Respond to each peer initial post and question at the end with a response about 3 to 4 sentences long:
Peer# 1
In recent years the federal government has started using block grants to give states money allowing states to have more control on were this money is spent. Block grants are designed to provide more certainty in the federal budget and allow for a stronger state incentive to control program costs (Lambrew, 2005). While many people think this is a good idea and that states have a better idea were these funds need to be spent in their own state than the federal government does. The control of these funds need to be more regulated. On the surface this seems like a very good assessment of the situation. If you dig deeper into this type of funding you discover that a large portion of these funds are not spent were they were intended to be spent by the federal government. Who suffers from this, us as citizens
Take for example the housing crisis in 2009. The federal government blocked 2.5 million dollars to give states to help people who fell under this crisis. This money was given to states to aid preventable foreclosures, and financial fraud to help stabilize communities across the country (Pugh, 2012). Not much of this money found its way to the intended purpose. Missouri law makers used most of their 39.5 million to offset cuts to higher education funding, while the governor of South Carolina veto legislation to redirect the states entire 31.1 million the Republican controlled state senate overrode that veto and shifted 21 million to the general fund and 10 million to provide incentives for companies to relocate to South Carolina (Pugh, 2012). I was looking for the article on my own state of Arizona but could not find it, but I remember they diverted theirs to the general fund.
Nothing was to stop this, and this is just one. Many states use money given to them by the federal government for things other than what it was intended, and this is wrong and hurts those who need it most. In 1995 a welfare bill was introduced to give states block funds.
Requirements: the federal government would oversee 7% of the total funds, the balance to be divided among the states with each state devoting 25% to education efforts such as job training and employment service (West, & Portner, 1995). Which sounds too good help these people get out of the system and trained for jobs. This is what we hear all the time they need to go to work and quit living off our tax money. Wait there is more so we have 7% of the total and then 25% of what is allocated to the states but what about the rest of that money. The balance of each states block grant would be allocated at the discretion of the governor of each state (West, & Portner, 1995). Also, in this bill the senate wanted to deny cash benefits to unwed mothers but decided to let that up to the states they could if they wanted to.
As a taxpaying citizen this really ticks me off. Not the part that people are getting help and living off the system. The part that makes me mad is the continual misuse of government funding and the continual bombardment by politicians that they must cut entitlement programs they are draining the system. If the funds were used correctly people might actually get education that would allow them to get off entitlement programs. The biggest one that ticks me off is they are now calling Social security an entitlement benefit, but they sure take that money out of my paycheck every week.
Peer# 2
There have been three major federal block grant programs proposed by President Nixon, President Reagan, and President Clinton (Origins and Effects of Federal Block Grant Programs, n.d.). Federal block grants were first introduced in the 70's during Richard Nixon's presidency when he consolidated 129 federal domestic assistance programs into six block programs (Origins and Effects of Federal Block Grant Programs, n.d.). President Clinton initiated the block grant program called Temporary Assistance to Needy Families as a replacement for the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (Origins and Effects of Federal Block Grant Programs, n.d.).
Block grants are provided as federal assistance for functions such as community development or social services (Grants.gov, 2016). Due to the federal government wanting discretion, there is a lack of implementation when it comes to block grant programs. As a result, illegal activities may go unnoticed. Although there are various regulations and guidelines for implementation, state and local government entities are responsible for deciding how they will allocate the funds from the block grant (Grants.gov, 2016)
For instance, in attempts to manage Medicaid, the Trump administration is considering providing funds to state governments to manage Medicaid as they see fit, also known as block granting (Luthra, 2017). The amount of the grant will vary by state, and will be based on how much is being spent on Medicaid in that particular state. Being that block grants allow discretion for states to utilize the funds as they see fit, it could cause many issues for the individuals receiving the services. Welfare is one of the commonly known block grant program that offers temporary assistance to needy families (Kurtzleben, 2014). The welfare program offers services such as daycare, adoption, and services to the disabled (Kurtzleben, 2014). With block grants, states have greater control over how the funds are used. Block grants allow states to better administer aid to the public, as well as enhance accountability for state officials (Kurtzleben, 2014).
Opponents of block grants believe this type of grant is used to "indirectly cut funding to programs" (Kurtzelben, 2014, para. 17). Evaluating the effectiveness of block grant programs can be difficult since each state has the ability to spend money and administer programs differently (Kurtzleben, 2014). In efforts to combat poverty, Paul Ryan released a poverty plan that lumps programs together "under on funding stream" (Kurtzleben, 2017, para. 1).
As a citizen paying taxes, I think there should be greater control over how funds from block grants are used. Although states differ when it comes to spending and administering funds, it is important for the federal government to put a system in place that serves as checks and balance for the funds. In other words, the federal government should have a state representative monitor and evaluate the programs, and directly report back to the federal government. I believe this will help with ensuring that funds are not being misused or used illegally. Discretion is a major component of block grant programs. The federal government should continue to give the states the autonomy to decide how to utilize the funds; however, I do believe effective monitoring and evaluation of the programs should be conducted at the federal level.
Peer # 3
1. What can you now do as an evaluator to change the initial reaction to the findings?
Based on this week's lessons, an evaluator who wishes to change the initial reaction of his or her findings must first be humble and present a polite and encouraging attitude. The way in which your verbal and body language appear to viewers will have a strong effect on whether they listen further. Calmly remind stake holders that they have followed the entire process and you wish to recall certain events or periods of time throughout the process. Encourage listeners to sit through the presentation again, sometimes first reactions come from misunderstandings or miscommunication. This time, having heard the presentation once, they will be better equipped to answer questions.
2. Should you ever change the results of the evaluation based on stakeholders' reactions to findings? Why or why not?
I would never change my results based upon reactions to findings. This could be an attempt for stake holders to advance their individual agenda or to hide their portion of fault. In this position I would hear my stake holders out and gain an understanding of their reaction. If their reaction is valid due to the inability to create the changes recommended by the evaluator, it's possible I might create more feasible adjustments to the recommendation if the stake holder could provide proof that recommendations had outstanding limitations.
3. Could you have done anything to avoid such a negative reaction?
You can avoid negative reactions by providing more frequent updates on the evaluation status. Also increased communication of stake holder's intentions for conducting evaluation and purpose for seeing it through. Often the negative reaction comes from misunderstandings, so ensuring that graphs and samples of data are present at the presentation is crucial. Using a learning model is necessary for presenting data. Present data as if your viewers knew little to nothing about the project. Using computer-projected visuals helps to make major points and keep the attention of the audience on the message. Each image should focus on one major idea, such as the impact model, a graph of findings, or recommendations. (Posavac 2012)
Peer#4
Evaluation Findings and Interpretation
Evaluation findings can receive positive or negative reactions among stakeholders. If the stakeholder does not agree with the evaluation, there are a couple techniques the evaluator can utilize to change the initial reaction to the findings. If the results show negative effects, the evaluator can point out how another program could more effectively use the resources. If the program under evaluation does not fulfill its duty, there may be a secondary duty it was fulfilling unknowingly. The evaluator could point out how it was successful. They could also ensure the negative results are presented in a learning manner. What can be improved now that this negative effect is known (Posavac, 2011)?
No matter what kind of results are achieved, positive or negative, the results should not be changed based on the stakeholders' reactions. In order for the evaluation to keep its validity, the results must not change. Changing them is like changing the data after it's collected in order to achieve specific results. It shows poor ethics. It also lessens the evaluator's credibility. If another organization learns of the doctored results, they will not hire that evaluator because the results could not be trusted. It also brings negative attention to the company the evaluator works for. The evaluator could lose their job for giving false information (Posavac, 2011).
To avoid a negative reaction, the evaluator could talk to the stakeholders before the information is gathered so the results could be presented in a favorable way for what the stakeholder is looking for if it is possible. If the results are all together negative, they should not be changed for fear of the stakeholders' reactions. The evaluator should work with the stakeholders and let them understand they, the evaluator, will include recommendations for negative results. The evaluator should also keep the stakeholders abreast of the information gathered. If they know how the evaluation is going, the results should not be too surprising. If periodic reports show a negative trend forming, then if in the end, the outcome is negative, it should not be a large shock (Posavac, 2011).