Rural Food Poverty and Food Stamps Non-Claim Rates 41st National Institute on Social Work and Human Services in Rural Areas University of Texas – El Paso Elena Delavega, PhD, MSW, University of Memphis Peter A. Kindle, PhD, CPA, LMSW, University of South Dakota

Learning Objectives To understand poverty and food insecurity in rural and urban populations. To understand the effect of population size on poverty, attitudes toward social welfare, and food stamp utilization. To investigate social work interventions and alternative policy proposals that may reduce food insecurity in rural America.

False Images of Poverty in America The False Images Poverty is an urban problem.1 Poverty is a racial problem.2 The Reality Poverty rate is twice as high in small rural areas.1 Poverty is white.3

Complexities of Rural Poverty Fewer employment opportunities.4 Spatial isolation.4 High prevalence of anti-welfare attitudes.5 Moral capital associated with “not being like them.”6 Fact: Rural states receive more financial support from the federal government than is paid by the residents of the state to the federal government.7 Ironically, America’s farmers and ranchers are the most consistently opposed to social welfare programs.8

Research Hypothesis This study explores current evidence to determine if residents of rural areas are more likely to be poor and less likely to claim or take social services such as food stamps.

Method Secondary data analysis of 2014 American Community Survey, Five Year Estimates by county 3,142 counties; 418 with fewer than 2,500 people Relevant variables: Population size Poverty Food stamp utilization rates at household level Resistance Ratio (the extent to which the residents of a county are resistant to taking social assistance in the form of food stamps) Bivariate analyses to investigate relationship between poverty, and food stamp utilization, and population size.

The Resistance Ratio Percent Under Poverty in County Percent Taking Food Stamps Ratio < 1 = High Utilization of FS Ratio > 1 = Low Utilization of FS

Results – Means & Standard Deviations County Size < 2,500 < 10,000 > 50,000 > 250,000 M SD Population Size 1,413 661 4,628 2,671 183,585 243,291 499,700 404,680 Poverty Rate 14.85 6.2262 16.79 6.6074 13.51 4.6851 13.76 4.6448 Food Stamp Utilization Rate 11.18 8.0634 14.47 7.6802 12.35 5.0464 12.56 5.7616 Resistance to Take Social Assistance (Poverty to Food Stamp Utilization Ratio) 1.86 1.7329 1.39 .9979 1.16 .3338 1.192 .7612

Results - Correlations Correlations are between population size and outcome variables County Size < 2,500 < 10,000 > 50,000 > 250,000 r p Poverty Rate -0.74 .000 .134 -.171 -.063 .00 Food Stamp Utilization Rate -179 .037 .038 -.117 -.044 .015* Resistance Ratio .302 .157 -.059 .001 -.017 .342

Results – Bivariate Analyses County Size N % Mean SD t p d Poverty rate: < 2,500 > 2,500 418 2724 13.3 86.4 14.85 16.17 6.2262 6.0014 4.175 .000 .22 Food stamp take up: 11.18 14.69 8.0634 6.2867 8.472 .49 Resistance Ratio: 1.86 1.18 1.7329 .3899 -7.943 .54

Results – Predictors of Resistance Ratio R2 = .213, F(2, 3134) = 424.475, p = .000. County Size B SE B β t p (Constant) 1.773 .030   59.108 .000 Rural Population with Fewer than 2500 people .537 .036 .239 14.824 Percent of all households receiving food stamps -.041 .002 -.355 -22.034

Discussion Poverty rates are highest in counties with fewer than 10,000 people. Resistance to assistance is highest in counties with fewer than 2,500 people. Rural culture may be the most significant factor in resistance to receipt of social services. Future research should explore additional factors that may increase our understanding of the Resistance Ratio.

Limitations Limitations are few. Use of ACS data which are estimates.

Implications for Social Work Urban poverty is very visible, both physically and in the media, but rural poverty is higher. Social workers run the risk of failing to focus attention on the rural poor. Understanding that rural communities may have both greater poverty rates and associated resistance to help (shame or stigma) is crucial for social workers practicing in rural areas. Awareness is the first step in solving a problem.

References 1 Delavega, E. (2014a). 2014 Memphis poverty [Fact Sheet]. University of Memphis’ Department of Social Work. Retrieved from http://www.memphis.edu/socialwork/2014povertyfactsheet.pdf 2 Using Academic Search Premier, Ageline, Family & Society Studies Worldwide, PsycINFO, Social Work Abstracts, and SocINDEX with Fulltext the authors identified 419 peer-reviewed articles with poverty and race in the titles of the articles. 3 In the 2010 Census, the largest racial group in America was identified as White. 4 Edwards, B., & Addae, R. (2015). Ethical decision-making models in resolving ethical dilemmas in rural practice: Implications for social work practice and education. Journal of Social Work Values & Ethics, 12(1), 88- 92. Sutherland, C. R., & Chur-Hansen, A. (2014). Knowledge, skills, and attitudes of rural and remote psychologists. The Australian Journal of Rural Health, 22, 273-279. 5 Butler, S. S., & DePoy, E. (1996). Rural elderly women’s attitudes toward professional government assistance. Affilia: Journal of Women in Social Work, 11(1), 76-94. Camasso, M. J., & Moore, D. E., (1985). Rurality and the residualist social welfare response. Rural Sociology, 50(3), 397-408. Davis, L. F. (1988). Rural attitudes toward public welfare allocation. Human Services in the Rural Environment, 12 (2), 11-19. Swank, E. (2005). Welfare spending judgments through class, race, and gender lenses: Exploring the nfluence of stratification beliefs, racial attitudes, and gender norms. Journal of Poverty, 9(4), 49-72. doi:10.1300/J134v09n0404

References 6 Sherman, J. (2009). Those who work, those who don’t: Poverty, morality, and family in rural America. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 7 Kindle, P. A. (2016, April). Food, poverty, and politics: Bridging the urban-rural divide. Presented at the 4th Social Work Symposium, University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee. White, T. K. & Hoppe, R. A. (2012).Changing farm structure and the distribution of farm payments and federal crop insurance. EIB-91, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 8 Gloden, M., Kirchner, J., & Thomas, T. (2013, April). Exploring the rural and agricultural community’s bias regarding two approaches to welfare. Poster presented at IdeaFest, University of South Dakota, Vermillion, South Dakota.