September 19, 1966
Page 23051
COORDINATION OF FEDERAL GRANT-IN-AID PROGRAMS
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, Congress, in the past 6 years has made the most wide-ranging and comprehensive attack on the problems of our cities and towns that has ever been made in the history of our country. Rarely has the Federal Government faced so many domestic problems and stimulated so many ideas and proposals for dealing with them.
We have, in the past few sessions of this body, set out on a broad attack on problems dealing with education, housing, urban renewal, air and water pollution, economic opportunity, conservation, mass transit, and community development. We have designed and initiated these programs in the belief that all of the resources of this great Nation should be marshaled for the creation of a society in which every citizen is given the opportunity to realize his aspirations and his highest potential.
But the success of what we have done and what we may do will be only as good as the machinery which carries it to the people in the most effective way possible. The effective administration of these programs is no less important than their substance. And when we talk about administration, we are talking about our Federal system of Government -- that unique invention which provides a balance of powers and responsibilities between Federal, State, and local governments.
For some time, now, the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations, of which I am chairman, has been conducting intensive studies of problems of coordination among all levels of government. At the same time, the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations continues to carry on in-depth studies of problems in this critical field of government.
In line with this growing concern for the problems of federalism, I was pleased to note a recent address by Mr. Harold Seidman, of the Bureau of the Budget, before the National Legislative Conference in Portland, Maine. Mr. Seidman has, it seems to me, clearly identified five key areas which call for a coordinated attack by the Federal Government, in cooperation with its State and local counterparts.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Seidman’s address be printed in the RECORD for the benefit of Members of Congress who have not read it.
There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows
COORDINATION OF FEDERAL GRANT-IN-AID PROGRAMS .
(Address by Harold Seidman, Assistant Director for Management and Organization, U.S. Bureau of the Budget, before the National Legislative Conference, Portland, Maine)
In ancient times alchemists believed implicitly in the existence of a philosopher’s stone which would provide the key to the problems of mankind. That the quest for coordination is universal and, in effect, will solve all the problems is, in many respects, the twentieth century equivalent of the medieval search for a philosopher’s stone. If only we can find the right formula for coordination, we can reconcile the irreconcilable, harmonize competing and wholly divergent interests, overcome the irrationalities in our government structures, and make the hard policy decisions.
We are prone to forget that coordination is not neutral. To the extent that it results in mutual agreement or a decision on some policy, course of action, or inaction, inevitably it advances some interests at the expense of others, or more than others. It assumes at least some community of interests with respect to basic goals. Without such a community of interests, there can be no effective coordination. Coordination contains no more magic than the philosopher’s stone. It does contain, however, a good deal of the substance with which the alchemists were concerned – the proper placement and relationship of the elements to achieve a given result.
Coordination difficulties are merely the symptoms of much more deeply rooted problems. Unless we have the courage to face up to these basic problems, our efforts to produce cooperation and reduce tension and conflict through new or improved coordinating devices inevitably will be doomed to failure. The core of the problem, as described by Senator EDMUND MUSKIE, Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations, is the difficulty of managing 170 grant-in-aid programs in the 21 different Federal departments and agencies and in over 92,000 units of government throughout our 50 States, counties, municipalities, townships, metropolitan areas, independent school districts and other special districts. If this complex system is to work and we are, in President Johnson’s words, to develop a creative Federalism to best use the wonderful diversity of our institutions, each of the partners in the Federal system must have the capability and the willingness to do his part of the job.
The Federal grant-in-aid is the means by which our system of government is distinguished from every other major power. in the world. We have elected as a nation to finance and administer cooperatively with State and local governments a host of essential programs to achieve national objectives, rather than to rely primarily on direct Federal operations. This is no recent development but one which has its roots in the midst of the Civil War when the Morrill Act of 1862 established our present land grant colleges.
In part, our problems are the natural consequences of rapid growth in the size, number, and variety of Federal grant-in-aid programs. In the last ten years Federal aid to State and local governments will have more than tripled, rising from $4.1 billion in 1957 to an estimated $14.6 billion in 1967. In the same ten-year period, expenditures by State and local governments from their own funds will have more than doubled. State and local governments are hard put even to keep track of the almost 400 subcategories or separate authorizations for the expenditure of Federal funds under various grant-in-aid programs.
Size and complexity, however will present problems only so long as we refuse to adjust to change and to provide the necessary management capability. We cannot expect to manage successfully a multibillion dollar enterprise with a management system suited to a country store.
Measures have been taken at the Federal level to modernize the executive branch structure and to give the chief executive and the principal department and agency heads under him the authority and staff resources to manage the programs for which they are responsible. Notable landmarks are the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, which provided for an executive budget, the establishment of the Executive Office of the President fn 1939, and the more than sixty reorganization proposals recommended by Presidents Truman, Kennedy and Johnson which have gone into effect since 1949. Strong central direction and management are now indispensable, not only in Washington, but also in the State capitals, city halls and county seats, if we are not to be trapped hopelessly in what Senator MUSKIE has aptly called a management muddle.
A true partnership cannot exist if one partner is strong and the others are weak. If State and local governments are to be equal partners with the Federal Government in achieving a full and creative federalism they must overcome the fragmentation of authorities within their jurisdictions and give their principal executives the necessary authority and resources to manage and bring some cohesiveness into the present system. The fragmentation of Federal grant programs in some degree mirrors the fragmentation of authorities at the local level. As a recent study of a northeastern State government phrased it, the view helps that administrative fragmentation helps to make the executive agencies more responsive to legislative wishes and to popular needs.
There are actions the Federal Government can and must take to improve and modernize the present operation of the Federal system. But can such actions be fully effective if not accompanied by comparable actions by our partners at the State and local level? Can our current needs be met when 31 States continue to hold biennial legislative sessions, 61 percent of the mayors in cities of 100,000 to 500,000 population serve part time, only one county in 100 has a full-time county manager?
I do not share the pessimistic view expressed in the report of the Committee on Economic Development on Modernizing Local Government when it stated:
American institutions of local government are under an increasing strain. Well designed, by and large, to meet the simpler needs of earlier times, they are poorly suited to cope with the new burdens imposed on all governments by the complex conditions of.modern life. Adaptation to change has been so slow and so reluctant that the future role-- even the continued viability -- of these institutions is now in grave doubt.
I have a deep faith in the strength and viability of our State and local government institutions, but we will postpone further urgently needed reforms at our peril.
Coordination of Federal grant-in-aid programs is a complex and continuing process involving vertical and horizontal communications among and between Federal agencies, State and local governments and their various agencies, and actions at each level of government separately and in conjunction with other levels. I have stressed the need for improvements at the State and local level, because I believe the role of State and local governments in this process is crucial. Federal laws set the objectives and establish the ground rules, but the Federal Government cannot make a grant until a local agency initiates action either by providing matching funds or applying for Federal project funds. Without local initiative the programs are inoperative.
The function of establishing State, regional or local goals, developing comprehensive plans, and determining priorities among grant proposals in terms of these goals and their relationship to comprehensive plans and financial restraints is, and should remain a local, not a Federal, responsibility. I am convinced that if this job is performed well at the local, level it will contribute more to the effective coordination of programs at the Federal level than any other action that could be taken. I am aware of the enormous obstacles which confront State and local governments in performing this responsibility. Federal laws and regulations often complicate the problems. Many communities have no mechanism for collecting current information about the flow of Federal grant funds into their local agencies, much less for coordinating such programs.
I am encouraged, however, by a number of significant developments. Some 28 State governments have established means for an overall consideration of their participation in Federal grant programs. New Jersey, New York, Tennessee, Washington, Alaska and Rhode Island have established State Offices of Urban Affairs for continuing review and attention to problems of local government finance, structure, organization and planning. The National Association of Counties is actively engaged in persuading county governments to establish Federal aid coordinators, and over 150 have already done so. The effectiveness of these coordinators will be limited, however, if they conceive of their job solely as a device to facilitate access to the Federal Treasury and not, in the first instance, to coordinate and provide for the establishment of priorities among county applications for Federal grants. I understand that a number of cities are also erecting offices to coordinate Federal aid programs. The establishment of Councils of Governments representing elected officials of general units of government within a region is also a hopeful development and is calculated to facilitate regional planning and coordination.
The Federal Government has a direct obligation, in turn, to scrutinize its policies, organization and operations from the viewpoint of their impact on State and local organization and administration. The studies of the Subcommittees on Intergovernmental Relations of the House and Senate Committees on Government Operations and the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations have made major contributions in this regard. Their findings provide no grounds for Federal complacency.
The Federal Government needs, in cooperation with its State and local partners, to develop a consistent and coordinated attack on several key problem areas:
1. We must clear some of. the brush out of what has been called the Federal grant-in-aid jungle. The profusion of categories and subcategories of Federal grants constitutes perhaps the single most important source of management and coordination problems. We can no longer afford to establish matching formulas on a case-by-case basis without regard to any general standards or criteria. We need greater consistency in the organizational and administrative requirements imposed by Federal law and regulations and should make certain that differences genuinely reflect special program needs, not merely historical preferences and administrative biases. Means must be devised to provide a more effective input by the general managers, not just the specialists, into the development of Federal regulations. The Bureau of the Budget is tackling the problem of competing and overlapping planning requirements, and we expect to complete our study early this fall. We are also working with the National Association of State Budget Officers to identify Federal grant-in-aid requirements impeding State administration and to simplify accounting and auditing requirements.
2. We are making progress, but much more needs to be done to improve communications both among Federal agencies and with the heads of general units of local government. The President has designated the Vice President and the Director of the Office of Emergency Planning to act as his liaison with mayors and governors, respectively. Federal Executive Boards established in our major Federal Centers are doing much to facilitate communication and are making a special effort to work closely with State and local governments. The Bureau of the Budget supports S.561, the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act, which, among other objectives, provides for a more effective flow of data to governors and State legislatures.
3. The Federal Government can and should do more to support efforts to enhance the quality of State and local administration. The President has directed the Bureau of the Budget and the Civil Service Commission to advise him on measures to provide Federal support to programs for training State and local officials.
4. We need to adapt our Federal organizations’ structure and coordinating arrangements to current requirements. Peace treaties among overlapping and duplicating programs at best can offer only temporary relief. Government by committee is a danger to be avoided. The executive order issued only last week by President Johnson, assigning to the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development the responsibility to act as a convener, marks a significant new approach.
The Secretary is given the duty to convene special working groups composed of the appropriate Federal agencies involved to identify urban development problems of an interagency or intergovernmental nature, and to promote cooperation among Federal departments and agencies in achieving consistent policies, practices and procedures. The metropolitan desk concept being developed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development also has considerable promise.
5. Finally, and by no means least, we must update our Federal field structure. As President Johnson stated in his Budget Message, “We must strengthen the coordination of Federal programs in the field. We must open channels of responsibility. We must give freedom of action and judgment to the people on the firing line.”
Any partnership, like a marriage, can never be entirely free of stresses and strains. If kept within reasonable bounds, conflict and tension can be creative, not destructive. We all face some difficult tasks in making creative federalism a practical reality. Working together I am confident we can move forward toward President Johnson’s goal of a Great Society.