1330 Broadway, Suite 1426 

Oakland, CA 94612 

Tel: (510) 763-1499 

Fax: (510) 763-1599 

www.spra.com 

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

S O CIA L P O L ICY R ESEA R C H

A S S O CIATE S

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Prepared for: 

Employment and Training Administration Occasional Paper 2005-07

Workforce Development in 

Rural Areas: Changes in 

Access, Service Delivery and 

Partnerships 

Final Report 

June 30, 2005 

Prepared by: 

Kate Dunham 

Annelies Goger 

Jennifer Henderson-Frakes 

Nichole Tucker 

U.S. Department of Labor/ 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

200 Constitution Ave., N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20210 

This report has been funded, either wholly or in part, with Federal funds from 

the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration under 

Contract Number AF-12526-02-30. The contents of this publication do not 

necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of Labor, nor does 

mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply 

endorsement of same by the U.S. Government. 
This page is intentionally left blank. 

Insert blank page here when making double-sided copies.
 1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

We wish to acknowledge the contributions and support of DOL Employment and Training 

Administration staff, especially our project officer, Kerri Vitalo and David Balducchi, Chief of 

Pilots and Demonstrations. Their advice and support throughout the project are much 

appreciated. 

We are also grateful to the administrators and staff from the five local areas who were very 

gracious in accommodating our site visits and describing to us the challenges of providing 

workforce development services in rural areas. These local areas are: 

• North Central Pennsylvania Workforce Investment Board 

• Southeast Georgia Workforce Investment Board 

• Northern New Mexico Local Workforce Development Board 

• Northwest Iowa Planning—Regions 3 and 4 

• Linn, Benton, and Lincoln County Workforce Investment Board 
This page is intentionally left blank. 

Insert blank page here when making double-sided copies.
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................... ES-1 

I. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................... I-1

Methodology....................................................................................................................I-2

Design and Literature Review.....................................................................................I-3

Analysis of Local Office and One-Stop Distribution ....................................................I-3

Site Visits....................................................................................................................I-3

Analysis and Reporting...............................................................................................I-7

Limitations of the Study...................................................................................................I-7

Background on Sites Visited ...........................................................................................I-9

Overview of the Report .................................................................................................I-12

II. CHANGES IN RURAL AREAS AND WORKFORCE 

DEVELOPMENT NETWORKS OVER TIME......................................................... I-1

Demographic and Economic Changes in Rural Areas....................................................I-1

Demographic Trends ..................................................................................................I-2

Economic Trends........................................................................................................I-8

Changes to Workforce Development Access Points.....................................................I-15

Changes in Workforce Development Access Points between 1979 

and 2004...................................................................................................................I-16

Number of Access Points in 2004.............................................................................I-19

Reasons for Changes in Numbers of Access Points and the 

Development of Current Networks............................................................................I-24

Conclusion ....................................................................................................................I-27

III. ONE-STOP SERVICE DELIVERY AND ACCESSIBILITY IN 

RURAL AREAS .................................................................................................. III-1

Rural One-Stop Access Points......................................................................................III-2

Access Point Typology .............................................................................................III-2

Rural One-Stop Networks.......................................................................................III-12
ii

Supplementary Strategies for Providing Rural Customers with Access 

to Workforce Services .................................................................................................III-24

Transportation Assistance to Customers................................................................III-25

Internet Services.....................................................................................................III-26

Services over the Phone.........................................................................................III-29

Staff Travel to Customers.......................................................................................III-31

Outreach and Marketing..............................................................................................III-32

General Outreach and Marketing ...........................................................................III-32

Outreach Challenges and Strategies for Special Populations................................III-34

Availability of Workforce Development Service Providers...........................................III-37

Availability of One-Stop Operators, and WIA Adult and Dislocated 

Worker Program Providers .....................................................................................III-38

WIA Youth Services................................................................................................III-39

ITAs and Eligible Training Providers.......................................................................III-40

Summary.....................................................................................................................III-43

IV. RURAL ONE-STOP PARTNERSHIPS ...............................................................IV-1

Key Rural One-Stop Partners ...................................................................................... IV-4

Specialized Rural One-Stop Partners .......................................................................... IV-7

FBOs........................................................................................................................ IV-7

CBOs ..................................................................................................................... IV-10

National Farmworker Jobs Program...................................................................... IV-11

Agricultural Extension............................................................................................ IV-12

Inter-Partner Service Delivery Coordination............................................................... IV-13

Cost and Funding of Rural One-Stops ....................................................................... IV-15

Summary of Benefits and Challenges of Rural Partnerships ..................................... IV-18

Summary.................................................................................................................... IV-21

V. CONCLUSION........................................................................................................V-1

Similarities in Systems and Challenges ........................................................................ V-1

Differences in Systems and Challenges ....................................................................... V-3

Reaching Widely Scattered Customers.................................................................... V-3

Overcoming Transportation Barriers......................................................................... V-4

Scarcity of Workforce Development Providers ......................................................... V-6

One-Stop Partnership Differences............................................................................ V-6

Overall Adequacy and Accessibility of Rural Workforce Services................................. V-7
iii

APPENDIX A: DETAILED CHARACTERISTICS OF EACH TYPE OF 

ACCESS POINT.................................................................................................. A-1 

APPENDIX B: LOCAL AREA PROFILES.................................................................. B-1 

APPENDIX C: NATIONAL MAPS AND TABLES ...................................................... C-1 

APPENDIX D: ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................... D-1 
This page is intentionally left blank. 

Insert blank page here when making double-sided copies.
ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

As part of a rapid response contract from the U.S. Department of Labor, Social Policy Research 

Associates (SPR) conducted a study of Workforce Development in Rural Areas: Changes in 

Access, Service Delivery and Partnerships. The broad objective for this study was to better 

understand the provision of workforce development services in rural areas and the challenges 

rural One-Stop systems face in providing those services. Key research questions were concerned 

with understanding: rural One-Stop service networks of access points and their challenges, other 

means of providing workforce development services to rural residents, rural One-Stop 

partnerships and the role of different partners, cost and support for One-Stop centers, 

competition for workforce development services and availability of workforce development 

providers, and changes over time to workforce service delivery systems and services. 

In order to explore the key research topics above, SPR designed a mixed-methods study that 

involved four principal tasks that were carried out from August 2004 to May 2005: (1) study 

design and literature review, (2) a quantitative and geospatial analysis of local office and OneStop center distribution, (3) qualitative site visits to five rural local workforce investment areas 

in five states, and (4) analysis and reporting. 

The findings of this report are primarily based on the five qualitative site visits conducted in five 

states and rural areas. These states and the local areas were chosen in consultation with DOL, 

and were aimed at including a diverse group of sites in terms of degree of rurality, DOL regions, 

and number of workforce development access points. Site visitors spent four days at each of 

these sites, interviewing a variety of local respondents and visiting different types of access 

points. 

In addition to the site visit data, the report also contains maps and tables that display access 

points nationwide, changes over time, and locations in metropolitan versus non-metropolitan 

counties—both nationally and by state. These maps and tables were created based on each 

state’s local office and One-Stop distribution at three different points of time over the last 25 

years: 1979, 1999 and 2004. Sources for these data were DOL ETA (for 1979), America’s Job 

Link Alliance (for 1999), and America’s Service Locator (for 2004). 
 

ES-2

Based on this qualitative and quantitative data, this report presents findings on changes over time 

in rural areas’ service delivery and accessibility and One-Stop partnerships. 

Changes in Rural Areas and Workforce Development 

Networks Over Time 

Examining the broader context of how rural areas have changed over time is a natural first step 

in analyzing the workforce development needs and challenges in rural areas over time. These 

demographic and economic changes set the broad context for analyzing how and why the 

workforce development system has changed over the past 25 years. 

Demographic and Economic Changes in Rural Areas 

Over the past 25 years, rural areas in the U.S. have experienced multiple changes in their 

populations and economies. In terms of demographics, non-metro areas have experienced 

overall population growth albeit at a slightly lower rate than the U.S. as a whole. Non-metro 

areas have also seen a “graying” of their population, and some areas, particularly in the South 

and Midwest, have also faced a surging Hispanic population. Finally, low rates of postsecondary education have continued to be an issue in some rural areas. 

In addition to these demographic changes, rural areas have had to deal with major economic 

transformations. Many rural areas have experienced significant declines in employment in 

manufacturing, mineral and fossil fuel extraction and agricultural industries. Jobs in these 

industries have been replaced by employment in services, government and trade. High-paying 

jobs in these newly dominant industries—such as in health care—typically require higher levels 

of education than the manufacturing and extraction jobs they replaced. 

The result is what many local areas call a “job/skills mismatch,” where workers do not have the 

right skills to obtain the high wage jobs available in the new economy. In addition, the lack of 

high-skilled workers is impeding economic growth in these areas. To deal with this challenge, 

rural areas are implementing efforts to both upgrade worker skills and retain highly educated 

workers. They are also working more closely with current employers to keep those employers in 

the area and trying to attract new employers. 

Changes to Workforce Development Access Points 

In addition to experiencing these economic and demographic changes, local areas have also 

experienced major changes to their networks of workforce development access points. Between 

1979 and 1999, the number of access points—both overall and in non-metro area—fell by over a 
 

ES-3

quarter. However, from 1999 to 2004, the number of access points rebounded strongly, 

particularly in non-metro areas, where the number of access points in 2004 was nine percent 

higher than in 1979. The reasons for this growth in the number of access points from 1999 to 

2004 may be due to the effect of WIA, which was enacted in 1998. 

However, despite WIA’s likely overall positive impact on the number of access points, the 

experience of individual states and local areas has been mixed. For example, among the five 

local areas we visited for this study, only one experienced absolute increases in the number of 

access points following WIA implementation. In this area, the reason for the increase was due to 

the development of a large number of new access points operated by non-traditional workforce 

development providers such as libraries and churches. 

In the other four areas, by contrast, local One-Stop partners relied primarily on renovating 

already existing networks of ES offices to serve as One-Stop access points. When new One-Stop 

access points were developed, they were typically comprehensive centers that often resulted in 

an absolute decline in the total number of access points. 

One-Stop Service Delivery and Accessibility in Rural 

Areas 

Making workforce development services accessible to the residents of rural workforce 

investment areas—who live scattered over thousands of square miles in multiple counties—is 

truly challenging. To do this, rural areas use multiple strategies, including networks of access 

points, supplementary strategies to make services accessible, and outreach activities. Some local 

areas also reported developing strategies to deal with shortages of workforce development 

providers, which sometimes impact the quality and accessibility of service delivery. 

Rural One-Stop Access Points 

The principal service delivery strategy used by the five rural areas visited for this study is 

networks of two or more physical One-Stop access points. To be accessible to the majority of 

local residents, these access points are typically located in every county, in the largest cities and 

towns. They can be classified into six types, each with its own distinct characteristics: enhanced 

comprehensive centers, basic comprehensive centers, affiliates, satellites, computer-only and 

temporary centers. Comprehensive centers are the largest staffed access points, offering the 

most services, followed by affiliates and then satellites. Computer-only sites, meanwhile, are the 

smallest access points and are completely unstaffed. Temporary centers, which are located onsite or close to an affected workplace, are used by rural areas primarily with the aim of making 

services more accessible to laid off workers and vary in size depending on the size of the lay-off. 
 

ES-4

Although all five areas continue to operate systems that include some smaller access points such 

as affiliates and satellites, they are increasingly concentrating their resources and efforts on 

comprehensive centers because of the greater efficiency and convenience of these centers. 

Supplementary Strategies for Providing Rural Customers with 

Access to Workforce Services 

Because of the transportation barriers faced by many rural customers in reaching these access 

points, rural areas also use other service delivery strategies including transportation assistance 

(transportation vouchers, assistance with forming carpools, and using public vans), Internet 

services, services provided over the phone, and having staff travel to customer locations. 

However, each of these supplemental strategies is problematic for a variety of reasons. For 

example, each type of transportation assistance is either very expensive, difficult to schedule or 

causes liability problems. The major snag with online services, is that, despite rapid growth in 

usage, only slightly over half of all rural residents use the Internet. Services by phone are only 

effective for uncomplicated services such as basic job referrals, while having staff travel to 

customer locations is also costly, inefficient and hard on staff. 

Outreach and Marketing 

In another effort to improve the accessibility of workforce development services, the five local 

areas conduct marketing and outreach activities to ensure that customers know about available 

services. Because of small or nonexistent marketing budgets, general outreach and marketing 

are largely based on low cost strategies, such as presentations to partners and local organizations, 

Internet websites, and advertising on local radio stations. 

In addition to this general marketing, some rural areas also conduct outreach specifically focused 

on certain groups such as Native Americans and limited English-speaking Hispanics. These 

outreach strategies include hiring bilingual and bi-cultural staff, assigning staff to conduct 

outreach in certain communities and establishing small One-Stop access points in those 

communities. Local area respondents were somewhat mixed on whether these strategies have 

been successful in improving access, particularly for limited English-speaking Hispanic 

customers, with a few asserting the need for additional efforts. 

Availability of Workforce Development Service Providers 

Rural areas also often face scarcity in the number of workforce development providers. 

However, most local area respondents asserted that, although the number of providers is limited, 

it is sufficient for the provision of quality and accessible WIA services. The only exceptions are 
 

ES-5

in the case of certain types of WIA youth services and ITA-related training services. In these 

cases, local areas are pursuing strategies to overcome these service delivery challenges, including 

implementing special training programs for staff and distance learning programs. 

Rural One-Stop Partnerships 

Partnership lies at the heart of the WIA legislation and the effective implementation of One-Stop 

delivery systems. Partnership assumes even greater importance in rural local areas, where 

providers and resources are in shorter supply, and no one organization can afford to meet all the 

needs of each customer. With this in mind, partnership is one of the principal themes we 

explored during our visits to rural local areas. 

Key and Specialized Rural One-Stop Partners 

The rural local areas we visited are characterized by relatively few key One-Stop partners. ES 

and WIA play enormous roles with regard to service provision, One-Stop operation, and 

financial support of the local One-Stop system. Roles for other public, non-profit and private 

partners range widely by local area and by One-Stop center. Overall, though, while faith-based 

organizations may provide important supportive services, they are not major paying or colocated One-Stop partners in any of the local areas we visited. The role of community-based 

organization partners is quite diverse, with some serving as One-Stop operators and/or fulfilling 

mandatory One-Stop partner roles (e.g., WIA adult services provider), and others simply serving 

as occasional referral partners for supportive services. Only in one locale is there a local National 

Farmworker Jobs Program partner, though it is not a co-located partner, and there is not much 

evidence of a strong partnership to serve the migrant and seasonal farmworker (MSFW) 

population—perhaps due to a relatively small MSFW population, more general partnership 

challenges, and cultural competency issues. Agricultural extension plays a small or non-existent 

partnership role in most of the rural areas we visited because of weak local agricultural sectors 

and/or limited capacity to engage as a One-Stop partner. 

Inter-Partner Service Delivery Coordination 

Inter-partner coordination of services appears quite informal in the rural local areas that we 

visited. However, the extent to which this level of informality is effective or not depends largely 

on the quality of partners’ interpersonal relations and their ability to work frequently in close 

physical proximity. Open interpersonal or inter-organizational conflict can not only stymie 

effective partner coordination, but can also negatively impact customer knowledge or 

accessibility of various partner services. 
 

ES-6

Cost and Funding of Rural One-Stops 

Local areas differed quite a lot in the way they described operational costs for their One-Stop 

systems, making cross-site comparisons difficult. However, staffing and rent emerged as the 

largest specific costs when partners do not own the One-Stop sites, and resource sharing emerged 

as the most significant partnership challenge in most of the rural areas we visited. Ironically, 

while limited rural partner resources appear to make cost sharing critical—particularly when 

covering large geographic areas—limited resources was also cited by some local areas as the 

very reason for why they could not afford to share resources or engage in strong partnerships. 

All local areas rely heavily on ES to financially support the One-Stop system, though North 

Central Pennsylvania and Region 4 Oregon serve as significant models of resource sharing 

among diverse partners. One important source of in-kind support for all the local areas has been 

state workforce agency websites, which typically provide a range of job seeker and employer 

information and services. 

Summary of Benefits and Challenges of Rural Partnerships 

Overall, the particularly limited resources of rural partners, as well as the often close relations 

between rural One-Stop staff, are two factors that can have incredibly beneficial or detrimental 

effects on rural One-Stop partnerships. Limited resources may bring partners together out of 

necessity, or they may be used as justification for why partners cannot build effective 

collaboratives. Interpersonal relations between individuals, who in rural areas may know each 

other through multiple personal and professional contexts, can help develop and maintain 

professional ties. On the other hand, a rural or small-town atmosphere can magnify interpersonal 

conflicts that can in turn hinder professional linkages between One-Stop partners. 

Conclusion 

In general, we found that rural workforce development systems and the challenges they have 

faced are generally very similar to those of urban areas in most respects: adjusting to economic 

changes, utilizing access points to provide most services, developing One-Stop systems and 

partnerships, and dealing with conflicts over resource sharing and support for these systems. 

Despite these many similarities, in certain ways, rural workforce development systems and 

partnerships are also quite different from those in urban areas. One important reason for these 

differences is that rural areas confront different challenges than do urban areas. For example, 

one of the biggest challenges faced by rural workforce investment areas is making services 

accessible to widely scattered customers. Other major challenges include overcoming the 

significant transportation barriers that customers face, providing customers with all of the 
 

ES-7

services they need despite a scarcity of available workforce development providers and utilizing 

overstretched staff effectively. 

Overall, workforce development services in rural areas appear to be meeting the needs of the 

majority of rural customers However, it also seems that some groups of rural residents may not 

be able to access necessary workforce services as successfully as others. For example, a number 

of respondents noted that certain groups of racial or ethnic minorities, due to linguistic and 

cultural differences, are not accessing workforce services as readily as other groups. Perhaps the 

most significant group of rural customers who may not be able to effectively access services are 

poor residents of the most rural localities. Because of the importance of developing a clear 

understanding of these non-users for the purpose of developing strategies for more effectively 

reaching them, additional research to explore this issue further would be helpful. 
This page is intentionally left blank. 

Insert blank page here when making double-sided copies.
I-1

I. INTRODUCTION 

Though the rural U.S. population has been generally decreasing for 

over 200 years,1

 it still accounts for a significant percentage of the 

nation’s total population. In 2003, the Office of Management and 

Budget classified 2,052 counties as non-metropolitan.2 These 

counties account for 75 percent of the nation’s land area and are 

home to 17 percent of the U.S. population (49 million individuals). 

Furthermore, the period from 1990-2000 witnessed a rebound of 

sorts—an increase in the non-metropolitan population by 10.2 

percent, compared to just 2.6 percent growth in the preceding 

decade. 

A host of economic and demographic factors—including a decline 

in manufacturing, extraction and agriculture-based employment, as 

well as growth in service sector employment—are inextricably 

intertwined with fluctuations in the rural population and its labor 

patterns. The last decade’s changes in workforce development 

organizational structures and explosive advances in technology 

have also arguably affected the ways in which rural individuals 

seek jobs and access workforce development services. 

However, rural areas face a number of unique challenges in 

delivering workforce development services, such as serving widely 

 

1

 According to the U.S. Census, approximately 94 percent of the total 

population lived in rural areas in 1800, compared to 60 percent in 1900 and 

25 percent in 2000. 

2

 Throughout the report, for the sake of simplicity, we use the terms rural and 

non-metropolitan interchangeably due to their conceptual overlap. Both 

definitions—rural, as defined by the Census and non-metropolitan as defined 

by OMB—are provided in footnotes 3 and 4 below. 
I-2

scattered customers over large geographic areas, a fundamental 

shortage of service providers and infrastructure, and limited 

resources to provide services across large areas. Given these 

challenges, rural areas often need to devise distinct service delivery 

and partnership strategies in response. 

With this backdrop in mind, Social Policy Research Associates 

(SPR) conducted this study of Workforce Development in Rural 

Areas: Changes in Access, Service Delivery and Partnerships, as 

part of a rapid response contract from the U.S. Department of 

Labor. The broad objective for this study is to better understand 

the provision of workforce development services in rural areas and 

the challenges rural local workforce investment areas face in 

providing those services. Key research questions were concerned 

with understanding: 

• Rural One-Stop access point systems and their challenges 

• Other means of providing workforce development services to 

rural residents 

• Rural One-Stop partnerships and the role of different partners 

• Cost and support for One-Stop centers 

• Competition for workforce development services and 

availability of workforce development providers 

• Changes over time to workforce service delivery systems and 

services. 

Methodology 

In order to explore the key research topics above, SPR designed a 

mixed-methods study that involved four principal tasks that were 

carried out from August 2004 to May 2005: (1) study design and 

literature review, (2) a quantitative and geospatial analysis of local 

office and One-Stop center distribution, (3) qualitative site visits to 

five rural local workforce investment areas, and (4) analysis and 

reporting. These tasks are described below. 

The broad objective for 

this study is to better 

understand the 

provision of workforce 

development services in 

rural areas and the 

challenges rural local 

workforce investment 

areas face in providing 

those services. 
I-3

Design and Literature Review 

The study began with a review of the literature on One-Stop 

delivery system implementation in rural areas, as well as issues 

specifically pertaining to rural living, to determine what is known 

about the effectiveness of One-Stop centers in rural areas and what 

knowledge gaps currently exist. The literature review—which 

focused on reports published since 1994 from government sources, 

independent rural research/advocacy organizations, and 

academics—allowed us to finalize our research questions, study 

design and data collection tools based on the latest knowledge. 

Analysis of Local Office and One-Stop 

Distribution 

Following our literature review and design work, we began a 

quantitative analysis and mapping of local office and One-Stop 

center data. We compared national “snapshots” of each state’s 

local office and One-Stop distribution, whether in urban or rural 

areas, at three different points of time over the last 25 years: 1979, 

1999 and 2004. Sources for this data were DOL ETA (for 1979), 

America’s Job Link Alliance (for 1999), and America’s Service 

Locator (for 2004). Using ArcView mapping software, we 

geocoded the access points for each year and created a series of 

maps and tables that display access points nationwide, changes 

over time, and locations in metropolitan versus non-metropolitan 

counties—both nationally and by state. These maps and tables 

serve as rich companions to our discussion of the reasons behind 

the changes in access point distribution over time in Chapter II. 

Site Visits 

Our third major task involved four-day site visits in November and 

December 2004 to five local workforce investment areas (local 

areas) in five states, listed and visually depicted below in Exhibit I1: 

• North Central Pennsylvania Workforce Investment Board 

(North Central Pennsylvania) 

We compared national 

“snapshots” of each 

state’s local office and 

One-Stop distribution, 

whether in urban or 

rural areas, at three 

different points of time 

over the last 25 years: 

1979, 1999 and 2004. 
I-4

• Southeast Georgia Workforce Investment Board (Southeast 

Georgia) 

• Northern New Mexico Local Workforce Development Board 

• Northwest Iowa Planning—Region 3 and 4 (Northwest Iowa) 

• Linn, Benton, and Lincoln County Workforce Investment 

Board—Region 4 Oregon (Region 4 Oregon) 

Exhibit I-1: 

Locations of Site Visits 

*Please see the "Guide to the Reader" in Appendix C for map data sources. 

These states and the local areas were chosen in consultation with 

DOL ETA. Our aim was to visit one LWIA in all six DOL 

regions, though project resources allowed us to conduct only five 

site visits. DOL also expressed interest in specific states that a 
I-5

priori seemed to display different workforce strategies or serve 

different populations, which helped to finalize our selection. 

The choice of local areas within these states was based on a more 

complex process that involved determining which local areas in 

each of the five states should be considered rural. While there are 

three primary federal definitions often used in classifying an area 

as rural or urban (Census, OMB, and Department of Agriculture 

Economic Research Service definitions), we found that all of these 

had significant limitations in their ability to select rural local 

workforce investment areas. For instance, the Census definition is 

based on census blocks rather than counties,3 and therefore is not 

particularly useful in selecting local areas comprised of counties. 

Meanwhile, the OMB and ERS definitions do not reflect the fact 

that very few local areas are entirely metropolitan or nonmetropolitan, with the result that some predominantly rural local 

areas—that may contain one or more metropolitan counties—

might have been wrongfully excluded as potential site visit sites. 

To address the limitations of the federal definitions and effectively 

select rural local areas for our site visits, we created a hybrid 

definition of rural. Because of its simplicity and use of counties 

for its classification process, we relied primarily on OMB’s 

definition of metropolitan and non-metropolitan (metro and nonmetro) counties as the foundation of our own definition.4

 

However, to increase the number of local areas in our selection 

pool, we also considered the population of each local area’s largest 

city. This allowed us to include local areas that are primarily rural 

 

3

 Core Census blocks are considered urban if they have a population density of 

at least 1,000 people per square mile; surrounding Census blocks that have 

an overall density of at least 500 people per square mile are also considered 

urban. All areas not classified as urban are considered rural. 

4

 OMB’s definition uses Census data to define groups of counties as 

metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), classifying all counties as either 

metropolitan (part of an MSA) or non-metropolitan. MSAs are made up of 

central counties that have at least one urbanized area with a population of 

50,000 or more, plus adjacent counties that have a high degree of social and 

economic integration with the core county based on a commuting threshold 

of 25 percent. 

To select rural local 

areas for our site visits, 

we created a hybrid 

definition of rural based 

primarily on OMB’s 

definition of 

metropolitan and nonmetropolitan counties 

as the foundation of our 

own definition. 
I-6

but also contain some metropolitan counties with small or 

medium-sized urban populations. 

We then used these criteria to develop three categories of rural: I 

(extremely rural), II (primarily rural with small cities), and III 

(primarily rural with larger cities), defined as follows: 

• Local areas deemed extremely rural were those with no 

metropolitan counties and no cities with populations larger than 

50,000. 

• Local areas deemed primarily rural with small cities were those 

with no more than a one to three ratio of metro to non-metro 

counties, and no cities with populations greater than 75,000. 

• Local areas deemed primarily rural with larger cities were 

those with no more than a one to three ratio of metro to nonmetro counties, and no cities with populations greater than 

100,000. 

We then sorted all local areas in the five states into one of these 

three rural categories and decided to focus on those local areas that 

were either category I or II. In making our final selection of local 

areas, we then looked for diversity in terms of including a mix of 

both categories I and II. We also worked to ensure diversity in 

terms of including local areas with relatively few or many access 

points so that we could explore different strategies regarding 

access point networks. 

We spent four days on site at each of the five local areas. The site 

visits were structured around a set of interview and observation 

protocols designed to inform the research questions identified 

earlier. Site visits were scheduled to include time spent at a variety 

of different access points—ranging from large comprehensive 

centers to small satellite or computer-only offices—so that we 

could gain an in-depth understanding of the various services and 

strategies employed within a rural One-Stop network. 

Furthermore, to ensure that our data collection efforts incorporated 

a range of rural viewpoints, we interviewed a diverse group of 

local respondents from different counties and cities within the local 

area. Key respondents included the local area administrator, OneStop or access point managers and staff, mandatory public OneIn making our final 

selection of local areas, 

we then looked for 

diversity in terms of 

including a mix of both 

categories I and II and 

local areas with 

relatively few or many 

access points. 

Site visits were 

scheduled to include 

time spent at a variety 

of different access 

points—ranging from 

large comprehensive 

centers to small satellite 

or computer-only 

offices—so that we 

could gain an in-depth 

understanding of the 

various services and 

strategies employed 

within a rural One-Stop 

network. 
I-7

Stop partners (e.g., Vocational Rehabilitation, Employment 

Service), representatives of community and faith-based 

organizations, and job seeker and employer customers of the local 

One-Stop system. Observation time was structured to take note of 

key physical features of the different access points (e.g., size, 

layout, amenities), as well as of other aspects such as the level of 

foot traffic and nature of client-staff interaction. 

Analysis and Reporting 

This report represents this study’s fourth and final task. Based 

primarily on a cross-site analysis of qualitative data collected 

during the site visits in late 2004, this report presents findings on 

the nature of workforce development service delivery in rural areas 

and its challenges. Some sections of the report are also based on 

the national quantitative data on access points. An overview of the 

remainder of the report can be found at the end of this chapter. In 

addition to this final report, SPR will also provide all national data 

and maps to DOL ETA on a CD-ROM. 

Limitations of the Study 

Before providing an overview of the report, it is important to 

review the limitations of this study. The first limitation concerns 

the number of local areas visited during the qualitative portion of 

our study. We chose five local areas that reflect diversity along a 

number of dimensions (e.g., region, number of access points), so 

that a range of rural phenomena might be explored. However, 

because we visited such a small sample of sites, these five sites 

represent case studies of rural One-Stop systems; specifically, they 

cannot be said to be representative of rural local areas in the U.S. 

Thus, the findings presented in this report based on these five case 

studies are correspondingly limited. 

On a related note, our small study means that we have no basis to 

compare aspects of what we observed in the five local areas (e.g., 

costs of operating a rural One-Stop system) with other rural areas. 

This presents a significant limitation, in that we cannot evaluate 

Because we visited 

such a small sample of 

sites, these five sites 

represent case studies 

of rural One-Stop 

systems; specifically, 

they cannot be said to 

be representative of 

rural local areas in the 

U.S. 
I-8

certain observed factors or practices (e.g., whether the five local 

areas’ operating expenses are relatively expensive or inexpensive 

compared to other rural areas). 

Another set of limitations concerns our use of the local workforce 

investment area as a unit of analysis. We chose local area 

boundaries because workforce development programs are 

primarily administered at this level and it would be difficult to 

collect data on workforce services at an alternate level. However, 

in general, local areas vary tremendously in terms of their 

composition and size. For instance, some local areas encompass an 

entire state, while others are based on city boundaries. This lack of 

consistency in the definition of local areas hinders comparisons 

across states and local areas. 

Finally, the findings in this study that are based on qualitative data 

reflect what was true when we visited local workforce investment 

areas in November and December 2004. Because several months 

passed between our data collection and the completion of this 

report, some characteristics of the local One-Stop systems we 

visited may have changed. However, because we lacked the 

resources to update the information we collected in late 2004, 

some of the information presented here may no longer be up-todate. 

There are also several technical limitations to the national data 

embedded in the maps and tables included in this report. The first 

concerns inconsistencies in how access point data are defined and 

reported. For instance, the types of access points measured in each 

time period vary considerably. In 1979, access point types included 

in the data were Job Service, Unemployment Insurance (UI), and 

Work Incentive Program offices. In our 1999 data, access points 

included Labor Exchange, UI, One-Stop, Job Training Partnership 

Act (JTPA), and other offices. By 2004, the data show only 

comprehensive and affiliate One-Stop offices. As a result of these 

differences, an analysis of change in the number of access points 

may be due to the inclusion or exclusion of different types of 

access points in each of the three data sets, rather than real changes 

There are 

inconsistencies in how 

access point data are 

defined, reported and 

collected. For instance, 

the types of access 

points measured in 

each time period vary 

considerably. 
I-9

in the number of access points. 

Finally, the methods used to collect access point data have 

limitations of their own. First, data collected by America’s 

Workforce Technology Solutions in 1999 do not appear to be all 

inclusive. Although all states had JTPA offices at the time, many 

did not report any. Thus, access point data for some states include 

only ES or UI offices, not JTPA offices. Second, there were also 

serious challenges with the method used to collect the 2004 data 

provided by America’s Service Locator (ASL). A comparison of 

the ASL data to data obtained from site visits conducted for this 

and prior evaluations revealed important inconsistencies in the 

types and numbers of access points across states. These 

inconsistencies appear to stem mainly from different decisions that 

states made over what types of access points to report to ASL, 

and/or inconsistencies in how to classify them. Furthermore, the 

2004 data available through America’s Service Locator (ASL) are 

reported by states voluntarily rather than being collected with a 

consistent methodology by a central agency. Thus, the ASL data 

are extremely inconsistent from state to state, which causes major 

challenges in comparing across states and time periods, and causes 

us to present our final maps and tables with a degree of caution. 

For a discussion of some of the more minor technical limitations 

and explanations to the national data and maps/tables, please see 

Appendix C. 

Background on Sites Visited 

The five sites we visited for this study represent great diversity in 

terms of their geography, demographics, and economic landscapes. 

With regard to physical size and population, Northern New Mexico 

is by far the largest local area we visited at 35,986 square miles 

and 482,493 individuals, though it has the lowest population 

density, at 13.41 persons per square mile. Meanwhile, Region 4 

Oregon has the smallest land area (3,948 square miles) and 

Northwest Iowa has the smallest population with only 137,590 

individuals. Among all five sites, the median land area and 

The five sites we visited 

for this study represent 

great diversity in terms 

of their geography, 

demographics, and 

economic landscapes. 
I-10

population count is 5,091 square miles and 225,701 individuals, 

and the median population density is 31.14. 

The data presented in Exhibit I-2 also show the extent of variation 

in local areas’ rural composition as defined by the Census and the 

size of the largest city. For example, the local areas in the West 

(Region 4 Oregon and Northern New Mexico) are 31 percent and 

43 percent rural respectively, while the other local areas are over 

56 percent rural. These two Western local areas also contain the 

largest cities of all the local areas we visited (Santa Fe and 

Corvallis). Santa Fe and Corvallis are also the two cities that 

account for the greatest percentage of their local areas’ total 

population (13 and 22 percent respectively, compared to just six 

percent in St. Mary’s/North Central Pennsylvania, eight percent in 

Spencer/Northwest Iowa, and ten percent in Waycross/Southeast 

Georgia). 

Exhibit I-2: 

Demographic Information on Local Areas Visited 

Population 

Area 

 (sq. 

miles) 

Population 

Density 

(sq. miles) 

Percent 

Rural 

Largest 

City 

Population 

of Largest 

City 

North Central 

Pennsylvania 234,416 5,091 46.04 60.6% St. Mary’s 14,502 

Northern New 

Mexico 482,493 35,986 13.41 43.0% Santa Fe 62,203 

Northwest 

Iowa 137,590 5,210 26.41 56.2% Spencer 11,317 

Region 4 

Oregon 225,701 3,948 57.17 30.7% Corvallis 49,322 

Southeast 

Georgia 154,268 4,954 31.14 63.9% Waycross 15,333 

Source: 2000 Census. 

Three of the five local areas (North Central Pennsylvania, 

Northwest Iowa, and Region 4 Oregon) have populations that are 

over 90 percent white. However, both Region 4 Oregon and 

Northwest Iowa report small but growing Latino populations, as 

does Southeast Georgia. Northern New Mexico is characterized by 

significant percentages of Latinos and Native Americans as well as 

Three of the five local 

areas (North Central 

Pennsylvania, 

Northwest Iowa, and 

Region 4 Oregon) have 

populations that are 

over 90 percent white. 
I-11

whites, while Southeast Georgia’s population is approximately 75 

percent white and 21 percent African American. 

In terms of median income, none of the five local areas meets or 

exceeds the median income of their states as a whole (See Exhibit 

I-3). 5 The largest difference between local area and state median 

household income is in Southeast Georgia, with a gap of just over 

$14,000. The smallest gap is in Region 4 Oregon, with a gap of 

just over $3,000. Of the 37 individual counties that make up the 

five local areas, just four exceed their respective states’ median 

household income.6

Exhibit I-3: 

Median Household Income of Local Area Counties and States 

Median Income for all 

Local Area Counties 

State Median 

Income 

North Central 

Pennsylvania 

$32,232 $40,106 (PA) 

Northern New Mexico $28,601 $34,133 (NM) 

Northwest Iowa $35,758 $39,469 (IA) 

Region 4 Oregon $37,518 $40,916 (OR) 

Southeast Georgia $28,360 $42,433 (GA) 

Source: 2000 Census data. 

Unemployment rates in the five local areas ranged dramatically by 

county, from one to 20 percent. Major employment barriers in the 

local areas include a shortage of living wage jobs and a 

fundamental mismatch between the education and technical skills 

required for local jobs and the educational background and skills 

that rural residents tend to possess. Other specifically named 

barriers to employment include basic and computer illiteracy, the 

lack of soft skills, substance abuse, grossly inadequate public 

transportation, and insufficient affordable child care. 

 

5

 Median income for the local area was calculated by taking the median of the 

local area counties’ individual median household incomes. 

6

 One county in Oregon, one in Iowa, and two in New Mexico. 

Unemployment rates in 

the five local areas 

ranged dramatically by 

county, from one to 20 

percent. 
I-12

Overview of the Report 

The remainder of the report is divided into four major chapters. 

Chapter II begins the report by painting a critical backdrop for our 

five local areas by examining nationwide trends in rural areas and 

workforce development networks over the last 25 years. This 

chapter provides a summary of major demographic trends—

including those related to age, education, poverty and the influx of 

Hispanics—as well as key economic trends in rural areas, such as 

the declines in manufacturing and extraction-based employment. 

Chapter II also details changes in the number of workforce 

development access points over the last 25 years in both metro and 

non-metro areas, and discusses some of the factors that have been 

influential in this evolution. A series of national maps and tables is 

used to visually depict the demographic, economic and workforce 

development trends discussed in this chapter. 

Chapter III delves into issues of One-Stop service delivery and 

accessibility. We examine how the five local areas address time 

and distance challenges endemic to rural America to ensure that 

residents receive needed workforce development services. Key 

aspects of interest are (1) the various types and networks of 

physical access points developed in the local areas and the services 

provided at each; (2) supplementary strategies to ensure 

accessibility of services, such as transportation assistance, Internet 

services and mobile staff; and (3) outreach activities, such as 

presentations and advertising, designed to promote awareness and 

accessibility of One-Stop services among rural residents in general, 

and sometimes key subgroups in particular. Finally, Chapter III 

also looks at how the supply of workforce development providers 

has played a role in the quality and accessibility of services for 

rural residents. 

Partnership is the focus of Chapter IV. Given that the concept of 

One-Stop partnership arguably assumes even greater importance in 

rural areas, where providers and resources are in shorter supply, in 

this chapter we look at how partnership is manifested in the five 

local areas we visited. Specifically, we look at which partners are 

involved in their local One-Stop systems and the nature of their 
I-13

roles; the ways in which partners coordinate to provide services; 

patterns that emerge with regard to cost sharing for rural One-Stop 

systems; and more generally, the challenges and strategies 

involved with developing and maintaining One-Stop partnerships 

in rural areas. A fundamental shortage of resources, a relatively 

small number of key partners, and close-knit community members 

are all factors that we examine as both facilitators and impeders of 

rural partnerships. 

In the last chapter of the report, the Conclusion, we examine the 

similarities and differences between workforce development 

service delivery structures and challenges in rural and urban areas. 

We particularly focus on the unique issues faced by rural areas and 

the innovative ways they have attempted to address those 

challenges. We conclude with a few suggestions for ways to 

support workforce development in rural areas. 

Finally, this report concludes four appendices. Appendix A 

contains a detailed table with information on different types of 

access points discussed in Chapter III. Appendix B contains 

profiles and maps of each local area visited for the study, with 

economic and demographic information, as well as details on the 

nature of each area’s local One-Stop system, services and 

partnerships. Appendix C provides the reader with detailed maps 

and tables of access point data from 1979, 1999 and 2004, 

including information on the specific types of access points 

included and changes in numbers of access points between those 

three years. Appendix C also includes more in-depth information 

on the methodology, data sources and limitations of this national 

data. Finally, Appendix D includes an annotated bibliography of 

reports on workforce development in rural areas. 
This page is intentionally left blank. 

Insert blank page here when making double-sided copies.
II-1

II. CHANGES IN RURAL AREAS AND WORKFORCE 

DEVELOPMENT NETWORKS OVER TIME 

Examining the broader context of how rural areas have changed 

over time is a natural first step in analyzing the workforce 

development needs and challenges in rural areas over time. Hence, 

this chapter will paint a cohesive picture of changes in rural areas 

and workforce development access point networks from 1979 to 

2004. The first section of the chapter starts with a summary of the 

major demographic changes that have occurred in rural areas 

during the past 25 years, from the rise of the Hispanic population 

in many rural areas to age, education, and poverty trends. Next, 

the chapter will discuss the economic trends in rural areas since the 

late 1970s, exploring the growth in service sector employment and 

declines in manufacturing and extraction-based employment. 

The second half of the chapter then explores changes to workforce 

development networks more specifically. First, we examine 

national-level changes to the number of workforce development 

access points between 1979 and 2004. Then we examine the 

number and location of workforce development access points in 

2004. Finally, we will identify some of the factors that have 

influenced the evolution of workforce development networks over 

time, particularly since the late 1990s and the implementation of 

the Workforce Investment Act. 

Demographic and Economic Changes 

in Rural Areas 

Over the last 25 years, and especially the last 15 years, rural areas 

in the United States have experienced significant demographic and 
II-2

economic changes. This section explores the nature of these 

changes and sets the context for understanding how workforce 

development needs have changed in rural areas over time. 

Demographic Trends 

Rural population growth was very low in the 1980s, but sped up 

significantly in the 1990s. The population of non-metropolitan 

(non-metro) counties1 grew by only 2.6 percent (1.3 million) from 

1980 to 1990. By contrast, between 1990 and 2000 the non-metro 

population grew by 5.1 million people, or 10.2 percent.2

 The nonmetro counties that tended to exhibit high-growth were recreational 

and retirement destination counties, as well as counties near 

expanding metropolitan areas. 3 Non-metro counties with a 

concentrated economic base in farming and mining tended to grow 

slower or lose population from 1990 to 2000.4 

Partly reflecting these differences, population growth has not been 

even across all regions. Exhibit II-1 shows the geographical 

distribution of population growth in non-metro counties in the U.S. 

It is clear from the map that non-metro population growth since 

1990 has been overwhelmingly concentrated in the West and 

South, while non-metro decline is disproportionately occurring in 

the Great Plains region. 

 

1

 The Office of Management and Budget defines counties as metropolitan or 

non-metropolitan in the following way: Census data are used to define 

groups of counties as metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), classifying all 

counties as either metropolitan (part of an MSA) or non-metropolitan. 

MSAs are made up of central counties that have at least one urbanized area 

with a population of 50,000 or more, plus adjacent counties that have a high 

degree of social and economic integration with the core county based on a 

commuting threshold of 25 percent. 

2

 U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2003. 

3

 Johnson, Kenneth M. and C. L. Beale, The Rural Rebound: Recent Nonmetropolitan Demographic Trends in the United States [online, cited 22 

March 2005], available from: 

http://www.luc.edu/depts/sociology/johnson/p99webn.html. 

4

 Ibid. 

Non-metro population 

growth since 1990 has 

been overwhelmingly 

concentrated in the 

West and South, while 

non-metro decline is 

disproportionately 

occurring in the Great 

Plains region. 
II-3

Exhibit II-1: 

Non-metro Population Change 1990-2000 

Variation in non-metro population growth is also evident in the sites we visited for this study. 

This can be seen in Exhibit II-2, which shows population changes from 1990 to 2000 in the five 

local areas, compared to national non-metro and national overall population growth. 

Exhibit II-2: 

Percent Change in Population in Local Areas Visited 1990 - 2000 

-5.0%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

SE Georgia

NW Iowa

N New

Mexico

Reg. 4 Oregon

NC Pennsylvania

Non-metro

U.S.

Entire

U.S.

Source: Local data from the 1990 and 2000 Census; national data from U.S. Bureau of the Census, 

Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2003. 

Source: Compiled by ERS using data from 1990 and 2000 Census data, U.S. Census Bureau. 

Designation of counties as metro or non-metro based on 1993 OMB classification.
II-4

Compared to the rest of the country, Northern New Mexico and 

Southeast Georgia grew at a faster rate, Region 4 in Oregon grew 

at about the same rate, and North Central Pennsylvania grew more 

slowly than the nation as a whole. Northwest Iowa actually lost 

population from 1990-2000. 

Hispanic Migration to Non-Metro Areas 

Explosive growth in the Hispanic population is one of the most 

significant demographic changes in rural areas over the last 25 

years. Although the bulk of the non-metro Hispanic population 

continues to be concentrated in the Southwest, in percentage terms, 

some of the fastest growth between 1990 and 2000 occurred in 149 

counties in the South, Midwest, Northwest and states on the edge 

of the Southwest such as Colorado, Utah, and Oklahoma. Exhibit 

II-3 shows these high-growth non-metro counties. 

Exhibit II-3: 

Percent Change in the Non-metro Hispanic Population 1990-2000 

High growth in the Hispanic population was evident in some, but 

not all of the local areas we visited. Exhibit II-4 below shows that 

Explosive growth in the 

Hispanic population is 

one of the most 

significant 

demographic changes 

in rural areas over the 

last 25 years. 
II-5

the Hispanic population grew the most in Northwest Iowa, 

Southeast Georgia, and Region 4 Oregon. However, despite the 

very large growth in percentage terms experienced by these three 

areas, their local Hispanic populations in 2000 were still less than 

five percent of their total populations. In Northern New Mexico, 

which experienced the largest absolute growth in its already 

sizeable Hispanic population, the percentage change was slower 

than for the nation as a whole. 

Exhibit II-4: 

Change in the Hispanic population in local areas visited 

1990 2000 2000 1990 – 2000 change 

Local Areas 

Visited 

Hispanic 

Pop. 

Hispanic 

Pop. 

Percent Of 

total 

population Pop. Change % change 

Northwest 

Iowa 409 2,238 1.6% 1,829 447.2% 

Southeast 

Georgia 1,496 5,898 3.8% 4,402 294.3% 

Region 4 

Oregon 4,510 10,278 4.6% 5,768 127.9% 

North Central 

Pennsylvania 940 1,423 0.6% 483 51.4% 

Northern New 

Mexico 149,096 182,298 37.8% 33,202 22.3% 

Non-metro 

U.S. 1,607,515 2,632,528 9.0% 1,025,013 63.8% 

Entire U.S. 22,354,059 35,305,818 12.5% 12,951,759 57.9% 

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000; U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, 2004. 

Recent Hispanic migrants to high-growth non-metro counties have 

several distinct demographic characteristics of relevance for 

workforce services. These migrants are disproportionately young, 

male, undocumented, and face language barriers.5

 Often, 

employment is the impetus for migrating to the local area, and 

many come with pre-existing connections to employment through 

informal networks. However, poverty rates are still higher for 

Hispanics than non-Hispanic whites, suggesting that the long-term 

 

5

 Kandel, William and J. Cromartie. New Patterns of Hispanic Settlement in 

Rural America. Economic Research Service/USDA. Rural Development 

Research Report, No. 99, May 2004, p.31. 

Recent Hispanic 

migrants to highgrowth non-metro 

counties are 

disproportionately 

young, male, 

undocumented, and 

face language barriers. 
II-6

economic well-being of the Hispanic population is not solely 

determined by employment.6

 

Other Population Trends 

In addition to overall population growth and explosive growth in 

the Hispanic population, rural areas have been affected by several 

other important demographic trends of relevance to workforce 

development systems. First, rural areas have experienced a 

graying of their populations7

 and are poised to see more growth in 

the number of elderly residents. This growth stems from a trend 

among retiring baby-boomers to move into rural areas. Consistent 

with this trend, respondents in Region 4, Oregon and North Central 

Pennsylvania reported a steady increase in the elderly populations 

of their areas. 

In addition, current population trends indicate that non-metro areas 

will face not only an aging population, but also a population where 

householders are increasingly elderly and living alone.8 Between 

1990 and 2000, rural household composition changed such that 

non-family households increased at three times the rate of family 

households. As this demographic trend continues to develop, 

service providers will need to prepare for the logistical challenges 

of reaching a less mobile, more isolated, and less technologically 

savvy populace. 

Another demographic trend affecting rural areas is their 

populations’ lower levels of post-secondary education as compared 

to urban areas and the nation overall. For example, although the 

percentage who attained a high school diploma among the five 

 

6

 Access to workforce services for Hispanic workers is discussed in Chapter 

III 

7

 Housing Assistance Council. Taking Stock: Rural People, Poverty, and 

Housing at the Turn of the 21st Century. [online, cited 25 March 2005], 

available from: 

http://www.ruralhome.org/pubs/hsganalysis/ts2000/index.htm, 2002, p.14. 

8

 Ibid, p.15. 

Rural areas have 

experienced a graying 

of their populations1

and are poised to see 

more growth in the 

number of elderly 

residents. 

Another demographic 

trend affecting rural 

areas is their 

populations’ lower 

levels of postsecondary education 

as compared to urban 

areas and the nation 

overall. 
II-7

local areas we visited compares favorably to the nation as a whole, 

attainment of a bachelor degree or higher is much less common. 

Exhibit II-5: 

Education Levels in Local Areas Visited Compared to the Nation 

Local Area Counties9

Percent of 

Residents with 

HS Diploma or 

higher 

Percent of 

Residents 

with BA or 

higher 

Southeast 

Georgia 56 - 73% 6 - 11% 

Northwest Iowa 79 – 89 % 13 – 21 % 

Northern New 

Mexico 70 – 96% 12 – 61 % 

North Central 

Pennsylvania 79 - 83% 11 - 14% 

Region 4, 

Oregon 82 - 94 % 14 - 52 % 

United States 80.4 % 24.4 % 

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000.

 

Finally, persistent poverty is another demographic trend that is 

increasingly a rural phenomenon.10 Non-metro counties that are 

not adjacent to metropolitan counties are more likely to have 

poverty rates higher than 20 percent and to be persistently poor 

than metropolitan counties and the non-metro counties adjacent to 

them.11 

Furthermore, high poverty rates and persistently poor counties are 

not evenly distributed across rural areas. 

 

9

 Ranges refer to the highest and lowest percentages among all of the local 

area’s counties. 

10 Persistent poverty is defined as counties with a poverty rate of 20 percent or 

higher in each decennial census since 1960. 

11 Miller, Kathleen K. and B. A. Weber. Persistent Poverty and Place: How do 

Persistent Poverty Dynamics and Demographics Vary Across the RuralUrban Continuum? Measuring Rural Diversity, VOl. 1, No. 1, Southern 

Rural Development Center, January 2004. 

Non-metro counties 

that are not adjacent to 

metropolitan counties 

are more likely to have 

poverty rates higher 

than 20 percent and to 

be persistently poor. 
II-8

Exhibit II-6: 

Persistent Poverty Counties 

Exhibit II-6 shows that persistent poverty is overwhelmingly 

concentrated in the South, Appalachia, the lower Rio Grande 

Valley, and on Native American reservations. 

Two of the local areas we visited for this study contained counties 

that displayed persistent poverty: Northern New Mexico and 

Southeast Georgia. These counties include McKinley (36 percent), 

Mora (25 percent), Cibola (24 percent), and San Miguel (24 

percent), in Northern New Mexico; and Clinch, Bacon, and 

Atkinson counties in Southeast Georgia, with poverty rates 

between 23-24 percent. 

Economic Trends 

Economic trends are also critical to understanding the workforce 

development needs and challenges of rural workforce development 

areas. In rural areas throughout the United States, one of the major 

trends over the last 25 years is a shift in the economic base away 

from manufacturing and extraction industries and toward serviceIn rural areas 

throughout the United 

States, one of the 

major trends over the 

last 25 years is a shift 

in the economic base 

away from 

manufacturing and 

extraction industries 

and toward serviceproducing industries. 
II-9

producing industries. For example, according to ERS, 

manufacturing dependent counties had reasonably low 

unemployment rates in the 1990s, but unemployment has increased 

drastically since 2000. 12 The reasons for this shift stem from 

multiple factors, including liberalization of international trade, 

sizable decreases in transportation costs, and the rise in global 

competition for labor. Many companies, particularly in rural areas, 

have been driven by import competition to either shift production 

overseas or shut down completely. 

Another significant economic trend impacting rural areas has been 

a shift away from smaller, family-run farms and toward large-scale 

corporate farming. This shift has resulted in major declines in 

agriculturally-based employment in rural areas throughout the 

nation. However, recent trends also indicate that employment in 

resource-dependent counties—including agriculture and timber—

has not been as negatively affected as it has in manufacturing 

counties since 2000. 

In place of manufacturing, extraction and agriculture, employment 

in rural areas has come to be based more and more on services, 

trade and government. For example, ERS found that counties with 

large percentages of workers employed in services and government 

were more likely to experience employment growth during the 

1990s, and these trends have continued since 2000. 

These economic trends have unfolded unevenly across non-metro 

counties. Exhibit II-7 from the Department of Agriculture’s 

Economic Research Service (ERS) shows that declines in nonmetro employment are concentrated in certain states and regions—

Montana, Nevada, Missouri and the Mississippi Delta—while 

growth is evident elsewhere. 

 

12 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Rural Labor 

and Education: Rural Employment and Unemployment, a Briefing Room 

cited 5/4/2005 from: 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/LaborAndEducation/employunemploy/. 

Another significant 

economic trend 

impacting rural areas 

has been a shift away 

from smaller, familyrun farms and toward 

large-scale corporate 

farming. 

In place of 

manufacturing, 

extraction and 

agriculture, 

employment in rural 

areas has come to be 

based more and more 

on services, trade and 

government. 
II-10

Exhibit II-7: 

Non-metro Employment Change, July 2000 – 2003 

The economic shifts in the local areas we visited largely reflect the 

national trends described above. For example, several local areas 

reported severe declines in manufacturing and extraction 

industries, which have lead to large-scale plant closures and 

layoffs, particularly in textiles, timber production, powdered 

metallurgy, and extraction industries. In fact, respondents in 

Southeast Georgia described the last two years as a “crash course” 

in the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program, because the 

local area has seen several large plant closures resulting in 

hundreds of layoffs. In Lincoln County in Region 4 Oregon, with 

unemployment rates of nearly eight percent, the local fishing 

industry has been decimated by federal policies to limit fishing and 

buy out fishing boats in the 1990s. 

Region 4 Oregon and Southeast Georgia reported that local 

agricultural industries have been declining. In Southeast Georgia, 

Several local areas 

reported severe 

declines in 

manufacturing and 

extraction industries, 

which have lead to 

large-scale plant
II-11

respondents said that family farms have been replaced in the last 

25 years by large industrial farms. During the same time, they 

have seen an increase in migrant and seasonal farm work and a 

corresponding increase in migrant laborers, especially from 

Mexico and other countries of Latin America. Linn County 

Oregon, considered the “grass seed capitol” of the U.S., has 

unemployment rates approaching 20 percent due to declines in 

agriculture and timber production. 

While manufacturing and extraction industries were in decline in 

some areas, other local areas bucked the national trends. 

Northwest Iowa, for example, maintains a large, relatively healthy 

manufacturing base. The area has experienced less decline due to 

having fewer companies in industries such as textiles that face 

intense international competition. The mining industry in Northern 

New Mexico also remains strong, with wages much higher than 

average. 

Finally, trucking and transportation industries have remained 

strong in North Central Pennsylvania, Northern New Mexico, and 

Southeast Georgia. In fact, some local areas have focused targeted 

training programs in trucking because the jobs are still in demand 

and the wages are relatively high. 

Exhibit II-8: 

Industries Reported to be in Decline 

Manufacturing Extraction Agriculture 

Southeast 

Georgia 9 9

Northwest 

Iowa 

Northern New 

Mexico 

North Central 

Pennsylvania 9 9

Region 4, 

Oregon 9 9 9

While manufacturing 

and extraction 

industries were in 

decline in some areas, 

other local areas 

bucked the national 

trends. 
II-12

Consistent with national trends, all of the local areas that we 

visited have experienced growth in service sector and trade 

employment, mainly concentrated in health care, hospitality, high 

technology, and retail. The health care industry is particularly 

strong in Southeast Georgia, Region 4 Oregon, and North Central 

Pennsylvania. Tourism and hospitality are also strong in 

Northwest Iowa, Region 4 Oregon, North Central Pennsylvania, 

and Northern New Mexico. 

Exhibit II-9: 

Industries Reported as Growing 

Health Care Hospitality High Tech Retail 

Southeast 

Georgia 9 9

Northwest 

Iowa 9 9

Northern New 

Mexico 9 9 9

North Central 

Pennsylvania 9 9 9

Region 4, 

Oregon 9 9 9

High tech is another important industry in some of the local areas 

we visited. For example, the Los Alamos National Laboratory has 

helped to create a well-developed high tech industry in Los 

Alamos County in Northern New Mexico. In other local areas, 

high tech is still important, but has recently declined. For instance, 

Region 4 Oregon experienced high growth in information 

technology when Hewlett Packard located there in the 1990s; 

however, the company has cut its workforce by one-third and they 

have plans for further cuts. 

Finally, retail has been a major area of growth in non-metro areas 

over the past 25 years, especially in larger rural towns. Much of 

this growth has stemmed from the rise of big-box retailers and 

Retail has been a major 

area of growth in nonmetro areas over the 

past 25 years, especially 

in larger rural towns. 
II-13

large-scale distribution centers (such as Wal-Mart).13 These mass 

merchandisers, typically located on the outskirts of town, have 

become a hotbed of community activity and a needed source of 

entry-level jobs. For example, in Georgia, the Wal-Mart 

distribution center in Douglas is a sizeable local employer. In 

Oregon, the local workforce agency was in the process of 

recruiting a Super Wal-Mart, which they estimated would provide 

30,000 jobs to the local area. 

While service and retail-sector employment has grown 

considerably, several local areas reported struggling with the fact 

that many service and most retail jobs tend to pay lower wages and 

offer fewer benefits, compared to the manufacturing jobs that have 

been lost. In addition, many of these service and retail jobs are 

part-time positions with high turnover rates. 

Dealing with the Impact of Economic Changes 

Many local areas said that these economic changes have created a 

“jobs/skills mismatch.” This mismatch stems from the fact that 

economic growth in industries that pay high wages and offer 

benefits, such as health care and high-tech, is increasingly 

dependent on a highly-skilled workforce. Unfortunately, rural 

areas are at a disadvantage in this regard, because education and 

skill levels of rural residents tend to be lower than they are in 

urban areas for several reasons: 

• The median age in non-metro areas is higher than metro-areas, 

and older populations are more likely to have low education 

levels.14 

• Recent Hispanic migrants to high-growth Hispanic counties 

tend to have low education levels.15

 

13 Stone, Kenneth. Impact of the Wal-Mart Phenomenon on Rural 

Communities. Chicago, Illinois: Farm Foundation, Published in Proceedings 

[online, cited 28 March 2005], available from: 

http://www.seta.iastate.edu/retail/publications/10_yr_study.pdf, 1997. 

14 Housing Assistance Council. Taking Stock: Rural People, Poverty, and 

Housing at the Turn of the 21st Century. [online, cited 25 March 2005], 

available from: 

http://www.ruralhome.org/pubs/hsganalysis/ts2000/index.htm, 2002 

Several local areas 

reported struggling with 

the fact that many 

service and most retail 

jobs tend to pay lower 

wages and offer fewer 

benefits, compared to 

the manufacturing jobs 

that have been lost. 

Many local areas said 

that these economic 

changes have created a 

“jobs/skills mismatch” 

stemming from the fact 

that economic growth in 

industries that pay high 

wages and offer 

benefits is increasingly 

dependent on a highlyskilled workforce, which 

they don’t have. 
II-14

• “Brain Drain” has occurred, in that younger people who do 

reach higher levels of education tend to leave remotely rural 

areas to pursue better employment opportunities in 

metropolitan areas. 

In keeping with this, employers in several local areas we visited 

complained about having difficulty in finding workers with 

sufficient basic skills and soft skills 

To solve this mismatch, local areas are developing both supplyside and demand-side approaches to closing the gap between the 

skills possessed by the local workforce and skills in demand in the 

economy. For example, in North Central Pennsylvania, the local 

area received a state grant to try to deal with the problem of the 

“brain drain.” This grant, which was called the “Stay and Invent 

the Future Grant,” funded local summer internships for youth with 

high school degrees. 

Other local areas have started to increase their emphasis on skill 

upgrading. For example, North Central Pennsylvania had 

employers identify their highest concerns (soft skills for entry-level 

workers), and then they developed twenty soft-skill Work 

Readiness Skills Standards. Job seekers can now become 

“certified” in soft skills and receive a credential that is recognized 

by local employers. In Southeast Georgia, the local area teamed 

with a neighboring area to commission a strategic plan that calls 

for upgrading the skills of the current workforce. 16 However, 

implementation of the plan has been hindered by a surge in traderelated layoffs. 

On the demand side of the jobs/skills mismatch, several local areas 

we visited are placing an increased emphasis on economic 

development and employer recruitment. First, two local areas we 

 

15 Kandel, William and J. Cromartie. New Patterns of Hispanic Settlement in 

Rural America. Economic Research Service/USDA. Rural Development 

Research Report, No. 99, May 2004 

16 Corporation for a Skilled Workforce, 2003 State of the Workforce Report, 

Developed by the South and Southeast Georgia Regional Development 

Centers, February 2003. 

North Central 

Pennsylvania had 

employers identify their 

highest concerns (soft 

skills for entry-level 

workers), and then they 

developed twenty softskill Work Readiness 

Skills Standards. 
II-15

visited have begun developing customized training programs with 

local employers. In Northern New Mexico, the WIA Adult and 

Dislocated Worker program provider facilitated a Commercial 

Driver’s License training program for incumbent workers of the 

Santa Clara Pueblo. In another example of customized training, 

Southeast Georgia has set up a CMS and QuickStart training 

program with Simmon’s Mattress. This customized training 

program was used to filter job applicants to a new production 

plant, and the employer was very satisfied with the results. 

However, the training program did not guarantee employment 

upon completion, and job seekers have been disappointed that they 

did not get a job after dedicating extensive time to the training. 

Changes to Workforce Development 

Access Points 

The demographic and economic changes described above set the 

broad context for analyzing how and why the workforce 

development system has changed over the last 25 years. This 

section explores changes to one of the main components of the 

workforce system itself—the number and spread of workforce 

development access points. 17 The section first describes national 

changes to the number of workforce development access points, 

both overall and for non-metro areas, between 1979 and 2004. It 

next examines those networks in more detail in 2004, both by state 

and for the five local areas we visited for this study. Finally, the 

section explores some of the main factors that have influenced the 

development of workforce development networks, particularly 

focusing on the period following the issuance of state One-Stop 

Implementation grants and the Workforce Investment Act. 

 

17 Workforce development access points include offices of certain state and 

local organizations that provide federally-funded programs. In 1979, they 

included programs such as Job Service and UI, while in 1999 they included 

all of those offices as well as One-Stop centers and JTPA offices. In 2004, 

they included comprehensive and affiliate access points included in OneStop systems. See Appendix C for more information on the specific types of 

access point included in each year’s data. 

In Northern New 

Mexico, the WIA Adult 

and Dislocated Worker 

program provider 

facilitated a Commercial 

Driver’s License training 

program for incumbent 

workers of the Santa 

Clara Pueblo. 
II-16

To analyze national changes in workforce development access 

points and the current numbers of access points across the country, 

we collected data on access points from three time periods, 1979, 

1999, and 2004. Before presenting any findings based on this data, 

it is useful to reiterate its limitations as discussed in more detail in 

the Introduction. First, the types of access points measured in each 

time period differ substantially. For example, One-Stop centers 

did not exist in 1979, while few UI offices exist in 2004. Second, 

the access point data were collected for each of the different years 

using different methodologies and including different types of 

offices. For example, Comprehensive Employment and Training 

Act (CETA) offices were not included in the data collected for 

1979. Finally, because states voluntarily report their access points 

to America’s Service Locator (ASL), they sometimes choose to 

report only certain types of access points. Thus, some differences 

in the number of access points between states in 2004 (based on 

ASL data) may stem from a difference in which types of access 

points were reported to ASL, rather than a real difference in how 

many access points exist on the ground.18 

Changes in Workforce Development Access 

Points between 1979 and 2004 

The number of workforce development access points remained 

nearly the same in 1979 as in 2004 despite a major drop during the 

intervening years. As shown in Exhibit II-10, although the overall 

number of access points nationwide declined by nearly 1,000 

(27.5%) between 1979 and 1999, by 2004 the number of access 

points had bounced back to over 3,542, 2.5 percent more than in 

1979. 

 

18 For more information on the limitations of national data, please see 

Appendix C. 

The number of 

workforce development 

access points remained 

nearly the same in 1979 

as in 2004 despite a 

major drop during the 

intervening years. 
II-17

Exhibit II-10: 

Workforce Development Access Points Nationwide 

1979, 1999, 2004 

3,454 3,542

2,505

1,472

1,113

1,605

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004

1979 data from the U.S. Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration, Directory of 

Local Employment Security Offices . 1999 data from America’s Workforce Technology Solutions, 

Local Office Directory . 2004 data from America's Service Locator, a federal-state partnership.

Note: The number of mon-metro access points in 1979 is calculated based on access points in 

counties classifed as non-metro in 1983 by OMB. The number of non-metro access points in 1999 and 

2004 is calculated based on access points in counties classifed as non-metro in 2003 by OMB.

Total Access Points

Non-Metro Access Points

The number of access points in non-metro counties also 

experienced similar fluctuation over the 25 year period, with the 

number of access points decreasing by 359 between 1979 and 

1999, but then increasing by 492 between 1999 and 2004.19 The 

overall increase in the number of non-metro access points between 

1979 and 2004 was nine percent, significantly higher than the 2.5 

 

19 Some of the 24.4 percent decline in the number of access points in non-metro areas 

between 1979 and 1999 may be due to a 14 percent (344 counties) decrease in the 

number of counties classified as non-metro. This decline in the number of non-metro 

counties was caused primarily by re-classification of those counties as metro by the 

Office of Management and Budget due to population increases and other changes 

related to increasing urbanization. However, because the number of access points in 

the nation as a whole, a calculation unaffected by OMB’s re-classification, also 

decreased by over 27 percent during the same period, it is unlikely that the entire 

decline in non-metro access points is due to this re-classification. The change in 

access points between 1999 and 2004 is unaffected by OMB re-classification, since 

non-metro counties in both years were defined based on OMB’s 2003 classification. 

The number of nonmetro access points 

decreased by 359 

between 1979 and 

1999, but then 

increased by 492 

between 1999 and 

2004. 
II-18

percent growth in total access points. The fact this increase 

occurred despite a decline of 14 percent (344 counties) in the 

number of non-metro counties over the same period20 makes it 

even more significant. 

This slightly faster growth in non-metro access points resulted in 

an increase in the percentage of access points located in non-metro 

areas from 42.6 percent in 1979 to 45.3 percent in 2004. This 

increase in the percentage of non-metro access points occurred 

despite the fact that only 17.3 percent of Americans live in nonmetro counties.

Although the total number of access points changed only slightly 

between 1979 and 2004, the number of access points in individual 

states typically changed by 10 percent or more. However, these 

changes were often in opposite directions, as approximately half 

(26) of all states lost access points, while 23 gained access points. 

(see Exhibit II-11). Most of the growth in centers is concentrated 

in the Western mountain region and the South, and the decline 

concentrated in the Mid-Atlantic and Midwest states. 

There was similar fluctuation for individual states in the numbers 

of access points in non-metro counties, as 39 states experienced a 

changes of greater than 10 percent (see Exhibit II-12). 

Approximately the same number of states experienced increases of 

any size in the number of access points in non-metro counties (22) 

as experienced decreases of any size (24).21 Many of the states that 

saw increases in the number of access points in non-metro counties 

are also in the South and Southwest, and are many of the same 

states that saw dramatic increases in their non-metro population 

(see Exhibit II-1). 

 

20 This decline in the number of non-metro counties was caused primarily by reclassification of those counties as metro by the Office of Management and Budget 

due to population increases and other changes related to increasing urbanization. 

21 Of the remaining four states, two (Rhode Island and New Jersey) had no 

non-metro counties in either 1979 or 2004, and two (Georgia and Tennessee) 

had no change. 

Although the total 

number of access 

points changed only 

slightly between 1979 

and 2004, the number 

of access points in 

individual states 

typically changed by 10 

percent or more. 

Many of the states that 

saw increases in the 

number of access 

points in non-metro 

counties are also in the 

South and Southwest, 

and are many of the 

same states that saw 

dramatic increases in 

their non-metro 

population. 
II-19

Exhibit II-11: 

Change in Total Number of Access Points 1979 – 2004 

Number of Access Points in 2004 

The number of workforce development access points in each state in 

2004 ranged widely across the country (see Exhibit II-13). In 

general, states with smaller populations, such as some in the West or 

Midwest, reported relatively few access points, while states with the 

largest populations such as California, Texas and New York had 

some of the highest numbers of access points in 2004 (see Exhibit II14). However, states also seem to be displaying the principle of local 

flexibility embedded in WIA. Thus, despite the general correlation 

between the number of access points and population size, several 

states with medium-sized populations, such as Kentucky, Arizona, 

Alabama and Tennessee, also had some of the highest numbers of 

access points in the nation. Consequently, because of their lower 

populations, these states also had far fewer people per access point. 

Several states with 

medium-sized 

populations, such as 

Kentucky, Arizona, 

Alabama and 

Tennessee, had some 

of the highest numbers 

of access points in the 

nation. 
II-20

Exhibit II-12: 

Change in Number of Non-Metro Access Points 1979 – 2004 

As Exhibit II-15 shows, states with the highest number of access points 

in non-metro counties tend to be many of the same states with the highest 

numbers of access points overall. For example, Texas, Kentucky, North 

Carolina, Arizona, Alabama, Tennessee and Ohio all are among the top 

ten states both in terms of total access points and access points in nonmetro counties. In states with the highest numbers of non-metro access 

points, those access points also make up 50 percent or more of the state’s 

total access points. In the nation as a whole, the number of people per 

access point in non-metro counties is 79,453, while the comparable 

figure in metro counties is much lower at 30,417.
 





















































   



















  



  



 







 





  

 

 





 

  

 































 













 







 











 









  

















 

 















  















 





 

















 



 



























  



 



 



 



 





   









 



 

 





 





     





 









  





























 







 







 







 















































  



 







 

 

























 

 



  





  





















 













 











 



























 





















 









































































 

















 

















  













 







 







 



















 





 







 





















 









 









 

 

  

 







































 

 

 



 











































 









































 









 













 





 

 



 





 





 



 













































































 











 



  





 





    































 

 





  









 













 

















 















  





























   



  











 











 

 









 



 

  





































 







  











 

  





 



 

















 































 



 

















 



 

   





 









 

 















 

 

 





 



     



     



 





  











 

















 

 

















 







 



 

























































 





















 







  



 











 





 

 



 







 















 











 

















 









 





 

 









 





























 





 































    



















 



































 

































 









 

 















  

 





























 

  





 











 













 









  







 

 



 



 



































































 



  









  



























 





















 

   





 











 

       







 

 





  



  



  



 

  



 



































































































































 





 















     

  





  















 



 



 

 







  

  













 

 











   

 









 























 













 











  





 



 





























 





















 



















 











 









































 



 

 









 



 





  





 



 

 

 



 



 



 





 





  









 







   

  

 









  









  





























 





























 









 





 































 



















 















 

  







 









  



 







 







 



 





 















 





































 

  

























 





















  







 





 









 







































 







 























 





































 



 

 

  







 





























 































































































 





























 

























































 













 



 



































 



 

 





























































 

  



























 





































 



















 







 











 





 















































































































	








 






 




















 



















	








	



	



 

 



  	 

  

!	

"#






$%

& 

  '

 

%
 (
 %

	
 











































 

















 



 









 



 



 !

"		# ! $%#$!&"'&'	'(
II-22

Exhibit II-14: 

States with Highest Number of Access Points, 2004 

State 

No. of Access 

Points 2000 Population 

People per 

Access Point 

California 322 35,893,799 111,471 

Texas 286 20,851,820 72,909 

Kentucky 184 4,041,769 21,966 

New York 173 18,976,457 109,691 

North Carolina 163 8,049,313 49,382 

Arizona 151 5,130,632 33,978 

Florida 115 15,982,378 138,977 

Ohio 110 11,353,140 103,210 

Indiana 103 6,080,485 59,034 

Alabama 100 4,447,100 44,471 

Michigan 100 9,938,444 99,384 

Tennessee 100 5,689,283 56,893 

Access Point data source: America’s Service Locator, 2004; Population data source: Census 2000. 

In the five local areas we visited for this study, we also found wide 

variability in the number of access points in 2004. For example, as 

shown in Exhibit II-16, the total number of access points ranged 

from only two in Southeast Georgia to 21 in North Central 

Pennsylvania. 

There was also diversity in the number of access points when 

compared to the number of residents in each local area and the 

total land area. For instance, in terms of the number of people per 

access point and square miles per access point, North Central 

Pennsylvania has the lowest numbers. Northwest Iowa and Region 

4 Oregon also have relatively good access on a per person or per 

square mile basis. Meanwhile, Southeast Georgia and Northern 

New Mexico, have much poorer access, at least by these measures. 
II-23

Exhibit II-15: 

States with Highest Number of Access Points in Non-metro Counties, 2004 

Total No. of 

Access 

Points 

No. of Access 

Points in 

Non-Metro 

Counties 

Percent of 

Access Points 

in 

Non-Metro 

Counties 

Non-Metro 

population as 

percent of total 

population 

Non-Metro 

residents per 

Non-Metro 

Access Point 

Kentucky 184 142 77.2% 43.8% 12,460 

Texas 286 115 40.2% 13.9% 25,281 

North 

Carolina 163 95 58.3% 31.9% 26,988 

Arizona 151 75 49.7% 11.5% 7,882 

Missouri 95 67 70.5% 26.9% 22,425 

Iowa 72 56 77.8% 46.6% 24,335 

Alabama 100 55 55.0% 29.5% 23,888 

Tennessee 100 50 50.0% 27.5% 31,340 

Mississippi 64 49 76.6% 58.0% 33,676 

Ohio 110 49 44.5% 19.5% 45,150 

Access Point data source: America’s Service Locator, 2004; Population data source: Census 2000. 

Exhibit II-16: 

Number of Access Points in Study Sites 

Local Area 

Total Access 

Points Population 

People per 

Access Point 

Land Area 

(square miles) 

Square miles 

per Access 

Point 

Southeast Georgia 2 154,268 77,134 4,954 2,477 

Northwest Iowa 8 137,590 17,199 5,210 651 

Northern New Mexico 11 482,493 43,863 35,986 3,271 

Region 4 Oregon 11 225,701 20,518 3,948 359 

North Central 

Pennsylvania 

21 234,416 11,163 5,091 242 

Total 53 1,234,468 23,292 55,189 1,041 

Access Point data source: America’s Service Locator, 2004; Population data source: Census 2000 
II-24

Reasons for Changes in Numbers of Access 

Points and the Development of Current 

Networks 

Based primarily on our site visits to five rural areas, we have 

identified a number of reasons for the changes in the numbers of 

access points between 1979 and 2004. However, because few 

local area respondents were familiar with workforce development 

systems or access points prior to the late 1990s, we have focused 

most of our explanation on the time period following the passage 

of the Workforce Investment Act. 

Decline in Access Points between 1979 and 1999 

One reason for the decline in access points between 1979 and 1999 

may stem from decreases in funding for workforce development 

services. Research on federal funding for workforce development 

services has shown that workforce development funding levels 

were at their peak in the late 1970s at around $250 per labor force 

member, and they have since declined to about $50 in recent 

years.22 Respondents in several of the local areas we visited also 

reported significant declines in federal workforce funding during 

the mid-1980s. 

However, in some cases, supplemental funding and mandates by 

states counteracted these federal funding cuts to maintain large 

systems of access points. For example, in 1987, the state of Iowa 

enacted an employer surtax to fund workforce development offices 

in rural areas. Nine years later, in 1996, the state also passed a law 

requiring the state employment security agency to operate an office 

in each of the state’s 99 counties, further reinforcing the desire by 

the state to maintain a large network of access points throughout 

the state. Despite these state efforts, the number of access points in 

Iowa still declined by 27 percent between 1979 and 2004. 

 

22 Barnow, Burt S. and Christopher T. King, The Workforce Investment Act in 

Eight States. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Labor Employment and 

Training Administration by the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of 

Government, February 2005. 

One reason for the 

decline in access points 

between 1979 and 1999 

may stem from 

decreases in funding for 

workforce development 

services. 
II-25

The restructuring of Unemployment Insurance programs during the 

late 1990s was a second major change that may have caused the 

decline in access points between 1979 and 1999. Most states have 

changed their UI system from a face-to-face service delivery 

model to a call center and Internet-based model, thus reducing the 

traffic to physical access points and the need to maintain UI staff in 

each local area. Consequently, many states reduced the number of 

access points operated by their state employment security agency 

to reflect this decreased traffic. 

National data on the specific types of access points that declined 

between 1979 and 1999 provide further evidence that a significant 

portion of the overall drop in access points was due to changes in 

UI service delivery. As shown in Exhibit II-17, the number of UIonly access points dropped by 63.7 percent between 1979 and 

1999, representing 33 percent of the total decline in access points 

during that period. 

Exhibit II-17: 

Change in UI Only Access Points between 1979 and 1999 

Access Point Type23 1979 1999 Change Percentage Change 

All Access Points 3,454 2,505 - 949 - 27.5% 

UI Only 498 181 - 317 - 63.7% 

Source: 1979 data from the U.S. Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration, Directory of 

Local Employment Security Offices. 1999 data from America’s Workforce Technology Solutions, Local Office 

Directory. 

Increase in Access Points between 1999 and 2004 

The implementation of WIA during the late 1990s and the early 

part of this decade may be one of the reasons for the increase in the 

number of access points between 1999 and 2004. This is likely 

due to the legislation’s requirement that each state and local area 

develop a network of One-Stop access points that would integrate 

services from multiple workforce development agencies. 

However, although the overall effect of WIA may have been to 

 

23 UI = Unemployment Insurance; LE = Labor Exchange; JS = Job Service; Other in 1979 includes: WIN = Work 

Incentive Program and combinations of JS, UI and WIN; Other in 1999 includes: JTPA = Job Training 

Partnership Act, OS = One Stop, and combinations of LE, UI, and JTPA. 

The restructuring of 

Unemployment 

Insurance programs 

during the late 1990s 

was a second major 

change that may have 

caused the decline in 

access points between 

1979 and 1999. 

The implementation of 

WIA during the late 

1990s and the early 

part of this decade may 

be one of the reasons 

for the increase in the 

number of access 

points between 1999 

and 2004. 
II-26

increase the number of access points, the effect on individual states 

and local areas has been decidedly mixed. For example, in some 

states, WIA has resulted in little change to already existing access 

point systems, while in other states the implementation of WIA has 

resulted in an increase in the number and types of access points. 

In the five rural areas we visited, the implementation of WIA on 

local One-Stop systems has had a similar mixed effect. For 

example, four local areas, Northwest Iowa, Northern New Mexico, 

Region 4 Oregon and Southeast Georgia, have experienced no 

increase or even a decrease in their total number of access points 

following the implementation of a local One-Stop system. In these 

areas, the primary response to WIA’s One-Stop mandate has been 

to retrofit existing workforce development access points, especially 

Employment Service offices, and turn them into One-Stop access 

points, thus resulting in little or no change in the number or 

location of access points. 

Even when new access points have been developed in these areas, 

they have been comprehensive centers that typically replaced 

already existing ES and WIA offices located nearby that were too 

small to host co-located partners, thus leaving the absolute number 

of access points in the area unchanged, or even decreasing it. For 

example, in Spencer, Iowa, neither the WIA nor the ES offices 

were large enough to accommodate on-site partners, so the Spencer 

comprehensive center was established in a new and larger location. 

By contrast, in North Central Pennsylvania, implementation of 

WIA and the development of One-Stop systems has resulted in an 

absolute increase in the number of workforce development access 

points. In North Central Pennsylvania, the increase in access 

points stemmed from the development of a large number of small 

access points, which the local area initially felt was an important 

way to reach many rural customers. Consequently, in 2004, 14 of 

the local area’s 21 access points consisted of non-comprehensive 

locations composed primarily of computer-only access points 

Even when new access 

points have been 

developed in these 

areas, they have been 

comprehensive centers 

that typically replaced 

already existing ES and 

WIA offices located 

nearby that were too 

small to host co-located 

partners, thus leaving 

the absolute number of 

access points in the 

area unchanged, or 

even decreasing it. 
II-27

operated by non-traditional One-Stop partners such as communitybased organizations, churches and libraries. 24

Thus, one reason for the jump in the number of access points from 

1999 to 2004 may be due to the fact that WIA has provided local 

areas with the flexibility to establish small access points operated 

by One-Stop partners such as TANF agencies, state vocational 

rehabilitation offices, and even libraries or churches. Few of these 

types of access points existed in 1999, and, where they did exist, 

were unlikely to be captured in the 1999 access point data source 

we are using. 

Conclusion 

Over the last 25 years, rural areas in the U.S. have experienced 

multiple changes in their populations and economies. In terms of 

demographics, non-metro areas have experienced overall 

population growth albeit at a slightly lower rate than the U.S. as a 

whole. Non-metro areas have also seen a “graying” of their 

population, and some areas, particularly in the South and Midwest, 

have also faced a surging Hispanic population. Finally, low rates 

of post-secondary education have continued to be an issue in some 

rural areas. 

In addition to these demographic changes, rural areas have had to 

deal with major economic transformations. Many rural areas have 

experienced significant declines in employment in manufacturing, 

extraction and agricultural industries. Jobs in these industries have 

been replaced by employment in services, government and trade. 

High-paying jobs in these newly dominant industries—such as in 

health care—typically require higher levels of education than the 

manufacturing and extraction jobs they replaced. 

The result is what many local areas call a “job/skills mismatch,” 

where workers do not have the right skills to obtain the high wage 

 

24 The different types of One-Stop access points and their effectiveness is 

explored in Chapter 3. 

Many rural areas have 

experienced significant 

declines in employment 

in manufacturing, 

extraction and 

agricultural industries. 

One reason for the 

jump in the number of 

access points from 

1999 to 2004 may be 

that WIA has provided 

local areas with the 

flexibility to establish 

small access points 

operated by One-Stop 

partners such as TANF 

agencies, libraries or 

churches. 
II-28

jobs available in the new economy. In addition, the lack of highskilled workers is impeding economic growth in these areas. To 

deal with this challenge, rural areas are implementing efforts to 

both upgrade worker skills and retain highly educated workers. 

They are also working more closely with current employers to 

keep those employers in the area and trying to attract new 

employers. 

In addition to experiencing these economic and demographic 

changes, these local areas have also experienced major changes to 

their networks of workforce development access points. Between 

1979 and 1999, the number of access points—both overall and in 

non-metro area—fell by over a quarter. However, from 1999 to 

2004, the number of access points rebounded strongly, particularly 

in non-metro areas, where the number of access points in 2004 was 

nine percent higher than in 1979. The reasons for this growth in 

the number of access points from 1999 to 2004 may be due to the 

effect of WIA, which was enacted in 1998. 

However, despite WIA’s possible overall positive impact on the 

number of access points, the experience of individual states and 

local areas has been mixed. For example, among the five local 

areas we visited for this study, only one experienced absolute 

increases in the number of access points following WIA 

implementation. In this area, the reason for the increase was due to 

the development of a large number of new access points operated 

by non-traditional workforce development providers such as 

libraries and churches. 

In the other four areas, by contrast, local One-Stop partners relied 

primarily on renovating already existing networks of ES offices to 

serve as One-Stop access points. When new One-Stop access 

points were developed, they were typically comprehensive centers 

that often resulted in an absolute decline in the total number of 

access points. The networks of One-Stop access points developed 

by each of these five rural areas are further explored in the next 

chapter on service delivery in rural areas. 

The reasons for this 

growth in the number of 

access points from 

1999 to 2004 may be 

due to the effect of WIA, 

which was enacted in 

1998. 

The result is what many 

local areas call a 

“job/skills mismatch,” 

where workers do not 

have the right skills to 

obtain the high wage 

jobs available in the 

new economy. 
III-1

III. ONE-STOP SERVICE DELIVERY AND ACCESSIBILITY IN 

RURAL AREAS 

Making workforce development services accessible to the residents 

of rural workforce investment areas—who live scattered over 

thousands of square miles in multiple counties—is truly 

challenging. To meet this challenge, the five rural areas we visited 

utilize networks of two or more physical access points. These 

access points can be classified into five types, each with its own 

distinct characteristics. Typically, these access points are located 

in a local area’s largest communities, with at least one in every 

county. Although the specific types of access points utilized in 

each local area’s One-Stop network vary, these rural areas have 

begun focusing more of their attention on larger, more 

comprehensive physical access points due to the drawbacks of 

operating smaller physical locations. In addition to networks of 

permanent One-Stop access points, some rural areas also establish 

temporary access points, particularly to deal with major layoffs. 

Because of the serious transportation barriers faced by many rural 

customers in reaching physical access points, rural areas have also 

developed supplementary strategies to make services accessible. 

These strategies include transportation assistance, Internet services, 

services provided over the phone, and itinerant staff who travel to 

customer locations. 

Each of the five local areas also conducts critical outreach 

activities to ensure accessibility. These activities include 

presentations, Internet websites and local radio advertising. Some 

local areas also utilize specific strategies aimed at certain special 

Making workforce 

development services 

accessible to the 

residents of rural 

workforce investment 

areas—who live 

scattered over 

thousands of square 

miles in multiple 

counties—is truly 

challenging. 
III-2

populations, such as limited English speaking Hispanics, who are 

less likely to use services. 

Finally, the local areas reported they have few qualified workforce 

development providers. This relative shortage of providers limits 

competitive procurement efforts and sometimes impacts the quality 

and accessibility of service delivery. 

This chapter explores each of the topics above, including rural 

One-Stop access point types and networks; supplementary service 

delivery strategies aimed at overcoming transportation barriers; 

outreach and marketing activities, including strategies aimed at 

certain special populations; and the availability of workforce 

service providers and the impact of that availability on service 

delivery. 

Rural One-Stop Access Points 

WIA envisions that physical One-Stop access points should be a 

part of “seamless system(s) of service delivery” designed to 

“integrate multiple workforce development programs and 

resources for individuals.”1 Indeed, by providing “one right door” 

for all workforce development services, One-Stop access points are 

the Workforce Investment Act’s principal means of facilitating 

customer access to these services. 

Because of WIA’s emphasis on One-Stop access points, the five 

rural workforce investment areas we visited have all invested 

significant resources in developing and maintaining systems of 

access points and use them as a primary means of service delivery. 

Access Point Typology 

In delineating the requirements for systems of One-Stop access 

points, WIA lays out only a few broad definitions that allow for 

significant local customization. One basic requirement is that each 

 

1

 20 CFR Part 652 et al., p.49307. 
III-3

local area must have at least one comprehensive center, which is to 

provide all core services via technology or various staffing 

arrangements such as co-location of personnel, cross training, or 

agreements between service providers, and which must provide 

access to other One-Stop partner programs and services. In 

addition to requiring the existence of at least one comprehensive 

center, WIA also allows for supplementary arrangements such as 

networks of “affiliated sites” that provide access to one or more 

partner programs or networks of One-Stop partners linked 

physically or technologically. Finally, the development of 

specialized centers focused on specific groups such as dislocated 

workers is also allowed. 2

Because of the flexibility inherent in these Federal guidelines, we 

found great diversity in the characteristics of physical access points 

in the five rural areas we visited. We also found varying 

definitions and titles for different types of access points. 

Consequently, to more clearly describe and analyze these systems 

and access points, we developed our own typology of One-Stop 

access points. Based on an analysis of co-located partners and 

available services, we have classified each physical access point in 

the five study sites into five different types: enhanced 

comprehensive centers, basic comprehensive centers, affiliates, 

satellites and computer-only locations. These types are 

summarized in Exhibit III-1 and are described in more detail below 

(Also see Appendix A. Typology Table for more details). 

Enhanced and Basic Comprehensive Centers 

As noted above, every local area is required under WIA to have at 

least one comprehensive center. Consequently, we found that all 

five local areas had at least one such access point and most had 

more than one. However, because we encountered such wide 

variation among these comprehensive centers, we decided to 

divide them into two groups, enhanced comprehensive centers and 

basic comprehensive centers. 

 

2

 Ibid. p. 49398-9. 

We found great 

diversity in the 

characteristics of 

physical access points 

in the five rural areas 

we visited. 
III-4

Exhibit III-1: 

Access Point Typology Criteria for Sites Visited 

Access Points Co-located Partners/Services Services Available On-Site 

Enhanced 

Comprehensive 

• WIA Adult and Dislocated 

Worker staff on-site full-time 

• Employment Service (ES) staff 

on-site full-time 

• At least one other core* OneStop partner on-site full-time 

• At least one other non-core

One-Stop partner on-site parttime 

• Core, intensive and preparation 

for training services 

• Core and intensive workshops 

Basic 

Comprehensive 

• WIA Adult and Dislocated 

Worker staff on-site full-time 

• ES staff on-site full-time 

• Core, intensive and preparation 

for training services 

• Core and intensive workshops 

sometimes available on-site 

and sometimes at a partner 

location 

Affiliate • Either WIA Adult and 

Dislocated Worker or ES staff 

on-site full-time; 

• At least one-other core or noncore One-Stop partner on-site 

part-time 

• Either ES or WIA services 

• Services from one other OneStop partner 

Satellite • 1 FTE or less WIA Adult and 

Dislocated Worker or ES staff 

on-site 

• No partners (except passive 

host) on-site 

• Either ES or WIA services 

Computer-Only • No core One-Stop staff on-site • Self-service core 

* “Core” One-Stop partners include partners who provide basic workforce development services such as job 

search assistance, career counseling, and occupational training. Typically these partners include WIA 

providers, ES, VR, TANF and community colleges 

Enhanced comprehensive centers are typically the largest, newest, and most extensive access 

points in a local area. With an average size of 8,749 square feet and resource rooms with an 

average of 14 computers available for customer use, these very large access points are often 

characterized by local One-Stop managers as “flagship” centers, representing the local area’s 

fullest realization of One-Stop ideals. 
III-5

One reason for their large size is to allow for a large number of 

co-located partners. For example, these centers all have WIA 

Adult and Dislocated Worker and Employment Service (ES) staff, 

as well as least one other core3

 One-Stop partner on-site full-time, 

with each of these programs often represented by multiple staff. 

Enhanced comprehensive centers also typically have one or more 

non-core One-Stop partners co-located full or part-time. Perhaps 

because of the large number of co-located partners, the majority of 

enhanced comprehensive centers in our study sites are operated by 

consortium (11 of 15 centers). 

Because none of the rural areas we visited has engaged in 

extensive cross-training, the services available at enhanced 

comprehensive centers typically mirror the access point’s staffing. 

Consequently enhanced comprehensive centers also have the 

widest variety of services available. In addition to providing core 

and intensive services, these centers also have staff who can assist 

job-seekers with accessing training services such as Individual 

Training Accounts (ITAs). They also offer a wide variety of core 

and intensive workshops, such as job search and resume 

preparation workshops, as well as employer services. The 

enhanced comprehensive centers in our study also almost always 

offer other services typically provided by ES staff or other staff 

from the state employment security agency, such as Veteran’s 

Employment and Training Services (VETS) and Trade Adjustment 

Assistance (TAA). Furthermore, Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) 

services are almost always available on-site at enhanced 

comprehensive centers, at least part-time, while TANF and WIA 

youth services are also sometimes available. A Senior Community 

Service Employment Program (SCSEP) and Job Corps recruitment 

services are also usually available at these centers, although only 

for a few hours a week or month. Finally, a few enhanced 

comprehensive centers, such as the one in East Linn, Oregon, 

 

3

 ‘Core’ One-Stop partners include those entities such as WIA Title I B 

providers, ES, UI, VR, community colleges and TANF (work-related) that 

provide basic workforce development services such as job search assistance, 

career counseling and occupational training. 

Enhanced 

comprehensive centers 

also have the widest 

variety of services 

available. 
III-6

provide support services such as child care centers, clothes closets 

and even hot showers available on-site 

As is the case with all but the smallest access points, the enhanced 

comprehensive centers in our study are typically open regular 

business hours, from 8 am to 4:30 or 5 pm. However, two 

enhanced comprehensive centers do offer extended hours one day 

a week. The additional hours offered by these two centers are 

fairly limited. For example, the center in Waycross, Georgia, only 

extends its closing hour from 4:30 to 5:30 pm on Mondays, while 

the center in Corvallis, 

Oregon,extends its hours 

on Monday from 7:30 am 

to 7:30 pm (instead of its 

normal 8 am to 5 pm 

schedule on Tuesdays 

through Fridays). 

Respondents in North 

Central Pennsylvania said 

that they had also piloted 

keeping one of their 

enhanced comprehensive 

centers open evenings, 

but found that the low 

customer usage during 

those hours did not justify 

the staffing costs. 

In contrast to enhanced comprehensive centers, basic 

comprehensive centers—while still meeting the legislative 

definition of a comprehensive center—are typically much smaller, 

have fewer partner staff on-site, and offer fewer services. For 

example, among the six basic comprehensive centers we 

encountered in three of our five study areas, the average size is 

only 2,245 square feet and resource rooms have an average of only 

nine computers. Because of their smaller size, several of these 

comprehensive centers can not offer workshops on-site. Although 

basic comprehensive centers do have WIA Adult and Dislocated 

East Linn, Oregon, Enhanced Comprehensive Center 

Region 4 Oregon’s East Linn One-Stop is considered to be the 

“dream One Stop center,” which truly embodies WIA’s “no wrong 

door” ideal. All of the area’s core One-Stop partners have a large 

on-site presence, including Linn Benton Community College (WIA 

provider), the Community Service Consortium (WIA provider), 

Oregon Employment Department, Oregon Department of Human 

Services and Oregon Department of Vocational Rehabilitation. 

The center’s resource room is approximately 3,300 square feet 

and has over twenty computers for Internet access and job 

searches. The center also has numerous cubicles and conference 

rooms throughout the 10,000 square foot building for customers to 

meet with case workers privately. All WIA core, intensive and 

even some training services (taught by instructors from the 

community college) are available on-site. The center also has onsite support services, including a clothes closet, where customers 

can find interview clothes, a day care center, and even hot 

showers for homeless customers. The office is open Monday 

through Friday from 8 am to 5 pm.

As is the case with all 

but the smallest access 

points, the enhanced 

comprehensive centers 

in our study are typically 

open regular business 

hours, from 8 am to 

4:30 or 5 pm. 

In contrast to enhanced 

comprehensive centers, 

basic comprehensive 

centers—while still 

meeting the legislative 

definition of a 

comprehensive 

center—are typically 

much smaller, have 

fewer partner staff onsite, and offer fewer 

services. 
III-7

Worker and ES staff on-site full-time, these programs are 

sometimes represented by only one staff person. In addition, few 

and sometimes no other partners are co-located on-site. 

Consequently the bulk of the services available at these sites are 

WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker and ES services, including 

basic employer services. Mirroring this heavy focus on WIA and 

ES, five of these six centers are operated by the state employment 

security agency, while the remaining center is operated by the local 

WIA Adult and Dislocated 

Worker services provider. 

Affiliate Access Points 

Compared to enhanced and 

basic comprehensive centers, 

affiliate offices have fewer 

on-site partners and available 

services. For example, we 

found that although all six 

affiliate access points in our 

study sites have multiple staff 

from ES on-site full-time, 

they typically have only one 

other One-Stop partner 

available on-site full- or parttime. In fact, in five of them, 

WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker program staff are not colocated at all. 4 Thus, services provided at affiliate access points 

have a heavy ES focus, with access to WIA intensive or training 

services or other One-Stop partner services typically only available 

via referral. This ES focus stems from the fact that all six of these 

affiliate offices are former employment service offices operated by 

the state employment security agency. 

 

4

 In the remaining office (Algona), WIA staff are co-located on-site only a few 

hours a week. 

Sheldon, Iowa, Basic Comprehensive Center

Although the One-Stop access point in Sheldon, Iowa, is a 

comprehensive center, it is only 1,728 square feet in size. The 

center, located in a small strip mall behind a bank, consists of a 

small resource room with six Internet accessible computers, a 

printer, and desks for the two full-time Iowa Workforce 

Development (ES/UI) staff and one IWD volunteer. In the back of 

the center are two small conference rooms, while on the right are 

two private offices, one used by the full-time WIA Adult and 

Dislocated Worker staff person and one by the part-time Iowa 

Workforce Development staff person who works with TANF clients. 

Experience Works and Veteran’s Employment and Training 

services are provided on an as-needed basis by itinerant staff. 

Because of the center’s small size, core or intensive workshops 

cannot be held on-site, but take place at the local community 

college campus across town. All other One-Stop services are 

provided on a referral basis. The office is open Monday through 

Friday, 8 am to 4:30 pm.

Services provided at 

affiliate access points 

have a heavy ES focus, 

with access to WIA 

intensive or training 

services or other OneStop partner services 

typically only available 

via referral. 
III-8

Despite the small number of partners on-site, these affiliate sites 

are typically about the same size as basic comprehensive centers, 

with an average size of about 2500 square feet.5 In addition, as 

with both types of comprehensive centers, they are typically open 

regular business hours. 

Satellite Access Points 

In contrast to affiliate offices, which are about the same size as 

basic comprehensive centers, the satellite offices we encountered 

in our study sites are very small, with an average size of only 410 

square feet. They have minimal staffing, with one FTE or less 

from either ES or the local WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker 

provider. These offices are so small that they have no partners onsite; consequently, the 

only services universally 

available are core services 

that can be provided by 

either ES or WIA staff. 

Access to WIA intensive 

or training services is 

available only by referral, 

unless the satellite is run 

by the local WIA Adult 

and Dislocated Worker 

program provider. 

Although several of the 

satellites we encountered are located within the office of another 

organization, typically these host entities are only minimally 

involved with the operation of the satellite. For example, in 

Estherville, Iowa, the state employment security agency operates a 

satellite in part of the office of the Estherville Chamber of 

Commerce. Although the Chamber Office is open Monday to 

Friday, the satellite is only open four days a week, as it shuts down 

 

5

 Excluding the New Mexico Department of Labor affiliate office in Santa Fe 

which is 15,897 square feet. 

Douglas, Georgia, Affiliate 

The Douglas, Georgia affiliate office is 3,800 square feet, with a small 

resource room in the middle of the office with nine computers, a 

printer, fax, telephone, and copier. There are no conference or 

training rooms. The office is staffed by 16 full-time staff from the 

Georgia Department of Labor who provide core and intensive 

services as well as other services such as Veteran’s Employment and 

Training Services and Trade Adjustment Assistance. Due to space 

limitations, no other partners are on-site full-time, although staff from 

the local National Farmworker Jobs Program, Senior Community 

Service Employment Program, and Job Corps are on-site once or 

twice a month. WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker services are 

available by referral. The office is open Monday to Wednesday and 

Fridays from 8 am to 4:30 pm and Thursdays from 8 am to 5:30 pm. 

Satellite offices are very 

small, with minimal 

staffing of one FTE or 

less from either ES or 

the local WIA Adult and 

Dislocated Worker 

provider. 
III-9

on Fridays when the ES employee who staffs it works at another 

office. 

As the above example suggests, because of their limited staffing, 

satellites are the only type of access point that is commonly not 

open regular business hours. For example, three of the six 

satellites we visited were not open five days a week, as the lone 

staff person assigned to them also spends certain weekdays at other 

One-Stop system locations. 

Computer-only Access Points 

Computer-only access points comprise another type in our 

typology. These access points, although found in only three of five 

local areas, are the most numerous type of access point that we 

encountered, and consist of a single computer with Internet access 

located on-site at a host entity. The home page for these 

computers is 

usually the state 

employment 

security agency’s 

website, which 

provides customers 

with access to online job matching, 

UI filing, and 

information on 

other services 

available on-line or 

through the state’s 

One-Stop system. 

 In two of the three 

areas with this type of access point, the network of computer-only 

sites is operated by the state employment security agency. 

However, the host entities for computer-only access points vary 

more widely. Those in Region 4 Oregon include several grocery 

stores, a mall, and two postsecondary educational institutions. By 

contrast, hosts in North Central Pennsylvania and Northwest Iowa 

Emmetsburg, Iowa, Satellite 

The Emmetsburg, Iowa satellite is located in the former Carnegie 

Library, a block off Emmetsburg’s main street. The overall building is 

operated by Iowa State University (ISU) Extension, but the satellite 

portion is staffed by an ES/UI worker from Iowa Workforce 

Development (IWD) who provides core and UI services. There is little 

collaboration between ISU and IWD staff except that the ISU 

receptionist will direct customers to the satellite and keeps an eye on 

the resource room when the IWD staff person is not there. The onestop satellite portion of the office is only 269 square feet and consists 

of a desk for the IWD staff person and three Internet-connected 

computers with IWD software, a printer and a copier. In the 

basement, ISU Extension has large meeting room that can be used 

by IWD for private interviews and rapid response meetings. The 

office is staffed by an employee from Iowa Workforce Development 

only on Tuesdays and Fridays from 8 to 4:30, although the resource 

room is also open on Mondays, Wednesdays and Thursdays during 

regular ISU Extension office hours.

Computer-only access 

points, although found 

in only three of five local 

areas, are the most 

numerous type of 

access point that we 

encountered, and 

consist of a single 

computer with Internet 

access located on-site 

at a host entity. 
III-10

include social service agencies, community centers and churches. 

Iowa State University (ISU) Extension also hosts one computeronly access point in Northwest Iowa. 

 The method of operation of computer-only access points also 

varies somewhat. Those in Iowa and Pennsylvania require 

administrative staff from the host agency to provide minimal 

assistance and supervision of customers using the computer. In 

contrast, computer-only access points in Oregon operate as standalone “kiosks” that are designed to be used by customers with no 

assistance or supervision. 

Because several of the 

hosts for these computeronly access points—

including retail stores and 

libraries—are typically 

open evening hours, 

many computer-only 

access points are 

available longer hours than staffed access points. 

Temporary One-Stop Access Points 

Temporary One-Stop centers are one additional type of physical 

access point used by some rural areas. These access points, which 

can be large or small, are used by rural areas primarily in response 

to major layoffs. In many cases, temporary access points are 

located on-site or very close to the affected worksite with the aim 

of making services more accessible to laid off workers. 

One local area in our study that uses this type of access point is 

Southeast Georgia. For example, in March 2004, the local area set 

up a small temporary access point in Pearson, Georgia, at a local 

senior citizens’ center located close to a factory that was laying off 

276 workers. This access point, which was open every Wednesday 

for two months, was intended to provide affected workers with 

easy access to One-Stop services. Without this temporary access 

point, laid off workers from the factory would have had to travel 

North Central Pennsylvania’s Computer-Only Access Points 

North Central Pennsylvania has 12 computer-only access points 

located at many different types of host organizations in each county. 

These hosts include: Northern Tier Community Action Corporation, 

Central Pennsylvania Community Action, DuBois Public Library, 

Johnsonburg Community Center, Mengle Memorial Library, 

Brookville YMCA, Punxsutawney Community Center, Rebecca M. 

Arthurs Memorial Library, Kane Community Center, Gospel 

Tabernacle, and two sites operated by the Potter County Education 

Council.
III-11

30 miles round trip to receive services at the Douglas, Georgia 

affiliate office, the nearest permanent access point. Similarly, in 

June, 2004, the same local area opened a temporary access point in 

Douglas, Georgia to serve 535 workers laid off by a small engine 

manufacturing plant. This temporary access point, which was only 

a few blocks from the local area’s Douglas affiliate office, was set 

up because the Douglas affiliate was judged to be too small to deal 

with all of the customers affected by the dislocation in addition to 

its normal client flow. The temporary access point in Douglas was 

similar to the 

permanent affiliate 

office with a full 

resource room, fulltime ES staff, and 

WIA staff on-site 

two to three days a 

week. 

Although temporary 

One-Stop centers 

have the advantage 

of providing ready 

access to One-Stop 

services at critical 

times, there are several challenges associated with them. To begin 

with, establishing these centers further stretches the already limited 

staffing available in rural areas. Consequently, rural local areas are 

careful to use this strategy only when faced with very large layoffs 

that cannot be accommodated through their regular One-Stop 

access points. Another challenge related to temporary One-Stop 

centers is that they often operate like affiliate or satellite centers, 

providing relatively few on-site services. As a result, many 

customers still have to travel to the nearest comprehensive center 

to have their needs met, which can be inconvenient. Finally, 

because these centers are temporary, many customers may not 

know about them and customer flow may be limited unless local 

staff conduct significant targeted marketing efforts. 

Southeast Georgia’s Temporary One-Stop Centers 

In June 2004, due to the small size of the local affiliate office, the local 

area opened a temporary One-Stop access point called the Tecumseh 

Transition Center to accommodate 535 workers who had been laid off 

by Tecumseh Products, Inc., a small engine manufacturer. This 

temporary One-Stop access point included a full resource room with 

seven Internet–linked computers and a resource library comprised of 

resource books, videos, and pamphlets. The access point was staffed 

by five Georgia Department of Labor staff temporarily redeployed from 

the nearby affiliate office. A local staff person from the WIA Dislocated 

Worker program was also co-located at the access point two to three 

days a week. Services provided at the access point included job 

referrals, career counseling, job search workshops, UI filing, and 

assessment and counseling related to WIA training services. Although 

the access point was targeted at dislocated workers from Tecumseh 

Products, it was open to any eligible customer. During the nine months 

this temporary access point was open, it served 2,047 customers.
III-12

Rural One-Stop Networks 

Among the five rural areas we visited, networks of One-Stop 

access points share a number of similarities and differences, both 

in terms of the mix of different types of access points and their 

locations. This section explores both of these subjects, beginning 

with an exploration of where access points are typically sited and 

the criteria used by local areas in determining those locations. 

Locations of Access Points 

With the exception of Southeast Georgia, all of the rural areas we 

visited have at least one access point in most counties. In addition, 

in North Central Pennsylvania, Northern New Mexico and Region 

4 Oregon, a majority of counties have at least one comprehensive 

center. 

 In all five local areas, access points are typically located in the 

largest communities, are often county seats. Exhibit III-2 displays 

this geographically. For example, North Central Pennsylvania has 

One-Stop access points located in most of its large communities 

around which Exhibit III-2 also shows that most access points in 

North Central Pennsylvania are also located in close proximity to 

the largest populations of low income people in each county, a 

characteristic that is also largely true for the other local areas. 

Usually, comprehensive centers are located in a local area’s largest 

cities, while affiliate and satellites are sited in smaller rural hubs. 

Computer-only access points are also sometimes located within the 

same cities as comprehensive centers, to provide residents of that 

city with additional access. 

In addition to being situated in county population centers, most 

access points are also located in the heart of those communities. 

For example, many access points are located on or very near their 

host city’s main thoroughfare. This central location also means 

that, if the city or county has a public transit system, access points 

are usually within easy walking distance of a bus stop. 

With the exception of 

Southeast Georgia, all 

of the rural areas we 

visited have at least one 

access point in most 

counties. 

Usually, comprehensive 

centers are located in a 

local area’s largest 

cities, while affiliate and 

satellites are sited in 

smaller rural hubs. 
III-13

North Central Pennsylvania

!

")

")

")

")

")

!

!

")

!

")!

!

!

! Kane

DuBois

Ridgway

Brockway

Bradford

St. Marys

Houtzdale

Brookville

Clearfield

Johnsonburg

Punxsutawney

LegendAccess Points and Population Density Access Points and Density of PMaps created by Social Policy Research Associates, 2005.Sources are listed in Appendix B, Exhibit 6: Sources for Local Area Access Point Maps.

Exhibit III-2

Persons per Square Mile(Block groups classified in quintiles.)

0.0 - 11.811.8 - 39.539.5 - 153.5153.6 - 625.0625.1 - 4940.0

Persons in Pov(Block groups clas

0.0 - 1.31.3 - 4.34.3 - 13.013.0 - 6464.7 - 82

!

!

!

!

")

")

!(

")

")

")

")

!

!

!

")

!

")!

!

!

! Kane

DuBois

Ridgway

Galeton

Brockway

Emporium

Bradford

St. Marys

Houtzdale

Brookville

Clearfield

Johnsonburg

Coudersport

Coudersport

Punxsutawney

County boundariesLWIA boundariesState boundaries

Boundary Types

") Enhanced Comp

!( Basic Comp

*# Affiliate

") Satellite

! Computer Only

Access Point Types
Exhibit III-2 (continued) 

III-14

Northern New Mexico

"

"

"

)

)

)

!

!

!

!

(

(

(

(

#

#

#

*

*

")*

Taos

Raton

Grants

Gallup

Espanola

Santa Fe Las Vegas

Farmington

Access Points and Population Density

Access Points and Density of Persons in Poverty

Maps created by Social Policy Research Associates, 2005.

Sources are listed in Appendix B, Exhibit 6: Sources for Local Area Access Point Maps.

!(

!(

")

#*

#*")

")#*

")

!(

!(

Taos

Raton

Grants

Gallup

Espanola

Santa Fe Las Vegas

Farmington

Legend

0 20 40

.

10

Miles

Persons per Square Mile

(Block groups classified in quintiles.)

0.0 - 11.8

11.8 - 39.5

39.5 - 153.5

153.6 - 625.0

625.1 - 4940.0

Persons in Poverty per Square Mile

(Block groups classified in quintiles.)

0.0 - 1.3

1.3 - 4.3

4.3 - 13.0

13.0 - 64.7

64.7 - 828.0

County boundaries

LWIA boundaries

State boundaries

Boundary Types

") Enhanced Comp

!( Basic Comp

#* Affiliate

") Satellite

! Computer Only

Access Point Types
Exhibit III-2 (continued) 

III-15

Northwest Iowa

") !(

" #*

"

"

)

)

)

! !

Algona

Spencer

Sheldon Emmetsburg

Estherville

Spirit Lake Rock Rapids

Sioux Center

Access Points and Population Density

Access Points and Density of Persons in Poverty

") !(

" #*

"

"

)

)

)

! !

Algona

Spencer

Sheldon Emmetsburg

Estherville

Spirit Lake Rock Rapids

Sioux Center

Maps created by Social Policy Research Associates, 2005.

Sources are listed in Appendix B, Exhibit 6: Sources for Local Area Access Point Maps.

Legend

0 10 20

.

5

Miles

Persons per Square Mile

(Block groups classified in quintiles.)

0.0 - 11.8

11.8 - 39.5

39.5 - 153.5

153.6 - 625.0

625.1 - 4940.0

Persons in Poverty per Square Mile

(Block groups classified in quintiles.)

0.0 - 1.3

1.3 - 4.3

4.3 - 13.0

13.0 - 64.7

64.7 - 828.0

") Enhanced Comp

!( Basic Comp

#* Affiliate

") Satellite

! Computer Only

Access Point Types

County boundaries

LWIA boundaries

State boundaries

Boundary Types
Exhibit III-2 (continued) 

III-16

Region 4, Oregon

"

" "

" )

) )

)

#*

!

! !

!

!

!

Albany

Newport

Lebanon

Corvallis

Sweet Home

Lincoln City

Access Points and Population Density

Access Points and Density of Persons in Poverty

Maps created by Social Policy Research Associates, 2005.

Sources are listed in Appendix B, Exhibit 6: Sources for Local Area Access Point Maps.

Legend

0 10 20

.

5

Miles

Persons per Square Mile

(Block groups classified in quintiles.)

0.0 - 11.8

11.8 - 39.5

39.5 - 153.5

153.6 - 625.0

625.1 - 4940.0

Persons in Poverty per Square Mile

(Block groups classified in quintiles.)

0.0 - 1.3

1.3 - 4.3

4.3 - 13.0

13.0 - 64.7

64.7 - 828.0

") Enhanced Comp

!( Basic Comp

#* Affiliate

") Satellite

! Computer Only

Access Point Types

County boundaries

LWIA boundaries

State boundaries

Boundary Types

"

" "

" )

) )

)

#*

!

! !

!

!

!

Albany

Newport

Lebanon

Corvallis

Sweet Home

Lincoln City
Exhibit III-2 (continued) 

III-17

Southeast Georgia

*# Douglas

Wa

LegendAccess Points and Population Density Access Points and Density of PMaps created by Social Policy Research Associates, 2005.Sources are listed in Appendix B, Exhibit 6: Sources for Local Area Access Point Maps.

Persons per Square Mile(Block groups classified in quintiles.)

0.0 - 11.811.8 - 39.539.5 - 153.5153.6 - 625.0625.1 - 4940.0

Persons in Pov(Block groups clas

0.0 - 1.31.3 - 4.34.3 - 13.013.0 - 6464.7 - 82

County boundariesLWIA boundariesState boundaries

Boundary Types

") Enhanced Comp

!( Basic Comp

*# Affiliate

") Satellite

! Computer Only

Access Point Types

")

*# Douglas

Waycross
III-18

Despite the many similarities between local areas in where access 

points are located, distances between access points vary. In 

Pennsylvania, Iowa, and Oregon, for instance, the average distance 

between cities with access points is about 24 miles (see Exhibit III3). By contrast, in Northern New Mexico, the average distance 

between cities with access points is about 93 miles. Similarly, the 

local areas appear to vary in how well all major population clusters 

are covered. For example, in Southeast Georgia, a number of 

major clusters are quite far from the nearest access point of any 

type. By contrast, access seems much better in the remaining four 

areas. 

Exhibit III-3: 

Average Distance Between Access Points 

Average Distance Between 

Access Points 

North Central Pennsylvania 22 miles 

Northern New Mexico 93 miles 

Northwest Iowa 27 miles 

Region 4 Oregon 24 miles 

Southeast Georgia 46 miles* 

*Not an average; actual distance between the two access points. 

Local area respondents identified a number of important criteria 

they attempt to follow when determining the best location for 

access points. The most important criterion noted by all five areas 

is to locate access points within their largest cities or towns. In this 

way, the access points are situated close to the majority of the 

area’s residents. In addition, the largest communities in an area 

typically are home to other important services such as doctor’s 

offices, banks and major retail establishments, which rural 

residents have to visit periodically. 

Another criterion mentioned by some local area respondents is to 

locate access points in city or town centers. They noted that this is 

important because it ensures good visibility for access points, 

provides many residents the option of walking to an access point, 

The most important 

criterion noted by all 

five areas is to locate 

access points within 

their largest cities or 

towns. 
III-19

and makes it much more likely that access points are close to bus 

stops. 

However, other respondents asserted that locating access points 

downtown is less important than other criteria because the small 

size of most of these communities mitigates the effect on 

accessibility of a downtown location. Instead, these respondents 

noted the importance of finding locations that are affordable, have 

sufficient space for all access point activities and partners, or are 

located near the offices of important partners. Indeed, several 

access points have moved from downtown locations to be able to 

afford larger spaces or be located next door or across the street 

from partner offices. 

Finally, in addition to these locational criteria, politics also plays a 

role in where access points are located. Several respondents 

reported that local elected officials are often very interested in 

ensuring that their jurisdictions have at least one access point. For 

example, in one local area, the reason why one of the access points 

is not located in a county seat is because of the influence of a 

powerful local elected official who pushed for it to be located in 

his own jurisdiction. 

Typically, the local areas did not report using a formal process to 

determine the location of One-Stop access points. One reason for 

the lack of formal site selection processes is that the majority of 

access points have been in the same cities or town in 

approximately the same locations for many years. Because these 

long-time locations are judged to be generally effective or the sites 

are locked in because of long-term leases or building ownership, 

there has been no need for a new selection process. 

Types of Access Points in Networks 

 In addition to varying locations for access points, the types of 

access points included in the five rural areas’ One-Stop networks 

also varied extensively. For example, as demonstrated in Exhibit 

III-4, the only type of access point we found in all five areas is 

enhanced comprehensive centers, although the number ranged 

Respondents noted the 

importance of finding 

locations that are 

affordable, have 

sufficient space for all 

access point activities 

and partners, or are 

located near the offices 

of important partners. 

Politics sometimes 

plays a role in where 

access points are 

located. 
III-20

from a high of six in North Central Pennsylvania to a low of one in 

Southeast Georgia and Northwest Iowa. The numbers of other 

types of access points in each local area also varied widely. 

Exhibit III-4: 

Number & Types of Non-Temporary Access Points in Study Sites 

Local Area 

Enhanced 

Comprehensive 

Basic 

Comprehensive Affiliate Satellite 

ComputerOnly Total 

Southeast 

Georgia 1 0 1 0 0 2 

Northwest 

Iowa 1 1 1 3 2 8 

Northern 

New Mexico 3 4 3 1 0 11 

Region 4 

Oregon 4 0 1 0 6 11 

North Central 

Pennsylvania 6 1 0 2 12 21 

Total 15 6 6 6 20 53 

Data is as of December 2004. 

Despite this variation in the One-Stop network configuration, all 

five local areas are focusing their networks on comprehensive 

centers rather than on smaller staffed access points such as 

affiliates and satellites. For example, 21 of the 33 staffed access 

points we encountered (excluding temporary access points) are 

either basic or enhanced comprehensive centers. Only two local 

areas in our study—Northwest Iowa and Northern New Mexico—

have more than one or two satellite or affiliate sites. Local 

managers in Nothwest Iowa explained that one reason for this 

area’s relatively high number is an Iowa law that requires ES to 

maintain a physical access point in each county, but they felt that 

staff from some of these smaller offices could probably be more 

efficiently deployed to the local area’s enhanced comprehensive 

center. Likewise, respondents from North Central Pennsylvania, 

which has two satellite offices, indicated that, after experimenting 

with smaller access points, they are focusing more of their 

resources on fewer, more comprehensive centers. One-Stop 

managers in Southeast Georgia also said that they are seeking state 

All five local areas are 

focusing their networks 

on comprehensive 

centers rather than on 

smaller staffed access 

points such as affiliates 

and satellites. 
III-21

funding to move their affiliate office in Douglas into a larger 

building so they can have more co-located partners and turn it into 

a comprehensive center. Only one area—Northern New Mexico—

is actively looking to open or re-open several small offices, 

although two of these are to provide better access for the local 

Native American population that prefers for cultural reasons to 

seek services on their reservations. 

This focus on more concentrated One-Stop networks composed of 

fewer comprehensive centers represents a shift from the findings of 

a previous SPR report on rural One-Stop centers, which found that 

rural areas often developed One-Stop networks primarily made up 

of satellite and affiliate offices. Respondents at that time said that 

their local areas did not have resources for more than one or two 

comprehensive centers and relying solely on those centers would 

force customers to travel very long distances to access One-Stop 

system services. They argued that such travel would be 

particularly difficult for customers who lacked reliable cars, since 

public transit in rural areas is either extremely limited or nonexistent. These respondents, while admitting that these small 

access points could not provide customers with all of the services 

they needed, emphasized that affiliates and satellites could at least 

start the process of getting customers’ needs met by providing core 

services and referrals.6

 

However, according to local area respondents we interviewed for 

this study, a shift to fewer but more comprehensive centers may be 

underway. A primary reason is that comprehensive centers may 

ultimately be more convenient than satellites of affiliates, because 

customers can get all of their needs met in one location. 

Respondents argued that, because so few services are available in 

small access points, most customers end up having to drive to more 

comprehensive access points anyway. Thus, a network of many 

small access points, they feel, is actually less efficient for 

This focus on more 

concentrated One-Stop 

networks composed of 

fewer comprehensive 

centers represents a 

shift from the findings of 

a previous SPR report 

on rural One-Stop 

centers, which found 

that rural areas often 

developed One-Stop 

networks primarily 

made up of satellite and 

affiliate offices. 

“Other areas say they 

have a center in every 

county, but when you 

look at it [the center], 

there are not many 

services there.” 

Respondent in 

Southeast Georgia 
III-22

customers. As respondents in Southeast Georgia put it, “Other 

areas say they have a center in every county, but when you look at 

it [the center], there are not many services there.” 

Although having fewer, more comprehensive One-Stop access 

points forces customers to travel further to reach the nearest access 

point, local area respondents felt that this would not seriously 

affect accessibility. The reason they gave is that “rural people are 

used to driving” to the larger cities in their areas to meet most of 

their service needs, including medical or dental care and shopping. 

As long as the One-Stop system’s access points are located in each 

local area’s major administrative and retail hubs, local staff 

emphasized their belief that customers are able to readily 

overcome transportation barriers to reach those locations, either by 

driving themselves or catching a ride with a relative or friend. 

A few respondents also noted that the increasing availability of 

core services on the Internet—which more and more rural 

customers can access from home—is lessening the need for 

smaller access points. They argued that, because many of the 

services available at these small access points are now available 

on-line, there is less need for local areas to stretch their limited 

staffing to cover numerous satellite or affiliate offices. 

Respondents in several local areas also mentioned a few other 

drawbacks to relying on large networks of affiliate and satellite 

offices. One issue that was mentioned by respondents in both 

Southeast Georgia and North Central Pennsylvania is that it is 

harder to supervise and train staff who are stretched across many 

different locations. 

Another challenge particular to satellite offices is that the 

inconvenience of their limited hours sometimes pushes customers 

to ignore them, even when they are nearby, and simply drive to the 

 

6

 Rural One-Stops: Issues in WIA Implementation. Prepared for the U.S. 

Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. Kate 

Dunham. Social Policy Research Associates. January 2003. 

Although having fewer, 

more comprehensive 

One-Stop access points 

forces customers to 

travel further to reach 

the nearest access 

point, local area 

respondents felt that 

this would not seriously 

affect accessibility. 

The increasing 

availability of core 

services on the 

Internet—which more 

and more rural 

customers can access 

from home—is 

lessening the need for 

smaller access points. 
III-23

nearest comprehensive center. Furthermore, because they are so 

small, satellite offices are also less visible to customers. 

Consequently, some satellites have very limited client flow 

compared to comprehensive centers. Thus, deploying staff to these 

small access points may result in staff serving fewer customers 

than if they were located at comprehensive centers. 

Finally, because satellites and affiliates have few or no partners colocated, referrals are critical to ensuring that customers receive the 

services they need. However, because staff who are not co-located 

have fewer opportunities to work together and get to know each 

other, there is often less synergy between partner staff and 

consequently referral systems do not work as well. 

In addition to these challenges with the smallest staffed access 

points, two of the three local areas with computer-only access 

points indicated these access points also have serious drawbacks. 

One such drawback is that they are simply not used very much. 

Local respondents speculated that this lack of usage stems from the 

fact that many rural residents increasingly have Internet access at 

home. Consequently, customers have no need to go to an office 

just to use the Internet to connect to the state employment security 

agency’s website. On the flip side, many of the customers who do 

visit computer-only access points need more assistance than can be 

provided to them over the Internet. However, host agency staff are 

not trained on how to assist customers beyond giving basic 

instructions on how to use the computer and ensuring that 

customers can access the proper website. 

As a consequence of these twin facts, in the words of the director 

of North Central Pennsylvania’s workforce investment board, 

many of these computer-only access points have basically “died on 

the vine” as customers have stopped using them. North Central 

Pennsylvania originally invested heavily in computer-only access 

points because it thought that this type of access point would use 

very few resources and would be self-sustaining once established. 

However, the director said that the local area has now realized that 

for these access points to work, it would need to provide much 

Many of these 

computer-only access 

points have basically 

“died on the vine” as 

customers have 

stopped using them. 

For these access points 

to work, the local area 

would need to provide 

much more extensive 

support and training for 

hosts, something it 

does not plan to do 

because of its current 

policy of focusing 

resources on the local 

area’s comprehensive 

centers. 
III-24

more extensive support and training for hosts, something it does 

not plan to do because of its current policy of focusing resources 

on the local area’s comprehensive centers. 

By contrast, Region 4 Oregon reported fairly high usage for its six 

computer kiosks. One reason for the greater success of Oregon’s 

computer-only access points may be because they are designed 

with an interface that allows them to be operated without any 

assistance or supervision. For this reason, they can be situated in 

locations with extended weekend and evening hours such as 

supermarkets, thus providing customers with more opportunities to 

use them. 

Supplementary Strategies for 

Providing Rural Customers with 

Access to Workforce Services 

Despite the reassurances of local area respondents that rural 

residents are able to successfully travel to local One-Stop access 

points, many rural residents face serious transportation barriers in 

each of the five local areas we visited. Most importantly, due to 

extremely limited or nonexistent public transportation7 and long 

distances between access points, the primary means of traveling to 

One-Stop access points is by driving, but as many as 57 percent of 

poor rural households do not own a car.8 In addition, even those 

with cars encounter the obligation of paying for repairs and 

gasoline, which are prohibitively expensive for some. 

Without access to a private vehicle or the ability to drive, rural 

residents are left with few options for traveling to access points. 

While in some cases, residents can use expensive private taxi 

 

7

 For example, in Southeast Georgia, only one county out of nine has a public 

transit system, while in Northwest Iowa, some towns are served by public 

transit only once or twice a month. 

8

 Rucker, George. Status Report on Public Transportation in Rural America, 

1994.” Rural Transit Assistance Program, Federal Transit Administration. 

The primary means of 

traveling to One-Stop 

access points is by 

driving, but as many as 

57 percent of poor rural 

households do not own 

a car. 
III-25

services or public transit systems,9 most of the time they are left 

with no alternative but to find rides with relatives, neighbors or 

friends. This ride-sharing, while often successful, is not 

particularly reliable, especially for on-going activities such as 

workshops. 

Because of these serious transportation barriers faced by many 

rural customers, local areas have developed a number of 

supplementary strategies to ensure customer access to One-Stop 

access point services. These strategies include providing 

customers with some form of transportation assistance, providing 

services over the Internet or by phone, and having staff travel to 

customer locations. Each of these strategies is discussed in more 

detail below. 

Transportation Assistance to Customers 

Rural areas use different strategies to provide transportation 

assistance to customers. These strategies include providing 

transportation vouchers, encouraging customers to form carpools, 

and using public vans to transport customers. 

The most common strategy used by rural local areas is to provide 

customers with transportation vouchers to cover the cost of gas or 

vehicle maintenance. These vouchers are most commonly 

provided by TANF agencies or local community or faith-based 

social services organizations. Sometimes, these same 

organizations will also provide customers with subsidies to cover 

the cost of making necessary vehicle repairs. 

Another less common strategy used by some rural areas is to 

encourage customers to form carpools. For example, One-Stop 

staff in Region 4 Oregon refer customers to a toll-free, state-run 

carpool hotline. One-Stop staff in Northwest Iowa also informally 

advise customers to form carpools. 

 

9

 In North Central Pennsylvania, the cost of using the local public transit 

system can be as much as $10 one-way to travel a fairly short distance. 

Because of these 

serious transportation 

barriers faced by many 

rural customers, local 

areas have developed a 

number of 

supplementary 

strategies to ensure 

customer access to 

One-Stop access point 

services. 

The most common 

strategy used by rural 

local areas is to provide 

customers with 

transportation vouchers 

to cover the cost of gas 

or vehicle maintenance. 
III-26

Finally, some rural local areas arrange for customers to be 

transported to services in public vans. For example, some areas 

have worked out arrangements with other public programs such as 

Head Start to make use of idle school buses. 

Unfortunately, there are significant challenges related to the use of 

these strategies. First, covering rural customers’ travel costs 

through transportation vouchers can be very expensive. For 

example, the WIA provider in Northwest Iowa reported that 

transportation costs for customers in training could run as high as 

$3,000 per customer. Due to this costliness, many rural areas, 

including both North Central Pennsylvania and Northern New 

Mexico, feel that they cannot afford to use this strategy. 

The use of carpools is also a problematic strategy for providing 

customers with transportation assistance. The primary challenge 

with using carpools is that customers who live near each other 

rarely have similar schedules. Liability issues are another 

challenge. Because of concerns that they will be held liable for 

injuries that occur while customers carpool, many workforce 

programs are unwilling to formally arrange carpools. Without staff 

assistance with carpool arrangements, many local areas have found 

that relatively few customers are motivated enough to set up a 

carpool on their own. 

Liability issues and scheduling problems also make the use of vans 

belonging to other public programs problematic. As with carpools, 

the use of public vans requires that rural workforce development 

customers who live near each other have relatively similar 

schedules. In addition, the start and end times for workforce 

development activities, such as occupational training, cannot 

coincide with the start and end times of programs operated by the 

public agency to whom the vans belong. 

Internet Services 

Because of the challenges to providing transportation assistance, 

most rural areas also rely on other supplemental means of 

providing customers with access to services. One increasingly 

In Southeast Georgia, 

the WIA Adult and 

Dislocated Worker 

provider may spend as 

much as $2,000 in 

transportation subsidies 

for a single customer to 

attend a nine-month 

training. 

Respondents from all 

five local areas 

asserted that Internet 

services have played a 

critical role in increasing 

rural customers’ access 

to core job seeker and 

employer services. 
III-27

important method is providing services via the Internet. Indeed, 

respondents from all five local areas asserted that Internet services 

have played a critical role in increasing rural customers’ access to 

services, particularly core job seeker and employer services. In 

addition, they also noted that the provision of services over the 

Internet frees up limited staff time and allows staff to focus on 

those customers who need more help. They see increasing reliance 

on the Internet as inevitable in light of continued budget and 

staffing cuts, improvements in technology, and the increasing 

Internet-savvy of rural users.10 

The primary provider of Internet services in these five local areas 

is the state employment security agency. For example, three of the 

five rural areas we visited do not even have their own customerfocused local website, 11 but rather direct customers to their state 

employment security agency’s website. According to respondents 

from the three areas without a local website, the primary reason for 

their heavy reliance on the state for Internet services is the expense 

of developing and maintaining a local customer-oriented website. 

In addition, these respondents argued that their states’ websites are 

very extensive and accessible to readers of other languages, and 

they do not feel that they can significantly improve on the state’s 

efforts. 

Some local areas did report problems related to relying on the state 

to develop and maintain Internet services. One major drawback is 

that state websites typically contain very little specific information 

on local access points, services or partners. For example, the 

Georgia Department of Labor provides only the address, contact 

information and a map for the Waycross and Douglas access points 

 

10 Recent data from the U.S. Commerce Department showed that Internet use 

among people in rural households has grown at an average annual rate of 24 

percent, several percentage points faster than for people in urban households. 

A Nation Online: How Americans are Expanding their Use of the Internet. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. 2002. 

11 All five have a local board website, but these websites typically contain only 

information on local board operation rather than on services. 

Local respondents see 

increasing reliance on 

the Internet as 

inevitable in light of 

continued budget and 

staffing cuts, 

improvements in 

technology, and the 

increasing Internetsavvy of rural users. 
III-28

in Southeast Georgia, but does not have any information on hours 

of operation, specific services provided at those One-Stops, or colocated partners. Another challenge is that local One-Stop 

partners—including the local WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker 

program provider—have little or no input on the development or 

maintenance of state websites. This typically results in state 

websites having a heavy focus on state-operated programs, 

particularly programs operated by the state employment security 

agency. For example, one state website has no mention of OneStop centers operated by the local board-designated One-Stop 

operator, referring customers only to One-Stop access points 

operated by the state employment security agency. 

Moreover, despite the Internet’s growing role in improving access 

for rural customers, there are a number of reasons why services 

provided on-line are still problematic for many rural customers. 

First, although Internet use among rural households is increasing 

rapidly, still only a little over half of all rural residents report using 

the Internet. 12 In addition, certain groups that may need One-Stop 

services the most, such as those who are poorer, less educated, or 

members of minority groups, are even less likely to use the 

Internet. 13 In some extremely remote areas of the five local areas 

we visited, such as on the Navajo Reservation in New Mexico, 

rural residents may lack even the basic means to use the Internet, 

such as phone lines or electricity. Thus, over-reliance on the 

Internet for service delivery in rural areas may result in much 

lower access for some. 

Even for residents with access to the Internet, reliance on online 

services can be frustrating. One reason for this is that high-speed 

 

12 Although Internet use in rural areas is approaching the national average, in 

2002 it was still only 52.9 percent, nearly 5 percentage points lower than in 

urban areas. Op. Cit. 

13 Ibid. 

Although Internet use 

among rural households 

is increasing rapidly, 

still only a little over half 

of all rural residents 

report using the 

Internet.

Even for residents with 

access to the Internet, 

reliance on online 

services can be 

frustrating. 
III-29

Internet access is not available in many rural areas.14 

Consequently, a higher percentage of rural Internet users than their 

urban counterparts are forced to access the web via slow dial-up 

connections. For example, in 2002, the U.S. Commerce 

Department reported that 87.8 percent of rural households who 

used the Internet at home connected to the web via a low speed 

form of access such as dial-up—nine percentage points higher than 

among urban households.15 

Using the Internet is also sometimes more expensive in rural areas. 

For example, some rural residents have to dial long distance to 

access an Internet Service Provider (ISP). ISPs also sometimes 

charge rural residents more for their services because of the higher 

cost of operating in rural areas.16

Further some local area respondents asserted that rural residents 

are less comfortable with technology than their urban counterparts 

and thus may simply prefer to receive assistance from staff rather 

than via a computer. 

Finally, One-Stop staff in North Central Pennsylvania pointed out 

that another drawback to reliance on Internet services is that access 

point staff do not have the opportunity to get to know their 

customers as well, something they see as an important benefit to 

service delivery in a rural area. 

Services over the Phone 

A third supplementary strategy used to ensure rural customers with 

access to services is telephone assistance. One-Stop staff 

emphasized that they try to do as much as possible over the phone 

 

14 Rising to Meet the Digital Challenge in Rural Communities: A Growing 

Divide? Christian Tscheschlok. Illinois Institute for Rural Affairs. Rural 

Research Report, Volume 12, Issue 3, Spring 2001. 

15 Ibid. 

16 Rural Internet Connectivity. Sharon Strover. Rural Policy Research 

Institute. Presentation at the Telecommunications Research and Policy 

Conference, September, 1999. 

One-Stop staff 

emphasized that they 

try to do as much as 

possible over the phone 

so that customers only 

have to travel to a OneStop access point when 

absolutely necessary. 
III-30

so that customers only have to travel to a One-Stop access point 

when absolutely necessary. This focus on telephone services is 

particularly common for job search and referrals, employer 

services and unemployment insurance (UI) services. 

Job referrals are one of the services often provided at least partially 

over the telephone. For example, while many job-seekers conduct 

job searches on-line with their state’s electronic job matching 

system, many online job referrals also require customers to contact 

a local One-Stop access point. While this contact might often 

occur in-person in urban areas, in rural areas telephone contact is 

quite common. Indeed, One-Stop center staff in Northwest Iowa 

reported that fielding calls from job-seekers interested in jobs they 

saw on the Internet is a frequent occurrence. 

Another set of services commonly provided over the telephone is 

employer services. Just as we found in an earlier study of business 

services under the Workforce Investment Act, 17 respondents in 

each of these five areas reported that the majority of interaction 

between employers and workforce system staff is over the phone. 

According to local area staff we interviewed for the study of WIA 

business services, this focus on contact by phone stems from the 

fact that most business customers are too busy to come into a OneStop access point on a regular basis, but also want more 

customized assistance than can be provided online. Use of the 

phone to provide employer services is even greater in rural areas, 

where many employers are located relatively far away from OneStop access points, thus making in-person visits even more 

inconvenient. 

The other service area where phone contact has become the norm 

is in filing a UI claim. As discussed in Chapter II, states have 

increasingly shifted administration of their UI programs to call 

 

17 Business as Partner and Customer under WIA: A Study of Innovative 

Practices. A Report Prepared for the U.S. Department of Labor, 

Employment and Training Administration as part of the National Evaluation 

The majority of 

interaction between 

employers and 

workforce system staff 

is over the phone. 

In four of the five states 

we visited for this study, 

customers can file UI 

claims by contacting a 

centralized call center. 
III-31

centers. Although this reliance on call centers has typically been 

initiated due to budget shortfalls, another rationale is to provide 

customers with more convenient access to the unemployment 

compensation system. Thus, in four of the five states we visited 

for this study, 18 customers can file claims by contacting a 

centralized call center (usually via a local or toll-free number). In 

fact, in three of those four states, UI-related services are no longer 

available at local One-Stop access points. 

Although providing services by phone is another important way 

that rural One-Stop systems try to provide customers with access to 

services, the phone is often not an efficient way to deal with 

complicated issues. When faced with issues such as complex 

eligibility questions, it can be far easier for both customers and 

staff to address those issues in person. This is one reason why so 

many job-seeker customers and One-Stop staff interviewed for this 

study criticized the fact that UI issues are no longer handled at the 

local level. Rather than coming to a local office to meet with staff 

for half an hour to work out UI-related challenges, customers 

reported spending lengthy and frustrating periods on the phone. 

These customers and staff asserted that the move to call centers has 

made UI services both less accessible and less efficient. 

Staff Travel to Customers 

Another strategy for ensuring that rural customers have access to 

workforce development services is for One-Stop staff to travel to 

meet with customers near their homes, in their workplaces, in 

schools, at partner offices and even in local restaurants or cafes. 

This strategy lessens the transportation burden on customers, 

making it easier for them to keep appointments. Staff travel is 

particularly common for WIA Title I B program staff and staff 

from programs serving migrant and seasonal farmworkers. As one 

 of the Implementation of WIA. Kate Dunham, Jeff Salzman and Vinz 

Koller. Social Policy Research Associates. June 2004 

One-Stop staff travel to 

meet with customers 

near their homes, in 

their workplaces, in 

schools, at partner 

offices and even in local 

restaurants or cafes. 
III-32

rural WIA administrator put it, “My staff have to go where their 

customers are and sometimes that means meeting in the county 

courthouse building in a borrowed office and other times in a 

booth at the local café.” 

However, there are several major challenges to this approach as 

well. One such challenge is a lack of funding for staff travel 

budgets. In addition, traveling to meet with customers means that 

staff spend a great deal of their time behind the wheel rather than 

meeting with customers or completing paperwork at their desks, a 

particularly difficult problem in rural areas where the distances 

staff have to travel are likely great and where staffing is limited. 

Extensive travel is also hard on staff, especially during poor 

weather conditions, and may lead to challenges in retaining staff. 

Outreach and Marketing 

In addition to utilizing supplemental service delivery strategies, 

outreach and marketing are also critical to ensuring that local 

residents can access services. Unless residents know about 

services and locations, they cannot access them. Despite limited 

budgets, all five local areas conduct at least some general 

marketing and outreach activities. In addition, to counteract 

serious access problems faced by certain special populations, some 

local areas have also created special outreach strategies for those 

groups. 

General Outreach and Marketing 

In the five rural local areas we visited, small or nonexistent 

marketing budgets dictate that general outreach and marketing are 

largely based on low cost strategies, such as presentations to 

partners and local organizations, Internet websites, and advertising 

on local radio stations. 

 

18 All but Georgia allow initial claims to be filed remotely, either by phone or 

via the Internet. Even Georgia allows subsequent UI-related communication 

to take place by phone or on-line. 

“My staff have to go 

where their customers 

are and sometimes that 

means meeting in the 

county courthouse 

building in a borrowed 

office and other times in 

a booth at the local 

café.” 

Rural WIA Administrator 

Small or nonexistent 

marketing budgets 

dictate that general 

outreach and marketing 

are largely based on 

low cost strategies, 

such as presentations 

to partners and local 

organizations, Internet 

websites, and 

advertising on local 

radio stations. 
III-33

One of the most common and successful types of marketing in 

rural areas is when One-Stop staff make presentations on One-Stop 

services to local groups and organizations, such as churches and 

social services organizations. These presentations often result in 

increased customer referrals to the One-Stop system from these 

organizations. 

Internet websites, discussed previously, are another important form 

of marketing for these local areas. Marketing through the web is 

free for three of the five local areas since the state provides 

information on local area access point networks on the state 

employment security agency’s website. But even for the other two 

local areas, the cost of developing and maintaining their local 

websites is relatively cheap. For example, in Northern New 

Mexico, the One-Stop operator developed its website in-house for 

a fairly minimal cost, while in Region 4 Oregon, the cost of 

developing a local customer-oriented website was $22,500. 

Although the five rural areas can afford little paid advertising, 

several do advertise on local radio stations, either by purchasing 

time or through public service announcements. Local area 

respondents said that local radio is a very effective and relatively 

inexpensive way to reach local residents. Other types of 

advertising used by at least one local area in our study include 

billboards, local newspapers, and public service announcements on 

local cable TV. 

For employers, the local areas typically conduct marketing efforts 

through presentations to local business organizations such as 

chambers of commerce, manufacturing groups, rotary clubs, and 

economic development organizations. Several also partner with 

local economic development agencies to make sure that One-Stop 

materials are provided to employers interested in re-locating to the 

area. Other employer outreach methods used by individual local 

areas include mass mailings, surveys conducted at business events, 

and cold calls to employers to set up meetings to discuss available 

services. 

For employers, the local 

areas typically conduct 

marketing efforts 

through presentations 

to local business 

organizations such as 

chambers of commerce, 

manufacturing groups, 

rotary clubs, and 

economic development 

organizations. 
III-34

One characteristic of these areas that has made marketing easier is 

that an overwhelming majority of staffed access points are housed 

in former Employment Service or UI offices, many of which have 

been in the same location for years. For example, in Region 4 

Oregon, four of five staffed One-Stop access points are located in 

former ES/UI offices, all of which have been in the same location 

for a number of years. The stable presence of these access points 

is a common reason for how customers know of their existence. 

For example, a typical answer from customers in resource rooms 

about how they learned about One-Stop access points was that they 

had “always known” about the local “unemployment” or 

“employment” office. Indeed, because of the importance of UI in 

drawing customers to access points, the shift in UI filing to call 

centers or via the Internet has caused a significant drop—estimated 

by one access point manager to be as much as 33 percent—in the 

number of customers coming in to One-Stop access points. This 

has led the staff at one access point to conduct outreach to UI 

claimants to make sure they know about the available services. 

Another drawback to One-Stop access points’ being known as 

“employment” or “unemployment” offices is that this reputation 

drives away “universal” customers who are not unemployed. In 

addition, other respondents said that this reputation results in many 

customers’ being unaware of the many other services available at 

access points, such as training. 

Outreach Challenges and Strategies for 

Special Populations 

Due to community or cultural norms, certain special populations 

face additional barriers in accessing services in rural areas. 

Among the five local areas we visited for our study, the main 

groups that were noted to face these types of barriers are limited 

English-speaking Hispanics and Native Americans. 

One group that was noted as less likely to use One-Stop services in 

three of the five local areas is limited English-speaking Hispanics. 

As noted in Chapter II, Hispanics represent a new and rapidly 

growing population in many rural areas, including Region 4 

One characteristic of 

these areas that has 

made marketing easier 

is that an overwhelming 

majority of staffed 

access points are 

housed in former 

Employment Service or 

UI offices, many of 

which have been in the 

same location for years. 

A typical answer from 

customers in resource 

rooms about how they 

learned about One-Stop 

access points was that 

they had “always 

known” about the local 

“unemployment” or 

“employment” office. 
III-35

Oregon, Southeast Georgia and Northwest Iowa. Despite this 

growth in population, local area respondents said that limited 

English speaking Hispanic customers are less likely to access OneStop services because they are too busy working long hours, have a 

basic distrust of government and a fear that no One-Stop staff will 

speak Spanish. Many of these potential customers are also migrant 

and seasonal farmworkers who face additional difficulties in 

accessing services due to their great mobility. 

Because of these difficulties, two of the local areas we visited—

Region 4 Oregon and Southeast Georgia—have developed special 

strategies for reaching their growing populations of limited English 

speaking Hispanic customers. One of the main strategies for 

improving Hispanic customers’ access to services is to hire staff 

who are bilingual in Spanish. For example, Region 4 Oregon has 

at least one bilingual (Spanish-English) staff member assigned to 

each staffed access point, while in Southeast Georgia both of the 

area’s access points have at least one bilingual staff person. These 

bilingual staff are then assigned to work with Hispanics when they 

come to access services. 

In addition, both Region 4 Oregon and Southeast Georgia have 

One-Stop partners who send their staff out into the local Hispanic 

community to provide services and develop relationships with 

potential customers. For instance, in Region 4 Oregon, ES has a 

staff person who is assigned to visit factories and farms to meet 

with limited English-speaking Hispanic workers. Once these 

workers get to know her and the services she offers, they are then 

sometimes willing to visit her at an access point. In Southeast 

Georgia, staff from the local National Farmworker Jobs Program 

grantee, Telamon, also try to spend time in places frequented by 

limited English-speaking Hispanic farmworkers, such as churches, 

hair salons and even bars, to meet with them and let them know 

about available services. This strategy is similar to what a recent 

study of MSFW customers and One-Stops found, noting that it is 

In Region 4 Oregon, ES 

has a staff person who 

is assigned to visit to 

factories and farms to 

meet with limited 

English-speaking 

Hispanic workers. 

Limited English 

speaking Hispanic 

customers are less 

likely to access OneStop services because 

they are too busy 

working long hours, 

have a basic distrust of 

government and a fear 

that no One-Stop staff 

will speak Spanish. 
III-36

critical to conduct outreach and recruitment activities aimed at 

building trust with farmworkers.19 

An additional strategy employed by Region 4 Oregon to increase 

the number of limited English-speaking Hispanics who access 

One-Stop services is to develop partnerships with local social 

service organizations that have extensive ties with the Hispanic 

community. For example, in Newport, Oregon, the enhanced 

comprehensive center has close ties with a local organization 

called Centro do Ayuda (Help Center). As a result of this 

partnership, many limited English-speaking Hispanic customers 

are referred to the One-Stop center for services. 

However, a few local area respondents asserted that these 

strategies have been unsuccessful in improving access to One-Stop 

services for limited English-speaking Hispanic customers. One 

criticism leveled by these respondents is that, despite efforts to 

bring on more bilingual staff, there are still too few Spanishspeaking staff at One-Stop access points. These critics also 

asserted that, in addition to being bilingual, these staff also need to 

have an understanding of Hispanic culture and how it might impact 

workforce development service delivery issues. Furthermore, 

because of its effectiveness in reaching this community, these 

respondents urged for more One-Stop staff to be assigned to do 

outreach in the Hispanic community. They said that because so 

little outreach is currently being conducted, few limited Englishspeaking Hispanics know about available services. Finally, these 

critics pushed for more collaboration regarding outreach strategies 

among One-Stop partners who serve this community, such as 

between WIA, ES and local or state NFJP grantees. 

According to respondents in two local areas, Native Americans are 

also less likely to access One-Stop services due to cultural and 

language differences. For example, in Northern New Mexico, a 

member of the Santa Clara Pueblo who is also on the local 

 

19 Serving Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers through the One-Stop System: 

Respondents urged for 

more One-Stop staff to 

be assigned to do 

outreach in the Hispanic 

community to ensure 

that limited Englishspeaking Hispanics 

know about available 

services. 
III-37

workforce investment board said that members of her tribe are less 

likely to make use of workforce development services that are not 

provided by the Pueblo due to cultural and language differences 

between themselves and One-Stop staff. In Northern New Mexico, 

making services to Native Americans culturally and linguistically 

appropriate is made particularly challenging by the wide array of 

different Native American groups who live in the area.20 

To overcome these access problems among Native Americans, 

Northern New Mexico has developed several strategies. One 

strategy being used by One-Stop partners is to hire Native 

American staff who are also bilingual. For example, at access 

points near the Navajo Nation Reservation, the local WIA Adult 

and Dislocated Worker provider has several Navajo staff who are 

fluent in both English and Navajo. In addition to hiring Native 

American staff, One-Stop partners in the local area are also 

beginning the process of establishing small access points on 

several area reservations, including those belonging to both the 

Laguna and Santa Clara Pueblos. These access points would be 

staffed jointly by Native American staff from the Pueblo and 

itinerant staff from either ES or the local WIA Adult and 

Dislocated Worker program. 

Availability of Workforce 

Development Service Providers 

The availability of sufficient workforce development service 

providers—to run One-Stops, provide WIA Title I B services and 

offer training services—is also critical to ensure that rural 

customers have access to the services they need. However, the 

rural areas we studied are to some degree characterized by a 

shortage of available providers to deliver these services. 

Moreover, many rural areas lack sufficient numbers of workforce 

providers to allow for a competitive procurement process, which 

 A Case Study. Social Policy Research Associates, 2004. 

20 The local area is home to 11 different Pueblo communities, the Jicarilla 

Apache, and many Navajo. 

A WIB member from the 

Santa Clara Pueblo 

Sand Tribe said 

members of her tribe 

are less likely to make 

use of workforce 

development services 

that are not provided by 

the Pueblo due to 

cultural and language 

differences. 

One-Stop partners in 

the local area are 

beginning the process 

of establishing small 

access points on 

several area 

reservations, including 

those belonging to both 

the Laguna and Santa 

Clara Pueblos. 
III-38

WIA attempts to promote. This section examines the availability 

of providers to operate One-Stops, provide WIA Adult, Dislocated 

Worker, and Youth services and serve as eligible training providers 

for ITA customers. It also examines the impact of provider 

scarcity on service delivery. 

Availability of One-Stop Operators, and WIA 

Adult and Dislocated Worker Program 

Providers 

WIA requires that any entity receiving WIA funding to operate a 

One-Stop center must “be designated or certified as a One-Stop 

operator...through a competitive process...or in accordance with 

an agreement reached between the local board and a consortium of 

entities that, at a minimum, includes 3 or more of the One-Stop 

partners...”21 One exception to this rule is that local boards or 

other entities that were already operating One-Stop centers prior to 

the enactment of WIA may serve as One-Stop operators with the 

agreement of key state and local officials. Once One-Stop 

operators are designated, they can also serve as local WIA Adult 

and Dislocated Worker program service providers or the local area 

can competitively contract for those services. 

In the five rural areas that we visited for our study, there was 

typically little competition for designation as a One-Stop operator. 

Indeed, a local One-Stop operator was designated through a 

competitive process only in Northern New Mexico. In three other 

local areas, a consortium serves as the designated One-Stop 

operator, and, in the fourth area, the state employment security 

agency was grandfathered in as the local One-Stop operator. 

One reason for this lack of competition is due to a scarcity of 

providers with the capacity to operate One-Stop centers in these 

areas. For example, Northern New Mexico, uses a competitive 

process, but few organizations responded to its RFP. 

 

21 WIA Section 121. 

Many rural areas lack 

sufficient numbers of 

workforce providers to 

allow for a competitive 

procurement process. 
III-39

Although there was somewhat more competition to provide adult 

and dislocated worker services, this competition was also severely 

limited. For example, in two of the three areas that used an RFP 

process to select Adult and Dislocated Worker program providers, 

a lack of interested and qualified providers meant that there was 

basically no real competition. In Northwest Iowa, the current 

provider asserted that this lack of competition was due to the 

extremely small size of the local area’s WIA allocations, which has 

made other potential providers unwilling to invest in developing 

the capacity to compete for the contract. In another area, a local 

board staff member said that there was no real competition because 

there was only one local organization that had sufficient workforce 

development experience to effectively provide WIA Adult and 

Dislocated Worker services. 

However, local area respondents asserted that this lack of 

competition for One-Stop operator or Adult and Dislocated Worker 

program providers has had no negative impact on service delivery. 

They argued that the existence of a single qualified provider and an 

effective network of One-Stop partners has enabled these local 

areas to provide customers with quality One-Stop and Adult and 

Dislocated Worker services. 

WIA Youth Services 

According to WIA Section 123, local workforce investment boards 

are required to “...identify eligible providers of youth activities by 

awarding grants or contracts on a competitive basis, based on the 

recommendations of the youth council and on the criteria 

contained in the State plan...” Due to this requirement for the 

competitive identification of youth service providers, all five local 

areas used an RFP process to select local providers for at least 

some of the required 10 service elements. However, the level of 

competition and number of bidders varied by local area. For 

example, in two areas, Northern New Mexico and Southeast 

Georgia, local workforce investment board staff reported that the 

number of organizations bidding for contracts was sufficient to 

meet all of their needs. Indeed, in Northern New Mexico, the local 

In two of the three 

areas that used an RFP 

process to select Adult 

and Dislocated Worker 

program providers, a 

lack of interested and 

qualified providers 

meant that there was 

basically no real 

competition. 

Three local areas 

reported experiencing 

no response or an 

insufficient response to 

their youth RFPs. 
III-40

board currently contracts with seven youth providers who each 

cover different geographical portions of the area or provide 

services to different special populations such as Native Americans. 

By contrast, the other three local areas reported experiencing no 

response or an insufficient response to their youth RFPs. For 

example, in Northwest Iowa, the local WIA administrative entity 

said that it had received no response to its youth RFP and thus has 

been forced to provide nearly all services directly. In Region 4 

Oregon, the local board received only one response to its youth 

RFP, which was from a consortium of local nonprofit 

organizations that also provided youth services under JTPA. 

Finally, in North Central Pennsylvania, the local area did receive a 

number of responses to its youth services RFP, but none of these 

were from providers who wanted to provide services in the area’s 

four northern counties. 

Local board staff primarily attributed the lack of response to their 

youth services RFPs to a scarcity of youth-serving organizations 

within their areas. In two of these three areas, local board staff 

also asserted that the small size of their WIA youth funding does 

not make it worthwhile for out-of-area providers to move into the 

area. 

In the face of this lack of competition, some areas adopted creative 

strategies to ensure that negative impacts on service delivery were 

minimized. For example, in North Central Pennsylvania, local 

WIA administrative entity respondents said that the lack of 

providers has forced their youth staff to become experts in the ten 

required program elements to ensure that the program had the 

capacity to provide them well. Despite this effort, local area staff 

still reported that they had difficulty providing youth with access to 

leadership development and mentoring services. 

ITAs and Eligible Training Providers 

Another WIA requirement is that local areas must use Individual 

Training Accounts (ITAs) to provide training services, except 

under certain limited circumstances. These ITAs can then be used 

Local board staff 

primarily attributed the 

lack of response to their 

youth services RFPs to 

a scarcity of youthserving organizations 

within their areas. 

In North Central 

Pennsylvania, local WIA 

administrative entity 

respondents said that 

the lack of providers 

has forced their youth 

staff to become experts 

in the ten required 

program elements to 

ensure that the program 

had the capacity to 

provide them well. 
III-41

by customers to pay for training services from training providers 

who are on the state’s Eligible Training Provider List (ETPL). To 

be on a state’s ETPL, training providers must submit applications 

to local boards for the training programs they want ITA-holders to 

be able to access. They must also submit performance information 

for those programs and meet or exceed certain performance 

standards. 

As shown in Exhibit III-5, the numbers of training programs and 

providers on state ETPLs in each of the five local areas vary 

widely. For instance, the number of providers varies from a high 

of 35 in Northern New Mexico to a low of only three in Northwest 

Iowa. The number of approved training programs offered by these 

providers varies even more widely from a high of 450 programs in 

Northern New Mexico, to a low of only 62 in Region 4 Oregon. 

Exhibit III-5: 

Programs on ETPLs in the Five Areas 

Local Area # of Training 

Programs # of providers 

Southeast Georgia 128 4 

Northwest Iowa 88** 3** 

Northern New Mexico 450 35 

Region 4 Oregon 62 9 

North Central Pennsylvania 138 18 

**Providers and programs located within local area rather than only those approved by the local board.

The variation in numbers of approved providers and programs in 

the different local areas stems both from underlying differences in 

the number and types of training programs and providers actually 

operating in the local area and from provider willingness to 

participate in the ETPL system. 

For example, in North Central Pennsylvania, which has about half 

the number of providers of Northern New Mexico, but only 31 

percent of Northern New Mexico’s approved training programs, 

the problem is that the local area does not have a well-developed 

local community or technical college system. Consequently, the 
III-42

bulk of the providers on the ETPL are either small, not focused on 

workforce training programs, too expensive, or located out of the 

area. 

By contrast, in Region 4 Oregon, the number of local programs on 

the ETPL is limited because of local training provider unhappiness 

with ETPL performance requirements. For this reason, the two 

local community colleges have chosen to place only a very small 

number of their training programs on the list.22 Primarily due to 

this very low number of approved training programs available for 

its customers, Region 4 Oregon was the only local area that 

expressed unhappiness with WIA’s ITA system and argued that it 

has limited customer choice by decreasing the already small 

number of training programs available for WIA customers. Region 

4 Oregon respondents also took issue with the fact that training 

programs in dog grooming and cosmetology—occupations that are 

not in demand and pay low wages—are on the state ETPL, while 

most community college training programs are not. 

One impact of the relatively low number of approved programs in 

Region 4 Oregon is that the local area issues relatively few ITAs. 

For instance, in PY 2003, Region 4 Oregon issued the smallest 

number of ITAs among the five rural areas we visited, despite 

serving the second highest number of Adults and Dislocated 

Workers. (See Exhibit III-6) 

Several local areas are actively working to overcome the shortage 

of local training programs on their state’s ETPL. For example, 

WIA board staff in Region 4 Oregon are working hard to try to 

convince local community colleges to submit more training 

programs for inclusion on the ETPL. In North Central 

Pennsylvania, the local area is trying to increase the number of 

affordable local training programs by setting up distance learning 

arrangements through public postsecondary education providers 

 

22 By contrast, in both Iowa and Georgia, the major local training providers—

public community or technical colleges—have made sure that the majority of 

their training programs are on the state ETPL. 

In Region 4 Oregon, the 

number of local 

programs on the ETPL 

is limited because of 

local training provider 

unhappiness with ETPL 

performance 

requirements. 

In North Central 

Pennsylvania, the local 

area is trying to 

increase the number of 

affordable local training 

programs by setting up 

distance learning 

arrangements through 

public postsecondary 

education providers 
III-43

located in other parts of the state. As an instance of this, the local 

area has helped to broker a pilot distance learning radiology 

training program between a regional medical center and a college 

in southern Pennsylvania. 

Exhibit III-6: 

ITAs Issued in PY 03 

Number of Adults & 

Dislocated Workers 

with ITAs 

Total Number of 

Adults & Dislocated 

Workers Served* 

Southeast Georgia 220 347 

Northwest Iowa 74 74 

Northern New Mexico 778** 881 

Region 4 Oregon 36 628 

North Central Pennsylvania 209 532 

* Source: Table O, PY 2003 Annual Reports. **Figure in October 2004, no new 

ITAs have been issued since January 2003. 

Summary 

The principal service delivery strategy used by the five rural areas 

visited for this study is networks of physical One-Stop access 

points. To be accessible to the majority of local residents, these 

access points are typically located in every county, in the largest 

cities and towns. Although all five areas continue to operate some 

smaller access points, they are increasingly concentrating their 

resources and efforts on comprehensive centers because of the 

greater efficiency and convenience of these centers. Because of 

the transportation barriers faced by many rural customers in 

reaching these access points, however, these local areas also use 

other service delivery strategies including transportation 

assistance, Internet services, services provided over the phone, and 

having staff travel to customer locations. 

In another effort to improve the accessibility of workforce 

development services, the five local areas conduct marketing and 
III-44

outreach activities to ensure that customers know about available 

services. These activities include efforts specifically focused on 

certain groups such as Native Americans and limited Englishspeaking Hispanics. 

Finally, rural areas also often face scarcity in the number of 

workforce development providers. However, most local area 

respondents asserted that although the number of providers is 

limited, it is sufficient for the provision of quality and accessible 

WIA services. The only exceptions are in the case of certain types 

of WIA youth services in North Central Pennsylvania and ITA 

training services in Region 4 Oregon and North Central 

Pennsylvania. In all local areas, One-Stop partners are pursuing 

strategies to overcome these service delivery challenges, including 

special training programs for staff and distance learning programs. 
IV-1

IV. RURAL ONE-STOP PARTNERSHIPS 

Partnership lies at the heart of the WIA legislation and the 

effective implementation of One-Stop delivery systems. 

Partnership among the entities responsible for administering 

separate workforce investment, educational, and other human 

resource programs and funding streams enables a “seamless system 

of service delivery that will enhance access to programs’ services 

and improve long-term employment outcomes for individuals 

receiving assistance.”1 WIA section 121 (b) (1) identifies 17 

required One-Stop partners who must fulfill the following 

responsibilities: 

A. Make available to participants through the One-Stop 

delivery system the core services that are applicable to the 

partner’s programs (WIA section 121 (b) (1) (A).)2

B. Use a portion of funds made available to the partner’s 

program, to the extent not inconsistent with the Federal law 

authorizing the partner’s program, to: 

− Create and maintain the One-Stop delivery system; and 

− Provide core services; (WIA sec. 134 (d) (1) (B).) 

C. Enter into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with 

the Local Board relating to the operation of the One-Stop 

system that meets the requirements of Sec. 662.300, 

including a description of services, how the cost of the 

 

1

 Workforce Investment Act, Final Rule, Section 662.100, Federal Register, 

August 11, 2000. 

2

 According to 662.260, in addition to core services, One-Stop partners must 

provide access to the other activities and programs carried out under the 

partner’s authorizing laws. Access to these services must be described in the 

local MOU. 

Partnership lies at the 

heart of the WIA 

legislation and the 

effective 

implementation of OneStop delivery systems. 
IV-2

identified services and operating costs of the system will be 

funded, and methods for referrals (WIA sec. 121 (c).) 

D. Participate in the operation of the One-Stop system 

consistent with the terms of the MOU and requirements of 

authorizing laws; (WIA sec 121 (b) (1) (B).) 

E. Serve as a representative on the local workforce investment 

board (WIA sec. 117 (b) (2) (A) (vi).) 

Partnership assumes even greater importance in rural local areas, 

where providers and resources are in shorter supply, and no one 

organization can afford to meet all the needs of each customer. 

With this in mind, partnership is one of the principal themes we 

explored during our visits to rural local areas. 

In a previous SPR report, Rural One-Stops: Issues in WIA 

Implementation (January 14, 2003), we found key partnership 

challenges to be related to the large physical size of many rural 

local areas, which made it difficult for partners to meet face to face 

and build effective relationships. The large size of these areas also 

meant that partners and staff involved at each individual One-Stop 

center often varied greatly, since the centers were situated so far 

away from one another. This made it very difficult for local WIB 

staff to be involved in each of these One-Stop partnerships, as they 

are required to be by WIA.3

 Another primary partnership challenge 

in rural areas identified by the previous report is the limited 

budgets of most rural partners and their resulting difficulty in 

committing funding to support One-Stop centers and co-locating 

staff for more than very limited periods. 

In this earlier 2003 study, we found that, in order to overcome 

these partnership challenges, rural local areas employed a number 

of strategies. These strategies included relying on conference calls 

and video-conferences rather than in-person meetings, rotating the 

 

3

 Specifically, WIA requires that One-Stop partners enter into an MOU with 

the local WIB regarding what services will be provided at One-Stop centers, 

methods for referral, and how One-Stop centers will be funded. Workforce 

Investment Act, Final Rules, Section 662.100, Federal Register, August 11, 

2000. 

Partnership assumes 

even greater 

importance in rural local 

areas, where providers 

and resources are in 

shorter supply. 
IV-3

location of partnership meetings, emphasizing in-kind rather than 

direct resource partner contributions, and formally dividing local 

areas into sub-regions so that partnerships might be developed 

within smaller areas. 

In the present study, we found that in many ways, the factors that 

facilitate partnerships in a rural area are the same factors that may 

hinder them. Chief among these factors are resource constraints 

and interpersonal relationships. The limited budgets of a relatively 

small group of local partners can help bring organizations together 

out of necessity and result in a more streamlined collaborative. 

This finding has been echoed by other rural studies, including our 

previously cited report. In addition, a September 2004 GAO report 

(GAO-04-921), Rural TANF Programs Have Developed Many 

Strategies to Address Rural Challenges, found that “caseworkers 

and service providers said that the limited resources available in 

rural areas force people to work together to solve problems.” 

However, in our present study, some rural local areas cited the 

shortage of resources as a key reason for why individual 

organizations were unwilling or unable to engage in the One-Stop 

system. 

Likewise, the strong interpersonal ties common in rural areas can 

strengthen professional ties between agencies and allow partners to 

conduct business in a more informal manner. The GAO report on 

rural TANF programs (previously cited) also found this to be true: 

“caseworkers and service providers from different programs and 

agencies often get to know each other and can call each other 

directly, without going through another bureaucratic level, to get 

help in solving a client’s problem.” On the other hand, the present 

study found that interpersonal feuds can assume a more prominent 

status in a small-town atmosphere and potentially spill over to 

relationships between organizations. As a result, informal 

partnership mechanisms can become a weakness, in that their 

success depends on the strength of interpersonal relations and 

contact. 

In many ways, the 

factors that facilitate 

partnerships in a rural 

area are the same 

factors that may hinder 

them. Chief among 

these factors are 

resource constraints 

and interpersonal 

relationships. 
IV-4

Overall, while the five local areas exhibited many similarities in 

terms of some of the key partners and their roles, they represented 

diverse case studies of the extent to which a rural community 

facilitated and/or impeded One-Stop partnerships. While time and 

distance challenges were less emphasized than what might be 

anticipated for rural areas, cost-sharing emerged as the largest rural 

partnership challenge by far, with ES and WIA playing particularly 

large roles in One-Stop support. Individual budget constraints and 

poor personal relations often lay at the root of the cost-sharing 

challenge. As we will see later in this chapter, Region 4 Oregon 

and North Central Pennsylvania were exceptions; neither area 

noted cost-sharing as a major partnership challenge. 

The remainder of this chapter is organized into an examination of: 

which entities are active in their local One-Stop systems and the 

nature of their roles; the coordination of services between partners; 

shared costs of rural One-Stop systems; and the overall strategies 

and challenges involved with developing and maintaining OneStop partnerships in rural areas. 

Key Rural One-Stop Partners 

 Overall, the rural local areas we visited were characterized by 

relatively few key One-Stop partners. As one local respondent in 

North Central Pennsylvania observed, in a rural area there is 

relatively little need for the more specialized organizations and 

services that might be required in urban or even suburban areas—

such as social support services targeted toward particular ethnic 

groups. Alternatively, there may be a need for more specialized 

services, but the organizations may simply not exist in rural areas. 

However, ES and the local WIA provider—the mainstays of OneStop systems across the country—were also very much in evidence 

as key partners in the rural local areas we studied. Indeed, they 

were the primary One-Stop partners in all but one of the local 

areas, with ES often providing the majority of core and intensive 

services, and WIA’s involvement coming primarily or only with 

training services. ES and WIA also typically own, lease and/or 

Overall, the rural local 

areas we visited were 

characterized by 

relatively few key OneStop partners. 
IV-5

operate the majority of the access points. Secondary One-Stop 

partners were most commonly VR, TANF, community colleges 

that are key training providers, and some community-based 

organizations/consortia 

that are social service 

providers. 

While their main role is 

providing services via 

One-Stop access points 

and/or stand-alone 

offices, these partners 

also play other 

administrative roles. In 

Northern New Mexico, 

Northwest Iowa and 

Southeast Georgia, ES 

and WIA partners act as 

One-Stop operators, 

leasers, managers and/or fiscal agents. In North Central 

Pennsylvania, ES and WIA act as administrators or coadministrators of all the individual One-Stop centers, though a 

wider range of local partners fulfill roles on the One-Stop Operator 

Consortium (WIA, ES, VR, economic development and county 

offices of education). The North Central Pennsylvania WIB in 

particular decided on a consortium model because it felt that such a 

body would be more representative of a true One-Stop partnership, 

help ease worries of potential turf issues among partners, realize 

cost savings in that none of the consortium members would receive 

extra compensation for their role, and ensure that its 

representatives had authority to immediately address local partner 

staff issues and challenges. 

Key One-Stop partners are also involved in less “official” 

collaborative bodies that may allow them to build inter-agency 

relationships. For instance, in Southeast Georgia, key One-Stop 

partners, including TANF, ES, WIA, VR, and NFJP, are part of the 

TANF Collaborative, which meets quarterly to provide updates on 

Region 4 Oregon’s One-Stop Partners 

Region 4 Oregon’s principal One-Stop partners are: the state’s ES 

agency ,the Oregon Employment Department, Oregon Department 

of Human Services (TANF), Oregon Vocational Rehabilitation 

Services (VR), a consortium of CBOs called the Community 

Service Consortium (CSC),and the area’s two local community 

colleges, Linn Benton Community College and Oregon Coast 

Community College . The consortium of CBOs serves on the 

operator consortium and plays a key role in providing WIA adult, 

dislocated worker, and youth services. The two community 

colleges are key training providers and one also provides WIA 

Adult and Dislocated Worker program services. Less involved 

One-Stop partners in the local area are Experience Works, 

Disabled American Veterans, Confederated Tribes of the Siletz, 

and Angell Job Corps. Though there is no National Farmworker 

Jobs Program (NFJP) grantee in the local area, one ES staff 

person works closely with the MSFW population.
IV-6

recent activities, ask one another questions, and discuss specific 

referral cases. Partners indicated that the meetings have served as 

an informal cross-training opportunity, as well as helped avoid 

inter-partner conflict by providing space to solve challenges 

collaboratively. 

Likewise, in Region 4 Oregon, Facility Operation Groups (FOGs) 

allow the partner administrators of each comprehensive One-Stop 

center to meet regularly in order to promote cross-agency 

communication and collaboration. Inter-partner trust is further 

developed by the fact that the chair of the FOG rotates; thus each 

partner agency has an opportunity for leadership of the FOG, and 

indirectly, of the One-Stop center. Partner line staff at each center 

also have meeting groups, which correspond to the administratorlevel FOGs. 

Numerous rounds of manufacturing layoffs and the provision of 

Rapid Response services have served as additional vehicles for 

partnership in some local areas. In North Central Pennsylvania, for 

example, major local layoffs have resulted in a more streamlined 

regional Rapid Response Team. Whereas in previous years 

multiple One-Stop partners might have attended a single Rapid 

Response meeting so that each could get their “five minutes on 

stage,” due to greater experience, trust, cross-training, and shared 

Rapid Response resources in the local area, there is now a single 

point of contact in each county who is responsible for presenting at 

such meetings and covering all of the One-Stop partners and 

services available to laid off workers. 

Southeast Georgia has also seen Rapid Response information 

sessions and service provision effectively increase contact and 

coordination among One-Stop partners, particularly since major 

layoffs have been quite frequent in the local area. The local area 

feels that relationships between agencies—especially WIA, ES, 

VR and Adult Education—have been strengthened as a result. 

In some local areas, logistics can present more of a challenge to the 

effectiveness of collaborative meetings or other partnership 

In Region 4 Oregon, 

Facility Operation 

Groups (FOGs) allow 

the partner 

administrators of each 

comprehensive OneStop center to meet 

regularly in order to 

promote cross-agency 

communication and 

collaboration. 

Numerous rounds of 

manufacturing layoffs 

and the provision of 

Rapid Response 

services have served as 

additional vehicles for 

partnership in some 

local areas. 
IV-7

vehicles. For instance, in Northwest Iowa, there exists a 

partnership group of all MOU signatories, but scheduled meetings 

and partner attendance are both highly irregular, since the travel 

time required for a meeting is considerable and the level of 

informal communication between at least some of the partners is 

quite high. 

Specialized Rural One-Stop Partners 

Outside the group of key rural One-Stop partners described above, 

the five local areas involved a wide range of additional public, 

non-profit and private partners such as the New Mexico 

Commission for the Blind, Job Corps, Confederated Tribes of the 

Siletz, Disabled American Veterans, Manpower (temporary 

staffing firm), TechConex (trains workers for the call center 

industry) and Transport Tech (a trucking school). Though never 

considered main partners, these organizations’ roles varied 

considerably, from serving as the occasional recipient of client 

referrals, to being co-located part-time at a local One-Stop center. 

Some of the national non-profit partners had relatively larger 

roles—e.g., as NFJP grantees (Telamon and Proteus), or as a 

provider of SCSEP services (Experience Works). 

Specialized One-Stop partners that we were particularly interested 

in covering for this study were (1) FBOs, given their important role 

in many rural residents’ lives and their potential as service 

providers, (2) CBOs, because we wished to explore the perception 

of limited CBO capacity in rural areas, (3) NFJP grantees, given 

their work in rural areas and with hard-to-serve populations, and 

(4) agricultural extension, given its long history of state-run 

support for rural farmers. We discuss each of these specialized 

partners below. 

FBOs 

FBOs do not play roles as major partners of the local One-Stop 

systems we visited. This is often due to limited organizational 

knowledge, staff and volunteer capacity, and/or resources to 

FBOs do not play roles 

as major partners of the 

local One-Stop systems 

we visited due to limited 

organizational 

knowledge, staff and 

volunteer capacity, 

and/or resources to 

engage as a partner. 
IV-8

engage as a partner. One local area pointed to a significant degree 

of organizational instability among churches at any given time, as 

well as fluctuating inter-FBO relations. FBOs may also display an 

inherent distrust of government, or at least a distance that reflects 

this nation’s traditional separation of church and state. Wariness of 

entanglement with government regulations and requirements may 

also be a factor in at least one local area. 

North Central Pennsylvania and Northwest Iowa are the local areas 

with the most significant, if limited, examples of FBO involvement 

with the One-Stop system. Through a faith- and community-based 

initiative grant from the U.S. Department of Labor, North Central 

Pennsylvania was able to more fully explore the potential of FBOs 

as an engaged One-Stop partner. However, the current role of 

FBOs in North Central Pennsylvania is mostly as a referral partner 

for some supportive services, and as a host for some computeronly access points. 

In Northwest Iowa, Lutheran Social Services was a major partner 

in the local One-Stop system, providing numerous services via 

referral. However, resource constraints have led this organization 

to focus its efforts in other areas. Hope Haven, another faith-based 

organization, remains in the local area providing housing and 

employment services to disabled individuals. Hope Haven’s 

relationship with the One-Stop system is largely through client 

referrals, not co-location (due to resource constraints). The 

referral-based relationship appears to function well, particularly 

given the many informal, interpersonal contacts between 

representatives of Hope Haven and One-Stop partner agencies. 

Hope Haven was also involved in the WIA planning process and 

has one staff person who participates in the local Youth Council, 

though their formal involvement with the One-Stop system has 

since decreased. 

North Central 

Pennsylvania and 

Northwest Iowa are the 

local areas with the 

most significant, if 

limited, examples of 

FBO involvement with 

the One-Stop system. 

Hope Haven’s 

relationship with the 

One-Stop system is 

largely through client 

referrals, not co-location 

(due to resource 

constraints). 
IV-9

“Faith Goes to Work;” North Central Pennsylvania’s FCBO Initiative 

In 2003, the North Central Workforce Investment Board received a grant from the U.S. 

Department of Labor for a FBCO initiative. The funded project was led by a local pastorcoordinator and aimed to develop relationships and resource-sharing between faith and 

community-based organizations and one of the local area’s comprehensive One-Stop 

centers. 

A key assumption of the project was that, though church leaders are cornerstones of 

the community, they are under-utilized as informational and referral hubs and/or as 

colleagues in assisting the unemployed and underemployed. To help rectify this, one 

project aim was to take complete inventory of faith-based and community-based 

resources, whether they were a food pantry or human resources, so that they might be 

more efficiently funneled to those in need. Churches were found to hold many of the 

more typical resources, such as food, clothing and emergency cash, as well as some 

more untraditional offerings, such as a music program for youth. Project staff also made 

contact with as many church and community leaders as possible, providing them with 

the orientation and information they would need to make quality referrals to the OneStop center as well as to other community services. 

As part of this outreach to church leaders, just under one-third of the 129 contacted 

clergy groups immediately agreed to serve as One-Stop computer-only access points, 

and others agreed to raise the possibility with their boards. Many of these access points 

have since “died on the vine” due to a shortage of dedicated individuals to assist clients. 

One of the key challenges involved with the project was addressing what was perceived 

to be an inherent distance or distrust of government by church leaders, as well as this 

nation’s traditional separation of church and state. The pastor-coordinator felt that he 

had to work hard to help church leaders “understand [employment] issues in theological 

terms”—for instance, by conveying jobs as a health and spiritual issue. He also worked 

to help others rethink the role of church leaders as larger community resources. Overall, 

he felt the project was successful in helping church leaders to understand the true 

capacity of the One-Stop system for helping the unemployed and underemployed. 

As a result of project outreach, church leaders were able to help their parishioners 

through more informed referrals, although grant resources did not allow for tracking the 

number or nature of such referrals. Though funding for the project ended, the pastorcoordinator considered it a successful pilot, with good response from the clergy and 

from neighboring counties, and emerging lessons on how One-Stop and WIB staff 

should make concerted efforts to develop and nurture relationships with faith-based 

leaders.
IV-10

Despite limited formal roles for FBOs, One-Stop staff in many of 

the local areas are well aware of the important supportive services 

and resources that some individual FBOs have to offer, such as 

food and clothing assistance, and will very often refer clients 

informally—e.g., by handing the client a list of FBO resources and 

contact numbers. 

CBOs 

The roles of CBOs in One-Stop systems ranges from prominent 

paying partner to non-contributing, off-site referral partner. The 

nature of a CBO’s role is critically tied to whether or not they 

receive funding to fulfill a role as a mandatory One-Stop partner—

e.g., as a NFJP service provider. If they do not, then they are not 

likely to contribute resources to the local One-Stop system or colocate staff at access points, though they may be important referral 

partners in the community for a range of supportive services. 

As instances of CBOs that are more engaged, those in Region 4 

Oregon and Northern New Mexico serve as Adult/Dislocated 

Worker service providers and play key roles in operating the OneStop system. A CBO also serves as the local NFJP grantee in 

Southeast Georgia, and CBOs are contracted to provide WIA youth 

services in a number of local areas. In Region 4 Oregon, a CBO 

serves as the primary provider of youth services. 

Individual community action agencies play a significant role in 

some local areas. For instance, in Northwest Iowa, one of the two 

community action agencies provides a wide range of services in 

seven of the nine counties, including Head Start, Special 

Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women Infants and Children 

(WIC), maternal and child health services, child care resource and 

referral services, weatherization assistance, TANF-related services, 

and emergency food and clothing. The agency is an MOU 

signatory, though only one of its programs—a senior internship 

program funded by SCSEP—is co-located at a local One-Stop 

center (for two hours per week). 

CBOs’ role in the OneStop system ranges 

from prominent paying 

partner, to noncontributing, off-site 

referral partner. 
IV-11

In North Central Pennsylvania, Community Action, Inc. provides 

an even wider range of services to eligible individuals, including 

but not limited to: literacy tutoring, GED classes, a homeless 

shelter, job search and child care assistance, and domestic violence 

counseling services. This community action agency is co-located at 

one of the comprehensive One-Stops with two staff persons for a 

half-day per week, during which time they often help provide 

various job skills workshops. 

National Farmworker Jobs Program 

In North Central Pennsylvania, Northern New Mexico and 

Northwest Iowa, there is either no local National Farmworker Jobs 

Program (NFJP) grantee office and/or there are extremely few 

migrant and seasonal farm workers (MSFW). For instance, in 

Northwest Iowa, where there is no local NFJP office, the statewide 

grantee (Proteus) is not an MOU signatory4

 and is a minor partner 

in the local One-Stop system. A bilingual staff person from the 

grantee office spends one day once a month at one of the local 

One-Stops to provide assistance as needed. Only seven NFJP 

customers were in training at the time of the visit. 

Only two local areas— Region 4 Oregon and Southeast Georgia—

have significant MSFW populations, though only the latter has a 

local NFJP office. However, in neither of these locales is there 

much evidence of a strong, effective partnership to serve the 

MSFW population. This may be largely due to the fact that the 

MSFW populations, while present, are still quite small. More 

general partnership challenges and cultural competency issues also 

play a role. 

In Southeast Georgia, Telamon Corporation is the NFJP grantee 

and a MOU signatory, with a main office located in Macon and 

three offices in the local area in Douglas, Blackshear and Pearson. 

As is the case with many of the partners in Southeast Georgia, 

 

4

 In the spring of 2005, Northwest Iowa’s MOUs were updated and Proteus 

became a signatory on the local One-Stop MOUs. 

The lack of a strong, 

effective partnership to 

serve the MSFW 

population may be due 

to the fact that MSFW 

population, while 

present, are still quite 

small. 
IV-12

Telamon is not co-located at the One-Stop—in part because of 

resource sharing concerns—and only receives occasional referrals; 

there is no formalized referral process in place. Thus, Telamon 

does much of its own recruiting for MSFW participants, though its 

representatives feel that co-location would be a positive 

development for their customers who ordinarily shuttle between 

the NFJP office and the One-Stop for different services, and are 

thus limited in their ability to receive culturally competent OneStop services in Spanish. Telamon’s partnership with TANF is also 

hindered due to the fact that MSFW customers are reluctant to 

reveal their status, since TANF will count their NFJP benefits as 

income and thus reduce their TANF payment amount. 

Agricultural Extension 

Agricultural extension plays a small or non-existent partnership 

role in most of the rural areas we visited because of a weak local 

agricultural sector and/or limited capacity to engage as a One-Stop 

partner. Only in Northwest Iowa is there a substantial partnership 

between agricultural extension (Iowa State University Extension) 

and the One-Stop system. In Northwest Iowa, ISU Extension, 

which provides agricultural advice, financial management advice, 

nutrition programs and 4-H, hosts two One-Stop access points—a 

part-time office as well as a computer-only access point. The 

arrangement is mutually beneficial in that both ISU Extension and 

ES in Iowa are required to have an office or access point in every 

county. ISU Extension also provides trainers for a One-Stop 

workshop on financial management and the One-Stop system 

refers clients to ISU Extension for educational services, leadership 

activites, economic development, and employment opportunities. 

In other local areas, relationships with agricultural extension are 

weak or non-existent. For example, in North Central Pennsylvania, 

where agriculture employs few workers, agricultural extension is 

not considered a strong One-Stop partner, though it is involved in 

4-H outreach to youth in the local area. The agricultural extension 

office is based at the county seat and staffed with county 

Agricultural extension 

plays a small or nonexistent partnership role 

in the rural areas we 

visited because of a 

weak local agricultural 

sector and/or limited 

capacity to engage as a 

One-Stop partner. 
IV-13

employees; it did not make financial sense for the office to relocate 

to a new One-Stop location. 

Inter-Partner Service Delivery 

Coordination 

Inter-partner coordination of services was exceedingly informal in 

the five rural local areas we visited, and seemed to work 

particularly well only when partners worked in close proximity, 

had strong interpersonal relations, and/or shared a long history of 

working together. North Central Pennsylvania and Region 4 

Oregon demonstrate the importance of these factors. In these areas, 

partners stressed that they had embraced the “One-Stop” concept 

of collaboration long before WIA, and that collaboration was “just 

the way things were done” in a rural area such as theirs. Actual 

coordination of services in these two areas, as well as in Northwest 

Iowa, was usually accomplished by virtue of co-location and the 

ability to simply walk over clients to different partner staff in the 

same building. These “walkover referrals” were facilitated by 

partner staff working in close physical proximity, as opposed to 

partner staff who might be co-located in the same building but in 

different wings, or working together but not as frequently. The 

informality and ease with which many partners referred clients to 

one another meant that there was generally no perceived need for 

an extensive “paper trail” of referrals. 

Northwest Iowa demonstrated a more formal or “advanced” 

attempt to coordinate partner services though the integration of 

staff into functional teams. In this local area, ES and WIA staff 

join together as a functional team in order to provide reemployment services for UI recipients who are deemed unlikely to 

find a job. WIA provides an assessment of skills and interests, as 

well as advice on training options, while ES staff are available to 

answer questions about UI and job searches. Functional teams also 

provide TANF job search and training-related services. Not 

surprisingly, these cross-partner functional teams appear to work 

best when the staff members involved share a strong interpersonal 

Inter-partner 

coordination of services 

was exceedingly 

informal in the five rural 

local areas we visited, 

and seemed to work 

particularly well only 

when partners worked 

in close proximity, had 

strong interpersonal 

relations, and/or shared 

a long history of 

working together. 

The informality and 

ease with which many 

partners referred clients 

to one another meant 

that there was generally 

no perceived need for 

an extensive “paper 

trail” of referrals. 
IV-14

relationship, which may initially develop by virtue of working as a 

functional team and co-location. 

Where co-location does not occur, inter-partner coordination can 

be more challenging. For example, inter-partner coordination of 

services does not appear as effective or seamless at access points 

where partner staff are not co-located or are co-located only for a 

few hours per week. In these cases, clients might be referred by 

staff simply handing the client a contact name and number at 

another partner agency, or by making a call on the client’s behalf 

to non-co-located partner agencies. 

In these situations, interpersonal relationships between partners’ 

staff can play an important role in helping to ensure that these 

customers do not “fall through the cracks” when making the initial 

call, and when conducting any follow-up communication to make 

sure that the referred client was actually assisted by the partner 

agency. 

Where interpersonal and inter-organizational relations are weaker 

or newer, and/or co-location not as frequent, referrals tend to be 

weak as a vehicle for the inter-partner coordination of services. 

For example, in one local area, partners are generally not colocated, which hinders the development of interpersonal relations. 

These partners tend to operate independently, and refer clients to 

one another only from time to time via phone, email, or quarterly 

meetings. However, even this sporadic, informal type of 

coordination was seen as difficult to “break into” by one of the 

newer partners in the local area. 

Open interpersonal and inter-organizational conflicts can not only 

hinder the effectiveness of partner referrals and coordination, but 

can also go so far as to apparently undermine the One-Stop 

concept. In one local area we visited, such conflicts have resulted 

in a fragmented system where key partners maintain separate 

offices located a short distance away from one another, and 

customers likely know very little about the services available from 

various partners. Referrals are informal and unsatisfactorily 

Where interpersonal 

and inter-organizational 

relations are weaker or 

newer, and/or colocation not as frequent, 

referrals tend to be 

weak as a vehicle for 

the inter-partner 

coordination of 

services. 

In one local area we 

visited, interpersonal 

conflicts have resulted 

in a fragmented system 

where key partners 

maintain separate 

offices a short distance 

from each other. 
IV-15

infrequent according to a number of partners in this local One-Stop 

system. 

Poor management information systems (MIS) were another factor 

in weak inter-partner coordination. At least three of the local areas 

were not able to provide figures on co-enrollment, sometimes 

because of the state MIS’s inability to capture this information, or 

because of a lack of access to partner and/or client information. 

While the nature of co-enrollment naturally varied by local area, as 

well as by specific One-Stop centers, the most frequently cited 

forms of co-enrollment were between WIA and ES, VR and 

TANF. In Northern New Mexico, WIA staff estimated that close 

to 100 percent of their clientele was co-enrolled in ES, given the 

fact that most of these individuals first receive services from ES 

and then move on to WIA only if they need training services. In 

North Central Pennsylvania, individual One-Stop administrators 

estimated that anywhere between zero and 70 percent of their 

Adult/Dislocated Worker clientele was co-enrolled, usually in VR 

or TANF. 

Cost and Funding of Rural One-Stops 

For this study we were particularly interested in how partnership 

manifested itself in a financial sense—specifically, which partners 

contributed to rural One-Stop systems and the nature of their 

ongoing contributions. However, local areas differed significantly 

in their descriptions of costs involved with One-Stop system 

operation, making comparisons across systems difficult. 

Furthermore, the figures that we obtained from local areas cannot 

be assessed in a truly meaningful way, given that we lack 

comparison cost data from other rural local areas. However, we 

did discover some themes or patterns with regard to cost, which we 

describe below. 

As is the case with many local areas across the nation, the five 

rural local areas rely heavily on ES to support the costs of the OneStop system directly and/or in-kind. This is especially the case in 

Northwest Iowa, Southeast Georgia, and Northern New Mexico. 

While the nature of coenrollment naturally 

varied by local area, as 

well as by specific OneStop centers, the most 

frequently cited forms of 

co-enrollment were 

between WIA and ES, 

VR and TANF. 

As is the case with 

many local areas 

across the nation, the 

five rural local areas 

rely heavily on ES to 

support the costs of the 

One-Stop system 

directly and/or in-kind. 
IV-16

In Northwest Iowa, the ES agency, with some measure of support 

from the WIA agency, is providing for nearly all One-Stop 

resources in terms of rent, staffing and electronic access. The ES 

agency’s ability to provide the lion’s share of support is, in turn, 

dependent on earmarked state funds. (Initially, this support was 

drawn from a surtax on employees, paid by employers.) Without 

this state funding, the ES agency would likely be able to support 

only limited staff at one One-Stop center. While the cost allocation 

arrangement in Northwest Iowa is not seen as fair since only ES 

and WIA are financial supporters, it is considered somewhat 

inevitable given the budgetary limitations of CBOs and FBOs, and 

paying partners’ unwillingness to continue their long battle with 

other partners to contribute a fair share to the One-Stop system. 

In Southeast Georgia, ES owns the two building sites of the OneStop centers and covers the full cost of One-Stop facilities, 

equipment and services. WIA, which is co-located at one access 

point, does not pay rent; the extent of its resource sharing was to 

provide for the installation of a new telephone system and some 

new furniture at one access point. In general, resource sharing is 

hindered by the limited budgets of individual partners, as well as 

by a vaguely worded resource sharing agreement that states only 

that “partners will contribute resources.” 

Finally, in Northern New Mexico, neither ES nor WIA receives 

considerable contributions from other partners. At ES-operated 

access points, WIA is typically the only co-located partner to pay 

rent. Likewise, among the access points operated by the WIA 

Adult and Dislocated Worker provider, partner contributions are 

limited. For instance, at one enhanced comprehensive center, ES 

pays $18/square foot for its one co-located staff person, Job Corps 

pays approximately $7,440 per year to rent two small offices, and 

the other two co-located partners contribute only in-kind resources 

because of limited budgets. 

Another major theme concerned difficulties around cost sharing. 

Partners in some local areas cited limited budgets as the reason 

why they are unable or unwilling to financially contribute to the 

Partners in some local 

areas cited limited 

budgets as the reason 

why they are unable or 

unwilling to financially 

contribute to the local 

One-Stop system, 

particularly when they 

have existing leases at 

other building sites. 
IV-17

local One-Stop system, particularly when they have existing leases 

at other building sites. Given their limited budgets, partners may be 

particularly protective of their own funds and fearful that they will 

end up worse off by pooling resources. At least two local areas 

indicated that resource sharing is particularly difficult in rural areas 

given the need to stretch especially limited partner budgets further 

to reach a widely dispersed population. 

Only two local areas—Region 

4 Oregon and North Central 

Pennsylvania—are 

characterized by extensive 

resource sharing among 

partners. In both local areas, 

FTE is used as the basis for 

cost allocation and a range of 

partners are contributors, 

though ES and WIA are 

allocated the greatest portion 

of shared costs. For instance, 

in Region 4 Oregon, ES is 

responsible for nearly 43 

percent of allocated costs, and the WIA provider 31 percent. 

While FTE was considered a comparatively fair and effective basis 

for cost allocation in North Central Pennsylvania, Region 4 Oregon 

found it a somewhat rigid and inaccurate tool. Specifically, the 

local area found that the FTE formula does not accurately reflect 

the total amount of partners’ contributions, nor does it allow for 

more responsive and flexible contributions. While prior to WIA, 

partners with more resources simply “stepped up” to “take care of 

things,” now they are restricted to contributions in accordance with 

the FTE formula. As one local respondent specifically noted, “We 

already had a history of sharing resources . . . we need a formula 

better for us and our philosophies.” 

Resource Sharing Agreements in North Central 

Pennsylvania 

In North Central Pennsylvania, resource sharing agreements 

(RSAs) for all seven comprehensive centers total just over 

$500,000. Building costs account for the lion’s share of this 

budget amount at just over $400,000. Percent staffing FTE is 

used as the basis for cost allocation among partners (except 

for UI, which has a rent-only cost allocation). Though a wide 

variety of partners are contributors—including VR, TANF, 

county education offices and private companies—the local 

WIA provider and administrative agency and the state’s ES 

agency are allocated the greatest portion of shared costs. 

The WIA provider pays $177,097 for its space at the seven 

centers (35 percent of shared costs) and has 31 FTE staff 

covering all access points. ES pays $150,991 for its space at 

the seven centers (30 percent of shared costs) and has 25 

FTE staff covering all access points.

Only two local areas—

Region 4 Oregon and 

North Central 

Pennsylvania—are 

characterized by 

extensive resource 

sharing among 

partners. 
IV-18

Summary of Benefits and Challenges 

of Rural Partnerships 

In many ways, the factors that facilitate partnerships in a rural area 

are the same factors that may hinder them. A fundamental shortage 

of resources and a relatively small number of key partners can help 

bring organizations together out of necessity, and result in a more 

streamlined collaborative. As one North Central Pennsylvania 

respondent noted, “If you are to be successful in a rural area, you 

can’t be independent.” Likewise, Region 4 Oregon noted that local 

agencies had been partnering long before WIA because “doing so 

was necessary for survival in a rural area.” However, other rural 

local areas cited the same two factors—especially the shortage of 

resources—as key reasons for why individual organizations were 

unwilling or unable to engage in the One-Stop system. 

Personal relationships also represent a double-edged sword for 

rural partnerships. A number of respondents commented on how 

living in a rural environment means really knowing residents 

intimately and in multiple ways—e.g., as co-workers, friends, 

fellow parents, etc. Strong interpersonal ties, coupled with partners 

who frequently work in close proximity, can help develop and 

maintain professional ties between agencies, make more formal 

partnership mechanisms (such as referral forms) largely 

unnecessary, and help ensure that customers do not “fall through 

the cracks” when they are referred between partners. 

On the other hand, interpersonal feuds can assume a more 

prominent status in a small-town atmosphere and spill over to 

undermine potential relationships between organizations. For 

instance, in one local area, squabbles over petty personal issues 

have played a role in leading one partner to pull out co-located 

staff. In situations such as these, reliance on informal partnership 

mechanisms can become a liability since these mechanisms depend 

on the strength of personal relations and relatively frequent 

interaction. Clients may suffer as a result—e.g., by not having 

access to as many partners at a single site, or not even being 

referred to alternate partner locations. 

Strong interpersonal 

ties, coupled with 

partners who frequently 

work in close proximity, 

can help develop and 

maintain professional 

ties between agencies, 

make more formal 

partnership 

mechanisms (such as 

referral forms) largely 

unnecessary. 

Interpersonal feuds can 

assume a more 

prominent status in a 

small-town atmosphere 

and spill over to 

undermine potential 

relationships between 

organizations. 
IV-19

Another aspect of rural workforce systems with both positive and 

negative implications is that rural partners often wear multiple 

professional hats, given limited personnel. For instance, one local 

respondent in North Central Pennsylvania acts as a One-Stop site 

administrator, office manager for WIA Title I services, Dislocated 

Worker employability counselor, and representative on the local 

area’s Performance Team and Information Technology Team. Her 

multifaceted role means that she must frequently attend various 

meetings with other, similarly multifaceted workforce leaders. This 

is undoubtedly an advantage to maintaining interpersonal 

relationships and professional partnerships. Moreover, in her 

multiple roles, she is able to informally address multiple agenda 

items via a single meeting with partners. However, one key 

challenge to rural partners wearing multiple hats is that they may 

be stretched too thin, and called away from the One-Stop center 

and direct service provision. 

Time and distance challenges, which we expected to play a critical 

role in rural partnerships, were not nearly as emphasized by the 

local areas as much as resource- and cost-sharing challenges. 

According to local respondents, time and distance challenges—in 

particular, needing to drive a considerable distance for any 

purpose—is simply a part of rural residents’ daily life. In addition, 

because partners may know each other well personally and may be 

meeting in multiple contexts, time and distance may not be as 

much of a concern specific to One-Stop partnerships. 

Cost sharing emerged as the largest partnership challenge in rural 

areas, as it is in many other local areas in the country. Key 

contributing factors are the limited budgets of individual partner 

organizations paired with a need to cover an extensive geographic 

area; protectiveness of individual funds and a fear of ending up 

worse off by pooling resources; pre-existing building leases; poor 

personal relations that either prevent or result from a failure to 

share resources; and vaguely worded resource sharing agreements 

that lack “teeth.” Some local areas also cited relatively small WIA 

allocations, new entities serving as One-Stop operators and WIA 

providers, and the admittedly weaker financial and staff capacity of 

Cost sharing emerged 

as the largest 

partnership challenge in 

rural areas, as it is in 

many other local areas 

in the country. 

One key challenge to 

rural partners wearing 

multiple hats is that they 

may be stretched too 

thin, and called away 

from the One-Stop 

center and direct 

service provision. 
IV-20

FBOs and many CBOs to engage and contribute as One-Stop 

partners. 

With specific regard to WIA allocations, in local areas such as 

Southeast Georgia and Northwest Iowa, relatively small allocations 

may contribute to a situation where WIA is too small to play much 

of a partnership role, particularly compared to the state ES agency. 

Overall, in a number of the local areas, there existed a significant 

dependency on ES as the primary or sole financial supporter of the 

One-Stop system in terms of physical facilities, staffing, and 

equipment. 

Region 4 Oregon and North Central Pennsylvania represent 

interesting counterpoints in that neither area raised these resource 

sharing challenges. Both local areas are satisfied to some extent 

with FTE as a basis for cost allocation, though Region 4 Oregon 

maintained that the FTE formula is too rigid and does not allow 

local partners the flexibility of simply “stepping up” with as many 

resources as needed. 

It is difficult to pinpoint what exactly Region 4 Oregon and North 

Central Pennsylvania have in common that have allowed them to 

escape many of the cost-sharing and other partnership challenges 

so significant in other local areas. Both of these local areas 

appeared to particularly prize flexibility and informality in their 

partnerships—e.g., in providing referrals, meeting resource 

challenges, and even in designing the layout of their One-Stops to 

meet the needs of their particular community. Both of these local 

areas reacted somewhat nonchalantly to the question of 

partnership—by noting that partnership was simply “the way 

things are done” in rural areas, or that the One-Stop partnership 

and referral concept was old hat to them long before the passage of 

the WIA. Both also noted that One-Stops merely made official 

what was already in practice. As one North Central Pennsylvania 

respondent observed, One-Stops simply led them to focus more on 

the “bricks and mortar” aspect of partnership by formally bringing 

all partners together under one roof. 

Region 4 Oregon and 

North Central 

Pennsylvania represent 

interesting 

counterpoints in that 

neither area raised 

these resource sharing 

challenges. 

Perhaps the most 

salient common 

denominator of these 

two local areas is the 

presence of positive 

interpersonal 

relationships between 

partners that have, in 

turn, allowed strong 

professional 

collaborations to 

“naturally” occur. 
IV-21

Perhaps the most salient common denominator of these two local 

areas is the presence of positive interpersonal relationships 

between partners that have, in turn, allowed strong professional 

collaborations to “naturally” occur. In the end, however, it is 

difficult to say whether positive interpersonal relationships 

represent the chicken or the egg, or whether there is, in fact, 

anything about rural areas in particular that facilitate or impede 

One-Stop partnerships. 

Summary 

The rural local areas we visited are characterized by relatively few 

key One-Stop partners. ES and WIA play enormous roles with 

regard to service provision, One-Stop operation, and financial 

support of the local One-Stop system. Roles for other public, nonprofit and private partners range widely by local area and by OneStop center. Overall though, while FBOs may provide important 

supportive services, they are not major paying or co-located OneStop partners in any of the local areas we visited. The role of CBO 

partners is quite diverse, with some serving as One-Stop operators 

and/or fulfilling mandatory One-Stop partner roles (e.g., WIA 

adult services provider), and others simply serving as occasional 

referral partners for supportive services. Only in one locale is there 

a local NFJP partner, though it is not a co-located partner, and 

there is not much evidence of a strong partnership to serve the 

MSFW population—perhaps due to a relatively small MSFW 

population, more general partnership challenges, and cultural 

competency issues. Agricultural extension plays a small or nonexistent partnership role in most of the rural areas we visited 

because of a weak local agricultural sector and/or limited capacity 

to engage as a One-Stop partner. 

Inter-partner coordination of services appears quite informal in the 

rural local areas that we visited. However, the extent to which this 

level of informality is effective or not depends largely on the 

quality of partners’ interpersonal relations and their ability to work 

frequently in close physical proximity. Open interpersonal or interorganizational conflict can not only stymie effective partner 

The rural local areas we 

visited are 

characterized by 

relatively few key OneStop partners with ES 

and WIA playing 

enormous roles with 

regard to service 

provision, One-Stop 

operation, and financial 

support of the local 

One-Stop system. 

Inter-partner 

coordination of services 

appears quite informal 

in the rural local areas 

that we visited. 

However, the extent to 

which this level of 

informality is effective or 

not depends largely on 

the quality of partners’ 

interpersonal relations 

and their ability to work 

frequently in close 

physical proximity. 
IV-22

coordination, but can also negatively impact customer knowledge 

or accessibility of various partner services. 

Local areas differed quite a lot in the way they described 

operational costs for their One-Stop systems, making cross-site 

comparisons difficult. However, staffing and rent emerged as the 

largest specific costs when partners do not own the One-Stop sites, 

and resource sharing emerged as the most significant partnership 

challenge in most of the rural areas we visited. Ironically, while 

limited rural partner resources appear to make cost sharing 

critical—particularly when covering large geographic areas—

limited resources was also cited by some local areas as the very 

reason for why they could not afford to share resources or engage 

in strong partnerships. All local areas rely heavily on ES to 

financially support the One-Stop system, though North Central 

Pennsylvania and Region 4 Oregon serve as significant models of 

resource sharing among diverse partners. One important source of 

in-kind support for all the local areas has been state workforce 

agency websites, which typically provide a range of job seeker and 

employer information and services. 

Overall, the particularly limited resources of rural partners, as well 

as the often close relations between rural One-Stop staff, are two 

factors that can have incredibly beneficial or detrimental effects on 

rural One-Stop partnerships. Limited resources may bring partners 

together out of necessity, or they may be used as justification for 

why partners cannot build effective collaboratives. Interpersonal 

relations between individuals, who in rural areas may know each 

other through multiple personal and professional contexts, can help 

develop and maintain professional ties. On the other hand, a rural 

or small-town atmosphere can magnify interpersonal conflicts that 

can in turn hinder professional linkages between One-Stop 

partners. 

Ironically, while limited 

rural partner resources 

appear to make cost 

sharing critical—

particularly when 

covering large 

geographic areas—

limited resources was 

also cited by some local 

areas as the very 

reason for why they 

could not afford to 

share resources or 

engage in strong 

partnerships. 

Overall, the particularly 

limited resources of 

rural partners, as well 

as the often close 

relations between rural 

One-Stop staff, are two 

factors that can have 

incredibly beneficial or 

detrimental effects on 

rural One-Stop 

partnerships. 
V-1

V. CONCLUSION 

Although rural areas make up the majority of our nation’s land 

area, they are home to only a small fraction of the population. 

Consequently, most rural areas are characterized by low population 

density, with residents widely scattered across large swathes of 

land. Because of this and other unique characteristics of rural 

areas, rural workforce development systems must adapt to these 

characteristics to be effective, and thus may be substantially 

different from those established in urban areas. Alternatively, due 

to their many shared features and challenges, workforce 

development systems may appear relatively similar throughout the 

nation, regardless of an area’s urban or rural status 

The aim of this report has been to explore workforce development 

systems in rural areas, focusing on changes that have occurred over 

the past 25 years, service delivery structures and their impact on 

accessibility and rural One-Stop partnerships. In this concluding 

chapter, we will examine the uniqueness of rural workforce 

development systems and the challenges they face, exploring the 

similarities and differences between workforce development in 

rural and urban areas. 

Similarities in Systems and 

Challenges 

Overall, we found that rural workforce development systems and 

the challenges they have faced are generally very similar to those 

of urban areas in most respects: adjusting to economic changes, 

utilizing access points to provide most services, developing OneStop systems and partnerships, and dealing with conflicts over 

resource sharing and support for these systems. 

Overall, we found that 

rural workforce 

development systems 

and the challenges they 

have faced are 

generally very similar to 

those of urban areas in 

most respects. 
V-2

One similarity between rural and urban areas is that both have had 

to adjust to major changes in the nation’s economy and job market. 

For example, both rural and urban areas have had to deal with 

long-term declines in the number of manufacturing jobs and 

increases in service-sector employment. Similarly, both have 

responded to these economic changes by shifting their job training 

and placement efforts to ensure that customers are able to 

successfully compete for jobs in the labor market. 

Rural and urban areas also have broadly similar service delivery 

structures, as both have long relied on systems of physical access 

points located in major population centers to provide workforce 

development services. Both types of areas have also experienced 

similar changes to these access point systems. For example, after a 

decline in these access points between 1979 and 1999, both types 

of areas experienced an increase in numbers of access points 

between 1999 and 2004, likely brought on by implementation of 

One-Stop systems mandated by the enactment of WIA. 

These newly created One-Stop systems also share many 

similarities in rural and urban areas. In both types of areas, OneStop systems are made up of various types of access points ranging 

from very large enhanced comprehensive centers with numerous 

co-located partner staff, to tiny, unstaffed, computer-only sites. In 

addition, in both rural and urban areas, ES staff are present in a 

majority of One-Stop access points, many of which are located in 

former ES offices. 

One-Stop partnerships in rural and urban areas are also generally 

similar. For example, in both types of areas, One-Stop 

partnerships are usually dominated by WIA and ES, while VR and 

TANF agencies, though often involved, play less of a role. In 

both rural and urban areas, community colleges are also important 

partners who provide the majority of local training programs, while 

faith-based organizations (FBOs) are not typically formally 

involved. 

Rural and urban areas 

also have broadly 

similar service delivery 

structures, as both have 

long relied on systems 

of physical access 

points located in major 

population centers to 

provide workforce 

development services. 

One-Stop partnerships 

in rural and urban areas 

are also generally 

similar. For example, in 

both types of areas, 

One-Stop partnerships 

are usually dominated 

by WIA and ES, while 

VR and TANF 

agencies, though often 

involved, play less of a 

role. 
V-3

Finally, both rural and urban areas report that resource sharing to 

support local One-Stop networks is their biggest challenge. In 

both types of areas, WIA and ES provide the bulk of the financial 

resources to support these systems, with other partners contributing 

only limited, often in-kind resources. 

Differences in Systems and 

Challenges 

Despite these many similarities, in certain ways, rural workforce 

development systems and partnerships are quite different from 

those in urban areas. One important reason for these differences is 

that rural areas confront different challenges than do urban areas. 

For example, one of the biggest challenges faced by rural 

workforce investment areas is making services accessible to widely 

scattered customers. Other major challenges include overcoming 

the significant transportation barriers that customers face, 

providing customers with all of the services they need despite a 

scarcity of available workforce development providers and 

utilizing overstretched staff effectively. Each of these challenges 

is discussed in more detail below. 

Reaching Widely Scattered Customers 

Reaching widely scattered customers given resource limitations is 

one of the chief difficulties facing rural areas. In a previous study 

of rural One-Stop systems,1

 we found that rural areas often 

attempted to make services accessible to customers by developing 

wide networks of very small access points. Even though these 

access points offered few services, local areas asserted that they at 

least allowed customers to conduct basic job searches and receive 

information about other available services. 

 

1

 Rural One-Stops: Issues in WIA Implementation. Prepared for the U.S. 

Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. Kate 

Dunham. Social Policy Research Associates. January 2003. 

Despite these many 

similarities, in certain 

ways, rural workforce 

development systems 

and partnerships are 

quite different from 

those in urban areas. 

One important reason 

for these differences is 

that rural areas confront 

different challenges 

than do urban areas. 
V-4

However, in this study, we found that rural areas appear to be 

shifting to a strategy of having fewer, more comprehensive access 

points located in only their largest hub cities. The primary reason 

for this shift is that a network of fewer but more comprehensive 

centers allows customers to meet all of their needs in one location 

and is thus more convenient. Even though customers may have to 

travel further to reach an access point, local area respondents did 

not feel that this change would negatively affect accessibility. The 

reason they gave is that rural customers are accustomed to 

traveling relatively long distances to the largest cities in their areas 

to take care of other service needs. 

This increasing focus on fewer, more comprehensive One-Stop 

access points appears to be different from the strategy pursued by a 

number of large urban local areas. For instance, both Chicago and 

Philadelphia have established relatively large numbers of small 

access points aimed at reaching ethnic or racial sub-groups within 

their populations. However, due to the limitations of this study, 

more research is needed to determine whether urban and rural 

areas are really moving in opposite directions in terms of access 

point strategies. 

Overcoming Transportation Barriers 

Another important set of service delivery differences and 

challenges between rural and urban areas is related to assisting 

customers with overcoming transportation barriers. Although 

urban areas also face the challenge of helping their customers 

overcome transportation barriers, rural areas typically place greater 

emphasis on this type of assistance. One reason for this heavier 

emphasis on transportation assistance is that rural residents—who 

might have to travel dozens of miles to reach their nearest OneStop access point—often face much greater transportation 

challenges than do urban residents, given the greater distances 

involved and the lack of public transportation. 

One additional difference between rural and urban areas regarding 

transportation challenges has to do with the kinds of strategies used 

We found that rural 

areas appear to be 

shifting to a strategy of 

having fewer, more 

comprehensive access 

points located in only 

their largest hub cities. 

Although urban areas 

also face the challenge 

of helping their 

customers overcome 

transportation barriers, 

rural areas typically 

place greater emphasis 

on this type of 

assistance. 
V-5

to overcome these barriers. For example, in urban areas, one of the 

main strategies used to assist customers with transportation barriers 

is to provide them with public transit vouchers. However, because 

public transit in rural areas is either unavailable or extremely 

limited, rural One-Stop systems typically cannot use this strategy. 

Instead, they place greater emphasis on strategies such as 

providing vouchers to customers to pay for gas or necessary 

vehicle repairs, forming carpools, or transporting customers in 

vans belonging to other agencies. Because of significant 

challenges related to the use of all three of these common 

strategies, rural areas also place heavy emphasis on alternative 

service delivery avenues such as providing services over the phone 

and having staff travel to meet customers in out-of-the way 

locations. 

Although our previous study of rural One-Stop systems found that 

providing rural customers with electronic access to services was 

not as effective as in urban areas,2

 respondents in this study 

reported that Internet services are another important way to assist 

customers in overcoming transportation barriers. These 

respondents asserted that, despite the fact that only a little over half 

of all rural residents reported using the Internet,3 increasing 

reliance on the web for service delivery in rural areas is inevitable. 

They attributed this increasing dependence to continuing budget 

cuts, improving technology and the rapidly growing use of the 

Internet among rural users.4

 

2

 Ibid. 

3

 A Nation Online: How Americans are Expanding their Use of the Internet. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. 2002. 

4

 Recent data from the U.S. Commerce Department showed that Internet use 

among people in rural households has grown at an average annual rate of 24 

percent, several percentage points faster than for people in urban households. 

Ibid. 

Although our previous 

study of rural One-Stop 

systems found that 

providing rural 

customers with 

electronic access to 

services was not as 

effective as in urban 

areas, respondents in 

this study reported that 

Internet services are 

another important way 

to assist customers in 

overcoming 

transportation barriers. 
V-6

Scarcity of Workforce Development Providers 

The scarcity of workforce development providers is another 

service delivery issue commonly faced in rural areas that is 

uncommon in more populated areas. As an example of this 

scarcity, we found that the rural areas we visited typically lacked 

sufficient numbers of providers to allow for competitive 

procurement processes in selecting One-Stop operators, and WIA 

Adult, Dislocated Worker or Youth providers. In most of the areas 

we visited, we also found low numbers of local training providers, 

resulting in a lack of sufficient numbers of local training programs 

on state Eligible Training Provider Lists (ETPLs) in at least two 

cases. 

However, local respondents contended that, in most cases, the 

scarcity of local workforce providers has not negatively impacted 

service delivery. These respondents stated that the existence of 

even one qualified provider and an effective network of One-Stop 

partners has enabled local areas to provide customers with the 

services they need. 

In the few cases where an adverse impact from workforce provider 

scarcity was noted, local area respondents are pursuing strategies 

to mitigate this impact. For example, one of the areas with a 

shortage of local training programs on their state’s ETPL is 

developing distance learning arrangements with public 

postsecondary education providers. In the other area that reported 

a shortage of training programs, local WIA staff are determinedly 

attempting to persuade local training providers to submit more 

programs for inclusion on the list. 

One-Stop Partnership Differences 

Although both rural and urban areas have One-Stop partnerships 

that are broadly similar in composition and face some similar 

difficulties, One-Stop partnerships in rural areas also differ in 

important ways and face dissimilar challenges. One way that they 

differ is that rural One-Stop partnerships are typically smaller and 

include fewer specialized partners than many urban partnerships. 

The rural areas we 

visited typically lacked 

sufficient numbers of 

providers to allow for 

competitive 

procurement processes 

in selecting One-Stop 

operators, and WIA 

Adult, Dislocated 

Worker or Youth 

providers. 

One way that they differ 

is that rural One-Stop 

partnerships are 

typically smaller and 

include fewer 

specialized partners 

than many urban 

partnerships. 
V-7

For example, few rural partnerships include CBOs that are targeted 

at specific ethnic or racial groups as is common in urban areas. 

Another difference is that, in rural areas, coordination between 

partners is often less formal. According to local respondents, one 

reason for this lack of formality is that many rural One-Stop staff 

play multiple professional roles, given limited personnel. On the 

plus side, One-Stop partner staff often see each regularly without 

there being a need to organize formal One-Stop partnership 

meetings. However, on the down side, wearing multiple 

professional hats may also result in staff being stretched too thin to 

effectively perform all of their duties. 

Close interpersonal ties between partner staff is another reason for 

the lack of formality in rural One-Stop partnerships. Numerous 

respondents asserted that strong personal relationships between 

staff from different partner agencies are common in a rural 

environment where people know each other in multiple personal 

and professional contexts. These ties typically mean that staff 

regularly check in with each other on an informal basis, thus 

lessening the need for formal opportunities for communication. 

Sometimes, however, personal relationships in rural areas can also 

become personal feuds. In the small-town environment of a rural 

area, these feuds can spill over and have a deeply destructive effect 

on both the local One-Stop partnership and service delivery. 

Although urban areas are certainly not immune to interpersonal 

conflict, because of the greater number of organizations and 

partners staff typically involved in urban partnerships, the effect of 

such feuding is likely to be less damaging. 

Overall Adequacy and Accessibility 

of Rural Workforce Services 

Overall, workforce development services in rural areas appear to 

be meeting the needs of the majority of rural customers. The rural 

areas we visited also seem to be doing a good job in making 

services accessible to most rural residents—whether via a OneClose interpersonal ties 

between partner staff is 

another reason for the 

lack of formality in rural 

One-Stop partnerships. 

Overall, workforce 

development services in 

rural areas appear to be 

meeting the needs of 

the majority of rural 

customers. 
V-8

Stop access point or through an alternative strategy such as online 

services. 

However, it also seems that some groups of rural residents may not 

be able to access necessary workforce services as successfully as 

others. For example, a number of respondents noted that certain 

groups of racial or ethnic minorities, due to linguistic and cultural 

differences, are not accessing workforce services as readily as 

other groups. Although some rural areas have implemented special 

strategies to reach these groups of customers, they continue to 

struggle with this challenge. 

Perhaps the most significant group of rural customers who may not 

be able to effectively access services are poor residents of the most 

rural localities. Because many of these residents lack their own 

means of transportation,5

 they are likely to find it difficult to travel 

to the nearest One-Stop access point. The recent shift by many 

rural areas to more concentrated networks of access points will 

probably make this challenge even more formidable as these 

residents will have to travel even greater distances to reach their 

nearest access point. Moreover, because Internet use is negatively 

correlated with poverty,6 these residents are also unlikely to be able 

to successfully access services via the web. 

Unfortunately, due to resource constraints, this study was not able 

to conduct extensive research on rural non-users of services. 

Because of the importance of developing a clear understanding of 

these non-users for the purpose of developing strategies for more 

effectively reaching them, additional research to explore this issue 

further would be helpful. 

 

5

 Rucker, George. Status Report on Public Transportation in Rural America, 

1994.” Rural Transit Assistance Program, Federal Transit Administration. 

6

 A Nation Online: How Americans are Expanding their Use of the Internet. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. 2002. 

A number of 

respondents noted that 

certain groups of racial 

or ethnic minorities, due 

to linguistic and cultural 

differences, are not 

accessing workforce 

services as readily as 

other groups. 

Perhaps the most 

significant group of rural 

customers who may not 

be able to effectively 

access services are 

poor residents of the 

most rural localities. 
A-1

Appendix A 

Detailed Characteristics of Each Type of Access Point 

Enhanced Comprehensive Basic Comprehensive Affiliate Satel

No. in Study Sites 15 6 6 6 No. of Study Sites with this Access Point 

5 3 4 3 

Typical Operator 

Consortium State employment security 

agency (SESA) 

SESA WIA or S

Staffing • WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker 

program and Employment Service (ES) staff on-site full-time; typically multiple ES and/or WIA staff are on-site 

• At least one other core* One-Stop 

partner on-site full-time 

• At least one other One-Stop partner onsite part-time; typically more than one 

• WIA Adult and Dislocated 

Worker program and ES staff on-site full-time; sometimes represented by only one staff 

• Sometimes other OneStop partners on-site full 

or part-time 

• Either WIA 

Adult and Dislocated Worker program or ES staff onsite full-time 

• At least oneother OneStop partner 

on-site parttime 

• 1 FTE 

less WAdult aDislocWorkeprograES stasite 

• No oth

partnesite 
A-2

Enhanced Comprehensive Basic Comprehensive Affiliate Satel

Typical Services 

• Core, intensive and preparation for 

training services 

• Large resource room with avg. of 14 

computers (range 5-21) 

• Core & intensive workshops such as job 

search, interviewing, resumes, occasionally GED prep 

• Employer services • Full SESA services such as Veterans 

Employment and Training Services (VETS), Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) usually available 

• Vocational Rrehabilitation (VR) services 

almost always available 

• Senior Community Service Employment 

Program (SCSEP) services usually available on a limited basis 

• Temporary Assistance to Needy Families 

(TANF) services often available 

• Job Corps recruiting often available on a 

limited basis 

• WIA youth services sometimes available 

• Core, intensive and 

preparation for training services 

• Resource rooms are 

smaller with avg. of 9 computers. 

• Employer services • Typical SESA services 

such as VETS and TAA 

• Occasionally TANF and 

VR services on-site on a limited basis 

• Core & intensive 

workshops sometimes unavailable due to space limitations 

• Core services • Typical SESA 

services such as VETS and TAA 

• WIA intensive 

& preparation for training services occasionally available 

• Occasionally 

other services (such as TANF, SCSEP, Job Corps, etc) 

• Core 

servic

• WIA 

intenspreparfor traservicsometavaila

Typical Hours and days Available 

8-4:30 or 5 Mon-Fri 8-4:30 or 5 Mon-Fri 8-4:30 or 5 

Mon-Fri 

8-4:30 othree opless than 

Average Size 8,749 sq. ft. 

Large rooms for workshops and meetings 

2,245 sq. ft. Sometimes room for meetings only 

2,568 sq. ft.** Sometimes room for meetings only 

410 sq. fUsually nmeeting space 

Data is as of December 2004. * “Core” One-Stop partners include partners who provide basic workforce development services such as job search assis

occupational training. Typically these partners include WIA providers, ES, VR, TANF and community colleges.**Excluding the satellite ES office in Santa 
Appendix B. Local Area Profiles 
This page is intentionally left blank. 

Insert blank page here when making double-sided copies.
B-1

NORTH CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA 

Local Area Demographics and Economy 

The North Central local workforce investment area encompasses six counties: Cameron, 

Clearfield, Elk, Jefferson, McKean and Potter. The local area spans 5,091 square miles and has a 

population of 234,416. The area has a population density of 46.04 people per square mile. The 

area’s largest city is St. Mary’s City, with a population of 14,502, and has no metro counties. 

The population of the local area is overwhelmingly White and each of the six counties exceeds 

the state’s percentage of persons 65 years old and over, reflecting local respondents’ perception 

of an aging local population and an exodus of youth. The six counties’ median household 

income ranges from $31,357 to $37,550 (compared to $40,106 for the state). Between 79%-83% 

of each of the county’s 25 and over population has graduated high school, and between 11%-

14% of each county’s 25 and over population has a bachelor’s degree or higher. 

Powdered metals is the dominant, though declining, industry of the local area. Two of the 

largest powdered metals companies in the area employ between 800-900 workers. Recent 

outsourcing to countries in Southeast Asia has translated to local slowdowns and bouts of 

layoffs. There are also a number of other manufacturing sectors in the local area. In all, 

manufacturing comprises approximately 35% of all jobs in North Central Pennsylvania. Other 

than manufacturing, the local area’s key and/or growing industries are extraction, health care, 

transportation, and the public sector. The local area’s unemployment level hovers around seven 

percent. 

Local One-Stop System (See Exhibit B-1) 

There are 21 access points in the local area, seven of which are comprehensive centers, two of 

which are satellite centers, and 12 of which are computer-only access points. These access points 

are located an average of 22 miles from each other in the largest cities and towns in the local 

area, with at least one comprehensive center in each county. The hours of operation for all 

comprehensive centers are from 8:00—4:30pm daily. 
Exhibit B-1 

B-2

%

%

%

%

%

%

U

U

U

U

U

U

(!

%

%

U

U

(!

(!

(!

(!

(!

(!

(!

(!

(!

(!

(!

Brookville YMCA

Coudersport,Gospel Tabernacle

Kane Community Center

DuBois PublicLibrary

Clearfield,One-StopConsortium

Elk, One-StopConsortium

DuBois Area,One-StopConsortium

Brockway,Mengle Memorial Library

Potter, One-SConsortium

Cameron, One-StopConsortium

Johnsonburg Community Center

Punxsutawney Community Center

CoudersportPotter CountEducation Co

McKean, One-StopConsortium

Jefferson, One-StopConsortium

Emporium,Northern Tier Community Action Corp.

Houtzdale,Central Pennsylvania Community Action

Ridgway,North Central Workforce Development

Brookville,Rebecca M. ArthursMemorial Library

Brookville,North CentralWorkforce Development

Pennsylvania

NC - NORTH CENTRAL WORKFORCE INVESTMENT AREA

CE - CINVES

NW - NORTHWEST WORKFORCE INVESTMENT AREA

SW - TRI-COUNTY WORKFORCE INVESTMENT AREA

Elk

Clearfield

McKean

Jefferson

Cameron

%

%

%

%

%

%

U

U

U

U

U

U

(!

%

%

U

U

(!

(!

(!

(!

(!

(!

(!

(!

(!

(!

(!

Brookville YMCA

Coudersport,Gospel Tabernacle

Kane Community Center

DuBois PublicLibrary

Clearfield,One-StopConsortium

Elk, One-StopConsortium

DuBois Area,One-StopConsortium

Brockway,Mengle Memorial Library

Potter, One-SConsortium

Cameron, One-StopConsortium

Johnsonburg Community Center

Punxsutawney Community Center

CoudersportPotter CountEducation Co

McKean, One-StopConsortium

Jefferson, One-StopConsortium

Emporium,Northern Tier Community Action Corp.

Houtzdale,Central Pennsylvania Community Action

Ridgway,North Central Workforce Development

Brookville,Rebecca M. ArthursMemorial Library

Brookville,North CentralWorkforce Development

Pennsylvania

NC - NORTH CENTRAL WORKFORCE INVESTMENT AREA

CE - CINVES

NW - NORTHWEST WORKFORCE INVESTMENT AREA

SW - TRI-COUNTY WORKFORCE INVESTMENT AREA

Elk

Clearfield

McKean

Jefferson

Cameron

.

North Central Pennsylvania Access Po

0 9 18 27 4.5 Miles
B-3

 All of the local area’s centers are run by a five-member Operator Consortium (OC), whose 

members include: Economic Development, WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker Programs, 

Wagner-Peyser, Vocational Rehabilitation, and county offices of education. 

Comprehensive centers all have WIA and ES staff on site and at least one additional mandated 

partner. They are operated by chartered CareerLink partnerships according to business plans 

approved by the local WIB. Among the comprehensive centers, the few differences in service 

delivery that exist are primarily a function of the differences in the key/paying partners (aside 

from WIA and ES) that are involved at each center, including Vocational Rehabilitation, TANF 

and county offices of education. The two satellite centers have only WIA staff available either 

part- or full-time and are housed at a technical school and a CBO. With regard to service 

delivery, the computer-only access points differ from the comprehensive and satellite centers 

most obviously in that there are generally no staff present at the former; the only services 

provided are Internet access to the state CareerLink website. 

The local area prioritizes comprehensive centers as the vehicles for service delivery in order to 

meet the original One-Stop vision and to prevent staff from being even further stretched across 

sites. The local area also feels that since local residents are accustomed to traveling a reasonable 

distance for services, they would prefer to have a comprehensive range of services available 

upon reaching their destination rather than reduced availability. 

Training Services, Youth Services and Employer 

Services 

With regard to training services for Adults and Dislocated Workers, ITAs have outnumbered 

OJT in recent years. For example, in PY 2003, 209 adults/dislocated workers received training 

through ITAs and 91 received training through OJT. The ITA funding cap is $7,500. There are 

18 relatively local training providers on the eligible training provider list, with many clustered in 

manufacturing, truck driving, and medical technicians. Training options are somewhat limited 

for individuals and families who are not willing to travel considerable distances. 

North Central Workforce Development (NCWD) serves as the primary youth services provider. 

NCWD operates the Youth Development System, based on five modules which encompass the 

ten required WIA program elements for youth. NCWD works with a youth consortium in each 

of the six counties to ensure youth service provision. Though an RFP was issued for other youth 

providers, response was weak given the small supply of service providers; only five were 

ultimately contracted to provide one or more of the required program elements. Leadership and 

mentoring are the program elements most lacking in the local area. WIA youth counselors often 
 B-4

serve as direct service providers (e.g., as mentors) and work closely with schools as noncontracted service providers. Schools are also a key member of the youth consortium. 

Employer services can be broken down into the following major categories: Internet-based 

CareerLink system (job orders and job matching); membership to the local industry consortium; 

basic and upgrade skills training for new and current employees; OJT and customized training; 

employment workshops; testing and assessments; and labor market information. Training 

appeared to be the most popular component of employer services. Employers have access to 

training funded by each county’s industry consortium, as well as state funding for employers to 

train new and existing employees through two programs—the Technology Training Program and 

the Basic Skills Training Program—offered by the Guaranteed Free Training Program. 

Description of On-line Services 

The local area refers all job-seekers and employers to the state website: 

www.pacareerlink.state.pa.us. The job seeker services page allows individuals to enroll in the 

CareerLink system, search for jobs using a wide variety of criteria, view profiles of participating 

employers with job openings, review WIA eligible training providers, and access a variety of 

self-help information, such as resume preparation tips, labor market information, assistance 

related to self-employment, and links to external job search listings and/or resources. The 

employer services page allows employers to register with CareerLink, post their company 

profile, submit and update job orders, search for qualified applicants, and access economic 

development and labor market information. The local area feels that core services are very 

effectively provided online to rural customers, though there are some groups of customers, 

typically older in age, who are sometimes hesitant to use online services. To augment and 

complement the PACareerLink site, the local area developed two websites for use by employers, 

partners, and job seekers: www.pajobconnection.org and www.ncwib.org. 

Rural One-Stop Partnerships 

The local area’s strong and long tradition of collaboration is facilitated by relatively few key 

entities in the workforce development system: WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker programs, ES, 

Vocational Rehabilitation, and TANF—all of which are co-located at least part-time at all of the 

comprehensive centers. In addition, organizational partnerships appear to be facilitated by the 

interpersonal connections unique to a rural area. With one exception, FBOs and CBOs are not 

paying partners of the CareerLink system, though some CBOs are utilized as key referral 

partners for supportive and other services. Community Action Inc.—which provides a wide 
B-5

variety of education, employment, and supportive services—is the only paying CBO partner and 

is co-located part-time at one of the comprehensive CareerLink centers. 

In general, partners work together and provide services via co-location. Referrals usually occur 

for supportive services outside the CareerLink system. Methods for inter-partner communication 

and coordination are exceedingly informal—typically taking the form of “walkovers” to other 

partners. Estimates of co-enrolled adults/dislocated workers ranged significantly across the 

CareerLink centers visited, from very low to nearly 70 percent. Adults/dislocated workers are 

most commonly co-enrolled in Vocational Rehabilitation or TANF. 

Financial Arrangements 

Many of the development costs for the local CareerLink system were absorbed locally, though 

state funding provided for resource room computers and the local WIB-provided funds for 

additional technology and marketing efforts. State and local funds were considered adequate for 

getting the CareerLink centers up and running, after which point resource-sharing between 

partners has been considered adequate for maintaining the centers. 

Resource-sharing budgets for the comprehensive centers total just over $500,000. Building costs 

account for most of this amount at just over $400,000. Percent staffing FTE is used as the basis 

for cost allocation among partners. The local WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker provider and 

the state’s ES agency are allocated the greatest portion of shared costs. The WIA provider pays 

$177,097 for its space at the seven centers. WIA has 31 FTE staff covering all centers. The 

state’s ES agency pays $150,991 for its space at the seven centers. ES has 25 FTE staff covering 

all centers. 

Promising Practices 

Following are components that stand out as key features or promising practices of the local area: 

• Work Readiness Skills Standards (WRSS)—using the CareerLink system to 

deliver WRSS training that responds directly to employers’ articulated needs for 

employees and asking employers to endorse WRSS on their shop windows. 

• Employer/industry consortia—organizing consortia per each of the six counties as 

a way to better serve employers specific to the immediate local area (e.g., one 

area might be comprised heavily of manufacturing companies, while another 

might be dominated by health care.) Membership in the consortium not only 

serves as a gateway to services and an opportunity to discuss potential workforce 

solutions with CareerLink staff, but also provides employers with networking 

opportunities as another service or benefit. The employer consortia are comprised 

of more than 150 employers among the six groups. 
 B-6

• Rethinking the role of clergy—through its FBO/CBO grant, the local area was 

able to rethink the role of clergy as community-wide partners and referral hubs in 

assisting the unemployed and underemployed. Particularly useful strategies 

included a massive outreach effort to educate the clergy on CareerLink resources 

for their parishioners, resource mapping of faith-based resources, and housing of 

CareerLink computer-only access points at churches. 
B-7

NORTHERN NEW MEXICO LOCAL WORKFORCE 

DEVELOPMENT BOARD 

Local Area Demographics and Economy 

The area governed by the Northern New Mexico Local Workforce Development Board 

(Northern New Mexico) includes 10 counties: Cibola, Colfax, Los Alamos, McKinley, Mora, 

Rio Arriba, San Juan, San Miguel, Santa Fe and Taos. 

Northern New Mexico has a population of 464,484 spread over 35,957 square miles, resulting in 

a population density of only 13.41 per square mile. The local area’s largest cities include Santa 

Fe, which in 2000 had 62,203 residents, followed by Farmington with 37,844 residents. Both 

cities are located in the local area’s two metropolitan counties, San Juan and Santa Fe. Northern 

New Mexico has significant populations of Native Americans and Latinos as well as Whites, 

with populations varying dramatically by county. Native Americans in the local area include 

members of 11 Pueblo communities, the Jicarillo Apache Nation and the Navajo Nation. 

Although counties in the local area report large numbers of residents where a language other than 

English is spoken at home (typically over 50%), the percentage of foreign-born residents is 

small. In terms of education, the local area is also diverse, with most counties reporting lower 

percentages of high school and college graduates than the state average, and one county well 

above the state average. 

The local area is composed of a very economically diverse set of counties, ranging from the 

wealthiest and most economically vibrant in the state (Los Alamos and Santa Fe) to some of the 

poorest and most economically depressed (Mora and Taos). For example, in 2003, Northern 

New Mexico had both the county with the lowest unemployment rate in the state (Los Alamos, 

1.7%) and the county with the second highest (Mora, 14.4%). According to the Census, the local 

area also has the distinction of having the county with the highest percentage of residents 

considered poor in the state (McKinley, 36.1%) and the county with the lowest such percentage 

(Los Alamos, 2.9%). 
 B-8

Northern New Mexico is also fairly diverse in terms of industries. For example, two of the 

counties (Santa Fe, Taos) have very strong hospitality and tourism industries. Los Alamos and 

Santa Fe counties, also have a strong high tech industry. Other counties in the region have 

typical government, health services, and retail mixes, although mining is an important industry in 

some areas, particularly in McKinley and San Juan Counties. 

Local One-Stop System (See Exhibit B-2) 

Northern New Mexico has a network of 11 One-Stop access points, including three enhanced 

comprehensive centers, four basic comprehensive centers, three affiliate offices and one satellite. 

These access points are located in the largest city and county seat of eight of the local area’s 10 

counties, an average of 93 miles apart. One-Stop access points in the local area are generally 

open Monday through Friday from 8 am to 5 pm. 

SER Jobs for Progress (the WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker program provider) is the 

designated One-Stop operator and operates the two enhanced comprehensive centers in Santa Fe 

and Farmington and the satellite office in Espanola. The New Mexico Department of Labor 

(NMDOL), the state employment security agency, operates the other eight access points. 

The mix of available services and partners varies widely by type of access point. The three 

enhanced comprehensive centers have the widest range of services and co-located partners, with 

WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker staff and ES staff on-site full-time as well as at least one 

other partner. Farmington has the most additional on-site partners with staff from Job Corps, the 

New Mexico Commission for the Blind, Worker’s Compensation, and five other non-profit 

agencies on-site. All four basic comprehensive centers also have WIA Adult and Dislocated 

Worker program staff and ES staff on-site full-time, while the affiliate offices are primarily 

staffed by NMDOL. The lone satellite office is staffed by a single staff person from the WIA 

Adult and Dislocated Worker program provider. 

The local area’s philosophy in establishing its One-Stop access point network is to locate them in 

county seats and population centers where rural residents typically travel to do their shopping, 

receive health services, etc. Generally, this has meant that the access points are located in or 

near former ES/UI offices operated by NMDOL. Currently eight of 10 counties have an access 

point and SER Jobs for Progress is looking into opening satellite offices in the other two 

counties. Although three counties have two access points in the same city, local area 

respondents generally did not think there was a need for more than one access point in each 

county. 
Exhibit B-2 

B-9

U%

!

!

!

(

(

(

%

%

%

U

U

U

#

#

#

*

*

*

NM EASDEVEL

NM NORTHERN WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT AREA

NM SOUTHWESTERN WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT AREA

NM CENTRAL WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT AREA

Cibola

San Juan

Rio Arriba 

McKinley

Taos

San 

Mora

Santa Fe

Los Alamos

Colorado

New Mexico

Espanola, New Mexico Department of Labor

Santa Fe, New Mexico Department of Labor

Espanola,SER Jobs forProgress

Farmington, New Mexico Department of Labor

Taos,New MexicoDepartment of Labor

Grants,New MexicoDepartment of Labor

Gallup,New MexicoDepartment of Labor

Santa Fe,SER Jobs forProgress

Las Vegas,New MexicoDepartment of L

Farmington,SER Jobs forProgress

U%

!

!

!

(

(

(

%

%

%

U

U

U

#

#

#

*

*

*

NM EASDEVEL

NM NORTHERN WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT AREA

NM SOUTHWESTERN WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT AREA

NM CENTRAL WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT AREA

Cibola

San Juan

Rio Arriba 

McKinley

Taos

San 

Mora

Santa Fe

Los Alamos

Colorado

New Mexico

Espanola, New Mexico Department of Labor

Santa Fe, New Mexico Department of Labor

Espanola,SER Jobs forProgress

Farmington, New Mexico Department of Labor

Taos,New MexicoDepartment of Labor

Grants,New MexicoDepartment of Labor

Gallup,New MexicoDepartment of Labor

Santa Fe,SER Jobs forProgress

Las Vegas,New MexicoDepartment of L

Farmington,SER Jobs forProgress

.

Northern New Mexico Access Points

0 40 80 120 20 Miles

Access Point

U% Enhanced C

!( Basic Comp

*# Affiliate

U% Satellite

! Computer O
 B-10

 Training Services, Youth Services and Employer 

Services 

Few customers have received ITAs in Northern New Mexico since January 2003 (no new 

customers were issued ITAs in PY 03) due to previous overspending. However, the local area is 

still working with a fairly large number of customers who were put into training by the previous 

WIA provider. In October 2004, the local area had 603 adults and 175 dislocated workers with 

ITAs. As a result of funding limitation, Northern New Mexico is in the process of lowering its 

ITA cap from $7,000 to $3,000. 

Respondents universally agreed that there are sufficient numbers of local training providers and 

programs, as the local area has a well-developed system of public community colleges and state 

universities. The local area has 35 training providers offering 450 approved training programs 

on the ETPL. 

Currently, the local area contracts with seven different providers to provide WIA youth services. 

Each of these providers serves either a specific geographical area or a certain sub-population. 

For example, an organization called Eight Northern, operated by the eight northernmost Pueblo 

Indian tribes, provides services to Native American youth from those pueblos. 

Employer services are provided by regional managers from the WIA Adult and Dislocated 

Worker program provider, NMDOL staff and staff from TechConex. The WIA managers have 

developed several arrangements between the WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker program 

provider and employers to provide customized training, primarily for incumbent workers. One 

example of this is the Commercial Driver’s License training, which is provided for Santa Clara 

Pueblo employees by a local community college, and was brokered by SER staff. NMDOL staff 

provide other more traditional employer services such as helping employers to post jobs on the 

state’s job matching system. Another major set of employer services is provided by a New 

Mexico nonprofit organization called TechConex. TechConex recruits and assesses potential 

employees for local call centers, and then provides them with employability training and 

information on what to expect in a call center environment. 

Description of On-line Services 

The WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker program provider and One-Stop operator has its own 

internally developed customer website: http://www.onestopnnm.org. This website’s job-seeker 

page includes a link to the state’s virtual One-Stop registration website, locations of One-Stop 

access points, and information on the types of services available at local access points. For the 
B-11

two enhanced comprehensive centers operated by the WIA provider, there are pages with more 

detailed information about the specific services available from each co-located partner. The 

website also has a page with links to all of the major statewide One-Stop partners, including 

NMDOL. 

NMDOL, the state employment security agency, also has a customer focused website: 

http://www.dol.state.nm.us/. This website has pages allowing customers to file for UI, register 

for services, search for jobs, explore information about local labor markets, and learn about 

employment and training services for veterans. It also has a page with links to on-line job search 

resources and provides information on One-Stop access points operated by NMDOL. 

Rural One-Stop Partnerships 

The main partners common across all 10 counties are SER Jobs for Progress and NMDOL, the 

WIA and ES providers. Other state-wide partners, such as the Commission for the Blind and 

Vocational Rehabilitation, are not very active. The major CBO involved in the One-Stop system 

is the WIA Adult and Dislocated worker program provider, SER Jobs for Progress. Otherwise, 

most of the major providers are public agencies. Other than SER Jobs for Progress, TechConex 

is probably the most involved nonprofit with two staff co-located at two different access points. 

The Educational Opportunity Center (one staff co-located at the Santa Fe One-Stop one day a 

week) and the nonprofits co-located at the Farmington One-Stop center are the next most 

involved. There are also several CBOs that provide WIA youth services, but are not connected 

to the access system. No FBOs are involved in local One-Stop partnerships. Respondents said 

that one reason CBOs are not more involved is that they are typically small and often provide 

services in only one or two of the local area’s 10 counties. 

Currently, it appears that few referrals are made between One-Stop partners. Moreover, the local 

area has a very informal referral system. Although the state’s MIS has the ability to capture 

referrals, it is seldom used. One local provider argued for the need to create a formal referral 

process in order to increase the number of referrals. 

SER Jobs for Progress staff estimated that nearly all WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker 

customers are also enrolled in ES, although the reverse is not true. However, because they do 

not have access to each other’s screens on the state’s MIS, neither ES nor WIA staff really know 

how many customers are co-enrolled. 
 B-12

Financial Arrangements 

Nearly all costs for maintaining the local area’s One-Stop systems comes from the WIA Adult 

and Dislocated Worker provider and NMDOL. For example, the WIA Adult and Dislocated 

Worker program provider reported spending approximately $265,395 per year renting space at 

eight One-Stop access points. These access points are staffed by the WIA provider with 

approximately 15 FTEs, the majority working out of the two comprehensive centers which have 

approximately 4 WIA staff each. By comparison, NMDOL reported spending $678,837 in PY 

03 to cover all non-staffing costs for the eight One-Stop access points it operates. At the Santa 

Fe enhanced comprehensive center, NMDOL also pays $18/sq. foot for an office for its one colocated staff person. NMDOL said that it has approximately 35 FTEs working across the local 

area’s access points, with the majority in locations it operates. 

Some other partners also contribute much smaller amounts to the One-Stop system. For 

example, Job Corps pays approximately $7440 per year to rent two small offices at the Santa Fe 

enhanced comprehensive center. At the Farmington enhanced comprehensive center, all colocated partners negotiate and pay rent directly to the building owner, the local community 

college. 

Promising Practices 

Following are components that stand out as key features or promising practices of the local area: 

• Providing Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) training to help overcome 

transportation barriers—The WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker program provider 

facilitated a CDL training for employees of Santa Clara Pueblo. Once they attain 

their CDLs, the Pueblo will be able to use these employees to transport more 

Pueblo residents to services or employment. 

• TechConex—TechConex, a New Mexico nonprofit, recruits potential employees 

for rural call centers, assesses those employees and then provides them with 

employability training and information on what to expect in a call center 

environment. Local call center employers have been very pleased with these 

services, which have helped them to succeed in rural areas. 
B-13

NORTHWEST IOWA (REGIONS 3 AND 4) 

Northwest Iowa is technically comprised of two local workforce investment areas. However, it 

is basically operated as one unit by the WIA administrative entity, Northwest Iowa Planning and 

Development Commission (NWIPDC) and the local manager for Iowa Workforce Development 

(IWD), the state employment security agency. 

Local Area Demographics and Economy 

Northwest Iowa includes nine counties: Clay, Dickinson, Kossuth, Emmet, Palo Alto, Lyon, 

O’Brien, Osceola and Sioux counties. 

The local area extends over 5,210 square miles and has a population of 137,590. The area is not 

very densely populated, with only 26.41 people per square mile. Eight of nine of the area’s 

counties have decreased in population since 2000. The area has no metro counties and its largest 

city is Spencer, Iowa, with only 11,317 residents. The area is overwhelmingly White, although it 

does have a small (1.6%) but rapidly growing Hispanic population. The percentage of residents 

with high school diplomas varies by county, from about 80 to nearly 90 percent. In all but two 

counties in the region, the percentage of residents with college degrees is about 14 percent, well 

below the state-wide average of 21.2 percent. The average household median income for the 

entire area is $35,838, nearly $4,000 less than the state median income. 

In 2003, the largest industry in the region was manufacturing, which employed 11,957 or 19.6 

percent of all workers, followed closely by trade, which employed 19.5 percent of workers. The 

largest employers in the area include a major window manufacturer, a furniture manufacturer, a 

manufacturer of promotional products, a meat packing company, Wal-Mart and a vehicle 

manufacturer (motorcycles, personal watercraft and all-terrain vehicles). 

In 2004, Northwest Iowa had a labor force of 71,720 and an average annual unemployment rate 

of about 4.2 percent. 
 B-14

Local One-Stop System (see Exhibit B-3) 

Northwest Iowa has a network of eight One-Stop access points. These access points include an 

enhanced comprehensive center, a basic comprehensive center, an affiliate office, three satellites, 

and two computer-only access points. Access points are located an average of 27 miles apart in 

the largest city or town in eight of nine counties. The comprehensive centers, the affiliate office, 

and the one full-time satellite in Sioux Center are all open from 8-4:30 pm, Monday through 

Friday. Of the remaining two satellites, one is open Monday through Thursday, 8-4:30, while 

the other is staffed only two days a week, although the resource room is open five days a week. 

The Spencer enhanced comprehensive center is operated by a consortium, while all other access 

points are operated by the state employment security agency, Iowa Workforce Development 

(IWD). 

The area’s flagship One-Stop, the Spencer enhanced comprehensive center, is far larger than any 

of the other access points and consequently has the most co-located partners and on-site services. 

The Spencer center has full-time staff from NWIPDC (WIA provider), IWD (ES/UI), Vocational 

Rehabilitation and the Iowa Department of Human Services (TANF). In addition, staff from two 

local Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP) providers and Job Corps hold 

weekly hours on-site. A staff person from the state’s provider for the National Farmworker Jobs 

Program visits monthly. 

Other access points have fewer co-located partners and offer more limited services. For 

example, the Sheldon basic comprehensive center and Algona affiliate are regularly staffed only 

by NWIPDC and IWD who provide WIA, ES and limited TANF services. In Algona, WIA staff 

are on-site only one afternoon a week. The three satellites are staffed only by IWD. 

To understand Northwest Iowa’s One-Stop network, it is important to understand two items of 

Iowa history: the enactment of an employer surtax to fund rural offices in 1987 and the 

enactment of a law that requires an IWD office or electronic access to IWD services in each of 

the state’s 99 counties. First, because of declining Wagner-Peyser funding and a desire to ensure 

that employers and job-seekers in even the most rural areas had access to services, the state 

enacted a law charging employers up to a maximum of $7 per employee. These funds were to be 

used to support staffing and facility costs for IWD offices in rural areas. Although this funding 

is now supplied from state General Funds, it allows the state to staff and operate far more access 

points than would be possible with only Wagner-Peyser funds. 
Exhibit B-3 

B-15

!

U%

!(

!

U%

U%

U%

WIA Region 12 WIA Reg

WIA Regions 3 & 4

Sheldon,Iowa WorkforceDevelopment

Spencer, One-StopConsortium

Emmetsburg,Iowa WorkforcDevelopment

Estherville,Iowa WorkforceDevelopment

Rock Rapids, Mid Sioux Opportunity

Spirit Lake,Iowa State University Extension

Sioux Center,Iowa Workforce Development

Iowa

Sioux

Clay

Lyon

O'Brien

Palo Alto

Emmet

Osceola Dickinson

!

U%

!(

!

U%

U%

U%

WIA Region 12 WIA Reg

WIA Regions 3 & 4

Sheldon,Iowa WorkforceDevelopment

Spencer, One-StopConsortium

Emmetsburg,Iowa WorkforcDevelopment

Estherville,Iowa WorkforceDevelopment

Rock Rapids, Mid Sioux Opportunity

Spirit Lake,Iowa State University Extension

Sioux Center,Iowa Workforce Development

Iowa

Sioux

Clay

Lyon

O'Brien

Palo Alto

Emmet

Osceola Dickinson

.

Northwest Iowa Access Points

0 20 40 60 10 Miles

Access Points

U% Enhanced Comp

!( Basic Comp

*# Affiliate

U% Satellite

! Computer Only
 B-16

The other piece of Iowa history that relates to the local area’s One-Stop network is the passage of 

a law in 1996 requiring IWD to operate a physical office or provide computer access in each of 

the state’s 99 counties. As a result, the local IWD manager developed partnerships to locate such 

access points in all local area counties without IWD offices. Consequently, in 1999, when the 

local area began planning its One-Stop network, a network of IWD offices and access points in 

all counties was already in existence. One-Stop system planners, because of serious resource 

constraints, utilized most of these existing IWD locations as One-Stop access points since there 

were only enough resources to develop one new enhanced comprehensive center in Spencer. 

Some respondents in the local area support the current system of numerous small access points, 

because they feel that it is the best way to ensure that rural residents have access to at least basic 

workforce development services. However, other local respondents said that the current system 

may not be efficient because “in very rural areas like this, people are used to driving.” In 

addition, local managers stated that the area’s computer-only access points are not effective since 

they are so seldom used. 

Training Services, Youth Services and Employer 

Services 

Northwest Iowa basically provides all WIA training services via ITAs. In Program Year 2003, 

the area served 74 participants and issued an ITA to each of these customers. Currently, 

customers can receive ITAs for up to $500 of tuition per semester ($1,500 a year) as well as 

unlimited support services. These support services, to cover transportation and child care 

expenses, have sometimes totaled as high as $3,000 a year. However, because of limited 

funding, the local area is considering capping ITAs at $2,000 over two years, including support 

services. 

Local area respondents affirmed that there is no shortage of local training programs on the state’s 

Eligible Training provider List (ETPL). Although the local area has only three training providers 

located in the area., these providers have 88 training programs on the ETPL. Two of these 

providers, both community colleges, offer the bulk of these programs. 

NWIPDC has two staff people who provide WIA youth services in the area. Most of these 

services are provided at local school sites to make it easier for youth to access services. 

Although the state attempted to competitively select WIA youth providers for the area, NWIPDC 

was the only respondent to the RFP. The director of NWIPDC attributes this lack of response to 

the very low level of WIA youth allocations the area receives (only $64,292 in PY 03). 
B-17

Employer services in Northwest Iowa are provided by IWD and consist primarily of taking job 

orders, attempting to match local job seekers with those job orders, answering questions about 

tax credits, providing labor market information, and assisting employers with obtaining work 

permits for their employees, and coordination of job fairs. IWD also organizes employer 

councils in each region that meet over lunch and feature speakers of interest to employers—

particularly human resource professionals—and cover such as information as funding for 

incumbent worker training. IWD has a business services specialist based at the Spencer center 

who works with employers throughout the local area. 

Description of On-line Services 

The primary website for customers in Northwest Iowa is IWD’s website: 

http://www.iowaworkforce.org/. This website includes two sections with a number of sub-pages 

that are specific to the local area, one each for Region Three and Region Four. These local pages 

have extensive information and links for both employers and job seekers. Under job-seeker 

services, there is information on ES services, WIA, SCSEP and TANF. On the same page, jobseekers can file for unemployment and use the state’s online job matching system, Iowa Jobs. 

There are links to information on all of the area’s One-Stop access points and information on 

local partners. There is also advice on conducting job searches via the Internet, a calendar of 

workshops around the state, a local Frequently Asked Questions page, and a page with many 

government and employment-related links, including a link to the state’s labor market 

information website. For employers, the local IWD web pages have business services pages that 

includes an online business customer satisfaction survey, links to Iowa Jobs, America’s Job Bank 

and Smart Career Move, and a business directory where employers can list their businesses for 

free. 

Rural One-Stop Partnerships 

The primary One-Stop partners in the local area include NWIPDC (WIA), IWD (ES), Vocational 

Rehabilitation (VR) and the two local community colleges. Other less-involved public partners 

include the Iowa Department of Human Services (TANF) and the Iowa Department for the 

Blind. 

Community and faith-based organizations also play a role in the local area, although none have 

full-time staff co-located at One-Stop access points. For example, two non-profits, Experience 

Works and Upper Des Moines Opportunity, have a staff person who spends a few hours a week 

at the Spencer center to provide SCSEP services. In addition, Hope Haven, a faith-based 
 B-18

disability services provider, is a member of the Region 4 Youth Council and participated in WIA 

planning. 

Northwest Iowa also has a partnership Iowa State University Extension. ISU Extension, which 

provides agricultural advice, financial management advice, nutrition programs and 4-H, hosts 

two One-Stop access points in Northwest Iowa—a part-time office as well as a computer-only 

access point. The arrangement is mutually beneficial in that both agricultural extension and ES 

in Iowa are required to have an office or access point in every county. ISU Extension also 

provides trainers for a One-Stop workshop on financial management and the One-Stop system 

refers clients to ISU Extension for educational services, leadership activites, economic 

development, and employment opportunities. 

The local area has a formal partnership group involving all of these partners, but it meets 

infrequently. Instead, partners rely on regular informal communication to address most issues. 

The local area does not have a formal referral system, but relies on informal referrals. Basically, 

when staff determine that a customer needs additional services, they provide the customer with a 

number and name to call. Where partners are co-located at access points, staff will often walk a 

customer to the office or desk of a colleague from the appropriate agency. Even when not colocated, partners who often work together and know each other well will often inform each other 

of a referral by phone. 

The local area does not keep track of co-enrollment. 

Financial Arrangements 

The development and maintenance of the One-Stop system in Northwest Iowa has been 

financially supported only by IWD and NWIPDC. IWD provides the most support to the 

system, spending approximately $45,000 a year to lease space for five of the eight access points 

(IWD does not pay for space in one satellite and the two computer-only locations) and 

supporting approximately 11 FTE staff located at six access points. NWIPDC pays $33,780 to 

lease space in two access points ($31,200 for the Spencer center alone) and supports 

approximately 9 FTEs who provide workforce development services or administrative support 

for those services. The local area also spent $100,000 from their One-Stop Implementation grant 

on renovations to the Spencer center. 

These contributions, which were negotiated during the initial leasing of the buildings, are not 

perceived as “fair” by IWD and NWIPDC, but realistic because of budgetary limitations of 

partners, particularly CBOs and FBOs. 
B-19

Most of IWD’s funding to support the costs of rent and staff in the area comes from the state 

rather than Wagner-Peyser funding. Beginning in 1987, this state funding was generated by a 

surtax paid by employers. In 2004, this surtax was abolished, but the state has pledged to 

maintain this funding out of its General Fund in the short-run and eventually from interest on 

Reed Act revenues. Without this funding, the local IWD manager asserted she would probably 

only be able to pay for limited staffing at the main center in Spencer, while all other centers 

would have to close and their staff be laid off. 

Promising Practices 

Following are components that stand out as key features or promising practices of the local area: 

• IWD Employer Councils—These well-attended employer councils bring together 

local employers to network and share information on human resource issues. 

• Partnership with ISU Extension—Northwest Iowa is the only local area in Iowa 

and in our five study sites to have developed a significant partnership with their 

local agricultural extension agency. 
 B-20

REGION 4 OREGON 

Local Area Demographics and Economy 

The Region 4 Oregon local workforce investment area encompasses three counties: Linn, 

Benton, and Lincoln spanning 3,968 square miles. 

According to the 2000 Census, the local area has a population of 225,701, with a population 

density of 57 individuals per square mile. The population is over 90 percent white, but has a 

growing Latino population (5%). Benton County also has small but growing Asian American 

and Ukrainian populations. Corvallis, which has 50,800 residents, is the local area’s largest city. 

Corvallis is located in Benton County, the local area’s only metropolitan county. Lincoln 

County has many retirees and exceeds the state average for senior residents. Median household 

income ranges from $32,769 to $41,897 across the three counties. Between 82 to 94 percent of 

each of the county’s 25 and over population has graduated high school, and between 14 and 52 

percent of each county’s 25 and over population has a bachelor’s degree or higher. 

Key local industries in the area include timber, grass seed, other types of agriculture, fishing, 

manufacturing, and high tech. In the past few decades, the fishing and timber industries have 

steadily declined, although they remain important to the local area’s economy. Linn County, 

which once depended on the timber industry for many jobs, has begun to turn its attention to 

attracting retail industry and distribution headquarters with its availability of freeway-accessible 

shovel-ready sites. The area’s high tech industry has also declined. For example, Hewlett 

Packard, which once employed 6,000 workers, has reduced its staff by more than two-thirds. 

Oregon State University remains a major employer in Benton County. 

Region 4’s unemployment rate ranges from 3.5 percent in Benton County to 9.5 percent in Linn 

County, although unemployment is closer to 20 percent in rural remote towns of east Linn 

County. 
B-21

Local One-Stop System (See Exhibit B-4) 

The local area has 11 access points, four of which are enhanced comprehensive centers, one of 

which is an affiliate, and six of which are computer-only access points.1 These access points are 

located an average of 24 miles from each other in the largest cities and towns in the local area, 

with at least one enhanced comprehensive center in each county. The hours of operation for 

staffed access points are from 8:00-5:00, Monday through Friday. The resource room for the 

Benton County enhanced comprehensive center in Corvallis stays open until 7:00 pm on 

Mondays. Each of the enhanced comprehensive centers is run by an operator consortium, called 

the Facilities Operation Group (FOG), whose members include: Oregon Employment 

Department (ES), Community Services Consortium (CSC, a consortium of non-profits in the 

local area), Oregon Department of Human Services (TANF), Office of Vocational Rehabilitation 

Services (VR), and Linn Benton Community College or Oregon Coast Community College. 

These centers all have an Adult and Dislocated Worker program provider (either CSC or Linn 

Benton Community College), ES, TANF and at least one other partner on site. The differences 

in service delivery among these centers are primarily related to which of the area’s two 

partnering community colleges is on-site. 

The other two types of local access points are both operated by ES. The local area’s only 

affiliate access point has only ES staff present full-time, but a Veteran’s Affairs staff person and 

TANF Jobs Program representative both hold regular hours at the office. None of the computeronly access points have any staff. These “kiosk” access points are located in a variety of places: 

supermarkets, a mall, a community college and a university. 

The local area prioritizes comprehensive centers as the best service delivery vehicles for meeting 

the One-Stop vision and preventing staff from being stretched across too many small access 

points. They say that they do not have the staff or resources to provide itinerant access points to 

customers in remote areas, and that local residents are accustomed to traveling to the nearest hub 

city or town to receive services. Consequently, they prefer offering a complete range of services 

at high-traffic comprehensive access points. 

 

1

 The local area also has stand-alone computer kiosks in the lobbies of its comprehensive centers; however since 

these kiosks are in the same location as the local area’s comprehensive centers, they are not counted as separate 

access points. 
Exhibit B-4 

B-22

*#

%

% %

% U

U U

U

!

!

!

!

!

!

Oregon

Linn

Lincoln

Benton

LANE WORKFORCE PARTNERSHIP

COMMUNITY SERVICES CONSORTIUM

MID WILLAMETTE WORKFORCE NETWORK

EMPLOYMAND BUSI

Lincoln City,Price-n-Pride

Albany, Heritage Mall Kiosk

Lincoln City,Oregon EmploymentDepartment

Sweet Home, Safeway

Linn Benton Community College, Albany Campus

Linn Benton Community College, Lebanon Campus

Corvallis,Oregon State University

Linn, One-StopConsortium

Benton, One-StopConsortium

Lincoln, One-StopConsortium

East Linn, One-StopConsortium

*#

%

% %

% U

U U

U

!

!

!

!

!

!

Oregon

Linn

Lincoln

Benton

LANE WORKFORCE PARTNERSHIP

COMMUNITY SERVICES CONSORTIUM

MID WILLAMETTE WORKFORCE NETWORK

EMPLOYMAND BUSI

Lincoln City,Price-n-Pride

Albany, Heritage Mall Kiosk

Lincoln City,Oregon EmploymentDepartment

Sweet Home, Safeway

Linn Benton Community College, Albany Campus

Linn Benton Community College, Lebanon Campus

Corvallis,Oregon State University

Linn, One-StopConsortium

Benton, One-StopConsortium

Lincoln, One-StopConsortium

East Linn, One-StopConsortium

.

Region 4 Oregon Access Points

0 8 16 24 4 Miles

Access Points

U% Enhanced Comp

!( Basic Comp

*# Affiliate

U% Satellite

! Computer Only
B-23

 Increasingly, the local area is encouraging customers to access services remotely via the 

Internet. Although many rural customers do not have Internet access, staff encourage them to 

access the Internet at their local libraries or at the computer-only access point to view job 

openings and labor market information. 

The local area does not currently track use of One-Stop access points, but is in the process of 

developing one. 

Training Services, Youth Services and Employer 

Services 

The local area has been unable to provide many training services recently. For example, contract 

training and customized training are rarely provided because employers do not want to be 

required to hire trainees or provide training when so many other qualified job applicants are 

already available. In addition, the local area has issued only 36 WIA Adult or Dislocated 

Worker program customers received ITA training. 

There are several reasons why the local area has issued so few ITAs. One reason is due to the 

scarcity of local training providers and programs on the state’s Eligible Training Provider List 

(ETPL). The area has only nine providers and 62 training programs on the list. One reason for 

the scarcity of providers and programs is that, due to onerous reporting requirements, many 

trainers have chosen not to apply for inclusion of their programs on the ETPL. Another reason 

for the small number of ITAs is due to the length of many of the ETPL training programs. 

Often, these training programs are a year or more in length and rural customers typically lack the 

financial resources to support themselves during such an extended training. Finally, the small 

number of local eligible training providers covering such a large geographical area means that 

many ITA customers would have to travel long distances to receive training, something that 

many WIA customers are unable or unwilling to do. 

WIA Youth services in the local area are provided by CSC. The local area attempted to use a 

competitive process to select a WIA youth service provider, but only CSC responded to the RFP. 

Local area managers said that this was because the contract amount was not lucrative enough to 

interest out-of-area providers and CSC is the only local provider of this type. Despite this lack of 

competition, the local area feels that the quality of the youth services has not been compromised 

because CSC is well-qualified to provide these services. The only youth services that CSC has 

difficulty providing is mentoring due to difficulty in finding a sufficient number of adult 

mentors. 
 B-24

The local area provides a number of employer services at its enhanced comprehensive One Stop 

centers. For example, businesses can use the centers to recruit and pre-screen applicants and 

conduct interviews. Certain One-Stop partners provide fee for service criminal background 

checks and drug tests. One-Stop partners also offer first source hiring agreements, wage 

subsidies, and tax credits for businesses that qualify. Finally, Linn Benton Community College, 

provides assistance with business plan development through its Training and Business 

Development Center. 

Description of On-line Services 

The local One-Stop system has its own customer-focused website (working4 you.org). This 

website has information about each of the four comprehensive centers, including a listing of 

available partners and services available at each center, as well as addresses of partner agencies 

that are not co-located in the One Stop. In addition, this website is linked to the Oregon 

Employment Department’s website which includes labor market information System, an on-line 

job matching system and a system to register for ES. 

The local area does not have a tracking system to determine usage of on-line services. 

Rural One-Stop Partnerships 

The local area’s One Stop partnership consists of ES, TANF, CSC, VR, and Linn Benton 

Community College and Oregon Coast Community College. Faith-based organizations (FBOs) 

are not formally involved in this partnership, although One-Stop access points often refer 

customers to FBOs for services such as food and clothing. 

Local One-Stop partners use a variety of methods to communicate with each other. For example, 

monthly meetings of administrators and line staff are held at each comprehensive One-Stop 

center to promote cross-agency communication and collaboration. The chair of these meetings 

rotates; thus each partner agency has an opportunity to lead the meeting, and indirectly, of the 

One-Stop center. There is also extensive informal communication among co-located staff 

regarding services to customer and referrals. The referral process usually involves informal 

“walkovers” to other partner staff located in another part of a One-Stop center. 

Financial Arrangements 

A mixture of grants and partner support was used to develop the One-Stop system. For example, 

the local area was given a One-Stop Implementation Grant of $400,000 and an infrastructure 
B-25

grant of $87,000 to help cover initial development costs. One-Stop partners also contributed 

development funds, including $22,500 to develop the One-Stop website. 

Resource sharing budgets for the enhanced comprehensive centers total $1,080,383, and an 

additional $15,000 has been budgeted for marketing One-Stop services. Salaries account for the 

largest portion of this amount, at $492,068. Percent staffing FTE is used as the basis for cost 

allocation among partners. ES and CSC cover 42.7 percent and 31.3 percent of shared costs, 

respectively. The preferred method of support is through in-kind services. 

Promising Practices 

• Strong cross-agency collaboration and communication. The monthly Facilities 

Operation Group holds a monthly meeting among One Stop partners, in which 

administrators from each of the agencies discuss One Stop strategies and 

logistical issues. The One Stops also hold monthly meetings for front-line staff 

from all partner agencies to discuss operational issues and share information 

regarding the availability of partner agency services. 
 B-26

SOUTHEAST GEORGIA 

Local Area Demographics and Economy 

The Southeast Georgia local area is comprised of nine counties: Atkinson, Bacon, Berrien, 

Brantley, Charlton, Clinch, Coffee, Pierce, and Ware, a total of 4954 square miles. 

The total population of the local area in is 154,268 according to the 2000 Census. The 

population is 75 percent White, 20.7 percent African-American and 3.8 percent Hispanic. The 

bulk of the population is between the ages of 24 and 55. Between 56 and 73 percent of the 25 

and over population has attained a high school education or higher, and between 6 and 11 

percent has attained a bachelor’s degree or higher education. These educational attainment 

figures are significantly below the national average. 

Poverty is high in Southeast Georgia with approximately 20 percent of local area residents 

considered low income, compared to 13 percent for Georgia overall. Median household income 

in the area is only $28,597, compared to $42,433 for the state as a whole. 

The largest industries in Southeast Georgia include manufacturing, educational social and health 

services and retail. Manufacturing is by far the largest industry in Southeast Georgia, with the 

2000 Census reporting 21 percent of local employment in manufacturing. However, the local 

area has been hard-hit by trade-related manufacturing plant closures over the last few years. 

Some of the largest employers in the local area are the Satilla Hospital, the CXX Railroad, and 

the Wal-Mart Distribution Center. Agriculture has steadily become less important to the local 

area’s economy. 

Most counties in the local area had unemployment rates near four percent. By contrast, Atkinson 

County’s unemployment rate was 6.4 percent. 

Local One-Stop System (See Exhibit B-5) 

There are two access points in the local area—one enhanced comprehensive center located in 

Waycross and one affiliate office in Douglas. Both of the access points are operated by the 
B-27

Georgia Department of Labor, the state ES agency. The Waycross center has ES, WIA, 

Vocational Rehabilitation (VR), Experience Works (Senior Community Service Employment 

Program), and other staff from the state’s employment security agency (Georgia Department of 

Labor). ES staff provide most core and intensive services, while WIA staff assist customers with 

accessing training services. The Douglas affiliate only has ES and other Georgia Department of 

Labor staff on-site. These access points are located 46 miles from each other, a drive that takes a 

little over an hour. The hours at the Waycross center are 7:30 am to 5:30 pm on Monday; 7:30 

am to 4:30 pm on Tuesday through Friday. The hours in Douglas office are Monday through 

Wednesday and Friday from 8:00 am to 4:30 pm; Thursday from 8:00 am to 5:30 pm. 

The local philosophy on locating access points is, “If they need us, they will come, and they do 

come.” In other words, they believe that having a small number of access points providing most 

services is a better way to serve customers than having several smaller access points offering 

more limited services. 

Training Services, Youth Services and Employer 

Services 

ITAs are the primary type of training service available in the local area. For example, in PY 

2003, 220 Adult and Dislocated Worker program customers received ITAs, while only 62 

received on-the-job training (OJT). The local area provided no customized or contract training 

in PY 2003. ITAs are issued by E.T.C. Schools, while the Georgia Department of Labor 

provides OJT. Nearly all training services are provided by local public technical schools, largely 

because of Georgia’s state-run scholarship program HOPE, which covers most students’ tuition 

at these schools. 

WIA Youth services are provided by several youth providers who were selected through a 

competitive process. These providers are not located at One-Stop access points. These providers 

offer all of the 10 program elements required by WIA either directly or through partnerships with 

local school districts, community-based organizations or other partner agencies. 
Exhibit B-5 

B-28

U%

*#

Ware

Clinch

Charlton

Brantley

Bacon

Atkinson

Coffee

Pierce

Berrien AREA 18 - WAYCROSS AREA

AREA 19 - VALDOSTA AREA

AREA 16 - HEART OF GEORGIA

Georgia 

Florida

Douglas, Georgia Department of Labor

Waycross, Georgia Department of Labor

U%

*#

Ware

Clinch

Charlton

Brantley

Bacon

Atkinson

Coffee

Pierce

Berrien AREA 18 - WAYCROSS AREA

AREA 19 - VALDOSTA AREA

AREA 16 - HEART OF GEORGIA

Georgia 

Florida

Douglas, Georgia Department of Labor

Waycross, Georgia Department of Labor

.

Southeast Georgia Access Points

0 20 40 60 10 Miles 
B-29

ES staff provide numerous employer services at both local access points. One common 

employer service is assisting employers with posting jobs on the state’s on-line job matching 

system. At the Waycross enhanced comprehensive center, ES has an employer relations 

specialist whose primary function is to coordinate outreach to employers, job placement and 

employer-related training programs. 

Description of On-line Services 

The local area does not have its own website. Instead, the local area refers customers to the 

Georgia Department of Labor website: http://www.dol.state.ga.us/. This website links to several 

job and résumé resources, such as America's Job Bank (AJB), Monster.Com, local newspapers 

and Georgia’s own job-matching system. There are also links to information on UI filing, Tips 

for surviving a layoff, and an online job search handbook. The website seems very easy to use 

and navigate, and all of the information is presented clearly and in simple language. 

Rural One-Stop Partnerships 

Major partners in the local One-Stop system include: the Georgia Department of Labor (ES), 

E.T.C. Schools (WIA ITA provider), Vocational Rehabilitation (VR), the Department of 

Children and Family Services (TANF), Telamon Corporation (National Farmworker Jobs 

Program or NFJP), and the Southeast Georgia Regional Development Corporation (WIA 

Administrator). 

Although these partners primarily work independently, they maintain fairly healthy relationships 

with each other. These relationships are primarily maintained through informal communication 

between staff via the phone and e-mail. In addition, nearly all One-Stop partners are also 

members of the local TANF collaborative, which provides staff with another opportunity for 

communication. Because Rapid Response services are provided jointly by WIA and staff from 

the Georgia Department of Labor, provision of these services also ensures close coordination 

between partners. 

The level of referrals between partners varied by program. For example, although referrals 

between ES and WIA and ES and the NFJP were reported to be low, referrals between local 

technical schools and the WIA program were reported to be high. Several respondents said that 

the referral tracking system is very weak once referrals take place. 

There is little formal partnering with local faith-based organizations (FBOs) or community-based 

organizations (CBOs). However, many ES and WIA staff often make informal referrals to FBOs 
 B-30

or CBOs, particularly for support services. Many churches and other local FBOS are major local 

providers of support services. For example, the Ministerial Association, a group made up of 

representatives of many churches, offers low income residents assistance with food, gas bills, 

and utility bills. A few CBOs, such as Concerted Services, also serve as local WIA youth 

program providers are CBOs. 

Although the local area does not keep formal track of co-enrollment between WIA and ES, it is 

likely high, at least in Waycross. Approximately half of all Trade Adjustment Assistance 

participants are co-enrolled in WIA’s Dislocated Worker program (73 co-enrolled out of 153). 

The WIA administrator said that co-enrollment of TAA customers in WIA has improved 

coordination between the Georgia Department of Labor and the WIA Dislocated Worker 

program provider. 

Financial Arrangements 

Partners contribute almost no resources to the One-Stop centers. The Georgia Department of 

Labor covers nearly the entire cost of the two One-Stop access points. WIA did pay for the 

installation of a new telephone system and some furniture in the Waycross center, but does not 

pay rent for its space in the center. One-Stop partners indicated that they are afraid that they will 

end up losing money if they pool resources. 

Promising Practices 

Following are components that stand out as key features or promising practices of the local area: 

• Community outreach--Southeast Georgia has several providers who are very 

successful in reaching groups of hard-to-reach local residents such as out-ofschool youth and migrant and seasonal farmworkers. Staff from these provider 

conduct outreach by attending church functions, and spending time at local hangouts such as Wal-mart, and barber shops. 

• Employer services conducted by an employer relations specialist--employer 

services at the Waycross center are delivered in a very targeted, personalized way 

by an employer relations specialist. This has resulted in particularly strong 

relations between the center and employers. 
B-31

Exhibit B- 6 

Sources for Local Area Access Point Maps 

County boundary files: 2000 County and County Equivalent Areas, Cartographic Boundary 

Files, U.S. Census Bureau, Geography Division, Cartographic Products Management Branch, 

2001. http://www.census.gov/geo/www/cob/bdy_files.html 

Block Group boundary files: 2000 Census Block Groups, Cartographic Boundary Files, U.S. 

Census Bureau, Geography Division, Cartographic Products Management Branch, 2001. 

http://www.census.gov/geo/www/cob/bdy_files.html 

Native American area boundaries for New Mexico: 2000 American Indian Areas/Alaska 

Native Areas/Hawaiian Home Lands, Cartographic Boundary Files, U.S. Census Bureau, 

Geography Division, Cartographic Products Management Branch, 2001. 

http://www.census.gov/geo/www/cob/bdy_files.html 

LWIA boundary files: Created as described in the Guide to the Reader in Appendix C. 

Water Polygons: Provided by ESRI based on 2000 TIGER/Line Files®, U.S. Census Bureau, 

2000. http://www.esri.com/data/download/census2000_tigerline/index.html 

Access point data: Collected on site. Geocoded by street address with street shapefiles provided 

by ESRI based on 2000 TIGER/Line Files®, U.S. Census Bureau, 2000. 

http://www.esri.com/data/download/census2000_tigerline/index.html 

Population data by block group: American FactFinder, Census 2000 Summary File 1 and 

Census 2000 Summary File 3, U.S. Census Bureau, 2000. http://factfinder.census.gov 
This page is intentionally left blank. 

Insert blank page here when making double-sided copies.
C-1

Appendix C. NATIONAL MAPS and TABLES 

Guide to the Reader 

The national maps and tables included in this appendix describe the numbers, types, distribution, 

and change in workforce development access points throughout the country for three periods of 

time over a span of 25 years: 1979, 1999, and 2004. The maps and tables also include data on 

the number of access points in non-metropolitan counties and how this has changed from 1979 to 

2004. This Guide to the Reader describes how the maps and tables in this appendix and on the 

accompanying CD-ROM were created, provides information about the sources and limitations of 

the data, and offers a brief overview of the national maps and tables, including how to navigate 

the maps on the CD-ROM. 

Methodology and Data Sources:

This section describes the various data matching and cleaning methodologies utilized to create 

the maps and tables in this appendix and provides data source information. 

1. Access point data for each year were extracted from different sources. The 1979 

data were extracted from hard-copy lists that were dually entered by hand into 

electronic databases to screen for errors. The 1999 data were extracted from three 

separate Adobe PDF files using a custom-made script and were spot-checked for 

accuracy.1

 The 2004 data were extracted from an electronic database. Access 

point data sources for these years include: 

a. “Directory of Local Employment Security Offices,” U.S. Department 

of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, 1979. 

b. “Local Office Directory,” America’s Workforce Technology 

Solutions, 1999. 

 

1 The 1999 access point PDF files were first converted to rich text format, and then to plain-text for use in a 

custom program written in Perl script, a programming language. The script extracted the center name, zip code, 

and type into a tab-separated text file, which was then imported into Excel. 
Appendix C: National Maps and Tables 

Guide to the Reader 

C-2

c. America’s Service Locator (www.servicelocator.org), a collection of 

electronic tools operated via federal-state partnerships, 2004. 

2. The access points for each year were geocoded based on their ZIP codes. 

Geocoding is the process by which the mapping software adds a point to a map 

according to address information, in this case ZIP codes, and is the computerized 

equivalent of pushing pins into a wall map. The software places a point directly 

in the center of the ZIP code, so if two access points have the same ZIP code the 

points overlap. During the geocoding process, access point ZIP codes were 

matched to Census ZIP code data from the following source: 

a. 2000 ZIP Code Tabulation Areas (ZCTAs), Cartographic Boundary Files, 

U.S. Census Bureau, Geography Division, Cartographic Products 

Management Branch; compiled by Proximity (www.proximityone.com), 

2001. 

3. During the first round of geocoding, access point ZIP codes that did not match up 

to Census ZIP code data were automatically assigned to neighboring ZIP codes. 

Those that still did not match the ZCTA boundary file were manually corrected 

and assigned ZIP codes from the same city or a neighboring ZIP code that were in 

the ZCTA boundary file.2

 

4. Counties were classified as metropolitan or non-metropolitan using the Office of 

Management and Budget’s definitions3

 and classification from 1983 and 2003, 

and U.S. Geological Society (USGS) county boundary files. Data sources 

include: 

1979 maps and tables: 

a. 1980 County Boundaries of the United States, U.S. Geological Society 

(USGS), National Atlas of the United States, http://wwwatlas.usgs.gov/atlasftp.html. 

b. Metropolitan Areas defined by U.S. Census Bureau, Office of Management 

and Budget, 6/27/83, http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/metrocity/83mfips.txt. 

1999 and 2004 maps and tables: 

c. 2000 County Boundaries of the United States, U.S. Geological Society 

(USGS), National Atlas of the United States, http://wwwatlas.usgs.gov/atlasftp.html. 

 

2

 Many cities have multiple zip codes, some of which are not in the ZCTA boundary file. 

3

 In 2003, the Office of Management and Budget used 2000 Census data to define groups of counties as 

metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), classifying all counties as either metropolitan (part of an MSA) or nonmetropolitan. MSAs are made up of central counties that have at least one urbanized area with a population of 

50,000 or more, plus adjacent counties that have a high degree of social and economic integration with the core 

county based on a commuting threshold of 25 percent. 
Appendix C: National Maps and Tables 

Guide to the Reader 

C-3

d. Metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) defined by Office of Management and 

Budget, 6/6/2003, http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/metrocity/03mfips.txt. 

5. The Local Workforce Investment Area (LWIA) boundaries were created by 

merging U.S. Census County and New England County Subdivisions shape files 

based on LWIA configuration information for program year 2003. Data sources 

include: 

a. 2000 County and County Equivalent Areas, Cartographic Boundary 

Files, U.S. Census Bureau, Geography Division, Cartographic 

Products Management Branch, 2001. 

b. 2000 County Subdivisions for Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode 

Island, Cartographic Boundary Files, U.S. Census Bureau, Geography 

Division, Cartographic Products Management Branch, 2001. 

c. Employment and Training Administration, "LWIA Content for 

Program Year 2003," U.S. Department of Labor, 2003; updated by 

WIASRD data, a survey of local areas conducted at the beginning of 

PY04, and site visit data from this study. 

6. Once the data were assembled in the GIS software, we conducted a spatial join 

between the LWIA data and the access point data and a spatial join between the 

county data and the access point data. This produced two tables in Excel, one that 

assigned each access point to the appropriate LWIA and another that counted the 

number of access points in each county. 

7. Finally, we summarized the number of access points in Excel using PivotTable 

reports, by LWIAs and by metropolitan/non-metropolitan counties within each 

state. The summarized tables were then formatted for use in this appendix. The 

data in the tables were spot-checked for accuracy. 

Data Limitations 

There are several technical limitations to the national level analysis that are embedded in the 

maps and tables included in this appendix. These limitations should be kept in mind when 

reviewing any maps, tables, or analyses based on this data. First, due to limited resources, the 

mapping of LWIA boundaries was restricted to those that are county-based or New England 

town-based and did not include those in U.S. territories.4

 Thus, LWIAs that are based on cities, 

Native American reservations, towns, and townships are not included separately, but are folded 

into the counties in which they are located. For example, seven city-based LWIAs in Southern 

California (consisting of 30 cities) are all folded into the Los Angeles County LWIA. In 

addition, some LWIAs were completely omitted from the analysis, including those in Puerto 

 

4

 The only states where town-based LWIAs are used are Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. 
Appendix C: National Maps and Tables 

Guide to the Reader 

C-4

Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, or other island territories. Note that the same LWIA 

boundaries, were utilized for all three time periods for comparison purposes even though LWIAs 

did not exist in 1979 and have changed since 1999. 

A second set of data limitations is related to inconsistencies in the access point data, which 

ultimately makes the analysis less useful. One inconsistency is that the types of access points 

measured in each time period differ substantially. In 1979, access points types included in the 

data were Job Service, Unemployment Insurance (UI), and Work Incentive Program offices. By 

contrast, in our 1999 data, access points included Labor Exchange, UI, One-Stop, Job Training 

Partnership Act (JTPA), and other offices. By 2004, the data only show comprehensive and 

affiliate One-Stop offices. As a result of these differences, an analysis of changes in the number 

of access points may be due to the inclusion or exclusion of different types of access points in 

each of the three data sets, rather than real changes in the number of access points. For example, 

although our research has shown that many One-Stops are located in former JTPA offices (now 

WIA), JTPA offices were only included in the 1999 data, but Comprehensive Employment and 

Training Act (CETA)5

 offices were not in the 1979 data. 

Another challenge to the usefulness of access point data is due to the methods by which source 

data were collected. First, data collected by America’s Workforce Technology Solutions in 1999 

do not appear to be all inclusive. Although all states had JTPA office at the time, many did not 

report any. Thus, access point data for those states includes only ES or UI office data, not JTPA 

office data. Second, there were also serious challenges with the method used to collect the 2004 

data provided by America’s Service Locator (ASL). A comparison of the ASL data to data 

obtained from site visits conducted for this and prior evaluations revealed important 

inconsistencies in the types and numbers of access points across states. These inconsistencies 

appear to stem mainly from confusion on the part of states over what types of access points to 

report to ASL. For example, some states reported all of their access points (including computeronly sites), while other states only reported their comprehensive centers. Some other 

inconsistencies stem from a lack of clarity over which access points should be classified as a 

“comprehensive” and “affiliate” access point. For example, an “affiliate” access point in one 

state may be classified as a “comprehensive” access point in another. Thus, the ASL data are 

extremely inconsistent from state-to-state, and this causes major problems for comparing across 

states and time periods. Consequently, data provided in the body of the report on the number of 

access points in 2004 for the five local areas visited for the study is more accurate than this 

national data. 

 

5

 CETA was the federal legislative precursor to JTPA. 
Appendix C: National Maps and Tables 

Guide to the Reader 

C-5

Overview of Maps 

This appendix includes six different national maps that illustrate the types of access points for 

each year, as well as how the distribution of access points changed between 1979, 1999, and 

2004. Please note that the number of access points on the maps are not entirely consistent with 

the number of access points in the tables because some access points share ZIP codes. When this 

is the case, the symbols for the access points overlap because they are plotted in the center of the 

ZIP code. Please refer to the appropriate table in this appendix for the exact number of access 

points in a given state or LWIA. 

The following is a list of the maps included in this appendix: 

Exhibit C-2: Workforce Development Access Points by Type, 1979 

Exhibit C-3: Workforce Development Access Points by Type, 1999 

Exhibit C-4: Workforce Development Access Points by Type, 2004 

Exhibit C-5: Change in Workforce Development Access Points from 1979 to 1999 

Exhibit C-6: Change in Workforce Development Access Points from 1999 to 2004 

Exhibit C-7: Change in Workforce Development Access Points from 1979 to 2004 

How to Navigate the Maps 

In addition to this appendix, this report also includes a CD-ROM with all the national maps. The 

reason for this CD-ROM is to provide users with the ability to zoom in on any part of the 

national maps. This allows users to view the distribution and change in access points at both the 

state and LWIA levels. Below are instructions on how to navigate the maps on the CD-ROM. 

Please note that you must have Adobe Reader installed on your computer to navigate the maps. 

Steps: 

1. We recommend that you print out the legends for each map using a color printer 

to aid you in navigating through the separate maps (see Exhibit C-1). This will 

allow you to see the legend even when you have zoomed in. 

2. Open the desired national map from the “Appendix C” folder on the CD-ROM. 
Appendix C: National Maps and Tables 

Guide to the Reader 

C-6

3. Click the “Fit Page” button to fit the entire map on your screen. 

4. To zoom in on a particular state or local area: 

a. Click the “Zoom in Tool.” 

b. Then click and drag the magnifying glass over the area you want to 

zoom in on. 

c. When you let go of the mouse, the image will zoom in on the area you 

selected. 
Appendix C: National Maps and Tables 

Guide to the Reader 

C-7

d. Repeat the zoom function as needed. Each time you click, the zoom 

function will further magnify that section of the map. 

e. To return to the full page view, simply click on the “Fit Page” button 

(step 3 above). 

5. To print a particular state or local area: 

a. Zoom in on the area you want to print by following steps 3.a through 

3.d as needed. 

b. Click the “Snapshot Tool.” 

c. Then click and drag the cross-hairs over the area you want to print. 

d. Wait a moment while Adobe Reader takes a snapshot of the area. 

e. Open Microsoft Word (or similar program) and past the snapshot into 

the document. 

f. Save and print the Word document as needed. 

Note: It is important to zoom is as far as needed before taking a snapshot 

of the area and pasting it into a Word document. Enlarging the snapshot 

once it has been pasted into the Word document reduces the quality of the 

image. 

Overview of Tables 

The tables included in this appendix are a textual representation of the data in the maps. Please 

use these tables to find out exactly how many access points are in a given state, as some symbols 

on the maps overlap for access points with the same ZIP codes. 

The following is a list of the tables included in this appendix: 

Exhibit C-8: Total Number of Access Points by State in 1979, 1999, and 2004 

Exhibit C-9: Number of Access Points in Non-Metropolitan Counties by State in 

1979, 1999, and 2004 

Exhibit C-10: Total Number of Access Points by Access Point Type in 1979, 1999, and 2004 

Exhibit C-11: Number of Access Points by State and Access Point Type in 1979 

Exhibit C-12: Number of Access Points by State and Access Point Type in 1999 

Exhibit C-13: Number of Access Points by State and Access Point Type in 2004 
This page is intentionally left blank. 

Insert blank page here when making double-sided copies.
National Maps 
This page is intentionally left blank. 

Insert blank page here when making double-sided copies.
C-8

Exhibit C-1: 

Map Legends 

We recommend that you print out these legends using a color printer to aid you in navigating through the 

electronic (PDF) versions of the maps. 

All maps have the following legend components in common: 

Metro county 

State boundary 

LWIA boundary 

 Major Cities 

Population of 500,000 to 1,499,999 

Population greater than 1,500,000 

Legend for Exhibit C-2: 

Workforce Development Access Points by Type, 1979

Legend for Exhibit C-5: 

Change in Workforce Development Access Points 

from 1979 to 1999 

Access Point Types Year Access Point Existed

JS, UI, and WIN 1999 

JS only 1979 

JS and WIN 1979 and 1999 

JS and UI 

UI and WIN 

UI only 

WIN only 

 

Legend for Exhibit C-3: 

Workforce Development Access Points by Type, 1999 

Legend for Exhibit C-6: 

Change in Workforce Development Access Points 

from 1999 to 2004 

Access Point Types Year Access Point Existed

JTPA and LE 2004 

JTPA and UI 1999 

JTPA only 1999 and 2004 

JTPA, LE, and UI 

LE and UI 

LE only 

LE, UI, and Other 

OS only 

UI only 

Other 

Legend for Exhibit C-4: 

Workforce Development Access Points by Type, 2004 

Legend for Exhibit C-7: 

Change in Workforce Development Access Points 

from 1979 to 2004 

Access Point Types Year Access Point Existed

Affiliate 2004 

Comprehensive 1979 

1979 and 2004 
  













































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































 













































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































	








 






 




















 
























	









	













	











































	 	

















 



 













	

	

















	

	

	

	

	 	

	

	 	

	

	

	

		

		

	

	



	

 

 

















































 

 

















	























	

























 













	

	









	

	

	

	

	

		

























	























	















	



 





	



	









	















































	





















































	





 





	

	

	

	

	

		

	

	

	

	

	 	

	

	

	

	

		

	

	

		

	

	

	

	

	

	





















 

































 















	





















	































	































	

	

	

	

	

	

	

	

	



	



 

 



  	 

  

!	

"#






$%

& 

  '

%
 (
 %

	
 

 



































!























"#









,


#-

'
%#



'
./
'
-

. $$
0, 
 1%
0$ '
1
'&

'
%12
 

























	
 
 















 

!"

























































 





























 













 













 

 





 



 

  













 





  





 



 

 























 













 





 



























 



  



 









 

 





 







 

















 











































 

















 

  





 





































 

 

 



 



 

































 

 

 























































 



 

  















 





 

 









 























































 









 



 





















 

  

 







































 





















 









 



















 





































 







 





 

  







 





 



 











 



























 



  























 



 







 







 



 







  













 

 



 

















 



 



 











 







 







 









 

  

 



  



 



















  







 































 

 



















 

  













 











 















 











   



 

  















































 







 





 



















































 









 













 



 

 



 





 





 



 































































 





















 















 



 















 

















 





 







































 































































 

























































































 

















 

  





 

  





























 

 

















 





















 



 





























 







 













 







































 





































 

  

























































 

























 













 











 











 











 





















 









 











 





















 







 

















   



















 



 











  





 





























































































 

















































































 













































 

















































































 





















 















































 

 





 



















 













 









 

















































































 

 

 





 















 







 



 





 

























   





  







 









 

 

 





 







 







  





































  









 



















































































 









 

 

 



 

























 





































































	








 






 




















 



















	








	









,

!

!





*

+

,

,

"













!



+

"



"





!

!





*

*

+

+

, ,

"

"

*

*!

*!

*

*

**

++ +

+

++ +

+

+

+*

+*

++

++

+,

+,

+"

+"

+

+

+

+

+

++

,

,

,

,

,! ,!

,

,* ,

,*

,+

,+

,,

,,

,"

,"

"

"+",

"" ""

" "

""

"

"

"

"!

"!

"

"



















!

!





*

*



 

 





!



*

*

+

+

,

"

"



!

*

*

*

*!

*!

*

*

**

*,

*"

*"

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*!

*

*

** ***+

+

+

+

+!

+!

+

+++,

+,

+"

++

+

+

,

,

,*

,+

,+

,,

"

"

"

"

"

""!

"

"

"*

"*

"+

"+

",





















!

*,

*+

*+

* *

*!

+

+

+!

+!

+*

++

+,

+"

++ 

++

+

,

"+

",

""

"*

"+

"+

",

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!*

!+

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!*

!*

!+

!+

!,

!

!

!

!!

!*

!*

!+

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!*

!+

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!*

!*

!"

!

!

!*

!+

!+

!+

!++

!++!+,

!+"

!+"

!+!+ !+

!+

!+

!,

!,

!,

!,

!,

!,"!,

!,

!,

!,!

!,!

!, !,

!,*

!,*

!,+

!,+

!,,

!,

!,

!,

!,!

!,!

!,

!,

!,*

!,*

!,+

!"











!

!





! !

+

,

"

















!

!



*

+

!

!

! !

!

!!

!!





!

!

*

,

"

"







*

*

**

*+

*+

*,

*"

*"

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*!

*

**

**

*+

*+*,

*"

*"

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*!

*!

*+

*+

*"

*"

,

,

,

,

,

,

,!

,*

,*



	



 

 



  	 

  

!	

"#






$%

& 

  '

 

%
 (
 %

-	
	
	

	.
$	
 			$	/0		$	./		1	-		
	2 		1		$	2$#
			

	$	 			23
 





















































 

























 

















 







 





 



 

 





 









 















































 

























































  

 















  











































 



 

























 





 









 















 







 



 

 





 





     





 











  





























 







 







 







 

















































  



 













 

























 

 





  





 























 













 











 



















































 









































































 

















 

















  













 







 







 



















 





 



























 









 









 

 

  

 







































 

 

 



 











































 









































 









 













 





 

 



 





 





 



 













































































 











 



  





 





    

































 

 





  









 













 

















 















  





























    



  











 











 

 









 



 

  







































 







  











 

  





 



 

















 































 



 

















 



 

 

 





 







 

 

















 







 



 





  

   



  

  





 





  











 



















 

 

















 













 









































 













 











 







 







 





 











 









 



 





 



 















 











 

















 









 





 

 









































 







 































    

















 



































 

































 









 

 















 





 





























 

  





 









































 







 

 



 



 

































































 



  









  



























 





















 



  



 











 









 









 

















 















 























































































































































 













  

  





  















 



 



 

 







  

  













 

 











 

 

 









 











 









 













 











  





 



 





























 





















 



















 











 









































 



 

 









 



 





  





 



 

 



 

















 





 













   

  

















 











































 





























 









 







































 



















 















 

  







 









  



 







 







 



 





 















 





































 

  

























 



















  







 





 









 







































 







 























 





































 



 

 

  







 































































































































 





























 















































 













 



 



































 



 

 





























































 

  























 





































 



















 







 











 





 















































































































	








 






 




















 



















	








	









	













	

	















































	 	

















 



 













	

	

















	

	

	

	

	 	

	

	 	

	

	

	

		

		

	

	



	

 

 

















































 

 

















	

























	

























 













	

	









	

	

	

	

	

		

























	























	





 















	



 





	



	









	















































	































































	





 





	

	

	

	

	

		

	

	

	

	

	 	

	

	

	

	

		

	

	

	

	

	

	

	

	

	

	





















 



	

































 

















	



















	































	































	

	

	

	

	

	

	

	

	



	



 

 



  	 

  

!	

"#






$%

& 

  '

 

%
 (
 %

	
 

	







































 





 

















 



!"










'&(,
!*!-.'!,'
-
'/


 */! !'+'!'*'' 0
 













 















































































































































































































































































 









































































 























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































 

































 





 





























 











 

 

 





   





 





 

  













 





  

 

 



  

 









 

 



 



 



 









 





 



























 



  













 

 

 

 





 



 

 

 







 





 













 







 

















 



















  















 











 





 



 



 







 













 

















 

 

 















 

















 







 











 

  







 











 





 

 



  

 

  





 

























  





 

 









 

  







 



 



 

  

 











 

























 





















  











 















































   





 





 

  







 





 



 











 

 

























 



  























 

  







 







 



 







  











  

 



 













   





 









  



 







  

 





 

  

   



 









 

 



 





 

















 











 

 















 













 





 



 















 





  

  



 

 











 





















 









 







 



  













 

































 









 













  

 

 



 

 

 





 





 















 









 













 













 







 





 

 



















 







 





















  





 





  

















 









  















 









 



















 









 

 



































 















































 







 





  

 





 

 

























 

 

















 





 













 



 



























  







 

 









 



 



















 











 







 





  



 











    

 





 





 

















 















 

























 



 







 











 











 











  









  





 







   











 





















 



    













 

















 



 









  





























 















 











 





























 

























































 

 





























































 

 



 









































 



 





















 













 





 

















  























 



























 













 









 

















































































 

 





 













 







 



 





 



 

















   





  

















 

 







 







 





  





































  

 





























 



























































  

 





 























  





































































	








 






 




















 



















	








	









	













	

	















































	 	

















 



 













	

	

















	

	

	

	

	 	

	

	 	

	

	

	

		

		

	

	



	

 

 

















































 

 

















	

























	

























 













	

	









	

	

	

	

	

		

























	























	





 















	



 





	



	









	















































	































































	





 





	

	

	

	

	

		

	

	

	

	

	 	

	

	

	

	

		

	

	

	

	

	

	

	

	

	

	





















 



	

































 

















	





















	































	































	

	

	

	

	

	

	

	

	



	



 

 



  	 

  

!	

"#






$%

& 

  '

 

%
 (
 %





















































 













 









































 











	

 


	

	

 !"!
	
 !!!

+
$$,
(&$(-.(,
-%
##+%

%
/&#$%(/($'$$(&$/0
 























 







 



























 

















 











	

 


	

	

 !!!
	
"##$





 









 





















 



































 













 

 







   













 

   











 





  

 

 



 

 









 

 

 



 



 



 





 

 





 









 













 



 



  



 







 

 





 

 

 

 







 

















 







 

















 





















 















 





 



 





 



  

 





 













 

 

 









 

 

 















 















   



 











 

 





 

 











  

 



  

 

  













 















  





 

 



 



 

  







 



 



 

 

  









  























 





















  



 





 













 



























 

  



  





 

  







 





 



 











 



























 



  





 





 

 



 

 



 









 



 







 



 





  

 

















  



  





 

   

 







    







  

  













 

 



 





 

 













 









 













 



















 



 















 





 

  





 











 

















  









  





 



  













 

































 









 













 

 

  

 

 





 





 















 









 









 

 







 

  

 







 

 



















 

 



 





















 

 

 





  

















 







  



 





 

 









 



















 







  

 

















 













 















































 







   

  

 



 





















 

 

















 





  











 



  

 



















  





  

 













 

 





 







 





 



 







 







  

 











  



 

 

 





 

















 







 

 

 

























 



 







 





  











 

  





  









  



 







   









 





















 

     













 











 



 



 



































 















 









 















 











 

























 





























 

 



















































 



 

 



 













 

























 



 





















 













 





 















   





 

 













 







 











 





  

 

 









 

































 









































 

 







 

















 



  



 



 















   





 

















 

 







   









  





































 









 





























 









































  

  

 









 









  

































 



































 











 

 



 







 





 

 











 



   



 





 



 

  



 









 



 



















 



















 



































 

















 











 



  









































 



 























 





 





 

 



















  

 





  





 







   





 

















 

 

 





 







 

 







































 



  



 









  









 









 

 





 





 

 









 





 











  











 

























































































































 



 



 















 







  





 



 







 







  





 







 





 







 























 

  

 











 

  

 





  

 

















 



 



 

























 



















 









































 









 













 





 

 



 

 

 





 





 

















 











 





 



 

























 









  

  





 





   





























 

 





  









 







 



 

















 















  













  



  



  



  











 









  

  



   



 

  

















 



















  





 









 

  





 



  















 























   

 



 











 



 



 

 





 







  











 







 

 



 





 

   

  

  

 



  







 

 









 







 

 

 













 





 

  





 

































 













 











 





 







  



 











 









 



 





  















 





 



 

















 



  







 

 









 





























 







 













 















  

  

 











  





























 

 















 







 



 



 



 

 













 



 



  















 



 

  





 





























  







 







 

 



 



 

























 





 







 













 



 





 







 

 



























 







 











 



  

















 

 

 





 



 

 

 

 







 





 



 







  



 



































 







 





  





















































































 







 





 

  

  





 









 



 





 

 



  

 















  





  

 













 





 





 

















 











   



 

































  









  





 



















 

 











































  

   













  



  

 

 



 

 

 



 















 





 





 







 



  















 











































 





























  











 































 















 

  





 





 

  







 









  











 







 

 





 















 







 



























 

  



















 



 









 







  











 









 









 



















 





 







 









 











 







 



 

 













     







 





























 





























 







































 

 





































 





 

















 











































 

 





 

































 

 

 















 









































 































 

 





 



 



































 











 





  

  







































































































	








 






 




















 



















	








	









*

! 











*

*











!

!



!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!* !*

!

!













  



 ! !













*

*















 !

*

*

*!

*!

* *

*

* *

*

*

*

**

**

*

*

!

 *

 

 

 



!

!

























!















 

 

!

!













*







!





!











*

















!







  



!

!







 *

*



 





*

*

*

*

*

**









!

! 













*

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!*

!

!

! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!*

!

! ! 

! !!

!!

!*

!

!*

!

!

!

!

!*











!

















 

!

!













*





!

























































 *





  





*

*

*

*

*

* *

*

*

*

*

* *

*

*

*

*

**

*

*

*!

*

*

*

*

*

*

*









!

!









 



* 

 



!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!





! 

!







!







*





















*

















!

!











 *















!

!













*

*

*

*

*!

*!

*

*

*



	



 

 



  	 

  

!	

"#






$%

& 

  '

 

%
 (
 %

+		"	
"	,)	
'	 
"		)	-.		)	,-	#	
&&	+	#		#/'		&"	#	)	/)"(			""	)	'			"/0




















 







 

























 

















 











	

 


	

	

 !
!
	
"##$

















































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































 













 













 

















































































































































































































































































 





























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































 



































 











 

 



 







 





 

 











 



   



 





 



 

  



 









 



 



















 



















 



































 

















 











 



  









































 



 























 





 





 

 



















  

 





  





 







   





 

















 

 

 





 







 

 







































 



  



 









  









 









 

 





 





 

 









 





 











  











 

























































































































 



 



 















 







  





 



 







 







  





 







 





 







 























 

  

 











 

  

 





  

 

















 



 



 

























 



















 









































 









 













 





 

 



 

 

 





 





 

















 











 





 



 

























 









  

  





 





   





























 

 





  









 







 



 

















 















  













  



  



  



  











 









  

  



   



 

  

















 



















  





 









 

  





 



  















 























   

 



 











 



 



 

 





 







  











 







 

 



 





 

   

  

  

 



  







 

 









 







 

 

 













 





 

  





 

































 













 











 





 







  



 











 









 



 





  















 





 



 

















 



  







 

 









 





























 







 













 















  

  

 











  





























 

 















 







 



 



 



 

 













 



 



  















 



 

  





 





























  







 







 

 



 



 

























 





 







 













 



 





 







 

 



























 







 











 



  

















 

 

 





 



 

 

 

 







 





 



 







  



 



































 







 





  





















































































 







 





 

  

  





 









 



 





 

 



  

 















  





  

 













 





 





 

















 











   



 

































  









  





 



















 

 











































  

   













  



  

 

 



 

 

 



 















 





 





 







 



  















 











































 





























  











 































 















 

  





 





 

  







 









  











 







 

 





 















 







 



























 

  



















 



 









 







  











 









 









 



















 





 







 









 











 







 



 

 













     







 





























 





























 







































 

 





































 





 

















 











































 

 





 

































 

 

 















 









































 































 

 





 



 



































 











 





  

  

















































































 





















	








 






 




















 



















	








	









































































 

















 



 









































 



 



















 

 

















































 

 





































































 



























































































 



















 









































































































































 

























 



















































 





































 



























































































































	



 

 



  	 

  

!	

"#






$%

& 

  '

 

%
 (
 %

+		


#
,		*
	(
#		
		
*	
-.
	

*	
,		-
 
''	%
+
 

	
 /(

	%'
 
*	
/	*)

	

	
*	
(


/0
This page is intentionally left blank. 

Insert blank page here when making double-sided copies.
National Tables 
This page is intentionally left blank. 

Insert blank page here when making double-sided copies.
C-15

Exhibit C-8: 

Total Number of Access Points by State in 1979, 1999, and 20041

Change in Number of 

Access Points 

from 1979 to 2004 

1979 1999 2004 Number 

Percent 

Change 

Nation 3,454 2,505 3,542 88 2.5% 

Alabama 61 69 100 39 63.9% 

Alaska 20 22 22 2 10.0% 

Arizona 54 94 151 97 179.6% 

Arkansas 74 29 58 -16 -21.6% 

California 295 111 322 27 9.2% 

Colorado 43 46 66 23 53.5% 

Connecticut 39 18 15 -24 -61.5% 

Delaware 9 5 4 -5 -55.6% 

District of Columbia 1 3 19 18 1800.0% 

Florida 89 105 115 26 29.2% 

Georgia 52 53 76 24 46.2% 

Hawaii 20 17 14 -6 -30.0% 

Idaho 27 23 30 3 11.1% 

Illinois 123 50 97 -26 -21.1% 

Indiana 59 54 103 44 74.6% 

Iowa 98 70 72 -26 -26.5% 

Kansas 67 23 28 -39 -58.2% 

Kentucky 129 28 184 55 42.6% 

Louisiana 31 40 85 54 174.2% 

Maine 23 20 23 0 0.0% 

Maryland 39 40 39 0 0.0% 

Massachusetts 122 36 39 -83 -68.0% 

Michigan 166 123 100 -66 -39.8% 

Minnesota 124 45 72 -52 -41.9% 

 

1

 Please see the “Guide to the Reader” for this Appendix for source information, an explanation of the 

methodology used to collect the data, and data limitations. 
Exhibit C-8: 

Number of Access Points by State in 1979, 1999, and 2004 

C-16

Change in Number of 

Access Points 

from 1979 to 2004 

1979 1999 2004 Number 

Percent 

Change 

Mississippi 57 58 64 7 12.3% 

Missouri 93 45 95 2 2.2% 

Montana 32 23 23 -9 -28.1% 

Nebraska 38 35 20 -18 -47.4% 

Nevada 23 15 10 -13 -56.5% 

New Hampshire 11 13 13 2 18.2% 

New Jersey 90 71 49 -41 -45.6% 

New Mexico 43 28 20 -23 -53.5% 

New York 184 84 173 -11 -6.0% 

North Carolina 55 88 163 108 196.4% 

North Dakota 18 20 16 -2 -11.1% 

Ohio 137 56 110 -27 -19.7% 

Oklahoma 52 40 40 -12 -23.1% 

Oregon 52 46 45 -7 -13.5% 

Pennsylvania 109 80 85 -24 -22.0% 

Rhode Island 27 9 6 -21 -77.8% 

South Carolina 48 42 65 17 35.4% 

South Dakota 23 20 27 4 17.4% 

Tennessee 90 87 100 10 11.1% 

Texas 135 186 286 151 111.9% 

Utah 26 47 42 16 61.5% 

Vermont 16 11 12 -4 -25.0% 

Virginia 82 47 71 -11 -13.4% 

Washington 39 100 69 30 76.9% 

West Virginia 69 41 7 -62 -89.9% 

Wisconsin 124 77 78 -46 -37.1% 

Wyoming 16 12 19 3 18.8% 
C-17

Exhibit C-9: 

Number of Access Points in Non-Metropolitan Counties by State in 1979, 1999, and 200

19792 1999 2004 

Total No. of Access Points

No. of Access Points in 

Non-Metro Counties

Pct. of Access Points in 

Non-Metro Counties

Total No. of Access Points

No. of Access Points in 

Non-Metro Counties

Pct. of Access Points in 

Non-Metro Counties

Non-Metro population as 

percent of total population

Total No. of Access Points

No. of Access Points in 

Non-Metro Counties

Pct. of Access Points in 

Non-Metro Counties

Non-Metro population as 

percent of total population 

Nation 3,454 1,472 42.6% 2,505 1,113 44.4% 17.3% 3,542 1,605 45.3% 17.3% Alabama 61 29 47.5% 69 38 55.1% 29.5% 100 55 55.0% 29.5% Alaska 20 17 85.0% 22 16 72.7% 35.8% 22 16 72.7% 35.8% Arizona 54 30 55.6% 94 41 43.6% 11.5% 151 75 49.7% 11.5% Arkansas 74 53 71.6% 29 19 65.5% 43.3% 58 41 70.7% 43.3% California 295 35 11.9% 111 15 13.5% 2.4% 322 32 9.9% 2.4% Colorado 43 28 65.1% 46 22 47.8% 14.5% 66 36 54.5% 14.5% Connecticut 39 n/a3 n/a 18 3 16.7% 8.6% 15 3 20.0% 8.6% 1 Please see the “Guide to the Reader” for this Appendix for source information, an explanation of the methodology used to collect the 2 Non-metropolitan population as a percent of total population is not readily available for 1979. 3 States that have no non-metropolitan counties are identified with “n/a” in this table (e.g., the District of Columbia, New Jersey, and R
Exhibit C-9: 

Number of Access Points in Non-Metropolitan Counties by State in 1979, 1999, and 2004 

C-18

19792 1999 2004 

Total No. of Access Points

No. of Access Points in 

Non-Metro Counties

Pct. of Access Points in 

Non-Metro Counties

Total No. of Access Points

No. of Access Points in 

Non-Metro Counties

Pct. of Access Points in 

Non-Metro Counties

Non-Metro population as 

percent of total population

Total No. of Access Points

No. of Access Points in 

Non-Metro Counties

Pct. of Access Points in 

Non-Metro Counties

Non-Metro population as 

percent of total population 

Delaware 9 4 44.4% 5 1 20.0% 20.0% 4 1 25.0% 20.0% District of Columbia 1 n/a n/a 3 n/a n/a 0.0% 19 n/a n/a 0.0% Florida 89 14 15.7% 105 23 21.9% 6.3% 115 26 22.6% 6.3% Georgia 52 29 55.8% 53 24 45.3% 20.3% 76 29 38.2% 20.3% Hawaii 20 13 65.0% 17 12 70.6% 27.7% 14 7 50.0% 27.7% Idaho 27 26 96.3% 23 15 65.2% 37.6% 30 17 56.7% 37.6% Illinois 123 41 33.3% 50 13 26.0% 13.7% 97 38 39.2% 13.7% Indiana 59 24 40.7% 54 23 42.6% 22.9% 103 43 41.7% 22.9% Iowa 98 68 69.4% 70 54 77.1% 46.6% 72 56 77.8% 46.6% Kansas 67 44 65.7% 23 15 65.2% 38.8% 28 20 71.4% 38.8% Kentucky 129 87 67.4% 28 15 53.6% 43.8% 184 142 77.2% 43.8% Louisiana 31 13 41.9% 40 17 42.5% 25.2% 85 40 47.1% 25.2% Maine 23 15 65.2% 20 12 60.0% 42.2% 23 16 69.6% 42.2% Maryland 39 11 28.2% 40 7 17.5% 5.2% 39 8 20.5% 5.2% 
Number of Access Points in Non-Metropolitan Counties by Sta

C-19

19792 1999 2004 

Total No. of Access Points

No. of Access Points in 

Non-Metro Counties

Pct. of Access Points in 

Non-Metro Counties

Total No. of Access Points

No. of Access Points in 

Non-Metro Counties

Pct. of Access Points in 

Non-Metro Counties

Non-Metro population as 

percent of total population

Total No. of Access Points

No. of Access Points in 

Non-Metro Counties

Pct. of Access Points in 

Non-Metro Counties

Non-Metro population as 

percent of total population 

Massachusetts 122 6 4.9% 36 0 0.0%4 0.4% 39 0 0.0%4 0.4% Michigan 166 74 44.6% 123 59 48.0% 18.5% 100 46 46.0% 18.5% Minnesota 124 53 42.7% 45 29 64.4% 28.2% 72 29 40.3% 28.2% Mississippi 57 45 78.9% 58 42 72.4% 58.0% 64 49 76.6% 58.0% Missouri 93 37 39.8% 45 25 55.6% 26.9% 95 67 70.5% 26.9% Montana 32 27 84.4% 23 20 87.0% 65.1% 23 20 87.0% 65.1% Nebraska 38 25 65.8% 35 28 80.0% 44.9% 20 18 90.0% 44.9% Nevada 23 7 30.4% 15 4 26.7% 11.4% 10 4 40.0% 11.4% New Hampshire 11 5 45.5% 13 8 61.5% 37.7% 13 8 61.5% 37.7% New Jersey 90 n/a n/a 71 n/a n/a 0.0% 49 n/a n/a 0.0% New Mexico 43 31 72.1% 28 21 75.0% 36.9% 20 14 70.0% 36.9% New York 184 31 16.8% 84 23 27.4% 8.2% 173 47 27.2% 8.2% North Carolina 55 34 61.8% 88 48 54.5% 31.9% 163 95 58.3% 31.9% North Dakota 18 11 61.1% 20 15 75.0% 55.8% 16 13 81.3% 55.8% 4 Massachusetts had two non-metropolitan counties in 1999 and 2004, however, no access points were located in these counties. 
Exhibit C-9: 

Number of Access Points in Non-Metropolitan Counties by State in 1979, 1999, and 2004 

C-20

19792 1999 2004 

Total No. of Access Points

No. of Access Points in 

Non-Metro Counties

Pct. of Access Points in 

Non-Metro Counties

Total No. of Access Points

No. of Access Points in 

Non-Metro Counties

Pct. of Access Points in 

Non-Metro Counties

Non-Metro population as 

percent of total population

Total No. of Access Points

No. of Access Points in 

Non-Metro Counties

Pct. of Access Points in 

Non-Metro Counties

Non-Metro population as 

percent of total population 

Ohio 137 56 40.9% 56 23 41.1% 19.5% 110 49 44.5% 19.5% Oklahoma 52 28 53.8% 40 25 62.5% 37.5% 40 25 62.5% 37.5% Oregon 52 28 53.8% 46 26 56.5% 23.5% 45 23 51.1% 23.5% Pennsylvania 109 32 29.4% 80 31 38.8% 16.0% 85 38 44.7% 16.0% Rhode Island 27 n/a n/a 9 n/a n/a 0.0% 6 n/a n/a 0.0% South Carolina 48 25 52.1% 42 19 45.2% 25.2% 65 31 47.7% 25.2% South Dakota 23 21 91.3% 20 18 90.0% 58.6% 27 23 85.2% 58.6% Tennessee 90 50 55.6% 87 45 51.7% 27.5% 100 50 50.0% 27.5% Texas 135 42 31.1% 186 61 32.8% 13.9% 286 115 40.2% 13.9% Utah 26 18 69.2% 47 22 46.8% 11.8% 42 19 45.2% 11.8% Vermont 16 14 87.5% 11 10 90.9% 67.3% 12 10 83.3% 67.3% Virginia 82 33 40.2% 47 17 36.2% 15.1% 71 24 33.8% 15.1% Washington 39 16 41.0% 100 27 27.0% 12.6% 69 23 33.3% 12.6% West Virginia 69 52 75.4% 41 27 65.9% 45.6% 7 2 28.6% 45.6% Wisconsin 124 75 60.5% 77 45 58.4% 27.9% 78 45 57.7% 27.9% Wyoming 16 15 93.8% 12 10 83.3% 70.0% 19 17 89.5% 70.0% 
C-21

Exhibit C-10: 

Total Number of Access Points by Access Point Type in 1979, 1999, and 20041

Year Access Point Type2

Number of 

Access Points 

JS 2,560 

UI 1,902 

1979 

Total Access Points = 3,4543

WIN 1,176 

LE 1,927 

UI 1,320 

OS 379 

JTPA 187 

1999 

Total Access Points = 2,5052

Other 12 

2004 Comprehensive 1,936 

Total Access Points = 3,542 Affiliate 1,606 

 

 

1

 Please see the “Guide to the Reader” for this Appendix for source information, an explanation of the 

methodology used to collect the data, and data limitations. 

2

 LE = Labor Exchange; JS = Job Service; JTPA = Job Training Partnership Act; OS = One Stop; 

UI = Unemployment Insurance; WIN = Work Incentive Program 

3

 For 1979 and 1999, the total number of access points does not equal the sum of the number of access points for 

each access point type because many access points are classified as two or more access point types. 
C-22

Exhibit C-11: 

Number of Access Points by State and Access Point Type in 19791

Access Point Type2

Total Access 

Points JS UI WIN 

Nation 3,454 2,560 1,902 1,176 

Alabama 61 44 17 37 

Alaska 20 17 9 2 

Arizona 54 47 26 5 

Arkansas 74 64 38 10 

California 295 276 140 100 

Colorado 43 43 42 25 

Connecticut 39 21 22 14 

Delaware 9 6 3 5 

District of Columbia 1 1 1 1 

Florida 89 48 40 24 

Georgia 52 34 36 32 

Hawaii 20 11 8 7 

Idaho 27 27 27 13 

Illinois 123 55 58 11 

Indiana 59 57 55 44 

Iowa 98 78 39 9 

Kansas 67 53 6 8 

Kentucky 129 99 29 25 

Louisiana 31 28 26 7 

Maine 23 22 15 7 

Maryland 39 24 24 14 

Massachusetts 122 42 40 41 

Michigan 166 110 82 55 

Minnesota 124 83 6 35 

Mississippi 57 39 18 32 

 

1

 Please see the “Guide to the Reader” for this Appendix for source information, an explanation of the 

methodology used to collect the data, and data limitations. 

2

 JS = Job Service; UI = Unemployment Insurance; WIN = Work Incentive Program 
Exhibit C-11: 

Number of Access Points by State and Access Point Type in 1979 

C-23

Access Point Type2

Total Access 

Points JS UI WIN 

Missouri 93 80 55 24 

Montana 32 24 24 23 

Nebraska 38 26 7 5 

Nevada 23 19 16 7 

New Hampshire 11 11 11 0 

New Jersey 90 50 40 13 

New Mexico 43 38 33 4 

New York 184 106 103 21 

North Carolina 55 55 41 55 

North Dakota 18 18 15 15 

Ohio 137 111 107 120 

Oklahoma 52 46 44 6 

Oregon 52 47 42 27 

Pennsylvania 109 93 100 30 

Rhode Island 27 10 17 6 

South Carolina 48 38 32 30 

South Dakota 23 22 22 21 

Tennessee 90 48 41 40 

Texas 135 122 120 13 

Utah 26 26 26 15 

Vermont 16 13 13 13 

Virginia 82 58 39 40 

Washington 39 39 39 17 

West Virginia 69 43 26 0 

Wisconsin 124 72 66 52 

Wyoming 16 16 16 16 
C-24

Exhibit C-12: 

Number of Access Points by State and Access Point Type in 19991

Access Point Type2 Total 

Access 

Points LE UI OS JTPA Other 

Nation 2,505 1,927 1,320 379 187 12 

Alabama 69 63 44 0 1 0 

Alaska 22 19 11 0 0 6 

Arizona 94 35 36 23 0 0 

Arkansas 29 29 29 0 0 0 

California 111 111 0 0 0 0 

Colorado 46 35 0 11 3 0 

Connecticut 18 0 0 18 0 0 

Delaware 5 5 5 0 0 0 

District of Columbia 3 2 2 1 0 0 

Florida 105 99 99 6 0 0 

Georgia 53 53 53 0 0 0 

Hawaii 17 9 8 0 0 0 

Idaho 23 0 0 23 0 0 

Illinois 50 12 12 38 0 0 

Indiana 54 24 4 27 20 0 

Iowa 70 66 66 4 0 0 

Kansas 23 23 0 0 0 0 

Kentucky 28 28 28 0 0 0 

Louisiana 40 38 37 0 0 0 

Maine 20 17 3 0 11 0 

Maryland 40 29 27 10 0 0 

Massachusetts 36 8 3 28 0 0 

Michigan 123 106 46 0 106 0 

Minnesota 45 2 1 43 0 0 

Mississippi 58 37 20 1 0 0 

 

1

 Please see the “Guide to the Reader” for this Appendix for source information, an explanation of the 

methodology used to collect the data, and data limitations. 

2

 LE = Labor Exchange; JTPA = Job Training Partnership Act; OS = One Stop; UI = Unemployment Insurance 
Exhibit C-12: 

Number of Access Points by State and Access Point Type in 1999 

C-25

Access Point Type2 Total 

Access 

Points LE UI OS JTPA Other 

Missouri 45 17 3 25 0 0 

Montana 23 23 0 0 0 0 

Nebraska 35 20 9 0 6 0 

Nevada 15 14 12 0 0 1 

New Hampshire 13 13 12 0 0 0 

New Jersey 71 40 34 0 0 0 

New Mexico 28 26 26 0 24 0 

New York 84 80 26 0 0 0 

North Carolina 88 88 85 0 0 0 

North Dakota 20 20 16 0 13 0 

Ohio 56 55 55 0 0 1 

Oklahoma 40 40 40 0 0 0 

Oregon 46 46 46 0 0 0 

Pennsylvania 80 76 76 0 0 0 

Rhode Island 9 3 2 4 2 0 

South Carolina 42 37 37 0 0 0 

South Dakota 20 20 19 0 0 0 

Tennessee 87 84 81 0 0 2 

Texas 186 138 50 44 0 0 

Utah 47 47 47 0 0 0 

Vermont 11 0 0 10 0 1 

Virginia 47 45 42 0 0 0 

Washington 100 97 35 3 0 0 

West Virginia 41 19 21 0 0 1 

Wisconsin 77 17 0 60 1 0 

Wyoming 12 12 12 0 0 0 
C-26

Exhibit C-13: 

Number of Access Points by State and Access Point Type in 20041

Access Point Type Total 

Access Points Comprehensive Affiliate 

Nation 3,542 1,936 1,606 

Alabama 100 77 23 

Alaska 22 6 16 

Arizona 151 20 131 

Arkansas 58 22 36 

California 322 158 164 

Colorado 66 66 0 

Connecticut 15 4 11 

Delaware 4 4 0 

District of Columbia 19 3 16 

Florida 115 88 27 

Georgia 76 45 31 

Hawaii 14 12 2 

Idaho 30 6 24 

Illinois 97 45 52 

Indiana 103 27 76 

Iowa 72 16 56 

Kansas 28 28 0 

Kentucky 184 31 153 

Louisiana 85 19 66 

Maine 23 23 0 

Maryland 39 34 5 

Massachusetts 39 20 19 

Michigan 100 100 0 

Minnesota 72 50 22 

Mississippi 64 49 15 

Missouri 95 30 65 

 

1

 Please see the “Guide to the Reader” for this Appendix for source information, an explanation of the 

methodology used to collect the data, and data limitations. 
Exhibit C-13: 

Number of Access Points by State and Access Point Type in 2004 

C-27

Access Point Type Total 

Access Points Comprehensive Affiliate 

Montana 23 22 1 

Nebraska 20 20 0 

Nevada 10 4 6 

New Hampshire 13 9 4 

New Jersey 49 46 3 

New Mexico 20 20 0 

New York 173 67 106 

North Carolina 163 69 94 

North Dakota 16 14 2 

Ohio 110 92 18 

Oklahoma 40 40 0 

Oregon 45 33 12 

Pennsylvania 85 78 7 

Rhode Island 6 2 4 

South Carolina 65 16 49 

South Dakota 27 17 10 

Tennessee 100 17 83 

Texas 286 163 123 

Utah 42 36 6 

Vermont 12 12 0 

Virginia 71 46 25 

Washington 69 34 35 

West Virginia 7 7 0 

Wisconsin 78 70 8 

Wyoming 19 19 0 
This page is intentionally left blank. 

Insert blank page here when making double-sided copies.
D-1 Social Policy Research Associates

APPENDIX D 

 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 

SUMMARY

This annotated bibliography has been developed as a companion to the evaluation 

report, “Workforce Development in Rural Areas: Changes in Access, Service Delivery 

and Partnerships.” It includes summaries of articles, reports and evaluations related to 

workforce development in rural areas, and is divided into several sections related to this 

topic. Because many of the topics included in this bibliography are quite broad, the 

publications selected include only a sampling of the most recent and accessible 

publications in each topic area, the majority of which are available on the Internet. 

The first section of the bibliography, rural America, contains a selection of recent 

articles and briefs providing background demographic and economic information on 

rural areas. For example, these reports show that rural residents have lower earnings, 

are more likely to be poor, have less education, are more likely to be laid off from their 

jobs. The reports also show that the population of rural America is changing, with 

Latinos now the fastest growing demographic group in rural areas. 

Despite the economic growth of the 1990s, which resulted in rural poverty 

declining to its lowest level since the early 1960s, several reports indicate that the 

disparity between urban and rural poverty rates has continued and even grown in some 

cases. This growing disparity has been accompanied by an ongoing decline in 

manufacturing, agriculture and extraction industries and an increase in service and 

retail trade industries in many rural areas. 

The reports also point out that there is also great variation in rural America in 

terms of poverty rates and wage levels, with some regions faring much worse than 

others. For example, rural areas in the South and West have the highest poverty rates. 

The rural south also has the largest number of counties with sizeable populations of 

low-wage workers and high, persistent poverty rates. 

The second section of the bibliography includes a sampling of recent reports on 

service delivery in rural areas. Many of these reports were written to evaluate or assist 

in the implementation of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) and welfare reform in 

rural areas. 
Appendix D: Annotated Bibliography 

Social Policy Research Associates D-2

One of the principal findings of these reports is that rural areas face a number of 

challenges in delivering workforce development services. These challenges include 

difficulties in effectively reaching widely scattered customers, a lack of available 

service providers and limited infrastructure in the areas of public transportation, child 

care, and technology. These challenges are made even more daunting by the very 

limited financial resources available to rural areas. Indeed, one report noted that some 

rural areas question whether establishing a physical One-Stop career center location 

even makes sense in rural areas, given a service population that is widely dispersed. 

However, another report found that it was easier to implement One-Stop Centers in 

rural areas and small cities and hypothesized that this was due to the greater ease of 

working with less complicated service delivery systems found in rural areas. 

Following a number of reports focusing on overall service delivery issues in rural 

areas, this section of the bibliography is further divided into a number of sub-sections 

focusing on the following specific infrastructure issues: child care, transportation, 

housing, substance abuse treatment, Internet access, and distance learning. 

The first sub-section, child care, includes several publications which describe the 

typical delivery of child care services in rural areas. For example, rural families are 

more likely to use informal care provided by relatives or neighbors rather than centerbased or licensed care, due to the lack of accessible child care centers in numerous 

rural areas. In addition, many rural families prefer to leave their children with 

someone they know. While this kind of care has some benefits, including lower costs 

and greater flexibility, some studies suggest that informal child care is less stable and of 

lower quality than center-based care. Consequently, each of the reports also makes 

suggestions for improving the quality of informal child care in rural areas. Some of 

these suggestions include providing training, helping providers achieve licensure, 

increasing the availability of child care centers and rethinking child care regulation. 

The next sub-section includes several reports that focus on transportation 

challenges and strategies in rural areas. Even though rural residents typically have to 

travel long distances to get to worksites or training locations, public transportation is 

often very limited in rural areas. For example, nearly 40 percent of rural residents 

have no access to public transportation and another 28 percent have only limited access. 

In addition, many rural residents, particularly those who are poor, do not own cars. To 

overcome these problems, several reports included in the section describe possible 

strategies for providing rural residents with access to transportation. These strategies 
Appendix D: Annotated Bibliography 

 D-3 Social Policy Research Associates 

include car-ownership programs, the development of public transportation systems and 

using other agencies’ vehicles, such as school buses and senior citizen vans. 

Another common problem faced by many rural areas is housing. For this reason, 

the next sub-section of the report includes several articles and reports with information 

on rural housing conditions and barriers to homeownership. Rural housing is typically 

smaller, less costly, less crowded, and more likely to have physical problems than 

urban housing. Rural areas also have a larger percentage of mobile, manufactured, and 

seasonal homes. In many counties, affordable rental housing is also in short supply. In 

addition, despite the fact that rural residents are more likely to be homeowners, there 

are a number of barriers to increasing homeownership in rural areas. One of the major 

barriers is the limited availability of credit and higher interest rates for housing loans in 

rural areas. Some of the strategies suggested to address these barriers include the 

development of new affordable rental projects, more rental assistance for low income 

residents, and the continuation of programs to provide low interest housing loans. 

 Although many people perceive substance abuse as a primarily urban challenge, 

it has become a major issue in many rural areas as well. The next sub-section of the 

bibliography includes a sampling of articles and reports on the problem of substance 

abuse in rural areas as well as suggestions for how to deal with the problem. In many 

cases, substance abuse in rural areas is growing and nearing the same levels as in urban 

areas. However, rural areas are often less equipped to deal with the problem than 

cities. For example, many rural areas lack sufficient numbers of trained substance 

abuse treatment programs and counselors, and rural residents are often less likely to 

seek out formal services. For this reason, several of the reports recommend increasing 

access to services through collaboration among health care providers, treatment via 

videoconferencing, and public marketing campaigns. 

The next sub-section of the bibliography includes publications with information 

on access to the Internet and computer technology in rural areas. Because of the 

increasing importance of remote access to services and information over the World 

Wide Web, individuals who lack Internet access are at a great disadvantage. Rural 

residents overall are less likely than urban residents to own personal computers or have 

access to the Internet at home. Although this disparity has lessened in recent years, 

several articles in this section argue that rural residents are still far less likely to be 

computer literate or have access to high speed broad-band technology. In addition, 

rural residents often have to pay more for basic dial-up service due to higher monthly 
Appendix D: Annotated Bibliography 

Social Policy Research Associates D-4

fees, less competition and a lack of local access numbers. To bridge this “digital 

divide,” the reports cite a number of innovative programs, including mobile Internet 

training facilities, rural-focused Internet service providers and State-wide programs 

aimed at providing access to broad-band technology. One report is this section took a 

different approach to investigating the “digital divide” and concluded that computer 

literacy skills only modestly improve earnings of low-wage workers within their current 

occupations in rural areas. 

 The last sub-section under the topic of service delivery in rural areas is focused 

on distance learning. Distance learning is one of the principle strategies for increasing 

training services in rural areas and has become even more common with the advent of 

the Internet. In addition to on-line courses, distance learning can also use television, 

videoconferencing, videos, CD-ROMs, and audio conferencing over the telephone. 

Some of the most recent innovations include the creation of virtual high schools and 

universities which allow students to earn degrees and credentials remotely. However, 

several of the reports also describe a number of challenges related to the development 

of successful distance learning programs. These include dealing with rapid 

technological change, assisting teachers with the transition to a new delivery mode, 

mentoring and monitoring students remotely, and ensuring educational quality. 

The final section of the bibliography focuses on the roles and activities of rural 

community and technical colleges. In rural areas, these institutions are typically the 

primary provider of vocational training services and are a crucial piece of the rural 

workforce development system. Over the past fifty years, rural community colleges 

have shifted their focus from preparing students for transfer to four-year institutions to 

providing vocational skills training. In addition, more and more community colleges 

are also playing an active role in economic development efforts and working closer with 

business partners. Rural community colleges are also increasingly likely to collaborate 

with numerous community partners and take on efforts to solve serious local problems 

such as illiteracy. In addition to these changes, rural community colleges are also 

facing a number of challenges including increased competition via on-line courses over 

the Internet, low skill and literacy levels of applicants, and increasing student diversity 

in terms of race, ethnicity, age and career path. 

Although some of these publications could be included under multiple categories, 

we have placed each report under the category we felt to be its strongest match. We 

have limited the cited studies and reports to those published no earlier than 1994. For 
Appendix D: Annotated Bibliography 

 D-5 Social Policy Research Associates 

each entry, we provide the following when available: author(s), title of publication, 

publisher, year of publication, a summary of contents and/or findings and an Internet 

address for the source. 
Appendix D: Annotated Bibliography 

Social Policy Research Associates D-6

RURAL AMERICA

Articles and reports providing background information on rural areas, including 

demographics, wages, income, and poverty. 

Gibbs, Robert, L. Kusmin and J. Cromartie. Low-Skill Jobs: A Shrinking Share of the 

Rural Economy. Economic Research Service/USDA. Amber Waves, Vol. 2, No. 5, 

November 2004. 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/amberwaves/november04/pdf/feature_lowskill.pdf

This policy brief explores the effects of the changing rural economy. Like the 

rest of America, the rural economy is transitioning from one that is based on the 

production of goods to one that is based on the delivery of services. Although most 

low-skilled jobs in rural areas are service-based, the rural economy’s share of lowskilled jobs decreased during the 1990s. The brief argues that the driving force behind 

this drop was a shift within industries to a reliance on higher skilled jobs. Thus, rural 

communities should consider economic development strategies that focus on upgrading 

the skill levels of jobs in their current mix of industries rather than switching industries. 

George, Lance, et al. Taking Stock: Rural People, Poverty, and Housing at the Turn of 

the 21st Century. Washington, DC: Housing Assistance Council, 2002. 

http://www.ruralhome.org/pubs/hsganalysis/ts2000/index.htm

This report describes the demographic characteristics of rural areas in the United 

States, such as the trends in persistent poverty, rural education levels, and population 

growth, focusing on change from 1990 to 2000. It also examines economic changes 

from 1990 to 2000, describing the declines in agriculture, forestry, manufacturing, and 

mining and the rise in service sector employment. The report then describes the 

housing characteristics in rural areas and pinpoints “high need rural areas” in the U.S.: 

the U.S.-Mexico border counties, Central Appalachia, farmworkers, the Lower 

Mississippi Delta, and Native Americans. These cases were explored in depth with 

regard to the demographics, economic characteristics, and availability of affordable 

housing. 

Hamrick, Karen S. Displaced Workers: Differences in Nonmetro and Metro Experience 

in the Mid-1990s. Economic Research Service/USDA. Rural Development Research 

Report, No. 92, October 2001. 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/rdrr92/

 This report examines displaced workers’ experiences in metro and nonmetro areas 

during the mid-1990s. One key finding is that nonmetro workers had greater 

displacement rates then metro workers. Once displaced, nonmetro workers were also 

less likely to find a new job and were more likely to drop out of the labor force than 

metro displaced workers. In addition, although nonmetro workers who were able to 

find a new job did about as well as metro displaced workers in replacing their lost 

earnings, nonmetro median weekly earnings were considerably lower. Similarly, 
Appendix D: Annotated Bibliography 

 D-7 Social Policy Research Associates 

nonmetro displaced workers were more likely to be in a low-income household 

compared to metro displaced workers. 

Hamrick, Karen S. (ed.) Rural America at a Glance. Economic Research 

Service/USDA. Rural Development Research Report, No. 94-1, September 2002. 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/rdrr94-1/Rdrr94-1b.pdf

This is the first in a series of reports that uses current social and economic data to 

highlight important population, labor market, income, and poverty trends in rural areas. 

For example, during most of the 1990s, the population of rural areas increased, 

although this growth slowed substantially late in the decade and was slower than urban 

population growth. Rural poverty rates during the same period were the lowest in 

decades, but were still higher than urban poverty rates. Rural areas also lagged behind 

urban areas in a number of other indicators, including household income, real per 

capita income, earnings per job and child poverty. Finally, although the effects of the 

recent economic downturn on rural communities have been mild compared to past 

recessions, unemployment in urban areas (4.7%) continues to be lower than in rural 

areas (4.9%). 

Hamrick, Karen S. (ed.) Rural America at a Glance. Economic Research 

Service/USDA. Rural Development Research Report, No. 97-1, September 2003. 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/rdrr97-1/highres_rdrr97-1.pdf

This is the second in a series of reports that uses current social and economic data 

to highlight important population, labor market, income, and poverty trends in rural 

areas. In 2002, for example, the nonmetro unemployment rate (5.6%) reversed trends 

of recent years and fell below metro rates (5.8%). Average weekly earnings for 

nonmetro workers were about 80% of the metro average. However, nonmetro earnings 

increased 1.4% during 2001-2002, whereas metro earnings increased only 0.9%. 

Despite these gains, rural areas still lag behind urban areas on other economic and 

social indicators, including household income, child poverty, and food insecurity. 

Federal funding continues to be important to the economic well-being of rural areas. 

Hamrick, Karen S. (ed.) Rural America at a Glance, 2004. Economic Research 

Service/USDA. Agriculture Information Bulletin, No. 793, September 2004. 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/AIB793/AIB793_hires.pdf

This is the third in a series of reports that uses current social and economic data 

to highlight important population, labor market, income, and poverty trends in rural 

areas. Due to low mortgage interest rates, nonmetro homeownership rates reached 

record highs (77% in July 2004), exceeding metro rates for a variety of household 

types. The 2003 nonmetro (5.8%) and metro (6.0%) unemployment rates were the 

highest since 1994. From 2002 to 2003, average weekly earnings fell 0.5% in 

nonmetro areas and 0.3% in metro areas, after adjusting for inflation. Rural areas have 

been disproportionately affected by the loss of textile and apparel jobs over the last few 
Appendix D: Annotated Bibliography 

Social Policy Research Associates D-8

years, especially in the Southeast. Nonmetro poverty rates from 2000 to 2003 were 

low by historical standards, but continued to be higher than metro rates. Finally, in 

2002-2003, the annual nonmetro population growth rate increased for the first time in 

eight years. 

Jolliffe, Dean. Comparisons of Metropolitan-Nonmetropolitan Poverty during the 

1990s. Economic Research Service/USDA. Rural Development Research Report, 

No.63, June 2003. 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/rdrr96/rdrr96.pdf

 This report examines differences in poverty between metropolitan and 

nonmetropolitan areas throughout the 1990s. By analyzing poverty measures other than 

the headcount index to describe the depth and severity of poverty in metro and 

nonmetro areas, the report shows that the difference in poverty in these areas is actually 

less drastic than traditionally described. The report also uses welfare ratios and laborrelated characteristics to explain important metro-nonmetro differences in the wellbeing of the poor. The reports concludes with some policy recommendations, including 

a focus on youth skill-building strategies and income assistance for retired persons on 

fixed-incomes. 

Kandel, William and J. Cromartie. New Patterns of Hispanic Settlement in Rural 

America. Economic Research Service/USDA. Rural Development Research Report, 

No. 99, May 2004. 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/rdrr99/rdrr99.pdf

 This report uses census data to examine recent Hispanic settlement patterns. 

Although the Hispanic population continues to be concentrated in metropolitan areas in 

the Southwest, half of all nonmetropolitan Hispanics lived outside the Southwest for the 

first time in 2000. Nonmetro counties that experienced a high growth in their Hispanic 

population often include a significant number of recent migrants who young and male. 

These migrants typically have low education levels, speak little English, and are 

undocumented. Although Hispanic population growth has helped revitalize many rural 

communities, these communities were not economically or culturally prepared for the 

large influx, which has resulted in social conflict. States and local communities can 

help Hispanics become socially and economically integrated by focusing on policies that 

educate them on the available services and U.S. laws. 

Low-Wage Counties Face Locational Disadvantages. Economic Research 

Service/USDA. Rural Conditions and Trends, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2000. 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/rcat/rcat112/rcat112c.pdf

This report describes the socio-economic attributes of low-wage counties and 

discusses which types of human capital policies are most appropriate for them. Rural 

low-wage counties are defined as counties with the largest share of jobs in low-wage 

industries. They are typically less populated and more remote from urban centers and 
Appendix D: Annotated Bibliography 

 D-9 Social Policy Research Associates 

have fewer job opportunities in industries that pay high wages. Only about a third of 

all low-wage counties are also persistent poverty counties, and most of these counties 

are in the south. Although overall education and labor force participation rates are 

lower in low-wage counties, this varies substantially by region, with adults in southern 

low-wage counties having the lowest levels of education. Because of these regional 

differences, human capital development is most critical in southern low-wage counties 

rather than in western and Midwest/Great Plains low wage-counties. 

McLaughlin, Diane K. Income Inequality in America: Nonmetro Income Levels Lower 

Than Metro, But Income Inequality Did Not Increase as Fast. Economic Research 

Service/USDA. Rural America, Vol. 17, Issue No. 2, 2000. 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/ruralamerica/ra172/ra172c.pdf

 This article describes the continuing income gap between nonmetro (rural) 

households and metro households between 1979 and 1999, with rural households 

earning substantially less than either central city or suburban households. However, the 

article also reports that inequality among rural households increased much more slowly 

than among metro households with the result that rural income inequality is less than 

that of central cities or suburban areas. The article offers several explanations for 

increasing income inequality in both rural and urban areas. These include the decline 

in high-wage manufacturing employment in favor of service employment, increases in 

female-headed households and increased female labor force participation. The article 

asserts that inequality among rural households is growing more slowly because there 

are fewer female-headed households in rural areas and female labor force participation 

is lower than in urban areas. 

Miller, Kathleen K. and B. A. Weber. Persistent Poverty and Place: How do 

Persistent Poverty Dynamics and Demographics Vary Across the Rural-Urban 

Continuum? Measuring Rural Diversity, Vol. 1, No. 1, Southern Rural Development 

Center, January 2004. 

http://srdc.msstate.edu/measuring/series/miller_weber.pdf

 This issue brief examines how poverty and persistent poverty vary across 

metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas and where poverty is concentrated in the 

United States. The brief begins by explaining that high poverty counties are 

geographically concentrated, that persistent poverty counties are overwhelmingly and 

disproportionately rural, and the unique demographic characteristics these counties. 

Next, the brief examines location, rurality and demographics of counties that escaped 

persistent poverty status between 1990 and 2000. The brief concludes that persistent 

poverty is increasingly a rural problem. 

Rowley, Thomas D. and David Freshwater. Ready or Not? The Rural South and its 

Workforce. Southern Rural Development Center, Spring 1999. 

http://www.rural.org/workshops/ready/laborforce.pdf
Appendix D: Annotated Bibliography 

Social Policy Research Associates D-10

 This article outlines the specific workforce attributes and trends affecting the 

future of the rural south. The report first describes several key trends, including 

technology, growth of the service sector, organizational restructuring of businesses, 

globalization and demographic change. The report then discusses how poverty, poor 

education, and racial inequality are still issues faced by many workers in the rural 

south, making it difficult for them to be successful in the labor market. As a result, 

unemployment, the number of workers who make less than 125 percent of the 

individual poverty threshold, and the number of underemployed workers are all higher 

in the rural south than elsewhere in the nation, while wages are lower. Finally, the 

report makes several recommendations to increase prosperity in the south. These 

include a focus on increasing education and skill levels and policies to make it easier 

for workers to learn about job opportunities. 

Rural Income, Poverty, and Welfare. Economic Research Service/USDA, 2000. 

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

This policy brief presents statistics on rural income, poverty and welfare for the 

late 1990s. In terms of income, the rural families continued to have lower incomes 

than urban families, although growth in median family income in rural areas outpaced 

urban growth. In addition, more rural residents are poor, although the rural poverty 

rate in 2000 dropped to the lowest level since the early 1960s. This improvement in the 

poverty rate was largely due to the overall economic expansion. However, rural 

poverty rates also vary by region and race and ethnicity, with the south and west and 

non-Hispanic Blacks having the highest poverty rates. Finally, the briefing describes 

how rural residents received slightly more government transfers on a per capita basis, 

although in the aggregate, nearly four times as much was spent on government transfers 

for urban residents than rural residents.

Rural Labor and Education. Economic Research Service/USDA, 2002. 

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

This policy brief presents recent statistics on rural earnings, education and 

employment. Weekly rural earnings rose 9.8 percent from 1996 to 2000 for workers at 

all education levels, with the best educated workers experiencing even higher growth. 

However, in 1999, nearly one-fourth of rural wage and salary workers ages 25 and 

older earned low wages, more than in 1979 and in urban areas. These workers are 

more likely to be women and minorities and be employed in retail trade or service 

industries. The brief also presents data showing that rural adults have less education on 

average than urban adults, although educational attainment varies widely across 

counties and population subgroups. Finally, the brief notes that how rural employment 

grew by less than five percent from 1995 to 2001, compared to urban employment 

growth of 11 percent. However, in 2000 and 2001, after reaching its lowest level in 

decades in 1999, rural unemployment increased. 
Appendix D: Annotated Bibliography 

 D-11 Social Policy Research Associates 

Rural Low-Wage Employment Rises Among Men. Vol. 11, No. 2. Economic Research 

Service/USDA, 2000. 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/rcat/rcat112/rcat112b.pdf

This report provides statistics on rural low-wage employment. In 1999, over a 

quarter of all rural wage and salary workers over 25 earned wages that if earned fulltime for a full year would not lift a family of four above the poverty line. Despite these 

low wages, many of these workers are the sole or main wage earner in the household. 

However, low-wage workers are not necessarily poor as many hold down more than 

one job or are in two-income families. Low-wage workers typically have lower 

education levels and are more likely to work in retail trade and service industries which 

require few pre-existing skills and little education. These workers are also more likely 

to be women and minorities, although the percentage of low-wage workers who are 

White men has grown since 1979. In terms of regions, while rural southerners are the 

most likely to earn low wages, low-wage employment has grown the fastest in the west. 

Shils, Edward B. The Shils Report: Measuring Economic and Sociological Impact of 

the Mega-Retail Discount Chain on Small Enterprises in Urban, Suburban, and Rural 

Communities. Philadelphia: The Wharton Entrepreneurial Center, University of 

Pennsylvania, 1997. 

http://www.lawmall.com/rpa/rpashils.htm 

This study explores the impact of mega-retail discount chains on small enterprises 

and small towns in the United States. The author surveyed 6,000 small retailers and 

conducted site visits in California, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and New York. The study 

finds that small retailers struggle to compete with mega-retail discount chains and that 

downtowns and regional malls have become less viable as a result of the proliferation of 

the mega-retail discount chains. Finally, the study describes how retail jobs in megaretail discount chains tend to have a lower multiplier effect on local economies 

compared to jobs in traditional retail establishments due to the lack of unionization, 

lower staffing levels, and lower wages. 

Stone, Kenneth E. “Impact of the Wal-Mart Phenomenon on Rural Communities,” 

Published in Proceedings: Increasing Understanding of Public Problems and Policies. 

Chicago, IL: Farm Foundation, 1997. 

http://www.seta.iastate.edu/retail/publications/10_yr_study.pdf 

This study reports on the changes to rural retail markets over time and explores 

the impact of the recent proliferation of mass merchandisers in rural communities. The 

study observed 34 towns in Iowa with Wal-Mart stores and 15 towns of comparable 

size with no Wal-Mart stores for over 10 years. The study found that larger towns with 

Wal-Mart stores faired better in terms of commerce than non-Wal-Mart towns of 

similar size. In addition, small towns of less than 5,000 people in Iowa lost almost half 

of their retail trade over the course of the study. The report describes how small towns 
Appendix D: Annotated Bibliography 

Social Policy Research Associates D-12

lose a significant portion of their tax base when mass merchandisers move in to nearby 

communities, since jobs are lost when local retailers close or trim their staff and this 

has a multiplier effect on the local economy. The report goes on to provide suggestions 

to small retailers for staying competitive. 

Understanding Rural America. Economic Research Service/USDA. Agriculture 

Information Bulletin, No. 710, February 1995 (updated 1997). 

http://www.nal.usda.gov/ric/resources/backgrnd/understd.htm

 This report describes the general rural conditions and trends affecting the 

residents of rural areas. Despite increases in living standards and education, rural 

earnings, education levels—particularly related to post-secondary education--and 

employment are still lower than in urban areas. More rural households are also poor. 

The report also describes how life in rural areas has changed over the last hundred 

years, with fewer and fewer residents and employment shifting from a focus on farming 

to manufacturing and then services. The report next focuses on the diversity of rural 

areas by describing six different county types, farming, manufacturing, service, 

retirement-destination, Federal lands counties and persistent poverty counties. Finally, 

the report suggests four principles aimed at increasing rural prosperity: 1) improve 

connections between rural and urban areas and rural communications infrastructure, 2) 

encourage and assist rural firms to target niche markets, 3) create “artificial scale 

economies” to counter the high costs of business and government due to small-scale, 

low-density settlement patterns, and 4) enhance the core skills of rural management and 

labor. 

SERVICE DELIVERY IN RURAL AREAS

Articles and reports on service delivery in rural areas.

Barnow, Burt S. and Christopher T. King. The Workforce Investment Act in Eight 

States. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Labor Employment and Training 

Administration. Albany: the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government, February 

2005. 

This report documents the implementation of the Workforce Investment Act of 

1998 (WIA) through case studies of eight states and 14 local areas, including several 

rural areas. Some findings with particular relevance to WIA implementation in rural 

areas include: in several states, implementation of eligible training provider lists 

reduced the number of training providers available for use by WIA customers in both 

rural and urban areas; and numerous rural and urban local officials reported that 

current and anticipated funding for WIA and Wagner-Peyser are insufficient to meet 

needs. The report concludes with a list of challenges for the future, such as balancing 

flexibility with accountability and the tensions over serving the most in need or the 

universal customer. 
Appendix D: Annotated Bibliography 

 D-13 Social Policy Research Associates 

Bender, April M. Connecting the Dots in the Service Constellations of the Rural 

Universe. Partnerships for Quality, Potsdam, N.Y. 2001. 

http://wdr.doleta.gov/conference/pdf/bender.pdf

 This report surveyed 42 rural counties in New York State to examine the barriers 

and facilitators of service integration in rural areas related to the implementation of 

WIA and welfare reform. The report finds that while service integration is used as an 

important way of compensating for the lack of infrastructure and other rural barriers, 

staff are the key to successful service integration and program implementation. 

However, despite their importance, many staff in rural areas are overworked, receive 

low salaries and lack the tools they need to successfully serve customers. In 

conclusion, the report recommends providing assistance to rural organizations to create 

or enhance an organizational culture that is responsive to customer needs, treats 

customers individually, cultivates a “can-do” attitude among staff, and provides 

customers with customized services. 

Burwick, Andrew et al. Implementing Welfare-to-Work Programs in Rural Places: 

Lessons Learned from the Rural Welfare-to-Work Strategies Demonstration Evaluation. 

Prepared for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services by Mathematica 

Policy Research Inc. April 2004. 

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/rwtw/rwtw_title.html

 This report chronicles the implementation experiences of the three demonstration 

programs participating in the Rural Welfare-to-Work (RWtW) Strategies Demonstration 

Evaluation. One lesson learned is that to be most valuable to rural clients, welfare-towork programs provide assistance on a range of personal and logistical issues in 

addition to improving employment prospects. Another is that program staff serve as 

valuable personal references for clients’ poor personal or family reputations. In 

addition, outreach must be aggressive to reach potential clients in rural areas. Finally, 

operating programs in rural areas requires independent staff members who are familiar 

with the resources available in their communities, as well as program leaders who can 

monitor and support their staff from a distance. 

Dunham, Kate. Rural One-Stops: Issues in WIA Implementation. Prepared for the 

U.S. Department of Labor by Social Policy Research Associates. January 2003. 

 This report examines the barriers rural areas and small cities have faced in 

implementing WIA, as well as some of the promising strategies that have been 

developed to address them. The report draws upon data collected during multi-day site 

visits to 14 largely rural LWIAs (visits to ten of these LWIAs were previously 

conducted for SPR’s Evaluation of WIA Implementation). The report found that rural 

areas face a number of challenges in delivering workforce development services. 

Principal among these is effectively reaching widely scattered customers. Another 

major challenge is the lack of available service providers and infrastructure such as 

public transportation. These challenges are made even more daunting by the very 
Appendix D: Annotated Bibliography 

Social Policy Research Associates D-14

limited financial resources available to rural areas. Despite these challenges, the report 

found that rural areas have also developed a number of innovative strategies to 

overcome them. For example, to overcome the challenge of effectively reaching rural 

customers, many rural One-Stop systems have invested their scarce resources in 

developing networks of widely scattered satellite or itinerant One-Stop Centers rather 

than a few comprehensive centers. In addition, these One-Stop systems typically have 

few or no partner staff located at their One-Stop Centers, but, instead, rely on wellcoordinated referral systems to ensure rural customers have access to all the services 

they need. Another innovative strategy is that due to limited budgets, rural One-Stop 

partners are more likely to provide in-kind rather than financial support for One-Stop 

Centers. Finally, rural Workforce Investment Act (WIA) programs often are less 

reliant on Individual Training Accounts (ITAs) due to a scarcity of training providers in 

rural LWIAs. 

Dunham, Kate, J. Salzman, and V. Koller. Business as Partner and Customer under 

WIA: A Study of Innovative Practices. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Labor by 

Social Policy Research Associates with contributions by TATC Consulting. June 2004. 

http://www.doleta.gov/reports/searcheta/occ/papers/Business_as_Partner_and_Custome

r_under_WIA1.pdf

 This report documents observations and findings from the Evaluation of the 

Implementation of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), including efforts to better 

engage employers in all aspects of workforce development. It outlines several local 

areas' efforts to more effectively meet the employment-related needs of both job 

seekers and businesses by making the business community the One-Stop system's 

primary customer. One finding of particular relevance to rural areas is that multicounty, largely rural areas are especially keen on ensuring that all counties have their 

own local business representation on the WIBs. Another is that rural local areas put a 

strong emphasis on on-line services for serving employers located throughout the 

LWIA. In addition, the report found that on-the-job training is an important option in 

rural areas where many businesses do not have the resources to train workers. 

Friedman, Pamela. Meeting the Challenge of Social Service Delivery in Rural Areas. 

Issue Notes, Welfare Information Network, Vol. 7, No. 2, March 2003. 

http://www.financeprojectinfo.org/Publications/meetingthechallengeIN.htm

 This report explores the challenges facing social service agencies in delivering 

services to meet the special needs of rural area residents. It offers suggestions on how 

to design programs and policies to address those needs. For example, in light of 38% 

of rural counties reporting a decrease in federal revenue, the report suggests that 

targeting programs to meet specific rural needs could result in a more effective use of 

dwindling funds. Such needs include economic development, access to support 

services, and infrastructure support. The report suggests several options for States to 

better meet social service needs in rural areas including interagency collaboration 

within and among rural counties, modifying eligibility requirements for rural residents, 
Appendix D: Annotated Bibliography 

 D-15 Social Policy Research Associates 

using alternate forms of service delivery (such as the web, the telephone, and home 

visits), and expanding One-Stop centers beyond their role to serve as points of 

community access. The report concludes with examples of innovative rural social 

service programs. 

Green, Gary. Workforce Development Networks in Rural Areas of the United States. 

Southern Rural Development Center. Economic & Workforce Development, No. 1, 

September 2003. 

http://srdc.msstate.edu/publications/srdcpolicy/green.pdf

 This report examines how workforce development networks aimed at providing 

training are organized. The report identifies four distinct organizational structures for 

these networks in rural areas and discusses the strengths and weaknesses of each. The 

first structure, the sole-provider, has one provider at its core. Strengths of this 

structure include providing training services on a holistic basis and greater potential to 

secure grants and other funding. However, the sole-provider structure is not responsive 

to employer needs and does not provide a broad set of linkages with community-based 

organizations (CBOs). The second structure, the hub-spoke network, usually has a 

CBO at the center that does not directly provide services. Although this structure as 

been very successful in building community capacity, it may be less successful in 

accessing funding sources. The third structure, the employer-centered network, has 

clusters of businesses at its core. Strengths of this structure include establishing 

employer collaboration and developing programs that respond to employer needs. To 

date, however, the employer-centered network, however, has not focused on the needs 

of low-skilled rural workers. The fourth and final structure, sector-oriented network, is 

involves partnerships of industry employers, local economic development corporations, 

local educational institutions, and other local organizations. Although this structure has 

been successful in gaining support of employers in the region, a weakness is the scale 

required to implement them successfully. 

McIntire, James and Amy Robins. Fixing to Change: A Best Practices Assessment of 

One-Stop Job Centers Working with Welfare Recipients. Fiscal Policy Center, 

University of Washington. March 1999. 

http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/fixing2change99/

This report from the University of Washington examines five One Stop Career 

Centers to assess the affects of recent policy changes on the employment services to 

welfare recipients. One key finding of the report is that One-Stop Centers may be 

easier to implement in smaller cities and rural business centers. The study hypothesizes 

that this may be due to the relative ease in rural areas of identifying appropriate 

institutions and resources as compared to urban areas, which have more complex 

political and service delivery systems. Still, rural One-Stop centers experienced 

significant challenges related to finding sufficient transportation, child care, substance 

abuse treatment, and training services for their clients. The study also found that the 
Appendix D: Annotated Bibliography 

Social Policy Research Associates D-16

most important elements of a One-Stop Center included service integration, co-location 

of welfare and employment services, and individualized attention to clients. 

Marks, Ellen L., Sarah Dewees, Tammy Ouellette, and Robin Koralek. Rural Welfareto-Work Strategies: Research Synthesis. Macro International, Inc., June 10, 1999. 

 This report synthesizes much of the literature on the implementation of welfareto-work strategies in rural areas. The report first describes many of the barriers faced 

by rural areas implementing welfare reform. These include geographic isolation and 

population dispersion; depressed local economies; spatial inequities in terms of 

transportation, child care, technology and infrastructure; lower educational attainment 

and limited job advancement; and a lack of administrative know-how to implement 

decentralized programs. The report next presents information on a variety of strategies 

for successful implementation of welfare-to-work programs. These include fostering 

economic and workforce development, working with community partners, overcoming 

a lack of available transportation and child care resources, working successfully with 

hard-to-serve populations, improving case management, coordinating services and 

changing the culture of welfare offices. 

The Workforce Investment Act After Five Years: Results from the National Evaluation of 

the Implementation of WIA. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Labor by Social 

Policy Research Associates with contributions by TATC Consulting. June 2004. 

http://www.doleta.gov/reports/searcheta/occ/papers/SPR-WIA_Final_Report.pdf

This report presents observations and findings from the Evaluation of the 

Implementation of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA). It describes the workforce 

investment system's progress and challenges in streamlining services through increased 

integration, universal access, individual empowerment via personal choice, state and 

local flexibility, performance accountability, engagement of the private sector and 

improvement of youth programs. Findings of particular relevance to rural areas, 

include: the benefits of prior successful partnerships and the problems resulting from 

past conflicts seemed stronger in rural and suburban areas where most staff are likely to 

have known and worked with each for a long time; several local areas question whether 

establishing a physical One-Stop location even makes sense in rural areas, given a 

service population that is widely dispersed; rural customers have fewer training options 

than their urban counterparts; expertise in serving and understanding the migrant and 

seasonal farmworker community is an important factor in how much farmworkers use 

One-Stop centers; and rural satellite offices located close to where migrant and seasonal 

farmworkers live and work may need to be opened to serve these customers effectively. 

Welfare Reform: Rural TANF Programs Have Developed Many Strategies to Address 

Rural Challenges. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Report to Congressional 

Requesters, GAO-04-921, September 2004. 

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04921.pdf
Appendix D: Annotated Bibliography 

 D-17 Social Policy Research Associates 

 This report begins by presenting information on the size of the rural caseload, 

how that caseload is distributed, and how that caseload has changed over time. Next, 

the strengths and challenges of rural TANF programs are explored. This is followed 

by descriptions of a variety of strategies rural areas have developed to address the 

challenges they face. These strategies include the use of nontraditional methods of 

connecting clients with services, development of cooperative arrangements that leverage 

resources, and targeted approaches to overcome challenges faced by clients. In 

conclusion, the report observes that national caseload declines do not necessarily mean 

that welfare reform has been successful or diminish the fact that implementation of 

welfare reform in rural areas continues to be extremely challenging. 

 (a) Child Care 

Articles and reports on child care service delivery in rural areas.

Beach, Betty A. Perspectives on Rural Child Care. ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural 

Education and Small Schools (EDO-RC-96-9), January 1997. 

http://offchemmath.roshd.ir/ael01/eric/digests/edorc969.htm

This article summarizes the literature on rural child care and describes how it 

differs from child care in urban areas. First, center-based child care is less common 

than family-based care in rural areas due to large distances, low population density, and 

high transportation costs. Rural parents also often prefer informal care from neighbors 

and relatives. Some studies also suggest that rural centers are of lower quality than 

urban centers and that family child care in rural areas may have significant strengths, 

such as community connectedness and support. The article also describes how 

challenges faced by rural child care practitioners differ from those faced by urban 

providers. For example, rural providers must deal with the affects of gossip, logistical 

concerns, limited resources for training and low fees due to limited family incomes 

caused by underemployment and seasonal employment. Finally, the report calls for 

policymakers to rethink regulation of child care in rural areas and develop new 

approaches specifically geared to rural areas. 

Child Care and Transportation Strategies for Rural Communities: Meeting the 

Challenge of Welfare Reform. Welfare Reform Task Force, National Rural 

Development Partnership, Second edition, November 1998. 

http://www.doleta.gov/wtw/documents/child.pdf

 This report provides profiles and contact information for exemplary and 

innovative child care and transportation programs at the State and local levels. While 

most of these programs are in rural areas, a few urban programs are also profiled 

because their approaches could work in rural areas. The report also provides 

information about critical resources for child care and transportation. 

Colker, Laura J. and Sarah Dewees. Child Care for Welfare Participants in Rural 

Areas. Rural Welfare Issue Brief, Macro International Inc. Calverton, MD, 2000. 
Appendix D: Annotated Bibliography 

Social Policy Research Associates D-18

 This brief describes the barriers to accessing rural child care, the most common 

types of care used in rural areas, and several innovative rural child care models. The 

brief finds that a majority of rural welfare recipients use informal child care from 

friends, neighbors and relatives. While these types of care are cheaper and more 

flexible than licensed care, they are also less stable and lack quality control measures. 

The brief then proposes several possible improvements to informal child care in rural 

areas, including providing caregiver training, supporting caregivers in achieving 

licensure, and focusing on parent education. Finally, the brief describes several 

innovative rural child care models. These include: 1) providing child care in assistive 

living facilities, 2) providing child care in schools, and 3) assisting community and 

faith-based organizations to provide child care. 

(b) Rural Transportation 

Articles and reports on transportation in rural areas. 

Brown, Dennis M. Public Transportation on the Move in Rural America. Economic 

Research Service/USDA, Rural Information Center. 2003. 

http://www.nal.usda.gov/ric/ricpubs/publictrans.pdf

 This report explores the usage of public transportation services in rural America. 

According to the report, nearly 40% of rural counties have no public transportation, 

and another 28% have only limited public transit service. Typically counties without 

rural transit tend to be the most isolated rural areas where local demand does not cover 

transit system costs. However, the development of rural transportation systems can 

help vitalize local economies and reduce social and economic inequalities by increasing 

the mobility or rural individuals. For example, the labor force can be expanded to 

include carless individuals, workers can have better access to training opportunities, 

and transit-dependent individuals (such as the elderly and disabled) can have better 

access to social services. 

Dewees, Sarah. The Drive to Work: Transportation Issues and Welfare Reform in 

Rural Areas. Information Brief Number 5: A Special Series on Welfare Reform in the 

South. Southern Rural Development Center, November, 1998. 

http://www.ruraltransportation.org/library/transpdf.pdf

 This brief discusses the importance of transportation issues to the successful 

implementation of welfare reform in the south. The brief begins by describing the 

limited availability of public transportation in rural areas, particularly in the south, and 

the importance of reliable transportation to the ability of low-income people to find and 

maintain a job. The article next describes the challenges associated with the two most 

common approaches to dealing with the lack of rural transportation, public 

transportation and car-ownership programs. Finally, the article describes several 

successful transportation strategies and a number of model programs located in the 

south. These include making creative use of existing resources such as school buses or 
Appendix D: Annotated Bibliography 

 D-19 Social Policy Research Associates 

senior citizen vans, developing public-private partnerships, coordinating programs and 

planning among multiple agencies, and integrating transportation services with skills 

enhancement classes. Model programs or agencies include the Covington Alabama 

Transit System, the Central Arkansas Development Council, Charity Cars in Florida, 

and Tennessee’s First Wheels program. 

Dewees, Sarah. Transportation in Rural Communities: Strategies for Serving Welfare 

Participants and Low-Income Individuals. Rural Welfare Issue Brief. Rural Policy 

Research Institute. April, 2000. 

 This brief discusses the transportation-related challenges faced by low-income 

rural residents in finding and maintaining employment and describes several successful 

strategies to address these challenges. First, the brief describes how low-income rural 

residents face several transportation-related challenges in moving from welfare to work. 

These challenges include the fact that many of these households do not own cars, few 

have access to public transportation, and most must travel long distances to their jobs 

and child care providers. The next section describes several successful strategies to 

overcome transportation challenges, including private vehicle ownership programs, 

public transportation programs, taxi services, using other agencies’ vehicles, and 

assisting employers with providing transportation. The brief concludes by discussing 

how these efforts can be financed and coordinated. 

Friedman, Pamela. Transportation Needs in Rural Communities. Rural Assistance 

Center. Issue Note, Vol. 2, No. 1, March 2004. 

http://www.financeprojectinfo.org/Publications/transportationneedsINRAC.htm

 This report explores the transportation needs of rural families and suggests ways 

to design programs and policies that address these needs. Most rural communities have 

only limited or no public transit service. Many rural individuals who are low-income 

do not know how to drive, do not have a driver’s license, or can not afford a car. All 

this limits their ability to find and keep jobs, or access training and other support 

services. The report offers several suggestions for how states and localities can address 

these needs. For example, service providers can pool their resources to save money in 

vehicle insurance and maintenance costs. States can create commissions to oversee or 

coordinate transportation for all state agencies that provide services to “transportationdisadvantaged” individuals. Localities can provide low-interest car loans to individuals 

who would otherwise not be able to afford a car. TANF agencies can collaborate with 

other social service providers (such as Head Start and senior centers) to coordinate 

using vans during off-hours to drive workers to jobs or training. The report concludes 

with examples of rural transportation programs. 

Goldberg, Heidi. State and County Supported Car Ownership Programs Can Help 

Low-Income Families Secure and Keep Jobs. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 

2001. 

http://www.cbpp.org/11-8-01wel.htm
Appendix D: Annotated Bibliography 

Social Policy Research Associates D-20

 This article discusses the importance of car-ownership for low-income families in 

securing and maintaining a job and reviews a number of existing car ownership 

programs. The article begins by citing a number of studies that found transportation 

was one of the most significant barriers for low-income people to finding and 

maintaining employment. This is due to a lack of public transportation in rural areas 

and a “spatial mismatch” between where poor people live and where most entry-level 

jobs are located. The article also cites several studies that found car ownership, 

particularly for minorities, can increase the likelihood of being employed and earning a 

higher wage. The article next describes several types of car ownership programs, 

including providing grants and loans to recipients for purchasing or repairing cars and 

using Individual Development Accounts. Finally, the article discusses a number of key 

issues to consider in developing such programs. These issues include the importance of 

providing reliable cars, recipient participation in paying for cars, program 

administration and staffing, and funding. 

(c) Housing 

Articles and reports on housing in rural areas.

Case Studies on Rural Housing and Welfare Reform. Housing Assistance Council, 

2001. 

http://www.ruralhome.org/pubs/welfarereform/welfarehsg/toc.htm

This report includes seven lengthy case studies describing housing issues faced by 

low-income residents in rural counties around the nation. The case studies were 

developed through site visits to each of these counties and interviews with local 

housing, social service and economic development agencies. The report finds that most 

of these counties need more owner-occupied housing rehabilitation services, new 

affordable rental projects, and more rental assistance to adequately serve the needs of 

low income residents. 

Friedman, Pamela. Current Issues in Rural Housing and Homelessness. Rural 

Assistance Center. Issue Note, Vol. 1, No. 1, September 2003. 

http://www.financeprojectinfo.org/Publications/currentissuesinruralINRAC.htm

 This report offers suggestions on how to design programs and policies that 

address rural housing needs. Homes in rural areas have lower values are more likely to 

be substandard than homes in urban and suburban areas. Many low-income rural 

families live in manufactured or mobile housing where they often have to pay land rent 

fees in addition to mortgages. The report suggests that one way to address these and 

other issues is to encourage affordable housing in targeted areas by offering tax breaks 

to new home owners. Another way to encourage rural housing development is to 

establish housing trust funds through state legislation or local ordinance. The report 

also describes the myriad of funding sources that are available to support rural housing 

development. The report concludes with summaries of what selected states, regions, 
Appendix D: Annotated Bibliography 

 D-21 Social Policy Research Associates 

and localities are doing to provide housing assistance to low-income families. 

Vermont, for example, has a program that helps low-income families with children 

avoid losing their homes due to eviction or foreclosure. 

Manufactured Housing in Rural America. Rural Voices: The Magazine of the Housing 

Assistance Council, Vol. 8, No. 2, Summer 2003. 

http://216.92.48.246/manager/uploads/VoicesSummer2003.pdf

 This issue of Rural Voices shares housing policy experts’ and local practitioners’ 

findings and experiences related to manufactured housing. One article urges that rural 

housing advocates and policy analysts reconsider manufactured housing as an affordable 

housing strategy in light of cost advantages and improvements in quality. Another 

explores the problems of financing manufactured homes, including the lack of good 

faith estimates, third party appraisals, and escrows. Several articles are case studies of 

manufactured housing experiences in different rural areas. For example, the New 

Hampshire Community Loan Fund, in partnership with other agencies, helps tenants 

buy their mobile home park. Another nonprofit, the Coachella Valley Housing 

Coalition, renovated a dilapidated mobile home park in order to provide decent, 

affordable housing to farmworkers in California. 

Opening Doors to rural Homeownership: Outcomes from the National Rural Housing 

Coalition Rural Homeownership Symposium. National Rural Housing Coalition, 

Washington D.C., October, 2000. 

http://www.nrhcweb.org/rapozareport.pdf

This report of a symposium held by the National Rural Housing Coalition 

describes a number of challenges to increasing homeownership in rural areas and 

several promising strategies for overcoming these problems. The report begins by 

describing challenges to rural homeownership. These include high poverty rates, poor 

quality housing, limited credit, and declining levels of federal assistance for rural 

housing. The report then lists several recommendations made by symposium 

participants for overcoming these challenges. These recommendations include 

revitalizing and improving the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s direct housing loan 

program (RHS Section 502), maintaining the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development’s HOME program, and promoting capacity-building for non-profit rural 

housing agencies. 

Unique Housing Challenges Face Rural America and its Low-Income Workers. 

Economic Research Service/USDA. Rural Conditions and Trends, Vol. 11, No. 2, 

2000. 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/rcat/rcat112/rcat112l.pdf

This article briefly describes the differences in housing conditions in urban and 

rural areas, the specific housing difficulties faced by rural wage-dependent households, 
Appendix D: Annotated Bibliography 

Social Policy Research Associates D-22

and the need for specific programs to deal with these challenges. The article begins by 

comparing rural and urban housing conditions. For example, rural homes are typically 

smaller, less costly, less crowded, and more likely to have moderate or severe physical 

problems than urban homes. The article next discusses the greater housing challenges 

faced by low income rural residents who are typically “wage-dependent” and are more 

likely to pay more than 30% of their income on housing, live in crowded conditions 

and live in houses with physical problems. Many of these difficulties are due to the 

greater likelihood that these rural residents are younger and live in mobile homes. The 

article concludes by arguing that specific programs, such as mobile home loans, are 

needed to assist these low-income, wage-dependent households. 

Why Housing Matters: HAC’S 2000 Report on the State of the Nation’s Rural Housing. 

Housing Assistance Council, 2000. 

http://www.ruralhome.org/pubs/hsganalysis/SNRH/why/whyhousingmatters.pdf

 In this report from the Housing Assistance Council, rural housing conditions and 

trends over the past decade are discussed. For example, 22 percent of all occupied 

housing units in the U.S. are in rural areas, the majority of which are owner-occupied 

and many of which are mobile homes. Rural homeowners typically accumulate less 

equity in their homes than do urban residents, because rural homes are less valuable. 

Despite the fact that many rural residents are homeowners, significant barriers to 

homeownership continue to exist in rural areas, particularly for low-income 

households. One major barrier is due to higher interest rates in rural areas, which are 

partly attributable to the larger number of financed mobile homes. 

(d) Substance Abuse 

Articles and reports on substance abuse and treatment in rural areas.

Booth, Karen, Cheryl Bildner, and Robert Bozzo. Substance Abuse and Welfare 

Recipients in the Rural Setting. ORC Macro, Rural Welfare Issue Brief, 2001. 

This brief describes the substance abuse problems faced by rural TANF clients 

and describes a number of innovative programs and resources available to combat this 

problem. The brief begins by presenting data showing that substance abuse in rural 

areas is as common as in cities and is a major problem for welfare recipients who are 

trying to find and keep jobs. However, rural areas also face unique challenges in 

dealing with substance abuse problems, including widely dispersed services, scarce 

resources and a lack of trained counselors. To deal with these specific rural challenges, 

some areas have developed innovative programs. For example, some areas have used 

interactive television and collaboration with health care providers as successful 

strategies. Finally, the brief lists a number of possible funding sources for providing 

substance abuse services, including Medicaid, TANF, Maintenance of Effort funds, and 

Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant funds. 
Appendix D: Annotated Bibliography 

 D-23 Social Policy Research Associates 

Bushy, Angeline. Mental Health and Substance Abuse: Challenges in Providing 

Services to Rural Clients. Bringing Excellence To Substance Abuse Services in Rural 

And Frontier America, Technical Assistance Publication (TAP) Series 20, US 

Department of Health and Human Services Publication No. (SMA) 97-3134, 1997.

http://www.treatment.org/taps/tap20/tap20bushy.html

This article reviews the literature on rural health care and health-related 

preferences and beliefs, particularly related to mental health and substance abuse 

services. Rural preferences and beliefs include a strong belief in self-reliance and selfcare and a lower likelihood of seeking formal services. In terms of services, the article 

also reports a shortage of mental health and substance abuse treatment providers in 

rural areas. The article concludes by describing strategies to enhance care for rural 

clients despite scarce resources. These strategies include coordinating services, 

providing meaningful discharge planning, using case management, anticipating potential 

adverse events, considering the client’s situation, and educating the community. 

Edwards, Ruth W. Drug and Alcohol Use Among Youth in Rural Communities. 

National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1994. 

http://www.nida.nih.gov/PDF/Monographs/Monograph168/053-078_Edwards.pdf

This article describes drug and alcohol use among youth in rural communities 

based on an analysis of data from the American Drug and Alcohol Survey. The article 

finds that youth in very small rural communities (counties with towns of no more than 

2,500 residents) have a lower aggregate level of drug abuse than youth in larger rural 

communities. This is particularly true for marijuana use. However, there is almost no 

difference in 12th grade alcohol use among different sized communities. In addition, 

alcohol use in rural areas is reported to create more problems among rural youth, most 

likely because these youth have fewer alternative recreational activities and are more 

likely to have to travel lengthy distances by car to meet their friends. The article 

concludes by arguing that, because rates of substance abuse also vary substantially 

across same sized communities, there is a need for individual communities to assess 

their particular problems to appropriately target substance abuse treatment and 

prevention resources. 

No Place to Hide: Substance Abuse in Mid-Size Cities and Rural America. The 

National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, 2000. 

http://www.casacolumbia.org/pdshopprov/files/No_Place_to_Hide_1_28_00.pdf

 This is a comprehensive report on substance abuse in small cities and rural areas 

with recommendations for how to deal with the problem. The report is based on an 

extensive literature review and an analysis of data from the 1999 Monitoring the Future 

Survey and the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. Basically, the report 

describes trends in the use of illicit drugs, alcohol and tobacco by both youth and adults 

in small cities and rural areas. The report also includes a specific section on the 
Appendix D: Annotated Bibliography 

Social Policy Research Associates D-24

growing use of methamphetamines in rural areas. The report also describes both the 

consequences of increased substance abuse in rural areas and the barriers to combating 

this problem. Finally, the report makes several recommendations to combat substance 

abuse in rural areas, including raising public awareness, making better use of existing 

services and law enforcement resources, and improving prevention and treatment. 

Each of these recommendations is illustrated by examples from innovative programs 

from around the country. 

Wilkins, Andrea. Substance Abuse and TANF. National Conference of State 

Legislatures. Welfare Reform, State Policy Choices, April 2003. 

http://www.ncsl.org/statefed/welfare/substance.pdf

This article reviews the literature on substance abuse among TANF recipients and 

suggests that rural areas can increase access to substance abuse treatment by developing 

self-help groups, making arrangements to utilize residential or outpatient facilities in 

another town or city, and placing substance abuse counselors in local TANF offices. 

 (e) Internet Access 

Articles and reports on access to the Internet and computer technology in rural areas.

Bridging the Rural Digital Divide. Resources for Welfare Decisions, Welfare 

Information Network, Vol. 6, No. 15, October 2002. 

http://www.welfareinfo.org/ruraldigitaldivideRN.htm

 This report from the Welfare Information Network briefly describes the 

disparities in Internet access between urban and rural areas, particularly Native 

American areas, and the reasons for this disparity. The brief then provides a listing of 

publications and programs related to rural technology development and Internet access. 

The report concludes by profiling a number of State and local programs around the 

country aimed at bridging the rural digital divide. These include a program through the 

Iowa Farm Bureau and Lighthouse Communications to provide dial-up service to 

underserved rural areas, the North Kansas Community Network which has brought 

low-cost internet access to rural north central Kansas, the Rural Internet Access 

Authority in North Carolina, and the Tulalip Technology Leap in Washington State 

which has brought internet access and computers to the Tulalip Reservation. 

Donnermeyer, Joseph F. and C. A. Hollified. Digital Divide Evidence in Four Rural 

Towns. Stanford University. IT & Society, Vol. 1, No. 4, Spring 2003. 

http://www.stanford.edu/group/siqss/itandsociety/v01i04/v01i04a07.pdf

 This report utilized survey research to examine the use of email and the Internet 

in four rural communities in Nebraska and Wisconsin. Although more survey 

respondents used the Internet (47%) than email (40%), respondents used email slightly 

more frequently than they used the Internet. Approximately two-thirds of the 
Appendix D: Annotated Bibliography 

 D-25 Social Policy Research Associates 

respondents who were employed used email, the Internet, or both. Of these, most who 

used email or the Internet at work also used these technologies at home (and vice 

versa). Of the respondents who had not used email or the Internet, most had jobs that 

used neither technology. Finally, respondents who had not attended college were twice 

as likely to be non-email and Internet users as those who had at least two-year college 

degree. Although there was little variation across the four communities in email and 

Internet use, there is a divide in the four rural communities between the information 

technology “haves” (younger, more mobile, workers with college educations), and 

“have-nots” (older, more permanent workers with less education). 

Kusmin, Lorin D. Wage Premiums for On-the-Job Computer Use: A Metro and 

Nonmetro Analysis. Economic Research Service/USDA. Rural Development Research 

Report, No. 95, December 2002. 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/rdrr95/rdrr95.pdf

 This report addresses the question of whether on-the-job computer use is a 

significant factor in explaining differences between earnings in metropolitan and 

nonmetropolitan areas. The report finds that rural, low-wage workers who receive 

computer training may have to move to metropolitan areas in order to reap the most 

benefits from such training. 

A Nation Online: How Americans are Expanding Their Use of the Internet. U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 2002. 

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/dn/anationonline2.pdf

 This report describes how use of the Internet has increased throughout the U.S. in 

recent years, including in rural areas. For example, Internet usage in rural areas 

increased by 24 percent annually between 1998 and 2001 among people living in rural 

households, compared to 19 percent among central city urban households. However, 

Internet use among rural households (52.9%) is still less than among urban households 

(57.4%). Internet use is also lower for low income people, unemployed people, 

seniors, people with lower educational attainment, and members of ethnic or racial 

minority groups. While an overwhelming majority of Americans (80%) access the 

Internet via dial-up service, residential use of higher speed access is increasing rapidly. 

The report concludes by noting that use of the Internet at work has contributed to 

increased home use. 

Tscheschlok, Christian. Rising to Meet the Digital Challenge in Rural Communities: A 

Growing Divide? Illinois Institute for Rural Affairs. Rural Research Report, Volume 

12, Issue 3, Spring 2001. 

http://www.iira.org/pubsnew/publications/IIRA_RRR_143.pdf

 This report focuses on how to provide rural residents with effective access to the 

Internet to ensure their ability to take advantage of technology-related economic 
Appendix D: Annotated Bibliography 

Social Policy Research Associates D-26

opportunities. The report begins with a description of the importance of Internet access 

and then argues that rural communities continue to lag behind urban areas, particularly 

in terms of access to wireless and high-speed broadband technology and in overall “eliteracy.” The report then describes state and community-based initiatives in North 

Carolina, Georgia, North Dakota, Wyoming, Michigan, and Illinois aimed at increasing 

Internet access in rural areas. These include regional technology centers, virtual high 

schools, mobile Internet training facilities, and homegrown Internet service providers. 

Finally, the report concludes that successful efforts typically involve improving Internet 

access at public facilities such as libraries, require active involvement by local 

government agencies, are careful not to stifle local initiative, and require a regional 

orientation to development and public-private partnerships. 

Schumaher, Sharon. A study of Internet Use Patterns and Broadband Availability 

Among Rural Illinois Households and Small Businesses. Illinois Institute for Rural 

Affairs. Rural Research Report, Vol. 14, No. 4, Spring 2003. 

http://www.iira.org/pubsnew/publications/IIRA_RRR_570.pdf

 The report explores the use of Internet applications and technologies in rural 

Illinois. A little over half of the rural Illinois households polled reported having a 

computer. Of those, 83% were connected to the Internet where approximately one in 

ten had high-speed access. Nearly three-quarters of the rural small businesses polled 

reported having at least one computer. Of those, 73% were connected to the Internet 

where approximately one in four had high-speed access. Younger respondents were 

more likely to use the Internet for work, fun and games, and chat rooms, while older 

users were more likely to use the Internet to manage their personal finances. Many 

rural Illinois households choose to live with their slow Internet connections because the 

costs of high-speed connections are simply too high. The report concludes by 

summarizing several approaches aimed at increasing access to computer and Internet 

technologies to rural, low-income populations in Illinois, including a broadband grant 

program, a telecommunications network that provides high-speed access to various 

institutions (e.g., libraries, schools, and government agencies) throughout Illinois, and 

assessment tools to help communities determine their telecommunications needs. 

Strover, Sharon. Rural Internet Connectivity. Rural Policy Research Institute. 

Presentation at the Telecommunications Research and Policy Conference, P99-13, 

September, 1999. 

http://www.rupri.org/publications/archive/reports/1999/P99-13/p99-13.pdf

 This report explores Internet connectivity and use in rural regions of Texas, Iowa, 

Louisiana, and West Virginia to better understand the disparity between urban and rural 

regions regarding Internet access and the operations of Internet service providers (ISPs) 

in rural areas. The report is based on telephone surveys, web-based investigation and 

examination of secondary data. The report finds that a lack of investment in rural 

telecommunications infrastructure has made it very difficult for many rural residents to 

have access to low-cost Internet connections. As a result, many local customers have 
Appendix D: Annotated Bibliography 

 D-27 Social Policy Research Associates 

no access to high-speed broadband technology, pay high prices for dial-up service and 

often have to access dial-up numbers via toll calls. Much of this lack of infrastructure 

investment is due to the high costs involved and small numbers of customers. In 

addition, because rural telephone providers are exempted from unbundling their 

networks to would-be competitors, there is no competition in these areas that might 

spur providers to upgrade their systems. 

(f) Distance Learning 

Articles and reports on distance learning in rural areas.

Collins, Timothy and Sarah Dewees. Distance Education: Taking Classes to the 

Students. Southern Rural Development Center. The Rural South: Preparing for the 

Challenges of the 21st Century, No. 17, February, 2001. 

http://srdc.msstate.edu/publications/distance_education.pdf

 This report discusses several issues related to distance education in the south, 

including challenges, quality, and educational impact. First, the report describes 

several recent innovations in distance education adopted by southern educational 

institutions and States. These include the adoption of wide area networks (WANs) by 

higher education institutions to serve primary and secondary schools, libraries, offices 

and homes; Statewide virtual high schools; the creation of a 16-State Southern Regional 

Electronic Campus by the Southern Regional Education Board; and virtual State 

universities and libraries. The brief then describes a number of challenges facing the 

use of distance education. These include dealing with rapid technological change, 

overcoming limited Internet access in rural areas, assisting teachers with transitioning 

to new delivery modes, mentoring and monitoring students from a distance, and 

assuring educational quality. 

How States are Implementing Distance Education for Adult Learners. State Policy 

Update, National Institute for Literacy, February 14, 2000. 

http://wdr.doleta.gov/research/pdf/nifldistance.pdf

 This report discusses several policy issues related to distance learning, reviews 

the status of State implementation of distance programs, and profiles the efforts of 

California and Delaware in offering state-wide distance learning programs. The report 

first briefly defines distance education and discusses its most common forms and uses. 

The report then discusses a number of policy challenges related to developing the 

infrastructure necessary to support distance education. These include: ensuring 

adequate resource allocation, keeping up with needed technology, providing users with 

adequate access, successfully reformatting educational materials, ensuring adequate 

educational and technological support for learners, developing effective reporting and 

monitoring structures, dealing with a lack of high-quality U.S. models, and providing 

teacher professional development. The report concludes by profiling the efforts of 
Appendix D: Annotated Bibliography 

Social Policy Research Associates D-28

California and Delaware to develop state-wide distance education systems for adult 

learners. 

Kaplan, April and Barry Van Lare. Videoconferencing as a Tool for Welfare and 

Workforce Reform. Welfare Information Network. Issue Note, Vol. 4, Issue 3, 

March, 2000. 

http://www.welfareinfo.org/kaplanmarch2.htm

 This report discusses the potential uses of communications and computer-based 

training for welfare reform programs. It begins by describing several types of 

technology-based conferencing and communication techniques, such as satellite 

broadcasting, videoconferencing, audio or teleconferencing, desktop or web 

conferencing, picture phones, on-line courses, CD-ROMs, and videotapes. It then 

discusses a number of issues related to using these techniques. These issues include the 

opportunities and costs of accessing necessary equipment and infrastructure, the 

production and facilitation capacities needed for using these techniques, and issues 

related to purchasing packaged training materials and other resources. Finally, the 

Issue Note concludes by providing examples of applications and technologies 

appropriate for technology-based conferencing and communication. These include 

professional development training sessions, meetings, and educational courses. 

Yoakam, Michael. Distance Learning: An Introduction. Indiana University Center for 

Excellence in Education and AT&T Center for Excellence in Distance Education. 

http://old.ihets.org/consortium/ipse/fdhandbook/dist_lrn.html

 This introductory chapter provides a basic description of distance education uses 

and delivery modes and concludes with several recommendations for successful 

implementation. The chapter begins by describing some of the common uses for 

distance education. These include disseminating new product and policy information, 

conducting job skills training, and providing advanced professional education. In 

addition, more and more primary, secondary and post-secondary educational 

institutions are beginning to offer both course and degree programs via distance 

education. The chapter then describes a number of distance learning delivery methods 

via telephones, computers, and video. Telephone technology is often a component of 

distance learning via teleconferencing, callback devices, voicemail and faxes. Distance 

learning applications using computers include computer-based training via CD-ROM or 

over the Internet, e-mail, web-based conferencing, and groupware. One or two way 

video is also a very common component of distance education programs. The chapter 

concludes with several critical issues for designing a successful distance learning 

program. These include: effective planning, reliable equipment, effective instructional 

design, instructor training, management and administrative support, and learner support 

services. 
Appendix D: Annotated Bibliography 

 D-29 Social Policy Research Associates 

RURAL COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL COLLEGES

Articles and reports on rural community and technical colleges. 

Expanding Economic and Educational Opportunity in Distressed Rural Areas: A 

Conceptual Framework for the Rural Community College Initiative. MDC, Inc. Rural 

Community College Initiative, September 2001. 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/ruralamerica/ra162/ra162d.pdf

 This report describes the basic framework for the Rural Community College 

Initiative (RCCI) created by the Ford Foundation in 1994 as a partnership among 

community colleges, MDC, the American Association of Community Colleges and the 

foundation aimed at helping community colleges in distressed regions move their 

communities toward prosperity. The initiative focuses on economic development and 

access to education because of the importance of both in revitalizing distressed rural 

areas. RCCI also urges community colleges to develop essential institutional capacities 

and collaborate with the community. Because of the long-standing, entrenched nature 

of the problems that colleges focus on, the RCCI process is a three-phase, multi-year 

endeavor, requiring significant institutional commitment. 

Green, Gary Paul, Anna Haines, and Valeria Galetto. Community Colleges in Rural 

America: New Roles and New Challenges.

http://www.drs.wisc.edu/personnel/faculty/green/job/CommunityCollegesInRuralAmer

ica.pdf

 This report presents the results of a study of approximately 250 rural community 

colleges aimed at examining their role in providing job training, delivering business 

services and providing traditional educational services. The study suggests that most 

rural community colleges are balancing a broad range of activities, including basic 

education and training, business development services and customized training. More 

and more training and instruction is also taking place off-site, often at employer 

locations. In addition, the study found that rural community colleges collaborate with a 

wide variety of community organizations to make connections to businesses and 

workers. 

Holub, Jonathan D. The Role of the Rural Community College in Rural Community 

Development. ERIC Clearinghouse on Community Colleges. ERIC Digest, No. EDOJC-96-02, 1996. 

http://offchemmath.roshd.ir/ael01/eric/digests/edojc962.htm

 This digest discusses the ways in which rural community colleges are serving 

their communities by preparing local residents for technological, economic and social 

changes. It discusses community-based programming, efforts to combat illiteracy, and 

the use of technological learning systems by rural community colleges. The digest 

begins by examining community-based programming, which involves a community 
Appendix D: Annotated Bibliography 

Social Policy Research Associates D-30

college serving as a catalyst in creating collaboration among community actors to solve 

local problems. It next examines the strategies developed by an Appalachian Regional 

Steering Committee to help community colleges address rural illiteracy. These include, 

policy strategies, conducting public relations campaigns, lobbying, and forming 

partnerships with other agencies. Finally, the digest discusses technological learning 

systems aimed at overcoming distances, such as computer links, cable television and 

video technology. 

Rosenfeld, Stuart A. Rural Community Colleges: Creating Institutional Hybrids for the 

New Economy. Economic Research Service/USDA. Rural America, Volume 16, Issue 

2, Summer 2001. 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/ruralamerica/ra162/ra162b.pdf

 This article discusses the changing role of rural community colleges over the past 

fifty years, describing their many current roles and speculating on their future. The 

article begins by describing the changing role of rural community colleges which have 

shifted from an almost exclusive focus on preparation for transfer to four-year colleges, 

to focusing on meeting the needs of businesses and helping workers to upgrade their 

skills. In addition, community colleges serve an extremely diverse set of students, in 

terms of race, age and skill backgrounds. The article concludes by describing a 

number of challenges faced by community colleges, including globalization; rising 

aspirations and skill needs; low skill and literacy levels of applicants; increasing 

diversity in terms of race, ethnicity, age and career paths; declining recruitment and 

new competition; the need to foster entrepreneurship; and the importance of utilizing 

the Internet.