Laserfiche WebLink
11 <br />Further, the meas�r�s of locai economic distress did not do wel ' <br />1 in discnminating <br />among appli�aons from more distressed areas and more pros erous o <br />P nes. A community's <br />application ra,�� 80 �in� (�e m�imum possible based on s• <br />taUst��al rneasures of distress) <br />for annual unemployment, the preceding q�e��s unem lo <br />P yment, and poverty if the county's <br />rates exceed <br />ed the state's, and for median income if the county's 1979 medi <br />an family income <br />W� less than the state's. Most counties were mor ' <br />e d2stressed than the State a� a Whole <br />b�c:ause the prosperous, more densel <br />y populated Twin Cities and Rochester areas lowered <br />unemployment and poverty figures and r�s� S�te median inco�me. <br />The Poarest <br />count�es <br />gained no advantage in this system compared to ones that w <br />ere only slightly less 11 <br />we off <br />than the state averages. <br />An application could earn up to 80 addidonal points on the b' <br />asis of staff s judgment <br />of a na,rrative of cornmunity need, <br />little to do with eco�omic distress, <br />Several of the conditions that staff looked for could have <br />These included "need to attract or retain essential <br />services," "eV�� ���buting to a unique situation, <br />implement project, Mzo <br />n <br />' and oppor��ty or timeliness to <br />�e ����ti� Perspective's explanations aze most unsa ' <br />asfactory, however, in <br />consideration of two que,saons. First, if the dist�ir�•*ion of <br />• grants did not reflect the patcern <br />of distress, did they show another pattern, and lf so what? <br />, Second, did the fact that <br />knowledge about how to encourage economic rowth was <br />g not introduced into �e design or <br />implementation of the program determine the failure to b' <br />nng about growth? <br />"pM��ta Small Cities Ec,onomi� Development Program Application <br />Maaual, " p. 21. <br />