effective rural governance - rupri.orgeffective governance is something quite different. effective...

??Effective Rural Governance What Is It Does It Matter

Written byNancy Stark, DirectorRural Governance Initiative

A program ofRGI

Table of Contents

What is Effective Governance?...........................................................................1

Why All the Fuss About Governance?..............................................................5

Key Principles of Effective Rural Governance................................................7

Research Questions for the RGI.......................................................................26

Endnotes...............................................................................................................27

This framing paper defines effective gov-ernance, explains why governance issuddenly in the spotlight, details and

illustrates eight key principles of effective ruralgovernance, and poses questions that groundthe Rural Governance Initiative.

In the medically underserved region of north-ern Idaho, working families now receive qualityhealth care at a regional center staffed byphysicians, dentists, and mental health profes-sionals recruited to the area.

In California's rural, multi- cultural North Coast, a four-county region nolonger supported byresource-based industriesis now sprouting first-generation entrepreneurs.

In a northern Maine region plagued by popula-tion loss, community lead-ers now understand theregion's unique economicclusters and are buildingbusiness development linkages across theCanadian border.

And, in a Minnesota region devastated by tim-ber and mining industry declines, rural peoplenow profit from the region's one-stop workertraining resource and new private sectorinvestments.

Why are these encouraging events occurring insuch economically challenged rural places? Towhat can we attribute these improved social andeconomic outcomes? What are the underlyinglessons for rural leaders and policymakers?

In spring 2004, the Rural Policy ResearchInstitute (RUPRI) launched a new initiative, theRural Governance Initiative (RGI), to investi-gate these very questions. The RGI seeks tounderstand how rural people and institutionsmake decisions about their collective well being,in other words, the process of governance. TheRGI’s goal is to strengthen the decision-makingprocess in rural communities, especially instruggling regions.

The RGI's work thus far suggests that answers tothese questions don't lie with a powerful fundingprogram, a novel development strategy, or anexceptional individual. In these places, as in manyothers, the push towards prosperity comes from a

shift in governance—explicitly,shifts towards more effectivegovernance.

What is the RGI talkingabout? Is governance simplythe latest vogue in academicand political circles? Is it com-munity development repack-aged? The RGI thinks not.

Governance isn't a novel term for somethingrural communities already do, nor is it an fancysynonym for community development. Thewealth of community development research andpractice certainly informs the RGI's thinking, buteffective governance is something quite different.

Effective governance is an amalgam of specificpractices that make the difference between stag-nating and flourishing communities. And,because effective governance is so inexorablylinked to rural prosperity, the RGI must explaingovernance to community leaders, practitioners,and policymakers in understandable, andactionable, terms.

What is Effective Governance?

Effective Rural Governance: What Is It? Does It Matter? 1

Effective governance is an amalgam of specific practices that make the

difference between stagnatingand flourishing communities.

2 Effective Rural Governance: What Is It? Does It Matter?

Exactly What is EffectiveGovernance?

“Perhaps our greatest challenge is to create and teach a new civic ethos thatemphasizes and values sustained participa-tion, not sporadic and episodic participa-tion. The real test of the change in civicculture will be sustainability in the engage-ment process.”— Donald Lacy, Associate Professor,

Ohio State University1

Governance is theprocess of making andcarrying out decisions.In its most commonuse, governance refersto the managementpractices of govern-ments, including cities,counties, special districts, school systems,regional governments, Indian reservations, andstates. Especially in Anglo-Saxon countries,good governance denotes efficiency, effective-ness, good-value-for-the-money, and use ofalternative administrative mechanisms.2

Government is the most recognized form ofgovernance, but it is not the whole story.Effective governance incorporates a variety ofdecision-making and implementation practicesby a wide range of people, organizations, andinstitutions beyond government: nonprofitgroups, faith-based organizations, communityfoundations, citizen alliances, community col-leges, business associations, and others.Moreover, effective governance incorporatescommunity building: processes that developleadership, enhance social capital and personalnetworks, and strengthen a community's

capacity for improvement.3

The RGI sees governance as thismuch broader, more inclusiveprocess—as a governance prac-tice, not just a government sys-tem. The distinction is more than

semantics. When people lookexclusively to government to make

critical decisions about their collective well-being, the decision-making process is flawed.And, when citizens put all of the blame forbad choices on the backs of government offi-cials, they are disregarding the decision-makingpower and responsibility of other people andorganizations, including themselves.

The Rural Governance Initiative is a program of the Rural Policy Research Institute(www.rupri.org) based at the University of Missouri-Columbia. RUPRI conducts policy-

relevant research and facilitates public dialogue to help policymakers understand the rural impacts ofpublic policies and programs. Many policies that are not explicitly “rural policies” nevertheless havesubstantial implications for rural places. RUPRI's rural efforts focus on poverty, health, entrepreneur-ship, telecommunications, welfare reform, community informatics, and other policy issues.

RUPRI is forming informal partnerships with several organizations to move the RGI's work forward.Current partners include CFED (www.cfed.org), a national nonprofit organization focused on expand-ing economic opportunity, and two policy programs of the Aspen Institute (www.aspeninst.org)focused on community building and improved prosperity: the Roundtable on Community Change andthe Community Strategies Group.

The Rural Governance Initiative

Government is the mostrecognized form of governance,but it is not the whole story.

RGI

7

6

5

4

8

3

21

This deeper, more far-reaching process of effective governance has three major components:

Collaboration

For example, the historic regional joint poweragreement among one county, two cities, anIndian tribe, and a school district in northernIdaho launched the Boundary Regional HealthCenter. Area leaders created a second regionalpower agreement focused on environmentaland natural resource issues. Two-thirds ofBoundary County is national forest land andnatural resource issues areespecially divisive.

Sustained citizenengagement

A case in point is the dia-logue among CaliforniaNorth Coast's tribal, envi-ronmental, business,entrepreneurial, educa-tional, and communityhealth leaders (politicallyleft, right, and center) thatenvisioned a different future and are now alter-ing the region's development agenda. RedwoodCoast Rural Action's (RCRA) four countiescover an area larger than Massachusetts. Yet,RCRA is forging fresh partnerships amongbusiness, education, health, environmental, andcultural interests and generating new supportsfor entrepreneurs.

Leveraging regional resources

For instance, an analysis of regional competi-tive advantages broadened northern Maine'sdevelopment agenda into New Brunswick,Canada. As Aroostook County examined itsregional economic clusters—forest products,agriculture, tourism, information technology,and precision manufacturing—new U.S.-Canadian business prospects emerged.

Drawing on observations thus far, the RGIbelieves that there are eight key principles ofeffective rural governance within these threemajor components of effective governance:

Collaboration Crossing sectors (public, private, and nonprofit)Crossing political boundaries and recognizingregions

Sustained citizen engagementWelcoming new voices (especially under-represented individuals and youth)

Visioning a different future(bottom-up process)

Leveraging regional resourcesAnalyzing region's competitiveadvantages (focus onstrengths, identify clusters)Strengthening competenciesof local elected officialsEngaging key intermediaries Investing local capital

The Rural Governance Initiative believes thateffective governance builds the foundation toengage disparate people, spark good ideas, andgenerate concrete results. It does the groundwork that complements the good work ofentrepreneurial development, community infra-structure improvements, artistic endeavors, orother initiatives. Moreover, effective governanceprovides the glue to coalesce and sustainachievements over the long-term.

A wide range of geographic, economic, politi-cal, cultural, and demographic conditions existacross rural America. Certainly, some ruralcommunities are privileged by strong amenities,proximity to a metropolitan area, etc., whileothers are not. But, all rural regions are gov-erned in one way or another and all canstrengthen their governance system.


The Rural GovernanceInitiative believes that

effective governance builds thefoundation to engage disparate people, spark good ideas, and

generate concrete results.


Drawing its experiences and observations, theRGI aims to:

research the relationship between how deci-sions are made (and with whom) and whatresults are achieved in the long-term;validate how governance impacts economic and social outcomes;facilitate governance conversations among community leaders, practitioners, and policy-makers;

disseminate guidance on effective local/regional governance practices; andpropose public policies that encourage and support effective governance practices.

The remainder of this framing paper explainswhy governance is suddenly in the spotlight,details and illustrates eight key principles ofeffective rural governance, and poses ques-tions that ground the RGI.

“What information are gover-nance decisions based on?What information should

they be based on? Who decides? How dounprecedented conversations that resultfrom regional collaboration change the content and flow of information? What'sthe impact on community decision-making?These are the important governance questions.”— Shanna Ratner, Principal, Yellow Wood

Associates, St. Albans, Vermont

Governance is suddenly frontand center; it was featuredat the Federal Reserve Bankof Kansas City's 2004 con-ference, in a major compila-tion edited by three well-respected rural economists,4during state legislative ses-sions focused on govern-mental efficiencies, and atinternational gatherings ofthe Organization forEconomic Cooperation andDevelopment.Why all the attention on gover-nance? Why now? The RGI sees four explana-tions for the recent spotlight on governance.

The first explanation is rising pressures on ruralgovernments and their leaders. More than ever, part-time elected officials are shouldered withdevolved administrative and financial responsi-bilities and minimal (or no) professional sup-port. Some rural governments receive manage-ment support from regional developmentorganizations (RDOs) (see page 22), but RDOsstruggle in the same environment of increasingadministrative burdens and declining resources.Therefore, most small-town officials serve thepublic with scant or no research staff,

grantwriters, technical assistance funding bases,or economic analysts.5 They manage risk, domore with less, and yet “get no respect.”Perhaps this explains why, even at the state andfederal levels, government is no longer the pri-mary destination of choice for top public policyschool graduates.6

The second explanation is flaws in the current gov-erning system. Globalization and industrialrestructuring are shifting the economies of U.S.regions. Everywhere, there are signs that ruralcommunities would benefit from greater collab-

oration, citizen participation,and regional analysis. Yet,our current system of gov-erning rarely supports suchapproaches.

Most state and federal fund-ing operates in narrow, pro-grammatic silos that prohibitor discourage collaborationsacross sectors and jurisdic-tions. The combination of

program-specific eligibility andreporting requirements, and limited funds, cre-ates barriers to cooperation. Thus, rural com-munities act unilaterally, with one community'seconomic development plan pitted againstanother. Moreover, public programs expectswift, measurable outcomes, despite the factthat meaningful change requires time andpatient resources.

The third explanation is spotty, but heartening, ruralgovernance innovations introduced by state govern-ments and philanthropic organizations. Forexample, the Maine legislature recently enacted anew law to promote intergovernmental coopera-tion, cost savings, and efficiencies. The act will,among other things, help local and regional


Why all the Fuss About Governance?

Everywhere, there aresigns that rural

communities would benefit from greater collaboration, citizen participation, and

regional analysis.


entities design and implement collaborativeefforts that result in improved services or costsavings.

On the philanthropic side, several major foun-dations (such as Blandin, McKnight, andKellogg) and some community funders (suchas Cleveland Foundation) are putting theirmoney behind collaboration.Minnesota's newRegional EconomicDevelopment Group,supported by the Blandinand McKnightFoundations, is an ambi-tious experiment in newgovernance. The Grouptests the idea that morethan 30 state and regionalorganizations can aligntheir principles, efforts,and resources to supportof region-based economicdevelopment projects.8 Similarly, the recentW.K. Kellogg Entrepreneurship DevelopmentSystems for Rural America Project competi-tion, managed by CFED, required that appli-cants establish working collaboratives.9

Finally, the fourth explanation is an acknowledg-ment that governance issues and relationships aretremendously complex. It's one thing to suggest

that governments and organizations collaborate, but quite another thing to make ithappen. In addition, collaboration can beexpensive. Anyone who has ever served on acommittee or a governing body knows thatcooperative strategies require considerabletime and resources. Finally, collaboration canpresent new challenges with respect to man-

agement, accountability andcitizenship. It may beharder to exercise con-trol or ensure accounta-bility when governmentis part of an interdepen-dent network.10

These explanations forspotlighting governanceclarify why RUPRI—anorganization focused onanalyzing public policyimpacts on rural people

and places—established aRural Governance Initiative. They also under-score a recent commentary by CommunityDevelopment Economist Steven Deller:

“In dealing with increasingly complexpublic issues and ever tightening resources,public officials and concerned citizensmust look to governance alternatives andnot tie themselves to traditional ways ofdoing things.”11

In dealing with increasinglycomplex public issues and ever

tightening resources, public officialsand concerned citizens must look to governance alternatives and not tie themselves to traditional

ways of doing things.

Which governance practices make thedifference between stagnating andflourishing communities? How can

these practices be adopted by rural leaders andsupported by state and federal policymakers?

Drawing on its observations thus far, the RGIoffers the following key principles of effectivegovernance. The eight principles are groupedunder three major themes: collaboration, sus-tained citizen engagement, and leveragingregional resources.

We direct this guidance to a range of ruraldevelopment practitioners and policymakers,including:

local leaders (formal and informal, govern-mental and non-governmental);local and regional institutions (public schools, community colleges, and hospitals);helping organizations and agencies (economicdevelopment districts, state agencies,Cooperative Extension Service, and statemunicipal and county associations);funders; andstate and federal legislators and executives.

The RGI trusts that guidance on effective gov-ernance will lead to stronger rural developmentpractices “in the dirt” and smarter policies “onthe hill.”

Collaboration “We know that with the reduction in fund-ing and the sophistication required fromexisting funding sources, collaboration willincrease our chances of successfullyaddressing the many issues that face com-munities today.”— LeAnn Simmons, United Way of

Treasure Valley, Idaho12

Principle 1: Crossing sectors

Why is the practice of collaboration across sec-tors universally endorsed but rarely accom-plished? Because it is very challenging work.

Community-based collaboration is the processby which citizens, agencies, organizations, andbusinesses make formal, sustained commit-ments to work together to accomplish a shared

3

2

1

4

7

6

5

8

Collaboration Crossing sectors (public, private, and non-profit)Crossing political boundaries and recog-nizing regions

Sustained Citizen Engagement

Welcoming new voices (especially under-represented individuals and youth)Visioning a different future (bottom-upprocess)

Leveraging Regional Resources

Analyzing a region's competitive advan-tages (focus on strengths and identifyclusters)Strengthening competencies of localelected officialsEngaging key intermediaries Investing local capital

Eight Key Principles ofEffective Rural Governance


Key Principles of Effective Rural Governance


vision.13 In the language of partneringarrangements, collaboration is the highest andmost difficult level of working with others—more formal than networking, cooperation,and coordination.14 But in many rural regions,even networking across sectors can be tough.

The abyss between rural elected officials andcommunity builders seems particularly wide.(The term “community builders” refers to anynon-governmental individual and/or group,formal or informal, working to strengthen thecommunity or region.15) Local governmentsmay engage with community builders in waysthat range from undermining, to neutral, tosupportive.16 Likewise, community builders mayinteract with local governments in manners thatvary from confrontational, to neutral, to collab-orative. It seems rare that the reciprocal rela-tionships are both supportive and collaborative.

Associations between the sectors are so vital,yet tricky, that the Roundtable on CommunityChange at the Aspen Institute launched a dis-crete research and practice initiative on thetopic. Over the next two years, theRoundtable's new project on LocalGovernment and Community Building will col-lect and disseminate information about the pre-requisites to successful engagement betweencommunity builders and local government.17 Toencourage community builders that local gov-ernment matters, can be trusted in efforts toimprove community outcomes, and should notbe ignored, the Roundtable observes:

“Beyond financing, local government hasthe capacity to affect low-income commu-nities in a myriad of ways through its pub-lic policies, rules and regulations, discre-tionary decision-making authority, purchas-ing and investment decisions, relationshipswith regional authorities, and so on.”18

In much the same way, the RGI is pushinglocal elected leaders to cross the institutionalfault lines between public, private, and non-profit constituencies to acknowledge that nocommunity is well-governed by a few highlyvocal individuals or groups, especially if thoseindividuals are all elected officials. Likewise,the RGI hopes to persuade policymakers toreduce the narrow, programmatic silos thatprohibit or discourage collaboration acrosssectors and to institute new policies that facili-tate cross-sector partnerships.

Cross-Sector Collaboration ResolvesSevere Health Hazard

In early 2000, the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) designated a large part of Jasper County, Missouri as a FederalSuperfund Site due to dangerous levels of leadcontamination. Immediately, business leadersand elected officials realized that the designationcould have disastrous consequences for eco-nomic development and, most importantly, thehealth of local children. To avert this disaster,Jasper County residents set aside their narrow-mindedness and collaborated across sectors.As a result, today blood lead levels among thecounty's children are in the safe zone, below thenational average.

In the early 1900s, Jasper County was theheart of the largest lead mining region in theworld. A century later, the county discoveredthe price for those excesses—lead and otherheavy metals deposited on the land. The long-term effects of childhood lead poisoning aresevere: reduced IQ, learning disabilities, hear-ing loss, reduced height, and hyperactivity.Excessive lead exposure can cause coma, con-vulsion, and even death. These were risks thecitizens couldn't take.

Case Study

The county's response was immediate andinnovative. The county commissioner estab-lished an Environmental Task Force of Jasperand (neighboring) Newton Counties to provideguidance and leadership in resolving the prob-lem, with help from the federal government.The 25-member task force included a mix ofpublic and private individuals: county commis-sioners, mayors, EPA and Missouri Departmentof Natural Resources representatives, businessleaders, school officials, health officials, con-cerned citizens, and a con-sulting engineer.

The diverse grouplooked at all of theenvironmental issuesaffecting both countiesand developed one ofthe first county-levelenvironmental masterplans in the nation. Oneinnovative solution, latercommended by EPA, was to encapsulate leadwaste in the roadbed of a local highway. Thetask force also designed a creative public aware-ness campaign to educate citizens about thedangers of lead. It included coloring books,“no-lead” Girl Scout badges, model school cur-riculum, and more.

“The effort succeeded,” says former JasperCounty Commissioner Anna Ruth Crampton,“because we set local and territorial issuesaside. We concentrated on the larger environ-mental problems threatening the welfare ofJasper and Newton County citizens.”

Adapted from Jasper County's winning application to the 2004 National Association ofCounties Caucus Courthouse Award.

Principle 2: Collaboration across political boundaries

“Few of the problems that face rural commu-nities respect jurisdictional boundaries. Thetruth is, few rural communities have sufficientresources and population to attract competitive-ly priced infrastructure, facilities and services.Therefore, individual communities must joinwith others in creating regional approaches to

development. Likewise, it onlymakes sense for govern-ments to allow and encour-age such regional coopera-tion.”—The Nebraska CityDeclaration issued on October 18, 2002, fol-lowing the Summit onRural America

Across rural America, it often seems thatfences circumscribe communities' politicalborders, blocking collaboration with neigh-boring towns, cities, or counties. Be it ancientgrudges from sports competitions, resentmentover business location decisions, or newdesires to block off the growing immigrantpopulation, many rural communities thwartcollaboration across political boundaries.

Ironically, this single-minded attitude is likelyfeeding the fires of state campaigns for con-solidation among cities and counties. A smallcommunity's best defense against coerced con-solidation may well be voluntary cooperation,especially efficient use of limited resources.

There are legitimate reasons why towns, citiesor counties act unilaterally. But, in an era ofdevolved public responsibilities, government


It makes sense to collaborateacross political boundaries because so many critical

economic and social issues overflow a community's borders.


cut-backs, and limited philanthropic resources,neighboring communities need to work together.This is especially true for isolated rural com-munities. For services that are capital intensive,such as public works, equipment sharing acrosscommunities can save money. Economies ofscale also exist in manyback office servicessuch as dispatching andpayroll.19

It makes sense to col-laborate across politicalboundaries because somany critical economic and social issues over-flow a community's borders. Economic devel-opment, in particular, is most effectivelyaccomplished on a regional basis, starting withan analysis of the region's unique competitiveadvantages (see page 18).

Finally, collaboration leverages political power.Individual towns, acting on their own, don'thave sufficient political clout to affect policy.But a region of communities teaming togethercan prompt change.

The stark reality of scarce resources oftentimesforces contentious neighbors to work together.For example, the state of New Mexico, theNavajo Nation, and its neighboring city ofGallup are now collaborating over water rightsto the San Juan River. What finally broughtpeople together was the dawning awareness ofscarcity. When the San Juan flowed abundantly,the question of first rights was irrelevant. Butwhen a severe drought hit in 2002, attitudesstarted to shift. In commenting on the watersettlement, a consultant to Gallup said:

“It's a vast sea change in thinking on bothsides of the cultural divide between Indianand non-Indian. It says that we have acommon future, that we have a commondirection to go in, that your doing well isimportant for me to do well.”20

The challenge to collaboration across politicalboundaries is keeping place in space—pro-moting regional strategies without sacrificinglocal integrity. As RUPRI Director CharlesFluharty explains:

“A community's unique cul-ture and context mustremain nested within thenew regional approach.While our future must notbe constrained by the per-spective of an 1860 sur-veyor…the cultural con-

text and community framingwhich inform these myopias are also astorehouse of great wisdom, passion, andcommitment.”21

Collaboration Among Towns ImprovesMunicipal Services

The Towns of Mapleton, Castle Hill, andChapman save capital equipment expenses andprovide more efficient, better-staffed servicesbecause they collaborate across politicalboundaries. These three small towns in ruralAroostook County, Maine have a long historyof sharing services. Beginning with a coopera-tive fire department, the towns periodicallysplit services and equipment as a matter ofconvenience.

But in the mid-1970s, the collaborationmatured into a more formalized, long-term arrangement. The towns agreed to construct amunicipal building to house general govern-ment administration and the fire and highwaydepartments. Local officials drafted a formal joint ownership agreement that incorporatedlong-term maintenance and repairs for thestructure.

Collaboration leverages politicalpower...a region of communities

teaming together can prompt change.

Case Study

In the mid-1980s, town leaders established amileage-based formula for sharing highwayexpenses. Over a 12-year period, these incre-mental efforts led to a comprehensive inter-local agreement among the three towns thatremains in effect today. Eighty percent of thetowns' annual budgets are now cost-shared.

The inter-local agreement establishes a formalrelationship among the towns by defining thefollowing: each town's responsibilities to theagreement, cost-sharing formulas, activities tobe shared (nearly all services), and the processand financial obligations associated with joiningor withdrawing from theagreement. The agree-ment works becausegoals for services aresimilar among thetowns, trust has devel-oped, local officials areequally dedicated to theagreement, and there are clear geographicadvantages (all towns are abutting).

As a result of the inter-local agreement, thethree towns save taxpayer dollars, have a moreefficient and better trained staff, and maintainless capital equipment (especially plow trucks,graders, and fire trucks). The collaboration is apromising model for other small communities.

Information provided by John Edgecomb, TownManager for Mapleton, Castle Hill and Chapman

Scarce Resources Inspire WinningCollaboration

The reality of scarce resources pushed severalnorthern Idaho communities and a NativeAmerican tribe to cross sectors and politicalboundaries. Local leaders created two regionaljoint power agreements: one to promote eco-

nomic health and another to work on environ-mental and natural resource issues. Agreementparticipants include Boundary County, the Cityof Bonners Ferry, the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho,the City of Moyie Springs, and BoundaryCounty School District #101.

By joining collectively, the region has achievedthe following outcomes:

Completely rebuilt the downtown business corridor. Added new concrete streets, side-walks, lighting, landscaping, storm drains,ADA access.

Reconstructed and widenedthe main highway into Bonners Ferry toinclude sidewalks, lighting,curbs, and gutters.

Secured funding to con-nect two separate

business centers with apedestrian underpass.Secured funding to build an international gateway visitor center, landscaped parking,and rest area in the downtown corridor ofBonners Ferry.Launched construction of a new regional public high school and renovated and mod-ernized the regional junior high/middleschool and all elementary schools.Established a new Boundary Regional Health Center and successfully recruitedphysicians, dentists, and mental health profes-sionals to the area.Contracted with EPA to complete the area's Total Maximum Daily Loads study require-ments, as required by the federal Clean WaterAct.Successfully avoided including Kootenai River Burbot on the Endangered Species Act(ESA) list by working collaboratively to estab-lish recovery efforts outside of the ESA.Because two-thirds of Boundary County isnational forest land, the ESA is a big issue.


The stark reality of scarceresources oftentimes forces contentious

neighbors to work together.

Case Study


Collaboration Along the New RiverCorridor

In 1997, New River community leaders in themountains of North Carolina, Virginia, andWest Virginia came together to identify criticalissues and develop a shared vision of workingtogether for the future of the river. Thisunprecedented regional effort was sparked bythe Clinton Administration's AmericanHeritage Rivers Initiative. The Initiative wasdesigned to help Americans protect theirwaterways and revitalize their communitiesthrough natural resource protection, culturalresource preservation, and economic revital-ization. The New had a history of river enthu-siasts, but this was the first time that citizensjoined together, across a broad region, to workfor something positive.

Leaders set out to build support for nominat-ing the New as an American Heritage River.The “heritage” part was easy—the New isthought to be the oldest river in NorthAmerica and second oldest in the world, pre-dating the formation of the AppalachianMountains and the Atlantic Ocean. But theorganizing work was tough. Over late nightsuppers, early morning breakfasts, and kitchentable talks throughout the region, local leaders met, “broke bread,” told stories, “swappedlies,” and planned for the future of the riverthey love. Residents from all walks of lifecame together: economic developers, conser-vationists, farmers, tourism leaders, artists, eld-ers, and young people.

The New River nomination competed with125 other rivers across the country. Electedofficials from both parties endorsed the desig-nation. Dozens of letters of support from cit-izens were submitted, along with hundreds ofsignatures on petitions that had been circulat-ed at regional community festivals. Creative

writing students wrote stories, poems, andessays that painted a literary picture of lifealong the New River. New River leaders wererelentless in their pursuit. In the end, the Newwas one of 14 designated rivers.

Since 1998, more than 2,000 citizens andnumerous elected officials from 21 counties inthree states have worked to develop andimplement the New River work plan. Morethan $20 million in public and private fundshave been secured to support sustainable agri-culture projects, purchase conservation ease-ments, plant buffers along the river andstreams, clean up and restore degraded mines,develop riverfront parks and visitor centers,promote downtown revitalization and heritagetourism development, collect oral histories,and develop youth corps programs.

For more information, contact The ConservationFund: www.conservationfund.org.

Sustained Citizen EngagementPrinciple 3: Welcoming new voices

“I see so many rural communities stuck ina circular form of logic. If the same peoplekeep doing the same thing, they are likely toget the same result. The problem is, howdo you get different people? How do youget different ideas? How do you get thecommunity to embrace these new ideas?”— Terry Waugh, Nebraska Rural Initiative22

These questions haunt many small townsacross rural America. It doesn't take a doctoraldegree in rural economics to know that betterresults rarely arise from the same people doingthe same thing. But changing the leadershipmix is tough work; it runs against the grain.There is no fail-proof formula for generatingnew leaders, be they civic leaders or electedofficials. But there's a right way to start the

Case Study

process: by welcoming new voices, especiallythose of people who have not traditionallyserved in leadership positions.

Who are the new voices in rural America?Sometimes they are newcomers who, if gen-uinely welcomed into the process, can con-tribute fresh ideas and access to new networks.Or, new voices may be people who haveresided in the region for decades, but have not(yet) volunteered their talents or been asked tocontribute their ideas. They may be “hands”that have helped, not “mouths” who have spo-ken. New voices may be African Americans orNative Americanswho are active intheir churches, tribalcouncils, and sportsleagues, but judge thetown's dominantwhite leadership asan un-welcome mat.

New voices may beartisans, musicians, pre-school teachers, and unconventional thinkerswho see economic and social issues through a different lens. These are often quiet people whoare best enlisted through one-on-one conversa-tions or small house gatherings.

New voices may be women who assist withschool or church fundraisers, but do not (yet)envision themselves as leadership material.Women start businesses at twice the rate asmen and stay in business longer.23 Certainly,rural communities are full of women who canbecome strong public entrepreneurs.

New voices may come from rural America'stremendous growth in immigrant, especiallyHispanic, populations. Most immigrants cometo the Unites States because of limited eco-nomic options in their home country. Theybring along an entrepreneurial spirit that breedsnew business ventures. That same spirit can

generate new ideas for the community's devel-opment—more ideas than before and differentideas because they originate from diverse per-spectives and backgrounds.24

A case in point is Garden City, Kansas, hometo a large meatpacking industry. At least one-third of the city's population is now immigrant,drawing from Mexico, Central and SouthAmerica, Southeast Asia, Somalia, and otherplaces. Three of the five city commission mem-bers are Hispanic, yet the town is still searchingfor new voices. Like many municipalities,Garden City hosts a formal Leadership Garden

City program designed toeducate current and futureleaders in the community. Afew years ago, the programtransitioned from focusingon individuals with positionsand connections to focusingon people with passion andconviction. As the programdirector explains:

“We weren't seeing as much change gener-ated in the community by graduates of theprogram as we wanted to. We think effec-tive leadership comes, first, from self-aware-ness and personal conviction, not positionand connections.”25

Last but not least, new voices may be youth.Rural America laments the exodus of youngpeople, yet few communities proactively engageyouth in local decision-making. Youth leadershipprograms impart skills for young people to prac-tice in their communities; however, the commonresponse to youth's presence is: “Wonderful,here is someone to sell the donuts or do thecleanup.”26 Maybe if more young people servedon official planning committees, orchestratedlocal events, and gained entrepreneurship skills,fewer youth would depart; or at least additionalyouth would return home years later to raisefamilies and perhaps start new businesses.


New voices may be people who have resided in the region for

decades, but have not (yet) volunteeredtheir talents or been asked to

contribute their ideas.


Rural youth engagement is one of four essen-tial elements of the HomeTownCompetitiveness (HTC) Program, recipient ofthe 2004 Innovative Program Award from theCommunity Development Society. HTC pro-vides a framework for rural communities tohelp them identify reachable goals and strate-gies focused on the four pillars of reversingrural decline: building leadership and commu-nity capacity, attracting young people, fosteringlocal philanthropy, and supporting entrepre-neurship. HTC is a collaborative effort of theHeartland Center for LeadershipDevelopment, the RUPRI Center for RuralEntrepreneurship, and the NebraskaCommunity Foundation.27

Another focus on youth engagement is theIntergenerational Dialogue and ActionProcess, an unusual process created by JamesGambone. An Intergenerational Dialogueevent is a one day, six hour meeting in whichpeople of all generations share their genera-tional perspectives on a community selectedissue and develop action plans for change.28

The experience allows informal leaders andnovel ideas to emerge. And, because solutionsarise from the community itself, they are wellembraced by the majority of residents.29

New Voices Mend Political Fences

An interview with newly elected Kuna, IdahoCouncilmember Zella Johnson, former presi-dent of Kuna ACT (Alliance for a CohesiveCommunity Team), a grassroots citizens group.“Every community has its issues and ours wasthat communication was terrible. The commu-nity was divided. You were on one side oranother. There were no synergistic qualities tothe community whatsoever.

And there was no public input. The city coun-cil and the mayor pretty much did as theypleased. They would say, 'this is what we'regoing to do and that's the way it is.' Peoplebecame angry because they didn't feel theyhad a voice in any of the decisions. So a groupof us thought the people needed more of asay as to what was going on in their communi-ty and they needed to buck the system a littlebit. That's when we organized a study circle.

(A study circle is a group of 8-12 people fromdifferent backgrounds and viewpoints whomeet several times to talk about an issue. In astudy circle, everyone has an equal voice andpeople try to understand each other's views.They do not have to agree with each other.The idea is to share concerns and look forways to make things better. A facilitator helpsthe group focus on different views and makessure the discussion goes well.)

I would say that study circle was the reason Idecided to join the town council. When I sat inthe circle, I realized that I wasn't the only per-son disgruntled with the current government. Ididn't think for a million years that I would everrun for office, but I could see that we needednew leadership and a change in the community.We needed to have more democracy.

I feel that the dynamics of Kuna—and howwe communicate—have completely changeddue to the study circle process. There's just adifferent level of communication, a differentfeeling in the community. Now, if there arebig issues—school reform, comprehensiveplans, economic development—people say,'let's take it to study circles.'”

Kuna is Idaho's fastest growing small city. Wejust passed a school bond for two new elemen-tary schools and there is much talk about howto set the new boundaries and age of enrollingstudents. The school superintendent very wise-ly said, “let's take it to study circles. Our

Case Study

democratic process has made Kuna a healthier,happier, and more collaborative community.”

Adapted from an interview published in Focus onStudy Circles, Fall 2004, Study Circles ResourceCenter. More information about study circles is avail-able at www.studycircles.org.

A Unique Response to Rural Youth “BrainDrain”

The small town of Elsa, Texas is located 15miles north of the Texas-Mexican border inthe Rio Grande Valley. For generations, thisregion has been isolated geographically andsocially. In the early 1920s, real estate anddevelopment companies came into the area,creating what is still known as the “MagicValley.” They built an economy dependent onuneducated and poorly paid Mexican laborers.

The regional Edcouch-Elsa High School (E-EHS) serves the state's fourth poorest publicschool district. Approximately 98 percent ofthe student body is of Mexican origin. Since1992, E-E HS has operated a nationally recog-nized college placement program, sendingmore than 80 high school graduates to IvyLeague universities. This is a tremendousachievement for a school district in whichapproximately 90 percent of households havean annual income of less than $10,000 andfew parents have a high school diploma or flu-ency in English.

In 1997, local leaders established the LlanoGrande Center for Research and Development,a school- and community-based organizationhoused at E-E HS. The Center nurtures grass-roots, youth-directed projects aimed at solvinglocal problems. This unique agenda grew outof its early work in 1997 mapping communityassets. Among the most critical assets identified

were local youth who were leaving theEdcouch-Elsa community in pursuit of highereducation at elite universities. The Centerviewed this trend not as a “brain drain,” but asa hemorrhaging of community assets. Elsa'sleaders sought to reclaim talented humanresources by engaging local youth.

In June 1999, Ernesto Ayala, a 1995 graduateof Brown University, returned to Elsa to “givesomething back to the community.” Hired asthe Center's Director of Community-BasedResearch (now its Director of Finance), Ayalataught students how to employ surveyresearch to identify, understand, and devisesolutions to pressing community problems.

Today, youth draw on a variety of tools toresearch, strategize, and communicate solu-tions to community and economic develop-ment concerns. Through an e-mail list-serve,many E-E HS graduates contribute ideas andstrategies for projects back home. Some stu-dents return to the area, during school andsummer vacations, to orchestrate communityresearch, communications, and policy-develop-ment efforts.

The Center's work has created more than 75jobs (part time and full time) and providedhigh school students with professional skills(in research, interviewing, and radio and videoproduction) to be used in future careers.Equally important, the Center is groundingkids in the community. As Center ExecutiveDirector Francisco Guajardo explains, “whenkids understand their community and areproud of it, they have a reason to comeback.”30

Adapted from a case study on Elsa, Texas inTechnology and Grit at the Grassroots, a publicationof the National Center for Small Communities.Llano Grande Center for Research and DevelopmentWeb site: www.llanogrande.org.31


Case Study

Principle 4: Visioning a different future

“A generation of work in communitydevelopment has taught us that successfulcommunity renewal invariably springs'from within,' when the people who careabout a community join together in fiercedetermination to revive their civic andeconomic fortunes, whatever theobstacles.”— Program for the Rural Carolinas, The

Duke Endowment32

Thriving communities do visioning from thebottom up. Regrettably, most communities doexactly the opposite; they plan from the topdown. A committee of key decision-makersexamines the region's strengths, weaknesses,opportunities, and threats (SWOT analysis)and designs a vision for the future. The visionis translated into goals, packaged into specificprojects, and presented to the citizenry.Consultation with the public takes the form ofmarketing the vision, goals, and projectsthrough newspaper articles, Web site postings,and public meetings after the plan is devel-oped. The public is informed, but notengaged.33 That is ineffective governance.

Bottom-up visioning operates much differently.It honors the principle that everyone has a say;

no one owns the process—not the sparkplugs,the champions, or the city fathers. Visioningbegins not with a committee of key decision-makers but with everyday people: seniors livingon fixed incomes, retail clerks, high school stu-dents, low-income families, shop owners, par-ents of young children, government workers,and anyone else who chooses to participate.

A meaningful visioning process equips ordi-nary people with sufficient knowledge andtools to rationally chart a different future. Ittrusts that when you connect people, produc-tive things happen, no matter how messy the process feels (especially at the onset). Equallyimportant, the process has honest follow-through. As an experienced rural developmentpractitioner explains:

“People have a lot of experiences inbrainstorming and visioning that are notvaluable. The conveners say that they wantto hear people's feelings and ideas, but theoutput goes nowhere and people feeldiminished. It's not a truthful process.”34

A variety of bottom-up visioning approachesare taught and/or led by the ExtensionService, community foundations, county plan-ners, private consultants, and others. The indi-vidual techniques vary,35 but all visioningshould turn traditional strategic planning on its

Long-termCommunity Goals


Visioning Creates New Roles for Community Citizens36

VisionaryLeadership

Citizen Projects

Commanding Action

Supporting Roles

CitizenProjects

Long-termCommunity Goals

Visionary Leadership

Top Down Authority Grassroot Support

Traditional Strategic Planning Grassroots Community Visioning

head (see figure below). Starting with citizeninput, the process should gradually evolvefrom big picture visions, to community goals,to concrete projects. By bringing peopletogether to collaboratively craft a vision forthe future, ideas become reality faster and withgreater consensus.

One caution about visioning: it's essential tobalance the tough, big-picture work with achievable projects. As futurist Joel Barker explains: “Vision without action is merely adream. Action without vision just passes thetime. Vision with action can change theworld.”37 In the arena of community and eco-nomic development, people often act too longbefore they plan or plan too long before theyact.

The over-planningcommunities dot allthe i's, cross all the t'sand set all short-termprojects aside. Whenplanning is divorcedfrom action, peopleoften lose faith andinterest and the processdies on the vine.38 This is one of the reasonswhy elaborate, time-consuming, and expensiveplanning exercises don't work well for manyrural communities. Other communities thinktoo small; they get the benches on Main Streetand go no further. These communities are sofocused on individual projects that they neverdevelop the capacity for deep and lastingchange.39

Communities that can think big, while alsoidentifying and carrying out manageable proj-ects, are better able to generate and sustaincommunity engagement. Concrete resultsbreed confidence and energy and public cele-brations of the results build support for thetougher, bigger picture work.

Leveraging Regional ResourcesPrinciple 5: Analyzing the Region'sCompetitive Advantages

“Rural economic development must focuson the unique strengths of each area,rather than concentrating on amelioratinggeneric weaknesses.”— Michael Porter, Competitiveness in

Rural U.S. Regions40

Every rural region is unique. Certainly, manyrural areas share common social and economicchallenges associated with low population den-sity. But, no single development strategy suitsevery rural region. To move towards prosperity,

rural communities must col-laborate across politicalboundaries (see page 10)and capitalize on theregion's distinctive com-petitive advantages.Successful developmentpolicies or strategies areregion-specific, meaning

they build on what is uniqueand a source of value to residents within theregion.41 This fundamental ingredient of gov-ernance can be accomplished without surren-dering a community's individual identity.

Regional assessment varies in name andapproach: SWOT analysis, environmental scans,assets-based development,42 etc. But regardlessof technique, there is growing consensus in therural development field about the importanceof assessing regional competitiveness and con-ducting cluster analysis. As Harvard UniversityEconomist Michael Porter explains:

“Viewing regional economies in terms ofclusters is central to understanding thecompetitiveness of rural areas and how itcan be improved. Each rural area will dif-fer in its cluster composition and [for rural


A meaningful visioning process equips ordinary people with sufficient

knowledge and tools to rationally chart a different future.


regions linked to urban areas] in theopportunities created by the clusterstrengths in nearby metropolitan areas.”43

Cluster analysis examines industrial sectors ina comprehensive way. It looks not only at howindividual businesses in a sector are compet-ing, but also at the overall environment thatsupports such businesses—the suppliers,workers, educational institutions, wholesalers,end users, and government regulators.44

Many rural regions are highly dependent onparticular sectors such as manufacturing, tex-tiles, wood products, natural resources indus-tries, health care, government, and agriculture.But, except for a small number of counties,agriculture is a small part of the overall econo-my. Even in those counties, agriculture makesonly a modest contributionto the region's employ-ment.45

Unfortunately, ruralregions have sparse accessto rigorous, unbiased, andaffordable analysis ofregional clusters and com-petitive advantages. AsFluharty remarks:

“Public decision makershave no dearth of consultants willing toextract dollars from the public till with‘black box’ solutions. Likewise, many [pro-gram experts] offer turf-based solutions.Lacking this quality analysis, public deci-sions will often remain incremental andless than optimal.”46

Rural regions would benefit greatly fromgreater investments in regional assessmentresources. With the exception of the USDA Extension Service and some rural communitycolleges, most competitive analyses are not pro-vided as a public good. Unless significant, new

investments are made by state and federal gov-ernments or major foundations, access to thesedecision-support tools will remain limited.

True North: Northeastern Minnesota'sNew Regional Identity

Historically, northeastern Minnesota hasdepended on two commodities—iron ore andtimber. The rise and fall in iron and timberprices has resulted in a rollercoaster ride forthe region's economy. Over the past twodecades, the situation has worsened. Dramaticconsolidation in iron activity led to a sharploss of jobs in the region. In the 1980s, min-ing accounted for 50 percent of the jobs and

60 percent of the incomein northeast Minnesota.Today, mining repre-sents less than 10 per-cent of both.

This economic slide ledmany groups to envi-sion a new economicfuture for the region.Many ideas were float-

ing around the region,but it lacked a way to weave the various threadsinto a single plan. In 1999, that changed. TheMinnesota State Colleges and UniversitiesSystem decided it was time to rethink how themany community colleges in northeasternMinnesota were organized and governed. Fortheir part, the community colleges were begin-ning to see the need to pool resources to saveadministrative costs. They also realized the eco-nomic and fiscal crisis spanned several townsand counties in the region.

Their dramatic step was to reorganize the gov-erning structure of the region's communitycolleges. Six colleges came together under one

Case Study

Regardless of technique, there is growing consensus in the rural

development field about the importance of assessing regional competitiveness

and conducting cluster analysis.

“super regional” umbrella, with one president.That umbrella, the Northeast MinnesotaHigher Education District (NMHED), repre-sented a regional master plan to address thelifelong learning needs of area residents.

The creation of NMHED has been a catalystfor critical changes in other key institutions inthe region. After seeing some of the benefitsof the regional community college, govern-ments throughout the region have begun tocooperate more often and more extensively.The Range Association of Municipalities andSchools now serves as a forum to identifyhigh-priority projects andopportunities to shareresources. New multi-jurisdictional partner-ships also have formed.The Central RangeInitiative is bringingtogether five sanitarydistricts to explorestrategies for redevelop-ing unused waterways.

In short, one small change in governance—the birth of a super regional community col-lege—created a cascade of changes in howkey institutions interact and make decisions.Today, the regional thinking has even beengiven a new identity. “True North” was estab-lished at the NMHED to be an umbrella forthe new regional partnership. NMHEDPresident Joe Sertich describes True North as“a brand identity for our new regional strate-gy.” In essence, the region's community col-lege has become the institutional home for anew regional development strategy and aforum where new regional initiatives cometogether.

Excerpted from Innovations in Rural Governance,2003 Annual Report, Center for the Study of RuralAmerica, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City,January 2004.

Handmade Crafts: Building Western NorthCarolina’s Sectoral Economy

Under the leadership of HandMade in America,a regional nonprofit, communities in 22 coun-ties of western North Carolina have worked formore than a decade to create a “sectoral econo-my” based on the handmade craft traditions ofSouthern Appalachian mountain residents. Thisregional, assets-based approach is counteringrural North Carolina's tough realities of factoryclosings, job exodus overseas, aging population,

rising service costs, andshrinking tax revenues.

Craft heritage tourism,small town revitalization,and adaptive re-uses ofabandoned landfills to fireglass-blowing craft busi-ness incubators are just afew of the asset-basedeconomic development

initiatives that are helping toconnect Western North Carolina citizens andcommunities across ridges and river valleys.The “invisible craft factory” is helping tostrengthen communities in economic transition,while protecting natural areas and empoweringworkers in traditionally distressed areas.47

This is one example of how HandMade inAmerica inspires community strategies toenhance a region's role, nationally and interna-tionally, within the handmade field. HandMadein America works to implement environmentallysustainable economic solutions that emphasizethe craft industry, enhance opportunities in themarketplace, and develop entrepreneurial strate-gies for the region's crafts artisans. As executivedirector Becky Anderson, explains: “We don'tteach crafts-making or make or sell objects, butwe do serve as a support system for craftspeo-ple and the craft industry.”48


Case Study

Viewing regional economies interms of clusters is central to

understanding the competitiveness of rural areas and how it

can be improved.


Principle 6: Strengthening theCompetencies of Local ElectedOfficials

Few people who get elected to local govern-ment office are prepared for it. On top ofbudgeting, personnel procedures, public safety,and liability issues, there are development ques-tions, land use issues, relationships with themedia, and so on. The majority of small, ruralcommunities cannot afford a professional cityor town administrator, so management dutiesrest with the novices. Even veteran rural electedleaders often find the responsibilities daunting.

Given the demands of the job, why don'tmore local officials get the training and sup-port to more assuredlygovern their cities,townships, or coun-ties? Why don'tmore rural leadersdevelop the skills totackle the big chal-lenges, such as jobcreation? Is itbecause so fewlocal governmentleadership programsbuild the new competencies that today's offi-cials really need?

The answer is complex. First, many electedofficials see their role as prescribed and limited.Rural government leaders serve part time, withlittle or no compensation. They are shop own-ers, dentists, school teachers, homemakers,entrepreneurs, and elected officials. Given thenumber of hours in a day, rural elected offi-cials tend to focus on the day-to-day financialand legal duties of governmental office. This caretaker mindset is entirely understandable,but it means that higher-level competencies—such as how to enhance citizen participation

or create a vision for the future—are seldomacquired or used.

Second, our system for strengthening thecompetencies of local government leaders isscatter-shot and under-resourced. Local gov-ernment leadership training does exist, but theofferings vary greatly in quality and availability.Assuming they can take time off from theirday jobs or evening family obligations, ruralofficials may have to travel considerable dis-tances to participate in training programs,sometimes at their own expense.

Most state government departments of localaffairs have scaled back their education efforts.Several national associations of local govern-ments49 hold annual educational conferences

and workshops, but the requiredexpense and time tends to dis-courage attendance by part-time rural officials. Quite afew foundations support localleadership initiatives, but theyare typically targeted to emerg-ing civic leaders, not local gov-ernment officials.

Unfortunately, the local offi-cials who would most benefit from leadershiptraining may be those least likely to seek itout.50 They may come from limited-resourcetowns that would most profit from regionaland collaborative strategies, but are tooentrenched to change. Or, they may just beworn out by long meetings, tough budgetingdecisions, and pressures to secure additionalfinancing or comply with state and federalmandates—not to mention their day jobs.

Because the health of rural communities islinked to an effective governing system, it isincreasingly important for rural officials toacquire these higher-level competencies. Thiswill only happen if citizens and private and nonprofit leaders champion skill development

Rural government leaders servepart time, with little or no

compensation....they are shop owners,dentists, school teachers, homemakers,

entrepreneurs, and elected officials.

for area elected leaders. The process starts bylearning which agencies or organizations in theregion and state offer quality leadership train-ing for rural elected officials.

Many state universities offersome variety of local officialtraining, often in partnershipwith state associations ofcities, townships, or counties.The state association role isto legitimize and market theprogram to its membership.Each land grant institutionhas its own program priori-ties or banner programs tar-geted to local governments,but the strongest programs incorporate techni-cal follow-up by local county extension spe-cialists.51 For a fee, state associations of cities,townships, and counties offer leadership train-ing for their members at annual educationalconferences and occasional workshops. Someprograms are especially targeted to small orrural communities, such as Texas MunicipalLeague's Small Cities Problem-Solving Clinics.

Only a few states have sophisticated statewideorganizations focused on rural people andcommunities. The best example is probablythe North Carolina Rural EconomicDevelopment Center, a nonprofit organizationcreated in 1987. The Rural Center serves thestate's 85 rural counties, with a special focuson individuals with low to moderate incomesand communities with limited resources. Itconducts research into rural issues, advocatesfor policy and program innovations, andbuilds the productive capacity of rural leaders,entrepreneurs, and community organizations.

For nearly 20 years, the Rural Center hasmaintained and broadened its support amongNorth Carolina leaders, adding or spinning offprograms and effectively becoming the hub ofthe state's multi-faceted rural development

efforts. It has created, tested, and implementednumerous novel programs, many of whichhave become models for the nation. Buildingon this work, the Rural Center is beginning toshape a major initiative to increase the vitality

of North Carolina'ssmall towns. Detailsabout this new initia-tive are expected tobe announced at theRural Center's RuralPartners Forum inNovember 2005.52

Many regional devel-opment organiza-

tions provide leader-ship training and/or hands-on managementassistance to rural governments. The namesvary—economic development districts, regionalplanning organizations, area development dis-tricts, regional development commissions—butgenerally these organizations assist memberlocal governments in the areas of infrastruc-ture, transportation, housing, and/or economicdevelopment. To receive training, information,and representation, most regional organizationsbelong to the National Association ofDevelopment Organizations, the NationalAssociation of Regional Councils, or both.

Township Governance AcademyStrengthens Officials' Competencies

In October 2003, the Michigan TownshipsAssociation (MTA) made an intriguing obser-vation: for many elected officials, service onthe township board was not as rewarding as itcould be. Township leaders often lacked thenecessary knowledge and skills to make effec-tive decisions. They needed fresh ideas, moreadvanced skills, and new ways of conductingbusiness as a township board. And, their


Because the health of rural communities is linked to an effectivegoverning system, it is increasingly

important for rural officials toacquire these higher-level competencies.

Case Study

public service needed to be more outcome-based and results-oriented.

As the legislative advocate and educationalassociation for 1,242 Michigan townships and6,526 elected township officials, MTA decidedto take action. MTA created the TownshipGovernance Academy (TGA), a voluntary cre-dentialing program for township leaders. Thehigh-impact learning program builds the com-petencies of both newly elected and veterantownship officials.

A cadre of experiencedTGA instructors leadinteractive courses inthree categories: founda-tion courses (core com-petencies; 28 requiredcredits), boardsmanshipcourses (visioning and board decision-making;24 credits) and electives (18 credits). A mix ofhalf- and full-day classes is offered on a rota-tional basis at selected locations throughoutthe state. To graduate from the Academy, can-didates also must demonstrate that they haveapplied a learned skill to township governance.

The complete program costs approximately$1,200 to $1,500, excluding personal expenses.Limited scholarships are available.

More information about TGA is available atwww.michigantownships.org.

Principle 7: Engaging KeyIntermediaries

New research at Harvard University's Art andScience of Community Problem-SolvingProject is explaining the subtle agents ofchange in communities. Xavier de SouzaBriggs calls these agents intermediaries: peo-ple, organizations, and institutions that addvalue to the world by connecting and support-ing and by enabling others to be more effective.

The special power of intermediaries is that theymake things happen without calling attention tothemselves. They initiate, but then step back, sothat others can own and take credit for whathappens. As respected, honest brokers, inter-mediaries assume roles that others cannot easilyperform. And because they are frequentlyahead of the curve, intermediaries often devel-op the market for what they wish to provide.53

Rural sociologists Cornelia and Jan Flora usethe term bridging capital to talk about the vital

connections among diversegroups, including thoseoutside the community.Effective communitiespossess both bonding capi-tal (connections amongsimilar individuals and

groups) and bridging capital.Intermediaries are among the diverse groupsoutside the community that provide bridgingcapital.

One of the crucial differences between stagnat-ing and flourishing rural regions is the existenceof engaged intermediaries. They may be closeby (such as community colleges), in the largerregion (such as community or regional founda-tions), or far away (such as community assis-tance organizations/agencies or private founda-tions). They may become engaged on their ownor be solicited by others. They serve an array ofroles: as facilitators, educators, capacity builders,social investors, performance managers, coali-tion builders, and organizers of new groups.53

Briggs identifies five types of institutions ororganizations that serve as intermediaries:government, civic or non-governmentalorganizations, foundations or funders, issue-focused organizations, and capacity-buildinginstitutions. A given community may be hometo any one or more of these intermediaries,often with diverse and overlapping functions.56

But for rural communities, there may be just


As respected, honest brokers,intermediaries assume roles that

others cannot easily perform.


one or two intermediaries effectively engagedin the region and the intermediary may servemore than one role.

Rural community colleges are among the mostpowerful rural intermediaries. Community col-leges have evolved over the last half-centuryfrom liberal arts schools preparing studentsfor four-year colleges to schools more focusedon technical and vocational training, oftenwith missions explicitly oriented toward localeconomic development. Some 40 percent ofall community colleges are in rural areas orsmall towns and, often, they are the only insti-tutions of higher learning in the area.57

The qualities of rural com-munity colleges makethem strong intermediarycandidates. They arepolitically neutral institu-tions that are respectedand trusted by diversepopulations within theirregion. They are deeplyrooted in their communi-ties. Because community colleges serve multi-county districts, they are natural players inregional development efforts. Moreover, ruralcommunity colleges are being challenged toactualize their broader mission: education forcommunity and economic transformation.

Another strong intermediary in rural regions iscommunity foundations. Community founda-tions are community-based, nonprofit organi-zations that raise and manage a wide range ofendowed and non-endowed funds from indi-vidual and organization donors. In recentyears, they have been among the fastest grow-ing source of charitable dollars in the UnitedStates. Community foundations use the streamof revenue produced by these funds to makegrants and conduct community bettermentprograms within the specific geographic areaserved by the foundation. Beyond grantmak-

ing, most community foundations perform keyintermediary roles in convening, visioning,information gathering, knowledge sharing, andresource development.

Rural community foundations are unique intheir ability to see and influence a wide andinterconnected array of rural community andeconomic development challenges and oppor-tunities. They can respond quickly to a widerange of issues and bring diverse and some-times divergent members of the communitytogether in a nonpartisan manner. In ruralareas, community foundations are often theonly institutions that span the many jurisdic-tions in a natural economic and cultural region

and are positioned to pullthe region together.Also, community foun-dations have perma-nence. Because theybuild permanentendowed funds fromlocal donors dedicatedto the geographic area

they serve, communityfoundations are in a rural region to stay.59 (Seepage 26 for additional information about com-munity endowments intergenerational transferof wealth.)

The engagement of vigorous rural communityfoundations is so vital to rural regions that theAspen Institute's Community Strategies Groupcreated a learning network focused on RuralDevelopment Philanthropy (RDP). Three ofthe RDP's four learning questions center on theintermediary roles of community foundations:

How can community foundations use grant-making and program activities to enhancethe economic security of low-income ruralfamilies and communities?How can community foundations raise significant endowment funds from and forrural communities to support rural commu-nity economic development?

One of the crucial differencesbetween stagnating and flourishing

rural regions is the existence ofengaged intermediaries.


How can a community foundation build a region's awareness that its identity and eco-nomic and social well-being depend uponboth its rural and metropolitan areas?60

In some cases, the most effective intermedi-aries are people, organizations, or institutionsconsiderably outside the area. These externalintermediaries can sometimes urge the com-munity in new directions and then get out ofthe way. A good example of external media-tion is Rural Development Initiatives (RDI), anonprofit organizationspun off from theOregon Economic andCommunityDevelopmentDepartment in 1992.

When a community findsitself stalled and burnedout because it does nothave the needed capacity,RDI is available to offerexpertise and technicalassistance. RDI builds the capacity of ruralcommunities to make strategic decisions abouttheir futures and to act on those decisions toensure a high quality of life and vital sustain-able economies. The organization has workedwith more than 120 communities and over 400people have graduated from its rural volunteerleadership development program, RuralFutures Forum (RFF)61. Although RDI is aparticularly robust intermediary, similar organ-izations or agencies exist in other states.

A Strong Intermediary, New Voices, andGrassroots Visioning in Rural, NorthernCalifornia

The Humboldt Area Foundation (HAF), inrural, northern California, illustrates how

powerful intermediaries can initiate an activityand then step back so that others own and takecredit for the results. The nonprofit communityfoundation serves as an independent stagingground for residents, individually and in con-cert, to build social, economic, and environ-mental prosperity in California's North Coast.

HAF believes that good ideas, and the hardwork necessary to accomplish those ideas,come from all facets of the north coast com-munity. That is why HAF, together with two

other intermediaries—Humboldt StateUniversity and theCollege of the Redwoods,the local community col-lege—convenedRedwood Coast RuralAction. (RCRA).

RCRA brings togetherdiverse, grassroots civic

leaders from the four ruralcounties of Del Norte,

Humboldt, Mendocino, and Trinity. The con-veners provide infrastructure and staffing, butnever control the agenda, which comes fromRCRA working groups on the economy, com-munity health, and the environment.

The goal of RCRA is to inspire intentional,healthy regional decision-making and actionthat: conserves natural resources, diversifies and expands the employment base, maintainsa rural quality of life, cares for the health ofthe region's population and communities, andexpands opportunities for family economicsuccess. It's a tall order, but one that is alreadymoving forward.

Inclusive regional leadership has emergedfrom the four counties covering an area largerthan Massachusetts. At the table for the firsttime—each committing at least 10 days ayear—are tribal, environmental, business

Rural community colleges areamong the most powerful rural

intermediaries...because they servemulti-county districts, they are naturalplayers in regional development efforts.

Case Study

entrepreneurial, educational, and communityhealth leaders. They represent the political left,right, and center. The most difficult issues inthe region are explicitly on the table.

RCRA is the second, and regionalized, out-growth of the Institute of the North Coast(INC), a Humboldt County pilot project initiatedin 1996. INC sought to assert citizen leadershipover failed attempts to revive a decliningresource-based economy and respond to press-ing social issues, including domestic violence.INC generated a com-pletely restructuredeconomic developmentsystem of support forentrepreneurs andbusiness clusters andbrought new coopera-tion between businessand environmentalinterests. The regional-ized RCRA is follow-ing in the same footsteps.

Principle 8: Investing Local Capital

A final, bottom-line distinction between declin-ing and thriving rural communities is if, andhow, they invest in themselves. It's plain goodjudgment, yet many rural communities look tooutside funders and assistance providers with-out first committing their own resources.Regions that invest in themselves leverage addi-tional capital, be it monetary, physical, or in-kind.

Community endowments are powerful vehiclesfor capturing and investing local capital, espe-cially in rural regions experiencing significantintergenerational transfer of wealth. In 2001the Nebraska Community Foundation (NCF)completed analyses of both the magnitude and peak of the intergenerational transfer of wealth

for each of Nebraska's 93 counties. Nebraska,especially rural Nebraska, is a “land rich, cashpoor” economy, primarily driven by productionagriculture. With a great deal of rural poverty(seven very rural Nebraska counties rankedamong the 12 poorest in the nation in 2001),an aging population, and several decades ofout migration of young adults, building strate-gies based on community assets is criticallyimportant.

Based on the groundbreaking work by Havens& Schervish (Boston College,

1999), NCF estimates that$94 billion will transfer inthe next 50 years in ruralNebraska (750,000 citi-zens). More importantthan these vast sums is thetiming, with 86 of 93Nebraska counties experi-encing their peak transferon or before 2039; 26 very

rural counties will peak onor before 2014. By comparison, the peak trans-fer for the United States will not occur untilsometime after 2050, if ever.

Using this analysis as a call to action, NCF issetting up affiliated community funds across thestate and helping those funds to build endow-ments. In total, 69 community-affiliated fundsnow have more than $25 million of combinedendowment and expectancies, nearly triple thecombined total of three years ago.62

Given the intense competition for governmentand foundation dollars, only self-investing com-munities will merit additional support in theyears ahead. The investments may be modest,perhaps non-financial, but they demonstrate thecommunity's or region's dedication to change.That is how rural regions evolve into vibrantplaces.


Community endowments arepowerful vehicles for capturing andinvesting local capital, especially in

rural regions experiencing significantintergenerational transfer of wealth.


Although the Rural GovernanceInitiative is not a formal research pro-gram, the following questions ground

its work. Reactions, experiences, and recom-mendations are welcome.

How can rural communities most effectively attract and sustain new voices in local deci-sion-making, including ethnic minorities,newcomers, youth, and others who are typi-cally absent or marginalized from the com-munity's leadership? What strategies orforums help to change the leadership mix?More broadly, what actions or situationsinspire people to participate in civic meet-ings, forums, etc.?

How are collaborations (across sectors and political boundaries) most effectively formedand nourished over time? If collaborationsare initially opportunistic (formed for thepurpose of acquiring funding), how can theymature into more solid, legitimate collabora-tions? What role do intermediaries play inbuilding lasting collaborations? When andhow are intermediaries most influential?

What information or experiences impel rural people to acknowledge the concept ofregionalism (multi-community)? Doesregional competitive analysis push people toappreciate and capitalize on the region'sunique assets? How can rural communitiesuse data to drive the self-evaluation process?Do resource-alignment approaches, such asMinnesota’s Regional EconomicDevelopment Group, move regional effortsto a new level?

What conditions and experiences push local elected officials to acquire higher-level com-petencies? Specifically, what circumstancesenable public institutions to see a commonfuture with nonprofit institutions? Doorganized leadership programs spread orinspire more innovations by local electedleaders? If so, which leadership developmentformats, curricula, and delivery mechanismsappear to achieve the greatest impact?

Research Questions for the RGI

Nancy Stark DirectorRural Governance Initiative RUPRI/CFED 777 N. Capitol Street, NE Suite 800 Washington, DC 20002

Phone: 202.207.0158 Fax: 202.408.9793 E-mail: [email protected] (or [email protected])

For More Information About RGI

RGI

1 Lacy, Donald (September 2001). An Overview of Rural Governance Issues. Presentation prepared for the 51stNational Public Policy Education Conference, SanAntonio, TX. The conference was canceled due torestricted air travel following the 9/11 attacks.Presentations are posted on the Farm Foundation Website (www.farmfoundation.org).

2 Huillet, Christian. (2004). Foreword in Lovan, Murray and Shaffer (Eds.), Participatory Governance: Planning,Conflict Mediation and Public Decision-Making in Civil Society.Hanys, England: Asgate.

2 Gardner, Sid. (April 2004). Literature Review: The Role ofLocal Government in Community Building. Draft paper writ-ten to inform the Aspen Institute's Roundtable onCommunity Change's exploration of local governmentinvolvement in community building.

3 Lovan, Murray and Shaffer. (2004).

4 Fluharty, Charles W. (May 2004.) Assessing the State ofRural Governance in the United States. In The Center for theStudy of Rural America, New Governance for a New RuralEconomy: Reinventing Public and Private Institutions. KansasCity, MO: Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.

5 Light, Paul C. (1999). The New Public Service.Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

7 Governor's (WV) Commission on Governing in the21st Century. (2004). Report to Governor Bob Wise.

8 Gierisch, Bobby. (2004). The Minnesota Model for RuralDevelopment. Unpublished RUPRI paper.

9 A collaborative includes several different types oforganizations (including private, governmental, commu-nity-based, tribal, non-profit, educational, others) thatwork together to provide a full range of entrepreneur-ship development services to a diverse customer basewithin a defined region.

10 Cornell University, Department of City and RegionalPlanning, Government Restructuring Web site:http://government.cce.cornell.edu. Link to NetworkGovernance, Citizenship and Free Trade.

11 Deller, Steven. (November 2004). Governance Acrossthe World. Community Economics. University of WisconsinExtension.

12 Simmons, LeAnn. (July 2004). What is Collaboration?Community Matters. Northwest Community DevelopmentInstitute.

13 Chandler Center for Community Leadership, OregonState University Extension and Central OregonCommunity College. Community Based Collaboration:Community Wellness Multiplied. Http://crs.uvm.edu/nnco/collab/wellness.html.

14 Stark, Nancy. (1997). Harvesting Hometown Jobs: The newsmall town guide to economic development. National Center forSmall Communities. Page 137.

15 This is the Rural Government Initiative's working def-inition of community builders.

16 Roundtable on Community Change. (March 2004).Local Government and Community Building Project Overview.Unpublished paper drawn from January 2004 meetingof a Roundtable sub-committee. Page 4.

17 Roundtable on Community Change Web site:www.aspeninstitute.org.

18 Roundtable on Community Change. Project Overview.Page 2.

19 Warner, Mildred. (2003). Competition, Cooperation,and Local Governance. In Challenges for Rural America inthe Twenty-First Century. University Park, PA:Pennsylvania State University Press. Page 257.

20 Johnson, Kirk. (July 23, 2004). How Drought JustMight Bring Water to the Navajo. The New York Times.Page A16. Statement by Mark Edwards, consultant toGallup, NM.

21 Fluharty, Charles W. (May 2004). Op.cit.

22 Waugh, Terry. Personal communication, July 20, 2004.


Endnotes

23 Rowley, Tom. (August 13, 2004). EntrepreneurshipMeans Adaptation. Weekly Commentary. Statement byMelanie Sabelhaus, Small Business Administration.Weekly Commentary is intended to help further theRural Policy and Research Institute's mission to facilitatepublic dialogue concerning the impacts of public policyon rural people and places. The opinions expressed aresolely those of the author and do not necessarily reflectthe views or policy analyses of RUPRI, its collaboratingorganizations and institutions, or its funders.

24 Ibid. Statement by Erik Pages, EntreWorksConsulting.

25 Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. (Winter 2001).Community Reinvestment. Statement by Carol Meyer,Leadership Garden City program coordinator. Page 10.

26 Flora, Cornelia Butler and Flora, Jan. (2003). SocialCapital. In Challenges for Rural America in the Twenty-FirstCentury. Page 225.

27 Yost, Jeffrey. (March 2005). HomeTown CompetitivenessUpdate. Nebraska Community Foundation News.

28 Intergenerational Dialogue and Action Process Website: www.pointsofviewinc.com.

29 Waugh, Terry. (2004). Op.cit.

30 Statement made at W.K. Kellogg Foundation's RuralConference, Arlington, VA. October 29, 2003.

31 Stark, Nancy. (June 2002). Technology and Grit at theGrassroots: Information technology, community engagement, andjobs in distressed rural communities. National Center forSmall Communities. Page 38.

32 The Duke Endowment. (September 2001). The RuralProgram: A New Effort by The Duke Endowment to HelpStrengthen Rural Communities in North Carolina and SouthCarolina. Page 4.

33 Stark, Nancy. (1997). Op.cit. Page 13.

34 DuBois, Felice. Rural Development Initiatives.Personal communication, June 10, 2004.

35 For the purposes of this paper, we are groupingtogether all visioning approaches. However, we recog-nize that there are a variety of visioning techniques.

36 Stark, Nancy. (1997). Op.cit. Page 15. Adapted fromCommunity Visioning/Strategic Planning Programs: State of theArt, North Central Regional Center for RuralDevelopment, 1996.

37 Barker, Joel. (1989). Discovering the Future: The business ofparadigms.

38 Stark, Nancy. (1997). Op.cit. Page 22.

39 Ratner, Shanna. Yellow Wood Associates. Personalcommunication, February 28, 2005. Web site: www.yel-lowwood.org.

40 Porter, Michael E. (February 2004). Competitiveness inRural U.S. Regions: Learning and Research Agenda. HarvardBusiness School, Institute for Strategy andCompetitiveness. Page 63.

41 Johnson, Stanley. (September 2001). ConferenceSynthesis. In The Center for the Study of Rural America,Exploring Policy Options for a New Rural America.Kansas City, MO: Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.

42 Kretzmann, John and McKnight, John. (1993). BuildingCommunities From the Inside Out : A path toward finding andmobilizing a community's assets. Evanston, IL: Institute forPolicy Research.

43 Porter, Michael E. Op.cit. Page 62.

44 Planning Decisions, Inc. (September 30, 2003).Aroostook County Economic Cluster Report. Page 2.Aroostook County Empowerment Zone Web site:www.aroostookez.org.

45 Porter, Michael E. Op.cit.

46 Fluharty, Charles W. (May 2004). Op.cit.

47 Sager, Mikki. Conservation Fund, North CarolinaOffice. Personal communication, April 8, 2005.

48 HandMade in America Web site: www.hand-madeinamerica.org.

49 National Association of Counties (NACO), NationalAssociation of Towns and Townships(NATaT)/National Center for Small Communities(NCSC), and National League of Cities (NLC), whichhas a Small Cities Council.


50 Douglas, Nam. North Carolina Rural EconomicDevelopment Center. Personal communication, January18, 2005.

51 Ibid.

52 NC Rural Center Web site: www.ncruralcenter.org.

53 Briggs, Xavier de Souza. (May 2003). Op.cit.

54 Flora, Cornelia Butler and Flora, Jan. (2003). Op.cit.Flora and Flora draw from the civic engagement workof Harvard University's Robert Putnam who definessocial capital as the collective value of all “social net-works” [who people know] and the inclinations thatarise from these networks to do things for each other[“norms of reciprocity”]. For more information, visitthe Saguaro Seminar Web site:www.ksg.harvard.edu/saguaro.

55 Ibid.

56 Ibid.

57 USDA Economic Research Service, Rural America,Vol. 16, Issue 2, September 2001.

58 RUPRI, MDC Inc. and Texas Tech University (2004).Invigorating Rural Economies: The Rural Development Missionof Mississippi's Community Colleges, Executive Summary.Yet to be published paper. Page 4.

59 Topolsky, Janet. Aspen Institute, CommunityStrategies Group. Personal communication, April 19,2005.

60 Rural Development Philanthropy Web site:www.aspencsg.org/rdp.

61 Rural Development Initiatives Web site:www.rdiinc.org.

62 Yost, Jeffrey. Nebraska Community Foundation.www.nebcommfound.org.


effective rural governance - rupri.orgeffective governance is something quite different. effective...

Documents