January/February 2001
You can now receive
our news and information via e-mail. Click the 'Join List' button:
Kicking Off A New Grant Year
The Center for Rural Pennsylvania has officially
kicked off its 2001 grant projects and is looking forward to another
year of garnering important research and technical information.
In November of 2000, the Center’s Board of Directors
awarded more than $300,000 in grant monies to six faculty from
State System of Higher Education universities and three faculty
from the Pennsylvania State University’s main and Commonwealth
campuses. February 1 is the official kick-off date for most projects.
This year’s projects focus on topics ranging from
alternative education to long-term care services. Representative
Sheila Miller, chairman of the Center’s Board of Directors, says
that this year’s grant projects, like past projects, will continue
to reflect the needs and issues of our times.
"Our Board of Directors, independent reviewers
and Center staff are constantly mindful of the issues that need
more focused attention," Miller says. "During the grants
process, we try to choose the projects that will build on the
Center’s base of information and rural Pennsylvania’s need for
answers to important issues."
2001 Grant Projects
This year’s grant projects are summarized below.
Assessment and Strategies for Enhancing E-Commerce
in Rural Pennsylvania
The "new economy" is driven by entrepreneurs
and innovative companies using technology and the Internet to
effectively and efficiently reach out to the global marketplace.
Rural Pennsylvania is facing a relatively large
unemployment rate due to the virtual extinction of "old economy"
industries such as steel and coal, and is struggling to transition
to the "new economy." This study, conducted by Dr. Prashanth
Nagendra of Indiana University, will focus on assessing the use
of e-commerce in rural Pennsylvania and on developing strategies
to enhance the use of e-commerce.
Availability of Long Term Care Services in
Rural Pennsylvania
With Pennsylvania’s growing senior population and
those under 65 who need long-term care services, the issue of
long-term care services will become increasingly important. This
research, headed by Dr. Sara A. Grove of Shippensburg University,
will focus on home health care agencies and family caregivers.
The project will examine the sources of payment for both public
and private long-term care services; future demand for long-term
care services; and barriers to providing long-term care services
in rural Pennsylvania.
Supply and Demand of Long-Term Care In Rural
Pennsylvania
This comprehensive analysis of long-term care services
in Pennsylvania will focus on rural populations and will provide
a service guide on the continuum of long-term care services available
in rural areas and a separate guide to long-term care and its
future in Pennsylvania, with information on service demands and
supply in different areas, costs, barriers to service delivery,
and policy recommendations. Dr. Dennis Shea of Penn State University
will conduct the project.
Survey and Analysis of Alternative Education
Practices
Nathaniel Hosley of Lock Haven University will survey
rural schools to ascertain and describe the status of alternative
education in the Commonwealth. The survey will provide useful
data to policymakers on alternative education models, practices,
goals, philosophical approaches, costs, student selection methods,
and other data. Rural and urban practices will be evaluated to
determine similarities and differences.
Income Gap Between Rural and Urban Residents
Dr. Constantinos Christofides of East Stroudsburg
University will conduct this study to measure and compare income
gaps within and among Pennsylvania’s 67 counties, and to identify
what factors are causing widening income gaps between rural and
urban counties. Specifically, the study will estimate the effects
of state taxes and other economic policies on income inequality
and will propose policy recommendations to bridge the gap.
Effects of New Medicare Reimbursement Methodologies
on Rural Home Health Agencies and Their Beneficiaries
Headed by Lisa Davis of the Pennsylvania Office
of Rural Health at Penn State University, this project will analyze
the effects of the Interim Payment and Prospective Payment Systems
(instituted by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997) on the Commonwealth’s
rural health care providers and beneficiaries. These systems change
home health agencies’ reimbursement for Medicare services. The
study will examine the financial status of rural home health agencies
before and after the systems have been implemented; identify the
most vulnerable agencies and communities and any patterns to their
vulnerability; describe how agencies are coping with these changes;
and determine how these changes are affecting beneficiaries.
Establishing a Rural TeleCounty
Now in its third year, this project is a community
driven undertaking that has used technology to provide, economic,
educational, and social service opportunities for Fayette County
residents. Mr. Joseph Segilia of Penn State University - Fayette,
who directs the telecounty project, stresses that the project
will continue to provide computer access, education and economic
development training opportunities and technology awareness through
community outreach efforts at numerous Rural Online Computer Centers
(ROCC) located throughout the county.
Mini Grant Program
Analysis of the Children’s Health Insurance
Program in Rural PA
This project, conducted by Dr. Marie E. Twal of
Indiana University, will analyze three major areas of the Children’s
Health Insurance Program (CHIP) as follows: outreach, barriers
to care, and rates of participation in healthcare services by
rural children in four geographically diverse counties of Pennsylvania.
Quantitative data generated by CHIP will be analyzed and qualitative
data will be collected to provide insights, which may add some
richness to the quantitative data. Differences between the use
of health care services of children in the free program and those
in the reduced premium program will be identified. Specific attention
will be given to understand the impact of CHIP on each of the
five stages of childhood.
Report on Rural Schools
Dr. Wenfan Yan of Indiana University will use existing
data files provided by the Pennsylvania Department of Education
to develop a measure of rural school effectiveness. The project
will use a process-product model to identify factors that influence
students’ academic performance by taking both community input
and school process factors into account. To give a more accurate
report of rural school effectiveness, urban schools will also
be included as comparison groups. The results of this study will
provide the critical information necessary to help policy makers,
institutions, parents, teachers, counselors, and students understand
what makes rural schools effective and how to improve the quality
of rural school education in Pennsylvania.
Prepping for next year
As this year’s grantees begin their projects, the
Center for Rural Pennsylvania is also getting ready to begin the
yearly grant process again.
The Center’s Board of Directors is identifying additional
research topics that address relevant issues impacting Pennsylvania’s
3.7 million rural residents. After topics have been identified,
the Center will issue the Request for Proposals (RFP).
The 2001/2002 RFP will be issued in February and
may include such targeted topics as affordable housing, rural
transportation, telecommunications competition, adult literacy,
and access to dental care.
While the Center’s grant program is only available
to faculty at SSHE and Penn State universities, the Center encourages
cooperation and collaboration between these faculty and other
public or private organizations on grant projects.
The grant program offers a maximum funding level
of $50,000 per project per year. Grant projects may be renewed
for up to three years if further research is necessary but each
grantee must meet the current year grant requirements and continue
to submit yearly competitive proposals.
Call the Center at (717) 787-9555 or visit our website
at www.ruralpa.org for more information about the 2001/2002 RFP
or to receive a copy of the RFP.
Chairman’s Message
The New Year always brings great expectations of
things we hope to accomplish. And, with this edition of Rural
Perspectives, you will see we have incorporated changes in
response to the constructive feedback we received from the survey
that was included in the September/October 2000 issue of the newsletter.
We are continuing to strive to keep our positive rating with our
readership, which was the message we received from 99 percent
of respondents who told us they were moderately to very satisfied
with the overall content and look of the newsletter. We will continue
to bring you information in a format that is clear and easy to
read, which a majority of respondents told us they appreciated.
We will be adding more graphics, photos and data as requested
by respondents, and will be following up on some great suggestions
for articles, ranging from human services to elderly transportation
and housing, to emergency services.
Please save the dates of November 13 and 14, 2001
to join the Center for Rural Pennsylvania for our Rural Summit.
We will be building on the success of a previous conference that
was held in 1997, and will be offering you the opportunity to
discuss a wide range of issues with a diverse group of individuals.
Over the next several months, the Center will provide more information
about the conference in upcoming issues of Rural Perspectives,
on the Center’s website at www.ruralpa.org, and in special mailings.
Gathering and researching important issues impacting
rural Pennsylvania is a continual goal for the Center for Rural
Pennsylvania. As you read the articles in this edition of Rural
Perspectives on rural crime and driving under the influence
of alcohol and other drugs, it is obvious rural Pennsylvania has
many challenges facing it in the months and years ahead. But positive
programs, like Elizabethtown Borough’s citizen college can help
residents of rural communities understand how they can be involved
as concerned citizens in helping to solve problems facing local
governments.
Along with analyzing data, the Center is excited
to be able to fund research projects through our grant program.
We are supporting rural research that covers issues such as long-term
care, managed care, rural education, e-commerce and more, and
are looking ahead to next year’s topics that will be outlined
in our 2002 Request for Proposals in February. Please contact
us in February if you would like to receive a copy of the RFP.
Finally, on behalf of the Board of Directors and
staff, I would like to acknowledge the contributions made by Senator
Patrick J. Stapleton to the success of the Center for Rural Pennsylvania.
Senator Stapleton, who retired from the Senate and the Board of
the Center for Rural Pennsylvania in December 2000, was an incorporating
member of the Center and served as its founding treasurer. Throughout
his 30 years of service to the General Assembly, Senator Stapleton
demonstrated exceptional commitment to his community and constituents.
He was a well-known advocate of rural Pennsylvania. We wish him
all the best and extend to him our sincere thanks and gratitude
for his dedication.
Representative Sheila Miller
Rural Crime Rate at a 10-Year Low
Good news in the fight against serious crime in
rural Pennsylvania; it’s at a 10-year low, according to statistics
from the Pennsylvania State Police’s Uniform Crime Report. In
the Commonwealth’s rural counties, the number of Part 1 offenses,
which include both violent and property crimes such as murder,
robbery, burglary and arson, decreased more than 9 percent from
almost 48,900 in 1998 to just under 44,450 in 1999.
On a per capita basis, Part 1 offenses were reported
in rural Pennsylvania at a rate of 1,741 for every 100,000 residents;
significantly lower than the urban rate of 3,188 for every 100,000
residents. When examining Part 1 offenses separately, the Center
for Rural Pennsylvania found that both violent and property crimes
were also significantly lower than the urban rates. For example,
in 1999, the rural rate for violent crimes was 175 for every 100,000,
compared to the urban rate of 460. For property crimes, the rural
and urban rates were 1,566 and 2,729, respectively.
For two specific types of Part 1 offenses, namely
arson and rape, the rural rates were very low and were similar
to the urban rates. The rural rates for these specific crimes
were 25 for every 100,000 residents.
From 1990 to 1999, an average of 62 murders per
year took place in rural Pennsylvania. In1999, only 55 murders
were reported in rural areas. In urban areas, the number of murders
reported from 1990 to 1999 was more than 10 times the rural average
at 678. Also, the 1999 rate of 5.4 murders for every 100,000 people
in urban areas was twice as high as the rural rate of 2.2.
From 1998 to 1999, the number of Part 2 offenses,
which include less serious crimes such as fraud, drug abuse, and
gambling, fell more than 6 percent in rural Pennsylvania from
114,566 to 107,439. Statewide, Part 2 offenses increased by nearly
2.5 percent.
Since 1990, there has been a trend toward an overall
decrease in serious crimes and an increase in less serious crimes
in rural and urban areas, and throughout the state. For these
less serious offenses, the 1999 rate in rural areas was 4,209
for every 100,000 while the rate in urban areas was 5,271.
There were certain offenses, however, for which
the rural rate was higher. The rural rate for fraud in 1999 was
241 for every 100,000 people, while the urban rate was 185 for
every 100,000. Driving under the influence (DUI) and liquor offenses
in rural areas were also reported at rates of 355 and 201, respectively,
for every 100,000 people. In urban areas, the rates for DUI and
liquor offenses were 325 and 176, respectively.
Other offenses, however, such as prostitution and
vice, gambling, embezzlement, weapons, and drug abuse, occurred
at much lower rates in rural areas, each at less than 50 percent
of the urban rate.
Citizens’ College Helps Residents
Learn How Local Government Works
A new college in Elizabethtown Borough isn’t offering
any degrees but it is serving the community by providing residents
with a better understanding of how local government works.
Elizabethtown Borough, located in Lancaster County,
began a new program called Citizens’ College of Elizabethtown
to give residents the opportunity to learn what is it truly like
to govern a small town and participate in the borough’s day-to-day
operations.
The program was started in 2000 by the Elizabethtown
Borough Council, with assistance of borough Manager Pete Whipple
and Director of Community Services Amy Farkas. In the program,
adult residents of Eliza-bethtown attended a free class once a
month for one year to learn more about topics such as planning/zoning,
economic development, recycling, the budget process, water, regionalization,
and the police department.
While this municipal class may be the first of its
kind in Lancaster County, the concept behind citizen education
to encourage participation in local government activities is not
new. Local governments have used newspapers, websites, and workshops
to educate and inform citizens about how large and small, urban
and rural government works. In Arizona and Kansas, similar programs
have been implemented with success.
In Pennsylvania and other states, citizen education
has also extended to many police departments, and has helped residents
to better understand the responsibilities of their police force
and the role citizens play in enhancing the safety in their communities.
In Elizabethtown, the college serves a two-fold
purpose. Borough Council President Meade Bierly says the college
was started to help the borough and its residents work together.
"A better-educated citizenry will foster a
climate of greater understanding of the issues facing our community,"
Bierly says. "Also, a new group of community leaders may
emerge from these informal, yet challenging sessions."
In the first session of Citizens’ College, 20 residents
were enrolled, and courses were taught by borough employees and
outside speakers. The classes were intended to be informative,
yet informal, and some classes included tours of borough facilities.
The class visited a water plant, a wastewater treatment plant,
and the police department. While the participants were not asked
to take any tests or quizzes, they were asked to attend at least
nine of the 11 sessions and to present a 15-minute speech during
the last class detailing some aspect of a municipality’s function.
Graduating participants received a certificate of completion.
According to Farkas, the class helped to educate
the borough staff as well at the participants. "The class
allowed both the staff and students to take a look at local government
from a different vantage point."
She says that the borough, as a whole, is also benefiting
since a new group of community leaders may emerge from the sessions:
one student, for example, has been appointed to fill a vacancy
on the zoning hearing board.
In late fall of 2000, the borough was accepting
applications for the 2001 program.
For more information about the Citizens’ College,
call Amy Farkas, Director of Community Services, at the Elizabethtown
Borough Office at (717) 367-1700, ext. 228 or email boro@etownonline.com.
Did You Know . . .
- Between 1998 and 1999, the number of rural births
dropped more than 6 percent.
- Pennsylvania consumers drink 2.4 billion pounds
of milk annually.
- Rural Pennsylvania is home to 26 public and private
colleges and universities. In total, Pennsylvania houses 171 institutions
of higher learning.
Drinking and Driving on Rural Roads
Every 13 minutes, on average, someone was arrested
in Pennsylvania for driving under the influence of alcohol or
narcotics in 1999. According to data from the Pennsylvania State
Police, nearly 23 percent of those arrests were in rural areas.
In 1999, more than 9,000 rural drivers were arrested
for driving under the influence (DUI). In urban areas, more than
30,760 drivers were arrested. While these numbers are significantly
different, they translate into much higher DUI arrests for rural
drivers on a per capita basis. For example, the rural arrest rate
was 355 people for every 100,000 residents; the urban rate was
326 for every 100,000 residents.
From 1995 to 1999, both rural and urban DUI rates
have slowly crept upwards; rural areas saw a 12 percent increase
in DUI arrests, and urban areas saw a 9 percent increase.
Regionally, in 1999, northwest Pennsylvania had
the highest number of DUI arrests at 384 for every 100,000 people,
while the southeast had the lowest number of 299 for every 100,000.
At the county level, Cameron and Clinton had DUI arrest rates
almost twice as high as the statewide rate, which was 332 arrests
for every 100,000 residents. Juniata, Somerset, and Union counties,
on the other hand, had arrest rates twice as low as the statewide
rate.
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) data shows
that across the United States, there were more than 931,200 DUI
arrests in 1999, or 551 for every 100,000 residents. Rural counties
nationwide had a DUI arrest rate that was 2.5 times higher than
the rate of Pennsylvania’s rural counties.
In addition to having a higher DUI arrest rate statewide,
rural areas also have a higher rate of alcohol related vehicle
accidents and fatalities than urban areas. In 1999, rural areas
had nearly 150 alcohol related vehicle accidents for every 100,000
residents, while urban areas had less than 110 for every 100,000
residents. Also in 1999, rural areas had 8.4 alcohol-related driving
fatalities for every 100,000 residents. In urban areas, the rate
was 5 fatalities for every 100,000 residents.
Statewide, there is a statistically significant
correlation between the per capita number of DUI arrests and alcohol-related
crashes. However, there is only a weak correlation between the
number of State Liquor Store sales per capita and the number of
DUI arrests.
Just the Facts: Pass It On
On average, who earns more through inheritances,
rural or urban beneficiaries? According to estimates from 1999
data received from the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue, beneficiaries
in rural areas received more than $1.4 billion in inheritances
while beneficiaries in urban areas received nearly $7.5 billion,
or five times more in inheritances than their rural counterparts.
The data from the Department of Revenue included
the amount of inheritance taxes collected across the state. This
tax is levied on beneficiaries according to the amount of property
and monies received through inheritances and the beneficiaries’
relationship to the deceased.
On average, rural beneficiaries inherited about
$52,000 per rural death in 1999. Urban beneficiaries received
more than $75,000 per urban death. Who, specifically were these
beneficiaries? Statewide, about 75 percent of all beneficiaries
are spouses, parents, children, grandparents or grandchildren.
The remaining 25 percent are other relatives or non-relatives.
Between 1991 and 1999, the average inheritance in
rural areas increased about 25 percent. In urban areas, there
was an 18 percent increase in the average inheritance. During
this same period, the number of rural deaths increased 8 percent,
while the number of urban deaths increased only 4 percent.
The inheritance differences between rural and urban
beneficiaries can be partially explained by differences in wealth
in these areas. A 1998 study by the Center for Rural Pennsylvania
found that the total wealth per capita in rural areas was nearly
$44,000, while in urban areas the total was almost $57,000. Total
wealth was the sum of property values and personal income.
Regionally, beneficiaries in southeastern Pennsylvania
had the highest average inheritance per death of more than $92,000,
while those in the northwestern corner of the state had the lowest
average inheritance per death of about $50,900. In 1999, the average
inheritance per death in Montgomery, Chester, Snyder, Delaware,
and Warren counties was more than $100,000. The average inheritance
in Forest and Greene counties was less than $25,000.
The transfer of wealth from one generation to the
next may become more pronounced over the next 25 years as the
state’s baby boomers begin to reach the median mortality age of
76. At that time, rural beneficiaries may see their average inheritance
increase to $125,000 and urban beneficiaries may receive an average
of $140,000.
Save these dates for the Rural
Summit in the City!
November 13 - 14, 2001
Hilton Harrisburg & Towers, Harrisburg, PA
The Rural Summit, sponsored by the Center for Rural
Pennsylvania, will offer rural advocates and those interested
in rural issues the opportunity to join legislators, educators,
local government officials, and other diverse leaders to discuss
and learn more about a variety of contemporary rural issues.
More information will be included in upcoming issues of Rural
Perspectives, on the Center's website at www.ruralpa.org, and
in special mailings over the next several months.
Back to the Top
