North Dakota is first U.S. state to require cybersecurity instruction in K-12 schools

Once fully implemented, North Dakota’s HB 1398 will have K-12 schools across the state and at all grade levels providing instruction in computer science and cybersecurity.

The new law makes North Dakota the first state in the nation to require cybersecurity education. By exposing students to this subject area throughout their K-12 careers, the state hopes to help young people: learn from an early age how to be safe online and a good digital citizen; gain the digital skills and knowledge needed to thrive in many sectors of the current and future workforce; and position graduates to take advantage of growing opportunities in fields related to cybersecurity and information technology.

By July 2024, elementary and middle schools must show how they will integrate academic standards on computer science and cybersecurity into coursework. This requirement also applies to high schools, which must provide students with the opportunity to take a stand-alone class in at least one of these subject areas. To graduate, students will need to have taken a stand-alone course or completed the school’s integration plan for cybersecurity and computer science education.

The post North Dakota is first U.S. state to require cybersecurity instruction in K-12 schools appeared first on CSG Midwest.

Executive Working Group Meets to Discuss Community Intervention and Correctional Responses to Domestic Violence in Rhode Island

On June 13, 2023, CSG Justice Center staff concluded their analysis of domestic violence responses in Rhode Island and presented recommendations to the Domestic Violence Executive Working Group. Recommendations were based on the analysis of data collected between June 2022 and June 2023.

The analysis, supported by the Rhode Island Department of Corrections, used Sequential Intercept Mapping to study responses to domestic violence. Sequential Intercept Mapping of Rhode Island’s domestic violence responses, adapted from the Sequential Intercept Model, allowed CSG Justice Center staff to assess what programs, supports, barriers, and gaps exist for victims and survivors as well as individuals who have committed domestic violence at various points, or intercepts, in the system. The five intercepts analyzed in this assessment were community services, law enforcement, initial detention and court hearings, systems responses, and reentry and community supervision.

The recommendations presented at the meeting were informed by interviews, surveys, and focus groups with over 230 individuals across these intercepts and analyses of over 96,000 case files from the Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Training and Monitoring Unit, the judiciary, and Department of Corrections. The CSG Justice Center recommended that Rhode Island do the following:

  • Use comprehensive, evidence-informed domestic violence education, training, approaches, and policies across community, behavioral health, human service, and criminal justice systems to create more consistent responses for victims and survivors, as well as individuals who commit domestic violence.
  • Improve how domestic violence data is collected, reported, and used to increase understanding of domestic violence prevalence, characteristics, and responses across the state.
  • Invest sufficient and sustained resources to ensure that all domestic violence victims and survivors are supported. Also, work to ensure that programs for people who commit domestic violence are delivered in ways that anticipate and address common barriers to program success, such as poverty, unstable housing, substance use, mental health, geographic isolation, and other challenges.
  • Increase the availability, accessibility, and responsivity of programming for victims and survivors, as well as individuals who have committed violence, accounting for differences in language, physical ability, geography, gender and sexual identity, race and ethnicity, socioeconomic factors, and other considerations.
  • Create shared parameters for partnerships among community, behavioral health, human service, and criminal justice agencies, including defining partners’ roles and responsibilities and information sharing to create more streamlined services and eliminate gaps or duplication in service provision for victims and survivors and people who have committed domestic violence.
  • Make statutory changes to better support victims and survivors and increase resources for accountability, including modifications to Batterers Intervention Programming, for people who have committed domestic violence.

The Executive Working Group will meet in July 2023 to discuss recommendations in more depth and vote on which ones to move forward for approval by the governor.

 

This project was supported by Grant No. 2020-ZB-BX-0022 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the Office for Victims of Crime, and the SMART Office. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The post Executive Working Group Meets to Discuss Community Intervention and Correctional Responses to Domestic Violence in Rhode Island appeared first on CSG Justice Center.

Federal Law on Licensure Barriers for Military Spouses Prompts Concerns from States

By Cooper Smith

President Joe Biden signed the Veterans Auto and Education Improvement Act of 2022 (VAEIA) on Jan. 5, 2023, which includes provisions that support military service members, from educational assistance benefits to automobile allowances. Section 19 of the Act intends to help service members and their spouses easily obtain professional licenses when they relocate to another state due to military orders.

Though Section 19 is well-intentioned, it bypasses the principles of federalism while placing an incomplete, unfunded federal mandate on states — and it overlooks the many ways that states have crafted, and continue to craft, policies that address barriers that military service members and their families face during a change of station.

Section 19 Encroaches on State Sovereignty
The Tenth Amendment reserves the authority to regulate and license these local matters for the states. States — not the federal government — have the responsibility to issue occupational licensing standards as part of the power to protect public health and safety. Section 19 of the VAEIA interferes with states’ jurisdiction to regulate the health, safety and welfare of their residents, and it is counter to America’s federalist system.

Beyond state sovereignty concerns, state policymakers and regulators view the process described in Section 19 as unworkable. The section states that a license shall be considered valid at a similar scope of practice and in the discipline applied for.” Despite this, the text provides little further guidance, creating significant issues in professions where the scope of practices varies across states.

Terminology like “similar scope of practice” is ambiguous and could be confusing if the service member or spouse’s license has a different scope of practice. If the state a practitioner was previously licensed in did not allow them to perform certain procedures, but the new state does, questions could arise as to the licensee’s competence when that practitioner has never been licensed to perform the procedure.

The language confounds licensure with certification. There are professions where some states require a license, whereas other states allow voluntary certification. It appears that a service member or spouse could practice in the state they’re relocating to if they hold a certification and not a license. State boards could now be required to license practitioners with a voluntary certification or practitioners would be eligible to practice in a state that requires licensure and comes with a higher standard of requirements that ensure competence.

A State-led, Cooperative Approach
States lead the way to provide relief on the issue of professional licensure for military spouses. Forty-nine states provide either expedited licensure, temporary licensure or endorsement for military spouses, alleviating barriers to employment caused by state regulatory structures. Forty-four states have passed legislation that includes language stating that a licensing body ‘shall issue’ an employment credential to a military spouse licensed in another state. Additionally, states passed more than 200 separate pieces of legislation directly pertaining to military spouse licensure portability.

Similarly, interstate occupational licensure compacts have a documented history of success in easing the relocation of military spouses. States have enacted more than 270 separate pieces of occupational licensure legislation since 2016. States demonstrated that they are well-equipped and motivated to deliver for service members and their families.

Within this state-led approach, the federal government can play a cooperative role instead of a commanding one. The Council of State Governments facilitated the development of language used in many of these occupational licensure compacts in cooperation with state regulators, professional organizations, licensed professionals and federal partners like the Departments of Defense and Labor to provide robust benefits for military spouses. These departments have partnered with the states to create a solution that protects state sovereignty while achieving employment and professional goals.

In the absence of federal mandates, states can work alongside federal agencies to make progress. Section 19 circumvents states’ cooperative approach. While the section exempts interstate occupational licensure compacts, the mandate has the potential to complicate the development and consideration of new compacts by burdening state resources and implying that existing state solutions are not optimal. If the states were ignoring this issue, Section 19 could have been appropriate. However, when states are passing legislation and banding together to deliver for service members and their families, there is no need for the federal government to vault over existing progress.

Indiana’s new career scholarship accounts will provide high school students with up to $5,000 to pursue work-based learning, credentials

Flexible academic tracks. Early exposure to the workforce. Financial support for students pursuing work-based learning opportunities. Transitional learning programs that extend beyond secondary education.

Rep. Bob Behning has seen how those education models work in other countries (the Swiss vocational model, for instance).

Among his goals with the recently signed HB 1002: Use lessons learned from those systems to reinvent the high school experience for students in his home state of Indiana, in a way that makes learning more impactful and gets them career-ready.

“A lot of kids see little value, and are finding less and less relevancy, in high school,” says Behning, a chief sponsor of the legislation.

“A bill like HB 1002 changes the paradigm. It provides the academics [that students] need, but embeds it in a work-based learning experience.”

 New Career Scholarship Accounts for students

Central to Indiana’s reinvention plan is the creation of new career scholarship accounts, or CSAs.

With the new law in place, participating students will be allotted up to $5,000 each for the costs associated with career education — for example, enrollment in a youth apprenticeship program, career coaching services, community college coursework, certification examinations, and transportation to and from job-training locations.

A total of $15 million will go to CSAs over the next two fiscal years.

Students who choose an apprenticeship track will be paid by their employer. The amount of time a student spends off campus in a CSA-funded program will vary.

“If you look at what we would consider a traditional youth apprenticeship, you’re probably looking at starting in your junior year where you may spend one to two days [a week] at an employer,” Behning explains.

“By the time you’re a senior, you could spend two to three [days], and by the time you’re the equivalent of what would be a freshman in college, it could be up to three to four days.”

To accommodate these students’ unique school schedules, the state Board of Education will establish a new path for a high school diploma that aligns with a work-based learning model.

Another key component of HB 1002: ensuring that younger K-12 students are aware of and prepared for the new training opportunities.

By the end of this year, state education leaders will develop new standards for a “career awareness course” that introduces students to the CSA program. The course also will show students which industry sectors are in high demand, identify the education and workforce training prerequisites needed to enter various fields, and offer individualized career-plan counseling.

Schools will be required to offer this career awareness course to ninth-graders by 2030.

Goal: More students earn a workforce credential

In order to qualify as a CSA program, the work-based experience must culminate in a student earning a credential — for example, an associate degree or an industry-recognized certificate.

For each student who successfully earns a credential, a $500 grant will be awarded to his or her school as well as the CSA-participating entity (a business or career-and-technical education center, for example).

“Today, the credential really is your currency in the labor market,” says Jason Bearce, vice president of education and workforce development for the Indiana Chamber of Commerce and a proponent of HB 1002.

“Employers do a lot of training. A fair amount of it doesn’t result in any kind of recognized certificate or industry credential that would be recognized outside of that place of business. We think that’s a missed opportunity [for workers].”

Bearce also says an increase in credential attainment can have broader, positive economic effects.

“At one time, competing for a business expansion or relocation was primarily about, What’s the tax incentive package? What’s the regulatory environment? What’s the cost of doing business?” Bearce says.

Today, though, site selection often hinges on this question: “Who has a critical mass of highly skilled human capital?”

A highly credentialed workforce helps make the case.

Concerns about potential for ‘new patronage’

How will the state locate and secure work-based learning and training opportunities for potentially thousands of students?

HB 1002 outlines a role for “intermediaries.”

“[They are] the facilitator that brings the employer and the student together,” Behning explains.

“It can be a not-for-profit, it could be a for-profit, but it would be the group that’s in the middle that’s [an] aggregator of potential opportunities for kids.”

The state’s new budget includes $5 million for “intermediary capacity building” over the next fiscal year.

“We are giving some seed money to intermediaries,” Behning says. “Long term, the goal would be that they would be funded as a fee to employers for embedding an apprentice in your business.”

Opponents of HB 1002, such as Rep. Ed DeLaney, believe the administrative burden of operating the CSA program and funding of intermediaries will be exceedingly expensive.

And since qualified CSA programs must include a credential component, DeLaney says this new strategy will undercut the value of existing career-and-technical courses being offered in schools and could lead to decreases in school funding.

Additionally, although participating CSA employers must undergo a rigorous process to demonstrate the high value of their on-the-job training or apprenticeship offering, DeLaney is concerned the new law could lead to an unequal playing field that favors partisan alliances.

“I think it will benefit those businesses that are most adept at getting government grants,” DeLaney says. “To some extent, this does run the risk of being what I call the ‘new patronage.’ ”

During legislative debate over the measure, opponents and even some proponents of HB 1002 said a better plan of action would have been to begin the CSA program as a smaller, more targeted pilot initiative, or to phase in the new model with a small cohort of established intermediaries and employer partners.

Behning, who believes the need for comprehensive work-based learning for students is too imperative to wait for a pilot study, anticipates “a fairly slow uptake [to the CSA program] just because it’s a new concept rolling out.”

 

The post Indiana’s new career scholarship accounts will provide high school students with up to $5,000 to pursue work-based learning, credentials appeared first on CSG Midwest.

Private: Building a Better Mental Health Court: New Hampshire Judicial Branch Establishes State Guidelines

Unlike drug courts, which have been informed by national standards for 10 years, mental health courts (MHCs) have developed without national guidance. This January, after receiving support from The Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center, New Hampshire became one of a growing number of states to establish statewide governing documents for MHCs, such as guidelines, principles, and best practice standards. Released by the New Hampshire Judicial Branch, the Guidelines for New Hampshire Mental Health Court Teams provides a framework of best practices to guide program development and operation. These guidelines are now being used to help state officials begin to implement a range of programmatic strategies that support MHCs to improve outcomes for MHC participants.

While the guidelines were released in 2023, the work to develop them began years before. With 14 MHCs in its 10 counties, the New Hampshire legislature initially sought to understand how these programs operate to be able to support their success in reducing recidivism and increasing connections to care. Following a statewide commission recommendation in 2019, the New Hampshire Judicial Branch created a committee and requested technical assistance from the Center for Justice and Mental Health Partnerships—a training and support center administered by the CSG Justice Center with support from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs’ Bureau of Justice Assistance as part of the Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Program.

Their request was for a thoughtful analysis of current MHC operations in the state and assistance in developing statewide guidelines grounded in national best practices. To support this request, CSG Justice Center staff:

  • Collaborated with the National Center for State Courts, which is coordinating conversations among various states on MHC standards;
  • Developed an inventory of key elements for statewide MHC standards based on existing research and analysis of recently developed standards from Georgia, Michigan, and Nebraska; and
  • Completed a line-by-line comparison with New Hampshire’s draft standards to suggest additional items for consideration, such as a new section bringing together various standards protecting defendant rights and another on due process and confidentiality.

“The technical assistance provided by the CSG Justice Center, including the survey of practices and procedures in our existing MHCs, provided important data to New Hampshire’s committee studying MHC standards,” said Hon. Susan Ashley, deputy administrative judge of the New Hampshire Circuit Court.

To assess current practices of existing MHCs in New Hampshire, CSG Justice Center staff analyzed the results of a 100-plus-question state MHC policy survey that New Hampshire mental health coordinators received in October 2021. By comparing the newly developed state guidelines with the survey results, CSG Justice Center staff were able to identify strengths as well as gaps and potential areas for assistance across the state. Some identified areas for assistance included:

  • Educating MHCs on the role of a stakeholder/interagency workgroup
  • Educating MHCs on the role of staffing meetings and the importance of collaboration from the judge in those meetings
  • Discussing requirements that would be necessary for people to graduate from MHCs
  • Developing a statewide reporting system to hold certain MHC-related data

“The survey results reflected several consistencies among our MHCs while also highlighting divergent practices,” added Judge Ashley. “This information was key to formulating statewide guidelines for existing and future mental health courts in New Hampshire.”

Shelly Golden, one of the state’s mental health court coordinators, agreed. “CSG Justice Center staff provided us with professional, effective, and supportive guidance,” she said. “We now have what we need to understand and support our existing MHCs to be the best based on a review of national data and best practices, taking into account the varied strengths and resources available to us in different regions of New Hampshire.”

 

States or other jurisdictions looking for support to help improve their mental health court practices can request assistance through the Center for Justice and Mental Health Partnerships.

Photo by EKATERINA BOLOVTSOVA via Pexels

The post Private: Building a Better Mental Health Court: New Hampshire Judicial Branch Establishes State Guidelines appeared first on CSG Justice Center.

Building a Better Mental Health Court: New Hampshire Judicial Branch Establishes State Guidelines

Unlike drug courts, which have been informed by national standards for 10 years, mental health courts (MHCs) have developed without national guidance. This January, after receiving support from The Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center, New Hampshire became one of a growing number of states to establish statewide governing documents for MHCs, such as guidelines, principles, and best practice standards. Released by the New Hampshire Judicial Branch, the Guidelines for New Hampshire Mental Health Court Teams provides a framework of best practices to guide program development and operation. These guidelines are now being used to help state officials begin to implement a range of programmatic strategies that support MHCs to improve outcomes for MHC participants.

While the guidelines were released in 2023, the work to develop them began years before. With 14 MHCs in its 10 counties, the New Hampshire legislature initially sought to understand how these programs operate to be able to support their success in reducing recidivism and increasing connections to care. Following a statewide commission recommendation in 2019, the New Hampshire Judicial Branch created a committee and requested technical assistance from the Center for Justice and Mental Health Partnerships—a training and support center administered by the CSG Justice Center with support from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs’ Bureau of Justice Assistance as part of the Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Program.

Their request was for a thoughtful analysis of current MHC operations in the state and assistance in developing statewide guidelines grounded in national best practices. To support this request, CSG Justice Center staff:

  • Collaborated with the National Center for State Courts, which is coordinating conversations among various states on MHC standards;
  • Developed an inventory of key elements for statewide MHC standards based on existing research and analysis of recently developed standards from Georgia, Michigan, and Nebraska; and
  • Completed a line-by-line comparison with New Hampshire’s draft standards to suggest additional items for consideration, such as a new section bringing together various standards protecting defendant rights and another on due process and confidentiality.

“The technical assistance provided by the CSG Justice Center, including the survey of practices and procedures in our existing MHCs, provided important data to New Hampshire’s committee studying MHC standards,” said Hon. Susan Ashley, deputy administrative judge of the New Hampshire Circuit Court.

To assess current practices of existing MHCs in New Hampshire, CSG Justice Center staff analyzed the results of a 100-plus-question state MHC policy survey that New Hampshire mental health coordinators received in October 2021. By comparing the newly developed state guidelines with the survey results, CSG Justice Center staff were able to identify strengths as well as gaps and potential areas for assistance across the state. Some identified areas for assistance included:

  • Educating MHCs on the role of a stakeholder/interagency workgroup
  • Educating MHCs on the role of staffing meetings and the importance of collaboration from the judge in those meetings
  • Discussing requirements that would be necessary for people to graduate from MHCs
  • Developing a statewide reporting system to hold certain MHC-related data

“The survey results reflected several consistencies among our MHCs while also highlighting divergent practices,” added Judge Ashley. “This information was key to formulating statewide guidelines for existing and future mental health courts in New Hampshire.”

Shelly Golden, one of the state’s mental health court coordinators, agreed. “CSG Justice Center staff provided us with professional, effective, and supportive guidance,” she said. “We now have what we need to understand and support our existing MHCs to be the best based on a review of national data and best practices, taking into account the varied strengths and resources available to us in different regions of New Hampshire.”

 

States or other jurisdictions looking for support to help improve their mental health court practices can request assistance through the Center for Justice and Mental Health Partnerships.

Photo by EKATERINA BOLOVTSOVA via Pexels

The post Building a Better Mental Health Court: New Hampshire Judicial Branch Establishes State Guidelines appeared first on CSG Justice Center.

Explainer: Minnesota’s Justice Reinvestment Legislation Results in $43.6 Million Annual Increase in Community Supervision System

In May 2023, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz signed a sweeping public safety omnibus bill into law, which is designed to increase public safety and improve community supervision.

Contained within the bill are policy changes that were informed by Minnesota’s Justice Reinvestment Initiative, which the state embarked on in 2021 with technical support from experts at The Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center and support from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs’ Bureau of Justice Assistance and The Pew Charitable Trusts. Here’s what you need to know:

1. Why is this legislation needed?

Minnesota has one of the lowest incarceration rates in the country, instead relying heavily on community supervision. The state has the nation’s fifth-highest rate of people on probation, with 2 in every 100 adults in the state on probation as of 2018. Despite Minnesota’s heavy reliance on supervision over incarceration, the state has historically underinvested in community supervision, leading to a lack of specialized training and quality assurance practices, as well as insufficient community-based risk-reduction programming. Inconsistencies in tools, practices, resources, and outcome measurement also negatively impact supervision effectiveness statewide.

Three key challenges were identified in Minnesota:

  • Funding across delivery systems, counties, and Tribes was not effective or equitable. As a result, counties disproportionately carry responsibility for supervision funding leaving local agencies without the resources to consistently implement evidence-based practices and meet the needs of individuals on supervision. Inconsistencies in risk and need assessment, the use of incentives and sanctions, and supervision outcome measurement also adversely impact supervision effectiveness across the state and hinder Minnesota’s ability to target the underlying drivers of crime and recidivism. With these root cause issues unaddressed, costs can rise while public safety benefits go unrealized.
  • Black and Native American people are overrepresented in Minnesota’s probation and prison systems. The rate of Black adults on felony probation in 2019 was nearly 5 times higher than that of White adults on felony probation. For Native Americans, this rate was more than 9 times higher than for White adults. Native Americans on probation have higher revocation rates than other racial and ethnic groups for all offense types. While the revocation rate for people on probation for property offenses who are non-Native American is, on average, 12 percent, the rate for Native Americans is almost double, at 23 percent. This disparity suggests that the community supervision system is disproportionately failing to meet the needs of Black and Native American individuals.
  • Probation violations and supervised release returns account for nearly two-thirds of prison admissions. In 2019, approximately 23 percent of prison admissions were the result of probation violations.

2. What will the legislation do?

SF 2909 contains numerous public safety provisions including many community supervision reforms that emerged from the JRI process:

  • Minnesota administers community corrections through three delivery systems, which historically has led to inconsistent, unpredictable funding. This law creates a new funding formula to ensure that all counties and Tribal Nations across the state receive stable, equitable funding for community corrections. As part of the new funding formula, the state will increase its annual investment in community supervision by $43.6 million. This much-needed, transformative increase will empower counties and Tribes to make supervision decisions based on local public safety and community needs and ensure that all necessary services are appropriately funded. The new autonomy given to Tribes presents an opportunity to address some of the underlying issues leading to disparate outcomes for Native American people under supervision.
  • The law establishes a Community Supervision Advisory Committee whose scope of work will include developing statewide consistency related to supervision standards and definitions, risk and needs assessment tools, an incentives and sanctions grid, case plans, performance indicators for supervision success, and a statewide training and quality assurance system overseen by an evidence-based practices coordinator. These changes will ensure that Minnesota’s community corrections system is rooted in evidence-based best practices that will enhance public safety.
  • The committee will also provide recommendations regarding narrowly tailoring supervision conditions to an individual’s needs, providing gender-responsive, culturally appropriate services and trauma-informed​ approaches, devising a plan to eliminate the financial penalty incurred by a jurisdiction upon successful discharge of an individual from supervision, and establishing a state-level Community Supervision Advisory Board. These changes will allow Minnesota to better address drivers of crime and recidivism and enable communities that have been disproportionately impacted by scarce and inadequate resources to tailor supervision to the specific, historically unmet needs of their population.

3. How was the legislation developed?

In the spring of 2021, Minnesota state leaders began using a Justice Reinvestment approach to address the state’s criminal justice system challenges with intensive technical assistance from the CSG Justice Center.

The Governor’s Council on Justice Reinvestment—a bipartisan, interbranch committee created through Executive Order 21-34—and the Delivery System Standards and Funding Policy Working Group—a committee established in House Filing (HF) 63 to update the state’s supervision funding formula—oversaw the project.

Under their direction, CSG Justice Center staff analyzed case-level sentencing, probation, and prison data to learn more about criminal justice trends and outcomes in the state. CSG Justice Center staff also convened focus groups, conducted assessments, and interviewed key stakeholders in Minnesota’s criminal justice system. Based on the findings from these quantitative and qualitative analyses, the Governor’s Council on Justice Reinvestment and the Delivery System Standards and Funding Policy Working Group developed policy options aimed at strengthening the state’s criminal justice system, improving the outcomes of people on community supervision, and ensuring equitable distribution of resources across the state.

Though the bill that contained these recommendations did not pass in the 2022 legislative session, the recommendations were re-introduced in the 2023 session, when they were passed as part of a larger public safety package.

 

Photo by Bao Chau on Unsplash.

This project was supported by Grant No. 2019-ZB-BX-K002 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the Office for Victims of Crime, and the SMART Office. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The post Explainer: Minnesota’s Justice Reinvestment Legislation Results in $43.6 Million Annual Increase in Community Supervision System appeared first on CSG Justice Center.

A binational push on critical-minerals production, supply chains seeks to address national risks — and holds potential regional opportunities

She lives in and represents a part of North Dakota’s coal country.

In the future, Rep. Anna Novak hopes her district also becomes known as a place where rare-earth elements and critical minerals are extracted and processed, and made into products essential for today’s economy.

It’s the reason she sponsored this year’s HB 1511, a measure signed into law earlier this year to attract companies able to use the state’s abundant supply of lignite coal as a “feedstock” to extract some of those metallic elements and minerals.

“What’s really exciting about this for me is that the products have to be processed on site. You can’t ship it somewhere else. … I have a feeling that not only will the elements be processed on site, but we will be able to produce things like lithium batteries and so forth right here in my district,” Novak says.

Under North Dakota law, companies pay a severance tax on each ton of the coal that is mined.

But HB 1511 exempts companies from this tax for the first million tons of coal used as a “feedstock” for mineral extraction. It also includes a sales tax exemption related to facility construction or expansion.

“We have a tremendous business friendly environment in North Dakota, our coal mines are already permitted, and we have the Energy and Environmental Research Center,” Novak says.

That center, housed at the University of North Dakota, recently secured a $8 million federal grant to conduct research on extracting rare earth elements from the state’s lignite coal and developing technologies related to recovery and manufacturing.

The center also is competing to be the home of an eventual $124 million commercial demonstration facility. The goal of this project, funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, would be to produce up to 1,000 tons of rare-earth elements annually — a significant amount considering the United States currently imports between 5,000 and 10,000 tons per year.

It all points to a potential economic opportunity for North Dakota, in an area of national importance. “A critical mineral has both outsized economic and national security implications,” says Chris Berry, the president of House Mountain Partners and an expert on supply chains for battery metals.

A CANADA-U.S. PARTNERSHIP

Mineral resources, such as lithium, cobalt, nickel, and rare-earth elements are essential components of batteries, electric motors, and many other advanced technologies.

They are crucial to making everyday products, electrifying transportation systems, and meeting climate-related goals and obligations for the United States and Canada.

In both countries, there is growing concern about a heavy reliance on imports of these minerals, both as raw materials and refined, as well as on a global supply chain often controlled by China. For example, Berry estimates that China owns or controls 75 to 80 percent of the entire supply chain of rare-earth elements, 80 percent of cobalt-refining capacity, and 65 to 70 percent of lithium refining.

So, what is to be done?

The good news is that the United States and Canada do not lack for a supply of critical minerals in the ground.

According to the nonpartisan Wilson Center, the United States has 750,000 metric tons of lithium reserves and Canada has 530,000. Additionally, the U.S. has 53,000 metric tons of cobalt reserves and Canada has 22,000.

However, there currently is a lack of capacity to mine, extract or process these reserves. And while a permitting process is needed to ensure safe and responsible extraction, it can be time consuming; at a site, the time it takes to go from initial greenfield status to mine development can be as long as 15 years.

To build up domestic production and North American supply chains of these minerals and metals, Berry says, policymakers need to place “a full-scale focus on permitting timelines … harmonizing permitting requirements on the state, provincial or federal level across borders.”

The two countries have committed to working more closely together, through agreements such as the Canada-U.S. Joint Action Plan on Critical Minerals Collaboration.

Under this plan, the nations have agreed to share information and data, diversify supply chains, promote trade and investment opportunities, and collaborate on research and development.

“Canada is an important supplier of 13 of the 35 minerals that the U.S. has identified as critical to economic and national security,” Canadian officials said in announcing the joint action plan in 2019. (The U.S. list has since grown from 35 to 50.) “We have the potential to become a reliable source of [others].”

FEDERAL, STATE INVESTMENTS

New federal laws, programs and investments also are in place to increase domestic production.

On the U.S. side of the border, the Inflation Reduction Act is providing a tax credit equal to 10 percent of the costs related to the production of critical minerals. This tax credit can be applied twice if the company mines and then refines the minerals.

Efforts are ongoing, too, to locate critical minerals. The Earth Mapping Resources Initiative (a collaboration between the U.S. Geological Survey and state geological surveys, funded by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law of 2021) is identifying potential sites around the country.

Federal funds are supporting other types of research, too.

The work on lignite-coal extraction at the North Dakota research center is one example; another is the U.S. Department of Energy’s support of the Illinois Basin Carbon Ore, Rare Earth and Critical Minerals project. It is exploring the potential extraction of critical minerals from the Illinois Basin’s coal resources.

At the state level, North Dakota has the new tax credit for critical-mineral extraction, while a budget bill passed by the Michigan House in May (HB 4249) would allocate $15 million for new public-private research hubs that advance the processes for recycling and reusing critical minerals.

Additionally, Michigan Technological University and the only operating nickel mine in the United States, Eagle Mine, have received an $8.1 million federal grant to develop technologies and processes to supply critical minerals for electric-vehicle batteries.

Private industry in the Midwest also is jumping at the opportunity to develop the region’s critical minerals and battery technology industries.

Talon Metals in Minnesota has an agreement with Tesla to provide at least 75,000 metric tons of nickel concentrate over six years from its proposed mine in Tamarack. And in Ontario, Magna International Inc. will invest $470 million to build a new electric vehicle battery factory in Brampton.

The post A binational push on critical-minerals production, supply chains seeks to address national risks — and holds potential regional opportunities appeared first on CSG Midwest.

Green choice? Community solar attracting attention in Midwestern states as a path to boost competition, meet renewable energy goals

As renewable energy’s market share grows and large wind and solar facilities proliferate, many states are allowing a smaller-scale alternative: “community solar.”

The U.S. Department of Energy defines community solar as “any solar project or purchasing program, within a geographic area, in which the benefits of a solar project flow to multiple customers such as individuals, businesses, nonprofits and other groups.”

Community solar projects can be owned and operated by a for-profit company or nonprofit community organization, or have utilities “sponsor” them.

Customers within the service area of the utility in which the project is located “subscribe” to a percentage of its electrical output and receive an electric bill credit for their share.

One goal for community solar is to place renewable energy projects on land or spaces that would otherwise go undeveloped or unused, says Matt Hargarten, vice president of campaigns for the Coalition for Community Solar Access.Maps of solar energy production as of January 2023, and potential production by 2027, in Midwestern states

“There’s a lot of land near urban areas where there isn’t a lot of incentives for developers to go there,” he says. “A lot of them are built on warehouse rooftops — think Amazon [warehouses] — a lot of states encourage that.”

At the start of this year, 22 states, including Illinois and Minnesota, had enacted laws enabling community solar by specifying that such projects are not utilities, and authorizing “virtual metering” so subscribers can benefit from the community solar production.

Such laws are necessary because most states consider any entity that generates and sells electricity to be a utility subject to state regulation, Hargarten says. “I don’t know of any state where you can do third-party community solar without [an enabling] law in place,” he says.

Laws in place, changing in Illinois and Minnesota

In Illinois, the Future Energy Jobs Act from 2016 (SB 2814) created the Solar for All program, under which the Illinois Power Agency or utilities bought renewable energy credits from qualifying community solar projects in low-income areas.

The Climate and Equitable Jobs Act (SB 2408 of 2021) expanded the program by including community solar among myriad renewable energy initiatives intended to help collectively meet the state’s goal of 100 percent clean energy by 2050. This newer law:

• allows individual community solar projects to generate up to 5 MW of power, up from 2;

• boosts annual funding for community solar, aiming to raise its statewide generating capacity from 213 MW to 1,500 MW;

• shifts the project selection process from a lottery to one based on a project’s score on siting and other criteria; and

• increases annual Illinois Solar for All funding from $10 million to $50 million, allowing for the annual purchase of 3.8 million renewable energy credits through 2030.

Those credits are divided among varying types of renewable energy projects, with 27.5 percent designated for community, rooftop and residential solar — the third-highest share after wind energy and utility-scale solar.

Minnesota, which was the first Midwestern state to enact community solar legislation (HF 729 of 2013), recently updated its law.

The 2013 law required the state’s largest electric utility, Xcel, to establish a community solar “garden” program option for its customers, with generation capacity of up to 1 MW. Xcel is required to buy electricity from those gardens under a formula that was modified in 2016 to become an annual recalculation of the value of solar energy.

Under HF 2310, signed into law in May, this existing program will be joined by a new community solar garden initiative starting in 2024. It will be run by the Minnesota Department of Commerce and is targeted for residential subscribers.

As of next year, new gardens must have at least 25 subscribers per megawatt, at least half of whom must be from low- or middle-income households. That emphasis on reaching less-affluent residents makes Minnesota’s new program a “modernized best of class” for state-based, community-solar laws, Hargarten says.

HF 2310 also lets community solar gardens generate up to 5 MW and eliminates a requirement that subscribers live in the county or adjacent county where a garden is located.

‘Stand on their own’

Community solar can be attractive to legislators for different reasons.Table of community solar projects in U.S. states as of December 2022

“For me, it’s about competition; it’s about the monopoly the power companies have and it’s about the high power rates in southeast Wisconsin,” says state Sen. Duey Stroebel, author of this year’s SB 226, which would authorize community solar and grant rule-making authority to the Public Service Commission. “It’s a way to push back against high power rates.”

While Stroebel says the green energy angle is incidental for him, it’s front-and-center for Michigan Sen. Jeff Irwin, the main sponsor of this year’s SB 153, which also would establish a community solar program. (A companion bill, SB 152, would require the Michigan Public Service Commission to draft operating rules within one year of passage.)

“I’m a big believer in clean energy and, as solar becomes more efficient and more affordable, it becomes a better energy option,” Irwin says.

The Wisconsin and Michigan bills (neither of which had passed as of early June) would authorize projects of up to 5 MW and require them to have at least three subscribers.

The Wisconsin measure would allow community solar facilities to be up to 35 acres, but only in communities that approve them by a two-thirds vote of the host jurisdiction’s governing body.

Projects would be subject to local zoning and property taxation. (Under current Wisconsin law, people who generate electricity for others are exempt from property taxation but are subject to a tax based on gross revenues).

Subscribers would have to be in the service territory of the investorowned utility whose transmission lines the project would use.

Ultimately, Stroebel says, projects would “have to stand on their own.”

“They have to make economic sense,” he says. “If they can sell subscriptions, then they’ll be successful. If they can’t, they won’t.”

Irwin’s bill would require that at least 30 percent of a project’s output be reserved for low-income households or organizations that provide services, assistance or housing to low-income individuals (including tribal governments or tribally designated housing authorities).

According to Irwin, community solar is needed in Michigan because most residents can’t afford to install solar panels, roofs aren’t well-aligned for the panels, or tree cover makes rooftop solar impractical. Subscribing to a community solar project, then, becomes the best option.

And since local governments are afforded strong siting control, Irwin adds, community solar also is a way for utilities to avoid or overcome local resistance to large, industrial-scale operations.

The post Green choice? Community solar attracting attention in Midwestern states as a path to boost competition, meet renewable energy goals appeared first on CSG Midwest.