American Recovery And Reinvestment Act Funding Research Articles

Impact of 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) health center investments on disadvantaged neighborhoods after recession

BackgroundFederally qualified health centers (FQHCs) are integral to the U.S. healthcare safety net and uniquely situated in disadvantaged neighborhoods. The 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) invested $2 billion in FQHC stimulus during the Great Recession; but it remains unknown whether this investment was associated with extended benefits for disadvantaged neighborhoods.MethodsWe used a propensity-score matched longitudinal design (2008–2012) to examine whether the 2009 ARRA FQHC investment was associated with local jobs and establishments recovery in FQHC neighborhoods. Job change data were obtained from the Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) survey and calculated as an annual rate per 1,000 population. Establishment change data were obtained from the National Neighborhood Data Archive (NaNDA) and calculated as an annual rate per 10,000 population. Establishment data included 4 establishment types: healthcare services, eating/drinking places, retail establishments, and grocery stores. Fixed effects were used to compare annual rates of jobs and establishments recovery between ARRA-funded FQHC census tracts and a matched control group.ResultsOf 50,381 tracts, 2,223 contained ≥ 1 FQHC that received ARRA funding. A higher proportion of FQHC tracts had an extreme poverty designation (11.6% vs. 5.4%), high unemployment rate (45.4% vs. 30.3%), and > 50% minority racial/ethnic composition (48.1% vs. 36.3%). On average, jobs grew at an annual rate of 3.84 jobs per 1,000 population (95% CI: 3.62,4.06). In propensity-score weighted models, jobs in ARRA-funded tracts grew at a higher annual rate of 4.34 per 1,000 (95% CI: 2.56,6.12) relative to those with similar social vulnerability. We observed persistent decline in non-healthcare establishments (-1.35 per 10,000; 95% CI: -1.68,-1.02); but did not observe decline in healthcare establishments.ConclusionsDirect funding to HCs may be an effective strategy to support healthcare establishments and some jobs recovery in disadvantaged neighborhoods during recession, reinforcing the important multidimensional roles HCs play in these communities. However, HCs may benefit from additional investments that target upstream determinants of health to mitigate uneven recovery and neighborhood decline.

The Impact of Intergovernmental Grants on Innovation in Clean Energy and Energy Conservation: Evidence from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

Abstract: President Barack Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) into law in 2009. It awarded massive temporary funding for the objective of reviving the national economy. The purpose of this research was to evaluate the effectiveness of some of the ARRA funds in terms of stimulating innovative activities specifically in renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies. The research question was about whether federal ARRA expenditures issued through decentralized state and local intergovernmental grant programs and designed to spur new energy technologies effectively achieved their legislatively stated objectives. The analysis was based upon a first differenced regression model with instrumental variables using data from 2005 to 2015. The analytical evidence indicates that all else held equal, the ARRA funds successfully stimulated innovative activities in these technology fields. We conclude that a decentralized delivery system conducted through intergovernmental grants can effectively allocate federal expenditures for promoting innovative activity in energytechnology-related fields. We also suggest that short-term and temporary funds such as those supplied by the ARRA can provide a positive longerterm return vis-a-vis innovative activity in these fields.

Justice Implications of Clean Energy Policies and Programs in the United States: A Theoretical and Empirical Exploration

This paper offers both theoretical and empirical analyses to explore energy justice from a policy perspective. We first propose a framework that explicitly connects core functions of clean energy policy instruments (i.e., regulation, financial incentive, government provision, information, and education program) to philosophical groundings of energy justice—distributive, procedural, and recognition justice. To empirically explore distributive energy justice, we examine the racial and socioeconomic disparities in three government-driven clean energy programs in the United States, including (1) the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) smart-grid investment grant (SGIG); (2) utility smart-meter roll out programs; and (3) city government adoption of green buildings. Results showed that the amount of ARRA funding awarded to utilities was closely related to racial composition. Inequalities were also found in utility smart-meter programs. Utilities operating in communities with a larger Hispanic population were less likely to initiate smart-meter roll out. The intensity of smart-meter technology implementation was positively correlated with education levels. Our third empirical case showed that government procurement policy can improve distributive equity for energy-efficient buildings. However, its spillover effects on the private sector can result in more adoptions in areas with fewer minorities and more highly-educated residents.

Assessment of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Upon the Department of Energy Weatherization Assistance Program

AbstractThe Department of Energy (DOE) administers the national low‐income Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP). Under this program, DOE provides grants to states (grantees), which then provide grants to local weatherization agencies (subgrantees), to weatherize income‐eligible homes for free. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 allocated $5 billion in funding to WAP, a very significant increase from an annual appropriation that ranged in the $200–250 million range for many years. As part of a major evaluation of WAP, states and local weatherization agencies were surveyed, in part, to assess their experiences during the ARRA period. The substantial funding increase created a number of issues for the national weatherization network: the political visibility of their programs increased significantly, organizational responsibilities were shifted, new laws and regulations were passed that impacted their programs, media attention of their programs increased, federal oversight of their programs increased; and programmatic costs increased because of the increased oversight and because ARRA required WAP to operate under the provisions of the Davis‐Bacon Act of 1931. There was some concern within the national weatherization network that the influx of ARRA funds would permanently damage nonfederal funding leveraging relationships. However, two‐thirds of grantees and over 40% of subgrantees stated that they believe that the long‐term impacts of ARRA on leveraging relationships will be positive.

Capacity, Guidance, and the Implementation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

AbstractPrograms administered by the U.S. Department of Energy under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 were designed to spur investment in clean energy and jump‐start the economy. There was considerable variation, however, in the proportion of obligated funds that states spent during each year. A primary goal of the ARRA was to infuse as much money as possible into the struggling economy; however, there was significant variation in the success with which states implemented these programs. This article draws on and extends the literature on intergovernmental implementation to explain such variation. The authors argue that jurisdictional capacity and federal guidance were important determinants of the rate at which states spent ARRA funds and, more important, that these factors interacted with one another in the implementation process. This assertion is tested using a mixed‐methods approach that includes a regression analysis of state ARRA spending between 2009 and 2012, as well as an evaluation of interviews conducted with 46 state agency representatives responsible for spending ARRA energy funds.

Enhancement of Health Department Capacity for Health Care–Associated Infection Prevention Through Recovery Act–Funded Programs

We evaluated capacity built and outcomes achieved from September 1, 2009, to December 31, 2011, by 51 health departments (HDs) funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) for health care-associated infection (HAI) program development. We defined capacity for HAI prevention at HDs by 25 indicators of activity in 6 categories: staffing, partnerships, training, technical assistance, surveillance, and prevention. We assessed state-level infection outcomes by modeling quarterly standardized infection ratios (SIRs) for device- and procedure-associated infections with longitudinal regression models. With ARRA funds, HDs created 188 HAI-related positions and supported 1042 training programs, 53 surveillance data validation projects, and 60 prevention collaboratives. All states demonstrated significant declines in central line-associated bloodstream and surgical site infections. States that implemented ARRA-funded catheter-associated urinary tract infection prevention collaboratives showed significantly greater SIR reductions over time than states that did not (P = .02). ARRA-HAI funding substantially improved HD capacity to reduce HAIs not targeted by other national efforts, suggesting that HDs can play a critical role in addressing emerging or neglected HAIs.

Assessing the Direct Employment Impact of Federal Economic Stimulus Funds on Construction Projects in Texas

Owing to the 2008 economic downturn in the United States, the construction industry lost 632,000 jobs nationally, of which approximately 100,000 were in Texas. In response to the economic recession, a stimulus package known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), was signed by President Obama on March 6, 2009. This paper presents the results of a study examining the construction employment impact of ARRA spending on Texas transportation projects. The primary goal of this study was to estimate direct employment in the construction industry from spending on construction projects. By using regression analysis, the study assesses employment from data on Texas Department of Transportation projects that used ARRA funds, showing that employment generated by construction projects depends on project type, size, and location urbanization. The findings can be useful to policy makers in allocating funds on construction projects when employment stimulation is an objective.

Future Sustainability of the Florida Health Information Exchange

Florida began the journey to health information connectivity in 2004 under Governor Jeb Bush. Initially these efforts were funded by grants, but due to the downturn in the economy, the state was unable to support growth in 2008. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 provided funding to further expand health information exchange efforts across the country. As a result, Florida was now able to move forward and make progress in information sharing. Harris Corporation was contracted to provide some basic services to the health care industry in 2011. Since then, the Florida HIE has begun to take shape and information sharing is occurring. The ARRA funding will end in 2014 and the Florida HIE must have a plan to survive into the future. This plan must address challenges such as the recruitment of new users, integration of new services, and ultimately long term sustainability.

Which extramural scientists were funded by the US National Institutes of Health from its ARRA funds?

The US National Institutes of Health distributed US$10 billion of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) research funds among principal investigators (PIs) in 2009–10. We studied how well the program created and retained jobs. To analyze the distribution of ARRA funding among PIs, we categorized them on the basis of their history of research funding, and the type of funding (ARRA and non-ARRA), each received in 2009 and 2010. These classifications provide insights into who received ARRA funding and how many research PI jobs were created or retained. We found that most recipients of ARRA awards already had grants and that new and retained PIs received relatively small shares of ARRA funds. Of 13,000 PIs, only 3,000 were created or retained, while the other 10,000 received additional funding. The ARRA was more efficient in creating PIs than the comparable budget doubling period. But, the PI job effect did not last.

CO2 capture from ethanol production and storage into the Mt Simon Sandstone

AbstractUnder the Industrial Carbon Capture and Storage (ICCS) program, funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, the United States Department of Energy (DOE) is co‐sponsoring the Archer Daniels Midland Company's (ADM's) large‐scale carbon capture and storage (CCS) project in Illinois. The Office of Fossil Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory manages this project, which receives $141.4 million in ARRA funding and another $66.5 million in private sector cost‐sharing. This project, also referred to as the Illinois ICCS project, is under construction in Decatur, Illinois, and is scheduled to begin operations in 2013. The project team members are ADM, DOE, Schlumberger Carbon Services, Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS), and Richland Community College (RCC). The Illinois ICCS project will demonstrate an integrated system for collecting up to 907 000 tonnes per year of CO2 from ADM's ethanol plant in Decatur and geologically sequestering it in the Mt Simon Sandstone, a saline reservoir. The project scope includes the design, construction, and integrated operation of CO2 compression, dehydration, and injection facilities, and monitoring, verification, and accounting of the stored CO2. Significant field work has been completed, i.e. design of the integrated CCS system, 3‐D seismic survey and site characterization, and mechanical construction of the compression and dehydration facilities. This is the largest saline storage project under construction in the USA. This paper will provide an overview and benefits of the Illinois ICCS project, present the field work results, and highlight the current status and future plans. © 2012 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

CC4-01: CER-HUB: An Informatics Platform for Conducting Comparative Effectiveness Research with Comprehensive Electronic Medical Record Data

Background/Aims The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) provided $1.1 billion for Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) with the goal of generating new evidence on the effectiveness of different treatments, diagnostic procedures, and care models under “real world” conditions. AHRQ awarded $100 million of ARRA funds to a dozen R01 projects to develop clinical infrastructure focusing on use of comprehensive electronic medical record (EMR) systems for large-scale, multi-institutional CER. However, numerous informatics challenges must be overcome when combining and sharing data across EMR systems and across institutions. In short, CER requires aggregation and analysis of disparate electronic clinical data sources held by different institutions, each with its own representation of relevant events and concerns for protecting data.

Did Stimulus Dollars Hire the Unemployed? Answers to Questions About the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

In an effort to boost hiring and job creation and to invest in a variety of domestic infrastructure programs, Congress passed and the president signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), commonly known as the economic stimulus package, in 2009. ARRA represented one of the largest peacetime fiscal stimulus packages in American history. But little is known about the ways in which organizations and workers responded to the incentives created by the bill.To address the lack of knowledge about ARRA funding, we surveyed hundreds of firms, non-profits, and local governments that received ARRA funding. We collected over 1,300 anonymous, voluntary responses from managers and employees that allow us to better understand what happened at the organizations that received contracts funded by ARRA spending. This bottom-up study of ARRA is the first of its kind. We hope that others, especially government agencies, will build upon this on-the-ground analysis.The survey asked a number of questions critical to analyzing the effectiveness of ARRA: Were new workers mostly hired from the unemployment lines or did they get poached or raided from other organizations? Did workers the unemployment insurance system by waiting until benefits ran out before taking a job? Did Davis-Bacon prevailing wage laws force organizations to pay above market wages to new hires?The quantitative survey results here complement our interview-based results in a companion paper (Jones and Rothschild, 2011) and suggest a number of interesting results, some expected and others surprising:ARRA funds led to worker hiring and retention at stimulus-receiving organizations that responded to our voluntary survey . On average an organization that received stimulus funds equal to 10 percent of its annual revenue reported retaining or hiring workers equal to 5 percent to 6 percent of its workforce. ARRA funds did more than just sit in bank accounts or pad company profits. However, our data don’t tell how many of these hires were for were part-time or temporary jobs. Our in-person interviews indicated companies frequently included part-time and temporary jobs in reported job totals.Hiring isn’t the same as net job creation. In our survey, just 42.1 percent of the workers hired at ARRA-receiving organizations after January 31, 2009, were unemployed at the time they were hired. More were hired directly from other organizations (47.3 percent of post-ARRA workers), while a handful came from school (6.5%) or from outside the labor force (4.1%). Thus, there was an almost even split between “job creating” and “job switching.” This suggests just how hard it is for Keynesian job creation to work in a modern, expertise-based economy: even in a weak economy, organizations hired the employed about as often as the unemployed.Only about half (47 percent) of responding ARRA-receiving organizations said it was easier to hire high-quality workers than before the financial crisis. The rest said hiring good people was either as hard as (41 percent) or harder than (12 percent) before the financial crisis of 2008 (Appendix B).There was no tendency for stimulus funds to go to organizations that found it easy to hire good people. Under Keynesian theory, government spending has its greatest effect when targeted toward sectors of the economy with slack; by this job-focused measure, stimulus funds were poorly targeted.However, there was a weak tendency among non-government organizations for stimulus funds to go to those organizations that said “things had been slow” before ARRA funds arrived. There was no such tendency among government organizations.Workers did not game the unemployment insurance (UI) system when deciding when to take a job. There was no unusual tendency to take jobs right around the time of UI benefit expiration.Among organizations required to pay prevailing wages, 38.2 percent thought that they could have hired workers at wages below the Davis-Bacon prevailing wage while another 17 percent were unsure. This meant higher costs for the federal government and fewer jobs created.

Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities at Federal Agencies: The View from the Department of Veterans Affairs, National Institute on Aging, and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

In the last year, attention has been focused on translating federally sponsored health research into better health for Americans. Since the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) on February 17, 2009, ARRA funds to support Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) have increased this focus. A large proportion of topical areas of interest in CER affects the older segment of the population. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the National Institute on Aging (NIA), and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) have supported robust research portfolios focused on aging populations that meet the varying definitions of CER. This short article briefly describes the research missions of the AHRQ, NIA, and VA. The various definitions of CER as the Congressional Budget Office, the Institute of Medicine, and the ARRA-established Federal Coordinating Council have put forward, as well as important topics for which CER is particularly needed, are then reviewed. Finally, approaches in which the three agencies support CER involving the aging population are set forth and opportunities for future CER research outlined.

Easing The Adoption And Use Of Electronic Health Records In Small Practices

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 recognizes that to improve health through the use of electronic health records, smaller medical practices and those serving disadvantaged populations will need support. Some of this support is likely to come from Regional Health Information Technology Extension Centers, which offer technical assistance, guidance, and information on best practices. Such support programs already exist, and ARRA funding will influence how they spread. The National Committee for Quality Assurance surveyed these programs and convened a discussion among program leaders and users. We describe how programs address barriers to adopting electronic health records by assessing readiness, setting expectations, and helping with work-flow redesign. We also highlight challenges.

ARRA Boosts State Revolving Loan Funding

This article announces that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, enacted February 17, 2009, provides more than $7 billion for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) programs. Funding provided includes $600 million for Superfund, $4 billion for USEPA's clean water revolving‐loan fund, $2 billion for the drinking water revolving‐loan fund, $100 million for the Brownfields Program, and $300 million for the diesel‐retrofit program. USEPA has issued guidance on the distribution and use of ARRA funds (USEPA, 2009a). The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has released interim final guidance (OMB, 2009) with public comments due no later than June 22, 2009. The article discusses state applications, Intended Use Plan (IUP) requirements, green projects, additional subsidization, award requirements, buy American provisions, prohibited uses of ARRA funds, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews, and how to apply for receiving assistance.