Newsletters
March/April 2013
Inside This Issue:
- Pennsylvania's Growing Wine Industry
- Study Examines Criminal Offenders and Judicial Sentencing Practices
- Chairman's Message
- Rural Snapshot: Part-Time Workers
- Rural Pennsylvania In-Migration and Out-Migration Patterns
- Just the Facts: Firearm Deaths
- A Look at Small, Mid-Size and Large Pennsylvania Fire Companies
Pennsylvania's Growing Wine Industry
Pennsylvania’s wine industry certainly has been juicing up the state’s economy, providing an estimated $870 million in economic value in 2007, according to a 2009 study commissioned by the Pennsylvania Winery Association (PWA).
But how does the industry compare to those in other states, and is there a role for state government to help the industry grow?
According to research conducted by Drs. Shailendra Gajanan and James Dombrosky of the University of Pittsburgh at Bradford, Pennsylvania’s wine industry grew from 2007 to 2011, but not as rapidly as some other eastern states including Ohio, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina. All of these states, except Maryland, have higher annual wine production volumes than Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania wine production is also lower than that of New Jersey, and much lower than that of New York; however those states experienced small declines in wine production over the examined 5-year period of 2007-2011.
According to the research, which was sponsored by the Center for Rural Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio, Virginia, and North Carolina had significantly higher levels of state funding for research and promotion than Pennsylvania. Funding sources for state wine industries included “dedicated” funding sources provided by excise taxes or similar assessments, legislative appropriations, grants and “gifts,” or private-sector funding.
The study also found nine Pennsylvania wineries received state loans totaling more than $1.1 million, or an average of $126,483 per loan, from 2007 to 2012. In addition, PWA received two Tourism Promotion Assistance Grants and one Regional Marketing Partnership Grant totaling $550,000 from 2007 to 2012. Penn State Cooperative Extension also contributed viticultural and enological education to the industry.
According to the research, the Pennsylvania wine industry is currently operating at 76 percent of capacity given current industry and market conditions. The research found that Pennsylvania’s wine industry has room for growth without additional investment in production factors such as land, labor, technology, and capital goods applied to production. Such growth does not preclude the need for additional research and marketing. To achieve growth beyond 100 percent of current capacity, the industry would have to invest in additional production factors.
Overall, the study found that the Pennsylvania wine industry has demonstrated consistent growth but faces continuous challenges, from viticulture to enology to marketing. About 81 percent of the industry’s product is sold directly from wineries, with virtually no sales at the wholesale or distributor level. According to the research, there are limits as to how far this niche-marketing model can take the industry.
To help the industry grow, the researchers offered the following policy considerations:
- Designate any expected revenues from direct shipments of out-of-state wine to fund Pennsylvania wine research and marketing;
- Implement policies that facilitate and encourage increased signage for wine trails and wine regions;
- Enact policies that facilitate increased sales of local wines at PLCB stores;
- Revise the PLCB code to include a Bring Your Own Bottle License to sell Pennsylvania wines; and
- Provide incentives for wineries to use Pennsylvania grapes.
For a copy of the research report, Pennsylvania Wine Industry €“ An Assessment, call or email the Center at (717) 787-9555 or info@rural.palegislature.us or visit www.rural.palegislature.us.
Study Examines Criminal Offenders and Judicial Sentencing Practices
To develop an understanding of rural and urban criminal justice offenders and sentencing practices of rural and urban courts, Dr. AnnMarie Cordner of Kutztown University of Pennsylvania conducted research in 2011 that analyzed 2001 and 2004-2007 data from the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing and the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections.
The research, sponsored by the Center for Rural Pennsylvania, focused special attention on domestic violence, drug and sex crimes.
The research found that, statewide, offenders were primarily male and had a wide variety of program needs. The two most common program needs were for alcohol/substance abuse treatment and/or managing violence and aggression.
The research also found that the majority of offenders successfully completed the programs they entered while in custody. Those who failed to complete a program most likely removed themselves from the program, instead of being removed because of misconduct or disruptive behavior.
The majority of the individuals remanded to the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC) came from urban areas, which was expected given the higher concentration of the population in those areas.
The research found the distribution of remands, which is when an individual is placed in DOC custody, by race was different for rural and urban offenders. Remands from rural areas were heavily dominated by whites, while remands from urban areas were dominated by African Americans and Hispanics.
The analysis revealed that sentencing decisions were, at least in part, influenced by the location of the court. It found that rural judges were less likely than urban judges to incarcerate violent offenders, but were more likely to impose more lengthy sentences on violent offenders who were incarcerated. It should be noted that only about 19 percent of cases for violent offenses, such as homicide, sexual assault and robbery, were handled in rural courts.
Rural judges were also more likely than urban judges to impose sentences that fall within the statutory guidelines.
In terms of drug-related offenses, the location of the court did not have a significant impact on the length of sentences imposed.
More urban offenders were convicted of drug offenses than rural offenders. For both groups, the most common offense was drug trafficking, which includes the manufacture, sale, delivery or possession with the intent to sell.
In terms of sex offenses, the research found that nearly all sex offenders were male. In rural areas, sex crimes were overwhelmingly committed by whites. Even in urban areas, whites were represented in sex offense convictions more heavily than in other types of crimes.
The study results suggest that steps should be taken to improve judicial training with regard to implementing sentencing guidelines. Moreover, a coordinated effort involving programs that have the potential to prevent crime - such as substance abuse treatment programs, strategies to increase employment, and mental health services - is needed.
For a copy of the research report, An Examination of Criminal Justice Offenders in Pennsylvania, call or email the Center at (717) 787-9555 or info@rural.palegislature.us or visit www.rural.palegislature.us.Chairman's Message
As I mentioned in the last issue of Rural Perspectives, the Center for Rural Pennsylvania will be taking on a greater role in identifying options for natural gas distribution systems in the commonwealth.
I have been seeking support for a legislative proposal that will charge the Center with gathering more information on the potential for increased residential, commercial and industrial natural gas infrastructure extension in Pennsylvania.
On February 12, the Senate Environmental Resources and Energy Committee voted out Senate Resolution 29, which directs the Center to study the potential for the increased extension of natural gas distribution infrastructure by Pennsylvania’s natural gas public utilities to un-served and under-served areas.
I am working with Senator John Wozniak, Center board treasurer, Senator Dominic Pileggi, majority leader, and other members of the Senate to ensure that Pennsylvanians remain a primary beneficiary of low-cost, energy-efficient, Pennsylvania-produced natural gas. By working collaboratively with the Public Utility Commission and Pennsylvania’s natural gas utilities, we hope to increase the accessibility and availability of this natural resource to more state residents. The Center’s work on the study will be beneficial to these efforts.
Specifically, the Center will study the residential, commercial and industrial extension of natural gas distribution infrastructure by collecting and analyzing information on the: estimated demand for natural gas service in un-served and under-served areas of the commonwealth; estimated price consumers are willing to pay for access or conversion to natural gas service; regional differences in consumer demand and willingness to pay for natural gas service; and relevant economic information on the costs and benefits to expand natural gas distribution infrastructure.
The Center is to report its findings, plans, and recommendations to the General Assembly no later than August 1, 2013.
I have convened several discussions on rural residential and commercial gas distribution as chairman of the Center for Rural Pennsylvania. It is clear that we have an abundant natural resource beneath us, which can be used to help consumers lower their energy heating costs, improve consumer satisfaction, provide for increased economic development opportunities, and create jobs.
We will keep you up-to-date on the study’s progress and share the findings with you.
Senator Gene YawRural Snapshot: Part-Time Workers
In 2011, an estimated 460,827 rural adults, or 24 percent of the rural workforce, worked part-time, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau. From 2006 to 2011, there was a 7 percent increase in rural part-time workers. In 2006, part-timers comprised only 22 percent of the rural workforce.
In 2011, an estimated 900,520 urban adults, or 23 percent of the urban workforce, worked part-time. From 2006 to 2011, there was a 12 percent increase in urban part-time workers. In 2006, part-timers made up 21 percent of the urban workforce.
To learn more about part-time workers, the Center for Rural Pennsylvania examined data from the Census Bureau’s 2006 and 2011 American Community Survey, Public Use Microdata Sample (ACS-PUMS). The Center excluded from the analysis persons who were in institutionalized group quarters, such as prisons, nursing homes and hospitals; persons who were not currently employed; and those under 16 years old. To identify part-time workers, the Center relied on the Census Bureau’s definition of those workers who usually worked less than 35 hours per week.
The ACS-PUMS does not contain information on why people work part-time; nor does it contain information on the number of jobs a person has. Therefore, the Center could not estimate the number of persons who were working part-time, but would rather be working full-time. Also the Center could not estimate the number of persons who had multiple jobs, either full- or part-time.
Age, Gender and Race
The average rural part-time worker was about 40 years old. Six percent of rural part-time workers were teenagers (under 18 years old) and 11 percent were senior citizens (65 years old and older). The majority of rural part-time workers (84 percent) were between 18 and 64 years old. In terms of age, there was no difference between rural and urban part-time workers.
More rural females worked part-time (67 percent) than rural males (33 percent). On average, females who worked part-time were one year older (40.1 years old) than males who worked part-time (39.1 years old). Among urban part-time workers, 65 percent were female and 35 percent were male. There was almost no difference in the average age of urban female and male part-time workers (39.8 and 39.7, respectively).
In rural areas, 7 percent of part-time workers were minorities. In urban areas, 22 percent of part-time workers were minorities.
Marital Status
Forty-five percent of rural part-time workers were married; 13 percent were divorced, separated, or widowed; and 42 percent were never married. Among urban part-time workers, the majority were never married (47 percent); 41 percent were married; and the remaining 12 percent were divorced, separated, or widowed.
Households
In 2011, 22 percent of all rural households had one or more part-time worker. Thirteen percent of rural households with employed members had only part-timer workers, while 19 percent had a mix of part-time and full-time workers and 68 percent had only full-time workers.
In comparison, 21 percent of all urban households had one or more part-time worker. Among urban households with employed persons, 12 percent had only part-time workers, 18 percent had a mix of part- and full-time workers, and 70 percent had full-time workers only.
Education
The majority of both rural and urban part-time workers (72 percent each) were not enrolled in school. Among the 28 percent of rural part-time workers who were enrolled in school, 73 percent were in college or graduate school and 27 percent were in high school. These percentages were similar for urban part-time workers enrolled in school.
Generally speaking, urban part-time workers had higher levels of educational attainment than rural part-time workers. For example, among urban part-time workers not enrolled in school, 8 percent did not have a high school diploma, 36 percent had a high school diploma or equivalent, 19 percent had some college but no degree, and 36 percent had an associate’s degree or higher. Among the rural part-time workers not enrolled in school, 9 percent did not have a high school diploma, 46 percent had a high school diploma or equivalent, 16 percent had some college but no degree, and 29 percent had an associate’s degree or higher.
Health Insurance
Eighteen percent of rural part-time workers did not have health insurance. Among the 83 percent with health insurance, 71 percent were covered through a private insurer, 16 percent had some type of public health insurance and 13 percent had a combination of public and private insurance.
Among urban part-time workers, 14 percent were uninsured. Among the 86 percent with health insurance, 73 percent were insured through a private insurer, 15 percent had some type of public health insurance and 12 percent had both public and private insurance.
Employment
The majority of rural part-time workers (70 percent) were employed in a for-profit company. Twelve percent worked for a nonprofit organization and 8 percent worked for a governmental agency. Approximately 10 percent of rural part-time workers were self-employed. Urban part-time workers followed a similar employment pattern.
Fifty-three percent of rural part-time workers were employed year-round, or 50 or more weeks per year. Among urban part-time workers, 55 percent were employed year-round.
The typical rural part-timer worked 20.7 hours each week, which is nearly identical to urban part-timers (20.8 hours). Both rural and urban part-timers who work year-round worked slightly more hours (22) than those who did not work year-round (19 hours).
The top three occupations for rural part-time workers were food service (16 percent), office support (15 percent) and sales (15 percent). This list was nearly the same for urban part-time workers. The top three industries for rural part-time workers were retail (20 percent), accommodation, food service, and recreation (19 percent), and health care (14 percent). This list was nearly the same for urban part-time workers.
Income and Poverty
The median annual earnings for all rural part-time workers were $8,146. For all urban part-time workers, the annual median was $9,877.
Among rural part-timers who worked year-round (50 or more weeks), an estimated 25 percent earned minimum wage or less. In 2011, the minimum wage in Pennsylvania was $7.25 per hour. Among urban part-timers who worked year round, an estimated 21 percent earned minimum wage or less.
Among rural households with part-time workers, wages and salaries comprised 22 percent of the total household income. Among urban households, wages and salaries comprised 24 percent of total household income.
Fifteen percent of rural and 14 percent of urban part-time workers were in poverty. Fifteen percent of rural households with part-time workers received SNAP (food stamps) and 13 percent of urban households with part-time workers received SNAP.
Part-Time Workers in Other States
Nationwide, 31.5 million people, or 22 percent of the workforce, worked part-time. The three states with the highest percentages of part-time workers were Michigan, Utah and Oregon. In each of these states, more than 26 percent of the workforce was employed part-time. The three states with the lowest percentages of part-time workers were Maryland, Mississippi and Texas. In each of these states, less than 20 percent of the workforce was employed part-time.
Rural Pennsylvania In-Migration and Out-Migration Patterns
Here's a nationwide look at in-migration and out-migration patterns for rural Pennsylvania*. The maps below show the counties where rural Pennsylvanians migrated to and from in 2009, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau's 2005-09 American Community Survey. In the survey, respondents were asked where they lived in the last year. The data represent a 5-year average of those who responded to the survey and include anyone who was 1 year old and older.
In-Migration to Rural Pennsylvania
Total In-Migration = 131,302*
Gray areas = In-Migration to Rural Pennsylvania (People came from these counties and moved into rural Pennsylvania)
Green areas = Rural Pennsylvania Counties
Out-Migration from Rural Pennsylvania
Total Out-Migration = 105,794*
Gray areas = Out-Migration from Rural Pennsylvania (Rural Pennsylvanians moved to these counties)
Green areas = Rural Pennsylvania Counties
* Note: While Alaska and Hawaii are not shown in the maps, the total in- and out-migration numbers include people who migrated from and to those states. Data source: U.S. Census Bureau's 2005-09 American Community Survey.
Just the Facts: Firearm Deaths
According to data from the Pennsylvania Department of Health, from 2008 to 2010, there were 1,005 firearm deaths, or 9.7 deaths per 100,000 residents, in Pennsylvania’s 48 rural counties. Firearm deaths accounted for less than 1 percent of all rural deaths.
During the same period, urban counties had nearly three times more deaths from firearms than rural counties. In Pennsylvania’s 19 urban counties, there were 2,960 firearm deaths, or 10.8 per 100,000 residents. Urban firearm deaths accounted for 1 percent of all urban deaths.
Of the rural firearm deaths, 83 percent were suicides, 13 percent were homicides, and 4 percent were attributed to accidents or other factors. Of the urban firearm deaths, 51 percent were suicides, 46 percent were homicides, and 3 percent were from accidents or other factors.
In rural Pennsylvania, the majority of firearm deaths (55 percent) were persons between 35 and 64 years old. In addition, more rural males died from firearms than rural females (86 percent and 14 percent, respectively). Among urban Pennsylvanians who died from firearms, 42 percent were 35 to 64 years old. More urban males (89 percent) died from firearms than urban females (11 percent).
Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that, in 2010, there were 31,672 deaths, or 10.3 deaths per 100,000 residents, in the U.S. from firearms. Among all states, Pennsylvania had the nation’s 30th highest firearm death rate with 10.3 per 100,000 residents. The states with the highest rates were Montana (16.6), Louisiana (19.1), and Alaska (20.3). The states with the lowest rates were Rhode Island (4.7), Massachusetts (4.1), and Hawaii (3.3).
An analysis of firearm deaths in rural Pennsylvania shows that these deaths were not significantly correlated with the number of handgun sales, poverty rates, or the number of reported serious crimes (Part 1). It was, however, significantly correlated with the unemployment rate. The same analysis for urban Pennsylvania showed a significant correlation with the unemployment rate, poverty rate, and number of reported serious crimes.
A Look at Small, Mid-Size and Large Pennsylvania Fire Companies
Pennsylvania Firefighters: Small, Mid-size and Large Companies, a publication highlightingthe similarities and differences of small, mid-size and large fire companies in terms of recruitment, retention, and capacity to respond to calls,is now available from the Center for Rural Pennsylvania.
This report is the third and final in a series of publications based on the results of a survey of Pennsylvania fire companies conducted in 2012. The Center for Rural Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania Fire and Emergency Services Institute (PFESI) conducted a mail survey of Pennsylvania fire chiefs to identify firefighter recruitment and retention patterns and measure the capacity of fire companies to meet their communities’ emergency needs.
The first report focused on recruitment and retention issues, and the second looked at fire company capacity.
For a copy of the report, Pennsylvania Firefighters: Small, Mid-size and Large Companies, call or email the Center at (717) 787-9555 or info@rural.palegislature.us or visit www.rural.palegislature.us.