September/October 2003
You can now receive
our news and information via e-mail. Click the 'Join List' button:
Report Offers Insights on Broadband
Internet Service in PA
In today's communication era where instant access to people
and information has become the norm, rural Pennsylvania has a
distance to go before it catches up with its urban and suburban
neighbors, according to research sponsored by the Center for Rural
Pennsylvania.
While broadband Internet service is available in many rural areas,
it is not available in all. Compounding this issue, and the current
debate on broadband technology, is the lack of a standard definition
of "broadband" itself.
These findings and others are now available in the report, Broadband
Internet Service in Rural and Urban Pennsylvania: A Common Wealth
or Digital Divide?
The research, conducted by Dr. Amy Glasmeier and Lawrence Wood
of Penn State University, was carried out in 2002 and contains
an analysis of the variations in broadband availability between
urban and rural Pennsylvania.
Conducting the research
The research involved more than 100 detailed interviews, conducted
from October to December 2002, with members of the telecommunications
industry, including the majority of the incumbent local telephone
providers in the state, as well as more than 40 cable companies
that operate in Pennsylvania. These interviews involved the collection
of detailed information regarding where, and the extent to which,
these providers were offering broadband services within their
given service areas. The collection of these data allowed for
an assessment of broadband availability that was particularly
current and highly detailed. Using recent socioeconomic data,
fairly advanced geographic information system (GIS) techniques,
and statistical analyses, the research identified a number of
specific geographic, social, and economic factors that related
to the deployment of broadband services throughout Pennsylvania.
The interviews provided insightful perspectives--from the providers
themselves--on demand for broadband services, the varying qualities
of telecommunications infrastructures, and the nature of competition
within the telecommunications industry in the commonwealth at
the time the data was collected.
The research also included a survey of close to 200 businesses
to learn the extent to which businesses were using a broadband
connection and the type of provider they used.
Broadband availability
According to the research, several of Pennsylvania's telecommunications
providers were among the country's leaders when it came to providing
broadband and deploying advanced telecommunications infrastructures.
The research also indicated that many businesses in rural Pennsylvania
were effectively using the Internet to conduct business. In certain
respects, many of the state's rural residents and businesses were
fully participating in what has become a broadband-driven, digital
era.
However, the research also revealed that while broadband services
were virtually everywhere in the state's metropolitan areas, there
was demonstrably less availability in the state's non-metropolitan
areas and small towns, and even less availability in the more
rural areas of Pennsylvania. In some rural and small town communities,
for example, broadband was not available at all.
The research results also indicated a lack of competition for
broadband services in rural areas, which resulted in problems,
such as low speeds and poor service quality. So, while some of
the state's telecommunications providers were clearly cutting-edge,
others were far less so, and a deficiency of broadband deployment
among some of the state's cable and telephone companies resulted
in a spotted landscape of broadband availability throughout rural
Pennsylvania. In relation to this, many of the state's rural businesses
indicated that Internet use was becoming increasingly important.
The research indicated that as the demand for and the utility
of broadband for these users continues to grow, it becomes imperative
that reliable broadband connections are available from a number
of providers at a reasonable price. The importance of having high-quality,
reliable, and cost-effective broadband in Pennsylvania's rural
communities cannot be overstated, especially considering that
close to three million of the state's residents and thousands
of businesses live and conduct business in these areas.
Service options
The research results showed that broadband had arrived in parts
of rural Pennsylvania, but many areas had a long way to go to
truly participate in the economic and social benefits of the modern,
digital age. While their counterparts in metropolitan areas typically
had a range of broadband options, a great deal of those living
and working in rural Pennsylvania still had relatively limited
or no options in broadband service. Some rural communities were
significantly disadvantaged in terms of service availability.
The researchers suggest the state has the opportunity to take
an active role in assessing the supply and demand of broadband
services throughout the commonwealth. By working in an environment
of cooperation and coordination with Pennsylvania's range of telecommunications
providers, the state has the opportunity to establish an effective,
timely, and coordinated means of information sharing and policy
development among industry, government, and community actors.
They further recommend that the state identifies its goals as
they relate to "universal access" to telecommunications
services, particularly broadband services. As telecommunications
technologies and infrastructures continue to develop at a rapid
pace, it is important that more and better quality telecommunications
services are deployed in the state's rural areas.
Finally, the researchers believe that Pennsylvania has an opportunity
to be a leader in this regard; however, inaction, poor coordination,
and limited cooperation among providers and communities could
jeopardize the efficacy of this new technology for low-density
areas of the state. In this modern era of broadband telecommunications,
they suggest there is the clear possibility that rural Pennsylvania
could be left behind.
Want more info?
For a copy of the report, Broadband Internet Service in Rural
and Urban Pennsylvania: A Common Wealth or Digital Divide?,
call the Center for Rural Pennsylvania at (717) 787-9555 or email
info@ruralpa.org.
Chairman's Message
This summer, the Center for Rural Pennsylvania's board members
traveled to Clinton County for an on-site experience of rural
initiatives that are making a mark in our great state.
Clinton County is the home of Board Members Rep. Mike Hanna and
Dr. Craig Willis and lies within the senatorial district of Board
Member Sen. Jon Wozniak. We enjoyed visiting Lock Haven, the hometown
of Rep. Hanna, and Woolrich, where we learned more about this
delightful town's interesting history. During our stay, we also
heard from grantees who updated us on their Center-sponsored grant
projects.
Dr. Amy Glasmeier and Mr. Lawrence Wood of Penn State University,
whose report is featured on page 1, discussed the current supply
and demand for broadband Internet service in the state. Their
study was conducted in the fall and winter of 2002. Broadband
Internet service is an important economic tool that is being used
across the commonwealth, spanning geographical and technical divides
as it expands. The question on the minds of people in the policy-making
area and in the industry is whether our progress is fast enough
to keep rural Pennsylvania in step with suburban and urban neighbors
and businesses where technology is already available. This report
offers a perspective on broadband telecommunications supply and
demand in Pennsylvania.
Mr. Joseph Segilia and Ms. Kim Dillinger of Penn State University
- Fayette discussed their three-year grant project called, Rural
Online Computer Centers, or ROCC. The project coordinated and
provided computer access and training to residents of rural Fayette
County. Ms. Dillinger discussed the project's successes and its
future.
The board also learned more about how another community information
network is providing Internet access, computer training, and more
to Clinton County residents. The Keystone Community Network, or
KCNet, located in downtown Lock Haven, is an outstanding example
of what a community can do to provide its residents with much
needed services. The enthusiasm of KCNet staff in showcasing its
facility was certainly evidence of the strong local support this
technological initiative has in this rural area.
We look forward to sharing with you the best practices and success
stories of these and other community information networks in future
publications.
Mr. Nathaniel Hosley of Lock Haven University provided an update
on his Center-funded research project on alternative education,
which was completed in 2002. His efforts to improve educational
programs for disruptive students will continue thanks to funding
support through two additional grants from the federal government.
The first grant of $2.3 million is allowing the university to
develop a master's level program on alternative education. The
second grant, currently funded at $1.7 million, will allow the
university to assist the Philadelphia School District with developing
two professional development schools aimed at at-risk children.
It is gratifying to see how the Center for Rural Pennsylvania's
grant projects can help to spark additional research or programs.
The Center's Board of Directors welcomes Governor Rendell's new
appointments, Steve Crawford, cabinet secretary for Legislative
Affairs, and William Sturges, executive director of the Pennsylvania
Rural Development Council, who joined the board effective September
1, 2003. I have enjoyed working with both individuals in the past
and look forward to their contributions to our efforts for rural
Pennsylvania as members of our board.
Representative Sheila Miller
Report On Elderly Care Now Available
As Pennsylvania's rural population ages in place, questions surrounding
health care services continue to surface and call for answers.
To gather data and provide information on some of these issues,
the Center for Rural Pennsylvania targeted two elder-related issues,
namely comprehensive geriatric assessment and long-term care,
as part of its 2000 and 2001 grant programs. The results of those
research projects are now available in the report, Studies
on Rural Elderly Care.
The first project highlighted in the report was conducted by
Dr. C. Virginia Palmer of Millersville University, who studied
the availability of comprehensive geriatric assessment in rural
Pennsylvania and strategies for greater implementation. Comprehensive
geriatric assessment (CGA) is a medical, functional, psychosocial
and environmental evaluation of an older person's problems and
resources, linked to an overall plan for treatment and follow-up.
The other two projects highlighted in the report focus on long-term
care. Drs. Dennis Shea and Robert Weech-Maldonado of Penn State
University conducted a comprehensive analysis of long-term care
services in rural Pennsylvania. Their research focused on the
continuum of long-term care available in Pennsylvania, service
demand and supply, costs, and barriers to service delivery.
Dr. Sara A. Grove of Shippensburg University focused her study
on home health care agencies and family caregivers. The project
examined the sources of payment for both public and private long-term
care services, future demand for long-term care services, and
barriers to providing long-term care services in rural Pennsylvania.
For a copy of the report, Studies on Rural Elderly Care,
call or email the Center for Rural Pennsylvania at (717) 787-9555
or info@ruralpa.org.
Trends in Rural Pennsylvania: Local Government
Capacity
Pennsylvania has more local governments than any state except
Illinois. Our state has 67 counties, 501 school districts, and
more than 2,500 municipalities ranging from the City of Philadelphia
with more than 1.5 million residents to S.N.P.J. Borough in Lawrence
County with fewer than 10 residents. Sixty percent of all Pennsylvania
municipalities are townships, 37 percent are boroughs, and just
2 percent are cities. There is also one town in the state, Bloomsburg
in Columbia County.
While townships, by nature, are less densely settled than other
municipality types, they are not always rural, just as boroughs
and, believe it or not, cities are not always urban.
Rural Pennsylvania is made up of about 1,200 townships, 450 boroughs,
and two cities.
Who they are
There are more than 35,500 local government officials in Pennsylvania,
ranging from mayors, council members, and supervisors to members
of planning commissions or zoning hearing boards. More than 20,000
officials, or 57 percent of the total, represent rural areas.
Thirty-seven percent of rural officials are female.
According to survey findings from the Center for Rural Pennsylvania,
the average small town municipal official is a 56-year-old male
who has been in office for 10 years and ran for the "betterment
of the area" or a "desire to be active in the community."
The local government toolbox
There are many tools that local government officials may use to
help them to effectively and efficiently maximize their capacity.
These include computers, land use planning options, and the information
and experience of officials in other municipalities.
A 2002 Center for Rural Pennsylvania survey shows that most small
local governments are making use of computers. Eighty percent
of municipalities with populations under 2,500 have at least one
computer available for municipal use and 25 percent have more
than one. In addition, 72 percent of those with computers had
Internet access, which they used primarily for email and research
but also to file reports with state government and to purchase
goods and services.
Land use tools provided for by state law include planning commissions,
comprehensive plans, zoning, and subdivision ordinances. Local
governments typically employ some, if not all, of these options.
The most popular in rural areas is the planning commission, which
53 percent of rural municipalities have. Comprehensive plans are
drawn up for 47 percent of rural local governments. Nearly half
(47 percent) have a subdivision ordinance at the local level while
the remainder rely on county subdivisions. Forty-three percent
have local zoning ordinances and an additional 20 percent have
county zoning. Land use planning tools are more commonly used
by urban municipalities.
Municipal services
Protecting citizens and providing recreational opportunities are
services that municipalities often provide. Thirty percent of
rural municipalities provide police services for their residents,
either through their own municipal force, a regional force, or
by contracting with another municipality. The remaining 70 percent,
however, rely on the state police. The average rural municipal
police force has 1.8 full-time and 2.6 part-time personnel.
A 2001 Center for Rural Pennsylvania survey on recreational issues
found that more than 80 percent of small municipalities have at
least one recreational facility such as a sports field, playground,
ball court, picnic area, or trail within their borders. While
municipalities own and operate the majority of recreational facilities,
school districts and community groups also own many, and community
groups frequently help with their operation. Local governments
not only provide facilities but also sponsor programs such as
youth sports leagues, community events, summer playground programs,
fitness/wellness programs, and adult/community education, arts,
and crafts.
Revenues and expenditures1
In 2000, rural municipalities took in nearly $855 million in revenues.
Taxes accounted for just over half of all revenues with real estate,
earned income, and realty transfer taxes amounting to 94 percent
of total taxes. As seen in the chart above, other sources of revenue
include federal, state, and county governments; fees for services
like water or parking; and other miscellaneous sources.
More indicative of local government capacity is how money is
spent. Rural municipal expenditures in 2000 were $709 million2.
About 37 percent ($260 million) of this was spent on streets and
roads and 17 percent ($118 million) was spent on general administration.
Another 14 percent ($111 million) went to public services like
safety and recreation.
The average rural municipality takes in about $545,000 in revenues
and spends $450,000 million for a net gain of about $93,000. Nearly
three-quarters of rural municipalities have revenues and expenditures
of less than $500,000.
1 Revenue and expenditure data is based only on municipalities
that reported financial statistics to the Governor's Center for
Local Government Services. In 2000, about 90 rural municipalities
did not report.
2 A few municipalities were excluded from expenditure calculations
as their figures were extraordinarily high. It has not been determined
whether these numbers are due to error or uncommonly large projects.
The excluded municipalities and the expenditure category of the
outlying figures are: Jackson Township in Tioga County (sewer
project) for 1999, Indian Lake Borough in Somerset County (other),
Salford Township in Montgomery County (streets/roads), and Ringtown
Borough in Schuylkill County (general administration) for 2000.
It is possible that some municipalities with a similar skewing
effect remain in the data.
Definitions and Sources
Rural -All municipalities whose population density, according
to the 2000 Census, is less than the statewide figure of 274 persons
per square mile or whose total population is less than 2,500 persons,
and less than half of the population lives in an urbanized area
as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau.
Background data come from the U.S. Census Bureau.
Unless otherwise noted, the remainder of the information comes
from the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development,
Governor's Center for Local Government Services.
Note: Trends in Rural Pennsylvania is a series
of articles that examines nine major areas of interest in rural
Pennsylvania. The areas of interest are based on the mandates
outlined in the Center for Rural Pennsylvania's enabling legislation
(Act 16 of 1987), and include: agriculture; economic development;
local government capacity and fiscal stress indicators; transportation;
socio-demographics; health care and human services; environment
and natural resources; education; and the condition of existing
local infrastructure.
We will examine the trends in each interest area from 1990 to
2000, or the best time period according to data availability,
and will make comparisons between the rural and urban areas of
our state.
A more detailed fact sheet on each featured topic will also be
available upon request by calling or emailing the Center for Rural
Pennsylvania at (717) 787-9555 or info@ruralpa.org.
This is the fifth article in the series. The others examined
health care access and affordability, transportation, socio-demographics,
and education.
OMB's Alternative Definition for Rural America
America's Non-Metropolitan Areas no longer exist, at least statistically
speaking. In June 2003, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) released data to identify its Core Based Statistical Areas
(CBSAs). CBSAs replaced the former Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan
Areas that were used in the 1990s to describe urban and non-urban
areas.
Using data from Census 2000, CBSAs contain at least one urban
area of 10,000 or more population. There are two types of areas
within a CBSA: Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas.
A Metroplitian Statistical Area has at least one urbanized area
of 50,000 or more residents. A Micropolitan Statistical Area is
smaller and has at least one urban cluster of at least 10,000
but less than 50,000 population. The "building blocks"
of each of these statistical areas are counties. Counties with
smaller urban populations may be included in a CBSA as an "outlying
county" if they meet specific commuting criteria to or from
the central counties. Counties not included within the CBSA are
simply called "Areas Outside CBSAs."
In June 2003, OMB released its list of counties inside CBSAs.
Nationally, there are 362 Metropolitan Areas comprised of 1,090
counties. More than 232.6 million Americans, or 83 percent of
the total population, live in a metropolitan county. There are
560 Micropolitan Areas. These areas are made up of 674 counties.
Nearly 30 million Americans, or 10 percent of the population,
live in these counties. The remaining 1,377 counties across the
United States are Areas Outside CBSAs. These counties are home
to nearly 20 million Americans, or 7 percent of the total population.
In Pennsylvania, OMB identified 16 Metropolitan Areas comprised
of 32 counties. About 10.3 million Pennsylvanians, or 83 percent
of the total population, live in these counties. There are 21
Micropolitan Areas comprised of 22 counties. These areas are home
to 1.6 million Pennsylvanians, or 13 percent of the state's population.
Thirteen Pennsylvania counties are in Areas Outside CBSAs. These
counties have a total population of nearly 0.4 million residents,
or 3 percent of the state's population. For a list of the CBSAs,
go to the Census Bureau's web page at www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/metrodef.html.
The new classification system will probably have very little
impact for rural Pennsylvania since, according to OMB, the new
system was created solely for statistical purposes. The agency
also cautions other federal, state, and non-governmental agencies
about using the classification for program funding without full
consideration of the effect of using these definitions for such
purposes.
This new classification system may have an impact on public and
private research. As organizations adopt these definitions, their
findings and conclusions will likely fit the categories of Metropolitan,
Micropolitan, and Areas Outside CBSAs.
The Center for Rural Pennsylvania will not use OMB's definition
for its research since it adopted a rural definition based on
population density in January 2003. The definitions for Pennsylvania's
counties, municipalities, and school districts are: A county or
school district is rural when the number of persons per square
mile within the county or school district is less than 274. Counties
and school districts that have 274 persons or more per square
mile are considered urban. A municipality is rural when the population
density within the municipality is less than 274 persons per square
mile or the municipality's total population is less than 2,500
unless more than 50 percent of the population lives in an urbanized
area, as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau. All other municipalities
are considered urban.
How Does Rural Work For You
Tell us how your rural community or organization is acting on
its idea of building a better rural Pennsylvania so that we can
share it with others.
Over the past few months, the Center for Rural Pennsylvania has
been collecting information about the work of rural Pennsylvania
communities, organizations and groups who, through innovative
programs, projects or partnerships, are improving their rural
communities' conditions, and providing opportunities to sustain
the good works they have achieved. The programs are currently
running or have been started and completed between January 2000
and this year.
After the Center has received and compiled all of the information
submissions, it will feature the stories in its newsletter and
in a special publication. The publication will provide details
about the programs and projects so that other rural communities
may replicate the models to use in their communities. The Center
also plans to use the publication to celebrate the success of
the programs and applaud the commitment of those involved.
To provide us with details of your project, program or partnership,
contact the Center for Rural Pennsylvania for an information form
at (717) 787-9555 or download the form, available in pdf format,
at www.ruralpa.org. The completed
forms should be returned to the Center by Friday, October 31,
2003.
Just the Facts: Attention Deficit Disorder
During the 2001 school year, about one in 25 rural students was
medically diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder/Hyperactivity
(ADD/ADHD). According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC),
this disorder involves inattention and/or hyperactivity-impulsivity
occurring in several settings and more frequently and severely
than is typical for individuals in the same stage of development.
The CDC estimates that this disorder affects between 4 to 6 percent
of school age children and between 2 to 4 percent of adults.
Data collected by the Pennsylvania Department of Health from
information supplied by school districts showed that in 2001,
about 74,300 Pennsylvania students were medically diagnosed with
ADD/ADHD, or about 4 percent of the total enrollment. In rural
areas, nearly 21,500 students were diagnosed with this disorder.
Both rural and urban areas had nearly identical percentages, 4
percent, of students' diagnosed with ADD/ADHD.
Regionally, south central Pennsylvania had the highest percentage
of students' diagnosed with ADD/ADHD, at 6 percent, while the
southeast and southwest regions had the lowest percentage at 3
percent each. At the county level, Adams, Cumberland and Franklin
counties had more than 7 percent of students diagnosed with this
disorder. Clinton, Sullivan, and Cameron counties each had less
than 2 percent of students who were medically identified as having
ADD/ADHD.
Between the 1998 and 2001 school years, the number of rural students
diagnosed with ADD/ADHD increased 16 percent. Urban areas had
a 9 percent increase. These changes may be attributed to better
reporting and increased awareness among medical and school officials
since, according to the CDC, there is no simple test to determine
whether someone has ADD/ADHD.
Did You Know . . .
