Community Services Block Grants (CSBG):
Background and Funding

Karen Spar
Specialist in Domestic Social Policy and Division Research Coordinator
April 17, 2015
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL32872


Community Services Block Grants (CSBG): Background and Funding

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. Smaller related programs—Community Economic Development (CED), Rural
Community Facilities (RCF), and Individual Development Accounts (IDAs)—also support anti-
poverty efforts. CSBG and some of these related activities trace their roots to the War on Poverty,
launched more than 50 years ago in 1964. Today, they are administered at the federal level by the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
CSBG and related activities are funded in FY2015 under an appropriations law (P.L. 113-235)
enacted just prior to the end of the 113th Congress. The measure provides a total of $729 million
for CSBG and related activities, almost identical to FY2014 levels (P.L. 113-76) and nearly twice
the amount requested by the Administration. FY2015 funding levels, by program, are $674
million for the block grant, $30 million for CED, $6.5 million for RCF, and $19 million for IDAs.
In its FY2016 budget, submitted to Congress on February 2, the Obama Administration broke
with past practice and requested level funding for CSBG. Specifically, the Administration
requested $674 million in FY2016 for the block grant, which is identical to the FY2015 level.
This contrasts with the past four annual budget requests when the Administration unsuccessfully
sought to reduce appropriations for the block grant by approximately half.
For related activities, the Administration’s FY2016 budget request is similar to previous years;
level funding ($19 million) is requested for IDAs and nothing is requested for CED and RCF.
Despite previous Administration requests to zero out the latter two activities, Congress has
continued to fund them. As in past years, although the Administration again requests no funding
for CED, it would continue funding the Healthy Food Financing Initiative (which has been
partially financed with CED funds) through a Treasury Department program.
The Administration proposed a new initiative in the FY2016 budget, called the Upward Mobility
Project, which would allow up to 10 localities, states, or consortia to combine funds from four
existing block grants—including CSBG—to test promising approaches to reducing poverty and
promoting opportunity. The initiative also includes the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG)
within HHS, which would receive additional funding for the project, and the Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME), both
administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
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. Legislation has been introduced
in the 114th Congress—with bipartisan co-sponsorship—to amend and reauthorize the act through
FY2023 (H.R. 1655). Similar legislation was introduced in the 113th Congress (H.R. 3854).
The National Association for State Community Services Programs conducts an annual survey of
states on the activities and expenditures of the nationwide network of more than 1,000 CSBG
grantees. According to the most recent survey, the network served almost 16 million people in
nearly 7 million low-income families in FY2013. States reported that the network spent $13.3
billion of federal, state, local, and private resources, including almost $600 million in federal
CSBG funds and almost $9 billion from other federal programs.
Congressional Research Service

Community Services Block Grants (CSBG): Background and Funding

Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Background ...................................................................................................................................... 1
The Block Grant ........................................................................................................................ 2
Allocation of Funds ............................................................................................................. 2
Use of Funds ....................................................................................................................... 3
State Role ............................................................................................................................ 3
Local Delivery System ........................................................................................................ 3
Currently Funded Related Activities ......................................................................................... 4
Community Economic Development .................................................................................. 5
Rural Community Facilities ................................................................................................ 6
Individual Development Accounts ...................................................................................... 6
Formerly Funded Related Activities .......................................................................................... 7
National Youth Sports Program ........................................................................................... 7
Community Food and Nutrition Program ........................................................................... 7
Job Opportunities for Low-Income Individuals (JOLI) ...................................................... 8
CSBG Program Data ........................................................................................................................ 8
Use of Federal CSBG Funds ..................................................................................................... 9
Sources of Federal Non-CSBG Funds ....................................................................................... 9
Recipients of CSBG Services .................................................................................................... 9
Reauthorization Proposal in the 114th Congress ............................................................................ 10
Administration’s Proposed “Upward Mobility Project” ................................................................ 12
Funding Activity: FY2016 ............................................................................................................. 13
Administration Budget and Legislative Proposals ............................................................ 13
Funding Activity: FY2015 ............................................................................................................. 14
Final Appropriations Act ................................................................................................... 14
Administration Proposal .................................................................................................... 15
Funding Activity: FY2014 ............................................................................................................. 15
Final Appropriations Act ................................................................................................... 15
Senate Committee Action on Full-Year Appropriations Bill ............................................. 16
Administration Proposal .................................................................................................... 16
Funding Activity: FY2013 ............................................................................................................. 17
Final Continuing Resolution ............................................................................................. 17
House Action on Full-Year Appropriations Bill in the 112th Congress ............................. 17
Senate Action on Full-Year Appropriations Bill in the 112th Congress ............................. 18
Administration Proposal .................................................................................................... 18

Tables
Table 1. Funding for CSBG and Related Activities, FY2008-FY2016 ......................................... 20
Table A-1.Community Services Block Grant Appropriations History, FY1982-FY2015 ............. 27

Congressional Research Service

Community Services Block Grants (CSBG): Background and Funding

Appendixes
Appendix A. Additional Funding Information ............................................................................... 21
Appendix B. Government Accountability Office (GAO) Review ................................................. 28

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 30

Congressional Research Service

Community Services Block Grants (CSBG): Background and Funding

Introduction
Last year marked the 50th anniversary of the War on Poverty, launched by President Lyndon
Johnson 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 1,000 local Community Action Agencies was
established.
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 several smaller related programs that are administered by the same federal office
that currently oversees the CSBG. The report begins with background information on the CSBG
and related activities, discusses a proposal pending in Congress to reauthorize CSBG and related
activities, summarizes a new “Upward Mobility Project” initiative of the Obama Administration,
and discusses current and recent funding activities affecting the CSBG. The report provides
additional funding information in Appendix A. The most recent review of CSBG by the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) is discussed in Appendix B.2
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

1 This was one of five “basic opportunities” that President Johnson said the act would provide. The others were to “give
almost half a million young Americans the opportunity to develop skills, continue education, and find useful work;”
“give dedicated Americans the opportunity to enlist as volunteers in the war against poverty;” “give many workers and
farmers the opportunity to break through particular barriers which bar their escape from poverty;” and “give the entire
Nation the opportunity for a concerted attack on poverty through the establishment, under [President Johnson’s]
direction, of the Office of Economic Opportunity, a national headquarters for the war against poverty.” U.S. Congress,
House, Poverty: Message from the President of the United States, 88th Cong., 2nd sess., March 16, 1964, Doc. No. 243
(Washington: GPO, 1964).
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 Gene Falk and Karen Spar.
Congressional Research Service
1

Community Services Block Grants (CSBG): Background and Funding

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, known as Community Action
Agencies (CAAs), are the primary sub-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. As of early February, no
legislation had yet been introduced in the 114th Congress. (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)—currently 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.
Prior to FY2012, a related activity called Job Opportunities for Low-Income Individuals (JOLI)
received a separate appropriation, and prior to FY2006, national activities that received separate
appropriations also included the National Youth Sports and Community Food and Nutrition
programs.
The Block Grant3
Allocation of Funds
Of funds appropriated annually under the CSBG Act, HHS is required to reserve 1.5% for
training and technical assistance and other administrative activities, and half of this set-aside must

3 See Table A-1 for a history of CSBG appropriations from its first year of funding (FY1982) through FY2015.
Congressional Research Service
2

Community Services Block Grants (CSBG): Background and Funding

be provided to state or local entities. In addition, 0.5% of the appropriation is reserved for
outlying territories (Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana
Islands). The law further requires that 9% of the total appropriation be reserved for certain related
activities, which are described below, and that the remainder be allocated among the states. In
practice, however, Congress typically specifies in annual appropriations laws exactly how much
is to be made available for the block grant and each of the related activities. Block grant funds are
allotted to states (including Puerto Rico) based on the relative amount received in each state in
FY1981, under a section of the former Economic Opportunity Act. HHS may allow Indian tribes
to receive their allotments directly, rather than through the state.
Use of Funds
CSBG funds are used for activities designed to have a “measurable and potentially major impact
on causes of poverty.” The law envisions a wide variety of activities undertaken on behalf of 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.
State Role
At the state level, a lead agency must be designated to develop the state application and plan.
States must pass through at least 90% of their federal CSBG allotment to local eligible entities.4
States also may use up to $55,000 or 5% of their allotment, whichever is higher, for
administrative costs.5 Remaining funds may be used by the state to provide training and technical
assistance, coordination and communication activities, payments to assure that funds are targeted
to areas with the greatest need, supporting “asset-building” programs for low-income individuals
(such as Individual Development Accounts, discussed later), supporting innovative programs and
activities conducted by local organizations, or other activities consistent with the purposes of the
CSBG Act. In addition, as authorized by the 1998 amendments, states may use some CSBG funds
to offset revenue losses associated with any qualified state charity tax credit.
Local Delivery System
As noted above, states are required to pass through at least 90% of their federal block grant
allotments to “eligible entities”—primarily (but not exclusively) Community Action Agencies

4 Under a one-time appropriation of $1 billion for the CSBG under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(ARRA, P.L. 111-5), states were required to pass through 99% of their allotments to local eligible entities and use the
remaining 1% for benefits eligibility coordination activities. See section on the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009, in Appendix A.
5 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.
Congressional Research Service
3

Community Services Block Grants (CSBG): Background and Funding

(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.6 There are more than
1,000 eligible entities around the country, the majority of which are private nonprofit
organizations. Many of these organizations contract with others in delivering various services.
Once designated as an eligible entity for a particular community, an agency retains its designation
unless it voluntarily withdraws from the program or its grant is terminated for cause. Eligible
entities are monitored within a systematic schedule; return visits are made when goals are not
met. In designating new or replacement entities, states may select a public agency only when no
qualified private nonprofit organization is available, in accordance with the 1998 CSBG
amendments.
Local activities vary depending on the needs and circumstances of the local community. Each
eligible entity, or CAA, is governed by a board of directors, of which at least one-third 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.
Currently Funded Related Activities
In addition to the block grant itself, the CSBG Act authorizes several related national activities
that are currently funded and administered through the Office of Community Services within
HHS. Individual Development Accounts are not directly authorized by the CSBG Act, but are
also administered by the Office of Community Services.7 Funding authorization for the following
activities expired at the end of FY2003; however, Congress has continued to fund them through
the annual appropriations process (see Table 1).

6 The Administration for Children and Families’ congressional budget justifications cite 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 Census data, designation of a new eligible entity, severe economic dislocation, or failure of an eligible
entity to comply with state requirements. See p. 192 in justifications for FY2016: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/
files/olab/2016_acf_cj.PDF.
7 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)
Congressional Research Service
4

Community Services Block Grants (CSBG): Background and Funding

Community Economic Development8
The Community Economic Development (CED) program helps support local community
development corporations (CDCs) 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 FY2014, HHS supported 31 grants, of which all were new starts, plus three contracts and
three interagency agreements, according to agency budget documents. For FY2015, the
department expected to support 35 grants, of which all would be new starts, plus three contracts
and three interagency agreements. No program activity is projected for CED in FY2016, as the
Administration requested no continued funding for this program.
Healthy Food Financing Initiative9
The Healthy Food Financing Initiative (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.
Legislation to formally authorize the program in USDA was passed by Congress as part of the
2014 “farm bill” (P.L. 113-79).
In each of its budget submissions for FY2011 through FY2013, the Administration proposed that
a certain amount of CED funding be dedicated toward the HFFI. For FY2012, Congress reserved
$10 million of CED funding for this initiative, and the Administration requested the same level
for FY2013. Beginning with its FY2014 budget request, however, the Administration has
proposed no continued funding for HFFI through the CED program, instead requesting funds for
HFFI through the Treasury Department’s Community Development Financial Institutions
program. Congress did not support this request for either FY2014 or FY2015 and has continued
to provide funds through the CED program.

8 For more information on this program, see http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/programs/ced.
9 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. Also see discussion of HFFI in CRS Report R42155, The
Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
, by Renée Johnson, Randy Alison Aussenberg, and Tadlock Cowan.
Congressional Research Service
5

Community Services Block Grants (CSBG): Background and Funding

Rural Community Facilities10
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, the Obama Administration has proposed to terminate this program, arguing that it
does not belong in HHS. Instead, the Administration noted that federal assistance for water
treatment facilities is available through two much larger programs in the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) (i.e., the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds) and
through loans and grants administered by the Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Notwithstanding the Administration’s request, Congress has continued to provide funding for this
program.
During FY2014, HHS supported eight grants, all of which were continuation grants, plus one
contract and one interagency agreement, according to agency budget documents. In FY2015, the
department expected to support eight grants that would all be new starts, two contracts, and one
interagency agreement. HHS expects no program activity in FY2016 due to the program’s
proposed termination.
Individual Development Accounts11
The Assets for Independence Act (AFI, Title IV, P.L. 105-285) initially authorized a five-year
demonstration initiative to encourage low-income people to accumulate savings through
Individual Development Accounts (IDAs). The Assets for Independence Act expired at the end of
FY2003, although Congress has continued to provide appropriations for the program under this
authority.
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 a year, and HHS says the average
grant is currently about $250,000.
In budget documents for FY2016, the Administration asks Congress to enact appropriations
language that would allow up to 30% of IDA program funding to be used for a new Asset
Innovation Fund, which would support the testing of “innovative and research-driven asset-
building models with a broader set of allowable assets and with flexibility for deposits of other
than earned income.”12 The Administration also requests language that would enable it to use $3

10 For more information about this program, also known as the Rural Community Development Program, see
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/programs/rcd.
11 For more information on this program, 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 Gene Falk; and the most recent annual report to Congress on the program by HHS, “Assets for
Independence Program: Status at the Conclusion of the Eleventh Year,” available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/
default/files/ocs/11th_afi_report_to_congress.pdf.
12 See p. 205 in HHS budget justifications for FY2016: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/olab/
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
6

Community Services Block Grants (CSBG): Background and Funding

million of program funding for research and evaluation, including for evaluation of projects
conducted through the proposed Asset Innovation Fund.
According to Administration budget documents, in FY2014 the IDA program supported 45 new
grants, 8 contracts, and 5 interagency agreements. HHS expected to support the same number of
new grants in FY2015, plus 6 contracts and 3 interagency agreements. For FY2016, HHS expects
to support 35 new grants, 4 contracts, and 3 interagency agreements.
Legislation was introduced in the 113th Congress (H.R. 2110) that would have amended and
reauthorized appropriations for this program at an annual level of $75 million for FY2014
through FY2018. The bill was referred to the House Ways and Means Committee but no action
occurred. In the 114th Congress, the multi-purpose Saving Our Next Generation Act (S. 473)
would reauthorize the program through FY2020 and establish a new demonstration project for
newborn development accounts. The bill has been referred to the Senate Finance Committee.
Formerly Funded Related Activities
Three additional related national activities were funded in earlier years. These include the
National Youth Sports Program and Community Food and Nutrition Program, both authorized
under the CSBG Act, and Job Opportunities for Low-Income Individuals (JOLI), which was not
authorized by the CSBG Act but was administered as a related activity by the Office of
Community Services. Funding authorization for these activities expired at the end of FY2003,
with the exception of JOLI, which is permanently authorized.
National Youth Sports Program
Under this program, a grant traditionally was made to a single organization, namely the National
Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), to provide recreational and instructional services for
low-income youth, typically on college campuses. In FY2005, Congress appropriated $18 million
for this program, and one award was made. No direct federal funding has been provided since that
year. Legislation was introduced in the 112th Congress (H.R. 2817 and §302 of H.R. 2795) to
reauthorize appropriations for this program at an annual level of $20 million for FY2012 through
FY2022 (or through FY2021 in H.R. 2795). This proposal also was introduced in the 111th
Congress (H.R. 4480).
Community Food and Nutrition Program
This program authorized grants to public and private nonprofit organizations to coordinate food
assistance resources, to help identify potential sponsors of child nutrition programs and to initiate
programs in areas with inadequate food assistance resources, and to develop innovative
approaches at the state and local level to meet the nutritional needs of low-income people.
Authorizing legislation required that 60% of the amount appropriated (up to $6 million) must be
allocated to states for statewide programs and that 40% must be awarded on a competitive basis.
Amounts appropriated in excess of $6 million were allotted as follows: 40% awarded to eligible

(...continued)
2016_acf_cj.PDF.
Congressional Research Service
7

Community Services Block Grants (CSBG): Background and Funding

agencies for statewide grants; 40% awarded on a competitive basis for local and statewide
programs; and 20% awarded on a competitive basis for nationwide programs, including programs
benefitting Native Americans and migrant farm workers. For FY2005, Congress appropriated $7
million for this program; no funding has been provided since then.
Job Opportunities for Low-Income Individuals (JOLI)13
JOLI is permanently authorized under the Family Support Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-485, §505), as
amended by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (P.L.
104-193, §112). Although JOLI is not authorized under the CSBG Act, it was funded and
administered as one of the CSBG-related activities; however, it has not been funded since
FY2011 when it received less than $2 million. JOLI funds were awarded on a competitive basis to
community based, non-profit, and tax-exempt organizations, including community development
corporations, faith-based, charitable, and tribal organizations. Organizations awarded grants were
required to demonstrate and evaluate ways of creating new employment opportunities with
private employers for individuals who received TANF and for other individuals whose family
income level did not exceed 100% of the official poverty guidelines. Examples of these projects
included self-employment and micro-enterprise, new businesses, expansion of existing
businesses, or creating new jobs or employment opportunities. Funds for this project could not be
used for new construction or for the purchase of real property.
CSBG Program Data
The Community Services Block Grant Annual Report FY2014 summarizes data for FY2013
submitted by 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico in response to the most recent
annual survey funded by HHS and administered by the National Association for State Community
Services Programs.14 According to this report, the nationwide CSBG network consisted of 1,040
local eligible entities in FY2013, including 912 Community Action Agencies, 86 local
government agencies, 19 “limited purpose agencies” that specialized in one or two types of
programs, 16 tribes or tribal organizations,15 five migrant or seasonal farmworker organizations,
and two organizations that fell into other categories.
This network of local eligible entities reported spending $13.3 billion in FY2013, with funding
coming from federal, state, local, and private sources. Of the total amount spent, nearly $600
million came from the federal CSBG allotment, and another $8.6 billion came from federal
programs other than CSBG. Almost $1.6 billion came from state governments, almost $1.4
billion came from private agencies, and nearly $1.2 billion came from local governments. In

13 For more information about this program, see http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/programs/joli.
14 Community Services Block Grant Annual Report FY2014, National Association for State Community Services
Programs, Washington, DC, December 2014, available at http://www.nascsp.org/CSBG-Publications/881/CSBG-
Annual-Report.aspx?iHt=20.
15 Tribes and tribal organizations may participate in the CSBG program as local eligible entities (i.e., sub-state
grantees). In addition, tribes may request to receive funds directly from HHS, rather than through the state in which
they are located. In the first quarter of FY2015, 61 individual tribes or tribal organizations received direct allotments
from HHS. These amounts were subtracted from the allotments of states in which the tribe or tribal organization was
located. See http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ocs/revised_fy2015_csbg_1st_quarter_allocations_0.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
8

Community Services Block Grants (CSBG): Background and Funding

addition to these financial resources, volunteer hours were contributed for an estimated value of
$300 million.
Use of Federal CSBG Funds
Based on reports from all jurisdictions, local entities spent their CSBG funds in FY2013 for a
wide variety of activities, including emergency services (19%); activities to promote self-
sufficiency (17%); activities to promote linkages among community groups and other
government or private organizations (13%); education-related activities (12%); employment-
related activities (12%); housing-related services (8%); nutrition services (6%); income
management (6%); health services (4%); and other activities.
Sources of Federal Non-CSBG Funds
The bulk of funds spent by local eligible entities come from federal programs other than CSBG.
Of $8.6 billion in non-CSBG federal funds spent by local agencies in FY2013, 35% came from
Head Start or Early Head Start, and 19% came from the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance
Program (LIHEAP).
States reported that 10% of federal non-CSBG funds received by local agencies came from
Agriculture Department nutrition programs, including almost 2.5% from the Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) alone. Another 6% of
federal non-CSBG funds came from the TANF block grant, almost 4% came from employment
and training programs administered by the Labor Department, and almost 3% came from the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Section 8 program. The Child Care and
Development Block Grant, and Medicare and Medicaid combined, each accounted for more than
2% of federal non-CSBG funds.
Recipients of CSBG Services
According to states responding to the survey, the CSBG network provided services to almost 16
million individuals in nearly 7 million families in FY2013. Of families for whom the survey
captured demographic information, more than 70% had incomes at or below federal poverty
guidelines and almost a third of families were “severely poor” with incomes at or below 50% of
the poverty guidelines. More than 85% of families that reported some income included either a
worker, an unemployed job-seeker, or a retired worker. Almost half of the families included
children; of those, 58% were headed by a single mother, 36% by two parents, and 6% by a single
father. Looking at participants by age, the survey found that 37% of individuals served were
children age 17 or younger, and 20% were seniors age 55 or older. More than 58% of individuals
reported they were white and 26% were African American. Almost 18% of individuals reported
their ethnicity as Hispanic or Latino, regardless of race.
The survey collected information on potential barriers to self-sufficiency and reported that, of
people served by the CSBG network in FY2013, approximately 32% had no health insurance;
19% had disabilities; and 34% of participating adults older than 24 had no high school diploma or
equivalency certificate.
Congressional Research Service
9

Community Services Block Grants (CSBG): Background and Funding

Reauthorization Proposal in the 114th Congress
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.
For the first time since the 109th Congress, legislation was introduced in the House during the
113th Congress to reauthorize CSBG and certain related activities. 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 has re-introduced a mostly identical
version of the bill (with some changes) in the 114th Congress (H.R. 1655), where it is again
pending before the House Education and the Workforce Committee.16
The bill would make 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 require federal, state, and
local entities to establish performance requirements and benchmarks, and includes provisions
intended to increase accountability for the use of federal funds and to ensure timely distribution
and expenditure of these funds. The bill has 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 would authorize appropriations of $850 million per year for FY2014-FY2018, with
“such sums as necessary” authorized for FY2019-FY2023.17 Like current law, the bill would
require the Secretary to reserve 0.5% of appropriations for grants to territories, but would increase
the amount reserved for training and technical assistance from 1.5% to 2%. Remaining funds
would be allocated among states (including DC and Puerto Rico). While no change would be
made in the basic state allocation formula, the minimum allotment would be increased to one-half
of 1% or, if appropriations exceed $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 be eliminated under the bill.
Of block grant funds received, states would be required to reserve at least 2% for a new
Community Action Innovations Program. These funds would go 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 be used to

16 In addition to H.R. 1655, the multi-purpose Saving Our Next Generation Act (S. 473) also has been introduced in the
114th Congress. It would reauthorize CSBG with no changes through FY2014, and has been referred to the Senate
Finance Committee.
17 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. 113-235) provided $674 million for
the block grant in FY2015. (See the following section of this report on funding activity.)
Congressional Research Service
10

Community Services Block Grants (CSBG): Background and Funding

satisfy nonfederal matching requirements when used in conjunction with other federal programs
that have such requirements, and could be used to serve participants with incomes up to 80% of
area median income.
State applications and plans would be subject to the Secretary’s approval under H.R. 1655, which
would be a change from current law. Likewise, local community action plans would be newly
subject to the state’s approval. Like the 113th Congress version of the bill, H.R. 1655 would allow
states to request waivers from the Secretary to increase the poverty line in determining eligibility
for CSBG activities. However, H.R. 1655 also includes 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.
Both H.R. 3854 and H.R. 1655 would allow states to propose a change in the proportional
distribution of funds among eligible entities as part of their state plan. However, H.R. 1655
specifies that such a change must be in response to certain factors, namely the results of the most
recent Census or other demographic data, severe economic dislocation, or designation of a new
eligible entity in an unserved geographic area. In its annual congressional budget justifications for
CSBG, HHS says it allows four similar exceptions to the current law prohibition against states
reducing funding to an eligible entity below its proportional share: changes in Census data,
designation of a new eligible entity, severe economic dislocation, or failure of an eligible entity to
comply with state requirements.18 Although these criteria are used by HHS, they are not specified
in current law.
In designating new or replacement eligible entities, the bill would give priority to existing
Community Action Agencies (which would be 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 allow 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 be eligible to receive Merger Incentive Funds from amounts
reserved by the Secretary. H.R. 1655 has the same language with regard to mergers, but also
allows states to approve “privatization” proposals from public organizations that determine 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 be retained. 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 provide 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 would also
establish 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.

18 See p. 192 in the congressional budget justifications for FY2016: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/olab/
2016_acf_cj.PDF.

Congressional Research Service
11

Community Services Block Grants (CSBG): Background and Funding

The bill would separately authorize “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 eliminate
this language.19
Administration’s Proposed “Upward Mobility
Project”

In its FY2016 budget request to Congress, submitted on February 2, the Obama Administration
proposed various initiatives intended to expand the use of “evidence-based” practice in social
policy.20 One of the proposed new initiatives—the Upward Mobility Project—would allow up to
10 localities, states, or consortia of localities and states to combine funds from four existing block
grants and design projects intended to reduce poverty and promote opportunity through use of
evidence-based strategies. Projects would be required to track performance and evaluate the
effectiveness of the strategies used.
CSBG is one of the four block grants to be included in the Upward Mobility Project. The other
three are the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG), also administered by HHS, and the
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home Investment Partnerships Program
(HOME), both administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In
addition to gaining flexibility over the use of funds under these four existing block grants,
projects would be able to compete for an additional $1.5 billion over five years ($300 million in
FY2016) that is requested under the SSBG.21
Administration budget documents say the Upward Mobility Project would require “cross-program
community planning” and would provide greater flexibility in the use of funds in exchange for
greater accountability. “Projects will build on successful safety net programs, like the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), housing assistance and tax credits, that help
families make ends meet and promote children’s health and educational outcomes, and will have
a significant evaluation component.” Budget documents further state that entities seeking to
participate in the Upward Mobility Project would “be expected to work with local CAA Boards to
identify the best use of CSBG funds for increasing employment and improving long-term self-
sufficiency.”22

19 Most recently, P.L. 113-235 appropriated $30 million for Community Economic Development and $6 million for
Rural Community Facilities in FY2015. (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 be reauthorized by H.R. 1655.
20 See Administration Fact Sheet, “Middle-Class Economics: Building and Using Evidence to Improve Results”:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2016/assets/fact_sheets/building-and-using-evidence-to-
improve-results.pdf.
21 The Upward Mobility Project is described in both the CSBG (pp. 193-194) and SSBG (p. 415) sections of the
Administration for Children and Families FY2016 congressional budget justifications: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/
default/files/olab/2016_acf_cj.PDF Similar descriptions are included in HUD budget justifications:
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=18-FY16CJ-CDFund.pdf (p. 15-13) and http://portal.hud.gov/
hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=21-FY16CJ-HIPP.pdf (p. 18-16).
22 See Administration for Children and Families FY2016 congressional budget justifications, p. 194:
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
12

Community Services Block Grants (CSBG): Background and Funding

Funding Activity: FY2016
Administration Budget and Legislative Proposals
As noted above, President Obama submitted his FY2016 budget to Congress on February 2,
2015. In a departure from previous annual budget proposals, the Administration requested no
reduction in funding for CSBG and asked for the same level of appropriations in FY2016 as
provided in FY2015 ($674 million). HHS said this budget request reflected efforts by the
Administration for Children and Families and the CSBG network to establish and implement a
new performance management framework for CSBG, including accountability standards at the
federal, state, and local levels.23 24
In addition to the Upward Mobility Project described above, the Administration proposed several
legislative provisions as part of the FY2016 budget request for CSBG; some have been proposed
in previous budgets. As characterized in the FY2016 budget, these proposals would all be enacted
through appropriations language and provide HHS with authority to
• require states and territories administering CSBG to implement a national set of
local organizational standards and to report on the progress of CAAs in meeting
those standards;
• establish a required common performance management system for CAAs that all
states and CAAs must use;
• require states to demonstrate in their state plans how CAAs address community
revitalization challenges and show a commitment to results in areas of
concentrated or high poverty;
• use up to 1% of CSBG funds for research and evaluation, to expand available
evidence about effective strategies and learn more about innovative practices;
• provide incentives to the highest performing CAAs;
• immediately suspend and redistribute CSBG funding in cases of fraud or criminal
wrongdoing;
• require “high-quality” community assessment and planning;
• “strengthen authorities” for federal review of state CSBG plans;
• allow “matching/cost sharing” with other federal programs whose purposes align
with the CSBG Act; and
• support mergers of CAAs.25

(...continued)
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/olab/2016_acf_cj.PDF.
23 See Administration for Children and Families FY2016 congressional budget justifications, p. 193:
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/olab/2016_acf_cj.PDF.
24 See Office of Community Services (OCS) Information Memorandum Transmittal No. 138, dated 1/26/15:
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ocs/im_138_csbg_organizational_standards_fy_2015.pdf.
25 See Administration for Children and Families FY2016 congressional budget justifications, pp. 194-195:
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
13

Community Services Block Grants (CSBG): Background and Funding

As discussed earlier, the Administration proposes no continued funding for Community
Economic Development (CED) or Rural Community Facilities (RCF), and requests level funding
for Individual Development Accounts (IDAs). See Table 1 for the Administration’s FY2016
requested amounts, in comparison with final appropriations for FY2015 and previous years.
Funding Activity: FY201526
Final Appropriations Act
HHS and other government programs were funded by a series of three continuing resolutions in
early FY2015,27 until a final full-year omnibus appropriations bill was enacted on December 16,
2014 (P.L. 113-235).
The Senate Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee had approved a draft funding
bill for FY2015 on June 10, 2014, but the full committee took no action. The House
Appropriations Committee also took no formal action on an FY2015 appropriations bill for the
Departments of Labor, HHS, or Education. However, Representative Rosa DeLauro, ranking
Member of the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee, introduced H.R. 5464 on
September 15, 2014, which would have made full-year appropriations for the three departments
and related agencies.
The final enacted appropriations law (P.L. 113-235) funds CSBG and related activities at nearly
identical levels to FY2014, for a total of $729 million in FY2015. Specific amounts include $674
million for the block grant, $30 million for CED, $6.5 million for RCF, and $19 million for IDAs.
As discussed below, the total amount approved by Congress was nearly double the amount
originally requested by the Obama Administration for FY2015.
In the explanatory statement accompanying the final appropriations law, Congress commended
the Office of Community Services at HHS for continuing improvements to the performance
assessment system for the CSBG program,28 and encouraged HHS to “renew support for
implementing a standard of excellence initiative for community action agencies.”29 The statement
further said that HHS should ensure that CSBG funding is released to grantees and subgrantees as
timely as possible. “Delays in awarding and distributing these funds can cause unnecessary
hardships on both State and local agencies administering these funds and the individuals they
serve.”30

(...continued)
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/olab/2016_acf_cj.PDF.
26 For background on FY2015 appropriations for HHS and related agencies, see CRS Report R43967, Labor, Health
and Human Services, and Education: FY2015 Appropriations
, coordinated by Karen E. Lynch.
27 These were P.L. 113-164, P.L. 113-202, and P.L. 113-203.
28 See CSBG Dear Colleague Letter Performance Management Update, dated December 19, 2014:
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/resource/csbg-dear-colleauge-letter-performance-management-update.
29 Congressional Record, December 11, 2014, p. H9838.
30 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
14

Community Services Block Grants (CSBG): Background and Funding

Administration Proposal
The Obama Administration submitted its FY2015 budget request to Congress on March 4, 2014.
The President’s request for CSBG and related activities was similar to proposals submitted in
previous years, specifically proposing $350 million for the CSBG (nearly a 50% reduction), no
funding for CED and RCF, and generally status quo funding ($19 million) for IDAs.
In past years’ budgets, the Administration proposed cutting CSBG and targeting resources to
“high-performing, innovative” agencies, and using performance standards to hold eligible entities
accountable. The Administration also advocated “increased consideration” to areas of need in the
allocation of funds by states among local agencies, among other things.
FY2015 budget documents characterized the Administration’s proposals as a “three-pronged
approach for increasing accountability and local innovation: 1) reward higher performers; 2)
provide for competition when programs fail to meet organizational standards; and 3) authorize the
immediate suspension of funds in instances of fraud and criminal wrongdoing.”31 As part of its
initiatives to reward high performers, the Administration proposed allowing states to create
performance incentive systems that would set aside up to 10% of their block grant allotments for
payments to eligible entities that demonstrate “innovation and best practices.”
The Administration also called for increased accountability at the state and federal level, in
addition to the local level; proposals to “modernize and clarify” eligibility determination
procedures; and stronger community need assessment and planning provisions.
Funding Activity: FY201432
Final Appropriations Act
FY2014 began with no regular appropriations laws in place, resulting in a funding gap and partial
government shutdown between October 1, 2013, when the fiscal year began, and October 17,
2013, when President Obama signed an interim continuing resolution (CR). The CR provided
budget authority for federal programs, including CSBG and related activities, through January 15,
2014 (P.L. 113-46), and generally maintained these programs at their final FY2013 levels, which
included reductions resulting from the March 1, 2013, budget “sequester” and an across-the-board
rescission deemed necessary by OMB to keep discretionary spending below statutory limits.
The House and the Senate passed a full-year Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2014 on
January 15 and 16, respectively, and President Obama signed the measure on January 17 (P.L.
113-76).33 The final FY2014 appropriations law provided a total of $729 million for CSBG and

31 See Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), FY2015
Justifications of Estimates for Appropriations Committees: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/olab/
sec2d_cfsp_2015cj_complete.pdf.
32 For background on FY2014 appropriations for HHS and related agencies, see CRS Report R43236, Labor, Health
and Human Services, and Education: FY2014 Appropriations
, coordinated by Karen E. Lynch.
33 The CR enacted on October 17, 2013 (P.L. 113-46), had expired on January 15, 2014, and the full-year consolidated
measure for FY2014 (P.L. 113-76) was not enacted until January 17. Thus, Congress enacted a short-term CR to
provide funding for January 15-17 (P.L. 113-73).
Congressional Research Service
15

Community Services Block Grants (CSBG): Background and Funding

related activities, which was an increase from the FY2013 post-sequestration/post-rescission level
of $687 million, and nearly twice the amount requested by the Obama Administration for
FY2014. Broken down by program, FY2014 funding levels were $674 million for the block
grant, $30 million for CED, $6 million for RCF, and $19 million for IDAs.
Senate Committee Action on Full-Year Appropriations Bill
Although no further action occurred on this bill, the Senate Appropriations Committee on July 11,
2013, reported legislation that would have provided full-year FY2014 appropriations for the
Departments of Labor, HHS, and Education (S. 1284, S.Rept. 113-71). As reported, the bill
included a total of $732 million for CSBG and related activities, broken down as follows: $676
million for the block grant, $30 million for CED, $6 million for RCF, and $20 million for IDAs.
In its report, the Senate Appropriations Committee said it rejected the Administration’s proposed
cuts to CSBG and “continues to strongly support the program, which provides critical and
flexible funding for local organizations that serve as a central source of assistance for low-income
populations at the local level.”34 With regard to the Administration’s proposal to eliminate CED
and move funding for the Healthy Food Financing Initiative to the Treasury Department, the
committee “strongly encourages” collaboration between HHS and the Treasury but noted that
HFFI projects funded through the two agencies are distinct from each other and recommended
continued funding for the CED.
Administration Proposal
President Obama submitted his FY2014 budget request to Congress on April 10, 2013, proposing
$350 million for the CSBG, $19.5 million for IDAs, and no funding for the other CSBG-related
activities.35 This request would have cut block grant funding almost in half and was consistent
with the Administration’s request for CSBG in both FY2012 and FY2013; however, Congress had
rejected this proposal in each of those two years.
Along with its request for reduced funding, the Administration proposed targeting CSBG
resources to “high-performing, innovative” agencies and repeated its previously-stated intention
to work with Congress to develop a set of core federal standards that states would use to
determine whether existing eligible entities are performing successfully. In the case of an eligible
entity that failed to meet these federal standards (which could be augmented with standards
established by the states, subject to federal approval), the state would be required immediately to
conduct an open competition to designate another entity to serve the affected community. A
similar proposal was included in the FY2013 budget proposal; see discussion below in
“Administration Proposal” for FY2013.
The Administration proposed no change in the current funding distribution formula to states,
territories, and tribes, but requested that states be required to allocate funds among local agencies
with “increased consideration” to the areas of greatest need. The Administration also proposed to

34 S.Rept. 113-71, p. 137.
35 See Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), 2014 Justifications
of Estimates for Appropriations Committees: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/olab/
fy_2014_cj_final_web.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
16

Community Services Block Grants (CSBG): Background and Funding

allow states to suspend and redistribute funds so that interim services can be provided to low-
income communities in cases where there is evidence of criminal wrongdoing or gross
negligence. Additional proposals included requiring states to establish minimum guidance for
grantees to use in determining the income eligibility of recipients of direct services, and requiring
eligible entities to include performance measures that are responsive to local community needs in
their Community Action Plans.
Funding Activity: FY201336
Final Continuing Resolution
CSBG and related activities were funded in FY2013 under a full-year CR in the absence of a
regular appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor, HHS, Education and related agencies.
The final full-year CR for FY2013 (P.L. 113-6) generally maintained discretionary programs at
their FY2012 levels. A CR for the first six months of FY2013 (P.L. 112-175) had funded these
programs at their FY2012 levels, plus an additional 0.612%.
For CSBG and related activities, FY2012 levels were $677 million for CSBG, $30 million for
CED (of which up to $10 million could be used for the Healthy Food Financing Initiative), $5
million for RCF, and $20 million for IDAs. For FY2013, however, these levels were reduced as a
result of a sequestration ordered on March 1, 2013,37 and an across-the-board rescission that
OMB determined necessary to keep FY2013 discretionary spending within statutory limits. On
May 20, 2013, HHS published an “all-purpose table” that showed a combined total of $687
million for CSBG and related activities in FY2013, including $635 million for the CSBG, $28
million for CED, $5 million for RCF, and almost $19 million for IDAs.
OMB further announced on April 4, subsequent to the enactment of P.L. 113-6, that an across-the-
board rescission of 0.2% was necessary to avoid a breach of statutory limits on discretionary
spending for FY2013. The effect of these reductions on final amounts available in FY2013 for
CSBG and related activities—resulting both from the March 1 sequester and from the across-the-
board rescission—is reflected in the “all-purpose table” published by HHS on May 20, described
above. (See Table 1.)
House Action on Full-Year Appropriations Bill in the 112th Congress
During the 112th Congress, the House Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee
approved and released a draft FY2013 funding bill that included $712 million for CSBG and
related activities, plus an unspecified amount for IDAs.38 The House subcommittee would have

36 For background on FY2013 appropriations for HHS and related agencies, see CRS Report R42588, Labor, Health
and Human Services, and Education: FY2013 Appropriations Overview
, coordinated by Karen E. Lynch.
37 “Sequestration” is an automatic across-the-board spending reduction process under which budgetary resources are
permanently canceled to enforce budget policy goals. Under the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25), OMB was
directed to implement automatic budget enforcement mechanisms, including sequestration, of FY2013-FY2021
funding to enforce certain deficit reduction goals.
38 A press release summarizing the House Subcommittee’s draft bill, and the legislative text of the bill, can be found on
the House Appropriations Committee website: http://appropriations.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?
DocumentID=303303.
Congressional Research Service
17

Community Services Block Grants (CSBG): Background and Funding

maintained funding for the block grant at current levels and rejected the Administration’s
proposal to reduce it by approximately half. Specifically, the bill would have provided $677
million for the block grant; $30 million for CED; and $5 million for RCF. However, the draft bill
would have prohibited any use of funds for the Administration’s Healthy Food Financing
Initiative. The full House Appropriations Committee did not act on this bill.
Senate Action on Full-Year Appropriations Bill in the 112th Congress
The Senate Appropriations Committee reported S. 3295, its version of the FY2013 appropriations
bill for the Departments of Labor, HHS, and Education. That bill included a total of $733 million
for CSBG and related activities, divided as follows: $677 million for the block grant; $30 million
for CED (with up to $10 million available for the Healthy Food Financing Initiative); $6 million
for RCF; and $20 million for IDAs.
In its report accompanying the FY2013 bill, the Senate committee expressed strong support for
CSBG
which provides critical flexible funding for local organizations that serve as a central source
of assistance for low-income populations. These local organizations typically administer
larger Federal programs such as Head Start and LIHEAP [Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance Program]. The CSBG provides critical funding to support the administration of
these programs at the local level, as well as flexible funding to fill in service gaps and meet
the particular needs of local communities.39
Administration Proposal
President Obama submitted his FY2013 budget request to Congress in February of 2012,
proposing a total of almost $400 million for CSBG and related activities, compared to a final
level of $732 million in FY2012. The block grant would have been reduced by nearly half (from
$677 million to $350 million) and RCF would have been eliminated. CED and IDAs would have
remained at FY2012 levels and, of funds provided for CED, $10 million were to go to the
Administration’s Healthy Food Financing Initiative.
Budget documents characterized the proposed reduction in funding for CSBG as one of several
“tough cuts to worthy programs necessary to offset spending increases for other HHS
programs.”40 In addition to cutting funding for CSBG, the Administration sought to increase
quality and competition in the program and to focus resources on the highest-performing
agencies. The FY2013 budget justifications repeated many of the same comments made in the
FY2012 budget request (see Appendix A), noting that annual funding to local agencies is not
competitive and that many of the same local agencies have been receiving funding through CSBG
and its predecessor program since 1964.41 While the law provides a mechanism for states to
terminate funding for local agencies, the process “can be protracted,” according to HHS.

39 See S.Rept. 112-176.
40 FY2013 Budget of the United States, Office of Management and Budget, p. 108; http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/
BUDGET-2013-BUD/pdf/BUDGET-2013-BUD.pdf.
41 See Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), 2013 Justifications
of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, pp. 190-191; http://transition.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/
CFS%20final.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
18

Community Services Block Grants (CSBG): Background and Funding

HHS noted that National Performance Indicators (NPIs) and a performance management system
called Results Oriented Management Accountability (ROMA) are used to track performance and
provide national accountability for the activities of local grantees. However, because the grantees
receive funding from numerous sources in addition to CSBG, the performance accountability
system cannot identify outcomes solely attributable to CSBG funding. Moreover, these
performance data are not used to allocate funds among agencies.
The Administration proposed to work with Congress to develop a set of “core” federal standards
that states would use to evaluate the performance of local eligible entities. States would also be
able to augment these federal standards. If an eligible entity failed to meet the performance
standards, the state would be required to hold an immediate open competition for another grantee
to serve the affected community. At a minimum, the core standards would include the following
criteria:
• failure to correct certain audit findings;
• board governance issues;
• failure to submit required financial, administrative, or programmatic reports and
materials in a timely manner;
• failure to implement corrective actions based on state monitoring reviews for
weakness in performance; and
• service delivery performance.
The Administration requested no change in the current law formula used to allocate CSBG funds
among states, territories, and tribes. However, under the Administration proposals, states would
have been required to allocate funds among local agencies increasingly to “areas of greatest
need.”
No formal legislation was offered to implement any of the Administration’s proposed changes to
the CSBG program. However, the Administration contracted with the Urban Institute to facilitate
the activities of a new CSBG Performance Management Task Force. These activities are
described in a November 2012 letter from HHS.42




42 This letter is available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/resource/csbg-performance-management-task-force-
dear-colleague-letter. Also see a more detailed summary of performance management activities at
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/resource/csbg-fy-2013-update, and see January 26, 2015, information
memorandum: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ocs/im_138_csbg_organizational_standards_fy_2015.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
19


Table 1. Funding for CSBG and Related Activities, FY2008-FY2016
($ in millions)
FY2016
Program FY2008a FY2009b FY2010 FY2011c FY2012d FY2013e FY2014f FY2015g
Request
Community Services Block Grant
653.80
700.00
700.00
678.64
677.36
635.28
674.00
674.00
674.00
Community Economic Development
31.47
36.00
36.00
17.96
29.94
28.08
29.88
29.88
0
Job Opportunities for Low-Income
5.29
5.29
2.64
1.64
0 0
0 0 0
Individuals (JOLI)
Rural Community Facilities
7.86
10.00
10.00
4.99
4.98
4.67
5.97
6.50
0
Individual Development Accounts
24.02
24.02
23.91
23.98
19.87
18.59
19.00
18.95
18.95
Total 722.45
775.31b
772.55
727.21
732.15 686.63
728.99 729.33 692.95
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Unless otherwise noted, sources of data are agency budget justifications and congressional
appropriations documents.
Note: Of amounts shown for Community Economic Development (CED) in FY2012 through FY2015, up to $10 million could be used for the Healthy Food Financing
Initiative (HFFI).
a. Funding reflects a 1.747% across-the-board reduction, as mandated by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161).
b. Funding levels shown for FY2009 were included in 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).
c. Funding reflects a 0.2% across-the-board rescission as mandated by P.L. 112-10.
d. 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.
e. The source for numbers shown in this column 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 P.L. 113-6 and the effects of budget sequestration and an across-the-board rescission of 0.2%.
f.
Funding provided by P.L. 113-76.
g. Funding provided by P.L. 113-235.
CRS-20

Community Services Block Grants (CSBG): Background and Funding

Appendix A. Additional Funding Information
This appendix provides information on appropriations for CSBG and related activities in FY2012
and prior years back to FY2009 (when additional funding was provided under the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act). In addition, a table (Table A-1) shows funding for the CSBG
(not including related activities) from the block grant’s first year in FY1982 through FY2015.
FY201243
Final Congressional Action
During the first quarter of FY2012, CSBG and related activities operated under a series of
continuing resolutions (CRs), which generally funded discretionary programs at FY2011 levels.
On December 23, 2011, President Obama signed into law a full-year appropriations bill for
FY2012 (P.L. 112-74), which maintained the block grant and RCF at approximately their FY2011
levels. P.L. 112-74 provided an increase for CED in FY2012, eliminated JOLI, and reduced
spending for IDAs.
Administration Proposal
President Obama’s FY2012 budget proposed a total of $394 million for CSBG and related
activities.44 Of this amount, $350 million would have gone to the block grant, for a reduction of
50% from FY2010 levels (or 48% from final FY2011 levels). This was the first year the Obama
Administration proposed to cut the block grant in half; similar proposals were made in the budget
proposals for each of FY2013 through FY2015.
The Administration’s proposal to reduce funding for CSBG was coupled with a statement of
intent to “inject competition” into the program. As described earlier, states are required to pass at
least 90% of their annual block grant allotments to “eligible entities,” which are primarily
Community Action Agencies that had been designated under the former Economic Opportunity
Act of 1964. In FY2012 budget documents, HHS noted that these grants are not open for
competition and that while states may terminate funding for CAAs that are found to be deficient,
this process is seen as burdensome and is not pursued often. “States usually pursue termination
only when there is a determination that the CAA is grossly financially negligent,” according to
HHS.
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) documents further stated: “A series of reports from the
Government Accountability Office and the Inspector General of the Department of Health and
Human Services have documented failures in program oversight and accountability—with the
likely result that even grossly negligent CAAs continue to receive funding.”45

43 For background on FY2012 appropriations for the Departments of Labor, HHS, and Education, see CRS Report
R42010, Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education: FY2012 Appropriations, coordinated by Karen E. Lynch.
44 Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), FY2012 Justification
of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, Children and Families Services Programs, pp. 197-199,
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/olab/budget/2012/cj/CFS.pdf.
45 Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Fiscal Year 2012 Terminations, Reductions, and Savings, p. 103,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
21

Community Services Block Grants (CSBG): Background and Funding

In proposing a reduced funding level for FY2012, HHS stated:
Within this reduced funding level, ACF will work with Congress to inject competition into
the program so that resources are targeted more effectively on high-performing, innovative
organizations. The program, as reconfigured, should maintain the current emphasis on place-
based services to address the causes and impact of poverty, but should hold grantees more
accountable for outcomes and should direct resources to agencies that can effectively serve
high need communities, use evidence-based practice to achieve results, operate with a high
level of program integrity, and maximize funding spent on services rather than
administrative overhead. Many community action agencies deliver quality programs, but at a
time when we must reduce the deficit, we cannot afford to provide guaranteed funding that is
not targeted based on need and performance.
Of the remaining budget request for CSBG and related activities in FY2012, CED would have
received $20 million, down sharply from its FY2010 level of $36 million. HHS budget
documents stated that the program funded “an amalgam of projects with varying degrees of
success” and that “[i]n the most recent report to Congress, 21 percent of the projects funded were
declared unsuccessful.”46
Finally, the Administration proposed to maintain IDAs at their FY2011 level of $24 million in
FY2012, and to eliminate funding for RCF and JOLI.
FY2011
Final Congressional Action
For FY2011, CSBG and related activities again began the fiscal year under a series of continuing
resolutions (CRs), which generally maintained the previous year’s funding levels. A final CR for
FY2011 (P.L. 112-10) was enacted on April 15, 2011, providing a total of $727 million for CSBG
and related activities for the balance of the fiscal year; this amount was somewhat lower than the
FY2010 level of $773 million. P.L. 112-10 also included a mandatory across-the-board rescission
of 0.2% for discretionary non-defense programs.
Of funds provided for the block grant, the FY2011 law required $350,000 to be used by the
Secretary of HHS for preparation of a report on the use of CSBG funds.
Earlier in the year, the House had passed alternative legislation (H.R. 1) to extend funding
through the end of FY2011, which would have reduced discretionary funding for many
government programs, including CSBG. As passed by the House on February 19, 2011, H.R. 1
contained $405 million for programs authorized under the CSBG Act, including $395 million for
the block grant (compared with the FY2010 level of $700 million) and $10 million for RCF
(same as the FY2010 level). No funds would have been provided for CED, and JOLI and IDAs

(...continued)
http://cdbapps/ksglibrary/2428_2012_TRS.pdf. Also see Appendix B of this report for a discussion of the GAO
findings and recommendations referenced by OMB; and see Office of Inspector General, Department of Health and
Human Services, Alert: Community Service Block Grant Recovery Act Funding for Vulnerable and In-Crisis
Community Action Agencies
(A-01-09-02511), http://oig.hhs.gov/oas/reports/region1/10902511.pdf.
46 The most recent report to Congress posted on the HHS website is for FY2006: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/
resource/fy-2006-ced-report-to-congress.
Congressional Research Service
22

Community Services Block Grants (CSBG): Background and Funding

would have remained at their FY2010 funding levels of $2.6 million and $24 million,
respectively.
During debate on H.R. 1, the House considered an amendment offered by Representative Flake
that would have reduced FY2011 funding for the CSBG by an additional $100 million, which
would have resulted in a total of $295 million for the block grant in FY2011. The amendment was
defeated by a vote of 115 to 316.
On March 9, the Senate failed to pass the House version of H.R. 1 and also failed to pass S.Amdt.
149, which would have kept CSBG and related activities at their FY2010 levels through the
balance of FY2011.
Administration Proposal
President Obama’s FY2011 budget request proposed a total of $760 million for CSBG and related
activities ($700 million for the block grant, $36 million for CED, and $24 million for IDAs). The
FY2011 budget request was similar to the Administration’s request for FY2010, which also
proposed zero funding for RCF; however, the FY2010 request would have maintained level
funding for JOLI.
Although the Administration proposed level funding ($36 million) for CED in FY2011, budget
documents indicated that up to $20 million of this amount would be dedicated for use under the
Healthy Food Financing Initiative. This was the first year the Administration proposed using CED
funds for this nutrition initiative.
HHS budget documents also indicated that the Office of Community Services planned to continue
funding in FY2010 for a cooperative agreement grant for a national community economic
development training and capacity development initiative; this grant had begun in FY2009 in
response to directives from House and Senate Appropriations Committees.
FY2010
With no final appropriations law in place at the beginning of FY2010, Congress passed a series of
continuing resolutions to maintain funding for HHS and other federal agencies. The House and
Senate subsequently passed the conference agreement on a full-year consolidated appropriations
bill that was enacted on December 16, 2009, as P.L. 111-117.
The final law included the following amounts for CSBG and related activities: $700 million for
the block grant, $36 million for CED, $10 million for RCF, $2.66 million for JOLI, and $24
million for IDAs. The Administration had originally requested $700 million for the block grant,
$36 million for CED, $5.3 million for JOLI, and $24 million for IDAs. The Administration had
proposed termination of RCF.
The conference agreement on the consolidated appropriations bill directed HHS to use $500,000
to continue the national training and capacity-building initiative that was started in FY2009. The
agreement also directed HHS to report to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees on
the use by states of the ARRA/CSBG funds intended for “benefit eligibility coordination” and
whether these funds had achieved their intended purpose of ensuring that individuals and families
Congressional Research Service
23

Community Services Block Grants (CSBG): Background and Funding

receive the assistance for which they are eligible under various federal, state, local, and private
programs.
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 200947
On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed ARRA into law, providing an estimated $787
billion in spending and tax provisions in an effort to stimulate the economy.48 The law
appropriated $1 billion for the CSBG, which remained available for obligation until September
30, 2010. The funds were subject to set-aside provisions in the underlying CSBG law that
reserved half of 1% for allocation among the territories and 1.5% for training, technical
assistance, evaluation, and monitoring. Remaining funds were distributed according to the regular
CSBG formula to states, which were required to use 1% of their ARRA allotments for “benefit
eligibility coordination” activities, related to identification and enrollment of eligible individuals
and families in federal, state, or local benefit programs. The balance of each state’s allotment was
distributed among local eligible entities in the state. ARRA provided that CSBG funds could be
used in FY2009 and FY2010 to serve individuals and families with incomes up to 200% of the
federal poverty level, rather than the regular CSBG maximum of 125% of poverty.
HHS issued formal guidance regarding the release and use of the CSBG stimulus funds on April
10, 2009, requiring states to submit a plan for use of the funds by May 29, 2009. In its guidance,
HHS encouraged states and local entities that received stimulus funding to create “sustainable
economic resources in communities.”49 Specifically, HHS said that states should help ensure that
eligible entities
1) provide a wide range of innovative employment-related services and activities tailored to
the specific needs of their community; 2) use funds in a manner that meets the short-term and
long-term economic and employment needs of individuals, families and communities; and 3)
make meaningful and measureable progress toward the reform goals of the Recovery Act
with special attention to creating and sustaining economic growth and employment
opportunities.
The guidance also noted that states could not use CSBG stimulus funds for administrative costs or
any statewide discretionary activities.50
As noted above, states were required to use 1% of their CSBG allotments for coordination
activities to ensure that eligible individuals were identified and enrolled in appropriate benefit

47 For a summary of provisions in the economic stimulus legislation affecting CSBG and additional programs
(Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Child Care and Development Block Grant, Child Support Enforcement,
Child Welfare, Low-Income Home Energy Assistance, Head Start, and the Compassion Capital Fund), see CRS Report
R40211, Human Services Provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
48 The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) subsequently re-estimated the amount of funding provided by ARRA and
estimated the law would result in spending of approximately $825 billion over the 10-year period of FY2009-FY2019;
see Estimated Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on Employment and Economic Output from
April 2011 through June 2011
, August 2011: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/123xx/doc12385/08-24-ARRA.pdf.
49 Office of Community Services (OCS) Information Memorandum, Transmittal No. 109, dated 4/10/09:
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/csbg/guidance/im109.html. Also see “frequently asked questions” on ARRA
CSBG funds: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/csbg/qna.html; and a second version of “frequently asked
questions”: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/csbg/arra_questions.htm.
50 HHS has issued guidance on the liquidation and close-out of CSBG/ARRA funds; see OCS Information
Memorandum, Transmittal No. 122, dated 12/3/10; http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/csbg/guidance/im122.html.
Congressional Research Service
24

Community Services Block Grants (CSBG): Background and Funding

programs, and HHS said the law gave states flexibility in administering these coordination
activities to best meet the needs of individuals, families, and communities.
According to the National Association of State Community Services Programs, benefits
coordination activities undertaken with ARRA funds included state and local agency
“coordination with stakeholders, communication techniques, technological enhancements, and
other initiatives.” Specific examples included statewide data collection systems to allow various
programs to share information, and statewide information campaigns to increase public awareness
of available services.51
The final version of ARRA was a hybrid of provisions passed earlier by the House and the Senate.
In explaining its decision to include CSBG funding in the stimulus package, the House
Appropriations Committee’s draft report on ARRA stated:
Due to rising unemployment, housing foreclosures, and high food and fuel prices,
community action agencies have seen dramatic increases in requests for assistance. These
additional economic recovery funds will help to fill gaps in safety net services by targeting
funds directly to community action agencies in over 1,000 local communities while they are
impacted by revenue shortfalls.52
In the Senate, the Appropriations Committee explained its decision to require states to reserve
funds for benefit eligibility coordination activities: “These services help stabilize families,
especially during periods of unemployment, and provide them with the tools they need to lift
themselves from poverty and to establish economic self-sufficiency” (S.Rept. 111-3).
FY2009
Congress passed and President Obama signed into law an omnibus appropriations act (P.L. 111-8)
that funded CSBG and related activities from March through the balance of FY2009. From the
beginning of FY2009, CSBG and related agencies had been operating under a continuing
resolution (P.L. 110-329) that generally maintained funding at FY2008 levels. For CSBG and
related agencies, the omnibus appropriations act for FY2009 provided a total of $775 million—as
originally recommended by the House Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee—
compared to total FY2008 funding of $722 million.
The House Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee had approved legislation on
June 19, 2008, that would have increased funds for CSBG and two related activities in FY2009.
As approved by the subcommittee, the measure included $700 million for the CSBG (a $46
million increase from the FY2008 level), $36 million for CED (a $4.5 million increase), $10
million for RCF (a $2.1 million increase), and level funding for JOLI and IDAs. The draft
committee report stated that “the CSBG is more important than ever, with unemployment and
poverty increasing due to the struggling economy and the number of low-income individuals and
families in need of assistance rising as a consequence.”53 The draft report directed that $500,000

51 HHS provided funding to the Urban Institute to evaluate ARRA-funded CSBG activities. The full Urban Institute
report, published in February 2012, is available at http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412602-Implementation-of-
Community-Services-Block-Grants-under-ARRA.pdf.
52 The committee’s report is available on its website, http://appropriations.house.gov/images/stories/pdf/
RecoveryReport01-15-09.pdf.
53 Unnumbered draft House Appropriations Committee report, reflecting actions of the Subcommittee on Labor-HHS-
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
25

Community Services Block Grants (CSBG): Background and Funding

of training and technical assistance funds be used for a national community economic
development training and capacity development initiative that would provide CAA leaders with
the necessary professional skills to finance and implement innovative housing, economic, and
community development partnerships. This language also was included in the explanatory
statement accompanying P.L. 111-8.
The Senate Appropriations Committee reported its version of the FY2009 funding bill for the
Departments of Labor, HHS, and Education on July 8, 2008 (S. 3230, S.Rept. 110-410). The
Senate committee would have maintained CSBG and all related activities at their FY2008
funding levels, except for RCF, which would have received a slight increase. The Senate
committee noted “the importance of Community Action Agencies (CAAs) as institutions that
organize low-income communities to identify emerging challenges to economically insecure
Americans and subsequently to mobilize the resources, programs and partnerships needed to
address local poverty conditions.” The report further stated that “CSBG is a unique Federal
resource that supports CAAs while they initiate creative responses to local poverty conditions and
seek new sources of support and investment to implement their initiatives. The committee
believes that CSBG funding is an investment, analogous to venture capital, in the future of low-
wage workers, retirees and their families.”
In its report, the Senate committee faulted the Office of Community Services within HHS for
failing to report on progress made in correcting the deficiencies in program oversight identified
by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) (see Appendix B for a discussion of the GAO
report). The committee further stated that OCS should develop and deliver professional skills
training for CAA leaders so they can finance and implement innovative housing, economic, and
community development partnerships (similar to language in the draft House report); that OCS
should support linkages between local agencies, national organizations, and academic institutions
that would disseminate research on effective responses to poverty; and finally, that OCS should
continue funding statewide CAA associations to continue and expand cost-effective training and
other capacity-building services for members. These concerns were repeated by the House
Appropriations Committee in its explanatory statement accompanying the FY2009 omnibus
appropriations bill that was enacted as P.L. 111-8. As noted above, HHS began funding the
national training and capacity-building initiative in FY2009.

(...continued)
Education on FY2009 spending bill, http://www.cq.com/flatfiles/editorialFiles/budgetTracker/reference/docs/
20080626lhreport.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
26

Community Services Block Grants (CSBG): Background and Funding

Table A-1.Community Services Block Grant Appropriations History, FY1982-FY2015
($ in millions)
Fiscal Year
Appropriation
Fiscal Year
Appropriation
FY1982 315 FY1999 500
FY1983 342 FY2000 528
FY1984 317 FY2001 600
FY1985 335 FY2002 650
FY1986 321 FY2003 646
FY1987 335 FY2004 642
FY1988 326 FY2005 637
FY1989 319 FY2006 630
FY1990 322 FY2007 630
FY1991 349 FY2008 654
FY1992 360 FY2009 700
FY1993 372 FY2010 700
FY1994 397 FY2011 679
FY1995 390 FY2012 677
FY1996 390 FY2013 635
FY1997 490 FY2014 674
FY1998 490 FY2015 674
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on information in Department of Health
and Human Services congressional budget justifications and enacted appropriations laws.
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, to be available for obligation in
those two years.

Congressional Research Service
27

Community Services Block Grants (CSBG): Background and Funding

Appendix B. Government Accountability Office
(GAO) Review

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report on the CSBG program in July
2006, 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.54
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.

54 Community Services Block Grant Program: HHS Should Improve Oversight by Focusing Monitoring and Assistance
Efforts on Areas of High Risk
, GAO-06-627, U.S. Government Accountability Office, June 2006. GAO had revealed
some of the findings of this review in February 2006 in a letter submitted to HHS (“Community Services Block Grant
Program: HHS Needs to Improve Monitoring of State Grantees,” GAO-06-373R, letter to Wade F. Horn, Assistant
Secretary for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services, from the U.S. Government
Accountability Office, February 7, 2006).
Congressional Research Service
28

Community Services Block Grants (CSBG): Background and Funding

GAO made five recommendations to OCS in its report (and HHS indicated its agreement and
intent to act upon these recommendations). GAO recommended that OCS should
• conduct a risk-based assessment of states by systematically collecting and using
information;
• establish policies and procedures to ensure monitoring is focused on the highest-
risk states;
• issue guidance to states on complying with the requirement that they monitor
local agencies during each three-year period;
• establish reporting guidance for training and technical assistance grants so that
OCS receives information on the outcomes for local agencies that receive such
training or technical assistance; and
• implement a strategic plan for targeting training and technical assistance in areas
where states feel the greatest need.
HHS Response
HHS took a series of steps in response to the GAO report. On October 10, 2006, HHS issued an
information memorandum to state agencies responding to GAO’s third recommendation and
providing guidance on compliance with the statutory requirement that states conduct a full on-site
review of each eligible entity at least once during every three-year period.55 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).56
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.57
HHS developed a CSBG state assessment tool to help states prepare for federal monitoring,58 and
on August 24, 2007, issued a strategic plan for the CSBG program, which was intended to

55 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.
56 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.
57 See discussion of this survey earlier in this report.
58 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.
Congressional Research Service
29

Community Services Block Grants (CSBG): Background and Funding

describe training, technical assistance, and capacity-building activities and promote
accountability within the CSBG.59 As discussed in Appendix A of this report, HHS began funding
the national community economic development training and capacity development initiative in
FY2009. Most 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 FY2011.60

Author Contact Information

Karen Spar

Specialist in Domestic Social Policy and Division
Research Coordinator
kspar@crs.loc.gov, 7-7319



59 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.
60 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.
Congressional Research Service
30