Facing Reality in Rural America

The community and family structures of rural America are changing. These changes have implications for Extension because our programs must be based on an understanding of actual trends- not myths and false assumptions. Extension has a major responsibility to portray and communicate an accurate picture of what's really happening to families and communities in rural America.

Family farms, typically associated with rural areas, no longer support immediate or extended family members. Farms are being sold, women are taking more lucrative positions, and community service agencies are realizing the need to change traditional programming methods to meet the needs of traditional rural clientele.

Rural America is more than agriculture. People in rural areas live in a variety of situations. Aside from farming, other residents in small towns aren't directly involved in agriculture. Comprising our rural population are 14,000 small towns with one- fourth of the nation's people. One general definition of rural America might be "people who live in the country, but don't farm for a living."

Since so many small farms don't sufficiently return a supportive income today, two-thirds of all farm families are engaged in off-the-farm employment. This means many women have taken off-farm jobs to make up for loss of income or help repay loans. Many women are also the sole family provider. This situation repeats itself with other rural occupations, such as the families of unemployed miners, drillers, or textile workers.1

In characterizing rural America, often false assumptions are made. The myth of a close-knit community and extended family structures should first be dispelled. As a transient society, not everyone in a typical rural community knows each other. Neighborly visits, once prevalent in rural areas, are no longer characteristic. With the trend of accepting second and sometimes third jobs, often out-of-town workers leave early in the morning and arrive home after dark.2

Rural Americans compared to metropolitan residents have lower incomes, fewer job opportunities, higher unemployment rates, and are more likely to live in poverty or substandard housing. Job growth is slower in rural America with unemployment and underemployment chronic problems. In 1986, unemployment was 26% higher in rural locations and between 1981 and 1983, rural America lost 500,000 jobs.3 While median family income dropped by only one percent between 1979-1986 in urban areas, family income fell 10% in rural communities.4

Increasingly, there's a call for economic development in rural areas. But don't assume economic development and rural development are the same. They're not. Economic development is concerned with overall business activity and jobs. Profits may be shown without the community sharing the income. Company profits may indicate economic growth for the area, but the community at large may not benefit or improve in quality of life.5 Compounded with the reality that economic expansion tends to occur in urban areas, resources to help people in getting out of poverty are unavailable in most rural areas.

Extension programs for rural areas ought to pay careful attention to the changing nature of rural life. Let's use the example of changing family trends to show the implications for Extension programming.

Although not perceived as the norm in rural communities, women in the workforce, dual-career families, and farm families opting for outside sources of income are real trends likely to continue. Projections are that between 1986 and 2000, three- fifths of the new entrants into the workforce will be women.6 Accompanying work/family trends is the increasing need for affordable, accessible quality child care. Families are faced with multiple child care dilemmas-among them an increased need for full-day care and the need for after-school care. Clarenbach found that many rural areas lack services, such as child care, that prevent women from maximizing their employment options, limiting the occupational achievements of many rural women.7

Although rural families appear to be meeting their immediate child care needs by making use of their local network or relatives, as more women enter the workforce, fewer relatives will be left to provide care. As attitudes change over time, more women will be willing to consider formal day care services.

With quality, affordable, and accessible child care becoming increasingly necessary, it's important for each community to review their local demographics on numbers of children, percentages of working women, and family income levels. Beginning with these figures, planners can start to understand local child care needs.

From the beginning, Extension has been involved in improving the quality of life in rural communities. Since rural communities are so diverse in their geography, attitudes, and resources, local officials and key leaders must understand issues like the integration of work and family.

Using child care as an example, Extension can use trend analysis to support new initiatives. However, the key to successful program planning lies in the involvement of local community leadership in reviewing trends and needs. Since every community has unique needs, multiagency collaborative planning can most effectively have an impact on rural issues and changed rural conditions. But to do effective planning, for child care or any other rural needs, Extension must be sure that false assumptions about rural communities are challenged and myths dispelled-especially myths about rural family life.

1. J. P. Gannon, "Abolish the USDA," Des Moines Sunday Register (Iowa), August 12, 1988 and J. McCormick, "America's Third World," Newsweek, August 8, 1988.

2. National Mental Health Association, Report of the National Action Commission on the Mental Health of Rural Americans (Alexandria, Virginia: National Mental Health Association, 1988).

3. W. Sinclair, "Grief Is Growing on Farm Land," Washington Post, May 24, 1987.

4. Select Committee on Children and Youth and Families, U.S., House of Representatives, Working Families at the Margins: The Uncertain Future of America's Small Towns (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1989).

5. Gannon, "Abolish the USDA."

6. U.S., Department of Labor, Child Care: A Workforce Issue (Washington, D.C.: Report of the Secretary's Task Force, 1988).

7. K. F. Clarenbach, Educational Needs of Rural Women and Girls (Washington, D.C.: Report of the National Advisory, 1977).