American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
Stimulus Reports Detail Job Creation
Reports from the first recipients of Recovery Act funds were released on October 15th. Though they detail just a tiny sliver of the Recovery Act pie—less than two percent of the total, in fact—the initial reports provide insight into the reporting process and the benefits Texas can expect to see from its share of the Recovery Act. The reports were released via Recovery.gov and show a net benefit of almost 31,000 jobs created or saved nationwide due to the contracts that make up this fraction of Recovery Act funds. Texas saw a benefit of almost 1,100 jobs from a variety of small business contracts, engineering projects, and more. Details from each of those reports are available on Recovery.gov.
The available data will expand throughout the month as we see more reports on contracts, grants, and loans that have been received so far. By the end of October, reporting on just over a third of the Recovery Act—or about $275 billion—will be complete. Entitlement spending and tax relief, which combine to make up more than 65 percent of the $787 billion in the Recovery Act, will not be subject to these reporting requirements, meaning the final job numbers may be underreported. Last month, the White House Council of Economic Advisors estimated that the Recovery Act had created or saved one million jobs so far. Initial estimates when the law was signed put the eventual total at 3.5 million, including 269,000 in Texas, and a great deal of those jobs will be created in the education and construction sectors.
Federal Stimulus Dollars Helping Texas Prepare for Disasters
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will bring more than $290 million to the State Energy Conservation Office to help Texas increase energy efficiency and introduce renewable energy technologies around the state. There is a portion of that amount, however, that will be allocated for a project that has nothing to do with solar installations, energy audits, and the like. Instead, the funds are a part of a program aimed at improving the nation's energy emergency preparedness by helping states strengthen their energy infrastructures against hurricanes, floods, and other disasters.
In Texas, where the initiative is called the Energy Assurance Program, SECO will partner with the Public Utility Commission, Railroad Commission of Texas, and a number of other state entities and utility providers to update and improve the State of Texas Emergency Management Plan (EMP). The total amount Texas will get from the Recovery Act for the purpose of enhancing the EMP and ensuring "quick recovery and restoration from any energy supply disruptions" is $2.5 million. SECO and its partners will use the funds to run simulated exercises, provide new training to staff, and more.
Unemployment: Gov. Perry Ask the Feds for a Loan After Refusing the Free Money
[Update: The Austin-American Statesman gives its take on the situation and forecasts tax hikes for businesses as a result of Governor Perry's decision.]
The unemployment rate in Texas continued to rise in July, hitting 7.5 percent statewide, according to the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC). The losses came as the national unemployment rate reached a 26-year high, and they were concentrated primarily in four economic sectors in Texas: Construction, Trade/Transportation/Utilities, Manufacturing, and Professional/Business Services.
The release of the new data coincided with news that Governor Rick Perry requested an initial loan of $170 million—with the option to borrow an additional $500 million later in the year—from the federal government to help pay unemployment benefits despite having rejected $555 million in Recovery Act funds meant to help states cover shortfalls in their unemployment funds. Those funds that were made available to Texas under the Recovery Act were in the form of grants that the state would not have had to pay back, while the current line of credit that Governor Perry has requested will leave the state with an obligation to repay the federal government.
Continue reading below for a full analysis of the unemployment numbers and how the state is planning to provide benefits to jobless Texans.
The rise in unemployment was most pronounced in South Texas, as jobless rates surpassed 10 percent in the Brownsville-Harlingen and Beaumont-Port Arthur areas and over 11 percent in the McAllen-Edinburg-Mission area. Other areas in the state being hit hard by the recession include Houston, which has lost 69,600 jobs in the last year and seen its unemployment rate hit 8 percent.
| Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) | Unemployment Rate | # of People Unemployed | Poverty Rate |
| McAllen-Edinburg-Mission | 11.1% | 33,100 | 37.5% |
| Brownsville-Harlingen | 10.4% | 15,700 | 37.1% |
| Beaumont-Port Arthur | 10.2% | 18,700 | 16.5% |
| El Paso | 9.6% | 29,300 | 28.2% |
| United States | 9.5% | 15,095,000 | 13.3% |
As those numbers continue to rise, the state's unemployment trust fund is being pushed beyond its limits. The fund, which was already forecasted to be depleted later this year, has approached insolvency faster than state officials estimated, prompting the request from Governor Perry for federal loans. And as Representative Mark Strama pointed out last week, the decision to turn down federal stimulus grants will cost taxpayers large sums, since these new loans will have to be repaid. Another larger concern for the state should be the fact that the unemployment trust fund has been exhausted despite Texas providing benefits to only 28 percent of its unemployed. That number is the lowest among all states, with only the District of Columbia having a lower rate. In fact, one of the stipulations tied to the Recovery Act unemployment funds was aimed at increasing that percentage, something Governor Perry was unwilling to do. The low rate means that while 285,000 unemployed Texans were receiving benefits as of last month, hundreds of thousands more were going without.
The state has borrowed federal funds for this purpose before—in 2003, the state was authorized to borrow $500 million. After borrowing $280 million of that total, the state was forced to issue $1.4 billion in bonds to repay the debt and refill the unemployment trust fund.
Delving deeper into the unemployment numbers reveals troubling trends in important industries. One quarter of job losses over the last year have come in the Trade/Transportation/Utilities sector, and that sector combines with the Construction, Manufacturing, and Professional/Business Services sectors to make up almost 90 percent of all job losses in the state since June 2008. That means the state has lost a large number of well-paying jobs over the last year, as the average hourly wage in those sectors ranged from $17.28 to $22.52. [To search for statewide wage and employment data in any sector, click here and scroll down to the "Wages by Profession" link.] The TWC release neglected to mention any anticipated impact of Recovery Act funds on those key sectors, and without stringent reporting requirements it could prove difficult to gather any specific data regarding their impact on the quantity and quality of jobs.
Unemployed Texans got one piece of good news, at least, when TWC reported they would in fact be able to release additional employment benefits on time. The 13-week extension of benefits for jobless Americans was included in the Recovery Act, but TWC had said it was having trouble figuring out how to process the funds, leaving many to fear a delay that could have been disastrous for many households that are depending on those funds. In all, the federally funded extension could provide up to $380 million in benefits to Texans.
Update: Recovery Act Funds Continue to Flow
Interested in knowing where Texas stands in its implementation of its share of Recovery Act funds? How the state stacks up to others around the nation? The timeline for all Recovery Act expenditures? If so, check out Texas Impact's latest report on those and other issues involving the Recovery Act.
Though the Legislature opted to not take proactive steps to institute planning and accountability measures, Texas Impact continues to track Recovery Act funds, state agency actions, and national developments. Stay tuned all year for Recovery Act updates, links, and success stories.
Post-session Wrap-up: The Legislature and the Recovery Act
Legislators began the 81st Legislative Session with the knowledge that an unprecedented influx of federal money was coming, and Texas Impact was there from the beginning, urging the Legislature to take proactive steps that would increase the likelihood that this windfall would provide the maximum benefit to the state. 
At issue was how best to ensure that funds from the Recovery Act would be spent not just in a transparent manner, but in a way that was transformative as well. Now that the session has ended, we can summarize and assess the Legislature's response to the $15 billion in federal stimulus funds, not to mention the hundreds of billions in additional federal dollars that will be available in the form of nationwide competitive grants. In short, the Legislature failed to take proactive steps, opting to end the session without enacting any special measures to accommodate such an extraordinary amount of federal dollars and without passing a single piece of significant legislation related to implementing or tracking Recovery Act funds.
Continue reading for more about the Legislature's actions in full.
In the House, Speaker Straus facilitated the creation of a Select Committee to act as the House’s eyes and ears with regard to the federal stimulus funds. That committee, led by Representative Jim Dunnam, proved to be a valuable resource for keeping the entire body informed about Recovery Act details. Beyond that, however, little to no action was taken to adjust to the state’s new financial situation in the midst of the economic downturn. The Senate did even less, with any discussion of how to handle Recovery Act funds going on behind closed doors. Only one piece of significant legislation dealing specifically with implementing and tracking Recovery Act funds was filed during the session. That bill—HB 4263—passed out of committee before being rolled into HB 2942, which made structural changes to state government, and it went on to pass the House unanimously before dying in the Senate.
When it came time to make the state’s budget for the biennium, the Legislature’s plan for those funds became clearer. Coming into the session, legislators had planned on tapping the state’s Rainy Day Fund in order to cover a $4 billion budgetary gap, but they quickly saw the Recovery Act funds as a way to leave the RDF untouched in order to use it in 2011, when the structural deficits created in 2006 will be even worse than they are now. Wherever there was an opportunity to supplant state funds rather than supplement them with federal stimulus money, legislators chose to do so. So instead of local school districts receiving extra funds to avoid teacher layoffs and improve education, they will not see the increases that federal officials intended. This strategy of supplantation will save the state some money in the short term, but it will result in stagnant funding for education, Medicaid, and other vital services.
Certainly people across the state will see some tangible benefits from the Recovery Act. The Department of Housing and Community Affairs will scale up its Weatherization Assistance Program, for example, as it was granted more than $300 million to help homeowners increase efficiency. Texans will see tax breaks, extended unemployment benefits, and increased amounts in their food stamp accounts, just to name a few changes.
Those benefits will come with a host of missed opportunities, though. Texas Impact long supported the implementation of temporary measures that would have dealt specifically with the Recovery Act funds. The state could have benefited greatly from having some way to define goals, strategies, and performance measures that would have gone a long way towards ensuring that Texas’ share of these funds is used wisely. Just as important as the $15+ billion the state has already received will be the hundreds of billions of dollars in competitive grants for which state and local governments around the nation will be vying. While most of those other states have taken proactive steps in this regard, entities in Texas—especially those in rural and poor areas—will be at a distinct disadvantage thanks to a dearth of coordination, planning, and resources.
Texas Impact will continue to monitor the state’s handling of Recovery Act funds and work with legislators and state agencies as they look for best practices.
Tracking the Texas Stimulus
As Texas Impact has reported, Texas has been lagging behind in many respects as far as the measures it has taken to effectively and transparently put its ARRA dollars to use. Yet some recent developments could potentially change the situation for the better. The first came during the House debate over the state budget for the next biennium, as we pointed out last week. Representatives filed a number of amendments directly related to the federal stimulus dollars, including one by Representative Sylvester Turner that creates specific performance measures and reporting requirements for every state agency that receives ARRA funds.
Now, in another piece of positive ARRA-implementation news, the Comptroller of Public Accounts has launched a new section on its website that allows Texans to see how money is being spent, where they can look for grants and contracting opportunities, and what impact the ARRA is expected to have on the state. Texas Impact has been calling for this and other measures to be taken since Texas first learned it would be getting billions of dollars from the federal government, so this is an encouraging development.
Will the ARRA Improve Public Education in Texas?
The question of whether Texas students will be better off than they would have been without ARRA funds is driving a number of current debates as legislators are deciding how to budget for the upcoming biennium. Already, at least two letters have been sent to US Secretary of Education Arne Duncan—one from members of Texas' Congressional delegation and another from a number of school district superintendents—asking for more clarification on how Texas can spend ARRA funds allocated for education. Both of those letters express concern with how the Legislature has chosen to address the state's share of the money and asked the Secretary to issue further guidance that would direct the Legislature more clearly. The main issue causing dispute is the Legislature's handling of $3.2 billion meant to improve public education or, at the very least, ensure that the state is able to maintain its commitment to funding public schools. Of the billions of ARRA funds that were allocated to address shortfalls in school funding during the recession, it is this pot of money, known as State Fiscal Stabilization funds, that is raising the most questions from school districts. Their concerns stem from the Legislature's apparent intent to supplant rather than supplement current state revenue going to schools. Since Texas is not facing budget shortfalls as dire as some other states, it would have been able to maintain the level of funds going to schools across the state, even if it meant dipping into the state's substantial Rainy Day Fund. So, absent more stringent federal guidelines, that situation creates a choice for those legislators in charge of writing the state budget: pass the extra $3.2 billion down to school districts in addition to the state funds already going to education, or displace those state funds to be spent elsewhere or saved to avoid tapping the Rainy Day Fund. School districts and some legislators object to the latter option, as they would rather see the money be used to fund possibly transformative projects that go above and beyond what they would have been able to afford without the ARRA. Even as this and other debates continue, ARRA education funds are making their way to Texas already. (See below for an explanation of the three main allocations for education in the ARRA.)
| Item | Purpose | Amount for TX | Status |
| Title I Grants | Supplemental funding to improve performance of low-achieving students, especially in high-poverty districts | $944.6 million total | 50% of Title I, Part A funds ($472.3 million) will reach local school districts within the month of April. Guidance will follow by May 15th, and the remaining 50% of the funds will be released in the summer. |
| IDEA Grants | Grants support research, demonstrations, technical assistance, technology and personnel development, and parent-training and information centers related to providing education to individuals with disabilities. | $1.0093 billion total | 50% of the funds ($504.65 million) will reach local school districts within the month of April. Guidance will follow by May 15th, and the remaining 50% of the funds will be released in the summer. |
| State Fiscal Stabilization funds | New one-time appropriation intended to stabilize state and local government budgets and facilitate education reforms | $3.9735 billion | State applications for the first 67% of funds ($2.662 billion) are available and will be processed within two weeks of receipt. The remaining 33% will be released by September 30th, pending a more stringent application process to ensure states have used their original allotment in accordance with federal intent. |
ARRA-GH! Concerns about how the Legislature is Spending the Stimulus
Bee Moorhead: ARRA-GH!
It has been almost five months since Barack Obama was elected president and we understood that the federal government was likely to pass a large fiscal stimulus with funds to assist the states.
It has been six weeks since that legislation (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, or ARRA) was signed into law. Yet to date, Texas — unlike most other states — has articulated no vision whatsoever for implementing the ARRA or budgeting our allocation. Almost every Texas legislator I've talked to either is uninformed about the ARRA and its potential or else is privately resigned to the likelihood that most of Texas' allocation will be squandered, wasting this one-time opportunity to make meaningful investments in the future of our state.
The budget is coming to the floor in both chambers over the next two weeks. Most legislators will have no real opportunity to say anything about spending priorities for Texas' ARRA funds. The budget committees are playing shell games with general revenue and ARRA funds instead of proposing rational strategies for maximizing the use of ARRA to advance our state's policy priorities.
This isn't a question of liberals wanting to expand state services versus conservatives fighting against bloated government. You can look across state after state, conservative and liberal, and see the same basic ARRA implementation processes happening everywhere:
1. The state — either the governor or another elected leader — sets up one or more public-private advisory bodies to guide ARRA implementation for the next three years and ensure transparency and accountability (the House Select Committee on Federal Fiscal Stabilization does not fill this bill, although it plays an important role and we should keep it).
2. The advisory bodies and/or lawmakers articulate a set of overarching state priorities and propose strategies for using various ARRA funding streams to achieve these priorities, including the introduction of ARRA-specific legislation.
3. There's a multi-purpose website where the public can get information about all things ARRA and, in most cases, submit proposals and ideas about how the state can best use its allocation to create jobs and address priority issues.
What other states are NOT doing is using their ARRA funds to merely maintain business as usual.
The reason so many other states are taking rational, long-term approaches to ARRA implementation is pretty obvious: they want to make sure they get the maximum return on investment of every dollar. They know this is a one-time opportunity and they don't want to waste it. They are making a big effort to include private sector experts in their advisory bodies so they can be sure they create the greatest range of new opportunities for their residents.
For a lot of states, like Ohio and Michigan, this is a life-or-death deal: if they can't generate enough new jobs fast enough to jumpstart some economic activity, it's hard to see how they can stay in business. For other states, like Oregon and North Carolina, this is a chance to get out in front on emerging industries.
You can imagine how Texas, with a little planning, could get special bangs out of our ARRA bucks. For example, we're getting hundreds of millions of dollars in weatherization and energy efficiency money. Spending the money on weatherization and efficiency is a given, we can't use it for anything else. But we could combine some of it with ARRA workforce development and education money to fund a green jobs training program, and throw in some ARRA childcare funds so the job-training participants have secure childcare while they are in the program. A similar approach could work in addressing Texas' health professional shortage.
But we can't do innovative job-creation and economic development projects if we just toss our ARRA funds into the appropriations bill and hope for the best. State agencies can't freelance with their appropriations; they have to respond to legislative priorities and stay accountable within defined performance measures.
Performance measures are nonexistent in Texas' ARRA budgeting. Federal agencies will require fiscal accountability, but not accountability to the policy priorities of Texans. Should we dedicate our ARRA funds to rebuilding hurricane areas and economic development in the Valley? So far, state agencies don't have these priorities in their budgets. Should we make sure some of our ARRA funds are targeted for historically underutilized businesses? Again, not so far. So far, the only specific ARRA-related priority we know of is a rider in the Senate's budget bill directing the State Energy Conservation Office to give as much of its allocation as possible to the Texas Engineering Experiment Station at Texas A&M University.
Whatever we do with the ARRA funds, one thing is for sure: Texans, like all Americans, will spend decades' worth of federal income taxes paying off the trillion-dollar deficit the stimulus package is creating. It's enough of a stretch to imagine paying off this debt if the investment results in material improvement in our infrastructure, education systems or state services. It's heartbreaking to contemplate making those payments in future years knowing that we got nothing but shell games and the status quo for our trouble.
Lawmakers struggle every session to meet human needs, grow our economy and protect our environment. Our ARRA funds can't do everything everyone wants, but they can do a lot. It's enough money to buy our school kids textbooks... restore ailing state parks... capitalize the Housing Trust Fund... bring solid infrastructure to colonias... and on and on. And, of course, it's enough to help the Gulf Coast recover from multiple natural disasters.
We can't afford this failure of leadership. It's inexcusable for Texas to be botching ARRA implementation when so many other states have figured it out. The gun has been fired, the Rust Belt is off and running, and Texas is standing at the starting line with its shoelaces tied together.
Bee Moorhead is executive director of Texas Impact, an interfaith group that lobbies on issues of religious social concern.
Texas Weekly's Soapbox is a venue for opinions, spins, alternate takes, and other interesting stuff sent in by readers and others. We moderate submissions to keep crazy people out, and anonymous commentary is ineligible. Readers can respond (through the moderator) to things posted here. Got something to submit? We're interested in everything from full-blown opinion pieces to short bits to observations or tidbits that have escaped us and the mass media. One rule: Your name goes on your words. Call or send an email: Ross Ramsey, Editor, Texas Weekly, 512/288-6598, ramsey@texasweekly.com [1].
http://texasweekly.com/node/3745
ARRA Implementation Timeline
The ARRA was conceived as a fast-acting piece of legislation that would stimulate the struggling American economy. "Quick-start" projects are given priority, and the focus is on job creation, energy innovation, and economic growth. Still, the important dates and deadlines in the bill are numerous, and they will stretch well into 2011, when the flow of funds will finally cease and state and local entities will still be reporting on what they achieved with their shares of the ARRA funds. Texas Impact has begun compiling a list of some important dates, and our timeline is included below.
--MARCH--
| Date | Item | Amount for Texas | Entity |
| 10 | Deadline for DOT to allocate Fixed Guideway Infrastructure Investment funds | $2,600,000 to local entities | TXDOT |
| 10 | Deadline for DOT to allocate Highway Infrastructure Investment funds | $1,507,500,000 | TXDOT |
| 10 | Deadline for DOT to allocate Transit Capital Assistance funds | $372,000,000 | TXDOT/Local governments |
| 12 | DOE released Weatherization Assistance Program funds | $327,000,000 | TDHCA |
| 12 | DOE released State Energy Program funds | $237,100,000 | SECO |
| 19 | Deadline for DOL to increase amounts for grantees under Community Service Employment for Older Americans grants | $1,300,000 | TWC |
| 19 | Special Fiscal Year 2009 Unemployment transfers made to states | $39,400,000 | TWC |
| 26 | DOE released Energy Efficiciency and Conservation Block Grants | $208,759,900 | SECO/Local Governments |
| Late March/Early April | DOEduc. releases guidelines and first 67% of State Fiscal Stabilization funds | $2,662,245,000 | TEA/Local education agencies |
| Late March/Early April | DOEduc. releases first half of Title I, Part A grants | $472,300,000 | TEA/Local education agencies |
| Late March/Early April | DOEduc. releases first half of IDEA Part B and IDEA Part C grants | $504,650,000 | TEA/Local education agencies |
--APRIL--
| Date | Item | Amount for Texas | Entity |
| 1 | 13.6 percent increase in Food Stamp benefits takes effect | -- | Individual Texans |
| 1 | “Making Work Pay” tax cuts take effect | -- | Individual Texans |
| 3 | Deadline for state governors to certify that their states will request and use funds | -- | Governor |
| 17 | TWDB plans to have list of potential projects using Safe Drinking Water Act grants | $160,700,000 | TWDB |
| 18 | Deadline for distribution of McKinney-Vento School Improvement Funds to states | $3,500,000 | TEA/Local education agencies |
| 19 | Deadline for transfer of unemployment compensation modernization funds | $555,700,000 | TWC [NOTE: TX is not currently eligible] |
| 22 | Public hearing on State Weatherization Plan to be submitted to DOE | $329,975,732 | TDHCA |
--MAY--
| Date | Item | Amount for Texas | Entity |
| 3 | Deadline for HUD to publish criteria for Neighborhood Stabilization Program grants | $2,000,000,000 Nationally | TDHCA/Local governments/Non-profit entities |
| 12 | Deadline for State Weatherization Plan to be submitted to DOE | $329,975,732 | TDHCA |
| 18 | First reporting deadline for recipients of DOT money | -- | TXDOT |
| 18 | Deadline for HHS guidelines for Health IT Implementation Assistance | -- | HHSC |
| 18 | Deadline for DOT criteria for National Surface Transportation grants | $1,500,000,000 Nationally | TXDOT |
| 26 | Deadline for states to submit applications for their allocations from Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants | $45,638,100 | SECO |
--JUNE--
| Date | Item | Amount for Texas | Entity |
| 1 | Deadline for DOL criteria for Community College and Career Training Grants | $90,000,000 Nationally | -- |
| 18 | Deadline for infrastructure projects to use 50% of their funds and be considered “quick-start” | -- | TXDOT |
| 25 | Deadline for cities and counties to submit applications for their allocations from Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants | $163,121,800 | Local Governments |
--JULY--
| Date | Item | Amount for Texas | Entity |
| 1 | Deadline for DOEduc. to determine State Incentive Grants for special education | $12,200,000,000 Nationally | TEA/Local education agencies |
| 1 | Earliest date DOEduc. will make final 33% of State Fiscal Stabilization funds available | $1,311,255,000 | TEA/Local education agencies |
| 1 | Remaining 50% of Title I, Part A funds made available | $472,300,000 | TEA/Local education agencies |
| 1 | Earliest date that remaining 50% of IDEA Part B and Preschool Grant funds will become available | $484,950,000 | TEA/Local education agencies |
| 17 | Applications due to HUD for Neighborhood Stabilization Program grants | $2,000,000,000 Nationally | TDHCA/Local governments/Non-profit entities |
| 19 | Deadline for projects using Capital Investment Grants to obligate funds if they are to receive priority funding | $750,000,000 Nationally | TXDOT |
Implementing the ARRA: Responses Across the Nation
At almost 1,100 pages, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) is a complicated set of grants and regulations whose effects will be felt in almost every area of Texas’ government. Texas Impact recognizes the transformative potential of the ARRA, and we feel it is imperative that measures are put in place to ensure that the state acts prudently and transparently as it attempts to take full advantage of the funds Texas is entitled to.
Across the nation, other states are employing a variety of models to deal with their potential allocations and opportunities associated with the ARRA. Some states are doing more than others, to be sure, but it is instructive to look at all of the options open to Texas. To that end, Texas Impact has begun cataloging and analyzing state responses, and we have identified a few categories of reactions and developed a comprehensive list showing what states are doing.
| Type | Description | Example | Number |
| Office | A new, temporary state office is created to coordinate and implement the state’s ARRA funding | Wisconsin’s Office of Recovery and Reinvestment is comprised of staff on loan from each state agency | 7 |
| Working Group, Cabinet, etc. | These advisory bodies are often comprised of gubernatorial and legislative staff as well as representatives from state agencies | Kansas’ ARRA Advisory Group was established to monitor timelines and provide transparency | 15 |
| "Czar" | A single appointee is tasked with overseeing part or all of the state’s allocation | Ohio has tapped a nonprofit executive as its “infrastructure czar” | 9 |
In all, 31 states have implemented one of these measures. Their charges often differ, as some are meant primarily to provide oversight and accountability, while others are aiming to access more funds or coordinate the allocation process.
In addition, 22 states have established an official, stand-alone website dedicated to the state’s handling of ARRA funds. The sites allow citizens to learn about the bill, measure the state’s response, track expenditures, submit project proposals, and more. Some examples:
- Recovery.ohio.gov, one of the first sites to go online, keeps the public aware of upcoming deadlines and allows them to submit project proposals. Over 17,000 proposals had been submitted as of 4 March.
- Maryland has developed a site that includes its StateStat technology, which allows people to access an interactive map that tracks stimulus funding and projects. See the link at the upper left corner of the page.
- Washington's recovery.wa.gov provides a list of specific people to contact regarding projects in a number of categories such as alternative fuels, child care, criminal justice grants, etc.
- Stimulus.alabama.gov organizes ARRA provisions by stakeholders (businesses, nonprofits, individuals, etc.) so they can see which programs may be relevant to their interests.
Obviously, individual states will take the steps that are appropriate and necessary given their unique situation, but it is instructive to look at all of the options open to Texas. For a complete list of what other governors and state legislators are doing, see the attached document.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| State ARRA Responses.pdf | 105.6 KB |
