Community Development Block Grants: Recent Funding History

Congressional research reportFeb 6, 2014

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Community Development Block Grants:

Recent Funding History

-name redactedAnalyst in Federalism and Economic Development Policy

February 6, 2014

Congressional Research Service

7-....

www.crs.gov

R43394

Community Development Block Grants: Recent Funding History

Summary

The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, administered by the Department of

Housing and Urban Development (HUD), under the Community Development Fund (CDF)

account, was first authorized by Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act

(HCDA) of 1974, P.L. 93-383. During the program’s nearly 40-year existence, Congress has

allocated approximately $138 billion to help state and local governments undertake housing,

economic development, neighborhood revitalization, and other community development

activities. In addition to its annual appropriations, Congress, as events have warranted, has used

the program’s framework to provide supplemental and special appropriations to assist states and

communities in responding to various economic crises and manmade and natural disasters.

This report is a review of the CDF account’s funding history from FY2000 to FY2013, as well as

current funding in FY2014. It includes a discussion of the three primary components of the CDF

account: (1) CDBG formula grants; (2) CDBG-related set-asides and earmarks; and (3) CDBGlinked supplemental and special appropriations. It is intended to provide recent historical

background as the 113th Congress considers CDF funding levels and composition. For

information on CDF appropriation legislation considered during the 113th Congress, the reader

should consult CRS Report Community Development Block Grant Funding Issues in the 113th

Congress.

From FY2000 to FY2014, total appropriations for the CDF account—excluding special and

supplemental appropriations for disasters, mortgage foreclosures, and economic recovery—

fluctuated between a high of $5.112 billion in FY2001 and a low of $3.008 billion in FY2012.

During this period the average grant amount allocated to CDBG entitlement communities

(typically metropolitan-based cities and counties) declined by 43.7% from a high of $3 million in

FY2002 to a low of $1.7 million in FY2012. The decline in the average grant amount is both a

function of fewer dollars appropriated and an increase in the number of entitlement communities

as more cities and counties achieve the population threshold necessary to be designated an

entitlement community. From FY2000 to FY2013, the number of jurisdictions receiving a direct

allocation as CDBG entitlement communities increased by 171 (16.9%), from 1,012 to 1,183,

while the average allocation for entitlement communities declined by 37.9%.

Short of appropriating additional funds, Congress may consider a number of options intended to

address the decline in average CDBG formula allocations. These may include (1) increasing the

population threshold for eligibility as a CDBG entitlement community, or (2) encouraging

communities receiving less than a designated minimum allocation to enter into cooperative

agreements with the urban county in which they are located.

From FY2000 to FY2014, both the number of and appropriations for set-aside programs included

in the CDF account have fluctuated significantly. In FY2001 Congress appropriated $713 million

for CDF set-asides, with earmarks under the Economic Development Initiative (EDI) and

Neighborhood Initiative (NI) programs accounting for 56% of this total. By FY2013 CDBGlinked set-asides reached a low for the period of $57 million as other national priorities have

supplanted the programs funded under the account, or those activities have been transferred to

other accounts or agencies.

Congressional Research Service

Community Development Block Grants: Recent Funding History

Contents

Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1

CDF Funding Overview................................................................................................................... 2

CDBG Formula Grants .................................................................................................................... 6

Impact of Inflation on CDBG-Formula Allocations .................................................................. 8

Impact of 2010 Census Data on CDBG Allocations ................................................................. 9

HUD Study of the Impact of New Data Sources................................................................. 9

Implications of Reduced Formula Funding ............................................................................. 11

FY2014 Appropriations, P.L. 113-76 ....................................................................................... 12

Legislative Options.................................................................................................................. 13

Establish a Minimum Allocation Amount ......................................................................... 13

Increase Population Threshold for Eligibility ................................................................... 13

CDBG-Linked Set-Asides and Earmarks ...................................................................................... 14

Earmarks Declining After Dominating Set-Aside Activities ................................................... 16

Supplemental Appropriations ........................................................................................................ 17

Concluding Observations............................................................................................................... 18

Figures

Figure 1. CDF Appropriations: FY2000 to FY2014 ........................................................................ 4

Figure 2. CDBG Funding in Current and Constant Dollars: FY2000 to FY2013 ........................... 8

Figure 3. CDF Set Asides and Earmarks in Current and Constant Dollars: FY2000 to

FY2013 ....................................................................................................................................... 15

Figure 4. Earmarks and Set Asides: FY2000 to FY2014 ............................................................... 16

Tables

Table 1. Grant Assistance to State and Local Governments Actual FY2012 Budget

Authority....................................................................................................................................... 1

Table 2. CDF Appropriations: FY2000 to FY2014 ......................................................................... 5

Table 3. Number of CDBG Entitlement Communities and States Average Allocation:

FY2000 to FY2013 ....................................................................................................................... 7

Table 4. Average CDBG Allocation and Percentage Change: 2011 to FY2013 ............................ 12

Table A-1. CDF Set-Asides from FY2000 to FY2014................................................................... 19

Table B-1. CDBG Formula-Based Funding History, by Program Component and Fiscal

Year ............................................................................................................................................. 21

Table C-1. CDBG Formula Grant Allocations to States and Entitlement Communities:

FY2011, FY2012, FY2013 ......................................................................................................... 23

Congressional Research Service

Community Development Block Grants: Recent Funding History

Appendixes

Appendix A. CDF Set-Asides: FY2000 to FY2014....................................................................... 19

Appendix B. CDBG Formula Grants Funding History ................................................................. 21

Appendix C. Distribution of CDBG Funds: FY2011 to FY2013 .................................................. 23

Contacts

Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 25

Congressional Research Service

Community Development Block Grants: Recent Funding History

Introduction

The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, administered by the Department of

Housing and Urban Development (HUD), was first authorized by Title I of the Housing and

Community Development Act (HCDA) of 1974, P.L. 93-383.1 Funded through the Community

Development Fund (CDF), the program is one of the largest and longest-standing federal block

grants in existence, annually allocating billions of dollars in federal assistance to state and local

governments in support of neighborhood revitalization, and community and economic

development efforts. During the program’s 40-year existence, Congress has allocated

approximately $138 billion to assist state and local governments in undertaking housing,

economic development, neighborhood revitalization, and other community development activities

principally benefitting low- and moderate-income persons. In addition to its annual

appropriations, Congress also has used the program’s framework to provide additional,

supplemental, and special appropriations to assist states and communities in responding to

various economic crises and manmade and natural disasters.

In FY2012, the latest year for which data were available at this writing, the CDBG program was

the largest source of federal assistance to state and local governments for community

development activities and the 19th-largest source of grant assistance to states and local

governments, ranking behind such programs as Federal Aid to Highways, Transit Assistance, Aid

for the Education of the Disadvantaged, School Improvements, Special Education, Medicaid and

Medicare, and Temporary Assistance to Children and Families (See Table 1).

Table 1. Grant Assistance to State and Local Governments Actual FY2012 Budget

Authority

(in millions of dollars)

Programa

FY2012 Appropriationb

Grants to States for Medicaid (M)

270,724

Federal Aid to Highways (D)

39,144

Child Nutrition Programs (M)

18,284

Accelerating Achievement and Ensuring Equity Education Grants (D)

15,677

Temporary Assistance. to Needy Children and Families (M)

16,739

Tenant Based Rental Assistance (D)

18,264

Children Health Insurance Fund (M)

8,659

Special Education (D)

11,730

Children and Families Services Programs (D)

9,550

Federal Transit Administration Formula Grants (M)

9,889

Foster Care and Adoption Assistance (M)

7,008

Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women and Children (D)

7,018

Supplemental Nutrition Program (M)

6,888

42 USC 5301, et seq

Congressional Research Service

Community Development Block Grants: Recent Funding History

Programa

FY2012 Appropriationb

Education Improvement Program (D)

4,416

Public Housing Operating Fund (D)

3,962

Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (D)

3,472

Child Support Enforcement (M)

3,836

EPA State and Tribal Assistance Grants (D)

3,568

Unemployment Trust (D)

3,421

Community Development Block Grants (Formula-based

assistance) (D)

3,408c

Source: Fiscal Year 2014 Budget of the United States, Analytical Perspective available at

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2014/assets/spec.pdf.

Notes:

(D) denotes discretionary spending whose annual levels are determined by Congress through

appropriations acts. (M) denotes mandatory spending whose funding levels are determined by formulas or

eligibility criteria already written into law.

Data on FY2013 were not included in the Administration’s FY2014 budget request because of the delay in

approving FY2013 appropriations.

Includes $400 million in disaster supplemental appropriations.

This report is a review of the CDF account’s funding history from FY2000 to FY2013; as well as

current FY2014 funding. It includes a discussion of the three primary components of the CDF

account:

•

CDBG formula grants;

•

CDBG-related set-asides and earmarks; and

•

CDBG-linked supplemental and special appropriations.

CDF Funding Overview

For FY2014, the $3.1 billion Congress appropriated for activities funded in the CDF account is

one of the lowest total amounts approved during the last 15 years. The FY2014 CDF account

appropriation will be targeted exclusively to CDBG activities. By contrast, for FY2013, Congress

appropriated $19.308 billion in financial assistance for CDBG-related activities, one of the largest

appropriations of the past 15 years. Of this amount, $3.308 billion was made available for CDBG

formula grants with the passage of P.L. 113-6, the Consolidated and Further Continuing

Appropriations Act of 2013, while the Disaster Relief Act of 2013, P.L. 113-2, appropriated an

additional $16 billion for disaster relief and recovery activities in response to Hurricane Sandy

and other disasters that occurred during 2011, 2012, and 2013. Both acts were subject to

sequestration as mandated by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25), as amended.

According to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), sequestration resulted in a 5% or

Congressional Research Service

Community Development Block Grants: Recent Funding History

$965 million reduction in FY2013 appropriations for CDF activities, from $19.308 billion to

$18.343 billion.2

Figure 1 is a graphic representation of the distribution of the primary components of the CDF

account from FY2000 to FY2014.3 As the graph illustrates, set-asides within the CDF account,

including earmarked funds, declined significantly during the period from a high of $713 million

in FY2001 to a low of $57 million in FY2013. Much of this decline was attributable to the

elimination of earmarked projects funded under the Neighborhood Initiative (NI) and Economic

Development Initiative (EDI) programs.4 Conversely, Congress, at its discretion, has used the

program’s statutory framework to support disaster relief and recovery efforts. The program’s

framework also has been used to assist cities and states in responding to the 2008 recession. Two

specific initiatives were involved: the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) and additional

CDBG-formula funds appropriated through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

(ARRA). NSP funds were used to help state and local governments acquire, rehabilitate, and

resell abandoned and foreclosed homes (see “Supplemental Appropriations” section of this report

for additional information). As part of the President’s economic stimulus plan enacted under

ARRA, Congress provided $1 billion in CDBG funds for FY2010 in support of job creation and

retention activities.

Executive Office of the President of the United States, Office of Management and Budget, Report on Sequestration to

the Joint Committee Sequestration for Fiscal Year 2013, Washington, DC, March 1, 2013, p. 31,

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative_reports. The $965 million included in the OMB report includes ($165

million reduction in regular appropriations and $800 million in FY2013 CDBG disaster supplemental funding.

For a complete funding history of the CDBG formula-based component of program (FY1975 to FY2013) see

Appendix B of this report.

NI and EDI are discussed in more detail in the CDBG-linked set-aside section of this report.

Congressional Research Service

Community Development Block Grants: Recent Funding History

Figure 1. CDF Appropriations: FY2000 to FY2014

Source: CRS analysis based on Table 2 and HUD Budget Justifications.

From FY2000 to FY2014, total appropriations for the CDF account—excluding supplemental

appropriations for disaster relief, mortgage foreclosures (NSP), and economic recovery

(ARRA)—fluctuated between a high of $5.112 billion in FY2001 and a low of $3.008 billion in

FY2012 (see Table 2). The FY2011 appropriation for all programs and activities included in the

CDF account was the lowest amount appropriated in more than a decade, while the FY2012

amount for CDBG formula grants awarded to states and entitlement communities was the lowest

amount since the $2.817 billion appropriated in FY1990 (see Appendix B, Table B-1).

Congressional Research Service

Table 2. CDF Appropriations: FY2000 to FY2014

(in billions of dollars)

Year

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

CDBG Formula

Grants

4.235

4.399

4.341

4.340

4.331

4.117

3.711

Set-asides

0.545

0.713

0.659

0.565

0.603

0.585

0.467

EDI & NI

earmarks

0.255b

0.401

0.336

0.301

0.334

0.300

CDF Total

4.780

5.112

5.000

4.905

4.934

Disaster

Recovery

—

3.480

—

NSP

—

ARRA

—

Supplemental/

Special Funds

Subtotal

0.000

Total

4.780

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013a

2014

3.593

3.642

3.948

3.303

2.948

3.078

3.030

0.061

0.274

0.258

0.502

0.198

0.060

0.057

0.070

0.356

0.0

0.206

0.185

0.195

0.000

4.702

4.178

3.772

3.867

3.900

4.450

3.501

3.008

3.135

3.100

—

0.150

16.673

—

9.800

—

0.100

—

0.400

15.200

—

3.900

2.000

1.000

—

1.000

—

0.000

3.480

0.000

0.150

16.673

0.000

13.700

3.000

1.100

0.000

0.400

15.200

—

5.046

8.480

4.905

4.934

4.852

20.851

3.772

17.566

6.900

5.550

3.501

3.408

18.335

3.100

Source: CRS appropriations reports, HUD Budget Justifications.

Amounts reflect 5% sequestration mandated by the Budget Control Act.

Total appropriations for EDI and NI, including earmarked funds, were $$286.2 million. This included $256.2 million for EDI of which $232 million was for earmarked

projects; and $30 million for NI of which $23 million was for earmarked projects. EDI original appropriation of $275 million was subject to a rescission of $18.8

million.

CRS-5

Community Development Block Grants: Recent Funding History

CDBG Formula Grants

Of the amount appropriated each fiscal year to carry out CDBG eligible activities, 70% is

allocated to cities and urban counties meeting required minimum population thresholds. These

communities are identified collectively as “entitlement communities.”5 The remaining 30% of

funds appropriated for CDBG formula distribution is allocated among the 50 states and Puerto

Rico for distribution to small or so-called “nonentitlement communities.” Before funds are

apportioned between states and CDBG entitlement communities, CDBG funds are first set aside

for Indian tribes and insular areas as required by statute.6

During recent appropriations cycles, the funding level for the CDBG-formula component of the

CDF account has been the focus of debate. Supporters of the program have pressed for increased

funding, contending that the program’s appropriations have declined in both current and constant

dollars. Supporters noted that this decline or near stagnation in funding has been compounded by

the increased number of communities gaining entitlement status and thus eligibility for a direct

allocation of a share of funds dispensed to entitlement communities. Entitlement communities

have been forced to share an ever-shrinking or stagnant slice of the CDBG formula pie with an

ever-increasing number of eligible grant recipients. During the past decade, critics of the program

have argued that increased funding has not been justified based on the program’s performance as

measured by its PART score7 and, more recently, the need to reduce domestic discretionary

spending as part of a larger effort to reduce the federal budget deficit and the national debt.

As noted in Table 3, during the period from FY2000 to FY2013, the average grant amount

allocated to CDBG entitlement communities declined by 43.7% from a high of $3 million in

FY2001 and FY2002 to a low of $1.7 million in FY2012. The total amount appropriated declined

annually from FY2001 to FY2006, but increased from FY2008 to FY2010, before resuming a

downward trend. For FY2013, the average allocation was 37.9% less than the average allocation

in FY2000. The decline in the average grant amount is both a function of lower funding levels

and an increase in the number of entitlement communities as more cities and counties achieve the

population threshold necessary to be designated an entitlement community. From FY2000 to

FY2013, the number of jurisdictions receiving a direct allocation as CDBG entitlement

communities increased by 171, from 1,012 to 1,183 (see Table 3).

To qualify for a direct allocation of funds, a city must be located in a metropolitan area, have a minimum population

of 50,000 or more persons, or be designated by the Office of Management and Budget as the principal (central) city of

a metropolitan area, 42 U.S.C. §5302(a)(4). A county may qualify for a direct allocation by meeting the statutory

definition of urban county as outlined at 42 U.S.C. §5302(a)(6) and 42 U.S.C. §5306. Cities and urban counties

meeting the minimum population thresholds qualifying them as eligible to receive a direct allocation of CDBG funds

are collectively labeled “entitlement communities.” For FY2013, the total number of CDBG entitlement communities

was 1,183.

42 U.S.C. § 5307.

Performance Assessment Rating Tool (PART) “is a questionnaire designed to help assess the management and

performance of programs. It is used to evaluate a program’s purpose, design, planning, management, results, and

accountability to determine its overall effectiveness.” The last PART assessment undertaken for the CDBG program

was FY2003. For additional information on PART, see http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/part.html. For a

link to the CDBG entitlement program’s FY2003 PART review see http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/

summary/10001161.2003.html.

Congressional Research Service

Table 3. Number of CDBG Entitlement Communities and States Average Allocation: FY2000 to FY2013

(Fiscal Year Allocations)

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Total allocated to

entitlement communities

(in millions of $)

$2,964

$3,079

$3,039

$3,038

$3,032

$2,882

$2,593

$2,598

$2,510

$2,549

$2,760

$2,307

$2,059

$2,150

Number of entitlement

communities

1,012

1,018

1.023

1041

1,111

1,117

1.135

1,140

1.151

1,159

1.165

1,168

1,181

1,183

Average entitlement

allocation

(in millions of $)

$2.9

$3.0

$2.9

$2.7

$2.6

$2.3

$2.2

$2.4

$2.0

$1.7

$1.8

$1,271

$1,320

$1,302

$1,299

$1,235

$1,111

$1,113

$1,076

$1,093

$1,183

$989

$882

$921

Number of states + Puerto

Rico

Average state allocation

(in millions of $)

$24.9

$25.9

$25.5

$24.2

$21.8

$21.1

$21.4

$23.2

$19.4

$17.3

$18.1

Total allocated to states

(in millions of $)

Source: CRS analysis based on data from HUD.

Note: Data identifying number of entitlement communities were not available before the publication of this report.

CRS-7

Community Development Block Grants: Recent Funding History

The fluctuations in the both the total grant amount and average annual grant allocation awarded to

states and Puerto Rico were less pronounced.

During the period from FY2000 to FY2013 the total amount allocated to states and Puerto Rico

for distribution to nonentitlement communities fell from a high of $1.320 million in FY2001 to a

low of $882 million in FY2012, a 33% decline in funding. The average grant amount allocated to

states declined from a high of $25.9 million in FY2002 to a low of $17.3 million in FY2012. In

FY2013, $921 million was allocated among the 50 states and Puerto Rico for distribution to

nonentitlement communities, resulting in an average allocation of $18.1 million. This was 27.5%

($399 million) less than the $1.320 billion made available to states and Puerto Rico in FY2001,

but 4.4% ($39 million) more than allocated to states and Puerto Rico for FY2012. (See Appendix

C, Table C-1, for a distribution of CDBG-formula funds to states, entitlement communities, and

insular areas for the period from FY2011 to FY2013).

Impact of Inflation on CDBG-Formula Allocations

When measured in inflation-adjusted constant dollars, program funding declined by 46.4% from

FY2000 to FY2013, from $4.235 billion in FY2000 to $2.270 billion in FY2013. As Figure 2

illustrates, appropriations for CDBG formula grants have fluctuated between $2.9 billion and $4.4

billion in current (non-inflation adjusted) dollars during the period from FY2000 to FY2013.

Figure 2. CDBG Funding in Current and Constant Dollars: FY2000 to FY2013

(Base Year 2000)

4.5

Billions of $

3.5

2.5

1.5

0.5

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Fiscal Years

CDBG Formula Grants current $

CDBG Formula Grants constant $

Source: CRS analysis.

Notes: Does not include supplemental appropriations.

Congressional Research Service

Community Development Block Grants: Recent Funding History

Impact of 2010 Census Data on CDBG Allocations

The CDBG program allocations are determined via a dual formula using data from the decennial

census and the American Community Survey, which is updated periodically. CDBG funds

awarded to eligible entitlement communities and states are allocated using the highest yield from

one of two statutorily based formulas.8 For each of the two categories of eligible entitlement

communities (metropolitan cities and urban counties), Formula A, the original formula created

with the initial passage of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, P.L. 93-383,

allocates funds based on each metropolitan city and urban county’s share of the following

weighted factors:

•

population relative to the total population for all metropolitan cities or urban

counties (0.25);

•

poverty relative to total persons in poverty for all metropolitan cities or urban

counties (0.50); and

•

overcrowded housing relative to the total number of persons living in

overcrowded housing conditions for all metropolitan cities or urban counties

(0.25).

The second formula, Formula B, enacted with the passage of the Housing and Community

Development Amendments of 1977, P.L. 95-128, allocates funds to metropolitan cities and urban

counties using the following weighted factors:

•

a population growth lag factor9 intended to measure the extent that a

community’s population has lagged behind the national average for all

metropolitan cities or urban counties since 1960 (0.20);

•

each community’s share of poverty relative to the total persons living in poverty

for all metropolitan cities or urban counties (0.30); and

•

housing built before 1940 relative to the total number of housing units built

before 1940 for all metropolitan cities or urban counties (0.50).

The distribution of CDBG funds to states is also governed by a similar weighted dual formula

system. Formula A uses each state’s relative share of population (25%), poverty (50%), and

overcrowded housing (25%) in nonentitlement areas to allocate funds. Formula B uses each

state’s relative share of poverty (20%), housing built before 1940 (50%), and persons living in

poverty (30%) in all nonentitlement areas.

HUD Study of the Impact of New Data Sources

The statute governing the administration of the CDBG program requires HUD to use, with

respect to each fiscal year, “the most recent data compiled by the United States Bureau of the

Census and the latest published reports of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

42 U.S.C. §5306.

This factor is intended to measure the extent to which a metropolitan city or urban county’s population growth rate

has lagged behind the population growth rate for all metropolitan cities or urban counties between the period 1960 and

the most recent date that data is available for all metropolitan cities or urban counties.

Congressional Research Service

Community Development Block Grants: Recent Funding History

available ninety days prior to the beginning of such fiscal year.”10 Starting with the FY2012

allocations, HUD used Census Bureau data from the 2010 Decennial Census and the 2005-2009

American Community Survey (ACS) five-year estimates. The ACS five-year estimates are

updated every year, allowing HUD to annually update data sources used to allocate CDBG funds.

This allows allocations to reflect recent projected demographic changes.

Prior to the FY2012 allocations, HUD used the 2000 Decennial Census as the data source for

poverty, overcrowded housing conditions, and pre-1940 housing stock. In the case of the FY2011

allocations, it also used 2009 population estimates to calculate each community and state’s

relative share of the population. Population estimates from 2009 were also used to calculate each

entitlement community’s population growth rate relative to the national average for all

entitlement communities.

In December 2011, HUD released a study on the impact of the introduction of 2010 Census and

ACS data on the allocation of CDBG formula grant funds.11 In order to analyze the effect the new

data sources would have on the distribution of program funds, the study assumed that the number

of eligible entities and the program’s appropriations would be held constant from FY2011 to

FY2012. This assumption isolates the impact of the change in data sources on the distribution of

funds. The following are selected findings from the HUD study:

•

Communities that may be most negatively impacted by the change in data

sources are more likely to be located in Puerto Rico, the Mid-Atlantic, and

Pacific/Hawaii regions. Entitlement communities in these regions were expected

to experience a decline of -22.6%, -4.9%, and -3.1%, respectively, in their CDBG

allocations due to changes in data sources.

•

Entitlement communities positively impacted by the change in data sources are

more likely to be located in the Rocky Mountain, Great Plains, and Midwest

regions. Entitlement communities in these regions would experience an increase

of 9.5%, 6.8%, and 5.3%, respectively, in their CDBG allocations.12

•

The introduction of new data sources results in principal (central) cities of

metropolitan areas and urban counties receiving a greater share of funds (0.2%

and 1.2%, respectively), while funding allocated to other entitlement (satellite)

cities would decline by -3.1%. According to the report, “[T]hese changes are

driven largely by increasing shares of poverty in urban counties, decreasing

shares of overcrowding in satellite cities, and increasing shares of pre-1940

housing in principal (central) cities.”13

•

Two states, New Mexico and Puerto Rico,14 were expected to experience the

largest decline in funding, -27.4% and -27.3%, respectively, as a result of

declines in their relative shares of poverty and overcrowded housing.15

42 U.S.C. §5302(b).

Paul Joice, Ben Winter, and Heidi Johnson, Redistribution Effect of Introducing 2010 Census and 2005-2009 ACS

Data into the CDBG Formula, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and

Research, Washington, DC, December 2011, http://www.huduser.org/publications/pdf/cdbg_redis_eff.pdf. See

Appendix 1 of the document for a map of HUD’s Administrative Regions.

Ibid. Table 2.9, Shifting Shares of CDBG Entitlement Funding by Region, page 15.

Ibid. Executive Summary, p. ii.

42 U.S.C. §5302(a)(2) includes Puerto Rico in the definition of a state for the purposes of the CDBG program.

Congressional Research Service

Community Development Block Grants: Recent Funding History

The report is available at http://www.huduser.org/publications/pdf/cdbg_redis_eff.pdf. Appendix

B of this report includes a comparison of funding allocations for entitlement communities

awarded grants in FY2011.

Implications of Reduced Formula Funding

The FY2013 appropriations for the formula-based components of the CDBG program

(entitlement communities and states, and insular areas) totaled $3.078 billion, which was

approximately 6.8% ($225 million) less than the $3.303 billion appropriated for FY2011.16 For

FY2012, the CDBG allocations awarded to entitlement communities and states totaled $2.948

billion. This represented a decline of 10.7% ($355 million) from the amount allocated in FY2011.

The reductions in appropriations for formula grant activities from FY2011 to FY2013 resulted in

the average grant amount for entitlement communities declining from $2 million in FY2011 to

$1.8 million in FY2013 (see Table 4). This is a 10.1% reduction in the average grant amount

awarded to entitlement communities. The decline in average funding is a result of both lower

appropriations and an increase in the number of communities qualifying for entitlement status.

The average state allocation declined by 6.7%, from $19.42 million in FY2011 to $18.1 million

for FY2013. The decline in funding is more pronounced when measured over the last 11 years. In

FY2003, the average entitlement allocation was $2.9 million compared to $1.8 million for

FY2013, a 37.9% decline. During this same period, the average allocation for states declined by

29% from $25.5 million to $18.1 million (see Table 3).

Supporters of the CDBG program contend that the reduction in funding disproportionately affects

low and moderate income households given the statutory requirement that communities allocate

at least 70% of the program’s funds to activities principally benefitting low and moderate income

persons.17 The FY2012 appropriation for the formula component of the CDBG program is the

lowest amount appropriated in more than a decade (see Table 2). The reduction in funding for

entitlement communities likely will result in entitlement communities delaying some projects and

reducing support for others, including activities undertaken by community-based organizations

acting as sub-grantees.

(...continued)

Ibid. p. 28.

The FY2011 amount reflects an across-the-board rescission of 0.2% and a 1% transfer of funds to the Department’s

Transformation Initiative. See §1119 and §2259 of P.L. 112-10.

The program’s authorizing statute and regulations define low and moderate income persons as those persons whose

income do not exceed 80% of the median income of the jurisdiction.

Congressional Research Service

Community Development Block Grants: Recent Funding History

Table 4. Average CDBG Allocation and Percentage Change: 2011 to FY2013

(in millions of dollars)

Number

of eligible

entities

FY2011

FY2012

average

allocation

Percentage

change

from

FY2011 to

FY2012

Number

eligible

entities

FY2013

average

allocation

Percentage

change

from

FY2011 to

FY2013

1,181

$1.7

-15.0

1,183

$1.8

-10.0

19.4

17.3

-10.8

18.1

-6.7

1.7

0.0

1.7

0.0

FY2011

average

allocation

Number

of eligible

entities

FY2012

1,168

$2.0

States

Insular areas

Entitlement

communities

Source: HUD allocations at data at http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/about/budget/budget10/index.cfm and CRS,

based on information included in Table 3.

Note: FY2014 data were not available before the publication of this report.

FY2014 Appropriations, P.L. 113-7618

On January 17, 2014, President Obama signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2014,

P.L. 113-76, which included $3.100 billion in funding for the CDF account. Of the total amount

appropriated for CDF activities all funds are to be allocated to CDBG entitlement communities

($2.116 billion), states ($907 million), insular areas ($7 million), and Indian tribes ($70 million to

be competitively awarded). As of the date of publication of this report, HUD had not yet allocated

funds to eligible entitlement communities and states nor identified the number of jurisdictions

eligible for direct allocations as entitlement communities. The FY2014 appropriation for the CDF

account reflects two outcomes observed during the previous two appropriation cycles (FY2012

and FY2013):

•

With the exception of disaster recovery supplemental funding, Congress has not

included funding for other activities beyond the formula-based CDBG program

and the competitively awarded Indian tribe CDBG program.

•

Second, appropriations for CDBG-formula grants have remained in a narrow

band moving between $2.948 billion (FY2012) and $3.030 billion for FY2014.

For supporters of the CDBG program the FY2014 funding level represents a reprieve. On July 2,

2013, the House Appropriations Committee reported out H.R. 2610, a bill making appropriations

for the Departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act

(THUD). H.R. 2610 recommended an appropriation of $1.697 billion for CDF activities, a 45%

reduction in the amount appropriated for FY2013. The Senate Appropriations Committee version

of the THUD Appropriations Act for FY2014, S. 1243, recommended $3.295 billion for activities

funded under the CDF account, including $3.150 billion for CDBG formula grants.

The U.S. Conference of Mayors and other organizations representing state and local governments

have consistently opposed any reduction in CDBG funding levels. These groups have argued that

cuts in the CDBG would significantly impact the long-term community and economic

For a detailed review of the FY2014 funding proposals and final appropriations for the CDF account, see CRS

Report R43208, Community Development Block Grants: Funding Issues in the 113th Congress , by (name redacted)

Congressional Research Service

Community Development Block Grants: Recent Funding History

development plans of the states and local governments, forcing them to postpone or terminate

activities that support private sector economic development and job creation efforts, public

facilities, and public services.19 The proposed funding reduction included in H.R. 2610 also

purportedly would have undercut the resources of non-profit organizations serving as CDBG subgrantees. These entities are involved in managing a range of CDBG-funded public services,

facilities, and activities, including homeless shelters, public safety activities, and job counseling.

Legislative Options

The decline in the average grant amount is both a function of fewer dollars appropriated and an

increase in the number of entitlement communities. Given the current climate in Congress

surrounding the desire to address the national debt and to reduce deficit spending, Congress is

unlikely to restore CDBG funding to significantly higher levels. Short of appropriating additional

funds that would mitigate both the impact of inflation and the increasing number of eligible

communities, Congress may consider a number of options intended to address the decline in

average CDBG formula allocations. These may include the following two options.

Establish a Minimum Allocation Amount

The Administration FY2014 budget included a HUD proposal that would have eliminated:

•

the grandfathering of communities that no longer meet the minimum population

threshold for entitlement status; and

•

formula funding to entitlement cities whose annual allocation fails to meet a

predetermined minimum amount.

The HUD proposal would have denied direct CDBG funding to any community whose minimum

allocation was less than 0.0125% ($348,875) of the amount that would be allocated to all

entitlement communities, assuming congressional approval of the Administration’s FY2014

budget request. According to the Administration, 239 communities would have fallen below the

threshold and an additional 57 grandfathered communities would have been eliminated because

they no longer met the program’s population threshold for entitlement status. The two factors

would affect 25% of the 1,183 entitlement communities designated as entitlement cities in

FY2013. The proposal would have transitioned communities to nonentitlement status over several

years ending in 2018.

Increase Population Threshold for Eligibility

The Administration also proposed that the current population thresholds for entitlement

community eligibility be increased. Establishing a population threshold higher than the current

50,000 persons for entitlement city status would eliminate direct funding for hundreds of cities.

The cities that fail to meet the new higher population thresholds would have their populations and

other formula factors included in determining their urban county’s calculations. Raising the

“Mayors Lobbying Senate to Restore CDBG Funding,” Community Development Digest, February 25, 2011, p. 1;

and U.S. Conference of Mayors, “Community Development Block Grants Work for America,” February 2011,

http://www.usmayors.org/cdbg/. National League of Cities, “NLC ACTION ALERT: Community Development Block

Grant Recess Strategy,” press release, February 2011.

Congressional Research Service

Community Development Block Grants: Recent Funding History

population threshold for entitlement city status to 75,000 persons would potentially eliminate

more than half (550) of the 984 cities that qualified for entitlement funding in FY2012.20

Although the cities eliminated under the proposal would not receive direct funding, many would

be able to become a part of their respective county’s CDBG program. Such an arrangement could

reduce administrative costs and promote intra-county cooperation. In addition, according to HUD,

its proposal would eliminate inefficiency inherent in awarding very small grants since such grants

“could only have a small effect.” Further, HUD contends that

With larger grants, communities should be able to increase effectiveness by fully funding

projects that create jobs or provide adequate funding to pursue comprehensive neighborhood

revitalization. Moreover, from an administration standpoint, small grants do not provide

communities with sufficient resources needed to properly staff and manage all program

requirements needed to run an effective program.21

CDBG-Linked Set-Asides and Earmarks22

In addition to the CDBG formula program, the CDF account also has been populated by a number

of other programs with smaller appropriation levels, narrower objectives, and fewer direct

recipients. Some set-asides included in the account are intended to complement the activities of

the larger formula grant program (see Appendix A for a full list of set-asides funded under the

CDF account). Others are intended to meet other agency objectives, and still others have been

earmarked for specific activities or projects. Some observers have contended that a number of

these programs have been funded at the expense of the larger CDBG formula grant program,

particularly those projects funded as earmarks.

See Paul Joice, Ben J. Winter, and Heidi Johnson, et al., Redistribution Effect of Introducing 2010 Census and 20052009 ACS Data into the CDBG Formula, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy

Development and Evaluation, December 2011, p. 12, http://www.huduser.org/publications/pdf/cdbg_redis_eff.pdf; and

Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Incorporated Places

Over 50,000, Ranked by July 1, 2012 Population: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2012 - United States—Places Over 50,000

Population more information, American Fact Finder, Washington, DC, July 1, 2012, http://factfinder2.census.gov/

faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk.

Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2014 Congressional Budget Justifications, Community Planning

and Development, Community Development Fund, 2014 Summary Statement and Initiatives, Washington, DC, April

2014, pp. Q2-Q3, http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/cfo/reports/2014/main_toc.

Set-asides are funds in a larger appropriations measure that are designated to fund a specific program or activity.

Under House and Senate rules, “[A]n earmark is a provision in legislation or report language that is included primarily

at the request of a Member, and provides, authorizes, or recommends a specific amount to an entity or to a specific

state, locality, or congressional district.” For a discussion of disclosure procedures see CRS Report R40976, Earmarks

Disclosed by Congress: FY2008-FY2010 Regular Appropriations Bills, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Community Development Block Grants: Recent Funding History

Figure 3. CDF Set Asides and Earmarks in Current and Constant Dollars:

FY2000 to FY2013

(Base Year 2000)

Source: CRS analysis.

Notes: Does not include disaster supplemental funding.

From FY2000 to FY2013, the number and appropriations for set-aside programs included in the

CDF account have fluctuated significantly. In FY2001 Congress appropriated $713 million for

CDF set-asides, with earmarks under the Economic Development Initiative (EDI) and

Neighborhood Initiative (NI) programs accounting for 56% of this total.

Both EDI and NI were once competitive grant programs used to award funds to support Section

108 loan guarantees used to help finance large-scale economic and community redevelopment

projects (EDI) or to support local community development corporations involved in

neighborhood revitalization efforts through the provision of financial support and technical

assistance (NI). Starting in FY2001 through FY2010, EDI and NI appropriations were used to

fund congressionally earmarked grants in the annual HUD appropriation and accompanying

conference report or Congressional Record.

From FY2000 to FY2008, funding for CDBG-related set-asides and earmarks declined by 59.4%

when measured in constant FY2000 dollars, but rebounded in FY2009 and FY2010 before

declining significantly in FY2011 and reaching a low of $57 million in FY2013 (see Figure 3).

The broad swing in the amounts appropriated for CDF set-asides was a result of Congress’s

decisions

•

to move several categorical grant programs into or out of the CDF account, by

deciding to no longer fund a program or to transfer selected programs to another

account;

Congressional Research Service

Community Development Block Grants: Recent Funding History

•

to reduce funding for specific programs; and

•

to fund, and at what amount, two programs that were vehicles for congressional

earmarks, EDI and NI programs.

See Table A-1 in Appendix A of this report for a detailed listing of programs included as setasides in the CDF account during the period from FY2000 to FY2014.

Earmarks Declining After Dominating Set-Aside Activities

Congressionally earmarked projects funded under the EDI and NI programs were traditionally the

dominant elements of CDBG-related set-aside appropriations, particularly from FY2000 to

FY2009, with the exception of FY2007. Congress did not appropriate funds for earmarks in the

CDF account since FY2011.

The issue of earmarks has been the source of debate in recent Congresses. During the FY2007

appropriations cycle Congress removed all earmarks from the CDF account. Subsequently, both

houses of Congress instituted new rules governing earmark requests.23 In FY2008 and FY2009,

EDI and NI earmarks were the dominant components of CDBG-linked set asides programs. As

Figure 4 illustrates, the combined appropriations for EDI and NI in FY2008 and FY2009 were

more than twice the amount appropriated for other set-aside activities combined.

Millins of $

Figure 4. Earmarks and Set Asides:

FY2000 to FY2014

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

Fiscal Year

EDI & NI earmarks

other CDF Set asides

Source: CRS analysis.

For a discussion of disclosure procedures see CRS Report RL34462, House and Senate Procedural Rules

Concerning Earmark Disclosure, by (name redacted), and CRS Report R40976,Earmarks Disclosed by Congress:

FY2008-FY2010 Regular Appropriations Bills, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Community Development Block Grants: Recent Funding History

Supplemental Appropriations

When events have warranted, Congress has used the CDBG program’s administrative framework

and rules to provide supplemental or special appropriations (Figure 1). These supplemental funds

have been used to

•

support local and state government disaster relief, recovery, and mitigation

activities following such events as the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the Gulf Coast

hurricanes of 2005, and Hurricane Sandy in 2012;24

•

assist local and state governments in reducing the inventory of abandoned and

foreclosed properties (caused by the recent and ongoing mortgage foreclosure

crisis) by providing funds to states and selected communities to be used to

acquire, rehabilitate, and resell foreclosed properties under the Neighborhood

Stabilization Program (NSP);25 and

•

assist local and state governments in supporting private sector job creation in

response to the economic recession that began in December 2007, as part of a

larger federal effort under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

(ARRA).26

With the exception of CDBG-ARRA funds, which were allocated to all eligible CDBG

entitlement communities, disaster relief and NSP funding were allocated only to states or

communities meeting specific criteria or eligibility thresholds delineated in the supplemental

appropriations legislation.27

In the case of CDBG disaster funding, only communities designated as disaster areas by a

presidential declaration have received funds, and only if Congress has chosen to provide

supplemental appropriations beyond disaster assistance funding typically made available by the

Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA), the Small Business Administration

(SBA) or other agencies.28

For additional information on the use of CDBG funds for disaster relief and recovery see CRS Report RL33330,

Community Development Block Grant Funds in Disaster Relief and Recovery, by (name redacted).

For additional information on the use of CDBG funds to address the mortgage foreclosure crisis see CRS Report

RS22919, Community Development Block Grants: Neighborhood Stabilization Program; Assistance to Communities

Affected by Foreclosures, by (name redacted).

This was not the first time Congress used the CDBG program framework to create jobs in response to a recession.

The Emergency Jobs Appropriations Act of 1983, P.L. 98-8, allocated an additional $1 billion in CDBG funds to be

used for job creation activities in response to a national unemployment rate of 10.7% and what a General Accounting

Office (GAO) report characterized as the worst economic recession of the post-World War II era. The report noted that

the CDBG program was the most efficient job creation mechanism of the 77 federal programs that received funding

under the act. The report, Emergency Jobs Act of 1983: Funds Spent Slowly, Few Jobs Created, GAO/HRD 87-1, is

available at http://archive.gao.gov/f0102/132063.pdf.

Congress funded three rounds of NSP activities. These three rounds have been designated as NSP-1, NSP-2, and

NSP-3.

For a list of CDBG disaster supplemental funding see CRS Report RL33330, Community Development Block Grant

Funds in Disaster Relief and Recovery, by (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Community Development Block Grants: Recent Funding History

In the case of the first and third rounds of the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, known as

NSP-1 and NSP-3, funds were allocated to states based on the relative number and percentages of

mortgage foreclosures, subprime loans, and mortgage delinquencies and defaults. Congress

established a minimum grant amount to be awarded to each state of 0.5% of the amount

appropriated. Of the amounts allocated to each state under NSP-1 and NSP-3, Congress required

each state to dispense a portion of these funds to local governments experiencing high rates of

mortgage foreclosures, subprime loans, and mortgage delinquencies and defaults, allowing these

communities to directly administer these funds. It further limited the direct allocation of NSP to

communities whose allocation met a minimum threshold of $2 million for NSP-1 and $1 million

for NSP-3 funds. As a result, 309 communities qualified for administration of NSP-1 funds while

268 communities met or exceeded the NSP-3 threshold. NSP-2 funds were awarded

competitively to states, local governments, and non-profit organizations. For-profit entities were

also allowed to participate as partners with any of the three primary grant recipients of NSP-2

funds.

Concluding Observations

The block grant structure of the program affords entitlement communities and states a great deal

of discretion in allocating funds to address local community and economic development needs

while addressing the program’s national objectives. During the program’s 40 years of existence,

approximately $100 billion have been allocated by formula to communities and states to be used

to fund housing, public facilities, public service activities, infrastructure, and economic

development projects intended principally benefit low and moderate income persons, prevent or

eliminate slums or blight, or address an imminent threat to public health and safety.

Congress has expanded the reach of the program by using the program’s administrative structure

to fund supplemental disaster relief and recovery assistance and as part of wider efforts to address

economic recessions and mortgage foreclosure crises. In addition, Congress has in the past used

the same account (CDF) that funds the CDBG-formula program to fund additional programs and

activities intended to support, not supplant, the CDBG program. According to some observers,

this led to “creeping categoricals,” that is, the creation of small narrowly targeted programs

intended to be used in support of CDBG formula-grant activities. Other observers have countered

that the creation and funding of these narrowly targeted programs and projects, particularly

earmarked projects, within the same account that funds CDBG-formula grants, siphoned off

program resources from the CDBG program. Since 2011, Congress has not appropriated funds for

earmarked projects under the CDF account, and the number of other programs authorized under

the CD account has declined significantly.

In addition to creeping categoricals, CDBG entitlement grantees have experienced stagnant, if not

declining, annual allocations. The average CDBG-formula allocation for FY013 was 37.9% less

than the average allocation in FY2000. The decline is both a function of lower funding levels and

an increase in the number of entitlement communities as more cities and counties achieve the

population threshold necessary to be designated an entitlement community. For the period from

FY2000 to FY2013, the number of jurisdictions that received a direct allocation as CDBG

entitlement communities increased by 171, from 1,012 to 1,183.

Congressional Research Service

Community Development Block Grants: Recent Funding History

Appendix A. CDF Set-Asides: FY2000 to FY2014

Table A-1. CDF Set-Asides from FY2000 to FY2014

(in millions of dollars)

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Indian Tribes

67.0

71.0

70.0

70.5

71.6

68.4

59.4

62.0

65.0

64.3

64.2

60.0

56.8

70.0

Housing

Assistance

Council

3.0

2.9

3.3

—0

—

National

American Indian

Housing Council

2.2

2.6

2.4

2.5

2.4

—

—b

—

National

Housing Dev.

Corp.

—

10.0

5.0

4.8

—c

—

National

Council of

LaRaza

—

5.0

4.8

—c

—

41.5

45.4

42.5

48.8

51.7

43.4

0.0

4.0

5.0

Hawaiian

Homelands

—

—-

9.6

—

—0

—

University

Comm. Fund

—0

—e

—

24.8

—

Resident

Opportunity

Support

Services (ROSS)

55.0

—f

—

Working Capital

Fund Info. Tech.

transfer

—

15.0

13.8

3.4

4.9

3.4

1.6

1.5

3.2

—

Self-help

Homeownership

Opportunity

(SHOP)

20.0

19.9

22.0

25.1

26.8

24.8

—c

—

Capacity

Building

23.8

28.5

29.0

32.3

34.5

34.2

—c

—

YouthBuild

42.5

60.0

65.0

59.6

64.6

61.5

49.5

0.0g

—

Sustainable

Communities

—

148.5

98.8

—

Rural Innovation

Fund

—

24.8h

—

Alaskan

Museumi

—

9.9

—

Special

Olympics

4.0

—

1.9

—

Hudson River

Park

—

30.7

—

Sec.107 Grantsd

Congressional Research Service

Community Development Block Grants: Recent Funding History

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Salt Lake City

Olympic Games

Temp. Housing

—

2.0

—

Wellstone

Center for

Community

Building

—

8.9

—

30.0j

43.9

42.0

41.8

43.7

41.4

49.5

—

25.9

19.5

22.1

—

EDI

256.2k

357.3l

294.2

259.3

279.3m

259.9

306.9

—

179.8

165.3

172.8

—

Transformation

Initiative

—

L44.5n

35.0

—

Total CDF SetAsides

545.2

713.5

659.0

565.4

603.5

585.0

466.9

61.0

273.2

258.3

502.0

198.0

60.0

56.8

70.0

Source: CRS, based on information gathered from appropriation reports.

Funded under Section 107 activities.

Transferred to HUD’s Public and Indian Housing account.

Transferred to the new Self Help and Assisted Housing account, created with the passage of P.L. 109-148.

Section 107 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, authorizes the funding

of a number of activities including technical assistance; community development demonstration projects;

community development work study programs; grants to minority serving institutions of higher education,

including Historically Black Colleges and Universities, institutions serving Native Americans, Hispanic-serving

institutions, and university-community partnerships.

Prior to FY2007, CDBG-linked university activities were included in Section 107 subaccount. For FY2007,

program funds of $23 million were appropriated under a separate HUD account, Research and Technology.

ROSS appropriations were transferred to HUD’s Public Housing Capital Fund account.

Program authority was transferred to the Department of Labor.

Before FY2010, the program was funded under a separate account, Rural Housing and Economic

Development.

Added by P.L. 108-199, Section 165.

FY2000 appropriation includes $23 million in congressional earmarks and $7 million in competitive grants.

All funds after FY2000 were earmarked for projects included in conference reports.

FY2000 appropriation included $232 million in congressional earmarks and $24 million in competitive

grants. All funds after FY2000 were earmarked for congressionally designated projects. Does not include

$27.5 million in emergency supplemental appropriations.

Includes amounts appropriated under P.L. 106-377 and P.L. 106-554. All funds were earmarked for specific

projects.

Includes $2.990 million added by P.L. 108-199, Section 167.

Subtotal for the Transformation Initiative assumes transfer of 1% of amounts appropriated to programs

included in the CDF account.

Congressional Research Service

Community Development Block Grants: Recent Funding History

Appendix B. CDBG Formula Grants Funding

History

Table B-1 is a tabulation of annual appropriations for the formula component of the CDBG

administered by HUD. The table does not include:

•

supplemental appropriations in response to presidentially declared disasters;

•

special appropriations, including CDBG-related American Recovery and

Reinvestment Act (ARRA) or the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP)

funds; and

•

program set asides and earmarks such as, but not limited to, the Economic

Development Initiatives and Indian CDBG funds that also have been funded

under the larger Community Development Fund account.

Table B-1. CDBG Formula-Based Funding History, by Program Component and

Fiscal Year

(in millions of dollars)

Fiscal Year

CDBG Entitlement

Program Allocations

CDBG Small

Cities/StateAdministered

Program Allocationsa

Total CDBG

Formula

Allocationsb

1975

2,217

254

2,471

1976

2,363

336

2,699

1977

2,674

423

3,097

1978

2,798

608

3,406

1979

2,752

796

4,548

1980

2,749

955

3,704

1981

2,667

926

3,593

1982a

2,380

1,020

3,400

1983

2,380

1,020

3,400

1984

2,380

1,020

3,400

1985

2,388

1,023

3,411

1986

2,053

880

2,933

1987

2,059

883

2,942

1988

1,973

845

2,818

1989

2,053

880

2,933

1990

1,972

845

2,817

1991

2,203

944

3,147

1992

2,341

1,003

3,344

1993

2,725

1,168

3,893

Congressional Research Service

Community Development Block Grants: Recent Funding History

Fiscal Year

CDBG Entitlement

Program Allocations

CDBG Small

Cities/StateAdministered

Program Allocationsa

Total CDBG

Formula

Allocationsb

1994

3,004

1,287

4,291

1995

3,140

1,346

4,486

1996

3,059

1,311

4,370

1997

3,017

1,293

4,310

1998

2,937

1,259

4,196

1999

2,958

1,268

4,226

2000

2,964

1,271

4,235

2001

3,079

1,320

4,399

2002

3,039

1,302

4,341

2003

3,038

1,302

4,340

2004

3,032

1,299

4,331

2005

2,882

1,235

4,117

2006

2,593

1,111

3,704

2007

2,598

1,113

3,711

2008

2,510

1,076

3,586

2009

2,549

1,093

3,642

2010

2,760

1,183

3,943

2011

2,325

973

3,298

2012

2,059

882

2,941

2013

2,150

921

3,071

2014

2.116

907

3.023

Source: CRS based on information gathered from appropriations acts.

Total does not include set aside for Indian tribes. The Budget Reconciliation Act of 1982 granted each state

the option of directly administering its share of funds awarded to states for use in small (nonentitlement)

communities. Amounts in this column include funds that were allocated to states under the HUDAdministered component of the program. In FY1982, 37 states elected to directly administer this

component of the program. In FY1983, 47 states and Puerto Rico elected to directly administer this

component of the CDBG program. In FY1984, one additional state elected to directly administer the

program and, by FY1987, only two states (New York and Hawaii) continued to allow HUD to administer

their CDBG small cities allocation. Since FY2000, only Hawaii continues to allow HUD to administer this

component of the CDBG program.

Total funding does not include funds allocated to insular areas, including Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands,

American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas.

Congressional Research Service

Community Development Block Grants: Recent Funding History

Appendix C. Distribution of CDBG Funds: FY2011

to FY2013

Table C-1 identifies the FY2011, FY2012, and FY2013 actual distribution of CDBG formula

funds awarded to states and entitlement communities, and insular areas. The table presents

information at the state level, but each state total includes actual amounts allocated to the state

and entitlement communities within each state. The number of formula recipients in each state,

including the state itself, is identified in the last three columns of the table by fiscal year.

Calculations for the three fiscal years were generated by HUD. The Consolidated Appropriations

Act for FY2012, P.L. 112-55, decreased CDBG formula allocations by 10.8% below the amounts

allocated to states and entitlement communities for FY2011, while the FY2013 formula allocation

for entitlement communities and states increased by 4.6% above the amount appropriated for

FY2012. FY2014 was not available before the publication of this report.

Table C-1. CDBG Formula Grant Allocations to States and Entitlement

Communities: FY2011, FY2012, FY2013

FY2011 Actual

State and

Entitlement

Communities

Allocations:

$3,297,966,786

FY2012 Actual

State and

Entitlement

Communities

Allocations:

$2,941,666,022

FY2013 Actual

State and

Entitlement

Communities

Allocations:

$3,078,195,000

Number of

Formula

Recipients

in State

FY2011

Number of

Formula

Recipients

in State

FY2012

Number of

Formula

Recipients

in State

FY2013

Alabama

$44,562,795

$39,246,037

$41,442,145

Alaska

4,340,720

3,843,406

4,212,902

Arizona

49,313,983

46,405,177

47,794,996

Arkansas

25,019,765

23,433,880

24,213,373

California

416,405,347

351,573,471

367,204,607

181

185

186

Colorado

34,036,991

32,933,094

34,636,700

Connecticut

37,855,191

34,325,990

36,596,101

Delaware

6,489,675

6,233,818

6,639,673

District of

Columbia

16,328,680

13,904,983

14,344,993

Florida

143,959,449

123,354,155

129,697,668

Georgia

74,356,236

72,331,774

76,045,205

Hawaii

13,652,666

12,204,143

12,768,822

Idaho

11,171,762

10,660,286

11,238,804

Illinois

156,500,801

146,421,200

151,935,462

Indiana

62,939,342

59,842,592

61,982,093

Iowa

37,135,076

32,857,042

33,941,206

Kansas

25,325,915

23,399,317

24,338,366

Kentucky

41,383,633

38,294,674

40,067,528

Louisiana

57,131,650

45,354,000

46,348,983

State

Congressional Research Service

Community Development Block Grants: Recent Funding History

State

FY2011 Actual

State and

Entitlement

Communities

Allocations:

$3,297,966,786

FY2012 Actual

State and

Entitlement

Communities

Allocations:

$2,941,666,022

FY2013 Actual

State and

Entitlement

Communities

Allocations:

$3,078,195,000

Number of

Formula

Recipients

in State

FY2011

Number of

Formula

Recipients

in State

FY2012

Number of

Formula

Recipients

in State

FY2013

Maine

17,889,167

16,106,214

17,062,380

Maryland

49,389,644

42,440,741

44,793,382

Massachusetts

98,171,023

88,974,486

93,925,552

Michigan

118,346,494

111,620,816

115,122,740

Minnesota

51,888,923

47,038,219

49,510,249

Mississippi

32,081,524

27,513,192

28,054,205

Missouri

60,244,487

56,650,547

58,787,342

Montana

8,325,198

7,347,866

7,859,720

Nebraska

17,196,655

16,398,847

16,935,009

Nevada

$18,357,637

17,633,337

18,938,400

New Hampshire

11,979,325

10,831,576

11,460,295

New Jersey

91,446,370

77,708,633

81,686,316

New Mexico

19,146,748

14,165,369

$14,968,528

New York

313,082,305

281,664,304

294,522,938

North Carolina

65,281,862

65,385,998

70,031,817

North Dakota

5,739,254

4,925,059

5,122,113

Ohio

145,724,619

135,321,183

140,901,908

Oklahoma

27,348,173

$24,942,864

25,908,058

Oregon

32,931,463

$30,258,808

31,724,263

Pennsylvania

197,939,554

167,973,973

174,853,998

Rhode Island

15,630,053

14,662,008

15,801,243

South Carolina

35,217,977

32,602,287

35,141,542

South Dakota

7,268,635

6,552,541

6,702,236

Tennessee

45,352,207

44,563,668

46,809,673

Texas

231,949,252

215,435,097

222,907,915

Utah

18,657,954

18,142,062

19,288,295

Vermont

7,555,362

6,837,137

7,261,380

Virginia

54,944,504

48,666,534

51,179,967

Washington

55,094,657

48,830,368

51,641,496

West Virginia

22,624,783

19,137,316

19,527,474

Wisconsin

59,757,871

54,535,888

57,716,600

Wyoming

3,826,802

3,196,119

3,395,608

Puerto Rico

99,666,627

66,983,925

$65,607,852

3,297,966,786

2,941,666,022

3,071,195,000

1,219

1,232

1,234

Formula Subtotal

Congressional Research Service

Community Development Block Grants: Recent Funding History

FY2011 Actual

State and

Entitlement

Communities

Allocations:

$3,297,966,786

FY2012 Actual

State and

Entitlement

Communities

Allocations:

$2,941,666,022

FY2013 Actual

State and

Entitlement

Communities

Allocations:

$3,078,195,000

Number of

Formula

Recipients

in State

FY2011

Number of

Formula

Recipients

in State

FY2012

Number of

Formula

Recipients

in State

FY2013

American Samoa

1,133,433

1,158,648

1,035,254

Guam

3,085,838

3,158,206

3,012,933

824,363

793,489

968,331

Virgin Islands

1,872,506

1,889,657

1,983,482

Insular Area

Subtotala

6,916,140

7,000,000

Total

3,304,882,926

2,948,100,000

3,078,195,000

Indian Tribes

Subtotalb

64,200,000

60,000,000

56,862,000

State

Northern Marianas

Source: CRS Analysis based on HUD FY2010, FY2011, FY2012 allocation data available at http://www.hud.gov/

offices/cpd/communitydevelopment/budget/.

42 U.S.C. 5306(a)(2) requires HUD to set aside $7 million, as specified 42 U.S.C. 5307(1)(a), for insular

areas before allocating funds to states and entitlement communities.

42 U.S.C. 5306(a)(1) requires HUD to set aside up to 1% of annual amount appropriated for allocation to

Indian tribes. From time to time Congress has modified this requirement in annual appropriations acts to

set aside a specific amount.

Note: FY2014 allocation data were not available before the publication of this report.

Author Contact Information

(name redacted)

Analyst in Federalism and Economic Development Policy

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

Congressional Research Service

EveryCRSReport.com

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the

Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on

issues that may come before Congress.

EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The

reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to

the public.

Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts

who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made

any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.

CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in

the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without

permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a

third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or

otherwise use copyrighted material.

Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public

understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in

connection with CRS' institutional role.

EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.