Final answer:
Categorical grants grow faster than block grants due to federal preference for control and oversight, the ability to take credit for outcomes, and vested interests in Congress. Federal control through strict administrative criteria ensures funds advance national objectives, while creeping categorization limits the flexibility of block grants over time.
Step-by-step explanation:
Categorical grants have continued to grow faster than block grants for several reasons despite attempts to change this trend. Elected officials favor categorical grants because they can attribute the positive outcomes of these grants, such as improvements in education, health, and safety, directly to their governance and oversight. Furthermore, these grants typically require matching funds from the state and present greater opportunity for federal oversight of how funds are used, ensuring alignment with national objectives. Conversely, block grants offer more discretion to state and local governments on how funds are spent, but such freedom has been eroded over time through 'creeping categorization', which adds restrictions to these grants.
Federal control is a key aspect why categorical grants are preferred at the federal level, as they align spending with specific policy goals and create opportunities for federal officials to influence the performance of grant-funded programs. This control, along with vested interests in Congress and the bureaucracy, perpetuates the preference for categorical grants over block grants. With block grants, states and local governments enjoy more flexibility, but this flexibility can be compromised by new administrative requirements and limits imposed over time.