Episode 50. Exploring Fragile Neighborhoods with Dr. Seth Kaplan
Michelle Rathman: Hello, one and all. Welcome back to the Rural Impact. I'm Michelle Rathman, and I mean it when I say I really do. I am so grateful that you've carved out time to join me for another conversation that helps to connect the dots between policy and rural everything. These are some very busy times we are in.
Now, before I tell you about my guest today, I do want to share with you that I have just returned from eight days recording conversations from our nation's capital. My first stop was at the National Association of Community Health Centers Policy and Issues Forum. Many really enlightening conversations from there.
And from there, I spent several days at the National Rural Health Association’s Policy Institute. Again, recorded several conversations with individuals who are on the front lines, working to protect America's rural healthcare access. And I want to remind you that this is, we're talking about 60 million plus people, so this is no small number.
And our focus really is about making sure that we ensure access to rural health care is there. And I need to say this, it's not an exaggeration. As of the day I'm recording this, and of course, by the time you hear this, I'm certain things will have changed. Hopefully for the better, but I do fear the worst based on the way things are going.
Uh, you know, Republicans who are narrowly controlling Congress right now are pushing proposals that would sharply cut funding to the government health insurance program for poor and disabled Americans. And they are doing so because they are finding ways to finance President Donald Trump's agenda for tax cuts and border security.
All right. So, what's at stake, you may wonder? Well, consider that roughly 79 million people are enrolled in Medicaid and its related children health insurance program, with rural populations highly dependent on this coverage. And that's not a bad thing. But I'll get to the numbers in the next episode. We'll really dive in.
But to give you an idea, here's just a few things to think about as Congress does battle over ensuring coverage. In January of 2025, a report called Medicaid's Role in Small Towns and Rural Areas, and this came from the Center for Children and Families and Research at the Georgetown McCourt School of Public Policy.
And in the next episode, you are going to hear from Joan Alker, who really dives into those details. But here's just a number for you, 40.6% of children living in small towns and rural areas were enrolled in Medicaid or CHIP as compared to 38.2% in metro areas. And this is from 2023, these numbers, not much has shifted at all in that regard.
At least six states, in at least six states, this is important, more than half of all children in small towns and rural areas were covered by Medicaid and CHIP in 2023 with Louisiana, at 57.7% for example. And Arizona at 55.9%. So, in addition to the impacts on children and families, the draconian cuts as a Joan’s colleague, Edwin Park share with us on a previous episode that are being proposed to Medicaid will also severely jeopardize the financial health of thousands of hospitals and community health centers and rural health clinics, and which is also a huge revenue source to all states.
So, again, just using a few numbers for you to understand what's at stake, and we're going to really, as I said, dive into that and talk about ways that you, our listeners, can join in and advocating to make sure that these cuts don't decimate health care available in your rural community, no matter what your sector.
I really hope that this information. It permeates with you and inspires you to become an advocate, again, regardless of the industry you're in, healthcare affects all of us.
Okay. Once again, if you're a new listener, you know, we do not talk about light subjects on the podcast, but it is our intention always to enlighten our listeners with the hope that each of us better understand the importance of advocacy, and sometimes that means having some courageous long overdue conversations.
Which might be a good segue to what I'm going to talk to you about next and introducing our guest because it is really a courageous conversation. And when I returned from DC, I'm going to tee up by telling you this. There was a work, some work being done in my home that I had hoped to be done before I got back, but it wasn't, which is okay.
And one of the guys finishing up the project asked me how my trip went, uh, to D. C. He knew that I went there, and I told him it was pretty tough and I was thinking policy. But he was thinking something very different. And he said to me, was it the crime? I heard there's a lot of crime in D. C. Now after I assured him that I was, it was not the crime, that I was perfectly safe.
It really made me think about perceptions and realities of America's fragility, the fragile nature of communities, zip code by zip code, urban to rural. And that my friends is what today's episode is all about. So today, you are going to hear my conversation with Dr. Seth D. Kaplan, a leading expert on fragile states and senior advisor for the Institute for Integrated Transitions and the author of Fragile Neighborhoods, Repairing American Society, One Zip Code at a Time.
Now, let me just share with you a little about fragile neighborhoods before we go on. And this is from the book, “The neighborhoods we live in impact our lives in so many ways. They determine who we know, what resources and opportunities we have access to the quality of schools our kids go to our sense of security and belonging. And even how long we live, yet too many of us live in neighborhoods plagued by rising crime, school violence, family disintegration, addiction, alienation and despair. Even the wealthiest neighborhoods are not immune, while poverty exacerbates these challenges. They exist in zip codes, rich and poor, rural and urban, and everything in between.
Now, in my conversation with Seth, I set out to learn more about the practical lessons that help to remind us that, and this is from his words, “when change is hyperlocal, everyone has the opportunity to contribute.”
That is so true. So, with that said, it is that time, every time when I invite you to tune out the background noise, and there's plenty of it, put yourself in your podcast frame of mind and listen to my conversation with Seth Kaplan as we discuss fragile neighborhoods.
Are you ready? I'm grateful you're here. I'm always ready for these conversations. So, let's go.
=====
Michelle Rathman: Hey, Dr. Seth Kaplan, author of Fragile Neighborhoods and Senior Advisor for the Institute for Integrated Transitions. Welcome to The Rural Impact. We are very glad you are here with us today. Thanks for joining us.
Dr. Seth Kaplan: It's a great pleasure to be with you, Michelle. Thank you so much for the invite.
Michelle Rathman: It is our pleasure. And I will tell you, I have had an opportunity to read Fragile Neighborhoods. I have a lot of highlights in my book sitting in front of me on my iPad here. But, you know, Seth, as we get started, I just want to kind of tee things up a little bit. You wrote fragile neighborhoods in 2023.
We are now recording this episode today in the early days of February 2025. And as we all know, being realistic, much has changed in many respects. Some things haven't, but in many respects, we're looking at some change. And I think it'd be hard to argue with what I'm about to say. And that is that the United States, rural, certainly not excluded, is facing unprecedented circumstances, if you will. So, I wonder how you might, if at all, modify the answer to the question, isn't America fragile too? Which is a great way to kick off your book. What, what say you, Seth?
Dr. Seth Kaplan: Thank you so much, Michelle. So, in the book, I had two answers to that question. I said, I did not think based upon, I mean, I've worked in 35 countries. I've been in 75 countries, and the places I typically work in Nigeria, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Libya, I don't work on Syria, but colleagues of mine work on Syria, and the place has changed a lot in the last few weeks.
I would just say my two answers, I don't think my answers would change. I had answer one, the U. S. is not violence prone and structurally unstable, politically, the way these countries are. These are countries that Syria has had 600,000 people killed over the last 10 or so years. Somalia hasn't had a functioning government in, I think as of now 34 years. Libya has two governments, and the one that's internationally recognized controls like a green zone, like a few blocks in the capital and not a lot else.
So our, our challenges as a state are quite different. It doesn't mean we don't have challenges. But as I said in the book, I think socially, we are extremely fragile. And what I mean by that is society, the strength of society, and ultimately for me, the strength of a country depends on relationships, depends on local institutions that eventually feed their way up into larger institutions.
And I think these have been quite devastated, in the last two generations, I mean, you don't see it everywhere, but you see it in a lot, a lot of places, probably three quarters or more of the parts of America, and you certainly see it in a lot of rural areas. In fact, you could argue rural areas are more vulnerable, more at risk in some areas, not all because rural is so diverse.
They are highly fragile, and so I would just say I'm, I'm sympathetic to the language that we are a very fragile society. I just would not ever put us in the same category as some of the countries I work at.
Michelle Rathman: Oh, yeah. It's a great point. I mean, I take a look at Haiti, I take a look at Ukraine and we, I mean, these are, we can look at these and say, oh my gosh, well, at least we're not. And, and so I think putting it into the context of what we're talking about in rural to your point, I have been working in rural health for decades.
We have never been able to, as of yet, I really want us to, hope is not a strategy. We have never been able to shake off the older, sicker, poorer narrative because it exists. And to your point, you have seen one rural community. You've seen one. I have seen rural communities that are, you know, deep, deep in poverty, no economic upward mobility opportunities.
And then those that are flourishing with tourism, and other industries and so forth. But one of the things that you talk about in the book, you have a whole chapter that's focused on the two faces of poverty. And we have been having our last few episodes significant conversation around poverty, and it would be really irresponsible of me to dismiss the ties to policy and poverty.
But why don't you share with our listeners kind of diving into the two faces of poverty and what this looks like in rural in particular, and then we'll go from there.
Dr. Seth Kaplan: Okay, so let me give you a few different answers. So, first of all, the data is really clear that the poorest places in America are rural, even, even though we mostly think of, when we say poverty, we mostly think of poor urban neighborhoods. Poor, the poorest parts of America, and I think, and it's kind of interesting because we could point to white poverty, black poverty, Hispanic poverty, and Native American poverty in rural areas, those are all in different forms, but those are the poorest parts of the four largest racial groups, racial ethnic groups in America.
And so, let's just put that with a lot of data on that. So, when I talk about the two faces of poverty, I talk about economic poverty, which is what we most, in our conversation about poverty, when we say poverty, we mostly mean income or economic poverty.
But for me, I think, I think not completely disconnected from economic poverty, we have growing and glaring social poverty. And so social poverty for me can take on many forms. It can take on, disconnection. It can mean isolation. It can mean on an individual basis loneliness, but I'm more interested in the place-based dynamic.
It can take on a lack of agency. In fact, one of the big differences when I go to rural versus urban areas, the feeling of a left behind, lack of agency at the place level, all parts of society, more or less. That feeling I think is stronger in many rural places than urban places.
And so, for me, social poverty is this whole idea that that we are disconnected from our opportunity. We're disconnected from the conversation. We have very little agency. We're disconnected from each other. And it gives you a sense of loneliness, helplessness. And I think too much of our conversation on poverty only thinks about money.
And doesn't think about social, the social elements that in terms of our wellbeing can be equally and at times more important because I actually know places where there's materially well-off neighborhoods or communities, but they are, they're socially poor and the people are not well on some level.
They have a house, but they're isolated, disconnected, they feel left behind, and they're often angry because of their lack of agency.
Michelle Rathman: Yeah. And it's pervasive now. I want to, before we jump to that, because you have a chapter that I find really fascinating, which is chapter two, 'The Rich are Not All Right.' But before we go there, I just really want to touch on the fact that, you know, we take a look at, to your point, you know, money and, and poverty are on the same, you know, level, but let's talk a bit about poverty and life expectancy, because we're not talking about poverty in terms of life expectancy. Talk to us a little bit about what that looks like, comparatively speaking, in rural.
Dr. Seth Kaplan: Yeah, so I would say one of the most shocking statistics about the United States is the difference in life expectancy based upon where you live. We as a country are doing significantly worse than other developed countries on life expectancy, even though we are significantly wealthier, which says a lot about the problems we as a country have, I mean, some people could say that's the health system, but I also think it's the people being disconnected, left behind, depressed, alienated, playing a large role for some people in the choices that they make.
And I think a major part of that is the life expectancy based upon where you live matters so much. There's a gap at the largest extent of over 40 years. More typical would be a 20-year gap. I can look at a map and see two neighborhoods or two counties next to each other. One, the life expectancy is mid-eighties. The one right next to it is mid-sixties.
And it's not only life expectancy, if I may say, it's social mobility, it's education outcomes, it's access to opportunity, almost any statistic about wellbeing. The gap is enormous only because you live here versus there.
Michelle Rathman: Yeah. You know, Seth, I was reading something the other day. I can't help it. I really believe my brain is on a treadmill these days. I was reading something the other day and I thought, oh, this is really nice. And let's kind of focus on health for a moment and access. Someone had written a blog about how the next biggest healthcare company will not be pharma. It won't be tech. It will be a food company, and everyone can eat healthy and so forth.
And I was thinking, that is great if you live, and then my mind went to here versus here. And so when we talk about the faces of poverty and just the basic access to things, can you expand a little bit more on that?
Because, you know, the social part is of course, significant, but then there's just truly places where access just does not exist. Yes.
Dr. Seth Kaplan: I think, I mean, we have a lot of what you would call food deserts. But what I think, again, I'm thinking social versus material. So one of the things that stands out in a lot of rural areas, it does stand out in some urban neighborhoods as well as where, where are the places where people gather, and food could be a nice supermarket.
It could be a coffee shop. These are so lacking. And people cannot feel good about where they live and actually cannot activate their own interest in doing something until there's things in your county or whatever area you are in.
So, I would say, I mean, a nice place to shop. I was in a place called China Grove, North Carolina in September. That's between Charlotte and Salisbury. So, it's a bit in the Western part of North Carolina. And my hosts, very interesting, they had started as a food bank and then they turned it into a healthy supermarket. And then they had turned that into a way to gather people. I mean, they had some specific programs for helping people rehabilitate and integrate, but they were trying to use food as a way to build community.
And I would say when you're in rural areas and there's no coffee shops, there's no locally owned businesses that are retail. There's no local supermarkets. Not only do we make the bad choices in terms of what we eat, we don't actually have ways to connect with each other and turning around or helping a place sustain itself is so much about the social fabric.
I mean, I don't know anyone who works in rural areas that does not emphasize the importance of people coming together to steward stewardship, steward a place in terms of enabling a place to thrive over time or to turn itself around. How is that supposed to happen if there aren't places for people to gather?
And so, if I'm a town, if I'm a city, a town leader or a county leader, and I'm thinking, I'm not thinking there's going to be a magic bullet that's going to come and help us. We need to find little incremental ways to bring people together and I think food. or places where people can gather, it's hugely important to that.
Michelle Rathman: I do a whole talk focused on the recipe for thriving and, and that is, I use so many of those analogies around gathering and, real quick, before we move on, I do
Dr. Seth Kaplan: I like recipe. I don't know if you're implying that there's a food element to
Michelle Rathman: Yeah. I mean, I do. I mean, because, you know, for example, Seth and mean, when I work with a community and, and, you know, the hospital, just for example, they are always at the center of solve the problem, solve the problem, solve the problem.
But it's solving the problem after it's kind of like, I have an analogy. We, we deal with that which we are not able or choose not to manage. And so the hospital, it cannot be down there with. You use a great analogy about an ambulance at the bottom of a cliff versus
Dr. Seth Kaplan: Yes. Yes.
Michelle Rathman: So, let's talk about that for a second, but I do want to just stop here because I think this is a really important point you write “the rich are not all right.” And if you could just give us a overview of that, because you know, we'd like to think that money, I mean people say,” yeah easy for you to say if you have money,” but talk about that concept for just a moment, will you please?
Dr. Seth Kaplan: Okay. So two points. One, we ought to be building a society that prevents problems instead of responding to them, which is the hospital analogy. That means fences at the top of the fence. But it, for me, it means a strong social fabric in which we are in relationships, caring for each other, caring about place, and having lots of initiatives, institutions, organizations stepping up.
And so, but when you talk about the rich are not right, when I go to any place, whether it's a neighborhood, or a county or, or anywhere, rural, urban, suburban, anything, my starting point is, are there places to gather and are there institutions unique to this place that care about the place?
And what you see in many materially well-off parts of America it's just shocking to me, you see beautiful house, beautiful house, beautiful house, and there's nothing. There's no local school. There's no local place to shop or gather. There's no local civic associations, and people are, people, they have what they maybe dream for, but at the same time, they don't have, they don't have what I would call a security blanket.
They don't have people they can be vulnerable with. One of the things I love about where I live, and we are very intentionally living where we live, because I know my neighbors. I know hundreds of my neighbors. I mean, a lot of my neighbors aren't very wealthy. But they're socially rich. There's a pride of place.
People are committed to each other. And I can give hundreds of stories, I'm constantly learning just by watching people. My neighbor who no one knows, but knocks on the doors of people who live alone and goes and visits them, and she organizes cleanups at the park, and nobody asks her and she just, her name is on all these volunteer activities. Or my, or the time, not too long ago when a child went missing and there was a call out on a WhatsApp group and like 25 people show up within an hour and they organize another WhatsApp group so they can go and look for the child, and within 90 minutes the child is found.
And it's just self-organizing to better a place. But I think, I think the rich are not writers that we have taught Americans that all you should care about is this material, the material things at the end of the rainbow. And we accumulate, accumulate, accumulate. And that's a recipe. If I may go back to your recipe, a recipe for being alone, being vulnerable.
And I would actually say you feel I mean, some people thrive, which is, isolating themselves. But I think a lot of people you have any concerns. You don't know who to turn to. You're afraid to show your neighbors that something's wrong with you. If you have a problem, you might panic if there's not an app for it.
And look at our kids. We have so many kids that are not doing well, mental health issues, or what have you, failing to launch. And that is because we haven't provided them a community in which they can gradually grow up, gain independence, gain confidence. And I think the problems that adults have are actually that much worse when you get a generation or two.
And everyone's being programmed, no one is actually becoming a person and without becoming a person in a community, who are you? How do you live in the world? You don't actually know.
Michelle Rathman: You know, Seth, in your book you wrote about Dreama Gentry and we happened to connect with Dreama our episode with her just dropped before ours. And in your book, you do have a section that talks about schools, teaching pride, belonging and culture. And you say as a part of your, your lessons focused on kids, especially boys.
And I, at first when I read that, it brought me pause. And then as I, as I read the [00:18:00] entirety of it, I thought, there's something here. So, you know, we look at our rural schools right now and I know there's schools all over of all kinds, but our focus is on rural and rural quality of life. Let's talk a little bit about rural schools and what, you know, from the people that you've interviewed and spoke to, because they are not rich with resources.
I have spoken with, with folks who have told us, listen, you know, we, the funding that we do receive is already woefully short. The Interim Executive Director of the National Rural Education Association, if I recall his numbers, it's like, they're the funding is only at 14 percent wherein it's mandated to be at 40 percent from federal dollars.
So, to even be behind you, I mean, you have to get up to that percentage. So the school, the programs and the things that you're talking about, I mean, those require more than just a will. There has to be a way, but I want you to talk a little bit about teaching pride, belonging and culture in today's context.
And then that one piece carve out about, especially in boys, because I don't want our listeners to think that you're excluding girls. Talk to us about that.
Dr. Seth Kaplan: Okay. So, there's at least three questions there. So
Michelle Rathman: Yes.
Dr. Seth Kaplan: them all. So, first of all, Dreama, Dreama is a genius. She runs a Partners for Rural Impact today. It was Partners for Education when I, when I spent some time with her. So much to learn about the way she goes about things. And so, I think there's a few points there.
First, as I said before, the strength of any place, is the strength of its local institutions, and a lot of rural areas do not have a lot of institutions. And so, Dreama started in eastern Kentucky, and eastern Kentucky had very few local businesses, very little philanthropy. In many counties, you have the county seat, and you have the schools.
And then you have a few churches, and some of them are okay, a lot of them are not doing well. Rural churches are not doing very well right now. And, and you have, you have, you have places, depopulating places with very few institutions and what is going to bring them up? So, schools are so essential.
Schools, in fact, are one of the, are arguably the most highly functioning and, and in some ways capable institution. In many rural areas, especially places that are not doing very well because they don't have enough resources and they don't have enough capacity, but they have more than anybody else. And so, they could be a gathering place.
They could be a place where you work with other people to try to help other change. And in terms of what you mentioned, pride, one of the things that Dreama says, I'm not sure I'm going to say this quite right. Is that we need to give kids roots and wings. And what that means is many rural kids do not have high aspirations.
And I think that's partly because their parents are afraid. That they're going to aspire to go to college and they're going to leave. And so, there's a, and it's true, these places so much need the talent and the capability of their kids when they grow up, but there's not a lot of opportunities and it's challenging.
So, you need to give them the wings. But also for them to succeed in the world, and in America, and to feel good about themselves, they need to have pride of place. And so, Kentucky is, Kentucky is such a special state. I mean, I've been all over the country and I don't think there's a place that cares more about relationships and more about place than, than I ever see in Kentucky and Eastern Kentucky, particularly central Appalachia.
It's such a special place. And so, they have, they have plenty they can work with to build pride of place. I like to think any rural area can build pride of place. And to the extent that if you want your kids to thrive, they have to feel good about who they are, where they came from, the culture, the history, but they also have to aim high.
And so, Dreama was one of those kids that aimed high and fortuitously she came back in. And I think one of the lessons from her work is when you're in a region of many counties, in Kentucky has so many counties, arguably more counties than it should have. But that's the history and nobody wants to give them up.
You're gonna need, what I would call regional anchors. And so, she built a regional anchor and that's, that's an institution that works to support several counties or several, it could be several neighborhoods. It could be one neighborhood, but in the rural case. It's probably supporting several counties.
Again, every state is different. Some counties are huge. Some counties are small, but the idea that you build something and that, that one of the things that that something does that anchor does, it's got greater capacity to fundraise, it's got, brings in capability, skills, and models that then it adapts to the local environment.
So, she looks all over the country, five things that they think is useful. But doesn't just import them like a lot of people try to do. She adapts them, bends them, shapes them. And also, she created great capacity to fundraise and bring resources into those county schools that were not, they would not be able to do on their own. So, this idea of regional anchors and what she does.
And in terms of your last question about boys and girls, I think it's easy to look at America and say, look at the fortune 500 companies. Most of these are run by men. Look at Congress. There's a lot of men. Look at the, the executive branch. So there's a lot of men, but actually what we see in the, in the male, in the male part of our of our world is there's a great dichotomy.
The top flyers of men are doing really well. But on average, men are doing actually much worse than women today. They're going to college at a much lower percentage. They're doing worse in high school. They're, they're much less likely to actually succeed in life. I mean, I have kids. I mean, I have boys and girls. And I, and I can just say that I worry about the future of the boys in some ways that I don't worry about the future of the girls because the girls just seem that they're built with a bit more resilience.
They're a bit more, they're a bit better at sitting in school and following instructions. The boys you got to work so much harder on, that's only my personal experience. And so the data is that boys in school, and boys in college, and boys in early career life, they're doing much worse than girls. And that's why so much has to be, we have to, we have to not give up on helping the girls, but we have to think boys also need help.
Michelle Rathman: Well, and I'm just going to do a side commentary here before you move on and that is it's what we're talking about is not about, you know, building a patriarchal society, or you know toughness or what have you. It is about self-esteem. It is about building character. It is not about brute force or that type of thing.
Dr. Seth Kaplan: No, no, no. It's about finding a role in a society that's changing. I think it's also about, uh, managing to do well in classrooms. Our schools are not built the way boys are designed. I think that's one of actually the problems that doesn't get talked about. Boys develop slower than girls, and yet they're competing with girls in the classroom.
And they surely have a lot of problems with self-esteem when these girls are outshining them from the start. I mean, it's just, I mean, there's data that boys are a good year or more behind than the girls, and yet we're, we're, they're in the same. So, there's a lot of challenges here that could take a whole conversation in itself, but, we should just say the boys need attention, especially the boys that are not doing well.
So many of them are so many more of them than the girls actually.
Michelle Rathman: My term is shift. I mean, there's no, there's no one priority over the other. We just have to be able to really logically look at things and make adjustments for where we are. Okay? Seth let's move on because you've got these great lessons. And I want to get through at least a few of them here. Another lesson you talk about, which I really do appreciate is simultaneously target as many drivers as you can around neighborhood health, neighborhood, you know, all of that concept. Because we talk a lot about the social drivers of health and not just health care, but talk about the simultaneously targeting more people as drivers of neighborhood health. Talk about that.
Dr. Seth Kaplan: Okay, so, we can think of that, I'll give you some data and then I'll give you some practical. But too often, the way we approach problems in our country is very siloed. So, we look at a place, they don't have enough food, so someone works on the food, they don't have enough health care, someone helps them get access to health care, someone doesn't have a place to stay.
And we, first of all, we focus on the problem as individuals. And then we focused on their material wants. We don't think of place. We don't think of the relationships between people. We don't think of some of the systemic drivers of specific places not doing well, excuse me, and there's plenty of data and I can just throw off some data points, social infrastructure, family structure, access or distance to opportunity, collective efficacy, basically the ability of the community to operate as a whole.
Income or in some cases, racial diversity. And you can go on and on and on. There's probably one or two I forgot there. And so, if you're looking at these five, six items, and each of them matter. You just can't, it's really hard to focus on one.
And so what you really need again, I'm an incrementalist. I am not a believer that there's going to be this huge investment or this magic bullet. But you have to work on strengthening families, strengthening the community. In some cases you need to income diversify. So, you need to get help mixed income housing. Schools are often very important. In fact, the quality of schools is, would be one of the, also one of the things.
So, you need, you're not going to improve the schools if you don't income diversify. You're not going to improve the community if you're not improving the family. You're not going to. So, the thing is, you're not going to, many of these things will also depend upon how close people are to opportunity.
So, you have to think that there's five or six different elements. Some might be economic, some will be the housing, some will be the education, and so on and so forth. And that if you want to improve a place, if you're just doing one at a time, you're like holding back the water from the dam has a breach and you're holding back the water. You really have to go from many angles and incrementally transform a place.
And not just think there's a silo. People who work in silos, they're doing what I would call humanitarian work. They're not doing developmental work. And these places need developmental work so that they can take care of themselves and no longer need our help in the future.
Michelle Rathman: And I would say is defined by them, right versus, you know, when we talk about policy. Well, this agency says this is how we strengthen our schools, we do this, this, this. And the input from local from the communities themselves. I mean, without that, none of it matters.
Dr. Seth Kaplan: I would totally agree. I mean, I think that what I mentioned before with the example is you're looking for models and that the people in the place are deciding which models and how to adapt the model. So, I do think you need to learn from elsewhere. Sometimes you need capacity from elsewhere. Sometimes you need resources from elsewhere, but there's a way of working that we would call asset-based community development. And I think we're looking for assets, we're looking for leaders, if you're doing something, when I go and work in a place, I'm trying to identify the leaders, I'm convening them, I'm listening to them, I'm letting them set priorities, and then I see my job is bringing learnings, bringing other things there. But ultimately, they're the ones who have to lead the change effort. And ideally, it's building on strengths, not just focused on what's wrong with us.
Michelle Rathman: Without that component, sustainability is elusive.
Dr. Seth Kaplan: Yes.
Michelle Rathman: All right. There's so many other lessons in here. There's one I want to end with, and I'm going to tell folks, we're going to make sure that people can find your book. I know they can do it on their own, but we're going to have links to this on our website, but there's a lesson in here that I think is really apropos for the times that we're in, which is lesson eight, embrace government decentralization to spur innovation.
What, what faster way? What? Better way to fast track that when, you know, where I'm sitting right now, so many of the organizations that I work with, state offices of rural health, organizations like Dreama's and so forth. We are looking at a situation where essential funding through federal grants may disappear, may look different.
And so, I would like for you to just kind of opine a little bit for us, like, tell us what you mean by embracing government decentralization. I mean, sometimes that, you know, it shakes me to my core because I know how essential these dollars are. But at the same time, I told you earlier before we started, now is not the best time to think about a plan B or C.
Would have been good to do that a couple decades ago, but a lot of organizations have to look at a plan B and C that does not involve traditional forms of resources that come in through policy that allocates said resources.
Dr. Seth Kaplan: So, when I'm talking less about the amount of resources than how resources are used. I would say we have a huge problem that too many resources, how they're used are decided far from where the people live. And so, I'm not talking about the quantity. I'm talking about very often resources, they're only useful in predetermined ways.
Um, and that could be at the state level as much as the federal level. And how often do I go to a city or a rural area and they complain that that we have X dollars for something that we don't need. And no money for what we actually do need and want to do. Or they complain that the application processes are complicated, arduous, opaque, and we don't have the capability, and it favors the large over the small because the large has the people who can apply and the small don't.
So, when I say that, what I mean is, I would, I would like to see government, like, turn upside down. Of course, it's not going to happen that way. But as an example, when I talk about cities, wouldn't it be great if every neighborhood had some control over their own budgets? As opposed to all the budgets being centralized.
If we're thinking statewide. I mean, I can remember I was in, I think it was Northeastern Indiana and we're talking about how this the city wanted to zone part of the city, and some of the rules they wanted to create, they basically went to liberalize zoning. But the state wasn't allowing them. And you can go on and on and on with these things.
And there's always a role for the state, and the federal, and the local. It could be more resources. It could be standards. There are very good reasons why you want to have the higher levels of government. But what I mean most by that is, the more we give local people agency, and scope to find their own way and innovate the more they will come up with solutions for themselves.
And I also say, since I'm a big believer that we have to work together, we should not wait for the miracle to come. We have to create the miracle to the extent that we are freed and whatever the process is. The process should ideally be encouraging us to work together so we collaborate so that we are able to make the best use of the resources that we have. And that involves innovation, and that involves finding different solutions for different places, because believe me, we can go to two counties that look the same from afar, and they can have incredibly different needs, and if the funding or the resources don't allow the changes that are necessary.
You're constantly doing what they want and not what you need. That is what I need. I mean, most by that.
Michelle Rathman: You know, at the end of every episode, I want to change it up a little bit because I always ask, you know, the guests that I have about what's in your advocacy toolkit. But along those lines, I mean, you've got some really great lessons, a lot of great steps that people can take. You talk about things like economic revitalization from the bottom up and so forth.
What is your advice today for rural leaders of all the sectors? So, you know, we talk about how critically important schools are. We know hospitals are in centers where health is being delivered. We talk about religious institutions in your book and so forth. What would you say would be the best advice for those to help advocate for their, to bring together community leaders to have these conversations?
And advocate for what they are, their most pressing priorities. Where do they start? I know that's a big question. I wonder if you could button it up for us.
Dr. Seth Kaplan: I'm going to give you an answer on the, a who and the what? Well, first of all, when I think of change, I'm always thinking the who and the when, must come before the what and the how.
And so, what I mean by that is the people matter, the who matters, and they're the ones who have, if you don't get the who right. And you don't get the when right. You have to, you have to get the who right, and then you need a process of building trust, building relationships, and only when the when is right, then you get into the what, and then the how. And too often, we start with the what and the how, and we forget the who and when.
And I want to just make, put that sequence out there. And then when I, in terms of your specific question, if I would say if I'm a leader, I want to, I want to recognize that my, my rural area or my county or my town, whatever it might be, will, will be as strong as the people are able to work together, be committed to the place.
And so, part of my role is, how do I activate more people? How do I get people who are not usually don't think of themselves as local philanthropists to be local philanthropists? How do I get someone who runs an institution to think of their role is not just running an institution, but playing a larger role?
Does that mean I have to have a monthly dinner and strategically select whatever, let's say, 15 people? And bring them together and do it regularly and gradually build trust, build cohesion, build a sense of purpose. And so, I think I would say, if I'm thinking about the who the very first thing I would be doing is try to get more people involved, try to get this clear sense of pride of place.
And doing what I can to build the cohesion, the collective, the feeling of collectiveness, shared purpose. And I think that would be the first thing I do. Because I believe in every place I've ever been in, there can be more people active and involved and engaged. And you might be surprised who might step up and what they might do.
And so that'd be the first thing I would say. And then when I got through the when, in terms of the what, I'd be thinking very hard, there's a lot of things that we need and every place is the same. And some places it's more pressing than other places, but what would make people feel a greater pride in my place?
Talk about the general population, a desire to live here. I mean, what does that mean that we have to create more placemaking activities? Do we have to do something in the center of town that would make people feel like it could be regular events? It could be something that we actually build. What would make this an attractive place?
Every town, county, neighborhood needs what I would call a talent retention and attraction strategy. And that's especially when there's pressures drawing people out. So, what is your talent? And I mean, talent, all kinds of talent, talent, retention, attraction strategy? What are you doing to make this place a destination, a place that people want to live in a place that people want to return to?
And I think so much else depends upon that. And that would be the what, the who. First, I'd start with the who, and then when I got to the what, that's where I would start the what
Michelle Rathman: And then thank you for not starting with the why, because I really love that you didn't do that, uh, there's the why seems pretty obvious to me. But I say, and this is not my quote, “if not us, who, if not now, when?” And so what I'm going to tell you, first of all, Seth, I am so grateful for your time today.
I think your book is extremely relevant. Anytime fragile is not a great state for us to be in. So, strength is the way. And I think your book provides us with a really good roadmap for how to get that started. So, thanks for your time. We really do appreciate you.
Dr. Seth Kaplan: Thank you so much. I would just say always be hopeful, always look for what you can do in your place, and there's always things we can do, whatever's happening nationally or regionally, we, there's always a role. And if anyone wants to find me. Find me on LinkedIn, send me a message, connect with me.
I I'm always here. If I could be helpful, don't hesitate to reach out. And thank you so much, Michelle.
Michelle Rathman: Yeah, and he's being sincere because that's how I got him here to spend time with us through LinkedIn. Okay, friends, I'm gonna tell you this, you know, we, I'm just on our resource page. I am going to be gifting to you some ideas about how we and our work, what we call constructing and conducting courageous community conversations.
And I would imagine, Seth, it's very kind of aligned with the work that you're doing as well, and how you get that started and where and so forth. But, you know, I say friends, this is a wrap of another episode of the Rural Impact. And it is not light subjects we're talking about, but in the end, we, you know, this, I mean it sincerely.
We hope that what you've heard today was enlightening. Perhaps it inspired you to think about ways that you can make an impact in your own rural community, or if the work you're doing impacts rural, if you may not live there, but you understand and you have a deep desire and authentic desire to be of help and to expand your rural reach.
Just think about that as you move forward for the rest of, through the rest of your week and the, and the months to come. My thanks to Brea Corsaro as always, and to Sarah Staub for making all the back of the room things happen. I appreciate you all.
And a very gentle reminder, friendly one to take 10 seconds to visit theruralimpact.com. You can subscribe. Be sure to rate us anywhere you like to listen to your podcast. Give us a watch on YouTube. We appreciate that. But most of all, and I say it. Until we're together again, please, please, please take good care of yourself and those around you. Nobody could do that better than you. We will see you the next time on a new episode of The Rural Impact.
