Dear Mr. Secretary,
I work in a Rural Development field office in Florida. While the economy may be strong in urban and suburban areas of the country, in rural America the unemployment rates are much higher than the national average, many rural families are paying more than 30 percent of their monthly household income for housing, and infrastructure is inadequate or in poor repair so that it won’t meet new government guidelines--let alone attract new industry to rural communities. In short, rural areas are not enjoying the prosperity that most of the developed areas are.

However, the government continues to cut program funding that directly impacts these rural communities. I realize there have been some minor increases, but most of the time a sub-program is created within the service area that takes the additional funds provided. Or, alternatively, USDA cuts administrative funds, thereby reducing the resources available to do the job.

I recently looked at a Rural Development report that identified the number of RD program dollars spent in each State, compared to the number of RD employees within that State. It noted that Florida administered more RD program dollars per employee than any state in the nation. Yet our funds for rural development here are being cut.

So my question: If rural America is the only sector of this nation that is not enjoying economic prosperity, why do we not put funds in this area--where we already have the resources in place to make things better?

Jim Dean
Marianna, Fla.

Dear Jim,
Thank you for your e-mail message. Under Secretary for Rural Development Jill Long Thompson and I share your concern that rural areas are not benefitting from the economic expansion other parts of the country have enjoyed of late. While some rural areas have shown improvement, a significant number of rural counties still reflect poverty rates in excess of 20 percent and unemployment rates between 10 and 14 percent.

As you correctly stated, these are the problems that our Rural Development programs are designed to address. You expressed a concern that, while some RD programs have seen minor increases in funding, overall funding has been reduced. In fact, funding for RD programs has increased from $7.4 billion in 1993 to $11.2 billion for FY 2000. During that same period RD staff employment has decreased from 9,547 to about 7,000 staff years. Despite this decrease, customer service has improved due to management innovations such as the establishment of a Centralized Servicing Center for single family housing loans. Also, more loans are being made on a guaranteed rather than a direct basis, which means private lenders are bearing more responsibility for servicing.

The report you referenced did identify some possible inequities in the distribution of employees. Under Secretary Thompson has established a working group of State Directors and senior headquarters personnel to examine options to distribute staffing more equitably.

Many of the economic problems in rural America are longstanding and systemic, and it will take some time before all rural Americans have the same economic opportunities as others in our society. However, we are making progress in responding to the needs of rural areas and I appreciate your work and that of your fellow RD employees toward this goal.

Dan Glickman
Secretary

Inside the "USDA NEWS" News and Current Information	Past Issues USDA's ...Homepage