Rural Social Work

Building and Sustaining Community Capacity

T. Laine Scales, Calvin L. Streeter, H. Stephen Cooper

• Publisher: Wiley
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781118672983
• Edition: 2
• Topic: Politik & Internationale Beziehungen
• Subtopic: Sozialpolitik

A thoughtful text integrating strengths, assets, and capacity-building themes with contemporary issues in rural social work practice

Now in its second edition, Rural Social Work is a collection of contributed readings from social work scholars, students, and practitioners presenting a framework for resource building based on the strengths, assets, and capacities of people, a tool essential for working with rural communities.

This guide considers methods for social workers to participate in the work of sustaining rural communities. Each chapter features a reading integrating the themes of capacity-building and rural social work; discussion questions that facilitate critical thinking around the chapter; and suggested activities and assignments.

Rural Social Work, Second Edition explores:

• Important practice issues in rural communities, including the challenges of working with stigmatized populations such as gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people, the homeless, and people living with HIV/AIDS
• Practice models that hold special promise for rural social workers, including evidence-based practice and community partnership models
• Newer research tools such as asset mapping, social network analysis, concept mapping, and Geographic Information Systems (GIS)

Exploring how social workers can integrate the tremendous resources that exist in rural communities into their practice, Rural Social Work, Second Edition provides a solid introduction to the complex, challenging, and rewarding work of building and sustaining rural communities.

Part One

Conceptual and Historical Foundations of Rural Social Welfare

Paul H. Stuart

Does rural social welfare differ from urban social welfare? And do social workers who practice in rural areas or with rural people experience a different reality than that which is encountered by other social workers? If so, what are the differences, both in policy and practice? Social work is often described as an urban profession, as the origins of the profession in the United States were found in the rapidly growing urban centers during the Progressive Era of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. However, much Progressive Era social work practice involved work with immigrants from rural Europe and migrants from rural America, who made up the populations that swelled turn-of-the-century cities. And social workers have been practicing in rural areas since at least World War I. The chapters in this section provide information on the rural roots of social welfare in the United States and some insights on what is special about social work practice with rural people. More importantly, they provide an orientation to rural social work and social welfare.

One answer to the question of what sets rural social work apart has been that rural areas—and by extension rural social welfare—can be distinguished from their urban counterparts by reference to what is lacking. Initially, the U.S. Census Bureau defined rural and urban areas by the number of people in the area. In the 1790 census, places of fewer than 2,500 people were designated as rural areas, whereas places with more than 2,500 were classified as urban. This classification continued to be used until 1991, when the Census Bureau developed a more nuanced definition. Smaller population was often associated with deficits. Thus, cities had relatively rich social welfare resources and were traditionally centers for innovation and experimentation, in contrast to rural areas, which had fewer resources and were often viewed as unchanging and set in their ways. Cities were also the locations of major social institutions, such as universities, hospitals, and religious institutions, whereas rural areas could be characterized by a lack of these amenities. Thus, much of the thinking about rural social work and social welfare emphasized the deficits that seemed to characterize rural communities.

If rural policy and practice is conceptualized from a deficit model, then the role of a social worker may be to make connections between people and the (often missing) services they need. Some rural social work practice is focused on community deficits and finding ways to work around those deficits. Such a view emphasizes what rural areas do not have, rather than the strengths of rural people and rural communities. In Chapter 1, “Down-Home Social Work: A Strengths-Based Model for Rural Practice,” two social work educators, Michael R. Daley and Freddie L. Avant, state the case for a reconceptualization of rural social work practice. Instead of a focus on deficits, they argue in favor of a broader framework for rural social work practice—a generalist framework that takes into account both the person and the environment. Rural may be a concept that cannot be defined simply by population density or deficits in services, they suggest. Rather, a rural culture is something that people identify with, including some people who are currently living in standard metropolitan statistical areas (SMSAs), the most urban places, according to the current Census Bureau classification system.

In rural cultures people relate to each other in informal or personalized ways. Primary family and friendship groups are often more important than formal resources, such as agencies and other official sources of information and assistance. Social workers need to be aware of this attitude, whether they work in rural areas or in urban communities, as rural people migrate to cities, where some are in need of services. How can social workers be aware of the culture of their clients? Daley and Avant provide some clues, but because rural people self-identify as rural, the best strategy is to ask them.

The importance of informal relations in rural cultures is illustrated in Chapter 2, “Rural Is Real: History of the National Rural Social Work Caucus and the NASW Professional Policy Statement on Rural Social Work.” In this chapter, rural social work practitioner Samuel A. Hickman provides a description and history of the Rural Social Work Caucus. Founded in the 1970s, the caucus, now known as the National Rural Social Work Caucus, represents the interests of rural social work practitioners and social work educators who focus on rural practice. The caucus has encouraged attention to rural issues by the National Association of Social Workers, the Council on Social Work Education, and other organizations, and was responsible for the 1981, 2002, and 2011 Professional Policy Statements on Rural Social Work, which were adopted by the National Association of Social Workers Delegate Assembly. The caucus is less formally organized than many other professional organizations, but it gets a lot done, as Hickman shows.

The history of social welfare policy in the United States reflects the nation's varying attitude toward rural areas. In Chapter 3, “Social Welfare and Rural People: From the Colonial Era to the Present,” I, Paul Stuart (chapter author), trace the development of social welfare in the United States as the nation evolved from a predominantly rural and agricultural country to a modern urban and industrialized nation. The locus for social welfare activity and innovation shifted from the local community to the state and eventually to the nation, while the view of rural areas shifted as well. Initially viewed as ideal democratic communities, rural areas were increasingly seen as backward and isolated during the 20th century. Along with rapid urban development, a deficit view of rural communities came to dominate discussions.

Rural and frontier areas were stimulated by the enactment of the “Western measures” of the 1862 Congress. The Homestead Act, the Land Grant College Act, the Department of Agriculture Act, and the Pacific Railroad Act represented major social investments that transferred assets in the form of land, education, research, and transportation to frontier settlers and rural residents in general. Corresponding asset-building measures may be needed to revitalize rural communities in the 21st century.

As Americans came to view rural areas as backward, another function of rural communities suggested itself. Urban problems—or urban people who had problems—could be moved to rural areas, where they could be “out of sight, out of mind.” Mental hospitals, prisons, and other institutions were located in rural areas, far away from population centers. From the “orphan trains” of the late 19th and early 20th centuries to the New Deal Civilian Conservation Corps and Great Society Job Corps programs of the mid-20th century, Americans have endeavored to relocate urban people with problems to rural areas. In part, this reflected a belief in the restorative powers of rural environments, but it also reflected a desire to remove problems far away from an increasingly urban society.

In Chapter 4, “Out of Sight, Out of Mind: Rural Social Work and African American Women at Efland Home for Girls, 1920–1938,” Tanya Brice describes a rural residential facility for African American girls established by the North Carolina Federation of Colored Women, an organization composed of middle-class African American women who engaged in a variety of works designed to “lift up” African American people in the early 20th century. The Efland Home for Girls provided a way to remove girls who were viewed as having problems from their environment to a rural refuge, where they could be cared for and prepared for adult life. In this case, which was not unusual, particularly in Southern states where African American people had access to few services, Brice shows that the Efland Home served both to remove girls from problematic environments and provide them with education and vocational training. But isolating these “wayward” girls far from familiar environments served another function—that of removing them from their home communities so they could be “out of sight, out of mind.”

These four chapters provide an introduction and orientation to rural social welfare and rural social work practice. They represent a variety of points of view, yet they still do not provide every possible way of looking at rural social work. They do provide a basis on which you can begin your exploration of social work and social welfare in rural communities.

Chapter 1

Down-Home Social Work

A Strengths-Based Model for Rural Practice

Michael R. Daley and Freddie L. Avant

Historically, social work developed from urban roots and paid relatively little attention to the issues and concerns related to rural populations (Daley & Avant 2004b; Ginsberg, 2011; NASW, 2012). Interest in rural social work appears to have originated around the early years of the 20th century and initially focused on community-based issues involving the need for better infrastructure in areas, such as promoting the development of electricity, education, and health care (Galen & Alexander, 2011; Martinez-Brawley, 1980). Given these origins, it is not surprising that rural social work developed a strong emphasis on community-based practice that focused on addressing a shortage of community resources, which continues to the present (Barker, 2003; Ginsberg, 1998; Martinez-Brawley, 1990; Southern Regional Education Board, 1998; York, Denton, & Moran, 1998). Thus, the typical portrayal of rural social work practice is that it is an activity occurring in areas of low population density, and that the problems of rural people stem from the physical environment or geographic location wherein resources are sparse.

Although this perspective has been helpful in directing attention to the service needs of long-neglected rural communities and the people who live in them, it has been somewhat limiting in advancing both the practice and educational development of knowledge and skills of rural social workers. Specifically, the development of literature regarding social work with rural individuals, families, groups, and organizations has lagged far behind that of macro practice for addressing organizations and communities.

Rural social work is and should be viewed more broadly than community-based work. Rural social work at a fundamental level is work with rural people as well as practice in and with rural communities (Daley & Avant, 2004a; Ginsberg, 2011). This perspective suggests the use of both the person-in-environment and the multisystem focus that is so critical for social work practice. In the past, by concentrating on the rural community aspects of practice, we tended to overlook the interaction between the rural environment and other systems that influence behavior. Indeed, the cultural or lifestyle issues relating to rural people in terms of individual, family, group, and organizational systems translate into behavior that may be as important as the community environment in understanding the problems of and in shaping social work practice in this context (Daley & Avant, 2004b).

The purpose of this chapter is to present a broad-based model for rural social work practice that addresses a comprehensive strengths-based approach to effective work with rural people in this important arena of practice. The chapter will explore traditional views of rural communities and rural social work. Additionally, it will address ways in which these traditional definitions can be broadened to enhance the understanding of rural social work. Within this context, a model for rural social work will be presented, along with implications for this expanded model for social work practice and education.

Defining Rural

Rurality, or the presence of rural characteristics, is clearly the context for rural social work, just as mental health, health care, families and children, education, and corrections provide the context for other fields of social work practice. It is often unclear what elements differentiate the rural from nonrural as a context for social work practice. In part, this lack of clarity has arisen because of multiple definitions of rurality that currently exist. Thus, the term rural is not consistently used by everyone. The traditional way in which rurality is defined is based both on geography and population density. This method is defined by the Census Bureau and has many attractive features. The Census definitions are widely used, and they are appealing because they are absolute in that they unambiguously and clearly classify a region as either rural or nonrural, and all except the most recent definition of rurality classify rural as part of a rural–urban dichotomy.

Perhaps the most traditional definition of rurality is that used by the U.S. Census Bureau prior to 1991. By this definition, a rural community was one with a population of fewer than 2,500 people living in either incorporated or unincorporated areas. Communities of 2,500 or larger were classified as urban. This was a long-standing definition dating from the period when the country was primarily rural, and it became somewhat outdated with the growth of the country's population.

In 1991, a more functional definition for rurality was developed by the U.S. Census Bureau. This definition moved away from the dichotomous rural–urban approach and viewed communities on a rural–urban continuum. Metropolitan and nonmetropolitan became preferred terms as opposed to rural and urban. Metropolitan communities were those that had a central city population of 50,000 or more. Metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) were communities formed by the core city and the county in which the central city was located. Nonmetropolitan or rural communities consisted of everything lying outside of the MSAs (Davenport & Davenport, 1995; Ginsberg, 1998; Olaveson, Conway, & Shaver, 2004).

Changes for the year 2000 census shifted the rural and urban definitions once again (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). Under these criteria, there are new classifications for urbanized areas (UAs) and urban clusters (UCs). UAs consist of a densely settled core ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• About the Editors
• About the Contributors
• Part One: Conceptual and Historical Foundations of Rural Social Welfare
• Part Two: Human Behavior and Rural Environments
• Part Three: Practice Issues in Rural Contexts
• Part Four: Policy Issues Affecting Rural Populations
• Part Five: Using Research to Evaluate Practice in Rural Settings
• Appendix A NASW Rural Policy Statement
• Appendix B Online Training and Resources on the EBP Process and Practice Issues for Rural Settings
• Appendix C Ideas Ratings for Service Providers and Consumers (Mean Scores)
• Author Index
• Subject Index