Intergovernmental Management - Revision history

Admin at 00:56, 26 September 2018

2018-09-26T00:56:50Z

Admin at 23:38, 5 July 2018

2018-07-05T23:38:14Z

Show changes

Morgannoel18 at 09:15, 22 October 2017

2017-10-22T09:15:51Z

Nicole at 20:38, 27 January 2017

2017-01-27T20:38:51Z

Nicole at 20:32, 27 January 2017

2017-01-27T20:32:54Z

Nicole at 20:31, 27 January 2017

2017-01-27T20:31:57Z

Nicole: Created page with "Federal programs administered through the states and local governments and state programs carried out by local governments must be managed cooperatively. The process of managi..."

2017-01-27T20:25:35Z

Created page with "Federal programs administered through the states and local governments and state programs carried out by local governments must be managed cooperatively. The process of managi..."

New page

Federal programs administered through the states and local governments and state programs carried out by local governments must be managed cooperatively. The process of managing programs involves officials working to solve problems that combine legal, technical, political, and project tasks.

Most domestic programs are administered through intergovernmental means in the U.S. federal system: federal-state-local, state-local, and local-local. They also employ nongovernmental organizations. The process of managing across jurisdictional boundaries is called “intergovernmental management” (IGM) by professionals and academics. IGM is the process of solving problems across the boundaries of jurisdictions that interrelate legal, political, technical, and project-related tasks in making programs work. The functions and processes of IGM are normally practiced by elected and appointed administrative officials, although on occasion legislative officials become involved in the processes of facilitating projects or clarifying policy aims.

=== INTERGOVERNMENTAL INSTRUMENTS ===
The management of programs almost always entails actions relating to the more common “action instruments” of intergovernmental relations. They are listed in Figure 1, classified by whether they are primarily economic, legal, administrative, or political in nature. Of the twenty-four actions illustrated, the most prevalent are related to grants, audits, tax policies, loans, regulation, intergovernmental agreements, basic laws, program standards, and intersectoral networks and councils.

=== PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ===
Three brief examples of managing programs illustrate the heavy involvement of administrative officials in programming within American federalism. First, a city wishes to preserve a historic three-square-block area near its central business district. It must first go through a federally required and state government–managed process of designation, which entails citizen hearings, financial feasibility studies, cost estimates for restoration, a plan of use, and ultimately a city council ordinance. If approved, the area is designated on the National Register of Historic Places. This allows building owners involved in rehabilitating their property to qualify for tax credits. After designation, the city can help developers qualify for state and federal funds and low-interest loans. There will follow numerous other contacts and negotiations to actually restore the buildings and arrange use.

Second, a county government is trying to attract a high-technology business within its borders. It will try to leverage some of its own money to gain resources from several federal and state programs. It could access U.S. Economic Development Administration funds to help with the land purchase, use Community Development Block Grants funds to pay for part of the construction, adopt an ordinance to use state-authorized/supervised tax increment financing (a program that devotes future tax increases to improvements) to pay for site improvement and infrastructure, secure state venture capital funds as a partial investment in the company, access U.S. Department of Labor funds for workforce training, and secure road improvement money from federal and state highway funding streams. Each of these efforts will require extensive work in making applications, negotiating with state/federal officials over purposes and details, seeking approvals from the county council and the potential investor, holding public hearings, and meeting a host of funding and program requirements.

Third, the Medicaid program, Title XIX of the Social Security Act, funds health care for the poor. In terms of expenditures, it is the largest single intergovernmental program in the United States. This federal-state program involves the federal government setting minimum requirements for benefits, eligibility, and the reimbursement of health care providers, and establishing administrative rules that states must follow. States can then expand on the minimum requirements in regard to eligibility and services funded if they wish. Each year the states must file and then negotiate a “state plan” relating to how they intend to operate the program. The plan involves literally thousands of administrative details that are subject to interpretation, and in recent years several different kinds of “waivers” or excepted actions that permit states to fund services that would not otherwise be allowed, as well as a few dozen “assurances” that certain crossprogram federal standards are met. During the plan year, state officials will engage in literally thousands of inquiries, subagreements, contracts, and informational transactions with local government and medical vendors, as well as with federal officials. Also, pages and pages of fiscal and program reporting will be collected. Finally, some two years or so after plans have been executed, the paper reporting will be audited by other federal officials. While the proportion of Medicaid spending on administration is quite small compared to its very large budget, no one has been able to estimate the cost impact of the paperwork burden or the extensive administrative time up and down the line that this program takes.

=== WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT TASKS: LEGAL, TECHNICAL, POLITICAL, AND PROJECT ===
The multifaceted process of managing federal programs can be illustrated by examining one program that affects every citizen, that of ensuring that a healthy drinking water supply is available. The U.S. Safe Drinking Water Act (SWDA) of 1974 expanded the federal role in monitoring and standard setting to protect human health and the regulation of water suppliers. The program delegates inspection and enforcement to the states, and some states have further delegated authority to local governments. States are required to have programs that include statutory and regulatory enforcement authority adequate to ensure compliance, a system of conducting inspections of public water supply systems (sanitary surveys), a process to certify laboratories that test for contaminants, and other management provisions. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pays around three-quarters of the costs of operating these programs, which includes a loan program for improvement of facilities. Most important for this illustration is the requirement in the act for the EPA to issue standards for any contaminant that may have an adverse effect on human health and that is known to occur in public drinking water supplies.

The legal issues involved are the published revisions of the Arsenic Rule in 2001 and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund established in 1996 under amendments to SWDA. The EPA changed the Arsenic Rule from 50 parts per billion (ppb) to 10 ppb after the National Academy of Science concluded that the old level could not protect against nonfatal and fatal bladder and lung cancers and that the new level will reduce the frequency of other health effects such as diabetes, developmental problems, gastrointestinal illness, and heart disease. The rule applies to community and nontransit noncommunity water systems, 97 percent of which are small systems that serve fewer than 10,000 persons. Clearly the greatest challenge will be to help very small water systems overhaul or convert their systems at costs that will not be excessive financial burdens on their small customer bases.

Technically it means that over 3,000 community and 1,100 nontransit noncommunity systems have to overhaul their systems, the majority of which serve 500 or fewer users. Fortunately, several technologies are 90–95 percent effective, for example, modified lime softening, modified coagulation/filtration, coagulation-assisted microfiltration, oxidation filtration, and others. Some water suppliers are consolidating into larger systems or are finding new water sources. The total cost for investments in these treatment technologies is estimated to be about $900 million plus an additional $120 million in operating costs. Most states have begun to address the issue of small-system compliance with the Arsenic Rule, along with such other rules as one for uranium, by accelerating inspections and by devoting portions of their Revolving Loan Funds to upgrade small systems. In addition, other funding sources (mostly loans) are available: the U.S. Department of Agriculture/Rural Development, state-administered Community Development Block Grant funds (small cities), the Economic Development Administration, and state water resources programs. Grants or loans in some combination are available through one or more of these sources to assess water system needs, to procure an engineer’s report, and to introduce new technologies.

The political process in small communities begins with finding a local official who is willing to take the lead in orchestrating the process. Most often it is the mayor, or it could be the city clerk, who may be the only full-time official. In others it might be a council member who “volunteers” to take on this administrative process. In larger cities it would be the city administrator or city manager, working along with the city engineer. Whoever leads the political process, it begins with contacting people in the state environmental agency to learn about the process and requirements, and to learn what steps need to be taken. In some states the different funding sources meet together to help smaller communities work the different sources. At this point the city will learn about the key role of hiring a consulting engineer, who will have to prepare reports and plans. The local official taking the lead will have to go back to the community and convince the city council to pass an ordinance putting the process of securing an engineering report and construction/treatment plan in motion. Normally a prior notification public hearing/meeting must also be held to seek public input on all available options, siting issues, environmental impacts, and costs. If the water system is to be consolidated with other systems either by clustering nearby communities or by establishing a new regional water system, then extensive political negotiations with other communities will ensue. After all of this processing, the local lead official can prepare applications for project funding.

The extensive project-related managerial activities then prevail over this Arsenic Rule process. The state agency receives the application that includes community financial data and the engineering consultant’s report (which can be paid for by small grants). The report is reviewed for three basic concerns: feasibility of the user charge system to repay loans, city financial capability, and the environmental assessment review. The engineering report is also separately reviewed. When all reports are acceptable (and the thirty-day hearing is held), planning and design are approved. Then the process involves fee review and technical review of health effects by the state, and all federal cross-program assurances are checked. After any necessary revisions are negotiated, an approval letter for construction is issued. At this point the community must pass what is normally a routine loan authorizing resolution(s) or bond ordinance through its council if the existing revenue debt obligates the water rate. Then the loans from the various sources mentioned earlier are transacted and closed. At this point, which can take from three to six months, the community can open bids for construction. The construction phase finalizes the project, which will have a similarly involved sequence orchestrated by some manager and including the consulting engineer, city attorney, and city council/village board.

=== MANAGERS IN THE HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SYSTEM ===
Managers do more than talk on the phone, e-mail, or make personal contacts when they are working on programs within the federal system. Figure 2, taken from Agranoff and McGuire’s ''Collaborative Public Management'' (2003) study of city economic development, lists twenty-one distinct type of IGM practices. They are both vertical (that is, those devices used for working with state and federal governmental officials) and horizontal (working with other local governments, NGOs, and the private sector). The vertical IGM instruments are of two types, those that try to make some form of adjustment within the system within the boundaries of the policy intent of programs and those designed to determine information or joint understandings. The horizontal instruments either serve particular investment projects or help develop or maintain networks of officials. The frequency of these actions, of course, varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but all twenty-one activities are regular instruments used by managers. In sum, these are the instruments used to coordinate programs—that is, to help make programs work within a given situation.

=== MANAGEMENT: A KEY FEDERALISM TASK ===
Several forces converge to make managing within federalism a core activity of officials at all levels. First, there are high numbers of intergovernmental programs. In addition to the approximately 1,000 programs listed in the U.S. ''Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance'', (http://12.46.245.173/cfda/cfda.html) states offer hundreds of their own programs, which have increased in number in the past several decades. For example, the typical state has adopted up to thirty economic development programs or instruments since the 1970s. Second, the United States has a tradition of separation of governments and powers. Each level of government has different legislative and administrative branches, and at the local level many different types of government exist. Third, there is a tradition of jurisdictional autonomy in the United States. Every city or village, county government, and state government can claim some degree of independence or freedom from interference from higher levels as well as the right to pursue their own aims, even with programs that come from elsewhere. Fourth, the number of actors involved in programs has increased in recent years. In addition to governments, nongovernmental organizations such as private firms and nonprofit agencies have important implementation roles in programs. These new actors share intergovernmental administration with those who are inside governments. Fifth, many programs like the Arsenic Rule within SDWA have become very complicated, calling for legal, technical, and political skills to facilitate action. This has put a premium on administrative actors and program specialists. And sixth, there is increased concern for accountability and performance in programs. This means that there is more managerial activity involved in planning, reviewing, negotiating, and auditing. Together, these forces call attention to the less visible but important managerial aspect in American federalism.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| '''BIBLIOGRAPHY:'''
Robert Agranoff and Michael McGuire, ''Collaborative Public Management: New Strategies for Local Government'' (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2003); Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, http://12.46.245.173/cfda/cfda.html; John J. Gargan, ed., ''Handbook of State Government Administration'' (New York: Marcel Dekker, 2000); Denise Scheberle, ''Federalism and Environmental Policy'' (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1997); and David B. Walker, ''The Rebirth of Federalism'', 2nd ed. (New York: Chatham House, 2000).
|}

==== Robert Agranoff ====

SEE ALSO: [[County Government]]; [[Economic Development]]; [[Education]]; [[Environmental Policy]]; [[Executive Orders]]; [[Federal-State Relations]]; [[Grants-in-Aid]]; [[Health Care Policy]]; [[Intergovernmental Lobbying]]; [[Intergovernmental Relations]]; [[Local Government]]; [[Medicaid]]; [[Political Parties]]; [[Preemption]]; [[Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974]]; [[Social Security Act of 1935]]; [[State Government]]

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 As a result of increasing federal growth and complexity, IGM in countries like the U.S. is a product of federal development among the four core IGM features – law and politics, unit interdependency (including NGOs), government-NGO partnerships, and interconnected networks and networking. At the same time the various government agencies remain as viable, authoritative bodies, indeed as key players. Today governments are part of complex adaptive systems that incorporate interoperable systems that are increasingly digitized and employing open-source technology. Also, IGM systems are faced with the latest technical support in collaborative management (e.g., artificial intelligence).
-The multifaceted process of managing federal programs can be illustrated by examining a program that affects every citizen, that of ensuring that a healthy drinking water supply is available. The U.S. Safe Drinking Water Act (SWDA) of 1974 expanded the federal role in monitoring and standard setting to protect human health and the regulation of water supplies. The program delegates inspection and enforcement to the states, and some states have further delegated authority to local governments. States are required to have programs that include statutory and regulatory enforcement authority adequate to ensure compliance, a system of conducting inspections of public water supply systems (sanitary surveys), a process to certify laboratories that test for contaminants, and management provisions. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pays around three-quarters of these programs’ operating costs, which includes a loan program for improvement of facilities. Most important is the requirement in the Act for the EPA to issue standards for any contaminant that may have an adverse effect on human health and that is known to occur in public drinking water supplies. In these ways IGM reaches through the entire federal system.
+The multifaceted process of managing federal programs can be illustrated by examining a program that affects every citizen, that of ensuring that a healthy drinking water supply is available. The [[Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974|U.S. Safe Drinking Water Act]] (SWDA) of 1974 expanded the federal role in monitoring and standard setting to protect human health and the regulation of water supplies. The program delegates inspection and enforcement to the states, and some states have further delegated authority to local governments. States are required to have programs that include statutory and regulatory enforcement authority adequate to ensure compliance, a system of conducting inspections of public water supply systems (sanitary surveys), a process to certify laboratories that test for contaminants, and management provisions. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pays around three-quarters of these programs’ operating costs, which includes a loan program for improvement of facilities. Most important is the requirement in the Act for the EPA to issue standards for any contaminant that may have an adverse effect on human health and that is known to occur in public drinking water supplies. In these ways IGM reaches through the entire federal system.
-The U. S. Medicaid program also demonstrates the core aspects of IGM. Title XIX of the Social Security Act, funds health care for the poor (also low income elderly, disabled persons). In terms of expenditures, it is the largest single intergovernmental program in the United States. This federal-state program involves the federal government setting minimum requirements for state provided benefits, eligibility, the reimbursement of health care providers, and for establishing administrative rules that states must follow. States, if they choose to fund them, may expand the services and populations eligible for the program. Each year the states must file and then negotiate a “state plan” relating to how they intend to operate their programs. The plan involves literally thousands of administrative details that are subject to interpretation, and in recent years several different kinds of “waivers” or excepted actions that permit states to fund services that would not otherwise be allowed, as well as a few dozen “assurances” that certain cross program federal standards are to be met.
+The U. S. Medicaid program also demonstrates the core aspects of IGM. Title XIX of the [[Social Security Act of 1935|Social Security Act]], funds health care for the poor (also low income elderly, disabled persons). In terms of expenditures, it is the largest single intergovernmental program in the United States. This federal-state program involves the federal government setting minimum requirements for state provided benefits, eligibility, the reimbursement of health care providers, and for establishing administrative rules that states must follow. States, if they choose to fund them, may expand the services and populations eligible for the program. Each year the states must file and then negotiate a “state plan” relating to how they intend to operate their programs. The plan involves literally thousands of administrative details that are subject to interpretation, and in recent years several different kinds of “waivers” or excepted actions that permit states to fund services that would not otherwise be allowed, as well as a few dozen “assurances” that certain cross program federal standards are to be met.
 During each planning year, state Medicaid officials engage in literally thousands of inquiries, subagreements, contracts, and informational transactions with local governments and medical vendors, as well as with federal officials. Also, pages and pages of fiscal and program reporting will be collected. Finally, some two years or so after plans have been executed, the paper reporting will be audited by other federal officials. While the proportion of Medicaid spending on administration is relatively small compared to its very large budget, no one has been able to estimate the cost impact of the paperwork burden or the extensive administrative time up and down the line that this program takes. It is “quintessentially IGM” with all of its audits, rules, standards, jurisdictions, vendors, etc.
@@ Line 47: / Line 47: @@
 Indeed, these reciprocal administrative actions and transactions are particularly reflective of the U.S. and other federal situations, coupled with localism and the absence of a large federal bureaucratic presence.
-IGM is also an emergent feature known in many countries as executive federalism, that involves joint working sessions between central and state/provincial/conferences to negotiate and settle finance and other policy issues. It is a common aspect in Canada, South Africa, Australia, India, and Malaysia. Australia also employs a Council of Australian Governments, that includes local governments, and a discussion forum for identifying and resolving major policy issues.
+IGM is also an emergent feature known in many countries as executive [[federalism]], that involves joint working sessions between central and state/provincial/conferences to negotiate and settle finance and other policy issues. It is a common aspect in Canada, South Africa, Australia, India, and Malaysia. Australia also employs a Council of Australian Governments, that includes local governments, and a discussion forum for identifying and resolving major policy issues.
 Other IGM features abound today. Brazil’s Constitution explicitly grants local governments powers to contract for local services, e.g. public transport and waste collection, while intermunicipal transport is a state government competency that requires high levels of state and local collaborative management. Algonquin Provincial Park in Ontario, Canada, is one of the few parks that is “managed” for both timber cutting and recreation. This dual result came about after knowledge-based political negotiations and compromise among varied and competing interests, a not uncommon phenomenon in IGM. In Australia local government is responsible for recreation, open spaces, infrastructure—wheras public transport, electricity, education, hospitals and healthcare are state or territorial. As a result for local management, governments must operate as part of a local network. Finally, the movement toward participatory democracy—citizens and citizen groups—as a basic unit of policy input and programming design have become regular features in Austria, Germany, Belgium, Nigeria, Spain and Switzerland. In these countries, the origins of IGM can thus be most basic in level of origin and begin to expand multilevel governance, interactive policy-making and program design at early (local) stages.
@@ Line 94: / Line 94: @@
 Two programs illustrate IGM in action:  the Medicaid Waiver is largely a federal-state-NGO program; , and Community Development Block Grants are primarily local.
-Adopted by Congress in 1981, the Medicaid 1915c Home and Community Based Services HCBS Waiver is a Congressional delegation of authority to the executive branch to permit selective deviations from the law. HCBS allows states to apply for a state plan to provide home and community services to people who are aged, disabled, or experience some form of intellectual and developmental disability (I/DD) that in the absence of the alternative home- and community-based services, would remain or be at-risk of being placed in a Medicaid facility such as a nursing or other such home or intermediate care (ICF/ID). Services include case management, adult day care and habilitation, supported employment, environmental modifications, homemaker, personal supports, respite care, transportation and a series of health services. HCBS cannot be used to pay for room and board; however, cash assistance such as Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is available for income-eligible persons for these purposes. Moreover, HCBS has proven to be instrumental in state implementation of the U.S. Supreme Court’s L.C. vs. Olmstead (1999) that opened the door for expanded community services for the disabled as a right. The federal government began to use HCBS to “guide” states in implementating this landmark decision.
+Adopted by [[U.S. Congress|Congress]] in 1981, the Medicaid 1915c Home and Community Based Services HCBS Waiver is a Congressional delegation of authority to the executive branch to permit selective deviations from the law. HCBS allows states to apply for a state plan to provide home and community services to people who are aged, disabled, or experience some form of intellectual and developmental disability (I/DD) that in the absence of the alternative home- and community-based services, would remain or be at-risk of being placed in a Medicaid facility such as a nursing or other such home or intermediate care (ICF/ID). Services include case management, adult day care and habilitation, supported employment, environmental modifications, homemaker, personal supports, respite care, transportation and a series of health services. HCBS cannot be used to pay for room and board; however, cash assistance such as Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is available for income-eligible persons for these purposes. Moreover, HCBS has proven to be instrumental in state implementation of the U.S. Supreme Court’s L.C. vs. Olmstead (1999) that opened the door for expanded community services for the disabled as a right. The federal government began to use HCBS to “guide” states in implementating this landmark decision.
 Medicaid HCBS was primarily expected to curb nursing home growth. While states are not required to access HCBS funds, they found them to be attractive because it gives them an opportunity to target client size, expand services, and respond to state-based advocacy groups while retaining the right to control service areas and cap enrollments. For example, available data for year 2011, HCBS Waiver spending totaled $31.4 billion in federal, state, and local government outlays, serving more than 685,828 persons. The spending available for 2013 average was $45,795 per person. For I/DD persons, HCBS funds about half of all I/DD federal, state, and local public spending, varying by state. In contrast, state institutional populations (16 or more) were at 24,675 in 2013, with 35 of 37 states surveyed reducing their census. Meanwhile, 80 percent of out-of-home placements in 2013 are now in settings of six or fewer persons. Finally, each state varies with regard to meeting the challenge of IGM network building and the vigor with which it integrates persons at the community level. In sum the HCBS has made a significant impact on reducing hospital visitations.
@@ Line 140: / Line 140: @@
 '''Figure 2: The IGR Network in Residential and Non-Residential Services for I/DD Under the Medicaid Waiver'''
-The second program, the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, is illustrative of federal-local-NGO programs. It allows cities of various sizes to employ its complex public-private governing environment’s potential, if a city chooses to actively combine federal-state-local programs into development strategies. For example, if a city wishes to expand its industrial park it may apply for venture capital money, collateralized by local business pledges of investment. The process might follow the following hypothetical sequence: First, the city will determine its priorities. Second, the city’s department of community development regularly conducts a strategic economic development planning process, which involves governmental and nongovernmental organization officials, as well as business leaders and its development corporation. Third, the city’s annual update of its block grant plan allows for the revision of priorities in spending to support needed projects. City officials express their need for funds to state officials and suggest the possibility of slightly altering the requirements of the venture capital program. If the state declines, the city officials may pursue infrastructure development funds from another state program and approach two federal government agencies with a freeway exit proposal. The city’s strategic activity leads to adjustments in the CDBG program, a minor redirection of a state infrastructure grant, and extensive negotiations and appeals with the U.S. Economic Development Administration and the state Housing and Economic Development Authority over eligibility for assistance. If all goes well, the city receives a mixture of state infrastructure funds and federal money, along with enhanced financial support from local investors. In the end the city will become deeply engaged in administering these programs with local and NGO partners.
+The second program, the [[Block Grants|Community Development Block Grant]] (CDBG) program, is illustrative of federal-local-NGO programs. It allows cities of various sizes to employ its complex public-private governing environment’s potential, if a city chooses to actively combine federal-state-local programs into development strategies. For example, if a city wishes to expand its industrial park it may apply for venture capital money, collateralized by local business pledges of investment. The process might follow the following hypothetical sequence: First, the city will determine its priorities. Second, the city’s department of community development regularly conducts a strategic economic development planning process, which involves governmental and nongovernmental organization officials, as well as business leaders and its development corporation. Third, the city’s annual update of its block grant plan allows for the revision of priorities in spending to support needed projects. City officials express their need for funds to state officials and suggest the possibility of slightly altering the requirements of the venture capital program. If the state declines, the city officials may pursue infrastructure development funds from another state program and approach two federal government agencies with a freeway exit proposal. The city’s strategic activity leads to adjustments in the CDBG program, a minor redirection of a state infrastructure grant, and extensive negotiations and appeals with the U.S. Economic Development Administration and the state Housing and Economic Development Authority over eligibility for assistance. If all goes well, the city receives a mixture of state infrastructure funds and federal money, along with enhanced financial support from local investors. In the end the city will become deeply engaged in administering these programs with local and NGO partners.
 === Conclusion: IGM Globally ===

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:15, 22 October 2017
Line 84:		Line 84:

	==== Robert Agranoff ====		==== Robert Agranoff ====
		+
		+	Last updated: 2006

	SEE ALSO: [[County Government]]; [[Economic Development]]; [[Education]]; [[Environmental Policy]]; [[Executive Orders]]; [[Federal-State Relations]]; [[Grants-in-Aid]]; [[Health Care Policy]]; [[Intergovernmental Lobbying]]; [[Intergovernmental Relations]]; [[Local Government]]; [[Medicaid]]; [[Political Parties]]; [[Preemption]]; [[Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974]]; [[Social Security Act of 1935]]; [[State Government]]		SEE ALSO: [[County Government]]; [[Economic Development]]; [[Education]]; [[Environmental Policy]]; [[Executive Orders]]; [[Federal-State Relations]]; [[Grants-in-Aid]]; [[Health Care Policy]]; [[Intergovernmental Lobbying]]; [[Intergovernmental Relations]]; [[Local Government]]; [[Medicaid]]; [[Political Parties]]; [[Preemption]]; [[Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974]]; [[Social Security Act of 1935]]; [[State Government]]

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 {| class="wikitable"
 |-
+| 1. Economic Devices
 * Grants or subventions (general revenue/unrestricted, broad/bloc, targeted/categorical)
 * Fiscal audits
@@ Line 23: / Line 22: @@
 * Intergovernmental fiscal study/equalization commissions
 * Procurement of goods, services, and/or personnel from other governments
-# Legal Approaches
+. Legal Approaches
 * Intergovernmental regulation (program requirements, crossover rules, crosscutting requirements), executive orders, direct regulation, partial preemption, total preemption by higher level government
 * Cooperative agreements to jointly operate a program (e.g. health statistics, emergency management, and internal security)
 * Intergovernmental agreements (e.g. joint fire services, combined libraries, special education cooperatives, and mutual aid for police emergencies)
 * Interdependent legal actions (joint environmental action, joint workplace regulation, and joint income tax format agreements)
-* Basic laws on governmental structure, local taxation, local civil service, local
+* Basic laws on governmental structure, local taxation, local civil service, local powers
-powers
+. Administrative Practices
 * Program standards and requirements
 * Contracts for services/programming between governments
@@ Line 37: / Line 35: @@
 * Regional/metropolitan governments or special authorities
 * Negotiated performance programs (in lieu of controls and requirements)
-# Political/Government Bodies
+. Political/Government Bodies
 * Intersectoral/intergovernmental networks and councils
 * Councils of governments (regional, metropolitan)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:31, 27 January 2017
Line 10:		Line 10:

	Second, a county government is trying to attract a high-technology business within its borders. It will try to leverage some of its own money to gain resources from several federal and state programs. It could access U.S. Economic Development Administration funds to help with the land purchase, use Community Development Block Grants funds to pay for part of the construction, adopt an ordinance to use state-authorized/supervised tax increment financing (a program that devotes future tax increases to improvements) to pay for site improvement and infrastructure, secure state venture capital funds as a partial investment in the company, access U.S. Department of Labor funds for workforce training, and secure road improvement money from federal and state highway funding streams. Each of these efforts will require extensive work in making applications, negotiating with state/federal officials over purposes and details, seeking approvals from the county council and the potential investor, holding public hearings, and meeting a host of funding and program requirements.		Second, a county government is trying to attract a high-technology business within its borders. It will try to leverage some of its own money to gain resources from several federal and state programs. It could access U.S. Economic Development Administration funds to help with the land purchase, use Community Development Block Grants funds to pay for part of the construction, adopt an ordinance to use state-authorized/supervised tax increment financing (a program that devotes future tax increases to improvements) to pay for site improvement and infrastructure, secure state venture capital funds as a partial investment in the company, access U.S. Department of Labor funds for workforce training, and secure road improvement money from federal and state highway funding streams. Each of these efforts will require extensive work in making applications, negotiating with state/federal officials over purposes and details, seeking approvals from the county council and the potential investor, holding public hearings, and meeting a host of funding and program requirements.
		+
		+	'''FIGURE 1. Action Instruments of Intergovernmental Relations'''
		+	{\| class="wikitable"
		+	\|-
		+	\|
		+	# Economic Devices
		+	* Grants or subventions (general revenue/unrestricted, broad/bloc, targeted/categorical)
		+	* Fiscal audits
		+	* Tax policies (reciprocal taxation schedules, tax abatements/forgiveness, tax sharing, tax transfers, tax cession)
		+	* Intergovernmental loans
		+	* Shared (with private sector and other governments) capital projects and investments, shared venture capital investments
		+	* Intergovernmental fiscal study/equalization commissions
		+	* Procurement of goods, services, and/or personnel from other governments
		+	# Legal Approaches
		+	* Intergovernmental regulation (program requirements, crossover rules, crosscutting requirements), executive orders, direct regulation, partial preemption, total preemption by higher level government
		+	* Cooperative agreements to jointly operate a program (e.g. health statistics, emergency management, and internal security)
		+	* Intergovernmental agreements (e.g. joint fire services, combined libraries, special education cooperatives, and mutual aid for police emergencies)
		+	* Interdependent legal actions (joint environmental action, joint workplace regulation, and joint income tax format agreements)
		+	* Basic laws on governmental structure, local taxation, local civil service, local
		+	powers
		+	# Administrative Practices
		+	* Program standards and requirements
		+	* Contracts for services/programming between governments
		+	* Exchange of personnel
		+	* Program audits (look behind reviews)
		+	* Regional/metropolitan governments or special authorities
		+	* Negotiated performance programs (in lieu of controls and requirements)
		+	# Political/Government Bodies
		+	* Intersectoral/intergovernmental networks and councils
		+	* Councils of governments (regional, metropolitan)
		+	* Intergovernmental associations (municipalities, counties, mayors, local councils, and local civil service unions)
		+	* Intergovernmental lobbying/representation
		+	* Elected official to elected official contacts
		+	* Political party channels
		+	\|}

	Third, the Medicaid program, Title XIX of the Social Security Act, funds health care for the poor. In terms of expenditures, it is the largest single intergovernmental program in the United States. This federal-state program involves the federal government setting minimum requirements for benefits, eligibility, and the reimbursement of health care providers, and establishing administrative rules that states must follow. States can then expand on the minimum requirements in regard to eligibility and services funded if they wish. Each year the states must file and then negotiate a “state plan” relating to how they intend to operate the program. The plan involves literally thousands of administrative details that are subject to interpretation, and in recent years several different kinds of “waivers” or excepted actions that permit states to fund services that would not otherwise be allowed, as well as a few dozen “assurances” that certain crossprogram federal standards are met. During the plan year, state officials will engage in literally thousands of inquiries, subagreements, contracts, and informational transactions with local government and medical vendors, as well as with federal officials. Also, pages and pages of fiscal and program reporting will be collected. Finally, some two years or so after plans have been executed, the paper reporting will be audited by other federal officials. While the proportion of Medicaid spending on administration is quite small compared to its very large budget, no one has been able to estimate the cost impact of the paperwork burden or the extensive administrative time up and down the line that this program takes.		Third, the Medicaid program, Title XIX of the Social Security Act, funds health care for the poor. In terms of expenditures, it is the largest single intergovernmental program in the United States. This federal-state program involves the federal government setting minimum requirements for benefits, eligibility, and the reimbursement of health care providers, and establishing administrative rules that states must follow. States can then expand on the minimum requirements in regard to eligibility and services funded if they wish. Each year the states must file and then negotiate a “state plan” relating to how they intend to operate the program. The plan involves literally thousands of administrative details that are subject to interpretation, and in recent years several different kinds of “waivers” or excepted actions that permit states to fund services that would not otherwise be allowed, as well as a few dozen “assurances” that certain crossprogram federal standards are met. During the plan year, state officials will engage in literally thousands of inquiries, subagreements, contracts, and informational transactions with local government and medical vendors, as well as with federal officials. Also, pages and pages of fiscal and program reporting will be collected. Finally, some two years or so after plans have been executed, the paper reporting will be audited by other federal officials. While the proportion of Medicaid spending on administration is quite small compared to its very large budget, no one has been able to estimate the cost impact of the paperwork burden or the extensive administrative time up and down the line that this program takes.

@@ Line 59: / Line 59: @@
 === MANAGERS IN THE HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SYSTEM ===
 Managers do more than talk on the phone, e-mail, or make personal contacts when they are working on programs within the federal system. Figure 2, taken from Agranoff and McGuire’s ''Collaborative Public Management'' (2003) study of city economic development, lists twenty-one distinct type of IGM practices. They are both vertical (that is, those devices used for working with state and federal governmental officials) and horizontal (working with other local governments, NGOs, and the private sector). The vertical IGM instruments are of two types, those that try to make some form of adjustment within the system within the boundaries of the policy intent of programs and those designed to determine information or joint understandings. The horizontal instruments either serve particular investment projects or help develop or maintain networks of officials. The frequency of these actions, of course, varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but all twenty-one activities are regular instruments used by managers. In sum, these are the instruments used to coordinate programs—that is, to help make programs work within a given situation.
 === MANAGEMENT: A KEY FEDERALISM TASK ===