1977
DOI: 10.2307/2148351
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Monitoring the Block Grant Program for Community Development

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
14
0

Year Published

1981
1981
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 35 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It consolidated seven federal programs: (1) urban renewal; (2) model cities; (3) water and sewer facilities grants; (4) neighborhood facilities grants; (5) public facilities loans; (6) open space land grants; and (7) rehabilitation loans (Dommel and Associates 1982;Nathan et al 1977; United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 1996). This change provided local governments with more flexibility in using federal CDBG funds for program activities such as housing, employment, recreation, and social services aimed at eliminating poverty and blight.…”
Section: Community Development Block Grant (Cdbg)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It consolidated seven federal programs: (1) urban renewal; (2) model cities; (3) water and sewer facilities grants; (4) neighborhood facilities grants; (5) public facilities loans; (6) open space land grants; and (7) rehabilitation loans (Dommel and Associates 1982;Nathan et al 1977; United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 1996). This change provided local governments with more flexibility in using federal CDBG funds for program activities such as housing, employment, recreation, and social services aimed at eliminating poverty and blight.…”
Section: Community Development Block Grant (Cdbg)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[2] The early research on CDBG, one of the first block grant programs, tended to focus on the issues of its implementation, how the monies were being allocated, and the advantages and disadvantages of targeting neighborhoods. [4][5][6][7][8][9] Rather than try to discuss all of the studies, we trace two themes that run through the research and are central to the program. The purpose of discussing these themes is to remind the reader that the issue of targeting funds has been present from the beginning of the program, and that often issues surrounding the effectiveness-the outcomes-of the CDBG program have been largely overlooked.…”
Section: The Research: Issues and Findingsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The first of these components entails targeting funds through different formula to the entitlement cities, and the second is the targeting in the use of the monies at the local level. The early Brookings' studies conducted by Nathan et al [4] focused considerable attention on the national formulas that were being used and the advantages and disadvantages of these formulas for certain types of cities. In general, newer cities like Phoenix were initially penalized by this formula which used the weighted average age of housing in the community to calculate funding level.…”
Section: The Research: Issues and Findingsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The challenge for national policymakers in targeting federal aid is to devise eligibility tests and formula allocations systems that concentrate grants funds on these most needy cases: the name of the game is formulas" (emphasis original). Accordingly, numerous studies have evaluated the success with which the entitlement formulas target funds to the neediest large cities (see Bunce 1979;Bunce and Glickman 1979;Bunce and Goldberg 1979;Cuciti 1978;Nathan, Dommel, et al 1977;and Schafer 1977).20…”
Section: The Importance Of Need To the Success Of Applicationsmentioning
confidence: 99%