1 / 27

Community Development Block Grants at 40: Time for a Makeover

This article discusses the history and evolution of Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) in the United States, highlighting the problems and solutions associated with the program. It explores the different approaches taken by various presidential administrations and presents arguments for reforming and modernizing the CDBG program.

davenportj
Download Presentation

Community Development Block Grants at 40: Time for a Makeover

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Community Development Block Grants at 40: Time for a Makeover Michael J. RichEmory University Department of Political ScienceCenter for Community Partnerships Urban Affairs Association nSan Antonio, TX nMarch 21, 2014

  2. Context for Reform Problems • Number of grant programs tripled between 1960 and 1968 • Grants tended to go to special purpose governments • Duplication, overlap, narrow categories of aid, variable matching rates, funding uncertainty, grantsmanship v. need • Federal government’s role become “bigger, broader, deeper” Solutions • Creative Federalism Hearings • Mayors called for block grants • Nixon’s domestic policy agenda • Executive branch reorganization • 4 “super” agencies including Community Development • Intergovernmental reform • New Federalism • General Revenue Sharing • Six special revenue sharing programs that would consolidate 129 programs, about half of all federal aid at the time

  3. CDBG Structural Features Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 Passed Senate, 80-4 Passed House of Representatives, 377-21

  4. CDBG: Views from Washington • Swinging pendulum between categorical grant and general revenue sharing • Presidential administrations (and Congress) oscillated on key features of CDBG • Despite bipartisan consensus in legislative enactment, many differences remained (emerged) during implementation • These differences largely centered on the federal role

  5. Points of Contention • “Three national objectives” • Maximum feasible priority to activities which will benefit low- or moderate-income families • Aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight • Meet other community development needs having a particular urgency • Social targeting: 1 of 3 or primary goal? • Extent of Federal review and oversight

  6. Carter Administration (1977-1980) What Happened in CDBG • 1977 Legislative changes • Dual Formula allocation system to increase targeting to distressed cities and counties • Economic development as an eligible activity • Administrative changes • Social targeting • Application review—conditional approvals • Geographic targeting—NSAs • Restricted public services to NSAs • Citizen participation plan

  7. Reagan Administration (1981-1988) What Happened in CDBG • Deregulating CDBG • Application and HUD review eliminated • Social targeting—eliminated percentage threshold reviews • Geographic targeting—rescinded NSAs • Citizen participation—eliminated CP plan • Social Targeting contested • 1983 reauthorization set 51% threshold • 1987 reauthorization set 60% threshold • HUD did not issue regulations implementing LM thresholds until September 1988

  8. Bush Administration (1989-1992) What Happened in CDBG • LM benefits threshold increased to 70% What Didn’t Happen • CDBG reforms • Social targeting increase to 75%, 100% in affluent communities • Change method for calculating social targeting • Fold CDBG into a mega block grant to the states

  9. Clinton Administration (1993-2000) What Happened in CDBG • Sharp rise in CDBG funding • Consolidated Plan—CDBG, HOME, Emergency Shelter Grants, HOPWA • On-site CDBG entitlement community monitoring declined by 90% between 1990 and 1998 Other HUD • Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities • HOPE VI

  10. Bush Administration (2001-2008) What Didn’t Happen in CDBG CDBG Reform • Revise formula allocation system • New performance evaluation system • Program consolidation • CDBG consolidated into new block grant under control of Commerce Dept. • Sharp funding reductions

  11. Obama Administration (2009-) What Happened in CDBG • CDBG key tool in addressing recession • No formal hearings or legislation introduced to address CDBG reform • Despite initial rise in early years (10%), sharp funding reductions (25%) between 2010-2012 Other HUD • Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative • Choice Neighborhoods • Sustainable Communities Initiative

  12. Entitlement Funding and Jurisdictions

  13. CDBG Funding and Need Richardson, CDBG Formula Targeting to Community Development Need, 2005

  14. Uses of CDBG Funds

  15. Uses of CDBG Funds

  16. Program Income

  17. Geographic Targeting THEN:Carter Administration -- NSAs NOW:Local Target Areas 1995-2012 Increased flexibility for housing and economic development Exemption from services cap About half of CDBG entitlements jurisdictions identified at least one local target area; 17% had at least one NRSA About 17% of CDBG funds invested in local target areas (32% unweighted) • Encourage concentration of CDBG activity • Limited public services to NSAs • More than 75% of entitlement communities established NSAs • NSAs received about half of all CDBG funds invested in 1979 and 1980

  18. Geographic Targeting

  19. Whose Targeting?

  20. Social Targeting THEN NOW Direct benefit activities Area benefit activities (51% or more LMI persons) Exception (upper quartile of all census block groups) Little variation across entitlement cities—96% in low poverty jurisdictions vs. 99% in high poverty jurisdictions • Lack of consistency in measuring social targeting in early years of program • Social targeting increased under Carter • Studies show social targeting estimates vary widely from what local jurisdictions report

  21. 1. Federal aid is authorized for a wide range of activities within a broadly defined functional area and allows its recipients greater program discretion Neither the statute nor administrative regulations have significantly constrained the choices entitlement communities may make regarding the allocation of their CDBG funds

  22. 2. Eligibility provisions are statutorily specified and favor general purpose governmental units as recipients and elected officials and administrative generalists as decision makers • More than 100 communities have been “grandfathered” into the CDBG entitlement program and account for more than $75 million • Nearly one-third of CDBG entitlement communities are cities with populations less than 50,000 • Institutional transformation at local level—new departments and agencies with responsibility for housing and community development • Over 60% of lead agencies have community development in their title

  23. 3. Federal aid is distributed on the basis of a statutory formula, which results in narrowing federal administrator’s discretion and providing a sense of fiscal certainty to recipients • Entitlements have broadly expanded the number of recipient communities • Formula funding has brought greater fiscal certainty • Less evidence that formula funding has yielded a distribution system more responsive to need than the discretionary system it replaced

  24. 4. Administrative, fiscal reporting, planning, and other federally imposed requirements are kept to the minimum amount necessary to ensure that the national goals are being accomplished • Depth and scope of requirements have oscillated across presidential administrations • “minimum” and “necessary” represent competing tensions in the struggle to define CDBG. Both terms defined in the eyes of the beholder. • Processes that appear comprehensive and performance-oriented may not necessarily translate to practices that promote efficiency and effectiveness at the local level

  25. Recommendations:Improve targeting to need • Revise the formula allocation system to improve targeting to community need • The formula alone cannot carry the entire burden of improving targeting. One must also examine the eligibility criteria for determining entitlement status • Enhance geographic targeting • Enhance social targeting

  26. Recommendations:Strengthen the process • Strengthen the consolidated planning requirements • Strategies v. block grant spending plan • Strengthen citizen participation requirements • Promote citizen engagement • Invest in CBOs to build their capacity to become effective partners

  27. Recommendations:Local intermediaries • Paradigm shift underway, from community development (real estate development model, housing production) to community building (collaborative, comprehensive, community-based initiatives) • Asset-based, holistic, strategic planning, community engagement, cross-sector • Local intermediaries key ingredient of success • Support relationships among groups, build capacity, steer strategic investments to communities, lead planning process, manage implementation, ensure accountability

More Related