# Presentation: 561361

## Presented to the
Annual Rural Development Training Conference“Partners in Progress”USDA Office of Community Development (OCD) 
Kissimmee, Florida
June 13, 2002

Charles W. Fluharty, Director
Rural Policy Research Institute
http://www.rupri.org

- <date/time>

**Presented to the**
**Annual Rural Development Training Conference****“Partners in Progress”****USDA Office of Community Development (OCD) **
**Kissimmee, Florida**
**June 13, 2002**
**Charles W. Fluharty, Director**
**Rural Policy Research Institute**
**http://www.rupri.org**

**Toward a Community Based National Rural Policy**

## Four Considerations:

- The Farm Bill process and outcome
- A growing understanding of the true rural economy
- The new Census and its public policy implications
- Redistricting, and the next two electoral cycles
- II. The potential to exploit these realities, in building a  constituency for crafting a community-based rural policy:
- New political realities
- The policy context
- Alternatives for consideration
- III. The rural / urban dialectic
- IV. Linking policy and community practice:“Bring in the bridge builders!”

**Four Considerations:**

## I. The case for a rural policy “tipping point”

**The Farm Bill process and outcome**
- A growing understanding of the true rural economy
- The new Census and its public policy implications
- Redistricting, and the next two electoral cycles

## “Rural” is much more than agriculture; and the future success of our nation’s family farms are critically linked to the economies of rural communities. 

- Only 6.3% of rural Americans live on farms.
- Farming accounts for only 7.6% of rural employment.
- 90% of rural workers have non-farm jobs.
- In 1999, 90% of all farm operator’s household income came from off-farm sources.

## Only 0.39% of the US population is engaged in farming as a primary occupation; and
Only 1.78% of the US rural population is engaged in farming as a primary occupation.

But . . . 
In ag dependent counties, or rural areas where agriculture is the dominant sector, as in most of the Great Plains, we are literally in “crisis”!

- Only 1.78% of the US _rural_ population is engaged in farming as a primary occupation.
**But . . . **
- In ag dependent counties, or rural areas where agriculture is the dominant sector, as in most of the Great Plains, we are literally in “crisis”!

## Slide 6

## Source:  ERS, February 2001

| ERS Farm Typology | Number of Households | Avg. HH Income | Avg. Off-Farm Income | Avg. earned off-farm income | Percent of HH income from earned off-farm sources | Percent of HH income from total off-farm sources |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Small Family Farms |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  Limited Resource | 126,920 | $9,534 | $13,114 | $5,862 | 61.5% | 137.5% |
|  Retirement | 297,566 | $40,643 | $41,991 | $11,254 | 27.7% | 103.3% |
|  Residential / lifestyle | 931,561 | $83,788 | $87,796 | $79,982 | 95.5% | 104.8% |
|  Farming-occupation low sales | 480,441 | $39,764 | $39,892 | $22,379 | 56.3% | 100.3% |
|  Farming-occupation high sales | 175,370 | $53,322 | $26,621 | $19,194 | 36.0% | 49.9% |
| Large Family Farms | 77,314 | $85,685 | $34,598 | $24,011 | 28.0% | 40.4% |
| Very Large Family Farms | 58,403 | $201,206 | $35,572 | $23,371 | 11.6% | 17.7% |

**Source:  ERS, February 2001**

## Farm / Farm Policy Structure:

- 2 million farms – 2% produce 50% of food / fiber
- 36% of farms participate in support programs (30% of total farm acreage)
- Between 1996 and 1998:
- $22.9 billion in farm subsidies
- 144,000 participants received 61% of money
- (7.2% of America’s farmers received $13.97 billion)
- The more farm dependant an area is, the more its economic growth lags the rest of America.

## Slide 9

## I. The case for a rural policy “tipping point”

- The Farm Bill process and outcome
**A growing understanding of the true rural economy**
- The new Census and its public policy implications
- Redistricting, and the next two electoral cycles

## The rural economy has strengthened and is slowly growing, but remains fragile and uneven:

- Over 2 million more rural Americans are employed today than at the start of the last decade.
- Until this downturn, rural unemployment had continued to decline -- lowest level since 1990 recession.
- Rural earnings, after a decade of decline, were rising at rates similar to urban, as was per capita income.

## But . . .Rural employment is still dominated by low wage industries:

- Rural workers are nearly twice as likely to earn the minimum wage (12% - rural, 7%- urban)
- Rural workers remain more likely to be underemployed and are less likely to improve their employment circumstances over time. (40% less likely to move out of low wage jobs than central city residents)
- In 1999, 27% of rural workers over age 25 received wages that if earned full time, full year, would not lift a family of four above the official poverty line (5 million workers).

**But . . .****Rural employment is still dominated by low wage industries:**

## Slide 13

## Slide 14

## Slide 15

## Slide 16

## Between 1990-1996 there was a gain of 2,756,000 jobs in rural America – an increase of 11.3%.However, between 1990-1996 there was only a negligible change in non-metropolitan job earnings – remaining more or less around $22,493 per year per job. (1996) In fact, the rural/urban earnings gap persisted and widened in the 1990s (from 73.8 to 70 percent). 

## Slide 18

## Therefore:

- Rural incomes remain lower than urban (1997 median:  $30K+ - Rural, 39K+ - Urban)
- Rural poor families are more likely to be employed and still poor. (In 1998, 2/3 of poor families had at least one member working at some time during the year; 16% had two or more members working; 29% had one or more full time, full year workers -- a 9% rise since 1996).

## Slide 20

## Slide 21

## Slide 22

## Slide 23

## I. The case for a rural policy “tipping point”

- The Farm Bill process and outcome
- A growing understanding of the true rural economy
**The new Census and its public policy implications**
- Redistricting, and the next two electoral cycles

## While the economy of rural America, in general, has improved, persistent pockets of intractable rural poverty remain:

- In general, poverty rates are higher in rural than urban areas.  (15.7% rural and 12.6% urban, 1997)
- While the rural poverty rate declined by 1 1⁄2% between 1997 and 1998 – still 14.3% [urban 12.3%].
- 7.5 million rural residents live in poverty; an additional 11% live close to poverty (between 100-150% of poverty) [urban 8%].
- Rural poverty is working poverty -- 2/3 of rural poor live in a family with at least one member working.
- Child poverty is higher in rural areas.  (22.7% rural and 19.2% urban, 1997)
- Over half of rural children in female-headed households are in poverty. (3.2 million rural children, 1996.)

## Slide 26

## The Census population shifts were very significant:

- The 1990’s saw a rural population rebound; which totally reversed the outmigration of the 1980’s.
- 70% of rural counties grew in population from 1990 to 1999.
- But, this growth is largely concentrated in only 40% of rural counties.
- 7/8 of these growing counties derived some or all of their increase from in-migration of metro residents.
- 61% of rural counties experienced net in-migration between 1990 and 1999.
- In fact, between 1990 and 1999, 2.2 million more Americans moved from the city to the country, than the reverse.

## However, rural population increases have steadily dropped since momentarily exceeding urban levels in 1994-95.

- And, all rural counties have turned downward in growth rate since 1995, except commuter counties:
- Mining and farming dependent counties had the greatest relative fall-off in pace of growth.
- In 1998-99, the rural population growth rate was less than half of urban.
- And, the number of rural counties with decreasing population rose from 600 in 1990-95 to 855 in 1995-99.
- Significant rural population declines continue in the Great Plains, and other “disadvantaged” rural areas.
- And, numerous growth counties are experiencing expanding diversity in ethnic / racial composition, with attendant challenges.

## Rural Population Growth

- 1990-1999 Population Growth
- + 3.9 million people
- + 7.6% increase from April 1990 to July 1998.
- Compared to 1980-1989 Population Growth
- + 1.3 million people
- + 2.7% increase
- This entire 1990’s increase is a product of migration:
- During 1980’s – annual rural outmovement of 269,000
- During 1990’s – average annual inmovement of 242,000
- The fastest growth and migration rates occurred in the South and the West.

## Slide 30

## Slide 31

## Slide 32

## Total Population, 1990

- Source: U.S. Census Bureau

## Total Population, 2000

**Total Population, 2000**

- Source: U.S. Census Bureau

## Total Hispanic Population, 1990

**Total Hispanic Population, 1990**

- Source: U.S. Census Bureau

## Total Hispanic Population, 2000

- Source: U.S. Census Bureau

## Total Population, 1990 and 2000

**Total Population, 1990 and 2000**

- Source: U.S. Census Bureau

## Total Hispanic Population, 1990 and 2000

- Source: U.S. Census Bureau

## Source: U.S. Census Bureau

## Source: U.S. Census Bureau

## Change in Rural & Urban Generations, 1990-2000

- U.S. Census Bureau

## Education:
Recent rural high school graduation rates match or exceed urban rates.
Rural dropout rates have fallen sharply in recent years, 
But -- 
Rural out-migration remains largely our youngest and most highly educated:
“Rural America’s most important export remains our best and our brightest.”

So, fewer young adults in rural areas seek post secondary education; have college degrees; and more have no high school diplomas (23.5% rural and 17.4% urban, 1997).
Yet, --
Rural schools represented 22% of all public schools in 1997, but:
Only received 12.5% of federal funding
14% of all state funding
11% of all local funding

- Recent rural high school graduation rates match or exceed urban rates.
- Rural dropout rates have fallen sharply in recent years,
- But --
- Rural out-migration remains largely our youngest and most highly educated:
- “Rural America’s most important export remains our best and our brightest.”
- So, fewer young adults in rural areas seek post secondary education; have college degrees; and more have no high school diplomas (23.5% rural and 17.4% urban, 1997).
- Yet, --
- Rural schools represented 22% of all public schools in 1997, but:
- Only received 12.5% of federal funding
- 14% of all state funding
- 11% of all local funding

**Human and Social Capital Considerations:**

## Slide 43

## Health:
22 million rural residents live in federally-designed Health Professions Shortage Areas, or Medically Underserved Areas, and
Rural residents tend to have poorer health care access; lower health insurance coverage, and little or no managed care availability.

- 22 million rural residents live in federally-designed Health Professions Shortage Areas, or Medically Underserved Areas, and
- Rural residents tend to have poorer health care access; lower health insurance coverage, and little or no managed care availability.

-  **Welfare Reform:  In 1996, **
- 21% of our nation’s welfare population was rural.
- 15 states had more than 50% of their welfare      population living in rural areas.
-  Caseloads have declined, but:
- Working age poverty hasn’t (1992-1997):
-   Central cities    	7% decline – 22 to 20%
-    Suburbs	10% decline – 10 to 9%
-    Rural 		Unchanged – 17%

## I. The case for a rural policy “tipping point”

- The Farm Bill process and outcome
- A growing understanding of the true rural economy
- The new Census and its public policy implications
**Redistricting, and the next two electoral cycles**

## The relationship between federal, state, and local governments and government revenue streams have a major impact on rural areas:

- 2,305 of our nation’s 3,043 counties are rural (76% of counties, 83% of our nation’s land, and 25% of our nation’s population is rural).
- Rural economies are significantly dependent upon federal government transfer payments -- 20% of total personal income in rural America comes from federal transfers to rural community citizens.

## Rural Governance: The Challenge for “Citizen Servants”

- 72% of county governments serve fewer than 50,000 persons.
- 700 of the 3,043 serve fewer than 10,000.
- 90% of the 36,001 sub-county general purpose governmental units serve less than 10,000.
- 82% have populations under 5,000.
- 51% serve less than 1,000.

## II. The potential to exploit these realities, in building a constituency for crafting a community based rural policy:

- New political realities
- The policy context
- Alternatives for consideration

## The New Political Realities

**Suburbanization of the American public policy arena**
- 1990 Census
- 1992 Presidential Election
- The 25/25/50 rule
- 2000 Census
- The Congressional reality
**Devolution: “To” the states, or “through” the states?**
- Current downturn has changed much, but . . .
- 31 states have cut taxes since 1996
- Since 1990, state and local government expenditures up 15%, in real terms
- Nearly $30 billion in current state budget deficits
- Federal workforce reduced by 345,000 since 1990
- State and local government workforce expanded by nearly 2 million in same period

## The Politics of the Rural Vote:

- A weakening “rural” power base
- A more fluid, less partisan rural electorate
- An “evolving” rural constituency

## The Rural Congressional Snapshot

- 1966 – Rural Majority in 181 House Districts (42%)
- 	1993 – Rural Majority in 77 House Districts (18%)
- 	Congressional Quarterly (60%) – 57 Districts (13%)
- Today, only thirteen states have a rural majority.  These states represent 59 electoral votes.  (Only 5 more than California, which is only 3% rural.)
- 1993 CRS study (1990 Census data):
- No rural district in top 100 family median income districts.
- Only two rural districts in top 200 family median income districts.
- Most rural districts were in the bottom 100.

## The Challenge of a National Rural Policy:  Five Key Components

- Believable problem articulation
- National voice
- Coalition consensus
- Sustained, integrative implementation strategy
- Visionary leadership - AARP!

## Why a National Rural Policy is So Difficult to Achieve

- “Rural” remains synonymous with “agriculture”
- A constituency has not been organized
- Many sector-level constituencies
- Congressional and Administration programs remain fragmented.
- No one Congressional Committee or Administrative Department with overall responsibility for rural policy and rural program integration

## The “Policy” Component of Rural Policy

- What?
- Integrative national rural policy
- Global examples
- National sector-level rural policy
- Department initiatives
- Congressional initiatives
- Philanthropic initiatives
- Private sector initiatives
- Integrative state rural policy
- Governor’s initiatives
- Legislative initiatives
- Public / private sector initiatives
- Philanthropic initiatives

## The “Policy” Component of Rural Policy

- Who?
- “Change agents” for a “new rural reality?”
- President
- Congress
- Colleges / Universities
- Governors
- State Legislatures
- Philanthropic community
- Private sector
- Building a constituency for action

## Hopeful Developments of Possible Consequence:

- Congressional Rural Caucus – Presidential Letter
- National Rural Network:
- New rural mission areas in many NGOs
- Farm Bill Rural Development Title
- HHS Secretary’s Rural Initiative
- State-level policy efforts
- Emergent, new rural leadership:
- Expanding leadership role for women
- Kansas City Fed – Center for the Study of Rural America
- Expanding philanthropic interest in rural portfolio
- Rural “new governance”: public / private / philanthropic collaborations
- State Rural Development Councils

## III.  The Rural / Urban Dialectic

## “Dialectic:  n. Any systematic reasoning, exposition, or argument that juxtaposes opposed or contradictory ideas and usually seeks to resolve their conflict.”
				-Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary

- 				-Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary

## The Policy Differential

## Four Considerations of this Rural Differential:

- Rural Housing
- Poverty Rates in Female-Headed Households
- Rural Youth Substance Abuse
- PROWRA

## Housing Conditions:Rural vs. Urban

- Source:  ERS, USDA.  1995.

## Poverty Rates among Female-Headed Families with Children

## Rural Youth / Substance Abuse

**In 1999:**
- Rural eighth graders were 32% more likely to have used marijuana in the past month than those in large metro areas.
- Rural eighth graders were 52% more likely to have used cocaine in the past year than those in large metro areas.
- Rural eighth graders were 75% more likely to have used crack cocaine in the past year than those in large metro areas.
- Rural eighth graders were 104% more likely to have used amphetamines, including methamphetamines, in the past month than those in large metro areas.
- Rural eighth graders were 29% more likely to have used alcohol in the past month than those in large metro areas.
- Rural eighth graders were twice as likely to have smoked cigarettes in the past month than those in large metro areas.

- The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University (CASA).  2000.  *No Place to Hide: Substance Abuse in Mid-Size Cities and Rural America*.  JAN 2000, Columbia University.  New York, NY: Columbia University.

## Slide 64

## Slide 65

## Slide 66

## Slide 67

## PRWORA’s Labor Market Assumptions:

- The labor market can absorb workers transitioning from welfare (Match between workers and jobs)

- Workers can earn enough to sustain their families

## Selected Economic Characteristics of Metro and Nonmetro Areas

_**Metro**_

_**Nonmetro**_

## Average Weekly Earnings, 1999  (dollars)

-   Calculated by ERS using data from the Current Population Survey

## Share of Less-Educated Workers in “Good-Paying” Occupations, 1999  (percent) 

## Highest Level of Adult Education Attainment, 2001

- U.S. Census Bureau: Current Population Survey, March 2001

## Does Place Matter in Welfare Reauthorization?

- Some research finds metro/nonmetro differences in welfare reform outcomes; other research does not
- Is this because the metro/nonmetro classification is too aggregated?

## Between 1992 and 1998, single mothers in central cities and remote rural areas had:

- lower earnings growth,
- more persistent poverty, and
- more persistent welfare receipt
- Preliminary findings from a forthcoming study supported by Brookings Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy and Rural Policy Research Institute

## The percent of single mothers with earnings increased across the urban-rural continuum

## But single mother median earnings did not increase in central cities and remote rural counties

## And single mother poverty rates went down least in central cities and remote rural counties

## Poverty is most persistent in central counties and remote rural counties

## Welfare receipt is most persistent in central counties and remote rural counties

## IV. Linking policy and community practice: “Bring in the bridge builders!”

## Building a new “rural pragmatism” 

**or . . . .**** **
**“****So, if we all care so much**
** ****about rural America,**
**Why is she in such bad shape?”**

## Three Questions, for your Consideration:

- Given our suburban policy context and the public’s misperception of our current rural realities, where do rural constituencies turn for   support?
- Is the historic rural / ag family fight really helpful to either sibling?
- Is it possible that central city and rural residents may have more uniting them than dividing them?

## 
“Would you tell me please, which way I ought to go from here?” said Alice.
“That depends a good deal on where you want to get,” said the cat.
“I don’t much care where,” said Alice.
“Then it doesn’t matter much which way you go,” said the cat.

- Lewis Carroll
Alice in Wonderland

**“****Would you tell me please, which way I ought to go from here?” said Alice.**
**“****That depends a good deal on where you want to get,” said the cat.**
**“****I don’t much care where,” said Alice.**
**“****Then it doesn’t matter much which way you go,” said the cat.**
- - Lewis Carroll
- Alice in Wonderland

## Community Policy and Constituency Convergence:Toward a Place-Based Policy:“Why Cities Matter . . .”                               The Brookings Institution Community Connections

**Doug Nelson, President****The Annie E. Casey Foundation**

## “No snowflake in an avalanche

- ever feels responsible!”
- 			- Stanislaus Lezcynski

## “The poet is the joiner, 

- he sees how they join.”
- 			- Walt Whitman, 1855

## The OECD Framework:

- Sector to Place
- Subsidy to Regional Competitiveness
- A Governance Structure to Accomplish Both

## Toward a Rural Renaissance:  Building a New Institutional Framework for Rural Economic and Community Development:

- Regional Collaborations
- Jurisdictional Realignments
- A Cross-Sectoral Framework
- Optimizing the “Public / Private” Moment
- The Critical Role of Intermediaries
- Is this a “bridge too far”?

## Capturing the Low-Hanging Fruit:  

- The National Board on Rural America
- The Rural Strategic Investment Program
- The White House Conference on Rural America

## “The question is not what you look at, but what you see.”

**-Henry David Thoreau**

## Redefining the Public Metaphor and Rhetoric for Rural America