ED 219 223

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTION

SPONS AGENC\PUB DATEGRANTNOTE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

DOCUMENT ,RESUME

RC 013 547

Farmer, Berkwood M.; And OthersCapacity Building Needs-of Rural Areas in Virginia.Executive Summary and Recommendations.Virginia State Dept.i of Agriculture and ConsumerServices, Richmond; Va.National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C.`Sep 78ISP76-2017522p.; For:related document, see RC ()13 548.

MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.Agency Cooperation; Citizen Participation; *CommunityPlanning; Coordination; *Fiscal Capacity; *LocalGovernment; *Needs Assessment; *Rural Areas; Staff.Utilization

IDENTIFIERS *Capacity Building; *VirginiaN.

ABSTRACTTo assess the capacity building needs of rural areas

brought on both by internal demands of local citizens forimprovements in community assistance and services and demands'placedon local communities by higher levels of government, information anddata were obtained from personal interviews with 93 local officialsand 344 community leaders in 8 rural areas of Virginia in 1977. MajorComminity needs were found to exist in engineering and public works,

41.induptrial development, recreation, education, health and welfare,'.hotisi`ng, and planning. The five major capacity building needs werefiscal, staffing,,,planning, citizen participation, andinter-governmental coordination. Lack of adequate finances was amajor capacity gap uncovered in all communities. Rurall localgovernments were'keing called upon to handle assignments thatrequires an increasingly higher degree of staff professionalism.Although comprehensive plans had been developed in rural*,communities,such plans were not widely followed in making decisions. Becausefinancial and personnel resources were limited, rural local*gOvernments relied heavily on citizen volunteers. To retain ruralgovernment viability in program activities requiring large capitalinvestments, specialized expertise, and area-wide planning; increasedattention% was'being given to pooling of available resources.Recommendations are included for each of the identified gaps.

Et

4

*****0*******************.***************0***********************t******* - Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made* . .from the original document. .*

.***************************************.**********;*********************

4 .

OPACITY BOLDING NEEDS()Via-a OF RURAL AREAS IN VIRGINIA

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

BERKWOOD M. FARMER, ANTHONY A. HICKEY,EDWARD H. HANSEN, IRL W. SMITH, MARK H. SILVERMAN

111)

ITYNC AC

%AIMING

PANTYWING

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HASIBEEN GRANTED BY

(1":411-4 Z-1 6 k LLI_L- L'C'rk---'

(..t.

4

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OFAGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER

SE RV I C ES(NDACS)

SEPTEMBER 1978

U S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES ,. ,INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

...10=0._

c_ -

4

.?

___.- , ---- '

R

4

CAPACITY BUILDING NEEDSOF RURAL AREAS IN VIRGINIA

.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

r

BERKWOOD M FARMER, ANTHONY A. HICKEY, EDWARD H. HANSEN.IRL W. SMITH; MARK H. SILVERMAN

Chief Economist and Director of Planning and Development (VDACS). AssistantProfessor of Sociology (George .Mason University). Project Director (VDACS).

Associate Project Director (VDACS), Agricultural Economist (VDACS), respectively

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,AND CONSUMER SERVICESS. MASON. CARBAUGH, Commissioner

203 N. Governor StreetRichmond, Virginia 23219

This study is based von research supported impart by the National Science Foundation under GrantNo ISP76-20175.

Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publicatiqn arethose of the authors and do not necessarilyzeflect,the views of the National Science Foundation or

the Virginia Department of Agriallture and Consumer Services.

, w V

Om*

Acknowledgements .

1 JO .

The authors of this study are indebted to a large number of persons who assisted in carious aspects.

Recognition is extended tok'the 93 local officials and the 344 community leaders in II le ,countips ofBuckingham, Lancaster, Pow hatan and Sussex, and the towns of Chatham, Glade Spring, South Hill, andWoodstock who prodded the basic information used inthis'stay. Additionally, the cooperation of officials and

.citizen leaders in Strasburg, Virginia, the pilot study area, is gratefully acknowledged.

, Special recognition is gien to Dr. Charles H. Baldwin, Department of Sociology, George Mason Uniersity,,

for his imaluable consultative services. Dr. Baldwin was instrumental in the development of surey designs and

analysis procedures.

,.

J

so

,. .

Thanks, too, are extended to the following persons who prodded counseling and other assistance of asplcific nature. Stanley S. Kidwell, Jr., Richard N. Burton and Hugh J. Furr of the Virginia Office of In--

. tergoernmental Affairs, H. Bland Franklin, Jr., Extension Agent, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and Statte.

Uniersity, Charles E. Miller, State-Federal Crop Reporting Serice, Henry Budd and Roy Seward of the Virginia

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS); and J. 'Norman Reid, Social Science Analyst,I

Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture.

A ery spe'cial thanks to Joyce H. Pye, Betty Clarke and- Helen Bane of VDACS for their most aluable i

secretarial services. . .4

s

Oa'

t..

t

..

Interstate Advi'Sory Committee

* Dr. William Bishop, DeanUniversity of Tennessee Agricultural Extension ServiceKnoxville: Tennessee

*** Di-. James A. Christensen, Associate Professor of Rural.SociologyUniversity of Kentucky.,

..) Lexington, Kentucky

I

* Dr. William L. Coffindaffer, Director of Governor's Office of Federal-State RelationsCharleston, West Virginia

* R. A. doodling, State DirectorFarmers Home AdministrationU. S. Deparent of AgricultureRichmond, Virginia

*** John B. Moore, Director, Division of Local and Regional Development*Department bf Economic and Community Development

Annapolis, Maryland** Edward A. Ragland, State Director

Farmers Home AdministrationU. S. Department of AgricultureRichmondVirginia

* Mike Rakouskas, Staff Director of Economic"Development PlanningDepartment of Natural and EcOnomic ResourcesRaleigh, North Carolina

Edmund Regan, State-Federal Coordinator,Division of Policy DevelopmentDepartment of AdministrationRaleigh, Nortih Carolina

Dr. W. E. Skelton, Administrator! Continuing Education CenterVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State UniversityDlacksburg, Virginia

Charles P. Snapp, Regicinal DirectorUpper astern Tennessee SectionTennessee State Planning OfficeJohnson City, Tennessee

** Stephen L. Whitaker, Program, 'Support Sin/icesOffice of the GovernorCharleston, West Virginia

SS

4**

4.*

. ..

Persons serving on this Committee were appointed by their respective Governors.

* Served 1976-77 ** Served 1977-78 *** 4"rved 1976 -78

1.,

S

1

.. f

ii

r

Steering Committee, .

(Board of the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services). .

Clyde W. BradshawNorfolk, Virginia .'

. .

James F. Brownell.Bluemont, Virginia

William A. BrooksStuarts Draft Virginia

4 John Thomas Faircloth, Jr.Ivor, Virginia

John B. Larus,Richmond, Virginia

a"

t

iDr. William E. Lavery-,Blacksburg, Virginia

Thom . Long, Jr. NI,, Cape Charles, Virginia

John D. MarshGainesville, Virginia

- /Mrs. M. B. PierceRichmond, Virginia

Charles D. -Roberts-Rural Retreat, Virginia

Alfred L. Snapp, Sr:-....)Winchester, Virginia

S. Mason Carbaugh, CommissionerVirginia Department of Agriculture

And Consumer Services

Raymond D. VaughanExecutive Secretary to Board

. And Depufy Commissioner,Virginia Department of Agriculture

And Consumer,,Services

at

ifi , .

I.) .

P.

A.

<

I

t

I

,

,,

ti

i.

t

I

')

Participants in Seminars for Rural Local Officials and ComMunity Leaders. Conducted by

Virginia State Depafrrrient of Agriculture and Consumer Servicesin cooperation with

Planning District Commissions & Officials of Rural Towns & Countiesof Virginia

General Chairman t,

Dr. Berkwood M. Farmer, Chief Economist andiiirecor,

Planning and DevelopmentVirginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer

Services

'Associate ChairnienEdward H. HansenVirginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer

Services

IF1 W. Smith$

AA Virginia Department of Agriculture and ConsumerServices

SpeakersJ. Kenneth Robinson, U. S. Congressman

. 7th Dis.trict, Virginia

L. Ray Ashworth, Member

1Virginia House of Delegates

I. Clinton Miller, MembetVirginia ,House of Delegates

Raymond E. Vickery, Jr., MemberVirginia House of Delegates

$

David Wright, Congressional Staff Assistant toWilliam C. Wampler,

.U. S. Congressman, 9th District, Virginia

Maurice B. Rowe; Secretary of Commerce and- Resources

CAmonwealth of Virginia

S. Mason Carbaugh, Commission*Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer

Services

Dr. Jerry Klement, Assistant Administrator, RuralDevelopment Service,

U. S. Department of Agriculture

Dr. Lou Higgs, Staff Assistant, Rural, DevelopmentServices,

U. S., Department of ,kgriculture.

Dr. John Pentecost, Rural Development Specialist,Rural Development Services,

U. S. Department of Agriculture

4

..-

J. Allen Ball, EducatorLancaster County, Virginia

Kenneth M. Bryant, SupervisorBuckingham County, Virginia

Prince A. Coleman, Power CompanySuperintendent

Glade Spring, Virginia.

Richard L. DeCair, Executive DirectorVirginia Municipal LeagueRichmond, Virginia .

Kate Elliott, Coordinator of Community EducationChatham, Virginia

Dr. Jack Griffin, MayorWakefield, Virginia'

Dr. John Houghton, SupervisorLancaster County, Virginia'

,.Richard B. Kleese, Councilman ..

...

Strasburg, Virginia

George B. Long, Executive DirectorVirginia Association of CountiesCharlottesville, Virginia

William E. Moore, Jr., BankerSouth' Hill, Virginia

Jeff Morris, Roving Town ManagerPlanning District Commission 3 ,

Marion, Virginia

)

Roy Nicholls, Farmer / EnterpreneurPowhatan County, Virginia

$ Perry Sarver, AttorneyWoodstock, Virginia

W. C. Van Lear, Chairman'Board of SupervisorsAlleghany County, Virginia

Coleman Yeatts, Jr., AttorneyChatham, Virginia

,

.44

iv -,...,I

N..

Workshop ChairpersonsRichard Albert, County, AdministratorSussex County, Virginia l.

Sid Clower, Coubty Administrator'Buckingham County, Virginia

James Cortada, CouncilmanOrange, Virginia

Ronald George, County AdministratprWarren County, Virginia

George F. James, ChairmanBoard of SupervisorsWythe County,Virginia

Paul J. Harold, Town Manager"Chatham, Virginia

William R., Hartz, MayorWaverly, Virginia ,

M. Eugene Haynes, MayorGlade Spring, Virginia

.Barbara G. Nanney", CouncilwomaXSbuth Hill, Virginia ,

Wesley Welsh, Town ManagerStrasburg, Virginia

James M. White, County AdministratorCulpeper County, Virginia

Allan T. Williams, County AdministratorMontgomery County, Virginia

1

Workshop Senior Resour& MembersRobert E. Abbott', Jr., Executive Director

- Planning District Commission 10 ..

Neal J. Barber, B-Necutive DirectorPlanning District Cbmmissibn 18

Dale R. Burton, Executive DirectorPl4nning DistriZt Commission 22

Gordon N. Dixon, Executive DirectorPlanning District Commission 4

R. Edward Duncan, Executive DirettorPlanning District Commissipn 7

Charles L. Haeussler, Executive DirectorPlanning District Commis§ion 5

Herbert N. Hamric, III, ExecutiVe DirectorPlanning District Commissiori 17,

Jack N. Lee, Executive Director ,

Planning District Commission 3

i

Daniel Lynn, Executive Director iPlanning District 14

DAvid W. Rundgren, Executive DirectorPlanning District Commission 6

.Charles F. Turner, .Executivel5irectorPlanning District Commission 19

G. Morris Wells Jr., Executive Director,./Planning District Commission 13

Workshop RecordersDorothy Baker

..., $ .Planning District Commission 13

Martha Burton ' .Planning District Commission 19

Terry Franklin.Planning District Commission 18

Timothy GubalaPlanning District Commission 5

' Mike GuyPlanning District Commission 3

Carl HammansPlanning District Commission

R. V. HammenPlanning District Commission 6

Catherine HatfieldPlanning District Commission 22

Jeannie LongPlanning District Commission 10

. Sue Moreland-.. Planning District Commission 14

Lynn WardPlanning District Commission 12

Steven K. Whit Y

Planning Distil mmission 17

Workshop Staff AdvisorsT. Graham Copeland, Jr.Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer

Services ,

1

as.

IS

Robert F. HutchesonVirginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer

Services

Y ..

,

t

/

/-

kft

ih

r V

James R. KeeVirginia Department of Agriculture A)td Consumer

Services

Roy SewardVirginia Department

Services

Mark H. SilvermanVirginia Department

Services

Dr. A. L. StaffordVirginia Department

Services

.

r

of Agriculture and Consumer

lof Agriculture and Consumer

.

of Agriculture and Consumer

...

,..

It

%

vi

4.

Seminar RegistrarsJoyce H. PyeVirginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer

Services ,..

Robbin Duffy....

Virginia Department of Agriculture and ConsumerServices

PublicityKatherine PhillipsVirginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer

Services

1.-

/--

..

../

ll

.i.

..

,

I

,

*

1,e

Executive Summary.and Recommendations

The fact that ruralin

goyernmenis mustperform significant roles in developing and carryingout programs and services that affect the local

,community is widely acceptedNby citizens and of-rirn-ficials. his role is becoming increasingly difficult

w he _demands on local government for .programsand services are evaluated in light of institutionalcapabilities and resource supplies.

This study of capacity building needs of ruralareas addresses both the internal .demand of localcitizens for improvements in community assistanceand services and the demand by higher levels of-governinent which are being placed on local com-munities. Rural communities ale increasingly requiredto implement programs, mandated by _state andfederal icikernments with inadequate resources andinformation to carry out their responsibilities ef-fectively. Too often, when assistance by state andfederal agencies is available, it is provide0 in anuncoordinated manner that may be more confusingthan helpful.

This study addresses available. nstitutional andresource capabilities to meet community needs. Typesof assistance as ailable to local communities will affecttheir long-run autonomy and viability.

The study accomplished four major objectives:It identified community needs. These are areasthat require attention, in order to improve thequality of life.

/ It identified capacity building needs. Capacitybuilding is the adequacy and effectiveness of localinstitutional capabilities and resource& to supplyprograms and services in order to meet thecommunity needs.li identified capacity building gaps. A gap occurs

vii

1

in a specific program or service area when thelocal capaiity building needs exceed institutionaland resource capabilities.It suggests mechanisms that could be used to

fminimizi,or alleviate the capacity building gaps.Information and data used in this study were

obtained fromrpersonal interviews conducted with 93(letcal officials and 344 community leaders in eightrural areas of Virginia in 1977. Local officials in-cluded all elected and appointed persons in

policymaking and management es. Traditionalsampling procedures were used in selecting com-munity leaders.

The conceptual model used in this study is shownin Figure 1, page xis, and represents syntheses of thetheories and research procedures used. The modelinclUdes community structure, information fromelected and appointed officials, and information fromcommunity leaders. Likewise, it includes con-sideration of community satisfactionevaluation ofcommunity services by com unity leadersas well asfthe needs of the communit as perceived and definedby local officials and community leaders. The modeladditionally include& an institutional and resourcecapability network which represents both local andextra-community inputs to the community. Finally,the concept of prime interest, capacity building gaps,is shown (as related to institutional and resourcecapabilitieA and needs.

Community structure includes governmentalstatus, i.e., whether the community is a twain or acounty, and demographic type which includes areasgroWing and areas with stable or decliningpopulations. Community structure was found to berelated to both institutional and resource capabilities

.4

and needs. Specifically, .officials in stable anddeclining communities perceived more local govern-mental need than aid officials in growth areas. Also,county officials were more satisfied with assistancebeing received frbm state government and the federalgovernment than were town officials.

Community leaders in "'towns, relative tocounties, were more satisfied with protection,educational, and geAtweal community services;planning activities; and access to health care.Community leaders in counties, on the other hand,were more satisfied with the existing level of com-munity development.

Characteristics of local officials, both electedand appOinted, included the number of years inpctition, race, sex, age, educational attaikunent,family income and number of years in the1com-munity. It was found that officials' perceptions ofinstitutional and resource capabilities varied ac-cording to some of the characteristics of the officials.

Similar sociodemographic data were also ob-tained for community leaders and their perceptions ofcommunity needs varied according to Many of theircharacteristics. Specific relationships of the per-ceptions of officials and leaders are shown in Table 1,page xv, and T.,,q,ble 2, page xvi, respectively.

Overall, co'mmunity struure, characteristics oflocal officials and' characteristics of communityleaders were found to be important' factors inidentifying the needs and services of rural com-munities and relationships of such needs and servicesto institutional and resource capabilities. Local of-ficials tended to have rather-consistent perceptionstoward community needs and the operation of localgovernments while .corifideratle differences werefound to exist in citizen perceptions of communityneeds and services. Of all factors considered in thisstudy, the place of residence of officials and com-munity leaders, i.e., town or county, was found to bethe strongest and most consistent factor when at-titudinal differences were observed.

Need: Cause:Fiscal' Ngw and expanded services

Higher citizen expectationMandatesRegressive nature of local

revenues

viii

Maj.& community needs were found to exist in:Engineering and public worksleeds within thiscategory are improvements and.'or expansions insewerage, water and solid waste disposal systems,roads, streets, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, andstreet lights.Industrial development. Needs were expressed fora 'more extensive base to increase employmentopportunities, broaden the tax base, and providemore stimulus to local business development.Recreation. Demand in this area included tennis,swimming, golf, commercial recreation,recreational centers and the establishment of localparks.Education. Concerns related mostly to im-

provements in the quality'of education and Theability of rural areas to attract and retainqualified teachers.Health and Welfare. Concerns related primarilyto the mailability of doctors and medical facilitiesand the general administration of Welfareprograms.Housing. A major concern was the lack of anadequate housing mix to meet the needs of allpeople in the community.Planning. Changes in land use, increasingconcern for the environment and apprehensionabout tp,e general quality of life have created anew embhasis on planning at the local communitylevel.The top three community needs were engineering

and public works, industrial development andrecreation. These three needs were agreed upon byleaders and officials.

The five major capacity building needs identifiedin this study were: I) fiscal; 2) staffing; 3) planning;4) citizen participation, and 5). inter-governmentalcoordination.

The following summarizes the major causes ofeach capacity building need and thetesulting capacitybuilding gaps:

I4

Gap:Lack o

tax reUncertain

dequate local.nues

of state andfederal funds

Red tape in obtainistate and ftderal unds

Number of inconsi lentand unrealistic

Ineffective local piaand planning supp

ndatesrung'rt

Need; Cause: . Gap:

Staffing

Planning

Residential growth anddevelopment

State and federal lawsand regulitions

Inflation

General personnel problems

frraining

Technical assistance ,

Citizen demands for netsand expanded services

Mandated programsInflationRegressive nature of local

revenues

ix 1 9l 4.

Ineffective local planningLack of funds to ifrovide

servicesrevenues lag behind in-

creases in service costs

Lack of adequate budget-, ing itor personnel

costs

Inability toabsorb increased costs

Ineffectiveong-run costand benefit projections

Lack of adequate fundsInsufficient qualified

staffUnattractive work environ-

mentRelatively lo laries

, Lack of ad ate supervision

Few training opportunitiesfor personsin administra-tion and public worksrelative to other staffpositions

Time and distance factoGeneral apathy toward

written publications

,

4

Inadequate technicalassistance

Inadequate program evalua-tion expertise

Lack of timely information"and data

Lack of coordinated tech-nical assistance for man`datedprograms

Lack of adequate localtax revenue

Uncertainty of state andfederal funds

Number of inFonsistent andunrealistic Inandates

Ineffective local planningand planning support

. t Need:

3Citizen <-

Participation

0.

Cause:

Land-use pressures

Insufficient data andinformation

Time commitmentsPublic LiabilityConflict of interestHarrassmentFreedom of Information Act

Lack of knowledge aboutlocal government

Inadequate communicationbetween officials andcitizens

Pdor scheduling of policymeetings

Intergovernmental MandatesCoordination Program changes

Lack of technicalknowledge

Lack of fundsDifferent require-

ments by agenciesconductinpimilarprograms

If small rural governments are to be viable anddeliver effective programs and services to theircitizens, improvementy must occur in the above fiveareas of capacity building needs Continuing gaps inthese areas may cause rural eas to lose viability,become less responsive to I I citizen needs, andimpede the future implemen n of policies andprograms at the federal and state levels.

One important finding in tqs study is thatcapacity building gaps can be reduced without largeadditional-. expenditures of taxpayers' money orcreating additional bureaucratic units in government.The study clearly demonstrates that rural" com-munities must be willing to sacrifice a certain amountof autonomy for gains in viability. Based on this

0

4'

Gap:

Land-use plans are not effectively,used in decision makingprocesses

Lack of citizen understand-.;0 ing and support

Lack of timely andaccurate data

Lack of evaluativecapabilities

Inadequate 'participationof qualified persons inmanagement, decision ;making and policy areas

Loss of'citizen inputIneffective planning

processLoss of citizen suppott

of community efforts

ParochialismLack of information

$ and communication

I

J

I

study, opposite trade-offs do not appear feasible. In afederal system of government, governmental (unitsthat comprise the system are highly'dependent on oneanother. Failures to perform at local levels ofgoC,ernment require direct actions at a higher .

governmental level if' citizen expectations are to bemet.

This study pointed out capacity building gaps ofconcern to rural local governments. Many of the gapsare caused' by factors external to the community overwhich rural local governments have little or nocontrol. Thus, the viability of rural local govprnmentsis increasingly dependent on the external resource and

-institutional capability network. Strengthening the

x

A

network to provide appropriate, timely and adequate

assistance and assuilkg a meaningful role for rurallocal governments is 5 challenge currently facing stateand federal governdents. Fedetal and state govern-ments cannot back away from this challenge.

Easier commuter accessTha- rural areas along withthe tendency of industry and government to establishmore of their facilities in such areas are among factorscausizt social, demographic and economic change inrural America. Citizens in rural areas are increasingly'demanding services similar to those available in urban

. areas.. Yet, many rural citizens and officials want toretain a rural atmosphere fi which high priorit is.

ghetto environmental quality and to the preservationof productive agricultural land and open spaces.

Legisl.a06n aimed at strengthening the role of localgovernnts has been enacted at the state and federallevel and' numerous programs are ing conductedttswith objective of strengthening he linkagesbet federal, state and local governments.

In this summary, discussion will center on types ofactions that', in the view of the authors, should beconsidered by .rural local governments, stategovernments and the teaeral government, to copewith major capacity building gaps identifiedin thestudy. The recorwendations are more concernedwith apprOaches to strengthen the institutional andresource capability network than in'specific actions tobe taken in individual program areas.

Gaps Associated With Fiscal Needs

FindingsLack of adequate finances was a majorcapacity gap uncovered in all communities. While thistends to be a universaltoncern of local governments,small rural local governments are faced withdiseconomies of scale. which are related. to size and.density of populition and lack of an extensive taxbase. They must expend a larger share of theirrevenues than larger jurisdictions to cover' basic,overhead costs.

Local governments are highly dependent on stategovernment actions in the fiscal area. This is becausethe state sets limits on local taxing authorities and canrequire local governments to take actions to conformto state program requirements with or withoutassurances of additional rate funding assistance.Also, the state owns land and facilities which are notsubject to local talation.

ConclusionRural local governments must be ableto obtain sufficient revenues to perform basic func-tions of local government plus t e additionalresponsibilities placed on them tiy sta and federalmandates.

xi

<' I

Recommendationsrlt is recommended that:Local governments make a maxinlum effort to 'close fiscal capacity gaps through local tax effortsand cost-effective management; and thatprograms of financial assistance be designed toreward, not penalize,, localities that makemaximum efforts in this regard.Existing mechanisms within state government beutilized to provide constant monitoring of theimpacts that, state and federal actions have onfiscal capabilities of rural local government.Information ob't'ained from such monitoringshould be made available on a regular basis to theGeneral Assembly and to the Office of theGovernor.Determinations be made at the state level as towhether specific mandates can be realisticallyapplied to rural areas without guaranteed ad-ditional state and/or federal support.The Attorney General's Office monitorregulations prepared by st,4te agencies to assurethat they are in conformance with the intent ofthe law and still provide localities the widestpossible flexibility in *hieving objectives in acost-effectivd manner.Impact statements on proposed state legislationaffecting local governments be prepared andaccompany such bills -through the GeneralAssembly.

'4;. State and federal agencies coordinate their ac-tivities so that local government officials canbasically work with one agency in a givenprogram area.Local and state officials begin immediately toinvestigate aild evaluate other sources of localrevenues that are less regressive than propertytaxes.Additional state funds be made available tononmetropolitan planning district commissions inwhich, current sources of funds and resources areinadequate to provide the technical and ad-ministrative support needed by rural jurisdictionswithin the district.Gapps AssociatedAssociated With Staffing Needs

FindingsRural local governments are beingcalled uPon ,to handle assignments that require anincreasingly higher degree of professionalism.Relatively low salaries, limited advancement op-portunities and a work environment consideredunattractive by some professionals, are gaps that

? 1.

-S,

make it difficult to recruit and retain competentpersonnel.

More outside technical assistance than is currentlyavailable from the public sector was, found to beparticularly needed in the planning and developmentof complex high cost capital improvement typeprojects. Training opportunities are available but notalways at the time and 'Mace that encolifage at-tendance from rural officials and their staffs. A lackof capability to properly evaluate program ef-

fectiveness also has resulted in some inefficiency inutilization of existing personnel.

ConclusionRural local governments must b estaffed to perform their functions in a 'professionaland effective manner, and have access to technicalassistance and information on a timely basis.

RecommendationsIt is recommended that:Local governments establish and periodicallyreview job descriptions of all staff personnel andprovide for clear ft lines _of authority andresponsibility.The state pro e a uniform system of structUtinglocal goverfiment staffs which could be adoptedby local governments on an optional basis.A state wide technical assistance consortium,consisting of state and federal agencies, planningdistrict commissions, public and private in-

stitutions of higher learning, and public interestgroups, be established. The purpose of theconsortium would . be to provide, appropriatetechnical assistance to rural local governments bylocating and coordinating the assistance availablfrom the various groups and assuring that it iseffectively utilized at the local level.

Gaps Associated With Planning Needs

FindingsAlthough comprehensive plans havebeen developed in the rural communities, such planswere not widely followed in making local govern-mental or land-use decisions. Citizen understandingand support of plakning efforts was low in ruralareas. (aps in the planning area were similar to thosefound in the fiscal area.

Rural officials encountered difficulties in obtainingand effectively utilizing information and data inevaluating project and service activities and in generaldecision making professes. Improper use of data inplanning has costly and long-run effects. Also, failureto respond to a state and/or federal announcement orregulation, on a timely basis, can have adversefinancial and/or legal ramifications.

ConclusionGreater attention needs to be given tothe overall planning process in rural areas. Timely,relevant, and comprehensible data, must be madeavailable tc, local officials for use in their planningand decision making processes.

RecommendationsIt is recommended that:Local governments take steps to involve morecitizens in the planning process...Local government officials rake a consciouseffort to relate current decisions to long-run plansof the community.Local governments work with state agencies anduniversities in collecting, summarizing, analyzing,and reporting locally generated data in a uniformmanner so it can be used to supplement andimprove federal, state and regional data.A state agency be designated to assemble, screen,summarize and distribute data and information,including appropriate rate and feralregulations of special interest to I govern-ments. 4

The state .government should encourage thedevelopment of computer models which can beused by local government officials. These modelswill help officials analyze data for use in planningand decisionimaking and provide them a basis forcomparing benefits and costs of local services tothose of other jurisdictions. ,

xii

Gaps AksOciated With Citizen Participation Needs

FindingsBecause financial and personnelresources are limited, rural local governments mustrely heavily on citizen volunteer inputs to maintaintheir viability. Local officials are concerned that anincreasing number of competent and qualified citizensare reluctant to seek public office or serve onpolicymaking boards and/or commissions. Fear ofliability suits or other civil actions resulting from afailure to comply with disclosure and conflict ofinterest laws are making citizens wary of bee-minginvolved in local governmental. activities. This is

especiallx exasperating since volunteers work for littleor no compensation.

It was found that many citizens were uninformedor had misconceptions of the role of local govern:ments. Also, the matter of communication betweenofficials and citizens something that needs constantattention. Any breakdown in communication cancontribute to a loss of citizen support and un-derstanding of community efforts.

ConclusionActions should be taken to encouragegreater citizen participation in rural local govern-

9

ments.RecommendationsIt is recommended that:State and federal laws originally enacted toprovide more open and responsive government,be reviewed to determine whether, in actualapplication, they are tending to reduce citizenparticipation 'n local government.Local and s e governments consider additionalways to provide recognition to volunteers.Federal general revenue sharing formulas bemodified to give more weight, to the use ofvolunteers in lieu of salaried employees.Local governments establish local professional,adhoc advisory committees to make better use oflocal talents.Greater efforts( be focused on conducting -localcitizen participation forums.Training opportunities be made available to newappointees to policymaking, boards and com-missions.

Gaps Associated With IntergovernmentalCoordination Needs

FindingsTo retain rural government viability inprogram activities requiring large capital investments,specialized expertise, and area wide planning, in-creased attention is being given to pooling of availableresources. The increasing number of interjurisdipon-al agreements in rural areas is evidence that a longtime attitude of parochialism is becoming lesspronounced.

The need for a stronger rural government interfacewith the state and federal government, to representtheir interests in intergovernmental program decisions,and implementation, was noted;

4.

ConclusionIntergovernmental' coordination atthe local level must, x eticouraged in order for rural1001 governments to realistically structure, operate'and maintain activities of area wide significance that15equire large fiscal outlays, and a higlc.degree oftechnological expertise and application.

RecommendationsIt is recommended that:Local governments evaluate the advantages anddisadvantages Of specific bilateral or multilateralagreements with other local governments forservices related to sewerage and water, solid waste

"management, laid enforcement, recreation,vocational education, health services, assistance ri'to the,handicapped, transportation, and dtherprograms in order. to improve services and ef-ficiencies.Planning district commissions encourage andWork out arrangemegits for local ruraljurisdictions to share specialized personnel such asmanagers, engineers, architects and plannerswhere deterined to be mutually benefIcial.State and federal governments actively encourageCoordination at the local level by removing anyconstraints in program implementation thathamper

.or discourage. intergovernmental.

coordination efforts.A Rural Capacity Building Advisory Committeebe established to advise the Secretary of Com-merce and Resources in facilitating private, local,state wild federal efforts' for strengthening thegoverning capabilities of rural governments. Thisstrengthening process would be aimed at main-taining autonomy while increasing the viability ofrural governments in the most cost-effectivemanner.

1xiii 1 t1

4

Figure -1

I

CHARACTERISTICSOF LOCALOFFICIALS

1p

c

CONCEPTUAL MODEL

INSTITUTIONAL ANDRESOURCE CAPABILITIES

.1.

CAPACITY BUILDINGNEEDS

c

COMMUNITYi NEEDS

K

No.

CHARACTERISTICS EVALUATION OFOF CONUNITY COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE

LEMERS AND SERVICES

1 '....J.

7

I

1 ' ..-a_ ' .1

1

Table 1. Summary of the significant findings of officials' attitudes regarding institutional and resource capability components

InJependent % 471,1 hie, % Dependent \ ariables

Leal (Jos ernmentalNeeds

Emsting PersonnelSituation

I mpressi5ns ot

State Nissistan..eimpressions otFederal Assistance

treed forOutside Assistance ,

Perceis ed.

\lorePer,eised

Less

\ loreSatisfied

Less

Sa:isted\ loreSattstted

Less

Satisfied\ loreSatistied

Less

Satisfied\ loreSatisfied

Less

Satisfied

DemographicChange

IncreasingPopulation . X

*

Stable andDeclining Pop.

/X

=.

Area

.

'Towns X

(

.

X X..

.

Counties --,X X X

.

Education

.

High SchoolEducation or fess

,

X,.

Post HighSchool Education X "

4.

Age

Older Officials .--" X.

,.,

X

_

.

Younger OfficialsX X:.

0

Years inPosition

ShOrter Timein Position - X

Am .,

Longer Timein Position X

Years mCommunity

15 Years orLess ^ X

'

411°

.

Over 15Years .

:,

S-

1.4n I

4f

s

, Table 2. Summary of the significant findings of community leaders' evaluations of assistance and services provided community

0

I sd,pg. nklerd anatN--) e Dependent k ari:ittie,

. Proteun.eSerh.e

Edu,ational`Ner.i.!,

C ommunoDoelopment

C iaminunitt,Assistan,e

NanningAt.tis ities

Ac Less to

Health CareCommunitySer % ice:,

\loreSatisfied

I es.'sat idled

\loreSatisfied

I es,Satisfied

\ loreSatisfied

I ess

S'atistied

\lore.SatistiLd

I es,Satistied

\loreSatisfied

I ess

Satislied\loreSatisfied

Less

Satisfied

\LoreSatisfied

Less

Satisfied

Town X X X X0

X w 4 X

County fr X X X,

X Xt

. X

Increasing Population X

.

X ' . X/

X,..

Stable or DecliningPopulation X X . X X

White X X X X X

Black

.

X X X 1 X

,

' X ,

Male.

, X,

Female.

X.

.

Older than 31 X.

X

. .

Younger than 31 X X ,,.

Six years and otterin community ,

-4 14.

X ' X X

Under six yearsin community

,

.... X c X X

530,000 and overfamily income

) x f x X

Under $30,000family income ,

,

X X X

High Scho ) and under X / - IA. X

..Over High School yX 4.0 X