purposes. These lists were then returned 

 to the Philadelphia office of the A. J. 

 \iooi Research Corporation where they were 

 checked. Next,, the dwelling units on each 

 list which were associated with the se- 

 lected sampling units were marked for 

 interviev.'ing. For example, if a given area 

 segment was assigned three sampling units 

 and the random selection had designated the 

 second saxapling unit, the list was first 

 divided into three equal parts and then the 

 d-ft-elling units listed in the second of the 

 three parts were marked for interview. 

 The few sampling: units in each urbanized 

 area which contained more than 12 house- 

 holds selected for inters iev; vjere sub- 

 sampled. The lists were then returned to 

 the interviewers for interviev^^inc. 



The interviewers vjere instructed to 

 interview the sample (marked) households 

 on the list and any other household (not 

 shown on the list) found beU^een a sample 

 household and the next one listed. Thus 

 households which might have been omitted 

 in the pre-listing were included; and 

 changes occurring after the pre-listing 

 were accounted for. Interviews in the 

 sajr.ple households were conducted with the 

 person mainly responsible for planning the 

 meals, '.-.here the person designated for 

 intervievi was not at home on the first 

 call, succeeding calls up to a total of 

 three were made on different days or 

 evenings, (In some instances more than three 

 calls were made) 



The sample design for the Orangeburg 

 County, South Carolina sample was similar 

 in many respects, ^fter preparing an 

 ordered list of the enumeration districts 

 falling in the rural portion of the county, 

 sampling units were assigned to the enu- 

 meration districts according to the number 

 of di;elling units occupied in 1950 by non- 

 v;hite households contained in each. Thnse 

 sampling units were then grouped into geo- 

 graphic strata, 21 in total, with each 

 stratum containing 5? sampling- units. Two 

 sampling units were selected at random 

 without replacement from each stratum, 

 yielding a total of U2 sampling units for 

 the sample, Next, naps of each of the 

 area segments containing a selected sam- 

 pling unit were prepared and the inter- 

 viewers listed all dwelling units fallinij 

 v;ithin the area segment, classifying these 

 dwelling units according to whether they 

 were occupied by white households or 



non-ifhite households or were vacant . The 



location of each dwelling unit was marked 

 on the segment map and numbered; this same 

 number was used on the listing sheet. 



Field V/ork 



Training sessions with the super- 

 visors and interviev;ers were conducted in 

 each of the survey areas by members of the 

 Philadelphia office staff of the ,-.. J. 

 l.'ood Research Corporation. Initial field 

 work was checked for quality and under- 

 standing of the instructions. 



In addition to the check of the 

 initial interviews, the area super^risors 

 were required to conduct a preliminary- 

 edit of all work turned in and to check 

 10 percent of each interviev;er«s work by 

 telephone, n further verification check 

 on the field staff was carried out by the 

 home office by means of a check-card- 

 mailing to 33 percent of the respondents 

 in each city. 



A total of 2,385 households were 

 designated for interview in this survey; 

 706 in Birmingham, 7h3 in Boston, 716 in 

 Detroit and 220 in Orangeburg. Interviews 

 were completed in l,9hl of the sample 

 households. The reasons for the non-inter- 

 views are tabulated in Appendix Table 2. 



Data Processing Procedures 



a11 questionnaires v.-ere edited upon 

 receipt in the Philadelphia office and 

 those which were incomplete or contained 

 questionable responses were returned to 

 the field supervisors for re-interview. 

 The coding department then prepared tabu- 

 lations of the open-end questions from a 

 sample of the completed interviews from 

 each survey area. Codes for these ques- 

 tions were established and coding instruc- 

 tions prepared and reproduced. 



The questionnaire and coding proce- 

 dures were explained and reviewed with 

 the coders. The open-end questions were 

 reser'/ed for coding by the most experi- 

 enced coders only, answers to open-end 

 questions which were not readily classi- 

 fied into specific code categories were 

 held aside for review by the coding super- 

 visor and project director. Specific 



k6 



