Words: 1652
RUNNING HEAD: PUBLIC POLICY TRENDS PUBLIC POLICY TRENDS John Johnson University of Phoenix Abstract There are many ways to evaluate the ability of government to responds to trends. Most often, an analysis of the fiscal performance and the agility of the response of government to issues are considered; are needed services and programs provided at a low cost, and have the needs of the population been quickly and adequately addressed? While a popular method of evaluation, these types of analysis only measure performance.
To acquire an accurate gauge of the attributes of the government entity being considered; is it open and transparent in its activities? Are their active partnerships with other grant recipients and community organizations (Porte, 2005)? An examination of the interaction between the executive and legislative functions of CDBG recipients can provide an excellent evaluation of how effective state and local entities are in responding to trends in public need.
This review will help to evaluate whether the actions of these entities enable outcomes that benefit themselves (doing well for government) or that benefit the public (doing the public good). Interactions between the Executive and Legislative Functions The council-manager form of government represents the majority type of government for municipalities over 12,000 in population.
The relationship between council members and city managers is continually evolving with a trend toward “increased collaboration and communication between city managers and council persons” (Public Administration and Management: An Interactive Journal, no date, Para. 1). Most recently, this trend was “largely caused by such factors as cities grappling with increasingly complex and technical issues, requiring close working relations between city managers and city councils” (Public Administration and Management: An Interactive Journal, no page, Para 1).
Professionalism in government has raised the competence level of government leaders and the most recent trend in collaboration and communication between the two has “been caused by the emerging role of city managers in community-based consensus-building and issue formulation involving council members, citizens and community leaders” (Public Administration and Management: An Interactive Journal, no page, Para 1). The city manager serves at the pleasure of the elected council members and because of this employment power most city managers are motivated to foster good relations with council members.
There is a fine line that is easily crossed by both; city managers sometimes get involved in politics while city council members sometimes zealously attempt to run the day-to-day government operations. Since a 5-year Consolidated Plan is required to apply for CDBG funds involving public input and council participation, the collaboration between the city manager and council is particularly important in acquiring CDBG funds.
And since there is a policy trend under the current administration to at a minimum consolidate the CDBG program with other programs under the Department of Commerce or eliminate the funding altogether, it is even more important that the city manager and council collaborate. Funds not identified or ranked in priority in the Consolidated Plan cannot even be considered in a grant application, therefore, it is imperative that the city manager and city council members are on the same page in consensus building in the community and amongst themselves when moving forward with a grant application.
In addition, if more than one project is submitted, they must be prepared to prioritize and select one or the other in times of tight funding. Most grant reviewers are fair in the selection process, but there is also the attempt to spread the funds proportionately based on need and meeting criteria. The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), one of the longest running programs of the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development funds local community development activities such as affordable housing, anti-poverty programs and infrastructure development.
CDBG funds are allocated to more than 1,100 local and state governments on a formula basis. In FY05 the government provided funds for a total of $4. 7 billion for grant and assistance. When Congress re-authorized CDBG they instituted a dual formula to strengthen controls on how money was spent and to better serve communities with different types of problems. Formula A (based on poverty rate, population, and overcrowding) is typically benefits rapidly growing cities with high poverty that lack affordable housing.
Formula B (based on age of housing stock, poverty rate, and growth lag) tends to benefit older cities with large amounts of deteriorating housing. The HUD calculates both formulas for all entitlement grantees and awards the larger amount but Congressional appropriation has the ultimate determination in the program funding. The CDBG shares some commonalities with the Urban Development Action Grants (UDAG). UDAG along with Urban Renewal and other previous federal attempts to eliminate poverty and blight in US cities was citied for as being an expensive project or program.
In order to receive CDBG funds applicant should identify the urgent needs of the community and solicit project ideas and plans from citizen’s local organization that address The interactions of the executives in responding to trends such as economic factors, population demographics, and cross coordination efforts through applicable city department commissioners & agencies in the localities in conjunction with private partnerships that enhance local function galvanizes successful efforts in application and implementation process under Federal housing guidelines.
Simply stated, any perceived lack of visible coordination at the executive level could result in lost enthusiasm and community support, therefore the contra positive is always the norm. Moreover, executive are usually on the leading edge of the trend of innovation that facilitate positive outcomes for a broad based stakeholder satisfaction while championing flexible managerial rules that permit commissioners close coordination with council members, nonprofit and small business sector alike fostering such things as accurate population emographic needs ( breakdowns of geographic areas of urban blithe & decay needing economic empowerment) and inclusive feed back solutions fortifying collaborative efforts under CDBG. Doing Well for Government and Public Good For the public good, the Housing of Urban Development (HUD) had created block grant programs from the funds of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). The use of the funds will help out the low-income families to settle into their homes. CDBG funds are most often used in combination with other federal, state, or local funds to make public improvements affordable for low and moderate income families.
Activities may also include direct assistance to low and moderate income families such as payment of special assessments or hookup charges for public improvements. The primary goal of the CDBG program is the development of families who are living in the urban communities, by providing decent housing, suitable living environments and expanded economic opportunities, principally for low- and moderate-income persons. The CDBG formula continues to target more funds to the neediest grantees relative to the least needy grantees. In 1992, the United States Congress passed the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), which was intended to increase the effectiveness and accountability of Federal programs by requiring agencies to measure the results of their program expenditures”(Walker, 2002). To divide the annual money for a specific use of CDBG funds among jurisdictions, the Congress designed a formula that is intended to provide larger grants to communities with relatively high community development need and smaller grants to communities with relatively low community development need.
Congress recognized the characteristics in cost of living when it established guidelines for CDBG program eligibility, setting income limits based on the metropolitan area median income. A portion of the CDBG funds can be used for the preparation of growth policies, as well as preparation of capital improvement programs. Households with incomes less than 80 percent of median income are considered low to moderate income and eligible for assistance with funds from the CDBG program.
Depending on the nature of the local CDBG program, the amount of CDBG program income a grantee receives can be a significant portion of CDBG funding for that year. Some grantees even receive more CDBG program income than the amount of the annual grant. Clearly, managing the use of program income can be just as important as managing grant funds. The program income is income received by the grantee or a sub-recipient generated from the use of CDBG funds. The use of CDBG funds produces income that is not returned to the grantee, such income will not be recognized as part of the CDBG program. Conclusion
Evaluating a governmental entities performance relating to how well it responds to trends presents a myriad of choices for consideration. Performance can focus on program outcomes, fiscal accountability, how well the programs funded by the CDBG have met the needs of the community, clients served, etc. Most importantly, when reviewing the abilities of CDBG entities, one must truly consider how well the grant-funded programs have meet new and emerging trends affecting the community. An organizations response to trends in public need provide evidence of planning, community involvement, and data collection/analysis.
The government’s ability to meet trends also represents the desire of that entity to use CDBG funds to improve their community and the lives of their constituency. The ability of a governmental entity to be able to do well for itself, and also be able to do the public good, is an equally valuable measure of the organization to meet emerging trends. References Public Administration and Management: An Interactive Journal. (No date). Getting support from city council: city managers’ views. Retrieved October 20, 2007 from http://www. pamij. cm/berman. tml Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) (2007) Retrieved: October 16, 2007 from Web site: http://www. hud. gov/offices/cpd/community development /programs/ Walker, Chris (2002) Impact of CDBG Spending on Urban Neighborhoods, Retrieved: October 17, 2007 from Web site: http://www. huduser. org/publications/pdf/cdbgspending. pdf Porte, T. (2005) E-Government II: Being Good and Doing Well: Organizational Openness and Government Effectiveness on the World Wide Web. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, Feb/Mar.