Project Number: S-298 (DC98-04)

Title: Assessing Impacts of Welfare Reform on Individual, Family and Community Well-
Being in the Rural South

Duration: October 1, 2000 - September 30, 2005

Statement of the Problem:

In most Southern states, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 (PRWORA) is well beyond the initial implementation phase. In fact, many Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) recipients already have experienced interruptions in their benefits due to employment or program sanctions. Many states have reached the critical point when TANF benefits will expire and welfare reliant families will be removed from assistance programs. While the phenomenal decline in states' welfare caseloads nationwide is held up as evidence of the success of PRWORA, researchers are carefully examining the challenges faced by families making the longer-term transition from welfare reliance to employment and self-sufficiency.

The proposed project, Assessing Impacts of Welfare Reform on Individual, Family and Community Well-Being in the Rural South, will focus on former TANF recipients (including recipients in the transition to the work force), their families, and the rural communities where they live. The purpose of the study is to describe the effects of welfare reform on the targeted adult participants (usually the mothers) and their families (most typically, their children), as well as on the rural communities in which they live and seek employment. It will be carried out by a team of researchers collaborating to assess and contrast the impact of welfare reform within and across Southern states.

Justification:

Current Research Efforts

There are research efforts underway across the country to monitor the progress of former welfare recipients under the PRWORA. Collectively, these projects are characterized by a focus on urban recipients, with a heavy reliance on either small-N case study methodologies or aggregate, national-level data sets (Rural Policy Research Institute [RUPRI], 1999). However, the urban perspective of these studies may mask the unique challenges faced by rural TANF participants, and some of the methodology limits the generalizability of the findings to the diverse regions and cultures of the 50 states. Further, particular state level outcomes such as declines in caseload may be a function of both the current national economy and each state's response to the challenge of policy devolution posed by the PRWORA (Zedlewski, 1999). One recent publication notes that, "even within a group of southern states that on the surface one would expect to have... similarities, [there are] significant differences in...caseload declines" (RUPRI, 1999, p. 22). Studies examining the causes behind recent changes in welfare caseloads using annual and monthly data for all states indicate that a multitude of contributing factors including human capital, economic, demographic, political, and policy-related variables influence this dynamic (Bartik & Eberts., 1999; Blank, 1997; Council of Economic Advisors, 1999, 1997; Wallace & Blank, 1999; Zedlewski, 1999). Conclusions regarding the impact that the strong economy has had on the unprecedented, wide-spread, and continuous decline in welfare cases since 1994 vary among studies and over varying time periods evaluated. The Council of Economic Advisors (1999) estimates the impact a favorable labor market has had to be roughly 26 to 36 percent over the 1993-96 period and 8 to 10 percent in the 1996-98 period. Wallace and Blank (1999, p. 35) estimate that "at best, the ongoing decline in unemployment rates can explain about 8 to 19 percent of the AFDC caseload declines since 1994." The general conclusion from these and other studies is that a host of variables appear to have influenced caseload changes since the mid-1990s and that we are just beginning to acquire the data necessary to understand the impact of recent welfare reforms. Because each state is approaching welfare reform differently, it is difficult to evaluate caseload behavior at an aggregated national level. State-level analyses can best incorporate the specific programmatic detail to answer questions of what causes caseloads to rise and fall.

Ringquist and Garand (1999) note that "the American states are much more active in working to solve social problems...providing an excellent comparative laboratory for... patterns of policy change over time and the consequences of different policy choices" at the state level (p. 268). This laboratory exists in part due to devolution of policy mandates from the federal government to state governments and also to state governments seizing the initiative in solving problems that to date appear to have confounded national policymakers (RUPRI, 1999). In order to understand the context for the proposed research on welfare reform, it is necessary to describe the rural regions targeted for this study in terms of persistent poverty, work force participation of rural residents, labor market dynamics, and state level policies. It is also appropriate to identify micro- level factors and obstacles that may undermine TANF recipients' efforts to move from welfare reliance to wage-based self-sufficiency. Multi-state collaborative efforts are an essential and effective way to understand the nature of the policy "experimentation" currently underway in the state laboratories with regards to welfare reform.

Poverty and Welfare Program Participation in Rural Areas

Poverty is disproportionately concentrated in urban centers and in remote rural areas, but poverty research has focused on urban areas (Jensen & Tienda, 1989; Task Force, 1993). This, despite the fact that trends in poverty rates from the 1960s through the 1990s show that nonmetropolitan poverty rates surpass metropolitan poverty rates (Hoppe, 1993; Lichter & Eggebeen, 1992; RUPRI, 1999). Rural poverty overall declined from the mid-1960s to 1979, but poverty rates for all areas, including rural areas, have increased since the late 1970s. Region is also a key factor in rural poverty, with nonmetro poor citizens concentrated in the South.

The rural poor and the rural welfare recipients are more likely than their urban counterparts to be employed (RUPRI, 1999). Nearly 65% of rural poor households have at least one person in formal employment, compared to 54% of poor metro households (Deavers & Hoppe, 1992). The fact that a large proportion of rural poor are also the working poor indicates that these are marginalized low wage or part time workers (Sherman, Amey, Duffield, & Weinstein, 1998). Nonmetro poor are more likely than metro poor to be living in two-adult/married households and to be dual-worker families. However, rural areas also have experienced an increase in female- head of household employment, as well as an increase in female-headed families, a family structure known to be related to poverty (Lichter & McLaughlin, 1995).

In terms of market dynamics, rural areas have been negatively affected by the transition of the national economy from an industrial/manufacturing economy to a service and information based economy. The manufacturing industry offered relatively high wages to less educated workers, helping to decrease rural poverty rates, but the growth of the service sector economy in rural areas substituted low wage, low skill jobs (Tomaskovic-Devey, 1987; Weinberg, 1987). This shift pushed up rural poverty rates and helps explain the high proportion of the working poor in rural areas (Bloomquist, Gringeri, Tomaskovic-Devey, & Truelove, 1993; Tickameyer & Duncan, 1990). Another reason for the number of marginal jobs in rural areas is the seasonal employment common in extractive and agricultural industries (Tigges & Tootle, 1990). Additionally, women fare worse in rural economies in the South, and African-American women are more likely to be unemployed or underemployed than their white counterparts (Iceland, 1997; Lichter, 1989; RUPRI, 1999; Tickameyer & Bokemeier, 1988).

Finally, it is important to identify micro-level factors that may undermine TANF recipients' efforts to move from welfare reliance to wage-based self-sufficiency. Many early studies predicted — and then documented — the barriers to recipients' compliance with PRWORA mandates, including transportation and child care problems, limited training or educational opportunities, little or no recent work experience, limited access to health care, and a shortage of entry-level jobs. Some states responded to these problems in ways that supported the transition of welfare reliant individuals into the work force and increased their labor force attachment. However, many of these "success stories" are to be found in urban, metropolitan, or small city settings; rural and remote rural poor citizens continue to face these same barriers, with only sporadic opportunities for support.

More recent studies indicate that many women and their families remain economically vulnerable or are actually worse off during the transition from welfare to work (Loprest, 1999; Meyer & Cancian, 1998; Sherman et al., 1998). Family hardship may increase as care-giving and exchange networks are disrupted, food security diminishes, housing becomes precarious, and TANF recipients are sanctioned for failure to understand and comply with the rules.

The DC 98-04 project proposes a longitudinal study of the impact of welfare reform on welfare reliant individuals and their families as they attempt the transition off TANF and into the labor force. The purpose of the study is to describe the effects of welfare reform on the targeted adult participants (usually the mothers) and their families (most typically, their children), as well as on the rural communities in which they live and will seek employment. A unique contribution of the project is the use of research triangulation strategies that include:

compilation of a database of state administrative and other secondary data;

contextual studies of labor markets and communities;

shared quantitative methods and data analysis across states, such as mail surveys or telephone interviews, as appropriate;

shared qualitative methods, data collection instruments, and plans of analysis across states, including in-depth, face-to-face interviews of current and former program participants.

Triangulation refers to the use of a combination of methods, data, investigators, and/or theories in the study of a phenomenon, and is considered to be one of the strongest foundations for program evaluation (Patton, 1990). Seldom is a single approach or data source adequate to cover the domain of interest, particularly when that domain is a complex programmatic endeavor such as reform of the federal welfare system. Moffitt (1996) suggests that multi-method strategies are appropriate for examining the early implementation of PRWORA. Traditional quantitative methods have strong internal validity and credibility, while qualitative methods "are better suited to capturing natural program variation that occurs across different" regions and states (p. 19).

The collaborative efforts for the proposed project are characterized by explicit triangulation strategies that also help to differentiate it from other current projects. Although not every state will participate in research on every objective, states will share common methodologies for common areas of interest, and the use of triangulation strategies means that every participating state will have information to contribute to the outcomes for each objective. States will share common methods and instruments, and a set of items addressing core welfare reform issues will be developed and used as part of data collected by interviews, in each state. The Southern Rural Development Center will be the repository for all data, instruments, and analyses associated with this project. Senior scientists affiliated with the Southern Rural Development Center will be responsible for facilitating common data analyses and development of core data sets for distribution to and use by the states. These scientists also will take the lead for the development of comprehensive overview materials reporting the outcomes of the project and the implications of the findings for welfare reform issues in the South. The identified scientists span the range of disciplines included in the project and will insure interdependence of the analysis of the economic data and the social sciences data. In sum, reliance on a focal site such as the Southern Rural Development Center and use of triangulation strategies such as those described here reduces duplication of effort while using resources more efficiently to promote understanding of a complex domain such as welfare reform in the South. Triangulation strategies also magnify the generalization of findings that might otherwise have been limited due to the smaller scope of any one study.

Theoretical Perspectives:

Rural poverty studies are predominately framed in either human capital or local opportunity structure theories. The first theory explains poverty as a function of the human capital (e.g., educational attainment or work experience) individuals bring to the labor market. The second theory posits a structural explanation of poverty, emphasizing the local employment opportunity structure available to individuals (Tomaskovic-Devey, 1987). The design of this project incorporates both theoretical perspectives.

Human Capital in Rural Areas

Human capital theory suggests that an individual's skills and education are directly linked to his or her economic outcomes in the labor market. Applying this approach to rural poverty raises (at least) two important questions: 1) Do human capital factors account for the differences observed between rural and urban poverty rates? 2) Are there differential returns to human capital in rural areas? (Lichter, Beaulieu, Findeis, & Teixeira, 1993a). It is clear that many rural residents do hold less human capital than their urban counterparts, although the reasons for this are not completely clear. Shifts in family structure appear to be an obvious explanation, although poverty has a greater effect on high school attrition rates than does family structure for rural youth (Lichter, Cornwell, & Eggebeen, 1993b). In an exhaustive review of human capital studies, Lichter et al. (1993a) found that rural residents possess less human capital in terms of educational attainment, high school dropout rates, SAT scores, work-related skills, and work experience. Deficits in human capital as traditionally defined are especially notable among rural women and minorities. In addition, other evidence demonstrates that returns on human capital investments are considerably lower for rural residents compared to urban residents (Lichter et al., 1993a).

Labor Market/Opportunity Structure

Inclusion of local labor market measures in studies of rural poverty provides a bridge between the individual level human capital variables affecting poverty and the broad economic models of national and international forces affecting poverty. Tickameyer and Duncan (1990) conclude that "it is becoming clear that the socioeconomic characteristics of communities have an impact on the success of residents regardless of their own socioeconomic background"(p.80).

An underlying assumption of labor market research is that place influences the financial opportunities for individuals, by establishing the boundaries of ambitions and prospects (Tickameyer & Duncan, 1990). More recently, Lobao (1996) suggested that studies of rural place focus on "settings where the attributes of capitalism...play out unevenly" and where "the people...remain those marginalized in the course of development" (p. 80). In this regard, post- industrialist theorists predicted that shifts in the economy would reconfigure the structure of the job market away from manufacturing, agriculture, mining and timber to information and technology markets, as well as to the service sector economy. Some argued industrial restructuring would "raise the bar" of skills and wages for all workers, while others argued that a service sector economy would create a two tiered system, with disproportionately more workers earning lower wages. As industrial restructuring occurred, rural areas were disproportionately affected, in large part because of the economic base of agriculture, mining, timber, and some manufacturing. Additionally, industrial restructuring and an increase of displaced workers brings groups such as women and minorities into competition with displaced white males (Gorham, 1992). The number of working poor and marginal workers in rural areas provides further evidence that the relationship between work and poverty is becoming increasingly complex (Lichter, Johnson, & McLaughlin, 1994).

In summary, while structural and individual explanations of poverty each provide useful insights to the problem of poverty, contemporary scientists call for an integration of both perspectives in the research on rural poverty (Task Force, 1993). Rural poverty is not only a deficit of human capital, but also a lack of good jobs paying a living wage (Lichter et al., 1993a). Unfortunately, welfare reform legislation almost always emphasized changing individuals and their human capital, with less attention given to the fallout of industrial restructuring. Addressing poverty from either one or the other theoretical perspective is overly simplistic and may not generate an adequate explanation for rural poverty. The design of this project incorporates both theoretical perspectives in an attempt to remedy that gap in the literature on and our understanding of poverty.

Rationale for Cooperative Multi-state Project:

We propose a collaborative multi-state research effort focused upon the unique concerns and structural problems of TANF recipients residing in rural areas, and in particular, in the rural South. This region is significant to understanding the effects of welfare reform for three reasons. First, the greatest proportion of our nation's rural poor live in the South. Second, the rural South contains the largest percentage of families dependent upon government assistance. Finally, the South has the largest number of rural counties that remain economically depressed in spite of a booming national economy. With these socioeconomic and structural challenges as the backdrop, researchers and policy makers need to understand how implementation of PRWORA plays out in the rural South. This project proposes to enhance that understanding through a team of researchers studying their respective states, sharing methodology, data and data analyses, and information across states, and observing patterns of similarities and differences in outcomes for TANF families and local communities.

Related CRIS Studies and Previous Work:

A review of studies in the Current Research Information System (CRIS) identified one multi- state project and several NRI and state projects related to the proposed project. The newly formed NC-223, Rural Low-Income Families: Tracking Their Well-Being and Functioning in the Context of Welfare Reform, relates most closely to the proposed project. The objectives of NC-
223 are to track over time the well-being of rural low-income families in the context of welfare reform. As such, NC-223 and the current project both address the impact of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 on a primarily rural population. They differ in that the project proposed herein focuses on the rural south, a region with some of the highest rates of welfare reliance, poverty, unemployment, and underemployment in the nation (Cook & Dagata, 1997). The proposed project emphasizes linkages between welfare reliance and regional economic performance, an issue identified by recent studies (Bartik & Eberts, 1999; Blank, 1997) to be of critical importance as policymakers attempt to predict future caseloads at the national, state, and local levels. Secondly, emphasis on asset mapping of both TANF recipients and the communities in which they reside will assess how communities with differing underlying conditions are addressing this new generation of state- and local-based welfare reform measures. A Mississippi study funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (Beaulieu, Howell, Brister, Berry, & Reinschmiedt, 1998) suggests an "asset mapping" protocol to identify the assets of TANF participants and link them to assets of the local community in which they live.

In research focusing on labor markets, scientists at ERS were awarded a NRI competitive grant (No. 98-35401-6200) to measure the number and growth rate of low-wage, low-skill jobs in rural U.S. labor markets. In that study, researchers are identifying counties where mismatches may occur between low-skill workers and available jobs at the national level. Additionally, Howell (1997) estimated the capacity of Mississippi's labor markets to absorb TANF recipients leaving welfare rolls. Both of these studies will offer insight into methods for studying the labor market absorption capacity of local labor markets.

In another NRI study (MOR-9801603), Pandey and Porterfield at Washington University are monitoring the impacts of welfare reform on rural, low-income single mother families in rural Missouri over three years to identify key factors affecting their transition from welfare to work. While this study focuses on single mother families, their survey instruments and focus group protocols will be evaluated for their potential relevance to the primary data collection procedures used in this project.

Objectives:

Research scientists and Extension professionals will participate in this project by gathering data toward any one or more of the following objectives:

1.	Identify the linkages between changes in rural welfare caseloads and the performance of regional economies in the rural South.

2.	Identity the set of assets that TANF participants possess that translate into marketable job activities and how these match projected workforce needs in the rural South. A related component of this objective concerns the extent to which critical support services are available to TANF recipients to facilitate their transition into the labor force.

3.	Identify the micro-level obstacles faced by TANF recipients as they attempt to move from welfare reliance to wage-based self-sufficiency, and the impact on family functioning of compliance with PRWORA mandates.

Table 1 at the end of this document summarizes the participation of scientists who are committed to this project.

Procedures:

Objective 1: Identify the linkages between changes in rural welfare caseloads and the performance of regional economies in the rural South.

Rationale: Both the changes in incentives to remain on welfare after the PRWORA and the robust growth of the national economy since 1993 contributed to reductions in welfare caseloads. From January 1993 to June 1998, state changes ranged from an 84% decline in Wyoming to a 39% increase in Hawaii. Researchers in three southern states (KY, MS, and SC) found substantial differences in rates of caseload change in rural and urban counties in each state. Importantly, rural areas are thought to have unique conditions that make positive outcomes from welfare reform more difficult to obtain than in urban areas. For example, rural public transit is often nonexistent while most urban places provide public bus service. Rural areas are also likely to have residents that are geographically isolated from growing urban centers of new employment opportunity. Employment opportunities at wages exceeding an individual's shadow wage (opportunity cost of labor market participation) may be more limited in rural areas as well. So we might expect caseload reductions to be smaller in rural areas than in urban areas given the same change in incentives to leave welfare under TANF. If so, rural areas may warrant special assistance in terms of transit subsidies, or in programs providing job information and training. Indeed, proposals announced Jan. 25, 1999 by the President contain $580 million for housing and transportation assistance for families moving from welfare to work (see Landini, 1998).

Key Questions: There is a surprising gap in research into the determinants of welfare caseload changes over time and places (Blank, 1997; Wallace & Blank, 1999). To identify the determinants of change in rural welfare caseloads, the literature suggests consideration of three key issues:

1.	To what extent do higher unemployment rates signal difficulty for welfare clients in local job searches?

2.	Are the incentives to leave welfare in the TANF program working?

3.	If caseloads in a county contain a high percentage of child recipients, are case reductions less responsive to improved local economic conditions?

Methods

1. Some determinants of welfare caseload changes for counties (and urban/rural county subsets) can be identified using a fixed effects model (with county and time controls) for a panel of counties in each state. (See Blank, 1997 for a discussion of models of caseload change). For example,

1. Some determinants of welfare caseload changes for counties (and urban/rural county subsets) can be identified using a fixed effects model (with county and time controls) for a panel of counties in each state. (See Blank, 1997 for a discussion of models of caseload change). For example,

where,

Cases i,t = log of the number of households (not recipients) on AFDC/TANF in county i in time period t. (monthly from Jan., 1990 to most recent).

U i, t-n = log of the unemployment rate in county i in time periods t-n where n=3. The unemployment rate over the three prior months is a proxy measure for the strength of the local economy. The contemporaneous unemployment rate is not used to avoid problems with simultaneity bias from the change in caseloads feeding back into the contemporaneous unemployment rate.

TANF i, t = A dummy variable to reflect when the new welfare program incentives were implemented in each county.

Child i, t = log of the ratio of children AFDC/TANF recipients to total AFDC/TANF recipients in county i and time period t.

Metro i = A dummy variable for metropolitan counties:

RurAdj i = A dummy variable for nonmetropolitan counties adjacent to a metropolitan county.

, , , = unknown regression parameters;

= random disturbance term.

2. In addition to the causal factors noted above, other determinants of caseload changes can be identified from specific characteristics of the local labor market -- wage offers, skill requirements, effectiveness of job training and transportation and child care infrastructure. Each of these characteristics may affect the reservation wage needed to induce a person to seek employment in the local economy. Simply interpreted, the reservation wage is that amount that at least generates income equal to the benefits earned by individuals on public assistance. It is conceivable that all the work-related costs (transportation, child care, clothing, etc.) incurred by the employee result in a situation where they would be financially worse off working than if they continued on welfare. For example, lack of public transit in rural counties suggests that low-income households in rural areas will need higher wages than urban counterparts for similar jobs to adjust for the higher cost of rural transport to nearby jobs. Heckman models will be estimated that use a two-stage regression procedure to estimate the unobserved reservation wage and its key determinants. Public Use Micro Survey data from the Census (1990 and 2000) for urban and rural areas of the South can be used for these models. Results from these models can be used to estimate benefits accruing to rural households from public assistance for transportation, child care, and related needs.

Collaboration: Scientists will develop questionnaires and protocol guidelines to be used by researchers in each state to assure collection of consistent, comparable data across states. Scientists will develop analytical tools and evaluation procedures to guarantee consistency across states for maximum cross-state comparability. In addition to examining within state analyses, pooling data across states will enable researchers to determine both county- and state-level effects. Each state in the project is represented on this objective except Florida and Puerto Rico. Although no agricultural economists have joined the project from Florida and Puerto Rico at present, agricultural economists or other scientists, as appropriate, in Florida and Puerto Rico will be recruited to join the project. Lacking such participation, the present team of scientists will attempt to collect and analyze core data on this objective from Florida and Puerto Rico so that a complete picture of the project region can be obtained. Scientists will develop a common report of the findings with implications for welfare reform in the South. The Southern Rural Development Center will be the repository for this effort, coordinated by Reinschmiedt.

Participants: Virginia (B. Mills, Agricultural Economics); Louisiana (J. Singleman, Rural Sociology); Mississippi (L. Reinschmiedt, Agricultural Economics); Kentucky (J. Zimmerman, Rural Sociology); South Carolina (M. Henry, Agricultural Economics)

Objective 2: Identity the set of assets that TANF participants possess that translate into marketable job activities and how these assets match projected workforce needs in the rural South. A related component of this concerns the extent to which critical support services are available to TANF recipients to facilitate their transition into the labor force.

Rationale: Across communities, underlying conditions differ in ways that may significantly influence the effects of welfare reform. For example, unemployment levels, types of firms, local economic diversity, housing, transportation, child care availability, and health services vary from community to community. The devolution of program design and responsibility from federal to state and local levels has created a decentralized system of benefits, services, and program structures that often differ significantly among states and communities. Because community and local conditions vary, it is difficult to address the questions set forth in Objective 2 with state level analyses. Evaluations that consider community conditions and program components are needed to enhance our understanding of this new generation of state- and local-based welfare reform measures.

Key Questions: Much of the national attention on the progress of welfare reform has focused on the dramatic decline in TANF caseload numbers, with the implication that moving people off welfare rolls is a measure of success. However, little is known about TANF recipients about to leave welfare, or of those who have already left. In particular:

1.	What set(s) of assets do TANF participants possess that translate into marketable job activities?

2.	What is the composition of jobs available or being created in the community?

3.	What are the projected labor force needs of firms within the community and to what extent do the skills of local TANF recipients match those needs?

4.	What are the critical support services identified by rural TANF recipients as they attempt to exit the welfare program and what, if any, support services are available to TANF recipients in their communities?

Methods:

Community Selection. A typology created by the Economic Research Service, USDA (Ghelfi & Parker, 1997) will be used to classify counties into categories reflecting the degree of urban influence. This typology, referred to as "urban influence codes," classifies all counties in the United States into nine categories based on, in the case of metro counties, the size of the MSA in the county, and for nonmetro counties the adjacency to MSAs and size of the largest city in the county. For purposes of this analysis the nine urban influence codes will be consolidated to form three county designations: 1) metro counties; 2) nonmetropolitan counties adjacent to counties with an urban area; and 3) nonmetropolitan counties not adjacent to a county with an urban area1. This grouping, in part, captures the unique demographic, economic, and geographic characteristics that differentiate rural and urban areas.

Recipient and Community Asset Mapping. Knowledge of the social assets possessed by welfare recipients and those assets imbedded in the communities in which they live is of critical importance to successful welfare-to-work transitions. Demographic profiles (e.g., TANF status, education, work experience and skills, age, race, family type, etc.) of TANF beneficiaries will be identified using administrative data from state departments of human services and survey data as appropriate. Asset mapping also calls for an inventory and analysis of community assets — the skills and talents attributable to people, organizations, and institutions within the community that can facilitate action (Kretzmann & McKnight, 1993). The "asset mapping" approach will serve as a primary instrument for identifying these factors in the selected LMAs. The result of this prototype effort will be evaluated for its usefulness and ultimately to determine whether the model can or should be replicated on a statewide scale.

Job Opportunities. A key aspect of this component of the project is to analyze the spatial distribution of economic opportunities in the LMA with an emphasis on full-time jobs for which welfare recipients are likely to be competitive. Additionally, we should be able to say something about the characteristics of those jobs. Depending on data availability and access, this analysis may rely upon multiple data sources. Of particular interest would be an analysis based on linked administrative data, such as state departments of employment, local business surveys, or national secondary sources such as County Business Pattern or ES202 data. Ideally information on existing job opportunities, the physical location of these jobs, their SIC codes, educational requirements, and pay levels would be collected. A key result of this portion of the study will be an in-depth assessment of the skills that TANF recipients have and how these skills match current or potential jobs in the selected communities.

Critical Support Services. Research has documented some of the barriers to exiting welfare program participation and entering the labor force for welfare recipients. However, less is known about the spatial distribution of these and other services needed to move TANF recipients into the workforce, and about rural residents' own perceptions of these barriers. Data from multiple sources will be used to assess the extent to which critical support services (e.g., child care or public transit services) are available in the communities and secondly, to determine the spatial distribution of those services. To the extent that adequate descriptor information is available these data will be geocoded into a GIS framework which would identify the location of worksites, childcare facilities, and residence. This spatial representation would identify the logistical conditions and impediments facing TANF recipients in their efforts to make the transition from welfare to work.

Collaboration: Scientists will develop questionnaires and protocol guidelines to be used by researchers in each state to assure collection of consistent, comparable data across states. Survey instruments and research methods developed by Mississippi State University scientists for a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families planning grant will be used as the initial starting point. From these, scientists will develop analytical tools and evaluation procedures to guarantee consistency across states for maximum cross-state comparability. Scientists will pool data for aggregate analysis as appropriate. Each state in the project is represented on this objective except Virginia and Kentucky. Agricultural economists or other scientists, as appropriate, in Virginia and Kentucky will be recruited to participate on this objective. Lacking such participation, the present team of scientists will attempt to collect and analyze core data on this objective from Virginia and Kentucky so that a complete picture of the project region can be obtained. Scientists will develop a common report of the findings with implications for welfare reform in the South. The Southern Rural Development Center will be the repository for this effort, coordinated jointly by Reinschmiedt, Marsh, and Beaulieu.

Participants: Mississippi (L. Beaulieu, Rural Sociology; L.Reinschmiedt, Agricultural Economics), Puerto Rico (E. Droz, Rural Sociology), Louisiana (F. Deseran, Rural Sociology; J. Singleman, Rural Sociology; P. Munke, Social Work), Florida (E. Bolton, Cooperative Extension), South Carolina (J. Marsh, Social Welfare Policy)

Objective 3: Identify the micro-level obstacles faced by TANF recipients as they attempt to move from welfare reliance to wage-based self-sufficiency, and the impact of compliance with PRWORA mandates on family functioning.

Rationale: Many welfare recipients and former recipients report at least one obstacle to their long-term success in the labor force. After the initial declines in state welfare caseloads, the remaining individuals may need intensive levels of support and resources if they, too, are to make a successful transition to wage-based self sufficiency. Recent research suggests that it is not just employment obstacles, but a pile-up of multiple, severe, persistent, individual-level problems that can impede employment success (Zedlewski, 1999). In fact, many persons with multiple obstacles are in compliance with PRWORA mandates only by engaging in work-seeking activities at this time, and are not yet employed or employable.

It is increasingly clear that not only will these obstacles vary across individuals, but they will vary across states as well, with rural regions particularly vulnerable (Zedlewski, 1999). Furthermore, states that were still operating an AFDC-style program, with less emphasis on work activities, at the time of the PRWORA enactment will have to invest much higher levels of resources to bring their relatively disadvantaged welfare reliant population into compliance (Zedlewski, 1999). The region identified for this study includes states that were well into this work emphasis program early in the welfare reform process and other states that lagged behind. Examination of across-state programs, policies, and implementation strategies will be an important component of our assessment of family outcomes and well-being.

Researchers also are beginning to uncover and document some unexpected consequences and outcomes of TANF recipients' efforts to comply with program mandates. These outcomes potentially may have a negative impact on long-term child well-being and family functioning. Studies suggest that compliance leaves many women and their children facing a myriad of complex issues like increased family stress, work efforts, child care and child nurturance, accessibility to other government benefits, food insecurity, and health care (Meyer & Cancian, 1998; Parrott, 1998; Sherman et al., 1998; Zedlewski, 1999). In fact some concrete measures of well-being already show that many families are worse off (e.g., access to food, health care, housing, childcare) than they were before PRWORA regulations were implemented. Meyer and Cancian (1998) report that "a substantial number of women and their families remain economically vulnerable even after they leave [welfare]." Additionally, some women are having difficulty grasping PRWORA regulations, resulting in unnecessary suffering for their families (Sherman et al., 1998).

Key Questions: In view of the potentially serious ramifications of the foregoing issues, we identified the following research questions:

1.	What are the personal obstacles faced by welfare reliant individuals in their efforts to gain and retain employment? What factors and conditions mitigate such obstacles and enhance families' chances for success and self-sufficiency?

2.	What management strategies of their available material resources do these families use during the transition period from welfare reliance to wage-based self-sufficiency?

3.	What are some of the consequences of welfare reform mandates on child and family outcomes for former recipients who are employed, unemployed, or sanctioned? What are former recipients' perceptions of their well-being?

Methods:

Obstacles to Employment Success; Ameliorating Factors. Many welfare recipients and former recipients report at least one potential barrier to their labor force participation, and some individuals report multiple, severe obstacles. Despite personal and structural obstacles, many people do work and many welfare recipients are making a successful transition into the laborforce. What are the obstacles faced by welfare recipients and how do the obstacles multiply in their severity? What are the circumstances and factors that support the families that, despite such obstacles, make a successful transition to employment? In addition to the community factors discussed in Objective 2, individual and family capital are also important facilitators of welfare reliant individuals' transition into wage-based employment. Methods used to assess individual and family obstacles and resources will include in-depth, semi-structured and qualitative interviews, either face-to-face or by telephone. The interview protocol will be developed in collaborative fashion and shared by the researchers in the participating states. The target subject is the female recipient/mother, and variables of interest include her age and educational level; her marital status and relationship history with the father(s) of her children, including any history of domestic violence; her children, their ages and health status; her physical and mental health status as well as her access to health care for herself and her family; whether there are any other adults in her home and whether/how these adults contribute in any way to her family's survival; her history of welfare program participation; current income; her work history and recency of paid work, and whether she has any on-site work support and mentoring if she is currently employed; her interpersonal support systems (friends and family), and her personal attitudes toward government/political alienation.

Material Resources and Management Strategies. In order to document fully TANF recipients' transition from welfare to work, it is important to assess the adequacy of families' material well- being, family resources, and community resources, and to identify family management strategies for "making ends meet." This information will be obtained via in-depth interviews as well. In addition to the foregoing, items of particular interest include: food access and food security; access to community food banks and pantries; perceived wage sufficiency and income security; off-the-books work; housing security and adequacy; and exchange relationships and networks among family, kin, friends, and community.

Welfare Reform and Child and Family Outcomes. TANF recipients' compliance with program mandates may disrupt care-giving networks in ways that have lasting negative outcomes for children and families. In the past, these women may have chosen survival strategies that allowed balancing work with family and community obligations. Poor rural women piece together reciprocal survival strategies based on work, welfare, and families and kin. They disrupt these networks at their own peril, because these strategies are among the chief ways they "make ends meet," both materially and psychologically, for themselves and their children (Edin & Lein, 1997; Stack, 1974). We propose to describe these family care-giving and support networks, and monitor changes, if any, in selected child and family outcomes. Methods will include primarily qualitative interviews. Measures of family well-being and outcomes will include: family stability; family care-giving, elder care; domestic violence and substance abuse; and child outcomes such as truancy and other status offenses, health and physical well-being, grades, care giving and attachment, and foster care.

Collaboration: Scientists working on this objective will collaborate to develop a common interview instrument with core items designed to measure the key variables of interest on this objective. Use of a semi-structured qualitative interview instrument allows for flexibility while also imposing some degree of standardization in the data collection. Each state will target the same research participant, i.e., the female welfare recipient (former recipient)/mother. Data on each of the variables of interest (identified above) will be collected in each participating state. Previously developed instruments will be incorporated into the interview plan. For example, the USDA has a brief form of a food security module that will be used in each state; similar brief modules have been identified and can be incorporated into the interview to measure physical health and well-being, child abuse and neglect, attitudes toward government/political alienation, support networks, and strategies for self-provisioning, to name a few. Participating scientists will use the same plan of analysis for quantitative data thus collected, and will collaborate on common strategies for understanding and reporting qualitative data collected through these interviews. Scientists will share their findings across states and will develop a common report of the findings with implications for welfare reform in the South. Each state in the project is represented on this objective except Mississippi, Kentucky, and Puerto Rico. Social scientists in these states and Puerto Rico will be recruited to join the project. Lacking such participation, the present team of scientists will attempt to identify any existing secondary data on this objective from Mississippi, Kentucky, and Puerto Rico so that a complete picture of the project region can be obtained. The Southern Rural Development Center will be the repository for this effort, coordinated by Monroe.

Participants: Louisiana (F. Deseran, Rural Sociology; J. Singleman, Rural Sociology; P. Munke, Social Work; P. Monroe, Human Ecology), Florida (E. Bolton, Cooperative Extension; D. Worthen,), South Carolina (J. Marsh, Social Welfare Policy)

Expected Outcomes:

Research results will be disseminated through multiple outlets. A primary outlet for general overall findings will be through regional publication bulletins. In addition to peer reviewed journals and professional meeting presentations, researchers in each state will utilize the appropriate experiment station and extension publication formats available to them.

Outcomes from this project will increase understanding of the dynamics of welfare caseload changes and the impacts of PRWORA on individuals, families, and communities. Specifically, the research will provide a better understanding of:

•	Welfare caseload dynamics in relation to local economic conditions.

•	Causes and consequences of decisions made by individual states concerning welfare spending during periods of economic expansion and contraction.

•	Differential impacts of PRWORA on rural and urban areas and explain causal factors for those differences where they exist.

•	Factors (job skills, transportation, child care, community support mechanisms, etc.) contributing to successful transition into the market economy.

Consequences of compliance with welfare reform mandates on child well-being and family functioning.

Policies that support families' transitions from welfare reliance to wage-based self sufficiency.

The effect of welfare reform policies on the Southern region of the U.S. in comparison to other regions of the U.S.

Organization:

The project will be guided by a Technical Committee which will be composed of one scientist representing each participating entity. The Administrative Advisor and the CSREES Representative will be non-voting members of the Technical Committee. The Technical Committee officers shall be a Chair and a Secretary who will be elected annually by the Technical Committee. All voting members of the Technical Committee are eligible to serve in these offices. The duties of the Chair are: In consultation with the administrative adviser, notify the Technical Committee members of the time and place of meetings, prepare the agenda, and preside at meetings of the Technical Committee, and prepare or supervise preparation of the annual report of the regional project. The duties of the Secretary are: Record minutes and perform other duties as assigned by the Technical Committee or the Administrative Adviser. If deemed necessary, an Executive Committee composed of the Chair, the Secretary, the Administrative Advisor, and the CSREES Advisor will be formed to conduct critical business of the Technical Committee between meetings and subcommittees of the Technical Committee may be formed to carry out specific assignments related to the conduct of the research.

OBJECTIVE	RESOURCES
NAME	DISCIPLINE	1	2	3	SY	PY	TY
Virginia AES	Mills, Brad	Agricultural Economics	X	0.15	---	0.10
Puerto Rico AES	Droz, Edna	Rural Sociology	X	0.10	---	---
South Carolina AES	Henry, Mark	Agricultural Economics	X	X	0.25	0.50	---
South Carolina AES	Marsh, Janet	Social Welfare Policy	X	X	0.25	---	---
Louisiana AES	Deseran, Andy	Rural Sociology	X	X	0.10	---	---
Louisiana AES	Singelmann, Joachim	Rural Sociology	X	X	0.20	0.30	---
Louisiana AES	Monroe, Pam	Human Ecology	X	0.10	---	0.10
S. E. Louisiana Univ.	Munke, Peggy	Social Work/Sociology	X	0.05	---	---
Florida AES	Bolton, Elizabeth	Leadership Development	X	X	0.05	---	---
Florida A&M Univ.	Worthen, Dreamal	Rural Sociology	X	X	0.10	---	0.10
Mississippi AES	Reinschmiedt, Lynn	Agricultural Economics	X	X	0.20	0.50	---
SRDC	Beaulieu, Lionel (1)	Rural Sociology	X	---	---	---
Kentucky AES	Zimmerman, Julie	Rural Sociology	X	0.15	---	---

(1) Dr. Beaulieu will serve as a consultant to the project with no formal time commitment. Dr. William H. Brown will serve as the project's Administrative Advisor.

References

Bartik, T. J. & Eberts, R.W. (1999). Examining the effect of industry trends and structure on welfare caseloads. W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, Working Paper WP 99-054.

Beaulieu, L. J., Howell, F. M., Brister, B., Berry, R., & Reinschmiedt, L. L. (1998). Rural welfare to work in Mississippi: The challenges of urban influence. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Children and Families, OPRE Grant Award: 80PL0008/01.

Blank, R. M. (1997). What causes public assistance caseloads to grow? National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper #6343, Cambridge, MA.

Bloomquist, L.E., Gringeri, C., Tomaskovic-Devey, D., & Truelove, C. (1993). Work structures and rural poverty. (pp. 64-105) in Rural Sociological Society Task Force on Persistent Rural Poverty (ed.), Persistent Poverty in Rural America. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Cook, P.J., & Dagata, E.M. (1997) Welfare reform legislation poses opportunities and challenges for rural America. Rural Conditions and Trends. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Vol. 8(1).

Council of Economic Advisors. (1997). Explaining the decline in welfare receipts. Available on-line: http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/CEA/Welfare/Technical_Report.html.

Council of Economic Advisors. (1999). The effects of welfare policy and the economic expansion on welfare caseloads: An update. Available on-line: http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/CEA/html/welfare/

Deavers, K.L., & Hoppe, R.A. (1992). Overview of the rural poor in the 1980s. (pp.3-20) in C. Duncan (ed.), Rural Poverty in America. New York: Auburn House.

Edin, K., & Lein, L. (1997). Making ends meet: How single mothers survive welfare and low-wage work. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Ghelfi, L., & Parker, T. (1997). A county-level measure of urban influence. Rural Development Perspectives. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Vol. 12(2).

Gorham, L. (1992). The growing problem of lower earnings in rural areas. (pp. 21-39) in C. Duncan (ed.), Rural Poverty in America. New York: Auburn House.

Hoppe, R. (1993). Poverty in rural America: Trends and demographic characteristics. (pp. 20-38) in Rural Sociological Society Task Force on Persistent Rural Poverty (ed.), Persistent Poverty in Rural America. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Howell, F. M. (1997). Mississippi Welfare Reform & Labor Market Capacity. Social Science Research Center, Special Report Series, Mississippi State University. Available on-line: http://www.ssrc.msstate.edu/

Iceland, J. (1997). Urban labor markets and individual transitions out of poverty. Demography, 3, 429-441.

Jensen, L., & Tienda, M. (1989). Nonmetropolitan minority families in the United States: Trends in racial and ethnic stratification, 1959-1986. Rural Sociology, 54, 509-532.

Kretzmann, J.P., & McKnight, J.L. (1993). Building communities from the inside out: A path toward finding and mobilizing a community's assets. ACTA Publications.

Landini, M. (1998). Workforce Investment Act of 1998. US Department of Labor.

Lichter, D. (1989). Race, employment hardship, and inequality in the American nonmetropolitan south. American Sociological Review, 54, 436-446.

Lichter, D., Beaulieu, L., Findeis, J., & Teixeira, R. (1993a). Human capital, labor supply, and poverty in rural America. (pp. 39-67) in Rural Sociological Society Task Force on Persistent Rural Poverty (ed.), Persistent Poverty in Rural America. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Lichter, D.T., Cornwell, G.T., & Eggebeen, D.J. (1993b). Harvesting human capital: Family structure and education among rural youth. Rural Sociology, 58, 53-75.

Lichter, D.T., & Eggebeen, D. (1992). Child poverty and the changing rural family. Rural Sociology, 57, 151-72.

Lichter, D.T., Johnson, G.M., & McLaughlin, D.K. (1994). Changing linkages between work and poverty in rural America. Rural Sociology, 59, 395-415.

Lichter, D.T., & McLaughlin, D. (1995). Changing economic opportunities, family structure, and poverty in rural areas. Rural Sociology, 60, 688-706.

Lobao, L. (1996). A sociology of the periphery versus a peripheral sociology: Rural sociology and the dimension of space. Rural Sociology, 61, 77-102.

Loprest, P. (1999). How families that left welfare are doing: A national picture. The Urban Institute New Federalism Project, series B, no.1.

Meyer, D. R., & Cancian, M. (1998). Economic well-being following an exit from Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 479-492.

Moffitt, R.A. (1996). Evaluating the new state welfare reforms. Focus, 18(1), 18-24.

Pandey, S. & Porterfield, S.L. (1998). Rural single mothers' coping strategies under welfare reform. NRI Competitive Grant Award: 98-35401-6263.

Parrott, S. (1998). Welfare recipients who find jobs: What do we know about their employment and earnings? Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park: Sage.

Ringquist, E.J. & Garand, J.C. (1999). Policy change in the American states. (p268-299). In Weber, R.E. & Brace, P. (Eds). American state and local politics: Directions for the 21st century. New York: Chatham House.

Rural Policy Research Institute [RUPRI]. 1999. Rural American and welfare reform: An overview assessment. Available on-line: http://www.rupri.org/pubs/archive/old/welfare/

p99-3/index.html

Sherman, A., Amey, C., Duffield, B., & Weinstein, D. (1998). Welfare to what: Early findings on family hardship and well-being. Washington D.C.: Children's Defense Fund and National Coalition for the Homeless.

Stack, C. (1974). All our kin. New York: Harper & Row.

Task Force. (1993). Persistent Poverty in Rural America. Boulder, CO: Westview

Tickameyer, A.R., & Bokemeier, J. (1988). Sex differences in labor market experiences. Rural Sociology, 53, 166-189.

Tickameyer, A.R., & Duncan, C. (1990). Poverty and opportunity structure in rural America. Annual Review of Sociology, 16, 67-86.

Tigges, L.M., & Tootle, D.M. (1990). Labor supply, labor demand, and men's underemployment in rural and urban labor markets. Rural Sociology, 55, 328-56.

Tomaskovic-Devey, D. (1987). Labor markets, industrial structure, and poverty: A theoretical discussion and empirical example. Rural Sociology, 52, 56-74.

Wallace, G., & Blank, R.M. (1999). What goes up must come down? Explaining recent changes in public assistance caseloads. Paper prepared for the conference, Welfare Reform and the Macroeconomy, Joint Center for Poverty Research.

Weinberg, D.H. (1987). Rural pockets of poverty. Rural Sociology, 52, 398-408.

Zedlewski, S. (1999).Work-related activities and limitations of current welfare recipients. The Urban Institute New Federalism Project, July, 99-06.

Assessing Impacts of Welfare Reform on

Individual, Family and Community Well-Being in the Rural South

s/ William H. Brown, LA	7/31/00

______________________________________________________________	_______________

Administrative Advisor	Date

s/ Vance H. Watson by T. J. Helms, Executive Director	7/31/00

______________________________________________________________	_______________

Chair, Southern Association of Agricultural Experiment Station Directors	Date

_______________________________________________________________	________________

Administrator, Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service	Date