Exam 3 1. According to Carl Stenberg, what are the major types of federal grants and what are the distinctions between them? How have block grants in particular evolved over time? What are the major concerns that state, local, and federal officials have regarding block grants? According to Carl Stenberg, there are two types of federal grants: categorical aid, which is specified for a specific use or program; and block grants, which are less specific and are designed to reduce the federal burden or responsibilities on certain programs. Block grants are used as a tool for redistributing power and accountably by using devolution and decentralization of authority (Conlan and Posner, 2008, 264). Sternberg has divided block grants into three distinct approaches: full devolution, partial devolution, and intergovernmental decentralization. Full devolution is the total removal and redistribution of federal policy, funding, regulatory, and administrative responsibilities (Conlan and Posner, 2008, 264). In the 1990s, this was referred to as “devolution revolution” and consisted of rhetoric proposing to push more power away from the federal government and down to the state and local levels. Full devolution was not popular and was only successful a few times, using legislative, executive, and administrative devolution to shift functional responsibilities from the federal level to state governments, for example, the regulation of marine port pilots, insurance, interstate horse racing, shipping, and boundary waters (Conlan and Posner, 2008, 264). In an attempt to be more successful than full devolution, approaches were made for partial devolution, where states could exercise more authority and discretion, but the federal government was still involved in major policy, programmatic and financial ways (Conlan and Posner, 2008, 264). With this, it was proposed to restructure categorical grant programs to reduce federal requirements and oversight, which would allow states to show more leadership and innovation than before (Conlan and Posner, 2008, 264). States, however, would still not have the final leadership role. If their performance was not up to standard, the federal government could step in and reassert authority. The federal government could withhold funds, establish funds for a particular purpose, require reimbursement for improper expenditures, or deny application approvals (Conlan and Posner, 2008, 264). The final approach, intergovernmental decentralization, gives state and local governments more responsibility and discretion, but the federal government still handles policy and standards, programs, funding, and crosscutting regulations (Conlan and Posner, 2008, 265). During the Clinton administration, a great deal of decision making authority was decentralized to regional offices of certain federal agencies. State and local officials could then negotiate with federal administrators to redirect to shift funding to certain programs (Conlan and Posner, 2008, 265). This approach was not widely adopted, but according to Stenberg, state agencies saw less intrusive national fiscal and regulatory influence in 1994 and 1998 and had continued on into the 2000s, suggesting devolution was able to make some evolutionary policy impacts (Conlan and Posner, 2008, 265). For partial devolution of federal domestic responsibilities, block grants are used as a federal aid instrument, which provides flexible funding to various programs and activities

(Conlan and Posner, 2008, 266). Stenberg has made two categories of block grants: the old style and the new style. The old style of the block was first traced in 1949 and evolved until 1995 when the new style began. The old style really began in 1966 when the first block grant was enacted. Several block grants developed in the 1970s, including the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act of 1973, the 1973 amendments to Title XX of the Social Security Act, and the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (Conlan and Posner, 2008, 266). In the early 1980s, nine new or restructured block grants were created. Between then and 1995, only five new block grants were added (for transportation,supstance abuse prevention and treatment, community mental health services, homelessness transitions, and child care and development) and three programs were terminated (Community Youth Activity, Criminal Justice Assistance, and Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Services) (Conlan and Posner, 2008, 267). The old style of block grants all shared three characteristics: they did not account for the majority of total federal aid in the functional area authorized and the black grant often stood alongside larger programs; together, they represented a small portion of federal assistance to state and localities; and they were mainly used as instruments of administrative decentralization, not devolution (Conland and Posner, 2008, 267). During the time of the old style, there was a motive shift that occurred between the Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon administration and the Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush administration. Johnson and Nixon tended to focus on administrative clean up through salivation, while Reagan and Bush placed a lot of caps on or reductions in appropriations available for consolidation programs (Conland and Posner, 2008, 268). Reagan and Bush also placed an emphasis on a governers’ role in federal-state ventures, excluding local governments from receiving most funds directly from the federal government. The post 1995 new style block grants were agents for the partial devolution of federal domestic responsibilities and decentralizing decision making (Conlan and Poshner, 2008, 268). One the most prominent block grant is this period was the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act was also signed in by the Bill Clinton administration during this time. In the 2000s (2001-2005), at least twelve block grant proposals were introduced to Congress, ranging from health to social welfare. This was different from the old style that focused more on transportation and community development (Conlan and Posner, 2008, 270.) Stenberg writes that the new style of block grants has eight goals: reducing the federal budget deficit; capping federal domestic spending; reduce program overlapping and improve management; remove national government from certain domestic areas; replace on-size-fits-all program design; promoting innovation through pilot programs; ensuring recipients meet performance standards; and targeting federal financial assistance on needy communities and individuals (Conlan and Posner, 2008, 270). New style block grants raise concern because they would cap spending and close previously open-ended entitlements. Another concern is the mixed federalism record of the Bush administration. Additionally, skeptics are concerned that shifting from categorical to block grants will diminish congressional oversight and control. The last concern is how desirable it actually is to turn over significant authority to the states, since in the past, states have shown their unwillingness to take responsibility. Sternberg refers to this as the “race to the bottom,”

where partial devolution will inevitably lead to interstate competition for federal dollars (Conlan and Posner, 2008, 272).

1. According to Brian Collins and Brian Gerber, in what ways are grant management and contracting out similar? What are the difficulties achieving social equity at the same time as performance and accountability in grants and contracts?

According to Brian Collins and Brian Gerber, grant management and contracting have a lot in common. Both separate the financing and delivery of goods and services to the public, which is seen in government as a plus (Collins and Gerber, 2008, 1129). From this separation, both grant management and contracting out influence the government in an indirect way. Since both are so similar, they often share the same management challenges as well (2008, 1129). Grants typically target specific populations with certain needs and delegate the delivery of a service to whichever agency can match and provide for that need. This creates a network of indirect governance. Grant programs are generally equity-based in purpose. It can be difficult to manage social equity in the distribution of grant funds because of the empirical distribution of benefits (Collins and Gerber, 2008, 1129). A standard for social equity in grant administration is to distribute funding in an unbiased fashion that is not for or against potential recipients of a grant. Management then has to filter out applicants who do not serve a target population, which questions social equity performance (Collins and Gerber, 2008, 1129). Unless a grant is a pure income transfer, grant management and contracting out are very similar. When contracting out, grantors negotiate deliverables, time tables, and the exchange of resources with grantees (Collins and Gerber, 2008, 1130). Contracting suggests that managing for social equity means two issues concerning performance accountably and social equity have to be resolved. Performance accountability is to make sure grantees use public funds as intended, and use them efficiently and effectively (Collins and Gerber, 2008, 1130). Additionally, informal asymmetries appear in contracting out, as well as in grants. To avoid adverse selection and moral hazard problems, grantors have to be sure not to select grantees that do not show the commitment or capacity to properly implement a grant to the set expectations. Not selecting the right grantees becomes very costly for managers. It can be difficult to achieve performance accountability, and commonly, if it is achieved, it is at the loss of social equity. In a formula-dominated model, the entitlement CDBG program, for example, is expected to demonstrate high levels of social equity performance but lower levels of potential performance accountability. In a competition-dominated model, like the non-entitlement CDBG program, there is an expectation to “demonstrate relatively higher levels of performance accountability than formula-dominated models” (Collins and Gerber, 2008, 1131). Collins and Gerber give two additional models: moderating hybrid and adverse hybrid. In the moderating hybrid model, characteristics of the formula model are visible and in this model, social equity performance should be better than the competition-dominated model, mainly because it targets formulas to needs and that should constrain allocative biases toward administrative capacities (Collins and Gerber, 2008, 1132). Finally, the adverse hybrid model gives low levels of social equity performance and performance accountably because relative strengths of formulas are mismatched. These additional models show that administrative

models can use formulas and competitions to ensure social equity and performance accountably (Collins and Gerber, 2008, 1132).

2. According to Jeremy Hall, what are the steps that a grant-seeking organization should take in planning and preparing a grant proposal? What is the importance of the role of “partners” in the grant proposal process?

According to Jeremy Hall, when seeking a grant, an organization should take the time to plan and prepare a draft proposal. Hall thinks it is important for the grant-seeking organization to confront the purpose of their organization and ask questions to determine what it is they are truly asking for (Hall, 2010, 75). It is important for an organization to not be greedy and to determine who would directly be affected by the proposed program. Before getting to the steps to take, there are first three models that indicate how an organization is likely to view and approach partnership proposals. The first is an organization that has altruistic motives focused on the effect of the project. This organization will be open to partnerships and will treat everyone who is involved fairly. The second is an organization that is self-serving and egocentric. This organization is only concerned with budget resources and will not work well with partners. The third organization is conniving. It realizes that it will have greater success if uses partnerships, however, it shorts those partners when funding is awarded (Hall, 2010, 75). After an organization decides what kind of organization it will be, it will start Hall’s first step: building the grant team. A team is better to approach the grant proposal process than just an individual. A team reduces workload and brings more perspectives to the table (Hall, 2010, 75). It is important for an organization to know the strengths and weaknesses of each team member and learn how those strengths can be beneficial through this process. A technique to finding the strengths and weaknesses of the team could be using the Myers-Bringgs Type Indicator. The results can allow the organization to use cognitive styles to determine team roles (Hall, 2010, 76). Once the team roles are determined, the team can start to develop a program idea. Hall writes that it is never too early to develop an idea—sometimes the program idea comes first and other times it will come up during the strategic planning process (2010, 81). When developing a program idea, it is important to always keep in mind what a given program does to further an organization’s mission (Hall, 2010, 81). The idea should reflect the culture of the organization, along with its mission and vision. The organization’s constraints are also important to consider because the team have to ensure the proposed program or active is eligible. Most program ideas will eventually need to be changed, often needing to be broadened or narrowed, and in these cases, the program idea was the impetus for a funding search (Hall, 2010, 81). It’s important for the idea to be flexible, but not so flexible that the programs goals start to mirror the funding agency’s goal rather than its own. A common approach to developing a program idea is to create a workgroup. A workgroup allows for collaboration which can be both rewarding and challenging—collaboration leads to shared power (Hall, 2010, 82). A good plan would be to start out meeting internationally before branching out to potential participants. This allows the framework to be build so that it will be more difficult to loss control of the program (Hall, 2010, 82).

When looking for partners, two types generally appear: symbolic partners and substantive partners (Hall, 2010, 83). Symbolic partnerships show support from community organizations that are an important part of the project. There partners should not be involved in the projects key activities and should not provide funding, however, they can play a big role in getting applications funded through producing letters of support. Letters of support are included in the application packet and addressed to the funding agency (Hall, 2010, 83). These letters express information about the community, applicant, and proposal, and shows the funding agency that community organizations are aware of the application, which shows the applicant has done their homework and sought community input for their plan (Hall, 2010, 84). Hall claims that symbolic partnerships are useful, but indicates that substantive partnership are essential in preparing a grant proposal (2010, 84). These partners are very involved in the project. Their letters of support contain the same information as the symbolic partner letters, but require additional information about their role in the project—what grant funds they will receive through subcontracts from the applicant, how they will use the money, and who will participate (Hall, 2010, 84). During the letter process, letters of support should not be asked for without guidance to the organization on what the letter should include and external partners should be left out of planning activities. The final steps are to agree on roles and contributions. This step is not easy because each participant wants to get the best benefit while spending the least amount of money possible and will resist participation until they feel they have that balance (Hall, 2010, 88). To agree on roles, amicable partners with use an internal program approach to figure out how to fit their needs and available contributions. To agree on contributions several forms must be filled out, for example, they could be human resource forms or financial resource forms (Hall, 2010, 89). It is important to accurately measure costs and benefits and negotiations should be very tactful, as sometimes, potential partners can become offended if certain conditions do not allow organizations to accept the amount the potential partners are affording, due to conditions of certain grants. In conclusion, preparing and planning a grant proposal and gaining partner organizations takes time and commitment. Partnerships and partner roles are essential to receiving a grant for an organization and planning and preparation can often make or break a grant application.