nonfarm jot addition t'o carrying on their farming operat C O N T E N T S Summary .................................................................................... .. 2 Operators’ OASI Coverage ______________________________________________ __ 5 Introduction ................................................................................. --3 Operators’ Retirement Plans and OASI ................ ,_ ' Purpose of Study ............................................................... _.3 Operators 50 to 64 Years of Age ___________________ ,_ Scope and Method of Study ........................................... .. 4 Monetary Needs for Retirement.....,_.._.. Characteristics of Operators ......................................... -. 4 Prospects for Financing Retirement Race and Nationality .............................................. .- 4 Expected Income from OASI ____________ ._ Age .............................................................................. .. 5 Residence Plans ................................ .. . _______ __ Education ................................................................... .. 5 Plans for Farming Operations ............... __ Net Worth ................................................................. .. 5 Operators 65 Years of Age or Older _____________ _, Adequacy of Present Finances ________________ __ _ 0perfifflfi]e§2§§lf‘§§,°ec‘§‘§§“1§o2f§§fjg1111111111111111111111111 Z %o1;rce "\ . v _...._..... The sloping and hilly land 1n much of Chero- kee county restricts the types oi crops that can be produced. 6 Figure 7. not have a Social Security number, he was as - whether he had heard about the Social Secu ' Old Age and Survivors InsuranceProgram. he had, he was then questioned about its be, fits. One important point in this connection‘; that if the operator said he had not heard j’ OASI or that he did not know specifically ti’: thing about its benefits, the interviewers were a structed not to ask a series. 17 questions whi were designed to test his knowledge about t program. It was hoped that this procedure W0 minimize the operator’s guessing answers questions about which he had, in fact, no knowledge. In some cases after the knowlg questions had already been skipped, answers questions in the latter part of the interview ma it apparent that he knew more about the p. gram than he had indicated previously. It therefore, important to qualify the following 'i formation by stating that although 1.31 of the A spondents (or 26 percent of the entire group ' terviewed) were not asked the 17 knowledge tions, among this number were some persons W may have been better informed than indicated L. their interviews. Nevertheless, since in the judgment of the terviewers, 131 respondents did not know enou about OASI to be asked the series of knowld‘ questions, this indicates that dissemination of '_ formation by OASI had not been effective amo a considerable segment of the farm operators the two study counties. It should be remembe that the OASI program as applied to farmers rather complex and that it had been in operatif only a relatively short time when the field stu was made. In light of these circumstances, ’ amount of information that farm operators about OASI seems relatively large. In both c0 ties Negroes and operators of Mexican desc were particularly prominent among those prof B, ing not to know anything about OASI. Anoth important characteristic of the group which w, not asked the knowledge questions was the < tremely high proportion who were in the ol age groups, particularly 60 years and over. ' Knowledge of Specific Points Table 5 shows the percentage of farm ope s. tors who gave the correct answers to each of t? 17 knowledge questions. The percentages =f based on all farm operators and include farm A who were not asked the knowledge questions @ cause of an apparent lack of knowledge as i; tected by the interviewer. The questions in Ta 5 are listed in the same sequence in which th were asked. Farmers were better informed about s0 features than about others. Approximately 7 h of 10 of the 500 interviewed knew that farm ‘f erators were definitely included in the OASI i7 gram (Question 1). The proportion of farm erators in each study county answering this q f tion correctly was about the same. Neverthel in both counties the number who knew that fa i ere eligible to qualify for Social Security ‘age varied greatly Within different groups. of the most striking differences was between or nationality groups. Only 28 percent of _ egro farm operators-and 28 percent of the ‘can group knew that farmers were included he program, as contrasted to 84 percent of the , and other white operators. Over 90 per- of the operators who estimated their net (h to be $10,000 or more knew that farmers included in the program, but only 36 per- with a net worth of less than $1,000 were of it. Larger proportions of younger oper- I (87 percent of those under 35 years of age) older farmers (65 percent for those 65 years and over) knew that an amendment to the Security Act affected farmers. Owner-op- pors were more aware of their new OASI status f» were tenants. pproximately the same proportions knew _ 65 was the age at which persons could begin ing OASI retirement payments (Question One of the important deficiencies in knowl- about OASI was the number of operators y did not know that they were required by to pay a Social Security tax if they met cer- i minimum income requirements (Question 2). 46 percent of all the operators knew that icipation in the program was mandatory; 12 ent stated that participation was voluntary. i, remaining 42 percent either gave “don’t w” as their answer or were not asked the tion. Farmers in the two counties varied tly in the degree to which they knew the er to this question. Only 36 percent of the . Qrokee farmers knew that Social Security tax ents were mandatory as compared with 57 ent in Wharton county. w}. - :- .-.-.- ~ The question about which farm operators had ’ least knowledge concerned the inclusion of l income for Social Security purposes (Ques- 14). At that time, only 20 percent answered fquestion correctly? geplies to other questions indicated that farm flators generally did not make a sharp dis- ion between other Social Security measures as old age assistance and OASI. For ex- .3 only about a fourth knew that OASI did provide unemployment benefits (Question 8). i, only about a third knew that this program p}. not provide for medical or hospital costs in _ of an accident to the insured (Question 9). General Knowledge Inorder to classify farm operators according g5their knowledge-mfg, OASI, respondents were 1 ed according toy-the answers they gave to the “nges in the Social Security laws since the field study Q completed now permit the farm operator to count tal income as a part of his income on which his So- Security tax is based, providing he participates ma- “ally in the production or management of the produc- 0* on the farm. TABLE l. PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF FARM OPER- ATORS. BY RACE OR NATIONALITY Race or Wharton Cherokee Tot l nationality county county a (N=250)‘ (N=250)‘ (N=500)‘ ————Percent————— Czech 27.6 0.0 _ 13.8 Mexican 7.2 0.0 3.6 Other Whites _ 46.4 78.4 62.4 Negro 18.8 21.6 ~ 20.2 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 ‘N = Number of farm operators in each group. 17 knowledge questions. They were placed in cat- egories of knowledge relating to the program. These were “well informed,” “fairly well in- formed,” “some knowledge” and “little or no knowledge.” To be classed in the “well informed” group, the respondent had to answer 14 of the 17 questions correctly. Those who answered 11 to 13 questions correctly were considered “fairly well informed.” An additional requirement had to be met before the farm operator could be placed in either of the two top categories, regard- less of the total number of correct responses. He had to know (1) that farm operators were eligible for OASI coverage and (2) that they must make a report of their earnings once a year for Social Security purposes. Farm operators answering 8 to 10 questions correctly were considered to have “some knowl- edge” while those who knew the answers to less than 8 and those who were not asked the knowl- edge questions were placed in the group with “lit- tle or no knowledge” of the program. If a farm operator fell into either of the two top categor- ies, he was considered to be well enough informed about the program to make intelligent deci- sion concerning it. Those who fell into either the third or fourth categories were considered to pos- sess knowledge far short of that required for them to be able to cope intelligently with prob- lems regarding the program. Forty-five percent of the operators inter- viewed knew enough about OASI to be classed as well or fairly well informed, Table 6. A slightly higher percentage of farmers in Wharton county knew more about the program than the farmers in Cherokee county. Thirty six percent of the op- TABLE 2. PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF FARM OPER- ATORS. BY AGE W C ..‘:::::;“ 32.13%? W (N=250)‘ (N=250)‘ (N=500)‘ —————Percent————— Under 35 13.2 2.4 7.8 35 to 44 26.4 17.2 21.8 45 to 54 27.2 25.6 26.4 55 to 64 22.4 34.8 28.6 65 and over 10.8 20.0 15.4 Total ' 100.0 100.0 100.0 ‘N = Number of farm operators in each group. TABLE 3. PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF FARM OPER- ATORS, BY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT Education » (Number oi school vggsrrltton Cgfiglfee Total years completed) Y Y (N=250)1 (N=250)‘ (N=500)‘ —————Percent————— Less than 6 34.8 34.4 34.6 6 to 7 26.0 18.8 22.4 8 10.4 16.0 13.2 9 to 12 24.8 23.2 24.0 13 and over 4.0 7.6 5.8 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 ‘N = Number oi iarm operators in each group. erators in each of the two counties had little or no knowledge about OASI. Since more than half of the farm operators interviewed were classed as having some knowledge or little or no knowl- edge of the program, two general conclusions can be drawn concerning the education of the farmer in the OASI program: (1) A substantial propor- tion of farm operators had failed to inform them- selves adequately in order to participate in the OASI program to the best advantage, and (2) The usual media of communications through which OASI information was being disseminated were not highly successful in educating farm op- erators concerning OASI regulations and bene- fits. Farm operators possessed a fair amount of information, considering the relatively short time the program had been in effect. Knowledge in Relation to Characteristics oi Operators It is important to describe some characteris- tics of those operators who knew the least about OASI. Age There was a direct relationship in both coun- ties between age and extent of knowledge of the OASI program, Table 7. The older farmers were the least informed and the younger the best in- formed. Approximately two-thirds of the opera- tors less than 35 years of age were either well or TABLE 4. PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF FARM OPER- ATORS, BY NET WORTH Net worth "$335113; Cffljflfje Total (N=250)‘ (N=250)‘ (N=500)‘ -——----Percent—————— Under $1,000 17.6 20.0 18.8 $1,000 to $4,999 22.0 23.6 22.8 $5,000 to $9.999 10.8 22.4 16.6 $10,000 to $19,999 13.6 18.0 15.8 $20,000 to $29,999 10.8 6.4 8.6 $30,000 to $49,999 12.4 5.6 9.0 $50,000 and over 11.6 2.8 7.2 Not reported 1-2 1 Z 1-2 Total 100.0 100 0 100.0 ‘N : Number oi iarm operators in each group. 8 fairly well informed, and almost the same’ portion of operators 65 or older were poorl- formed. The many factors involved make it ficult to ascertain exactly why the farm ope who was nearest the age of retirement poss the least knowledge about the OASI pro Differences in educational levels and the e to which certain communications media were ‘ by the younger and older ‘people explain, at l in part, why these knowledge differences e < Education The percentage of farm operators who , better informed about OASI becomes increas‘, higher as their educational levels increase, _ 8. Only about a fourth of all farm operators, had less than 6 years of formal schooling ‘. adequately informed about the OASI pro About 2 out of 5 operators who had comple _ years of schooling were adequately informe, compared with 72 percent for those who had pleted 9 or more years of formal education. i versely, approximately 75 percent of the of tors who had not completed as much as 6 ye school had inadequate knowledge about O while only 27 percent of those who had more years of schooling possessed inade knowledge. This evidence points out that; level of education appears to be directly re to the level of OASI information possess farm operators. i i Net Worth Farm operator’s knowledge of OASI is re directly to net worth, Table 9. Among ope ‘ who reported a net worth of less than $1,000, 1 out of 10 possessed adequate knowledge i the program. In comparison, 3 out of 4 fa with a net worth of $50,000 or more were, quately informed about the program. A sharp dividing line may be drawn bas adequacy of knowledge about OASI at the $1 net worth level. Operators who were eithe t or fairly well informed did not exceed 40 of the total in any of the net worth categori low the $10,000 level. Farmers who were well or fairly well informed about OASI ~ not less than 68 percent of the total in a worth categories above the $10,000 level. From the evidence presented concerni relationship between net worth and knowlé the OASI program, it may be concluded th erators who are in the best position to :_ greater economic security, even if OASI we in effect, also knew the most about the pro Race and Nationality Racial or nationality derivation of farm, ators also is related to the amount of kno of OASI that they possess, Table 10. About of 10 of both Negro and Mexican farm 0'. were in the poorly informed or least inf categories, compared with 4 out of 10 Cze‘ other white farm operators in these catego, Evidence presented in this section indicates _ the farm operators’ performances in replying ;the knowledge questions about OASI are re- w to age, education, net worth and race. It nevertheless, difficult to assign a causal re- ' ‘onship to each individual factor discussed i e they are closely interrelated. For example, ._1 0 farmers and those of Mexican origins also smaller farming operations on the average, i aller net worth and the least amount of for- a education. Other important social factors l explored in this study may account for some the differences noted. a OPERATORS’ SOURCES OF INFORMATION ABOUT OASI One of the basic problems facing administra- s and officials of programs such as OASI is f channeling of information to those persons om it affects. There are about 5,000,000 farm- in the United States and some 300,000 in Tex- p‘ who need to know, in the case of OASI, that fy are eligible for Social Security coverage un- l‘ certain circumstances. Beyond the elemen- information, farm operators also need to " additional knowledge about other relatively iplex phases of the program in order to take est advantage of it. 1' Since this relatively complex program was paratively new when the field study was con- ted, an inquiry into where and how farmers a their information, to what extent they used erent channels and the extent to which these 'ous channels of information are effective j ld be helpful to OASI officials and to others , are responsible for various types of agricul- l information programs. ;In order to ascertain what channels of com- f ication were used. most frequently by farm- fin connection with the OASI program, the re- j dents were asked: “Where have you gotten it of your information about Social Security ilfarmers ?” This question was asked only of j; who knew that OASI applied to them. In- iewers placed a number by each source of in- j ation named by the respondents. If the re- 5| dent named more than one source, a “1” was i’ ed by the source of most information, a “2” l used for the second source of most informa- etc. Farm operators in the sample named ifferent sources. Although it was possible i: farmer to name all 14, only the top three es listed by any respondent were considered fpurposes of analysis. n both counties, publications were most often a-tioned in the three most important sources of rmation listed. Elncluded in this overall term '1 newspapers, magazines and pamphlets. In W2 percent of those who were asked this ques- "1 mentioned publications as one of the three sources. People, which included friends and ily members, was mentioned second most fre- I tly in the three top sources of information, ‘wed by radio and television. TABLE 5. PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF FARM OPER- ATORS, BY CORRECT ANSWERS GIVEN TO EACH OF 17 OASI KNOWLEDGE QUESTIONS‘ Wharton Cherokee Total county county Knowledge questions‘ (N=250)‘ (N=250)“ (N=500)‘ — — — Percent — — — 1. Farmers included in OASI? 68.8 72.0 70.4 2. OASI payments voluntary or required? 56.8 35.6 46.2 3. Do survivors get benefit payments? 58.0 66.4 62.2 4. Must wife have Social Securi- ty card to get payments from husband's insurance? 40.8 40.8 40.8 5. Who administers OASI , program? 52.8 60.0 56.4 6. Are cash-wage workers included? 63.6 61.6 62.6 7. Who pays Social Secur- ity tax for workers? 60.0 53.6 56.8 8. Does OASI pay unemploy- ment benefits? 28.4 25.2 26.8 9. Does OASI pay medical benefits? 36.4 34.4 35.4 10. At what age retirement benefits received? ‘ 64.8 70.8 67.8 l1. Do farmers 65 years of age or older get money im- mediately from OASI? 47.2 64.4 55.8 12. Can farmer receiving OASI payments work? 51.6 62.4 57.0 13. Everyone receives same amount? 56.8 68.4 62.6 14. Farm rentals count toward Social Security? 22.4 17.6 20.0 15. Frequency of farmer reporting earnings? 61.2 52.8 57.0 16. Son under 21 eligible for Social Security? 43.6 33.2 38.4 17. To whose income does 4-H Club proiect profits apply? 37.6 33.6 35.6 ‘Percentages include all farm operators interviewed, that is, even those who were not asked the knowledge questions because of apparent lack of knowledge. Thus the highest percentage possible is 74. ‘See Appendix for complete questions as asked in the inter- views. ‘N = Number of farm operators in each group. Closely linked with any consideration of the extent to which certain sources of OASI informa- tion were used is the question of the desires of people to seek out the information and to find out more about the program. Since it may be as- sumed that people normally prefer to get their in- formation from an “official” source, the respond- PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF FARM OPER- ATORS. BY GENERAL KNOWLEDGE OF OASI TABLE 6. Knowledge of Wharton Cherokee OASI county county Total (N=250)‘ (N=250)‘ (N=500)‘ ——————Percent————— Well informed 18.8 17.2 18.0 Fairly well informed 29.2 25.6 27.4 Some knowledge 16.0 21.2 18.6 Little or no knowledge 36.0 36.0 36.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 ‘N = Number of farm operators in each group. _ . ._ .1. r:lxvnnm.i.!vv\.mnf.m..mi5.ro. a.aa: 06. : :.u: 6H0 0.5a a.aa: u.0: m6: 5.2 0.8 a.aa: S: 0.0 ., n60 :60 5030.. . a.aa: Q8 $5 66a 66: a.aa: Qua 5.55 5.5 mu: a.aa: a6a 06a 5.3 06: a a.aa: 2a E5 E5 55.0: a.aa: a6u Q8 06a 6.0: a.aa: 5.3 6.0a 5.8 a.a: 5. 05 a a.aa: 66m a6: 3.5 E a.aa: 666 a6: 0S: a6 a.aa: 66m a.a: 06: a.a. a 505:5 000.: | | I I | I ||M.l||.||.|.|.|||.||||||||.l|||||5550u50fi|||||Illlllllnllllullllllulll.I'll -05..>mn:505m 0000 005525: 0 5 -0>%.:555m 0m00 0055055: 0550 5 -0>w.:555.w 0000 0055055: 0550 55 :050.:. Y5 m: -:305: ::03 005% :5. :050.:. .:55 5m: A305: ::03 0 0 :5. :050.:. :05 5m: -:305: ::03 0 0 5 . 0050:5500 5 050 h 550 :: >> 050m 35:0: :: >> 050m 35:0: :: >> 05005: :005:0m 052.5 m 5 . .5 .2555 @5555 . 5.. a523,: 525N755 555N555 5.05MB 5250050": :050.:. 35500 00:0505:U 35500 5055055 505:0 .:O MUQMARIOZM QZ< ZO:.:.:~UDQ:: >5 505555.50 :>::::~...: .:O 2055555555050 MUQHZMOMM: 6 5.5555. .5595 5:000 5: 0505050550 550: :0 503557: H Z5 a.aa: >60 w: :.uu a6: a.aa: a.00 a6: a.uu a6: a.aa: Q5 0.: u.uu m6: 5030 050 m6 a.aa: a.:0 a.au E5 :6: a.aa: u.a0 :.0u :.0a 6.:: a.aa: E00 a.0: 0.: u.au 06 o5 mm a.aa:. 5.8 66a 6.6a 0.0: a.aa: 0.3 06a :6u 5.: a.aa: a.:0 5.: 06a a.:: 0m 05 m0 a.aa: 5.55 0.»: u.:a 66a a.aa: 5.8 a.0: $5 $5 a.aa: 66a 5.2 . 5.8 u.:u 00 05 ma a.aa: 06: w: 660 :.aa a.aa: a.a 06a 5.8 n66 a.aa.: a6: a6: 060 u.:u ma 5005:: | I I I I I I I ILIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII:.:5mu.5wnmlll.|..|.|.llll.||llllllllllllllllllll 0000 m 0000 m 0m00 -:305: 0 00 0055055: 00550555 -:305: 0 00 005505: 0055055 -:305: 0.000 005505: 0055255 :050.:. o5 50 5305: =03 =0>> . :05o.:. 05 50 -:305: ::03 =0>> . :050.:. 05 50 -:305: ::03 =0>> . 0:55:.: 050m 35:0 .: 0:55:.: 050m 35:0 .: 0:55:.: 050m 35:0: 0 m4 558MB 585N555 535MB :05o.:. 35500 00:050:U 35500 505505.55 l0 5.55:0 ...:O MUQMAR/OZM Q24 ":00: >0 6550555550 EMF: .:O 2055555555055 5055525055.: .5 5.555555. 6.00.0 ..000 ... 0.20.0.0 .0 3.5.... " ... u .32 ..8. . .3. .3 .... .32 ...; .3. ... .3 .32 ..8 .3 .... ... 800.. 8.88. 8.3 Q3 Q88 Q3 8.88. 8.3 Q3 ...8 8.3 8.88. Q... Q8. 8.3 8.3 0....3 .0...O 8.88. Q88 8.8 Q.. 8.8 8.88. Q88 8.8 Q.. 8.8 0000.0... 8.88. 8.3 Q3 8...... Q3 8.88. 8.3 Q3 Q3- Q3 200.0 I | | | |||.||||||.||.|||||l|||||||||||....00.0..|||l||||.l||||||||I||II..II.|I|.I| . 0 0 0 -03........ 0000 005.2... 05.0 . -03......w 0000 005.2... 05.0 . 9...... 0000 005.2... 05.0 ... 0 0 . .. . 30.. 03 0 .... 0 0 . .. - 30.. 03 0 m... 0 0 . .. - 30 03 0 . . . . ... 9. 8 . .. .. .... 3 . . ... 2. 3 . .. .. .... 3 . . ... 2. .... . 5. .. .... 3 0...... 050m 3...0.. 0...... 050m 3...0.. 0...... 050m 3...0... 3.....~w...m...0.....% .888"... . .83"... .83"... .0.0_... 3.5.00 00.0.0.0 3.5.00 ..0..0...>> .835 ....O MUQNA>>OZM ...... QZDOMUMU... 3......¢ZO.....~Z MO MUQM 3.. .m..o.......m..o 2...... ..O 20.35.3338. uwm...zuomm.. .8. HA3... .....0.0 3.000 ... 0.0.0.0»? .0 .0..5..Z " Z. 8.88. Q88 Q8. 8.8 Q3 8.88. Q88 Q88 8.8 Q88 Q3. Q88 8.8 8.8 Q88 00.300. .0.. 8.88. Q3 Q3 Q... Q88 8.88. 8.8 Q3 .38 8.3 8.88. Q8 Q3 8.3 8.3 .030 0.... , 333...... 8.88. Q3 Q8 QQ. Q88 8.88. Q3 Q... 8.3.. 8.3 8.88. Q3 Q8 8.88 8.88 888.83 0. 38.888 _ 8.88. 8... 8.8. Q... 8.3 8.88. 8.8 Q8. Q.8 Q88 8.88. .... Q.. Q.8 8.3 888.38 0. 83.38 8.88. Q8.. 8.8. 8.8.. Q3 8.88. Q8. Q... Q3 8.3 8.88. 8.... Q... Q... 8.3 8888.8 0. 83.8.8 8.88. Q3 Q3 Q3 8.8. 8.88. 8.3 Q3 Q3 Q8. 8.88. 8.3 8.3 Q3 .... 888.88 0. 83.88 8.88. . Q... ...~ Q3 8.. 8.88. Q8.. Q3 Q3 8.8 8.88. ..8. 8.3 Q3 ..8 888...» 0. 83.8 .32 3. ...... .3 ... .32 .3. .3. .3 .3 .32 .3. ..... ...: ...... 3......» .00.... | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ||l2.00.0.llnll|||..||l||.|||||.||.|.l|||l|11..1| 0000 0000 0000 - 30.. 0000 005.2... 0 .0 . - 30.. 0000 005.2... 05.0 ... - 30.. 0000 005.2... 05.0 ... .0.o... F. .... .30.... ..03 0 ....w>>.... .0.0... .00 k... .30.... ..03 0 ..0>>. . .0.o... w... .0.. .30.... ..03 0 ..0>>. . 0...... 050m 3...0.. 0...... 050m 3...0.. 0...... 050m 30.0.. .....o3 .0... .888"... .83"... .33"... .0.0... 3.5.00 0020.020 3.5500 5030...... . .. . . . i§l¢.u..1..§ée£b..x3§0551...... 3.4.2.03. 534331.53... -..}. .3. -..... .11. .31.... 9 ents were asked if they knew whether a Social Security representative visited their county reg- ularly. Only 1 out of 3 operators in both coun- ties knew that a Social Security representative made a regular visit in their respective counties. When asked this question, 53 percent stated that a Social Security representative did not come to their county, with the remainder indicating that they did not know whether one did. Only 18 per- cent of the Cherokee county farmers listed the Social Security office as one of the three top sources of OASI information, as contrasted with 31 percent in Wharton county. Main Source Farm operators who knew that they could qualify for Social Security coverage under certain conditions were asked to single out the one source from which they received most of their OASI in- formation. Publications led the list, with 43 per- cent naming this as their number one source, Table 11. Among those sources included in this overall term, newspapers led the list, pamphlets were second and magazines third in order of im- portance. Publications were the most important sources of OASI information in both counties. Friends and other people was listed by 14 per- cent of the operators as their number one source of OASI information, but the degree to which they felt their friends and other persons were their chief source varied considerably between the two counties. In Cherokee, 20 percent listed friends and other people as their main source, but only 8 percent of the Wharton county farmers did likewise. Another difference between the two counties was the extent to which the Social Se- curity office was named as the chief source of in- formation. In Wharton county, 18 percent listed it as their number one source of information as contrasted to only 7 percent in Cherokee county. Since publications and friends and other peo- ple were listed as the most important sources of OASI information by almost 3 out of 5 persons who knew that farmers were included in the TABLE 11. PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF FARM OPER- ATORS, BY MAIN SOURCE OF OASI INFORMATION Main source vggggttgn Cgfigltte Total (N=172)‘ (N=180)‘ (N=352)‘ -—————Percent-————— Publications 40.1 45.0 42.7 Friends and other people 7.6 20.6 14.2 Social Security office 18.0 7.2 12.5 Radio-TV 8.1 8.9 8.5 Employer 7.0 8.3 7.7 County agent 3.5 2.8 3.1 Other 15.1 5.6 10.2 None 0.6 1.6 1.1 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 ‘N = Number of farm operators who knew that farmers were now covered by Social Security in each group. ' 12 OASI program, it may be possible that herein? a weakness of the system of communicating important information to farmers. Publica ‘ do not afford person-to-person contacts and’ cussions. Also friends and acquaintances o do not constitute a very reliable source of i mation when compared with such sources as employer, the Social Security representative _ the county agent. This might be a partial e f nation for the lack of accurate information a ' the farmers about OASI which was illustr in a previous section. Different groups of farmers used the va v sources of information in varying degrees, b all instances publications were the most im tant single source. The extent to which used certain sources is closely linked to o. factors. Czechs and other whites relied heavily on published material than did Negro‘ Mexican operators. Czech operators also r heavily on the Social Security office as a so of information, with 24 percent listing thi their main source. Negro and Mexican opera depended on friends and other people, and, groes depended on radio and television more _ did Czechs and other whites. ‘ The older farm operators relied more he“ on the Social Security office for information f to a lesser extent on publications than did yo *- er farm operators. I ~ Farm operators with a net worth of $20 or more apparently made little use of emplo _ the county agent or the Social Security offi Q a source of OASI information. Television ’ radio were more than twice as popular as a so -_ of information among tenants than among o] operators. Tenants also depended less on -. Social Security office and the county agent .9‘ important source of OASI information. The Income Tax Consultant Soon after the field study was begun, it; came apparent that local persons who prep income tax forms for farmers were an impo i source of OASI information. The inform obtained concerning the role of the local in tax person was gathered through questions h than the one which specifically asked, “Wha you consider to be your most important sour OASI information?” " 4 A frequent reply to the question, “Wh you get a Social Security card ?”, was: “B the fellow fixing out my income tax told ought to have one.” Another question design find out how they became aware of their =1 bility for OASI coverage often brought th sponse: “My income tax man told me I u have to pay it.” Further, when operators f asked if they had any difficulty in determ the amount of Social ‘Security tax to be stock answer was: “No, I don’t have to about it, so I don’t even try to understand it. fellow who works out my income tax for me Ill 0f the fixing and figuring, and he ought to iknow those things since I pay him for it.” A review of answers to these and other sim- ar questions revealed that 36 percent of all farm operators interviewed mentioned the “income tax” man in some way. Included in this propor- tion are the small operators who may not have to pay any income tax but merely wish to be on the safe side in conforming to income tax laws. In the process of making out the income tax s»; form for the farm operator, if the local person thinks that the Social Security tax should be paid, he calls this to the farm operator’s atten- tion. This places the local income tax person in a strategic position insofar as any OASI informa- tion program directed at farmers is concerned. a A majority of the persons who take care of in- Y come tax forms for the farmers in the two counties are not certified public accountants. g They are mainly local individuals in whose judg- ment the farmers place a great deal of confi- dence. Consequently, they are an important in- fluence upon farmers’ attitudes, participation and gacceptance of the OASI program. a Discussions with operators regarding their OASI problems revealed that some of these “in- §c0me tax” people did not appear to be too well informed on some of the finer points of law con- , itained in OASI regulations. If people who per- form these services locally are not well informed land competent in OASI matters, a number of § armers may unknowingly fail to conform to pro- {visions of the law. Some might be qualified for ASI coverage but not actually have that cover- ige under the program because of insufficient -" nowledge by these income tax people. There ._ ere indications that some who prepare income _ x forms for farmers may have had a negative ttitude toward the program and may even per- form an injustice to the farmer. For example, _ ne farmer in the process of an interview said of a is income tax man: “He’s a good man. He even , ixed it up so I didn’t have to pay on Social Se- urity.” This may not actually have been the qse since the income tax man may have been g1 erely leading the farmer to believe that he . fixed” it. It does, nevertheless, show an unde- irable attitude of a person who provides im- rtant information and services to farmers. r: 3,, y, Since persons who prepare income tax and cial Security statements play such an important ‘t 1g, officials of the OASI program could perform fir‘ additional greater service to farmers by help- I g this group understand the OASI program y ore fully. , Since persons who prepare income taX and ocial Security taifii statements for farmers ap- to be key figures or sources of OASI infor- ation, the question might be asked: “What farmers are most likely to use the services of an come tax man?” First, it should be noted that (rm operators in Wharton county used this type servicemore than Cherokee county operators id. A composite picture of operators who men- tioned an income tax consultant in connection with answers given to Social Security questions shows that they possess the following characteris- tics: (1) they are more likely to be younger op- erators, (2) they possess more than the average knowledge of the OASI program found among op- erators in the two counties, (3) they are the lar- ger farm operators, (4) their net worth is great- er, (5) they are more likely to be owners of the land that they operate, and (6) they have more formal education. Effectiveness of Different Sources The channels of communication through which farmers in the survey group receive their infor- mation on the OASI program vary in their effec- tiveness. One way of evaluating the effectiveness of various sources of information is to relate the amount of knowledge of the program to the source of information. Using this criterion, the Social Security office and the county agent were the most effective sources of information used by farm operators in the two study counties. Over 80 percent of the farm operators who named either of these two as a major source of informa- tion were well enough informed to make wise de- cisions about their individual OASI problems. Another source of information which appeared to be effective was publications, since 67 percent of those naming this as a primary source of OASI information were adequately informed on the pro- gram. A breakdown of the publications shows that operators who depended upon pamphlets were better informed generally than those who depended upon newspapers. Magazines were re- ported less often as sources of OASI information than pamphlets or newspapers. Only about a half of the operators who stated that they relied on radio and television programs for most of their OASI information were ade- quately informed. Friends and acquaintances were one of the least effective sources used by farm operators. More than 3 out of 5 farm op- erators who listed their friends and other people as their most important source of OASI informa- tion were poorly informed on the program. OPERATORS’ OASI COVERAGE About 70 percent of all farm operators inter- viewed stated that they “thought” that they were eligible for OASI coverage. However, a check of replies given to other questions indicated that 71 percent actually had qualified and either were paying a Social Security tax or receiving benefit payments. By reviewing income data furnished by the respondents, it was estimated that an ad- ditional 14 percent of all farm operators were qualified by virtue of having the minimum in- come necessary for coverage but had failed to pay the tax. The failure of some operators to pay the tax may have been due to their exercis- ing their legal option or due to their ignorance 13 of their eligibility to qualify. Approximately 15 percent of the operators interviewed had not re- ceived the minimum income required to qualify for Social Security coverage. That is, they neither netted as much as $400 nor grossed $800 during the 1955 calendar year. Approximately 3 out of 4 farm operators who had qualified for OASI coverage and were mak- ing Social Security tax payments stated that they were eligible through the income they earned from their farming operations. Since few worked on farms for wages, approximately one out of four farm operators gave earnings from non- farm employment as the source of their eligibil- ity. The farm operator who neither paid a Social Security tax nor is receiving OASI benefit pay- ments is most likely to be an older person (par- ticularly 65 years of age and older), have little formal education, to be the operator of a small farm, to be a tenant (particularly cropper) and his net worth is not likely to be very high. The conclusion may be drawn from this description that those farm operators who in the long run are the least likely to be able to provide for their economic security in old age have likewise been the least able to qualify for OASI coverage. At the time of the field study, 12 operators 65 years of age or older were receiving monthly OASI benefit payments. Of this number, 9 were farming in Cherokee county and 3 in Wharton county. None of the 12 operators received their payments as a return from earnings made in farming, since the program for farmers had not been in effect long enough for them to qualify for payments through their farming operations. Thus, all 12 received payments as a return from earnings made in nonfarm jobs. According to data furnished by the respondents, the size of the monthly payments ranged from $30 to $58.38. Over 91 percent of those interviewed had a Social Security card, with the proportion being slightly higher in Wharton than in Cherokee county. Older operators and those with less edu- cation were less likely to possess Social Security cards than the younger and better educated op- erators. For example, only 7 out of 10 who were 65 years of age and older had a Social Security card as contrasted with 97 percent of those who had not yet reached their fiftieth birthday. The operators "were asked: “Why didyou get a Social Security card?” This question was asked because it is necessary for a person to have a Social Security card or number in order to par- ticipate in the program. Approximately 2 out of 3 said that they obtained a card either because they had been in some type of employment cov- ered by OASI or felt that they would need one if they sought employment. Approximately 3 out of 10 said that they obtained a card because of their farming operations. Most of the latter group said that they obtained one because the 14 person who prepared their income tax forms tol them they would have to have it. » This field study was conducted soon after th OASI program went into effect for farmers; con” sequently, a high degree of understanding of th program could not be expected. However, it ma be that as farmers in each community are adde to the list of those receivinjg benefit payments others will become more aware of the benefits to be derived from participation in the OASI pro- gram. OPERATORS‘ RETIREMENT PLANS‘ AND OASI r Numerous factors cause farm operators I view retirement possibilities from different an gles. One important considerationis age. Othe = are health conditions and the ability to financ retirement. - One of the objectives of this study was to d g termine the extent to which the OASI progra u. had entered into farm operators’ plans for retire- ment. Two separate age groups were selected fo 1 closer study in this connection. One group was comprised of operators between 50 and 64 year" of age. These are considered to be, for the most part, at an age where they have a greater 111-1 terest in retirement plans and possible Social Se- curity benefits than would operators who had no reached their fiftieth birthday. The second groupj ~ those who are 65 years of age and over, are at 15 _ age which would qualify them to draw Social Se- curity benefits if they participate or had partici pated in the program. , Operators 5U to 64 Years of Age Approximately 40 percent of all farm operaj tors interviewed in this study were 50 to 64 yea ~ of age. Forty five percent of the farmers interi viewed in Cherokee county, as compared with 51 percent in Wharton county, were 50 to 64 yea r of age. Monetary Needs for Retirement Farm operators were asked about how muc money they thought would be required per mont assuming the price level remained about th same, for them (and their wives) to live c0 4' fortably after retirement. Their replies rang from below $40 to more than $160 per mont 1' Table 12. In general, Wharton county operato, felt that they would need more money during t ’ retirement years than did Cherokee county far 4 ers. More than one out of four in Cherok county felt that they could live comfortably less than $60 per month, but only one out of l in Wharton county thought that they could li comfortably on this small amount. About 50 pe; cent of the operators in Wharton county and Q percent of the operators in Cherokee county fe, that they would need at least $120 or more M month. - There is a close relationship between a number p-factors and what operators felt their monetary _ might be in retirement years. For ex- } ple, operators with a higher net worth felt _ ey would need more money than persons with flower net worth; older operators estimated their ancial needs to be considerably lower during ' tirement years than younger farmers; a larger q oportion of Negro operators felt that they could ve comfortably in retirement years on less than .0 than any other racial or nationality group. _zech farm operators also felt that their financial ‘eeds during retirement years would be consider- _bly smaller than did other white operators. ospects for Financing Retirement Needs Farm operators were asked the question: f-‘What is your best guess as to the income you ill receive from all sources after you are 65 ears of age?” Answers to this question indi- ted that these operators felt that there was 'ttle chance that they would receive the retire- i ent income which they felt they would require. nly about 22 percent of the farm operators at ‘his age level apparently would have the amount hey thought they would need, with the propor- "on being slightly lower in Cherokee county. Of A ose who replied to this question, over 12 per- _,nt gave an expected level of income lower than e amount they thought was needed. Almost o-thirds of the operators either did not know low much to expect their monthly income to be ter their sixty-fifth birthday or did not care to culate on it. It is likely that a relatively high ircentage of this latter group will not have " e amount of monthly income they feel neces- f"; to live comfortably. Operators who felt Si. eir monthly cash requirements would be in the igher income brackets, for the most part, ap- rently will be able to meet their retirement eeds much more easily than those who had set latively low financial needs for a comfortable 'ving during retirement. I ected Income From OASI , The 202 farm operators who were between 50 1nd 64 years of age were asked from what sour- es they expected to get their income or financial upport after they became 65. Only 59 (or 29 lrcent) said that they were counting on OASI nefit payments as a source of income after hey reached 65. An additional 18 (or 9 percent) _i(l;*tl1at they were counting on the State’s Old g6 Assistance program as a means of financial j pport. . The conclusion may be drawn from this infor- - f. ation that at the time the study was made farm perators were not fecounting heavily on OASI ‘nefit payments in their old age. This is partly cause so many felt they were not going to re- ‘ . Based on their estimated monetary needs 1nd their estimate of the size of their OASI pay- ents, even those who expected to receive pay- _ ents were not counting on this source to make if: a large share of their total incomes. TABLE 12. PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF FARM OPER- ATORS 50-64 YEARS OF AGE, BY ESTIMATED MONTHLY CASH RETIREMENT NEEDS Monthly cash Wharton Cherokee Total retirement needs county county (N=90)‘ (N:112)‘ (N=202)‘ —————Percent-—————— Under $40 2.2 15.2 9.4 $40 - $59 3.3 11.6 7.9 $60 - $79 21.1 11.6 15.8 $80 - $119 23.4 19.6 21.3 $120 - $159 17.8 14.3 15.8 $160 and over 32.2 27.7 29.8 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 ‘N = Number of operators in each group. Residence Plans Farm operators between 50 and 64 years of age were asked. about their residence plans after they became 65 years of age or older. Approxi- mately 80 percent indicated that they planned to remain on a farm. Only 6 percent said that they would move to another farm, and 74 percent sta- ted that they would remain “on this farm.” Only 4 operators planned to move to a village and 6 to a city. The remainder stated that they did not know what their plans were. As to living arrangements after they became 65 years of age, almost 4 out of 5 operators sta- ted that they neither planned to move in with someone else nor have anyone move in with them. Approximately 10 percent preferred that their children move in with them, and. 5 percent said that they planned to reside with their children. Plans for Farming Operations Approximately 4 out of 5 operators between the ages of 50 and 64 reported that they expect- ed to continue farming after reaching their sixty-fifth birthday. Only 15 percent stated that they did not expect to continue farming and 4 percent did not know. Only a small proportion of those who did not expect to continue farming planned for full retirement, however. Almost all of the operators in this category have non- farm jobs and stated that they planned to con- tinue working at these other jobs after they reached 65. Partial retirement appeared more acceptable or more practicable than full retirement for many farm operators. Of those who planned to con- tinue farming after 65, 62 percent stated that they planned to reduce the size of their opera- tions. Among the 202 operators aged 50 to 64, 3O planned to quit farming entirely and 101 ex- pected to curtail their farming operations. A total of 64 percent of the operators nearing re- tirement age planned some change. Most of those who planned to cut down their farming operations expected to achieve this by reducing their acreage. Only 3 operators planned for full retirement. 15 Of the 202 farm operators in the sample be- tween the ages of 50 and '64, only 1 had made a change in his farming operations in order to qualify either for inclusion in the OASI program or to receive higher OASI payments. However, 11 operators stated that they were planning to make a change in order to qualify more fully for Social Security benefits. Most of these antici- pated changes involved the shifting around of re- sources so as to increase their incomes from their own work, which in turn would mean greater OASI benefit payments after age 65. Operators 65 Years oi Age or Older Approximately 15 percent of all operators in the sample Were 65 years of age or older. Their relative importance in each county differed great- ly, however. In Wharton county they made up only 1 out of 10 operators but in Cherokee county they comprised 1 out of every 5. Adequacy of Present Finances All of the operators who were 65 years of age or older were asked if their present incomes were enough for them (and their wives) to live com- fortably. More than half stated that their in- come was inadequate for this purpose, Table 13. The situation was more favorable in this respect for Wharton county farmers, where about 3 out of 5 felt that their present incomes were high enough to live comfortably. Fewer than one- third expressed the same opinion in Cherokee county. Source oi Present Incomes All 77 operators who were 65 years of age or older reported farming as a major source of their present incomes. Other sources of income and the number reporting these sources were: off- farm work, 20; savings and investments, 12; farm rentals, 17; other (gas and oil leases, etc.), 20; and relatives, 1. Only 12 were drawing OASI benefit payments as contrasted with 17 who drew a monthly check from the State’s OAA program. Of the 12 drawing OASI payments, 3 were in Wharton and 9 in Cherokee county. None of the OASI payments were a result of earnings made as farm operators or as farm laborers. Of the 17 drawing OAA payments, 3 operators lived in Wharton county with 14 living in Cherokee county. ' TABLE l3. PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF FARM OPER- ATORS 65 YEARS OF AGE AND OVER, BY ADEQUACY OF PRESENT INCOME FOR LIVING COMFORTABLY Adequacy oi Wharton Cherokee . Total income county county (N=27)‘ (N=50)1 (N=77)‘ -—————--—Percent————— Adequate 55.6 30.0 39.0 Indaequate 37.0 64.0 54.5 Uncertain 7.4 6.0 6.5 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 ‘N = Number oi operators in each group. 16 Future Income Expectations All farm operators who were 65 years of ag . or older were asked to estimate the amount of in come per month they (and their wives) would r ceive from all sources during the next few years- Estimates ranged from as little as $25 to we over $1,000 per month. The level of expected in, comes varied greatly between the two counties In Wharton county better than 3 out of 5 ex pected to have an income of more than $125 pe month. In Cherokee county fewer than 1 out 0 5 expected to have a monthly income as high $125. _. OASI Payments as Future Income Only 24 of the 77 operators (31 percent) wh were 65 years of age and older stated that the ' expected to receive OASI benefit payments i_ their future years. Since 12 were currently draw ing these payments, only 12 additional operato , who were not drawing payments expected to d so in the future. However, this study was mad shortly after OASI became a reality for farm y erators. As more operators in each communi begin to draw OASI benefit payments, interes in the program and attempts to qualify may vi‘ expected to increase. . Residence Plans Farm operators 65 and older were asked whe and with whom they planned to live. Of tho who expressed a preference, 88 percent chose V‘ live on their present farms, and only 3 of the said that they planned to move to a city. Th _‘ for the most part, older farmers definitely pl to remain on their farms. Of the 3 operatoy who plan to move to a city, 1 said he was goi 1 to move because of his age and health and to 1 nearer the doctors and better medical faciliti Another gave as his reason, “I can’t make t‘ farm pay, so I might as well sell it and move the city.” The third gave as his reason, “wan ing to enjoy life.” Only 1 of the 77 stated that he planned a’ have his children move into his home; the r mainder planned to continue under their prese living arrangements. i Farming Plans Texas farmers traditionally have held th land and continued its operation until their dea Evidence gathered. in this study, however, in cates that although few will have fully retir they are finding partial retirement more prac cable than in the past. Approximately half _ the 77 operators 65 years of age or older h made some change in their farming operatic within the last few years. About one-third h‘ reduced the amount of acreage they farmed a 3 operators had made changes in their mana ment arrangements. Two operators had increa the acreage they farmed and had added .‘ family labor to work the additional acreage. , Of those who had cut down on their farm 3 operations in recent years, 16 operators gave n th as their major reason for making this ge. None 0f these changes were made to in- ‘" future OASI benefits or to qualify for I Security coverage. i arm operators who were 65 years of age or a 1. were asked, “Do you expect to cut down *1 farming operations in the future, or to re- ?” Approximately one-half stated that they ..,n0t expect to make any changes in their farm- - operations in future years. However, about third had already reduced the acreage they '1 ed before the field study. Approximately fourth stated that they expected to cut down the acreage they operated in the future. A ,5: of. 10 operators (or 13 percent) stated that expected to retire. Of those who said they qned to change their farming operations or f al arrangements, only 5 said they were doing an order to qualify for OASI benefits. OPERATORS‘ OPINIONS OF OASI §The 1954 amendment to the Social Security j which extended OASI coverage to self-em- ‘ed farmers has affected operators in several is. A large majority of the operators are re- , ed by law to pay Social Security taxes based their earnings. Some also must pay a Social Irity tax for their hired workers. ince OASI affects so many farmers and since j: success of any program is determined, at ‘ in part, by its relative acceptance and pop- i'ty, operators were asked their opinions of fpOASI program. For those who had little ‘ledge of OASI, the interviewer explained y how the plan operated. Table 14 contains summary of their opinions. pproximately 9 out of 10 farm operators in isample expressed a favorable opinion toward OASI program. Nevertheless, almost 3 out i0 qualified their approval, indicating that it a be improved. Only 3 out of the 500 opera- finterviewed stated that they did not approve ASI under any conditions. An additional 17 p 0t approve of the program as it existed at _ time but could see some good features in it. idering both the short time the program had I in effect and the responses that would be f» ted from‘ farmers concerning almost any 'c program, the general opinions of farm op- rs of the OASI program appeared highly ' able. I though farm operators approved of the I program in general, certain relationships ; be noted between selected characteristics of respondents and their attitudes toward it. j rally speaking, {younger farm operators ap- 0' of the OASF" program more so then did lder operators. Tenants expressed the most val, followed by part owners, with full own- ‘pproving it the least. Larger operators did ‘hink as well of the program as did the small- rators, and farmers who had nonfarm jobs dition to their agricultural operations re- TABLE I4. PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF FARM OPER- ATORS, BY GENERAL OPINION OF OASI Opinion oi Wharton Cherokee Total OASI county county (N=250)‘ (N=250)‘ (N=500)‘ —————Percent————— Approval 71.2 51.2 61.2 Qualified approval 15.6 41.2 28.4 No position 6.8 6.0 6.4 Qualified disapproval 5.2 1.6 3.4 Disapproval 1.2 0.0 0.6 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 ‘N = Number of farm operators in each group. garded the OASI program more highly than did those who depended solely on farming for their incomes. Operators who had a greater net worth did not like the program as well as those with a smaller net worth. Of the racial and nationality groups included in the study, operators of Mex- ican origin were the most favorable toward the OkfiiSI program and the Czechs the least favor- a e. - What Operators Like and Dislike about OASI The operators were asked about any specific OASI features that particularly appealed to them or that they disliked. Their first responses to this question were usually in general terms such as, “It’s just good,” or “I just don’t particularly like it.” When they were asked to be more spe- cific, several expressed likes and dislikes. A majority (60 percent) stated that the main thing they liked about OASI was the system of receiving payments in old age. Their comments indicated that this particular aspect was wel- comed by a number of farmers. A common ex- pression used by several was, “It is just the thing we needed.” Only a relatively small proportion (less than 9 percent) mentioned the benefits provided to survivors. This difference may mean either that operators were not aware of the bene- fits provided to survivors, or that they considered the retirement benefits to be more important. A relatively small proportion of farm opera- tors expressed a dislike for some specific feature of the OASI program. Only three persons did not like anything about it. All three gave as their reason for disliking the program that the federal government was overstepping its bounds in providing such a program and they were, therefore, against it. a More than half declared that there was “noth- ing” they disliked about the program. A few commented that “it takes too much red tape and bookkeeping for the average farmer.” A few also felt that they probably would pay in far more than they were going to get out of the program. Most of those who did comment, however, took the position that what they said in answer to this question was not a “gripe” or a dislike, but mere- I7 ly a suggestion as to how the program could be improved and asserted that they approved of the OASI program for farmers in general. 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- ture, in cooperation with state land-grant col- leges. Acknowledgment is made to Margaret J arman Hagood and Sheridan Maitland of the Farm Pop- ulation and Rural Life Branch, AMS, USDA, for technical advice in planning the study. Roy L. Roberts and Holly Rees of the Social Security Administration provided helpful technical assist- ance in connection with the study. Field enum- erators were James Boone, Melvin Brooks and Robert W. Feragen, Texas Agricultural Experi- ment Station, and Tom Lorimer, AMS, USDA. R. L. Smith and Brad Lisenbe, Texas Agricul- tural Experiment Station, greatly facilitated the machine tabulation work. 18 REFERENCES Adkins, W. G., and J. R. Motheral, 1954. The Farmer Looks at His Economic Security. Tex. Agr_ Exp. Sta., Bulletin 774. Baill, I. M., 1955. The Farmer and Old-Age Security. AMS, USDA Agr. Info. Bull. 151. Coughenour, C. M., and J. R. Christiansen, 1956. Ken- tucky Farmers and Social Security. Ky. Agr. Exp. Sta., Progress Report 44. Christiansen, J. R., C. M. Coughenour, L. J, Ducoff, and A. L. Coleman, 1958. Social Security and the Farmer in Kentucky. Ky. Agr. Exp. Sta., Bulletin 654. Galloway, R. E., 1955. Farmers’ Plans for Economic Security in Old Age. Ky. Agr. Exp. Sta., Bulletin 626. McKain, W. G., and E. D. Baldwin, 1953. Old Age and Retirement in Rural Connecticut. Conn. Agr. Exp. Sta., Bulletin 299. Ploch, L. A., and L. J. Ducoff, 1957. Old Age and Survivors Insurance Program. Maine Agr. Exp. Sta., Mimeo. Report 69. Sewell, W. H., C. E. Ramsey, and L. J. Ducoff, 1953. Farmers Conceptions and Plans for Economic Secur- ity in Old Age. Wisc. Agr. Exp. Sta., Bulletin 183. Skrabanek, R. L., L. B. Keel, and L. J. Ducoff, 1958. Texas Farmers and Old Age and Survivors Insurance. Tex. Agr. Exp. Sta., Bulletin 886. APPENDIX OASI Knowledge Questions As you understand it, can farmers take part in the Old Age and Survivors Insurance Program, or are they left out of this program? According to your information about how the Old Age and Survivors Insurance Program works, does a farm- er have to pay this insurance if he is eligible, or is the payment on a voluntary basis? 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. . According to your understanding of the Old Age“ As you understand it, if a family man who has Security dies, is the money he has paid lost to. family, or do his survivors, such as his wife and A, dren, get benefit payments? < = Survivors Insurance Program, in case of the husj death is it necessary for the wife to have a S, Security number in order to get the payments s her husband’s insurance? ~ Can you tell me, is the OIdKAZge and Survivors I ' ance Program administered by an agency of the S of Texas, or by an agency of the Federal Go? ment, or by a private company? ' As you understand it, are persons who work for ' wages on a farm left out of the Old Age and vivors Insurance Program, or is it possible for '_ to get this insurance? § If a person in a year’s time receives say $100 or l’ in cash in wages from a farmer, whose pocket the Old Age and Survivors Insurance Program money come out of, the farm worker’s, the fa l,’ or both? . As you understand it, if a young man who is ins; under the program loses his job does he get any- Age and Survivors Insurance money because of_ ing his job? " According to your information about Old Age Survivors Insurance, if a young man is insur Old Age and Survivors Insurance and has an dent, does he get any insurance money to pay- doctor bills? p; According to the information that you have 1f how the Old Age and Survivors Insurance Pro works, how old must a person be before he gets; payments from his insurance; is it age 60, age w’. age 70? ' As you understand it, is it possible for a farm farm worker who is 65 years of age or older to getting money immediately from Old Age and vivors Insurance, or is it necessary for him to into this program for a while before he can get back? According to your information about the Old Ag, Survivors Insurance, after a man gets to be 65 ‘ of age, can he earn some money on his own and; get Old Age and Survivors Insurance paymen p is it necessary for him to stop earning money i der to get these payments? ' According to what you understand about how Old and Survivors Insurance works, when people get . 65 years old, is the amount received from Old Ag Survivors Insurance the same for everyone, or the amount each person gets depend on what. has paid into the program in the past? ‘ According to your understanding of Old Age andl vivors Insurance, if a farm owner rents his fa ‘i someone else, does the rent which the owner ~- count for Social Security purposes? ~ I As you understand it, if a man operates a farm, often should he make a report on his earning Social Security purposes. i From what you have heard or read about Old and Survivors Insurance, if a boy under 21 y‘ age works for cash wages on his father’s farm, ' boy, like any other farm worker, eligible for é, Security because of these wages? * Can you tell me, if a farm operator’s son has Club project of his own, pays all the expense keeps the income separate, how is this income f’ so far as coverage for Old Age and Survivors j= ance is concerned: as a part of the father’s i, as a part of the son’s income, or is it not figug a part of either the father’s or son’s income? a [Blank Page in Original Bulletin] Location oi iield research units oi the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station and cooperating agencies ORGANIZATION OPERATION Research results are carried to Texas farmers, ranchmen and homemakers by county agents and specialists of the Texas Agricultural Ex- tension Service jOf/[Clty ,5 KQJQLIPCA .94 jOITLOffOLU l4 l”0gl”é.’lll State-wide Research l‘, ‘k The Texas Agricultural Experiment Stationii‘? is the public agricultural research agency 1 oi the State oi Texas. and is one oi ten parts oi the Texas A6=M College System IN THE MAIN STATION, with headquarters at College Station, are 16 subj. matter departments, 2 service departments, 3 regulatory services and _ administrative staff. Located out in the major agricultural areas of Texas A ' 21 substations and 9 field laboratories. In addition, there are l4- cooper , stations owned by other agencies. Cooperating agencies include the -» Forest Service, Game and Fish Commission of Texas, Texas Prison Sysi U. S. Department of Agriculture, University of Texas, Texas T6Cl1n0l0;f College, Texas College of Arts and Industries and the King Ranch. y experiments are conducted on farms and ranches and in rural homes. THE TEXAS STATION is conducting about 400 active research projects, grou. in 25 programs, which include all phases of agriculture in Texas. Am‘ these are: A Beef cattle Dairy cattle Sheep and goats Swine Chickens and turkeys , Animal diseases and parasites g Fish and game a Farm and ranch engineering Farm and ranch business v Marketing agricultural produ Rural home economics Q Rural agricultural economics j Plant diseases 1 Conservation and improvement of soil Conservation and use of water Grasses and legumes Grain crops Cotton and other fiber crops Vegetable crops Citrus and other subtropical fruits Fruits and nuts Oil seed crops Ornamental plants Brush and weeds Insects Two additional programs are maintenance and upkeep, and central se ' AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH seeks the WHATS. the WHYS. the WHENS, the WHERES and the HOWS oi hundreds oi problems which confront operators oi iarms and ranches. and the many industries depending on or serving agriculture. Workers oi the Main Station and the iield units oi the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station seek diligently to iind solutions to these problems.