Fund with $50 billion for rural hospitals got off to a rough start; experts predict the money won't be enough

Delays, last-minute changes and a poor rollout have already plagued the newly created $50 billion rural hospital fund GOP lawmakers put together to pass the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. But analysts predict the "money to be spent over five years is less than the estimated $137 billion in cuts to rural health systems over 10 years," reports Aneeta Mathur-Ashton of U.S. News & World Report.

The Rural Health Transformation Program was designed to help rural hospitals weather Medicaid cuts included in the GOP's package and support longer-term cybersecurity and infrastructure improvements hospitals need to stay afloat; however, fund critics say the program is a short-term solution for a long-term problem.

States that receive RHTP grants must use the funds for at least three purposes outlined by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), including "promoting care interventions, paying for health care services and expanding the workforce," Mathur-Ashton explains.

As rural hospitals receive funds, they will need to apply them carefully. Alan Morgan, chief executive officer of the National Rural Health Association, "praised the fund as a 'fabulous program that hopefully, if done correctly, can transform rural health going ahead, to a sustainable model,'" Mathur-Ashton writes.

Some Democrats consider the $50 billion to be a slush fund with unclear guidelines that can't undo the harm planned cuts will cause. "The bill gives [CMS] the authority to determine which applications to approve and deny, but does not spell out the criteria it should be using to do so," Mathur-Ashton reports. 

Rural health advocates say they want states to apply for RHTP, but many are pushing to have the $150 billion in Medicaid cuts rescinded. Morgan told U.S. News, "Congress either later this year or next year, is going to have to repeal those cuts for rural hospitals, or you're just going to see hundreds of rural hospitals close. It's non-workable.”

A housing program for working Americans is in 'political limbo'; more than 40% of its builds were in rural places

A new home built in Owsley County, Ky. with HOME
funding. (Partnership Housing, Ky., photo)

Since the 1990s, grants from the HOME Investment Partnership have helped fill financial gaps, so more affordable housing is available for working Americans. But the program's funding isn't included in the new federal budget, and its future remains uncertain.

The loss of HOME's investment in communities would be particularly painful for "Appalachian towns and rural counties where government aid is sparse and investors are few," report Charlotte Kramon, Jesse Bedayn, Michaela Herbst and Aaron Kessler of The Associated Press. Over the past 30 years, the program has "helped build or repair more than 1.3 million affordable homes of which at least 540,000 were in congressional districts that are rural or significantly rural."

Even though the program has spent more than $35 billion helping to address the country's affordable housing crisis, "a spokesperson for HUD, which administers the program, said HOME isn’t as effective as other programs where the money would be better spent," AP reports. Some Senate Republicans are working to save the program by including it in their draft budgets.

Despite the program's effectiveness in some regions, it is often criticized for its cumbersome red tape. Kramon adds, "A bipartisan group of House lawmakers is working to reduce HOME’s notorious red tape that even proponents say slows construction."

Meanwhile, its future remains in political crosshairs, where it is needed by working Americans, but is easier for lawmakers to eliminate without drawing public ire. Kramon explains, "HOME is an easier target than programs such as vouchers because most people would not immediately lose their housing."

If HOME funding is axed or even drastically cut, places like rural Owsley County, Kentucky, will feel it. "Affordable homes are needed there, but tough to build in a region that doesn’t attract larger-scale rental developments that federal dollars typically go toward," AP reports. "Partnership Housing in Owsley has relied on the program to build the majority of its affordable homes for at least a dozen years."

States are already seeing their digital equity grants get canceled, and the divide hurts rural communities more

The program designed to erase the digital divide has
disappeared from the NTIA website. (Adobe photo)

Not long ago, rural hubs were burgeoning with plans and dollars directed at leveling the digital divide, but things have changed quickly. "Within days of President Donald Trump announcing on social media that he was ending the federal digital equity grant program, it looks to be consigned to history," reports Chris Teale of Route Fifty. The program's information has disappeared from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s website.

States are already seeing their funding cut. Aaron Wheeler, director of Washington state’s broadband office, said last week that "he had received a letter cancelling its $15.9 million grant award," Teale writes. During a press conference with Democratic U.S. Sen. Patty Murray, Wheeler said, “[Losing the funds] undermines our digital equity plan’s goals and perpetuates existing disparities that fall most heavily on our state's rural communities."

Maine had $35 million in grants canceled. The funds were intended "to help the state build digital skills and online safety, especially for rural and low-income residents, veterans and small businesses," Teale reports. "The state said 130,000 people would have been served by the three grants."

The State Educational Technology Directors Association said "at least 20 [states] have seen planning and capacity grant funding pulled by NTIA in light of the president’s order," Teale adds. Murray, "the architect of the Digital Equity Act, said during last week’s press conference that she wants her colleagues to step up, or else legal action could ensue."

USDA extends deadline for grant recipients of a rural energy program to resubmit proposals to align with Trump's goals

Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins (USDA photo)

The Department of Agriculture extended the window for rural energy program grantees to resubmit their revised energy proposals. Although the grantees were already promised $10.8 billion in grants and loan subsidies, they were told to "resubmit their projects to align with President Donald Trump’s energy priorities," reports Julia Tilton of The Daily Yonder.

In late March, Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins announced that REAP, New ERA, and PACE funding would be released to grantees; however, the announcement "also gave recipients 30 days to voluntarily resubmit proposals to refocus their projects on expanding American energy production," Tilton writes. Grantees were told to remove any Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility planning from their proposals before resubmission.

The deadline for resubmission was the end of April, but it was moved to the end of May. Tilton adds, "In the meantime, awardees express uncertainty around the future of their awards. . . .So far, most of the money from PACE, New ERA, and REAP has flowed or been awarded to Republican districts."

For farmers who have already completed their energy projects, resubmitting their proposals and waiting for payment can be particularly onerous. Maine farmer Kevin Leavitt installed "solar panels on his small farm in 2024 as part of a $140,000 project to generate efficient electricity," Tilton writes. "Leavitt was due to receive $48,000 in funding from REAP in January 2025. Leavitt’s check didn’t arrive until April."

Leavitt told Tilton, "Yeah, we got paid, but it cost me four months of talking to 30 different reporters and Congress members to get it to actually come back around." Tilton reports, "Blocking funding for USDA programs that have already been approved and appropriated by Congress is illegal."

With FEMA grants canceled, local governments search for new funds -- and rural communities have few options

Graph by Connie Hanzhang Jin, from FEMA data compiled by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Sewage back-ups, wildfire threats or repeated flooding in residential areas are just a few of the complicated problems rural towns planned to fix with Federal Emergency Management Agency funds, but that was before the Trump administration withdrew the support.

"Rural communities were awarded FEMA grants to fix long-standing infrastructure problems, and they expected funding to be delivered this year," report Lauren Sommer and Rebecca Hersher of NPR. "But last month, the Trump administration canceled their grants and hundreds of others, including ones that had already been promised but not yet paid out.

FEMA began the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities, or BRIC program, in 2020, during President Trump's first term. Since then, it has expanded to award about "$4.6 billion to communities across the U.S.," Sommer and Hersher explain. "The goal was to help local, state and tribal governments protect residents from future disasters. . . . Research shows that improving buildings and infrastructure before disasters happen can reduce the overall damage and cost when they hit."

The Trump administration said it cut BRIC to address wasteful, fraudulent spending, but rural towns that were relying on FEMA dollars don't see their grant money as unwise spending. Daniel Hoffert, village president for DePue, Illinois, which lost a grant to stop chronic flooding problems, told NPR, "I don't think they know what waste is. I don't think they know what fraud is. None of this, to me, is waste and fraud."

For many rural places, federal money is the "only source large enough to update the aging infrastructure that's vulnerable to increasingly intense disasters," Sommer and Hersher write. 

"In Kamiah, Idaho, deputy city clerk Mike Tornatore says he'd already told residents that the grant was on its way. With Kamiah having seen destructive wildfires in the past, its BRIC grant focused on fire protection," NPR reports. "He's also hoping to get a meeting with Trump about the impact of what the administration has canceled." 

A program to expand broadband services in U.S. faces review; many state and local leaders want it to be 'left alone'

Providing every American with broadband access 
is the BEAD program's goal. (Adobe Stock photo)

After Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick committed to a 'rigorous review' of the country's $42 billion Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment program, or BEAD, last week, House Republicans lined up at a House subcommittee meeting to complain about the program's failure to provide "internet for all," reports Chris Teale of Route Fifty. Despite those complaints, the program still has solid bipartisan support from those who want BEAD to continue to evolve.

When it comes to congressional calls to scrap the program, state and local leaders have a simple "message for the federal government, Washington, D.C. and Congress: 'Leave it alone; let the states do what they've done,' Missouri State Rep. Louis Riggs, a Republican, told Teale. "'The feds could not do what the states have done. . . . Trying to claw that funding back and stand up a new grant round is the worst idea I've heard in a very long time, and that's saying a lot coming out of D.C.'"

While many Republicans bemoaned the program's red tape and slow roll-outs as failures, others saw opportunities to allow the program to adapt along a learning curve. "In a statement after Lutnick’s announcement, Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, a West Virginia Republican, said she favors 'improving the program,' but does 'not want to see West Virginia wait longer than is necessary or have to redo their proposals and application,'" Teale reports. 

Accurate mapping has slowed BEAD disbursements; however, "there has been more movement in several states as Delaware, Louisiana and Nevada have started making grant awards," Teale explains. "Others are hesitant amid the federal uncertainty, however, including Texas, which paused its digital equity program early this month."

Farmers are 'on the hook' for millions of dollars in repairs and improvements as promised USDA funds are paused

Many U.S. farmers are waiting to be reimbursed for
out-of-pocket investments. (Photo by Richard Bell, Unsplash)

U.S. farmers are concerned about when and if they will get paid the millions of dollars owed to them by the federal Depaartment of Agriculture, report Daniel Wu, Gaya Gupta and Anumita Kaur of The Washington Post. "Despite promises from the Trump administration that a federal funding freeze would not apply to projects directly benefiting individuals. . . . President Donald Trump ordered the USDA to freeze funds for several programs."

The frozen funds are part of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act which helps farmers "address natural resource concerns, and the Rural Energy for America Program, which provides financial assistance for farmers to improve their infrastructure," the Post reports. With their funding paused, farmers are "on the hook" for expenses that range from new crops to fencing to renewable energy builds.

The battle over the frozen funds remains in play even after "a federal judge temporarily halted its implementation," Wu, Gupta and Kaur explain. "But over the weekend, farmers reported that their funding remained frozen — another blow to farmers who are also facing threats of tariffs and freezes to foreign-aid spending that involved food purchased from American producers."

Last week, National Farmers Union President Rob Larew "testified before the Senate Agriculture Committee that the Trump administration’s sweeping decisions on federal funding were creating concern for farmers across the country," the Post reports. Larew said the freeze and extreme changes are increasing farmer hardships in "an already tough farm economy.”

In 2024, the USDA made $3.1 billion available "for climate-smart agriculture activities, according to the department, including grants and loans for initiatives such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program and the Rural Energy for America Program," they write. "The funding freezes have also paused large projects across states."

Kentucky's Appalachian counties getting $297.6 million for post-flood recovery housing

State funds are being used for road and utility work at the new high-ground development in Knott County called Chestnut Ridge. (Photo by Zack Hall, Foundation for Appalachian Kentucky)

By Jenni Glendenning
Institute for Rural Journalism, University of Kentucky

Matt Sawyers has $298 million to spend.

Sawyers, a native of southeastern Kentucky, is commissioner of the state Department for Local Government. That puts him in a position to help make a difference in his home region as he helps his boss, Gov. Andy Beshear, decide where to put the $297.6 million the state has in a federal community development block grant for recovery from the 2022 floods.

Sawyers described it as “a tremendous opportunity for so many generations of eastern Kentuckians that are invested in the success of the region and understand the challenges that have been faced by the collapse of the coal economy, and before that, timber.”

The state has received 10 applications for infrastructure for housing projects to help southeastern Kentucky recover from the 2022 floods.  At least two are “high ground” communities above floodplains and one “is very close to being awarded,” Sawyers said.

The first deadline for infrastructure for housing projects was July 1, but the state is still taking applications, and has until February 2030 to spend the money.

Matt Sawyers, commissioner, Department for Local
Government (Photo by Al Cross)

Housing projects using disaster-recovery funding must serve low- to moderate-income households, and such households must be the majority of those served by infrastructure projects.

The governor is the ultimate decision-maker on recovery grants, but the process involves local governments and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, so “There aren't necessarily a ton of decisions that need to be made,” Sawyers said. “We have the money that was allocated to us by HUD, and we want to spend the money.”

Sawyers said his and Beshear’s “main, only, sole driving purpose is to bring people up out of the floodplain, fulfill the governor's commitment to Eastern Kentucky that we're not going to leave one person behind. This is a long-term recovery process and we're going to get them to safety and put them back at home.”

The state got a head start because it had some money left from the $123 million it got from HUD for recovery from 2021 flooding. Logan Fogle, the DLG’s chief information officer, said most of that was used in western Kentucky, but some is being used in Letcher, Floyd, and Breathitt counties because they were eligible for both 2021 and 2022 funding.

For example, in Prestonsburg, $8 million is being used to build 33 new homes and rehabilitate a vacant home in the New Hope neighborhood.

Breathitt and Letcher counties are two of the five that the federal government has identified as being hurt most by the 2022 floods. The others are Perry, Knott and Pike. At least 80% of the recovery money must go to those five counties.

In Letcher County, $8.7 million in 2022 recovery money will be used to build 29 homes in Seco and Uz, and install infrastructure to support the new homes.

In Jackson, $2.3 million will be used to build eight homes for flood survivors and $1.5 million is allocated for water and sewer projects for future housing projects in Breathitt County.

In Knott County, state funds are being used to build  new roads and lay water and sewer pipes in the new high-ground development called Chestnut Ridge.

The other counties eligible for federal disaster-recovery money are Casey, Clay, Cumberland, Floyd, Harlan, Johnson, Lee, Leslie, Lincoln, Magoffin, Martin, Owsley, Powell, Whitley and Wolfe.

Sawyers said the DLG works with local governments and supporting entities to develop their applications, and with HUD and the state Public Protection Cabinet, the Transportation Cabinet, and the Energy and Environment Cabinet, which is taking the lead on much of the planning for high-ground projects.

For decades, people in eastern Kentucky have wanted to see housing development on reclaimed strip mines. The flood and increased public pressure sparked some companies, families and individuals to begin making reclaimed land available for development.

Sawyers said that’s finally happening because of the tremendous investment being made in recovery by government and philanthropy. “We probably have a confluence of events” in developing entire new communities out of the floodplain,” he said.

A few wealthy Kentuckians and non-profit organizations have donated land or money for some of the housing projects. Sawyers says their team is “fully supportive of every resource that anyone can provide to fulfill the governor's promise to get people out of the floodplain, rebuild homes for them, and keep people in eastern Kentucky.”

Sawyers is a Lexington resident, but much of his family still lives in Clay, Laurel, and Perry counties. He said there is a cultural element to where people want to live, and many if not most of those uprooted by the flooding want to stay in their home areas, but on higher ground.

The state’s HUD-approved plan calls for $90 million to be spent on new single-family housing, which includes incentives to developers and assistance to qualified homebuyers; $25 million on owner-occupied rehabilitation or reconstruction, in grants up to $50,000 and up to $50,000 more in forgivable loans; $10 million in incentives to developers and builders for new multifamily housing, $5 million for rehabilitation or reconstruction of rental properties of seven units or less; and $134 million for infrastructure and related activities, including roads, bridges, drainage, publicly owned utility lines, and broadband for housing projects.

Also, $11 million is allocated for purchase of properties, $3 million in housing counseling and legal aid, $3 million in small-business grants, $1.5 million for resilience planning, and $15 million for administration of the program.

Jenni Glendenning, a Ph.D. student at the University of Kentucky, is the David Hawpe Fellow in Appalachian Reporting at UK’s Institute for Rural Journalism. Reach her at Jennifer.Glendenning@uky.edu.

Latest round of federal grants focuses on communities with less than 10k population; helps with energy bills, projects

Workers in Washington preparing to place underground
electrical lines. (Washington State DOT photo, CC)

The federal government's newest round of grants will invest in communities with less than 10,000 people, with projects aimed at lowering residential energy bills and helping smaller communities transition to renewable energy. "The money will help fund 19 projects in Alaska, Oklahoma, Alabama, Maine and elsewhere," reports Will Wright of The Daily Yonder. "The amount of money being pumped into renewable energy sources over the last few years — particularly in rural communities — is 'game changing,' said Scott Vlaun, executive director of the Center for an Ecology-Based Economy, one of the grant recipients."

The energy installations will reach some areas that have never had electrical power before. Wright explains, "In Washington's Ferry and Okanogan counties, part of a $5 million grant is dedicated to extending underground electrical lines to about 135-190 homes that will gain access to electrical service for the first time." The Northeastern Washington counties are some of the state's poorest.

Money for rural solar will help residents and educational facilities save money. "Maine will receive about $3 million to install small solar projects that will help local families get cheaper electricity and, in some cases, allow families to move away from other, more harmful heating sources like kerosene," Wright reports. "At Mississippi's East Central Community College, a $2.8 million grant will help pay for solar installations that can provide clean power to 38 campus facilities."

This latest round of grants represents a shift in the way the applications were designed to help rural communities — especially those with a lower capacity to apply for grants — get through the grant-request process. "But in communities like those in western Maine serviced by the Center for an Ecology-Based Economy, Vlaun said this round of grants could have a big impact on the everyday lives of many rural residents," Wright adds. "Whether the current enthusiasm to spend federal dollars on renewable energy will continue may depend on the outcome of the November election, he said, and the effectiveness of propaganda aimed at reducing confidence in renewable energy."

Opinion: Helping rural communities means 'intentional targeting and sensitivity' to rural challenges and needs

Preparation before and after financial awards can help
rural areas have a brighter future. (Adobe Stock photo)

The Biden administration aims to send billions of dollars to help rural America, but before that money can be meaningful for smaller towns, a particular backdrop of preparation and execution needs to be established, writes Tony Pipa in his opinion for The New York Times. "Above all, implementation matters. These investment opportunities will be meaningless unless they reach rural America. For that to happen, federal and local officials and many people in between will need to focus on intentional targeting and sensitivity to the challenges that rural places face."

Part of that focus means understanding how smaller towns function and providing a path to increase their investment access and management capacity. Pipa adds, "Many rural governments are led by unpaid elected officials, and few rural city halls have staffs to work on planning, project development and grant writing. . . .A critical first step will be to make sure that local communities have the staff and access to the expertise and administrative capacity necessary. . . .As the Biden administration makes major investments in creating technical assistance centers in communities across the country, rural places must get to participate and benefit."

Congress can also help by adding flexibility measures to legislation. "The Rural Partnership and Prosperity Act is bipartisan legislation that has been proposed in the Senate and the House of Representatives, and it is now included in the negotiations for the 2024 Farm Bill," Pipa writes. "Such a measure could be a game changer in getting flexible support directly to rural partnerships so they can unlock these opportunities."

There is already evidence of positive change. "The administration has put so-called navigators in selected communities to help them identify funding opportunities," Pipa notes. "And some agencies like the Forest Service have modified their processes to help communities apply for grants. These advances ought to be more widely adopted across the federal government."

The parts of rural America that are struggling the most didn't get there overnight, and solutions will take time. "The Biden administration has put the initial pieces in place to help many rural places transition to a brighter economic future," Pipa explains. "The president's campaign pitch to rural voters ought to be the opportunity to stay the course. The political rewards may be far in the future, but it's the right thing for rural communities and the country."

States work to prepare for 'substantial' federal broadband funding; some are further along than others

Values are in millions of dollars. (Map by The Conversation US, CC-BY-ND, from NTIA data)

It has been two years in the making, but the federal government is about to funnel $42.5 billion for broadband to states as part of the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment Program signed in 2021. "The program aims to ensure that broadband access is available throughout the country," writes Brian Whitacre for The Conversation, a journalism platform for academics. 

The awards are big, with 19 states receiving more than $1 billion, and the "average award across the 50 states is $817 million," Whitacre explains. Once federal money is sent to states, they can begin their internal contracting processes, which, from start to finish, will take several years. "States are also in something of a race with one another: The first ones to the funding can get money to the private sector, which can begin hiring from the limited pool of technicians capable of installing fiber optic cables."

The BEAD program aims to connect an estimated 11.8 million locations, which includes "households and businesses, both rural and urban that are considered either unserved or underserved," Whitacre adds. "Each state's plans for how to get broadband service to those locations must be approved by the overseeing organization, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. States' initial proposals can be viewed online." Proposals must outline contingency and affordability planning.

(Map by The Conversation US, CC-BY-ND, from NTIA data)

To track each state's progress, the federal government recently released a dashboard, Whitacre writes. "The dashboard includes eight steps each state or territory must complete before getting the first 20% of its promised allocation. As of Nov. 15, 2023, most states had completed four of the process’s eight steps. Only three states – Louisiana, Nevada and Virginia – had finished six or more steps. Notably, Louisiana and Virginia had broadband offices up and running for at least three years prior to the passage of the infrastructure legislation in 2021."

Two years after passage of Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, billions of dollars remain available for projects

Brookings Institution graph

Roughly two years ago, the $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill was signed into law. The bill included $550 billion in new spending through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. This month, the IIJA is about 40% complete, and the time is ripe to take "stock" of what the bill has achieved so far, reports Adie Tomer for the Brookings Institution. "Based on our analysis of published White House data, IIJA implementation is now hitting its stride. Formula and direct federal spending continue to move at a steady pace, already pumping $306 billion into state coffers and direct investment projects."

Grantmaking is a large chunk of the act, which is "steadily increasing, with 80% of all competitive funding still left to be awarded," Tomer explains. "Overall, state and local stakeholders should feel motivated to keep pursuing federally funded projects. . . . Eligible entities of all sizes can find programs that fit their needs and capacities. Yet, with high inflation and interest rates, infrastructure builders must be careful to prioritize projects that can deliver the most value in the long run. There's more money than usual, but it's far from infinite."

The need for construction and skilled labor is expected to increase as grant money materializes into projects. "Construction of IIJA-funded projects will last well beyond 2026, when the legislation expires, and Inflation Reduction Act tax credits will support energy-related projects for another nine years. America needs to get serious about growing and diversifying the infrastructure talent pipeline because time is running out," Tomer reports.

Over the next two years, federal awards will continue, and "federal agency staff will continue to accelerate their administration of competitively awarded programs," Tomer adds. "And there will be plenty of more awards to build passenger rail corridors, make streets safer, address sewer overflow, manage orphaned oil wells, and grow digital equity. The sheer volume of opportunities will test applicants' capacities to win federal awards."

Efforts to help rural communities obtain grants for climate change didn't help much; awards skewed urban and coastal

Despite the Biden administration's focus on grant access for rural communities, many areas still struggled to apply for or win government funding, according to a new analysis, reports Claire Carlson of The Daily Yonder. "Most of the funding in a recent round of climate-change grantmaking went to high-capacity communities located in coastal states, according to a report by the nonprofit Headwaters Economics. Less than a fifth of the grants went to 'low-capacity' communities, which tend to be rural, according to Kristin Smith, author of the study."

Smaller community governments often have staff members doing multiple roles, and funding additional people to apply for grants isn't financially doable, so their capacity to find, research and apply for federal money can be severely hampered. Looking at the most recent round of grants made through FEMA's Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program, "Smith said low-capacity communities that did not fare well in the competition lack the staff and expertise necessary to create competitive proposals for federal grant programs," Carlson writes. "Match requirements, which is money awardees must contribute themselves to a grant-funded project, can also be a barrier for rural communities with small budgets or less access to philanthropic funding, according to Smith."

A  rural-urban disparity "played out in this year's BRIC funding, which is paid through an apportionment of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's disaster relief fund: Only 3% of the counties that received grants are low-capacity, as defined by Headwaters Economics' Rural Capacity Index," Carlson reports. "High-capacity counties – which have the staff, resources, and expertise to apply for and win federal grants – were chosen 83% of the time. . . . FEMA is aware of these findings. A FEMA spokesperson said that the agency is 'currently in the process of reviewing the findings in the Headwaters Economics article and is open to engaging.'"

BRIC funding differs from many other federal programs, which could be particularly important for rural areas. Carlson adds, "There is no expiration date for the BRIC program. It's funded through an earmarked 6% of estimated disaster expenses every year through FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund, so even for the communities rejected funds, there is time to reapply. . . . Whether rural communities are prioritized in future funding awards remains to be seen." Smith told Carlson: "I do think FEMA is taking the issue seriously, and I also think there's a lot of work to do."

Forest Service creates tools to give rural towns a better chance at wildfire resiliency grants; Oct. 31 next deadline

Smoke plume from Cal-Wood fire near Boulder, Colo.
(Photo by Malachi Brooks, Unsplash)

Rural communities looking to shore up financing wildfire prevention projects may have an improved chance of gaining grant dollars during the second application window of a federal grant program. The application period is open until Oct. 31, reports Claire Carlson of The Daily Yonder. Smaller communities often lack the capacity, such as additional staffing or grant expertise, to apply for and win grants despite their need for assistance.

Applying for a grant means communities must gather and supply data, which takes time smaller staff may not have. To combat this obstacle, the Forest Service has piloted the Community Wildfire Defense Grants Tool, which calculates the wildfire risk of every U.S. county. "The tool shows whether the county is considered low-income and has had any previous disasters, and if it’s ‘underserved’ as defined by the federally managed Climate & Economic Justice Screening Tool,” Carlson writes. Using the grant tool helps communities focus on getting and organizing data with few frustrations and fewer labor hours.

A second strategy deploys "'community navigators,' which are organizations that work directly with underserved communities to identify funding opportunities and help them through the grant application process," Carlson explains. "The navigators will also train community leaders to do this work on their own in the future." 

Grants requiring matching dollars from local coffers have kept poorer, more rural areas from accessing federal money, but waivers are an option. "Match waivers will be made available for communities that are underserved as defined by the Climate & Economic Justice Screening Tool or are nationally recognized tribes or Pacific Islands communities," Carlson adds. "The grant program is giving up to $250,000 to each community to develop wildfire protection plans and up to $10 million to each community to implement wildfire resiliency projects."

The CWDG calls for "community wildfire protection plans to focus on community-wide efforts to decrease wildfire risk, like improving emergency communications or identifying water sources," Carlson reports. "A comprehensive toolkit on how to create a community wildfire protection plan can be found here. For more information and access to the application, visit the Forest Service’s website."

Rural areas still have fewer jobs than 13 years ago; federal program for regional coalitions isn't very rural-centric

Rural employment has not recovered to the levels of the Great Recession, which ended over 13 years ago, while metropolitan areas have made steady gains. To help rural areas, they were targeted by an Economic Development Administration grant program that funded 21 regional coalitions. But only three of the 21 regional coalitions are both rural-centric and rural-led, report Anthony F. Pipa and Zoe Swarzenski of the Brookings Institution.

The EDA's financial awards flowed through the $1 billion Build Back Better Regional Challenge, which is aimed at creating rural opportunities by leveraging regional collaboration, Pipa and Swarzenski write. "Yet formulating a regional cluster approach that is effective in benefiting rural places requires sensitivity to a complex set of dynamics. Almost by definition, a focus on industry clusters puts metropolitan areas at the center. . . . EDA acknowledged that clusters are likely to follow a traditional hub-and-spoke model, where a metro area acts as a central hub for a coalition that reaches into or engages other communities."

The regional model does not lend itself to inherently rural challenges, they write: "Rural places are often less than full partners in regional coalitions; intentional interventions to meet their unique challenges related to governance capacity, distance, workforce, and access to capital are frequently necessary to enable them to receive proportionate benefits. Program parameters can also play a role. Matching funds requirements, for example, immediately place a substantial burden on rural and tribal places, which often have less fiscal buffer and less access to outside resources."

The Build Back Better Regional Challenge gave five-year grants of $25 million to $65 million to 21 regional coalitions, after choosing 60 finalists from 529 initial applications. "To better understand the extent to which rural areas were included among the 60 finalists that received $500,000 planning awards, we experimented with different quantitative approaches, which yielded very different impressions of the level of rurality," Pipa and Swarzenski report. When rural areas applied using a "'Rural County Share' where each applicant used a defined geographic service area that would benefit from the proposed strategy, 11 became awardees—more than half of the final set of successful applicants. . . But when 'Rural Population Share' was used to measure the proportion of rural people served, only two became awardees, less than 10 percent of the final set of awardees."

Pipa and Swarzenshi divided the pool of applicants into three major categories, defined as Rural-Led, Rural-Centered, Metro-Led, Rural-Relevant, and Metro-Led, Metro-Centered. They report, "While a laudable number of applicants cast a wide net and included rural places in their geographic service areas, the density of population in the urban areas serving as hubs for their regional coalitions suggests a strong magnetic pull that creates a nexus of political attention, leadership, decisionmaking, and beneficiaries."

Their recommendations for the EDA "to help advance the equitable participation and integration of rural places into future efforts to incentivize and support regional strategies include "incorporating rural expertise and qualitative analysis to assess rural relevance, establishing rural set-asides or preferences, Modifying program design to promote innovative practices incorporating rural places, increasing transparency about the participation of rural places."

States with many rural people do well in broadband grants

When the Biden administration announced $2.5 billion in grants for expansion of high-speed internet service this week, states with large rural populations fared well, as expected, because the need for broadband is greatest in rural areas.

"Texas is slated to receive the most money, $3.3 billion, followed by California at $1.9 billion and Missouri at $1.7 billion from funding that targets rural or remote areas," reports Valerie Yurk of Roll Call. "Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Michigan, North Carolina, Virginia and Washington are also among the states that will receive over $1 billion each. The state-by-state allocations also show the benefits for heavily Republican states even as GOP members of Congress criticize Biden and Democrats for spending in the first two years of the administration. Congress provided the internet funding in a 2021 law when both chambers were controlled by Democrats. States that voted for former President Donald Trump in 2020 will get 56 percent" of the total.

States are to get their formal notices of allocation tomorrow, the Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration said in a press release. They will have have 180 days to submit proposals for use of the money. The allocations were driven by the Federal Communications Commission's recently revised map of broadband service. "The FCC map shows about 8.5 million unserved broadband serviceable locations across the U.S.," Yurk reports. "That leaves about 7 percent of the U.S. unserved, according to senior White House officials."

Alaska ranked first in funding per person, and per rural person, with just over $1 billion. West Virginia was second per person and seventh per rural person, with $1.2 billion. Wyoming, the state with the least population, was third in both measures with nearly $348 million. A full list appears below, ranked by funds per rural person in the 2020 census. (Click image to enlarge)

Table by The Rural Blog from census and NTIA data; for a larger, clearer image, click on it.