November/December 2000
You can now receive
our news and information via e-mail. Click the 'Join List' button:
Pennsylvania's Rural Homeless Reality
Homelessness is often viewed as an urban issue since
it is easier to visualize a person needing assistance or seeking
shelter in urban areas. But homelessness is also a rural issue.
To develop an understanding of homelessness as it
affects rural residents, the Center for Rural Pennsylvania analyzed
data from the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare for fiscal
years 1997 through 1999.
While the data did not include reliable estimates
on the number of rural homeless, it did include information on
the number of people who received homeless assistance. From this
information, it was possible to develop a clearer profile of who
received homeless assistance, where many of those who received
assistance were located, the types of assistance received, and
the associated costs.
Following are just some of the results of the analysis.
More information on how the data was analyzed is included below.
To make the analysis easier to read, the Center
used the last date of the fiscal year to represent the entire
calendar year. For example, the 1998-1999 fiscal year is shown
throughout the analysis as 1999.
Statewide glance
- Statewide, nearly 116,000 clients received homeless assistance
in 1999, or 9.6 clients for every 1,000 residents.
-
-
In 1999, more than 21,700 clients received
homeless assistance in rural areas. The client to population
ratio in rural areas was 8.5 clients for every 1,000 residents.
In urban areas, more than 94,000 clients received assistance,
with a client to population ratio of 10 clients for every
1,000 residents.
-
Between 1997 and 1999, the number of clients
receiving homeless assistance in rural areas increased 20
percent. In urban areas, the increase was 28 percent.
-
In 1999, every county provided some type
of homeless assistance. Philadelphia, Allegheny, and Cumberland
counties had the greatest number of clients. Montour, Cameron,
and Forest counties had the least number of clients.
-
In 1999, Lycoming, Cumberland, Fayette, Armstrong,
and Blair counties each had more than 20 clients per 1,000
residents, which was double the statewide ratio. The counties
with the lowest ratios were Adams, Chester, and Montgomery.
Each of these counties had less than 1.5 clients per 1,000
residents.
-
In 1999, rural areas had almost 20,000 emergency
shelter units, or one unit for every 130 residents. In urban
areas, there were more than 544,000 emergency shelter units,
or one unit for every 17 people. The counties with the most
units per capita were Philadelphia, Dauphin, and Allegheny.
Twenty-two counties, most predominantly rural, had no emergency
shelters.
Homeless assistance programs
- In 1999, the most common type of assistance provided in
rural areas was rental assistance at 51 percent, followed
by case management at 37 percent. Less than 10 percent of
the 21,700 rural clients used emergency shelters in rural
areas.
-
-
Between fiscal years 1997 and 1999, the number
of rural clients who received case management assistance doubled
from about 50 percent to 100 percent.
-
Another program component that had a large
increase between fiscal years 1997 and 1999 was rental assistance,
where the number of rural clients increased 43 percent.
Who received services
- Among the more than 21,700 rural clients who received homeless
assistance in 1999, 44 percent were children who were part
of families that became homeless. The most common type of
assistance given to these families was rental assistance.
The average family had two children.
-
-
Of the nearly 5,000 rural families that received
homeless assistance, 46 percent were also receiving welfare
payments, or TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families).
Cost of services
- In 1999, more than $23.2 million was spent statewide on
assistance to the homeless, or roughly $200 per client. In
rural areas, $3.3 million was spent, or $153 per client. The
urban average was $212 per client, or a total $19.9 million.
Issue throughout PA
In general, the analysis revealed that homelessness
is an issue throughout Pennsylvania. It also showed that rural
areas provide fewer public services than most urban areas; most
rural assistance is limited to case management services and assisted
rental housing; few rural communities have emergency shelters;
and most rural homelessness is an issue among the working poor.
Analyzing the issue
To analyze the issue of rural homelessness, the
Center for Rural Pennsylvania used data from the Pennsylvania
Department of Public Welfare’s Homeless Assistance Program (HAP).
This data detailed the number of clients by the types of services
they received for fiscal years 1997, 1998, and 1999 and provided
some general information on the economic and household characteristics
of the clients.
Six basic homeless assistance programs were identified
by the program, including emergency shelters, bridge housing,
rental assistance, case management, innovative support housing
service, and PennFree bridge housing.
The PennFree bridge housing is only available in
Allegheny and Philadelphia counties and provides housing and case
management services to homeless clients with substance abuse problems.
All of the programs are based on need, which means
that clients must be in or near poverty. In 1999, the poverty
rate for a family of three was $13,888. County governments oversee
the provision of assistance to the clients through county personnel
or a contracted organization.
Information on the number of clients who received
assistance and total expenditures for each of the programs was
analyzed from a rural/urban perspective. The analysis included
any person who received assistance in a rural county.
It is important to note that there may be more rural
homeless than reported here. This analysis only included those
who requested assistance. Also, since assistance programs do not
have residency requirements, there is no way to know if those
who received assistance were residents of the county in which
they received assistance.
Want more info?
For a more detailed fact sheet, Pennsylvania's
Rural Homeless Reality, call or email the Center for Rural
Pennsylvania at (717) 787-9555 or info@ruralpa.org.
Chairman’s Message
Can you imagine what it’s like not having a place
to call home? For too many, this nightmare called homelessness
is a reality of daily life. A recent analysis of homelessness
by the Center for Rural Pennsylvania looked at whether this was
as much a rural problem as an urban one. Sadly, the statistics
from the Department of Public Welfare demonstrate that homelessness
occurs in every rural county of our Commonwealth.
The Center's findings should help dispel a widespread
misconception among rural Pennsylvanians that homelessness is
an urban problem. Our analysis also points out that homelessness
does not just affect the transient rural population.
We are hopeful that the Center’s analysis will put
more focus on the problem and the disparity of public services
that are provided to rural homeless as compared to those in urban
areas. We are also hopeful that this analysis will focus more
attention on the issue of homelessness and what needs to be done
statewide to combat this issue.
Pennsylvania is turning a page in its history book
in the area of protecting its fertile farmland. In the articleFour
Pennsylvania Counties Make Top 12 List for Farmland Preservation,
you will see four Pennsylvania counties listed among the top 12
counties in the nation for preserving farmland. I was especially
proud to see Berks County on the list, having served as a director
on the county agricultural land preservation board for the past
decade. Lancaster, Chester and York counties have set the pace
for keeping valuable farmland in production, and I encourage other
counties across the state to continue their efforts to work with
public and private organizations to protect the land resources
we need to keep our number one industry in Pennsylvania - agriculture
- growing stronger through the century ahead.
Protecting our land resource through preservation
efforts goes hand in hand with protecting the soil we farm through
sound conservation practices. Farmers in 20 counties in the Chesapeake
Bay watershed are eligible to apply for a new, voluntary program
that will help reduce soil erosion, and the resulting nutrient
and sediment loading in the Bay, by retiring environmentally sensitive
farmland from agricultural production. Learn more about the conservation
program in the article, Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program
Available to Eligible Farmers.
One of my special interests is history, and I am
in full agreement that our Commonwealth’s more than 1,000 museums
are truly treasures. I am proud to have the homestead of Conrad
Weiser, a famous Pennsylvanian in our Commonwealth’s early history,
in my legislative district, along with several community museums
that help to educate the public about Berks County’s contributions
to the Keystone state. These small museums and historic sites
are part of a new publication, entitled Keystone Treasures,
created by the Pennsylvania Federation of Museums and Historical
Organizations. Our rural museums and historic homes or structures
comprise 24 percent of the 600-plus sites. These historic sites
are great finds for residents and travelers to Pennsylvania’s
rural areas.
As we close out the year 2000, I wish you a wonderful
holiday season and all the best in the coming New Year.
Representative Sheila Miller
Chairman
Four Pennsylvania Counties Make
Top 12 List for Farmland Preservation
Lancaster, Chester, York and Berks counties are
among the top 12 counties in the nation for local farmland preservation
programs, according to the Farmland Preservation Report’s Sixth
Annual Survey. The report, published by Bowers Publishing,
Inc., is based on information from interviews with county administrators
in July 2000 and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 1997 Census
of Agriculture.
The annual survey examines a locality’s progress
in farmland preservation in terms of the number of acres permanently
preserved, the political leadership and program administration,
and the commitment of funds. To determine the number of acres
preserved, the survey includes lands that are preserved by public
programs as well as nonprofit entities and programs, such as land
trusts, if the preserved acres are agricultural lands.
Lancaster County
Lancaster County ranks second in the survey, behind
the leader, Montgomery County, Md., with 39,000 acres preserved
or 10 percent of its total farmland. According to the report,
Lancaster County preserved more farms in six months in 2000 than
in it did during the 12 months of 1999.
Lancaster County is Pennsylvania’s most productive
farming county, generating more than $649 million annually from
about 5,000 farms. It ranks first in the state in alfalfa hay,
cattle, chicken, milking cow, corn for silage and grain, hog and
pig, milk, egg, and barley production.
Chester County
In June 2000, Chester County had more than 34,000
acres in its agricultural preservation program, or about 19.6
percent of its total farmland. Chester County entered the survey’s
ranking for the first time in 1999 when the survey started to
count agricultural lands preserved by nonprofit organizations
and other entities as well as public programs.
Chester County ranks first in the state in mushroom
production.
York County
According to the Farmland Preservation Report
survey, York County has more than 21,000 acres preserved on 77
farms throughout the county.
York’s ranking in the top 12 was also helped along
by preservation efforts of nonprofit organizations in addition
to public programs.
York County ranks first in the state in wheat production,
and second in soybeans and barley production. It also is ranked
second in the number of farms.
Berks County
Entering the survey for the first time, Berks County
ranked number 12 in the survey with more than 18,000 acres preserved.
The county ranks second in state in corn for grain
production, and third in the number of farms and in wheat, soybean,
and apple production.
Want more info?
For more information about the Farmland Preservation
Report and the survey, call Bowers Publishing, Inc., at (410)
692-2708 or email BowersPub@aol.com.
Did You Know . . .
- One in four rural Pennsylvanians was under 18 years old
in 1999.
-
-
In 1999, 50 percent of rural Pennsylvanians
were born before the Berlin Wall was built; 12 percent were
born after the Wall came down.
-
Between June 1999 and June 2000, the number
of rural residents receiving Food Stamps declined 3 percent;
the number of urban residents declined 4 percent.
-
Between 1998 and 1999, the number of building
permits for new residential housing units in rural areas increased
less than 1 percent. In urban areas, the number of permits
increased 3 percent.
Revisiting Pennsylvania's Past
Interested in revisiting the past, discovering an
old treasure or artifact, or even learning more about your local
heritage? Just step into a museum in Pennsylvania.
These are the places where history takes on a new
meaning and where Pennsylvania’s heritage come to life.
PA treasures
According to the second edition of Keystone Treasures,
a publication of the Pennsylvania Federation of Museums and Historical
Organizations (PFMHO), there are more than 1,000 museums in Pennsylvania
and about 60 percent of these museums are open to the public.
Among the different types of museums in the state are historical
societies and sites, botanical gardens, zoos, art museums and
galleries, science centers, and natural history museums.
Of the 600 or so public museums in Pennsylvania,
24 percent are located in rural areas. According to Keystone
Treasures, the majority of rural museums are historic
homes or structures that have been restored to their original
stature and contain local artifacts, restored furnishings, and
genealogical information.
Western Pennsylvania houses 60 percent of rural
museums, including the Drake Wells in Venango County, the Pennsylvania
Lumber Museum in Potter County, and the Jimmy Stewart Museum in
Indiana County.
Funding generators
According to a study released by the PFMHO in February
2000, museums play a commendable role in generating funds for
local areas and the state. The study, An Analysis of the Economic
and Educational Activities of a Study Group of Pennsylvania Museums
and Historical Organizations, found that in 1997, museums
spent $155 million in Pennsylvania; 94 million for wages, salaries
and fringe benefits and 61 million for goods and services. The
direct and indirect economic impacts generated by these museum
purchases totaled $77 million in earnings for Pennsylvania residents.
The study also found that museums have 2,775 full- and part-time
employees in the Commonwealth, and also rely heavily on volunteers.
According to the report, about 17,800 volunteers staff Commonwealth
museums.
The PFMHO survey included 242 public museums of
all sizes and serving all parts of the state. The study also found
that, in 1997, 14 million people visited Pennsylvania’s museums
and that, on average, more than 74,000 visitors per year come
to Pennsylvania’s museums. The median number of visitors per year,
however, is a much lower 17,000, which equals about 47 visitors
per day.
A bargain for treasures
The study also noted that museums are a great bargain.
More than half of the museums in the study do not charge admission.
The remainder had fees ranging from a low of $1 to a high of $12.
The average admission price was $4.33. The study also found that
over 50 percent of the museums surveyed operated on budgets of
less than $250,000; 18 percent operated on budgets of $250,000
to $1 million; and 16.5 percent operated on budgets of over $1
million.
Conservation Reserve Enhancement
Program Available to Eligible Farmers
Eligible farmers in 20 Pennsylvania counties now
have the opportunity to benefit from a program to help protect
the Chesapeake Bay from the effects of nutrient and sediment loading
due to agricultural runoff. The Pennsylvania Conservation Reserve
Enhancement Program (CREP) is a voluntary program that allows
farmers to enroll in contracts of 10 to 15 years in duration to
remove environmentally sensitive farmland from agricultural production.
Farmers enrolled in the program will receive annual
rental payments based on soil rental rates as calculated by the
Farm Service Agency, the federal agency that is implementing the
program. The rental payments will include incentive payments above
the annual per acre rental rate based on the conservation practices
installed on the eligible land. Eligible conservation practices
include filter strips, riparian buffers, wetland restoration,
contour grass strips, grassed waterways and shallow water areas.
The goal of CREP is to reduce sediment loading by
1.6 million tons and nitrogen and phosphorus loading by 2 million
pounds per year. Pennsylvania is working to enroll 100,000 acres
of farmland in Adams, Bedford, Berks, Chester, Columbia, Cumberland,
Dauphin, Franklin, Fulton, Juniata, Lancaster, Lebanon, Montour,
Northumberland, Perry, Schuylkill, Snyder, Somerset, Union and
York counties.
CREP applications must satisfy the basic eligibility
criteria for the Conservation Reserve Program. Those interested
in applying to participate in CREP should contact their local
U.S. Department of Agriculture Service Center or Soil and Water
Conservation District.
Suicide Rates of Elderly Highest
in Rural Areas
Rural Pennsylvania has the state’s highest per capita
suicide rate. According to data from the Pennsylvania Department
of Health, between 1994 and 1998, more than 1,500 rural residents
committed suicide, or 62 people for every 100,000 people. In urban
areas, the rate was 57 for every 100,000 people.
Rural males were six times more likely than rural
females to commit suicide. The rate for rural males was 109 people
for every 100,000, while the rate for rural females was 17 people
for every 100,000. In urban areas, the gap between male and females
was not as wide.
The rural elderly, or people 65 years old and older,
have the highest per capita suicide rates of any age cohort at
a rate of 94 people for every 100,000. The rate for elderly males
was 202 people for every 100,000 while the rate for elderly females
was 21 people for every 100,000. The rate for victims between
the ages of 30 and 44 years old was 83 and for teenagers was 14
for every 100,000 people.
According to the National Center for Health Statistics,
in 1998, Pennsylvania ranked 31 in the nation in the number of
suicides per capita. The states with the highest rates were Nevada,
Alaska, and Wyoming. The states with the lowest rankings were
Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey.
Within Pennsylvania, the northeast region had the
highest suicide rate, while the south central region had the lowest
rate. At the county level, Schuylkill, Pike, and Susquehanna counties
had the highest suicide rates; more than 85 people for every 100,000
residents. Centre, Bedford, and Juniata counties had the lowest
rates with less than 40 for every 100,000 people.
Just the Facts: Shop Till You Drop
Nowhere to shop in rural Pennsylvania? Not according
to data from the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry.
In 1998, the state’s rural areas had the same ratio of retail
establishments to population as urban areas.
In that same year, rural areas registered more than
13,500 retail establishments, or 1 store for every 188 residents.
Urban areas claimed nearly 50,000 retail establishments or 1 store
for every 189 residents.
This means that, per capita, about half of Pennsylvania’s
42 predominantly rural counties have more retail establishments
than Philadelphia and Allegheny counties combined.
Between 1990 and 1998, urban areas had a 9 percent
increase in retail establishments, while rural areas had only
a 5 percent increase. In rural areas, 25 percent of the business
establishments were retail establishments. In urban areas, 22
percent of all business establishments were retail establishments.
Nationally, Pennsylvania ranks 35 in the number
of retail establishments per capita. Vermont, Montana, and Wyoming
had the most retail establishments per capita, while Arizona,
Utah, and California had the least. Within the Commonwealth, Forest,
Sullivan and Clarion counties had the most retail establishments
per capita, while Perry, Juniata, and Greene had the least.
In an average rural community, the largest number
of retail establishments are eating and drinking places, followed
by auto dealers and service stations, food stores, and furniture
and home/garden stores.
The average rural retail establishment has about
13 employees, who earn an annual average wage of slightly more
than $6.50 an hour. In urban areas, the average retail establishment
employs nearly 16 employees who earn an annual average wage of
about $7.80 an hour.
In the next five to 10 years, it will be interesting
to see how or if local retail establishments will be affected
by e-commerce.
Back to the Top
