Changing how the federal government defines 'persistent poverty' areas could hurt rural communities, writers say

A 'centroid' is a circle with its center at the center of a geographic shape. (Economic Innovation Group map, via The Daily Yonder, based on census data and five-year estimates from Census Bureau's American Community Survey, a national poll)

Changing how persistent poverty is determined could reduce rural communities' chances of receiving federal aid, report Keith Wiley and Joe Belden for The Daily Yonder: "In a detailed new report, the Economic Innovation Group says that using counties as the unit of evaluation for 'persistent poverty' means that poor urban neighborhoods get overlooked when their economic performance is averaged with more prosperous parts of an urban county. The result is a picture of persistent poverty that skews rural. . . . That problem could be addressed by looking at persistent poverty in census tracts, a smaller geographic measure, rather than in the traditional focus on counties."

Persistent poverty is now defined by county. Counties "where more than 20% of the population has lived below the federally defined poverty level for 30 years" are included, the Yonder reports. How long-term poverty is measured is significant because it decides which areas qualify for "special federal support" to address the problem.

"The U.S. has 415 persistently poor counties with 20.5 million people. The South is home to 81% of these counties, and 84% of the 415 counties are non-metro," Wiley and Belden explain. When census tracts are used, the picture skews urban. "Over 9,400 census tracts are persistently poor and have a population of 34.2 million people. The population increase in going from a county to a census tract methodology is in metropolitan areas. The study recommends defining persistent poverty areas as those with four contiguous persistently poor census tracts."

Rural areas already struggle to get "government assistance and lack the dedicated funds, which larger communities receive" through grants/entitlements," Wiley and Belden write. That means more rural areas have to compete for assistance "rather than [receive funding] in the guaranteed entitlements received by larger urban areas. . . . These smaller places often have the least capacity to produce a winning proposal."

Should the definition of "persistent poverty" change, a series of unintended consequences could unfold, leaving more of rural America without needed assistance as the definition refocuses efforts in urban areas that often have the advantage of shouldering more urban, resourced areas. It is easier to "invest in an area in the Pittsburgh metropolitan area than an isolated Central Appalachian county," Wiley and Belden add. "Part of what makes persistent poverty counties chronically poor is their isolation and difficulty to serve."

They acknowledge, "It is true that the current definition on a county basis does overlook persistent poverty pockets in urban/suburban areas. These communities need investment and focused policies, something that should be promoted. Overall, this very important and ground-breaking study deserves consideration. But would focusing on census tracts rather than counties lead to less attention to rural poverty? Rural advocates need a seat at the table."