Order Code RL32872
Community Services Block Grants (CSBG):
Funding and Reauthorization
Updated October 14, 2008
Background and Funding
Karen Spar
Specialist in Social Policy
Domestic Social Policy Division
Community Services Block Grants (CSBG):
Funding and Reauthorization
Summary
Community Services Block Grants (CSBG), administered by the Department
of Health and Human Services (HHS),Domestic Social Policy and Division Research Coordinator
May 26, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL32872
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
Community Services Block Grants (CSBG): Background and Funding
Summary
Community Services Block Grants (CSBG) provide federal funds to states, territories, and
tribes tribes
for distribution to local agencies forto support a wide range of community-based activities to reduce
poverty. Small related
programs — Smaller related programs—Community Economic Development, Rural Community
Facilities, Job
Opportunities for Low-Income Individuals (JOLI), and Individual Development
Accounts (IDAs) — also provide grants for—also support anti-poverty efforts. CSBG and some of
these related activities
trace their history to the War on Poverty of the 1960s.
The Bush Administration proposed for four consecutive years (including in its
budget request for FY2009) to eliminate funding for CSBG, arguing that the program
did not award grants competitively or hold grantees accountable for program results.
The Administration also proposed to end funding for related activities, except for
IDAs. Despite the request for zero funding in FY2008, Congress passed a measure
(P.L. 110-161) that provided $654 million for the CSBG (a $24 million increase over
the previous year) and generally maintained all related activities at their previous
levels, with a 16% increase for Community Economic Development.
The Senate Appropriations Committee again rejected the Administration’s
proposal to zero-out CSBG for FY2009, reporting a spending bill that would have
maintained CSBG and all related activities at their FY2008 levels, with a small
increase for Rural Community Facilities (S. 3230). The House Labor-HHSEducation Appropriations Subcommittee approved increases for CSBG and most
related activities for FY2009, but the full House Appropriations Committee failed to
complete action on the FY2009 funding bill. On September 30, 2008, President
Bush signed into law a government-wide continuing resolution (P.L. 110-329) that
maintains funding for CSBG and related programs at their FY2008 levels through
March 6, 2009.
In contrast to its more recent actions, the House Appropriations Subcommittee
approved a one-third reduction for CSBG for FY2007, although the full committee
subsequently boosted this amount slightly (H.R. 5647, 109th Congress). No final
action occurred on FY2007 appropriations, however, and all programs were
maintained at their previous year’s funding levels under a full-year continuing
resolution (P.L. 110-5).
Although Congress has continued to provide funding for CSBG and related
activities, legislative authority for these appropriations expired with FY2003. No
reauthorization legislation has been introduced in the 110th Congress.
In 2006, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) faulted HHS for weak
oversight of CSBG and recommended greater monitoring of states and targeting of
technical assistance funds. HHS took steps in response to GAO, although the Senate
Appropriations Committee criticized HHS recently (S.Rept. 110-410) for failing to
report on its progress and for not implementing a training and technical assistance
needs assessment and delivery plan as directed earlier by the committee.
Contents
Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
FY2009 Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Reauthorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
The Block Grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Use of Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Local Delivery System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
State Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Allocation of Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
CSBG Program Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Related Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Community Economic Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Job Opportunities for Low-Income Individuals (JOLI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Rural Community Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
National Youth Sports Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Community Food and Nutrition Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Individual Development Accounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Administration Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Zero Funding Request for FY2007, FY2008, and FY2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Strengthening America’s Community Initiative (SACI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Request for IDAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Government Accountability Office (GAO) Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
HHS Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Reauthorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Program Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
State Plan Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Training and Technical Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Grantee Funding Reduction or Termination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Grantee Monitoring and Fiscal Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Faith-Based Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Recent Appropriations History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
FY2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Continuing Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
House Action in the 109th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Senate Action in the 109th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Appendix: CSBG and Hurricane Katrina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
List of Tables
Table 1. Funding for CSBG and Related Activities, FY2005-FY2009 . . . . . . . 22
Community Services Block Grants (CSBG):
Funding and Reauthorization
Recent Developments
FY2009 Funding. For four consecutive years, including for FY2009, the
Bush Administration proposed to terminate funding for the Community Services
Block Grant (CSBG), arguing that the program lacked performance measures and
failed to hold grantees accountable for program results. The Administration noted
that the program received a “Results Not Demonstrated” rating in a 2003 PART
assessment,1 but also stated that as a result of this assessment, efforts were underway
to improve program administration, accountability, and outcomes.
Also as part of its FY2009 budget request, the Administration proposed no new
funding for Community Economic Development and Rural Community Facilities,
claiming they were similar to existing programs in other federal agencies. In its
FY2009 budget justifications, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
said the zero funding request reflected the Administration’s effort to target funds
more effectively. The Administration also requested no funds for a third CSBGrelated program, Job Opportunities for Low-Income Individuals (JOLI), citing
duplication with activities that states can conduct under the Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families (TANF) block grant. On the other hand, the Administration
requested $24 million in FY2009 for a fourth related program, Individual
Development Accounts (IDA), which was approximately that program’s funding
level in FY2008. (For details, see “Administration Proposals,” later in this report.)
The Senate Appropriations Committee on July 8, 2008, reported an
appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor-HHS-Education in FY2009 (S.
3230), which would have rejected the Administration’s request to zero-out CSBG
and most related activities. The committee-reported bill would have maintained
CSBG and related activities at their FY2008 levels, except for Rural Community
Facilities, which would have received a small increase. In reporting its bill, the
Senate committee noted the “importance of Community Action Agencies [local
entities that receive CSBG funds] as institutions that organize low-income
communities to identify emerging challenges to economically insecure Americans
and subsequently mobilize the resources, programs, and partnerships needed to
address local poverty conditions” (S.Rept. 110-410). At the same time, the Senate
committee faulted HHS for failing to report on progress made in correcting certain
program oversight deficiencies identified by the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) and for not implementing a needs assessment and delivery plan for training
1
Program Assessment Rating Tool; for background, see CRS Report RL32663, The Bush
Administration’s Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), by Clinton Brass.
CRS-2
and technical assistance as previously directed by the committee. (For more details
on the GAO recommendations and HHS response, see “Government Accountability
Office Review” later in this report.)
The House Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee approved a
funding bill for FY2009 on June 19, 2008, but the full House Appropriations
Committee did not complete action on this bill when it subsequently met on June 26.
The draft committee report on the subcommittee-approved bill said that “CSBG is
more important than ever, with unemployment and poverty increasing due to the
struggling economy and the number of low-income individuals and families in need
of assistance rising as a consequence.”2 The subcommittee approved increases for
CSBG, Community Economic Development and Rural Community Facilities, and
recommended level funding for remaining related activities.
The 110th Congress did not finalize action on a Labor-HHS-Education spending
bill for FY2009, and on September 30, President Bush signed into law a governmentwide continuing resolution (P.L. 110-329) that maintains funding for CSBG and
related programs at their FY2008 levels through March 6, 2009. (For more details
on the appropriations process for FY2009, see “Recent Appropriations History,” later
in this report.)
Reauthorization. In each of its budget submissions starting with the FY2006
request, the Bush Administration stated that it was no longer seeking reauthorization
of CSBG and related activities. The funding authorization for these programs
(except JOLI) expired at the end of FY2003, although Congress has generally
continued to fund them each year. Included in President Bush’s FY2006 budget
request was a proposed “Strengthening America’s Communities Initiative” (SACI),
which would have eliminated 18 existing community and economic development
programs, including CSBG and several of the related national activities, and replaced
them with a new program administered by the Commerce Department. This initiative
was rejected, and a modified version was proposed as part of the FY2007 budget.
However, the modified SACI proposal was no longer viewed as a successor to the
CSBG. (For further information on the President’s initiative, see “Administration
Proposals,” later in this report.)
In the 109th Congress, Representative Osborne introduced H.R. 341, the
Improving the Community Services Block Grant Act, which would have amended
and reauthorized the CSBG and related activities in their current form through
FY2012. No action occurred on this bill. (For details of H.R. 341, see
“Reauthorization,” later in this report.) No legislation has been introduced in the
110th Congress that would reauthorize the CSBG.
2
Unnumbered draft House Appropriations Committee report, reflecting actions of the
Subcommittee on Labor-HHS-Education on the FY2009 spending bill: [http://www.cq.com/
flatfiles/editorialFiles/budgetTracker/reference/docs/20080626lhreport.pdf].
CRS-3
Background
Administered by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the
Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) program provides federal funds to states,
territories and Indian tribes for distribution to local agencies in support of a variety
of antipoverty activities. The origins of the Community Services Block Grant date
back to 1964, when the Economic Opportunity Act (P.L. 88-452; 42 U.S.C. § 2701)
established the War on Poverty and authorized the Office of Economic Opportunity
(OEO) as the lead agency in the federal antipoverty campaign. A centerpiece of OEO
was the Community Action Program, under which a nationwide network of local
Community Action Agencies (CAAs) was developed. A key feature of Community
Action is the direct involvement of low-income people in the design and
administration of antipoverty activities, through mandatory representation on the
CAAs’ governing boards. Currently, at the local level, CAAs are the primary
grantees of the CSBG.
In 1975, OEO was renamed the Community Services Administration (CSA), but
remained an independent executive branch agency. In 1981, CSA was abolished and
replaced by the CSBG, to be administered by HHS. At the time CSA was abolished,
it was administering nearly 900 CAAs, about 40 local Community Development
Corporations, and several small categorical programs that were typically operated by
local CAAs. The CSBG Act was enacted as part of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1981 (P.L. 97-35, Title VI, Section 671; 42 U.S.C. § 9901) as
partial response to President Reagan’s proposal to consolidate CSA with 11 other
social service programs into a block grant to states. Congress rejected this proposal
and instead created two new block grants, the Social Services Block Grant, under
Title XX of the Social Security Act, and the CSBG, which consisted of activities
previously administered by CSA. The CSBG Act was reauthorized in 1984 under
P.L. 98-558, in 1986 under P.L. 99-425, in 1990 under P.L. 101-501, in 1994 under
P.L. 103-252, and in 1998 under P.L. 105-285. The authorizations for CSBG and
most related programs expired in FY2003. Reauthorization legislation was passed
by the House and Senate during the 108th Congress but not enacted. Similar
legislation was introduced in the 109th Congress but not considered, and CSBG
remains an agenda item in the 110th Congress.
Several related national activities — Community Economic Development,
Rural Community Facilities, Job Opportunities for Low-Income Individuals (JOLI),
and Individual Development Accounts (IDAs) — also offer grants to assist local lowincome communities with economic development, rural housing and water
management, and asset development for low-income individuals, among other
services. These activities are administered at the federal level by the same Office of
Community Services at HHS that administers the CSBG, and in some cases, are also
authorized by the CSBG Act. Prior to FY2006, national activities that received
separate appropriations also included the National Youth Sports and Community
Food and Nutrition programs.
CRS-4
The Block Grant
Use of Funds. CSBG funds are used for activities designed to have a
“measurable and potentially major impact on causes of poverty.” The law envisions
a wide variety of activities undertaken on behalf of low-income families and
individuals, including those who are welfare recipients, homeless, migrant or
seasonal farm workers, or elderly. States must submit an application and plan to
HHS, stating their intention that funds will be used for activities to help families and
individuals achieve self-sufficiency, find and retain meaningful employment, attain
an adequate education, make better use of available income, obtain adequate housing,
and achieve greater participation in community affairs. In addition, states must
ensure that funds will be used to address the needs of youth in low-income
communities; coordinate with related programs, including state welfare reform
efforts; and ensure that local grantees provide emergency food-related services.
Local Delivery System. States are required to pass through at least 90% of
their federal block grant allotments to “eligible entities” — primarily (but not
exclusively) Community Action Agencies (CAAs) that had been designated prior to
1981 under the former Economic Opportunity Act. The distribution of these funds
among local agencies is left to the discretion of the state, although states may not
terminate funding to an eligible entity or reduce its share disproportionately without
determining cause, after notice and an opportunity for a hearing. There are more than
1,000 eligible entities around the country, the majority of which are private nonprofit
organizations. Many of these organizations contract with others in delivering various
services. Once designated as an eligible entity for a particular community, an agency
retains its designation unless it voluntarily withdraws from the program or its grant
is terminated for cause. Eligible entities are monitored within a systematic schedule;
return visits are made when goals are not met. In designating new or replacement
entities, states may select a public agency only when no qualified private nonprofit
organization is available, in accordance with the 1998 CSBG amendments.
Local activities vary depending on the needs and circumstances of the local
community. Each eligible entity, or CAA, is governed by a board of directors, of
which at least one-third are representatives of the low-income community. Under the
1998 amendments to the CSBG Act, low-income board members must live in the
community that they represent. Another third of the board members must be local
elected officials or their representatives, and the remaining board members represent
other community interests, such as business, labor, religious organizations, and
education. A public entity must either have a governing board with low-income
representation as described above, or another mechanism specified by the state to
assure participation by low-income individuals in the development, planning,
implementation and evaluation of programs.
There is no typical CAA, since each agency designs its programs based on a
local community needs assessment. Examples, however, of CSBG-funded services
include emergency assistance, home weatherization, activities for youth and senior
citizens, transportation, income management and credit counseling, domestic
violence crisis assistance, parenting education, food pantries, and emergency shelters.
In addition, local agencies provide information and referral to other community
CRS-5
services, such as job training and vocational education, depending on the needs of
individual clients.
State Role. At the state level, a lead agency must be designated to develop the
state application and plan. As noted above, states must pass through at least 90% of
their federal CSBG allotment to local eligible entities. States also may use up to
$55,000 or 5% of their allotment, whichever is higher, for administrative costs.
Remaining funds may be used by the state to provide training and technical
assistance, coordination and communication activities, payments to assure that funds
are targeted to areas with the greatest need, supporting “asset-building” programs for
low-income individuals (such as Individual Development Accounts, discussed later),
supporting innovative programs and activities conducted by local organizations, or
other activities consistent with the purposes of the CSBG Act. In addition, as
authorized by the 1998 amendments, states may use some CSBG funds to offset
revenue losses associated with any qualified state charity tax credit.
Allocation of Funds. Of funds appropriated annually under the CSBG Act,
HHS is required to reserve 1.5% for training and technical assistance and other
administrative activities, and half of this set-aside must be provided to state or local
entities. In addition, 0.5% of the appropriation is reserved for outlying territories
(Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands).
The law further requires that 9% of the total appropriation be reserved for certain
related activities, which are described below, and that the remainder be allocated
among the states. In practice, however, Congress typically specifies in annual
appropriations laws exactly how much is to be made available for the block grant and
each of the related activities. Block grant funds are allotted to states (including
Puerto Rico) based on the relative amount received in each state, in FY1981, under
a section of the former Economic Opportunity Act. HHS may allow Indian tribes to
receive their allotments directly, rather than through the state.
CSBG Program Data
The Community Services Block Grant Statistical Report FY2007 is based on
responses from 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico to a survey
administered by the National Association for State Community Services Programs.3
According to a fact sheet on this survey (the most recent made available), the
nationwide CSBG network spent more than $11.2 billion in FY2007; these funds
came from all sources, including federal, state, local, and private. Of this total, $578
million came from the federal block grant. For each CSBG dollar spent, the survey
found that $18.40 in other (non-CSBG) federal, state, local and private resources
were spent. Excluding other non-CSBG federal spending, each CSBG dollar
generated $5.59 in state, local, and private spending. In addition, volunteers provided
almost 46 million hours of support to the CSBG network. Almost all counties in the
United States — 99% — were served by a CSBG-eligible entity.
3
Highlights from the FY2007 Community Services Block Grant Information System
(CSBG/IS) Survey Statistical Report, National Association for State Community Services
Programs, Washington, DC; available at [http://www.nascsp.org/documents/FY2007CSBG
ISHighlights.pdf].
CRS-6
According to this survey, the CSBG network provided services to more than
16.2 million individuals in more than 6.4 million low-income families in FY2007.
More than 3 million families served had incomes below the federal poverty
guidelines, and nearly 1.4 million were “severely poor,” with incomes at or below
50% of poverty. More than 1.7 million families were “working poor” and relied on
wages or unemployment insurance, while more than 1.2 million families included a
family member who was a retired worker. More than 384,000 families were TANF
recipients, and more than 1.3 million families were headed by a single mother.
Related Activities
In addition to the block grant itself, the CSBG Act authorizes several related
national activities that are administered through the Office of Community Services
within HHS. Also, two other programs that are not directly authorized by the CSBG
Act, the Job Opportunities for Low-Income Individuals and Individual Development
Accounts, are administered by the Office of Community Services and are included
in the six separate activities described below. Funding authorization for all these
activities (except JOLI) expired at the end of FY2003; however, Congress has
continued to fund them, with some recent exceptions (see Table 1).
Community Economic Development. The Community Economic
Development program helps support local community development corporations
(CDCs) to generate employment and business development opportunities for lowincome residents. Projects must directly benefit persons living at or below the
poverty level and must be completed within 12 to 60 months of the date the grant was
awarded. Preferred projects are those that document public/private partnership,
including the leveraging of cash and in-kind contributions; and those that are located
in areas characterized by poverty, a Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF) assistance rate of at least 20%, high levels of unemployment or incidences
of violence, gang activity, and other indicators of socioeconomic distress.
During FY2007, HHS supported 45 grants, of which all were new starts, plus
six contracts and two interagency agreements, according to agency budget
documents. For FY2008, the Department expected to support 53 grants, of which
one was a continuation of an existing grant and the rest were new starts, plus five
contracts and two interagency agreements. HHS budget documents also indicate that
the Community Economic Development program created 3,636 jobs during FY2007,
compared with 3,463 in FY2006 and 3,314 and 3,187 in FY2005 and FY2004,
respectively.
Job Opportunities for Low-Income Individuals (JOLI). JOLI is
permanently authorized under the Family Support Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-485, Section
505), as amended by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-193, Section 112).4 Although JOLI is not
4
JOLI is one of several — mostly larger — programs that would have been covered by a
broad waiver authority proposed by the Bush Administration as part of its welfare reform
initiative. The waiver was included in various versions of welfare reform legislation in the
(continued...)
CRS-7
authorized under the CSBG Act, it is funded and administered as one of the CSBGrelated activities. JOLI funds are awarded on a competitive basis to community
based, non-profit and tax-exempt organizations, including community development
corporations, faith-based, charitable, and tribal organizations. Organizations awarded
grants must demonstrate and evaluate ways of creating new employment
opportunities with private employers for individuals who receive TANF and for other
individuals whose family income level does not exceed 100% of the official poverty
guidelines. Examples of these projects include self-employment and microenterprise, new businesses, expansion of existing businesses, or creating new jobs or
employment opportunities. Funds for this project cannot be used for new
construction or for the purchase of real property.
During FY2007, HHS supported 10 grants, all of which were new starts, plus
four contracts and two interagency agreements, according to agency budget
documents. In FY2008, the Department also expected to support 10 new grants, four
contracts and two interagency agreements. HHS budget documents indicate that
JOLI created 300 jobs in FY2007, compared with 360 in FY2006 and 300 and 275
in FY2005 and FY2004, respectively.
Rural Community Facilities. Funds are for grants to public and private
nonprofit organizations for rural housing and community facilities development
projects to train and offer technical assistance on the following: home repair to lowincome families, water and waste water facilities management, and developing lowincome rental housing units.
During FY2007, HHS supported nine grants, all of which were continuation
grants, plus 3 contracts and two interagency agreements, according to agency budget
documents. In FY2008, the Department expected to support the same level of
program activity. HHS budget documents indicate that the Rural Community
Facilities program served 2,306 communities in FY2007, which is the same number
served for the previous three fiscal years.
National Youth Sports Program. Under this program, a grant traditionally
was made to a single organization, namely the National Collegiate Athletic
Association (NCAA), to provide recreational and instructional services for lowincome youth, typically on college campuses. In FY2005, one award was made, and
no funding has been provided since that year. The program remains alive, however,
and is currently administered by the non-profit National Youth Sports Corporation
with support from the USDA summer food service program and in-kind assistance
from the NCAA.5
Community Food and Nutrition Program. This program authorized
grants to public and private nonprofit organizations to coordinate food assistance
4
(...continued)
107th through 109th Congresses but not in the final law (P.L. 109-171). See CRS Report
RS21219, “Superwaiver” Proposals in Current Welfare Reform Debate, by Karen Spar.
5
Seethe following website for current information on the National Youth Sports Program:
[http://www.nyscorp.org/nysp/home.html].
CRS-8
resources, to help identify potential sponsors of child nutrition programs and to
initiate programs in areas with inadequate food assistance resources, and to develop
innovative approaches at the state and local level to meet the nutritional needs of
low-income people. Authorizing legislation required that 60% of the amount
appropriated (up to $6 million) must be allocated to states for statewide programs and
that 40% must be awarded on a competitive basis. Amounts appropriated in excess
of $6 million were allotted as follows: 40% awarded to eligible agencies for
statewide grants; 40% awarded on a competitive basis for local and statewide
programs; and 20% awarded on a competitive basis for nationwide programs,
including programs benefitting Native Americans and migrant farm workers.
FY2005 funding for this program was expected to support 104 new grants, one
contract, and two interagency agreements. No funding has been provided for this
program since FY2005.
Individual Development Accounts.6 The Assets for Independence Act
(Title IV, P.L. 105-285) initially provided for a five-year demonstration initiative to
encourage low-income people to accumulate savings. Individual Development
Accounts (IDAs) are dedicated savings accounts that can be used for specific
purposes, such as buying a first home, paying for college, or starting a business.
Contributions are matched, and participants are given financial and investment
counseling. To conduct the demonstration, grants are made to public or private
nonprofit organizations that can raise an amount of private and public (nonfederal)
funds that is equal to the federal grant; federal matches into IDA cannot exceed the
non-federal matches. The maximum federal grant is $1 million a year.
According to Administration budget documents, in FY2007 the program
supported 59 new grants, 10 contracts and two interagency agreements. In FY2008,
HHS expected to support 60 new grants, seven contracts and three interagency
agreements. According to the most recent outcome data included in HHS budget
documents, 36,077 IDAs were opened under the program in FY2006, and a
cumulative total of $31.5 million in participant savings had been deposited into IDA
accounts. HHS reports that more participants are using the program to withdraw
smaller amounts for educational purposes, rather than larger amounts for help in
buying a home.
The Assets for Independence Act expired at the end of FY2003, although
Congress has continued to provide appropriations for the IDA program under this
authority.
6
For more information on IDAs, see CRS Report RS22185, Individual Development
Accounts (IDAs): Background and Current Legislation for Federal Grant Programs to Help
Low-Income Families Save, by Gene Falk.
CRS-9
Administration Proposals
Zero Funding Request for FY2007, FY2008, and FY2009
In each of its FY2007 through FY2009 budget proposals, the Administration
requested no further funding for the CSBG or any related activities (with the sole
exception of IDAs). As rationale for terminating the CSBG, the Administration
stated that the program lacked performance measures and did not hold grantees
accountable for program results.7 The Administration further argued that the
program lacked competition “as evidenced by the same grantees receiving funding
year after year” and that grantees had “little incentive to improve their performance
since they are not held to minimum performance standards as a condition for
continued grant awards.”8 HHS noted that CSBG received a “Results Not
Demonstrated” rating in 2003 by the Program Assessment Rating Tool, although it
also said that in response to this rating, the program was restructuring its monitoring
and evaluation to improve state and local administration, accountability, and
outcomes.9 The Administration further justified its zero-funding request by stating
that key CSBG services such as employment, housing, nutrition, and health care were
provided by other federal programs.10
Similar arguments were advanced to justify no further funding for Community
Economic Development, Rural Community Facilities, and JOLI. According to
Administration budget documents, these activities lacked performance standards “to
assess their impact, are too narrowly focused to have a major benefit, duplicate other
Federal programs, and award grants on a noncompetitive basis.”11
Strengthening America’s Community Initiative (SACI)
President Bush’s FY2006 budget request included a proposal to eliminate 18
existing community and economic development programs and replace them with a
new “Strengthening America’s Communities Initiative.”12 Programs that would have
7
Administration for Children and Families, HHS, appropriations justifications, FY2007,
FY2008, and FY2009.
8
Office of Management and Budget, Major Savings and Reforms in the Administration’s
2008 Budget, p. 49.
9
For a discussion of the PART assessment process, see CRS Report RL32663, The Bush
Administration’s Performance Rating Assessment Tool (PART), by Clinton Brass. Also see
discussion later in this report, under “Government Accountability Office (GAO) Review,”
for information about recent HHS improvements to its monitoring process in response to
recommendations from GAO.
10
Office of Management and Budget, The Budget for Fiscal Year 2007, p. 118, and Major
Savings and Reforms in the Administration’s 2008 Budget, p. 49.
11
Office of Management and Budget, Major Savings and Reforms in the Administration’s
2008 Budget, p. 50.
12
See CRS Report RL32823, An Overview of the Administration’s Strengthening America’s
(continued...)
CRS-10
been included were the Community Services Block Grant and some of the related
activities discussed in this report. In conjunction with the SACI proposal, the
Administration requested no separate funding in FY2006 for CSBG, Community
Economic Development, JOLI, or Rural Community Facilities.
Programs that would have been included in the proposed SACI were
administered by various federal agencies, including HHS and the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD); however, the Administration proposed to
base the new initiative in the Department of Commerce. The President requested
$3.7 billion for FY2006 to fund SACI; programs that would have been included were
funded in FY2005 at an estimated total of $5.6 billion. The largest program proposed
for inclusion was HUD’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), funded in
FY2005 at $4.1 billion.
Three separate congressional committees held hearings on the SACI proposal,
including the House Government Reform Subcommittee on Federalism and the
Census (March 1, 2005), the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee
on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management (March
17, 2005), and the House Financial Services Committee (April 6, 2005). In general,
the congressional response was not enthusiastic. In reporting the FY2006 budget
resolution (H.Con.Res. 95), the House Budget Committee stated: “Community
Services Block Grants provide invaluable assistance to low-income families and
communities. These funds are used to build healthy and stable communities. Due
consideration should be given to this program before Congress implements any
changes.” Formal legislation to establish the SACI initiative was not submitted or
introduced during the 109th Congress.
In its FY2007 budget request, the Administration proposed a modified version
of the Strengthening America’s Communities Initiative, which would have reformed
certain programs but maintained them at their current agencies. Most notably, the
Community Development Block Grant would remain at HUD. This version of SACI,
however, contained no mention of Community Services Block Grants or the related
programs discussed in this report. Rather, as discussed above, the Administration
proposed to eliminate CSBG and related activities altogether.
Separate from the SACI proposal, the Administration requested no funding in
FY2006 for two additional CSBG-related activities — the National Youth Sports
Program and the Community Food and Nutrition Program — stating that they
duplicated activities that could be provided by such programs as the Social Services
Block Grant or those administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA)
Food and Nutrition Service. As described later in this report, under “Recent
Appropriations History,” Congress rejected the SACI proposal and chose to continue
separate funding in FY2006 for the CSBG, Community Economic Development, and
Rural Community Facilities. However, as requested by the Administration, no
funding was provided for National Youth Sports or Community Food and Nutrition.
12
(...continued)
Communities Initiative, coordinated by Eugene Boyd.
CRS-11
Request for IDAs
As noted earlier, Individual Development Accounts, authorized by the expired
Assets for Independence Act, were the only CSBG-related activity for which the
Administration requested funding in either FY2006, FY2007, FY2008, or FY2009.
The President’s budget for FY2009 requested $24 million for this program, which
was the same level provided in FY2008. HHS budget documents stated that the
program received an “Adequate” PART assessment in 2004, and that the Department
supported reauthorization of the program and would pursue efforts — both
administratively and in legislation — to improve program flexibility, encourage
program simplification, and increase participation eligibility. No legislation has been
introduced in the 110th Congress to reauthorize the Assets for Independence Act and
IDA program.
Government Accountability Office (GAO) Review
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report on the CSBG
program in July 2006, which was originally requested by the House Education and
the Workforce Committee13 in April 2005.14 GAO’s review focused on three topics
related to program monitoring and training and technical assistance: (1) HHS
compliance with legal requirements and standards governing its oversight of state
efforts to monitor local CSBG grantees; (2) efforts by states to monitor local grantee
compliance with fiscal requirements and performance standards; and (3) targeting by
HHS of its training and technical assistance funds and the impact of such assistance
on grantee performance.15
GAO concluded that the Office of Community Services (OCS, the office within
HHS that is charged with administering the CSBG) “lacks effective policies,
procedures, and controls” to ensure its own compliance with legal requirements for
monitoring states and with federal internal control standards. GAO found that OCS
had visited states as mandated by law but failed to issue reports to the states after the
visits or annual reports to Congress, which also are mandated by law. OCS failed to
meet internal control standards because their monitoring teams lacked adequate
financial expertise; moreover, OCS lost the documentation from the monitoring visits
to states. Finally, OCS was not systematic in its selection of states to visit, and did
13
The House Education and the Workforce Committee was renamed the Education and
Labor Committee in the 110th Congress.
14
The Senate Appropriations Committee cited this GAO report in its reports on the FY2008
and FY2009 HHS appropriations bills (S.Rept. 110-107 and S.Rept. 110- 410). See “Recent
Appropriations History” for more details, later in this report.
15
Community Services Block Grant Program: HHS Should Improve Oversight by Focusing
Monitoring and Assistance Efforts on Areas of High Risk, GAO-06-627, U.S. Government
Accountability Office, June 2006. GAO had revealed some of the findings of this review
in February 2006 in a letter submitted to HHS (“Community Services Block Grant Program:
HHS Needs to Improve Monitoring of State Grantees,” letter to Wade F. Horn, Assistant
Secretary for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services, from the
U.S. Government Accountability Office, February 7, 2006).
CRS-12
not use available information on state performance or collect other data to allow
more effective targeting of its limited monitoring resources on states at highest risk
of management problems.
In connection with its assessment of state efforts to monitor local grantees, GAO
visited five states and found wide variation in the frequency with which they
conducted on-site monitoring of local grantees, although officials in all states said
they visited agencies with identified problems more often. States also varied in their
interpretation of the law’s requirement that they visit local grantees at least once in
a three-year period, and GAO noted that OCS had issued no guidance on this
requirement. States reported varying capacities to conduct on-site monitoring and
some states cited staff shortages; however, the states all performed other forms of
oversight in addition to on-site visits, such as review of local agency reports (e.g.,
local agency plans, goals, performance data, and financial reports) and review of
annual Single Audits where relevant. Several states coordinated local oversight with
other federal and state programs, and also used state associations of Community
Action Agencies to help provide technical assistance.
GAO found, with regard to federal training and technical assistance funds, that
OCS targeted at least some of these funds toward local agencies with identified
financial and program management problems, but generally was not strategic in
allocating these funds and had only limited information on the outcome of providing
such training and technical assistance.
GAO made five recommendations to OCS in its report (and HHS indicated its
agreement and intent to act upon these recommendations). According to GAO, OCS
should
!
!
!
!
!
conduct a risk-based assessment of states by systematically
collecting and using information;
establish policies and procedures to ensure monitoring is focused on
the highest-risk states;
issue guidance to states on complying with the requirement that they
monitor local agencies during each three-year period;
establish reporting guidance for training and technical assistance
grants so that OCS receives information on the outcomes for local
agencies that receive such training or technical assistance; and
implement a strategic plan for targeting training and technical
assistance in areas where states feel the greatest need.
HHS Response
HHS took a series of steps in response to the GAO report. On October 10,
2006, HHS issued an information memorandum to state agencies responding to
GAO’s third recommendation and providing guidance on compliance with the
statutory requirement that states conduct a full on-site review of each eligible entity
CRS-13
at least once during every three-year period.16 Subsequently, on March 1, 2007, HHS
issued another information memorandum, responding to GAO’s first two
recommendations and providing a schedule of states that will receive federal
monitoring in each of the next three years (FY2007-FY2009).17
The October memorandum explained that states were selected through a process
intended to identify states that would receive the most benefit from federal
monitoring visits. This process considered the extent to which eligible entities in the
state were considered vulnerable or in crisis; the physical size of the state, its number
of eligible entities, and the number of state personnel assigned to the CSBG program;
the extent of poverty in the state compared to the number of eligible entities and state
CSBG personnel; the number of clients served compared to the number of eligible
entities and state CSBG personnel; evidence of past audit problems; and tardiness by
the state in submitting CSBG state plans to HHS or responses to information surveys
conducted by the National Association of State Community Services Programs.18
On August 23, 2007, HHS announced the development of a CSBG state
assessment tool to help states prepare for federal monitoring.19 On September 6,
2007, HHS issued a strategic plan for the CSBG program, which is intended to
describe training, technical assistance, and capacity-building activities and promote
accountability within the CSBG.20
Reauthorization
In the 109th Congress, Representative Osborne introduced H.R. 341, the
Improving the Community Services Block Grant Act, which was virtually identical
(except for dates) to legislation passed by the House during the 108th Congress (H.R.
3030).21 H.R. 341 would have reauthorized the CSBG and related activities through
FY2012, and was referred to the House Education and the Workforce Committee
(renamed the Education and Labor Committee in the 110th Congress), where no
action occurred. (See “Recent Developments,” at the beginning of this report, for
16
Office of Community Services (OCS) Information Memorandum, Transmittal No. 97,
dated 10/10/06: [http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/csbg/documents/10h.html].
17
Office of Community Services (OCS) Information Memorandum, Transmittal No. 98,
dated 3/1/07: [http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/csbg/documents/im98.html]. The
monitoring schedule was subsequently revised by OCS Information Memorandum
Transmittal No. 105, dated December 21, 2007, which now covers FY2008-FY2010:
[http://www.virtualcap.org/cmsContent/files/OCS_IM_105_12_21_07.pdf].
18
See discussion of this survey earlier in this report.
19
Office of Community Services (OCS) Information Memorandum, Transmittal No. 102,
dated 8/23/07: [http://www.virtualcap.org/cmsContent/files/OCS_IM_102_08_23_07.pdf].
20
Office of Community Services (OCS) Information Memorandum, Transmittal No. 103,
dated 9/6/07: [http://www.virtualcap.org/cmsContent/files/OCS_IM_103_09_06_07.pdf].
21
H.R. 3030 contained an unrelated unemployment compensation provision, which was not
included in H.R. 341.
CRS-14
discussion of a Government Accountability Office review of CSBG, which was
requested by the committee shortly after the legislation was introduced.) In his
introductory remarks, Representative Osborne noted key provisions of H.R. 341, such
as promoting increased quality and accountability of CSBG programs, encouraging
initiatives to improve conditions and eliminate barriers to self-sufficiency in rural
areas, and providing youth mentoring services to address education needs and crime.
Other provisions of H.R. 341 would have
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
changed the definition of the “eligible entity” by requiring such
entities to establish and meet local goals as well as state goals,
standards and requirements;
required that a state take swift action to improve the performance or
terminate funding of low-performing eligible entities or ones that
failed to meet local and state requirements;
provided that a state justify to the Secretary its continued support of
low-performing eligible entities;
required a state to use funds to improve economic conditions and
remove barriers to self-sufficiency for the rural poor;
required a local eligible entity to establish goals for reducing poverty
in the community;
based subsequent grant awards on the success or failure of an
eligible entity in meeting goals;
prohibited a religious organization providing services under
provisions of this act from discriminating against a person seeking
assistance because of religion or a religious belief;
required the Secretary to establish procedures that would allow grant
funds or intangible assets acquired with grant funds to become the
sole property of the grantee if the grantee agrees to continue to use
the funds or property for the purposes for which the grant was
provided;
added water and wastewater facility needs to activities allowed for
rural community development; and
added improvement of academic achievement to the goals of
national or regional programs designed to provide instruction
activities.
During the 108th Congress, the committee reported and the House passed
legislation, H.R. 3030 (virtually identical to H.R. 341 in the 109th Congress), while
the Senate passed S. 1786, the Poverty Reduction and Prevention Act. Conferees
never met to resolve differences in the two bills. Both bills in the 108th Congress
would have reauthorized CSBG and related programs at such sums as necessary,
except for the National Youth Sports Program, which would have been reauthorized
at $15 million annually by the House bill and $18 million by the Senate bill. The
following compares provisions of H.R. 3030 and S. 1786 from the 108th Congress;
readers should note that H.R. 341, introduced in the 109th Congress, contained the
same provisions as H.R. 3030.
Program Goals. H.R. 3030 and S. 1786 contained similar provisions
concerning goals of eligible entities. H.R. 3030 would have required entities to
CRS-15
establish and meet locally determined goals for reducing poverty in the community.
It would also have added “improving academic achievement” to the list of required
goals. Both bills would have required an entity to include goals for leveraging
community resources, fostering coordination of federal, state, local, private and other
assistance, and promoting community involvement.
S. 1786 would have provided that grants to states support both improving the
causes of poverty and the conditions that cause poverty. The measure would have
revised the poverty line determination; it would have allowed a state to raise its
eligibility threshold to a minimum of 125% of the federal poverty line or a maximum
of 60% of state median income; however, the state would have had to give priority
to serving individuals with the lowest income who sought services. Also, S. 1786
would have made a tripartite board the sole mechanism for determining consideration
of eligible entities, and thus would have eliminated current provisions that allow a
state to specify another mechanism for doing so. H.R. 3030 did not contain
provisions concerning the poverty eligibility threshold or the role of a tripartite board
in determining an eligible entity.
State Plan Requirements. H.R. 3030 and S. 1786 would have revised state
application and plan requirements. H.R. 3030 would have specified that youth
development activities may include mentoring programs. The bill also would have
added, as a use of funds to be included in the state plan, “initiatives to improve
economic conditions and mobilize new resources in rural areas to eliminate obstacles
to the self-sufficiency of families and individuals in rural communities.” S. 1786
would have revised the current state plan provisions by requiring not only that the
Secretary review the plan but also approve it. Among information for inclusion in
a state’s plan submitted to the Secretary was an assurance that grant funds would be
used for the following purposes: to improve literacy, communications, and technical
skills of participant low-income families; for initiatives to assist those moving from
welfare to work to obtain jobs at decent wages with benefits; for initiatives to
increase the development of household assets of individuals (such as individual
development accounts and home-ownership opportunities); to improve economic
conditions and mobilize new resources in rural and other at-risk areas to eliminate
obstacles to the self-sufficiency of persons in those communities, and for initiatives
to reduce the concentration of poverty in cities and inner suburbs and provide
economic opportunities for persons in those areas; and in support of partnerships
with nonprofit or community-based organizations that address child abuse
prevention, including programs that are school-based and that focus on adolescent
victims, and victimizers.
Training and Technical Assistance. Both bills contained training and
technical assistance provisions. H.R. 3030 would have added “dissemination
regarding best practices” to the use of funds by the Secretary. S. 1786 would have
revised training and technical assistance provisions by devising, in consultation with
national and state networks of eligible entities, a strategic plan for annual technical
assistance; and would have improved management information and reporting systems
by developing a common state financial and organizational protocol.
Grantee Funding Reduction or Termination. Provisions relating to
reducing or terminating funding for eligible entities were included in H.R. 3030 and
CRS-16
S. 1786. H.R. 3030 would have allowed, but not required, the Secretary to review
determinations by a state to reduce or terminate funding to an eligible entity. Further,
the bill would have amended the definition of “cause” in the case of a funding
reduction to include failure to meet poverty reduction goals. States would have been
required to give priority to entities that received funding on the date of enactment, if
they fulfilled their poverty reduction goals. If no entity was entitled to such priority,
the state would designate another entity from qualified applicants. H.R. 3030 also
would have required states to replace the lowest performing existing grantees
beginning in FY2005. S. 1786 would have established procedures for termination
of designation as an eligible entity or reduction of funding by giving eligible entities
a right to a public hearing on a state decision; changing from 90 to 30 days the time
frame within which the Secretary must have made a determination concerning a
state’s decision to terminate or to reduce funding for an eligible entity; and requiring
the Secretary to continue funding the entity at its previous year’s level until a
decision was made on a state’s action.
Grantee Monitoring and Fiscal Controls. Both measures would have
amended current provisions of the CSBG Act relating to monitoring eligible entities.
H.R. 3030 would have required federal reviews to determine whether local
performance goals were being met. S. 1786 would have changed current law
requirements for full on-site federal reviews of eligible entities every three years to
a biennial basis. In addition, S. 1786 would have required an annual follow-up visit
to entities that failed to meet state-established goals.
S. 1786 would have addressed fiscal controls by requiring states to submit a
separate audit of CSBG funds to the Secretary covering disbursements to eligible
entities, use of state administrative funds, and disbursement of state discretionary
funds; H.R. 3030 contained no such provisions. S. 1786 would have authorized the
Secretary to withhold administrative funds from states that were not in compliance
with the CSBG Act and provide funds directly to the eligible entities. H.R. 3030 and
S. 1786 would have provided that funding be directed at improving the selfsufficiency of families and individuals in rural communities.
Both H.R. 3030 and S. 1786 contained similar provisions that would have
authorized the Secretary to allow grantees to keep assets obtained with program
funds. H.R. 3030 would have allowed the Secretary to add water and waste water
treatment to the list of community facility needs. H.R. 3030 would have allowed
funds to be used for construction or substantial rehabilitation of buildings and
facilities and for loans or investments in private business enterprises owned by
community development corporations. S. 1786 would have authorized the Secretary
to allow funds for long-term loans or investments for private business enterprises,
capital to businesses owned by community development corporations, and marketing
and management assistance for businesses providing jobs and business opportunities
to low-income individuals.
Faith-Based Organizations. Another key provision of H.R. 3030 and S.
1786 related to the participation of faith-based organizations in CSBG-funded
programs. H.R. 3030 would have prohibited discrimination against a beneficiary or
potential beneficiary of the program on the basis of religion. S. 1786 would have
added religion to current provisions of the CSBG Act that prohibit exclusion of a
CRS-17
person from program participation based on color, national origin, sex, or age. S.
1786 also would have amended current law, which requires government agencies to
consider participation of religious organizations on the same basis as other
nongovernmental organizations, to require religious organizations to meet
requirements of the act.
There was debate on H.R. 3030 both in the House Committee on Education and
the Workforce and on the House floor on provisions in current law that allow a
religious organization to discriminate in hiring. The Committee defeated an
amendment that would have prevented a grantee from using religion as a basis for
discriminating against a job applicant and agreed to one that would have prohibited
a religious organization from using religion or a religious belief as a basis for
discriminating against a person seeking program services.
After considering a number of amendments, the House passed H.R. 3030 on
February 4, 2004. The House rejected H.Amdt. 459 (Woolsey) in the nature of a
substitute that would have prohibited organizations from using CSBG funds to
discriminate in hiring on the basis of religion. The House rejected both H.Amdt. 460
(Robert Scott) which would have required organizations to separate their religious
services or activities from programs that used CSBG funds and H.Amdt. 461 (Robert
Scott) which would have prohibited the use of federal CSBG funds to discriminate
in hiring based on religion. (See CRS Report RL32736, Charitable Choice Rules
and Faith-Based Organizations, by Joe Richardson, for a discussion of these rules
and the CSBG.)
Recent Appropriations History
FY2009
The House Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee approved a
draft FY2009 funding bill on June 19, 2008, that would have increased funds for
CSBG and two related activities. The full House Appropriations Committee met but
did not complete action on this bill on June 26, 2008. As approved by the
subcommittee, the measure would have provided $700 million for the CSBG in
FY2009 (a $46 million increase from the FY2008 level), $36 million for Community
Economic Development (a $4.5 million increase), $10 million for Rural Community
Facilities (a $2.1 million increase), and level funding for JOLI and IDAs. The draft
committee report stated that “the CSBG is more important than ever, with
unemployment and poverty increasing due to the struggling economy and the number
of low-income individuals and families in need of assistance rising as a
consequence.”22 The draft report directed that $500,000 of training and technical
assistance funds be used for a national community economic development training
and capacity development initiative that would provide CAA leaders with the
22
Unnumbered draft House Appropriations Committee report, reflecting actions of the
Subcommittee on Labor-HHS-Education on FY2009 spending bill: [http://www.cq.com/
flatfiles/editorialFiles/budgetTracker/reference/docs/20080626lhreport.pdf].
CRS-18
necessary professional skills to finance and implement innovative housing, economic,
and community development partnerships.
The Senate Appropriations Committee reported its version of the FY2009
funding bill for the Departments of Labor, HHS, and Education on July 8, 2008 (S.
3230, S.Rept. 110-410). The Senate committee would have maintained CSBG and
all related activities at their FY2008 funding levels, except for Rural Community
Facilities, which would have received $8.5 million (a $600,000 increase). The
Senate committee noted “the importance of Community Action Agencies (CAAs) as
institutions that organize low-income communities to identify emerging challenges
to economically insecure Americans and subsequently to mobilize the resources,
programs and partnerships needed to address local poverty conditions.” The report
further stated that “CSBG is a unique Federal resource that supports CAAs while
they initiate creative responses to local poverty conditions and seek new sources of
support and investment to implement their initiatives. The Committee believes that
CSBG funding is an investment, analogous to venture capital, in the future of lowwage workers, retirees and their families.”
In its report, the Senate Committee faulted the Office of Community Services
within HHS for failing to report on progress made in correcting the deficiencies in
program oversight identified by GAO (see earlier discussion of GAO report). The
committee also noted that OCS did not comply with a directive included in the
conference report on the FY2005 appropriation, regarding the implementation of a
training and technical assistance needs assessment and delivery plan in consultation
with CSBG state and local grantees. The committee further stated that OCS should
develop and deliver professional skills training for CAA leaders so they can finance
and implement innovative housing, economic and community development
partnerships (similar to language in the draft House report); that OCS should support
linkages between local agencies, national organizations, and academic institutions
that would disseminate research on effective responses to poverty; and finally, that
OCS should continue funding statewide CAA associations to continue and expand
cost-effective training and other capacity-building services for members.
Both the draft House and the Senate committee-approved FY2009 bills
contained language intended to clarify congressional intent with regard to the
disposition of intangible assets, including loans and investments, acquired under the
Community Economic Development program.
The 110th Congress did not finalize action on an FY2009 spending bill for the
Departments of Labor, HHS, and Education. On September 30, 2008, President
Bush signed into law a government-wide continuing resolution (P.L. 110-329) that
maintains funding for the CSBG and related programs at their FY2008 levels through
March 6, 2009.
See Table 1 for a comparison of FY2009 levels approved by the Senate
Appropriations Committee and House Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations
Subcommittee with funding levels of earlier years.
CRS-19
FY2008
The House on July 19, 2007, passed H.R. 3043 (Labor-HHS-Education
Appropriations Act for FY2008), which would have provided $660.4 million for the
CSBG, for a $30 million increase above the FY2007 and FY2006 levels. The House
bill also would have increased funding for Community Economic Development by
nearly $6 million, from $27.02 million to $32.7 million, and provided a small
increase for Rural Community Facilities. JOLI and IDAs would have been
maintained at current levels.
The Senate Appropriations Committee on July 13, 2007, reported its version of
the FY2008 funding bill (S. 1710), including $670.4 million for the CSBG, for a $40
million increase. The full Senate then passed H.R. 3043 on October 23, after
substituting the language of the committee-reported S. 1710. The Senate bill would
have maintained Community Economic Development at its current level, rather than
the higher level approved by the House, but would also have provided the same small
increase for Rural Community Facilities. As in the House bill, the Senate would
have maintained JOLI and IDAs at their current levels.
In its report on the FY2008 funding bill (S.Rept. 110-107), the Senate
Appropriations Committee cited the recent GAO findings related to training and
technical assistance for states and grantees under the CSBG. The Committee
instructed HHS to make better use of funds reserved for training and technical
assistance and to ensure these funds only go to help state grantees and eligible
entities, or their associations, and not to support federal administrative costs. The
Committee also requested that HHS report back on the results of its training and
technical assistance activities at the end of each grant period. FY2008 funding for
training and technical assistance should support, among other things, a system for
rating the quality and effectiveness of training and technical assistance activities;
technical assistance to help establish and assess voluntary local agency performance
benchmarks; and a system for effectively responding to needs identified through
program monitoring or corrective action plans.
President Bush on November 13 vetoed a House-Senate compromise version
of H.R. 3043 (H Rept. 110-424). The compromise would have funded the CSBG at
$665.43 million and would have provided the higher levels for Community
Economic Development and Rural Community Facilities. JOLI and IDAs would
have remained at current levels. However, on December 26, President Bush signed
into law the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2008 (P.L. 110-161), containing
increases for the CSBG, Community Economic Development, and Rural Community
Facilities, and slight decreases for JOLI and IDAs. P.L. 110-161 included a 1.747%
across-the-board reduction for programs in the Departments of Labor, HHS, and
Education.
FY2007
Continuing Resolution. Like much of the federal government, CSBG and
related activities were funded through FY2007 at their FY2006 levels under a
continuing resolution (P.L. 110-5). This continuing resolution was made necessary
CRS-20
because the 109th Congress did not complete action on certain regular appropriations
bills for FY2008.
House Action in the 109th Congress. As described earlier, the
Administration requested no funding for the CSBG or any related activities in
FY2007, except for IDAs. In response to this request, the House Labor-HHSEducation Appropriations Subcommittee approved legislation on June 7, 2006, that
would have continued funding for CSBG, but at a reduced level. Specifically, the
subcommittee would have provided $430.4 million for the CSBG in FY2007, for
about a one-third reduction from its FY2006 level. This amount was increased by
$19 million when the full Appropriations Committee reported the FY2007 spending
bill with a total of $449 million for the block grant (H.R. 5647). In its report on the
bill (H.Rept. 109-515), the House Committee acknowledged the funding reduction
for the block grant and expressed concern about the impact of this reduction on rural
areas. “Rural areas depend on these funds to provide the infrastructure to deliver
antipoverty activities. Therefore, the committee encourages the authorizing
Committee of jurisdiction [i.e., the House Education and Labor Committee] to
review the funding allocations for the Community Services Block Grant to ensure
that limited funding is reaching those areas with the greatest need.”
The subcommittee and full committee rejected Administration proposals to
eliminate two national activities and instead would have provided the same level of
funding as available in FY2006 for Community Economic Development and Rural
Community Facilities. As requested, however, no funding was recommended by
either the subcommittee or full House Appropriations Committee for the JOLI
program in FY2007. The IDA program would have been maintained at its FY2006
level.
Senate Action in the 109th Congress. The Senate Appropriations
Committee reported its version of the FY2007 spending bill for Labor, HHS and
Education on July 20, 2006, approving the same level of funding for CSBG and
related activities (including JOLI) as they received for FY2006 (S. 3708). Explaining
its decision regarding the block grant, the Senate Committee stated in its report
(S.Rept. 109-287), “The Nation’s Community Action Agency network relies on
CSBG funding to help initiate and administer programs designed to alleviate poverty.
The universal characteristic of these CSBG-funded programs is that they provide
people with the resources and the tools to become self-sufficient.”
FY2006
An FY2006 appropriations for the Departments of Labor, HHS, and Education
was enacted on December 30, 2005, and provided generally level funding for the
CSBG and most related activities (P.L. 109-149). However, two long-standing
national activities — the National Youth Sports Program (NYSP) and the
Community Food and Nutrition Program (CFNP) — received no funding in this act,
as proposed by the Administration. In their respective versions of the bill (H.R.
3010), the House chose to eliminate funding for CFNP while the Senate would have
continued funding at the FY2005 level. Both the House and the Senate
Appropriations Committee, in its reported version of H.R. 3010, chose to zero out
funding for NYSP. The Senate approved a floor amendment offered by Senators
CRS-21
Domenici and Bayh, adding $10 million for the program, but these funds were
dropped in conference.
Under the spending law for FY2006, the following amounts were provided:
CSBG, $637 million; Community Economic Development, $32.7 million (which
includes $5.4 million for the Job Opportunities for Low-Income Individuals
program); $7.4 million for Rural Community Facilities; and $24.7 million for
Individual Development Accounts. Also enacted on December 30, 2005, however,
was the FY2006 appropriations law for the Department of Defense (P.L. 109-148),
which included a mandatory 1% across-the-board rescission from all non-emergency
discretionary appropriations provided for FY2006.
CRS-22
Table 1. Funding for CSBG and Related Activities,
FY2005-FY2009
($ in millions)
Program
Block Grant
FY2005a
FY2006b
FY2009
Senate
Comm.
FY2008c
FY2007
FY2009
House
Subcomm.d
FY2009
Cont.
Res.e
636.79
629.99
630.43
653.80
653.80
700.00
653.80
27.30
27.00
27.02
31.47
31.47
36.00
31.47
Job Opportunities for LowIncome Individuals (JOLI)
5.44
5.38
5.38
5.29
5.29
5.29
5.29
Rural Community Facilities
7.24
7.29
7.29
7.86
8.50
10.00
7.86
National Youth Sports Program
17.86
0
0
0
0
0
0
Community Food and Nutrition
7.18
0
0
0
0
0
0
24.70
24.44
24.45
24.02
24.02
24.02
24.02
726.51
694.10
694.57
722.45
723.08
775.31
722.45
Community Economic
Development
Individual Development Accounts
Total
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Sources of data are agency budget justifications and congressional
appropriations documents.
a. Funding reflects a 0.80% across-the-board rescission as mandated by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (P.L. 108-447).
b. Funding reflects a 1% across-the-board rescission as mandated by the Defense Department Appropriations Act, 2006 (P.L. 109-148). See
discussion above on “FY2006” appropriations for pre-rescission levels. Amounts shown also reflect transfers made by the Secretary of HHS.
The pre-transfer post-rescission amounts were $630.43 million for the block grant, $32.40 million for Community Economic Development,
and $694.57 million for the total of programs shown in this table. Reductions in Rural Community Facilities and IDAs are negligible and
masked by rounding.
c. Funding reflects a 1.747% across-the-board reduction as mandated by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161).
d. Funding levels shown were approved by the House Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee, but the full House Appropriations
Committee did not act on this legislation.
e. Amounts shown are provided under P.L. 110-329, a government-wide continuing resolution that funds programs at their FY2008 levels through
March 6, 2009. The Bush Administration requested no funding for any of the programs shown for FY2009, with the exception of Individual
Development Accounts, for which $24.02 million was requested.
CRS-23
Appendix: CSBG and Hurricane Katrina
On September 2, 2005, in response to the damage caused by Hurricane Katrina,
HHS sent an Information Memorandum to CSBG administrators, regional and state
Community Action Associations, and local Community Action Agencies, urging
them to take “immediate steps” to support families disrupted by the storm. ThenAssistant HHS Secretary Wade Horn suggested that all grantees, especially those in
the affected areas, conduct a quick inventory of services and resources they could
deploy to assist victims, including physical resources and the services of
professionals such as doctors, social workers, mental health personnel and
community workers. The memorandum also stated that CSBG funds could be used
flexibly to cover the expanded services, and that declarations of eligibility could be
adequate, at state option, since many affected individuals would lack identification
and verifying materials. A subsequent information memorandum, dated October 6,
2005, provided more detailed guidance on determining eligibility of affected
individuals and households for CSBG-funded services; described a new “evacuee
designation status” for expediting access to benefits; described strategies for assisting
individuals and families during the initial phases of relief and recovery; identified
additional sources of support; and encouraged coordination and communication with
emergency responders and service providers throughout the crisis assistance and
recovery process.23
On September 21, 2005, Senators Enzi and Kennedy introduced the Community
Services Disaster Assistance Act (S. 1745, 109th Congress), which would have
reauthorized appropriations for CSBG through FY2006. The bill would have
allowed states to transfer a portion of their CSBG allotments to Louisiana,
Mississippi, or Alabama; would have authorized HHS to waive income eligibility
rules under CSBG in Katrina-related emergency or disaster areas; and would have
authorized CSBG grantees to send their staff to such areas to help provide disaster
assistance. On November 16, 2005, the House passed the Hurricane Regulatory
Relief Act (H.R. 3975, 109th Congress), a multi-purpose bill that would have
authorized HHS to waive statutory deadlines for states to file CSBG applications and
plans for up to 90 days; allowed states to temporarily fund alternative agencies when
existing CSBG grantees in hurricane-affected areas were unable to provide services;
and required states to consult with affected eligible entities before recapturing and
redistributing unobligated funds. Like S. 1745, the House-passed bill would have
allowed states to transfer a portion of their CSBG allotments to hurricane-affected
states and would have authorized CSBG-funded staff from other states to deliver
disaster assistance in hurricane-affected states, although the language in the two bills
was not identical. No further action occurred on either bill in the 109th Congress.
23
Office of Community Services (OCS) Information Memoranda, Transmittal No. 90, dated
September 2, 2005, and Transmittal No. 91, dated October 6, 2005; available online at
[http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/csbg/documents/10h.html].roots to the War on Poverty, launched in the 1960s. Today, they are administered at the
federal level by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
For the first half of FY2011, CSBG and related activities—along with most other government
programs—operated at FY2010 levels under a series of continuing resolutions (CRs). A final CR
for FY2011 was signed into law on April 15 (P.L. 112-10) and provides funding for the balance of
the fiscal year (ending September 30, 2011). Under this legislation, final FY2011 funding for
CSBG and related activities is somewhat reduced from FY2010 levels; however, an earlier
House-passed measure (H.R. 1) would have cut funding for CSBG by a larger amount.
Under the final FY2011 continuing resolution (P.L. 112-10), as implemented by HHS, CSBG and
related programs receive a total of $727 million, which is down from the FY2010 level of $773
million. Final FY2011 amounts include $679 million for the block grant (down $21 million from
FY2010); $18 million for Community Economic Development (a 50% reduction from FY2010);
and $5 million for Rural Community Facilities (also a 50% reduction from FY2010). The final
FY2011 funding amount for JOLI is $2.6 million (down $1 million from FY2010), and $24
million for IDAs (essentially unchanged from FY2010). These figures reflect the application of
an across-the-board rescission of 0.2% for discretionary non-defense accounts.
The House earlier had passed H.R. 1, with $395 million for the block grant, $10 million for Rural
Community Facilities, and no funding for Community Economic Development. JOLI and IDAs
would have stayed at FY2010 levels under the House-passed bill. On March 9, the Senate failed
to pass the House version of H.R. 1 and also failed to pass an amendment (S.Amdt. 149) that
would have kept CSBG and related activities at their FY2010 levels for the balance of FY2011.
Looking toward FY2012, President Obama released his detailed budget request on February 14,
seeking $350 million for CSBG in FY2012. Coupled with this request was the stated intent to
move toward a competitive program; states would award block grant funds among local agencies
competitively, rather than via the mandatory pass-through to designated “eligible entities.” The
Administration requested $20 million for Community Economic Development in FY2012, $24
million for IDAs, and no funding for Rural Community Facilities or JOLI. The House
Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor-HHS-Education is scheduled to mark up a FY2012
spending bill on July 26, with full Committee action scheduled for August 2.
According to state-reported data for FY2009 (the latest available), the nationwide network of
more than 1,000 local CSBG grantees served nearly 21 million individuals in more than 8 million
low-income families. The network reported spending $14.9 billion in FY2009, with funding
coming from federal, state, local, and private sources. Of the total, $623 million came from the
regular federal CSBG allotment and $344 million from a special one-time appropriation to CSBG
under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). About $9 billion came from other
federal programs, and $1.2 billion came from additional federal spending under ARRA.
Congressional Research Service
Community Services Block Grants (CSBG): Background and Funding
Contents
Recent Developments..................................................................................................................1
FY2012 Funding ...................................................................................................................1
FY2011 Funding ...................................................................................................................1
Background ................................................................................................................................2
The Block Grant ...................................................................................................................3
Allocation of Funds.........................................................................................................3
Use of Funds...................................................................................................................3
State Role .......................................................................................................................3
Local Delivery System....................................................................................................4
Related Activities ..................................................................................................................5
Community Economic Development ...............................................................................5
Job Opportunities for Low-Income Individuals (JOLI) ....................................................5
Rural Community Facilities ............................................................................................6
National Youth Sports Program .......................................................................................6
Community Food and Nutrition Program.........................................................................6
Individual Development Accounts...................................................................................7
CSBG Program Data...................................................................................................................7
Use of Federal CSBG Funds .................................................................................................8
Use of Federal Non-CSBG Funds..........................................................................................8
Recipients of CSBG Services ................................................................................................9
Recent Appropriations History ....................................................................................................9
FY2012.................................................................................................................................9
Congressional Action ......................................................................................................9
Administration Proposal................................................................................................ 10
FY2011............................................................................................................................... 11
Final Congressional Action ........................................................................................... 11
Administration Proposal................................................................................................ 12
House Action During the 111th Congress ....................................................................... 13
Senate Action During the 111th Congress ....................................................................... 13
FY2010............................................................................................................................... 13
Final Congressional Action ........................................................................................... 13
House Action ................................................................................................................ 14
Senate Action................................................................................................................ 14
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ............................................................. 14
FY2009............................................................................................................................... 16
Tables
Table 1. Funding for CSBG and Related Activities, FY2005-FY2012 ........................................ 17
Appendixes
Appendix A. Reauthorization Attempts...................................................................................... 19
Congressional Research Service
Community Services Block Grants (CSBG): Background and Funding
Appendix B. Government Accountability Office (GAO) Review ............................................... 23
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 25
Congressional Research Service
Community Services Block Grants (CSBG): Background and Funding
Recent Developments
FY2012 Funding
President Obama released his FY2012 budget request to Congress on Monday, February 14,
proposing a 50% reduction in spending for the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) from
FY2010 levels (or a 48% reduction from final FY2011 levels). The budget also signaled the
Administration’s intention to convert the program into a competitive grant at the state level.
Under current law—and since the block grant was created in 1981—states have been required to
pass through at least 90% of their block grant allotments to the same eligible entities, typically
known as Community Action Agencies (CAAs), each year. In the FY2012 budget justifications
for the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) within the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS), the Administration says that ACF will work with Congress to “inject
competition” into the program. “Many community action agencies deliver quality programs, but
at a time when we must reduce the deficit, we cannot afford to provide guaranteed funding that is
not targeted based on need and performance.”1
The Administration’s FY2012 budget would zero-out certain national activities related to CSBG,
including Rural Community Facilities and Job Opportunities for Low-Income Individuals (JOLI).
The budget requests $20 million for Community Economic Development (down from the
FY2010 level of $36 million but more than the final FY2011 level of $18 million), and would
target these funds toward the multiagency Healthy Food Financing Initiative. The Administration
would fund Individual Development Accounts (IDAs, also known as Assets for Independence) at
$24 million in FY2012, which is the same level as in FY2010 and FY2011.
On April 15, the House passed a concurrent resolution on the FY2012 budget (H.Con.Res. 34),
which sets broad spending targets for FY2012 and subsequent years.2 This resolution, however,
does not determine spending amounts for specific programs. For discretionary programs such as
CSBG and related activities, spending amounts are determined through the appropriations
process. The House Appropriations Committee has announced its schedule for consideration of
FY2012 spending bills, and the subcommittee with jurisdiction over CSBG and related activities
(Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee) is scheduled to mark up its bill on July 26,
with full Committee action scheduled for August 2.3
FY2011 Funding
At the time the Administration released its FY2012 proposal, action on the FY2011 budget was
still pending. For the first half of FY2011, CSBG and related programs operated at FY2010 levels
1
Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), FY2012 Justification of
Estimates for Appropriations Committees, Children and Families Services Programs, pp. 197-199,
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/olab/budget/2012/cj/CFS.pdf.
2
For a comparison of the House resolution with the President’s proposed budget and the Congressional Budget Office
(CBO) current law baseline, see CRS Report R41827, FY2012 Budget Highlights for the Human Resources
“Superfunction”: Education, Training, Social Services, Health, Income Security, and Veterans, by Karen Spar and
Gene Falk.
3
See House Appropriations Committee press release at http://appropriations.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=
PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=298&Month=5&Year=2011.
Congressional Research Service
1
Community Services Block Grants (CSBG): Background and Funding
under a series of continuing resolutions (CRs), made necessary because the 111th Congress failed
to enact a regular FY2011 appropriations law for the Departments of Labor, HHS, and Education.
A final CR was enacted on April 15 (P.L. 112-10), providing funding for the balance of FY2011
(which ends on September 30, 2011).
Under P.L. 112-10, CSBG and related activities receive a total of $727 million, a reduction from
the FY2010 amount of $773 million. As implemented by HHS (after applying an across-the-board
0.2% rescission included in P.L. 112-10), FY2011 funding is as follows: $679 million for the
block grant (down $21 million from the FY2010 level of $700 million); $18 million for
Community Economic Development (a 50% reduction from the FY2010 level of $36 million); $5
million for Rural Community Facilities (50% less than the FY2010 level of $10 million); $1.6
million for JOLI (down $1 million from FY2010); and $24 million for IDAs (same as FY2010).
For more details on the FY2012 budget request and the FY2011 budget process, see the “Recent
Appropriations History” section of this report. Also see Table 1 for a comparison of the FY2012
budget request with appropriations provided in FY2005-FY2011.
Background
Administered by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Community Services
Block Grant (CSBG) program provides federal funds to states, territories, and Indian tribes for
distribution to local agencies in support of a variety of antipoverty activities. The origins of the
Community Services Block Grant date back to 1964, when the Economic Opportunity Act (P.L.
88-452; 42 U.S.C. § 2701) established the War on Poverty and authorized the Office of Economic
Opportunity (OEO) as the lead agency in the federal antipoverty campaign. A centerpiece of OEO
was the Community Action Program, under which a nationwide network of local Community
Action Agencies (CAAs) was developed. A key feature of Community Action is the direct
involvement of low-income people in the design and administration of antipoverty activities,
through mandatory representation on the CAAs’ governing boards. Currently, at the local level,
CAAs are the primary grantees of the CSBG.
In 1975, OEO was renamed the Community Services Administration (CSA), but remained an
independent executive branch agency. In 1981, CSA was abolished and replaced by the CSBG, to
be administered by HHS. At the time CSA was abolished, it was administering nearly 900 CAAs,
about 40 local community development corporations, and several small categorical programs that
were typically operated by local CAAs. The CSBG Act was enacted as part of the Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (P.L. 97-35, Title VI, Section 671; 42 U.S.C. § 9901) as partial
response to President Reagan’s proposal to consolidate CSA with 11 other social service
programs into a block grant to states. Congress rejected this proposal and instead created two new
block grants, the Social Services Block Grant under Title XX of the Social Security Act, and the
CSBG, which consisted of activities previously administered by CSA.
The CSBG Act was reauthorized in 1984 under P.L. 98-558, in 1986 under P.L. 99-425, in 1990
under P.L. 101-501, in 1994 under P.L. 103-252, and in 1998 under P.L. 105-285. The
authorization of appropriations for CSBG and most related programs expired in FY2003. The
House and Senate passed reauthorization legislation during the 108th Congress but it was not
enacted. Similar legislation was introduced in the 109th Congress but not considered. No CSBG
legislation was introduced in either the 110th Congress or the 111th Congress.
Congressional Research Service
2
Community Services Block Grants (CSBG): Background and Funding
Several related national activities—Community Economic Development, Rural Community
Facilities, Job Opportunities for Low-Income Individuals (JOLI), and Individual Development
Accounts (IDAs)—receive appropriations separate from the block grant but also offer grants to
assist local low-income communities with economic development, rural housing and water
management, and asset development for low-income individuals, among other services. These
activities are administered at the federal level by the same Office of Community Services at HHS
that administers the CSBG, and in some cases, are also authorized by the CSBG Act. Prior to
FY2006, national activities that received separate appropriations also included the National Youth
Sports and Community Food and Nutrition programs.
The Block Grant
Allocation of Funds
Of funds appropriated annually under the CSBG Act, HHS is required to reserve 1.5% for
training and technical assistance and other administrative activities, and half of this set-aside must
be provided to state or local entities. In addition, 0.5% of the appropriation is reserved for
outlying territories (Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana
Islands). The law further requires that 9% of the total appropriation be reserved for certain related
activities, which are described below, and that the remainder be allocated among the states. In
practice, however, Congress typically specifies in annual appropriations laws exactly how much
is to be made available for the block grant and each of the related activities. Block grant funds are
allotted to states (including Puerto Rico) based on the relative amount received in each state, in
FY1981, under a section of the former Economic Opportunity Act. HHS may allow Indian tribes
to receive their allotments directly, rather than through the state.
Use of Funds
CSBG funds are used for activities designed to have a “measurable and potentially major impact
on causes of poverty.” The law envisions a wide variety of activities undertaken on behalf of lowincome families and individuals, including those who are welfare recipients, homeless, migrant or
seasonal farm workers, or elderly. States must submit an application and plan to HHS, stating
their intention that funds will be used for activities to help families and individuals achieve selfsufficiency, find and retain meaningful employment, attain an adequate education, make better
use of available income, obtain adequate housing, and achieve greater participation in community
affairs. In addition, states must ensure that funds will be used to address the needs of youth in
low-income communities; coordinate with related programs, including state welfare reform
efforts; and ensure that local grantees provide emergency food-related services.
State Role
At the state level, a lead agency must be designated to develop the state application and plan.
States must pass through at least 90% of their federal CSBG allotment to local eligible entities.4
4
Under the one-time appropriation of $1 billion for the CSBG under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(ARRA, P.L. 111-5), states were required to pass through 99% of their allotments to local eligible entities and use the
remaining 1% for benefits eligibility coordination activities. See discussion of ARRA, later in this report.
Congressional Research Service
3
Community Services Block Grants (CSBG): Background and Funding
States also may use up to $55,000 or 5% of their allotment, whichever is higher, for
administrative costs. Remaining funds may be used by the state to provide training and technical
assistance, coordination and communication activities, payments to assure that funds are targeted
to areas with the greatest need, supporting “asset-building” programs for low-income individuals
(such as Individual Development Accounts, discussed later), supporting innovative programs and
activities conducted by local organizations, or other activities consistent with the purposes of the
CSBG Act. In addition, as authorized by the 1998 amendments, states may use some CSBG funds
to offset revenue losses associated with any qualified state charity tax credit.
Local Delivery System
As noted above, states are required to pass through at least 90% of their federal block grant
allotments to “eligible entities”—primarily (but not exclusively) Community Action Agencies
(CAAs) that had been designated prior to 1981 under the former Economic Opportunity Act.5 The
distribution of these funds among local agencies is left to the discretion of the state, although
states may not terminate funding to an eligible entity or reduce its share disproportionately
without determining cause, after notice and an opportunity for a hearing. There are more than
1,000 eligible entities around the country, the majority of which are private nonprofit
organizations. Many of these organizations contract with others in delivering various services.
Once designated as an eligible entity for a particular community, an agency retains its designation
unless it voluntarily withdraws from the program or its grant is terminated for cause. Eligible
entities are monitored within a systematic schedule; return visits are made when goals are not
met. In designating new or replacement entities, states may select a public agency only when no
qualified private nonprofit organization is available, in accordance with the 1998 CSBG
amendments.
Local activities vary depending on the needs and circumstances of the local community. Each
eligible entity, or CAA, is governed by a board of directors, of which at least one-third are
representatives of the low-income community. Under the 1998 amendments to the CSBG Act,
low-income board members must live in the community that they represent. Another third of the
board members must be local elected officials or their representatives, and the remaining board
members represent other community interests, such as business, labor, religious organizations,
and education. A public entity must either have a governing board with low-income
representation as described above, or another mechanism specified by the state to assure
participation by low-income individuals in the development, planning, implementation and
evaluation of programs.
There is no typical CAA, since each agency designs its programs based on a local community
needs assessment. Examples, however, of CSBG-funded services include emergency assistance,
home weatherization, activities for youth and senior citizens, transportation, income management
and credit counseling, domestic violence crisis assistance, parenting education, food pantries, and
emergency shelters. In addition, local agencies provide information and referral to other
community services, such as job training and vocational education, depending on the needs of
individual clients.
5
The Obama Administration proposes to change this feature of the block grant; see later discussion of FY2012 budget
proposals.
Congressional Research Service
4
Community Services Block Grants (CSBG): Background and Funding
Related Activities
In addition to the block grant itself, the CSBG Act authorizes several related national activities
that are administered through the Office of Community Services within HHS. Also, two other
programs that are not directly authorized by the CSBG Act, the Job Opportunities for LowIncome Individuals and Individual Development Accounts, are administered by the Office of
Community Services and are included in the six separate activities described below.6 Funding
authorization for all these activities (except JOLI) expired at the end of FY2003; however,
Congress has continued to fund several of them (see Table 1).
Community Economic Development
The Community Economic Development program helps support local community development
corporations (CDCs) to generate employment and business development opportunities for lowincome residents. Projects must directly benefit persons living at or below the poverty level and
must be completed within 12 to 60 months of the date the grant was awarded. Preferred projects
are those that document public/private partnership, including the leveraging of cash and in-kind
contributions; and those that are located in areas characterized by poverty, a TANF assistance rate
of at least 20%, high levels of unemployment or incidences of violence, gang activity, and other
indicators of socioeconomic distress.
During FY2010, HHS supported 44 grants, of which 43 were new starts and one was a
continuation grant, plus eight contracts and one interagency agreement, according to agency
budget documents. For FY2011, the department expected to support 46 grants, of which one
continues an existing grant and the rest are new starts, plus seven contracts and one interagency
agreement. As discussed below in the “Recent Appropriations History” section of this report, the
Administration has proposed to sharply reduce the size of this program, so that it would support
20 grants in FY2012, all of which would be new starts, along with six contracts and one
interagency agreement. In both its FY2011 and FY2012 budget submissions, the Administration
indicated that a certain amount of Community Economic Development funding would be
dedicated toward a new multiagency Healthy Food Financing Initiative.
Job Opportunities for Low-Income Individuals (JOLI)
JOLI is permanently authorized under the Family Support Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-485, Section
505), as amended by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of
1996 (P.L. 104-193, Section 112). Although JOLI is not authorized under the CSBG Act, it is
funded and administered as one of the CSBG-related activities. JOLI funds are awarded on a
competitive basis to community based, non-profit and tax-exempt organizations, including
community development corporations, faith-based, charitable, and tribal organizations.
Organizations awarded grants must demonstrate and evaluate ways of creating new employment
opportunities with private employers for individuals who receive TANF and for other individuals
whose family income level does not exceed 100% of the official poverty guidelines. Examples of
6
The Office of Community Services administers several other programs that are not considered part of the cluster of
CSBG-related activities and are, therefore, not discussed in this report. These programs include the Social Services
Block Grant, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), the Compassion Capital Fund (which is
no longer funded), and the Strengthening Communities Initiative.
Congressional Research Service
5
Community Services Block Grants (CSBG): Background and Funding
these projects include self-employment and micro-enterprise, new businesses, expansion of
existing businesses, or creating new jobs or employment opportunities. Funds for this project
cannot be used for new construction or for the purchase of real property.
During FY2010, HHS supported seven grants, all of which were new starts, plus five contracts
and one interagency agreement, according to agency budget documents. In FY2011, the
department again expected to support seven new grants, five contracts, and one interagency
agreement. In both its FY2011 and FY2012 budget submissions, the Obama Administration
proposed to terminate JOLI, and therefore, HHS expects no program activity in FY2012. In
budget documents, HHS stated that JOLI duplicates activities that can be funded under TANF and
that the Administration’s proposal reflects efforts to target funds more effectively.
Rural Community Facilities
Funds are for grants to public and private nonprofit organizations for rural housing and
community facilities development projects to train and offer technical assistance on the
following: home repair to low-income families, water and waste water facilities management, and
developing low-income rental housing units. In its FY2010 budget request to Congress, the
Administration proposed to terminate this program, arguing that it does not belong in HHS.
Instead, the Administration noted that federal assistance for water treatment facilities is available
through two much larger programs in the Environmental Protection Agency (i.e., the Clean Water
and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds) and through direct loans, loan guarantees, and grants
administered by the Department of Agriculture. In each of its FY2011 and FY2012 budget
requests, the Administration again proposed to terminate this program, arguing that its services
are similar to programs operated by other agencies and that the proposed termination reflects the
Administration’s efforts to target funds more effectively.
During FY2010, HHS supported 10 grants, eight of which were new starts and two were
continuation grants, plus three contracts and one interagency agreement, according to agency
budget documents. In FY2011, the department expected to support 10 grants, all of which were
continuations, plus one contract and one interagency agreement. As described above, HHS
expects no program activity in FY2012 due to the program’s proposed termination.
National Youth Sports Program
Under this program, a grant traditionally was made to a single organization, namely the National
Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), to provide recreational and instructional services for
low-income youth, typically on college campuses. In FY2005, one award was made, and no direct
federal funding has been provided since that year. Legislation was introduced in the 111th
Congress (H.R. 4480) to reauthorize appropriations for this program at an annual level of $20
million for FY2011 through FY2021.
Community Food and Nutrition Program
This program authorized grants to public and private nonprofit organizations to coordinate food
assistance resources, to help identify potential sponsors of child nutrition programs and to initiate
programs in areas with inadequate food assistance resources, and to develop innovative
approaches at the state and local level to meet the nutritional needs of low-income people.
Authorizing legislation required that 60% of the amount appropriated (up to $6 million) must be
Congressional Research Service
6
Community Services Block Grants (CSBG): Background and Funding
allocated to states for statewide programs and that 40% must be awarded on a competitive basis.
Amounts appropriated in excess of $6 million were allotted as follows: 40% awarded to eligible
agencies for statewide grants; 40% awarded on a competitive basis for local and statewide
programs; and 20% awarded on a competitive basis for nationwide programs, including programs
benefitting Native Americans and migrant farm workers.
FY2005 funding for this program was expected to support 104 new grants, one contract, and two
interagency agreements. No funding has been provided for this program since FY2005.
Individual Development Accounts7
The Assets for Independence Act (Title IV, P.L. 105-285) initially provided for a five-year
demonstration initiative to encourage low-income people to accumulate savings. Individual
Development Accounts (IDAs) are dedicated savings accounts that can be used for specific
purposes, such as buying a first home, paying for college, or starting a business. Contributions are
matched, and participants are given financial and investment counseling. To conduct the
demonstration, grants are made to public or private nonprofit organizations that can raise an
amount of private and public (nonfederal) funds that is equal to the federal grant; federal matches
into IDA cannot exceed the non-federal matches. The maximum federal grant is $1 million a year,
and HHS says the average grant is about $350,000.
According to Administration budget documents, in FY2010 the program supported 55 new grants,
13 contracts and one interagency agreement. In FY2011, HHS expected to support 50 new grants,
13 contracts, and 2 interagency agreements; in FY2012, HHS expects to support 50 new grants,
12 contracts, and 2 interagency agreements. In the first phase of its national evaluation of the
program, HHS reported that participants derived substantial benefits and were more likely than
comparable non-participants to become homeowners or business owners and to pursue
postsecondary education.8
The Assets for Independence Act expired at the end of FY2003, although Congress has continued
to provide appropriations for the IDA program under this authority. Legislation has been
introduced in the 112th Congress (H.R. 1623) that would amend and reauthorize appropriations
for this program at an annual level of $75 million for FY2012 through FY2016.
CSBG Program Data
The Community Services Block Grant Annual Report FY2009 summarizes information submitted
by 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico in response to the most recent annual
survey funded by HHS and administered by the National Association for State Community
7
For more information on IDAs, see CRS Report RS22185, Individual Development Accounts (IDAs): Background
and Current Legislation for Federal Grant Programs to Help Low-Income Families Save, by Gene Falk. Also see the
most recent report to Congress on the program by HHS, “Assets for Independence Program: Status at the Conclusion of
the Ninth Year,” submitted to Congress on July 15, 2010, and available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/afi/
Final_AFI_9th_Report.pdf.
8
See process and impact studies from the national evaluation of Assets for Independence, available at
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/afi/research.html#other.
Congressional Research Service
7
Community Services Block Grants (CSBG): Background and Funding
Services Programs.9 According to this report, the nationwide CSBG network consisted of 1,063
local eligible entities in FY2009, including 938 Community Action Agencies, 81 local
government agencies, 21 “limited purpose agencies” that specialize in one or two types of
programs, 13 tribes or tribal organizations, six migrant or seasonal farmworker organizations, and
six organizations that fell into other categories.
The network of local eligible entities reported spending $14.9 billion in FY2009, with funding
coming from federal, state, local, and private sources. Of the total, $623 million came from the
regular federal CSBG allotment and $344 million came from the special one-time appropriation
under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.10
Use of Federal CSBG Funds
Based on reports from all jurisdictions, local entities spent their regular CSBG funds for a wide
variety of activities, including emergency services (19%); activities to promote self-sufficiency
(16%); activities to promote linkages among community groups and other government or private
organizations (14%); education-related activities (12%); employment-related activities (11%);
housing-related services (8%); nutrition services (7%); income management (6%); health services
(4%); and other activities.
Local entities used their CSBG-ARRA funds somewhat differently, based on reports from 39
states about the spending of $100 million in ARRA money. 11 As might be expected, given
ARRA’s purpose of economic stimulus, states reported that 34% of these funds in FY2009 were
used for employment-related activities. Emergency services also were significant, accounting for
14% of CSBG-ARRA funds, followed by education-related activities (10%); housing-related
services (10%); activities to promote self-sufficiency (8%); activities to promote linkages (7%);
nutrition services (6%); income management (4%); health services (4%); and other services and
activities.
Use of Federal Non-CSBG Funds
The bulk of funds spent by local eligible entities comes from federal programs other than CSBG.
Of approximately $9 billion in non-CSBG non-ARRA federal funds spent by local agencies in
FY2009, 31% came from Head Start or Early Head Start, and 25% came from either the
Department of Energy’s weatherization program or the HHS Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance Program (LIHEAP).
States reported that about 9% of federal (non-CSBG non-ARRA) funds received by local
agencies came from Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) programs, while
another 8% came from Department of Agriculture (USDA) food programs, including the Special
9
Community Services Block Grant Annual Report FY2009, National Association for State Community Services
Programs, Washington, DC, March 2011, available at http://www.nascsp.org/data/files/csbg_publications/
annual_reports/annual%20report%2009%20final.pdf.
10
As discussed later, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, P.L. 111-5) appropriated $1 billion to
CSBG for obligation in FY2009 or FY2010. See section headed “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009”.
11
Note that this does not cover spending of all CSBG-ARRA funds in FY2009, or the balance of CSBG-ARRA funds
that were spent in FY2010.
Congressional Research Service
8
Community Services Block Grants (CSBG): Background and Funding
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC). About 7% of funds
received by the network came from various health and social services programs administered by
HHS (such as the Older Americans Act, Social Services Block Grant, Medicare, and Medicaid),
and another 7% from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant.
Department of Labor programs and the Child Care and Development Block Grant administered
by HHS each accounted for about 4% of federal non-CSBG funding spent by local agencies. The
network of agencies (although not necessarily every agency or every state) also received funding
from the Corporation for National and Community Service, the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, and the Departments of Transportation, Education, Treasury, and Justice.
States also reported that local agencies received and spent more than $1.2 billion from
appropriations under ARRA for federal programs other than CSBG itself. Of this total, half came
from weatherization and LIHEAP (primarily weatherization), 11% from Head Start or Early Head
Start; and TANF and Department of Labor programs each accounted for another 10%. The Child
Care and Development Block Grant accounted for 3% of ARRA funding and Department of
Transportation programs constituted 2%.
Recipients of CSBG Services
According to states responding to the survey, the CSBG network provided services to nearly 21
million individuals in more than 8 million families in FY2009. The survey captured demographic
information about three-quarters of the participating families, and found that 70% had incomes at
or below federal poverty guidelines. At the same time, nearly 87% of families included a worker,
an unemployed job-seeker, or a retired worker. Slightly more than half (51%) of families included
children; of those, 56% were headed by a single mother, 37% by two parents, and 6% by a single
father. Looking at participants by age, the survey found that 38% of individuals served were
children age 17 or younger, and 17% were seniors age 55 or older. Almost 59% of individuals
reported they were white and 27% were African American. Nearly 19% of individuals reported
their ethnicity as Hispanic or Latino, regardless of race.
Recent Appropriations History
FY2012
Congressional Action
On April 15, the House passed a concurrent resolution on the FY2012 budget (H.Con.Res. 34),
which sets broad spending targets for FY2012 and subsequent years.12 This resolution, however,
does not determine spending amounts for specific programs. For discretionary programs such as
CSBG and related activities, spending amounts are determined through the appropriations
process. The House Appropriations Committee has announced its schedule for consideration of
FY2012 spending bills, and the subcommittee with jurisdiction over CSBG and related activities
12
For a comparison of the House resolution with the President’s proposed budget and the Congressional Budget Office
current law baseline, see CRS Report R41827, FY2012 Budget Highlights for the Human Resources “Superfunction”:
Education, Training, Social Services, Health, Income Security, and Veterans, by Karen Spar and Gene Falk.
Congressional Research Service
9
Community Services Block Grants (CSBG): Background and Funding
(Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee) is scheduled to mark up its bill on July 26,
with full Committee action scheduled for August 2.13
Administration Proposal
President Obama released his Administration’s FY2012 budget on February 14, seeking a total of
$394 million for CSBG and related activities. 14 Of this amount, $350 million would go to the
block grant, for a reduction of 50% from FY2010 levels (or 48% from final FY2011 levels). The
Administration’s proposal to reduce funding for CSBG is coupled with a statement of intent to
“inject competition” into the program. As described earlier, states are required under current law
to pass at least 90% of their annual block grant allotments to “eligible entities,” which are
primarily Community Action Agencies that had been designated under the former Economic
Opportunity Act of 1964. In FY2012 budget documents, HHS notes that these grants are not open
for competition and that while states may terminate funding for CAAs that are found to be
deficient, this process is seen as burdensome and is not pursued often. “States usually pursue
termination only when there is a determination that the CAA is grossly financially negligent,”
according to HHS.
HHS also notes that National Performance Indicators (NPIs) and a performance management
system called Results Oriented Management Accountability (ROMA) are used to track
performance and provide national accountability for the activities of local grantees. However,
because the grantees receive funding from numerous sources in addition to CSBG, the
performance accountability system cannot identify outcomes solely attributable to CSBG
funding. Moreover, these performance data are not used to allocate funds among agencies. Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) documents further state: “A series of reports from the
Government Accountability Office and the Inspector General of the Department of Health and
Human Services have documented failures in program oversight and accountability—with the
likely result that even grossly negligent CAAs continue to receive funding.”15
In proposing a reduced funding level for FY2012, HHS states:
Within this reduced funding level, ACF will work with Congress to inject competition into
the program so that resources are targeted more effectively on high-performing, innovative
organizations. The program, as reconfigured, should maintain the current emphasis on placebased services to address the causes and impact of poverty, but should hold grantees more
accountable for outcomes and should direct resources to agencies that can effectively serve
high need communities, use evidence-based practice to achieve results, operate with a high
level of program integrity, and maximize funding spent on services rather than
administrative overhead. Many community action agencies deliver quality programs, but at a
13
See House Appropriations Committee press release at http://appropriations.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=
PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=298&Month=5&Year=2011.
14
Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), FY2012 Justification
of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, Children and Families Services Programs, pp. 197-199,
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/olab/budget/2012/cj/CFS.pdf.
15
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Fiscal Year 2012 Terminations, Reductions, and Savings, p. 103,
http://cdbapps/ksglibrary/2428_2012_TRS.pdf. Also see Appendix B of this report for a discussion of the GAO
findings and recommendations referenced by OMB; and see Office of Inspector General, Department of Health and
Human Services, Alert: Community Service Block Grant Recovery Act Funding for Vulnerable and In-Crisis
Community Action Agencies (A-01-09-02511), http://oig.hhs.gov/oas/reports/region1/10902511.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
10
Community Services Block Grants (CSBG): Background and Funding
time when we must reduce the deficit, we cannot afford to provide guaranteed funding that is
not targeted based on need and performance.
Of the remaining budget request for CSBG and related activities in FY2012, Community
Economic Development would receive $20 million, which is down sharply from its FY2010 level
of $36 million. (However, as noted below, the FY2012 request is actually higher than the final
appropriation for FY2011, which provided $18 million for Community Economic Development.)
This program currently funds “an amalgam of projects with varying degrees of success,”
according to HHS budget documents. “In the most recent report to Congress, 21 percent of the
projects funded were declared unsuccessful.”16
The Administration’s request for Community Economic Development would “trim available
funding and better target resources to the Healthy Food Financing Initiative (HFFI), while at the
same time, invigorate the program’s competitive funding process.” First proposed in the FY2011
budget, the HFFI is a multiyear multiagency effort through which HHS will partner with the
Departments of Agriculture and the Treasury to make available a total of $400 million to address
the lack of affordable healthy food in many urban and rural communities (areas known as “food
deserts”). Under the Community Economic Development component, competitive grants would
go to community development corporations for projects to finance grocery stores, farmers
markets, and other sources of fresh nutritious food, creating employment and business
opportunities in low-income communities while also providing access to healthy food options.17
Finally, the Administration proposes to maintain IDAs at their current level of $24 million in
FY2012. No funding would be provided for Rural Community Facilities or JOLI.
See Table 1 for a comparison of FY2012 proposals with final appropriations for FY2011 and
earlier years.
FY2011
Final Congressional Action
The 111th Congress failed to pass a regular FY2011 appropriations bill for the Departments of
Labor, HHS, and Education. As a result, CSBG and related activities (like most government
programs) operated under a series of continuing resolutions (CRs) for the first half of the fiscal
year. These temporary measures maintained CSBG and related activities at their FY2010 funding
levels. A final CR for FY2011 (P.L. 112-10) was enacted on April 15, providing a total of $727
million for CSBG and related activities for the balance of the fiscal year; this amount is somewhat
lower than the FY2010 level of $773 million.
P.L. 112-10 included a mandatory across-the-board rescission of 0.2% for discretionary nondefense programs. As implemented by HHS, final amounts provided under the law are as follows:
$679 million for the block grant, $18 million for Community Economic Development, and $5
million for Rural Community Facilities. Of funds provided for the block grant, the law requires
16
The most recent report to Congress posted on the HHS website is for FY2006: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/
ced/report/fy06/report_con.html.
17
See Healthy Food Financing Initiative, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/ocs_food.html.
Congressional Research Service
11
Community Services Block Grants (CSBG): Background and Funding
$350,000 to be used by the Secretary of HHS for preparation of a report on the use of CSBG
funds. Final FY2011 funding levels for programs authorized outside the CSBG Act are $1.6
million for JOLI and $24 million for IDAs.
Earlier in the year, the House had passed alternative legislation (H.R. 1) to extend funding
through the end of FY2011, which would have reduced discretionary funding for many
government programs, including CSBG. As passed by the House on February 19, H.R. 1
contained $405 million for programs authorized under the CSBG Act, including $395 million for
the block grant (compared with the FY2010 level of $700 million) and $10 million for Rural
Community Facilities (which was the same as the FY2010 level). No funds would have been
provided for Community Economic Development, and JOLI and IDAs would have remained at
their FY2010 funding levels of $2.6 million and $24 million, respectively.
During debate on H.R. 1, the House considered an amendment offered by Representative Flake
that would have reduced FY2011 funding for the CSBG by an additional $100 million, which
would have resulted in a total of $295 million for the block grant in FY2011. The amendment was
defeated by a vote of 115 to 316.
On March 9, the Senate failed to pass the House version of H.R. 1 and also failed to pass S.Amdt.
149, which would have kept CSBG and related activities at their FY2010 levels through the
balance of FY2011.18
The following describes Administration and congressional efforts during the 111th Congress to
enact FY2011 appropriations for CSBG and related activities.
Administration Proposal
President Obama submitted a detailed FY2011 budget request to Congress on February 1, 2010,
seeking a total of $760 million for CSBG and related activities ($700 million for the block grant,
$36 million for Community Economic Development, and $24 million for Individual Development
Accounts or IDAs). In total, the request was lower than amounts provided in FY2010 because the
Administration did not request funds in FY2011 for Rural Community Facilities or the Job
Opportunities for Low-Income Individuals program (JOLI). Moreover, the Administration did not
seek to continue the special $1 billion in funding provided to CSBG under the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, P.L. 111-5). President Obama’s budget request
for FY2011 was similar to his request for FY2010, when he also proposed zero funding for Rural
Community Facilities; however, the FY2010 request would have maintained level funding for
JOLI.
Although the Administration proposed level funding ($36 million) for Community Economic
Development in FY2011, budget documents indicated that up to $20 million of this amount
would be dedicated for use under the Healthy Food Financing Initiative, described above under
the Administration’s request for FY2012.
18
For a comparison of proposed federal agency level funding in H.R. 1 and S.Amdt. 149, with FY2010 enacted levels
and the Obama Administration’s request for FY2011, see CRS Report R41703, FY2011 Appropriations: A Side-by-Side
Comparison of Key Proposals.
Congressional Research Service
12
Community Services Block Grants (CSBG): Background and Funding
HHS budget documents also indicated that the Office of Community Services planned to continue
funding in FY2010 for a cooperative agreement grant for a national community economic
development training and capacity development initiative; this grant began in FY2009 in response
to directives from House and Senate Appropriations Committees.
House Action During the 111th Congress
During the 111th Congress, the House Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee met
on July 15, 2010, and approved FY2011 spending levels; however, a bill was never introduced
and the full Appropriations Committee took no action. According to a press release issued by
then-Committee Chairman Obey, the Subcommittee approved $800 million for the CSBG.19 No
information was provided about the panel’s recommendations for CSBG-related activities before
the 111th Congress came to an end.
Senate Action During the 111th Congress
The Senate Appropriations Committee on August 2, 2010, reported its version of the FY2011
Labor-HHS-Education spending bill (S. 3686, S.Rept. 111-243), with a total of $792 million for
CSBG and related activities, compared with the Administration’s request of $760 million.
Specifically, the Senate Committee approved $700 million for the block grant, which was the
same level requested by the Administration but $100 million lower than the House
recommendation. The Senate committee approved $55 million for Community Economic
Development, of which up to $20 million could be used for the new Healthy Food Financing
Initiative, resulting in an increase of $19 million above the Administration’s request. The Senate
committee also approved $10 million for Rural Community Facilities and $2.6 million for JOLI,
while the Administration would have zeroed out both of these activities. Finally, the Senate
committee approved $24 million for IDAs, which was the same level proposed by the
Administration.
FY2010
Final Congressional Action
With no final appropriations law in place at the beginning of FY2010, Congress passed a series of
continuing resolutions to maintain funding for HHS and other federal agencies. The House and
Senate subsequently passed the conference agreement on a full-year consolidated appropriations
bill (H.R. 3288, H.Rept. 111-366), which was enacted on December 16, 2009, as P.L. 111-117.
The final law included the following amounts for CSBG and related activities: $700 million for
the block grant, $36 million for Community Economic Development, $10 million for Rural
Community Facilities, $2.66 million for JOLI, and $24 million for IDAs. The Administration had
originally requested $700 million for the block grant, $36 million for Community Economic
Development, $5.3 million for JOLI, and $24 million for IDAs. The Administration had proposed
termination of Rural Community Facilities.
19
U.S. House, Committee on Appropriations, “Opening Statement of Chairman David R. Obey, FY2011 Labor-HHSEducation Appropriations Bill Subcommittee Markup,” press release dated July 15, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
13
Community Services Block Grants (CSBG): Background and Funding
The conference agreement on the consolidated appropriations bill directed HHS to use $500,000
to continue the national training and capacity-building initiative that was started in FY2009,
which the Administration has indicated that it will. The agreement also directed HHS to report to
the House and Senate Appropriations Committees on the use by states of the ARRA/CSBG funds
intended for “benefit eligibility coordination” and whether these funds have achieved their
intended purpose of ensuring that individuals and families receive the assistance for which they
are eligible under various federal, state, local, and private programs. In its FY2011 budget
documents, the Administration stated that this report will be issued, although no date is given.
House Action
The House passed an FY2010 appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor, HHS, and
Education on July 24, 2009 (H.R. 3293), containing $700 million for CSBG, $36 million for
Community Economic Development, and $24 million for IDAs, as proposed by the
Administration. The House rejected two of the Administration’s requests, however, and included
$10 million for Rural Community Facilities despite the Administration’s proposal to terminate the
program, and provided no funding for JOLI despite the Administration’s request for level
funding.
In its report on H.R. 3293 (H.Rept. 111-220), the House Appropriations Committee repeated
previous directives that HHS use $500,000 of its training and technical assistance money to
develop a national community economic development training and capacity development
initiative, which the Administration indicated that it would do, starting in FY2009. The committee
also explained its decision to eliminate funding for JOLI, noting that its FY2010 appropriations
bill included $50 million for a new Transitional Jobs Initiative in the Department of Labor that
would provide employment opportunities for the same target population served by JOLI (e.g.,
welfare recipients and low-income individuals).
Senate Action
The Senate Appropriations Committee approved its version of H.R. 3293 on August 4, 2009
(S.Rept. 111-66). The committee bill was identical to the House-passed bill, except it would have
provided level funding for JOLI ($5.3 million) as requested by the Administration.
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 200920
On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed ARRA into law, providing an estimated $787
billion in spending and tax provisions in an effort to stimulate the economy. The law appropriated
$1 billion for the CSBG, which remained available for obligation until September 30, 2010. The
funds were subject to set-aside provisions in the underlying CSBG law that reserved half of 1%
for allocation among the territories and 1.5% for training, technical assistance, evaluation, and
monitoring. Remaining funds were distributed according to the regular CSBG formula to states,
which were required to use 1% of their ARRA allotments for “benefit eligibility coordination”
20
For a summary of provisions in the economic stimulus legislation affecting CSBG and additional programs
(Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Child Care and Development Block Grant, Child Support Enforcement,
Child Welfare, Low-Income Home Energy Assistance, Head Start, and the Compassion Capital Fund), see CRS Report
R40211, Human Services Provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
Congressional Research Service
14
Community Services Block Grants (CSBG): Background and Funding
activities, related to identification and enrollment of eligible individuals and families in federal,
state, or local benefit programs. The balance of each state’s allotment was distributed among local
eligible entities in the state (generally known as Community Action Agencies, or CAAs). ARRA
provided that CSBG funds could be used in FY2009 and FY2010 to serve individuals and
families with incomes up to 200% of the federal poverty level, rather than the regular CSBG
maximum of 125% of poverty.
HHS issued formal guidance regarding the release and use of the CSBG stimulus funds on April
10, 2009, requiring states to submit a plan for use of the funds by May 29, 2009. In its guidance,
HHS encouraged states and local entities that received stimulus funding to create “sustainable
economic resources in communities.”21 Specifically, HHS said that states should help ensure that
eligible entities “1) provide a wide range of innovative employment-related services and activities
tailored to the specific needs of their community; 2) use funds in a manner that meets the shortterm and long-term economic and employment needs of individuals, families and communities;
and 3) make meaningful and measureable progress toward the reform goals of the Recovery Act
with special attention to creating and sustaining economic growth and employment
opportunities.” The guidance also noted that states could not use CSBG stimulus funds for
administrative costs or any statewide discretionary activities. 22
As noted above, states were required to use 1% of their CSBG allotments for coordination
activities to ensure that eligible individuals were identified and enrolled in appropriate benefit
programs, and HHS said the law gave states flexibility in administering these coordination
activities to best meet the needs of individuals, families, and communities. In the conference
agreement on the FY2010 consolidated appropriations legislation, House and Senate conferees
expressed concern that people affected by the recession are not receiving the various benefits and
services for which they qualify and directed HHS to report to the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees on states’ use of these coordination funds and whether they achieved
their intended purpose. According to the National Association of State Community Services
Programs annual report cited earlier (see section headed “CSBG Program Data”), benefits
coordination activities undertaken in FY2009 included state and local agency “coordination with
stakeholders, communication techniques, technological enhancements, and other initiatives.”
Specific examples included statewide data collection systems to allow various programs to share
information, and statewide information campaigns to increase public awareness of available
services.
The final version of ARRA was a hybrid of provisions passed earlier by the House and the Senate.
In explaining its decision to include CSBG funding in the stimulus package, the House
Appropriations Committee’s draft report on ARRA stated: “Due to rising unemployment, housing
foreclosures, and high food and fuel prices, community action agencies have seen dramatic
increases in requests for assistance. These additional economic recovery funds will help to fill
gaps in safety net services by targeting funds directly to community action agencies in over 1,000
local communities while they are impacted by revenue shortfalls.”23 In the Senate, the
21
Office of Community Services (OCS) Information Memorandum, Transmittal No. 109, dated 4/10/09:
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/csbg/guidance/im109.html. Also see “frequently asked questions” on ARRA
CSBG funds: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/csbg/qna.html; and a second version of “frequently asked
questions”: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/csbg/arra_questions.htm.
22
HHS has now issued guidance on the liquidation and close-out of CSBG/ARRA funds; see OCS Information
Memorandum, Transmittal No. 122, dated 12/3/10; http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/csbg/guidance/im122.html.
23
The Committee’s report is available on its website, http://appropriations.house.gov/images/stories/pdf/
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
15
Community Services Block Grants (CSBG): Background and Funding
Appropriations Committee explained its decision to require states to reserve funds for benefit
eligibility coordination activities: “These services help stabilize families, especially during
periods of unemployment, and provide them with the tools they need to lift themselves from
poverty and to establish economic self-sufficiency” (S.Rept. 111-3).
FY2009
Congress passed and President Obama signed into law an omnibus appropriations act (P.L. 111-8)
that funded CSBG and related activities from March through the balance of FY2009. From the
beginning of FY2009, CSBG and related agencies, along with most other federal agencies and
programs, had been operating under a continuing resolution (P.L. 110-329) that generally
maintained funding at FY2008 levels. For CSBG and related agencies, the omnibus
appropriations act for FY2009 provided a total of $775 million—as originally recommended by
the House Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee—compared to total FY2008
funding of $722 million.
The House Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee had approved legislation on
June 19, 2008, that would have increased funds for CSBG and two related activities in FY2009.
The full House Appropriations Committee met but did not complete action on this bill on June 26,
2008. As approved by the subcommittee, the measure included $700 million for the CSBG (a $46
million increase from the FY2008 level), $36 million for Community Economic Development (a
$4.5 million increase), $10 million for Rural Community Facilities (a $2.1 million increase), and
level funding for JOLI and IDAs. The draft committee report stated that “the CSBG is more
important than ever, with unemployment and poverty increasing due to the struggling economy
and the number of low-income individuals and families in need of assistance rising as a
consequence.”24 The draft report directed that $500,000 of training and technical assistance funds
be used for a national community economic development training and capacity development
initiative that would provide CAA leaders with the necessary professional skills to finance and
implement innovative housing, economic, and community development partnerships. This
language also is included in the explanatory statement accompanying P.L. 111-8.
The Senate Appropriations Committee reported its version of the FY2009 funding bill for the
Departments of Labor, HHS, and Education on July 8, 2008 (S. 3230, S.Rept. 110-410). The
Senate committee would have maintained CSBG and all related activities at their FY2008
funding levels, except for Rural Community Facilities, which would have received $8.5 million (a
$600,000 increase). The Senate committee noted “the importance of Community Action Agencies
(CAAs) as institutions that organize low-income communities to identify emerging challenges to
economically insecure Americans and subsequently to mobilize the resources, programs and
partnerships needed to address local poverty conditions.” The report further stated that “CSBG is
a unique Federal resource that supports CAAs while they initiate creative responses to local
poverty conditions and seek new sources of support and investment to implement their initiatives.
The committee believes that CSBG funding is an investment, analogous to venture capital, in the
future of low-wage workers, retirees and their families.”
(...continued)
RecoveryReport01-15-09.pdf.
24
Unnumbered draft House Appropriations Committee report, reflecting actions of the Subcommittee on Labor-HHSEducation on FY2009 spending bill, http://www.cq.com/flatfiles/editorialFiles/budgetTracker/reference/docs/
20080626lhreport.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
16
Community Services Block Grants (CSBG): Background and Funding
In its report, the Senate committee faulted the Office of Community Services within HHS for
failing to report on progress made in correcting the deficiencies in program oversight identified
by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) (see Appendix B for a discussion of the GAO
report). The committee also noted that OCS did not comply with a directive included in the
conference report on the FY2005 appropriation, regarding the implementation of a training and
technical assistance needs assessment and delivery plan in consultation with CSBG state and
local grantees. The committee further stated that OCS should develop and deliver professional
skills training for CAA leaders so they can finance and implement innovative housing, economic,
and community development partnerships (similar to language in the draft House report); that
OCS should support linkages between local agencies, national organizations, and academic
institutions that would disseminate research on effective responses to poverty; and finally, that
OCS should continue funding statewide CAA associations to continue and expand cost-effective
training and other capacity-building services for members. These concerns were repeated by the
House Appropriations Committee in its explanatory statement accompanying the FY2009
omnibus appropriations bill that was enacted as P.L. 111-8. As noted above, HHS began funding
the national training and capacity-building initiative in FY2009.
Table 1. Funding for CSBG and Related Activities, FY2005-FY2012
($ in millions)
Program
FY2009d
FY2010
FY2011
finale
FY2012
request
653.80
700.00
700.00
678.64
350.00
27.02
31.47
36.00
36.00
17.96
20.00f
5.38
5.38
5.29
5.29
2.64
1.64
0
7.24
7.29
7.29
7.86
10.00
10.00
4.99
0
17.86
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7.18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24.70
24.44
24.45
24.02
24.02
23.91
23.98
23.90
726.51
694.10
694.57
722.45
772.55
727.21
393.90
FY2005a
FY2006b
FY2007
FY2008c
Block Grant
636.79
629.99
630.43
Community
Economic
Development
27.30
27.00
Job
Opportunities
for Low-Income
Individuals
(JOLI)
5.44
Rural
Community
Facilities
National Youth
Sports Program
Community
Food and
Nutrition
Individual
Development
Accounts
Total
775.31d
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Sources of data are agency budget justifications
and congressional appropriations documents. Final FY2011 amounts, reflecting adjustments required by P.L. 11210, can be found at http://www.hhs.gov/asfr/ob/docbudget/2011operatingplan_acf.pdf.
a.
Funding reflects a 0.80% across-the-board rescission as mandated by the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2005 (P.L. 108-447).
Congressional Research Service
17
Community Services Block Grants (CSBG): Background and Funding
b.
Funding reflects a 1% across-the-board rescission as mandated by the Defense Department Appropriations
Act, 2006 (P.L. 109-148). Amounts shown also reflect transfers made by the Secretary of HHS. The pretransfer, post-rescission amounts were $630.43 million for the block grant, $32.40 million for Community
Economic Development, and $694.57 million for the total of programs shown in this table. Reductions in
Rural Community Facilities and IDAs are negligible and masked by rounding.
c.
Funding reflects a 1.747% across-the-board reduction as mandated by the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2008 (P.L. 110-161).
d.
Funding levels shown were included in P.L. 111-8. Total amount shown does not include the additional $1
billion provided to the CSBG under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, P.L. 111-5).
e.
Funding reflects a 0.2% across-the-board rescission as mandated by P.L. 112-10.
f.
Funds would be used for the Healthy Food Financing Initiative.
Congressional Research Service
18
Community Services Block Grants (CSBG): Background and Funding
Appendix A. Reauthorization Attempts
The authorizing legislation for CSBG and related activities expired at the end of FY2003 but
Congress has continued funding these activities nonetheless. No reauthorizing legislation has
been introduced since the 109th Congress. The following discusses legislation considered in the
109th and 108th Congresses, as background information for any reauthorization discussions that
may occur in the future.
In the 109th Congress, Representative Osborne introduced H.R. 341, the Improving the
Community Services Block Grant Act, which was virtually identical (except for dates) to
legislation passed by the House during the 108th Congress (H.R. 3030).25 H.R. 341 would have
reauthorized the CSBG and related activities through FY2012, and was referred to the House
Education and the Workforce Committee, where no action occurred. In his introductory remarks,
Representative Osborne noted key provisions of H.R. 341, such as promoting increased quality
and accountability of CSBG programs, encouraging initiatives to improve conditions and
eliminate barriers to self-sufficiency in rural areas, and providing youth mentoring services to
address education needs and crime.
Other provisions of H.R. 341 would have
25
•
changed the definition of the “eligible entity” by requiring such entities to
establish and meet local goals as well as state goals, standards and requirements;
•
required that a state take swift action to improve the performance or terminate
funding of low-performing eligible entities or ones that failed to meet local and
state requirements;
•
provided that a state justify to the Secretary its continued support of lowperforming eligible entities;
•
required a state to use funds to improve economic conditions and remove barriers
to self-sufficiency for the rural poor;
•
required a local eligible entity to establish goals for reducing poverty in the
community;
•
based subsequent grant awards on the success or failure of an eligible entity in
meeting goals;
•
prohibited a religious organization providing services under provisions of this act
from discriminating against a person seeking assistance because of religion or a
religious belief;
•
required the Secretary to establish procedures that would allow grant funds or
intangible assets acquired with grant funds to become the sole property of the
grantee if the grantee agrees to continue to use the funds or property for the
purposes for which the grant was provided;
•
added water and wastewater facility needs to activities allowed for rural
community development; and
H.R. 3030 contained an unrelated unemployment compensation provision, which was not included in H.R. 341.
Congressional Research Service
19
Community Services Block Grants (CSBG): Background and Funding
•
added improvement of academic achievement to the goals of national or regional
programs designed to provide instruction activities.
During the 108th Congress, the committee reported and the House passed legislation, H.R. 3030
(virtually identical to H.R. 341 in the 109th Congress), while the Senate passed S. 1786, the
Poverty Reduction and Prevention Act. Conferees never met to resolve differences in the two
bills. Both bills in the 108th Congress would have reauthorized CSBG and related programs at
such sums as necessary, except for the National Youth Sports Program, which would have been
reauthorized at $15 million annually by the House bill and $18 million by the Senate bill. The
following compares provisions of H.R. 3030 and S. 1786 from the 108th Congress; readers should
note that H.R. 341, introduced in the 109th Congress, contained the same provisions as H.R. 3030.
Program Goals
H.R. 3030 and S. 1786 contained similar provisions concerning goals of eligible entities. H.R.
3030 would have required entities to establish and meet locally determined goals for reducing
poverty in the community. It would also have added “improving academic achievement” to the
list of required goals. Both bills would have required an entity to include goals for leveraging
community resources, fostering coordination of federal, state, local, private and other assistance,
and promoting community involvement.
S. 1786 would have provided that grants to states support both improving the causes of poverty
and the conditions that cause poverty. The measure would have revised the poverty line
determination; it would have allowed a state to raise its eligibility threshold to a minimum of
125% of the federal poverty line or a maximum of 60% of state median income; however, the
state would have had to give priority to serving individuals with the lowest income who sought
services. Also, S. 1786 would have made a tripartite board the sole mechanism for determining
consideration of eligible entities, and thus would have eliminated current provisions that allow a
state to specify another mechanism for doing so. H.R. 3030 did not contain provisions concerning
the poverty eligibility threshold or the role of a tripartite board in determining an eligible entity.
State Plan Requirements
H.R. 3030 and S. 1786 would have revised state application and plan requirements. H.R. 3030
would have specified that youth development activities may include mentoring programs. The bill
also would have added, as a use of funds to be included in the state plan, “initiatives to improve
economic conditions and mobilize new resources in rural areas to eliminate obstacles to the selfsufficiency of families and individuals in rural communities.” S. 1786 would have revised the
current state plan provisions by requiring not only that the Secretary review the plan but also
approve it. Among information for inclusion in a state’s plan submitted to the Secretary was an
assurance that grant funds would be used for the following purposes: to improve literacy,
communications, and technical skills of participant low-income families; for initiatives to assist
those moving from welfare to work to obtain jobs at decent wages with benefits; for initiatives to
increase the development of household assets of individuals (such as individual development
accounts and home-ownership opportunities); to improve economic conditions and mobilize new
resources in rural and other at-risk areas to eliminate obstacles to the self-sufficiency of persons
in those communities, and for initiatives to reduce the concentration of poverty in cities and inner
suburbs and provide economic opportunities for persons in those areas; and in support of
partnerships with nonprofit or community-based organizations that address child abuse
Congressional Research Service
20
Community Services Block Grants (CSBG): Background and Funding
prevention, including programs that are school-based and that focus on adolescent victims, and
victimizers.
Training and Technical Assistance
Both bills contained training and technical assistance provisions. H.R. 3030 would have added
“dissemination regarding best practices” to the use of funds by the Secretary. S. 1786 would have
revised training and technical assistance provisions by devising, in consultation with national and
state networks of eligible entities, a strategic plan for annual technical assistance; and would have
improved management information and reporting systems by developing a common state
financial and organizational protocol.
Grantee Funding Reduction or Termination
Provisions relating to reducing or terminating funding for eligible entities were included in H.R.
3030 and S. 1786. H.R. 3030 would have allowed, but not required, the Secretary to review
determinations by a state to reduce or terminate funding to an eligible entity. Further, the bill
would have amended the definition of “cause” in the case of a funding reduction to include failure
to meet poverty reduction goals. States would have been required to give priority to entities that
received funding on the date of enactment, if they fulfilled their poverty reduction goals. If no
entity was entitled to such priority, the state would designate another entity from qualified
applicants. H.R. 3030 also would have required states to replace the lowest performing existing
grantees beginning in FY2005. S. 1786 would have established procedures for termination of
designation as an eligible entity or reduction of funding by giving eligible entities a right to a
public hearing on a state decision; changing from 90 to 30 days the time frame within which the
Secretary must have made a determination concerning a state’s decision to terminate or to reduce
funding for an eligible entity; and requiring the Secretary to continue funding the entity at its
previous year’s level until a decision was made on a state’s action.
Grantee Monitoring and Fiscal Controls
Both measures would have amended current provisions of the CSBG Act relating to monitoring
eligible entities. H.R. 3030 would have required federal reviews to determine whether local
performance goals were being met. S. 1786 would have changed current law requirements for full
on-site federal reviews of eligible entities every three years to a biennial basis. In addition, S.
1786 would have required an annual follow-up visit to entities that failed to meet state-established
goals.
S. 1786 would have addressed fiscal controls by requiring states to submit a separate audit of
CSBG funds to the Secretary covering disbursements to eligible entities, use of state
administrative funds, and disbursement of state discretionary funds; H.R. 3030 contained no such
provisions. S. 1786 would have authorized the Secretary to withhold administrative funds from
states that were not in compliance with the CSBG Act and provide funds directly to the eligible
entities. H.R. 3030 and S. 1786 would have provided that funding be directed at improving the
self-sufficiency of families and individuals in rural communities.
Both H.R. 3030 and S. 1786 contained similar provisions that would have authorized the
Secretary to allow grantees to keep assets obtained with program funds. H.R. 3030 would have
allowed the Secretary to add water and waste water treatment to the list of community facility
Congressional Research Service
21
Community Services Block Grants (CSBG): Background and Funding
needs. H.R. 3030 would have allowed funds to be used for construction or substantial
rehabilitation of buildings and facilities and for loans or investments in private business
enterprises owned by community development corporations. S. 1786 would have authorized the
Secretary to allow funds for long-term loans or investments for private business enterprises,
capital to businesses owned by community development corporations, and marketing and
management assistance for businesses providing jobs and business opportunities to low-income
individuals.
Faith-Based Organizations
Another key provision of H.R. 3030 and S. 1786 related to the participation of faith-based
organizations in CSBG-funded programs. H.R. 3030 would have prohibited discrimination
against a beneficiary or potential beneficiary of the program on the basis of religion. S. 1786
would have added religion to current provisions of the CSBG Act that prohibit exclusion of a
person from program participation based on color, national origin, sex, or age. S. 1786 also would
have amended current law, which requires government agencies to consider participation of
religious organizations on the same basis as other nongovernmental organizations, to require
religious organizations to meet requirements of the act.
There was debate on H.R. 3030 both in the House Committee on Education and the Workforce
and on the House floor on provisions in current law that allow a religious organization to
discriminate in hiring. The committee defeated an amendment that would have prevented a
grantee from using religion as a basis for discriminating against a job applicant and agreed to one
that would have prohibited a religious organization from using religion or a religious belief as a
basis for discriminating against a person seeking program services.
After considering a number of amendments, the House passed H.R. 3030 on February 4, 2004.
The House rejected H.Amdt. 459 (Woolsey) in the nature of a substitute that would have
prohibited organizations from using CSBG funds to discriminate in hiring on the basis of religion.
The House rejected both H.Amdt. 460 (Robert Scott) which would have required organizations to
separate their religious services or activities from programs that used CSBG funds and H.Amdt.
461 (Robert Scott) which would have prohibited the use of federal CSBG funds to discriminate in
hiring based on religion.
Congressional Research Service
22
Community Services Block Grants (CSBG): Background and Funding
Appendix B. Government Accountability Office
(GAO) Review
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report on the CSBG program in July
2006, which was originally requested by the House Education and the Workforce Committee in
April 2005. GAO’s review focused on three topics related to program monitoring and training and
technical assistance: (1) HHS compliance with legal requirements and standards governing its
oversight of state efforts to monitor local CSBG grantees; (2) efforts by states to monitor local
grantee compliance with fiscal requirements and performance standards; and (3) targeting by
HHS of its training and technical assistance funds and the impact of such assistance on grantee
performance. 26
GAO concluded that the Office of Community Services (OCS, the office within HHS that is
charged with administering the CSBG) “lacks effective policies, procedures, and controls” to
ensure its own compliance with legal requirements for monitoring states and with federal internal
control standards. GAO found that OCS had visited states as mandated by law but failed to issue
reports to the states after the visits or annual reports to Congress, which also are mandated by law.
OCS failed to meet internal control standards because their monitoring teams lacked adequate
financial expertise; moreover, OCS lost the documentation from the monitoring visits to states.
Finally, OCS was not systematic in its selection of states to visit, and did not use available
information on state performance or collect other data to allow more effective targeting of its
limited monitoring resources on states at highest risk of management problems.
In connection with its assessment of state efforts to monitor local grantees, GAO visited five
states and found wide variation in the frequency with which they conducted on-site monitoring of
local grantees, although officials in all states said they visited agencies with identified problems
more often. States also varied in their interpretation of the law’s requirement that they visit local
grantees at least once in a three-year period, and GAO noted that OCS had issued no guidance on
this requirement. States reported varying capacities to conduct on-site monitoring and some states
cited staff shortages; however, the states all performed other forms of oversight in addition to onsite visits, such as review of local agency reports (e.g., local agency plans, goals, performance
data, and financial reports) and review of annual Single Audits where relevant. Several states
coordinated local oversight with other federal and state programs, and also used state associations
of Community Action Agencies to help provide technical assistance.
GAO found, with regard to federal training and technical assistance funds, that OCS targeted at
least some of these funds toward local agencies with identified financial and program
management problems, but generally was not strategic in allocating these funds and had only
limited information on the outcome of providing such training and technical assistance.
26
Community Services Block Grant Program: HHS Should Improve Oversight by Focusing Monitoring and Assistance
Efforts on Areas of High Risk, GAO-06-627, U.S. Government Accountability Office, June 2006. GAO had revealed
some of the findings of this review in February 2006 in a letter submitted to HHS (“Community Services Block Grant
Program: HHS Needs to Improve Monitoring of State Grantees,” GAO-06-373R, letter to Wade F. Horn, Assistant
Secretary for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services, from the U.S. Government
Accountability Office, February 7, 2006).
Congressional Research Service
23
Community Services Block Grants (CSBG): Background and Funding
GAO made five recommendations to OCS in its report (and HHS indicated its agreement and
intent to act upon these recommendations). According to GAO, OCS should
•
conduct a risk-based assessment of states by systematically collecting and using
information;
•
establish policies and procedures to ensure monitoring is focused on the highestrisk states;
•
issue guidance to states on complying with the requirement that they monitor
local agencies during each three-year period;
•
establish reporting guidance for training and technical assistance grants so that
OCS receives information on the outcomes for local agencies that receive such
training or technical assistance; and
•
implement a strategic plan for targeting training and technical assistance in areas
where states feel the greatest need.
HHS Response
HHS took a series of steps in response to the GAO report. On October 10, 2006, HHS issued an
information memorandum to state agencies responding to GAO’s third recommendation and
providing guidance on compliance with the statutory requirement that states conduct a full on-site
review of each eligible entity at least once during every three-year period.27 Subsequently, on
March 1, 2007, HHS issued another information memorandum, responding to GAO’s first two
recommendations and providing a schedule of states that will receive federal monitoring in each
of the next three years (FY2007-FY2009).28
The October memorandum explained that states were selected through a process intended to
identify states that would receive the most benefit from federal monitoring visits. This process
considered the extent to which eligible entities in the state were considered vulnerable or in crisis;
the physical size of the state, its number of eligible entities, and the number of state personnel
assigned to the CSBG program; the extent of poverty in the state compared to the number of
eligible entities and state CSBG personnel; the number of clients served compared to the number
of eligible entities and state CSBG personnel; evidence of past audit problems; and tardiness by
the state in submitting CSBG state plans to HHS or responses to information surveys conducted
by the National Association of State Community Services Programs. 29
HHS developed a CSBG state assessment tool to help states prepare for federal monitoring, 30 and
on August 24, 2007, issued a strategic plan for the CSBG program, which is intended to describe
27
Office of Community Services (OCS) Information Memorandum, Transmittal No. 97, dated 10/10/06:
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/csbg/documents/10h.html.
28
Office of Community Services (OCS) Information Memorandum, Transmittal No. 98, dated 3/1/07:
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/csbg/guidance/im98.html. The monitoring schedule was subsequently revised by
OCS Information Memorandum Transmittal No. 105, dated December 21, 2007, which now covers FY2008-FY2010:
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/csbg/guidance/im105.pdf.
29
See discussion of this survey earlier in this report.
30
Office of Community Services (OCS) Information Memorandum, Transmittal No. 102: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/
programs/ocs/csbg/pdf/csbgapplicationplan.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
24
Community Services Block Grants (CSBG): Background and Funding
training, technical assistance, and capacity-building activities and promote accountability within
the CSBG.31 As discussed in the “Recent Appropriations History” section of this report, HHS
began funding the national community economic development training and capacity development
initiative in FY2009.
Author Contact Information
Karen Spar
Specialist in Domestic Social Policy and Division
Research Coordinator
kspar@crs.loc.gov, 7-7319
31
Office of Community Services (OCS) Information Memorandum, Transmittal No. 103, dated 8/24/07:
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/csbg/pdf/im_103.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
25