Improve Delivery of Federal Domestic Grant Programs

Improve the Delivery of Federal Domestic Grant Programs 
                                                                        
Background

In the past 12 years, the trend toward federal categorical grantmaking
has escalated dramatically-- to more than 600 federal grant programs
that will spend an estimated $226.1 billion in fiscal year 1994. Some
grants are distributed on a formula basis; many others on a competitive
or discretionary basis; and still others as entitlements depending upon
the enrollment of eligible participants.

Federal grantmaking is not an end in itself. Funds are intended to
promote federal policy objectives and contribute to the resolution of
real problems affecting real people. Yet, state and local governments,
and the clients and customers of the programs these federal funds
support, face a maze of different and sometimes contradictory rules,
regulations, administrative procedures, and program standards and
requirements across this myriad of grants.

Need For Change

The current system of federal grantmaking fragments the ability of
government at all levels to address people's needs in an integrated
manner. By establishing discrete and often incompatible eligibility
standards, and administrative rules and requirements, the proliferation
of categorical grants has made government at all levels less effective.
Block grants, intended to overcome some of the limitations of
categorical programs, are not immune from red tape and unintended
consequences. These problems have contributed to the frustration of
individuals and families that depend on federal assistance, and have
added to taxpayer and customer cynicism about government's ability to
manage.

For example, there are more than 140 federal programs directed toward
assisting children and their families. These funds are administered by
10 different federal departments and two independent agencies. According
to a Congressional Research Service report, over 15 percent of the
programs are directly administered by the federal government, more than
40 percent are administered by state governments, and another 40 percent
of the programs are directed through local private or public
groups.[Endnote 1] The largest number of programs are aimed at providing
educational and social service support. The largest amount of dollars,
however, is designated for income support and nutritional programs. Each
federal grant program has a distinct definition as to who it is intended
to serve. For example, programs such as Aid to Families with Dependent
Children (AFDC) and Food Stamps are aimed at children and their families
that meet specific income criteria--although the definition of income
and assets differs for the two programs. In other programs, such as the
social services block grant, recipients may be children or children and
families or certain unrelated adults.


The Evolution of Fragmentation.

Government programs are established as needs are identified. For
example, a job training program is established to train the high school
drop-out so that she or he can obtain a job and support the family.
Another program is established to help someone recover from drug abuse,
be rehabilitated from injuries in an accident, or recover from a crime.
Yet another program is established to help a person obtain safe, decent,
and sanitary housing that is affordable. All are worthwhile programs.

But government service providers are hamstrung to integrate these
programs if the customer happens to be the same person. Programs are
operated by separate agencies (often in different geographic locations),
by separate people with different expertise, and in accordance with
rules and regulations developed and overseen by different federal
agencies.

In the past few years, there has been increasing recognition at all
levels of government that individuals and families, subordinate
governments, special districts, and businesses and corporations may
simultaneously be the client of a wide variety of programs. The failure
to see the intergovernmental system from the perspective of the
citizen-customer not only perpetuates inefficiency and wasted time,
effort, and money, but also leads to poor program design and a
significantly reduced probability that the goals and outcomes desired
will be achieved.


Example of Fragmentation.

One by one, block and categorical grants and their accompanying rules
and regulations may make sense; but in combination they often defeat the
very purpose for which they were established and undermine, rather than
enhance, the ability of service providers and
 managers to be truly accountable for outcomes.

For example, the Job Opportunity in Basic Skills (JOBS) program is
funded through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
and is administered at the local level by social services departments.
The JOBS goal is to help citizens become self-sufficient (get jobs) by
providing education, work experience, job search training, and job
placement.

The Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) is funded through the Department
of Labor and is administered at the local level by community groups
known as Private Industry Councils. The goal of this program is to help
citizens become self-sufficient by providing training that leads
directly to employment.

Although these programs are intended to be compatible, they are seldom
used together because: 1) they have different accounting requirements,
2) they have different evaluation procedures, 3) they have different
eligibility requirements, and 4) funds from the two programs cannot be
pooled. A person wishing to take advantage of both programs, therefore,
must go to two sites and be qualified under each program's guidelines.
Then they must attempt to arrange the training they need under the
programs and coordinate them. On an administrative level, the programs
require separate staff, separate offices, and other supporting costs.
Consolidation of the programs would benefit the customer, the community,
and the federal government.

Or take, for example, a recent situation where local officials were
working to restore a severely blighted but historic area of a city.
Federal Community Development Block Grant funds were being used in
conjunction with local public and private resources to create new and
rehabilitated affordable housing for residents of the area. The city
wanted to combine these housing and community redevelopment activities
with federal job training funds to hire and train unemployed persons in
the construction activity.  However, this was not possible because of
the conflicting regulations of the separate federal programs.[Endnote 2]


Cross References to Other NPR Accompanying Reports

Department of Health and Human Services, HHS01:  Promote Effective,
Integrated Service Delivery for Customers by Increasing Collaborative
Efforts.

Department of Education, ED02: Reduce the Number of Programs the
Department of Education Administers.


Endnotes

1. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, Federal Programs
for Children and Their Families (Washington, D.C., December 15, 1992).

2. This problem actually happened in the Betts- Longworth area of
Cincinnati, Ohio.