Decentralizing Community Development Decisions: A Study of Oklahoma's Small Cities Program

Community Characteristics and Redistribution Efforts: Oklahoma’S Participation in the Cdbg Small Cities Program

“…Citizens, who usually have even fewer skills in terms of program management, apparently have little choice but to rely on the administrative expertise of city staff and elected officials. Considering the extensive influence of local officials in the CDBG program and keeping in mind Peterson's claim that they tend to focus on economic concerns, it is not surprising that grant communities are primarily interested in infrastructure improvements (Watson, 1992). Next in importance to municipalities in Oklahoma is the physical appearance of business and commercial areas, followed by interests in bettering residential areas, housing, parks and recreational areas, and community facilities (e.g., senior citizen centers) in that order.…”

“…To date, studies of the CDBG Small Cities program indicate that such expectations have not been always fulfilled (Morgan & England, 198% Jennings, 1985;Reed, 1986;Fossett, 1987). Research (Watson, 1992) indicates that Oklahoma communities have clearly made changes in their funding priorities since decentralization of the program in FY 1982. From FY 1982until 1986 small cities and towns in Oklahoma allocated an average of 46% of their CDBG funds for public facilities improvements, especially water and sewer projects.…”

“…These findings are in contrast to Morgan and England's (1984) study of Oklahoma CDBG Small Cities allocations which found that communities, prior to state assumption of the program (1978)(1979)(1980)(1981), allocated 41% of funds to housing rehabilitation projects. In addition, Watson (1992) analyzed the location of grant projects (i.e., low, moderate, median, or high income area) and discovered that Oklahoma localities prefer to locate more projects and channel more funds into moderate and median income areas. Indeed, between FYs 1982 and 1986, communities carried out 44.6% of CDBG projects in moderate income areas and 32.7% in median income areas, while allocating 48.6% and 30% of grant funds to moderate and median income areas, respectively.…”

Taken for Granted? Managing for Social Equity in Grant Programs

“…This finding makes sense in light of our framework because both pre‐1981 HUD and post‐1981 state administration use some form of competitive grant contracting. Isserman (1981) found that need was generally ignored in HUD’s administration, and Watson’s (1992, 1993) studies of Oklahoma suggest that state administration may be targeting median income populations to the exclusion of poor communities. These findings are consistent with the proposition that reliance on grant competitions may bias outputs toward greater administrative capacity.…”

Community development as a response to community-level adversity: Ecological theory and research and strengths-based policy.

“…But during the 1980s, much block grant funding went to less needy neighborhoods to fund public infrastructure instead of to housing, physical improvements, or economic development in poor areas (Catlin, 1981;Watson, 1992). How should these funds be targeted?…”