Community Development Block Grants:
Funding Issues in the 112th Congress and
Recent Funding History
Eugene Boyd
Analyst in Federalism and Economic Development Policy
April 6, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41754
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress

---

Community Development Block Grants: Funding Issues in the 112th Congress

Summary
In the coming weeks and months Congress will consider legislation appropriating funds for the
remainder of FY2011 and for FY2012. The budget debate will establish national priorities and
will take place within the context of growing concerns about the need to address federal budget
deficits, the national debt, and a sluggish economic recovery following the longest and deepest
recession since the Great Depression. The Obama Administration and the 112th Congress may
consider and debate a number of approaches to spur economic activity and job growth, including
federal public works and community and economic development programs. In addition, the
Administration and Congress must arrive at a consensus on how to address long term deficit
reduction, including spending cuts. The Department of Housing and Urban Development’s
(HUD) Community Development Fund (CDF), which includes the Community Development
Block Grants (CDBG), are among the programs that Congress may consider candidates for
funding reduction or elimination.
On February 19, 2011, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1, a bill that would fund federal
agencies for the remainder of FY2011. The House-passed version of H.R. 1 recommends an
appropriation of $1.500 billion for the Community Development Block Grants and related
programs. The $1.500 billion included in the House-passed bill is 66.3% less than the $4.450
billion appropriated for FY2010. Should Congress approve a significant reduction in funding it
may consider several options to mitigate the impact of a sudden disruption or reduction in federal
assistance, including targeting assistance to a smaller number of communities; converting the
program to a competitive grant; requiring matching funds from recipients; or establishing a multi-
year phaseout of the program.
Once Congress completes action on the FY2011 budget it may then consider the Obama
Administration’s FY2012 budget proposals, including the proposals for the CDF account. On
February 14, 2011, the Obama Administration submitted its FY2012 budget recommendations for
congressional consideration. The President’s proposed budget recommends $3.804 billion for the
CDF account. This is 14.5% below the account’s FY2010 funding level and 60.6% more than the
amount recommended by the House for FY2011. The Administration has proposed a restructuring
of the CDF account by minimizing, through the transfer or termination, activities not directly
related to the CDBG program by authorizing statute. The Administration’s FY2012 budget
proposes to:
• reduce funding for CDBG formula grants by 6.6% from $3.943 billion
appropriated in FY2010 to $3.684 billion;
• eliminate funding for the Neighborhood Initiative and Economic Development
Initiative programs;
• eliminate funding for Section 107 activities;
• transfer its Sustainable Communities Initiative to a new stand alone account; and
• convert Section 108 loan guarantees to a fee-based program.
This report will be updated as events warrant.

Congressional Research Service

---

Community Development Block Grants: Funding Issues in the 112th Congress

Contents
Recent Developments.................................................................................................................. 1
Fiscal Year 2011 Funding (H.R. 1) .............................................................................................. 1
House Version................................................................................................................. 2
Senate Amendment ......................................................................................................... 3
Impact and Implications of Proposed Cut .............................................................................. 4
Policy Options to Mitigate Impacts of Significant Cuts to CDBG .......................................... 5
Target Assistance to Smaller Number of Communities..................................................... 5
Convert the Program to a Competitive Grant ................................................................... 5
Require Matching Funds from Recipients........................................................................ 5
Multi-Year Phaseout........................................................................................................ 5
FY2012 Appropriations............................................................................................................... 5
The President’s FY2012 Budget Request............................................................................... 6
Sustainable Communities Initiatives (SCI) ...................................................................... 8
Section 108 Loan Guarantees .......................................................................................... 8
Estimated Distribution of CDBG Formula Funds................................................................... 9
Recent Funding History ............................................................................................................ 12
Formula Grants ................................................................................................................... 13
Impact of Inflation on CDBG-Formula Allocations ....................................................... 14
CDBG-Linked Set-Asides and Earmarks............................................................................. 15
Earmarks Dominate Set-Aside Activities ....................................................................... 17
Special Appropriations ........................................................................................................ 18
Proposed Rescission of Neighborhood Stabilization Program Funds .............................. 19

Figures
Figure 1. CDF Appropriations: FY2000 to FY2010 ................................................................... 12
Figure 2. CDBG Funding in Current and Constant Dollars: FY2000-FY2010 ............................ 15
Figure 3. CDF Set Asides in Current and Constant Dollars: FY2000 to FY2010 ........................ 16
Figure 4. CDF Earmarks and Set-Asides: FY2000 to FY2010 ................................................... 17

Tables
Table 1. CDBG and Related Appropriations: FY2010 Actual and FY2011Request....................... 2
Table 2. Average CDBG Allocation Actual 2010 and Projected FY2011 (H.R. 1)......................... 4
Table 3. CDBG and Related Appropriations: FY2010 Actual and FY2012 Proposed.................... 7
Table 4. Actual Allocation of FY2010 CDBG Formula Grants to States and Entitlement
Communities, Projected Allocation for FY2011 Under H.R. 1, and the President’s
FY2012 Proposed CDBG Formula Funding ............................................................................. 9
Table 5. CDF Appropriations: FY2000 to FY2010..................................................................... 13
Table 6. Number of CDBG Grantees and Average Allocation: FY2000 to FY2010..................... 14
Congressional Research Service

---

Community Development Block Grants: Funding Issues in the 112th Congress

Table A-1. CDF Set-Asides from FY2000 to FY2010 ................................................................ 20

Appendixes
Appendix. CDF Set-Asides: FY2000 to FY2010 ....................................................................... 20

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 21

Congressional Research Service

---

Community Development Block Grants: Funding Issues in the 112th Congress

Recent Developments
On February 19, 2011, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1, a bill that would fund federal
agencies for the remainder of FY2011. The House-passed version of H.R. 1 recommends a full-
year appropriation of $1.500 billion for the programs included in the Department of Housing and
Urban Development’s (HUD) Community Development Fund (CDF) account. The CDF account
includes funding for formula-based Community Development Block Grants and related
programs. The $1.500 billion included in the House-passed bill is 66.3% less than the $4.450
billion appropriated for CDF activities for FY2010. A few days earlier, on February 14, 2011, the
Obama Administration released its proposed budget for FY2012. The President’s proposed budget
recommends $3.804 billion for the CDF account. This is 14.5% below the account’s FY2010
funding level and 60.6% more than the amount recommended by the House for FY2011. In the
coming weeks, as the 112th Congress attempts to reach consensus regarding funding levels for the
remainder of FY2011 and for FY2012 it will do so amid heighten concerns about federal
spending, deficit reduction, and national priorities.
Fiscal Year 2011 Funding (H.R. 1)
The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, administered by the Department of
Housing and Urban Development, is the federal government’s largest and most widely available
source of financial assistance supporting state and local government-directed neighborhood
revitalization, housing rehabilitation, and economic development activities. These formula-based
grants are allocated to more than 1,100 entitlement communities (metropolitan cities with
populations of 50,000, principle cities of metropolitan areas, and urban counties), the 50 states,
Puerto Rico, and the insular areas of American Samoa, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and the
Northern Mariana Islands. Grants are used to implement plans intended to address housing,
community development and economic development needs, as determined by local officials.
Funding for HUD’s Community Development Fund (CDF), which includes the CDBG program,
are among the programs that have been targeted for reduction as part of congressional efforts to
reduce the federal budget deficit. On February 19, 2011, the House-passed H.R. 1, a bill
providing continuing annual appropriations for FY2011.1 The House passed version of H.R. 1
would reduce total funding for discretionary programs by $61 billion below the amount requested
by the Obama Administration. Included among the programs and accounts targeted for cuts by the
House-passed version of the H.R. 1 is the CDF account, which includes the formula-based CDBG
program. On March 9, 2011, the Senate considered, but did not pass, a substitute bill that would
have appropriated $3.990 billion for CDBG activities. The bill would have also funded the
Administration’s Sustainable Communities Initiative (SCI) at its FY2010 appropriations level of
$148 million.

1 Under Sec. 109 of P.L. 111-242, Continuing Appropriations Act for FY2011, a program whose complete distribution
of its FY2011 appropriations would have occurred at the beginning of the fiscal year is prohibited from allocating funds
or awarding grants. According to Sec. 109, the basis for this prohibition is that the complete distribution of program
funds would impinge on final funding prerogatives of Congress. Given this directive, in the absence of a full-year
appropriation and based on past practices, HUD may not allocate CDBG funds for the current fiscal year until Congress
has passed a final appropriations measure for FY2011.
Congressional Research Service
1

---

Community Development Block Grants: Funding Issues in the 112th Congress

House Version
The House version of H.R. 1 would reduce the CDF account by 66.3% below the account’s
FY2010 funding level of $4.450 billion. Included in the CDF account is the CDBG program,
which includes the formula-based grants awarded to Puerto Rico, the 50 states, and eligible
metropolitan area-based cities and counties (entitlement communities); insular areas (Guam, the
Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands; and American Samoa), and Indian tribes. The
House-passed version of H.R. 1 prohibits funds from being used for earmarks2 and the
Administration’s Sustainable Communities Initiative (SCI) does not include instructions on how
funds are to be allocated among the components of the CDBG program: states and entitlement
communities, insular areas, and Indian tribes. The program’s governing statute3 and previous
appropriations acts have required that 70% of funds be allocated to so-called entitlement
communities4 and 30% to states and Puerto Rico for distribution to nonentitlement communities
after specific amounts are set aside for insular areas, Indian tribes, and other programs included in
the account.
Table 1 includes the actual distribution of funds appropriated to entitlement communities, states,
insular areas, and Indian tribes, and non-CDBG set-asides and earmarks included in the CDF
account for FY2010. Table 1 also includes the Administration’s budget request for FY2011 and
the projected estimated distribution of funds in the account based on the language included in
H.R. 1. Given the minimal instructions included in the House-passed version of H.R. 1, figures
included in Table 1 assume that funds will be allocated among the CDBG components based on
the same percentage distribution of funds allocated for FY2010, except where noted.
Table 1. CDBG and Related Appropriations: FY2010 Actual and FY2011Request
(in millions of dollars)
FY2011
H.R. 1
FY2010
Administration
H.R. 1
Senate
Program
Enacted
Request
House
Committee
CDF, Total
4,450.0
4,380.1
1,500.0 4,230.0
CDBG-formula
3,943.2
3,943.3
1,478.0
3,943.2
Entitlement Communities
2,760.2
2,760.3
1,034.6
2,760.2
States 1,183.0
1,183.0
443.4
1,183.0
CDBG Insular Areas
6.9
6.9
7.0a 7.0
CDBG Indian Tribes
64.3
64.3
15.0b 40.0
CDBG Subtotal
4,014.4
4,014.4
1,500.0
3,990.0

2 In previous years, the CDF account included two earmarked subaccounts: the Economic Development Initiative (EDI)
and the Neighborhood Initiative (NI). H.R. 1 explicitly prohibits funds being used for earmarks. See Section 1102 of
H.R. 1.
3 42 U.S.C. 5301, et seq.
4 Entitlement communities include principle cities of metropolitan areas, cities in metropolitan areas whose population
exceeds 49,999 persons, and statutorily defined urban counties. In general, these are metropolitan-based counties whose
population meets or exceeds 200,000 persons, excluding the population of entitlement cities within its boundaries.
Congressional Research Service
2

---

Community Development Block Grants: Funding Issues in the 112th Congress

FY2011
H.R. 1
FY2010
Administration
H.R. 1
Senate
Program
Enacted
Request
House
Committee
Sustainable Communities
148.5
148.5
0.0
148.5
Regional Integration Planning Grants
99.0
99.0 0.0
0.0
Community Challenge Grants
39.6
39.6 0.0
0.0
Capacity Building Clearinghouse
— —
0.0 0.0
HUD-DOT Integration Research
9.9
9.9 0.0
0.0
Catalytic Competition Grants
—
148.5
0.0
0.0
Rural Innovation Fundc 24.8
—
0.0
24.8
University Community Fundd 24.8
24.8
0.0
24.8
Neighborhood Initiative
21.9
—
0.0
0.0
Economic Development Initiative
171.1
—
0.0
0.0
Transfer to the Transformation Initiativee
44.5
43.8
0.0
42.3
Non-CDBG Set-asides and earmarks
435.6
365.6
0.0
240.0
Source: Prepared by CRS based on Administration’s FY2012 budget submission and H.R. 1.
Notes: Totals and subtotals may not correspond to actual amounts due to rounding. Italics indicates entry’s
amount is a component of the item immediately above it.
a. 42 U.S.C. 5306(a)(2) requires HUD to set aside $7 million, as specified by 42 U.S.C. 5307(1)(a), for insular
areas before al ocating funds to states and entitlement communities.
b. 42 U.S.C. 5306(a)(1) requires HUD to set aside 1% of the annual amount appropriated for al ocation to
Indian tribes. Congress has modified this requirement in annual appropriations acts setting aside a specific
amount. H.R. 1 does not include a specific amount for Indian tribes.
c. Prior to FY2007, CDBG-linked university activities were included in this account. For FY2009, program
funds of $23 million were appropriated under a separate HUD account, Research and Technology.
d. Before FY2010, the program was funded under a separate account, Rural Housing and Economic
Development.
e. Subtotal for the Transformation Initiative assumes transfer of 1% of amounts appropriated from programs
included in the CDF account.
Senate Amendment

On March 9, 2011, Senator Inouye, Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, submitted
S. Admt. 149, an amendment to H.R. 1, in the nature of a substitute, for Senate consideration. S.
Admt. 149, which was defeated by a vote of 42 to 58, included a provision that would have
appropriated $4.230 billion for CDF activities. This included $3.990 billion for the CDBG
program. The amendment would have frozen CDBG formula grant funds allocated to states and
entitlement communities at the FY2010 appropriation level of $3.943 billion, while insular areas
would have received $7 million and Indian tribes $40 million (1% of the amount appropriated as
Congressional Research Service
3

---

Community Development Block Grants: Funding Issues in the 112th Congress

required by statute).5 The Senate bill would have also funded the Rural Innovation Fund,
University Community Fund, and SCI programs at their FY2010 funding levels.
Impact and Implications of Proposed Cut
H.R. 1, as passed by the House, would result in a 62% reduction in the CDBG program’s average
allocation to states and local governments. The average grant amount for entitlement
communities would decline from $2.4 million to $900,000 while state allocations would decline
from an average of $23.2 million to $8.8 million assuming no change in the number of
entitlement communities qualifying for a direct allocation of funds (Table 2).
According to the U.S. Conference of Mayors and other organizations representing state and local
governments, the proposed reduction in funding will significantly impact the long-term
community and economic development plans of the states and local governments forcing them to
postpone or terminate activities that support private sector economic development and job
creation efforts, public facilities, and public services.6 The proposed reduction in funding also
would undercut the resources of non-profit organizations serving as CDBG sub-grantees. These
entities are involved in managing a range of CDBG-funded public services, facilities, and
activities, including homeless shelters, public safety activities, and job counseling. Supporters of
the program contend that the proposed cuts will disproportionately affect low and moderate
income households given the statutory requirement that communities allocated at least 70% of the
program’s funds to activities principally benefitting low and moderate income persons.7
Table 2. Average CDBG Allocation Actual 2010 and Projected FY2011 (H.R. 1)
(dollars in millions)
Number of
Projected average
eligible entities
FY2010 average
allocation under

FY2010
allocation
H.R. 1 (House)
Entitlement communities
1,163
$2.4
$0.9
States 51
23.2
8.7
Insular areas
4
1.7
1.7
Source: HUD allocations at data at http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/about/budget/budget10/index.cfm and CRS,
based on information included in Table 1.

5 42 U.S.C. § 5306.
6 See Housing and Development.Com, “Mayors Lobbying Senate to Restore CDBG Funding,” Community
Development Digest, February 25, 2010, p. 1; and U.S. Conference of Mayors, “Community Development Block
Grants Work for America,” February 2011, http://www.usmayors.org/cdbg/. National League of Cities, “NLC
ACTION ALERT: Community Development Block Grant Recess Strategy,” press release, February 2011,
http://www.nlc.org/advocating_for_ cities/legaction center.aspx.
7 The program’s authorizing statue and regulations define low and moderate income persons as those persons whose
income do not exceed 80% of the median income of the jurisdiction.
Congressional Research Service
4

---

Community Development Block Grants: Funding Issues in the 112th Congress

Policy Options to Mitigate Impacts of Significant Cuts to CDBG
Should Congress approve a significant reduction in funding, it may consider several options in
the program’s structure aimed at minimizing disruptions, facilitating project closeout, and
targeting assistance to communities with the greatest needs.
Target Assistance to Smaller Number of Communities
Congress could revise the program’s qualifying criteria by limiting the number of eligible
communities. This could be achieved by revising the program’s allocation formulas to target
assistance to areas with the greatest need. In order to receive a direct allocation communities
could be required to meet a minimum threshold amount based on certain factors. The Bush
Administration sought support for a change in the program’s formula that would have eliminated
entitlement funding for some communities and subjected others to deep funding cuts.8
Convert the Program to a Competitive Grant
Congress could consider converting the program to a competitive grant program. Funds could be
awarded based on a set of criteria intended to measure each proposal’s potential long-term
impact. Factors such as the amount of private sector, state, or non-profit dollars committed to
program activities could be among the criteria used to award grants.
Require Matching Funds from Recipients
Congress could also consider establishing a matching fund requirement as a condition for future
assistance. The program could limit the amount of program funds that may be used to fund a
project or program activities to no more than a certain percentage of the project’s total costs
established by Congress.
Multi-Year Phaseout
In an effort to minimize disruption, Congress could honor multi-year commitments and plan for
an orderly phaseout of the program. Congress may consider legislation that would allow for
multi-year closeout program activities. The legislation would prohibit any new projects from
being undertaken. Congress could reduce annual appropriations over a multi-year period allowing
any projects currently underway to be completed within a specified time frame. To compensate
for reduced funding communities could be allowed to amend current plans.
FY2012 Appropriations
In the coming months Congress will consider and debate the Administration’s budget
recommendations for fiscal year 2012. It will undertake these efforts with an eye on reducing
federal spending in an effort to address the federal deficit. It may balance this concern with a

8 For a review of the Bush Administration’s proposal see CRS Report RL32823, An Overview of the Administration's
Strengthening America's Communities Initiative, by Eugene Boyd et al.
Congressional Research Service
5

---

Community Development Block Grants: Funding Issues in the 112th Congress

focus on funding federal activities that support private sector job creation in an effort to combat a
national unemployment rate that remains high and a U.S. economy that continues to be mired in a
so-called “jobless recovery” following the recession that began in December 2007.
The President’s FY2012 Budget Request
On February 14, 2011, the Obama Administration submitted its FY2012 budget recommendations
for congressional consideration. The Administration has proposed restructuring the CDF account
by minimizing, through transfer or termination, activities not directly related by authorizing
statute to the CDBG program. The Administration’s budget proposes to:
• reduce funding for CDBG formula grants;
• eliminate funding for the Neighborhood Initiative (NI) and Economic
Development Initiative (EDI) programs;
• eliminate funding for Section 107 activities;
• transfer its Sustainable Communities Initiative (SCI) to a new stand-alone
account; and
• convert Section 108 loan guarantees to a fee-based program.
The Administration’s FY2012 budget recommends a total funding level of $3.804 billion
for programs funded under the CDF account. The proposed funding level represents a
14.5% reduction below the account’s FY2010 enacted appropriations level.
Included in the account is the CDBG formula-based program that awards funds directly
to states and entitlement communities (these are metropolitan-based cities and counties).
The Administration proposes to reduce this component of the CDF by 6.6% from $3.943
billion appropriated in FY2010 to $3.684 billion (see Table 3). It also proposes to fund
CDBG grants to insular areas and Indian tribes at $7 million and $65 million,
respectively, as required the CDBG program’s authorizing statute.
In addition, the Administration is requesting $25 million for Rural Innovation Grants and $23
million for Guam beyond the amount it would receive as an insular area. Rural Innovation Funds
would be awarded competitively and targeted to rural areas whose populations do not exceed
20,000 persons to support innovative housing and economic development efforts, while
assistance to Guam is intended to address community development needs arising from the
relocation of military facilities and personnel to the island.
As in previous years, the Administration’s budget does not include funding for Economic
Development Initiatives and Neighborhood Initiatives grants, two programs subject to
congressional earmarks. The Administration states that it opposes earmarking NI and EDI funds
and supports the regular CDBG formula program.
Congressional Research Service
6

---

Community Development Block Grants: Funding Issues in the 112th Congress

Table 3. CDBG and Related Appropriations: FY2010 Actual and FY2012 Proposed
(in millions of dollars)
FY2012
FY2010
Administration
Program
Enacted
Request House

Senate
CDF, Total
4,450.0
3,804.3


CDBG-formula
3,943.2
3,684.4


Entitlement Communities
2,760.2
2,579.1


States 1,183.0
1,105.3


CDBG Insular areas
6.9
7.0


CDBG Indian Tribes
64.3
65.0


Section 107 (technical assistance)
0.0
0.0


CDBG Subtotal
4,014.4
3,756.4


Grant to Guama 0.0
22.9


Rural Innovation Fundb 24.8
25.0


Catalytic Competition Grants
—
0.0


University Community Fundc 24.8
0.0


Sustainable Communitiesd 148.5
0.0


Regional Integration Planning Grants
99.0 0.0
Community Challenge Grants
39.6 0.0
Capacity Building Clearinghouse
—
0.0
HUD-DOT Integration Research
9.9 0.0
Neighborhood Initiative
21.9
0.0


Economic Development Initiative
171.1
0.0


Transfer to the Transformation Initiativee 44.5 0.0
CDBG-related set-asides and
435.6 47.9
earmarks
Disaster relief supplementalf
100.0 0.0
Source: Prepared by CRS based on Administration’s FY2012 budget submission and H.R. 1.
a. Funds would be transferred from the Defense Department and administered under the CDBG program and
would be used to address community development needs resulting from the relocation of various military
installations and personnel to Guam.
b. Before FY2010, the program was funded under a separate account, Rural Housing and Economic
Development.
c. Prior to FY2007, CDBG-linked university activities were included in this account. For FY2009, program
funds of $23 million were appropriated under a separate HUD account, Research and Technology.
d. The Administration is proposing to fund the programs at $150 million under a separate stand-alone
account.
e. Subtotal for Transformation initiative assumes transfer of 1% of amounts appropriated to programs included
in the CDF account.
f.
P.L. 111-212 included $100 million for disaster recovery activities.
Congressional Research Service
7

---

Community Development Block Grants: Funding Issues in the 112th Congress

Sustainable Communities Initiatives (SCI)
The Administration’s FY2012 budget recommends transferring the SCI programs to a new stand-
alone account. The SCI is a set of planning-oriented grants first proposed by the Obama
Administration in its FY2010 budget and funded at $150 million. For FY2012 the Administration
is requesting an appropriation of $150 million. Funds would be used to support SCI’s three
components:
• Regional Integrated Planning Grants. $100 million would be
competitively awarded to regional organizations in metropolitan areas to
support efforts to develop effective models that would integrate the
planning requirements of various disciplines critical to the development of
sustainable communities. This would be done in collaboration with the
Department of Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency, and
other federal agencies. Grant awards would focus on metropolitan-wide
housing, transportation, energy, and land use planning.
• Community Challenge Grants. $40 million would be competitively
awarded to communities to reform existing building codes, land use and
zoning ordinances with the goal of promoting sustainable growth and
discouraging inefficient land use patterns.
• Housing-Transportation Integration Research. $10 million was set aside
for a joint HUD-Department of Transportation research initiative that
would seek to quantify and evaluate the benefits and trade-offs of various
efforts. A portion of these funds would be use to evaluate the long-term
benefits of Regional Integrated Planning Grants and Community
Challenge Grants.
Section 108 Loan Guarantees9
The CDBG Section 108 Loan Guarantee program (Section 108) allows states and entitlement
communities to collateralize their annual CDBG allocation in an effort to attract private capital to
support economic development activities, housing, public facilities, and infrastructure projects.
Communities may borrow up to five times their annual allocation for a term of 20 years through
the public issuance of bonds. The proceeds from the bonds must be used to finance activities that
support job creation and that meet one of the national goals of the CDBG program. The activity
must principally benefit low or moderate income persons, aid in preventing or eliminating slums
or blight, or address an urgent threat to residents. Each community’s current and future annual
CDBG allocation serves as security in case of default. Financing is pegged to yields on U.S.
Treasury obligations of similar maturity to the principal amount.
The Administration’s budget proposes doubling the program’s loan commitment ceiling from
$250 million in FY2010 to $500 million in FY2012. The Administration’s budget justifications
noted that, given the continued difficulties in the credit markets, the proposed increase in funding
will help local governments finance large-scale job creation activities. In addition to an increase
in the loan commitment ceiling, the Administration proposes revamping the program by charging
a fee-based assessment to borrowers accessing the program, which would eliminate the need for

9 This program is authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 5308.
Congressional Research Service
8

---

Community Development Block Grants: Funding Issues in the 112th Congress

an appropriated credit subsidy.10 This proposal was first made by the Administration in its
FY2010 budget, but it was rejected by Congress in favor of maintaining the status quo.
Estimated Distribution of CDBG Formula Funds
The Administration’s budget proposal for FY2012 and the House-passed proposal for FY2011
(H.R. 1) are at odds. The Administration is seeking a 6.5% decrease in, but continued support for,
CDBG formula grants for FY2012 while the House bill calls for a 62.5% reduction in the
program’s funding level for the current fiscal year. Table 4 identifies the FY2010 actual
distribution and FY2011 and FY2012 projected distribution of CDBG formula funds awarded to
states and entitlement communities. The table presents information at the state level, but each
state total includes actual or projected amounts that may be allocated to the state and entitlement
communities within each state. The number of entitlement communities in each state are
identified in the last column of the table. Calculations for 2011 are based on the amount included
in H.R. 1 and assumes the same percent distribution of funds as FY2010, minus the statutory
requirements that funds be set aside for Indian Tribes and the insular areas of Guam, the Virgin
Islands, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands. Likewise, the calculations for
FY2012 are based on the President’s budget recommendation and assume the same percentage
distribution as FY2010. In addition, the estimates do not include any new grantees that may be
added as a result of meeting the minimum population threshold for entitlement status.
In short, H.R. 1 would reduce formula allocations to states and entitlement communities by 62%
below FY2010 allocation while the President’s budget recommendation would result in a
reduction of 6.5% below FY2010 funding level. Estimated allocation projections for FY2011 and
2012 are based on the assumption that funds will be distributed according to the FY2010 percent
distribution.
Table 4. Actual Allocation of FY2010 CDBG Formula Grants to States and
Entitlement Communities, Projected Allocation for FY2011 Under H.R. 1, and the
President’s FY2012 Proposed CDBG Formula Funding
FY2010 Actual State
Number of
and Entitlement
FY2011
Administration
Formula
Community
Allocation based
FY2012 Budget
Recipients
Allocations:
on $1,500,000,000
Request:
in State
State
$3,942,610,534
included in H.R. 1
$3,684,368,000
FY2010
Alabama 53,316,977
19,987,389
49,824,694
17
Alaska 5,165,029

1,936,258
4,826,718
2
Arizona 58,918,034

22,087,105
55,058,880
17
Arkansas 29,830,047
11,182,644
27,876,167
15
California 498,630,012

186,925,681
465,969,551
181

10 The Credit Reform Act of 1990 requires federal agencies administering credit programs to estimate a program’s
subsidy rate and to request an appropriation to cover that cost. A credit subsidy is intended to cover the estimated long-
term cost to the federal government of a direct loan or loan guarantee. For loan guarantees, the subsidy cost is the net
present value of estimated payments by the government to cover defaults and delinquencies, interest subsidies, or other
payments, offset by any payments to the government, including origination and other fees, penalties, and recoveries.

Congressional Research Service
9

---

Community Development Block Grants: Funding Issues in the 112th Congress

FY2010 Actual State
Number of
and Entitlement
FY2011
Administration
Formula
Community
Allocation based
FY2012 Budget
Recipients
Allocations:
on $1,500,000,000
Request:
in State
State
$3,942,610,534
included in H.R. 1
$3,684,368,000
FY2010
Colorado 40,776,639

15,286,286
38,105,753
22
Connecticut 45,226,742

16,954,534
42,264,373
23
Delaware 7,754,022
2,906,816
7,246,131
4
District of Columbia
19,636,404
7,361,266
18,350,212
1
Florida 172,387,975
64,624,549
161,096,495
78
Georgia 88,719,365
33,258,984
82,908,212
25
Hawai 16,331,868
6,122,466
15,262,124
4
Idaho 13,306,473
4,988,311
12,434,894
8
Illinois
186,636,960 69,966,187 174,412,166 51
Indiana 75,280,553
28,221,062
70,349,647
25
Iowa 44,391,171
16,641,296
41,483,532
12
Kansas 30,264,453
11,345,493
28,282,119
10
Kentucky 49,407,821
18,521,931
46,171,589
10
Louisiana 68,563,722
25,703,067
64,072,771
15
Maine 21363472
8,008,707
19,964,156
7
Maryland 59,055,404
22,138,602
55,187,252
15
Massachusetts 117,649,272
44,104,185
109,943,199
38
Michigan 141,260,510
52,955,531
132,007,891
46
Minnesota 62,071,555
23,269,293
58,005,844
21
Mississippi 38,270,634
14,346,839
35,763,892
7
Missouri 71,768,251
26,904,376
67,067,402
17
Montana 9,933,211
3,723,747
9,282,582
4
Nebraska 20,683,366
7,753,750
19,328,597
3
Nevada 21,933,014
8,222,216
20,496,393
8
New Hampshire
14,303,671
5,362,139
13,366,775
6
New Jersey
109,303,706
40,975,611
102,144,270
57
New Mexico
22,830,540
8,558,679
21,335,131
6
New York
374,236,685
140,293,294
349,724,036
47
North Carolina
77,770,615
29,154,533
72,676,609
27
North Dakota
6,851,614
2,568,523
6,402,831
4
Ohio 174218540
65,310,788
162,807,157
45
Oklahoma 32,629,101
12,231,949
30,491,882
11
Oregon 39,408,379
14,773,355
36,827,115
15
Pennsylvania 236,902,677
88,809,725
221,385,459
48
Rhode Island
18,671,084
6,999,388
17,448,121
7
Congressional Research Service
10

---

Community Development Block Grants: Funding Issues in the 112th Congress

FY2010 Actual State
Number of
and Entitlement
FY2011
Administration
Formula
Community
Allocation based
FY2012 Budget
Recipients
Allocations:
on $1,500,000,000
Request:
in State
State
$3,942,610,534
included in H.R. 1
$3,684,368,000
FY2010
South Carolina
41,999,569
15,744,736
39,248,581
17
South Dakota
8,671,615
3,250,802
8,103,621
3
Tennessee 54,075,918
20,271,900
50,533,924
17
Texas 276,687,113
103,724,055
258,563,999
78
Utah 22,522,762
8,443,300
21,047,512
14
Vermont 9,014,623
3,379,389
8,424,162
2
Virginia 65,725,958
24,639,250
61,420,882
30
Washington 66,000,003
24,741,983
61,676,977
31
West Virginia
27,027452
10,132,011
25,257,143
9
Wisconsin 71,488,467
26,799,491
66,805,944
23
Wyoming 4,561,267
1,709,921
4,262,502
3
Puerto Rico
119,176,219
44,676,605
111,370,130
28
Formula Subtotal
3,942,610,534
1,478,000,000
3,684,368,000
1,214
American Samoa
1,121,951
1,134,000
1,134,000
1
Guam 3,050,365
3,081,000
3,081,000
1
Northern Marianas
880,151
889,000
889,000
1
Virgin Islands
1,877,526
1,896,000
1,896,000
1
Insular Area
Subtotala
6,929,993 7,000,000
7,000,000
4
Guamb

22,930,000

Total 3,949,540,527
1,785,000,000
3,756,368,000

Indian Tribes
Subtotalc
64,350,000 15,000,000
65,000,000

Source: CRS Analysis based on HUD FY2010 al ocation data.
a. 42 U.S.C. 5306(a)(2) requires HUD to set aside $7 million, as specified 42 U.S.C. 5307(1)(a), for insular
areas before al ocating funds to states and entitlement communities. H.R. 1 does not include a specific
amount for Indian tribes, thus Table 3 assumes that the requirement specified in the authorizing statute
would apply.
b. Funds would be transferred from the Defense Department and administered under the CDBG to be used
to address community development needs resulting from the relocation of various military installations and
personnel to Guam.
c. 42 U.S.C. 5306(a)(1) requires HUD to set aside 1% of annual amount appropriated for al ocation to Indian
tribes. From time to time Congress has modified this requirement in annual appropriations acts to set aside
a specific amount. H.R. 1 does not include a specific amount for Indian tribes, thus Table 3 assumes that the
1% requirement specified in the authorizing statute would apply.
Congressional Research Service
11

---

Community Development Block Grants: Funding Issues in the 112th Congress

Recent Funding History
This section of the report is a review of the CDF accounts funding history since FY2000. It
includes a discussion of the three primary components of the CDF account:
• CDBG formula grants;
• CDBG-related set-asides and earmarks; and
• CDBG-linked supplemental or special appropriations.
Figure 1 is a graphic representation of the distribution of the primary components of CDF
account since FY2000.
Figure 1. CDF Appropriations: FY2000 to FY2010
(in billions of $)
2010
2009
2008
2007
r 2006
2005
iscal Yea 2004
F
2003
2002
2001
2000
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
Billions of $
Formula Grants
Set-asides
Disaster Recovery
NSP
ARRA

Source: CRS based on Table 5 and HUD Budget Justifications.

From FY2000 to 2010, total appropriations for the CDF account—excluding special and
supplemental appropriations for disasters, mortgage foreclosures, and economic recovery—
fluctuated between a high of $5.112 billion for FY2001 and a low of $3.772 billion for FY2007
(see Table 5).
Congressional Research Service
12

---

Community Development Block Grants: Funding Issues in the 112th Congress

Table 5. CDF Appropriations: FY2000 to FY2010
(in billions of dollars)
Year
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
2006
2007
2008
2009 2010
Formula Grants
4.235 4.399 4.341 4.340 4.331 4.117 3.711 3.711 3.593 3.642 3.948
Set-asides
0.545 0.713 0.659 0.565 0.603 0.585 0.467 0.061 0.274 0.258 0.502
EDI & NI earmarks
0.263a 0.401 0.336 0.301 0.334 0.300 0.356 0.0 0.206 0.185 0.195
CDF Total
4.780 5.112 5.000 4.905 4.934 4.702 4.178 3.772 3.867 3.900 4.450
Disaster
Recovery
0.000 0.000 3.480 0.000 0.000 0.150 16.673 0.000 9.800 0.00 0.100
NSP
— — — — — — — —
3.900 2.000 1.000
ARRA
— — — — — — — — —
1.000 —
Supplemental/
Special Funds Subtotal
0.000 0.000 3.480 0.000 0.000 0.150 16.673 0.000 13.700 3.000 1.100
Total
4.780 5.046 8.480 4.905 4.934 4.852 20.851 3.772 17.566 6.900 5.550
Source: CRS appropriations reports, HUD Budget Justifications.
a. Total appropriations were $256.2 million for EDI, including $232 million for earmarked projects and $30
million for NI, including $23 million for earmarked projects. EDI original appropriation of $275 million was
subject to a rescission of $18.8 million.
Formula Grants
During recent appropriations cycles the funding level for the CDBG-formula component of the
CDF account has been the focus of debate. Supporters of the program have pressed for increased
funding, contending that the program’s appropriations have declined in both current and constant
dollars. Supporters noted that this decline or near stagnation in funding has been compounded by
the increased number of communities gaining entitlement status and thus eligibility for a direct
allocation of a share the 70% of funds dispersed to so-called “entitlement communities.”
Entitlement communities have been forced share an ever-shrinking or stagnant slice of the CDBG
formula pie with an ever-increasing number of eligible grant recipients. Critics of the program
have argued that increased funding has not been justified based on the program’s PART score11
and more recently, the need to reduce domestic discretionary spending as part of a larger effort to
reduce federal budget deficit and the national debt.
As noted in Table 6, during the period from FY2000 to FY2010, the average grant amount
allocated to CDBG entitlement communities declined by 26.7% from a high of $3 million in
FY2002 to a low of $2.1 million in FY2008. The total amount appropriated declined annually
from FY2001 to FY2008 and has been increasing from FY2009 to FY2010, but the average
allocation had been steadily declining. However, since FY2008, the average allocation has

11 Performance Assessment Rating Tool (PART) “is a questionnaire designed to help assess the management and
performance of programs. It is used to evaluate a program’s purpose, design, planning, management, results, and
accountability to determine its overall effectiveness.” The latest undertaken for the CDBG program was FY2003. For
additional information on PART see http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/part.html. For a link to the CDBG
entitlement program’s FY2003 PART review see http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/
10001161.2003.html.
Congressional Research Service
13

---

Community Development Block Grants: Funding Issues in the 112th Congress

increased by 9%, from $2.2 to $2.4 million in FY2010. For FY2010, the average allocation is
17% less than the amount appropriated in FY2000. The decline in the average grant amount is
both a function of fewer dollars appropriated and an increase in the number of entitlement
communities as more cities and counties achieve the population threshold necessary to be
designated an entitlement community. From FY2000 to FY2010, the number of jurisdictions
receiving a direct allocation as CDBG entitlement communities increased by 151, from 1,012 to
1,163 (see Table 6).
Table 6. Number of CDBG Grantees and Average Allocation: FY2000 to FY2010
Fiscal Year Allocations

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Total al ocated
$2.964 $3.079 $3.039 $3.038 $3.032 $2.882 $2.593 $2.598 $2.510 $2.549 $2,760
to entitlement
communities (in
billions of $)
Number of
1,012 1,018 1.023 1041 1,111 1,117 1.135 1,140 1.151 1,159 1.163
entitlement
communities
Average
$2.9 $3.0 $3.0 $2.9 $2.7 $2.6 $2.3 $2.3 $2.2 $2.2 $2.4
entitlement
allocation (in
millions of $)
Total al ocated
$1.271 $1.320 $1.302 $1.302 $1.299 $1.235 $1.111 $1.113 $1.076 $1.093 $1.183
to states (in
billions of $)
Number of
51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51
states + Puerto
Rico
Average state
$24.9 $25.9 $25.5 $25.5 $25.5 $24.2 $21.8 $21.8 $21.1 $21.4 $23.2
allocation (in
millions of $)
Source: CRS, based on data from HUD.
The fluctuations in the average annual grant amount awarded to states was less pronounced. In
FY2010, $1.183 billion was allocated among the 50 states and Puerto Rico for distribution to
nonentitlement communities. This was 7.4% ($88 million) less than the $1.271 billion made
available to states in FY2000, but 7.6% ($90 million) more than allocated to states for FY2009.
During this period the average state allocation declined from a high of $25.5 million in FY2002
to $21.1 million in FY2008 before rebounding to $23.2 in FY2010.
Impact of Inflation on CDBG-Formula Allocations
When measured in inflation-adjusted constant dollars, program funding declined by 27% during
this period, from $4.235 billion in FY2000 to $3.112 billion in FY2010. As Figure 2 illustrates,
appropriations for CDBG formula grants have fluctuated between $3.5 billion and $4.3 billion in
current (non-inflation adjusted) dollars during the last decade.
Congressional Research Service
14

---

Community Development Block Grants: Funding Issues in the 112th Congress

Figure 2. CDBG Funding in Current and Constant Dollars: FY2000-FY2010
Base Year 2000
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
f $
o
ns 2.5
io
ill
B
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Fiscal Year
formula grants current $
formula grants constant $

Source: CRS.

CDBG-Linked Set-Asides and Earmarks12
In addition to the CDBG formula program, the CDF is also populated by a number of other
programs with smaller appropriation levels, narrower objectives, and fewer direct recipients.
Some set-asides included in the account are intended to complement the activities of the larger
formula grant program. Others are intended to meet other agency objectives and still others are
earmarked for specific activities or projects. Some observers have contended that a number of
these programs have been funded at the expense of the larger CDBG formula grant program,
particularly those projects funded as earmarks.

12 Set-asides are funds in a larger appropriations measure that is designated to fund a specific program or activity.
Under House and Senate rules, “an earmark is a provision in legislation or report language that is included primarily at
the request of a Member, and provides, authorizes, or recommends a specific amount to an entity or to a specific state,
locality, or congressional district.” For a discussion of disclosure procedures CRS Report R40976, Earmarks Disclosed
by Congress: FY2008-FY2010 Regular Appropriations Bills, by Carol Hardy Vincent and Jim Monke.
Congressional Research Service
15

---

Community Development Block Grants: Funding Issues in the 112th Congress

Figure 3. CDF Set Asides in Current and Constant Dollars: FY2000 to FY2010
(in millions of $)
700
600
500
f $ 400
o
ns
io
ill 300
M
200
100
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Fiscal Year
CDF set asides Current $
CDF set asides in constant $

Source: CRS
From FY2000 to FY2010, the number and appropriations for set aside programs included in the
CDF account has fluctuated significantly. In FY2001 Congress appropriated $647 million for
CDF set-asides, but only $61 million in FY2007. In FY2007, Congress eliminated all earmarks in
the CDF account. Most recently, in FY2010, Congress appropriated $509 million in CDF set-
aside activities, with a significant portion of that amount targeted to the earmark accounts of
Economic Development Initiative (EDI) and Neighborhood Initiative (NI). The broad swing in
the amounts appropriated for CDF set-asides was a result of Congress’ decisions:
• to move several categorical grant programs into or out of the CDF account,
including deciding to no longer fund a program or to transfer selected
programs to another account;
• to reduce funding for specific programs; and
• to fund, and at what amount, two programs that have been the vehicles for
congressional earmarks, EDI and NI programs.
See Table A-1 in Appendix A for a detailed listing of programs included as set-asides in the CDF
account during the period from FY2000 to FY2010. From FY2000 to FY2008, CDBG-related
set-asides and earmarks declined by 59.4% when measured in constant FY2000 dollars, but have
since rebounded. (See Figure 3).
Congressional Research Service
16

---

Community Development Block Grants: Funding Issues in the 112th Congress

Earmarks Dominate Set-Aside Activities
With the exception of FY2007 (when there were no earmarks), and FY2010 (when the Obama
Administration introduced its Sustainable Communities Initiative), congressional earmarked
projects funded by the EDI and NI programs were the dominant elements of CDBG-related set
aside appropriations. These two programs are used exclusively for congressionally earmarked
projects.
The issue of earmarks has been the source of debate during recent Congresses. During the
FY2007 appropriations cycle Congress removed all earmarks from the CDF account.
Subsequently both houses of Congress have instituted new rules governing disclosure of earmark
requests.13 Since FY2007, EDI and NI earmarks have been included in subsequent legislation
appropriating funds for CDF activities. In FY2008 and FY2009, EDI and NI earmarks were the
dominant components of CDBG-linked set asides programs. As Figure 4 illustrates, the
combined appropriations for EDI and NI in FY2008 and FY2009 were twice the amount
appropriated for other set-aside activities combined.
Figure 4. CDF Earmarks and Set-Asides: FY2000 to FY2010
(in millions of $)
450
400
350
300
f $
o 250
s
n
200
illio
M 150
100
50
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Fiscal Year
EDI & NI earmarks
Other set asides

Source: CRS analysis.


13 For a discussion of disclosure procedures see CRS Report RL34462, House and Senate Procedural Rules
Concerning Earmark Disclosure, by Sandy Streeter, and CRS Report R40976, Earmarks Disclosed by Congress:
FY2008-FY2010 Regular Appropriations Bills, by Carol Hardy Vincent and Jim Monke.
Congressional Research Service
17

---

Community Development Block Grants: Funding Issues in the 112th Congress

Special Appropriations
When events have warranted, Congress has used the CDBG program’s administrative framework
and rules to provide supplemental or special appropriations (see Figure 1). These supplemental
funds have been used to:
• support local and state government disaster relief, recovery, and mitigation
activities following such events as the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the Gulf
Coast hurricanes of 2005;14
• assist local and state governments in reducing the inventory of abandoned and
foreclosed properties (caused by the recent and ongoing mortgage foreclosure
crisis) by providing funds to states and selected communities to be used to
acquire, rehabilitate, and resell foreclosed properties under the Neighborhood
Stabilization Program (NSP);15 and
• assist local and state governments in supporting private sector job creation in
response to the economic recession that began in December 2007, as part of a
larger federal effort under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(ARRA).16
With the exception of CDBG-ARRA funds, which were allocated to all eligible CDBG
entitlement communities, disaster relief and NSP funding were allocated only to states or
communities meeting specific criteria or eligibility thresholds.17 In the case of CDBG disaster
funding, only communities designated as disaster areas by a presidential declaration have
received funds, at the discretion of Congress. Each Congress decides if the magnitude of the
disaster warrants supplemental CDBG funds beyond funds typically made available by the
Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA).
In the case of the first and third rounds of the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, known as
NSP-1 and NSP-3, funds were allocated to states based on the relative number and percentages of
mortgage foreclosures, subprime loans, and mortgage delinquencies and defaults. Congress
established a minimum grant amount to be awarded to each state of 0.5% of the amount
appropriated. Of the amounts allocated to each state under NSP-1 and NSP-3, Congress required
each state to dispense a portion of these funds to local governments experiencing high rates of
mortgage foreclosures, subprime loans, and mortgage delinquencies and defaults allowing these
communities to directly administer these funds. It further limited the direct allocation of NSP to

14 For additional information on the use of CDBG funds for disaster relief and recovery see CRS Report RL33330,
Community Development Block Grant Funds in Disaster Relief and Recovery, by Eugene Boyd.
15 For additional information on the use of CDBG funds to address the mortgage foreclosure crisis see CRS Report
RS22919, Community Development Block Grants: Neighborhood Stabilization Program; Assistance to Communities
Affected by Foreclosures, by Eugene Boyd and Oscar R. Gonzales.
16 This was not the first time Congress used the CDBG program framework to create jobs in response to a recession.
The Emergency Jobs Appropriations Act of 1983, P.L. 98-8, allocated an additional $1 billion in CDBG funds to be
used for job creation activities in response to a national unemployment rate of 10.7% and what a General Accounting
Office (GAO) report characterized as the worst economic recession of the post-World War II era. The report noted that
the CDBG program was the most efficient job creation mechanism of the 77 federal programs that received funding
under the act. The report, Emergency Jobs Act of 1983: Funds Spent Slowly, Few Jobs Created, GAO/HRD 87-1, is
available at http://archive.gao.gov/f0102/132063.pdf.
17 Congress funded three rounds of NSP activities. These three rounds have been designated as NSP-1, NSP-2, and
NSP-3.
Congressional Research Service
18

---

Community Development Block Grants: Funding Issues in the 112th Congress

communities whose allocation met a minimum threshold of $2 million for NSP-1 and $1 million
for NSP-3 funds. As a result 309 communities qualified for administration of NSP-1 funds while
268 communities met or exceeded the NSP-3 threshold. NSP-2 funds were awarded
competitively to states, local governments, and non-profit organizations. For-profit entities are
also allowed to participate as partners with any of the three primary grant recipients of NSP-2
funds.
Proposed Rescission of Neighborhood Stabilization Program Funds
On March 1, 2011, Representative Gary Miller introduced the Neighborhood Stabilization
Termination Act, H.R. 861, which would rescind the $1 billion in NSP-3 funds appropriated
under the Wall Street Reform Act. On March 2, 2011, the House Financial Services Committee’s
Subcommittee on Insurance, Housing, and Community Opportunity conducted a hearing on NSP
and three federal foreclosure mitigation programs. On March 9, 2011, the House Financial
Services Committee considered, marked up, and ordered reported H.R. 861. During the markup
the committee approved by voice vote an amendment requiring HUD to publish a notice of
termination of the NSP program on its website. The notice is to be posted within five days
following the bill’s enactment and is to include language directing citizens to contact their
congressional representatives and locally elected officials if they are concerned about the impact
of foreclosures on their communities.
During the March 2, 2011, subcommittee hearing and the March 9, 2011, markup session by the
House Financial Services Committee, Representative Miller, sponsor of H.R. 861, characterized
the program as ineffective and a waste of taxpayers’ dollars. He argued that, given the need to
address the larger issue of reducing the federal debt and deficit, funding for NSP-3 should be
rescinded. In addition, he argued that the program was a giveaway to banks and speculators.
Other Members countered that the program has been successful in assisting communities to
combat the negative impacts of the mortgage foreclosure crisis on neighborhoods, property
values, and local revenues generated by property taxes. During the March 2 hearing, HUD’s
Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, Mercedes M. Márquez, offered
written testimony stating that HUD expects “NSP will impact 100,000 properties in the nation’s
hardest-hit markets,” with 36,000 units already under construction.18 In addition, the Assistant
Secretary’s testimony stated that “based on NSP1 activity budgets, the Department estimates that
NSP will support more than 93,000 jobs nationwide.”19 Members also argued that the program
helps reduce the supply of abandoned, blighted, and foreclosed housing stock. The measure
passed the House on March 16, 2011, by a vote of 242 to 182. A companion bill to H.R. 861 has
not been introduced in the Senate.


18 U.S. Congress, House Financial Services, Insurance, Housing, and Community Opportunity, “Legislative Proposals
to End Taxpayer Funding for Ineffective Foreclosure Mitigation Programs,” 112th Cong., 1st sess., March 2, 2011, p. 4-
5. http://financialservices.house.gov/media/pdf/030211marquez.pdf.
19 Ibid. p. 8.
Congressional Research Service
19

---

Community Development Block Grants: Funding Issues in the 112th Congress

Appendix. CDF Set-Asides: FY2000 to FY2010
Table A-1. CDF Set-Asides from FY2000 to FY2010
(in millions of dollars)

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Indian
Tribes
67.0 71.0 70.0 70.5 71.6 68.4 59.4 59.4 62.0 65.0 64.3
Housing Assistance Council
3.0
2.9
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
—a — — — —
National American Indian
2.2 2.6 2.6 2.4 2.5 2.4 — — —b
— —
Housing Council
National Housing Dev.
— 10.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.8 —c — — — —
Corp.
National Council of LaRaza
—
—
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.8
—c — — — —
Sec.107 Grantsd
41.5 45.4 42.5 48.8 51.7 43.4 0.0
4.0 5.0

Hawai an Homelands
—
—-
9.6
—
—a — — — — — —
University Comm. Fund
—a
—a
—a
—a
—a
—a
—a
—e — — 24.8
Resident Opportunity
55.0 55.0 55.0 —f
— — — — — — —
Support Services (ROSS)
Working Capital Fund Info.
— 15.0 13.8 3.4 4.9 3.4 1.6 1.6 1.5 3.2 —
Tech. transfer
Self-help Homeownership
20.0 19.9 22.0 25.1 26.8 24.8 —c — — — —
Opportunity (SHOP)
Capacity Building
23.8
28.5
29.0
32.3
34.5
34.2
—c — — — —
YouthBuild
42.5 60.0 65.0 59.6 64.6 61.5 49.5 0.0g
— — —
Sustainable
Communities

— — — — — — — — — —
148.5
Rural
Innovation
Fund
— — — — — — — — — —
24.8h
Alaskan Museumi
— — — — 9.9 — — — — — —
Special
Olympics
4.0 — — — — 1.9 — — — — —
Hudson
River
Park
— — — — —
30.7 — — — — —
Salt Lake City Olympic
— 2.0 — — — — — — — — —
Games Temp. Housing
Wel stone Center for
— — — 8.9 — — — — — — —
Community Building
NI 30.0j 43.9 42.0 41.8 43.7 41.4 49.5 — 25.9 19.5 22.1
EDI 256.2k 357.3l 294.2 259.3 279.3m 259.9 306.9
— 179.8 165.3 172.8
Transformation
Initiative
— — — — — — — — — —
L44.5n
Total
CDF
Set-Asides
545.2 713.5 659.0 565.4 603.5 585.0 466.9 61.0 273.2 258.3 502.0

a. Funded under Sec. 107 activities.
b. Transferred to HUD’s Public and Indian Housing account.
c. Transferred to new Self Help and Assisted Housing account, created with the passage of P.L. 109-148.
Congressional Research Service
20

---

Community Development Block Grants: Funding Issues in the 112th Congress

d. Sec. 107 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, authorizes the funding of a
number of activities including technical assistance; community development demonstration projects;
community development work study programs; grants to minority serving institutions of higher education,
including Historically Black Colleges and Universities, institutions serving Native Americans, Hispanic-serving
institutions, and university-community partnerships.
e. Prior to FY2007, CDBG-linked university activities were included in Sec. 107 subaccount. For FY2007,
program funds of $23 million were appropriated under a separate HUD account, Research and Technology.
f.
ROSS appropriations transferred to HUD’s Public Housing Capital Fund account.
g. Program authority transferred to the Department of Labor.
h. Before FY2010, the program was funded under a separate account, Rural Housing and Economic
Development.
i.
Added by P.L. 108-199, Sec. 165.
j.
FY2000 appropriation includes $23 million in congressional earmarks and $7 million in competitive grants.
Al funds after FY2000 earmarked for projects included in conference reports.
k. FY2000 appropriation includes $232 million in congressional earmarks and $24 million in competitive grants.
Al funds after FY2000 were earmarked for congressional y designated projects. Does not include $27.5
million in emergency supplemental appropriations.
l.
Includes amounts appropriated under P.L. 103-377 and P.L. 106-554. Al funds were earmarked for specific
projects.
m. Includes $2.990 million added by P.L. 108-199, Sec. 167.
n. Subtotal for Transformation Initiative assumes transfer of 1% of amounts appropriated to programs included
in the CDF account.


Author Contact Information

Eugene Boyd

Analyst in Federalism and Economic Development
Policy
eboyd@crs.loc.gov, 7-8689


Acknowledgments
The author would like to acknowledge Julius Jefferson, Information Specialist, KSG-G&F for his
contributions to the development of this report.

Congressional Research Service
21

---