INTRODUCTION

This chapter brings together information from the Census of Agriculture and the Censuses of Population and Housing on the living situation of farm-operator families. Data from the Censuses of Population and Housing on the condition and equipment of the dwelling unit previously have not been presented in relation to the business of farming, In this chapter, living conditions are related to both family characteristics, such as income, and the size of the farm business as indicated by the economic class of farm.

The Census of Housing contributes data on the housing and household equipment of farm dwelling units-the size and age of the house, the presence of running water, kitchen sink, other plumbing facilities, refrigerator, and the type of cooking fuel. The Census of Agriculture adds information on selected electrical household equipment, telephones, electricity on the farm, distance from usual trading center, kind of road on which the farm is located, and some indication of home food-production practices. The Census of Population contributes additional information on family income, size of family, stage in the family life cycle, and formal education of the operator, factors related to the level of living achieved. The economic classification of farms is provided by the Census of Agriculture.

The definition of a farm used in this report is that of the Census of Agriculture which is not the same as that of the Censuses of Population and Housing. Coverage of farm dwelling units differs in other respects also. Most farm families are included by both, but the differences affect the interpretation of statistics on housing and equipment. Even though the sample size permits tabulations for only major geographic regions of the United States, knowledge of the direction and probable extent of these differences should enhance the usefulness of the Census tabulations for other regions, individual States, and economic areas and survey data based on various Census definitions.

operators, for only about 3 percent. Among the nonresident operators who live on farms they do not operate are sons who live in the homes of parents but operate other farms, and farm operators who room and board on other farms. The remaining nonresident operators probably lived in nearby towns or even in cities some distance away. This practice has grown since 1940 in the Plains and a few Mountain States where the type of farming such as wheat farming does not require constant presence of the farm operator, and the family wishes to take advantage of community facilities such as schools or perhaps better housing available in town. Housing data are not available for all the nonresident operator dwellings shown in the estimates from this study (see page 72 of this chapter).

Data in this report somewhat underestimate the number of nonresident operator dwelling units. The 1950 Census of Agricul

ture shows nearly 5 percent nonresident operators. The understatement is greatest in the West where nonresident operators are relatively more important. Probably the number of nonresident operators living in towns or cities is the segment that is underestimated.

The dwelling units covered by this report include only a few in urban areas. They are either urban residences of the nonresident farm operators described above or operator dwelling units on farms in urban areas. The number of operators living in areas classed as urban by the Censuses of Population and Housing is not available from this project but has been estimated using the Census of Housing report of 96,000 dwellings on farms in urban areas based on the Census of Population definition of farm. Other Census data suggest that most of the operator dwellings on urban farms are in the North. All operator dwellings in urban areas, those of nonresident operators living in towns plus those living on farms within urban areas, probably account for no more than 3 percent of the total farm-operator dwelling units.

For the most part, this report covers only occupied dwelling units. The tabulations include only 39,000 vacant units, fewer than 1 percent of the operator dwellings. The reasons for inclusion of the vacant units and the various statistics that they affect are discussed on page 72 of this chapter. About 25,000 of the vacant dwelling units are included because information for the dwellings of nonresident operators was not available.

Comparison with Farm Dwellings of Censuses

of Population and Housing

For the 1950 Census of Housing the classification of dwelling units as farm or non farm was made largely on the basis of the answer to the question, "Is this house on a farm (or ranch)?" However, enumerators were instructed to classify as non farm all institutions, summer camps, tourist cabins, and similar places even though on farms, and all dwelling units on farms for which cash rent was paid for the house and yard only. In this report, on the other hand, farm-operator dwelling units are the dwellings, wherever located, of farm operators with a farm defined as a place of 3 acres or more that produced $150 in agricultural products exclusive of home gardens, or a place of less than 3 acres if $150 was received from the sale of agricultural products. The counts of farm dwelling units included in the Census of Housing and in this report with the different definitions of a farm and with the different procedures as to inclusion of vacant (67)

Total as shown by the 1950 Census of Housing.
2Estimate based on data obtained by tabulation of data for this pro-
ject.

Estimates based upon tabulation data for a sample of 1,408 households
taken from 5,260, or 5 percent of enumeration districts having farms in
1950.
This figure is subject to considerable sampling variability.
Estimates obtained by subtracting totals for all groups listed from
the total number of dwelling units.

Assumes that the 96,000 farms in urban areas according to Census of
Population and Housing were the units in those areas classified as farms
by Census of Agriculture and that all were occupied by resident operators.

The central core of 4,978,000 dwelling units covered in both sets of reports is by far the major part of each group. It is 93 percent of the farm-operator dwelling units covered in this report. It is 87 percent of the occupied dwellings on farms in

rural areas and 78 percent of all dwelling units on rural farms covered by reports of the Census of Housing.

Housing Characteristics Compared with Census of Housing When the farm universe is limited to operator dwelling units as defined in this report, the housing statistics reveal larger houses, in better condition and better equipped, but not newer (see table 1). As might be expected, the contrast is sharper for items that are reported for all dwelling units, including those vacant at the time of enumeration, than when the comparison is made for occupied units. In either case, the amount of change in the percent having a specified housing facility or piece of equipment is relatively small.

The situation for the North and West combined and for the South is similar to that for the country as a whole. Fewer of the dwelling units of farm-operator families are dilapidated. Relatively more are larger and more have hot and cold running water than all dwelling units on rural farms. In the North and West the proportion of operator houses built since 1945 is smaller, but this difference does not hold for the South. In both regions, relatively more dwellings occupied by farm-operator families have kitchen sinks, mechanical refrigerators, and gas or electric cook stoves than do all rural-farm occupied dwelling units.

Inclusion of vacant houses in the Census of Housing lowers the quality of farm housing reported in that Census. The great difference in the quality of occupied and vacant housing can be inferred from data on dilapidation in table 1. Vacant units comprise only 10 percent of the total number of units on rural farms but reduce the proportion of units that are not dilapidated by 4 percentage points. A fourth of the units vacant at the time of the Census were for seasonal workers, and another third or more were nonseasonal but dilapidated units. Some of the vacant units on farms were probably the relatively inferior houses of former farm operators, vacated in the course of consolidation of farm units.

The inclusion of farm dwellings occupied by someone other than a farm-operator family also tends to lower somewhat the

[Data from this project are based upon

Asterisk (*) denotes statistics based on

North and West

South

1

units are those provided year-round hired farm workers and dwellings occupied by partners or relatives of the operators. Special tabulations made from the 1945 Census of Agriculture for the Bureau of Agricultural Economics and Bureau of Human Nutrition and Home Economics have shown that housing provided regular hired farm workers, although not as modern as that of their employers, is similar to operator housing on the smaller farm enterprises in the area.

Since the number of vacant houses exceeds the number of units occupied by some one other than the operator and since the quality of the former is undoubtedly poorer than that of the latter, the inclusion of vacancies is the more important of the two in explaining differences in levels of housing shown by the Census of Housing and this project.

The effect of differences in the definition of farm on the kind of housing reported is difficult to appraise. The net effect of the difference in definition of the farm and the exclusion from this report of the nonoperator farm units can be judged by comparing the occupied dwelling units from the Census of Housing with units covered by this project (see table 1).

The coverage of urban farms and, to a limited extent, the dwellings of nonresident operators, by the Census of Agriculture definitions tends to raise the level of housing and so to increase the difference between the Census of Housing and this report. Although analysis of the data for nonresident operators is limited by the small number of sample cases provided by this project and by the fact that data for all nonresident operators cannot be included, available data suggest that a larger proportion of the nonresident operators had running water piped into the dwelling, flush toilets, and installed bathtubs or showers. It is also reasonable to assume that farm operators in urban areas have better housing than do resident operators in rural areas. These groups are such a small proportion of all operators, however, that including them has little effect on the picture of farm housing.

The rent-free category as reported by the Census of Housing may include many share tenants and croppers as well as managers and hired farm workers getting their housing on the employing farm as a perquisite (doubtless the hired farm workers were primarily regular workers at the time of year at which the census was taken) and relatives of the operator who receive the house either as a gift or as part of some farm operation or rental agreement with the operator. However, it is recognized that Census enumerators may enter share tenants and possibly croppers as renters paying cash rent rather than as occupying their dwelling rent-free. From this project, it is estimated that 185,000 nonoperator occupied dwelling units are on farms as defined by the Census of Housing. These undoubtedly cover the regular hired farm workers provided houses as perquisites and relatives of the operator included in the rent-free group. This estimate suggests that such cases may comprise about a fifth of the rentfree group on farms for which data are shown in the Census of Housing.

From this project, the farm tenure composition of each of the dwelling unit tenure groups for farm operators has been obtained (see table 2). In general, those operators who are shown as owning their dwelling unit are shown as owning their farm, but the two rent groups show considerable divergence. A third of the operators in the rent-free group are croppers; a sixth, farm owners; and half are tenants other than croppers. The renter group is about a sixth croppers and a sixth farm owners; some of these farm owners are part-owners of the farm and presumably rent the dwelling and part of the land farmed, and own the rest of the land.

TABLE 2.-TENURE OF FARM-Operator DuelLING UNITS, BY TENURE OF FARN OPERATOR: 1950 [Data are based upon a sample. For a description of the sample and a statement of reliability of dáta,' see page 3] TENURE OF DWELLING UNIT

Total....

Tenant other than cropper in South......

Full owner or manager..

57

Part owner......

16

Tenant other than cropper in

Rent

Total Owner Renter free

..number (000).. 5,341 3,823 904 614 percent distribution... 100 72 17 11

South...

20

1,084 874 19 15 - 180 -260

Part owner...

730

11

3

1

9

4

(2)

Tenant other than cropper in

percent of occupied dwelling units on rural farms..

as

6 3 17 30

farm.

1Excludes 39,000 vacant operator dwellings, primarily of operators who did not live in the Enumeration District in which the farm was located. 20. S. Bureau of the Census, U. S. Census of Housing: 1950. Vol. III Farm Housing Characteristics. Data are based upon a 20 percent sample of all farm dwelling units.

The dwelling units on farms that are occupied by others than farm operators could account for a part of the difference between the two in the rent-free category. Urban dwelling units occupied by operators who do not live on the farm they operate; which are included in the farm-operator dwelling unit group but not in the Census of Housing, would fall in the owner or renter categories. Although it is not known how to divide them, they probably account for most of the difference in the owner group, and add to the discrepancy in the renter group. The major portion of the net effect of different definitions of the farm and of inclusion of urban units then falls in the renter group.

1Primarily farms where operator's dwelling was not in same Enumeration District 2Percent not shown when less than 0.5.

HOUSE, GARDEN, AND HOUSEHOLD EQUIPMENT BY ECONOMIC CLASS OF FARM Housing on Low-Production Farms

Class V and VI commercial farms. -Data on family income and size of the farm business suggest that the low-income problem among farm-operator families is most acute on class VI commercial farms. This class also ranked lowest in the housing and equipment items considered in this chapter (see table 3). These are the farms that had from $250 to $1,200 worth of farm sales, on which operators had less than 100 days of work off their farms during the year, and on which other income of the family did not exceed the value of farm sales. Two-thirds of the class VI group had family income under $1,000, and another sixth had income from income from $1,000 up to $1,500.