FY 2014 Appropriations Process Moves Forward

With Congress' return from Independence Day recess, it intends to resume its consideration of the FY 2014 spending bills. This will happen despite the House and Senate moving on parallel paths that are quite far apart. The House is operating under its Budget Resolution that sets overall spending for discretionary programs at $967 billion. This assumes that sequestration will continue. The Senate is proceeding under its Budget Resolution, which sets overall spending for discretionary programs at $1.058 trillion. Following the lead of the President's budget proposal, it assumes sequestration will not continue.

So far, the House has approved two of the twelve spending bills-- Homeland Security and Military Construction/Veterans' Affairs. Its full appropriations committee, chaired by Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY), has agreed on its recommendations for four others: Agriculture, Defense, Energy and Water, and Transportation/HUD. In moving these six bills, the House has followed the allocations to its Subcommittees that have provided significantly more funding for the defense and homeland security portions of the budget, while creating shortages for the non-security domestic discretionary bills. The Senate has accused the House of breaking the Budget Control Act's (BCA) provisions that set specific caps for security vs. non-security spending.

The House claims that by using the $1.058 trillion figure and ignoring the continuing sequestration, the Senate is also flouting the BCA. The Senate Appropriations Committee, chaired by Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), has marked up four bills, Agriculture, Energy and Water, Military Construction/Veterans' Affairs, and Transportation/HUD. None of the four have made it to the Senate floor yet.

CJS This Week in House, Next Week in Senate; Labor HHS, ED This Week in Senate

The House expects to continue to move ahead with markups at the Subcommittee level of the Commerce, Justice, Science (CJS) spending bill on July 10. The CJS bill will include the first FY 2014 marks for the National Science Foundation, the Census Bureau, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the National Institute of Justice, and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. That same day the Financial Services bill will get marked up at the Subcommittee level. A day earlier, a Subcommittee will make recommendations for the Legislative Branch spending bill.

On the Senate side, the Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS), Education (ED) Appropriations bill is scheduled for markup in the Subcommittee on July 9 and at the full Appropriations Committee on July 11. According to a preliminary schedule, the CJS Subcommittee will provide its recommendations on July 16 with the full committee two days later. The CJS spending recommendations on the Senate side are expected to exceed the House levels for CJS programs, since the allocation provides about $5 billion more for the Senate panel to distribute compared to the House. That body will likely postpone as long as possible its markup of the Labor, HHS, ED bill since the allocation would appear to force some major reductions in programs that have considerable outside support.

When the differences in the bills might get resolved is mighty uncertain at this point. There is a sense that a probable debt ceiling debate in November could lead to a solution regarding the spending bills. If this happens, another Continuing Resolution (CR) would become necessary at the beginning of FY 2014 on October 1, 2013. 

As noted above, the House and Senate FY 2014 spending figures are quite different. This is quite evident if one compares the recommendations of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees regarding the research and data components of the Agriculture and Rural Development bill.

For the Economic Research Service (ERS), the Senate panel provided the President's requested level of $78.5 million as compared to the House committee recommendation of $75.5 million. The House Committee also directed ERS "to coordinate USDA's agencies involved in data collection, analysis, and research to make available the best data related to the production, pricing, distribution, and marketing of locally and regionally produced agricultural products and to identify data gaps." The Senate panel also expressed interest in this area, although its directive was less wordy.

The Senate allocated $162.1 million to the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) compared to the House level of $154.8 million. Within these figures, the Senate Committee provided almost $2.5 million more than the House to complete the Census of Agriculture. The Senate panel also made it clear that the additional funds would allow NASS to resume or begin compilation of reports that had been suspended or eliminated since FY 2012 because of budget constraints. The Committee now expects these reports "at the frequency levels assumed in fiscal year 2012," and it is "directed to resume all of these reports immediately upon enactment of this act."

The National Institute on Food and Agriculture (NIFA) received $772.8 million from the Senate committee and $718.7 million from the House panel for its research, education, and extension activities in FY 2014. The Agriculture Research and Food Initiative (AFRI) was allotted $316.4 million by the Senate and $290.5 million by the House. Both are considerably below the President's FY 2014 request of $383.4 million. More differences are seen in the recommendations for the Hatch Act Formula Grants program: $236.3 million, the President's number, by the House; but $243.7 million by the Senate.

Both the House and Senate Committees agreed to FY 2014 funding of $998,000 for the Regional Research and Development Centers, the same as the President's request. The Committees in both Houses added report language about regional research. The House noted that "State and regional research has a history of success in addressing critical pest, disease, and production problems specific to their region, and that these programs help producers across the Nation remain productive." The Senate report "encourages NIFA to consider providing funding within AFRI to assist with State and regional research priorities, with USDA oversight and review."

The House had planned to bring its Agriculture and Rural Development FY 2014 Appropriations bill to the floor before the July 4^th recess. That did not happen. It does not appear on the floor schedule for the week of July 8^th as the House will consider the Energy and Water spending bill that week. The Senate floor schedule for spending bills remains uncertain.

On the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) FY 2014 Appropriations bill, the House rejected the President's budget cut of $9 million for the University Programs and Centers of Excellence. As they have in previous years, the report directed the DHS "to brief the Committee on the method used to measure performance of the Centers not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act."

NSF Publishes FY 2013 Current Plan Numbers

Nine months into the fiscal year and three months following the enactment of the FY 2013 final appropriations bill, the National Science Foundation (NSF) has published the spending figures for the current fiscal year. Part of the recent delay results from the need to obtain approval from the House and Senate Appropriations Committees for the distributions.

For the Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (SBE) directorate, the total is $242.5 million. The comparable FY 2012 figure is $254.2 million. The cut from FY 2012 is slightly under the five percent sequestration number. The FY 2013 request was $259.6 million. Sequestration and budget cuts have consequences!

Within SBE, the Social and Economic Sciences division went from $97.3 million to $91.7 million. For the Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences division, the reduction was to $88.6 million from $92.5 million in FY 2012. The National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics received $34.8 million in FY 2013 compared to $36.2 million in FY 2012. The SBE Office of Multidisciplinary Activities was allotted $27.5 million, down from $28.2 million in FY 2012.

The FY 2013 Appropriation for the Education and Human Resources directorate was $833.3 million after sequestration, a slight increase over the $830.5 million allocated in FY 2012. The Research on Learning in Formal and Informal Settings received $280.3 million in FY 2013 compared to $273.2 million in FY 2012. 

At its 16^th meeting in June, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Scientific Management Review Board (SMRB) reviewed the Working Group on the Value of Biomedical Research's (VOBR) process and progerss. SMRB chair Norman Augustine noted that the working group has been fulfilling its charge and had "a good deal to report." The SMRB is mandated to meet at least five times on each topic as a total group before making a recommendation. The meeting's agenda included a discussion of the principles, metrics, strategies, and caveats of how to assess the value of biomedical research; the public health outputs and outcomes of biomedical research; the broader societal impacts of biomedical research; and presentation of the "Value of Federally-Funded Biomedical Research in the Development of Medical Interventions and Treatments" by former NIH director Elias Zerhouni.

The SMRB was also given a new charge to "recommend ways to further optimize the process of reviewing and awarding grants." In addressing this charge, the SMRB is asked to consider how NIH can: (1) Streamline the grant-making process and shorten the length of time from application to allocation of funds, and (2) Address the administrative burden on applicants and their institutions, scientific reviewers, Council members, and NIH staff while maintaining a high-quality review process. The agency further requested that the SMRB provide the fundamental principles that should underpin any recommended changes to the process; a comprehensive analysis of each step in the process; and recommended strategies and options for improving the process, as well as the rationale for these recommendations.

The rationale for the new charge to the SMRB is that the agency's two-tier review system is the foundation on which the agency's funding of extramural research is based and the majority of the NIH budget goes to extramural research grants. According to Principal Deputy Director Lawrence Tabak when presenting the charge, it "is vital that NIH continue to innovate and optimize the process by which grant applications are submitted, reviewed, processed, and awarded." Tabak pointed out that today, the research enterprise faces additional challenges due to economic constraints that have resulted in decreases in application success rate (See Update, June 24, 2013). At the same time, advances in technology may be capitalized on to improve overall efficiency and effectiveness in grant awarding process, he stated.

Tabak Thanks Board for Assessment Advice

Tabak, who was filling in for NIH director Francis Collins for the first day of the two-day meeting, personally thanked the SMRB for taking on the charge to provide the NIH advice on assessing the value of biomedical research. The NIH is entrusted with much of the public's investment in biomedical research and as such "the NIH is responsible for ensuring that these funds are used in ways that provide value to the public, and the current economic climate simply underscores the need to demonstrate to all unambiguously the value of investing in NIH," Tabak stated. In July 2012, Collins issued a charge to the SMRB to identify appropriate parameters and approaches for assessing and communicating the value of biomedical research supported by NIH.

VOBR Working Group chair Gail Cassell, Eli Lilly and Company, reviewed the Working Group's activities including "a very thorough literature review." The Working Group is focusing on three types of value: the accumulation of scientific knowledge, how that knowledge translates into improved public health, and how scientific knowledge transitions into broader societal effect, primarily economic, but also including educational, diplomatic, and other types of value that don't necessarily always get taken into account. Cassell noted the difficulty of placing a value on the importance of scientific diplomacy without the acquisition of new knowledge. There is a continuum, argued Cassell, from the accumulation of basic knowledge that then leads to improved interventions, improved health, and lastly, to broader societal impacts.  

Zerhouni, who was asked to share the perspective of industry, noted that he was happy that the SMRB was addressing this very difficult topic. He reflected that during his tenure as director, the question that he was constantly "bombarded" with from Congress was: What are we getting for the $30 billion we are investing in NIH? The former director noted that the notion of value changes with time and what is of medical value for one person is not necessarily the same for someone else. 

Zerhouni stated that "value depends on the moment in time societies are in. If you are in a period of poor life expectancy and bad health results, value is going to be very different than if you are in the period of longer life expectancy and budgets higher than the economic growth," he said. From his point of view, the product of federal funding should be knowledge, not products. Clearly, said Zerhouni, the immediate mission of the NIH and how it defines itself has an impact on what society is expecting and that is the reduction of the burden of disease and burden of healthcare costs.  

He discussed translation of research and how T-1 translation, described as being at the edge of understanding a process or disease biology, is very different from T-4 translation where you have developed knowledge, a product, and a system of delivery. It is the difference between these two stages that are getting mixed up in the public debate, Zerhouni asserted. People are asking why the NIH is spending money on health outcomes or economics as opposed to spending it on understanding cancer, he noted. He reflected back on his tenure as director when he responded to Congress' concern regarding NIH's "ability to study behavioral problems...But behavioral problems are 50 percent of the disease burden." He encouraged the Working Group to look at the mission of the NIH according to what is the conversion of value between knowledge generation and true societal benefit as a function of the true challenge at the T-1 translation stage, the generating of validated ideas that can then be used to test whether or not they will influence disease.

Sound Science Integral to Obama's Climate Plan

In a speech at Georgetown University on June 25, President Obama announced an action plan to combat the effects of climate change. Obama asserted that the science has already spoken regarding the certainty of climate change and that "the question now is whether we will have the courage to act before it's too late." The plan, which the administration describes as a "blueprint for steady, responsible national and international action to slow the effects of climate change" consists of three strategies for mitigating and preparing for global change: 1) Cut carbon pollution in America, 2) Prepare the United States for the impacts of climate change, and 3) Lead international efforts to combat global climate change and prepare for its impacts.

As part of its climate change preparation strategy, the administration pledges to "lead in advancing the science of climate measurement and adaptation and the development of tools for climate-relevant decision-making by focusing on increasing the availability, accessibility, and utility of relevant scientific tools and information." The plan calls for developing actionable climate science, primarily through the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP); the President's proposed Fiscal Year 2014 budget provides over $2.7 billion to climate science. Specific areas of focus include: understanding climate-change impacts, risk and catastrophe modeling, and developing information and tools to assist decision-makers in responding to both long- and short-term climate impacts. The action plan affirms the importance of the next National Climate Assessment, scheduled for release in spring 2014 (see Update, February 11, 2013), which will, for the first time, translate the scientific information to aid decision-makers in anticipating and preparing for the impacts of global change.

In keeping with the administration's open data policy (see Update, May 28, 2013), the plan pledges the creation of a Climate Data Initiative, which will "leverage extensive federal climate-relevant data to stimulate innovation and private-sector entrepreneurship in support of national climate-change preparedness." The administration also plans to create a climate resilience toolkit to centralize new and existing tools, services, and best practices (including those developed through the Climate Data Initiative).

President Nominates Katherine O'Regan to lead HUD's Policy and Research Office

Howard Shelanski New Head of OIRA

The results of the most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Long-Term Trend Assessment, The Nation's Report Card: Trends in Academic Progress 2012, were released in late June. Jack Buckley, Commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics and 2012 COSSA Colloquium speaker, presented the results of the assessment during a recent webinar. Buckley explained that the Long-Term Trend Assessment differs from the main NAEP test in that it is administered every four years (as opposed to every two years), selects students by age (not grade level), and measures performance, not achievement (main NAEP rates achievement level on a basic-proficient-advanced rubric). Both tests assess math and reading performance (although they differ in the skills they measure). The Long-Term Trend Assessment has been administered since 1971 for reading and 1973 for math.

Reading scores for 9- and 13-year-olds made a statistically significant improvement since 1971. Scores for 13-year-olds also improved since the last round of assessment in 2008. Overall, scores for 17-year-olds have remained stable; however, the scores of the lowest-performing cohorts (in the 10^th and 25^th percentiles) rose since 1971. In all three age groups, African American and Hispanic students made larger gains than their White counterparts, indicating progress in closing the achievement gap between White and minority students. However, these groups are still underperforming. In 1971, 9-year-old girls outscored boys in reading by 13 points; in 2012, that gap decreased to 5 points.

As with reading, math scores have improved significantly for the younger age groups since 1973, while remaining stable for 17-year-olds. In 2012, 13-year-olds had the highest average score ever (and was the only age group to make a significant improvement since the last assessment four years ago). The bottom 10 percent of 13-year-olds scored better in 2012 than higher achieving (25^th percentile) 13-year-olds in 1978. Following a similar pattern to the reading scores, African American and Hispanic students at all age groups have improved more since 1973 than White students, though the achievement gap is still significant. In the 17-year-old cohort, the gender gap of boys outperforming girls has narrowed from eight points in 1973 to four points in 2012.

On June 13, the Men's Health Network, Indian Health Service (IHS), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), the Office of Minority Health (OMH) and Society of Public Health Education (SOPHE) presented a webinar, "Partnering for Wellness: Charting a Course to Hope, Healing and Health for Native Males and Their Families," which focused on health disparities experienced by American Indian and Alaska Native (Indian) males.

Mose Herne, IHS, gave an overview of the health disparities faced by this population. He observed that efforts to reduce these disparities can build on past success at improving mortality rates for Indian populations across a number of categories. Since 1973, the mortality rates for tuberculosis, infant deaths, accidental death, cerebrovascular disease, pneumonia/influenza, maternal disease, heart disease, and suicide have all dropped significantly for Indian populations. However, Herne noted, Indian populations still experience higher mortality rates for these causes of death than the general U.S. population. In particular, mortality from alcohol-induced causes is 6.5 times higher for Indians than the general population; death from diabetes is 2.8 times higher; and accidental deaths are 2.4 times higher.

Many of these disparities are even more pronounced in the Indian male population. Alcohol-related mortality, deaths due to diabetes and heart disease, and suicide are all much higher for Indian men than women. Native American men also report psychological distress and feelings of hopelessness and worthlessness in much greater numbers than their non-Indian counterparts. These disparities carry over to socioeconomic factors as well. American Indians and Alaska Natives experience higher levels of unemployment, lower median household income, a greater percentage of households in poverty, and lower educational attainment than the all-races population. Herne recommended several strategies to make improving Indian men's health a priority going forward, including improving the quality of and access to health care for these populations. In addition, he suggested identifying and sharing best practices, as well as further research into the identifying the risk and protective factors that affect Native American male health.

Rod K. Robinson, SAMHSA Office of Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse, gave an update on SAMHSA's efforts to reduce substance abuse in Indian communities by coordinating with tribes and federal agencies. Rick Haverkate, Office of Minority Health Resource Center, shared some of the resources available to researchers and programs that service minority populations. 

Hamilton Project Hosts Forum on Economic Mobility and Expanding College Opportunity

The Hamilton Project, an initiative housed at the Brookings Institution, held a forum to discuss the economic imperative of expanding college opportunity. The event was centered around the release of two documents: Informing Students about Their College Options: A Proposal for Broadening the Expanding College Opportunity Project (policy brief here), and Thirteen Economic Facts about Social Mobility and the Role of Education.

Reaching Low-Income, High-Achieving Students

The first panel (video available here), moderated by Hamilton Project Director Michael Greenstone, discussed strategies for reaching low-income high achieving high school students. Caroline Hoxby, Stanford University, shared her proposal for reaching these students, whose annual family income is under $41,000 and whose grades and test scores place them in the top 4 percent of high school students nationwide. She estimated that 25,000-35,000 U.S. high school seniors meet these criteria each year. However, these students are not applying to the selective colleges and universities for which their high level of achievement qualifies them. College admissions officers at selective institutions report receiving anywhere from eight to fifteen times as many applications from high-income high achievers as low-income high achievers. The real ratio of high-income to low-income high achievers in the population is more like two to one, so, Hoxby explained, it is clear that most of these students are not applying to schools that match their academic abilities.

Hoxby debunked some possible explanations for this problem. Cost is not the issue; students from the bottom 20^th percentile of family income pay less to attend a highly competitive school than any other tier. And previous research has demonstrated that low-income high-achievers thrive at colleges that match their abilities, so it is not a question of not doing well at these schools. Instead, the problem seems to stem from a lack of information on how to navigate the college application process. To combat this information gap, Hoxby and her colleagues designed an intervention targeted at these students, called the Expanding College Opportunities (ECO) Project.

ECO intervention materials were sent to low-income high-achieving students both through the mail and online and consisted of customized information (based on locality, high school, and family income) about applications, net college costs, and eight no-paperwork application fee waivers. The intervention was tested on roughly 40,000 high achievers in randomized controlled trials and cost $6 per student. Students who received the intervention were 78 percent more likely to be admitted to a peer university (a school for which their grades and scores matched those of a typical student there) and 50 percent more likely to enroll in one. Hoxby noted that the ECO intervention is scalable and could be targeted to reach every low-income high-achieving student through the ACT and College Board for the same low cost per student. She also suggested that a similar approach could be taken to target low-income students at other achievement levels and to reach students earlier than their senior year of high school.

William Fitzsimmons, Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid at Harvard, discussed the efforts Harvard is making to be more attractive to low-income high-achieving students. Harvard recently overhauled its tuition structure to base it on family income; tuition is free for students whose family income is under $65,000 and no student is expected to take out loans. Harvard has seen a five percent increase in the number of students receiving Pell grants and a 33 percent increase in the number of students whose family income is under $80,000. The college doubled the number of advisors, created an events fund for students who cannot afford to attend school events, and started a student organization to help recruit low-income students.

Robert Gordon, Brookings and formerly of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), praised the ECO Project for its large effect size, low cost, and for its use of data to achieve a social purpose. He suggested several challenges that those looking to scale up the intervention should prepare for. First, sequestration and other budgetary pressures will make any new program-however cost effective-a hard sell. Second, increasing concerns over privacy and data use will pose a hurdle; even the perception that data are being used improperly would be a major issue, regardless of the truth. Finally, Gordon noted, "talking about data is boring," so you have to work hard to make sure people don't tune out.

Nicole Farmer Hurd, National College Advising Corps, explained how her organization's work can complement the ECO Project intervention. She pointed out that a recent Georgetown study found that only three percent of students attending the 146 most selective colleges and universities came from the bottom 25 percent of the family income spectrum. The National College Advising Corps recruits recent graduates of selective universities to work in low-income high schools as college advisers. The program has grown from recruiting advisers from one school to working with 18 partner institutions to place over 500 advisers.

The Role of Higher Education in Economic Mobility

David Leonhardt, Washington Bureau Chief for the New York Times, moderated a second panel that focused on the role higher education plays in economic and social mobility in the U.S. (video available here). David Coleman, president of the College Board, which administers the SAT, PSAT, Advanced Placement (AP), and other standardized tests, explained that the College Board wants to hold itself accountable for increasing college opportunity for low-income students. It is experimenting with sending out paperwork-free fee waivers to qualified students and wants to work with partners to find ways to reach more low-income students of all achievement levels. Coleman pointed out that PSAT scores are a good predictor of SAT performance, so that data could be used to reach students earlier in their high school careers.

Jon Whitmore, CEO of ACT, Inc., echoed Coleman's commitment to reach more low-income students, explaining that the ACT is also working on its own college and career readiness programs. He noted that the number of students from low-income households taking the ACT has increased by 20 percent in five years. He expressed a desire to work with the College Board to make sure efforts to help low-income students with the college application process are complementary, not duplicative. Whitmore pointed out that because 15 states require students to take the ACT, they have a rich database that can be used to make efforts to reach low-income students more effective.

Nancy Cantor, outgoing President of Syracuse University and soon to be Chancellor of Rutgers, Newark, explained that there are two approaches to improving college access for low-income students. The first, exemplified by the ECO Project, is "person-based" and involves bringing individual students to the institution. The second approach, which Syracuse has tried to spearhead in its city, is "place-based," and involves making the community better to increase opportunity for all students. The Say Yes to Education Foundation takes a holistic approach to improving education in Syracuse; it offers legal and health care assistance; before, after, and summer school programs; and teacher development and support. Graduates of the Syracuse school district receive free tuition at one of 100 colleges and universities. Cantor explained that programs like Say Yes to Education hold the entire community accountable for the school district's success, but she emphasized that they should work in tandem with individual-focused efforts like the ECO Project.

William F. Kirwan, Chancellor and CEO of the University System of Maryland, asserted that the United States is facing a crisis of social mobility, and that higher education, though it provides benefits beyond increased earnings (improved quality of life, health, civic engagement, reduced crime rates), is the key to improving economic opportunity. He lamented the fact that the U.S., which prides itself as being the "land of opportunity, falls behind the United Kingdom, known for its rigid class system, in social mobility. He argued that we need affordable interventions, like the ECO Project, but that we also need to address barriers to college access in other ways, like the community-level intervention Cantor described.