Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Congressional research reportSep 17, 2026
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Federal Regional Commissions and
Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Updated September 17, 2026
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
R45997
SUMMARY
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities:
Structural Features and Function
This report describes the structure, activities, legislative history, and funding history of the 11
federal regional commissions and authorities. Those commissions and authorities are the
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
R45997
September 17, 2026
Julie M. Lawhorn
Analyst in Economic
Development Policy
Appalachian Regional Commission;
Delta Regional Authority;
Denali Commission;
Great Lakes Authority;
Mid-Atlantic Regional Commission;
Northern Border Regional Commission;
Northern Great Plains Regional Authority;
Northwest Regional Commission;
Southern New England Regional Commission;
Southeast Crescent Regional Commission; and
Southwest Border Regional Commission.
Most of the regional commissions and authorities are modeled after the Appalachian Regional Commission structure, which
is composed of a federal co-chair appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, and the member state
governors, of which one is appointed the state co-chair. This structure is broadly replicated in the other commissions and
authorities, albeit with notable variations and exceptions to local contexts. In addition, the service areas for the federal
regional commissions and authorities are defined in statute and thus can only be amended or modified through congressional
action. While the exact service areas have shifted over time, the general areas of service, as well as the services provided,
have not changed significantly.
Of the 11 federal regional commissions and authorities, six could be considered active and functioning as of the date of
publication: the Appalachian Regional Commission; the Delta Regional Authority; the Denali Commission; the Northern
Border Regional Commission; the Southwest Border Regional Commission; and the Southeast Crescent Regional
Commission. The Great Lakes Authority, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Commission, the Northwest Regional Commission, and
the Southern New England Regional Commission are not yet active, and they do not have a confirmed federal co-chair. The
funding authorization for the Northern Great Plans Regional Authority (NGPRA) lapsed at the end of FY2018 and it was not
reauthorized until FY2025. The NGPRA also lacks a confirmed federal co-chair and is not active.
Eight of the regional commissions and authorities each received $1 million to $200 million in annual appropriations in
FY2026 for their various activities. Each of the six functioning regional commissions and authorities engage in economic
development to varying extents and address multiple programmatic activities in their respective service areas. These activities
may include, but are not limited to, basic infrastructure; energy; ecology/environment and natural resources; workforce; and
business development/entrepreneurship.
Though they are federally chartered, receive congressional appropriations for their administration and activities, and include
an appointed federal representative in their respective leadership structures (the federal co-chair and his/her alternate, as
applicable), the federal regional commissions and authorities are quasi-governmental partnerships between the federal
government and the constituent state(s) of a given authority or commission. This partnership structure includes substantial
input and efforts at the sub-state level, and represents a unique federal approach to economic development.
The federal regional commissions and authorities provide a model of functioning economic development approaches that are
place-based, intergovernmental, and multifaceted in their programmatic orientation (e.g., infrastructure, energy,
environment/ecology, workforce, business development).
Congressional Research Service
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Appalachian Regional Commission ................................................................................................ 3
Overview of Structure and Activities ........................................................................................ 4
Commission Structure......................................................................................................... 4
Strategic Plan ...................................................................................................................... 4
Designating Distressed Areas ............................................................................................. 5
Recent Activities ................................................................................................................. 6
Legislative History .................................................................................................................... 8
Appalachian Regional Development Act ............................................................................ 8
Major Amendments to the ARC .......................................................................................... 8
Funding History ................................................................................................................. 11
Delta Regional Authority............................................................................................................... 12
Overview of Structure and Activities ...................................................................................... 13
Authority Structure ........................................................................................................... 13
Strategic Plan .................................................................................................................... 14
Designating Distressed Areas ........................................................................................... 14
Recent Activities ............................................................................................................... 15
States’ Economic Development Assistance Program ........................................................ 16
Legislative History ............................................................................................................ 16
Funding History ...................................................................................................................... 19
Denali Commission ....................................................................................................................... 20
Overview of Structure and Activities ...................................................................................... 21
Commission Structure....................................................................................................... 22
Annual Work Plan and Strategic Plan ............................................................................... 22
Designating Distressed Areas ........................................................................................... 22
Recent Activities ............................................................................................................... 23
Legislative History .................................................................................................................. 24
Funding History ...................................................................................................................... 26
Great Lakes Authority ................................................................................................................... 27
Overview of Structure and Activities ...................................................................................... 28
Authority Structure ........................................................................................................... 28
Strategic Plan .................................................................................................................... 29
Designating Distressed Areas ........................................................................................... 29
Recent Activities ............................................................................................................... 29
Legislative History .................................................................................................................. 29
Funding History ...................................................................................................................... 29
Mid-Atlantic Regional Commission.............................................................................................. 30
Overview of Structure and Activities ...................................................................................... 31
Authority Structure ........................................................................................................... 31
Strategic Plan .................................................................................................................... 31
Designating Distressed Areas ........................................................................................... 31
Recent Activities ............................................................................................................... 31
Legislative History .................................................................................................................. 31
Funding History ...................................................................................................................... 32
Northern Border Regional Commission ........................................................................................ 32
Congressional Research Service
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Overview of Structure and Activities ...................................................................................... 33
Commission Structure....................................................................................................... 33
Strategic Plan .................................................................................................................... 34
Designating Distressed Areas ........................................................................................... 34
Recent Activities ............................................................................................................... 35
Legislative History .................................................................................................................. 37
Funding History ...................................................................................................................... 38
Northern Great Plains Regional Authority .................................................................................... 39
Structure and Activities ........................................................................................................... 40
Overview of Structure and Activities ................................................................................ 40
Activities ........................................................................................................................... 40
Legislative History .................................................................................................................. 40
Funding History ...................................................................................................................... 42
Northwest Regional Commission .................................................................................................. 42
Southeast Crescent Regional Commission .................................................................................... 43
Overview of Structure and Activities ...................................................................................... 44
Commission Structure....................................................................................................... 44
Strategic Plan .................................................................................................................... 44
Designating Distressed Areas ........................................................................................... 44
Recent Activities ............................................................................................................... 45
Legislative History .................................................................................................................. 45
Funding History ................................................................................................................ 48
Southern New England Regional Commission ............................................................................. 48
Overview of Structure and Activities ...................................................................................... 49
Authority Structure ........................................................................................................... 49
Strategic Plan .................................................................................................................... 50
Designating Distressed Areas ........................................................................................... 50
Recent Activities ............................................................................................................... 50
Legislative History .................................................................................................................. 50
Funding History ...................................................................................................................... 50
Southwest Border Regional Commission ...................................................................................... 51
Overview of Structure and Activities ...................................................................................... 51
Commission Structure....................................................................................................... 51
Strategic Plan .................................................................................................................... 52
Designating Distressed Areas ........................................................................................... 52
Recent Activities ............................................................................................................... 52
Legislative History .................................................................................................................. 52
Funding History ...................................................................................................................... 54
The Economic Development Reauthorization Act of 2024 (P.L. 118-272) ................................... 54
Changes to Subtitle V FRCAs ................................................................................................. 55
Concluding Notes .......................................................................................................................... 57
Figures
Figure 1. Map of the Appalachian Regional Commission............................................................... 3
Figure 2. Map of the Delta Regional Authority ............................................................................. 13
Figure 3. Map of the Denali Commission ..................................................................................... 21
Congressional Research Service
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Figure 4. Map of the Great Lakes Authority ................................................................................. 28
Figure 5. Map of the Mid-Atlantic Regional Commission Region ............................................... 30
Figure 6. Map of the Northern Border Regional Commission ...................................................... 33
Figure 7. Map of the Northern Great Plains Regional Authority .................................................. 39
Figure 8. Map of the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission .................................................. 43
Figure 9. Map of the Southern New England Regional Commission Region ............................... 49
Figure 10. Map of the Southwest Border Regional Commission .................................................. 51
Figure A-1. Structure and Activities of the Commissions and Authorities.................................... 61
Figure B-1. National Map of the Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities ....................... 63
Tables
Table 1. ARC: Appropriated Funding and Authorized Funding Level, FY2017-FY2026 ............ 12
Table 2. DRA: Appropriated Funding and Authorized Funding Level, FY2017-FY2026 ............ 20
Table 3. Denali Commission: Appropriated Funding and Authorized Funding Level,
FY2017-FY2026 ........................................................................................................................ 27
Table 4. Great Lakes Authority Appropriated Funding and Authorized Funding Level,
FY2023-FY2026 ........................................................................................................................ 30
Table 5. Mid-Atlantic Regional Commission Appropriated Funding and Authorized
Funding Level, FY2025-FY2026 ............................................................................................... 32
Table 6. NBRC: Appropriated Funding and Authorized Funding Level, FY2017-FY2026.......... 38
Table 7. Northern Great Plains Regional Authority Appropriated Funding and Authorized
Funding Level, FY2025-FY2026 ............................................................................................... 42
Table 8. SCRC: Appropriated Funding and Authorized Funding Level, FY2017-FY2026 .......... 48
Table 9. Southern New England Regional Commission Appropriated Funding and
Authorized Funding Level, FY2025-FY2026 ............................................................................ 50
Table 10. SBRC: Appropriated Funding and Authorized Funding Level, FY2017-FY2026 ........ 54
Table A-1. Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities .......................................................... 59
Table A-2. Statutory Citations for FRCA Operating Authorizations ............................................. 60
Table C-1. Historical Appropriations: Federal Regional Commissions (FY1986-FY2026) ......... 64
Table D-1. Statutory Jurisdiction of ARC ..................................................................................... 67
Table D-2. Statutory Jurisdiction of DRA ..................................................................................... 68
Table D-3. Statutory Jurisdiction of Denali Commission .............................................................. 69
Table D-4. Statutory Jurisdiction of GLA ..................................................................................... 70
Table D-5. Statutory Jurisdiction of MARC .................................................................................. 71
Table D-6. Statutory Jurisdiction of NBRC................................................................................... 71
Table D-7. Statutory Jurisdiction of NGPRA ................................................................................ 72
Table D-8. Statutory Jurisdiction of SCRC ................................................................................... 73
Table D-9. Statutory Jurisdiction of SNERC................................................................................. 74
Table D-10. Statutory Jurisdiction of SBRC ................................................................................. 74
Congressional Research Service
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Appendixes
Appendix A. Basic Information at a Glance .................................................................................. 59
Appendix B. Map of Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities ......................................... 63
Appendix C. Historical Appropriations ......................................................................................... 64
Appendix D. Service Areas of Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities........................... 67
Contacts
Author Information........................................................................................................................ 75
Congressional Research Service
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Introduction
The 11 federal regional commissions and authorities (FRCAs) are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC);
Delta Regional Authority (DRA);
Denali Commission;
Great Lakes Authority (GLA);
Mid-Atlantic Regional Commission (MARC);
Northern Border Regional Commission (NBRC);
Northern Great Plains Regional Authority (NGPRA);
Northwest Regional Commission (NRC);
Southeast Crescent Regional Commission (SCRC);
Southwest Border Regional Commission (SBRC); and
Southern New England Regional Commission (SNERC).
Congress authorized most FRCAs to address instances of major economic distress in certain
defined socioeconomic regions (see Table A-1).
The first such federal regional commission, the ARC, was founded in 1965. The other
commissions and authorities may have roots in the intervening decades, but were not founded
until 1998 (Denali Commission), 2000 (DRA), and 2002 (the NGPRA). The NBRC, SCRC, and
SBRC were authorized in 2008; the GLA was authorized in 2022.1 The MARC and SNERC were
authorized in 2025; the NRC received initial appropriations in 2026.2
Six FRCAs are currently active, meaning they are engaged in economic development activities in
their service areas, have received recent appropriations, and have a Senate-confirmed federal cochair (or equivalent) in place. These are the ARC, DRA, Denali Commission, NBRC, SCRC, and
SBRC. Five FRCAs are currently inactive, and do not have all of those features at this time: the
MARC, NGPRA,3 NRC, SNERC, and GLA.4
Eight of the entities currently receive annual appropriations: ARC, DRA, GLA, the Denali
Commission, NBRC, NRC, SBRC, and SCRC. Both SCRC and SBRC were inactive until
1 The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (P.L. 117-328) amended 40 U.S.C. §15301(a) to establish the Great
Lakes Authority (GLA). The GLA does not yet have a federal co-chair. See Division O, Title IV, §401 of P.L. 117-328.
2 The Economic Development Reauthorization Act (EDRA) of 2024 (P.L. 118-272, Division B, Title II) amended 40
U.S.C. §15301(a) to establish the Mid-Atlantic Regional Commission (MARC) and Southern New England Regional
Commission (SNERC). The MARC and SNERC do not yet have a federal co-chair and have not received
appropriations. P.L. 119-74 provided appropriations for “expenses necessary to establish a Northwest Regional
Commission.” As of the date of publication, the Northwest Regional Commission does not yet have a federal co-chair
and is not active.
3 The NGPRA has not received appropriations since FY2005 and does not have a federal co-chair.
4 The GLA received its first appropriation in FY2024, and on May 2, 2024, President Biden nominated a federal cochair for the GLA. The federal co-chair is a presidentially nominated and Senate-confirmed position. In November
2024, the nomination was reported by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW), and in January
2025, the nomination was returned to the President under the provisions of Senate Rule XXXI, paragraph 6 of the
Standing Rules of the Senate. See PN1694—Nomination of Matthew Kaplan for Great Lakes Authority, 118 th Congress
(2023-2024), https://www.congress.gov/nomination/118th-congress/1694; and the White House, “President Biden
Announces Key Nominees,” May 2, 2024, https://www.bidenwhitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/
05/02/president-biden-announces-key-nominees-72/.
Congressional Research Service
1
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
relatively recently. The SCRC received regular annual appropriations since FY2010, but lacked a
Senate-confirmed federal co-chair until December 2021. The SBRC received its first
appropriation in FY2021, and lacked a federal co-chair until December 2022. Confirmation of the
SCRC and SBRC federal co-chairs allowed these two commissions to convene and begin their
activities.
The annual Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies (E&W) appropriations act
provides funding for select FRCAs. Full-year FY2027 E&W appropriations have not been
enacted. On September 2, 2026, the President signed into law the Continuing Appropriations and
Extensions Act, 2027 (P.L. 119-103). P.L. 119-103 provides FY2027 funding on a temporary
basis through December 11, 2026, for the FRCAs that were funded in the FY2026 appropriation
act (P.L. 119-74) at the same rate and under the same conditions (see Division A). P.L. 119-103
also extends the ARC’s authorization and funding authorization through FY2027 and extends
funding authorizations for two specific ARC initiatives through FY2027 (see Division C) through
the extension period.
The Commerce, Justice, Science; Energy and Water Development; and Interior and Environment
Appropriations Act, 2026 (P.L. 119-74) provided $324 million in total annual appropriations for
select FRCAs, an increase of about 1% from their FY2025 enacted level of $319 million.5 The
FY2026 appropriations measure also provided funding for a new Northwest Regional
Commission (NRC), which—once established—would cover Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and
Washington. As of the date of this report, the commission does not have a federal co-chair and is
not active.6
The FRCAs are functioning examples of place-based and intergovernmental approaches to
economic development, which receive regular congressional interest.7 The FRCAs integrate
federal and state economic development priorities alongside regional and local considerations. As
federally chartered agencies created by acts of Congress, the FRCAs depend on congressional
appropriations for their activities and administration, and are subject to congressional oversight.
Certain strategic emphases and programs have evolved over time in each of the functioning
FRCAs. However, their overarching missions to address economic distress have not changed, and
their associated activities have broadly remained consistent to those goals as funding has allowed.
In practice, the FRCAs engage in their respective economic development efforts through multiple
program areas, which may include, but are not limited to basic infrastructure; energy;
ecology/environment and natural resources; workforce; and business
development/entrepreneurship. This report describes the structure, recent activities, legislative
history, and funding history of the federally chartered regional commissions and authorities.
“Subtitle V” Regional Commissions
5 P.L. 119-4.
6 P.L. 119-74 provided appropriations for “expenses necessary to establish a Northwest Regional Commission” and that
the funding for the commission “shall be used to carry out activities authorized for other regional Commissions by
subtitle V of title 40, United States Code.” The commission is not active.
7 See, for example, recent congressional interest and legislative action on new place-based programs such as the
Department of Commerce Recompete and Technology and Innovation Hub programs (authorized in FY2022 by P.L.
117-167); Opportunity Zones (CRS Report R45152, Tax Incentives for Opportunity Zones, by Donald J. Marples); and
New Market Tax Credits (CRS Report RL34402, New Markets Tax Credit: An Introduction, by Donald J. Marples),
and previous federal and congressional action on “Promise Zones” (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, Promise Zones Overview, https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/promise-zones/promise-zonesoverview/); as well as various legislation relating to the federal regional commissions and authorities themselves. See
also CRS In Focus IF12409, What Is Place-Based Economic Development?, by Adam G. Levin.
Congressional Research Service
2
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
The GLA, MARC, NBRC, NRC, SBRC, SCRC, and SNERC are all authorized by 40 U.S.C. Subtitle V, as amended,
leading some experts to group them as “Subtitle V FRCAs.” These FRCAs have the most in common with each
other in terms of structure, administrative powers, and programs. The four Subtitle V FRCAs authorized prior to
the enactment of the EDRA included the GLA, NBRC, SBRC, and SCRC.
In FY2025, P.L. 118-272 amended 40 U.S.C. §15301(a) to establish two new Subtitle V FRCAs—the MARC and
SNERC.
In FY2026, P.L. 119-74 provided appropriations “for expenses necessary to establish a Northwest Regional
Commission located in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana,” and noted that the funding for the commission
“shall be used to carry out activities authorized for other regional Commissions by subtitle V of title 40, United
States Code.”
Appalachian Regional Commission
The Appalachian Regional Commission was established in 1965 to address economic distress in
the Appalachian region.8 The ARC’s jurisdiction spans 423 counties in Alabama, Georgia,
Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia (Figure 1). The ARC was originally created to
address severe economic disparities between Appalachia and that of the broader United States;
recently, its mission has grown to include regional competitiveness in a global economic
environment.
Figure 1. Map of the Appalachian Regional Commission
(by county)
Source: Compiled by CRS using data from 40 U.S.C. §14102, Esri Data and Maps, and the Appalachian Regional
Commission, “About the Appalachian Region,” https://www.arc.gov/about-the-appalachian-region/.
8 40 U.S.C. §§14101-14704.
Congressional Research Service
3
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Overview of Structure and Activities
Commission Structure
According to the authorizing legislation, the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, as
amended,9 the ARC is a federally chartered, regional economic development entity led by a
federal co-chair, whose term is open-ended, and the 13 participating state governors, of which one
serves as the state co-chair for a term of “at least one year.”10 The federal co-chair is appointed by
the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The authorizing act also allows for the
appointment of federal and state alternates to the commission. The ARC is a federal-state
partnership, with administrative costs shared equally by the federal government and member
states, while economic development activities are funded by congressional appropriations.
There are 74 ARC-associated LDDs. They may be conduits for funding for other eligible
organizations, and may also themselves be ARC grantees.11 State and local governments,
governmental entities, and nonprofit organizations are eligible for ARC investments, including
both federal- and state-designated tribal entities. State-designated tribal entities that are not
federally recognized (or “lack federal recognition”) are nevertheless eligible to receive ARC
funding. This is rare, as usually federal funding requires federal recognition.12
Strategic Plan
According to authorizing legislation and the ARC Code,13 the ARC’s programs abide by a
Regional Development Plan (RDP), which includes documents prepared by the states and the
commission. The RDP is comprised of the ARC’s strategic plan, its bylaws, member state
development plans, each participating state’s annual strategy statement, the commission’s annual
program budget, and the commission’s internal implementation and performance management
guidelines.
The RDP integrates local, state, and federal economic development priorities into a common
regional agenda. Through state plans and annual work statements, states establish goals,
priorities, and agendas for fulfilling them. State planning typically includes consulting with local
development districts (LDDs), which are multicounty organizations that are associated with and
financially supported by the ARC and advise on local priorities.14
9 P.L. 89-4.
10 Appalachian Regional Commission, ARC Code, 2022, https://www.arc.gov/arc-code.
11 Appalachian Regional Commission, Local Development Districts, https://www.arc.gov/local-development-districts/.
12 See U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Indian Issues: Federal Funding for Non-Federally Recognized
Tribes, 12-348, April 2012, https://www.gao.gov/assets/600/590102.pdf.
13 Appalachian Regional Commission, ARC Code, 2022. The ARC Code reflects ARC decisions and current ARC
policy. The ARC Code is a statement of ARC decisions adopted through resolutions and motions. Under Section
101(b) of the Appalachian Regional Development Act (ARDA), the ARC Code cannot be modified or revised without
a quorum of governors.
14 LDDs are not exclusive to the ARC. The DRA and NBRC also make use of them, and other inactive commissions
and authorities are authorized to organize and/or support them. Designated LDDs may also be organized as Economic
Development Administration (EDA)-designated economic development districts (EDDs), which serve a similar
purpose. They may also be co-located with Small Business Administration-affiliated small business development
centers (SBDCs).
Congressional Research Service
4
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
ARC’s strategic plan is a five-year document, reviewed annually, and revised as necessary. The
current strategic plan, adopted in October 2021,15 prioritizes five investment goals:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
entrepreneurial and business development;
workforce development;
infrastructure development;
natural and cultural assets; and
leadership and community capacity.
The ARC’s 13 member states also develop four-year plans and annual strategy statements that
outline their states’ funding priorities for ARC projects.16
Designating Distressed Areas
The ARC is statutorily obligated to allocate at least 50% of funding to distressed areas.17 The
ARC is also statutorily obligated to designate counties by level of economic distress.18 Distress
designations influence funding priority and determine grant match requirements. Using an indexbased classification system, the ARC compares each county within its jurisdiction with national
averages based on three economic indicators:19 (1) three-year average unemployment rates; (2)
per capita market income; and (3) poverty rates. These factors are calculated into a composite
index value for each county, which are ranked and sorted into designated distress levels. Each
distress level corresponds to a given county’s ranking relative to that of the United States as a
whole. These designations are defined as follows by the ARC, starting from “worst” distress:20
•
•
•
•
•
distressed counties, or those with values in the “worst” 10% of U.S. counties;
at-risk, which rank between worst 10% and 25%;
transitional, which rank between worst 25% and best 25%;
competitive, which rank between “best” 25% and best 10%; and
attainment, or those which rank in the best 10%.
The designated level of distress is statutorily tied to allowable funding levels by the ARC
(funding allowance), the balance of which must be met through grant matches from other funding
sources (including potentially other federal funds) unless a waiver or special dispensation is
permitted: distressed (80% funding allowance, 20% grant match); at-risk (70%); transitional
(50%); competitive (30%); and attainment (0% funding allowance). Exceptions can be made to
grant match thresholds. Attainment counties may be able to receive funding for projects where
sub-county areas are considered to be at higher levels of distress, and/or in those cases where the
15 Appalachian Regional Commission, Appalachia Envisioned: A New Era of Opportunity, Strategic Plan FY 2022-
2026, https://www.arc.gov/strategicplan/.
16 See, for example, state plans available at Appalachian Regional Commission, Appalachian States,
https://www.arc.gov/appalachian-states/.
17 40 U.S.C. §14524. ARC reports that it generally provides over 50% of its appropriations to distressed counties and
areas. In FY2024, 73% of its appropriations were awarded to projects in distressed counties or areas. See Appalachian
Regional Commission, FY 2026 Congressional Justification, p. 11, https://www.arc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/
ARC-FY-2026-Congressional-Justification.pdf.
18 40 U.S.C. §14526.
19 Appalachian Regional Commission, Classifying Economic Distress in Appalachian Counties, https://www.arc.gov/
classifying-economic-distress-in-appalachian-counties.
20 Appalachian Regional Commission, Distressed Designation and County Economic Status Classification System,
https://www.arc.gov/distressed-designation-and-county-economic-status-classification-system.
Congressional Research Service
5
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
inclusion of an attainment county in a multi-county project would benefit one or more
nonattainment counties or areas. In addition, special allowances may reduce or discharge
matches, and match requirements may be met with other federal funds.
Recent Activities21
ARC makes grant investments through the following core programs:22
•
•
•
•
•
•
Appalachian Regional Initiative for Stronger Economies (ARISE). ARC
established the ARISE initiative in 2022 to support large-scale, multi-state
projects.23
Appalachian Regional Energy Hub Initiative. ARC launched a grant program
to fund energy hub research and implementation projects in FY2024.24
Area Development (i.e., the “base” grant program). This funding is for building
community capacity and supporting economic growth broadly. This program also
provides funding for local development districts (LDDs), access to capital
initiatives, and funding for business development revolving loan funds (RLFs).25
Initiative for Substance Abuse Mitigation (INSPIRE). INSPIRE funding is
provided to initiatives designed to address challenges related to substance use
disorder (SUD), such as efforts to support workforce entry or re-entry and other
recovery ecosystem projects.26
Partnerships for Opportunity and Workforce and Economic Revitalization
(POWER) Initiative. The POWER Initiative provides funding for ARC
communities disproportionately affected by the downturn of the coal industry.27
Workforce Opportunity for Rural Communities (WORC) Grant Initiative.
ARC partners with the U.S. Department of Labor’s Employment and Training
Administration to design workforce development initiatives, with funding
provided through the Department of Labor (DOL).28
21 Activities and programs in this section are illustrative examples and not comprehensive. For information on
additional Appalachian Regional Commission activities, see https://www.arc.gov.
22 Appalachian Regional Commission, About ARC Grants, https://www.arc.gov/about-arc-grants/; and Grants and
Opportunities, https://www.arc.gov/grants-and-opportunities.
23 Appalachian Regional Commission, Appalachian Regional Initiative for Stronger Economies, https://www.arc.gov/
arise.
24 The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58) authorized ARC to fund energy hub activities. See
Appalachian Regional Commission, Appalachian Regional Energy Hub Initiative, https://arc.gov/energyhub.
25 Appalachian Regional Commission, Area Development, https://www.arc.gov/area-development-program/. For more
information on revolving loan funds, see CRS In Focus IF11449, Economic Development Revolving Loan Funds (EDRLFs), by Julie M. Lawhorn. For information about ARC’s Access to Capital Program, see Appalachian Regional
Commission, Access to Capital Program, https://arc.gov/access-to-capital-program/.
26 Appalachian Regional Commission, Investments Supporting Partnerships in Recovery Ecosystems Initiative,
https://www.arc.gov/sud.
27 Appalachian Regional Commission, Partnerships for Opportunity and Workforce and Economic Revitalization
Initiative, https://www.arc.gov/power. For additional information, see CRS Report R46015, The POWER Initiative:
Energy Transition as Economic Development, by Julie M. Lawhorn.
28 Appalachian Regional Commission, Workforce Opportunity for Rural Communities, https://www.arc.gov/grants-andopportunities/worc/; and Department of Labor, Workforce Opportunity for Rural Communities (WORC) Initiative,
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/dislocated-workers/grants/workforce-opportunity.
Congressional Research Service
6
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
In addition to its grant programs, ARC activities include various partnerships and ongoing
initiatives (e.g., the J-1 Visa waiver program,29 READY Appalachia,30 and various academies and
institutes).31 ARC collaborates with federal, state, and local agencies to develop the Appalachian
Development Highway System (ADHS) and Local Roads program.32 Additionally, ARC’s
research office issues Requests for Proposals for research and evaluation contracts on topics
directly affecting economic development in the Appalachian region.33
ARC collaborates with various federal agencies on programs and initiatives. In recent years,
Congress has directed the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to provide approximately $2$3 million annually to ARC for projects that meet the purposes of USDA Rural Community
Advancement Program (RCAP). The funding is used to support rural economic development
29Appalachian Regional Commission, J-1 Visa Waivers, https://www.arc.gov/j-1-visa-waivers/.
30 In FY2025, ARC provided five grant opportunities designed to strengthen economically distressed communities
through the READY Appalachia initiative. The grants supported projects intended to build individual, organizational,
and/or community capacity. Appalachian Regional Commission, Ready Appalachia, https://www.arc.gov/ready/.
31 See Appalachian Regional Commission, Grants and Opportunities, https://www.arc.gov/grants-and-opportunities.
32 40 U.S.C. §14501. Congress authorized construction of the Appalachian Development Highway System as part of
ARC’s original enabling legislation in 1965. See also “Appalachian Development Highway System Program (ADHS;
IIJA Division J, Title VIII),” in CRS Report R47022, Federal Highway Programs: In Brief, by Robert S. Kirk;
Appalachian Regional Commission, Appalachian Development Highway System, https://www.arc.gov/appalachiandevelopment-highway-system; and Transportation in Appalachia, https://www.arc.gov/transportation-in-appalachia.
33 Appalachian Regional Commission, Research and Data, https://www.arc.gov/research-and-data.
Congressional Research Service
7
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
activities in the Appalachian region.34 Other federal partners include the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Defense (DOD),35 the National Telecommunications
and Information Administration (NTIA), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the
Health Resources & Services Administration (HRSA), among others.36
Legislative History
Appalachian Regional Development Act
In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Appalachian Regional Development Act,37 which
created the ARC to address the President’s Appalachian Regional Commission (PARC)
recommendations, and added counties in New York and Mississippi. The ARC was directed to
administer or assist in the following initiatives:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The creation of the Appalachian
Development Highway System;
Establishing “Demonstration Health
Facilities” to fund health infrastructure;
Land stabilization, conservation, and
erosion control programs;
Timber development organizations, for
purposes of forest management;
Mining area restoration, for
rehabilitating and/or revitalizing
mining sites;
A water resources survey;
Vocational education programs; and
Sewage treatment infrastructure.
The Council of Appalachian Governors
Prior to the establishment of ARC, in 1960, the
Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, North
Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and West
Virginia governors formed the Council of Appalachian
Governors to highlight Appalachia’s extended
economic distress and to press for increased federal
involvement. In 1963, President John F. Kennedy
formed the President’s Appalachian Regional
Commission (PARC) and charged it with developing
an economic development program for the region.
PARC’s report, issued in 1964, called for the creation
of an independent agency to coordinate federal and
state efforts to address infrastructure, natural
resources, and human capital issues in the region. The
PARC also included some Ohio counties as part of the
Appalachian region.38
Major Amendments to the ARC
Appalachian Regional Development Act Amendments of 1975
In 1975, the ARC’s authorizing legislation was amended to require that state governors
themselves serve as the state representatives on the commission, overriding original statutory
language in which governors were permitted to appoint designated representatives.39 The
amendments also included provisions to expand public participation in ARC plans and programs.
34 For example, in FY2026, P.L. 119-37 provided $10 million for the ARC, DRA, NBRC, and SBRC regions for any
Rural Community Assistance Program (RCAP) purposes (as described in section 381E(d) of the Consolidated Farm
and Rural Development Act).
35 The Department of Defense is “using a secondary Department of War designation,” under Executive Order 14347
dated September 5, 2025. See https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/09/10/2025-17508/restoring-the-unitedstates-department-of-war.
36 Appalachian Regional Commission, FY2025 Congressional Budget Justification, pp. 6-7, https://www.arc.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2024/03/FY-2025-ARC-Budget-Congressional-Justification.pdf.
37 P.L. 89-4.
38 Appalachian Regional Commission, ARC History, https://www.arc.gov/about/ARCHistory.asp; and Appalachian
Regional Commission, Appalachia: A Report by the President’s Appalachian Regional Commission, 1964, April 1964.
39 P.L. 94-188.
Congressional Research Service
8
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
They also required states to consult with local development districts and local governments and
authorized federal grants to the ARC to assist states in enhancing state development planning.
Appalachian Regional Development Reform Act of 1998
Legislative reforms in 1998 introduced county-level designations of distress.40 The legislation
organized county-level distress into three bands, from “worst” to “best”: distressed counties;
competitive counties; and attainment counties. The act imposed limitations on funding for
economically strong counties: (1) “competitive,” which could only accept ARC funding for 30%
of project costs (with the 70% balance being subject to grant match requirements); and (2)
“attainment,” which were generally ineligible for funding, except through waivers or exceptions.
In addition, the act withdrew the ARC’s legislative mandate for certain programs, including the
land stabilization, conservation, and erosion control program; the timber development program;
the mining area restoration program; the water resource development and utilization survey; the
Appalachian airport safety improvements program (a program added in 1971); the sewage
treatment works program; and amendments to the Housing Act of 1954 from the original 1965
act.
Appalachian Regional Development Act Amendments of 2002
Legislation in 2002 expanded the ARC’s ability to support LDDs, introduced an emphasis on
ecological issues, and provided for a greater coordinating role by the ARC in federal economic
development activities.41 The amendments also provided new stipulations for the ARC’s grant
making, limiting the organization to funding 50% of project costs or 80% in designated distressed
counties. The amendments also expanded the ARC’s efforts in human capital development
projects, such as through various vocational, entrepreneurial, and skill training initiatives.
The Appalachian Regional Development Act Amendments of 2008
The Appalachian Regional Development Act Amendments of 2008 made adjustments to the
ARC’s grant authorities and extended its geographic reach. The amendments included
1.
2.
3.
4.
various limitations on project funding amounts and commission contributions;
the establishment of an economic and energy development initiative;
the expansion of county designations to include an “at-risk” designation; and
the expansion of the number of counties under the ARC’s jurisdiction.42
The 2008 amendments introduced funding limitations for ARC grant activities as a whole, as well
as to specific programs. According to the 2008 legislation, “the amount of the grant shall not
exceed 50 percent of administrative expenses.” However, at the ARC’s discretion, an LDD that
included a “distressed” county in its service area could provide for 75% of administrative
expenses of a relevant project, or 70% for “at-risk” counties. Eligible activities could only be
funded by the ARC at a maximum of 50% of the project cost,43 or 80% for distressed counties and
70% for “at-risk” counties. The act introduced special project categories, including
40 P.L. 105-393.
41 P.L. 107-149.
42 P.L. 110-371.
43 Where allowable, nonappropriated funds—such as those from states or localities—or even other non-ARC federal
funds may be used to fund the balance of the project costs.
Congressional Research Service
9
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
•
•
•
•
•
demonstration health projects;
assistance for proposed low- and middle-income housing projects;
the telecommunications and technology initiative;
the entrepreneurship initiative; and
the regional skills partnership.
Finally, the “economic and energy development initiative” provided for the ARC to fund
activities supporting energy efficiency and renewable technologies. The legislation expanded
distress designations to include an “at-risk” category, or counties “most at risk of becoming
economically distressed.” This raised the number of distress levels to five.44 The legislation also
expanded ARC’s service area. Ten counties in four states were added to the ARC.
The SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act (P.L. 115-271) of 2018
The SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act (the SUPPORT Act, P.L. 115-271), enacted in
June 2018, authorized the ARC to support projects and activities that address substance abuse,
including opioid abuse, in the region.45
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58) of 2021
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), enacted in November 2021, extended the
ARC’s authorization and provided funding for it through FY2026.
Division A of the IIJA authorized appropriations at $200 million a year for each fiscal year
through FY2026. Within those overall authorized appropriations, the act specifically authorized
the ARC to use $20 million annually for expansion of high-speed broadband activities (an
increase from $10 million annually) and directed ARC to allocate $5 million annually for newly
authorized Appalachian Regional Energy Hub activities. The act addressed the ARC’s broadband
authorization, and outlined additional aspects of the agency’s broadband and regional energy hub
initiatives. The act also required congressional notification for grants over $50,000.46
Additionally, three counties in two states were added to the ARC. 47
44 The five designations of distress are: distressed, at-risk, transitional, competitive, and attainment. The “transitional”
designation is not defined in statute, unlike the other four categories, but it is utilized as part of the five-level distress
criteria nonetheless.
45 P.L. 115-271, Title VIII, Subtitle E—Treating Barriers to Prosperity, §8062.
46 Division A, §11506 of P.L. 117-58.
47 Union County, SC; Catawba County, NC; and Cleveland County, NC, were added to the ARC region (Division A,
§11506(a) of P.L. 117-58).
Congressional Research Service
10
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
The Economic Development Reauthorization Act (EDRA) of 2024
The ARC was not reauthorized in EDRA. As aforementioned, the ARC was reauthorized in the
IIJA (P.L. 117-58) through FY2026.48 However, EDRA allowed ARC (and other FRCA) funding
to be used for the nonfederal match in EDA projects.49
Funding History
The ARC is a federal-state partnership, with administrative costs shared equally by the federal
government and states, while economic development activities are federally funded. The ARC is
also the highest-funded of the FRCAs. Its funding increased 174% from approximately $73
million in FY2008 to $200 million in FY2026 (excluding advanced appropriations provided by
the IIJA). In FY2026, annual and supplemental appropriations for the ARC totaled over four
times the amount provided in FY2015 (see Table 1).
As noted above, Division A of the IIJA authorized appropriations of $200 million for the ARC for
each of FY2022 through FY2026, and Division J appropriated the authorized level of funding.50
The $1 billion appropriation in Division J is made available in equal $200 million shares across
each of the five fiscal years, and each tranche remains available until it is expended.
The ARC’s funding growth is attributable to incremental increases in appropriations along with
an increase in annual appropriations set aside since FY2016 to support the Partnerships for
Opportunity and Workforce and Economic Revitalization (POWER) Initiative.51 The POWER
Initiative began in 2015 to provide economic development funding for addressing economic and
labor dislocations caused by energy transition principally in coal communities in the Appalachian
region.52 In FY2023, FY2024, and FY2026, Congress directed ARC to allocate $65 million each
year to the POWER Initiative.53
48 The Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2027 (P.L. 119-103, enacted September 2, 2026), provides
FY2027 funding on a temporary basis for the FRCAs that were funded in the FY2026 appropriation act (P.L. 119-74)
at the same rate and under the same conditions through December 11, 2026 (see Division A). P.L. 119-103 also
includes provisions covering the extension period that extend the ARC’s authorization and funding authorization
through FY2027 and provisions that extend funding authorizations for two specific ARC initiatives through FY2027
(see Division C).
49 P.L. 118-272, Section 2215.
50 P.L. 117-58, Division J, Title III. The IIJA also provided $1.25 billion over five years (FY2022-FY2026) for the
Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) through the Federal Highway Administration (P.L. 117-58,
Division J, Title VIII).
51 P.L. 114-113.
52 For more information on the POWER Initiative, see CRS Report R46015, The POWER Initiative: Energy Transition
as Economic Development, by Julie M. Lawhorn; and The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, FACT SHEET:
The Partnerships for Opportunity and Workforce and Economic Revitalization (POWER) Initiative, March 27, 2015,
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/03/27/fact-sheet-partnerships-opportunity-and-workforceand-economic-revitaliz.
53 Appalachian Regional Commission, Partnerships for Opportunity and Workforce and Economic Revitalization
(POWER) Initiative, https://www.arc.gov/funding/POWER.asp. For FY2023 amounts, see Senator Patrick Leahy,
“Explanatory Statement Submitted by Mr. Leahy, Chair of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, Regarding H.R.
2617, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023,” Senate, Congressional Record, vol. 168, no. 198 (December 20, 2022),
S8417, https://www.congress.gov/117/crec/2022/12/20/168/198/CREC-2022-12-20-pt1-PgS7819-2.pdf. For FY2024,
amounts were specified in the House and Senate Appropriations Committee reports—see H.Rept. 118-126, p. 185,
https://www.congress.gov/118/crpt/hrpt126/CRPT-118hrpt126.pdf, and S.Rept. 118-72, https://www.govinfo.gov/
content/pkg/CRPT-118srpt72/html/CRPT-118srpt72.htm. For FY2026, see Representative Tom Cole, “Explanatory
Statement Submitted by Mr. Cole, Chair of the House Committee on Appropriations, Regarding H.R. 6938, Commerce,
Justice, Science; Energy and Water Development; and Interior and Environment Appropriations Act, 2026,”
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
11
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Table 1. ARC: Appropriated Funding and Authorized Funding Level,
FY2017-FY2026
($ in millions)
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
FY22
FY23
FY24
FY25
FY26
Appropriated Funding
152
155
165
175
180
395
400
400
400
400
Authorized Funding
110
110
110
110
110
200
200
200
200
200
Sources: Authorized funding amounts compiled by CRS using data from P.L. 110-234, P.L. 113-79, P.L. 115-334,
P.L. 116-159, and P.L. 117-58. Appropriated funding amounts compiled by CRS using data from P.L. 115-31, P.L.
115-141, P.L. 115-244, P.L. 116-94, P.L. 116-260, P.L. 117-58, P.L. 117-103, P.L. 117-328, P.L. 118-42, P.L. 119-4,
and P.L. 119-74
Notes: For an expanded historical and comparative view of appropriations, see Table C-1. The appropriated
funding amounts for FY2022-FY2026 include $200 million for each fiscal year provided by the Infrastructure,
Investment, and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58, Division J, Title III). The IIJA provided $200 million in advance
appropriations for the ARC in each fiscal year from FY2022 through FY2026. FY2022 amounts do not include
appropriations in Division A of P.L. 117-58 pertaining to the Appalachian Development Highway System (P.L.
117-58, Division J, Title VIII).
Delta Regional Authority
The Delta Regional Authority was established in 2000 to address economic distress in the
Mississippi River Delta region.54 The DRA aims to “create jobs, build communities, and improve
the lives of those that reside in the region,”55 which includes 255 designated counties and parishes
in Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee
(Figure 2).
Congressional Record, House, vol. 172, no. 5 (January 8, 2026), p. H446, https://www.congress.gov/119/crec/2026/01/
08/172/5/CREC-2026-01-08-bk3.pdf#page=192.
54 P.L. 106-554, Appendix D, Title V—Lower Mississippi River Region.
55 Delta Regional Authority, About Delta Regional Authority, https://dra.gov/about.
Congressional Research Service
12
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Figure 2. Map of the Delta Regional Authority
(by county or parish)
Source: Compiled by CRS using data from 7 U.S.C. §2009aa, Esri Data and Maps, and the Delta Regional
Authority, “Service Area Map,” https://dra.gov/map-room/.
Overview of Structure and Activities
Authority Structure
Like the ARC, the DRA is a federal-state partnership that shares administrative expenses equally,
while activities are federally funded. The DRA consists of a federal co-chair appointed by the
President with the advice and consent of the Senate, and the eight state governors, of which one is
state co-chair. The governors are permitted to appoint a designee to represent the state, who also
generally serves as the state alternate.56
Entities that are eligible to apply for DRA funding opportunities include state and local
governments (state agencies, cities, and counties/parishes); nonprofit entities, including special
purpose districts; regional and economic development organizations; community and faith-based
organizations; colleges, trade schools, and minority-serving institutions; and federally recognized
tribes.57
These entities must apply for projects that operate in or are serving residents and communities
within the 255 counties/parishes of the DRA’s jurisdiction. Unlike other FRCAs, the DRA’s
service area is defined not in any one piece of legislation but through multiple legislative
developments (see “Legislative History”). In addition, there appears to be a mechanism for
adding counties/parishes to the Authority administratively based on bill text in the California
Desert Protection Act of 1994 from the 103rd Congress (P.L. 103-433), which incorporated H.R.
4043, the Lower Mississippi Delta Initiatives Act of 1994 as Title XI of the bill.58
56 7 U.S.C. §2009aa.
57 Delta Regional Authority, Programs, https://dra.gov/programs/.
58 Of the counties reported by the DRA to fall within its service area, 219 were incorporated through P.L. 100-460.
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
13
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Strategic Plan
Funding determinations are assessed according to the DRA’s authorizing statute, its strategic plan,
distress designations, and state priorities. The DRA strategic plan articulates the authority’s highlevel economic development priorities. The current strategic plan—Navigating the Currents of
Opportunity: Delta Regional Development Plan IV—was released in February 2023 for the 20232027 period.59
The strategic plan lists four primary goals:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Invest in public infrastructure;
Nurture local workforce ecosystems;
Promote business growth and entrepreneurship; and
Support community place-making and capacity-building.
States provide development plans that reflect the economic development goals and priorities of
member states and LDDs.60
DRA projects are developed in coordination with its 45 LDDs.61 LDDs are multicounty economic
that advise on local priorities, identify opportunities, conduct outreach, and administer grants.
LDDs may receive financial assistance from the DRA, including administrative fees paid from
awarded DRA funds, which are calculated as 5% of the first $100,000 of an award, and 1% for all
dollars above that amount.62 DRA launched the LDD Community Support Pilot Program in 2023
to expand assistance and activities with LDDs.63
Designating Distressed Areas
The DRA determines a county or parish as distressed on an annual basis through the following
criteria:
1. an unemployment rate of 1% higher than the national average for the most recent
24-month period; and
2. a per capita income of 80% or less than the national per capita income.64
The DRA designates counties as either distressed or not, and distressed counties received priority
funding from DRA grant making activities. By statute, the DRA directs at least 75% of funds to
distressed counties and parishes and isolated areas within non-distressed counties and parishes;65
Another 20 counties in Alabama were included in P.L. 106-554 (16 counties) and P.L. 107-171 (four counties). P.L.
110-234 added 10 Louisiana parishes and two Mississippi counties. By this count, one county appears to have been
included administratively.
59 Delta Regional Authority, Navigating the Currents of Opportunity: Delta Regional Development Plan IV, February
2023, https://dra.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/APPROVED_DRA-RDP-IV_20230215.pdf.
60 See, for example, Delta Regional Authority, Regional Development Plan: State Economic Development Plans,
https://dra.gov/about/strategic-development-plan.
61 Delta Regional Authority, Local Development Districts, https://dra.gov/resources/local-development-districts; and
FY2025 Performance and Accountability Report, p. 49, https://dra.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/DRA-FY2025PAR-FINAL.pdf.
62 Delta Regional Authority, 2025 Congressional Budget Justification, p. 23, https://dra.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/
03/DRA-FY-2025-Buget-Justification-FINAL_Updated03072025.pdf.
63 Delta Regional Authority, 2025 Congressional Budget Justification, p. 28.
64 Delta Regional Authority, Map Room, https://dra.gov/map-room.
65 7 U.S.C. §2009aa–5(b).
Congressional Research Service
14
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
half of those funds must target transportation and basic infrastructure.66 As of FY2024, 227 of
DRA’s counties and parishes are economically distressed and 136 are in persistent poverty.67 The
DRA notes that a county may experience persistent poverty if it has poverty rates of 20% of the
population, or more, for at least 30 years (per the USDA Economic Research Service).68 The
DRA also analyzes census tracts in order to designate isolated areas of non-distressed counties or
parishes as distressed.69
Recent Activities70
By statute, DRA is required to provide funding for the following four categories:
•
•
•
•
Basic public infrastructure in distressed counties and isolated areas of distress;
Transportation infrastructure for the purpose of facilitating economic
development in the region;
Business development, with emphasis on entrepreneurship; and
Job training or employment‐related education, with emphasis on the use of
existing public educational institutions located in the region.71
DRA categorizes its core programs as critical infrastructure or human infrastructure programs.
Critical infrastructure programs include72
•
•
•
the States’ Economic Development Assistance Program (SEDAP);
the Community Infrastructure Fund; and
the Public Works and Economic Adjustment Assistance (PWEAA) Program.73
Human infrastructure programs include74
•
the Workforce Grant Programs (e.g., the Delta Workforce Grant Program, the
Workforce Opportunity for Rural Communities (WORC) program);75
66 7 U.S.C. §2009aa–5(d).
67 Delta Regional Authority, 2025 Congressional Budget Justification, p. 23.
68 Delta Regional Authority, Navigating the Currents of Opportunity: Delta Regional Development Plan IV, February
2023, p. 5, https://dra.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/APPROVED_DRA-RDP-IV_20230215.pdf.
69 See 7 U.S.C. §2009aa–5(a) and Delta Regional Authority, Map Room.
70 Activities and programs in this section are illustrative examples and not comprehensive. For information on other
DRA activities, see https://dra.gov.
71 7 U.S.C. §2009aa.
72 DRA also provides funding to local development districts for their assistance in administering States’ Economic
Development Assistance Programs and other technical assistance services. See 2025 Congressional Budget
Justification, p. 10. For a summary of DRA’s critical infrastructure programs, see https://dra.gov/programs/criticalinfrastructure/.
73 Since FY2016, Congress has directed the Economic Development Administration (EDA) to partner with DRA to
“advance economic growth by assisting communities and regions experiencing chronic high unemployment and low
per capita income to create an environment that fosters innovation, promotes entrepreneurship, and attracts increased
private capital investment.” DRA and EDA executed an MOA, which calls for EDA to invest $3 million into projects
identified by DRA through the Authority’s SEDAP application cycle. See DRA’s FY2023 CBJ, pp. 23-24.
74 For a summary of DRA’s human infrastructure programs, see https://dra.gov/programs/human-infrastructure.
75 The Workforce Opportunity for Rural Communities (WORC) program is administered in partnership with and
supported by the Department of Labor. For more information about DRA’s WORC activities, see https://dra.gov/
programs/human-infrastructure/workforce/worc/.
Congressional Research Service
15
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
•
•
•
the Delta Health Collaborative Programs (e.g., the Delta Doctors Program;76 the
Delta Region Community Health Systems Development Program);
the Delta Leadership Institute; and
the Delta Capacity-Building Programs (e.g., the Delta Research; the Delta
Summit; the Local Development Districts (LDD) Pilot Program; the Strategic
Planning Grant Program).
Additional DRA activities include various partnerships and ongoing initiatives (e.g., the
Innovative Readiness Training program, academies and institutes).77
DRA collaborates with various federal agencies on programs and initiatives. Since 2003,
Congress has directed USDA to provide funding to DRA for any USDA Rural Community
Advancement Program (RCAP) purposes that support rural economic development activities in
the DRA region.78 Other federal partners include the Economic Development Administration
(EDA), the Department of Defense, Department of State, DOL, and HRSA, among others.79
States’ Economic Development Assistance Program
The principal investment tool used by the DRA is the States’ Economic Development Assistance
Program, which is used to fund grants for basic public infrastructure; transportation
infrastructure; business development and entrepreneurship; and workforce training and
education.80 The SEDAP funding is made available to each state according to an allocation that
has been approved by the Authority.81 While all projects must be associated with one of the
DRA’s four funding priorities, additional review criteria include county-level distress
designations; adherence to at least one of the DRA Regional Development Plan goals (from the
strategic plan); and alignment with an existing local, regional or state economic development plan
and/or workforce strategy.82
Legislative History
In 1988, the Rural Development, Agriculture, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for
FY1989 (P.L. 100-460) appropriated $2 million and included language that authorized the
76 The Delta Doctors program is designed to address the health disparities and high levels of health professional
shortages by granting J-1 visa waivers for physicians who are willing to provide medical services in distressed DRA
communities. See Delta Regional Authority, Delta Doctors, https://dra.gov/programs/human-infrastructure/health/
delta-doctors/.
77 Delta Regional Authority, Programs, https://dra.gov/programs.
78 For example, P.L. 119-37 provided $10 million for the ARC, DRA, NBRC, and SBRC regions for any RCAP
purpose (as described in section 381E(d) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act). According to a 2023
DRA budget document,
Each year DRA allocates a portion of the RCAP dollars to fund various Authority programs and
region-wide projects priorities by the Federal Co-Chair. Examples of funded programs/projects:
Delta Leadership Institute, Delta Small Business Academy, and Delta Summit.
See Delta Regional Authority, 2023 Congressional Budget Justification, p. 21, https://dra.gov/wp-content/
uploads/2023/03/FY-2023-Budget-Justification-Report-FINAL.pdf.
79 Delta Regional Authority, FY2025 Congressional Budget Justification.
80 Delta Regional Authority, 2025 Congressional Budget Justification.
81 Delta Regional Authority, 2025 Congressional Budget Justification.
82 Delta Regional Authority, States’ Economic Development Assistance Program Notice of Funding Availability,
https://dra.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/2025-Delta-Regional-Authority-SEDAP-NOFAAnnouncement_July2025.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
16
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
creation of the Lower Mississippi Delta Development Commission. The LMDDC was a DRA
predecessor tasked with studying economic issues in the Delta and developing a 10-year
economic development plan. The LMDDC consisted of two commissioners appointed by the
President as well as the governors of Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Missouri, and Tennessee. The commission was chaired by then-Governor William J. Clinton of
Arkansas, and the LMDDC released interim and final reports before completing its mandate in
1990. Later, in the White House, the Clinton Administration continued to show interest in an
expanded federal role in Mississippi Delta regional economic development.
P.L. 100-460’s $2 million in appropriations were made available to “carry out H.R. 5378 and S.
2836, the Lower Mississippi Delta Development Act, as introduced in the House of
Representatives on September 26, 1988, and in the Senate on September 27, 1988.” Using this
language, those previously un-enacted bills were “incorporated by reference” and enacted. P.L.
100-460 also provided a definition of the Lower Mississippi Delta region through the
incorporation of H.R. 5378 and S. 2836 (110th Congress). In 1994, Congress enacted the Lower
Mississippi Delta Region Heritage Study Act, which built on the LMDDC’s recommendations. In
particular, the 1994 act saw the Department of the Interior conduct a study on key regional
cultural, natural, and heritage sites and locations in the Mississippi Delta region.
106th Congress
•
•
In 1999 and 2000, several bills that included legislative text to establish the DRA
were introduced and referred to committees (i.e., H.R. 2911, S. 1622, and S.
2936). In March 2000, the Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee
on Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies, held a special hearing
on “Economic Development in the Mississippi Delta” that included discussions
of the proposed DRA, as well as H.R. 2911, and S. 1622.83
In 2000, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2001 (P.L. 106-554)
included language authorizing the creation of the DRA based on the seven
participating states of the LMDDC, with the addition of Alabama and 16 of its
counties and Natchitoches Parish in Louisiana.84
107th Congress
•
The 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171) amended voting procedures for DRA states,
provided new funds for Delta regional projects, and added four additional
Alabama counties to the DRA.85
108th Congress
•
The Southern Empowerment and Economic Development Act to authorize the
Delta Black Belt Regional Authority (H.R. 678) would have amended the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2009aa(1)) to rename
the DRA as the Delta Black Belt Regional Authority (DBBRA). Among other
83 U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related
Agencies, Economic Development in the Mississippi Delta, S. Hrg. 106-825, 106th Cong., 2nd sess., March 14, 2000,
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-106shrg63943/pdf/CHRG-106shrg63943.pdf.
84 P.L. 106-554. This law added the following Alabama counties: Pickens, Greene, Sumter, Choctaw, Clarke,
Washington, Marengo, Hale, Perry, Wilcox, Lowndes, Bullock, Macon, Barbour, Russell, and Dallas.
85 P.L. 107-171, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. This law added Butler, Conecuh, Escambia, and
Monroe counties.
Congressional Research Service
17
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
•
changes, the legislation would have extended the geography of the region to
include parts of the area now covered by the SCRC as well as areas in other
states. The bill was referred to several committees and subcommittees and was
not enacted.
The Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act of 2003 (H.R.
3196) would have reauthorized the DRA as the “Delta Regional Commission.”
The bill was referred to several committees and subcommittees and was not
enacted.
109th Congress
•
•
The Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act of 2005 (H.R.
1349) would have reauthorized the DRA as the “Delta Regional Commission.”
The bill was not enacted.86
The Southern Empowerment and Economic Development Act (H.R. 5082) would
have amended the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act to rename the
DRA as the Delta Black Belt Regional Authority (DBBRA). The legislation
would have extended the region to include parts of the area now covered by the
SCRC as well as areas in other states. The bill was referred to several committees
and subcommittees and was not enacted.
110th Congress
•
The 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-234) reauthorized the DRA from FY2008 through
FY2012 and added 10 parishes in Louisiana and two counties in Mississippi to
the DRA region.87
113th Congress
•
The 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79) reauthorized the DRA through FY2018.88
115th Congress
•
The 2018 farm bill (P.L. 115-334), reauthorized the DRA from FY2019 to
FY2023, and emphasized Alabama’s position as a “full member” of the DRA.89
118th Congress
The Economic Development Reauthorization Act of 2024 (P.L. 118-272, Division B, Title II,
Subtitle B) made several changes to the DRA. EDRA
86 Representative James L. Oberstar, “Introducing the Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act,”
Senate, Congressional Record, vol. 151, no. 33 (March 17, 2005), E475-E476, https://www.congress.gov/
congressional-record/volume-151/issue-33/extensions-of-remarks-section/article/E475-2.
87 P.L. 110-234, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. This law added Beauregard, Bienville, Cameron,
Claiborne, DeSoto, Jefferson Davis, Red River, St. Mary, Vermillion, and Webster Parishes in Louisiana; and Jasper
and Smith Counties in Mississippi.
88 P.L. 113-79, the Agricultural Act of 2014.
89 P.L. 115-334, the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018. See CRS In Focus IF11126, 2018 Farm Bill Primer:
Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, by Renée Johnson and Jim Monke.
Congressional Research Service
18
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
repealed the sunset (or termination of authority) provision for DRA’s authority;90
authorized funding each fiscal year from FY2025 through FY2029;
authorized the DRA to collect fees for the Delta Doctors program and keep and
spend those fees;
authorized Indian Tribes as eligible recipients of economic and community
development grants;
authorized the executive director, a nonfederal employee of the authority, to
assume the duties of the federal co-chair and the alternate federal co-chair for
purposes of continuation of normal operations in the event that both positions are
vacant;91
added Sabine, Vernon, and Terrebonne Parishes in Louisiana to the DRA region;
and
allowed DRA (and other FRCA) funding to be used for the nonfederal match in
EDA projects.92
Funding History
The DRA consistently received funding authorizations of $30 million annually since it was first
authorized in FY2001 through FY2023.93 EDRA provided a funding authorization of $40 million
for each fiscal year from FY2025 through FY2029 (see Table 2).94 However, the actual
appropriations provided have fluctuated over the years. Although the DRA was appropriated $20
million in the same legislation authorizing its creation,95 that amount was halved in 2002,96 and
continued a downward trend to a low point of $5 million in FY2004, rebounding in FY2006 to
$12 million, where it stabilized until FY2016 (see Table C-1).
DRA received supplemental appropriations in FY2022 and FY2025. In FY2022, the IIJA
provided the DRA with $150 million in supplemental appropriations—five times its annual
appropriation at the time.97 In FY2025, the American Relief Act, 2025 (P.L. 118-158) provided
$1.51 billion to the U.S. Economic Development Administration for disaster economic recovery,
with $10 million of that amount to be transferred to the DRA. P.L. 118-158 states that the funding
is “for economic adjustment assistance related to flood mitigation, disaster relief, long-term
90 The Economic Development Reauthorization Act (EDRA) of 2024 repealed 7 U.S.C. §2009aa–13.
91 As noted in CRS In Focus IF11396, Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Operations,
The commission structure is comprised of a federal co-chair and the state governors of member
states or their designated representative (of which one serves as state co-chair). The commission is
supplemented by professional staff to carry out organizational activities. While largely considered
independent federal agencies, most commission members and staff are not federal employees. The
main exception is the federal co-chair, that co-chair’s alternate, and that co-chair’s direct staff.
92 P.L. 118-272, Section 2215.
93 7 U.S.C. §2009aa–12.
94 P.L. 118-272.
95 P.L. 106-554.
96 P.L. 107-66.
97 The DRA allocated IIJA funding to five program areas: (1) SEDAP; (2) Community Infrastructure Fund; (3) Delta
Workforce Grant Program; (4) Strategic Planning; and (5) LDD Pilot Program. See Delta Regional Authority,
Performance and Accountability Report September 30, 2022, p. 22, https://dra.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/
DRA_FY2022_PAR_Final12.pdf. Estimates for the program allocations of the DRA’s IIJA spend plan are included in
the Delta Regional Authority, 2025 Congressional Budget Justification (CBJ), p. 6. The DRA’s FY2025 CBJ also notes
that it will use 4% of IIJA funding to cover administrative expenses.
Congressional Research Service
19
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
recovery, and restoration of infrastructure in areas that received a major disaster designation as a
result of hurricanes, wildfires, severe storms and flooding, tornadoes, and other natural disasters
occurring in calendar years 2023 and 2024 under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. §§5121 et seq.).”98 DRA and other FRCAs support disaster
economic recovery projects. However, in recent years, DRA and other FRCAs generally have not
received supplemental funding for disaster economic recovery activities and have not received
transferred funding provided through EDA.
In FY2026, P.L. 119-74 provided the DRA with $32 million in annual appropriations.
Table 2. DRA: Appropriated Funding and Authorized Funding Level, FY2017-FY2026
($ in millions)
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
FY22
FY23
FY24
FY25
FY26
Appropriated Funding
25.0
25.0
25.0
30.0
30.0
180.1a
30.1
31.1
31.1
32.0
Authorized Funding
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
—
40.0
40.0
Sources: Appropriated funding amounts compiled by CRS using data from the following: P.L. 115-31, P.L. 115141, P.L. 115-244, P.L. 116-94, P.L. 116-260, P.L. 117-58, P.L. 117-328, P.L. 118-42, P.L. 119-4, and P.L. 119-74.
Notes: For an expanded historical and comparative view of appropriations, see Table C-1.
a. FY2022 includes $30.1 million provided through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. 117-103,
Division D, Title IV). FY2022 appropriated funding amounts also include $150 million from the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58, Division J, Title III).
Denali Commission
The Denali Commission was established in October 1998 to support rural economic development
in Alaska.99 It is “designed to provide critical utilities, infrastructure, and economic support
throughout Alaska.” The Denali Commission is unique among these commissions and authorities
as a single-state entity. It is also unique because it primarily uses federal funding for
administrative expenses, rather than a combination of federal and state contributions for these
expenses.100
98 For additional information, see CRS Insight IN12632, Delta Regional Authority Disaster Economic Recovery
Funding (P.L. 118-158), by Julie M. Lawhorn.
99 P.L. 105-277.
100 For additional information, see CRS In Focus IF12165, Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities:
Administrative Expenses, by Julie M. Lawhorn.
Congressional Research Service
20
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Figure 3. Map of the Denali Commission
(by borough or census area)
Source: Compiled by CRS using data from 42 U.S.C. §3121 note, Esri Data and Maps, and the Denali
Commission, “Denali Commission Story,” https://denali.gov/.
Overview of Structure and Activities
The commission’s statutory mission includes promoting rural development, providing power
generation and transmission facilities, modern communication systems, water and sewer systems
and other infrastructure needs, and providing workforce and other economic development
assistance to distressed rural regions in Alaska.101 For decades, the commission has provided
substantial funding to coastal infrastructure protection and energy infrastructure and fuel storage
projects.102 The commission continues to invest in energy and bulk fuel programs and climate
adaptation activities.103 In FY2020, the commission reopened its general economic development
and workforce development portfolios.104
101 42 U.S.C. §3121 note.
102 Denali Commission, Programs, https://www.denali.gov/programs/.
103 See, for example, Denali Commission, Strategic Plan FY2023-FY2027, which notes that
The Commission has invested $50 million in climate adaptation projects/initiatives through the VIP
Program, leveraging nearly $60 million of other funding contributions. Over forty villages have
received assistance because of Commission initiatives since the program was created in 2016.
The plan indicates that partners include numerous state and federal agencies, universities, and philanthropic
organizations, and that “A significant amount of the funding referenced above has been used to assist with
relocating Newtok.”
104 Denali Commission, Strategic Plan FY2023-FY2027, pp. 19-20, https://www.denali.gov/strategic-plans/.
Congressional Research Service
21
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Commission Structure
The Denali Commission’s structure is unique as the only commission with a single-state mandate.
The commission is comprised of seven members (or a designated nominee), including the federal
co-chair, appointed by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce; the Alaska governor, who is state cochair (or his/her designated representative); the University of Alaska president; the Alaska
Municipal League president; the Alaska Federation of Natives president; the Alaska State AFLCIO president; and the Associated General Contractors of Alaska president.105
These structural novelties offer a different model compared to the organization typified by the
ARC and broadly adopted by the other functioning FRCAs. For example, the federal co-chair’s
appointment by the Secretary of Commerce, and not the President with Senate confirmation,
allows for a potentially more expeditious appointment of a federal co-chair.
Annual Work Plan and Strategic Plan
The Denali Commission is required by law to create an annual work plan, which solicits project
proposals, guides activities, and informs a five-year strategic plan.106 The work plan is reviewed
by the federal co-chair, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Office of Management and Budget,
and is subject to a public comment period.
The latest strategic plan, released in March 2024, lists seven strategic goals and objectives:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
infrastructure for distressed communities;
village infrastructure protection and climate resiliency;
energy, including storage, production, heating, and electricity;
workforce development;
transportation;
sanitation, health facilities, housing, and broadband programs; and
innovation and collaboration.107
Designating Distressed Areas
The Denali Commission’s authorizing statute obligates the commission to address economic
distress in rural areas of Alaska.108 The commission utilizes two overlapping standards to assess
distress: a “surrogate standard,” adopted by the commission in 2000, and an “expanded standard.”
These standards are applied to rural communities in Alaska and assessed by the Alaska
Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DOL&WD), Research and Analysis Section.
DOL&WD uses the most current population, employment, and earnings data available to identify
Alaska communities and Census Designated Places considered “distressed.”109
Appeals can be made to community distress determinations, but only through a demonstration
that DOL&WD data or analysis was erroneous, invalid, or outdated. New information “must
105 P.L. 105-277.
106 Denali Commission, Work Plans, https://www.denali.gov/work-plans/.
107 Denali Commission, Strategic Plan FY2023-FY2027, https://www.denali.gov/strategic-plans/.
108 P.L. 105-277.
109 Denali Commission, 2025 Distressed Communities Report, https://denali.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/
2025DistressedCommunitiesReport.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
22
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
come from a verifiable source, and be robust and representative of the entire community and/or
population.” Appeals are accepted and adjudicated only for the same reporting year in question.
Recent Activities110
The Denali Commission’s scope is more constrained compared to the other FRCAs. Since the
Denali Commission’s founding, bulk fuel safety and security, energy reliability and security,
transportation system improvements, and health care projects have commanded the vast majority
of Commission projects.111 In recent years, the Denali Commission’s core programs have focused
on grants for energy reliability and security and bulk fuel safety and security projects.112 In 2015,
the commission launched the village infrastructure protection program launched to address
community infrastructure threatened by erosion, flooding, and permafrost degradation.113 The
Denali Commission has generally funded fewer “traditional” economic development projects,
such as housing, workforce development, and general economic development activities, due to
funding constraints.114 On an occasional basis since FY2020, the commission has reported that it
supported certain economic development activities.115
For several years before the enactment of the IIJA, the Denali Commission had not received
dedicated funding for transportation, sanitation, health facilities, housing, broadband, and general
economic development activities.116 However, the commission’s FY2023, FY2024, and FY2025
Work Plans and the FY2022-FY2026 IIJA Work Plan indicate support for these and related
activities.117 The Denali Commission is to allocate IIJA funding to the following activities: (1)
infrastructure; (2) village infrastructure protection; (3) energy reliability and security; (4)
emergency fund; and (5) workforce and economic development.
In recent years, the Denali Commission has received funding from other state and federal sources,
aside from its own appropriation. Other sources for activities administered by the Denali
Commission have included
•
The State of Alaska, through the Federal Highway Administration, for planning,
design, and construction of road and other surface transportation infrastructure in
Alaska Native villages and rural communities;118
110 Activities and programs in this section are illustrative examples and not comprehensive. For information on
additional Denali Commission activities, see https://www.denali.gov.
111 Denali Commission, Denali Commission Investment Summary, March 2022, https://www.denali.gov/programs/.
112 The Denali Commission has made energy and bulk fuel its primary infrastructure theme since it was created in
1998. The types of projects currently being funded include the design and construction of replacement bulk fuel storage
facilities, upgrades to community power generation and distribution systems (including interties), and energy efficiency
related initiatives. See Denali Commission, FY2025Congressional Budget Justification, p. 8,
https://x11.6e7.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/
DenaliCommissionCJ2025Final_withAddendum_Final.pdf.
113 Denali Commission, Village Infrastructure Protection, https://www.denali.gov/programs/village-infrastructureprotection/.
114 Denali Commission, Other Programs, https://www.denali.gov/programs/other-programs/ (accessed April 23, 2021)
and Denali Commission, Denali Commission Investment Summary, March 2022, https://www.denali.gov/programs/.
115 Denali Commission, Strategic Plan FY2023-FY2027, pp. 19-20, https://www.denali.gov/strategic-plans/.
116 Denali Commission, Other Programs, https://www.denali.gov/programs/other-programs/.
117 Denali Commission, Work Plans, https://www.denali.gov/work-plans/.
118 Denali Commission’s Strategic Plan, p. 15, https://02e11d.a2cdn1.secureserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/
FY23-27StrategicPlanFINAL_v21.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
23
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
•
•
•
Various federal agencies, such as the EPA, Department of Health and Human
Services, USDA, and others;119
The Trans-Alaska Pipeline Liability (TAPL) trust fund, for the commission’s bulk
fuel safety and security activities,120 and
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, for a three-year project to upgrade
bulk fuel infrastructure in rural communities.121
The Denali Commission also uses its transfer authority to receive funding from other federal
agencies, which it uses to issue grants on the agencies’ behalf.122
Legislative History
105th Congress
•
The Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act,
1999 (P.L. 105-277, enacted October 21, 1998) established the Denali
Commission to support rural economic development in Alaska. P.L. 105-277 also
established an annual transfer of interest from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund
(from the investment of the TAPL)123 to the Denali Commission and directed that
it be used by the Denali Commission “to repair or replace bulk fuel storage tanks
in Alaska which are not in compliance with federal law.”
106th Congress
•
•
The 1999 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 106-31, Title I,
Section 105) authorized the Denali Commission to enter into contracts and
cooperative agreements, award grants, and make payments “necessary to carry
out the purposes of the commission.” The act also established the federal cochair’s compensation schedule, and prohibited using more than 5% of
appropriated funds for administrative expenses. P.L. 106-31 amended the
Inspector General Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-452) to require the Denali Commission to
have an Inspector General.
In 1999, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000 (P.L. 106-113) established
“demonstration health projects” as authorized activities and authorized the
Department of Health and Human Services to make grants to the commission to
that effect.
119 Amounts provided by other federal agencies through FY2023 are provided in the Denali Commission’s Strategic
Plan, pp. 21-22, https://02e11d.a2cdn1.secureserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/FY2327StrategicPlanFINAL_v21.pdf.
120 The Trans-Alaska Pipeline Liability (TAPL) trust fund provides approximately $3 million each year in FY2024 and
FY2024. See Denali Commission, Funding, https://www.denali.gov/about/funding-2/; and FY2025 Congressional
Budget Justification, p. 7, https://x11.6e7.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/
DenaliCommissionCJ2025Final_withAddendum_Final.pdf.
121 Denali Commission, Denali Commission Awards $100 Million to Address Urgent Fuel Infrastructure Needs in
Rural Alaska, July 17, 2025, https://denali.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/2025-07-17pressrelease_Final_v3.pdf.
122 42 U.S.C. §3121 note, Section 311. See also Denali Commission, FY2024 Congressional Budget Justification, p. 8,
https://02e11d.a2cdn1.secureserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Congressional-Budget-Justification-Fiscal-Year2024-Final.pdf.
123 P.L. 101-380 established the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.
Congressional Research Service
24
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
108th Congress
•
•
•
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (P.L. 108-7) authorized the Secretary
of Agriculture to make payments to the Denali Commission to address
deficiencies in solid waste disposal sites.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (P.L. 108-199) created an Economic
Development Committee within the commission chaired by the Alaska
Federation of Natives president, and included the Alaska Commissioner of
Community and Economic Affairs, a representative of the Alaska Bankers
Association, the chairman of the Alaska Permanent Fund, a representative from
the Alaska Chamber of Commerce, and representatives from each region.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (P.L. 108-447) authorized the U.S.
Secretary of Transportation to make payments to the commission for docks,
waterfront development, and related infrastructure development.124
109th Congress
•
In 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users, or SAFETEA-LU (P.L. 109-59), established the Denali Access
System Program among the commission’s authorized activities. The program was
part of its surface transportation efforts, which were active from 2005 through
2009.125
112th Congress
•
2012’s Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, or MAP-21 (P.L. 112141), authorized the commission to accept funds from federal agencies, allowed
it to accept gifts or donations of “service, property, or money” on behalf of the
U.S. government, and included guidance regarding gifts.
114th Congress
•
In 2016, the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act, or the WIIN
Act (P.L. 114-322), reauthorized the Denali Commission through FY2021, and
established a four-year term for the federal co-chair (with allowances for
reappointment), but provided that other members were appointed for life. The act
also allowed for the Secretary of Commerce to appoint an interim federal cochair, and included clarifying language on the nonfederal status of commission
staff and ethical issues regarding conflicts of interest and disclosure.
117th Congress
•
Division A of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58)
extended funding authorization for five years to carry out the Denali Access
System Program.126 The act also allowed the Denali Commission to consider
funding from another federal agency as no longer subject to requirements
124 42 U.S.C. §3121 note.
125 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Fact Sheet on Highway Provisions: Denali
Access System Program, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/factsheets/denali.htm.
126 The IIJA authorized $20 million to be appropriated for each of FY2022 through FY2026 to carry out the Denali
Access System Program (P.L. 117-58, Division A, §11507(a)).
Congressional Research Service
25
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
previously attached to those funds, including any regulatory actions by the
transferring agency.127
118th Congress
EDRA (P.L. 118-272) made several changes to the Denali Commission’s authorizing statute.
EDRA
•
•
•
•
•
•
provided the Denali Commission with leasing authority (including the lease of
office space for any term);128
allowed the commission’s funds to be considered nonfederal matching funds
when used as matching funds for EDA projects and in other federal programs
(unless otherwise prohibited);129
repealed the commission’s special function related to rural utilities;130
codified the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s authority to make interagency
transfers to the Denali Commission to address solid waste disposal site issues—
in addition to direct lump sum payments, which were previously authorized;131
established a new program, the Denali Housing Fund, which may be used for
loans or grants for planning, construction, or rehabilitation housing activities for
low- and moderate-income (LMI) households in rural Alaska villages;132 and
established the authorized funding level of $40 million for each of fiscal years
FY2025 through FY2029 (including $5 million for the Denali Housing Fund).133
Funding History
Under its authorizing statute, the Denali Commission received authorizations for $20 million for
FY1999,134 and “such sums as necessary” for FY2000 through FY2003. Legislation passed in
2003 extended the commission’s uncapped funding authorization through 2008.135 Its
authorization lapsed after 2008; reauthorizing legislation was introduced in 2007,136 but was not
enacted. The commission continued to receive annual appropriations for FY2009 and several
years thereafter.137 In 2016, legislation was enacted reauthorizing the Denali Commission through
127 P.L. 117-58, Division A, §11507(b).
128 P.L. 118-272, Section 2251.
129 P.L. 118-272, Section 2215 and Section 2251.
130 P.L. 118-272, Section 2251 removed subsection (a) from Section 307 of the Denali Commission Act of 1998 (42
U.S.C. 4321 note; P.L. 105-277), which was
Rural Utilities.—In carrying out its functions under this title, the Commission shall as appropriate, provide
assistance, seek to avoid duplicating services and assistance, and complement the water and sewer wastewater
programs under section 306D of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1926d) and section
303 of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 1263a).
131 P.L. 118-272, Section 2251.
132 P.L. 118-272, Section 2252.
133 P.L. 118-272, Section 2251 and Section 2252. EDRA provided the authorization for appropriations; it did not
provide appropriations of budget authority to the Denali Commission.
134 P.L. 105-277.
135 P.L. 108-7, §504.
136 S. 1368, 110th Cong. (2007).
137 P.L. 111-8.
Congressional Research Service
26
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
FY2021 with a $15 million annual authorization through FY2021. EDRA authorized
appropriations for the Denali Commission at $40 million for each fiscal year from FY2025
through FY2029 (including $5 million for the Denali Housing Fund).138
Between FY2017 and FY2026, annual appropriations for the Denali Commission averaged $17.4
million. In FY2022, the IIJA provided the Denali Commission with $75 million in supplemental
appropriations—approximately five times its annual appropriation at the time (see Table 3).139 In
addition to annual appropriations, the Denali Commission also receives funding from the TransAlaska Pipeline Liability (TAPL), the state of Alaska, and other federal agencies.140 As noted, the
Denali Commission is authorized to receive transfers from other federal agencies.141
Table 3. Denali Commission:
Appropriated Funding and Authorized Funding Level, FY2017-FY2026
($ in millions)
Appropriated Funding
Authorized Funding
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
FY22
FY23
FY24
FY25
FY26
15.0
30.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
90.1a
17.0
17.0
17.0
18.0
—
40.0b
40.0b
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
—
—
Sources: Appropriated funding amounts compiled by CRS using data from the following: P.L. 115-31, P.L. 115141, P.L. 115-244, P.L. 116-94, P.L. 116-260, P.L. 117-58, P.L. 117-103, P.L. 117-328, P.L. 118-42, P.L. 119-4, and
P.L. 119-74. Amounts provided by the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Liability Fund, the state of Alaska, and other federal
agencies through FY2023 are listed in the Denali Commission’s Strategic Plan, p. 10,
https://02e11d.a2cdn1.secureserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/FY23-27StrategicPlanFINAL_v21.pdf.
Notes: For an expanded historical and comparative view of appropriations, see Table C-1.
a. FY2022 appropriated funding amounts include $15.1 million provided by the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2022 (P.L. 117-103, Division D, Title IV). FY2022 appropriated funding amounts also include $75
million provided by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58, Division J, Title III).
b. Amounts authorized by P.L. 118-272 include $35 million for the Denali Commission and $5 million for the
Denali Housing Fund for each of FY2025-FY2029.
Great Lakes Authority
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (P.L. 117-328, Division O, Title IV, §401) amended
40 U.S.C. §15301(a) to establish the Great Lakes Authority. The structure and functions of the
GLA are based on the model of the NBRC, SCRC, and SBRC, which were established in the
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (i.e., 2008 farm bill).142 The authorizing legislation
requires that before the GLA may convene, the President must nominate and the Senate must
confirm a federal co-chairperson. On May 2, 2024, President Biden nominated a federal co-chair
138 P.L. 118-272, Section 2251 and Section 2252.
139 P.L. 114-322.
140 Denali Commission, Strategic Plan, p. 10, https://02e11d.a2cdn1.secureserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/
FY23-27StrategicPlanFINAL_v21.pdf. For information about the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Liability (TAPL) fund, see the
Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 (P.L. 105-277).
141 42 U.S.C. §3121 note. See, for example, a summary of the funding transferred and the transferring agencies in the
Denali Commission’s FY2025 Congressional Budget Justification, p. 13, https://02e11d.a2cdn1.secureserver.net/wpcontent/uploads/2024/03/Denali-Commission-CJ-2025-Final.pdf.
142 P.L. 110-234.
Congressional Research Service
27
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
for the GLA.143 However, the nominee was not confirmed by the Senate. As of the date of this
publication, President Trump has not nominated a federal co-chair.
The geographic boundaries of the GLA consist of
the counties which contain, in part or in whole, the areas in the watershed of the Great
Lakes and the Great Lakes System (as such terms are defined in section 118(a)(3) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1268(a)(3)), in each of the following
States: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
Wisconsin.144
The GLA region includes counties that are also in the NBRC and NGRPA regions (see Table D4).
Figure 4. Map of the Great Lakes Authority
(by county)
Source: Compiled by CRS using the jurisdictional data in 40 U.S.C. §15734 and U.S. Geological Survey data.
Note: The GLA region consists of counties—in areas specifically designated by statute—within the watershed of
the Great Lakes and Great Lakes System.
Overview of Structure and Activities
As authorized, the GLA would share a structure with the NBRC, MARC, SBRC, SCRC, and
SNERC, as all share common statutory authorizing language modeled after the ARC.
Authority Structure
As authorized, the GLA would consist of a federal co-chair, appointed by the President with the
advice and consent of the Senate, along with the participating state governors (or their designated
representatives), of which one would be named by the state representatives as state co-chair.
143 The White House, President Biden Announces Key Nominees, May 2, 2024, https://www.bidenwhitehouse.gov/
briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/05/02/president-biden-announces-key-nominees-72/.
144 P.L. 118-272.
Congressional Research Service
28
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
There is no term limit for the federal co-chair. However, the state co-chair is limited to two
consecutive terms, but may not serve a term of less than one year.
Strategic Plan
As of the date of publication, the GLA is not active and has not published a strategic plan.
Designating Distressed Areas
As authorized, the GLA would share an approach to designating distressed areas that is similar to
that of the NBRC, MARC, SBRC, SCRC, and SNERC.145
Recent Activities
The GLA is not currently active. The presidential nomination and Senate confirmation of a
federal co-chair is an essential step for the GLA to start operations; as of the date of publication,
the President has not nominated a federal co-chair for the GLA. For more information, see CRS
In Focus IF11744, Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Authorization.
Legislative History
117th Congress
•
P.L. 117-328 amended 40 U.S.C. §15301(a) to establish the GLA. The structure
and functions of the GLA are based on the model of the NBRC, SCRC, and
SBRC, which were established in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of
2008 (P.L. 110-234).
118th Congress
•
EDRA (P.L. 118-272) extended the funding authorization for the GLA and
expanded the definition of the region by specifying that it shall include entire
counties rather than parts of counties. Under the prior version of the law, the
GLA region covered only parts of certain counties because it was defined as
consisting of “areas in the watershed of the Great Lakes and the Great Lakes
System.” For a summary of other changes to the GLA’s authorizing statute in
EDRA, see “Changes to Subtitle V FRCAs.”
Funding History
Although EDRA did not provide direct funding for GLA, it did include an authorization of
appropriations for GLA of $40 million for each of FY2025 through FY2029 (P.L. 118-272).146
In FY2024, the GLA received first-time funding of $5 million. P.L. 119-4 provided continuing
appropriations for the GLA for FY2025 at the same level of funding that was provided in
FY2024. GLA also received $5 million in FY2026.
145 40 U.S.C. §15702.
146 40 U.S.C. §15751.
Congressional Research Service
29
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Table 4. Great Lakes Authority
Appropriated Funding and Authorized Funding Level, FY2023-FY2026
($ in millions)
FY2023
FY2024
FY2025
FY2026
Appropriated Funding
—
5.0
5.0
5.0
Authorized Funding
33.0
—
40.0
40.0
Source: Appropriated funding amounts compiled by CRS using data from P.L. 118-42, P.L. 119-4, and P.L. 11974.
Notes: The GLA was authorized in FY2023 (P.L. 117-328). For an expanded historical and comparative view of
appropriations, see Table C-1.
Mid-Atlantic Regional Commission
P.L. 118-272 amended 40 U.S.C. §15301(a) to establish the Mid-Atlantic Regional Commission.
The structure and functions of the MARC are based on the model of the NBRC, SBRC and
SCRC, which were established in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (i.e., 2008
farm bill).147 The authorizing legislation requires that before the MARC may convene, the
President must nominate and the Senate must confirm a federal co-chairperson. As of the date of
this publication a President has not nominated a federal co-chair.
The geographic boundaries of MARC include the entire state of Delaware, 20 counties in
Maryland, and 15 counties in Pennsylvania (see Table D-5 and Figure 5).
Figure 5. Map of the Mid-Atlantic Regional Commission Region
(by county)
Source: Compiled by CRS using the jurisdictional data in 40 U.S.C. §15735 and Esri Data and Maps.
147 P.L. 110-234.
Congressional Research Service
30
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Overview of Structure and Activities
As authorized, the MARC would share a structure with the GLA, NBRC, SBRC, SCRC, and
SNERC.
Authority Structure
As authorized, the MARC would consist of a federal co-chair, appointed by a President with the
advice and consent of the Senate, along with the participating state governors (or their designated
representatives), of which one would be named by the state representatives as state co-chair.
There is no term limit for the federal co-chair. However, the state co-chair is limited to two
consecutive terms, but may not serve a term of less than one year.
Strategic Plan
As of the date of publication, the MARC is not active and has not published a strategic plan.
Designating Distressed Areas
As authorized, the MARC would share an approach to designating distressed areas that is similar
to that of the GLA, NBRC, SBRC, SCRC, and SNERC.148 Generally speaking, the statutory
requirements require the FRCAs to designate all counties (including isolated areas within
counties) by their relative level of economic distress. The highest level of distress is considered
“distressed” and the least distressed are considered “attainment.”
Four of the Subtitle V FRCAs (i.e., FRCAs authorized by 40 U.S.C. §§15101 et seq.) are
authorized to provide funding in attainment counties for administrative expenses of local
development districts and for multicounty projects that may include areas in attainment counties
(i.e., GLA, NBRC, SBRC, and SCRC). EDRA waived these exceptions for the Maryland and
Pennsylvania portions of the MARC.149
Recent Activities
The MARC is not currently active. A presidential nomination and Senate confirmation of a
federal co-chair is one of several essential steps for the MARC to start operations. For more
information, see “Steps for Commission Formation” in CRS In Focus IF11744, Federal Regional
Commissions and Authorities: Authorization.
Legislative History
In the 118th Congress, EDRA (P.L. 118-272) established the MARC and authorized funding for
each fiscal year from FY2025 through FY2029.
148 40 U.S.C. §15702.
149 EDRA also waived these exceptions for the SNERC. See 40 U.S.C. §15702(c)(3).
Congressional Research Service
31
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Funding History
Although EDRA did not provide direct funding for MARC, it did include an authorization of
appropriations for MARC of $40 million for each of FY2025 through FY2029 (P.L. 118-272).150
As of the date of this publication, the MARC has not received appropriations.
Table 5. Mid-Atlantic Regional Commission
Appropriated Funding and Authorized Funding Level, FY2025-FY2026
($ in millions)
FY2025
FY2026
Appropriated Funding
—
—
Authorized Funding
40.0
40.0
Notes: The MARC was authorized in FY2025 (P.L. 118-272). For an expanded historical and comparative view
of appropriations, see Table C-1.
Northern Border Regional Commission
The Northern Border Regional Commission was created by the 2008 farm bill.151 The act also
created the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission and the Southwest Border Regional
Commission. All three commissions share common authorizing language modeled after the ARC.
The NBRC is the only one of these three commissions that has been both reauthorized and
received progressively increasing annual appropriations since it was established in 2008. The
NBRC was founded to alleviate economic distress in the northern border areas of Maine, New
Hampshire, New York, and, as of 2018, the entire state of Vermont (see Figure 6).152 The NBRC
region includes counties that are also in the ARC and GLA regions (see Table D-5 and Figure B1).
150 40 U.S.C. §15751.
151 P.L. 110-234, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008.
152 The 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-234) included six of Vermont’s 14 total counties in the definition of the NBRC region.
In FY2018, P.L. 115-334 added the remaining eight Vermont counties to the definition of the NBRC region. See 40
U.S.C. §15733.
Congressional Research Service
32
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Figure 6. Map of the Northern Border Regional Commission
(by county)
Source: Compiled by CRS using the jurisdictional data in 40 U.S.C. §15733, Esri Data and Maps, and NBRC,
“Member States,” https://www.nbrc.gov/member-states.
Note: Vermont is the only state with all counties within the NBRC’s jurisdiction.
The stated mission of the NBRC is “to catalyze community vitality and economic prosperity in
the northern border region with flexible funding and strategic support.”153 Eligible counties within
the NBRC’s jurisdiction may receive funding “for community and economic development”
projects pursuant to regional, state, and local planning and priorities (see Table D-6).
Overview of Structure and Activities
Commission Structure
The NBRC is led by a federal co-chair, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of
the Senate, and four state governors, of which one is appointed state co-chair. There is no term
limit for the federal co-chair. The state co-chair is limited to two consecutive terms, but may not
serve a term of less than one year. Each of the four governors may appoint an alternate; each state
also designates an NBRC program manager to handle the day-to-day operations of coordinating,
reviewing, and recommending economic development projects to the full membership.154
While program funding depends on congressional appropriations, administrative costs are shared
equally between the federal government and the four states of the NBRC. Through commission
votes, applications are ranked by priority, and are approved in that order as grant funds allow.
153 Northern Border Regional Commission, About NBRC, http://www.nbrc.gov/content/about.
154 Northern Border Regional Commission, About NBRC.
Congressional Research Service
33
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
The NBRC also uses multicounty LDDs to advise on local priorities, identify opportunities,
conduct outreach, and administer grants, from which the LDDs may receive fees. NBRC
launched the LDD Partnership Program in 2023 to expand assistance and activities with LDDs.155
Strategic Plan
The NBRC’s activities are guided by a five-year strategic plan, which is developed through
“extensive engagement with NBRC stakeholders” alongside “local, state, and regional economic
development strategies already in place.” The NBRC’s 2024-2029 strategic plan lists five focus
areas: (1) communication and collaboration; (2) programs and funding; (3) systems and
processes; (4) diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility; and (5) capacity building. The plan
highlights several funding priorities as well, including transportation and basic public
infrastructure; telecommunications, workforce, technology, entrepreneurship and business
development; basic health care in distressed communities; natural resources; resiliency;
renewable and alternative energy; housing; and childcare and early education.156
The strategic plan also takes stock of various socioeconomic trends in the northern border region,
including an increase in the population over the age of 60 years, an increase in remote workers
that may consider relocating to the region, changes in industry dynamics, and other opportunities
and challenges unique to the region.157
Designating Distressed Areas
The NBRC is statutorily obligated to assess distress according to economic as well as
demographic factors. These designations are made and refined annually. The NBRC defines
levels of “distress” for counties that “have high rates of poverty, unemployment, or outmigration”
and “are the most severely and persistently economic distressed and underdeveloped.”158 The
NBRC is required to designate isolated areas of distress in attainment counties and allocate 50%
of its total appropriations to projects in distressed counties and isolated areas of distress.159
The NBRC’s county designations are as follows, in descending levels of distress:
•
•
•
Distressed counties (80% maximum funding allowance);
Transitional counties (50%); and
Attainment (0%).
Transitional counties are defined as counties that do not exhibit the same levels of economic and
demographic distress as a distressed county, but suffer from “high rates of poverty,
unemployment, or outmigration.” Attainment counties are not allowed to be funded by the NBRC
except for those projects that are located within an “isolated area of distress,” or have been
granted a waiver.160
Distress is calculated in tiers of primary and secondary distress categories, with each category
having three factors:
155 Northern Border Regional Commission, How LDDs Work with NBRC, https://www.nbrc.gov/how-ldds-work-nbrc.
156 Northern Border Regional Commission, Northern Border Regional Commission: 2024-2029 Strategic Plan.
157 Northern Border Regional Commission, Northern Border Regional Commission: 2024-2029 Strategic Plan.
158 P.L. 110-234.
159 See 40 U.S.C. §15702(b) and Project Eligibility and Match Determination,
https://www.nbrc.gov/projecteligibility-and-match-determinationf.
160 Northern Border Regional Commission, Project Eligibility and Match Determination.
Congressional Research Service
34
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
•
•
Primary Distress Categories
• Percent of population below the poverty level
• Unemployment rate
• Percent change in population
Secondary Distress Categories
• Percent of population with a bachelor’s degree or higher
• Median household income
• Percent of secondary and/or seasonal homes
The NBRC assesses each county annually to determine the classification. The three
classifications of economic distress are
•
•
•
Distressed counties (i.e., counties with at least three qualifying factors (of the six
total factors) and at least one factor from each category);
Transitional counties (i.e., counties with at least one factor from either category);
and
Attainment counties (i.e., counties that show no measures of distress).
Recent Activities161
All projects are required to address at least one of the NBRC’s four authorized program areas and
its five-year strategic plan. The NBRC’s main program areas include
•
•
•
•
the Catalyst program (formerly the state economic and infrastructure
development (SEID) program);
Forest Economy Program (formerly the “Regional Forest Economy Partnership”
Program);
Timber for Transit Program; and
other programs and initiatives (e.g., the J-1 Visa program, LDD Partnership
program).162
NBRC collaborates with various federal agencies on certain programs and initiatives. For
instance, NBRC partners with the U.S. DOL’s Employment and Training Administration to design
workforce development initiatives through the DOL’s Workforce Opportunity for Rural
Communities (WORC) Grant Initiative.163 Since 2019, Congress has directed USDA to provide
approximately $2-3 million annually to NBRC for any USDA Rural Community Advancement
Program (RCAP) purposes that support rural economic development activities in the NBRC
161 Activities and programs in this section are illustrative examples and not comprehensive. For information on
additional Northern Border Regional Commission activities, see https://www.nbrc.gov.
162 The Catalyst, Forest Economy, and Timber for Transit programs are considered competitive programs. See Northern
Border Regional Commission, Competitive Programs, https://www.nbrc.gov/competitive-programs.
163 Northern Border Regional Commission, Partnership Programs, https://www.nbrc.gov/partnership-programs, and
Department of Labor, Workforce Opportunity for Rural Communities (WORC) Initiative, https://www.dol.gov/
agencies/eta/dislocated-workers/grants/workforce-opportunity.
Congressional Research Service
35
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
region.164 Other federal partners include EDA, EPA, the Federal Highway Administration, and
HRSA.165
Catalyst Program
The NBRC’s Catalyst investment program is the chief mechanism for investing in economic
development programs in the participating states. The Catalyst program funds infrastructure (e.g.,
transportation, telecommunications, and basic public infrastructure) and non-infrastructure
activities. Non-infrastructure activities may include job skills training, skills development and
employment-related education, entrepreneurship, technology, and business development projects,
as well as projects designed to improve basic health care, nutrition and food security, and other
public services. Funding may also support projects designed to promote resource conservation,
tourism, recreation, and preservation of open space consistent with economic development
goals.166 In recent years, states have received additional funding through the Catalyst program due
to supplemental funding provided by IIJA appropriations.167 Eligible applicants include units of
local government, 501(c) organizations, federally-recognized Indian Tribes, the four state
governments, and career technical centers and universities. Catalyst projects may require
matching funds of up to 50% depending on the level of distress.
Forest Economy Program (FEP)
The FEP is an NBRC program designed to support the forest-based economy and to assist in the
forest industry’s evolution to include new technologies and viable business models across the
four-state NBRC region.168 In FY2018, Congress directed NBRC to allocate $3 million to address
the decline in forest-based economies throughout the region.169 Each fiscal year from FY2019 to
FY2023 and in FY2026, Congress directed NBRC to allocate $4 million for the forest-based
164 For example, P.L. 119-37 provided $10 million for the ARC, DRA, NBRC, and SBRC regions for any Rural
Community Assistance Program (RCAP) purposes (as described in section 381E(d) of the Consolidated Farm and
Rural Development Act).
See also Northern Border Regional Commission, “$1.8 Million Awarded for Economic
Development Support Through Northern Border Regional Commission, USDA Rural Development
Partnership,” December 22, 2025, https://www.nbrc.gov/articles/178.
165 See Northern Border Regional Commission, FY2025 Congressional Budget Justification, p. 8,
https://www.nbrc.gov/sites/default/files/2026-06/FY25%20Budget%20Justification.pdf; and Northern Border Regional
Commission, Recreation Economy for Rural Communities (RERC) Program, https://www.nbrc.gov/content/RERC.
166 Northern Border Regional Commission, Catalyst Program, https://www.nbrc.gov/Catalyst.
167 Northern Border Regional Commission, Catalyst Program.
168 Northern Border Regional Commission, FY2024 Annual Report, p. 13, https://www.nbrc.gov/sites/default/files/
2026-06/NBRC-2024-Annual-Report-Web-version%20%281%29.pdf.
169Representative Tom Cole, “Explanatory Statement Submitted by Mr. Freling-Huysen, Chair of the House Committee
on Appropriations, Regarding the House Amendment to Senate Amendment on H.R. 1625,” Congressional Record,
House, vol. 164, no. 50 (March 22,2018), p. H2504, https://www.congress.gov/crec/2018/03/22/CREC-2018-03-22bk2.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
36
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
initiatives.170 In FY2022, NBRC revised its forest program priorities with input from regional
stakeholders and renamed the initiative the Forest Economy Program.171
Timber for Transit
The NBRC launched the Timber for Transit program in FY2024. The program provides funding
for activities that promote the use of high-value forest products in transportation infrastructure
and enhance climate resilience in rural communities. The purpose of the program is to “advance
the use of wood-based materials and composites (advanced wood materials) through applied
research and demonstration projects that showcase the suitability of such materials to
transportation and transportation adjacent infrastructure.”172
Legislative History
110th Congress
•
•
•
The NBRC was first proposed in the Northern Border Economic Development
Commission Act of 2007 (H.R. 1548), introduced on March 15, 2007. H.R. 1548
proposed the creation of a federally chartered, multi-state economic development
organization—modeled after the ARC—covering designated northern border
counties in Maine, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont. The bill would
have authorized the appropriation of $40 million per year for FY2008 through
FY2012 (H.R. 1548). The bill received regional co-sponsorship from Members of
Congress representing areas in the northern border region.173
The NBRC was reintroduced in the Regional Economic and Infrastructure
Development Act of 2007 (H.R. 3246), which would have authorized the NBRC,
the SCRC, and the SBRC, and reauthorized the DRA and the NGPRA (discussed
in the next section) in a combined bill. H.R. 3246 had 18 co-sponsors in addition
to the original bill sponsor, and passed the House by a vote of 264-154 on
October 4, 2007.174
Upon House passage, H.R. 3246 was referred to the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works. The Senate incorporated authorizations for the
170 For FY2026 amounts, for example, see Representative Tom Cole, “Explanatory Statement Submitted by Mr. Cole,
Chair of the House Committee on Appropriations, Regarding H.R. 6938, Commerce, Justice, Science; Energy and
Water Development; and Interior and Environment Appropriations Act, 2026,” Congressional Record, House, vol. 172,
no. 5 (January 8, 2026), p. H446, https://www.congress.gov/119/crec/2026/01/08/172/5/CREC-2026-01-08bk3.pdf#page=192.
171 The program was formerly called the “Regional Forest Economy Partnership Program.” See Northern Border
Regional Commission, FY2022 Annual Report, https://www.nbrc.gov/sites/default/files/2026-06/NBRC-2022-AnnualReport_Final-Web.pdf.
172 Northern Border Regional Commission, Timber for Transit, https://www.nbrc.gov/t4t.
173 The bill was introduced by Rep. Hodes, Paul [D-NH-2] and co-sponsored by: Rep. Arcuri, Michael A. [D-NY-24];
Rep. Allen, Thomas H. [D-ME-1]; Rep. McHugh, John M. [R-NY-23]; Rep. Michaud, Michael H. [D-ME-2]; Rep.
Shea-Porter, Carol [D-NH-1]; and Rep. Welch, Peter [D-VT-At Large].
174 On May 3, 2007, the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Economic
Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management convened a hearing on the new proposed regional
commissions prior to the enactment of the 2008 farm bill. See House Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public
Buildings, and Emergency Management, The Southeast Crescent Authority, the Northern Border Economic
Development Commission, and Southwest Regional Border Authority, H.Hrg 110-36, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/
pkg/CHRG-110hhrg35918/pdf/CHRG-110hhrg35918.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
37
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
establishment of the NBRC, SCRC, and the SBRC in the 2008 farm bill.175 The
2008 farm bill authorized annual appropriations of $30 million for FY2008
through FY2012 for all three new commissions.
115th Congress
•
•
The only major changes to the NBRC since its creation were made in the
Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-334, “2018 farm bill”), which
authorized the state capacity building grant program.
In addition, the 2018 farm bill expanded the NBRC to include the following
counties: Belknap and Cheshire counties in New Hampshire; Genesee, Greene,
Livingston, Montgomery, Niagara, Oneida, Orleans, Rensselaer, Saratoga,
Schenectady, Sullivan, Washington, Warren, Wayne, and Yates counties in New
York; and Addison, Bennington, Chittenden, Orange, Rutland, Washington,
Windham, and Windsor counties in Vermont, making it the only state entirely
within the NBRC.
118th Congress
•
•
EDRA (P.L. 118-272) extended the funding authorization for the NBRC and
added four counties to its region: Lincoln County in Maine, Merrimack County
in New Hampshire, and Schoharie and Wyoming Counties in New York.
EDRA made other changes to the NBRC’s authorizing statute which are
summarized in “Changes to Subtitle V FRCAs.”
Funding History
Since its creation, the NBRC has received consistent authorizations of appropriations (see Table
6). The 2008 farm bill authorized the appropriation of $30 million for the NBRC for each of
FY2008 through FY2013 (P.L. 110-234); the same in the 2014 farm bill for each of FY2014
through FY2018 (P.L. 113-79); $33 million for each of FY2019 through FY2023 (P.L. 115-334);
and $40 million for each of FY2025 through FY2029 (P.L. 118-272).
Due to its statutory linkages to the SCRC and SBRC, all three commissions also share common
authorizing legislation and identical funding authorizations. Congress has funded the NBRC since
FY2010 (see Table 6). The NBRC’s appropriated funding level—excluding supplemental
appropriations—increased from $1.5 million in FY2013 to $40 million in FY2023 (see Table C1). In FY2022, the NBRC, like other commissions, received five times the amount of their
FY2021 annual appropriations in the Infrastructure Improvement and Jobs Act (Division J, Title
III of P.L. 117-58). In FY2026, NBRC received $42 million in annual appropriations.
Table 6. NBRC: Appropriated Funding and Authorized Funding Level,
FY2017-FY2026
($ in millions)
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
FY22
FY23
FY24
FY25
FY26
Appropriated Funding
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
185.0a
40.0
41.0
41.0
42.0
Authorized Funding
30.0
30.0
33.0
33.0
33.0
33.0
33.0
—
40.0
40.0
175 Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, P.L. 110-234.
Congressional Research Service
38
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Sources: Appropriated funding amounts compiled by CRS using data from the following: P.L. 115-31, P.L. 115141, P.L. 115-244, P.L. 116-94, P.L. 116-260, P.L. 117-58, P.L. 117-103, P.L. 117-328, P.L. 118-42, P.L. 119-4, and
P.L. 119-74.
Notes: For an expanded historical and comparative view of appropriations, see Table C-1.
a. FY2022 amounts include $35 million provided by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. 117-103,
Division D, Title IV). FY2022 appropriated funding amounts also include $150 million provided by the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58, Division J, Title III).
Northern Great Plains Regional Authority
The Northern Great Plains Regional Authority was created by the 2002 farm bill.176 The NGPRA
was created to address economic distress in Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri (other than counties
included in the Delta Regional Authority), North Dakota, Nebraska, and South Dakota.
Figure 7. Map of the Northern Great Plains Regional Authority
(by county)
Source: Compiled by CRS using the jurisdictional data in 7 U.S.C. §2009bb and Esri Data and Maps.
Note: Missouri’s jurisdiction was defined as those counties not already included in the DRA.
The NGPRA appears to have been briefly active shortly after it was created, when it received a
total of $3 million in annual appropriations from Congress in FY2004 and FY2005.177 The
NGPRA’s funding authorization lapsed at the end of FY2018, and it was reauthorized with the
enactment of P.L. 118-272. The NGPRA region includes counties that are also in the GLA region
(see Table D-7 and Figure B-1).
176 P.L. 107-171.
177 See P.L. 108-199 and P.L. 108-447.
Congressional Research Service
39
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Structure and Activities
Overview of Structure and Activities
The NGPRA featured broad similarities to the basic structure shared among most of the federal
regional authorities and commissions, being a federal-state partnership led by a federal co-chair
(appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate) and governors of the
participating states, of which one was designated as the state co-chair.
Unique to the NGPRA were certain structural novelties reflective of regional socio-political
features. The NGPRA also included a Native American tribal co-chair, who was the chairperson
of an Indian tribe in the region (or their designated representative), and appointed by the
President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. The tribal co-chair served as the “liaison
between the governments of Indian tribes in the region and the [NGPRA].” No term limit is
established in statute; the only term-related proscription is that the state co-chair “shall be elected
by the state members for a term of not less than 1 year.”
Another novel feature among the FRCAs was also the NGPRA’s statutory reliance on a 501(c)(3)
nonprofit corporation—Northern Great Plains, Inc.—in furtherance of its mission. While
Northern Great Plains, Inc. was statutorily organized to complement the NGPRA’s activities, it
effectively served as the sole manifestation of the NGPRA concept and rationale while it was
active, given that the NGPRA was only once appropriated funds and never appeared to exist as an
active organization. The Northern Great Plains, Inc. was active for several years, and reportedly
received external funding,178 but is currently defunct.
Activities
Under its authorizing statute,179 the federal government would initially fund all administrative
costs in FY2002, which would decrease to 75% in FY2003, and 50% in FY2004. Also, the
NGPRA would have designated levels of county economic distress; 75% of funds were reserved
for the most distressed counties in each state, and 50% reserved for transportation,
telecommunications, and basic infrastructure improvements. Accordingly, non-distressed
communities were eligible to receive no more than 25% of appropriated funds.
The NGPRA was also structured to include a network of designated, multi-county LDDs at the
sub-state levels. As with its sister organizations, the LDDs would have served as nodes for project
implementation and reporting, and as advisors to their respective states and the NGPRA as a
whole.
Legislative History
103rd Congress
•
The Northern Great Plains Rural Development Act (P.L. 103-318), which became
law in 1994, established the Northern Great Plains Rural Development
Commission to study economic conditions and provide economic development
planning for the Northern Great Plains region. The commission was comprised of
the governors (or designated representative) from the Northern Great Plains
178 Bush Foundation, Annual Review 2005, p. 27, https://www.bushfoundation.org/app/uploads/2024/12/gs-
may2006.pdf.
179 P.L. 107-171.
Congressional Research Service
40
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
states of Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, Nebraska, and South Dakota (prior to
Missouri’s inclusion), along with one member from each of those states
appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture.
104th Congress
•
The Agricultural, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1995 (P.L. 103-330) provided $1,000,000
to carry out the Northern Great Plains Rural Development Act. The commission
produced a 10-year plan to address economic development and distress in the
five states. After a legislative extension (P.L. 104-327), the report was submitted
in 1997.180 The Northern Great Plains Initiative for Rural Development
(NGPIRD), a nonprofit 501(c)(3), was established to implement the
commission’s advisories.
107th Congress
•
The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, or 2002 farm bill (P.L.
107-171), authorized the NGPRA, which superseded the commission. The statute
also created Northern Great Plains, Inc., a 501(c)(3), as a resource for regional
issues and international trade, which supplanted the NGPIRD with a broader
remit that included research, education, training, and issues of international trade.
108th Congress
•
The Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act of 2003 (H.R.
3196) would have reauthorized the NGPRA as the “Northern Great Plains
Regional Commission.” The bill was referred to several committees and
subcommittees and was not enacted.
109th Congress
•
The Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act of 2005 (H.R.
1349) would have reauthorized the NGPRA as the “Northern Great Plains
Regional Commission.” The bill was not enacted.181
110th Congress
•
The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, or 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110246), extended the NGPRA’s authorization through FY2012. The legislation also
expanded the authority to include areas of Missouri not covered by the DRA, and
provided mechanisms to enable the NGPRA to begin operations even without the
Senate confirmation of a federal co-chair, as well as in the absence of a
confirmed tribal co-chair.
180 Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, “Great Plains Commission Completes Work, Looks to Region’s Future,”
Minneapolis, MN, April 1, 1997, https://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications/fedgazette/great-plains-commissioncompletes-work-looks-to-regions-future.
181 Representative James L. Oberstar, “Introducing the Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act,”
Senate, Congressional Record, vol. 151, no. 33 (March 17, 2005), E475-E476, https://www.congress.gov/
congressional-record/volume-151/issue-33/extensions-of-remarks-section/article/E475-2.
Congressional Research Service
41
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
•
The Agricultural Act of 2014, or 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79), reauthorized the
NGPRA and the DRA, and extended their authorizations from FY2012 to
FY2018.
118th Congress
•
EDRA (P.L. 118-272) repealed the NGPRA’s sunset provision and reauthorized
the NGPRA. The law also authorized appropriations for NGPRA through
FY2029.182
Funding History
The NGPRA was authorized to receive $30 million annually from FY2008 to FY2018 and $40
million annually from FY2025 to FY2029.183 Its authorization of appropriations lapsed at the end
of FY2018, and was reauthorized in FY2025 through EDRA.184 It received $1.5 million in
appropriations each year in FY2004 and FY2005.185
Table 7. Northern Great Plains Regional Authority Appropriated Funding and
Authorized Funding Level, FY2025-FY2026
($ in millions)
FY2025
FY2026
Appropriated Funding
—
—
Authorized Funding
$40
$40
Source: Authorized funding amount compiled by CRS using data from P.L. 118-272.
Note: For an expanded historical and comparative view of appropriations, see Table C-1.
Northwest Regional Commission
Congress typically establishes FRCAs in an authorization act before providing appropriations.
This has not been the case with a new FRCA for the northwest region of the United States. The
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026 (P.L. 119-74, Division B, Title IV) provided $1 million
for “expenses necessary to establish a Northwest Regional Commission located in Washington,
Oregon, Idaho, and Montana” and indicated that the funding for the commission “shall be used to
carry out activities authorized for other regional Commissions by subtitle V of title 40, United
States Code.” The House Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Environment and
Public Works Committees have not reported legislation for the Northwest Regional Commission
(NRC) that is similar to authorizing legislation for other FRCAs.
The service areas for the previously authorized FRCAs are also generally defined in statute. As
noted, P.L. 119-74 indicated that the commission would cover Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and
Montana and did not list counties or a sub-region for the NRC service area. As of the date of
publication, the NRC is not active.
182 EDRA repealed 7 U.S.C. §2009bb–13, which had previously terminated the NGPRA’s authorization after FY2018.
183 7 U.S.C. §2009bb–12.
184 P.L. 118-272.
185 P.L. 108-199 and P.L. 108-447.
Congressional Research Service
42
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Southeast Crescent Regional Commission
The Southeast Crescent Regional Commission was created by the 2008 farm bill,186 which also
created the NBRC and the Southwest Border Regional Commission. All three commissions share
common authorizing language modeled after the ARC.
The SCRC received regular appropriations of $250,000 annually from FY2010 through FY2020
but did not form during that time due to the absence of an appointed federal co-chair.187 On
December 8, 2021, the Senate confirmed the SCRC’s first federal co-chairperson, thereby
allowing the SCRC to convene and begin other activities.188
The SCRC was created to address economic distress in areas of Virginia, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida (see Figure 8) not served by the ARC or the
DRA (see Table D-8).
Figure 8. Map of the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission
(by county)
Source: Compiled by CRS using the jurisdiction defined in 40 U.S.C. §15731, Esri Data and Maps, and SCRC,
“SCRC Counties by Economic Designation,” https://scrc.gov.
186 P.L. 110-234.
187 For more information, see CRS In Focus IF11744, Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Authorization.
188 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Hearing on the Nominations of Christopher
Frey to be Assistant Administrator for Research and Development, at the Environmental Protection Agency and
Jennifer Clyburn Reed to be Federal Co-Chair of the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission, 117th Cong., 1st sess.,
October 27, 2021, https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings?ID=A654BF51-1207-411A-BD0E914CCFBDB60B, and Congress.gov, “Nomination: Jennifer Clyburn Reed—Southeast Crescent Regional
Commission,” PN957, https://www.congress.gov/nomination/117th-congress/957.
Congressional Research Service
43
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Notes: The SCRC is statutorily defined as including those counties in the named states that are not already
included in the ARC or the DRA. Florida is the only state with all counties defined as being within the SCRC.
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58; enacted November 15, 2021) added three counties
that were previously in the SCRC region to the ARC region.
Overview of Structure and Activities
Commission Structure
The SCRC shares an organizing structure with the GLA, MARC, NBRC, SBRC, and SNERC; all
share common statutory authorizing language modeled after the ARC.
The SCRC consists of a federal co-chair, appointed by the President with the advice and consent
of the Senate, along with the participating state governors (or their designated representatives), of
which one would be named by the state representatives as state co-chair. There is no term limit
for the federal co-chair. However, the state co-chair is limited to two consecutive terms, but may
not serve a term of less than one year. In December 2021, the Senate confirmed the first federal
co-chair for the SCRC. Prior to the confirmation of the federal co-chair in FY2022, the SCRC
was unable to form, despite receiving annual appropriations.189
Strategic Plan
The SCRC developed its bylaws and its first strategic plan for the period FY2023-FY2027.190 The
plan includes the following goals:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
critical infrastructure,
health and support services access and outcomes,
workforce capacity,
entrepreneurial and business development activities,
affordable housing stock and access, and
environmental conservation, preservation, and access.
Designating Distressed Areas
As authorized, the SCRC shares an approach to designating distressed areas that is similar to that
of the NBRC and the SBRC, as all share common statutory authorizing language.191 The SCRC
uses an index-based classification system, the SCRC compared each county within its jurisdiction
with national averages based on three economic indicators: (1) three-year average unemployment
rates; (2) per capita market income; and (3) poverty rates. These factors are calculated into a
composite index value for each county, which are ranked and sorted into designated distress
levels. Each distress level corresponds to a given county’s ranking relative to that of the United
States as a whole. These designations are defined as follows by the SCRC, starting from the
highest level of distress:
189 According to statute, a federal co-chair is required for the formation of a commission quorum and making decisions.
40 U.S.C. §15302.
190 Southeast Crescent Regional Commission, Southeast Crescent Regional Commission: Bylaws, April 2023,
https://scrc.gov/sites/default/files/2024-04/scrc-bylaws-revised_april_2023.pdf; and Southeast Crescent Regional
Commission: Strategic Plan (FY2023-FY2027), December 2022, Revised July 2025, https://scrc.gov/sites/default/files/
2025-07/strategic_plan_updated_april_2025.pdf.
191 40 U.S.C. §15702.
Congressional Research Service
44
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
•
•
•
Distressed counties, which are the most severely and persistently economically
distressed and underdeveloped. They also have high rates of poverty,
unemployment, or outmigration.
Transitional, which are counties that are economically distressed and
underdeveloped or have recently suffered high rates of poverty, unemployment,
or outmigration.
Attainment, which are counties in the region that are not designated as distressed
or transitional counties under this subsection.192
The SCRC also designates isolated areas of distress in attainment counties.193 The SCRC is
required to allocate 50% of its total appropriations to projects in distressed counties and isolated
areas of distress.194
Recent Activities
In addition to the development of bylaws and strategic plan, the SCRC hired its first chief of staff
in 2022 and continued to add staff in subsequent years. In recent years, the SCRC has
administered the State Economic and Infrastructure Development (SEID) Grant Program, a Local
Development District (LDD) Capacity Building program, a state Capacity Cooperative program,
and a J-1 visa program.195
Legislative History
The SCRC concept was first introduced by university researchers working on rural development
issues in 1990 at Tuskegee University’s Annual Professional Agricultural Worker’s Conference
for 1862 and 1890 Land-Grant Universities.196
In 1994, the Southern Rural Development Commission Act was introduced in the House
Agricultural Committee, which would have provided the statutory basis for a “Southern Rural
Development Commission.”197 While the concept was not reintroduced in Congress until the
2000s, various nongovernmental initiatives sustained discussion and interest in the concept in the
intervening period. Supportive legislation was reintroduced in 2002, which touched off other
192 Southeast Crescent Regional Commission, FY2025 Annual Report, https://scrc.gov/sites/default/files/Reports-2026/
southeast_crescent_regional_commission_2025_annual_report.pdf; “SCRC Economic Designation of Counties &
Isolated Areas,” https://scrc.gov/sites/default/files/2024-04/scrc-economic-designation-methodology.pdf.
193 Southeast Crescent Regional Commission, FY2025 Congressional Budget Justification, p. 17, https://scrc.gov/sites/
default/files/Reports-2024/scrc_fy_2025_budget_justification_final.pdf.
194 40 U.S.C. §15702(b).
195 Southeast Crescent Regional Commission, Southeast Crescent Regional Commission, https://scrc.gov; “Grants and
Programs,” https://grants.scrc.gov/; FY2025 Annual Report, https://scrc.gov/sites/default/files/Reports-2026/
southeast_crescent_regional_commission_2025_annual_report.pdf; and Southeast Crescent Regional Commission,
FY2025 Congressional Budget Justification.
196 Legislation introduced in the early 2000s also cited a University of Georgia study, entitled “Dismantling Persistent
Poverty in the Southeastern United States,” that measured “sustained persistent poverty over 3 census periods” in the
Delta Black Belt region. See Carl Vinson Institute of Government, It’s a Matter of Wealth: Dismantling Persistent
Poverty in the Southeastern United States, University of Georgia, 2003.
197 H.R. 3901 proposed the establishment of a “Southern Rural Development Commission” would have focused on
rural economic development in specified counties and parishes in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana,
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia.
Congressional Research Service
45
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
accompanying legislative efforts until the SCRC was authorized in 2008.198 The legislative efforts
are summarized below.
107th Congress
•
•
H.R. 3618 would have established the “SouthEast Crescent Authority (SECA),”
which had similar, but not identical structure and authorities to what would later
become authorizing legislation for the SCRC. The bill would have authorized
annual appropriations of $40 million for FY2003 through FY2007. The bill was
referred to several committees and subcommittees and was not enacted.
In 2002, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Subcommittee
on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management held
a hearing (“The Delta Regional Authority and Southeast Crescent Authority:
Progress and Prospects For Regional Development Authorities”) to receive
testimony regarding the DRA (which had been recently authorized) and to
receive testimony regarding the SECA.199
108th Congress
•
•
•
The Southern Empowerment and Economic Development Act to authorize the
Delta Black Belt Regional Authority (H.R. 678) would have amended the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2009aa(1)) to rename
the DRA as the Delta Black Belt Regional Authority (DBBRA). Among other
changes, the legislation would have extended the geography of the region to
include parts of the area now covered by the SCRC as well as areas in other
states. The bill was referred to several committees and subcommittees and was
not enacted.
The SouthEast Crescent Authority Act of 2003 (H.R. 141) and the Southern
Regional Commission Act of 2003 (S. 527) would have also established the
SECA and the Southern Regional Commission, respectively. The bills were not
enacted.
The SCRC was reintroduced in the Regional Economic and Infrastructure
Development Act of 2003 (H.R. 3196), which would have authorized the SCRC.
The bill was referred to several committees and subcommittees and was not
enacted.
109th Congress
•
The Southern Empowerment and Economic Development Act (H.R. 5082) would
have amended the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act to rename the
DRA as the DBBRA. The legislation would have extended the region to include
parts of the area now covered by the SCRC as well as areas in other states. The
bill was referred to several committees and subcommittees and was not enacted.
198 40 U.S.C. §15731.
199 House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public
Buildings, and Emergency Management, The Delta Regional Authority and Southeast Crescent Authority: Progress
and Prospects for Regional Development Authorities, 107th Congress, 2nd sess., September 12, 2002. For a summary of
the hearing, see House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Summary of Legislative and Oversight
Activities, H.Rept. 107-793, 107th Congress, 2nd sess., https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CRPT-107hrpt793/html/
CRPT-107hrpt793.htm.
Congressional Research Service
46
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
•
•
The Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act of 2005 (H.R.
1349) would have established the SCRC and SBRC. The bill also proposed to
reauthorize the DRA and NGPRA. The bill was not enacted.200
House and Senate versions of the SouthEast Crescent Authority Act of 2005
(H.R. 20, S. 1865) would have established the SECA and were referred to the
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Subcommittee on Economic
Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management and the Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works, respectively. On July 12, 2006,
the House Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 20 (and other bills).201 No
further action was taken.
110th Congress
•
•
•
•
The Southern Empowerment and Economic Development Act to authorize the
Delta Black Belt Regional Authority (H.R. 2403) would have amended the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act to rename the DRA as the
DBBRA. The legislation would have extended the geography of the region to
include parts of the region now covered by the SCRC and other states. The bill
was referred to several committees and subcommittees and was not enacted.
Bills introduced in the House and Senate as the SouthEast Crescent Authority Act
of 2007 (H.R. 66 and S. 503, respectively) would have established the SECA,
which continued to have similar, but not identical structure and authorities to
what would later become authorizing legislation for the SCRC. These bills were
not enacted.
On May 3, 2007, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee,
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency
Management convened a hearing on the SECA and other regional commissions
prior to the enactment of the 2008 farm bill.202
In July 2007, the Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act of
2007 (H.R. 3246) was introduced to authorize the SCRC as well as the NBRC
and the SBRC and reauthorize the DRA and the NGPRA in a combined bill.203 As
noted above, upon House passage, the Senate incorporated authorizations for the
200 Representative James L. Oberstar, “Introducing the Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act,”
Senate, Congressional Record, vol. 151, no. 33 (March 17, 2005), E475-E476, https://www.congress.gov/
congressional-record/volume-151/issue-33/extensions-of-remarks-section/article/E475-2.
201 Representative Shuster (PA) introduced the hearing proceedings by noting: “Certain parts of the Southeast,
Southwest, and Northeast have high unemployment, low per capita income, and lack the necessary healthcare,
education, and water and wastewater facilities. Numerous proposals have been introduced to create economic
development commissions using an ARC model for success. We will hear from proponents of these new regional
authorities today.” See House Subcommittee on Economic Development, The Reauthorization of the Appalachian
Regional Commission and Legislative Proposals to Create Additional Regional Economic Development Authorities,
Serial No. 109-88.
202 See House Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management, The
Southeast Crescent Authority, the Northern Border Economic Development Commission, and Southwest Regional
Border Authority, H.Hrg 110-36, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg35918/pdf/CHRG110hhrg35918.pdf. Notably, the hearing referred to the entity that would later become the SCRC as the “Southeast
Crescent Authority.”
203 H.R. 3246 had 18 co-sponsors in addition to the original bill sponsor, and passed the House by a vote of 264-154 on
October 4, 2007.
Congressional Research Service
47
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
establishment of the NBRC, SBRC, and SCRC in the 2008 farm bill, enacted
May 22, 2008.204
118th Congress
•
EDRA (P.L. 118-272) extended the funding authorization and made other
changes to the SCRC’s authorizing statute—see “Changes to Subtitle V FRCAs.”
Funding History
Congress authorized $30 million funding levels for each year from FY2008 to FY2018 and $33
million for each year from FY2019 through FY2023.205 EDRA (P.L. 118-272) authorized
appropriations for the SCRC at $40 million for each fiscal year from FY2025 through FY2029.206
Congress appropriated $250,000 in each fiscal year from FY2010 to FY2020. However, for
FY2021, Congress provided an annual appropriation of $1 million, which was followed by $5
million in FY2022 and $20 million each of fiscal years FY2023 - FY2026. Congress also
provided $5 million in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58, Division J, Title
III) in FY2022207 (see Table 8).
Table 8. SCRC: Appropriated Funding and Authorized Funding Level,
FY2017-FY2026
($ in millions)
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
FY22
FY23
FY24
FY25
FY26
Appropriated Funding
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
1.00
10.00a
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
Authorized Funding
30.00
30.00
33.00
33.00
33.00
33.00
33.00
—
40.00
40.00
Sources: Appropriated funding amounts compiled by CRS using data from the following: P.L. 115-31, P.L. 115141, P.L. 115-244, P.L. 116-94, P.L. 116-260, P.L. 117-58, P.L. 117-103, P.L. 117-328, P.L. 118-42, P.L. 119-4, and
P.L. 119-74.
Notes: For an expanded historical and comparative view of appropriations, see Table C-1.
a. FY2022 appropriated funding amounts include $5 million provided by the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2022 (P.L. 117-103, Division D, Title IV). FY2022 appropriated funding amounts also include $5 million
provided by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58, Division J, Ti
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.