An assessment of federal community technology funding policy.

[NOTE: For an additional perspective on the policy work and challenges that led to the creation of the federal CTC program ucrrently under the US. Department of Education, please review the 7/25/01 article," written by Norris Dickard, former coordinator of the Department of Education's Community Technology Centers program.]

------------------------------------
Heavy Lifting for CTCs
------------------------------------

The U.S. Department of Education has operated a federal Community Technology Centers program under its Office of Adult and Vocational Education for three years. Congress appropriated $10 million for the program's first year, and $32.5 million and $65 million for fiscal year 2000 and 2001 respectively.

The Department of Education's CTC program recently met its mid-July deadline for accepting applications for its latest Request for Proposals, and will distribute approximately 200 one-year grants, between $75-300,000 each, to groups that meet both the eligibility guidelines and the scrutiny of the review process. The program also currently provides support for an outreach and technical assistance network called the America Connects Consortium. ACC bridges public, private, nonprofit, and academic resources to help coordinate and improve community technology and digital divide efforts at a local, regional, and national level.

Although it is not widely acknowledged, a number of Democrats and Republicans in both the House and Senate, upon the realization that a large number of CTCs have been operating in their states and districts for a number of years with limited federal assistance, also have gone to bat for community technology efforts, albeit somewhat more quietly. Truth be told, members of Congress have also referred to CTCs in various congressional items, ranging from e-government initiatives to job training/workforce development and economic revitalization efforts.

But, it is also very important to remember that without the efforts of a number of nonprofit organizations, CTCs would not have gained the policy attention and attendant support they have to date. It took considerable policy advocacy, research, and outreach by groups including (but by no means limited to): Alliance for Public Technology, Alliance for Technology Access, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, American Library Association, Association for Community Networking, Athena Alliance, Children's Partnership, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, CTCNet, Goodwill Industries Inc, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Libraries for the Future, National Association of Community Action Agencies, National Education Association, National Urban League, OMB Watch, and SeniorNet.



---------------------------------------------------
Proposal to Move The
Federal CTC Program... Maybe?
----------------------------------------------------

On 6/20/00, then-candidate George W. Bush released a campaign fact sheet titled, "Education Technology: From The Classroom To Our Communities" (Adobe PDF format] in which he proposed to "invest $400 million to create and maintain more than 2,000 community technology centers every year."

On 4/9/01, President Bush released his first budget request. There were three things of importance regarding CTCs. First, there was a general push for consolidation of programs viewed as duplicative, including (but not limited to) technology, specifically in the education area. Thus a number of technology programs under the Education Department, as well as other computer access efforts in other agencies, were considered prime candidates for consolidation into block grants. Second, CTCs were singled out to not be included in that broader consolidation. Bush, instead, called for an increase in current funding for CTCs to $80 million. Third, the plan proposed the establishment of a federal CTC program under the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, within the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, instead.

The Administration's plan called for tighter integration of the CTC program with an expanded version of the existing HUD Neighborhood Networks program. This is a program started in 1995 (yet never funded) to create CTCs for residents of public and assisted housing, which are mostly concentrated in urban areas. HUD also supports other CTC-type programs under its HOPE VI grants for revitalizing distressed housing, its Office of Native American Programs, and Public and Indian Housing. While this would suggest an overwhelming level of support for community technology efforts, the actual picture is significantly more complicated.



----------------------------------------------------
So Are CTCs an Education Item?
----------------------------------------------------

The first complication arrived shortly after the President released his budget plan. On 5/14/01, Senators Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) were successful in getting authorizing language for the federal CTC program added to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act bill, the reauthorization of which was a top Bush priority. That language authorized $100 million to be spent for the creation/expansion of 1,000 CTCs under the existing Dept. of Education program. Authorizing language is important, because technically, Congress is not supposed to appropriate funds to programs that have no authorization (although this is regularly violated).

Sen. Mikulski sits on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, but also now serves as the Chair of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Veterans Administration, Housing and Urban Development and Independent Agencies (VA-HUD), which allocates funding for HUD programs. The amendment's passage was seen as an indication that the senator would push to keep the existing federal CTC program under the auspices of the Education Department, instead of HUD, as proposed by Bush.

Interestingly, the companion House education bill, H.R. 1 passed through the House Education and the Workforce Committee on the same day. The bill did not authorize continuation of the CTC program at the Education Department. It did, however, give local school districts the ability to transfer up to 50% of the federal monies they receive to a range of programs under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, without requiring permission of the states or the Education Department.

Thus, federal funds originally targeted for class size reduction or teacher salaries could conceivably be transferred for classroom technology or community-based distance learning on an annual, non-permanent basis. While purporting to offer local education efforts more flexibility to target funds for specific needs without layers of bureaucratic obstacles, it potentially binds disparate technology and non-technology education priorities together, to be addressed at the expense of one another, without guaranteed consistency from school year to school year.

Assuming, at the time that the Mikulski amendment would remain in the final education bill sent to the President, it did not insure that $100 million will be spent on CTCs. Again, remember that the President only requested $80 million. Congressional action is needed each year to appropriate any amount for CTCs.



-------------------------------------------------------------------
CTCs and FY 2002 Appropriations So Far
-------------------------------------------------------------------

As of this writing (7/30/01), the House has been debating its VA-HUD bill, H.R. 2620, brought to the House floor last week. A vote for final passage is expected soon. The Senate VA-HUD appropriations bill, S. 1216, passed the Appropriations committee, and is likely to be brought to the floor by Senate leadership before the summer recess begins 8/4/01. Both versions include language for funding of CTCs. This would strongly suggest that, pending full passage and signing by the President, the program will be shifted to HUD. We should point out here that no plans have been set for a HUD CTC program, mostly because spending has not been approved by Congress at this point to do so.

Addressing the earlier concerns of a number of groups, it looks as if it would closely adhere to the Education Department's CTC program model. Though it sits under the CDBG block grant program, the proposed $80 million is earmarked for grants that would be open, on a competitive basis, to state and local educational agencies, higher education institutions, business, public and private nonprofits, or consortia with the capacity to provide computer access and support services in urban *and* rural areas (a key point), with a special focus on low-income areas.

Things get more interesting with the potential impact of Rule 28, reinstated through language added at the last minute to the FY 2001 omnibus (Labor-HHS, Legislative Branch, Treasury-Postal, and other appropriations) conference report.

This rule bars the inclusion of language for "extraneous" provisions in conference reports (including, but not limited to appropriations items) that are not in either the House or Senate version of a bill. If an offending item somehow find their way into any conference report, a Senator can cause the entire report to be rejected by calling a "point of order" and sustaining it by a simple majority. Appropriations bills, especially those considered last in the process, tend to be the means for programs to be added that would never survive consideration on their own merits. So the rule may be ignored, or invoked frequently when the spending bills are considered by the House and Senate later this year.



------------------------------------
Disparity of Support for All
Federal Community Technology Efforts
------------------------------------

Despite uncertainty as to where it will finally wind up, at least CTCs enjoy some measure of certainty during the appropriations process. While the proposed level of funding for the federal CTC program was increased, the level of funding recommended for another key technology grant program, the U.S. Department of Commerce's Technology Opportunities Program (TOP) was dramatically cut.

In FY 01, TOP received $45 million for grants to help develop the national telecommunications and information technology infrastructure to help deliver social services -- including education, health, employment, and public safety -- to underserved rural and urban areas across the country, and provide program model research and evaluation to help replicate those services.

Under the original FY 02 budget plan, $16 million dollars was available for TOP, of which around $13 million was designated for new grants. The House version of the Commerce-State-Justice (CJS) spending bill, H.R. 2500 passed by a vote of 408 to 19. On 7/0/01, the Senate Appropriations Committee finished the markup of its CJS bill, S. 1215, and made it's report version, S. Rept. 107-42, available.

Both provide $15.5 million for TOP, under the heading of "Information Infrastructure Grants"-- a reduction of $30 million for the program, insufficient to sustain the current level of activity, and to accomodate the rising level of need and interest.



------------------------------------
Block Grants: Good or Bad for CTCs?
------------------------------------

One reason the policy goal for CTCs has not been so clear this year is the confusion around the implications of a CTC program under HUD, instead of the Department of Education. There is a perception that, instead of simply moving the program from one department to another, the effect is more akin to "killing one program and starting another one from scratch." That's because the bulk of the projects funded under the Dept. of Education were slated for three years of funding, and given support through the America Connects Consortium. Under a HUD scenario, the funds are not likely to be available for that level of activity and support, and the existing projects would lose their ability to emphasize the tying of information technology access to education opportunity for children and adults.

Other commentators have identified the Bush administration's desire to consolidate programs into block grants that go to the states, something that automatically triggers resistance from Democrats, who see the federal government as a key player in human needs and service delivery (especially noteworthy now that the party has a one vote majority in the Senate). One policy question, however, that has not really been discussed by the broader community technology community is what opportunity might exist under a HUD-based CTC program. Some of this relates to addressing the nature of concerns around block grants. As it stands, given the developments in appropriations this year, CTCs are not slated as a block grant under HUD.

To the extent that block grants ever were an option for CTCs this year, there are conflicting views on what this would have meant. Block grant proponents argue that while in general this means less money for the programs, it also means states have greater latitude in the administration and provision of services, and are able to produce more innovative thinking around human needs. Block grant critics point out that program consolidation is one step short of outright program elimination, and that states are given discretion without oversight to direct the money to needs and providers according to rules that do not necessarily take public interest perspectives into account.

In the wake of a difficult economic picture, or a desire to "devolve" power to the states, the federal government may elect to reduce spending on programs that are administered, by simply bundling the money from various programs, and giving it states directly in the form of a block grant. The money usually is directed from a federal agency to a state agency, which in turn directs it to local service providers, unless the state agency directly provides the service itself. Eligibility rules in place under federal programs are removed under block grants, and states can set their own provisions for recipients of those funds.

Though the rules for the federal programs they replace are removed, block grants do have to show they are making progress towards achieving performance targets. In the absence of fixed federal performance goals, there are questions as to whether state or local performance targets should be used. Local goals can be used to target unique needs, but state goals allow specific needs to be met consistently. Needless to say, reconciling those competing visions is not always easy. Without accommodation or acknowledgement of the changing economic or population realities of states, money might not be directed in proportion to the actual need.

Over time, this may entail a set of guidelines, procedures, allowances, and restrictions that begin to constrain the range needs that can be addressed by the block grant. This often comes in response to legislative worries that the block grants have grown to resemble the programs they were designed to replace, complete with bureaucratic structures and dependent constituencies. One of the interesting things to add here is that there may very well be opportunities by public interest players to actively provide input on the formulas that determine how that money is allocated.

Local agencies often push for input from affect constituencies and citizens in order to determine how to spend money. Local government also may push for representation that reflects local needs, on state-level oversight boards overseeing the distribution of funds. States, however, also are looking for both data and representation that speaks to the needs across the state. Without any guarantee of a competitive means to apply funding to groups that will deliver the services, or to determine where need is greatest at both a state and local level, the money can be limited to a select group of service providers.

This opens the door for advocates to participate in order to help direct funding where need is greatest. Nonprofit experience and input can also help provide guidance on conveying information among stakeholders around program availability and guidelines, to ensure that the best range of providers is able to provide the capacity for service delivery needed, and that there is some consistency with respect to reporting, accountability, and outcomes to be achieved.



---------------------------------------------
So What's A CTC
(And Its Supporters) To Do?
---------------------------------------------

Regardless of whether CTCs wind up as earmarked block grants or ultimately continue to exist under the federal Department of Education, there is one additional, and sobering, obstacle. For all of the policy and advocacy work accomplished by a large range of interests and players, there are still too few nonprofits and agencies across America who can, or are willing to, undertake the process for applying for federal funding to support their work.

There may be philosophical, financial, or programmatic reasons for this. But, given that community technology efforts still do not enjoy a more secure place in the broader federal spending picture, the level of interest in applying must translate into actual application for those programs. That is the only way to demonstrate that a constituency does exist for federal support. If that constituency is not seen and heard, it will not be taken seriously in the policy arena by the range of decision-makers who determine the fate of those programs.



--------------------------------
Legislative Hurdles
--------------------------------

It takes many, many months from the time budgets are submitted, to the time committees and subcommittees meet to debate, markup, deliberate, and ultimately reach some form of consensus around the actual desired spending levels in both the House and Senate. After the subcommittees reach some agreement, they still need to be vetted through the chairmen of the Appropriations committees in both chambers, ultimately voted on by the full Congress and presented back to President Bush. A lot can and will change over the course of those months.

Consider, for example, a gloomier-than-expected economic picture, including an considerable loss of revenue at the federal level, as a result of numerous items, including the tax package pushed by the Administration and passed by Congress earlier this year. Also factor in the budget resolution that Congress passed earlier this year, which provides for only a 4% spending increase on all discretionary programs without adjusting for inflation. That means that there has been intense competition over limited funds since certain areas of the budget, such as defense spending, were set for significant increases.

Members will be engaged in serious dealmaking mode to make ensure programs of interest to them and their constituencies are protected from cuts or elimination. The only way those programs gain any visibility is by speaking up for themselves.

We can only speak here from the past few years' experience, but time and time again, when community technology advocates made visits to the Hill and agencies in support of CTCs, TOP, and other community technology efforts-- only to find that for all the visibility and interest generated and expressed from "inside the beltway," there was little to no corresponding activity "outside the beltway". Few community technology efforts took time to meet with (or provide simple tours for) members and their staff working on behalf of the areas in which they operate.

Why? Because they did not want to be seen as "lobbying" especially if they already receive federal funding. Yet elected officials are actively looking for examples of community technology in order to justify the funding available in the first place. Raising the visibility of community technology projects and centers with members provides a key opportunity to highlight concerns around scarcity of resources and coordination opportunity, and the advocacy around the continuum of services provided is crucial.

Technology holds promise for enriching the lives and improving the circumstances of all Americans, by offering access to useful, quality information that meets individual and community needs -- but those needs must be articulated and heeded.

For all of the policy activity generated within Washington, DC, there is still too little corresponding activity at the local level, and too few community technology efforts are able to navigate the difficult application processes for existing federal funding opportunities. In order to continue to build momentum for community technology program funding, advocates need to direct their voices, and promote their activities, to decision makers on a regular basis. Only then can the constituency be seen, heard, and taken seriously politically.



----------------------------------
So What's the Goal?
----------------------------------

As a broad, diverse community of interests, community technology has reached an important opportunity, in which there is a common understanding of the principles under which we work, but little clarity around the exact policy goals desired. Until there is substantive definition and articulation of those goals in a consistent, coordinated manner, through the policy and public arenas, we all face an even more uncertain notion of how to solve the digital divide with long-term, widespread support.

This new political landscape underscores the need for all community technology concerns to be better connected. As courses of policy continue to evolve, the premium placed on technology should not outweigh that placed on people, in order to ensure that no one is either left out or behind.


Ryan Turner
OMB Watch