Home › Directory
Reference directory
A directory of regional commissions
“Regional commission” is not one organisation but a whole family of them, at two very different scales. At the top are the nine federal regional commissions and authorities. Beneath them sit hundreds of state and sub-state bodies — and in several states those bodies are, quite literally, named “Regional Commission.” This directory maps both tiers, with verified counts and links to the primary sources behind them.
How this directory is organised
- Federal commissions — the nine national federal–state partnerships, each with its own profile.
- Bodies named “Regional Commission” — the state systems whose members actually carry the name.
- State systems A–Z — the dominant regional-body network in each state we could verify, with counts and type.
Federal regional commissions and authorities
These are the best-documented regional commissions in the United States: standing federal–state partnerships created by statute, each covering a defined multi-state region. Six are active; three have been authorised in law but are not yet operating. Full detail is on each profile and on the federal commissions overview.
| Commission or authority | Region | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Appalachian Regional Commission | 13 states, 423 counties | Active |
| Delta Regional Authority | 8 states of the Mississippi Delta | Active |
| Denali Commission | Rural and remote Alaska | Active |
| Northern Border Regional Commission | Rural ME, NH, VT, NY | Active |
| Southwest Border Regional Commission | Border counties of AZ, CA, NM, TX | Active |
| Southeast Crescent Regional Commission | 7 southeastern states | Active |
| Great Lakes Authority | Great Lakes watershed, 8 states | Not yet active |
| Mid-Atlantic Regional Commission | DE and parts of MD, PA | Not yet active |
| Southern New England Regional Commission | RI, MA, part of CT | Not yet active |
State bodies literally named “Regional Commission”
The federal commissions are not the only bodies to use the name. Several states run their own networks of multi-county planning and development organisations, and in a handful of them those organisations are officially titled “Regional Commission.” These are creatures of state law and local membership — entirely separate from the federal commissions, and from one another.
Georgia
All 12 of Georgia's regional bodies are officially titled “Regional Commission” — the cleanest example in the country.
State systemVirginia
Six of the 21 planning district commissions have adopted the name “Regional Commission” under a statute that expressly allows the substitution.
Vermont
Four regional planning commissions carry the name — Bennington County, Windham, Mount Ascutney, and Two Rivers-Ottauquechee.
State systems, A–Z
Below the federal tier, nearly every state operates some network of regional councils, planning commissions, or development districts. The names differ from state to state — council of governments, area development district, regional planning commission, regional commission — but the work is broadly the same: multi-jurisdiction planning, grant administration, and technical help for local governments. The table lists the dominant system in each state we were able to verify, with its count and type.
| State | System | Count | What they are |
|---|---|---|---|
| Georgia | Regional Commissions | 12 | Statewide multi-county planning & development; membership is mandatory for every county and city |
| Virginia | Planning District Commissions | 21 | Planning district commissions; 6 use the name “Regional Commission,” 1 “Regional Council” |
| Vermont | Regional Planning Commissions | 11 | Political subdivisions of the state; several styled “Regional Commission” |
| Connecticut | Councils of Governments | 9 | Regional COGs covering all 169 municipalities |
| Tennessee | Development Districts | 9 | Multi-county development districts |
| Kentucky | Area Development Districts | 15 | Multi-county planning & development; all 120 counties |
| West Virginia | Regional Planning & Development Councils | 11 | Regions I–XI |
| Massachusetts | Regional Planning Agencies | 13 | Mixed names: regional planning commissions, COGs, and area commissions |
| Texas | Councils of Governments | 24 | Voluntary regional councils; all 254 counties |
| Michigan | Regional Planning Agencies | 14 | State-designated regional planning agencies and COGs |
| North Carolina | Councils of Governments | 16 | Voluntary regional councils (formerly “lead regional organizations”) |
| Maine | Regional Councils | 10 | Mixed COGs, planning commissions, and economic-development councils |
This is a representative selection, not a complete census: it covers the states with a clean, single, verifiable statewide system. Some states — Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York among them — run several overlapping networks at once (transportation planning organisations, federally tied development districts, and state economic-development regions), so no single number fully describes them. Those are discussed on the state & local bodies page.
The national picture
Taken together, this sub-state layer is far larger than the federal one. The national membership bodies that represent these organisations put the totals in the hundreds:
| Type of body | Rough national count |
|---|---|
| Regional councils / councils of governments | more than 500 |
| Regional development organisations | more than 500 |
| Metropolitan planning organisations (MPOs) | about 410 |
| Economic development districts (EDDs) | over 400 |
These categories overlap heavily — a single organisation is often a council of governments, a metropolitan planning organisation, and a development district all at once — so the figures cannot simply be added together. They are best read as four different lenses on the same broad field of a few hundred to roughly a thousand distinct bodies. Counts are drawn from the national associations of regional councils and development organisations; see the resources page for links.
A note on names
Do not read too much into the label. A body called a “regional commission” in Georgia, a “planning district commission” in Virginia, and a “council of governments” in Connecticut may be doing near-identical work; conversely, a state “regional commission” and a federal regional commission share a name but almost nothing else. Virginia makes the point plainly: its own statute lets a planning district commission simply adopt the name “regional commission” or “regional council” instead. The core explainer and the comparison page untangle which powers actually go with which body.