ezec initiative history two

History of the Round II & III Empowerment Zone & Enterprise Community Initiative (cont'd)

USDA received 169 applications prior to the October 9 deadline. Of these, 9 were declared ineligible. The remaining 160 applications were reviewed by an inter-departmental team of experts. The reviews considered the openness of the strategic planning process, the comprehensiveness of the strategic plan, the effectiveness of the performance benchmarks, the extent to which community residents will be an active part of plan implementation, and the geographic diversity of the applicants. On the whole, the strategic plans received were of exceptionally high quality. The applicants included 19 Round I Enterprise Communities that sought to be upgraded to Empowerment Zone status. In addition, they included 58 Round I Champion Communities and at least 28 communities that included Indian reservation lands either wholly or partially.

The statute authorizing Round II ECs was not specific regarding the date or process by which they were to be designated. However, because of the great expense to communities and the government of conducting another national competition when a large number of high quality strategic plans were already on hand, Secretary Glickman decided to name all 25 Round II EZs and ECs at this time, rather than delay implementation of their strategic plans for another 9-12 months.

The five new rural EZs have a combined total of 83,849 residents. The average poverty rate in the four poverty-based EZs is over 37 percent. Shannon County, SD, which is included in the Oglala Sioux Empowerment Zone, is the poorest county in the United States. Lake Aggasiz, ND, qualified on the basis of population "emigration," which was approximately 25 percent during 1980-95. The five rural EZs range in area from 449 square miles (Southernmost Illinois Empowerment Zone) to 1,000 square miles (Oglala Sioux Empowerment Zone). By comparison, the state of Rhode Island has an area of 1,054 square miles. Their population ranges from 3,396 (Lake Aggasiz Empowerment Zone) to 23,900 (Southwest Georgia United Empowerment Zone).

Altogether, the 25 Round II EZs and ECs have an average poverty rate of just under 35 percent. They average 15,349 residents, with Metlakatla, AK, being the smallest (1,469 residents) and Middle Rio Grande, TX, the most populous (29,724). The 25 communities average 560 square miles in size, with 8 having more than 900 square miles. The smallest is Lewiston, ME, which has 1 square mile. In addition to the Lake Aggasiz Empowerment Zone, one EC (Wichita County, KS) based its eligibility on emigration rather than poverty.

One Round I Enterprise Community (Southwest Georgia United Empowerment Zone) was upgraded to Round II Empowerment Zone status. Two of the new rural EZs and 9 of the new ECs were Round I Champion Communities. Two of the new EZs (Oglala Sioux Empowerment Zone, SD, and Desert Community Empowerment Zone, CA) include Indian reservation lands. Eight of the new ECs also include reservation lands. Round II EZ/EC grants will be administered by USDA Rural Development and will be available to the winning communities later in 1999, as soon as implementing regulations are published. The USDA will also offer Champion Community status to all Round II applicant communities who agree to enter into an agreement with USDA to implement their strategic plans in accord with the principles of the Community Empowerment program and report regularly on progress in achieving their performance benchmarks.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001 was signed on December 2, 2000 and includes provisions relating to the Empowerment Zone and Enterprise Community Program. Among the provisions was the creation of two rural Round III Empowerment Zones. On January 11, 2002, USDA Secretary Veneman announced the Aroostook County Empowerment Zone (Maine) and the FUTURO Empowerment Zone (Texas) as the two new Round III Zones. Aroostook County is a Round I Champion Community while FUTURO is a Round I Champion Community and a Round II Enterprise Community.

The eligibility requirements for Round III were the same as the Round II requirements. The act did not appropriate grant funds [sic] as had been available to the previous EZs and ECs, but did make available a package of tax benefits similar to Round II.

Fifty-five applications were received prior to the October 1, 2001 deadline. They were reviewed by a departmental team of experts. The Round III reviews also considered the openness of the strategic planning process, the comprehensiveness of the strategic plan, the effectiveness of the performancebenchmarks, the extent to which community residents will be an active part of plan implementation, the inclusiveness of diverse partnerships and the extent to which the applicant sought leveraging opportunities.

The applicants included 12 Round I and II Enterprise Communities that sought to be upgraded to Empowerment Zone status. In addition, they included 24 Round I and II Champion Communities and at least 10 communities that included Indian reservation lands either wholly or partially. Here is an excerpt from the press release from the USDA announcing the award:

USDA ANNOUNCES TWO NEW EMPOWERMENT ZONE COMMUNITIES

Educational and Economic Improvements Top List of Goals Set By
Northern Maine and South Texas Communities

WASHINGTON, January 11, 2002--Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman today announced the selection of Northern Maine Development Commission, Inc. (Aroostook County) in Maine and Middle Rio Grande FUTURO Communities in Texas to receive the designation as the latest rural Empowerment Zones (EZs). The selection of these two communities brings to 10 the total number of rural Empowerment Zones designated since Congress initiated the program in the early 1990s.