« PreviousContinue »
grams in purposes and objectives, there are a limited number of kinds of involvement (methods, techniques, or “kinds of grants”) that fall into the degrees-of-involvement (minimal or substantial) categories that are outlined in the report.
than one kind of grant-type relationship or transaction • Lack of Government-wide guidance for Federal grant-type relationships and transactions.
Consideration of these causes led to questions such as:
• What is the nature of the grant-type assistance relationships that exist between the Federal Government and the non-Federal sector? • Can and should grant-type transactions be distinguished from procurement transactions? • Is it possible to reduce the confusion which seems to beset grant-type programs by giving relationship-based definitions for Government-wide use to terms such as coritract, grant, and grant-in-aid ? Hypotheses were developed to deal with the foregoing questions and the findings that had generated them. These hypotheses are expressed in the Commission's recommendations.
The Commission also gathered useful poststudy data on grant-type programs. When the Grants Task Force presented its recommendations to the Commissioners in February 1972, the Commissioners asked that examples be gathered on cooperative-agreement types of relationships. To provide the data sought, the Commission sent to the departments and agencies a questionnaire which was designed to obtain, by functional class or category of awards to State and local units of Government and all other nonprofit organizations, the following kinds of information: (1) when they use a particular type of instrument: grant, grant-inaid, contract, or other, (2) why they use the particular type of instrument for a given class of transaction, (3) the nature of the agency participation or involvement that occurs during performance, and (4) whether the depart. ment or agency regards that involvement as "minimal" or "substantial.”
The data gathered were helpful in developing examples of cooperative-agreement types of relationships. The data gathered in response to item 3 above also support the utility of the Commission's recommendations. The data indicate that, although each agency's programs may be different from other agencies' pro
AGENCIES VISITED AND PROGRAMS
REVIEWED Department of Agriculture
Contracts and grants for scientific
research Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration
Economic development grants and
loans for public works facilities Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Health Services and Mental Health Administration
Health services research and development Social and Rehabilitation Service
Medicaid Office of Education
Manpower development and training National Institutes of Health
Heart and lung research Department of Housing and Urban Development
Saline water research and development
Research, development, and demonstration Environmental Protection Agency
Water pollution control research and
Science information activities
Research, evaluation, and program devel
List of Recommendations
1. Enact legislation to (a) distinguish assistance relationships as a class from procurement relationships by restricting the term “contract” to procurement relationships and the terms "grant," "grant-in-aid," and "cooperative agreement” to assistance relationships, and (b) authorize the general use of instruments reflecting the foregoing types of relationships.
2. Urge the Office of Federal Procurement Policy to undertake or sponsor a study of the feasibility of developing a system of guidance for Federal assistance programs and periodically inform Congress of the progress of this study.
| APPENDIX C
Atomic Energy Commission