Governor Addresses

The post State of the State – 2024 appeared first on National Governors Association.

State Goals

Kentucky

• Identify evidence-based policies, procedures, and strategies that support local adoption of innovative overdose response models across the state, including EMS-administered buprenorphine and community paramedicine.
• Identification of metrics that gauge long-term impact and sustainability, including but not limited to reducing response times, improved patient outcomes, and increased community resilience.
• Creation of a multi-disciplinary, multi-agency team responsible for planning statewide expansion of EMS-administered buprenorphine and community paramedicine response models.
• Establishment of centralized committee in Kentucky focusing on overdose response coordination and data sharing among EMS and other relevant stakeholders.
• Development of an action plan that will guide the systemic development and implementation of EMS-administered buprenorphine and community paramedicine response models.

Ohio

• Develop local and regional networks between EMS agencies, mobile integrated healthcare teams, mobile community mental health teams, and opioid recovery centers to create effective buprenorphine bridge programs.
• Identify actionable bridge program models and best practices that align with the available public and private resources within the state’s rural, suburban, and metropolitan communities.
• Facilities the ability of EMS to empower communities to support opioid addiction treatment programs, SUD prevention measures, and naloxone administration by laypersons.

South Carolina

• Continue to build on established relationships between EMS, Department of Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Services, South Carolina Fire Academy, and law enforcement community to expand existing overdose prevention efforts and develop new, evidence-based strategies.
• Establish EMS overdose prevention program in all 46 counties.
• Embed peer counselors and mental health providers from existing treatment centers with local EMS providers to work in the field together. This could include cross-training paramedics as certified peer or substance use counselors.
• Emulate successful statewide EMS-administered buprenorphine programs and begin to incorporate them into the state’s opioid strategic plan.
• Identify strategies and funding streams to alleviate the costs of naloxone, which are disproportionality borne by local EMS providers.
• Encourage insurance, both CMS and third-party payors to pay for EMS transportation to alternative destinations.
• Involve local EMS agencies in local youth education programs that focus on mentoring and on substance misuse and abuse education.

Vermont

• Expand naloxone leave-behind programs to establish a linkage-to-treatment mechanism.
• Launch a pilot EMS-administered buprenorphine program, with the potential for statewide expansion upon success.
• Establish collaborative networks with EMS, emergency departments, peer recovery organizations, and opioid treatment programs to facilitate comprehensive care access for MOUD.
• Secure federal, state, and local funding to sustain and advance these initiatives.
• Host a summit on overdose response initiatives during the annual statewide EMS conference.

Wisconsin

• Learn about EMS policies and practices for leave-behind programs (naloxone, fentanyl test strips, program materials) from national, state, and local experts.
• Identify necessary components to expand leave-behind programming across Wisconsin.
• Build the foundation for statewide expansion of naloxone leave-behind programming.

The post Expanding the Role of EMS to Prevent Overdose appeared first on National Governors Association.

Maryland Governor Wes Moore joined the event for a fireside chat in which he shared how his own service in the military, government, and non-profits has shaped his definition of and vision for service in Maryland, and how service-to-career pathways fits into his broader workforce development policy agenda. Governor Moore detailed the impact his signature Service Year Option is set to have in Maryland, saying, “Service does not just change your now, it changes your lens. There is a labor participation and a labor training divide that we have to address. The service year option is helping to address both.”

To kick off the action lab, the NGA Center provided a walkthrough of its new publication, Service as a Pathway to Economic Opportunity: A Roadmap for Governors, which lays out five key elements with related strategies and policy options for Governors to consider as they develop and execute a vision for service-to-career pathways. To highlight these promising practices in action, speakers from Idaho and Minnesota showcased how they are working to create equitable access to workforce training and service programs, including Idaho LAUNCH and the Minnesota Recovery Corps. Later on, representatives from Colorado, Utah, and Maryland shared how they’re coordinating across state government and with employers and non-profits to stand up innovative service-to-career pathways, including the Colorado Public Health Works Apprenticeship, the proposed One Utah Service Fellowship, and the Maryland Service Year Option. In addition to providing career development opportunities, service can break down barriers — the goal of Utah Governor Spencer Cox’s NGA Chair’s Initiative: Disagree Better.

NGA Center staff detailed which federal funding streams may be tapped to support service-to-career pathways, including key AmeriCorps programs, the Workforce Innovation & Opportunity Act, and relevant programs in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act. To conclude the first day of programming, participants in Maryland service programs shared how their service experience has impacted their lives and is shaping their career trajectory. Host site partners from the public and private sectors discussed how service members are contributing to their organizations.

The 10 state teams on-hand took what they learned throughout the first day of programming into a workshop to identify their state’s unique priorities and goals for service-to-careers. Once they reached consensus on their goals, the teams identified their next action steps required to achieve their goals when they returned to their home states. The NGA Center and the Schultz Family Foundation will work to support states in maintaining this momentum, providing technical assistance in the coming months to help them achieve their goals.

For more information on the NGA Center’s work to support Governors in developing service-to-career pathways, please visit the project page or contact Jack Porter at jporter@nga.org.

The post NGA Convenes Ten States to Explore Service as a Pathway to Economic Opportunity appeared first on National Governors Association.

Governors across the country are navigating rapidly evolving labor force trends – worker shortages in nearly every sector of the economy, skills gaps created by new technologies, and increased cost of higher education. While labor shortages can provide opportunities for individuals to enter the workforce or transition to new careers, those who face barriers to workforce participation may not benefit if their skills do not align with employers’ needs. A lack of skilled workers can also present obstacles to progress on Governors’ wide-ranging policy priorities, such as completing infrastructure projects, bolstering the teacher talent pipeline, and expanding the capacity of public health systems. As Governors explore all the tools at their disposal to address these challenges, state and national service programs offer a promising strategy for states to address workforce shortages and barriers to workforce participation while addressing Governors’ policy priorities through “service-to-career pathways.”

To support Governors and state policymakers in developing and implementing a vision for service-to-career pathways, the National Governors Association Center for Best Practice (NGA Center) and the Schultz Family Foundation have partnered to increase coordination among state partners to meet community needs while providing career development opportunities to service members. The partnership will include the development of a roadmap to highlight innovative state-led initiatives, emerging best practices, and policy options, as well as a workshop for states to learn from experts and develop action plans to create and scale service-to-career pathways, particularly for young adults from underrepresented and diverse communities.

Resources

Service as a Pathway to Economic Opportunity: A Roadmap for Governors

This roadmap highlights actionable strategies for Governors and state policymakers to meet critical state needs while expanding access to economic opportunity by leveraging service programs as career development opportunities, especially for youth from underserved communities. The roadmap lays out five key elements with related policy options for Governors to consider as they develop and execute a vision for service-to-career pathways in their states:

• Survey the landscape and set a statewide vision
• Champion service-to-career pathways
• Align service, workforce development, and other state partners
• Develop a governance and funding strategy
• Engage public, private, and philanthropic stakeholders

This menu of policy options is intended to provide adaptable solutions that meet states’ unique conditions and needs. Underlying these policy options is an emphasis on interagency coordination and public-private partnership to provide a seamless, flexible transition between service and careers. The roadmap also features case studies on innovative state models and emerging best practices for aligning state and national service programs with career pathways. These examples illustrate the opportunities and successes that are possible when public, private, and philanthropic partners are aligned with the Governor’s vision for service-to-career pathways.

NGA Convenes Ten States to Explore Service as a Pathway to Economic Opportunity 

In January 2024, the National Governor Association’s Center for Best Practices brought together 10 interagency state teams comprised of Governors’ advisors, state workforce development system leaders, and state service commission leaders to explore service as a pathway to economic opportunity. State teams heard from peers across the country and national experts on promising practices to develop service-to-career pathways and workshop their state’s unique priorities and next steps for action. Maryland Governor Wes Moore joined to share his personal service experience and how that has shaped his perspective on the value of service in giving purpose and a promising career pathway to young people.

Schultz Family Foundation and National Governors Association Partner to Expand State-Led Innovations in National Service

The Schultz Family Foundation and the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices announced a partnership to support Governors and state leaders in designing and expanding innovative civilian national service programs to address critical state needs while also enabling those who serve to use the experience to launch their careers in a meaningful way. Through this project, the NGA Center aims to improve awareness, connection, and partnership across state entities, including Governors’ offices, state workforce development leaders, state service commission leaders, and community-based organizations, to tap into the power of national service and volunteering to meet the needs of their communities and to enhance the career potential of service members. The partnership aims to help states recruit more diverse service corps and support those who serve in acquiring skills to land a good job.

“We are continuing to fill in-demand jobs and make sure Coloradans have the training and skills they need to thrive, and this exciting partnership with NGA is a great opportunity to grow national service and build the workforce for the future. We are proud of the work of AmeriCorps members here in Colorado and look forward to this exciting partnership.”

Colorado Governor Jared Polis

The post Service-To-Career Pathways appeared first on National Governors Association.

Co-organized with the Center for Scientific Evidence in Public Issues at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS EPI Center), the conversation provided an opportunity to share lessons learned and identify both challenges and opportunities.

The Reality of Current AI Harms

Alexandra Reeve-Givens, CEO of the Center for Democracy and Technology, provided an overview of various types of AI risk state governments are confronting. Categories of risk include: security and surveillance, education, consumer fraud and abuse, commercial data practices, benefits and public health, information harms and elections.

Illustrating the real-world impact of AI hazards, Reeve-Givens shared examples related to automated administration of public benefits systems – such as unemployment insurance, SSI and Medicaid. While the use of automation in benefits systems isn’t new, its increasing use over the past 10-15 years has uncovered risks that significantly impact citizens’ rights and expose state government agencies to litigation. In one instance, a system adopted to detect fraud in unemployment insurance programs seems to have wrongly accused 20,000 – 40,000 people of fraud due to a miscorrelation in data sets – leading to immediate termination of benefits and substantial punitive fines. Reeve-Givens also cited examples of AI risks in the criminal justice system, including wrongful arrests based on faulty facial recognition technology, as well as bias in AI systems used to make decisions regarding bail and probation. 

Elements of Trustworthy AI

As state and federal policymakers grapple with AI implementation, several guideline frameworks emerging in the past year pinpoint common elements as essential to ensuring trustworthy AI. “One of the key elements is how we move from lofty ideals [such as] ‘great AI systems shouldn’t discriminate’ to how governments and individual decision-makers operationalize that in practice,” Reeve-Givens stated. Several state plans have drawn on recent frameworks like the White House Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights and the U.S. Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards & Technology’s (NIST) Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework.

One of the latest models is a Proposed Memorandum for Federal Agency Use of AI released in November 2023 by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

Reeve-Givens outlined key elements of OMB’s guidelines that can be helpful to states. 

Mandate Risk Management practices: Before developing or deploying an AI tool, it is critical to determine if the AI system impacts rights or safety. If it does, states should require minimum practices, such as completing an AI impact assessment, testing performance in real-world contexts, independently evaluating the AI, conducting ongoing monitoring and specifying a threshold for human review, and ensuring adequate training for operators. For AI systems that have been determined to impact rights, additional minimum practices include testing for equity and nondiscrimination (pre- and post-deployment), consulting impacted groups, and notifying impacted individuals when AI meaningfully influences the outcome of decisions concerning them.

Comply with due process & Administrative Procedure Act requirements: Most litigation arising from AI have centered on violation of due process rights, or Administrative Procedure Act (APA) obligations, by deployment of an automated tool that impacts rights without appropriate public notice or consideration, or in a manner that is inconsistent or of poor quality.  

Require reporting & documentation: States can increase accountability and understanding around AI by directing agencies to inventory their uses of AI, designate which uses impact rights and safety, and issue templates for reporting outcomes in high-risk use cases so that both internal operators and the public will have access to and understanding of AI uses and impacts. 

Designate appropriate staff: OMB’s guidance recommends designating Chief AI officers (which can be dual function roles drawn from existing staff like chief data or privacy officers) to develop best practices and serve as a central source of accountability. 

Take specific steps on procurement: The procurement process is instrumental in shaping AI risk management, and OMB outlines several steps to ensure government agencies ask the right questions and ensure responsible use of taxpayer dollars. An effective procurement process should include the ability to test the technology, ensure government agencies retain sufficient control and ownership over data, ensure quality control, privacy and security, and maintain adequate access and visibility to ensure due process requirements are met.

Develop strategies to counter harmful AI uses: To help protect the public from misinformation and consumer fraud scams, government officials must act to protect their role as trusted sources of civic information. Strategies include maintaining consistent branding and trust indicators (e.g. the use of .gov domains); engaging in proactive messaging to “pre-bunk” and debunk false narratives; and establishing trusted channels for communication so reporters know who to call when questionable information spreads.

Take AI-driven harms seriously: Ensure law enforcement is equipped to address consumer fraud, extortion, non-consensual intimate imagery (NCII), and election interference; address critical infrastructure & cybersecurity risks; provide guidance to the private sector around housing, civil rights, and consumer protection issues; ensure any AI funds require responsible innovation; advance a strategic legislative agenda to prioritize AI risk management.

How States Are Managing AI Risk

Washington: Katy Ruckle, State Chief Privacy Officer

Virginia: Andrew Wheeler, Office of Regulatory Management Director

During a previous webinar, state speakers outlined ways their states are innovating with AI to improve efficiency and effectiveness in a variety of government functions. Numerous states have established advisory committees and working groups to study AI and issue guidelines. As state efforts expand, their findings continue to identify risks and develop best practices to both mitigate risks and capitalize on opportunities.

You can watch each of the state speakers’ presentations at this link, or below. A summary of key points made by each state are presented here:

Washington state launched an AI Community of Practice (CoP), which includes both state and local government agencies, to facilitate collaboration, identify best practices, enhance accountability and oversight, and promote alignment of new AI technologies to business and IT strategies. CoP’s recommendations include guidelines for applying existing Washington State Agency Privacy Principles to risks related to data privacy – including common risks such as data persistence (retaining data longer than needed) and data repurposing (using data for a purpose beyond that for which it was originally collected/intended). Building on interim guidelines for the responsible use of generative AI, which the state published in August 2023, the CoP highlights several “dos and don’ts” for generative AI use, including: do review content for biases and inaccuracies before using AI-generated audiovisual content; do implement robust measures to protect resident data; don’t include sensitive or confidential information in prompts; when using chatbots / automated responses, don’t use generative AI as a substitute for human interaction, and do provide mechanisms for residents to easily seek human assistance if the AI system cannot address their needs effectively.

In Virginia, Governor Glenn Youngkin issued an Executive Directive in September 23 directing the state’s Office of Regulatory Management (ORM) to coordinate with the Virginia Information Technologies Agency (VITA) to develop standards and guidelines to ensure effective oversight of AI technology across four focus areas: legal protections, policy standards, IT safeguards, and K-12 and higher education implications. The effort generated findings organized into three categories: education (developing guidelines to guard against misuse of AI in schools and to equip students with AI knowledge to prepare for future careers); economic development (determining strategies to attract AI companies, as well as companies outside the AI industry, to Virginia), and energy impact (examining the impact of AI on power generation requirements). ORM and VITA were also tasked with identifying pilot projects – both internal and public-facing — that can be implemented to test the standards and make government services more efficient and effective. Examples include use of chatbots to more efficiently administer government services, as well as a potential pilot project to use AI to help the housing department analyze 700,000+ building codes active in Virginia in order to identify overlapping requirements with a view toward streamlining regulations.

State AI Resources

The NGA Center for Best Practices has updated a State Resource List on Artificial Intelligence that provides links to federal-level activities, state executive branch activities, state legislative actions, local-level activities, and resources for technical assistance. As additional items are identified, the resource list will continue to be expanded.

Governors’ offices and other policy experts and stakeholders are encouraged to contact NGA to share input on the resource list or offer suggestions of specific AI topics the NGA Center and the AAAS EPI Center can address in future events. NGA’s intended audience includes Governors’ advisors and staff, state policymakers and executive leaders, state procurement officials, state chief information and technology officers, state offices that oversee automated systems such as public benefits distribution, government hiring, fraud detection or other systems.

The AAAS EPI Center also has AI resources to share on the EPI Center website which includes, for example, Foundational Issues in AI and Glossary of AI Terms and other useful resources.

Contacts

• NGA Center for Best Practices: Sally Rood
• AAAS EPI Center: Kate Stoll

The post Mitigating AI Risks in State Government  appeared first on National Governors Association.

(Download)

The COVID-19 pandemic placed an unprecedented strain on the early childhood sector, compounding serious pre-pandemic problems that threatened to wreak havoc on what is arguably the backbone of the U.S. economy, working parents. Multiple studies showed that many providers shuttered at the pandemic’s start. One report found that close to 16,000 licensed providers nationwide permanently closed between December 2019 and March 2021. Further, employment in the sector dropped 35% in April 2020, worsening the early care and education (ECE) workforce shortage that existed before the pandemic.

In response, Congress passed a series of COVID-19 pandemic relief packages: the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act in March 2020; the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations (CRRSA) Act in December 2020; and the American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act in March 2021. The three relief packages contained $52.5 billion in emergency supplemental Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) funds and provided states with historic funding levels to address the challenges facing the early childhood sector. For context, in fiscal year 2019, Congress appropriated $8.1 billion for the CCDF, the largest federal early childhood program. Each new COVID-19 relief funding source included temporary, programmatic flexibilities to help states meet the needs of early childhood providers and families.

About the Report

This report examines how states strategically approached managing and administering the historic influx of COVID-19 relief funds, focusing on governance structures, funding management systems, and data systems. The report explores the rationale and influencing factors that informed decision-making for state executives and policymakers on disbursing funds, rather than compiling examples of state early childhood initiatives during the pandemic.

To decipher states’ strategic approaches, the National Governors Association conducted a series of learning calls with 14 states and hosted an in-person roundtable during the spring of 2023 to ascertain Governors’ offices and state administrators’ perspectives on the topic.

This report is organized into five sections:

1. Aligning on priorities;
2. Relying on state governance structures and coordination;
3. Authorizing the disbursement of federal funds;
4. Disbursing funds, including the application process; and
5. Modernizing data systems and strengthening data collection.

Each section captures key discussion points and highlights strategies employed by Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Utah.

Key Takeaways

States were pressure-tested, especially when it came to the ECE workforce, which was already at a crisis point prior to the pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic’s impact on the sector and the historic levels of federal funds states received marked an inflection point. Most states acknowledged that with sufficient and consistent investments in resources, flexibility, and integrated systems and coordination, states can stand up and strengthen systems to stabilize the early childhood sector. While states achieved great successes during the pandemic, the sector’s instability and the effects it will have on the overall ECE workforce continue to reverberate.

At the beginning of the pandemic, states operated in a rapid response climate where the needs and problems of the early childhood sector constantly changed.

• Alignment of priorities and integrated governance systems were foundational to efficiently employing strategies, especially around access, while keeping quality of care in mind.
• The more decentralized the state’s system, the more states reported facing delays, challenges in investing resources most effectively, and difficulty in disbursing funds.

The expiration timeline for COVID-19 relief funds, with ARP funds expiring in September 2024, played a pivotal role in how states disbursed funds. States faced balancing how to meet the immediate needs of the sector with how to strengthen and sustain systems once the federal emergency funds ended. The anticipation of the fiscal cliff, the ending of the availability of these additional federal funds, contributed to state decisions on whether to invest in one-time, non-recurring efforts or longer-term efforts that would need greater investments either by the state or federal government.

Having trust with providers and the early childhood community greatly influenced how states disbursed funds and increased the effectiveness of the strategies they employed. The earlier that states engaged stakeholders in their strategic planning, the better positioned they felt they were in preventing or mitigating problems. Many states prioritized creating systems that were accessible to providers, ECE workers, and families, including transitioning to online systems and designing applications that were easy to complete. Further, states reported that investments in professionalizing many providers as small businesses helped sustain providers and improve state efficiencies like data collection that informed various iterations of funding providers received.

Many states initially relied on end-of-life technology or did not have key integrated systems to disburse COVID-19 relief funds, slowing the disbursement process. In some states, in-house information technology teams had competing demands for system build-outs for other programs such as emergency rental assistance, Medicaid, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). In other states, upgrading systems resulted in a long procurement process, with some states having only now secured vendors. States also identified major data gaps that presented challenges in determining supply and demand within the sector and how to structure programs, including eligibility and funding amounts, for providers, the ECE workforce, and other stakeholders.

ALIGNING ON PRIORITIES

Throughout the pandemic, states were pressure-tested to respond to the early childhood sector on lean infrastructure. While many states shared that this was a daunting experience, the historic levels of funds they received pushed states to think about the early childhood sector holistically. It also compelled states to think outside the box to address the sector’s immediate needs while building and sustaining long-term infrastructure.

States took varying approaches in identifying priorities. Some states focused on priorities established before the pandemic, while others revisited their priorities and created new ones during the pandemic. In doing so, states identified key priorities or core areas supported by the Governor, the lead early childhood agency, other relevant agencies, and often stakeholders to serve as guiding principles for disbursing federal funds.

Alignment on Priorities Set Before the Pandemic

Some states reported that their pre-pandemic strategic work on priority-setting significantly helped them to align around priorities or core areas more quickly once the pandemic hit. States discussed how the Governor made early childhood a top priority and issued key directives accordingly before the pandemic. These executive actions laid a solid foundation for states to align their COVID-19 relief disbursing strategies with overarching and well-established early childhood priorities.

• After her election in 2018, Maine Governor Janet Mills reconvened the Children’s Cabinet, which had been on hiatus for over eight years, and charged it with establishing priorities related to children and youth. This directive led to an interagency effort that primed the state’s administration for the pandemic. While Maine’s Office of Child and Family Services (OCFS) disbursed funds in compliance with programs and requirements under CARES, CRRSA, and ARP, OCFS aligned their funding strategies with the priorities determined by Children’s Cabinet for early childhood—access, quality, and workforce.

In addition to Governors’ directives, states such as Connecticut, Maine, and South Carolina emphasized the importance of the Preschool Development Grant (PDG) planning grant before the pandemic. Their work, including developing core areas and strategic approaches, informed their disbursement strategies, especially during the early stages of the pandemic.

Realignment on Priorities During the Pandemic

Other states focused on developing new priorities once the pandemic began.

• A few states commented how, historically, there had been little to no state funds and limited federal funds invested in their early childhood sector, resulting in skeletal infrastructure and systems they had to rely on at the pandemic’s start. This hampered their ability to quickly identify and align on nuanced priorities and core areas to focus on. From a timing perspective, these states reported feeling that they weren’t well positioned to disburse CARES funds but were in a significantly better position to support ARP funds.

Some states created pandemic-specific strategic plans to inform their disbursement of federal funds. 

• Colorado established a framework to help transform the early childhood sector in real-time during the pandemic in three core areas: access and quality, early childhood workforce, and family strengthening. This framework complemented Colorado’s established overarching early childhood priorities.

• Stakeholders experiencing the pandemic’s challenges firsthand primarily informed the strategic plan instead of agency staff informing the plan’s design and implementation. The Colorado Department of Early Childhood (CDEC) surveyed families, early childhood providers, foundations, businesses, and advocacy groups, resulting in 2,400 survey responses on what would be the most transformative use of federal funds. CDEC also held sector-specific focus groups (e.g., parents, providers, school districts, businesses, advocacy groups).

• The state then took all the collected information to create 49 strategies that utilized the $700 million in federal funds. There were 22 strategies under access, 13 under workforce, and 14 under family strengthening. Colorado partly attributed the stakeholder engagement process, particularly building trust upfront with the early childhood community, to its success in implementing the strategies.

Further, some states used the pandemic to reexamine their overarching early childhood priorities and core areas.

• In June 2020, Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds established an Economic Recovery Advisory Board that issued recommendations in February 2021 on child care, workforce, education, and economic development to shape the financial investments into the ECE sector. A critical component of the process was the Board engaging stakeholders at the beginning of the process, including providers, employers, community-based organizations, child care resource and referral services, and higher education institutions. This allowed the administration to immediately understand the field and consider their everyday experiences when drafting the recommendations.

• Additionally, in 2021, the Governor launched the Child Care Taskforce to develop a comprehensive strategy to address the child care shortages and barriers. In response, the Taskforce released a report in November 2021.

Priorities and Strategies Framework

Regardless of when states identified their priorities or core areas, they used federal funds to finance their state’s ECE sector and stabilize revenue for early childhood programs primarily focused on access and workforce, with a thread of equity and quality overall.  

• In New Jersey, the state’s guiding philosophy for funding programs became: (1) How are we ensuring the health and safety of children and staff in the child care community? (2) How are we supporting the sustainability of the child care community and the continued delivery of high-quality, affordable care? and (3) How are we supporting and helping sustain the workforce? 

Overwhelmingly and understandably, access was a priority, with an emphasis on provider stability, as states were able to use this flexible funding to support a larger provider population, which included both subsidized and private pay providers. The length of time states closed facilities due to lockdown measures played a role in how much investment was needed to stabilize the sector. In some states, temporary closures occurred for two weeks, while in other states, providers’ closures spanned months. In response to limitations on families’ access to care, states focused on sites where providers cared for a substantial number of children of essential workers, providers that offered both extended and nontraditional hours, and child care deserts (locations with limited child care options.) Yet, states reported that just as they focused on access issues, quality of care was still top of mind and they sought to actively maintain or enhance quality while also addressing access.

States also concentrated on quickly stabilizing the ECE workforce, although states continue to report significant challenges in this area. States employed several strategies through each iteration of federal funds that focused on the recruitment, retention, and advancement of ECE workers.

Lastly, many states filtered their strategies through a lens that explored disparities in access for parents and providers, especially when deciding on eligibility requirements and program funding formulas. Considering the potentially transformative size of federal investment in this sector, states undertook efforts to analyze inequities and overrepresentation of different populations to examine the utility and reach of their ECE sectors. Many states pursued strategies around stabilizing family care providers and subsidized providers to address access issues, given the presence of these models and provider types in areas with a higher social vulnerability index (SVI), children from high-need families, or where there were significant gaps in supply and demand. However, these strategies were not limited to funding. For example, states analyzed the application process with regards to equity, including how the application was rolled out and how technical assistance would be provided, to ensure that many barriers were removed from families, providers, and ECE workers to access funding easily and quickly.

The Fiscal Cliff’s Influence on State Strategies

Many states articulated that the timeline for when the federal COVID-19 relief funds expired greatly influenced their decision-making approach to disbursing funds. States’ disbursement criteria had to meet their priorities, balance the short-term needs of the sector, and consider the sustainability of key programs or strategies.  

• Going into the pandemic, Connecticut examined how to not just address short-term needs, but how to build and strengthen its early childhood system. This allowed Connecticut to ask: (1) Why would they fund something? (2) What were the short-term impacts needed as the system was weakening? and (3) Why would the state continue to fund this long term?

The timeline for when the COVID-19 relief funds expired actively forced states to consider how certain programs could persist beyond the deadline; some states sought to avoid a benefits cliff for families, providers, and the ECE workforce. As a result, many states reported focusing on one-time investments that could yield long-term results such as professional development courses for early childhood educators. 

• In Utah’s case, in response to the pandemic, the state used its ongoing CCDF to enhance existing programs such as adding more funding to expand eligibility. For example, Utah raised income eligibility for subsidies from 65% to 85% of the state median income (SMI), which the state positioned itself to maintain once the emergency funds expired.

While keeping the timeline for the expiration of funds front of mind, states had to balance and reassess their other priorities and the realities of the sector. At times, decisions were made in spite of the anticipated fiscal cliff. In these instances states reported that the urgency of the emergency outweighed the future potential political challenges that may arise from ending a popular program/benefit. The rationale was often: (1) states needed to address an acute issue, and this was the only viable option; or (2) if states achieve substantial change in addressing the problem, then the program’s success could compel key decision-makers to sustain the program, especially if the results increased the number of providers and helped to recruit and retain ECE workers.

The Ability to Adhere to Priorities and Strategies in a Rapid Response Climate

Regardless of where states were with identifying priorities and implementing strategies at the beginning of the pandemic, all states acknowledged that they were in a rapid response climate throughout all of 2020, at the very least.

States were transparent and emphasized that, for the most part, it was difficult to adhere to specific funding blueprints within each of their priorities or core areas. As soon as one plan was created, the problem and need would change. This is why states reported that it was helpful to receive funding iteratively instead of all at once. It allowed states to reexamine how they deployed their most recent strategies and assess their impact on the early childhood sector. Further, this ongoing assessment aided states in building and strengthening their ECE systems, as discussed throughout this report.

RELYING ON GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES AND COORDINATION

States emphasized the necessity of efficient state governance structures in overseeing COVID-19 relief funds, although these structures varied. States remarked that the pandemic highlighted silos, cultures, and practices that needed to be improved. In discussing what “efficiency” meant to them, states described a highly integrated, collaborative, and communicative structure. They mentioned an environment with an investment in necessary resources, without duplication, to support a highly functional operation that could execute aligned priorities in a timely manner, including the disbursement of federal funds. 

Above all, states pointed to the informal relationship-building cultivated by staff within and across agencies that drove open communication, collaboration, and efficiency. There was a shared desire among staff to execute priorities by delivering funds to providers in a timely manner.

Consolidated and Integrated Lead Agencies

States, including Connecticut, Maine, and South Carolina, discussed how a more consolidated and integrated early childhood office or agency helped them more effectively provide resources to providers. However, for other states, many of their agencies and offices had to obtain memorandums of agreement and receive the state legislature’s approval of them, resulting in significant delays in disbursing COVID-19 relief funds.

• Connecticut credits its governance structure with enabling the funds to get out to providers quickly. The Office of Early Childhood is a cabinet-level childhood agency that reports directly to the Governor. This allowed Connecticut to view all the early childhood-related funding streams and the various regulations as a whole instead of divided funding pots, which would have been the case if the office had been more decentralized. Estimates showed that 40% of early childhood facilities could not stay open without federal funds. It is now estimated that Connecticut lost less than 1% of child care capacity throughout the pandemic.
• Similarly, in 2019, Maine moved its children’s licensing from a separate part of HHS into the Office of Child and Family Services (OCFS) to foster greater alignment and coordination between the licensing and subsidy teams, allowing the office to be intricately connected with providers from the start of the pandemic. The move mitigated many of OCFS’ concerns about conflicting messaging to providers, especially at the start of the pandemic when providers were challenged with meeting new health and safety guidelines and completing the application process for stabilization funds.

Some states also noted that new administrations and turnover affected coordination at the start of the pandemic. In one state, new department leadership and a multi-agency consolidation (combining of relevant agencies) accompanied the outset of the pandemic, which compounded staff and agency bandwidth restrictions and involved some turnover in institutional knowledge.  

Enhanced Communication

States articulated that having clear direction and support from the Governor’s office was foundational to cultivating consistent and collaborative communication with the lead and coordinating agencies and the stakeholders themselves, especially providers.

• New Mexico’s Early Childhood Education & Care Department (ECECD) is a cabinet-level department, which allowed for daily direct communication between the Governor and Secretary of ECECD on administering COVID-19 relief funds to support the ECE sector. In turn, what was discussed in cabinet meetings was often shared with agency officials and staff in close to real-time, which helped to maintain alignment in a rapid response climate. Further, the Secretary ECECD ensured that providers received relevant information as close to real-time as possible. The aim was to alleviate providers’ concerns to the greatest extent possible, given the level of instability they were experiencing, and to build great trust in the early childhood community from day one of the pandemic.

In other states, like Ohio and Rhode Island, it was often a best practice to have the Governors’ senior advisors maintain open and consistent communication with early childhood state administrators, staff, providers, and stakeholders.

• In Rhode Island, the Governor’s early childhood advisors communicated with the state’s Department of Human Services, which housed the Office of Child Care, multiple times a day. They also had monthly early childhood leadership meetings to craft what the early childhood plan would look like, including what agencies and departments had ownership over the federal funds.
• In Ohio, the Governor’s Office and the Department of Job and Family Services, convened a small group of providers and stakeholders weekly to review the administration’s ideas every Wednesday at 6:00 p.m. before officially presenting any plans to their 6,000 providers. Ohio shared that this partnership helped to build trust with providers and to identify any unintended consequences.

For other states, meeting the needs of the early childhood community during the pandemic helped to drive a reorganization.

• Iowa officially started its reorganization in 2022 to consolidate its field operation and policy division under a new Child Care team, which was completed in early 2023. The Child Care team was developed to bring together policy and practice to better serve Iowa families and child care providers. There had been interest over the years for the two divisions to combine, but it became more of a natural fit as the Health and Human Services (HHS) Director also became the Interim Director for Public Health and oversaw both agencies during the entire time of the pandemic. Iowa’s HHS is the lead CCDF agency.

AUTHORIZING FEDERAL FUNDS

The responsibilities of and the relationship between the Governor and the state legislature were pivotal in the timing of fund disbursement, the viability and sustainability of programs, the amount of funding invested into the ECE sector, and building trust among the early childhood community.

Authority Residing with the Governor

Some states, including Alabama, Iowa, Kentucky, and New Mexico, explained that the Governor had full discretion over the disbursement of CCDF supplemental funds under CARES, CRRSA, and ARP. These states did not need the state legislature’s approval to appropriate the funds. However, if these states wanted to access Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) under ARP to invest in the ECE sector, then the state legislature had the authority to appropriate such funds.

It was articulated that for federal funds authorized under CARES and CRRSA, the state legislature often supported the work of the Governor because of the rapid response climate. However, when it came to ARP funds, in certain instances, some state legislators increased their scrutiny of how federal funds were being used and the impact on the early childhood sector. Questions included but were certainly not limited to:

• How did the Governor’s office and lead agency ensure that funding was distributed equitably across the state?
• How was the lead agency evaluating the impact of the funds on the early childhood sector?
• What strategies have been the most impactful, and should the state legislature explore sustainable funding for these strategies?
• What efforts is the lead agency making to mitigate the impact of the expiration of this additional federal funding?
• What are the lead agency’s concerns about the impact on families and providers if enacted policies were to be rescinded? How will these concerns be addressed?

In Kentucky, the legislature convened two interim task forces to focus specifically on early care and education and the timeline for the expiration of COVID-19 relief funds. Both task forces educated legislators on the issues facing the sector and the intricacies of child care programs.

States viewed much of the scrutiny as helpful and beneficial to their work, although some states acknowledged they faced some skepticism about appropriating additional funds to the sector because of the significant amount of federal funds flowing to states. State leaders reported that this sometimes complicated appropriations discussions or delayed appropriations for early childhood programs by more than six months, especially state funds for long-term initiatives.

Authority Residing with the State Legislature

In some states, the Governor had full discretion on how to spend CCDF supplemental funds. In others, the state legislature had the authority to appropriate the supplemental funds, which, in some cases, substantially delayed the disbursement process.

• Timing in the appropriation and spending of funding varied due to factors such as the state legislature’s relationship with the Governor, the timing of the legislative session, how early childhood was prioritized by the state legislature, and advocates weighing in on funding decisions.
• In one state, the state legislature’s timeline for appropriating and placing stipulations on both CARES and CRRSA funds created such significant delays that state administrators immediately switched to ARP funds when they became available due to ARP’s greater flexibility.
• Another state explained that for the CARES and CRRSA funds, the state legislature worked quickly to appropriate the funds. However, when it came to ARP funds, there was over a six-month delay due to the scrutiny of how previous funding streams were being spent.

The Relationship between the Governor and State Legislature

Overall, many Governor’s offices described a good working relationship with the state legislature and pointed to some best practices they adopted to invest in the relationship, including states with split party control between the Governor and state legislature. Best practices included building trust and alignment with the early childhood community and using data and findings from key programs to make the case for further state investments. 

• Colorado explained that creating a framework with strategies primarily designed by the early childhood community helped to further coalesce the state legislature to support the Governor and CDEC in hitting its articulated goals. Most state legislators viewed the framework as being devised by a diverse array of their constituents, including providers, families, school districts, businesses, and advocacy groups.
• In one state with split party control, the state legislature commissioned a study to review how the state financed the ECE sector, which subsequently contributed to a set of recommendations for the Governor and state legislature to implement.
• Utah’s Office of Child Care kept relevant state legislative committees informed in lockstep about how COVID-relief funds were being spent on the early childhood sector. While the State Legislature meets for 40 days at the beginning of the year, it also holds monthly interim meetings. The state attributes this consistent and open communication, in part, to why the State Legislature’s appropriation of funds did not delay the Office of Child Care’s disbursement process.
• In North Carolina, where the Governor is a Democrat and the Republicans hold control of the General Assembly, the Division of Child Development and Early Education worked closely with advocates to build a trusting working relationship. This included aligning early childhood priorities and requests so that the General Assembly would not receive mixed messages from the Division and the early childhood community. State leaders reported that there were a few times when alignment was not achieved, but most of the time, the administration and early childhood community found common ground. The Governor also maintained bipartisan discussions around early childhood priorities.

Some states have expressed concern about how the Governor and state legislature will work together to continue investments in the early childhood sector when the COVID-19 relief funds expire.

• States across the political spectrum also explained that while many state legislatures understand the sector remains fragile, many still underestimate its instability and what effects it will have on the nation’s overall workforce. This is partly because some believe the funds invested over the past three years are sufficient to stabilize the sector.
• State legislatures are dealing with competing interests that must also vie for state funds. In response, some state administrations are evaluating certain early childhood programs (e.g., workforce compensation, elimination of co-pays) and plan to use those findings to make the case for further investments in the sector.

DISBURSING FUNDS

In disbursing funds, states implemented systems that prioritized accessibility and ease of use by all grantees, especially providers.

Structuring Stabilization Programs

All states focused on getting funds out the door quickly through various approaches, with two factors playing a significant role in their decision-making: (1) the immediate needs to stabilize providers, especially at the beginning of the pandemic; and (2) the time-limited nature of funds/programs, creating programs or decisions that could survive past the expiration of COVID-19 relief funds.

In creating sustainable programs, states identified programs that needed one-time investments, could be supported through SLFRF, or could be supported by federal funds other than COVID-19 relief funds.

• For example, some states decided to calculate funding formulas using enrollment numbers instead of the former widespread method of basing funding on daily attendance to give providers more predictability in their revenue, which is vital for their continued business operations. States like Alabama, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey plan to maintain this change in subsequent years.  
• In Connecticut, there was a lot of concern about the expiration of federal emergency funds, and how the state could increase reimbursement rates during the pandemic and maintain them after the emergency funds expire. Connecticut had increased state reimbursement rates by 50% for infants and toddlers and doubled the number of slots by adding 1,300 new spaces in 2021. These became stable funding sources for more programs. In Governor Ned Lamont’s subsequent two-year budget, there was an 11% increase for the next three years in subsidy rates and increased preschool state-funded rates as well. In addition, the Governor allocated ARP funds to mitigate any effects when emergency federal funds expired. Connecticut also saved $23 million in ARP funds to send out in September 2023 to extend the aid as long as possible.
• When ARP funds became available, New Jersey looked to the most vulnerable spaces that still needed emergency support to leverage the funds and sustain transformative programs. One area was further supporting families and decreasing out-of-pocket costs. Pre-pandemic, New Jersey lowered co-pays by 50% and then eliminated them by using ARP funds. The Governor’s 2023 budget directed that state investments continue to eliminate co-payments for the fiscal year. In addition, New Jersey used ARP funds to pay an enhanced rate of an additional $300 per child per month to providers during the pandemic. This enhanced rate also became part of providers’ permanent base rate through a mix of increased federal funds and state investments.
• Utah deliberately decided to primarily use CCDF funds to invest in programs that directly benefited families, including using such funds to increase the income eligibility for child care subsidies. Additionally, Utah’s initial operations grant to support providers was eye-opening because it showed there were gaps in providers’ business knowledge. The state primarily used CCDF funds to establish a partnership with Salt Lake Community College to provide business classes to providers, including a focus on developing business plans and offering business coaching.

States also ensured their formulas accounted for different setting types by looking at data, including Census data.

• For example, when Connecticut issued its stabilization grants, the state gave 20% more to center-based providers because of estimated overhead costs. However, when Connecticut decided to disburse additional funds to areas of SVIs higher than .6 or .8 across the state, data pointed to the need to support family-based providers. The data showed some programs just missed the SVI cutoff but were still serving children from areas with high SVIs and located in very close proximity to high SVI Census tracks. In response, Connecticut integrated the use of zip codes with SVI to ensure more programs serving children from high-need families were eligible for the funding inclusive of family child care.   

Disbursing Funds to Support the ECE Workforce

In terms of the ECE workforce, states explained that the anticipation of the fiscal cliff was a strong factor in how they decided to disburse funds and a key challenge to creating sustainable workforce programs. Most states shared that as funds expire, they expect the workforce shortage may increase without additional federal or state investments.

Some states articulated that a lot of the guidance issued by the Office of Child Care under the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) directed states to invest in compensation. Interestingly, some states felt this guidance was given with the expectation of Build Back Better passage, or that that additional funding would be allocated by Congress, which states were reluctant to rely on.

States said they had to balance the certainty of current funding with the uncertainty of future funding and focus on workforce strategies that would not be disadvantaged by the firm expiration date of the funds from ARP. Certain states, including Alabama and Rhode Island, shared that one of the reasons they structured workforce payments as bonuses, rather than increasing salaries, was due to the timeline for expiration of federal COVID-19 relief funds. In these cases, it was incumbent on state officials to be transparent about the timeline and purpose for which such benefits were provided.

• Alabama administered eight rounds of workforce stabilization bonus payments with ARP funds that providers could apply to receive. The program ended in September 2023.
• Rhode Island offered bonus payments that did not go through the providers. Instead, the state offered payments directly to child care educators and marketed it as a pandemic-relief benefit to minimize confusion about why the program may come to an end after COVID-19 relief funds expire.

Other states focused on a hybrid model.

• North Carolina adopted a hybrid model and gave child care providers discretion on how to invest in their staff, once they proved to have a salary scale. The state took the approach that providers would know how best to retain their workers.

Additionally, states focused on one-time workforce investments with federal funds that could lead to sustained outcomes or programs that could be maintained through other funding sources.

• Alabama explained the state was deliberate in its effort to avoid creating a new benefits cliff for their ECE workforce and instead leveraged child care and education as part of an employee-benefit package similar to health care benefits. The state provided eight quarterly bonuses over a two-year period.
• New Jersey distributed over $80 million in $1,000 hiring and retention bonuses for ECE workers.

States like Colorado, Iowa, Kentucky, and Utah used federal funds to pilot employer-sponsored early childhood programs.

• Colorado shared that employer-based child care was one of the strategies their stakeholders had identified and also cited research findings on employee retention and morale benefits to support its decision. The state used a design lab to provide technical assistance to potential applicants on how best to design, plan, and build facilities for providing employer-based child care. Colorado disbursed $7.26 million to 14 grantees, which was widely successful. In response, the legislature added $10 million to continue the work in the 2023 legislative session, and an additional $3 million to use through 2024.

States, including Kentucky, used the emergency CCDF supplemental funds to support professional development for early childhood educators with the goal of increasing hiring and earning potential for educators who stay in child care or preschool programs.

• Kentucky offered scholarships to providers to pay for educators’ certificates, bachelor’s degrees, and master’s degrees in partnership with 22 higher education institutions. The program awarded over 1150 scholarships for more than 600 individual scholars supported by ARP funds. Kentucky identified other funding streams to cover this expansion and will use part of its $36 million in PDG funds to continue the program.

As states transitioned out of a rapid response climate, many adjusted their funding formulas to increase the effectiveness of their impact. However, some states explained that adjustments or changes to their funding formulas had unintended consequences.

• For example, one state shared that later in the pandemic, its Advisory Council issued a recommendation that providers had to show a financial loss to receive stabilization funds. This impacted many providers who had received stabilization grants under CARES and CRRSA because they could no longer show the loss needed to receive ARP funds despite the volatility of the early childhood sector.

Designing the Application

States also adopted an operational-like mantra of “quick and easy” when designing the user experience to apply for funds. At the beginning of the pandemic, many states moved from paper to online applications, which significantly reduced application errors and saved staff time and maintenance. Online systems also helped streamline the renewal and redetermination process.

• South Carolina modeled its application portal after its Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) benefits portal. The aim was for providers to enter as little information as possible and, on the back end, have the portal talk to the subsidy, licensing, and quality systems to populate most information.
• Maine placed all applications online, with no more than seven questions and attestations, to expedite funds to providers. While federal statute required providers to apply monthly for stabilization grants, Maine structured the process so providers with no significant changes month to month need not reapply for a period of up to 12 months by having applications rolled over monthly for 12 months, which lowered the administrative burden on ECE providers. Further, when Maine transferred the federally-supported stipends to state-supported funding streams, as long as the information was in the system, the provider data still rolled into the application automatically to maintain efficiencies.

While most states limited the number of application questions and attestations, states varied on reporting requirements. This variance was based on the lack of data states had to inform disbursement strategies and measure impact and uncertainty regarding what the federal government would ask for earlier in the pandemic. However, most states tried not to add many reporting requirements during the disbursement of CARES funding due to the rapid response climate and to mitigate unnecessary burdens on providers.

Providing Technical Assistance

All states agreed that communication and accessibility were critical to connecting with providers and educating them about funding opportunities.

• Most states took an “everything” outreach approach: text, email, and physical mail. They acknowledged that mass emails were not always effective because providers were using email systems that marked agency emails as spam. Further, providers were overwhelmed at the time and different modalities helped to increase their chances of learning about funding programs.
• States hosted virtual office hours, calls, and webinars, or created a customer service hotline to provide technical assistance on applications.
• States, including Iowa, Ohio, South Carolina, and Utah worked with their Child Care Resource and Referral (CCR&R) in providing technical assistance. For example, Ohio explained that as the state became more refined in the application process, the Department of Job and Family Services worked with the Ohio Child Care Resource & Referral Association to connect with providers, especially those who did not apply, to educate them about the financial supports available and to emphasize the ease of the application process.
• States also remarked how partnering with community and advocacy organizations to educate providers about funding opportunities and providing technical assistance during the application process helped to build greater trust between the early childhood community, parents, and policymakers. This was particularly helpful in addressing language barriers. 

Further, many states, including Kentucky and North Carolina, emphasized the need to professionalize child care providers as small businesses, especially family-care providers. States explained that business viability for most providers relied on extremely thin profit margins, and many providers were taking out business loans and incurring personal credit card debt to remain open. In response, states provided business support to providers to improve business operations, including tax advising to inform them how to account for the stabilization grants on their taxes. This support also better situated providers to respond to additional requirements by improving their recordkeeping.

MODERNIZING DATA SYSTEMS & STRENGTHENING DATA COLLECTION

The massive influx of federal funds in the successive COVID-19 relief bills forced many states to improve and integrate their early childhood data systems, including modernizing technology and strengthening data collection and evaluation. Many states had not updated portions of their data systems in 20 years, and certain states identified the 2012 Race to the Top education funds as the last significant investment in their data systems.

The Challenges of Dated Data Systems

Many states lacked an integrated data system where the workforce registry, eligibility, subsidy, licensing, and quality systems talked to each other. Even more, many states were already deficient in one or more of these systems, which compounded the barriers to disbursing federal funds efficiently. Therefore, when the pandemic hit, many states relied on end-of-life technology and did not possess key systems to disburse COVID-19 relief funds efficiently, slowing the process.

Whether states had to make relatively minor or substantial data system changes, many states used the pandemic as an opportunity to update aspects of their systems, which informed disbursement strategies and improved data collection.

• Maine linked salary stipends to the workforce registry, resulting in a significant increase in the use of the registry and updated information provided by ECE workers.
• Connecticut launched a parent portal to assist families in applying for subsidies and increased access to subsidy information.
• Colorado developed an automated version of an Early Care and Education workforce data dashboard using data from the Professional Development Information System (PDIS) to support better understanding of workforce size, roles, qualifications, geographic distribution, turnover, and more. COVID-19 relief funds were used to increase help desk support and improve customer service within the workforce registry. An example of customer service improvements includes the implementation of a chatbot (Petey), which has improved customer response time by answering common questions from the field and providing navigation of the site without having to contact the Help Desk.
• Rhode Island leveraged both competitive PDG funding and COVID-19 relief funding to invest in improving the operational data systems, including the workforce registry, licensing system of record, provider portal, and consumer website. Once the new workforce registry launches in early 2024, the information collected through the state’s Pandemic Retention Bonus program will be uploaded into the registry, allowing early educators to confirm their information as opposed to needing to build a new profile.

Updating Data Systems

Whether states procured vendors or worked with their in-house information technology (IT) teams, states experienced different timelines in updating their systems. This meant that states had varying resources from which to collect data and inform strategies, communicate efficiently with stakeholders, and expedite the disbursement process.

Some states said having in-house IT teams gave them the flexibility to make data systems modifications throughout the pandemic and provided significant cost-savings, allowingthat money to go  directly to the early childhood community. However, two major challenges some states faced were that IT teams often did not have expertise in designing early childhood systems or that the IT teams had competing interests. Some states remarked that the pandemic and emergency relief funds increased the need for system build-outs for other programs such as emergency rental assistance, Medicaid, and SNAP. 

• Conversely, in South Carolina, the IT team was housed within the Department of Social Services and already had a close working relationship with the Division of Early Care and Education. This allowed for sufficient support and expertise to develop key systems within one month.

Other states expressed frustration with how long the procurement process took to secure a vendor. One state explained that it leveraged flexibilities from the COVID-19 exigency and existing contracts to the degree possible to obviate procurement challenges. Some states began the procurement process at the beginning of the pandemic and have only now secured vendors. Additionally, some states remarked about the high cost of using outside vendors, although a few states explained they used SLFRF and PDG funds to support the work.

Collecting and Making Meaning of the Data

In tracking and collecting data, many states identified data gaps that presented challenges in determining program eligibility and funding amounts to providers, the ECE workforce, and other stakeholders.

States had difficulties understanding supply and demand in the sector, such as enrollment patterns and provider capacity. For example, aside from the subsidy enrollment, some states could not verify if private pay providers were full or what their capacity looked like, particularly when there was a significant decline in enrollment due to lockdowns and waves of COVID-19 cases before vaccinations.

• In North Carolina, the state had access to sufficient data to better analyze the sector’s supply side. Due to its Quality Rating and Improvement System being embedded in licensing, North Carolina explained it had hard-to-get data around licensed capacity, such as per square footage, and how many children could be in a family- or center-based facility. For example, for a center with a gymnasium that had a licensed capacity of 500 children, North Carolina could calculate that the center would never have more than 185 children realistically.
• Ohio also had good data during the pandemic to address supply and demand. For example, the state had data on the number of licensed programs, licensed capacity, highly rated programs, early childhood professionals, administrators, leader teachers, substitutes and floaters, etc. The state also used Census data (children under the age of 6) to understand access. All the pooled data helped Ohio to determine how to invest federal funds, especially with high workforce turnover rates and having a better understanding of who was leaving the workforce. Further, due to the workforce data collected, Governor Mike DeWine proposed $150 million in scholarships to further recruit and retain staff.
• To better understand supply and demand, Connecticut built out its eligibility system by tracking and collecting data on families accessing early childhood programs and monitoring how quickly they were coming off the waitlist.
• Maine used ARP funds to incentivize providers to provide specific data. There was a data gap around the age and enrollment of children, especially in certain areas of the state such as rural areas. In response, providers were incentivized to report their enrollment by age and waitlist in a 12-month period.

• The state also explained that before the pandemic, it worked with the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) on a supply and demand analysis, which revealed a statewide 10% supply and demand gap, the lowest of all states analyzed by BPC. However, the gap was higher in rural areas. Maine used this information during the pandemic to invest in areas where the gaps existed and gave certain preferences to facilities in rural areas and family-based care providers.

Many states did not maintain accurate data and/or records on their ECE workforce, despite complying with robust federal background check requirements for the sector. Some states did not even have a workforce registry at the start of the pandemic. States struggled with collecting workforce data such as the number of full-time employees (FTEs) providers had, including FTEs in different positions, and the range of salaries being paid. As such, some states only had the option to disburse workforce compensation through the providers instead of directly to the workers. 

However, some states were better positioned to collect workforce data to better assess their return on investment of disbursed federal funds.

• For example, at the beginning of the pandemic, Ohio had a robust professional development registry with Ohio-approved courses and training. In improving its data collection, Ohio created a workforce data dashboard from its registry to track the number of professionals  in various positions, such as lead teacher and assistant positions. When disbursing each iteration of COVID-19 relief funds, the state asked workers to input their wages (over a three-year period) to the registry, which allowed Ohio to track the average wage of professionals. The state also disaggregated pay based on its star quality rating system because the QRIS system utilized the registry. The data showed increased wages across positions and provided evidence to show the program’s effectiveness when questions were asked.

Further, states acknowledged that considerable data gaps meant addressing location- and population-based disparities in access to quality care was a challenge, even as it was consistently a concern states raised. While states discussed accounting for the social vulnerability index when calculating funding formulas, the lack of modernized data systems and insufficient data capacity hamstrung states in their efforts to address inequities and improve access, especially for populations and locations experiencing the most barriers.

• For example, during the pandemic, North Carolina’s framework for thinking about data was data systems, data availability, making meaning of the data, and the ability to overlay data and do data analysis. In addition to improving its data systems and collection, the state had a data analysis team and a data scientist lead that could overlay data, including Census data, to tailor funding formulas to communities with a high social vulnerability index.

CONCLUSION

Serious concerns about the fragility of the early childhood sector existed before the pandemic. However, the historic level of COVID-19 relief funds was a tipping point for how states could and, in fact, did, leverage resources to stand up and strengthen infrastructure to help stabilize the sector.

The strategic decisions behind how states disbursed funds clearly show that states had to reexamine the entirety of their early childhood systems (both the supply and demand sides), including their priorities, governance structure, working relationship with their state legislatures, the application design process, and data systems. Despite working in a rapid response climate, states have proven they can build the necessary infrastructure and operations that fully appreciate the business model of the early childhood sector with consistent investments in resources, necessary flexibilities, and integrated systems.

“Optimizing Federal COVID Relief Funds: State Perspectives on Bolstering Child Care and Early Childhood Systems” was written by Dana T. Weekes, Principal of Thrive Architects, and Jessica N. Drapela and Malaïka John, with support from NGA Center staff including, Jessica Kirchner, Elijah McCabe, Ekaan Ahmad, and Jordan Hynes.

This report was made possible by Heising-Simons Foundation.

The post Optimizing Federal COVID Relief Funds: State Perspectives on Bolstering Child Care and Early Childhood Systems appeared first on National Governors Association.

(Download)

Congenital syphilis poses a significant public health challenge in the United States, affecting maternal and child populations. This issue brief provides an overview of what congenital syphilis is, its impact on mothers and infants, and the importance of early screening and treatment. Additionally, it discusses policy considerations for Governors to address the rising incidence and highlights the public health implications of neglecting the surge of congenital syphilis.

Between 2015 and 2019, there was a nearly 30 percent increase in syphilis cases across the U.S. Specifically, congenital syphilis rates escalated by 582 percent over the last decade. Congenital syphilis rose most among Medicaid beneficiaries, who experience rates six times higher than patients with private insurance. Between 2020 and 2021, 37 states saw rates continue to rise, resulting in 2,855 reported cases. Of those cases, 220 resulted in stillbirth and infant death.

Infants diagnosed with congenital syphilis may experience a range of health issues, including developmental delays, organ damage, anemia and nervous system complications. If left untreated, congenital syphilis can result in long-term health complications, such as blindness and deafness. In addition to major health impacts, congenital syphilis hospitalizations cost an average of $58,000. Furthermore, congenital syphilis disproportionately affects historically marginalized communities. Addressing this issue is essential for achieving health equity and reducing health disparities among different populations.

Congenital syphilis is preventable with timely and appropriate prenatal care, which requires prenatal disease screening and access to treatment. A study evaluating over 100 congenital syphilis cases diagnosed between 2014 and 2018 found that delayed or limited access to prenatal care increased congenital syphilis rates. In many cases, screening for syphilis is not prioritized or available due to a lack of funding or available clinics. For example, states may not have the available funding to bolster their disease intervention specialist workforce whose focus is contact tracing diseases like syphilis that are often dormant for years. This funding often comes from federal grants or must be earmarked in state budgets.

In addition to access issues, low health literacy rates and social drivers such as poverty, stigma around substance use during pregnancy, citizenship status and lack of health care coverage have all been cited as barriers to syphilis testing and treatment. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) refers to health literacy as the ability for individuals “to find, understand, and use information and services to inform health-related decisions and actions for themselves and others.” At least 36 percent of U.S. adults are considered to have low health literacy, which is directly linked to greater health care costs. The U.S. Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion has developed a National Action Plan to Improve Health Literacy that sites programs and policy opportunities to improve health outcomes by bolstering health literacy, including community engagement in program design and tailoring communication campaigns to target populations.

Early and universal screening during pregnancy is an effective way to prevent syphilis before it is passed in utero. A 2019 study showed mothers with a syphilis diagnosis over 36 weeks pregnant were 25 times more likely to deliver a baby with congenital syphilis than those diagnosed at 12 weeks or less into their pregnancy.

Congenital syphilis is syndemic with substance use, incarceration and social drivers impacting rising disease rates and related outbreaks. A 2023 CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report found that mothers delivering babies with congenital syphilis were twice as likely to have used substances (tobacco, alcohol, cannabis or illicit opioids) during pregnancy.

Syndemic: Synergistic epidemics or “the presence of two or more disease states that adversely interact with each other, negatively affecting the mutual course of each disease trajectory, enhancing vulnerability, and made more deleterious by experienced inequities.” Source: The Lancet, 2017

Nearly 40 percent of pregnant women who use substances did not receive prenatal care. A fear of punishment, removal of the infant, imprisonment or other penalties may reduce the likelihood of a pregnant person seek treatment. In 25 states, substance use during pregnancy is considered child abuse and can be grounds for terminating parental rights. To prevent adverse outcomes and future congenital syphilis cases, the Louisiana STD/HIV/Hepatitis Program developed an initiative that empowers clients to make informed decisions about their care and connects women of childbearing age with a syphilis diagnosis to a case manager. The case manager links these women to resource needs, such as food, housing and transportation, as well as health needs, including substance use and mental health care.

Furthermore, people entering correctional facilities have a higher prevalence of syphilis than the general population. Screening and early treatment in jails and prisons can reduce the congenital syphilis rates. For example, the North Dakota Department of Health instituted a rapid syphilis screening program in partnership with county corrections to manage transmission among women in a local jail and provide proper treatment.

The long-term health consequences of congenital syphilis can lead to increased health care costs, special education needs and decreased quality of life for affected individuals. Preventing congenital syphilis is a cost-effective investment in the overall health of society. Additionally, Medicaid beneficiaries are less likely to seek prenatal care than those with private insurance. A study of Medicaid claims data from three states shows average screening rates of 74 percent among women without a recent history of STIs and 84.5 percent for those with a recent history of STIs. For many, Medicaid eligibility is tied to pregnancy, and the change in insurance coverage may result in interrupted care and delayed access to services. Bundled payments, although important in improving the value of care for patients, can also make it difficult to measure screening rates. When providers are reimbursed for a full pregnancy, they may be less likely to report each service, resulting in under reporting of syphilis screening. Depending on coverage and the state’s Medicaid program, those getting tested may need to pay out-of-pocket for the test and get reimbursed, which may pose a barrier to care.

Currently, 42 states require syphilis screening during certain stages of pregnancy, e.g., first trimester through delivery. The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends universal screening for all pregnant women, and the CDC recommends screening at the first prenatal visit.  For those at high risk for syphilis, previously untested or living in areas of high syphilis morbidity, the CDC also recommends another screening during the third trimester and at delivery.

As of 2021, 16 states required syphilis screening in the third trimester or at delivery. Other states require third trimester or delivery screening only if the patient is determined to have a higher risk. Recently, the Mississippi Board of Health and Department of Health issued an emergency order to adapt screening laws, requiring physicians to test all pregnant people for syphilis at delivery while also stating that providers should ensure appropriate treatment for both syphilis infections during pregnancy and for congenital syphilis infections.

A survey of clinicians and medical students conducted from 2016 to 2017 shows that provider knowledge and awareness of syphilis was low. Another survey from both the CDC and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists found that clinicians also have low awareness of guidelines on syphilis management in pregnancy . Low awareness among clinicians has been attributed to an inadequate public health infrastructure to share knowledge and training among prenatal care providers as well as provide resources for screening and treatment. Providers also cited limited resources to help manage a syphilis diagnosis alongside social comorbidities, e.g., homelessness, poverty and more. Many states, including New York and North Carolina, are spreading awareness to the provider community by issuing health advisories about rising syphilis rates among pregnant women. California hosts in-person provider trainings and encourages providers to complete the National STD Curriculum or virtual syphilis training available from the California Prevention Training Center.

Other states, like Alaska, have dedicated state funding to eliminate congenital syphilis. Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy’s FY2024 budget devoted $9.5 million to the state’s Department of Health for the healthy families initiative, which includes plans to eliminate congenital syphilis.  New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham signed a bill during the 2023 legislative session to  eliminate copays for STI screening. Some states and health plans are taking it a step further by providing financial incentives for prenatal visits. In 2019, the Oregon Health Authority launched an HIV and syphilis care incentive program that provides gift cards for each treatment visit to pregnant women with syphilis. Similarly, Molina Healthcare, a Medicaid managed care organization, incentivizes prenatal care and healthy pregnancies in Ohio through Molina Rewards 4 Health, rewarding members up to $250 for visiting their doctors and providing free rides to appointments. Similarly, CareSource’s Babies First Program in Georgia allows expecting mothers to receive up to $265 for seeing their doctor regularly.

Congenital syphilis is a preventable and treatable public health issue that requires concerted efforts at the policy and community levels. Governors play a crucial role in shaping policies that can effectively address congenital syphilis rates, promoting the health and well-being of mothers and infants across the United States. Investing in prevention, education and access to healthcare services is vital for achieving positive health outcomes and reducing the burden of congenital syphilis on society.

Authored by Michelle LeBlanc with contributions from Eden Moore

The post Issue Brief: Congenital Syphilis appeared first on National Governors Association.

The Learning Collaborative is supported through the NGA Center’s participation in the U.S. Department of Labors’ State Exchange on Employment & Disability – a unique state-federal collaboration that supports state and local governments in adopting and implementing inclusive policies and practices that lead to increased employment opportunities for workers with disabilities.  

Through participation in the Learning Collaborative, six state teams, from Maryland, Minnesota, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, and Vermont, will receive customized technical assistance from the NGA Center as they develop plans to expand employment and training opportunities for people with disabilities. Facilitated peer learning opportunities and assistance from national subject matter experts will also help to inform their action plans.  

Along with the Learning Collaborative, the NGA Center is offering additional states the opportunity to join a disability inclusive workforce policy Community of Practice. States who join the Community of Practice will have access to select resources and peer learning opportunities developed for the Learning Collaborative. 

For more information about the Learning Collaborative and the NGA Center’s work to support Governors in achieving their disability employment policy goals, please contact Jack Porter at jporter@nga.org. 

The post Disability Inclusive Workforce Policy Learning Collaborative appeared first on National Governors Association.

The Learning Collaborative is supported through the NGA Center’s participation in the U.S. Department of Labors’ State Exchange on Employment & Disability – a unique state-federal collaboration that supports state and local governments in adopting and implementing inclusive policies and practices that lead to increased employment opportunities for workers with disabilities.  

In October 2023, the NGA Center hosted a Disability Inclusive Workforce Policy Summit in Washington, DC. The Summit marked the 10^th anniversary of former Delaware Governor Jack Markell’s NGA Chair’s Initiative, A Better Bottom Line, which culminated in a blueprint for Governors on advancing employment opportunities for people with disabilities. The Summit also came during National Disability Employment Awareness Month and brought together interagency teams from seven states to highlight Governors’ leadership on disability inclusive workforce policy and workshop their policy priorities on this key issue. 

As Governors work to confront an extremely tight labor market, efforts to reduce barriers to workforce participation are increasingly critical for developing a skilled workforce and filling in-demand jobs. This includes expanding inclusive, accessible career opportunities for people with disabilities, who historically experience higher rates of unemployment than people without disabilities. Through their participation in the Learning Collaborative, the six state teams will receive customized technical assistance from the NGA Center to advance policy solutions that meet these challenges. Facilitated peer learning opportunities and assistance from national subject matter experts will also help to inform their action plans.  

Along with the Learning Collaborative, the NGA Center is offering additional states the opportunity to join a disability inclusive workforce policy Community of Practice. States who join the Community of Practice will have access to select resources and peer learning opportunities developed for the Learning Collaborative. 

For more information about the Learning Collaborative and the NGA Center’s work to support Governors in achieving their disability employment policy goals, please contact Jack Porter at jporter@nga.org. 

The post Six States Selected to Participate in NGA Disability Inclusive Workforce Policy Learning Collaborative   appeared first on National Governors Association.

The National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center), with funding from Walmart.org, is launching a State Community of Practice (CoP) focused on skills-based hiring in the public sector. This effort will bring together states, particularly those who have made significant steps to remove degree barriers for public sector roles, to learn about skills-based hiring strategies and emerging best practices for talent development. This CoP will include monthly virtual cohort engagements with experts and implementation partners between January 2024 and September 2024. The cohort will also have access to a large convening on skills-driven practices in Washington DC in April of 2024. Travel costs for attendance of cohort state representatives will be covered by NGA. The initial deadline to complete this interest form is Friday, January 19th. Additional states may be added after that date on a case-by-case basis. 

For more information on this project please contact: Amanda Winters (awinters@nga.org)

The post Skills-Based Hiring in the Public Sector appeared first on National Governors Association.

On December 12 and 13, 2023, the National Governors Association (NGA) hosted its sixth Quarterly Infrastructure Coordinator Workshop in Washington, D.C. This convening brought together Governors’ Infrastructure Coordinators and Energy Advisors from more than 30 states and territories as well as federal officials and private sector practitioners to discuss a range of infrastructure implementation issues currently facing Governors and their staff members. The meeting focused on the delivery of energy infrastructure in the context of record federal energy funding and tax credits in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs and Act (IIJA) and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).

On the first day of the Workshop, Governors’ Infrastructure Coordinators and Energy Advisors convened at the offices of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for an overview of DOE’s energy infrastructure programs and a discussion on how states and territories can leverage these opportunities to strengthen energy systems and the transition to cleaner energy in their jurisdictions. The discussions kicked off with a presentation from Karen Skelton, Senior Advisor in the Office of the Secretary of Energy, on the $8.8 billion Home Energy Rebates Program – a new initiative to improve energy efficiency that will be administered by State Energy Offices. This was followed by a panel session comprising leaders from the Office of State and Community Energy Programs (SCEP), the Grid Deployment Office (GDO) and the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED). During this discussion, Henry McCoy, Director of SCEP, highlighted programs like the $3.5 billion Weatherization Assistance Program for low-income households, the $500 million Renew America’s School Grants program to support energy upgrades in schools and the $260 million in funding for energy workforce development initiatives. Doug Scholtz, Chief Operating Officer at OCED, talked about deploying innovative technologies at scale for true commercial deployment, including opportunities for industrial decarbonization ($6.5 billion available) and innovative projects in rural or remote communities ($1 billion available). Maria Robinson, Director of GDO, underlined progress being made in increasing capacity and improving the resilience of the energy grid through funding opportunities in the IIJA.

Programming at DOE continued with a discussion featuring Jigar Shah, Director of the Loan Program Office (LPO); Zach Valdez, Chief of Staff of the Office of Manufacturing and Energy Supply Chains (MESC); and Gabe Klein, the Executive Director of the Joint Office of Energy and Transportation (JOET). Jigar Shah stressed LPO’s new lending authorities, including the 1706 Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment loan program, which supports the repurposing or replacement of energy infrastructure that has ceased operations, and the State Energy Financing Institution (SEFI) program, which augments state-administered clean energy programs. Zach Valdez from MESC discussed measures to support the battery supply chain to improve U.S. global competitiveness, as well as funding to support the domestic capacity of heat pump manufacturing. Gabe Klein emphasized progress to date in implementing the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) program and fielded questions on this and other programs from state and territory attendees. 

During the afternoon sessions, Governors’ Infrastructure Coordinators and Energy Advisors held productive discussions with leaders from the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), the Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security and Emergency Response (CESER), the Office of Energy (OE), the Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management (FECM), and the Office of Policy (OP). Mara Winn, Deputy Director at CESER, stressed the importance of cybersecurity for energy systems and clarified that state energy security plans are to be “living, breathing” documents. Jeff Marootian, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary at EERE, emphasized EERE’s role as the federal government’s clean energy innovation hub, with a focus on research and development and energy efficiency technology. David Nguyen from the Office of Policy provided an overview of clean energy tax credits in the IRA and discussed opportunities to help states and territories implement these in their jurisdictions. Programming at DOE was rounded out by a meet and greet with U.S. Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm and an in-depth discussion with DOE Deputy Secretary David Turk.

To complement the discussion with federal partners, Infrastructure Coordinators and advisors subsequently headed to the D.C. offices of Deloitte to discuss the private and non-profit sectors’ perspectives on energy infrastructure investment. This session, which was moderated by Jim Thomson, Vice Chair of Deloitte Consulting, and included Bill Abolt, Vice President at AECOM; Amir Nayeri, Head of Business Development, Americas at Meridiam; Sarah Mathias, Government Relations Director at the American Public Power Association; and Brad Hall, Vice President of External Affairs at Appalachian Power, provided corporate perspectives on the future of energy infrastructure development and dived into critical issues facing states and territories. This includes a discussion on new direct pay provisions and transferability, investor risk calculations relating to clean energy tax credits and partnering with public and investor-owned utilities. This discussion wrapped up official activities for day one of the convening.

On the morning of day two of the workshop, Infrastructure Coordinators convened at the Hall of the States for an informal breakfast with the White House Infrastructure Team and Federal Agency Infrastructure Coordinators. Officials from the White House and federal agencies, including the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council, U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of Commerce, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, Federal Communications Commission and the U.S. Department of the Treasury, provided updates on infrastructure programs and recent award announcements and answered questions from Governors’ Infrastructure Coordinators.  Among other programs, participants discussed USDOT’s small/medium bridge grant opportunity, the online portal for entities to pre-register and file for direct pay under the IRA; and state support for CHIPS for America applications. Mitch Landrieu, Senior Advisor to the President and Infrastructure Coordinator, provided remarks on the state of the Biden Administration’s infrastructure efforts and the multifaceted role Governors’ staff plays in implementation. Mayor Landrieu noted that, so far, $400 billion has been allocated for 40,000 projects in 4,500 communities and that the administration hopes to support over 100,000 projects throughout the lifecycle of IIJA, IRA and CHIPS. The morning wrapped up with a fruitful discussion between the infrastructure coordinators on next steps and planning for the next convening.

To follow NGA’s ongoing activities and support for infrastructure implementation, please visit: https://www.nga.org/bestpractices/infrastructure/

The post December 2023 Quarterly Infrastructure Coordinator Workshop appeared first on National Governors Association.

As dollars begin to flow from the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), CHIPS and Science Act and Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), and Governors and their staff increasingly focus on the delivery of infrastructure commitments, NGA has embarked on holding a series of regional workshops across the country focused on infrastructure project delivery and acceleration. The first of these project delivery workshops was held in Nashville, Tennessee, November 29-30, 2023. This convening was hosted in partnership with Tennessee Governor Bill Lee’s Office with a focus on states and territories located in the Southeastern part of the country.

This convening brought together Governors’ Infrastructure Coordinators and other advisors from Southeastern states and territories with NGA Partners and practitioners from the infrastructure project development, concessionaire, financial advisory, legal and consulting sectors. Rather than comprising a series of panel discussions, the workshop focused on facilitated discussions on each topic that were introduced by several speakers. The overall objective of this workshop was for Governors’ advisors to take home an in-depth knowledge of project delivery concepts and an understanding of key issues and debates and for private sector practitioners to have a better appreciation of the challenges facing Governors and their teams as they seek to deliver infrastructure for their communities.

The workshop kicked off November 29 with an overview from the Tennessee team about some of the innovative solutions they have implemented to address infrastructure needs arising from rapid population and economic growth. Representatives from the Nashville International Airport (BNA) discussed their use of innovative delivery approaches to expand the airport to accommodate growing passenger traffic and to improve service delivery, including the construction of an on-site hotel leveraging private sector expertise. Officials from the Tennessee Department of Transportation then provided a detailed overview of the successful replacement of the historic Broadway Bridge in downtown Nashville, noting how they overcame challenges in rebuilding a major piece of infrastructure in a heavily trafficked area. Additionally, Tennessee Deputy Governor and Commissioner of Transportation Butch Eley highlighted the recently passed Transportation Modernization Act and outlined how provisions in the legislation will allow the Department of Transportation to pursue Choice (Express) Lanes and further adopt innovative procurement models such as design-build delivery.

Following introductory presentations from the Tennessee team, attendees dived further into the topic of infrastructure procurement methods. Speakers provided an overview of the range of infrastructure delivery models, such as design-build, progressive design-build, the construction manager/general contractor model, reverse procurement and public private partnerships (P3s). There was a robust dialogue on the pros and cons of different approaches and reflections on critical lessons learned in project procurement. A common observation made during this session was that a key ingredient of a successful project is a well thought-through communications plan, supported by ongoing dialogue with the public and project stakeholders.    

The first day of programming continued with an in-depth discussion on funding and financing, including P3 models. Contributors observed that private infrastructure funds are at an all-time high and are ready to be deployed to support state and territory infrastructure delivery. The discussion also tackled the importance of appropriate risk allocation between the public and private sectors to promote innovation and competition, as well as the ability to incorporate Governors’ priorities in P3 contracts, such as workforce development requirements. Programming on the first day wrapped up with a dialogue on legal considerations. As projects and agreements become more and more complex, the importance of intelligent and thorough legal counsel was emphasized, as was the need to have advisors on board upfront and working “hand-in-glove” with the project team.   

The morning of November 30, attendees reconvened to discuss infrastructure permitting, project integration, and project delivery and oversight. On the topic of infrastructure permitting, participants talked about best practice efforts at the state level to improve state infrastructure permitting processes as well as the power of accurate digital mapping in inter-agency coordination and streamlining approvals. The discussion on infrastructure permitting flowed into a dialogue on project integration and intersections. Contributors highlighted the challenges of delivering water infrastructure improvements in the context of small water systems, the power of bundling projects (e.g., water, broadband) to reduce costs and timelines, as well as the potential benefits of integrating technological improvements into major infrastructure projects, such as the capacity for autonomous vehicles.

During the final session on project delivery, the linkages between successful construction and completion of a project and efforts made upfront in the planning, pre-procurement and procurement phases were highlighted. For example, developing strong relationships, performance criteria and solid processes for future interactions between the project owner and contractor/concessioner can help avoid delays and conflict during the delivery phase. There was also a robust discussion on staff turnover in government agencies and the corresponding loss of institutional knowledge, as well as efforts being made to overcome these challenges.  

NGA thanks Governor Lee’s team for their hospitality and for all their contributions over the course of the two-day convening. NGA also expresses appreciation for state and territory participants, NGA Partners and other practitioners who all contributed to making the event such a success.

To follow NGA’s ongoing activities and support for infrastructure implementation, please visit: https://www.nga.org/bestpractices/infrastructure/

The post NGA Convenes First Regional Project Delivery Workshop for Southeastern States and Territories appeared first on National Governors Association.