The Citizens Research Council of Michigan, a nonprofit, nonpartisan, public policy research organization, whose board is comprised of several CMF members, released a new report: Exploring Michigan’s Urban/Rural Divide.
The Citizens Research Council of Michigan, a nonprofit, nonpartisan, public policy research organization, whose board is comprised of several CMF members, released a new report: Exploring Michigan’s Urban/Rural Divide.
Amid a polarizing political climate, the council’s new report aims to provide a deeper understanding of what’s happening in our rural and urban areas, particularly how issues and topics affect the perspectives of Michiganders when it comes to immigration, housing, education, health care and more.
“With statewide elections scheduled this November for governor, secretary of state, and U.S. Senator, among others, we hope this report can drive a conversation on shared needs and goals,” Eric Lupher, president of the Citizens Research Council for Michigan said.
Michigan is a largely rural state, as we’re ranked 24th in the U.S. for our rural population. However, 75 percent of Michiganders live in urban areas.
There are differences in these communities but as the council shares, the data shows urban and rural communities have more in common than not.
Key highlights from the report:
Population
Our state is less diverse than the national average. About 79 percent of Michigan’s population is white, 14 percent is African-American and 4.7 percent of the population identifies as Hispanic or Latinx.
Compared to rural communities, populations in urban communities are growing faster, have more diversity in race and ethnicity and include more immigrants from a wider cross section of nations.
Michigan’s urban areas are home to populations that are on average nearly 6 years younger than the rural populations.
Economy
In rural Michigan, 12.4 percent of the population relies on SNAP, while 18.1 percent of the urban population relies on SNAP.
Only 40 percent of rural communities have median household incomes greater than the state median household income of $49,576, while 47 percent of urban communities have household incomes higher than the state median.
Urban areas have a higher population living in poverty but they’re found in clusters, while in rural areas the poverty is evenly distributed statewide.
Health Care
Similar proportions of both populations utilize Medicaid and disability benefits. The data shows that while rural counties are more reliant on public insurance, Medicaid is used similarly in both settings. The weighted average of rural county residents enrolled in Medicaid was 14.5 percent; it was 14.6 percent for urban county residents.
Education
The enrollment of 3 and 4-year-olds in preschool and the enrollment of children in public schools is similar in both urban and rural areas.
When it comes to higher education, college enrollment is higher in urban areas. In urban areas, 48.3 percent of individuals age 18 to 24 are enrolled in college or graduate school; that number is 32.8 percent in rural areas.
Immigration
The report states, “Major disparities exist between urban and rural areas in Michigan on the topic of immigration.” Urban areas have many more foreign-born individuals than rural areas. In urban Michigan, 7.7 percent of the total population is foreign-born, while in rural areas only 1.9 percent of individuals are foreign-born. On average, immigrants living in rural areas have been in the U.S. longer than those living in urban areas.
The report highlights how the data shows our perspectives may be shaped by our environment and how we should work together for a greater understanding of all communities to build a prosperous Michigan for all.
“The statistics compiled for this report illustrate the many ways in which Michigan’s urban and rural areas are alike and different,” the report states. “The number of statistics wherein the differences between people in geographic areas was stark are few. In the end, we’re left with an understanding that in the battle of us versus them, we’re all us and we’re all them.”
“Just recently our Rural Philanthropy Affinity Group discussed the most pressing issues facing our communities and the areas in which we could, as funders, make a difference by shifting our financial or social capitals,” Bonnie Gettys, co-chair, Rural Philanthropy Affinity Group and president and CEO, Barry Community Foundation said. “Those areas of talent, housing and education are the same as the areas that our urban partners face. The challenge is the notion that funding into a smaller population base may not be the most effective use of grant dollars, however, we know that we all depend on each other. We need to become more intentional with a unified voice for the most pressing issues.”
Want more?
Read the full report.
Connect with CMF’s Rural Philanthropy Affinity Group.
