The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

Curriculum Evaluation
Summer 2009
Dr. Dugan

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

By definition, an unfunded mandate is when a new piece of federal legislation would require another government agency, or the private sector, to perform functions for which it has no funds. For the most part, states, local government and the private sector have complied with federal conditions as the "small price to pay" to receive federal funding. In recent years however, that funding is decreasing and the mandates are becoming more and more intrusive and expensive. The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR) uses the phrase "federally induced costs", which is a nice umbrella term that refers to all unfunded costs that the government imposes on states, local governments and the private sector. State and local governments have had to re-arrange priorities in order to comply with federal mandates. Some states have even complained of being in a "forced trade off" between funding federal mandates and funding local necessities such as increased education spending.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995(UMRA) was enacted to avoid imposing such unfunded federal mandates on state and local governments and the private sector. It was a response to the outcry of concern from many in regards to the costs put upon them by mandates. UMRA was a tough fought battle that stretched on for fifteen days and forced forty-four roll call votes. The House of Representatives debated a companion bill and disposed of thirty amendments before reaching passage. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 was signed into law by President William Jefferson Clinton on March 22, 1995.

In summary, UMRA requires committees in Congress, when writing new legislation that would impose new requirements, duties or costs onto states, local government and the private sector, to first get an estimate of those additional costs from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The CBO must then publish a report of the estimates to Congress. Under this act, any mandate that would cost state or local government more than $50 million dollars a year or the private sector more than $100 million dollars a year (adjusted annually), would then be in violation of UMRA. Congress must then decide to either change the bill or to fund it further. According to the CBO, of the almost 5,000 bill proposals reviewed by them from 1996-2004, only 12% contained mandates and therefore were not in compliance with UMRA.

Certain types of federal requirements and programs do not fall under UMRA’s definition of an unfunded mandate; in particular, federal grants. Two often mentioned examples close to the hearts of educators would be the No Child Left Behind Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Act. These laws require school districts to design and implement statewide achievement tests and to prepare individualized education plans (IEP’s) for disabled children. These acts were very expensive to implement and therefore spurred quite a few lawsuits. Two of the most well known lawsuits are Pontiac v. Spellings and Connecticut v. The State Department of Education. In both lawsuits, the plaintiffs lost. According to the highest court in our country, the reason why these acts are not considered unfunded mandates is because states can always choose not to accept the funding. The only way lawmakers can make up those costs is by raising taxes and cutting back on services.

In my opinion, the UMRA is a good start toward curbing unfunded mandates but, they will probably never go away. The federal government has states, local government and the private sector between the proverbial "rock and a hard place." Government has its agenda and schools today need the funding that comes with bills like NCLB. There is a saying, "If you always do what you have always done, then you will always get what you have always gotten." The push in education today is in the areas of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. We can’t teach "old school’ anymore. Students need computers, the internet, manipulatives, etc. to better understand those subjects and schools have to provide those materials in order for teachers to teach for the future. Teachers will also need professional development in those areas. In this economy, these things may seem like wants but they are really necessities. States need funding to make this a reality. Non-compliance is not an option. Curriculum and instruction in the future will have to be more precise and uniform. Curriculum evaluation will need to be more finely tuned. I think that the best we can hope for is some sort of compromise when NCLB is re-authorized. The government will need to work more closely with states to better understand their needs and concerns and education will need to re-invent itself to better prepare our students for the future.

References

Further information about the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 can be found at:

http://www.cbo.gov/pubs.cfm
http://www.epa.gov/lawregs/lawsumra.html
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill
http://www.useconomy.about.com
http://www.ed.gov