Collaboration and Partnership in Funding Rural Communities

by Deborah L. Visser

July 2000

Printer-Friendly Format (requires Adobe Acrobat, available free here)

In a time of unparalleled prosperity, those living in the country's most underserved rural communities continue to face daunting challenges as they address the damaging effects of decades of neglect and isolation. At the same time, rural America is ripe with potential, presenting funders and policymakers with rich opportunities to capitalize on the work of community-based entrepreneurs. This paper examines the opportunities and challenges inherent in crafting the kinds of creative partnerships - between practitioners, public officials, philanthropists, and investors - that could substantially expand the resource base in underserved rural areas, advance locally-driven agendas, and have a tangible impact on the formulation, and implementation, of policies at the state, regional and federal levels.

At the federal level, there are promising signs of renewed commitment to rural areas. Grant, loan and guarantee programs are stimulating investment in rural communities. Rural projects that set out to build organizational capacity, nurture new leaders, and improve access to capital, are more likely to reach scale and be sustainable when a variety of public and private players join forces. This paper describes how the substantial long-term "ripple effects" that result from this type of strategic partnering can do much to improve the quality of life in rural America.

The War on [Urban] Poverty and the Neglect of Rural America

The expansive, large-scale anti-poverty efforts launched by the federal government during the 1960s and 1970s did much to focus the lens on the plight of the poor, and led to the growth of a vibrant community development movement committed to redressing problems related to deficiencies in housing, health and child care, transportation, and access to credit and capital. While these programs have clearly helped to stimulate investment in, and revitalize, many underserved areas, their urban bias has exacted a toll on rural communities. Residents of rural communities have been disproportionately affected by poverty, compared to their urban counterparts. Many of the rural poor aren't even counted because they live in areas considered urban, such as Fresno, California and aren't included in rural poverty statistics (note: While definitions of "rural" vary among researchers and government agencies, this report relies on the USDA's Rural Community Advancement Program's definition of a rural area as: "a city, town, or unincorporated area that has a population of 50,000 inhabitants or less, other than an urbanized area immediately adjacent to a city, town, or unincorporated area that has a population in excess of 50,000 inhabitants.").

In rural areas, the percentage of people living in poverty has been consistently higher than the national average for decades. While less than 20 percent of Americans - 50 million people - live in rural areas, eight million are poor, 16 percent compared to 13 percent of urban residents. Of the 200 "persistently poor" counties in the U.S. (those having continuous poverty rates of 30 percent or higher), 195 are rural; almost all are found in the Mississippi Delta, Appalachia, along the Texas-Mexico border, and on Indian reservations (from "Rural Community Organizing: You Must Survive to Thrive," by Catherine Lerza, NFG Reports, Summer 1999, p.1).

As in urban communities, the availability and condition of affordable housing offers an accurate measure of neglect in areas of entrenched rural poverty. According to statistics compiled in 1995 by the editors of Housing in Rural America, a rental dwelling unit in rural areas not adjacent to cities and suburbs was 50 percent more likely to lack indoor plumbing than was a unit in a central city (from Housing in Rural America, eds. Robert J. Wiener and Joseph N. Belden, Sage Publications 1998). The rural unit was more than twice as likely to have no heat and nearly 20 percent more likely to have a leaking roof. And, central cities have nearly twice as many public housing units, relative to the number of poor households, as do rural areas.

The economic, social, geographic, and political forces that create rural poverty are well documented (see especially, articles by Gene F. Summers and Janet M. Fitchen in The Changing American Countryside: Rural People and Places, ed. Emery N. Castle, Lawrence KS: University Press of Kansas 1995; and articles by Robert J. Wiener and Joseph N. Belden in Housing in Rural America, eds. Wiener and Belden, Sage Publications 1998). Isolation from employment opportunities, technology, and knowledge is compounded by substandard transportation systems, a high degree of in-migration by immigrant populations, the growing number of hazardous waste disposal and prison facilities, and the damaging effects of deregulation and privatization. Moreover, the suburbanization, expansion of tourism, and influx of retirees that have led to the rise of "boom" rural areas have generally had a negative impact on low-income residents who too often have been relegated to minimum wage, seasonal and part-time work. And, over the past decade, consolidation in the banking industry has dramatically reduced the number of rural branches, hampering access to credit and capital.

Encouraging Recent Developments

While these trends have led to a worsening picture for rural communities over a period of decades, there are encouraging signs that federal policy is beginning to address issues affecting impoverished rural areas that the Great Society and the War on Poverty initiatives bypassed. Concrete steps in this direction include the Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community (EZ/EC) demonstration programs, the Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund, the New Markets Initiative, the Rural Housing and Economic Development Program and the Rural Community Development Initiative (RCDI). The newest venture, RCDI, is a $6 million program at the USDA. It is modeled after the National Community Development Initiative (NCDI) to give a major boost to rural nonprofit community-based organizations working to improve the quality of life in their neighborhoods. Since RCDI recipients are required to raise matching funds, the initiative offers a timely opportunity for the foundation and corporate communities to forge public-private partnerships in a more coordinated and strategic way.

Private Philanthropy Initiatives to Redress Rural Neglect

On the private funding side, marked imbalances exist in the share of philanthropic assets directed to the nation's most underserved rural regions. As Table 1 shows, private funding sources (i.e., foundations, banks, corporations) contribute at least 20 percent more of their support to urban vs. rural groups with specific reference to grantees in the field of community development.

Table 1
Support for Community Developers: Urban vs. Rural

Funding Sources*		Rural**	Urban
Private	Banks	29%	49%
	Corporations	12%	35%
	Foundations	32%	52%
	Intermediaries	20%	42%
	Religious Institutions	16%	22%
	United Way	12%	13%

Earned Income	Developer Fees	17%	40%
	LIHTC Fees	16%	26%
	Project Packaging Fees	6%	5%
	Service Fees	11%	14%

Public	USDA (All programs)	28%	1%
	US HHS (CSGB)	20%	3%
	US HUD (All programs)	59%	81%
	US Treasury Dept. (CDFI)	2%	1%
	SBA Microloans	3%	2%
	State Government	39%	37%
	Local Government	19%	26%

*Source(s) providing $50,000 or more in support over the four-year period 1994-1997
**Community developers serving rural areas only.
Source: Rural America: Communities Creating Opportunity. Stand Up for Rural America, 1999.

A study of philanthropy in the rural South by the Southern Rural Development Initiative (SRDI) brings the rural/urban funding dichotomy into sharp focus. The report reveals that, while the South has 34 percent of the nation's poverty, it receives less than 14 percent of its foundation assets. As in other regions, philanthropy in the South is concentrated in its urban communities. According to the SRDI analysis, the South's persistently poor counties have 11 percent of the region's population, one percent of its philanthropic assets, and three percent of the grants from large foundations (from Philanthropy in the Rural South: A Contribution to the Southern Philanthropy Consortium's Collaborative Research Program, Southern Rural Development Initiative. SRDI defines a "persistently poor county" as one with 20 percent or higher poverty rates for the preceding four census counts. Of the 535 persistently poor nonmetro counties in the nation, 345, or 62 percent, are in the south). The funding picture is even bleaker when the distribution of foundation assets within poor rural counties is considered. 76 percent, or 230, of the South's 345 persistently poor counties (Table 2), had no foundation assets at all. (See a breakdown of metro and nonmetro assets in Southern states in Table 3.)

TABLE 2

Persistently Poor Non-Metro Counties in the South Without Foundation Assets
	Number of Persistently Poor Counties	Persistently Poor Counties Without Foundation Assets	Percentage of Total Counties Without Foundation Assets
Alabama	25	13	52%
Arkansas	30	19	63%
Florida	11	10	91%
Georgia	64	43	67%
Kentucky	49	33	67%
Louisiana	33	24	73%
Mississippi	62	36	58%
North Carolina	19	15	79%
South Carolina	16	8	50%
Tennessee	21	17	81%
Virginia	4	2	50%
West Virginia	11	10	91%
TOTAL	345	230	67%

TABLE 3
*Total Foundation Assets -- Metro and Non-Metro Areas in the South**
	Persistently Poor Non-Metro	Other Non-Metro	Metro	Total Assets	Percentage of Total
Alabama	$93,235	$62,438	$818,834	$974,507	3.2%
Arkansas	15,400	107,524	666,163	789,087	2.6%
Florida	5,503	78,198	4,990,058	5,073,759	16.5%
Georgia	111,747	344,985	7,185,357	7,642,089	24.9%
Kentucky	18,032	32,284	1,015,592	1,065,908	3.5%
Louisiana	782	20,997	986,123	1,007,902	3.3%
Mississippi	97,562	25,297	152,948	275,807	0.9%
North Carolina	6,417	171,198	6,405,098	6,582,713	21.4%
South Carolina	27,477	138,507	502,640	668,624	2.2%
Tennessee	677	20,307	2,303,909	2,324,893	7.6%
Virginia	95	141,619	3,713,182	3,854,896	12.5%
West Virginia	1,412	117,143	365,190	483,745	1.6%
TOTAL	$378,339	$1,260,497	$29,105,094	$30,743,930
PERCENTAGE	1.2%	4.1%	94.7%

* In thousands of dollars.
Source: Southern Rural Development Initiative

Recent statistics compiled by the Foundation Center underscore the regional imbalances in overall giving. The Northeast, Midwest, and West Coast are home to 71 percent of the country's foundations; grantmakers in these three regions contributed approximately $12 billion of the total $16 billion distributed in grants in 1997 (Figures are drawn from The Chronicle of Philanthropy, "Redrawing the Map of Philanthropy" by Pablo Eisenberg, Sept 9, 1999, p. 43). With relatively few exceptions, the bulk of support tends to remain in the regions where foundations are located; once again leaving low-income rural communities on the debit side of the equation.

Like policymakers, private foundations, including community foundations, are taking impressive steps to rethink grantmaking strategies that have had a decidedly urban bias. In the area of community revitalization, national funders have recognized the depth of need related to building organizational and institutional capacity, "growing" new leaders, and improving access to credit. With a marked increase in the number of community-based organizations, funders have made significant, multi-year funding commitments to a variety of institutions. Promising initiatives include:

The Mid-South Delta Initiative (MSDI), a partnership between the W.K. Kellogg Foundation and Delta communities in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, focusing on 55 contiguous counties and parishes along the Mississippi. The $10 million, 3-year community and leadership development program incorporates capacity building, projects grants and technical assistance in order to create a "learning community" capable of increasing economic opportunities in the region;
The Southern Partners Fund (SPF), a groundbreaking public foundation created by grantee partners of the Bert and Mary Meyer Foundation (BAMM). BAMM pledged its entire $7.5 million asset base to SPF's endowment on a dollar-for-dollar matching basis. Serving 11 Southern states, SPF aims to strengthen rural communities and people by developing and nurturing grassroots community-based leaders and organizers;
The Sapelo Foundation's support of community-based philanthropy in rural Georgia, geared to building the capacity of CDCs in a remote, sea island region;
The Foundation for the Mid-South (FMS), a ten-year old private, long-term, regional, and philanthropic response to the issues facing the Mid-South. Seeded with a $1 million grant from Entergy, a regional utilities corporation, FMS has leveraged more than $30 million in program funds from national funders. The Foundation serves as a catalyst, convener, and broker, supporting a range of indigenous revitalization efforts;
"Support for Grassroots Organizations," a grants program initiated by The Mary Reynolds Babcock Foundation to support, annually, approximately 20 small, community-led organizations committed to developing new grassroots leaders; and
The Greater New Orleans Foundation's network of community-based leaders grew out of a nine-year alliance with African-American faith-based institutions committed to growing community capacity. The community foundation has supported this effort as a funder, partner and broker of training and technical assistance for building capacity and links grassroots groups to other public and private resources.

These efforts to "build from within" are grounded in the belief that collaboration within and among communities and regions offers the best opportunity to increase local capacity. When well coordinated and responsive to the interests of policymakers and the public, these funder-driven initiatives effectively leverage resources, streamline administrative burdens, and avoid programmatic redundancy. And, local groups derive multiple benefits from working closely with funders and intermediaries over time: increased media attention to enhance the marketing and outreach activities of nascent organizations; access to new telecommunications and information technologies to narrow the digital divide that so often hampers development in isolated areas; "leveling the playing field" by taking a participatory, democratic and collaborative approach; and enhanced collegial alliances that offer greater opportunities to share best practices and lessons learned.

The Challenge and Promise of Collaboration in Funding Rural Communities

While the examples cited above help to make the case for the value of public-private collaboration in addressing the needs of impoverished rural communities, great challenges are inherent in establishing productive partnerships. Capitalizing on well-honed research, analysis, planning, and advocacy skills are the mainstays of the philanthropic toolkit. But, collaborations require considerable time and effort, as well as a willingness to relinquish control and remain accountable to one's colleagues. The complexities of jointly administering and monitoring grants, and evaluating their impact, as well as responding to a broad variety of needs in a coordinated way, are constant challenges, as are finding ways to work effectively with government partners. However, experience has shown that these challenges are surmountable.

Partnerships forged by local, regional, and national funders and intermediary organizations are producing innovative funding mechanisms and creating new, locally-controlled institutions that are advancing the interests of a number of rural communities. The Neighborhood Funders Group's Rural Funders Working Group (RFWG) is a group of funders committed to advancing grantmakers' awareness of rural issues and rural communities. It hopes to significantly expand the pool of capital in persistently poor areas. In addition, an increasing number of rural intermediaries are tackling deeply-rooted problems at "the ground level" with funders who are proving to be responsive, flexible and dedicated to long term (5-7 years) support.

Funders and practitioners well versed in the "business" of collaboration agree that several key factors help to ensure the success of collaborative efforts. The most productive partnerships seek to:

maintain clear and constant communications between funders and grantees;
promote a holistic, coordinated approach between state, federal and foundation-supported programs, to avoid duplicative efforts that can drain resources and strain staff capacities;
harness the "special responsibilities and presence" of local community colleges, universities, and land grant colleges in partnering activities;
use challenge grants to expand the philanthropic pie;
have different funders assume distinct roles (i.e., as leader, evaluator, mediator);
advance the idea that collaboratives can create potent "communities of interest" regarding key issue areas; and
foster greater awareness of the extent to which joint funding initiatives can help to ease stiff competition for scarce resources.

In terms of addressing specific needs or "niches" where rural funding collaboratives can have the greatest impact, sustained support for capacity building and leadership development activities remain a priority. As those familiar with successful projects know, durable organizations owe their success to gifted leaders who are able to help their staffs evolve and grow. With the recent emergence of a number of grassroots organizations in rural communities and increased efforts to promote Native American self-sufficiency, issues related to nurturing both local capacity and new leaders continue to concern funders, practitioners, and policymakers. Intermediary groups were created more than 20 years ago to provide nascent nonprofits and rural/tribal governing entities with the skills they needed to undertake, and eventually "own," a variety of community-based activities.

New and Emerging Roles for Collaborative Intermediaries

Created with funding from foundations, banks, and, in a few cases, from Congress, several national intermediary organizations have mobilized capital and expertise to advance an array of development agendas. Veteran groups like the Center for Community Change, Enterprise Foundation, Housing Assistance Council (HAC), the Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC), the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation (NRC), Rural Community Assistance Corporation (RCAC), and Rural Development and Finance Corporation (RDFC), have moved well beyond the traditional role of "go between" or pass through by establishing productive, long term working relationships with their local partners or affiliates. They have devised and advocated for passage of landmark legislation at all levels of government, to ensure that cutting-edge revitalization strategies are shared and adapted to local realities.

At the same time, the role and scope of intermediary organizations are changing in response to the New Federalism. A regional emphasis is emerging out of devolution and economic globalization. Local and regional intermediary organizations are spearheading efforts to link philanthropy and policy with community-based development. In order to make the vital connections between resources and needs, these organizations engage in labor intensive technical assistance activities that demand patience, sensitivity, and vision. The examples are growing of how these new "mediating collaborations" are helping to fuel a new tenacity and entrepreneurial spirit in promoting community and economic development in poor rural areas:

A partnership between The California Endowment and the Rural Community Assistance Corporation (RCAC) to address the health care and housing needs of California's agricultural workers. Funding includes a 30-year, $20 million program-related investment (the largest long-term PRI ever awarded to a nonprofit corporation), and an $11 million grant. The PRI provides long-term financing for agricultural worker health and housing projects and most of the grant funds will be re-granted to local nonprofits. The partnership includes technical assistance to grantees and borrowers, a state level public policy component, a media campaign, a cause-related marketing effort to leverage corporate resources, an advisory committee that includes agricultural workers, and an evaluation component.
An agreement between Self-Help, a North Carolina-based community development lender, the Ford Foundation and Fannie Mae to make $2 billion in affordable mortgages available to 35,000 minority and low-wealth homeowners nationwide (Since its founding in 1980, Self-Help has been creating homeownership opportunities for underserved North Carolinians. It has provided $240 million in financing to help 3,000 North Carolina low-income families become homeowners). A $50 million grant (plus an additional $1.8 million for operating expenses) from Ford will enable Self-Help to develop products designed to expand homeownership opportunities for people unable to meet conventional lending standards. In turn, Fannie Mae will purchase and/or securitize the loans that Self-Help intends to acquire.
Initiatives launched by the Rural Development & Finance Corporation, with foundation and government support, to provide technical assistance and training, capitalize loan funds, and build the capacity of community and reservation-based organizations along the Texas-Mexico border and in Indian country in Montana.
The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC), established by Congress in 1965, a unique partnership between the governors of the 13 Appalachian states and a presidential appointee representing the federal government, to support economic and social development projects (i.e., workforce training, highway construction, leadership development, small business start-ups) implemented by community-based practitioners in local development districts.
The Community Resource Group (CRG), an Arkansas-based organization founded in 1975 to help rural communities in the South plan, finance and manage transportation, water and waste-disposal systems. A recent $1 million foundation grant is enabling CRG to help residents of colonias in the lower Rio Grande gain title to land that encompasses 2,300 residential lots.
Cutting-edge technical assistance and training programs created by the First Nations Development Institute to help Indian tribes achieve self-sufficiency. The Oweesta Program and the Lakota Fund provide tribes with technical assistance and capital to help them build community-based financial intermediaries that are "economically viable and culturally sensitive."

These emerging intermediary models work "close to the ground" over extended periods of time, to develop a more acute understanding of the historic, political, and cultural forces that shape development at the local level. This proves particularly helpful in remote rural areas where distrust of outsiders can derail the best-intentioned efforts. It also underscores the "value-added" role of intermediaries as key collaborative partners.

Federal Initiatives Inviting Public-Private Collaboration or Partnership

Recent federal initiatives offer encouraging opportunities for funders and rural communities. Key federal government agencies are making a concerted effort "to become more of a partner in development rather than just a provider of loans and grants," in order to promote "wider cooperation, collaboration and partnering." This government-wide, comprehensive approach is manifesting itself in concrete ways. As a joint effort of USDA and HUD, the Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community (EZ/EC) program based awards on the quality of strategic plans developed by a broad cross-section of community stakeholders. This locally-based planning process helped participants hone their leadership skills and connect with a variety of funders, in order to meet matching grant requirements.

In rural areas, USDA coordinates the EZ/EC funding process and generally serves as the designated lead agency for efforts that involve multiple federal entities affecting rural areas. It coordinates with other federal departments to address a range of issues in disadvantaged rural communities. The USDA's strategy involves "improved knowledge, capital and labor ... and strengthening the capacity of local communities, in creative partnerships to continue long-term economic development."

The recently enacted Rural Community Development Initiative (RCDI) reflects the new approach to revitalizing neglected areas through a multi-pronged strategy that promotes local decision-making and capacity building, leveraging of resources, and collaboration. Congress created RCDI in 1999 and appropriated $6 million for its first year. Funds are used to:

Develop the capacity and ability of private, nonprofit, community-based housing and community development organizations, and low-income rural communities to improve housing, community facilities, community and economic development projects in rural areas;
Support qualified private and public (including tribal) intermediary organizations proposing to carry out a program of technical assistance; and
Encourage intermediary organizations to seek matching funds from other non-federal sources to increase the impact of the program.

RCDI encourages a consortium of groups to work together in multi-state or regional efforts and represents a more integrated approach to channeling technical assistance and resources to the nation's poorest areas. The ultimate effectiveness of the program will depend on experienced practitioners and community-based leaders joining forces with a broad group of funders, devising coordinated strategies aimed at establishing a solid, sustainable base of funding.

Operating in a similar fashion, HUD's Rural Housing and Economic Development Program (RHEDP) made over 100 grants totaling $24.7 million in June 2000 to local rural non-profit organizations, CDCs, Indian tribes, State housing finance agencies, and State economic development or community development agencies. Intended to be used to build capacity at the state and local level, funding supports "innovative activities" and provides seed support to groups located in areas that have limited development capacity.

RHEDP maintains an "innovative strategies clearinghouse" of ideas related to rural revitalization. It does not have a match requirement. Because it focuses on capacity building and encourages new approaches to rural housing and economic development needs, the program's objectives are in line with USDA, EDA and other agencies - a promising sign that a degree of coordination does exist at the federal level.

In its second year, RHEDP provides seed support for new organizations in areas where the nonprofit infrastructure is nonexistent, but the $3 million allocated for start-ups in 1999 falls far short of meeting the organizational development needs in persistently poor communities. This presents another opportunity for funders to pool their resources in a way that can buttress HUD support and leverage the impact of these efforts.

Three other federal programs merit the attention of funders interested in promoting investment in rural communities. The Administration's New Markets Initiative, aimed at "growing" locally-based enterprises, will extend tax credits, loan guarantees, small business assistance, and aid to build a network of community-based private investment institutions in rural and urban areas. A joint effort of the White House Economic Council, the SBA, HUD, and the Department of the Treasury, the incentives geared to providing access to capital financing on terms and conditions appropriate for a range of investment needs could stimulate $15 billion of new capital investment in targeted areas.

The U.S. Department of Commerce's Economic Development Administration has a Local Technical Assistance Program that helps fill the knowledge and information gaps that may prevent lenders in the public and nonprofit sectors in distressed areas from making optimal decisions on local economic development issues. Finally, the Department of the Treasury's CDFI Fund, created in 1994, provides technical assistance and core support through grants and loans to nascent and mature CDFIs (i.e., loan funds, intermediaries, credit unions) in order to expand the availability of credit, investment capital, and financial services in distressed urban and rural communities. To date, the Fund has made more than $300 million in awards to community development organizations and financial institutions. CDFIs are required to match the Treasury's capital grants and loans dollar for dollar. As with the EZ/EC and RCDI programs, the CDFI Fund and the New Markets Initiative require additional support from private sector sources and offer significant opportunities for enlarging and increasing comprehensive rural development efforts in a consequential way.

Dynamic Collaboration and Community Building "From the Inside Out"

Clearly, the time is right for public and private funders and stakeholders to consider collaborating with their peers and with "unlikely" partners to forge partnerships in underserved rural communities that can advance regional cooperation, foster leadership development, and enhance capacity building at the local level. Admittedly, the challenges related to institutional culture, oversight, and sustainability inherent in framing strategic partnerships, can be intimidating. While local historical influences and political realities can thwart the most well-intentioned efforts, the persistent level of need in the country's poor isolated areas demands a vigorous, well-coordinated response from funders, practitioners, and policymakers.

Recent efforts are bringing national and regional players together to support local rural development efforts. The Ford Foundation's six-year-old Rural Development and Community Foundations Initiative engages funders to work together to help community foundations build endowments, make investments, and solidify alliances with local residents, nonprofits, and businesses. Community foundations are playing an increasingly important role in helping to "jump start" a range of development activities. With combined assets of $21 billion, community foundations have more than doubled in number in the U.S. over the last decade, from 250 to more than 500 today. The "ripple" effects or leveraging potential of these programs are impressive. For example, the East Tennessee Foundation built up its endowment from $10 million to more than $40 million in seven years, by raising the matching funds required by Ford. It established grantmaking programs in the arts, affordable housing, and economic development in a multi-county area.

At the national-regional level, Hispanics in Philanthropy (HIP), a funders' affinity group, offers a "best practice" example of how public and private funders and intermediaries are working together to provide flexible financial and technical assistance for nurturing local leadership and building organizational capacity. The HIP partnership makes grants through regional committees comprised of a variety of stakeholders, creating a network among funders and grantees that encourages shared learning, relies on a spirit of trust as well as risk-taking, and results in common ownership of efforts funded.

These examples, along with the new approaches underway at the federal level, bode well for the prospects of collaboration and community building in our "forgotten" rural communities. Partnerships with more entrepreneurial local and regional intermediary organizations and community-based nonprofits and with new advocates bring the promise of new approaches, a new sense of self-determination and new and expanded bases of support. This catalytic, ecumenical approach to supporting locally-driven revitalization activities can stimulate the flow of resources to our most neglected areas, exerting a very real influence on practice and policy in the process.

What Grantmakers Can Do

Identify overarching issues that link urban and rural consitutencies in the fight to alleviate poverty. Are there other funders - public, private, or corporate - that can be allies in rural grantmaking?
Inform their boards about rural needs and opportunities.
Publicly funded programs at the local, state, and federal levels are key to rural development efforts. They often require matching funds. Are there opportunities to support organizations monitoring and advocating for them? Are there opportunities to provide the required match?
Ask rural grantees to document lessons learned. Circulate the information within a broader circle of funders who are addressing rural issues.
Join NFG's Rural Funders Working Group. The Working Group's mission is to increase the awareness of funding needs in rural communities and to foster greater involvement and partnership efforts in responding to the needs of rural communities. Call 703-448-1777 for more information.

Deborah L. Visser, principal of Visser and Associates, is an independent consultant advising nonprofits and philanthropies, working in the community economic development arena, in: program design, implementation and assessment, organizational management, policy analysis, and resource development.