Table of Contents | Previous | Next |
Chapter I: Introduction
Rural low-income families trying to achieve economic independence face distinct challenges. Low-income people in both rural and urban places may encounter such barriers to employment as limited job skills or inadequate child care. Economic and geographic conditions in many rural areas, however, create special hurdles for welfare recipients and other disadvantaged people hoping to find jobs, maintain employment, and secure longer-term well-being. In rural labor markets, jobs tend to be scarcer than in urban ones, and the jobs that are available more often involve minimum-wage or part-time work. Education and training opportunities and such support services as health and mental health care also are more likely to be difficult to obtain. Moreover, lack of public transportation common in rural areas can make existing jobs and services difficult for a dispersed population to access (Weber and Duncan 2001; and Friedman 2003).
In the context of welfare reform, understanding how to address these challenges and help rural low-income families move toward self-sufficiency is particularly important. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, established under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, imposes work requirements and a five-year lifetime limit on cash assistance for most recipients. These rules create a new impetus for welfare recipients to find jobs—regardless of where they live. Some states and localities, recognizing the particular challenges facing the rural poor, have launched welfare-to-work programs specifically targeting rural places. The Rural Welfare-to-Work Strategies Demonstration Evaluation will assess whether three innovative programs in Illinois, Nebraska, and Tennessee can improve employment and other outcomes for rural low-income people (see text box). Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (MPR) and its subcontractors, Decision Information Resources and the Rural Policy Research Institute, are conducting the evaluation with funding from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families.
This report chronicles the implementation experiences of the three programs participating in the Rural Welfare-to-Work Strategies Demonstration Evaluation. Although it does not present findings on the impact of the demonstration programs—impact and cost-benefit research is still in progress—the report does share an early assessment of how the programs operate and the successes and challenges they have encountered so far. We begin by considering how a rural context might affect the implementation of welfare-to-work initiatives and by describing key features of the demonstration programs and the communities in which they operate. We then present early findings on the operation of the demonstration programs, the services they provide, and how clients participate in them. We also explore the service delivery strategies programs use to meet the implementation challenges a rural context presents. We conclude the report by drawing early lessons about the design and operation of welfare-to-work programs in rural places, with the goal of informing other efforts to promote economic independence among rural low-income families.
THE RURAL WELFARE-TO-WORK STRATEGIES DEMONSTRATION EVALUATIONThe Rural Welfare-to-Work Strategies Demonstration Evaluation is the first rigorous, systematic evaluation of programs designed to move more rural families from welfare to work and to promote sustained employment and job progression. The evaluation includes the following complementary studies:
The Rural Welfare-to-Work Strategies Demonstration Evaluation began in 2000 and is expected to extend through 2007. |
Implementation Issues For Rural Welfare-To-Work Programs
The same conditions that affect rural low-income people’s ability to move toward self-sufficiency also have implications for how welfare-to-work programs in rural areas operate. The following rural characteristics are likely to have some bearing on program design and implementation:
- Limited Job Opportunities and Service Capacity. Rural areas with relatively few employers and a small number of social service providers offer scarce external resources for welfare-to-work programs. To adequately help clients, programs may need to find opportunities and useful outside services that do exist or provide a wide range of services themselves.
- Population Dispersion. Rural areas are defined by low population density, and clients of a rural welfare-to-work program are likely to live across a wide geographic region. This dispersion may affect the size of a program’s service areas, how it recruits and enrolls participants, where staff members are located, and how they are managed.
- Compact Social Networks. Tight-knit rural communities present both advantages and disadvantages for low-income people. While the informal support of other community members may be a benefit, an individual’s poor personal or family reputation can negatively affect economic prospects by making local employers less willing to hire that person (Findeis et al. 2001). Rural welfare-to-work programs may have a role in helping clients overcome this barrier.
This report builds on existing knowledge about the implementation of welfare-to-work programs by exploring the significance of rural conditions. An earlier process study of welfare-to-work programs, evaluating grants administered by the U.S. Department of Labor, identified several general lessons on program operation (Nightingale et al. 2002). It highlighted the benefits of local partnerships and collaborations, which enhance the services a program provides, as well as the importance of systematically recruiting clients to keep adequate enrollment levels. Partnerships and active client outreach are central elements of the three Rural Welfare-to-Work demonstration programs, as this report describes, but a rural context shapes how these program components function.
The Rural Welfare-To-Work Demonstration Programs
The Rural Welfare-to-Work demonstration programs use diverse approaches to address employment barriers common in rural places. The three programs—Illinois Future Steps, Building Nebraska Families, and Tennessee First Wheels—were selected as evaluation sites because they offer innovative services on a scale large enough to support a rigorous experimental study of impacts. We summarize key features of the programs here and in Table I.1. Appendix A includes a profile of each program.
Illinois Future Steps. The Future Steps program responded to the scarcity of job opportunities in rural areas by offering intensive, employment-focused case management to prepare participants for work and help them find and keep good jobs. Career specialists assessed clients’ skills and interests and helped them overcome personal and logistical barriers to employment. The career specialists worked with clients to create individualized job search and skills enhancement plans, and helped them, as necessary, obtain and keep a job. In addition to mentoring clients and making outside referrals, career specialists could authorize up to $500 in flexible supportive service payments to help clients meet a variety of employment-related and personal expenses—from transportation to utility bills. Future Steps operated from July 2001 through June 2003, enrolling TANF clients who were required to work and low-income people who volunteered to participate (mainly recipients of food stamps or Medicaid).
Staff of Shawnee Community College (SCC), based in Ullin, Illinois, ran Future Steps under a contract with the Illinois Department of Human Services (IDHS). The program’s staff included five career specialists, a program coordinator, and the director of the SCC placement center, which provides job search services to students and the general public. To make it easier for career specialists to reach clients and coordinate with IDHS caseworkers and administrators, the specialists were stationed in local IDHS offices.
The Future Steps service area covered five rural counties in southern Illinois. The counties have a combined population of about 64,000; most residents are white, but a substantial minority—about 13 percent—are African American. All five counties face economic challenges, including poverty rates above the statewide average (as high as 26 percent in one county) and limited public transportation. The area has a few large employers, including chemical and cement factories, state prisons, and a riverboat casino. However, common entry-level jobs are with retailers, fast-food restaurants, and nursing homes.
Building Nebraska Families. Building Nebraska Families (BNF) takes an indirect approach to helping low-income people move from welfare to work. This preemployment educational program aims to improve the basic life skills of hard-to-employ people so they can engage in job search and training activities and address personal and family barriers to self-sufficiency. BNF educators work individually with participants, using research-based curricula to teach subjects that range from household management and parenting to decision making and building self-esteem. Education sessions typically take place in participants’ homes, and participants’ progress is tracked through “success markers,” which specify behaviors the program seeks to encourage. The program’s approach recognizes that many individuals face multiple, serious personal barriers to employment and that specialized services to address these barriers often are limited or difficult to access in rural areas. BNF is the only demonstration program that enrolls TANF clients exclusively. The program began in February 1999 and became a Rural Welfare-to-Work demonstration site in April 2002.
| Illinois Future Steps | Building Nebraska Families | Tennessee First Wheels |
|---|---|---|
| Program Model | ||
| Employment-focused case management including job placement assistance and postemployment support | Preemployment life skills education | Interest-free car loans with ongoing support for car and loan maintenance |
| Notable Program Features | ||
|
|
|
| Partner Organizations | ||
|
|
|
| Target Population | ||
| TANF recipients required to work and other low-income volunteers (mainly food stamp or Medicaid recipients) | Hard-to-employ TANF recipients unsuccessful in other activities | Employed current and former TANF recipients and employed recipients of food stamps or child care subsidies |
| Service Area | ||
| 5 rural counties in southern Illinois | 52 rural counties located throughout the state | Statewide (only rural counties included in the evaluation) |
| Key Staff | ||
|
|
|
| Approximate Caseload Size | ||
| 15-35 clients per career specialist | 10-20 clients per educator | 45-105 clients per program manager |
| Evaluation Sample Size | ||
| 630 total (313 program, 317 control) |
600 projected (330 program, 270 control) |
n.a.* |
| Sample Intake Period | ||
| July 2001 – December 2002 | March 2002 – August 2004 | n.a. |
* n.a. = not applicable. (Tennessee will not participate in the evaluation’s impact or cost-benefit studies.) (back)
The University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension (UNCE) operates BNF with funding from the Nebraska Health and Human Services System. Ten BNF educators are based in UNCE offices throughout Nebraska, and each covers a service area of three to eight rural counties. All educators and the program coordinator have master’s degrees.
The 52 counties in BNF’s service area vary in population density—the counties include not only remote, sparsely populated areas, but also such large towns as North Platte and Grand Island. However, most of the counties have the tenuous economic conditions common in rural areas. Although Nebraska’s rural areas are largely homogeneous—nearly all residents are white—some communities have experienced a recent influx of refugees, other immigrants, and migrant workers. Nebraska as a whole has enjoyed relatively low unemployment and poverty. In most of the counties BNF serves, however, poverty and unemployment figures are above the statewide average. A recent survey of Nebraska TANF clients indicates that most employed clients work in service jobs (such as positions in the health or food sectors) or hold clerical or other administrative support positions. Urban TANF clients in Nebraska hold better jobs, in terms of pay and benefits, than rural clients, on average (Ponza et al. 2002).
Tennessee First Wheels. First Wheels offers no-interest car loans to address the lack of reliable, affordable transportation—a key barrier to work and self-sufficiency among rural low-income families. The program not only provides funding to help Tennessee families purchase vehicles but also allows loan recipients access to a supply of well-maintained used cars, works with clients to create a reasonable repayment schedule, and, ideally, presents an opportunity for clients to develop a good credit history. To apply for a loan, clients document their ability to make regular loan payments and appear before a loan committee made up of local welfare agency administrators and community volunteers. After a loan is approved, First Wheels program mangers help clients select and purchase a vehicle and access related services, such as affordable car insurance. Program managers ensure that clients make regular payments on their loans, monitor clients’ maintenance of their cars, and, if necessary, help them identify dependable local mechanics. The program’s eligible population includes current and former TANF recipients and employed recipients of food stamps or child care subsidies.
The Tennessee Department of Human Services (TDHS) runs First Wheels in collaboration with the Tennessee Resource Conservation and Development Council (RC&D), an organization that promotes rural development. TDHS coordinates the loan application process, while RC&D purchases vehicles and manages individual loans under a contract with TDHS. The First Wheels staff includes a program director and four to six program managers, each of whom covers a territory of roughly 10 to 20 counties.
First Wheels is available to clients throughout Tennessee. As in Nebraska, Tennessee’s rural areas are diverse, but unemployment and poverty rates tend to be higher for nonmetropolitan areas than statewide. Regional geography, such as mountains in the eastern part of the state, may affect the degree of isolation that residents experience, as well as their ability to access services or commute to work easily. Public transportation in most rural places is limited to paratransit services—vans that mostly serve clients with medical needs—and taxicabs in some rural population centers.
Tennessee First Wheels participated only in the process and implementation study component of the Rural Welfare-to-Work evaluation. It will not be possible to complete impact and cost-benefit studies of the program due to limited enrollment.
Implementation Study Research Questions And Methods
The goal of the Rural Welfare-to-Work Evaluation’s process and implementation study is to provide a detailed view into the development and operation of each of the three demonstration programs. The study seeks not only to document each program’s model and service delivery strategies, but also to provide a context for the evaluation’s impact and cost-benefit findings. The implementation research focuses on the following questions:
- How closely does the programs’ implementation
follow their design? What are the key components of the programs’
models, and how were they developed? What services do clients actually
receive, and how intensively do they participate in the program?
- How do the programs address rural barriers to
self-sufficiency? What program services appear to be especially
valuable or innovative? How have the programs tailored their services
to the needs of rural clients?
- What factors promote effective service delivery
and program management in rural areas? What methods are used
to recruit and enroll clients into the program? How are staff recruited,
trained, and supervised? What role does collaboration across partner
organizations play, and how is it accomplished?
- What are the implications for other rural welfare-to-work programs? How could the demonstration programs be improved? Do the experiences of the Rural Welfare-to-Work demonstration programs offer operational lessons for initiatives in other places?
To explore these questions, this report relies primarily on information collected through in-depth site visits to each program and management information systems (MIS). Teams of two researchers made two site visits each to the Illinois Future Steps and BNF programs and one visit to the Tennessee First Wheels program. All visits included in-depth, semistructured interviews with a variety of respondents—program directors, line staff, state and local human services agency administrators and caseworkers, and representatives from community organizations that collaborate with the demonstration programs. The researchers also observed program activities, such as meetings between staff and clients, and reviewed the case histories of a sample of program participants. Finally, the researchers conducted focus groups with program participants and members of the evaluation’s control group to gather information on program experiences, awareness of service availability, and participants’ perceptions of the program’s helpfulness.
Additional information on client participation and program services comes from MIS that program staff maintain. MPR created customized systems for the Future Steps and BNF programs and gathered basic data on First Wheels loans from existing program records. The Future Steps and BNF information systems accommodate record-keeping tasks staff members regularly perform, such as documenting topics discussed in client meetings and services provided to clients. The systems also provide data on how frequently clients meet with staff and how long they participate in the programs, along with basic indicators of employment experiences. Because MIS data referenced in this report were captured before program enrollment concluded, the results presented are an interim analysis and do not reflect the experience of the evaluation’s entire treatment group. They do, however, offer a useful indication of clients’ experiences to date.
| Table of Contents | Previous | Next |