PLYMOUTH - In the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, a high-stakes jurisdictional battle erupted between the state of Massachusetts and Plymouth County over who should manage millions in federal relief funds. While state officials and even some local leaders initially urged the county to relinquish the money, the Plymouth County Commissioners chose a path of “institutional courage,” managing the funds directly to create the “Plymouth County Model”.
A Sea of Red Tape: The High-Stakes Pushback from Boston
The decision to manage these funds was anything but a smooth administrative handoff; it was a political firestorm that pitted the small county government against the full weight of the Massachusetts State House. When Plymouth County first applied for its $90 million CARES Act allocation in April 2020, the Baker administration immediately pressured them to stand down and transfer the money to the state.
The opposition was vocal, multi-layered, and remarkably bipartisan:
• The State’s Heavy Hitters: Secretary of Administration and Finance Michael Heffernan issued a stern ultimatum, giving the county a deadline to wire the money to the state or face consequences. Heffernan warned that if the county persisted, the state would not send any additional state relief money to Plymouth County towns and would even bill the county for state-led pandemic efforts within its borders.
• The “Expertise” Argument: State Inspector General Glenn Cunha was perhaps the county’s harshest critic. He claimed the county lacked “expertise in COVID-19, public health, or public administration” and argued they were fundamentally “not suited to evaluate competing needs”. Cunha even pointed to a past failed county dredging program—where a $212,000 excavator sat unused for years—as evidence of the county’s inability to manage complex projects.
• Local Defectors: Ironically, some of the loudest opposition came from the very people the county was trying to help. Brockton Mayor Robert Sullivan and Plymouth Town Manager Melissa Arrighi co-signed a letter urging the commissioners to relinquish the funds, stating that Massachusetts counties were not “robust operations” and that the state was “better situated” to respond to the crisis.
• Peer Pressure: Neighboring counties, including Norfolk and Bristol, initially applied for their own direct federal funding but quickly withdrew after being contacted by the state. Barnstable County officials went even further, stating they were “appalled” by Plymouth’s actions, fearing the move would reignite the long-standing debate over whether county government should even exist in Massachusetts.
Why the Resistance?
The core of the opposition was a belief in centralization. State officials argued that the Commonwealth was already building a distribution machine for 324 other municipalities and that a separate Plymouth County system was an “inefficient duplication”. There was also a deep fear of federal “clawbacks”; the Inspector General worried that if the part-time commissioners made mistakes in documentation, local taxpayers would eventually be on the hook to repay the U.S. Treasury.
Despite being called “anachronistic,” “obsolete,” and an “unnecessary middleman,” the Plymouth County Commissioners remained defiant. Chairman Daniel Pallotta famously dismissed the threats, stating he was certain the county would be faster and more cost-efficient than the state. History eventually favored the county’s gamble, but the early days were defined by what Pallotta called a high-stakes “donnybrook”.
From “Outlier” to “Model”: How Other Counties Joined the Fray
The most striking development in the transition from CARES (2020) to ARPA (2021) was the sudden disappearance of the state’s unified front. While Plymouth County had been a lonely, criticized “outlier” during the first round of funding, its success effectively broke the dam for other regional governments. By the time ARPA arrived, the very counties that had once urged Plymouth to surrender its money were now following its lead.
The Norfolk and Bristol Reversals
The change in stance was most visible in Norfolk and Bristol counties. During the CARES Act, both counties had initially applied for funds but withdrew after being pressured by the Baker administration, even writing letters to Plymouth claiming the state was “better situated” to handle the money.
However, for ARPA management, they reversed course:
• Norfolk County: After declaring itself ill-equipped in 2020, Norfolk County opted to directly manage $133 million in ARPA funds for its 28 communities. By 2025, Norfolk officials even challenged Plymouth’s efficiency claims, boasting that they had achieved the “lowest administration costs of any county in Massachusetts”.
• Bristol County: Similarly, Bristol County took direct control of $109.8 million, approving 266 municipal applications for infrastructure, broadband, and public health.
The Critics Become Practitioners
Even Barnstable County, which had previously stated it was “appalled” by Plymouth’s move to manage funds independently, became a direct administrator under ARPA. Barnstable managed over $40 million, prioritizing water quality and housing initiatives.
The shift was so complete that by April 2025, officials from Barnstable, Bristol, Plymouth, Norfolk, Nantucket, and Dukes counties—virtually all the functional county governments left in the state—convened to exchange best practices and explore regional collaboration.
Why the Change of Heart?
The sources suggest that the other counties reconsidered their approach because the “Plymouth County Model” had successfully de-risked the process. Plymouth’s CARES performance provided a blueprint that proved direct county management could be faster, more efficient, and safer from federal “clawbacks” than state-run programs.
As Plymouth Treasurer Thomas O’Brien noted, other counties “looked at what we did with CARES, saw it worked, and followed our lead”. What began as a high-stakes gamble by a single county evolved into a standard regional strategy across Southeastern Massachusetts.
A Record of High Performance
By nearly every quantitative metric available in the sources, Plymouth County outperformed the state’s centralized distribution system:
• Efficient Deployment: Under the CARES Act, the county distributed 99% of its $90.9 million allocation, whereas the Commonwealth of Massachusetts had only distributed 52% of its funds during the same period.
• Minimal Overhead: The county maintained an administrative cost rate of approximately 1%, significantly lower than the 5% national average. By keeping these costs low, the county effectively “returned” millions of dollars to its 27 municipalities that would have otherwise been spent on bureaucracy.
• Velocity of Funding: Plymouth County adopted a “rolling admissions” process for reimbursements, allowing towns to receive checks in as little as 14 days. In contrast, the state used a “rounds” system that forced municipalities to carry massive costs on their books for months while waiting for applications to open.
• Infrastructure Impact: With ARPA funds (~$101 million), the county prioritized long-term resilience, obligating over $ 51 million. This included major initiatives like PFAS remediation in Rockland and Abington, and a $10.8 million HVAC upgrade for Brockton’s historic City Hall.
What Differentiated the Plymouth County Approach?
The county’s success was defined by a few key strategies that distinguished it from the “State Model”:
1. The Public-Private Partnership (CLA) Recognizing they lacked the internal staff to audit thousands of invoices, the county hired the national accounting firm CliftonLarsonAllen (CLA). This allowed the county to “rent” a professional-grade compliance infrastructure. CLA provided a pre-audit review of every expense before money was spent, effectively “firewalling” the county against federal clawbacks and future liability.
2. Predictability via Population-Based Allocation Unlike competitive grant programs that often favor larger cities with more administrative staff, Plymouth County distributed funds based strictly on 2010 Federal Census population data. This eliminated political competition between towns and allowed local leaders to plan projects with the certainty of a fixed budget.
3. Concierge-Style Subsidiarity The county acted as a “concierge” service rather than a distant bureaucracy. While the state provided support through mass webinars, Plymouth County officials—specifically Treasurer Thomas O’Brien—maintained direct relationships with town administrators, helping them find eligible ways to spend funds even after an initial rejection.
The Hanover Problem: A Nuanced Limitation
The county’s performance was not without its critics or failures. The most significant setback occurred in Hanover, which missed approximately $1.1 million in eligible funding. While county officials point to missed deadlines and staff turnover in Hanover as the cause, town leaders accused the county of playing “political games” and failing to provide adequate warning that their applications were in jeopardy.
This situation highlights the primary risk of the Plymouth County Model: because it empowers municipal autonomy, it relies heavily on the administrative capacity of local town halls to meet federal requirements.
Sources include: Plymouth County ARPA, South Shore News, South Shore Times, the Brockton Enterprise, WBUR, WATD, the Boston Globe, and AI Deep Research tools.
