Federal Office rejects proposal to update rural definition after strong criticism

[ad_1]

The White House Office of Management and Budget rejected a proposal that would have essentially broadened the definition of rural to include larger areas, following widespread concerns about the suggested change.

Earlier this year, a committee to review standards for metropolitan statistical areas suggested increasing the minimum population of a metropolitan area from 50,000 to 100,000. The bureau accepted public comment on the suggestion this year. winter and this spring.

These areas are not technically meant to define urban and rural areas, but many organizations and groups use them as a means of classifying counties and areas as rural or urban.

The researchers feared that the proposed change would make it more difficult for rural communities to obtain funding and for researchers to keep up with what is happening in rural areas. They also said the proposal was based on an overly simplified view of what metropolitan means.

These concerns sparked a signing letter from the Aspen Institute Community Strategies Group and the Brookings Institute that garnered around 430 signatures from organizations, local governments and individuals, in addition to other public comments opposing the proposal.

After the public comment period ended in March, the standards review committee submitted a revised proposal to keep the current definition in place, a July 13 press release from the office said. The office went with the overhaul, which keeps the minimum metropolitan population at 50,000.

Publish

The signing letter estimated that the areas of 250 counties would have been reclassified as non-metropolitan, if this definition moved forward. Wyoming reportedly lost the only metropolitan areas it had under the proposed change. Mansfield, the largest city in Richland County, Ohio, and Parkersburg, West Virginia, are two cities that have reportedly been reclassified.

While the Office of Management and Budget indicates that the definitions of metropolitan statistical areas are intended only for statistical purposes, many federal programs use them to allocate funds, for example for block grants for community development or US Department of Agriculture programs to fund rural communities.

Changing metropolitan or non-metropolitan areas would also have changed rural statistics overnight, the researchers said. This would make it more difficult to identify needs in rural areas or to see when good things are happening.

Decision

The committee recommended delaying action on possible change until more research and analysis on the impact has been done. The office said in a July 16 Federal Register document that it has decided not to update the definition at this time because there is not enough reason to increase the minimum population to 100,000 currently. , and more research is needed.

The office received 734 comments on this recommendation, and 712 comments opposed. While many of these comments mentioned concerns about funding and other non-statistical impacts that the redefinition could have, the office ignored these concerns in its decision.

OMB establishes and maintains these zones for statistical purposes only. … If these areas are being used for program administration, the OMB recommends structuring the use in such a way as to avoid any unintentional disruption that may be caused by the OMB’s regular review and revision of standards, wrote the office in the document.

The bureau also acknowledged the committees’ initial concern that the definitions of metropolitan and non-metropolitan have not kept pace with population growth. A March Brookings Institute analysis said it was the first time anyone had recommended updating the standards since they were put in place in a 1950 census.

The office said it would work with the standards review committee on more research and awareness on the issue ahead of the 2030 standards update.

STAY INFORMED. SUBSCRIBE!

Up-to-date farming news delivered to your inbox!

[ad_2]