Welfare Reform
Rural TANF Programs Have Developed Many Strategies to Address Rural Challenges
Gao ID: GAO-04-921 September 10, 2004
About 49 million people, or 17 percent of the country's total population, live in rural communities, and 18 states have at least a third of their population in rural areas. Rural areas often have less favorable employment conditions than urban areas and have fewer public transportation options to help people get to and from work. Given these conditions and the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program's emphasis on moving recipients into jobs and on the path toward self-sufficiency, some have questioned how welfare reform is working in rural areas. To inform discussions of these concerns, GAO is reporting on (1) the size and distribution of the rural TANF caseload and how the caseload's size has changed over time, (2) the challenges and strengths that rural TANF programs have in implementing welfare reform, (3) the strategies being used to address these challenges, and (4) what the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is doing to help rural areas address these challenges. To obtain this information, we used multiple methodologies, including analysis of county-level caseload data, as well as site visits, a review of studies on welfare reform in rural areas, and numerous interviews with caseworkers, government officials and other experts.
According to our analysis of 48 states, about 293,000 families living in rural counties received TANF cash assistance during an average month in 2003. Rural TANF families are about 14 percent of all TANF families, but the rural portion of individual states' TANF caseload ranges from 0.02 percent to 77 percent. Rural TANF families are concentrated in counties with disadvantaged conditions, including high unemployment and low median income. Since 1997, when welfare reform was implemented nationally, rural and urban TANF caseloads have declined by about the same amount--44 percent--when all reporting states' counties are aggregated. The rural TANF caseworkers and service providers at sites we visited reported that transportation difficulties, job shortages, low wages, and lack of services, especially child care, challenged their efforts to help clients become employed and move toward self-sufficiency. However, they also cited strengths, including collaboration and personal attention to clients. To address the challenges they face, the rural TANF programs we visited have employed a variety of strategies including nontraditional methods of connecting clients with services and cooperative arrangements that leverage resources. Some of the strategies adopted by rural TANF agencies take a more targeted approach, working to overcome one particular challenge or set of challenges that clients face, especially in the areas of transportation, employment, and child care. The Department of Health and Human Services' Administration for Children and Families has undertaken several efforts that could assist TANF programs and recipients in rural areas. These include rural conferences, a demonstration project, technical assistance to rural programs, and a rural task force with representatives from different programs, including TANF. Plans are under way for an Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) initiative targeting rural TANF recipients.
GAO-04-921, Welfare Reform: Rural TANF Programs Have Developed Many Strategies to Address Rural Challenges
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-921
entitled 'Welfare Reform: Rural TANF Programs Have Developed Many
Strategies to Address Rural Challenges' which was released on October
12, 2004.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
September 2004:
Welfare Reform:
Rural TANF Programs Have Developed Many Strategies to Address Rural
Challenges:
GAO-04-921:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-04-921, a report to congressional requesters:
Why GAO Did This Study:
About 49 million people, or 17 percent of the country‘s total
population, live in rural communities, and 18 states have at least a
third of their population in rural areas. Rural areas often have less
favorable employment conditions than urban areas and have fewer public
transportation options to help people get to and from work. Given
these conditions and the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF) program‘s emphasis on moving recipients into jobs and on the
path toward self-sufficiency, some have questioned how welfare reform
is working in rural areas. To inform discussions of these concerns,
GAO is reporting on (1) the size and distribution of the rural TANF
caseload and how the caseload‘s size has changed over time, (2) the
challenges and strengths that rural TANF programs have in implementing
welfare reform, (3) the strategies being used to address these
challenges, and (4) what the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) is doing to help rural areas address these challenges. To obtain
this information, we used multiple methodologies, including analysis of
county-level caseload data, as well as site visits, a review of studies
on welfare reform in rural areas, and numerous interviews with
caseworkers, government officials and other experts.
What GAO Found:
According to our analysis of 48 states, about 293,000 families living
in rural counties received TANF cash assistance during an average month
in 2003. Rural TANF families are about 14 percent of all TANF families,
but the rural portion of individual states‘ TANF caseload ranges from
0.02 percent to 77 percent. Rural TANF families are concentrated in
counties with disadvantaged conditions, including high unemployment
and low median income. Since 1997, when welfare reform was implemented
nationally, rural and urban TANF caseloads have declined by about the
same amount”44 percent”when all reporting states‘ counties are
aggregated.
The rural TANF caseworkers and service providers at sites we visited
reported that transportation difficulties, job shortages, low wages,
and lack of services, especially child care, challenged their efforts
to help clients become employed and move toward self-sufficiency.
However, they also cited strengths, including collaboration and
personal attention to clients.
To address the challenges they face, the rural TANF programs we
visited have employed a variety of strategies including nontraditional
methods of connecting clients with services and cooperative
arrangements that leverage resources. Some of the strategies adopted
by rural TANF agencies take a more targeted approach, working to
overcome one particular challenge or set of challenges that clients
face, especially in the areas of transportation, employment, and child
care.
The Department of Health and Human Services‘ Administration for
Children and Families has undertaken several efforts that could assist
TANF programs and recipients in rural areas. These include rural
conferences, a demonstration project, technical assistance to rural
programs, and a rural task force with representatives from different
programs, including TANF. Plans are under way for an Earned Income Tax
Credit (EITC) initiative targeting rural TANF recipients.
Rural and Urban TANF Caseload Changes between 1997 and 2003:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-921.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click
on the link above. For more information, contact Cynthia M. Fagnoni,
(202) 512-7215, or fagnonic@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
The Rural TANF Caseload Is About 14 Percent of the National Caseload,
Is Concentrated in Economically Disadvantaged Counties, and Has
Declined at About the Same Rate as the Urban Caseload:
Rural Areas Present TANF Clients with Shortages in Jobs and Services
but Also Foster Program Collaboration and Personal Attention to
Clients:
Rural TANF Programs Transport Services to Clients and Leverage
Resources to Provide Mentoring, Transportation, Job, and Child Care
Assistance:
HHS Has Several Initiatives That Could Benefit Rural TANF Programs:
Concluding Observations:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology of TANF Caseload Data Analysis:
Appendix II: Comparisons of Demographic and Socioeconomic
Characteristics of Counties with Different TANF Characteristics:
Appendix III: TANF Caseload Data by State:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services:
Appendix VGAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Bibliography:
Related GAO Products:
Tables:
Table 1: Comparison of Characteristics of Rural Counties with Different
Proportions of Their Population on TANF:
Table 2: Comparison of Characteristics of Rural Counties with Different
Degrees of TANF Caseload Change, 1997-2003:
Figures:
Figure 1: Percentage of TANF Families, in Each State, Living in Rural
and Urban Counties:
Figure 2: Location of the Quarter of Rural Counties with the Highest
Proportion of Families Receiving TANF:
Figure 3: Rural and Urban Caseload Changes between 1997 and 2003:
Figure 4: Rural and Urban Caseload Changes by State, 1997-2003:
Figure 5: Customer Service Representative at Work Central's Call Center
in North Carolina Using Geographic Software Program During a Call to a
Customer:
Figure 6: Mock Hotel Room for Housekeeping Training at Community
College in Mississippi:
Abbreviations:
ABE: adult basic education:
ACF: Administration for Children and Families:
EITC: Earned Income Tax Credit:
ERS: Economic Research Service:
GED: general equivalency diploma:
GOLD: Golden Opportunities for Lifelong Development:
HHS: Department of Health and Human Services:
MOE: maintenance-of-effort:
OEI: Occupational Enterprises, Inc.
OFA: Office of Family Assistance:
PREP: People Realizing Employment Possibilities:
PRWORA: Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
of 1996:
TANF: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families:
WIA: Workforce Investment Act:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
September 10, 2004:
The Honorable Charles E. Grassley:
Chairman:
The Honorable Max Baucus:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Finance:
United States Senate:
The Honorable John D. Rockefeller, IV:
United States Senate:
About 49 million people--17 percent of the country's total population-
-live in rural America, and 18 states have at least one-third of their
population in rural areas. In general, rural areas have less favorable
employment conditions--fewer employers, fewer job options, and higher
average unemployment rates--than urban areas. Also, rural areas usually
do not have the type of public transportation often available in urban
areas to help people get to and from work. Welfare reform, which was
implemented nationally through the Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) block grant program, emphasizes the need for welfare
recipients to gain employment and move toward self-sufficiency. Given
the conditions in rural areas that could affect TANF recipients'
abilities to get a job and go to work, some have questioned how welfare
reform is working in rural areas.
Because of your interest in rural areas, you asked us to study welfare
reform in these areas. This report presents information on (1) the size
of the rural TANF caseload (that is, the number of families receiving
monthly cash assistance), how that caseload is distributed, and how the
caseload's size has changed over time; (2) the challenges and strengths
that rural TANF programs have in implementing welfare reform; (3) the
strategies being used to address these challenges; and (4) what the
Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) Administration for
Children and Families (ACF) is doing to help rural areas address these
challenges.
To learn about the rural TANF caseload, we collected and analyzed
county-level caseload data, which we determined were of an acceptable
reliability to use, from 48 states.[Footnote 1] Appendix I provides
additional information on the scope and methodology of our TANF
caseload data analysis. To learn about the challenges and strengths of
rural TANF programs in implementing welfare reform and about the
strategies being used to address these challenges, we visited TANF
caseworkers or service providers in one or more rural counties in nine
states: Arkansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New
Mexico, North Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia. We selected
locations to visit according to a combination of factors--their
implementation of interesting strategies to address rural challenges
for welfare reform, their high percentage of the population living in
rural areas, and geographic diversity considerations. In three
locations, we met with TANF clients to learn about the challenges they
face in rural areas. We augmented our site visits with a review of
studies on welfare reform in rural areas. We did not conduct site
visits in urban areas and, therefore, do not address urban areas'
challenges, strengths, or strategies for implementing welfare reform.
To learn what ACF is doing to help rural areas address challenges in
implementing welfare reform, we interviewed ACF officials and reviewed
documents they provided or that we obtained from their Web sites. We
performed our work from June 2003 through July 2004 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
About 293,000 families living in rural counties received cash
assistance under TANF programs during an average month in 2003 in the
combined 48 states covered by our analysis. These families constitute
about 14 percent of all TANF families in the 48 states. However, in
most of the states, much more than 14 percent of the state's TANF
families live in rural counties. For example, in South Dakota and
Montana, 77 and 69 percent of the states' TANF families live in rural
counties, respectively. TANF families are not distributed evenly across
rural counties but are concentrated in counties that, on average, have
disadvantaged conditions including high unemployment and a large
portion of the population without a high school diploma. For example,
rural counties with a high concentration of TANF recipients had an
average unemployment rate of 7.8 in 2002 compared with 4.8 for counties
with comparatively few TANF recipients. Since 1997, when welfare reform
was implemented nationally, rural and urban TANF caseloads have
declined by about the same amount--44 percent--when all reporting
states' counties are aggregated. Yet for a number of individual states,
rural and urban caseloads have declined at different rates, most
commonly with rural caseloads declining more than urban caseloads.
The rural TANF caseworkers and service providers at sites we visited
reported that transportation difficulties, job shortages, low wages,
and lack of services, especially child care, challenged their efforts
to help clients become employed and move toward self-sufficiency,
although they also cited rural TANF program strengths of collaboration
and personal attention to clients. The obstacles we identified during
our site visits were also noted in several welfare reform studies. In
some economically depressed areas, caseworkers believed their clients
had a high prevalence of other problems such as very low education
levels, domestic abuse, and medical conditions that the clients believe
make them unable to work. On the other hand, TANF caseworkers and
service providers we spoke with said their TANF programs have strengths
that help them address the challenges posed in rural areas. First, they
said they have used their connections in the community to develop
collaborations with other social service providers, employers, and
community institutions to help clients overcome problems and find jobs.
Some rural TANF caseworkers also told us they were able to give their
clients a lot of personal attention and their knowledge of the clients
helped them address clients' problems.
To address the challenges they face, the rural TANF programs we visited
have employed a variety of strategies including nontraditional methods
of connecting clients with services, cooperative arrangements that
leverage resources, and efforts to increase transportation, employment,
and child care options. To make TANF services more accessible to
clients in remote locations, a number of programs offered mobile or
phone-based services, including a call center, a mobile technology lab,
and in-home services. Further, some rural programs capitalized on
community networks, entering into collaborative arrangements with
others in the community to transcend resource constraints and maximize
opportunities for TANF clients to find work and become self-sufficient.
For instance, many of the officials we interviewed had established
close working relationships with other social service providers in
their communities, as well as educators, private employers, banks, and
individual members of the community. The rural TANF programs we visited
confronted transportation barriers by supporting private vehicle
ownership initiatives, sponsoring bus and van services, and hosting
driver's education classes for individuals who have never been licensed
to drive. Some of the strategies being used to help clients find
employment include providing wage subsidies and establishing workspaces
in local manufacturing plants where clients can perform unpaid work
while getting on-the-job training. Other employment strategies include
providing specialized or skill-specific training programs and
conducting comprehensive assessments of all new clients to determine
the steps needed to help them become employed and move toward self-
sufficiency. To increase child care quality and capacity in rural
communities, some of the officials we interviewed had implemented
initiatives to help or motivate existing in-home child care providers
to become licensed or to encourage potential providers to enter the
market.
HHS's Administration for Children and Families has planned and
undertaken several initiatives that could assist TANF programs and TANF
families in rural areas. Past efforts include several rural conferences
where issues concerning rural TANF programs were discussed. In
addition, the agency initiated a 7-year demonstration project to
evaluate the effectiveness of rural welfare-to-work strategies, results
from which are expected in 2007. Future efforts that might benefit
rural TANF programs include an initiative designed to increase the
number of TANF families residing in the Mississippi Delta region who
claim the Earned Income Tax Credit.[Footnote 2] Moreover, ACF has
established a rural task force that is working to address rural
concerns by sharing strategies currently being used by different
programs, including TANF. Among the strategies the task force has
focused on is the use of an e-mail Listserv to facilitate the
distribution of information between ACF and rural service providers. We
provided a draft of this report to HHS for its review. In its response,
HHS said the draft was informative and did not disagree with any of the
findings.
Background:
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of
1996 (PRWORA) established the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
program, often referred to as welfare reform because it fundamentally
changed welfare policies. TANF has a goal of promoting work and helping
welfare recipients move toward self-sufficiency. It also established
work requirements for welfare recipients and set a limit of 60 months
on the amount of time recipients can receive cash assistance.
Under TANF, states receive a family assistance block grant from the
federal government that they can use to provide monthly cash assistance
payments to families as well as to finance services for TANF clients or
other low-income people to support their efforts to work. States can
also combine their TANF funds with state funds and those from other
federal programs that finance services such as child care,
transportation, and training. States have flexibility to set their TANF
policies, such as to define the specific activities that count toward
the TANF work requirements and to set the number of months--up to a
maximum of 60--for the cash assistance time limit. Further, states have
flexibility in how they administer TANF; they can set policies at the
state level or they can allow counties to set their own policies. The
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Administration for
Children and Families administers the TANF block grant program and
monitors states' performance, such as whether states meet the targets
for the percentage of TANF recipients who meet the work requirements.
States' federal TANF funding can be reduced if they do not meet the
federally set targets.
Welfare caseloads declined dramatically in the years following welfare
reform. Researchers have identified various factors that may have
contributed to the caseload decline, such as welfare reform-related
policy changes and economic growth, but there is no consensus about the
extent to which the different factors contributed to the decline.
Welfare caseload changes are only one element to consider in assessing
how well welfare reform is working. Some of the other information that
is needed for such an assessment includes what happened to families who
left welfare, whether former welfare recipients are working and moving
toward self-sufficiency, and whether those who continue to rely on
welfare, including hard-to-serve clients, are getting the services they
need to help them leave welfare.
Rural areas of the nation are diverse. The economic conditions, the
characteristics of the population, and the geography differ from one
rural area to another. For example, a rural area can be a retirement
location on a coast, a coal-mining community in the mountains, or an
agricultural community on a plain. A common characteristic of rural
areas is relatively low population density. There are numerous
definitions of what is meant by "rural." The one used in this report
was developed by the Office of Management and Budget and is based on a
classification of counties as either metropolitan or nonmetropolitan.
Metropolitan counties include both central counties with a large
urbanized area and outlying counties that are economically tied to the
central counties and display a level of "metropolitan character" based
on population density, urbanization, and population growth. Counties
that do not qualify as metropolitan are classified as nonmetropolitan.
We refer to the metropolitan counties as "urban" and the
nonmetropolitan counties as "rural." Of the 3,141 counties in the
United States, 2,052 are classified as rural.
The Rural TANF Caseload Is About 14 Percent of the National Caseload,
Is Concentrated in Economically Disadvantaged Counties, and Has
Declined at About the Same Rate as the Urban Caseload:
Rural TANF families constitute about 14 percent of the total TANF
monthly caseload for the 48 states covered by our study combined.
However, when states are looked at individually, the rural portion of
the TANF caseload ranges from 0.02 percent to 77 percent. Rural TANF
families are not distributed evenly across rural America but are
concentrated in counties that tend to have poor economic conditions.
Finally, following national implementation of welfare reform, rural
counties, as a group, had caseload declines similar to those
experienced by urban counties. Yet in some states, there were
substantial differences between rural and urban counties' caseload
changes.
TANF Families Living in Rural Counties Are About 14 Percent of the
National Caseload but Form a Larger Percentage in Most Individual
States:
In 2003, during an average month, about 293,000 families living in
rural counties received cash assistance under TANF programs of the
combined 48 states included in our analysis.[Footnote 3] (Three of the
48 states--the District of Columbia, New Jersey, and Rhode Island--do
not have any rural counties and therefore do not have any TANF families
living in rural counties.) The 293,000 families composed about 14
percent of the total number of TANF families in the 48 states. About 18
percent of families in the general population live in rural counties in
the 48 states; therefore, TANF families are slightly less concentrated
in rural counties in these combined states than is the general
population. This is also indicated by the fact that 2.4 percent of all
rural families received TANF cash assistance in the 48 states in 2003,
compared with 3.1 percent of urban families.
Looking at states individually, the percentage of TANF families living
in rural counties ranged from 0.02 percent in Massachusetts to 77
percent in South Dakota. The median for the 48 states was 26.6 percent.
The rural TANF percentage for all 48 states combined--14 percent--is
much lower than the median because several highly populated states with
large TANF populations, most notably California and New York, have a
very low percentage of TANF families living in rural counties. Figure 1
shows, for each state, the percentage of the state's TANF families who
live in rural counties as well as the percentage who live in urban
counties.
Figure 1: Percentage of TANF Families, in Each State, Living in Rural
and Urban Counties:
[See PDF for image]
Note: The District of Columbia, New Jersey, and Rhode Island, which
have no rural counties, are not included in the figure.
[End of figure]
When we compared, for each state, the percentage of the TANF families
living in rural counties with the percentage of all families living in
rural counties, we found that for most states, the two were very
similar. However, there were several exceptions. For example, South
Dakota has a higher proportion of rural TANF families than would be
expected (77 percent of TANF families live in rural counties, compared
with 58 percent of all families), and Nebraska has a lower proportion
than would be expected (32 percent of TANF families live in rural
counties, compared with 46 percent of all families). See appendix III
for more information on individual states and their rural TANF caseload
characteristics.
Rural TANF Families Are Concentrated in Relatively Few Counties That
Tend to Have Poor Economic Conditions:
The distribution of TANF families is uneven across rural counties, with
some rural counties having very low numbers of TANF families and others
having high numbers relative to all the counties' families. We found
that about 150,000 (51 percent) of the about 293,000 TANF families
living in rural counties live in only a quarter of the rural counties
in the 48 states covered by our study. These counties have on average
about 4.7 percent of all their families receiving TANF. On the other
hand, the quarter of rural counties with the lowest proportion of TANF
families have a total of only about 14,000 (4.9 percent) TANF families
and, on average, only about 0.6 percent of all their families on TANF.
To determine how counties with different proportions of their families
on TANF compared, we looked at demographic and socioeconomic indicators
for the counties. We grouped rural counties according to the proportion
of all their families on TANF and compared the counties with a high
proportion of families receiving TANF to those with a low proportion.
We found significantly worse socioeconomic conditions in the counties
with a high proportion of all families receiving TANF. For example,
counties with a high proportion of all families receiving TANF had, on
average, significantly higher unemployment, lower median incomes, and
proportionately more people without high school diplomas. See appendix
II for more specific information about how different groups of counties
compared. Figure 2 shows the location of the rural counties with the
highest proportion of families on TANF.
Figure 2: Location of the Quarter of Rural Counties with the Highest
Proportion of Families Receiving TANF:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Nationally, Rural and Urban TANF Caseloads Have Declined Similarly,
with Some Distinct Exceptions in Some States:
Rural and urban counties experienced about the same amount of caseload
decline between 1997 and 2003. Specifically, the number of families, on
average per month, receiving TANF cash assistance in rural counties in
the 40 states covered by our analysis[Footnote 4] decreased by 43.9
percent, and urban counties had a 44.1 percent caseload
decrease.[Footnote 5] However, as shown in figure 3, rural TANF
caseloads declined somewhat more than urban caseloads from 1997 to
2001.
Figure 3: Rural and Urban Caseload Changes between 1997 and 2003:
[See PDF for image]
Note: The figure is based on data from states that provided reliable
caseload data for all years 1997 through 2003. See appendix I for a
list of these states.
[End of figure]
The rural and urban caseloads in many states declined by about the same
percentage over the 1997-2003 period. However, for other states, there
were substantial differences between the percentage of caseload decline
in rural areas and that in urban areas, as shown in figure 4.
Figure 4: Rural and Urban Caseload Changes by State, 1997-2003:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Although Indiana, Nevada, and Tennessee show caseload increases
for the period 1997-2003, their caseloads decreased in the earlier
years and then began increasing around 2000 or 2001. The District of
Columbia, New Jersey, and Rhode Island, which have no rural counties,
are not included in the figure.
[End of figure]
To determine how counties with different levels of caseload size
changes compare, we looked at socioeconomic indicators for the
counties. Although it might be expected that counties with the greatest
declines in caseload would have the most favorable socioeconomic
conditions, we did not find that. We found that counties with the least
caseload decreases had, on average, somewhat more favorable
socioeconomic conditions, such as lower unemployment rates, higher
median incomes, and proportionately fewer people without high school
diplomas than counties with the greatest caseload decreases. Also,
counties with the lowest caseload decreases had, on average, greater
increases in unemployment rates and greater population growth than
counties with higher caseload decreases. See appendix II for more
specific information about how counties with different amounts of
caseload change compared.
Rural Areas Present TANF Clients with Shortages in Jobs and Services
but Also Foster Program Collaboration and Personal Attention to
Clients:
Several studies and our own site visits indicate that transportation
shortages, fewer jobs, low wages, and a scarcity of ancillary services
are common challenges to welfare reform in rural areas. In some
economically depressed areas, other problems, such as very low
education levels, are additional challenges to welfare reform. On the
other hand, rural areas have strengths in implementing welfare reform
in that they foster collaboration and personal attention to clients.
Lack of Transportation Limits Access to Jobs and Services:
During our site visits, we found that for some TANF clients,
transportation may be the primary obstacle to becoming or remaining
employed. For example, a caseworker in Logan County, West Virginia,
said that it is not uncommon for clients to say that if they had
transportation, they would not need to be on TANF. She also said she
had several clients for whom she could find jobs immediately if they
had transportation to get there.
Transportation is a fundamental challenge for rural TANF recipients.
Many cannot afford to own and operate a reliable private vehicle, and
public transportation to get to and from training, services, and work
is often not available. A 2001 Urban Institute study looking at welfare
reform in 12 rural locations in four states, for example, found that
public transportation was seldom available.[Footnote 6] Caseworkers and
service providers in some counties that we visited said that their
counties have very limited bus service, such as a bus that operates in
the main town but not outside it. Also, these buses generally had
limited schedules and were not available at night. Others said there
were no bus systems with set routes although vans were available to
give people rides. For example, in Harnett County, North Carolina, a
caseworker said that the local transportation agency was very
cooperative in arranging pickups for clients but that the service was
expensive. In Duplin County, North Carolina, a caseworker said that
clients could call a van service for rides, but the appointment has to
be set up several days in advance. In Coahoma County, Mississippi, we
heard that the bus route spans a 50-mile radius, and those who choose
to use it may have to allot two or three hours to get to work.
The lack of valid driver's licenses was identified by several
caseworkers and service providers as a problem for many clients.
Clients may lack a driver's license either because they had never had
one or because the license was suspended or revoked because of unpaid
fines, no insurance, or driving under the influence of alcohol. Some
caseworkers said that suspended driver's licenses could be an
insurmountable problem because of the high fees for reinstating them.
The Court Clerk in Memphis, Tennessee, who performed a review of unpaid
traffic fines, said that the average amount owed by people in Memphis
with a suspended driver's license was $1,500 to $2,000.
Few Available Jobs and Low Wages Hinder Movement toward Self-
Sufficiency:
Rural areas are reported to have average earnings levels 25 to 30
percent lower than those in urban areas,[Footnote 7] and their
unemployment rates are higher, on average, than those of urban areas.
Rural areas also have less variety in the types of jobs
available.[Footnote 8] In our site visits, we found a consensus among
rural TANF caseworkers that a shortage of jobs and the low wages paid
by available jobs pose a challenge to their efforts to help clients
meet TANF work participation requirements and find employment that will
help them become self-sufficient. A study of welfare reform in selected
persistently poor rural areas in four states found that in many of the
counties studied, "there were simply very few jobs to be had."[Footnote
9]
Caseworkers and service providers we interviewed also reported that
their clients tend to have little work experience and low education
levels, making them less competitive in the job market. In several
areas, caseworkers and service providers said that workers that had
previously been employed but who had been laid off were more likely to
be hired for the few jobs available than were TANF clients. Several
caseworkers also said they had some clients who could not find
employment in the county because they had "burned their bridges" with
every employer in town. Others noted that having a bad experience with
one employer in a rural community could earn someone a bad reputation
with all prospective employers because information about people spreads
easily.
Studies looking at the earnings of current or former TANF clients have
found low earnings in rural areas. The Urban Institute study of 12
rural locations in four states found that all locations reported that
most jobs obtained by welfare recipients paid minimum wage and that few
jobs offered opportunities for advancement.[Footnote 10] A study by
Mathematica comparing earnings of current or former TANF clients in
rural and urban areas in Nebraska found that earnings were much lower
in rural areas than in urban areas.[Footnote 11] In addition, a 1999
study comparing selected urban and rural areas of Virginia found that
the rural areas had a disproportionate number of women who were working
but still lived below the poverty level.[Footnote 12]
On the other hand, the welfare reform-related studies that have looked
at employment in rural areas present a more positive picture. Of the
two that used national samples to compare employment of single mothers
in rural and urban areas,[Footnote 13] one found that single mothers in
rural areas were just about as likely to be working as those in urban
areas,[Footnote 14] and the other found that single mothers in rural
areas were more likely to be working than those in urban
areas.[Footnote 15] The above-mentioned Mathematica study found that
TANF clients living in rural areas in Nebraska were more likely to be
employed than those in Nebraska's urban areas.[Footnote 16]
Shortages in Child Care and Other Services Create Difficulties in
Addressing Clients' Employment Barriers:
"Lower population densities in rural areas make it more difficult to
support some specialized services," according to an analysis of
research on welfare reform in rural areas that cited specialized
education and job training, formal paid child care, and mental health
services as being less available in rural areas.[Footnote 17]
Caseworkers we met with also identified shortages in services as a
problem that makes it difficult for TANF clients to address their
barriers to working such as not having someone to care for their
children, not meeting the basic education requirements for most jobs,
having mental health issues that make keeping a job unlikely, and
missing teeth or having other unattractive and unhealthy dental
problems. In our site visits, caseworkers and service providers
recounted different shortages in services from county to county, but
they echoed much of the research literature:
* Child care. A lack of child care centers, infant and toddler care, or
child care on nights and weekends was a commonly cited shortage
identified in rural areas we visited. However, in two counties, we
heard that there was a sufficient number of child care centers. A study
that looked at welfare reform in selected persistently poor counties in
four states found that finding reliable child care was a major barrier
to employment for welfare recipients, that most recipients relied
primarily on family and friends for child care, and that this type of
child care was not always reliable.[Footnote 18] Case studies of seven
communities in Iowa found that "many low-income rural residents
experience continuing problems in securing adequate and affordable care
for their children," that "child-care centers are a rarity in rural
communities," and that "most recipients rely on home day care providers
or relatives to care for their children."[Footnote 19]
* Education services. Few options for adult basic education (ABE) and
general equivalency diploma (GED) classes was identified as a problem
in some areas. For example, in Dickenson, Virginia, the only adult
basic education class meets one evening a week, and GED classes geared
toward people with learning disabilities are not available. However,
caseworkers in counties with community colleges often said that there
was adequate availability of GED classes.
* Mental health services. In some areas, we heard there were long waits
for mental health services and drug treatment programs were not
available.
* Dentists. In some counties, service providers and TANF clients
identified the lack of dentists who accept Medicaid as a severe
problem.
Other Issues Hamper Employment Potential for Clients in Some
Economically Depressed Areas:
In some of the more economically depressed areas that we visited,
caseworkers stressed that they often had a high prevalence of hard-to-
serve clients with severe problems. These problems include very low
education levels, many clients claiming disabilities, and family and
personal problems.
* Very low education levels. In several areas, caseworkers mentioned
that they had illiterate clients and clients with only a grammar school
education. Caseworkers in Harlan County, Kentucky, and southwestern
Virginia said this problem was acute in their areas. These caseworkers
linked low education levels to the fact that, in the past, an education
was not needed for a man to get a well-paying job in the areas' coal
mines. Also, it was a commonly held view that women did not need an
education to stay home and take care of the family. For almost all
available jobs, people with very limited educations will be
automatically disqualified, according to caseworkers and service
providers we spoke with. Also, caseworkers said that they must require
the clients to meet TANF work requirements, even if the clients cannot
qualify for any available paying jobs with their current lack of
education. Further, such clients need a GED to become employable, but
attaining one can take years when the clients start off at the grammar
school level.
* Clients claiming disabilities. In two areas we visited--Harlan
County, Kentucky, and southwestern Virginia--caseworkers said they have
many clients who believe they are too disabled to work. The caseworkers
said that while some of these clients might be able to qualify for
disability payments from the Social Security Administration, others
will not qualify and will remain on TANF.
* Family and personal problems. A family background of welfare
dependence, families who oppose women working outside the home,
domestic violence, and substance abuse were identified as significant
problems in some rural areas. In several areas, caseworkers and service
providers mentioned that many of their clients come from families who
were welfare-dependent and did not convey a work ethic to their
children. In Harlan County, Kentucky, and southwestern Virginia,
caseworkers and service providers said that some of their clients come
from families who believe women belong in the home and who oppose the
clients going to work. They also said that domestic violence is common
among their clients.[Footnote 20] For example, caseworkers in
southwestern Virginia said they had had clients who had been beaten by
their husbands when they attempted to work outside the home to meet
TANF work requirements. Caseworkers also mentioned substance abuse as a
common problem among clients in several areas we visited.
Rural TANF Programs Foster Collaboration and Personal Attention from
Caseworkers:
Caseworkers and service providers cited strengths that their areas have
in implementing welfare reform that they associate with the rural
environment.
* Collaboration. Caseworkers and service providers said that the
limited resources available in rural areas force people to work
together to solve problems. They also said they often have personal
contacts with employers and other community resources that provide a
foundation for trust and can lead to job placements and other
strategies to help clients. Also, caseworkers and service providers
from different programs and agencies often get to know each other and
can call each other directly, without going through another
bureaucratic level, to get help in solving a client's problem. A report
on the results of case studies in 12 rural counties in four states
stated that the "positive attitude, resourcefulness, and resilience of
the rural communities we visited are the most notable aspects of
welfare reform implementation we observed." This study also found
"flexibility of local caseworkers and other service providers in making
alliances."[Footnote 21]
* Staff attention and knowledge. Caseworkers in some rural areas
expressed the view that they can give their clients more personal
attention than their urban counterparts can offer because of a smaller
caseload. However, caseworkers in other rural areas did not believe
they had fewer clients than caseworkers in urban areas. Some
caseworkers said they had considerable knowledge about their clients,
which is helpful in addressing the clients' problems. For example, one
caseworker said she had insight into some of her clients' lives
because, at one time, their grandmothers and mothers had also been her
clients. Authors of a study of welfare reform in Nebraska suggested
that "rural case managers may be more successful at engaging their
clients" in the TANF employment program because they found that rural
clients were more likely than urban clients to participate in the
program.[Footnote 22]
Rural TANF Programs Transport Services to Clients and Leverage
Resources to Provide Mentoring, Transportation, Job, and Child Care
Assistance:
The rural TANF programs we visited have devised many ways to bring
services to distant clients, and they have tended to leverage their
resources by collaborating with one another and with community
institutions, focusing effort as they did so on helping clients
surmount rural shortages in transportation, child care, and jobs.
Rural Programs Devised Modes of Service Delivery That Transcend
Geography:
The rural TANF programs we visited have bridged distances to TANF
clients with a variety of approaches ranging from bringing instructors
and equipment to them to using technology to enable clients to access
services without leaving home.
* Virtual social services. The Work Central Career Advancement Center
in Rocky Mount, North Carolina, is a call center that equips social
workers with telephones and sophisticated computer systems in an
attempt to help former TANF clients and other low-income people achieve
economic self-sufficiency. According to a state TANF official, the
strategy has reduced the rate of return to TANF cash assistance in this
area of the state--8 percent for Work Central's customers compared with
15 percent for the state's other former TANF clients. Work Central's
social workers, or customer service representatives, spend their days
on the telephone with low-income people in 11 rural counties in eastern
North Carolina providing specific information, such as job openings, or
helping customers solve problems and develop plans for improving their
economic situation. The representatives place regular follow-up calls
to customers and will also connect them to service providers--staying
on the phone if needed. The representatives use numerous computer
tools, including an electronic case management system with information
on past and current benefits received by the customers. Also, a
geographic software program depicts the customer's area and identifies
nearby service providers, employers, and other area customers who might
be incorporated into the customer's support system, such as in
carpooling or babysitting. The representatives also have Internet links
to service providers that detail hours of operation and locations.
* Itinerant courses and instructors. A few of the rural TANF offices we
visited sponsor training programs with traveling instructors. That is,
courses may not be held in the same location year-round, but may be
offered in more than one location over the course of the year to
maximize clients' opportunity to enroll. To accommodate clients
throughout a large New Hampshire county, for example, a 3-week life
skills course was held alternately in the north and south sections.
Another New Hampshire TANF program offered GED courses in different
areas around the county.
* Workforce mobile lab. To give low-income residents access to computer
training, a technical college in northeastern Arkansas outfitted a van
with computers and transported it to various program sites throughout
the county. A community development organization enlisted the van to
conduct online self-guided training courses for participants. TANF
clients were offered a pre-employment training curriculum, choosing
from topics that included substantive GED preparation, skills
assessments, and soft skills instruction.
* Distance learning by videoconference. In New Mexico, community
college courses have been available to TANF clients by videoconference
at several area high schools. According to staff, telecommunication has
made it possible for many of the program's single mothers to take
classes without having to drive 100 miles round trip from remote
locations.
* Bringing services into clients' homes. Some programs we visited have
sent counselors out to visit with clients in their homes, particularly
when they do not have transportation. For example, the state of New
Hampshire has contracted with a nonprofit organization to provide in-
home counseling services for its hardest-to-serve TANF clients--
individuals who demonstrate evidence of mental illness, substance
abuse, or domestic violence. The home visits are conducted over a 90-
day period on a flexible schedule that includes nonbusiness hours to
accommodate family needs.
Figure 5: Customer Service Representative at Work Central's Call Center
in North Carolina Using Geographic Software Program During a Call to a
Customer:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Rural TANF Programs Have Leveraged Their Resources through
Collaboration and Partnerships:
Partnerships and collaboration were a common practice for many of the
rurally situated programs we studied. From state to state and agency to
agency, caseworkers described collaborative arrangements between TANF
offices and other government agencies, nonprofit service providers,
educational institutions, private sector employers, and neighboring
counties. These partnerships ranged from loose, ad hoc affiliations to,
in one instance, a group of counties' Departments of Social Services
joining together to create a nonprofit entity to help TANF clients
become employed. According to those we interviewed, the collaborations
helped leverage local resources and spawned new strategies.
Other service providers. Many of the rural TANF officials we visited
explained that they convene regular meetings with other social service
providers in their local areas to share ideas as well as information
about community and program developments. For instance, TANF officials
from Nicollet County in south central Minnesota said their eligibility
and employment counselors participate in both monthly and quarterly
meetings where ABE staff, public health officials, child protective
services, and the local housing authority are all represented.
Caseworkers and service providers cited these gatherings as a key
component in building rapport with one another, learning about what
partner agencies are doing, and fostering collective brainstorming
sessions for solving difficult problems. The call center (Work Central)
in Rocky Mount, North Carolina, partnered with the state employment
agency and, as a result, receives advance updated job listings, which
allows Work Central's customer service representatives to call their
customers about suitable job openings the day before the listings are
made available to the general public, according to Work Central
administrators.
* TANF programs in neighboring counties. In 1998, the Departments of
Social Services in eight jurisdictions in southwest Virginia with high
unemployment joined together to create a nonprofit organization to help
TANF clients become employed. The organization, called Occupational
Enterprises, Inc. (OEI), started with a $750,000 grant of welfare-to-
work dollars from the state of Virginia and has since applied for and
received numerous grants from governmental and private sources to
finance its operations. OEI uses its grants to provide employment
services for all TANF clients in the welfare reform program in the
eight jurisdictions. By applying for grants on behalf of the combined
population of all the participating rural counties, OEI can qualify for
much larger funding amounts than it would if it were working with only
one rural county. OEI managers believe that by covering many counties,
they greatly reduce administrative expenses and can provide far more
services than could be provided if each county were operating
independently. This occurs because all locations benefit from the
development of one program, and duplication of effort is avoided. Also,
more staff people are available to collaboratively solve problems and
support one another when needed. Further, instead of needing a staff
person in each county who can provide a service or program, one or two
staff can specialize and serve all locations. Recently, three
additional jurisdictions have joined the original eight to be part of
the OEI consortium.
* Community colleges. Often, service providers named their local
community college as yet another key partner in the network of service
providers working to assist TANF clients in finding work and becoming
self-sufficient. The counties we visited in Mississippi and New Mexico,
for instance, had designated the local community college as the
contract provider of TANF workforce training services. In fact,
Mississippi's governor was so pleased with the job placement rates of
local community colleges that he proposed giving the community college
system oversight of Workforce Investment Act (WIA) programs
statewide.[Footnote 23]
* WIA collaboration. WIA and TANF programs in Logan County, West
Virginia, worked together to establish driver's education courses,
using WIA funds, for welfare and workforce clients who had never
obtained a license. New Hampshire officials took a similar approach,
allocating a portion of their WIA funding to provide specialized
computer training for TANF clients.
* A local bank. The Work Central Advancement Center in Rocky Mount,
North Carolina, partnered with a local bank to offer bank accounts to
Work Central customers in an effort to save customers the exorbitant
fees charged by independent check-cashing services. Unlike a typical
checking account, these accounts provide debit cards only and require
that sufficient funds be available in order for a withdrawal to be
made, thus eliminating the possibility of bounced checks, which Work
Central learned had been at the root of many customers' problems with
banks in the past.
In addition to the partnerships described here, program officials also
described other collaborative arrangements, namely partnerships
centered on employment and transportation that are described in other
sections of this report.
Rural Programs Have Collaborated with Others to Provide Mentoring for
TANF Clients:
A number of rural TANF programs have provided TANF clients with more
informal support from their communities in the form of mentors drawn
from work sites, church congregations, or the community at large.
According to officials we spoke with, the mentors offer advice and
serve as role models, particularly for clients with a family history of
welfare who lack experience in the workplace.
* Mentoring in New Mexico. Building on a state-level partnership
between the New Mexico Aging and Long Term Care Department and the
Department of Human Services, the state of New Mexico launched the
Golden Opportunities for Lifelong Development (GOLD) Mentoring Program
in 2000. Capitalizing on the state's sizable population of retired
residents, the GOLD Mentoring Program pairs retirees with TANF clients
in the same community, in hopes that mentors will fill gaps in
caseworker service delivery and develop a level of rapport with clients
that is not always possible for caseworkers, given the competing
demands on their time. Mentors coach clients in a variety of contexts,
including family and interpersonal relationships, pre-employment
preparation and job search activities, as well as in clients'
interactions with other government entities. For example, mentors told
us that it was not uncommon for mentors to accompany clients to court
appearances or for mentors to intercede on behalf of clients trying to
navigate various government benefit systems.
* Mentoring in Forrest City, Arkansas. A community development
corporation in Forrest City, Arkansas, operates a mentoring program for
TANF clients that relies on unpaid volunteers from the community. Known
as PREP, which stands for People Realizing Employment Possibilities,
this program constitutes the support component of a local subsidized
employment initiative. Specifically, the mentoring program was created
to help TANF clients facilitate workplace problem solving and to
provide a model of appropriate workplace norms and behaviors during
subsidized job training arrangements with area employers. Mentors meet
with clients about once a week to gauge progress and help resolve
issues that have arisen. Although mentors do not necessarily work at
the same location as their assigned clients, cognizant staff told us
that mentors occasionally make workplace visits to clients' work sites.
* Employer-based mentoring in southern Minnesota. During the late
1990s, staff from a 10-county region in the southeastern part of
Minnesota partnered to develop an employer-based mentoring program
intended to help TANF clients acclimate to new work environments and
deal constructively with conflicts to avoid termination, and to help
area employers improve retention. The program trained mentors in
conflict avoidance and resolution strategies and paired them with new
hires. Although the primary goal of the program was to provide support
for TANF clients entering the workforce, the service was made available
to all new employees hired by a participating employer. By targeting
all new employees, the program avoided identifying or possibly
stigmatizing TANF clients in the workplace and also provided more of an
incentive for employers to participate. All told, the program trained
approximately 1,200 mentors in 475 organizations, some of which
experienced marked improvements in their retention rates during that
time. For example, one nursing home that employed a considerable number
of TANF clients was concerned about its high staff attrition rates.
After implementing the mentoring program, staff turnover at the nursing
home dropped from 60 percent to 4 percent and eventually stabilized at
about 20 percent, according to program staff.[Footnote 24]
Rural TANF Strategies Have Targeted Shortages in Transportation, Jobs,
and Child Care:
The rural TANF programs that we visited had focused a substantial
amount of their efforts on remedying at least one of three shortages
they said prevented many TANF clients from finding or keeping
employment--transportation, job options, and child care. In each area,
they had tailored services to meet particular needs and were grooming
clients for the particular opportunities that existed in their local
markets. Some placement programs sought to remedy skill deficiencies to
make clients more marketable, while others targeted the area employers,
developing industry-specific training modules, outreach initiatives,
and economic incentives in hopes of parlaying those relationships into
jobs for TANF clients. Research suggests that training programs
designed to reflect the needs of the local labor market tend to result
in positive outcomes for participating clients.[Footnote 25]
Expanded Transportation Options:
Rural TANF programs had implemented a variety of initiatives, ranging
from private vehicle programs to dedicated transport vans to helping
individuals acquire or regain their driver's licenses.[Footnote 26]
Donated car programs. A number of the rural program officials we spoke
with advocated private vehicle ownership programs as the best solution
to the transportation problems that affect many rural TANF clients.
Specifically, supporters of private vehicle ownership contend that mass
transit options can be insufficient and unreliable in rural areas and
argue that to guarantee regular work attendance, clients must own their
own cars. The Good News Garage, a nonprofit organization founded in
Vermont but adapted in other parts of the country, has been a pioneer
in this area, soliciting donated cars, evaluating and refurbishing
them, and then placing them in the hands of TANF clients for a nominal
fee. Because this program relies on donated, rather than purchased,
cars, TANF clients in New Hampshire, for example, are only required to
pay a fixed price of $1,100, which may be paid by TANF or another
benefit program, to partially cover the cost of refurbishing. Other
variations on the Good News Garage concept require participants to
enter into a lease agreement, where the purchaser agrees to pay a fixed
monthly fee over a set period, at the end of which clients in good
standing are given the title to the car. Most of these programs provide
some type of support to client participants in the form of car repair
clinics, referrals to modestly priced garages, even subsidies for
insurance or repairs. The program administrators we spoke with cited a
number of positive outcomes associated with private vehicle ownership:
In the case of Good News Garage, program officials asserted that 75
percent of the TANF recipients who received vehicles subsequently left
the welfare rolls. Further, a study examining the impact of Vermont's
Good News Garage program on the earned income of participating TANF
clients found that average incomes for participating clients rose $220
per month after they had been outfitted with a vehicle.[Footnote 27]
* Car loan programs. Other car programs seek not only to provide
clients with vehicles, but also to help them raise their credit ratings
in the process. Specifically, some programs focus on helping clients
obtain new cars or finance newer vehicles through low-cost loans with
generous repayment terms. For instance, in New Hampshire, a program
called Wheels-to-Work offers a tax credit to dealerships in return for
donations of high-quality used cars that can then be sold to low-income
families for about half the cars' appraised value. Because the average
cost to the client of these cars is around $3,300, requiring most
clients to obtain loans, Wheels-to-Work also serves as a mediator
between clients and lenders. In Minnesota, a consortium of counties in
the south central portion of the state received funding to launch a
similar car loan program for TANF clients. In this instance, the
consortium used the funding not to purchase or repair cars, but to
establish a loan guarantee fund that facilitated the development of
relationships with two area banks on the condition that the car program
would guarantee 25 percent of any defaulted loan. In addition to
mediating between the bank and the loan applicant, staff affiliated
with the car loan program also counseled applicants on consumer credit
issues, provided insurance referrals, and established relationships
with area car dealers. Although staff operated as mediators between the
client and the lender, the program required clients to choose a
preferred lender and act as the primary point of contact. By requiring
clients to take loans and interact with the bank holding the loan, the
program sought to improve clients' credit ratings, financial literacy,
and confidence in dealing with financial institutions. According to
officials overseeing the program, less than 30 percent of participating
car owners defaulted on their loans.
* Van, bus, and other dedicated transportation systems. Instead of
allocating resources for private vehicle ownership programs, some of
the rural TANF programs we visited elected to subsidize clients' use of
existing transportation systems, sponsor their own van transport
service, or create reciprocal agreements with other social service
programs already providing transportation (e.g., Head Start).[Footnote
28] For example, Logan County, West Virginia, and Coahoma County,
Mississippi, provide vouchers for clients to use the local fixed route
bus system. Other localities have chosen to sponsor their own van
services, but the distances separating relatively small numbers of
clients drives up the cost of van services. For instance, according to
one official in St. Francis County, Arkansas, the price of these
services in his area was as high as $2,000 per client per month. One
West Virginia county suffering from limited public transportation
partnered with the local Head Start program to secure the use of its
van for TANF client transport when Head Start was not in
session.[Footnote 29]
* Obtaining or reinstating driver's licenses. To address the issue of
clients who had never been licensed to drive, the local TANF program in
Logan County, West Virginia, partnered with Workforce Investment Board
staff from the same locality to offer driver's education courses to
their respective service populations. To help TANF clients deal with
large unpaid traffic tickets and avoid having their driver's licenses
suspended, program officials in Coahoma County, Mississippi, are
exploring the possibility of working with local authorities to develop
an incremental payment program for TANF clients. This initiative will
be modeled after a program operated by the City Court Clerk's Office in
Memphis, Tennessee. Although the Memphis program does not specifically
target the TANF population, the goal is the same: to provide residents
in danger of facing license suspensions because of unpaid fines an
opportunity to establish an arrangement allowing them to make
incremental payments and pay down those fines over time. According to
the program's administrator, the incremental payment program has
dramatically reduced the number of outstanding or inactive traffic
fines and boosted the city's traffic fine revenue from $4 million to
approximately $14 million annually.
Job Development, Job Training, and Tailored Employment Assessments:
Rural TANF programs we visited have developed a variety of approaches
to find employment opportunities for TANF clients, to provide training
that will make TANF clients more marketable to area employers, and to
assess clients' skills and barriers to employment.
Job development. In several counties we visited, one or more staff had
been given the responsibility of developing and maintaining contacts
with employers so that when the employers had job openings, they would
give TANF clients the opportunity to fill the openings. Also,
caseworkers in several counties said they sometimes set up subsidized
employment arrangements for clients. That is, the welfare program would
pay all or part of a client's salary for a given period of time to
encourage employers to give the clients a chance to learn the job and
prove themselves good employees. Several caseworkers said that
subsidized employment frequently turned into permanent (unsubsidized)
jobs for clients. Also, caseworkers in some areas said they had set up
unpaid job opportunities for clients to help them build work
experience. In southwest Virginia, OEI established workspaces in two
local manufacturing plants where their clients receive on-the-job
training and perform unpaid work under the supervision of plant
management. Under this arrangement, plant management agrees to forgive
clients' mistakes and absences. Also, clients who turn out to be
successful workers get priority for hiring at the plants. OEI has also
established a downtown ceramics shop and store for Appalachian crafts
where TANF clients work, unpaid, to learn what is expected of them in
the workplace and to develop work experience that can help them obtain
and retain paid employment.
* Skill-based training. Some of the TANF programs we visited offered
skill-or industry-specific training programs designed to help clients
develop skills relevant to a particular local employer or industry. For
example, administrators affiliated with the local community college in
Coahoma County, Mississippi, formed a partnership with a large local
casino-hotel complex, one of the few employers in the county with a
need for low-skilled workers. Community college officials, working in
conjunction with casino personnel, developed a curriculum to teach TANF
clients relevant hospitality skills including housekeeping, valet,
security, and cashier services. The casino also funded the construction
of a mock hotel room in one of the classrooms at the college to give
students an opportunity for firsthand experience in chemical safety and
other housekeeping protocol. Instructors monitor students' progress and
refer job-ready participants to hiring personnel at the casino.
According to staff at the community college, TANF clients feel that
participants in the training program have a better chance of being
hired by the casino than do those who submit an application independent
of the program. Casino officials also said that the retention rate for
those referrals tends to be considerably higher than the industry
standard.
Figure 6: Mock Hotel Room for Housekeeping Training at Community
College in Mississippi:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
To encourage a local manufacturer to employ TANF clients, program
officials in northern New Hampshire's Coos County invited the employer
to assist in designing a 10-week course for TANF clients that would
impart the skills necessary for assembling prefabricated modular homes.
When the corporate catalyst for the project began to experience
financial difficulties and was forced to temporarily suspend hiring,
program officials explained that some of the clients who participated
in the training were hired by other employers who could capitalize on
their new skills. A local TANF agency in Goodhue County, Minnesota,
also emphasizes practical skills and helped the local community college
develop a short-term welding course that covered the fundamentals and
laid the groundwork for participants interested in pursuing
certification.
* Certified computer training courses. At least two of the states we
visited also sponsored computer training for TANF clients culminating
in industry-recognized certification. For instance, New Hampshire's
TANF program gives some clients the opportunity to enroll in an
intensive 14-week computer training course designed and certified by
Microsoft. Curriculum topics include word processing, spreadsheets, and
presentation software. Program officials in one New Hampshire county
told us that among its first cohort of graduates from the computer
training program, all but one had left TANF at the time of our
interview. In Coahoma County, Mississippi, TANF recipients can
participate in 4-week computer training certification courses
consisting of instruction in the basic use of computer hardware,
software, networks, and the Internet.
* Microenterprise. In some of the New Mexico communities we visited,
weak economies and job scarcity prompted program officials to pursue
microenterprise ventures (also known as self-employment) as a viable
alternative for TANF clients seeking work. Specifically, an
Albuquerque-based nonprofit specializing in training and technical
assistance for small business start-ups developed a training program
specifically for TANF clients interested in starting their own
businesses. Microenterprise staff provide TANF clients with consulting
expertise as well as financial literacy training and other instruction
in basic business principles. In addition, the group also maintains an
online marketplace for clients to sell their products. The group has
assisted TANF clients in launching a wide array of businesses, from
arts and crafts to landscaping and child care.
* Scheduling accommodations. In the state of West Virginia, TANF
officials have structured a 6-week life skills and pre-employment
training course for TANF clients such that each week constitutes a
discrete module not dependent upon other modules to be understandable.
This allows TANF clients to enroll at the beginning of any week, rather
than having to wait several weeks for the course to begin again. In
addition, the stand-alone format of West Virginia's training makes it
possible for clients to enroll and obtain credit for individual modules
as their schedules allow. In Harnett County, North Carolina, enrollees
in GED classes have the option of performing the preparation work in a
classroom environment or of engaging in more individualized self-paced
learning.
* Comprehensive screening and assessment. OEI, a nonprofit organization
that performs employment services for TANF clients from 11 counties in
southwest Virginia, developed an assessment tool and process for all
new clients. The assessment, which is managed by a licensed clinical
social worker and registered nurse, screens for a number of problems
that the OEI staff believe are very common among clients in their area,
such as learning disabilities, domestic violence, substance abuse, and
physical and mental health problems. The assessment also evaluates
clients' educational attainment; legal, family, and employment
histories; transportation and child care needs; skills; and employment
goals. The results of the assessment provide the foundation for
decisions about appropriate activities for promoting individual
employment and self-sufficiency as well as client aptitudes for various
types of work.
* Screening to assist clients claiming disabilities. Program officials
in Harlan County, Kentucky, employ a "good cause" specialist, a
dedicated caseworker responsible for visiting clients who claim either
to have disabilities severe enough to prevent them from working or to
have primary caregiver responsibility for a family member with a
disability. The visits to clients' homes are intended to give the
caseworker an opportunity to assess clients' living situations
firsthand, learn more about the clients' claimed disabilities, and
identify any activities the clients are already doing that might be
parlayed into countable work activities. For example, program officials
in Harlan County noted that on a number of occasions, the good cause
specialist's visit to a client's home uncovered existing child or
elderly care arrangements with the potential to be expanded into small
businesses that would not only count toward the work requirements but
also could further clients' self-sufficiency goals. Staff members
related one anecdote where a TANF client had claimed a medical
exemption as a result of responsibilities stemming from the care of her
disabled mother, rather than a medical condition of her own. Staff
members were able to arrange day care for the client's mother, and the
client was able to return to work.
Increased Child Care:
To produce a larger, more stable, better-trained corps of child care
providers, child care administrators in some local communities have
mounted child care initiatives to help meet community needs.
* Building capacity among current child care providers. As part of a
short-term pilot program in Harlan County, Kentucky, the local child
care referral group partnered with Early Head Start staff to expand the
number of openings for infants and toddler-age children.[Footnote 30]
To accomplish that goal, a dedicated staff member developed lesson
plans and a curriculum that provided a foundation for certification. In
the state of Kentucky, certified providers are allowed to care for more
children than uncertified providers and also qualify for larger per
child state subsidy payments. Staff launched the program by visiting
current providers in their homes to share certification information and
deliver safety equipment such as cabinet latches, fire extinguishers,
and safety gates. In addition, the initiative's primary point person
also hosted periodic discussion groups that were conducted at a central
location.
Although the pilot program was only funded for 1 year, program
administrators told us that approximately 15 of the original 20
participants maintain their certification, and an additional 2 have
gone on to receive advanced certification allowing them to care for up
to 12 children in their homes. They credited the initiative for giving
rise to Harlan County's first child care slots open to infants and
toddlers. In addition, one staff member mentioned that the training and
subsequent increase in income shifted perceptions among participating
child care providers, prompting them to view child care as a profession
rather than as a temporary measure for generating additional household
income. Program officials went on to say that in their experience,
another benefit of increasing the number of home-based child care slots
stemmed from the ability and willingness of in-home child care
providers in their community to offer after-hours care, a service that
center-based facilities had not succeeded in doing.
* Recruiting new providers. In a remote St. Francis County, Arkansas
community, human services staff coordinated with child care specialists
from Little Rock to increase the availability of child care in the
area. Staff utilized church networks and storefronts to heighten
community awareness about the need for child care providers and
followed up with an informational session for interested community
members. After attending the informational session, potential providers
were directed to enroll in licensing training. As a supplement to the
licensing curriculum, staff spearheading the recruiting effort also
partnered with the Small Business Administration's local office to
offer a voluntary 6-week business planning component. Ultimately, the
outreach program yielded four or five new child care providers.
HHS Has Several Initiatives That Could Benefit Rural TANF Programs:
HHS's Administration for Children and Families has planned and
undertaken several initiatives that could assist TANF programs and TANF
families in rural areas. Several ACF offices with different
responsibilities are involved in these initiatives.
* Conferences addressing rural TANF issues. In September 2003, ACF and
the Department of Labor jointly sponsored a 2-day rural conference for
one of ACF's 10 regional offices. The conference was designed to
improve service delivery to families in rural areas by offering rural
service providers an opportunity to discuss strategies for addressing
challenges. Collaboration with community partners was emphasized.
Officials from 9 counties across 5 states participated in the
conference. ACF sponsored similar conferences in 1999 and 2000 that
were geared toward sharing rural welfare-to-work strategies.
Approximately 11 states and 4 regions were represented at each year's
conference. Topics covered at these conferences included transportation
strategies, child care strategies, and economic and community
development.
* Demonstration projects. ACF's Office of Planning, Research, and
Evaluation is currently sponsoring a demonstration project to evaluate
the effectiveness of welfare-to-work strategies being used in rural
areas of Illinois and Nebraska. These two states are testing different
approaches to addressing employment barriers common in rural places.
For example, the Illinois Future Steps program offers intensive,
employment-focused case management including job placement assistance
and postemployment support assistance. Future Steps staff support and
monitor clients' progress closely through regular meetings and home
visits. The second program, Building Nebraska Families, focuses on
improving the basic life skills of hard-to-employ people so they can
participate in job search and job training activities, as well as
address personal and family barriers to self-sufficiency. Educational
services are provided mainly through home visits and cover subjects
such as household management, parenting, and decision making. A
complete evaluation of the effectiveness of these interventions will be
available in 2007.[Footnote 31]
* Technical assistance to TANF programs. ACF's Office of Family
Assistance (OFA), which is responsible for administering the TANF block
grant, provides technical assistance to TANF programs. One means
through which technical assistance is provided is the Welfare Peer
Technical Assistance Network. The purpose of the network, which was
started in 2000, is to provide technical assistance and facilitate
information exchanges among states, counties, and community-based
organizations about promising practices and lessons learned in
implementing welfare reform. The network provides technical assistance
in response to specific requests from state or local TANF programs. If
the technical assistance involves a site visit or teleconference,
usually only the programs that requested the assistance are included.
However, other interested parties may be included. Summaries and
results of these meetings or conference calls are posted on ACF's Web
site.[Footnote 32] Three of the nine technical assistance events that
occurred during January through June of 2004 were focused on rural TANF
programs. One such event was a teleconference among six states to
discuss approaches to developing work experience sites in tribal and
nontribal rural areas.
* Promoting use of the Earned Income Tax Credit. ACF is also planning
an expansion of an initiative designed to increase the number of low-
income families in the Mississippi Delta region that claim the Earned
Income Tax Credit (EITC).[Footnote 33] The follow-on strategy is
expected to focus more on rural areas. While not yet implemented
because of funding constraints, an expansion of the Delta EITC
initiative would train volunteers from local universities and community
colleges to prepare tax returns for rural low-income families and
ensure that they apply for the EITC.[Footnote 34] The initiative would
specifically target those families in the Delta region that have
recently left TANF. To accomplish this, the agency plans to collaborate
with the Internal Revenue Service, universities and community colleges,
as well as private companies.
* ACF's Rural Initiative Task Force. As a part of HHS's agencywide
initiative to strengthen rural families and communities, ACF has
established a rural task force to bring together ACF officials from
across the different ACF programs, including TANF.[Footnote 35]
Officials in both headquarters and regional offices participate in
monthly meetings of the Rural Task Force and discuss rural concerns and
share strategies. One activity the task force is undertaking is the
development of a rural e-mail Listserv in order to improve
communication between ACF and rural entities. The rural Listserv would
provide a firm source of communication between ACF and rural partners
and share information such as training opportunities, grant
opportunities, technical assistance, and other issues of concern to
rural areas.
Concluding Observations:
Rural counties shared in the nation's dramatic declines in TANF
caseloads that followed national implementation of welfare reform.
However, these national caseload declines do not necessarily mean that
welfare reform has been successful or that conditions are not
challenging welfare reform in rural areas. First, changes in the number
of all families are likely to affect the number of TANF families, and
the number of all families in rural areas is growing at a lower rate
than that of urban areas. Therefore, without other offsetting factors,
rural areas' TANF caseloads should be expected to decline more (or grow
less), proportionately, than urban areas' caseloads. Second, data on
caseload declines do not reveal whether those who left the caseload are
employed and moving toward self-sufficiency, which are essential pieces
of information for assessing the success of welfare reform. Third, many
rural areas have experienced significant caseload declines but still
have a high proportion of their families receiving TANF. Whether TANF
recipients in these communities will be able to find jobs and become
self-sufficient depends, in part, on the conditions in the communities
where they live, such as the availability of jobs, transportation,
child care, and dental and medical care. The disadvantaged
socioeconomic conditions in these communities are likely to pose
challenges to the clients' ability to leave TANF and become self-
sufficient. Rural TANF programs we visited have developed some
strategies to help them address the challenges their clients face, but
the challenges continue.
ACF has paid attention to rural areas in its administration of the
federal TANF block grant and has several efforts under way, such as its
rural demonstration study and its rural task force, that should be
helpful in addressing rural challenges. ACF can build upon these
efforts by continuing to look for ways to support rural TANF programs
and by continuing to support activities like the Mississippi Delta EITC
initiative and the creation of a rural e-mail Listserv that could help
spread the word about interesting strategies being used in rural areas.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to HHS for its review. A copy of
HHS' response is in appendix IV. In its response, HHS said the report
was informative and did not disagree with any of the findings. HHS
noted that ACF has undertaken several activities focused on rural TANF,
as cited in the report. Further, HHS said it plans to establish a link
to the final report on its Welfare Peer Technical Assistance Network
Web page to facilitate rural TANF providers' access to the report. HHS
also provided technical comments on the draft, and in response to these
comments, we made changes where appropriate.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
after its issue date. At that time we will send copies of this report
to appropriate congressional committees and other interested parties.
We will also make copies available to others on request. In addition,
the report will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at http://
www.gao.gov.
If you have any questions concerning this report, please contact me or
Clarita Mrena at (202) 512-7215. See appendix V for other contributors
to this report.
Signed by:
Cynthia M. Fagnoni, Managing Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology of TANF Caseload Data Analysis:
To address questions about the rural Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) caseload, we collected and analyzed county-level TANF
caseload data from states. Below are details about these data and the
analysis.
* Time period covered by caseload data. We obtained average monthly
caseload data for the years 1997 through 2003. These data show the
number of families who received cash assistance, on average, during the
months of each year. Average monthly caseload is calculated by adding
the caseload for each month of the year and dividing by the number of
months. For some states, for some years, (primarily 1997 and 2003), the
caseload data we obtained are for fewer than 12 months of the year. For
most states, the data are for the calendar year, but for some states
(noted in app. III) the data are for the state fiscal year.
* Number of states covered by analysis. Different states were used for
the different analyses included in the report.
* Analysis of 2003 rural and urban TANF caseload data (used to
determine the percentage of TANF families living in rural areas) covers
48 states, including the District of Columbia. The states not covered
are Arizona, Delaware, and Wisconsin because we were not able to obtain
reliable caseload data from these states in time for our analysis.
* Analysis of 2003 rural only TANF caseload data (used in figs. 1 and 2
and table 1 of app. II) covers 45 states--all states from which we were
able to obtain reliable caseload data, except the District of Columbia,
New Jersey, and Rhode Island, which do not have rural counties.
* Analysis of rural and urban caseload changes for the period 1997
through 2003 (used in fig. 3) covers 37 states that provided reliable
caseload data for each of those 7 years--California, Colorado, District
of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina,
North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington,
and Wyoming.
* Analysis of rural caseload changes for the years 1997 to 2003 (used
in fig. 4 and table 2 of app. II) covers 37 states that provided
reliable caseload data for the years 1997 and 2003 and that have rural
counties--California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho,
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,
Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont,
Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
* Types of cases included in caseload data. The cases included in our
data are families in states' welfare programs, including families who
received cash assistance paid for with TANF funds and families whose
cash assistance was paid for with state maintenance-of-effort (MOE)
dollars[Footnote 36] required by the TANF block grant.[Footnote 37]
Some states have moved families from a program paid for with TANF
dollars to one paid for with MOE dollars, and we included such families
in our data in order to get a complete picture of the rural welfare
caseload and how it has changed over time. In the report, we refer to
all the cases in our data as TANF cases. A small number of cases from
tribal TANF programs may be included in some states' data, but
generally, cases from tribal TANF programs are not included in our
data.
* Data reliability check. To check the reliability of the data we
collected from states, we compared the TANF caseload data we collected
from each state (a combined total for all counties in a state) with
ACF's statewide caseload data for the years 1997-2003.[Footnote 38]
When we found significant differences between the two sets of data, we
identified reasons that would account for the differences.[Footnote 39]
When we were unable to account for the differences, we excluded from
our analysis the data for the year or years for which there were
unaccountable differences.
* Demographic and socioeconomic data. In our analysis, we used data on
county demographics and socioeconomic characteristics, such as
population, unemployment rates, and median income. The U.S. Department
of Agriculture's Economic Research Service (ERS) provided data for our
analysis that it compiled from the Bureau of the Census and the Bureau
of Labor Statistics. In addition, ERS provided data that it developed
on counties' classifications that we used to determine whether counties
were rural or urban. In order to determine the proportion of the
general population receiving TANF cash assistance, we divided 2003 TANF
caseload data (TANF families) by 2000 Census data on the number of
families in each county. We estimate that our resulting percentage is,
on average, biased upward by about 0.1 percentage point.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comparisons of Demographic and Socioeconomic
Characteristics of Counties with Different TANF Characteristics:
To determine how counties with different TANF caseload characteristics
compared, we put counties into four groups and looked at the
demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of each group. Table 1
shows the characteristics of groups of counties with different
proportions of the population receiving TANF. Table 2 shows the
characteristics of groups of counties with different degrees of TANF
caseload change from 1997 to 2003.
Table 1: Comparison of Characteristics of Rural Counties with Different
Proportions of Their Population on TANF:
Rural counties grouped according to the proportion of their population
receiving TANF: Lowest proportion;
County characteristics:
Average unemployment rate in 2002: 4.8%;
Average poverty rate in 2000: 11.6%;
Average median income in 2000: $35,300%;
Average percentage African American in 2000: 2.0%;
Average percentage of families headed by single mothers with children
in 2000: 6.4%;
Average percentage of population with no high school diploma in 2000:
19.3%;
Average percentage change in caseload, 1997-2003: -51.3%;
Average percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: 4.4%.
Rural counties grouped according to the proportion of their population
receiving TANF: 2nd lowest proportion;
County characteristics:
Average unemployment rate in 2002: 5.6%;
Average poverty rate in 2000: 12.8%;
Average median income in 2000: $34,300%;
Average percentage African American in 2000: 5.2%;
Average percentage of families headed by single mothers with children
in 2000: 7.7%;
Average percentage of population with no high school diploma in 2000:
22.5%;
Average percentage change in caseload, 1997-2003: -35.3%;
Average percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: 6.5%.
Rural counties grouped according to the proportion of their population
receiving TANF: 2nd highest proportion;
County characteristics:
Average unemployment rate in 2002: 6.4%;
Average poverty rate in 2000: 14.8%;
Average median income in 2000: $32,700%;
Average percentage African American in 2000: 9.5%;
Average percentage of families headed by single mothers with children
in 2000: 9.1%;
Average percentage of population with no high school diploma in 2000:
25.3%;
Average percentage change in caseload, 1997-2003: -29.9%;
Average percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: 6.2%.
Rural counties grouped according to the proportion of their population
receiving TANF: Highest proportion;
County characteristics:
Average unemployment rate in 2002: 7.8%;
Average poverty rate in 2000: 19.6%;
Average median income in 2000: $29,300%;
Average percentage African American in 2000: 15.4%;
Average percentage of families headed by single mothers with children
in 2000: 11.5%;
Average percentage of population with no high school diploma in 2000:
29.9%;
Average percentage change in caseload, 1997-2003: -21.0%;
Average percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: 4.9%.
Source: GAO analysis of data provided by the Economic Research Service
derived from the Bureau of the Census and the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, in combination with data provided by 45 states with rural
counties on the average number of families receiving cash assistance
under state TANF programs during months of 2003.
Note: The counties are grouped into quarters, with the 25 percent of
counties with the lowest proportion of the population on TANF in the
row for "lowest proportion" and so forth. Each quarter includes 496 or
497 counties. Data for the District of Columbia, New Jersey, and Rhode
Island are not included because they do not have rural counties.
[End of table]
Table 2: Comparison of Characteristics of Rural Counties with Different
Degrees of TANF Caseload Change, 1997-2003:
Rural counties grouped according to degree of caseload change from
1997 to 2003: Greatest decrease;
County characteristics:
Average unemployment rate in 2002: 5.9%;
Average change in unemployment rate, 1997-2002: 0.04%;
Average number of families in 2000: 6,113;
Average percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: 3.7%;
Average median income in 2000: $32,400;
Average percentage of families headed by single mothers with children
in 2000: 8.2%;
Average percentage of population with no high school diploma in 2000:
23.5%;
Average percentage change in caseload, 1997-2003: -72.9%.
Rural counties grouped according to degree of caseload change from
1997 to 2003: 2nd greatest decrease;
County characteristics:
Average unemployment rate in 2002: 6.5%;
Average change in unemployment rate, 1997-2002: -0.03%;
Average number of families in 2000: 6,665;
Average percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: 6.0%;
Average median income in 2000: $31,600;
Average percentage of families headed by single mothers with children
in 2000: 9.2%;
Average percentage of population with no high school diploma in 2000:
26.0%;
Average percentage change in caseload, 1997-2003: -50.6%.
Rural counties grouped according to degree of caseload change from
1997 to 2003: 3rd greatest decrease;
County characteristics:
Average unemployment rate in 2002: 6.0%;
Average change in unemployment rate, 1997-2002: 0.04%;
Average number of families in 2000: 6,034;
Average percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: 5.6%;
Average median income in 2000: $32,400;
Average percentage of families headed by single mothers with children
in 2000: 9.0%;
Average percentage of population with no high school diploma in 2000:
24.8%;
Average percentage change in caseload, 1997-2003: -33.2%.
Rural counties grouped according to degree of caseload change from
1997 to 2003: Increase and least decrease;
County characteristics:
Average unemployment rate in 2002: 5.6%;
Average change in unemployment rate, 1997-2002: 0.41%;
Average number of families in 2000: 5,673;
Average percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: 6.7%;
Average median income in 2000: $34,600;
Average percentage of families headed by single mothers with children
in 2000: 7.9%;
Average percentage of population with no high school diploma in 2000:
22.9%;
Average percentage change in caseload, 1997-2003: 18.9%.
Source: GAO analysis of data provided by the Economic Research Service
derived from the Bureau of the Census and the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, in combination with data provided by 34 states with rural
counties on the average number of families receiving cash assistance
under state TANF programs during the years 1997 through 2003.
Note: The counties are grouped into quarters, with the 25 percent of
counties with the most caseload decrease in the row for "greatest
decrease" and so forth. Each quarter includes 432 or 433 counties.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: TANF Caseload Data by State:
Alabama;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 13,628;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 5,741;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 70.4%;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 29.6%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Urban: 1.6%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Rural: 1.6%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Urban: 9.3%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Rural: 9.8%.
Alaska;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 3,620;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 1,674;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 68.4%;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 31.6%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Urban: 3.6%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Rural: 3.2%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Urban: 14.5%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Rural: 9.6%.
Arkansas;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 6,120;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 4,859;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 55.7%;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 44.3%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Urban: 1.5%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Rural: 1.5%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Urban: 16.3%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Rural: 6.1%.
Arizona[A];
California;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 466,980;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 11,340;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 97.6%;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 2.4;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Urban: -39.2;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Rural: -41.2%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Urban: 6.1%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Rural: 5.5%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Urban: 9.8%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Rural: 6.8%.
Colorado[B];
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 12,561;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 2,313;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 84.5%;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 15.6;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Urban: -40.6;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Rural: -32.8%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Urban: 1.4%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Rural: 1.5%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Urban: 26.0%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Rural: 25.2%.
Connecticut;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 21,131;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 1,158;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 94.8%;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 5.2%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Urban: 2.6%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Rural: 1.5%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Urban: 0.8%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Rural: 3.3%.
Delaware[C];
District of Columbia[D];
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 17,071;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 0;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 100.0%;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 0.0;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Urban: -27.2%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Urban: 15.0%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Rural: 0%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Urban: -7.6%.
Florida;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 55,663;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 4,460;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 92.6%;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 7.4;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Urban: -61.4;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Rural: -62.0%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Urban: 1.4%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Rural: 1.6%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Urban: 18.8%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Rural: 21.1%.
Georgia;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 43,579;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 14,848;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 74.6%;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 25.4;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Urban: -40.5;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Rural: -42.8%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Urban: 2.6%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Rural: 3.4%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Urban: 24.7%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Rural: 14.1%.
Hawaii[E];
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 9,190;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 4,400;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 67.6%;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 32.4;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Urban: -39.4;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Rural: -44.1%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Urban: 4.5%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Rural: 5.4%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Urban: 3.0%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Rural: 21.8%.
Idaho;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 1,151;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 595;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 65.9%;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 34.1;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Urban: -24.0;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Rural: -35.6%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Urban: 0.6%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Rural: 0.5%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Urban: 33.5%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Rural: 16.0%.
Illinois;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 36,367;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 3,413;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 91.4%;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 8.6;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Urban: -79.5;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Rural: -81.5%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Urban: 1.4%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Rural: 0.8%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Urban: 6.6%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Rural: -0.9%.
Indiana;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 45,214;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 7,832;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 85.2%;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 14.8;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Urban: 24.7;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Rural: 30.4%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Urban: 3.7%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Rural: 2.1%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Urban: 8.5%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Rural: 4.7%.
Iowa;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 11,398;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 8,560;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 57.1%;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 42.9;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Urban: -28.8;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Rural: -27.6%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Urban: 2.9%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Rural: 2.3%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Urban: 7.7%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Rural: -1.4%.
Kansas;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 9,836;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 5,303;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 65.0%;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 35.0;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Urban: -19.2;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Rural: -15.3%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Urban: 2.3%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Rural: 1.9%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Urban: 10.9%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Rural: -1.8%.
Kentucky;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 15,089;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 16,883;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 47.2%;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 52.8;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Urban: -42.5;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Rural: -52.6%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Urban: 2.5%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Rural: 3.4%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Urban: 9.4%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Rural: 6.6%.
Louisiana;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 16,578;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 6,804;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 70.9%;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 29.1;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Urban: -55.0;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Rural: -57.0%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Urban: 1.9%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Rural: 2.3%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Urban: 6.0%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Rural: 3.2%.
Maine;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 6,775;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 5,443;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 55.5%;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 44.6;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Urban: -24.7;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Rural: -29.5%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Urban: 3.5%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Rural: 3.7%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Urban: 4.4%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Rural: 1.2%.
Maryland;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 27,780;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 1,041;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 96.4%;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 3.6;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Urban: -53.3;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Rural: -45.3%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Urban: 2.2%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Rural: 1.4%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Urban: 8.0%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Rural: 12.2%.
Massachusetts;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 44,773;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 8;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 100.0%;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 0.0%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Urban: 2.9%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Rural: 0.1%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Urban: 3.3%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Rural: 33.1%.
Michigan;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 65,357;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 7,988;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 89.1%;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 10.9;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Urban: -51.8;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Rural: -49.5%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Urban: 3.2%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Rural: 1.7%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Urban: 3.6%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Rural: 9.6%.
Minnesota[F];
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 34,238;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 11,379;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 75.1%;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 25.0%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Urban: 3.9%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Rural: 3.1%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Urban: 12.1%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Rural: 5.9%.
Mississippi;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 6,285;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 13,482;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 31.8%;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 68.2;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Urban: -39.4;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Rural: -43.4%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Urban: 2.0%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Rural: 3.1%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Urban: 15.6%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Rural: 6.4%.
Missouri;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 32,742;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 12,174;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 72.9%;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 27.1;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Urban: -34.4;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Rural: -21.1%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Urban: 3.1%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Rural: 2.9%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Urban: 7.0%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Rural: 7.6%.
Montana[G];
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 1,911;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 4,252;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 31.0%;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 69.0;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Urban: -32.5;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Rural: -31.0%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Urban: 2.3%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Rural: 2.7%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Urban: 8.8%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Rural: 12.4%.
Nebraska;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 8,200;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 3,916;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 67.7%;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 32.3;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Urban: -1.6;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Rural: -26.5%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Urban: 3.5%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Rural: 1.9%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Urban: 10.9%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Rural: 0.8%.
Nevada[H];
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 11,267;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 914;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 92.5%;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 7.5;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Urban: 5.3;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Rural: -19.8%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Urban: 2.6%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Rural: 1.5%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Urban: 63.4%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Rural: 39.2%.
New Hampshire;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 3,262;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 2,422;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 57.4%;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 42.6;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Urban: -23.2;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Rural: -17.2%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Urban: 1.6%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Rural: 2.0%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Urban: 10.4%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Rural: 9.0%.
New Jersey;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 41,599;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 0;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 100.0%;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 0.0;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Urban: -57.5%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Urban: 1.9%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Urban: 5.7%.
New Mexico;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 10,716;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 5,744;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 65.1%;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 34.9%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Urban: 3.7%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Rural: 3.3%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Urban: 21.8%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Rural: 12.4%.
New York;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 180,519;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 8,093;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 95.7%;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 4.3;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Urban: -49.3;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Rural: -49.8%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Urban: 4.3%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Rural: 2.0%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Urban: 2.8%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Rural: -1.0%.
North Carolina;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 27,366;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 13,198;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 67.5%;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 32.5;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Urban: -54.7;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Rural: -63.5%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Urban: 1.9%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Rural: 1.9%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Urban: 20.9%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Rural: 13.4%.
North Dakota;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 1,040;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 2,241;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 31.7%;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 68.3;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Urban: -11.0;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Rural: -18.5%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Urban: 1.5%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Rural: 2.3%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Urban: 8.1%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Rural: -7.0%.
Ohio;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 75,104;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 11,582;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 86.6%;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 13.4;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Urban: -49.8;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Rural: -55.3%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Urban: 3.1%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Rural: 1.9%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Urban: 2.4%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Rural: 3.7%.
Oklahoma[I];
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 10,060;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 4,695;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 68.2%;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 31.8;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Urban: -50.9;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Rural: -61.8%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Urban: 1.8%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Rural: 1.3%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Urban: 9.3%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Rural: 2.7%.
Oregon;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 13,106;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 4,605;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 74.0%;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 26.0;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Urban: -15.0;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Rural: -36.1%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Urban: 2.0%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Rural: 2.1%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Urban: 18.1%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Rural: 9.5%.
Pennsylvania;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 78,718;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 8,308;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 90.5%;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 9.6%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Urban: 2.9%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Rural: 1.6%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Urban: 0.6%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Rural: 3.2%.
Rhode Island;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 14,136;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 0;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 100.0%;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 0;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Urban: -25.1%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Urban: 5.3%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Urban: 1.8%.
South Carolina;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 12,803;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 6,895;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 65.0%;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 35.0;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Urban: -35.9;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Rural: -35.5%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Urban: 1.6%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Rural: 2.5%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Urban: 15.0%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Rural: 13.6%.
South Dakota;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 637;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 2,141;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 22.9%;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 77.1;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Urban: -45.7;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Rural: -40.7%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Urban: 0.8%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Rural: 1.9%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Urban: 15.1%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Rural: 1.3%.
Tennessee;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 57,664;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 13,897;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 80.6%;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 19.4;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Urban: 14.3;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Rural: 3.4%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Urban: 5.2%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Rural: 3.1%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Urban: 14.3%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Rural: 13.6%.
Texas[J];
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 116,857;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 21,183;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 84.7%;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 15.4;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Urban: -36.9;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Rural: -38.4%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Urban: 2.6%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Rural: 2.8%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Urban: 21.9%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Rural: 7.9%.
Utah;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 8,173;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 1,275;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 86.5%;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 13.5;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Urban: -15.0;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Rural: -48.1%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Urban: 1.7%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Rural: 1.9%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Urban: 30.3%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Rural: 24.3%.
Vermont;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 1,574;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 3,365;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 31.9%;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 68.1;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Urban: -31.5;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Rural: -38.7%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Urban: 3.2%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Rural: 3.1%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Urban: 12.4%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Rural: 6.5%.
Virginia;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 25,481;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 6,333;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 80.1%;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 19.9;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Urban: -39.0;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Rural: -27.6%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Urban: 1.7%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Rural: 2.1%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Urban: 14.1%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Rural: 6.2%.
Washington;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 46,685;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 7,985;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 85.4%;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 14.6;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Urban: -37.2;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Rural: -33.9%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Urban: 3.6%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Rural: 4.1%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Urban: 17.6%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Rural: 16.6%.
West Virginia[K];
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 7,064;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 8,610;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 45.1%;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 54.9;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Urban: -53.9;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Rural: -51.3%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Urban: 2.6%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Rural: 3.7%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Urban: 2.0%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Rural: -1.8%.
Wisconsin[L];
Wyoming[M];
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 62;
Average monthly TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 106;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Urban: 36.9%;
Percentage of TANF caseload in CY 2003: Rural: 63.1;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Urban: -91.8;
Percentage change in TANF caseload CY 1997-2003: Rural: -92.7%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Urban: 0.2%;
CY 2003 TANF caseload as a percentage of number of all families in
2000: Rural: 0.1%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Urban: 6.6%;
Percentage change in number of all families, 1990-2000: Rural: 8.2%.
Source: GAO analysis of data provided by the Economic Research Service
derived from the Bureau of the Census and the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, in combination with data provided by 48 states on the
average number of families receiving cash assistance under state TANF
programs in 2003.
Note: CY = calendar year. Unless otherwise noted, caseload data include
families receiving monthly cash assistance under state TANF programs
and under programs funded with state maintenance-of-effort dollars, if
the state has such a program.
[A] We did not obtain data from Arizona.
[B] Colorado data include families receiving diversion payments, as
well as families receiving monthly cash assistance.
[C] We did not obtain data from Delaware.
[D] District of Columbia caseload data were obtained from ACF.
[E] Hawaii data for 1997 and 1998 are for state fiscal year.
[F] Minnesota data include some families (about 10 percent of the total
caseload) who are no longer receiving cash assistance but are receiving
federally funded food assistance. According to a Minnesota official,
Minnesota has integrated food assistance into its welfare program, and
some families in the program who have begun working are no longer
eligible for cash payments but are eligible for food assistance.
[G] Montana data are for state fiscal year.
[H] Nevada data are for state fiscal year.
[I] Oklahoma data are for state fiscal year.
[J] Texas data are for state fiscal year.
[K] West Virginia data are for state fiscal year.
[L] We did not obtain reliable data from Wisconsin.
[M] Wyoming data for two counties, Northern Arapaho and East Shoshone,
are not included because changes in caseload over the period would
largely be attributable to movement from state-to tribal-run programs
rather than participants moving off TANF.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services:
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES:
Office of Inspector General:
Washington, D.C. 20201:
AUG 30 2004:
Ms. Cynthia M. Fagnoni:
Managing Director: Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Ms. Fagnoni:
Enclosed are the Department's comments on your draft report entitled,
"Welfare Reform-Rural TANF Programs Have Developed Many Strategies to
Address Rural Challenges" (GAO-04-921). The comments represent the
tentative position of the Department and are subject to reevaluation
when the final version of this report is received.
The Department provided several technical comments directly to your
staff.
The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on this draft
report before its publication.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Lewis Morris:
Chief Counsel to the Inspector General:
Enclosure:
The Office of Inspector General (OIG) is transmitting the Department's
response to this draft report in our capacity as the Department's
designated focal point and coordinator for Government Accountability
Office reports. OIG has not conducted an independent assessment of
these comments and therefore expresses no opinion on them.
COMMENTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (HHS) ON THE
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE'S (GAO) DRAFT REPORT "WELFARE REFORM:
RURAL TANF PROGRAMS HAVE DEVELOPED MANY STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS RURAL
CHALLENGES" (GA0-04-921):
HHS appreciates the opportunity to comment on the GAO's draft report.
It is informative and well written. It is very strong in providing
excellent examples of creative strategies utilized by local Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) programs to address rural
challenges. The report also does a good job of highlighting the work
the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) has been doing with
these programs.
GAO Concluding Observations:
Rural counties shared in the nation's dramatic declines in Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) caseloads that followed national
implementation of welfare reform. However, these national caseload
declines do not necessarily mean that welfare reform has been
successful or that conditions are not challenging welfare reform in
rural areas. First, changes in the number of all families are likely to
affect the number of TANF families, and the number of all families in
rural areas is growing at a lower rate than that of urban areas.
Therefore, without other offsetting factors, rural areas' TANF
caseloads should be expected to decline more (or grow less),
proportionately, than urban areas' caseloads. Second, data on caseload
declines do not reveal whether those who left the caseload are employed
and moving toward self-sufficiency, which are essential pieces of
information for assessing the success of welfare reform. Third, many
rural areas have experienced significant caseload declines but still
have a high proportion of their families receiving TANF. Whether TANF
recipients in these communities will be able to find jobs and become
self-sufficient depends, in part, on the conditions in the communities
where they live, such as the availability of jobs, transportation,
child care, and dental and medical care. The disadvantaged
socioeconomic conditions in these communities are likely to pose
challenges to the clients' ability to leave TANF and become self-
sufficient. Rural TANF programs we visited have developed some
strategies to help them address the challenges their clients face, but
the challenges continue.
ACF has paid attention to rural areas in its administration of the
federal TANF block grant and has several efforts under way, such as its
rural demonstration study and its rural task force, that should be
helpful in addressing rural challenges. ACF can build upon these
efforts by continuing to look for ways to support rural TANF programs
and by continuing to support activities like the Mississippi Delta EITC
(Earned Income Tax Credit) initiative and the creation of a rural e-
mail Listserv that could help spread the word about interesting
strategies being used in rural areas.
HHS Response:
GAO's analysis is based on the county level data that it received from
48 States (which includes the District of Columbia). GAO found that
239,000 families or 14 percent of all TANF families live in rural
areas. However, those 239,000 families are unevenly dispersed across
those 48 States representing a low in one State of 0.02 percent but a
high in another State of 77 percent. Additionally, 51 percent of the
239,000 families living in rural areas live in only 25 percent of the
rural counties in the 48 States. Since the implementation of TANF in
1997, rural TANF caseloads like urban TANF caseloads have declined at
about 44 percent.
As part of its study, GAO visited rural counties in nine States. We
agree with GAO that TANF recipients in rural communities experience the
same barriers as TANF recipients in urban areas, but transportation
difficulties, limited employment opportunities, low wages, and lack of
services, especially child care, create additional challenges. We also
agree that rural areas are diverse with great disparity in economic
conditions, characteristics of the population and geography.
As the report describes, some rural communities have exercised
tremendous creativity and resourcefulness in designing programs to meet
the needs of their families. We appreciate GAO documenting a number of
the specific strategies that rural areas have developed to tailor
services not only to their TANF and low-income populations, but also to
the resources and economic opportunities available in their areas. We
are confident that many rural TANF communities will find your report
helpful as they look to expand and enhance the services they provide.
Once this report is published, we plan to create a link from our
Welfare Peer Technical Assistance Network web page (which can be found
at http://peerta.acf.hhs.gov/) to facilitate rural TANF providers'
access to this information.
In recognition of the special challenges that rural areas encounter in
assisting rural TANF families as they move from welfare to work, ACF
has initiated several activities focused on rural TANF. As cited in the
draft GAO report, these activities have included conferences,
demonstration projects, technical assistance to TANF programs, and
promoting the use of the EITC. In addition, ACF created a rural task
force with representatives from an array of ACF programs in both the
regional and central offices to discuss issues and share strategies.
Much of our technical assistance focused on rural issues comes in
response to requests from States. We will continue to work with States
to plan how our technical assistance in the future can best serve their
needs.
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Clarita Mrena, (202) 512-3022 Kathy Peyman, (202) 512-9536:
Staff Acknowledgments:
[End of section]
In addition to those named above, Kenneth Adams, Tiffany Boiman, Amy
Buck, Cindy Decker, Lise Levie, Angela Miles, Jerry Sandau, and Jay
Smale made key contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Bibliography:
Bosley, Sarah, and Bradford Mills. How Welfare Reform Impacts Non-
metropolitan and Metropolitan Counties in Virginia. Rural Development
Program for Community Vitality. Virginia Tech, September 1999.
Burwick, Andrew, Vinita Jethwani, and Alicia Meckstroth. Implementing
Welfare-to-Work Programs in Rural Places: Lessons from the Rural
Welfare-to-Work Strategies Demonstration Evaluation. Mathematica
Policy Research, Inc., April 2004.
Duncan, Greg, Leslie Whitener, and Bruce Weber. "Lessons Learned:
Welfare Reform and Food Assistance in Rural America." In Rural
Dimensions of Welfare Reform, edited by Bruce A. Weber, Greg J. Duncan,
and Leslie A. Whitener, 455-470. Kalamazoo, Michigan: W. E. Upjohn
Institute for Employment Research, 2002.
Fletcher, Cynthia Needles, Jan Flora, Barbara Gaddis, Mary Winter and
Jacquelyn Litt. "Small Towns and Welfare Reform: Iowa Case Studies of
Families and Communities." In Rural Dimensions of Welfare Reform,
edited by Bruce A. Weber, Greg J. Duncan, and Leslie A. Whitener, 201-
229. Kalamazoo, Michigan: W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment
Research, 2002.
Friedman, Pamela. Transportation Needs in Rural Communities. Rural
Assistance Center, March 2004. http://www.raconline.org/info_guides/
transportation/issuenote.html:
Gibbs, Robert M. "Rural Labor Markets in an Era of Welfare Reform". In
Rural Dimensions of Welfare Reform, edited by Bruce A. Weber, Greg J.
Duncan, and Leslie A. Whitener, 51-75. Kalamazoo, Michigan: W. E.
Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, 2002.
Harvey, Mark, Gene F. Summers, Kathleen Pickering, and Patricia
Richards. "The Short-Term Impacts of Welfare Reform in Persistently
Poor Rural Areas." In Rural Dimensions of Welfare Reform, edited by
Bruce A. Weber, Greg J. Duncan, and Leslie A. Whitener, 375-409.
Kalamazoo, Michigan: W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research,
2002.
Lerman, Robert, Amy-Ellen Duke, and Jesse Valente. Do Income Support
Levels and Work Incentives Differ between Rural and Urban Areas?
Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 1999.
Lerman, Robert I., Signe-Mary McKernan, and Nancy Pindus. "Welfare
Reforms and Employment of Single Mothers: Are Rural Areas Keeping
Pace?" Rural America 16 (2001): 22-27.
Lichter, Daniel T., and Leif Jensen. "Poverty and Welfare among Rural
Female-Headed Families." Rural America 16 (2001): 28-35.
Lucas, Marilyn T., and Charles F. Nicholson. "Subsidized Vehicle
Acquisition and Earned Income in the Transition from Welfare to Work."
Transportation 30 (2003): 483-501.
Pindus, Nancy M. Implementing Welfare Reform in Rural Communities.
Economic Research Service (Urban Institute) Feb. 2001.
Ponza, Michael, Alicia Meckstroth, and Jennifer Faerber. Employment
Experiences and Challenges among Urban and Rural Welfare Clients in
Nebraska. Mathematica, August 2002.
Rural Welfare to Work Strategies, Research Synthesis. Macro
International Inc., June 10, 1999.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Welfare Reform: Information on TANF Balances. GAO-03-1094. Washington,
D.C.: September 8, 2003.
Welfare Reform: Information on Changing Labor Market and State Fiscal
Conditions. GAO-03-977. Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2003.
Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: Some Coordination Efforts
Among Programs Providing Transportation Services, but Obstacles
Persist. GAO-03-697. Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2003.
Child Care: Recent State Policy Changes Affecting the Availability of
Assistance for Low-Income Families. GAO-03-588. Washington, D.C.: May
5, 2003.
Welfare Reform: Job Access Program Improves Local Service Coordination,
but Evaluation Should be Completed. GAO-03-204. Washington, D.C.:
December 6, 2002.
Child Care: States Exercise Flexibility in Setting Reimbursement Rates
and Providing Access for Low-Income Children. GAO-02-894. Washington,
D.C.: September 18, 2002.
Welfare Reform: With TANF Flexibility, States Vary in How They
Implement Work Requirements and Time Limits. GAO-02-770. Washington,
D.C.: July 5, 2002.
Workforce Investment Act: States and Localities Increasingly Coordinate
Services for TANF Clients, but Better Information Needed on Effective
Approaches. GAO-02-696. Washington, D.C.: July 3, 2002.
Welfare Reform: States Provide TANF-Funded Work Support Services to
Many Low-Income Families Who Do Not Receive Cash Assistance. GAO-02-
615T. Washington, D.C.: April 10, 2002.
Welfare Reform: States Provide TANF-Funded Services to Many Low-Income
Families Who Do Not Receive Cash Assistance. GAO-02-564. Washington,
D.C.: April 5, 2002.
Human Services Integration: Results of a GAO Cosponsored Conference on
Modernizing Information Systems. GAO-02-121. Washington, D.C.: January
31, 2002.
Means-Tested Programs: Determining Financial Eligibility Is Cumbersome
and Can Be Simplified. GAO-02-58. Washington, D.C.: November 2, 2001.
Welfare Reform: Challenges in Maintaining a Federal-State Fiscal
Partnership. GAO-01-828. Washington, D.C.: August 10, 2001.
Welfare Reform: Moving Hard-to-Employ Recipients into the
Workforce. GAO-01-368. Washington, D.C.: March 15, 2001.
Welfare Reform: Improving State Automated Systems Requires Coordinated
Federal Effort. GAO/HEHS-00-48. Washington, D.C.: April 27, 2000.
Domestic Violence: Prevalence and Implications for Employment among
Welfare Recipients. GAO/HEHS-99-12. Washington, D.C.: November 24,
1998.
FOOTNOTES
[1] The District of Columbia is included in this and subsequent counts
of states in this report. Data from Arizona and Delaware are not
included because we did not receive data from these states. Data from
Wisconsin are not included because we did not receive reliable data
from Wisconsin.
[2] The Earned Income Tax Credit is a refundable federal income tax
credit for low-income working individuals and families. The credit
reduces the amount of federal tax owed and can result in a refund
check.
[3] Our analysis is based on an average of the monthly count of
families who received cash assistance. Included in the count were
families who received cash assistance paid for with federal TANF funds,
as well as families who received cash assistance paid for with state
maintenance-of-effort dollars required by the TANF block grant. In this
report, we refer to all these families as TANF families.
[4] This analysis includes all states that provided reliable caseload
data for the years 1997 and 2003. See appendix I for a list of those
states.
[5] The number of all families living in rural counties grew at a lower
rate from1990 to 2000 than it did for urban counties. Because of this,
without other offsetting factors, greater TANF caseload decline in
rural counties than in urban counties might have been expected between
1997 and 2003. Specifically, for the 40 states included in our caseload
change analysis, the percentage increase in all families was 6.0 in
rural counties and 9.9 in urban counties from 1990 to 2000, according
to decennial census data.
[6] Nancy M. Pindus. Implementing Welfare Reform in Rural Communities.
Economic Research Service (Urban Institute) Feb. 2001.
[7] It might be argued that some of the earnings gap is offset by
differences in the cost of living in urban and rural areas. On average,
housing costs are lower in rural areas than in urban areas. However,
little is known about how other personal costs differ, such as
transportation, utility, grocery, and clothing costs, between rural and
urban areas.
[8] Robert M. Gibbs. "Rural Labor Markets in an Era of Welfare Reform."
In Rural Dimensions of Welfare Reform, edited by Bruce A. Weber, Greg
J. Duncan, and Leslie A. Whitener, 51-75. Kalamazoo, Michigan: W. E.
Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, 2002.
[9] Mark Harvey, Gene F. Summers, Kathleen Pickering, and Patricia
Richards, "The Short Term Impacts of Welfare Reform in Persistently
Poor Rural Areas." In Rural Dimensions of Welfare Reform, edited by
Bruce A. Weber, Greg J. Duncan, and Leslie A. Whitener, 375-409.
Kalamazoo Michigan: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research,
2002.
[10] Pindus.
[11] Michael Ponza, Alicia Meckstroth, and Jennifer Faerber. Employment
Experiences and Challenges among Urban and Rural Welfare Clients in
Nebraska. Mathematica, August 2002.
[12] Sarah Bosley and Bradford Mills. How Welfare Reform Impacts Non-
metropolitan and Metropolitan Counties in Virginia. Rural Development
Program for Community Vitality, Virginia Tech, September 1999.
[13] For both studies, the samples were taken from the Current
Population Survey for a period in 1998 or 1999.
[14] Robert I. Lerman, Signe-Mary McKernan, and Nancy Pindus. "Welfare
Reforms and Employment of Single Mothers: Are Rural Areas Keeping
Pace?" Rural America 16 (2001): 22-27.
[15] Daniel T. Lichter and Leif Jensen. "Poverty and Welfare among
Rural Female-Headed Families." Rural America 16 (2001): 28-35.
[16] This study looked at employment status 1 year after the sample of
TANF clients was drawn. Therefore, those included in the study could
have already left TANF.
[17] Greg Duncan, Leslie Whitener, and Bruce Weber. "Lessons Learned:
Welfare Reform and Food Assistance in Rural America." In Rural
Dimensions of Welfare Reform, edited by Bruce A. Weber, Greg J. Duncan,
and Leslie A. Whitener, 455-470. Kalamazoo, Michigan: W. E. Upjohn
Institute for Employment Research, 2002.
[18] Harvey and others.
[19] Cynthia Needles Fletcher, Jan Flora, Barbara Gaddis, Mary Winter
and, Jacquelyn Litt. "Small Towns and Welfare Reform: Iowa Case Studies
of Families and Communities." In Rural Dimensions of Welfare Reform,
edited by Bruce A. Weber, Greg J. Duncan, and Leslie A. Whitener, 201-
229. Kalamazoo, Michigan: W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment
Research, 2002.
[20] For information on the prevalence of domestic violence among
welfare recipients, see GAO, Domestic Violence: Prevalence and
Implications for Employment Among Welfare Recipients, GAO/HEHS-99-12
(Washington, D.C.: November 24, 1998).
[21] Pindus.
[22] Ponza and others.
[23] The Workforce Investment Act was passed in 1998 to consolidate
services of many employment and training programs, mandating that
states and localities use a centralized service delivery structure--the
one-stop center system--to provide access to most federally funded
employment and training assistance.
[24] This program was funded initially by a private foundation grant,
and program administrators also collected a fee from participating
employers to underwrite operating costs. However, after grant funding
was exhausted, and as a result of the concomitant economic downturn
(which decreased the demand for new workers), the program was all but
discontinued in 2003.
[25] Rural Welfare to Work Strategies, Research Synthesis. Macro
International Inc., June 10, 1999.
[26] For information about more transportation strategies in rural
areas, see Pamela Friedman, Transportation Needs in Rural Communities.
Rural Assistance Center, March 2004. http://www.raconline.org/
info_guides/transportation/issuenote.html
[27] Marilyn T. Lucas and Charles F. Nicholson. "Subsidized Vehicle
Acquisition and Earned Income in the Transition from Welfare to Work."
Transportation 30 (2003): 483-501.
[28] Head Start is the largest federal program supporting early
childhood development and offers a range of services to families in
communities nationwide, including educational, medical, dental, mental
health, nutritional, and social services.
[29] To obtain more information on federal programs offering
transportation services for low-income families, see GAO,
Transportation--Disadvantaged Populations: Some Coordination Efforts
Among Programs Providing Transportation Services, but Obstacles
Persist. GAO-03-697 (Washington, D.C.: June 2003) and GAO, Welfare
Reform: Job Access Program Improves Local Service Coordination, but
Evaluation Should be Completed. GAO-03-204 (Washington, D.C.: December
2002).
[30] In 1994, Congress established Early Head Start, a program that
performs much the same function as its counterpart, Head Start, but
serves a different demographic, namely, expectant mothers as well as
infants and toddlers from birth to age three.
[31] For a summary of the implementation experiences for the programs
involved in the demonstration project, see Andrew Burwick, Vinita
Jethwani, and Alicia Meckstroth. Implementing Welfare-to-Work Programs
in Rural Places: Lessons from the Rural Welfare-to-Work Strategies
Demonstration Evaluation. Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., April
2004. The report is available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/
.
[32] The Welfare Peer Technical Assistance Network Web site is located
at http://peerta.acf.hhs.gov/.
[33] The following states within the Mississippi Delta region will be
the focus of ACF efforts to increase the number of families claiming
the EITC: Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Missouri, and Tennessee.
[34] Some experts suggest that there may be higher financial incentives
to work in rural areas than in urban areas. This is because average
incomes are lower in rural than urban areas, and since the EITC and
food stamps are the same throughout the country, families relying on
earnings plus federal benefits achieve higher relative incomes in rural
than in urban areas. See Robert Lerman, Amy-Ellen Duke, Jesse Valente.
Do Income Support Levels and Work Incentives Differ between Rural and
Urban Areas? Washington, D.C.: the Urban Institute,1999.
[35] In 2001, the Secretary of HHS initiated an HHS-wide rural
initiative by appointing a cross-department task force to explore
options and opportunities for strengthening rural America. The HHS
Rural Task Force members are charged with examining ways to improve and
enhance health care and human services for rural Americans. Among the
HHS Rural Task Force accomplishments is the establishment of the Rural
Assistance Center (RAC). RAC is an online national resource for rural
health and human services information. RAC's Web site is located at
http://www.raconline.org.
[36] For more information on the programs that provide cash assistance
using state maintenance-of-effort dollars, see GAO, Welfare Reform:
With TANF Flexibility, States Vary in How They Implement Work
Requirements and Time Limits, GAO-02-770 (Washington, D.C.: July 5,
2002).
[37] The caseload data we collected from states often differ from the
TANF caseload data the Administration for Children and Families (ACF )
reports for states because the data we collected includes MOE cases and
may have been computed using different time periods and criteria than
data used for the ACF caseload.
[38] ACF does not have TANF caseload data by county; therefore, our
reliability check was done at the state level.
[39] We considered differences of over 10 percent of the ACF data to be
significant. Examples of reasons for differences between the caseload
data we collected from states and ACF data are the use of different
time frames and criteria for computing the data.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548: