It’s no secret that public engagement looks different from one community to another. The public engagement strategy for New York City would not lend itself well to Rawlins, Wyoming, USA. Rural communities are faced with a unique set of challenges due to their distance from major population centers. Rural communities experience a 20% higher mortality rate than urban communities, 23% lower incomes, 22.3 to 50% do not have reliable broadband access, and 31% of rural roads are in poor or mediocre condition. How can rural local governments begin addressing inequities in their communities given the vast distance between them?

It is important to have a multi-faceted engagement strategy to address these challenges. Rural governments can act as engagement hubs bringing communities together with state and federal resources. This can be done through physical community building, digital communication, and strategic decision-making between residents and local government leaders.

Challenges for Rural Communities

Three challenges that rural communities struggle with are access to healthcare, economic development, and technology opportunities. The market for these resources does not justify the startup and operational costs needed for most private sector businesses to operate. This leads to infrastructure being limited and often neglected.

Limited county/city budgets can lead to gaps in public engagement and community building. With smaller economies and greater expanses to manage, rural local governments may not have the resources to focus on public engagement. This can have negative effects on civic participation and residents’ sense of connection and belonging.

How Can Rural Governments Solve These Inequalities? Communication.

The key is to engage residents with an approach that helps address various challenges. First, counties and cities can act as engagement hubs bringing together community residents and leaders. Traditional methods of communication (e.g., flyers, street banners, op-eds) along with attending established community events, social media posts, or regular email updates are ways to break down barriers.

Engaging local community leaders like pastors, teachers, and small business leaders can help to leverage their platforms to have authentic engagement with the community. These leaders can be pipelines for information to their own communities and allow for local government leaders to learn important information, too. What do the parishioners, workers, and parents care about? What do they need and want to be informed about? This decentralized messaging works because these cultural and economic leaders may have a greater influence than city or county staff members.

Community Needs

With an engagement strategy in place, rural governments can think about what infrastructure improvements can help to enhance their community. For example, if they are in an area that is underserved by broadband, do the residents of the area consider it a high priority to gain access to the internet? If so, then rural governments can take steps to help facilitate conversations and partnerships to create new possibilities for developing broadband connections.

This is how the town of McKee, Kentucky, USA, (population 800) was able to provide fiber optic internet connections to every home and business in 2014. This was done through a nonprofit cooperative, People’s Rural Telephone Cooperative (PRTC). Using the nonprofit model allowed the community to drive decisions based on their specific needs and leverage a unified voice to apply for federal and state resources. They received $20 million from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and $25 million from a combination of loan and grant funding. This has allowed for remote education for schools in inclement weather, telehealth appointments, and remote work opportunities for community members and digital nomads alike.

Comparative Advantages

With a strong digital infrastructure in place, local staff and officials can turn to ways to leverage it to their advantage and ask themselves (and the community), “What can our community offer that others cannot?”

Environmental tourism could be one answer, and it can be an economic driver for a rural region. In Tyrrell County, North Carolina, USA, the Ecotourism Committee (TCEC) was formed between public, private, and nonprofit organizations to protect the local wetlands. The TCEC successfully generated $3.46 million in the local tourism economy.

Comparative advantages not only include ecotourism but can include local history and culture. Potosi, Wisconsin, USA, saw an economic revival after locals collaborated with state and federal agencies to restore a historic brewery. The town of 700 people received grants and loans totaling $7.5 million to bring it back to operation. The brewery reopened as the pride of the town and ultimately saved it, bringing in 70,000 people in 2012.

Conclusion

Rural governments are confronted with ongoing challenges, but with the right community engagement strategy they can begin to address these issues. An engagement strategy should help determine what the highest needs are and create greater civic participation of constituents. This strategy requires a strong coalition of individual, local, state, and federal resources to specifically address comparative advantages and greatest needs—whether that be developing ecotourism opportunities or increased broadband access.

It is always important to keep in mind that change can take time. Community members may not be open to change. Projects are not always approved for state or federal grants. To solve the issues facing rural communities, they can leverage their unique comparative advantages to create the change they want to see. Persistent and clear engagement with the public on their needs is what is required for long-term success.

ROBERT JORDAN is assistant director of the Davenport Institute for Public Engagement and Civic Leadership at Pepperdine University.

CADEN BENEDICT is a student at Pepperdine University.