2015-2017 PROGRAM OF WORK
This overview briefly describes RUPRI’s current portfolio, as well as our anticipated program of work
over the next two years. This research and outreach plan was developed by RUPRI’s national Leadership
Team and Staff, as a key component of our ongoing Strategic Plan. It should be noted that this reflects
programs underway, across all funding sources. However, the Congressional support RUPRI has received
for the past 25 years was essential to our approach, since these funds enabled the flexible, stakeholdercentric relevance for which RUPRI is well known.
For example, a very large component of RUPRI’s current rural policy decision support occurs in senior
policy consultation between the RUPRI president and principals with policy makers and staff. This is not
reflected below. Additionally, because RUPRI strives for policy relevance, and has always had the
funding flexibility needed to address emergent demands of highest rural impact, what we begin the year
undertaking will be altered by circumstances in the policy or practice arenas.
One great example is the request RUPRI received from senior leadership within USDA and the
Appalachian Regional Commission to assist Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear and House
Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers in addressing the challenges within the Appalachian counties of
eastern Kentucky, which resulted in creation of the Shaping Our Appalachian Region (SOAR initiative).
This has become one of the most innovative collective impact models operating in rural America.
However, the RUPRI program of work was radically altered as a result of the RUPRI President’s
leadership in Kentucky, which finally resulted in his agreement to serve as Interim Executive Director of
SOAR for one year. None of this would have been possible if RUPRI were funded under a typical project
grant funding stream.
Furthermore, RUPRI functions as a brokering intermediary, seeking to add value to the work of others.
This approach contrasts with the highly competitive, proprietary nature of most research grant seeking
institutions, and most federal funding opportunities.
Readers will perhaps be surprised at the depth and breadth of our program of work, since few see the
broader portfolio, beyond their sector-relevant focus. However, this breadth has allowed RUPRI to be an
early advocate for some of the most significant systemic changes in rural America over the last 25 years,
including rural entrepreneurship, regional governance and innovation, rural wealth creation, creative
placemaking, and collective impact investing across all sectors.
Each of our portfolios is very briefly outlined in the following pages, including our teams and current
program of work, as well as projected activity in that space.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
Document Purpose / Overview
Rural Health Panel and Center for Rural Health Policy Analysis
Rural Assistance Center (RAC)
Analytic and Academic Programs
 Simulation Modeling of Inequality, Economic Mobility, and Rural Health
 Research Project on Upward Mobility in Rural America
 Agenda Setting Conference: Rural Inequality, Economic Mobility,
and Rural Wealth Creation
 SOAR Regional Policy Analysis Model
 Micropolitan Region Project
Poverty, Inequality, and Economic Mobility
Next Generation Arts and Culture Placemaking
 Art of the Rural
 River Summit
Human Services Panel / Rural Poverty Projects
General State, National, and International Policy Programs
 State Policy Programs
Rural Innovation
Micropolitan Regional Development
Severance Tax Approaches
Last Mile Broadband Development
Regional Innovation Governance and Collective Impact Investing
 National Policy Programs
 International Policy Programs
International Comparative Rural Policy Studies Program
Other Policy / Practice Collaboration
Organizational / Structural Dynamics of Particular USDA Interest
3
3
6
7
8
9
9
10
15
17
21
24
28
30
31
31
32
32
33
33
33
34
35
36
37
38
2
RUPRI’s Overarching Framework
The overarching framework guiding RUPRI’s policy priorities is wealth creation, including its growth,
distribution, stability and resilience. Comprehensive wealth is defined as the sum of private and public
investments in built, human, natural, social, intellectual, cultural and political capital. Growth in
comprehensive wealth also assures the sustainability of regional and national economies.
Sustained and equitable growth in wealth will depend on strong and efficient systems of governance, and
while Federal and state policy will be critical elements, such systems are best organized at the regional
level. Effective regions will include urban and rural people and places. For most rural people and places,
participation in a micropolitan-based system of regional governance will be key.
The wealth of rural people and places will depend (among other things) on access to quality of
infrastructure, public and private services, employment and business opportunities, and in rural places and
nearby micropolitan centers. The wealth of micropolitan residents, and ultimately of the nation, will
depend on the prosperity and resilience of rural people and places.
The products of analysis based on this framework will be a monitoring system based on new and
innovative indicators of wealth (and its dimensions) especially for rural places. This monitoring system
will report on the changing conditions in the rural and micropolitan spaces. It will evolve over time as the
framework becomes more comprehensive and as data become available. This monitoring system will
provide an evidence-based policy platform or tool.
Rural Health Panel and Center for Rural Health Policy Analysis
Rural Health Panel Members
Dr. Keith Mueller, Professor and Head, Department of Health Management and Policy, College
of Public Health, University of Iowa
Dr. Clinton MacKinney, Clinical Associate Professor, Department of Health Management and
Policy, College of Public Health, University of Iowa
Dr. Tim McBride, Professor, George Warren Brown School of Social Work, Washington
University in St. Louis
Dr. Andy Coburn, Research Professor and Director, Edmund S. Muskie School of Public
Service, University of Southern Maine
Dr. Jennifer Lundblad, President and Chief Executive Officer, Stratis Health, Minnesota
Charlie Alfero, Director, Center for Health Innovations, Hidalgo Center for Medical Innovation,
Southwest New Mexico
3
Center for Rural Health Policy Analysis Principals
Dr. Keith Mueller, Professor and Head, Department of Health Management and Policy,
College of Public Health, University of Iowa
Dr. Clinton MacKinney, Clinical Associate Professor, Department of Health Management and
Policy, College of Public Health, University of Iowa
Dr. Marcia Ward, Professor, Department of Health Management and Policy, University of Iowa
Dr. Padmaja Ayyagari, Assistant Professor, Department of Health Management and Policy,
University of Iowa
Dr. Tom Vaughn, MHA Program Director, Associate Professor, Department of Health
Management and Policy, University of Iowa
Dr. Tim McBride, Professor, George Warren Brown School of Social Work, Washington
University
Advisory Board Members
Alan Morgan, Chief Executive Officer, National Rural Health Association, Washington DC
Dr. Jon Christenson, Professor and Chair, Division of Health Policy & Management, University
of Minnesota
Dr. David Palm, Associate Professor, Department of Health Services Research and
Administration, College of Public Health, University of Nebraska Medical Center
Jim FitzPatrick, President and Chief Executive Officer, Mercy Medical Center, Sioux City, IA
Kevin Wellen, Senior Managing Consultant, BKD, LLP, St. Louis, Missouri
Current Activities
Four streams of activities are underway:
1. Research Projects: Center faculty are leading research projects investigating the continued evolution of
the Medicare Advantage Program in rural counties, including the presence/absence of enrollment activity,
choices among completing plans in rural places, and performance of MA plans in rural markets on quality
indicators. We are also conducting research assessing the changes in the health insurance marketplace in
rural areas, whit the same questions about presence of market activities, choices for residents, and
implications for cost and quality of care. Other faculty are leading the RUPRI Center for Rural Health
Policy Analysis projects analyzing maturing accountable care organizations in rural places, use of local
rural hospitals, and effects of use of safety net providers. We also track the closure of rural independent
pharmacies and are assessing the impact of changes in payment of physicians in the Medicare program.
The theme of the Center is to assess the market-based changes occurring in finance and delivery. Funding
from the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy Rural Research Program.
4
2. Policy Analysis: The RUPRI Health Panel completed a major paper, Advancing the Transition to a
High Performance Rural Health system at the end of 2014 and much of its attention is now focused on
providing further detail about the four approaches described in that paper. A paper on care coordination
will be published in spring, 2015. The Panel is considering rural implications of new Medicare goals to
transition payment to value based methodologies. We are also considering the impacts of Medicaid
redesign on rural places and providers. Funding from the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy and the
Leona M and Harry B Helmsley Charitable Trust.
3. Evaluation Research: The RUPRI Center includes a strong expertise in evaluation research that is
sought after by federal agencies and foundations. We just completed a three-year evaluation of use of
telehealth services in rural hospitals, funded by the Helmsley Foundation. That project has led to more
than six publications (some are under review) in academic journals and is informing continued policy
development, including new investments by the US Department of Agriculture. We are initiating an
evaluation of the Access Receive3d Closer to Home program of the Department of Veteran Affairs, with
funding from the VA. We have participated as the local evaluation expertise for projects in Iowa and
Nebraska. We also collaborate with Mathematica in bidding for evaluation contracts, including one
underway now supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration.
4. Technical Assistance: The RUPRI Center partners with Stratis Health in a special project, Rural
Health Value. Through this project we have developed a special web site (www.ruralhealthvalue.org) that
archives examples of rural innovation, resources and tools rural providers can use to transition from
volume to value, and archives of RUPRI Center/Stratis Health special material, including presentations
given by our project leaders. We also provide direct technical assistance, in five sites selected around the
country, and in our home states of Iowa and Nebraska. This program is funded by the Federal Office of
Rural Health Policy.
Projected Work Plan
Each of the four streams of activities will continue. In addition, the RUPRI Panel and Center anticipate
growth (assuming success in securing resources) in the following activities:
1. Building Accountable Care Communities (ACCs): In collaboration with the RUPRI Human Services
Panel we are completing a background white paper for organizations in Humboldt County, California
focused on the prospects of developing a rural-centric ACC in their county. We have learned a great deal
in this project and would welcome opportunities to use our combined intellectual power to help other
rural communities consider and adopt this model.
2. Hospital Activities to Develop Cultures of Health: Another activity that cuts across the various policy
sectors included in RUPRI’s portfolio, in this arena the RUPRI Center is well positioned, through its
collaborations across the U of Iowa College of Public Health, to complete research related to how rural
hospital initiatives focus on the culture of health in their communities, and provide assistance to rural
hospitals wanting to take local leadership. The Center will be engaged in such activities in Iowa and
would participate in efforts beyond our home state.
5
Rural Assistance Center (RAC)
Advisory Board Members
Darrold Bertsch, Chief Executive Officer, Sakakawea Medical Center
Jenae Bjelland, Director, Healthy Homes, National Association of State Community Services
Vaughn Clark, Director, Office of Community Development, Oklahoma Department of
Commerce
Teryl Eisinger, Director, National Organization of State Offices of Rural Health
Joseph D. Gallegos, Senior Vice President, Western Operations, National Association of
Community Health Centers
Maeghan Gilmore, Program Director, National Association of Counties
Larry Goolsby, Director, Legislative Affairs and Policy, American Public Human Services
Association, Washington, D.C.
Dr. Lenard W. Kaye, Director, University of Maine Center on Aging
Alan Morgan, Chief Executive Officer, National Rural Health Association
Dr. Jan Probst, Director, South Carolina Rural Health Research Center
Dr. Donald Warne, Associate Professor and Director, Master of Public Health Program, North
Dakota State University
A product of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Rural Initiative, the Rural Assistance
Center (RAC) was established in December 2002 as a rural health and human services "information
portal." RAC helps rural communities and other rural stakeholders access the full range of available
programs, funding, and research that can enable them to provide quality health and human services to
rural residents.
RAC is a collaboration of the University of North Dakota Center for Rural Health (UND-CRH), the Rural
Policy Research Institute (RUPRI), and the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy (FORHP) at the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, and is located at the University of North Dakota. Funding
comes from FORHP and stems from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Rural Initiative,
which seeks to create a more integrative framework for the Department's rural portfolio-a portfolio
including some 225 programs.
Current Activities / Projected Work Plan
RUPRI’s program of work for RAC has been continuing since we co-founded this nationally recognized
exemplar. This work has been executed for the past 13 years, through consulting agreements and
subcontracts, administered by the University of North Dakota.
6
Analytic and Academic Programs
Principals
Dr. Sam Cordes, Professor and Associate Vice Provost, Emeritus, Center for Regional
Development, Purdue University
Dr. Matthew Fannin, Associate Professor, Louisiana State University
Dr. Tom Johnson, Frank E. Miller Professor of Agricultural Economics, University of Missouri
– Columbia
Dr. Neus Raines, Postdoctoral Fellow, University of Missouri - Columbia
Dr. Bruce Weber, Professor of Agriculture, Resource Economics and Extension Economist,
Director, Rural Studies Program, Oregon State University
One of the cornerstones of sound policy and a functioning democracy is sound information to help guide
decisions at the community, regional/state, national, and international levels. From its inception, RUPRI
has never strayed from its primary mission of relying upon a sound evidentiary base to help inform
policy.
As RUPRI moves forward it intends to further strengthen the analytic capacity upon which sound policy
can be based. This strengthening includes both an internal and external component.
Strengthening Internal Capacity
There are at least two dimensions associated with strengthening RUPRI’s internal capacity.
The first is to articulate clearly the integrative framework that provides the roadmap to align and link
various components of the RUPRI portfolio. The second is to generate and leverage resources to
effectuate the alignment and integration of the portfolio on a real-time basis.
The Wealth Creation Framework, pioneered largely by RUPRI and ERS-USDA, is the ideal conceptual
framework or road map for aligning and linking the various components of RUPRIs portfolio, including
the analytic aspects associated with various RUPRI panels and teams.
Within RUPRI, the Wealth Creation Framework has been most heavily embraced by the RUPRI Spatial
Analytics Group. This Group has also provided overall leadership for two related areas of work:
micropolitan analytics; and social and economic inequality and mobility. The Spatial Analytics Group is
prepared to provide leadership for enhancing integrative work across the RUPRI portfolio.
Increasing External Capacity
RUPRI has long played a leadership role in fostering intellectual curiosity and dialogue. The intended
outcome of these efforts is to increase the willingness and capacity of the scholarly community to engage
in cutting edge research and science vis-à-vis critical rural issues and opportunities. Increasing this
7
capacity is driven by a strong sense of urgency, as a large cadre of researchers and scholars who provided
this intellectual leadership for the past two to three decades is nearing retirement age. In a very real sense
a “succession plan” is essential.
This increased capacity for intellectual leadership need not reside in RUPRI, but bringing about such an
outcome is central to RUPRI’s mission. RUPRI is uniquely qualified to play a major role in this capacity
building, given the following RUPRI assets: a vibrant national and international network of scholars and
practitioners; strong and long-standing collaborative working relationships with the nonprofit sector and
key advocacy groups; and deep and trusted relationships built around mutual respect and over a long
period of time with crucial players at all levels of government, both elected and appointed.
The following RUPRI activities are designed to increase the capacity and scope of intellectual resources
dedicated to rural issues and opportunities, both in the short-run and in terms of planning for an intergenerational succession of intellectual leadership:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Organizing and sponsoring research agenda setting conferences and workshops
“Marketing” to create and increase awareness of the exciting opportunities in “rural
studies”
Sponsoring and funding of dissertation grants and post-doctoral opportunities
Sponsoring and funding of internships and summer exchange programs
Providing travel scholarships to young scholars and other professionals
Adding “next generation” scholars to RUPRI’s existing teams
Creating a RUPRI Fellows program
Current Activities
Rural Inequality, Economic Mobility, Wealth Creation and Federal Rural Development Policy
Three recent strands of economic research have brought issues of economic inequality and upward
mobility to the center of public policy debates, raising issues that are critical to the U.S. economic future:
(1) Piketty’s macroeconomic analysis of returns to financial capital, national economic growth and
income inequality; (2) Chetty et al.’s empirical analysis of the geography of economic mobility,
highlighting the factors including human capital affecting upward mobility as they vary across the U.S.;
and (3) Pender et al.’s recent volume on rural wealth creation, that offers a framework for measuring and
linking changes in wealth to economic well-being and the distribution of income in rural regions.
RUPRI proposed three activities in 2014-15 to integrate these strands of economic research into a
research program that would support the development of federal policy to (1) increase the level of
economic well-being in rural America; (2) improve social outcomes and the distribution of both wealth
and income in rural America; (3) maintain a sustainable environment.
1. Simulation Modeling of Inequality, Economic Mobility and Rural Wealth
There is currently no spatially explicit model linking inequality, upward mobility and wealth in its various
forms. This first effort would build a multiregional simulation model that linked both the level of wealth
8
and inequality in different forms of wealth to income mobility across regions to and income inequality in
income across rural and urban regions. The model would simulate the impact of selected federal policy
instruments, creating a tool to assist federal rural policy. This model would grow out of a RUPRI-led
multi-university graduate seminar in public policy and applied economics on rural inequality and wealth
creation. This research project would require a post-doctoral researcher to synthesize the modeling
efforts of the graduate seminar and contribute to the rigor of the analysis.
2. Research Project on Upward Mobility in Rural America
Recent research on the geography of intergenerational economic mobility has generated a great deal of
excitement among applied economists studying rural regions of the United States. Much of the discussion
of this research has focused on how intergenerational mobility varies across the nation's metropolitan
areas, which is of course where the bulk of the population lives. Many of the commuting zones where
youth have had the greatest upward mobility, however, are rural. And the rural areas exhibiting high
upward mobility have many of the characteristics that Chetty et al. identified as correlated with upward
mobility: low residential segregation, low inequality, good schools, high social capital, and favorable
family structures.
This research project (1) explores the variation in absolute and relative upward mobility across the ruralurban continuum; and (2) develops and tests hypotheses about whether the factors associated with
absolute and relative upward mobility are different in rural areas from those in metropolitan areas.1
Because commuting zones used by Chetty et al. include both urban and rural counties, and our interest is
in distinguishing rural from urban, we use counties as our unit of analysis in this paper. For the dependent
variables, we use the public use county-level data on absolute and relative upward mobility on the
Equality of Opportunity website (http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/index.php/data). For the righthand side variables, we assemble secondary data on selected characteristics at the county-level from the
Census, American Community Survey, and other published sources. Several alternative classifications of
rural and urban areas will be examined, including the standard OMB Core-based Statistical Areas
classifications, the Rural-Urban Continuum Codes and Urban Influence Codes of the USDA Economic
Research Service, and the Isserman Rural-Urban Density Codes.
3. Agenda Setting Conference: Rural Inequality, Economic Mobility, Rural Wealth Creation and Federal
Rural Development Policy
Absolute upward mobility is defined in Chetty et al. as the “expected [income] rank of children whose
parents are at the 25th percentile of the national income distribution based on the rank-rank regression.”
A higher rank indicates greater upward mobility.
1
Relative mobility is measured as the “slope from the OLS regression of child [income] rank on parent
[income] rank.” Since larger values for this slope indicate that child rank is closer to parent rank, higher
values of the slope indicate lower economic mobility.
9
RUPRI has entertained the possibility of convening a conference of invited and contributed papers that
link two or more of these themes. The intention would be to co-sponsor this research conference with
Economic Research Service and Urban Institute or Brookings. Particularly welcome would be papers that



Focus on the relationships between inequality, poverty and upward mobility, and papers that identify
how these relationships vary depending on the initial wealth endowments (various types of capital) of
rural places, and the federal, state and local policies that make investments in these different types of
assets.
Analyze how these links are spatially related: whether inequality in urban areas, for example, affect
upward mobility or poverty in the surrounding rural periphery.
Attempt to broaden Piketty’s analysis in two ways: look at inequality in a broader set of capitals, and
examine how the return-to-capital/growth rate relationships vary across sub-national regions.
4. SOAR Regional Policy Analysis Model
Principals
Dr. Sam Cordes, Professor and Associate Vice Provost, Emeritus, Center for Regional
Development, Purdue University
Dr. Matthew Fannin, Associate Professor, Louisiana State University
Tom Johnson, Frank E. Miller Professor of Agricultural Economics, University of Missouri –
Columbia
Dr. Neus Raines, Postdoctoral Fellow, University of Missouri – Columbia
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
Sandy Runyon (Chair), Executive Director, Big Sandy Area Development District
Mike Patrick, Executive Director, Cumberland Valley Area Development District
Mike Miller, Executive Director, Kentucky River Area Development District
Donna Diaz, Executive Director, Lake Cumberland Area Development District
Gail K. Wright, Executive Director, Gateway Area Development District
Sherry McDavid, Executive Director, Fivco Area Development District
Amy Kennedy, Executive Director, Buffalo Trace Area Development District
Greg Harkenrider, Deputy Executive Director for Policy Research, Governor’s Office for Policy
Research
Michael Jones, Governor’s Office for Policy Research
10
Robin Rhea, Cabinet for Health and Family Services
Charles McGrew, Executive Director, Kentucky Center for Education and Workforce Statistics
Ron Crouch, Director of Research and Statistics, Department of Workforce Investment, Office of
Employment and Training
Donovan Blackburn, City Manager of Pikeville and Managing Director of SOAR
Jerry Rickett, President and Chief Executive Officer, Kentucky Highlands Investment
Corporation
Alison Davis, Executive Director, Community and Economic Development Initiative, University
of Kentucky
RUPRI researchers, working with a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and other local stakeholders,
have developed a decision support model for the SOAR initiative in eastern Kentucky. This policy
analysis model will contribute to the understanding of how the SOAR regional economy operates. The
model will take into account the full range of variables that drive the region’s labor force; and how the
labor force affects property values, tax revenues, public service and infrastructure needs, and housing
demand supply. The model will be useful to local, regional and state policy makers concerned with these
issues. Policy makers will understand how their choices, and those made by their residents, will impact
the regional economy.
The model will help in:




Understanding the region’s labor market dynamics;
Understanding the spatial linkages across labor markets;
Understanding the region’s housing market and local government sector; and
Raising the region’s capacity for evidence-based governance and policy making.
Projected Work Plan
1. 2015-16



Joint Paper Presentation on Early Project Findings (Already accepted for AAEA Meetings July
2015, San Francisco, CA
Initial Brainstorming Convening of PIs/Co-PIs – San Francisco, PA (In Conjunction with AAEA)
Convening of PIs/Co-PIs at RUPRI 25th Anniversary – Iowa City, IA
2. 2016-17


Initiate steps for development of Rural Wealth Creation textbook with corresponding workbook
o Align AFRI educational rural wealth content
Initiate rural wealth “Profile and Measurement” page on the RUPRI website
11



o Repository of wealth metrics and returns to wealth metrics
o Repository of wealth models
Initiate “Rural Wealth In Action” profiling best practice integrating collective impact model
successes from SOAR-Kentucky and future SOARs as well as Next Gen Arts and Culture,
Health, and Human Services
Target multi-session track at professional meetings on rural wealth measurement, extension, and
education
Target and initiate a proposal with major foundation linking rural wealth partners and sustainable
measurement and education strategies (academic and community)
3. 2017-18



RUPRI Convening national/international conference on Rural Wealth (potential partners: ICRPS,
Canadian partners, OECD, NIFA/USDA-RD/ERS, professional association)
o Focus on academic and policy audiences
o Connect with Micropolitan efforts towards influencing small and medium placed
development policy across federal agencies
Submit textbook proposal
Expand rural wealth measurement and rural wealth in action profiles on RUPRI website
4. Integration of Four AFRI Awarded Proposals – Rural Wealth Creation Framework
Background
Almost immediately after the confirmation of Secretary Vilsack as USDA Secretary in 2009, he made the
revitalization of the wealth of rural places one of his key priorities. To respond, researchers from the US
land-grant system and USDA (Economic Research Service) worked in consultation with funders (USDANIFA and Ford Foundation) to organize and convene scholars and practitioners around rural wealth.
The Rural Wealth Creation and Livelihoods conference in October 2011 (keynoted by Secretary Vilsack)
became not just an opportunity to highlight existing scholarship and best practice, but served as a
launching point for a coordinated strategy for expanding a “wealth creation framework” in rural
development research, outreach, and education. Rural Policy Research Institute (RUPRI) faculty and ERS
professionals organized an edited book titled Rural Wealth Creation (Routledge Press, 2014) to organize
much of the existing work on rural wealth and set forth a research agenda for expanding the framework.
The wealth creation framework complimented a popular economics text (Thomas Piketty’s Capital) by
moving the focus of development beyond simply incomes but to wealth. Rural Wealth Creation extends
Piketty’s approach by setting forth a research agenda to measure and understand the role of many of the
non-market forms of wealth on the livelihoods and sustainability of rural people and places.
The wealth creation framework’s research agenda was extended by its chapter authors and recognized
through their receiving funding for four of the eight funded proposals from the 2014 National Institute for
Food and Agriculture’s competitive grant program in Rural Communities and Regional Development.
12
The four funded proposals include Fannin, Johnson, and Pender (LSU, Missouri, ERS); Lewin, Watson,
Weber and Rhae (Idaho, Oregon St), Schmit, Kay and Jablonski (Cornell and Colorado St.), and
Zabawa, et al (Tuskogee and Auburn). This nationwide distribution of scholars leverage the wealth
creation framework in their literature reviews and arguments for their integrated projects. As currently
constructed, USDA-NIFA is committing approximately $2 million over these four projects between 2016
and 2018 to conduct research, develop extension programming, and create new educational products for
university students.
RUPRI faculty has reviewed partially or fully all these project proposals. We provide an overview for
each and how the projects harmonize with one another as well as harmonize with existing RUPRI
initiatives.
Review of 2014 Funded NIFA-AFRI Rural Development Proposals focusing on Rural Wealth
Fannin, Johnson and Pender (LSU, Missouri, and ERS):
1) Attempt to “price” non-market wealth capitals through evaluating their contribution to the price of
private market wealth capital (private housing/real estate) (research)
2) Develop systems dynamic models of the wealth creation framework using wealth capital measurements
and parameters from the pricing objective to simulate paths of changes in stocks of rural wealth and rural
quality of life indicators. (research)
3) Develop a master’s level online course on rural wealth creation. Create online wealth creation modules
that highlight system dynamics thinking about changing wealth stocks, their interactions and impacts on
quality of life of rural people and places. (education)
Lewin, Watson, Weber, and Rhae (Idaho and Oregon St):
1) Through path and survival analysis, create a quantitative score that highlights the duration and
path of GDP change over a five year pattern after the Great recession for US counties. A
descriptive analysis of these scores would provide an overview of general resilience (or bounce
back) of their economies from the great recession. (research)
2) Regress this score for each county on a set of secondary data wealth capital proxies for all US
counties to identify which wealth capital factors (or combinations) enhanced bounce back. Will
also apply Gini coefficients and other income inequality and potential wealth inequality measures
to evaluate impact of inequality on resilience. (research)
3) Use knowledge gained in research objectives to leverage WealthWorks program in Northwest
(extension)
Schmit, Kay, and Jablonski (Cornell, Colorado St)
1) Measuring rural-urban interlinkages through creating a hybrid Multi-Regional SAM (using
IMPLAN as a base) leveraging primary data about local foods inputs and urban market
relationships focused in New York State. (research)
2) Apply Rural Wealth Works and have Shanna Ratner deliver sessions. (extension)
13
3) Develop custom rural wealth creation and retention indicators for measuring performance of
relocalized food systems that can be leveraged in policy and outreach activities.
Zabawa et al (Tuskogee and Auburn)
1) Understand the relative value of people-based ownership with a rural region to leverage placebased wealth in the same region using the relative “cleanliness” of titles of heir property to
determine returns to wealth (research)
2) Develop extension strategies/programs to improve ownership rights of place-based assets.
(extension)
3) Establish a joint course on heir property and land loss on asset building and community
development (education)
Four Project Synthesis:
1) Rural Wealth Measurement (All four)
a. Fannin et al – secondary and administrative data stocks, primary data “price”
b. Lewin et al – secondary data stocks, primary returns to wealth- resilience score
c. Shmit et al - custom wealth creation/retention
d. Zabawa et al – people- vs place- based ownership and returns
2) Using WealthWorks (Lewin et al and Jablonski et al)
3) Linking inequality to wealth/returns to wealth (Fannin et al, Lewin et al)
a. Fannin et al – systems dynamics modeling and class/workbook modules (inequality to
prosperity)
b. Lewin et al – Relationship between inequality metrics and imputed resiliency scores
(inequality to resiliency)
4) Wealth Creation coursework (Fannin et al, Zabawa et al)
a. Fannin et al – wealth creation rural policy course; autonomous rural wealth policy
modules
b. Zabawa et al – heir property and land loss in asset building and community development
Linkages of this Portfolio to Other Components of the RUPRI Program of Work
1) Wealth Measurement – Cooperative agreements, under current Nebraska Micropolitan Project,
funded by the Rural Futures Institute
2) Rural-Urban linkages – Cooperative agreements
3) Resilience Measurement – Financial resilience work of Dr. Fannin continues, via RUPRI /
NADO financial resilience project
4) Measuring Central Hubs/Clusters of Rural Activity – Nebraska Micropolitan Project (mentioned
above)
14
5. Micropolitan Region Project
Background: The terms “rural” and “urban” commonly refer to a county categorization scheme developed
decades ago by the Federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The OMB categorization is
extremely important in that it is used very frequently in programmatic and policy decisions, including the
distribution of resources.
Until 2003, the OMB scheme was extremely urban-centric. Metropolitan Statistical Areas (metro areas)
were delineated and all other counties were thrown into a residual category and labelled by what they
were NOT, i.e., non-metropolitan counties.
In 2003, OMB created a special category of “rural” or non-metro counties: Micropolitan Statistical Areas
(micro areas). Micro areas must have at least one “urban cluster” of at least 10,000 but less than 50,000
population plus any adjacent counties with a high degree of social and economic integration with the
urban cluster, as measured by commuting ties.
Surprisingly, little research, thought or political mobilization have been directed specifically to micro
areas. However, micro areas have a huge footprint in rural America. There are 536 micro areas
encompassing 641 counties, representing nearly one-third of all non-metro counties and over one-half of
the non-metropolitan population. Micro areas are typically the anchor community for a much larger rural
region, serving as a trade center and regional hub for commerce, health care services, shopping and as a
source of employment for many people who commute from an extensive surrounding area.
As we think about the “…capacity and confidence of rural people to address their challenges and
opportunities…” (Per the RFI vision statement), it is important to gain a much better understanding of the
challenges and opportunities facing micro areas.
Proposed Plan: The long-term goal is to create a national research and engagement enterprise around the
role micro areas can play in creating a future rural America that is prosperous, resilient and attuned to the
importance of equity and environmental considerations.
RUPRI and others have generated a conceptual framework for wealth creation, broadly defined to include
multiple types of assets (i.e., physical, financial, human, intellectual, natural, social, political, and cultural
capital) (Pender et al. In Press). This framework will help guide the Micropolitan program
Justification: There is no corollary for a micro area focus and constituency. At the same time, micro area
elected officials are also part of the constituency of the U. S. Conference of Mayors and NACo. It is
believed these organizations (and perhaps others) would make an investment in a long-term strategy to
undertake research and engagement on behalf of their micro area constituency.
15
Projected Work Plan
1. Initiate the “Micropolitan Lab.” The Micropolitan Lab serves as the central clearinghouse for
everything that is framed from the Micropolitan perspective from RUPRI. I see it potentially including
three parts.
o
Micropolitan Monitor – This component of the lab focuses on presenting the historical and
present state of Micropolitan America. It features short write-ups of current conditions and
trends of these regions. It presents an up-to-date set of data visualizations (maps, charts,
graphs, and infographics) that tell the story of who Micropolitan America is, and what they
have historically contributed to the prosperity, resiliency, and social mobility of the county.
As new data are released, the indicators are quickly updated and regular analysis of these
changes are highlighted within a short time window of the data release (approximately one
two weeks)
 2015-16 Projects – Develop “dashboard” of 5 to 10 indicators of Micropolitan wealth
and performance using the wealth creation framework for identifying indicators that
measure “wealth” and “returns to wealth”. This builds on the 2014-15 RUPRI coop
by taking raw data organized around the wealth creation framework and building
visualizations of the data for academics, policymakers, and practitioners.
o
Policy Room – This portion of the lab highlights the existing impacts of existing federal and
state policies on Micropolitan region and draws implications of proposed/potential policies.
Work coming from our state policy team on alternative governance structures for delivering
local public services (Walzer et al) would fit in this area. I also see the quarterly profiling of
various contributions of our RUPRI portfolio framed in a Micropolitan context for this
section (social mobility, health, human services, etc.)
 2015-16 Projects
 Quarterly Social Mobility Analysis
 Quarterly Rural Health Analysis
 Quarterly Disaster Resiliency Analysis
 Quarterly Micropolitan Categorization Analysis
 State Policy Governance Structure Analysis
o
Evidence Room – This portion of the lab highlights evidence from existing scholarship on
Micropolitan regions. This would include academic evidence using cross-sectional panel
analyses that is generalizable as well as individual case study analyses. Possible cases from
current and future SOAR activities that are built around Micropolitan regions could also be
highlighted here.
 Identify Linkages between Micropolitan Wealth and Returns to Wealth
(existing RFI project)
16
The Micropolitan Lab would be branded through the RUPRI website (Version 2.0). Each of the elements
of the policy room and evidence room would be individual autonomous activities commissioned through
the lab and coop.
Poverty, Inequality, and Economic Mobility
Prospectus: Agenda Setting Workshop on Reducing Rural Child Poverty and Enhancing Upward Mobility
of Rural Low-income Children
Rural child poverty is a national concern for many reasons. Rural child poverty rates are higher than
metro child poverty rates, so rural children are more at risk. But almost half of rural children move to
urban areas as adults, so urban leaders should care about rural poverty since it will fall to urban areas to
deal with the some of the effects of rural child poverty. Chetty et al. (2014) found that 44.6 percent of
the rural children in the 1980-82 birth cohort had moved to urban areas by age 30. And 55.2 percent of
the rural children who moved from the bottom quintile of the national distribution to the top quintile
live in urban areas at age 30. (p. 1595)
Rural areas, however, are more successful on average than urban areas in generating upward mobility for
low-income children. Chetty et al. (2014) found that low-income children growing up in rural counties are
more likely to be upwardly mobile than children growing up in metro counties: "Urban areas tend to
exhibit lower levels of intergenerational mobility than rural areas on average." (pp. 1593-95) Some rural
places, however, are more successful than others in generating upwardly mobile children, and more
research is needed to understand why this is so and what can be done to enhance upward mobility.
What have we learned about upward mobility that could help shape national and local investments to
enhance intergenerational economic mobility? Three studies provide insight and lessons that can guide
a research agenda:

Upward mobility of poor rural children is in part locally determined. Child upward mobility is
amenable to local place-based investments. Chetty et al. (2014) assert that "The main lesson of our
analysis is that intergenerational mobility is a local problem, one that could potentially be tackled
using place-based policies". (p. 1620)

The factors that affect intergenerational upward mobility explain more of upward mobility in rural
areas than in metro areas. Furthermore, the correlations between t h e s e factors and upward
mobility are larger for rural than for metro areas. Weber et al. (2014) found that in non-metro areas,
the share of single female-headed household with children and the quality of spatial job matches
(as measured by short commute times) were both strongly correlated with upward mobility. In rural
areas, correlations of upward mobility with income inequality and social capital were also
significant (but of smaller size). This suggests that investments in rural areas that positively affect
these factors may have a greater impact on upward mobility than those in urban areas.
17

Community-level interventions may be more effective if they are tailored for different local-area
racial and economic contexts. In their study of child poverty, Curtis et al. (2014) attempt to discern
whether particular aspects of the local social and economic context affect the determinants of
child poverty. They use spatial regression techniques to examine whether the relationships
between child poverty and the factors that affect child poverty differ across the landscape. They
find, for example, that "unemployment and non-employment are stronger contributors to child
poverty in high minority counties suggesting that investments in economic development may do
more to ameliorate child poverty in these places." (p. 13). Furthermore, "increasing job
opportunities would be a reasonable focus in places dependent on mining, manufacturing and
government employment, especially given the recent economic downturn. Further, improved
support for disabled populations might have the most dramatic impact on ameliorating child
poverty in mining- and manufacturing-dependent counties." (p. 13)
What Chetty and colleagues have taught us is that upward mobility is, in part, locally determined; and
that some local factors affect the mobility of low-income children in the U.S. We know, for example,
that local segregation, social capital, income inequality, test scores and the fraction of single mothers
are correlated with upward mobility. What we don't know much about, however, is the underlying
processes that generate or inhibit upward mobility. Understanding these dynamics would enhance the
efficacy of local investments and policies to enhance upward mobility of low-income rural children.
Two particularly salient questions about these processes should frame a research agenda, if it is to more
fully inform place-based investments designed to move poor children out of poverty and to future
economic success.

How does local context affect the processes generating upward mobility?
Differences in local economic and demographic characteristics have been shown by Chetty et al. to
generate different upward mobility outcomes for youth. Are processes for generating upward mobility
affected differently by local economic and demographic variation? Curtis et al. explored whether local
economic factors (industry, unemployment.) and demographic factors (education, race.) condition the
processes that generate child poverty. Similar questions could be asked about upward-mobilitygenerating processes. We don't know, for example, whether the relationship between social capital and
upward mobility varies across the country, whether it is different in areas with large minority or singlemother populations or areas with high inequality.

How are upward mobility and migration related?
Does the high intergenerational economic mobility in rural places like the Great Plains occur because
the most upwardly mobile rural youth leave for better opportunity, or because the most upwardly
mobile stay and succeed at home? How much of the upward mobility is just outward mobility? We
know the economic success of adults who grew up in rural areas in 2010; but we do not know where
they were living, therefore the relationship between upward mobility and migration remains unclear.
18
So the first question is how much of the upward mobility we observe in different places is related to
the migration of young people to cities. But there is a second question that would follow, if we knew
the answer to the first question: the second question is HOW this relationship between economic
mobility and geographic mobility varies, depending upon the economic base of the local economy
where the child grew up.
Addressing these critical rural policy questions would require access to data that is publicly available from
the Harvard website. Chetty et al. may have some, but not all of this information. Additional agreements
with IRS may be needed to access this information and move this research forward.
Current Activities
1. 2015 Research project on poverty and Federal development policy in rural America.

RUPRI Working Paper on "Persistent Poverty Dynamics: Understanding Poverty Trends over 50
Years" (Miller and Weber, July 2014)
 RUPRI Working Paper on the impact of USDA RD Investments on poverty, now scheduled to be
completed in July 2015.
 Book chapter titled “Poverty in Rural America: Then and Now” (Weber and Miller) will be
completed by June 2015.
2. 2015 Research project on upward mobility in rural America.
 Two presentations were developed and delivered using Chetty et al.'s data at the Regional Science
Association International (RSAI) meetings in November 2014:
o Weber, Miller and Goetz. “Intergenerational Economic Mobility:
o Are Different Factors at Work in Rural America? “
____________________
Chetty, Raj, Nathaniel Hendren, Patrick Kline, and Emmanuel Saez. 2014. Where is the Land of
Opportunity? The Geography of Intergenerational Mobility in the United States. Quarterly Journal of
Economics. 129(4): 1553-1623.
Curtis, Katherine J., Paul R. Voss, and David D. Long. 2012. Spatial Variation in Poverty- generating
Processes: Child Poverty in the United States. Soc Sci Res. 2012 January; 41(1): 146- 159.
doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2011.07.007.
Weber, Bruce, Kathleen Miller and Stephan Goetz. 2014. Intergenerational Economic Mobility: Are
Different Factors at Work in Rural America? Presentation at the annual meetings of the North
American Regional Science Council/Regional Science Association International.
November 13-15, 2014. Bethesda, MD.
19
Li, Goetz and Weber. “County-Level Determinants of Intergenerational Economic
Mobility: Why Rural Counties Have Higher Upward Mobility?”
o These will be revised for publication during the Spring quarter 2015
“County-Level Determinants of Generational Economic Mobility” a poster by Minghao Li,
Stephan Goetz (both Penn State) and Bruce Weber will be presented at the Federal Reserve Bank
Conference on Economic Mobility, April 2-3 in Washington.
o

Projected Work Plan
1. 2015-16 Agenda setting conference. (White House Rural Council)


Continue to provide support and guidance, as requested, for the conference on Childhood Poverty
led by the White House Council.
There remains the need for a separate “research agenda setting” conference broader than
childhood poverty. RUPRI needs to stake out this ground and provide intellectual leadership
around inequality and economic/social mobility in rural America (within the rural-urban context).
Preliminary thoughts/parameters:
➢
Place a heavy emphasis on bringing in the next generation of scholars.
➢
Diversity, broadly defined to include disciplinary richness, is needed in both the planning
and conference participation.
➢
25-50 invited participants. Could distribute a “solicitation of interest” and ask scholars to
apply.
➢
Summer or early Fall of 2015. Potential planning committee could include Leif Jensen,
Dan Lichter, Jennifer Sherman, Linda Burton, Stefan Goetz, Jim Ziliak, Rand Conger, Greg
Duncan.
2. 2016 Research Ideas




Research on upward mobility and migration. Would require data not currently available but
potentially available if Chetty and others could collaborate.
Cross-national research project involving Miles Corak (Canada) and US scholars on upward
mobility in North America
Report with analysis of Micropolitan inequality and upward mobility (compare with Brookings
metropolitan conclusions
Paper on "Great Gatsby Curve Across the Rural-Urban Continuum". This would explore how the
relationship between inequality and upward mobility varies across the rural-urban continuum.
Preliminary analysis shows that this relationship is much stronger and more strongly negative in
the most rural places: higher inequality has a more negative relationship with absolute upward
mobility in the most rural places. This relationship likely differs across regions of the U.S., and
should probably be examined separately for the southern U.S. and the rest of the nation.
20
Next Generation Arts and Culture Placemaking
Principals
Dr. Matthew Fluharty, Executive Director, Art of the Rural, Washington University, Missouri
Savannah Barrett, Program Director, Art of the Rural
Chuck Fluharty, President and Chief Executive Officer, RUPRI
Teresa Kittridge, Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, RUPRI
Louise Vasher, Kentucky AmeriCorps VISTA
National Advisory Board and State Task Forces
Bill Menner, USDA Iowa Rural Development Director, Des Moines, IA
Zach Mannheimer, Executive Director, Des Moines Social Club, IA
Dudley Cocke, Appalshop/Roadside Theater, Norton, VA
Matthew Glassman, Double Edge Theatre, Ashfield, MA
Donna Nuewirth, Wormfarm Institute, Reedsburg, WI
Richard Saxton, M12 Collective, Boulder, CO
Laura Zabel, Springboard for the Arts, St. Paul, MN
Others are currently being named to all advisory groups
Next Generation: The Future of Arts & Culture Placemaking in Rural America, engages artists,
organizations and communities across public and private sectors to advance collaboration, innovative
strategies, and “Next Generation” leadership in rural creative placemaking. Through the expertise and
networks of the Rural Policy Research Institute and Art of the Rural (see next section), and the
program’s regional and national partners, Next Generation operates through three interlinked activities:
Regional Networks; a Digital Learning Commons; and a Next Generation Conference.
Current Activities
1. Regional Network Development
Next Generation Regional Networks are designed to spark exchange, collaboration, and public policy
interests. Participants in these networks will include anchoring arts and culture organizations, state arts
and humanities councils, universities, regional and state governments, communities and the private
sector. Next Generation will also meaningfully engage with federal and state partners, philanthropy,
and agencies and organizations not traditionally aligned in this work. Through these diverse
networks, Next Generation will facilitate the deepening of relationships to acknowledge shared
interests across generational, sector, and urban and rural communities and enhance common mission
collaboration across Regional Networks.
21
Next Generation’s initial regional networks will be formed in Iowa, Kentucky, and Minnesota. Each of
these regions possess significant momentum in development of arts and culture networks, and also
offer unique labs for comparative assessment and the sharing of best practices across space.
In Iowa, the work of social entrepreneurs, universities and public agencies, and urban arts
exemplars set the stage for meaningful strategic planning with communities, artists,
academics, farmers, and entrepreneurs towards revitalization, wealth creation and community
health across rural and urban Iowa.
In Kentucky, Next Generation collaborates with Appalshop and a cohort of artists, organizers,
farmers, and business owners to expand the work of the Kentucky Rural- Urban Exchange,
which assembles rural and urban next generation leaders to actualize new models of communitydriven development across Kentucky.
In Minnesota, Next Generation will amplify cross-sector involvement in the Rural Arts and
Culture Summit and intensify collaboration with Springboard for the Arts alongside an
evolving rural and urban network for this work.
We believe that though cultural context varies in each region, commonalities and deep pools of
knowledge can serve to advance this work. To sharpen this exchange, add new perspectives, and
promote knowledge-building across regions, Regional Networks will engage in Residency Learning
Exchanges. In these exchanges, rural leaders will engage with exemplary rural program models and
the seasoned arts, economic, and community development practitioners of other Regional Networks.
These exchanges will sharpen Regional Networks, amplify the diversity of the national conversation,
and build a solid set of relationships ahead of the National Conference.
2. Next Generation National Advisory Board Development
Leadership for this network will emerge from a diverse group of committed champions, from arts
organizations, the public and private sectors, philanthropy and community and economic
development. We will seek broad diversity across ethnicity, geography, discipline, and sector. This
leadership will be charged with expanding the practice and methodology of Next Generation. We
hope to assure that this cadre becomes the core of a new rural creative placemaking field, to engage
national policy and guide a spirit of inclusiveness across the entirety of this initiative. The role of
each National Advisor will be three-fold: to consult with the Next Generation leadership team in the
project’s design and implementation; to serve as a resource to Regional Networks; and to represent
the interest of arts and culture as a vital economic and community development driver in their field
and sphere of influence.
22
Projected Work Plan
1. National Conference
The Next Generation conference is designed to unite and catalyze the field, enhance the commitment
of a diverse stakeholder community, and build policy presence for deeper consideration of rural
creative placemaking. The ‘elevating “next generation” strategies and communities across rural
America’ theme of this initiative will guide these proceedings.
The Next Generation Conference will transpire as Regional Networks have created initial case
studies, and Network representatives will share lessons learned through breakout sessions with indepth presentations and reflections from Residency Learning Exchanges.
Keynote addresses and plenary sessions will highlight the changing face of rural America and the
work of the next generation of rural leaders of color, connect lessons across geographies, and
present a sustained argument for the centrality of rural creative placemaking – as a field, and as a
strategy for development and community sustainability.
2. Knowledge Building and Learning Commons
To assert the essential role of arts and cultural organizations in economic and community development,
the metrics built by Next Generation will inform and validate program and policy exemplars as an
essential component of knowledge building in this field. Representing the experiences of the Regional
Networks and National Advisors, Next Generation’s research agenda will produce Regional Network
case studies, short-form videos and podcasts, a detailed project report, a Next Generation Conference, and
a “Creative Placemaking in Rural America” publication. These resources will be developed throughout
the project timeline and will be accessible on the digital Learning Commons.
The Next Generation digital Learning Commons will offer an accessible and inclusive platform for
features, commentary, and best practices from across the rural arts and culture field. The Learning
Commons will address two of the major challenges facing rural practitioners – geographic distance,
access to information and networks – and establish a digital intermediary through which deeper
collaboration can develop within and beyond Next Generation activities. The Learning Commons will be
developed by Arts and Ideas founder Patrick Phillips whose socially conscious web platform designs
combine social giving, civic engagement, and dynamic, concise storytelling into a single platform.
23
Art of the Rural (AOTR): Art of the Rural is a collaborative organization with a mission to help build
the field of the rural arts and shape new narratives on rural culture and community. We work online and
on the ground through interdisciplinary and cross-sector partnerships to advance engaged collaborations
that transcend imposed boundaries and articulates the shared reality of rural and urban America.
http://www.artoftherural.org
Dear friends and colleagues,
It's hard to believe that this year marks five years of Art of the Rural. Over these years, so many of you
have contributed in so many ways toward our work, and we're grateful for all of your support. It's been
an honor to have the chance to share the amazing work happening across the country.
In a few weeks we will be launching new programs that will mark the next exciting phase in Art of the
Rural's development, and we will be providing updates from the Mary Celestia Parler Project and the
American Bottom Project. 2015 is going to be an exciting year, and one that we hope will offer greater
opportunities for folks to engage with Art of the Rural's work.
As we look forward to this, it's our pleasure to share with you this snapshot of what we worked on last
year -- the Year of the Rural Arts. Such a detailed and wide-ranging program would have seemed like
a daydream to me when I began typing away at the AOTR site in 2010. Now a few months into 2015,
the Year seems like a sign of things to come for all of our work together.
Here's to those new opportunities to collaborate!
With thanks,
Matthew Fluharty
Executive Director
24
The Year of the Rural Arts in Review




* 12 feature articles supporting
some of the 140 events mapped for
the Year of the Rural Arts Calendar
of Events *
* 25 Community Events in 15
states*
* 5 Year of the Rural Arts
Residencies around the nation *
29 states impacted through
advisors, features, and programs
On the Atlas of Rural Arts and Culture
7 new projects/ 3 internships




Alan Lomax American Patchwork
Project
Art and Rural Environments Field
School
SMALLSCREEN: Rural Micro
Cinemas
Visible Connections: Rural Studio
Practice
THE YEAR OF THE RURAL ARTS
2014 was a program of events, conversations,
and online features celebrating the diverse,
vital ways in which rural arts and humanities
contribute to American life. This inaugural
effort connected citizens, artists, scholars,
designers, and entrepreneurs and meet with
audiences on the grounds of universities,
museums and galleries, cultural organizations,
and across rural and urban communities.
Coordinated by Art of the Rural and organized
by a collective of individuals, organizations,
and communities from rural and urban locales
across the nation, the inaugural Year was a
collaborative, grassroots effort designed to
build steam over the course of 2014. To learn
more about the Year of the Rural Arts:
http://artoftherural.org/year-of-the-rural-arts2014/
25
On the Art of the Rural Blog
36 feature articles/ 8 writers

Duck Dynasty and Rural Civil
Religion

Restore/Restory: A Mosaic of
Voices in Rural California

June Appal Records: Spotlight on
Lee Sexton

On the Road to Kingdom Come:
Our Founding PARTNERS
We are grateful for the perspectives of our
Founding Partners who helped to
conceptualize and idea-test the Year of the
Rural Arts:
Appalshop, The Association for Cultural
Equity, The Center for Rural Strategies,
Double Edge Theatre, Feral Arts, Imagining
America, M12 art collective, Roadside
Theater, Rural Policy Research Institute,
Springboard for the Arts, and The Wormfarm
Institute.
The Higher Ground Project

Oil, Canvas, Public: George Caleb
Bingham

The Arts in Smaller Communities:
Interview with Maryo Gard Ewell
With deep thanks, we recognize support
provided by the Center for Rural Strategies
and Springboard for the Arts that allowed for
the design and implementation of the Year of
the Rural Arts.
The Year of the Rural Arts NATIONAL
CALENDAR OF EVENTS was created in
collaboration with pre-existing activities
across the landscape of the American rural arts
field, and visualized as a project within the
Atlas of Rural Arts and Culture.
YEAR OF THE RURAL ARTS
PROGRAMS
Art of the Rural Residencies: Our
residencies across the country aim to build
collaborative relationships with organizations
and the communities that sustain them. We
completed 5 residencies in 2014.
While the calendar provides a comprehensive
listing of 130 major rural arts events across the
nation, thirteen of these events were selected
as featured Year of the Rural Arts events.
These features were showcased both this Year
of the Rural Arts page and on the Art of the
Rural blog and social media platforms.
1. National Cowboy Poetry Gathering, NV
2. Charro Days Fiesta, TX
3. Tri-National Sonoran Desert Symposium,
AZ
26
Middle Landscape Projects
These long-term collaborations combine
releases of cultural material with digital work
and on-the-ground action to facilitate a
collaborative space that creates relationships
between ideas, individuals, and communities —
and illuminates the interconnectedness of rural
and urban places and their cultural contexts.
4. Artfields: Southern Artfest Competition, SC
5. ArtSpring High Mountain Arts Festival,
WV
6. Seedtime on the Cumberland, KY
7. Summer Spectacle, MA
8. Angola Prison Rodeo, LA
9. Red Ants Pants Music Festival, MT
10. Otha Turner Memorial Picnic, MS
11. National Storytelling Festival, TN
12. Reedsburg Fermentation Festival, WI
13. Le Feu et L’Eau Rural Arts Celebration, L
The Kentucky Rural Urban Exchange assembles
next generation leaders from rural and urban
Kentucky to activate new models of communitydriven development, and initiated a dozen crosssector projects across arts and culture, agriculture,
and small business.
The American Bottom Project seeks to
tell a political, spatial, social, and
ecological history of the flood plain region
across the river from St. Louis, and to
establish new connections between artists,
communities, organizations and their shared
cultural landscape.
27
The River Summit is an open platform for exchange and collaboration along the Mississippi River region.
The River Summit will bring together citizens, artists, designers, farmers, scientists, folklorists,
entrepreneurs, scholars, policymakers and many others in telling a story of the Mississippi River and its
environs. The Summit is organized to provide multiple platforms through which to critically reflect and
creatively engage the many political, ecological, social, and cultural narratives found along the Great
River.
Through connecting these diverse stakeholders and sparking exchange
between them, the River Summit creates a base through which cross-sector
and interdisciplinary collaboration can address central issues of cultural and
ecological sustainability, as well as provide a platform for innovative
community and regional strategies both up and down the length of the
Mississippi River.
The River Summit open platforms include a series of “Dry Run” community
conversations and projects, a floating Chautauqua that anchors in ports along
the river, and, in the final year, the inaugural Mississippi River Triennial.
The River Summit is directed by Art of the Rural and the Institute for
Marking and Measuring in collaboration with a host of regional and national
partners.
AOTR is a collaborative organization with a mission to increase access and
inclusivity in the arts and culture field and to advance engaged conversations
that articulate the shared reality of rural and urban places. Through online and
on the ground interdisciplinary and cross-sector partnerships, AOTR creates
relational space and frames the cultural, economic, and historical dynamics of
contemporary American experience.
IMAM is dedicated to the investigation of textual and topographic
geographies and to examining the political, economic, and material
technologies of the managerial landscape. IMAM has recently collaborated
with the Bureau of Land Management, City of Los Angeles Public Works,
and the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District. Research, curatorial, and
public projects define the direction of IMAM and its work.
2015: Research & Development
Locate “ambassadors” across the region and connect their communities,
organizations, and initiatives; build an Advisory Board; create a digital map and resource guide for
collaborators; identify significant themes and issues that unite these stakeholders and their communities.
2016:“Dry Run” Conversations & Projects
28
Launch a public website and media suite; write and publish articles across diverse media outlets to build
knowledge and regional connections while raising the national profile for this work; establish
communities and sites for “Dry Run” cultural conversations and creative placemaking collaborations in
the fall.
2017: River Summit Floating Chautauqua
Direct the passage of this project as it begins via boat at the headwaters, and later by barge, visiting
communities and ports with regional and national cross-sector leaders aboard; coordinate these day-long
Chautauqua that join these leaders with local collaborators; assist this crew in their execution of an array
of individual interdisciplinary projects and research.
2018: Advanced “Dry Run” Conversations and Projects Facilitate further “Dry Run” conversations and
collaborations; coordinate the expansion of networks within the region.
2019: Mississippi River Triennial
The River Summit project is exhibited, activated, and set into a collaborative space within the
communities and sites along the River; by connecting place, history, culture, and ecology – and by doing
so in sites normally excluded from such programs – this Triennial will radically redefine the prospects for
interdisciplinary and cross-sector engagement and will set in motion new partnerships that will further
sustain this connected region.
Outcomes:
Create an interdisciplinary, cross-sector network of stakeholders that can be activated toward future
collaborations beyond the River Summit.
Spark local and regional creative placemaking projects and foster exchange and documentation of best
practices.
Facilitate a River narrative that honors ecology, culture, history, and economy as vital, interlinked
community assets.
Strengthen, through these outcomes, the potential for equitable and inclusive collaborations within these
communities.
Make visible the creativity and resiliency of this region on a national/international level.
Deliverables:
River Summit website (2016 forward)
Narrative guidebook, distributed at locations within the network (2016 & 2018)
Chautauqua catalogue, media, documentary, and related projects (2019-2020)
Triennial programming, media, documentary, and local projects (2019-2020)
29
Human Services Panel / Rural Poverty Projects
Rural Human Services Panel Members
Dr. Kathleen Belanger, Associate Professor of Social Work, Stephen F. Austin University
Mario Gutierrez, Executive Director, Center for Connected Health Policy, California
Vaughn Clark, Director, Community Development, Oklahoma Department of Commerce
Larry Goolsby, Director, Legislative Affairs and Policy, American Public Human Services
Association, Washington, D.C.
Jane Forrest Redfern, Executive Director, Dairy Barn, Ohio
Connie Stewart, Executive Director, California Center for Rural Policy, Humboldt State
University
Dr. Bruce Weber, Professor of Agriculture, Resource Economics and Extension Economist,
Oregon State University
Dr. Colleen Heflin, Associate Professor, Truman School of Public Affairs, University of
Missouri
Jocelyn Richgels, National Policy Program Director, RUPRI, University of Iowa
Current Activities
The following streams of activities are under way, with a focus on integrated health and human service
delivery and social determinants of health, with particular emphasis on tackling determinants in early life
stream, where the potential return on investment is greatest and effort and cost are at their lowest.
1. Model development: Accountable Care Communities (ACC): with the RUPRI Health Panel, we are
assisting rural Humboldt County, California develop the foundations for forming a rural –centric
Accountable Care Community. Our current effort is to complete a background white paper on the
elements of an ACC and the rural considerations. This project holds many potential avenues of
development jointly for the Health and Human Service Panel to build a stream of learning and technical
assistance for a network of rural Accountable Care Communities.
2. Research: One of the great challenges for rural human services, both for its own policy and practice
development and in comparison to rural health services, is the lack of depth and breadth in rural human
services research. It is challenging to be able to present an effective picture of rural human service need
and circumstances because of missing gaps in the research. A set of RUPRI Human Service Panel
members, Bruce Weber and Kathleen Belanger, are leading a RUPRI effort to review rural human
services literature around children and families (TANF, Income Assistance, Child Poverty, Child Care
and Early Childhood Education, Child Welfare) and draft literature reviews with an emphasis on the gaps
in rural human services literature. The goal is to develop a foundation for a rural human services research
30
portfolio that will help fill in the gaps of our knowledge.
3. Model identification: The Human Services Panel has identified models of community-based service
delivery that are well-suited for rural communities and potentially effective in meeting the rural-specific
needs of the human service delivery system. Family/Community Resource Centers are one identified
model. We are beginning a project to more fully understand Family/Community resource centers – their
structure, financing and statutory foundation, model of delivery and outcomes. A series of policy briefs
intended for practitioners and policy makers will be the outcome of this effort.
4. Human Services Guidance to National Advisory Committee on Rural Health and Human Services: The
Human Services Panel, through the Policy Cooperative that RUPRI operates with the Federal Office of
Rural Health Policy, provides support to FORHP staff on human services work for the National Advisory
Committee on Rural Health and Human Services. This includes drafting, reviewing and editing
background memos for Committee members and policy recommendation memos to Secretary Burwell. It
also involves guidance on human service meeting topics, presenters, and meeting locations.
Projected Work Plan
Each of the above projects will be ongoing through the remainder of this year. With additional resources,
these projects form the foundation for larger efforts to provide support and assistance to the rural human
services practice and research field.
1. The ACC model has the potential to be particularly suitable for rural communities, with a close-knit
and collaborative community structure. RUPRI would like to use our intellectual power and growing
knowledge of ACCs to help other rural communities develop and adopt this model.
2. With a better understanding of rural human services research gaps, a targeted rural human service
research funding stream could help close the gaps.
General State, National, and International Policy Programs
State Policy Programs
State Policy Panel
State Policy Panel Members
Paul Costello, Executive Director, Vermont Council on Rural Development
Wes Curtis, Executive Director, Southern Utah University Regional Services
Barry Denk, Director, Center for Rural Pennsylvania
Dr. Michael Fortunato, Assistant Professor of Sociology, Engaged Scholar, and Director,
Center for Rural Studies, Sam Houston State University
Bobby Gierisch, Founder and Chair, Texas Rural Innovators
31
Cheryal Lee Hills, Executive Director, Region Five Development Commission, Minnesota
John Molinaro, President and Chief Executive Officer, Appalachian Partnership for Economic
Growth, Ohio
Christy Morton, Executive Director, Virginia Rural Center
Chuck Schroeder, Founding Executive Director, Rural Futures Institute, University of Nebraska
Connie Stewart, Executive Director, California Center for Rural Policy, Humboldt State
University
David Terrell, Panel Chair and Director, Economic Development Policy, Ball State University
Dr. Norman Walzer, Senior Research Scholar, Center for Government Studies, Northern Illinois
University
As US federalism continues to devolve, and the federal footprint lessens across time and circumstance,
rural policy and practice decisions are increasingly impacted by the actions of state, regional, county, and
local policymakers. This necessitates stronger integration across all levels of government, and greater
collective impact investing with the private and philanthropic sectors, by the public sector, at all levels.
A decade ago RUPRI President Chuck Fluharty keynoted a Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank conference
with a speech entitled The Critical Nature of “Rural New Governance”. Since then, RUPRI leadership in
building regional initiatives across these sectors has been widely called upon, and continues. Cognizant of
this, and the importance of innovation in this dynamic, RUPRI began a national discussion with numerous
organizations, regarding the potential for the development of a State Rural Policy Panel within RUPRI.
Over 70 national, state, and local leaders participated in these Roundtables, which eventually resulted in
the formation of a State Rural Policy Panel. We were honored that Secretary Tom Vilsack spoke to this
team at its inaugural meeting in Lincoln, Nebraska, during last year’s Nebraska Rural Futures Institute.
Since that time, the State Policy Panel has developed four streams of work, outlined below.
Current Activities
1. Rural Innovation
RUPRI believes that good ideas should be shared and that policy makers should have access to a
thoughtful analysis of novel projects, programs, policies, or funding streams that are positively impacting
rural communities. Brief profiles of innovative projects have been solicited across the broad professional
networks represented on the Panel. These individual innovations have been investigated, and a number
have been chosen for case studies. The result of this collaboration and analysis will be a vibrant showcase
of innovations, to provide policy makers and community leaders broader access to these dynamics. These
will be highlighted on RUPRI’s new website that will go online next month.
2. Micropolitan Regional Development / Multi-jurisdiction Collaboration
RUPRI believes the emergence of smaller rural cities, usually denoted by the micropolitan moniker, can
32
be incorporated with contiguous rural regions and build distributed urban / rural settlement patterns, in
which most anchor institutions are represented, at sufficient capacity, to advantage all these populations.
This team will be engaging in survey work, co-sponsored by the National Association of Counties and
Development Organizations, to lift up unique innovations already occurring in this space.
3. Severance Tax Approaches Which Retain Regional Control
As oil and gas fracking expands across rural America, several states are examining new severance tax
opportunities, to assure the “natural resource curse” experienced in all other extraction histories does not
repeat itself in rural America over the next 30 years. This team will examine the history of severance
taxes, the current state of the severance tax debate, and the potential for regional intermediary
development at the public-private philanthropic interface in the states of Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and
Ohio. Comparisons and contrasts will be articulated, and promising practices to build sustaining
community and economic development approaches in extraction regions will be explored.
4. Last Mile Broadband Development
While all states are concerned with the eventual deployment of high speed internet, many middle-mile
approaches ignore the criticality of last mile deployment. This includes unbundling at the community
level, through anchor institutions, as well as technologies and funding approaches, which assure all rural
citizens benefit from middle-mile deployment, not just those in selected pockets of population density
across rural geographies. Everyone recognizes the importance of this development; yet most seeking
innovative solutions to this challenge are not aware of the innovations occurring in other states. This
effort seeks to lift up exemplar efforts in this regard, and broadly distribute selected approaches which are
working.
Projected Work Plan
This Panel anticipates these four strands of work will ultimately unite with the work of several other
RUPRI teams, including the micropolitan policy work undertaken by the Analytic and Academic Team,
the health system reform work of the Health Panel and Center, and continuing work in regional
innovation, governance, and collective impact investing.
Regional Innovation, Governance, and Collective Impact Investing
Principals
Chuck Fluharty, President and Chief Executive Officer, RUPRI
Teresa Kittridge, Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, RUPRI
Jocelyn Richgels, National Policy Programs Director, RUPRI
Selected Leadership from all RUPRI Panels, Initiatives, and Centers
33
Current Activities
1. Continuing support for the SOAR initiative in Kentucky.
Senior RUPRI leadership and staff continue to be engaged in the mountains of eastern Kentucky, lifting
up the impacts of the SOAR initiative. RUPRI President Chuck Fluharty assisted National Endowment
for the Arts staff in developing a recent tour of the region by Chairwoman Chu; assisted ORHP staff in
designing a tour and meeting of HHS Secretary Burwell’s National Advisory Board on Rural Health
there; and handled numerous press, media and speaking engagements regarding the amazing work of the
people of eastern Kentucky in the SOAR initiative. While both USDA and the Co-Chairs hope for
RUPRI’s work to continue, we anticipate most of our remaining work there will be in sector-specific
efforts, around Action Plans identified as part of the SOAR initiative. Working Groups spent last summer
in Roundtables which engaged over 2,500 citizens in the mountains, and resulted in multi-priority Action
Plans in all sectors. This will drive SOAR activity for the next three to five years.
2. Possible RUPRI engagement in other regional activities similar to SOAR
SOAR’s success is now internationally recognized, and several other rural regions have expressed an
interest in RUPRI’s support for similar efforts. We are currently considering these, but have made no
commitments, at this point.
3. Consultation, facilitation, and speaking arrangements regarding the importance of these dynamics
RUPRI President Chuck Fluharty is spending a significant amount of his time in this space, encouraging
similar efforts, and attention to the importance of collective impact strategies. We anticipate this
continuing over this year and probably longer term.
Projected Work Plan
See above.
National Policy Programs
Principals
Chuck Fluharty, President and Chief Executive Officer, RUPRI
Teresa Kittridge, Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, RUPRI
Jocelyn Richgels, National Policy Programs Director, RUPRI
Selected Leadership from all RUPRI Panels, Initiatives, and Centers
Current Activities
1. Senior RUPRI leadership provides ongoing consultation, across all levels of government, and interacts
with research institutions, sector and governmental advocacy organizations, and rural citizens and
organizations, daily. Likewise, do most RUPRI leaders. This is possibly RUPRI’s greatest contribution to
rural America. We take great pride in remaining objective and evidence-based, seeking to first do no harm
34
in these discussions, and always treating these interactions confidentially. Most decision makers and staff
with whom we have interacted would definitely see this as our highest national policy value.
2. The work of the RUPRI National Policy Program Director conducts a number of key RUPRI activities
out of the RUPRI National Policy Program office, located on Capitol Hill. This includes regular
engagement with national rural policy leaders and staff of trade and sector associations, and she also
represents RUPRI on the National Rural Assembly Steering Committee. The Director also coordinates
policy outreach for RUPRI’s research programs, particularly the health and human service portfolio, for
which she is lead staff, through briefings and individual meetings with health staff in Congressional
offices and Federal Agencies.
Projected Work Plan
These activities have been ongoing and will continue to be.
International Policy Programs
International Comparative Rural Policy Studies Consortium (ICRPS) Principals
Tom Johnson, Frank E. Miller Professor of Agricultural Economics, University of Missouri –
Columbia
Judith Stallmann, University of Missouri – Columbia
Willi Meyers, University of Missouri – Columbia
Brent Steel, Oregon State University
Bruce Weber, Oregon State University
Denise Lach, Oregon State University
Allison Whiteeyes, Oregon State University
Philipp Kneis, Oregon State University
Ntam Baharany, Tuskegee University, Tuskegee, Alabama
Robert Zabawa, Tuskegee University, Tuskegee, Alabama
Tierno Thiam, Tuskegee University, Tuskegee, Alabama
Phillip Loring, University of Alaska Fairbanks
Lidia Carvajal, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México
Lourdes Viladomiu, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
Gemma Frances, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
Jordi Rosell, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
35
James Breen, University College Dublin
Philomena de Lima, University of the Island and Highlands
John Bryden, Norwegian Agricultural Economics Institute
Karen Refsgaard, Norwegian Agricultural Economics Institute
Matteo Vittuari, University of Bologna
Francesca Regoli, University of Bologna
Fabio De Menna, University of Bologna
Bruno Jean, Université du Québec à Rimouski
Tony Fuller, Guelph University, Guelph, Canada
John Devlin, Guelph University, Guelph, Canada
Doug Ramsey, Brandon University, Brandon, Canada
Bill Ashton, Brandon University, Brandon, Canada
Bill Reimer, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada
Kelly Vodden, Memorial University, St. John’s, Canada
The International Comparative Rural Policy Studies Program
Current Activities
The International Comparative Rural Policy Studies (ICRPS) program brings together an international,
multi-disciplinary group of faculty, students and professionals to study together the many facets of rural
policy, from policy formulation to policy impacts.
The ICRPS Consortium, comprising core faculty from 9 universities in Canada, Europe and the USA, has
developed an advanced program to enhance policy formulation and analysis in the rural context. The
ICRPS program is the first of its kind that enables students to examine and compare the role of rural
policy in different cultural, political and administrative contexts in Europe and North America, as well as
in the South.
Designed for graduate students and mid-career professionals, the ICRPS program introduces the skills to
analyze and compare policies at the international, national, state, regional and local levels. It also provides
the opportunity to study the nature and implications of new forms of governance in rural contexts. The
key elements of the ICRPS program are: two-week international summer institute, comparative rural
policy research project, and online distance learning courses.
36
The ICRPS Consortium partnership arose from previous and on-going mutual collaboration between the
Universities of Missouri (United States), the University of Guelph (Canada), the University of Aberdeen
(Scotland), and the Economics and Business Studies Program of Budapest (Hungary). In 2002,
representatives of these Universities met in Columbia, Missouri to discuss the need for post-graduate
education in comparative rural policy. The meeting, hosted by the Rural Policy Research Institute, led to
creation of the consortium, and plans for the ICRPS project.
The University of Aberdeen and the University of Guelph, as partners in the ICRPS collaboration,
successfully applied to the EU-Canada Program for Collaboration between Institutions of Higher
Education and Training in 2003 adding partners in Europe (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona and
University of Leuven) and Canada (Université du Québec à Rimouski and Brandon University). The
University of Highlands and Islands and Oregon State University subsequently joined the ICRPS
Consortium bringing the total to 10 partners.
The rich multi-cultural learning experience of over 70 graduate students, the engagement of 17 faculty
members from 8 universities and involvement of over 20 governmental and non-governmental agencies
testifies to the success of this much needed education and research program. ICRPS has contributed
directly to the 'internationalization' of programs at all participating universities and has enriched
professional development opportunities for rural agencies.
Projected Work Plan
This work will be ongoing, as will the continuing leadership provided by numerous senior RUPRI
scholars within the international rural policy community. For example, RUPRI was critical in the reemergence of the Directorate for Public Governance and Territorial Development / OECD. RUPRI
scholars have played significant roles within this international organization and continue to do so. RUPRI
President Chuck Fluharty, a German-Marshall Fund Transatlantic Fellow from 2007-2011, has built an
ongoing international comparative rural policy dialogue with numerous leaders in the EU, as have other
RUPRI leaders, including Dr. Tom Johnson.
These relationships will continue to evolve, and we hope to build a specific, Rural Policy Learning
Commons, linking Canadian, US, and European community and economic development practitioners. At
the OECD conference in Memphis, an initial discussion of this possibility will be held, and RUPRI hopes
to advance that, along with a US / Canadian dialogue regarding the role of federal government leadership
in provincial rural policy practices.
Other Policy / Practice Collaborations
The broader RUPRI Leadership works within each of the stakeholder and policy communities we serve in
multiple ways, beyond our core programs. Beyond our core programs. Colleagues serve on many advisory
boards and consortia. In this manner, the evidence-based knowledge and exponential learning of our teams
reaches into action agendas at many policy and practice levels.
37
RUPRI senior leaders have been responsible for the creation of numerous rural policy organizations
currently engaged in this work, and those formative and developmental processes continue today. As but
one example, while working to support the SOAR initiative in the Kentucky mountains, we assisted in a
multi-year commitment from the Corporation for National and Community Service, and have worked with
VISTA volunteers to deepen the community capacity of numerous SOAR Action Teams. We are now
incorporating VISTAs into our ongoing work plan, and are discussing a deeper relationship with their
national office.
Organizational / Structural Dynamics of Particular USDA Interest
RUPRI reached out to state RD Directors when we were holding the original Roundtables discussing the
creation of the State Policy Panel, and several participated in these formative discussions.
We have consistently reached out to these leaders for engagement and counsel, and the RD Directors in
Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin are working with us in the design of our Next Generation advisory
boards / task forces.
In all our work to seek to connect the dots, and add value to the work of others, and we work every day to
assure this is a value we live, in our approaches and our decisions regarding project design and
development.
RUPRI Leadership and Staff
Leadership Team
Dr. Keith Mueller, Chair, Rural Health Panel / Center for Rural Health Policy Analysis
Dr. Sam Cordes, Chair, RUPRI Spatial Analytics Initiative
Dr. Tom Johnson, Chair, Analytic and Academic Programs
Dr. Matthew Fannin, Associate Director, Analytic and Academic Programs
Dr. Matthew Fluharty: Chair, Next Generation Arts and Culture Placemaking
Mario Gutierrez: Chair, Human Services Panel
David Terrell: Chair, State Policy Panel
RUPRI Staff
Chuck Fluharty, President, RUPRI, University of Iowa
Teresa Kittridge, Vice President, RUPRI, University of Iowa
Jocelyn Richgels, National Policy Program Director, RUPRI, University of Iowa
Shawn Sexton, Administrative Services Coordinator, RUPRI, University of Iowa
Louise Vasher, Kentucky AmeriCorps VISTA
38