The State‐local Partnership and National Objectives: An Examination of the CDBG Small Cities Program

Ervin, Osbin L.

doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.1985.tb01601.x

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We control for the percentage of the county population that is Hispanic as a proxy to control for these federal provisions, which are likely to affect funding levels in Texas and California. Other state programs target funds toward housing needs, economic development, or infrastructure projects as a means of benefiting LMI populations (Brown and Daniels 1988; Brown and Felbinger 1989; Dommel 1980a; Ervin 1985; Hawkins 1999; Herzik and Pelissero 1986). Therefore, state‐administered CDBG programs may be targeted to objectives that fragment the federal block grant into several programs by objective.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The legislative mandate for the program has always required that all projects meet at least one of the following criteria: benefit LMI persons, prevent or eliminate slums or blight, or meet urgent community needs. These three criteria have been constants, but the LMI criterion has been paramount in practice, although the types of projects have changed under state political pressures (Anonymous 1999; Brown and Daniels 1988; Brown and Felbinger 1989; Dommel 1980a, 1980b; Ervin 1985; Giles, Gabris, and Krane 1980; Hale and Palley 1981; Herzik and Pelissero 1986; Krane 1987; Morgan and England 1984).…”

Section: Social Equity In State‐administered Cdbg Programsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Taken for Granted? Managing for Social Equity in Grant Programs

Collins

Gerber

2008

Public Administration Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Managing for social equity performance has long been a goal without much guidance for public managers. We examine social equity performance in the context of indirect governance through the administration of grant programs and, more specifically, the matching of policy responses (grant funding) to social needs. Grant program managers must allocate funding to match needs while also ensuring accountability, but common administrative models that rely on competition can undermine social equity performance. We develop a unique framework to analyze the relative social equity performance of four models of grant administration in general. These models are defined by whether competitions or formulas are used to select grantees and to allocate funding. We test the implications of the framework in an analysis of funding distributions from the nonentitlement Community Development Block Grant program in four states. Our findings suggest that social equity in grant programs is better served when grantors do not rely solely on competitive grant contracting in the selection and distribution of grant funds, which is typical in grant administration. However, policy makers and managers can design institutional arrangements that utilize competition, but in a manner that does not create a bias against more socially equitable funding decisions.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Social Equity In State‐administered Cdbg Programsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Taken for Granted? Managing for Social Equity in Grant Programs

Collins

Gerber

2008

Public Administration Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is a growing literature supporting the view that state control of programs has resulted in a de-emphasis of some of the federally defined mandates, such as targeting on programs for low and moderate income families (Pelissero, 1985;Lovell, 1985). Two studies of the Small Cities CDBG, for example, indicate that in many cases states have put greater weight on economic development and public facilities rather than low and moderate income housing (Jennings e t al., 1985;Ervin, 1985). Apart from changes in program emphasis, indications are that the procedures for awarding grants to localities have been more flexible in terms of the kinds of projects that are considered acceptable.…”

Section: The Issues Of Capacity and Responsivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%