Grant Allocation Decision Rules

Sharon L. Caudle and Kathryn E. Newcomer
Additional contact information
Sharon L. Caudle: National Academy of Public Administration
Kathryn E. Newcomer: George Washington University

Evaluation Review, 1986, vol. 10, issue 6, 860-879

Abstract: Decision rules are at the heart of federal grant allocations that presume funds will go where the need is. Federal grant administrators are under mandates to do effective, efficient, and responsive "relative need" program benefit targeting, explicitly defined in justifiable decision rules. Using a case study of the Special Supplemental Feeding Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), we follow the definition of relative need to a final national funding strategy for state agency WICgrant allocations. Comparing the funding effects and the subsequent perceptions of stakeholders, we found that formulating decision rules to operationalize equity, responsiveness, and efficiency in a national funding formula is fraught with problems. These included data limitations, differing stakeholder views of the proper selection and weighting of need indicators, barriers to a smooth transition to a newfunding method, and raised expectations that "hard" data will result in truly rational allocations.

Date: 1986
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0193841X8601000610 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:evarev:v:10:y:1986:i:6:p:860-879

DOI: 10.1177/0193841X8601000610

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Evaluation Review
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().