Search Type Title Author/Investigator Search Advanced Search

Table of Contents | Previous | Next

III. WELFARE REFORM IN RURAL AREAS

As noted previously, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act is perhaps the most significant change in American social policy since the first social welfare programs were established in the 1930s. PRWORA also shifts substantial authority to states for matters related to program design (including time limits and sanctions) and program operations.

For states with good environmental conditions—stable economies, large numbers of entry level jobs, significant job creation potential, readily accessible support services (such as child care, education and training, and transportation), and a high proportion of counties with developed human service programs and delivery systems—TANF is an opportunity to help welfare recipients move more quickly to work. These environmental conditions, however, are not always found in rural localities. Some rural communities (especially those proximate to urban and suburban areas with healthy economies) may have the setting and service mix to help public assistance recipients become employed. Other rural communities may face considerable challenges in moving welfare recipients to self-sufficiency—challenges not necessarily faced by metropolitan or suburban areas (Cook and Dagata, 1997).

Rural communities implementing TANF requirements may face significant barriers because of (Kaplan, 1998):

• geographic isolation and population dispersion;

• depressed economies with high levels of unemployment and underemployment;

• spatial inequities in transportation, child care, technology and infrastructure;

• limited educational attainment and job opportunities and advancement; and

• limited administrative skills and expertise for implementing decentralized programs.

Achieving self-sufficiency for rural welfare recipients will require states and localities to (Cook and Dagata, 1997):

• create enough jobs in local labor markets to absorb TANF participants without displacing low-income employees who do not receive welfare;

• work with welfare families to find and keep jobs that pay a livable wage and provide opportunities for advancement;

• establish or make accessible essential support services (such as child care, transportation, and education and training) to individuals living in geographically dispersed areas; and

• obtain the programmatic, fiscal, and evaluative skills necessary to adequately implement devolved social programs.

ABSORBING WELFARE RECIPIENTS INTO THE RURAL ECONOMY

Of the issues facing rural communities, absorbing welfare recipients into rural economies will possibly be the most significant challenge. To achieve self-sufficiency, current welfare recipients will require essentially full-time work at pay above the minimum wage (Edin and Lein, 1997) or a combination of earnings, tax credits, and other public assistance programs (which are not always fully understood and utilized) such as child care subsidies and Medicaid benefits (Acs et al., 1998).

Recent employment growth and economic prosperity enjoyed by much of the nation has bypassed many, but not all, rural areas. While national unemployment rates are at record lows and metropolitan areas have large numbers of unfilled entry-level positions (especially in the retail and service sectors), many rural areas have not experienced this employment boom. Composite state unemployment rates hide the spatial inequities in employment patterns between rural and urban communities (Howell, 1997).

Rural communities characterized by high welfare dependency already have corresponding high levels of unemployment and underemployment. In 1994, of the nation’s 586 rural counties that were classified as “highly welfare dependent,” 60 percent were also high-unemployment counties. Many of these counties have had poverty rates in excess of 20 percent for several decades (Findeis and Jensen, 1998).

Currently, the number and types of jobs available to rural workers are not the same as those available to workers in suburban or urban areas. A larger segment of rural employment is seasonal. Shifts in manufacturing practices and technology have favored urban areas and have resulted in fewer manufacturing processes and fewer corresponding jobs in rural areas, and the entry-level jobs available in rural areas are primarily with small businesses or the service sector. They tend to offer low wages, few fringe benefits, and little opportunity for job growth (Besser, 1998). Welfare recipients in remote rural areas have fewer employment opportunities than those who live closer to metropolitan areas.

Earning potential in rural communities is adversely impacted by the lack of diversity in employment opportunities. Many available jobs pay only minimum wage or slightly above, which does not constitute a “livable wage” for most families.

The gap between rural workers’ educational background, skills, and work experience and that required by most businesses and industries presents a two-fold problem (Zimmerman and Garkovich, 1998):

• Workers are not qualified for available jobs or jobs that pay above the minimum wage, and

• The lack of a well-educated and trained labor pool makes it even more difficult for rural communities to recruit new businesses that bring good jobs.

Many rural workers, particularly those leaving welfare for work, lack necessary skills to meet the minimum requirements for good-paying jobs. Welfare parents faced with work requirements and time limits may find themselves entering a labor market where they cannot achieve income higher than the welfare assistance they have been receiving and, as a result of working, may actually see a decline in their real income. The lack of high-skilled jobs in rural communities has resulted in workers with desirable employment skills migrating out of rural areas.

The challenges of geographic dispersion and isolation can be daunting. Geographic and social isolation in rural communities has significant impacts on welfare parents’ ability to work, but geographic isolation is more than a lack of personal transportation. The geographic isolation of many rural communities has created a “spatial mismatch” between workers and employment. Individuals living in isolated geographic areas have a much more difficult time linking their skills and interests with available employment.

Geographically isolated rural areas are often hard to access. They are not near major highways or other transportation arteries. Human services in these areas are often limited to the county seat or some other central location, which can be a significant distance for much of the welfare population to travel.

Some rural welfare recipients may experience social isolation, which can result from being far from neighbors and family, without a phone or primary means of communication. The social network available to urban welfare recipients that provides information on programs and services as well as informal and formal support with daily activities is often unavailable to rural welfare recipients.

SUMMARY

It is clear that conditions in rural America are far different from those in urban America for matters related to demographics, employment, poverty, and the welfare population. For virtually every one of these matters, the rural setting is more disadvantaged than the urban setting. This is the context within which welfare reform is being implemented, and these factors are likely to affect program operations and outcomes (Exhibit 8).

Exhibit 8:
The Rural Prism

Rural Characteristic	Implications for Service Delivery
low population density	high per unit cost of service lack of specialized services lack of full range of services low quality of available services lack of market forces/competition lack of economies of scale
mobility disadvantages	inaccessibility of services limited public transportation inadequate roads limit coordination of services limited hours of service undependable transportation reliance on car increases miles driven
isolation	incomplete knowledge of available services low utilization rates inadequate response time in emergencies isolation of professionals challenges in attracting and retaining qualified staff
scarcity of fiscal resources	services not provided at all services not adequately funded to meet need outreach services in rural areas cut during budget crunches block grants historically not distributed equitably to rural areas obsolete technology and office support systems
lack of expertise and human resources	understaffing of functions incompetence/outdated knowledge and skills overworked service providers, burn-out lower quality low provider morale administrative requirements can be burdensome smaller pool of talent to draw from
personal familiarity	subjectivity on part of decision makers reluctance to seek certain services undermining of professional image
resistance to change/innovation	lag behind in adoption of new services and processes difficulty in breaking intergenerational cycle of poverty denial of problems
lack of ancillary services	inappropriate transfer of urban models to rural areas

Source: Rural Services Institute, 1995.

At the same time that disadvantages associated with the rural setting are likely to affect TANF’s implementation, several factors unique to service delivery in a rural environment may facilitate TANF’s implementation. These factors that may facilitate the transition of individuals from welfare to work in rural settings include:

• the smaller scale (structure and size) of rural human service agencies (Ginsberg, 1998);

• less bureaucratization within and between human services agencies (Martinez-Brawley, 1998);

• more personalized service between service provider and recipient (Ginsberg, 1998; Miller, 1998);

• the nature of the relationship between service provider and recipient, which is often viewed in a more egalitarian manner and as a more collaborative partnership in rural than in urban areas (Martinez-Brawley, 1998);

• a greater number of informal resource and support networks (Southern Regional Education Board, 1998); and

• the existence of natural helping systems versus more formally organized social service networks (Mermelstein and Sundet, 1995).

An additional aspect of human services delivery in rural areas is its importance to the rural economy. Service and transfer programs may contribute significantly to a community’s income, tax revenue, and real estate industry. Although this is true in metropolitan areas as well, the influence of this factor is relatively minor in comparison to its impact on the economy as a whole (Ginsberg, 1998). This suggests that changes in human services delivery systems, which are likely under TANF, may receive greater attention in a rural area because those changes may have meaningful consequences for the rural area’s economy.

 

 

Table of Contents | Previous | Next