Curtia Taylor, USDA/ERS (top); Eyewire (bottom) Federal spending and credit programs can revive
or sustain rural economies. Which regions or geographic areas
benefit the most from Federal funding? This question can be
answered by examining the geographic distribution of Federal
funds by type of Federal program. For example, high-poverty
areas, such as Appalachia and the Mississippi Delta, have
received above-average levels of income security payments
such as food stamps and Social Security. However, these distressed
areas received below-average payments from Federal community
resources programs that contribute to local infrastructure,
housing, and business assistance—programs crucial to
economic development.
The principal source for Federal funds data is
the Consolidated Federal Funds Reports data from the Census
Bureau. ERS aggregates the latest available data (fiscal year
2001) to the county, State, regional, and national levels
for each program and computes per capita estimates by type
of nonmetropolitan (nonmetro) county. Overall, nonmetro areas
received slightly less funding per capita ($6,020) than metropolitan
(metro) areas ($6,131), but the amount of funding varied greatly
by type or function of the program. Nonmetro areas benefited
disproportionately from agriculture and natural resource program
payments, income security payments (including Social Security
and food stamps/other assistance to low-income individuals),
and human resources programs. In contrast, metro areas benefited
more from community resources programs (including infrastructure,
housing, and business assistance), defense and space programs
(the largest of the national programs), and national (nondefense)
function programs such as criminal justice and law enforcement,
energy, and higher education and research.
So which regions get what in rural America? Total Federal
funding was highest in the South ($6,660 per capita) and lowest
in the Midwest ($5,566 per capita), but this pattern did not
hold up for nonmetro areas. The nonmetro West received the
most ($6,129 per capita) due to higher-than-average payments
from community resources and national functions as well as
relatively high funding from human resources and defense/space
functions. On the other hand, the nonmetro Northeast received
the lowest funding ($5,512 per capita) as a result of lower-than-average
payments for agriculture and natural resource programs.
Federal funds data indicate the types of rural places that
are particularly affected by the various programs. The data
can be used to address many questions about rural communities
receiving funds and can help rural development programs target
rural areas in need of assistance.
|