Block grants have enjoyed only marginal success, in part because

Block grants have enjoyed only marginal success, in part because

• A. The federal government steadily increased the number of strings attached to such grants.
• B. Money from categorical grants shrank so low as to make these other grants essential.
• C. These grants were based on local priorities rather than on the needs of the nation as a whole.
• D. These grants discouraged federal control over how the money was to be used.

Answer: (A)

Block grants were meant to give states broad discretion over how to spend money to address general goals. Their limited success stems from the federal government steadily attaching more strings to these grants—requirements on how funds must be used, reporting demands, matching funds, and mandates that align with national priorities. Those added conditions erode the flexibility that defines block grants and bring more federal influence back into how the money is spent, which dulls their appeal and effectiveness. Other explanations miss the key point: rather than shrinking the need for or importance of the grants, the growing number of requirements kept them from delivering true local discretion. And if the issue were that they discouraged federal control, that would paradoxically make them more successful, not less, which isn’t reflected in how these programs have evolved.

Block grants were meant to give states broad discretion over how to spend money to address general goals. Their limited success stems from the federal government steadily attaching more strings to these grants—requirements on how funds must be used, reporting demands, matching funds, and mandates that align with national priorities. Those added conditions erode the flexibility that defines block grants and bring more federal influence back into how the money is spent, which dulls their appeal and effectiveness.

Other explanations miss the key point: rather than shrinking the need for or importance of the grants, the growing number of requirements kept them from delivering true local discretion. And if the issue were that they discouraged federal control, that would paradoxically make them more successful, not less, which isn’t reflected in how these programs have evolved.