You can take the rural out of the farm, but...

Despite the fact that studies have all conclusively proved that only a very small minority of rural people are involved in agriculture or farming (7%, according to the W.K. Kellogg Foundation), it appears that not only do non-rural people still equate the rural with agriculture, but the United States government still structures itself so that "rural" is equated with "farm" as well. Although not surprising, the so-called Department of Rural Development is located as a subsidiary of the US Department of Agriculture.

What are its goals, you may ask? According to its website, the DRD is dedicated to "helping improve the economy and quality of life in rural America."

Our financial programs support such essential public facilities and services as water and sewer systems, housing, health clinics, emergency service facilities and electric and telephone service. We promote economic development by supporting loans to businesses through banks , credit unions and community-managed lending pools. We offer technical assistance and information to help agricultural producers and cooperatives get started and improve the effectiveness of their operations. We provide technical assistance to help communities undertake community empowerment programs.

The Department of Rural Development not only has a national secretary and under secretaries, but it also has a director appointed for almost every state in the union--thankfully, there is no director for the state of Rhode Island, which, I can assure you, is so densely populated that not a single inch of it could be classified as rural.

Perhaps the federal government does not want to waste money re-structuring its programs just because populations have shifted, or technology has enabled farming to become something that is less labor-intensive, but placing its Department of Rural Development squarely under the USDA, which monitors, among other things, the country's food and nutrition, seems like it might largely be ignoring the true needs for adequate social programming for rural families and children-- such as education, job opportunities, and access to holistic medical care.

Of course, I'm sure entire courses are taught in Political Science discussing the origins and functions of government bureaucracy, so the process of changing which Department administers the Rural Development Department may just be more work, time, and effort than would be deemed necessary or appropriate. However, it seems perfectly clear that the general publics' assumptions about rurality being overwhelmingly linked to agriculture may be reinforced by the federal government's continued insistence that the two go hand-in-hand.