Agenda - Council - 02/22/1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

! requirements, set-asides for specific levels of funding, numerous exclusions from the grants of the big-budget programs, etc. So lunless you believe that state and local government are totally inept, and intentionally neglectful of the poor, it would be difficult to argue that these grants do not contain adequate safeguards for the disadvantaged. In fact, those organizations which are truly devoted to helping the needy should look favorably upon the new system. Block grants offer increased flexibility and responsiveness to local needs over categorical programs. For instance: -- Because decisions over the use of block grants funds are made at the local level (categorical grants are administered by the federal government) those people receiving the funds will have more direct input than they currently have. -- Block grants allow the governments closest to the citi- zens to decide how best to spread budget reductions (i.e., what ~ should continue to be fully funded and which programs should be ~reduced). The categorical system forced local and state govern- .Iments~ to cut all services across the board. -- Block grants are efficient. Revenue sharing is a good example of block grant efficiency. They cost only one-tenth of Ione percent of the administrative costs compared to categorical !program so the rest of the funds go directly to the program. They allow local governments to combine related programs in a coordinated, cohesive fashion rather than having to apply for funding under many different programs to accomplish one goal. IThe volume of categorical programs made it virtually impossible for local government to fully understand each program. For instance, after the energy crisis of 1973, the federal government created 29 separate energy assistance programs administered by I, nine different federal agencies to deal with the situation. -- Block grants eliminate the competition for federal funds that frequently discriminates against those sma%l communities that can't afford specialized grantsmen. This ensures more I s table funding for local governments. It saves adn~inist~ative costs and distributes federal funds more equitably. There are many other advantages of block grants, as well. IBut before their workability is accepted, the public must believe that state governments can effectively operate them. In the 1960s and 1970s, the federal government implemented a vast array of categorical grant social programs because states Iwere not addressing the health, education, or other social needs of their citizens. At that time, categorical grants were an effective tool for the federal government to target their assis- tance to troubled populations. In the past twenty years, how- lever, there have been significant reforms in the states that have drastically changed the nature of state government. For example: -- restrictions on the length of legislative sessions have been either reduced or eliminated entirely in most states; -- permanent professional staff has been hired, which has substantially enhanced the ability of state governments to im- plement and administer human service programs; -- state g6vernments have targeted a large portion of their own scarce resources to meet the needs of the disadvantaged. In Minnesota, for example, programs to meet these needs consume about I22 percent of the state's general fund and 30 percent of the state's total resources, while at the federal level they consume less than