State and Local Governments under Federal Grants: Toward a Predictive Theory

1983 ◽  
Vol 98 (1) ◽  
pp. 47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard P. Nathan
2010 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 164-171
Author(s):  
Kenneth C. Topping ◽  

The U.S. Congress passed the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) which requires adoption of multihazard mitigation plans as a precondition of local government eligibility for federal pre-disaster and postdisaster hazard mitigation grants. Its underlying purpose was to encourage local governments to systematically plan for reducing risks and future disaster losses before requesting federal grants to execute hazard mitigation projects. This paper examines the DMA 2000 legislation, its purposes, and the responses to it by state and local governments. Among other things the paper: 1) describes DMA 2000 statutory requirements, 2) assesses overall participation by region, 3) uses the State of California as a case study to examines hazard mitigation plan compliance issues, and 4) explores long-term implications of this broad national effort to use financial incentives to increase local resilience. By early 2009, 18,783 locally adopted hazard mitigation plans had been approved by FEMA. Although community resilience outcomes cannot be truly assessed without further research, the magnitude of this response implies substantial long-term local capacity building benefits within the U.S. This experience should also be the subject of comparative research regarding parallel efforts elsewhere.


1986 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 257-263
Author(s):  
R P Nathan

This paper is the introductory essay for a set of six papers in which a series of field network evaluation studies, conducted in the United States of America, on the effects of major changes in the grant-in-aid policies and programs of the national government are described. The studies, begun in 1972, focused on the effects of new grant programs on state and local governments and the services they provide. The five studies are of (1) the revenue sharing program, (2) the community development block grant program, (3) all federal grants-in-aid in eleven large cities in 1978, (4) the public service job-creation program, and (5) the cuts and changes in federal grant-in-aid program made under President Reagan. In this paper, the rationale, methodology, and history of these studies are described.


2007 ◽  
Vol 22 (5) ◽  
pp. 436-439 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert A. De Lorenzo

AbstractDisaster preparedness and response have gained increased attention in the United States as a result of terrorism and disaster threats. However, funding of hospital preparedness, especially surge capacity, has lagged behind other preparedness priorities. Only a small portion of the money allocated for national preparedness is directed toward health care, and hospitals receive very little of that. Under current policy, virtually the entire funding stream for hospital preparedness comes from general tax revenues. Medical payers (e.g., Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance) directly fund little, if any, of the current bill. Funding options to improve preparedness include increasing the current federal grants allocated to hospitals, using payer fees or a tax to sub- sidize preparedness, and financing other forms of expansion capability, such as mobile hospitals. Alternatively, the status quo of marginal preparedness can be maintained. In any event, achieving higher levels of preparedness likely will take the combined commitment of the hospital industry, public and private payers, and federal, state, and local governments. Ultimately, the costs of pre- paredness will be borne by the public in the form of taxes, higher healthcare costs, or through the acceptance of greater risk.


1984 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 139-159 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Joseph Wallis

The relative importance of federal and local government was reversed between 1932 and 1940. This changing composition of government expenditures by level of government accounts for the rise of “big” government during the Depression. State governments expanded their fiscal activity, maintaining their share of total government expenditures. Utilizing data on federal grants and state and local expenditures, I find that the relative decline of local governments and sustained growth of state governments can be explained by the financial and administrative provisions of the federal New Deal programs.


Author(s):  
Mark J. Rozell ◽  
Clyde Wilcox

“Fiscal federalism” describes how during the early decades of the republic, Congress gave states money to help pay for new roads and canals, to support their militia, and to build colleges and universities. But the system of granting money to the states grew in the twentieth century, especially after the Sixteenth Amendment gave the national government the right to impose an income tax in 1913. The chapter discusses the federal grants program, which now provides about 30 percent of the average operating revenues of state and local governments. It also considers how the national government uses mandates to influence state policymaking, how states raise revenue through taxation, and the differences in state spending programs.


1987 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 12-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew F. Houghwout ◽  
Charles J. Richardson

1976 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 173-186 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. M. Hardy

The literature on the effect of federal grants on subordinate governmental units' expenditures has generally focused on broad expenditure categories and on all state or state and local governments considered together rather than as individual units. The present study focuses on the effect of federal grants on the expenditure and revenue decisions of individual governmental units, with the dependent program area expenditures being regressed on the specific individual grants for which they are eligible. The estimated equations indicate that the two individual governmental units considered do not respond to federal grants in similar ways.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document