B. Discovering Issues Related to Rural Volunteer Engagement
I. Community Issues
Rural America is distinguished by its geographical, cultural and social diversity; yet its common denominator, persistent poverty, overshadows these differences. Study respondents noted several poverty-related challenges rural residents face (under-employment, low-paying jobs and lack of affordable housing and healthcare) which are exacerbated by the public sector’s inability to effectively meet community needs. Rural areas, for the most part, do not have a public transportation infrastructure making job acquisition and retention, accessing services, as well as getting involved in community activities difficult for rural residents in remote areas. Moreover, findings also suggest that rural communities often lack the communication infrastructure and systems that hinders effective sharing of information on available social services and volunteer opportunities.
Our findings suggest that child care is critical for rural families. Lack of affordable and reliable child care affects the ability of parents to volunteer their time while employed. This is also intimately connected to the lack of positive out-of school activities for youth, which may contribute to the significant rates of teen pregnancy and drug abuse in rural areas. Our observations resonate with Pew Partnership’s Voices of Rural America: National Survey Results. Pew found living-wage jobs as the most severe community challenge faced by rural communities. Additionally, access to affordable healthcare is more challenging for rural residents than for urban and suburban residents. Teen pregnancies and unsupervised children/youth are of great concern for rural residents.
Poverty in rural areas closely mirrors urban areas; however, poverty in rural areas is more acute and, generally, rural Americans fare worse that their urban counterparts on numerous socioeconomic indicators. Recent studies illustrate rural America’s struggle with poverty in comparison with metro areas. For instance, the National Council on Family Relations describes more such disparities between metro and non-metro areas: rural workers are two times more likely to earn minimum wage than urban workers; rural families more likely have poor health; death and teen birth rates are higher in rural counties; and rural 8th graders are more likely to abuse drugs than youth in large metro areas (“Health and Economic Well-Being,” 2003, p.1-2). According to the 2002 Save the Children report, America’s Forgotten Children: Child Poverty in Rural America, child poverty is greater in rural America than in urban areas: “Of the nation’s more than 200 persistently poor counties, 195 are rural. And in these counties, child poverty rates often exceeds 35 percent” (Save the Children, 2002, p.12).
Yet, striking similarities between working-poor families in the most urban and the most rural areas exist. This fact was emphasized when Brookings Institution researchers used the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) as a “lens through which to view the working poor”
(Berube & Tiffany, 2004, p.2) and found the nearly half of the nation’s working poor families reside in either large city or rural areas (p.4). EITC data, when broken by region, indicate, “the most remote rural areas closely resemble large cities in their incidence of working poverty, while rural counties adjacent to metropolitan areas look more like small metro areas”(p.5). In other words, the most rural and most urban areas are more closely related in terms of the working poor than are remote rural and rural near metropolitan areas.
While most community issues are common in both non-metro and metro areas—especially in low-income communities—it is important to note rural communities also exhibit some very distinct qualities that both celebrate community yet inhibit growth. Specifically, rural community residents are independent and self-sufficient. These traits speak to the survival strength of rural communities, even in tough times; however they also touch on the challenge faced by many agencies because of this very characteristic: the “strong cultural tradition of independence” and self-sufficiency in rural communicates makes it difficult for people to ask for help, accept assistance, and also less likely to access available agency services.
To overcome this community barrier, one Volunteer Center reported creating an exchange system “where community members offer what skills they possess in return for some essential help,” which removes the stigma of obtaining free services because residents are able to offer a service in return. Here speaking to the self-sufficiency of the individual is critical. Echoing the learning from our urban study, findings suggest the importance of addressing how volunteers benefit from the activity (e.g. gaining new job skills). In addition, employing trusted community members to recruit volunteers, serve as board members, or staff also helps to remove barriers and allows the agency to bridge the credibility gap.
A lack of anonymity and confidentiality due to the interconnectedness of these areas intensifies rural residents’ reluctance to obtain assistance from community programs. Service providers may know clients from everyday life, diminishing client’s confidence that their privacy will be upheld. Not only does this concern speak to the need to uphold professional standards of confidentiality, it also touches on the fact that organizations should invest time and resources into preparing a confidentiality protocol, train employees on this protocol and communicate the agency’s dedication to its credo.
Changing demographics, specifically influx of newcomers and immigrants into the community, often reveal tensions inherent in the tight knit nature of most rural
communities and the resulting suspicion of outsiders. As evidenced from the findings in North Carolina, as well as focus group findings in Texas and Pennsylvania, newcomers, especially new immigrants of a different ethnicity, may invoke fear, distrust, and insecurity among those who have lived there for generations. For example, one rural North Carolina practitioner discussed the reluctance of long-time town residents to accept Latino
immigrants, making it difficult for the Spanish-speaking and English-speaking communities to volunteer together. Such inter-group tensions often spur the perception that newcomers are a threat to residents, vying for the already scarce local resources, such as jobs and services.
These issues affect not only the immediate integration of newcomers into the community, but the long-term community cohesion.
The resident-newcomer dichotomy also fosters a need for those of similar backgrounds to cultivate their own community, creating an interdependent environment in which neighbor relies on neighbor. This reliance on neighbors, however, is grounded in group loyalties. –This loyalty is demonstrated through neighbors helping neighbors from within their own community. To be effective, volunteer organizations can build off of inter-group neighboring by providing resources for these distinct groups to neighbor within their cultural boundaries more efficiently while also bridging the gap through formal volunteer programs.
Our findings affirm those of other research studies that indicate the uniqueness of individual rural communities. The distinctive characteristics of each community may not often be apparent to outsiders immediately, such as social norms and prejudices or political and economic circumstances (e.g. the tensions between new immigrants and longtime residents or the participation in the underground economy). However, such realities impact
community mobilization, effectively polarizing groups and impacting the ability of the community to act as a cohesive unit.
Rural communities’ uniqueness calls for organizations to invest resources to understand the comprehensive community (e.g. research the area’s history and culture) and build trust with its residents (e.g. work with well respected community leaders and key logs). The example of local Community Action Agencies (CCA) is a useful model in addressing this challenge.
CAAs form local tri-partite boards with representatives from local stakeholders as a way to build ownership and buy-in. As a focus group participant suggested, it is critical to “give opportunities for ownership and centers opportunities for involvement around issues that matter.”
II. Volunteering Issues