Federal Categorical Aid To Cities: Who Needs It Versus Who Wants It

Abstract

j C HANGES in federal-city aid policies have frequently been the American government's method of response to demands for changes in urban policy. The depression of the 1930s brought forth added domestic spending and limited categorical grants to cities. Concern over the decline of the central city in the 1950s resulted in more broadly based programs in the form of urban renewal. An important response to the civil rights and minority crises of the 1960s were Model Cities and Poverty grants which emphasized citizen participation provisions. Most recently, reactions against both federal and citizens control of federal programs have led to more general grants of funds to cities in the form of general and special revenue sharing. An assumption implicit in most forms of federal legislation providing categorical grants of aid to cities is that resources should be distributed to people and neighborhoods who presently lack them.' Several recent analyses of the incidence of federal aid have lent some support to this inference.2 Yet local resistance to such aid, insufficient managerial skills, and conflict between federal and local officials during the implementation process has also been documented and such practices may cause resources to be distributed in other ways.3 Some cities with large numbers of needy citizens and primitive public services, such as Houston, Texas, have consistently foregone federal aid for which they have been eligible. Others such as New York and Chicago have been able to acquire huge sums in part because of the entrepreneurial skills of civic leaders such as Richard Daly and Robert Moses.4 This suggests that the attitudes of and procedures followed by local decision makers may intervene between the need for aid and its distribution.