Will rural areas get their fair share of infrastructure money, given human capital and other resource deficits?

Tweet by rural organizer Anderson Clayton, whose day job is working for a
broadband company; the remainder of the thread is below 

The Daily Yonder ran this important story last week.  It implicates a topic that I've pondered a lot and written about some:  what are the consequences of the human capital shortages in rural America--deficits that prevent many communities from seeking--or at least effectively seeking--grant funds on offer.  Another issue is their capacity to implement and meet reporting requirements when they do get grants.  Here's an excerpt from the Yonder story by Aallyah Wright:

In theory, the $1.2 trillion infrastructure law that President Joe Biden signed last week should provide a huge boost. Much of that money will flow to state governments, with the most populous states getting the largest amounts. Then cities, towns, and counties will compete for grants and loans, with state officials deciding who gets what. Federal officials will maintain control of about $120 billion, part of which will be doled out through competitive grants.

But rural leaders worry that they lack the staff and matching dollars to compete with bigger cities for their fair share of the bounty.

“In small, conservative states like Nebraska [for example], we’ve seen challenges with responding to federal stimulus dollars,” said Johnathan Hladik, policy director for the Center for Rural Affairs.

“And in many circumstances,” he said, “there isn’t the internal infrastructure to accept federal money, develop ideas for how it could be spent, develop regulations for how it should be spent, and go ahead and implement it.”

This reminds me of recent coverage of federal monies flowing into my home community, both to the county government and the school districts.  Coverage of these matters in my hometown weekly newspaper is often vague and confusing regarding how COVID-19 funds will be spent, but that coverage sometimes suggests funds are being spent in ways not envisaged by the federal government.  Salient posts are here (re how the Jasper School District is spending federal money) and here (re how Newton County is spending federal funds).  

The Daily Yonder story continues:  

State agencies ought to help small communities that don’t have the people or money to compete with larger neighbors, said Shawn Wilson, secretary of the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development and the newly elected president of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

For some rural and small-town communities, sometimes the question isn’t whether they can secure the funds, Wilson said in an interview, but rather: “Can they actually close the deal on the grant, implement the grant and not find themselves in all kinds of trouble because of not following federal regulations or not being accustomed to it?

“Those are real issues that happen in rural communities all across the country today.”

This reminds me of a few things.  One is the lack of "human capital"--or what I tend to call "developed human capital" in rural communities--meaning folks who have grant writing skills, even those who know about grants.  At Rural Sociological Society meetings I was attending a decade ago, scholars were talking about this as "gray gold."  It was "gold" because it was valuable, and it was "gray" because often the folks who had these skills were those who were moving into rural communities in retirement.    

The other thing I'm reminded of is the California Legal Services Trust Fund Committee's setting aside or prioritizing a certain amount of grant funding for legal aid providers in rural areas.  

The remainder of Anderson Clayton's tweet thread about the practicalities of rural broadband implementation follow:

  

Another recent story on investments in rural people and places is here, from the Center for American Progress.  The headline is "Build Back Rural: New Investments in Rural Capacity, People, and Innovation," and the subhead is, "A net-zero and equitable economy requires the participation and leadership of rural communities, enabled by foundational rural investments in the Build Back Better Act."  The Brookings Institute published this in late June, well before the infrastructure bill passed, "Will Biden deliver for rural America?  The potential of the proposed Rural Partnership Program."  I was one of the authors of this, 5 things the Biden administration should do for rural America, nearly a year ago.  

Postscript:  A May 2023 NPR story on rural deficits around grant writing is here.