Draft:Executive Order 12372

Executive Order 12372

Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs
Type	Executive order
Number	12372
President	Ronald Reagan
Signed	July 14, 1982 (1982-07-14)
Federal Register details
Publication date	July 16, 1982
Document citation	47 FR 30959

Executive Order 12372, titled "Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs," is a United States executive order signed by President Ronald Reagan on July 14, 1982. The order fundamentally restructured the system of intergovernmental relations in the United States by replacing the mandatory, federally-prescribed review process established under Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-95 with a voluntary, state-driven framework.^[1] The order represents a cornerstone of Reagan's New Federalism agenda, emphasizing state autonomy and the devolution of authority from the federal government to state and local elected officials.

Under EO 12372, states may choose whether to participate in an intergovernmental review process for federal assistance programs. Participating states designate a Single Point of Contact (SPOC)—typically housed in the governor's office, state planning agency, or budget office—to coordinate the review of federal grant applications and communicate state and local concerns to federal agencies.^[2] As of 2015, 28 states and territories maintained active SPOC designations, while the remainder opted out of the formal review process.^[3]

Background

Origins of intergovernmental review

The framework for intergovernmental review originated during the Great Society era of the 1960s, when federal assistance to state and local governments expanded dramatically. The proliferation of federal grant-in-aid programs created unprecedented coordination challenges among thousands of distinct governmental units, necessitating new mechanisms for horizontal and vertical coordination.^[4]

The concept of "intergovernmental relations" (IGR) emerged in the 1930s to describe the web of interactions among national, state, and local governing bodies.^[5] This analytical shift broadened the traditional focus on constitutional federalism to encompass practical coordination among more than 87,000 units of government operating within the American political system. The establishment of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR) in 1959 signaled federal acknowledgment that expanding federal programs required dedicated institutional attention to coordination challenges.^[5]

Legislative foundation

Two pivotal pieces of legislation in the 1960s established the statutory foundation for formal intergovernmental review.

The Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966 included Section 204, which mandated that applications for federal assistance for public works projects in metropolitan areas—including hospitals, airports, libraries, water and sewer facilities, and highways—be submitted for review to areawide agencies responsible for metropolitan planning.^[4] This provision explicitly linked federal funding to regional planning review, empowering designated regional bodies.

The Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968 broadened this principle through Section 401(a), which authorized the President to establish government-wide rules for the formulation, evaluation, and review of federal programs significantly impacting area and community development.^[6] This legislation provided the authority to move from project-specific review to a comprehensive national system of intergovernmental coordination.

OMB Circular A-95 (1969–1982)

In July 1969, the Office of Management and Budget issued Circular A-95 to implement these legislative mandates.^[5] The circular established a comprehensive Project Notification and Review System (PNRS) requiring local governments receiving federal funding for planning and development projects to undergo regional scrutiny through designated "clearinghouses"—typically Councils of Governments (COGs) or regional planning commissions.^[7]

The A-95 system created a hierarchical network of state clearinghouses and areawide clearinghouses covering metropolitan and non-metropolitan regions. States designated state clearinghouses to coordinate reviews, while metropolitan areas established areawide clearinghouses to address projects with regional implications. Regional councils and COGs served as primary areawide clearinghouses, positioning these bodies as critical gatekeepers in the federal funding process.^[5]

By the early 1980s, the A-95 system covered approximately 150 federal assistance programs and processed over 100,000 grant applications annually, with compliance costs estimated to exceed $50 million per year.^[8] However, the system faced significant criticism for creating administrative burden, inconsistent federal compliance with clearinghouse recommendations, and limited demonstrable effectiveness in improving project coordination.^[4]

Critiques of A-95

Researchers examining A-95 during its operational life struggled to produce solid evidence of its effectiveness.^[4] The system faced structural limitations including lack of enforceability—federal agencies frequently ignored clearinghouse recommendations—and coordination failures, as state-level politics often constrained independent regional analysis.^[9] A 1975 General Accounting Office report documented that only 138 of approximately 550 federal financial assistance programs were covered by PNRS, and that federal agencies engaged in direct development often failed to notify clearinghouses as required.^[5]

Despite these challenges, A-95 was instrumental in promoting metropolitan and regional planning organizations. It provided institutional framework and funding incentive for COGs to emerge and establish themselves as serious players in regional governance.^[10]

New Federalism context

President Reagan's New Federalism philosophy sought to limit federal government size and scope while devolving authority to states. This ideology was rooted in conviction that the national government had grown too intrusive, usurping powers and responsibilities protected by the Tenth Amendment.^[11] The administration viewed A-95 as exemplifying federal overreach—a centralized, bureaucratic system constraining state and local decision-making.

In his 1982 State of the Union address, Reagan unveiled federalism proposals including consolidating categorical grants into broader block grants to give states more discretion.^[12] The administration's critique emphasized that A-95 had become "highly bureaucratic and burdensome," with compliance costs exceeding $50 million annually but delivering "little positive return to state and local governments."^[8]

Issuance and provisions

Executive order signing

On July 14, 1982, President Reagan signed Executive Order 12372, titled "Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs."^[13] The order's stated purpose was "to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism by relying on State and local processes for the State and local government coordination and review."^[13] This language signaled a deliberate break from A-95's philosophy: whereas A-95 implemented a uniform, federally-designed process, EO 12372 explicitly deferred to processes created and managed by states themselves.

Section 7 of the order terminated the 1968 Presidential Memorandum serving as legal basis for Circular A-95 and instructed OMB to revoke the circular in its entirety.^[13] While a transition clause required federal agencies to continue complying with existing A-95 regulations until new rules could be issued, the message was unequivocal: the era of federally-mandated uniform review had ended.

Core provisions

The operational framework of EO 12372 established several key provisions fundamentally altering intergovernmental review.

State autonomy and voluntary participation: States are permitted, but not required, to participate in the intergovernmental review process. Each state may design its own review procedures in consultation with local general-purpose governments, rather than following federally-mandated frameworks.^[13] This provision effectively replaced the single national PNRS with potentially 50 state-specific review systems.

Single Point of Contact (SPOC): Participating states designate a single entity—the SPOC—to serve as the coordinating body for intergovernmental review. SPOCs are typically housed in governor's offices, state planning agencies, or budget offices.^[14]

Program selection flexibility: States may select which federal assistance programs to subject to review, tailoring the process to state and local priorities. Section 3(b) allows states to "exclude certain Federal programs from review and comment" at their discretion.^[13]

Strengthened federal response obligations: For states establishing review processes, the order imposes stronger obligations on federal agencies than A-95 required. Federal officials must "make efforts to accommodate State and local elected officials' concerns" and, if unable to accommodate, must "explain the bases for their decision in a timely manner."^[13]

Emphasis on elected officials: Unlike A-95's focus on technical planning bodies, EO 12372 repeatedly emphasizes consultation with state and local "elected officials."^[13] Section 2(f) directs federal agencies to discourage "the reauthorization or creation of any planning organization which is Federally-funded...and which is not adequately representative of, or accountable to, State or local" elected officials.^[13] This shift effectively re-centered intergovernmental conversation from technical planning assessment to political consultation.

Implementation

Timeline and transition

The transition from A-95 to EO 12372 occurred in phases:

• July 14, 1982: Executive Order 12372 signed by President Reagan
• November 8, 1982: OMB issued Bulletin 82-15 providing interim guidance
• June 24, 1983: Federal agencies published final implementing regulations
• 1983–1984: States designated SPOCs and established review processes^[15]

During the transition period, federal agencies continued following existing A-95 procedures until new implementing regulations were finalized.^[8]

SPOC system operation

The typical review process under EO 12372 operates through the following steps:

1. Applicant notification: Grant applicants contact their state SPOC as early as possible to determine if their proposed project is subject to state review and to understand procedural requirements
2. Application submission: Applicants submit grant applications to federal agencies and simultaneously provide copies to the SPOC
3. State review period: SPOCs have 60 days to review applications and transmit any state recommendations to the federal agency
4. Federal agency consideration: While not mandatory for federal agencies to accept SPOC recommendations, agencies must provide "adequate opportunity for consultation" and "make efforts to accommodate" state concerns to the extent permitted by law^[16]

State participation patterns

As of December 2015, 28 states and territories had established SPOCs and participated in the intergovernmental review process.^[17] Participating jurisdictions include:

Western states: Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah

Midwest states: Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, North Dakota

Southern states: Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, South Carolina, West Virginia

Northeastern states: New Hampshire, Rhode Island

Territories: American Samoa, District of Columbia, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands^[17]

States not participating in EO 12372 do not maintain formal SPOC review processes. In non-participating states, applicants submit applications directly to federal agencies without state-level coordination, or attempt their own outreach to relevant state and local reviewing agencies—a decentralized and often ad-hoc approach.^[18]

Impact on regional planning

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

The transition from A-95 to EO 12372 had profound implications for Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). Under A-95, MPOs often served dual roles as both transportation planning bodies and areawide clearinghouses with authority to review the full spectrum of federal grant applications affecting regional development. This position granted MPOs significant convening power and influence over federal decision-making beyond transportation.^[19]

With A-95's rescission and EO 12372's adoption, MPOs experienced bifurcation of functions. While their role in transportation planning was strengthened through the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991, their broader regional coordination and federal grant review authority diminished. ISTEA enhanced MPO authority over transportation project selection but eliminated the federal requirement for areawide planning review of non-transportation federal programs. This shift reflected a narrowing of MPO jurisdiction to transportation-specific matters.^[10][20]

ISTEA fundamentally transformed MPOs from advisory planners to powerful programmers by granting direct programming authority over significant federal funding streams, particularly the Surface Transportation Program (STP) and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ). The act required MPOs to develop fiscally-constrained long-range transportation plans and Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs), forcing them to make pragmatic trade-offs rather than compile unfunded "wish lists."^[19]

Councils of Governments

Regional entities such as Councils of Governments (COGs) experienced mixed effects from the transition. Under A-95, COGs gained federal legitimacy and resources through their designated clearinghouse function, which provided stable purpose and leverage over local governments and project applicants.^[5]

The removal of the A-95 mandate triggered what analysts called a "shakedown" or "sorting-out" era for COGs. Those heavily dependent on the A-95 review function for funding and relevance struggled to survive; many either vanished or dramatically changed focus.^[10] Viable COGs adapted by:

• Refocusing on transportation planning coordination as MPO host agencies
• Providing rural transit administration and mobility management
• Offering technical assistance to municipalities on grant applications
• Maintaining regional data collection and analysis systems
• Establishing joint purchasing programs to achieve economies of scale^[10]

Many COGs successfully repositioned themselves within the new landscape. For example, seven of Connecticut's nine regional councils of governments serve as MPOs for urbanized areas, while two rural COGs provide regional transportation planning under state contract.^[10] In regions like Arizona and Georgia, COGs continued supporting state transportation agencies, coordinating transit planning, assisting local governments with grant writing, and maintaining regional data systems.^[10]

Regional planning transformation

The A-95 to EO 12372 transition reflects a fundamental shift in American federalism regarding regional coordination. A-95 embodied an expansive federal vision of coordinated regional development backed by mandatory procedures and federal authority. EO 12372 represented retrenchment from this vision, substituting state discretion and subsidiarity for federal mandate.^[4]

The elimination of mandatory comprehensive regional planning requirements under A-95, combined with weakened COG authority under EO 12372, created what some scholars characterize as a governance vacuum for multi-sectoral regional coordination.^[21] The result is a modern American landscape of regional governance characterized by robust, federally-mandated transportation planning coexisting with far more fragmented and voluntary approaches to coordinating other interconnected regional issues such as housing, economic development, and environmental protection.^[10]

Current status and relevance

Contemporary application

As of 2025, Executive Order 12372 remains the foundational policy for intergovernmental review of federal programs in the United States. Federal agencies continue applying EO 12372 requirements to covered programs:

• The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) identifies programs covered by EO 12372 and directs applicants in SPOC states to comply with state review procedures^[22]
• The National Institutes of Health (NIH) requires construction and modernization grant applicants in SPOC states to provide application copies to SPOCs at least 60 days before submission^[23]
• The USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service maintains updated SPOC lists and incorporates EO 12372 requirements into grant solicitations^[24]

The Office of Management and Budget maintains and disseminates the official list of state SPOCs to all federal agencies.^[13] Grant applicants indicate their EO 12372 compliance status on Standard Form 424, the common federal grant application form.^[25]

Effectiveness assessment

Academic research on EO 12372's effectiveness suggests variable outcomes. In participating states, the SPOC process aims to avoid duplication of effort, ensure federally-funded projects comply with state and local plans, carry out state administration policies, and determine impacts on state budgets.^[26] When properly resourced and integrated into state operations, SPOCs can be important mechanisms for maximizing federal resources and increasing coordination among state agencies.

One study examining federal grant awards in Kentucky found that local government administrative and political capacity had different effects on grant success for programs covered by EO 12372 compared to non-covered programs, suggesting that clearinghouse review processes influence federal award decisions.^[27]

However, the system's primary weakness remains its voluntary nature. The absence of SPOCs in many states creates uneven geographic coverage for grant applicants and significant gaps in intergovernmental coordination. Even in participating states, effectiveness depends heavily on administrative capacity and political commitment of designated SPOC offices.^[28]

Renewed relevance

Recent developments have sparked renewed interest in EO 12372's potential value. In August 2025, a new executive order on federal grantmaking oversight added higher-level review, plain-language requirements, and new oversight procedures to the federal grant process.^[29]

This development prompted observations that EO 12372 may become more relevant in 2025 than it has been in decades.^[30] Analysis suggests several factors contributing to renewed relevance:

• As federal oversight tightens, EO 12372 provides a mechanism to ensure local and regional priorities remain central to decision-making
• With shifts toward pass-through funding models where states serve as primary administrators, EO 12372 provides institutional structure for state-level grant coordination
• The SPOC network offers direct, institutionalized communication channels between federal agencies and state governments—critical for problem-solving and clarifying expectations in complex, rapidly evolving grants environments^[31]

See also

• United States portal
• Politics portal

• Federalism in the United States
• New Federalism
• Office of Management and Budget
• Metropolitan planning organization
• Council of Governments
• Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968
• Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act
• Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations
• Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
• Block grant (United States)

References

1. "Executive Order 12372—Intergovernmental review of Federal programs". National Archives and Records Administration. 15 August 2016. Retrieved October 30, 2025.
2. "Executive Order 12372 Overview". State of Delaware Budget Office. Retrieved October 30, 2025.
3. "State Single Points of Contact for Executive Order 12372" (PDF). Office of Justice Programs. December 2015. Retrieved October 30, 2025.
4. Weir, Margaret (2021). "OMB Circular A-95 Revisited: Rethinking Midcentury Attempts at National Planning Policy". Journal of Planning History. 20 (4): 331–349. doi:10.1177/15385132211047520.
5. U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (1977). Regional Decision Making: New Strategies for Substate Districts (PDF) (Report). Government Printing Office.
6. "State Single Point of Contact Regulations" (PDF). State of Delaware. Retrieved October 30, 2025.
7. Regional Development Plan (PDF) (Report). Capital District Regional Planning Commission. 1978.
8. "Airport Improvement Program Policy and Guidance Letter 82-03" (PDF). Federal Aviation Administration. 1982. Retrieved October 30, 2025.
9. Nevada Intergovernmental Review Process (PDF) (Report). Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau. 1979.
10. National Association of Development Organizations (2016). Regional Transportation Planning: Roles and Relationships (PDF) (Report).
11. "Executive Order 12612: Federalism". Teaching American History. Retrieved October 30, 2025.
12. "Arkansas State Clearinghouse Regulations". Arkansas.gov. Retrieved October 30, 2025.
13. "Executive Order 12372". National Archives and Records Administration. 15 August 2016. Retrieved October 30, 2025.
14. "Executive Order 12372 Overview". Delaware Budget Office.
15. "Arkansas State Clearinghouse Regulations".
16. "Intergovernmental Review". Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. 5 June 2023. Retrieved October 30, 2025.
17. "State Single Points of Contact for Executive Order 12372" (PDF). Office of Justice Programs. December 2015. Retrieved October 30, 2025.
18. "Executive Order 12372 Procedures". University of California, Berkeley Sponsored Projects Office. Retrieved October 30, 2025.
19. Sciara, Gian-Claudia (2015). Metropolitan Transportation Planning: Lessons from the Past, Institutions for the Future (PDF) (Thesis). University of California, Berkeley.
20. Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Transportation Planning (PDF) (Report). Federal Highway Administration.
21. Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Transportation Planning (PDF) (Report).
22. "SAMHSA Intergovernmental Review". 5 June 2023.
23. "NIH Grants Policy Statement: Executive Orders". National Institutes of Health.
24. "State Single Points of Contact List" (PDF). USDA APHIS.
25. "EO 12372 Procedures".
26. "Delaware SPOC Regulations" (PDF).
27. Reeves, H. Clyde (1988). "Executive Order 12372 and Intergovernmental Review". Public Administration Review.
28. "EO 12372 Procedures".
29. "New Executive Order Increases Oversight of Award and Performance of Federal Grants". Cooley LLP. September 4, 2025.
30. Hanson, Mark (2025). "Why Executive Order 12372 Should Matter More Than It Does".
31. "Why EO 12372 Should Matter More".

External links

• Executive Order 12372 – Full text at Wikisource
• Executive Order 12372 at the National Archives and Records Administration
• Office of Management and Budget
• Current SPOC List from the Office of Justice Programs

Category:1982 in American law Category:1982 in American politics Category:Executive orders of Ronald Reagan Category:Federalism in the United States Category:Intergovernmental relations in the United States Category:Urban planning in the United States Category:Regional planning in the United States Category:United States Office of Management and Budget Category:Government grants