The intergovernmental grant system as seen by local, State, and Federal officials : Page: 72
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:
teriorated more in the past five years than those
they identified under general support and project
County officials thought that the top three project
grant problems were the most serious as a
group, and, like the city spokesmen, they felt that
the problems with the formula grants had deteriorated
the most in the past half decade.
Effect on Administrative Capability
and Service Levels
The survey asked: "How have the state government's
requirements for administration of grant
funds, and its monitoring of those requirements,
affected (a) overall administrative capability (e.g.,
personnel standards, organization), and (b) levels
of service of the programs receiving state funds?"
They were asked to give a numerical rating to each
factor, as follows: 1
The responding city officials thought that the
state grant requirements overall had a moderate
improvement effect on local administrative
2.15; and a more substantial positive
effect on the levels of program service
There was little difference between the ratings
given by officials of the "larger" cities and the
On both counts, the county officials' ratings
overall were fairly comparable to those given by
city officials, although slightly lower: 2.12 and
2.40, respectively. In contrast to the cities, however,
county officials from the larger jurisdictions
rated the effect on both administrative capability
and service levels lower than county officials as a
1.95 and 2.16, respectively. The 1.95 indicates,
in fact, that these officials of counties of
500,000 and over population thought that state
aid had actually reduced local administrative
The favorable ratings given by officials of the
cities and the smaller counties to the effect on local
administrative capability and performance levels
are consistent with their earlier identification of
problems in the design and administration of state
aids. Specifically, as noted in Table 11-27, these
officials rated at or near the bottom of the "seriousness"
scale the problem areas "strictness of performance
standards required as conditions of the
grants" and "strictness of state officials in monitoring
conformance with performance standards."
The results of the question on administrative capa
bility and service levels would suggest that, for
these jurisdictions, state strictness in performance
standards and monitoring were actually helpful to
these localities represented.
In addition, on the county side, the positive effect
on service levels was clearly seen more in the
non-metropolitan than in the metropolitan areas,
possibly reflecting the greater need for outside
assistance in the more rural jurisdictions. This
conclusion is further supported by the escalating
average service level rating as the population of
Effect on Administrative Supervision
The final question probing the impact of state
aids on local administration had to do with the
local chief executive's exercise of supervision. The
survey asked local officials to indicate whether
their chief administrative officer gave more, less,
or about the same amount of personal supervision
to state-aided activities as he gave to activities
financed solely by the municipality/county. The
answers are summarized in Table II-29.
The city officials reported that the average chief
executive gave exactly the same amount of super'
vision to state-aided activities as he gave to other
activities (2.00). There seemed to be a general tendency
for more supervision of state-aided activities
from the chief administrator among the smaller
cities; officials of the larger cities (over 50,000)
gave a rating of 1.89. Consistent with this is the
greater amount of supervision over state-aided activities
among the non-metropolitan cities tha0
among the central cities.
Among the counties, the supervision required
for state-aided programs by the average chief administrator
was less than that required for other
programs (1.94), according to the 86 responding
officials. Again, there is a general tendency for
more local supervision among the smaller jurisdiC'
tions; the officials of "larger" counties (over
500,000), on the other hand, gave a rating of 1.85
This is evidenced further in the breakdown be'
tween metro and non-metro officials.
As was noted earlier, the overall responses to the
state aid questionnaire were lighter among smsl
jurisdictions outside metropolitan areas. In light of
this fact, and the tendency for these smaller, mof
urban places to report more supervision by the
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/m1/80/: accessed April 21, 2019), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.