BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1348
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB
1348 (Irwin)
As Amended January 14, 2016
Majority vote
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes|Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Jobs |9-0 |Eduardo Garcia, Kim, | |
| | |Brough, Brown, Chau, | |
| | |Chu, Gipson, Irwin, | |
| | |Mathis | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Appropriations |17-0 |Gomez, Bigelow, | |
| | |Bloom, Bonilla, | |
| | |Bonta, Calderon, | |
| | |Chang, Daly, Eggman, | |
| | |Gallagher, Eduardo | |
| | |Garcia, Holden, | |
| | |Jones, Quirk, Wagner, | |
| | |Weber, Wood | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Expands the positions and duties of the State
AB 1348
Page 2
Clearinghouse to include a federal grant administrator. Among
other duties, the federal grant administrator serves as the
state's primary point of contact for information on federal
grants related to community, economic, and local development.
On or before January 1, 2018, and annually thereafter, the
federal grant administrator is required to prepare a summary of
his or her activities, including a list of federal grants
received by the state and local governments during the report
period, as specified.
EXISTING LAW requires the State Clearinghouse, which is located
within the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, to serve
as the "State Single Point of Contact" for coordinating state
and local review of certain federal community
development-related documents, pursuant to Presidential
Executive Order 12372. In this capacity, the State
Clearinghouse coordinates the review of federal financial
assistance applications, federally required state plans, direct
federal development activities, and federal environmental
documents.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, implementation of this bill incurs General Fund (GF)
administrative costs of approximately $200,000 for fiscal year
(FY) 2017-18, and ongoing GF costs of approximately $180,000, to
support the federal grant administrator position and associated
duties. The higher costs in the first year are attributed to
necessary Web site updates.
COMMENTS: Grants are becoming an increasing part of the federal
government's process for advancing new federal policies.
According to the federal Office of Management and Budget,
federal outlays for grants to state and local governments
increased from $91 billion in 1980 ($224 billion in constant
dollars) to approximately $546 billion in the 2013 federal
fiscal year.
AB 1348
Page 3
While historically, states have utilized their budget and fiscal
offices to track and manage federal funds, a growing number of
states are examining how to take a more proactive approach to
this shift in federal program delivery. One model being
considered is the establishment of a Federal Grant Office. In
February 2015, the National Conference of State Legislatures
(NCSL) testified before the Assembly Jobs, Economic Development,
and the Economy Committee (JEDE) on the establishment and use of
these offices. In addition to helping the state identify a
greater number of federal grant opportunities, the NCSL
representative identified a number of other Federal Grant Office
advantages, including:
1)Providing training opportunities to state and local grant
writers and managers;
2)Setting a standard for better oversight and management
practices;
3)Strengthening the state's network of public and private sector
grant professionals;
4)Reducing the time local governments and nonprofits spend
researching new grant opportunities and tracking oversight and
reporting requirements;
5)Serving as a key constituent referral point for state
legislative and United States (U.S.) Congressional offices;
and
6)Reviewing requests for letters of support from state agencies,
other government entities, and the private sector.
AB 1348
Page 4
State Rankings: On a per capita basis, California ranks in the
middle (24th) with $1,719 per capita as compared to the national
average of $1,625. Chart 1 displays federal grant spending for
selected states.
---------------------------------------------------------------
| FY 2014 Per Capita Federal Spending on Selected Grants |
| |
| |
---------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
| Rank | State | Amount Per | | Rank | State | Amount Per |
| | | Capita | | | | Capita |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 1 | District of | $4,343 | | -- | U.S. Average | $1,625 |
| | Columbia | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 4 | New York | $2,666 | | 35 | Arizona | $1,513 |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 8 | Mississippi | $2,157 | | 36 | Texas | $1,509 |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 11 | Maine | $1,852 | | 45 | Washington | $1,233 |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 18 | Oregon | $1,790 | | 47 | Florida | $1,184 |
AB 1348
Page 5
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 24 | California | $1,719 | | 51 | Nevada | $1,069 |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
| Source: NCSL and the Federal Funds Information for States |
|(February 28, 2014) |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to research presented at the JEDE hearing, the
District of Columbia, Arizona, Massachusetts, Maryland, Nevada,
and Rhode Island have Federal Grant Offices with a number of
other states considering their adoption. For state's wanting
to establish centralized grant offices, NCSL recommends that
states begin with three core components: a designated point of
contact for federal grants; an annual report to track federal
fund activities; and a Web site to share critical information.
This bill proposes these initial steps toward a more proactive
approach to federal grant making.
Analysis Prepared by: Toni Symonds /
J., E.D., & E. / (916) 319-2090 FN: 0002573
AB 1348
Page 6