A comparison of Tennessee rural and urban counties regarding 32 problem areas : as perceived by selected community leaders

The general purpose of this study was to identify differences and similarities between Tennessee's rural and urban counties as to leaders' perceptions of the quality of 32 selected community problem areas. The data were obtained in 1984 through a statewide mail survey of community leaders. The samples were taken from the county leaders belonging to 12 groups which included bankers, the County Agricultural Extension Committee, county government officials, the County Rural Development Committee, Community Club Presidents, Home Demonstration Club Presidents, merchants, ministers, newspaper editors, school principals. Service Club Presidents, and Senior 4-H Club Presidents. A total of 4616 county leaders returned the survey. Tennessee counties were divided into rural and urban according to the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area classification. The data were analyzed by computer facilities provided by The University of Tennessee, Knoxville Computing Center. The Chi-Square Test was used to test the significance of the differences in the ratings of rural and urban counties regarding the selected community problem areas. Major findings of the study included the following: 1. Rural and urban counties differed as rated by all 12 groups of leaders on 27 areas (jobs available, job training and retraining, local industry, local stores, sources of credit, fire protection, garbage and trash disposal, police protection, public buildings, public transportation, road maintenance, sewage disposal, children's day care, condition of homes, family income, family living conditions, availability of doctors and dentists, availability of hospitals and clinics, education, public libraries, school buildings, citizen participation in local government, community organizations, general community appearance, land use planning and zoning, parks and playgrounds, and recreational opportunities for all ages). Rural county leaders regarded the quality or condition of one area (sewage disposal) higher than did urban county leaders; whereas, urban county leaders rated the other 26 areas higher than did rural county leaders. 2. Rural and urban counties differed as rated by five Extension-related audiences on 14 areas (jobs available, job training and re training, local industry, local stores, public buildings, children's day care, family income, availability of doctors and dentists, availability of hospitals and clinics, education, school buildings, general community appearance, parks and playgrounds, and recreational opportunities for all ages). Urban county leaders rated each of the 14 areas higher than did rural county leaders. 3. Rural and urban counties differed as rated by leaders belonging to non-Extension-related audiences on 27 areas (jobs available, job training and retraining, local industry, local stores, fire protection, garbage and trash disposal, police protection, public buildings, public transportation, road maintenance, sewage disposal, children's day care, condition of homes, family income, family living conditions, availability of doctors and dentists, availability of hospitals and clinics, education, nursing homes, public libraries. school buildings, citizen participation in local government, community organizations, general community appearance, land use planning and zoning, parks and playgrounds, and recreational opportunities for all ages). Rural counties were rated higher than urban counties as to the quality or condition of sewage disposal and nursing homes; whereas, urban counties were rated higher than rural counties on the other 25 areas. 4. The ratings of rural counties by all 12 groups of leaders in 1979 compared with 1984 differed as to the quality of 25 community problem areas (jobs available, job training and retraining, local agriculture, local stores, local industry, fire protection, garbage and trash disposal, public buildings, public transportation, road maintenance, sewage disposal, water supply, condition of homes, family income, availability of doctors and dentists, availability of hospitals and clinics, availability of public health services, education, nursing homes, public libraries, school buildings, community organizations, conservation of natural resources, parks and playgrounds, and recreational opportunities for all ages). Rural counties in 1979 were rated higher than in 1984 as to the quality or condition of eight areas (jobs available, job training and retraining, local agriculture, local stores, local industry, family income, public transportation, and conservation of natural resources); whereas, rural counties in 1984 were rated higher than in 1979 on the other 17 areas. The ratings of urban counties by all 12 groups of leaders in 1979 compared with 1984 differed as to the quality of 19 community problem areas (jobs available, job training and retraining, local stores. local industry, fire protection, garbage and trash disposal, public buildings, public transportation, road maintenance, sewage disposal, condition of homes, family living conditions, availability of doctors and dentists, availability of hospitals and clinics, education, nursing homes, public libraries, school buildings, and community organizations). Urban counties in 1979 were rated higher than in 1984 as to the quality or condition of four areas (jobs available, job training and retraining, local industry, and public transportation); whereas, urban counties in 1984 were rated higher than in 1979 on the other 15 areas. 5. Rural and urban counties were rated most frequently as poor on public transportation; whereas, local agriculture, sources of credit, water supply, availability of doctors and dentists, availability of hospitals and clinics, nursing homes, and public libraries were rated most frequently as good by all groups of audiences surveyed.