American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Results in Hennepin County

Transcription

1 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Results in Hennepin County A Final Report to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners August 2012 Hennepin County Recovery and Reinvestment

2 The Hennepin County Stimulus Team gratefully acknowledges the contributions of the following individuals whose hard work and dedication made completion of this report possible: Phil Eckhert, Chair, Director of Housing, Community Works and Transit Peter Bodurtha, Research, Planning and Development Kelly Clausen, Research, Planning and Development Yvonne Forsythe, Housing, Community Works and Transit Robert Hagen, Research, Planning and Development (retired) Lisa Middag, Housing, Community Works and Transit Rebeca Mueller, Research, Planning and Development Janene Cowan, Humphrey School of Public Affairs, Stimulus Team research intern Jay Willms, Humphrey School of Public Affairs, Stimulus Team research intern The Hennepin County Stimulus Team also extends its thanks to the managers of the many different Recovery Act projects who generously shared their time and thoughts with us during the interviews about their projects. Descriptions of their projects are included in the Project Descriptions section of this report. Hennepin County Board of Commissioners Mike Opat, 1st District Vacant, 2nd District Gail Dorfman, 3rd District Peter McLaughlin, 4th District Randy Johnson, 5th District Jan Callison, 6th District Jeff Johnson, 7th District Hennepin County Administration Richard P. Johnson, County Administrator David J. Hough, Deputy County Administrator

3 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Results in Hennepin County A final report to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners Contents Introduction... 2 Summary of findings and key recommendations... 3 Lessons Learned...4 Thoughts for the Future...5 References...5 Section 1. Recovery by-the-numbers: A snapshot of Hennepin County Recovery Act reporting data through fourth quarter Funding overview...7 Jobs and employment effects...12 Funds awarded and received and project status...14 Notes about the data...16 Section 2. Recovery dollars in action: Project descriptions: Findings from a qualitative research study of Recovery Act project managers...18 Interviews index: Summary of all interviewed projects and Recovery Act results...20 Project highlights...24 Qualitative study methodology...45 Section 3. Appendix. Hennepin County projects list: Prime and sub-recipient projects and local award amount through fourth quarter

4 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Results in Hennepin County A final report to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners Introduction On February 13, 2009, Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of President Obama signed it into law four days later. 1 As it was enacted in February 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) allocated $787 billion for distribution in three areas: Tax benefits ($288 billion or 37 percent); Entitlements ($224 billion or 28 percent); and Contracts, Grants and Loans ($275 billion or 35 percent). 2 As of February 2012, $746.9 billion, or about 95 percent, of the original $787 billion in Recovery Act funding had been paid out. County Board. It measures the results achieved with Recovery Act funding in Hennepin County in two ways:, highlights data reported by Hennepin County recipients of Recovery Act funds through fourth quarter 2011., includes information about a sampling of Recovery Act funded projects in Hennepin County. This is the Hennepin County Stimulus Team s final report to the Hennepin 1 Recovery.gov, About The Recovery Act. (n.d.) Retrieved September 16, 2011, from Estimated impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on employment and economic output from October 2011 through December Retrieved May 4, 2012, from 2

5 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Results in Hennepin County A final report to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners Summary of findings and key recommendations As enacted in February 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), allocated $787 billion for distribution in three areas: Tax benefits ($288 billion); Entitlements ($224 billion); and Contracts, Grants and Loans ($275 billion). 1 The Recovery Act had five primary purposes: 2 1. To preserve and create jobs and promote economic recovery, 2. To assist those most impacted by the recession, 3. To provide investments needed to increase economic efficiency by spurring technological advances in science and health, 4. To invest in transportation, environmental protection, and other infrastructure that will provide long-term economic benefits, 5. To stabilize state and local government budgets in order to minimize and avoid reductions in essential services and counterproductive state and local tax increases. In addition, reporting requirements included in the legislation were meant to, foster unprecedented levels of accountability and transparency in government spending. 3 The Act also included a preference for using funds for infrastructure investments that could be started and completed quickly so called shovel-ready projects. Three years later, more than $746 billion about 95 percent of the original $787 billion in Recovery Act funding has been paid out. 4 Overall, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act s results appear mixed. The back-and-forth among economists about the Act s ultimate effect on the American economy continues. Much of the economic debate over the Recovery Act today centers around whether the value of the short-term economic activity it generated outweighs the burden of the incurred debt that will have to be paid off in the future. 5, 6 The continuing difference of opinion among economists as to the wisdom of economic stimulus policy is beyond the scope of this report, which focuses on the Recovery Act s effects at the local level in Hennepin County. In Hennepin County as of the end of December 2011, more than 1,350 awards totaling almost $1.17 billion in Recovery Act dollars funded as many as 1,199 different projects throughout the county representing Recovery Act investments in public services, projects and programs of more than $2,400 per Hennepin County household and more than $1,000 per resident. 7 Also, according to the CEA, the Recovery Act meant there were 61,000 more jobs in Minnesota during fourth quarter 2010 than there otherwise would have been. 8 During interviews conducted for this report, Recovery Act project managers talked about the people affected and the many ways the Recovery Act made a real difference for Hennepin County residents. 9 Nearly all project managers talked about ways in which their project had preserved or created jobs and promoted economic recovery. 10 Construction project managers talked about hundreds of workers who found positions at their sites. Youth employment project managers found summer jobs for more young people. City and county project managers were able to keep public safety officers on patrol, when they otherwise may have been laid off. At the same time, dozens of unemployed Hennepin County residents trained to take advantage of new jobs in emerging industries, including the next generation of health information technology. A majority of project managers said their projects assisted those most impacted by the recession, including construction workers, unemployed persons and residents with low incomes. A wide array of public housing and health programs offered expanded services to Hennepin 3

6 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Results in Hennepin County A final report to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners County residents most in need, including low-income families and the elderly, whether it was preserving the homes they were in, helping them find new ones, or providing clinical care and therapy. Several project managers said their projects made investments needed to increase economic efficiency by spurring technological advances in science and health. New approaches to using technology in the classroom advanced curricula from grade school to graduate school. Advanced screening technology and integrated care approaches put in place using Recovery Act funding support better health outcomes. Nearly half the project managers mentioned investments made by their projects in transportation, environmental protection and other infrastructure that will provide longterm economic and environmental benefits. Recovery Act funds supported work on important road, bridge, and trail connections, expanding the regional transportation system and laying the groundwork for future economic development. Many public buildings were made more energy efficient, preserving public infrastructure and providing cost savings into the future. Several project managers discussed their project s contributions to stabilizing state and local government budgets. In many interviews, project managers said funding from the Act allowed their organization to take on work that would have otherwise been deferred due to tight budgets, sped up implementation of already planned projects or expanded the scope of existing projects requiring them to retain existing staff and, in some cases, hire new staff to serve new populations, more clients or different locations. Although the Recovery Act is a federal policy, the experience of managing Recovery Act projects offers some lessons and a few opportunities for Hennepin County. Lessons Learned 1. Despite the extensive buildup and expectation for a rapid jump-start of the economy through speedy implementation of local projects and spending, few truly shovel-ready projects existed. While the economic benefits of infrastructure, energy, health and educational investments did materialize, it took 12 to 18 months to gear up to plan, execute and properly account for such a large influx of federal funding. 2. The modest proportion of funds allocated to transportation and other infrastructure improvements (about 10 percent of the federal outlay) limited the opportunities for long deferred, job-rich construction projects and consequently diminished public evidence of Recovery Act success from what might otherwise have been achieved. 3. The goal of using Recovery Act funds to create jobs was challenging for the county and our partners because we rightly saw the infusion of federal funds as temporary, arriving at a time when our basic local and state resources were stressed by the recession. As a result, stimulus funds were often used for job retention by replacing declining local funds or, when jobs were being added to implement projects, they were often shortterm rather than permanent because of future funding uncertainty. 4. Despite the perception that governments were the Recovery Act s primary recipients, more private sector companies participated in stimulus projects in Hennepin County than government agencies, community non-profits or educational institutions. For profit companies made up about half of all Hennepin County recipients, while community non-profits and educational institutions each represented about a fifth. Just about 1-in-10 Hennepin County Recovery Act recipients were government entities. 5. The national goals of (a) rapid infusion of capital into state and local economies to create jobs and economic expansion and (b) zero tolerance for ill-conceived and poorly executed projects or unaccountable use of funds tend to conflict with, rather than complement, one another. Spending three-fourths of a trillion dollars promptly, accurately and transparently is no small undertaking. Hennepin County followed all federal procurement, reporting and other regulatory requirements without major errors, but it took time to organize and execute according to federal standards, occasionally to the chagrin of county policy makers eager to achieve results. 6. Congress determination to use existing federal agencies to administer the Recovery Act supported the goals of accountability (because federal agencies know how to distribute and account for large amounts of funding) but undermined the Act s capacity to support creativity and flexibility to meet priority local needs consistent with broad Recovery Act Goals. As each federal agency made its allocation of Recovery Act funds available, it also attached its unique, often traditional, requirements, priorities and criteria for funding awards. State and local proposals that might encompass multiple federal agency arenas (such as energy, environment and 4

7 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Results in Hennepin County A final report to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners transportation) typically wouldn t rank well against a single agency s criteria. 7. The goals of transparency and accountability were difficult to achieve given the enormity and complexity of the national program. The challenges of transparency and accountability are more fully described in section one. It is hoped that this report will provide a useful perspective to lay readers on the amounts, sources and uses of Recovery Act funds awarded to organizations in Hennepin County. Thoughts for the Future At this point in time, there s more discussion about how successful or unsuccessful the Recovery Act has been than about how it should be modified in the next round. Nevertheless, the team overseeing ARRA 2009 implementation in Hennepin County would offer the following ideas for future consideration if additional stimulus funding is considered by the next Congress or the next generation. 1. Direct a higher proportion of stimulus resources to public infrastructure and facilities. The jobs are real, the impacts are visible, the economic benefits are greatest and the needs have long been deferred. 2. Explore ways to develop and maintain a small portfolio of priority projects at the local level that are shovelready at any given time. In addition to potential future stimulus funding, such lists could be useful in responding to other short-term federal solicitations that have become more prevalent, such as the TIGER Discretionary Grant program and others. 3. Encourage Congress to structure the distribution of funds in a manner that is more flexible and creative than simply using traditional federal agencies working independently. The recently established partnership between the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is an example of the kind of federal interagency collaboration that can support larger integrated projects at the regional and local level. References 1 The Congressional Budget Of ce now estimates the total impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act over the 2009 to 2019 period will amount to about $831 billion. Congressional Budget Of ce. (February 2012). Estimated impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on employment and economic output from October 2011 through December Retrieved May 4, 2012, from cbo.gov/publication/ Public Law American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (17 February 2009) (enacted). 3 Recovery.gov, About the Recovery Act. (n.d.) Retrieved September 16, 2011, from Pages/The_Act.aspx 4 Recovery.gov (24, February 2012). Overview of funding. Retrieved March 14, 2012 from 5 Blinder, Alan S. and Zandi, Mark (July 27, 2010). How the Great Recession was Brought to an End. Retrieved from: Great-Recession.pdf; Congressional Budget Of ce (May 2011). Estimated Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on Employment and Economic Output from January 2011 Through March Congress of the United States. Retrieved from doc12185/05-25-arra.pdf.; Executive Of ce of the President, Council of Economic Advisors. (July 2011). The Economic Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009: Seventh Quarterly Report. Retrieved from les/cea_7th_arra_report. pdf 6 Cogan, John F., Taylor, John B. What the Government Purchases Multiplier Actually Multiplied in the 2009 Stimulus Package. National Bureau of Economics Research. Working Paper Retrieved from ttp:// w Hennepin County Research, Planning and Development analysis of Recovery.gov recipient-reported data for Minnesota and Hennepin County from the Cumulative National Summary Data File for February 17, 2009 through December 31, Executive Of ce of the President Council of Economic Advisors. (2011, March 18). The Economic Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of Retrieved March 23, 2011, from default/ les/microsites/ cea-arra-report.pdf 9 Re ects summary ndings of Hennepin County Stimulus Team interviews with a cross-section of managers of Recovery Act funded projects to take a closer look at the results achieved in Hennepin County, in light of the ve primary purposes of the legislation. Detailed ndings from the Stimulus Team s Qualitative Study, conducted June to September 2011, are included in the Project Descriptions section of this report. 10 Project managers were asked to talk about the ways in which their project met all ve purposes of the Recovery Act. Each project often addressed more than one of the Act s purposes, as described by the project managers 5

8 Section 1 Contents: Funding overview Jobs and employment effects Recovery by-the-numbers: A snapshot of Hennepin County Recovery Act reporting data through fourth quarter Funds awarded and received and project status Notes about the data

9 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Results in Hennepin County A final report to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners Funding overview At the end of 2011, total Recovery Act contract, grant and loan awards in the State of Minnesota amounted to about $4.13 billion. Recipients with projects located in Minnesota had received more than $3.27 billion, or almost 80 percent, of the awarded funds by the end of the year. More than one quarter (28 percent) of the $4.13 billion in Recovery Act funding in Minnesota funded projects taking place in Hennepin County. At the end of December 2011, more than 1,350 awards totalling almost $1.17 billion in Recovery Act dollars funded as many as 1,199 projects throughout Hennepin County. As many as 442 different companies and organizations were involved in or had completed work on Recovery Act funded projects by the end of the year. Investments in infrastructure and transportation make up more than a third (about 34 percent) of all local awards in Hennepin County. If national findings of greater economic effect for spending in these categories hold true at the local level, Hennepin County may have benefitted from a greater increase in economic activity than areas that received a smaller proportion of funding in these categories. 1 Figure 1. Number of Recovery Act awards, projects and local award amount in Minnesota and Hennepin County as of the end of 2011 Recovery Act funding for projects in Minnesota taking place outside Hennepin County $2,960,992, ,337 awards 2,352 projects Recovery Act funding for projects taking place in Hennepin County $1,165,057, ,355 awards 1,199 projects Total Recovery Act funding in Minnesota: $4,126,049, Source: Recovery.gov recipient-reported data from the Cumulative National Summary Data File for February 17, 2009 through December 31, How the Great Recession was Brought to an End. Retrieved from: The Economic Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009: Seventh Quarterly Report pdf; Wilson, D. (2010). Fiscal Spending Jobs Multipliers: Evidence from the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Did the Stimulus Stimulate? Real Time Estimates of the Effects of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The Employment Effects of Fiscal Policy: How Costly are ARRA Jobs?

10 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Results in Hennepin County A final report to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners Despite the perception that governments were the Recovery Act s primary recipients, more private sector companies participated in stimulus projects in Hennepin County than government agencies, community nonprofits or educational institutions. Of the 442 Hennepin County recipients of Recovery Act awards, 219 were for-profit businesses, 39 were government agencies, 99 were community non-profits and 85 were educational institutions. In terms of local funds awarded, educational institutions received 37 percent or about $427 million, with more than half (54 percent) of this amount going to the University of Minnesota to fund sponsored research projects, work study opportunities and as state fiscal stabilization awards. For-profit companies were awarded more than a quarter (26 percent or almost $300 million) of local Recovery Act funding, while government agencies (28 percent or about $323 million) and community non-profits (10 percent or almost $115 million) together were awarded a bit more than a third. Figure 2. Number and percent of recipients by type of Hennepin County recipient through December 31, Community non-profits 22% 85 Educational institutions 19% 39 Government entities 9% 219 For profit companies 50% Source: Recovery.gov recipient-reported data from the Cumulative National Summary Data File for February 17, 2009 through December 31, 2011, filtered by place of performance zip code to include only those projects taking place in Hennepin County. Figure 3. Amount and percent of total local award amount by type of Hennepin County recipient as of December 31, 2011 $450 $ % Millions $400 $350 $300 $250 $200 $150 $100 $50 $ % $ % 37% $ % 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% $0 For profit companies Government entities Total local award amount Educational institutions Community non-profits Percent of total local award amount Source: Recovery.gov recipient-reported data from the Cumulative National Summary Data File for February 17, 2009 through December 31, 2011, filtered by place of performance zip code to include only those projects taking place in Hennepin County. 0% 8

11 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Results in Hennepin County A final report to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners Funding category Hennepin County Recovery Act local award amount and percent of local amount by category as of December 31, 2011 Local award amount* Percent of local award amount Funding programs included in category with projects in Hennepin County $285,708, % National Endowment for the Arts: Grants and Administration Department of Education-Federal Student Aid- Student Aid Administration Department of Education-Federal Student Aid-Student Financial Assistance Department of Education-Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services-Special Education Department of Education-Office of Elementary and Secondary Education-Compensatory Education for the Disadvantaged Department of Education-Office of Elementary and Secondary Education-School Improvement Programs Department of Education-Office of Elementary and Secondary Education-State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Corporation for National and Community Service-Operating Expenses $78,809, % Department of the Interior-National Park Service-Operation of the National Park System Department of the Interior-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-Resource Management GSA-Office of the Federal Acquisition Service- Energy-Efficient Federal Motor Vehicle Fleet Procurement Environmental Protection Agency-Hazardous Substance Superfund Department of Energy-Deputy Administration for Defense Programs-Defense Environmental Clean-up Department of Energy-Deputy Administration for Defense Programs-Defense Environmental Clean-up Recovery Department of Energy-Office of Emergency Operations-Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Department of Energy-Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Department of Energy-Energy Transformation Acceleration Fund $9,511, % HHS-Administration for Children and Families-Payments to States for Child Care and Development Block Grant HHS-Administration for Children and Families-Children and Families Services Programs $57,882, % $89,443, % USDA-Food and Nutrition Service-State Child Nutrition Programs Department of Veterans Affairs-Under Secretary for Health/Veterans Health Administration-Medical Facilities HHS-Office of Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management-Office of National Coordinator for Health Information Technology HHS- Health Resources and Services Administration-Health Resources and Services HHS-Indian Health Service- Indian Health Services HHS-Indian Health Service-Indian Health Facilities HHS-National Institutes of Health-Building and Facilities HHS-Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-Disease Control, Research and Training Department of Treasury-Departmental Offices-Community Development Financial Institution Fund Program Account Department of Housing and Urban Development-Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development-Community Development Department of Housing and Urban Development-Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development-Homelessness Prevention Fund Department of Housing and Urban Development-Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development-Home Investment Partnership Program Department of Housing and Urban Development-Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing- Public Housing Capital Fund Housing Health Family Energy/ Environment Education

12 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Results in Hennepin County A final report to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners Funding category Hennepin County Recovery Act local award amount and percent of local amount by category as of December 31, 2011 Local award amount* Percent of local award amount Funding programs included in category with projects in Hennepin County $226,965, % USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service-Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations USDA-Forest Service-Capital Improvement and Maintenance Department of Commerce-National Telecommunication and Information Administration-Broadband Technology Opportunities Program Department of Commerce-National Telecommunication and Information Administration-Digital-to-Analog Converter Box Program Department of the Interior-Bureau of Land Management-Construction Department of the Interior-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-Construction Department of the Interior-Indian Affairs (Assistant Secretary)-Construction Department of State-U.S. and Mexico International Boundary and Water Commission-Construction Department of State-Capital Investment Fund Department of the Army-Operation and Maintenance National Guard Bureau, Office of the Chief- Operation and Maintenance U.S. Army Reserve Command- Operation and Maintenance Federal Communications Commission-Digital-to-Analog Converter Box Program Department of Veterans Affairs-Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs/National Cemetery System-National Cemetery Administration General Services Administration-Federal Buildings Fund National Science Foundation-Major Research and Equipment and Facilities Construction Department of the Air Force-Operation and Maintenance, Headquarters Air Force Reserve-Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard-Military Construction Environmental Protection Agency-State and Tribal Assistance Grants Department of Transportation-Federal Aviation Administration-Facilities and Equipment U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Civil program financing only-construction U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Civil program financing only-operation and Maintenance U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Civil program financing only-regulatory Program TRICARE Management Activity-Defense Health Program Department of Labor-Employment and Training Administration-Community Service Employment for Older $28,133, % Americans Department of Labor-Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management-Office of Job Corps Department of Labor-Employment and Training Administration-Training and Employment Services $6,104, % Department of Commerce-Bureau of the Census-Periodic Censuses and Programs Department of the Interior- Indian Affairs (Assistant Secretary)-Operation of Indian Programs Social Security Administration- Administrative Expenses GSA-Office of the Federal Acquisition Service-Acquisition Services Fund HHS-Office of Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management-General Departmental Management HHS-National Institutes of Health-Office of Director, Recovery U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Civil program financing only- Investigations, Recovery Act $57,717, % Department of the Interior-Wildland Fire Management Department of Justice-Office of Justice Programs (OJP) - Department of Justice Department of Justice-Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) Department of Justice-Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Department of Homeland Security-U.S. Customs and Border Protection-Construction, Customs and Border Protection Department of Homeland Security- Transportation Security Administration-Aviation Security Department of Homeland Security-Federal Emergency Management Agency-State and Local Programs Department of Homeland Security-Federal Emergency Management Agency-Emergency Food and Shelter Public Safety Other Programs Job Training/ Unemployment Infrastructure 10

13 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Results in Hennepin County A final report to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners Hennepin County Recovery Act local award amount and percent of local amount by category as of December 31, 2011 Funding category Local award amount* Percent of local award amount Funding programs included in category with projects in Hennepin County $150,651, % Department of Commerce-National Institute of Standards and Technology-Scientific and Technical Research and Services Department of Commerce-National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-Operations, Research, and Facilities National Science Foundation-Research and Related Activities HHS-National Institutes of Health-National Institute of Child Health and Human Development HHS-National Institutes of Health-National Institute on Aging HHS-National Institutes of Health-National Center for Research Resources HHS-National Institutes of Health-National Cancer Institute HHS-National Institutes of Health-National Institute of General Medical Sciences HHS-National Institutes of Health-National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences HHS-National Institutes of Health-National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute HHS-National Institutes of Health-National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research HHS-National Institutes of Health- National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases HHS-National Institutes of Health-National Institute of Bioimaging and Bioengineering HHS-National Institutes of Health-National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases HHS-National Institutes of Health-National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke HHS-National Institutes of Health-National Eye Institute HHS-National Institutes of Health-National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases HHS-National Institutes of Health-National Institute of Nursing Research HHS-National Institutes of Health-National Institute on Deafness and other Communication Disorders HHS-National Institutes of Health-National Human Genome Research Institute HHS-National Institutes of Health-National Institute of Mental Health HHS-National Institutes of Health-National Institute on Drug Abuse HHS-National Institutes of Health-National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism HHS- National Institutes of Health-National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities HHS-Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality-Healthcare Research and Quality National Aeronautics and Space Administration-Science National Aeronautics and Space Administration-Cross Agency Support National Aeronautics and Space Administration-Exploration National Aeronautics and Space Administration- Aeronautics Department of Energy-Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy-Fossil Energy Research and Development Department of Energy-Office of Science-Science Recovery $174,128, % Department of Transportation-Federal Highway Administration-Highway Infrastructure Investment Department of Transportation-Federal Transit Administration-Transit Capital Assistance Department of Transportation-Federal Transit Administration-Fixed Guideway Infrastructure Investment Department of Transportation-Federal Aviation Administration-Grants-in-aid for Airports Total local award amount $1,165,057,034 * Local award amount rounded to nearest whole dollar Transportation Research & Development / Science 11

14 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Results in Hennepin County A final report to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners Figure 4. Recovery Act funding invested per person and household in Hennepin County $ Total Recovery Act investments in Hennepin County through Quarter 4, 2011 (Source: Recipient reports) = 1,152,425 Total number of households Total number of persons in Hennepin County in Hennepin County (Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Summary File 1) $2, per Hennepin County household Recovery Act investments in public services, projects and programs. Sources: Recovery.gov recipient-reported data, through the quarter ending December 31, 2011; U.S. Census Bureau 2010 Census Summary File 1 Of the $1.17 billion in Hennepin County Recovery Act funding, the county, as a unit of local government, managed close to $40 million. About two-thirds of county-managed project funding, totaling about $25.2 million, is included in the Recovery Act reporting data. Recovery Act reporting requirements do not apply to TANF Emergency Funds, Medical Assistance Percentage Increase (FMAP) and child support, along with other programs. Jobs and employment effects According to the Council of Economic Advisors, the Recovery Act raised employment in Minnesota by 61,000 jobs in fourth quarter 2010 over what it otherwise would have been. The Recovery Act charged the Council of Economic Advisors with providing Congress with quarterly reports assessing the effects of the Recovery Act on overall economic activity and total employment. Figure 5. Comparing job numbers: Council of Economic Advisors estimate of Recovery Act effect on employment in Minnesota and jobs created reported by prime recipients, fourth quarter 2010 = 1,000 jobs Direct jobs funded by the Recovery Act as reported by prime recipients in Minnesota during fourth quarter ,250 Source: Recovery.gov recipient-reported data for fourth quarter 2010, October 1 to December 31, 2010; Executive Office of the President Council of Economic Advisors. (2011, March 18). The Economic Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of Retrieved March 23, 2011, from default/files/microsites/ cea-arra-report.pdf. 12 Recovery Act effect of employment in Minnesota, fourth quarter ,000

15 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Results in Hennepin County A final report to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners In its sixth quarterly report about the economic impact of the American Reinvestment Act of 2009, the Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) found that, the figures from the recipient reporting data do not provide a comprehensive or exact accounting of the jobs created or saved by the Recovery Act. 2 Reporting requirements only apply to about one-third of all funding made available under the Act by-and-large the portion of funding distributed as contracts, grants and loans. In addition, required reports only cover direct jobs created or retained as a result of Recovery Act funding and do not include the employment effect on suppliers (indirect jobs) or on the local community (induced jobs). 3 means recipient reports captured a little less than 9 percent of the Recovery Act s employment effect on Minnesota in fourth quarter 2010, as calculated by the Council of Economic Advisors. Interviews with managers of Recovery Act funded projects in Hennepin County illustrated the ways in which required job reporting does not fully capture the employment effects of the stimulus. For example, the manager of the Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing Replacement Project at the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building said the building s renovation employs about 200 construction workers on a daily basis. However, the project reported only jobs in fourth quarter Prime recipients of Recovery Act funding in Minnesota reported 5,250 jobs created in fourth quarter This Figure 6. Hennepin County recipient reported jobs, quarterly data* 1,400 1,307 1,200 1, Hennepin County - All Countymanaged projects 106 Hennepin County - All Countymanaged projects 21 Hennepin County - All Countymanaged projects Hennepin County - All 22 Countymanaged projects Hennepin County - All 29 Countymanaged projects Hennepin County - All 29 Countymanaged projects Hennepin County - All Countymanaged projects Hennepin County - All Countymanaged projects 18 Hennepin County - All Countymanaged projects Prime recipient reported jobs (4Q 2009) Prime recipient reported jobs (1Q 2010) Prime recipient reported jobs (2Q 2010) Prime recipient reported jobs (3Q 2010) Prime recipient reported jobs (4Q 2010) Prime recipient reported jobs (1Q 2011) Prime recipient reported jobs (2Q 2011) Prime recipient reported jobs (3Q 2011) Prime recipient reported jobs (4Q 2011) Source: Recovery.gov recipient reports, quarterly data. * Jobs reported data only available for prime recipients. The Economic Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Recipient Reported Jobs Data Provide Some Insight Into Use of Recovery Act Funding, but Data Quality and Reporting Issues Need Attention. Retrieved June 20, 2011, from 13

16 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Results in Hennepin County A final report to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners Funds awarded and received and project status Funds received data is available for prime recipient projects only. Comparing the total amount of Recovery Act funding awarded to prime recipients in Hennepin County with the total funds received by these recipients shows that prime recipients throughout Hennepin County had received about two-thirds of their awarded funding (67 percent) and prime recipients for county-managed projects have received more than three-quarters (80 percent) by the end of Almost 92 percent of prime recipient projects in Hennepin County were completed or more than 50 percent completed as of the end of A little more than 8 percent of projects were less than 50 percent completed or not started. About 1 percent of prime recipient Recovery Act projects in Hennepin County had not been started as of the end of Among prime recipient projects managed by Hennepin County, all were either were completed or more than 50 percent completed as of the end of Figure 7. Percentage of funds received and total funds awarded to prime recipients for projects at any organization in Hennepin County and countymanaged projects* 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% $800,789,105 $14,895,171 $534,882,755 67% 45.6% All projects in Hennepin County Total funds received by prime recipients $11,911,082 80% 59.1% County-managed projects only Total funds awarded to prime recipients Source: Recovery.gov recipient-reported data from the Cumulative National Summary Data File for February 17, 2009 through December 31, 2011, filtered by place of performance zip code to include only those projects taking place in Hennepin County. * Total funds awarded and received includes only the total amount of Recovery Act funding awarded and received by prime recipient projects. Funds received data available for prime recipient projects only. Figure 8. Total funds awarded by project status for prime recipient projects throughout Hennepin County, through Quarter 4, 2011 Millions $350 $300 $250 $200 $150 $100 $50 $0 Completed More than 50 percent completed Less than 50 percent completed Not started Total funds awarded Total funds received Source: Recovery.gov recipient-reported data from the Cumulative National Summary Data File for February 17, 2009 through December 31, 2011, filtered by place of performance zip code to include only those projects taking place in Hennepin County. 14

17 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Results in Hennepin County A final report to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners Transparency, accountability and the Recovery Act In addition to creating jobs and promoting economic recovery, another goal of the Recovery Act was to, foster unprecedented levels of accountability and transparency in government spending. 1 The legislation created the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board and required any entity receiving funds directly from the federal government to complete reports including 99 fields of information such as funding amounts received and expended, and jobs created. The federal government even gathered some information from recipients about their sub-recipients as part of the reporting process. The reporting data allowed the federal government to do two things. First, Recovery.gov, the government s official Web site for access to data about Recovery Act spending, provided taxpayers with regularly updated information about the ways stimulus funding was used. Second, the reported data powered the Recovery Operations Center, which was designed to identify potential risk areas related to Recovery Act funds and used computer technology to detect fraud, waste, and abuse. 2 In testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Chairman Earl E. Devaney of the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board told representatives that the transparency created by the data reporting requirements embedded in the Recovery Act helped prevent fraud. According to Devaney, with more than 80 percent of Recovery funding awarded as of June 2011, less than half a percent of all reported Recovery contracts, grants and loans had open investigations and there had been only 144 convictions involving a little more than $1.9 million. 3 At the time the Recovery Act was passed, critics estimated the potential for waste, fraud and abuse could amount to as much as 5 percent, or almost $40 billion, of the Act s total funding. 4 Despite the availability of recipient and awarding agency data and the myriad ways to view it on Recovery. gov, the reported data provides the most complete picture of Recovery Act spending at the national level. Recipient reporting requirements apply to only about a third of the overall funding made available under the act by and large those funds made available as contracts, grants and loans. 5 Local data about entitlement payments and tax benefits is not available at Recovery. gov. Prime recipients, those receiving funds directly from federal agencies, are the only recipients required to report the full complement of data elements included in Section 1512 of the Act under the data reporting model developed by the Office of Management and Budget. 6 Different levels of reporting detail required for different levels of recipient means that a complete package of reporting information is not available for all recipients of Recovery Act funds in Hennepin County. The Recovery Act s greatest legacy may be the expectation of transparency in government spending it created at all levels of government. Congress is currently considering the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act, which would extend stimulus-like reporting requirements to all federal spending. 7 Several states took stimulus transparency requirements as an opportunity to create or enhance Web sites that provide information on government spending. Forty states now have transparency Web sites that provide spending information. The Massasschusetts Open Checkbook site is a legacy of the state s work with the Recovery Act. In addition, Arizona and Kentucky enhanced their existing transparency sites. 8 Even though the State of Minnesota mothballed its Recovery Act spending Web site in 2011, the state continues to update and enhance its Transparency and Accountability Project Minnesota (TAP) site, which provides residents with information about state government spending. 9 References 1 Recovery.gov, About The Recovery Act. (n.d.) Retrieved September 16, 2011, from Governing. Retrieved March 1, 2012, from mgmt/gov-did-the-stimulus-do-anything-for-transparency.html; IBM Center for The Business of Government (2011). Managing Recovery: An Insider s View. Retrieved March 1, 2012 from 3 Testimony of the Honorable Earl E. Devaney, Chairman, Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board. Before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, United States House of Representatives, June 14, IBM Center for The Business of Government (2011). Managing Recovery: An Insider s View. Retrieved March 1, 2012 from businessofgovernment.org/report/managing-recovery-view-inside The Economic Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of Implementing Guidance for the Reports on Use of Funds Pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of Governing. Retrieved March 1, 2012, from mgmt/gov-did-the-stimulus-do-anything-for-transparency.html Recovery.mn. Retrieved March 30, 2012 from and Minnesota Management and Budget. (2012, March 30). Transparency and Accountability Project Minnesota (TAP). Retrieved March 30, 2012 from

18 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Results in Hennepin County A final report to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners Notes about the data Section one of this report contains a summary of the cumulative data reported by recipients of Recovery Act funding at organizations and agencies throughout Hennepin County and county government recipients of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding through fourth quarter The data used to create this section of the report was downloaded March 12, 2012 from the U.S. government s official Web site for data related to Recovery Act spending Recovery.gov. Hennepin County staff cannot guarantee the accuracy of reported Recovery Act data, which was collected and reported by many individuals in hundreds of different organizations and agencies. Recipient errors in data collection or data entry may exist despite the quality assurance checks completed by federal granting agencies. The data included in this section of the report was extracted from 560,000 records included in the cumulative national summary data file for fourth quarter Hennepin County zip codes were used to filter the data reported by Recovery Act recipients across the nation and select only those projects with a place of performance located within Hennepin County. Each project located in Hennepin County was then coded to reflect the recipient s role prime recipient, sub-recipient or vendor. Sub-recipient projects were then coded to indicate whether the prime recipient was located inside or outside Hennepin County. Finally, using the Treasury Accountability Code, the specific funding program under which the federal granting agency funded each project was determined and the project then assigned to one of the Recovery Act funding categories, such as Transportation, Infrastructure, Housing and so on. Thirty-four projects (or about 2.8 percent of all projects) with place of performance zip codes partially located in Hennepin County are included in the data. Some of these projects may be within Hennepin County or may be taking place just outside county boundaries. There may be Recovery Act-funded projects in Hennepin County for which the reporting recipient entered a place of performance zip code outside of Hennepin County. These projects are not reflected in the data. This report only includes data for Recovery Act-funded projects in Hennepin County required to report quarterly under Section 1512 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of Information about Recovery Act funding provided through tax benefits and entitlement payments is not included in the data. The Recovery Act Recipient Reporting Data Model requires different types of recipients of Recovery Act funding to report data at different levels of detail. All data is not available for all recipients. 16

19 Section 2 Contents: Findings from a qualitative research study of Recovery Act project managers Recovery dollars in action: Project descriptions. Interviews index: Summary of all interviewed projects and Recovery Act results Project highlights Qualitative study methodology

20 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Results in Hennepin County A final report to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners Findings from a qualitative research study of Recovery Act project managers Between June 20 and September 30, 2011, the Hennepin County Stimulus Team with the assistance of two research interns from the University of Minnesota s Humphrey School of Public Affairs conducted interviews with the managers of Recovery grant and contract-funded projects taking place in Hennepin County to gather information about the ways in which projects had fulfilled the purposes of the Act: 1 1. To preserve and create jobs and promote economic recovery. 2. To assist those most impacted by the recession. 3. To provide investments needed to increase economic efficiency by spurring technological advances in science and health. 4. To invest in transportation, environmental protection, and other infrastructure that will provide long-term economic benefits. 5. To stabilize state and local government budgets, in order to minimize and avoid reductions in essential services and counterproductive state and local tax increases. Although the Recovery Act is a federal policy, funding recipients the state and local governments, non-profits and private companies implementing projects were largely responsible for achieving the goals of the legislation. This report uses information gathered during interviews with a cross-section of managers of Recovery Act funded projects to take a closer look at the results achieved in Hennepin County, in light of the five primary purposes of the legislation. Nearly all project managers talked about ways in which their project had preserved or created jobs and promoted economic recovery. 2 Construction project managers talked about hundreds of workers who found positions at their sites. Youth employment project managers found summer jobs for more young people. City and county project managers were able to keep public safety officers on patrol, when they otherwise may have been laid off. At the same time, dozens of unemployed Hennepin County residents trained to take advantage of new jobs in emerging industries, including the next generation of health information technology. A majority of project managers said their project assisted those most impacted by the recession, including construction workers, unemployed persons and residents with low incomes. A wide array of public housing and health programs offered expanded services to Hennepin 18 County residents most in need, including low-income families and the elderly, whether it was preserving the homes they were in, helping them find new ones, or providing clinical care and therapy. Several project managers said their project made investments needed to increase economic efficiency by spurring technological advances in science and health. New approaches to using technology in the classroom advanced curricula from grade school to graduate school. Advanced screening technology and integrated care approaches put in place using Recovery Act funding support better health outcomes. Nearly half the project managers mentioned investments made by their project in transportation, environmental protection and other infrastructure that will provide longterm economic benefits. Recovery Act funds supported work on important road, bridge, and trail connections, expanding the regional transportation system and laying the groundwork for future economic development. Many public buildings were made more energy efficient, preserving important public infrastructure and providing cost savings into the future. Several project managers discussed their project s contributions to stabilizing state and local government budgets. In many interviews, project managers said funding from the Act allowed their organization to take on work that would have otherwise been deferred due to tight budgets, sped up implementation of already planned projects or expanded the scope of existing projects requiring them to retain existing staff and, in some cases, hire new staff to serve new populations, more clients or different locations. Many project managers talked about how the speed at which funding proposals had to be put together, coupled with demanding project timelines, plus rigorous reporting requirements and constant reminders from granting agencies about the urgency to obligate funds and get projects moving, meant they felt a great deal of pressure to spend their Recovery Act funding quickly and carefully, all while reporting a lot of information about what was being done with the funding at almost the same time it was being spent. A few project managers said it was challenging to use Recovery Act dollars at the pace demanded by their program, with sub-grantees lagging timelines contributing to difficulties in grantees spending the money in the allowed timeframes.

21 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Results in Hennepin County A final report to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners Some of the Recovery Act funding came with federal mandates or preferences for local organizations and agencies to collaborate with each other, as well as with national research centers and consortiums of academic institutions. In many cases, interviewed project managers said these collaborations forged lasting relationships between the partners that will allow them to share best practices, reduce service duplication, leverage resources and provide better services to the community. However, other project managers said the required collaboration created difficulties when program staff couldn t wait for curricula or other information from research partners but had to proceed on short timelines, modifying the program to the research as it became available. References 1 Public Law American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2 Project managers were asked to talk about the ways in which as described by the project managers. Interviewed project managers frequently referred to the considerable time and effort that went into gathering all of the information necessary for completing the required quarterly Recovery Act reports. Reporting was made even more challenging, according to the interviewed project managers, by evolving requirements, many of which were still being resolved while some programs were already up and operating. A couple of project managers noted that required jobs reporting did not capture the full extent of jobs created and retained by their projects among materials suppliers and vendors completing work corollary to their Recovery Act funded project. Several project managers receiving Recovery Act funding through existing federal grant programs said reporting required by the Recovery Act and the existing grant programs were on different schedules, creating additional complexity. Some smaller firms ultimately declined to provide services or equipment for projects funded by the Recovery Act due to the extensive reporting requirements and need to comply with many other conditions for the use of Recovery Act funding. Despite the speed required to implement projects under the Act and the reporting required, overall, interviewed project managers said the community will benefit from Recovery Act spending over the long run as projects remove barriers to investment, enhance technology, improve infrastructure, increase the tax-base, keep people out of public systems, produce a highly trained workforce and aid the private market, creating greater capacity for economic growth.

22 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Results in Hennepin County A final report to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners Interviews index: Summary of all interviewed projects and Recovery Act results Osseo School District Educational Technology funded by Minnesota Department of Education Title II Part D - Enhancing Education Through Technology McKinstry Essention, Inc. funded by Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants for Brooklyn Park, Plymouth, Eden Prairie Hennepin County Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Projects 1 Community Action Partnership of Suburban Hennepin funded by Minnesota Department of Human Services Community Services Block Grant/ARRA Community Action of Minneapolis funded by Minnesota Department of Human Services Community Services Block Grant/ARRA Clearway Minnesota, Minnesota - Tobacco Cessation Through Quitlines and Media funded by Minnesota Department of Health Hennepin County Northpoint Health Wellness Center ARRA - Increase Services to Health Centers and Hennepin County Northpoint Health Wellness Center ARRA - Capital Improvement Program 1 Hennepin County Title 1 of the Housing & Community Development Act: Community Development Block Grant Program Minneapolis Public Housing Authority Heritage Park Senior Services Center (HPSSC) Hennepin County Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re- Housing Program and City of Minneapolis Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re- Housing Program (HPRP) 2 20

23 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Results in Hennepin County A final report to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners Interviews index: Summary of all interviewed projects and Recovery Act results Hennepin County Recovery Zone Development Bonds to finance the Lowry Avenue Bridge Hennepin County Recovery Zone Facility Bonds (RZFBs) to Port Authority of the City of Bloomington to fund Mall of America Hotel Hennepin County outh employment programs funded by Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development Workforce Investment Act (WIA) and Dislocated Worker- National Emergency Grant 3 Hennepin County Adult and Dislocated Worker employment programs funded by Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development Workforce Investment Act (WIA) and Dislocated Worker- National Emergency Grant 3 Hennepin County Health Care for the Homeless ARRA - Increase Services to Health Centers and Hennepin County Health Care for the Homeless ARRA - Capital Improvement Program 1 (Applies to Increase Services to Health Centers) (Applies to Capital Improvement Program) Hennepin County Promoting Adolescent and Adult Vaccination among Providers, Community Organizations and the Public funded by Minnesota Department of Health ARRA-317 Immunization and Vaccines for Children Grants Hennepin County Cedar Lake Trail - Third Ave N connection along 3rd Ave N from 12th St N to 7th St N funded by Minnesota Department of Transportation Highway Infrastructure Investment Grant: Transportation Enhancements 21

24 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Results in Hennepin County A final report to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners Interviews index: Summary of all interviewed projects and Recovery Act results Enventis Telecom, Inc. Recovery Act-Greater Minnesota Broadband Collaborative Hennepin County FY09 Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Stimulus Projects Hennepin County Community Foreclosure Accountability and Renewal program funded by Housing Preservation Project Inc Recovery Act: Edward Byrne Memorial Competitive Grant Program: Category III --- Reducing Mortgage Fraud and Crime Related to Vacant Properties Hennepin County Increasing Access to Orders for Protection at the Domestic Abuse Service Center funded by Minnesota Department of Public Safety Recovery Act STOP VAWA Formula Grant Program 4 MPD Computer Forensic Analysis for Major Crime and Asset Forfeiture Hennepin County Reduce DNA Backlog in Sheriff's Crime Lab Conservation Corps USFWS - Fuels Reduction in the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge Regents of the University of Minnesota Recovery Act: A Nationwide Consortium of Universities to Revitalize Electric Power Engineering Education Hennepin County - ARRA Brownfields RLF Regents of the University of Minnesota Physician Quality Reporting and Patient Outcomes in Medicare Metropolitan Council, Minnesota Transit Capital Assistance 5307 formula funds - Metropolitan Council Bus Acquisition 22

25 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Results in Hennepin County A final report to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners Interviews index: Summary of all interviewed projects and Recovery Act results Blue Green Alliance Minnesota GreenPOWER Training Program Regents of the University of Minnesota Renovation of the St. Anthony Falls Laboratory- University of Minnesota, for research in energy and environmental sustainability Search Institute The Building Assets - Reducing Risks Program: Replication and Expansion of an Effective Strategy to Turn Around Low- Achieving Schools Normandale Community College Health Information Technology Training funded by the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology City of Minnetonka Community Development funds Single family, owner occupied, housing rehabilitation City of Minneapolis (Lead), City of Brooklyn Park and Hennepin County NSP2- Neighborhood Stabilization Program Urban Ventures Youth Mentoring and Employment Project OJJDP FY09 Recovery Act Local Youth Mentoring Initiative City of St. Louis Park Construct a grade-separated interchange, at Wooddale Ave & TH 7 funded by Minnesota Department of Transportation Highway Infrastructure Investment Grants Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing Replacement Project Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building 1 The same Hennepin County staff member(s) managed more than one Recovery Act project. All projects were discussed during a single interview. same Hennepin County staff members managed services provided under both Recovery Act projects. Both projects were discussed during a single interview. 3 Hennepin County Youth, Adult and Dislocated Worker employment programs were funded by Workforce Investment Act and Dislocated Worker National 4 As a sub-recipient of the Domestic Abuse Project, which is a sub-recipient of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Hennepin County does not report data about this Recovery Act funding directly to the federal government. Instead, Hennepin County reports to the Domestic Abuse Project, which reports to the 23

26 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Results in Hennepin County A final report to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners Project name: Hennepin County 1 Recipient name: Hennepin County Recipient role: Award type: Funding category: Energy/ Award amount Recovery Act Objectives: Project description Some of [the efficiency projects] would probably be sitting still on the back burner waiting for some sort of funding source. So I think it really did stimulate and expedite us getting these projects done and maybe even looking at them at a larger scale. I would say maybe half of the projects would not be funded at this point in time. [The traffic signal retrofit] is a pretty cool project in all aspects...the communities pay the electricity bill, so this is a dual benefit project in the fact that the cities benefit from the reduction in energy. We actually gain, because the maintenance of them is dramatically reduced. So there s a win-win situation there. 1 The same Hennepin County staff member managed all three Recovery Act projects. Projects were discussed during a single interview. 2

27 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Results in Hennepin County A final report to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners HENNEPIN COUNT Y PROJ E C T ANNUAL COST SAVINGS TOTAL PROJECT COST $590,000 $971,100 HC MEDICAL CENTER $135,000 PROJECT PAYBACK 2 YRS 5 YRS $626,000 LIG HTIN G RE TR O FITS $102,000 4 YRS $539,000 CE N TR AL LIBR A RY $30,000 5 YRS $160,366 IN G H E A LTH SER VICE BUIL D $50,000 7 YRS $336,500 H ER C B UIL DIN G $60,000 5 YRS $285,000 TR A FFIC LIG H T RETR O FITS Light fixtures being retrofitted at the Hennepin County Health Services Building Worker installing a new lens on the fixture Worker installing a new energy efficient ballast North West corner of Brooklyn Boulevard and 55th in Brooklyn Center

28 Results and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in Hennepin County A final report to the Hennepin County Board Project name: Hennepin County NorthPoint Health & Wellness Center ARRA - Increase Services to Health Centers and Hennepin County NorthPoint Health & Wellness Center ARRA - Capital Improvement Program 1 Recipient name: Hennepin County NorthPoint Health & Wellness Center Recipient role: Prime recipient Award type: Grant Funding category: Health Award amount: $1,329, Recovery Act Objectives: [3] Project description The Department of Health and Human Services invested more than $1 billion in Recovery Act funds with community health centers across the country to provide critical healthcare services to the growing uninsured population. NorthPoint Health & Wellness Center, a multi-specialty primary care clinic established in the late 1960s and administered through Hennepin County, received almost $1.4 million through the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and the Increased Demand for Services (IDS) grant programs. NorthPoint provides a wide range of medical, dental, optometry, and behavioral health services, regardless of ability to pay. Ninety-eight percent of the clinic s patients are Hennepin County residents, many of whom live in North Minneapolis and the rst-tier northwest suburbs. Although NorthPoint expanded in 2007, the facility was unable to meet the increasing demand for exam rooms, especially in their mental health area, where the Project Support program provides behavioral health services to adolescents involved with the juvenile justice system. The Capital Improvement Program grant leveraged other county funds and supported the renovation and recon guration of existing spaces in early 2011, adding exam rooms Our clinic takes all patients regardless of their ability to pay, and we anticipated an increase in the number of patients. We did see an increase in the number of patients that were uninsured, people losing their jobs, not being able to find work, etc. The federal dollars allowed NorthPoint to continue providing the same quality of services to a greater number of Hennepin County residents without using Hennepin County property tax dollars. and making the registration and processing areas more e cient. New equipment also purchased with grant funds helped to increase service capacity, including a state-of-the-art digital mammography machine, which has helped NorthPoint with its goal of increasing access to mammography. Similar to the facility constraints, practitioner schedules at North- Point also were routinely full. The Increased Demand for Services grant allowed the clinic to immediately extend its evening service hours. Within the rst month of receiving funding, NorthPoint hired an additional 3.5 full-time equivalent practitioners, including a nancial case aide who assists patients in applying for medical assistance and an interpreter who works with non-english speaking patients. The clinic projected that over the two-year grant period expansion of its express care operation would result in services to an additional 4,600 patients, as well as an additional 2,300 uninsured patients. Even after the grant concludes, North- Point will be able to maintain this higher capacity, because these new levels of service were factored into a $170,000 increase in the clinic s annual Federal Quali ed Health Center grant, which will be supplemented by earned revenue. 1 The same Hennepin County staff member managed both Recovery Act projects. Both projects were discussed during a single interview. 2 Award amount re ects the amount granted to Northpoint Health and Wellness Center for both the Increase Services to Health Centers and Capital Improvement Program grant programs.

29 Results and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in Hennepin County A final report to the Hennepin County Board Before construction After construction The registration desk before remodeling did not allow proper privacy for patients who are registering for their medical appointments. After remodeling the desks have more partitions to give more privacy when interviewed by NorthPoint registration staff. Some offices were poorly configured which did not allow for efficient use of patient care areas. After remodeling the offices there are several new exam rooms available to meet the growing demand for medical services at NorthPoint. Some large offices located in patient care areas were not being well used. After remodeling this high traffic area allowed for NorthPoint financial aid workers to meet privately with patients enrolling in medical insurance programs.

30 Results and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in Hennepin County A final report to the Hennepin County Board Project name: Hennepin County Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program and City of Minneapolis Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program (HPRP) 1 Recipient name: Hennepin County Human Services and Public Health Department Recipient role: Prime recipient for Hennepin County Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program and Sub-recipient for City of Minneapolis Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program Award type: Grant Funding category: Housing Award amount: $6,513, Recovery Act Objectives: [3] TARGET POPULATIONS & SERVICE PROVIDERS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION RAPID RE-HOUSING Project description THE COUNCIL OF CHURCHES REFUGEE SERVICES ADULT SINGLES THE SALVATION ARMY HARBOR LIGHT CENTER CATHOLIC CHARITIES ELIM TRANSITIONAL HOUSING HENNEPIN SOUTH SERVICES COLLABORATION NORTHWEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF MINNEAPOLIS ST. STEPHEN S HUMAN SERVICES The Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program helps keep individuals and families at risk of losing their housing in their homes and helps individuals and families who are already homeless nd a ordable housing. Between October 2009 and March 2012, Hennepin County and City of Minneapolis Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing providers served more than 6,100 persons in about 2,400 households: 2,827 persons in 1,012 households received services or assistance to prevent homelessness Nearly $1.4 million in nancial assistance allowed these households to remain housed 94 percent of persons exiting the program after receiving prevention services did so to a permanent destination CATHOLIC CHARITIES HOPE STREET GREATER MINNEAPOLIS CRISIS NURSERY FAMILIES ST. STEPHEN S HUMAN SERVICES GREATER MINNEAPOLIS CRISIS NURSERY THE COUNCIL OF CHURCHES REFUGEE SERVICES HENNEPIN SOUTH SERVICES COLLABORATION ELIM TRANSITIONAL HOUSING YOUTHLINK UNACCOMPANIED YOUTH YOUTHLINK 3,356 persons in 1,449 households received services or assistance to end an episode of homelessness and secure housing More than $1.7 million in nancial assistance allowed these households to secure safe and a ordable housing 79 percent of persons exiting the program after receiving rapid re-housing services did so to a permanent destination 74 percent of households had an increase in income from the point of program entry to program exit Legal services were provided for 623 persons in 196 households We have seen an increase in the number of singles and families in shelters, as well as those that are precariously housed, most recently as a result of the tornado [in North Minneapolis]. Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing program dollars aided in offsetting the public share of both prevention and rapid re-housing costs for many of these households. The economy has really just magnified, extremely, an existing problem. So it s created a whole new population of homeless people. People that have a lifetime of steady employment and steady housing who have lost their housing and have exhausted their support resources and are, for the first time in their lives, homeless. 1 Hennepin County and the City of Minneapolis partnered to provide services under the Recovery Act s Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program. The same Hennepin County staff members managed services provided under both Recovery Act projects. Both projects were discussed during a single interview. 2 Re ects total Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing (HPRP) Program funding awarded to both Hennepin County and the City of Minneapolis.

31 Results and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in Hennepin County A final report to the Hennepin County Board Project name: Hennepin County youth employment programs funded by Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development Workforce Investment Act (WIA) and Dislocated Worker-National Emergency Grant Recipient name: Hennepin County Housing, Community Works & Transit Recipient role: Sub-recipient Award type: Grant Funding category: Job Training/ Unemployment Award Amount: $553, Recovery Act Objectives: [3] Project description An additional 425 young people, as well as six adult crew leaders and a case manager, had summer jobs in 2009 because of Recovery Act Workforce Investment Act funding for youth employment programs. Since 1977, the non-pro t Tree Trust has been connecting suburban Hennepin County youth to the natural world, the workforce, and each other. As the youth workforce provider for Hennepin County, Tree Trust used Recovery Workforce Investment Act funding to provide employment for low-income and special needs suburban Hennepin County youth between the ages of 14 and 21, with a concentration in Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park, and other areas of greatest need. The happiness and the pride that this kid had. I remember him saying that, Yeah, I m buying groceries this week. So he s helping out. It s the first time he had money to do something like that....a lot of our kids, they don t have much success in their life. They re not in band, they re not on the track team. Schools are charging for extracurricular participation. They just don t have the money or confidence to do it. And then they come out of the summer, and they built a 215 foot wall, and they know they did it because they did it every day. We put them in an environment where if they apply themselves, they work hard, they can achieve success. We don t give them anything. They have to earn everything they get but we re going to be there to help them when they make a mistake Youth working with Tree Trust are paid wages for their work at community service organizations such as daycare centers, food banks, and so on or with summer work crews, who build retaining walls, outdoor stairs, and complete other landscaping projects in county parks, at local schools and community centers, and in other natural spaces. Cities contribute the necessary materials and supplies, the county s public spaces and infrastructure are maintained, and the kids receive job coaching and mentoring, building skills, con dence, and job experience, as well as learning work environment expectations. Tree Trust works with participants to create a personal budget and manage their paychecks, which many of them spend on family expenses, such as rent, groceries, or clothing for school. Youth workers practice basic computer skills, such as typing and using a spreadsheet, while learning how to write their resume and calculate project costs. Eligible youth were selected by lottery from a pool three to four times larger than the program could accommodate. Based on supervisor reviews, 89 percent of participants had positive outcomes from the program. The long-term goal is that the kids will take the skills and experience they ve gained at Tree Trust and be able to obtain more traditional summer employment on their own. 1 Re ects only the Recovery Act funds awarded to Tree Trust for Hennepin County Workforce Investment Act youth employment programming.

32 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Results in Hennepin County A final report to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners Project name: Hennepin County Recovery Zone Development Bonds to nance the Lowry Avenue Bridge Recipient name: Hennepin County Award type: Recovery Zone Economic Development Bonds Funding category: Tax Bene t Program Recovery Bonds issued: $26,853,000 Recovery Act Objectives: [3] Project description The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided for the creation of new nancing tools designed to promote economic recovery and to invest in infrastructure that will provide long-term economic bene ts. Hennepin County issued $26.85 million in Recovery Zone Economic Development Bonds towards the construction of the Lowry Ave Bridge. With these In terms of advancements, the project includes a deicing system on the bridge for the bridge deck. It s not a common thing but is something we thought, from a technology perspective, would help serve the public by getting the bridge deck [treated]. It puts down a liquid brine material that would help stop the bond of frost and ice to the deck. It wouldn t allow it to happen. bonds the federal government will reimburse the county 45 percent of the cost of the interest over the next 30 years, which lowers the cost of a portion of the nancing. The bridge is expected to cost almost $100 million, using additional funding from state and county bonds and a $475,000 federal appropriation. During construction, expected to be complete in October 2012, the bridge will create or retain more than 700 direct jobs and almost 200 indirect jobs. 1 2 Completed in 1905, the Lowry Ave Bridge, crossing the Mississippi River, created a primary transportation corridor and neighborhood connection for North Minneapolis. In the 1950 s the bridge became too weak to carry tra c and was completely rebuilt on the existing foundation. The columns were raised 20 feet to allow easier access for barge tra c. 3 4 Over time, structural components located in the riverbed began to sink into the ground causing the bridge to tilt as much as 11inches in some spots. Hennepin County closed the bridge in April 2008 because of safety concerns. On June 21, 2009, Hennepin County imploded the historic bridge. Lack of structural integrity made imploding the safest option for demolition. Residents heard a loud, deep boom as 198 pounds of explosives brought down the steel trusses. 30

33 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Results in Hennepin County A final report to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners 5 6 The new bridge will be 1,600 feet long, spanning from 2nd Street on the west side of the river to Marshall Street on the east. This is a bit longer than the old bridge because it replaces two bridges, one over the river and another over the Canadian Paci c rail line. The bridge will continue to provide four lanes of vehicular tra c and is adding wider shoulders and sidewalks to better accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians. 7 8 The steel open grate of the old bridge was a source of contamination as salt, uids and other toxins dropped into the river. The new enclosed surface will capture run-o and treat the water before it is discharged into the river. The new bridge will also reduce the obstructions in the river by placing only two foundations, also called piers, directly into the river - two less than the old bridge Once complete, the bridge will reconnect North and Northeast Minneapolis, making it easier for people and goods to move between the two parts of the city. In addition, the designated transporation route between the Shorem Railyard and Highway 94 will be restored. 11 Construction began in early 2010 and the new bridge is expected to be open to tra c in October The project is managed by Hennepin County s Transportation Department and Lunda Construction Company, based in Black River Falls, WI. The new steel-tied arch bridge, designed by SRF Consulting and T.Y, Lin International, will be a monumental landmark that North Minneapolis can look to with pride, says Jim Grube, director of Hennepin County s Transportation Department. 31

34 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Results in Hennepin County A final report to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners Getting Shovel-Ready Although the term shovelready appeared in hundreds of news stories in the run-up to the Recovery Act s passage in February 2009, the term does not appear in the text of the legislation itself. Ultimately, the term shovel-ready has become short-hand for infrastructure projects that have completed all preliminary planning processes including selecting the site and acquiring the parcels, conducting environmental studies, and obtaining city and other approvals and are ready to begin construction. There does not appear to be a formal definition of shovel-ready. The term does not appear in the dictionary and the Federal Highway Administration s preferred term is, ready to go. 1 Section 1602 of the Recovery Act states a preference for using funds made available for infrastructure investments on activities that can be started and completed expeditiously, including a goal of using at least 50 percent of the funds for activities that can be initiated not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. 2 Many economists agree that dollars invested in public infrastructure projects are likely to stimulate greater levels of economic activity than tax benefits, the majority of which are frequently saved in a recession. 3 So while investing in shovel-ready infrastructure projects with its echoes of the Depression-era Work Projects Administration (WPA) sounds like a quick way to get money moving and people back at work in a stalled economy, in practice, it takes time to get construction projects going. In February 2010, the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a report which found that applying some of the provisions of the Recovery Act such as Davis-Bacon prevailing wage and Buy American requirements were affecting construction project timelines. According to the GAO, among the factors influencing the ability to quickly select and start projects was a lack of clarity about the meaning of the term shovelready. 4 Even President Obama recognized the time involved in getting public works projects moving, telling the New York Times, there s no such thing as shovel-ready projects. 5 References Stimulus bill gives shovel-ready projects priority How the Great Recession was Brought to an End. Retrieved from: Advisors. (July 2011). The Economic Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009: Seventh Quarterly Fiscal Spending Jobs Multipliers: Evidence from the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Did the Stimulus Stimulate? Real Time Estimates of the Effects of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act The Employment Effects of Fiscal Policy: How Costly are ARRA Jobs? So, is it Working? An Assessment of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act at the Five-Month Mark A Model of the Consumption Response to Fiscal Stimulus Payments. Preliminary Can Tax Rebates Stimulate Consumption Spending in a Life-Cycle Model? Household Balance Sheets and the Recovery and Government Reform Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight and Government Spending On The Stimulus: Two Years Later. years-later/ certain federal requirements and other factors New York Times. Retrieved June 20, 2011, from 32

35 Results and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in Hennepin County A final report to the Hennepin County Board Project name: Hennepin County Recovery Zone Facility Bonds (RZFBs) to Port Authority of the City of Bloomington to fund Mall of America Hotel Recipient name: Hennepin County with bonding authority allocated to the Port Authority of the City of Bloomington Award type: Recovery Zone Facility Bonds Funding category: Tax Bene t Program Recovery bonds issued: $40,280, Recovery Act Objectives: [2] Project description The Mall of America has become a retail destination and an engine of economic development right here in Hennepin County. The Recovery Act provided for the creation of new nancing tools designed to promote economic recovery and invest in infrastructure that will provide longterm economic bene ts. Recovery Zone Facility Bonds were one of the new tools created as a result of the Recovery Act. In August 2010, the Hennepin County Board allocated $40.28 million in Recovery Zone Facility Bonding authority to the Port Authority of the City of Bloomington. The Port Authority is using the bonds to help nance construction of a new $137 million, 501-room hotel, including meeting space, a spa and full-service restaurant, and a parking ramp containing more than 500 spaces next to the Mall of America. The hotel is within walking distance of the mall s transit center, which is just a few stops from the Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport by light rail. The goal of the project is to create jobs for unemployed construction workers in the metro area during construction and permanent jobs for hotel employees once the hotel is completed. Constructing the hotel is expected to create as many as 250 construction jobs and, once the new hotel opens, it s anticipated to employ up to 240 people full-time. Upon completion, the hotel will add approximately $60 million in market value to the Bloomington tax base. The development will pay more than $2 million a year in property taxes annually once its tax increment nancing (TIF) district expires in The new Radisson Blu at the Mall of America is expected to open in 2013.

36 Results and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in Hennepin County A final report to the Hennepin County Board Project name: Hennepin County Cedar Lake Trail - Third Ave N connection along 3rd Ave N from 12th St N to 7th St N funded by Minnesota Department of Transportation Highway Infrastructure Investment Grant: Transportation Enhancements Recipient name: Hennepin County Recipient role: Sub-recipient Award type: Grant Funding category: Transportation Award amount: $695, Recovery Act Objectives: [2] Project description Hennepin County received a sub-recipient award from the State of Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) to improve a critical regional trail linkage between Cedar Lake Trail and Target Field Station, where several existing and future transit lines converge. Recovery Act funds helped create a safe, gradeseparated option for pedestrians and bicyclists exiting from the Cedar Lake Trail into downtown Minneapolis and traveling along Third Avenue North between 12 th and 7 th Streets North to Target Field Plaza. The new route o ers trail users access to the Twins ballpark, Hiawatha LRT and Northstar Commuter Rail services, and the future Interchange transit hub. Hennepin County administered the project, working with MnDOT, the Minnesota Ballpark Authority, and the City of Minneapolis on the plan. Local consulting rm SRF was hired with additional county funds to design the improvements and manage the construction and inspection process. Recovery Act funds covered the construction materials and labor costs. The work was completed by local contractor Veit We re making it easier to use alternative modes of transportation...this is a key connection point. They can catch the train and ride their bike from the train. It facilitates connections to other jobs. Companies in March 2010, providing employment for construction workers when many were out of work. The project included an information kiosk at the trail exit on 12 th, the widening of the sidewalk along 3 rd to safely accommodate both pedestrians and bikes, and landscaping and bike parking at the plaza destination on 7th. The road and lanes were narrowed and trees were planted along the route, which slows tra c on the street and improves the ped/ bike experience. The transit connection is crucial because Cedar Lake Trail links to the Luce Line and Minnesota River Blu s Trails, which extend to the western reaches of Hennepin County. Yet connecting the regional trail system to this critical transit destination has been an ongoing challenge, because the trail passes beneath Target Field Station, separated by grade, distance, and operating freight rail lines from the transit plaza above. The new linkage provides trail user access not only to work and play downtown, but myriad destinations throughout the current and expanding transit system, including the University of Minnesota, the Capitol, the Mall of America, and the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport.

37 Results and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in Hennepin County A final report to the Hennepin County Board Project name: Hennepin County Adult and Dislocated Worker employment programs funded by Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development Workforce Investment Act (WIA) and Dislocated Worker-National Emergency Grant Recipient name: Hennepin County Housing, Community Works & Transit Recipient role: Sub-recipient Award type: Grant Funding category: Job Training/ Unemployment Award Amount: $3,578, Recovery Act Objectives: [2] Project description Hennepin County received about $3.6 million in Recovery Act funds from the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) to supplement workforce programs for adults, dislocated workers and youth in suburban Hennepin and Carver Counties. Most of these resources ($2.2 million) went to dislocated worker programs to assist those laid o during the recession through no fault of their own. Another $1 million supported the e orts of long-term, unemployed adults, whose lack of recent job skills makes placement more challenging. The goal with dislocated workers is to get them back into the workforce as quickly as possible at or near their previous salary and position. However, in recognition of the stagnant job market and high unemployment rate, the Recovery Act mandated 70 percent of workforce funds support long-term training in emerging, high-demand occupations. The slow recovery made it an ideal time for this type of training, which would prepare workers for jobs in these growth areas when the market improved. The program also would improve the supply of quality workers and the long-term economic competitiveness of the region. Hennepin County subcontracted Recovery Act workforce programs to a handful of vendors. Local nonpro t HIRED was awarded nearly It was a time of high unemployment in the state there were a lot of people affected, so, you know, we saw a lot of people The resource rooms here in the WorkForce Centers were full. Workshops were full. Everybody was trying to access as many services as they could. Employers are getting a better qualified candidate than they did before ARRA money. Before that, people would not have had that opportunity to go out and get more training and get their skills updated with new technology, with new processes, with new certifications. $900,000 to support dislocated and adult worker programs at the North and South WorkForce Centers in Brooklyn Park and Bloomington. HIRED provided assessment of eligible clients, o ering skills updating through training and education, providing credentials and certi cates, and making participants more attractive to employers. Through partnerships with Minnesota State Colleges and Universities community and technical colleges, the program provided sector training initiatives focused on manufacturing, green jobs, healthcare, and customer service. Participants also received one-on-one counseling and mentorship, as well as job search workshops on resume development and interviewing skills. Using Recovery Act resources, HIRED placed 186 suburban Hennepin County program participants at an average hourly wage of $24.11 in 17 di erent industries, including manufacturing, healthcare, nancial services, and professional/scienti c/technical services. These results came in spite of reduced administrative costs and no participant living expense support, which are more typical of workforce programs. Commitment to the long-term training program was challenging for many participants, who were scrambling to nd work and working part-time to meet their family s immediate needs. Yet the program nished in June 2010, meeting or exceeding all federal and state performance standards. 1 Represents the total award to Hennepin County in support of Youth, Adult, and Dislocated Worker programs in both Hennepin and Carver Counties. This amount includes the portion of Hennepin County Workforce Investment Act and Dislocated Worker - National Emergency Grant funding dedicated to youth employment programs.

38 Results and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in Hennepin County A final report to the Hennepin County Board Project name: Hennepin County FY09 Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Stimulus Projects Recipient name: Hennepin County Administration Recipient role: Prime recipient Award type: Grant Funding category: Public Safety Award amount: $5,763, Recovery Act Objectives: [2] Project description Each year, the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program awards somewhere between $500,000 and $1 million to Hennepin County to support crime prevention e orts. JAG funds are distributed by Hennepin County according to a formula based on crime statistics and population, usually to somewhere between four and eight local municipalities in any given year. The Recovery Act expanded JAG program funding and led to a one-time increase in the amount of funding allocated to Hennepin County to $5.7 million. Seventeen cities received Recovery Act funded JAG awards in 2009, 10 of which were rst-time recipients. The fouryear grants extend through March 2013 and local police departments are using the funds to shore up public safety budgets, retain sta, expand community policing, and pay for capital equipment. In Minneapolis, Recovery Act JAG funding helped retain 87 police of- cers over a six-month time frame. In Eden Prairie, several park rangers would have been laid o if not for JAG assistance. In other municipalities, the resources helped pay for sta, o cers, overtime, and youth diversion programs, such as the Drug Abuse Resistance Education program (D.A.R.E.). Brooklyn Park received more than $400,000, which helped sta and equip the new Village Creek Community Police Station. Brooklyn Center and Champlin each purchased vehicles, and Rich eld replaced a SWAT vehicle that was in very poor condition. Hopkins installed an alarm system in its city council chambers. Other purchases included computer equipment, digital cameras, a robotic surveillance camera, GPS tracking devices, tasers, ammunition, guns, a crisis throw phone, and a narcotics dog. In Hennepin County, JAG funding supports the Hennepin Justice Integration Program (HJIP). The HJIP allows real-time, networked information exchange between many criminal justice agencies, improving the timeliness and quality of shared information for agencies that process more than half of the State of Minnesota s criminal cases and violations each year. Recovery Act funding helped the JAG program foster new relationships amongst the county s criminal justice agencies and between Hennepin County and the recipient cities, providing inroads with many police departments, preserving jobs, supporting diminishing budgets, and replacing outdated equipment with newer technologies.

39 HENNEPIN COUNTY CONNECTING CEDAR LAKE TO TRANSIT American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Results in Hennepin County A final report to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners RECOVERY ACT FUNDING PATHS: FROM FEDERAL AGENCIES TO HENNEPIN COUNTY GOVERNMENT American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of Contracts, Grants and Loans Recovery Act funding took many different paths in reaching Henepin County government. This graphic displays the relationship between federal funding programs and agencies, prime recipients for county-managed projects, as well as sub-recipients and vendors for the 19 county-managed Recovery Act projects in different Contract, Grant and Loan funding categories. For some projects, Hennepin County was the prime recipient and funding flowed directly from the federal awarding agency and funding program to the county. For other projects, Hennepin County was a sub-recipient of a Minnesota state agency, the City of Minneapolis or a local non-profit, such as the Housing Preservation Project, Inc. Recovery Act Contract, Grant & Loan Funding Category Federal Awards Agency Federal Funding Program Prime Recipients for County Managed Projects* Hennepin County Managed Projects Hennepin County Subrecipients & Vendors $34.1 B TRANSPORTATION $34.1 B U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION $27.5 B HIGHWAY INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM $506 M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION $2.7 M $0.70 M HENNEPIN COUNTY CONSTRUCT TWO TRAIL BRIDGES ENERGY/ ENVIRONMENT $869 M ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY $100 M BROWNFIELD CLEAN-UP HENNEPIN COUNTY $24.6 B HENNEPIN COUNTY $21.8 B DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY HOUSING HENNEPIN COUNTY Dollar amounts are rounded. Funding Category and Federal Awards Agency amounts reflect Contract, Grant and Loan funding amounts paid out as of May Federal Funding Program amounts reflect allocations for each program included in agency program plans. Prime Recipient and Hennepin County Managed Projects amounts reflect local amounts awarded. $1.8 M HENNEPIN COUNTY ARRA BROWNFIELD CLEANUP ASSISTANCE CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK $2.6 M MINNEAPOLIS PARK & RECREATION BOARD $3.2 B ENERGY EFFICIENCY & CONSERVATION BLOCK GRANT HENNEPIN COUNTY EECBG ENERGY PROJECTS CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS $0.12 M KARGES- FAULCONBRIDGE, INC NORTHERN AIR CORPORATION $10.6 M THE RETROFIT COMPANIES, INC TRAFFIC CONTROL CORPORATION APi ELECTRIC, INC. MN DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE $0.16 M HENNEPIN COUNTY HEALTH SERVICES BLDG LIGHTING UPGRADES $13.0 B $12.0 B DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT $1 B COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT $0.65 M HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS NAC MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL SERVICES $1.5 B HOMELESS PREVENTION & RAPID RE-HOUSING $5.5 M $0.99 M HENNEPIN COUNTY AND CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS HOMELESS PREVENTION & RAPID RE-HOUSING OSSEO FIRE STATION LOUISIANA COURT APARTMENTS HOPKINS HOUSING AUTHORITY MEDLEY PARK TOWNHOMES $2 B NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION PROGRAM $19.5 M CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS $5.2 M $10.6 B $1.7 M HEALTH HENNEPIN COUNTY NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION PROGRAM HC SOUTH SERVICES COLLABORATION $9.1 B U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES $343.3 M NORTHWEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES ELIM TRANSITIONAL HOUSING LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF MINNEAPOLIS ST. STEPHEN S HUMAN SERVICES INCREASED DEMAND FOR SERVICES COUNCIL OF CHURCHES REFUGEE SERVICES HENNEPIN COUNTY HEALTHCARE FOR THE HOMELESS $857.7 M $300 M CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM HENNEPIN COUNTY HENNEPIN COUNTY NORTHPOINT $4.5 B JOB TRAINING/ UNEMPLOYMENT IMMUNIZATION PROGRAM HENNEPIN COUNTY HEALTHCARE FOR THE HOMELESS $1.9 M $0.16 M $0.34 M $0.43 M $0.99 M BROOKLYN PARK CATHOLIC CHARITIES HOPE STREET GREATER MINNEAPOLIS CRISIS NURSERY YOUTHLINK TWIN CITIES COMMUNITY LAND BANK THE SALVATION ARMY HARBOR LIGHT CENTER CATHOLIC CHARITIES HEALTH CARE LOGISTICS, INC RYAN DIAGNOSTICS, INC STATE OF DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ADVANCE PRACTICE SOLUTIONS $3.9 B U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR $0.05 M HENNEPIN COUNTY NORTHPOINT PILLSBURY UNITED COMMUNITIES $3.2 B HENNEPIN COUNTY PROMOTING ADOLESCENT & ADULT VACCINATIONS HEALTH CARE LOGISTICS, INC HC INFO TECH/ RECORDS MGMT MCKESSON MEDICAL SURGICAL OFFICE DEPOT PREMIER ELECTRICAL CO. RYAN DIAGNOSTICS, INC $60.1 M PUBLIC SAFETY U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE $2 B JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BENCO DENTAL FUJIFILMS HARRISS ARCHITECTS HENRY SCHEIN ON TRAC $4.7 B WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT PROGRAMS PMI CONSTRUCTION SAFENET CONSULTING $3.6 M SAFENET CORPORTATION SOFTWARE HOUSING INT L $3.2 B $225 M $225 M EDWARD BYNRE COMPETITIVE GRANT HENNEPIN COUNTY $5.8 M $0.44 M ALL VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS $1.4 M HOUSING PRESERVATION PROJECT, INC HENNEPIN COUNTY REDUCE DNA BACKLOG IN SHERIFF S CRIME LAB $1.1 M $0.09 M HENNEPIN COUNTY JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT HENNEPIN COUNTY WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT- ADULT, DISLOCATED WORKER, AND YOUTH HIRED TREE TRUST RESOURCE INC CARVER COUNTY DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY $2.4 M $0.99 M HENNEPIN COUNTY REDUCING MORTGAGE FRAUD HENNEPIN COUNTY & MPD COMPUTER FORENSIC ANALYSIS BLOOMINGTON BROOKLYN CENTER 4TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT $0.12 M BROOKLYN PARK CHAMPLIN HOPKINS MINNETONKA CRYSTAL HENNEPIN COUNTY INCREASING ACCESS TO ORDERS FOR PROTECTION $0.03 M ST. LOUIS PARK EDEN PRAIRE EDINA GOLDEN VALLEY MAPLE GROVE MINNEAPOLIS NEW HOPE PLYMOUTH RICHFIELD ROBBINSDALE 37

40 Results and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in Hennepin County A final report to the Hennepin County Board Project name: Normandale Community College Health Information Technology Training Funded by the O ce of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology Recipient name: Minnesota State Colleges and Universities Normandale Community College Recipient role: Sub-recipient Award type: Grant Funding category: Health Award amount: $864, Recovery Act Objectives: [2] Project description Normandale Community College is training mid-career health professionals to help health care providers transition to the next generation of health information technology, including electronic health records and health information exchanges. Normandale is a member of the Midwest Community College Health Information Technology Consortium, one of ve regional consortia within the nation taking on health information technology workforce training under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. A program administrator, a handful of parttime educators, and many industry patners put students through an intensive sixmonth, 30 hourper-week training program, preparing them for work roles as implementation specialists, electronic health record trainers, clinician/practitioner consultants and work ow/information management You re looking at people who are getting out there, they re getting refreshed in their skills or they re gaining a new skill set, and they re becoming more marketable, they re getting jobs. The bottom line is that it s going to help healthcare organizations get to where they need to be. And if organizations can implement these electronic, computerized, and data driven systems, it will decrease cost to the organization and increase quality and accessibility for the patient. So it s not just about economic recovery, but it s about human and personal recovery too. redesign specialists. The average age of students in the program is 45 and many are highly educated with a long history of work experience. In , 300 students will have completed the program. Normandale was selected by the O ce of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology to use Recovery Act funding to train an additional 150 health information technology professionals in fall A four-week industry resource program designed to bridge students into employment complements the technology training. The career support component includes health industry skills evaluations and demand assessments, resume reviews, mock interviews, and an event o ering networking opportunities with potential employers. These additional wrap services, while not required by the grant program, are crucial to the program achieving its goals of both training and transitioning graduates into health information technology positions. Ideally, students completing the program will move into or on to new positions in the fast-evolving health information technology eld, leaving behind open rungs on critical career ladders for less-experienced health care workers. The rst cohort of 150 students started with a 48 percent unemployment rate. As of March 2012, that percentage had dropped to 17 percent, with the students employed either full- or part-time. Photo: Normandale Community College

41 Results and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in Hennepin County A final report to the Hennepin County Board Project name: Regents of the University of Minnesota Recovery Act: A Nationwide Consortium of Universities to Revitalize Electric Power Engineering Education Recipient name: Regents of the University of Minnesota Recipient role: Prime recipient Award type: Grant Funding category: Energy/Environment Award amount: $2,500, Recovery Act Objectives: [1] 03 Project description The Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of Minnesota is leading a consortium of 82 universities from throughout the United States, plus Puerto Rico, to develop engineering laboratory facilities and an electric energy systems curriculum including renewable energy use and electrical energy e ciency. The goal is to put at least one standardized laboratory setup in each of the schools and work with educators to replace outof-date curricula with coursework designed The overarching goal is to graduate a large number of students with first-rate educations in this field. Climate change is a big concern and making use of clean technologies. There are a lot of jobs that could be created, and for that you need engineers with first-rate educations. to produce engineers ready to work with next-generation and renewable energy technologies. As of the end of 2011, all of the cosortium member universities had acquired the new laboratory equipment. Student response has been strong, enrollment is up and the department is developing a graduate-level program as well. Since nearly one-fourth of all bachelors of science in electrical engineering students graduate from the participating universities, the program represents a dramatic workforce training and education e ort. The common laboratory and curriculum platform o ers the potential for educators and researchers to exchange experiment development ideas and research results with their peers. Participants attend an annual workshop to share their e orts, and the program is developing a Web site to make it easier to exchange information. The University of Minnesota developed a prototype of the lab setup and curriculum prior to passage of the Recovery Act with funding from the National Science Foundation and the O ce of Naval Research. However, without the $2.5 million from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, implementation resources for taking the program to national scale would have remained out of reach. The laboratory equipment was developed in conjunction with several third-party providers commercial businesses that specialize in computer and electrical equipment, including HiRel Systems of Minnetonka, creating ancillary business development bene ts for the companies working with the universities.

42 Results and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in Hennepin County A final report to the Hennepin County Board Project name: Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing Replacement Project Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building Recipient name: Ryan Companies US, Inc. Recipient role: Prime Recipient Award type: Contract Funding category: Infrastructure Award amount: $148,351, Recovery Act Objectives: [4] Project description American Recovery and Reinvestment Act dollars are funding energy-e ciency and green building improvements to the more than 40-year old Bishop Henry Whipple federal building near Fort Snelling, including installation of state-of-the-art mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems. Although the building was on a Public Buildings Service priority list because of its potential for innovative geothermal and solar systems, the U.S. General Services Administration might have delayed or scaled back the project to accommodate its $30 billion deferred maintenance backlog. Instead, 800 geothermal wells, solar hot water heating, and new exterior wall insulation and windows will reduce the building s energy use by 35 percent. These energye cient features, combined with a connection to the nearby light rail station and electric vehicle charging stations, make the building an ideal model for commercial greenretro tting. The Whipple building renovation has employed about 200 construction workers on a daily basis, during a time when nearly 25 percent are out of work. One of those employed on the project is Travis Williams, a 41-year-old construction assistant superintendent. We have about a $30 billion backlog of deferred maintenance in our inventory. If we did not invest in these buildings, instead of paying a dollar this year, I ve got to pay two dollars next year because the situation worsens. It s far more efficient for the buildings, for the tenants, and more financially sensible to spend it like we re doing now and it allowed us to take advantage of the high-performance green building aspects. He lost his job in 2009 and his family nearly lost their home to foreclosure but, in March 2010, he was hired to work on the Whipple project. With economic forecasts predicting a craft labor shortage by 2030, projects like the Whipple building are helping keep Williams and other construction workers in the eld and bridging the employment gap created by the recession. Plus, various constructionrelated businesses, parts and equipment suppliers, and transportation services are bene tting from the retro t too, including nearby commercial property managers who are providing temporary o ce space for nearly half of Whipple building tenants who had to relocate during the renovation. Top left photo taken by: Cindy Dillahunty, CPMI. Renderings of Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building courtesy of HGA Architects. 4

43 Results and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in Hennepin County A final report to the Hennepin County Board Project name: City of Minnetonka Community Development funds Single family, owner occupied housing rehabilitation Recipient name: City of Minnetonka Recipient role: Prime recipient Award type: Grant Funding category: Housing Award amount: $50, Recovery Act Objectives: [3] Project description Recovery Act funding supplemented the City of Minnetonka s Community Development Block Grant single family housing rehabilitation program. Three home owners received deferred It s the maintenance of the housing stock. You don t loans to replace their want to see your neighbor failing roofs and with the roof falling in. It s improve their attic only three homes, but I think it spurs folks to think about insulation, and one what they can do on their of them installed own homes to keep up the a high-e ciency maintenance. furnace. Two of the homeowners were unemployed, and all earned less than 80 percent of the area median income. Not only does this kind of housing rehabilitation keep contractors working, but it helps to preserve the property values and overall quality of the neighborhoods in which these homes are located. As a second ring suburb, much of Minnetonka s housing stock was built in the 1960s and 1970s. Maintaining these properties and preserving housing options for low- to moderate-income residents is a priority for the city.

44 Results and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in Hennepin County A final report to the Hennepin County Board Project name: McKinstry Essention, Inc. funded by Energy E ciency and Conservation Block Grants for Brooklyn Park, Plymouth, Eden Prairie Recipient name: McKinstry Essention, Inc., Seattle, WA Recipient role: Sub-recipient Award type: Grant Funding category: Energy/Environment Award amount: $1,923, Recovery Act Objectives: [3] Project description Using Energy E ciency and Conservation Block Grant funds, the energy services rm McKinstry Essention worked with Brooklyn Park, Plymouth and Eden Prairie to develop and install a wide-range of building systems and equipment, which will improve energy e ciency, reduce operating costs, and maximize the usable lifetime of city facilities. The City of Plymouth installed high ef- ciency boilers at City Hall, replaced rooftops on some city buildings, and installed an HVAC system and waste oil boiler, which allowed the city to inaugurate a waste oil recycling program. Eden Prairie improved the operating e ciency of its City Center complex, upgrading HVAC controls and equipment to meet codes and conserve resources. The civic ice arena received a new dehumidi cation system. The resulting utility rebates made additional lighting e ciency upgrades possible as well. Brooklyn Park used stimulus funds to install energy e cient light xtures in several city buildings, parking lots and street lights but also leveraged The cities were reducing operating costs and replacing equipment that was going to need to be replaced. So what that did is help the city make capital improvements that would have come on the local taxpayers backs. We have taken a look at the Brooklyn Park project, just to make sure that we re on track. And based on the first half year, it looks like we ve saved about $56,000. And that would mean that we re on track to save roughly $110,000 a year in energy costs. its funds with additional city bonding to make about $4.5 million in improvements to its ice arena. The improvements made it possible for the city to continue operating a second rink, which generates revenue for the city. In addition to new energy e cient light xtures, the enhancements included a groundbreaking geothermal system that uses the city s untreated well water to cool the refrigeration system. Preliminary indications of energy savings from the Brooklyn Park improvements alone are $56,000 in the rst six months. McKinstry conducts a veri cation study one year after completion to ensure their projects are achieving the desired results and guarantees its customers energy savings. The company works with local contractors as much as possible, increasing employment and regional expertise in the greening of buildings. Without Recovery Act funding, Plymouth and Brooklyn Park may have taken small steps forward, but the upgrades would have been scaled back and the resulting installations more costly to operate long term. Eden Prairie likely would have deferred their maintenance needs altogether.

45 Results and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in Hennepin County A final report to the Hennepin County Board Project name: Osseo School District Educational Technology funded by Minnesota Department of Education Title II, Part D - Enhancing Education Through Technology Recipient name: Independent School District 279 Recipient role: Sub-recipient Award type: Grant Funding category: Education Award amount: $289, Recovery Act Objectives: [1] 01 Project description Independent School District 279 of Osseo was one of 24 educational technology grant recipients from the Minnesota Department of Education through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The district used its stimulus funding to implement a research-based, professional development program aligned with National Educational Technology Standards established by the International Society for Technology in Education. The program focuses on training teachers to e ectively integrate technology resources in their classrooms and curricula, developing digital citizenship awareness among teachers and students, and providing multi-media tool kits and resources for implementation. Through individualized training, independent study, and small user groups, 67 teachers working with all grade levels, along with early childhood and adult students, completed the 64-module program organized around themes including global communication and social networking, respecting intellectual property rights, collaborative knowledge construction, using technology for assessment and research, evaluation, and others. One theme focused on technology disconnects, addressing access issues for diverse, low-income, and We talked about being good digital citizens, and one of the things we brought up was about text messaging and driving. We had one teacher who brought in her Wii and had the kids driving Mario Kart and text messaging at the same time. [The students] looked at the technological disconnects. They talked about the haves and the have-nots when it came to technology, and how they could leverage the tools that they did have instead of thinking of the tools they did not have. disabled populations. Another on digital citizenship raised students awareness of the risks, responsibilities and opportunities associated with their use of new technologies. Even though the program was developed as early as 2008, the Recovery Act made it possible for the district to implement the program and expand it beyond tenured teachers to include instructors just entering the eld. Library media specialists were also trained and will provide on-going support. Teachers who completed the program received stipends, nearly 100 hours of continuing education and were eligible for ve graduate credits from Hamline University. Not only does the program make teachers more e ective educators, but it helps ensure they have the skills they need as technology becomes more prevalent in the classroom. The program was one of a handful that received supplemental Recovery Act funding in early 2011 and was awarded the prestigious International Society for Technology in Education s Seal of Alignment. The district is distributing a copy of the program manual to other award recipients, providing a model for other schools in the state. Now that the program is established, the district will use feedback from participants to re ne the program and district funding to extend it through 2011.

46 Results and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in Hennepin County A final report to the Hennepin County Board Project name: Minneapolis Public Housing Authority Heritage Park Senior Services Center (HPSSC) Recipient name: Minneapolis Public Housing Authority Recipient role: Prime recipient Award type: Grant Funding category: Housing Award amount: $10,439, Recovery Act Objectives: [3] Project description The Minneapolis Public Housing Authority (MPHA) is using $10.4 million from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to build a 69,000-square foot, integrated senior services center, including underground parking, in Heritage Park that will host social activities and an adult day care program, and bring together health care and tness providers to change the way services are delivered to older public housing residents in the immediate neighborhood and the greater Minneapolis area. With additional Recovery funds, the MPHA is building a 48-unit, memory care facility next door that features sustainable materials, solar panels, and geothermal technology. Earlier research and planning on enhanced senior services including information provided by Northpoint Health & Wellness provided important guidance, and the MPHA held a series of focus groups with older residents to learn about the services they wanted and the design features that would make it easy to access them. The service center was designed to encourage senior service providers - including the Metropolitan YMCA-Twin Cities, We re committed to making sure that the area and minority communities and women owned organizations are involved in the development, and compared to the city s traditional affirmative action goals, our goals are twice as high. We re meeting those goals, and so [there is] positive impact for diverse communities who have been especially hit hard. Our doctor can treat a patient for diabetes, but exercise is a huge component to combating that. If they say, Go to the YMCA, that s just not going to happen. The doctor in our discussion said, Now, I can go down and introduce them to Cassie, who is the YMCA staff, and, this is the modified equipment, and warm them up to this, which significantly increases their chances of moving from taking meds only to being active. Courage Center, Augustana Care Open Circle, and Neighborhood HealthSource - to coordinate services for older residents. The providers are combining fundraising e orts for center services, and since they are lease tenants, the providers also share the center s overhead costs. The center will serve as an anchor for future private development in the neighborhood, o er much-needed options for low income residents to age in place in their communities, and provide an elder-service model for the nation. Construction on the center was completed in December 2011 and a grand opening will be held late spring or early summer Recovery Act funding made it possible for the MPHA to leverage an additional $6 million in funding from Hennepin County, the Metropolitan Council and the City of Minneapolis, as well as New Market Tax credits. Total construction costs were about $16 million. In addition to the jobs already created by the construction, the center is expected to generate more than 50 positions for service providers, many of whom will be hired from the surrounding community.

47 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Results in Hennepin County A final report to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners Qualitative study methodology Between June 20 and September 30, 2011, the Hennepin County Stimulus Team with the assistance of two research interns from the University of Minnesota s Humphrey School of Public Affairs conducted a qualitative research project examining the effects of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in light of the five primary purposes included in the legislation. In addition to collecting information about countymanaged projects, the research team selected projects in each of 10 categories of contract, grant and loan funding: 1 Education Transportation Infrastructure Energy/Environment Housing R&D/Science Health Family Job Training/Unemployment Public Safety Over the course of the summer, research interns were able to complete 37 interviews with the managers of Recovery grant and contract-funded projects taking place in Hennepin County. The research team considered several diversity criteria, such as the amount of funding awarded and the location of the project within the county, in selecting projects for an invitation to interview to ensure that the information collected represented a range of Recovery Act-funded projects in the county. Once the projects were selected for an invitation to interview, the sample was largely one of convenience. The research team ed and called firms and organizations with Recovery-funded projects and extended an invitation to interview to the project manager, who could choose to participate or not. Projects for which the manager elected not to participate in the interview process were removed from further consideration and a new project was selected in the category, with a focus on maintaining a diversity of projects selected to interview. Although the research team attempted to obtain information about a wide variety of Recovery-funded projects in Hennepin County, interviews were conducted over the summer months and summer vacation schedules affected project managers ability to participate in the interview process. In addition, the Minnesota state government shutdown 2 occurred while interviews were being conducted. Both of these events affected project managers ability to participate in the interview process and limited responses. Interviewers used a standardized open-ended interview format, in which project managers were all asked the same set of questions, however responses varied widely based on each project s goals and activities, and each project manager s interests. References 1 Recovery.gov lists 11 categories of funding in Contract, Grants and Loans. Projects in the, Other Programs, category were largely focused on administration of Recovery Act funding. 2 July 1 to July 20,

48 Section 3 Appendix Hennepin County projects list: Prime and sub-recipient projects and local award amount through fourth quarter 2011.