Contents

• Introduction
• Background
• The Block Grant
• Allocation of Funds
• Use of Funds
• State Role
• Local Delivery System
• Related Activities
• Community Economic Development
• Rural Community Development
• CSBG Program Data
• Use of Federal CSBG Funds
• Sources of Federal Non-CSBG Funds
• Recipients of CSBG Services
• Funding for CSBG and Related Activities
• FY2024 and FY2025 Funding Levels
• FY2026 President's Budget Request
• Recent Supplemental Appropriations
• Reauthorization Proposals
• 119^th Congress
• 117^th Congress

Summary

Community Services Block Grants (CSBG) provide federal funds to states, territories, and tribes for distribution to local agencies to support a wide range of community-based activities to reduce poverty. These include activities to help families and individuals achieve self-sufficiency, find and retain meaningful employment, attain an adequate education, make better use of available income, obtain adequate housing, and achieve greater participation in community affairs. In addition, many local agencies receive federal funds from other sources and may administer other federal programs.

Smaller related programs—Community Economic Development (CED), and Rural Community Development (RCD)—also support anti-poverty efforts. CSBG and these related activities trace their roots to the War on Poverty, launched more than 60 years ago in 1964. Today, they are administered at the federal level by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

In FY2025, the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025 (P.L. 119-4) generally provided funding at the same levels as specified in the applicable FY2024 appropriations act. CSBG and related activities were funded at a total level of $804 million through the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (P.L. 118-47). Of this total, $22 million was reserved for CED and $12 million was reserved for RCD. The FY2026 President's budget proposed to eliminate funding for the CSBG and related programs. CSBG has flexibility with regard to its implementation by local entities to address the causes and consequences of poverty. This aspect of CSBG enabled Congress to provide relief in recent years at the local level for services for persons whose low-income status leaves them especially vulnerable to disasters. For example, supplemental appropriations were made through the CSBG in response to hurricanes, typhoons, earthquakes, tornadoes, and wildfires in FY2019, the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in FY2020, and hurricanes in FY2023.

The Community Services Block Grant Act was last reauthorized in 1998 by P.L. 105-285. The authorization of appropriations for CSBG and most related programs expired in FY2003, but Congress has continued to make annual appropriations each year. Most recently, legislation was introduced in the 117^th and 119^th Congresses—with bipartisan co-sponsorship in each case—to amend and reauthorize the CSBG Act. During the 119^th Congress, a bill was introduced (H.R. 3131) that would amend the CSBG act and reauthorize CSBG at funding levels of $1 billion annually through FY2032.

According to the most recent Community Services Block Grant Report to Congress (for FY2022), published by HHS, the nationwide network of approximately one thousand CSBG grantees served over 10 million people in 5.2 million low-income households in FY2022. States reported that the network spent $20.2 billion of federal, state, local, and private resources, including $1.1 billion in federal CSBG funds.

The CSBG Act definition of the term poverty line has been implemented via the calculation of a set of dollar amounts called the Federal Poverty Guidelines (FPG). This definition has also been referenced by the statutory language for other federal programs for purposes of program administration, either by referring directly to the definition in the CSBG statute or by using similar language. HHS is the agency responsible for updating the FPG annually for inflation, as specified in the CSBG statute.

---

Introduction

The Community Services Block Grant traces its roots to the War on Poverty, launched by President Lyndon Johnson more than 60 years ago when he proposed the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. In his March 1964 message to Congress, President Johnson said the act would "give every American community the opportunity to develop a comprehensive plan to fight its own poverty—and help them to carry out their plans."¹ This was to be achieved through a new Community Action Program that would "strike poverty at its source—in the streets of our cities and on the farms of our countryside among the very young and the impoverished old."

A central feature of the new Community Action Program was that local residents would identify the unique barriers and unmet needs contributing to poverty in their individual communities and develop plans to address those needs, drawing on resources from all levels of government and the private sector. The program would be overseen by a newly created Office of Economic Opportunity, which would pay part of the costs of implementing these local plans. President Johnson signed the Economic Opportunity Act into law on August 20, 1964 (P.L. 88-452), and within a few years, a nationwide network of about one thousand local Community Action Agencies was established.²

This report provides information on the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG), which is the modern-day program that continues to fund this network of local antipoverty agencies. The report also describes two smaller related programs that are administered by the same federal office that currently oversees the CSBG. The report begins with background information and legislative history of the CSBG and related activities. It then summarizes the ways in which CSBG eligible entities use funds and who is served, followed by a discussion of recent funding for CSBG, and concludes with a discussion of reauthorization proposals in recent Congresses. Appendix A provides tables showing historical funding for CSBG and related activities dating back to the beginning of the program (in 1982), as well as a table with CSBG funding distributed to states, tribes, and territories in recent years. A discussion of the poverty definition used in the CSBG Act (the Federal Poverty Guidelines or FPG) and referred to in the authorizing statutes for a variety of federal programs by referencing its definition in the CSBG Act, is provided in Appendix B.

Background

Administered by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) provides federal funds to states, territories, and Indian tribes for distribution to local agencies in support of a variety of antipoverty activities. As noted above, the origins of the CSBG date back to 1964, when the Economic Opportunity Act (P.L. 88-452; 42 U.S.C. §2701) established the War on Poverty and authorized the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) as the lead agency in the federal antipoverty campaign. A centerpiece of OEO was the Community Action Program, which would directly involve low-income people in the design and administration of antipoverty activities in their communities through mandatory representation on local agency governing boards. Currently, these local agencies, generally known as Community Action Agencies (CAAs), are the primary 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 related programs expired in FY2003, although Congress has continued to appropriate funds for the programs each year since then.

Separate from the block grant, related national activities—Community Economic Development (CED), and Rural Community Development (RCD)—offer grants to assist local low-income communities with economic development, and rural housing and water management. These activities are administered at the federal level by the Office of Community Services at the HHS Administration for Children and Families (see the text box below), the same office that administers the CSBG. CED and RCD are also authorized by the CSBG Act.³ Congress has also funded other related activities over the years, but none except CED and RCD have received funding since FY2017.

The Block Grant

Allocation of Funds

Of funds appropriated annually under the CSBG Act, HHS is required to reserve 1.5% for training and technical assistance and other administrative activities, and not less than half of this set-aside must be provided to state or local entities. In addition, 0.5% of the appropriation is reserved for outlying territories (Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of 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 the District of Columbia and 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 and tribal organizations to receive their allotments directly, rather than through the state. See Table A-1 for a history of CSBG allotments to states, tribes, and territories since FY2013.

Use of Funds

CSBG funds are used for activities designed to have a "measurable and potentially major impact on causes of poverty."¹¹ The law envisions a wide variety of activities undertaken on behalf of low-income families and individuals, including those who are welfare recipients, homeless, migrant or seasonal farm workers, or elderly. States must submit an application and plan to HHS, stating their intention that funds will be used for activities to help families and individuals achieve self-sufficiency, find and retain meaningful employment, attain an adequate education, make better use of available income, obtain adequate housing, and achieve greater participation in community affairs. In addition, states must ensure that funds will be used to address the needs of youth in low-income communities; coordinate with related programs, including state welfare reform efforts; and ensure that local grantees provide emergency food-related services.

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.¹² States also may use up to $55,000 or 5% of their allotment, whichever is higher, for administrative costs.¹³ 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, supporting innovative programs and activities conducted by local organizations, or other activities consistent with the purposes of the CSBG Act. In addition, as authorized by the 1998 amendments, states may use some CSBG funds to offset revenue losses associated with any qualified state charity tax credit.

Local Delivery System

As noted above, states are required to pass through at least 90% of their federal block grant allotments to eligible entities—primarily (but not exclusively) Community Action Agencies (CAAs) that had been designated prior to 1981 under the former Economic Opportunity Act. 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.¹⁴ There are roughly one thousand eligible entities around the country, the majority of which are private nonprofit organizations. Many of these organizations contract with others in delivering various services. Once designated as an eligible entity for a particular community, an agency retains its designation unless it voluntarily withdraws from the program or its grant is terminated for cause. Eligible entities are monitored within a systematic schedule; return visits are made when goals are not met. In designating new or replacement entities, states may select a public agency only when no qualified private nonprofit organization is available, in accordance with the 1998 CSBG amendments.

Local activities vary depending on the needs and circumstances of the local community. Each eligible entity, or CAA, is governed by a board of directors, of which at least one-third of members are representatives of the low-income community. Under the 1998 amendments to the CSBG Act, low-income board members must live in the community that they represent. Another third of the board members must be local elected officials or their representatives, and the remaining board members represent other community interests, such as business, labor, religious organizations, and education. A public entity must either have a governing board with low-income representation as described above, or another mechanism specified by the state to assure participation by low-income individuals in the development, planning, implementation, and evaluation of programs.

There is no typical CAA, since each agency designs its programs based on a local community needs assessment. Examples, however, of CSBG-funded services include emergency assistance, home weatherization, activities for youth and senior citizens, transportation, income management and credit counseling, domestic violence crisis assistance, parenting education, food pantries, and emergency shelters. In addition, local agencies provide information and referral to other community services, such as job training and vocational education, depending on the needs of individual clients. CAAs may also receive federal funds from other sources and may administer federal programs such as Head Start and energy assistance programs. For more information, see the "Use of Federal CSBG Funds" section of this report.

Related Activities

In addition to the block grant itself, over the years the CSBG Act has authorized various related activities that have been funded along with CSBG and administered through the Office of Community Services (OCS) within HHS. There have also been programs authorized by other laws but administered by OCS. These programs have provided various types of assistance, including help obtaining jobs and food and nutrition assistance, and programs have targeted services to specific populations including migrant farmworkers and people experiencing homelessness.

Most of the related activities administered through OCS no longer receive funding, and some have not been funded for many years. See Table A-4 in Appendix A for programs that have been funded from FY1982 to the present. Two of these programs—Community Economic Development (CED) and Rural Community Development (RCD), both authorized by the CSBG Act—continue to be funded, and have received funding in every year since FY1982. This section describes these two recently-funded related activities.

Community Economic Development¹⁵

The Community Economic Development (CED) program helps support local community development corporations (CDCs), including faith-based organizations, to generate employment and business development opportunities for low-income residents. Grant recipients are required to create a certain number of jobs from their project, as specified in the CED grant's Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO). The grant recipient computes the number of total jobs required to be created by dividing the total grant amount by a set figure (for example, in the FY2024 NOFO, this was $32,000 per job for construction jobs, and $27,000 per job for non-construction jobs).¹⁶ The jobs must have substantive fringe benefits and present opportunities for advancement, which CED grant applicants provide evidence for in their applications, per instructions in the NOFO. At least 75% of the jobs created by CED projects have to be for persons with low income (defined using the federal poverty guidelines). CED grants have minimum and maximum amounts (in FY2024, these were $100,000 and $800,000 respectively). Projects may be funded by other sources in addition to CED, though there are reporting requirements for tracking how the CED grant funds in particular were spent, and on the jobs created by them.¹⁷

Rural Community Development¹⁸

The Rural Community Development (RCD) program, also referred to in appropriations language as Rural Community Facilities, "assists small, low-income rural communities, that are not served by other similar Federal programs, to help manage, develop, and improve safe drinking water and waste water facilities."¹⁹ Many of these rural communities have fewer than 2,500 persons, have residents that lack access to safe drinking or wastewater treatment services, or in some instances indoor plumbing, and are often located in areas of persistent poverty.²⁰ RCD funds must be used

to provide training and technical assistance to: increase access for low-income families to water supply and waste disposal services, preserve affordable water and waste disposal services in low-income rural communities, increase local capacity and expertise to establish and maintain needed community facilities, increase economic opportunities for low-income rural communities by ensuring they have basic water and sanitation, utilize technical assistance to leverage additional public and private resources, and promote improved coordination of Federal, state, and local agencies and financing programs to benefit low-income communities.²¹

As with other grants organized through HHS's Administration for Children and Families, recipients must comply with reporting requirements.²²

CSBG Program Data

Data on the programs administered and people served by CSBG local eligible entities are captured in CSBG Annual Reports. Since 1987 HHS has contracted with the National Association for State Community Services Programs (NASCSP) to collect, analyze, and publish data related to CSBG through a survey of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.²³ In recent years HHS has published online the CSBG Reports to Congress on an annual basis.²⁴

The most recent CSBG Annual Report to Congress summarizes data from FY2022. According to the report, the nationwide CSBG network consisted of 1,011 local eligible entities in FY2022, including 894 Community Action Agencies, 83 local government agencies, 13 tribes or tribal organizations,²⁵ 11 migrant or seasonal farmworker organizations,²⁶ and 10 limited purpose agencies that specialized in one or two types of programs.²⁷

This network of local eligible entities reported spending nearly $20.2 billion in FY2022, with funding coming from federal, state, local, and private sources. Of the total amount spent, $1.1 billion came from the federal CSBG allotment (including both regular and supplemental CSBG funds), and another $14.6 billion came from federal programs other than CSBG.²⁸ Approximately $2.1 billion came from state governments, nearly $1.8 billion came from local governments, and $1.7 billion came from private agencies. In addition to these financial resources, the estimated value of volunteer hours was $143 million.

Use of Federal CSBG Funds

Based on reports from all jurisdictions, local entities spent their CSBG funds in FY2022 for a wide variety of activities, including activities related to income, infrastructure, and asset building (4%); activities to promote linkages among community groups and other government or private organizations (5%); education-related activities (12%); employment-related activities (9%); housing-related services (22%); health services (15%); and other activities.²⁹

Sources of Federal Non-CSBG Funds

The bulk of funds spent by local eligible entities come from federal programs other than CSBG. Over 45% of the funding in FY2022 was dedicated to Head Start or energy assistance.³⁰ Of nearly $14.6 billion in non-CSBG federal funds spent by local agencies in FY2022, 25% came from Head Start or Early Head Start. Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) fuel assistance made up nearly 16% of federal funds spent by local agencies, and LIHEAP weatherization funding, together with funding from the Department of Energy's Weatherization Assistance Program, made up another 4% of funding.

States reported that nearly 7% of federal non-CSBG funds received by local agencies came from Agriculture Department nutrition programs, including almost 2% from the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) alone.³¹ Another 4% of federal non-CSBG funds came from the TANF block grant, more than 3% came from employment and training programs administered by the Labor Department, and over 2% came from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Section 8 program.³² The Child Care and Development Block Grant accounted for 2% of federal non-CSBG funding, and funding for Medicare/Medicaid accounted for 1.5%.³³

Recipients of CSBG Services

According to states responding to the annual data collection, the CSBG network provided services to 10 million individuals in 5.2 million households in FY2022.³⁴ The survey captured demographic information for 4.2 million of those households, and of those captured, more than 70% had incomes at or below federal poverty guidelines and almost 43% were "severely poor" with incomes at or below 50% of the poverty guidelines.³⁵ Some 33% of households reported income that indicated participation in employment.³⁶ Of those that reported their household structure in CSBG-eligible entity programs, about 45% of the households included children; of those, 59% were headed by a single mother, 33% by two parents, and 6% by a single father.³⁷ Looking at participants by age, the survey found that 35.5% of individuals served were children age 17 or younger, and 25.8% were age 55 or older.³⁸ About 54% of individuals reported they were White and 28% were Black. Also, 21.5% of individuals reported their ethnicity as Hispanic or Latino, regardless of race.³⁹

As part of the data collection about CSBG-eligible entity program participants, health insurance coverage and disability status information was collected, though it was not obtained for all participants. The FY2022 report offered the following about information that was obtained:

Health insurance data offered by over 6.6 million participants indicated that 12.6 percent were without medical insurance... Disability data collected from over 7.5 million participants indicated that 23.7 percent of the CSBG-eligible entity program participants who reported disability status had a disability.⁴⁰

Funding for CSBG and Related Activities

FY2024 and FY2025 Funding Levels

FY2025 funding for CSBG has been provided via a full-year continuing resolution (CR).⁴¹ The FY2025 CR generally provided funding at the same levels as specified in the applicable FY2024 appropriations act. The CSBG and related activities were funded at $804 million in the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (P.L. 118-47). Out of this total, $22 million was reserved for CED and $12 million was reserved for RCD.⁴²

FY2026 President's Budget Request

The FY2026 President's budget requested no funding for CSBG. The recommendation to zero out the CSBG program echoes previous budget requests for FY2018 through FY2021. In each of those years, Congress funded the CSBG program.⁴³ Funding levels for fiscal years 1982 onward, as reflected in the President's budget request and as enacted by Congress, are available in Table A-2 in Appendix A.

Recent Supplemental Appropriations

Congress also viewed CSBG as a tool for providing supplemental funding for emergencies, including disaster relief from hurricanes and wildfires, and during the COVID-19 pandemic. In P.L. 116-20, which addressed the effects of hurricanes, typhoons, wildfires, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions, $1 billion was appropriated to CSBG, as the sponsor indicated in her remarks, "with language ensuring it is spent quickly to help communities rebuild housing, businesses, and public infrastructure in the most impacted and distressed areas affected by major natural disasters."⁴⁴ Another $1 billion for CSBG was appropriated in P.L. 116-136, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). As stated in a Dear Colleague letter from the Office of Community Services in HHS, "The flexibility of CSBG extends to CARES funding, meaning eligible entities can support a broad array of services for the prevention, preparation, and response to COVID-19. This includes gap-filling services to address unmet needs such as mobile food delivery for the home-bound, innovative strategies such as the creation of community gardens or provision of mental health services on-site, and rapid responses to help families and individuals achieve self-sufficiency, find and maintain adequate housing, and other necessary activities to reduce the impact of the causes of poverty."⁴⁵

Reauthorization Proposals

The authorization of appropriations for CSBG and related activities expired at the end of FY2003, although Congress has continued to fund these programs through the annual appropriations process. Several attempts had been made at reauthorizing the program since then, though as of the cover date of this report none have been enacted. The two most recent reauthorization attempts are discussed below.

119^th Congress

On May 1, 2025, Representative Glenn Thompson introduced H.R. 3131, and it was referred to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. As of the cover date of this report, no further action on the bill has been taken. The bill seeks to reauthorize CSBG from FY2026 through FY2032, with appropriations authorized for $1 billion for each fiscal year. The bill would also separately authorize appropriations of $40 million each year for the discretionary programs (CED and RCD). This would be a change from current law which authorizes these programs to be funded via a percentage set-aside out of total amounts appropriated for the CSBG Act. Other provisions in the bill would amend the percentages set aside for training and technical assistance, the percentages used to determine the minimum state allotment at different appropriations levels, and the requirements related to the date by which funds need to be obligated by the states, in addition to other fiscal controls and reporting requirements. The bill also would set the criterion of eligibility for services, assistance, or resources provided directly to individuals or families through the CSBG grant program to 200% of the poverty line (as opposed to the poverty line itself).⁴⁶

117^th Congress

In the 117^th Congress, H.R. 5129 passed the House; it was not taken up in the Senate. Had it been enacted, it would have authorized appropriations of $1 billion annually for each of FY2023 through FY2027, and such sums as may be necessary annually for FY2028 through FY2032. Other provisions in the bill included revisions to the percentages used to determine state minimum allotments, and the appropriations levels at which the minimum allotment would be increased; H.R. 3131 in the 119^th Congress uses language similar to this bill.

Appendix A. Additional Funding Information

This appendix provides additional funding information for Community Services Block Grants and related activities.

• Table A-1 shows funding amounts for the CSBG (not including related activities) distributed to the states, tribes, and territories from FY2013 through FY2024.
• Table A-2 shows funding for the CSBG (not including related activities unless noted specifically) from the block grant's first year in FY1982 through FY2025, including amounts in budget requests that may not necessarily have been enacted.
• Table A-3 shows the amounts authorized for the years in which the CSBG Act was authorized, and dashes otherwise. Amounts include related activities.
• Table A-4 displays the amounts for the various related activities that have been funded at different times from FY1982 to FY2025, and includes the budget request for FY2026.

Appendix B. Federal Poverty Guidelines

Section 673(2) of the Community Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. §9902(2)) provides a definition of the term poverty line to mean:

the official poverty line defined by the Office of Management and Budget based on Bureau of the Census data. The Secretary shall revise the poverty line annually (or at any shorter interval the Secretary deems feasible and desirable) which shall be used as a criterion of eligibility in community service block grant programs. The required revision shall be accomplished by multiplying the official poverty line by the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index For All Urban Consumers during the annual or other interval immediately preceding the time at which the revision is made. Whenever the State determines that it serves the objectives of the block grant established by this chapter the State may revise the poverty line to not to exceed 125 percent of the official poverty line otherwise applicable under this paragraph.⁴⁷

This definition refers to the set of FPG published by HHS for programmatic usage, as distinguished from the official poverty measure published by the Census Bureau for statistical purposes.⁴⁸ The FPG represents a simplified set of dollar amounts (compared with the poverty measure as computed by the Census Bureau), below which a person, family, or household (depending on the context) is considered to be in poverty. Staff at HHS have traditionally performed the computations to update the dollar amounts for inflation, and performed the simplifications through averaging and rounding, in accordance with administrative practices established by the Office of Economic Opportunity (the agency that had originally administered the CSBG program).

In addition to its usage for the CSBG program, the language above establishing the FPG is referred to as a definition of poverty in many federal programs, such as the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), the Low-Income Household Water Assistance Program (LIHWAP), the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the National School Lunch Program, the National School Breakfast Program, and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), to name a few examples.

For a number of years, staff within the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) have been responsible for computing and updating the FPG. Updates to the FPG are typically released annually in January or February. The 2025 update was published in the Federal Register on January 17, 2025.⁴⁹ On March 27, 2025, HHS Secretary Kennedy announced there would be a "dramatic restructuring" at HHS, including a reduction in workforce of about 10,000 full-time employees. It is not clear if this office will retain the responsibility for computing the FPG updates moving forward.

Karen Spar, former CRS Specialist in Domestic Social Policy and Division Research Coordinator, was the original author of this report.

Footnotes

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.
3.	42 U.S.C. §9921.
4.	42 U.S.C. §9912.
5.	See an ACF organization chart, last updated on November 15, 2024, at https://acf.gov/about/offices.
6.	U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, "HHS Announces Transformation to Make America Healthy Again," press release, March 27, 2025, https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/hhs-restructuring-doge.html.
7.	Letter from U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (Ranking Member of the Committee on Finance) and U.S. Senator Bernard Sanders (Ranking Member of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions), to the Honorable Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., April 15, 2025, https://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/acf_reduction_in_force_letter.pdf.
8.	U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, FY2026 Administration for Children, Families, and Communities Budget Justification, https://acf.gov/sites/default/files/documents/olab/ACF-FY-2026-CJ-for-web.pdf. See also, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, FY2026 Budget in Brief, https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/fy-2026-budget-in-brief.pdf.
9.	Letter from Russell T. Vought, Director, Office of Management and Budget, to The Honorable Susan Collins, May 2, 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Fiscal-Year-2026-Discretionary-Budget-Request.pdf. See also U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, FY2026 Administration for Children, Families, and Communities Budget Justification, https://acf.gov/sites/default/files/documents/olab/ACF-FY-2026-CJ-for-web.pdf.
10.	For more information about the ACF Office of Community Services and the programs it administers, visit https://acf.gov/ocs.
11.	The CSBG Act includes a definition of poverty for the purposes of administering the CSBG program (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)), which is also referenced by other federal programs for administrative purposes. This definition is discussed further in Appendix B.
12.	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.
13.	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.
14.	42 U.S.C. §9908(b)(8). The law contains four exceptions to the prohibition against states reducing funding to an eligible entity below its proportional share of funding in the previous year: changes in recent Census data, designation of a new eligible entity, severe economic dislocation, or failure of an eligible entity to comply with state requirements. See 42 U.S.C. §9908(c).
15.	For more information on this program, see https://acf.gov/ocs/programs/ced.
16.	https://acf.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ocs/hhs-2024-acf-ocs-ee-1965rev3.pdf#page=10.
17.	Further details for prospective applicants are available in explanatory videos at https://acf.gov/ocs/programs/ced/ced-information-prospective-applicants, and in each year's NOFO.
18.	For more information about this program, see https://acf.gov/ocs/programs/rcd.
19.	Senate Committee on Appropriations, Explanatory Statement for Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2023, https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/LHHSFY23REPT.pdf#page=205
20.	HHS Office of Community Services, Rural Community Development Program Overview, FY2021 and 2022, https://acf.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ocs/RCD-Overview-2023.pdf.
21.	HHS Office of Community Services, RCD Fact Sheet, https://acf.gov/ocs/fact-sheet/rcd-fact-sheet.
22.	Further information for grantees is available at https://acf.gov/ocs/policy-guidance/rcd-policy-and-guidance.
23.	See NASCSP's National Report and State Fact Sheets at https://nascsp.org/csbg/csbg-data-collection-and-reporting/csbg-national-report-and-state-fact-sheets/. NASCSP also has published CSBG Annual Reports at the national level, though as of the cover date of this report the latest one published by NASCSP was for FY2020: see https://nascsp.org/wp-content/uploads/NASCSP_2020_National_Report_Final-Version.pdf.
24.	See, for example, Community Services Block Grant Report to Congress, Fiscal Year 2022, p. 7, https://acf.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ocs/RPT_CSBG_Congressional_FY2022.pdf, hereinafter CSBG FY2022 Report to Congress. CSBG Reports to Congress are available on the HHS website, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ocs/resource/csbg-report-to-congress-0.
25.	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. For example, in FY2017, 69 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 https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ocs/list_csbg_4th_quarter_allocations_fy2017.pdf.
26.	CSBG FY2022 Report to Congress, p.15.
27.	The term limited purpose agency, according to an instructional note issued by HHS, "refers to a CSBG eligible entity that was designated as a limited purpose agency under Title II of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 for the fiscal year 1981, that served the general purposes of a community action agency under Title II of the Economic Opportunity Act; did not lose its designation as a limited purpose agency under Title II of the Economic Opportunity Act as a result of failure to comply with that Act; and has not lost its designation as a CSBG eligible entity under the CSBG Act" (see https://acf.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ocs/COMM_CSBG_Annual%20Report%20V2.pdf#page=7). While the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 did not include the phrase limited purpose agency, under Section 205 in Title II of that act, the Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity was authorized to make grants to, or contract with, public or private nonprofit agencies that carried out "programs which are components of a community action program and which are designed to achieve the purposes of this part" (see https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-78/pdf/STATUTE-78-Pg508.pdf#page=11).
28.	CSBG FY2022 Report to Congress, p. 19.
29.	CSBG FY2022 Report to Congress, p. 21.
30.	CRS computations using dollar amounts from CSBG FY2022 Report to Congress, Appendix Tables B-23-1 through B-23-5.
31.	Ibid.
32.	Ibid.
33.	Ibid.
34.	CSBG FY2022 Report to Congress, p. 26.
35.	CSBG FY2022 Report to Congress, p. 26.
36.	CSBG FY2022 Report to Congress, p. 27
37.	CSBG FY2022 Report to Congress, p. 28. Of those reporting, 55% reported having no children (single or two adults); by subtraction, the remaining 45% of households had children.
38.	CSBG FY2022 Report to Congress, p. 30.
39.	CSBG FY2022 Report to Congress, p. 29.
40.	CSBG FY2022 Report to Congress, pp. 30-31.
41.	P.L. 118-83, Division A, Section 101.
42.	P.L. 118-47, Division D, Title II, and House Committee Print 55-008, H.R. 2882 / P.L. 118-47 Legislative Text and Explanatory Statement. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT-118HPRT55008/pdf/CPRT-118HPRT55008.pdf#page=718.
43.	The FY2018 to FY2021 budget bills were introduced during the 115th and 116th Congresses. In the 115th Congress, the Senate and House majorities were the same party as the president; in the 116th, the president's party retained majority in the Senate and was in the minority in the House.
44.	Rep. Nita Lowey, "Supplemental Appropriations Act 2019," remarks in the House, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 165 no. 78 (May 10, 2019), p. H3688, https://www.congress.gov/116/crec/2019/05/10/CREC-2019-05-10-pt1-PgH3687-4.pdf.
45.	Dear Colleague Letter #CSBG-DCL-2022-43, "Expending CSBG CARES Funds," August 4, 2022, https://acf.gov/ocs/policy-guidance/csbg-dcl-2022-43-expending-csbg-cares-funds-fy-2022.
46.	Under current law, as stated in 42 U.S.C. §9902(2), "Whenever a State determines that it serves the objectives of the block grant program established under this chapter, the State may revise the poverty line to not to exceed 125 percent of the official poverty line otherwise applicable under this paragraph."
47.	42 U.S.C. §9902(2) at https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title42-section9902&num=0&edition=prelim.
48.	For a summary of the distinction between the FPG and the official Census poverty thresholds, and a brief history of the FPG, see CRS Report R44780, An Introduction to Poverty Measurement, by Joseph Dalaker at https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44780#_Toc177565649. Further explanation, including answers to frequently asked questions, computational details, and previously published versions of the FPG are available at https://aspe.hhs.gov/topics/poverty-economic-mobility/poverty-guidelines.
49.	Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, "Annual Update of the HHS Poverty," 90 Federal Register 5917-5918, January 17, 2025.