Community Development Block Grants at 40: Time for a Makeover

Rich, Michael J.

doi:10.1080/10511482.2013.865656

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 23 publications

(14 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Internationally, a number of analogous models for strategic place-based funding interventions have evolved, including in North America, Europe and the UK (O'Brien and Pike 2015;Rich 2014). Common across these approaches has been the notion that 'bespoke' place-based interventions are needed to address and respond to complex contextual factors, meaning that a diversity of approaches have emerged, with different funding, governance and implementation arrangements.…”

Section: Existing Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some researchers have criticised the underlying government rationales associated with place-based deals, which, in the UK, have come to be associated with austerity measures and devolution (Waite, Maclennan et al 2013) and questionable transparency (Tomaney 2016). However, the potential for central governments to drive wider policy outcomes through targeted and tied funding programs implemented at the local level underpins the endurance of models such as the Community Development Block Grants in the United States (US) (Rich 2014). Place-based deals offer an important framework for integration of policy areas such as urban and regional development, planning, infrastructure investment and housing, which often straddle different levels of government as well as multiple portfolios.…”

Section: Existing Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Its administering agency, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), explains that the program 'works to ensure decent affordable housing, to provide services to the most vulnerable in our communities, and to create jobs through the expansion and retention of businesses' (HUD 2019). The program changed the model for federal funding from one that dictated how localities spent funds to one where localities had discretion as long as certain guidelines were met, resulting in significant devolution of decision-making to local government (Rich 2014). After 40 years, the program has changed little and despite repeated attempts to close it down, such as by the Bush administration in 2006 (stifled by local government opposition), it remains the core federal tool to fund urban policy (Rohe and Galster 2014).…”

Section: Community Development Block Grantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Strategic planning, ‘city deals’ and affordable housing

Pill¹,

Gurran²,

Gilbert³

et al. 2020

AHURI Final Report

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This material was produced with funding from the Australian Government and state and territory governments. AHURI Limited gratefully acknowledges the financial and other support it has received from these governments, without which this work would not have been possible. AHURI Limited also gratefully acknowledges the contributions, both financial and in-kind, of its university research partners who have helped make the completion of this material possible. DisclaimerThe opinions in this report reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of AHURI Limited, its Board, its funding organisations or Inquiry Panel members. No responsibility is accepted by AHURI Limited, its Board or funders for the accuracy or omission of any statement, opinion, advice or information in this publication. AHURI journalAHURI Final Report journal series is a refereed series presenting the results of original research to a diverse readership of policy-makers, researchers and practitioners. Peer review statementAn objective assessment of reports published in the AHURI journal series by carefully selected experts in the field ensures that material published is of the highest quality. The AHURI journal series employs a double-blind peer review of the full report, where anonymity is strictly observed between authors and referees.

show abstract

Section: Existing Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Existing Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Community Development Block Grantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Strategic planning, ‘city deals’ and affordable housing

Pill¹,

Gurran²,

Gilbert³

et al. 2020

AHURI Final Report

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Increasing the share of federal funds also positively impacts dollars flowing to the areas with the greatest need. While some have called for modifications to the CDBG funding formulas, which date back to the 1980s (Richardson 2007), the federal government could modify CDBG allocation regulations to ensure that more dollars flow to the highest areas of need (Collinson 2014; Rich 2014; Rohe and Galster 2014). Today, public sentiment for ensuring equitable access to resources is stronger.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Whose Neighborhood Needs? Assessing the Spatial Distribution of Federal Community Development Funds

Stokan,

Overton,

Deslatte

et al. 2023

Urban Affairs Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Local governments must balance their growth ambitions against needs arising from social inequities. The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program aims to redress these disparities by directing funds toward disinvested tracts. We ask whether a city's institutional design, public and private actor composition, and resource availability influence the decision to invest in communities with greater levels of social need. Utilizing a social equity framework, we connect place-level procedural fairness mechanisms with neighborhood-level access equity consequences. Combining U.S. local government survey data over two decades with census tract-level CDBG expenditures, we find that in neighborhood where 51 percent or more of the families are low-to-moderate income (LMI), its likelihood of receiving funds increases with its share of LMI population relative to the city's, but at a diminished rate compared to non-LMI tracts. Further, city-level factors moderate this relationship (e.g., including community development corporations in planning processes).

show abstract

“…There is widespread agreement that the CDBG has fallen out of line with the needs of American cities. Reform is overdue with regard to its mode of distribution, geographic and social targeting, and federal requirements and monitoring (e.g., Brophy and Godsil 2009;Rich 2014). Yet, as explained, some of the parts that need change are exactly what makes the block grant sticky.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Microfoundations of Policy Inertia

Tortola¹

2014

State and Local Government Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is widely acknowledged that a key cause of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)'s longevity is its feedback effect on federal policy making via the creation of a large coalition of beneficiaries. Much less is known about the ''microfoundations'' of this self-perpetuating logic, namely, the city-level mechanisms directing local preferences toward preserving the grant. As a first attempt to fill this gap, this article identifies three such mechanisms and tests them on the cases of Arlington, VA, and Baltimore, MD. The study aims to contribute to a more fine-grained picture of the CDBG's dynamics and suggest new avenues for the reform of this program.

show abstract

Community Development Block Grants at 40: Time for a Makeover

Cited by 8 publications

References 23 publications

Strategic planning, ‘city deals’ and affordable housing

Strategic planning, ‘city deals’ and affordable housing

Whose Neighborhood Needs? Assessing the Spatial Distribution of Federal Community Development Funds

The Microfoundations of Policy Inertia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About