|
|
|
|
Farm Payments and Economic Growth
Federal Reserve Bank finds farm payments linked to sub-par economic growth The Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City’s Center for the Study of Rural America has come out with a report on the connection between farm payments and rural economic growth. The hypothesis – as often stated by Congress and farm organizations – is that farm payments provide an influx of cash into rural areas and rural economies, and thus benefit rural economies.
In fact, the opposite appears to be true. Here are some summary findings from their report:
○ The counties that receive the top 25 percent of farm program payments are concentrated in the Midwest (Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, North Dakota, southern Minnesota), eastern Montana, eastern Washington, the California valleys, west Texas, and the Mississippi Delta – 158 counties in all. After the 2002 Farm Bill, the report speculates more counties in the South and West would be included.
○ The “farm program dependent” counties – those where farm programs are the greatest share of county personal income – are almost all in the Great Plains. In fact, the New Homestead Act map and the “farm program dependent county” map are nearly the same.
○ The majority of “farm program dependent counties” had job growth below the national average. Those that had above average job growth (one-sixth of the counties) are either near metro areas or are emerging retail trade centers (Goodland, Kansas and Sidney, Nebraska are examples in “farm program dependent counties”).
○ The majority of “farm program dependent counties” lost population from 1992-2002. |
|
>> New Center Leadership Position Is Now Open
The Center is searching for an Administrative and Organizational Development Director to oversee staff in development, communications, and financial and office management.
Applications are requested by July 7, but will be accepted until the position is filled.
See the job description
>> Center Expands Staff
This month we welcome a new face and a not-so-new face to the Center’s Lyons office. Kathy Starkweather is our new Rural Policy Program organizer. She is setting up town hall meetings with elected officials on the federal budget and working with people to write letters to the editor.
A rural sociologist by training, she comes to us from Lincoln, Nebraska, where she worked with the Natural Resources Conservation Service on community planning and development. Please give Kathie a friendly welcome if she calls. You can reach her at
kathies@cfra.org or 402.687.2103 x 1014.
John Crabtree has returned to the Center as our interim media associate. He will be helping us get our information and message out through the news media.
John comes to us from North Dakota where he was involved in rural organizing and community development. He led the Center’s work on livestock market policy until 2000. Contact John at 402.687.2103 x 1010 or
johnc@cfra.org .
>> New Business Specialist
Please join us in welcoming Janelle Moran to the Center’s Rural Enterprise Assistance Project (REAP) staff. Janelle will cover southeast Nebraska as a business specialist. She is based in Tecumseh.
Janelle most recently worked as the Director of Admissions & Recruitment at Peru State College and has been employed in the past by Southeast Community College as a recruiter and advising specialist. Janelle’s husband is a small business owner/operator with his own plumbing and heating business.
We are thrilled to add Janelle to our staff! You can reach her at 402.335.3675. Her email will be operational next month. |
○ New business establishment growth from 1990-2002 is weakest in “farm program dependent counties.”
The report’s conclusion: commodity programs “wed farming regions to an ongoing pattern of economic consolidation” and that farm payments appear to “create dependency on even more payments, not new engines of growth” because farm payments appear to be linked to subpar economic and population growth.
The study, “Do Farm Payments Promote Rural Economic Growth?” was published in The Main Street Economist, March 2005.
Contact: Jon Bailey, jonb@cfra.org
for more information. By phone, 402.687.2103 x 1013.
Submit Comments to Improve Conservation Program
Citizens can weigh in before the end of the month to vastly improve the nation’s most promising farm conservation program USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is now taking public comments on the Conservation Security Program (CSP). The comment deadline ends on July 25, 2005.
During last year’s public comment period, an outpouring of comments prompted NRCS to make several important program modifications including: removing a payment cap that penalized smaller farms and regions of the country with relatively low rental rates, improving cost-share payments for limited resource and beginning farmers, and eliminating payments for capital-intensive waste treatment facilities for large-scale animal confinement operations.
Yet major CSP implementation problems still abound. With continued public pressure, we can secure a permanent, full-scale CSP program in the upcoming 2007 Farm Bill. But to achieve that, we need to win program implementation and funding improvements now.
We encourage you to submit comments to improve the program for 2006 and beyond. To comment, write a brief letter to NRCS on their Revised Interim Final Rule – the mechanism they used to guide the 2005 CSP sign-up process. Mention, in your own words, changes you’d like to see in the program.
Some of the major issues we think are vital for improving the CSP include:
- Rewarding farmers and ranchers for adopting and sustaining superior conservation systems by paying for environmental enhancements on a long-term, ongoing basis.
- Strongly encouraging and rewarding the adoption of resource-conserving crop rotations, managed rotational grazing, and other farming systems and conservation practices with high-level, multiple natural resource and environmental benefits.
- A payment structure to foster new conservation activities and on-farm innovation.
- Extending CSP nationwide, without geographic restrictions, and implementing it through a continuous sign-up process.
On point two on the previous page, we would also urge USDA to:
- Rank proposals for enrollment and establish enhancement payments for cropland based on a
cropping system rotational diversity index.
- Encourage but not require managed rotational grazing as a condition of eligibility at the Tier 1 (first) participation level.
Send comments by mail to Financial Assistance Programs Division, Natural Resources Conservation Service,
PO Box 2890, or by email to FarmBillRules@usda.gov
; Attn: Conservation Security Program. Remember, these are due by July 25, 2005.
We are working on an analysis of CSP implementation and would like to hear from any farmers and ranchers who went through the process. If you were in an applicable watershed for the 2004 or 2005 sign-up periods and inquired about the program or completed the sign-up process, please contact Traci Bruckner by calling 402.687.2103 x 1016.
Can Individual Development Accounts Help Rural Development?
Establishing a fund to bring youth back to the community after college looks like a promising application for the IDA concept
Individual Development Accounts or IDAs have been used throughout the country to help people create or gain capital. The concept of an IDA is quite simple.
Pairing with local banks or other sources, personal contributions are set aside with matching dollars from the institution. The ratio has been either 1:1 or 2:1. After a period of time, the money becomes the individual’s to use in a designated way.
IDAs can be used in a variety of ways. An idea worth following is to create IDAs to help college graduates return to small communities to live and work.
One of the biggest concerns in small rural communities is out-migration of youth and a lack of opportunity for them to stay or return. Why not create a local IDA for youth to secure?
Local economic groups could work with young people interested in returning to the community to set up an IDA. Accounts could be set up at a local bank and matched with personal contributions at a 1:1 or even 2:1 ratio.
After the four-year education period was complete, the account would be available to the returning student. Designated uses for the funds might include down payment on housing or some other investment.
Stipulations could require the graduate to stay in the community for a certain length of time or to repay the portion that belonged to the community to begin with. If the youth contributed $100 a month towards this program, at a 2:1 investment she or he would realize $14,400 in principal alone.
This is more than adequate for down payments for community housing, purchasing a business, or specialized needs to stay in the area.
There would be little worry from the lending group as the money would be retained until that person returned to the community. In the case of non-return, the recipient could still obtain the portion of the IDA that was theirs.
In theory, IDAs could be a win-win situation for everyone if they create a pool of wealth, namely youth, to return to the community that helped them to get started.
Contact: Michael L. Holton, michaellh@cfra.org
or 402.687.2103 x 1015 for information.
Corporate Farming Notes
In an effort to provide more regional/national coverage on corporate farming, we need your help. We are calling on you, our newsletter readers, to send us information regarding corporate farming issues, as well as other rural issues, in your state or region.
Throughout some Midwest states we continue to witness a systematic approach to push issues through the legislature to solely benefit corporate-scale farming systems. These efforts place our small and mid-size farms at a competitive disadvantage, put our natural resources at risk, and wreak havoc on our rural communities.
So, for example, are you experiencing attacks on local control of planning and zoning issues through your state legislature or other venues? Are there any other legislative initiatives that favor corporate farms over small and mid-size family farms? Have you witnessed a corporate farming system that is causing a negative impact on your rural community?
We would also like to hear about positive things taking place in your state/region. Along with playing defense on the bad issues that arise, we can also counter these with good, proactive legislation.
Do you know of any measures to benefit small and mid-size family farms? For example, does your state have any legislation to support family farms who want to establish a niche or value-added market? Has legislation helped beginning farmers and ranchers get started with farming? How about initiatives that support rural community development through emphasizing natural resource protection?
With your help, we can track these issues with a much broader net. We can then share that information through our newsletter and work to create positive solutions across the states that are impacted by such issues.
To share your information, please contact Traci Bruckner by emailing tracib@cfra.org
or John Crabtree by emailing johnc@cfra.org
You may also reach them by phone at 402.687.2100.
Nebraska Initiative Gets Kellogg Foundation Grant
HomeTown Competitiveness (HTC), a Nebraska initiative, has been chosen as one of six recipients of grants provided through the W. K. Kellogg Foundation’s 75th Anniversary Entrepreneurship Development Systems (EDS) for rural America. More than 180 applications were received for grants to develop six national models in rural entrepreneurship.
Core partners in the Kellogg-funded initiative will be the Nebraska Community Foundation, The Heartland Center for Leadership Development, the RUPRI Center for Rural Entrepreneurship, and the Center. We will be involved in entrepreneurship development through REAP – our statewide rural small business development program.
Our policy and ag entrepreneur and community revitalization programs will also be involved. Chuck Hassebrook, Center director, and Glennis McClure, REAP co-director, participated in management team meetings to implement
HTC.
The Kellogg EDS grants will allow recipients to promote entrepreneurial activity in their region, produce entrepreneurial models for other communities, leverage significant investment, and stimulate national and state interest in rural entrepreneurship policies and strategies. The funding stretches over three years.
Contact: Glennis McClure, reapwbc@diodecom.net
or 402.645.3296 for information.
1031 Exchange Tax Shelter Feedback
We received many comments on our article in the June newsletter about 1031 tax shelters. Most agreed they are a problem that needs fixing. One said, “In our area 1031 money controls farm sales. Unless the sale is private, the local farmer is out of the land market. The 1031 exchange is the largest single hardship facing agriculture today.”
Several asked what they could do to prompt concrete action to address the problem and are now writing their U.S. Senators.
But two writers urged caution. One 500-acre farmer near a rapidly developing area said they had used 1031 to upgrade their farmland. Another said a 1031 exchange had made it possible for his
brother-in-law to farm.
We are exploring options for fixing the problem – including allowing some use by family farms. One approach would be to cap the amount of 1031 money that can be sheltered in farmland and restrict it to people who will actively operate the farm.
Contact: Chuck Hassebrook, 402.687.2103 x
1018 or chuckh@cfra.org for more information.
|
|
Feature
articles:
Asset Building and Rural Home Ownership
High rural home ownership rates disguise other problems like age, condition, and cost of the rural housing stock
This month we present another article in our occasional series on the asset building model of rural development. Investment in long-term assets like businesses, homes, and education help bond one to a place and build strong, more sustainable communities.
According to U.S. Census Bureau data, home ownership in rural areas of the nation is higher than in non-rural areas, with 76 percent of occupied housing units in rural areas owned by the occupants. Overall, 68 percent of households in the United States are homeowners.
High Rural Home Ownership, But What Are the Homes Like?
The characteristics of rural homeownership are different from non-rural areas in many respects. While the age of all housing units in rural and non-rural areas are comparable, about 25 percent more housing units in non-metropolitan areas were built prior to 1930, and over one-third more rural housing units were built before 1919. In total, nearly one-in-six rural occupied housing units were built prior to 1930.
The types of homes owned by rural individuals and families also vary significantly. Nearly one-in-six owner occupied housing units in non-metropolitan America are mobile homes, nearly double the national total. The number of mobile homes in rural areas has increased by 38 percent since 1987.
While a legitimate housing option for many rural people and families, the prevalence of mobile homes in rural areas often acts as a deterrent to the construction of permanent housing, particularly for low-income families and individuals.
Mobile homes also do not provide many of the benefits of traditional, permanent housing – they decrease in value over time, not allowing them to hold their value as a sellable or inheritable asset.
Other characteristics include:
- Rural areas have a disproportionate amount of the nation’s substandard housing. Nearly 2 million low-income rural households live in moderately to severely inadequate housing (i.e., units without hot or cold water, inadequate roofs and heating, rodent problems, lead-based paint). In total, 2.6 million rural residents live in inadequate homes of any kind, compared to 2.4 million central city residents and 1.3 suburban residents.
- Housing “cost burdens” are greater in rural areas. The accepted housing “cost burden” – the percentage of income attributable to housing – is 30 percent. Twenty-one percent of rural homeowners – 5 million rural homeowners – pay more than 30 percent of their income for housing.
Rural Home Ownership Asset-Building Strategies Face Two Challenges
Home ownership rates, therefore, do not tell the entire story of rural housing as an asset-building strategy. The age, condition, type, and relative cost of rural housing make it “apparent many rural homeowners do not gain the benefits that typically accrue to home owners.” (National Rural Housing Coalition) As such, asset-building strategies based on
home ownership for rural people and families face significant challenges.
Two primary challenges concern rural homeownership. First, is the condition and characteristics of rural housing. This is an issue of a lack of quality, affordable housing in rural areas for low to moderate-income rural residents and families.
The second, and related challenge is one of resources and public policy. According to the National Rural Housing Coalition, rural areas are faced with a “low and declining level of federal housing assistance.”
Every federal housing program provides far less resources to rural areas than to urban areas. Over twice as many urban or metropolitan homeowners receive government-assisted mortgages. According to the 2001 American Housing Survey, 13.6 percent of metropolitan and 14.1 percent of urban homeowners receive federal assistance; only 6.7 percent of rural and 5 percent of non-metropolitan homeowners do.
Rural homeowners fare only slightly better with state and local mortgage assistance programs. In 2001, 5.6 percent of metropolitan homeowners received assistance from state and local programs, while 4.2 percent of rural homeowners received assistance.
Overall, only 6 percent of Federal Housing Administration (FHA) assistance goes to non-metro areas. On a per-capita basis, metropolitan counties received nearly 10 times the FHA assistance than did rural counties ($264 for metropolitan counties vs. $25 for rural counties).
Recommendations for Asset-Building Legislation
As state and federal policymakers discuss asset-building legislation, any policy should address the unique housing needs of rural areas:
- Add home rehabilitation, renovation, and repair to the list of allowable uses in the homebuyer section. This would help address the issue of housing quality in rural areas.
- Allow home purchase cost assistance for rural people to include those who are not first-time homebuyers. Since homeownership rates in rural areas are already higher than other parts of the nation, issues relating to an aging and affordable housing stock are more relevant.
- Specifically allow home purchasing assistance in asset-building policy to be used for manufactured homes. Manufactured homes are an increasingly important part of rural housing yet are often treated differently than other types of housing.
The Senate Budget Resolution includes an amendment that would restore $2 billion in funding for CDBG and related programs that would be eliminated under the President’s proposal. The House and Senate will need to reconcile their budget resolutions. Then House and Senate Appropriations Committees will consider appropriation levels for programs, including SACI and the 18 programs it would replace.
Contact: Jon Bailey, jonb@cfra.org
or 402.687.2103 x 1013 for more information.
Nebraska Legislative
Wrap-Up: Promising Rural Session
The 2005 Nebraska Legislature began the process of creating a new rural economy in the state. Given the neglect and cuts to rural development program budgets in recent sessions, the 2005 session should go down as one of the best for rural Nebraska.
Nebraska has started down the path of a new rural economy, an economy supported by three pillars – 1) focus on community and regional resource mobilization; 2) find a niche, not a commodity; and 3) grow more entrepreneurs.
- LB 90 will provide resources for entrepreneurs, both on and off the farm and ranch. It will also provide resources for community collaboratives to create community and economic development initiatives focused on entrepreneurship.
- LB 312 will provide incentives for the small business that form the core of rural economies.
- LB 28 will provide incentives for the mobilization of local resources to bring to reality entrepreneurial economic development and progressive community development.
- And, finally, the state budget provides more resources for small business capital and technical
assistance, again benefiting the type of economic development crucial to rural areas of the state.
More Balanced Economic Development Policy
We have often asserted that the state’s economic development is out of balance, too heavily weighted toward the urban big business side. The 2005 session took steps toward an effective and better balanced economic development policy. While incentives and resources directed toward big business and urban areas of the state still dominate, the state has taken the initial steps toward more balance.
In future years and in future state budgets the economic development gap needs to narrow even more. As rural people and rural advocates we also bear our share of responsibility to ensure this – we must take the responsibility to use these programs wisely and efficiently, and we must continue promoting public policy that creates a new and secure economy in our rural communities.
As we look back from the future, we hope we can look back and see 2005 as the beginning of a rural economic revival in Nebraska.
Not Everything Was Seashells and Balloons
Of course, not everything was seashells and balloons for rural issues in the 2005 session.
Small Schools
By mandating the consolidation of all Class I schools and the eventual closure of many, the state may be on the path of more rural school consolidations. The ultimate goal of larger schools can be seen in a variety of provisions, all of which are providing incentives to get larger and imposing penalties for staying small.
LB 126 provides a new grant program for school districts to construct new elementary schools. One of the qualifying criteria is an enrollment of at least 390 students, an enrollment figure many rural school districts would not meet absent consolidation.
The school finance formula reform bill – LB 129, a holdover to the 2006 session and an Education Committee Priority Bill – would punish small rural schools by reducing state aid for those with fewer than 390 students (that magic number again!), making consolidation potentially the only economically viable option for some districts.
By increments the Legislature appears to be creating a situation where small rural districts may have no economic choice but to consolidate and get larger. In 2004, the budget was amended to provide incentive grants from lottery funds for school consolidations to reach at least the 390 student threshold. Whether it be carrots or sticks, the Legislature is slowly but surely mandating a minimum school size that will have significant ramifications for rural communities.
Health Care
The Legislature failed to even begin the process of studying the issue of health insurance and health care benefits for small businesses by killing in committee LB 655. The Nebraska Health Insurance Policy Coalition – made possible by a federal grant – has issued a report with recommendations on how to address the uninsured issue in the state and on how to enhance access to health care. This is a report and an issue the Legislature should begin to take seriously in 2006.
A More Open Regulatory Process?
The Legislature adopted another historic, but relatively unnoticed bill that has the potential for significant impacts in rural Nebraska. LB 373 provides the Legislature greater supervision over regulations made by state agencies. This will potentially open the regulatory process to more public scrutiny through the Legislature. It may also lead to more precise lawmaking and expressions of legislative intent since all proposed rules and regulations are now subject to a legislative review.
Contact: Jon Bailey, 402.687.2103 x 1013 or jonb@cfra.org
for more information.
|
|
|
Will Wind Energy Ever Be a Part of Nebraska’s Energy Future?
Wind power as a main energy source in Nebraska is a hot topic. Rural electric associations and Nebraska Public Power maintain a unique arrangement that has worked well in the state since its inception.
Nebraska is the only public power state, and private power is the exception rather than the norm. This system has kept the cost of all types of energy down, and the ultimate benefactor has been the consumer.
The problem with this system is that it has become rigid and even resistant to change. As long as public power works, why not? If the wheel isn’t broken, why should we fix it? Because making wind energy part of our state’s energy portfolio is just too promising to ignore.
The benefits of wind energy are enormous, and surrounding states with less capability of producing wind power have taken advantage of this fact. Wind power generated in Nebraska is virtually non existent.
Once again, the argument is that our system in Nebraska works so why should we change or threaten the hand that feeds us? The short answer is that we shouldn’t. Every situation needn’t be one of confrontation. Compromise can be the way to incorporate wind into the portfolio of energy NPPD already possesses.
NPPD recognizes the growing demand for cleaner power like wind energy, and they have pursued putting up a wind farm near Ainsworth, Nebraska. What NPPD would like from Nebraska residents is to figure a way for individuals to generate power from wind for themselves without jeopardizing the integrity of public power. There is room for both, but it won’t be an easy process.
The Center for Rural Affairs and Nebraska Farmer’s Union have been working with Nebraska Public Power to address this concern, and it appears we are heading in the right direction. Everyone wants the same objective: to allow communities and individuals to benefit from wind power without breaking up a system that has been in place for many years.
Through continued dialogue, we can all get what we want without confrontation. The biggest winner will be the Nebraska consumer.
Contact: Michael L. Holton, michaellh@cfra.org
or 402.687.2103 x 1015 for information on the Center’s wind energy work.
New Beginning Farmer Program in State
The Center is part of a comprehensive education program to help beginning farmers
A new program to connect the next generation of farmers with the resources to be successful has begun in Nebraska. On June 7, the Center for Rural Affairs, Nebraska Sustainable Agriculture Society (NSAS), the Land Stewardship Project (LSP), University of Nebraska Extension, and the Nebraska Department of Agriculture kicked off the Farm Beginnings™ - Nebraska program at the Capital Rotunda. Senators Werbein and Heidemann were among other honored guests at the event.
“Since the mid-90’s the Center has been telling folks that in 10 years many farmers are going to retire,” explained Martin Kleinschmit, Sustainable Agriculture Specialist at the Center for Rural for Affairs, with a smile. “Well, here we are. Those older farmers are retiring. Now is a good time for beginners to get started in the business of farming.”
Farm Beginnings™, a Land Stewardship Project (LSP) initiative, started in the mid-1990s in southeast Minnesota. Participants learn firsthand about low-cost, sustainable methods of farming. LSP staff members are working with agricultural educators, farmers, and other professionals to set up the pilot beginning farmer education programs in Nebraska, Illinois, and Missouri. A grant from USDA’s North Central Region Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program is making the work possible.
So far, 222 people have completed the Farm Beginnings™ course in southeast and western Minnesota. Over 60 percent of those graduates are farming. Over 6,000 acres of land is owned, rented, or otherwise farmed by Farm Beginnings™ graduates in a broad spectrum of enterprises: beef, dairy, hogs, meat goats, poultry, wholesale vegetables, Community Supported Agriculture, organic grains, and specialty products such as flowers. Approximately 20 percent of Farm Beginnings™ graduates have moved from urban to rural areas to pursue their farming dream.
To learn more about Farm Beginnings™, contact Martin Kleinschmit, martink@cfra.org
at 402.254.6893 or go to www.landstewardshipproject.org/programs_farmbeginnings.html
No Child Left Behind Requires Reporting
A new action brief from Public Education Network outlines information and data that each state education agency is required to disseminate as required by the No Child Left Behind Act. This information can be found at
http://www.publiceducation.org/portals/nclb/report_cards/report_cards.asp
Some of the reporting requirements of the act include:
- Data will be collected on all students in the grades tested.
- States must provide data from their reading/language arts and math assessment.
- The state report card must include demographic information on the students tested, disaggregated information on student achievement at each proficiency level, two-year achievement trends, and comparisons between student achievement and the state’s academic expectations.
- States must provide information on Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) including the number and names of each school and district identified for improvement, corrective action, and restructuring for school districts and schools receiving Title I, Part A funds.
Teacher quality is a large part of NCLB. States must report the following information regarding teachers:
- Professional qualifications of all public teachers in the state.
- Percentage of teachers teaching with emergency or provisional credentials.
- Percentage of classes in the state not taught by highly qualified teachers (as defined by NCLB), especially in disadvantaged areas.
The main focus of NCLB is to improve the academic achievement of students in low-performing schools around the country. It strives to have every student achieving at a proficient level, as defined by each state, by the 2013–2014 school year.
NCLB contains provisions designed to discourage hiring teachers who lack expertise in their core subject area and to rectify this problem in schools.
These documents could prove useful to parents and educators as a tool to measure progress and an indicator of the quality of education being offered. Check to see when your state’s report card is available.
Contact: Kim Preston at 402.687.2103 x 1022 or
kimp@cfra.org for more information about the Center's work with schools.
Practical Farmers of Iowa Field Days Agricultural field days are a Midwest tradition. Robert Karp, Practical Farmers of Iowa (PFI) director says there is more than
tradition to these on-farm educational events. “They are about innovation and vision.”
PFI shares their highlights of this season’s field day topics below.
- Two of the hottest new alternative crops: organic flax and low-linolenic soybeans will be highlighted on the Greg Wiley, Dick Gallagher and Ron Dunphy farms, as well as others.
- Vic and Cindy Madsen host a field day in September exploring their participation in the Conservation Security Program (CSP). Vic and Cindy will show the many conservation practices on their farm while experts discuss the details of the
CSP.
- Organic-related field days include Laura Krouse (vegetables and corn, July 27 near Mt. Vernon), Nan Bonfils and Don Adams (corn, Sept. 11 near Boone) and Amy Miller and Mike Natvig (corn, Sept. 27 near Cresco).
- A swine herd health workshop and look at alternative hog production July 26 on the Dan and Lorna Wilson farm.
- A comprehensive grape-growing workshop hosted by Richard Black on July 23. Winemaking and wineries will also be covered.
For more information, call the PFI office at 515.232.5661, or go to www.practicalfarmers.org
Communications Team Revolves Again Last month we bid farewell to two staff members in communications, Russ Gifford and Stephenie Eastman. Although only with us for about a year, they left their imprint on the Center.
Russ enlivened the newsletter with his writing and brought a positive outlook to all communications efforts. From securing Thomas Frank for the annual meeting to spearheading gains in our broadcast coverage, his leadership set a great tone.
Stephenie established the Center’s news web log, putting the Center out front in applying this technology. She ably handled other less glamorous tasks that help us get the word out about the Center’s work, tracking media coverage and maintaining accurate data bases. In all her efforts she worked professionally and with a creative, humorous attitude.
As you may have read elsewhere, John Crabtree has assumed the position of interim media associate as we look for someone to fill a newly created leadership position for the Center, an Administrative and Organizational Development Director. This person will oversee many of the support functions at the Center, including communications.
A job description is available on our website.
Applications are requested by July 7, though they will be accepted until the position is filled.
|
|
Essay: Control our
Destiny through Innovation and Cooperation
Small business and family farms operate today in an economy dominated by big companies, so we need to embrace innovative ways to band together to avoid being trampled. It’s a way a taking control of our destiny.
I was invited to Conrad and Guthrie Center, Iowa, to talk about one innovative strategy – machinery cooperatives. Grundy National Bank and area farmers are exploring options for family-size farms to share ownership of big-ticket machinery such as combines.
It’s an innovative way of getting machinery costs down to levels that enable family-size farms to compete with mega farms and improve their incomes. (For more information, contact Shane Tiernan at Grundy National Bank, shanet@gnbbank.com or 641.366.3029.)
Cooperation can also work for non-farm rural small businesses. In Italy, small rural businesses have formed informal networks to enable them to gain contracts to provide major metropolitan Italian corporations with components and other products and services.
Larges businesses won’t scour the countryside to find 10 small businesses to provide a product or 20 self-employed people to provide services they need. But they might turn to a single business network that can quickly link them to small businesses working together to get them what they need in the volume they require.
The Center will analyze the potential of forming such a network in rural Nebraska. We are also working with producers from several states on a strategy of banding together to sell family farm/ranch raised natural cattle and beef in volume at negotiated prices.
We must never forget. The depopulation of rural America, rural economic decline and loss of family farms and ranches is not inevitable. It is not set down from heaven on a tablet of stone. Trends are set by decisions made by people – policy choices and our own choices locally – choices that we can change.
Local choices and policy choices are both critical. If we all assume there is no future in the rural economy and give up – there will be no future.
But if we take control of our destiny and search out and embrace innovative approaches for small business, small towns, and family farms to prosper, we can create a better future. We must be entrepreneurial in creating our own opportunities.
We must also address public policy. We’ll develop new initiatives to support small business development, beginning farmers, and innovative ways of working together to prosper for consideration in the next farm bill.
We’ll keep fighting the bias toward bigness in public policy that drives things the wrong direction. With the active support of rural people, we will win.
Current trends have gone too far. They no longer serve the common good. We must take control of our destiny and change them. Together, we can succeed.
Agree or disagree? Send your opinions or
comments to Chuck Hassebrook, chuckh@cfra.org
|
