In an article last week in the online rural newspaper, The Daily Yonder, Karl Stauber, president of the Danville Regional Foundation, writes an open letter to President Obama, calling on him not to leave rural communities out of the mix as he looks for ways to provide new hope and a future for America.
A former USDA under-secretary, Stauber suggests five ways in which rural communities should be part of the policy mix, including a call for the creation of a Rural Civil Rights Act. He writes:
"People living in rural communities and regions should not be denied opportunities because of their location status. There about 50 million people living in rural America. If rural were a catgory like "race or ethnicity,” it would include more people than "Hispanic" or "African-American." Separate and un-equal should not be tolerated for any group. Access to opportunity should be a right, not an accident of locale. "
In this case, the "separate and un-equal" comes from blanket federal policies that are designed more for urban areas with the occasional rural afterthought. What Stauber calls for is a federal policy that allows rural areas to use federal investments in ways that are more suited to their unique environments and situations. That makes sense to me. I can't imagine that a policy that creates jobs and opportunity in Atlanta would derive the same benefit in Pineola, NC — or that what works in a southeastern mountain community would also work as well in the southwestern desert. The cultures, traditions, challenges and resources make for different worlds.
Stauber is writing specifically about federal government policy, but we all know that philanthropy has a huge role to play as well. I would suggest that philanthropic resources are the most important assets to engage in rural communities. There's no better vehicle for taking some risks, asking some difficult questions, and spurring community engagement. Just imagine what might happen if there were a community foundation or a private foundation serving even half of our country's rural communities. These foundation's wouldn't need to be housed in a rural area, but just have a foundation trustee or two who could interpret the needs and impact of grantmaking on the rural area and the urban centers it feeds.
True, foundations can't do it all or do it alone — and although there have been many laudable efforts to increase philanthropy in rural areas over the past two decades, we've still got a long way to go. But let's not throw in the towel. Even though their economies are shrinking, rural areas still have a role to play in our overall economy and the well being of our country — especially here in the South.
A former USDA under-secretary, Stauber suggests five ways in which rural communities should be part of the policy mix, including a call for the creation of a Rural Civil Rights Act. He writes:
"People living in rural communities and regions should not be denied opportunities because of their location status. There about 50 million people living in rural America. If rural were a catgory like "race or ethnicity,” it would include more people than "Hispanic" or "African-American." Separate and un-equal should not be tolerated for any group. Access to opportunity should be a right, not an accident of locale. "
In this case, the "separate and un-equal" comes from blanket federal policies that are designed more for urban areas with the occasional rural afterthought. What Stauber calls for is a federal policy that allows rural areas to use federal investments in ways that are more suited to their unique environments and situations. That makes sense to me. I can't imagine that a policy that creates jobs and opportunity in Atlanta would derive the same benefit in Pineola, NC — or that what works in a southeastern mountain community would also work as well in the southwestern desert. The cultures, traditions, challenges and resources make for different worlds.
Stauber is writing specifically about federal government policy, but we all know that philanthropy has a huge role to play as well. I would suggest that philanthropic resources are the most important assets to engage in rural communities. There's no better vehicle for taking some risks, asking some difficult questions, and spurring community engagement. Just imagine what might happen if there were a community foundation or a private foundation serving even half of our country's rural communities. These foundation's wouldn't need to be housed in a rural area, but just have a foundation trustee or two who could interpret the needs and impact of grantmaking on the rural area and the urban centers it feeds.
True, foundations can't do it all or do it alone — and although there have been many laudable efforts to increase philanthropy in rural areas over the past two decades, we've still got a long way to go. But let's not throw in the towel. Even though their economies are shrinking, rural areas still have a role to play in our overall economy and the well being of our country — especially here in the South.
Powered by Compendium
Comments for Rural Policy, Philanthropy Must Go Hand-In-Hand