Search Type Title Author/Investigator Search Advanced Search

Table of Contents | Previous | Next

IV. WELFARE TO WORK STRATEGIES

The knowledge base that currently exists to inform welfare to work strategies is vast. For many years, the federal government has sponsored large-scale evaluations to determine the effectiveness of various interventions and program design approaches, and a recent spate of evaluations of state practices under Sec. 1115 waivers continues to expand understanding among many interested parties, including policymakers, program planners, service delivery providers, and researchers.

Key findings (in very brief form) of lessons learned from these studies include:13

• Strong welfare to work programs can result in significantly increased earnings and decreased public assistance payments (Freedman et al., 1996).

• Even when welfare recipients receive extensive assistance, they do not necessarily obtain better-paying jobs, rise above poverty-level incomes, or leave welfare (Riccio et al., 1994).

• Welfare to work strategies fall on a spectrum that ranges from labor force attachment to human capital development and virtually all points between.14 The former tend to show more immediate payoff, but may not have longer-term benefits; the latter have potential for longer-lasting economic success, but they tend to cost more and may not produce early results (Bloom, 1997).

• Participants trained in skill-building programs to prepare for jobs that meet local labor market needs show positive outcomes (Seninger, 1998).

• Many former welfare recipients obtain marginal jobs and face substantial challenges to sustaining employment, so support may be necessary to help these individuals retain jobs and obtain better-paying ones (Rangarajan, 1998a).

• Supportive services, such as child care, medical coverage, and transportation assistance, may be essential for helping welfare recipients achieve economic self-sufficiency (Scrivener et al., 1998).

• Successful programs customize their services to meet community needs and also to match services to target group needs (Rangarajan et al., 1998b).

Interestingly, the wealth of existing information is largely silent on rural welfare to work strategies. With rare exception, the studies and evaluations that have been conducted center on midsize metropolitan areas or statewide results (and the latter obscure important place differences). The exceptions and their major findings for rural welfare to work strategies are as follows:15

• California’s Greater Avenues for Independence Program (GAIN), which began in 1989, was a statewide initiative to increase employment and self-sufficiency of AFDC recipients. A large-scale evaluation of GAIN was conducted in six counties; of these, one is rural (Tulare) and another is a mixture of urban and rural (Riverside). Under GAIN, AFDC recipients participated in education, training, or job search activities; failure to participate could lead to a reduction in cash assistance. Over a three-year period, GAIN participants in Riverside County significantly increased their earnings, and AFDC payments decreased significantly. In Tulare County, earnings significantly increased in only one of the three years, and AFDC payments did not decrease (Riccio et al., 1994).

• In 1994, Minnesota began the Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP), which combines mandatory work activities and increased financial incentives to help families achieve economic self-sufficiency. An evaluation is comparing results from three groups: recipients subject to MFIP requirements of work and incentives, recipients who receive incentives only, and recipients who remain subject to AFDC requirements. In assessing 18-month impacts, in urban areas MFIP produced slight increases in employment, no increases in earnings, and increased welfare payments; in rural areas MFIP produced no increases in employment, no increases in earnings, and increased welfare payments (Miller et al., 1997).

To help inform ACF’s project on Rural Welfare to Work Strategies, we have attempted to cull from the literature pertinent lessons about the intersection between key features of rural areas and factors about welfare recipients’ abilities to achieve economic self-sufficiency. Below, we address seven of these areas where the two matters intersect:

• rural economic development

• workforce development

• community commitment

• transportation

• child care

• hard-to-serve welfare to work participants

• restructuring administrative elements of the welfare system

Throughout the discussion that follows, we have drawn from the literature on rural welfare and low-income populations whenever possible. Wherever practical, we summarize findings from studies in non-rural areas, apply them to what is known about the rural setting in that regard, and draw reasonable inferences about ways that the issue could play out in rural areas.

RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Many of the nation’s rural communities are plagued by high levels of unemployment and underemployment—signifying that in rural communities there is no shortage of workers, only jobs. This existing labor pressure will be exacerbated by TANF work requirements and time limits. To successfully move current TANF recipients to self-sufficiency without displacing current workers, rural communities will need to consider strategies that will generate a sufficient number of good-paying, stable jobs (Beneria, 1998).

Traditional rural industries such as farming and mining have experienced significant declines in employment and real earnings. Even manufacturing, which enjoyed employment growth during the 1980s, has seen static income levels that reflect cost containment measures resulting from increased global competition. From 1979 to 1987, metropolitan area employment grew almost 18 percent, while that of rural areas grew only 8 percent (Galston, 1992). Although many rural economies have revived in the 1990s, the growth has been mainly in part-time and service sector jobs, which tend to be lower-wage positions without fringe benefits.

Rural areas face many challenges in job creation, including geographic isolation, outdated infrastructure, and a dispersed labor force with limited skills and educational background. These basic issues result in barriers to creating and retaining jobs in rural settings (Besser, 1998):

• Low wages depress tax revenues, thus affecting local public services such as education, libraries, and infrastructure.

• Local businesses are limited in their ability to expand operations and replace workers who leave.

• New businesses are reluctant to relocate to rural areas, given labor force skill levels and infrastructure.

• Low-quality employment opportunities make it difficult for communities to attract and retain residents, especially younger, well-educated people.

• An inadequate supply of affordable housing makes it difficult to attract new residents or businesses.

Factors Influencing Rural Economic Growth

Recent research suggests that some factors appear to be consistent with rural economic growth during the 1980s. These factors include the following (Aldrich and Kusmin, 1997):

• low initial labor costs measured as earnings per job;

• status as a “retirement county” (i.e., one that attracts retirees to move there);

• high education spending per pupil;

• the presence of a passenger service airport within 50 miles;

• state right-to-work laws;

• the percentage of adults who have completed high school; and

• access or proximity to an interstate highway system.

The diversity in the factors affecting rural economic growth reflects the diversity of rural areas. There are also substantial unexplained variations in rural economic growth, which implies that having favorable conditions for growth does not directly translate into robust growth. Individualized strategies that focus on a rural locality’s strengths and other unquantifiable factors play a significant role in successful job creation and economic development in rural areas (Sears and Reid, 1992).

Rural areas may have some advantages over urban areas in generating jobs. Previously, rural development depended on place-specific natural resources, and geographic isolation was ameliorated by natural transportation systems such as rivers. During the 1980s, rural areas entered a different phase where new businesses and monies were attracted by “amenity values” (Galston, 1992). Retirees and recreational interests have drawn service businesses and, as a result, have become important contributors to fledgling rural economies.

Rural communities also face unique barriers to economic growth. Residents in some rural communities strongly oppose growth because it is viewed as a threat to the community’s “values” or “traditional way of life.” These individuals perceive economic development efforts as a threat to their rural context. Rural businesses may also oppose growth for fear of increased competition, wages, and taxes (Finsterbusch and Kuennen, 1992).

Approaches to Job Creation in Rural Communities

Rural economic development begins with a close examination of the rural resources (human and material) and values. Strategies to create jobs and foster economic development work best when woven into an organized, holistic approach to rural job creation that includes six basic precepts (“Elements of Economic Development,” 1987; RUPRI Rural Finance Task Force, 1997):

• work with existing employers to create jobs and improve benefits;

• encourage employers to expand lines of business;

• attract new employers;

• provide financial capital;

• capture more local dollars; and

• capture more global dollars.

The following sections discuss these basic features in more detail and outline job creation strategies that states and rural areas have used.

Work with Existing Employers to Create Jobs and Improve Benefits

Working with existing rural employers can be a cost-effective approach to job creation. To be successful, this effort concentrates on two levels: the small rural employer and the large rural employer. Both groups present an important resource to rural communities, but no general set of job creation strategies can be equally applied to both groups.

Existing small businesses and employers present opportunities for job creation. Most rural businesses are small and locally owned and, as a result, have a special attachment to their communities. Many businesses show ample signs of vitality. For example, 59 percent of rural small businesses in Iowa plan to expand, and the average business has had an increase of 30 percent in employment during the past five years (Besser, 1998).

Research on rural employment trends suggests that many of these rural businesses are microenterprises or small employers, are heavily concentrated in the retail and service industries, employ a large percentage of part-time labor, and offer few fringe benefits (Besser, 1998). Nevertheless, targeting job creation strategies toward these small rural businesses could increase the number of slots available for TANF participants.

Large existing businesses in rural areas are an excellent source of potential new jobs. In many cases, these businesses have the potential to be global in focus and to expand their business operations. Rural planners can help large businesses capitalize on their potential and, as a result, create new jobs, primarily by helping these businesses improve their competitiveness in the larger marketplace. This approach achieves two goals: it enables businesses to expand and encourages them to remain in the community.

Effective approaches for working with small employers include emphasizing opportunities to increase business capacity and, therefore, future wages, benefits, and job training. Effective approaches for working with large employers include developing strong relationships with key managers at large local businesses. These relationships facilitate communication on management and business issues, and strategies for job creation can be tailored to individual employers. Given the need for individualized approaches, states and communities have implemented many job creation strategies in partnership with small and large businesses (Exhibit 9).

Encourage Employers to Expand Lines of Business

When businesses grow in new directions, they can create new jobs and retain the essential structure of the rural community’s economic base (“Creating New Enterprises,” 1987). Rural communities can foster businesses’ sense of entrepreneurship by providing essential support services and promoting the community’s untapped resources. As shown in Exhibit 10, economic development experts promote five general strategies to encourage employers to develop new lines of business.

Exhibit 9:
Job Creation Strategies: Working with Rural Businesses

Approach	Comments
Small Businesses
Collaboration among businesses to take advantages of economies of scale	Communities have businesses, public entities, and nonprofits collaborate to take advantage of economies of scale in providing employee benefits, offering employee training, sharing information and technology, and pooling child care and transportation services.
Community career ladders	Local community development enterprises work with rural small businesses to implement career ladders between firms that provide advancement and training opportunities for employees.
Business roundtables	Discussion groups are sponsored by rural development agencies to share successes of high-growth, low-turnover firms. Additionally, rural development agencies target these firms as a job creation resource and work to customize programs and promote growth.
Business and marketing consulting services	Development agencies identify small businesses with high turnover and work with them to develop strategies to keep employees.
Direct farm marketing	Individuals and communities promote direct farm sales to urban consumers. Opportunities exist with “pick-your-own” and organic farming, direct mail, and urban farmers markets.
Large Businesses
Job training programs and continuing education for employees	Work with employers to identify training needs and provide new skills training and continuing education training. Rural communities can build partnerships with state governments, universities, colleges, vocational schools, and other educational institutions.
Business counseling	Economic development entities (e.g., Chamber of Commerce, Department of Economic Development, Regional Development Council) provide training and consulting to local businesses to improve management and profitability.
Provide assistance with technological improvements that benefit local businesses	Work with existing businesses to assess current and future technology needs. Rural communities can contribute to technological innovation through infrastructure improvements, labor force development, grants, and other types of financial business assistance.
Develop community and business marketing plans	Invest local resources in developing and executing marketing plans for the rural community and its businesses. This strategy not only promotes current business, but also may attract new businesses.
Improve downtowns	In many rural communities, downtown areas have become increasingly vacant as retail shops leave. This space may be renovated into offices and other types of affordable space for both new and older businesses.

Sources: Besser, 1998; "Assisting Local Enterprises," 1987.

Exhibit 10:
Strategies to Encourage New Businesses at Existing Employers

Approach	Comments
Import Substitution	Take advantage of opportunities where something can be economically produced locally to take the place of something that must now be imported.
Value-added goods and services	Look for opportunities where raw goods and services are produced locally but “finished” elsewhere.
Resource enhancement	Are there local resources that no one is using? For example, recycling and waste minimization, alternative agricultural enterprises, and special job skills in the local labor pool.
Financial resources	Work with businesses to secure grants and preferable financing packages that will support and encourage growth.
Management resources	Provide business consulting services, informational support, and analyses of business plans that may be important in acquiring financing or realizing new opportunities.

Source: ("Creating New Enterprises," 1987).

Attract New Employers

Many rural communities, particularly those that lost significant manufacturing or other industries during the 1980s and 1990s, see attracting new employers as the job creation approach with the largest potential benefits. In fact, one of the leading problems cited by mayors of rural towns of less than 50,000 is that of attracting new businesses or industries to the community (Finsterbusch and Kuennen, 1992).

Attracting new employers to rural communities has become harder, given the global marketplace and the availability of cheap labor overseas—and, at the same time, easier, given advances in technology that have reduced the effects of geographic isolation. Attracting new employers to rural communities requires organization and analysis. Employers looking to expand or relocate often have numerous locations vying for their business, including foreign countries, so successful ways to compete for new businesses involve techniques of (“Attracting New Enterprises,” 1987):

• organization;

• surveys and analyses to identify community strengths and assets;

• targeting specific industries that match community assets; and

• marketing.

Businesses looking to relocate closely examine communities’ strengths and weaknesses, including labor availability and costs, available industrial or business space, community amenities, taxes, and infrastructure. States and communities have used many strategies to attract new businesses, often combining strategies into a comprehensive incentive package. A summary of key approaches is provided in Exhibit 11.

Exhibit 11:
Summary for Attracting New Businesses

Approach	Comments
Revolving loan funds	These are locally controlled capital funds that provide below-market rate loans to businesses relocating to an underserved community, or that have an insufficient credit history for obtaining credit from the private sector.
Business incubators	Business incubators provide shared services, technical assistance, and synergistic environments to start-up firms and firms relocating to an area. These incubators sometimes take form as industrial parks, office sites, and commercial sites that are prepared for and marketed to potential businesses.
Technical assistance programs	Provide professional support to both established and relocating businesses on their management practices, product or service marketing, and labor force requirements.
Tax credits or tax increment districts	States and communities may offer special tax credits or tax abatements to businesses as an incentive to relocate or continue business operations within their community. In the case of tax increment districts, the district obtains funds to finance development by issuing bonds that are backed by projected increases in property tax revenues.
Rural industry clusters	Rural industry clusters encourage the location and expansion of businesses in rural communities by creating interdependent links between customers and suppliers or by using a common local resource.
Industrial Development Agency	This is a nonprofit or governmental agency created at the request of a rural community that promotes, develops, and encourages industrial manufacturing and commercial facilities development. It may offer financial incentives to attract, retain, and expand business enterprises in its jurisdiction.
Business-led initiatives	Rural communities work with rural businesses to recruit similar or compatible industries. This effort often results in a more favorable business environment.
Infrastructure improvements	Rural community infrastructure is upgraded to accommodate the needs of specific businesses or industries. Infrastructure may include roads, public utilities, and telecommunications.
Rural Enterprise Zones	Rural Enterprise Zones provide incentives to businesses for investing in a designated distressed area. Incentives may take the form of tax credits, infrastructure improvements, or other types of business incentives.

Another type of “new employer” comes from the creation of home-based and micro-business enterprises. A recent study in Mississippi found a wide variety of home-based businesses, including business information management, construction, crafts, secretarial, maintenance and repair, and computer; more than one-third were in rural areas that had populations of less than 1,000 (“Home-Based . . .,” n.d.). In the same study, half of the businesses were profitable, one in five was breaking even, and less than one in five was losing money.

Provide Financial Capital

Historically, rural investment activities have been funded through earnings, debt and equity capital, governmental assistance, and support from foundations, but these sources have not always met the capital needs of rural areas (RUPRI Rural Finance Task Force, 1997). Loans for development in rural areas are often perceived as of higher risk, access to equity capital in rural areas is more constrained than in urban areas, and financial institutions do not fully use available mechanisms to address needs for rural capital.

Even when rural financial markets function efficiently, policy interventions may be necessary to provide sufficient financial capital for economic development (RUPRI Rural Finance Task Force, 1997):

• Public policy can be used to encourage financial institutions to meet economic development goals (e.g., creating state-level programs that provide access to capital).

• Alternative institutions, including community development corporations, could be used to overcome constraints inherent in the present structure of financial institutions.

• Special funds could be designated for micro-lending to support small-business development.

• Regulations and statutes designed for urban settings may have adverse consequences for rural areas, so ways to compensate for their effects should be considered.

• Tax incentives can be structured to encourage equity, infrastructure, and housing investment, which in turn will support economic development.

• States can enhance the capacity of community bankers through technical assistance and can facilitate the formation of partnerships across sectors and regions.

Capture More Local Dollars

Job creation and economic development in a rural community can be undermined by escaping local wealth. Some rural economies have been described as “porous”—that is, money that comes into the community leaks out, yet holding onto community wealth is essential to attracting new businesses, keeping and expanding businesses, and retaining and attracting residents. “Leaks” in community wealth can be plugged by encouraging local businesses to grow and expand and by community governments and residents working to plug holes (Exhibit 12).

Exhibit 12:
Ways to Plug "Leaks" in Community Wealth

Approach	Action
Local businesses can	Establish import substitution policies that provide for local production of goods imported from outside the community Expand into value-added industries Enhance or expand the use of underutilized resources
Communities can	Improve energy efficiency—energy conservation programs have a multiplier effect, increasing the disposable income of businesses and residents Expand human services to ensure an adequate supply, which affects business and residential decisions to stay or relocate to a community Develop recreational activities so that people will want to live there Rehabilitate the housing stock to improve the tax base and ensure an adequate supply of affordable housing Establish community schools as a resource center, which can make better use of the community’s human and physical capital Engage in self-development, where a local organization or government entity develops and invests local resources in a business enterprise, which is then owned and controlled by the locality

Sources: "Capturing Local Wealth," 1987; Flora et. al., 1992.

Capture More Global Dollars

Rural economies are now part of a global economy. No matter how physically isolated a community may be, telecommunications, the Internet, satellite television, and increasingly efficient transportation systems now link rural communities to the outside world. In this environment, rural communities are better positioned to market unique aspects of their location to outside businesses without having to face many of the challenges of geographic isolation (“Capturing Local Wealth,” 1987).

Taking advantage of de-isolation can be a strategic economic development tool. Rural communities can assess what they have to offer and target a number of business enterprises for relocation and job creation. Strategies that have been used include:

• Tourism—Many rural communities have natural resources, historical sites, and other attractions that are (or could be) of interest to tourists. Investing in services for travelers, accommodations, and the attractions themselves are ways to bring businesses and jobs to rural communities.

• Retirees—As the population ages and the elderly become wealthier, creating rural retirement destination communities becomes a viable economic development strategy. Retiree attraction has been found to increase localities’ tax bases, stimulate service-related industries targeted to the elderly, and boost local churches, charities, volunteerism, and other civic activities (Reeder, 1996). There are some drawbacks to this strategy: many of the created jobs are low-wage service sector jobs; elderly residents may require certain public services, especially health-related ones; and retirees sometimes have views on public policy issues (such as taxes, schools, and development) that differ from those of an area’s indigenous residents.

• Housing development—Rural communities in close proximity to larger urban areas can market themselves as “bedroom communities.” Bedroom communities attract more affluent residents to the community, thereby increasing the tax base, the need for localized services, and the construction industry. Some drawbacks to this type of “residential recruitment” are that new residents can significantly alter the culture of the community and many jobs created by housing development are low-wage and in the retail and service sectors.

WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

Over time, the primary welfare to work strategy shifted from a “human capital” approach to a “work first” approach (Cohen, 1998a; Holcomb et al., 1998). “Work first” emphasizes job placement over education and training and encourages quick job placement (regardless of pay).

Research indicates that the most successful programs are actually a cross between the human capital approach and work first, using a mix of employment and skill-building services (Strawn, 1998). This situation is complicated by TANF, which places time limits on welfare assistance and limits the extent to which other activities, such as education and training, count toward meeting work participation requirements (Cohen, 1998a; Strawn, 1998).

With this increased emphasis on quick entry into the paid labor force and self-sufficiency, there is a higher demand for workforce development. Many welfare recipients have very low educational and workplace skill levels. A 1995 study of single welfare mothers found that nearly 65 percent did not have high school diplomas (Spalter-Roth et al., 1995). The problem is further exacerbated because an estimated 25 to 40 percent of welfare recipients have learning disabilities (Cohen, 1998a).

The primary challenges faced by welfare to work programs are (Strawn, 1998):

• helping recipients for whom the job search is not successful,

• helping recipients find better jobs with higher wages, and

• helping recipients stay employed.

To meet the challenges, programs must adopt a variety of both employer- and recipient-focused approaches to workforce development. The following presents various activities under the topic of workforce development.

Employer Involvement

It is critical that workforce development programs establish strong linkages with local employers (National Governors’ Association, 1997, 1998; Brown et al., 1998). Programs need to work closely with the private sector and other employers to ensure that recipients are trained and prepared to meet the needs of employers. By working together, programs can better prepare recipients for available jobs and employers can work to continue recipients’ training and skill development.

Job Search and Job Readiness

Job search activities vary from program to program, ranging from telling applicants to look for a job to providing structured assistance. Practices include having participants conduct a job search before engaging in other activities, staff stressing the importance of finding work quickly, and programs imposing strict work requirements and enforcing sanctions for noncompliance (Holcomb et al., 1998).

Education and Training

Education and training activities are broad and include vocational training, on-the-job training, basic skills training, and post-secondary education. The focus on education and training has been greatly reduced under the “work first” approach as the emphasis has been shifted to “quick entry into the workforce” (Holcomb et al., 1998). Still, there is a need to upgrade the skills of entry-level workers because meaningful job advancement and wage increases are often possible only through additional education and training (Elliott et al., 1998).

In rural areas, education and training activities intersect with welfare to work strategies in an important way: many areas do not have enough low-skilled jobs for recipients who lack advanced skills (Cohen, 1998a), but education and training opportunities to prepare rural residents for high-skilled occupations are more limited (U.S. General Accounting Office, 1992).

Soft Skills Development

Some welfare recipients are not equipped with the skills and attitudes necessary to succeed in the workplace. Programs prepare these recipients with the necessary “soft skills”—such as how to balance work and family, appropriate workplace behavior, communication skills, work ethics, and punctuality. Several programs even simulate the work environment during job search and training activities (Elliott et al., 1998).

Unpaid Work Experience

Unpaid work experience, also known as community work experience, community service, or workfare, has welfare recipients work for public or nonprofit employers in exchange for welfare benefits. A review of evaluations of unpaid work experience programs from the 1980s showed little evidence that such placements affected recipients’ future employment and earnings (Brock et al., 1993). However, this approach has increased in prevalence since the implementation of welfare reform, with its requirements for work participation (Cohen, 1998b). Those participating in unpaid work experience tend to be recipients who are unable to get paid employment or are not ready to enter the workforce (Holcomb et al., 1998).

Publicly Funded Jobs

Publicly funded jobs appear to have a greater effect on recipients’ future employment and earnings than unpaid work experiences (Cohen, 1998b). Also known as subsidized employment, publicly funded jobs provide an opportunity for recipients to work for employers, which in turn receive subsidies that are diverted from welfare payments. To date, very limited numbers of TANF participants have been placed in publicly funded jobs; more common in urban than in rural areas, it is an option that some programs reserve for recipients who are not able to find a job after the specified period of job search.

Workforce Investment Act

The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998 (P.L. 105-220) has important implications for welfare to work strategies. Administered by the U.S. Department of Labor and consistent with the “work first” approach, WIA coordinates job training, adult education and literacy, and vocational rehabilitation programs. WIA could become a solid resource for TANF recipients, especially because the law emphasizes linkages between programs in several ways, including (1) a State Workforce Board with representatives from business and 14 programs (including public assistance) and (2) one-stop delivery systems for helping individuals get access to employment, training, and education programs (“Workforce Investment Act of 1998,” 1998).

COMMUNITY COMMITMENT

Both anecdotal and systematic evidence point to the value of community commitment in effecting positive change among disadvantaged populations (e.g., Schorr, 1997). In short, communities that work together and accept responsibility for devising and implementing welfare to work strategies are more likely to experience greater success in helping people achieve economic self-sufficiency than those that pursue isolated, segmented strategies. With this approach, the entire community—business, education, human services, faith institutions, local government, and the like—becomes involved in welfare to work strategies (Beaulieu, 1999).

The community commitment strategy has evolved from two converging streams in service delivery that have been developing over the past few decades. The first derives from the concept of “social capital” (Jacobs, 1961), which posits that social and economic systems function better when actors in the systems connect with each other, develop trust, and engage in a collective approach to matters facing their community (Briggs, 1998; Gittell and Vidal, 1998; Putnam, 1995). The second is often referred to as “service integration,” which derives from the practice of multiple agencies working together to focus on common issues and overcome boundaries inherent in categorical programs, separate accountability mechanisms, and diverse programmatic emphases (Kahn and Kamerman, 1992).

Factors that facilitate the development of community commitment include (Gardner, 1989; Flora, 1997; Schorr, 1997; Gittell and Vidal, 1998):

• a clear mission and objectives

• genuine, visible involvement from key leaders and stakeholders

• professional, well-trained staff

• strong ties to the target community

• networks and bridges across diverse groups

• availability of flexible funds

• authority to act and accountability for actions taken

• broad-based participation

A major challenge that pervades efforts at community commitment is the seeming inability to “scale up” from small, successful programs to those designed to serve a larger population (Nelson, 1993; Wingspread Conference, 1993). Although the community commitment approach has not yet been documented in the research literature on rural welfare to work strategies, it seems particularly appropriate, given the relatively small size of the rural TANF population and the emerging practice of linking rural service providers—both public and private, formal and informal—to work with that population.

TRANSPORTATION

Providing transportation options to low-income residents is frequently mentioned by service agencies as a factor in welfare to work programs. When county welfare administrators were asked to identify the most common reasons job-ready participants do not get jobs, lack of transportation was one of the top barriers identified and the second most frequently cited reason for individuals not being employed (Hughes, 1997).

As stated by Rodney Slater, the Secretary of Transportation, “Transportation provides the ‘to’ in ‘welfare to work.’” Rural areas face many unique circumstances in meeting the transportation challenge in welfare reform. Unlike urban areas, rural areas have fewer jobs available, and they may have greater distances between job sites. With the influx of TANF participants who need transportation to travel to education, training, work experience, or employment locations, providing new transportation options to disadvantaged rural residents will be a critical feature of programs designed to help the poor achieve economic self-sufficiency.

Rural Transportation Needs

Many rural residents must leave their communities and go “into town” or to the closest population center to find employment. Nationally, nearly three out of four rural counties have an average out-commuting rate from their towns of more than 35 percent (Aldrich et al., 1998). The smaller the rural settlement, the more likely that its residents travel to another town for employment.

About one-third of all rural residents are classified as transit dependent (Rucker, 1994).16

Employment and human service agencies are the main destinations for rural public transit riders: 20 percent of all trips are work-related, 17 percent are associated with human services, another 14 percent are for medical services, and the remainder are for assorted reasons (Rucker, 1994). This suggests that the Section 18 public transportation services17 are already serving a large proportion of the rural welfare population.

Public Transportation

Although Section 18 public transportation provides over 95 million trips for rural residents each year, close to 40 percent of all rural residents live in areas with no form of public transportation (Rucker, 1994; Kaplan, 1997). Another 28 percent live in areas with very low levels of service provision (Community Transportation Association of America, 1995). Compared to urban areas, rural America is relatively underserved by public transportation. Some form of public transportation is in 64 percent of all nonmetropolitan counties adjacent to urban areas with sizable populations, compared to 44 percent of those counties not adjacent to an urban area. Data from the National Personal Transportation Survey suggest that nearly 80 percent of rural counties have no public bus service (U.S. Department of Transportation, 1995).

Rural economic development can be positively affected by transportation programs because they provide links to jobs, offer rural businesses access to customers, and enhance the movement of commercial products (Economic Development Digest, 1998). Nearly 1,200 public transportation systems now exist in rural communities across the United States. These systems create significant benefits where they exist, and many communities without such systems are working to have them implemented (Burkhardt et al., 1997).

Public transportation can provide low-income residents the ability to commute to jobs, but public transportation entails relatively high costs and planning challenges in rural areas. To serve the TANF population effectively, public transportation might need to be expanded in terms of routes (to include multiple stops) and the addition of nonpeak and night service hours—which could further increase costs.

Recently, geographic information systems (GIS) mapping software has played a role in improving public transportation systems. GIS has been used by case workers and others to determine where most public assistance recipients live, along with the location of suitable employment opportunities, day care centers, and job training sites. GIS mapping software makes it possible to engineer the most efficient and plausible routes to transport people to all of these services. It is also a powerful tool for understanding the specific dimensions of mobility problems and can be used for planning and maintaining geographic data on a particular transit system (Community Transportation Association of America, 1998).

Private Vehicles

To help rural TANF recipients with their transportation needs, expanding public transportation is one (potentially costly) option; facilitating private vehicle ownership is another. The prevalence of private vehicle ownership is slightly higher in rural areas than in urban areas, but nearly one out of every 14 rural households does not own a vehicle (Burkhardt et al., 1997) and nearly 57 percent of the rural poor do not own a car (Rucker, 1994).

Because public transportation is limited in many rural areas, many individuals have had to rely on some form of private transportation for their commuting needs. In 1990, nearly 90 percent of all nonmetropolitan commutes were in private vehicles (Pisarski, 1996). In the past, family and community networks played an important role in facilitating travel for some low-income rural residents. Several recent studies indicate that a large number of welfare recipients carpool or rely on friends for rides to work (Brister et al., 1997; Cummings, 1998; Hattervig, 1998), but these studies are limited by relatively low response rates.

Transportation issues in rural areas are very much interrelated with other welfare to work issues, especially the issue of child care. Given the greater distance between work and child care sites in rural areas, effective public transportation services may need to be more flexible, allow for multiple stops, and allow for greater total distances traveled. This reality contributes to the popularity of private vehicle ownership programs in rural sites because private vehicles provide greater flexibility than public transportation.

Many challenges are associated with promoting private vehicle ownership among welfare recipients:

• The relatively high cost of owning a private vehicle creates a barrier for many welfare recipients.

• Individuals without a license (including those with suspended licenses) cannot use this form of transportation.

• Some welfare recipients may need to develop skills necessary to purchase and care for a car, such as money management and automobile maintenance.

Transportation Strategies

Rural organizations, governments, and human services agencies have used various strategies to provide transportation for rural residents making the transition from welfare to work. Some transportation issues have been addressed on an individual level through vouchers, donations, and programs to promote individual car ownership. Public transportation issues have been addressed through better coordination of resources, increasing collaboration among agencies, public/private partnerships, and strategic planning. Strategies used in rural transportation programs are summarized in Exhibit 13.

Exhibit 13:
Transportation Strategies in Rural Areas

Approach	Comment
Public school buses	Programs using school buses work with local school districts to allow residents to ride on scheduled bus routes to work or for educational purposes.
Leasing vehicles	Vehicles are secured through donations of local businesses, and clients then lease a vehicle, subject to certain restrictions and obligations.
Private ownership	Cars are obtained through donations from local businesses, and clients purchase the vehicles if they meet certain criteria and agree to specific conditions of car ownership.
Subsidies for taxis	Recipients are given a specific amount of money for transportation by taxi.
Gasoline vouchers	Local gas stations are reimbursed for vouchers presented to them by recipients.
Loans	Working with area banks and businesses, agencies help recipients secure low interest or no interest loans; payments are usually put back into a revolving loan fund for other recipients.
Carpooling	Residents with cars are linked with others from the same area who need transportation.
Volunteers	Area residents, including senior citizens, volunteer to transport recipients to jobs, medical appointments, and educational services.
Corrections officers, volunteer fire departments	Personnel provide rides during second and third shifts.
Subsidized public transportation	Employers pay transportation expenses.
Vans	In areas without buses, fleets of vans are used as an alternative form of public transportation.
Create public transit	Entities collaborate to create some form of a public transit system where there has been none, usually relying on a variety of transportation options.

Source: National Rural Development Partnership, 1998.

Virtually no research has been conducted that evaluates the results or impacts of various transportation options for rural TANF recipients, and no studies have been conducted on transportation options that provide rural TANF recipients the ability to gain or sustain employment. Many positive factors have been mentioned as resulting from rural transportation programs (Exhibit 14).

Exhibit 14:
Positive Factors Resulting from Rural Transportation Programs

Factor	Comment
Collaboration	Government agencies, area businesses, school districts, and other entities join together to solve transportation problems. Through coordinated planning, transportation services are created around existing programs so as not to duplicate services.
Cost savings	Money for transportation needs is saved by using available equipment or joining with a program already in operation.
Flexibility	Programs can be designed to provide flexible transportation options or schedules, a valuable service for those working nontraditional hours.
Local transportation system gets more riders	Local residents are encouraged to use public transportation through financial help.
Help fill second and third shifts	Transportation program makes it possible to meet the needs of employers with nontraditional work hours.
Mentoring	Recipients have the opportunity to interact with volunteers.
Responsibility	Clients are given the opportunity to purchase a vehicle, make payments, and care for the vehicle.
Skills/training	Participants obtain additional skills when they take classes to learn more about owning and caring for a vehicle.

CHILD CARE

One of the most significant challenges for parents (especially single parents) working outside the home is getting affordable, accessible, high-quality child care. This need is particularly critical for preschool children, both because they need good care to meet their physical and safety needs and because of the importance of preschool years for social and cognitive development (Caspi et al., 1998; Duncan et al., 1994; Starting Points, 1994). Concerns have also been expressed about the need to increase the amount and improve the quality of care for school-age children (Riley et al., 1994).

PRWORA consolidated four major federal child care programs into the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), which is a block grant that, for fiscal year 1997, increased funding by 27 percent from previous levels (Long and Clark, 1997). The CCDF gives states flexibility in designing and funding child care services. States may use only federal funds, states may get additional federal support by raising their child care spending, and states may shift funds from TANF to child care.

Supply of Child Care

As more and more single parents enter the workforce to meet TANF requirements, the need for child care will increase. One recent study estimated that for children under 13, less than half could be served if states used all the federal funds available for the population, one-third could be served if states maintained their prior level of spending on child care, and about one-fourth could be served if states spent no state funds on child care (Long and Clark, 1997).

The need for additional child care slots is an issue in both urban and suburban areas. Where demand for child care will increase, providers may need to expand services during second- and third-shift hours, and services may need to be organized so that sick or special needs children can be taken care of (U.S. General Accounting Office, 1995a). This set of demands may even be a bigger challenge in rural areas, where low population density may result in fewer available child care centers (Kaplan, 1998).

Relative vs. Center-Based Child Care

Rural employed mothers are more likely than urban employed mothers to use relatives for child care; they are less likely to use center care (Casper 1996; Emlen, 1991; Hofferth et al., 1991). This situation may have implications for the ability of rural welfare recipients to achieve economic self-sufficiency because one study—although not based on rural experiences—found that working mothers who relied on relatives for child care were 2.2 times more likely to leave a job than working mothers who used day care centers (“Child Rearing and Employment Turnover,” 1997).

Child Care in Rural vs. Urban Areas

Other than investigations into relative- vs. center-based care, very little research has explicitly compared child care provision in rural and urban areas, so knowledge about the subject is limited. The research that has been done shows that:

• Rural families with employed mothers and preschoolers spend less per week on child care than urban families (Hofferth et al., 1991), and the cost of child care is significantly lower in rural areas (Emlen, 1991).

• Distances traveled from home to child care are much greater in rural than urban areas—those in the most rural areas travel about double the distance traveled by those in the largest urban area (Emlen, 1991).

These differences suggest that lessons about the effectiveness of child care for welfare recipients—which are based almost exclusively on urban settings—cannot be automatically applied to rural settings. For example, although unlicensed, informal child care is generally thought to be of lesser quality than that provided in regulated child care centers (see, for example, Kontos et al., 1995), that knowledge comes from experiences in urban areas; whether it applies to rural areas has not yet been determined.

Given the importance of child care as a barrier to employment for mothers moving into the labor force, it is critical to know more about how the characteristics of rural child care (fewer choices, greater distances from home to child care, lower costs) affect the ability of rural parents to become self-sufficient and the well-being of their children.

Child Care Strategies

States and communities have tried various strategies to provide child care to welfare recipients, as displayed in Exhibit 15.

The following outcomes have been reported for rural child care programs:

• Collaboration—Government agencies, local businesses, churches, and others join together to solve local child care problems.

• Mentoring—Through programs, recipients and their children interact with volunteers.

• Parent education—Training classes are provided for participating parents.

• Mini-grants—Child care providers receive financial support to help them achieve their goals.

• Flexibility—Programs provide flexibility of child care options for parents in need of nontraditional child care.

• Intergenerational—Programs provide opportunities for children to interact with older residents.

Exhibit 15:
Child Care Strategies

Approach	Comment
Establish child care initiative	Through a collaborative effort, communities identify child care needs and build partnerships for future action.
Apprenticeship/training	The goal is to prepare future child care providers to meet child care needs of the area.
Church-based child care	Child care program established in churches.
Nursing home-based child care	Child care provided in area nursing homes.
Employer-sponsored child care	Employees use child care facilities provided by their employers.
Facilities development	Loan funds and programs provide support for construction and renovation of child care facilities.
Employer incentives	Used to encourage employers to provide assistance, programs offer loans, grants, or tax incentives to employers that support child care facilities (e.g., by designating space for child care centers in business settings).
Head Start	Head Start programs may provide full-day, year-round services.

Sources: Kaplan, 1998; National Rural Development Partnership, 1998.

HARD-TO-SERVE WELFARE TO WORK PARTICIPANTS

As long as the country has had public assistance programs, individuals with special needs have been able to receive benefits and remain not particularly visible within the welfare system. Now, with TANF’s work requirements, time limits, and sanctions, those who have special challenges in facing the shift to self-sufficiency are receiving additional attention. In fact, there is a growing consensus (although little direct evidence) that welfare reform, to date, has moved easier-to-serve, more employable TANF recipients into jobs, leaving those with more intransigent problems on the nation’s welfare rolls (Kramer, 1998; Pavetti et al., 1996).

A review of the literature suggests eight factors that can affect a TANF recipient’s transition from welfare to work (Olson and Pavetti, 1996):

• physical disabilities or health limitations

• mental health problems

• children’s health or behavioral problems

• substance abuse

• domestic violence

• involvement with child welfare

• housing instability

• low basic skills and learning disabilities

Identifying Barriers

Most programs do not systematically assess welfare recipients to determine whether they have any of these barriers to employment (Seefeldt et al., 1998). In fact, there can be wide disagreement about (1) the definition of the barrier and (2) the numbers and percentages of individuals who face these kinds of challenges. For seven of the eight barriers listed above, the variance in estimated prevalence is at least 10 percentage points across various studies (Olson and Pavetti, 1996).

What’s a Barrier? There are no common definitions of barriers to employment, which means there are many ways of characterizing and counting the affected population. In terms of physical disability, recent studies have found the following: woman or child has disability—30 percent of AFDC families disabled mother or severely disabled child—20 percent of AFDC families mother or child has disability or chronic health problem—43 percent of California AFDC families work limitation—17 to 19 percent of AFDC mothers serious disability—10 percent of AFDC mothers For substance abuse, recent studies have found the following: alcohol or drug use—over one-third of women ages 26 to 33 who received welfare significant alcohol- or drug-related impairment—5 percent of AFDC recipients some alcohol- or drug-related impairment—11 percent of AFDC recipients use of any illegal substance—21 percent of AFDC recipients use of any illegal substance other than marijuana—11 percent of AFDC recipients Sources: Jayakody et al., 1998; Kramer, 1998.

Multiple Barriers

One barrier to employment can be sufficient cause for concern, but multiple barriers can pose serious challenges to a TANF participant’s ability to achieve economic self-sufficiency. Estimates of the size of the population with multiple barriers vary widely:

• A study of single mothers on welfare in an urban Michigan county found that 65 percent had more than two barriers (Danziger et al., 1998).

• In a program that served teen parents, staff records showed that 40 percent of participants had multiple problems (Quint, 1991).

• A review of case records in Utah concluded that one-third of public assistance recipients had more than one barrier and showed that longer-term participants were dramatically more likely to have multiple problems than shorter-term participants (Pavetti, 1995).

• Data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth show that nearly 50 percent have more than one of the eight barriers listed previously (Olson and Pavetti, 1996).

Effects of Barriers on Ability to Work

The low skill level among welfare recipients has been well documented as the most common barrier to work (Olson and Pavetti, 1996). Welfare recipients with low skill levels are likely to get jobs—if they are able to get jobs—with low pay, unpredictable hours, and few fringe benefits. Achieving self-sufficiency under these circumstances may be very difficult.

Information is not solid about the effects of other barriers—whether singly or in combination—on a welfare recipient’s ability to secure and retain gainful employment. It is clear, for example, that many substance users can be sufficiently functional to get a job and keep it. National estimates are that just under 10 percent of the United States’ workforce (both former welfare recipients and those who have never received welfare) is composed of heavy alcohol drinkers (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 1997), but they manage to keep that potential barrier enough out of the workplace to perform adequately. It is equally clear, however, that some sets of barriers could present nearly insurmountable challenges to achieving self-sufficiency. For instance, a mother who has a suspected learning disability, has been a victim of domestic violence, and has an asthmatic child could well face some intimidating events.

An indicator about the effects of barriers comes from employment histories of people with barriers to work. Research has shown that recent employment histories are no different for those who have barriers and those who do not. The problem comes from the lack of continuous employment for those with barriers to work: 7 percent of employed recipients with an employment barrier (other than low skill levels) had worked for at least 50 weeks of the preceding two years, whereas about 25 percent of recipients without employment barriers had worked for at least 50 weeks during that period (Olson and Pavetti, 1996).

Approaches to Serving the Hard-to-Serve Population

By definition, the hard-to-serve population—in both urban and rural areas—will almost undoubtedly require greater assistance in complying with TANF requirements. It is not clear, however, where different service strategies will be necessary for urban and rural areas. For example, rural areas are likely to have fewer shelters for abused women and their children, thus forcing the issue of how program providers can best meet their needs. At the same time, many urban areas have insufficient space to provide housing for victims of domestic violence.

The following are approaches that may prove beneficial in helping the hard-to-serve welfare population achieve self-sufficiency.

• Accurately diagnosing barriers is challenging. Many individuals are reluctant to disclose personal information, such as domestic violence or substance abuse, that can affect their ability to work. Assessment tools are not often used (Pavetti et al., 1996); moreover, there is little evidence that assessment tools are particularly effective in diagnosing barriers or helping participants get jobs. Without an accurate diagnosis, services provided may be inappropriate and needed services may be absent.

• The addition of transitional child care and Medicaid should be helpful, especially for parents who want to work but need help for their children (Olson and Pavetti, 1996).

• Because fully one-third of current welfare recipients demonstrate extremely low levels of skills, human services staff may need to pay special attention to identifying appropriate labor markets for these individuals and alternative education and training options (Olson and Pavetti, 1996).

• Post-employment services may be particularly important for ensuring that the hard-to-serve retain their jobs (Pavetti et al., 1996; Olson and Pavetti, 1996). Rather than considering these as “closed cases,” human services agencies may want to develop mechanisms for routine, supportive contact.

• The most effective way to prepare the hard-to-serve population for self-sufficiency appears to combine education and training with work experience (Hanken, 1998; Strawn, 1998).

• Intensive case management may be necessary for this segment of the population, with caseloads of between 20 and 50 per staff member. A trusting relationship between case worker and client appears to be of great importance in achieving success (Pavetti et al., 1996), which suggests that administrative aspects of the welfare system may need to be reviewed and restructured.

• Co-location of specialized staff (such as substance abuse clinicians) and welfare agency personnel can facilitate diagnosis and placement (Pavetti et al., 1996). Co-location can also alleviate case workers’ responsibility for matters, such as determining a client’s mental health status, that are usually beyond their purview and training to detect.

RESTRUCTURING ADMINISTRATIVE ELEMENTS OF THE WELFARE SYSTEM

The far-reaching changes that PRWORA and state public assistance programs have introduced into the welfare system include changes in administrative structures that provide services to welfare recipients. A primary example concerns the functions of front-line workers: once responsible mainly for eligibility determination, they now serve more as employment counselors (U.S. General Accounting Office, 1998).

In addition, because of the way that the human services system is structured in rural areas, local agency staff may face challenges in implementing welfare reform practices. Public officials in rural communities often work part-time, and those communities are less likely to have the human capital and financial resources needed for public administration, economic development, and strategic planning (Garkovich, 1998; Garkovich and Irby, 1998). They are also less likely to have the capacity to respond to state block grant opportunities (Reeder, 1996).

This section reviews three administrative aspects of the welfare system and their associated changes: case management, co-location of services, and changing the culture of welfare offices. It also presents information about emerging changes in the welfare caseload that are attributed to changes in TANF’s administrative structure. We emphasize that information presented in this section draws almost exclusively from knowledge about practices in urban settings, but it is plausible that the same conditions are being experienced in rural areas.

Case Management

Not long ago, case management was found primarily in health care settings. Case management was performed by social workers or nurses and centered on individuals—such as those released from long-term mental health facilities under deinstitutionalization practices—whose day-to-day needs exceeded those services available through any single agency or funding stream (Marks, 1994).

With the advent of JOBS under the Family Support Act of 1988, case management entered the welfare system in a substantial way (Gueron and Pauly, 1991). For the segment of the population subject to JOBS requirements, case workers conducted needs assessments, developed employability plans, monitored compliance, approved training and work activities, and became a single point of contact for the JOBS participant.

With TANF, case management has spread far further throughout the welfare system. This is due to both:

• the shift in philosophy underlying public assistance, from providing support to maximizing work; and

• the establishment of self-sufficiency plans, wherein a welfare recipient and the case worker jointly develop written statements about the activities that the recipient will pursue to obtain a job.

Under optimal conditions, the case manager has the tools necessary to conduct work, including assessment instruments that determine the recipient’s areas of strength and weakness (including the barriers discussed above), a format for an employability plan that is substantively meaningful (rather than merely a checklist of referrals made), access to other providers in the human services system, and a sufficiently small caseload to maintain regular, in-person contact with those who need such interactions.

Case managers also need flexibility and the authority to treat their clients according to their individual needs. For instance, some successful programs do not stipulate the amount of contact that case managers must have with their clients, but rather defer to the case managers’ judgment about the frequency of interacting with clients (Pavetti et al., 1996). To perform their responsibilities with flexibility and authority, case managers must also have the skills and training to adapt their job requirements so that they can meet individual needs (Johnson and Meckstroth, 1998). Adapting to new job responsibilities could be challenging for front-line workers who shifted from being intake workers conducting eligibility determinations according to set formulas to become, under TANF, counselors responsible for helping their clients obtain and retain employment (Hamilton et al., 1997).

Rural case managers are likely to face some issues their urban counterparts do not, such as:

• A major function of the case manager is to refer welfare recipients to other parts of the human services system that can provide needed support. In rural areas, those services (such as education and training) are likely to be in shorter supply or less accessible (especially for those who lack reliable transportation) than in urban areas.

• Rural areas do not have the anonymity of urban areas. A rural welfare recipient who has a substance abuse problem or is experiencing domestic violence may be more reluctant than an urban TANF recipient to reveal the matter to a case worker. The two may overlap in a small community in ways that are improbable in larger cities (e.g., at the grocery store, in church).

• The geographic dispersion, isolation, and limited transportation of rural areas means that case managers and their clients are not easily able to meet face-to-face. Given the importance of personal interaction in this relationship, the work they do together may be adversely affected.

Coordination of Services

In response to categorical programs that artificially separated elements of the human services system, many communities have responded by integrating services (Bender, 1998), co-locating services (Yates, 1998), or establishing other ways to coordinate services (Kogan et al., 1997). Under these models, representatives of multiple agencies work together—either in the same setting or in separate offices—to provide more wholistic services to TANF participants. The goal of coordinated services is to remove burdens from the welfare recipient, such as:

• going from one place to another and completing multiple intake procedures to be certified as eligible for services;

• obtaining necessary support (e.g., cash benefits, food stamps, transportation vouchers, child care referrals, and appointments for health care) from multiple, sometimes segmented providers; and

• encountering possible conflicts in program requirements.

With the breadth of services that many TANF recipients will need to achieve self-sufficiency—especially those who cannot readily find and keep jobs—service coordination is likely to grow. In establishing or expanding coordinated services, the predominant models generally involve:

1. Out-stationing staff, wherein each participating agency assigns a few staff members to a work site away from the central office, often in a place more accessible to the welfare population.

2. Linking service providers, often through face-to-face meetings, who are serving the same family.

3. Identifying one case manager who will help a given family navigate the human services delivery system.

With coordinated services, local entities must consider several factors. First, although these approaches offer a more comprehensive strategy than traditional service delivery models, they can affect staff work and morale both positively and negatively. To be effective, for example, out-stationed staff need electronic access to records (e.g., to determine eligibility, identify service providers with available slots, assess appropriateness of services already received), connections to the home base (e.g., for information sharing with colleagues, reporting to supervisors), and resources to do their jobs (e.g., if the agency distributes transportation vouchers, the out-stationed staff need to have transportation vouchers at their work site).

Second, staff members’ authority must be made clear, especially with regard to (1) the decisions about services they can make and (2) information they can share with staff from other agencies. If, for example, they do not need a supervisor’s permission to approve a client’s enrollment in a job training course, both the staff member and the supervisor need to understand this clearly. Similarly, if staff members are not allowed to share potentially sensitive information about a welfare recipient (e.g., the individual is on a waiting list for residential substance abuse treatment), the lines need to be well-defined and carefully respected.

Third, performance measures need to recognize that staff serving in capacities that require them to coordinate services may not be able to meet job expectations held of other staff. Those who regularly attend staffing conferences with representatives of other agencies may, for example, not be able to sit on committees the same way that their office-based counterparts can.

Enthusiasts [of streamlining] rightly point to pumped-up administrative productivity, better access for customers, and less demand for more expensive long-term services. But the nagging short-term cost problem may put a damper on these reforms until elected officials buy the long-term reasoning (Kraus, 1996).

Fourth, although coordinated services make good sense and hold substantial promise for helping TANF recipients achieve self-sufficiency, they may incur initial costs that exceed previous service delivery costs. In some cases, the additional costs may be due to increased caseloads (Kraus, 1996).

Changing the Culture of the Welfare Office

To the extent that PRWORA accomplishes its stated and intended goals, it will be through the work of welfare office staff (Hercik, 1998a). They are responsible for communicating the message of self-sufficiency to welfare recipients, helping recipients acquire services that will enable them to obtain and retain jobs, monitoring compliance with training and job-readiness programs, linking TANF participants with community resources, and supporting some clients through the dramatic shift from dependency to independence (Hercik, 1998b).

This set of responsibilities is significantly different from the work historically required of welfare agency staff. Previously, case workers focused on eligibility determination—checking pay stubs and utility bills, establishing the value of a recipient’s assets, and so forth, then entering information into a system that automatically produced a monthly check. Now, case workers must focus on the individual—assessing a client’s personal strengths and shortcomings, reviewing the person’s educational and employment history, helping that client understand that public assistance is no longer available for indefinite periods, and providing counseling so the welfare recipient can get a job (Holcomb et al., 1998; U.S. General Accounting Office, 1998).

Although there has been much discussion about the need to change the “culture of welfare,” very little has yet been documented about the specific ways that state and local offices of human services are implementing these changes. One set of preliminary findings indicates that (1) front-line staff have not yet fully embraced the philosophy of TANF and its emphasis on self-sufficiency; (2) local-level offices that go through some transition are more likely to evidence culture change than those that stay static in terms of operations; and (3) co-location may work against communicating the TANF message in that welfare recipients seem to understand the shift more when they need to go from one office to another (Lurie et al., 1998).

Moreover, the administrative structure surrounding TANF and the emphasis on “work first” have resulted in two unanticipated changes in the welfare caseload. First, the rate of decline in Medicaid and Food Stamp Program recipients has been unexpectedly precipitous, and some observers believe that the decrease in Medicaid and food stamp participation rates is probably linked to welfare reform (Sherman et al., 1998; Swarns, 1998). Under AFDC, Medicaid and food stamp eligibility was often automatically determined by the receipt of cash assistance. Under TANF, diversion programs designed to keep people off cash assistance may have the effect of deterring their eligibility determination for Medicaid and food stamps.18 Additionally, there is some concern that (1) case managers may, purposefully or inadvertently, not fully inform TANF applicants and recipients leaving public assistance of their eligibility for other programs, and (2) individuals eligible for Medicaid and food stamps may not fully understand the requirements for enrolling in those programs (Sherman et al., 1998).

In light of these changes, programs designed to develop rural welfare to work strategies probably need to incorporate the following considerations:

• Not all front-line workers will welcome the shift from eligibility determination to employment counseling (Seefeldt et al., 1998).

• Case workers will have different levels of skills to respond to the changing environment. Some may require training and close supervision to perform their new responsibilities effectively (Seefeldt et al., 1998).

• Human services agencies may need to change the performance standards for evaluating staff (Meyers et al., 1998). For example, successes at job placement and retention may need to be added to traditional measures such as error rates.

• With the decreasing caseload, those who remain on welfare may present special needs that require case workers to extend themselves beyond familiar work zones. Staff will need to be particularly cognizant of welfare recipients whose barriers to employment may not be immediately obvious (e.g., domestic violence).

• The devolution of authority from the federal government to the states is in many instances being emulated in the devolution of authority from the states to the local levels. County departments of human services may require additional types of staff, training, and resources to manage these responsibilities effectively.

• For welfare reform to be ultimately successful, agencies will need to look beyond the immediate pressure to reduce caseloads and incorporate services that are available to help families achieve economic self-sufficiency.

SUMMARY

This chapter has discussed several key areas where features of rural America and factors of welfare recipients’ abilities to achieve economic self-sufficiency intersect. To have successful welfare to work strategies, rural areas will need to generate a sufficient number of stable jobs that pay good wages. Possible methods of doing so include working with employers to create jobs and improve benefits, encouraging employers to expand their businesses, attracting new employers, providing financial capital, and capturing more local and global dollars.

Transportation—or the lack of it—is particularly crucial in rural welfare to work initiatives. Because of geographic dispersion, welfare recipients need access to reliable, affordable transportation to get to work, training and educational opportunities, and child care. Rural communities have tried various strategies to provide transportation options, including vehicle ownership programs, use of public school buses, and volunteers.

Other aspects of rural welfare to work strategies have not received much attention in the research literature. These include workforce development, child care, barriers that recipients face in achieving economic self-sufficiency, and changes in the administration of welfare programs.

---

13 A thorough overview of lessons from federal demonstration programs is presented in Bloom, 1997. Evaluations of state waiver programs are listed in Administration for Children and Families, 1998; they have not yet been synthesized. Findings about job retention and advancement are presented in Fishman et al., 1998. (back)

14 “Labor force attachment” models focus on getting participants into paid employment as quickly as possible. “Human capital development” models center on investing in educational and training services that develop skills needed for higher-paying jobs. (back)

15 Other evaluations specifically mention that rural areas are included in the study sample, such as those conducted on welfare experiments in Iowa and Vermont (Fraker et al., 1998; Bloom et al., 1998). Results, however, are not presented by county in a way that enables the reader to draw conclusions about rural outcomes. Presumably, with access to the data and a sufficient sample size, rural findings could be examined. (back)

16 A “transit dependent” individual is one who is elderly, disabled, or poor. (back)

17 In 1978, Congress created a program of transit assistance to areas other than urbanized areas. Section 18 funds are apportioned to the states according to a statutory formula based on each state's population in rural areas and places of less than 50,000 residents. These funds are used for a wide range of rural public transportation programs, including Fixed Route, Demand Response, and Subscription programs. In 1994, Section 18 programs were renamed Section 5311. (back)

18 The Health Care Financing Administration is currently investigating this phenomenon in New York City to determine whether potential Medicaid and Food Stamp Program participants have been unfairly excluded from enrollment (Swarns, 1998), and a recent court decision requires changes in New York City’s practices for TANF applicants (Swarns, 1999). (back)

 

Table of Contents | Previous | Next