Rural Dimensions of Welfare Reform
Fall 2002, Volume 24, Number 1
Nearly 60% of poor families and nearly half of welfare recipient families live outside the city, yet much of the research and debate on poverty and welfare has centered on urban areas.
A new volume, Rural Dimensions of Welfare Reform (W.E. Upjohn Institute, 2002), co-edited by IPR Faculty Fellow Greg Duncan, presents the first comprehensive look at how welfare reforms enacted in 1996 are affecting caseloads, employment, earnings, and family well-being in rural areas. Originating from a May 2000 conference hosted by the Joint Center for Poverty Research and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Services, and the Rural Policy Research Institute, the book provides a sound empirical basis for the design of state policies to increase employment and well-being of low-income families in rural regions.
The book demonstrates how many aspects of rural and urban life are converging, and that their poverty and employment issues can be quite similar when viewed from a national perspective. But a closer look reveals important differences between states, and even within states. These economic and demographic factors unique to rural areas create special challenges to policymakers hoping to move welfare recipients into the workforce.
Rural communities often have higher unemployment, and residents must travel greater distances to jobs and services. Residents often have less education and earn less than urban dwellers. Lower population density makes it difficult to locate services, such as job training and child care, in these areas. “These characteristics all present a unique context in which to implement welfare reform,” according to editors Bruce Weber at Oregon State University, Duncan, and Leslie Whitener, USDA, Department of Economic Research Services.
Among the findings:
| • | Cash assistance and food stamp caseloads appear to have declined more in urban than rural areas, but the differences in the declines vary considerably from state to state. |
| • | Overall, rural mothers have not been left behind in securing employment after welfare reform, although the more disadvantaged group of low-educated, single mothers in rural areas has not shared the employment gains of their urban counterparts. |
| • | Barriers to work can vary widely from state to state, and persistently poor regions of the country continue to face considerable hardship. |
| • | Because welfare reform’s work mandates do not recognize informal work, some rural residents have experienced considerable economic hardship from losing welfare income without being able to replace it through work in the formal economy. |
Given the diversity of the rural experience, the editors conclude, relying on national data to analyze obstacles to employment will often miss critical within-state, regional differences in access to jobs, licensed child care, job training, and other supports as well as the effects of policies on caseloads, employment, and earnings. “Antipoverty policy will be more effective,” the editors note, “if it recognizes the diversity in context, resources, and opportunities in different places.”