Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: May 18, 2022April 7, 2023
Structural Features and Function
Julie M. Lawhorn
This report describes the structure, activities, legislative history, and funding history of
This report describes the structure, activities, legislative history, and funding history of
the seven
Analyst in Economic
Analyst in Economic
the eight federal regional commissions and authorities: federal regional commissions and authorities:
Development Policy
Development Policy
the Appalachian Regional Commission; the Appalachian Regional Commission;
the Delta Regional Authority; the Delta Regional Authority;
the Denali Commission;
the Denali Commission;
the the
Great Lakes Authority; the Northern Border Regional Commission; Northern Border Regional Commission;
the Northern Great Plains Regional Authority; the Northern Great Plains Regional Authority;
the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission; and the the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission; and the
Southwest Border Regional Commission. Southwest Border Regional Commission.
All
All
seveneight regional commissions and authorities are modeled after the Appalachian Regional Commission structure, which is regional commissions and authorities are modeled after the Appalachian Regional Commission structure, which is
composed of a federal co-chair appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, and the member state composed of a federal co-chair appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, and the member state
governors, of which one is appointed the state co-chair. This structure is broadly replicated in the other commissions and governors, of which one is appointed the state co-chair. This structure is broadly replicated in the other commissions and
authorities, albeit with notable variations and exceptions to local contexts. In addition, the service areas for all of the federal authorities, albeit with notable variations and exceptions to local contexts. In addition, the service areas for all of the federal
regional commissions and authorities are defined in statute and thus can only be amended or modified through congressional regional commissions and authorities are defined in statute and thus can only be amended or modified through congressional
action. While the action. While the
exact service areas have shifted over time, the general areas of service, as well as the services provided, have not changed significantly.
Of the eightservice areas for the federal regional commissions and authorities have shifted over time, those jurisdictions have not changed radically in their respective service lives.
Of the seven federal regional commissions and authorities, five could be considered active federal regional commissions and authorities, five could be considered active
and functioning as of the date of publication: the Appalachian Regional : the Appalachian Regional
Commission; the Delta Regional Authority; the Denali Commission; Northern Border Regional Commission; and the Commission; the Delta Regional Authority; the Denali Commission; Northern Border Regional Commission; and the
Southeast Crescent Regional Commission.Southeast Crescent Regional Commission.
The five currently active regional commissions and authority received $5 million to $195 A sixth commission—the Southwest Border Regional Commission (SBRC)—is expected to convene members and start operations in FY2023. The Great Lakes Authority is inactive since it does not have a federal co-chair and has not yet received appropriations. The funding authorization Northern Great Plans Regional Authority lapsed at the end of FY2018 and it was not reauthorized.
The regional commissions and Delta Regional Authority each received $20 million to $200 million in annual appropriations in million in annual appropriations in
FY2022FY2023 for their various activities. Each of the five functioning regional commissions and authority engage in economic for their various activities. Each of the five functioning regional commissions and authority engage in economic
development to varying extents, and address multiple programmatic activities in their respective service areas. These development to varying extents, and address multiple programmatic activities in their respective service areas. These
activities may include, but are not limitedactivities may include, but are not limited
, to to
, basic infrastructure; energy; ecology/environment and natural resources; basic infrastructure; energy; ecology/environment and natural resources;
workforce/laborworkforce; and business development; and business development
/entrepreneurship. .
Though they are federally chartered, receive congressional appropriations for their administration and activities, and include
Though they are federally chartered, receive congressional appropriations for their administration and activities, and include
an appointed federal representative in their respective leadership structures (the federal co-chair and his/her alternate, as an appointed federal representative in their respective leadership structures (the federal co-chair and his/her alternate, as
applicable), the federal regional commissions and authorities are quasi-governmental partnerships between the federal applicable), the federal regional commissions and authorities are quasi-governmental partnerships between the federal
government and the constituent state(s) of a given authority or commission. This partnership structuregovernment and the constituent state(s) of a given authority or commission. This partnership structure
, which also typically includes substantial input and efforts at the sub-state level, includes substantial input and efforts at the sub-state level,
and represents a unique federal represents a unique federal
approach to economic development.
Theapproach to economic development and a potentially flexible mechanism for coordinating strategic economic development goals and aligning them with local, state, and multi-state/regional priorities and contexts.
Congress has expressed interest in the federal regional commissions and authorities pursuant to its appropriations and oversight authority, as well as its interest in facilitating economic development programming. Given relevant congressional interest, the federal regional commissions and authorities provide a model of functioning economic development approaches federal regional commissions and authorities provide a model of functioning economic development approaches
that are place-based, intergovernmental, and multifaceted in their programmatic orientation (e.g., infrastructure, energy, that are place-based, intergovernmental, and multifaceted in their programmatic orientation (e.g., infrastructure, energy,
environment/ecology, workforce, business development). environment/ecology, workforce, business development).
Congressional Research Service
Congressional Research Service
link to page 6 link to page 7 link to page
link to page 6 link to page 7 link to page
78 link to page link to page
78 link to page 8 link to page 9 link to page 10 link to page link to page 8 link to page 9 link to page 10 link to page
1011 link to page link to page
1011 link to page link to page
1011 link to page link to page
1213 link to page link to page
1214 link to page link to page
1315 link to page link to page
1415 link to page link to page
1416 link to page link to page
1516 link to page link to page
1517 link to page link to page
1618 link to page link to page
1719 link to page link to page
1720 link to page link to page
1821 link to page link to page
1921 link to page link to page
2022 link to page link to page
2022 link to page link to page
2122 link to page link to page
2123 link to page link to page
2224 link to page link to page
2325 link to page link to page
2426 link to page link to page
2427 link to page link to page
2527 link to page link to page
2627 link to page 27 link to page 28 link to page link to page 27 link to page 28 link to page
2928 link to page link to page
2928 link to page link to page
3028 link to page link to page
3029 link to page link to page
3129 link to page link to page
3130 link to page link to page
3230 link to page link to page
3231 link to page 33 link to page 33 link to page 34 link to page 33 link to page 33 link to page 34
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Appalachian Regional Commission ................................................................................................ 2
Overview of Structure and Activities ............................................................................................................. 2 3
Commission Structure ......................................................................................................... 2
Regional Development3 Strategic Plan ............................................................................................... 3
Distressed Counties ....................... 3 Designating Distressed Areas ............................................................................................. 4 Recent Activities 4
Legislative History .................................................................................................................... 5
Council of Appalachian GovernorsLegislative History ..................................................................................... 5
Appalachian Regional Development Act .................................... 6
Appalachian Regional Development Act ........................................ 5
Major Amendments to the ARC Before 2021 .................................... 6 Major Amendments to the ARC ................................. 5
Infrastructure, Investment, and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58) ......................................................... 76
Funding History ........................................................................................................................ 78
Delta Regional Authority ................................................................................................................. 89
Overview of Structure and Activities ........................................................................................ 9 10
Authority Structure ............................................................................................................. 9
DRA 10 Strategic PlanningPlan .................................................................................................... 10
Distress Designations .................................. 11 Designating Distressed Areas ............................................................................................ 10
States’ Economic Development Assistance Program11 Recent Activities ......................................................... 11
Legislative History ........................................................... 12 States’ Economic Development Assistance Program ....................................................... 12
Key Legislative Activity 13
Legislative History ................................................................................................................. 12
. 14 Funding History ...................................................................................................................... 1315
Denali Commission ....................................................................................................................... 1416
Overview of Structure and Activities ...................................................................................... 1516
Commission Structure ....................................................................................................... 15
Distressed Areas17 Annual Work Plan and Strategic Plan ............................................................................... 17 Designating Distressed Areas .................................................................................. 16......... 17
Recent Activities ............................................................................................................... 1618
Legislative History .................................................................................................................. 17
19 Funding History ...................................................................................................................... 20
Great Lakes Authority ....................... 18
Northern Border Regional Commission ........................................................................................ 19.... 21
Overview of Structure and Activities ...................................................................................... 19
Program Areas ...22
Authority Structure ................................................................................................................ 20 22
Strategic Plan .................................................................................................................... 21
Economic and Demographic Distress 22 Designating Distressed Areas ........................................................................................... 22 Recent Activities 22
Legislative History .................................................................................................................. 23
Funding 23
Legislative History ...................................................................................................................... 24
Northern Great Plains Regional Authority 23 Funding History .................................................................................... 24
Structure and Activities .................................. 23
Northern Border Regional Commission ......................................................................... 25
Authority Structure .............................. 23
Overview of Structure and Activities ...................................................................................... 24
Commission Structure .................. 25
Activities and Administration ........................................................................................... 26
Legislative History 24 Strategic Plan .................................................................................................................... 26
Funding History25 Designating Distressed Areas ........................................................................................... 25 Recent Activities ........................... 27
Southeast Crescent Regional Commission .................................................................................... 27
Overview of Structure and Activities .....26 Local Development Districts (LDD)................................................................................. 28
Legislative History .................................................................................................................. 28
Funding History ...................................................................................................................... 29
Congressional Research Service
Congressional Research Service
link to page 34 link to page 35 link to page 35 link to page 36 link to page
link to page 34 link to page 35 link to page 35 link to page 36 link to page
37 link to page 7 link to page 14 link to page 20 link to page 24 link to page 30 link to page 33 link to page 35 link to page 39 link to page 41 link to page 13 link to page 16 link to page 19 link to page 23 link to page 29 link to page 34 link to page 37 link to page 38 link to page 42 link to page 45 link to page 49 link to page 50 link to page 50 link to page 51 link to page 52 link to page 5336 link to page 37 link to page 37 link to page 38 link to page 38 link to page 39 link to page 39 link to page 39 link to page 40 link to page 40 link to page 41 link to page 41 link to page 41 link to page 42 link to page 42 link to page 42 link to page 42 link to page 43 link to page 43 link to page 7 link to page 15 link to page 21 link to page 27 link to page 29 link to page 35 link to page 38 link to page 41 link to page 46 link to page 48 link to page 14 link to page 20 link to page 26 link to page 34 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Southwest Border Regional Commission Northern Great Plains Regional Authority .................................................................................... 29
Structure and Activities .................................................................................................. 29......... 30
Overview of Structure and Activities ................................................................................ 30 Activities ........................................................................................................................... 31
...... 30 Legislative History ..................................................................................................................
3031 Funding History ...................................................................................................................... 31
Concluding Notes 32
Southeast Crescent Regional Commission .................................................................................... 32
Overview of Structure and Activities ...................................................................................... 33
Commission Structure ....................................................................................................... 33 Strategic Plan .................................................................................................................... 34 Designating Distressed Areas ........................................................................................... 34 Recent Activities ............................................................................................................... 34
Legislative History .................................................................................................................. 35 Funding History ...................................................................................................................... 35
Southwest Border Regional Commission ...................................................................................... 36
Overview of Structure and Activities ...................................................................................... 36
Commission Structure ....................................................................................................... 36 Strategic Plan .................................................................................................................... 37 Designating Distressed Areas ........................................................................................... 37 Recent Activities ............................................................................................................... 37
Legislative History .................................................................................................................. 37
Funding History ...................................................................................................................... 38
Concluding Notes ......................
........................................... 32
Figures
Figure 1. Map of the Appalachian Regional Commission ............................................................... 2
Figure 2. Map of the Delta Regional Authority ............................................................................... 9
Figure 3. Map of the Denali Commission ..................................................................................... 15
Figure 4. Map of the Northern Border............... 38
Figures Figure 1. Map of the Appalachian Regional Commission ............................................................... 2 19
Figure 5. Map of the Northern Great Plains Regional Authority 2. Map of the Delta Regional Authority ......................................................... 25
Figure 6. Map of the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission .................... 10 Figure 3. Map of the Denali Commission ..................................................................................... 16 Figure 4. Map of the Great Lakes Authority ......................................................... 28
Figure 7. Map of the Southwest........................ 22 Figure 5. Map of the Northern Border Regional Commission ...................................................... 24 Figure 6. Map of the Northern Great Plains Regional Authority ............ 30
Figure A-1. Structure and Activities of the Commissions and Authorities .................................... 34
Figure B-1. National Map of the Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities ....................... 36
Tables
Table 1. ARC: Authorized and Appropriated Funding, FY2010-FY2022 ...................................... 30 Figure 7. Map of the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission .................................................. 33 Figure 8. Map of the Southwest Border Regional Commission .................................................... 36
Figure A-1. Structure and Activities of the Commissions and Authorities....................................... 8
Table 2. DRA Allocations by State, FY2021 .................................................................................. 11
Table 3 41 Figure B-1. National Map of the Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities ....................... 43
Tables Table 1. ARC: Authorized and Appropriated Funding, FY2014-FY2023 ....................................... 9 Table 2. DRA: Authorized and Appropriated Funding,
FY2010-FY2022FY2014-FY2023 ....................................
1415 Table 43. Denali Commission: Authorized and Appropriated Funding, FY2010-FY2022FY2014-FY2023 ............ 18. 21
Table 54. NBRC Authorized and Appropriated Funding, FY2010-FY2022FY2014-FY2023 ................................... 24
Table 6. SCRC Authorized and Appropriated Funding, FY2010-FY2022 .................................... 29
Table 7. SBRC Authorized and Appropriated Funding, FY2010-FY2022 .................................... 3229
Congressional Research Service
link to page 40 link to page 43 link to page 45 link to page 49 link to page 52 link to page 53 link to page 54 link to page 55 link to page 55 link to page 56 link to page 57 link to page 58 link to page 45 link to page 48 link to page 49 link to page 52 link to page 58 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Table 5. SCRC Authorized and Appropriated Funding, FY2014-FY2023 .................................... 35 Table 6. SBRC Authorized and Appropriated Funding, FY2014-FY2023 .................................... 38
Table A-1. Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities .......................................................... 3340
Table C-1. Historical Appropriations: Federal Regional Commissions (FY1986-FY2022FY2023) ......... 37
Table D-1. ARC Counties by Designated Distress, FY2022 44 Table D-1. Statutory Jurisdiction of ARC ......................................................................... 40
Table D-2. DRA Counties by State and Distress, FY2021 ............ 47 Table D-2. Statutory Jurisdiction of DRA ......................................................................... 44
Table D-3. Denali Commission Distressed Communities List, 2020 ............ 48 Table D-3. Statutory Jurisdiction of Denali Commission .............................................................. 45
Table D-4. NBRC Counties by Distress Designation, FY2021 49 Table D-4. Statutory Jurisdiction of GLA ..................................................................................... 4550
Table D-5. Statutory Jurisdiction of NGPRA NBRC ................................................................................... 4650
Table D-6. Statutory Jurisdiction of SCRC ...NGPRA ................................................................................ 4751
Table D-7. Statutory Jurisdiction of SBRCSCRC ................................................................................... 48
Congressional Research Service
link to page 38 link to page 41 link to page 42 link to page 45 link to page 53 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
52 Table D-8. Statutory Jurisdiction of SBRC ................................................................................... 53
Appendixes
Appendix A. Basic Information at a Glance .................................................................................. 3340
Appendix B. Map of Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities ......................................... 3643
Appendix C. Historical Appropriations ......................................................................................... 3744
Appendix D. Service Areas of Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities........................... 4047
Contacts
Author Information ........................................................................................................................ 4853
Congressional Research Service
Congressional Research Service
link to page
link to page
38 link to page 4145 link to page link to page
3946 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Introduction
Congress authorized Congress authorized
seveneight federal regional commissions and authorities to address instances of federal regional commissions and authorities to address instances of
major economic distress in certain defined socioeconomic regions major economic distress in certain defined socioeconomic regions
(Table A-1):
the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC);
the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC);
the Delta Regional Authority (DRA); the Delta Regional Authority (DRA);
the Denali Commission; the Denali Commission;
the the
Great Lakes Authority (GLA); the Northern Border Regional Commission (NBRC); Northern Border Regional Commission (NBRC);
the Northern Great Plains Regional Authority (NGPRA); the Northern Great Plains Regional Authority (NGPRA);
the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission (SCRC); and the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission (SCRC); and
the Southwest Border Regional Commission (SBRC). the Southwest Border Regional Commission (SBRC).
Five of the seven entities are currently active and receive regularThe first such federal regional commission, the Appalachian Regional Commission, was founded in 1965. The other commissions and authorities may have roots in the intervening decades, but were not founded until 1998 (Denali), 2000 (Delta Regional Authority), and 2002 (the Northern Great Plains Regional Authority). The most recent commissions—Northern Border Regional Commission, Southeast Crescent Regional Commission, and Southwest Border Regional Commission—were authorized in 2008; the Great Lakes Authority was authorized in 2022.
Six of the eight entities currently receive annual appropriations: ARC, annual appropriations: ARC,
DRA, the Denali Commission, the NBRC, DRA, the Denali Commission, the NBRC,
the SBRC, and the SCRC. Both the SCRC and SBRC were inactive until relatively recently. and the SCRC. The SCRC The SCRC
has received regular annual received regular annual
appropriations since FY2010, but lacked a Senate-confirmed federal co-chair until December appropriations since FY2010, but lacked a Senate-confirmed federal co-chair until December
2021. All but one (Alaska’s Denali Commission) serve multi-state regions (Figure B-1)2021. The SBRC was also inactive for approximately 15 years, and received its first appropriation in FY2021. In December 2022, the Senate confirmed the SBRC’s inaugural federal co-chair. Confirmation of these federal co-chairs allows these two commissions to convene and begin their activities.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (P.L. 117-328) amended 40 U.S.C. §15301(a) to establish the GLA.1 The GLA does not yet have a federal co-chair. The NGPRA and GLA are currently inactive and have not received appropriations. .
The federal regional commissions are functioning examples of place-based and intergovernmental
The federal regional commissions are functioning examples of place-based and intergovernmental
approaches to economic development, which receive regular congressional interest.approaches to economic development, which receive regular congressional interest.
12 The federal The federal
regional commissions and authorities integrate federal and state economic development priorities regional commissions and authorities integrate federal and state economic development priorities
alongside regional and local considerations alongside regional and local considerations
(Figure A-1). As federally chartered agencies created . As federally chartered agencies created
by acts of Congress, the federal regional commissions and authorities depend on congressional by acts of Congress, the federal regional commissions and authorities depend on congressional
appropriations for their activities and administration, and are subject to congressional oversight. appropriations for their activities and administration, and are subject to congressional oversight.
The first such federal regional commission, the Appalachian Regional Commission, was founded in 1965. The other commissions and authorities may have roots in the intervening decades, but were not founded until 1998 (Denali), 2000 (Delta Regional Authority), and 2002 (the Northern Great Plains Regional Authority). The most recent commissions—Northern Border Regional Commission, Southeast Crescent Regional Commission, and Southwest Border Regional Commission—were authorized in 2008.
Certain strategic emphases and programs have evolved over time in each of the functioning federal regional commissions and authorities. However, their overarching missions to address economic distress have not changed, and their associated activities have broadly remained consistent to those goals as funding has allowed. In practice, the functioning federal regional commissions and authorities engage in their respective economic development efforts through multiple program areas, which may include, but are not limited to basic infrastructure; energy; ecology/environment and natural resources; workforce/labor; and business development. This report describes the structure, activities, legislative history, and funding history of seven federally chartered regional commissions and authorities.
1 See, for example, recent congressional interest and legislative action onCertain strategic emphases and programs have evolved over time in each of the functioning federal regional commissions and authorities. However, their overarching missions to address
1 Division O, Title IV, Sec. 401 of P.L. 117-328. 2 See, for example, recent congressional interest and legislative action on new place-based programs such as the Department of Commerce Recompete and Technology and Innovation Hub programs (authorized in FY2022 by P.L. 117-167); Opportunity Zones (CRS Report R45152, Opportunity Zones (CRS Report R45152,
Tax
Incentives for Opportunity Zones, by , by
Sean Lowry and Donald J. Marples)Donald J. Marples)
; and New Market Tax Credits (CRS Report and New Market Tax Credits (CRS Report
RL34402, RL34402,
New Markets Tax Credit: An Introduction, by Donald J. Marples, by Donald J. Marples
and Sean Lowry), ), and previous federal and and previous federal and
congressional action on “Promise Zones” (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, congressional action on “Promise Zones” (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,
Promise Zones
Overview, https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/promise-zones/promise-zones-overview/); as well as various , https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/promise-zones/promise-zones-overview/); as well as various
legislation relating to the federal regional commissions and authorities themselves. legislation relating to the federal regional commissions and authorities themselves.
Congressional Research Service
Congressional Research Service
1
1
link to page 7
link to page 7
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
economic distress have not changed, and their associated activities have broadly remained consistent to those goals as funding has allowed. In practice, the functioning federal regional commissions and authorities engage in their respective economic development efforts through multiple program areas, which may include, but are not limited to basic infrastructure; energy; ecology/environment and natural resources; workforce; and business development/entrepreneurship. This report describes the structure, recent activities, legislative history, and funding history of eight federally chartered regional commissions and authorities.
Appalachian Regional Commission
The Appalachian Regional Commission was established in 1965 to address economic distress in The Appalachian Regional Commission was established in 1965 to address economic distress in
the Appalachian region.the Appalachian region.
23 The ARC’s jurisdiction spans 423 counties in Alabama, Georgia, The ARC’s jurisdiction spans 423 counties in Alabama, Georgia,
Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West VirginiCarolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virgini
a (Figure 1). The ARC was originally created to . The ARC was originally created to
address severe economic disparities between Appalachia and that of the broader United States; address severe economic disparities between Appalachia and that of the broader United States;
recently, its mission has grown to include regional competitiveness in a global economic recently, its mission has grown to include regional competitiveness in a global economic
environment. environment.
Figure 1. Map of the Appalachian Regional Commission
ARC service area, by designations of county distress,
ARC service area, by designations of county distress,
FY2022FY2023
Source: Compiled by CRS using data from Compiled by CRS using data from
the Appalachian Regional Commission and Esri Data and Maps 2019. Note: West Virginia is the only state with all counties within the ARC’s jurisdiction.
Esri Data and Maps and Appalachian Regional Commission, Classifying Economic Distress in Appalachian Counties, https://www.arc.gov/classifying-economic-distress-in-appalachian-counties.
3 40 U.S.C. §§14101-14704.
Congressional Research Service
2
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Overview of Structure and Activities
Commission Structure
According to the authorizing legislation, the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, as
According to the authorizing legislation, the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, as
amended,amended,
34 the ARC is a federally chartered, regional economic development entity led by a the ARC is a federally chartered, regional economic development entity led by a
2 40 U.S.C. §§14101-14704. 3 P.L. 89-4.
Congressional Research Service
2
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
federal co-chair, whose term is open-ended, and the 13 participating state governors, of which one federal co-chair, whose term is open-ended, and the 13 participating state governors, of which one
serves as the state co-chair for a term of “at least one year.”serves as the state co-chair for a term of “at least one year.”
45 The federal co-chair is appointed by The federal co-chair is appointed by
the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The authorizing act also allows for the the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The authorizing act also allows for the
appointment of federal and state alternates to the commission. The ARC is a federal-state appointment of federal and state alternates to the commission. The ARC is a federal-state
partnership, with administrative costs shared equally by the federal government and member partnership, with administrative costs shared equally by the federal government and member
states, while economic development activities are funded by congressional appropriations. states, while economic development activities are funded by congressional appropriations.
Regional DevelopmentStrategic Plan
According to authorizing legislation and the ARC code,
According to authorizing legislation and the ARC code,
56 the ARC’s programs abide by a the ARC’s programs abide by a
Regional Development Plan (RDP), which includes documents prepared by the states and the Regional Development Plan (RDP), which includes documents prepared by the states and the
commission. The RDP is comprised of the ARC’s strategic plan, its bylaws, member state commission. The RDP is comprised of the ARC’s strategic plan, its bylaws, member state
development plans, each participating state’s annual strategy statement, the commission’s annual development plans, each participating state’s annual strategy statement, the commission’s annual
program budget, and the commission’s internal implementation and performance management program budget, and the commission’s internal implementation and performance management
guidelines. guidelines.
The RDP integrates local, state, and federal economic development priorities into a common
The RDP integrates local, state, and federal economic development priorities into a common
regional agenda. Through state plans and annual work statements, states establish goals, regional agenda. Through state plans and annual work statements, states establish goals,
priorities, and agendas for fulfilling them. State planning typically includes consulting with local priorities, and agendas for fulfilling them. State planning typically includes consulting with local
development districts (LDDs), which are multicounty organizations that are associated with and development districts (LDDs), which are multicounty organizations that are associated with and
financially supported by the ARC and advise on local priorities.financially supported by the ARC and advise on local priorities.
67
There are 74 ARC-associated LDDs. They may be conduits for funding for other eligible
There are 74 ARC-associated LDDs. They may be conduits for funding for other eligible
organizations, and may also themselves be ARC grantees.organizations, and may also themselves be ARC grantees.
78 State and local governments, State and local governments,
governmental entities, and nonprofit organizations are eligible for ARC investments, including governmental entities, and nonprofit organizations are eligible for ARC investments, including
both federal- and state-designated tribal entities. Notably, state-designated tribal entities that are both federal- and state-designated tribal entities. Notably, state-designated tribal entities that are
not federally recognized (or “lack federal recognition”) are nevertheless eligible to receive ARC not federally recognized (or “lack federal recognition”) are nevertheless eligible to receive ARC
funding. This is rare, as usually federal funding requires federal recognition.funding. This is rare, as usually federal funding requires federal recognition.
8
ARC’s strategic plan is a five-year document, reviewed annually, and revised as necessary. The current strategic plan, adopted in October 2021,9 prioritizes five investment goals:
1. entrepreneurial and business development;
2. workforce development;
3. infrastructure development;
4. natural and cultural assets; and
5. leadership and community capacity.
4 Appalachian Regional Commission, ARC Code, 2020, https://www.arc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/ARC-Code.pdf.
5 Ibid. 69
4 P.L. 89-4. 5 Appalachian Regional Commission, ARC Code, 2022, https://www.arc.gov/arc-code. 6 Ibid. The ARC Code reflects ARC decisions and current ARC policy. The ARC Code is a statement of ARC decisions adopted through resolutions and motions. Under Section 101(b) of the Appalachian Regional Development Act (ARDA), the ARC Code cannot be modified or revised without a quorum of governors.
7 LDDs are not exclusive to the ARC. The DRA and NBRC also make use of them, and other inactive commissions and LDDs are not exclusive to the ARC. The DRA and NBRC also make use of them, and other inactive commissions and
authorities are authorized to organize and/or support them. Designated LDDs may also be organized as Economic authorities are authorized to organize and/or support them. Designated LDDs may also be organized as Economic
Development Administration (EDA)-designated economic development districts (EDDs), which serve a similar Development Administration (EDA)-designated economic development districts (EDDs), which serve a similar
purpose. They may also be co-located with Small Business Administration-affiliated small business development purpose. They may also be co-located with Small Business Administration-affiliated small business development
centers (SBDCs). centers (SBDCs).
78 Appalachian Regional Commission, Appalachian Regional Commission,
Local Development Districts, https://www.arc.gov/local-development-districts/. , https://www.arc.gov/local-development-districts/.
89 See U.S. Government Accountability Office, See U.S. Government Accountability Office,
Indian Issues: Federal Funding for Non-Federally Recognized Tribes, ,
12-348, April 2012, https://www.gao.gov/assets/600/590102.pdf. 12-348, April 2012, https://www.gao.gov/assets/600/590102.pdf.
9 Appalachian Regional Commission, Appalachia Envisioned: A New Era of Opportunity, Strategic Plan FY 2022-
2026, https://www.arc.gov/strategicplan/.
Congressional Research Service
3
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
While most funds are used for economic development grants, approximately $50 million is reserved for the Partnerships for Opportunity and Workforce and Economic Revitalization (POWER) Initiative.10 The POWER Initiative began in 2015 to provide economic development funding for addressing economic and labor dislocations caused by energy transition principally in coal communities in the Appalachian region.11
Distressed Counties
The ARC is statutorily obligated to designate counties according to levels of economic distress.12 Distress Congressional Research Service
3
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
ARC’s strategic plan is a five-year document, reviewed annually, and revised as necessary. The current strategic plan, adopted in October 2021,10 prioritizes five investment goals:
1. entrepreneurial and business development;
2. workforce development;
3. infrastructure development;
4. natural and cultural assets; and
5. leadership and community capacity.
The ARC’s 13 member states also develop four-year plans and annual strategy statements that outline their states’ funding priorities for ARC projects.11
Designating Distressed Areas
The ARC is statutorily obligated to allocate at least 50% of funding to distressed areas.12 The ARC is also statutorily obligated to designate counties by level of economic distress.13 Distress designations influence funding priority and determine grant match requirements. Using designations influence funding priority and determine grant match requirements. Using
an index-based classification system, the ARC compares each county within its jurisdiction with an index-based classification system, the ARC compares each county within its jurisdiction with
national averages based on three economic indicators:national averages based on three economic indicators:
1314 (1) three-year average unemployment (1) three-year average unemployment
rates; (2) per capita market income; and (3) poverty rates. These factors are calculated into a rates; (2) per capita market income; and (3) poverty rates. These factors are calculated into a
composite index value for each county, which are ranked and sorted into designated distress composite index value for each county, which are ranked and sorted into designated distress
levels.levels.
14 Each distress level corresponds to a given county’s ranking relative to that of the United Each distress level corresponds to a given county’s ranking relative to that of the United
States as a whole. These designations are defined as follows by the ARC, starting from “worst” States as a whole. These designations are defined as follows by the ARC, starting from “worst”
distress:15 distress:15
distressed counties, or those with values in the “worst” 10% of U.S. counties; counties, or those with values in the “worst” 10% of U.S. counties;
at-risk, which rank between worst 10% and 25%; , which rank between worst 10% and 25%;
transitional, which rank between worst 25% and best 25%; , which rank between worst 25% and best 25%;
competitive, which rank between “best” 25% and best 10%; and , which rank between “best” 25% and best 10%; and
attainment, or those which rank in the best 10%. , or those which rank in the best 10%.
The designated level of distress is statutorily tied to allowable funding levels by the ARC
The designated level of distress is statutorily tied to allowable funding levels by the ARC
(funding allowance), the balance of which must be met through grant matches from other funding (funding allowance), the balance of which must be met through grant matches from other funding
sources (including potentially other federal funds) unless a waiver or special dispensation is sources (including potentially other federal funds) unless a waiver or special dispensation is
permitted: distressed (80% funding allowance, 20% grant match); at-risk (70%); transitional permitted: distressed (80% funding allowance, 20% grant match); at-risk (70%); transitional
(50%); competitive (30%); and attainment (0% funding allowance). Exceptions can be made to (50%); competitive (30%); and attainment (0% funding allowance). Exceptions can be made to
grant match thresholds. Attainment counties may be able to receive funding for projects where grant match thresholds. Attainment counties may be able to receive funding for projects where
sub-county areas are considered to be at higher levels of distress, and/or in those cases where the sub-county areas are considered to be at higher levels of distress, and/or in those cases where the
inclusion of an attainment county in a multi-county project would benefit one or more inclusion of an attainment county in a multi-county project would benefit one or more
non-attainment
10 Appalachian Regional Commission, Appalachia Envisioned: A New Era of Opportunity, Strategic Plan FY 2022-2026, https://www.arc.gov/strategicplan/.
11 See, for example, state plans available at Appalachian Regional Commission, Appalachian States, https://www.arc.gov/appalachian-states/.
12 42 U.S.C. §14524. 13 42 U.S.C. §14526. 14 Appalachian Regional Commission, Classifying Economic Distress in Appalachian Counties, https://www.arc.gov/classifying-economic-distress-in-appalachian-counties.
15 Appalachian Regional Commission, Distressed Designation and County Economic Status Classification System, https://www.arc.gov/distressed-designation-and-county-economic-status-classification-system.
Congressional Research Service
4
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
nonattainment counties or areas. In addition, special allowances may reduce or discharge matches, counties or areas. In addition, special allowances may reduce or discharge matches,
and match requirements may be met with other federal funds. and match requirements may be met with other federal funds.
10 Appalachian Regional Commission,
Recent Activities16
ARC makes grant investments through the following core programs:17
Area Development (i.e., the “base” grant program). This funding is for building
community capacity and supporting economic growth broadly. This program also provides funding for local development districts (LDDs) and funding for business development revolving loan funds (RLFs).18
Partnerships for Opportunity and Workforce and Economic Revitalization
(POWER) Initiative. The POWER Initiative provides funding for ARC communities disproportionately affected by the downturn of the coal industry.19
Initiative for Substance Abuse Mitigation (INSPIRE). INSPIRE funding is provided to
initiatives designed to address challenges related to substance use disorder (SUD), such as efforts to support workforce entry or re-entry and other recovery ecosystem projects.20
Appalachian Regional Initiative for Stronger Economies (ARISE). ARC established
the ARISE initiative in 2022 to support large-scale, multi-state projects.21
Workforce Opportunity for Rural Communities (WORC) Grant Initiative. ARC
partners with the U.S. Department of Labor’s Employment and Training Administration to design workforce development initiatives, with funding provided through the DOL.22
In addition to its grant programs, ARC activities include various partnerships and ongoing initiatives (e.g., the J-1 Visa waiver program and various academies and institutes).23 ARC collaborates with federal, state, and local agencies to develop the Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) and Local Roads program.24 Additionally, ARC’s research office issues
16 Activities and programs in this section are illustrative examples and not comprehensive. For information on additional Appalachian Regional Commission activities, see https://www.arc.gov.
17 Appalachian Regional Commission, About ARC Grants, https://www.arc.gov/about-arc-grants/; and Grants and Opportunities, https://www.arc.gov/grants-and-opportunities.
18 Appalachian Regional Commission, Area Development, https://www.arc.gov/area-development-program/. For more information on revolving loan funds, see CRS In Focus IF11449, Economic Development Revolving Loan Funds (ED-RLFs), by Julie M. Lawhorn.
19 Appalachian Regional Commission, Partnerships for Opportunity and Workforce and Economic Revitalization Initiative, https://www.arc.gov/power.
20 Appalachian Regional Commission, Investments Supporting Partnerships in Recovery Ecosystems Initiative, https://www.arc.gov/sud.
21 Appalachian Regional Commission, Appalachian Regional Initiative for Stronger Economies, https://www.arc.gov/arise.
22 Appalachian Regional Commission, Workforce Opportunity for Rural Communities, https://www.arc.gov/workforce-opportunity-for-rural-communities-worc.
23 See Appalachian Regional Commission, Additional Opportunities, https://www.arc.gov/grants-and-opportunities. 24 40 U.S.C. §14501. Congress authorized construction of the Appalachian Development Highway System as part of ARC’s original enabling legislation in 1965. See also “Appalachian Development Highway System Program (ADHS; IIJA Division J, Title VIII),” in CRS Report R47022, Federal Highway Programs: In Brief, by Robert S. Kirk; Appalachian Regional Commission, Appalachian Development Highway System, https://www.arc.gov/appalachian-development-highway-system; and Transportation in Appalachia, https://www.arc.gov/transportation-in-appalachia.
Congressional Research Service
5
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Requests for Proposals for research and evaluation contracts on topics directly affecting economic development in the Appalachian region.25
Legislative History
Appalachian Regional Development Act
In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Appalachian Regional Development Act,26(POWER) Initiative, https://www.arc.gov/funding/POWER.asp.
11 The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, FACT SHEET: The Partnerships for Opportunity and Workforce
and Economic Revitalization (POWER) Initiative, March 27, 2015, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/03/27/fact-sheet-partnerships-opportunity-and-workforce-and-economic-revitaliz.
12 42 U.S.C. §14526. 13 Appalachian Regional Commission, County Economic Status and Distressed Areas in Appalachia, https://www.arc.gov/appalachian_region/CountyEconomicStatusandDistressedAreasinAppalachia.asp.
14 Appalachian Regional Commission, Data Reports: County Economic Status, Fiscal Year 2020, https://www.arc.gov/reports/custom_report.asp?REPORT_ID=76.
15 Appalachian Regional Commission, Distressed Designation and County Economic Status Classification System, FY
2007–FY 2020, https://www.arc.gov/research/SourceandMethodologyCountyEconomicStatusFY2007FY2020.asp.
Congressional Research Service
4
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Legislative History
Council of Appalachian Governors
In 1960,16 the Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia governors formed the Council of Appalachian Governors to highlight Appalachia’s extended economic distress and to press for increased federal involvement. In 1963, President John F. Kennedy formed the President’s Appalachian Regional Commission (PARC) and charged it with developing an economic development program for the region. PARC’s report, issued in 1964,17 called for the creation of an independent agency to coordinate federal and state efforts to address infrastructure, natural resources, and human capital issues in the region. The PARC also included some Ohio counties as part of the Appalachian region.
Appalachian Regional Development Act
In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Appalachian Regional Development Act,18 which which
created the ARC to address the PARC’s recommendations, and added counties in New York and created the ARC to address the PARC’s recommendations, and added counties in New York and
Mississippi. The ARC was directed to administer or assist in the following initiatives: Mississippi. The ARC was directed to administer or assist in the following initiatives:
The creation of the Appalachian
The creation of the Appalachian
Development Highway System;Development Highway System;
The Council of Appalachian Governors
Establishing “Demonstration Health Establishing “Demonstration Health
Facilities” to fund health
Prior to the establishment of ARC, in 1960, the
infrastructure;
Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and West
Land stabilization, conservation, and
Virginia governors formed the Council of Appalachian
erosion control programs;
Governors to highlight Appalachia’s extended
economic distress and to press for increased federal
Timber development organizations,
involvement. In 1963, President John F. Kennedy
for purposes of forest management;
formed the President’s Appalachian Regional
Mining area restoration, for
Commission (PARC) and charged it with developing an
rehabilitating and/or revitalizing
economic development program for the region. PARC’s report, issued in 1964, cal ed for the creation
mining sites;
of an independent agency to coordinate federal and
A water resources survey;
state efforts to address infrastructure, natural resources, and human capital issues in the region. The
Vocational education programs; and
PARC also included some Ohio counties as part of the
Appalachian region.27
Facilities” to fund health infrastructure;
Land stabilization, conservation, and erosion control programs;
Timber development organizations, for purposes of forest management;
Mining area restoration, for rehabilitating and/or revitalizing mining sites;
A water resources survey;
Vocational education programs; and
Sewage treatment infrastructure.Sewage treatment infrastructure.
Major Amendments to the ARC Before 2021
Appalachian Regional Development Act Amendments of 1975
In 1975, the ARC’s authorizing legislation was amended to require that state governors In 1975, the ARC’s authorizing legislation was amended to require that state governors
themselves serve as the state representatives on the commission, overriding original statutory themselves serve as the state representatives on the commission, overriding original statutory
language in which governors were permitted to appoint designated representatives.language in which governors were permitted to appoint designated representatives.
1928 The The
amendments also included provisions to expand public participation in ARC plans and programs. amendments also included provisions to expand public participation in ARC plans and programs.
They also required states to consult with local development districts and local governments and They also required states to consult with local development districts and local governments and
authorized federal grants to the ARC to assist states in enhancing state development planning. authorized federal grants to the ARC to assist states in enhancing state development planning.
1625 Appalachian Regional Commission, Research and Data, https://www.arc.gov/research-and-data. 26 P.L. 89-4. 27 Appalachian Regional Commission, Appalachian Regional Commission,
ARC History, https://www.arc.gov/about/ARCHistory.asp, https://www.arc.gov/about/ARCHistory.asp
. 17; and Appalachian Regional Commission, Appalachian Regional Commission,
Appalachia: A Report by the President’s Appalachian Regional Commission,
1964, April 1964, https://www.arc.gov/about/ARCAppalachiaAReportbythePresidentsAppalachianRegionalCommission1964.asp.
18 P.L. 89-4. 191964, April 1964.
28 P.L. 94-188. P.L. 94-188.
Congressional Research Service
Congressional Research Service
56
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Appalachian Regional Development Reform Act of 1998
Legislative reforms in 1998 introduced county-level designations of distress.Legislative reforms in 1998 introduced county-level designations of distress.
2029 The legislation The legislation
organized county-level distress into three bands, from “worst” to “best”: distressed counties; organized county-level distress into three bands, from “worst” to “best”: distressed counties;
competitive counties; and attainment counties. The act imposed limitations on funding for competitive counties; and attainment counties. The act imposed limitations on funding for
economically strong counties: (1) “competitive,” which could only accept ARC funding for 30% economically strong counties: (1) “competitive,” which could only accept ARC funding for 30%
of project costs (with the 70% balance being subject to grant match requirements); and (2) of project costs (with the 70% balance being subject to grant match requirements); and (2)
“attainment,” which were generally ineligible for funding, except through waivers or exceptions. “attainment,” which were generally ineligible for funding, except through waivers or exceptions.
In addition, the act withdrew the ARC’s legislative mandate for certain programs, including the
In addition, the act withdrew the ARC’s legislative mandate for certain programs, including the
land stabilization, conservation, and erosion control program; the timber development program; land stabilization, conservation, and erosion control program; the timber development program;
the mining area restoration program; the water resource development and utilization survey; the the mining area restoration program; the water resource development and utilization survey; the
Appalachian airport safety improvements program (a program added in 1971); the sewage Appalachian airport safety improvements program (a program added in 1971); the sewage
treatment works program; and amendments to the Housing Act of 1954 from the original 1965 treatment works program; and amendments to the Housing Act of 1954 from the original 1965
act. act.
Appalachian Regional Development Act Amendments of 2002
Legislation in 2002 expanded the ARC’s ability to support LDDs, introduced an emphasis on Legislation in 2002 expanded the ARC’s ability to support LDDs, introduced an emphasis on
ecological issues, and provided for a greater coordinating role by the ARC in federal economic ecological issues, and provided for a greater coordinating role by the ARC in federal economic
development activities.development activities.
2130 The amendments also provided new stipulations for the ARC’s grant The amendments also provided new stipulations for the ARC’s grant
making, limiting the organization to funding 50% of project costs or 80% in designated distressed making, limiting the organization to funding 50% of project costs or 80% in designated distressed
counties. The amendments also expanded the ARC’s efforts in human capital development counties. The amendments also expanded the ARC’s efforts in human capital development
projects, such as through various vocational, entrepreneurial, and skill training initiatives. projects, such as through various vocational, entrepreneurial, and skill training initiatives.
The Appalachian Regional Development Act Amendments of 2008
The Appalachian Regional Development Act Amendments of 2008 made adjustments to the The Appalachian Regional Development Act Amendments of 2008 made adjustments to the
ARC’s grant authorities and extended its geographic reach. The amendments included ARC’s grant authorities and extended its geographic reach. The amendments included
1. various limitations on project funding amounts and commission contributions;
1. various limitations on project funding amounts and commission contributions;
2. the establishment of an economic and energy development initiative;
2. the establishment of an economic and energy development initiative;
3. the expansion of county designations to include an “at-risk” designation; and
3. the expansion of county designations to include an “at-risk” designation; and
4. the expansion of the number of counties under the ARC’s jurisdiction.
4. the expansion of the number of counties under the ARC’s jurisdiction.
2231
The 2008 amendments introduced funding limitations for ARC grant activities as a whole, as well
The 2008 amendments introduced funding limitations for ARC grant activities as a whole, as well
as to specific programs. According to the 2008 legislation, “the amount of the grant shall not as to specific programs. According to the 2008 legislation, “the amount of the grant shall not
exceed 50 percent of administrative expenses.” However, at the ARC’s discretion, an LDD that exceed 50 percent of administrative expenses.” However, at the ARC’s discretion, an LDD that
included a “distressed” county in its service area could provide for 75% of administrative included a “distressed” county in its service area could provide for 75% of administrative
expenses of a relevant project, or 70% for “at-risk” counties. Eligible activities could only be expenses of a relevant project, or 70% for “at-risk” counties. Eligible activities could only be
funded by the ARC at a maximum of 50% of the project cost,funded by the ARC at a maximum of 50% of the project cost,
2332 or 80% for distressed counties and or 80% for distressed counties and
70% for “at-risk” counties. The act introduced special project categories, including 70% for “at-risk” counties. The act introduced special project categories, including
demonstration health projects;
demonstration health projects;
assistance for proposed low- and middle-income housing projects; assistance for proposed low- and middle-income housing projects;
2029 P.L. 105-393. P.L. 105-393.
2130 P.L. 107-149. P.L. 107-149.
2231 P.L. 110-371. P.L. 110-371.
2332 Where allowable, Where allowable,
non-appropriatednonappropriated funds—such as those from states or localities—or even other non-ARC federal funds—such as those from states or localities—or even other non-ARC federal
funds may be used to fund the balance of the project costs. funds may be used to fund the balance of the project costs.
Congressional Research Service
Congressional Research Service
67
link to page
link to page
1314 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
the telecommunications and technology initiative;
the telecommunications and technology initiative;
the entrepreneurship initiative; and the entrepreneurship initiative; and
the regional skills partnership. the regional skills partnership.
Finally, the “economic and energy development initiative” provided for the ARC to fund
Finally, the “economic and energy development initiative” provided for the ARC to fund
activities supporting energy efficiency and renewable technologies. The legislation expanded activities supporting energy efficiency and renewable technologies. The legislation expanded
distress designations to include an “at-risk” category, or counties “most at risk of becoming distress designations to include an “at-risk” category, or counties “most at risk of becoming
economically distressed.” This raised the number of distress levels to five.economically distressed.” This raised the number of distress levels to five.
2433 The legislation also The legislation also
expanded ARC’s service area. Ten counties in four states were added to the ARC. expanded ARC’s service area. Ten counties in four states were added to the ARC.
Infrastructure, Investment, and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58)
The Infrastructure, Investment,The SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act (P.L. 115-271) of 2018 The SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act (the SUPPORT Act, P.L. 115-271), enacted in June 2018, authorized the ARC to support projects and activities that address substance abuse, including opioid abuse, in the region.34
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58) of 2021 The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), enacted in November 2021, extended the and Jobs Act (IIJA), enacted in November 2021, extended the
ARC’s authorization and provided funding for it through FY2026. ARC’s authorization and provided funding for it through FY2026.
Division A of the IIJA authorized appropriations at $200 million a year for each fiscal year
Division A of the IIJA authorized appropriations at $200 million a year for each fiscal year
through FY2026. Within those overall authorized appropriations, the act specifically through FY2026. Within those overall authorized appropriations, the act specifically
authorizesauthorized the ARC to use $20 million annually for expansion of high-speed broadband activities (an the ARC to use $20 million annually for expansion of high-speed broadband activities (an
increase from $10 million annually) and directed ARC to allocate $5 million annually for newly increase from $10 million annually) and directed ARC to allocate $5 million annually for newly
authorized Appalachian Regional Energy Hub activities. The act addressed the ARC’s broadband authorized Appalachian Regional Energy Hub activities. The act addressed the ARC’s broadband
authorization, and outlined additional aspects of the agency’s broadband and regional energy hub authorization, and outlined additional aspects of the agency’s broadband and regional energy hub
initiatives. The act also required congressional notification for grants over $50,000.initiatives. The act also required congressional notification for grants over $50,000.
2535 Additionally, three counties in two states were added to the ARCAdditionally, three counties in two states were added to the ARC
, which represents the most recent expansion to the ARC’s region.26 Division J of the IIJA appropriated $1 billion for the period FY2022-FY2026, which is discussed below. . 36
Funding History
The ARC is a federal-state partnership, with administrative costs shared equally by the federal The ARC is a federal-state partnership, with administrative costs shared equally by the federal
government and states, while economic development activities are federally funded. The ARC is government and states, while economic development activities are federally funded. The ARC is
also the highest-funded of the federal regional commissions and authorities. Its fundingalso the highest-funded of the federal regional commissions and authorities. Its funding
(Table 1)
increased increased
147174% from approximately $73 million in FY2008 to $% from approximately $73 million in FY2008 to $
195200 million in million in
FY2022. FY2023 (excluding advanced appropriations provided by the IIJA).
As noted As noted
above, Division A of the IIJA authorized appropriations of $200 million for the ARC for each of above, Division A of the IIJA authorized appropriations of $200 million for the ARC for each of
FY2022 through FY2026, and Division J appropriated the authorized level of funding.FY2022 through FY2026, and Division J appropriated the authorized level of funding.
27 The $1 billion appropriation in Division J is made available in equal $200 million shares across each of the five fiscal years, and each tranche remains available until it is expended.
The ARC’s funding growth is attributable to incremental increases in appropriations along with an approximately $50 million increase in annual appropriated funds in FY2016 set aside to support the POWER Initiative.28 The POWER Initiative was part of a wider federal effort under37
2433 The five designations of distress are: distressed, at-risk, transitional, competitive, and attainment. The “transitional” The five designations of distress are: distressed, at-risk, transitional, competitive, and attainment. The “transitional”
designation is not defined in statute, unlike the other four categories, but it is utilized as part of the five-level distress designation is not defined in statute, unlike the other four categories, but it is utilized as part of the five-level distress
criteria nonetheless. criteria nonetheless.
2534 P.L. 115-271, Title VIII, Subtitle E—Treating Barriers to Prosperity, Sec. 8062. 35 Division A, Sec. 11506 of P.L. 117-58. Division A, Sec. 11506 of P.L. 117-58.
2636 Union County, SC; Catawba County, NC; and Cleveland County, NC, were added to the ARC region (Division A, Union County, SC; Catawba County, NC; and Cleveland County, NC, were added to the ARC region (Division A,
Sec. 11506(a) of P.L. 117-58). Sec. 11506(a) of P.L. 117-58).
2737 P.L. 117-58, Division J, Title III. The IIJA also provided $1.25 billion over five years (FY2022-FY2026) for the P.L. 117-58, Division J, Title III. The IIJA also provided $1.25 billion over five years (FY2022-FY2026) for the
Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) through the Federal Highway Administration (P.L. 117-58, Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) through the Federal Highway Administration (P.L. 117-58,
Division J, Title VIII). Division J, Title VIII).
28 P.L. 114-113.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
78
link to page
link to page
1314 link to page link to page
4249 link to page link to page
1415 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
the Obama Administration to support coal communities affected by the decline of the coal industry.29 The FY2018 White House budget proposed to shutter the ARC as well as the other federal regional commissions and authorities.30 Congress did not adopt these provisions from the President’s budget, and continued to fund the ARC and other commissions.
Table 1. ARC: Authorized and Appropriated Funding, FY2010-FY2022
$ in millions
FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20
FY21
FY22a
Appropriated
76.0
68.4
68.3
68.3
80.3
90.0
146.0
152.0
155.0
165.0
175.0
180.0
395.0
Funding
Authorized
105.0
108.0
110.0
110.0
110.0
110.0
110.0
110.0
110.0
110.0
110.0
110.0
200.0The $1 billion appropriation in Division J is made available in equal $200 million shares across each of the five fiscal years, and each tranche remains available until it is expended.
The ARC’s funding growth is attributable to incremental increases in appropriations along with an increase in annual appropriations set aside since FY2016 to support the POWER Initiative.38 In FY2023, Congress directed ARC to allocate $65 million to the Partnerships for Opportunity and Workforce and Economic Revitalization (POWER) Initiative.39 The POWER Initiative began in 2015 to provide economic development funding for addressing economic and labor dislocations caused by energy transition principally in coal communities in the Appalachian region.40
Table 1. ARC: Authorized and Appropriated Funding, FY2014-FY2023
$ in millions
FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20
FY21
FY22a
FY23
Appropriated
80.3
90.0
146.0
152.0
155.0
165.0
175.0
180.0
395.0
400.00
Funding
Authorized
110.0
110.0
110.0
110.0
110.0
110.0
110.0
110.0
200.0
200.00
Funding
Funding
Sources: Authorized funding amounts compiled by CRS using data from P.L. 110-234, P.L. 113-79, P.L. 115-334, Authorized funding amounts compiled by CRS using data from P.L. 110-234, P.L. 113-79, P.L. 115-334,
and P.L. 116-159. Appropriated funding amounts compiled by CRS using data from: P.L. and P.L. 116-159. Appropriated funding amounts compiled by CRS using data from: P.L.
111-85; P.L. 112-10; P.L. 112-74; P.L. 113-6; P.L. 113-76; P.L. 113-235; P.L. 114-113; P.L. 115-31; P.L. 115-141; P.L. 115-244; P.L. 116-94; 113-76; P.L. 113-235; P.L. 114-113; P.L. 115-31; P.L. 115-141; P.L. 115-244; P.L. 116-94;
P.L. 116-260; P.L. 117-58; P.L. 116-260; P.L. 117-58;
and P.L. 117-103P.L. 117-103
. ; and P.L. 117-328. Notes: For an expanded historical and comparative view of appropriations, s For an expanded historical and comparative view of appropriations, s
ee Table C-1.
a. FY2022 includes $195 mil ion provided through a. FY2022 includes $195 mil ion provided through
annual appropriations (P.L. 117-103). FY2022 appropriated
funding amounts include $200 mil ion from Division J, Title III of the Infrastructure,the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. 117-103,
Division D, Title IV). FY2022 and FY2023 appropriated funding amounts include $200 mil ion for each fiscal year provided by the Investment, and Jobs Act Investment, and Jobs Act
(IIJA, P.L. 117-58(IIJA, P.L. 117-58
, Division J, Title III). The IIJA provided $200 ). The IIJA provided $200
mil ion in advance appropriationsmil ion for the ARC in each fiscal year from FY2022 through for the ARC in each fiscal year from FY2022 through
FY2026. FY2022 amounts do not include appropriations in Division A of P.L. 117-58 pertaining to the FY2026. FY2022 amounts do not include appropriations in Division A of P.L. 117-58 pertaining to the
Appalachian Development Highway SystemAppalachian Development Highway System
(P.L. 117-58, Division J, Title VIII). .
Delta Regional Authority
The Delta Regional Authority was established in 2000 to address economic distress in the The Delta Regional Authority was established in 2000 to address economic distress in the
Mississippi River Delta region.Mississippi River Delta region.
3141 The DRA aims to “improve regional economic opportunity by The DRA aims to “improve regional economic opportunity by
helping to create jobs, build communities, and improve the lives of the 10 million people”helping to create jobs, build communities, and improve the lives of the 10 million people”
3242 in in
252 designated counties and parishes in Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, 252 designated counties and parishes in Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee
(Figure 2). .
29 For more information on the POWER Initiative, see CRS Report R46015, The POWER Initiative: Energy Transition
as Economic Development, by Julie M. Lawhorn.
30 Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2018, Washington, DC, May 23, 2017, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BUDGET-2018-BUD/pdf/BUDGET-2018-BUD.pdf.
31 P.L. 106-554. 32 Delta Regional Authority, About the Delta Regional Authority, https://dra.gov/about-dra/about-delta-regional-authority/.
Congressional Research Service
8
link to page 1738 P.L. 114-113. 39 Appalachian Regional Commission, Partnerships for Opportunity and Workforce and Economic Revitalization (POWER) Initiative, https://www.arc.gov/funding/POWER.asp.
40 For more information on the POWER Initiative, see CRS Report R46015, The POWER Initiative: Energy Transition as Economic Development, by Julie M. Lawhorn; and The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, FACT SHEET: The Partnerships for Opportunity and Workforce and Economic Revitalization (POWER) Initiative, March 27, 2015, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/03/27/fact-sheet-partnerships-opportunity-and-workforce-and-economic-revitaliz.
41 P.L. 106-554, Appendix D, Title V—Lower Mississippi River Region. 42 Delta Regional Authority, About Delta Regional Authority, https://dra.gov/about.
Congressional Research Service
9
link to page 19
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Figure 2. Map of the Delta Regional Authority
DRA service area, by designations of county distress,
DRA service area, by designations of county distress,
FY2021FY2023
Source: Compiled by CRS using data from Compiled by CRS using data from
the Delta Regional Authority and Esri Data and Maps 2019Esri Data and Maps and data provided to CRS by email from the Delta Regional Authority (2/10/23). .
Overview of Structure and Activities
Authority Structure
Like the ARC, the DRA is a federal-state partnership that shares administrative expenses equally,
Like the ARC, the DRA is a federal-state partnership that shares administrative expenses equally,
while activities are federally funded. The DRA consists of a federal co-chair appointed by the while activities are federally funded. The DRA consists of a federal co-chair appointed by the
President with the advice and consent of the Senate, and the eight state governors, of which one is President with the advice and consent of the Senate, and the eight state governors, of which one is
state co-chair. The governors are permitted to appoint a designee to represent the state, who also state co-chair. The governors are permitted to appoint a designee to represent the state, who also
generally serves as the state alternate.generally serves as the state alternate.
3343
Entities that are eligible to apply for DRA funding include
Entities that are eligible to apply for DRA funding include
1. state and local governments (state agencies, cities and counties/parishes);
1. state and local governments (state agencies, cities and counties/parishes);
2. public bodies; and
2. public bodies; and
3. nonprofit entities.
3. nonprofit entities.
These entities must apply for projects that operate in or are serving residents and communities
These entities must apply for projects that operate in or are serving residents and communities
within the 252 counties/parishes of the DRA’s jurisdiction. Unlike the other federal regional within the 252 counties/parishes of the DRA’s jurisdiction. Unlike the other federal regional
commissions and authorities, the DRA’s service area is defined not in any one piece of legislation commissions and authorities, the DRA’s service area is defined not in any one piece of legislation
but through multiple legislative developments (see but through multiple legislative developments (see
“Legislative History”). In addition, there . In addition, there
appears to be a mechanism for adding counties/parishes to the Authority administratively based appears to be a mechanism for adding counties/parishes to the Authority administratively based
on bill text in the California Desert Protection Act of 1994 from the 103rd Congress (P.L. 103-on bill text in the California Desert Protection Act of 1994 from the 103rd Congress (P.L. 103-
33
43 7 U.S.C. §2009aa. 7 U.S.C. §2009aa.
Congressional Research Service
Congressional Research Service
910
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
433), which incorporated H.R. 4043, the Lower Mississippi Delta Initiatives Act of 1994 as Title
433), which incorporated H.R. 4043, the Lower Mississippi Delta Initiatives Act of 1994 as Title
XI of the bill.XI of the bill.
34
DRA Strategic Planning 44
Strategic Plan
Funding determinations are assessed according to the DRA’s authorizing statute, its strategic
Funding determinations are assessed according to the DRA’s authorizing statute, its strategic
plan, plan,
state priorities, and distress designation.35distress designations, and state priorities. The DRA strategic plan articulates the authority’s The DRA strategic plan articulates the authority’s
high-level economic development priorities. The current strategic plan—high-level economic development priorities. The current strategic plan—
Moving the Delta
Forward, Navigating the Currents of Opportunity: Delta Regional Development Plan IIIIV—was released in —was released in
April 2016.36February 2023 for the 2023-2027 period.45
The strategic plan lists
The strategic plan lists
threefour primary goals:
1. Invest in public infrastructure;
2. Nurture local workforce ecosystems;
3. Promote business growth and entrepreneurship; and
4. Support community place-making and capacity-building.
States provide development plans that primary goals:
1. workforce competitiveness, to “advance the productivity and economic
competitiveness of the Delta workforce”;
2. strengthened infrastructure, to “strengthen the Delta’s physical, digital, and
capital connections to the global economy”; and
3. increased community capacity, to “facilitate local capacity building within Delta
communities, organizations, businesses, and individuals.”
State development plans are required by statute every five years to coincide with the strategic plan, and reflect the economic development goals and priorities of member states and LDDs. reflect the economic development goals and priorities of member states and LDDs.
37 The DRA funds projects through 44 LDDs,3846
DRA projects are developed in coordination with its 45 LDDs,47 which are multicounty economic development which are multicounty economic development
organizations financially supported by the DRA and advise on local priorities. LDDs “provide organizations financially supported by the DRA and advise on local priorities. LDDs “provide
technical assistance, application support and review, and other services” to the DRA and entities technical assistance, application support and review, and other services” to the DRA and entities
applying for funding. LDDs receive administrative fees paid from awarded DRA funds, which are applying for funding. LDDs receive administrative fees paid from awarded DRA funds, which are
calculated as 5% of the first $100,000 of an award, and 1% for all dollars above that amount.calculated as 5% of the first $100,000 of an award, and 1% for all dollars above that amount.
48
Designating Distressed Areas
Distress Designations
The DRA determines a county or parish as distressed on an annual basis through the following
The DRA determines a county or parish as distressed on an annual basis through the following
criteria: criteria:
1. an unemployment rate of 1% higher than the national average for the most recent
1. an unemployment rate of 1% higher than the national average for the most recent
24-month period; and
24-month period; and
2. a per capita income of 80% or less than the national per capita income.
2. a per capita income of 80% or less than the national per capita income.
39 49
The DRA designates counties as either distressed or not, and distressed counties received priority funding from DRA grant making activities. By statute, the DRA directs at least 75% of funds to
3444 Of the 252 counties reported by the DRA to fall within its service area, 219 were incorporated through P.L. 100-460. Of the 252 counties reported by the DRA to fall within its service area, 219 were incorporated through P.L. 100-460.
Another 20 counties in Alabama were included in P.L. 106-554 (16 counties) and P.L. 107-171 (four counties). P.L. Another 20 counties in Alabama were included in P.L. 106-554 (16 counties) and P.L. 107-171 (four counties). P.L.
110-234 added 10 Louisiana parishes and two Mississippi counties. By this count, one county appears to have been 110-234 added 10 Louisiana parishes and two Mississippi counties. By this count, one county appears to have been
included administratively. included administratively.
3545 Delta Regional Authority, Navigating the Currents of Opportunity: Delta Regional Development Plan IV, February 2023, https://dra.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/APPROVED_DRA-RDP-IV_20230215.pdf.
46 See, for example, Delta Regional Authority, Regional Development Plan: State Economic Development Plans, https://dra.gov/about/strategic-development-plan.
47 Delta Regional Authority, Local Development Districts, https://dra.gov/resources/local-development-districts. 48 Delta Regional Authority, 2024 Congressional Budget Justification, https://dra.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/DRA-FY-2024-Budget-Justification-Report-10-March-2023-FINAL.pdf.
49 Delta Regional Authority, Map Room, https://dra.gov/map-room.
Congressional Research Service
11
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
distressed counties and parishes and isolated areas within non-distressed counties and parishes;50 half of those funds must target transportation and basic infrastructure.51 As of FY2023, 232 of DRA’s counties and parishes are economically distressed and 221 are in persistent poverty.52 The DRA notes that a county may experience persistent poverty if it has poverty rates of 20% of the population, or more, for at least 30 years (per the USDA Economic Research Service).53 The DRA also analyzes census tracts in order to designate isolated areas of non-distressed counties or parishes as distressed.54
Recent Activities55
By statute, DRA is required to provide funding for the following four categories:
Basic public infrastructure in distressed counties and isolated areas of distress; Transportation infrastructure for the purpose of facilitating economic
development in the region;
Business development, with emphasis on entrepreneurship; and Job training or employment‐related education, with emphasis on the use of
existing public educational institutions located in the region.56
DRA categorizes its core programs as critical infrastructure or human infrastructure programs. Critical infrastructure programs include:57
the Delta Regional Authority, Eligibility & Funding Priorities, https://dra.gov/funding-programs-states-economic-development/states-economic-development-assistance-program/eligibility-funding-priorities/.
36 Delta Regional Authority, Moving the Delta Forward, Delta Regional Development Plan III, April 2016, https://dra.gov/images/uploads/content_files/DRA_RDP3-FINAL_APRIL2016.pdf.
37 Delta Regional Authority, Strategic Economic Development Plans: State Strategic Economic Development Plans, 2016, https://dra.gov/funding-programs/strategic-economic-development-plans-by-state/.
38 The DRA lists 44 LDDs in good standing on its website, but notes in the 2018 States’ Economic Development
Assistance Program (SEDAP) Manual that the DRA works with 45 LDDs. Delta Regional Authority, Local
Development Districts, https://dra.gov/funding-programs/local-development-districts/.
39 Delta Regional Authority, Distressed Counties and Parishes, https://dra.gov/funding-programs/states-economic-development-assistance-program/distressed-counties-and-parishes/.
Congressional Research Service
10
link to page 16 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
The DRA designates counties as either distressed or not, and distressed counties received priority funding from DRA grant making activities. By statute, the DRA directs at least 75% of funds to distressed counties; half of those funds must target transportation and basic infrastructure. As of FY2018, 234 of the DRA’s 252 counties are considered distressed.
States’ Economic Development Assistance Program
The principal investment tool used by the DRA is the States’ Economic Development Assistance Program (SEDAP), which “provides direct investment into community-based and regional projects that address the DRA’s congressionally mandated four funding priorities.”40
The DRA’s four funding priorities are
1. basic public infrastructure;
2. ; the Community Infrastructure Fund; and the Public Works and Economic Adjustment Assistance (PWEAA) Program.58
Human infrastructure programs include:59
the Strategic Planning Grant Program; the Local Development Districts (LDD) Pilot Program; the Delta Doctors Program;60
50 7 U.S.C. §2009aa–5(b). 51 7 U.S.C. §2009aa–5(d). 52 Delta Regional Authority, 2024 Congressional Budget Justification, https://dra.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/DRA-FY-2024-Budget-Justification-Report-10-March-2023-FINAL.pdf.
53 Delta Regional Authority, Navigating the Currents of Opportunity: Delta Regional Development Plan IV, February 2023, p. 5, https://dra.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/APPROVED_DRA-RDP-IV_20230215.pdf.
54 Delta Regional Authority, Map Room, https://dra.gov/map-room. 55 Activities and programs in this section are illustrative examples and not comprehensive. For information on other DRA activities, see https://dra.gov.
56 7 U.S.C. §2009aa. 57 For a summary of DRA’s critical infrastructure programs, see https://dra.gov/programs/critical-infrastructure/. 58 Since FY2016, Congress has directed the Economic Development Administration (EDA) to partner with DRA to “advance economic growth by assisting communities and regions experiencing chronic high unemployment and low per capita income to create an environment that fosters innovation, promotes entrepreneurship, and attracts increased private capital investment.” DRA and EDA executed an MOA, which calls for EDA to invest $3 million into projects identified by DRA through the Authority’s SEDAP application cycle. See DRA’s FY2023 CBJ, pp. 23-24. 59 For a summary of DRA’s human infrastructure programs, see https://dra.gov/programs/human-infrastructure. 60 The Delta Doctors program is designed to address the health disparities and high levels of health professional
Congressional Research Service
12
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
the Delta Workforce Grant Program; and the Workforce Opportunity for Rural Communities (WORC) Program.
Other DRA activities include various partnerships and ongoing initiatives (e.g., the Innovative Readiness Training program, academies and institutes).61
States’ Economic Development Assistance Program
The principal investment tool used by the DRA is the States’ Economic Development Assistance Program (SEDAP), which is used to fund grants for basic public infrastructure; transportation transportation
infrastructure; business development and entrepreneurship; and workforce training and education.62 infrastructure;
3. workforce development; and
4. business development (emphasizing entrepreneurship).
The DRA’s SEDAP funding is made available to each state according to a four-factor, formula-The DRA’s SEDAP funding is made available to each state according to a four-factor, formula-
derived allocation that balances geographic breadth, population size, and economic distressderived allocation that balances geographic breadth, population size, and economic distress
. (Table 2).41
The factors and their respective weights are calculated as follows: The factors and their respective weights are calculated as follows:
Equity Factor (equal funding among eight states), 50%;
Equity Factor (equal funding among eight states), 50%;
Distressed Population (DRA counties/parishes), 20%; Distressed Population (DRA counties/parishes), 20%;
Distressed County Area (DRA counties/parishes), 20%; and Distressed County Area (DRA counties/parishes), 20%; and
Population Factor (DRA counties/parishes), 10%. Population Factor (DRA counties/parishes), 10%.
63
DRA investments are awarded from state allocations. SEDAP applications are accepted through an online portal and reviewed by LDDs for completeness. Projects are then sorted by priority. The Board of Governors, through their Designees and Alternates, review a list of eligible projects to make project selections. According to the DRA, “After the Federal Co-Chair and Governors agree on the project selections for each state, a formal vote is requested to approve the projects then a grant agreement, notice to proceed letter, and grant manual is provided to the grantees shortly thereafter.”64
Table 2. DRA Allocations by State, FY2021
by order of funding allocation
Share of Funding
Funding Allocation
Louisiana
20.16%
$2,994,043.31
Mississippi
15.42%
$2,290,216.42
Arkansas
14.62%
$2,170,906.27
Missouri
11.39%
$1,691,142.97
Tennessee
10.91%
$1,619,788.58
Alabama
10.28%
$1,526,997.65
Kentucky
9.10%
$1,351,133.61
Il inois
8.11%
$1,203,694.19
Total
100.00%
$14,847,923.00
Source: Data tabulated by CRS from the DRA website.
40 Delta Regional Authority, States’ Economic Development Assistance Program (SEDAP), https://dra.gov/funding-programs-states-economic-development/states-economic-development-assistance-program/.
41 Delta Regional Authority, State Funding Allocations, 2021, https://dra.gov/funding-programs-states-economic-development/state-funding-allocations/.
Congressional Research Service
11
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
DRA investments are awarded from state allocations. SEDAP applications are accepted through LDDs, and projects are sorted into tiers of priority. While all projects must be associated with one While all projects must be associated with one
of the DRA’s four funding priorities, additional prioritization determines the rank order of of the DRA’s four funding priorities, additional prioritization determines the rank order of
awards, which include county-level distress designations; adherence to at least one of the federal awards, which include county-level distress designations; adherence to at least one of the federal
priority eligibility criteria (see below); adherence to at least one of the DRA Regional priority eligibility criteria (see below); adherence to at least one of the DRA Regional
Development Plan goals (from the strategic plan); and adherence to at least one of the state’s Development Plan goals (from the strategic plan); and adherence to at least one of the state’s
DRA priorities.DRA priorities.
42
TheIn recent years, the federal priority eligibility criteria federal priority eligibility criteria
arewere as follows: as follows:
Regional impactInnovation and small business
Merging and consolidating
Merging and consolidating
Multiple funding partners
public utilities
Emergency funding need
Regional impact
public utilities
Multiple funding partners
Broadband infrastructure Broadband infrastructure
Registered apprenticeship
Emergency funding need
Water or wastewater rateWater or wastewater rate
Registered apprenticeship
study (i.e., projects with
study (i.e., projects with
Infrastructure
accredited rate study)
The DRA is also mandated to expend 50% of its appropriated SEDAP dollars on basic public and transportation infrastructure projects, which lend additional weight to this particular criterion.43
accredited rate study)
Infrastructure
shortages by granting J-1 visa waivers for physicians who are willing to provide medical services in distressed DRA communities. See Delta Regional Authority, Delta Doctors, https://dra.gov/programs/human-infrastructure/health/delta-doctors/.
61 Delta Regional Authority, Programs, https://dra.gov/programs. 62 Delta Regional Authority, 2024 Congressional Budget Justification, https://dra.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/DRA-FY-2024-Budget-Justification-Report-10-March-2023-FINAL.pdf.
63 Ibid. 64 Delta Regional Authority, 2024 Congressional Budget Justification, https://dra.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/DRA-FY-2024-Budget-Justification-Report-10-March-2023-FINAL.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
13
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Legislative History
In 1988, the Rural Development, Agriculture, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for In 1988, the Rural Development, Agriculture, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for
FY1989 (P.L. 100-460) appropriated $2 million and included language that authorized the FY1989 (P.L. 100-460) appropriated $2 million and included language that authorized the
creation of the Lower Mississippi Delta Development Commission. The LMDDC was a DRA creation of the Lower Mississippi Delta Development Commission. The LMDDC was a DRA
predecessor tasked with studying economic issues in the Delta and developing a 10-year predecessor tasked with studying economic issues in the Delta and developing a 10-year
economic development plan. The LMDDC consisted of two commissioners appointed by the economic development plan. The LMDDC consisted of two commissioners appointed by the
President as well as the governors of Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, President as well as the governors of Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Missouri, and Tennessee. The commission was chaired by then-Governor William J. Clinton of Missouri, and Tennessee. The commission was chaired by then-Governor William J. Clinton of
Arkansas, and the LMDDC released interim and final reports before completing its mandate in Arkansas, and the LMDDC released interim and final reports before completing its mandate in
1990. Later, in the White House, the Clinton Administration continued to show interest in an 1990. Later, in the White House, the Clinton Administration continued to show interest in an
expanded federal role in Mississippi Delta regional economic development. expanded federal role in Mississippi Delta regional economic development.
Notably, P.L. 100-460’s $2 million in appropriations were made available to “carry out H.R. 5378
Notably, P.L. 100-460’s $2 million in appropriations were made available to “carry out H.R. 5378
and S. 2836, the Lower Mississippi Delta Development Act, as introduced in the House of and S. 2836, the Lower Mississippi Delta Development Act, as introduced in the House of
Representatives on September 26, 1988, and in the Senate on September 27, 1988.” Using this Representatives on September 26, 1988, and in the Senate on September 27, 1988.” Using this
language, those previously un-enacted bills were “incorporated by reference” and enacted. P.L. language, those previously un-enacted bills were “incorporated by reference” and enacted. P.L.
100-460 also provided a definition of the Lower Mississippi Delta region through the 100-460 also provided a definition of the Lower Mississippi Delta region through the
incorporation of H.R. 5378 and S. 2836.incorporation of H.R. 5378 and S. 2836.
Key Legislative Activity
In 1994, Congress enacted the Lower Mississippi Delta Region Heritage Study In 1994, Congress enacted the Lower Mississippi Delta Region Heritage Study
Act, which built on the LMDDC’s recommendations. In particular, the Act, which built on the LMDDC’s recommendations. In particular, the
1994 act 1994 act
42 Delta Regional Authority, Eligibility & Funding Priorities, 2021, https://dra.gov/funding-programs-states-economic-development/states-economic-development-assistance-program/eligibility-funding-priorities/.
43 Delta Regional Authority, SEDAP Administrative Program Manual: FY2021, 2021, https://dra.gov/images/uploads/content_files/SEDAP-Manual-2021.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
12
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
saw the Department of the Interior conduct a study on key regional cultural, saw the Department of the Interior conduct a study on key regional cultural,
natural, and heritage sites and locations in the Mississippi Delta region. natural, and heritage sites and locations in the Mississippi Delta region.
In 1999, the Delta Regional Authority Act of 1999 was introduced in the House
(H.R. 2911) and Senate (S. 1622) to establish the DRA by amending the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act. Neither bill was enacted, but they established the structure and mission later incorporated into the DRA.44
106th Congress
In 2000, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2001 (P.L. 106-554)
In 2000, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2001 (P.L. 106-554)
included language authorizing the creation of the DRA based on the seven
included language authorizing the creation of the DRA based on the seven
participating states of the LMDDC, with the addition of Alabama and 16 of its participating states of the LMDDC, with the addition of Alabama and 16 of its
counties.counties.
65
107th Congress
The
The
Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, or 2002 farm bill (P.L. 2002 farm bill (P.L.
107-171)107-171)
, amended voting procedures for DRA states, amended voting procedures for DRA states,
provided new funds for provided new funds for
Delta regional projects, and added four additional Delta regional projects, and added four additional
Alabama counties to the DRA.66
110th Congress
TheAlabama counties to the DRA—Butler, Conecuh, Escambia, and Monroe Counties.
110th Congress
The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, or 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-
2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-234) reauthorized the DRA from FY2008 through 234) reauthorized the DRA from FY2008 through
FY2012 and FY2012 and
expanded it to includeadded 12 parishes to the DRA region.67
65 P.L. 106-554. This law added the following Alabama counties: Pickens, Greene, Sumter, Choctaw, Clarke, Washington, Marengo, Hale, Perry, Wilcox, Lowndes, Bullock, Macon, Barbour, Russell, and Dallas.
66 P.L. 107-171, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. This law added Butler, Conecuh, Escambia, and Monroe counties.
67 P.L. 110-234, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. This law added Beauregard, Bienville, Cameron, Claiborne, DeSoto, Jefferson Davis, Beauregard, Bienville, Cameron, Claiborne, DeSoto, Jefferson Davis,
Red River, St. Mary, Vermillion, and Webster Parishes in Louisiana; and Jasper Red River, St. Mary, Vermillion, and Webster Parishes in Louisiana; and Jasper
and Smith Counties in Mississippi. and Smith Counties in Mississippi.
113th Congress
The Agricultural Act of 2014, orCongressional Research Service
14
link to page 20 link to page 20 link to page 49 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
113th Congress
The 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79) reauthorized the 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79) reauthorized the
DRA through FY2018.DRA through FY2018.
68
115th Congress
The
The
Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, or 2018 farm bill (P.L. 115-2018 farm bill (P.L. 115-
33433), ),
reauthorized the DRA from FY2019 to reauthorized the DRA from FY2019 to
FY2023,FY2023,
45 and emphasized Alabama’s and emphasized Alabama’s
position as a “full member” of the DRA.position as a “full member” of the DRA.
69
Funding History
Under “farm bill” legislation, the DRA has consistently received funding authorizations of $30 Under “farm bill” legislation, the DRA has consistently received funding authorizations of $30
million annually since it was first authorized.million annually since it was first authorized.
4670 However, appropriations have fluctuated over the However, appropriations have fluctuated over the
years. Although the DRA was appropriated $20 million in the same legislation authorizing its years. Although the DRA was appropriated $20 million in the same legislation authorizing its
44 The two bills contained the general basic authority, structure, geography, and mission that was carried over into the DRA’s authorizing legislation. 45 See CRS In Focus IF11126, 2018 Farm Bill Primer: Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, by Renée Johnson and Jim Monke.
46 7 U.S.C. §2009aa–12.
Congressional Research Service
13
link to page 19 link to page 19 link to page 42 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
creation,47creation,71 that amount was halved in 2002, that amount was halved in 2002,
4872 and continued a downward trend through its funding and continued a downward trend through its funding
nadir of $5 million in FY2004. However, funding had increased by FY2006 to $12 million. Since nadir of $5 million in FY2004. However, funding had increased by FY2006 to $12 million. Since
FY2008, DRA’s annual appropriations have increased from almost $12 million to the current FY2008, DRA’s annual appropriations have increased from almost $12 million to the current
level of $30.1 million in FY2022 (excluding appropriations provided by the IIJA). The IIJA level of $30.1 million in FY2022 (excluding appropriations provided by the IIJA). The IIJA
provided the DRA with an increase in appropriations that was five times its annual appropriation provided the DRA with an increase in appropriations that was five times its annual appropriation
in FY2021 in FY2021
(Table 3).
Table 32). As of March 2023, the DRA will allocate IIJA funding to five program areas: (1) SEDAP; (2) Community Infrastructure Fund; (3) Delta Workforce Grant Program; (4) Strategic Planning; and (5) LDD Pilot Program.73
Table 2. DRA: Authorized and Appropriated Funding, FY2010-FY2022FY2014-FY2023
$ in millions
$ in millions
FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16
FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22a FY23
Appropriated
Appropriated
13.00 11.70 11.68
11.68
12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00 25.00 30.00 30.00 180.10
25.00 25.00 30.00 30.00 180.10
Funding
Authorized
30.00 30.00 30.00
30.0030.1
Funding
Authorized
30.00 30.00
30.00 30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00
30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00
30.00
30.00
30.0
Funding Funding
Sources: Appropriated funding amounts compiled by CRS using data from the fol owing: P.L. 111-85; P.L. 112-Appropriated funding amounts compiled by CRS using data from the fol owing: P.L. 111-85; P.L. 112-
10; P.L. 112-74; P.L. 113-6; P.L. 113-76; P.L. 113-235; P.L. 114-113; P.L. 115-31; P.L. 115-141; P.L. 115-244; P.L. 10; P.L. 112-74; P.L. 113-6; P.L. 113-76; P.L. 113-235; P.L. 114-113; P.L. 115-31; P.L. 115-141; P.L. 115-244; P.L.
116-94; P.L. 116-260; P.L. 117-58; and P.L. 117-103. 116-94; P.L. 116-260; P.L. 117-58; and P.L. 117-103.
Notes: For an expanded historical and comparative view of appropriations, s For an expanded historical and comparative view of appropriations, s
ee Table C-1.
a. FY2022 includes $30.1 mil ion provided through a. FY2022 includes $30.1 mil ion provided through
annual appropriations (P.L. 117-103the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. 117-103,
Division D, Title IV). FY2022 appropriated ). FY2022 appropriated
funding amounts also include $150 mil ion from the Infrastructurefunding amounts also include $150 mil ion from the Infrastructure
, Investment Investment
, and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58).
Denali Commission
The Denali Commission was established in 1998 to support rural economic development in Alaska.49 It is “designed to provide critical utilities, infrastructure, and economic support throughout Alaska.” The Denali Commission is unique as a single-state commission, and in its reliance on federal funding for both administration and activities.
47 P.L. 106-554. 48 P.L. 107-66. 49 P.L. 105-277.
Congressional Research Service
14

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Figure 3. Map of the Denali Commission
service area by expanded and surrogate standards of distress, 2020
Source: Compiled by CRS using data from the Denali Commission and Esri Data and Maps 2019. and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58, Division J, Title III).
68 P.L. 113-79, the Agricultural Act of 2014. 69 P.L. 115-334, the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018. See CRS In Focus IF11126, 2018 Farm Bill Primer: Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, by Renée Johnson and Jim Monke.
70 7 U.S.C. §2009aa–12. 71 P.L. 106-554. 72 P.L. 107-66. 73 Delta Regional Authority, Performance and Accountability Report September 30, 2022, p. 22, https://dra.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/DRA_FY2022_PAR_Final12.pdf. Estimates for the program allocations of the DRA’s IIJA spend plan are included in the Delta Regional Authority, 2024 Congressional Budget Justification, p. 8, https://dra.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/DRA-FY-2024-Budget-Justification-Report-10-March-2023-FINAL.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
15
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Denali Commission The Denali Commission was established in 1998 to support rural economic development in Alaska.74 It is “designed to provide critical utilities, infrastructure, and economic support throughout Alaska.” The Denali Commission is unique among these commissions and authorities as a single-state entity. It is also unique because it primarily uses federal funding for administrative expenses, rather than a combination of federal and state contributions for these expenses.75
Figure 3. Map of the Denali Commission
Service area by distressed and expanded (plus/minus 3%) standards of distress, 2022
Source: Compiled by CRS using data from Esri Data and Maps and Denali Commission, 2022 Distressed Communities Report, https://02e11d.a2cdn1.secureserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/2022DistressedCommunities.pdf. Distressed areas (red shading) meet the Denali Commissions’ “surrogate standard.”
Overview of Structure and Activities
The commission’s statutory mission includes providing workforce and other economic The commission’s statutory mission includes providing workforce and other economic
development assistance to distressed rural regions in Alaska. However, the commission no longer development assistance to distressed rural regions in Alaska. However, the commission no longer
engages in substantial activities in general economic development or transportation, which were engages in substantial activities in general economic development or transportation, which were
once core elements of the Denali Commission’s activities. Its recent activities are principally once core elements of the Denali Commission’s activities. Its recent activities are principally
limited to coastal infrastructure protection and energy infrastructure and fuel storage projects. limited to coastal infrastructure protection and energy infrastructure and fuel storage projects.
74 P.L. 105-277. 75 For additional information, see CRS In Focus IF12165, Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Administrative Expenses, by Julie M. Lawhorn.
Congressional Research Service
16
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Commission Structure
The Denali Commission’s structure is unique as the only commission with a single-state mandate.
The Denali Commission’s structure is unique as the only commission with a single-state mandate.
The commission is comprised of seven members (or a designated nominee), including the federal The commission is comprised of seven members (or a designated nominee), including the federal
co-chair, appointed by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce; the Alaska governor, who is state co-co-chair, appointed by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce; the Alaska governor, who is state co-
chair (or his/her designated representative); the University of Alaska president; the Alaska chair (or his/her designated representative); the University of Alaska president; the Alaska
Municipal League president; the Alaska Federation of Natives president; the Alaska State AFL-Municipal League president; the Alaska Federation of Natives president; the Alaska State AFL-
CIO president; and the Associated General Contractors of Alaska president.CIO president; and the Associated General Contractors of Alaska president.
5076
These structural novelties offer a different model compared to the organization typified by the
These structural novelties offer a different model compared to the organization typified by the
ARC and broadly adopted by the other functioning federal regional commissions and authorities. ARC and broadly adopted by the other functioning federal regional commissions and authorities.
For example, the federal co-chair’s appointment by the Secretary of Commerce, and not the For example, the federal co-chair’s appointment by the Secretary of Commerce, and not the
President with Senate confirmation, allows for a potentially more expeditious appointment of a President with Senate confirmation, allows for a potentially more expeditious appointment of a
federal co-chair. federal co-chair.
Annual Work Plan and Strategic Plan
The Denali Commission is required by law to create an annual work plan, which solicits project The Denali Commission is required by law to create an annual work plan, which solicits project
proposals, guides activities, and informs a five-year strategic plan.proposals, guides activities, and informs a five-year strategic plan.
5177 The work plan is reviewed The work plan is reviewed
by the federal co-chair, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Office of Management and Budget, by the federal co-chair, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Office of Management and Budget,
50 P.L. 105-277. 51 Denali Commission, Work Plans, https://www.denali.gov/work-plans/.
Congressional Research Service
15
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
and is subject to a public comment period. The current FY2018-FY2022and is subject to a public comment period.
The latest strategic plan, released strategic plan, released
in October 2017, lists four strategic goals and objectives: (1) facilities management; (2) in October 2017, lists four strategic goals and objectives: (1) facilities management; (2)
infrastructure protection from ecological change; (3) energy, including storage, production, infrastructure protection from ecological change; (3) energy, including storage, production,
heating, and electricity; and (4) innovation and collaboration.heating, and electricity; and (4) innovation and collaboration.
The commission’s recent activities largely focus on energy and infrastructure protection.52
Designating Distressed Areas
The Denali Commission’s authorizing statute obligates the commission to address economic
The Denali Commission’s authorizing statute obligates the commission to address economic
distress in rural areas of Alaska.distress in rural areas of Alaska.
5378 As of 2018, the commission utilizes two overlapping standards As of 2018, the commission utilizes two overlapping standards
to assess distress: a “surrogate standard,” adopted by the commission in 2000, and an “expanded to assess distress: a “surrogate standard,” adopted by the commission in 2000, and an “expanded
standard.” These standards are applied to rural communities in Alaska and assessed by the Alaska standard.” These standards are applied to rural communities in Alaska and assessed by the Alaska
Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DOL&WD), Research and Analysis Section. Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DOL&WD), Research and Analysis Section.
DOL&WD uses the most current population, employment, and earnings data available to identify DOL&WD uses the most current population, employment, and earnings data available to identify
Alaska communities and Census Designated Places considered “distressed.” Alaska communities and Census Designated Places considered “distressed.”
Appeals can be made to community distress determinations, but only through a demonstration
Appeals can be made to community distress determinations, but only through a demonstration
that DOL&WD data or analysis was erroneous, invalid, or outdated. New information “must that DOL&WD data or analysis was erroneous, invalid, or outdated. New information “must
come from a verifiable source, and be robust and representative of the entire community and/or come from a verifiable source, and be robust and representative of the entire community and/or
population.” Appeals are accepted and adjudicated only for the same reporting year in question. population.” Appeals are accepted and adjudicated only for the same reporting year in question.
76 P.L. 105-277. 77 Denali Commission, Work Plans, https://www.denali.gov/work-plans/. 78 P.L. 105-277.
Congressional Research Service
17
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Recent Activities79
Recent Activities
The Denali Commission’s scope is more constrained compared to the other federal regional
The Denali Commission’s scope is more constrained compared to the other federal regional
commissions and authorities. The organization commissions and authorities. The organization
reportsreported that due to funding constraints, that due to funding constraints,
5480 the the
commission reduced its involvement in what might be considered traditional economic commission reduced its involvement in what might be considered traditional economic
development and, instead, focused on rural fuel and energy infrastructure and coastal protection development and, instead, focused on rural fuel and energy infrastructure and coastal protection
efforts.efforts.
5581
Since the Denali Commission’s founding, bulk fuel safety and security, energy reliability and
Since the Denali Commission’s founding, bulk fuel safety and security, energy reliability and
security, transportation system improvements, and health care projects have commanded the vast security, transportation system improvements, and health care projects have commanded the vast
majority of Commission projects.majority of Commission projects.
56 Of these, only82 In recent years, the Denali Commission’s core programs have focused on grants for energy reliability and security and bulk fuel energy reliability and security and bulk fuel
safety and security projectssafety and security projects
remain active and are still funded. .83 Village infrastructure protection—a Village infrastructure protection—a
program launched in 2015 to address community infrastructure threatened by erosion, flooding program launched in 2015 to address community infrastructure threatened by erosion, flooding
and permafrost degradation—is a program that is relatively new and still and permafrost degradation—is a program that is relatively new and still
being funded.funded.
5784 By By
contrast, contrast,
mostthe Denali Commission funds fewer “traditional” economic development “traditional” economic development
programs are no longer being funded, including inprojects, such as housing, workforce development, and general economic development activities. housing, workforce development, and general economic development activities.
58
52 Denali Commission, Denali Commission Strategic Plan: FY2018-2022, October 4, 2017, https://www.denali.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Denali_Commission_FY2018_-_2022_Strategic_Plan_-_Final_Executed_document_-_10-4-17.pdf.
53 P.L. 105-277. 5485
As noted, for several years before the enactment of the IIJA, the Denali Commission had not received dedicated funding for transportation, sanitation, health facilities, housing, broadband, and general economic development activities.86 However, the Commission’s FY2023 Work Plan and the FY2022-FY2026 IIJA Work Plan indicate support for these and related activities. The Denali Commission will allocate IIJA funding to the following activities: (1) infrastructure; (2) village infrastructure protection; (3) energy reliability and security; (4) emergency fund; and (5) workforce and economic development.87
The Denali Commission also receives funding from other state and federal sources. Other sources for activities administered by the Denali Commission include:
79 Activities and programs in this section are illustrative examples and not comprehensive. For information on additional Denali Commission activities, see https://www.denali.gov.
80 Denali Commission, Denali Commission,
Other Programs, https://www.denali.gov/programs/other-programs/ (accessed April 23, 2021). , https://www.denali.gov/programs/other-programs/ (accessed April 23, 2021).
5581 Denali Commission, Denali Commission,
Denali Commission Strategic Plan: FY2018-2022, October 4, 2017, https://www.denali.gov/, October 4, 2017, https://www.denali.gov/
wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Denali_Commission_FY2018_-_2022_Strategic_Plan_-_Final_Executed_document_-wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Denali_Commission_FY2018_-_2022_Strategic_Plan_-_Final_Executed_document_-
_10-4-17.pdf. _10-4-17.pdf.
5682 Denali Commission, Denali Commission,
Denali Commission Investment Summary, ,
May 2017March 2022, https://www.denali.gov/programs/. , https://www.denali.gov/programs/.
5783 The Denali Commission has made energy and bulk fuel its primary infrastructure theme since it was created in 1998. The types of projects currently being funded include the design and construction of replacement bulk fuel storage facilities, upgrades to community power generation and distribution systems (including interties), and energy efficiency related initiatives. See Denali Commission, FY2024 Congressional Budget Justification, p. 8, https://02e11d.a2cdn1.secureserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Congressional-Budget-Justification-Fiscal-Year-2024-Final.pdf.
84 Denali Commission, Denali Commission,
Village Infrastructure Protection, https://www.denali.gov/programs/village-infrastructure-, https://www.denali.gov/programs/village-infrastructure-
protection/. protection/.
5885 Denali Commission, Denali Commission,
Denali Commission Investment Summary, ,
May 2017, https://www.denali.gov/programs/.
Congressional Research Service
16
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
March 2022, https://www.denali.gov/programs/. 86 Denali Commission, Other Programs, https://www.denali.gov/programs/other-programs/. 87 The Denali Commission no longer receives dedicated workforce development funding and it no longer has a formal workforce development program. However, it continues to use some of its annual discretionary funding for basic administrative and technical training that is directly related to the Energy and Bulk Program. More detail is available in the Denali Commission’s annual work plans and FY2023 Work Plan, https://www.denali.gov/work-plans/. Denali Commission, FY2024 Congressional Budget Justification, p. 7, https://02e11d.a2cdn1.secureserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Congressional-Budget-Justification-Fiscal-Year-2024-Final.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
18
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
The State of Alaska, through the Federal Highway Administration, for planning,
design, and construction of road and other surface transportation infrastructure in Alaska Native villages and rural communities; and
The Trans-Alaska Pipeline Liability (TAPL) trust fund, for the Commission’s
bulk fuel safety and security activities.88
The Denali Commission also uses its transfer authority to receive funding from other federal agencies, which it uses to issue grants on the agencies’ behalf.89
Legislative History
106th Congress
In 1999, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000 (P.L. 106-113) authorized the
In 1999, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000 (P.L. 106-113) authorized the
commission to enter into contracts and cooperative agreements, award grants,
commission to enter into contracts and cooperative agreements, award grants,
and make payments “necessary to carry out the purposes of the commission.” and make payments “necessary to carry out the purposes of the commission.”
The act also established the federal co-chair’s compensation schedule, prohibited The act also established the federal co-chair’s compensation schedule, prohibited
using more than 5% of appropriated funds for administrative expenses, and using more than 5% of appropriated funds for administrative expenses, and
established “demonstration health projects” as authorized activities and established “demonstration health projects” as authorized activities and
authorized the Department of Health and Human Services to make grants to the authorized the Department of Health and Human Services to make grants to the
commission to that effect. commission to that effect.
108th Congress
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (P.L. 108-199) created an Economic
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (P.L. 108-199) created an Economic
Development Committee within the commission chaired by the Alaska
Development Committee within the commission chaired by the Alaska
Federation of Natives president, and included the Alaska Commissioner of Federation of Natives president, and included the Alaska Commissioner of
Community and Economic Affairs, a representative of the Alaska Bankers Community and Economic Affairs, a representative of the Alaska Bankers
Association, the chairman of the Alaska Permanent Fund, a representative from Association, the chairman of the Alaska Permanent Fund, a representative from
the Alaska Chamber of Commerce, and representatives from each region. the Alaska Chamber of Commerce, and representatives from each region.
109th Congress
In 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
In 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users, or SAFETEA-LU (P.L. 109-59), established the Denali Access
Legacy for Users, or SAFETEA-LU (P.L. 109-59), established the Denali Access
System Program among the commission’s authorized activities. The program was System Program among the commission’s authorized activities. The program was
part of its surface transportation efforts, which were active from 2005 through part of its surface transportation efforts, which were active from 2005 through
2009.2009.
5990
88 The Trans-Alaska Pipeline Liability (TAPL) trust fund provides approximately $3 million each year in FY2023 and FY2024. See Denali Commission, Funding, https://www.denali.gov/about/funding-2/; and FY2024 Congressional Budget Justification, p. 7, https://02e11d.a2cdn1.secureserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Congressional-Budget-Justification-Fiscal-Year-2024-Final.pdf.
89 42 U.S.C. 3121 note, Sec. 311. See also Denali Commission, FY2024 Congressional Budget Justification, p. 8, https://02e11d.a2cdn1.secureserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Congressional-Budget-Justification-Fiscal-Year-2024-Final.pdf.
90 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Fact Sheet on Highway Provisions: Denali Access System Program, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/factsheets/denali.htm.
Congressional Research Service
19
link to page 26 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
112th Congress
2012’s Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, or MAP-21 (P.L. 112-
2012’s Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, or MAP-21 (P.L. 112-
141), authorized the commission to accept funds from federal agencies, allowed
141), authorized the commission to accept funds from federal agencies, allowed
it to accept gifts or donations of “service, property, or money” on behalf of the it to accept gifts or donations of “service, property, or money” on behalf of the
U.S. government, and included guidance regarding gifts. U.S. government, and included guidance regarding gifts.
114th Congress
In 2016, the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act, or the WIIN
In 2016, the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act, or the WIIN
Act (P.L. 114-322), reauthorized the Denali Commission through FY2021, and
Act (P.L. 114-322), reauthorized the Denali Commission through FY2021, and
established a four-year term for the federal co-chair (with allowances for established a four-year term for the federal co-chair (with allowances for
reappointment), but provided that other members were appointed for life. The act reappointment), but provided that other members were appointed for life. The act
also allowed for the Secretary of Commerce to appoint an interim federal co-also allowed for the Secretary of Commerce to appoint an interim federal co-
chair, and included clarifying language on the nonfederal status of commission chair, and included clarifying language on the nonfederal status of commission
staff and ethical issues regarding conflicts of interest and disclosure. staff and ethical issues regarding conflicts of interest and disclosure.
59 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Fact Sheet on Highway Provisions: Denali
Access System Program, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/factsheets/denali.htm.
Congressional Research Service
17
link to page 23 link to page 23 link to page 42 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
117th Congress
Division A of the Infrastructure, Investment,
117th Congress
Division A of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, (P.L. 117-58) and Jobs Act (IIJA, (P.L. 117-58)
extends funding authorization for five years to carry out the Denali Access
extends funding authorization for five years to carry out the Denali Access
System Program.System Program.
6091 The act also allows the Denali Commission to consider The act also allows the Denali Commission to consider
funding from another federal agency as no longer subject to requirements funding from another federal agency as no longer subject to requirements
previously attached to those funds, including any regulatory actions by the previously attached to those funds, including any regulatory actions by the
transferring agency.transferring agency.
6192
Funding History
Under its authorizing statute, the Denali Commission received funding authorizations for $20 Under its authorizing statute, the Denali Commission received funding authorizations for $20
million for FY1999,million for FY1999,
6293 and “such sums as necessary” (SSAN) for FY2000 through FY2003. and “such sums as necessary” (SSAN) for FY2000 through FY2003.
Legislation passed in 2003 extended the commission’s SSAN funding authorization through Legislation passed in 2003 extended the commission’s SSAN funding authorization through
2008.2008.
6394 Its authorization lapsed after 2008; reauthorizing legislation was introduced in 2007, Its authorization lapsed after 2008; reauthorizing legislation was introduced in 2007,
6495 but but
was not enacted. The commission continued to receive annual appropriations for FY2009 and was not enacted. The commission continued to receive annual appropriations for FY2009 and
several years thereafter.several years thereafter.
6596 In 2016, legislation was enacted reauthorizing the Denali Commission In 2016, legislation was enacted reauthorizing the Denali Commission
through FY2021 with a $15 million annual funding authorizationthrough FY2021 with a $15 million annual funding authorization
through FY2021. The IIJA provided the Denali . The IIJA provided the Denali
Commission with an increase in appropriations that was five times its most recent annual Commission with an increase in appropriations that was five times its most recent annual
appropriation appropriation
(Table 43).66
Table 4. Denali Commission:
Authorized and Appropriated Funding, FY2010-FY2022
$ in millions
FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21
FY22a
Appropriated
11.97
10.7
10.68
10.68
10.00
10.00
11.00
15.00
30.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
90.1
Funding
Authorized
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.0097
91 The IIJA authorized $20 million to be appropriated for each of FY2022 through FY2026 to carry out the Denali Access System Program (Division A, Sec. 11507(a) of P.L. 117-58).
92 Division A, Sec. 11507(b) of P.L. 117-58. 93 P.L. 105-277. 94 P.L. 108-7, §504. 95 S. 1368, 110th Cong. (2007). 96 P.L. 111-8. 97 P.L. 114-322.
Congressional Research Service
20
link to page 26 link to page 49 link to page 27 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Table 3. Denali Commission:
Authorized and Appropriated Funding, FY2014-FY2023
$ in millions
FY14
FY15 FY16 FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21 FY22a FY23
Appropriated
10.00
10.00
11.00
15.00
30.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
90.1
17.0
Funding
Authorized
—
—
—
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
—
—
—
Funding
Funding
Sources: Appropriated funding amounts compiled by CRS using data from the fol owing: P.L. 111-85; P.L. 112-Appropriated funding amounts compiled by CRS using data from the fol owing: P.L. 111-85; P.L. 112-
10; P.L. 112-74; P.L. 113-6; P.L. 113-76; P.L. 113-235; P.L. 114-113; P.L. 115-31; P.L. 115-141; P.L. 115-244; P.L. 10; P.L. 112-74; P.L. 113-6; P.L. 113-76; P.L. 113-235; P.L. 114-113; P.L. 115-31; P.L. 115-141; P.L. 115-244; P.L.
116-94; P.L. 116-260; P.L. 117-58; 116-94; P.L. 116-260; P.L. 117-58;
P.L. 117-103; and P.L. 117-and P.L. 117-
103328. .
Notes: For an expanded historical and comparative view of appropriations, s For an expanded historical and comparative view of appropriations, s
ee Table C-1.
a. FY2022 amounts include $15.1 mil ion provided through annual appropriations (P.L. 117-103).a. FY2022 amounts include $15.1 mil ion provided through annual appropriations (P.L. 117-103).
FY2022 FY2022
appropriated funding amounts include $75 mil ion from Division J, Title III of the Infrastructure
appropriated funding amounts include $75 mil ion from Division J, Title III of the Infrastructure
, Investment Investment
, and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58). FY2022 amounts do not include amounts authorized to be appropriated in and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58). FY2022 amounts do not include amounts authorized to be appropriated in
Division A of P.L. 117-58 pertaining to the Denali Access System Program. Division A of P.L. 117-58 pertaining to the Denali Access System Program.
60 The IIJA authorized $20 million to be appropriated for each of FY2022 through FY2026 to carry out the Denali Access System Program (Division A, Sec. 11507(a) of P.L. 117-58).
61 Division A, Sec. 11507(b) of P.L. 117-58. 62 P.L. 105-277. 63 P.L. 108-7, §504. 64 S. 1368, 110th Cong. (2007). 65 P.L. 111-8. 66 P.L. 114-322.
Congressional Research Service
18
link to page 24 link to page 50 
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Northern Border Regional Commission
The Northern Border Regional Commission (NBRC) was created by the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, otherwise known as the 2008 farm bill.67 The act also created the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission (SCRC) and the Southwest Border Regional Commission (SBRC). All three commissions share common authorizing language modeled after the ARC.
The NBRC is the only one of the three new commissions that has been both reauthorized and received progressively increasing annual appropriations since it was established in 2008. The NBRC was founded to alleviate economic distress in the northern border areas of Maine, New Hampshire, New York, and, as of 2018, the entire state of Vermont (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Map of the Northern Border Regional Commission
Source: Compiled by CRS using data from the NBRC and Esri Data and Maps 2019. Note: Vermont is the only state with all counties within the NBRC’s jurisdiction.
The stated mission of the NBRC is “to catalyze regional, collaborative, and transformative community economic development approaches that alleviate economic distress and position the region for economic growth.”68 Eligible counties within the NBRC’s jurisdiction may receive funding “for community and economic development” projects pursuant to regional, state, and local planning and priorities (Table D-4).
Overview of Structure and Activities
The NBRC is led by
Great Lakes Authority The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (P.L. 117-328, Division O, Title IV, Sec. 401) amended 40 U.S.C. §15301(a) to establish the Great Lakes Authority (GLA). The structure and functions of the GLA are based on the model of the NBRC, SCRC, and SBRC, which were established in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (i.e., 2008 farm bill).98 The authorizing legislation requires that before the GLA may convene, the President must nominate and the Senate must confirm a federal co-chairperson. As of March 2023, President Biden had not nominated a federal co-chairperson for the GLA.
The geographic boundaries of the authorized commissions’ regions are defined in statute, usually using county-based designations. The GLA differs in that its service region is defined in statute based on federal definitions of the area’s watershed (see Figure 4) so that the region
shall consist of areas in the watershed of the Great Lakes and the Great Lakes System (as such terms are defined in section 118(a)(3) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1268(a)(3)), in each of the following States: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
98 P.L. 110-234.
Congressional Research Service
21
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Figure 4. Map of the Great Lakes Authority
Source: Map created by CRS based on terms in P.L. 117-328 and U.S. Geological Survey data. Notes: The GLA region consists of areas in the watershed of the Great Lakes and Great Lakes System in states specifically designated in the statute.
Overview of Structure and Activities As authorized, the GLA would share an organizing structure with the NBRC, the Southeast Regional Commission, and the Southwest Border Regional Commission, as all four share common statutory authorizing language modeled after the ARC.
Authority Structure
As authorized, the GLA would consist of a federal co-chair, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of a federal co-chair, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of
the Senate, and four state governors, of which one is appointed state co-chair. There is no term 67 P.L. 110-234. 68 Northern Border Regional Commission, About the NBRC, http://www.nbrc.gov/content/about.
Congressional Research Service
19
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
limit for the federal co-chair. Thethe Senate, along with the participating state governors (or their designated representatives), of which one would be named by the state representatives as state co-chair. There is no term limit for the federal co-chair. However, the state co-chair is limited to two consecutive terms, but may not state co-chair is limited to two consecutive terms, but may not
serve a term of less than one year. Each of the four governors may appoint an alternate; each state also designates an NBRC program manager to handle the day-to-day operations of coordinating, reviewing, and recommending economic development projects to the full membership.69
While program funding depends on congressional appropriations, administrative costs are shared equally between the federal government and the four states of the NBRC. Through commission votes, applications are ranked by priority, and are approved in that order as grant funds allow.
Program Areas
All projects are required to address at least one of the NBRC’s four authorized program areas and its five-year strategic plan. The NBRC’s four program areas are
state economic and infrastructure development (SEID); the regional forest economy partnership; local development districts; and comprehensive planning for states.70
State Economic and Infrastructure Development (SEID)
The NBRC’s SEID investment program is the chief mechanism for investing in economic development programs in the participating states. The SEID program prioritizes projects focusing on infrastructure, telecommunications, energy costs, business development, entrepreneurship, workforce development, leadership, and regional strategic planning.71 The SEID program provides approximately $4.6 million to each state for such activities.72 Eligible applicants include public bodies, 501(c) organizations, Native American tribes, and the four state governments. SEID projects may require matching funds of up to 50% depending on the level of distress.
Regional Forest Economy Partnership (RFEP)
The RFEP is an NBRC program to address economic distress caused by the decline of the regional forest products industry.73 The program provides funding to rural communities for “economic diversity, independence, and innovation.” The NBRC received $3 million in FY2018 and $4 million FY2019 to address the decline in the forest-based economies in the NBRC region.74 In FY2020, FY2021, and FY2022, $4 million was made available for the program each year.75
69 Northern Border Regional Commission, About the NBRC, http://www.nbrc.gov/content/about. 70 Northern Border Regional Commission, Program Areas, https://www.nbrc.gov/content/program-areas. 71 Northern Border Regional Commission, State Economic & Infrastructure Development Investment Program, http://www.nbrc.gov/content/economic-infrastructure-development-investments.
72 Northern Border Regional Commission, FY2021 Annual Report, https://www.nbrc.gov/userfiles/files/Annual%20Reports/NBRC-2021-Annual-Report_Final-web.pdf.
73 Northern Border Regional Commission, Regional Forest Economy Partnership, http://www.nbrc.gov/content/Regional-Forest-Economy-Partnership.
74 Northern Border Regional Commission, Regional Forest Economy Partnership: Notice of Funding Opportunity, http://www.nbrc.gov/uploads/RegionalForestEconomyParternship(5).pdf.
75 Northern Border Regional Commission, Northern Border Regional Commission Announces 2020 Regional Forest
Economy Partnership Grant Round, July 1, 2020, https://www.nbrc.gov/articles/94, and 2021 Regional Forest
Congressional Research Service
20
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Local Development Districts (LDD)
The NBRC uses 20 multicounty LDDs to advise on local priorities, identify opportunities, conduct outreach, and administer grants, from which the LDDs receive fees. LDDs receive fees according to a graduated schedule tied to total project funds. The rate is 5% for the first $100,000 awarded and 1% in excess of $100,000.76 Notably, this formula does not apply to Vermont-only projects. Vermont is the only state where grantees are not required to contract with an LDD for the administration of grants, though this requirement may be waived.77
Comprehensive Planning
The NBRC may also assist states in developing comprehensive economic and infrastructure development plans for their NBRC counties. These initiatives are undertaken in collaboration with LDDs, localities, institutions of higher education, and other relevant stakeholders.78
Strategic Plan
The NBRC’s activities are guided by a five-year strategic plan,79serve a term of less than one year.
Strategic Plan
As of the date of publication, the GLA is not active and has not published a strategic plan.
Designating Distressed Areas
As authorized, the GLA would share an approach to designating distressed areas that is similar to that of the NBRC, the Southeast Regional Commission, and the Southwest Border Regional Commission.99
99 40 U.S.C. §15302.
Congressional Research Service
22
link to page 29 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Recent Activities
The GLA is not currently active. The presidential nomination and Senate confirmation of a federal co-chair is an essential step for the GLA to start operations; as of the date of publication, the President has not nominated a federal co-chair for the GLA. Additionally, new federal regional commissions and authorities generally use funding from appropriations to begin operations (i.e., funding to hire staff); as of the date of publication, the GLA has not yet received appropriations. For more information, see CRS In Focus IF11744, Forming a Funded Federal Regional Commission, by Julie M. Lawhorn.
Legislative History
117th Congress
P.L. 117-328 amended 40 U.S.C. §15301(a) to establish the GLA. The structure
and functions of the GLA are based on the model of the NBRC, SCRC, and SBRC, which were established in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-234).
Funding History The GLA has not received appropriations as of the date of publication.
Northern Border Regional Commission The Northern Border Regional Commission (NBRC) was created by the 2008 farm bill.100 The act also created the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission (SCRC) and the Southwest Border Regional Commission (SBRC). All three commissions share common authorizing language modeled after the ARC.
The NBRC is the only one of the three new commissions that has been both reauthorized and received progressively increasing annual appropriations since it was established in 2008. The NBRC was founded to alleviate economic distress in the northern border areas of Maine, New Hampshire, New York, and, as of 2018, the entire state of Vermont (Figure 5).
100 P.L. 110-234, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008.
Congressional Research Service
23
link to page 55
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Figure 5. Map of the Northern Border Regional Commission
Source: Compiled by CRS using data from Esri Data and Maps and NBRC, Assessing Distress in NBRC Counties, https://www.nbrc.gov/content/distressed-counties. Note: Vermont is the only state with all counties within the NBRC’s jurisdiction.
The stated mission of the NBRC is “to catalyze regional, collaborative, and transformative community economic development approaches that alleviate economic distress and position the region for economic growth.”101 Eligible counties within the NBRC’s jurisdiction may receive funding “for community and economic development” projects pursuant to regional, state, and local planning and priorities (Table D-5).
Overview of Structure and Activities
Commission Structure
The NBRC is led by a federal co-chair, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, and four state governors, of which one is appointed state co-chair. There is no term limit for the federal co-chair. The state co-chair is limited to two consecutive terms, but may not serve a term of less than one year. Each of the four governors may appoint an alternate; each state also designates an NBRC program manager to handle the day-to-day operations of coordinating, reviewing, and recommending economic development projects to the full membership.102
While program funding depends on congressional appropriations, administrative costs are shared equally between the federal government and the four states of the NBRC. Through commission votes, applications are ranked by priority, and are approved in that order as grant funds allow.
101 Northern Border Regional Commission, About the NBRC, http://www.nbrc.gov/content/about. 102 Northern Border Regional Commission, About the NBRC, http://www.nbrc.gov/content/about.
Congressional Research Service
24
link to page 55 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Strategic Plan
The NBRC’s activities are guided by a five-year strategic plan,103 which is developed through which is developed through
“extensive engagement with NBRC stakeholders” alongside “local, state, and regional economic “extensive engagement with NBRC stakeholders” alongside “local, state, and regional economic
development strategies already in place.” The 2017-2022 strategic plan lists three goals: development strategies already in place.” The 2017-2022 strategic plan lists three goals:
1. modernizing infrastructure;
1. modernizing infrastructure;
2. creating and sustaining jobs; and
2. creating and sustaining jobs; and
3. anticipating and capitalizing on shifting economic and demographic trends.
3. anticipating and capitalizing on shifting economic and demographic trends.
80104
The strategic plan also lists five-year performance goals, which are
The strategic plan also lists five-year performance goals, which are
5,000 jobs created or retained;
5,000 jobs created or retained;
10,000 households and businesses with access to improved infrastructure; 10,000 households and businesses with access to improved infrastructure;
1,000 businesses representing 5,000 employees benefit from NBRC investments; 1,000 businesses representing 5,000 employees benefit from NBRC investments;
7,500 workers provided with skills training; 7,500 workers provided with skills training;
250 communities and 1,000 leaders engaged in regional leadership, learning 250 communities and 1,000 leaders engaged in regional leadership, learning
and/or innovation networks supported by the NBRC; and
and/or innovation networks supported by the NBRC; and
3:1 NBRC investment leverage.
3:1 NBRC investment leverage.
81
Economy Partnership Overview, https://www.nbrc.gov/userfiles/files/2021_RFEP_Documents/2021%20RFEP%20Program%20Overview%20FINAL.pdf.
76 Northern Border Regional Commission, Local Development Districts, http://www.nbrc.gov/content/local-development-districts.
77 Northern Border Regional Commission, Administration: General Grant Administration, http://www.nbrc.gov/content/administration.
78 Northern Border Regional Commission, Comprehensive Planning Investments for States, http://www.nbrc.gov/content/planning-for-states.
79105
The strategic plan also takes stock of various socioeconomic trends in the northern border region, including (1) population shifts; (2) distressed communities; and (3) changing workforce needs.
The NBRC member states generally use state economic development plans to outline their states’ funding priorities for NBRC projects.106
Designating Distressed Areas
The NBRC is unique in that it is statutorily obligated to assess distress according to economic as well as demographic factors (Table D-5). These designations are made and refined annually. The NBRC defines levels of “distress” for counties that “have high rates of poverty, unemployment, or outmigration” and “are the most severely and persistently economic distressed and underdeveloped.”107 The NBRC is required to allocate 50% of its total appropriations to projects in distressed counties.108
The NBRC’s county designations are as follows, in descending levels of distress:
103 Northern Border Regional Commission, Northern Border Regional Commission,
2017-2022 Strategic Plan, Concord, NH, 2017, http://www.nbrc.gov/, Concord, NH, 2017, http://www.nbrc.gov/
content/strategic-plan. content/strategic-plan.
80104 Northern Border Regional Commission, Northern Border Regional Commission,
Northern Border Regional Commission: 2017-2022 Strategic Plan, ,
http://www.nbrc.gov/uploads/004%20RESOURCES/Five%20Yr%20Strat%20Plan/http://www.nbrc.gov/uploads/004%20RESOURCES/Five%20Yr%20Strat%20Plan/
NBRC%20Strategic%20Plan%2C%20Full%20Study.pdf. NBRC%20Strategic%20Plan%2C%20Full%20Study.pdf.
81105 Northern Border Regional Commission, Northern Border Regional Commission,
2017-20212022 Strategic Plan, Concord, NH, 2017, p. 6. 106 See, for example, state plans available at Northern Border Regional Commission, Resources, https://www.nbrc.gov/content/resources.
107 P.L. 110-234. 108 Northern Border Regional Commission, NBRC Annual Economic and Demographic Research for Fiscal Year 2021: To Determine Categories of Distress Within the NBRC Service Area, Concord, NH, March 2021, https://www.nbrc.gov/userfiles/files/Resource%20Guides/NBRC%20Annual%20Economic%20%26%20Demographic%20Research%20for%20Fiscal%20Year%202021_FINAL.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
25
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Strategic Plan, Concord, NH, 2017, p. 6.
Congressional Research Service
21
link to page 50 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
The strategic plan also takes stock of various socioeconomic trends in the northern border region, including (1) population shifts; (2) distressed communities; and (3) changing workforce needs.
Economic and Demographic Distress
The NBRC is unique in that it is statutorily obligated to assess distress according to economic as well as demographic factors (Table D-4). These designations are made and refined annually. The NBRC defines levels of “distress” for counties that “have high rates of poverty, unemployment, or outmigration” and “are the most severely and persistently economic distressed and underdeveloped.”82 The NBRC is required to allocate 50% of its total appropriations to projects in distressed counties.83
The NBRC’s county designations are as follows, in descending levels of distress:
Distressed counties (80% maximum funding allowance); counties (80% maximum funding allowance);
Transitional counties (50%); and counties (50%); and
Attainment (0%). (0%).
Transitional counties are defined as counties that do not exhibit the same levels of economic and
Transitional counties are defined as counties that do not exhibit the same levels of economic and
demographic distress as a distressed county, but suffer from “high rates of poverty, demographic distress as a distressed county, but suffer from “high rates of poverty,
unemployment, or outmigration.” Attainment counties are not allowed to be funded by the NBRC unemployment, or outmigration.” Attainment counties are not allowed to be funded by the NBRC
except for those projects that are located within an “isolated area of distress,” or have been except for those projects that are located within an “isolated area of distress,” or have been
granted a waiver.granted a waiver.
84109
Distress is calculated in tiers of primary and secondary distress categories
Distress is calculated in tiers of primary and secondary distress categories
and constituent, with each category having three factors: factors:
Primary Distress Categories
Primary Distress Categories
1.o Percent of population below the poverty level Percent of population below the poverty level
2.o Unemployment rate Unemployment rate
3.o Percent change in population Percent change in population
Secondary Distress Categories
Secondary Distress Categories
1.o Percent of population below the poverty level Percent of population below the poverty level
2.o Median household income Median household income
3.o Percent of secondary and/or seasonal homes
The NBRC assesses each county annually to determine the classification. The three classifications of economic distress are:
Distressed counties (i.e., counties with at least three qualifying factors (of the six
total factors) and at least one factor from each category);
Transitional counties (i.e., counties with at least one factor from either category);
and
Attainment counties (i.e., counties that show no measures of distress).
Recent Activities110
All projects are required to address at least one of the NBRC’s four authorized program areas and its five-year strategic plan. The NBRC’s main program areas include
the Catalyst program (formerly the state economic and infrastructure
development (SEID) program; partially funded by IIJA appropriations);
Forest Economy Program (formerly the “Regional Forest Economy Partnership”
Program); and
109 Percent of secondary and/or seasonal homes
Each county is assessed by the primary and secondary distress categories and factors and compared to the figures for the United States as a whole. Designations of county distress are made by tallying those factors against the following criteria:
82 P.L. 110-234. 83 Northern Border Regional Commission, NBRC Annual Economic Northern Border Regional Commission, NBRC Annual Economic
&and Demographic Research for Fiscal Year 2021: Demographic Research for Fiscal Year 2021:
To Determine Categories of Distress To Determine Categories of Distress
withinWithin the NBRC Service Area, Concord, NH, March 2021, the NBRC Service Area, Concord, NH, March 2021,
https://www.nbrc.gov/userfiles/files/Resource%20Guides/https://www.nbrc.gov/userfiles/files/Resource%20Guides/
NBRC%20Annual%20Economic%20%26%20Demographic%20Research%20for%20Fiscal%20Year%202021_FINANBRC%20Annual%20Economic%20%26%20Demographic%20Research%20for%20Fiscal%20Year%202021_FINA
L.pdf. L.pdf.
84 Northern Border Regional Commission, NBRC Annual Economic & Demographic Research for Fiscal Year 2021: To Determine Categories of Distress within the NBRC Service Area, Concord, NH, March 2021, https://www.nbrc.gov/userfiles/files/Resource%20Guides/NBRC%20Annual%20Economic%20%26%20Demographic%20Research%20for%20Fiscal%20Year%202021_FINAL.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
22
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Distressed counties are those with at least three factors from both primary and
secondary distress categories and at least one from each category;
Transitional counties are those with at least one factor from either category; and Attainment counties are those which show no measures of distress.110 Activities and programs in this section are illustrative examples and not comprehensive. For information on additional Northern Border Regional Commission activities, see https://www.nbrc.gov.
Congressional Research Service
26
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
comprehensive planning for states.111
Catalyst Program The NBRC’s Catalyst investment program is the chief mechanism for investing in economic development programs in the participating states. The Catalyst program funds infrastructure (e.g., transportation, telecommunications, and basic public infrastructure) and non-infrastructure activities. Non-infrastructure activities may include job skills training, skills development and employment-related education, entrepreneurship, technology, and business development projects, as well as projects designed to improve basic health care, nutrition and food security, and other public services. Funding may also support projects designed to promote resource conservation, tourism, recreation, and preservation of open space consistent with economic development goals.112 The program provides approximately $5.8 million to each state for such activities.113 Eligible applicants include units of local government, 501(c) organizations, Native American tribes, and the four state governments. Catalyst projects may require matching funds of up to 50% depending on the level of distress. The Catalyst program is funded in part by IIJA appropriations.114
Forest Economy Program (FEP) The FEP is an NBRC program designed to support the forest-based economy and to assist in the forest industry’s evolution to include new technologies and viable business models across the four-state NBRC region.115 In FY2018, Congress directed NBRC to allocate $3 million to address the decline in forest-based economies throughout the region.116 Each fiscal year from FY2019 to FY2023, Congress directed NBRC to allocate $4 million for the forest-based initiatives.117 In FY2022, NBRC revised its forest program priorities with input from regional stakeholders and renamed the initiative the Forest Economy Program.118
State Capacity Grants The NBRC may provide funding through non-competitive grants to assist states in developing comprehensive economic and infrastructure development plans for their NBRC counties. These
111 Northern Border Regional Commission, Program Areas, https://www.nbrc.gov/content/program-areas. 112 Northern Border Regional Commission, Catalyst Program, https://www.nbrc.gov/content/Catalyst. 113 Northern Border Regional Commission, FY2022 Annual Report, https://www.nbrc.gov/userfiles/files/Annual%20Reports/NBRC-2022-Annual-Report_Final-Web.pdf.
114 Northern Border Regional Commission, Catalyst Program, https://www.nbrc.gov/content/Catalyst. 115 Northern Border Regional Commission, FY2022 Annual Report, https://www.nbrc.gov/userfiles/files/Annual%20Reports/NBRC-2022-Annual-Report_Final-Web.pdf.
116 Northern Border Regional Commission, Regional Forest Economy Partnership: Notice of Funding Opportunity, http://www.nbrc.gov/uploads/RegionalForestEconomyParternship(5).pdf.
117 Northern Border Regional Commission, Northern Border Regional Commission Announces 2020 Regional Forest Economy Partnership Grant Round, July 1, 2020, https://www.nbrc.gov/articles/94; and 2021 Regional Forest Economy Partnership Overview, https://www.nbrc.gov/userfiles/files/2021_RFEP_Documents/2021%20RFEP%20Program%20Overview%20FINAL.pdf.
118 The program was formerly called the “Regional Forest Economy Partnership Program.” Northern Border Regional Commission, FY2022 Annual Report, https://www.nbrc.gov/userfiles/files/Annual%20Reports/NBRC-2022-Annual-Report_Final-Web.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
27
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
initiatives are undertaken in collaboration with LDDs, localities, institutions of higher education, and other relevant stakeholders.119
Local Development Districts (LDD)
The NBRC uses multicounty LDDs to advise on local priorities, identify opportunities, conduct outreach, and administer grants, from which the LDDs receive fees. LDDs receive 2% of the NBRC grant award for their administrative work.120
Legislative History
110th Congress
The NBRC was first proposed in the Northern Border Economic Development
The NBRC was first proposed in the Northern Border Economic Development
Commission Act of 2007 (H.R. 1548), introduced on March 15, 2007. H.R. 1548
Commission Act of 2007 (H.R. 1548), introduced on March 15, 2007. H.R. 1548
proposed the creation of a federally chartered, multi-state economic development proposed the creation of a federally chartered, multi-state economic development
organization—modeled after the ARC—covering designated northern border organization—modeled after the ARC—covering designated northern border
counties in Maine, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont. The bill would counties in Maine, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont. The bill would
have authorized the appropriation of $40 million per year for FY2008 through have authorized the appropriation of $40 million per year for FY2008 through
FY2012 (H.R. 1548). The bill received regional co-sponsorship from Members of FY2012 (H.R. 1548). The bill received regional co-sponsorship from Members of
Congress representing areas in the northern border region.Congress representing areas in the northern border region.
85121
The NBRC was reintroduced in the Regional Economic and Infrastructure
The NBRC was reintroduced in the Regional Economic and Infrastructure
Development Act of 2007 (H.R. 3246), which would have authorized the NBRC,
Development Act of 2007 (H.R. 3246), which would have authorized the NBRC,
the SCRC, and the SBRC, and reauthorized the DRA and the NGPRA (discussed the SCRC, and the SBRC, and reauthorized the DRA and the NGPRA (discussed
in the next section) in a combined bill.in the next section) in a combined bill.
86122 H.R. 3246 won a broader range of H.R. 3246 won a broader range of
support, which included 18 co-sponsors in addition to the original bill sponsor, support, which included 18 co-sponsors in addition to the original bill sponsor,
and passed the House by a vote of 264-154 on October 4, 2007. and passed the House by a vote of 264-154 on October 4, 2007.
Upon House passage, H.R. 3246 was referred to the Senate Committee on
Upon House passage, H.R. 3246 was referred to the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works. The Senate incorporated authorizations for the
Environment and Public Works. The Senate incorporated authorizations for the
establishment of the NBRC, SCRC, and the SBRC in the 2008 farm bill.establishment of the NBRC, SCRC, and the SBRC in the 2008 farm bill.
87123 The The
2008 farm bill authorized annual appropriations of $30 million for FY2008 2008 farm bill authorized annual appropriations of $30 million for FY2008
through FY2012 for all three new commissions. through FY2012 for all three new commissions.
115th Congress
The only major changes to the NBRC since its creation were made in the
The only major changes to the NBRC since its creation were made in the
Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-334, “2018 farm bill”), which
Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-334, “2018 farm bill”), which
authorized the state capacity building grant program. authorized the state capacity building grant program.
In addition, the 2018 farm bill expanded the NBRC to include the following
counties: Belknap and Cheshire counties in New Hampshire; Genesee, Greene, Livingston, Montgomery, Niagara, Oneida, Orleans, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Schenectady, Sullivan, Washington, Warren, Wayne, and Yates counties in New York; and Addison, Bennington, Chittenden, Orange, Rutland, Washington, Windham, and Windsor counties in Vermont, making it the only state entirely within the NBRC.
85
119 Northern Border Regional Commission, Comprehensive Planning Investments for States, http://www.nbrc.gov/content/planning-for-states.
120 Northern Border Regional Commission, Northern Border Regional Commission, Grant Administration, Compliance and Monitoring Manual, February 2023, https://www.nbrc.gov/userfiles/files/Resource%20Guides/Compliance%20Manual%20February%2023%20FINAL.pdf.
121 The bill was introduced by Rep. Hodes, Paul [D-NH-2] and co-sponsored by: Rep. Arcuri, Michael A. [D-NY-24]; The bill was introduced by Rep. Hodes, Paul [D-NH-2] and co-sponsored by: Rep. Arcuri, Michael A. [D-NY-24];
Rep. Allen, Thomas H. [D-ME-1]; Rep. McHugh, John M. [R-NY-23]; Rep. Michaud, Michael H. [D-ME-2]; Rep. Rep. Allen, Thomas H. [D-ME-1]; Rep. McHugh, John M. [R-NY-23]; Rep. Michaud, Michael H. [D-ME-2]; Rep.
Shea-Porter, Carol [D-NH-1]; and Rep. Welch, Peter [D-VT-At Large]. Shea-Porter, Carol [D-NH-1]; and Rep. Welch, Peter [D-VT-At Large].
86122 The Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act of 2007, H.R. 3246. The Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act of 2007, H.R. 3246.
87123 Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, P.L. 110-234. Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, P.L. 110-234.
Congressional Research Service
Congressional Research Service
2328
link to page
link to page
2934 link to page link to page
2934 link to page link to page
2934 link to page link to page
4249 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
In addition, the 2018 farm bill expanded the NBRC to include the following
counties: Belknap and Cheshire counties in New Hampshire; Genesee, Greene, Livingston, Montgomery, Niagara, Oneida, Orleans, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Schenectady, Sullivan, Washington, Warren, Wayne, and Yates counties in New York; and Addison, Bennington, Chittenden, Orange, Rutland, Washington, Windham, and Windsor counties in Vermont, making it the only state entirely within the NBRC.
Funding History
Since its creation, the NBRC has received consistent authorizations of appropriations Since its creation, the NBRC has received consistent authorizations of appropriations
(Table 54). .
The 2008 farm bill authorized the appropriation of $30 million for the NBRC for each of FY2008 The 2008 farm bill authorized the appropriation of $30 million for the NBRC for each of FY2008
through FY2013 (P.L. 110-234); the same in the 2014 farm bill for each of FY2014 through through FY2013 (P.L. 110-234); the same in the 2014 farm bill for each of FY2014 through
FY2018 (P.L. 113-79); and $33 million for each of FY2019 through FY2023 (P.L. 115-334). FY2018 (P.L. 113-79); and $33 million for each of FY2019 through FY2023 (P.L. 115-334).
Due to its statutory linkages to the SCRC and SBRC, all three commissions also share common
Due to its statutory linkages to the SCRC and SBRC, all three commissions also share common
authorizing legislation and identical funding authorizations. Congress has funded the NBRC since authorizing legislation and identical funding authorizations. Congress has funded the NBRC since
FYFY
2010 (Table 54). The NBRC’s appropriated funding level. The NBRC’s appropriated funding level
increased over twentyfold from FY2013 ($1.5 million) through FY2022 ($35 million)—excluding supplemental appropriations—increased from $1.5 million in FY2013 to $40 million in FY2023. In FY2022, the NBRC, like the other . In FY2022, the NBRC, like the other
commissions, received five times the amount of their FY2021 annual appropriations in the commissions, received five times the amount of their FY2021 annual appropriations in the
Infrastructure Improvement and Jobs Act (Division JInfrastructure Improvement and Jobs Act (Division J
, Title III of P.L. 117-58). of P.L. 117-58).
Table 54. NBRC Authorized and Appropriated Funding, FY2010-FY2022FY2014-FY2023
$ in millions
$ in millions
FY10
FY11 FY12 FY13
FY14 FY14
FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22a
Appropriated
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5FY23
Appropriated
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
7.5
7.5
10.0
10.0
15.0
15.0
20.0
20.0
25.0
25.0
30.0
30.0
185.00
185.00
Funding
Authorized
30.0
30.0
30.040.0
Funding
Authorized
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
3033.0 .0
33.0
33.0
33.0
33.0
33.0
33.0
33.0
33.0
Funding
Funding
Sources: Appropriated funding amounts compiled by CRS using data from the fol owing: P.L. Appropriated funding amounts compiled by CRS using data from the fol owing: P.L.
111-85; P.L. 112-10; P.L. 112-74; P.L. 113-6; P.L. 113-76; P.L. 113-235; P.L. 114-113; P.L. 115-31; P.L. 115-141; P.L. 115-244; P.L. 113-76; P.L. 113-235; P.L. 114-113; P.L. 115-31; P.L. 115-141; P.L. 115-244; P.L.
116-94; P.L. 116-260; P.L. 117-58; 116-94; P.L. 116-260; P.L. 117-58;
P.L. 117-103; and P.L. 117-and P.L. 117-
103. 328. Notes: For an expanded historical and comparative view of appropriations, s For an expanded historical and comparative view of appropriations, s
ee Table C-1.
a. FY2022 amounts include $35 mil ion provided a. FY2022 amounts include $35 mil ion provided
through annual appropriations (P.L. 117-103by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. 117-103,
Division D, Title IV). FY2022 ). FY2022
appropriated funding amounts also include $150 mil ion appropriated funding amounts also include $150 mil ion
from Division J, Title III of the Infrastructure, Investment,provided by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58 and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58
, Division J, Title III). ).
Northern Great Plains Regional Authority
The Northern Great Plains Regional Authority was created by the 2002 farm bill.The Northern Great Plains Regional Authority was created by the 2002 farm bill.
88124 The NGPRA The NGPRA
was created to address economic distress in Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri (other than counties was created to address economic distress in Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri (other than counties
included in the Delta Regional Authority), North Dakota, Nebraska, and South Dakota. included in the Delta Regional Authority), North Dakota, Nebraska, and South Dakota.
88124 P.L. 107-171. P.L. 107-171.
Congressional Research Service
Congressional Research Service
2429
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Figure 56. Map of the Northern Great Plains Regional Authority
Source: Compiled by CRS using the NGPRA jurisdiction defined in P.L. 107-171 and Esri Data and MapsCompiled by CRS using the NGPRA jurisdiction defined in P.L. 107-171 and Esri Data and Maps
2018. .
Note: Missouri’s jurisdiction was defined as those counties not already included in the DRA. Missouri’s jurisdiction was defined as those counties not already included in the DRA.
The NGPRA appears to have been briefly active shortly after it was created, when it received its
The NGPRA appears to have been briefly active shortly after it was created, when it received its
only annual appropriation from Congress. The NGPRA’s funding authorization lapsed at the end only annual appropriation from Congress. The NGPRA’s funding authorization lapsed at the end
of FY2018; it was not reauthorized. of FY2018; it was not reauthorized.
Structure and Activities
Authority StructureOverview of Structure and Activities
The NGPRA featured broad similarities to the basic structure shared among most of the federal
The NGPRA featured broad similarities to the basic structure shared among most of the federal
regional authorities and commissions, being a federal-state partnership led by a federal co-chair regional authorities and commissions, being a federal-state partnership led by a federal co-chair
(appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate) and governors of the (appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate) and governors of the
participating states, of which one was designated as the state co-chair. participating states, of which one was designated as the state co-chair.
Unique to the NGPRA were certain structural novelties reflective of regional socio-political
Unique to the NGPRA were certain structural novelties reflective of regional socio-political
features. The NGPRA also included a Native American tribal co-chair, who was the chairperson features. The NGPRA also included a Native American tribal co-chair, who was the chairperson
of an Indian tribe in the region (or their designated representative), and appointed by the of an Indian tribe in the region (or their designated representative), and appointed by the
President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. The tribal co-chair served as the “liaison President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. The tribal co-chair served as the “liaison
between the governments of Indian tribes in the region and the [NGPRA].” No term limit is between the governments of Indian tribes in the region and the [NGPRA].” No term limit is
established in statute; the only term-related proscription is that the state co-chair “shall be elected established in statute; the only term-related proscription is that the state co-chair “shall be elected
by the state members for a term of not less than 1 year.” by the state members for a term of not less than 1 year.”
Another novel feature among the federal regional commissions and authorities was also the
Another novel feature among the federal regional commissions and authorities was also the
NGPRA’s statutory reliance on a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation—Northern Great Plains, Inc.—NGPRA’s statutory reliance on a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation—Northern Great Plains, Inc.—
in furtherance of its mission. While Northern Great Plains, Inc. was statutorily organized to in furtherance of its mission. While Northern Great Plains, Inc. was statutorily organized to
complement the NGPRA’s activities, it effectively served as the sole manifestation of the complement the NGPRA’s activities, it effectively served as the sole manifestation of the
NGPRA concept and rationale while it was active, given that the NGPRA was only once NGPRA concept and rationale while it was active, given that the NGPRA was only once
appropriated funds and never appeared to exist as an active organization. The Northern Great appropriated funds and never appeared to exist as an active organization. The Northern Great
Congressional Research Service
Congressional Research Service
2530
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Plains, Inc. was active for several years, and reportedly received external funding,
Plains, Inc. was active for several years, and reportedly received external funding,
89125 but is but is
currently defunct. currently defunct.
Activities and Administration
Under its authorizing statute,
Under its authorizing statute,
90126 the federal government would initially fund all administrative the federal government would initially fund all administrative
costs in FY2002, which would decrease to 75% in FY2003, and 50% in FY2004. Also, the costs in FY2002, which would decrease to 75% in FY2003, and 50% in FY2004. Also, the
NGPRA would have designated levels of county economic distress; 75% of funds were reserved NGPRA would have designated levels of county economic distress; 75% of funds were reserved
for the most distressed counties in each state, and 50% reserved for transportation, for the most distressed counties in each state, and 50% reserved for transportation,
telecommunications, and basic infrastructure improvements. Accordingly, non-distressed telecommunications, and basic infrastructure improvements. Accordingly, non-distressed
communities were eligible to receive no more than 25% of appropriated funds. communities were eligible to receive no more than 25% of appropriated funds.
The NGPRA was also structured to include a network of designated, multi-county LDDs at the
The NGPRA was also structured to include a network of designated, multi-county LDDs at the
sub-state levels. As with its sister organizations, the LDDs would have served as nodes for project sub-state levels. As with its sister organizations, the LDDs would have served as nodes for project
implementation and reporting, and as advisors to their respective states and the NGPRA as a implementation and reporting, and as advisors to their respective states and the NGPRA as a
whole. whole.
Legislative History
103rd Congress
The Northern Great Plains Rural Development Act (P.L. 103-318), which became
The Northern Great Plains Rural Development Act (P.L. 103-318), which became
law in 1994, established the Northern Great Plains Rural Development
law in 1994, established the Northern Great Plains Rural Development
Commission to study economic conditions and provide economic development Commission to study economic conditions and provide economic development
planning for the Northern Great Plains region. The commission was comprised of planning for the Northern Great Plains region. The commission was comprised of
the governors (or designated representative) from the Northern Great Plains the governors (or designated representative) from the Northern Great Plains
states of Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, Nebraska, and South Dakota (prior to states of Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, Nebraska, and South Dakota (prior to
Missouri’s inclusion), along with one member from each of those states Missouri’s inclusion), along with one member from each of those states
appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture. appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture.
104th Congress
The Agricultural, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and
The Agricultural, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1995 (P.L. 103-330) provided $1,000,000
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1995 (P.L. 103-330) provided $1,000,000
to carry out the Northern Great Plains Rural Development Act. The commission to carry out the Northern Great Plains Rural Development Act. The commission
produced a 10-year plan to address economic development and distress in the produced a 10-year plan to address economic development and distress in the
five states. After a legislative extension (P.L. 104-327), the report was submitted five states. After a legislative extension (P.L. 104-327), the report was submitted
in 1997.in 1997.
91127 The Northern Great Plains Initiative for Rural Development The Northern Great Plains Initiative for Rural Development
(NGPIRD), a nonprofit 501(c)(3), was established to implement the (NGPIRD), a nonprofit 501(c)(3), was established to implement the
commission’s advisories. commission’s advisories.
107th Congress
The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, or 2002 farm bill (P.L.
The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, or 2002 farm bill (P.L.
107-171), authorized the NGPRA, which superseded the commission. The statute
107-171), authorized the NGPRA, which superseded the commission. The statute
89125 W.K. Kellogg Foundation, W.K. Kellogg Foundation,
Grants: Northern Great Plains, Inc., https://www.wkkf.org/grants/grant/2007/09/the-, https://www.wkkf.org/grants/grant/2007/09/the-
meadowlark-project-a-leadership-laboratory-on-the-future-of-the-northern-great-plains-3004879. meadowlark-project-a-leadership-laboratory-on-the-future-of-the-northern-great-plains-3004879.
90126 P.L. 107-171. P.L. 107-171.
91127 Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, “Great Plains Commission Completes Work, Looks to Region’s Future,” Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, “Great Plains Commission Completes Work, Looks to Region’s Future,”
Minneapolis, MN, April 1, 1997, https://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications/fedgazette/great-plains-commission-Minneapolis, MN, April 1, 1997, https://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications/fedgazette/great-plains-commission-
completes-work-looks-to-regions-future. completes-work-looks-to-regions-future.
Congressional Research Service
Congressional Research Service
2631
link to page
link to page
3338 link to page link to page
5257 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
also created Northern Great Plains, Inc., a 501(c)(3), as a resource for regional
also created Northern Great Plains, Inc., a 501(c)(3), as a resource for regional
issues and international trade, which supplanted the NGPIRD with a broader issues and international trade, which supplanted the NGPIRD with a broader
remit that included research, education, training, and issues of international trade. remit that included research, education, training, and issues of international trade.
110th Congress
The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, or 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-
The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, or 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-
246), extended the NGPRA’s authorization through FY2012. The legislation also
246), extended the NGPRA’s authorization through FY2012. The legislation also
expanded the authority to include areas of Missouri not covered by the DRA, and expanded the authority to include areas of Missouri not covered by the DRA, and
provided mechanisms to enable the NGPRA to begin operations even without the provided mechanisms to enable the NGPRA to begin operations even without the
Senate confirmation of a federal co-chair, as well as in the absence of a Senate confirmation of a federal co-chair, as well as in the absence of a
confirmed tribal co-chair. confirmed tribal co-chair.
The Agricultural Act of 2014, or 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79), reauthorized the
The Agricultural Act of 2014, or 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79), reauthorized the
NGPRA and the DRA, and extended their authorizations from FY2012 to
NGPRA and the DRA, and extended their authorizations from FY2012 to
FY2018. FY2018.
Funding History
The NGPRA was authorized to receive $30 million annually from FY2002 to FY2018. It received The NGPRA was authorized to receive $30 million annually from FY2002 to FY2018. It received
appropriations once for $1.5 million in FY2004.appropriations once for $1.5 million in FY2004.
92128 Its authorization of appropriations lapsed at the Its authorization of appropriations lapsed at the
end of FY2018. end of FY2018.
Southeast Crescent Regional Commission
The Southeast Crescent Regional Commission (SCRC) was created by the 2008 farm bill,The Southeast Crescent Regional Commission (SCRC) was created by the 2008 farm bill,
93129 which also created the NBRC and the Southwest Border Regional Commission. All three which also created the NBRC and the Southwest Border Regional Commission. All three
commissions share common authorizing language modeled after the ARC. commissions share common authorizing language modeled after the ARC.
The SCRC received regular appropriations of $250,000 annually from FY2010 through FY2020
The SCRC received regular appropriations of $250,000 annually from FY2010 through FY2020
but did not form during that time due to the absence of an appointed federal co-chair.but did not form during that time due to the absence of an appointed federal co-chair.
94130 On On
December 8, 2021, the U.S. Senate confirmed the SCRC’s first federal co-chairperson, thereby December 8, 2021, the U.S. Senate confirmed the SCRC’s first federal co-chairperson, thereby
allowing the SCRC to convene and begin other activities.allowing the SCRC to convene and begin other activities.
95131
The SCRC was created to address economic distress in areas of Virginia, North Carolina, South
The SCRC was created to address economic distress in areas of Virginia, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida
(Figure 67) not served by the ARC or the not served by the ARC or the
DRADRA
(Table D-67).
92128 P.L. 108-199. P.L. 108-199.
93129 P.L. 110-234. P.L. 110-234.
94130 For more information, see CRS In Focus IF11744, For more information, see CRS In Focus IF11744,
Forming a Funded Federal Regional Commission, by Julie M. , by Julie M.
Lawhorn. Lawhorn.
95131 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Hearing on the Nominations of Christopher
Frey to be Assistant Administrator for Research and Development, at the Environmental Protection Agency and
Jennifer Clyburn Reed to be Federal Co-Chair of the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission, 117th Cong., 1st sess., 117th Cong., 1st sess.,
October 27, 2021, https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings?ID=A654BF51-1207-411A-BD0E-October 27, 2021, https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings?ID=A654BF51-1207-411A-BD0E-
914CCFBDB60B, and Congress.gov, “Nomination: Jennifer Clyburn Reed—Southeast Crescent Regional 914CCFBDB60B, and Congress.gov, “Nomination: Jennifer Clyburn Reed—Southeast Crescent Regional
Commission,” PN957, https://www.congress.gov/nomination/117th-congress/957. Commission,” PN957, https://www.congress.gov/nomination/117th-congress/957.
Congressional Research Service
Congressional Research Service
2732
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Figure 67. Map of the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission
Source: Compiled by CRS using the jurisdiction defined in P.L. 110-234 and Esri Data and Maps Compiled by CRS using the jurisdiction defined in P.L. 110-234 and Esri Data and Maps
2019and SCRC, SCRC Counties by Economic Designation, https://scrc.gov. .
Notes: The SCRC is statutorily defined as including those counties in the named states that are not already The SCRC is statutorily defined as including those counties in the named states that are not already
included in the ARC or the DRA. Florida is the only state with all counties defined as being within the SCRC. included in the ARC or the DRA. Florida is the only state with all counties defined as being within the SCRC.
The Infrastructure
The Infrastructure
, Investment Investment
, and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58; enacted November 15, 2021) added three and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58; enacted November 15, 2021) added three
counties that were previously in the SCRC region to the ARC region. counties that were previously in the SCRC region to the ARC region.
Overview of Structure and Activities
As authorized, the SCRC would share
Commission Structure
The SCRC shares an organizing structure with the NBRC and the Southwest an organizing structure with the NBRC and the Southwest
Border Regional Commission, as all three share common statutory authorizing language modeled Border Regional Commission, as all three share common statutory authorizing language modeled
after the ARC. after the ARC.
As authorized, the SCRC would consistThe SCRC consists of a federal co-chair, appointed by the President with the of a federal co-chair, appointed by the President with the
advice and consent of the Senate, along with the participating state governors (or their designated advice and consent of the Senate, along with the participating state governors (or their designated
representatives), of which one would be named by the state representatives as state co-chair. representatives), of which one would be named by the state representatives as state co-chair.
There is no term limit for the federal co-chair. However, the state co-chair is limited to two There is no term limit for the federal co-chair. However, the state co-chair is limited to two
consecutive terms, but may not serve a term of less than one year. In December 2021, the U.S. consecutive terms, but may not serve a term of less than one year. In December 2021, the U.S.
Senate confirmed the first Senate confirmed the first
federal co-chair for the SCRC.
Congressional Research Service
33
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Strategic Plan
The SCRC developed its bylaws and its first strategic plan for the period FY2023-FY2027.132 The plan includes the following goals:
1. critical infrastructure,
2. health and support services access and outcomes,
3. workforce capacity,
4. entrepreneurial and business development activities,
5. affordable housing stock and access, and
6. environmental conservation, preservation, and access.
Designating Distressed Areas
As authorized, the SCRC shares an approach to designating distressed areas that is similar to that of the NBRC and the Southwest Border Regional Commission, as all three share common statutory authorizing language.133 In FY2023, using an index-based classification system, the SCRC compared each county within its jurisdiction with national averages based on three economic indicators: (1) three-year average unemployment rates; (2) per capita market income; and (3) poverty rates. These factors are calculated into a composite index value for each county, which are ranked and sorted into designated distress levels. Each distress level corresponds to a given county’s ranking relative to that of the United States as a whole. These designations are defined as follows by the SCRC, starting from the highest level of distress:
Distressed counties, which are the most severely and persistently economically
distressed and underdeveloped. They also have high rates of poverty, unemployment, or outmigration.
Transitional, which are counties that are economically distressed and
underdeveloped or have recently suffered high rates of poverty, unemployment, or outmigration.
Attainment, which are counties in the region that are not designated as distressed
or transitional counties under this subsection.134
Recent Activities
In addition to the development of bylaws and strategic plan, the SCRC hired its first chief of staff in 2022. In FY2023, the SCRC plans to hire an executive director and develop a competitive grant program as well as a separate J-1 visa program.135
132 Southeast Crescent Regional Commission, “Southeast Crescent Regional Commission: Bylaws,” August 2022, https://scrc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/SCRC-Bylaws-Final.pdf; and “Southeast Crescent Regional Commission: Strategic Plan (FY2023-FY2027),” December 2022, https://scrc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/SCRC-Strategic-Plan-Final.pdf.
133 40 U.S.C. §15302. 134 Southeast Crescent Regional Commission, “SCRC Economic Designation of Counties & Isolated Areas,” https://scrc.gov.
135 SCRC, “Southeast Crescent Regional Commission,” https://scrc.gov.
Congressional Research Service
34
link to page 40 link to page 40 link to page 49federal co-chair for the SCRC.
Legislative History
The SCRC concept was first introduced by university researchers working on rural development issues in 1990 at Tuskegee University’s Annual Professional Agricultural Worker’s Conference for 1862 and 1890 Land-Grant Universities.
In 1994, the Southern Rural Development Commission Act was introduced in the House Agricultural Committee, which would provide the statutory basis for a “Southern Black Belt
Congressional Research Service
28
link to page 29 link to page 34 link to page 42 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Commission.”96 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Legislative History The SCRC concept was first introduced by university researchers working on rural development issues in 1990 at Tuskegee University’s Annual Professional Agricultural Worker’s Conference for 1862 and 1890 Land-Grant Universities.
In 1994, the Southern Rural Development Commission Act was introduced in the House Agricultural Committee, which would provide the statutory basis for a “Southern Black Belt Commission.”136 While the concept was not reintroduced in Congress until the 2000s, various While the concept was not reintroduced in Congress until the 2000s, various
nongovernmental initiatives sustained discussion and interest in the concept in the intervening nongovernmental initiatives sustained discussion and interest in the concept in the intervening
period. Supportive legislation was reintroduced in 2002, which touched off other accompanying period. Supportive legislation was reintroduced in 2002, which touched off other accompanying
legislative efforts until the SCRC was authorized in 2008.legislative efforts until the SCRC was authorized in 2008.
97137
Funding History
Congress authorized $30 million funding levels for each year from FY2008 to FY2018 and $33 Congress authorized $30 million funding levels for each year from FY2008 to FY2018 and $33
million for each year from FY2019 through FY2023million for each year from FY2019 through FY2023
,98 and.138 Congress appropriated $250,000 in each fiscal appropriated $250,000 in each fiscal
year from FY2010 to FY2020. However, for FY2021, Congress provided an annual appropriation year from FY2010 to FY2020. However, for FY2021, Congress provided an annual appropriation
of $1 million, which was followed by $5 million in FY2022. Congress also provided $5 million of $1 million, which was followed by $5 million in FY2022. Congress also provided $5 million
in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58, Division J, Title III) in in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58, Division J, Title III) in
FY202299FY2022139 (Table 5). Prior to the confirmation of the federal co-chair in FY2022, the SCRC was unable to . Prior to the confirmation of the federal co-chair in FY2022, the SCRC was unable to
form, despite receiving annual appropriations.form, despite receiving annual appropriations.
100140
Table 65. SCRC Authorized and Appropriated Funding, FY2010-FY2022FY2014-FY2023
$ in millions
$ in millions
FY10
FY11
FY12
FY13
FY14
FY15
FY16
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
FY22a
Appropriated
0.25
0.25
0.25FY23
Appropriated
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
1.00 1.00
10.00
10.00
Funding
Authorized
30.00
30.00
30.0020.0
Funding
Authorized
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
3033.00 .00
33.00
33.00
33.00
33.00
33.00
33.00
33.
33.
000
Funding
Funding
Sources: Appropriated funding amounts compiled by CRS using data from the fol owing: P.L. Appropriated funding amounts compiled by CRS using data from the fol owing: P.L.
111-85; P.L. 112-10; P.L. 112-74; P.L. 113-6; P.L. 113-76; P.L. 113-235; P.L. 114-113; P.L. 115-31; P.L. 115-141; P.L. 115-244; P.L. 113-76; P.L. 113-235; P.L. 114-113; P.L. 115-31; P.L. 115-141; P.L. 115-244; P.L.
116-94; P.L. 116-260; P.L. 117-58; 116-94; P.L. 116-260; P.L. 117-58;
P.L. 117-103; and P.L. 117-and P.L. 117-
103. 328. Notes: For an expanded historical and comparative view of appropriations, s For an expanded historical and comparative view of appropriations, s
ee Table C-1.
a. FY2022 appropriated funding amounts include $5 mil ion provided a. FY2022 appropriated funding amounts include $5 mil ion provided
through annual appropriations (P.L. 117-
103by the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2022 (P.L. 117-103, Division D, Title IV). FY2022 appropriated funding amounts also include $5 mil ion ). FY2022 appropriated funding amounts also include $5 mil ion
provided by the Infrastructure Investmentprovided in Division J, Title III of the Infrastructure, Investment, and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58).
Southwest Border Regional Commission
The Southwest Border Regional Commission (SBRC) was created with the enactment of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, or the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-234), which also and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58, Division J, Title III).
96136 H.R. 3901. H.R. 3901.
97137 40 U.S.C. §15731. 40 U.S.C. §15731.
98138 40 U.S.C. §15751. 40 U.S.C. §15751.
99139 P.L. 116-260 and P.L. 117-58. P.L. 116-260 and P.L. 117-58.
100140 According to statute, a federal co-chair is required for the formation of a commission quorum and making decisions. According to statute, a federal co-chair is required for the formation of a commission quorum and making decisions.
40 U.S.C. §15302.40 U.S.C. §15302.
Despite receiving regular appropriations since it was authorized in 2008, a review of government budgetary and fiscal sources yields no record of the SCRC receiving, obligating, or spending funds appropriated by Congress. In successive presidential administration budget requests (FY2013, FY2015-FY2017), no funding was requested. In addition, in a review of the relevant SF 133 Reports on Budget Execution and Budgetary Resources, the SCRC is not listed by the Office of Management and Budget in its list of reported agencies, and subsequently offers no relevant funding reports on the SCRC. The SF 133 Report on Budget Execution and Budgetary Resources fulfills the requirement in 31 U.S.C. §§1511-1514 that the President review federal expenditures at least four times a year.
Congressional Research Service
29
link to page 35 link to page 53 
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Congressional Research Service
35
link to page 41 link to page 58
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Southwest Border Regional Commission The Southwest Border Regional Commission (SBRC) was created with the enactment of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, or the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-234), which also created the NBRC and the SCRC. All three commissions share common statutory authorizing created the NBRC and the SCRC. All three commissions share common statutory authorizing
language modeled after the ARC. language modeled after the ARC.
The SBRC was created to address economic distress in the southern border regions of Arizona,
The SBRC was created to address economic distress in the southern border regions of Arizona,
California, New Mexico, and TexaCalifornia, New Mexico, and Texa
s (Figure 78; Table D-7). The SBRC does not have a federal co-chair and is not currently active.
Figure 78). On December 6, 2022, the U.S. Senate confirmed the SBRC’s first federal co-chairperson, thereby allowing the SCRC to convene and begin other activities.141
Figure 8. Map of the Southwest Border Regional Commission
Source: Compiled by CRS using the jurisdictional data defined in P.L. 110-234 and Esri Data and MapsCompiled by CRS using the jurisdictional data defined in P.L. 110-234 and Esri Data and Maps
2018. .
Overview of Structure and Activities
As authorized, the SBRC would share
Commission Structure
The SBRC shares an organizing structure with the an organizing structure with the
NBRCGLA, the NBRC, and the SCRC, as and the SCRC, as
all three commissions all four share common statutory authorizing language modeled after the ARC. share common statutory authorizing language modeled after the ARC.
By statute, the SBRC consists of a federal co-chair, appointed by the President with the advice
By statute, the SBRC consists of a federal co-chair, appointed by the President with the advice
and consent of the Senate, along with the participating state governors (or their designated and consent of the Senate, along with the participating state governors (or their designated
representatives), of which one would be named by the state representatives as state co-chair. As representatives), of which one would be named by the state representatives as state co-chair. As
enacted in statute, there is no term limit for the federal co-chair. However, the state co-chair is limited to two consecutive terms, but may not serve a term of less than one year. However, as no federal co-chair has been appointed since the SCRC was authorized, it is not operational.
141 Congress.gov, “Nomination: Juan Eduardo Sanchez—Southwest Border Regional Commission,” PN2450, https://www.congress.gov/nomination/117th-congress/2450.
Congressional Research Service
36
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
enacted in statute, there is no term limit for the federal co-chair. However, the state co-chair is limited to two consecutive terms, but may not serve a term of less than one year.
Strategic Plan
As of the date of publication, the SBRC has not yet published a strategic plan.
Designating Distressed Areas
As authorized, the SBRC shares an approach to designating distressed areas that is similar to that of the NBRC and the SCRC, as all three share common statutory authorizing language.142
Recent Activities
The U.S. Senate confirmed the SBRC’s first federal co-chair in December 2022, which marked an essential step for starting the commission’s operations.143 As of the date of publication, the SBRC has not yet announced recent activities.
Legislative History
The concept of an economic development agency focusing on the southwest border region has The concept of an economic development agency focusing on the southwest border region has
existed at least since 1976, though the SBRC was established through more recent efforts. existed at least since 1976, though the SBRC was established through more recent efforts.
Congressional Research Service
30
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Executive Order 13122 in 1999 created the Interagency Task Force on the Executive Order 13122 in 1999 created the Interagency Task Force on the
Economic Development of the Southwest Border,
Economic Development of the Southwest Border,
101144 which examined issues of which examined issues of
socioeconomic distress and economic development in the southwest border socioeconomic distress and economic development in the southwest border
regions and advised on federal efforts to address them. regions and advised on federal efforts to address them.
108th Congress
In February 2003, a “Southwest Regional Border Authority” was proposed in S.
In February 2003, a “Southwest Regional Border Authority” was proposed in S.
458. A companion bill, H.R. 1071, was introduced in March 2003. The SBRC
458. A companion bill, H.R. 1071, was introduced in March 2003. The SBRC
was reintroduced in the Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act was reintroduced in the Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act
of 2003 (H.R. 3196), which would have authorized the SBRC, the DRA, the of 2003 (H.R. 3196), which would have authorized the SBRC, the DRA, the
NGPRA, and the SCRC. NGPRA, and the SCRC.
109th Congress
In 2006, the proposed Southwest Regional Border Authority Act would have
In 2006, the proposed Southwest Regional Border Authority Act would have
created the “Southwest Regional Border Authority” (H.R. 5742), similar to S.
created the “Southwest Regional Border Authority” (H.R. 5742), similar to S.
458 in 2003. 458 in 2003.
110th Congress
In 2007, SBRC was reintroduced in the Regional Economic and Infrastructure
In 2007, SBRC was reintroduced in the Regional Economic and Infrastructure
Development Act of 2007 (H.R. 3246), which would have authorized the SBRC,
Development Act of 2007 (H.R. 3246), which would have authorized the SBRC,
142 40 U.S.C. §15302. 143 For more information, see CRS In Focus IF11744, Forming a Funded Federal Regional Commission, by Julie M. Lawhorn.
144 Executive Order 13122, “Interagency Task Force on the Economic Development of the Southern Border,” 64 Federal Register 29201-29202, May 25, 1999.
Congressional Research Service
37
link to page 43 link to page 49 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
the SCRC, and the NBRC, and reauthorized the DRA and the NGPRA in a the SCRC, and the NBRC, and reauthorized the DRA and the NGPRA in a
combined bill. combined bill.
Upon House passage, the Senate incorporated authorizations for the
Upon House passage, the Senate incorporated authorizations for the
establishment of the NBRC, SCRC, and SBRC in the 2008 farm bill. The 2008
establishment of the NBRC, SCRC, and SBRC in the 2008 farm bill. The 2008
farm bill authorized annual appropriations of $30 million for FY2008 through farm bill authorized annual appropriations of $30 million for FY2008 through
FY2012 for all three of the new organizations. FY2012 for all three of the new organizations.
117th Congress
The U.S. Senate confirmed the SBRC’s first federal co-chair in December
2022.145
Funding History
Congress authorized annual funding of $30 million for the SBRC from FY2008 to FY2018 and Congress authorized annual funding of $30 million for the SBRC from FY2008 to FY2018 and
$33 million for each fiscal year from FY2019 through FY2023.$33 million for each fiscal year from FY2019 through FY2023.
102146 For FY2021, Congress For FY2021, Congress
provided $250,000 for the SBRC through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-provided $250,000 for the SBRC through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-
260). For FY2022, Congress provided $1.25 million for the SBRC through the IIJA (Division J260). For FY2022, Congress provided $1.25 million for the SBRC through the IIJA (Division J
, Title III of of
P.L. 117-58) and $2.5 million through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. 117-103). P.L. 117-58) and $2.5 million through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. 117-103).
The IIJA provided the SBRC with an increase in appropriations that was five times the amount of The IIJA provided the SBRC with an increase in appropriations that was five times the amount of
its annual appropriation in FY2021.
The SBRC is not active. Upon the appointment of a federal co-chair, the SBRC could convene and begin the process of activation.103
101 Executive Order 13122, “Interagency Task Force on the Economic Development of the Southern Border,” 64
Federal Register 29201-29202, May 25, 1999.
102 40 U.S.C. §15751. 103 For more information, see CRS In Focus IF11744, Forming a Funded Federal Regional Commission, by Julie M. Lawhorn.
Congressional Research Service
31
link to page 37 link to page 42 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Table 7its annual appropriation in FY2021. Congress provided $5 million for the SBRC through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (P.L. 117-328 ).
Table 6. SBRC Authorized and Appropriated Funding, FY2010-FY2022FY2014-FY2023
$ in millions
$ in millions
FY10
FY11
FY12
FY13
FY14
FY15
FY16
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
FY22a
Appropriated
—
—
—
—FY23
Appropriated
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
0.25
0.25
3.75
3.75
Funding
Authorized
30.00
30.00
30.005.0
Funding
Authorized
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
3033.00 .00
33.00
33.00
33.00
33.00
33.
33.
000
33.0
33.0
Funding
Funding
Sources: Appropriated funding amounts compiled by CRS using data from P.L. 116-260; P.L. 117-58; Appropriated funding amounts compiled by CRS using data from P.L. 116-260; P.L. 117-58;
P.L. 117-103; and P.L. and P.L.
117-117-
103328. .
Notes: For an expanded historical and comparative view of appropriations, s For an expanded historical and comparative view of appropriations, s
ee Table C-1.
a. FY2022 amounts include $2.5 mil ion provided a. FY2022 amounts include $2.5 mil ion provided
through annual appropriations (P.L. 117-103by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. 117-103,
Division D, Title IV). FY2022 ). FY2022
appropriated funding amounts also include $1.25 mil ion provided by appropriated funding amounts also include $1.25 mil ion provided by
Division J, Title III of the of the
InfrastructureInfrastructure
, Investment Investment
, and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58 and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58
, Division J, Title III). ).
Concluding Notes
Given their geographic reach, broad activities, and integrated intergovernmental structures, the Given their geographic reach, broad activities, and integrated intergovernmental structures, the
federal regional commissions and authorities are a significant element of federal economic federal regional commissions and authorities are a significant element of federal economic
development efforts. At the same time, as organizations that are largely governed by the development efforts. At the same time, as organizations that are largely governed by the
respective state-based commissioners, the federal regional commissions and authorities are not respective state-based commissioners, the federal regional commissions and authorities are not
145 Congress.gov, “Nomination: Juan Eduardo Sanchez—Southwest Border Regional Commission,” PN2450, https://www.congress.gov/nomination/117th-congress/2450.
146 40 U.S.C. §15751.
Congressional Research Service
38
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
typical federal agencies but federally chartered entities that integrate federal funding and direction typical federal agencies but federally chartered entities that integrate federal funding and direction
with state and local economic development priorities. with state and local economic development priorities.
This structure provides Congress with a flexible platform to support economic development
This structure provides Congress with a flexible platform to support economic development
efforts. The intergovernmental structure allows for strategic-level economic development efforts. The intergovernmental structure allows for strategic-level economic development
initiatives to be launched at the federal level and implemented across multi-state jurisdictions initiatives to be launched at the federal level and implemented across multi-state jurisdictions
with extensive state and local input, and more adaptable to regional needs. with extensive state and local input, and more adaptable to regional needs.
The federal regional commissions and authorities reflect an emphasis by the federal government
The federal regional commissions and authorities reflect an emphasis by the federal government
on place-based economic development strategies sensitive to regional and local contexts. on place-based economic development strategies sensitive to regional and local contexts.
However, the geographic specificity and varying functionality of the statutorily authorized federal However, the geographic specificity and varying functionality of the statutorily authorized federal
regional commissions and authorities, both active and inactive, potentially raise questions about regional commissions and authorities, both active and inactive, potentially raise questions about
the efficacy and equity of federal economic development policies. the efficacy and equity of federal economic development policies.
Congressional Research Service
Congressional Research Service
32
link to page 38 39
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Appendix A. Basic Information at a Glance
Table A-1. Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities
$ in millions
$ in millions
FY2022
FY2022 IIJAFY2023
Year
Number
Appropriations Appropriations
Authorized of States
Counties
(P.L. 117-103)
(P.L. 117-58)a328)
ARC
1965
1965
13
13
423 counties in Alabama,
423 counties in Alabama,
$195.00
$1,000.00
Georgia, Georgia,
$200.0*
Kentucky, Kentucky,
Maryland, Mississippi, New Maryland, Mississippi, New
(an additional $200.0
York, North Carolina, York, North Carolina,
Ohio,
mil ion of advance
Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, Carolina,
appropriations
Tennessee, Tennessee,
Virginia, and the entire Virginia, and the entire
provided in FY2023
state of West Virginia state of West Virginia
from the IIJA
Appropriations
(P.L. 117-58)
DRA
2000
2000
8
8
252 counties in Alabama,
252 counties in Alabama,
$30.10
$150.00
Arkansas, Arkansas,
$30.1
Il inois, Kentucky, Il inois, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Mississippi,
Missouri, and Tennessee Missouri, and Tennessee
Denali
1998
1998
1
1
Entire state of Alaska
Entire state of Alaska
$
$
15.10
$75.00
Commission
NBRC
2008
4
60 counties in Maine, New
$35.00
$150.0017.0
Commission
GLA
2022
8
Areas in the watershed of the Great
-
Lakes and the Great Lakes System
(as such terms are defined in Section
118(a)(3) of the Federal Water
Pol ution Control Act (33 U.S.C.
1268(a)(3)), in each of the fol owing
states: Il inois, Indiana, Michigan,
Minnesota, New York, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
NBRC
2008
4
60 counties in Maine, New
$40.0
Hampshire, New York, and
Hampshire, New York, and
Vermont Vermont
NGPRC
NGPRC
2002
2002
6
6
86 counties in Missouri and 86 counties in Missouri and
N/Athe
N/A
N/A
the entire states of Iowa, entire states of Iowa,
Minnesota, Minnesota,
North Dakota, North Dakota,
Nebraska, and South Nebraska, and South
Dakota
Dakota
SCRC
2008
2008
7
7
Counties428 counties in Alabama, in Alabama,
$5.00
$5.00
Georgia, Georgia,
$20.0
Mississippi, North Mississippi, North
Carolina, South Carolina, South
Carolina, Carolina,
and Virginia not already and Virginia not already
served by the ARC or
served by the ARC or
DRA, and the DRA, and the
entire state entire state
of Florida of Florida
SBRC
SBRC
2008
2008
4
4
93 counties in Arizona,
93 counties in Arizona,
$2.50
$1.25
California, California,
$5.0
New Mexico, New Mexico,
and Texas and Texas
Sources: Data compiled by CRS from relevant legislation and official sources of various federal regional Data compiled by CRS from relevant legislation and official sources of various federal regional
commissions and authorities. Authorizing statutes include, in order of tabulation, P.L. 89-4; P.L. 106-554; P.L. commissions and authorities. Authorizing statutes include, in order of tabulation, P.L. 89-4; P.L. 106-554; P.L.
105-277; P.L. 105-277; P.L.
117-328; P.L. 110-234; P.L. 107-171; P.L. 110-234; and P.L. 110-234. 110-234; P.L. 107-171; P.L. 110-234; and P.L. 110-234.
Notes: The commissions and authorities in The commissions and authorities in
bold are considered to be active are considered to be active
and functioning. .
a. Funding in the IIJA has varying periods of availability. Appropriations for ARC are available through FY2026, a. Funding in the IIJA has varying periods of availability. Appropriations for ARC are available through FY2026,
with $200 mil ion
with $200 mil ion
in advance appropriations to be allocated each fiscal year starting in FY2022 through FY2026. Appropriations for the to be allocated each fiscal year starting in FY2022 through FY2026. Appropriations for the
DRA, Denali Commission, NBRC, SCRC, and SBRC are available until expended.DRA, Denali Commission, NBRC, SCRC, and SBRC are available until expended.
See IIJA, P.L. 117-58, Division J, Title III.
Congressional Research Service
Congressional Research Service
3340
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Figure A-1. Structure and Activities of the Commissions and Authorities
Sources: Compiled by CRS with information from the federal regional commissions and authorities. Compiled by CRS with information from the federal regional commissions and authorities.
Notes: For the commissions and authority that are not considered to be functioning, structural characteristics For the commissions and authority that are not considered to be functioning, structural characteristics
are tabulated according to their statutory design. As noted, the first federal co-chair of the SCRC was confirmed are tabulated according to their statutory design. As noted, the first federal co-chair of the SCRC was confirmed
in December 2021in December 2021
, and the first federal co-chair of the SBRC was confirmed in December 2022. As of March 2023, the GLA does not have a federal co-chair and is not yet active. .
Contact Information
(for active commissions and authorities) (for active commissions and authorities)
Contact
Address/Phone/Website
Appalachian Regional Commission
Appalachian Regional Commission
1666 Connecticut Avenue, NW
1666 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 700 Suite 700
Washington, DC 20009-1068 Washington, DC 20009-1068
Phone: (202) 884-7700 Phone: (202) 884-7700
Website: http://www.arc.gov Website: http://www.arc.gov
Delta Regional Authority
Delta Regional Authority
236 Sharkey Avenue
236 Sharkey Avenue
Suite 400 Suite 400
Clarksdale, MS 38614 Clarksdale, MS 38614
Phone: (662) 624-8600 Phone: (662) 624-8600
Website: http://www.dra.gov Website: http://www.dra.gov
Denali Commission
Denali Commission
510 L Street
510 L Street
Suite 410 Suite 410
Anchorage, AK 99501 Anchorage, AK 99501
Phone: (907) 271-1414 Phone: (907) 271-1414
Website: http://www.denali.gov Website: http://www.denali.gov
Northern Border Regional Commission
Northern Border Regional Commission
James Cleveland Federal Building, Suite 1201
James Cleveland Federal Building, Suite 1201
53 Pleasant Street 53 Pleasant Street
Concord, NH 03301 Concord, NH 03301
Phone: (603) 369-3001 Phone: (603) 369-3001
Website: http://www.NBRC.govWebsite: http://www.NBRC.gov
Southeast Crescent Regional Commission
Phone: (202) 599-8310
Website: https://scrc.gov/
Congressional Research Service
Congressional Research Service
3441
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Contact
Address/Phone/Website
Southeast Crescent Regional Commission
1901 Assembly Street | Suite 370 Columbia, SC 29201 Phone: (202) 599-8310 Website: https://https://scrc.gov/
Congressional Research Service
Congressional Research Service
3542
Appendix B. Map of Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities
Figure B-1. National Map of the Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities
by county
by county
or watershed
Source: Compiled by CRS using data from the various commissions and authorities and Esri Data and MapsCompiled by CRS using data from the various commissions and authorities and Esri Data and Maps
2019. .
CRS-
CRS-
3643
link to page
link to page
4350 link to page link to page
4350 link to page link to page
4350 link to page link to page
4351 link to page link to page
4351
Appendix C. Historical Appropriations
Table C-1. Historical Appropriations: Federal Regional Commissions (FY1986-FY2022FY2023)
$ in millions
$ in millions
Fiscal Year
Legislation
ARC
Denali
DRA
GLA
NGPRA
NBRC
SBRC
SCRC
1986
1986
P.L. 99-141
P.L. 99-141
130.00
130.00
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1987 1987
P.L. 99-591
P.L. 99-591
105.00
105.00
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1988 1988
P.L. 100-202
P.L. 100-202
107.00
107.00
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1989 1989
P.L. 100-371
P.L. 100-371
110.70
110.70
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1990 1990
P.L. 101-101
P.L. 101-101
150.00
150.00
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1991 1991
P.L. 101-514
P.L. 101-514
170.00
170.00
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1992 1992
P.L. 102-104
P.L. 102-104
190.00
190.00
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1993 1993
P.L. 102-377
P.L. 102-377
190.00
190.00
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1994 1994
P.L. 103-126
P.L. 103-126
249.00
249.00
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1995 1995
P.L. 103-316
P.L. 103-316
282.00
282.00
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1996 1996
P.L. 104-46
P.L. 104-46
170.00
170.00
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1997 1997
P.L. 104-206
P.L. 104-206
160.00
160.00
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1998 1998
P.L. 105-62
P.L. 105-62
170.00
170.00
(Authoriz
(Authoriz
ed)a
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1999 1999
P.L. 105-245
P.L. 105-245
66.40
66.40
20.00
20.00
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2000 2000
P.L. 106-60
P.L. 106-60
66.40
66.40
20.00
20.00
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2001 2001
P.L. 106-377
P.L. 106-377
66.40
66.40
30.00
30.00
20.0
20.0
0b
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2002 2002
P.L. 107-66
P.L. 107-66
71.29
71.29
38.00
38.00
10.00
10.00
N/A
(Authoriz(Authoriz
ed)c
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2003
2003
P.L. 108-7
P.L. 108-7
71.29
71.29
48.00
48.00
8.00
8.00
N/A
— —
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2004
2004
P.L. 108-137 /
P.L. 108-137 /
66.00
66.00
55.00
55.00
5.00
5.00
N/A
1.50 1.50
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
P.L. 108-10
P.L. 108-10
0d
2005
2005
P.L. 108-447
P.L. 108-447
66.00
66.00
67.00
67.00
6.05
6.05
N/A
1.51.5
0e
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
CRS-
CRS-
3744
link to page
link to page
4351 link to page link to page
4451 link to page link to page
4451 link to page link to page
4451 link to page link to page
4451 link to page link to page
4451 link to page link to page
4451 link to page link to page
4451 link to page 51
Fiscal Year
Legislation
ARC
Denali
DRA
GLA
NGPRA
NBRC
SBRC
SCRC
2006
2006
P.L. 109-103
P.L. 109-103
65.47
65.47
50.00
50.00
12.00
12.00
N/A
— —
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2007
2007
P.L. 110-
P.L. 110-
5f
65.47
65.47
50.00
50.00
12.00
12.00
N/A
— —
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2008
2008
P.L. 110-161
P.L. 110-161
73.03
73.03
21.80
21.80
11.69
11.69
N/A
— —
(Authoriz
(Authoriz
ed)g
(Authoriz(Authoriz
ed)g
(Authoriz
(Authoriz
ed)g
2009
2009
P.L. 111-8
P.L. 111-8
75.00
75.00
11.80
11.80
13.00
13.00
N/A
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
2010
2010
P.L. 111-85
P.L. 111-85
76.00
76.00
11.97
11.97
13.00
13.00
N/A
— —
1.50
1.50
—
—
0.25
0.25
2011
2011
P.L. 112-
P.L. 112-
10h
68.40
68.40
10.70
10.70
11.70
11.70
N/A
— —
1.50
1.50
—
—
0.25
0.25
2012
2012
P.L. 112-74
P.L. 112-74
68.26
68.26
10.68
10.68
11.68
11.68
N/A
— —
1.50
1.50
—
—
0.25
0.25
2013
2013
P.L. 113-
P.L. 113-
6i
68.26
68.26
10.68
10.68
11.68
11.68
N/A
— —
1.50
1.50
—
—
0.25
0.25
2014
2014
P.L. 113-76
P.L. 113-76
80.32
80.32
10.00
10.00
12.00
12.00
N/A
— —
5.00
5.00
—
—
0.25
0.25
2015
2015
P.L. 113-235
P.L. 113-235
90.00
90.00
10.00
10.00
12.00
12.00
N/A
— —
5.00
5.00
—
—
0.25
0.25
2016
2016
P.L. 114-113
P.L. 114-113
146.00
146.00
11.00
11.00
25.00
25.00
N/A
— —
7.50
7.50
—
—
0.25
0.25
2017
2017
P.L. 115-31
P.L. 115-31
152.00
152.00
15.00
15.00
25.00
25.00
N/A
— —
10.00
10.00
—
—
0.25
0.25
2018
2018
P.L. 115-141
P.L. 115-141
155.00
155.00
30.00
30.00
25.00
25.00
N/A
— —
15.00
15.00
—
—
0.25
0.25
2019
2019
P.L. 115-244
P.L. 115-244
165.00
165.00
15.00
15.00
25.00
25.00
N/A
— —
20.00
20.00
—
—
0.25
0.25
2020
2020
P.L. 116-94
P.L. 116-94
175.00
175.00
15.00
15.00
30.00
30.00
N/A
— —
25.00
25.00
—
—
0.25
0.25
2021
2021
P.L. 116-260
P.L. 116-260
180.00
180.00
15.00
15.00
30.00
30.00
N/A
— —
30.00
30.00
0.25
0.25
1.00
1.00
2022
2022
P.L. 117-103, P.L.
P.L. 117-103, P.L.
117-58 j, k
395.00
90.10
180.10
—
185.00
3.75
10.00
395.00
90.10
180.1
N/A
—
185.00
3.75
10.00
117-58 j, k
0
2023
P.L. 117-328, P.L.
400.00
17.00
30.10
(Authorized)l
—
40.00
5.00
20.00
117-58 k
Source: Tabulated by CRS from appropriations legislation. Tabulated by CRS from appropriations legislation.
Notes: AA
dash (“—“) indicates that no appropriation was provided.dash (“—“) indicates that no appropriation was provided.
Despite receiving appropriations between FY2010 and FY2020, no federal co-chair has been appointed to lead the SCRC, and it has yet to form. a. P.L. 105-277. a. P.L. 105-277.
b. The DRA was authorized in FY2001 (P.L. 106-554) and received its initial appropriations in that same fiscal year (P.L. 106-337). b. The DRA was authorized in FY2001 (P.L. 106-554) and received its initial appropriations in that same fiscal year (P.L. 106-337).
c. P.L. 107-171. c. P.L. 107-171.
CRS-45
d. For FY2004, the NGPRA received appropriations in separate legislation from the rest of the federal regional commissions. d. For FY2004, the NGPRA received appropriations in separate legislation from the rest of the federal regional commissions.
e. The NGPRA was appropriated separately from the other federal regional commission, which can be found in Section 759 of the same legislation. e. The NGPRA was appropriated separately from the other federal regional commission, which can be found in Section 759 of the same legislation.
f. f.
FY2007 appropriations were provided to the federal regional commissions under ful -year continuing resolution legislation.
FY2007 appropriations were provided to the federal regional commissions under ful -year continuing resolution legislation.
CRS-38
g. In FY2008, P.L. 110-234 established the NBRC, the SBRC, and the SCRC. g. In FY2008, P.L. 110-234 established the NBRC, the SBRC, and the SCRC.
h. For FY2011, appropriations for the ARC, Denali, and the DRA were appropriated separately from the broader appropriations legislation under a continuing h. For FY2011, appropriations for the ARC, Denali, and the DRA were appropriated separately from the broader appropriations legislation under a continuing
resolution. The NBRC, however, was subject to the continuing resolution.
resolution. The NBRC, however, was subject to the continuing resolution.
i.
i.
FY2013 appropriations were provided to the federal regional commissions under continuing resolution legislation.
FY2013 appropriations were provided to the federal regional commissions under continuing resolution legislation.
j.
j.
FY2022 appropriated funding amounts include funding provided in Division J, Title III of the Infrastructure
FY2022 appropriated funding amounts include funding provided in Division J, Title III of the Infrastructure
, Investment Investment
, and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58). Amounts do and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58). Amounts do
not include appropriations in Division A of P.L. 117-58 pertaining to the Appalachian Development Highway System. not include appropriations in Division A of P.L. 117-58 pertaining to the Appalachian Development Highway System.
k. Division J, Title III of the IIJA provided $1 bil ion in appropriations for the ARC, divided into $200 mil ion tranches, one for each fiscal year FY2022-FY2026. Of the
k. Division J, Title III of the IIJA provided $1 bil ion in appropriations for the ARC, divided into $200 mil ion tranches, one for each fiscal year FY2022-FY2026. Of the
regional commissions funded in the IIJA, the ARC was the only one to receive such a structured appropriation: all other commissions received their appropriation
regional commissions funded in the IIJA, the ARC was the only one to receive such a structured appropriation: all other commissions received their appropriation
solely in FY2022. All IIJA funds remain available until expended. solely in FY2022. All IIJA funds remain available until expended.
l.
The GLA was authorized in FY2023 (P.L. 117-328, Division O, Title IV, Sec. 401).
CRS-46
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
CRS-39
Appendix D. Service Areas of Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities
Appalachian Regional Commission
Table D-1. ARC Counties by Designated Distress, FY2022
Attainment
Competitive
Transitional
At-Risk
Distressed
Alabama
Shelby
Madison
Blount, Calhoun,
Bibb, DeKalb, Fayette,
Macon
Chambers, Cherokee,
Hale, Lamar, Marion,
Chilton, Clay, Cleburne,
Pickens, Randolph,
Colbert, Coosa, Cul man,
Talladega
Elmore, Etowah, Statutory Jurisdiction of ARC
State
County
Alabama
Bibb, Blount, Calhoun, Chambers, Cherokee, Chilton, Clay, Cleburne, Colbert, Coosa, Cul man, De Kalb, Elmore, Etowah, Fayette, Franklin, Franklin,
Hale, Jackson, Jefferson, Jackson, Jefferson,
Lamar, Lauderdale, Lawrence, Lauderdale, Lawrence,
Limestone, Limestone,
Macon, Madison, Marion, Marshall, Marshall,
Morgan, St. Clair, Morgan, Pickens, Randolph, St. Clair, Shelby, Talladega, Tallapoosa, Tuscaloosa, Tallapoosa, Tuscaloosa,
Walker, Winston Walker, Winston
Georgia
Forsyth
Cherokee, Dawson
Banks, Barrow, Bartow,
Chattooga, Elbert,
Carrol , CatoosaBanks, Barrow, Bartow, Carrol , Catoosa, Chattooga, Cherokee, Dade, Dawson, Douglas, Elbert, Dade,
Franklin, Murray, Polk,
Douglas, Fannin, Floyd, , Fannin, Floyd,
Towns
Forsyth, Franklin, Gilmer, Gordon, Gilmer, Gordon,
Gwinnett, Habersham, Gwinnett, Habersham,
Hall, Haralson, Hart, Hall, Haralson, Hart,
Heard, Jackson, Lumpkin, Heard, Jackson, Lumpkin,
MadisonMadison
, Murray, Paulding, , Paulding,
PickensPickens
, Polk, Rabun, Stephens, , Rabun, Stephens,
Towns, Union, Walker, White, Union, Walker, White,
Whitfield Whitfield
Kentucky
Clark, Garrard, Madison
Boyd, Cumberland,
Adair, Bath, Bell,
Edmonson, Fleming,
Adair, Bath, Bell, Boyd, Breathitt, Carter, Casey, Breathitt, Carter, Casey,
Green, Greenup, Hart,
Clay, Clinton, Clark, Clay, Clinton, Cumberland, Edmonson, El iott, Estil , Fleming, Floyd, Garrard, Green, GreenupEl iott,
Laurel, Lincoln, Monroe,
Estil , Floyd, Harlan,
Montgomery, Pulaski
, Harlan, Hart, Jackson, Johnson, Knott, Jackson, Johnson, Knott,
Knox, Knox,
Laurel, Lawrence, Lee, Lawrence, Lee,
Leslie, Letcher, Lewis, Leslie, Letcher, Lewis,
CRS-40
Attainment
Competitive
Transitional
At-Risk
Distressed
Magoffin, Martin, McCrearyLincoln, McCreary, Madison, Magoffin, Martin, Menifee, , Menifee,
Metcalfe, Metcalfe,
Monroe, Montgomery, Morgan, Morgan,
Nicholas, Owsley, Perry, Nicholas, Owsley, Perry,
Pike, Powel , Pike, Powel ,
Pulaski, Robertson, Robertson,
Rockcastle, Rowan, Rockcastle, Rowan,
Russell, Wayne, Whitley, Russell, Wayne, Whitley,
Wolfe Wolfe
Maryland
Allegany, Garrett,
Allegany, Garrett,
Washington Washington
Mississippi
Alcorn,
Alcorn,
Itawamba, Lee,
Benton, Calhoun, Chickasaw, Calhoun, Chickasaw,
BentonChoctaw, Clay, , Clay,
Kemper,
Pontotoc, Union
ChoctawItawamba, Kemper, Lee, Lowndes, , Lowndes,
Montgomery, Noxubee,
Marshall, Monroe,
Marshall, Monroe, Montgomery, Noxubee, Oktibbeha, Panola, Oktibbeha, Panola,
Pontotoc, Prentiss, Tippah, Prentiss, Tippah,
Winston
Tishomingo, Webster, Tishomingo, Union, Webster, Winston, Yalobusha Yalobusha
New York
Allegany, Broome, Cattaraugus, Broome, Cattaraugus,
Allegany
Chautauqua, Chemung, Chautauqua, Chemung,
Chenango, Cortland, Chenango, Cortland,
Delaware, Otsego, Delaware, Otsego,
Schoharie, Schuyler, Schoharie, Schuyler,
Steuben, Tioga, Tompkins Steuben, Tioga, Tompkins
North Carolina
Buncombe
Alexander,
Alexander,
Alleghany, Ashe, Avery, Buncombe, Burke, Caldwell, Catawba,* Cherokee, Clay,
Carolina
Cleveland,* Davie, Forsyth, Graham, Ashe, Avery,
Alleghany, Cherokee,
Burke, Caldwell,
Clay, Cleveland,* Graham,
Catawba,* Davie, Forsyth, Rutherford Haywood, Henderson, Haywood, Henderson,
Jackson, McDowell, Jackson, McDowell,
Macon, Madison, Mitchell, Macon, Madison, Mitchell,
PolkPolk, Rutherford, Stokes, Surry, Swain, , Stokes, Surry, Swain,
Transylvania, Watauga, Transylvania, Watauga,
Wilkes, Yadkin, Yancey Wilkes, Yadkin, Yancey
Ohio
Clermont, Holmes
Belmont, Brown, Carrol ,
Ashtabula, Coshocton,
Adams, Athens, Meigs,
Columbiana, Harrison,
Gallia, Guernsey,
Monroe, Noble
Hocking, Mahoning,
Highland, Jackson,
Muskingum, Ross,
Adams, Ashtabula, Athens, Belmont, Brown, Carrol , Clermont, Columbiana, Coshocton, Gallia, Guernsey, Harrison, Highland, Hocking, Holmes, Jackson, Jefferson, Lawrence, Mahoning, Meigs, Monroe, Morgan, Muskingum, NobleJefferson, Lawrence,
Tuscarawas, Washington
CRS-41
Attainment
Competitive
Transitional
At-Risk
Distressed
Morgan, Perry, Pike, , Perry, Pike,
Ross, Scioto, Trumbul , Scioto, Trumbul ,
VintonTuscarawas, Vinton, Washington
Pennsylvania
Allegheny, Allegheny,
Butler,
Armstrong, Beaver, Armstrong, Beaver,
Fayette
Forest
Montour, Washington
Bedford, Blair, Bradford, Bedford, Blair, Bradford,
Butler, Cambria, Cameron, Cambria, Cameron,
Carbon, Centre, Clarion, Carbon, Centre, Clarion,
Clearfield, Clinton, Clearfield, Clinton,
Columbia, Crawford, Elk, Columbia, Crawford, Elk,
Erie, Erie, Fayette, Forest, Fulton, Greene, Fulton, Greene,
Huntingdon, Indiana, Huntingdon, Indiana,
Jefferson, Juniata, Jefferson, Juniata,
Lackawanna, Lawrence, Lackawanna, Lawrence,
Luzerne, Lycoming, Luzerne, Lycoming,
McKean, Mercer, Mifflin, McKean, Mercer, Mifflin,
Monroe, Monroe,
Montour, Northumberland, Perry, Northumberland, Perry,
Pike, Potter, Schuylkil , Pike, Potter, Schuylkil ,
Snyder, Somerset, Snyder, Somerset,
Sul ivan, Susquehanna, Sul ivan, Susquehanna,
Tioga, Union, Venango, Tioga, Union, Venango,
Warren, Warren,
Washington, Wayne, Wayne,
Westmoreland, Wyoming Westmoreland, Wyoming
South Carolina
Greenvil e
Anderson, Oconee,
Cherokee, Union*
Pickens, Spartanburg
Tennessee
Anderson, Blount,
Campbell, Carter,
Bledsoe, Clay, Cocke,
Bradley, Cannon, Coffee,
Claiborne, Grainger,
Grundy, Hancock, Scott
Cumberland, DeKalb,
Greene, Fentress,
Franklin, Hamblen,
Hawkins, Jackson,
Hamilton
Anderson, Cherokee, Greenvil e, Oconee, Pickens, Spartanburg, Union*
Carolina
Tennessee
Anderson, Bledsoe, Blount, Bradley, Campbell, Cannon, Carter, Claiborne, Clay, Cocke, Coffee, Cumberland, De Kalb, Fentress, Franklin, Grainger, Greene, Grundy, Hamblen, Hamilton, Hancock, Hawkins, Jackson, Jefferson, Johnson, , Jefferson,
Johnson, Lewis, Meigs,
Knox, Lawrence, Knox, Lawrence,
Loudon,
Monroe, Morgan, Pickett,
Lewis, Loudon, McMinn, Macon, Marion, Macon, Marion,
McMinn,
Rhea, Sequatchie, Unicoi,
OvertonMeigs, Monroe, Morgan, Overton, Pickett, Polk, Putnam, , Polk, Putnam,
Union, Van Buren,
RoaneRhea, Roane, Scott, Sequatchie, Sevier, Smith, , Sevier, Smith,
Warren
Sul ivanSul ivan, Unicoi, Union, Van Buren, Warren, Washington, , Washington,
White White
CRS-42
Attainment
Competitive
Transitional
At-Risk
Distressed
Virginia
Bath, Botetourt
Alleghany (+ Covington
Grayson, Russell,
Buchanan, Dickenson,
city), Bland, Carrol (+
Lee, Wise (+ Norton city)
Galax city), Craig, Floyd, Giles, Henry (+ Martinsvil e city), Highland, Montgomery (+ Radford city), Patrick, Pulaski, Rockbridge (+ Buena Vista city + Lexington city), Scott, Smyth, Tazewel , Washington (+ Bristol city), Wythe
West Virginia
Jefferson
Berkeley, Brooke, Cabell,
Lewis, Fayette, Mason,
Barbour, Boone, Braxton,
Doddridge, Grant,
Mercer, Monroe,
Calhoun, Clay, Gilmer,
Greenbrier, Hampshire,
Pocahontas, Randolph,
Lincoln, Logan, McDowell,
Hancock, Hardy,
Ritchie, Tyler, Upshur,
Mingo, Nicholas, Roane,
Harrison, Jackson,
Wayne
Summers, Webster,
Kanawha, Marion,
Wetzel, Wirt, Wyoming
Marshall, Mineral, Monongalia, Morgan, Ohio, Pendleton, Pleasants, Preston, Putnam, Raleigh, Taylor, Tucker, Wood
Source: Information compiled by CRS from ARC data. Notes: The Infrastructure, Investment, and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58; enacted November 15, 2021) added three counties that were previously in the SCRC region to the ARC region. The asterisk (*) indicates counties added to the ARC region by the IIJA.
CRS-43
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Delta Regional Authority
Table D-2. DRA Counties by State and Distress, FY2021
Distressed Counties
Non-Distressed CountiesCongressional Research Service
47
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
State
County
Virginia
Alleghany, Bath, Bland, Botetourt, Buchanan, Carrol , Craig, Dickenson, Floyd, Giles, Grayson, Henry, Highland, Lee, Montgomery, Patrick, Pulaski, Rockbridge, Russell, Scott, Smyth, Tazewel , Washington, Wise, and Wythe The fol owing independent cities in Virginia are also within the Appalachian Region and are merged with an adjacent or surrounding county for the purposes of data analysis and grant management: Bristol (Washington County), Buena Vista (Rockbridge County), Covington (Alleghany County), Galax (Carrol County), Lexington (Rockbridge County), Martinsvil e (Henry County), Norton (Wise County), and Radford (Montgomery County)
West
Barbour, Berkeley, Boone, Braxton, Brooke, Cabell, Calhoun, Clay, Doddridge, Fayette, Gilmer,
Virginia
Grant, Greenbrier, Hampshire, Hancock, Hardy, Harrison, Jackson, Jefferson, Kanawha, Lewis, Lincoln, Logan, Marion, Marshall, Mason, McDowell, Mercer, Mineral, Mingo, Monongalia, Monroe, Morgan, Nicholas, Ohio, Pendleton, Pleasants, Pocahontas, Preston, Putnam, Raleigh, Randolph, Ritchie, Roane, Summers, Taylor, Tucker, Tyler, Upshur, Wayne, Webster, Wetzel, Wirt, Wood, Wyoming
Source: Information compiled by CRS from ARC data, https://www.arc.gov/appalachian-counties-served-by-arc.
Delta Regional Authority
Table D-2. Statutory Jurisdiction of DRA
State
Counties and Parishes
Alabama
Barbour, Bul ock, Butler, Choctaw, Clarke,
Alabama
Barbour, Bul ock, Butler, Choctaw, Clarke,
Conecuh, Dallas, Escambia, Greene, Hale, Conecuh, Dallas, Escambia, Greene, Hale,
Lowndes, Macon, Marengo, Monroe, Perry, Lowndes, Macon, Marengo, Monroe, Perry,
Pickens, Russell, Sumter, Washington, Wilcox Pickens, Russell, Sumter, Washington, Wilcox
Arkansas
Arkansas, Ashley, Baxter, Bradley, Calhoun, Chicot, Clay,Ashley, Baxter, Bradley, Calhoun, Chicot, Clay,
Arkansas, Pulaski Cleveland, Craighead, Crittenden, Cross, Cleveland, Craighead, Crittenden, Cross,
Dallas, Desha, Drew, Fulton, Grant, Greene, Dallas, Desha, Drew, Fulton, Grant, Greene,
Independence, Izard, Jackson, Jefferson, Independence, Izard, Jackson, Jefferson,
Lawrence, Lee, Lincoln, Lonoke, Marion, Lawrence, Lee, Lincoln, Lonoke, Marion,
Mississippi, Monroe, Ouachita, Phil ips, Mississippi, Monroe, Ouachita, Phil ips,
Poinsett, PrairiePoinsett, Prairie
, Pulaski, Randolph, Searcy, Sharp, St. , Randolph, Searcy, Sharp, St.
Francis, Stone, Union, Van Buren, White, Francis, Stone, Union, Van Buren, White,
WoodruffWoodruff
Illinois
Alexander, Franklin, Gallatin, Hamilton,
Alexander, Franklin, Gallatin, Hamilton,
White, Wil iamson
Hardin, Jackson, Johnson, Massac, Perry, Pope, Hardin, Jackson, Johnson, Massac, Perry, Pope,
Pulaski, Randolph, Saline, UnionPulaski, Randolph, Saline, Union
, White, Wil iamson
Kentucky
Ballard,Caldwel , Calloway, Carlisle, Christian,
Ballard,Caldwel , Calloway, Carlisle, Christian,
McCracken
Crittenden, Fulton, Graves, Henderson, Crittenden, Fulton, Graves, Henderson,
Hickman, Hopkins, Livingston, Lyon, Hickman, Hopkins, Livingston, Lyon,
McCracken, McLean, McLean,
Marshall, Muhlenberg, Todd, Trigg, Union, Marshall, Muhlenberg, Todd, Trigg, Union,
Webster Webster
Louisiana
Acadia, Allen,
Acadia, Allen,
Assumption, Avoyelles,
Ascension, Cameron, East Baton Rouge,
Beauregard, Bienvil e, Caldwell, Catahoula,
Jefferson, Lafourche, Plaquemines, Pointe
Claiborne, Concordia, De Soto, East Carrol ,
Coupee, Rapides, St. Charles, West Baton
Ascension, Assumption, Avoyelles, Beauregard, Bienvil e, Caldwel , Cameron, Catahoula, Claiborne, Concordia, De Soto, East Baton Rouge, East Carrol , East Feliciana, Evangeline, Franklin, Grant, East Feliciana, Evangeline, Franklin, Grant,
Rouge
Iberia, Ibervil e, Jackson, JeffersonIberia, Ibervil e, Jackson, Jefferson
Davis, La Salle, Jefferson Davis, La Sal e, Lafourche, Lincoln, Livingston, Madison, Morehouse, , Lincoln, Livingston, Madison, Morehouse,
Natchitoches, Orleans, OuachitaNatchitoches, Orleans, Ouachita
, Plaquemines, Pointe Coupee, Rapides, Red River, , Red River,
Richland, St. Bernard, St. Richland, St. Bernard, St.
Charles, St. Helena, St. James, St. Helena, St. James, St.
John the Baptist, St. Landry, St. Martin, St. John the Baptist, St. Landry, St. Martin, St.
Mary, Tangipahoa, Tensas, Union, Vermil ion, Mary, Tangipahoa, Tensas, Union, Vermil ion,
Washington, Webster, WestWashington, Webster, West
Baton Rouge, West Carrol , West Carrol , West
Feliciana, Winn Feliciana, Winn
Mississippi
Adams, Amite, Attala, Benton, Bolivar, Carrol ,
Adams, Amite, Attala, Benton, Bolivar, Carrol ,
Madison, Rankin
Claiborne, Coahoma, Copiah, Covington, De Claiborne, Coahoma, Copiah, Covington, De
Soto, Franklin, Grenada, Hinds, Holmes, Soto, Franklin, Grenada, Hinds, Holmes,
Humphreys, Issaquena, Jasper, Jefferson, Humphreys, Issaquena, Jasper, Jefferson,
Jefferson Davis, Lafayette, Lawrence, Leflore, Jefferson Davis, Lafayette, Lawrence, Leflore,
Lincoln, Lincoln,
Madison, Marion, Marshall, Montgomery, Marion, Marshall, Montgomery,
Panola, Pike, Quitman, Panola, Pike, Quitman,
Rankin, Sharkey, Simpson, Sharkey, Simpson,
Smith, Sunflower, Tallahatchie, Tate, Tippah, Smith, Sunflower, Tallahatchie, Tate, Tippah,
Tunica, Union, Walthall, Warren, Washington, Tunica, Union, Walthall, Warren, Washington,
Wilkinson, Wilkinson,
Yalobusha, Yazoo
Congressional Research Service
48
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
State
Counties and Parishes
Yalobusha, Yazoo
Missouri
Bol inger, Butler,
Bol inger, Butler,
Cape Girardeau, Carter, Crawford, Dent, Carter, Crawford, Dent,
Cape Girardeau
Douglas, Dunklin, Howell, Iron, Madison, Douglas, Dunklin, Howell, Iron, Madison,
Mississippi, New Madrid, Oregon, Ozark, Mississippi, New Madrid, Oregon, Ozark,
Pemiscot, Perry, Phelps, Reynolds, Ripley, Pemiscot, Perry, Phelps, Reynolds, Ripley,
Scott, Shannon, Ste. Genevieve, St. Francois, Scott, Shannon, Ste. Genevieve, St. Francois,
Stoddard, Texas, Stoddard, Texas,
Washington, Wayne, Wright
Washington, Wayne, Wright
Congressional Research Service
44
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Distressed Counties
Non-Distressed Counties
Tennessee
Benton, Carrol , Chester, Crockett, Decatur,
Benton, Carrol , Chester, Crockett, Decatur,
Fayette, Shelby
DyerDyer, Fayette, Gibson, Hardeman, Hardin, Haywood, , Gibson, Hardeman, Hardin, Haywood,
Henderson, Henry, Lake, Lauderdale, Madison, Henderson, Henry, Lake, Lauderdale, Madison,
McNairy, Obion, McNairy, Obion,
Shelby, Tipton, Weakley Tipton, Weakley
Source: Compiled by CRS from the Delta Regional AuthorityCompiled by CRS from the Delta Regional Authority
website.
Denali Commission
Table D-3. Denali Commission Distressed Communities List, 2020
by standard of community distress, in alphabetical order
Surrogate
Akiachak, Akiak, Alakanuk, Alcan Border, Aleneva, Alexander Creek, Allakaket, Ambler,
Standard
Anchor Point, Angoon, Anvik, Atmautluak, Beaver, Beluga, Big Delta, Birch Creek, Brevig Mission, Cantwell, Central, Chalkyitsik, Chase, Chefornak, Chenega, Chevak, Chickaloon, Chicken, Chignik Lake, Chiniak, Chisana, Chitina, Chuathbaluk, Circle, Coffman Cove, Cohoe, Cooper Landing, Copper Center, Covenant Life, Crooked Creek, Crown Point, Deltana, Diomede, Dot Lake, Dot Lake Vil age, Dry Creek, Eagle, Eagle Vil age, Edna Bay, Eek, Eielson Afb, Ekwok, Elfin Cove, Emmonak, Eureka Roadhouse, Excursion Inlet, Ferry, Fort Greely, Fox River, Fritz Creek, Gambell, Game Creek, Glacier View, Goodnews Bay, Grayling, Gustavus, Halibut Cove, Happy Valley, Harding-Birch Lakes, Healy Lake, Holy Cross, Hooper Bay, Hope, Hughes, Huslia, Hyder, Kachemak, Kaltag, Kasigluk, Kenny Lake, Kipnuk, Klukwan, Kodiak Station, Kokhanok, Kongiganak, Kotlik, Koyuk, Koyukuk, Kupreanof, Kwethluk, Kwigil ingok, Lake Louise, Lake Minchumina, Lime, Livengood, Lower Kalskag, Lutak, Manley Hot Springs, Marshall, Mccarthy, Mekoryuk, Mentasta Lake, Minto, Mosquito Lake, Mountain Vil age, Mud Bay, Nabensa, Nanwalek, Napakiak, Naukati Bay, Nelchina, New Stuyahok, Newhalen, Newtok, Nightmute, Nikolaevsk, Nikolai, Ninilchik, Nondalton, Noorvik, Northway, Northway Junction, Northway Vil age, Nulato, Nunam Iqua, Nunapitchuk, Old Harbor, Ouzinkie, Pelican, Perryvil e, Petersvil e, Pilot Station, Pitkas Point, Platinum, Point Baker, Point
Mackenzie, Point Possession, Pope-Vannoy Landing, Port Alexander, Port Graham, Port Lions, Port Protection, Portage Creek, Primrose, Quinhagak, Rampart, Red Devil, Ruby, Russian Mission, Salcha, Savoonga, Scammon Bay, Selawik, Seldovia, Shageluk, Shishmaref, Skwentna, Slana, Sleetmute, St. Michael, Stebbins, Stevens Vil age, Susitna North, Takotna, Tanacross, Tatitlek, Teller, Tenakee Springs, Tetlin, Thorne Bay, Togiak, Toksook Bay, Tonsina, Trapper Creek, Tuluksak, Tuntutuliak, Tununak, Twin Hil s, Tyonek, Ugashik, Venetie, Wales, Whale Pass, Whitestone, Wil ow, Wil ow Creek, Wiseman
Expanded
Akhiok, Aleknagik, Buckland, Clark’s Point, Denali Park, Diamond Ridge, Elim, Fort Yukon,
Standard
Funny River, Hoonah, Houston, Kake, Kalskag, Kiana, Manokotak, Moose Pass, Seldovia Vil age, Shungnak, South Naknek, Stony River, St. Mary's, Talkeetna, Tok, Wrangell
Source: Compiled by CRS from the 2020 Distressed Communities Report, Denali Commission.
Northern Border Regional Commission
Table D-4. NBRC Counties by Distress Designation, FY2021
by state in alphabetical order
Attainment
Transitional
Distressed
Maine
Hancock, Knox, Waldo
Androscoggin, Aroostook, Franklin, Kennebec, Oxford, Penobscot, Piscataquis, Somerset, Washington
Congressional Research Service
45
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Attainment
Transitional
Distressed
New
Grafton
Belknap, Carrol , Cheshire
Coos, Sul ivan
Hampshire
New York
Rensselaer, Saratoga, .
Denali Commission
Table D-3. Statutory Jurisdiction of Denali Commission
State
Counties
Alaska
Entire state of Alaska
Source: Compiled by CRS from the Denali Commission.
Congressional Research Service
49
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Great Lakes Authority
Table D-4. Statutory Jurisdiction of GLA
counties that are partially or entirely in the GLA region
State
County
Illinois
Cook, Lake
Indiana
Adams, Allen, DeKalb, Elkhart, Kosciusko, LaGrange, Lake, LaPorte, Noble, Porter, St. Joseph, Steuben, Wells, Whitley
Michigan
Alcona, Alger, Allegan, Alpena, Antrim, Arenac, Baraga, Barry, Bay, Benzie, Berrien,
Branch, Calhoun, Cass, Charlevoix, Cheboygan, Chippewa, Clare, Clinton, Crawford, Delta, Dickinson, Eaton, Emmet, Genesee, Gladwin, Gogebic, Grand Traverse, Gratiot, Hil sdale, Houghton, Huron, Ingham, Ionia, Iosco, Iron, Isabella, Jackson, Kalamazoo, Kalkaska, Kent, Keweenaw, Lake, Lapeer, Leelanau, Lenawee, Livingston, Luce, Mackinac, Macomb, Manistee, Marquette, Mason, Mecosta, Menominee, Midland, Missaukee, Monroe, Montcalm, Montmorency, Muskegon, Newaygo, Oakland, Oceana, Ogemaw, Ontonagon, Osceola, Oscoda, Otsego, Ottawa, Presque, Isle, Roscommon, Saginaw, Sanilac, Schoolcraft, Shiawassee, St. Clair, St. Joseph, Tuscola, Van Buren, Washtenaw, Wayne, Wexford
Minnesota
Aitkin, Carlton, Cook, Itasca, Lake, Pine, St. Louis
New York
Allegany,* Cattaraugus,* Cayuga, Chautauqua,* Chemung,* Cortland,* Erie, Essex, Franklin, Genesee, Hamilton, Herkimer, Jefferson, Lewis, Livingston,
Madison, Monroe, Niagara, Oneida, Onondaga, Ontario, Orleans, Oswego, Schuyler,* Seneca, St. Lawrence, Steuben,* Tioga,* Tompkins,* Wayne, Wyoming, Yates
Ohio
Allen, Ashland, Ashtabula,* Auglaize, Crawford, Cuyahoga, Defiance, Erie, Fulton, Geauga, Hancock, Hardin, Henry, Huron, Lake, Lorain, Lucas, Marion, Medina, Mercer, Ottawa, Paulding, Portage, Putnam, Richland, Sandusky, Seneca, Shelby, Stark, Summit, Trumbul ,* Van Wert, Wil iams, Wood, Wyandot
Pennsylvania
Crawford,* Erie,* Potter*
Wisconsin
Adams, Ashland, Bayfield, Brown, Calumet, Columbia, Dodge, Door, Douglas, Florence, Fond du Lac, Forest, Green Lake, Iron, Kenosha, Kewaunee, Langlade, Manitowoc, Marathon, Marinette, Marquette, Menominee, Milwaukee, Oconto, Oneida, Outagamie, Ozaukee, Portage, Racine, Shawano, Sheboygan, Vilas, Washington, Waukesha, Waupaca, Waushara, Winnebago
Source: Tabulated by CRS based on terms in P.L. 117-328 and U.S. Geological Survey data. Notes: The GLA region consists of areas in the watershed of the Great Lakes and Great Lakes System in states specifically designated in the statute. Fourteen counties marked by asterisk (*) are also in the ARC region. Eighteen counties marked in bold text are also in the NBRC region. All seven counties in Minnesota are in the NGPRA region.
Northern Border Regional Commission
Table D-5. Statutory Jurisdiction of NBRC
counties
State
County
Maine
Androscoggin, Aroostook, Franklin, Hancock, Kennebec, Knox, Oxford, Penobscot, Piscataquis, Somerset, Waldo, Washington
Congressional Research Service
50
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
State
County
New
Belknap, Carrol , Cheshire, Coos, Grafton, Sul ivan
Hampshire
New York
Cayuga, Clinton, Essex,
Cayuga, Clinton, Essex,
Franklin, Fulton, Genesee, Franklin, Fulton, Genesee,
Greene, Hamilton, Herkimer, Greene, Hamilton, Herkimer,
Jefferson, Lewis, Livingston, Jefferson, Lewis, Livingston,
Madison, Montgomery, Madison, Montgomery,
Niagara, Oneida, Orleans, Niagara, Oneida, Orleans,
Oswego, Oswego, Rensselaer, Saratoga, St. Lawrence, St. Lawrence,
Schenectady, Seneca, Sul ivan, Schenectady, Seneca, Sul ivan,
Warren, Washington, Warren, Washington,
Wayne, YatesWayne, Yates
Vermont
Addison, Bennington,
Addison, Bennington,
Caledonia, Essex, Orleans,
Chittenden, Franklin, Grand
Rutland, Windham
Isle, Lamoil e, Orange, WashingtonCaledonia, Chittenden, Essex, Franklin, Grand Isle, Lamoil e, Orange, Orleans, Rutland, Washington, Windham, Windsor , Windsor
Source: Compiled and tabulated by CRS from NBRC data. Compiled and tabulated by CRS from NBRC data.
Note: Vermont is the only NBRC state with all counties within the NBRC jurisdiction. Vermont is the only NBRC state with all counties within the NBRC jurisdiction.
Northern Great Plains Regional Authority
Table D-56. Statutory Jurisdiction of NGPRA
states and counties
states and counties
NGPRA Jurisdiction
Iowa
Entire State
Entire State
Minnesota
Entire State
Entire State
Missouri
Adair, Andrew, Atchison, Audrain, Barry, Barton, Bates, Benton, Boone, Buchanan, Caldwell,
Adair, Andrew, Atchison, Audrain, Barry, Barton, Bates, Benton, Boone, Buchanan, Caldwell,
(counties)
Callaway, Camden, Carrol , Cass, Cedar, Chariton, Christian, Clark, Clay, Clinton, Cole, Cooper,
Callaway, Camden, Carrol , Cass, Cedar, Chariton, Christian, Clark, Clay, Clinton, Cole, Cooper,
Dade, Dallas, Daviess, DeKalb, Franklin, Gasconade, Gentry, Greene, Grundy, Harrison, Henry, Dade, Dallas, Daviess, DeKalb, Franklin, Gasconade, Gentry, Greene, Grundy, Harrison, Henry,
Hickory, Holt, Howard, Jackson, Jasper, Jefferson, Johnson, Knox, Laclede, Lafayette, Lawrence, Hickory, Holt, Howard, Jackson, Jasper, Jefferson, Johnson, Knox, Laclede, Lafayette, Lawrence,
Lewis, Lincoln, Linn, Livingston, Macon, Maries, Marion, McDonald, Mercer, Mil er, Moniteau, Lewis, Lincoln, Linn, Livingston, Macon, Maries, Marion, McDonald, Mercer, Mil er, Moniteau,
Monroe, Montgomery, Morgan, Newton, Nodaway, Osage, Pettis, Pike, Platte, Polk, Pulaski, Monroe, Montgomery, Morgan, Newton, Nodaway, Osage, Pettis, Pike, Platte, Polk, Pulaski,
Putnam, Ralls, Randolph, Ray, Saline, Schuyler, Scotland, Shelby, St. Charles, St. Clair, St. Louis, St. Putnam, Ralls, Randolph, Ray, Saline, Schuyler, Scotland, Shelby, St. Charles, St. Clair, St. Louis, St.
Louis City, Stone, Sul ivan, Taney, Vernon, Warren, Webster, Worth Louis City, Stone, Sul ivan, Taney, Vernon, Warren, Webster, Worth
Nebraska
Entire State
Entire State
North
Entire State
Entire State
Dakota
South
Entire State
Entire State
Dakota
Source: Tabulated by CRS with information from P.L. 107-171. Tabulated by CRS with information from P.L. 107-171.
Note: Missouri jurisdiction represents all those counties not currently included in the DRA. Missouri jurisdiction represents all those counties not currently included in the DRA.
Congressional Research Service
Congressional Research Service
4651
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Southeast Crescent Regional Commission
Table D-67. Statutory Jurisdiction of SCRC
states and counties
states and counties
SCRC Jurisdiction
Alabama
Autauga, Baldwin, Coffee, Covington, Crenshaw, Dale, Geneva, Henry, Houston, Lee, Mobile,
Autauga, Baldwin, Coffee, Covington, Crenshaw, Dale, Geneva, Henry, Houston, Lee, Mobile,
Montgomery County, Pike Montgomery County, Pike
Georgia
Appling, Atkinson, Bacon, Baker, Baldwin, Ben Hil , Berrien, Bibb, Bleckley, Brantley, Brooks, Bryan,
Appling, Atkinson, Bacon, Baker, Baldwin, Ben Hil , Berrien, Bibb, Bleckley, Brantley, Brooks, Bryan,
Bul och, Burke, Butts, Calhoun, Camden, Candler, Charlton, Chatham, Chattahoochee, Clarke, Clay, Bul och, Burke, Butts, Calhoun, Camden, Candler, Charlton, Chatham, Chattahoochee, Clarke, Clay,
Clayton, Clinch, Cobb, Coffee, Colquitt, Columbia, Cook, Coweta, Crawford, Crisp, De Kalb, Clayton, Clinch, Cobb, Coffee, Colquitt, Columbia, Cook, Coweta, Crawford, Crisp, De Kalb,
Decatur, Dodge, Dooly, Dougherty, Early, Echols, Effingham, Emanuel, Evans, Fayette, Fulton, Decatur, Dodge, Dooly, Dougherty, Early, Echols, Effingham, Emanuel, Evans, Fayette, Fulton,
Glascock, Glynn, Grady, Greene, Hancock, Harris, Henry, Houston, Irwin, Jasper, Jeff Davis, Glascock, Glynn, Grady, Greene, Hancock, Harris, Henry, Houston, Irwin, Jasper, Jeff Davis,
Jefferson, Jenkins, Johnson, Jones, Lamar, Lanier, Laurens, Lee, Liberty, Lincoln, Long, Lowndes, Jefferson, Jenkins, Johnson, Jones, Lamar, Lanier, Laurens, Lee, Liberty, Lincoln, Long, Lowndes,
Macon, Marion, McDuffie, McIntosh, Meriwether, Mil er, Mitchell, Monroe, Montgomery, Morgan, Macon, Marion, McDuffie, McIntosh, Meriwether, Mil er, Mitchell, Monroe, Montgomery, Morgan,
Muscogee, Newton, Oconee, Oglethorpe, Peach, Pierce, Pike, Pulaski, Putnam, Quitman, Randolph, Muscogee, Newton, Oconee, Oglethorpe, Peach, Pierce, Pike, Pulaski, Putnam, Quitman, Randolph,
Richmond, Rockdale, Schley, Screven, Seminole, Spalding, Stewart, Sumter, Talbot, Taliaferro, Richmond, Rockdale, Schley, Screven, Seminole, Spalding, Stewart, Sumter, Talbot, Taliaferro,
Tattnall, Taylor, Telfair, Terrell, Thomas, Tift, Toombs, Treutlen, Troup, Turner, Twiggs, Upson, Tattnall, Taylor, Telfair, Terrell, Thomas, Tift, Toombs, Treutlen, Troup, Turner, Twiggs, Upson,
Walton, Ware, Warren, Washington, Wayne, Webster, Wheeler, White, Whitfield, Wilcox, Walton, Ware, Warren, Washington, Wayne, Webster, Wheeler, White, Whitfield, Wilcox,
Wilkes, Wilkinson, Worth Wilkes, Wilkinson, Worth
Florida
Entire state
Entire state
Mississippi
Clarke, Forrest, George, Greene, Hancock, Harrison, Jackson, Jones, Lamar, Lauderdale, Leake,
Clarke, Forrest, George, Greene, Hancock, Harrison, Jackson, Jones, Lamar, Lauderdale, Leake,
Neshoba, Newton, Pearl River, Perry, Scott, Stone, Wayne Neshoba, Newton, Pearl River, Perry, Scott, Stone, Wayne
North
Alamance, Anson, Beaufort, Bertie, Bladen, Brunswick, Cabarrus, Camden, Carteret,
Alamance, Anson, Beaufort, Bertie, Bladen, Brunswick, Cabarrus, Camden, Carteret,
CaswellCaswel , ,
Carolina
Catawba,* Chatham, Chowan, Clay, Chatham, Chowan, Clay,
Cleveland,* Columbus, Craven, Cumberland, Currituck, Dare, Columbus, Craven, Cumberland, Currituck, Dare,
Davidson, Duplin, Durham, Edgecombe, Franklin, Gaston, Gates, Granvil e, Greene, Guilford, Davidson, Duplin, Durham, Edgecombe, Franklin, Gaston, Gates, Granvil e, Greene, Guilford,
Halifax, Harnett, Hertford, Hoke, Hyde, Iredell, Johnston, Jones, Lee, Lenoir, Lincoln, Martin, Halifax, Harnett, Hertford, Hoke, Hyde, Iredell, Johnston, Jones, Lee, Lenoir, Lincoln, Martin,
Mecklenburg, Montgomery, Moore, Nash, New Hanover, Northampton, Onslow, Orange, Pamlico, Mecklenburg, Montgomery, Moore, Nash, New Hanover, Northampton, Onslow, Orange, Pamlico,
Pasquotank, Pender, Perquimans, Person, Pitt, Randolph, Richmond, Robeson, Rockingham, Rowan, Pasquotank, Pender, Perquimans, Person, Pitt, Randolph, Richmond, Robeson, Rockingham, Rowan,
Rutherford, Sampson, Scotland, Stanly, Tyrrell, Union, Vance, Wake, Warren, Washington, Wayne, Rutherford, Sampson, Scotland, Stanly, Tyrrell, Union, Vance, Wake, Warren, Washington, Wayne,
Wilson Wilson
South
Abbeville, Aiken, Allendale, Bamberg, Barnwell, Beaufort, Berkeley, Calhoun, Charleston, Chester,
Abbeville, Aiken, Allendale, Bamberg, Barnwell, Beaufort, Berkeley, Calhoun, Charleston, Chester,
Carolina
Chesterfield, Clarendon, Col eton, Darlington, Dil on, Dorchester, Edgefield, Fairfield, Florence,
Chesterfield, Clarendon, Col eton, Darlington, Dil on, Dorchester, Edgefield, Fairfield, Florence,
Georgetown, Greenwood, Hampton, Horry, Jasper, Kershaw, Lancaster, Laurens, Lee, Lexington, Georgetown, Greenwood, Hampton, Horry, Jasper, Kershaw, Lancaster, Laurens, Lee, Lexington,
Marion, Marlboro, McCormick, Newberry, Orangeburg, Richland, Saluda, Sumter, Marion, Marlboro, McCormick, Newberry, Orangeburg, Richland, Saluda, Sumter,
Union,* Wil iamsburg, York Wil iamsburg, York
Virginia
Accomack, Albemarle,
Accomack, Albemarle,
Alexandria city, Amelia, Amherst, Appomattox, Arlington, Augusta, , Amelia, Amherst, Appomattox, Arlington, Augusta,
Bedford, Brunswick, Buckingham, Campbell, Caroline, Charles City*, Charlotte, Bedford, Brunswick, Buckingham, Campbell, Caroline, Charles City*, Charlotte,
Charlottesville
city, ,
Chesapeake city, Chesterfield, Clarke, , Chesterfield, Clarke,
Colonial Heights city, Culpeper, Cumberland, , Culpeper, Cumberland,
Danville city, Dinwiddie, , Dinwiddie,
Emporia city, Essex, Fairfax, , Essex, Fairfax,
Fairfax City, Fal s Church city, Fauquier, , Fal s Church city, Fauquier,
Fluvanna, Franklin, Fluvanna, Franklin,
Franklin city, Frederick, , Frederick,
Fredericksburg city, Gloucester, Goochland, , Gloucester, Goochland,
Greene, Greensvil e, Halifax, Greene, Greensvil e, Halifax,
Hampton city, Hanover, , Hanover,
Harrisonburg city, Henrico, , Henrico,
Hopewell
city, Isle Of Wight, James City*, King And Queen, King George, King Wil iam, Lancaster, Loudoun, , Isle Of Wight, James City*, King And Queen, King George, King Wil iam, Lancaster, Loudoun,
Louisa, Lunenburg, Louisa, Lunenburg,
Lynchburg city, Madison, , Madison,
Manassas city, ,
Manassas Park city, Mathews, , Mathews,
Mecklenburg, Middlesex, Nelson, New Kent, Mecklenburg, Middlesex, Nelson, New Kent,
Newport News city, ,
Norfolk city, Northampton, , Northampton,
Northumberland, Nottoway, Orange, Page, Northumberland, Nottoway, Orange, Page,
Petersburg city, Pittsylvania, , Pittsylvania,
Poquoson city, ,
Portsmouth city, Powhatan, Prince Edward, Prince George, Prince Wil iam, Rappahannock, , Powhatan, Prince Edward, Prince George, Prince Wil iam, Rappahannock,
Richmond, Richmond,
Richmond city, Roanoke, , Roanoke,
Roanoke city, Rockingham, Shenandoah, , Rockingham, Shenandoah,
South Boston
city, Southampton, Spotsylvania, Stafford, , Southampton, Spotsylvania, Stafford,
Staunton city, ,
Suffolk city, Surry, Sussex, , Surry, Sussex,
Virginia
Beach city, Warren, , Warren,
Waynesboro city, Westmoreland, , Westmoreland,
Williamsburg city, ,
Winchester city, ,
York York
Source: Tabulated by CRS by cross-referencing relevant state counties against ARC and DRA jurisdictionsTabulated by CRS by cross-referencing relevant state counties against ARC and DRA jurisdictions
. , and SCRC, “FY23 County and County Equivalent Listings by State,” https://scrc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/SCRC-County-Listing-By-State.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
52
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Notes: In Virginia, independent cities (in In Virginia, independent cities (in
bold) are considered counties for U.S. census purposes and are eligible ) are considered counties for U.S. census purposes and are eligible
for independent inclusion. Virginia counties with an asterisk (*) are named as cities, but are actually counties (e.g., for independent inclusion. Virginia counties with an asterisk (*) are named as cities, but are actually counties (e.g.,
Congressional Research Service
47
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
James City County). With the exception of Florida, which has no coverage in another federally chartered James City County). With the exception of Florida, which has no coverage in another federally chartered
regional commission or authority, SCRC jurisdiction encompasses all member state counties that are not part of regional commission or authority, SCRC jurisdiction encompasses all member state counties that are not part of
the DRA and/or the ARC (see 40 U.S.C. §15731). the DRA and/or the ARC (see 40 U.S.C. §15731).
The Infrastructure, Investment, and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58; enacted November 15, 2021) added three counties that were previously in the SCRC region to the ARC region. The asterisk (*) indicates counties added to the ARC region by the IIJA.
Southwest Border Regional Commission
Table D-78. Statutory Jurisdiction of SBRC
states and counties
states and counties
SBRC Jurisdiction
Arizona
Cochise, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, La Paz, Maricopa, Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz, Yuma
Cochise, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, La Paz, Maricopa, Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz, Yuma
California
Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Ventura
Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Ventura
New
Catron, Chaves, Dona Ana, Eddy, Grant, Hidalgo, Lincoln, Luna, Otero, Sierra, Socorro
Catron, Chaves, Dona Ana, Eddy, Grant, Hidalgo, Lincoln, Luna, Otero, Sierra, Socorro
Mexico
Texas
Atascosa, Bandera, Bee, Bexar, Brewster, Brooks, Cameron, Coke, Concho, Crane, Crockett,
Atascosa, Bandera, Bee, Bexar, Brewster, Brooks, Cameron, Coke, Concho, Crane, Crockett,
Culberson, Dimmit, Duval, Ector, Edwards, El Paso, Frio, Gil espie, Glasscock, Hidalgo, Hudspeth, Culberson, Dimmit, Duval, Ector, Edwards, El Paso, Frio, Gil espie, Glasscock, Hidalgo, Hudspeth,
Irion, Jeff Davis, Jim Hogg, Jim Wells, Karnes, Kendall, Kenedy, Kerr, Kimble, Kinney, Kleberg, La Irion, Jeff Davis, Jim Hogg, Jim Wells, Karnes, Kendall, Kenedy, Kerr, Kimble, Kinney, Kleberg, La
Salle, Live Oak, Loving, Mason, Maverick, McMul en, Medina, Menard, Midland, Nueces, Pecos, Salle, Live Oak, Loving, Mason, Maverick, McMul en, Medina, Menard, Midland, Nueces, Pecos,
Presidio, Reagan, Real, Reeves, San Patricio, Shleicher, Sutton, Starr, Sterling, Terrell, Tom Green, Presidio, Reagan, Real, Reeves, San Patricio, Shleicher, Sutton, Starr, Sterling, Terrell, Tom Green,
Upton, Uvalde, Val Verde, Ward, Webb, Wil acy, Wilson, Winkler, Zapata, Zavala Upton, Uvalde, Val Verde, Ward, Webb, Wil acy, Wilson, Winkler, Zapata, Zavala
Source: Tabulated by CRS with information from P.L. 110-234. Tabulated by CRS with information from P.L. 110-234.
Author Information
Julie M. Lawhorn Julie M. Lawhorn
Analyst in Economic Development Policy
Analyst in Economic Development Policy
Acknowledgments
This report was originally written by former CRS Analyst Michael Cecire. Congressional clients seeking
This report was originally written by former CRS Analyst Michael Cecire. Congressional clients seeking
more information and analysis on the material covered in this report should contact the current author. more information and analysis on the material covered in this report should contact the current author.
James UzelMolly Cox, GIS Analyst, and , GIS Analyst, and
Brion LongMari Lee and Amber Wilhelm, Visual Information , Visual Information
SpecialistSpecialists, developed the figures included in , developed the figures included in
this report. William Painter, Specialist in Homeland Security and Appropriations, provided substantive this report. William Painter, Specialist in Homeland Security and Appropriations, provided substantive
edits and assistance in updating the report.edits and assistance in updating the report.
Congressional Research Service
Congressional Research Service
4853
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material. copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
Congressional Research Service
Congressional Research Service
R45997
R45997
· VERSION 1416 · UPDATED
4954