Newsletter -- Center for Rural Affairs

A Newsletter
Surveying National Events
Affecting Rural America.

Center for Rural Affairs
PO Box 136 Lyons NE 68038
(402) 687-2100
www.cfra.org info@cfra.org

July 2004

IN THIS ISSUE:
Farm Program Payments Investigated
Cut Subsidies to Mega Farms, Reinvest in Rural America
Suit Challenges Constitutionality of Initiative 300
New Rural Poverty Data
Corporate Farming Notes
Cooperation Works in a Small Rural Community
Family Farm Advocate Wins Profile in Courage Award
Fresh Promises for Rural Areas
Newspaper Publisher Selected Small Business Person of the Year
Did you know? Hispanic Population in the U.S. Facts
New REAP Hispanic Rural Business Center Begins Operation

Feature Article:
Conservation Security Program Underway at Last

Links to
Center for
Rural Affairs

Programs

Issues

Newsroom

Publications

About the Center

Newsletter Archive

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Center for Rural Affairs
PO Box 136
Lyons NE 68038

GAO Investigates Farm Program Payments
Report concludes weak USDA enforcement allows payment limits to be avoided

A U.S. General Accounting Office investigation has concluded that farm program payment limitations are being avoided due to weak enforcement by the Department of Agriculture.

The investigation focused on the requirement that payment recipients be actively involved in managing the farm. That requirement was passed by Congress in 1987 in response to an earlier General Accounting Office expose' and a CBS 60 Minutes story about the so-called “Mississippi Christmas Tree,” a legal device where one farm was divided into many corporations on paper to receive many times the legal limit.

The new investigation demonstrates that USDA did not effectively implement the 1987 reforms. Under the law, farm partnerships are able to collect full payments for every active farmer in the partnership. If two farmers farm together as partners, the partnership can receive twice the legal limit. If there are 50 partners active in the operation, it can receive 50 times the limit.

The active management test was intended to limit that to true farmers. But it has become a joke. Under USDA rules, investors have done as little as participate in two conference calls per year and yet have qualified as active farmers involved in management of the operation.

Help from News Hounds
If you see the Center for Rural Affairs mentioned in your local newspaper or hear about us on the radio or television, we’d love to hear about it. Just let us know: email info@cfra.org, call 402.687.2100, or send us a note (Center for Rural Affairs, PO Box 136, Lyons NE 68038-0136). We’re working to become the leading voice for rural America, and your help is much appreciated.

Climate Friendly Farming
Washington State University has developed a new website for Climate Friendly Farming, http://cff.wsu.edu Visitors will find information about a variety of climate-friendly agricultural practices and technologies and the economics of adopting these practices. Research is focusing specifically on dairy, irrigated, and dryland farming.

College Online Certificate Program
Beginning this fall, Nebraska’s Peru State College will offer online certificate programs in business, management, and other fields. The non-degree program runs in eight-week increments with two classes per semester. Each course is three credit hours, at a cost of $110 per credit hour. For more information, call 888.258.5558 or visit Peru State on the web at http://www.Peru.edu

Entrepreneurial Coaches
Tammy Werner, Program Coordinator for a new rural community development project at the University of Kentucky has announced establishment of the Kentucky Entrepreneurial Coaches Institute. Under the program, the university will grant 30 fellowships a year to teach the skills and tools needed to be entrepreneurial coaches and to provide the region with a network of coaches. Contact Werner at 859.227.8144 for more information.

Organic Dairy Book
Dr. Hubert Karreman, a dairy veterinarian in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, who works with 60 organic dairy farms, has written a new book entitled Treating Dairy Cows Naturally: Thoughts and Strategies. More information on the book may be found on Dr Karreman’s website, www.penndutchcowcare.org

Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley requested the investigation, with the assistance of the Center for Rural Affairs. It was prompted in part by published reports of a 30,000-acre farm with over 50 partners receiving $20 million of payments.

Had Congress adopted the payment limitation reforms introduced in the farm bill debate by Senators Grassley and Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, this loophole would have been closed.

Contact: Chuck Hassebrook, 402.687.2100 ext.1018 or chuckh@cfra.org.

Reinvest in Rural America by Cutting Subsidies to Mega Farms
If agriculture policy was part of a larger rural policy, we would find more ways for farms to thrive while protecting natural resources

If rural people are to succeed in creating a better future, we must work together for our common interests and the common good.

That is especially important in Washington. But too often, agriculture and rural development are lined up as opposing teams. That’s not good for anyone in rural America. To fix that, we must develop a new rural policy focused on creating genuine opportunity for rural people, building strong communities, and protecting our natural resources.

Agriculture should be part of rural policy. The worst mistakes in agriculture have come from serving the vested interests of influential elements of agriculture rather than the common good of agricultural communities.

If we pursued agricultural policy as part of rural policy, we would never subsidize mega farms to drive smaller farms out of business. We would focus on finding ways for more farms to thrive and protecting natural resources for the community and the future.

But there has to be more to rural policy than agriculture policy. We disagree with those who say a good agriculture policy would solve all the problems of rural communities. It’s an important part of rural policy for agricultural regions, but it’s not the whole answer. As much as we dislike it, we’ve moved beyond the point at which we’ll ever have enough farms and ranches to provide an adequate base for thriving rural communities.

Small business development is essential to the future of rural communities. It’s time public policy recognizes that by investing more in job creation through self-employment and small business. Community building is essential. Communities need resources to come together, develop leadership skills, and implement revitalization strategies. Government should help.

Natural resource protection is vital to our future. Society should share the cost by assisting and rewarding the conservation efforts of farmers and ranchers. And as we discussed in this space last month, restoring natural areas and offering public access can provide a new basis for economic re-vitalization.

Government provided much of the initial impetus for settling the prairies and plains through the Homestead Act. We agree with Senators Byron Dorgan (ND) and Chuck Hagel (NE), who say it’s time for a New Homestead Act that provides a broad array of incentives to live and do business in rural America – beyond agriculture.

A first step to unify rural Americans around a new rural policy is to cut subsidies to the largest farms and reinvest the savings in building a future for rural America. That may not be enough, but it would be a great start. And it is in the interest of almost all rural people – except those benefiting from current policies at the expense of the common good.

Agree or disagree? Send your opinions, questions, or comments to Chuck Hassebrook, 402.687.2100, ext. 1018 or chuckh@cfra.org

Suit Challenges Constitutionality of I-300 in U.S. District Court

On May 18, 2004, former Nebraska State Senator John DeCamp filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska challenging the constitutionality of Initiative 300, Nebraska’s constitutional amendment restricting corporate ownership of agricultural enterprises.

Mr. DeCamp brought the suit as an individual and on behalf of a corporation in which he has an interest. The lawsuit alleges that I-300 “unduly interferes with” or violates several portions of the U.S. Constitution and federal laws including the Commerce Clause, the privileges and immunities clause, the 14th Amendment, and the Americans With Disabilities Act.

The Center and Friends of the Constitution will likely play some role in this lawsuit; we will keep you informed of its progress through the courts.

Contact: Jon Bailey, 402.687.2100, ext. 1013 or jonb@cfra.org for more information.

New Rural Poverty Data Shows Some Gains

In an annual, summertime ritual, we bring you the latest data from the United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis on county income levels.

Based on 2002 data (the latest data available), the new figures again show how pervasive rural poverty is in the United States. For the sixth year in a row, the rural Great Plains can lay claim to being the lowest income region in the nation. For the sixth consecutive year, rural Nebraska is also home to some of the lowest income counties in the nation.

The table below shows the rankings of the 2002 lowest income counties over time. While some counties come and go from the rankings, others are permanent fixtures.

The per capita income of the nation’s lowest income county – Slope, North Dakota – is $5,540, about 18 percent of the nation’s per capita personal income and over 1,500 percent less than the nation’s highest income county (New York, NY – Manhattan).

In a ray of good news, income levels in many of 2002’s lowest income counties increased significantly from 2001 (for example, Loup, Nebraska’s per capita personal income increased by over 48 percent from 2001 to 2002). Stronger agricultural commodity prices likely played a role.

But we must continue to strive for public policy and rural community action to address a circumstance where the labors of many of our neighbors continue to be so undervalued.

The Nation’s Lowest Income Counties

County	2002	2001	2000	1999	1998	1997
Slope, ND	1			19		4
Loup, NE	2	1	1	1	1	3
Ziebach, SD	3	5	2	6	8	7
Blaine, NE	5	2	8	16	7	21
Grant, NE	7	7			21	16
Buffalo, SD	9		13
Arthur, NE	10	3	6	7	3	15
McPherson, NE	12	8	7	2	2	1
Todd, SD	13	15	17	10	13	10
Shannon, SD	20		11	13	15

Numbers next to each county represent their ranking each year among the nation’s 3,110 counties, with 1 being the county with the lowest per capita income. Note: All South Dakota counties listed are reservation counties.

Contact: Jon Bailey, jonb@cfra.org or 402.687.2100, ext. 1013 for information.

Cooperation Works to Make Bridges in a Small Rural Community
Plainview, Nebraska is using leadership development to bridge community groups and intensify bonds

Leadership development may pave the way for small communities to build bridges in their community using the strong social bonds that already exist.

The Center’s Project HOPE, our rural community revitalization program, has focused on 12 different communities in Nebraska. Each one has required varying levels of involvement and development. Last month we looked at Hartington and examined the social and human capital that had to come forth for their continued internal development.

This month we look at Plainview, Nebraska and the way the community addresses growth. In looking at bridging and bonding of social capital as laid out in Dr. Cornelia Flora’s book, Rural Communities, Plainview ranks fairly high in bonding social capital, but sometimes struggles with bridging. This is common for small rural towns.

Plainview is well known for physical assets that define a peaceful community. (Just so you know, I live in the community of Plainview.) We have two attractive parks, a band shell structure for concerts, a new swimming pool, and a new running track. Our downtown, while suffering economically, is still a gathering area for local residents.

Plainview, along with nearby towns Wausa and Bloomfield, went through a year-long process in leadership development that emphasized leadership without authority (open to all) and servant leadership (helping others). These workshops allow people to develop skills to gather more inclusive involvement from others within the community.

Of the people that attended, many have gone on to try and bridge social capital through area resources. They have become active members in the Chamber of Commerce, the area Resource, Conservation & Development Council, town councils and village boards, county government, and several other local groups.

Plainview continues to show growth towards high levels of social bonding and bridging, but is still struggling with bridging. Several local groups are fractionalized, and issues divide many. What makes Plainview, Neb. special is that we recognize the gaps in bridging and are working to bring it together.

Bridging groups and outside resources will only serve to strengthen small rural communities as they creatively look for ways to survive. Without the entire community working together, fractionalized groups will continue to struggle against enormous odds.

Contact: Michael L. Holton, michaellh@cfra.org or 402.687.2100 x 1015 for more information.

Corporate Farming Notes
Supreme Court to hear beef checkoff case, declines to hear pork checkoff case; reprieve for ban on meatpacker livestock ownership

On May 24, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to weigh in on commodity promotion programs. The Court agreed to hear the USDA’s appeal from the 8th Circuit of Appeals decision in Livestock Marketing Association v. USDA.

The 8th Circuit upheld a lower court ruling that the mandatory beef checkoff program is an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment rights of cattle producers who are compelled to pay an assessment for a promotion program and message they oppose.

While agreeing to hear the beef checkoff case, the Supreme Court denied USDA’s petition to hear an appeal of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals decision holding the pork checkoff unconstitutional. The dairy promotion program has also recently suffered the same legal fate. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals case has held the dairy promotion program as an unconstitutional infringement of First Amendment rights of dairy producers (the case was brought by Pennsylvania dairy farmers).

Recently, the full Third Circuit Court denied a request for a rehearing of the three-judge panel decision. It appears the Supreme Court has elected to use the beef case to make a final determination on all commodity checkoff programs.

In a temporary victory for independent livestock producers, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals set aside a summary judgment that found Iowa’s ban on meatpacker ownership of livestock unconstitutional. On May 20, 2004, the Court ordered Smithfield Foods, Inc. v. Miller back to the U.S. District Court in Iowa for further trial proceedings.

In 2002 the Iowa Legislature enacted an amendment expanding their general ban on packer ownership by adding a prohibition of packers from financing a swine operation in Iowa or a person who directly or indirectly contracts for the care and feeding of swine in Iowa.

In its order for summary judgment (a judgment by the court without a trial), the Court found the action of the Legislature discriminatory against out-of-state interests in favor of in-state economic interests, thus a violation of the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution on its face, in its purpose, and in its effect.

Contact: Jon Bailey, jonb@cfra.org or 402.687.2100, extension 1013.

Feature article:

Conservation Security Program Underway at Last

It has been a long and winding road to the implementation of the Conservation Security Program (CSP). The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) is finally getting underway with the CSP.

They have released the interim final rule, which will guide implementation this first year of the CSP. The designated sign-up period for the program is July 6-30. The interim final rule had not been published in the Federal Register for public comment as of this writing. It will be open for a 90-day public comment period once it is published.

We are pleased that CSP will see its beginnings. However, we are disappointed the Administration views the program through such a narrow lens. Here we will give a brief overview of the CSP. Then we will look at the interim final rule and briefly discuss some of the larger problems, including certain elements of the implementation plan that NRCS suggests will not be changed, even with full funding.

CSP – The Road Traveled
The new Conservation Security Program was part of the 2002 Farm Bill signed into law by the President in May of that year. The CSP was designed by Congress to provide financial assistance to farmers and ranchers who are solving key natural resource and environmental problems by adopting sustainable practices and systems.

The CSP was to be directed toward farmers and ranchers who were already engaged in strong conservation systems to protect soil, water, air, and wildlife, as well as those who would adopt more sustainable systems as part of the program. The CSP was also designed to serve all regions of the country and all types of crop and livestock agriculture.

The Farm Bill required USDA to implement the new CSP by February 2003. Instead, the Administration has used a series of delaying tactics – focus groups, listening sessions, advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, and finally in January 2004 a proposed rule with a public comment period that ended in March. The over 14,000 public comments (the most ever received on a USDA conservation rulemaking by a multiple factor) overwhelmingly criticized the Administration’s proposal and called for dramatic changes.

In the meantime, Congress enacted two changes to CSP funding earlier this year. First and most importantly, it removed a funding cap it placed on the program in 2003 and restored the program to full entitlement program status for fiscal year 2005 and beyond. Second, given the Administration’s snail-paced approach to implementation and the fact that a big chunk of the fiscal year already passed, Congress limited funding for CSP, just in fiscal year 2004, to $41 million.

The Administration’s Detour
The implementation plan laid out by NRCS in the interim final rule looks much different than and remains fundamentally at odds with the law passed by Congress.

The most troublesome aspects of the interim final rule center on the following

Limited watershed approach to squeeze participation levels
Establishment of categories
Payment structure
Missing information

The Watershed Approach
The plan sets out a two-tiered approach to drastically limit the number of farmers who will be eligible to participate in CSP. Only farms in certain “priority watersheds” – 18 of them this first year – and only some “categories” of farmers and ranchers within those limited number of watersheds will be allowed to participate.

To add insult to injury, the watersheds will be on a rotating basis, which gives farmers and ranchers the chance to enroll in the program at best once every eight years. NRCS states, “The watershed approach includes a rotation system aspect in that all watersheds will be selected once before any are selected for a second time.”

Therefore, farmers and ranchers are denied the right to renew their contracts and stay in the program over the long-term, which runs contrary to the law as passed by Congress. NRCS seems insistent about following this approach well beyond this first year despite full funding.

Enrollment Categories
The establishment of categories is problematic as well. This approach is equal to a ranking system, which Congress clearly directed should not be used in implementing CSP. NRCS will place all applicants that meet the eligibility criteria in an “enrollment category.” Categories will then be funded in priority order.

For cropland, the requirements for the highest ranking category are to have an existing conservation system that is adding carbon to the soil, having in place at least six different conservation practices and activities from a prescribed list of eligible practices and activities, agreeing to adopt two new conservation practices or activities from the prescribed list, and agreeing to implement an on-farm conservation research and demonstration or on-farm conservation assessment and evaluation project.

Payment Structure
The payment structure established in this plan will fall far short of a true “incentives” program. The base payment rates set out in the proposed rule have been improved upon in the interim final rule. Under the proposed rule, the base payments would have been as low as $0.50 cents per acre. The payment formula under the interim final rule increases that to $1.25 per acre.
The cost-share payments are less definitive but cannot exceed more than 50 percent. Note that the law called for providing cost-share up to 75 percent.

The most egregious part of the payment structure is the overall “contract limitation.” This new limitation would limit the total CSP payment, including the bonus or “enhanced” payments for outstanding environmental performance, to not more than 15 percent of local land rental rates multiplied by the number of acres enrolled for Tier I, 25 percent for Tier II, and 40 percent for Tier III.

This “contract limitation” does not support the theme, “reward the best and motivate the rest.” The Administration is attempting to make CSP the most environmentally demanding program, yet it doesn’t want to back that up with worthwhile financial incentives. As currently written, it doesn’t actually reward anyone, nor will it serve to motivate others.

Missing Information
The interim final rule leaves plenty of questions unanswered. NRCS continues to tout the benefits of the rotating watershed approach, saying it will enable farmers and ranchers to plan for the CSP when it comes around to their watershed.

That strategy seems short-sighted considering a good deal of information will be announced only within each sign-up. For example, the Chief of NRCS is allowed to determine additional resource concerns of national significance for each sign-up.

Another example is the “additional eligibility criteria” that will be released within each sign-up announcement. It is nearly impossible for farmers and ranchers to plan for a program when resource concerns and eligibility criteria are not spelled out in black and white.

Conservation planning at the CSP level should focus on conservation systems. Establishing different criteria for different sign-ups falls far short of facilitating a real conservation systems focus. NRCS should bring all the information forward so that farmers and ranchers can truly plan for participating in this program.

Conservation Hotline Will Help Farmers and Ranchers
While we know the program NRCS is currently implementing does not reflect the real vision and promise of the CSP so many have advocated for, it is nonetheless still important to show strong interest and demand. To that end, we want to be sure that farmers and ranchers in the designated watersheds for this year are aware of the program and how to enroll.

We will be running a Conservation Hotline to counsel farmers and ranchers regarding the application process and program eligibility. Eligibility questions will center on the self-assessment farmers and ranchers will need to complete. This self-assessment can be the first hurdle in accessing CSP.

The Conservation Hotline number is the Center’s telephone number, 402.687.2100. Given the nature of the restrictions from NRCS, we feel the Hotline will be vitally important to farmers and ranchers who want to participate in CSP.

The first step to determining eligibility is whether or not your farm or ranch is in one of the 18 watersheds designated for this years’ sign-up. The following states have a chosen watershed or a portion of a watershed(s): Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Georgia, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Wisconsin, Illinois, Missouri, Arkansas, Montana, North Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Texas, Washington, Idaho, and Oregon.

Semantics aside, because this is an interim final rule rather than a final rule, the opportunity to change it is there. And we will keep pushing for numerous changes. We will also monitor the program on the ground and work to correct any implementation problems that may arise.

You can view the watershed map at the following website:
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/csp/2004_CSP_WS/watersheds04.html

If you want to download the self-assessment workbook, go to the following webpage:
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/news/index.html Click on the link titled “Self Assessment Workbook.”

Contact: Traci Bruckner, for more information, tracib@cfra.org or 402.687.2100, ext. 1016. To be connected to the Hotline, call 402.687.2100 and ask for the Conservation Hotline.

Family Farm Advocate Receives Profile in Courage Award

Former Oklahoma State Senator Paul Muegge was named a recipient of the 2004 John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award. The award is presented annually to public servants who have withstood strong opposition to follow what they believe is right. The award is named after President Kennedy’s 1957 Pulitzer Prize-winning book Profiles in Courage and was created in 1989 by the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation.

As chair of the Oklahoma Senate Agriculture and Rural Development Committee, Senator Muegge authored several laws restricting corporate swine and poultry agriculture in Oklahoma, many of which have become national models. Senator Muegge was moved to act by the need for clean air and water and conservation of the high quality of life in rural Oklahoma.

Proposals he sponsored include setback requirements from neighbors for new hog facilities; water and soil testing; assessments on large hog facilities to pay for necessary environmental regulations; and regulation of chicken farm waste.

Despite opposition from corporate farming interests, Sen. Muegge was able to obtain the support of the Oklahoma Governor and Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, as well as environmental interests and independent family farmers and ranchers. As well as courageous, this represents quite a political feat!

Sen. Muegge declined to seek a fourth term in the Oklahoma Senate, yet continues to be a strong voice for family farm, rural environmental, and rural development issues. The Center has received his counsel and ideas on several occasions. We congratulate him on this well-earned award and on his commitment to rural America.

Fresh Promises for America’s Rural Places
Presenting strategies and practices that are helping to revitalize rural communities

New Farmers Markets
The Floyd Boulevard Local Foods Markets, a project of Sustainable Foods for Siouxland, held its grand opening June 19, 2004. It is the first farmers market in the nation that exclusively sells humanely raised and naturally produced local food products.

The market is a project of a group of farmers and consumers working together to develop a true local food supply based on humane and organic principles.

Currently, the Siouxland region (communities within a 75 mile radius of Sioux City, Iowa) spends approximately $320 million on food annually. Less than 1 percent of that amount is raised locally.
The Floyd Boulevard Local Foods Market is the beginning of an effort to source 10 percent of food locally – to capture $32 million in new sales for local farmers, producing an estimated $100 million in new local economic activity through the multiplier effect.

Contact Michelle Oehlerking, Market Manager at 712.253.4728 for further information. Visit their website, www.siouxlandlocalfoods.org, to be up and running in late July.

Geotourism Explained
Fermata Inc. is in the business of “geotourism,” defined as tourism that sustains or enhances the geographical character of the place being visited – its environment, culture, aesthetics, heritage, and residents’ well being.

Fermata Inc. has been established to assist governments, agencies, states, communities, organizations, and individuals in taking advantage of the natural, cultural, and historical resources that surround them. As more tourists search for authentic experiences, geo-tourism should grow.

Fermata Inc. assists clients and communities to identify, understand, and use their natural, cultural, and historical resources while protecting them for future generations of people and businesses. Projects are located in Alabama, Connecticut, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

For more information about projects Fermata Inc. is working on, visit their website, www.fermatainc.com or call Ted Eubanks, founder at 512.472.0052.

Contact: Kim Preston, kimp@cfra.org or 402.687.2100 extension 1022.

Newspaper Publisher Selected “Small Business of the Year”
In five years this paper’s circulation has increased nearly 7-fold, serving growing Hispanic communities

Abril Garcia was selected as Small Business Person of the Year for 2003 by the Center’s Rural Enterprise Assistance Project (REAP), a small business development program. Abril came to the U.S. in 1996 to learn English. While attending a community college, she met and married her husband. Since she already had a Bachelors degree in Broadcast Communications, she decided to start a newspaper.

Mundo Latino, the voice of the Hispanic community of Nebraska and Iowa, printed its first issue October 1, 1999. The paper was born out of the desire to provide a communication vehicle for the large community of Hispanics. The goal was to create a medium of communication that understood the language, the culture, the Hispanic existence, and – more importantly – their needs.

The paper started as a monthly with 6-8 pages, printing 3,000 copies a month. The response from the community was so overwhelming that in 3 short months, it grew to 12-16 pages, published bi-monthly, distributing 10,000 copies a month.

By January 2001, the paper had grown to 16-20 pages. Demand continued to build as more Hispanics became familiar with the paper. In January 2003, Mundo Latino became a weekly, with 10-16 pages, printing 20,000 copies per month with numerous national and local companies advertising their products or services.

Mundo Latino is considered the main Spanish newspaper for the Hispanic community of Northeast Nebraska/Northwest Iowa by its readers and advertisers. The paper serves the areas of Council Bluffs, Le Mars, Sioux City, and Storm Lake in Iowa and Columbus, Fremont, Madison, Norfolk, Omaha, Schuyler, South Sioux City, Wakefield, Wayne, and West Point in Nebraska.

Mundo Latino has evolved into a respected voice of the Latino community. It has become a prism through which Latinos can look out and gain an understanding of other societies who are the heart of pluralistic America.

At the same time, the prism provides a means by which to look into the heart of the individuals that make up our community, thereby laying the foundation for understanding and communication. These ties bind us together as one nation and one country.

Contact: REAP Business Specialist, Karen Linnenbrink at 402.372.3840 or karenjl@cableone.net

Did You Know? Hispanic Population in the U.S. Facts

The Hispanic population grew by 58 percent in the 2000 Census, three times the national growth rate, making it the fastest growing segment in the U.S.
Today over 35.3 million Hispanics reside in the U.S., representing almost 13 percent of the country’s total population. The census total counted three million more Hispanics than previously estimated.
Demographers have anticipated for years that Hispanics would become the largest minority group by early 2005.
The U.S. Hispanic population is currently larger than the entire population of Canada.
Over 72 percent of Hispanics living in the U.S. were born abroad.
The Hispanic population is projected to grow to 42.4 million people with a total of 15 percent of the total population by 2010. This represents a 79 percent increase in only two decades. Even more astounding is the fact that by 2050 it is projected that the Hispanic population will represent as much as 25 percent of the entire U.S. population.
Starting this millennium, 40 percent of all new U.S. consumers will be Hispanic and will account for one in every five households.
Hispanic households are larger in size due to very high birth rates and extended family presence. The average persons per Hispanic household are 3.9 persons versus 2.1 people in the non-Hispanic household.
The U.S. Hispanic market is much younger than the general market with a median age of 26 years versus 36 years for non-Hispanic.
In 2000 the total annual Hispanic purchasing power was estimated by DR/McGraw-Hill at $442.8 billion. This represents an increase of 105 percent from 1990. Furthermore, it is projected that the Hispanic buying power will more than double by the year 2010 to $939 billion.

New REAP Hispanic Rural Business Center Begins Operations
This much needed center “without walls” will bring essential business development services to a growing rural business sector

The Rural Enterprise Assistance Project (REAP), a program of the Center for Rural Affairs, has begun work with a new initiative, the REAP Hispanic-Rural Business Center.

Funded by a one-year Rural Business Enterprise Grant from USDA, the business center will provide Hispanic startup and existing businesses with small business management training, networking opportunities, one-on-one technical assistance, and access to small loans – all of REAP’s essential services. Without these, business development assistance for rural Hispanic entrepreneurs will continue to be virtually unavailable or extremely underserved in rural Nebraska.

A survey focusing on Hispanic businesses was recently completed at South Sioux City by the Siouxland Minority Business group, a diverse set of folks representing a wide range of organizations.

The study found almost three-fourths of the minority businesses formed within the past five years, most were family owned and managed, and most owners were interested in taking specific business training.
The final results clearly show the need for small business development efforts, including training, technical assistance, and lending opportunities. The full report is available on the Internet at http://www.southsiouxcity.org

The Hispanic Rural Business Center is focusing on three Nebraska communities during the first phase of the project: Schuyler, Scottsbluff, and South Sioux City. These communities have a large Hispanic population and are located in Nebraska counties with the highest Hispanic population base throughout rural Nebraska.

The REAP Basic Business Management Training was recently completed at Scottsbluff and is set to start at South Sioux City. Phase two of the project will involve adding three more pilot communities and potentially hiring a bilingual staff person. Phase three will involve expansion of the program statewide in Nebraska.

Contact: Jeff Reynolds, REAP Program Director, jeffr@alltel.net or 402.656.3091 for more information, www.cfra.org/reap

Revised: March 21, 2007

Editor: Marie Powell