Economic Development Administration:
Reauthorization and Funding Issues in the
111th Congress
Oscar R. Gonzales
Analyst in Economic Development Policy
Eugene Boyd
Analyst in Federalism and Economic Development Policy
April 2, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41162
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
Economic Development Administration: Reauthorization and Funding, 111th Congress
Summary
In the coming months, the 111th Congress will continue to consider legislation that would
reauthorize and amend the Public Works and Economic Development Act (PWEDA) of 1965,
P.L. 89-136 (79 Stat. 552, 42 U.S.C. § 3121). The PWEDA—whose statutory authority expired
on September 30, 2008—authorized the creation of the Department of Commerce’s Economic
Development Administration (EDA). EDA’s primary focus is to help regions experiencing long-
term economic distress or sudden economic dislocation attract private-sector capital and create
higher-skill, higher-wage jobs through investments in public infrastructure, the provision of
technical assistance and research, and the development and implementation of comprehensive
economic development strategies.
Among the policy issues Congress may address when considering reauthorization legislation are
the following questions: should Congress de-federalize Revolving Loan Funds (RLFs) and give
grantees greater flexibility in the management and conversion of RLF assets; should the current
federal-local project cost share thresholds be adjusted to make additional EDA assistance more
accessible to the most distressed areas; and should Congress provide a more flexible set of
options governing the liquidation of federal interest in EDA-financed projects?
On January 20, 2010, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works reported the
Economic Development Revitalization Act of 2009, S. 2778. Sponsored by Senators Boxer and
Inhofe, S. 2778 would reauthorize the existing programs administered by EDA through 2013;
introduce outmigration as an additional indicator of economic distress; amend the provisions
governing the percentage of EDA funding that may be used to cover a project’s cost; specifically
encourage the support of business incubators; direct EDA to seek improvements in the
management of its Revolving Loan Funds; and amend the conditions, requirements, and methods
used to terminate the federal interest in EDA-financed projects.
Congress also will consider legislation appropriating funds for the agency and its programs for
FY2011. As part of those deliberations, Congress will decide whether to fund Administration
proposals intended to support the creation of Regional Innovation Clusters (RICs) and business
incubators. The Obama Administration’s FY2011 budget requests $246 million for EDA
programs, including $75 million for RICs. The Administration is also requesting less funding for
the public works program ($68 million) than was appropriated in FY2010 and slightly more
funding ($40 million) for salaries and expenses.
In addition, as it did with the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, P.L. 111-
5 (123 Stat. 115), Congress may consider appropriating additional funding for EDA programs as
part of supplemental jobs and public works legislation (H.R. 4740) intended to address current
levels of high unemployment caused by the economic recession that began in December 2007.
This report will discuss EDA reauthorization and appropriations-related issues and will be
updated as events warrant.
Congressional Research Service
Economic Development Administration: Reauthorization and Funding Issues, 111th Cong
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
Program Reauthorization Issues .................................................................................................. 2
RLF Management Accountability and Asset Conversion........................................................ 2
Relative Needs Thresholds and Federal-Local Cost Share Requirements ............................... 4
Federal Interest in Real Property Assets................................................................................. 6
EDA Reauthorization .................................................................................................................. 7
S. 2778, the Economic Development Revitalization Act of 2009............................................ 7
Economic Distress: Unemployment, Per-Capita Income, and Outmigration ........................... 8
Adjustment of Federal Contribution to EDA Projects........................................................... 12
Administration and Conversion of EDA Revolving Loan Funds .......................................... 13
RLF Brightfield Demonstration Projects ............................................................................. 13
Termination of Federal Interest in EDA-Financed Construction Projects.............................. 13
Support for Economic Development Districts...................................................................... 14
Greater Regional Cooperation ............................................................................................. 15
Multiyear Authorization for EDA........................................................................................ 15
EDA Appropriations.................................................................................................................. 15
Background ........................................................................................................................ 15
Administration’s FY2011 Request ....................................................................................... 17
Proposed Shift in EDA Funds........................................................................................ 18
Proposed Reduction in Global Climate Change Mitigation Incentive Fund
(GCCMIF)................................................................................................................. 19
Proposed Increase in Salaries and Expenses .................................................................. 19
Funding for Regional Innovation Clusters and Business Incubators ............................... 19
Figures
Figure 1. Counties (Shaded) with Unemployment Rates at Least One Percentage Point
Above the National Average, January-December 2009 ............................................................. 9
Figure 2. Per-Capita Income by County, 2008 ........................................................................... 10
Figure 3. Geographic Distribution of Outmigration ................................................................... 11
Tables
Table 1. EDA Maximum Federal Match (Investment Rates) Based on Relative Needs of a
Region as Measured by Criteria Established under 13 C.F.R. § 301.4 ....................................... 5
Table 2. Federal Matching Fund Requirements for Special Projects ............................................. 6
Table 3. EDA Federal Cost Shares in S. 2778 ............................................................................ 12
Table 4. History of Appropriations for EDA by Fiscal Year........................................................ 16
Table 5. Recent EDA Appropriations by Sub-Program............................................................... 17
Table A-1. EDA Regional Offices.............................................................................................. 21
Table B-1. Allocation of EDA Grants by State for FY2007 and FY2008 .................................... 22
Congressional Research Service
Economic Development Administration: Reauthorization and Funding, 111th Congress
Appendixes
Appendix A. EDA Regional Offices .......................................................................................... 21
Appendix B. EDA Grants by State............................................................................................. 22
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 24
Congressional Research Service
Economic Development Administration: Reauthorization and Funding, 111th Congress
Introduction
In the coming months, the 111th Congress will continue to consider legislation to reauthorize and
amend the Public Works and Economic Development Act (PWEDA) of 1965, P.L. 89-136 (79
Stat. 552, 42 U.S.C. § 3121). The PWEDA, whose statutory authority expired at the end of
September 2008, authorized the creation of the Department of Commerce’s Economic
Development Administration (EDA). EDA’s primary focus is to help regions that are
experiencing long-term economic distress or sudden economic dislocation attract private-sector
capital and create higher-skill, higher-wage jobs through investments in public infrastructure, the
provision of technical assistance and research, and the development and implementation of
comprehensive economic development strategies.
EDA funds are competitively awarded to states and local governments, colleges and universities,
Economic Development Districts,1 multi-jurisdictional planning organizations established by the
states, and nonprofit organizations created under applicable state statutes. EDA assistance
programs include the following grants.
• Public Works grants are used to finance infrastructure-related activities that
support job creation, including, but not limited to, water and sewer facilities,
industrial parks and business centers, broadband facilities, port and rail
improvements, and business incubator facilities.
• Economic Adjustment Assistance (EAA) grants are used to fund strategic
planning and implementation activities, including the same activities eligible
under Public Works grants. Assistance may also be used to capitalize Revolving
Loan Funds (RLFs) targeted to assist businesses in areas experiencing sudden
economic dislocation.
1 An Economic Development District (EDD) is defined in 13 C.F.R. § 300.3 as follows: “Economic Development
District or District or EDD means any Region in the United States designated by EDA as an Economic Development
District under § 304.1 of this chapter (or such regulation as was previously in effect before the effective date of this
section) and also includes any economic development district designated as such under section 403 of PWEDA, as in
effect on February 10, 1999.” EDDs are designated in 13 C.F.R. § 304.1 as follows: “Designation of Economic
Development Districts: Regional eligibility. Upon the request of a District Organization (as defined in §304.2), EDA
may designate a Region as an Economic Development District if such Region: (a) Contains at least one (1) geographic
area that is subject to the economic distress criteria set forth in §301.3(a)(1) of this chapter and is identified in an
approved CEDS [Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy]; (b) Is of sufficient size or population and contains
sufficient resources to foster economic development on a scale involving more than a single geographic area subject to
the economic distress criteria set forth in §301.3(a)(1) of this chapter; (c) Has an EDA-approved CEDS that (1) Meets
the requirements under §303.7 of this chapter; (2) Contains a specific program for intra-District cooperation, self-help,
and public investment; and (3) Is approved by each affected State and by the Assistant Secretary; (d) Obtains
commitments from at least a majority of the counties or other areas within the proposed District, as determined by
EDA, to support the economic development activities of the District; and (e) Obtains the concurrence with the
designation request from the State (or States) in which the proposed District will be wholly or partially located.”
Finally, economic distress is defined in 13 C.F.R. § 301.3(a)(1) as follows: “(i) An unemployment rate that is, for the
most recent twenty-four (24) month period for which data are available, at least one (1) percentage point greater than
the national average unemployment rate; (ii) Per-capita income that is, for the most recent period for which data are
available, eighty (80) percent or less of the national average per-capita income; or (iii) A Special Need, as determined
by EDA.”
Congressional Research Service
1
Economic Development Administration: Reauthorization and Funding, 111th Congress
• Planning grants are used for direct and indirect administrative expenses of
Economic Development Districts (EDDs) and Indian tribes or other organizations
charged with formulating and implementing Comprehensive Economic
Development Strategies (CEDS) in EDA-designated distressed areas.
• Technical Assistance grant recipients provide management and technical services,
including conducting feasibility studies for projects located in distressed areas.
• Research and Evaluation grants support research into the practices, principles,
and innovations that guide the effective formulation and implementation of
economic development strategies.
• Trade Adjustment Assistance provides grants and technical assistance to firms
and communities adversely affected by international trade, to help recipients
develop and implement recovery strategies.
• Climate Change Mitigation grants are used to support projects that promote
energy efficiency and curb greenhouse emissions in economically distressed
communities.
The agency has six regional offices whose primary responsibility is to review requests for EDA
funding by state, provide technical assistance, and administer EDA grants. See Appendix A for a
list of regional offices and Appendix B for EDA grant funding by state.
Program Reauthorization Issues
As Congress debates legislation to reauthorize and appropriate funding for the programs of EDA,
it may consider questions such as the following:
• Should grantees administering Revolving Loan Funds (RLFs) be granted greater
flexibility in the management and conversion of RLF assets for other EDA-
eligible activities?
• Should Congress modify the current federal-local cost share thresholds based on
factors intended to measure relative need in order to provide additional assistance
to the most distressed areas?
• Should Congress change the current requirements governing the transfer of
federal interest in EDA-financed construction projects in an effort to encourage
local flexibility in the use of EDA funds?
RLF Management Accountability and Asset Conversion
A grantee awarded an EAA grant may, as part of its Comprehensive Economic Development
Strategy (CEDS), use the assistance to capitalize an RLF. An RLF, which requires a matching
contribution from the grantee, allows the grantee to award low-interest loans to businesses that
can demonstrate that they are unable to obtain bank financing. Loan repayments by qualified
Congressional Research Service
2
Economic Development Administration: Reauthorization and Funding, 111th Congress
businesses to an RLF are used to cover administrative costs of the program and to recapitalize the
RLF in order to make additional loans. Local administrators of RLFs are required to operate the
funds in perpetuity as long as there is a federal interest in assets of the RLF. However, RLFs may
be terminated for cause by EDA. According to EDA, in FY2009, 458 recipient organizations
administered 578 RLFs with total capital assets of $852 million.2 This amount is approximately
three times the size of the EDA total appropriation for FY2010 and represents a significant source
of funding for the recipient organizations.
EDA’s RLF program has not been without controversy, including issues of inadequate monitoring
and reporting. In March 2007, the Department of Commerce’s Office of Inspector General (OIG)
released an audit report that was critical of EDA’s administration of RLFs. The report noted the
following:
EDA (1) failed to ensure efficient capital utilization by RLF grantees, (2) did not ensure
grantee compliance with critical reporting requirements, (3) does not have an adequate
tracking and oversight system, and (4) does not utilize single audit reports to improve
grantee monitoring.3
The report also noted that much of the RLF information available to EDA that would allow it to
administer the program effectively was incomplete or inaccurate. The OIG recommended that
EDA take the following actions:
• develop a plan of action to address the problems in the program;
• require EDA regional staff to provide written evaluations of appropriate capital
utilization percentages for all RLFs with a capital base exceeding $4 million;
• develop policies and procedures that will promote a uniform approach to
sequestering excess cash;
• consistently collect and evaluate grantee financial reports; and
• develop and implement a database and reporting requirements that will allow
EDA to monitor RLF programs effectively.
On January 27, 2010, EDA published in the Federal Register final rules intended to address the
unresolved issues discussed in the OIG report.4 The revised regulations noted that EDA had
developed a Web-based reporting system allowing grantees the option of uploading or manually
entering data into the system. The agency also:
2 U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration, “About the RLF Program: How it Works,”
http://www.eda.gov/PDF/RLFWorks.pdf.
3 U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Inspector General, Economic Development Administration: Aggressive
EDA Leadership and Oversight Needed to Correct Persistent Problems in RLF Program, Audit Report No. OA-18200-
7-0001, Washington, DC, March 2007, http://www.oig.doc.gov/oig/reports/2007/EDA-OA-18200-03-2007.pdf.
4 U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration, “Revisions of EDA Regulations, Final
Rule,” 75 Federal Register 4259, January 27, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
3
Economic Development Administration: Reauthorization and Funding, 111th Congress
• revised its semi-annual reporting forms to allow it to monitor program
performance more closely, including identifying RLFs with high loan default
rates;
• identified specific violations of policies that would cause EDA to suspend or
terminate an RLF program, in an effort to encourage grantees to comply with
program reporting requirements; and
• required each grantee administering an RLF to hire an independent third party to
conduct a compliance and loan quality review of its RLF every three years.
Although EDA has moved to address many of the management concerns identified in the OIG
report, other issues may require congressional action. Of particular concern to local
administrators of RLF programs is the permanent federal nature of RLFs, which they find too
restrictive. Local administrators would like the flexibility of using RLFs to cover the costs of
other EDA-eligible activities. This view was articulated during May 21, 2009 testimony before
the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works by a representative of the National
Association of Development Organizations (NADO),5 who complained that the permanent federal
nature of RLFs inhibits local flexibility and requires RLF grantees to comply with “costly
reporting and audit requirements.”6 The NADO representative recommended that the committee,
when amending the PWEDA, consider provisions that would allow EDA-capitalized RLFs to
relinquish their federal identity after initial funds have been loaned, repaid, and fully revolved.
The economic development analyst argued that this would reduce EDA’s management burden and
allow local grantees greater flexibility in the use of funds than federal regulations currently allow.
It might be argued, however, that recent regulatory changes allow grantees more flexibility. For
example, current regulations allow RLF administrators to use repayments to RLFs to cover the
cost of administrative expenses, including a compliance audit that must be conducted every three
years by a qualified independent third party. In addition, according to EDA, the new streamlined
Web-based reporting system eliminates duplication and will “reduce the average paperwork
burden per RLF [semi-annual] report on the RLF recipient from 12 hours to 2.9 hours.”7
Relative Needs Thresholds and Federal-Local Cost Share
Requirements
Currently, the statute governing EDA assistance limits the federal contribution for an EDA-
financed project to no more than 50% of a project’s total cost when the project is located in an
area whose unemployment rate for the latest 24-month period is at least one percentage point
5 NADO is a national organization representing the interest of the nation’s 525 regional development organizations. It
provides advocacy, training, research, and education to and on behalf of its members; see http://www.nado.org/
index.htm.
6 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, National Association of Development
Organizations, written statement of Leanne Mazer, Executive Director of the Tri-County Council for Western
Maryland, 111th Cong., 1st sess., May 9, 2009, p. 3, http://www.nado.org/legaffair/mazereda.pdf.
7 U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration, “Revisions to the EDA Regulations,” 73
Federal Register 62861, October 22, 2008.
Congressional Research Service
4
Economic Development Administration: Reauthorization and Funding, 111th Congress
above the national average or whose per-capita income for the latest 24-month period is not more
than 80% of the national average.
Table 1. EDA Maximum Federal Match (Investment Rates) Based on Relative Needs
of a Region as Measured by Criteria Established under 13 C.F.R. § 301.4
Maximum allowable federal
investment rates
Projects located in regions in which
(% of a project’s cost)
(A) The 24-month unemployment rate is at least 225% of the
80
national average; or
(B) The per-capita income is not more than 50% of the national
80
average
(C) The 24-month unemployment rate is at least 200% of the
70
national average; or
(D) The per-capita income is not more than 60% of the national
70
average
(E) The 24-month unemployment rate is at least 175% of the
60
national average; or
(F) The per-capita income is not more than 65% of the national
60
average
(G) The 24-month unemployment rate is at least 1 percentage point
50
greater than the national average; or
(H) The per-capita income is not more than 80% of the national
50
average
Source: 13 C.F.R. § 301.4.
A community that successfully competes for EDA funds, having met the minimum
unemployment and per-capita income thresholds for eligibility, is required to provide 50% of the
cost of a project from non-EDA funds. For a community whose unemployment rate exceeds or
whose per-capita income falls below the minimum eligibility thresholds for EDA assistance, EDA
may provide additional (supplemental) grants to reduce the community’s 50% cost-share
obligation, resulting in an increase (of up to 30%) in the percentage of a project’s cost covered by
EDA. As directed by the statute, EDA has developed and established in regulations8 a set of
thresholds intended to measure an applicant’s relative need for the purpose of identifying the
maximum amount of a project’s cost EDA will cover by awarding a supplemental grant. EDA’s
cost-share thresholds are based on the extent to which an applicant’s unemployment rate or per-
capita income exceeds the national average (see Table 1).
It might be argued that the thresholds for receiving a higher federal cost share are arbitrary and
artificially high, with the result that few areas qualify for the maximum percentage of EDA
supplemental assistance. For example, of the approximately 750 areas that received grants from
EDA in FY2008, fewer than 100 counties were eligible for the 80% federal cost share. A
provision included in S. 2778 would establish in statute lower eligibility thresholds for EDA
8 13 C.F.R. § 301.4.
Congressional Research Service
5
Economic Development Administration: Reauthorization and Funding, 111th Congress
supplemental grants. The new thresholds would be a return to those in place before 2006, when
EDA issued final rules governing assistance programs.
In addition, for Indian tribes, presidentially declared disaster areas, and areas where the state or
local governments have exhausted their taxing and borrowing powers, EDA may assume the total
cost of a project (see Table 2).
Table 2. Federal Matching Fund Requirements for Special Projects
Maximum allowable
investment rates
Projects
(percentage)
Projects for Indian tribes
100
For presidentially declared disasters, Economic Adjustment Assistance
100
sought under a supplemental appropriation within 18 months of the date
of the disaster declaration
Projects of states or local governments that EDA has determined have
100
exhausted their taxing and borrowing powers
Public works and economic adjustment assistance projects that have
100
received performance awards
Projects located in an EDD that receive planning performance awards
100
Source: 13 C.F.R. § 301.4.
Federal Interest in Real Property Assets
Under current law, EDA retains an interest in property financed and constructed with EDA Public
Works and Economic Adjustment Assistance funds for a period of at least 20 years after the initial
date the EDA grant was awarded.9 EDA may retain its interest in the property for the useful life of
the property, which may extend beyond the 20-year minimum period.10 If an EDA-financed
property is to be sold prior to the expiration of its useful life, the recipient of EDA funds must
repay EDA the full federal interest in the project, based on the current fair market value.11
Recipients of Public Works grants have been critical of the provisions governing the repayment of
the federal interest in EDA-financed projects before the expiration of their useful life. In an effort
to enhance local flexibility, EDA supports:
• changes in the law that would reduce the time horizon before EDA-financed
assets could be sold; and
9 42 U.S.C. § 3211(d)(2).
10 13 C.F.R. § 314.10.
11 If EDA assistance accounted for 50% of the cost of the project and the current fair market value of the property is $1
million when sold, the federal share of the proceeds from the sale is $500,000.
Congressional Research Service
6
Economic Development Administration: Reauthorization and Funding, 111th Congress
• changes in the method used to calculate the repayment of EDA interest upon
resale.12
EDA Reauthorization
S. 2778, the Economic Development Revitalization Act of 2009, would reauthorize and amend
the Public Works and Economic Development Act (PWEDA) of 1965. A related House bill may
be introduced in the coming months. S. 2778, discussed below, would address issues identified in
the previous section of this report, including those relating to eligibility factors, federal cost
shares, the use of RLFs, and the conversion of the federal interest in EDA projects.
S. 2778, the Economic Development Revitalization Act of 2009
S. 2778 was introduced on November 16, 2009, by Senator Boxer, Chair of the Senate Committee
on Environment and Public Works, with the support of the committee’s ranking Member. The bill
includes language related to RLFs from S. 430, the Economic Development Administration
Reauthorization Act of 2009, introduced by Senator Inhofe on February 12, 2009. On November
18, 2009, the Senate committee approved S. 2778 by voice vote, adopting an amendment on
behalf of Senator Warner to “in-source”—or promote bringing information technology jobs from
other countries to the United States. The bill, as amended, was reported on January 20, 2010
(S.Rept. 111-114), and placed on the Senate calendar.
In general, the bill proposes some significant modifications to existing provisions of the PWEDA
while including technical changes and minor modifications to other provisions. Most of the
substantive changes to existing law proposed by the bill are intended to increase local flexibility
in the use of EDA assistance. In addition to recognizing business incubators as a key strategy for
developing high-skill, high-wage jobs and fostering regional cooperation through the planning
process, the bill would:
• add outmigration and job losses in specific industry sectors (manufacturing and
information technology) to the definition of economic distress;
• adjust the relative need measures used to calculate the federal-local cost share of
EDA-financed projects;
• allow greater flexibility in the conversion and management of EAA financed
RLFs;
• modify the rules governing the transfer or buyout of the federal interest in
property financed with EDA Public Works or Economic Adjustment Assistance;
and
12 U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration, Top 5 Reasons Economic Development
Administration (EDA) Should be Reauthorized for 5 Years, http://www.eda.gov/PDF/
EDAReauthorizationCollateralPiece.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
7
Economic Development Administration: Reauthorization and Funding, 111th Congress
• authorize $500 million in funding for each of the next five fiscal years for EDA
activities, including an annual minimum allocation for planning assistance grants.
Economic Distress: Unemployment, Per-Capita Income, and
Outmigration
Areas that have a two-year unemployment rate that is at least one percentage point above the
national average, or a per-capita income that is not more than 80% of the national average, might
qualify to apply for a competitive EDA grant. Because of these broad parameters for eligibility,
many counties may meet or exceed EDA’s economic distress thresholds.13 An estimated 90% of
counties in the United States qualify for EDA’s economic distress designation based on the per-
capita income criterion alone, whereas an estimated one-third of counties qualify based on their
unemployment rate. The majority of counties qualify as economically distressed based on
“Special Needs.”14 According to a study by Rutgers University,
[c]hanges in the criteria for designating areas eligible for EDA assistance have increased the
number of economically distressed areas over time [....] Unemployment adds little to the
designation of economic distress; nearly 90 percent of qualifying counties qualify on the
basis of income alone. Locations that qualify on the basis of unemployment are more likely
to be urban areas; rural areas qualify on the basis of income.15
For illustrative purposes, Figure 1 presents all U.S. counties; those that are shaded had
unemployment rates at least one percentage point above the national average from January to
December 2009 (the EDA standard is 24 months). Higher unemployment was concentrated in the
industrial Midwest, Southeast, and West; unemployment was lower in the Dakotas, Nebraska, and
Kansas. An estimated one-third of counties were eligible for this designation.
13 Meeting the economic distress requirements is not sufficient to receive an EDA grant. Areas that qualify as
economically distressed must then apply for a competitive EDA grant. If they are successful, they may receive a
minimum 50% federal cost share for the EDA project. As economic distress increases—measured by per-capita income
and unemployment—areas may receive a 60%, 70%, or 80% federal cost share. This discussion specifically refers to
the areas that qualify for the minimum 50% in federal cost share.
14 This category may include the closure of a military base, a natural disaster, or sudden and severe mass layoffs. See
13 C.F.R. § 303.3.
15 Robert Lake, Robin Leichenko, and Amy Glasmeier, et al., EDA and U.S. Economic Distress: 1965-2000, Rutgers
University, New Brunswick, NJ, July 2004, p. 13, http://www.eda.gov/PDF/
2004JulyEDAandU.S.EconomicDistressReport.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
8
Economic Development Administration: Reauthorization and Funding, 111th Congress
Figure 1. Counties (Shaded) with Unemployment Rates at Least One Percentage
Point Above the National Average, January-December 2009
Higher unemployment was concentrated in the industrial Midwest, Southeast, and West; unemployment
was lower in the Dakotas, Nebraska, and Kansas.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov/lau/maps/twmcort.gif.
Note: Counties at least one percentage point above the national unemployment average for a 24-month period
are considered economically distressed. About one-third of counties were eligible for this designation in FY2009.
For illustrative purposes, Figure 2 presents per-capita income county data for 2008. The figure
shows that per-capita income is lower in Mississippi, West Virginia, South Carolina, and
Kentucky; it is higher in Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, and Massachusetts.
Congressional Research Service
9
Economic Development Administration: Reauthorization and Funding, 111th Congress
Figure 2. Per-Capita Income by County, 2008
Per-capita income is lower in Mississippi, West Virginia, South Carolina, and Kentucky; it is higher in
Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, and Massachusetts.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, http://www.bea.gov/regional/REMDmap/
REMDMap.aspx.
Note: Counties that have a per-capita income not more than 80% of the national average are considered
economically distressed. An estimated 90% of counties are eligible for this designation.
In addition to the three categories outlined above (unemployment, per-capita income, and a
“Special Need”), S. 2778 would include outmigration as a factor where the federal share of
funding for an EDA project may be up to 80%:
Additional Criteria- The Secretary may establish eligibility criteria in addition to the criteria
described in this paragraph to address areas impacted by severe outmigration, sudden and
severe economic dislocations, and other economic circumstances, on the condition that a
Federal share established for such eligibility criteria shall not exceed 80 percent [....] Section
503(a) of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3193(a)) is
amended by inserting “outmigration” after “regional unemployment.” (S. 2778)
The legislation would authorize the use of Technical Assistance and Research and Evaluation
grants to prevent or alleviate outmigration and authorize the Secretary of Commerce to consult
with any persons who might assist in addressing the problems of area and regional outmigration.
As shown in Figure 3, counties affected by outmigration might benefit from this additional
designation. Many of these counties are located in the Midwest, according to 2000 Census data.
Congressional Research Service
10
Economic Development Administration: Reauthorization and Funding, 111th Congress
Figure 3. Geographic Distribution of Outmigration
Outmigration is concentrated in the Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Northern Texas.
Source: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) based on the 2000 Census with 1970 Census data,
http://www.fdic.gov/bank/analytical/banking/2005jan/images/02_fig01.gif.
An amendment introduced by Senator Boxer on behalf of Senator Warner would also authorize
Technical Assistance and Economic Adjustment Assistance grants for communities affected by
the loss of information technology, manufacturing, natural-resource based, agricultural, or service
sector jobs for reinvesting in and diversifying their economies.
The inclusion of additional factors for “economic distress” follows a pattern that has allowed
more areas in the country to become eligible for EDA assistance over the years, even as funding
for the agency has declined. When EDA was first authorized in the mid-1960s, only counties that
had an income not more than 40% of the national income level were eligible. By 1998, this figure
had increased to not more than 80% of the national income level (or an unemployment rate at
least one percentage point higher than the 24-month unemployment rate for the nation, or a
“special need”). According to the previously cited Rutgers University study,
[t]he number of EDA’s designated areas grew in response to both political and economic
realities over the life of the agency, and particularly in the early 1970s. Areas of short-term
unemployment were added between 1965 and 1971. New legislative mandates also expanded
the types of counties that could be assisted. In 1970, 983 areas qualified for EDA assistance;
by 1973, that number had nearly doubled to 1,818 areas [....] By 1998, approximately 90
percent of the counties in each year studied qualified.16
16 Robert Lake, Robin Leichenko, and Amy Glasmeier, et al., EDA and U.S. Economic Distress: 1965-2000, Rutgers
University, New Brunswick, NJ, July 2004, p. 13, http://www.eda.gov/PDF/
2004JulyEDAandU.S.EconomicDistressReport.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
11
Economic Development Administration: Reauthorization and Funding, 111th Congress
Adjustment of Federal Contribution to EDA Projects
S. 2778 would adjust the federal-local cost share (matching) requirements for EDA projects based
on unemployment and per-capita income levels.17 The bill would restore the federal cost share
rates in place before regulations promulgated in 2006. As established in program regulations, the
federal share of a project’s cost can run from 50% to 80%, based on where the area’s long-term
unemployment rate or per-capita income falls relative to the respective national average.18 As
Table 3 shows, areas with 24-month unemployment rates 200% higher than the national average
or those whose per-capita incomes are 50% of the national average would be subject to the 80%
federal and 20% local matching fund requirement. Conversely, projects in areas with
unemployment rates at least one percentage point above the national average or whose per-capita
incomes are not more than 80% of the national average would continue to be (as at present)
subject to a 50% federal – 50% local match requirement.
S. 2778 would, for the first time, include EDA cost-share rates in law (rather than in regulation)
and would lower some of the unemployment and per-capita income thresholds currently in place.
The bill would establish six federal cost-share levels. Four of the levels would determine federal-
local cost shares based on long-term unemployment or per-capita income data. A fifth provision
would change current statutory language governing Indian tribes. S. 2778 would allow EDA to
cover between 75% to 100% of the total cost of the project, whereas currently, EDA finances
100% of the project cost undertaken by Indian tribes. Also, for a federally declared disaster area,
EDA could increase the federal share of a project’s cost up to 100%.
Table 3. EDA Federal Cost Shares in S. 2778
24-Month average
Per-capita income does not
unemployment rate at least
exceed
Federal cost share
1percentage point above national
80% of national average
50%
average
150% of national average
70% of national average
60%
175% of national average
60% of national average
70%
200% of national average
50% of national average
80%
Source: Section 6 of S. 2778.
Note: The bill includes a provision to allow, but not mandate, that EDA develop criteria that would permit EDA
funds to be used to cover 80% of the federal cost share of a project in an area affected by severe outmigration,
sudden and severe economic dislocation, or other economic circumstances.
17 U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration, “13 CRR Chapter III, Economic
Development Administration Reauthorization Act of 2004 Implementation, Regulatory Revision; Final Rule,” 71
Federal Register 56657, September 27, 2006.
18 13 C.F.R. § 301.4.
Congressional Research Service
12
Economic Development Administration: Reauthorization and Funding, 111th Congress
Administration and Conversion of EDA Revolving Loan Funds
S. 2778 would grant administrators of RLFs flexibility to convert RLFs to other uses. The bill
identifies the methods and requirements for conversions, and the conditions under which they
could occur. Specifically, the recipient/administrator of an RLF would be allowed to seek EDA’s
permission to convert RLF assistance to other uses on the following grounds:
• the recipient has determined that RLF assistance is no longer needed to achieve
the goals outlined in its comprehensive economic development strategy; or
• given the current economic development needs of the recipient, it could make
better use of the RLF if it were allowed to carry out other activities eligible for
EDA assistance.
S. 2778 would allow RLF conversions by one of two means. The administrator of an RLF would
be allowed to sell the assets of the RLF to a third party and use the proceeds to carry out other
PWEDA-eligible activities, or could retain repayments to the RLF in accordance with a strategic
reuse plan rather than relend them.
The changes were sought as a means of helping underfunded EDDs, one of the primary
administrators of RLFs, access additional resources to address budget shortfalls. In addition, the
bill would allow EDA to set aside 2% of the amounts made available for RLFs to develop and
maintain an automated tracking and monitoring system and would direct EDA to solicit input
from the public, RLF grantees, national experts, and federal employees, to improve the
administration of RLFs. This provision is consistent with recommendations included in the 2007
OIG report.19
RLF Brightfield Demonstration Projects
S. 2778 includes a provision authorizing EDA to fund Brightfield Demonstration projects through
FY2014. This program was previously authorized by the EDA Reauthorization Act of 2004 (P.L.
108-373, 118 Stat. 1756), but funds were never appropriated. Under S. 2778, EDA would allocate
funds to projects that would use abandoned industrial facilities to house new ventures for creating
jobs through the advancement of solar technologies.
Termination of Federal Interest in EDA-Financed Construction
Projects
S. 2778 would shorten the period during which EDA could hold a reversionary interest in
property financed with EDA assistance from the current minimum 20 years to 10 years from the
19 U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Inspector General, Economic Development Administration: Aggressive
EDA Leadership and Oversight Needed to Correct Persistent Problems in RLF Program, Audit Report No. OA-18200-
7-0001, Washington, DC, March 2007, pp. 14-15, http://www.oig.doc.gov/oig/reports/2007/EDA-OA-18200-03-
2007.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
13
Economic Development Administration: Reauthorization and Funding, 111th Congress
date the grant was awarded.20 The bill would require EDA—before providing assistance for a
construction project—to establish a time frame for the achievement of the project’s economic
development objectives. During that period, EDA would hold an undivided equitable reversionary
interest in the property. The bill outlines the methods and conditions under which federal interest
in a property could be terminated.
One provision of the bill would allow EDA to terminate the federal reversionary interest in a
project if the recipient met its obligations and objectives within the time frame established when
the project was first funded. Alternatively, a recipient could initiate a request that EDA terminate
reversionary interest in a property.
• If this request is submitted during the 10-year period starting with date the
assistance was initially provided, the recipient must repay EDA 100% of the fair
market value of the prorated federal share of the project.21
• If the request is submitted after the initial 10-year period, a recipient must pay
EDA the fair market value of the federal share of the project as if that value had
been amortized over a period established for completion of the project, which
might be more than 10 years, based on straight-line depreciation of the project
over its estimated useful life.22 Under this provision, the cost to the recipient of
buying out the federal interest in the property would be discounted based on the
remaining useful life of the EDA-assisted property.
S. 2778 would establish 10 years as the minimum period an EDA-assisted property must be held
without the EDA recipient being required to repay 100% of the federal interest in the property.
Support for Economic Development Districts
To support the planning and economic development activities of Economic Development
Districts, S. 2778 would establish a minimum appropriation of $27 million for EDD activities for
each fiscal year through FY2014. This amount would increase if EDA received appropriations
equal to or greater than $280 million. In addition, S. 2778 would strengthen the role of EDDs.
20 Reversionary rights allow EDA to protect its interest in property acquired or improved with EDA funds. Currently,
EDA’s interest in the property is dissolved upon completion of the term of 20 years or the useful life of the property,
which may extend beyond the minimum 20 years established by EDA.
21 For example, if the initial project cost of a project was $100,000 and EDA’s share of that cost was 50%, then EDA’s
prorated share would be $50,000. Five years later, if the fair market value of the property assisted by EDA was
$10,000, EDA’s share would be $5,000. This is the amount EDA would be due should the recipient wish to terminate
EDA’s interest in the property.
22 For example, if the initial project cost of a project was $100,000 and EDA’s share of that cost was 50%, then EDA’s
prorated share would be $50,000. Twelve years later, if the fair market value of the property assisted by EDA was
$150,000. EDA’s share would be $75,000. Under the proposed statute, this amount would be discounted based on the
straight-line depreciation schedule (SL) calculated over the useful life (UL) of the property as established by EDA. For
example, if the EDA-established useful life of the property is 20 years, the straight-line depreciation would be
calculated as follows: SL = FMV/UL. EDA’s share of the SL would be $3,750 for each of the 20 years of the UL of the
property. Under this example, because the recipient is seeking to terminate the federal interest in the 12th year, the
repayment (REPAY) to EDA would be calculated as follows: REPAY = FMV - (SL * 12). The repayment to EDA
would be $30,000: REPAY = $75,000 – (3,750 * 12).
Congressional Research Service
14
Economic Development Administration: Reauthorization and Funding, 111th Congress
The bill specifies that EDDs are to be involved in the full range of EDA-funded activities,
including coordination of activities related to Comprehensive Economic Development Strategies,
and implementation activities involving states and federal agencies, as well as research and
planning activities.
Greater Regional Cooperation
The legislation seeks to encourage EDA to work in cooperation with regional commissions. It
would amend Section 3(8) of the PWEDA by recognizing three new regional commissions in
addition to the four that are currently established. Newly proposed are the Southeast Crescent
Regional Commission, Northern Border Regional Commission, and Southwest Border Regional
Commission. Already existing are the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC), Delta Regional
Authority, Denali Commission, and Northern Great Plains Regional Authority. In addition, the
bill would amend Section 101 of the PWEDA to include multi-state regional organizations, along
with university centers and economic development districts, in the technical assistance process.
Supporters of including regional commissions in EDA legislation might argue that it could
promote greater regional and federal cooperation. Detractors, however, might indicate that
overlap exists between the work of regional commissions and EDA, which could lead to
duplication and dilution of EDA’s programs.
Multiyear Authorization for EDA
The bill would establish a multiyear funding level of appropriations for EDA. A total of $500
million would be authorized for each fiscal year through FY2014.
EDA Appropriations
Background
Appropriations for EDA have fluctuated since the agency’s inception as part of President Lyndon
B. Johnson’s War on Poverty. Table 4 summarizes changes in funding for EDA from FY1966 to
FY2010, reflecting EDA’s legislative history and amendments to the PWEDA. The table presents
current dollars and shows that EDA funding increased from $332 million in FY1966 to $855
million in FY1976 and $6.6 billion in FY1977. Funding decreased from $526 million in FY1978
to $477 million in FY1981. In FY1982, EDA’s budget was cut in half. From FY1982 until
FY1998, the agency survived on annual congressional appropriations, since no major EDA
reauthorization was enacted until FY1998. EDA saw its largest funding increases in FY1976 and
FY1977, as a result of efforts in Congress to spur job growth through countercyclical job creation
programs.
In some years, EDA’s supplemental funding has been important, particularly in the area of
disaster relief, which received $500 million in FY2008, nearly double the amount of funding for
its non-disaster economic development programs. In addition, in FY2009 EDA received a one-
time supplemental appropriation of $150 million under the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009, the economic stimulus legislation passed by the 111th Congress (P.L. 111-5, 123 Stat.
115).
Congressional Research Service
15
Economic Development Administration: Reauthorization and Funding, 111th Congress
Table 4. History of Appropriations for EDA by Fiscal Year
Fiscal Year
Current Dollars
1966 $332,425,000
1967 290,000,000
1968 345,225,000
1969 274,740,000
1970 272,121,000
1971 253,315,000
1972 284,470,000
1973 325,731,000
1974 240,600,000
1975 394,850,000
1976 855,378,000
1977 6,592,625,000
1978 526,073,000
1979 549,029,000
1980 553,350,000
1981 476,500,000
1982 223,500,000
1983 295,250,000
1984 293,720,000
1985 259,110,000
1986 215,786,000
1987 216,539,000
1988 206,770,000
1989 206,770,000
1990 216,836,000
1991 236,015,000
1992 331,982,000
1993 332,823,000
1994 550,142,000
1995 461,695,000
1996 372,210,000
1997 425,936,000
1998 364,028,000
1999 412,340,000
2000 450,850,000
2001 451,863,000
Congressional Research Service
16
Economic Development Administration: Reauthorization and Funding, 111th Congress
Fiscal Year
Current Dollars
2002 367,541,000
2003 318,680,000
2004 308,110,000
2005 284,060,000
2006 281,132,000
2007 280,623,000
2008 774,232,000
2009 312,800,000
2010 $293,000,000
Source: Data provided by EDA’s Washington, DC, Office to CRS and available upon request.
Note: Funding includes regular and supplemental (disaster relief and countercyclical job creation
funding) appropriations for EDA.
Administration’s FY2011 Request
As part of the general appropriations process and reauthorization of EDA, the 111th Congress is
considering whether to shift funding among EDA programs to assist distressed areas, transferring
funding from public works to economic adjustment assistance programs. Particular initiatives
under debate include funding for regional planning and matching grants for regional innovation
clusters, and the launch of a national network of public-private business incubators.
The Administration’s FY2011 request for EDA is $286.2 million, or $6.8 million (2.3%) less than
the FY2010 enacted amount of $293 million (see Table 5). EDA received $255 million for
Economic Development Assistance Programs (EDAP) in FY2010, and the Administration’s
FY2011 request of $246 million represents a $9 million reduction (3.5%).
Table 5. Recent EDA Appropriations by Sub-Program
In millions of dollars
FY2011
Program FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
Request
Public Works and
$148.2 $118.3 $133.3 $42.8
Economic Development
Economic Adjustment
42.3 35.3 38.6 125.0
Assistance
Planning
Assistance
25.4 31.0 31.0 31.0
Technical
Assistance
9.3 9.4 9.8 13.4
Research and Evaluation
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.5
Trade Adjustment
14.1 15.8 15.8 15.8
Assistance
Global Climate Mitigation
9.3
14.7
25.0
16.5
Salaries
and
Expenses
30.8 32.8 38.0 40.2
Congressional Research Service
17
Economic Development Administration: Reauthorization and Funding, 111th Congress
FY2011
Program FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
Request
Sub-Total for Economic
249.1 225.0 255.0 246.0
Development
Assistance Programs
(EDAP)
Other (Unobligated Balance
15.0
Recissions)
Sub-Total Without
279.9 272.8 293.0 286.2
Supplementals
Supplemental Trade
40.0
Adjustment funding (P.L.
111-32)
Supplemental Disaster
500.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Relief funding (P.L. 110-329,
P.L. 110-252)
Supplemental American
150.0
Recovery and Reinvestment
Act funding (P.L. 111-5)
Total with
$779.9 $462.8 $293.0 $286.2
Supplementals
Source: EDA Congressional Budget Justifications, FY2008-FY2011, http://www.osec.doc.gov/bmi/Budget/
default.htm.
Note: EDA’s FY 2011 budget requests at least $75 million in regional planning and implementation grants for
Regional Innovation Clusters.
Proposed Shift in EDA Funds
The Administration proposes to transfer $90.5 million from EDA’s Public Works grants to other
EDA programs: a total of $86.4 million would be transferred to the Economic Adjustment
Assistance program, and $3.6 million would be transferred to the Technical Assistance program.
The remaining funds would be allocated to administration. The Public Works program would be
reduced from $133.3 million in FY2010 to $42.8 million in FY2011.
The rationale for transferring funds from Public Works to Economic Adjustment Assistance is the
level of flexibility in the use of funds. Funding for Public Works projects can be used for two
purposes: to build infrastructure, or to maintain and repair infrastructure. In contrast, Economic
Adjustment Assistance funding can be used both to build and maintain infrastructure, and to
provide technical assistance, conduct studies, hire consultants, and conduct research, among other
uses.
Supporters of the shift in funding might argue that it will provide more flexibility for EDA grant
recipients and projects. Detractors might indicate that Public Works has been at the center of EDA
projects since the agency’s creation in the mid 1960s, and that transferring Public Works funding
to studies, research, and consulting might lead to a decline in funding bricks-and-mortar projects
which are essential for economically distressed areas.
Congressional Research Service
18
Economic Development Administration: Reauthorization and Funding, 111th Congress
Proposed Reduction in Global Climate Change Mitigation Incentive Fund
(GCCMIF)
EDA established the GCCMIF in FY2008 to promote EDA policies and strategies which
contribute to “green” construction. The FY2011 budget request proposes a reduction in the Fund,
from $25 million to $16.5 million. According to EDA’s Congressional Budget Justification, a
challenge for the Fund has been the narrow definition of “green” projects.23 EDA is proposing to
implement a more broadly defined Fund that may include the development or manufacturing of
products such as wind turbines. Projects may also include the construction or renovation of green
buildings, in accordance with the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) rating system.
Proposed Increase in Salaries and Expenses
Congress could consider actions necessary to increase staff in the agency’s six regional offices,
including Economic Development Representatives (EDRs), and staff at its headquarters office,
because since FY2002, EDA has undergone a significant downsizing of its professional
workforce. A concern for EDA grantees has been the delay in processing grant applications in
regional offices and headquarters as a result of limited staff numbers. EDA is proposing an
increase from $38 million in FY2010 to $40.2 million in FY2011 for salaries and expenses, which
could result in the hiring of additional staff.
Funding for Regional Innovation Clusters and Business Incubators
One of EDA’s policy priorities is to assist distressed areas affected by unemployment as a result
of the current recession, in particular, funding for regional planning and matching grants for
regional innovation clusters, and the launch of a national network of public-private business
incubators, to be funded under Economic Adjustment Assistance grants.
Regional Innovation Clusters (RICs)
As part of his FY2010 budget request to Congress, President Obama called for two $50 million
special EDA initiatives—one to help nurture regional innovation clusters across the country and
the other to build a nationwide network of business incubators. EDA defines “Regional
Innovation Clusters” as
interconnected networks of businesses, academic institutions, research facilities, science and
technology parks, and professional associations that generate a virtuous cycle of regional
competitive strength and economic adaptability and that can be fostered through innovative
governmental initiatives.24
23 U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration FY2011 Congressional Budget Justification,
February 2010, http://www.osec.doc.gov/bmi/budget/11CJ/EDA%20FY%202011%20Congressional%20v5.pdf.
24 U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration, EDA Congressional Budget Justification,
FY2011, Washington, DC, February 2010, p. 7, http://www.osec.doc.gov/bmi/budget/11CJ/
EDA%20FY%202011%20Congressional%20v5.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
19
Economic Development Administration: Reauthorization and Funding, 111th Congress
Examples of RICs include Silicon Valley in California, the Research Triangle in North Carolina,
and parts of the metropolitan Boston area connected by Route 128, where many biotechnology
companies are located. The concept of RICs was developed by Michael Porter of Harvard
University in the late 1990s.25 These clusters are characterized by a combination of academic
institutions, research facilities, small business startups, and government programs that seek to
develop competitive new technologies and higher-skilled jobs.26
EDA’s FY2011 budget request includes $75 million in regional planning and implementation
grants for RICs.
Business Incubators
Business incubators are organizations that offer a wide array of services to new, typically small
companies. These services may include the construction, rehabilitation, or purchase of structures
for the express purpose of fostering and supporting start-up companies. In FY2010, EDA
requested $50 million for business incubators to create a network to share best practices.
According to the findings of a 2008 study conducted by Grant-Thornton, which measured the
economic impacts of EDA’s Public Works and EAA-financed construction projects, every
$10,000 in EDA funds invested in business incubators generates an estimated 47 to 69 local
jobs.27 The study found that in rural areas, business incubator projects are the most effective type
of EDA project because they promote collaboration and the development of entrepreneurial
companies by providing an array of business support resources and services.28 In addition, a 1997
EDA study found that 87% of incubator graduates stay in business, and most remain in the
regions where the businesses were founded.29
Although the FY2011 budget requests no funds specifically for business incubators, they will
continue to be funded through the Public Works and Economic Adjustment Assistance programs.
25 See Michael Porter, “Clusters and the New Economics of Competition,” Harvard Business Review, November -
December 1998, pp. 77-90.
26 U.S. Department of Commerce, FY2010 Congressional Budget Justification, February 2009,
http://www.osec.doc.gov/bmi/budget/FY10CBJ.htm.
27 Grant-Thornton, Construction Grants Program Impact Assessment Report, Volume 1, Washington, DC, September
30, 2008, p. 44, http://www.eda.gov/PDF/EDAConsImpactStudyVolume1FINAL.pdf.
28 Ibid.
29 See Robert Lake, Robin Leichenko, and Amy Glasmeier, et al., EDA and U.S. Economic Distress: 1965-2000,
Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, July 2004, at http://www.eda.gov/PDF/
2004JulyEDAandU.S.EconomicDistressReport.pdf and University of Michigan, NBIA, Ohio University and Southern
Technology Council, Business Incubation Works. Athens, Ohio: National Business Incubation Association, 1997.
Congressional Research Service
20
Economic Development Administration: Reauthorization and Funding, 111th Congress
Appendix A. EDA Regional Offices
Table A-1. EDA Regional Offices
Regional Office
States or Insular Areas in Jurisdiction
Atlanta Regional Office
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee
Austin Regional Office
Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas
Denver Regional Office
Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,
North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming
Philadelphia Regional Office
Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia,
West Virginia, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands
Chicago Regional Office
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin
Seattle Regional Office
Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon,
Washington, American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands,
Guam, Federated States of Micronesia, Rep. of Marshall
Islands, Rep. of Palau
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration, Regional Offices,
http://www.eda.gov/AboutEDA/Regions.xml.
Congressional Research Service
21
Economic Development Administration: Reauthorization and Funding, 111th Congress
Appendix B. EDA Grants by State
Funding by State
EDA is required to provide an annual report on the allocation of funds appropriated and grants by
state. Table B-1 shows the number, dollar amount, and share of EDA grants by state and insular
area for FY2007 and FY2008, the latest fiscal years for which data are available.
Table B-1. Allocation of EDA Grants by State for FY2007 and FY2008
Grants FY2007
Grants FY2008
Dollar
Share of
Dollar
Share of
State
Number
Amount
Total Number
Amount
Total
Alabama
13 $2,621,000
1%
14 $3,936,000
1%
Alaska
26 15,627,000
6%
24 1,0105,000
4%
Samoa
1
2,105,000
1%
0%
Arizona
11
988,000 0% 17
7,776,000 3%
Arkansas
9 6,342,000
2%
17 7,082,000
3%
California
37 24,619,000
9%
31 19,944,000
7%
Colorado
13 1,421,000
1%
9 2,838,000
1%
Connecticut
1
65,000 0% 3
275,000 0%
DC
6 1,589,000
1%
1 2,000,000
1%
Florida
13 3,172,000
1%
18 4,195,000
1%
Georgia
24 7,642,000
3%
23 8,069,000
3%
Hawai
8 3,772,000
1%
6 2,234,000
1%
Idaho
13 2,254,000
1%
14 2,985,000
1%
Illinois
22
10,961,000 4% 19 5,598,000
2%
Indiana
14 5,823,000
2%
9 5,069,000
2%
Iowa
21 4,590,000
2%
21 2,670,000
1%
Kansas
8
784,000 0% 11
7,019,000 2%
Kentucky
12 5,804,000
2%
9 4,685,000
2%
Louisiana
19
6,903,000 2% 18
12,859,000 5%
Maine
10 2,851,000
1%
10 1,319,000
0%
Maryland
9
7,979,000 3% 8
745,000 0%
Massachusetts
11 3,762,000
1%
15 5,440,000
2%
Michigan
23
5,812,000 2% 17
11,640,000 4%
Minnesota
14 3,225,000
1%
13 4,689,000
2%
Mississippi
17 6,257,000
2%
13 5,340,000
2%
Missouri
23 4,294,000
2%
22 2,172,000
1%
Montana
23 3,694,000
1%
23 3,570,000
1%
Congressional Research Service
22
Economic Development Administration: Reauthorization and Funding, 111th Congress
Grants FY2007
Grants FY2008
Dollar
Share of
Dollar
Share of
State
Number
Amount
Total Number
Amount
Total
Multi-
Jurisdictional
13
13,673,000
5% 31
1,7196,000 6%
Nebraska
12 4,274,000
2%
14 2,586,000
1%
Nevada
2
217,000 0% 5
2,243,000 1%
New
6 2,789,000
1%
Hampshire
7 1,809,000
1%
New
Jersey
3 1,660,000
1%
4 4,160,000
1%
New
Mexico
14 7,825,000
3%
11 5,995,000
2%
New
York
19 7,317,000
3%
18 6,425,000
2%
North
27 9,852,000
4%
Carolina
21 5,162,000
2%
North
15 2,229,000
1%
Dakota
18 2,478,000
1%
Ohio
10 7,123,000
3%
9 6,139,000
2%
Oklahoma
10 2,996,000
1%
12 3,591,000
1%
Oregon
26 3,672,000
1%
27 6,405,000
2%
Pennsylvania
22
12,455,000 4% 18
7,487,000 3%
Puerto Rico
3
286,000
0%
3
2,225,000
1%
Rhode
Island
1 125,000
0%
3 277,000
0%
South
15 6,133,000
2%
Carolina
8 7,927,000
3%
South
Dakota
13
3,264,000 1% 13
649,000 0%
Tennessee
19 7,820,000
3%
17 7,144,000
3%
Texas
20 15,088,000
5%
31 14,595,000
5%
Utah
7 2,307,000
1%
7 1,819,000
1%
Vermont
2
156,000 0% 1
56,000 0%
Virgin
Islands
1
85,000 0% 2
3,552,000 1%
Virginia
20 4,996,000
2%
15 5,690,000
2%
Washington
31 6,791,000
2%
34 6,440,000
2%
West Virginia
15
5,034,000
2%
14
6,617,000
2%
Wisconsin
14 3,406,000
1%
15 4,132,000
1%
Wyoming
7
385,000 0% 7
2,130,000 1%
Totals:
748
$276,914,000
100%
753
$281,282,000 100%
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration 2007 and 2008 Annual Reports,
http://www.eda.gov/PDF/2007AnnualReport.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
23
Economic Development Administration: Reauthorization and Funding, 111th Congress
Author Contact Information
Oscar R. Gonzales
Eugene Boyd
Analyst in Economic Development Policy
Analyst in Federalism and Economic Development
ogonzales@crs.loc.gov, 7-0764
Policy
eboyd@crs.loc.gov, 7-8689
Congressional Research Service
24