UPDATE, Feb. 28: The Daily Yonder has posted links to "critical attachments" to the report that it says may suggest how USDA would redefine "rural" for its development programs. March 1: The Yonder publishes what it says will be the first in a series of commentaries on the issue.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture quietly issued a report Friday that recommends a standard definition for "rural" as applied to eligibility for its Rural Development programs: a population in the jurisdiction of less than 50,000. That could have the effect of making more communities eligible for the programs, and decreasing the chance that any single community would receive assistance. That could have a disproportionate impact on the most rural areas.
The top Republican and Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee voiced such concerns in a statement this afternoon. Chairman Frank Lucas (R-Okla.) and ranking member Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) said they were glad to see that the agency "has finally fulfilled its statutory obligation" to make the report, "but we are disappointed in USDA’s proposals to shift funding away from the most rural areas by inflating the definition across the board. This will result in smaller communities competing with larger and more urban areas for funding."
They added, "In an increasingly tight fiscal environment, careful targeting of scarce funding is critical to ensuring the communities who should benefit from these programs are given priority. Congress placed a clear emphasis on targeting the most rural areas, with eligibility criteria that emphasizes the need to carefully allocate scarce resources." (Read more)
The U.S. Department of Agriculture quietly issued a report Friday that recommends a standard definition for "rural" as applied to eligibility for its Rural Development programs: a population in the jurisdiction of less than 50,000. That could have the effect of making more communities eligible for the programs, and decreasing the chance that any single community would receive assistance. That could have a disproportionate impact on the most rural areas.
 |
| Peterson (left) and Lucas |
They added, "In an increasingly tight fiscal environment, careful targeting of scarce funding is critical to ensuring the communities who should benefit from these programs are given priority. Congress placed a clear emphasis on targeting the most rural areas, with eligibility criteria that emphasizes the need to carefully allocate scarce resources." (Read more)
2 comments:
Those who consider a 50,000-person locale as "rural" hasn't lived in an area of, say, 10,000 or less.
Shrinking budgets for USDA programs like Rural Development means fewer staff hours to manage the paperwork for projects. They're looking for ways to have fewer, bigger projects in the name of efficiency. It's not a great situation, but it is understandable.
Post a Comment