This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
First, the implementation timeline is rather long, as key recommendations are significantly dependent upon Congress passing legislation – and it must be assumed that such passage will require, at a minimum, at least several years. I find these recommendations lacking for four main reasons.
Accountability mechanisms must be in place to ensure that the right stuff is being done with the money and that it gets results. There must be transparency with the grant making process --something definitely not present in the Baltimore example. An RFP and open call process with deadlines and decision making criteria.
Power is a difficult concept to study but if you are tracking outcomes, it becomes a little bit easier as James Battista (2011) states in his paper Formal and Perceived Leadership Power in U.S. Battista, James (2011). Women in the state legislative power structure: committee chairs. References. State Legislatures.
Not surprisingly, the two companies highly prioritized protecting those subsidies, which meant maintaining political support in Congress to ensure no legislation was passed to take them away. As part of ensuring that support, the average G-fee at the time was thus kept low – in the 0.20 Also, the 0.10 22] See the G-fee Report, pp.
Accordingly, local government programs should account for federal rules prohibiting “duplication of benefits” (or DOB) from other sources. 4] North Carolina Legislation 1975 , ed. This amount is so substantial that local governments need to make every penny count. 2 CFR 200.101 (Uniform Guidance “Applicability”). [2]
I have also written on the inherent design flaw in F&F and the other GSEs embedded in their congressional legislation: see [link] and [link]. ]] For many years, this was considered the responsibility of Congress, which had established the GSEs by legislation – but Congress has never come close to agreeing on what changes would be needed.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 40,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content