Congressional change in 2006: implications for disability programs.

Background

Politics determines who gets what, how much, where, when, and for how long. Of course this refers to funding of programs, special Congressional earmarks, and to the distribution of government resources.

Control of the U.S. Congress changed as a result of the 2006 mid-term elections. The Democratic Party took a majority lead in both the House of Representatives and the Senate for the first time since 1994. Policy experts have a perception of what is likely to happen to the distribution of resources as a result of the change, raising the question as to the implications for federal funding of physical activity and recreation programs for persons with disabilities.

Equation for Allocations of Fiscal Resources

There are three branches of government: Legislative (Congress), Executive (President), and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) which dictates the amount of dollars in the U.S. Treasury. A change in the majority and minority status in the legislature is only one aspect of the equation with regard to federal program funding. The purpose of this Legislative Update is an attempt to predict the allocation of funding for physical education and recreation programs dealing with persons with disabilities as a result of the recent congressional changes.

Present Status in the 109th Congress

Currently, funding of physical activity and recreation programs for persons with disabilities is housed in Part D (Personnel Preparation Programs) of the Individuals with Disabilities' Education Improvement Act (IDEIA). Funding for recreation programs is located within the Recreation Services Administration program (RSA). and programs that provide federal financial support for physical education are found in the Physical Education for Progress Act (PEP) through specific legislation and Congressional Earmarks. A description of each of these programs, past and present, follows.

Office of Management and Budget--tracks the dollars in the U.S. Treasury from tax revenues and from expenditures. When expenditure exceeds fiscal resources debt is caused that needs to be repaid and is not looked upon favorably by most Americans. The administration in the 107th, 108th, and 109th Congress ran deficits which significantly increasing the national debt also bad.

To help to bring the budget back in balance, a Program Assessment Review Technique (PART) was used to get rid of unaccountable programs. While the Republicans' mantra used to be fiscally conservative and the Democrats were thought of as big spenders, their roles have been reversed. Thus, funds for new programs and increases for old ones most likely will not occur as a result of a change in legislative control.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, Part D--was temporarily eliminated in 1993 as a result of changes in the legislature but restored by the same party through the appropriations process. The IDEIA, Part D has been flat funded for more than a decade which actually represents a 35-40% service cut because of inflation during this period of time. Since 1992 flat funding and subsequent diminished value resulted from both Democratic or Republican administrations, as well as bipartisan efforts within Congress during this period. During the 1997 reauthorization of IDEIA, a Democratic administration and a Republican Congress dropped funding for the physical education and recreation parts of IDEA.

Recreation Services Administration (RSA) (Recreation Programs)--during the 108th and 109th Congress, the President zeroed out the RSA Recreation Program, based on PART, where evaluation of each program is made and determination of the value of the program determines its continuation or discontinuation. The same party, however, has restored the program through the appropriations process. It is unlikely Democrats will expand funding for the program. Thus, the best case scenario would be a continuation of flat funding (i.e., service cut or real cut in dollars due to inflation).

Physical Education for Progress Act--the Republican White House of the 108th and 109th Congress also zeroed out PEP funding based again on the PART evaluation program. But the Republican Congress restored the program mainly because an advocate for physical education was the most powerful member of the Senate (i.e., Chair of the Appropriations Committee). He is no longer the chair of this committee and it is unlikely Democrats will expand funding of this program. Thus, the best case scenario would be for flat funding (i.e., service cut).

Earmarks--are non-competitive grants provided by Congressmen for a special project in their state or congressional district. Some are valid grants providing beneficial programs to persons with disabilities, others are not. Earmarks have grown significantly to approximately 14,000 in number over the 108th and 109th Congress held by Republicans. There is bipartisan rhetoric for reducing earmarks; however, action thus far is limited. The majority party, Democrats in the 111th Congress, have greater access to earmarks than the minority party, the Republicans. Thus, physical education and recreation persons who reside in minority districts will have less access to earmarks than in the previous 12 years.

What Physical Education and Recreation Advocates Can Do--there is an unprecedented opportunity for physical educators and recreation specialists of children with disabilities to demonstrate what can make a difference in reducing the effects of disability and prevention of secondary conditions. Physical activity is associated with prevention of nearly one third of health care expenses as a result of chronic health conditions. There continues to be discussion regarding the enormous cost of health care for people, especially those with disabilities often due to inactivity. This initiative is bipartisan. Newt Gringrich, former Speaker of the House of Representatives, recently advocated for daily physical education in the schools as a means of contributing to increased health.

Model physical education programs are needed providing measurable health benefits (i.e., generalization of acquired skills required by many states to having a more physically active life style) and the subsequent long-term participation in one's community--such programs and data need to be shared with the Congress. Evidence-based programs (showing measured results with replicable procedures) are also needed to provide a foundation for federal investments. Physical education and recreation specialists who have developed and continue to conduct successful programs addressing these public health issues must relay these outcomes to their local, state, and federal legislators in the hope of increasing funding for physical activity and recreation programs in the long run.

Legislative Update is a regular feature of PALAESTRA, providing the reader with updates and analyses of current federal and state legislative activities relative to public policy development of interest to professionals and others interested in adapted physical activity. Robert W. Arnhold, Coordinator, Adapted Physical Activity Program & Center on Disability and Health, Room 15 Stoner Educational Complex, Department of Exercise and Rehabilitative Sciences, Slippery Rock State University, Slippery Rock, PA 16057; [phone], [phone] (FAX); [e-mail]; and David A. Auxter, Legislative Chairperson of the National Consortium for Physical Education and Recreation for Individuals with Disabilities, 35 E. St. NW, Apt. 607, Washington, DC 20001-1518; [phone]; dauxter@bellatlantic, net; are Department Editors.