The preservation of federal priorities connecticut and the cdbg small cities program
This article examines the impact of state assumption of federal grant programs on the state of Connecticut. The administrative process created by Connecticut to implement the Small Cities CDBG program is examined and followed by a comparison of programmatic activities before and after state assumption. Unlike many other states, Connecticut adopted priorities similar to those of the federal government. Connecticut's preservation of federal priorties is most likely due to the choice of state implementing agency and a unique policy bias at the state level.
The Effects of Performance Measurement on Community Development Spending Priorities: CDBG Meets GPRA
Since 1974 the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has administered the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program to invest over $100B dollars in America's low-income communities, through housing, job creation, public services, and other community development projects. Data on CDBG spending by activity type is examined, with the relative stability of spending priorities over the past seven years presented as evidence of the "New Federalism" at maturity: despite the fact that spending decisions are set at the local level by over 1,000 di erent community development oces, and without the bene t of an overarching federal strategy (or even much of a debate on one), the field has achieved a de facto consensus as to national priorities. The data can be further distinguished into an "Urban Entitlement" spending pattern seen in the larger cities (with strong spending for housing, infrastructure, and public services) and a "Statewide Program" pro le for smaller communities (prioritizing infrastructure and little else).At the same time, CDBG's "maturity" has brought with it additional challenges, unanticipated by the framers of the original block grant approach: namely, the creeping tide of performance measurement requirements for federal programs. With the passage of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) in 1993 -- and the more recent attempts to implement these requirements at HUD in earnest, starting in 2006 -- CDBG managers are being increasingly pressed to measure and report the results of their spending decisions. While performance measurement is undoubtedly a necessary component of any management scheme and can be an important tool in generating support for public spending, the increased emphasis at HUD may have the e ect (unintended or otherwise) of altering the existing mix of activities to encourage more cities to adopt spending strategies closer to those seen in the "Statewide" pro file. (An apologetic postscript is also included, to ensure that HUD staff do not feel attacked by the author, who actually has a great deal of admiration and respect for them.)
The Responsiveness of Federal and State Governments to Urban Problems
iACH NEW ADMINISTRATION in Washington is confronted with new calls to do something about the nation's cities. Each new administration reevaluates federal programs in and for the nation's cities; yet to date federal urban policy remains a series of dilemmas and contradictions.' The purpose of this paper is to examine the responsiveness of both federal and state spending to urban problems. We want to learn whether federal and/or state spending in the nation's largest cities is positively associated with generally accepted measures of urban resources; or whether federal and/or state spending appears unrelated to urban needs and resources. If it turns out that federal spending in cities is unrelated to urban needs and resources, then there is added incentive for a critical reevaluation of federal urban policy. Specifically, this research examines the following: (1) whether total federal outlays in the cities are correlated with any generally accepted measures of social need in cities-poverty, overcrowding, old age, female-headed households, racial imbalance, mortality rates, segregation, crime, income inequality, or age of cities;