This page shows textual changes in the document between the two versions indicated in the dates above. Textual matter removed in the later version is indicated with red strikethrough and textual matter added in the later version is indicated with blue.
Summary
Community Services Block Grants (CSBG) provide federal funds to states, territories, and tribes for distribution to local agencies to support a wide range of community-based activities to reduce poverty. These include 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, many local agencies receive federal funds from other sources and may administer other federal programs.
Smaller related programs—Community Economic Development (CED), and Rural Community Facilities (RCF), and Individual Development Accounts (IDAsDevelopment (RCD)—also support antipovertyanti-poverty efforts. CSBG and some of these related activities trace their roots to the War on Poverty, launched more than 5060 years ago in 1964. Today, they are administered at the federal level by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Initial FY2018 funding for CSBG is provided by a series of continuing resolutions (CRs). As of the date of this report, the current CR funds most federal programs, including CSBG and related programs, at their FY2017 levels less an across-the-board rescission of 0.6791%, through February 8, 2018.
In FY2017,
In FY2025, the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025 (P.L. 119-4) generally provided funding at the same levels as specified in the applicable FY2024 appropriations act. CSBG and related activities were funded at a total level of $742804 million through the FY2017Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (P.L. 115-31). This was a reduction of nearly $30 million relative to FY2016 appropriations of $770 million, though that total was more than had been appropriated in each year from FY2012-FY2015. While the block grant was funded at the FY2016 level of $715 million, funding for CED was reduced by $10 million (from $30 million to $20 million) and funding for IDAs was eliminated for the first time since the program was created as a demonstration in 1998. Funding for RCF increased slightly to $7.5 million in FY2017, compared to $6.5 million in FY2016.
Prior to enactment of the FY2018 continuing resolutions, the Administration's budget proposed to eliminate funding for CSBG, CED, and RCF, and would again have provided no funding for IDAs. Both the Senate and the House appropriations committees reported FY2018 funding bills that rejected the Administration's proposal. The House Appropriations Committee-reported bill to fund the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education (LHHS, H.R. 3358) would provide $600 million for CSBG, $10 million for CED, $7.5 million for RCF, and no funding for IDAs. The LHHS bill approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee (S. 1771) would provide $700 million for CSBG, and maintain FY2017 funding levels for CED ($20 million) and RCF ($7.5 million). Neither the House nor the Senate committee-approved bills contain funding for IDAs. In addition, on August 16, 2017, the House passed H.R. 3354, a bill that incorporated multiple appropriations bills, as an omnibus appropriations act. However, the CR was enacted before action on H.R. 3354 was complete. Funding for CSBG and related activities in H.R. 3354 are the same as those in H.R. 3358.
118-47). Of this total, $22 million was reserved for CED and $12 million was reserved for RCD. The FY2026 President's budget proposed to eliminate funding for the CSBG and related programs. CSBG has flexibility with regard to its implementation by local entities to address the causes and consequences of poverty. This aspect of CSBG enabled Congress to provide relief in recent years at the local level for services for persons whose low-income status leaves them especially vulnerable to disasters. For example, supplemental appropriations were made through the CSBG in response to hurricanes, typhoons, earthquakes, tornadoes, and wildfires in FY2019, the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in FY2020, and hurricanes in FY2023.
The Community Services Block Grant Act was last reauthorized in 1998 by P.L. 105-285. The authorization of appropriations for CSBG and most related programs expired in FY2003, but Congress has continued to make annual appropriations each year. LegislationMost recently, legislation was introduced in the 114th Congress117th and 119th Congresses—with bipartisan cosponsorshipco-sponsorship in each case—to amend and reauthorize the CSBG Act through FY2023 (H.R. 1655). Similar legislation had been introduced in the 113th Congress (H.R. 3854).
According to the most recent survey conducted by the National Association for State Community Services Programs, through a contract with HHS, the nationwide network of more than 1,000 CSBG grantees served 15.6 million people in 6.5 million low-income families in FY2015. States reported that the network spent $13.6. During the 119th Congress, a bill was introduced (H.R. 3131) that would amend the CSBG act and reauthorize CSBG at funding levels of $1 billion annually through FY2032.
According to the most recent Community Services Block Grant Report to Congress (for FY2022), published by HHS, the nationwide network of approximately one thousand CSBG grantees served over 10 million people in 5.2 million low-income households in FY2022. States reported that the network spent $20.2 billion of federal, state, local, and private resources, including $637 million1.1 billion in federal CSBG funds.
The CSBG Act definition of the term poverty line has been implemented via the calculation of a set of dollar amounts called the Federal Poverty Guidelines (FPG). This definition has also been referenced by the statutory language for other federal programs for purposes of program administration, either by referring directly to the definition in the CSBG statute or by using similar language. HHS is the agency responsible for updating the FPG annually for inflation, as specified in the CSBG statute. Introduction
The Community Services Block Grant traces its roots to the War on Poverty, launched by President Lyndon Johnson more than 5060 years ago when he proposed the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. In his March 1964 message to Congress, President Johnson said the act would "give every American community the opportunity to develop a comprehensive plan to fight its own poverty—and help them to carry out their plans."1 This was to be achieved through a new Community Action Program that would "strike poverty at its source—in the streets of our cities and on the farms of our countryside among the very young and the impoverished old."
A central feature of the new Community Action Program was that local residents would identify the unique barriers and unmet needs contributing to poverty in their individual communities and develop plans to address those needs, drawing on resources from all levels of government and the private sector. The program would be overseen by a newly created Office of Economic Opportunity, which would pay part of the costs of implementing these local plans. President Johnson signed the Economic Opportunity Act into law on August 20, 1964 (P.L. 88-452), and within a few years, a nationwide network of about 1,000one thousand local Community Action Agencies was established.2
This report provides information on the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG), which is the modern-day program that continues to fund this network of local antipoverty agencies. The report also describes severaltwo smaller related programs that are administered by the same federal office that currently oversees the CSBG. The report begins with background information and legislative history of the CSBG and related activities ("Background"); it. It then summarizes the ways in which CSBG eligible entities use funds and who is served ("CSBG Program Data"). The next section discusses recent funding for CSBG ("Funding for CSBG and Related Activities"), and the final section provides an overview of legislation in the 114th Congress that would have reauthorized CSBG and related activities ("Reauthorization Proposal in the 114th Congress"). Appendix A has, followed by a discussion of recent funding for CSBG, and concludes with a discussion of reauthorization proposals in recent Congresses. Appendix A provides tables showing historical funding for CSBG and related activities dating back to the beginning of the program, (in 1982), as well as a table with CSBG funding distributed to states, tribes, and territories in recent years. The most recent review of CSBG by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) is discussed in Appendix B.
A discussion of the poverty definition used in the CSBG Act (the Federal Poverty Guidelines or FPG) and referred to in the authorizing statutes for a variety of federal programs by referencing its definition in the CSBG Act, is provided in Appendix B.
Background
Administered by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) provides federal funds to states, territories, and Indian tribes for distribution to local agencies in support of a variety of antipoverty activities. As noted above, the origins of the CSBG 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, which would directly involve low-income people in the design and administration of antipoverty activities in their communities through mandatory representation on local agency governing boards. Currently, these local agencies, generally known as Community Action Agencies (CAAs), are the primary substatesub-state 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 a newly created office in 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, §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, although Congress has continued to appropriate funds for the programs each year since then. 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. Legislation was introduced in the 113th Congress to amend and reauthorize the CSBG and related activities through FY2023 (H.R. 3854); however, no further action was taken. Similar legislation was introduced in the 114th Congress (H.R. 1655), but again received no further action. (For more details, see "Reauthorization Proposal in the 114th Congress.")
Several related national activities—Community Economic Development (CED), Rural Community Facilities (RCF), and Individual Development Accounts (IDAs)—receive appropriations separate from the block grant and offer grants to assist local low-income communities with economic development, rural housing and water management, and asset development for low-income individuals. These activities are administered at the federal level by the same Office of Community Services at HHS (part of the Administration for Children and Families) that administers the CSBG, and in some cases, are also authorized by the CSBG Act. Congress has also funded other related activities over the years, but none except CED, RCF, and IDAs have received funding since FY2011.
Separate from the block grant, related national activities—Community Economic Development (CED), and Rural Community Development (RCD)—offer grants to assist local low-income communities with economic development, and rural housing and water management. These activities are administered at the federal level by the Office of Community Services at the HHS Administration for Children and Families (see the text box below), the same office that administers the CSBG. CED and RCD are also authorized by the CSBG Act.3 Congress has also funded other related activities over the years, but none except CED and RCD have received funding since FY2017. The Office of Community Services Federal law requires the CSBG program to be administered by an Office of Community Services established within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).4 As of early March 2025, this office operated as a subcomponent of the HHS Administration for Children and Families (ACF).5 On March 27, 2025, HHS Secretary Kennedy announced there would be a "dramatic restructuring" at HHS, including a reduction in workforce of about 10,000 full-time employees.6 Authoritative data on the reduction in force among ACF staff generally have not been made publicly available, though some reports suggest there were significant reductions in staff within the ACF Office of Community Services.7 FY2026 President's budget request materials released in June 2025 proposed merging ACF with another HHS operating division, the Administration for Community Living (ACL), to create a new, consolidated Administration for Children, Families, and Communities (ACFC).8 Neither the March 2025 announcement, nor the FY2026 budget materials, provide an organizational chart for the proposed ACFC. The FY2026 budget proposal would eliminate the CSBG and related programs discussed in this report, but does not specify whether the Office of Community Services would likewise be eliminated.9 This office administers several additional programs beyond the CSBG and related activities, not all of which are proposed for elimination in the FY2026 President's request.10 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
2 1 for a history of CSBG appropriations from its first year of funding (FY1982) through FY2017.
allotments to states, tribes, and territories since FY2013. Use of Funds CSBG funds are used for activities designed to have a "measurable and potentially major impact on causes of poverty."11 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.
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.312 States also may use up to $55,000 or 5% of their allotment, whichever is higher, for administrative costs.413 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.
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. 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.514 There are more than 1,000roughly one thousand 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 of members 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. CAAs may also receive federal funds from other sources and may administer federal programs such as Head Start and energy assistance programs. For more information, see the "Use of Federal CSBG Funds" section of this report.
In addition to the block grant itself, over the years the CSBG Act has authorized various related activities over the years that have been funded along with CSBG and administered through the Office of Community Services (OCS) within HHS. There have also been programs authorized by other laws but administered by OCS. These programs have provided various types of assistance, including food and nutrition assistance and help obtaining jobshelp obtaining jobs and food and nutrition assistance, and programs have targeted services to specific populations including migrant farmworkers and people experiencing homelessness.
Most of the related activities administered through OCS no longer receive funding, and some have not been funded for many years. See Table A-34 in Appendix A for programs that have been funded from FY1982 to the present. Two of these programs—CED and RCFCommunity Economic Development (CED) and Rural Community Development (RCD), both authorized by the CSBG Act—continue to be funded, and have received funding in every year since FY1982. In addition, a third program, Individual Development Accounts (IDAs), is also administered by the Office of Community Services, though it is not directly authorized by the CSBG Act.6 IDAs were funded in every year since their creation as a demonstration program in 1998 until FY2017, when they were not funded for the first time. This section describes these three recently funded,This section describes these two recently-funded related activities.
15
The Community Economic Development (CED) program helps support local community development corporations (CDCs), including faith-based organizations, to generate employment and business development opportunities for low-income 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 FY2016, HHS supported 39 grants, all of which were continuations of existing grants, plus three contracts and two interagency agreements, according to agency budget documents.8 While HHS expected to fund the same number of grantees in FY2017, ultimately Congress reduced CED funding by $10 million (from $30 million to $20 million), so it is unclear whether the same number of grants will be funded. As of the date of this report, information on FY2017 grantees was not available.
From FY2011 through FY2016, approximately $10 million per year has been set aside from the CED appropriation for the Healthy Food Financing Initiative (HFFI).9 HFFI is a multiyear, multiagency effort through which HHS has partnered with the Departments of Agriculture (USDA) 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 HHS/CED component, competitive grants 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.10 Legislation to formally authorize the program in USDA was passed by Congress as part of the 2014 "farm bill" (P.L. 113-79). As of the date of this report, information on FY2017 grantees was not available.
Rural Community Facilities (RCF) 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. Each year, beginning with its FY2010 budget request to Congress through FY2017, the Obama Administration proposed to terminate RCF, 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 (EPA) (i.e., the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds) and through loans and grants administered by USDA. The FY2018 Trump Administration budget proposed to eliminate funding for RCF, stating that "services provided are duplicative of other federal programs."12 Notwithstanding Administration requests to stop funding RCF, Congress has continued to provide funding for this program.
During FY2016, HHS supported eight grants, all of which were continuations of existing grants, plus one contract and one interagency agreement, according to agency budget documents.13 In FY2017, the department again expected to support eight grants, one contract, and one interagency agreement. As of the date of this report, information on FY2017 grantees was not available. HHS expected no program activity in FY2018 due to the program's proposed termination.
The Assets for Independence Act (AFI, Title IV, P.L. 105-285), enacted in 1998, initially authorized a five-year demonstration initiative to encourage low-income people to accumulate savings through Individual Development Accounts (IDAs).15 The Assets for Independence Act expired at the end of FY2003, although Congress continued to provide appropriations for the program under this authority through FY2016. In FY2017, Congress did not provide funding for IDAs for the first time since the demonstration program was enacted.
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 IDAs cannot exceed the non-federal matches. The maximum federal grant is $1 million each year.
According to Administration budget documents, in FY2016 the IDA program supported 42 new grants, 6 contracts, and 3 interagency agreements. While HHS expected to support a similar number of grants, contracts and agreements in FY2017, ultimately Congress did not appropriate funds.
In the 115th Congress, a bill to amend and reauthorize IDAs, the Stephanie Tubbs Jones Assets for Independence Reauthorization Act (H.R. 271), would fund IDAs at an annual level of $75 million through FY2022. A similar bill with the same title (H.R. 3367) was introduced in the 114th Congress. Two other bills in the 114th Congress also would have reauthorized IDAs.16
The Rural Community Development (RCD) program, also referred to in appropriations language as Rural Community Facilities, "assists small, low-income rural communities, that are not served by other similar Federal programs, to help manage, develop, and improve safe drinking water and waste water facilities."19 Many of these rural communities have fewer than 2,500 persons, have residents that lack access to safe drinking or wastewater treatment services, or in some instances indoor plumbing, and are often located in areas of persistent poverty.20 RCD funds must be used to provide training and technical assistance to: increase access for low-income families to water supply and waste disposal services, preserve affordable water and waste disposal services in low-income rural communities, increase local capacity and expertise to establish and maintain needed community facilities, increase economic opportunities for low-income rural communities by ensuring they have basic water and sanitation, utilize technical assistance to leverage additional public and private resources, and promote improved coordination of Federal, state, and local agencies and financing programs to benefit low-income communities.21 As with other grants organized through HHS's Administration for Children and Families, recipients must comply with reporting requirements.22Data on the programs administered and people served by CSBG local eligible entities are captured in CSBG Annual Reports. Since 1987,Grant recipients are required to create a certain number of jobs from their project, as specified in the CED grant's Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO). The grant recipient computes the number of total jobs required to be created by dividing the total grant amount by a set figure (for example, in the FY2024 NOFO, this was $32,000 per job for construction jobs, and $27,000 per job for non-construction jobs).16 The jobs must have substantive fringe benefits and present opportunities for advancement, which CED grant applicants provide evidence for in their applications, per instructions in the NOFO. At least 75% of the jobs created by CED projects have to be for persons with low income (defined using the federal poverty guidelines). CED grants have minimum and maximum amounts (in FY2024, these were $100,000 and $800,000 respectively). Projects may be funded by other sources in addition to CED, though there are reporting requirements for tracking how the CED grant funds in particular were spent, and on the jobs created by them.17
Rural Community Development18
17 HHS also produces annual CSBG Reports to Congress using the data collected for the CSBG Annual Reports.18
23 In recent years HHS has published online the CSBG Reports to Congress on an annual basis.24
The most recent CSBG Annual Report to Congress summarizes data from FY2015FY2022. According to the report, the nationwide CSBG network consisted of 1,026011 local eligible entities in FY2015FY2022, including 907894 Community Action Agencies, 7983 local government agencies, 16 "limited purpose agencies" that specialized in one or two types of programs, 1613 tribes or tribal organizations,19 625 11 migrant or seasonal farmworker organizations, and 2 organizations that fell into other categories.20
26 and 10 limited purpose agencies that specialized in one or two types of programs.27
This network of local eligible entities reported spending nearly $13.620.2 billion in FY2015FY2022, with funding coming from federal, state, local, and private sources. Of the total amount spent, $637 million1.1 billion came from the federal CSBG allotment (including both regular and supplemental CSBG funds), and another $14.6, and another $8.3 billion came from federal programs other than CSBG.2128 Approximately $1.72.1 billion came from state governments, nearly $1.8$1.5 billion came from private agencies, and nearly $1.5local governments, and $1.7 billion came from local governmentsprivate agencies. In addition to these financial resources, the estimated value of volunteer hours was $298143 million.
Based on reports from all jurisdictions, local entities spent their CSBG funds in FY2015FY2022 for a wide variety of activities, including emergency services (17%); activities to promote self-sufficiency (17activities related to income, infrastructure, and asset building (4%); activities to promote linkages among community groups and other government or private organizations (135%); education-related activities (12%); employment-related activities (139%); housing-related services (9%); nutrition services (7%); income management (622%); health services (315%); and other activities.22
The bulk of funds spent by local eligible entities come from federal programs other than CSBG. More than halfOver 45% of the funding in FY2015FY2022 was dedicated to Head Start or energy assistance.2330 Of nearly $8.314.6 billion in non-CSBG federal funds spent by local agencies in FY2015, 35FY2022, 25% came from Head Start or Early Head Start. Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) fuel assistance made up 15nearly 16% of federal funds spent by local agencies, and LIHEAP weatherization funding, together with funding from the Department of Energy's Weatherization Assistance Program, made up another 54% of funding.
States reported that nearly 107% of federal non-CSBG funds received by local agencies came from Agriculture Department nutrition programs, including almost 32% from the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) alone.2431 Another 64% of federal non-CSBG funds came from the TANF block grant, more than 3% came from employment and training programs administered by the Labor Department, and almost 3over 2% came from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Section 8 program.2532 The Child Care and Development Block Grant accounted for 2% of federal non-CSBG funding, and funding for Medicare/Medicaid each accounted for more than 2% of funding.26
According to states responding to the As part of the data collection about CSBG-eligible entity program participants, health insurance coverage and disability status information was collected, though it was not obtained for all participants. The FY2022 report offered the following about information that was obtained: Health insurance data offered by over 6.6 million participants indicated that 12.6 percent were without medical insurance... Disability data collected from over 7.5 million participants indicated that 23.7 percent of the CSBG-eligible entity program participants who reported disability status had a disability.40 FY2025 funding for CSBG has been provided via a full-year continuing resolution (CR).41 The FY2025 CR generally provided funding at the same levels as specified in the applicable FY2024 appropriations act. The CSBG and related activities were funded at $804 million in the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (P.L. 118-47). Out of this total, $22 million was reserved for CED and $12 million was reserved for RCD.42 ($ in millions) Program FY2026 President's Budget Recommendation Community Services Block Grant 770.000 770.000 770.000 0 Community Economic Development 22.383 22.383 22.383 0 Rural Community Facilities 12.000 12.000 12.000 0 Total for CSBG and Related Activities 804.383 804.383 804.383 0 Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Sources of data are agency budget justifications and congressional appropriations documents. Congress also viewed CSBG as a tool for providing supplemental funding for emergencies, including disaster relief from hurricanes and wildfires, and during the COVID-19 pandemic. In P.L. 116-20, which addressed the effects of hurricanes, typhoons, wildfires, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions, $1 billion was appropriated to CSBG, as the sponsor indicated in her remarks, "with language ensuring it is spent quickly to help communities rebuild housing, businesses, and public infrastructure in the most impacted and distressed areas affected by major natural disasters."44 Another $1 billion for CSBG was appropriated in P.L. 116-136, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). As stated in a Dear Colleague letter from the Office of Community Services in HHS, "The flexibility of CSBG extends to CARES funding, meaning eligible entities can support a broad array of services for the prevention, preparation, and response to COVID-19. This includes gap-filling services to address unmet needs such as mobile food delivery for the home-bound, innovative strategies such as the creation of community gardens or provision of mental health services on-site, and rapid responses to help families and individuals achieve self-sufficiency, find and maintain adequate housing, and other necessary activities to reduce the impact of the causes of poverty."45 The authorization of appropriations for CSBG and related activities expired at the end of FY2003, although Congress has continued to fund these programs through the annual appropriations process. Several attempts had been made at reauthorizing the program since then, though as of the cover date of this report none have been enacted. The two most recent reauthorization attempts are discussed below. On May 1, 2025, Representative Glenn Thompson introduced H.R. 3131, and it was referred to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. As of the cover date of this report, no further action on the bill has been taken. The bill seeks to reauthorize CSBG from FY2026 through FY2032, with appropriations authorized for $1 billion for each fiscal year. The bill would also separately authorize appropriations of $40 million each year for the discretionary programs (CED and RCD). This would be a change from current law which authorizes these programs to be funded via a percentage set-aside out of total amounts appropriated for the CSBG Act. Other provisions in the bill would amend the percentages set aside for training and technical assistance, the percentages used to determine the minimum state allotment at different appropriations levels, and the requirements related to the date by which funds need to be obligated by the states, in addition to other fiscal controls and reporting requirements. The bill also would set the criterion of eligibility for services, assistance, or resources provided directly to individuals or families through the CSBG grant program to 200% of the poverty line (as opposed to the poverty line itself).46 In the 117th Congress, H.R. 5129 passed the House; it was not taken up in the Senate. Had it been enacted, it would have authorized appropriations of $1 billion annually for each of FY2023 through FY2027, and such sums as may be necessary annually for FY2028 through FY2032. Other provisions in the bill included revisions to the percentages used to determine state minimum allotments, and the appropriations levels at which the minimum allotment would be increased; H.R. 3131 in the 119th Congress uses language similar to this bill. This appendix provides additional funding information for Community Services Block Grants and related activities. ($ in millions) FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 FY2024 Alabama 11.596 12.190 12.300 13.052 12.926 13.056 13.105 13.510 13.602 13.782 14.054 14.054 Alaska 2.467 2.498 2.522 2.668 2.610 2.638 2.650 2.617 2.634 2.675 2.733 2.733 Arizona 5.163 5.428 5.476 5.811 5.760 5.817 5.839 6.020 6.061 6.141 6.262 6.340 Arkansas 8.598 9.039 9.120 9.678 9.592 9.688 9.725 10.025 10.093 10.227 10.428 10.428 California 56.380 59.271 59.802 63.459 62.895 63.526 63.766 65.736 66.181 67.057 68.379 68.379 Colorado 5.492 5.774 5.826 6.182 6.127 6.188 6.219 6.412 6.455 6.540 6.669 6.669 Connecticut 7.627 8.006 8.077 8.571 8.495 8.580 8.613 8.879 8.939 9.057 9.236 9.236 Delaware 3.340 3.517 3.552 3.757 3.675 3.714 3.732 3.852 3.877 3.937 4.022 4.022 District of Columbia 10.389 10.922 11.020 11.693 11.590 11.706 11.750 12.113 12.195 12.357 12.600 12.600 Florida 18.378 19.321 19.494 20.686 20.502 20.708 20.786 21.428 21.573 21.859 22.290 22.290 Georgia 17.010 17.882 18.042 19.145 18.975 19.166 19.238 19.832 19.967 20.231 20.630 20.630 Hawaii 3.340 3.517 3.552 3.757 3.675 3.714 3.732 3.852 3.877 3.937 4.022 4.022 Idaho 3.304 3.479 3.513 3.716 3.635 3.674 3.691 3.810 3.835 3.894 3.978 3.978 Illinois 29.871 31.402 31.684 33.621 33.322 33.657 33.784 34.827 35.064 35.528 36.228 32.197 Indiana 9.207 9.679 9.766 10.363 10.271 10.374 10.413 10.735 10.808 10.951 11.167 11.167 Iowa 6.844 7.195 7.259 7.703 7.634 7.711 7.740 7.979 8.033 8.140 8.300 8.300 Kansas 5.161 5.426 5.475 5.809 5.758 5.816 5.838 6.018 6.059 6.139 6.260 6.260 Kentucky 10.660 11.207 11.308 11.999 11.892 12.012 12.057 12.429 12.514 12.679 12.929 12.929 Louisiana 14.845 15.606 15.746 16.475 16.329 16.493 16.555 17.066 17.182 17.409 17.753 17.753 Maine 3.334 3.510 3.545 3.750 3.699 3.736 3.750 3.866 3.892 3.944 4.021 4.021 Maryland 8.677 9.122 9.203 9.766 9.679 9.776 9.813 10.116 10.185 10.320 10.523 10.523 Massachusetts 15.755 16.472 16.620 17.636 17.479 17.655 17.722 18.270 18.394 18.637 19.004 19.004 Michigan 23.236 24.404 24.623 26.128 25.896 26.156 26.255 27.066 27.249 27.610 28.154 28.154 Minnesota 7.609 8.000 8.071 8.565 8.489 8.574 8.606 8.872 8.932 9.050 9.229 9.229 Mississippi 10.057 10.573 10.668 11.320 11.220 11.332 11.375 11.726 11.806 11.962 12.198 12.198 Missouri 17.498 18.395 18.560 19.695 19.520 19.716 19.790 20.402 20.540 20.812 21.222 21.222 Montana 3.070 3.232 3.264 3.453 3.377 3.413 3.423 3.533 3.556 3.611 3.689 3.689 Nebraska 4.408 4.634 4.675 4.961 4.917 4.966 4.974 5.127 5.162 5.230 5.334 5.334 Nevada 3.340 3.517 3.552 3.757 3.675 3.714 3.732 3.852 3.877 3.937 4.022 4.022 New Hampshire 3.340 3.517 3.552 3.757 3.675 3.714 3.732 3.852 3.877 3.937 4.022 4.022 New Jersey 17.323 18.211 18.375 19.498 19.325 19.519 19.592 20.198 20.335 20.604 21.010 21.010 New Mexico 3.467 3.645 3.678 3.902 3.868 3.927 3.942 4.064 4.091 4.145 4.227 4.227 New York 54.882 57.696 58.213 61.772 61.223 61.838 62.071 63.989 64.423 65.275 66.562 66.562 North Carolina 16.580 17.448 17.604 18.680 18.514 18.700 18.771 19.351 19.482 19.740 20.129 20.129 North Dakota 3.055 3.217 3.208 3.393 3.319 3.355 3.371 3.603 3.582 3.638 3.762 3.762 Ohio 24.649 25.913 26.145 27.744 27.497 27.773 27.878 28.739 28.934 29.317 29.895 29.895 Oklahoma 7.557 7.955 7.872 8.320 8.246 8.327 8.358 8.616 8.655 8.769 8.942 8.942 Oregon 5.042 5.300 5.348 5.675 5.625 5.681 5.702 5.879 5.918 5.997 6.115 6.115 Pennsylvania 26.772 28.144 28.397 30.133 29.865 30.165 30.279 31.214 31.426 31.842 32.469 32.469 Puerto Rico 26.639 28.005 28.256 29.983 29.717 30.015 30.129 31.059 31.270 31.684 32.308 32.308 Rhode Island 3.496 3.675 3.708 3.934 3.899 3.939 3.953 4.076 4.103 4.158 4.239 4.239 South Carolina 9.716 10.214 10.306 10.936 10.839 10.948 10.989 11.328 11.405 11.556 11.784 11.784 South Dakota 2.746 2.892 2.878 3.044 2.977 3.009 3.023 3.167 3.188 3.237 3.307 3.307 Tennessee 12.457 13.096 13.213 14.021 13.897 14.036 14.089 14.524 14.623 14.816 15.108 15.108 Texas 30.421 31.980 32.267 34.240 33.936 34.277 34.406 35.469 35.709 36.182 36.895 36.895 Utah 3.264 3.437 3.471 3.671 3.591 3.630 3.647 3.764 3.789 3.847 3.930 3.930 Vermont 3.340 3.517 3.552 3.754 3.672 3.712 3.729 3.852 3.877 3.937 4.022 4.022 Virginia 10.124 10.643 10.738 11.395 11.294 11.407 11.450 11.804 11.884 12.041 12.278 12.278 Washington 7.493 7.878 7.948 8.434 8.359 8.443 8.475 8.779 8.838 8.912 9.088 9.126 West Virginia 7.079 7.442 7.508 7.968 7.897 7.976 8.006 8.253 8.309 8.419 8.585 8.585 Wisconsin 7.694 8.088 8.161 8.660 8.583 8.669 8.702 8.970 9.031 9.151 9.331 9.331 Wyoming 3.340 3.517 3.327 3.519 3.442 3.479 3.495 3.608 3.631 3.688 3.767 3.767 Subtotal to States 617.133 648.649 654.042 693.610 686.873 693.818 696.463 718.128 722.920 732.544 747.112 743.197 American Samoa 0.868 0.914 0.923 0.977 0.955 0.966 0.970 1.001 1.008 1.023 1.046 1.046 Guam 0.822 0.865 0.874 0.924 0.904 0.914 0.918 0.948 0.954 0.969 0.990 0.990 Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 0.515 0.542 0.547 0.579 0.566 0.573 0.575 0.594 0.598 0.607 0.620 0.620 U.S. Virgin Islands 1.135 1.195 1.207 1.277 1.249 1.262 1.268 1.309 1.318 1.338 1.367 1.367 Subtotal to Territories 3.340 3.517 3.552 3.757 3.675 3.714 3.732 3.852 3.877 3.937 4.022 4.022 Subtotal to Tribes 4.790 5.239 5.750 6.363 6.278 6.325 6.360 6.465 6.572 6.708 6.800 6.684 625.263 657.405 663.344 703.729 696.826 703.857 706.555 728.444 733.369 743.189 757.934 753.903 (dollars in millions; includes only the CSBG block grant and no related activities unless noted) Fiscal Year President's Request Appropriation FY1982 — 314.50 FY1983 FY1984 316.68 FY1985 335.00 FY1986 320.60 FY1987 335.10 FY1988 325.52 FY1989 318.63 FY1990 322.09 FY1991 349.37 FY1992 360.00 FY1993 372.00 FY1994 372.00 397.00 FY1995 399.62 389.60 FY1996 391.50 389.60 FY1997 387.59 489.60 FY1998 414.72 489.69 FY1999 490.60 499.83 FY2000 500.00 527.62 FY2001 510.00 599.99 FY2002 599.99 649.97 FY2003 570.00 645.76 FY2004 494.96 641.94 FY2005 494.95 636.79 FY2006 629.99 FY2007 630.44 653.80 699.98 FY2010 700.00 700.00 700.00 678.64 350.00 677.35 346.30 635.28 FY2014 350.00 667.96 FY2015 344.75 673.99 FY2016 674.00 714.99 FY2017 674.00 714.65 FY2018 715.00 717.75 740.00 FY2021 744.99 FY2022 753.90 755.00 754.22 770.00 FY2024 770.00 770.00 FY2025 770.00 770.00 FY2026 Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on information in Department of Health and Human Services congressional budget justifications, the budget appendix, enacted appropriations laws and accompanying committee reports and tables, and archived CRS reports. It is possible that there may be years in which rescissions occurred that are not accounted for in the table.surveyannual data collection, the CSBG network provided services to 15.610 million individuals in 6.55.2 million families in FY2015.27 Of families for whom the survey captured demographic informationhouseholds in FY2022.34 The survey captured demographic information for 4.2 million of those households, and of those captured, more than 70% had incomes at or below federal poverty guidelines and almost a third of families43% were "severely poor" with incomes at or below 50% of the poverty guidelines.2835 Some 47% of families33% of households reported income that indicated participation in employment. About 88% of families that reported some income included either a worker, an unemployed job-seeker, or a retired worker.29 Almost half of the families36 Of those that reported their household structure in CSBG-eligible entity programs, about 45% of the households included children; of those, 5859% were headed by a single mother, 3633% by two parents, and 6% by a single father.3037 Looking at participants by age, the survey found that 3735.5% of individuals served were children age 17 or younger, and 2125.8% were age 55 or older.3138 About 5754% of individuals reported they were whiteWhite and 26% were African American. Almost 1928% were Black. Also, 21.5% of individuals reported their ethnicity as Hispanic or Latino, regardless of race.39
FY2023 Final(P.L. 117-328)
FY2024 Final(P.L. 118-47)
FY2025 Final(P.L. 119-4)
Appendix A.
Additional Funding Information
Total to States, Territories, and Tribes
Source: Data are from Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Community Services funding announcements available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ocs/resource/csbg-dear-colleague-letters.
Notes: According to 42 U.S.C. §9902(5), states are defined as "each of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands." In 42 U.S.C. §9906, which describes allotments and payments to states, subsection (d) indicates "In this section, the term "State" does not include Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands." To reflect these definitions, the table above omits Puerto Rico from the territories, and includes the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico in the subtotal to the remaining states.
Table A-2. Community Services Block Grant Appropriations HistoryFY1982-FY2025
100.00a
341.68b
2.85c
2.92d
3.86e
3.61e
310.00f
310.00f
0g
0h
0i
0j
0k
0l
FY2008m
0n
FY2009o
0p
FY2011q
FY2012r
FY2013s
0t
FY2019u
0t
FY2020v
0t
0t
FY2023w
0x
y
% of individuals reported their ethnicity as Hispanic or Latino, regardless of race.32
The survey collected information on potential barriers to self-sufficiency and reported that, of people served by the CSBG network in FY2015, approximately 27% had no health insurance (a decline from 32% in FY2013 and the same percentage without insurance as FY2014); 18% had disabilities; and 33% of participating adults older than 24 had no high school diploma or equivalency certificate.33
As of the date of this report, FY2018 funding for CSBG has been provided via a series of continuing resolutions (CRs).34 To date, the CRs fund most federal programs, including CSBG, at FY2017 levels less an across-the-board rescission of 0.6791%, through February 8, 2018. For CSBG, the FY2017 funding level was $715 million, while CED received $20 million and RCF $7.5 million. No funding was provided for IDAs in FY2017.
Prior to enactment of the CRs, the Administration proposed to eliminate funding for CSBG, CED, and RCF. Additionally, IDAs would have continued at zero funding under the Administration's proposal. HHS budget justifications stated that "[i]n a constrained budget environment, difficult funding decisions were made to ensure that federal funds are being spent as effectively as possible."35
The House Appropriations Committee approved a bill to fund the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education (LHHS) on July 24, 2017 (H.R. 3358). The bill proposed to reduce funding for CSBG to $600 million, to reduce funding for CED to $10 million, and to maintain RCF funding at $7.5 million. Additionally, the bill would not fund IDAs. The House Appropriations Committee report (H.Rept. 115-244) would direct HHS to issue a notice of funding availability prioritizing applicants for CED funds from "rural areas with high rates of poverty, unemployment, and substance abuse."
In addition, on August 16, 2017, the full House passed a bill (H.R. 3354) that incorporated multiple FY2018 appropriations bills, including that for LHHS. Funding for CSBG and related programs in H.R. 3354 was the same as the levels proposed in H.R. 3358.
The Senate Appropriations Committee reported its LHHS funding bill on September 7, 2017 (S. 1771). The bill would reduce funding for CSBG by $15 million, from $715 million to $700 million. Funding for CED and RCF would remain the same at approximately $20 million and $7.5 million, respectively, and IDAs would receive no funding. Similar to H.Rept. 115-244, the Senate Appropriations Committee report (S.Rept. 115-150) encourages CED funds to be prioritized for rural communities "to help them identify community service needs and improve upon the services provided to low-income individuals and families in such communities."
Table 1. FY2016-FY2017 Enacted and FY2018 Proposed Funding for CSBG and Related Activities
(Dollars in millions)
|
Program |
|
|
FY2018 President's Budget Proposal |
|
|
|
Community Services Block Grant |
715.00 |
714.65 |
0 |
600.00 |
700.00 |
|
Community Economic Development |
29.88 |
19.88 |
0 |
10.00 |
19.88 |
|
Rural Community Facilities |
6.50 |
7.50 |
0 |
7.50 |
7.50 |
|
Individual Development Accounts |
18.95 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Total for CSBG and Related Activities |
770.33 |
742.38 |
0 |
617.50 |
727.38 |
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Sources of data are agency budget justifications and congressional appropriations documents.
For FY2017, Congress provided just over $742 million for CSBG and related activities as part of the FY2017 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 115-31), enacted on May 5, 2017. Prior to enactment of P.L. 115-31, CSBG and most federal programs had been funded pursuant to a series of continuing resolutions.37 Of the amount appropriated, nearly $715 million went to the block grant, the same amount that was appropriated in FY2016. Funding for CED was reduced compared to FY2016, from $30 million to $20 million. Funding for RCF increased by $1 million compared to FY2016, from $6.5 million to $7.5 million. For the first time since IDAs were created in 1998, they received no funding. The accompanying Explanatory Statement did not provide a reason for eliminating funding for IDAs. The Senate Appropriations Committee-reported bill (described below) recommended no funding for IDAs, but the House Appropriations Committee-reported bill would have provided level funding of approximately $19 million.
The House Appropriations Committee reported its FY2017 spending bill for the Departments of Labor, HHS, Education, and related agencies on July 22, 2016 (H.R. 5926, H.Rept. 114-699). The bill included level funding for CSBG and all related programs, except for Rural Community Facilities, which the House committee proposed to increase by $1 million. Recommended spending for CSBG and related activities in FY2017 would have totaled $771 million under H.R. 5926, compared to FY2016 spending of $770 million.
In its report accompanying the FY2017 spending bill, the House committee expressed concern that block grant funds "are not reaching local agencies and community residents promptly." The report contained language urging HHS to "take all necessary action" to ensure funds are allocated and made available in a timely way, and also to "engage with stakeholders" on new data collection and federal reporting initiatives. The committee further stated that it wanted an update on these efforts.
The report also explained the House committee's decision to continue funding for CED (which the Obama Administration, as described below, proposed to zero out). The report stated that CED, which requires that low-income individuals fill at least 75% of jobs created, is the only federal economic development program with such highly targeted job creation. Likewise, the committee would have maintained and increased funding for RCF, despite the Obama Administration's request for zero funding, explaining that some of the small rural communities served by the program may not be eligible for larger programs administered by the Department of Agriculture or the Environmental Protection Agency.
Finally, the House committee, like the Senate committee and as requested by the Obama Administration (see below), would have required the Secretary to issue performance standards for states and territories receiving block grant funds, and would have required the states and territories to implement these standards by September 30, 2017, and report on their progress. This language built upon language in previous appropriations laws and reflected actions underway at HHS.
Additional statutory provisions requested by the Obama Administration, described below, were not included in the recommended House bill language.
The Senate Appropriations Committee reported its FY2017 Labor-HHS-ED spending bill on June 9, 2016 (S. 3040, S.Rept. 114-274), recommending $715 million for the block grant (the same as the House recommendation and the FY2016 level) and no funding for any of the related activities. The committee agreed with the Obama Administration that both CED and RCF are similar to programs administered by the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency. The committee further stated that IDAs began in 1998 as a demonstration program and, thus, no further funding is recommended.
As noted above, the Senate committee, like the House committee, would have included legislative language requested by the Obama Administration related to the issuance and implementation of performance standards for states and territories. However, the Senate language did not include the Obama Administration's other proposed statutory provisions.
President Obama submitted his FY2017 budget to Congress in February 2016, requesting a total of $693 million for CSBG and related activities. This amount included $674 million for the block grant, nothing for either CED or RCF, and level funding ($19 million) for IDAs. The amount requested for the block grant was the same as provided in FY2015, but was $41 million less than appropriated for FY2016.
As mentioned above, the Obama Administration requested certain legislative language to be included in the FY2017 appropriations bill, including provisions requiring states and territories to implement national performance standards. This language built on provisions in the FY2016 appropriations law requiring the Secretary to issue such national standards, and was part of a larger effort to establish a new performance management framework for CSBG.
In the FY2017 budget request, the Obama Administration also requested language that would provide flexibility in FY2017 and FY2018 for states to exceed the authorizing law's 5% cap on state administrative costs, as long as the excess funds were used for modernization of data systems and integration with other social services programs.
The authorization of appropriations for CSBG and related activities expired at the end of FY2003, although Congress has continued to fund these programs through the annual appropriations process. Until 2014, no reauthorization attempt had been made since the 109th Congress, when legislation was introduced, but not considered, in the House (H.R. 341). That legislation was largely identical to a bill that was passed by the House during the 108th Congress (H.R. 3030). The Senate also passed a reauthorization bill during the 108th Congress (S. 1786), but conferees never met to resolve differences between the House and Senate bills.
In both the 113th and 114th Congresses, for the first time since the 109th Congress, legislation was introduced in the House to reauthorize CSBG and certain related activities. In the 113th Congress, Representative Fitzpatrick introduced the Community Economic Opportunity Act, with bipartisan support, on January 13, 2014 (H.R. 3854). The bill was referred to the House Education and the Workforce Committee, but no further action occurred. Representative Fitzpatrick reintroduced a mostly identical version of the bill (with some changes) in the 114th Congress (H.R. 1655), where it was again referred to the House Education and the Workforce Committee but received no further action.38
H.R. 1655 would have made numerous changes in language throughout the statute, with more specific provisions regarding the roles and responsibilities of the federal Office of Community Services, state lead agencies, and local agency governing boards. The bill would have required federal, state, and local entities to establish performance requirements and benchmarks, and included provisions intended to increase accountability for the use of federal funds and to ensure timely distribution and expenditure of these funds. The bill had extensive provisions on monitoring of state and local compliance with applicable law and regulations, corrective action, and withholding, reduction, or elimination of federal funds.
H.R. 1655 proposed to authorize appropriations of $850 million per year for FY2014-FY2018, with "such sums as necessary" authorized for FY2019-FY2023.39 Like current law, the bill would have required the Secretary to reserve 0.5% of appropriations for grants to territories, but would have increased the amount reserved for training and technical assistance from 1.5% to 2%. Remaining funds would have been allocated among states (including DC and Puerto Rico). While no change would have been made in the basic state allocation formula, the minimum allotment would have increased to one-half of 1% or, if appropriations exceeded $850 million in a given year, to three-quarters of 1%. Under current law, each state gets at least one-quarter of 1% or, if appropriations exceed $345 million, one-half of 1%. Current law provisions that hold states harmless at their FY1990 levels, and that establish a maximum allotment percentage, would have been eliminated under the bill.
The bill would have required states to reserve at least 2% of block grant funds received for a new Community Action Innovations Program. These funds would have gone to local eligible entities or their associations to carry out innovative projects that test or replicate promising practices to reduce poverty conditions, and to disseminate the results of these projects. These funds could have been used to satisfy nonfederal matching requirements when used in conjunction with other federal programs that have such requirements, and could have been used to serve participants with incomes up to 80% of area median income.
State applications and plans would have been subject to the Secretary's approval under H.R. 1655, a change from current law. Likewise, local community action plans would have been newly subject to the state's approval. Like the 113th Congress version of the bill (H.R. 3854), H.R. 1655 would have allowed states to request waivers from the Secretary to increase the income eligibility level for CSBG activities. However, H.R. 1655 also included a provision found in current law that allows states to increase eligibility to 125% of the poverty line whenever the state determines the change serves the objectives of the program, without the need for a waiver. This provision had not been included in H.R. 3854.
In designating new or replacement eligible entities, H.R. 1655 would have given priority to existing Community Action Agencies (which would have been explicitly defined for the first time) and public agencies could no longer be designated unless they were already serving as an eligible entity. H.R. 3854 would have allowed two or more local eligible entities to propose a merger, subject to state approval, if they determined their local service areas would be better served by a single agency. If approved, these agencies would have been eligible to receive Merger Incentive Funds from amounts reserved by the Secretary. H.R. 1655 had the same language with regard to mergers, but also would have allowed states to approve "privatization" proposals from public organizations that determined they could serve their areas more effectively as private eligible entities.
Current law provisions affecting the participation of religious organizations in CSBG-funded activities would have been retained by H.R. 1655. These provisions require federal, state, or local governments to consider religious organizations on the same basis as other nongovernmental organizations, and prohibit discrimination against such organizations on the basis of their religious character. Like current law, the pending legislation would have provided that a religious organization's exemption under Section 702 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, regarding its employment practices, is not affected by participating in or receiving funds from programs under the CSBG Act. The bill also would have established a new provision, prohibiting religious organizations that provide assistance under the act from discriminating against a program beneficiary or prospective beneficiary on the basis of that person's religion or religious belief.
The bill would have separately authorized "such sums as necessary" for related federal activities, including Community Economic Development and Rural Community Facilities, during FY2014-FY2023. Current law requires that 9% of total appropriations be set aside for these related activities; however, this has never occurred in practice and the bill would have eliminated this language.40
Appendix A.
Additional Funding Information
This appendix provides additional funding information for Community Services Block Grants and related activities.
Table A-1. Community Services Block Grant Funding Distributed to States, Tribes, and Territories FY2013-FY2017
(Dollars in millions)
|
FY2013 |
FY2014 |
FY2015 |
FY2016 |
FY2017 |
|
|
Alabama |
11.596 |
12.190 |
12.300 |
13.052 |
12.926 |
|
Alaska |
2.467 |
2.498 |
2.522 |
2.668 |
2.610 |
|
Arizona |
5.163 |
5.428 |
5.476 |
5.811 |
5.760 |
|
Arkansas |
8.598 |
9.039 |
9.120 |
9.678 |
9.592 |
|
California |
56.380 |
59.271 |
59.802 |
63.459 |
62.895 |
|
Colorado |
5.492 |
5.774 |
5.826 |
6.182 |
6.127 |
|
Connecticut |
7.627 |
8.006 |
8.077 |
8.571 |
8.495 |
|
Delaware |
3.340 |
3.517 |
3.552 |
3.757 |
3.675 |
|
District of Columbia |
10.389 |
10.922 |
11.020 |
11.693 |
11.590 |
|
Florida |
18.378 |
19.321 |
19.494 |
20.686 |
20.502 |
|
Georgia |
17.010 |
17.882 |
18.042 |
19.145 |
18.975 |
|
Hawaii |
3.340 |
3.517 |
3.552 |
3.757 |
3.675 |
|
Idaho |
3.304 |
3.479 |
3.513 |
3.716 |
3.635 |
|
Illinois |
29.871 |
31.402 |
31.684 |
33.621 |
33.322 |
|
Indiana |
9.207 |
9.679 |
9.766 |
10.363 |
10.271 |
|
Iowa |
6.844 |
7.195 |
7.259 |
7.703 |
7.634 |
|
Kansas |
5.161 |
5.426 |
5.475 |
5.809 |
5.758 |
|
Kentucky |
10.660 |
11.207 |
11.308 |
11.999 |
11.892 |
|
Louisiana |
14.845 |
15.606 |
15.746 |
16.475 |
16.329 |
|
Maine |
3.334 |
3.510 |
3.545 |
3.750 |
3.699 |
|
Maryland |
8.677 |
9.122 |
9.203 |
9.766 |
9.679 |
|
Massachusetts |
15.755 |
16.472 |
16.620 |
17.636 |
17.479 |
|
Michigan |
23.236 |
24.404 |
24.623 |
26.128 |
25.896 |
|
Minnesota |
7.609 |
8.000 |
8.071 |
8.565 |
8.489 |
|
Mississippi |
10.057 |
10.573 |
10.668 |
11.320 |
11.220 |
|
Missouri |
17.498 |
18.395 |
18.560 |
19.695 |
19.520 |
|
Montana |
3.070 |
3.232 |
3.264 |
3.453 |
3.377 |
|
Nebraska |
4.408 |
4.634 |
4.675 |
4.961 |
4.917 |
|
Nevada |
3.340 |
3.517 |
3.552 |
3.757 |
3.675 |
|
New Hampshire |
3.340 |
3.517 |
3.552 |
3.757 |
3.675 |
|
New Jersey |
17.323 |
18.211 |
18.375 |
19.498 |
19.325 |
|
New Mexico |
3.467 |
3.645 |
3.678 |
3.902 |
3.868 |
|
New York |
54.882 |
57.696 |
58.213 |
61.772 |
61.223 |
|
North Carolina |
16.580 |
17.448 |
17.604 |
18.680 |
18.514 |
|
North Dakota |
3.055 |
3.217 |
3.208 |
3.393 |
3.319 |
|
Ohio |
24.649 |
25.913 |
26.145 |
27.744 |
27.497 |
|
Oklahoma |
7.557 |
7.955 |
7.872 |
8.320 |
8.246 |
|
Oregon |
5.042 |
5.300 |
5.348 |
5.675 |
5.625 |
|
Pennsylvania |
26.772 |
28.144 |
28.397 |
30.133 |
29.865 |
|
Puerto Rico |
26.639 |
28.005 |
28.256 |
29.983 |
29.717 |
|
Rhode Island |
3.496 |
3.675 |
3.708 |
3.934 |
3.899 |
|
South Carolina |
9.716 |
10.214 |
10.306 |
10.936 |
10.839 |
|
South Dakota |
2.746 |
2.892 |
2.878 |
3.044 |
2.977 |
|
Tennessee |
12.457 |
13.096 |
13.213 |
14.021 |
13.897 |
|
Texas |
30.421 |
31.980 |
32.267 |
34.240 |
33.936 |
|
Utah |
3.264 |
3.437 |
3.471 |
3.671 |
3.591 |
|
Vermont |
3.340 |
3.517 |
3.552 |
3.754 |
3.672 |
|
Virginia |
10.124 |
10.643 |
10.738 |
11.395 |
11.294 |
|
Washington |
7.493 |
7.878 |
7.948 |
8.434 |
8.359 |
|
West Virginia |
7.079 |
7.442 |
7.508 |
7.968 |
7.897 |
|
Wisconsin |
7.694 |
8.088 |
8.161 |
8.660 |
8.583 |
|
Wyoming |
3.340 |
3.517 |
3.327 |
3.519 |
3.442 |
|
Subtotal to States |
617.133 |
648.649 |
654.042 |
693.610 |
686.873 |
|
American Samoa |
0.868 |
0.914 |
0.923 |
0.977 |
0.955 |
|
Guam |
0.822 |
0.865 |
0.874 |
0.924 |
0.904 |
|
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands |
0.515 |
0.542 |
0.547 |
0.579 |
0.566 |
|
U.S. Virgin Islands |
1.135 |
1.195 |
1.207 |
1.277 |
1.249 |
|
Subtotal to Territories |
3.340 |
3.517 |
3.552 |
3.757 |
3.675 |
|
Subtotal to Tribes |
4.790 |
5.239 |
5.750 |
6.363 |
6.278 |
|
Total to States, Territories, and Tribes |
625.263 |
657.405 |
663.344 |
703.729 |
696.826 |
Source: Data are from Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Community Services funding announcements available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ocs/resource/csbg-dear-colleague-letters.
|
Fiscal Year |
Authorization Level |
President's Request |
Appropriation |
|
FY1982 |
|
— |
314.50 |
|
FY1983 |
|
|
|
|
FY1984 |
|
|
316.68 |
|
FY1985 |
|
|
335.00 |
|
FY1986 |
|
|
320.60 |
|
FY1987 |
|
3.61 |
335.00 |
|
FY1988 |
|
|
325.52 |
|
FY1989 |
|
|
318.63 |
|
FY1990 |
|
|
322.09 |
|
FY1991 |
|
|
349.37 |
|
FY1992 |
|
|
360.00 |
|
FY1993 |
|
|
372.00 |
|
FY1994 |
|
372.00 |
397.00 |
|
FY1995 |
|
399.62 |
389.60 |
|
FY1996 |
|
391.50 |
389.60 |
|
FY1997 |
|
387.59 |
489.60 |
|
FY1998 |
|
414.72 |
489.69 |
|
FY1999 |
|
490.60 |
499.83 |
|
FY2000 |
|
500.00 |
527.62 |
|
FY2001 |
|
510.00 |
599.99 |
|
FY2002 |
|
599.99 |
649.97 |
|
FY2003 |
|
570.00 |
645.76 |
|
FY2004 |
|
494.96 |
641.94 |
|
FY2005 |
— |
494.95 |
636.79 |
|
FY2006 |
— |
|
629.99 |
|
FY2007 |
— |
|
630.44 |
|
— |
|
653.80 |
|
— |
|
699.98 |
|
FY2010 |
— |
700.00 |
700.00 |
|
— |
700.00 |
678.64 |
|
— |
350.00 |
677.35 |
|
— |
346.30 |
635.28 |
|
FY2014 |
— |
350.00 |
667.96 |
|
FY2015 |
— |
344.75 |
673.99 |
|
FY2016 |
— |
674.00 |
714.99 |
|
FY2017 |
— |
674.00 |
714.65 |
|
FY2018 |
— |
|
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on information in Department of Health and Human Services congressional budget justifications, the budget appendix, enacted appropriations laws and accompanying committee reports and tables, and archived CRS reports. It is possible that there are years in which rescissions occurred that are not accounted for in the table.
Notes: In addition to amounts shown for FY2009 and FY2010, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, P.L. 111-5) included a one-time appropriation of $1 billion for CSBG, which was available for obligation in those two years.
a. From FY1982 through FY1984, CSBG was authorized as part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (P.L. 97-35).
b. Of the amount requested by the President in FY1983, $9 million would have come from a transfer from the Rural Development Loan Fund. In addition, the President's budget proposed to close out the CSBG program.
c. In addition to annual appropriations for CSBG in FY1983 (P.L. 97-377), Congress appropriated $25 million as part of a supplemental appropriations act (P.L. 98-8).
d. The FY1984 budget recommended funding sufficient to terminate and close out the CSBG program.
e. In FY1985 and FY1986, CSBG was authorized as part of the Human Services Reauthorization Act (P.L. 98-558).
f. The FY1985 budget recommended no funding for CSBG, stating that it duplicated other programs. The appropriation would have funded staff salaries for an "orderly closeout" of the program.
g. The FY1986 budget proposed sufficient funds to close out the CSBG program.
h. From FY1987 through FY1990, CSBG was authorized as part of the Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-425).
i. The FY1988 and FY1989 President's budgets proposed to phase out the CSBG program over a four-year period starting in the subsequent fiscal year.
j. The FY1990 budget proposed no new funding for CSBG, stating that "[t]his action is necessary given current budget constraints and the need for more effective control of the Federal budget deficit. State and local governments must assume a greater share of responsibility for providing the assistance previously made available by the CSBG program."
k. From FY1991 through FY1994, CSBG was authorized as part of the Augustus F. Hawkins Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-501).
l. The FY1991 President's budget proposed no new funding for CSBG. The budget justifications stated that it "proposes to fund CAA [Community Action Agency] administrative and other costs through allocations included in the appropriations for the various Federal programs which are partially administered by CAA's [sic]."
m. In FY1992, the President's budget recommended no new funding for CSBG. The budget justifications stated "[t]he Community Action Agencies and other local organizations that historically have received Community Services and discretionary funds have been successful in obtaining funding from other sources. In general, Community Services funds now represent a small fraction of the operating budgets of most of these organizations. Thus the more successful of these organizations no longer are dependent on Community Services funding."
n. The FY1993 President's budget proposed no funding for CSBG. Budget justifications observed that since the creation of CSBG, funding had increased for other activities to support low-income people, and that "services will continue to be provided through funds from other federal resources, as well as State and local resources."
o. From FY1995 through FY1998, CSBG was authorized as part of the Human Services Amendments of 1994 (P.L. 103-252).
p. From FY1999 through FY2003, CSBG was authorized as part of the Community Opportunities, Accountability, and Training and Educational Services Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-285).
q. From FY2004 through the present fiscal year, CSBG has not been authorized.
r. According to the FY2006 budget justifications for CSBG, the President's budget proposed "to focus economic and community development activities through a more targeted and unified program to be administered by the Department of Commerce."
s. According to the FY2007 budget justifications for CSBG, the President's budget proposed no new funding for CSBG "because it lacks performance measures, does not award grants on a competitive basis nor hold grantees accountable for program results."
t. Funding reflects a 1.747% across-the-board reduction, as mandated by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161).
u. The FY2008 President's budget would have provided no funding for CSBG because "it does not award grants on a competitive basis and states cannot hold their grantees accountable for program results as reflected in their low PART [Program Assessment Rating Tool] assessment."
v. Funding levels shown for FY2009 were included in the FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-8) and do not include the additional $1 billion provided to the CSBG under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, P.L. 111-5).
w. The FY2009 President's budget proposed no new funding for CSBG because "the program does not award grants on a competitive basis and states cannot hold their grantees accountable for program results as reflected in the program's PART assessment of Results Not Demonstrated."
x. Funding reflects a 0.2% across-the-board rescission as mandated by the FY2011 Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 112-10).
y. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (P.L. 112-74) mandated that appropriated amounts were subject to an across-the-board rescission of 0.189%. Amounts shown in this table reflect that rescission, as implemented by HHS and displayed in the FY2013 justifications for the Administration for Children and Families.
z. The source for numbers shown for FY2013 is the "all-purpose table" published by the Administration for Children and Families at HHS on May 20, 2013. Numbers shown reflect funding provided by the FY2013 Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 113-6) and the effects of budget sequestration and an across-the-board rescission of 0.2%.
aa. The President's FY2018 budget requested no funding for CSBG. The budget justifications stated that "[i]n a constrained budget environment, difficult funding decisions were made to ensure that federal funds are being spent as effectively as possible. The CSBG accounts for approximately five percent of total funding received by local agencies that benefit from these funds. Although states have discretion to reduce or terminate funding to local agencies that do not meet state-established performance standards, CSBG continues to be distributed by a formula not tied directly to the local agency performance."
|
Fiscal Year |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FY1982 |
3.00 |
— |
— |
6.00 |
— |
— |
— |
4.00 |
19.63 |
|
FY1983 |
2.88 |
— |
— |
5.76 |
— |
— |
— |
3.84 |
18.84 |
|
FY1984 |
2.88 |
— |
— |
5.76 |
— |
— |
— |
3.84 |
18.84 |
|
FY1985 |
3.04 |
— |
— |
6.13 |
— |
— |
— |
4.05 |
19.92 |
|
2.70 |
— |
— |
5.9 |
— |
— |
— |
3.60 |
17.60 |
|
FY1987 |
2.69 |
1.00 |
— |
5.87 |
2.50 |
— |
— |
3.57 |
17.61 |
|
FY1988 |
2.97 |
2.87 |
19.10 |
6.32 |
2.39 |
— |
— |
3.93 |
18.91 |
|
FY1989 |
2.95 |
3.51 |
18.92 |
9.67 |
2.42 |
— |
— |
4.01 |
20.25 |
|
FY1990 |
2.95 |
3.50 |
21.86 |
10.62 |
2.41 |
|
— |
4.01 |
20.25 |
|
FY1991 |
3.03 |
4.05 |
25.00 |
10.83 |
2.44 |
|
— |
4.10 |
20.49 |
|
FY1992 |
|
4.05 |
25.00 |
|
7.00 |
— |
|
| |
|
FY1993 |
2.95 |
3.80 |
19.84 |
9.42 |
6.94 |
|
— |
4.96 |
20.73 |
|
FY1994 |
2.95 |
7.995 |
19.84 |
12.00 |
7.94 |
|
— |
5.46 |
22.23 |
|
FY1995 |
— |
— |
19.75 |
12.00 |
8.68 |
|
— |
3.27 |
23.69 |
|
FY1996 |
— |
— |
— |
11.52 |
4.00 |
|
— |
3.01 |
|
|
FY1997 |
— |
— |
— |
12.00 |
4.00 |
|
— |
3.50 |
|
|
FY1998 |
— |
— |
— |
14.00 |
3.99 |
|
— |
3.49 |
|
|
FY1999 |
— |
— |
— |
15.00 |
5.00 |
|
9.99 |
3.50 |
|
|
FY2000 |
— |
— |
— |
15.00 |
6.31 |
8.33 |
10.00 |
5.31 |
21.71 |
|
FY2001 |
— |
— |
— |
16.00 |
6.31 |
5.50 |
24.89 |
5.32 |
24.53 |
|
FY2002 |
— |
— |
— |
17.00 |
7.31 |
5.50 |
24.94 |
7.00 |
26.98 |
|
FY2003 |
— |
— |
— |
16.89 |
7.28 |
5.46 |
24.83 |
7.20 |
27.08 |
|
FY2004 |
— |
— |
— |
17.89 |
7.24 |
5.43 |
24.70 |
7.18 |
26.91 |
|
FY2005 |
— |
— |
— |
17.86 |
7.18 |
5.44 |
24.70 |
7.24 |
27.30 |
|
FY2006 |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
5.38 |
24.44 |
7.29 |
27.00 |
|
FY2007 |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
5.38 |
24.45 |
7.29 |
27.02 |
|
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
5.29 |
24.02 |
7.89 |
31.47 |
|
FY2009 |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
5.29 |
24.02 |
10.00 |
36.00 |
|
FY2010 |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
2.64 |
23.91 |
10.00 |
36.00 |
|
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
1.64 |
23.98 |
4.99 |
17.96 |
|
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
19.87 |
4.98 |
29.94 |
|
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
18.59 |
4.67 |
28.08 |
|
FY2014 |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
19.00 |
5.97 |
29.88 |
|
FY2015 |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
18.95 |
6.50 |
29.88 |
|
FY2016 |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
18.95 |
6.50 |
29.88 |
|
FY2017 |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
7.50 |
19.88 |
Source: The table was compiled by CRS using various sources: congressional budget justifications, budget appendices, appropriations materials including appropriations bills and committee reports and tables, and archived CRS reports. It is possible that there are years in which rescissions occurred that are not accounted for in the table.
a. Authorization of assistance for Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers, National Youth Sports, Rural Community Facilities, and Community Economic Development was provided as part of the original CSBG Act (included in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, P.L. 97-35, Section 681).
b. The Demonstration Partnership Program was authorized by Section 408 of P.L. 99-425, the Human Resources Reauthorization Act of 1986.
c. Emergency Community Services for the Homeless was authorized by the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (P.L. 100-77), Title VII, Subtitle D.
d. Community Food and Nutrition was originally authorized as part of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-452). It was repealed at the end of FY1981, but then reauthorized in FY1985 as an activity of the Office of Community Services in HHS as part of the Human Services Reauthorization Act (P.L. 98-558). Between FY1981 and FY1987, the program did not receive funding.
e. Job Opportunities for Low-Income Individuals was initially authorized as a demonstration program as part of the Family Support Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-485), Section 505. It was amended by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-193), Section112.
f. Individual Development Accounts were authorized as a demonstration program as part of the Assets for Independence Act, which was included in the Coats Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-285), Title IV.
(dollars in millions; includes related activities as well as the block grant) Fiscal Year Authorization Level FY1982 FY1983 FY1984 FY1985 FY1986 FY1987 FY1988 FY1989 FY1990 FY1991 FY1992 FY1993 FY1994 FY1995 FY1996 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004-FY2025 Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on information in Department of Health and Human Services congressional budget justifications, the budget appendix, enacted appropriations laws and accompanying committee reports and tables, and archived CRS reports. ($ in millions) Fiscal Year
Source: The table was compiled by CRS using various sources. The sources used are Congressional Budget Justifications; budget appendices; appropriations materials including appropriations bills and committee reports and tables; and archived CRS reports. It is possible that there may be years in which rescissions occurred that are not accounted for in the table.g. Funding for FY1986 is from the archived CRS Report, ". The President's FY2018 budget requested no funding for CSBG. The budget justifications stated that "[i]n a constrained budget environment, difficult funding decisions were made to ensure that federal funds are being spent as effectively as possible. The CSBG accounts for approximately five percent of total funding received by local agencies that benefit from these funds. Although states have discretion to reduce or terminate funding to local agencies that do not meet state-established performance standards, CSBG continues to be distributed by a formula not tied directly to the local agency performance." This language was used in the budget justifications for the following three years as well.
u. The Additional Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Act, 2019 (P.L. 116-20) provided an additional $25 million for relief from disasters caused by hurricanes, typhoons, wildfires, earthquakes, tornadoes, and floods; see https://acf.gov/ocs/toolkit/csbg-disaster-supplemental-resources (accessed June 12, 2025).
v. An additional $1 billion in supplemental funds was provided through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), P.L. 116-136.
w. An additional $25 million in supplemental funds was provided through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (P.L. 117-328), in response to hurricanes Fiona and Ian; see https://acf.gov/ocs/toolkit/csbg-disaster-supplemental-resources (accessed June 12, 2025).
x. The President's recommendations on FY2026 discretionary funding levels included no funding for CSBG (memorandum from OMB Director Russell Vought to Sen. Susan Collins, Chair of Senate Appropriations Committee, May 2, 2025). See also the Technical Supplement to the 2026 Budget: Appendix, pp. 378-379, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BUDGET-2026-APP/pdf/BUDGET-2026-APP.pdf#page=385.
y. Appropriations levels have not been finalized as of the cover date of this report.
Table A-3. Community Services Block Grant Act Authorization History: FY1982-FY2025
389.38a
389.38a
389.38a
400.00b
415.00b
390.00c
409.50c
430.00c
451.50c
451.50d
460.00d
480.00d
500.00d
525.00e
such sums as necessary (ssn)e
ssne
ssne
ssnf
ssnf
ssnf
ssnf
ssnf
—g
Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers Assistancea
Demonstration Partnership Programb
Emergency Community Services for the Homelessc
National Youth Sportsa
Community Food and Nutritiond
Job Opportunities for Low-Income Individualse
Individual Development Accountsf
Rural Community Facilitiesa
Community Economic Developmenta
FY1982
3 .00
—
—
6 .00
—
—
—
4 .00
19 .63
FY1983
2 .88
—
—
5 .76
—
—
—
3 .84
18 .84
FY1984
2 .88
—
—
5 .76
—
—
—
3 .84
18 .84
FY1985
3 .04
—
—
6 .13
—
—
—
4 .05
19 .92
2 .7
—
—
5 .9
—
—
—
3 .6
17 .6
FY1987
2 .69
1 .00
—
5 .87
2 .50
—
—
3 .57
17 .61
FY1988
2 .97
2 .87
19 .1
6 .32
2 .39
—
—
3 .93
18 .91
FY1989
2 .95
3 .51
18 .92
9 .67
2 .42
—
—
4 .01
20 .25
FY1990
2 .95
3 .50
21 .86
10 .62
2 .41
3 .50h
—
4 .01
20 .25
FY1991
3 .03
4 .05
25 .00
10 .83
2 .44
4 .50i
—
4 .10
20 .49
FY1992
3 .03j
4 .05
25 .00
12 .00j
7 .00
—
4 .10j
22 .00j
FY1993
2 .95
3 .80
19 .84
9 .42
6 .94
5 .00l
—
4 .96
20 .73
FY1994
2 .95
7 .995
19 .84
12 .00
7 .94
5 .50l
—
5 .46
22 .23
FY1995
—
—
19 .75
12 .00
8 .68
5 .50l
—
3 .27
23 .69
FY1996
—
—
—
11 .52
4 .00
5 .50m
—
3 .01
27 .33m
FY1997
—
—
—
12 .00
4 .00
5 .50m
—
3 .50
27 .33m
FY1998
—
—
—
14 .00
3 .99
5 .50m
—
3 .49
30 .01m
FY1999
—
—
—
15 .00
5 .00
5 .50m
9 .99
3 .50
30 .04m
FY2000
—
—
—
15 .00
6 .31
8 .33
10 .00
5 .31
21 .71
FY2001
—
—
—
16 .00
6 .31
5 .50
24 .89
5 .32
24 .53
FY2002
—
—
—
17 .00
7 .31
5 .50
24 .94
7 .00
26 .98
FY2003
—
—
—
16 .89
7 .28
5 .46
24 .83
7 .20
27 .08
FY2004
—
—
—
17 .89
7 .24
5 .43
24 .70
7 .18
26 .91
FY2005
—
—
—
17 .86
7 .18
5 .44
24 .70
7 .24
27 .30
FY2006
—
—
—
—
—
5 .38
24 .44
7 .29
27 .00
FY2007
—
—
—
—
—
5 .38
24 .45
7 .29
27 .02
—
—
—
—
—
5 .29
24 .02
7 .89
31 .47
FY2009
—
—
—
—
—
5 .29
24 .02
10 .00
36 .00
FY2010
—
—
—
—
—
2 .64
23 .91
10 .00
36 .00
—
—
—
—
—
1 .64
23 .98
4 .99
17 .96
—
—
—
—
—
—
19 .87
4 .98
29 .94
—
—
—
—
—
—
18 .59
4 .67
28 .08
FY2014
—
—
—
—
—
—
19 .00
5 .97
29 .88
FY2015
—
—
—
—
—
—
18 .95
6 .50
29 .88
FY2016
—
—
—
—
—
—
18 .95
6 .50
29 .88
FY2017
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
7 .50
19 .88
FY2018
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
8 .00
19 .88
FY2019
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
8 .91
19 .68
FY2020
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
10 .00
20 .38
FY2021
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
10 .00
20 .38
FY2022
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
11 .00
21 .38
FY2023
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
12 .00
22 .38
FY2024
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
12 .00
22 .38
FY2025
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
12 .00
22 .38
," by [author name scrubbed] and Kimberly T. Henderson, September 1, 1987. Appropriated funding was reduced to levels presented in the table pursuant to the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit reduction law. CRS could not identify a source that showed final funding levels to the same decimal place as other funding levels in the table.
h. According to the Senate reportReport accompanying the FY1991 appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education (H.R. 5257, S.Rept. 101-516), $3.5 million "is being awarded in fiscal year 1990 for 3-year grants to nonprofit organizations such as community development corporations" for programs authorized under Section 505 of the Family Support Act.
i. The FY1991 funding level for Job Opportunities for Low-Income Individuals (JOLI) was in Conference Report. (H.Rept. 101-908) to accompany the FY1991 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act (H.R. 5257, P.L. 101-517).
j. Funding for FY1992 is in the Conference Report (H.Rept. 102-282) accompanying the FY1992 appropriations act (P.L. 102-170).
k. CRS could not locate a funding level for JOLI in FY1992.
l. From FY1993-FY1995, funds for JOLI were set aside within the Social Services Research Account.
m. From FY1996-FY1999, JOLI funds were provided as a set-aside within Community Economic Development (CED).
n. Funding reflects a 1.747% across-the-board reduction, as mandated by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161).
o. Funding reflects a 0.2% across-the-board rescission, as mandated by P.L. 112-10, the FY2011 Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act.
p. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (P.L. 112-74) mandated that appropriated amounts were subject to an across-the-board rescission of 0.189%. Amounts shown in this table reflect that rescission, as implemented by HHS and displayed in the FY2013 justifications for the Administration for Children and Families.
q. The source for numbers shown in FY2013 is the "all-purpose table" published by the Administration for Children and Families at HHS on May 20, 2013. Numbers shown reflect funding provided by the FY2013 Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 113-6) and the effects of budget sequestration and an across-the-board rescission of 0.2%.
Appendix B.
Government Accountability Office (GAO) Review
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report on the CSBG program in July 2006, in response to a request by the House Education and the Workforce Committee. 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.41
GAO concluded that the Office of Community Services (OCS) lacked "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 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). GAO recommended that OCS should
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.42 Subsequently, on March 1, 2007, HHS issued another information memorandum, responding to GAO's first two recommendations and providing a schedule of states that would receive federal monitoring in each of the next three years (FY2007-FY2009).43
The October 2006 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.44
HHS developed a CSBG state assessment tool to help states prepare for federal monitoring,45 and on August 24, 2007, issued a strategic plan for the CSBG program, which was intended to describe training, technical assistance, and capacity-building activities and promote accountability within the CSBG.46 As discussed in Appendix A of this report, HHS began funding the national community economic development training and capacity development initiative in FY2009. More recently, HHS issued an information memorandum on May 4, 2011, announcing a reorganization and new "strategy for excellence" in the CSBG training and technical assistance program for FY2011.47
Author Contact Information
Acknowledgments
[author name scrubbed], former CRS Specialist in Domestic Social Policy and Division Research Coordinator, was the original author of this report.
| 1. |
Appendix B.
Federal Poverty Guidelines
Section 673(2) of the Community Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. §9902(2)) provides a definition of the term poverty line to mean: This definition refers to the set of FPG published by HHS for programmatic usage, as distinguished from the official poverty measure published by the Census Bureau for statistical purposes.48 The FPG represents a simplified set of dollar amounts (compared with the poverty measure as computed by the Census Bureau), below which a person, family, or household (depending on the context) is considered to be in poverty. Staff at HHS have traditionally performed the computations to update the dollar amounts for inflation, and performed the simplifications through averaging and rounding, in accordance with administrative practices established by the Office of Economic Opportunity (the agency that had originally administered the CSBG program). In addition to its usage for the CSBG program, the language above establishing the FPG is referred to as a definition of poverty in many federal programs, such as the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), the Low-Income Household Water Assistance Program (LIHWAP), the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the National School Lunch Program, the National School Breakfast Program, and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), to name a few examples. For a number of years, staff within the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) have been responsible for computing and updating the FPG. Updates to the FPG are typically released annually in January or February. The 2025 update was published in the Federal Register on January 17, 2025.49 On March 27, 2025, HHS Secretary Kennedy announced there would be a "dramatic restructuring" at HHS, including a reduction in workforce of about 10,000 full-time employees. It is not clear if this office will retain the responsibility for computing the FPG updates moving forward. Karen Spar, former CRS Specialist in Domestic Social Policy and Division Research Coordinator, was the original author of this report. | ||||||||||||||||||
| 2. |
For a brief history of federal antipoverty policy broadly and a discussion of recurring themes, see CRS Report R43731, Poverty: Major Themes in Past Debates and Current Proposals, by | ||||||||||||||||||
| 3. | Gene Falk and Karen Spar.
42 U.S.C. §9921. 42 U.S.C. §9912. See an ACF organization chart, last updated on November 15, 2024, at https://acf.gov/about/offices. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, "HHS Announces Transformation to Make America Healthy Again," press release, March 27, 2025, https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/hhs-restructuring-doge.html. Letter from U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (Ranking Member of the Committee on Finance) and U.S. Senator Bernard Sanders (Ranking Member of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions), to the Honorable Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., April 15, 2025, https://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/acf_reduction_in_force_letter.pdf. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, FY2026 Administration for Children, Families, and Communities Budget Justification, https://acf.gov/sites/default/files/documents/olab/ACF-FY-2026-CJ-for-web.pdf. See also, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, FY2026 Budget in Brief, https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/fy-2026-budget-in-brief.pdf. Letter from Russell T. Vought, Director, Office of Management and Budget, to The Honorable Susan Collins, May 2, 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Fiscal-Year-2026-Discretionary-Budget-Request.pdf. See also U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, FY2026 Administration for Children, Families, and Communities Budget Justification, https://acf.gov/sites/default/files/documents/olab/ACF-FY-2026-CJ-for-web.pdf. For more information about the ACF Office of Community Services and the programs it administers, visit https://acf.gov/ocs. | ||||||||||||||||||
The Urban Institute conducted an evaluation of the use of CSBG administrative funds by state and local agencies, published in February 2012, which is available at http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412601-Community-Services-Block-Grant-Administrative-Expenses.pdf. | |||||||||||||||||||
42 U.S.C. §9908(b)(8). The law contains four exceptions to the prohibition against states reducing funding to an eligible entity below its proportional share of funding in the previous year: changes in recent Census data, designation of a new eligible entity, severe economic dislocation, or failure of an eligible entity to comply with state requirements. See 42 U.S.C. §9908(c). | |||||||||||||||||||
| 6. |
The Office of Community Services administers several additional programs; however, these are not considered part of the cluster of CSBG-related activities and are not discussed in this report. These programs include the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) and the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). |
||||||||||||||||||
For more information on this program, see | |||||||||||||||||||
| 8. |
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, FY2018 Administration for Children and Families Budget Justifications, p. 150, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/olab/acf_master_cj_508_compmay_21_2017.pdf (hereinafter FY2018 ACF Budget Justifications). |
||||||||||||||||||
| 9. |
Lists of HFFI grantees from FY2011 through FY2016 are available on the HHS website, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ocs/programs/community-economic-development/healthy-food-financing. |
||||||||||||||||||
| 10. |
For more information about the HHS component of this program, see http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/programs/community-economic-development/healthy-food-financing. |
||||||||||||||||||
| 11. |
For more information about this program, also known as the Rural Community Development Program, see http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/programs/rcd. |
||||||||||||||||||
| 12. |
FY2018 ACF Budget Justifications, p. 149. |
||||||||||||||||||
| 13. |
Ibid., p. 151. |
||||||||||||||||||
| 14. |
For more information on IDAs, see http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/programs/afi. Also see CRS Report RS22185, Individual Development Accounts (IDAs): Background on Federal Grant Programs to Help Low-Income Families Save, by [author name scrubbed]; and the most recent annual report to Congress on the program by HHS, "Assets for Independence Program: Status at the Conclusion of the Fifteenth Year," available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ocs/fy2014_15th_afi_report_to_congress_final_8_5_16b.pdf. |
||||||||||||||||||
| 15. |
IDAs are codified at 42 U.S.C. §604 note. |
||||||||||||||||||
| 16. |
These were the Refund to Rainy Day Savings Act (S. 2797), which would have authorized IDAs at $25 million through FY2021, and the Saving Our Next Generation Act (S. 473), which would have reauthorized the program through FY2020. |
||||||||||||||||||
| 17. |
See the Community Services Block Grant Annual Report 2016, National Association for State Community Services Programs, Washington, DC, February 2017, p. 8, available at http://www.nascsp.org/data/files/csbg_publications/annual_reports/2016/2016%20annual%20report_final_01%2017%2017_full.pdf (hereinafter 2016 CSBG Annual Report). |
||||||||||||||||||
| 18. |
See, for example, Community Services Block Grant Report to Congress, FY2013, p. 7, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ocs/rtc_csbg_fy2013.pdf . CSBG Reports to Congress are available on the HHS website, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ocs/resource/csbg-report-to-congress-0. |
||||||||||||||||||
| 19. | https://acf.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ocs/hhs-2024-acf-ocs-ee-1965rev3.pdf#page=10. Further details for prospective applicants are available in explanatory videos at https://acf.gov/ocs/programs/ced/ced-information-prospective-applicants, and in each year's NOFO. For more information about this program, see https://acf.gov/ocs/programs/rcd. Senate Committee on Appropriations, Explanatory Statement for Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2023, https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/LHHSFY23REPT.pdf#page=205 HHS Office of Community Services, Rural Community Development Program Overview, FY2021 and 2022, https://acf.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ocs/RCD-Overview-2023.pdf. HHS Office of Community Services, RCD Fact Sheet, https://acf.gov/ocs/fact-sheet/rcd-fact-sheet. Further information for grantees is available at https://acf.gov/ocs/policy-guidance/rcd-policy-and-guidance. See, for example, Community Services Block Grant Report to Congress, Fiscal Year 2022, p. 7, https://acf.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ocs/RPT_CSBG_Congressional_FY2022.pdf, hereinafter CSBG FY2022 Report to Congress. CSBG Reports to Congress are available on the HHS website, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ocs/resource/csbg-report-to-congress-0. | ||||||||||||||||||
|
2016 CSBG Annual Report, p.7. |
|||||||||||||||||||
| 21. |
Ibid., p. 52. |
||||||||||||||||||
| 22. |
Ibid., p. 55. |
||||||||||||||||||
| 23. |
Ibid., Appendix Table 23-1. |
||||||||||||||||||
| 24. |
Ibid., Appendix Table 23-3. |
||||||||||||||||||
| 25. |
Ibid., Appendix Tables 23-2, 23-4, and 23-5. |
||||||||||||||||||
| 26. |
Ibid., Appendix Tables 23-2 and 23-3. |
||||||||||||||||||
| 27. |
Ibid., p. 46. |
||||||||||||||||||
| 28. |
Ibid. |
||||||||||||||||||
| 29. |
Ibid., p. 47. |
||||||||||||||||||
| 30. |
Ibid., p. 48. |
||||||||||||||||||
| 31. |
Ibid., p. 50. |
||||||||||||||||||
| 32. |
Ibid., p. 49. |
||||||||||||||||||
| 33. |
Ibid., pp. 50-51. |
||||||||||||||||||
| 34. |
The Continuing Appropriations Act, 2018, and Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Requirements Act, 2017 (P.L. 115-56), enacted on September 8, 2017, funded federal programs, including CSBG, until December 8, 2017. A second CR (P.L. 115-90) extended funding through December 22, 2017, a third CR (P.L. 115-96) extended funding through January 19, 2018, and a fourth CR (H.R. 195) provided funding through February 8, 2018. |
||||||||||||||||||
| 35. |
FY2018 ACF Budget Justifications, p. 144. |
||||||||||||||||||
| 36. |
For background on FY2017 funding for HHS and related agencies, see CRS Report R44478, Status of FY2017 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations, by [author name scrubbed], [author name scrubbed], and [author name scrubbed]. |
||||||||||||||||||
| 37. |
P.L. 114-223 provided funding through December 9, 2017, P.L. 114-254 through April 28, 2017, and P.L. 115-30 through May 5, 2017. |
||||||||||||||||||
| 38. |
In addition to H.R. 1655, the multi-purpose Saving Our Next Generation Act (S. 473) was also introduced in the 114th Congress. It would have reauthorized CSBG with no changes through FY2014, and was referred to the Senate Finance Committee. |
||||||||||||||||||
| 39. |
The most recent CSBG authorization law (P.L. 105-285) did not specify an amount but authorized "such sums as necessary" for FY1999 through FY2003. The most recent appropriations law (P.L. 115-31) provided $715 million for the block grant in FY2017. |
||||||||||||||||||
| 40. |
Most recently, P.L. 115-31 appropriated $20 million for Community Economic Development and $7.5 million for Rural Community Facilities in FY2017. (See the section of this report on funding activity.) The third currently funded "related activity"—Individual Development Accounts—is not authorized under the Community Services Block Grant Act, and would not have been reauthorized by H.R. 1655. |
||||||||||||||||||
| 41. |
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). |
||||||||||||||||||
| 42. |
Office of Community Services (OCS) Information Memorandum, Transmittal No. 97, dated 10/10/06: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/resource/im-no-97-guidance-on-the-csbg-requirement-to-monitor-eligible-entities. |
||||||||||||||||||
| 43. |
Office of Community Services (OCS) Information Memorandum, Transmittal No. 98, dated 3/1/07: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/resource/im-no-1. The most recent monitoring schedule was provided in OCS Information Memorandum Transmittal No. 117, dated August 25, 2010, and covers FY2011-FY2013: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/resource/no-117-three-year-csbg-monitoring-schedule-ffy-2011-ffy-2013. |
||||||||||||||||||
| 44. |
See discussion of this survey earlier in this report. |
||||||||||||||||||
| 45. |
Office of Community Services (OCS) Information Memorandum, Transmittal No. 102: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ocs/im_no_102_csbg_monitoring_checklist.pdf. |
||||||||||||||||||
| 46. |
Office of Community Services (OCS) Information Memorandum, Transmittal No. 103, dated 8/24/07: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ocs/im_no_103_csbg_strategic_plan_final_strategic_plan.pdf. |
||||||||||||||||||
| 47. |
Office of Community Services (OCS) Information Memorandum, Transmittal No. 123, dated 5/4/11: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/resource/reorganization-of-csbg-t-ta-resources-a-new-strategy-for-excellence. |
CSBG FY2022 Report to Congress, p.15.
The term limited purpose agency, according to an instructional note issued by HHS, "refers to a CSBG eligible entity that was designated as a limited purpose agency under Title II of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 for the fiscal year 1981, that served the general purposes of a community action agency under Title II of the Economic Opportunity Act; did not lose its designation as a limited purpose agency under Title II of the Economic Opportunity Act as a result of failure to comply with that Act; and has not lost its designation as a CSBG eligible entity under the CSBG Act" (see https://acf.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ocs/COMM_CSBG_Annual%20Report%20V2.pdf#page=7). While the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 did not include the phrase limited purpose agency, under Section 205 in Title II of that act, the Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity was authorized to make grants to, or contract with, public or private nonprofit agencies that carried out "programs which are components of a community action program and which are designed to achieve the purposes of this part" (see https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-78/pdf/STATUTE-78-Pg508.pdf#page=11).
CSBG FY2022 Report to Congress, p. 19.
CSBG FY2022 Report to Congress, p. 21.
CRS computations using dollar amounts from CSBG FY2022 Report to Congress, Appendix Tables B-23-1 through B-23-5.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
CSBG FY2022 Report to Congress, p. 26.
CSBG FY2022 Report to Congress, p. 26.
CSBG FY2022 Report to Congress, p. 27
CSBG FY2022 Report to Congress, p. 28. Of those reporting, 55% reported having no children (single or two adults); by subtraction, the remaining 45% of households had children.
CSBG FY2022 Report to Congress, p. 30.
CSBG FY2022 Report to Congress, p. 29.
CSBG FY2022 Report to Congress, pp. 30-31.
P.L. 118-83, Division A, Section 101.
P.L. 118-47, Division D, Title II, and House Committee Print 55-008, H.R. 2882 / P.L. 118-47 Legislative Text and Explanatory Statement. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT-118HPRT55008/pdf/CPRT-118HPRT55008.pdf#page=718.
The FY2018 to FY2021 budget bills were introduced during the 115th and 116th Congresses. In the 115th Congress, the Senate and House majorities were the same party as the president; in the 116th, the president's party retained majority in the Senate and was in the minority in the House.
Rep. Nita Lowey, "Supplemental Appropriations Act 2019," remarks in the House, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 165 no. 78 (May 10, 2019), p. H3688, https://www.congress.gov/116/crec/2019/05/10/CREC-2019-05-10-pt1-PgH3687-4.pdf.
Dear Colleague Letter #CSBG-DCL-2022-43, "Expending CSBG CARES Funds," August 4, 2022, https://acf.gov/ocs/policy-guidance/csbg-dcl-2022-43-expending-csbg-cares-funds-fy-2022.
Under current law, as stated in 42 U.S.C. §9902(2), "Whenever a State determines that it serves the objectives of the block grant program established under this chapter, the State may revise the poverty line to not to exceed 125 percent of the official poverty line otherwise applicable under this paragraph."
42 U.S.C. §9902(2) at https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title42-section9902&num=0&edition=prelim.
For a summary of the distinction between the FPG and the official Census poverty thresholds, and a brief history of the FPG, see CRS Report R44780, An Introduction to Poverty Measurement, by Joseph Dalaker at https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44780#_Toc177565649. Further explanation, including answers to frequently asked questions, computational details, and previously published versions of the FPG are available at https://aspe.hhs.gov/topics/poverty-economic-mobility/poverty-guidelines.
Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, "Annual Update of the HHS Poverty," 90 Federal Register 5917-5918, January 17, 2025.