Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Community Development Block Grant

The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, created through the Housing & Community Development Act of 1974, is one of the longest running community revitalization programs in the United States. Its passage represented an important shift in federal community development funding by turning eight competitive, categorical grants targeted to specific projects into a single block grant allocated by formula to states and eligible local jurisdictions to fund a broad range of activities. Compared to its predecessors—urban renewal; Model Cities; Open Space, urban beautification, and Historic Preservation Grants; public facility loans; and water and sewer, and neighborhood facilities grants—CDBG is a more flexible program that allows state and local governments to address their recurring housing needs, as well as to respond quickly to emergent situations and disasters. While its goals, objectives, and eligible activities have remained relatively stable over the years, planning, reporting, and public participation requirements have changed over time. Differences in local program targeting and context make measuring outcomes and impacts difficult. While the CDBG program remains a politically popular means of federal revenue sharing with state and local governments, challenges continue. The goal of the CDBG program is to support viable urban communities by providing decent housing, a suitable living environment, and expanding economic opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate income. Its national objectives are to eliminate or prevent slums or blight in a manner that particularly benefits low- and moderate-income households and addresses urgent needs posing an immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community for which other funds are not available. The program is administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and funds activities in three major areas relevant to its goals and objectives: housing, economic development, and public services and infrastructure.

Approximately $4 billion in CDBG funds are allocated annually to over 1,200 jurisdictions, including all 50 states, central cities within metropolitan statistical areas, other cities with populations over 50,000, urban counties with populations over 200,000, Puerto Rico, and other U.S. territories. Eligible jurisdictions are also able to keep program income earned through CDBG activities. Since 1981, 70% of annual funds have been allocated to entitlement communities—cities and urban counties that meet the population thresholds—with the remaining 30% given to states to allocate to smaller nonentitlement communities through the Small Cities program. Texas, Arizona, California, and New Mexico must set aside up to 10% of their allocation for targeted improvements in colonias, or residential communities, in the U.S.-Mexico border regions, which often lack potable water, adequate sewage systems, and decent, safe, and sanitary housing. Hawaii is the only state that does not directly administer Small Cities’ funds for nonentitlement communities.

Distribution of Funds and Eligibility for Funding

Funds are distributed according to one of two formulas. The first formula (Formula A), adopted with the original legislation in 1974, considers a jurisdiction's share of the metropolitan area's population, overcrowding, and poverty, which is given twice the weight as the other two. The second formula (Formula B) was introduced in 1978 to better target funding to older, declining communities in the East and Midwest, as opposed to younger jurisdictions in the South and West favored by Formula A. Formula B considers a jurisdiction's population growth compared to average metropolitan growth rates since 1960 (or the “growth lag”), poverty, and housing stock built before 1940, which is weighted more heavily than the first two. A jurisdiction receives the more favorable allocation of the two formulas, prorated for the actual CDBG budget. The formulas are periodically reevaluated for their appropriateness in targeting funds to the greatest needs, usually coinciding with the release of new decennial census data. These reviews indicate that the dual formulas continue to be effective in allocating funds to those areas with the highest levels of need.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading