|
|
Respondents to the State and Federal Agency Perspective include both past and current agency representatives. The level of involvement by the agencies was varied due to either fiscal or geographical limitations of their programs. The agencies that responded seemed to feel that the greatest success was the interagency cooperation and information sharing coupled with the local involvement of the county Supervisors and Community Coordinators. An overriding barrier that emerges is the limited funds available and short period of time to do the job right. Turning around and diversifying resource based economies does not happen in three or four years; the first three to four years is just laying the foundation. There is a desire by the agencies to continuing meeting and continue the linkages that have proven successful.
The State and federal agencies were asked the following questions:
- What key role did you/your agency play in the formation of the CERT?
- What role do you play now?
- What unique elements were you/agency able to contribute to the CERT process?
- What aspect of the CERT process worked best?
- What problems did you encounter? Were these resolved?
- How was the CERT process "a different way of doing business" for your agency?
- Over the course of time, what feedback did you receive from others in your agency regarding your role in the CERT?
- How do you see the CERT process evolving to continue to serve rural areas as the formal CERT body dissolves? If you do not see the need for this, why not?
Each question is listed below followed by the answers provided by State and federal agencies.
What key role did you/your agency play in the formation of the CERT?
With fellow State agencies, we worked with the Resources Agency in negotiating the language that would go into the federal MOU which set up the CERT in California. That took several months.
The Service (US Fish and Wildlife) was part of the creation of the Forest Plan and was a signatory to the MOU signed between the Clinton Administration, California, Oregon and Washington.
Deena’s answer will cover this.
I was the EDA representative on the CERT. I encouraged Terry Gorton to submit an application to EDA for funding of staff support for the CERT, which she did. The CERT Coordinator and clerical support were funded by EDA. The creation of the CERT project database resulted from our funding. I reviewed all the proposals that came from the CERT counties to determine which were most appropriate for EDA funding. Our grant approvals happened quickly. Mendocino County would not have had an economic development coordinator were it not for EDA. We provided funding for staff support for the Superior California Development District. I tried to select projects in each of the CERT counties that were most consistent with their priorities and fulfilled our program objectives. Since I am a single-person office, the workload (in the first month of the CERT, 600 proposals were received) was enormous. The federal and state agencies met weekly to figure out how the process should best work. One of the outcomes was the development of a proposal form that would be standard throughout the counties.
- Encouragement of Tribes to participate.
- Small Business Administration did not play a key role in the formation of CERT. The CERT Team was formed and SBA was invited.
- BLM played a key role in the development of the initial team of people known as the SCERT. The former Ukiah District Manager was instrumental in shaping the membership and organizing roles.
- In the initial stages of the California CERT, EPA participated occasionally in meetings as time and resources permitted. We primarily used the CERT as a forum to share information on EPA grant programs available to communities. Due to a more direct linkage between our environmental authorities and land management activities, we focused more attention on participating in the Provincial Advisory Committee (PAC) process of the Northwest Forest Plan.
- Effective leadership and funding. EDD provided timely funding (glue) necessary to facilitate the formation of the formal State Community Economic Revitalization Team. This funding was used for: Meeting rooms and travel per diem to enable meetings on timely/regular basis; Established vehicle for communication/linkages between local political appointees, State/federal agencies and the workforce and economic development communities (community coordinators); Provided county/regional labor market information that facilitated area needs assessments; and Created focused assessments through funding of nine County Strategic Plans.
- Our agency contributed to the formation of the SCERT at both the Community level and the State level. Forest Service Staff at the community level provided technical and financial assistance to help build community strategic plans and capacity to implement those plans to achieve economic diversification. These make up the foundation for strategic action throughout the SCERT. Regional Office Staff facilitated the Design Team efforts to develop the internal process and structure of the SCERT. Provided funding for staff coordinator to manage the complex administrative responsibilities relating to the SCERT.
What role do you play now?
Our agency was appointed to the CERT body and has participated since the beginning.
We participate on the CERT and provide a communication link between the Agency and community representatives.
The unique role that I play is being a link between the California CERT, the Oregon CERT and the RCERT. I’m the only one who is all three. I believe EDA is unique in that we serve both California and Oregon/Washington from the same regional office. Because I am on all three, I’ve been able to share information from one state to another, for example, the mill sites project. I will certainly share this survey and the CA CERT approach to carrying on with the Oregon CERT which has these items on the agenda this coming Friday.
Since the EDR from Oregon has most of the CERT counties, I am not actively involved. I have only Glenn, Tehama and Lake counties.
Share information, participation in BIA/Tribal watershed restoration funding.
As SBA does not have grant funds, and only loan funds are available with SBA approval, the CERT counties could not utilize the SBA fund system as most of the projects would not be self supporting to the extent of repaying the loan. As a result, SBA evaluated CERT projects and assisted in finding correct sources for money for the various projects, depending on the type of project in review.
BLM’s role has been limited in its direct participation with the CERT. Higher levels of BLM participation have occurred in the PACs and various watershed partnerships.
Although we have not been actively participating in the quarterly CERT meetings, we maintain communication with several CERT members regarding EPA programs such as "Brownfields," which is designed to provide grants to local communities to clean up abandoned mill sites for future economic development activities.
Continuing provider of information, services and funding local delivery system (SDAs). Funding community coordination activities. Encourage/enable regional/local employment training provider activities to be linked to economic development/growth. Information resource, LMI.
The Forest Service continues to support the SCERT processes at the community and State level with our staff and funding. We support the concept of multiple agency collaboration with community leaders in addressing community development and are an advocate for continuation of SCERT related activities at all levels.
What unique elements were you/agency able to contribute to the CERT Process?
We are the only agency with knowledge of economic development, job creation and retention strategies, the network of local EDCs, the needs of employers. We have brought this knowledge to bear in several ways: procedural and policy suggestions at the CERT; survey of local capacity needs for job creation within the nine counties; establishment of the OGD RLF program for job creation and diversification; participating in training of local entities.
We created our own "Request for Proposal" for four restoration programs. We send the CERT a list of proposals received and provide the opportunity to comment and then send a list of funded projects.
EDA’s special role in the NEAI has been and continues to be as a provider of resources for economic development staff at the local level. The other two states do not use DOL funds for community coordinators, so this role has not been as absolutely crucial in California, but since DOL has restrictions on the activities of staff paid with their funds, it has still been important. We have also provided grant funds which have filled gaps in infrastructure projects. We were able to build on the sense of all being part of one region created by the CERT to encourage four counties to work together on regional issues.
Our program flexibility allowed us to select projects that supported staff capacity, regional projects, such as the regional products catalogue, a master grant to the California Indian Assistance program which funded consultants to help Indian Tribes conduct feasibility or other studies, expensive public works projects, and technical assistance studies, such as the highest and best use study of Crescent City harbor area in Del Norte County. Our established relations with economic development entities, such as the Superior California Development Council, which receives on-going planning grants, meant that we had knowledge of the economic development problems of the region and had a rapport with the people that would take charge of the CERT process locally.
Introduced the BIA and Tribal concerns, issues and needs to other agencies.
The CERT counties did not utilize the Small Business Administration loan funding system as most of the projects were not self supporting to the extent of repaying the loan. But the funds were available, if the project was self supportable. As a result, SBA evaluated CERT projects and assisted in finding correct sources for money for the various projects.
BLM provided much of the initial impetus and concept to match Department of Labor, Employment Development Department, and local providers to address the issues of retraining of displaced workers to meet the new restoration job categories.
We shared information regarding the availability of EPA grants to state and local entities for watershed or ecosystem related projects such as the Clean Water Act Section 319 Nonpoint Source Program and environmental education.
Innovating leadership, workforce preparation issues and funding, resources, and staffing. Forest Service has unique authorities to assist Forest Resource dependent communities with our programs and resources. These authorities are very FLEXIBLE and able to FILL GAPS between other agencies programs. Forest Service Rural Development Staff, located within CERT communities, provide a local resource to assist in community based planning and project development. Forest Service links CERT to public Forest Resources, resource issues and opportunities. Linkage to community employment opportunities in service contracting, jobs in the woods partnerships for worker training, legal authorities to develop partnerships and demonstration projects relating to utilization of forest resources, forum for recreation and tourism issues affecting community businesses, partners in scenic byway, biomass utilization, small diameter utilization and hardwood industry development.
What aspect of the CERT process worked best?
The network relationship among all the state and federal funding agencies over time — learning each others’ programs and capabilities. This resulted in collaborations on projects. Also, some problems were solved; e.g., the invention and funding of Project Coordinators that helped counties get projects before the funding agencies. Also, the contact between local groups and State/fed partners fostered education on both sides. The increased attention greatly increased the amount and quality of projects in the nine counties.
Has provided a better awareness of economic needs of local communities.
For me, coming into a new region to represent my agency and knowing very few people and very little about the other resources available, having the CERT to jump into was a godsend. The informational programs (Michael Jackson on water issues, the program on fire, etc.) were very helpful.
The professionalism of the State and federal agency representatives made the process work.
Information sharing, interagency cooperation.
The ability of the counties to work independently and together to produce viable projects.
It brought State and federal agencies together to pool resources to accomplish project work. It provided a process by which projects and funding could be matched. It provided a forum for coordination among all levels of government from counties, state, federal levels.
The CERT process provides a mechanism to communicate and coordinate among various county and agency representatives. I especially appreciated the outreach and information dissemination conducted by the County Coordinators.
Waiver establishing priority contracting for Federal agencies within the nine counties. Establishment of Community Coordinators. Linking workforce preparation with economic development activities through regularly scheduled meetings. Local political involvement (Board of Supervisor).
Best and most lasting aspect is the awareness of other programs and the relationships that developed between agencies, community leaders, and community coordinators. Working Groups were successful forums for brokering of community development projects. Information sharing with Oregon and Washington on structure, process, future plans for CERT related activities.
What problems did you encounter? Were these resolved?
Very cumbersome process for awarding funds, which generated unrealistically high expectations at the local level, which in turn created delays, bad feelings, and premature conclusions on the effort’s success. This smoothed out eventually. Very poorly run from Resources Agency. Not good communication with the CERT members; no real planning provided or adhered to. These problems were worked out over time, especially with the addition of qualified staff from the Resources Agency in a coordinating role. The CERT members all seem to feel that some relationships were developed (between federal/state agencies and local officials) that helped offset the difficulties in the process, and resulted in more realistic and positive expectations.
It was unclear for awhile how you wanted US Fish and Wildlife to participate with the process.
Not a problem, but a disappointment, was the lukewarm involvement of state agencies, -- except for the Resources Agency and EDD, which were great. Also, except for the Forest Service and Rural Development, I didn’t see much of my fellow feds at the meetings or as partners in projects.
Some supervisors distrusted the intentions of the State and federal agencies, but overtime this distrust eased and the agency representatives and the supervisors developed a cordial working relationship and became friends. Opinions about the purpose of the Initiative itself differed and these differences remained, but they did not impede the business of getting out grant and loan money to the counties.
Limited BIA grant and loan guarantee funds; this was not resolved. Tribes also made decision for own process to distribute BIA watershed restoration funds outside of CERT process.
The Small Business Administration did not encounter any system problems as the SBA fund system was not used. Most of the projects were not self supporting to the extent of repaying the loan.
BLM did not have a specific funding allocation within the agency for CERT projects and could not participate readily as a funding agency.
The time commitment for travel to Davis and length of the meeting was a barrier to consistent participation relative to other priorities. The CERT made an attempt to rotate some of the meetings throughout the CERT counties to resolve this problem. Our agency had an internal constraint on our level of participation due to limited resources/personnel available to participate in the implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan. As a result we had to prioritize where and how we allocated those resources. We chose to limit our CERT participation in order to increase our involvement on the PACs which were addressing natural resource issues more directly related to our specific environmental authorities under the Clean Water Act, National Environmental Policy, Act, Clean Air Act, etc.
Definition of roles between economic development and training communities. Internal agency mentality unfamiliar with candid local - State - Federal partnerships. These problems were resolved.
(A) Problems Encountered --- Communities without the capacity to plan and implement lasting changes. Communities without the resources to identify sources of technical and financial assistance. Having sufficient time to collaborate and develop a different way of doing business than we have in the past. Changes in agency staff present in the CERT, changes in their level of commitment to the goals of the CERT. (B) Were These Resolved — I believe the CERT provides a level playing field for access to federal and State agency programs that DID NOT EXIST before the CERT was created. The CERT provides a forum for the most needy with the least capacity to access programs and resources. I do not believe that these first two problems have been resolved, but constitute the ongoing and compelling need for continuation of CERT related activities within California. Change and diversification don’t happen in a few years, but take many years of work and support. Time to collaborate is still an issue, but some rewards have been realized by the communities when we have developed truly collaborative, multi-agency and program support for community projects (Karuk CDC is an example). I believe we have fallen far short of our potential to put in place interagency collaborative teams to assist communities. We are slowly retreating to our respective corners as agencies .. this is a slow retreat to the past. It would be nice if the Governor of California stepped up to the plate and requested agencies to continue participation and collaboration. I really believe that’s what his rural citizens want.
How was the CERT Process "a different way of doing business" for your agency?
Agency (Trade & Commerce) has a lot of experience coordinating programs with local/State/federal participation. The CERT experience was unique in the duration of the network that also offered multiple funding streams. Also, this may be one of the few time the Agency has been involved in a program addressing economic issues where it does not have the lead.
The process has been a great mechanism to facilitate communication and coordination among agencies and community representatives.
We had much more money than usual for this region for technical assistance projects and grants to pay for staff. In California, there was not a lot of extra money for infrastructure, because CA’s 10-15% "share" of the extra money just wasn’t big enough. Only in the first year, when we had $9 million for the three states, did we use NEAI funds for an infrastructure project, and then for just one. CERT was different from our other big California programs, defense conversion and disaster recovery, in that it was a lot smaller and less visible/politically significant and far fewer resources were available. EDA did very little to streamline its process. NEAI projects got no special treatment — they were just part of the overall workload. The exception to the above comment was environmental reviews. EDA and USDA did share environmental information and adopted each others’ environmental findings which saved both agency staff and applicant’s a lot of time and paperwork.
- In my agency, projects are recommended to a Project Review panel in the Seattle Regional Office, which then recommends them to Washington. Because of the volume of proposals and the urgency to get money out quickly (in part, because the California CERT saw itself competing with the other CERTs and did not want to lose any funding), I had a great deal of discretion in selecting the projects that would be funded. Rather than full proposals, shorter project descriptions were sent to the regional office. The EDRs from Washington and Oregon exchanged information on these projects and gave our blessings to each other’s projects. Intensive technical assistance was given to the applicants, many of which had never received EDA grants and did not know how to fill out the applications.
- Allowed Tribes to access different funding programs other than those available from the BIA.
- SBA did not encounter any system problems as the SBA fund system was not used.
- It was the first formal mechanism by which the economic considerations of states and counties were brought to bear upon the distribution of projects in the region.
- The forming of strategic partnerships to accomplish community workforce preparation needs, rather than making funding available to communities throughout the State.
- Collaborative, multi agency problem solving….not working in a vacuum. Provided a regular forum to address community issues and needs.
Over the course of time, what feedback did you receive from others in your agency regarding your role in the CERT?
The Agency (Trade & Commerce) has always considered the CERT a worthy activity on behalf of the timber-impacted counties in the State. In addition to staff directly assigned to attend CERT meetings, other agency staff have been involved in providing information from time to time, or have provided services directly to the local counties as part of the CERT efforts. These include staff in the Agency’s Sacramento Regional office, the TeamCalifornia program, and other program staff as needed.
Have not received any feedback.
The NEAI was never a top priority for Commerce or EDA leadership. Because EDA’s NEAI money was used for "lots of little projects," it created an incredible workload for the regional office at a time when the staff available to do the work of reviewing/managing projects in the Regional Office had been cut from six to three. At the same time, there was little perceived glamour or thanks for all the extra work.
Aside from the Washington and Oregon EDRs, I do not believe anyone in the agency truly appreciated how labor intensive this effort was and how much initiative it required. The feedback — the appreciation — came from the members of the CERT itself.
The credit officer reviewed all CERT projects to determine if eligible for BIA loan guarantee programs. Most BIA employees not familiar with CERT at all.
The Small Business Administration role in CERT process was minor as a result of the loan repayment requirement. Therefore, very little involvement and very little feedback.
Most feedback was that BLM was limited because of lack of a project funding role, though benefits of continued coordination were significant.
Ideally, I think our agency would have liked to participate more directly in the CERT. However, due to resource and time constraints, as mentioned previously, involvement in the CERT received a lower priority.
Acknowledgment of the value of local resources and their value/impact on State employment and training programs. The efficiency of desk-to-desk relationships between local-federal-State agencies and political bodies.
Feedback to the Forest Service has been very positive. We have flexible programs that support not only the CERT proper with money to staff the administrative aspect of the CERT, but our field staff are committed professionals who support local economic development efforts, have helped communities access financial and technical resources to support community initiatives and projects, have developed job training/jobs in the woods partnerships and facilitated linkages between public lands natural resources and community initiatives.
How do you see the CERT process evolving to continue to serve rural areas as the formal CERT body dissolves? If you do not see the need for this, why not?
There should be an evaluation of which of the CERT’s activities have worked well and which have not. For example, it seems that everyone agrees that the Community Coordinators are valuable, and that the interface between State/federal agencies and local CERT members was very helpful. But what specific CERT programs or processes had what impact on the area is something that should be analyzed, so that the CERT members can then decide what should be continued.
(1) It would be good for the CERT to be involved with knowing more about the availability of funds for other watershed restoration programs not associated with the Forest Plan. There are several other programs where funds are available to the rural communities represented by the Community Coordinators. Greater awareness may provide CERT members with information they can pass along to more people within their communities. (2) It would be good to see the CERT work in a role that could support/provide assistance and training to teach people how to complete grant packages, apply for federal dollars, and learn to manage projects. There are not enough people trained to know how to access funds to help themselves and the resource.
- The California CERT or something like it should definitely continue as a place to exchange information at least. One would hope it would be more than that — it could evolve into a forum for proactive problems solving - an arena in which discussion of contentious issues can take place on neutral ground or common ground, as the Oregon Rural Development Council has been. I think the California CERT is just now coming into its own as an institution for, by, and of the local players, rather than as a top-down entity.
- I have not been involved in the CERT for some time, so it is hard to address where I think it might go. I think the CERT has lived out its useful life. The coordinators and the local planning committees that the CERT brought into being will continue if their usefulness was demonstrated to the communities.
- County coordinators will play a key role in working with various government agencies to connect funding requesters and funding agencies.
- Small Business Administration currently serves the rural areas as well as the city and industrial. There will not be any change in the way SBA currently does business as a result of the CERT process.
- There is a need to continue to provide a forum for coordinating funding sources for public/private restoration activities. Most involvement by BLM is a the PAC level, because of a lack of project funding programs in the agency.
- I think the networking and communication between counties and with agencies, should continue in some manner. In addition, we should continue to try to coordinate the PACs with the CERT regarding ecosystem restoration funding and support for local job creation.
- Lead agency responsibilities "transitioned" to Trade and Commerce. As the State’s recognized lead agency for economic development, they could facilitate continued fund and program coordination between all agencies, e.g., Tribes, resource agencies, economic development and workforce preparation. Development of State policies that encourage continued, coordinated planning while ensuring integrated services are maintained through the use of funding sources such as: Job Creation Investment Grant Funds, US Forest Service Grants, Welfare to Work (CalWORKS, and DOL WtW). Formal MOU between local political bodies and agencies. Require pro-active outreach from federal and State agencies.
- The model works. It needs to be expanded to our other rural counties and continued coordination on the part of the State. I believe that CA Trade and Commerce Agency is the most appropriate lead for this important collaborative support mechanism for rural communities, and the evolving State Rural Development Council should serve as a parent structure for the continued CERT activities, but unfortunately federal/State politics are a barrier to truly working for rural communities. The CERT/CARDC relationship may not develop in a timely enough manner. Therefore I believe that the elected representatives within the CERT area, along with Community Coordinators need to forge ahead, commit to continuation of the CERT, correspond with the governor, TCA, our elected representatives, and neighboring rural counties to push the issues. Concurrently, continue the processes we have developed over these last few years. We should develop streamlined core groups also to address community development issues. We need to identify resources for continue coordination of CERT activities.
| California Resources Agency
| CERES | CERT |
|
