Dexter Horne is the kind of person who will find solutions. When he meets an obstacle, he takes his passion for helping others and turns it into action. This is evident in his role as a senior policy analyst at The Council of State Governments.
“I wanted to work for CSG because I wanted the opportunity to dive deep into the big challenges of our time and attempt to find ways to overcome them,” he said. “CSG allows me to do that. This job combines my passion for service with my desire to continually learn new things. It’s a good fit for me.”
Horne is a graduate of Centre College in Danville, Kentucky, and holds a Master of Public Administration from the University of Kentucky’s Martin School of Public Policy and Administration.
“In my day-to-day work, I provide research and logistics support to CSG’s Healthy States National Task force which includes state leaders from across the three branches of government in all 50 states and six territories,” Horne said. “For me, key project tasks include conducting or assisting with data analysis, developing and conducting national scans of state policy, responding to research inquiries from state officials (and) writing research-based State Leader Policy Guides.”
Horne also works with project managers on convening partners and task force members together to discover best practices in civic health, economic and workforce health, fiscal health and human health.
Horne, a lover of doughnuts, is involved in his local community.
“A civic engagement enthusiast, I spend a lot of my time helping lead the Kentucky chapter of a nonprofit called the New Leaders Council (NLC),” he said. “Our mission is to connect and train young, progressive thought leaders across the state. As do-director, I manage a 17-member board and am responsible for ensuring that our work is aligned with our mission and values.”
Horne said his dream would be to a community organizer who could eliminate poverty.
“Were there no obstacles to me doing so, I would be an author and a philanthropist investing in grassroot efforts to eliminate poverty and homelessness in communities across the United States. I would create a fund, and actively campaign for others to invest in a fund, that would exist purely to support experiments in poverty and homelessness reduction, designed in part by people who have experienced one or the other,” he said.
Horne said his favorite part of working at CSG is being able to build relationships.
“Beyond the chance to continually learn more about the inner workings of government, policy and communities, I enjoy working with public servants who really care about their state and the people they serve. I’m often reminded in this job that there are a lot of people in the country who are working to make it better. I find that encouraging,” he said.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Compliance and Reporting Guidance requires states, territories, metropolitan cities, counties, Tribal governments and non-entitlement units to meet certain compliance and reporting responsibilities regarding how they use and distribute Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds. Entities other than non-entitlement units are required to submit an Interim Report, which contains obligations and expenditures. All recipients are required to submit Project and Expenditure Reports either quarterly or annually, with information and updates on the projects being funded. Finally, states, territories, metropolitan cities and counties with a population of over 250,000 must create a Recovery Plan Performance Report detailing how programs that use funding are achieving their goals in an effective, efficient and equitable manner. One way states are meeting these requirements is by creating specific websites related to Federal Coronavirus Relief with special attention to American Rescue Plan websites to provide resources, track utilization of funding or both.
CSG analysts have compiled state ARP online resources and found that 44 states have some form of American Rescue Plan website, and one state makes an ARP resource PDF document available online. Forty-three states already have submitted their required 2021 Recovery Plan Performance Reports to the Treasury. These reports include information on Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund utilization and can be found here. However, a few states have been given extensions and others have not drawn down funds, so they are not required to report until 60 days post receipts.
Many legislatures are still in the process of appropriating funds, and as a result, most states are still working to make their ARP fund utilization available for tracking. All 45 state websites currently available provide ARP guidance and resources for their constituents; 16 track state utilization of discretionary Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds; and 18 include planned payment allocation or payment tracking for non-entitlement units. Some particularly innovative, detailed, interactive and visual tracking websites for ARP funding were developed by Hawaii, Missouri and Washington.
Hawaii
Hawaii’s website for tracking ARP funds is especially interesting because it is a partnership between the public and private sector. For this website, the Hawaii Data Collective — a private firm — worked with the Hawaii Office of Federal Awards Management, the House Select Committee on COVID-19 Economic and Financial Preparedness, the Department of Budget and Finance, the Department of Business Economic Development and Tourism and all of Hawaii’s counties. The website utilizes Tableau, a data visualization software, to show where the funds were spent and for what purpose. Viewers can learn more about the policy category funded, the city and county where funds were spent and the remaining funds available. The viewer also can find the dataset the visualizations use at the bottom of the page. Hawaii’s website can be found here.
Figure 1. Example graph displaying Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds on Hawaii’s American Rescue Plan Act webpage
Missouri
Missouri’s website has four different charts breaking down expenditures related to COVID-19 by fund, vendor, agency or object code. This website is interactive — when the viewer clicks any visualization, the rest of the visualizations change according to the viewer’s preference for information. This is especially helpful in learning, for example, which agency used which vendor(s).
Figure 2. Example of the visuals that Missouri’s website provides on COVID-19 Related Expenditures
Washington
Washington’s website is easy to understand and navigate. It allows the viewer to filter federal funds for pandemic relief by agency name, policy category and fund title. The viewer can first narrow funding to just view the ARP-related spending and then filter by category to see, for example, how much ARP funding went to economic support verses health care. Washington’s website also allows for comparison of funding allocations based on agency name or category.
Figure 3. Example graphs on the Washington’s Office of Financial Management Website regarding Covid-19 response funding
See the list below for all state American Rescue Plan resource websites compiled by CSG analysts. The Council of State Governments will continue to update this list as states develop and revise websites.
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act1 — also referred to as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Package — passed the House on Nov. 5. President Joe Biden is expected to sign it today, Monday, Nov. 15. The bill contains $1.2 trillion in funding ($550 billion of which is new spending) for various infrastructure purposes, including roads and bridges, broadband, drinking water resources, airports, electrical vehicles and more. In this brief, analysts at The Council of State Governments break down the $65 billion in funding for broadband expansion and access.
Funding Breakdown
Establishing the Broadband Equity, Access, and Development Program to be administered by National Telecommunications and Information Administration to states through matching grants – $42.5 billion.
Investing in and making permanent the Affordable Connectivity Program (formally known as the Emergency Broadband Benefit Program administered by the Federal Communications Commission) to provide a monthly subsidy for low-income families purchasing internet service, with higher subsidies for qualifying families in high-cost areas and households participating in the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program – $14.2 billion.
Investing in theDigital Equity Act Competitive Grant Programs administered by the Department of Commerce – $2.75 billion.
State Capacity Grant Programfor state efforts to achieve digital equity and inclusion.
Digital Equity Act Competitive Grant Programs (from Competitive Grant Program funds)focused on senior citizens, veterans, minorities and individuals with a language barrier – $250 million.
Investing in Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program – $2 billion.
Investing in Middle Mile Grants – National Telecommunications and Information Administration grant program for the construction, improvement or acquisition of infrastructure (prioritizing underserved areas and requiring buildout to be completed within five years of the grant being made) – $1 billion.
Broadband Equity, Access, and Development Program
NTIA will allocate the $42.5 billion of the Broadband Equity, Access, and Development Program three ways:
Minimum of $100 million funding to each state, with an additional $100 million to be allocated equally among U.S. territories
Allocates approximately $4.35 billion for broadband projects to underserved locations in high-cost areas. Eligible areas will be determined by NTIA based on a formula defined in the bill (e.g., remoteness, population density, poverty, etc.)
Approximately $32.2 billion will be allocated for broadband projects in unserved locations.
The Broadband Equity, Access and Development Program is to be established no later than 180 days after the date of enactment of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. States that wish to participate in the program are to submit a letter of intent, initial proposal and final proposal. Once the NTIA allocates the grants, each state is responsible for submitting a five-year action plan that addresses the areas eligible and the proposed solutions. States can award subgrants to cooperatives, nonprofit organizations, public‐private partnerships, private companies, public or private utilities, public utility districts or local governments.
A matching contribution of at least 25% of the project costs must be provided by a state or its subgrantee. The state match generally has to be from non-federal funds, though some federal sources are explicitly permitted in the bill.
States are required to prioritize unserved service projects until the state can determine universal coverage of all unserved locations. States also must prioritize projects based on additional factors: poverty, speed of proposed services and compliance with federal labor and employment laws.
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act[1] — also referred to as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Package — passed the House Nov. 5. President Joe Biden is expected to sign it today, Monday, Nov. 15. The bill contains $1.2 trillion in funding ($550 billion of which is new spending) for various infrastructure purposes, including roads and bridges, broadband, drinking water resources, airports, electrical vehicles and more. In this brief, analysts at The Council of State Governments break down the $110 billion in funding going to roads, bridges and other major ground transportation projects through the lens of state needs. Itis the largest focus of funding in the bill.
Funding Breakdown
Increasing the Highway Trust Fund – $273.15 billion over five years.
Expanding eligible uses for Surface Transportation Block Grant funding, including electric vehicle charging, projects to increase tourism and wildlife collision mitigation efforts – $72 billion.
Establishing the Bridge Investment Program for renewal projects on bridges that are in fair or poor condition – $40 billion over five years.
Creating U.S. Department of Transportation grants for eligible projects including intercity rail, highway and bridge projects, public transit and rail crossings – $15 billion.
Creating the Promoting Resilient Operations for Transformative, Efficient and Cost Saving Transportation (PROTECT) Program (focused on natural resilience and hazard mitigation) – $7.3 billion.
Creating a Carbon Reduction Program (includes investments in sidewalks, bike lanes, public transit projects and technologies to reduce carbon emissions) – $6.41 billion.
Creating Rural Surface Transportation Grant – $2 billion over five years.
Establishing Wildlife Crossings Pilot Program through the Department of Transportation to reduce collisions with wildlife and improve habitat connectivity – $350 million over five years.
Investing additional funding to the off-system bridge set-aside – $258 million.
These are a selection of the largest investments contained in the infrastructure package. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill will add $256 billion to the national deficit. While it is difficult to know the full macroeconomic effects of the bill, Moody’s Analytics provides estimates of the effects on employment and the Gross Domestic Product by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
For a breakdown of formula highway and bridge renewal funding allocations by state, see the chart below. Note that figures are estimates and do not include the competitive grants for which states, territories and the District of Columbia are eligible to apply.
Condition of Highways and Bridges in States
Infrastructure needs vary across the U.S. According to estimates from USA Today, the funding from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act will likely benefit the following 10 states the most, as they have a relatively high proportion of roadways/bridges in need of repair.
Note that figures are estimates and do not include the competitive grants for which states, territories and the District of Columbia are eligible to apply.
[1] Also commonly known as the “Bipartisan Infrastructure Framework.”
When disaster strikes, first responders are on the front lines to protect vulnerable people and communities. But what happens if a disaster occurs close to an election? If emergency responders can’t vote in person, and if they’re unable to comply with traditional absentee voting deadlines and procedures, their ability to vote may be very limited.
Although many states have adopted general statutory provisions that facilitate voting among those who are experiencing a personal emergency, fewer have adopted provisions that specifically outline alternative voting procedures for emergency responders.
Currently, 11 states delineate alternative voting procedures for those who are called to work in response to an in-state or out-of-state emergency. Among these states, there is significant variation in the voting procedures afforded to emergency responders. These procedures can be broadly grouped as follows:
Extension of Uniformed and Overseas Citizen (UOCAVA) voting procedures
Extension of absentee ballot request period
General authority provided to the Secretary of State to take necessary measures to facilitate voting
Wyoming was the first state to adopt statutory provisions specifically delineating separate voting procedures for emergency responders. These measures were incorporated into statute in 1998. Virginia is the most recent state to adopt similar procedures, with legislation approved by the General Assembly in 2020. Currently, there is one bill in each house of the Minnesota legislature that would, if enacted, afford separate voting procedures to the state’s emergency responders.
Significant variation also exists in how states refer to and define emergency services workers in statute. Terms used range from “emergency services worker” in New Hampshire to “trained or certified emergency response providers” in Mississippi. Overall, few states provide explicit definitions of these terms and those that do refrain from listing specific qualifying professions as to not exclude those who may benefit from these provisions.
Statute often delineates which elected official has the authority to declare an emergency that permits alternative voting procedures for emergency responders to come into effect.
Most states recognize the authority of its Governor, any other state’s Governor, and the President. Three states don’t specify this authority while New York and Virginia recognize that of another “competent authority.”
Statutory Provisions – Date of Adoption
Apart from Wyoming, state adoption of legislation pertaining to voting by emergency responders has been a recent trend. In the mid-2000s, New Hampshire and California were among the first states to outline explicit procedures for emergency responders. The remaining eight states were soon to follow suit. Virginia is the most recent state to adopt such legislation, VA HB242, in in April 2020. Currently, there are two bills being considered in both Chambers of the Minnesota legislature, that if enacted would allow emergency responders to vote by absentee or UOCAVA ballot procedures. Figure 1: Date of Statute Adoption included below outlines the year in which each state adopted alternative voting procedures for emergency responders.
Figure 1: Date of Statute Adoption
State
Date of Adoption
Wyoming
1998
New Hampshire
2006
California (in-state)
2009
Alabama, California (out-of-state), Louisiana, Maine, and Oklahoma
2013
Mississippi
2014
New Mexico
2015
New York
2016
Virginia
2020
Minnesota
Pending
State Procedures for Voting by Emergency Responders
Extension of Uniformed and Overseas Citizen (UOCAVA) Voting Procedures
Four states — Maine, Mississippi, New Mexico and Virginia — extend uniformed and overseas citizen (UOCAVA) voting procedures to emergency responders. Of these states, Maine and Mississippi are the only to allow this group to utilize the Federal Post Card Application and Federal Write-in Absentee Ballot.
Extended Period for Ballot Request
Two states — New York and Oklahoma — permit an extended by-mail request period for emergency responders. For example, New York statute reads that an application or letter may be delivered to the Board of Elections “without regard to deadlines for the receipt of absentee ballot applications.”
California stands alone among the states in its provision of different procedures to emergency responders depending on whether they are called to work in response to an in-state or out-of-state emergency. Under California statute, personnel called in response to an out-of-state emergency are authorized to vote using a vote-by-mail ballot and to submit a request for this ballot even after the close of the application period specified for other by-mail voters.
General Authority Extended to the Secretary of State
Four states — Alabama, Louisiana, Wyoming and New Hampshire — delegate general authority to the Secretary of State to adopt the necessary procedures to facilitate voting among those called to work in response to an emergency. Potential measures include working closely with the state attorney general, local election officials and the United States Postal Service to ensure the timely transit and return of ballots.
Defining Qualifying Voters
Significant variation exists in state statute pertaining to the terminology used to define those covered by emergency responder provisions. Examples of terminology employed in the states include:
Emergency Services Worker (New Hampshire)
Trained or Certified Emergency Response Provider (Mississippi)
Emergency Responder (New York)
Four states — California, New Hampshire, New Mexico and New York — have provided definitions of those statutorily covered as emergency responders. Defining the term employed in statute provides clarity to who is exactly is covered. These definitions, however, refrain from specifying which professions are covered under statute, with the exception being New Hampshire.
New Hampshire statute does specify professions covered under emergency responder provisions (e.g., New Hampshire National Guard, utility workers, etc.). However, the statute provides authority to the Department of Safety to declare additional professions as emergency services workers. This serves to maintain clarity in the scope of the statute while not excluding those who are not traditionally considered emergency responders.
Declaring Authority
States differ in recognizing which elected official or officials have the authority to declare a state of emergency that allows for these alternative voting procedures to come into effect. In the states, a declaration of emergency is issued by the governor. At the national level, this authority rests with the president. The application of alternative voting procedures for emergency responders is often dependent upon the declaration of an emergency by one or a combination of these elected officials.
The majority of states analyzed recognize the authority of their state’s governor, any other state’s governor, and the president in declaring an emergency that permits the application of alternative voting procedures for those called to work in response.
Only three states — Louisiana, Oklahoma and Wyoming — fail to specify which public official has authority to permit the application of alternative voting procedures for emergency responders.
New York and Virginia are the only two states to recognize the authority of another “competent authority” to permit the application of these voting procedures.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Interim Rule requires state, territorial, metropolitan city, county and tribal governments that received funding from the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds to submit an Interim Report and a Recovery Plan Performance Report. Recovery Plan Performance Reports require states to provide information on performance indicators, including information on efforts to promote equitable outcomes and community engagement; plans to use evidence to inform decision-making; and expenditures by program and category. CSG Analysts have compiled recovery plans from state websites and will continue to update this list as states submit plans.
Error: map with the specified ID doesn't exist!
Read more about how states are planning to use Fiscal Recovery Funds in this report from The National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO)
CSG partners with the Department of Defense to reduce workforce barriers for military spouses and other practitioners of licensed professions
—
How can the states reduce workforce barriers for military spouses and other practitioners of licensed professions?
That’s the question CSG is exploring through a competitive interstate compacts program in partnership with the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD). Following a competitive application process, CSG selected five professions to work with the CSG National Center for Interstate Compacts in developing model legislation that would help military spouses and other practitioners gain professional license portability through interstate compacts. The professions selected for compact assistance are cosmetology and barbering, dentistry and dental hygiene, massage therapy, social work and K-12 teaching.
Kicking off the project, CSG hosted a webinar series that brought together state leaders, subject matter experts and members of the professions to discuss the background and importance of this project. The final installment of the series on Aug. 24 at 2 p.m. (Eastern) will explore the Dentistry and Dental Hygiene Compact. (Click here to register).
Recordings of previous webinars are available on the CSG YouTube page:
Occupational licensure compacts create reciprocity between states while maintaining the quality and safety of services and protecting state sovereignty. Compacts result in a more efficient distribution of licensed workers by supporting practitioner mobility.
Prior to its partnership with the Department of Defense, the CSG National Center for Interstate Compacts led the development of interstate compacts for physicians, nurses, emergency medical services personnel, physical therapists, psychologists, occupational therapists, licensed professional counselors and audiologists/speech-language pathologists. More than 40 states and territories have adopted at least one of the compacts and over half have adopted three or more.
“Military spouses work hard to earn professional credentials and establish themselves in licensed occupations while also being willing to sacrifice their professional lives in support of their spouse so they can serve our country,” said Wisconsin state Sen. Joan Ballweg, who serves as the national chair for CSG. “Creating interstate compacts for these occupations will reduce regulatory burdens substantially and restore the career options they deserve. CSG and the Department of Defense chose worthy occupations, and I am encouraged by their progress on this vital project.”
