Kural and urban attitudes toward welfare

Mary H. Osgood, MS, is Instructor in Rural Sociology, College of Agricul ture, Pennsylvania State University, University Park. Research for this article was supported by funds from Title V of the Rural Development Act of 1972. The author wishes to thank R. Richard Ritti and his staff for making data appearing in this article available to her for analysis and Kenneth P. Wilkinson and Joan S. Thompson for their comments. RURAL ATTITUDES Rur^l poverty in the United States census received welfare, whereas in continues to be more acute, though Philadelphia County, 35 percent of less visible, than urban poverty. As these families received welfare.3 Be distance from an urban center incause federal program allocations are creases, so does the incidence of povusually based on current participation erty. In the most distant and sparsely rates, low participation serves to lower settled counties, the poverty rate is the amount of federal money allocated 2V2 times that in metropolitan areas; to rural areas, nearly half (44 percent) of the na tion's poor reside in nonmetropolitan areas.1 Despite the high incidence of rural poverty, however, urban areas Why are welfare^ programs in urban receive a greater percentage of govareas used more heavily than those in ernment assistance funds than their rural areas? Implicit in many proposed rural counterparts. In 1974, nonmetroexplanations is the assumption that politan areas received only about onefundamental differences exist between fourth of the federal outlay for inrural and urban attitudes toward wel come security and other welfare profare. It has been suggested that these grams.2 attitudinal differences are manifested Reasons for lower outlays in rural ln such ways as the following: adher areas relate both to program characence to the concept of local control teristics as well as to certain rural bemay prevent certain rural areas from havioral tendencies. Some programs applying for federal grants; local gov have built-in biases against rural areas, ernments may be unable—or unwilling For example, programs set up under —to master the bureaucratic proce the Comprehensive Employment and dures involved in getting projects Training Act (CETA) calculate benefunded; and administrative policies fits on the basis of unemployment and case-by-case practices may tend rates, which are particularly misleadto be more restrictive in rural than ing indicators of poverty in rural areas ln urban areas. because of the way in which they are Other explanations have attributed reported and computed. Furthermore, low rural participation rates to certain because an area must have a populafactors presumably found in nonmet tion base of 100,000 in order for the ropolitan areas, such as a lack of local government to be a prime sponknowledge about available programs, sor or administrator for CETA proinadequate financial support for local grams, rural areas usually fall into public assistance offices, scarcity of groupings administered by the state trained personnel, lack of confiden rather than by a local government tiality for the recipient (everyone more likely to be aware of local probknows and talks about the fact that lems and needs. a certain family is on welfare), apathy However, behavioral tendencies and because the problem of poverty has attitudes in rural areas may have even been serious for so long that its ex more influence than program requireistence becomes accepted as inevitable, ments on the amount of government and community attitudes of oppres money going to these areas. Participasion and aggressiveness toward the tion rates in welfare programs are poor.4 lower in rural than in urban areas. In Are attitudes toward welfare pro Pennsylvania, for example, four of the grams in fact more negative in rural five counties with the highest percenthan in urban areas, thus reducing tages of families on welfare in 1970 program participation rates and cre were in Standard Metropolitan Statisating poverty problems of greater tical Areas (SMSAs). In many less severity? The author examines this urbanized areas, such as Butler question by first reviewing previous County in western Pennsylvania, only studies of attitudes toward welfare 11 percent of the families having an and then by presenting data on rural income below the national poverty urban attitudinal differences from a level as determined by the 1970 U.S. study conducted in Pennsylvania.