Survey examines local service provision
A clear correlation between population size and scope of services exists among county governments, with rural counties often lagging far behind metropolitan counties in provision of services. That is among the major findings of a recent report by researchers at Ohio State University in Columbus, and Colorado State University in Fort Collins.
The researchers, in conjunction with the National Association of Counties’ Rural County Governance Center and the Columbia, Mo.-based Rural Policy Research Institute, conducted survey to compare county governments in five key areas: public service provision, economic development, land-use planning, welfare reform and finances. Counties were divided into three categories depending on geographic locations: metropolitan counties, which contain or are located within regions that have large urban cores; adjacent counties, which are located next to metropolitan counties; and rural counties, which are not adjacent to metropolitan counties and have a relatively small or no urban population.
Researchers found that most counties provide law enforcement services, and at least half provide 911 service, senior citizen programs, mental health services, health clinic services, emergency medical services and solid waste removal. However, researchers also found that there is a large disparity between metropolitan counties and rural counties in the provision of housing assistance, water and sewer service, drug and alcohol rehabilitation and elder care. For example, almost half (47 percent) of metropolitan counties provide housing assistance, compared to only 17 percent of rural counties.
Researchers found that a disparity also exists among metropolitan and rural counties in economic development. Almost two-thirds of all county governments report playing a role in local economic development; however, rural governments are more likely than metropolitan governments not to engage in economic development activities, such as helping small businesses, budgeting to attract outside businesses and working to retain and expand businesses. Researchers found that 49 percent of rural governments do not engage in business retention and expansion, compared to 21 percent of metropolitan governments.
Researchers also found enormous differences between the land-use planning activities of metropolitan and rural counties. Almost three-fourths of metropolitan governments have a land-use planner on staff, but only 39 percent of adjacent governments and 29 percent of rural governments do. Likewise, wetlands protection policies are implemented in 43 percent of metropolitan governments, while only 26 percent of adjacent governments and 19 percent of rural governments have them.
At the time of the survey, 15 of the most urbanized states had devolved administration of welfare programs to the county level. Of the counties that directly administer Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (22 percent of all counties in the survey), 88.7 percent of metropolitan governments, 84.5 percent of adjacent governments and 73 percent of rural governments report that they provide job programs for welfare recipients. Researchers found that metropolitan counties have greater success than rural counties in placing welfare recipients in jobs.
Finally, 38 percent of rural governments, 31 percent of adjacent governments and 24 percent of metropolitan governments reported that loss of federal revenue is a very important problem. Researchers found that fiscal stress is worse in nonmetro (adjacent and rural) counties because of rising service demands from residents, pressure to reduce local taxes, inability to seek external grant funds and a decline in their tax bases.
The survey was sent to approximately 2,700 counties, and 1,678 responded. To download a copy of the report visit www.naco.org/programs/comm_dev/rural/rcgsurvey.pdf.