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