Over 51 million Americans, nearly one-sixth of the United States population, live in rural areas. While many associate poverty primarily with urban areas, poverty in rural America exists at higher rates and deeper levels and is more persistent than in metropolitan areas. Around 64% of rural counties have high rates of child poverty, as compared to 47% of urban counties.
These statistics are only exacerbated if you look at communities around the world; poverty continues to be overwhelmingly rural, accounting for almost 4 in 5 people living in extreme poverty. While many philanthropists have dedicated resources to address these critical issues in rural areas around the globe, including many of Geneva Global’s partners, we can’t forget rural communities in the US.
Circumstances such as lack of access to high-speed internet, health care, and housing coincide with higher levels of crime and lower levels of educational attainment, demonstrating a clear relationship between economic conditions in poorer areas and limited opportunities for people living in poverty. These circumstances often intersect and have a snowballing effect when left unaddressed.
Take health care, education, and internet access for example.
Access to quality health care is vital to a community’s overall wellbeing, but rural communities in America are less likely to have a hospital within 10 miles. However, digital health care has grown increasingly prominent, especially following the COVID-19 pandemic. Virtual care was hailed as an equalizer for those who live in more remote locations farther from health care providers. However, it cannot function properly without quality internet.
Beyond a simple lack of service to areas, income inequality and affordability also play a role in the access to high-speed internet. Just 86% of adults with incomes under $30,000 use the internet at home, as compared to 99% of adults with incomes of about $75,000. Where these folks live doesn’t just change the internet service, but the price of that service. One example from rural northwest Missouri shows that non-broadband internet from a provider cost $94.95 a month, as compared to nearby Maysville, where quality broadband internet is available for just under $50 a month.
In 2022, the median earnings of those with a bachelor’s degree were 59 percent higher than the earnings of those who completed high school. The educational divide between rural and urban areas is wide, and growing, from an 11 percentage point disparity, to 15. Factors such as lack of access to the internet in schools, the high cost and distance for education, and fewer opportunities for academically rigorous coursework such as AP or IB all play a crucial role in this divide.
Farther distances from health care providers, fewer opportunities for quality access to the internet, and the cost to access internet services, compounded with rural communities having higher rates of deep poverty and lower education levels often resulting in lower income, quickly spirals these communities into lower health care-seeking behaviors and poor health outcomes. While there are numerous more factors that are also at play, the situation is clear: rural America is in crisis.
So, where does philanthropy come in?
Well, frankly, it hasn’t. At least, not at the rates that would seem proportionate to the need. While one would think the evident need would draw the attention of the philanthropic sector, less than 7% of philanthropic funding supports rural areas, and only a small number of foundations claim rural development as their mission. For example, around a third of Missouri residents live in rural areas, 18 percent of which live in poverty, a higher percentage than their urban Missourian counterparts. However, of the more than $5.4 billion in philanthropic spending in Missouri from 2017 to 2022, only $21 million — less than one-half of 1 percent — went to rural areas.
Most of the funds that rural areas do receive are federal grant-based, but few have the resources or time to dedicate to researching and writing applications. Additionally, taking a look at the current landscape of federal funding, the longevity of its very existence is at risk.
Rural communities aren’t suffering from a lack of volunteer hours or internal community support. The people who live in these areas have a deep sense of community and care for their neighbors, resulting in a strong network of volunteerism. A significant throughline in my childhood was a major emphasis on helping one another, and I have seen this reflected in many others accounts of their rural communities. Additionally, despite the stereotype, rural America is quite diverse, ranging from small towns in rural Maine, to unincorporated immigrant communities in the southwest, to the “Black Belt” counties of Alabama. There are many different people across the US who call rural areas home and need attention they just aren’t getting.
Why Does This Matter Now?
The news cycle is currently inundated with headlines discussing the impacts of the recent budget cuts and policies presented by the current presidential administration. Many of these focus on foreign aid cuts, which have been devastating and profoundly harmful to international organizations that were a part of USAID. Similarly, domestically, funding and budget cuts are disproportionately impacting rural communities in the most poverty-stricken areas of the US. Capping the amount of federal Medicaid funding a state receives and taking away Medicaid coverage from people who gained it through the ACA impacts more than 12 million people living in rural areas in the US who rely on Medicaid coverage. Another divide highlighted and deepened by these cuts is that 47 percent of children in rural areas rely on Medicaid coverage, compared to 38 percent in metropolitan areas.
Lessons from Rural Initiatives Around the World
These disparities are even more prominent on a global scale, which has long drawn the social impact sector’s attention. For example, 56 percent of people living in rural areas worldwide do not have access to essential health care services – more than double the figure in urban areas. There are similar divides for a variety of outcomes, like poverty rates, educational access, internet access, and more.
Many global charities have been working on solutions to these problems for decades, training health care workers in remote locations, expanding broadband access, and empowering workers in rural communities. Because of this attention, we have effective case studies we can learn from to improve outcomes in rural America. Geneva Global has decades of experience funding and supporting local initiatives in rural communities to end human trafficking, prevent diseases, and more.
For example, with the Freedom Fund, local partners lead the way to direct funds to community-based interventions to prevent modern slavery. The Fund identified human trafficking hotspots and convened a network of grassroots organizations to work together toward shared objectives. The hotspot model directly facilitates collaboration, reduces competition, and creates “network capital” – helping partners to build the powerful coalitions needed to affect change at local and national levels. Geneva Global played a pivotal role in identifying and connecting anchor donors, providing on the ground support, and were crucial to the fund’s development process.
And with the END Fund, Geneva Global worked to develop a multi-national strategy to fund the treatment and prevention of neglected tropical diseases, often in rural areas without access to health care infrastructure.
Both of these initiatives were successful because they listened to and funded solutions supported by the communities themselves. Rural communities are the experts in the resources they need to thrive; the philanthropic community should center their voices when responding in the US and globally.
While the question of if philanthropy can ever fill the gaps of the social sector persists, there is still a real and definite opportunity for foundations and philanthropists to be consequential to these communities across America. Philanthropy has long been drawn on to address the rural/urban divide around the world; it’s time many look to their own communities and invest in rural America, too. The need to act is clear, and we can draw from solutions in rural communities around the globe. Imagine the impact of investing even a small percentage of philanthropic dollars to these areas could have in our lifetimes.
