July/August 2000
You can now receive
our news and information via e-mail. Click the 'Join List' button:
Center Releases Reports on Cost
of Living and Homebound Seniors
The Center for Rural Pennsylvania’s Board of Directors
has approved and released two reports on the cost of living and
homebound rural seniors, conducted by researchers at Penn State
University’s Erie and Fayette campuses, respectively.
Cost of living
The cost of living continues to be lower for most
Pennsylvania rural residents than urban residents, according to
a one-year study conducted by Dr. James A. Kurre of Penn State
Erie. The report is a follow-up based on a cost-of-living study
conducted by Kurre on behalf of the Center in 1992.
In his study, Differences in the Cost of Living
Across Pennsylvania’s 67 Counties, Kurre developed spatial
cost of living estimates for every Pennsylvania county for 1997.
In addition to overall cost of living, the study looked at six
subindexes including groceries, housing, utilities, transportation,
health care and miscellaneous goods and services. (See the
table below) The indexes were helpful in identifying high-
and low-cost locations in the state.
The study basically addressed four issues:
- Are rural counties less expensive places to live
than urban counties?
- Do the same patterns exist for each of the six
subindexes as for the overall cost of living?
- Are the spatial patterns found in the 1992 study
still applicable today?
- Are the factors that determine cost of living
differences across the state stable over time?
The key finding was that rural counties in Pennsylvania
tend to have lower costs of living overall and for each of the
six subindexes than urban counties. However, not all rural places
are less expensive than all urban places. For example, Kurre notes
that urban Lycoming, Cambria and Luzerne counties tended to have
lower costs than many rural counties, and Pike and Monroe counties
tended to have higher costs despite their rural classifications.
The study also found that the same patterns exist
for the subindexes, which means that urban areas tend to be more
expensive for all of the subindexes and for overall cost of living.
Geographical patterns were also found to be similar in both this
and the earlier study, which indicated that eastern and urban
counties were more expensive then, and still are today. The determinants
of cost of living also have not changed dramatically since the
1992 study, which was based on 1989 data.
Homebound seniors
In a separate report released by the Center for
Rural Pennsylvania, researchers suggest that homebound rural seniors
should not be treated as a homogenous group, noting that the differences
in socio-economic factors and individual abilities impacted seniors’
use of services.
The report, An Examination of Homebound Rural
Seniors, is based on a one-year study conducted by Dr. Jyotsna
Kalavar and John Rapano of Penn State Fayette.
To learn more about the service needs and uses of
homebound rural elderly, Kalavar and Rapano interviewed 196 homebound
seniors from Fayette, Green and Schuylkill counties.
According to the researchers, homebound rural seniors
represent a small but significant subgroup of rural older adults.
Typically, homebound seniors are difficult to identify, live in
geographically dispersed communities and face formidable challenges
with service delivery, service access, and service use. Most often,
they rely on family and nonfamily networks for informal support
and on formal support systems, which have diverse funding sources,
different levels of coordination, and even different definitions
of who is homebound. These seniors endure frequent disparities
in the quality of these support systems when compared to their
urban counterparts.
The study set out to better understand the "culture
of homebound rural elderly"; explore similarities or differences
in the experience of being a rural homebound senior citizen; and
provide information on the needs of homebound seniors to policymakers.
The findings, which where impacted by inherent difficulties
in reaching the target population, are meaningful and may be applied
to other rural counties in the state.
According to the study, homebound rural seniors
are likely to be female, between the ages of 75 and 84, widowed,
high-school educated, to have one or more health limitations,
and to have an income of less than $10,000 a year.
The findings indicate there were significant differences
within the three counties in service provision; that problems
with housekeeping and home maintenance were major challenges for
many of the respondents; and that many of the needs of homebound
seniors were being met.
Want more info?
Call the Center for Rural Pennsylvania at (717)
787-9555 or email info@ruralpa.org
for a copy of Differences in the Cost of Living Across Pennsylvania’s
67 Counties, or An Examination of Homebound Rural Seniors.
Cost of Living Estimates, Total
and Four Subindexes, for PA Counties, 1997 (rural counties are
in bold type.)
|
County
|
Total
|
Housing
|
Utilities
|
Transporation
|
HealthCare
|
| Adams |
101.9
|
101.4
|
120.9
|
100.0
|
95.8
|
| Allegheny |
104.6
|
109.5
|
123.9
|
105.2
|
108.2
|
| Armstrong |
100.2
|
98.3
|
120.9
|
98.6
|
94.5
|
| Beaver |
101.0
|
102.3
|
121.1
|
100.7
|
96.4
|
| Bedford |
100.4
|
98.2
|
120.8
|
96.8
|
92.2
|
| Berks |
102.0
|
103.1
|
121.5
|
101.3
|
101.3
|
| Blair |
100.6
|
100.9
|
121.0
|
98.0
|
95.1
|
| Bradford |
100.5
|
100.0
|
120.8
|
99.0
|
93.3
|
| Bucks |
103.5
|
105.9
|
122.2
|
105.0
|
107.6
|
| Butler |
101.7
|
101.5
|
121.1
|
100.2
|
96.6
|
| Cambria |
100.2
|
98.5
|
121.0
|
98.1
|
94.6
|
| Cameron |
99.7
|
98.7
|
120.8
|
97.9
|
96.1
|
| Carbon |
101.0
|
98.8
|
120.8
|
98.6
|
94.9
|
| Centre |
101.1
|
102.9
|
121.0
|
100.4
|
95.5
|
| Chester |
103.1
|
104.9
|
122.1
|
104.4
|
118.2
|
| Clarion |
99.7
|
99.1
|
120.8
|
96.8
|
93.8
|
| Clearfield |
100.4
|
97.5
|
120.9
|
96.9
|
93.7
|
| Clinton |
100.1
|
98.0
|
120.8
|
101.7
|
93.0
|
| Columbia |
100.3
|
98.7
|
120.9
|
98.0
|
94.1
|
| Crawford |
100.6
|
100.1
|
120.9
|
99.3
|
93.9
|
| Cumberland |
101.7
|
104.3
|
121.2
|
101.2
|
102.0
|
| Dauphin |
101.5
|
104.0
|
121.3
|
101.9
|
102.1
|
| Delaware |
108.4
|
115.3
|
122.1
|
108.5
|
107.1
|
| Elk |
99.7
|
99.5
|
120.8
|
99.1
|
97.2
|
| Erie |
101.0
|
101.2
|
121.3
|
100.2
|
97.1
|
| Fayette |
100.5
|
97.8
|
121.0
|
96.8
|
93.7
|
| Forest |
101.0
|
95.3
|
120.8
|
97.8
|
91.3
|
| Franklin |
101.2
|
101.3
|
121.0
|
98.4
|
96.6
|
| Fulton |
101.2
|
97.7
|
120.8
|
96.4
|
92.7
|
| Greene |
100.1
|
96.8
|
120.8
|
98.1
|
92.0
|
| Huntingdon |
100.2
|
95.2
|
120.8
|
97.3
|
91.5
|
| Indiana |
100.0
|
97.8
|
120.9
|
97.4
|
93.8
|
| Jefferson |
100.2
|
98.6
|
120.8
|
98.3
|
94.2
|
| Juniata |
100.9
|
97.6
|
120.8
|
96.6
|
92.7
|
| Lackawanna |
100.7
|
100.6
|
121.1
|
101.6
|
97.4
|
| Lancaster |
102.3
|
104.6
|
121.7
|
102.3
|
100.3
|
| Lawrence |
100.6
|
100.3
|
120.9
|
98.6
|
94.6
|
| Lebanon |
101.4
|
103.5
|
121.0
|
99.1
|
97.3
|
| Lehigh |
103.1
|
105.0
|
121.4
|
103.9
|
102.8
|
| Luzerne |
100.4
|
99.9
|
121.3
|
99.5
|
97.7
|
| Lycoming |
100.1
|
99.3
|
120.9
|
99.4
|
94.7
|
| McKean |
99.7
|
98.9
|
120.8
|
97.4
|
94.8
|
| Mercer |
100.6
|
100.9
|
120.9
|
98.3
|
94.6
|
| Mifflin |
100.7
|
98.8
|
120.8
|
99.7
|
92.4
|
| Monroe |
103.2
|
98.5
|
121.0
|
101.5
|
95.5
|
| Montgomery |
105.0
|
109.0
|
123.1
|
107.0
|
121.8
|
| Montour |
100.6
|
102.1
|
120.8
|
111.8
|
101.8
|
| Northampton |
102.5
|
103.7
|
121.3
|
101.9
|
99.5
|
| Northumberland |
100.0
|
99.3
|
120.9
|
97.7
|
94.4
|
| Perry |
101.3
|
101.8
|
120.8
|
98.0
|
94.0
|
| Philadelphia |
127.6
|
148.6
|
123.5
|
119.2
|
101.7
|
| Pike |
103.2
|
100.4
|
120.8
|
101.0
|
94.2
|
| Potter |
100.2
|
98.0
|
120.8
|
97.5
|
94.0
|
| Schuylkill |
100.0
|
98.7
|
121.0
|
98.4
|
95.3
|
| Snyder |
100.6
|
101.0
|
120.8
|
98.5
|
97.4
|
| Somerset |
100.5
|
98.3
|
120.9
|
97.1
|
93.6
|
| Sullivan |
100.1
|
98.4
|
120.8
|
97.1
|
92.4
|
| Susquehanna |
100.5
|
98.5
|
120.8
|
96.8
|
93.2
|
| Tioga |
100.4
|
98.8
|
120.8
|
96.7
|
93.2
|
| Union |
100.5
|
101.5
|
120.8
|
99.3
|
94.1
|
| Venango |
99.9
|
99.0
|
120.9
|
98.1
|
97.8
|
| Warren |
99.7
|
100.2
|
120.8
|
98.5
|
96.1
|
| Washington |
100.7
|
101.1
|
121.2
|
99.4
|
99.3
|
| Wayne |
101.2
|
97.4
|
120.8
|
100.1
|
93.5
|
| Westmoreland |
100.9
|
101.5
|
121.5
|
101.2
|
98.8
|
| Wyoming |
99.8
|
97.4
|
120.8
|
99.0
|
93.9
|
| York |
102.1
|
103.3
|
121.5
|
101.6
|
99.4
|
The cost of living estimates in the table above
are based on a national average of 100. Counties with cost estimates
above 100 are more expensive than the national average and those
with estimates below 100 are less expensive than the national
average.
Chairman’s Message
Many of us look forward to summer because its longer
days give us more hours to get more things accomplished. If you’re
like me, you always have far more planned for this busy season
than time permits. For me, summer means long hours on the farm
doing field work, heaving hay bales into a barn, and taking care
of all the chores left over from winter and spring! For the legislature,
it’s a time to catch up with work in the district offices and
prepare for the fall voting session. And for some, it’s a time
to get away from work and escape for a brief vacation from phones,
fax machines, and other demands of the job.
Sometimes, during summer’s activities, we can combine
business with pleasure. I always look forward to spending time
at the annual Ag Progress Days in August at Penn State’s Russell
E. Larson Agricultural Research Center in Rock Springs, Pa. It’s
a time to see old friends and meet new people, and learn about
the latest technology and research in agriculture. All of the
exhibits, demonstrations and activities help farmers and non-farmers,
youth and seniors, to gather valuable information while they enjoy
some time away from home. For more information about Ag Progress
Days, turn to the Conferences section on page 7. You will
also find information on a variety of conference opportunities
that are guaranteed to stimulate your summer and cure any case
of the doldrums.
If you prefer to spend your free time this summer
relaxing under a shade tree with a refreshing glass of cold milk
and farm-fresh fruit and ice cream, indulge yourself with one
more treat. Explore the pages of a book written by a rural Pennsylvanian.
A list of possibilities is on page 5, where we highlight some
rural authors whose talents are sure to please a variety of literary
tastes. You may find yourself recognizing some of the places and
people that come to life in these books.
Two recently released reports from the Center for
Rural Pennsylvania will provide some additional reading opportunities
for those who are interested in two important topics: homebound
rural seniors and the cost of living. These reports, which are
featured on page 1 of this edition of Rural Perspectives,
are based on one-year research projects by faculty at Penn State
University’s Fayette and Erie campuses. Other informative articles
in this issue provide data on rural dentists and dental practices,
the number of AIDS cases in both rural and urban areas, the Community
Revitalization Grants Program, and rural liquor sales.
If hiking is part of your summer plans, you don’t
want to miss our Resources section on page 8, which features
an announcement about the release of the Pennsylvania Rail-Trails
guidebook, fifth edition. The guidebook offers information
on the 100 statewide trails that may be enjoyed this summer and
throughout the year.
Events, exhibits, attractions and vacation sites.
Rural Pennsylvania has it all. So try to get out and enjoy them
if you can. Have a wonderful summer.
Representative Sheila Miller
Chairman
Checkup on Rural Dentists
Some people may not fully appreciate their regular
visit to the dentist, but that visit is just as important as a
regular visit to the family doctor. Scheduling a regular dental
checkup may be more difficult, since over the last several years,
Pennsylvania has experienced a slight decline in the number of
licensed dentists practicing in the state, and only a minor increase
in the number of dental practices.
Number of dentists
According to the Pennsylvania Bureau of Professional
and Occupational Affairs, from 1992 to 1999, the number of licensed
dentists in the state declined 2 percent, from 8,497 dentists
to 8,317. In 1999, 83 percent of the dentists in Pennsylvania
were located in urban counties. More than 17 percent of dentists
were located in rural areas.
More specifically, in 1999 there were 1,146 dentists
in rural areas or one dentist for every 2,224 residents and 7,171
dentists located in urban areas or one dentist for every 1,318
residents. Regionally, counties in western Pennsylvania saw the
largest decline in dentists at 4 percent while eastern counties
saw a modest decline of 1 percent. At the county level, four counties
had less than five dentists each including Cameron, Forest, Fulton,
and Sullivan. The counties with the highest number of dentists
were Allegheny, Bucks, Montgomery and Philadelphia.
Dental offices
While the number of dentists has declined, the number
of dental offices and receipts has increased. Based on reports
from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Economic Census, from 1992 to 1997,
total receipts per dental office increased by almost 14 percent
in rural counties. In urban counties, receipts increased by nearly
11 percent. In 1997, there were 5,433 dental offices in the state;
829 offices were in rural counties and 4,604 offices were in urban
counties. From 1992 to 1997, there was a gain of 117 offices statewide.
During that same period, for every one office gained in rural
counties, there were 28 gained in urban counties.
While there have been increases in both revenue
and the number of dental offices in both rural and urban areas,
there are still medically under-served locations in Pennsylvania.
Slightly more than 16 percent of dental offices in the state were
located in rural counties in 1997. During that time, there was
roughly one office for every 3,000 residents, compared to one
office for every 2,000 residents in urban areas.
To alleviate medical shortages and under-service
throughout the state, the Pennsylvania General Assembly passed
Act 113, the Children’s Health Care Act of 1992. This act allowed
the Pennsylvania Department of Health’s Division of Health Professions
Development to declare Health Professional Shortage Areas (HPSA)
to help recruit dentists and open new practices. In 1996, Pennsylvania
had 18 dental HPSAs. Thirty-three percent of HPSAs were located
in low-income rural areas.
Correction: The number of HPSAs listed
above actually represents primary care HPSAs. There were 33 dental
HPSAs as of July 2000 and of these, 23 were identified as low-income
population HPSAs.
Want more info?
For a more detailed factsheet called A Rural
Dental Checkup, call the Center for Rural Pennsylvania at
(717) 787-9555 or email info@ruralpa.org.
Reported Cases of AIDS Declines
in PA
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome or AIDS, a deadly
condition in which the body’s defenses against illnesses are broken
down, continues to ravage the health of individuals worldwide.
In Pennsylvania, since 1980, over 22,800 cases of
AIDS have been reported and about 7 percent of the reported cases
are from rural areas, according to data from the Pennsylvania
Department of Health’s Bureau of Epidemiology.
Between 1980 and 1999, the total number of reported
AIDS cases in rural areas was 1,400, or 57 cases for every 100,000
residents. In urban areas, there were more than 21,460 reported
cases, or 227 cases for every 100,000 residents. During that 20-year
period, over 55 percent of those with AIDS have died. People with
AIDS who live in rural areas have had a slightly higher mortality
rate than those in urban areas.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC), Pennsylvania ranks number seven in the nation
in the cumulative number of reported AIDS cases between 1981 and
1997. New York, California, and Florida have the highest cumulative
number of reported cases. On a per capita basis, Pennsylvania
is ranked 21.
Within Pennsylvania, the highest number of reported
AIDS cases were from southeastern Pennsylvania. The five predominantly
urban counties in this region had 409 reported cases for every
100,000 residents, which was more than twice the state average.
Northwestern Pennsylvania had the lowest number of reported cases,
or less than 50 for every 100,000 residents. That number was nearly
four times below the state average.
Between 1994 and 1997, the number of newly reported
AIDS cases in rural areas dropped nearly 46 percent. In urban
areas, there was a 27 percent decline. Nationally, there was a
24 percent decline.
Factors that are often cited as the reasons for
the decline in AIDS rates include increased education and awareness,
improved drug treatment and medical care, and increased testing.
In rural Pennsylvania, testing does not appear to play a major
role in the declining rates of the disease. Between 1995 and 1998,
fewer rural residents were tested for AIDS or Human Immuno-deficiency
Virus (HIV), the virus that leads to AIDS, than urban residents.
In rural areas, only 15 people were tested for every 1,000 residents,
while in urban areas, over 32 people were tested for every 1,000
residents.
Due to new treatments, which delay the onset of
AIDS after infection with HIV, many states now track the epidemic
by tracking HIV infection data. The CDC studied HIV infection
rates in 25 states and found that while AIDS rates have dropped,
HIV infection has remained relatively steady. The CDC has also
noted that women, and especially those of color, are the fastest
growing population segment becoming infected with the virus in
recent years.
Summer Reading List of Rural Authors
Eager to get your hands on a good book this summer?
Why not check out some prose by famous authors who were born,
raised or living in rural Pennsylvania. The works of these authors
are sure to suit a variety of literary tastes. Good reading!
David Bradley - The author and scholar was
born in Chaneysville, Bedford County, and currently lives in California.
In 1981, Bradley released his book, The Chaneysville Incident,
which addresses the real mystery of runaway slaves whose graves
are located near that southern Bedford County town. In 1982, the
book received a Pen/Faulkner Award for Fiction, an award founded
by writers to honor their peers.
Dean Koontz - The noted horror/psychological
fiction writer was born in Everett, Bedford County. Koontz graduated
from Shippensburg University, located in Franklin County. After
a few years of both teaching and counseling, Koontz became a full-time
writer in 1969. A short list of his books include, Warlock,
A Werewolf Among Us, Whispers, Watchers,
Winter Moon, and Intensity.
John O’Hara - The novelist and short story
author was born in Pottsville, Pa., in 1905. In 1934, he published
his first novel, Appointment in Samarra, named as one of
the 100 best English-language novels of the century by the Modern
Library. The book tells of the story of a jet-set couple living
in prohibition era "Gibbsville," the book’s name for
O’Hara’s hometown. A short list of O’Hara’s other works include
Butterfield 8, Ten North Frederick, From the
Terrace, A Rage to Live and a short story collection,
Waiting for Winter. O’Hara died in 1970.
Anne Marie Winston - The romance novelist
is a Pennsylvania native and former teacher from Waynesboro, Adams
County. Winston begin writing romance novels in 1989. She has
received many awards for her novels, which include Carolina
on my Mind, Best Kept Secrets, Island Baby,
Unlikely Eden, and Cowboy Style.
Did You Know . . .
- The average annual rural wage increased 4.4 percent
from 1994 to 1998 (rate was adjusted for inflation).
- Two out of every 100 rural residents in Pennsylvania
are people of color. One out of every 100 rural residents is Hispanic.
- Between 1991 and 1998, enrollment in rural schools
increased 3.9 percent.
- Between July and December 1998, rural and urban
areas had nearly identical participation rates in the Children’s
Health Insurance Program (CHIP).
- In 1996, rural areas were served by 418 ambulance
providers and 955 volunteer firefighting organizations.
- In 1996, Pennsylvania’s rural health care industry
employed nearly 84,000 people, or nearly 12 percent of the state’s
rural workforce.
Community Revitalization Grant
Awards
Rural and urban organizations that received Community
Revitalization Grant monies tended to spend the bulk of their
awards on building and rehabilitation projects, and equipment,
according to an analysis conducted by the Center for Rural Pennsylvania.
Focusing on fiscal years 1997-1998 and 1998-1999, the Center also
found that while rural organizations accessed the program, they
tended to receive fewer awards and less funding than urban organizations.
What is CRGP?
Administered by the state Department of Community
and Economic Development (DCED), the Community Revitalization
Grant Program (CRGP) was established in 1997 to support "local
initiatives that improve the stability of a community and enhance
local economic conditions."
Local governments, municipal and redevelopment authorities,
industrial development authorities and agencies, and non-profit
organizations are all eligible for program funding. The program
does not require any matching funds and may be used for a wide
variety of projects. With these funds, eligible organizations
have purchased everything from baseball gear to life support equipment.
To learn more about the CRGP, the Center for Rural
Pennsylvania obtained data from DCED’s Office of Legislative Affairs
for fiscal years 1997-1998 and 1998-1999. The data listed information,
by county, on the amount of each award granted, the name of the
organization receiving the award, and how the grant money was
used. The report for 1997-1998, however, did not include information
on how the money was used.
Organizations that received funding through the
program were separated into six categories for the analysis. For
1999, the data was also separated according to how the funding
was spent.
How much and to whom
During 1997-1998 and 1998-1999, nearly 3,300 grants
totaling over $80 million were awarded to organizations in 66
of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties. No Sullivan County organization
received an award during either fiscal year. About 20 percent
or 655 of the awards were received by rural organizations. Urban
organizations received about 80 percent or 2,641 of the awards.
Regionally, organizations in the southeast received
the most awards with 30 percent, or 981 awards. Organizations
in the southwest region followed with 28 percent, or 931 awards.
Organizations in the northeast region followed with 15 percent,
or 497 awards. Organizations in the southcentral region had 10
percent or 344; in the central region had 9 percent or 299; and
in the northwest had 7 percent or 244.
On a county basis, organizations in Allegheny County
received the most awards with 17 percent or 573 of the total number
of awards. Philadelphia County organizations received 12 percent
or 410; Montgomery County organizations with 7 percent or 231;
and Delaware County organizations with 5 percent or 150. Two organizations
each received awards in Union, Montour and Cameron counties.
In total, organizations in rural areas received
over $11 million in awards, which amounted to 14 percent of the
total monies distributed. Urban organizations received 86 percent
of the total dollar amount.
Rural organizations tended to receive smaller awards
than urban organizations. About 42 percent of rural organizations
received awards of $10,000 or less, while 39 percent of urban
organizations received that amount. While 9 percent of awards
to urban organizations topped $50,000, 6 percent of awards to
rural organizations were over that amount. Other award amounts
to rural organizations were as follows: 28 percent received between
$10,000 and $14,999; 15 percent received $15,000 to $24,999; and
9 percent received $25,000 to $49,999. Urban organizations received
the following: 27 percent received $10,000 to $14,999; 13 percent
received $15,000 to $24,999; and 12 percent received $25,000 to
$49,999. The average rural organization award was about $17,000,
while the average urban organization award was over $26,000.
More than 51 percent of the rural organizations
used their awards to build or rehabilitate buildings, compared
to about 36 percent of urban organizations. About 20 percent of
rural organizations also used the funding for equipment purchases,
and almost 22 percent of urban organizations used the funding
for equipment. While more than 16 percent of urban organizations
used the funding for organizational expenses, only about 7 percent
of rural organizations did so. Other high-ranking projects on
both rural and urban lists included vehicle purchases and computer
purchases or upgrades.
Want more info?
For the fact sheet, Community Revitalization
Grants, call the Center for Rural Pennsylvania at (717) 787-9555
or email info@ruralpa.org.
Just the Facts: Rural Liquor Sales
Analysis of data from the Pennsylvania Liquor Control
Board provides the following information on liquor sales in rural
Pennsylvania.
In 1999, the 145 state liquor stores in rural Pennsylvania
sold more than 3.4 million gallons of wine and spirits. This is
enough to create a five-acre pond that is 2 feet deep.
On a per capita basis, each rural Pennsylvanian
purchased 1.35 gallons of alcohol in 1999. Urban residents bought
an average of 2.38 gallons per person. Between 1995 and 1999,
the total gallons purchased in rural areas increased nearly 13
percent, while urban areas saw a 6 percent increase.
More than 10.7 million units, or bottles, of alcohol
were sold in rural state stores in 1999. If these bottles were
lined up end-to-end, they would reach from Harrisburg to Reno,
Nevada, some 2,200 miles long.
On a per capita basis, there are more state stores
in rural areas than in urban areas. In rural areas, there is one
state store for every 17,600 residents. In urban areas, there
is one store for every 18,500 residents.
On a typical day in 1999, the average rural state
store sold about 250 bottles of wine and spirits. On this same
day, the average urban store sold nearly 490 bottles — almost
twice as many.
Rural residents purchased 4.2 bottles of wine and
spirits per person in 1999. Urban residents, on the other hand,
purchased an average of 7.9 bottles per person. Between 1993 and
1999, the total number of bottles sold increased 2 percent in
rural stores, while in urban stores there was a 5 percent decline.
Cash registers in rural state stores rang up more
than $114.5 million in sales in 1999 - or about $2,625 per store
per day. The average urban store had almost $5,420 in sales per
store per day. Urban stores had seven times the amount of sales
as rural stores, or $830 million.
On a per capita basis, rural residents spent $45
at state stores in 1999 while urban residents spent $88. Despite
the lower per capita sales, rural state stores saw a 7 percent
increase in total sales between 1993 and 1999, while urban store
sales increased by 4 percent.
Back to the Top
