{"id":9045,"date":"2017-04-25T02:05:12","date_gmt":"2017-04-25T02:05:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/?p=9045"},"modified":"2017-04-26T02:09:08","modified_gmt":"2017-04-26T02:09:08","slug":"what-the-trump-team-should-consider-before-axing-meals-on-wheels-funds","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/what-the-trump-team-should-consider-before-axing-meals-on-wheels-funds\/","title":{"rendered":"What the Trump team should consider before axing Meals on Wheels funds"},"content":{"rendered":"

David Campbell<\/a>, Binghamton University, State University of New York<\/a><\/em> and Kristina Lambright<\/a>, Binghamton University, State University of New York<\/a><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

To justify President Donald Trump\u2019s aim to spend less on social services, Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney declared<\/a>, \u201cWe can\u2019t spend money on programs just because they sound good.\u201d Who can argue with that? \"The<\/p>\n

Not us.<\/p>\n

Like anyone else, we want our taxpayer dollars spent wisely. Funding programs that \u201csound good\u201d but don\u2019t accomplish much seems foolish. Still, this principle is way too broad to apply to complicated budget decisions. Our research suggests that identifying the best spending choices is a lot harder than it sounds. <\/p>\n

Assessing social service programs<\/h2>\n

Mulvaney brought up Meals on Wheels<\/a>, a program that delivers meals to 2.4 million homebound seniors a year, while trying to give a good example of something funded through the Community Development Block Grant program that Trump is seeking to eliminate altogether. The grants \u201cwere just not showing any results,\u201d he said<\/a> in mid-March.<\/p>\n

The federal government spends about US$3 billion<\/a> annually on block-grant funds that states, counties and cities use to meet local needs as they see fit. This money helps make housing more affordable for low-income people, subsidizes child care and, in many communities, covers part of the cost of Meals on Wheels and other programs serving the elderly. <\/p>\n

As public administration professors, we have studied how social service programs get assessed. In our research<\/a> at Binghamton University, we have surveyed and interviewed funders as well as providers of these programs to learn how they measure results and how they use that information once they get it. We found that each defines results in different ways and uses them in different ways, making it hard to prove whether government funded programs like Meals on Wheels \u201cwork.\u201d<\/p>\n

In one study, for example, we asked 20 funders and 20 providers the open-ended question, \u201cWhy do you collect performance information?\u201d In a number of cases, interviewees provided more than one response.<\/p>\n

What we learned<\/a> is that providers often are more interested in improving their programs and becoming more responsive to the people who benefit from them. Funders such as the federal government, on the other hand, tend to prioritize making sure that the programs have the intended outcomes. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\n