' Serving Dislocated Farmers: an Evaluation of the EDWAA Farmers
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
’ Serving Dislocated Farmers: An Evaluation of the EDWAA Farmers And Ranchers Demonstration Research and Evaluation Report Series 94-C U.S. Department of Labor Robert 6. Reich, Secretary Employment and Training Administration Doug Ross, Assistant Secretary Office of Policy and Research Raymond J. Uhalde, Deputy Assistant Secretary 1994 3 Research and Evaluation Report Series The Researchand Evaluation Report Seriespresents information about and results of projects funded by the Office of Policy and Research(OPR) of the U.S. Department of Labor’s Employment and Training Administration. These projects deal with a wide range of training, employment, workplace literacy, labor market, and related issues. This report in the series was prepared under Department of Labor Contract No. 99-l-3229-71-036-01 by: Berkeley Planning Associates(BPA), Oakland, California, and Social Policy Research Associates (SPR), Menlo Park, California. Principal authors were Mary G. Visher and Stephen Walsh, BPA, and Ronald D’Amico, SPR; assisting in preparation were Kevin Rogers, Eric Sloan, Connie Uratsu, Liz Wiegardt, Sasha Gottfried, and Patricia Spikes-Calvin. Daniel Ryan was OPR’s project officer, and William Saupe and Priscilla Salant served as consultants. Contractors conducting researchand evaluation projects under Federal sponsorship are encouraged to express their own judgement freely. Therefore, this report does not necessarily represent the official opinion~or policy of the Department of Labor. 3 Acknowledgements This report reflects the contributions of many individuals to the Evaluation of the EDWAA Farmers and Ranchers Demonstration. The authors are especially grateful to the administrators, staff, and participants of the four demonstrationprojects: Farm/Works in Iowa, the Farm Project in Minnesota, the Farmer/Rancher Project in North Dakota, and the Agricultural Community in Transition program in South Dakota. We would also like to thank the staff of four additional programs which received no demonstration funding, but which volunteered to participate in the evaluation. These programs include the FACTS program in Kansas, the Gamm Vocational Training Program in Missouri, the Agriculture in Transition program in Nebraska, and the Farm Project in Wisconsin. Without the cooperation and generosity of staff and participants from all eight of these programs, these reports could not have been written. At the Department of Labor’s Employment and Training Administration, Raniel Ryan and Richard Muller of the Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Development contributed many useful comments and suggestions. Their supportive involvement with all phasesof the evaluation, from design to report writing, is much appreciated. Finally, we would like to thank Professor William Saupe of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, for his thoughtful commentson all the reports, and educating these California consultants on the plight faced by so many American farming families. The Authors Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMAR Y..................................... i I. INTRODUCTION .................................... l-1 BACKGROUND ........................................ l-2 STRUCTUREOFTHEREPORT ............................... l-3 II. THE FARM CRISIS AND THE DEMONSTRATION STATES ............................................ ,2-l THE FARM FINANCIAL CRISIS OF THE 1980s ................... 2-l FARM EXITS AND THE NET CHANGE IN FARM NUMBERS ......... 2-3 WHAT MADE THE 1980s DIFFERENT? ........................ 2-10 ................. 2-l 1 ESTIMATING NUMBERS OF FARMERS AT RISK ~ III. EARLY PROGRAMS FOR DISLOCATED FARMERS ...... 3-1 EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING PROGRAMS BEFORE JTPA ......... 3-l THE LEGISLATIVE RESPONSE TO FARM/RANCH DISLOCATION ..... 3-3 JTPA PROGRAMS FOR FARMERS AND RANCHERS ............... 3-5 Iv. THE EDWAA FARMERS AND RANCHERS DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS ........................ 4-1 IOWA: FARM/WORKS .................................. 4-4 MINNESOTA: DISLOCATED FARMERS PROJECT ................ 4-14 MINNESOTA CLIENT PROFILES ............................ 4-19 NORTH DAKOTA: FARMER/RANCHER DEMONSTRATION PROJECT : 4-20 SOUTH DAKOTA: AGRICULTURAL COMMUNITY IN TRANSITION .... 4-28 CHANGES IN THE DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS ................ 4-35 OUTREACH AND OTHER SERVICES 4-37 SERVICE AREAS ...... .......................................................... 4-38 POST-DEMONSTRATION PLANS ............................ 4-39 V. ENROLLMENT PATTERNS AND PARTICIPANT CHARACTERISTICS ................................. 5-l PATTERNS OF ENROLLMENTS AND TERMINATIONS ............. 5-2 PARTICIPANT CHARACTERISTICS .......................... 5-6 SUMMARY ........................................... 5-24 Tableof Contents(continued) VI. ANALYSIS OF SERVICES AND OUTCOMES ............. 6-l SERVICES OFFERED AND RECEIVED ........................ 6-l SHORT-TERM OUTCOMES ................................ 6-12 LONGER-TERM OUTCOMES ............................... 6-29 SUMMARY ........................................ .. 6-35 VII. EFFECTIVE STRATEGIES TO REACH AND SERVE FARMERS ................................... 7-1 CONTEXT ............................................ 7-2 TARGET POLICIES AND ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA ................ 7-3 OUTREACHANDRECRUITMENT ........................... 7-4 COOPERATION AND INTEGRATION ....................... .; 7-11 RETRAINING SERVICES .................................. 7-13 VIII. CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS 8-l Appendix A: PARTICIPANT DATA COLLECTION/ANALYSIS Appendix B: SUPPLEMENTAL CASE STUDIES REFERENCES Tables and Figures Tables II-1 Number of Farms and Average Annual Change, 1925-87 : ............... 2-8 II-2 Average Acreage Per Farm, 1925-87 ................ .’ ............ 2-9 II-3 Actual 1988 and Projected 2000 Employment in Select AgriculturaI Occupations ...... ..... ...... .. 2-15 IV-1 SelectedDemonstration Project Features, at Outset.......................................... 4-36 V-l Preprogram Employment Status of Participants 5-8 v-2 Demographic Characteristics of Participants .............................................. 5-9 v-3 Age and Gender Distribution of Participants Compared to Farmers in General, by State .. .. .... 5-11 v-4 Preprogram Financial Status of Participants, by Demonstration Program 5-13 V-5 Participants’ Preprogram Off-Farm Employment 5-15 V-6 Farmers’lSpouses’ Preprogram Employment 5-17 v-7 Service to Multiple Members of Same Family ..... 5-19 V-8 Financial Characteristics of Early and Later Enrollees.................... ......................... ............................................................. S-21 v-9 Characteristics of Participants and Other EDWAA Clients .............. 5-23 VI-1 Services Received and Completed ............................... 6-3 VI-2 Services Received and Completed for Farmers and Others ............... 6-9 VI-3 Services to Participants and Other EDWAA Clients ............... ., a 6-l 1 VI-4 Characteristics of Postprogram Off-Farm Jobs ...................... 6-14 VI-5 Fringe Postprogram Benefits/Receipt for Terminees Employed Off-Farm 6-16 VI-6 Postprogram Off-Farm Occupations .. ........ ...... ................. 6-18 VI-7 Characteristics of Employment for Participants with Off-Farm Jobs Before Enrollment and 3 Months After Termination ................. 6-21 VI-8 Postprogram Employment Outcomes for Farmers and Others 6-24 VI-9 Postprogram Employment Outcomes by Services Received 6-26 VI-10 Postprogram Off-Farm Employment, Multivariate Models 6-28 VI-11 Postprogram Farm and Employment Status .. .. ... 6-30 VI-12 Farms’ Financial Conditions and Reasonsfor Leaving ............................................................................6-32 VI-13 Postprogram Employment Outcomes for Those Who Left Farming ......... 6-33 A-l Numbers of Caseswith Data from Various Sources ............... ., ... A-3 Figures II-1 Farm Losses by State, 1982-87 ., 2-5 II-2 Number of U.S. Farms, 1925-87....................................................... ....... 2-7 II-3 Percent of Farms Classified as Vulnerable, 1988 .................... 2-13 IV-1 Service Areas of Demonstration Projects .......................... 4-3 V-l Cumulative Enrollments (By End of Quarter) ....................... 5-3 v-2 Status of Participants at End of Demonstration 5-5 VI-1 Project Expenditures (By Cost Category).... 6-6 VI-2 Prelpostprogram Family Income, Farmers Leaving 6-34 VI-3 Prelpostprogram Family Income, Farmers Staying 6;: VII-1 Outreach Strategies . .. A-l Worker Adjustment Annual Program Report.......... ...................................... ......................................................................................... A-9 A-2 EDWAA Farmers and Ranchers Demonstration Participant Information Form A-l 1 A-3 EDWAA Farmers and Ranchers Demonstration Long-Term Follow-up ...... A-13 B-l Supplemental Case Study Programs ............................. B-2 Executive Summary This volume concludesthe evaluation of the Farmers and RanchersDemonstration Project under the Economic Dislocation and Workers Adjustment (EDWAA) Act. The demonstration was administered by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) through grants to four states, which were charged with developing innovative strategies for providing employment and training services to dislocated and at-risk farmers and ranchers, their spousesand dependents, and farmhands. Funding for the projects -- which operated in Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota -- began on July 1, 1990 and ended on September 30, 1993. A separate contract, was awarded in April 1991 to Berkeley Planning