The intergovernmental grant system as seen by local, State, and Federal officials : Page: 50
This book is part of the collection entitled: Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations and was provided to Digital Library by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
program. Federal revenue sharing, with
minimum restrictions as to use or matching
requirements, are the most efficient
and effective vehicle of financial assistance
to state or local government.-City
On the local level, with small
municipalities we are unable to employ
competent personnel to keep abreast of
the complexity of Federal grant programs.
Thereby small communities fail to receive
many benefits they are entitled to under
law. The fairest grant of the whole program
would have to be Federal revenue
sharing. -Mayor, Louisiana.
I believe that all block and categorical
grant programs should be eliminated, and
the money reappropriated to general revenue
City manager, Minnesota.
In my opinion the Federal grant system
exists only to keep thousands of Federal
employees employed. It is a complete
waste. All funding should be done as is
We need more programs designed for
the growing cities under 50,000 population.
Revenue sharing is the greatest thing
to "come down the turnpike in ages." City
The idea of revenue sharing is the best
thing to ever come down the pike. In my
opinion, most categorical grants are a
pain . . . and are selfserving in
relation to the continuance of a Federal
bureaucracy which pledges to perpetuate
itself. Give us the money and let us make
our own mistakes.
(3) Mixed reactions to the block grant experience.
On the positive side:
Block grants are far superior to categoricals
get the priorities and decisions
back to the local level.
One comment relating to the new block
grant Community Development program.
We find that red tape is no longer a problem
in dealing with the Federal government
under the new block grant program.
As a matter of fact we have had a free hand
in all matters relating to the programming
of such funds. Almost to the point that
the Feds no longer exist.-City manager,
On the uncertain or negative side of block grants
were such remarks as:
The implementation of the new Community
Development block grant program
has placed a tremendous burden on
local administration. The requirements,
such as environment reviews for social
service programs and the subsequent
delay in the release of funds, have made
implementation of the program most difficult
. . . the amount of bureaucratic red
tape has been increased in comparison to
the requirements that were in effect to implement
the categorical grant programs.
-City manager, Connecticut.
The block grants have done much to
reduce the past problems created by
categoricals. Even with block grants,
however, some unnecessary Federal requirements
are still being imposed.
Example -we had to advertise in the
newspapers and hold public hearings on
the environmental impact of a day care
center, a legal aid project, and "project
contingencies." These absurd guidelines
City manager, Illinois.
If the total amount of funds available
under block grants would remain the
same as under categorical grants, other
arguments against block grants would
diminish. But as long as the potential for
consolidation and diminution of funds
remains, block grants will probably be
viewed with suspicion.
The questionnaire properly distinguished
between block and categorical
Here’s what’s next.
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
United States. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. The intergovernmental grant system as seen by local, State, and Federal officials :, book, March 1977; Washington, D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1368/m1/58/: accessed April 24, 2019), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.