ARRA
Texas Impact Testifies at Legislative Hearing
The House Committee on Urban Affairs and the House Select Committee on Federal Economic Stabilization Funding met March 30 in Dallas to hear testimony on the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs Weatherization Assistance Program.
The Recovery Act granted almost $327 milllion additional dollars to TDHCA to help Texans who make less than 200% of the federal povery level weatherize their homes. The funds flow to local agencies who then provide home repairs--such as replacing doors and windows, caulking, installing insulation, and replacing old appliances-- to increase energy efficiency. By weatherizing their homes, families can not only expect to save more than $400 per year on their utilities bill, but also do their part to help the environment.
At the hearing, legislators expressed concern about how the weatherization funds were being distributed. Michael Gerber, Executive Director of TDHCA testified that though the program was initially slow in getting off the ground, many problems with the Department of Energy had recently been resolved and the program was moving forward. At the end of December 2009, only 42 houses had been weatherized through the Recovery Act, but as of March 30, 2452 units had been completed and another 2200 were in progress. Though this doesn't meet the federal goal of 3100 houses by March 31st, it is a vast improvement over previous months.
The joint committee also heard invited testimony from several of the local agencies that receive grant money from TDHCA. They detailed their success and frustrations with the program, but were unanimous in their consent that TDHCA had been helpful in providing information and assistance when needed.
Morgan Hargrave from Texas Impact also offered testimony. He compared the State's approach to the strategies used in other states, many of which have weatherized more homes and instituted better reporting procedures. He said that Texas could take a few simple steps to improve efficiency and accountability.
Other advocates giving testimony were Public Citizen's Andy Wilson, who urged the legislators to push for more transparency, and John Henneberger of the Texas Low Income Housing Information Service.
Another concern voiced during public testimony was about the lack of diversity among contractors hired to do weatherization work. A City of Dallas employee noted that not a single contractor hired with Recovery Act money was black. He was concerned that TDHCA and the recipient agencies were only contracting with vendors that they already knew, when one aim of the bill was to expand the circle wider.
National Report Shows Texas Needs to Improve Its Reporting on Economic Stimulus Spending
For more information contact Bee Moorhead, Executive Director, Texas Impact, (512) 472 – 3903 or bee@texasimpact.org OR Michelle Lee, Good Jobs First, (202) 232-1616 ext. 210 or mlee@goodjobsfirst.org
A new study of official state websites focusing on the federal stimulus program finds that Texas is among the states that need to improve the quality of their online reporting. “Texas usually excels in online open government, so it’s surprising and disappointing that we are failing on a project of this size and importance,” said Bee Moorhead, director of the interfaith advocacy network Texas Impact.
The Texas finding comes from Show Us the Stimulus, a report released today by Good Jobs First, a non-profit research center based in Washington, DC. The full text of the report as well as online state-specific appendices can be found on the Good Jobs First website.
“Many states are failing to support President Obama’s vow that the Recovery Act would be carried out with an unprecedented level of transparency and accountability, said Good Jobs First executive director Greg LeRoy, “and they are making it more difficult to measure the success of ARRA in mitigating the effects of the recession.”
The Good Jobs First study examines the quality and quantity of disclosure by state websites on the many ways ARRA funding is flowing through state governments to communities, organizations and individuals. Looking at both spending programs and individual projects, it evaluates the general ARRA websites that all states have created as well as the reporting specifically on highway projects. Based on ten different criteria, each state (and the District of Columbia) is graded on a scale of 0 to 100.
“We tried to be as generous as possible, but most state ARRA sites simply do not measure up,” said Philip Mattera, research director of Good Jobs First and principal author of the report. “The challenge is not insurmountable,” he added. “States such as Maryland, Colorado and Washington are doing a very good job in conveying vital information about stimulus spending and are leading the way in establishing best practices for state ARRA disclosure.”
Six states score 50 or better for their main ARRA site: Maryland (80), Colorado (68), Washington (63), West Virginia (60), New York (53) and Pennsylvania (50). Thirteen states score 50 or better for their highway reporting, led by Maryland (75), Washington (73) and Nebraska (60). The average score for the ARRA websites is 28, and for highway reporting 38.
Texas receives a score of 15 for its ARRA website, putting it in a tie for 34th place among the states. It does better in ARRA highway reporting, getting a score of 40 (a tie for 22nd place). “These federal funds represent a great opportunity for Texas, especially in the energy and transportation sectors, and a lack of transparency will make it impossible for Texans to be certain that we are getting the maximum benefit,” said Tom “Smitty” Smith, the Texas director of the watchdog group Public Citizen.
Most states that score poorly for their main ARRA website do better in highway reporting, but there are five states that score very low for both: Alabama, District of Columbia, Illinois, Kentucky and Vermont. Low-scoring states are ones that provide few specifics on how ARRA money is being used in the state. Illinois, which gets a zero in both categories, has figures only at a national level and nothing on how much is being spent in the state.
Here are highlights of the state scoring for specific criteria:
• Most states do a good job of providing information on the categories of ARRA spending. Forty-two states display the data for broad categories (energy, housing, transportation, etc.), and 37 of these also provide details on specific programs.
• Geographic breakdowns are less common than data on program areas. Eighteen states provide the information, and in only three cases (Maine, New Mexico and Virginia) does the website show the information both for each county individually and for all counties side-by-side for comparison purposes.
• Few states juxtapose the geographic distribution of stimulus spending with patterns of economic distress, such as county unemployment rates or foreclosure levels.
• Apart from county dollar totals, state residents may be interested to know where individual ARRA projects such as the repaving of a road or repair of a school building are taking place. Eleven states provide project maps on their main ARRA website, while 30 provide maps as part of their ARRA highway project reporting.
• Only 10 states provide contractor names and dollar amounts on their ARRA website. The results are better in highway reporting, where 29 states have both contractor names and dollar figures.
• The paramount objective of the Recovery Act is to address mounting unemployment through job creation and retention. Yet only three states—Colorado, Maryland and Washington—currently provide any employment data for individual projects on their main ARRA site. Eighteen states do so in their highway reporting.
Based on our findings, Good Jobs First offers the following recommendations:
• Put a summary of key information about ARRA spending at the top of the home page of the site. A clear bar graph, pie chart or table showing the main spending flows goes a long way in helping the user begin to see what the Recovery Act is all about. There should be clear links to pages with more details about the various programs.
• Provide a map or a table showing how overall ARRA spending and the amounts in key categories are being distributed around the state.
• Along with information on spending streams, provide information on individual projects being funded by those programs. Where possible, display the location of the projects on maps. Interactive displays that allow one to drill down for more details are better than static PDF maps.
• For projects carried out by private contractors, be open about the contract award process and the identity of the companies that win bidding competitions. Post the bids and the details, including the full text, of the contract awarded to the winner.
• While the federal government’s Council of Economic Advisers is responsible for estimating the overall employment impacts of ARRA and the Recovery.gov website will report jobs data on some (but not all) individual projects, state ARRA sites should also make an effort to include employment data in their project reporting.
• ARRA sites should provide readily accessible information about the ways that individuals, organizations and businesses can apply for stimulus grants and contracts.
“The use of ARRA websites to inform the public is more than a matter of providing a service to state residents,” Mattera said. “The way in which the information is presented helps shape public attitudes toward the stimulus and could play a significant role in debates over future government interventions in the economy.”
The production of this report is part of the ongoing work of Good Jobs First on transparency and accountability issues relating to the Recovery Act. Good Jobs First co-chairs the Coalition for An Accountable Recovery (www.coalitionforanaccountablerecovery.org), which works on these issues at the federal level, and we coordinate States for a Transparent and Accountable Recovery, or STAR Coalition (www.accountablerecovery.org), which works with state-level organizations.
Recovery Act Accountability Bill Moves Forward
[Update: To see video of the discussion and passage of HB 2942, click here.]
[Update II: For more media coverage on the bill, click here.]
[Update III: HB 2942 unanimously passed its final reading in the House and will now go to the Senate.]
With Texas already getting approximately $16 billion in federal stimulus funds—not to mention the opportunity for state, local, and private entities to access much more that that amount in competitive grants contained in the Recovery Act—the House took an essential step towards ensuring that Texas implements its share of those funds in transformative and transparent ways. HB 2942 passed its second reading in the House on Thursday night, and it will be ready to be finally passed and sent along to the Senate on Friday.
A bipartisan group of legislators—Representatives Dunnam, Crownover, Gattis, Turner, and Coleman—came together to create the bill, which would make some permanent and temporary changes to the way the state spends and tracks its money. Among the provisions included in the bill is the creation of the Recovery Act Accountability Board, which will define performance measures, create public-private collaboration, and help agencies look for opportunities to combine funding and functions related to the Recovery Act, among other duties.
Earlier in the afternoon, the House also passed Representative Pitts' HB 4583, which would establish a separate fund to hold all funds related to the federal Recovery Act. Also on Thursday, the Senate passed their own version of the Recovery Act fund in Senator Duncan's SB 2567.
Texas Impact has been working for measures like these since before the federal law was even passed in mid-February. As these bills and the process of implementing Texas' share of these funds move forward, Texas Impact will continue to be involved and keep its members updated.
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 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 |
Moving Forward With the Recovery Act
Some Texas legislators are going ahead with efforts to implement provisions of the ARRA, despite Gov. Rick Perry's objections to certain portions of the federal bill. At least one state legislator, Representative Sylvester Turner, has filed a resolution that would effectively circumvent the governor and allow the legislature to accept and allocate ARRA money. The resolution takes advantage of a provision in the law that allows state legislatures to accept any and all ARRA funds in the event that they are rejected by the governor, as is now the case here in Texas. (To read the relevant provision, see the highlighted section attached to this post.) Texas legislators are moving forward in other ways, too.
Rep. Turner's resolution came on the heels of a similar motion passed through the Mississippi House of Representatives, and other states are now considering comparable measures. A major sticking point for Gov. Perry and other governors who have considered rejecting ARRA funds is the requirement that states adopt certain minimum regulations with regard to citizens' eligibility for unemployment benefits. For his part, the Governor asserted that an increased burden would have to be shouldered by Texas employers, and that the state would have to take on extra expenses once the $555 million in federal money was exhausted. The announcement came at a time when many Texans are hurting, as more than 75,000 jobs were lost in January of this year, and the outlook for employment in the state is certainly not encouraging.
Legislators in Texas have filed at least ten bills that deal with some or all of the changes that are necessary to draw down the full allotment of ARRA unemployment funds. Four of those bills - Rep. Deshotel's HB 2623, Rep. Parker's HB 3153, Sen. Lucio's SB 1421, and Sen. Eltife's SB 1569 - propose modernizing Texas' unemployment guidelines to fit with the federal regulations. So, if the legislature decides to override the governor's decision to reject $555 million in unemployment benefits, and if it then enacts these changes to current regulations on the state level, then the state could receive the full sum to which it is entitled under the ARRA.
Rep. Turner also filed a bill on March 13th that would establish a "Texas Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board", with the purpose of providing a way to thoroughly track the usage of ARRA funds and measure the results of expenditures. Rep. Jim Dunnam has filed legislation that would give the State Auditor extra oversight and enforcement authority to improve ARRA implementation transparency.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| ARRA Provision.pdf | 28.99 KB |
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 |
