ERIC ED383884: Serving Dislocated Farmers: An Evaluation of the EDWAA Farmers and Ranchers Demonstration. Research and Evaluation Report Series 94-C.

213 Pages·1994·4 MB·English

by  ERIC

DOCUMENT RESUME
CE 069 251
ED 383 884
Visher, Mary G.; Walsh, Stephen
AUTHOR
Serving Dislocated Farmers: An Evaluation of the
TITLE
Research
EDWAA Farmers and Ranchers Demonstration.
and Evaluation Report Series 94-C.
Social
Berkeley Planning Associates, Oakland, CA.;
INSTITUTION
Policy Research Associates, Menlo Park, CA.
(DOL),
Employment and Training Administration
SPONS AGENCY
Washington, D.C.
94
PUB DATE
DOL-99-1-3229-71-036-01
CONTRACT
228p.; For a related document, see CE 069 252.
NOTE
Evaluative/Feasibility (142)
Reports
PUB TYPE
MF01/PC10 Plus Postage.
EDRS PRICE
*Dislocated
Adult Education; Demonstration Programs;
DESCRIPTORS
Federal
Workers; *Employment Programs; *Farmers;
Education;
Programs; Job Training; *Outcomes of
Program Effectiveness; Program Evaluation;
Recruitment; *Retraining
*Economic Dislocation Worker Adjust Assist Act 1988;
IDENTIFIERS
*Ranchers
Job Training Partnership Act 1982;
ABSTRACT
Project,
The Farmers and Ranchers Demonstration
Adjustment Act,
funded by the Economic Dislocation and Workers
services to dislocated
provided funding for employment and training
dependents and employees
and at-risk farmers and ranchers and their
and South Dakota) from
in four states (Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota,
evaluated through
July 1, 1990 to September 30, 1993. The project was
demonstration projects
several case study visits made to each of the
in neighboring stater. Some
and to four projects with similar goals
the following: (1) the
of the major findings of the evaluation were
enrolling 1,476
demonstration projects met their recruitment goals,
dependent on recruitment efforts;
persons; (2) enrollment was heavily
the
(3) farmers and ranchers at risk of dislocation comprised
program's focus of averting
majority of participants, reflecting the
financial distress
dislocations; (4) participants reported severe
(5) more
off-farm jobs;
despite their high levels of education and
retraining; (6) many
than 80 percent of participants received
participants remained enrolled for a long time, reflecting generous
50
3 months after finishing the program, more than
funding;
(7)
only 37 percent were
percent of participants were still farming, but
(8) two-thirds of participants were
still farming 1 year later;
but many of them
engaged in off-farm employment after termination,
and (9) there is
had been employed before they entered the program;
effective than others. The
no evidence that any projects were more
outreach is necessary
following recommendations were made: aggressive
should be
for enrolling farmers into job-training programs, programs
serving farmers
coordinated, case-management models are suited for
for farmers should be
and ranchers, employment and training services
and
continued, and the goals of employment and training programs
includes participation data
ranchers should be clarified. (The report
studies.
collection and analysis information, and supplemental case
Contains 47 references.) (KC)
O
ok
00
00
M
00
O
AIM
oopooraloor
tour.knoo
office of Ea.:1....m PI.th soal Impromywkit
E'er DOW& RESOURCES INFORMATION
CENTER (MCI
TAn doeur Ass bun tokroduceo as
'mitred from MO Anon pr orgemiehon
ongnatwo
AVAILAB
BEST COPY
ges have bun MOOS to WA
clion
rtta
Mia nor
PeCh
ILIVel
Points°. vow*/ *moans MaN4 m 14CIOCu
kw* do not imaasanly Nooonl °Nicol
NM",
A
CERI eamta
Material in this publication is in the public
domain and may be reproduced, fully or
partially. without permission of the Federal
Government. Source credit is requested but
not required. Permission is required only to
reproduce any copyrighted material contained
herein.
Iris material will b3 made available to
sensory impaired individuals upon request.
[phone]
Voi:',e phone:
TM' phone:
[phone]
*Thiecommunications Device for the Deaf
3
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 B. Reich, Secretary
Employment and Training Administration
Doug Ross, Assistant Secretary
Office of Policy and Research
Raymond J. Uhalde, Deputy Assistant Secretary
1994
Series
Research and Evaluation Report
information about and results
The Research and Evaluation Report Series presents
(OPR) of the U.S. Department
of projects funded by the Office of Policy and Research
These projects deal with a wide
of Labor's Employment and Training Administration.
workplace literacy, labor market, and related issues.
range of training, employment,
of Labor Contract No.
This report in the series was prepared under Department
Oakland, California, and
99-1-3229-71-036-01 by: Berkeley Planning Associates (BPA),
Principal authors
California.
Social Policy Research Associates (SPR), Menlo Park,
Walsh, BPA, and Ronald D'Amico, SPR; assisting
were Mary G. Visher and Stephen
Connie Uratsu, Liz Wiegardt, Sasha
in preparation were Kevin Rogers, Eric Sloan,
Daniel Ryan was OPR's project officer, and
Gottfried, and Patricia Spikes-Calvin.
William Saupe and Priscilla Salant served as consultants.
Federal sponsorship
Contractors conducting research and evaluation projects under
Therefore, this report does not
judgement freely.
are encouraged to express their own
Department of Labor.
necessarily represent the official opinion or policy of the
5
Acknowledgements
the Evaluation of the
This report reflects the contributions of many individuals to
authors are especially grateful to
EDWAA Farmers and Ranchers Demonstration. The
demonstration projects: Farm/Works
the administrators, staff, and participants of the four
Farmer/Rancher Project in North Dakota,
in Iowa, the Farm Project in Minnesota, the
in South Dakota. We would also
and the Agricultural Community in Transition program
which received no demonstration
like to thank the staff of four additional programs
These programs include
funding, but which volunteered to participate in the evaluation.
Training Program in Missouri, the
the FACTS program in Kansas, the Gamm Vocational
Project in Wisconsin.
Agriculture in Transition program in Nebraska, and the Farm
participants from all eight of these
Without the cooperation and generosity of staff and
been written.
programs, these reports could not have
Training Administration, Daniel
At the Department of Labor's Employment and
and Policy Development
Ryan and Richard Muller of the Office of Strategic Planning
supportive involvement with
contributed many useful comments and suggestions. Their
much appreciated.
all phases of the evaluation, from design to report writing, is
University of
Finally, we would like to thank Professor William Saupe of the
and educating these
Wisconsin, Madison, for his thoughtful comments on all the reports,
farming families.
California consultants on the plight faced by so many American
The Authors
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1-1
INTRODUCTION
I.
1-2
BACKGROUND
1-3
STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT
DEMONSTRATION
AND THE
THE FARM CRISIS
II.
2-1
STATES
2-1
CRISIS OF THE 1980s
THE FARM FINANCIAL
2-3
CHANGE IN FARM NUMBERS
FARM EXITS AND THE NET
2-10
DIFFERENT?
WHAT MADE THE 1980s
2-11
FARMERS AT RISK
ESTIMATING NUMBERS OF
3-1
DISLOCATED FARMERS
EARLY PROGRAMS FOR
III.
3-1
PROGRAMS BEFORE JTPA
EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING
3-3
DISLOCATION
RESPONSE TO FARM/RANCH
THE LEGISLATIVE
3-5
FARMERS AND RANCHERS
JTPA PROGRAMS FOR
AND RANCHERS
THE EDWAA FARMERS
IV.
4-1
DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS
4-4
IOWA: FARM/WORKS
4-14
FARMERS PROJECT
MINNESOTA: DISLOCATED
4-19
MINNESOTA CLIENT PROFILES
4-20
PROJECT
.
FARMER/RANCHER DEMONSTRATION
NORTH DAKOTA:
4-28
COMMUNITY IN TRANSITION .
.
.
SOUTH DAKOTA: AGRICULTURAL
4-35
PROJECTS
CHANGES IN THE DEMONSTRATION
4-37
SERVICES
OUTREACH AND OTHER
4-38
SERVICE AREAS
4-39
POST-DEMONSTRATION PLANS
AND PARTICIPANT
ENROLLMENT PATTERNS
V.
5-1
CHARACTERISTICS
5-2
AND TERMINATIONS
PATTERNS OF ENROLLMENTS
5-6
PARTICIPANT CHARACTERISTICS
5-24
SUMMARY
7
Table of Contents (continued)
VI.
ANALYSIS OF SERVICES AND OUTCOMES
6-1
SERVICES OFFERED AND RECEIVED
6-1
SHORT-TERM OUTCOMES
6-12
LONGER-TERM OUTCOMES
6-29
SUMMARY
6-35
VII.
Et F ECTIVE STRATEGIES TO REACH
AND
SERVE FARMERS
7-1
CONTEXT
7-2
TARGET POLICIES AND ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
7-3
OUTREACH AND RECRUITMENT
7-4
COOPERATION AND INTEGRATION
7-11
RETRAINING SERVICES
7-13
VIII. CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY
IMPLICATIONS
8-1
Appendix A: PARTICIPANT DATA
COLLECTION/ANALYSIS
Appendix B: SUPPLEMENTAL CASE
STUDIES
REFERENCES
Tables and Figures
Tables
2-8
Number of Farms and Average Annual Change, 1925-87
11-1
2-9
Average Acreage Per Farm, 1925-87
11-2
Agricultural
Actual 1988 and Projected 2000 Employment in Select
11-3
2-15
Occupations
4-36
Selected Demonstration Project Features, at Outset
IV-1
5-8
Preprogram Employment Status of Participants
V-1
5-9
Demographic Characteristics of Participants
V-2
Farmers in
Age and Gender Distribution of Participants Compared to
V-3
5-11
General, by State
5-13
Program
Preprogram Financial Status of Participants, by Demonstration
V-4
5-15
Participants' Preprogram Off -Farm Employment
V-5
5-17
Farmers'/Spouses' Preprogram Employment
V-6
5-19
Service to Multiple Members of Same Family
V-7
5-21
Financial Characteristics of Early and Later Enrollees
V-8
5-23
Characteristics of Participants and Other EDWAA Clients
V-9
6-3
Services Received and Completed
VI-1
6-9
Services Received and Completed for Farmers and Others
VI-2
6-11
Services to Participants and Other EDWAA Clients
VI -3
6-14
Characteristics of Postprogram Off -Farm Jobs
VI -4
6-16
Off -Farm
Fringe Postprogram Benefits/Receipt for Terminees Employed
VI -5
6-18
Postprogram Off -Farm Occupations
VI-6
Characteristics of Employment for Participants with Off-Farm Jobs
VI-7
6-21
Before Enrollment and 3 Months After Termination
6-24
Postprogram Employment Outcomes for Farmers and Others
VI -8
6-26
Postprogram Employment Outcomes by Services Received
VI-9
6-28
Postprogram Off-Farm Employment, Multivariate Models
VI-10
6-30
Postprogram Farm and Employment Status
V1-11
6-32
Farms' Financial Conditions and Reasons for Leaving
VI-12
6-33
Farming
Postprogram Employment Outcomes for Those Who Left
VI-13
A-3
Numbers of Cases with Data from Various Sources
A-1
Figures
2-5
Farm Losses by State, 1982-87
II-1
2-7
Number of U.S. Farms, 1925-87
11-2
2-13
Percent of Farms Classified as Vulnerable, 1988
11-3
4 -3
Service Areas of Demonstration Projects
IV-I
5-3
Cumulative Enrollments (By End of Quarter)
V-1
5-5
Status of Participants at End of Demonstration
V-2
6-6
Project Expenditures (By Cost Category)
VI-1
6-34
Pre/postprogram Family Income, Farmers Leaving
VI-2
6-36
Pre/postprogram Family Income, Farmers Staying
VI -3
7-10
Outreach Strategies
VII-I
A-9
Worker Adjustment Annual Program Report
A-1
Form
A-11
EDWAA Farmers and Ranchers Demonstration Participant Information
A-2
A-13
Follow-up
EDWAA Farmers and Ranchers Demonstration Long-Term
A-3
B-2
Supplemental Case Study Programs
13-1
9
Executive Summary
Ranchers Demonstration
evaluation of the Farmers and
This volume concludes the
(EDWAA) Act. The
Dislocation and Workers Adjustment
Project under the Economic
(DOL) through grants
U.S. Department of Labor
demonstration was administered by the
innovative strategies for providing
charged with developing
to four states, which were
and ranchers, their
dislocated and at-risk farmers
employment and training services to
which operated in
the projects
and farmhands. Funding for
spouses and dependents,
1, 1990 and ended
South Dakota -- began on July
Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota and
in April 1991 to Berkeley
A separate contract was awarded
on September 30, 1993.
Associates (SPR)
subcontractor Social Policy Research
Planning Associates (BPA) and its
strategies utilized by the
of the effectiveness of the various
to conduct an evaluation
demonstrations.
each
based on several case study visits made to
The results of this evaluation are
in neighboring
four projects with similar goals
of the demonstration projects and to
participant-level data containing baseline
The evaluation also relied on
states.
for
participants and more detailed information
information for nearly all demonstration
analysis
associated with the collection and
substantial subsets. The evaluation activities
April 1991 and December 1993.
of these data took place between
BACKGROUND
Trends in Farm and Ranch Dislocation
1980s, as many as 10% of the nation's
During the farm financial crisis of the
Between 1982 and 1987alone, approximately
farms disappeared within just a few years.
These declines, however, are rather
153,000 American farms went out of business.
the
and agricultural consolidation have led to
small by historical standards; urbanization
Correspondingly,
farms over the past 60 years.
loss of more than 4 million American
50%
living on farms has declined from nearly
the proportion of the nation's population
just under 2% currently.
at the turn of the century to
1980s appears unexceptional, but
Against this background the farm crisis of the
In
periods of agricultural dislocation.
in certain regards it stands out from earlier
to those of the 1980s, were
particular, farm exits in the 1950s and 1960s, in contrast