PROVIDENCE – Like clockwork, the Rhode Island Foundation rolled out its agenda for investing some $1.1 billion in “big ideas” on Tuesday morning, Oct. 19, in a presentation given by Neil Steinberg, president and CEO of the Rhode Island Foundation, and his two principal collaborators, Linda Katz, co-founder and policy director of the Economic Policy Institute, and Michael DiBiase, the president and CEO of the Rhode Island Public Expenditure Council.

The four guiding principles for the recommendations were equity, sustainability, impact, and process.

Using a 15-member steering committee to develop consensus around spending plans, the “Make It Happen” recommendations included:

• $405 million investment in housing

• $255 million investment in behavioral health

• $205 million investment in workforce development

• $100 million investment in small business

• $50 million investment in neighborhood trusts

• $50 million investment in immediate relief from problems exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic

• In addition, the “Make It Happen” included recommendations to create a new office within the Governor’s office to provide oversight, accountability, and implementation capacity to oversee how the $1.068 billion is spent.

The real audience
The day before the “public” rollout of the “Make It Happen” plan, the plan was unveiled in a private gathering to the true audience of decision-makers, including Gov. Dan McKee, the R.I. Congressional delegation, and the R.I. Senate President and the R.I. House Speaker.

The details of the plan were contained in a 110-page glossy report, which laid out the investment recommendations for a portfolio of spending. “The goal of this initiative was to develop three to five bold, transformative, sustainable, and equitable ideas for investment of the $1.1 billion in flexible federal ARPA funds allocated to Rhode Island," the report said.

Left out of the spending equation, notably, were big ideas to address the threat of climate change and spending to address the growing health care delivery crisis.

Four days before the release of the “Making It Happen” spending recipe, Gov. McKee and Lt. Gov. Sabina Matos released their own version of recommended investments, calling it a working plan, “Rhode Island 2030 " – not that there was any public discussion about the potential competition between the two approaches.

Collaboration
The collaboration between the Rhode Island Public Expenditure Council and the Economic Progress Institute was hailed as a breakthrough accomplishment, bringing together policy and advocacy organizations that often operate at different ends of the political spectrum, with the goal of finding consensus and common ground.

[Of course, only ConvergenceRI remembered the first such collaboration between RIPEC and EPI, which occurred back in 1995, and included then RIPEC’s leader Gary Sasse, United Way’s Jane Nugent, and Nancy Gewirtz and Linda Katz, among others, who together successfully crafted new legislation around welfare benefits. DiBiase said that he had no knowledge of the previous collaboration; Katz said she vaguely recalled it.]

The view from the media scrum
Following the half-hour presentation on Tuesday morning, Steinberg, DiBiase and Katz answered questions asked by a small scrum of reporters, including WPRI’s Ted Nesi, The Public Radio’s Ian Donnis, and ConvergenceRI, following the end of the programmed remarks.

Here is the transcript from the brief media scrum, which proved to be illuminating, from ConvergenceRI’s perspective:

STEINBERG: [talking about the responsibilities of the new office of accountability recommended to be established in the Governor’s office at the end of his prepared remarks] …The responsibility is two-fold; one is the traditional, to know where the money is going, and to make sure that there is accountability, so everybody knows where it is being spent.

But, easily as important is the responsibility that the spending is expedited, to make sure that the money gets out the door, and that it gets used for the people that need it as quickly as possible.

As I said earlier, the worse case scenario is that we are sitting here, five years from now, and we don’t know where the money has gone. The other worse case scenario is that we are sitting here in two and half years and we don’t know how much has been spent or whether too little has been spent.

So, we are recommending that we [increase] the capacity of legislative oversight and community oversight to do this.

That’s the wrap; that‘s the report. We hope that you will take a look at the report. What we think distinguishes this report is the rigor and analysis in the public input. It is all in here, and we look forward to supporting and working with our state leaders how to make it happen.

We will now take questions [asking Chris Barnett, the Rhode Island Foundation’s public relations director, to facilitate the scrum].

ConvergenceRI: Are you ready to answer questions? One of the things that seems remarkable about this spending recommendation is that you relied on local experts, you didn’t go out and hire a consulting firm to do the work. You did the work yourself; can you talk about why it was important to rely on local expertise?
STEINBERG: Because we have it. These are funds for the people of Rhode Island. We’ve got a committee that was very knowledgeable.

It was not hard to put together people that could provide input, working with EPI and RIPEC. There was some element of looking outside to see how other states are using the [ARPA] money. But we have the expertise and knowledge inside [Rhode Island], and never even considered the use of consultants or going outside.

ConvergenceRI: Do you think that will serve as a precedent going forward, that you will be less dependent on outside technical experts to come up with plans for Rhode Island?
STEINBERG: We do not control what goes forward. When we need expertise, we get expertise. When we have it, we use it.

A question from another member of the news media about the focus of the workforce development investments:
DiBIASE: I think that the funds that are recommended for the Rhode Island Reconnect program for the next year are to get us back to the employment level that we were at before the pandemic.

I think what we are trying to do with the other work development funds is actually to do a major upgrade of skills, so it is actually more of a longer-term investment, trying to create a big burst to [achieve] a larger number of workers at a high level of skills and education.

NESI: What kind of timeline should Rhode Islanders expect before this money is actually spent – 2026 is actually a long time away. Do you think it will not all be spent until then?
STEINBERG: We hope that it will be done expeditiously. Again, we are making recommendations; we don’t control the process.

When we presented the plan yesterday to the Speaker and the Senate President, they were very bullish on it. There will be Finance Committee hearings; others have put in ideas, and they will come up with a process.

I would expect, without being told, that during the next budget cycle, that starts after January [of 2022] that this money will start to be allocated.

Hopefully, we put in planning money, so that it can be planned; it can’t all be used in the first year, it should be planned out. Capacity needs to be built.

Media question. What was the response of the Congressional delegation?
STEINBERG: Appreciative, very supportive. The delegation was very much focused on oversight, about accountability for the dollars. The Governor and the General Assembly leaders, again, were appreciative. They will need to figure out how to go to the next step, to the action.

We’re pretty comfortable that these are pretty solid, very solid recommendations, but there could be plenty of others. And, we need to have a process for that.

I thought it was a welcomed reception; they knew it was coming; they have been waiting for it, and they were very positive in their response.

Media question: Can you discuss short-term versus long-term spending priorities?
STEINBERG: As you can see, other than that $50 million for immediate relief, ours is focused on the long-term.

That debate over the short term spending will probably continue; it is probably a reasonable debate, but we are really focused on the long-term. And, actually, I think we should all be proud that we are, collectively, taking the time to study it, and to make a good, long-term plan. And again, I can’t emphasize enough, building the capacity to actually be able to move these immense amounts of dollars [into action].

ConvergenceRI: You addressed behavioral health care and I think, implicit in that, was the realization that reimbursements for providers for behavioral health care in Rhode Island are a continuing problem, in terms of being able to train and maintain and keep quality staff [Linda Katz nods her head in agreement.]
I was wondering, in terms of the overall health care delivery system, there was nothing in the plan that I saw to address the current crisis in health care delivery. Did I read that wrong? Could you talk about that?
STEINBERG: I think, when we set out to do this, we wanted to be focused and to pick areas where we can be transformative. We can’t do everything.

So, curing the health care system, that you know better than others, is so big. It was not really an objective that came up when we worked on this.

Behavioral health, and the crisis there, and mental health, and the record opioid addiction and all that, impacts the workforce, it impacts the well being of the state of Rhode Island, and it rose to the top. So, it was not the intent that this [spending recommendation plan] was going to fix everything in the health care system.

Media question. Was the spending plan a response the COVID pandemic?
STEINBERG: Not specifically. A lot of this is root cause, so as you know, housing is one of the root causes of poor health, along with the esocial determinants, behavioral health. Certainly, if we can get more people jobs and put them to work…

There is separate education money that we did not talk about, which has its own separate allocation, and hopefully, we will address some of that. And yes, some of that neighborhood trust [investment] could address that.

NESI: How do you see that neighborhood trust money working?
STEINBERG: The term is place-based as the priority. I will let Mike DiBiase talk about that.

DiIBIASE: I think it is going to be up to the communities to organize and to partner and to create proposals that make sense to be funded.

I think it is a very worthy approach. We need to think about… For decades, we have basically provided funding for the community to provide services, to disadvantaged communities. And, the result of that is that the communities do not develop their own institutional capacity, and this is a way that they could do that.

It is definitely worth pursuing, but it will be a bottom-up approach. People will have to organize…..

STEINBERG: [interrupting] …and one possibility is that they knit together what we’ve recommended. So, while these are individual recommendations, certainly, looking at certain census tracts and ZIP codes, [you can] attack housing challenges, behavioral health challenges, workforce development challenges, so you can lift up a neighborhood or a section.

ConvergenceRI: ONE Neighborhood Builders has developed a pattern of investment focused on community needs that has proven very successful. They have attracted $8 million in an investment from Blue Meridian Partners, which I believe you are holding that money for them. Would they serve as a potential model for this kind of neighborhood trust?
STEINBERG: I would say that they are in the process of doing everything you said. It is still very early in the process. It is potential example. I don’t know if it will become a model. But it is an example.
[Editor’s Note: See link below to ConvergenceRI story, “Investing in neighborhoods and residents.”]

ConvergenceRI: One more question, about climate change. I did not see anything in “Make It Happen” about addressing the immediacy or the long-term investments needed to combat climate change threats. Was that a purposeful exclusion? Or was that just because you didn’t see it as part of your purview.
STEINBERG: Two things, It didn’t bubble up as much as other topics did. But, given the Infrastructure bill around the corner [in Congress], that would be something that would be addressed in the Infrastructure bill.