Charles W. Fluharty President and CEO Rural Policy Research Institute

I.Rethinking the Rural/Urban Dichotomy II.A Spatial Poverty Prism: Revisiting the Place/Person Dialectic in Poverty Policy III.Challenging Poverty Policy Orthodoxy: Building an Asset-based, New Governance and Innovation Centered, Livable Communities Commitment IV.What Must the Church Do Now? Called to Serve, but… V.Final Reflections

I. Rethinking the Rural/Urban Dichotomy

 While metropolitan areas account for over 80 percent of the total population, they account for only 25.7 percent of total land area.  A metropolitan focus for place-based programs ignores critical linkages with three-quarters of the U.S. natural resource base, and the 20 percent of the population which steward these national treasures.

 OMB designations of Core Based Statistical Areas are based on urban centers and the commuting relationship with those centers  “Metropolitan” doesn’t equate with “urban,” and “nonmetropolitan doesn’t equate with “rural.”  Most “rural” people live in “metropolitan” counties – 51 percent.  However, the precise definition of rural and urban does not work well for policy targeting  Difficult to find a good middle ground that describes the continuum

 60% of nonmetropolitan residents live in micropolitan areas, which include a regional center of 10,000 to 49,999 people.  These areas are logical hubs for the emergence of national regional innovation strategies, encompassing workforce, eco-system, health and human services, and retail service infrastructures.

 5 states account for 25 percent of all rural people o Texas3,647,755 o North Carolina3,202,234 o Pennsylvania2,819,963 o Ohio2,572,905 o Michigan2,518,919

 The “most rural” states only account for 6.7% of rural population o Vermont (61.8% rural) 376,277 o Maine (59.8% rural) 762,331 o West Virginia (53.9% rural) 974,967 o Mississippi (51.2% rural) 1,456,098 o South Dakota (48.1% rural) 362,908

Source: Office of Management and Budget and U.S. Census Bureau Alaska & Hawaii are not to scale Core Based Statistical Area Classifications, 2008 Metropolitan Micropolitan Noncore CBSA Classification

Micropolitan Counties, November Counties in 574 Micropolitan Areas Source: Office of Management and Budget; and U.S. Census Bureau

Micropolitan Counties and Urban Clusters (population under 50,000) Source: Office of Management and Budget; and U.S. Census Bureau

48.8 million people live in nonmetropolitan counties million people live in metro counties outside urbanized areas  89.3 million “rural” people

II. A Spatial Poverty Prism: Revisiting the Place / Person Dialectic in Poverty Policy

High Poverty Counties (rates over 20%), 2008 Metropolitan (93) Micropolitan (148) Noncore (357) CBSA Classification Sources: U.S. Census Bureau Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates for 2008; Office of Management and Budget Core Based Statistical Area Classifications November 2008 Alaska and Hawaii are not to scale

Poverty in Nonmetropolitan Counties, 2008 Less than half of U.S. rate (6.6%) 6.6% to 13.2% 13.3% % More than twice the U.S. rate (26.5%+) Poverty At or Under U.S. Rate (13.2%) Poverty Above the U.S. Rate of 13.2% Sources: U.S. Census Bureau Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates for 2008; Office of Management and Budget Core Based Statistical Area Classifications November 2008 Alaska and Hawaii are not to scale

Metropolitan Areas 12.6% Micropolitan Areas15.6% Noncore Areas16.8% Urban13.8% Rural11.0% Source: American Community Survey,

Metropolitan Areas 12.9%  In Principal Cities17.4%  Outside Principal Cities 9.6% Micropolitan Areas15.6%  In Principal Cities20.2%  Outside Principal Cities13.5% Noncore Areas16.8% Micropolitan principal cities have the highest poverty rates Source: American Community Survey,

Metropolitan Areas 34.7%  In Principal Cities39.9%  Outside Principal Cities30.0% Micropolitan Areas45.0%  In Principal Cities49.2%  Outside Principal Cities41.8% Noncore Areas48.3% Micropolitan principal cities have the highest poverty rates Source: American Community Survey,

III. Challenging Poverty Policy Orthodoxy: Building an Asset- based, New Governance and Innovation Centered, Livable Communities Commitment

Policies and budgets are ultimately about visions and values. So several questions should frame our approach to this issue:

 What are the principal policy goals of poverty policies and programs?  Who are the constituencies of each, and how are they benefited by public investments?  Since almost all poor urban and rural people have similar indicators of need, why have these constituencies historically failed to unite?

“ What policy framework will best integrate rural and urban initiatives and programs, to advantage both constituencies, their communities and regions, and enhance their children’s potential to thrive there in the 21 st century?”

“Intermediaries are people and institutions that add value to the world indirectly, by connecting and supporting – i.e., by enabling others to be more effective. Intermediaries may act as facilitators, educators, capacity builders, social investors, performance managers, coalition builders, and organizers of new groups.” Xavier de Souza Briggs The Art and Science of Community Problem-Solving Project Kennedy School, Harvard University, June, 2003.

 Will public sector champion(s) step forward?  Will institutional innovator(s) accept the challenge of building new intermediary structures?  Will new constituencies arise to jointly support these innovative leaders and institutions?

 Interdependence of governmental and non- governmental organizations (central government’s role reducing over time)  Now more coordination; facilitation; negotiation through multiple policy networks:  Diverse, overlapping, integrated  Comprised of government, private sector, nonprofit and associational actors  All Actors Bring Unique:  Power bases  Roles, responsibilities  Values, skills, organizational resources

 Rethinking core missions  Redefining roles and responsibilities  Creating a renaissanced leadership cadre, who become change agents.  Engaging and supporting the “border crossers!”  Redefining “we” and “they,” with special attention to diversity, cultural and social inclusion.

 The recession, and the lagging economic recovery which will only slowly come to central city and rural areas.  Federal ARRA funds are gone next year.  State and local governments are already operating under historic budget deficits,  While human services needs expand exponentially.  The comity within our public discourse, and the tempering center of our body politic, both continue to erode.

Specific Actions Requested (Before OMB Budget Submission) 1.Identify 3 to 5 programs or initiatives: Outcomes Indicators Options for Improving Coordination/Effectiveness Knowledge-Building Strategies

2.Principles for Place Policy Clear, measurable, and carefully evaluated goals should guide investment and regulation: Economic Competitiveness Environmental Sustainability Community Health and Access to Opportunity Safety and Security Change comes from the community level and often through partnership; complex problems require flexible, integrated solutions. Many important challenges demand a regional approach.

“…Many important challenges demand a regional approach. The Nation is increasingly a conglomeration of regional economies and ecosystems that should be approached as such. Federal investments should promote planning and collaboration across jurisdictional boundaries. Given the forces reshaping smaller communities, it is particularly important that rural development programs be coordinated with broader regional initiatives. Programs in neighboring zones and within larger regions – some of which connect rural communities to metropolitan regions – should complement each other. Federal programs should reflect better the Nation’s economic and social diversity, both in rural and metropolitan areas. To the extent possible, programs should allow for communities to identify distinct needs and address them in appropriate, strategic ways…”

1.Greater attention to asset-based development, much more broadly defined. 2.The building of regional frameworks, appropriately configured, of sufficient scale to leverage these geographies and bridge these constituencies. (While we need rural and urban responses, their intersection is the future of enlightened public policy.) 3.As the Federal role reduces over time, greater attention to new governance / new intermediary support by the public sector. 4.Regional innovation policies which specifically target mutually beneficial competitive advantage, that rural and urban areas share. (i.e., Regional food systems, bio-energy compacts, natural resource-based / sustainability assets, “workshed” / “watershed” approaches, etc.)

5.Attention to the importance of working landscapes:  Arts / heritage / culture  Natural resources / tourism  Bio-energy / biofuels, entrepreneurial agriculture 6.Incentives to bridge innovation / entrepreneurship support systems, from urban to rural expression 7.Opportunities to address spatial mismatch issues in workforce / training across broader geographies, via “place- based” community / technical college collaborations, both sister schools and research universities. 8.Innovative funding approaches which enhance collaboration across state and local governments, particularly in cross- sectoral, regional experimentation.

“The question is not what you look at, but what you see.” Henry David Thoreau

IV. What Must the Church Do Now? Called to Serve, but……………

Lewis Carroll Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland

Charles Darwin

Goethe

Stanislaus Lezcynski

V. Final Reflections

“What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.” --Ralph Waldo Emerson

Charles W. Fluharty President and CEO Rural Policy Research Institute 214 Middlebush Hall University of Missouri Columbia, MO (573)