<
 
 
 
 
>
hide You are viewing an archived web page, collected at the request of United States Department of Agriculture using Archive-It. This page was captured on 01:41:13 Nov 29, 2011, and is part of the USDA Economic Research Service collection. The information on this web page may be out of date. See All versions of this archived page. Loading media information

February 2003 magazine cover

Amber Waves Heading

United States Department of Agriculture | Economic Research Service Search GO!  
Current Issue

All Issues

In this issue

spacer

Up Front

spacer

Feature Articles

spacer Findings
spacer Gleanings
spacer Data Feature
spacer Indicators
spacer

Profiles

spacer

About Amber Waves

spacer spacer images
spacer

ERS logo
USDA's Economic Research Service

AmberWaves February 2003 > Findings > Article

Print this page Print | E-mail this link E-mail | Bookmark & Share Bookmark/share | Translate this page Translate | Text only Text only | resize text smallresize text mediumresize text large

Rural Welfare Reform: What Have We Learned?

Leslie A. Whitener

Capitol building in Washington

Since passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996, welfare and food stamp caseloads have declined substantially, employment and earnings of single mothers have increased, and poverty rates of single mothers have fallen. Despite the high marks, there are signs that not all areas of the country are benefiting equally from the legislation.

Specifically, rural outcomes of welfare reform may be different from urban outcomes. Employment in rural areas is more concentrated in low-wage industries, unemployment and underemployment are greater, poverty rates are higher, rural residents have less formal education, and work support services, such as paid child care and public transportation, are less available. These barriers suggest that welfare reform may be less successful in moving rural low-income adults into the workforce, off of welfare, and out of poverty.

According to results from national studies, welfare reform outcomes did not differ greatly between rural and urban areas. However, when national-level findings are disaggregated by State and by rural and urban areas within States, a less positive picture emerges. Several studies of individual State welfare programs have shown consistently smaller changes in welfare caseloads, employment, earnings, and poverty in rural areas than in urban areas. In Minnesota, for example, improvements in the employment and earnings of welfare recipients due to welfare reform were smaller in rural areas than in urban areas, and were not as lasting. The smaller effects in rural areas result from differences between State programs in terms of how eligibility, benefits, and work requirements are determined, as well as rural-urban differences in job opportunities, availability of critical work supports, and characteristics of welfare recipients. As seen in county-level studies, the poorest and most remote rural areas experienced fewer successes in reducing poverty and moving former welfare recipients into the workforce on a lasting basis. For example, 360 nonmetro (or rural) counties have had poverty rates of at least 20 percent in every decade since 1960. These areas have a disproportionate number of economically vulnerable residents and have weaker local economies than other rural places, making successful welfare reform more difficult to achieve.

As Congress considers reauthorization of PRWORA, the policy debate will focus on many critical issues, such as funding levels, time limits and sanctions, child care, and the adequacy of provisions for future economic downturns. Study results on welfare outcomes provide a strong empirical base to better comprehend the importance of rural and urban diversity in welfare policy design.

red leaf rounded colored spacer
red leaf

This article is drawn from...

rounded color spacer

Issues in Food Assistance-Reforming Welfare: What Does It Mean for Rural Areas?, FANRR-26-4, by Leslie A. Whitener, Greg J. Duncan, and Bruce A. Weber, June 2002.

 

printer iconPrinter-friendly format Download PDF version