Can Your City Stand to Lose Afterschool Funding?

The president’s budget proposal includes a $1.2 billion cut to school programs that will impact more than 1,600,000 children and their families.

There are a number of ways city leaders can strengthen partnerships and build public will to support afterschool initiatives like the 21st Century Community Learning Center program. (Getty Images)

This April recess, NLC is encouraging city leaders to engage with their members of Congress while they are at home in their districts for two weeks. Don’t let Congress leave America’s cities behind — join us as we #FightTheCuts proposed in the administration’s budget.

This post was co-authored by Nan Whaley and Bela Shah Spooner. It is part of a series on the 2018 federal budget.

Last month, President Donald Trump released his 2018 federal budget proposal, which contains across-the-board cuts to programs that are critical to cities. Included in those cuts was the elimination of the only federal funding stream dedicated to supporting quality afterschool and summer learning programs for 1.6 million children across the country who attend high-poverty, low-performing schools — the 21st Century Community Learning Center (21st CCLC) grants.

The programs funded through 21st CCLC grants provide essential academic and enrichment supports to children and young teens after school and during the summer while also providing a critical value to working parents, businesses and city leaders. Programs run from the time when school lets out around 3:00 p.m. until 6:00 or 7:00 p.m., enabling parents to stay at work knowing that their children are safe and learning. Kids in these programs also often receive an after-school snack or meal through additional federal funding that originates from the U.S. Department of Agriculture; sometimes it’s the only meal they will have until the next morning.

For working parents, these afterschool programs are a lifeline, helping them work those extra few hours each day to pay the bills and providing their children a nutritious meal. For businesses, these programs mean employees with children are more likely to have peace of mind when their children are out of school, keeping productivity high. For cities, these programs keep their communities safe, incentivize businesses to locate in places where employees have supports, and engage children in learning and on a path to graduation — all while helping the future generation develop key skills to land a job and support the local economy in the future.

Municipal leaders all know that successful, productive young people equal a successful city. Without these essential programs on which kids, families and communities rely, cities will be faced with hundreds or thousands of kids with no place to go after school. No one needs to tell a mayor, city councilmember, police chief or chamber of commerce executive how much of a problem that could be.

These programs also provide a critical service to parents and caregivers, allowing them to continue to work during these hours and thus contributing to the local economy and their own economic mobility.

National Demand for Afterschool Programs

There has long been a national demand for federal funding for afterschool programs. Congress first authorized the 21st Century Community Learning Center program in 1998 for $40 million. Based on documented need and demand, it was reauthorized in 2002 through the No Child Left Behind Act for $1 billion, transferring the administration of the grants from the U.S. Department of Education to state education agencies. The 21st CCLC program was again reauthorized in 2015 through the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) for $1.167 billion, showing bipartisan support and recognition of the importance of this funding stream for afterschool programs. Each state receives a fixed amount of 21st CCLC dollars, based on its share of Title I funding for low-income students, and afterschool programs at the local level apply for these dollars.

Even with this funding, hundreds of applications in each state are denied each year due to lack of funds. National data show that, while 10.2 million children participate in afterschool programs, almost 20 million children are waiting to get in. Cutting another million children out of programs puts our cities and families at risk.

In Dayton alone, 12,000 additional children would benefit from access to 21st CCLC afterschool and summer programs that currently support 40,000 children across the state of Ohio. This story is not unique to Dayton or any one city or town.

Nationwide, cities need these programs. As part of its City of Learners initiative, the city of Dayton has committed to preparing its young people for success in life and careers through afterschool and summer learning programs that help children and youth develop the skills that will put them on a path to success. It is vital for municipal leaders to understand the importance of federal funding for afterschool programs and the real impact they have on the lives of children and families in our communities. A tremendous burden will be on cities to respond if these funds are cut.

Lending Your Voice

The National League of Cities (NLC) has joined with the Afterschool Alliance, 139 national and more than 1,000 state and local organizations calling on House and Senate appropriators to reject the president’s proposed budget and fund the 21st Century Community Learning Centers initiative at or above its current level of $1.167 billion. Now is the time for you to lend your voice to this effort. Contact your member of Congress to ensure that they know the direct impact these proposed budget cuts will have on their communities and in their state. Here are four easy ways you can help:

  • Find out how many children in your state need afterschool programs and connect with your statewide afterschool network to learn how many kids are served by 21st CCLC programs in your community. Share those numbers with your representatives, either in a face-to-face meeting in your district or through a phone call to their office. Adding local stories to these numbers is critical.
  • Visit a 21st Century Community Learning Center in your city or town and hold a press conference about its value and how the proposed budget cuts could eliminate this critical program. Galvanize support in your community to contact your representatives to save the program.
  • Write an op-ed in your local newspaper on the importance of this program to your city and community. Send the article to your representative as well.
  • Contact Bela Shah Spooner at NLC to share your concern and learn more about NLC’s efforts to fight these cuts. NLC staff are always prepared to support you in your efforts to advocate for programs that are important to cities.

The Afterschool Alliance and the Senate Afterschool Caucus invite you to attend Afterschool and Summer Learning Programs: Preparing Young People for 21st Century Success, a briefing on Friday, April 21 at 1:00 p.m. EDT in room 385 of the Russell Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. NLC is co-sponsoring the briefing; please contact Bela Shah Spooner for more information.

About the authors:

Nan Whaley is the mayor of Dayton, Ohio.

 

Bela Shah Spooner is the program manager for expanded learning at the NLC Institute for Youth, Education, and Families.

How Cities Can Acquire Free Land to House and Serve Homeless People

This webinar on April 25 will discuss the release of a toolkit with information about how to identify and successfully apply for vacant federal properties that can be used to help the homeless in your city.

One largely untapped resource for addressing homelessness and the affordable housing crisis is vacant federal property. (Getty Images)

Cities across the country are struggling with rising housing costs and shrinking federal supports, leaving millions of people homeless or at risk, including a record 1.4 million children of school age. With city budgets stretched to their limits, it is critical that local governments make full use of all available resources — and vacant federal property is a largely untapped resource.

The federal government is the largest single owner of real estate in the nation. Every year, the federal government determines that thousands of properties — including warehouses, office buildings and vacant land — are no longer needed. When such a determination is made, a federal program authorized under Title V of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act provides local governments and nonprofit organizations with the right of first refusal to these properties to serve homeless people. Better yet, these properties are transferred to eligible homeless service providers for free.

Approximately 500 buildings and nearly 900 acres of land have been transferred to cities and other eligible homeless service providers in more than 30 states under Title V, with over two million people served each year. Federal surplus property is used to create emergency shelters, transitional housing for domestic violence survivors, and permanent supportive housing for mentally ill veterans, in addition to office and warehouse space.

Recently, the law was amended to clarify that surplus federal properties can be used for permanent housing with or without supportive services. This important clarification to the law will allow cities access to millions of dollars in federal real property assets to reduce or even end homelessness in a sustainable and cost-effective way — without paying for title to the properties.

On April 25, the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty (NLCHP) will release a toolkit with information about how to identify and successfully apply for properties under Title V and will host a webinar to discuss the toolkit at 2:00 p.m. EDT. You can register for the webinar here. The toolkit will be available on the NLCHP website.

(NLCHP)

About the author: Elisha Harig-Blaine is the Principal Associate for Housing (Veterans and Special Needs) at NLC. Follow Elisha on Twitter @HarigBlaine.

City Leaders – Here’s Why the Better Buildings Summit Should Be on Your Calendar

More than 900 participants at the Department of Energy’s 2017 Better Buildings Summit will share proven approaches to cutting energy use in their buildings over the next 10 years.

Among other offerings, the Better Buildings Summit will provide city leaders a sneak peak of cutting edge and emerging clean technologies that will increase energy efficiency in buildings and infrastructure. (Getty Images)

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is hosting the Better Buildings Summit May 15–17 in Washington, D.C. The Better Buildings Summit is a national meeting where leading organizations across key sectors showcase solutions to cut energy intensity in their buildings portfolio-wide by 20 percent over the next ten years. As one of the premier events for energy and sustainability professionals, the summit is the forum to engage with peers, explore innovative organizational strategies, learn about financing and technology trends, and much more. Check out the agenda for a list of all the sessions and watch this video to learn more.

The summit features numerous sessions and workshops designed to give city leaders fresh insights, inspiration and practical advice. They include:

All-In: States, Localities, Utilities and Nonprofits Creating Solutions for Underserved Communities

DOE is partnering with states, localities, utilities, housing agencies and nonprofit organizations to support the planning and implementation of clean energy programs in disadvantaged communities as part of its Clean Energy for Low Income Communities Accelerator. Session attendees will gain a better understanding of the diverse opportunities to ensure equitable and affordable access to energy efficiency and solar energy in American communities.

An Electrifying Transition: Electrification Barriers and Opportunities

A shift toward greater electrification is needed to effectively reduce energy waste and costs, increase energy independence, strengthen industry, and create jobs. This three-hour workshop explores the opportunities and barriers for state and local governments to electrify their transportation sectors, building technologies and ports. Join the workshop to discuss the latest trends, success stories and innovative strategies in electrification.

Expect the Unexpected: Planning Energy-Resilient Communities

The nation’s energy sector is subject to an increasing number of threats from natural and human events. Greater resilience is required to confront these risks, including a comprehensive plan and infrastructure with the ability to avoid disruptions, minimize impacts, and recover from and adapt to a changing environment. Attend this three-hour workshop to learn about the technologies, planning and partnership approaches governments are pursuing to overcome these challenges.

Shedding Light on LED Street Lights

The Better Buildings Outdoor Lighting Accelerator dove deeply into the deployment barriers of LED street lights, a performance technology with evidence-based energy savings and other benefits for many cities. Partners will share advice for overcoming the challenges for successful LED street lighting conversion projects. Attendees will leave with actionable information and resources to plan their own projects.

Reimagining Cities! Achieving Efficient, Resilient and Sustainable Communities Through Zero Energy Buildings

Exemplary Zero Energy Buildings (ZEBs) are setting the standard for more sustainable communities. Over the last year, ZEB projects grew by 74 percent and have covered every climate zone in the U.S. This session will cover the planning, innovative technologies and processes that make Zero Energy Buildings a reality while highlighting ZEB projects in Denver and Washington, D.C.

Addressing the Energy-Water Nexus: The Next Wave of Challenges and Solutions

Our nation’s energy and water systems are inextricably linked. Solutions that address the interdependencies of these systems are growing in importance as concerns over water scarcity continue to rise. In this session, experts from the public and private sectors will share their perspectives on key technology, business and policy solutions that address the energy-water nexus.

There are also great opportunities to tour high-performance buildings, speak with technical experts from national labs, and network with public sector peers:

  • Monday, May 15: Local government meet-up and post-summit networking event
  • Tuesday and Wednesday, May 15 and 16: Ask-an-Expert between sessions to get technical advice on building technologies or reserve a meeting to get one-on-one assistance with your community’s energy performance data
  • Tuesday May 16: Meet & greet with attendees during an evening networking event

Register now and get an invite to join the summit app community!

Financial assistance is available. A limited number of travel stipends and registration scholarships are available upon request for representatives from state or local government energy/sustainability offices that do not have administrative funds available for such purposes through an existing federal funding agreement with DOE or another federal agency. Please submit financial assistance requests through the registration website.

The Better Buildings Summit is produced by the U.S Department of Energy.

About the author: Nick Kasza is a Senior Associate with the Sustainable Cities Institute at the National League of Cities. He is part of a team that administers the SolSmart program and helps deliver technical assistance to cities pursuing SolSmart designation.

President’s Budget Threatens Cities’ Ability to Act on Environmental & Infrastructure Issues

Cuts in the administration’s budget proposal threaten funds that cities rely on to invest in water management, clean energy and revitalization efforts across the country. Here’s how these cuts could impact your city.

Proposed cuts to regional water restoration programs would cost local governments $427 million in funds to help clean up waterways and natural environments like the Chesapeake Bay. (Getty Images)

This April recess, NLC is encouraging city leaders to engage with their members of Congress while they are at home in their districts for two weeks. Don’t let Congress leave America’s cities behind — join us this week and next as we #FightTheCuts proposed in the administration’s budget.

This post was co-authored by Mayor James Diossa, Peter Friedrichs and Will Downie. It is part of a series on the 2018 federal budget.

Proposed cuts to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) threaten the funds that cities of all sizes rely on to invest in water management, clean energy and revitalization efforts across the country, with many of the programs directly benefiting the most vulnerable members of society. Here’s how these cuts could impact your city.

Water

While President Donald Trump’s proposal increases funding for the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund programs and calls for level funding for WIFIA — a loan and loan guarantee program for large water infrastructure projects — it eliminates the Rural Utilities Services’ Water and Waste Water Loan and Grant Program under the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This program provides critical funds for rural communities across the country to maintain water infrastructure and address their unique water needs. Together, these water infrastructure programs helped small cities like Garber, Oklahoma, (population 842) protect their community’s drinking water by replacing aged water pipes and large cities like Boston (population 645,966) complete a landfill closure and reduce rainwater infiltration.

Regional water restoration programs like the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and the Chesapeake Bay Initiative are also slated for elimination — a move that would cost local governments $427 million in funds to help clean up waterways and natural environments. These funds allowed the village of Shorewood, Wisconsin, to reduce contamination at Atwater Beach by investing in improved sewer systems and the city of Port Huron, Michigan, to restore 5,000 square feet of fish habitat and provide recreation areas for residents. Even if funding is slashed, cities will still have to meet the federal requirements for pollution reduction, creating an unfunded mandate.

Land

Although not specifically mentioned in the proposal, two key programs that help local governments establish local parks and greenways and revitalize abandoned properties may face cuts: the Land Conservation Fund and the Brownfields Redevelopment Program. The DOI Land and Water Conservation Fund helped the city of Seattle develop its now famous Gasworks Park. Without the assistance, the city would not have been able to transform an old gasification plant and its surrounding area into one of Seattle’s landmark public spaces. Meanwhile, the city of Central Falls, Rhode Island, was able to use a $200,000 EPA Brownfields grant to restore an abandoned mill building into successful mixed-use retail and business space. Together, these programs grow local economies by creating jobs, increasing property values, and attracting businesses and private capital.

Energy

The DOE Weatherization Assistance Program and the State Energy Program — which together provide over $300 million in assistance to local governments to promote energy efficiency and renewable energy projects, including assistance to low-income residents to help lower their energy bills — are proposed to be eliminated. These programs allowed the city of Philadelphia to invest in innovative weatherization ideas that led to an increase in the total number of weatherized homes in the city, a reduction to the weatherization cost per home, increased energy savings, and new weatherization jobs in Philadelphia.

Air and Climate

The president’s proposed budget also targets programs that help cities reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and meet their climate action goals. The EPA Diesel Emission Reduction Program encourages cities to switch to cleaner-burning diesel vehicles. Last year, the program provided $7.7 million to 90 different cities to provide safer and cleaner school buses through replacement and retrofitting rebates. In addition, the proposed budget would eliminate climate change research and partnership programs totaling $100 million that cities rely on for data and information on climate change impacts on their communities.

Personnel

Out of all the federal agencies, EPA faces the biggest hit overall with a proposal to cut funding by 31 percent and eliminate 3,200 jobs, or 20 percent of its employees. These staff cuts will have a negative effect on EPA’s role as a regulator and will impede the ability of local elected officials to do their jobs. EPA approves a variety of permits and facilities that local governments rely on, like wastewater treatment plants. A “slimmed down” EPA will still have to process permits and projects, but a smaller staff will lead to delays and reduced technical assistance and will hurt local governments’ ability to provide the safe and clean environment they are entrusted to maintain.

Cities across the country will suffer under the White House’s budget plan. The president’s proposal will see cities large and small working with fewer funds and a less responsive regulatory regime, crippling their ability to provide vital services and infrastructure to their citizens. These cuts are bad for every city in the country, and pose a threat to the environment, our economy and our future.

Learn more about NLC’s #FightTheCuts campaign here.

About the authors:

James Diossa is the mayor of Central Falls, Rhode Island.

 

Peter Friedrichs is the director of planning and economic development for the city of Central Falls, Rhode Island.

 

Will Downie is an intern with the National League of Cities’ Federal Advocacy team.

How the President’s Budget Proposal Could Stop the Transit Revolution in Its Tracks

Included in the administration’s first budget proposal is a $499 billion cut to one of the federal government’s most successful transportation funding programs: TIGER Grants.

TIGER Grants fund innovative transportation projects such as this light rail system in Seattle. (Getty Images)

This April recess, NLC is encouraging city leaders to engage with their members of Congress while they are at home in their districts for two weeks. Don’t let Congress leave America’s cities behind — join us this week and next as we #FightTheCuts proposed in the administration’s budget.

This post was co-authored by Michael Wallace and Sam Warlick. It is part of a series on the 2018 federal budget.

While on the campaign trail, President Donald Trump often spoke like a true champion of American infrastructure. “Our airports, bridges, water tunnels, power grids, rail systems — our nation’s entire infrastructure is crumbling,” he wrote in 2015, “and we aren’t doing anything to fix it.”

His first three months as president have told a different story. Included in the administration’s first budget proposal is a $499 billion cut to one of the federal government’s most successful programs: TIGER Grants.

Created in 2009, TIGER Grants fund innovative transportation projects like light rail, regional buses, bicycle networks and new freight systems. The process is competitive, transparent and application-based, meaning that the grant winners must demonstrate outstanding economic and community benefits.

Over the past eight years, TIGER grants have supplied $5.1 billion in new funding to some of America’s most innovative urban and rural transportation projects. They include:

  • The QLINE Streetcar in Detroit, which will link the city’s resurgent downtown to some of its most economically-challenged neighborhoods
  • The Texas Rural Transit Asset Replacement project, which upgraded facilities and buses serving low-income, elderly and disabled riders across the state
  • Montana’s Poplar Airport Regional Access Project, which improved bike/pedestrian access and economic development opportunities in rural and tribal communities
  • The nationally-renowned Atlanta Beltline Trail, a green pedestrian and bicycle corridor redeveloped on an abandoned rail corridor

Under the White House’s “skinny budget,” the TIGER Grant program would be crippled. It would cut off the flow of federal investment in innovative transportation infrastructure — a key investment that has helped drive our nation’s economic recovery.

The ball is now in Congress’s court. With two weeks left to present a full budget for adoption, the House of Representatives can keep their promise to reinvest in infrastructure and create prosperity for all communities.

On behalf of city leaders, we strongly encourage Congress to stand with cities across the country and stop cuts to successful, valuable federal programs — including TIGER grants.

About the authors:

mike_wallace_125x150Michael Wallace is the Program Director of Federal Advocacy at the National League of Cities. Follow him on Twitter @MikeWallaceII.

 

Sam Warlick is a Senior Communications Associate at the National League of Cities.

Is Your City at Risk of Losing Federal Funding?

There are three main questions that cities need to be aware of when dissecting the political rhetoric around sanctuary cities.

DepartmentOfJustice.jpg

The Trump administration has directed the Department of Justice (pictured above) and the Department of Homeland Security to withhold funding from sanctuary jurisdictions — an order that raises more questions than it answers for cities. (Getty)

This April recess, NLC is encouraging city leaders to engage with their members of Congress while they are at home in their districts for two weeks. Don’t let Congress leave America’s cities behind — join us this week and next as we #FightTheCuts proposed in the administration’s budget.

This post is part of a series on the 2018 federal budget.

Is your city at risk of losing federal funding following the Trump administration’s sanctuary cities executive order? Despite the rhetoric we are hearing, we think the short answer is no — at least, not anytime soon. Many legal issues would need to be resolved before the federal government could act to withhold grant funding from any so-called “sanctuary” jurisdiction.

The courts must first determine the constitutionality of enforcing President Donald Trump’s executive order directing the Department of Homeland Security and the attorney general to withhold funding from jurisdictions with sanctuary policies. Recently, nearly 300 legal scholars sent a letter to the president that argued the executive order violates the Fourth and Tenth Amendments of the Constitution. The cities of San Francisco and Seattle have already filed injunctions to stay the order, and a decision on the cases is expected shortly.

Let’s be clear. When dissecting the political rhetoric around sanctuary cities, there are three main questions that cities need to be aware of: What is a sanctuary jurisdiction? How do Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainers affect a sanctuary jurisdiction? What does cooperation with ICE mean for cities?

First, there is no legal definition of a sanctuary city/jurisdiction. Last year, Congress tried to define a “sanctuary jurisdiction” as a local government that specifically prohibits its government officials from sharing information with federal immigration information officers, which would be a violation of U.S.C. 8 §1373. While the Department of Justice’s inspector general determined that some jurisdictions have policies that limit the types of information local officials collect on immigration status, that did not mean the jurisdictions were in violation of Sec. 1373.

Second, the immigration hawks that are promoting sanctions against sanctuary cities focus their arguments on compliance with voluntary ICE detainer requests. There is no requirement that a local jurisdiction comply with a detainer request. If a jurisdiction does not comply with a detainer request, that does not make them a sanctuary, regardless of what anti-immigration activists argue.

ICE has the authority to issue a detainer request to any law enforcement agency that has in their custody an immigrant charged or convicted of a crime. Compliance with the detainers is voluntary and at the discretion of the local jurisdiction or law enforcement agency. The courts have ruled that detainer requests violate a person’s rights under the Fourth Amendment because they lack probable cause to arrest and keep someone in jail after they have served their time.

The irony in this whole debate is that ICE has broad authority to issue a warrant for arrest for the same immigrant, which would not violate the Fourth Amendment. When asked why ICE continues to issue detainer requests instead of warrants for arrest, the simple answer is that, to do so, they would have to provide probable cause for the warrant. So, while every other local law enforcement officer must show probable cause before arresting someone, ICE seems to believe they are excluded from this constitutional requirement. The courts, however, disagree with ICE’s determination. Several federal courts have ruled in recent years that local jurisdictions can be held liable for violating immigrants’ civil rights if they detain them at the request of ICE without a court order.

Third, local law enforcement agencies cooperate routinely with ICE and other federal law enforcement agencies to arrest and remove the most dangerous immigrants that are part of drug cartels and gangs. Recent enforcement actions by ICE are increasingly focusing on undocumented immigrants who have been in the country for years and have become woven into the fabric of our communities. Their children attend schools with our children. They contribute to the local economy and support local programs.

Local law enforcement works closely with these communities by building trust to keep the public safe. Local governments consider the risk of tearing up immigrant families and communities, disrupting the local economy, and eroding the trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve.

It is the sole responsibility of the federal government to enforce immigration laws. The president, the attorney general and ICE have made it a top priority to enforce immigration deportation for anyone who is in this country illegally, but this does not mean it must be the top priority of local governments. While local governments should not prevent ICE from performing its duties, they are not responsible for enforcing federal immigration laws.

Ultimately, it is the responsibility of Congress to fix our broken immigration system. The National League of Cities (NLC) has a clear policy position on comprehensive immigration reform, and cities need to urge their Congressional delegation to stop the corrosive political rhetoric against cities and fix our broken immigration system.

City leaders are doing their jobs — and now it is time for Congress to do its job.

Learn more about NLC’s efforts to fight back against proposed budget cuts to city funding.

yucel_ors_125x150About the author: Yucel (“u-jel”) Ors is the Program Director of Public Safety and Crime Prevention at the National League of Cities. Follow Yucel on Twitter at @nlcpscp.

Don’t Cut Funding for Programs That Help Children Thrive in Cities Across the Country

Federally-funded programs like those slated for elimination in President Trump’s 2018 Budget Blueprint have a proven record of results for young children, and simply cannot survive without continued federal support.

Group of young children drawing with chalk on the sidewalk

Local leaders agree that early investment in a child’s development can make all the difference when it comes to the future success of their youngest residents. (Getty Images)

This April recess, NLC is encouraging city leaders to engage with their members of Congress while they are at home in their districts for two weeks. Don’t let Congress leave America’s cities behind — join us this week and next as we #FightTheCuts proposed in the administration’s budget.

This post is part of a series on the 2018 federal budget.

Ask any city leader and they will tell you that giving children a strong start in life is one of the most important investments we can make toward building vibrant and prosperous communities. This is not just anecdotal — research tells us that 90 percent of a child’s brain development has occurred by the age of five, with 700 neural connections per second being formed during the early years of a child’s brain development.

At the National League of Cities (NLC), we amplify the work local leaders are doing to increase early childhood opportunities for young children. Through partnerships with NLC’s Institute for Youth, Education, and Families, cities are aligning systems for young children to improve outcomes for children and their families.

City leaders can significantly advance local progress through programs, policies and the alignment of systems that impact young children, but this work exists within a federal and state context. From help paying the high costs of child care to seats in a Head Start classroom, federally-funded programs like those slated for elimination in President Trump’s 2018 Budget Blueprint have a proven record of results for young children, and simply cannot survive without continued federal support. This budget proposal will harm city leaders’ abilities to foster high-quality early childhood opportunities and support families.

While the blueprint is only a “skinny budget,” we can expect to see a larger plan in the near future that details the more than $54 billion in proposed cuts to domestic programs that help children and families in cities thrive. Cuts to key departments like Health and Human Services should alarm city leaders whose communities benefit from programs like Head Start, which serves over a million children each year.

Classrooms in every state in the country help young children develop cognitive and developmental skills and establish habits that shape their future health outcomes. Without Head Start, many more of our most vulnerable parents would be without an early education setting for their children. Long waiting lists mean that less than half of eligible three- and four-year-olds are able to participate in Head Start.

The Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) is another example of a federal program investing in early childhood. Despite its lengthy name, its purpose is simple: to help parents afford child care. The cost of child care is out of reach for too many families. Center-based infant care is more expensive than one year of public university tuition in 30 states and Washington, D.C.

The experiences children have in child care lay the foundation for their cognitive development and allow their parents to work and pursue education. Every year, businesses lose approximately $4.4 billion due to employee absenteeism as a result of child care breakdowns. However, current levels of funding prevent five out of six eligible children from receiving CCDBG dollars to help their parents afford care.

These are just two examples of the federal programs that work to improve outcomes for young children in cities nationwide. A lack of funding for these critical programs already leaves many needs unmet, and further cuts to domestic programs would risk eliminating this support altogether. On behalf of city leaders, we strongly encourage Congress to stand with children, families and cities across the country and stop cuts to key early childhood programs that our cities’ children and families rely on.

Learn more about NLC’s #FightTheCuts campaign.

About the author: Alana Eichner is the Early Childhood Associate in NLC’s Institute for Youth, Education, and Families.

Five Ways to Fight the Cuts From Your Own City

This April recess, NLC is encouraging city leaders to engage with their members of Congress while they are at home in their districts for two weeks. Don’t let Congress leave America’s cities behind — join us this week and next as we #FightTheCuts proposed in the administration’s budget.

Members of Congress are on recess from April 10 – 21, but many will hold town hall meetings with their constituents during that time. (Getty Images)

This post is part of a series on the 2018 federal budget.

Now is the time to fight to protect critical funding to cities. Today, Congress starts a two-week period of recess, during which our federally-elected officials have the chance to return to their home districts, connect with constituents, and, in many cases, hold town hall meetings. This recess, one of the key issues on the minds of members of Congress traveling back home will be the long battle for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 budget waiting for them when they come back to Washington, D.C., on April 24.

President Donald Trump’s recently released budget proposal is a non-starter for cities. It slashes funding for crucial programs that cities and their residents rely on by cutting more than $54 billion in domestic spending across the board. Make no mistake — no city in America would be better off under the president’s budget proposal, and we must stand together to fight the cuts.

We need local elected officials to take this opportunity to send a clear message to Congress early on: this budget season, Congress must stand with cities. Here are five ways you can fight back against the proposed cuts and tell your representatives that when they get back to Washington, they need to work on a budget that puts cities first.

1) Visit Your Member of Congress’ District Office

Take advantage of the fact that your congressperson is at home in your city during the next two weeks. Learn about how proposed budget cuts may impact your city and how you can set up a meaningful meeting with your member of Congress.

2) Call or Write Your Member of Congress

In-person meetings are always best, but you can also use our template and write a letter to your member of Congress urging them to stand with, and invest in, America’s cities. You can also use our script to call your member of Congress’ district office and urge them to develop a budget that’s focused on building prosperity, expanding opportunity, and investing in America’s cities.

 3) Write an Op-Ed and Have It Locally Placed

Pen a letter to your editor or draft an op-ed highlighting your advocacy on behalf of your city, and ask your member of Congress to not cut vital sources of city funding. We’ve already created an easy-to-use template.

 4) Engage Through Social Media

Print our easy-to-use #FightTheCuts banner and Tweet your photo with it to @LeagueofCities. Let’s see how many local elected officials we can document standing up for cities.

5) Visit nlc.org/FightTheCuts

Our strength as an organization lies in our members. We need city leaders to fight back against the proposed budget cuts and tell Congress to approve a budget that works for cities. Find other creative ways you can take action on our #FightTheCuts campaign page.

About the author: Irma Esparza Diggs is the Senior Executive and Director of Federal Advocacy for the National League of Cities.

City Leaders Get Things Done. So Do National Service Programs.

In this guest post celebrating Mayor and County Recognition Day for National Service, Commissioner Gil Ziffer explains how the proposed federal budget cuts to service programs like AmeriCorps will have a significant impact on cities.

Americorps is a national program of civil service supported by the federal government, foundations, corporations and others with the goal of “helping others and meeting the needs in the community.” In this photo, Americorps members work with an Associate Director of Habitat for Humanity on a building used to house volunteers assisting with disaster recovery efforts in the Gulf Coast in 2006. (Wikimedia Commons)

This is a guest post by Commissioner Gil Ziffer. This is the first post in a series on the programs eliminated in the Trump Administration’s FY 2018 budget proposal.

Five years ago, the National League of Cities (NLC) joined city leaders across the nation to participate in the first-ever Mayor’s Day of Recognition for National Service. What began as a collection of just a few hundred mayors to highlight the impact of national service in their cities has grown to include more than 3,500 local leaders – mayors, councilmembers, county officials and tribal leaders – and is a true testament to the power of citizen service.

But the connections between city leaders and national service don’t stop there.

Local leaders are all about getting things done. They’re focused on solving problems for their communities. That’s a mission shared with the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), the federal agency in charge of the nation’s national service programs like AmeriCorps, Senior Corps and other volunteer initiatives. Before they are able to begin their service, each AmeriCorps and Senior Corps member must raise their hand and recite a pledge committing to ‘get things done’ for America.

That’s exactly what they’re doing in more than 50,000 locations across the nation – in our biggest cities and smallest towns. Dedicated Americans, young, old and in-between, tackling the tough challenges facing our communities. Bringing forgotten neighborhoods back to life. Restoring city parks. Ending veteran homelessness. Strengthening schools and boosting graduation rates. Preparing youth and adults for 21st century jobs.

We don’t have to look far to find powerful examples of national service members getting things done. In my own city of Tallahassee, Florida, AmeriCorps members are tutoring and mentoring students in low-performing schools, helping to improve student performance and attendance and reduce disciplinary actions. Our homeless receive job training, resource connections, financial literacy and housing assistance. And our Alzheimer’s Project provides families respite care, allowing caregivers a much needed break. In Albuquerque, New Mexico, Senior Corps volunteers are ensuring that more than 150 home-bound seniors every year are able to live independently. And from Baton Rouge, Louisiana, to Richwood, West Virginia, national service members are helping communities impacted by devastating disasters recover and rebuild.

In every challenge, there is an opportunity. Programs like AmeriCorps and Senior Corps build upon that opportunity to make communities a better place to live, work and raise a family. National service is a solution for cities that need to do more with less by harnessing the ingenuity and “can-do” American spirit of the citizens within their community.

In his proposed budget, President Donald Trump eliminates funding for various independent agencies, including CNCS – and this will have a direct impact on the Americans working with us and showing that it does, in fact, take cities to move America forward. I hope you will join me in fighting to ensure that CNCS remains an agency dedicated to service by sharing with our members of Congress how this funding is critical to communities across the nation.

City leaders can also celebrate the impact of national service in our communities by participating in this year’s Mayor and County Recognition Day for National Service on April 4, 2017. Signing up is easy! Click here to learn more.

About the author: Gil Ziffer is the commissioner of Tallahassee, Florida, and the chair of the HD Committee.

Local Governments Sue Over Sanctuary Jurisdictions Executive Order

The executive order is under litigation – but how worried should cities be that the president will actually take away money from sanctuary jurisdictions in the near future?

San Francisco is one of a number of cities that have sued the Trump administration in response to the sanctuary cities executive order, arguing that enforcing federal immigration laws does not relate to federal funding they receive for infrastructure, health care, education or other fundamental systems. (Getty Images)

Five days after assuming office, President Donald Trump signed an executive order threatening to take away federal funding from so-called sanctuary jurisdictions. The executive order leaves it to the Secretary of Homeland Security to define “sanctuary jurisdictions.” Unsurprisingly, a number of cities and counties have sued the president over this executive order, including Santa Clara County, San Francisco and Richmond, California, Seattle, and Lawrence and Chelsea, Massachusetts.

By mid-April, a court will likely grant or deny a preliminary injunction in the Santa Clara County case. We know the legal allegations the cities and counties have made against the president, and the president has responded to the Santa Clara County and San Francisco lawsuits.

All of the complaints make different arguments and frame the legal issues slightly differently. Here are the three main arguments:

1) Spending Clause

The U.S. Constitution’s Spending Clause allows Congress to place conditions on federal money local governments receive. The local governments argue that Spending Clause authority resides with Congress – not with the president. Even if Congress had the authority to take away federal funding from sanctuary jurisdictions per the Spending Clause, the president lacks the same authority as a matter of separation of powers.

The Supreme Court has ruled that conditioning the receipt of federal funds may not be coercive, and that the conditions must be stated unambiguously and relate to the federal interest in the grant program. The local governments suing President Trump argue that these requirements are not met.

In NFIB v. Sibelius (2012), Chief Justice John Roberts famously described the Affordable Care Act’s requirement to withhold all Medicaid funding if states refused to agree to the Medicaid expansion as a coercive “gun to the head.” In that case, states stood to lose more than 10 percent of their overall budget by not agreeing to the Medicaid expansion. Santa Clara County, for example, claims it will lose 15 percent of its budget if it loses all federal funding.

The Supreme Court has stated that when Congress, using its spending power, imposes conditions on the receipt of federal funds, it must do so “unambiguously.” None of the federal funding local governments receive requires them to participate in enforcing federal immigration laws.

Likewise, the Supreme Court has held that the conditions Congress places on federal grants must be “germane” or “related to” the federal interest in the grant program. The local governments argue that enforcing federal immigration laws does not relate to federal interests in federal funding they receive for infrastructure, health care, education, etc.

2) Fourth and Tenth Amendments

The sanctuary jurisdictions executive order states that the attorney general may take “appropriate enforcement action” against any entity which has in effect a “statute, policy or practice that prevents or hinders the enforcement of federal law.” This language – and the fact that the executive order reestablished Secure Communities and requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to publish a weekly list of jurisdictions that don’t honor Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainers – has lead local governments to conclude that the executive order requires local governments to comply with ICE detainers.

In their lawsuits, the local governments claim that complying with ICE detainers violates the Tenth and Fourth Amendments.

When someone is arrested, ICE receives their fingerprints and may request through an ICE detainer that a local government hold the person so that ICE can pick them up and deport them. Numerous courts have held that complying with ICE detainers violates the Fourth Amendment because such detainers are rearrests not supported by a warrant.

Following the sanctuary jurisdictions executive order, Miami-Dade County decided to comply with ICE detainers and was sued. A judge ruled that Miami-Dade County lacks the power under the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the state, to comply with warrantless ICE detainers. Enforcing federal immigration law is the sole responsibility of the federal government.

3) 8 U.S.C. 1373

The sanctuary jurisdictions executive order requires local governments to comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373. This statute bars prohibitions on government entities from maintaining or sharing citizenship or immigration status information.

The local governments suing in this case note that 8 U.S.C. 1373 does not require them to collect information about immigration status. They do not collect this information and are therefore in compliance with 8 U.S.C. 1373, they argue.

San Francisco argues that it complies with 8 U.S.C. 1373 but that the statute violates the Tenth Amendment. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Tenth Amendment to contain an anti-commandeering requirement wherein local governments cannot be required “to enact or administer a federal regulatory program.”

Federal response

President Trump’s response to the Santa Clara County and San Francisco complaints should alleviate any fears that the president intends to take away any money from sanctuary jurisdictions any time soon. The administration’s response to the Santa Clara County complaint describes five steps which would have to occur before any local government will be deprived of federal funds (none of which have yet occurred):

(1) the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security must determine exactly what constitutes “willful refusal to comply with 8 U.S.C. § 1373;” (2) the Secretary must identify any state or local governments that constitute “sanctuary jurisdictions” and make formal designations to that effect; (3) the Secretary and the Attorney General must decide which federal funding sources are “necessary for law enforcement purposes;” (4) the Secretary and the Attorney General must then determine how to “ensure” that sanctuary jurisdictions are ineligible to receive the relevant grant funds; and (5) the Secretary and the Attorney General must determine how to implement those actions “consistent with law.”

A few aspects of the administration’s response to the Santa Clara County and San Francisco complaints are noteworthy.

First, both responses avoid defending the constitutional claims; instead, the administration argues that, because no federal funding has been taken away from either local government, the cases aren’t yet ready to be reviewed by a court.

Second, the administration disavows the notion that all federal funding can be taken away from sanctuary jurisdictions. More specifically, in the Santa Clara County complaint, the administration argues that only jurisdictions that “willfully refuse to comply” with 8 U.S.C. 1373 become “not eligible to receive Federal grants.” But as Santa Clara County points out in its response, “it is telling that the administration neither identifies a single grant that imposes that condition nor addresses the numerous bills to do so that Congress considered and rejected.”

Finally, both administration responses conspicuously avoid any acknowledgement that the executive order may require local governments to comply with warrantless ICE detainers.

lisa_soronen_new_125x150About the author: Lisa Soronen is the Executive Director of the State and Local Legal Center (SLLC), which files Supreme Court amicus curiae briefs on behalf of the Big Seven national organizations, including the National League of Cities, representing state and local governments. She is a regular contributor to CitiesSpeak.