Project Title: Rural Low-Income Families: Tracking their Well-Being and Function in an Era of Welfare Reform

Duration: October 1, 2003 to September 30, 2008

Statement of the Issue(s) and Justification: Rural communities and families have unique issues and needs compared to their urban counterparts. While poverty rates dropped in rural areas during the 1990s, they were consistently higher than those for urban areas (U.S. Census, 2001b), and persistent, long-term poverty is much more common for rural families than urban families (Deavers & Hoppe, 1992; Imig, Bokemeier, Keefe, Struthers, & Imig, 1997). Furthermore, although rural areas experienced employment gains during the economic boom of the late 1990s, unemployment rates remained higher than in metropolitan areas.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is recognizing the uniqueness of rural America as evidenced through the Rural Task Force Report to the Secretary, released in July 2002. This report noted that assumptions behind the 1996 Welfare Reform legislation did not take into consideration conditions in rural areas. Poor families in rural areas are not able to easily move off of federal assistance into the labor force. Low wages in rural areas mean that rural workers are less able to become economically self-sufficient through employment. Most rural poor families have workers who are employed at either low wages or at less-than-full-time, if not both. Those who leave welfare for work in rural areas are unlikely to find jobs that allow them to adequately support their families. Finally, states’ provision of supplemental services, such as childcare and transportation, is complicated by the geographic dispersion of people, jobs, and services in rural America, resulting in employment supports that are difficult to find, if available at all (HHS Rural Task Force, 2002; Dolan, Braun, Prochaska-Cue & Varcoe, forthcoming; Duncan, Whitener, & Weber, 2002).

Health concerns are distinct, also. Nationally, death rates are higher in rural counties for children and young adults. Rural residents have a higher incidence of certain types of heart disease, have more activity limitations due to chronic health problems, and a higher suicide rate. The paucity of health care providers, especially dentists and mental health providers, and lower incidence of health insurance coverage, result in poorer health outcomes for rural residents (Eberhardt, Ingram, & Makuc, et al., 2001; HHS Rural Task Force, 2002).

In rural areas, family life is at the core of the rural community. The functioning of the family is important not only to the immediate family, but also to the well-being and viability of the rural community. Tracking changes in rural families across time is vital in the face of changing economic conditions and federal and state policies related to public assistance. The dearth of data on rural families’ post-welfare-reform well-being continues with regard to food security and use of support systems. This proposed project will add to the multidimensional understanding of rural low-income families over time.

NC223 team of researchers has built primary longitudinal data on the context and functioning of rural low-income families related to changes in policy. The team is poised to look at families in the changing economic environment in rural areas. The data from the 2000 Census are becoming available for rural counties at the very time that the team is ready to match them with the primary family data. The data on the adjustments families have made in response to their changing economic environments is very rich. Data from two waves of interviews from 14 of the original participating states encompassing 27 counties are ready to use for longitudinal analyses. The third wave of interview data should be available by the end of next year. The analyses of these data will advance the knowledge about rural low-income family functioning in the context of changing welfare policies and within the circumstances of their communities.

The multidisciplinary team has already forged a large multi-state effort in the NC223 project with five years of experience working together. The team, made possible by the multi-state alliance, consists of family scientists, family economists, nutritional scientists, psychologists, and sociologists. Furthermore, a number of extension specialists are project leaders or co-project leaders in many of the states. Extension specialists are key players in translating the findings of this research into content programs that will enhance the lives of rural families in underserved and underrepresented communities. The multi-state, multidisciplinary approach allows us to better understand the many facets and complexities faced by rural low-income families within the context of their communities. The majority of the team is poised to continue with some minor personnel changes and additions.

The ethnic diversity of rural families and the resource diversity of our states and regions have been captured in our primary data, a perspective that could not have been possible without the multi-state alliance. The multi-state project allows us to see the commonalities across states, as well as the individual characteristics and great variety among the rural communities. We have data to address both.

The planned research project will bring to fruition the significant investment by many states’ Agricultural Experiment Stations (AES). The large primary data set has been collected and analyses have just begun. Participating families have given their time and insight, and researchers have invested their time and resources collecting the data. The payoff for state and national policy makers, local practitioners and program planners is just beginning. The consequence of not having this project go forward is a lost opportunity to highlight AES-sponsored work to policy makers. Another, and even more significant, result of not continuing the work is the ongoing reliance by policy makers on an urban model of social welfare, employment and economic self-sufficiency for all families to the detriment of rural families and communities.

An extensive review of the literature was completed for the NC223 proposal. The literature review here is limited to new studies and reporting the findings of the current research project. For a relatively comprehensive review of literature on welfare reform and rural families, see Zimmerman (2001).

The Rural Policy Research Institute (RUPRI) has focused attention on welfare issues in rural America. The conclusion from RUPRI reports is that poverty is more of a rural problem than an urban one (e.g., Miller & Rowley, 2002; Findeis et al., 2001). Longitudinal analyses indicate that labor force participation rates among the rural poor were less likely to increase over time (1992-1997) compared to urban poor, and rural workers were found to be more likely to earn minimum wage than comparable urban workers (Rural Welfare Policy Panel, 1999). The income gap between metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties increased between 1990 and 2000 (Miller & Rowley, 2002). While welfare and food stamp caseloads declined in urban areas over time (1990-1998), the decline was less in many rural areas, and food stamps usage remained substantially higher in rural areas compared to urban areas (Reinschmiedt, et al., 1999; Rural Welfare Policy Panel, 1999). Even support services were found to be less stable in rural areas, as evidenced by the number of rural Medicare+Choice providers that dropped out of the program in the last few years (McBride, et al., 2001).

Researchers in the NC223 project, using both multivariate quantitative analysis and qualitative analysis, have found food insecurity to be a significant issue for rural families. Food insecurity is also found to be related to the mother’s health and financial life skills. Chronic health conditions contributed to food insecurity by interrupting the flow of income into the home and channeling expenditures to health care that could go to food. A link between ill health (physical and mental) and employment and food security is emerging. Longitudinal data will provide for a better of understanding of the situation for rural families (Olson, Seiling, & Lawrence, 2001).

Helping students to become researchers and involved in research with potential for outreach and policy has been enhanced by the NC223 research team and the collection of the data on rural families. Students working with team members on the project have finished one dissertation (Vandergriff-Avery, 2001) and two master’s theses (Corson, 2001; Covalt, 2001). Within the next year, six Ph.D. dissertations (in Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota [2], Oregon) and eight master’s theses (in Maryland [2], Minnesota [2], Nebraska [2], Oregon, Wyoming) will be completed, and likely others will be added. The topics cover such issues as employment, mental health, food security, housing affordability, rural women, welfare reform policy, family stability, and extension of the theoretical foundation for social capital.

Two policy briefs based on NC223 data have been widely distributed. Rural Families and Welfare Issues (Bauer & Braun, 2002) focused on employment and wages related to achieving economic self-sufficiency. Data reveal that even families with two earners cannot earn enough to lift the family out of poverty. Child support is not a dependable source of income for supporting children. Furthermore, all the families used some form of public and/or private assistance. The Rural Families-Welfare Reform & Food Stamps (Anderson & Swanson, 2002) reported that 50% of the families participating in the study were food insecure as measured by the Standardized USDA Core Food Security Module. Of the 50% who were food insecure, 34% were insecure without hunger and 17% were food insecure with hunger. Also, adults with a serious illness or injury within the past year were at higher risk of being food insecure.

Team members have made use of Wave 1 data in articles and presentations. The topics covered include policy research and data collection (Bauer, 2001; Bauer & Braun, 2001; Seiling, et al., 2001a), responding to policy needs of welfare reform (Braun & Benning, 2001; Drennen & Makela, 2001), rural women and well-being (Braun & Vandergriff-Avery, 2001; Braun, Varcoe, et al., 2001) family and community support (Seiling, Bauer, & Dyk, 2001) food security (Keenan, et al., 2001; Olson, Seiling, & Lawrence, 2001) financial management and economic security theory (Bauer, Braun, & Olson, 2000; Lawrence et al., 2002; Lawrence, et al., 2000; Seiling, et al., 2001b), employment (Dolan, et al. 2002; Dolan, Seiling, Braun, & Katras, 2002; Dolan, Braun, Prochaska-Cue, & Varcoe, forthcoming) and employment and making ends meet (Bartl, Powell, & Bauer, 2000; Katras, Dolan, Braun, & Seiling, 2002).

A review of studies in the Current Research Information System (CRIS) identified one other multi-state project (S298) focusing on rural poverty and family well-being in addition to NC223. S298 "Assessing impacts of welfare reform on individual, family and community well-being in the rural South" differs from NC223 and the proposed new project in several ways, primarily in the geographical focus on southern rural communities. The S298 data collection methods concentrate on TANF case analysis, and TANF client asset identification and mapping. This proposed project focuses on analysis of primary interview data and secondary community data to assess the impact of welfare policies on rural families in the context of their geographically diverse communities. Initially the two projects met to see if there was enough overlap to merit combining the projects. The two projects were found to be significantly different in focus and methodology resulting in the continuation of two separate projects.

Several state projects were identified, including one headed by Pickering, Mushinski, and Lee from Colorado State University, which is examining the impact of welfare policies in four states that have areas of persistent poverty. This project is utilizing in-depth interview methodology as well as examination of secondary data to achieve objectives. The project differs from the proposed project in that the selected communities are known for their persistent poverty, and are located in only four mid–western and southern states. The remaining single-state projects differ from the proposed project because they focus on only one community, ethnic population, or program within the state to examine the outcomes of welfare reform policies.

Fifteen state Agricultural Experiment Stations have provided the main support for the original NC223 project, allowing the principal investigators to build a rich primary data set on low-income rural families. The team has also been awarded two USDA National Research Initiative Cooperative Grants Program (NRICGP) grants that total almost $250,000 (# 2001-35401-10215 & # 2002-35401-11591, J.W. Bauer, P.I). These NRI grants facilitated the construction of a data transfer and sharing mechanism for the participating states, as well as the processing of Wave 2 data at Oregon State University, and analyses around the themes of food security, economic well-being, and health. The Rural Families Speak web site, a product of these grants, is a dynamic site that allows us to share the latest findings and link to other studies and work that complement the understanding of rural families in the context of changing welfare policies. See URL: http://www.ruralfamilies.umn.edu.

Objective 1: To analyze the interactions among public assistance and informal social supports, community context, and individual and family characteristics and their relation to the functioning and well-being of rural low income families with children over three years time.

States addressing Objective 1: CO, IN, KY, LA, MN, and NY.

Objective 2: To assess across time the relative effects of economic opportunity, and personal attributes and actions, on employment and self-sufficiency among the rural low income families participating in the study.

States addressing Objective 2: CA, KY, MA, MD, NE, NH, and OH.

Objective 3: To assess over time, how families have adapted to policy and economic changes to achieve self-sufficiency (household adaptive strategies and well being that are associated with economic, food security, family functioning and policy).

States addressing Objective 3: CO, MI, MN, OH, and OR.

Objective 4: To collect additional data in year 3 of the study to track the functioning of the participating families related to changing policies and economic conditions.

States addressing Objective 4: CA, CO, IN, KY, LA, MA, MD, MI, MN, NE, NH, OH, and OR.

The momentum already purchased by AES and NRI funds during the first 5-year project should be continued. The primary goal of the proposed project is the analysis and interpretation of the primary data already collected along with easily obtainable existing, secondary data. Families and communities are not seen as separate entities but rather nested systems, i.e., within the context of their own family system as well as the community system. Triangulating personal and family factors with place-based factors, such as local economic and employment opportunities and conditions, and local welfare regulations, will yield a clearer picture of the interdependent factors that lead to family self-sufficiency in rural communities. The team uses the SPSS computer program for quantitative analyses and winMax for the qualitative analysis. The winMax program allows for mix-method analysis of the data.

New interview data from the participating families will not be collected until the third year of the project. At that time team members will obtain a thorough update of the families’ health, employment, income, composition, living arrangements, ability to make ends meet, and overall well-being. In the intervening time, research teams will maintain contact with the families so as not to lose touch prior to the final interview.

The team members are organized into nine Working Groups to facilitate the data analysis and to maximize expertise across states. These are: economic well-being, family strengths, health, food security, community, child care, public policy, ethnicity, and extension. The Working Groups already have developed research questions and have planned timelines for analysis and writing. Graduate students are integral members of a number of the Working Groups.

The richness of the data and the complexity of the objectives necessitates that different analytical methods be employed. Examples of analyses, which are not meant to be exhaustive, are given below.

The following variables were established in the previous study and will continue to be used in the proposed study: public assistance (TANF, food stamps, housing assistance, supplementary security income, etc.), informal social support (family support), functioning and well-being (employment, self-sufficiency, mental and physical health, and food security), individual and family characteristics (social and demographic characteristics of families such as education, age, etc.). The NC223 team is currently in the process of obtaining contextual data on our counties and states.

Initial hypothesis testing will be performed using simple tests to examine the relationship of individual and family-household-level characteristics at time 1 and family well-being and functioning (outcomes) at time 3 (controlling for status at time 1). In other words, we will examine how initial individual and household characteristics are associated with improvements or deterioration in well-being and functioning over time. Appropriate analyses (such as repeated measures) will conducted considering individual and household-level characteristics at time 2 in addition to time 1. Then multivariate analysis (multiple linear and logistic regression including repeated measures) will be performed to build a model of the variables related to family well-being and functioning at time 3. All quantitative data analysis will be performed using SPSS, version 10.

Grounded theory analysis will be used for the qualitative data analyses of family well-being and functioning over the time of the study. A randomly selected small number of families (20-30) whose economic well-being has improved (as indicated by quantitative measures) will be analyzed for themes that might explain their improvement, and likewise for those families whose economic well-being has remained the same or deteriorated over the three years. The two groups will be compared qualitatively to identify major explanations for their economic situations. The results of this analysis will be triangulated with the results of the quantitative analysis.

Multi-level case analyses will be needed to measure the relative effects of economic opportunity and personal attributes, which will allow for both descriptive and explanatory outcomes. Rural family phenomenology has not been explored to any great extent. For example, what are the employment experiences and impact in two-adult families as compared to one-adult families? Likewise, do flexible or non-standard work hours influence the functioning of the family? From the examination of each of the three waves of data, patterns will begin to have an explanation or an "emerging from the data" indicating why the phenomenon is the way it is. The explanation analysis will allow the most impact for policy outcomes from the project and will also drive what is needed for future research on low-income rural families. The three waves of data will enable the team members to test various theories of family functioning and self-sufficiency for low-income rural families.

These analyses of the data will establish the credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability of the findings. These are very similar to the issues in quantitative research of internal validity, external validity, reliability, and objectivity (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Data dependability and confirmability are conveyed through the use of exact quotations from the interviews over the three waves. Longitudinal analysis using qualitative data will be accomplished primarily through the case analysis. In order to analyze the depth of the data across the many themes, it will be necessary to use various methods of randomly and purposively selecting the cases for analysis. For instance, if theory development is the intent, saturation of the ideas will be one of the better ways to determine when to stop with the analysis. Some of the currently conducted research has been done using random sampling within the states and across all the states. Other methods have selected an initial sample by using a quantitative sorting of the data, for example, comparing families with food insecurity without hunger to families with food insecurity with hunger; or sorting families whose mothers show a depressive state as measured by the CES-D standardized scale by degree of depression. The qualitative analysis is aimed at identifying the emerging household adaptive strategies within the context of family and/or community. These results can then be merged into larger meta analysis around family functioning and policy.

Each participating state will agree to collect Wave 4 data on a core set of variables based on the variables established in the initial study. The interview protocol will be structured and unstructured, similar to the initial study. Subjects will be the participants in the initial study. Even with the mobility in rural low-income families, we estimate that about 50% of the initial Wave 1 families will be interviewed. The state teams have worked very hard to maintain contact with the families and will continue to do so. This is part of the successful outcome for the NC223 project.

• Data set of contextual variables created from identified secondary sources for the counties included in the study.

• Primary data set created from three waves of qualitative and quantitative data from the NC223 project. The most comprehensive data set on low-income rural family well being available in the U.S.

• Analyzed results of the combined quantitative data set created from the longitudinal study of families and the contextual variables.
• Ph.D. trained researchers who understand rural low-income families and complex research projects.

• Book of research findings addressing the relative effects of social, human, and family capital on family adjustment to change, based primarily upon the qualitative data for three years.
• Development of training materials to enhance the lives of rural low-income families.
• 15 students trained and dissertation and/or master’s thesis produced from the data sets.
• 15 policy briefs and/or information briefs from the findings of the project
• 36 publications prepared for professional journals (4 papers from each of the Working Groups on average)

• Improved welfare policy at the federal level that addresses the needs of rural families and communities

• Improved welfare policy at the state level that takes into account the needs of rural families and communities

• Improved outreach, education, and professional practice in serving the needs of rural low-income families

• Improved well-being and functioning of rural low-income families based on findings from a project that considered policy context in the original design.

• Better-trained scholars who are adept at using qualitative and quantitative data. Faculty and students on the project gain experiences in producing research outcomes that are qualitative and/or quantitative, and based in a context of policy.

• Better-trained extension educators to meet needs of rural low-income families through the development of programs based on the findings within the context of policy.

The multi-state, multidisciplinary team assembled for the initial NC223 project has great outreach potential for increasing the understanding of the well-being of rural families and communities, both directly to families, and indirectly through educators, professionals, policymakers, and employers. The success of the project will be in revealing the consequences for rural families and communities of policies based primarily on an urban perspective. The results of this research will carry the voices of rural families to policy makers, so that policy makers will be aware of the context of rural communities as it interfaces with policy.

The proposed project clearly falls within the USDA’s annual Performance Plan for 2002. Strategic Goal 4 is to "enhance the capacity of all rural residents, communities and businesses to prosper." Objective 4.1 is to "expand job opportunities and improve the standards of living in rural communities" and one of the strategies is to "enhance understanding of the changing geography of low-skill employment by researching characteristics of rural labor markets and identifying changes in the distribution of low-skill employment." The proposed study tracks rural low-skill employment and characteristics of low skill workers with the goal of increasing the understanding of the rural context within which they operate.

The proposed study links with Cooperative Extension to translate research findings into practical applications and education. Objective 4.2 is to "ensure the neediest rural residents and communities have equal access to USDA programs that will help them succeed." The proposed study is uniquely positioned to bridge AES research and extensions education because our team has considerable representation by Extension faculty from all regions of the country.

Please refer to Table 1 on the next page.

Two of the Working Groups are the basis for the outreach plan: the Public Policy Working Group and the Extension Working Group. The Public Policy Working Group has already created and widely distributed two policy briefs (described earlier) with more planned. The Extension Working Group is composed of those interested in connecting with the public through Cooperative Extension, many of who are Extension Specialists. Long-term plans are being developed during 2003.

Another method of outreach is the project website, available at www.ruralfamilies.umn.edu. The two policy briefs are posted there as well as a description of the project and each state. Other work, such as abstracts and information briefs, are posted by the Working Groups.

The current governance structure of the NC223 will be continued. The project is managed through a chair, vice chair for data, vice chair for communications (both internal and external to the project), secretary/treasurer, and administrative advisor. This executive board is elected

through nominations from the group, each for a two-year term. The terms are staggered to maintain continuity of the leadership for the project.

The governance is accomplished through the face-to-face authorized annual meeting. The remainder of the work is performed through conference calls, electronic sharing of materials, and the U.S. mail. Much of the work is done through a listserv through the University of Minnesota, and also a FTP site to which all P.I.s have access through password clearance. The FTP site allows easy access to data by each state team. The FTP site may be used by the Working Groups or by a state for work-in-progress, if desired.

Each of the nine Working Groups has a chair or co-chairs, and team members can be part of any number of Working Groups. Any funded project such as NRICGP has a P.I. and other persons who are co-P.I.s. The processes and outcomes are shared with the entire group.

Anderson, K., & Swanson, J. (2002). Rural Families – Welfare Reform & Food Stamps Policy Brief #2. Available on line at: www.ruralfamlies.umn.edu/publications/RuralFamiliesBrief2.pdf

Bartl, M.J., Powell, S. E., & Bauer, J.W. (2000). Welfare reform and two-parent family policies. NCFR Report: Family Focus, 45 (1):9.

Bauer, J. (2001). Rural families and welfare reform. Consortium Connections. Children Youth and Family Consortium: A University and Community Collaboration. University of Minnesota, Vol. 10, 2, p. 3.

Bauer, J.W. & Braun, B. (2001). Framing the issue of financial wellness and quality of life for low-income families: What’s known and how to measure to capture the diversity. In H.E. Spotts, H.L. Meadow, & S. Grzeskowiak (Eds.), How to measure quality of life in diverse populations: Proceedings of the fourth conference of the International Society of Quality-of-Life, (p. 41). Blacksburg, VA: International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies.

Bauer, J.W., & Braun, B. (2002). Rural Families and Welfare Issues Policy Brief #1. Available on line at: www.ruralfamilies.umn.edu/publications/RuralFamiliesBrief.pdf

Bauer, J.W., Braun, B., & Olson, P.D. (2000). Welfare to well-being framework for research, education, and outreach. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 34, 62-81.

Braun, B. & Benning, L. (2001). Welfare reform four years later: The mobilization of the land-grant system. Journal of Extension, 39. http://www.joe.org.

Braun, B. & Vandergriff-Avery, M. (2001). Facing the facts of the well-being of rural low-income women in the context of welfare reform. Proceedings, Women’s Policy Institute Conference. Washington, DC: Women’s Policy Research Institute.

Braun, B., Varcoe, K., Lees, N., Burgess Seiling, S., Mammen, S., Lawrence, F.C., & Prochaska-Cue, K. (2001). The faces of rural families four years after welfare reform. In S. Hanna (Ed.) Family Relations & Human Development/Family Economics & Resource Management Biennial. The Journal of the FRHD and FERM Division of the American Association of the Family and Consumer Sciences, Vol. 4, pp. 144-153.

Corson, C. (2001). Health well-being and financial self-sufficiency of low-income families in the context of welfare reform. Unpublished master’s thesis, Corvallis: Oregon State University.

Covalt, B. (2001). Women’s voices: Resources and barriers related to welfare reform. Unpublished master’s thesis, Ft. Collins: Colorado State University.

Deavers, K. & Hoppe, R. (1992). Overview of the rural poor in the 1980s. In C.M. Duncan (Ed.), Rural poverty in America (pp. 3-20). New York: Auburn House.

Dolan, E.M., Bosch, K., Braun, B., Kelly, B., Kiss, E., Knight, S.E., Lawrence, F.C., Mammen, S., Prochaska-Cue, K., Seiling, S. (2002). Conceptualizing the interface between family and labor force participation for rural limited resource families. In P. Bonner (ed.), Consumer Interests Annual, 48. Available on line at: http://www.consumerinterests.org/public/articles/LaborForce-02.pdf

Dolan, E.M., Braun, B., Prochaska-Cue, K., & Varcoe, K. (Forthcoming). Conceptualizing the interface among family, community and labor force participation for rural limited resource families. Available at: http://www.nawrs.org

Dolan, E., Seiling, S., Braun, B., & Katras, M.J. (2002, September). Rural Families Speak: The Challenge of Employment. NCFR Report: Family Focus, 47, F4-F5.

Drennen, N.H. & Makela, C. J. (2001). Welfare reform: People and policies. In A. Martin (Ed.) Proceedings of the Western Regional Home Management Family Economics Educators Conference. Long Beach, CA. Pp. 63-64.

Duncan, G., Whitener, L.A., & Weber, B.A. (2002). Lessons learned: Welfare reform and food assistance in rural America. In Weber, B.A., Duncan, G., & Whitener, L.A. (Eds.), Rural dimensions of welfare reform. Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. Pp. 455-470.

Eberhardt, M.S., Ingram, D.D., Makuc, D.M. et al. (2001). Urban and Rural Health Chartbook. Health, United States, 2001. Hyattsville, Maryland: National Center for Health Statistics.

Findeis, J.L., Henry, M., Hirschl, T.A., Lewis, W., Ortega-Sanchez, I., Peine, E., & Zimmerman, J.N. (2001). Welfare Reform in Rural America: a review of current research. RUPRI. #P2001-5 (February 2, 2001). Available on line at:

http://www.rupri.org

HHS Rural Task Force (2002, July). One Department Serving Rural America: Report to the Secretary. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at:

Imig, D.R., Bokemeier, J., Keefe, D., Struthers, C., & Imig, G. (1997). The context of rural economic stress in families and children. Michigan Family Review, 3 (1), 69-82.

Katras, M.J., Dolan, E. M., Braun, B., & Seiling, S. (2002, September). Rural families speak: Making ends meet after welfare reform. NCFR Report: Family Focus, 47, F3-F4.

Keenan, D.P., Olson, C.M., Hersey, J.C., & Parmer, S.M. (2001). Measures of food insecurity/security. Journal of Nutrition Education, 33: S49-S58.

Lawrence, F. C., Garrison E. B., Bauer, J. W., Braun, B., Dolan, E. (2002). In M. J. Alhabeeb (Ed.), Economic well-being of low income rural families in the context of welfare reform. Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Eastern Family Economics-Resource Management Association, Athens, GA. pp. 122-125.

Lawrence, F.C., Prochaska-Cue, K. Varcoe, K.P., Bauer, J. W., Dolan, E., Knight, S. E., and Williams, F. (2000). Tracking well-being of rural low-income families. In J. E. Morris & C. R. Hayhoe (Eds.). Proceedings of the Association for Financial Counseling and Planning Education, St. Louis, MO, p. 40.

Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Miller, K., & Rowley, T. (2002). Rural poverty and rural-urban income gaps: a troubling snapshot of the "prosperous" 1990s. RUPRI, #P2002-5 (July 3, 2002). Available on line at: http://www.rupri.org.

McBride, T.D., Andrews, C., Makarkin, A., & Mueller, K.J. (2002, August). An update on Medicare+Choice: Rural Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare+Choice plans through 2001. RUPRI, Rural Policy Brief, Vol. 7, (4). Available on line at: http://www.rupri.org.

Olson, C.M., Seiling, S.B., & Lawrence, F. C. (2001). Factors contributing to the protecting against food insecurity in rural counties of the U.S. Nutrition Education for Diverse Audiences II: Integrating Research and Practice Conference. September 12, 2001, Dallas TX.

Reinschmiedt, L., Henry, M., Weber, B.A., Davis, E.E., & Lewis, W. Welfare and food stamps caseloads in Three States: Rural-urban contrasts. RUPRI, # P99-10 (December, 1999). Available on line at: http://www.rupri.org

Rural Welfare Policy Panel (1999). Rural America and welfare reform: An overview assessment. RUPRI, #P-99-3 (February 10, 1999). Available on line at: http://www.rupri.org

Seiling, S., Bauer, J.W., Braun, B., Dolan, E., & Lawrence, F.C. (2001a). Revisiting the welfare to work framework for research, education, and outreach. In R. J. Avery (Ed.), Consumer Interests Annual, 47. Available on-line at: http://www.consumerinterests.org/public/articles/Seiling,_Bauer,_Braun,_Dolan,_Lawrence.pdf

Seiling, S., Bauer, J.W., Dyk, P.H. (2001). With a little support from our friends: The role of family and community support in financial well-being of rural low-income families. In H.E. Spotts, H.L. Meadow, & S. Grzeskowiak (Eds), How to measure quality of life in diverse populations: Proceedings of the fourth conference of the International Society of Quality-of-Life, (p. 43). Blacksburg, VA: International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies.

Seiling, S., Dolan, E., Mammen, S., Zhao, J., Mead, M., Knight, S., & Dyk, P. (2001b). How do they manage: Financial management priorities and strategies for low-income mothers. In J. Kim (Ed.) Eastern Family Economics-Resource Management Association Proceedings, Lexington, KY, pp. 1-2.

U.S. Census (2001). Poverty in the United States: 2000. Current Population Reports, P60-214. U.S. Department of Commerce. Available on-line at: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty00.html

Vandergriff-Avery, M. (2001). Rural families Speak: A qualitative investigation of stress protective and crises recovery strategies utilized by rural low-income women and their families. Unpublished dissertation. College Park: University of Maryland.

Zimmerman, J.N. (2001). Welfare reform in rural America: A review of current research. Rural Policy Research Institute. P2001-5 (February 2, 2001). Available on-line at:

http://www.rupri.org

University of Kentucky

University of Maryland

Michigan State University

University of Nebraska - Lincoln

Dept. of Family and Consumer Sciences

Ph.D. Child and Family Development

NEW YORK .20

Dr. Kathy Reschke

Ohio State University

Ph.D. Human Development & Family Studies

Dr. Sally Bowman .03

Dept. of Family and Community Development

Ph.D. Sociology