Project/Activity Number:       NC1100

Project/Activity Title: Rural Development, Work and Poverty in the North Central Region

Period Covered:                     10/1/03 to 5/30/04

Date of This Report:             5/27/04, Revised 1/3/05

Annual Meeting Date(s):      May 27, 2004

Participants:

Janet Ayres: Purdue University

Scott Loveridge: Michigan State University

Virginia Zuiker, Katherine Fennelly: University of Minnesota

Donna Hess: South Dakota State University

Gary Green: University of Wisconsin

Cornelia Flora, Mary Emery, Julie Stewart: NCRCRD at Iowa State University

Adopted Agenda:

Ř   Introductions

Ř   Overview of the committee charge

Ř   Discussion on what research is suggested as a result of this conference

Ř   Discussion on how the on-going research of the NC1100 committee might fit into these research foci

Ř   Discussion on development of a collective proposal, the focus and the possibilities

Ř   Discussion on how the on-going research of the NC1100 members can inform and add value of the work of other members

Ř   Discussion on committee make up

Brief summary of Minutes of Annual Meeting:

The NC100 meeting followed the conference presentations, thus the group was able to reflect on the findings of the presenters as they discussed plans for moving forward.  The committee organized these reflections into five clusters identifying important areas for future research including:  immigration and poverty, secondary data sources, the role of school and education as they relate to poverty in the rural Midwest, understanding the impact of poverty research on policy, and employment practices and poverty.

The committee focused on the last item as a topic of interest to all. They worked on clarifying objectives and methodologies to address community types, employer practices and impact on poverty reduction. The committee will work together to submit a collective proposal for additional funding.  While the committee members feel they are appropriate participants in this project, they will also identify additional interested faculty to join the committee.

Key Discussions:

1.      What research is suggested as a result of the conference?

Five clusters were organized to focus on our next steps and provide a structure to move forward in the following areas. Sampling was also discussed.

  • Immigration.

q       Implications of exclusion of immigrants and their children from welfare.

q       Community members’ and policy makers’ attitudes toward immigrants.

q       Integration of immigrants into communities and the role of local institutions and organization.

q       How to bring good research to the attention of policy makers.

  • Secondary data sources.

q       Need to influence surveys that are going out by making connections with those folks. Make connections with the Foundations to get their support to make change.

  • Role of school and education and how kids and families impact schools and vice versa.

q       Urban versus rural school models for education of teachers and dealing with poverty.

q       Strategies to bring college educated youth back to the community.

  • At what level do we have policy impact?

q       Identify where research has influenced policy.

q       Trace the policy impact of our research.

  • Employment, low wage work and well-being of workers.

q       Mobility – need a better understanding of how people are trapped in low-income jobs. Are they better off moving to the cities? Is commuting a path of mobility?

q       Locked in with loss of manufacturing.

q       To what degree do employers and employees benefit in adopting family-friendly policies?

 

2.      How does the on-going research of the NC1100 fit into these 5 cluster areas?

The group discussed the need to clarify the objectives and methodology of NC1100.

  • Determine the relation between community type and employer practices.
  • Determine the relation between household livelihood strategies and the context of specific employer practices by community type.
  • Determine community and policy contexts that mediate between the household and the economy for the working poor.
  • Determine the community costs and benefits of different employer types and practices in different types of communities.

 

3.      Should we consider a collective proposal?

It was agreed that we should consider a collective proposal after we recruit additional members to the committee and refine the objectives. 

We could use a focus on place, more as a labor market that is bigger than what we normally consider to be place. We could use the ERS labor market definitions (Tolbert and Siezer). We could sort out rural and urban and assign labor markets. So in terms of what we can do:

  • Identify rural labor markets in the North Central region. (Gary Green)
  • Assign labor markets to categories (not all will be assignable)
  • Select a stratified sample of labor markets in each category, making sure the participating states have at least one category.
  • Enumerate employers in labor markets (multiple data sources)
  • Sample employers
  • Develop a questionnaire
  • Gather the data
  • Match workers with the employers – do surveys of households and ask them who their employers are or were. Over sample poor neighborhoods and minorities.
  • See how households are responding to the changing conditions – poverty, health/obesity, food security

Types of questions for employers:

  • What community resources are available to the employer?
  • How does the employer relate to the community?
  • How do they view Union organizing and what is their perception of unions (based on our understanding of what is going on within each industry)?
  • What is their turnover rate and how concerned are they about this?

Types of questions for households:

  • Employment histories – how long, with whom?
  • Health status?
  • Money management practices: How do you deal with unstable incomes? Credit cards?
  • Time management: How do you deal with commuting and decision-making?

Surveying employers would strengthen the analysis in order to match workers with employers to determine how both are adjusting to conditions of the New Economy.  Matching workers with their employers would make a unique data set. Gary suggested we start with a random sample of households and ask who their employers and former employers are. Kathy commented that we will have to over sample certain groups. Gary suggested NRI as a possibility for funding, but we know they are only giving larger grants.

Strengths of the committee in going forward for a grant include:

§         Multidisciplinary

§         Multistate

§         Multi-level

§         Policy-related

 

4.      How can the on-going research of the NC1100 members best inform and add value to the work of other members?

Committee members took a few moments to share about on-going research projects and how that might inform or contribute to the NC1100 project. We will be scheduling monthly conference calls to continue this dialogue and conduct the work of the NC1100 committee.

 

 

5.      Do all those currently on the committee feel that they are appropriate participants?

The following committee members were present at the meeting and believe they are appropriate participants:

            IN – Janet Ayres (Purdue University)

            MI – Scott Loveridge (Michigan State University)

MN – Virginia Zuiker, Katherine Fennelly (University of Minnesota)

            SD – Donna Hess (South Dakota State University)

            WI – Gary Green (University of Wisconsin)     

Other participants currently listed as members of the NC 1100 committee were reviewed and possible additional participants were suggested. Cornelia Flora will begin contacting the Experiment Station directors to fill out this committee with appropriate participants.

Steve Padgitt: Iowa State University

Dick Senese: University of Minnesota

Mike Gray – anybody know him and where he’s located?

Randall Higgins – anybody know him and where he’s located?

ILLINOIS – Andy Isserman

IOWA – Cindy Anderson?

KANSAS – Forest Chumley

MISSOURI – Corrine Valdivia Jessica Ziembroski

NEBRASKA – Kathleen Prochaska-Cue, Susan Churchill

NORTH DAKOTA – Richard Rathge?

OHIO – Linda Lobao

 

Assigned Responsibilities/Deadlines/Target Dates:

§         Dr. Flora will contact Experiment Station Directors to identify potential committee members by March 1, 2002

§         Dr. Flora and Dr. Emery will summarize conference presentations and discussion and send out to all by January 15, 2004

§         Julie Stewart will set up listserve by June 15, 2004 nc-poverty@iastate.edu

      (Participants include: Linda Lobao -- lobao.1@osu.edu, Gary Green -- gpgreen@wisc.edu,

      Len Bloomquist -- bloomqui@ksu.edu, Bruce Weber -- bruce.weber@oregonstate.edu,

Katherine Fennelly -- kfennelly@hhh.umn.edu, Janet Ayres -- ayres@purdue.edu, Forest Chumley -- fchumley@oznet.ksu.edu, Michael Gray -- m-gray4@uiuc.edu, Donna Hess -- donna_hess@sdstate.edu, Randall Higgins -- rhiggins@oznet.ksu.edu, Scott Loveridge -- loverids@msue.msu.edu, -- dnelson1@unl.edu, Steve Padgitt – scpadgit@iastate.edu, Dick Senese -- dsenese@umn.edu, Mary Emery –memery@iastate.edu, Virginia Zuiker -- vzuiker@che.umn.edu, Jan Bokemeier -- bokemeie@msu.edu, Julie Stewart – jstewart@iastate.edu, Cornelia Flora – cflora@iastate.edu, Pam Cooper – pkcooper@iastate.edu.)

 

Committee members will review assignments to determine their availability by June 30.

Committee members will search for potential funding sources on an ongoing basis.

Signature:

Authorization: