Blog

Making the Census Count: How Regions Can Help

Although 2020 is a few years away, preparations are already in full swing for the next Census. The groundwork that the U.S. Census Bureau is laying out today will affect the accuracy of the 2020 Census across the country.

The Census Bureau is up against a significant accuracy issue: past Census reports have historically undercounted certain populations in the United States. These groups include young children, minorities, and low-income communities. The Census Bureau is once again concerned about this problem occurring in the next decennial Census count.

Why is this significant for NARC members? The George Washington Institute of Policy reports that there are several hundred federal financial assistance programs and sixteen large federal programs that rely on Census data to disperse funds to states and local areas. These programs include funding for housing, health care, transportation, education, and food assistance that your communities rely on. The Census count also determines the number of seats each state has in the U.S. House of Representatives. You may also use Census data to make decisions about your region based on how the population is changing.

The Coalition on Human Needs recently hosted a webinar that highlighted why it is essential for local and state governments, advocacy groups, and the federal government to work together to ensure that the 2020 Census is accurate. The following is a summarization of the points presented during the webinar about the 2020 Census.

Policy and Operational Challenges

The Census Bureau is currently facing a ‘perfect storm’ of policy and operational challenges. The administration, Senate, and House have all proposed approximately $1.5 billion in funding for the Census Bureau in fiscal year 2018. However, the agency needs at least $1.8 billion to carry out all its 2020 Census activities. Congress has also capped the 2020 Census cost at the 2010 Census level, which doesn’t account for increases in the U.S. population over the last decade. The current political climate has also led to a new threat: an amendment to add citizenship and legal status questions to the 2020 Census. This has produced participation fears in many communities.

To make up for the gap in federal funding, the Census Bureau has tried to streamline its operational processes. This comes with its disadvantages. Having half the number of local area census offices and census takers compared to the 2010 Census effort has posed a serious challenge of collecting information across the U.S. The push to make the Internet the primary response option produces a digital divide, especially for seniors and low-income communities that may not have access to a computer. There have also been cybersecurity concerns, promoting worries of having personal information at risk of being compromised.

Undercounted Groups

The following groups have typically been underrepresented in past decennial Census surveys:

  • Young children (ages 0-4)
  • Males
  • Renters
  • Hispanics
  • Hispanic males (ages 30-49)
  • Blacks
  • Black males (ages 30-49)
  • Native Americans
  • Pacific Islanders
  • Immigrants
  • Low-income households
  • The homeless
  • Highly-mobile groups
  • Individuals without Internet access
  • Selected minority-heavy areas

There are several possibilities of why certain populations are undercounted. Places of residence on the Census Bureau’s Master Address File may not be up to date. Some Census takers may not feel the need to include certain people that are living in their home full-time. An example of this could be a grandparent who did not include their grandchild as being a part of their household even though the child is living with them full-time. Complex households can cause confusion when filling out the Census, such as two households who share custody of one child. It is difficult to track highly mobile populations, like renters or the homeless, because their place of residence may often change. Language barriers and government distrust can also lead to underrepresentation in Census data.

What Can Local Governments Do?

The Census Bureau needs your help to make the population count as accurate as possible. Local governments should participate in the Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) Operation. LUCA relies on states, counties, cities, townships, and Indian reservations to review and comment on the Census Bureau’s address list before the 2020 Census. This ensures that all addresses and associated populations, which the Census cannot update from governmental data and third-party sources alone, are counted.

The Census Bureau encourages local governments to arrange for a regional planning agency or council of governments to conduct their LUCA review if they lack the resources to do it on their own. This is a clear call to action for regional councils to get involved. You should check with the local governments in your region to see if they can participate in LUCA. If not, you should offer them your assistance to make sure all the addresses in their jurisdiction are accounted for. Otherwise, you may be putting your region at risk for of receiving fewer federal dollars. Visit the LUCA webpage to learn more about LUCA and about how you can get involved.

On the community level, local leaders should encourage participation in the following ways:

  • Advertise the upcoming 2020 Census to your constituents.
  • Create opportunities to educate your community on how to accurately fill out the Census, and clarify misunderstandings for more complicated households.
  • Consider establishing a Census Complete Count Committee in your region. This is a voluntary group that brings community stakeholders together to increase awareness about the Census and urge people to respond.
  • Encourage leaders of your communities, especially those representing historically undercounted populations, to be a “trusted voice” advocating Census participation.
  • Promote the Census Bureau’s high confidentiality with information gathered from the surveys.
  • Craft culturally sensitive messaging about the Census to underrepresented communities.

The Opioid Crisis Was Declared a National Emergency: Here’s How Local Governments Can Help

Two weeks ago, the Trump Administration issued a statement that directed the executive branch to “use all appropriate emergency and other authorities to respond to the crisis caused by the opioid epidemic.” This declaration couldn’t have come any sooner. The National Center for Health Statistics reported that in the third quarter of 2016, overdose deaths reached a record-breaking 19.9 people per 100,000. If this trend continues, our localities will need all the help the federal government can offer to battle this growing epidemic.

How bad is the opioid epidemic?

While education on the opioid crisis is getting better in the U.S., the crisis itself is still quite severe and doesn’t show significant signs of slowing. The National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) data shows a sharp increase in overdose deaths in the first nine months of 2016. In 2015, the last full year of data available, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that 33,091 American deaths were caused by prescription and illicit opioids. Ninety-one people die from an opioid-related overdose every day. As many people are dying from opioid-related overdoses in one year than those that died during combat throughout the entire Korean War (1950-1953).

The U.S. is responsible for the majority of opioid consumption in the world – Cigna reports that Americans disproportionately take 80% of the world’s supply. An encouraging statistic from CDC is that the number of opioids prescribed in the U.S has decreased overall. However, the same report showed that three times as many opioids are being prescribed today than in 1999. There is also a lot of variation between counties. The CDC report showed that 22.6% of counties were still reporting opioid prescription rates higher than the national average, and that number is still rising.

Who does the opioid epidemic affect?

Chronic pain sufferers and veterans are two populations that are at high-risk for developing opioid abuse disorders. According to Congressman Tim Murphy, for the 50 million people in America that have chronic back pain, half are prescribed opioids for treatment. The National Institute of Drug Abuse reports that nearly 80% of heroin users have reported using prescription opioids prior to heroin, putting millions at risk unnecessarily. The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) reported that 13 percent of U.S. veterans currently take opioids, and this population is twice as likely to die from an accidental opioid overdose.

What is perhaps the most difficult aspect of battling this epidemic? Opioid abuse disorders know no boundaries. It does not favor any demographic – age, educational level, socioeconomic status, or occupation. And it can develop in just about anyone, anywhere, at any time.

What does this national emergency declaration mean?

While the president has issued a statement declaring a national emergency for the opioid epidemic, a formal declaration has not yet been made. First, the Trump Administration must decide under which legislation they will declare the crisis. According to Governing magazine, this leaves the administration with two options they can employ individually or together:

  1. Emergency declaration through the Stafford Act. This option allows the president to declare the emergency. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provides financial and technical assistance to states and cities through this act. This option is typically used for natural disaster relief.
  2. Emergency declaration through the Public Health Service Act. This option allows the secretary of health and human services to declare the emergency. This would deploy medical professionals to the areas affected by the epidemic. This option is normally used in times of extreme public health crises.

Formally declaring a national emergency would have other positive implications for states and local governments. NPR pointed to four additional benefits under the national emergency declaration:

  1. Increased access to medication-assisted treatment. Federal rules could be waived on medications used to help treat opioid-related abuse and overdoses. The drug naloxone, used to treat opioid overdoses immediately, could be provided without a prescription. Restrictions on doctors to prescribe medication used to treat opioid addiction without a special certification could also be waived.
  2. More help to those on Medicaid. Regulation barriers could be removed to help Medicare patients. Under a national emergency, more Medicare patients may be able to get inpatient drug treatment. Medicare funding would also be provided to more treatment centers instead of limiting reimbursement to those with less than 16 beds.
  3. More money from Congress. The legislative branch may face increased pressure to provide money to help combat the opioid crisis after seeing executive action.
  4. States can request federal aid. Six states have already declared state emergencies in the face of the opioid epidemic. These states would be able to request federal funding for specific activities related to the opioid crisis.
What can local governments do to help combat the opioid epidemic?

A few weeks ago, NARC attended an event hosted by CQ Roll Call: Roll Call Live: Fighting the Opioid Crisis. Members of Congress, health care practitioners, insurance providers, nonprofit organizations, and local government representatives attended this discussion. Panels discussed what real-world solutions are available to fight this pressing issue.

These stakeholders proposed a very different solution to the crisis than the president. Trump supports a law-and-order approach that would crack down on federal drug prosecutions, sentence lengths, and illegal drugs entering the country (watch full comments here).

The local representatives and other stakeholders at the Roll Call Live event called for a much more holistic approach. You, our local government leaders, should tackle the crisis at all sides to help bring the opioid epidemic to an end. Law enforcement should only be an aspect of this fight. Focus on the following recommendations offered by the Roll Call Live stakeholders to address the opioid crisis:

  • We must do all we can to fight the stigma of opioid abuse. Local outreach is necessary to start the conversation of how common an opioid abuse disorder is, and that it is not a moral failing to develop an addiction. Communities should be educated on the process of opioid-related treatment and on how they can help.
  • Combine the efforts of patients, health care providers, governments, the pharmaceutical industry, insurance companies, and veterans to fight this epidemic. We all must work together and be on the same page.
  • Local governments are the closest in proximity to the epidemic and know the needs of their constituency. You should take the lead on this national issue and recommend to the federal government not to micromanage local efforts.
  • Ask your representatives and senators to dedicate federal funds towards opioid addiction treatment, outreach, and prevention. For every $1 that is spent on opioid addiction treatment, society saves $12.
  • Be aware of this evidence-based fact: to treat someone that has already developed an opioid addiction, a combination of medication-assisted therapy, mental health treatment, counseling, and maintaining relationships with the patient is the best way to battle the addiction.
  • Recommend to your local healthcare facilities to treat the individual – not the addiction. Treatments that focus on understanding a patient’s complex injury, creating an individual health care plan, monitoring a patient’s opioid use, and tailoring a treatment to help the patient achieve their personal life goals are most effective.
  • Counties, cities, and regions must develop better drug monitoring programs so doctors can monitor patient trends and know when to make an intervention. And records for this should be available across state lines.
  • Regions should work with medical professionals to focus on alternative methods of treatment and educate prescribers of the options. This should help with the issue of overprescribing opioids. Alternatives could include yoga, meditation, acupuncture, and mental therapy.
  • Communities must be unified against this crisis. Education against drug abuse disorders must start as early as elementary school. Your constituents should also be open to having treatment centers in their communities throughout your region.
  • Local leaders should help change the attitude of “quick fix” treatments in their communities.

The opioid epidemic is not going to end any time soon. It can take years for a patient to be completely weaned from opioids. The effects of the rise in addictions and overdoses are also going to have a ripple effect on families and communities in the middle of the crisis. Looking at evidence-based, long term strategies for these communities is the only way we’re going to be able to bring this crisis to an end.

Implications of Southeast Michigan’s 2045 Forecast

Demographic and socio-economic trends discussed in the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments’ (SEMCOG) 2045 Regional Forecast will necessitate some lifestyle changes in the greater Detroit, Michigan region. The biggest of these trends is the aging of the population and the lack of incoming young people. These trends will create a labor shortage that can impact a regional economy.

One in four people in Southeast Michigan will be over age 65 by 2045. The same will be true in Singapore except they will reach those numbers by 2030. In Singapore, the plan for aging workers is to keep them working. They’ve launched a $2.2 billion program with many initiatives, including subsidizing retraining skills and allowing an employee beyond the retirement age of 62 to work until age 67. Accommodating an older employee involves some creative solutions, e.g., part-time or flexible hours, larger font sizes, and smaller-sized deliveries that are easier for older folks to handle.

The U.S. economy will also see some shifts as industry adapts to an older population. SEMCOG’s 2045 Forecast noted increases in health care and related industries. Another not-so-obvious increase is expected in the home remodeling industry, as baby boomers choose to “age in place.” Home renovations from this age group are expected to account for nearly one-third of all remodeling dollars by 2025, according to a report from the Joint Center for Housing Studies. I was in China recently, where an article by my former college advisor went viral. It was about how she remodeled her parents’ home to help them age in place. It dealt with a range of issues, including not only removing physical barriers to increase accessibility, but also improving line-of-sight, lighting, sound, as well as designing storage and furniture details.

Speaking of aging in place, the City of Auburn Hills, Michigan, has taken a proactive approach to this concept. With input from the community, they know that many older residents enjoy city events, parks, and plan to stay in Auburn Hills as they age. To address potential barriers, the city created an Age-Friendly 2015 Action Plan. According to Mayor Kevin McDaniel, the plan “is the start of our journey to creating a city that will be ideal for residents of all ages for years to come. It will serve as a guide as we continue to commit to improving our citizens’ and visitors’ access to our community.”

While local governments are already planning for an aging community, they are also adjusting to fewer school-age students and figuring out what to do with school buildings no longer needed. In Dearborn Heights, Michigan, Berwyn Elementary School is now Berwyn Senior Recreation Center. Built in 1958, Dearborn Heights began leasing the building from the Crestwood School District in 1979. Housing 20 classrooms, a large multipurpose room, and a kitchen, the facility is now used for classes, special events, health programs, meetings, and the Wayne County Nutrition Program. The city purchased the building from the Crestwood School District in 1997 and renamed it the Berwyn Senior Recreation Center in 2015. Similar things may happen in your community, as the U.S. senior population is forecast to grow dramatically in the next 30 years (see figure below).

U.S. Senior Population, Aged 65 and Over, 2010-2045

Source: SEMCOG 2045 Forecast, 2017.

A version of this blog originally appeared as a sidebar to a longer article in the Spring 2017 issue of Semscope, SEMCOG’s quarterly magazine. 

Interested in knowing how SEMCOG’s data impacts local governments and residents in Southeast Michigan? Then, you’ll want to read Xuan’s blog posts. Other posts by Xuan Liu.

Dr. Xuan Liu is the Research Manager for Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG). He oversees data analysis on demographics, socio-economics, land use, and transportation at SEMCOG. He is also specialized in modeling land use and transportation relations. He received his Ph.D. from University of Michigan.

To Sell or Not to Sell? Small Local Governments Look at Privatizing their Public Water Systems

According to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates, the United States needs over $600 billion for water infrastructure improvements over the next 20 years. The American Society of Civil Engineers has given the United States a “D” grade on their Drinking Water Infrastructure Report Card, citing the older age of many of the country’s pipelines, the large number of water main breaks, and the likelihood of contamination, especially in smaller water systems.

On Monday The Washington Post highlighted that the idea of water privatization has left small and mid-size communities, many of which are already struggling with budget deficits, with a tough choice. Should these local governments continue to manage and maintain their own public water systems? Or is selling their water system to a private corporation a more reasonable option?

Federal Funding or Lack Thereof

It is unclear how much help towns will receive from the federal government for water infrastructure projects. On the campaign trail, Donald Trump promised “crystal clear, crystal clean” drinking water, and his administration included water infrastructure in their 10-year, $1 trillion infrastructure promise. What is not clear is how much of the $1 trillion will be allocated for water infrastructure, particularly when it will be competing with highly-visible projects that improve roads, bridges, tunnels, and railroads. The administration also proposed budget cuts that eliminate a nearly $500 million Water and Wastewater loan and grant program that helps rural communities, along with a slew of EPA programs that would cripple or eliminate water cleanup initiatives.

State Revolving Funds

Another consideration are State Revolving Funds, which were recently increased by less than half a percent. These funds allow states to fund a variety of water infrastructure and water quality projects. With all of the work that’s needed to carry out projects such as wastewater treatment, storm water, and water reuse, the State Revolving Funds budget (which is the lowest it has been in real terms since 1997) will not be able to meet the needs of local government water projects. And rural communities may find themselves without funding. This will leave states and local governments with most of the project bills. This is why the idea of selling public water systems has been so appealing for smaller towns and cities.

Several states have passed legislation that allows towns to sell their water systems at “fair market value” rather than current value, passing the costs of repairs, maintenance, and billing to the new owner. It’s no wonder that 48 water and sewer facilities were purchased in 2015, 53 in 2016, and 23 so far in 2017.

Early Adoption by the Numbers

The pros to selling public water systems may be apparent, but cities that have sold off their water systems might advise otherwise. For example, water service rates can skyrocket as the costs of maintenance and repair are passed to consumers by the private company that purchased the public water system. The New York Times analyzed three recent long-term water or sewer services contracts, and all three cities experienced rate increases that rose more quickly than comparable towns. For one of those cities, Santa Paula, California, the water service rates doubled. In another report published by the Public Citizen think tank, Pekin, Illinois experienced a rate increase of 204% over the 18 years since its water system was privatized. The Food and Water Watch group also reported that privately owned water systems cost the average household 59% more than homes that get their water from public systems. These rate increases can severely impact low-income households that struggle to pay utility bills at current rates.

Since water companies respond to shareholders rather than public needs, many complain about a lower quality of service. Other potential risks reported by the Pacific Institute include cherry-picking service areas, negative impacts on ecosystems and downstream water users, lack of incentive for water conservation, and ignoring the need to confront the long-term health problems associated with exposure to low levels of certain pollutants.

Legal Considerations

Nor is it easy for local governments to buy back their water systems. There are multiple examples of towns that had to fight in court to regain control of the local water system. Even if small cities and towns do win, it ends up being very costly. Mooresville, Indiana took American Water to court to buy back its system, but the court-approved price of $20.3 million was entirely too much for the small town to pay. Their water system remains privately owned. Fort Wayne, Indiana paid a whopping $67 million to get their water system back after a long 13-year process. Missoula, Montana won its legal battle, but is now faced with a $88.6 million bill and exorbitant legal fees.

When it comes to selling public water systems to private companies, local governments should weigh heavily their options. On the plus side, water privatization can seem like a saving grace for communities that are struggling with the cost to maintain their water infrastructure and are facing large budget deficits. Issues of increased water service hikes, service quality, and potentially costly buybacks are significant downsides to these deals. Regardless of the decision a local government chooses, they should first assess all the short-term and long-term impacts on their community.

Where Do Job Programs Stand in the Face of Potential Labor Department Cuts?

On Tuesday, June 27, 2017, the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education (Labor/H) held a hearing at which the current Labor secretary, R. Alexander Acosta, testified on the president’s budget and other matters.

While the conversation often strayed in various directions, including worker safety, foreign workers, public safety, and worker layoffs, it ultimately returned to jobs, and the clear belief by most members of the subcommittee that putting Americans to work requires a robust and effective workforce development system. For members of the subcommittee it did not matter whether these unemployed or underemployed workers were coal miners from West Virginia, young black men from Chicago, or workers who lost their jobs because of outsourcing. Ultimately, the conversation always came back to the need for and the importance of jobs, job training and job placement programs.

Chairman Roy Blunt (R-MO) opened the hearing by bemoaning the fact that the administration was proposing to cut the Labor Department’s budget by $2.3 billion or 20 percent. He added that while he supports efforts to reduce federal expenditures overall, he wondered aloud whether these Labor Department cuts make sense. If adopted the president’s budget would cut 40 percent of the Labor Department’s workforce development budget. In turn, that would mean that 40 percent of state funding for job training and placement services would vanish, and place individuals and their families at risk for unemployment and a significant loss of income.

Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), the ranking member, echoed Chairman Blunt’s concerns, but added this criticism (and I paraphrase):

The president’s budget request is deeply harmful. It will make it extremely difficult to continue to connect workers to jobs – which is, of course, the central mission of the Department of Labor. Our ability to keep good jobs in America will only be realized by tapping into the full potential of our workers. This budget disregards the bipartisan Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, which Republicans and Democrats worked on to ensure an effective federal, state, and local job training system. In fact, nine million of the 20 million who are served by this program will be denied training and connections to the workplace. We need robust investments that help workers and state and local officials grow our economy and get to work, and not the deep cuts proposed by the administration.

Secretary Acosta did not shy away from the debate. In the face of significant criticism from senators on both sides of the aisle, Acosta made clear that the president’s vision for America is “good and safe jobs for all Americans.” He noted that while unemployment is very low – about 4.3 percent – some six million jobs remain unfilled. He went on to say that we have to train Americans to fill those jobs if we are to remain a strong and vibrant nation, and often the best way to train people for these jobs is through apprenticeship programs.

“The answer, according to the president,” Acosta said, “is to expand apprenticeships. High quality apprenticeships ensure that workers have the appropriate skills and ensure that they can earn a decent income.” He pointed out that post apprenticeship starting salaries can top $60,000. “That’s more than the average starting salary for a college graduate,” he added.

When queried about the cuts to existing programs, Acosta said there are many programs – some that are duplicative, and some that have not proven their value – that need to be eliminated, consolidated, or changed. “The department is using rigorous standards to determine what works and what does not, and those standards will form the basis for our judgments about which programs should continue and which should not, which should be funded and which should not.”

Despite the back and forth, an interesting admission emerged at the end from the secretary. Acosta said that the president’s budget is only a starting point, and that the administration and he are looking forward to working with Congress to hammer out an appropriate budget for the Labor Department. Where that will lead remains to be seen.

Federal Support for Job Training Programs

On April 4, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies held a hearing, Examining Federal Support for Job Training Programs. Witnesses included University of Maryland School of Public Policy Professor and Atlantic Council Senior Fellow Douglas J. Besharov, Urban Institute Fellow Dr. Demetra Smith Nightingale, and Markle Foundation CEO and President Zoe Baird.

Bi-Partisanship on Capitol Hill?

What may have been most striking about the hearing was the comity members exhibited throughout, the positive nature of member statements and questions, and the balanced and thoughtful perspectives that were offered by the panelists. It appeared that the committee went out of its way to invite speakers who would paint an accurate, not politicized view of job training programs.  During their brief presentations, speakers addressed a range of topics that reflected overall support for the program.

Testimony on Job Training

Douglas Besherov noted that the American workforce is no longer the best trained workforce in the world. That needs to change, he said, and added that the current job training system has been part of the solution. He spoke of a job training center he visited in which practical nurses were trained to become registered nurses, and added that the program was so well done that the salaries of the women who became registered nurses increased almost immediately by $15,000.

Zoe Bird felt that American job centers were a significant strength of the workforce system, providing workers and employers with access to one another. She did note, however, that her experience in Colorado led her to believe that coaches could be more helpful if they had access to more data, resources, and digital training. Once the Markle Foundation stepped in to develop coaches, the connection between the center and employers improved and overall success rates went up.

Dematra Nightengale praised the program for its partnership between federal, state, and local governments, noting that job training is just one of the many services that job centers offer. She went on to highlight the activities that she believes are the most successful and effective, including:

  • Training for in-demand jobs through career pathways or apprenticeship programs;
  • Counseling and staff supported services;
  • Comprehensive and integrated youth programs;
  • Training that targets low-income people because employer-based training is generally not available for them;
  • Evaluations and evidence-based assessments to determine what works best.
Questions about Job Training

Committee members asked straight forward questions about the job training system and how it can be improved. Among the questions and answers were:

  • Is the workforce development system working?
    • Yes, but some aspects could be improved.
  • Which workforce programs are working best?
    • Core services with well-trained coaches, YouthBuild, Job Corps, and youth employment programs.
  • How important are the American job centers and are they working?
    • Yes, they are working and they are very important to the success of the system, though an emphasis needs to be placed on access to digital resources and training coaches.
  • Are there innovations that the federal government can offer to make the system even better?
    • The federal government could focus on improving access to data so that employers and workers can have access to better information.
  • Should the federal government continue to play a role in workforce training? And if so, what role should it play?
    • Yes, the federal government should continue to play a role and that role can be to develop training programs that are based on skills development and not seat time.
  • What one thing could make a notable and positive difference in workforce development?
    • The overarching theme was that we need to improve access to data. Data forms the basis for evaluations and ensures that strategies are data-driven.
Fact, Not Fiction

The questions reflected a desire to understand the job training system, how it is doing, and how it can be improved – Not how it could be cut, how the federal government could get out of the job training business, and whether the programs should be devolved to the states through block grants (code for substantially cutting a program).

NARC will continue to monitor the committee and provide updates on the state of workforce programs.

The President’s Skinny Budget: What’s It All About?

The President Proposes

On March 16, the president offered his “skinny budget.” Nicknamed “skinny” by the White House, the March 16 budget was released to offer an overview of the budget the president will finally submit to Congress in late April.

Unfortunately, this budget does not present a very pretty picture. If adopted it would decimate many federal programs that are critical to the ongoing activities of most regional councils. It would also decimate many federal programs that are critical to the health and well-being of lower income and poor Americans.

Now, most of us are familiar with the programs proposed for elimination that have received wide coverage like Meals on Wheels, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the National Endowment for the Arts. We have also heard that the budget, if adopted, would do significant harm to a wide range of programs. But what we have heard very little about is the impact this budget will have on cities, counties, and regional councils.

This blog will provide information on programs slated for elimination and what that may mean for cities, counties, and regional councils. To this end I will offer some macro- and micro-level impacts – impacts that will be felt across the board and locally – to explain why this budget is ultimately bad for cities and counties and the people who live there, as well as the regional councils that address the governmental and human needs of the regions they serve.

Some Likely Macro Impacts

A survey of 285 economists released earlier this month by the National Association for Business Economics shows that they believe the president’s tax plan and spending proposals will add to the national debt and widen the federal budget deficit. Such an outcome could result in higher interest rates and slower economic growth. Higher interest rates would make it more costly for cities and counties to borrow, reducing the likelihood that cities and counties will make major capital investments.

Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, are in disagreement over the president’s budget. One theme that has emerged is that the proposed cuts could place in danger millions of working class and lower income Americans who need programs like the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) to heat their homes, weatherization to make their homes more energy efficient, or the Social Services Block Grant to fund important and necessary programs for seniors. Cuts of these sorts are likely to place the burden on cities and counties to provide these services and meet these needs, thereby forcing local governments to redirect their spending toward activities the federal government traditionally supported.

Long-Term Questions

There are long-term questions that must be answered as well. What would these cuts mean in the long run for the agencies, local governments, and regions that often depend on federal grants? Would the federal government be able to continue to play the role that it has in the past if it is no longer able to carry out the functions it is mandated to perform? And how would this impact local governments and regions? Would states and localities be forced to raise their taxes in order to meet their residents’ needs when the federal government abdicates that responsibility?

president's skinny budget

Federal agencies on the non-defense discretionary funds side of the ledger have already been cut to the bone. As the chart shows, since 2011 when the Budget Control Act was adopted, funding for every non-defense discretionary federal agency has been reduced, some by as much as 15 to 30 percent. We know that these cuts have already had a substantial impact on cities, counties, and regions. By reducing the amount of federal assistance available, the responsibility was transferred to local governments and regions. Under the president’s budget additional cuts would be enacted for fiscal year 2018 funding for every federal agency – that would result in a loss of up to 40 or 50 percent of the funds available in 2011.

Many of the grants that cities, counties, and regions have come to rely on would evaporate; local governments could be forced to raise taxes or turn to their states to fund what were once federal initiatives; and the federal government could literally be forced to abdicate its mandated functions and responsibilities.

House Appropriations Committee chair Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ), who has expressed his opposition to the president’s budget, has said that each federal department or agency has been charged by Congress to carry out certain functions. It is Congress’ responsibility to fund those departments and agencies so that they can do the job we instructed them to do. He also noted that “we’ve reduced our discretionary spending over the last seven to eight years an incredible amount,” and added that many of the programs slated to be cut or eliminated “keep America open for business.”

Individual Programs Up for Elimination

Of significant concern, of course, are the individual programs funded through the various agencies and department that cities, counties, and regions benefit from.

Transportation and Housing and Urban Development appropriations stand out as two of the most problematic for regional councils given the work that they do. Both departments would sustain significant overall cuts (13 and 15 percent, respectively), and face the elimination of several important programs.

Transportation programs that would be eliminated include TIGER Discretionary Grants, Essential Air Services, Transportation Security Administration grants to states and localities, and federal support for Amtrak’s long distance train services.

Housing and Urban Development programs that would be eliminated include the Community Development Block Grant, HOME Investment Partnerships Program, Choice Neighborhoods, and Self-Help Homeownership Program.

The Departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development, however, are not alone. Altogether, 20 independent agencies and 42 programs would be eliminated, including numerous human services programs.

For example, the Department of Health and Human Services would be cut by 23 percent, and LIHEAP and the Community Services Block Grant would be eliminated altogether. The Labor Department would be cut by 21 percent and programs that would be eliminated include the Senior Community Service Employment Program and possibly the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, which the “skinny” budget does not address but has been slated for elimination by such organizations as the Heritage Foundation.

The Commerce Department would be cut by 16 percent and with those cuts would come the elimination of the Economic Development Administration and other business programs. The Department of Agriculture, which would be cut by 29 percent, would see the elimination of the Water and Waste Disposal Loan and Grant Program and the Rural Business and Cooperative Service’s discretionary programs.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s appropriation would be cut by 31 percent, and programs that would be cut substantially or eliminated include Superfund, categorical grant funds to states and localities, funding for regional water programs, geographically-based funding, restoration initiatives, climate change programs, and 50 other programs.

Finally, the Department of Energy would see the smallest cuts among non-defense discretionary programs at only 5.6 percent. Nonetheless, weatherization programs, programs to support advanced technology vehicles, and loans to local governments to support the use of new energy technology would be eliminated.

So Where Does This Leave Us? 

There is never certainty in Washington. As I write this blog, it appears increasingly unlikely that the American Health Care Act  will pass the House on Thursday, March 23. And yet at the last minute, enough members of Congress could be influenced to make the impossible possible. This lack of certainty makes it so difficult to know if the congressional majority will ultimately adopt the proposed budget. Some in the House and Senate have called it dead on arrival, while others have embraced the proposal and called for its adoption. But as one economist told NPR a few weeks ago, Donald Trump is the “master of the deal.” What he may be doing is simply going for the extreme with the full knowledge that the final budget will fall somewhere in the middle and be far better than anything he could have expected had he been more moderate from the start.

The author would like to thank the National Association of Counties and the Coalition for Human Needs for much of the information that appears in this blog, and the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities for the graph which appears above.

The Trump Administration’s Budget Blueprint: The Regional Impact

Today President Trump unveiled his first federal budget blueprint, which calls upon Congress to make dramatic changes to the shape, if not the size, of the federal government. The plan calls for deep cuts at some departments and agencies while significantly increasing funding at others.

At the core of the proposal is a $54 billion increase in defense spending, $2.6 billion for a border wall, and $1.4 billion for school choice provisions. These increases are fully offset by significant cuts to the non-defense discretionary portion of the budget, leaving entitlement spending and other mandatory spending (which makes up approximately 73% of the federal budget), unchanged.

“The defense and public safety spending increases in this Budget Blueprint are offset and paid for by finding greater savings and efficiencies across the Federal Government. Our Budget Blueprint insists on $54 billion in reductions to non-Defense programs. We are going to do more with less, and make the Government lean and accountable to the people.

“This includes deep cuts to foreign aid. It is time to prioritize the security and well-being of Americans, and to ask the rest of the world to step up and pay its fair share.

“Many other Government agencies and departments will also experience cuts. These cuts are sensible and rational. Every agency and department will be driven to achieve greater efficiency and to eliminate wasteful spending in carrying out their honorable service to the American people.”

– From America First: A Budget Blueprint to Make America Great Again

 

The deep cuts to so many programs that each have constituencies of their own makes it likely that Congress will see this skinny budget and the full budget to follow as ‘dead on arrival.’ But it does offer important insight into the new administration and where their priorities lie, and will be taken under some consideration by the Republican majority in Congress.

The departments of Commerce, Agriculture (USDA), Energy (DOE), Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Transportation (DOT) would face major cuts if this budget were enacted. The Environmental Protection Agency would lose nearly one-third of its budget. Federal funding for 19 agencies would be terminated, including the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the National Endowments for the Arts, the Appalachian Regional Commission, and the Delta Regional Authority. As feared, the proposed budget would eliminate the $3 billion Community Development Block Grant program. What follows is a selected list of agencies and programs, and how they are treated in the budget blueprint. This is not comprehensive as details are limited at this time. NARC will continue to track these and update you as new information becomes available. Please follow the NARC website (www.narc.org) and our new blog, Regions Lead (www.regionslead.org), to keep up with the latest.

Department of Agriculture

FY2018 proposed funding level: $17.9B (-$4.7 billion, 21% decrease)

  • Eliminates Water and Wastewater loan and grant program (-$500 million)
  • Eliminates McGovern-Dole International Food for Education program (-$200 million)
  • Fully funds Food Safety and Inspection Service and wildland fire preparedness activities
  • Reduces Women, Infants, and Children nutrition assistance (-$200 million)
  • Unspecified staff reductions at USDA service center agencies around the country
  • Cuts funding for Rural Business and Cooperative Service (-$95 million)

Department of Commerce

FY2018 proposed funding level: $7.8B (-$1.5 billion, 16% decrease)

  • Eliminates the Economic Development Agency (EDA) (-$221 million)
  • Increases funding for Census Administration in anticipation of 2020 census (+$100 million)

Department of Energy

2018 Proposed Funding Levels $28 billion (-$1.7 billion, 5.6% decrease)

  • Increases National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) funding more than 11%; all other program are cut by nearly 18%
  • Increases spending for managing the nation’s nuclear stockpile by restarting licensing at Yucca (+$120 million)
  • Eliminates Weatherization Assistance Program and State Energy Program
  • Cuts Office of Science funding to support research at 300 universities and 10 of 17 national labs (-$900 million)
  • Focuses funding for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the Office of Nuclear Energy, the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, and the Fossil Energy Research and Development program on limited, early-stage applied energy research and development activities where the federal role is stronger (-$2.0 billion)

Department of Health and Human Services

Proposed funding level: $84.1B (-$15.1 billion, 16% decrease)

  • Cuts Office of Community Services funding (-$4.2 billion), eliminating Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program and Community Services Block Grant
  • Increases funding for treatment and prevention of opioid addictions (+$500 million)

Department of Homeland Security

FY2018 proposed funding level: $44.1B (+$2.8 billion, 7% increase)

  • The proposed increase is to fund a border wall and other border-related items (+$2.6 billion); Immigration and Customs Enforcement (+$314 million); detention-related expenses (+$1.5 billion); and protection against cybersecurity threats (+$1.5 billion)
  • Eliminates or reduces state and local grant funding under FEMA, including the Pre-disaster Mitigation Program and Homeland Security Grant Program (-$667 million); institutes a local cost-match requirement for FEMA grant awards if none exists now

Department of Housing and Urban Development

FY2018 proposed funding level: $40.7B (-$6.2 billion, 13% decrease)

  • Eliminates Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program (-$3.0 billion)
    • From the blueprint: “The Federal Government has spent over $150 billion on this block grant since its inception in 1974, but the program is not well-targeted to the poorest populations and has not demonstrated results.”
  • Eliminates HOME Investment Partnerships Program and similar programs (-$1.1 billion)

Department of the Interior

2018 Proposed Funding Levels $11.6 billion (-$1.5 billion, 12% decrease)

  • Increases funding for development of energy on public lands and offshore waters and streamlines permitting processes and provides industry with access to the energy resources
  • Eliminates Land and Water Conservation Fund program
  • Eliminates Abandoned Mine Land grants that overlap with existing mandatory grants, National Heritage Areas that are more appropriately funded locally, and National Wildlife Refuge fund payments to local governments that are duplicative of other payment programs
  • Streamlines operations at National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management
  • Reduces funding for certain Indian Country demonstration projects and initiatives
  • Reduces funding for new major acquisitions of Federal land (-$120 million), and redirects that to increase spending on National Park Service deferred maintenance projects. Reduces funds for other DOI construction and major maintenance programs
  • Provides full 10-year rolling average of expenditures for wildland fire suppression, which will result in a small increase in funding
  • Provides $1 billion in water resources program throughout the western United States
  • Reduces funding for counties through Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program, but keeps program in line with average funding for PILT over the past decade

Department of Justice

2018 Proposed Funding Levels $27 billion, (-$1.1 billion, 3.8 percent decrease)

  • Increases funding for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) (+$249 million)
  • Provides additional funding to hire 75 additional immigration judge teams (+$80 million); 60 additional border enforcement prosecutors and 40 deputy U.S. Marshals to combat illegal immigration; and 20 attorneys to pursue federal efforts to obtain the land and holdings necessary to secure the Southwest border and another 20 attorneys and support staff for immigration litigation assistance
  • Additional short-term detention space to hold federal detainees, including criminal aliens, parole violators, and other offenders awaiting trial or sentencing (+$171 million)
  • Funds Preventing Violence Against Law Enforcement Officer Resilience and Survivability and the Bulletproof Vest Partnership
  • Eliminates State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (-$700 million)

Department of Labor

FY2018 proposed funding level: $12.2B (-$2.6 billion, 21% decrease)

  • Eliminates the Senior Community Service Employment Program (-$434 million)
  • Eliminates OSHA training grants (-$11 million)
  • Expands Reemployment and Eligibility Assessments
  • Closes underperforming Job Corps centers
  • Decreases federal funding for job training and employment service grants, shifts responsibility of continuing programs to states & localities

Department of Transportation

FY2018 proposed funding level: $16.2B (-$2.6 billion, 13% decrease)

  • Corporatizes the Air Traffic Control (ATC) system
  • Eliminates New Starts transit funding for capital projects if a full funding grant agreement is not already in place
  • Reduces federal support for Amtrak; eliminates funding for long-distance routes, redirects savings to State-support routes and the Northeast Corridor
  • Eliminates Essential Air Service (-$175 million)
  • Eliminates TIGER grant program (-$499 million)

Army Corps of Engineers

FY2018 proposed funding level: $5.0B (-$1.0 billion, 16% decrease)

  • Changes unknown

Environmental Protection Agency

FY2018 proposed funding level: $5.7B (-$2.5 billion, 31% decrease)

  • Maintains Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act program at same funding level as last year
  • Eliminates Clean Power Plan funding (-$100 million)
  • Halves funding for the Office of Research and Development (-$233 million)
  • Significantly reduces funding for the Hazardous Substance Superfund Account (-$330 million)
  • Eliminates funding for specific regional efforts such as the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, the Chesapeake Bay, and other geographic programs (-$427 million)
  • Eliminates more than 50 programs, including: Energy Star; Targeted Airshed Grants; the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program; and infrastructure assistance to Alaska Native Villages and the Mexico Border (-$347 million)

A Budget Mess

To say that things are a mess on Capitol Hill around the budget and appropriations process may be an understatement. Here are six reasons for the mess:

  1. Earlier this year congressional leaders committed to completing the appropriations process for fiscal year 2017 by April 28th, the date on which the current continuing resolution (CR) expires. However, senators from both parties are now expressing concern that the appropriations process is so far behind schedule that they may need to adopt another temporary funding bill in the form of a CR, something they are loathe to do.
  2. Democrats, who are deeply concerned that the president will demand that the April funding bill includes money for “the wall” between Mexico and the United States, have indicated that they are prepared to prevent such a funding bill from passing Congress, thereby shutting down the government. The ramifications of a shutdown can only be conjectured.
  3. Many economists are predicting that the president’s budget is so bad for discretionary non-defense programs that mass federal employee layoffs and a shrinking housing market and economy are likely in states with large numbers of federal employees.
  4. According to the Washington Post, the president’s budget proposal is “expected to seek a historic contraction of the federal workforce” that would “shake the federal government to its core if enacted.” Noting that this will be the first time since the drawdown following World War II that the government would execute “cuts of this magnitude,” the Post goes on to say that while funding for the military and homeland security will increase substantially, other areas such as housing, environmental programs, and research will be slashed substantially. Again, the ramifications can only be conjectured.
  5. The New York Times is reporting that some Republicans on Capitol Hill believe that the president’s budget may be going in the wrong direction by cutting “too much from already lean department accounts while leaving untouched the massive benefit programs” that have been blamed by Republicans for contributing to the nation’s deficits, and that many of the proposed cuts to foreign aid and domestic programs are a non-starter, especially in the Republican-led Senate as well as the more conservative House. It seems that they are prepared to oppose efforts to cut federal funding to non-defense discretionary programs. For example, House Appropriations Committee Chairman Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) told the Times that “we’ve reduced our discretionary spending over the last seven or eight years an incredible amount. Maybe some people don’t like those agencies, but it’s been pretty difficult for them to meet their mandate.”
  6. Democrats are claiming that if the president has his way, discretionary non-defense programs would be cut by anywhere from 13 to 20 percent. In simple terms, nearly one-fifth of all funding for transportation, infrastructure, housing, health, education, and economic development programs would be cut, and programs like those funded through the Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, U.S. Department of Energy, and Economic Development Administration could be eliminated completely.

The question of course is where does this leave us? The answer is neither simple nor straightforward.

Presidential budgets are often dead on arrival (DOA) and summarily rejected by Congress for any number of reasons, not the least of which is that Congress has its own priorities that may differ dramatically from those of the president. But presidential budgets, regardless of party or person, set a tone for further discussions and are often incorporated into Congress’ plans, even when congressional leadership announces that the budget is DOA.

Adding to the complicated environment on Capitol Hill is that the majority party is very divided, with many wanting to see more cuts to domestic discretionary programs coupled with a substantial increase in military spending and significant tax cuts. Others are calling for caution, arguing that many of the domestic programs slated for slashing are critical to the nation’s economic growth and safety.

But here is the bottom line. If these cuts do come to fruition – if education, job growth, housing, community and economic development, environmental, and aging programs are cut to the extent the president wants and Democrats predict – we will see, without a doubt, a significant reduction in programs designed to support economic development, help businesses and industry obtain well-trained staff, protect seniors, provide safe and secure communities, support affordable housing, address homelessness, and so on. Regional councils across the nation are likely to see substantial reductions in the federal funds they receive necessitating either additional funding from their states and localities or a significant reduction in the services they provide for their regions. And the larger impact on our economy may be more far reaching than anyone, including the president, could have anticipated.

Tomorrow the president’s “skinny” budget will be released. At that point, we will have a clearer idea of what he wants, what Congress is willing to accept, and how far Democrats may go to defend non-defense discretionary programs. And of course, we will have more to share with you.

By Neil E. Bomberg, NARC senior policy advisor

Budget and Appropriations: Where Do We Go From Here?

As the Senate and House move to finalize fiscal year (FY) 2017 funding for the federal government, it is becoming increasingly clear that three obstacles – two pieces of legislation and an on-going congressional investigation – stand in the way of a rapid and conclusive FY2017 funding bill.

The current continuing resolution (CR) expires on April 28, at which point a new CR or other funding bill must be passed to avoid a government shutdown. While April 28 may seem like a long way off and plenty of time for Congress to complete the appropriations process, the reality is that Congress will only be in session for 26 legislative days before the CR expires and funding for the federal government runs out. Additionally, most of the work has to be completed in March because Congress will recess for two weeks in April for the Easter and Passover holidays. As if these limitations were not enough, Congress must deal with two pieces of legislation and an on-going congressional investigation that may substantially slow the legislative process.

The first obstacle to rapid completion of the appropriations process is the defense appropriations bill. It is a must pass appropriations bill and a priority for many members of Congress. The outcome of this bill will set the tone for the rest of the debate around funding, which is why there is little-to-no work being done on other appropriations bills.

The second obstacle is the American Health Care Act (AHCA), which House leaders introduced this past Monday, March 6. Designed to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA) – often referred to as Obamacare – House and Senate leaders have indicated that they want this bill passed and on the president’s desk before the April recess.

The third obstacle is the on-going turmoil around alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The outcome of each of these obstacles will have a tremendous impact on non-defense discretionary program funding.

Why do they matter? 

The calendar matters because there is actually very little time to resolve all of the outstanding appropriations issues.

The defense appropriations bill that Congress will pass and the president will sign will matter greatly. Under current budget rules, there must always be parity between defense and non-defense discretionary programs. That means for every dollar increase or decrease in funding for either half of the discretionary pot, there must also be an equal increase or decrease on the other side. But Congress could change that and permit defense discretionary funding to increase so long as there is an opposite reaction in non-defense discretionary funding. In other words, Congress may choose to pay for an increase in defense spending with a decrease in non-defense discretionary funding. And even if this does not happen this year, there is clear evidence that it will happen with the FY2018 budget when the majority is expected to increase defense discretionary spending by $54 billion. According to appropriations committee staff, that kind of an increase in defense spending could result in a 13 to 20 percent cut in non-defense discretionary funding, cuts that on a program-by-program basis could even be more.

The AHCA matters greatly, as well. The effort to repeal and replace the ACA may prove much more difficult than originally expected. Already, several senators and many House members have expressed significant reservations about the bill, which was just released on Monday, March 2. If that happens, efforts to pass the AHCA may eat up a significant amount of legislative time, leaving little time for either chamber to address appropriations issues. More importantly, public opinion of Congress is likely to diminish if it cannot complete the work leadership has been promising to do for eight years, and further loss of public support would severely hamper Congress’s ability to adopt other legislation.

Investigation into alleged collusion between the Russian government and the White House also matters. It has become an albatross around the necks of the Administration and Congress, and the way this issue plays out over the next weeks and months will determine the political clout that the president will have in his dealings with Congress. The more clout he has, the easier it will be to push through his legislative agenda that includes a substantial increase in defense funding.

Of course, all of this is speculation. Congress could find a way to get its work done and pass the appropriations and other bills. The Russian albatross could vanish. Agreements around funding could emerge and help prevent the kinds of cuts that we are anticipating. But if the past is prologue, Congress will not be able to do its job and will only pass an appropriations bill in the form of a continuing resolution or omnibus appropriations bill at the very last minute, without significant input from the public, the minority party, or public interest groups like NARC.

By Neil E. Bomberg, NARC senior policy advisor

Next week:  What can we expect in the president’s “skinny” budget and what does that mean for programs important to regional councils?