International Microenterprise Holds Lessons for Rural Development

As long-time readers know, the Center is an advocate of microenterprise and microcredit as key components to a rural development agenda centered on entrepreneurship and asset-building. As we have witnessed, microenterprise development can lift people out of poverty and help build strong and sustainable households and communities.

We were, therefore, interested in two recent international developments in the wide ranging field of microenterprise development.

First, Muhammad Yumas was named the new Nobel Peace Prize honoree. Mr. Yumas was the founder of the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh and is considered the father of microcredit and microenterprise. The Grameen Bank was the model of many microenterprise development initiatives throughout the world, including the Center’s REAP program.

The honor bestowed upon Mr. Yumas is significant because it recognizes the importance of economic social justice to peace. Yumas’ central theory – and the central theory of REAP and microenterprise development and asset-building initiatives in general – is that lending to low-income people to build business enterprises and assets builds self-sufficiency. In the long run, building businesses and assets is the most effective and efficient anti-poverty strategy around.

A recent article in the Micro Enterprise Journal stated that Yumas’ vision taught that microenterprise development is about an “understanding that just because a man (or woman) is poor, that doesn’t mean he (or she) is unworthy of the American Dream.” Making the opportunity for the American Dream available to all in rural America should be the central goal of rural development policy in the 2007 farm bill. 

The second international development comes from the “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander” department. On July 27, 2006, Jacqueline Shafer, Assistant Administrator of the Bureau of Economic Growth, Agriculture and Trade of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) testified before the U.S. House of Representatives.

The subject of her speech was USAID’s implementation of international microenterprise legislation and appropriations. At a time when domestic microenterprise and small business development funding was being cut or proposed for elimination, the United States obligated over $200 million for microenterprise development in 68 other nations.

The reason for this laudable international response: the U.S. government, according to Ms. Shafer’s testimony, believes microenterprise development “Strengthens economic opportunities for poorer households,” enabling families to build assets, cope with risks … and plan for better futures for their children.” In addition, the U.S. government, according to Ms. Shafer, believes that microenterprise development “can contribute to poverty alleviation in a sustainable and commercially viable way.”

While USAID was making those assertions for rural places in other countries, we and others have found them to be as true for rural America. As we begin debate on a new rural policy, U.S. policymakers should listen to the lessons of the world.

Contact: Jon Bailey, jonb@cfra.org or 402.687.2103 x 1013 for more information.

States Are Stepping up to the Plate for Early Childhood Education
Quality preschool programs have been shown to reduce high school dropout rates, child abuse, crime, and welfare dependency

Early childhood education programs have long been a foundation of American education. Access to these programs, however, has not always been available to all children. Low and moderate-income children and families have been left behind, even forgotten.

Head Start was born out of the need for low-income families to receive access to early childhood programs. In rural communities, where many low-income families live, access to Head Start is even a remote possibility, with locations up to 30 miles away for most families. Individual states must step in and provide early access to education for our neediest children.

Advocates of early childhood education point out the advantages. “There are tremendous economic and societal benefits of providing quality early childhood education. School dropout rates, child abuse, crime, and welfare dependency all decrease when a small investment is made to give children at an early age the tools they need to do their best in school. We can benefit our youngest learners by making an investment that will allow more children to participate in early childhood education programs before kindergarten and make them more likely to attend college.”

This statement was made by Families for Amendment 5, an advocacy organization created on behalf of early childhood education in Nebraska. Amendment 5, approved by Nebraska voters in November, amended the Nebraska Constitution to create an Early Childhood Endowment Fund.

The endowment fund will use public and private dollars. Schools will apply for grant funds to provide opportunities for children to participate in early childhood programs. Programs similar to this are found in other states as well.

A recent report by Pre K Now, “Votes Count: Legislative Action on Pre K Fiscal Year 2007” found that 31 states and the District of Columbia increased pre-school through kindergarten funding for FY07, totaling more than $450 million. Three states for which final pre-k budgets are not available anticipate increases. Six states funded pre-k programs at the same level as the previous year, and 10 states, six of them in the Northern Rockies and Plains, still have no pre-k programs.

The time has come for states to step up and fund early childhood education. A strong program not only benefits the child, it strengthens the school and community.

Contact: Kim Preston, kimp@cfra.org or 402.687.2103 x 1022 for more information.

Voters Across the Nation Reject TABOR

As we discussed in our October 2006 newsletter feature, three states – Nebraska, Oregon, and Maine – voted on state constitutional amendments to limit state government spending in a method modeled after Colorado’s TABOR (Taxpayer Bill of Rights) law. All three efforts were part of a larger nationwide effort by a network of libertarian and anti-tax organizations to place tax and spending restrictions in state constitutions.

Voters in all three states rejected these TABOR amendments. Seventy percent of the voters in Oregon and Nebraska and 54 percent of Maine voters said “No” to TABOR.

Contact: Jon Bailey, jonb@cfra.org  or 402.687.2103 x 1013 for more information.

Commodity Prices Drain Wealth & Youth from Rural Communities
Iowa research shows conventional farming requires 2,000 acres to generate $40,000; organic agriculture only requires 235 acres

Are commodity prices preventing young people from becoming full-time farmers? According to Dr. Craig Chase, Iowa State University Farm Management Field Specialist, an average corn and soybean farmer in Iowa earns a profit of only $20/acre. At that rate, it takes 2,000 acres if a farm family is to earn $40,000 farm income.

Conversely, the low profit margins of commodity agriculture also force established farmers to rely on their farms to finance their retirement, which means selling their land so another farm can increase in size rather than helping a beginning farmer get started. The result is fewer farmers, larger farms, and older farmers.

The situation gets worse. According to Crossroads Resource Center, Woodbury County, Iowa’s farmers produced an average of $154 million in food products in 1998-2003, but spent $178 million to do it. This $24 million annual loss was offset by $23 million in federal subsidies and $14 million in off-farm income. Do you think the problem can be solved with more yield and more acres?

One option may be actual food production. The region is spending $203 million on food each year, of which $150 million is from outside the region. If more land was devoted to local food production, some of the $24 million in losses could be corrected by capturing some of the food dollars now leaving the region.

Another option is to transition to organic production. Iowa State University shows a $170 per acre profit from an organic farm using corn, soybeans, oats, and alfalfa. At this rate, only 235 acres are needed to support a family at the $40,000 level.

A township can support 98 organic-sized farms instead of only 11 commodity farms. If each family has an average of 1.6 children, the organically farmed township now has 157 children instead of 18. Organic farming can put families and children back on the farm and repopulate the rural landscape.

These are some of the issues that spurred Woodbury County to offer a real estate tax rebate to farmers transitioning to organic production. Nebraska NRCS offers transition incentives of $50/acre to transition cropland to organic status through the EQIP program.

Informational meetings on organic transition in Nebraska were held in November and early December. A final meeting will be held December 12, 2006 at the Life Long Learning Center in Norfolk, Nebraska.

For details on the National Organic Program (NOP) rules, visit USDA’s home page: www.usda.gov. Click on “Agriculture,” then Organic Certification. For more information on the NRCS EQIP Program, contact your local NRCS office.

Contact: Kleinschmit, Sustainable Agriculture Specialist in the Center’s Hartington, Nebraska office, 402.254.6893 or by email at martink@cfra.org for information.

Corporate Farming Notes
Smithfield plans beef packing plant in Okla.; antitrust investigation launched into Smithfield Foods/Premium Standard Farms merger

>> Smithfield Foods recently announced plans to build a beef packing plant in Texas County, Oklahoma. According to Credit Suisse, “the plant will be able to process 5,000 head per day on a double shift … or about 1.3 million cattle per year.” Opinions are mixed on the impact the plant will have on competition in cattle markets.

Smithfield’s cattle feeding joint venture with ContiGroup feeds approximately 1.3 million head of cattle annually. Considering Smithfield’s penchant for vertical integration, it seems unlikely that Smithfield will buy many cattle on the open market.

A Dow Jones Newswire story quoted David Hales of Hales Cattle Letter as saying, “it may cause one of the other packers to close a plant before the new plant actually comes on line.”
In a story published at www.meatnews.com, JP Morgan Chase analyst Pablo Zaunic questioned whether forcing a competitor, HM Capital Partners, to sell the beef plant it operates was part of Smithfield’s strategy.

If the Smithfield plant simply increases vertical integration, competition will be diminished, to the detriment of farmers and ranchers. Moreover, few have asked how the construction of a beef plant with 3,500 employees will impact an Oklahoma panhandle county with an adult population hovering around 17,000 and no plan for dealing with the increased demands on housing, education, and infrastructure.

>> In October – responding to calls from farmers, member of Congress and farm organizations – the Department of Justice launched an antitrust investigation into Smithfield’s acquisition of Premium Standard Farms. In early November that investigation was extended by at least another month.

The Justice Department requested additional information about the purchase of Premium Standard, the nation’s second largest pork producer and sixth largest packer, by Smithfield, the nation’s largest pork producer and packer. The merging companies must delay the deal, by law, for 30 days after compliance with the request to allow further investigation by the Justice Department.

Whether you have called your senators, representatives, and the Justice Department about this yet or not, pick up the phone and let them know that this merger is bad for farmers, ranchers, and rural communities.

Contact: John Crabtree at 402.687.2103 x 1010 or johnc@cfra.org for more information.

Research on Industrialized Farming and Community Well-Being

Public concern about the detrimental community impacts of industrialized farming is warranted, according to updated research conducted at the request of the State of North Dakota. The report, Industrialized Farming and Its Relationship to Community Well-Being: An Update of a 2000 Report by Linda Lobao, added the results of research from 2000 to 2006 to the findings of past research on industrialized farming.

Dr. Curtis Stofferahn, lead author, indicated, “In brief, this conclusion rests on five decades of government and academic concern with this topic, a concern that has not abetted but that has grown more intense in recent years, as the social and environmental problems associated with large animal confinement operations have become widely recognized.”

The report examined conclusions from 56 studies on the consequences of industrialized farming for communities. Of these, approximately 82 percent found adverse impacts on indicators of community well-being. You can view the report at http://www.und.nodak.edu/misc/ndrural/Lobao%20&%20Stofferahn.pdf  

Artists Share Inspiration for Winds of Life

When the Center for Rural Affairs announced the “Winds of Life … Windmills Across Nebraska” project, we suspected the iconic symbolism of life as depicted by the windmill would touch many hearts and conjure up memories from days gone by. What we didn’t realize was the depth of the creative spirit in our state and the ability of our Nebraska friends to articulate their visions – not only for windmills but for the future of rural America.

To convey the inspiration of some of the artists, I want to share quotes from a few of these amazing people.

“The windmills sometimes occupied very lonely and desolate regions of Nebraska, but their vision was one of hope, life and beauty.” From another source – A windmill “… postured to walk across the strongest winds with perseverance and determination.”

“As the enduring Nebraska winds force the windmill to movement so does the whimsy of life affect individuals towards delight.”

An artist who uses recycled materials stated, “With this type of work I rekindled the old rusty material and brought back the spirit of the various parts when they were lively back in their good running days.”

Some artists were in the midst of “corn picking” with their welders in the field. Others talked about the living waters of the Platte River and others spoke of watching and listening to windmills from the shelter belts of their childhood homes. One artist summed up the desire to be a part of the project by expressing a love of nature. “I am concerned with the soul-full-ness of the being. I love nature. I am a sculptor. This is what I do.”

Please visit our Windmill website, www.windsoflife.com to receive updates including extended deadlines for submissions. This website will soon feature the works in progress of every artist and the names of all the sponsors.

Contact: Barbara Chamness, 402.687.2103 x1009, barbarac@cfra.org, or Kathie Starkweather, 402.687.2103 x 1014, kathies@cfra.org, for further information on how you or your community can become involved.

Affordable Education, Conservation Leading Topics at Youth Forum
Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle responded to questions from students across the nation at Generation Engage event

On October 30, the Center partnered with Generation Engage to host an internet-based interactive forum with former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle in Alexandria, Minnesota. Students from throughout Minnesota traveled to Alexandria Technical College to attend the forum and ask questions on issues they felt were vitally important to the future of rural America and America as a whole.

Senator Daschle answered a range of questions posed from young adults in Alexandria, New York City, and Louisville, Kentucky. In Alexandria, students were particularly concerned about creating affordable education opportunities, conservation programs, ensuring equal economic opportunity for all citizens, and the always-controversial topic of abortion.

Technology provides a new way for all citizens to influence our government. It can allow us to move beyond the simple act of voting. Properly used, it can offset the dominance that special interests and lobbyists enjoy in Washington today. With it, we now have the opportunity to demand accountability from our elected representatives and make our voices heard on the issues that matter most to our rural communities.

Too often, politics is a one-way conversation; with technology, we can create a dialogue between citizens and their representatives. Perhaps more important, technology allows citizens to communicate in new ways with each other. In Alexandria, it wasn’t surprising to have students asking questions about rural issues, but to have students in New York City echo some of those same concerns was surprising and gratifying.

Generation Engage works to provide young adults with opportunities to access and influence political debates and works from the principle that young people are ignored in politics because of a lack of access, not a lack of interest. The Center strongly believes that to ensure a vibrant future for rural America we must engage our youth, who are truly the future of our rural communities.

To view video from this event, please visit http://www.generationengage.org/vidpol.html and scroll down to the “Tom Daschle” section.

Contact: Dan Owens, Rural Policy Organizer at dano@cfra.org or 402.687.2103 x 1017 for more information.

REAP Women’s Business Center Awarded Highest Tier of Funding

The efforts of former REAP Women’s Business Center Director Glennis McClure, REAP staff, and partners have ensured that the Center’s REAP Women’s Business Center is continuing on. The U.S. Small Business Administration awarded REAP the highest tier of funding to continue providing training and counseling to entrepreneurs in rural Nebraska. Funding is based on performance, and each Women’s Business Center across the country is compared to other Centers of similar market size.

REAP staff gathered with other partners and supporters in Beatrice on October 17, 2006, to celebrate the sustainability funding. Samuel Jones, SBA Regional Administrator from Kansas City, attended along with District Director Glenn Davis, Deputy Director Kathleen Piper, and Business Development Specialist Deborah Wilson from the Omaha SBA office. Chuck Hassebrook, Executive Director of the Center for Rural Affairs, was present and spoke about the Center and REAP’s mission. He introduced Amy Tejral from Senator Ben Nelson’s staff, who offered a few words of support and encouragement.

Martha Martinez, owner of Esperanza’s Creations in South Sioux City, spoke from the perspective of an entrepreneur who has accessed services from the REAP WBC. We look forward to continuing to provide training and technical assistance to women entrepreneurs and others across the state.

Contact: Monica Braun, new REAP WBC Director at 402.643.2673 or mbraun@alltel.net for more information.

Center Welcomes New Staff to REAP Project

The Center’s Rural Enterprise Assistance Project has hired Dena Beck as the new Southwest/Central REAP Business Specialist. Dena grew up in Minden and holds a BS degree in Horticultural Therapy from Kansas State University. She is currently pursing her Master of Science degree in Organizational Management through Peru State College.

Dena most recently worked as the Minden, Nebraska, Chamber of Commerce Manager and is the owner of Four Seasons Horticultural Services. Dena was also the co-creator of the Kearney County Joint Economic Development Agency.

Like all of our REAP field staff, Dena will operate from a home-based office. She lives in Minden with husband David and their two children. David is an RN at Mary Lanning Memorial Hospital at Hastings. He also served in the Peace Corp from 1997-99 at Lesotho, South Africa.

We are pleased to have Dena joining the Center staff and looking forward to working with her. You can contact her at denab@gtmc.net. Welcome Dena to REAP and the Center for Rural Affairs family!

Exciting Slate of Events Planned at New Conference 
Learn new skills, network with service providers and other entrepreneurs, and discover new ideas that work for your small business and your community at the MarketPlace on February 28, 2007

The Center is sponsoring a new one-day event – MarketPlace: Opening Doors to Success. The conference will take place on Wednesday, February 28, 2007 at the Ramada Inn in Kearney, Nebraska.

Modeled after the highly successful Marketplace of Entrepreneurs held annually in North Dakota and credited with bringing new jobs and employment to that state, the MarketPlace is a great way to learn new skills, network with service providers and other entrepreneurs, and discover new ideas that work for your small business and your community.

Participants will be able to choose from 30 one-hour teach-ins arranged in six different tracks. Tracks include financing, marketing, business development, community capacity, agriculture, and policy and trends.

From the ABCs of Financing to Community Roadmaps to Success, the program is filled with a wide variety of enticing sessions. Teach-ins will be offered on how the new farm bill affects rural development and conservation and beginning farmers. We’ll look at rural tourism opportunities and the latest efforts in direct marketing as well.

An exhibit hall will feature up to 50 participant booths. “Experts” on subjects such as taxes, accounting, legal issues, and technology will be available throughout the exhibit hall to answer questions one-on-one. Abundant time and opportunities have been built into the schedule for networking.

The day will kick off and conclude with presentations by Terry Whipple, an energetic, inspirational entrepreneur from Wisconsin. At noon, Chuck Hassebrook, the Center’s Executive Director, will share an inspirational address on the rural America. In between will be refreshments, learning, networking, professional development, and a good bit of fun. The conference begins at 8:00 a.m. and concludes at 5:30 p.m.

Find out more about this exciting event, MarketPlace: Opening Doors to Success. The cost for attending the conference is $25 until February 7, $50 thereafter. Exhibit space is available for $45. Sponsorship opportunities are also available.

Contact: Kathie Starkweather, kathies@cfra.org, 402.687.2103 x 1014 or Monica Braun, mbraun@alltel.net or 402.643.2673 for more information.

Election Shifts Congressional Ag Leadership to Midwest

The election put two Midwesterners in charge of developing the new farm bill.

That gives us a chance to cap payments to mega farms and reinvest the savings in creating a future in rural America. But that opportunity will be realized only if rural people demand change.

Minnesota Representative Collin Peterson will chair the House Agriculture Committee. Iowa Senator Tom Harkin, a leading proponent of conservation and rural development, will chair the Senate Committee.

Most significant, neither chair is from a cotton or rice state. In the past, cotton-state committee chairs have taken an “over my dead body” approach to payment limitations.

Agricultural and rural policy is less partisan than regional. Iowa Republican Chuck Grassley and North Dakota Democrat Byron Dorgan are the leading proponents of payment limitations. And Mississippi Republican Thad Cochran and Arkansas Democrat Blanche Lincoln are the leading Senate opponents.

Payment limitations are the pivotal issue in the farm bill. Without them, farm programs fuel family farm demise. And there is little money to invest in rural development, beginning farmers, conservation, and value added agriculture programs.

Payment limitations are a “win-win” solution. They make farm programs work better for family farms as they free up money to invest in creating a future for all of rural America.

But today federal policy is undermining rural America by failing to invest in our future and instead subsidizing mega farms to take over agriculture. There are practical strategies that can revitalize rural America if we invest in them. Payment limitations are the key to making that happen.

But change won’t come easily. Three things must happen.

First, congressional supporters of payment limitations must fight with resolve. Opponents won in the past by promising to block any farm bill that included payment limitations. Our representatives must show equal resolve by promising to block any farm bill that destroys family farming and fails to invest in our communities.

We cannot afford another bill that undermines rural America. More money distributed in a manner that destroys family farming is not the solution to the problems of rural America.

Second, farm leaders and members of Congress must come together across party and regional lines to develop farm and rural legislation that works for all regions. Cotton and rice producers have legitimate concerns. Without adjustments, payment limitations would affect their farms at far fewer acres than other farms. There are practical ways to calibrate payment limitations to make them equitable for all regions. They must be pursued.

Finally, we must do our job as citizens. Most of our representatives will only stand strong if we demand it. Now is our best chance in over a decade. It’s time to act.

Agree or disagree? Send your opinions or comments to Chuck Hassebrook, 402.687.2103 x 1018 or chuckh@cfra.org.

FEATURE ARTICLE:

Top 10 Reasons Rural Community Development Is So Hard to DO!
For the past three years, this newsletter has carried a monthly column by Michael Holton focused on rural community revitalization. Some articles referred to community development successes, while others related various struggles that come with the territory in community development. This month, Michael takes his experiences and insights and defines the top 10 reasons rural community development is so difficult to accomplish.

1. People Don’t Understand What Community Development Is

Community leaders and resource providers tend to put characteristics in with community development that constrict the definition. Often it is confused with other development ideas such as economic development, infrastructure, schools, and business development.

Community development is all of these things, but not packaged separately. Contrary to the belief that any one of these can fix or solve problems that need to be addressed, it takes all of them to complete the puzzle we call community development.

The definition of community development can be stated as, “The process of improving the social, economic, and cultural conditions of a village or small town.” Even this definition may come up short, but at least it addresses other facets of what the community is all about.

2. Differences between Rural and Urban

Agencies and funding sources often try to address community development as if what worked for urban areas will also work for rural areas. This very seldom happens as they are two different beasts. Why refer to them as beasts? Because urban and rural communities have lives of their own.

Where do we separate the two so that we can all grasp the differences? Maybe we don’t have to. This is an area of understanding and perception, so it all leads back to the fundamental, yet simple, conclusion that rural is anything urban is not.

While this is easy for some of us who live in smaller rural townships (less than 2,000 in population), it is not as easy for agencies addressing development and providing funding. Fair or not, this becomes one of the reasons why community development in rural areas is so difficult.

3. Understanding Community Gate Keepers

Rural communities are made up of a social group called the gate keepers. This may prove to be one of the most difficult aspects of community development in small rural towns.

Gate keepers are usually people who have lived in the community for years, often clear back to the time when small rural communities were thriving. They made a living and prospered while raising their children. The community was and is still good to them. They do not want to see new community development come in and take away what they have acquired.

These people often resist big changes with statements like, “We don’t need that!” or “It was good enough for me when I was growing up.” The key to dealing with the gate keeper plight is to involve them from the beginning in the discussion and work.

4. Change Is Not Comfortable

Like the gate keeper mentality, change is also a barrier to community development. Comfort levels and routine are easier to understand for most community members. Large-scale change is uncomfortable and often hard work.

When you are dealing with buildings, you may have destruction and construction going on all around the community that disrupts routine. When you are dealing with people and politics, elections bring new leadership, but they also may bring change to the community.

New business brings competition which communities may view as healthy, but to existing business that must now compete for the shrinking rural dollar, it is not. Communities are made up of people first and structures second. Change must be addressed in those terms.

5. Parochial Attitudes

You hear the term parochial brought up in discussions regarding rural communities, even with those trying to work together regionally. Many people do not know what parochial means or why it is used in the context of community development. Our definition refers to small rural communities being insular or narrowly restricted in focus or scope.

Parochial attitudes in small rural communities address the ability for these areas to shut themselves off from the outside. Communities, particularly small rural communities in the Midwest, have the notion that they have always managed to do it on their own, and they don’t need any outside help. It is this independent desire of the people that is reflected in local institutions and their way of doing business.

The problem with this attitude today is that small rural communities cannot do it on their own as we transition from a local to a global economy. This reflects change and upheaval in the traditional sense of economic and social development.

6. Lack of Resources and Capacity

Due to depopulation, the changing face of agriculture, and dwindling businesses in towns, the ability to find what we need locally has diminished. We are forced to look to outside resource agencies for help and to find the resources we once found locally.

Viewing this in economic terms creates a bleak picture, but not one without hope. Choices become clearer when we understand the realities. We may still need to buy products out of town, and we may need to ask for help from outside agencies. But when we make our own community development choices, we can strengthen the local economy based upon the diversity our choices bring.

7. Negative Attitudes

It easier to be an art critic than it is to be an artist. In small rural community development, we all know what we will hear from many of the residents of a town. It is nearly always negative and destructive.

I often say in meetings in small rural communities that I can find out everything that is wrong with the community in one hour at the local coffee shop. It takes me much longer to get people to talk about what is good about their community.

We need to focus on positive contributions of the community and its people to the world as we know it. Asset-Based Community Development (ABCD) is an approach that works well in identifying positive attributes of our communities and starts the conversation in a positive direction. We will discuss this concept and practice later.

8. Lack of Participation across the Generations

This question is always brought up in two ways. The lack of volunteers for community events causes an outcry, yet youths and senior citizens complain of not being asked to participate in a meaningful way. I often hear, “Why should I voice my opinion, they don’t care anyway?” This is brought up by both young people and the elderly.

Small communities talk about the crisis in the dwindling number of volunteers for special events and the burnout that occurs with the volunteers they do have. So why are the elderly and youth left out? Communication is a big key to crossing generations and finding a meaningful way to include all of the community rather than a few overworked individuals. An inclusive, open communication process benefits all.

9. Purpose of Existence

Community identity is often clouded by confusion over the true motive for the community’s existence. Every small town in America, rural or not, has an identity and a purpose. This is part of the culture that is passed from one generation to the next. Communities have forgotten why they exist, and when change has altered that reason, they have not learned to adapt to the change.

History plays a large role in establishing the purpose and ultimately the pride we feel towards our hometown. The key to survival is to not live in the past. The truth is that history is not static; it is dynamic.

We are making history in our communities everyday. History is the change we make to our communities to make them better. In the end these changes serve a purpose for the community’s very existence.

10. Leadership Capacity

Of all of the factors and indicators of small town demise, I see the lack of leadership as the biggest of all. We are changing, and leadership is needed to address these conditions. The very definition of change is the ability to bring people and ideas together without coercion or force.

I heard a leader in one of the rural communities I work with say to me, “Why should I take leadership training, I am already a leader!” What this said to the community was that he was unwilling to lead the town in a positive direction. There is untapped leadership in every community, and one of our goals should be looking for those resources.

WHAT CAN WE DO TO address these problem areas? Discussion Guides will prompt dialogue

From mid-December and in 2007, the Center for Rural Affairs will be publishing discussion guides and helpful tools to use in working with your community in asking the right questions. These publications will be available on our website for you to download and begin working through the discussions with your community.

The publications will also be sent to anyone requesting them. The discussion guides consist of two parts. One is a list of questions on such subjects as volunteer recruitment, leadership, agricultural involvement, beautification, history, rural culture, schools, churches, hospitals, youth, and others. The other part is a facilitator’s manual to empower community leaders to help with the discussions.

Once communication and dialogue begins, real change can occur. With a little help we can all be part of our community’s development. Maybe then we can create a real chance for the vigorous, prosperous life we dream of in small rural communities across the country.

Contact: Michael L. Holton, michaellh@cfra.org or 402.687.2103 x 1015 for more information. 

Editor: Marie Powell, mariep@cfra.org