May/June 2002
You can now receive
our news and information via e-mail. Click the 'Join List' button:
Welfare Reform Examined
In March 1997, Pennsylvania implemented the welfare
reform initiatives of the federal government. To determine how
families in rural Pennsylvania were fairing under the reforms,
specifically the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
program, the Center for Rural Pennsylvania sponsored a study in
2000, conducted by Dr. C. Nielson Brasher of Shippensburg University,
and his team of researchers. The year-long study of the TANF program
found that, from a caseload perspective, welfare reform appears
to be successful.
Specifically, there were 40 percent fewer TANF recipients
in July 2000 than March 1997 statewide and 55 percent fewer TANF
recipients in rural counties. Also, less than 13 percent of recipients
who were receiving TANF in March 1997 were still receiving TANF
in July 2000.
The study, entitled Welfare Reform: The Experience
of Rural Pennsylvania, did not attempt to examine why there are
fewer cases, but how the families that have been touched by welfare
are doing socio-economically. The study also looked to document
families' perceptions of the challenges and barriers to leaving
TANF.
Current and former recipients
The study included two groups: those that were still receiving
benefits in July 2000, called Currents, and those who no longer
received benefits, called Formers. The state Department of Public
Welfare supplied the list of both Currents and Formers in rural
counties, and from these lists, the researchers drew a random
sample of 330 Currents and 800 Formers. Ultimately, 155 Currents
(46 percent response rate) and 286 Formers (34 percent response
rate) were interviewed by phone.
What the researchers found most striking about the
Currents is that most were not participating in any welfare-to-work
programs. Approximately 60 percent of all Currents were not currently
employed or involved in any program activity. Six percent were
involved in a program activity less than 20 hours per week. Therefore,
among the Currents, only about 33 percent were actually involved
in an activity over 20 hours per week.
In all, 54 respondents (34 percent) reported having
a paid job. Of these, 38 percent worked more than 35 hours per
week, while 10 percent worked less than 20 hours. The median wage
for Currents was $6 per hour.
Thirty-one percent identified health and/or disability
problems for their lack of participation.
Another important finding is that about half of
the Currents temporarily stopped receiving TANF for more than
a month between March 1997 and July 2000. About 75 percent of
those who temporarily stopped receiving benefits did so for employment-related
reasons, such as a new job, a spouse's job, or an increase in
pay or hours worked.
Demographically, most of the Current houses were
headed by one adult (77 percent) and had an average of 2.4 children
under 18. Currents had low education levels with 30 percent having
no high school degree and only 4 percent holding a college degree.
About 50 percent reported having more than five years prior work
experience and 20 percent reported having a year or less experience.
The key for the Formers' ability to stop receiving
TANF benefits appeared to be employment and support from another
adult in the household. About 74 percent of Formers were employed,
but only 43 percent were employed full-time. Their average wage
was $7.37 or $7.60 for full-time workers. Fifty percent made less
than $6.85 and only 18 percent of all Formers had jobs paying
more than $2 over the minimum wage. In addition, wages were for
the most part stagnant. Formers who had not received TANF for
more than three years were making only 13 percent more than in
their first job after leaving TANF. However, 63 percent were satisfied
with their employment situation and 44 percent felt their prospect
for advancement was good.
Caseworkers, supervisors surveyed
In addition to surveying current and former recipients, the researchers
surveyed providers, including caseworkers, supervisors and executive
directors, to determine their perceptions of the barriers to self-sufficiency
and employment for TANF recipients. This portion of the survey
included both urban and rural counties to help determine how rural
counties differ from urban counties. The 30 most rural counties
and the 10 most urban counties were used in the analysis.
Out of the randomly selected 520 providers surveyed,
about 80 percent, or 420, responded. However, 166 did not work
with TANF recipients and were excluded from the analysis. In all,
254 providers completed the mail survey.
Providers cited a number of factors that hampered
the ability of both former and current recipients to be more self-sufficient,
including the lack of transportation, motivation and job skills,
low paying jobs, and mental health or substance abuse problems.
Variations between rural and urban respondents were noted in the
areas of lack of transportation (greater in rural areas) and substance
abuse and domestic violence problems (greater in urban areas).
Overall, executive directors were more likely than caseworkers
to see transportation, domestic violence and personal or family
medical problems as major barriers and they were less likely to
view lack of motivation as a barrier.
More than 50 percent of rural respondents thought
that more transportation and more good jobs were needed. Urban
respondents were more concerned with smaller caseloads to improve
services.
A variety of reasons were given for why former recipients
move back on to TANF. The most frequent responses focused on personal
qualities such as lack of effective coping skills, mental health,
or substance abuse problems, and lack of job skills.
Ninety percent of the respondents felt that TANF reforms were
at least somewhat successful. In addition, more than 70 percent
of respondents thought that TANF had succeeded in getting recipients
jobs and providing resources necessary for employment.
About 50 percent believed TANF had succeeded in
getting recipients into training programs and reducing caseloads.
In addition to the survey results, the researchers
also offer recommendations on further improving the TANF program
based on their research findings.
Want more info?
For a copy of the report, Welfare Reform: The Experience of Rural
Pennsylvania, call the Center for Rural Pennsylvania at (717)
787-9555 or email info@ruralpa.org.
Chairman's Message
"Look it up in the dictionary" is a parent's
typical response when asked about the meaning of a word. Unfortunately,
Webster's has to compete with a number of other sources when it
comes to defining rural. The Center for Rural Pennsylvania estimates
there are no less than seven definitions of the word used throughout
the United States.
So how do we define rural? The Center's designation
is based on the U.S. Census Bureau's definition. And, as odd as
it may seem, the Census Bureau's definition of rural is based
on the way it defines urban. Confused? You're not alone. But,
when analyzing the Census Bureau's data, this definition helps
us when applying their figures to our commonwealth's diverse regions
and helps us to develop a better picture of Pennsylvania's rural
areas.
Later this summer, the Census Bureau will release
the rural/urban information from Census 2000. It will be interesting
to see how the new definitions will affect the rural outlook of
our state. And we're looking for your input in this analysis.
To get your feedback, the Center for Rural Pennsylvania
will host a series of discussions around the state to gather input
to more accurately determine a system of applying rural and urban
designations. We want to hear from other data users. We will enlist
your help in measuring these designations and analyzing whether
they show a true picture of the state's rural areas.
We will be announcing the dates, times and locations
of the sessions on our website at www.ruralpa.org
and in future issues of Rural Perspectives. If you'd like to participate
and want to be included in any upcoming mailings, contact the
Center at the phone number or email address listed at right.
Information provided by the Census Bureau has helped
the Center for Rural Pennsylvania provide a statistical look at
many aspects of rural life in our commonwealth. This data has
helped us look at women- and minority-owned businesses in rural
areas, and indicates to us how these businesses are faring and
how they are affecting the economy in rural areas. Read about
it on page 5. Then turn to the next page and find an article that
offers insights about rural municipalities, and how they vary
in size - from the very small to the very large.
I'll wrap up by encouraging you to read our feature
story that highlights the study released by Dr. Niel Brasher of
Shippensburg University that looked at welfare reform and its
impact on rural Pennsylvanians. The study specifically looked
at the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, those
who are off the system and those who are still on. It also surveyed
those who are charged with administering the benefits programs
and providing services. This study gives us a measured review
of the effects the 1997 changes to this welfare program had on
our commonwealth's recipients.
Finally, thank you for your patience as the Center
gets back to normal after the fire that broke out in our office
building in April. Fortunately, our floor received only minimal
damage, and no one was hurt. This incident has given us a better
appreciation for the 21st Century technology that allowed staff
to access files from remote locations while our building was closed.
It never ceases to amaze me.
Have an enjoyable summer.
Representative Sheila Miller
Bet You Can't Use Just One: Settling on a Definition
of Rural
Settling on one definition of rural may be as difficult
as eating just one potato chip. Throughout the United States,
the definitions of rural among government entities, whether local,
state or federal, and other organizations often vary, sometimes
widely.
The Center for Rural Pennsylvania, for example,
bases its rural designations on the U.S. Census Bureau's definition.
According to this definition, rural is all territory, population,
and housing units that are not urban. Sounds simple, doesn't it?
Well, it would be if only the definition of "urban"
were just as simple.
With the forthcoming release of rural/urban information
from Census 2000, government offices and data users are holding
their breath and wondering how the new definitions will change
the rural outlook of the state.
Areas and clusters
On March 15, 2002, the Census Bureau released the finalized 2000
definitions of urban areas, which included substantial changes
to the former definitions, and which now consist of two components:
urbanized areas (UAs) and urban clusters (UCs).
An urbanized area consists of contiguous, densely
settled Census block groups and Census blocks that meet minimum
population density requirements and adjacent densely settled Census
blocks. The entire area must encompass a population of at least
50,000 people.
Urban clusters are the same but on a smaller scale.
A cluster also consists of contiguous, densely settled Census
block groups and Census blocks that meet minimum population density
requirements and adjacent densely settled Census blocks. Clusters,
however, encompass a population of at least 2,500 people but fewer
than 50,000 people.
The minimum population density for either urban
area is essentially an initial core made up of blocks/block groups
with a population density of at least 1,000 people per square
mile. Added to this core are adjacent blocks/block groups with
a population density of at least 500 people per square mile.
All territory, population, and housing units in
either type of urban area are considered urban, and the remainder
is rural.
Staying outside the lines
With the release of the socio-economic data due out late this
summer, the Census Bureau will publish urban and rural information
for every Census geography. This means that individuals will be
able to look up what percentage of any defined area is urban and
what percentage is rural.
Remember that since urban areas do not necessarily
follow municipal or other legal or statistical boundaries, geographic
entities, such as Census tracts, counties, metropolitan areas,
and the area outside metropolitan areas, will often contain both
urban and rural territory, population, and housing units.
Because many geographic entities include both urban
and rural parts, after the 1990 Census, the Center for Rural Pennsylvania
created a system of designating an entire geographic entity, like
a county or municipality, as rural or urban. Currently, that criteria
states that if more than 50 percent of the population is rural,
according to the Census, the area is considered rural. Likewise,
if more than 50 percent is urban, it is called urban.
Based on these criteria and the 1990 Census data,
nearly 72 percent of Pennsylvania's municipalities are considered
rural, as well as 42 of its 67 counties. Now that the Census Bureau's
rural and urban definitions are changing, so may the Center's
manner of designating a geographic entity.
In the coming months, the Center for Rural Pennsylvania
will host a series of discussions around the state to gather input
from data users to most accurately determine a system of applying
rural and urban designations. The measures for such designations
will be simple and will attempt to show a true picture of the
state's rural areas. Criteria may include total population, population
density, metro/non-metro status and other factors.
The Center will announce the dates, times and locations
of the sessions on its website at www.ruralpa.org, and in upcoming
issues of Rural Perspectives.
For more information about rural/urban definitions
from the Census Bureau, contact the Center for Rural Pennsylvania,
or refer to the Federal Register notice, which can be accessed
through the Census Bureau's website at http://www.census.gov/geo/www/ua/ua_2k.html.
New Mapping Criteria
Technological advancements in the field of geographic information
systems (GIS) over the last 10 years will allow the Census Bureau
to automate the entire urban and rural delineation for the first
time in Census Bureau history. This new mapping capability will
make it easier for users to view specific areas in a community
that are urban or rural.
This map layer file is expected to become available
as a Census TIGER (or Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding
and Referencing system) line file in April.
Changes to 1990 Definitions
The 2000 Census criteria for urban areas differ in a number of
important ways from the 1990 definitions including:
A Look At Women and Minority-Owned Businesses
According to the U.S. Census Bureau's recently released
1997 Economic Census files on Women- and Minority-Owned Businesses,
more than 180,000 total firms were located in the commonwealth's
predominantly rural counties that year. This number accounted
for about 20 percent of the state's total.
A firm is a business organization or entity consisting
of one domestic establishment (location) or more under common
ownership or control. All establishments of subsidiary firms are
included as part of the owning or controlling firm.
Exact numbers of minority- and women-owned firms
are not available because data is only collected for each group
in counties that have at least 100 firms owned by that group.
However, the Center estimated that about 25 percent
of rural Pennsylvania firms are women-owned and about 3 percent
or 5,000 firms are minority-owned. The percentage of women-owned
firms in rural areas coincides with the percentage for the state
overall, but the minority-owned percentage is smaller than the
state's 6 percent.
In six counties, which are all rural, 30 percent
or more of the total firms are women-owned. The counties are Northumberland
(36 percent), Montour, Wyoming, Bedford, Potter, and Fulton (each
at 30 percent). In 10 counties, again all rural, less than 20
percent of the firms are women-owned. Only Forest and Sullivan
counties have fewer than 100 such firms.
While women-owned businesses account for one-quarter
of the number of firms statewide, they take in only about 4 percent
of the sales/receipts. Rural Pennsylvania women fare somewhat
better - their firms take in about 15 percent of the sales/receipts.
Minority-owned businesses play a less significant
but increasing role in rural Pennsylvania. In this analysis, the
four minority categories are: Black, Asian/Pacific Islander, American
Indian/Alaskan Native, and Hispanic. More than half of the state's
mostly rural counties had fewer than 100 minority-owned businesses
in 1997. In three rural counties, however, 5 percent or more of
the businesses were minority owned. These were Monroe (8 percent),
Greene (7 percent), and Wayne (5 percent).
In 1992, the year of the previous Economic Census,
nearly 90 percent of Pennsylvania's rural counties had fewer than
100 minority-owned firms. Although some definitional changes have
occurred since the 1992 Economic Census, the current numbers still
represent an increasing diversity in business ownership since
only about 2,000 rural firms were minority-owned in 1992.
Update Census 2000: SF3 Profiles to be Released
Now that all of the Census 2000 "short form"
(SF1 and SF2) general population and housing data has been released,
it's time for the "long form" (SF3) socio-economic and
detailed housing information to be released.
The first release of this new data is in the form of three profiles,
which are available at the national, state, county, and municipal
levels of geography. The profiles are:
1) Table DP-2, which contains the following social
characteristics:
o Education o Marital status o Grandparents as caregivers o Veteran
status o Disability status o Migration o Place of birth o Language
spoken at home o Ancestry
2) Table DP-3, which contains the following economic
characteristics:
o Employment status o Commuting o Occupation o Industry o Class
of worker o Income o Poverty
3) Table DP-3, which contains the following housing
characteristics:
o Units in structure o Year built o Number of rooms o Year householder
moved in
o Vehicles available o Heating fuel type o Amenities o Occupants
per room o Value Mortgage status and monthly costs o Gross rent
This format is ideal for those who want to find
out all about their community. The Center for Rural Pennsylvania,
in its role as an affiliate of the Census Bureau's State Data
Center Program, will also provide the information in formats suitable
for comparison among geographies.
The next release we'll be looking for is the complete
socio-economic sample data (the SF3 file) due out between June
and September 2002.
For more Census 2000 information, visit the U.S.
Census Bureau's website at www.census.gov
or call the Center for Rural Pennsylvania at (717) 787-9555.
Many, Few, Large, Small - Pennsylvania Has Them
All
Census 2000 data is showing that Pennsylvania's 2,567 municipalities
vary enormously in all aspects. One outstanding difference is
size. Most of the commonwealth's municipalities are small in area.
The smallest is St. Clairsville Borough in Bedford County at 0.03
square miles or just 20 acres. In all, 569 municipalities, 22
percent of the total, are less than one square mile in size. Another
23 percent are between one and 10 square miles.
At the other end of the spectrum is the largest
municipality in the commonwealth: Shippen Township in Cameron
County at more than 157 square miles. Only four other municipalities,
Rush Township in Centre County, Jones and Benezette townships
in Elk County, and the City of Philadelphia are more than 100
square miles.
The smaller municipalities are most often very densely
populated. The most densely populated municipality is Millbourne
Borough in Delaware County with 13,749 people per square mile.
Nine other places have densities of more than 10,000 people per
square mile including one township, Upper Darby in Delaware County,
and the City of Philadelphia. The most sparsely populated is East
Fork Township in Potter County with only 0.27 persons per square
mile. Just five other municipalities have less than one person
per square mile.
Land area is not the only measure of size. Sometimes
size is determined by population, in which case the smallest municipality
would be East Fork Township, Potter County. The reason why that
township is so sparsely populated, as noted above, is that there
are only 14 residents. Five other places also have fewer than
25 inhabitants. The four largest places by population are, of
course, cities.
The Name Game
What's in a name? Among Pennsylvania's 2,567 boroughs,
townships, cities and town, what's in their names is many similarities,
especially in the endings. Pennsylvania's 12 million residents
live in the name-ending land of "woods," "fields,"
"burgs," "boros," "hills," "ports,"
"fords," "villes," and "cities,"
just to name a few.
For instance, there are roughly 50,000 residents
living in 22 municipalities ending in "wood." Among
these locations are the boroughs of Brentwood, Norwood, Rockwood,
Lockwood, Burnwood and Atwood. Clearly outnumbering the residents
who live in the "woods," however, are the 312,070 people
who live in 62 municipalities ending in "field." These
areas include such noted townships as Hempfield, Plainfield, Fallowfield,
Overfield, Deerfield and Clearfield.
Eleven municipalities, populated with a total of
58,000 people, end their names with "boro," and include
such places as Hatboro, Wellsboro, Stoneboro and Gouldsboro. "Burg"
is a popular suffix in 82 municipalities, home to more than 644,000
people, and includes Heidelburg, Schells-burg, Hamburg, Mechanicsburg,
Millersburg, and Berrysburg.
Approximately 145,000 people live in the 31 locations
ending with "hill," while 117,445 residents in 37 municipalities
sign off with "port."
There are 317,000 people who live in 122 locations that end in
"ville," which originates from French and means "country
house or farm," including the municipalities of Meadville,
Titusville, Curwensville, Morrisville, Schwenksville and Le Raysville.
Automobile enthusiasts might be happy to learn that 211,000 people
live in the 41 municipalities that end in "ford," including
the townships and boroughs of Oxford, Guilford, Hereford, Milford,
Bedford and Telford.
About 50,000 people live in municipalities that,
although they contain "city" in their name, are not
incorporated as cities. These non-city cities include Dickson
City, Mahanoy City, Homer City, Broad Top City and Karns City.
Strangely enough, the average population of locations ending in
"town" is 6,609, which is more than the average population
of the places that are called cities but aren't cities. Their
average population is 2,921.
The search for similar endings leads us, finally,
to the nearly 113,000 people who reside in one of the 26 municipalities
that end in "bury." Among these locales are four Shrewburys,
four Sadburys, two Salisburys, and two Sunburys.
Did you know . . .
