Rural Poverty Final Project

Peter Geppert

12-11-11

Ils 252 Lab 305

Final Project: Meta-Analysis and Solutions

“Outreach is one of the nation’s most profitable investments, one of [the university’s] most effective agents for social change, and one of its most valuable resources for improving the quality of life for all its citizens.” (Foster, 176) These words spoken by Florida State University president Dale Lick described the corner stone principle in the founding of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Since the universities founding in 1848 UW-Madison has used the “Wisconsin Idea” as a central belief of university existence to serve those who fund the university through research and education. Since then the Wisconsin idea has been a role model for other land grant universities in how to guide university research and outreach. Former president of UW-Madison Charles Van Hise once said, “The whole state is the true campus a state university.” (Foster, 176) For the 2011-2012 academic year UW-Madison proclaimed it the year of the Wisconsin Idea, and while the university has done tremendous work within the state and around the nation there is still work that needs to be done. One of the biggest social injustices in the last 150 years in the United States has been poverty in the rural regions of the country. Despite efforts over the last 50 years to eradicate poverty from rural regions the issue has persisted to affect more than a third of rural residents. In order for rural poverty to be eliminated from society the institutions with the most resources and are closest to the issue need to take on the responsibility of solving the problem. This institution is the land grant university, and with its enormous amount of resources and human capital it must work tirelessly to improve the conditions of the rural poor.

Before finding solutions to the issues of rural poverty those wishing to solve the problem must understand the obstacles preventing people in rural areas from breaking out of poverty on a deeper level. For decades the issue of poverty has been looked at through a financial lenses, and through this lenses policies and formulas for welfare are calculated and developed. What these policies have difficulty correcting is the crushing social problems brought on by poverty, especially for families. “Its certainly true that in rural areas the biggest event that can happen is the event of a divorce that ruins a family.”  (Green, interview) Says UW professor Gary Green a researcher for the Institute for Research on Poverty at the university during an interview I conducted earlier in the month. The integrity of the family unit is the most critical to the successful development of a child, and to the social and financial wellbeing of the parents who support them. The unemployment rate in 2005 among divorced males and females was 5.6%, which was more than twice as high for the rate of unemployment among married couples at 2.6% (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2006). Affected most by the byproducts of divorce are rural regions, as 14 of the top 16 states with the highest divorce rates are states with the largest rural populations in the country (Divorce.com). The collapse of a family can be especially difficult for rural families to overcome when combined with the limited labor market of the communities as well, “When people wonder why the rural poor don’t move to urban areas to get work, its because they don’t have the family support networks they need in those areas. Having that support is the key reason why the rural poor aren’t as mobile as other groups.” (Green, interview) Limited mobility caused by family instability limits the economic prospects of those living in rural areas,  “Jobs in the rural areas just don’t pay as well. A person working the same job in a rural area will make less than an urban counterpart.” (Green, interview) In fact of the 2,200 rural counties in the US 1,300 of them are counties that have a per capita income that is 25% than the national per capita income. (Miller, 7) The ratio between worker and client is far greater in urban areas compared rural areas, which creates more demand for urban workers that is a driver for wage increases. Unfortunately this is a problem that has been meet with no success by welfare policies as from1990 to 2000 the gap between urban and rural worker widened in 44 of 50 US states (Miller, 11). The limited mobility of broken rural families combined with the difficult working conditions of those areas adds significant obstacles in finding policy solutions for the rurally impoverished.

Just like the differences between urban and rural poverty are different the issues for rural residents differ region by region. In finding solutions to rural poverty land grant universities need to take into account the different challenges that residents face that are unique to their regions. In the south the issues of poverty is much more racially centered in nature because of the Jim Crow laws that enforced segregation between blacks and whites from the end of the civil war to as late as the mid 1960’s. Despite the banning of these laws with civil rights reforms in the late 60’s the racial lines still persist, “Within some black belt counties there are rural populations where the minority population is well above 70% of the population. In these counties the education system is still segregated between a white private school system and a black dominate public school system.” (Green, interview) Additionally many land-grant universities in the south have a history of segregated admissions and ugly incidents of forced integration. Scenes in 1960’s of state governors confronting federal troops by standing at the university doors to deny entry to black students has created a resonating negative image of higher education in the south among the black community. Needless to say this image has strained the critical working relationship between the predominantly black rural poor and the land grant universities that must serve to improve their quality of life.

Across the Great Plains regions of the Dakotas and other non-coastal western states Native Americans face challenging economic conditions that exacerbate the social problems brought on by rural poverty, “Reservations in those regions have unemployment rates well above 70% and experience far greater drug, alcohol, and crime rates than the national average.” (Green, interview) On Native American reservations the economic opportunities available to residents are severely limited by the geographic distances between job centers and the reservation. Lack of opportunity on a staggering scale combined with the pressure of high cost of rural livelihoods breeds a culture of crime and desperation. In the American southwest and central California the obstacles of a migrant Latin American agricultural labor force characterize regional rural poverty. Language barriers between migrant workers and the rest of the population hinder their economic and social development and make them much more susceptible to the pitfalls of poverty.

Although the state of Wisconsin lacks the generationally persistent characteristic in rural poverty like the southern US and the Appalachian region rural poverty is still a very real problem to the people of Wisconsin. In the last census the state of Wisconsin had no nonmetro counties classified as persistently impoverished. One of the reasons that the state of Wisconsin is generally not thought of as a persistently poor rural state is the century old trend within the state of the young leaving for employment and education then never returning to the area. In fact rural areas in the state have a poverty rate that is 7% higher than the state average, and 3% higher than the rest of the nation (Saupe, 13). The effects of a mass youth exodus on rural regions hits communities harder than individuals, “The loss of the young signals a tremendous loss in human capital for these regions, and further drains rural communities of needed resources as the population continues to age without any replacement” (Green, interview). Measurements conducted by the census measure poverty in terms of generational persistence, and ignore trends of mobility. These types of statistics can undermine the consciousness of an issue that is already out of mind in most circles of the public. In order for UW-Madison to develop affective policies in reversing the trends of rural poverty, the state needs to center any reform on the youth coming from within the state and realize that most measurements from the US census bureau on poverty measure poverty on a chronological family centered measurement.

Despite the many challenging trends and obstacles presented by rural poverty the land grant university has a chance to be a centerpiece in developing programs and policies to ending rural poverty. Whatever debate there is about the role of the land grant institution in improving the livelihood of the rural poor should be non-existent, “In some circles I think there is a belief that among those in rural poverty there is a culture that makes it acceptable to be uneducated and unemployed. However I don’t agree with this, the conditions of rural areas produce these problems.” (Green, interview) Regardless of the attitudes held in rural areas there is a responsibility for researchers and policy makers to find solutions. The key to finding solutions is reestablishing the relationship between the state legislature and university researchers as well as more concerted efforts by land grant institutions to reach out to rural residents. Over the last decades land grant universities have transformed from a source of knowledge and policy innovation into places perceived as aloof and viewed as inclined against the success of policy makers. Prior to this transformation the working relationship between the UW and the state was not only extremely beneficial for the state, but for the entire nation as well. In the 1930’s economists at UW-Madison developed the social security model; which according to Green was, “The greatest poverty reduction program of the 20^th century.” (Green, interview) In order for any policy innovations to become reality the research community and state governments must become a partnership again.

Once the relationship between government and academia is repaired, life-changing solutions can become policy. The Institute for Research on Poverty develops several reports a year on the effectiveness of current welfare policy in Wisconsin, and offers solutions, “The main thing people work on is how to get jobs out to rural areas, how to get businesses to expand into rural areas, and how to provide a trained workforce in these areas.” (Green, interview) Labor opportunities ranks among one of the top obstacles to overcoming rural poverty along with family stability and education. In order to begin reversing these trends human capital must return to rural regions of the state to serve as leaders in the community, and example for youth in developing a labor force. The University of Wisconsin has the ability and feasibility to give priority to programs that would help solve these problems. The first solution is to give financial aid funding and admission preference to rural students over suburban students. Suburban students disproportionately represent the UW-Madison student body, and those who go to the university should be a reflection of the rural character of the state. To ensure that human capital is remains in rural regions and continues to come through the region, rural students requesting financial aid from the university should have to sign a contract requiring them to be employed in their residential county five years after graduation. Benefits from the program would be staggering, as an educated workforce would bring millions of dollars in revenue to the counties over time. Demand for workers with college degrees would force residents of rural regions to attain a degree. As these workers develop ties to the regions the social problems of rural poverty would be alleviated as well, as people with college degrees are less likely to get divorced and become involved in crime. Children who grow up in a stable household are more likely to go on to college and avoid poverty. Instituting policies at the level of the land grant university could do wonders to reduce rural poverty.

Ultimately this project was about sustainability, and how the actions of people affect the outcomes of others. It is appropriate that the conclusion of this project should draw a connection between rural poverty and the issue of sustainability. Trends have demonstrated that the rural lifestyle is fading because it is more economic to live urban areas where there are more resources and opportunities available. The modern day consumer culture of America is based in the city setting, and is producing destructive patterns that have never been seen in human history. If people are to begin living sustainably again they must return to the rural lifestyles that are more conducive to living responsibly to the Earth. If universities make it more feasible for people to remain in rural regions, and endure the higher cost of living, than the path to a sustainable future will more achievable.

Works Cited

“Consultation on Rural Poverty Research and Obstacles.” Interview by Peter Geppert and Gary Green. 1 Nov. 2011.

“Differing State Divorce Statistics | Divorce.com.” Divorce Lawyers, Forms & Resources | Divorce.com. Web. 12 Dec. 2011. <http://www.divorce.com/article/differing-state-divorce-statistics&gt;.

Foster, Ralph. “Transforming the Ivory Tower to a Community Center: Civic Engagement in Public Universities.” Change in Government Organizations (2010): 172-89. Print.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Unemployment- Race, Gender, and Marital Status.” State University. Net Industries and Its Licensors, 7 Feb. 2006. Web. 12 Dec. 2011.

Miller, Kathleen K., and Thomas D. Rowley. Rural Poverty and Rural-Urban Income Gaps: A Troubling Snapshot of the “Prosperous” 1990’s. Rep. RUPRI, 2002. Print.

Saupe, William E., and John W. Belknap. Rural Poverty in Wisconsin Counties. Tech. 283rd ed. Madison: University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1986. Print.

Poverty Rate Classified by Region

Also makes residential classification

US Poverty Rate by Residential Classification

Graph makes distinctions between those living in urban and rural conditions.

UW-Madison Funding from 1993-2003

Persisten-Poverty Map

Intro Project Proposal

Introductory Statement

   “American land-grant universities are one of the great success stories in higher education… This infusion of higher education into the fabric of daily life stimulated the progress of the agrarian and industrial societies of the past and offers tremendous potential for meeting the many challenges of the postindustrial age of today” (Spanier, 5). These words spoken by former Pennsylvania State University president Graham Spanier epitomize the role of the 21^st century land grant university. The concept of higher education for the people through large public universities has allowed countless Americans the opportunity to achieve a college degree and has brought researchers closer to the fields that they affect. Land-universities generate millions for the regions they serve, by conducting research in the region and educating students that become the local labor force. The University of Wisconsin-Madison (UW-Madison) has become one of the most successful land-grant institutions in the country through the combination of extensive research by distinguished faculty and the education of thousands of students with a tradition in regional engagement and concern. Despite the decades of success that the UW has had in educating the people of Wisconsin, the agrarian nature of the state and the uncertain economic nature that comes with being a farmer has generated a population of people living in rural poverty. Rural poverty is the cruelest and most difficult form of poverty to break out of, and land-grant institutions like the University of Wisconsin-Madison must find ways to use their extensive resources to eradicate rural poverty from the regions they serve. This project will serve as a means to analyze the relationship flagship universities like UW-Madison have with the rural poor, and propose different initiatives, programs, and solutions land-grant schools can use to fight the issue.

Before dissecting the issue of rural poverty and its relationship to land-grant universities its essential to first understand what a land-grant university is, and the spirit under which they were established. US representative Justin S. Morrill of Vermont first conceived the concept of land grant universities as a means for delivering a form of higher education to the working class. The passage of the Morrill act in 1862 provided a funding base for universities in each state across the union by granting universities with a designated curriculum federal land to sell as a means to grow their universities. Reforms to the act in 1890 required admissions to be racially equal in order to receive grants, unless states provided alternative schools. Today land-grant universities are no longer funded through grants of federal property; rather the term “land-grant” serve as a distinction for the level of research funding they receive from the federal government. Today this class of universities is one of the major drivers of economic growth in the United States. According to the Association of Public and Land Grant Universities (APLU), its member institutions educate 4.4 million students and conduct more than two-thirds of university research products funded by the federal government totaling $34 billion (APLU, 4).

The state of Wisconsin has especially benefited from the economic advancement that comes with a land-grant university. The state’s flagship university, UW-Madison, is the only major land-grant university in the state and one of the largest attended and most heavily funded in the national land-grant system. In 2009 UW faculty was granted $1 billion in research funding which was the second most out of any Midwest land-grant school, and was top 10 in the nation (Capaldi, 24). UW-Madison uses a significant segment of the funding to grow the state’s economy in several direct ways including the Fluno Center, which serves as one of the largest business executive training programs in the country, offering more than 200 programs. In 2010 the center served over 500 companies in the state of Wisconsin (Wisconsin idea database, growing the states economy). In addition the Center for Dairy Profitability serves the state’s more than 12,000 dairy farms by helping develop business practices that has kept them competitive with the emerging dairy industry of California. The 12 agriculture research institutes across the state operated by UW-Madison also serves the states $59 billion agricultural industry. These are just a few of the institutes that work to grow and innovate the economy for the people of the state of Wisconsin. Indirectly the state benefits from UW-Madison because each year the university graduates thousands of students that become leaders in aspects of agriculture, business, industry, and government.

While university funding is reaching record highs in the state of Wisconsin and the rest of the nation, times for those in poverty have been getting worse every year. Especially for those living in rural conditions, poverty has become pandemic in the southern United States as well as in the Midwest. The US Census Bureau defines a nonmetro or rural county as having a population of less than 100,000 and having no city greater than 50,000. During the 1990’s significant strides were made to reduce the poverty rate through various welfare reforms and poverty initiatives. The efforts of the Clinton administration paid off as the poverty rate declined from a decade high of 17.2% in 1993 to 11.3% in 2000 (USDA, 1). Despite these successes rural poverty has continued to persist, and has gone on the rise since the recession during the Bush administration. Economic development in nonmetro areas has been significantly slower than in the metro areas, and the same programs that were successful in eradicating urban poverty has failed in rural areas. In 2002 the median household income was $11,000 lower in rural areas compared to the median income in urban areas. The poverty rate in rural areas is 3% higher (14% versus 11%) than in urban areas, creating a population of over 7 million people who live in poverty-stricken counties. Persistent poverty counties, a stat created by the US census to describe counties who have had poverty rates above 20% since the census 30 years ago, is the worst in the states of Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, and West Virginia.

Rural areas are much more difficult to find employment in than urban areas, making the generational cycle of rural poverty much more persistent and vicious. In fact 32% of residents in rural areas live in counties classified as low employment counties, as compared to only 6% of residents in urban areas (USDA, 4). This low level of employment opportunities in rural areas is not something unique to the 21^st century. One-third of people living in rural areas live in counties that are classified as having persistent. Once again this only contrasts to 7% of residents of urban communities living in persistent poverty communities (USDA, 4).

What these statistics really speak to is the level of opportunity available to those living in urban communities, compared to the lack of opportunity in rural areas. Although there is crushing poverty present in urban areas, the institutions necessary to bring one out of poverty and to a level of economic stability are present in urban areas as well. Most corporations are present in urban areas, and the economic growth that comes with corporate presence is targeted towards urban areas as well because the infrastructure necessary to expand is already present. Typically it is not economic for corporations to bring jobs to rural areas. The workforce is much less educated in rural counties, which raises the training costs of companies hiring local employees. Combine this with the costs that lack of infrastructure like electricity, roads, and service industries bring and the prospect of bringing jobs is something that is just not feasible for job creators.

Although Wisconsin lacks the persistent poverty counties that are pandemic in the south, rural poverty is still a problem in certain communities within the state. Despite numerous efforts by the state to fund programs to fight poverty, results have been underwhelming. “Our findings are dramatic: Despite the reduction in employment and earnings in 2009, our Wisconsin Poverty Measure reveals that antipoverty programs kept child poverty steady in our state between 2008 and 2009. Expanded tax credits and food assistance benefits, which we include but the official measure does not, offset a drop in family earnings and cash income in 2009 and kept scores of Wisconsin children out of poverty,” according to Tom Smeeding who is a leading poverty research at the La Follette school of public affairs (Smeeding, 2011). In order to resolve the social problems that come with rural poverty innovative solutions will need to be constructed by the UW-Madison. A university that has repeatedly been a source of prosperity for the state, and must make its mission focused on making all of those who live within Wisconsin successful.

Works Cited

1. Association of Public and Land Grant Universities. The Land Grant Tradition. Washington D.C: National Association of State Colleges and Land-Grant Universities, 2008. Print.

2. “Building Wisconsin’s Economy.” The Wisconsin Idea. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, Aug. 2011. Web. 23 Nov. 2011. <http://wisconsinidea.wisc.edu/support-uw-diversity/&gt;.

3. Capaldi, Elizabeth D., John V. Lombardi, Craig W. Abbey, and Diane D. Craig. The Top American Research Universities. Rep. Tempe: Center for Measuring University Performance at Arizona State University, 2010. Print.

4. Smeeding, Timothy M. Wisconsin Poverty Report: Were Antipoverty Policies Effective in 2009? Rep. Madison: Institute for Research on Poverty, 2011. Print.

5. Spanier, Graham B. “Enhancing the Quality of Life: A Model for the 21st Century Land-Grant University.” Applied Developmental Science 3.4 (1999): 199-205. Print.

6. United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. Poverty at a Glance. Rep. no. 100. Washington D.C: United States Department of Agriculture, 2004. Print.

Project Outline

Semester Project Outline:

These are my initial thoughts on the project. I still need to find a university organization that I can do this project through.

Problem: Public research institutions need to play a bigger role in addressing the problems and finding solutions for the communities, states, and regions they serve.

Thesis: Redefining the way Universities communicate with each other, their students, and the communities they serve could improve the livelihood of the people who support the university.

Factors to Research:

1. How does the University of Wisconsin-Madison already impact the state of Wisconsin?
   1. What kind of people does the University serve?
   2. What areas the state are underserved by the University?
   3. How can the University have a greater impact on these underserved regions?
   4. What are some ways that peers of UW-M (i.e Other large research institutions in the US) impact the communities they are supposed to serve?
      1. Examine differences and similarities between other Midwestern research institutions and UW-M (Mostly Big Ten schools).

i.     Resources, issues, solutions, methods, etc

1. Examine differences and similarities between Big Ten schools and other research universities around the country.
2. What are some of the ways the UW-M communicates the impact of its research to its academic community and the state of Wisconsin?
   1. Does communication foster and encourage student, faculty, and statewide contributions to the direction and use of University resources?
   2. Could increased communication statewide about university research and the research’s impact have an affect on the state?

i.     If so in what form and in what areas would the impact come in

Solutions/Outcomes:

1. A more comprehensive and interactive website the University could make and dedicate to discovering issues in the state and region.
   1. Logistics: i.e budget, design, function, etc
   2. Deep analysis (through a systems lens) on how the University impacts the state, and how it could improve by examining and comparing its model to other university models.
      1. Financial impact, both direct and indirect, that the university has on the state. Is it effective?