State Broadband Programs

By Sandi Abdelshehed

The COVID-19 pandemic emphasized the need to close the digital divide and ensure broadband access empowers people to stay connected to services that are offered digitally, such as education and health care.

In an effort to highlight ways states can best plan for and invest in broadband access, the Economic and Workforce Health Subcommittee of The Council of State Governments Healthy States National Task Force issued a recommendation that “States should consider creating multi-stakeholder, multi-agency task forces (with the intent of permanent offices[BS1] [SA2] ) dedicated to broadband coordination that include private sector telecommunication companies and co-ops.”

The connection between broadband access and related public policy goals requires the involvement of public agencies and the private sector; departments of education, economic development and public health; offices of emergency services; and other stakeholders invested in broadband expansion and sustenance. Dedicated state broadband programs can ensure collaboration in the allocation of resources and efforts toward efficiently and effectively expanding broadband access. For example, statewide broadband programs can provide input on the development of a broadband framework, promote public-private sector participation, create broadband maps, administer and assist with funding programs and improve digital literacy. Since each state has its own broadband needs, the benchmark for broadband project success differs based on the state’s needs for speed and coverage and agreed upon timelines.

States can establish broadband programs in the form of offices, agencies or task forces.. Some states, such as California and Minnesota, have established statutory goals, while states such as North Carolina[BS3]  and Virginia, outlined their goals in broadband plans. These state programs are especially critical in the management of federal financial support for broadband in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021.

There are at least 35 states that established governance structures in statute. Florida established an Office of Broadband within the Department of Economic Opportunity’s Division of Community Development in July 2020. The office works with state and local government agencies, community organizations and private businesses to increase the availability and effectiveness of broadband throughout the state, specifically in small and rural communities. Through these partnerships, the office provides grant funding opportunities. Colorado formed a Broadband Office through the Governor’s Office of Information Technology in 2016. The broadband office oversees and coordinates activities across state agencies to enable the development of a statewide digital communications infrastructure through public-private partnerships. This is designed to fulfill the growing demand for broadband access in the key sectors of public safety, education, health care and transportation.

These state broadband programs are critical to closing the digital divide by ensuring that underserved and unserved areas and communities have affordable access to a high-speed, reliable network.

U.S. Supreme Court Watch: Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency on Monday, Oct. 3.

This dispute began in 2007 when the Sacketts (private citizens) wanted to build a home on their property. The Environmental Protection Agency directed the Sacketts to halt construction because the property contained wetlands. The Clean Water Act gives the agency the authority to regulate “navigable waters”, which is defined in the act only as “waters of the United States.” The agency currently interprets its mandate to include protecting wetlands, such as marshes and swamps.

The Clean Water Act was passed by Congress in 1972 based on its power to “regulate commerce among the several states” under Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution. The act is justified by the need to protect the environmental integrity of waterflows in the U.S., which are essential to commercial activity involving every state.

The question in this case is not whether the Clean Water Act is constitutional. Instead, the question is whether the agency can interpret “navigable waters” to include marshes in the absence of clear direction from Congress. The dispute comes from the fact that the wetlands here do not directly flow into another body of water and are therefore not an active part of interstate commerce.

It is a fundamental principle of American law that states cannot regulate an area of policy where the federal government already regulates. Therefore, if wetlands are under the authority of the federal government, they are not subject to overlapping state regulation. A decision, in this case curtailing the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency, would open the door for more state government decision making.

However, even though the federal government’s regulation of waterways is tied primarily to economic activity, it also is about refereeing disputes among states. Since the founding of the U.S., there has been concern about a state making decisions regulating a waterway within its borders that have implications for another state “downstream.”

This case, and its potentially dramatic implications, is reflected by the fact that twenty-six states collectively and Alaska individually have filed legal briefs supporting the Sacketts. “By construing the Clean Water Act to reach places with only tenuous connections to navigable, interstate waters,…[the Environmental Protection Agency] would saddle States with implementing a vast scheme of federal water regulation. States’ own efforts at conservation, tailored to local needs, would fall by the wayside.” 

But the division among the states is equally clear, as seventeen states and Washington D.C. collectively and Colorado individually, have filed legal briefs supporting the Environmental Protection Agency. “Each of the forty-eight contiguous States contains waters that are downstream from other States and thus relies on the [Clean Water Act’s] federal standards to protect their waters from pollutants that are discharged into wetlands in upstream States.”

Traditionally, the courts have given executive branch agencies a lot of leeway to interpret the will of Congress when statutory language is vague. This is known as “Chevron deference.” The Supreme Court ruled in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council in 1984 that when a statute is ambiguous, courts should defer to executive branch agency interpretation as long as it is reasonable. However, the Supreme Court has grown more skeptical of agency power and become less willing to defer. For example, last June 30 the court ruled against the Environmental Protection Agency in a case involving its exercise of regulatory power under the Clean Air Act.

During oral argument in Sacket v. Environmental Protection Agency on Oct. 3, the Sackett’s attorney told the court that navigable waters should be defined to only include waters that flow into other waters – therefore potentially involved in commercial activity. Several justices seemed concerned that if the agency could regulate a body of water, even if it did not connect to any other body of water, there would be no limit to the agency’s authority. There was extended discussion of whether it matters if two bodies of water are not connected but are adjacent to one another; or if the barrier between them is manufactured or natural. The justices also wondered about the implications for private landowners who might inadvertently violate federal policy as they develop their property.

But some of the justices seemed skeptical of the Sackett’s argument. For example, Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted that in the 50 years since the act was passed, the agency has consistently said wetlands and other waters are covered, even when they do not flow into other waters. Near the end of the argument, Justice Kavanaugh wondered whether bringing clarity to the language of the act was the responsibility of Congress rather than the courts.

Most of the justices seemed to be struggling with how to best achieve a balance between protecting U.S. waterways and protecting private property ownership. Interestingly, the government attorney noted to the justices that the Environmental Protection Agency was working on a new rule regarding navigable waters and wetlands that would clarify situations like the one at issue in this case. The goal is to issue the new rule by December.

It is impossible to predict what the court will do in any given case, but it may be that a new rule would further clarify the meaning of “navigable waters” thus allowing private citizens like the Sacketts to move forward in developing their property. The new rule could retain substantial portions of the agency’s authority over waterways. Such a rule may allow the Supreme Court to withdraw from the dispute, seeing it as already settled.

Research Memorandum: Solar Panel Recycling

Please note The Council of State Governments (CSG) is a nonpartisan organization and therefore takes no position on state legislation or laws mentioned in linked material, nor does CSG endorse any third-party publications; resources are cited for information purposes only. CSG provides unbiased research that is based on evidence-informed and objective analysis.

Executive Summary

A growing number of states are implementing strategies to address unforeseen environmental and economic issues with managing the waste generated by solar panels. End-of-life care for solar panels and related equipment is complicated by the presence of environmental toxins (like cadmium and lead) and valuable resources (like silicon and silver). Due to the 20-30 year expected lifespan of solar panels, states are developing strategies for mitigating the financial loss and public health dangers associated with sending solar panel technology directly to landfills. These strategies include 1) the development of solar panel decommissioning boards that work with environmental protection agencies; and 2) requirements that commercial facilities produce decommissioning security bonds.

Method of Research

CSG conducted a 50-state scan of legislation enacted in current and past sessions using FiscalNote. This scan was conducted by searching for bills referencing “solar panel decommissioning,” “solar panel recycling” and other relevant key words. The bill number and summary have been included in the table below.

Findings and Analysis

At least 11 states have recently passed legislation related to solar panel waste. Common policies range from the formation of review committees that report on best practices for solar panel waste management to requirements that large-scale solar facilities submit securities, deposits or decommissioning plans prior to commercial operation. Most statewide policies focus on regulation of waste at the commercial level and place liability on the owners of facilities using solar panels. States like Maine also place additional taxes on solar panels used for small-scale home operations to account for recycling costs. It is important to note that many states handle specific waste and recycling procedures at the local level, so a survey of enacted legislation cannot entirely capture the diversity in policy initiatives.[1]

Enacted Legislation Regulating End-of-Life Solar Panel Care

StateBill numberSummary of Relevant Content
HawaiiHouse Bill 1333Commissions the Hawaii Natural Energy Institute and Department of Health to study and determine best practices for recycling or disposing of solar panels and related equipment. The study is to include information on the type, composition and number of solar panels that will be disposed of; best practices for decommissioning to maximize environmental and economic benefits; and an assessment of potential solar panel disposal fees to support state efforts.
IllinoisSenate Bill 3790Establishes a 15-member Renewable Energy Component Recycling Task Force to develop recommendations by July 2025 for the executive, legislative and private sector on end-of-life management strategies for renewable energy generating equipment, including that used to gather and store solar energy (e.g., identification of needed infrastructure, regulatory requirements of other jurisdictions and the safest/most effective methods of disposal).
IndianaSenate Bill 411Requires commercial solar facilities and commercial solar energy systems to submit a security bond equal to 25% of the cost of decommissioning prior to commercial operation. By the 10th anniversary of operation, the owner of a commercial solar facility must post 100% of decommissioning costs as a security bond. Facilities must notify authorities of the intent to decommission the solar facility 60 days prior to decommissioning and adhere to a one-year decommissioning timeline or risk being fined.
MaineHouse Policy 1184/ Legislative Document 1595Prohibits disposal of solar equipment, including solar panels, in landfills and dumps as electronic waste. Purchased panels will incur a $125 fee, $25 for tracking and $100 for recycling. Decommissioned panels must be recycled at a site designated by the Department of Environmental Protection. Any property harboring solar panels must retain insurance that covers the cost of recycling should a catastrophe make it necessary. 
MontanaSenate Bill 93Requires that new commercial solar facilities capable of producing more than two megawatts of energy submit a decommissioning plan and security bond within 12 months of beginning operations. Existing facilities must produce decommissioning plans and security bonds for retroactive application. Allows the Department of Environmental Quality to seize bonds and commence decommissioning on abandoned facilities and directs resources to a pre-existing wind and solar decommissioning account
New JerseySenate Bill 601Establishes the New Jersey Solar Panel Recycling Commission to develop strategies that could be implemented by the executive, legislative or private sector to manage end-of-life solar panel recycling and produce a public report. Authorizes the state Department of Environmental Protection to utilize its authority under the Administrative Procedures Act to set rules and regulations regarding end-of-life solar panel care.
OhioSenate Bill 52Requires that “large solar facilities” submit an engineer-approved decommissioning plan of less than 12 months duration for disposing of solar panel equipment and restoring land prior to constructing the facility. Plans must be updated every five years and applicants for large solar facilities must post a performance bond to ensure they will be able to fund the decommissioning of their facility.
South CarolinaHouse Bill 525Directs the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control to develop guidelines on decommissioning standards for photovoltaic modules and energy storage system batteries for solar farms exceeding 13 acres; new solar farms over 13 acres must submit end-of-life plans for technology.
TennesseeSenate Bill 2797Directs the Tennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations to oversee a study on the viability of large-scale solar development in the state. The study must include information on federal regulation of solar equipment decommissioning, a survey of state statutory regulations and an examination of owner and operator financial obligations in solar panel decommissioning.
VirginiaSenate Bill 499Establishes a task force involving the Virginia State Corporation Commission, Department of Energy and Department of Environmental Quality to analyze best practices for end-of-life care of solar panels, including liability for decommissioning costs and feasibility of recycling projects.
West VirginiaSenate Bill 492Requires that commercial solar facilities capable of producing one megawatt of energy submit a bond sufficient to decommission solar panels and related equipment should the equipment be abandoned. Establishes a fee of $100 per new application and $50 per application modification to be paid to a pre-existing wind and solar decommissioning account. Allows the Department of Environmental Protection to seize bonds from abandoned solar facilities and establish necessary regulations.
[1] For example, California is one of the nation’s leaders in efficient solar panel decommissioning initiatives. The state handles most waste management through the Department of Toxic Substances Control. The California Code of Regulations contains legally binding regulations on solar panel decommissioning but is administered through rules passed by state executive agencies, not the legislature.  

Other Resources

Pre-Apprenticeships: A Pathway for Career Success in North Carolina

By Enmanuel Gomez Antolinez

Learning and upskilling can be a life-long pursuit in the dynamic, constantly changing U.S. economy. Educational opportunities for youth and young adults with disabilities (Y&YAD) should reflect this reality. But all too often, they encounter barriers to acquiring knowledge, learning new skills and accessing general workplace experience.

Apprenticeships are an important and rapidly expanding pathway for all individuals, including Y&YAD. In the 2021 fiscal year, more than 241,000 new apprentices entered the national apprenticeship system. However, research demonstrates apprenticeships are not always accessible to everyone since they may require certain skills or experiences to enter. Pre-apprenticeships are one pathway that prepares Y&YAD for apprenticeships and makes apprenticeships more accessible by providing work-based learning, academic knowledge and professional skills. Several states, including North Carolina, are developing pre-apprenticeships specifically for Y&YAD to support them in their path to apprenticeship and full-time employment.

According to the U.S Department of Labor “pre-apprenticeships are designed to prepare individuals for entry into Registered Apprenticeship Programs (RAP) or other job opportunities.” These programs can play a valuable role in initiating career pathways for anyone, including Y&YAD. Pre-apprenticeships are available in a range of industries including health care, information technology, manufacturing, hospitality and retail.

A notable resource for policymakers is Getting Started with Pre-Apprenticeship: Partnership’s Primer, which provides detailed information on pre-apprenticeships, partnerships, program development and funding.

As outlined in the primer, pre-apprenticeships benefit both states and Y&YAD because they:

  • Have the potential to increase annual earnings and employment of workers with disabilities.
  • Are designed to give people of color, women, Y&YAD and other underrepresented populations the skills, confidence and connections they need to be successful.
  • Provide an effective workforce development strategy that results in a net benefit to society and diversifies the talent pipeline of skilled workers.
  • Provide academic knowledge and skills training tailored to specific jobs and industries for participants who face barriers to employment.

The North Carolina Career Launch is an example of a state-supported pre-apprenticeship for Y&YAD. This program provides a series of curricula that give students opportunities to gain knowledge, experience and credentials that lead to jobs in high-demand fields and a living wage. One of the North Carolina Career Launch programs within the health care industry is the Pre-Nursing Careers Vocational Rehabilitation Youth Apprenticeship. This pre-apprenticeship program provides paid on-the-job learning to high school students with disabilities as well as employment and professional development skills and work and training preparation.

In order to successfully implement these programs and provide the right support and practical skills to students with disabilities, there must be a clear relationship with vocational rehabilitation offices to pilot the program, as well as register the program statewide so it does not have to be replicated again. State agencies can collaborate to provide Y&YAD with pre-apprenticeship opportunities like the one in North Carolina.

Diverse pre-apprenticeships have the potential to support Y&YAD to access a career path that offers living wages and benefits. These jobs are an opportunity to prepare and support students for success and ensure they are prepared to be successful in their apprenticeship.

For more information about pre-apprenticeships, please visit: https://www.apprenticeship.gov/help/what-pre-apprenticeship

U.S. Supreme Court 2022-23 Term Preview

The U.S. Supreme Court convened Monday, Oct. 3 to begin its 2022-23 term. State policymakers are gearing up to hear several cases in which states are participants. In the coming weeks, CSG will provide further analyses of these and other disputes as they come before the court.

Case: Delaware v. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin

Background: MoneyGram Payment Systems is a national company incorporated in Delaware. The company markets what it calls “official checks” that can be used in financial transactions. Customers pay for the amount of the checks, plus a transaction fee. In 2016, MoneyGram gave unclaimed checks to the government of Delaware.

Legal Issue: The federal Disposition of Abandoned Money Orders and Traveler’s Checks Act requires that “…a money order, traveler’s check, or other similar written instrument (other than a third party bank check)…” that goes unclaimed is the property of the state in which the check was purchased. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin argue the checks are covered by the federal act so unclaimed checks purchased in their states are their property. MoneyGram and Delaware argue the checks at issue are “third party” checks and are Delaware property, according to state law. As much as $150 million in unclaimed checks is at stake. Are the checks subject to federal law?

State Participation: Twenty-seven states have joined Pennsylvania and Wisconsin as parties in the case.

Case: Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company

Background: Robert Mallory sued Norfolk Railway Company in Pennsylvania state court, claiming that he contracted cancer because he was exposed to toxic chemicals as an employee of the company. The company is headquartered in Virginia, but is registered to do business in Pennsylvania. Mallory is not a Pennsylvania resident and he does not allege his injury occurred in the state.

Legal Issue: Does a company consent to be accountable to a state court system when the company registers to do business in the state?

State Participation: Eight states have filed a legal brief supporting the company.

Case: Moore v. Harper

Background: The North Carolina state legislature adopted a new map for its federal congressional districts in November 2021. A group of officeholders and private organizations and individuals filed suit, claiming the map was a partisan gerrymander in violation of the state constitution. The North Carolina Supreme Court blocked the state from using the map and order the original trial court to adopt a new map. The trial court then adopted a map created by three people appointed by the court. The state legislature filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court requesting the original map be reinstated. The court declined to do so, but agreed to hear the case. The trial court-approved map is in place for the 2022 election cycle.

Legal Issue: The U.S. Constitution states: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature.”The state legislature asserts this clause gives the branch exclusive authority on the drawing of maps. North Carolina state law says that state courts can hear “[a]ny action challenging the validity of any act of the General Assembly that apportions or redistricts State legislative or congressional districts.” Do state courts have a legal role to play in disputes over redistricting?

State Participation: Thirteen states have filed a legal brief supporting the North Carolina legislature.

Case: Merrill v. Milligan

Background: In 2021, the Alabama legislature designed the districts for the state’s seven seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. A group of private citizens sued, claiming the map is drawn to reduce the influence of Black voters in violation of the federal Voting Rights Act. A federal district court sided with the plaintiffs and ordered the map be redrawn. In February 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court put the district court’s order on hold and agreed to hear the case. The state legislature’s original map is in place for the 2022 election cycle.

Legal Issue: Does the legislative map violate the Voting Rights Act?

State Participation: Fourteen states have filed a legal brief supporting the Alabama legislature.

Case: National Pork Producers Council v. Ross

Background: In 2018, California voters approved a law that prohibits the sale of pork from pigs confined in ways that are inconsistent with California state regulations. The council sued, arguing that the California decision discriminates against pork producers in other states, where regulations on animal treatment differ.

Legal Issue: The U.S. Constitution states: “Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce among the several states.” Does the Constitution prohibit a state from passing laws that have a discriminatory economic impact in other states?

State Participation: Twenty-six states have filed a legal brief supporting the council. Fourteen states have filed a legal brief supporting California.

Case: Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency

Background: The Sacketts (private citizens) have been prevented from building a home in Idaho because the Environmental Protection Agency raised concerns about the impact of construction on wetlands on the property.

Legal Issue: The federal Clean Water Act gives the EPA the authority to regulate pollutants dumped into “navigable waters.” Neither the act nor the Supreme Court have clearly defined the term, leaving it to the EPA to determine the scope of its authority. The Sacketts argue that the EPA is abusing its power under the act. Are wetlands subject to EPA authority under the Clean Water Act?

State Participation: Twenty-six states collectively and Alaska individually have written a legal brief supporting the Sacketts. Seventeen states and Washington D.C. collectively and Colorado individually have filed legal briefs supporting the EPA.

Case: U.S. v. Texas

Background: In September 2021, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security issued a memo prioritizing the deportation of three groups of undocumented individuals: suspected terrorists, people who have committed serious crimes and people caught at the border. Texas and Louisiana sued the federal government, claiming that the Biden administration was selectively enforcing federal immigration law in violation of federal administrative requirements. A district court blocked the administration from enforcing the new policy. The administration requested the U.S. Supreme Court intervene and lift the district court order. The Supreme Court declined to do so but agreed to hear the case.

Legal Issue: Does the Department of Homeland Security have discretion to prioritize particular individuals and groups in the application of federal immigration law? State Participation: Nineteen states filed a legal brief supporting Texas and Louisiana. Sixteen state and Washington D.C. and 21 local government entities filed a legal brief supporting the Department of Homeland Security.

The Council of State Governments Announces its 2022 20 Under 40 Leadership Award Recipients

Oct. 4, 2022

Contact:
The Council of State Governments
[email protected]

FOR RELEASE ON TUESDAY, OCT. 4 AT 11 A.M. ET

The Council of State Governments Announces its 2022 20 Under 40 Leadership Award Recipients

Lexington, KY — The Council of State Governments is excited to announce the 2022 recipients of the CSG 20 Under 40 Leadership Award. This annual honor recognizes the outstanding work of 20 up-and-coming elected and appointed officials from across the country who not only exemplify strong leadership skills but have also demonstrated a true commitment to serving the citizens of their states.

“The state officials recognized this year come from diverse backgrounds, different political parties, different branches of state government and from every region of our country, but they share a singular commitment to make a difference for those they serve,” said David Adkins, CSG executive director/CEO. “They are hard-working leaders who have demonstrated the ability to productively collaborate to achieve consensus and produce results, and their public service honors the oldest and best values of our democracy.”

Congratulations to these 20 leaders:

Sen. Raumesh Akbari, Senate Democratic Caucus Chairwoman, Tennessee

Rep. Liz Berry, Washington

Assemblymember Sabrina Cervantes, California

Rep. Jordan Harris, Pennsylvania

Rep. Greggor Ilagan, Hawaii

Rep. Iman Jodeh, Colorado

Assemblymember Alex Lee, California

Rep. Susan Manchester, Ohio

Sen. Zellnor Myrie, New York

Rep. David Nelson, Alaska

Rep. Daniel Pae, Oklahoma

Sen. Marie Pinkney, Delaware

Sen. John Michael Montgomery, Oklahoma

Sen. Michael Rohl, South Dakota

Franklin Perry II, Chief of Staff, General Assembly House Democrats, Connecticut

Sen. James Sturch, Arkansas

Rep. Jordan Teuscher, Utah

Rep. Landon Brown, Wyoming

Rep. Daniel Elliott, Kentucky

Rep. Demi Busatta, Florida

Recipients of the 20 Under 40 Leadership Award are selected from a competitive pool of applicants from across the country and all three branches of state government.

“The CSG 20 Under 40 Leadership Award Class of 2022 winners are a testament to the tremendous efforts our state officials contribute each and every day to making their states better,” said Lorna Patches, CSG deputy director of membership engagement and leadership development.

Award recipients will be honored at the 2022 CSG National Conference in Honolulu, Hawaii, in December.


To learn more about the CSG 20 Under 40 Leadership Award, visit web.csg.org/20-40. Discover more resources from The Council of State Governments, the nation’s only nonpartisan organization serving all three branches of state government, at csg.org.

About The Council of State Governments

Founded in 1933, The Council of State Governments is the nation’s only organization serving all three branches of state government. CSG is a region-based forum that fosters the exchange of insights and ideas to help state officials shape public policy. This offers unparalleled regional, national and international opportunities to network, develop leaders, collaborate and create problem-solving partnerships. Learn more at csg.org.

###

The Farm Bill Title I: Commodities

Aja Croteau

The Farm Bill Title I: Commodities

The Federal Farm Bill is developed and enacted into law roughly every five years. This bill establishes U.S. agricultural policy and is divided by topic into 12 titles. Title I of the bill covers commodities and assistance programs for the farmers that grow them. Added to the bill in 2014, the title sets “effective reference prices” for major commodity crops such as corn, soybeans and wheat. These reference prices are designed to respond to the movement of market prices for crops and provide the basis for two federal programs—Price Loss Coverage and Agriculture Risk Coverage-County—which are sources of additional income for producers to offset declines in crop prices or revenue. Each commodity crop has its own set effective reference price, which is set based on the average of previous prices for each commodity or the reference price in the 2014 Farm Bill.

Title I also includes the Market Assistance Loan Program, which provides loans to producers at a statutorily fixed rate and allows them to use eligible commodity crops as collateral. Assistance programs like these have existed in various forms since the 1930s and provide much needed income stability to producers across the U.S.

Title 1 also includes provisions around sugar, dairy and disaster assistance programs for commodities not eligible for crop insurance.

Why it matters….

Title I covers programs administrated at the federal level, but its contents can have a significant impact on producers across states. The stability of agricultural operations is a key component in state economies, especially for states like California, Iowa and others that lead the country in agricultural production. These programs are crucial to midwestern states that are major producers of food. In 2021, midwestern states had 155,000,000 enrolled base acres across both the Price Loss Coverage and Agriculture Risk Coverage-County programs.[1] Base acres are defined as the crop-specific acreage on a farm that are eligible for enrollment in these assistance programs. Full eligibility requirements can be found on the USDA Farm Service Agency website.

Commodity prices have been strong recently, but producers across the globe are facing drastically increased production costs for necessities like fertilizer, machinery and labor. Some of these costs may decrease in the future, but there is a possibility of commodity prices shifting first, given their variable nature. Supply and demand for commodity crops can change quickly and are influenced by a multitude of factors including consumer behavior, international trade disputes, extreme weather and the markets for related industries. For example, a spike in fossil fuel costs can cause the demand for corn to increase drastically due to an increased demand for ethanol, which is produced from corn. A steep decline in commodity prices can impact overall farm revenues, which can increase farmers’ reliance on these assistance programs to survive. Staying up to date on the programs covered by this title can be invaluable to estimating the impact of shifting commodity prices on a state’s agricultural economy.

What changes can we expect to see in the next Farm Bill?

As with each iteration of the farm bill, the statutory reference prices for commodities will be reviewed and may be adjusted if Congress determines it necessary. Changes may also occur to the assistance programs as Congress accounts for climate change and the severe weather patterns that come with it. These patterns can significantly impact agricultural production, as well as increase reliance on assistance programs, particularly those aimed at disaster relief. An increased focus on small farms and ranches may also come into play as the next farm bill is developed. Current House Agriculture Chairman David Scott has indicated this as a priority issue for him with his introduction of the Small Family Farmer and Rancher Relief Act earlier this year.[2] Supporting small businesses has long been a priority for Chairman Scott, and as Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, it is unsurprising to see this priority extend into farming.

Title I will impact communities in every state and affect farm policy decisions at the state level. The U.S. Senate and House encourage producers, consumers and other stakeholders to provide input by attending field hearings and submitting thoughts through their websites.

Senate Farm Bill Input Form

House Farm Bill Input Form

Resources

Farm Bill Primer: What is the Farm Bill? (Congressional Research Service, 6/28/2022)

Preparing for the Next Farm Bill (Congressional Research Service, 3/31/2022)

The National Agricultural Law Center

Title I: Crop Commodity Program Provisions After Enactment of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (USDA Economic Research Service, 9/7/2022)

Senate Hearings Schedule

House Hearings Schedule

ARC/PLC Definitions (USDA Farm Service Agency)

[1] https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/arcplc_program/arcplc-program-data/index

[2] https://agriculture.house.gov/uploadedfiles/h.r._8590.pdf

CSG Launches New Initiative to Expand Civic Sector Apprenticeship Programs in the States

By: Mary Wurtz

The Council of State Governments (CSG) and the Urban Institute have earned funding from Ascendium Education Group to expand civic sector apprenticeship programs focused on low-income rural learners in Idaho and Maine. CSG and Urban will provide resources, guidance, technical assistance and incentive funding to support state and local agencies in developing apprenticeships to meet their workforce needs, and in recruiting, enrolling and supporting low-income rural apprentices.

CSG will support these states in developing apprenticeships to address growing workforce shortages in the civic sector. State and local governments are struggling to fill open positions and retain employees long-term. The sharpest monthly decline on record in state and local government employment took place in early 2020. This decline was a continuation of existing trends in the public sector.

The “silver tsunami,” or the increasing percentage of state workers reaching retirement age, has led to a massive wave of departures from the public sector, including 28.6 million workers alone in the third quarter of 2020. Civic sector apprenticeships will continue to be a key strategy for state and local governments to address these workforce gaps because apprenticeship opportunities lead to increased retention of employees, ensure workers have the right skills and reduce liability costs through appropriate training of workers.

Apprenticeships combine paid on-the-job training with classroom instruction to prepare workers for highly skilled careers in a variety of occupations in addition to the traditional trades. State and local governments are beginning to use apprenticeships to fill civic sector positions in health care, information technology and human resources in addition to construction and electrical technician roles. Federal, state and local government agencies can administer these programs as apprenticeship sponsors, taking responsibility for the recruitment and on-the-job training of apprentices. Sponsors then partner with local community colleges and other education centers to offer coursework to supplement on-the-job apprentice learning.

Apprenticeships can be a useful tool for government agencies to hire members of historically underserved populations. This is especially true for low-income individuals with fewer avenues to economic mobility since apprentices pay little or nothing for training and earn wages throughout the apprenticeship. This project focuses on low-income learners in Idaho and Maine living in rural areas where state and local governments report high workforce needs.

In 2021, CSG and Urban convened the Public Sector Apprenticeship Consortium with California, Colorado, Idaho, Maine, Michigan and Virginia to equip and empower policymakers to develop and implement apprenticeships in their state agencies. The initiative brought together legislators and executive branch officials to discuss existing apprenticeship efforts in their states and create an action plan for developing public sector apprenticeships. Through this civic sector apprenticeship expansion, CSG will extend its consortium efforts to include workforces in Idaho and Maine to support states’ initiatives to use apprenticeships to fill public sector positions.

Over the next three years, CSG and Urban will collaborate with apprenticeship stakeholders in Idaho and Maine to:

  • Assemble state teams focused on developing new civic sector apprenticeships. Teams will consist of sponsor agencies and organizations providing related instruction and support to apprentices.
  • Train and guide state team members in overcoming key challenges in developing and operating apprenticeships, including aligning registered apprenticeship and civil service requirements.
  • Identify localities and positions for apprenticeships, including locations with high concentrations of low-income rural learners and high-quality jobs
  • Develop and register 3-4 new civic sector apprenticeship programs in each state.
  • Enroll and support 20-25 low-income rural apprentices in newly created programs in each state.

For more information, please contact Elise Gurney ([email protected]), Dina Klimkina ([email protected]) or Mary Wurtz ([email protected]).

About Our Partners

Founded in 1933, The Council of State Governments (CSG) is the nation’s largest nonpartisan organization serving state elected and appointed officials in all three branches. The mission of CSG is to champion excellence in state government and the organization executes that mission through four major platforms: the CSG National Office, CSG Regional Offices, the CSG Justice Center and affiliated organizations.

The Urban Institute is a nonprofit research organization that provides data and evidence to help advance upward mobility and equity. Urban is a trusted source for changemakers who seek to strengthen decision-making, create inclusive economic growth and improve the well-being of families and communities. For more than 50 years, Urban has delivered facts that inspire solutions.

Ascendium Education Group is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization committed to helping people reach the education and career goals that matter to them. Ascendium invests in initiatives designed to increase the number of students from low-income backgrounds who complete postsecondary degrees, certificates and workforce training programs, with an emphasis on first-generation students, incarcerated adults, rural community members, students of color and veterans. Ascendium’s work identifies, validates and expands best practices to promote large-scale change at the institutional, system and state levels, with the intention of elevating opportunity for all.

Increasing Early Childhood Education Training and Credentialing

By Andrew Johnson

Research shows that “investments in quality preschool programs bolster student success.” Preschool programs prepare students for success in elementary grades, specifically in areas such as literacy and math. A 2020 policy brief further outlines the impact of quality preschool programs, including positive generational gains, enhanced social and emotional learning skills and spillover effects to students who did not participate.

A recent study also shows that additional training for educators and caregivers further strengthens the impact of those learning experiences. State policymakers across the country are working to implement policies that expand and enhance training and credentialing opportunities for in-service and pre-service early childhood educators in a variety of ways. The study argues for sufficient funding for services and training for teachers and mentors.

Specific, Relevant Professional Development Training

Many state policies focus on specific instruction. For policymakers and educators, there is a major emphasis on improving literacy outcomes. Early childhood education is especially important, as it provides the foundation for future literacy development. As a result, policymakers are working to better equip early childhood education and child care practitioners in establishing a foundation of literacy.

  • Arizona and Delaware require specific literacy instruction in line with the science of reading.  
  • Connecticut directs the Department of Education Center for Literacy Research and Reading Success to develop a plan to improve reading, including research-based literacy training for providers of early child care and other instructors working with children under five.

Other states are adding specific literacy instruction to pre-service courses and programs for early childhood educators.

  • Kentucky requires pre-service early childhood teachers to receive training in reading instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency and vocabulary. The state further requires that pre-service teachers complete an assessment on reading instruction knowledge and skills. 
  • Minnesota and Oregon require pre-service teachers to receive instruction on dyslexia and reading difficulties generally.  

While most research does not specify the time requirements necessary to ensure high-quality professional development, some states are striving to ensure in-depth literacy training for early childhood educators.

  • Arizona requires either 45 classroom hours or three college credit hours of literacy training within three years of obtaining a teaching certificate.
  • Florida requires in-service pre-kindergarten teachers complete three emergent literacy training courses, then complete one course every five years.  

Numeracy—the practice of applying mathematic skills and ability—is a topic not commonly observed in pre-K training policies. However, Alabama established a task force to provide guidance for higher education institutions in training early childhood educators, based on current research in mathematics.

Another topic of emphasis is social-emotional learning. This is used to teach and practice interpersonal skills and self-awareness/regulation. Several states have enacted policies to support professional development training in social-emotional learning.

  • Colorado created the early childhood mental health consultation initiative to expand and enhance practices throughout the state.
  • Florida requires training in social-emotional behavior intervention models.
  • Maine makes available a voluntary early childhood consultation program to provide support, guidance and training to early childhood educators in social and emotional learning strategies.
  • Oklahoma provides trauma-informed care training to child care providers.

Funding Opportunities for Training

Many states are funding various opportunities to expand and enhance the training for early childhood educators. Some policies provide opportunities for professional development and credentialing training for early childhood educators.

  • Minnesota uses grant funds to provide economically disadvantaged individuals job skills training and other career assistance to help them obtain a Child Development Associate credential.
  • Utah uses available appropriations to provide scholarships to early childhood education teachers seeking a Child Development Associate credential.
  • Washington provides scholarships to underqualified staff to earn credentials or stackable certificates from state community and technical colleges.  

Other policies fund scholarship opportunities for students pursuing a degree in early childhood education. For example, Washington established a pipeline for paraeducators conditional scholarship program for non-certified teaching assistants without a college degree and recently expanded eligibility from requiring three years of experience to one, while giving more time to complete the degree.

States are also funding financial and career incentives for early childhood educators and child care workers who pursue further education and credentials.

  • California requires preschool/child development programs to have a career ladder that allows employees to increase their salary as they earn additional education.
  • Texas provides stipends for early childhood professionals seeking additional education. 
  • Washington’s child care collaborative task force incentivizes advancements in higher education credentials and other equivalencies (as well as experience and training) through increased compensation. The state’s Department of Education provides support for implementing trauma-informed training, including additional compensation for staff who have an infant and early childhood mental health or other specialty credential.

Coaching and Mentoring Provisions

Some states focus on teacher coaching/mentorship.

  • Colorado provides payments to child care providers to promote teachers to coaching and mentorship roles. 
  • Connecticut provides scholarships for early childhood educator training, including the training of mentor teachers. 
  • Washington, D.C. requires child development centers/homes to partner with child development hubs to create and implement a quality improvement plan, including aligning program policies and procedures to support on-site coaching and professional development.

While state policymakers are working to expand and enhance training and credentialing opportunities for early childhood educators, states are also implementing a variety of other policy measures to support early child care beyond supporting educators. As states continue to look for ways to support early childhood education, policymakers can compare methods across the states to support their own education workforce improvement policies. 

Ballot Curing 101

By Sarah Moon

Each state employs specific requirements for votes to be verified and subsequently counted. As a result, U.S. voters can face challenges in casting error-free absentee or mail-in ballots.

While those mail-in ballot requirements generally vary by state, in every state, voters are required to provide a valid signature on their ballot and related documents. However, mistakes do happen, so what do states do if a ballot is missing a signature or if there is a discrepancy in signature matching?

Some states utilize a range of ‘ballot curing’ procedures to notify voters and allow them ample time to correct these signature-related errors. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 24 states currently require election administrators and/or officials to conduct this ballot curing process. The remaining states typically do not count ballots that require correction.

How does ‘ballot curing’ work?

Most states employ a signature verification process to confirm the identity of absentee voters. These signatures are then compared to the voter’s signature that the state may already have on file, often sourced through an individual’s voter registration file.

When the voter’s signature is missing on the ballot envelope or if there is sufficient reason to claim discrepancy in the signature matching process, the voter’s eligibility may have to confirmed through alternative means.

Ballot curing requires both notification and correction. Often, election administrators or state election officials inform voters about problems with their ballot via phone, e-mail or mail. Then, the voter is given time to cure such errors. To resolve these discrepancies, voters frequently are asked to provide additional information to confirm their identity or to provide a new signature that verifies their eligibility.

What are some state variations?

States conduct the curing process in different ways. Some states only allow voters to correct their ballots in cases of discrepancies in signature matching but not in cases of missing signatures. Other states require a witness signature on mail-in ballots alongside the voter’s.

These ballot cures must be completed by a specified deadline, which also varies by state and locality. To complicate things further, many voters aren’t familiar with the curing process and may dismiss notifications that are sent to them via mail. Postal slowdowns could result in delays and because voters have limited time to correct any deficiencies, these delays could result in ballots not being counted.

These inconsistencies in process and the resulting challenges have continuously received pushback, most notably following the 2020 election.

While ballot curing is an important step in making sure each vote is counted, it does not provide a complete solution to ballot rejection. The lack of standardization and other disqualifying errors cannot be fixed through existing ballot curing procedures. In addition to streamlining and easing the ballot curing process, these issues and others could be further examined to improve the procedures for counting mail-in ballots.

What can states do?

States can make changes to their absentee/mail-in ballot processes and help educate voters about related rules and procedures. Employing available technologies, Colorado started an initiative to help voters ensure that their votes are counted. These efforts specifically targeted younger populations in order to encourage their experiences participating in the democratic process. All 64 counties in the state utilized the TXT2CURE program to minimize the impacts of ballot rejection, and the state continues to boast one of the lowest rates of signature-rejected ballots out of all states employing a vote-by-mail-for-all system.

The TXT2CURE program uses smartphones to ease voter accessibility following a rejected ballot. When a Colorado voter learns of a signature discrepancy on their ballot, they can simply text a provided phone number and receive a link to a customized webpage. Once the voter enters their voter identification number, they can simply sign a digital affidavit and submit a photo of an acceptable photo ID to complete the process. In a few minutes and conveniently on their phone, voters are assured that their ballot is cast and counted.