S o u t h e r n

L e g i s l a t i v e

C o n f e r e n c e

Alabama Arkansas Florida Georgia Louisiana Kentucky Maryland Mississippi Missouri

North Carolina Oklahoma South Carolina Tennessee Texas Virginia West Virginia

slc

by Bobby Gierisch
Director, State Policy Programs
Rural Policy Research Institute

Introduction

he severe economic distress of the 1980s

produced an interest in state action to help
rural citizens and communities. One result
of that interest has been the creation of
statewide offices and agencies whose primary mission
is to study rural concerns and develop policy options
to address rural needs.
We are again in an era when interest in such
offices is at a peak level. Four state rural centers
were created in 2004.1 Another has been created this
year in Indiana, and a serious effort in Alabama fell
just short of success.
The current level of interest led SLC to form a
Rural Development Task Force, and the Task Force
encourages states to consider establishing such
centers. As an aid to such efforts, the Task Force
offers these profiles of four rural centers in the South:
North Carolina, Louisiana, Maryland and Texas.2
These four centers are very different from one
another and, therefore, offer a variety of options for
legislators in other states. They vary in age, size,
location within (or outside of) government, number
and nature of their duties, and so on.

The profiles that follow are designed to stimulate

ideas and options for ways to help. For more
information, we encourage you to visit the websites
of the offices profiled and to contact Jonathan Hull at
SLC.
The reader is cautioned that these are not the only
southern states with rural centers or other important
rural initiatives. These four were chosen to illustrate
the variety of ways states have chosen to approach the
broad array of rural issues.
As a further caution, our focus on these centers is
not intended to imply that the centers are the be-all and
end-all of rural policy. There are others in every state
that play a role, including departments of agriculture,
economic development and community affairs, land
grant and other universities and extension services,
rural health offices, state rural development councils,
the USDA rural development offices, and RC&Ds, to
name a few.

Rural Centers in the South

[Rural Cent e r s i n t h e So u t h ]

The feature that state rural centers add is a

focus on strategic thinking that is integrative of all
sectors and stakeholders and the translation of that
thinking into policy options for legislators and state
executives.

southern legislative conference p.o. box 98129 atlanta, georgia 30359 ph: 404/633-1866 fx: 404/633-4896 www.slcatlanta.org
1

LOUISIANA

interested in rural policies and programs for the

state.

Governor s Office of Rural

Development

Rural Centers in the South

http://www.rurallouisiana.com/

n the 15 years since its creation, the Louisiana

Governors Office of Rural Development
(GORD) has continued a strong focus on
physical infrastructure development as its core
mission. However, it has taken on new duties and
programs related to that core mission, and it has
become the principal sounding board for executives
and legislators committed to rural Louisiana.
Perhaps most impressively, it has not only
survived two changes of the persons and parties in the
governors office, but has emerged from each change
stronger than before.
The Office has matured through these changes,
and it carries a legacy from each of the administrations,
as will be seen below.3

The landscape 4

Louisiana displays an unusual balance among the

principal economic drivers in its 64 parishes. Mining
(oil and natural gas extraction), manufacturing and
government each hold sway in substantial numbers of
parishes, with agriculture being dominant in four.
The Delta region of northern Louisiana is one
of Americas major pockets of persistent poverty,
and the state as a whole lags behind national averages
on important measures like income and educational
attainment. As in other states, the rural population
lags the metropolitan populations on those same
measures. Non-metro parishes have average family
incomes that are approximately 75 percent of those in
metro parishes, and that gap has remained steady for
30 years.
Seventy-five (75) percent of Louisianans live in
metro parishes, similar to the national average, and
just over 30 percent of the non-metro population is
African-American.
During the 1990s Louisianas population grew at
less than half the national growth rate while non-metro
parishes grew at only one-quarter the national rate (3.3
percent vs. 13.2 percent).

Beginnings

The Governors Office of Rural Development

was created by Act 216 in 1990 to serve as the
single point of contact for rural governments, service
providers, state and federal agencies, and individuals
2

The author of Act 216, Rep. Francis Thompson,

was motivated by, a lack of any unit of government
that would take care of rural needs - a water well,
a road that was not a state road, something to bring
a business in. There was a great need for an office
where, whatever you need, you can call them.5
The legislation envisioned a grant fund for rural
development projects, but initial funding was only
sufficient to support a small staff in the governors
office. According to Thompson, there was a battle
to put it in the Department of Agriculture and Forestry,
but he felt strongly that it had to be with the governor
to get the best results.
In 1991 a one-time appropriation of two million
dollars was secured for the grant fund. That same
year Edwin Edwards defeated incumbent Gov. Buddy
Roemer, but, according to Thompson, Gov. Edwards
saw the value of the fund and provided a permanent
funding stream of approximately $7 million.6
Throughout its early years, and still today, the
Office and the Rural Development Fund focused on
providing grants to rural villages, towns and cities (up
to 35,000 people) and rural parishes (up to 100,000
people). The grants range from $15,000-$100,000
per year, and they are used for physical infrastructure
projects that support economic development. Grants
are often used to match funds from other sources,
and in recent years GORD has focused on finding
additional funding sources and helping small
governments secure outside funds.
The critical value of the Fund, to Thompson, is
that it, lets little towns get funds that would never get
any through a competitive process.

Evolution of the Office

In 1996 Murphy J. (Mike) Foster replaced Edwin

Edwards as governor, and he brought a skeptical
attitude about the rural grant fund. According staff
at the time, Gov. Foster required persuasion to keep
the fund in tact, and then insisted that administration
and accountability be strengthened.
With that
accomplished, the program entered a period during
which the fund was supplemented by an array of new
programs.
Under the guidance of senior staff to the governor,
the watchword was to find federal funds and programs
that could be accessed, and to look for related state
programs that could be relocated. Programs added in
Gov. Fosters first term included:

The Office scored a major success with its

application for federal tax incentives under the
Renewal Communities program. It secured the
designation for four communities consisting of 28
parishes, 113 local governments and over 450,000
residents.7 GORD estimates that the tax savings over
the 10-year life of the program to be in excess of $900
million dollars.
In 2001 the Gov. Foster took the unusual and
important step of establishing a legislative rural task
force consisting of 19 rural legislators including the
Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate.
This task force, along with a bi-partisan rural caucus in
the House of Representatives, has become a critically
important partner to GORD and the governor(s) in
developing and implementing policy initiatives. The
task force is staffed by GORD and meets several times
a year for input from agencies, experts and citizens.
Along with GORD, the task force is the focal point for
assessing and reacting to rural concerns.
2001 was also the first year of partnership with
the Delta Regional Authority. As the state with the
most distressed counties/parishes in the Delta region,
Louisiana receives and GORD administers the largest
state grant allocation in the region. The size of the
allocation depends on federal appropriations and has
fluctuated dramatically, from over $5 million in 2002
to less than a million dollars today.

GORD today
s t a b i l i t y a n d change
Under Gov. Kathleen Blanco there have been
some changes in the administrative structure of the
Office of Community Programs, of which GORD is
a part, but the operations of the Office are essentially
unchanged. The Rural Grant Fund remains the
core activity, awarding infrastructure grants of
approximately $7.5 million annually. The overall

agency budget is approximately $8 million and the

Office has 6.5 full-time-equivalent employees.
Grants for water, recreation, roads and
streets, and fire protection make up over half of all
granted funds. Other significant categories include
renovations, equipment, sewer, and buildings. GORD
sees most of its projects, including such things as
water and sewer improvements, road repairs, and fire
and police stations and equipment as supporting job
retention and business expansion.8
Programs added during the Foster administration
continue in place, except for two small federal
programs for which funding has expired.9 However,
the Office has broadened its purview into some
notable new areas including telecommunications and
health care.
GORD is staffing and playing a leadership role
in the Louisiana Broadband Advisory Council, created
by legislation in 2004. The Council is developing
plans to assure access to broadband capabilities
throughout the state within five years. GORD is also
newly involved in efforts to develop more Federally
Qualified Health Centers and Rural Health Centers
and to obtain critical access designations for more
rural hospitals.
Outreach to allied stakeholders is getting new
focus through statewide rural economic development
summits and plans to reinstate the Rural Development
Council. The Legislative Rural Task Force remains a
strong partner to GORD and Governor Blanco.
All of the newer initiatives are undertaken in
partnership with numerous other agencies and offices.

Observations

In 2005 GORD retains is original emphasis on

hard infrastructure and leveraging funds from other
sources for infrastructure projects, but under Gov.
Blanco the Office is cautiously opening doors in new
directions, including telecommunications, health care,
and new forms of outreach. It retains important policy
functions due to its direct access to the Governor and
close working relationships with the Legislative Rural
Task Force and the rural caucus. It not only survives
changes in the governors mansion, but appears to
grow and mature because of them!
Legislative confidence is evidenced in recent
comments by Rep. Thompson that, Any state in this
nation that does not have a rural development office is
missing the boat. They are not saving money they are
wasting money!

Rural Centers in the South

Recreational Trails, moved from another state

agency
Louisiana Small Towns, a federal program to
help small cities with strategic planning and
leadership development
Federal Empowerment Zones
Louisiana Rural Water Association, a new state
program to provide technical assistance to local
water and sewer operators
Hardship Sewer Grant Program, a federal
program to construct sewers where none existed
Parish Bridge Repair and Parish Road Repair,
new state programs to help repair bridges that
otherwise would be taken out of service and to
repair and improve unpaved roads

MARYLAND

The Rural Maryland Council

Rural Centers in the South

http://www.ruralforvm.state.md.us/

fter a decade of evolution, the Rural

Maryland Council (RMC) is now an
independent state agency administratively
attached to the states department of
agriculture. The small office also serves as the states
rural development council under the National Rural
Development Partnership program. The RMCs selfproclaimed two essential roles are anchored in its
SRDC roots: (1) convening, facilitation, and neutral
brokering, and (2) acting as a rural voice for effective
public policy.10

The landscape

By national standards, Maryland is a highly

urbanized state, with 17 of its 24 counties classified as
metropolitan and 95 percent of its 5.3 million residents
living in metropolitan areas.11
Marylanders view their state differently,
recognizing rather sharp distinctions among three
areas: Baltimore City, suburban Maryland, and the
remaining rural regions that include 18 of the states
24 counties. There are three distinct rural regions: the
western, southern, and eastern shore, all separated
from one another by the Baltimore-Washington
metropolitan region. Approximately one-quarter of
the states population lives in the 18 rural counties.
Marylands rural regions lag behind the suburban
region on indicators such as income, health and
education. Baltimore City lags significantly behind
not only the suburbs but the rural regions as well.12
The economies of Marylands counties are
unusual. Manufacturing, mining and farming play a
smaller role than in most states, and government plays
a larger role, including in rural counties.

The development of the RMC

In late 1993 Governor William Donald Schaefer

signed an executive order creating the Maryland
Rural Development Council (under the auspices of
President George H. W. Bushs Presidential Initiative
on Rural America), and the Council began operations
in early 1994 with staff and offices provided by
the state Department of Housing and Community
Development.
In 1995 a rural caucus was formed in the
Maryland General Assembly. One of the first
initiatives of the caucus was to constitute the Council
4

as an independent state agency co-located with the state

Department of Business and Economic Development
in Baltimore. The Council was renamed the FORVM
for Rural Maryland.
It was during this period that the RMCs major
organizational objectives were first articulated:

Enable citizens in rural communities to achieve

success in employment and have access
to quality, affordable health care and other
essential services

Preserve agriculture and other natural

resource-based industries as an integral part of
Marylands rural economy and culture

Advocate for a manageable regulatory process

and reasonable and effective compliance

Address the impact of changing conditions on

the environment, heritage and economic well
being of rural Marylanders
In 2003 the rural caucus supported new legislation
expanding the Councils governing board and changing
the name once again to the Rural Maryland Council.
It also relocated the office to Annapolis so the agency
would be more accessible to both policy-makers and
rural stakeholders. The Council continues to serve
as Marylands rural development council under the
federal partnership program.

The RMC today

Today the RMC is governed by an executive

board of 40 members who are broadly representative
of, and selected by, over 30 public and private
stakeholder groups, including three members each
of the state Senate and House of Delegates, and six
representatives of the governor and relevant cabinet
departments. The board annually elects a chair from
among its members, and chairs are typically re-elected
to serve two or three consecutive years. Recent chairs
have included a county commission vice-president,
a mayor, and the president of a community action
agency.
The operational units within the Council
are its standing committees. Working committees
on Agriculture and Natural Resources, Health
Care, Housing and Community Development, and
Infrastructure have each been operational since the
mid- or late 1990s. Committees on Entrepreneurship
and Workforce Development, and Leadership
Development are being implemented in 2005.
The agency maintains a small staff of 2-3
persons, headed by an executive director who has been
in place since 1998. Its annual budget for operations
has averaged about $225,000 in recent years, provided
in roughly equal amounts by the state and federal

governments.13 It also administers a state-funded

grant program with funds of $140,000 - $400,000
(more later).
The RMC has a grassroots membership of
several hundred. Any individual or organization that
subscribes to the mission and goals of the Council may
join, and there is no fee for membership.

It is the broad-based working committees,

supported by staff and stakeholders, that assess
conditions and develop issues and policy alternatives
for the RMC. While the overall goal is to improve
rural policy in the state, each committee sets its own
direction and develops its own methods of gathering
and processing information.
When policy matters are ripe for consideration,
they are vetted with the rural caucus. The caucus
performs its own due diligence, makes revisions it
deems appropriate, and carries the issue forward in
the legislature.
This mode of operation has produced a steady
stream of significant policy innovations.

A pilot project to reduce the cost of renewable

energy equipment to farmers (1998-99)

Micro-enterprise development activities

leading to the establishment of the non-profit
Microenterprise Council of Maryland (19992003)

Creation of the Maryland Agricultural

Education and Rural Development Assistance
Fund - MAERDAF - (2000)

Creation of a Task Force on Resource Based

Industry (2000-2002)

Establishment of and assistance to three new

rural regional planning councils on the eastern
shore (2002-2003)

Development of the Maryland Rural Progress

Index (2003)

Creation of the Maryland Agricultural and

Resource Based Industry Development
Corporation - MARBIDCO - (2004)

Grant program to strengthen rural families

(Summer/Fall 2005)

In addition to its committee-driven policy

work, the RMC participates in or leads a variety of
ad hoc state committees and task forces. Recent
examples include groups dealing with broadband
communications, small community wastewater issues,
and prescription drug affordability.
Along with the state rural health association
and five regional development councils, the Council
hosts the annual rural summit, and it conducts
additional education and outreach through a variety of
publications, meetings and conferences.
The Council administers the Maryland
Agricultural Education and Rural Development
Assistance Fund (MAERDAF) that provides grants
up $50,000 to strengthen rural non-profit organizations
and community colleges engaged in agriculture
education, leadership development and small business
development.
Finally, the Rural Maryland Council and Director
Steve McHenry have an impact beyond the borders
of Maryland due to their work with the National
Rural Development Partnership, including the recent
restructuring of the national and state partnership
models.

Concluding comments

The Maryland rural policy center model is an

important one. It demonstrates that a small office can
have a significant impact on state policy if it is inclusive
of rural stakeholders and residents, it is consistent and
persistent in its focus on policy, and it maintains good
working relations with an active and informed caucus
of rural legislators. This should give hope to those
states that have recently constituted rural centers, but
so far have been able to provide only limited resources,
as well as those that may choose to maintain a small
model approach. It also demonstrates the viability of
the state rural development council or rural partners
model, properly focused and executed.

Rural Centers in the South

Several features of the RMC are key to its mode

of operation and its success: an inclusive board and
membership structure (with consensual decisionmaking whenever possible), a small but innovative
(and nonpartisan) central staff, long-standing and
active committees in selected areas of importance, and
a close working relationship with the legislative rural
caucus.

The creation of MARBIDCO represents the

realization of a key element in the RMCs strategic
initiative to raise the standard of living in rural
Maryland over a 15-year period to a level that
approximates various statewide averages while
endeavoring to preserve the best aspects of the
pastoral heritage and rural way of life. In addition
to the MARBIDCO, the $20-million strategic plan
included organizational capacity, small community
assistance, and economic infrastructure programs.14

NORTH
CAROLINA

Beginnings

The North Carolina Rural

Economic Development Center

Rural Centers in the South

www.ncruralcenter.org

mong the rural centers of the South,

the North Carolina Rural Economic
Development Center is the oldest, and its
programming is the broadest and deepest.
Better than any other, the NC Rural Center connects
all the dots from research to policy to program
development and implementation. Since 1987 this
private non-profit corporation - conceived and created
by the states political leadership - has created, tested
and implemented numerous programs, many of which
have become national models.15
It is the hub of the states rich and multi-faceted
rural development efforts.

The landscape

In recent decades, North Carolina has become

one of dynamic economies of the New South. The
Research Triangle area is one of the nations notable
idea centers, and North Carolina possesses an
unusually robust community of major philanthropic
organizations, and outstanding non-profit and
university-based policy and program centers, many
of which have long-term commitments to rural North
Carolina.
By North Carolina definitions, 85 of the states
100 counties are rural, with 51 percent of its 8.4
million residents living in those counties. By national
standards, the metro population would be much
larger, encompassing 40 counties and 68% of the
populace.16
In spite of the states growth and prosperity,
there are pockets of poverty. Ten (10) counties
are considered persistent poverty counties by the
Economic Research Service of USDA, and 13 counties
(including 11 rural counties) had poverty rates above
20 percent in 1999.
North Carolinas counties are specialized in
manufacturing to a much greater extent than most other
states, and this includes rural counties. The effects of
globalization on rural manufacturing combined with
the decline of tobacco farming has put severe stress on
many of these counties.

In 1986 Lt. Governor Bob Jordan convened the

North Carolina Commission on Jobs and Economic
Growth. As a part of the Sunbelt renaissance, North
Carolina was experiencing growth and favorable
economic conditions.
The Commission noted,
however, that traditional industries - agriculture and
manufacturing - were being affected by globalization
and automation and were shedding jobs at an alarming
rate. Rural areas were especially hard hit, with
unemployment 50 percent higher than urban areas and
a rate of job creation 50 percent lower.
Based on the recommendations of the
commission, a broad-based group of state leaders set
about creating the NC Rural Economic Development
Center as a small think tank with a modest program
for research and demonstration grants. With
start-up funds from North Carolina philanthropic
endowments, the Center was incorporated in January,
1987, and received its first state appropriation of funds
in July, 1987.
In order to survive the states emerging twoparty politics the Center moved quickly to engage the
power players both inside and outside of government
and to ring up early successes.17
In what was to become a pattern for the Center, it
initiated a series of talks with serious-thinking rural
leaders and identified two important deficiencies:
leadership and financing for rural businesses. It
then collaborated with the Council for Community
Development and the states banking community to
prepare a comprehensive capital needs analysis for the
state, which led to the creation of the North Carolina
Enterprise Corporation to provide equity capital in
rural areas. Within six months, the corporation was
fully subscribed with $10 million from the state
treasurer and another $10 million from the states
banks.
Within the first three years the Center conducted
pilot projects on microenterprise loans and leadership
training; it established a grants program to build
capacity in minority CDCs; it released the first edition
of the North Carolina Rural Profile; it held the first
Rural Partners Banquet, it became an early supporter
of Tech Prep18 as a pilot program; and it continued
its policy-related research with a report on The Waste
Crunch in Rural North Carolina: Wholl Foot the
Bill? The Center was off to a fast start.
Just as important as the programs, certain
processes had been established. In-depth research
formed the basis for new programming, and new
initiatives were often piloted before being handed-

off to others or given a permanent home at the Rural

Center.

T h e Ru r a l C e nter today

The North Carolina Center for Rural Economic

Development is a private non-profit corporation.
Since the beginning it has received financial support
from the North Carolina General Assembly, the
states philanthropic foundations and numerous other
governmental and private sector organizations. A
majority of core funding has always come from the
state.
The Center has a board of directors consisting of
50 members. Nine members are legislators, including
Lt. Governor Beverly Perdue.
The remaining
members include business people, local officials,
educators and philanthropic leaders. The board has
committees with specialized assignments. The chairs
of those committees sit on an executive committee that
works most closely with President Billy Ray Hall.
The Rural Center operates with a permanent
staff of approximately 30 employees and an
operations budget of approximately $3 million per
year.19 In addition to Center employees, the Center
houses and performs administrative functions for
the e-NC Authority (formerly the Rural Internet
Access Authority). It also houses the Agricultural
Advancement Consortium.
In addition to funding for operations, the Center
acts as a pass-through agency for an additional $4
million in grants and contracts, mostly for research
and demonstration projects and for minority CDC
grants, and for $55 million in clean water grants.

Ru r a l C e n t e r programs

The programs operated by the Rural Center

are so many and so varied that a partial listing with
highlights is all we can accommodate here. But all
programming is based on the four building blocks
the Center refers to as comprehensive economic
development. The building blocks are (1) business
development, (2) workforce development, (3) physical
infrastructure, and (4) civic or social infrastructure.
All programming is built around this core.

Microenterprise Lending. This program makes

loans of $1,500 to $8,000 to groups of four to ten
small businesses, coupled with extensive business
assistance. More than half of its participants are
women and/or minorities. It is the sixth largest
program of its kind in the nation.
Water and Sewer Infrastructure. Owing to its
research and policy leadership on the issue, the Center
was designated to administer water and sewer grants
resulting from the $800 million in Clean Water Bonds
approved in 1998. Over $173 million in grants have
gone to more than 500 distressed communities and
counties, leveraging more than $2 billion in other
public and private funds.
Leadership Development. The Center operates
an institute that trains a diverse group of 30-33
citizens each year in three, three-day sessions
emphasizing, comprehensive economic development
and relationship-building techniques so participants
learn to work together toward common goals and
community strategic planning. Other initiatives
promote strategic planning and capacity building.
Faith-Based Initiatives.
The Center has
sponsored numerous initiatives, the first of which was
to strengthen churches abilities to provide quality
childcare services, producing both jobs and assistance
to working mothers. Others have included mentoring
and job placement, computer-assisted instructional
programs, youth apprenticeships in local businesses,
job-readiness, and transportation services.
Minority CDC Enhancement.
Since 1988
this program of competitive grants has helped
create affordable housing, provide after-school and
mentoring programs, job training, child care, business
support services, and such things as medical screening,
nutrition services and immunizations.
Internet Access. The Rural Center houses and
acts as fiscal agent for the e-NC Authority The goals of
the authority include high-speed (384 kbs) access for
every citizen, establishment of telecenters in certain
economically distressed areas, promotion of computer
ownership and literacy, and improved delivery of
government services by Internet. It is widely regarded
as a model for the nation.
Rural Entrepreneurship.
The Institute for
Rural Entrepreneurship supports self-employment
7

Rural Centers in the South

Collaboration has also became a cornerstone of

the Rural Centers mode of operation. It has sought
funding and technical support from outsiders, but also
ideas and collaboration, and those in both the seminal
stages of program development and after testing, as
when a tested program is passed on to another entity
to operate. Collaborators also enjoy ownership in
the form of participation on the Centers board of
directors.

Capital Access. This is a loan guarantee program

for businesses that do not meet conventional lending
guidelines. Its lending capacity is over $100 million
and the average loan is approximately $50,000.

Rural Centers in the South

and entrepreneurial companies as important sources

of jobs and income in rural communities, and it
helps communities develop systems that support
entrepreneurs and the local climate for small
business.
Research and Policy Development. The Rural
Center continues its research, program development,
and testing activities as a way of providing a firm
foundation for its initiatives and programs. Research
on capital markets, water and sewer deficiencies,
groundwater issues, tobacco-dependent communities,
rural school funding, manufacturing layoffs, and rural
business development has been a key factor in getting
ideas off the drawing board and into action.

Observations

In less than 20 years, the NC Rural Center has

developed from a small think tank into a major
policy and programming center for rural North
Carolina. It is widely viewed as the gold standard
for rural programming, and it has much to teach in the
realms of both process and programs.

The comprehensive economic development

model, based on the four building blocks, is a platform
that provides focus to the Centers programs, but also
allows sufficient flexibility to accommodate varying
conditions. Research to identify and define issues is
the basis of the Centers policy work. It is critical to
designing programs that work, and it helps develop an
initial base of support for new initiatives. Support is
reinforced by the Centers practice of collaboration
on virtually everything -- with government, the
non-profit community and research organizations,
higher education and philanthropic endowments.
And collaboration is one element garnering support
from a very broad group of leaders, as evidenced by,
but not limited to, the individuals and organizations
represented on the Centers board of directors.
Finally, local communities are at the center of
almost everything the Rural Center does. Whatever
their particulars, Rural Center projects typically start
and end with the local community, and they often
require the active engagement of local leaders in the
process. In this way, all programs have the effect of
building the capacity of local communities for local
action and self-improvement.

TEXAS

O f f i c e o f Ru r a l Community
A f f a i r s ( O R C A)
www.orca.state.tx.us

T h e l a n d s c a p e 20

Texas is both a metropolitan and a rural state.

Seventy-seven (77) of the states 254 counties are
metropolitan, containing almost 86 percent of the
population. The remaining rural counties are
extremely diverse, with heavy concentrations of
agriculture in the Panhandle, oil and natural gas
production in the western and west-central counties,
and manufacturing in east Texas. The population of
Texas rural counties is almost three million, larger
than the entire populations of more than 20 states.
Texas has 46 counties that are classified as
persistent poverty counties, concentrated along the
states border with Mexico. Residents of Hispanic
descent are more than one-quarter of the rural
population.
Over 50 of Texas rural counties suffered
population losses from 1990-2000, mostly in the
Panhandle and west-central region of the state. Rural
incomes are approximately 70 percent of metropolitan
incomes, and the percentage has been declining since
the early 1980s.

Beginnings

The idea for a rural center arose from a study

conducted by a select committee of the House of
Representatives. The committee was convened in
January, 2000, by then-Speaker James E. (Pete) Laney
to examine all issues affecting the current and future
well-being of rural Texans. The committee consisted
of 11 House members, all of whom were rural and
seven of whom were committee chairs. The Speakers
action was prompted by recognition of the on-going
erosion of economic and social conditions in many
rural areas, coupled with the approach of the 2001
redistricting session that would further dilute rural
representation in the legislature.

The legislation

The 2001 Legislature passed H. B. 7 creating

the Office of Rural Community Affairs as an
executive agency of the state. The agency was asked
to perform duties consistent with the committees
recommendations, as follows:22
(1) develop a rural policy for the state in
consultation with local leaders representing all
facets of rural community life, academic and
industry experts, and state elected and appointed
officials with interests in rural communities;
(2) work with other state agencies and officials
to improve the results and the cost-effectiveness
of state programs affecting rural communities
through coordination of efforts;
(3) develop programs to improve the leadership
capacity of rural community leaders;
(4) monitor developments that have a
substantial effect on rural Texas communities,
especially actions of state government, and
compile an annual report describing and
evaluating the condition of rural communities;
and
(5) perform research to determine the most
beneficial and cost-effective ways to improve
the welfare of rural communities;
Additionally, the states CDBG non-entitlement
program and a number of rural health programs were
moved to the new agency.
ORCA was given a governing board - termed
the executive committee - of nine members, with
three each being appointed by the governor, the
lieutenant governor, and the speaker of the House.
The legislation does not require specific qualifications
for executive committee members, except that the
appointing officers, shall each appoint at least two
members who possess a strong understanding of and
commitment to rural interests based on the individuals
personal history, including residency, occupation, and
business or civic activities.23
Owing to the size of Texass CDBG program, the
agency came into existence with over 60 employees
and an annual budget of approximately $90 million, of
9

Rural Centers in the South

he Texas Office of Rural Community

Affairs is one of the newest, but also one
of the largest rural centers in the South.
ORCA is an independent agency in the
executive branch of government with programming
in two principal areas: community infrastructure
development and rural health. It owes its size and
large budget to the fact that it administers the states
non-entitlement Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) program, which is the nations largest.

The committee held six hearings around the state

and consulted with numerous experts from academia,
government agencies, local officials, and citizens from
all walks of life. Its final report, issued in December,
2000, made four major recommendations, the first of
which was that, Texas needs an office of rural affairs
to assure a continuing focus on rural issues, to monitor
governmental actions affecting rural Texas, to research
problems and recommend solutions and to coordinate
rural programs among agencies.21

Rural Centers in the South

which approximately 85 million was the federal CDBG

grant. To carry out the new rural duties, ORCA was
given just $500,000 per year and authorization for
10 additional employees. The agency has three field
offices.

Under legislation passed in 2001 and amended in

2003, ORCA is establishing a non-profit corporation
to seek funds from private and federal sources to
support additional programming.

ORCA today

ORCA was a bold experiment for Texas, and

bringing the CDBG non-entitlement program under
the direction of a rural policy agency was an unusual
and important step.25

As would be expected, the majority of ORCAs

current programming is carried out through the
CDBG and rural health programs it inherited from
predecessor agencies.
The CDBG funding for 2005 is $82 million.
Approximately 75 percent of these funds support a
variety of infrastructure programs, the majority of
which are for water and wastewater.24
Fifteen (15) percent of the CDBG grant is
economic development activities through the Texas
Capital Fund. This fund is administered by the Texas
Department of Agriculture under contract with ORCA.
It supports infrastructure and real estate improvements
for projects that create employment opportunities,
primarily for low to moderate income individuals.
Four (4) percent of CDBG funds go to disaster
relief and urgent needs; two (2) percent to planning
and technical assistance; and two (2) percent to
administration.
ORCAs rural health programs will total $7.1
million from state and federal sources in 2005. These
funds support 17 separate programs in 9 different
categories, the largest of which are critical access
hospitals, health facilities assistance, and recruiting
and retention of rural healthcare providers.
ORCAs attention to its new policy, research,
monitoring and coordination functions has been
affected by the very limited resources available
for these purposes. The agency produced a policy
outline in 2003 and is currently developing another
policy statement. It has produced significant reports
on the status of rural Texas, as required by H. B. 7. It
has regularly convened meetings of state agencies with
significant rural impact and it partners in statewide
rural summits and policy meetings. It publishes the
Rural Texan, a quarterly newsletter.
In 2005 ORCA will implement microenterprise
and small business loan programs, with one million
dollars in each fund. It will also conduct a pilot
economic development loan program under Section
108 involving $500,000.

10

Comments and observat i o n s

ORCA had the misfortune of being established

at the same time as the Texas crisis in public finance.
As a result, the agency experienced significant budget
reductions in 2003 as the state closed a $10 billion
deficit. Discretionary programs supported by state
appropriations were hardest hit, and that has greatly
impaired the agencys new programming efforts.
The limited scope of ORCAs new programming
greatly understates the agencys importance in the
rural landscape. ORCA has been a very visible and
welcome presence in rural Texas. The executive
committee has held its meetings in small cities and
towns to get up close to rural areas and leaders, and
agency staff are active in the field. The agency is very
much recognized as the first call for citizens seeking
information or help and for policy makers seeking
information and ideas.26 ORCA is a significant
standard-bearer for rural Texas, and the executive
committee and staff have invested much time and
energy in understanding and thinking strategically
about rural issues in this large and diverse state. Those
investments hold the promise of improved policy and
improved results for rural Texas.

Endnotes
Offices were created by legislation in Virginia,
Utah and Louisiana, and an office was created
by executive order in Oregon.

The profiles were prepared for the Task Force by

the Rural Policy Research Institute (RUPRI)
to which the Task Force expresses its sincere
appreciation
Unless otherwise noted, information for this report
comes from the Offices website, internal
documents and reports, as well as interviews
with current and former directors and staff of
the Office.

Unless otherwise noted, information for this

section is from the Bureau of the Census and
the Economic Research Service of USDA.
For a more complete statistical profile of the
Louisianas rural parishes, see www.rupri.org/
resources /links/profiles.asp on the website
of the Rural Policy Research Institute,
www.rupri.org.

Rep. Thompson is still in the House of

Representatives and has championed rural
legislation throughout his career. Quotes are
from an interview for this profile in July, 2005.

Funding has fluctuated over time, but has averaged

approximately $7.5 million per year since 1992.

Louisianas renewal communities are not all rural.

The Orleans-Jefferson community includes
New Orleans, for example, but the designated
communities include vast rural areas in northern
and central Louisiana.

Information is from GORDs Report to the Joint

Agriculture, Forestry, Aquaculture and Rural
Development Committee, March 2004, and its
Annual Report, RS3:314 Compliance, March 1,
2005.

Louisiana Small Towns, which was continued with

state funds for a while, and the Hardship Sewer
program have been eliminated.

10

Quotes, numbers and other facts about Maryland,

unless otherwise noted, are from the RMC
website and various internal and external
documents of the Council. Not all such
documents are in published form or formatted in
a way that can be cited conveniently.

Unless otherwise noted, sources in this section

are the Bureau of the Census and the Economic
Research Service of USDA. For a more
complete statistical profile of the states rural
counties, see www.rupri.org/resources/links/
profiles.asp on the website of the Rural Policy
Research Institute, www.rupri.org.

12

Rural Maryland Progress Index, published by

RMC, 2004

13

In 2005 the General Assembly authorized a

doubling of the Councils state funding in
anticipation of possible reductions in federal
funding.

14

The other features of the plan, referred to as The

2020 Rural Maryland Prosperity Investment
Initiative, have not yet been approved by the
legislature.

15

Information for this report was taken from

publications or the website of the North
Carolina Rural Economic Development
Center. That information was supplemented
with interviews of the Rural Center director
and staff and other persons in the education,
governmental and non-profit sectors who are
familiar with the Rural Center and its work.

16

The sources for numbers in the remainder of

this section are the U. S. Census Bureau and
Economic Research Service of USDA. For a
more complete statistical profile of the states
rural counties, see http://www.rupri.org/
resources /links/profiles.asp on the website
of the Rural Policy Research Institute,
www.rupri.org, and the Rural Data Bank at
www.ncruralcenter.org.

17

In the words of director Billy Ray Hall, . . . we

had to hit a home run to create standing for the
Center right out of the chute. Then we had to
hit another home run the next year.

18

Tech Prep was developed in 1985 by Richmond

County Schools and Richmond Community
College as an alternative to traditional
vocational education programs focused solely
on skills training. There are now over 1000
local Tech Prep consortia in America, involving
virtually every community college and over
half of all school districts. The Rural Center
provided early funding to expand the program
beyond Richmond and later provided a $50,000
grant to establish the N.C. Tech Prep Leadership
Development Center.
11

Rural Centers in the South

11

Rural Centers in the South

19

The numbers in this section were obtained from

center staff and are intended to convey the
overall scope of operations. They are not exact,
as operations fluctuate from year to year due
to special projects and grants that come and
go. The numbers are intended as approximate
averages that reflect operations of the most
recent years.

20

For statistics in this section, the sources are

the Bureau of the Census and the Economic
Research Service of USDA. For a more
complete statistical profile of the states rural
counties, see http://www.rupri.org/ resources
/links/profiles.asp on the website of the Rural
Policy Research Institute, www.rupri.org.

21

Interim Report to the 77 Texas Legislature, by

the Select Committee on Rural Development,
December, 2000, p. 44.
th

12

22

H. B. 7, 77th Texas Legislature, 2001.

23

H. B. 7, 77th Texas Legislature, 2001.

24

Budget numbers are obtained from the agency

website. They are reported as approximations
here for ease of presentation and understanding.

25

In most states - including those with rural centers

- there is little coordination between the centers
programming and the states CDBG program.
This seems unfortunate, since CDBG is an ongoing and significant funding source explicitly
designed to assist development in small cities
and rural counties.

26

The agency continues a close relationship with the

legislative rural caucus as well as the governors
staff and the leadership in related executive
agencies.