12-1064 April 1961 ina ncial Management Practices Related to Prexent Financial Status TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY Texas Agricultural Experiment Station R. E. Patterson, Director College Station, Texas :l 45é‘4 r Jiummary American society today is more affluent than ever before. However, not all American families have the same financial status nor the same family financial practices. In order to determine the re- lationship between these differences, 500 Texas families were selected and interviewed randomly: 250 from the East Texas counties of Camp, Harri- son, Houston and Upshur; and 250 from the Blackland counties of Limestone, Navarro and Grayson’. Interview questions were designed to furnish data on three main items: the socio-economic characteristics of the family, decision-making or dis- cretionary management practices and the present economic status of the family. The family’s prese degree of satisfaction with its financial status a management practices was also elicited. Family income and total family assets were -’ as independent variables. were usually the younger families. As the a of the male head increased, the value of the ass also increased. It can be assumed that families we making an effort to improve their financial situatio Analysis showed that the geographical area w not related significantly to either of the independe p The asset groups we under $5,000; 010003513999; $14,000-$26,99 and $27,000 and over. The families with low asset t, social characteristics such as ge of the male head, education lily life cycle were related signifi- a» ome and net assets. The number and home ownership were related assets, but not to family income. ationship also existed between t __d the condition of house and financial practices were related to is and family income, while others ' of the two variables. Record prevalent among high-asset fami- jlow-asset families, but keeping ' as related to income rather than f; ugh many of the homemakers did e type, they were often inde- v t their reasons. There was little erstanding of record keeping as nagement. There was also little of the families participated in a dget. if the families’ plans for the future some of the high-asset families depreciation accounts. Few had their plans. Planned purchases of ere related to income rather than will» concerning future plans dis- of the families had no definite expenses. clationship of asset valuation to t was evident. While 94 percent p expected to have income from folder age, many of the high-asset cipating in other plans, such as , investments and savings. Pen- tirement were directly related to ices such as insurance, credit, sav- s can be used as tools of manage- the family financial goals. Most cried had straight life policies, /or health and accident or hospital- The high-asset groups had a greater ce programs than did the low- Credit practices were indirectly related to total assets. Debts were twice as common among the low-asset families as they were among the high- asset groups. Families with low assets tended to use credit for durable goods while high-asset fami- lies incurred debts for such items as large home improvements or college educations. This difference in the type of debts of the differ- ent asset groups reflects the age difference in the families and emphasizes the accumulation of assets as the family grows older. It suggests that the use of credit could have been an important factor in the acquisition of the assets now held. High-asset families were more apt to participate in savings or investment programs. At least 51 percent or more of the low-asset groups did not have such programs. It seemed probable that, to a certain degree, asset valuation would directly influence the amount spent on living costs. However, this was true in only Si’ of the 11 living costs. Notable exceptions include food, medical expenses and tobacco which were not related significantly to net worth. Annual living costs were related directly to family income. The majority of the homemakers were ratirfied with their present financial situation, even when their management practices were not adequate by home management standards. Of the 12 financial factors considered, savings was the only one which resulted in more worried or uneasy than ratirfied responses. The credit rating factor had the highest percentage of satisfied responses, which might indi- cate a false financial security for the 48 low-asset families who had indebtedness of over $2,500. Thir- teen financial factors were related significantly to _ family income only, while 15 were related signifi- cantly to net assets only. While most of the homemakers were satisfied with their present method of handling family fin- ances, it is evident that many lack a thorough under- standing of management as a tool for extending their available finances. Adult education directed toward the family is needed. Emphasis on how management can increase a family’s financial attainment would probably result in a better understanding of man- agement as a tool to be used in the handling of fin- ances. Content; Summary ............................................................. r .................................... .. I 1' Purpose and Need ............................................ ................................... _. Characteristics of the Sample .............................................................. .. Blacklands ........................... ..................... .................................... .. East Texas .................................................................................. Objectives .................................................................................................. .i Procedure ....... .. , ..................................................................... .... .......... .. Analysis ...................................................................................................... .. i‘ Family Assets ............ , T’ ....................... ......................................... .. Characteristics of the Familiesrm. Condition of House and Grounds ............................................ .. Management Practices ................................................................... .. Distribution of Family Income ....... .. , _____________________________________ Plans for the Future ....................................................................... Economic Practices .......................................................................... .. Insurance Programs ____________________________________________________________ __ Credit Practices ........................ ______________________________________________ __ Living Costs ........................................................................................ .. Food .... ................................................................................... Clothing and Shelter .............................................................. Medical Expenses .................................................................... ._ Transportation ........................................................................ __ 1 Contributions and Gifts ........................................................ ‘4 Education, Recreation, Alcohol, Tobacco and Other..._..... Attitudes .......................................................................................... Results of Statistical Tests .................................................................... ._ Analysis of Variance ...................................................................... .4 Evaluation ......................................................................................... .. Conclusions and Implications ................................................................ ..1 Acknowledgments ................................................................................... Literature Cited ......................................................................................... Appendix A ............................................................................................. .. Method of Sampling ........................................... ..; ........................ Appendix B ............................................................................................. .._ Characteristics of the Family....___. Appendix Tables“ ................................................. u, ............................ Financial Management ractices Related t0 Present Financial Status 7 OF 1961, a study was begun in Central Texas to determine the relationship economic practices and the present fin- y; the family. Previously, studies had been l irth Central states to determine factors that ily financial security (5). It was dem- financial security cannot be defined as For this reason, the approach made in {to determine the present financial status and how they achieved this status. It their relative financial security could be Fthis manner. i 0f programs, an understanding of the “al attainment of families and what they i’ - their particular level would be useful. of this may be illustrated by the work of 7'cultural Extension Service programs aimed ' al conditions through a better informed r erty program. A is an essential unit of our economic and thus helps to determine the direction This means that a high percentage of purchases involve the family unit. These liome furnishings and appliances, clothing It is accepted generally that residents in r nation have greater financial means than ‘areas. This is also true of Texas. Lack of opment and failure to utilize effectively i are partially responsible for this condi- ,2 planning for specific goals and poor ent practices may be responsible for ision for financial contingencies related ;_tion, climatic and economic disasters. i RISTICS OF THE SAMPLE of the state were selected for the study i» ities and their differences. Both areas Vi» intensively and were characterized by ' -e farms.“ The economic picture is chang- ,i Both are becoming highly industra- 81g is becoming more commercialized or il-The two areas differed in that residents A - area were accepted as having a higher ,_ than those in the East Texas sandy soils the work now developing in the various" Alice C. Stubbs Acting Head and Associate Professor Department of Home Economics area. The question in this study was, “Do families in the Blacklan-ds have better family money management practices than those ‘in East Texas?" Blacklands The Blackland Prairies of Texas range in size from a few acres to the large north-south belt which is approximately 300 miles long and up to 75 miles wide. Blackland soils are found in 7O or more Texas counties, but it is generally accepted that the Blackland type of farm- ing area comprises all or part of 25 counties (1), Figure 1. This report is concerned with only three Blackland counties: Grayson, Limestone and Navarro. Census data for the three counties showed that farm income was of importance to a higher percentage of the families in Limestone County than to those in either Navarro or Grayson counties. Ac- cording to the 1961 Texar Almanac, Grayson County had over $40 million in manufacturing value with over $45 million in wages, while Limestone had only $2M; million in manufacturing value and 3551/2 million in wages. There were two-thirds more farms in Grayson County than in Limestone, but farm income was only a little more than half again as large. On the other hand, farm income was much more important in Navarro County than in either of the other two counties. There were only mu- nun Iain. m“ - Sample Counties Blacklands East Texas Figure l. Sample area used in study. 500 more farms in Navarro County than in Limestone County, but the farm income was one and one-half times as large. Manufacturing value was about five times as large for Navarro as for Limestone County and income from wages was two and a half times as much. With this diversity, the three counties were representatives of the present economic situation in the Blacklands. Some coun- ties are already highly industrialized and urbanized. Some have a good percentage of industrialization but are also still important farming centers. Still others are primarily farming centers and almost entirely rural in population. The industrial counties have a much higher total popula- tion and are growing. The rural counties have a sparse population and are losing residents. Limestone has a population of about 19,000; Navarro, 34,000; and Gray- son, over 74,000. Since the early 1930's, the number of farms in the Texas Blackland area has decreased steadily. At the same time, the average size of farm: has continued to increase. This trend became even more pronounced during the 1950-59 period. Several of the Blackland counties are composed predominately of Blackland soil. Most of them also have portions of shallow stony soils characteristic of the Grand Prairie on the west and light sandy soils typical of the adjoining areas on the east. On the true Black- lands, there are soil differences which also affect the land use. However, cotton, the main cash crop, is the principal user of cropland (2, p. 42). In this study, only those families living in the part of the county that was entirely Blackland were interviewed. East Texas The East Texas farming area comprises 24 counties and includes about half o-f the region known as the East Texas Timberlands. Pine timber interspersed with hard- wood covers much of the land not in cultivation and per- sistently encroaches on the cultivated area. The surface of this area is undulating. Its typical sandy soils are low in fertility, but respond well to fertilizers. It developed as a small farm area with irregularly-shaped fields on which small simple machines were used. Sixty-five percent of the land is now farmland. Ap- proximately one-third of the farmland is classified as cropland. Harvested crops have decreased more than 72 percent since 1930. Slightly more than two-thirds of the 1930 cropland has been shifted in equal amounts to temporary and permanent pasture. The typical land in East Texas seems destined for use as pasture or forest, or both in some cases (2, p. 44). Four East Texas counties were included in the study. They are Camp, Harrison, Houston and Upshur. Harrison is the most industrialized of the four. Houston has the 6 largest total area of any of the seven counties in the study g but large portions of this county are in National Fore Preserve. The total population in Houston County i approximately the same as the total population in Lime stone County. There are about 200 more farms and the income peg farm is slightly less than in Limestone County. Harriso has a higher total manufacturing value than Gray n County, but a smaller wage income. The total populatio in Harrison is about three-fifths the total population i Grayson County. Therefore, the wage per person e ‘ ployed is larger for Harrison than for Grayson Coking Harrison has a few more than half as many farms . Grayson County, but only about one-third as much far income. Bank deposits are three times as large in Gray son County as in Harrison County. These data show so of the differences in the total economic picture of a industrialized rural county in the Blacklands and an i dustrialized rural county in East Texas. The other three East Texas counties of Camp, Ho ~ ton and Upshur are predominantly rural. Farming ' these counties is changing to livestock, poultry and dai a ing. The farms are becoming larger and the diversified family farm is fading from the picture. Secretary of Agriculture in a report to the President ' 1955 included the 24-county area of Northeast Texas A one of the serious economic problem areas in the Unit . States. Average gross cash income -from farm producti. is $1,564. This was less than one-third of either national average of $5,157 or the Texas average of $5, 0 (6). OBJECTIVES Based on the preceding observations, it was assum that economic practices an-d socio-economic factors sho ’ have a relationship to the level of financial attainme of the family. The probable importance of goals and a = tudes in achieving a given level of financial attainm was recognized. Therefore, a study of objective fact_ might provide a basis on which subjective factors -~ could be investigated more adequately. The objectiv of this study were as follows: 1. To analyze the relationship between certain e nomic practices and the level of financial attainment. A 2. To analyze the relationship between selected soci economic factors and the level of family financial att' ment. PROCEDURE Personal interviews were used in the collection < data. Six local homemakers were selected as interview for their training, experience and aptitude. They receiv a week of specialized training at Texas A&M Univers before beginning work in their respective counties. Int with 500 homemakers, 250 in each of sample areas. Details of the sampling are given in Appendix A. e for the collection of data had three main were social characteristics of the family, or discretionary management practices of , t, present economic status. The latter included " t indebtedness and present insurance ough an attitudinal study had been eli- m- , two questions related to attitude were ‘schedule. These were concerned with of satisfaction with the family's financial A gement practices. ANALYSIS y, an analysis of variance, chi-square and ionships were used in the analysis of data. been used as the constant in determining this report. Most data were gathered on _ from the homemaker. (In some instances, records such as insurance policies and gave i information.) No one referred to a sys- I or recond book for all information needing Therefore, net values are only the clo-sest a ion of the true net asset. However, a d careful checking of the data have indicated __ l evaluations are reasonably accurate. ;~ Family Assets i’ asset classifications were set up as follows: l; $5,00o-$15,999; $14,000-$26,999; and over. Present resale value of all assets was 1 'ning net assets and outstanding debts were Family assets were categorized as liquid assets _- real estate such as farmland or mineral leases; such as automobiles or farm equipment; 3" or home appliances; and special purpose , as luxury and recreational goods. a... . 9 o ‘g net value for each item was calculated with depreciation factor in order to determine total Total family assets, therefore, included the ‘any furnishings with a resale value, as well f ues of insurance policies and paper securities. d that many families’ total assets had a low A value. The study also included any family w could be converted into a negotiable holding j rgency. assets for I, low-asset families were savings, automobile. However, it should be noted that ith low assets were usually the younger families as the age of the male head increased, the value i also increased. It can be assumed that families . making an effort to improve their financial Primary assets for the highest asset families included real estate such as farm or timberland, and capital goods such as livestock, tractors, farm machinery, trucks and automobiles. Thirty-two percent or more of these families had savings accounts, government bonds and investments in various companies, Table 1. Seventy-six percent had equity in a house, 16 percent had rental property and 19 percent had other land and oil leases. A higher percent- age of these families had a greater number of home appli- ances and recreational or luxury items related to the home and family living than did low-asset families. It is notable that for each of the three lower net asset cate- gories, the percentage of families having investments, bonds or stocks in companies ranged from 5 to 11 percent; whereas 46 percent of the families in the highest asset groups had assets in this category. A similar distribution was observed in the families who had investment assets such as government bonds or rental property. Characteristics of the Families Various family characteristics were examined in this study, including the number of persons in the household, education, stage of family life cycle and occupation, Table 2. There appeared to be a relationship between the number of persons in the household and the amount of assets; 62 percent of the respondents having assets of $27,000 or more were in two or three-person households, whereas 68 percent of those having assets under $5,000 were in households of four or more persons. Only 3 per- cent of the high-asset families had six or more persons, while this was true for 12 percent of the low-asset group. It should be noted that only those households which contained both husband and wife were lHCllldGd in this study. Thus, the two-person households had husband and wife only. Differences were noted in the stage of the family life cycle. High-asset families were most often in the high school, college or recovery stage, while low-asset families were in the pre-school or elementary stage. Questions concerning the education of the head of the household revealed that in 32 percent of the lowest asset families, the household head had an eighth grade education or less. This was true for only 18 percent of the highest asset group. Nine percent of the highest and 5 percent of the lowest asset groups had college educations. In all asset groups, the largest percentage of male heads were high school graduates, ranging from 35 to 44 percent. Chi-square analysis did not show a significant relationship of education to present assets. On the other han-d, analysis did reveal occupation to be significantly related to present assets. This was espe- cially true for farming in that 62 percent of the highest asset families had male heads who were farmers. TABLE 1. TYPES OF ASSESTS RELATED TO NET ASSESTS FOR 500 RURAL FAMILIES IN TEXAS TYPEs or Assrars Liquid and paper assets Total Government Ownership in Investment Net assets families Savings bonds companies‘ insurance N0. No. ‘Z, No. % No. ‘Z, No. % Under $5,000 174 66 38 19 ll 8 5 -. 10 6 $5,000-$13,999 167 91 54 28 17 13 8 f}: 11 7 $14,000-$26,999 91 48 53 16 18 19 11 13 14 $27,000 8c over 68 35 51 22 32 31 46 7 10 Total 500 ' 240 48 85 17 71 14 41 8 Real estate * Total Farm land Rental Other lagd 8c Net assets families and timber House property oil leases No. No. % No. ‘Z, No. % N0. % Under $5,000 174 26 15 61 35 3 2 3 2 $5,000-$13,999 167 93 56 124 74 2 1 8 5 $14,000-$26,999 91 67 74 75 82 6 7 9 10 $27,000 8c over 68 61 91 52 76 11 16 13 19 Total 500 247 49 312 62 22 4 33 7 Capital goods Total Net assets families Livestock Auto Truck Tractor Other No No ‘Z, No % No % No ‘70 No Under $5,000 174 58 33 157 90 28 16 14 8 17 $5,000-$l3,999 167 100 60 153 92 63 38 46 28 33 $14,000-$26,999 91 61 67 78 86 58 64 46 51 26 $27,000 8c over 68 54 79 66 97 50 74 50 74 42 Total 500 273 55 454 91 199 40 156 31 118 CONSUMER GOODS Home appliances NJ row - mgsocaoQ Total Vacuum Net assets families Range Refrigerator Freezer cleaner No. No. (7,, No. % No. % No. %i Under $5,000 174 164 94 167 96 40 23 59 34 $5,000-$13,999 167 162 97 168 100 72 43 100 60 $14,000-$26,999 91 87 96 89 98 52 57 68 75 $27,000 8c over 68 67 99 68 100 39 57 56 82 Total 500 480 96 492 98 203 41 283 57 = Home appliances Total Clothes Clothes Sewing Air Net assets families Dishwasher washer dryer machine conditioner 1 No No. % No. % No. % No. ‘Z, No. % Under $5,000 174 1 0.6 137 79 9 5 126 72 1 0 $5,000-$13,999 167 4 1 140 84 13 8 139 83 7 4 $14,000-$26,999 » 91 2 2 76 84 8 9 84 92 2 $27,000 8c over 68 5 7 53 78 6 9 56 82 1 1 Total 500 12 2 406 81 36 7 405 81 11 2 Special purpose items Total Sports Garden Net assets families Television Stereo equipment equipment Cameras No. No. % No. ‘Y, No. % No. ‘70 No. Under $5,000 174 153 88 25 5 64 37 53 30 53 $5,000-$ 1 3,999 167 163 98 15 9 74 44 70 42 45 $14,000-$26,999 91 89 98 11 12 41 45 43 47 27 $27,000 8c over 68 72 106 13 19 38 56 36 53 21 Total 500 477 95 64 13 217 43 202 40 146 ‘Investments, stocks and bonds. 8 IOOOUDIOUOQ =Dv—~¢\Ioo Total ASSETS RELATED TO CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FAMILY Number in the family ’ families 2 3 4 5 6 or more No. N0. % No. A ‘Z, No. % No. % No. % 174 18 10 38 22 63 36 35 20 20 12 ‘ 167 38 23 30 18 47 28 34 20 18 ll 91 36 40 16 17 21 23 1 1 12 7 8 68 26 38 16 23 14 21 10 15 2 3 500 118 24 100 20 145 29 90 18 47 9 Stage in family life cycle All stages, Total High without families Preschool Elementary school College Recovery children N0. No. ‘Z, No. ‘Z, No. ‘Z, No. % No. ‘Z, No. ‘70 174 60 34 57 33 27 16 1 1 6 9 5 10 6 167 20 12 43 26 45 27 16 9 23 14 2O 12 91 6 7 32 35 11 12 6 7 23 25 13 14 68 4 6 14 21 14 21 12 17 14 21 l0 14 500 90 18 146 29 97 19 45 9 69 14 53 11 Education of head of household Total 8th grade Some high High school e families or less school graduate College No answer No. No. ‘Z, N0. ‘Z, No. ‘Z, No. % No. % 174 55 32 36 21 74 42 8 5 1 1 167 38 23 47 28 71 42 1 1 7 0 0 91 24 26 29 32 32 35 4 5 2 2 68 12 18 20 29 30 44 6 9 0 0 500 129 26 132 26 207 41 29 6 3 1 Occupation of head of household Total Clerical p families Professional 8c sales Skilled Non-skilled Farmer Opera tor Unemployed N0. N0. % No. % No. % N0. '70 No. % No. ‘Z, N0. <70 174 28 16 23 13 65 37 17 10 18 10 17 10 6 4 167 28 17 27 16 48 29 ll 7 32 19 17 l0 4 2 91 14 16 1 1 12 31 34 3 3 23 25 9 10 0 0 68 8 12 3 4 12 18 1 1 42 62 2 3 0 0 g 500 78 16 64 13 156' 31 32 6 115 23 45 9 10 2 apercent. 'tion of House and Grounds ypothesized that the condition of the house f would be directly related to present assets. \ pported this hypothesis. Interviewers rated grounds, out of the view of the respondent, a scale of excellent, good, fair, poor or very ' 3, Seventy-five percent of the families in the highest asset group had houses and grounds rated in good or excellent condition. Only 29 percent of the lowest asset families were given these ratings. Therefore, it appeared that as assets increased, the percentage of families with higher rated houses and grounds also increased. This relationship proved to be significant with p < 1 percent. ANET ASSETS RELATED TO CONDITION OF HOUSE AND GROUNDS Condition of house and grounds Total families Excellent Good Fair Poor Very poor N0, No, % No. ‘Z, No. <70 No. % No. ‘Z, 174 35 15 8 36 21 24 14 59 34 40 23 167 33 19 12 54 32 27 16 49 29 18 11 90 18 18 20 32 36 1 1 12 25 28 4 4 68 14 23 34 28 41 4 6 1 1 16 2 3 499 100 75 15 150 30 66 13 144 29 64 13 Management Practices “The family, which can state its goals in objective terms and which understands the nature of the resources it controls, as well as the principles that affect their use, is well on the way toward achieving the goals it seeks" (3) . Thus, record keeping was used as one measure of family financial management. Methods of keeping records ranged from formal report books, ledgers and single item company payment books on outstanding indebtedness to no records of any type. Only 2O families did not keep records of any type, and 10 of these were in the lowest asset class. As asset valuations increased, the percentage of fami- lies keeping formal recor-d books or ledgers increased. Ninety-four percent of the families with assets of $27,000 or more kept cancelled checks and 68 percent of this group kept itemized receipts, Table 4. In the lowest asset group, 76 percent of the families kept itemized receipts. The fact that families in the highest asset group paid cash more often, rather than buying on the installment plan as did families with lower assets, might account for a lower percentage of these higher asset families keeping itemized receipts. Types of records kept most often by families in all asset levels were cancelled checks and itemized receipts. The reason given for keeping records was more important to the homemakers than the fact of keeping records in understanding financial management practices. Most homemakers were indefinite or vague in their answers to this question. The reasons given most often did not indicate an understanding of record keeping as a “tool” in money management. Instead, it was a necessary task in order to make income tax reports or as proof of a previous payment made on a given indebtedness, Table 5. As assets increased, a higher percentage of the families kept records for income -< purposes. of payment more often than any other reason. percent of all the homemakers reported that they kep records for personal use. Most of them were reluctant o: explain what they meant by "personal," or found it diffi cult to express themselves in termsthat were more specific Twen ~r Distribution of Family Income Various methods can be used in handling famil finances. Som.e families may have thought seriously abou their goals and income resources and know exactly M they expect to accomplish and how they expect to do it Others have little method for handling their finances their future is hazy and the present tenuous. Of th various methods used by families, five major ones ar identified: 1) the hand-out method, 2) the allowanc or appointment method, 5) the 50-50 system, 4) the equ salary method, and 5) the family finance or family bud plan (4, p. 276). The family budget plan is th most exact 01f these five methods. The dole or hand-0 l system has the least control over family spending an helps less in the attainment of goals. Few families in this study followed a systemize planned family finance system. Forty percent reporte that they had no plan or used a method that could only L‘ Onl ' designated as the dole system, Appendix Table 1. 9 percent reported family planning of expenditures an 1 percent said that they used a budget. There was littl indication that any of the families participated in a famil planned budget. In 10 percent of the families, the h band handled the money, and in 17 percent, the wif handled it. gether were responsible for spending the family income. A In 19 percent the husband and the wife t TABLE 4. TYPES OF RECORDS KEPT BY 500 RURAL FAMILIES BY NET ASSETS IN 1961 Records kept Total Record or Cancelled Itemized Company payme Net assets families notebook checks receipts books 8c other No. No. (70 No. 9/0 No. ‘70 No. ‘70 Under $5,000 174 22 13 118 68 133 76 44 25 $5,000-$13,999 167 36 22 146 87 141 84 28 17 i $l4,000-$26,999 91 25 28 79 87 71 78 16 18 $27,000 8c over 68 I 25 37 64 94 46 68 8 12 TABLE 5. REASONS GIVEN BY 500 RURAL FAMILIES FOR KEEPING RECORDS BY NET ASSETS IN 1961 Reasons for keeping records Total Proof of Keep track y Net assets families Income tax Easiest way payment of bills paid Personal use. No. No. ‘70 No. 7O No. ‘70 No. (70 No. % a Under $5,000 174 60 34 29 17 69 40 36 21 2 17 $5,000-$13,999 167 37 52 40 24 66 40 30 18 32 19 1$l4,000-$26,999 91 49 54 16 18 32 35 14 15 16 18 $27,000 8c over 68 45 66 12 18 26 38 l0 15 25 37 10 Families with lower asset valuations gave proo * tmay be used as part of the family budget- ' may be the only planned control of Allowances were not an important tool or the majority of the families interviewed. i provided money for children through A 28 percent just gave the children “what Fifteen percent provided operating ex- Q- e through an allowance. Families with a ~ valuations used these tools of management families with lower assets. Sixty percent reported no plans for money management. ithose in this asset group who had children children the money needed or the children ‘the home for their spending money. i Plans for the Future i,» many families may not have systemized . ping and managing family finances, ‘some definite plans for the future which w ure, serve as a check on family spend- ‘t achieving goals, Appendix Table 2. - appliances represent some of the largest gt by the family. An effort was made 0t what the family thought about these dd whether they planned for them. In ch expenditures, the family may keep a u ~ t on present home furnishings and ftp-order to replace various pieces at given of new pieces. i ity of homemakers in this study were not ‘fdepreciation accounts. As family net worth ‘ percentage who were familiar with such igincreased. Thirty-one percent of the home- A highest asset group- were familiar with lunts. However, only 1O percent of these ers had such a depreciation account. A al sample, 23 percent of the homemakers purchasing some large appliance within the ears. As net assets increased, the percentage these plans increased from 22 percent to However, the majority of families had no 50f making such purchases within this time A.- were also questioned about their future plans T ~ omic preparations to meet a family crisis emergency. Two categories were used: and economic emergency. A family crisis Q- as a breakdown in home equipment, roof Lsimilar economic crisis. An economic emer- cribed as a trip to be with someone who is i,» necessity in which a family member might clothing, travel funds or similar expenses. or they may make specific plans and save - visions for older age. In each case, an effort was made to suggest possible unfore- seen or unplanned expenses that could not be covered by insurance or similar funds. The majority of families had no plans for such ex- penses. Families with high assets would use cash from income or savings, whereas low-asset families usually would borrow. A few of the low-asset families would have cash or savings to use for these purposes, but from 11 to 12 percent of this group would do without. Most important in the replies to these questions was t'he evi-dence of no real family planning for an economic emergency which was not covered by some fonm of insurance. A third factor of importance in the family's financial management for the future was their plans for retire- ment, Appendix Table 3. In a previous report taken from this study, it was stated that, “The best way for in- dividuals and others to insure this (maintaining individua- lity in older age) is to recognize what the handicaps of older age are and then plan ways and means of adjusting to them" (7). Families in t'his study were questioned as to whet-her they had any of the following financial plans for older age: insurance programs, pension plans, investments, sav- ings, social security or other, such as expected inheritances. Most families participated in the Social Security program. Ninety-four percent of the total families expected to have this means of income for older age. The percentage of families expecting to have social security income for older age increased from the two lower asset groups to the two higher asset groups. The majority of families with assets under $14,000 had little participation in any of the other possible pro- For example in the two lowest asset groups, 94 percent had no insurance programs, 75 percent had no pension plans, 78 percent had no invest- ments, and 68 percent had no savings. The two highest asset groups ha-d increased their holdings in all of these areas except pension plans. The number participating in pension plans probably did not increase due to the higher percentage of farm families in these higher asset groups. Economic Practices Economic practices of the family are tools of man- agement and are the means of achieving the family finan- cial goals. However, many families use these tools poorly. Reference is made to the use of insurance programs, credit, savings and investments in the management of family in- come. Each of these can help raise the level of family financial attainment when wisely used. However, the first two may become financial liabilities and the last two be economically unproductive if used without a clear under- standing of the advantages and disadvantages associated with their use. ll Insurance Programs Insurance programs available to the family are separated into three groups: personal or life insurance policies, health and accident policies and property insur- ance. Various types of life insurance policies include term, straight life, limited pay life, annuity, educational, investment and burial policies. Straight life policies on the male head and burial policies on the family group were held more often by the families interviewed than any of the other types of life insurance, Appen-dix Table 4. Families with the lowest asset valuations often had no insurance. As total asset valuations increased, the percentage of families holding various types of life insurance on the male head increased. Families with lower assets held burial and term insurance more frequently while families with higher assets held annuity and limited pyy life insurance more often. The total number of health and accident or hospitali- zation insurance policies held by the families was greater than total number of life insurance policies, Appendix Tables 4 and 5. However, for some families the only health or accident policy was workmen’s compensation. This was especially true of families with low-asset valua- tions. Families with the highest asset valuations were mos-t often farm. families and self-employed. Therefore, work- men's compensation and company accident policies were not available to many of them. Since these families were more likely to be responsible for an accident to someone else, some of them held personal liability insurance policies. The percentage (16 percent), however, was small, Ap- pendix Table 5. This meant that 84 percent of the families with assets of $27,000 or more were carrying, without the help of insurance security, the responsibility for accidents on their property. Only seven families with asset valuations between $5,000 and $26,999 held personal liability insurance. Two-thirds of all the families interviewed had some type of hospitalization insurance on all family members. However, only 14 families in the sample, or 3 percent, had insurance that was characterized as a dread disease policy. Therefore, health protection for the majority of the families was related more often to accident or the more common and less serious. diseases. Heads of TABLE 6. NET ASSETS BY AMOUNT OF DEBT FOR 500 RURAL FAMILIES IN TEXAS families were often covered when other family membe were not eligible, such as in workmen’s compensatio Some of the families had no health protection for a family member. Families with assets of $27,000 or more, held on ~_ average, two and one-fourth insurance policies on vari types of property, Appendix Table 6. As the value - assets decreased, the number of "policies per family d creased to one and one-third policies per family f families with assets under $5,000. The automobile, ho and househol-d goods were the only properties cover by insurance in most of the low-asset families. On t other hand, some families with higher assets had busines - and equipment, livestock, crops and farm buildings a equipment covered by property insurance. Of the 1 farm families in the sample, however, only five had cr insurance and nine held livestock insurance policies. Al 25 families in the highest asset groups held policies whi covered farm buildings, the house and household on in one policy. Therefore, although there were some f I lies who used insurance to protect these investments, t majority did not. Thus, the principal difference betw the lowest asset families and the ‘highest asset famif was that a higher percentage of the latter had insura coverage on the automobile, the house and household go Credit Practices During the past 20 years, credit has become incr i ingly important in the management of family financ As incomes have risen, total employment has remai high. Number and kind of consumer goods have increas and credit has become a common media in the mark Use of credit has made it possible for many families raise their level of living more quickly than if c payments had been required. An opposite effect resulted in that many families pay a high price for I use of credit because they do not understand the char made for its use. The question here was, “What does available credit have in the attainment of the pr - financial status of these families?" A Seventy-one percent of the highest asset families int viewed had no debts. This was almost three times i percentage (26 percent) of lowest asset families with debts, Table 6. Of the highest asset families with -- Amount of debt Total Net assets families No debts Under $400 $400-$2,499 $2,500 8c 0v No. No. ‘70 No. ‘Z, No. % N0. ' Under $5,000 174 46 26 36 21 46 26 46 2 $5,000-$13,999 167 51 30 37 22 44 26 35 2 t$l4,000-$26,999 91 49 54 14 l5 19 21 9 1-, $27,000 84 over 68 48 71 5 7 6 9 9 l Total 500 194 39 92 18 115 23 99 2 12 2,500 or more; whereas of the lowest indebtedness, the larger percentage - less than $2,500. Families with 10W for durable goods more often than Q assets. The high-asset families more 116: large home improvement and college g The low-asset families were usually lies and" more of these families had in- fexpenses during the year for which data e in the type of debts and the amount iéthe age difference in the families. It ulation of assets as the family grows that the use of credit during early years ation could have been an important i now held. This observation is not by the data since the families were sets now clear of debt had been bought lwever, chi-square analysis of these two i“ a significant relationship. Living Costs ditures must be made in order to meet . Family financial management is “ding the amount to be spent on these fer, other factors are also important, the family, age of individual family i ~ in the family life cycle. study were asked to recall the amount t categories of family living expenses, Recall was based on the amount spent , depending on the item. Monthly then used to calculate the total annual item. Chi-square analysis showed some _i as clothing, to have a highly significant y, ent net worth while others, such as expenses, did not have a significant fmanagement is necessary to ensure physi- Tiand psychological development and well- 1.»- le expenditure of the available re- I; (4, p. 527). Responses to questions ‘i es were tabulated in categories of $600 F‘ $901-$1,200; and $1,201 or more _ tion appeared to have little relationship "i t on Thirty-three percent of all A ~ een $901 and $1,200, with 37 percent 10f the lowest and highest asset groups, 'ng this amount. Forty-one percent i‘ group and 37 percent of the lowest ‘less than $901. Clothing and Shelter Of the three basic living costs, clothing and shelter were each significantly related to present net assets. In the chi-square analysis, clothing and shelter showed a p < 1 percent. Family expenditures for clothing were low with the majority of all families spending less- than $300 annually. However, 63 percent of the families in the lowest asset groups spent less than $500, while only 41 percent of the highest asset group spent this amount. Twenty-nine percent of the latter spent more than $475 annually. Concerning shelter, 79 percent of all families had no expense for the houses in which they lived”. This per- centage included 58 percent of the lowest asset families and 96 percent of the highest asset families. Most of the families with housing expense spent less than $481. Clothing and personal care expenses were related significantly high to net assets with p < 1 percentl. Shelter and associated costs for utilities and services were also related significantly to net assets. However, home furnish- ings expenditures, which may be associated with shelter costs, were not significantly related to net assets. Medical Expenses Fifty-seven families, or 11 percent of the sample, had medical expenses of $400 or more, but the majority of the families were in the two categories of $50 or less and $451-$100. However, in each asset group the largest single percentage had medical expenses between $101 to $599. It is also notable that in the highest asset group, 20 percent of the families had medical expenses of $400 or more, while in each of the other assct groups the per- centage of families having this expenditure for medical expenses was 12 percent or less. Nevertheless, in the chi-square analysis, medical expenses were not related significantly to present net assets. Transportation The cost of transportation, which includes the cost of an automobile and its operation, is an important item in the family budget. Thirty-nine percent of the families spent between $180 and $300, and 51 percent spent more than $500 for this living cost. There was little difference among the asset groups except in the less than $100 category; a higher percentcge of the lowest asset group spent this amount. The mean income for all the families was $4,568. If $240 is taken as the mean expenditure for transportation, it would indicate that the families spent 5 percent of their incomes on transportation. Analysis of the data showed these expenditures to be related significantly high to net assets, p < 1 percent. ‘This expression will be used to show a statistical significance at the level indicated. 13 Contributions and Gifts Contributions to church and benevolent organizations and gifts to family and friends were each related signifi- cantly at the 1 percent level to present net assets. Four- teen percent of the total sample, including 6 percent of the low-asset families and 38 percent of the high-asset families, gave gifts amounting to $201 or more. Con- tributions in this amount were made by 24 percent of the total sample, including 16 percent of t'he low-asset families and 45 percent of the high-asset families. Education, Recreation, Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Of the remaining family living cost items, all were significantly related at the 1 percent level to net assets except educational costs of tuition and books and tobacco. The former was significant at the 5 percent level and the latter was not significant at all. Sixty-nine percent of the total families had no expenditures for books and tuition. Those having this exp-enditure included 24 per- cent of the families in the lowest asset group and 41 percent of t'he families in the highest asset group. Costs for books and tuition ranged to $301 and over, but the majority of families with this cost spent under $100. Other educational expenses included costs for newspapers, magazines and related materials. Categories for these costs were $15 and under; $16-$40; and $41 or more. The highest percentage of families in each asset group was found in the second category with the exception of the highest asset group, which ha-d a higher percentage in the last category. The most common expenditure for recreation was between $20 and $100. While the percentage of families in each category of recreational expenses was divided about equally for the highest asset group, the majority (60 per- cent) of the families in the lowest asset group spent none or under $20. Categories used were none, under $20, $20-$100 and $101 and over. Only 8 percent of the total families reported using alcoholic beverages. This included 9 percent of the lowest asset group and 19 percent of the highest asset group. In contrast, 71 percent of the families reported using tobacco. The percentage of families having the highest expenditures tabulated, $101 and over, was almost the same for the lowest asset group as for the highest asset group, 44 percent and 46 percent, respectively. On the other hand, 26 percent of the lowest asset group and 32 percent of t'he highest asset group had no expenditures for tobacco. Of the families studied, 44 percent had living costs not itemized in the above listing of family living expendi- tures. These costs were significantly related to present net assets at the 1 percent level. Forty-two percent of the l4 lowest asset families and 47 percent of the highest as . families had these expenditures. Attitudes This study was based on the hypothesis that f 0 financial management practices, defined as the managem of daily living expenditures and the preparation for e gency and retirement expenses, are extremely import in t'he accumulation of assets and, thus, the existing fi ' cial status of the family. Much of the data indicated i‘ many of the homemakers were not knowledgeable H financial management tools and their present net .:~ were low. However, it was also considered essential discover how the respondents felt about their finan situation. Consequently, two sets of questions were as In one set, the respondent was asked how she Y about her family’s ability to meet current living c and emergency expenses. The second set of questi was a check list of attitudes toward 12 finance-rel factors, such as family planning of expenditures, family come and husband's occupation. A five-point rating ~ was used on the first set of questions and a three- scale on the second. On the five-point scale, the res ‘dent coul-d check very satisfied, satisfied, a little tme uneasy and worried. The three-poi.nt scale was red to satisfied, uneasy and worried. Responses to both sets of questions showed ‘ majority of homemakers to be satisfied with their pr situation. It is notable, however, that as assets incr the satisfied percentage generally increased also. For» ample, only 41 percent of the homemakers in the l0, asset group were satisfied with the family’s ability meet a financial emergency while 82 percent of the hi 3! asset group were satisfied, Appendix Table 8. It is , important to note that 61 percent or more of the h makers in each asset group were satisfied with the -~ income. A total of 67 percent of all the homemakers _T this response. It, thus, becomes important to understand what homemaker meant by a satisfied response. A clu this meaning may be obtained by a look at t'he i which had the lowest percentage of satisfied respons Appendix Table 8. These were amount of present ~ and ability t0 meet emergency expenses. Only 28 pe of the respondents in the lowest asset group and 68C cent in the highest asset group were satisfied with present savings. Forty-one percent of the lowest l group felt they could meet an emergency satisfactorily 82 percent of the highest asset group were satisfied ’ their ability to meet such a situation. ' In each of these cases, the term satisfied seem refer to the adequacy or sufficiency of the present fin in question. The same meaning seemed to apply t‘ _ _sed concerning present income. It did athe homemaker did not look forward to in the future. '4 iation was further substantiated by the were satisfied with their present credit y, credit was one of the main sources rity for many of the families. This i 'ty may have been related to previous g credit, present financial assets or both. - produce a false sense of security for those vw assets and a present indebtedness of e. Forty-six families with assets under f- s over $2,500, but only 12 families ex- i,» ern, either uneasy or worried, about their iized that this rough subjective measurement if e an area where additional study might J erstanding the economic stability of low- 1;. The economic security of the consumer important to the economic stability of the aimportant is the confidence which lending i in the consumer, thus contributing to the economy and the continued movement of ' ices. ‘- the families in this study had relatively ‘d correspondingly low incomes, they are situations related to family financial man- , ‘t- essed by the response of satisfied. Previ- ted that very few of these families used ilanned expenditures together; nonetheless, 131d 91 percent reported they were satisfied fly plan. It was stressed in the interview ‘~ meant the working out of a plan by the use of family income. This emphasizes '5 difficulties in communication between the ewpoint on family planning and the con- 'nt. Most of the respondents were home- lt that their family planning was acceptable '_ v ditures were not causing financial diffi- a’. i ‘Ts OF STATISTICAL TESTS p in the two geographical areas of the 3 - onomic characteristics of the families and -'al management practices were each assumed tionship to the present level of financial iiFor example, a higher level of education for i» Blackland farming land and planned family were expected to have a positive effect on a el of financial attainment. It was assumed Ljiaw- income would be an indicator in some the level of financial attainment. ‘It. analysis of variance tests were made dent variables and two independent variables: family income and net assets. The F-test was used to deter- mine relative significance. All 500 cases were tested with family income as the independent variable. However, with net assets as the independent variable, 18 families with very high net assets were dropped from the analysis. The arithmetic mean of net assets was found to be $16,471; therefore, families with very high assets (over $60,000) skewed the data and were eliminated. The standard error of the mean with net assets was proportional to the mean; therefore, the tests were rerun using log- arithms of net assets as the independent variable. Omit- ting the 18 families with high net assets had very little effect on the results; thus, all 500 cases were used in the i-final tests. For these tests 16 dependent variables were selected and tested by least squares’ analysis. Four of these were continuous variables and the others were discrete variables. Results of the tests are given in Ap- pendix Table 9. Analysis of Variance No attempt has been made in this study to define financial security as a single entity. However, several factors relating to financial security were utilized to deter- mine their relationship, if any, to financial security as measured by level of financial attainment. Net assets and family income were used as indicators of level of family financial attainment. Some responses to attitudinal questions were tested with these independent variables. Each respondent was asked to indicate on a three-point scale the degree of satis- faction felt toward 12 financial management practices or economic situations of the family. Eleven of these were significantly related at the 5 percent level to family income while only seven were significantly related at the 5 percent level to net assets, Appendix Table 10. A cursory examination of some of the variables such as satisfaction with ability to pay living expenses, income, credit rating and husband’s occupation, wife's income, planned purchases and money management method would suggest the significant relationship found between these variables and family income. However, it was expected that these variables would also be related significantly to net assets; they were not. On the other hand, the variables which were also related significantly to net assets such as satisfaction with savings, ability to meet emergencies, retirement plans, ability to meet long-term debts, amount of personal insurance and ability to meet medical expenses imply a relationship to net assets. These results indicate some of the com- plexity i.n defining level of family financial attainment. As family financial security cannot be defined in simple terms as a single entity, neither can level of financial attainment be so defined. A single cause and effect re- lationship cannot be demonstrated. However, factors 15 significantly related only to income are most often those factors which reflect level of living. Analysis of the data showed that the assumption of a relationship between geographical area and financial at- tainment had to be rejected. There was no significant relationship between this variable and either of the inde- pendent variables. On the other hand, “county” as a variable did show a significant relationship to both family income and net assets. “County” was related signifi- cantly above the 1 percent level to family income and to net assets in the least squares’ analysis. The mean income for the Blackland area was $5,430 and for the East Texas area was $4,534; however, one of the East Texas counties had a mean income of $5,767 and one in the Blackland area had a mean income of $6,910. This variation in income between the counties, re- gardless of area, would account for the significant re- lationship of counties to family income. Similarly, a wide variation of net assets among counties within each area would result in a significant relationship of counties to net assets and no significant relationship of the areas to net assets. Social factors such as length of marriage, age of the male head and stage in the family life cycle, were related significantly to both family income and net assests. Edu- cation of the male head also was related significantly to family income and net assets converted to logarithms. Total family members and ownership of home were re- lateid significantly to net assets, but not to family income. Adjustments were made in the least squares’ analysis to eliminate uncontrolled effects on the data. Nine of the 16 variables were significantly related to net assets at the 5 percent level and seven at the 1 percent level of confidence. Among the variables tested by least squares’ analysis were money management method, planned purchase of large appliances and wife’s income. None of these were related significantly to» net assets, but all were found to be related significantly to family income. This would indicate that these economic factors are important in the level of living of the families, but their relation- ship to total family assets or level of family financial attainment has not been established by this analysis. Evaluation Between 50 and 53 of the 88 dependent variables showed a significant relatio-nship to the independent vari- ables. In the total sample, 68 of the 88 variables were related significantly to at least one of the independent variables. Thirteen were related significantly to family income and not to net assets. Fifteen were related signifi- cantly to net assets and not to family income. In each analysis some factors seemed to be concerned more directly with the present level of living, and these factors were related significantly more often to family 16 incomes. Others seemed to be concerned more directl with the accumulation of assets over a period of time an more often were related significantly to net assets. In dividuals and agencies working with families need t’ recognize these differences in the socio-economic character istics of the family and the expected financial status. Four of the counties in this study have been designate on a national scale as low-income counties (6) . These cou I ties were selected by random sampling as representative u the low-income area of the state. The other three counti were selected from an area having a higher average i? come. The mean incomes of the counties substantiat this initial differentiation, but further analysis does y corroborate the hypothesis that level of family financi attainment would show better family financial manag ment practices in one area than in the other. Differenc observed are between the families and not between t families as representative of an area. l Certain management practices have been shown t0 ~ related significantly to net assets, while others are relat significantly to family income. Level of financial attai ment is not to be measured, therefore, by net assets alon but also by income. If level of financial attainment \ to be used as an indicator of financial security, then i must differentiate between the types of financial securi - Those families whose financial security is based on pr '- income may have a more transient security. That is,* ' they were to lose their income, their lack of net - ‘- would place them in a critical financial situation. ~- families whose financial security is based on net assets have a more permanent security, because they already ha attained enough net assets to offset loss of income. ‘i fore, they are concerned more with factors of day-to-i living. In working with families with low incomes, 0 _ resources and socio-economic conditions must be evaluat to determine the true financial status of the families. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS’ Families in the East Texas counties and those in Blackland area were similar in their family financial v» agement practices. Thus, their respective manage -. practices apparently had little influence on the differ economic levels of the respective areas. Nonethel’ statistical analysis showed certain such practices to be rel significantly to the net worth of individual families, w other management practices were related significantly family income. The method of managing money, planning for r i chases of large appliances and pensions for retirement 1 ' keeping itemized receipts all were related signific _ to family income. Practices significantly related to t’ family assets included saving for retirement, keeping rec to prove payments or to control bills, keeping acco ’ in a record book or a notebook and type of plans Factors such as insurance, invest- and preparation for an emergency amily income and total family assets. ve the management practices which be related to assets will be more apt onal assets and thus increase their erefore, these practices need to be ,1.»- e families, money income evidently financial asset. While this contri- 'al status, it can be a more unstable assets as previously mentioned. y of the families were satisfied with 'al practices, they obviously need a crstanding of these practices as tools le finances. Adult financial manage- toward the family are needed. How- ucation would have to be simplified, - ers have had little or no experience ancial management. Evident satisfac- inancial practices would also have to = s attitude could result in opposition to fluges. Emphasis on how these practices .i~family financial status might overcome to change. ion in management practices might y, record keeping. Records which are a family know its true financial situa- Simplified record keeping also could Igl- need for more knowledge about total 9' ' r. also needed in helping homemakers rograms and understand the programs’ Most homemaker respondents were - wledge of insurance programs. They -- of insurance they carried. They did the details of their individual insurance - - ers need to understand the terms used efits, limitations or commitments in a if is is especially true for members of lower igiwho rely on burial policies for one type ity. fices suggested that credit was an impor- ending family finances and raising the i of living. Most of the families were g credit except for the purchase of their " , credit was used to satisfy wants, and emakers did not comprehend its value as a financial tool to be used to secure a strong financial base for their families. Few families distributed family income among family members by using a budget plan for managing family finances. It was evident that financial management pro- grams for family groups would be beneficial for both the present and the future. For example, many children receive money as a family dole or are given what they need. If these children were in families where they par- ticipated in the planning of a family budget, they would better understand their role as a family member and would be better prepared to establish family management programs in their own future homes. Many of these families did not use savings and in- vestments as a tool for managing their finances. Instruc- tion in money management could prove worthwhile for them. However, the prevalent low income in this group might limit such savings to a forced program similar to social security. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author extends thanks to the families who so ._ . willingly cooperated in this survey, and to the interviewers who conscientiously strove to secure the data desired. Special thanks for advice and guidance are due Dr. Barden Nelson and Dr. John Southern for assistance in the initial plans for this study. Thanks are extended to the tech- nicians who have worked diligently in the preparation of data for analysis. Dr. R. E. Fruend, statistician, and members of the Data Processing Center have given in- valuable service in the analytical procedures. LITERATURE CITED l. Adkins, William G. Projections t0 1970 o)‘ Selected Char- arteristir: of Farm: in the Blachland Prairies, Technical Mono- graph 2, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, College Station, Texas, June, 1965, p. 9. 2. Bonnen, C. A. Types 0]‘ Farming in Texar, Bulletin 964, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, College Station, Texas, October, 1960. 3. Fitzsimmons, Cleo. The Management 0f Family REIOIITCEI, San Francisco: W. H. Freeman 8c Co., 1950, p. 557. 4. Nickell, Pauline and Dorsey, Jean Muir, Management in Family Living, New York: Wiley & Sons, 1950. North Central Regional Committee Project NC 34. 6. Southern, john H. and Hendrix, W. E. Income of Rural Familie: in Northeast Texar, Bulletin 940, Texas Agricul- tural Experiment Station, College Station, Texas, October, 1959, p. 3. 7. Stubbs, Alice C. “Planning ‘for Retirement," Social Change and Aging in the Twentieth Century, Vol. 13, University of Florida, 1964, p. 61. 17 APPENDIX APPENDIX A Method of Sampling or this study were drawn by random sam- r randomly selected counties in the East three counties in the Blackland area. t Texas counties which had been designated "counties were grouped to make four sub- Jtea. One county in each group was drawn - esent the subgroup. '4 < d area was divided into three areas. The 'es having 50 percent or more Blackland _ county boundaries were placed on ballots j= ies were drawn at random. County maps into small areas having 2O family dwellings Preliminary interviewing in these open coun- ed that a sufficient number of families for - not be obtained in this manner without Therefore, all communities having 2,500 r were selected using the same county maps. l, 'ties were divided into four sections, and were eliminated. Families were drawn by 'on from- each section in the community. i number of rural families within each county f? - from U. S. Census records. It previously "ileil that 500 families would be a SufflCient e purposes of the study, with 250 to come and 250 from the Blackland area. Each “each area provided a proportional number ppendix Table 11. The number of Negroes drawn from such a sample on a proportional small to give an adequate sample of the Therefore, Negroes were eliminated from __~- only white families were contacted. The families to be drawn from each community of the quarters in each community was f ' determined. APPENDIX B aracteristics of the Family _ple was stratified by age of the male head, , and by family status. No data were collected y in which the ihele head of the family was i old. It was also mandatory that both hus- "fe be present“, in the family. The study was rural farm andl rural nonfarm families. Heads of households in the study were distributed over the different age categories and ranged from 11 per- cent in the under 30 category to 17 percent in the 45-49 category, Appendix Table 12. Only 1O percent of the families had six or more members. Seventy-two percent of the families had either 2, 3 or 4 members with the highest percentage having‘ 4 members. The length of marriage reported ranged from less than 5 years (8 percent) to 41 years or more (1 percent). Only 6 percent of the male hea-ds were college gradu- ates, but an additional 10 percent indicated they had done some college work. Thirty-two percent were high school graduates, while 25 percent had an eighth grade education or less. Correspondingly, 16 percent of the male heads were in professional or managerial jobs and 32 percent were in skilled occupations. Twenty-two per- cent of the respondents gave farming as the principal occupation of the male head. One percent of the male heads were unemployed, students or disabled. Although the majority of the family heads were in occupations other than farming, only 33 percent had no land under cultivation and only 8 percent had no lands in use for grazing. Four percent of the families were farming 240 acres or more and 13 percent had 240 acres or more in grazing land. The majority of families (52 per- cent) were cultivating between 11 and 9O acres of land and 48 percent had 51 to 159 acres of land in grazing. Twenty-nine percent of the families were in the grade school stage of the family life cycle. Another 25 percent were either in the recovery stage or had no children. Only 9 percent were in the college stage of the family life cycle, while 18 and 19 percent were in the accumulation stage and the high school stage, respectively. More than half of the homemakers were between 40 and 59 years of age with the highest percentage being 40-49. Only 31 percent of the homemakers were bring- ing additional income into the family. Ten percent had incomes between $1,000 and $2,499 and 3 percent had incomes of $2,500 to $4,999. Less than 1 percent had incomes above $5,000. The majority of families (56 percent) had an annual living cost of $2,000 to $3,999. The per capita living cost was $600 to $1,399 for 65 percent of the families.- The majority of the families were not mobile with 66 percent having lived in only one or two places during the past 10 years. On the other hand, 18 percent of the families had lived in four to eight different locations during the past 10 years. l9 APPENDIX TABLES APPENDIX TABLE 1. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT PRACTICES OF 500 RURAL FAMILIES IN FOUR EAST TEXAS AN THREE BLACKLAND COUNTIES Money management method Total Allow- Family Husband Wife Both _ Net assets families N0 plan Budget 50-50 D01: ance plans spends spends spends N0. No. ‘Z, No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. ‘Z, No. ‘7, No. Under $5,000 174 50 28 3 2 0 0 7 4 4 2 21 12 22 13 37 21 30 Z 1 $5,000-$l 3,999 167 64 38 3 2 5 3 5 3 1 1 18 11 15 9 26 16 30 1 $14,000-$26,999 91 33 36 0 0 2 2 1 1 2 2 5 5 11 12 17 19 20 $27 ,000 3c over 68 41 60 1 1 0 0 2 3 0 0 2 3 3 4 7 10 12 l Total 500 188 38 7 1 7 1 15 3 7 1 46 9 51 l0 87 17 92 1 Allowances 7 Total Wife Husband Home Net assets families Yes N0 Yes No Yes No No. No. '70 No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Under $5,000 174 15 9 159 91 13 7 161 92 34 19 140 H $5 ,000-$13,999 167 11 7 156 93 8 5 159 95 24 14 142 “*- $14,000-$26,999 91 3 3 88 97 3 3 88 97 9 10 82 ‘L; $27,000 8c over 68 4 6 64 94 2 3 66 97 7 10 61 ‘l: Total 500 33 7 467 93 26 5 474 95 7 4 15 425 8" ‘ Spending money for children Given jobs Pay for Total No Allow- what they for home No No Too N0 Net assets families money ance need others jobs plan children young answ No. No. % No. % No. Q70 No. % No. ‘Z, No. 70 No. % No. ‘70 No. ‘ Under $5,000 174 1 1 41 24 55 32 6 3 12 7 0 0 26 15 32 18 1 $5,000-$13,999 167 0 0 41 25 42 25 10 6 12 7 0 0 48 29 11 7 3 $14,000-$26,999 91 0 0 14 15 28 31 5 5 4 4 0 0 37 41 3 3 0 l $27,000 8t over 68 0 0 8 12 16 23 9 l3 4 6 0 0 29 43 2 3 0 P Total 500 1 1 104 21 141 28 30 6 32 6 0 0 140 28 48 l0 4 Home credit Total Net assets families None Under $400 $40l-$2,499 $2,500 8c 0v No. No. 7o No. ‘70 No. % No. ‘Z, Under $5,000 174 40 20 s0 21 40 20 40 20' $5,000-$13,999 167 51 31 37 22 44 26 35 21 $l4,000-$26,999 91 49 54 14 15 19 21 9 10‘ $27,000 8c over 68 48 71 5 7 6 9 9 13 Total ' 500 >194 39 92 18 115 23 99 20 ' ‘Less than 1 percent. 20 PROVISIONS FOR THE FUTURE MADE BY 500 RURAL FAMILIES BY NET ASSETS IN 1961 Total Plan to buy large appliance families Yes N0 Perhaps N0. No. ‘Z, No. ‘Z, No. ‘Z, 174 3 22 121 70 13 7 167 34 20 118 71 14 8 91 22 24 62 68 7 8 68 19 28 43 63 6 9 Depreciation accounts Familiar with depreciation account Have depreciation account Total I families Yes No Yes No N0. No ‘Z, No. ‘Z, N0. ‘Z, N0. ‘Z, 174 14 8 160 92 1 1 173 99 167 33 20 135 81 3 2 164 98 91 12 13 79 87 1 1 90 99 68 21 31 47 69 7 10 61 90 What to do about family crisis Installment Cash Repair Borrow plan Savings DK—NA‘ N0. ‘Z, No. ‘Z, No. ‘Z, No. ‘Z, No. ‘Z, No. Z, 51 29 11 6 73 42 1l 6 8 5 20 12 84 50 6 4 47 28 8 5 13 8 9 5 61 67 1 1 16 18 7 8 2 2 4 4 53 78 0 0 8 12 3 4 2 3 2 3 Preparation for emergencies None Savings Cash No. ‘Z, N 0. ‘Z’, No. ‘Z, 152 87 l0 6 11 6 138 83 14 8 15 9 91 60 66 14 15 14 l5 68 37 , 54 12 18 19 28 Method for emergency money D0 Borrow Cash Savings Cash / borrow without NA” No. No. ‘Z, No. ‘Z, N0. ‘Z, No. ‘Z, No. ‘Z, 174 77 44 36 21 20 11 22 13 19 11 167 51 31 55 33 29 17 20 12 12 7 91 13 14 41 45 17 19 8 9 12 13 68 6 9 35 51 14 21 7 10 6 9 know” or "no answer.” I swer." 21 APPENDIX TABLE ECONOMIC PROVISIONS MADE BY 500 RURAL FAMILIES FOR OLDER AGE BY NET ASS IN 1961 Insurance Total Net assets families None Endowment Other N0. No. ‘Z, N0 % No. Under $5,000 174 167 96 1 1 6 315,000-313,999 167 156 93 4 2 7 314,000-826,999 91 71 78 14 15 6 $27,000 8c over 68 52 76 12 18 4 Pension Total Teacher 8c state Net assets families None Company retirement Other’ No. No. ‘70 No. % N0. 7o No. Under $5,000 174 133 76 19 l1 12 7 10 .155,000-$l3,999 167 125 75 22 13 12 7 8 $l4,000-$26,999 91 71 78 11 12 5 5 4 $27,000 3c over 68 58 85 4 6 3 4 3 Investment and savings Investments Savings Total Net assets families None Farm Business No Yes a No. No. ‘70 No. % No. % No. % No. Under $5,000 174 ~ 151 87 20 12 3 2 127 73 47 $5,000-$13 ,999 167, 1 15 69 46 28 6 4 104 62 63 $14,000-$26,999 91 40 44 44 48 7 8 59 65 32 $27,000 8c over 68 18 26 47 69 3 4 38 56 30 Social security and other Social security‘ Other Total Net assets families No Yes None Other No. No. ‘70 No. % No. % No. Under $5,000 174 12 7 162 93 172 99 2 $5,000-$l3,999 167 11 7 155 93 160 96 7 $14,000-$26,999 91 4 4 87 96 90 99 1 $27,000 8c over 68 3 4 65 96 64 94 4 22 '- S UMBER OF LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES HELD BY MALE HEADS OF FAMILIES, NUMBER OF A IES HELD BY FAMILIES AND NUMBER OF PERSONS HOLDING LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES Type of policy Straight Annuity Limited Educa- Invest- Total no. Term life life pay life tion Burial ment NA‘ policies 7o No. % N0. ‘70 N0. % No. % No. ‘Z, No. % No. *7, No. ‘Z,’ Policies held by male heads of families 8 79 45 3 2 13 7 0 0 5 3 0 0 0 0 1 15 23 14 88 53 15 9 17 10 0 0 3 2 0 0 1 3 147 29 9 42 46 16 7 19 21 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 86 17 10 40 59 13 19 13 19 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 75 15 11 249 50 47 9 62 12 0 0 9 2 1 3 2 3 423 85 Policies held by families ' I 35 157 ' 90 11 6 46 26 6 3 92 53 0 0 0 0 373 75 23 181 108 42 25 60 36 3 2 101 60 0 0 1 ‘ 427 85 15 88 97 30 33 57 63 3 3 43 47 0 0 0 0 235 47 21 86 127 335 51 44 65 3 4 20 29 1 1 1 1 204 41 26 512 102 118 24 207 41 15 3 256 51 1 3 2 3 1239 248 Total no. persons Number of persons holding policies No. '70 26 137 79 11 6 45 26 6 3 90 52 ‘ 0 0 0 I 0 334 67 23 159 95 36 22 57 34 3 2 98 59 0 0 1 " 392 78 15 79 87 26 29 54 59 3 3 42 46 0 0 0 0 218 44 19 76 112 31 46 37 54 3 4 20 29 1 1 1 1 182 36" 22 451 90 104 21 193 39 15 3 250 50 1 3 2 3 1126 225 "5. HEALTH AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE HELD BY FAMILIES IN EACH ASSET GROUP Under $5,000 1514,000- $27,000 $5,000 13,999 26,999 8c over Total No. %‘ No. %‘ No. % 1" No. %‘ No. % 1 174 167 91 68 500 12 7 13 8 3 3 2 3 30 6 26 15 12 7 6 7 4 6 48 l0 54 31 37 22 17 19 12 18 120 24 2 1 4 2 3 3 1 1 16 20 4 111 64 118 71 60 66 48 71 337 67 16 9 24 14 12 13 7 l0 59 12 40 23 44 26 19 21 15 22 118 24 39 22 31 19 21 12 7 10 98 20 2 1 8 5 3 3 1 1 14 3 figured on the total number of schedules in that asset group. 23 APPENDIX TABLE PROPERTY INSURANCE POLICIES HELD BY FAMILIES IN EACH ASSET GROUP Under $5,000- $14,000- $27,000 $5,000 13,999 26,999 8C Over Total N0. %‘ N0. 70‘ No. %‘ No. 70‘ No. %‘ Total number schedules 174 167 91 68 500 l Type 0f property insurance Automobile 146 84 150 90 86 95 65 ._ 96 447 89 Business 8c equipment 2 1 2 1 5 5 6 9 l5 3 ‘ Livestock 1 1 2 l 2 2 4 6 9 2 a Crop 1 1 0 0 1 1 3 4 5 1 l Farm buildings 2 1 3 2 4 4 7 10 16 3, House 16 9 19 11 15 16 8 12 58 l2’ Household goods 21 12 l4 8 6 7 4 6 45 9 Combination (farm 8c building z and house 8c goods) 7 17 19 25 37 55 11 House 8: household goods 48 28 80 48 43 47 33 49 4 41 ‘Each percentage is figured on the total number of schedules in that asset group. APPENDIX TABLE 7. FAMILY LIVING COSTS RELATED TO NET ASSETS FAMILY LIVING Cosrs Food Total $600 or $601- $901- $1201 8c Net assets families less 900 1200 over No. No. % No. % No. ‘Z, No ‘Z, Under $5,000 174 21 12 43 25 64 37 46 2 $5,000-$l 3,999 167 18 11 52 31 54 32 43 2 $14,000-$26,999 91 12 13 29 32 27 30 23 25 $27,000 8c over 68 6 9 22 33 18 26 22 32 Total 500 57 ll 146 29 163 33 134 27 Clothing Total $125 or $126- $300- $476 8c Net assets families less 299 475 over No. No. % No. ‘70 No ‘Z, N0 %i Under $5,000 174 46 27 63 36 44 25 21 1 $5,000-$13,999 167 26 16 66 39 51 31 24 1 $14,000-$26,999 91 17 19 31 34 33 36 l0 11 $27,000 8c over 68 2 3 26 38 20 29.4 20 ‘ Total 500 91 18 186 37 148 30 75 1 Shelter Total $480 or More than Net assets families None less $480 No. No. % No. ‘y, No Under $5,000 174 101 58 58 33 15 ‘ $5 ,000-$ 1 3 ,999 167 147 88 11 7 9 $14,000-$26,999 91 81 89 7 8 3 $27,000 8c over 68 65 96 2 3 1 Total 500 394 79 78 16 28 Utilities Total $130 or $13l- $181- $300 8c _ Net assets families less 180 299 over A No. No. (70 No. % No % No. ' Under $5,000 174 28 16 50 29 82 47 14 $5,000-$13,999 167 12 7 47 28 80 48 28 1 $14,000-$26,999 91 5 5 22 24 47 52 17 1 $27,000 8c over 68 3 4 14 21 25 37 26 Total 500 48 9 133 27 234 47 85 1 24 FAMILY LIVING COSTS RELATED TO NET ASSETS (Continued) Services Total Less than $15 - $86- $176 8c families $15 85 175 over N0. N0. ‘Z, N o. % No. ‘Z, No. ‘70 174 40 23 67 39 40 23 27 l5 167 2 13 57 34 52 31 36 22 91 1 1 12 27 30 28 31 25 27 68 2 3 14 20 27 40 25 37 500 75 15 165 33 147 29 113 23 F urn ishings Total ' $75 or More than families None less _ $75 l No. No. % No. ‘Z, No. ‘Z, 174 141 81 24 14 9 5 167 2 73 35 21 l0 6 91 70 77 14 15 7 8 _ 68 49 72 15 22 4 6 500 382 76 88 18 30 6 Personal Total $40 or $41 - $91 - $150 8c families less 90 149 over No. N0. '70 N0. % No. ‘Z, No. % 174 24 14 85 49 33 19 32 18 167 17 10 59 35 67 40 24 15 91 14 15 34 37 27 30 16 18 68 5 7 28 41 12 18 23 34 t 500 60 l2 206 41 139 28 95 19 Medical Total $50 or $51 - $101 - $400 8c amilies less 100 399 over No. No. % No. % No. % No. % 174 51 29 43 25 67 39 13 7 167 40 24 50 30 57 34 20 12 91 28 31 20 22 33 36 10 1 1 68 12 18 19 28 23 34 14 20 500 131 26 132 27 180 36 57 11 Transportation Total Less than $101 - $180- $301 8c A families $100 1 79 300 over No. No. % No. 7;, No. % No. <70 174 28 16 38 22 66 38 42 24 167 16 10 23 14 69 41 59 35 91 10 11 21 23 35 38 25 28 68 1 2 13 19 26 38 28 41 500 55 11 95 19 196 39 154 31 Contributions Total $25 8c $26- $100- $201 8c families under 99 200 over yo. No. % No. ‘Z, No. % N0, % 1'74 49 2s 41 27 so 29 2s 16 167 22 13 41 25 66 39 38 23 91 8 9 23 25 35 38 25 28 68 1 1 12 18 26 38 29 43 500 80 16 123 25 177 36 120 24 25 APPENDIX TABLEi7. FAMILY LIVING COSTS RELATED TO NET ASSETS (Continued) (lifts Total $25 $26- $l00- $201 8c Net assets families under 99 200 over No. N0. % No. ‘Z, No. % No. , Under $5,000 174 35 20 59 34 69 40 11 I $5,000-$13,999 167 20 12 44 26 83 50 20 l‘- $14,000-$26,999 91 18 20 23 25 37 4'1 13 1 $27,000 8c over 68 4 6 12 18 26 38 26 3 Total 500 77 15 138 28 215 43 70 1 Education—books and tuition Total Under $101 - $30} 8c Net assets families None $100 300 over No. No. % No. ‘Z, No. 70 No. '» Under $5,000 174 132 76 31 18 10 6 1 $5 ,000-$13,999 167 108 65 31 19 19 l1 9 $14,000-$26,999 91 65 71 14 15 10 11 2 $27,000 8c over 68 40 59 18 26 8 12 2 Total 500 345 69 94 19 47 9 14 Education—newspaper, magazines 3c other Total $15 8c $16- $41 8c Net assets families under 40 over No. No. ‘Z, No. ‘70 No. Under $5,000 174 47 27 81 47 46 $5 ,000-$ 1 3,999 167 a 34 20 77 46 56 $14,000-$26,999 91 16 18 43 47 32 $27,000 8c over 68 5 7 21 31 42 Total 500 102 20 222 45 175 Recreation ‘ Total Under $20- $101 8c Net assets families None $20 100 over ' No. No. ‘Z, No. % No. ‘Z, N0. Under $5,000 174 49 28 55 32 54 31 16 $5,000-$13,999 167 41 24 36 22 77 46 13 $14,000-$26,999 91 33 36 21 23 31 34 6 $27,000 8c over 68 18 26 17 25 19 28 14 Total 500 141 28 129 26 180 36 49 Alcoholic beverages Total Net assets families None Other No. No. '70 No. Under $5,000 174 158 91 16 $5 ,000-$ 1 3,999 167 160 96 7 $l4,000-$26,999_ 91 87 96 4 $27,000 8c over , 68 55 81 13 1 Total 500 460 92 40 Tobacco _ Total $50 8c $5l- $101 Net assets families None under 100 over N0. No. % No. ' ‘Z, No. 7o No. Under $5,000 174 46 26 18 l0 33 19 77 $5,000-$13,999 167 47 28 18 11 35 21 67 $14,000-$26,999 91 29 32 9 10 16 17 37 $27,000 8c over 68 22 32 7 l0 8 12 31 Total 500 144 29 52 10 92 18 212 26 Other living expenses Total families None Other N0. No. % No. % 174 101 58 73 42 167 82 49 85 51 91 59 65 32 35 68 36 53 32 47 500 278 56 222 44 LE 8. FEELINGS OF SATISFACTION ABOUT FAMILY FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT RELATED TO NET {RURAL FAMILIES Total milies Satisfied Uneasy Worried NA‘ Satisfied Uneasy Worried NA‘ No. No. ‘Z, No. ‘Z, No. % No. % No. % No. ‘Z, No. % No. % Family plan Retirement 143 82 26 15 i5 3 0 0 101 58 60 34 12 7 1 1 148 89 14 8 0 0 5 3 107 65 47 27 1 1 6 2 2 74 81 16 18 ~1 1 1 1 61 67 22 24 5 5 3 4 62 91 5 7 1 2 0 0 56 82 10 15 2 3 0 0 Ability to pay Meet long term debts 133 76 36 21 4 2 1 2 105 60 53 30 12 7 4 3 133 80 25 15 7 4 2 1 108 65 43 26 9 5 7 4 85 93 5 5 1 1 0 0 75 82 1 1 12 2 2 3 3 62 91 6 9 0 0 0 0 61 90 2 3 1 1 4 6 Income Personal insurance 106 61 55 32 13 7 0 0 88 51 59 34 26 15 1 1 105 63 48 29 12 7 2 1 112 67 40 23 11 7 4 3 72 79 14 15 4 4 1 1 58 64 26 29 4 4 3 3 54 79 9 13 5 7 0 0 55 81 9 13 3 4 1 2 Savings Property insurance 48 28 94 54 31 18 1 2 102 59 41 24 23 13 8 5 69 41 71 42 25 15 2 2 123 73 26 16 " 12 7 6 4 51 56 31 34 8 9 1 1 69 76 20 22 1 1 1 1 46 68 14 21 8 12 0 0 57 84 7 10 4 6 0 0 Credit rating Husband’s occupation 166 95 5 3 2 1 1 1 120 69 38 22 15 9 1 ‘ 162 97 0 0 2 1 3 2 1 19 7 l 38 23 7 4 3 2 89 98 2 2 0 0 0 0 73 80 15 17 3 3 0 0 67 99 0 0 1 1 0 0 57 84 8 12 3 4 0 0 Meet emergencies Meet medical expenses 71 41 79 45 23 13 1 1 96 55 57 33 21 12 0 0 92 55 62 37 1 1 6 2 2 109 66 44 25 1 1 7 3 2 71 78 18 20 2 2 0 0 74 81 17 19 0 0 0 0 56 82 10 15 2 3 O 0 59 87 8 12 1 1 0 0 27 APPENDIX TABLE i9. LEAST SQUARES’ ANALYSIS OF 16 SELECTED VARIABLES Table Degrees of Mean Computed Variablt? freedom square F-score 5 percent 1 County 6 .87232 5.504 2.099 Total family members 4 .39143 2.470 2.372 Stage in the family life cycle 5 .59l90 3.734 2.214 Home ownership 4 3.48829 22.008 2.372 Keep records by record book, notebook and ledger 1 .27904 19,761 3.841, Keep records for income tax 1 1.44304 9.104 3.841 Keep records for business reasons 1 .38690 2.441 3.841 i Plan purchase of large appliance 1 .l4042 .886 3.841 Plan for emergency 1 1.80825 11.409 3.841 Plan insurance and pension for retirement 1 .58367 3.682 3.841 Plan investment for retirement 1 4.68640 29.567 3.841‘ Money management method 2 .02624 .166 2.996 Husband's income 1 .73639 4.646 3.841 9 “life's income 1 .00528 .033 3.841 Farm income l 4.33060 27.322 3.841 Additional income 1 .36048 2.274 3.841 APPENDIX TABLE 10A. FACTORS SIGNIFICANT AT 5 PERCENT LEVEL TO FAMILY INCOME ONLY Variable Degrees of freedom calculated F- Net incom Keep itemized receipts Satisfaction with: Ability to pay expenses Income Credit rating Husband’s occupation Plan to buy appliances Type pension for retirement Money management method Make plans ahead Who makes decisions Homemaker’s income Additional income Annual living cost |_1 l \I@§DUYIO@\IL>0O0OOO909 21.39 0.29 15.04 p 2.07 0.00 8.80 4.20 8.58 4.01 11.18 8.89 9.40 94.90 APPENDIX TABLE 10B. FACTORS SIGNIFICANT AT 5 PERCENT LEVEL TO NET ASSETS AND/OR LOGS OF NET A 1 Variable Degrees of freedom Net assets calculated F-score Logs of net calculated F- Total family members Amount paid on debt (9-1-60 to 9-1-61) Ownership of home Mobility of family Number years lived in house Keep account in record book Keep account in notebook Keep company payment book Keep records for business use How children get spending money Husband works off farm Occupation of homemaker Down payment during year (9-1-60 to 9-1-61) Type records kept are easy Keep records to prove payment Keep records to control bills Keep records for FHA loans Savings for retirement Type of plans made for purchases Amount owed as of 9-1-61 Amount of down payment on debt before 9-1-60 F-'QXJQQOQOOKO\IF-'\IOQI—'F-'P~UYIQ>F~G\I 5.05 3.92 33.43 25.61 12.69 18.51 5.21 5.78 5.96 5.82 42.76 2.74 2.72 2.91 1.81 6.46 2.12 49.08 39.26 25.97 13.17 3.94 ' 5.31 8.73 9.48 22.37 2.05 Z8 f2 ACTORS SIGNIFICANT AT 5 PERCENT LEVEL TO INCOME, NET ASSETS AND/OR LOGS OF Degrees of freedom Net income calculated F-score Net assets calculated F-score Logs of net assets calculated F-score nned purchases ~ cnt ;n~ 00 4=~®@\1@\II@QL"Q€'Q0L>9U¢O9Q9 LQ®®IJS‘—"—QJI\II~5@LC@@\TU§ 8.44 2.67 1.96 12.56 2.93 2.75 8.37 2.44 4.43 3.46 9.01 13.44 3.85 3.58 2.84 3.02 9.01 15.01 6.82 14.74 14.21 9.97 14.55 3.30 2.48 3.39 5.34 5.35 4.61 4.91 9.80 35.54 4.95 7.63 17.37 5.44 28.09 6.79 28.10 2.23 2.21 5.43 2.28 5.96 22.54 9.19 9.57 18.25 7.30 9.65 20.82 7.55 4.69 8.97 12.04 3.23 _ 8.71 5.38 3.32 7.33 2.90 4.80 5.58 5.63 17.45 5.57 2.25 5.29 2.08 8.01 5.07 11.62 7.85 7.52 7.92 2.86 2.88 8.81 27.47 9.03 7.64 17.30 4.77 4 b9 r— UTQUO 5 1 0 9 9 C>>~P~®UTQ g1 10.02 12.98 4.71 627 4.65 8.11 4.13 9.74 5.19 14.35 9.83 2.91 1.77 5.48 4.51 3.56 7.58 1.61 2.12 29 APPENDIX TABLE 10D. FACTORS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANTLY RELATED TO EITHER INCOME OR ASSETS Area Amount received from hospital insurance , Kept card files Amount paid on each item (for which indebtedness incurred) Satisfaction with family financial planning Amount owed on each item (for which indebtedness incurred) What plan to buy Amount down payment each item before 9-1-60 Social security Amount paid on present indebtedness before 9-1-60 Other plans for retirement APPENDIX TABLE 11. SELECTION OF SAMPLE FROM RURAL POPULATION IN EACH OF THE SAMPLE AREAS Percent of Number of Percent families Number of familii Number of families total sample families needed to be interviewed Area White Colored Total from each area needed White Colored White Color Blacklands I 12,353 435 12,788 38 95 97 3 92 3 i. II 9,495 1,094 10,589 31 78 90 l0 70 8 A III 9,302 1,233 10,535 31 77 88 l- 68 9 p Total 31,150 2,762 33,912 100 250 230 20 East Texas ' I 12,085 2,038 14,123 29 72 86 14 62 l0 a. II 8,395 2,464 10,859 22 55 77 23 42 13 - III 7,714 2,542 10,256 21 53' 75 25 40 13 ~_ IV 9,519 4,269 13,788 28 70 69 31 48 22 I Total 37,713 11,313 49,026 100 250 192 58 . 30 APPENDIX TABLE 12. FAMILY CHARACTERISTICS OF 500 RURAL FAMILIES IN FOUR EAST TEXAS AND THREE BLACKLAND COUNTIES Length of marriage N0. of Years No. *7, Less than 5 41 8 5-10 81 l6 11-15 91 18 16-20 67 l3 21-25 64 13 26-30 79 16 31-40 74 15 41 or more 3 1 Total 500 100 Total family members No. persons No. % 2 118 23 3 100 20 4 145 29 5 90 18 6 29 6 7 14 3 8 or more 4 l Total 500 100 Mobility-past 10 years No. places lived No. % 1 187 38 2 139 28 3 81 16 4 36 7 5 ' 17 3 6 10 2 7 12 2 8 or more 18 4 Total 500 100 Age of head No. Q70 Under 30 56 11 30-34 77 16 35-39 65 13 40-44 61 12 45-49 83 17 50-54 82 16 55-59 76 15 Total 500 100 Per capita living cost No. {V0 Under $600 72 l4 $600-899 147 29 $900-1,399 178 36 $l,400-1,999 67 13 $2,000-3,999 33 7 $4,000 8c over 3 l Total 500 100 Family debts Amount of debts No. None 185 Under $50 8 $50-499 102 $500-999 30 $1 ,000-4,999 115 $5,000-9,999 37 $l0,000-19,999 18 $20,000 8c over 5 Total 500 Education of head No. of years No. No education 8c NA‘ 6 8th grade or less 127 Some high school 132 High school grad 158 Some college 48 College grad 19 Post college l0 Total 500 Homemakers income Amount of income No. None 345 Under $50 13 $50-199 36 $200999 42 $1 ,000-2,499 48 $2 ,500-3,499 11 $3,500-4,999 4 $5,000 8c Over 1 Total 500 Family living cost No. - c» --1oooo~:e=