Rural Dimensions of Welfare Reform

Upjohn Press Upjohn Research home page 1-1-2002 Rural Dimensions of Welfare Reform Bruce A Weber Oregon State University Greg J Duncan Northwestern University Leslie A Whitener U.S Dept of Agriculture Follow this and additional works at: https://research.upjohn.org/up_press Part of the Income Distribution Commons, and the Social Welfare Commons Citation Weber, Bruce A., Greg J Duncan, and Leslie A Whitener, eds 2002 Rural Dimensions of Welfare Reform Kalamazoo, MI: W.E Upjohn Institute for Employment Research https://doi.org/10.17848/ 9781417508884 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 License This title is brought to you by the Upjohn Institute For more information, please contact repository@upjohn.org Rural Dimensions of Welfare Reform Rural Dimensions of Welfare Reform Bruce A Weber Greg J Duncan Leslie A Whitener Editors 2002 W.E Upjohn Institute for Employment Research Kalamazoo, Michigan Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Rural dimensions of welfare reform : welfare, food assistance, and poverty in rural America / Bruce A Weber, Greg J Duncan, Leslie A Whitener, editors p cm “This book presents revised versions of about half of the papers presented at a conference on the title topic held in May 2000”—summary p Includes bibliographical references and index ISBN 0-88099-239-5 (pbk : alk paper) — ISBN 0-88099-240-9 (cloth : alk paper) Rural poor—United States Social service, Rural—United States Public welfare—United States United States Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 I Weber, Bruce A II Duncan, Greg J III Whitener, Leslie A HC110.P6 R855 2002 361.6′8′091734—dc21 2002016815 © 2002 W.E Upjohn Institute for Employment Research 300 S Westnedge Avenue Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007-4686 The facts presented in this study and the observations and viewpoints expressed are the sole responsibility of the authors They not necessarily represent positions of the W.E Upjohn Institute for Employment Research Cover design by J.R Underhill Index prepared by Nairn Chadwick Printed in the United States of America Contents Foreword ix Introduction: As the Dust Settles: Welfare Reform and Rural America Leslie A Whitener, Bruce A Weber, and Greg Duncan Part 1: Welfare Reform, Rural Labor Markets, and Rural Poverty Approaching the Limit: Early National Lessons from Welfare Reform Sheldon Danziger 25 Rural Labor Markets in an Era of Welfare Reform Robert M Gibbs 51 Rural America in Transition: Poverty and Welfare at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century Daniel T Lichter and Leif Jensen 77 Part 2: Welfare Dynamics in Rural and Urban Areas Reducing Food Stamp and Welfare Caseloads in the South: Are Rural Areas Less Likely to Succeed Than Urban Centers? Mark Henry, Lynn Reinschmiedt, Willis Lewis, Jr., and Darren Hudson 113 Seasonal Employment Dynamics and Welfare Use in Agricultural and Rural California Counties Henry E Brady, Mary Sprague, Fredric C Gey, and Michael Wiseman 147 Location and the Low-Income Experience: Analyses of Program Dynamics in the Iowa Family Investment Program Helen H Jensen, Shao-Hsun Keng, and Steven Garasky 177 v vi Contents Small Towns and Welfare Reform: Iowa Case Studies of Families and Communities Cynthia Needles Fletcher, Jan L Flora, Barbara J Gaddis, Mary Winter, and Jacquelyn S Litt 201 Where All the Counties Are above Average: Human Service Agency Directors’ Perspectives on Welfare Reform Ann Tickamyer, Julie White, Barry Tadlock, and Debra Henderson 231 Part 3: Employment and Family Well-Being under Welfare Reform The Impact of Welfare Policy on the Employment of Single Mothers Living in Rural and Urban Areas Signe-Mary McKernan, Robert Lerman, Nancy Pindus, and Jesse Valente 257 10 Welfare Reform in Rural Minnesota: Experimental Findings from the Minnesota Family Investment Program Lisa A Gennetian, Cindy Redcross, and Cynthia Miller 287 11 Will Attainable Jobs Be Available for TANF Recipients in Local Labor Markets? Evidence from Mississippi on Prospects for “Job-Skill Matching” of TANF Adults Frank M Howell 313 12 Whose Job Is It? Employers’ Views on Welfare Reform Ellen Shelton, Greg Owen, Amy Bush Stevens, Justine Nelson-Christinedaughter, Corinna Roy, and June Heineman 345 13 The Short-Term Impacts of Welfare Reform in Persistently Poor Rural Areas Mark Harvey, Gene F Summers, Kathleen Pickering, and Patricia Richards 375 Part 4: Food Assistance and Hunger: The Rural Dimension 14 Food Stamps in Rural America: Special Issues and Common Themes Sheena McConnell and James Ohls 413 Contents vii 15 The Decline in Food Stamp Use by Rural Low-Income Households: Less Need or Less Access? Mark Nord Part 5: 433 Lessons Learned 16 Lessons Learned: Welfare Reform and Food Assistance in Rural America Greg Duncan, Leslie A Whitener, and Bruce A Weber 455 The Authors 471 Cited Author Index 477 Subject Index 485 About the Institute 501 486 Subject Index Combiner mothers (continued) poverty rates, 40t, 42–43 See also Single mothers Community, unit of analysis in welfare reform, 202–203 Consumer Expenditure Survey (1998), 85–86 Contract with America (Gingrich), 233, 234 County typology California, 154–155, 156f, 157 urban influence county code, 318–319 Culture of poverty, 246, 253n2 Current Population Survey (CPS), 268 Food Security Supplements, 436–437 Deep poverty female-headed families, 96f, 97 measure of, 95–96 welfare impact, 99 See also Poverty Dependent Care Credit (DCC), 46 Discouraged workers, 380, 389 Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) antipoverty impact, 46, 88t, 89, 99, 100t, 101 expansion of, 31, 226, 258 incentive to leave welfare, 137n18 Earnings, 77–78 by education level, 67–68, 67t female-headed families, 89, 90t, 91–94, 93f, 94f, 106n2 by gender, 67–68, 67t Iowa, 180 MFIP impact, 300–301, 300f, 306f by race, 67–68, 67t relationship to AFDC, 66f return to welfare and, 192, 193t rural labor markets, 64–65, 66f, 67–68, 67t, 70 rural/urban differences, 53–54, 53f, 67–68, 67t, 82, 106n2, 180 single mothers, 28, 29f, 31, 32t, 33, 40t, 41–42 urban labor markets, 67–68, 67t See also Income; Informal economy Earnings disregard (Michigan), 43 EBT See Electronic Benefit Transfer card Economic function types (county typology), 157 Economic Research Service, ix–x, 1–2 Economy FSP participation and, 434 informal, 378–379, 380–381, 385–386 measures of, 137n16 1990s, 11, 84–85 welfare participation and, 11, 13, 131, 136–137n16, 150–151 Education, exclusion through TANF, 403 Education level earnings and, 67–68, 67t as employment barrier, 359, 359t by industry, 60t Mississippi welfare recipients, 321, 322t–323t, 324, 325f, 327 relationship to unemployment rates, 61, 62t, 274, 275t, 276, 280 rural labor markets, 56, 57t, 58, 81–82 rural/urban differences, 56, 57t, 58, 81–82 single mothers, 274, 275t, 276, 280, 283n16 spatial mismatch with job availability, 316, 330, 331f, 332–334, 338–341 EITC See Earned Income Tax Credit Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) card, 428–429 Employers exploitation of TANF participants, 390–391 perceived role in welfare reform, 370–371 perceptions of employment barriers, Subject Index 487 16–17, 353, 354t, 355t, 356, 369–370, 465 perceptions on effectiveness of community partnerships in welfare reform, 360, 361t, 362–364 role in welfare reform, 366–367, 368–369 Employment barriers, 210–211, 370 child care availability, 222–223, 226, 319, 335, 336t, 337–338, 339, 341n7 child care support, 296, 353, 354t, 359, 359t, 360, 398–399 education level, 359, 359t employers’ perceptions, 16–17, 353, 354t, 355t, 356, 369–370, 465 health care benefits, 359, 359t, 360, 391 low wages, 359, 359t persistently poor rural areas, 397–399 single mothers, 35t, 36t, 38t, 281 soft skills, 353, 354t, 372 transportation costs, 242–243, 260, 353, 354t, 359–360, 398 welfare administrators’ perceptions, 231–232, 244, 465 welfare recipients’ perceptions, 17, 244, 262, 356, 357t–358t, 359–360, 359t, 370, 465 See also Employment support services Employment barriers, rural/urban differences, 114, 123, 236, 457–458, 464–465 child care support, 296, 353, 354It, 359, 359t, 360 single mothers, 281 Employment distribution, by occupation, 61t Employment responsiveness, rural/urban differences, 15–16 Employment support services Iowa, 214t, 218–224 labor markets, 457–458 reduction of welfare participation, 227 See also Employment barriers Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community (EZ/EC) program, 400 Ethnicity See Race Family General Assistance Program (FGA), 289, 310n2 Family Independence Act (FIA), 115–116, 135–136n8 Family Investment Program (FIP), 177, 207–208, 209f, 210 participants’ demographics, 183, 184t, 185, 187, 188t–189t, 190, 212t–213t participants’ mobility, 186–187, 186t receipt of child support and, 185, 190 return to welfare and, 191–194, 193t, 194f Family Well-Being and Welfare Reform project (Iowa), 202 Female-headed families deep poverty, 96f, 97 economic well-being, 95–97, 95f, 96f, 98t, 99 impact of employment on economic well-being, 99, 100t, 101–102 income, 89, 90t, 91–94, 93f, 94f, 106n2 poverty income threshold, 95–96, 95f poverty rates, 87, 88t, 89, 100t, 101–102, 103–104 PRWORA impact, 89, 90t, 91–92 rural/urban differences, 83, 90t, 91–93, 101–102, 103–104, 106n2 See also Single mothers FGA See Family General Assistance Program FIA See Family Independence Act FIP See Family Investment Program Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Program, U.S Department of Agriculture, x 488 Subject Index Food banks, 393–394, 395f, 396, 402–403 Food Distribution on Indian Reservations Program, 396 Food insecurity, 439, 439f, 442–444 low-income households, 440t–441t, 442 rural areas, 446t–447t, 448 rural/urban differences, 463–464 welfare office procedural changes and, 396–397 Food Stamp Program (FSP) See FSP Food Stamp Program’s Quality Control (FSPQC), 416 Food Stamps Employment Training Program, 401 Fordism, 378–379 Forestry sector, welfare participation and, 152 FSP (Food Stamp Program) centralization of, 414–415 coordination with welfare, 414–415 PRWORA provisions, 4–5, 116, 423, 434–435 vehicle asset limits of, 262, 282n7 FSP eligibility, 448–449, 449n1 ABAWDS (able-bodied adults without dependents), 423, 431n7, 431n9 confusion over, 426, 435 PRWORA provisions, 423, 434–435 FSP participants rural/urban differences, 417, 418t, 419, 424–429, 425t, 427t FSP participation, 8, 10f, 17–18, 90t, 91, 114, 433 barriers to, 426–428, 427t, 429, 430 correlation with unemployment rates, 118f, 119, 122f, 123 economy and, 434 income and, 418t, 419, 438, 438t Iowa, 179, 179f, 185 Kentucky, 393, 394f Mississippi, 118f, 119, 128t, 132–133, 393, 394f Ohio, 458 perception of ineligibility, 426, 435 race and, 418t, 419 reduced eligibility, 448–449 return to welfare and, 193, 193t rural areas, 444–445, 445t rural/urban differences, 133, 413–414, 419–424, 420t, 421t, 429–430, 458–459 single mothers, 438–439, 438t South Carolina, 121, 122f, 123, 128t, 132–133, 458 South Dakota, 393, 394f stigma of, 425t, 428 TANF impact, 132–133, 393, 394f Texas, 393, 394f welfare reform and, 423–424 FSPQC See Food Stamp Program’s Quality Control Gender earnings and, 67–68, 67t likelihood of wage progression and, 70, 71 unemployment rates, 61, 62t Generational welfare See Culture of poverty God’s Pantry Food Bank (Lexington, Kentucky), 394 Government sector, 380 Health care benefits as employment barrier, 359, 359t, 360, 391 Iowa, 220–221 welfare-to-work transition and, 46, 351, 391, 402 See also Medicaid Household analysis, 378 Household food security scale, 435–436, 437 Household survival strategy, 380–381 Hunger See Food insecurity Subject Index 489 Income, 28 female-headed families, 89, 90t, 91–94, 93f, 94f, 106n2 FSP participation and, 418t, 419, 438, 438t Ohio, 238t poverty rates responsiveness to, 47n1 single mothers, 28, 29f, 31, 32t, 33, 40t, 41–42 See also Earnings; Informal economy Industry employment, seasonality of welfare participation and, 162–163, 164t, 165–167 Informal economy, 378–379, 380–381, 385–386 Iowa child care availability, 222–223, 226 childhood poverty, 204t, 205 earnings, 180 employment support services, 214t, 218–224 FSP participation, 179, 179f, 185 health care benefits, 220–221 job availability, 215–218 job training and education, 218–220 labor market shifts, 205–207, 206t Medicaid, 220–221 population trends, 204–205, 204t poverty rates, 81 rural/urban differences, 224–225 unemployment rates, 79, 178–179, 204t, 205, 206 welfare participation, 179, 179f See also Family Investment Program IPR See Poverty income threshold Job availability Iowa, 215–218 Mississippi, 326t, 327, 328f, 329–330, 338–341 rural labor markets, 60–70, 69t, 262–263, 347, 386–387 rural/urban differences, 457–458 spatial mismatch with education level, 316, 330, 331f, 332–334, 338–341 TANF participants and, 330, 331f, 332–334 Job-matching ratio See Absorption index Job training and education, 218–220 Jobs, low-skill, 73n5 JOBS (Job Opportunities and Basic Skills) program, 382 Kentucky FSP participation, 393, 394f informal employment, 386 labor markets, 387–388 Medicaid eligibility, 391 out-migration, 82 unemployment rates, 388–389, 388f welfare benefits, 385 welfare participation, 384, 384f welfare sanctions, 401 Kids Count project (1999), 80 Labor market areas (LMA), 319 Labor markets employment support services, 457–458 individuals’ responsiveness to, 150 Iowa, 205–207, 206t Kentucky, 387–388 research studies on capacity to absorb welfare recipients, 315–317 rural/urban differences, 55–56, 114, 457 South Carolina, 130–131 South Dakota, 387–388 support services, 457–458 welfare participation and, 149–151 See also Rural labor markets; Urban labor markets Labor markets, Mississippi, 130–131 capacity to absorb welfare recipients, 490 Subject Index Labor markets, Mississippi (continued) 322t–323t, 326t, 327, 328f, 329–330, 338–341 Living wage movement, 68, 69t, 70 Louisiana, 314 Low-education counties, 72–73n4 Low Income Women and Children, Medicaid eligibility, 392 Low-skill jobs, 73n5 Low-wage counties, 66f MAC See Medical Assistance Program Manpower Development and Training Act (1962), 382 Manufacturing sector, seasonality of welfare participation, 164t, 166, 167 March Current Population Survey, 31, 32t, 84 Marital status, MFIP impact and, 305t, 307, 308 Maryland Family Investment Program, 180–181 McKnight Foundation community partnerships, 347–348 McKnight Foundation community partnerships, effectiveness study, 348–349 employers’ perceptions, 360, 361t, 362–364 employers’ perceptions of role in welfare reform, 364–366, 365t employers’ sample, 350–351 welfare recipients’ sample, 352 Medicaid, 46 eligibility, 391–392 frustration with, 220–221 See also Health care benefits Medical Assistance Case (MAC) program, 391 Metropolitan areas See Urban areas Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), 416 MFIP (Minnesota Family Investment Program), 16, 289–291, 345–346 child care support and, 290 child support and, 305t, 307 compared with AFDC, 289–290, 299–301, 300f, 302t, 303, 304t–305t, 306f recipients’ demographics, 288–289, 293t, 294, 309 rural/urban differences among recipients, 294, 309 MFIP evaluation, 291–292 basic empirical estimation, 298–299 expected effects, 297–298 recipients’ perceptions of, 294, 295t–296t, 296, 309, 346 sample, 292, 293t, 294 MFIP impact earnings, 300–301, 300f, 306f marital status and, 305t, 307, 308 rural/urban differences, 288, 301, 306–308 by type of employment, 301, 304t–305t unemployment rates, 299–300, 300f, 301, 302t, 303, 309 Minimum wage, 30, 68 Minnesota STRIDE program, 289, 290, 310n1 unemployment rates, 346 See also McKnight Foundation; MFIP; Welfare reform, Minnesota Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP) See MFIP Mississippi child care availability, 319, 335, 336t, 337–338, 339, 341n7 determinants of welfare and FSP participation, 128t education level of welfare recipients, 321, 322t–323t, 324, 325f, 327 FSP participation, 118f, 119, 128t, 132–133, 393, 394f Subject Index 491 job availability, 326t, 327, 328f, 329–330, 338–341 labor markets, 130–131, 387–388 labor markets’ capacity to absorb welfare recipients, 322t–323t, 326t, 327, 328f, 329–330, 338–341 Medicaid eligibility, 392 poverty rates, 80, 314 rural disadvantage, 130–131, 134 spatial mismatch of job availability with education level, 330, 331f, 332–334, 338–341 TANF Work Program (TWP), 136n9 unemployment rates, 117f, 118f, 119, 388, 388f welfare benefits, 385 welfare participation, 116, 117f, 119, 320–321, 321f, 384, 384f welfare sanctions, 401 Work First (work program), 136n9 Mississippi Welfare Restructuring Program Act (1993), 136n9 National Food Stamp Survey (NFSS), 416–417 Negative Income Tax experiments, 308 New Area Workforce Boards (NAWBS), 399–400 New Hampshire, 79 New Mexico, 80 Nonmetropolitan areas See Rural areas Northwestern University/University of Chicago Joint Center for Poverty Research, ix–x, 1–2 Ohio, 238t, 458 See also Welfare reform, Ohio Ohio Works First (OWF), 237 Out-migration, rural labor supply, 81–82 Persistently poor rural areas, 9t, 80–81, 383–401, 384f employment barriers, 397–399 informal economy, 385–386 labor market deficiency, 386–389 Medicaid eligibility, 391–392 short-term impact of welfare reform, 375–376, 402 support network of welfare recipients, 381 unemployment rates, 388–389, 388f welfare administrative strategies for reduction of welfare participation, 399–401 welfare benefits, 385 welfare bureaucracy, 389–397 welfare participation, 383–401, 384f welfare reform, 375–376, 397–399, 468 See also Rural areas; TANF bureaucracy; specific states Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), ix, 1, 25, 232, 402–403 devolution of authority, 455 goals of, 8, 10, 83, 257 impact on female-headed families, 89, 90t, 91–92 impact on FSP, 4–5, 116, 415, 423, 434–435 impact on single mothers, 10, 30 key provisions, 2, 3t, 258, 313 time limit provision, 26, 44, 45, 104, 258, 402 welfare participation and, 14–15, 25, 77 Women’s Employment Study, 39–44 See also TANF; Welfare reform Pockets of poverty, rural See Persistently poor rural areas Post-Fordism, 379 Poverty measures of, 85–86, 105 nonmetro counties, 6f trends in, 86–89 welfare reform and, 79–84 See also Childhood poverty; Deep poverty; Persistently poor rural areas 492 Subject Index Poverty income threshold (IPR), 85–86, 95–96, 95f, 106n3 Poverty rates, 27–28 Arkansas, 80 EITC-adjusted, 86–87, 87f female-headed families, 87, 88t, 89, 100t, 101–102, 103–104 Iowa, 81 Louisiana, 314 Mississippi, 80, 314 New Mexico, 80 Ohio, 238t responsiveness to economic indicators, 47n1 rural/urban differences, 7, 79, 86–87, 87f, 100t, 101–102, 103–104, 287, 463 single mothers, 31, 32t, 33, 40t, 42–43 stability of, 13, 26, 29–30 West Virginia, 80, 81 Private charities, 402–403 PROMISE JOBS (Promoting Independence and Selfsufficiency through Employment, Job Opportunities, and Basic Skills), 207, 208, 217, 218–220 PRWORA See Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act Public assistance See Welfare Race earnings and, 67–68, 67t FSP participation, 418t, 419 likelihood of wage progression and, 70, 71 rural/urban differences among female-headed families, 83 TANF effects and, 276, 277t, 278–279 unemployment rates and, 61, 62t, 276, 277t, 278–279 Reaching the Working Poor and Poor Elderly (USDA, Food and Nutrition Service), 417 Rural areas defined, 5, 6f, 7, 19n4, 227n1, 416 diversity of, 456 earnings and, 64–65, 66f, 67–68, 67t, 70 food insecurity, 446t–447t, 448 FSP participation, 444–445, 445t public awareness of problems facing, 78 relationship to urban areas, 105–106 return to welfare, 193–194, 194f underemployment, 82, 105, 152, 181 unemployment rates, 61, 62t See also Employment barriers; Persistently poor rural areas; Rural-urban differences; specific states Rural disadvantage, welfare reduction, 130–131, 133, 134 Rural disadvantage hypothesis, test of, 124–133 food stamps model, 127 opportunity cost variables, 124–125 regions used, 126–127 results, 127, 128t, 129–133 TANF and economy variables, 125–126 Rural ghetto communities See Persistently poor rural areas Rural labor markets, 51–72, 81–82, 457 compared with urban labor markets, 52 earnings, 64–65, 66f, 67t, 68, 70 education level, 56, 57t, 58, 81–82 employment density, 54–56 government sector, 380 job availability, 60–70, 69t, 262–263, 347, 386–387 opportunity structures, 377–378 out-migration, 81–82 persistently poor rural areas, 386–389 Subject Index 493 shift from manufacturing to service sector, 58–60, 71, 379–380, 387 skill requirements, 58–60, 60t Texas, 387–388 theories of, 377–379 underinvestment in human resources development, 381–382 welfare reform and, 51–52, 70–72, 377–382 See also Labor markets Rural Policy Research Institute, ix–x, 1–2 Rural/urban differences, ix childhood poverty, 84 earnings, 53–54, 53f, 67–68, 67t, 82, 106n2, 180 education level, 56, 57t, 58, 81–82 employers, 367–368 employment responsiveness, 15–16 female-headed families, 83, 90t, 91–93, 101–102, 103–104, 106n2 food insecurity, 463–464 FSP participants’ characteristics, 417, 418t, 419 FSP participants’ experiences, 424–429, 425t, 427t FSP participation, 133, 413–414, 419–424, 420t, 421t, 429–430, 458–459 Iowa, 224–225 job availability, 457–458 labor markets, 55–56, 59–60, 60t, 114, 457 MFIP impact, 288, 301, 306–308 MFIP recipients, 294, 309 poverty rates, 7, 79, 86–87, 87f, 100t, 101–102, 103–104, 287, 463 return to welfare, 462 single mothers, 280–281 TANF impact among single mothers, 271–273, 272t underemployment, 82 unemployment rates, 7, 53–54, 53f unemployment rates of single mothers, 259, 269, 270t, 271–273, 272t, 459–460 welfare dependency, 181 welfare impact, 99, 274, 275t, 276, 280 welfare participation, 151, 464 welfare reform, 280–281, 456–458 welfare spells, 381, 462 welfare-to-work transition, 460–461 Rural/urban differences, employment barriers, 114, 123, 236, 457–458, 464–465 child care support, 296, 353, 354t, 359, 359t, 360 single mothers, 281 Seasonal workers agricultural sector, 164t, 165–166, 165f, 167–170, 169f correlation of unemployment rates and welfare participation, 161, 162, 162f manufacturing sector, 164t, 166, 167 unemployment insurance, 171 welfare participation, 147–148, 162–163, 164t, 165–167 welfare reform and, 148, 170–171 The Second Harvest Food Bank of South Dakota, 394, 396 Single mothers defined, 32t earnings, 28, 29f, 31, 32t, 33, 40t, 41–42 education level, 274, 275t, 276, 280, 283n16 employment barriers, 35t, 36t, 38t, 281 employment responsiveness, 15–16 food insecurity, 440t–441t, 446t–447t FSP participation, 438–439, 438t income, 28, 29f, 31, 32t, 33, 40t, 41–42 494 Subject Index Single mothers (continued) poverty rates, 31, 32t, 33, 40t, 42–43 PRWORA impact, 10, 30 rural/urban differences, 280–281 See also Female-headed families; Women’s Employment Study Single mothers, unemployment rates education level and, 274, 275t, 276, 280 by race, 276, 277t, 278–279 rural/urban differences, 259, 269, 270t, 271–273, 272t, 459–460 TANF impact, 267f, 269, 270t, 271–272, 272t, 274, 275t, 276, 280 South Carolina determinants of welfare participation, 128t Family Independence Act, 115–116, 135–136n8 FSP participation, 121, 122f, 123, 128t, 132–133, 458 labor markets, 130–131 rural disadvantage, 130–131, 134 unemployment rates, 120f, 121, 122f welfare participation, 119, 120f, 121, 458 South Dakota FSP participation, 393, 394f informal employment, 386 labor markets, 387–388 Medicaid eligibility, 391–392 unemployment rates, 79, 388–389, 388f welfare benefits, 385 welfare participation, 384, 384f welfare sanctions, 401 Spatial inequality, 80–81 welfare participation and, 131 STRIDE (Minnesota employment and training program), 289, 290, 310n1 TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), ix, 2, 232, 282n1 employers’ exploitation of participants, 390–391 exclusion of education, 403 health care benefits, 391, 402 participation, 8, 10f, 136–137n16, 137–138nn18–19, 179, 179f, 458 time limit provision, 134–135, 148, 170–171, 195 See also Aid to Families with Dependent Children; Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act; Welfare TANF bureaucracy, 389–396 food insecurity, 393, 395f, 396 food stamps, 393, 394f Medicaid eligibility, 391–392 TANF effects, 264–281 difference estimators as measure of, 264–266, 267f, 268 FSP participation, 132–133, 393, 394f rural/urban differences among single mothers, 271–273, 272t, 274, 275t, 276, 280 single mothers by race, 276, 277t, 278–279 single mothers’ unemployment rates, 267f, 269, 270t, 271–272, 272t, 274, 275t, 276, 280 TANF participants child care availability, 334–335, 336t, 337, 339 confusion among, 396–397 job availability, 330, 331f, 332–334 TANF Work Program (TWP), 136n9 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families See TANF Texas FSP participation, 393, 394f informal employment, 386 Medicaid eligibility, 391, 392 Subject Index 495 rural labor markets, 387–388 unemployment rates, 388, 388f welfare benefits, 385 welfare participation, 384, 384f welfare sanctions, 401 Texas Workforce Commission, 385–386 Transportation costs as employment barrier, 242–243, 260, 353, 354t, 359–360, 398 FSP participation and, 428, 429 Underemployment rural areas, 82, 101, 105, 152 rural/urban differences, 82 See also Unemployment rates Understanding Rural America (Economic Research Service, USDA), 18 Unemployed Parent Program (UPP), 384, 404n2 Unemployment insurance (UI) , seasonal workers and, 171 Unemployment rates, 27, 77 AFDC and, 63f, 117f, 120f correlation with FSP participation, 118f, 119, 122f, 123 correlation with seasonality of welfare participation, 161, 162, 162f correlation with welfare participation, 117f, 119, 120f, 121, 159t, 161–162, 162f education level and, 61, 62t, 274, 275t, 276, 280 gender and, 61, 62t Iowa, 79, 178–179, 204t, 205, 206 Kentucky, 388–389, 388f MFIP impact, 299–300, 300f, 301, 302t, 303 Minnesota, 346 Mississippi, 117f, 118f, 119, 388, 388f New Hampshire, 79 Ohio, 238t persistently poor rural areas, 388–389, 388f poverty rates responsiveness to, 47n1 race and, 61, 62t, 276, 277t, 278–279 rural areas, 61, 62t rural/urban differences, 7, 53–54, 53f South Carolina, 120f, 121, 122f South Dakota, 79, 388–389, 388f Texas, 388, 388f variability of, 61–62, 62t See also Underemployment Unemployment rates, single mothers education level, 274, 275t, 276, 280 rural/urban differences, 259, 269, 270t, 271–273, 272t, 459–460 TANF effects, 267f, 269, 270t, 271–272, 272t, 274, 275t, 276, 280 U.S Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service (ERS), ix–x, 1–2 Food and Nutrition Services, 416, 417 Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Program, x U.S Department of Labor, welfare-towork grants, 400 U.S National Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty, 79 UPP See Unemployed Parent Program Urban areas defined, 5, 7, 19n4, 227n1, 269, 416 relationship to rural areas, 105–106 See also Rural/urban differences Urban influence code, 318–319 Urban Institute, 210, 260 Urban labor markets compared to rural labor markets, 52 earnings, 67–68, 67t Vehicle asset limits, 260, 262, 282n7 496 Subject Index Wage progression, likelihood among women and minorities, 70, 71 Wage-reliant mothers defined, 35 employment barriers, 36t, 37 income, 40t, 41–42 poverty rates, 40t, 42–43 See also Single mothers Wage subsidies, 225–226 Welfare ameliorative effects, 95–97, 98t, 99 criticism prior to PRWORA, 45 diversity of state policies, 2, FSP coordination, 414–415 stigma of, 151, 201–202, 295t, 296 See also Aid to Families with Dependent Children; Family Investment Program; FSP; MFIP; TANF Welfare, return to, 181 child support and, 192, 193t determinants, 192–194, 193t, 194f Family Investment Program, 191–194, 193t, 194f FSP participation, 193, 193t rural/urban differences, 462 Welfare administrators, perceptions of employment barriers, 231–232, 244, 465 Welfare benefits, persistently poor rural areas, 385 Welfare caseload analysis, rural/urban, 114–116, 135n1 Welfare caseload regression model, 141–144 Welfare dependency causes of, 233–234, 242–243, 246–247 character deficits and, 242, 246–247 determinants, 180–181, 196 negative duration dependence, 180 rural/urban differences, 181 Welfare participation defined, 172n6 California, 153, 157–160, 159t, 160f, 161f, 172–173n9 correlation with unemployment rates, 117f, 119, 120f, 121, 159t, 161–162, 162f by county type, 157–160, 159t, 160f, 161f determinants, 128t economy and, 11, 13, 131, 136–137n16, 150–151 interaction of TANF and local economic variables, 129–130 Iowa, 179, 179f Kentucky, 384, 384f labor markets and, 149–151 Mississippi, 116, 117f, 119, 320–321, 321f, 384, 384f persistently poor rural areas, 383–401, 384f PRWORA and, 14–15, 25, 77 resource-based employment and, 152–153 rural/urban differences, 151, 464 South Carolina, 119, 120f, 121, 458 South Dakota, 384, 384f TANF regulations and, 136–137n16, 137–138nn18–19 Texas, 384, 384f urban concentration, 468–469 wage subsidies, 225–226 Welfare participation, reduction of effective measures, 196 employment support obstacle, 227 incentives, 137n18–138n18 rural disadvantage, 130–131, 133, 134 Welfare participation, seasonality of, 147–148 agricultural sector, 152, 164t, 165–166, 165f, 167–170, 169f correlation with unemployment rates, 161, 162, 162f Subject Index 497 by county type, 157–159 industry employment and, 162–163, 164t, 165–167 manufacturing sector, 164t, 166, 167 Welfare recipients classification, 245–246 labor markets’ capacity to absorb, 315–317, 322t–323t, 326t, 327, 328f, 329–330, 338–341 network support in persistently poor rural areas, 381 perceptions of employment barriers, 17, 244, 262, 356, 357t–358t, 359–360, 359t, 370, 465 perceptions of welfare reform, 244–245 Welfare recipients, education level, 274, 283n16 Mississippi, 321, 322t–323t, 324, 325f, 327 single mothers, 274, 275t, 276, 280, 283n16 Welfare reform, 44–47, 386, 466–468 child care availability and, 244 community as unit of analysis, 202–203 devolution of authority, 235–236, 259 employer involvement, 366–367 employers’ perceived role, 364–366, 365t, 370–371 employers’ role, 368–369 false assumptions, 375–376 FSP participation, 423–424 household well-being, 461–462 rational choice model, 234–235 rural dimensions, 78, 79–84, 105, 201–202, 346–347 rural labor markets and, 51–52, 70–72, 377–382 rural/urban differences, 280–281, 456–458 seasonal workers and, 148, 170–171 transitional benefits, 46, 263, 351, 391, 402 trends, 31, 32t, 33 See also Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act; TANF; Women’s Employment Study Welfare reform, Minnesota, 281, 345–346 employer involvement, 366–367 employers’ perceived role, 370–371 employers’ role, 368–369, 371–374 Welfare reform, Ohio administrators’ perceptions, 231–232, 239–242 as community effort, 252 devolution of authority, 248, 251 funding, 249 intervention model, 246–247 organizational changes, 247–248 problems of, 242–245, 251 recipients’ perceptions, 244–245 time limits, 249–250 Welfare reform, persistently poor rural areas, 468 lack of support services, 397–399 short-term impact, 375–376 Welfare Reform Demonstration Project, 136n9 Welfare-reliant mothers defined, 35, 37 employment barriers, 36t, 37 income, 40t, 41–42 poverty rates, 40t, 42–43 See also Single mothers Welfare sanctions, 244, 249–251, 401 Welfare spells, rural/urban differences, 381, 462 Welfare-to-work transition health care benefits, 46, 351, 391, 402 rural/urban differences, 460–461 West Virginia, 80, 81 498 Subject Index WIC See Women, Infants, and Children feeding program Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) feeding program, 221 Women’s Employment Study (WES) financial well-being following PRWORA, 39–44 methodology, 34–35, 37 results, 37–39 sample, 33–34 Work First programs, 136n9, 399 Workforce Investment Act (WIA), 399 About the Institute The W.E Upjohn Institute for Employment Research is a nonprofit research organization devoted to finding and promoting solutions to employment-related problems at the national, state, and local levels It is an activity of the W.E Upjohn Unemployment Trustee Corporation, which was established in 1932 to administer a fund set aside by the late Dr W.E Upjohn, founder of The Upjohn Company, to seek ways to counteract the loss of employment income during economic downturns The Institute is funded largely by income from the W.E Upjohn Unemployment Trust, supplemented by outside grants, contracts, and sales of publications Activities of the Institute comprise the following elements: 1) a research program conducted by a resident staff of professional social scientists; 2) a competitive grant program, which expands and complements the internal research program by providing financial support to researchers outside the Institute; 3) a publications program, which provides the major vehicle for disseminating the research of staff and grantees, as well as other selected works in the field; and 4) an Employment Management Services division, which manages most of the publicly funded employment and training programs in the local area The broad objectives of the Institute’s research, grant, and publication programs are to 1) promote scholarship and experimentation on issues of public and private employment and unemployment policy, and 2) make knowledge and scholarship relevant and useful to policymakers in their pursuit of solutions to employment and unemployment problems Current areas of concentration for these programs include causes, consequences, and measures to alleviate unemployment; social insurance and income maintenance programs; compensation; workforce quality; work arrangements; family labor issues; labor-management relations; and regional economic development and local labor markets 499 ... Rural Dimensions of Welfare Reform Rural Dimensions of Welfare Reform Bruce A Weber Greg J Duncan Leslie A Whitener Editors 2002... suggest that welfare reform may not be working as well for the one-fifth of the nation’s poor living in rural areas, there has been no systematic look at the rural dimensions of welfare reform In... from Welfare Reform Sheldon Danziger University of Michigan Welfare reform has been one of the most controversial social policies of recent times A Democratic president abandoned welfare reform