Child Welfare Information Gateway

Children’s Bureau/ACYF

1250 Maryland Avenue, SW

Eighth Floor

Washington, DC 20024

800.394.3366

Email: info@childwelfare.gov

Use your smartphone to http://www.childwelfare.gov

access this issue brief online.

STATE MANAGERS SERIES

ISSUE BRIEF

September 2012

Rural Child Welfare Practice 

What’s Inside:

• Understanding rural 

communities

• Child welfare practice in 

rural communities

• Preparing and 

supervising a rural child 

welfare workforce

This issue brief highlights the importance of understanding 

the diverse needs, strengths, and resources of children 

and families from rural areas, the challenges these families 

and those who work with them may face, and the cultural 

sensitivity required of child welfare staff as they work to 

achieve well-being, permanency, and safety for rural children. 

Depending on the definition of rural, recent studies show 

that between 17 and 63 percent of the U.S. population 

lives in rural areas, dispersed across communities that 

encompass between 84 to 98 percent of the U.S. land area 

(U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2012a; U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, 2012b; Reynnels & John, 2008). Rural areas face 

different issues and circumstances than urban and suburban 

areas, and child welfare professionals working with rural 

populations must have an understanding of these issues and 

how they affect child welfare practice.
Rural Child Welfare Practice http://www.childwelfare.gov

2 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/rural

What Is Rural?

The term “rural” can have a number of 

definitions and interpretations (USDA, 2011a). 

Some Federal agencies, such as the U.S. 

Census Bureau, the White House Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), and the 

Economic Research Service (ERS) of the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture have measures of 

rurality suited to their specific tasks.1

 Research 

often refers to the OMB classifications of 

“metropolitan” (metro) counties, generally 

designating counties that have a city of 50,000 

people or more as urban; counties with 

smaller populations are “nonmetropolitan” 

(nonmetro) or rural.2

But dividing the country into metropolitan and 

nonmetropolitan can be misleading. A county 

that includes a city of 50,000 people certainly 

does not compare with New York City; nor 

does a county adjacent to Chicago with a city 

of 49,000 people compare to frontier regions 

in Wyoming. 

Because of these challenges, the ERS created 

a variety of classifications on a continuum, 

including the Rural Urban Continuum Codes 

(RUCCs) (USDA, 2007). (See the ERS website 

at http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/rurality/

ruralurbcon/ for more information.) Since 

1

	 A table compiled by ERS that compares the various definitions

and indicators of rurality can be found at http://www.ers.usda.gov/

Data/Ruraldefinitions/Indicators.htm

2 For this issue brief, the terms “rural” and “urban” will be used

instead of “nonmetropolitan” or “metropolitan,” respectively, to

provide consistency throughout the document. Additionally, the

term “urban” encompasses suburban areas.

Understanding Rural 

Communities

this set of codes provides a range based on 

population size and adjacency to metropolitan 

areas, RUCCs may be particularly beneficial for 

helping child welfare and related professionals 

better understand how to serve rural areas.

Strengths of Rural Communities

Rural communities have substantial strengths 

despite having less economic wealth, human 

capital, and physical capital (e.g., buildings, 

Internet) than urban communities. They 

often encompass bountiful natural resources. 

Additionally, rural communities, in part due to 

economic necessity, often exhibit creativity, 

entrepreneurship, and adaptability in solving 

local problems. The most valuable resource in 

rural America, though, may be its social capital, 

or strength in relationships (Belanger, 2004). 

Rural populations tend to demonstrate higher 

levels of trust, altruism, volunteering, helping 

others, and strong relationships (Putnam, 2000; 

Beaudoin & Thorson, 2004), as well as strong 

ties to the community (Berry, 1990; Tice, 2005). 

Challenges in Rural Communities

Rural communities face a number of 

challenges, such as poverty, substance abuse, 

unemployment, and lower levels of education. 

These challenges are particularly concerning 

because they are also strongly linked to child 

maltreatment (Sedlak et al., 2010). The Fourth 

National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and 

Neglect found that children in rural areas had 

higher incidence rates of maltreatment than 

children in urban and major urban areas in 

nearly every category of maltreatment and level 

of severity (Sedlak et al., 2010). For example, 

the study found that rates of abuse for children 

in rural areas were nearly two times higher than 

for children in major urban areas. 
Rural Child Welfare Practice

3 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/rural

http://www.childwelfare.gov

Poverty. Poverty is not only greater in rural 

America, but rural areas tend to have more 

working poor and more intense and persistent 

poverty (Weber, Jensen, Miller, Mosley, & Fisher, 

2005). In 2009, poverty rates were 16.6 percent 

in rural areas and 13.9 percent in urban areas. 

Employment. While rural and urban workers 

have roughly the same rates of unemployment, 

employment in rural America provides less 

financial support, with rural workers earning 

an average of 25.5 percent less than urban 

workers (USDA, 2006). Additionally, rural families 

often face higher costs of living than many 

may assume. For example, with few public 

transportation options, many rural families need 

to own a car. Rural families often pay the same 

or more for food, clothing, household goods 

and services, and health care due to the lack of 

chain stores and the greater distances products, 

service providers, and recipients must travel 

(Annie. E. Casey Foundation, 2004; Zimmerman, 

Ham, & Frank, 2008). 

Education. In 2000, only 15.5 percent of rural 

adults had graduated from college compared 

to 26.6 percent of urban adults over 25 years 

of age (USDA, 2003). In that same year, 23.2 

percent of rural adults did not graduate from 

high school compared to 18.7 percent for 

urban adults (USDA). 

Substance abuse. Although overall substance 

abuse rates in rural areas (7.5 percent) are 

slightly lower than in urban areas (8.8 percent to 

9.4 percent), usage can vary by subpopulation 

or drug (U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services [HHS], 2011). For example, a national 

study found methamphetamine and stimulant 

usage to be higher among youth in counties 

with the smallest populations and a higher 

prevalence of methamphetamine use for adults 

in all nonmetropolitan counties (Gfroerer, 

Larson, & Colliver, 2007). Additionally, substance 

abuse treatment in rural areas is more difficult 

to access, particularly treatment that provides 

intensive services (e.g., methadone treatment, 

detoxification) (Lenardson & Gale, 2008). 

Social Capital

Child welfare professionals draw from a variety 

of theories to help guide policy, practice, 

and research on child welfare practice in rural 

communities. While the ecological systems 

and strengths perspectives provide helpful 

foundations for practice in rural communities 

(Irey, 1980; Jones & Zlotnik, 1998; Tice, 

2005; Allen, 2005), social capital theory may 

provide the strongest way to understand rural 

communities (Belanger, 2004). Social capital 

refers to resources such as relationships, trust, 

and norms available by membership in a social 

network that result in outcomes that would 

not otherwise be possible (Coleman, 1990; 

Bourdieu, 1991; Portes, 1998; Putnam, 2000). 

In rural communities, people tend to know 

one another over a longer period of time and 

have relationships that are reciprocal. They 

need to get along because, in essence, they 

live closely together. 

In rural practice, success often depends on 

who you know rather than what you know. 

Social capital theory suggests that those 

“richest” in social capital within the community 

will be better able to recruit foster and 

adoptive homes than experts from outside the 

community (Belanger, Copeland, & Cheung, 

Child Welfare Practice 

in Rural Communities
Rural Child Welfare Practice http://www.childwelfare.gov

4 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/rural

2008). Similarly, judges may trust local child 

welfare investigators or court-appointed 

special advocate (CASA) volunteers more 

than a professional licensed caseworker from 

another county. Additionally, when formal 

resources are not available to assist a family, 

local caseworkers who are known and trusted 

by the community may be able to use their 

relationships (i.e., social capital) to engage 

other resources (churches, teachers, doctors, 

other family members) to meet the need. 

For child welfare professionals from outside 

the community, it may be helpful to establish 

relationship strongholds by informally spending 

time in the community. This can result in 

incidental recruiting and may be more effective 

than formal recruiting that could appear as 

outsider marketing (Belanger & Haynes, 2012). 

Service Availability and 

Accessibility Array

According to a review of the final reports 

of the first round of the Child and Family 

Services Reviews, nearly every State had 

difficulties providing a full service array in 

rural communities (Belanger, Price-Mayo, 

& Espinosa, 2008). Caseworkers may not 

substantiate known abuse or neglect if 

services are not available, which may 

cause some children to remain in harmful 

environments (Dawson & Wells, 2007). 

A study requested by the Child Welfare League 

of America (CWLA) Committee on Rural Social 

Services found that rural counties frequently did 

not have access to services that are considered 

necessary for child welfare practice (e.g., 

substance abuse treatment, mental health 

care, parenting classes) but that were available 

in urban counties (Belanger & Stone, 2008). 

For example, only 80 percent of rural counties 

have mental health services, while 95 percent 

of urban counties have them (New Freedom 

Commission, 2004). Rural families with children 

who have serious mental health challenges face 

the possibility of having to relinquish custody 

of their children to obtain services and costly 

residential treatment when in-home services 

might have been possible in an urban area 

(Mohatt, Bradley, Adams, & Morris, 2005). 

Additionally, 11.4 percent of physicians practice 

in rural areas despite nearly one-fifth of the 

population living in these areas (Fordyce, Chen, 

Doescher & Hart, 2007). Rural areas also have 

approximately 2.5 times fewer pediatricians 

per capita as urban areas and approximately 

2.5 times fewer specialists per capita, including 

one-third as many psychiatrists, as urban areas. 

Aside from availability, barriers to obtaining 

services in rural communities include:

• Transportation problems

• Child care issues

• Substance and alcohol abuse

• Physical health problems

• Low literacy levels or difficulty 

completing paperwork

• Finding providers that speak a specific 

language (Allard & Cigna, 2008)

Specialization vs. Generalization

Rural areas often have difficulty supporting 

specialized practice in many fields, including 

child welfare. Caseworkers in rural areas may 

need to take the lead in a broad range of 

practice areas, such as investigations, risk 

and safety assessments, family-based safety 

services, and foster home recruitment and 

retention. A single caseworker may not be able 

to become proficient in all these areas, and 

rural areas may have limited resources to hire 
Rural Child Welfare Practice

5 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/rural

http://www.childwelfare.gov

enough caseworkers to allow for specialization. 

To address this issue, some States have set up 

State or regional offices as hubs from which 

workers specialized in various areas, such as 

investigations, family safety, resource family 

recruitment, and licensing, may travel. 

To address the lack of resources in rural 

communities, State and local agencies 

have used various means to expand 

or pool what resources are available, 

such as centralized intake systems and 

wraparound services. Many States have 

developed centralized intake systems to 

provide greater consistency in responding 

to complaints, but these systems are 

in urban locations, which may have a 

profound impact on rural communities. 

The effects of these systems may include 

fewer local jobs, a reluctance to report 

maltreatment outside of their community, 

and a reduced commitment or increased 

feeling of powerlessness in caring for its 

own children. 

Although rural communities may have 

few resources, they can use wraparound 

services to effectively collaborate, 

collocate, and integrate services and 

funding (Gutierrez et al., 2010). Rural 

communities can achieve better child 

welfare outcomes by integrating child 

welfare with health and other human 

services, decentralizing whatever is 

possible to the local level, and partnering 

with family and community resource 

centers to provide preventive services, 

training, and family-based safety services 

(Gutierrez, Belanger, Forrest Redfern, 

Goolsby, & Richgels, 2012). 

POSSIBILITIES FOR GENERALIZATION

Rural Cultural Competence 

and Diverse Populations

Cultural competence in rural communities 

requires an understanding of general rural 

culture and the many different racial and 

ethnic cultures that reside in rural areas. The 

CWLA National Advisory Committee on Rural 

Social Services developed and tested a set 

of guidelines for rural cultural competence in 

child welfare. These guidelines highlight how 

various issues, such as the following, affect 

rural practice:

• Personal connections

• Language (e.g., different languages, 

dialects, accents, language patterns 

and meanings)

• Meaning of time (e.g., not feeling 

compelled to start a meeting at the exact 

scheduled time)

• Dress codes

• Definition of family (blood and fictive kin)

• Family and community history

• Marginalization (Belanger & Brooks, 2009) 

In 2010, racial and ethnic minorities comprised 

more than 20 percent of the rural population 

(USDA, 2011b). This minority population 

includes African Americans (8.3 percent of 

the total rural population), Hispanics (7.5 

percent), and American Indians, Asians, Pacific 

Islanders, and those self-identifying as “other” 

or multiple (5 percent). In addition to being 

proficient in general rural culture, child welfare 

professionals need to have an understanding 

of the racial and ethnic cultures that populate 

rural communities and the implications for 

their practice. Different approaches may be 

required when working with a particular racial 
Rural Child Welfare Practice http://www.childwelfare.gov

6 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/rural

or ethnic group in a rural area than in an 

urban area (Avant, 2004).Immigrants and nonEnglish-speaking families may have particular 

challenges that must inform rural child welfare 

policy and practice (Cordova, 2004). For 

example, a rural Spanish-speaking family may 

require mental health services, but there may 

be no bilingual providers in the area. 

Although rural African American children may 

have disparate experiences and outcomes in 

the child welfare system than White children, 

it may be to less of an extent than in urban 

areas (Wulczyn & Lery, 2007). One study 

found that for all children entering foster care 

for the first time in 2005, African American 

Although American Indians comprise less 

than 2 percent of the rural population, 

more than half live in rural areas (Housing 

Assistance Council, 2012). Child welfare 

professionals should be attuned to the 

particular cultural values and needs 

of Native American families and be 

knowledgeable about the Indian Child 

Welfare Act (ICWA) and other policies 

that may affect their practice. The 

following resources provide valuable 

information about working with Native 

American families:

• National Child Welfare Resource Center 

for Tribes (http://www.nrc4tribes.org/)

• National Indian Child Welfare 

Association (http://www.nicwa.org/) 

• Child Welfare Information Gateway 

(http://www.childwelfare.gov/

systemwide/cultural/families/indian.cfm)

WORKING WITH AMERICAN 

INDIAN FAMILIES IN RURAL AREAS

children in urban areas entered at a rate 2.5 

times higher than White children relative to 

the population, but at nearly identical rates in 

rural areas that were not adjacent to an urban 

area and only 1.3 times higher in rural areas 

that were adjacent to an urban area (Belanger 

& Smith, 2008). The stronger relationships in 

rural communities may help reduce the number 

of children of color from entering foster care 

(Belanger & Smith, 2008). 

Access to Information

Access to information is a critical issue at every 

level of the rural child welfare system. 

Administrators and policymakers. Child welfare 

administrators and policymakers generally are 

located in urban centers. While they have access 

to data, they may not understand or experience 

critical challenges or cultural differences in 

rural locations, or they may hold incorrect 

assumptions about the communities. For 

example, a State administrator may require that 

all caseworkers complete a video-based online 

training, but caseworkers in rural areas might not 

have access to an Internet connection that is fast 

enough to show the video. Additionally, child 

welfare research tends to focus on urban areas, 

which leaves a large gap in the literature about 

how to best serve rural communities (Strong, 

Del Grosso, Burwick, Jethwani, & Ponza, 2005). 

All of this may contribute to policies that are 

counterproductive to rural practice and further 

challenge already stressed rural communities. 

Supervisors. Rural supervisors may not have 

the same immediate access (e.g., face-to-face 

meetings) to administrators as their urban 

counterparts, which may result in policies 

that favor urban locations. Additionally, rural 

supervisors may not have the same access to 

training as their urban counterparts. 
Rural Child Welfare Practice

7 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/rural

http://www.childwelfare.gov

Caseworkers. Rural caseworkers may not have 

the time or Internet access that would allow 

them to remain current on policies, advances in 

evidence-based practices and other research, 

and training opportunities. Even when Internet 

access is available, it may not be of sufficient 

capacity to allow rural caseworkers to take full 

advantage of the information (e.g., webinars 

may not work on dial-up Internet connections). 

Families. Birth parents and foster/adoptive 

parents also may have limited access to 

training, online applications for services or 

supports, online job applications, and other 

resources, such as health-care information. 

Many resources for National Guard or military 

reserve family members are online. For families 

without access to the Internet, this is a handicap 

for them as well as the workers assisting them. 

Creative solutions for keeping families informed 

include newsletters, teleconferences, distance 

lending libraries, partnerships with community 

colleges and universities to help provide access 

to technology, and telephone hotlines to help 

access assistance. 

Ethical Practice

Rural communities present serious ethical 

dilemmas for child welfare practice, 

particularly dilemmas related to dual 

relationships, confidentiality, caseworker 

competence in related fields, and utilizing 

natural helper networks. 

Dual relationships. Because of the smaller 

populations in rural areas, residents of rural 

areas are more likely to relate to each other in 

multiple ways than people in urban areas. For 

example, a rural caseworker may interact with 

a client as a professional, but the caseworker 

may also be a member of the same church or 

civic organization, have a child that attends the 

same school as the client’s child, or frequent 

the client’s workplace. 

Some administrators have attempted to limit 

dual relationships by hiring staff from outside 

their communities. This may cause other 

issues, however, because connectedness and 

social interchanges are one of the greatest 

strengths of rural communities; requiring 

staff to remain isolated in a rural community 

may be both impossible and not culturally 

appropriate (Belanger & Brooks, 2009). 

Instead, it is important for rural child welfare 

professionals to understand how to manage 

multiple relationships and anticipate the kinds 

of circumstances that might arise (Galbreath, 

2005). Workers should clarify in advance 

with a client how public encounters will be 

handled and then discuss any encounters 

afterwards (Boisen & Bosch, 2005; Werth, 

Hastings & Riding-Malon, 2010). Caseworkers 

may even want to address dual relationships 

in their informed consent forms. For example, 

one child welfare professional included the 

following: “If I see you at Wal-Mart/Kroger/

church (by far the most common meeting 

places), I will not talk to you unless you 

approach me” (Burkemper, 2005, p. 182). 

Confidentiality. Because of overlapping 

relationships and closed rural systems, 

maintaining confidentiality can be difficult. 

Even using generalities to discuss the case 

with others may provide enough information 

to breach confidentiality. Caseworkers may 

be tempted to share information to correct 

misinformation (e.g., rumors) or to try to find 

clients additional resources. Also, caseworkers 

may receive informal reports of maltreatment 

(e.g., at church), which may raise confidentiality 

issues for both the reporter and the family. 

Formalizing those reports and obtaining 

releases to share specifics, when appropriate, 

can help avoid miscommunication and 

confusion (Stromm-Gottfried, 2005). 
Rural Child Welfare Practice http://www.childwelfare.gov

8 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/rural

Child welfare administrators and 

supervisors should ensure that caseworkers 

complete or have access to training and 

supervision that focus on dual relationship 

and confidentiality issues in rural 

communities, including the potential benefits 

of smaller systems and naturally occurring 

relationships to clients. Agency policies 

should be tailored to rural realities. 

Rural caseworker competence in related 

fields. Because of the limited resources and 

limited number of professionals in rural areas, 

child welfare professionals may not be able 

to refer clients for the assistance they need. 

There may not be anyone with the required 

specialized skills or experience within the 

community or at any reasonable distance to 

assist either the professional or the client. For 

example, a child victim may require counseling 

from a provider skilled in posttraumatic 

stress syndrome (PTSD), but the closest 

provider may be more than 100 miles away. 

When situations like this occur, professionals 

need to investigate ways to provide the 

needed services, including increasing their 

own competence in that area (Lohmann & 

Lohmann, 2005). Creative solutions for child 

welfare professionals include: 

• Providing services with peer assistance and 

supervision

• Accessing supervision or technical 

assistance through teleconferences or 

regular meetings with professionals in other 

locations

• Finding ways to connect the client with 

assistance in other locations

• Participating in advanced degree programs 

or other educational opportunities, either in 

the community or online 

If these options are not available or if 

the client cannot be referred for outside 

assistance, the child welfare professional 

needs to decide whether her level of 

competence is better than no help at all.

Utilizing natural helping networks. One of 

the most important assets in rural communities 

is the availability of natural helping networks, 

particularly because of the often limited 

formal resources. Rural communities often 

have a tradition of helping their members as 

neighbors, as participants in common activities 

(e.g., church), or simply as people concerned 

with the welfare of others in their community 

(Watkins, 2004). These natural helping 

networks frequently are utilized without 

consideration of formal mechanisms. For 

example, friends may automatically provide 

a place for children to stay when their father 

becomes violent, when a child is told not 

to come home anymore, or when a mother 

becomes incapacitated with mental illness. 

Additionally, friends or family members may 

act as language translators because an official 

translator is not available. 

However, natural helping networks also 

have risks, particularly in the areas of 

confidentiality, conflict of values, and 

protection of the client’s rights. For example, 

when family members act as translators, 

the translator may modify the questions in 

translation because he does not want to 

hurt the relative with accusations, or he may 

modify responses to what he perceives to 

be more desirable ones. Additionally, some 

natural helpers may believe it is important 

to share what a professional would consider 

to be confidential information. For example, 

the natural helper may request assistance for 

the family, unbeknownst to them, at church 
Rural Child Welfare Practice

9 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/rural

http://www.childwelfare.gov

or another community or Tribal gathering. 

Agencies may want to formally train natural 

helpers as they would official volunteers in 

order to expand the limited resources in 

the community.

The rural child welfare worker experience 

is unique and can differ greatly from that of 

urban workers. When compared to their urban 

counterparts, rural staff tend to have greater 

autonomy and decision-making authority, 

greater agency support, more opportunities for 

professional growth, greater job satisfaction, 

and greater commitment to the organization 

(Landsman, 2002). Rural workers, however, may 

have a higher risk of turnover than their urban 

counterparts (Fulcher & Smith, 2010; StrolinGoltzman, Auerbach, McGowan, & McCarthy, 

2008), although one study (Landsman, 2002) 

shows that rural workers have a stronger intent 

to stay with their agencies. The intention of 

rural workers to leave their jobs is significantly 

influenced by their efficacy (i.e., feeling like 

they are making a difference), job satisfaction, 

and life-work fit (Strolin-Goltzman et al., 2008). 

In a study of long-term child welfare 

employees, rural workers placed more 

emphasis on the importance of leadership 

provided by county office administrators, 

placed less emphasis on movement within 

the agency, and placed greater emphasis on 

teamwork (Westbrook, Ellis, & Ellett, 2006). 

Also, rural workers had greater satisfaction 

Preparing and 

Supervising a Rural 

Child Welfare Workforce

than their urban counterparts with their salaries 

and benefits, perhaps because there are fewer 

employment opportunities in rural areas.

This information can assist child welfare 

administrators and supervisors in rural areas 

to support their staff more appropriately and 

anticipate the workforce’s needs. They also 

need to ensure that their staff have the required 

skills, education, and supports to be successful 

in their practice. To achieve this, agencies need 

to provide travel funds, coverage of cases, 

and time to attend conferences and training; 

provide support for formal distance education 

to obtain advanced degrees; and utilize 

technology for consultation and supervision.

Preparing Caseworkers

Rural localities have lower proportions 

of workers with social work degrees than 

urban areas (Strolin-Goltzman et al., 2008). 

Practice in rural communities, however, 

requires a professional social work education 

that recognizes the distinct—and at times 

unique—challenges and that demonstrates 

an understanding and appreciation for rural 

communities. While all bachelor of social work 

degree programs accredited by the Council 

on Social Work Education require a generalist 

practice curriculum, many schools of social work 

provide advanced generalist concentrations for 

master’s degrees that prepare students for work 

in rural communities (Gibbs, Locke & Lohmann, 

1990; Lavitt, 2009; Vecchiolla et al., 2001). To 

prepare students to work in rural environments, 

social work programs should include the 

following elements:

• Basics of rural communities

• Rural cultural competence

• Need and asset assessment (Haulotte & 

Oliver, 2004), 
Rural Child Welfare Practice http://www.childwelfare.gov

10 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/rural

• Basic understanding of rural organizations 

and promising rural child welfare delivery 

structures (Landsman, 2002)

• How to create and integrate resources 

(Gutierrez et al., 2010; DeWeese-Boyd, 

2005; Riebschleger, 2005)

• Independent work skills

• A foundation in research and policy that 

provides students with the ability to 

integrate information and create structures 

that are relevant to rural child welfare 

• The role of power differentials in rural 

communities (Bubar & Bundy-Fazioli, 2011; 

Bundy-Fazioli, Briar-Lawson, & Hardiman, 

2009; Buchanan, 2008)

Supervising and Administering 

Child Welfare Practice

Rural communities present particular 

challenges in child welfare supervision and 

administration. Resources to assist families 

often are not available or easily accessible 

in rural communities, which raises the 

question of whether rural families receive 

equitable treatment (Belanger, Price-Mayo, 

& Espinosa, 2008). Child welfare supervisors 

and administrators in rural communities may 

need to develop policies and practices and 

make decisions that are context driven (i.e., 

are dependent on the availability, accessibility, 

and quality of available resources and other 

situational factors). The following are examples 

of context-driven issues that may arise: 

• What resources can be provided to a 

substance-abusing parent if the community 

has no substance abuse treatment services, 

and how does that affect other case 

decisions, such as removal from the home? 

• What should a caseworker do if local 

mental health treatment can only be 

accessed by entering the child welfare or 

juvenile justice systems? 

• Is a child from a very small town safe if he 

is placed in foster care in his hometown? 

Conversely, how will a child from a 

very small town fare if placed in a large 

metropolitan area that has a very different 

culture from a small town and that is far 

enough way to make parent-child visiting 

and visits with the caseworker 

very difficult?

• If the only provider of a specific evidencebased service has performed poorly in the 

past, should the agency still contract with 

that provider for that service?

All of these questions depend on the 

circumstances and specific rural context. 

It is essential for decision-making to be 

flexible enough to consider rural contexts, 

and administrators and supervisor may find 

collaboration with universities for program 

planning and evaluation a tremendous asset. 

Additionally, agencies may want to work 

with the community to develop nonprofit 

organizations, secure external funding, or 

further develop a volunteer base. 

Rural supervisors and administrators often 

have multiple roles in the agency and must 

oversee several programs (e.g., foster care 

recruitment, investigation, licensing) that 

serve large areas. They also may have dual 

relationships with the people they supervise 

(e.g., they supervise friends or relatives, the 

supervisee is the son of a county judge). 
Rural Child Welfare Practice

11 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/rural

http://www.childwelfare.gov

Additionally, the supervisors and 

administrators may be geographically isolated 

from the staff they supervise and from other 

administrators or supervisors in similar 

positions. Without professional peers in the 

community, particularly those at the Federal 

and State levels and who may have more 

exposure to other practices and policies, 

rural supervisors and administrators may be 

unable to easily consult on practice issues 

(e.g., confidentiality in a particular case) and 

may become further isolated professionally 

(Lohmann & Lohmann, 2005). 

Rural supervisors and administrators may 

have the unique challenge of using programs 

that were designed primarily for urban 

areas or rural areas that are adjacent to 

urban areas (Lohmann & Lohmann, 2005). 

For example, an evidence-based practice 

tested in a rural county adjacent to Austin, 

TX, and that has ample access to physicians, 

mental health professionals, workers with 

an M.S.W., and other resources may not be 

appropriate for use in rural West Texas, which 

is a more isolated area. Additionally, fidelity 

to a particular evidence-based practice may 

require specific skill sets, licenses, training, 

or auxiliary services (e.g., substance abuse 

treatment), all of which may be difficult to 

obtain in a rural setting. Supervisors and 

administrators in rural areas may have to 

make difficult decisions when determining 

what practices may be applicable in their 

communities and how to spend limited funds 

to promote staff development. 

The following are questions rural supervisors 

and administrators can ask when considering 

evidence-based practices:

• How rural was the county where the 

evidence was gathered? What definition 

of rurality was used?

• Using the preceding definition of rurality, 

how rural is the county in which the 

practice would be implemented?

• What is required of the workforce to 

implement the practice? Are qualified 

personnel available in the community?

• What supportive services are required for 

fidelity to the model? Are they available 

in the community? 

• What financial contribution is necessary 

for implementation, and is it available?

• How will model implementation impact 

rural relationships in the community?

• If the most promising model or EBP 

cannot be implemented, what is the

next best promising practice that could 

be implemented? Do policies allow for 

appropriate rural interventions when there 

are no adequate rural appropriate EBP’s?

• What research is needed to adapt or test 

promising models for rural practice?

EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE 

IN RURAL COMMUNITIES
Rural Child Welfare Practice http://www.childwelfare.gov

12 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/rural

Federally Funded Rural 

Demonstration Grants

In 2003, the Children’s Bureau awarded grants 

to six universities to develop and evaluate a 

training to enhance frontline and supervisory 

staff capacity to provide effective child welfare 

services in rural communities. To view site 

visit reports for each grant and a synthesis of 

these grants’ final reports, visit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway at

http://www.childwelfare.gov/management/

funding/funding_sources/rural.cfm

Child welfare practice typically focuses 

on the experiences and circumstances of 

urban families. Child welfare professionals 

in rural areas must recognize the differences 

between these two populations and 

adapt their practice to meet the needs of 

rural families. Additionally, child welfare 

administrators and supervisors need to 

focus on the particular professional and 

personal needs of rural child welfare 

professionals, which often differ from their 

urban counterparts. As when working with 

any other nonmajority population or culture, 

child welfare professionals and policymakers 

should avoid inflexible assumptions or 

practices about rural populations. Rather, 

they should use the available information 

about working with rural populations, 

such as rural evidence-based practices, 

in conjunction with their own personal 

knowledge of the families and community. 

Conclusion
Rural Child Welfare Practice

13 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/rural

http://www.childwelfare.gov

U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS), Health Resources and Services 

Administration, Office of Rural Health

http://www.hrsa.gov/ruralhealth/

Provides a wealth of information and 

connections for all things related to rural health, 

including grants, policy and research, resources, 

maps, and references to other resources. 

HHS Substance Abuse and Mental Health 

Services Administration (SAMHSA)

http://store.samhsa.gov/pages/searchResult/rural

Includes numerous publications relating to rural 

substance abuse and mental health issues. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Office 

of Rural Development 

http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/Home.html

Provides information related to development 

and grant opportunities, including job creation, 

questions about rural broadband access and 

development, and other rural issues.

USDA, Economic Research Service

http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/rurality/

Includes information about measuring 

rurality, the rural economy, and other facets of 

rural communities.

Additional Resources

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD), Office of Rural Housing 

and Economic Development

http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/

economicdevelopment/programs/rhed/

Provides information about an HUD program 

for capacity building at the State and 

local level for rural housing and economic 

development and to support innovative 

housing and economic development activities 

in rural areas.

U.S. Department of Education, Rural 

Education Resource Center

http://www.ed.gov/rural-education

Provides information about rural education, 

including the Rural Educational Achievement 

Program (REAP) and the Small Rural School 

Achievement (SRSA) program.

National Resource Center for Permanency and 

Family Connections

http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/socwork/nrcfcpp/

info_services/rural-issues.html

Provides links to various resources about rural 

child welfare.
Rural Child Welfare Practice http://www.childwelfare.gov

14 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/rural

Allard, S., & Cigna, J. (2008). Access to social services in rural America: The geography of the 

safety net in the rural west. Retrieved from http://www.scottwallard.com/Allard_Cigna_

Perspectives%20June17.pdf

Allen, E. V. (2005). Teaching generalist practice in a rural context. In L. H. Ginsberg (Ed.), Social work 

in rural communities (4th ed.) (pp. 445–464). Alexandria, VA: Council on Social Work Education.

Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2004). The high cost of being poor: What it takes for low-income 

families to get by and get ahead in rural America. Retrieved from http://www.aecf.org/upload/

publicationfiles/rf2022k560.pdf

Avant, F. L. (2004). African Americans in rural areas: Building on assets from an Afrocentric 

perspective. In T. L. Scales & C. L. Streeter (Eds.), Rural social work: Building and sustaining 

community assets (pp. 77–86). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole/Thomson Learning.

Beaudoin, C. E., & Thorson, E. (2004). Social capital in rural and urban communities: Testing differences 

in media effects and models. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 81(2), 378–399.

Belanger, K. (2004). In search of a theory to guide rural practice: The case for social capital. In L. 

Ginsberg (Ed.), Social work in rural communities (4th ed.) (pp. 75–93). Alexandria, VA: CSWE Press.

Belanger, K., & Brooks, S. (2009). Guidelines for cultural competence in rural child welfare.

Arlington, VA: CWLA Press.

Belanger, K., Copeland, S., & Cheung, M. (2008). The role of faith in adoption: Achieving positive 

adoption outcomes for African American children. Child Welfare, 87(2), 99–123.

Belanger, K., & Haynes, J. (2012, February). Becoming engaged in rural communities. Presentation 

at the National Resource Center for Recruitment and Retention of Foster and Adoptive Families 

at AdoptUSKids. 

Belanger, K., Price-Mayo, B., & Espinosa, D. (2008). The plight of rural child welfare: Meeting 

standards without services. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 1(4), 1–19.

Belanger, K., & Smith, E. (2008, November). An analysis of racial disproportionality in rural child 

welfare. Presentation at the Annual Program Meeting of the Council on Social Work Education, 

Philadelphia, PA.

References
Rural Child Welfare Practice

15 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/rural

http://www.childwelfare.gov

Belanger, K., & Stone, W. (2008). The social service divide: Service availability and accessibility in rural 

versus urban counties and impact on child welfare outcomes. Child Welfare, 87(4), 101–124.

Berry, W. (1990). What are people for? San Francisco, CA: North Point Press.

Boisen, L. S., & Bosch, L. A. (2005). Dual relationships and rural social work: Is there a rural code? 

In L. H. Ginsberg (Ed.), Social work in rural communities (4th ed.) (pp. 189–204). Alexandria, VA: 

Council on Social Work Education, Inc.

Bourdieu, P. (1991). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and 

research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood. 

Bubar, R., & Bundy-Fazioli, K. (2011). Unpacking race, culture, and class in rural Alaska: Native and 

non-native multidisciplinary professionals’ perceptions of child sexual abuse. Journal of Ethnic & 

Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 20(1), 1–19.

Buchanan, S. (2008). Malign neglect. Retrieved from http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/

intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2006/winter/indian-blood/malign-neglect

Bundy-Fazioli, K., Briar-Lawson, K., & Hardiman, E. (2009). A qualitative examination of power 

between child welfare workers and parents. British Journal of Social Work, 39(3), 1447–1464.

Burkemper, E. M. (2005). Ethical mental health social work practice in the small community. In L. H. 

Ginsberg (Ed.), Social work in rural communities (4th ed.) (pp. 175–188). Alexandria, VA: Council 

on Social Work Education, Inc.

Coleman, J. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. 

Cordova, W. (2004). Life in a colonia: Identifying community assets. In T. L. Scales & C. L. Streeter 

(Eds.), Rural social work: Building and sustaining community assets (pp. 87–93). Belmont, CA: 

Brooks/Cole/Thomson Learning.

Dawson, J., & Wells, M. (2007). Crimes involving child victims: Law enforcement reporting to child 

protective services in rural communities. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 1(4), 43–65. 

DeWeese-Boyd, M. (2005). Community political economy and community empowerment: The 

continuing relevance of community organizing for social work practice in rural communities. In L. 

H. Ginsberg (Ed.), Social work in rural communities (4th ed.) (pp. 53–74). Alexandria, VA: Council 

on Social Work Education, Inc.

Fordyce, M. A., Chen, F. M., Doescher, M. P., & Hart, L. G. (2007). 2005 physician supply and 

distribution in rural areas of the United States. Retrieved from http://depts.washington.edu/

uwrhrc/uploads/RHRC%20FR116%20Fordyce.pdf
Rural Child Welfare Practice http://www.childwelfare.gov

16 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/rural

Fulcher, G. M., & Smith, R. J. (2010). Environmental correlates of public child welfare worker 

turnover. Administration in Social Work, 34, 442–457.

Galbreath, W. B. (2005). Dual relationships in rural communities. In R. A. Lohmann & N. Lohmann 

(Eds.), Rural social work practice (pp. 105–123). New York: Columbia University Press.

Gibbs, P., Locke, B., & Lohmann, R. (1990). Paradigm for the generalist-advanced generalist 

continuum. Journal of Social Work Education, 26(3), 232–243. 

Gfroerer, J., Larson, S., & Colliver, J. (2007). Drug use patterns and trends in rural communities. The 

Journal of Rural Health, 23, 10–15. 

Gutierrez, M., Belanger, K., Clark, V., Friedman, J., Forrest Redfern, J., Weber, B., Fluharty, C., & 

Richgels, J. (2010). Rethinking rural human service delivery in challenging times: The case for 

service integration. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), 

Office of Rural Health Policy.

Gutierrez, M., Belanger, K., Forrest Redfern, J., Goolsby, L., & Richgels, J. (2012). Humboldt 

County, CA: A promising model for rural human services integration and transformation.

Washington, DC: DHHS, Office of Rural Health Policy.

Haulotte, S. M., & Oliver, S. (2004). A strategy for uncovering, accessing, and maximizing assets and 

strengths in rural area social services. In T. L. Scales & C. L. Streeter (Eds.), Rural social work: building 

and sustaining community assets (pp. 108–117). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole/Thomson Learning.

Housing Assistance Council. (2012). Race & ethnicity in rural America. Retrieved from 

http://www.ruralhome.org/storage/research_notes/rrn-race-and-ethnicity-web.pdf

Irey, K. (1980). The social work generalist in a rural context: An ecological perspective. Journal of 

Education for Social Work, 16(3), 36–42.

Jones, S. J., & Zlotnik, J. L. (Eds.). (1998). Preparing professionals to meet community needs: 

Generalizing from the rural experience. Alexandria, VA: Council on Social Work Education. 

Landsman, M. J. (2002). Rural child welfare practice from an organization-in-environment 

perspective. Child Welfare, 81, 791–819.

Lavitt, M. R. (2009). What is advanced in generalist practice? A conceptual discussion. Journal of 

Teaching in Social Work, 29(4), 461–473.

Lenardson, J., & Gale, J. A. (2008). Distribution of substance abuse treatment facilities across 

the rural–urban continuum. Retrieved from http://muskie.usm.maine.edu/Publications/rural/

pb35bSubstAbuseTreatmentFacilities.pdf
Rural Child Welfare Practice

17 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/rural

http://www.childwelfare.gov

Lohmann, N., & Lohmann, R. A. (2005). The multiple roles of a rural administrator. In R. A. Lohmann & 

N. Lohmann (Eds.), Rural social work practice (pp. 144–160). New York: Columbia University Press.

Mohatt, D. F., Bradley, M. M., Adams, S. J., & Morris, C. D. (2005). Mental health and rural America: 

1994–2005: An overview and annotated bibliography. Retrieved from ftp://ftp.hrsa.gov/

ruralhealth/RuralMentalHealth.pdf

New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. (2004). Subcommittee on Rural Issues: Background 

paper (DHHS Publication No. SMA-04-3890). Rockville, MD: Author.

Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of 

Sociology, 24, 1–24.

Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Reynnells, L., & John, P. L. (2008). What is rural? Retrieved from http://www.nal.usda.gov/ric/

ricpubs/what_is_rural.shtml

Riebschleger, J. (2005). Facilitating rural community planning groups: Collaboration games we 

know and (sometimes) love. In L. H. Ginsberg (Ed.), Social work in rural communities (4th ed.) 

(pp. 109–122). Alexandria, VA: Council on Social Work Education, Inc.

Sedlak, A. J., Mettenburg, J., Basena, M., Petta, I., McPherson, K., Greene, A., & Li, S. (2010). 

Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS–4): Report to Congress, 

executive summary. Washington, DC: DHHS, Administration for Children and Families.

Strolin-Goltzman, J., Auerbach, C., McGowan, B. G., & McCarthy, M. L. (2008). The relationship 

between organizational characteristics and workforce turnover among rural, urban, and 

suburban public child welfare systems. Administration in Social Work, 32(1), 77–91.

Strom-Gottfried, K. (2005). Ethical practice in rural environments. In L. H. Ginsberg (Ed.), Social work in 

rural communities (4th ed.) (pp. 141–156). Alexandria, VA: Council on Social Work Education, Inc.

Strong, D., Del Grosso, P., Burwick, A., Jethwani, V., & Ponza, M. (2005). Rural research needs and data 

sources for selected human services topics. Retrieved from http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/05/rural-data/

Tice, C. J. (2005). Celebrating rural communities: A strengths assessment. In L. H. Ginsberg (Ed.), 

Social work in rural communities (4th ed.) (pp. 95–108). Alexandria, VA: Council on Social Work 

Education, Inc.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Economic Research Service (ERS). (2003). Rural education 

at a glance. Retrieved from http://webarchives.cdlib.org/sw1vh5dg3r/http://ers.usda.gov/

publications/rdrr98/
Rural Child Welfare Practice http://www.childwelfare.gov

18 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/rural

USDA, ERS. (2006). Rural employment at a glance. Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/

publications/eib21/eib21.pdf

USDA, ERS. (2007). Measuring rurality. Retrieved from http://webarchives.cdlib.org/wayback.

public/UERS_ag_1/20110902190425/http://ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Rurality/

USDA, ERS. (2011a). Data for rural analysis. Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/ruraleconomy-population/rural-classifications/data-for-rural-analysis.aspx

USDA, ERS. (2011b). Rural America at a glance: 2011 edition. Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.

gov/media/123318/eib85.pdf

USDA, ERS. (2012a). State fact sheets. Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/StateFacts/US.htm

USDA, ERS. (2012b). Rural definitions. Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/

rural-definitions.aspx

U.S. DHHS, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2011). Results from the 

2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of national findings. Retrieved from 

http://www.samhsa.gov/data/NSDUH/2k10NSDUH/2k10Results.htm

Vecchiolla, F. J., Roy, A. W., Lesser, J. G., Wronka, J., Walsh-Burke, K., Gianesin, J., Foster, D., & 

Negroni, L. K. (2001). Advanced generalist practice: A framework for social work in the twentyfirst century. Journal of Teaching in Social Work 21(3/4), 91–104.

Watkins, T. R. (2004). Natural helping networks: Assets for rural communities. In T. L. Scales & 

C. L. Streeter (Eds.), Rural social work: Building and sustaining community assets (pp. 65–76). 

Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole/Thomson Learning.

Weber, B., Jensen, L., Miller, K., Mosley, J., & Fisher, M. (2005). A critical review of rural poverty 

literature: Is there truly a rural effect? Retrieved from http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/dps/

pdfs/dp130905.pdf
Rural Child Welfare Practice http://www.childwelfare.gov

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Administration for Children and Families

Administration on Children, Youth and Families

Children’s Bureau

Werth Jr., J. L., Hastings, S. L., & Riding-Malon, R. (2010). Ethical challenges of practicing in rural 

areas. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 66(5), 537–548.

Westbrook, T. M., Ellis, J., & Ellett, A. J. (2006). Improving retention among public child welfare 

workers: What can we learn from the insights and experiences of committed survivors? 

Administration in Social Work, 30(4), 37–62.

Wulczyn, F., & Lery, B. (2007). Racial disparity in foster care admissions. Retrieved from 

http://www.chapinhall.org/sites/default/files/old_reports/399.pdf

Zimmerman, J. N., Ham, S., & Frank, S. M. (2008). Does it or doesn’t it? Geographic differences 

and the costs of living. Rural Sociology, 73, 463–486.

Acknowledgment: This issue brief was developed by Child Welfare Information Gateway, in 

partnership with Kathleen Belanger, Ph.D. This document is made possible by the Children’s 

Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Administration for Children and 

Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The conclusions discussed here are 

solely the responsibility of the authors and do not represent the official views or policies of the 

funding agency.

Suggested Citation: Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2012). Rural child welfare practice.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau.