Defining and Describing Frontier Areas in the United States: An Update

For details of three additional pure-type characteristic sets (PT1, PT5, and PT10), the reader is referred to the FMHSRN's Letter to the Field No. 18.

Describing Frontier Areas

The simple binary definition of frontier rural areas as those with less than seven persons per square miles belies their diversity. While concentrated in the west, frontier areas range from flat, hot, plains counties in Texas to remote mountainous counties in Montana. Their residents can be miners, farmers, loggers, ranchers, or Internet entrepreneurs. Many are descendants of the original pioneers, yet more and more are urban-area "refugees". Even with this diversity, these areas share a remoteness and a sense of isolation that sets them apart from both urban areas and other types of rural areas.

Consistent agreement cannot even be found on using the name "frontier" for these extremely isolated rural areas. This project has received many comments on the use of this term, particularly from people in frontier areas. Many consider it limiting and negative in nature. In the dictionary, for instance, synonyms include "backwoods", "boondocks," and "outlandish". However, frontier is also used in positive ways, such as the "frontiers of cyberspace". At the 23^rd Annual Conference of the National Association for Rural Mental Health, this project reviewed the use of this term and asked for suggestions for a more accurate or more descriptive term. The consensus of the audience seemed to be that the term "frontier" had been in use for so long that it would actually be detrimental to those attempting to increase services to these areas to change it to something less well-established.

In Letter 2, several characteristics of frontier areas were discussed to help describe and understand them. They included isolation, fragile economy, frontier values, and poverty. In Letter 18, Goldsmith et al. described four "frontier-like" clusters of counties with distinct characteristics along with their locations in the United States. The FMHSRN’s advisory committee, as well as many newspaper and magazine articles, informally confirms the existence of these community types. This letter will use these four GOM-derived vivid portraits of frontier communities as a backdrop for a discussion of several issues important in frontier areas, including the economy, population growth, poverty, land use, and mental health services in frontier areas. Finally, advances in technology have made enormous changes in many areas of American life, and we will discuss their impact on the lives of frontier residents. We end with differing and sometimes opposing views on the future of frontier areas.

Western Farming, Ranching, and Mining Communities. These communities are scattered throughout the west from the eastern edges of the coastal states to the Great Plains, but particularly in the states of Kansas, Nebraska, Texas, Colorado and Montana. They are composed of small, mostly male communities and most employment is in resource dependent industries. These counties often depend on a single industrial base, such as farming, ranching or mining.

Mining, lumber, and other extractive industries are increasingly limited in these areas in the western US, often leading to increased unemployment (Murray & Keller, 1986; Wilkinson, 1982). It has been discussed elsewhere (e.g. Wagenfeld et al., 1994) that rural areas in general are economically unstable and that this may have an impact on the mental health of its residents. This can be even more true for frontier areas where the economy is often resource-based and less diversified. The major sources of income in these areas are farming, ranching, logging, and mineral extraction; there is little manufacturing. Each of these industries fosters significantly different cultures. Interacting as a mental health professional with a farmer in North Dakota will be significantly different than with a miner in Nevada.

Mining played a large role historically in the settlement of frontier areas. By its very nature, mining activities create boom and bust cycles, from the discovery of the mineral to the closing of the mine when the cost of extracting the mineral becomes prohibitive. Mining communities therefore are often temporary in nature and experience extreme instances of boom and bust. For example, in Las Animas County in Colorado as late as the 1950’s, 40 coal mines operated, employing thousands, and driving a thriving economy. In 1996, the last operating coal mine closed, ending an era and bringing a decline in county population from 42,000 in 1950 to approximately 13,000 (Foster, 1996).

Ranching in frontier areas also has a long and colorful history. Arid and vast, these areas are ideal for cattle and buffalo. Jackson County, a frontier area in northern Colorado, now struggles with a ranching based economy. Located in the vast mountain basin of North Park, land-use restrictions limiting logging and mining have meant job loss and a stagnant economy. Almost two-thirds of the million-plus acres of the county are publicly owned. Most of the remaining land is held by large privately owned ranches. Ranching as a way of life is becoming precarious for smaller ranches. To survive, some ranching families have turned to tourism and outfitting in an uneasy compromise (Garner, 1995).

The single industrial base often found in these frontier areas makes earning a consistent living more difficult, and one of the consequences is frequent migration and shrinking communities (National Rural Health Association, 1994). If the industrial base is depressed or collapses in these areas, an inevitable chain reaction occurs. Businesses dependent on these industries experience reverses, public services shrink or disappear, and the quality of life suffers (Popper & Popper, 1987). It can be catastrophic when the only industry in a county declines dramatically. The town of Walden is one such example. This town in northern Colorado relied heavily on the lumber industry. When the main lumber mill closed down in 1994, 100 people in the town of 900 residents lost their jobs and Walden lost a $3.5 million annual payroll. Luckily ranching and farming, the other industries in the area, have done better recently and the town is now getting a big boost from tourism and recreation. However the economy is still fragile and town leaders are trying to bring in light industry to provide year-round jobs and greater security (Kelly, 1997).

As these more traditional industries falter, frontier areas are turning more and more to tourism to answer economic woes, especially in the scenic wilderness areas in the west. This new industry creates large transitory populations who often overload the existing mental health services in the area. The economic base of one frontier state —Nevada — is heavily dependent on gambling-based tourism. This, of course, has implications for health, mental health, and substance abuse services. Obviously, these areas attract many transients, who may experience crises with substance abuse and mental illness. The gambling lifestyle of these places also has an impact on the health and well-being of permanent residents. In their zeal for economic stability, some communities have also actively sought more questionable opportunities (Popper, 1986; Norris, 1993). Distance from metropolitan centers and low population density have made frontier areas attractive for practice bombing ranges, missile sites, and nuclear waste dumps.

Some of the more scenic counties have recently experienced a resettlement. So-called "urban-refugees" have come looking for a better way of life in these frontier areas. These new settlers tend to hold service jobs in teaching, medicine, law, business and technology. This obviously changes the mix of the economy. For instance, in Montrose County Colorado, the percent of mining dependent jobs went from 17% in 1979 to only 1% in 1993 (Frazier, 1996).

Northern Great Plains Farming Communities.

In the Great Plains, once popularly known as the Great American Desert (Stolzenburg, 1996), the frontier areas are unique. The GOM analysis cited above shows that these communities are made up of mainly white, married couples with children. They own their own homes and the husband tends to work in a resource-dependent industry, such as farming. The populations in these counties are very small.

Many of these areas were developed during the westward expansion in the mid- to late-1800s. Homesteaders settled here with great anticipation of personal success and the promise of significant population growth. Many of these rural communities did experience population growth through the 1930s, and only over the past 50-60 years have they experienced dramatic population declines. Consequently, many of the early settlers migrated to the Great Plains not as an escape from urban life, but rather, to found and build great communities of the future. Unfortunately, the combination of the absence of adequate water, the technical revolution in agriculture (the green revolution), the development of modern transportation and communications, and the onset of World War II led to a mass exodus, or rural-to-urban migration. As a result, many rural counties that would not have met the density criteria for "frontier" in the 1950s meet those criteria today. In fact, the number of frontier counties continues to grow in the Great Plains as the population decreases.

The decline in population in the frontier areas of the Great Plains is not characteristic of all counties or all decades. The populations in rural areas have been said to be both increasing dramatically and decreasing alarmingly, depending on the specific area and the decade described. The 1970’s were an era of growth in nonmetro rural areas. Population tended to decline in the 1980’s and now in the 1990’s the trend seems to be repeating that of the 70’s (Nucci & Long, 1995). This population growth in the 90’s is widespread in nonmetro counties (Johnson & Beale, 1994; Nucci & Long, 1995). The increase may be due to the net inflow of migrants — particularly seniors, but is probably also due to suburbanization. Nonmetro counties adjacent to metro counties or suburban areas seem to be growing the fastest. Growth has also been seen consistently in recreation-centered counties, supporting the net inflow supposition and the idea of a "rural renaissance." There is believed to be a preference by Americans to live in smaller places to avoid the crime and congestion of urban areas (Nucci & Long, 1995). For instance, in the 1990’s over 1 million Californians have moved to other western states, presumably to avoid crime and to find a simpler lifestyle. This increase in population in nonmetro areas may also be due to a shift in the nation’s economy from manufacturing to more service-oriented industries (Nucci & Long, 1995).

Frontier areas do seem to be contributing to, at least in part, this nonmetro population growth. As a group, states with frontier populations are experiencing a rate of population growth greater than the average for the country in the 1990’s (US Bureau of the Census, 1996; Wilkinson, 1982). In the 14 states with significant frontier areas (Categories I and II), the average population change from 1990 to 1995 was 10.2%, compared to the U.S. average of 5.6%. This trend of rising populations can be seen all the way back to the 1970’s. While the population of the US has grown 29% from 1970 to 1994, most western states have experienced much higher rates, from 43% in Wyoming to 198% in Nevada.

The population growth in frontier areas also seems tied to the more scenic areas where some of the growth is clearly related to recreation. Moab, Utah, for example, has become a Mecca for mountain bikers. Its official population of 6,300 climbs to over 16,000 in tourist season. The growth has also been tied to advances in technology that allow employees to work at a distance from employers and in a more rural environment.

This growth in nonmetro and frontier areas is not, however, universal. At the other end of the spectrum, rural to urban migration continues as a consistent theme in some frontier areas, particularly in the Great Plains (Jenkins, 1991; Wilkinson, 1982). Growth was much less prevalent in nonmetro counties in the Great Plains and West Texas and in farming- and mining-dependent counties (Johnson & Beale, 1994). Nonmetro counties with the lowest population densities (frontier counties) also showed the least growth (Johnson & Beale, 1994). Population declined in large portions of the Great Plains during the 1980’s, creating new ghost towns and apprehension in remaining residents. Increased farm productivity in farming areas has lead to fewer workers, larger farms and therefore lower population densities. The number of counties with less than two persons/sq.mi. grew from 143 to 150 during the 1980’s, another indication of the loss in population and the growing number of extremely sparsely-populated frontier areas. There are some indications that this trend may be slowing in the 1990’s. For example, in North Dakota where approximately three-fourths of the state is in the Great Plains, 89% of its counties declined in population from 1980 to 1990. In Census estimates from 1990-95, however, only 81% of the counties declined in population. But the Great Plains states, such as South Dakota, North Dakota, Nebraska and Kansas, still have very slight population changes in comparison to the rest of the frontier states. These four states had an average percentage of growth of 1.9, compared with 5.6 for the US and 10.2 for all frontier states (US Bureau of the Census, 1996).

Hispanic Frontier Communities. While almost all frontier areas in the United States are composed primarily of white residents, there are significant populations of Hispanics in certain areas of the southwest (mainly in Texas, New Mexico, and southern Colorado). Settled earlier than most other frontier areas, these areas still include communities of mostly Spanish-speakers.

Poverty is often an issue for these small communities, much more so than in the other frontier types. The recent changes brought on by welfare reform are expected to have devastating effects on these extremely rural communities. Costilla County in southern Colorado is one example. This frontier county is extremely poor; 16.5% of its residents are unemployed and 34.8% receive food stamps (as opposed to 5.9% statewide). The new welfare reform laws call for the county to move 30% of adult welfare recipients into jobs, however, there are no jobs in Costilla county. In fact, a local mine laid off 68 people in 1997. Neighboring counties have some job openings, but most are seasonal or part-time and there is not public transportation to these areas (Callahan, 1997; Crowder, 1998). The fear is that working age adults in poor families may be forced to leave their homes and go to more urban areas, such as Denver, for work. The result of this would be a county with mainly elderly residents taking care of the children left behind.

Poverty is not a defining characteristic for all frontier counties. The frontier tends to be a land of extremes and this is true for its poverty levels as well. The two counties in the US with the lowest and the highest poverty rates found by the 1990 Census are both designated frontier (Shannon, SD - highest; Loving, TX - lowest). The West, however, does have the highest regional poverty rate (15.4%) in the country. Two of the only three states in which poverty rates increased from 1994 and 1996 are western states – Arizona and Montana. New Mexico, home to many Hispanic frontier communities, had the highest state poverty rate—24.0%—for 1994 to 1996 (Census, 1997).

Declining Retirement Communities. These small communities can be found mainly in the Great Plains. The average age is high and the death rate is quite high in these communities. However, these areas are not prospering retirement destinations as can be found in Arizona, California, and Florida. These were once thriving farming communities, but because of the incredible increases in farm size due to farm efficiencies, there are not enough jobs for younger people to stay. Here the concerns of aging citizens and disappearing communities are paramount.

Frontier areas, particularly in the Great Plains, are often economically dependent on agriculture. The land and climate, however, make farming extremely challenging. Farming-dependent areas in the Great Plains have experienced many cycles of boom and bust since their settlement in the late 1800’s. After the Homestead Act of 1862 lured settlers, creating a boom, the financial panic and drought of 1890 caused a bust in which many residents left. In the early 1900’s homesteaders were again encouraged to settle and it was during this era that the Great Plains experienced its highest population levels. Drought and the Dust Bowl in the 1930’s reduced the population again. In the 1970’s, federal subsidies, an export boom, and gas and oil discoveries brought new prosperity, only to usher in an oil bust and farm crisis in the 1980’s. Parts of the Great Plains today are again struggling with drought conditions. Coupled to these boom and bust trends, farming as a whole has become more efficient. Increased farm productivity has lead to the need for fewer workers and larger farms. This has also has led to declining populations in the farming counties of the frontier.

A trend in the Great Plains frontier areas is an increasingly older average age of its residents. U.S. News and World Report (1995, July 17) carried a story on the economic decline and depopulation of the ranching area of the Sand Hills in Nebraska. With the outmigration of younger persons, the population is becoming increasingly elderly. In some counties this chronic outmigration of younger persons of childbearing age has resulted in deaths outnumbering births (Nucci & Long, 1995). One resident, aged 67, noted:

The area has turned elderly. I put up the mail and I know how many get Social Security checks, and that’s most of them. Our kids got a good education and they took a good work ethic with them when they left—none of them are slackers. But there’s nothing here to hold the young ones. The opportunities are better somewhere else. What it means is that Paul and I are the ‘young couple’ in the church and at the Library Society, and that’s so sad.

Overcoming Isolation Through Technology

As a means of overcoming issues of isolation and as a way to "blur the distinctions between rural and urban areas" (Richards, 1994), many rural towns and counties today are turning to technology. Telecommunications and the information technology industry may make the biggest changes in these areas in the coming years. It will make us rethink our ideas of remoteness and availability of services. Rural communities across the US now view T1 (high volume telephone) lines and the like as earlier frontier residents viewed the railroad. To survive and to hopefully prosper they must have these backbones.

In particular they are turning to the loosely organized network of computers called the Internet. Connecting to the Internet allows world-wide dialogue through chat areas, greater educational resources, and the possibility of information-based small businesses in frontier areas (Mikol, 1995). Gains in computer and telephone technology may also allow new opportunities for employment in remote areas through telecommuting and for new delivery methods in healthcare through telemedicine (Murray & Keller, 1986). (The topics of telemedicine and telemental health are covered extensively in the Letter 3, Telemental Health Services in US Frontier Areas in this series.) A rural resident in Indiana, Brian L. Capouch, running for county commissioner summarized the importance of the Internet as

a 'virtual place' where a person's physical location is relatively unimportant [and] offers an unprecedented chance for residents of rural areas to achieve economic parity… with our urban brothers and sisters (Mendels, 1996b)

Telecommunication advances may also be ushering in a new era of growth and prosperity in frontier rural areas. As Calvin Beale of the US Department of Agriculture stated, "if you wire them, they will come (Richards, 1994)." US House and Senate members representing rural areas seem to believe this is true. They are becoming strong proponents of technology and telecommunications largely because they believe the information revolution will bring economic hope to their remote districts (Carney, 1997). They believe the positives of lower labor costs and higher quality of life will bring individuals and industries to rural areas if they are no longer tied by location to customers and other employees. To accomplish this, rural legislators are pushing the installation of high-speed transmission lines to small towns and are championing the creation of broad operating principles for the Internet (Carney, 1997)

Getting the wire linkages and connecting to the information superhighway in frontier areas, however, is not always a simple or inexpensive proposition. Inadequate or non-existent phone lines can be costly to upgrade and phone companies have little incentive to invest where there are so few customers per square mile. The Center for the New West, an advocacy group, warns in a Time magazine article that there is a "digital divide" developing and those in the sparsely populated Western states are on the wrong side of the divide. They give several examples. In Wyoming the distance from customers to switching facility is twice as far and twice as expensive as in New Jersey. Leadville, in mountainous Colorado, has an antiquated phone system, unable to provide quick Internet access (O’Malley, 1999). In Grand County, a frontier area of Colorado, residents also encounter prohibitive long distance costs when entering the information highway (Mikol, 1995).

Nevertheless, a number of frontier communities are already exploring the opportunities this new technology offers. The town of Lusk, Wyoming (in Niobrara County, a frontier county with 1 person/sq.mi.), has become famous for its connectivity through appearances in a Microsoft ad campaign. Its story illustrates the potential and pitfalls of connecting small isolated areas to the outside world through the Internet. As touted in the commercials, the town does have a high-speed fiber-optic cable, due to the efforts of a past mayor, but the cable does not connect to the local telephone switching station. The mayor was voted out of office and the town ran out of money before the project could be completed. Since this early effort, the town’s two schools and homeowners have connected to the Internet, but by using the slower regular phone lines. Local residents are now using the Internet for homework, to sell horses, to keep in touch with distant relatives, and to research grass management techniques, among other uses. However, new phone lines are difficult to obtain in this small town and "POTS" (plain old telephone service) line connections are not fast enough or good enough to lure new businesses. The town is again investigating hooking up the fiber-optic cable in the hopes of improving their economy. Even if they accomplish this, however, the town will still need local experts to run the system, often difficult to find in these areas (Sorensen, 1999).

Schools are often the first place in a community that this new technology appears. They use it to expand the number and type of classes offered to students and to give the students some of the same opportunities as more urban children. Classes offered are those that are more difficult to provide in rural areas that have limited resources and numbers of teachers. One school district in southwestern Colorado believes understanding technology is important for this traditionally agricultural area as it becomes more and more integral to farming activities (Mendels, 1996c). In Montana, the goal is to connect 1100 school buildings within a year to allow "distance" learning in rural areas (Mendels, 1996a). Aricaree School District on the plains in Colorado already has 58 computers with full Internet access and a complete fiber-optic classroom (Miniclier, 1998).

Frontier businesses and health care providers are also benefiting from the new technology. In the city of Ainsworth, located in a frontier county in Nebraska, a two-way video conferencing unit is part of their public library and serves local ministers, hospital officials, a lawyer and an insurance agent (Richards, 1994). Telemedicine is starting to overcome the lack of health and mental health providers in these isolated areas. The hospital in Cambridge, Nebraska (7.7 persons/sq.mi.) connects local doctors to specialists at the University of Nebraska Medical Center using interactive video (Richards, 1994). Farmers are also increasingly using the Internet to do research on new farming techniques, to check weather reports, and to sell livestock (Chervokas & Watson, 1997).

The Future of the Frontier

A vigorous debate has emerged in recent years about the meaning of the frontier and its future (Duncan, 1993; Popper, 1986; Popper & Popper, 1987). On the one hand, its history and resources make it a vital part of our heritage and future. On the other hand, it has been said that the Plains—as a result of the "largest, longest-running agricultural and environmental miscalculation in American history", may "become almost totally depopulated" (Popper & Popper, 1987:12). In addition, as the US becomes more densely populated and urban, these isolated rural areas are increasingly seen as important for preservation and protection. A sense of immediacy is added with the incursions into traditionally rural areas by more urban development. In Colorado alone it was estimated that 250 acres per day are converted from farmland, ranchland and open space to housing and other more urban developments (Foster, 1996).

At the same time that Frank Popper was rediscovering frontier areas, he was also postulating on their future (Popper & Popper, 1987). In a controversial hypothesis, he predicted that the population would continue to decline in the Great Plains until large portions became completely uninhabited. He feels these areas should revert to pristine short grass prairie and become a vast wildlife preserve — home to large herds of buffalo. The area that would be created has been dubbed the "Buffalo Commons." To current residents of these frontier counties, this idea is abhorrent.

Yet Dayton Duncan (1993) in his noteworthy book Miles from Nowhere suggested another view of the future of the frontier. After his yearlong travel in the American frontier he remained optimistic about its survival. He maintains frontier counties will stabilize at their "irreducible minimum," which he estimates at around 2 persons/sq.mi. At this density, small towns always have "hairdressers and video rental stores," in his view apparently the two businesses essential for survival.

Frontier residents themselves often see their countryside as the "affordable new frontier" with new opportunities for progress. They view themselves as "pioneers" and feel that other more urban dwellers will follow their lead. This has begun to happen in limited areas as urban "refugees" move to frontier areas and start new businesses using technology. Examples can be found in Lincoln County, Montana where an orthopedic surgeon settled and created an informatics company (Kootenet, 1996); and in Colorado where old ghost towns are being resettled (Lipsher, 1997).

Ironically, these lands that nobody wanted 50 to 100 years ago are now the targets of great debate over how to protect them. As a Denver newspaper put it—"What happens to what many consider the last and best acres of truly wild land?" (Ryckman, 1996). This debate seems to be heating up as the rest of the nation becomes more urban and densely populated. Environmental groups are racing to preserve federal lands within the frontier as wilderness areas. Others are working toward the establishment of National Monuments and National Parks, which increases tourism in these areas and therefore stimulates the economy. Wilderness area designations are supported much more by those who either live in urban areas within the state now or have done so in the past (Bradsher, 1997; Ryckman, 1996). Ironically, environmental groups and rural residents alike oppose the establishment of National Parks, fearing the overuse by tourists (Ryckman, 1996). Even in the less traditionally scenic Great Plains, efforts are afoot to preserve and protect isolated areas. The Nature Conservancy is one organization that has begun a national effort, called the Great Plains Project, to save North American grasslands (Stolzenburg, 1996).

The view of frontier areas as valuable and worthy of preservation is often in direct opposition to their resident’s dreams of economic prosperity. Frontier residents fear that this preservation trend will limit economic opportunity and change land use that has existed for a hundred years. At the forefront of this battle are the federal government, environmental groups and frontier residents. They are squaring off over grazing, water and mineral rights. This conflict has spawned a political movement variously described as the "county rights movement", "county supremacy movement" or the "private property rights movement". These movements maintain counties have authority over the federal lands within their borders and have sometimes led to violent actions against federal offices and agents (Larson, 1995).

A prime example of this movement can be found in Nye County, Nevada. Residents here have a long history of grazing their stock on public lands for reasonable fees. During the 1980’s however, government agencies began to limit these rights in response to the growing environmental movement. At the same time there was a growing interest in these public lands by hikers, hunters, and recreation vehicle (RV) enthusiasts who wanted public access to pristine wilderness. Unfortunately many frontier area ranches, like those in Nye County, are small and barely solvent. Even small changes by federal land managers can have catastrophic effects. These opposing interests led Nye County officials to file a lawsuit against the federal government for control of the public lands within their county. The approximately 35 western counties who have also declared sovereignty over their federal lands are watching this lawsuit with great interest (Larson, 1995; Kenworthy, 1996; Frazier, 1996).

Another example of the friction between frontier residents, the federal government, and preservationist can be found in the newly created Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah. President Clinton declared this area a monument in the fall of 1996 in an effort to preserve its pristine wilderness condition. Many of the frontier residents around it and the state of Utah were less than happy that a large area rich with minerals was taken out of state and county control (Egan, 1997).

Summary

Frontier areas are a particularly interesting and often forgotten type of rural area. They are notably distinct from other types of rural and nonmetro areas because of their location in the West and their extreme isolation. In fact, their isolation and distance from services define them. Their western nature lends to their picturesque, but also extremely rugged, character. This harshness and a lack of abundant water make everyday living on the frontier a challenge. Their future has always been in question, and never more so than now with the pressures from their more urban neighbors.

Frontier areas are not at all homogenous, however. They differ in climate, economies, population trends, and certainly in culture. All of their common and unique characteristics must be taken into account when discussing mental health service provision to their residents. Funding agencies, Congress and rural advocates need to understand frontier areas’ commonalties to adequately understand their residents’ needs. Individual practitioners, managed care organizations, and state authorities must understand their diverse natures when providing treatment and creating service provision models. These areas cannot be arbitrarily lumped with other rural areas and certainly not with urban or metro areas when considering health and mental health services issues. Frontier areas deserve to be understood and accounted for in the new health and mental health care arena on their own terms and in consideration of their special uniqueness and value to all U.S. citizens.

References

Bergman, G.T., & Dixon, L. (Eds.). (1990). Mental health services in America [Special issue]. State Health Reports, 58.

Bradsher, K. (1997, January 7). Federal encroachment or new opportunity? Park greeted both warmly and cooly. The New York Times, (on-line).

Butler, M.A., & Beale, C.L. (1994) Rural-urban continuum codes for metro and nonmetro counties, 1993. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

Callahan, P. (1997, January 13). Job rare in rural areas. The Denver Post.

Carney, D (1997, January 20). Promoting technology in America’s rural areas. The New York Times, on-line.

Chervokas, J. & Watson, T. (1997, March 14). Harvesting the Web: Agriculture grows online. The New York Times, on-line.

Cook, P.J. & Mizer K.L. (1994, December). The Revised ERS County Typology: An Overview (Rural Development Research Report 89). Washington, D.C.: Rural Economy Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Cromartie, J.B. & Swanson, L.L. (1997). Census tracts more precisely define rural populations and areas. Rural Development Perspectives, 11(3), 31-39.

Crowder, C. (1998, August 30). Welfare worries. The Denver Rocky Mountain News, pp 14A, 15A.

Duncan, D. (1993). Miles from nowhere. New York: Penguin Books.

Egan, T. (1997, September 14). Wide open spaces, but hardly untouched. The New York Times, online.

Foster, D. (1996, January 4). Trinidad to lose last coal mine. The Rocky Mountain News, p. 6A.

Frazier, D. (1996, July 19). New pioneers build new west. The Denver Rocky Mountain News, p. 14A.

Garner, J. (1995, October 8). Bypassed by the boom: endangered community Walden fights stagnation. The Rocky Mountain News, pp. 24A-25A.

Jenkins, S. (1991). The future of rural communities: Mobilizing local resources. In A. Bushy (Ed.), Rural nursing (Vol. 2, pp. 16-28). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Johnson, K.M. & Beale, C.L. (1994). Recent revival of widespread population growth in the nonmetropolitan areas of the United States [Abstract]. Rural Sociology, 58, pp. 655-667.

Kelly, G. (1997, August 25). Walden makes a comeback. The Denver Rocky Mountain News, pp. 8A, 16A.

Kenworthy, T. (1996, March 16). Western push for local land rule stalls in Nevada federal court. The Boulder Camera.

KooteNet (1996). www.libby.org

Larson, E. (1995, October 23). Unrest in the west. Time Magazine, p.52-66.

Lipsher, S. (1997, January 19). Ghost towns reborn. The Denver Post, pp. 12 - 15, 19, 22.

Mendels, P. (1996a, October 19). Nationwide Net Days wire US schools. The New York Times online.

Mendels, P. (1996b, November 2) Rural candidate runs on an Internet platform. The New York Times online.

Mendels, P. (1996c, December 17) Signing up for 'netcourses' at Virtual High. The New York Times online.

Mikol, S. (1995, October 5). Internet readies a big appearance in county. Winter Park Manifest, pp. 1, 14-15.

Miniclier, K. (1998, February 14). ‘Net helps isolated school stay connected. The Denver Post, pp. 1A, 23A.

Murray, J.D., & Keller, P.A. (Eds.). (1986). Innovations in rural community mental health. Mansfield, PA: Mansfield University Rural Services Institute.

National Rural Health Association (1994, September). Health Care in Frontier America: A Time for Change. Washington: Office of Rural Health Policy, Health Resources and Services Administration, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Norris, K. (1993). Dakota: A spiritual geography. New York: Ticknor & Fields.

Nucci, A. & Long, L. (1995). Spatial and demographic dynamics of metropolitan and nonmetropolitan territory in the United States. <http://www.cpc.unc.edu/pubs/paa_papers/1995/nucci.long.html> (1997, February 11).

O’Malley, C. (1999, March 22). The digital divide: Small towns that lack high-speed Internet access find it harder to attract new jobs. Time Magazine, pp. 86-87.

Popper, F. (1986). The strange case of the contemporary American frontier. Yale Review Autumn, 101-121.

Popper, D.E., & Popper, F. (1987). The great plains: From dust to dust. Planning, 53, 12, 12-18.

Richards, B. (1994, November 21). Many rural regions are growing again; a reason: technology. The Wall Street Journal, pp. A1, A8.

Ryckman, L.L. (1996, December 15). Last, best wild land. The Rocky Mountain News, pp. 30A-31A, 38A.

Sorensen, E. (1999, March 1). Wyo. town in spotlight not so wired after all. The Denver Post, pp. 5C-6C.

Stolzenburg, W. (1996). The Plains’ Great Mirage. Nature Conservancy, May/June, 11-15 .

University of Tennessee. (1994, September). Rurality Scores for U.S. Counties, 1994 (Bulletin 689). Knoxville, TN: The University of Tennessee, Agricultural Experiment Station.

Wilkinson, K.P. (1982). Changing rural communities. In P.A. Keller & J.D. Murray (Eds.), Handbook of rural community mental health (pp. 20-29). New York: Human Sciences Press.

Write us with comments on our site This project is supported by the Center for Mental Health Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Contract No. 280-94-0014

Frontier Mental Health Resource Network
Please send comments and suggestions on this home page to Dennis F. Mohatt at dmohatt@wiche.edu
http://www.wiche.edu/MentalHealth/Frontier/frontier.asp