|
|
|
| RETURN TO CSBG HOME PAGE | RETURN TO OCS HOME | |
| 3. CSBG PROGRAM STATISTICS AND OTHER DATA | |||
|
3b. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY |
|||
|
Community Services Block Grant Statistical Report FY1996. The most recent report prepared for OCS by the National Association for State Community Services Programs (NASCSP) under Grant #90ET0056/01 Table of Contents
The US Department of Health and Human Services Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) provides resources to change the conditions which cause poverty. To do this, the CSBG funds the efforts of a state-administered local CSBG network composed of 1,145 local agencies that create, coordinate, and deliver a broad array of programs and services to low-income Americans. The CSBG in Federal Fiscal Year (FY) 1996 is described as follows: the state block grant funds expended; an analysis of fiscal and administrative data; the characteristics of the people served; how these services are coordinated; and the other public and private resources secured by the CSBG network. The data have been gathered by the Community Services Block Grant Information System (CSBG/IS), a voluntary reporting effort by the states that is administered by the National Association for State Community Services Programs (NASCSP). NASCSP is the national association of the state administrators of the CSBG and of the U.S. Department of Energy Weatherization Assistance Program (DOE/WAP). Responses to at least one section of the FY 1996 survey were received from 50 CSBG grantees including 48 states, the District of Columbia (D.C.) and Puerto Rico. To make it easier for the reader, all of these grantees will hereafter be referred to as "states."
A. FY 1996 CSBG Funding and Expenditures Federal CSBG Funds Appropriated Congress appropriated $435,457,000 for the FY 1996 Community Services Block Grant (CSBG), which included a block grant to the states and other associated program categories. Table A displays the major categories into which CSBG funds are appropriated by Congress and shows funding levels for the three years ending with FY 1996. It shows that $389.6 million of the FY 1996 appropriation was for the block grant to the states, hereafter referred to as "the block grant." The FY 1996 figure represents a three percent real dollar decrease from the FY 1995 level. FY 1996 was the first year since 1986 that no funds were appropriated for the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, Emergency Services to the Homeless Program (ESHP), a program previously managed by the CSBG network to prevent and respond to the problems of homelessness. Table A, above, shows all funding appropriated. The statistics that follow in Table B are derived from the CSBG/IS responses and describe the sources of all CSBG funds obligated by 48 states, D.C. and Puerto Rico during FY 1996. The total of the obligations, shown in Table 2, differs slightly from the appropriated amount, because it includes funding to fewer than all the statutory grantees, and includes unexpended FY 1995 funds "carried forward" for use in FY 1996. B. State Uses of FY 1996 CSBG Funds The 50 reporting states distributed the block grant to their low-income communities through more than 1,145 local agencies. By funding the management, infrastructure, and operations of these local agencies in FY 1996, the CSBG provided the institutional base for communities to meet, define and coordinate responses to the problems of the poor. The CSBG statute requires that 90 percent of block grant funds to the states be passed through to the local eligible entities and that states use no more than 5 percent for their administrative costs. The remaining 5 percent of funds may be used for a range of state discretionary programs to accomplish the CSBG statutory purposes. In FY 1996, 50 states expended $387.6 million in state block grant funds. Of these funds, 92 percent were distributed by formula to eligible entities. In FY 1996, states awarded $21.6 in discretionary funds to a broad range of programs. Of these funds, one-third was distributed directly to eligible entities as part of their pass-through funding. Forty states reported making some discretionary grants, with total spending for these projects and programs exceeding $14 million. Discretionary uses include support for statewide initiatives, competitive demonstration programs, expansion to new areas, as well as training and technical assistance for local eligible entities. States provided detailed information on their management achievements and their program accomplishments. The majority of states reported advances in adopting specific goals for the management and outcomes of local programs and in measuring the achievement of those outcomes. Many states reported further advances in the management information systems of their local CSBG network. Just as local agencies administer a large number of federal, state, and local programs in conjunction with the CSBG, so too, do state offices. The 49 administrators responding to the CSBG/IS collectively managed 302 programs in addition to the CSBG, including the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), the Community Food and Nutrition Program (CFNP), and the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP). Because the needs of low-income people vary, a program like CSBG that is intended to fight many causes of poverty must offer a broad array of services. These services are delivered in most communities through the local Community Action Agency or a similar organization funded by the states with 90 percent or more of their block grant funds. There were 1,145 such "eligible entities" in 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico in FY 1996. The numbers of each type of local agency are displayed in Table C below. The vast majority of these organizations, 82 percent, were private, non-profit Community Action Agencies. In addition, there were 216 eligible entities that were units of local government, 103 of which were also CAAs. Other types of organizations can also qualify as eligible entities. The network included 36 "limited purpose agencies," which are not CAAs and typically specialize in only one or two programs. There were 105 migrant and seasonal farmworker organizations, of which 82 were also structured as CAAs. In FY 1996, as has been the case in every recent year, 96 percent of counties in the United States were served by local agencies of the CSBG network. As the map in Figure A shows, 45 states reported the reach of the CSBG extended to the entire state; another five states reported that 90 percent or more of their counties were served by CSBG. Only two states had fewer than 90 percent of their counties served. Figure A*
C. The Clients Served by the CSBG Network In FY 1996, at least 79 percent of all the local CSBG agencies in the U.S., located in 42 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico provided some data describing the people they served. This included a count of 10.9 million clients and 3.9 million families in 42 states. Demographic data obtained from agency interviews with about 7.1 million clients, or two thirds, describes one or more attributes of the individuals participating in agency programs, and in most cases, attributes of their entire family. These data show that the network served a heterogeneous group of Americans facing significant obstacles to becoming self-sufficient. The typical CAA client: was extremely poor; had family members currently working or with work experience; was white; and lived in a family with children. The extreme poverty of the clients assisted by the CSBG network is evident from the family income data reported by more than 3 million client families. As Figure B shows, half of the 3 million families surveyed in 40 states had incomes that fell short of 75 percent of the poverty guideline. In FY 1996, this was $9,735 for a family of three, the average family size for the client population. Another 716,000 families had incomes higher than this but below the poverty guideline of $12,980 for a family of three. In FY 1996, the degree to which CAAs were reaching the poor in the United States can be examined further by comparing Census data to the individual and family data reported. State-by-state Census data for the 43 states reporting (not including Puerto Rico) show nearly 34.5 million individuals in poverty. Adjusting the CSBG/IS data to parallel those of the Census indicates that CAAs served nearly 7.8 million clients with family incomes at or below the poverty threshold—the equivalent of 23 percent of all persons in poverty in these 43 states. This is an under-count of the persons affected by CAA services, as the client count includes persons receiving direct services and in many cases does not count the members of their families not participating in, but benefiting from, CAA programs. Figure B
The data on the sources of client families’ income in 40 states shows that CAAs are serving a substantial number of workers, job seekers, and retired workers. Figure C groups ten sources of family income reported into three categories. The data suggest 14 percent of all client families have no income, 48 percent receive some form of assistance, and 56 percent are workers or retired workers. Active workers, job seekers receiving unemployment insurance compensation, and those with pensions or social security benefits are categorized as having a source of income related to "Work." Because families can have multiple income sources, some of these 1.7 million client families may also be represented in the number of families receiving public assistance.
Figure C *Working families receiving assistance may be classified under both the categories of "Work and Retirement" and "Assistance." Those families reporting Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), SSI, General Assistance or "other" are grouped as "Assistance" recipients. Because families can have multiple income sources, some of 1.4 million families included under "Assistance" may also be represented in the "Work" category. Finally, the large number of families with no income, 418,000, is also shown in the chart. Nearly three-fifths of CAA client families, or 59 percent, included children. About 37 percent of all local agency clients in 44 states were children under the age of 18. Forty-three percent of those children were five years old or younger, a reflection of the major role CAAs play in delivering many kinds of assistance to young children, including Head Start and child care services.
Figure D If we assume a similar age distribution for the 10.9 million individuals served by the network in these 44 states, it is fair to estimate that about 4 million children were clients in these states. If, as with the entire CAA client population, 74 percent of these 4 million children lived in families with incomes below the poverty guideline, then CAAs in 44 states served nearly 3 million children in poverty. These children represent 21 percent of the 14.5 million children in poverty in the United States. As shown in Figure E, 42 percent of these children had both parents present; 52 percent were in families headed by single mothers and 6 percent by single fathers. Figure E
The CAAs’ clientele is ethnically diverse. The data on 6.4 million individual clients in 42 states show that the majority, 53 percent, were white and non-Hispanic, as were 45 percent of persons in poverty in the U.S. in 1996. Clients of Black and Hispanic origin made up 25 percent and 15 percent of the CAA client population, respectively.
D. The CSBG Network’s Resources and Programs The CSBG/IS collects data on the additional resources leveraged, managed, and coordinated by the local agency network in two ways. The first provides information on the sources and amounts of all federal, state, local, and private resources, other than the CSBG itself, which were used by CAAs. These figures, combined with the CSBG, are referred to in this report as the "total resources" of the CSBG network. As shown in Figure F, the total resources of the CSBG network in 46 states, D.C., and Puerto Rico, including federal CSBG appropriations, exceeded $5.2 billion in FY 1996. The second way the CSBG/IS collects data on additional resources is by looking only at those funds that are coordinated directly with the CSBG for particular services. These funds, referenced in the report as "coordinated resources," constituted 69 percent of the "total resources" of the CSBG network in FY 1996. Table D below summarizes both CSBG-coordinated and total CSBG network resources. The total resources of the CSBG network in 46 states, D.C. and Puerto Rico, including CSBG, were more than $5.2 billion in FY 1996. Eighty-three percent of all local agencies in the nation provided data for this section of the survey. If all agencies in all states had reported, the total resources of the CSBG network probably would have been $6 billion.
Federal Resources Other Than CSBG Approximately 69 percent of all resources expended by the CSBG network, $3.6 billion, came from federal programs other than the CSBG in 48 states. These, when adjusted for inflation, were essentially equal to the non-CSBG federal funding reported in FY 1995 by the same states. Federal funds were generally used for federal means-tested programs that serve designated categories of low-income people, such as Head Start, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and maternal/child nutrition programs. The largest of these was the Head Start program with $1.4 billion in funding, or 39 percent of all other federal funding reported in the CSBG network. About 17 percent of all non-CSBG federal dollars, $623 million, came from low-income energy programs. Forty-one states spent $465 million from the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), 47 states spent $137 million from the Department of Energy Weatherization Assistance Program (DOE/WAP), and 19 states distributed $22 million from Petroleum Violation Escrow (PVE) funding . An additional $442 million was expended from federal housing and community revitalization programs funded by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), such as the Community Development Block Grant, Section 8 and Section 202 rental housing subsidy programs, and numerous programs for the homeless. This inflation-adjusted increase of 19 percent over FY 1995 demonstrates the network’s role in low-income housing and community development programs. Similarly, states reported a 4 percent real increase in federal food and nutrition programs, which provided $344 million to local agency nutrition projects. Approximately $177 million in Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) employment programs was reported by 31 states. States utilize the CSBG local network to deliver a large number of state-funded, low-income programs. State appropriations for general support of CSBG programs were allocated by formula along with the expenditures of state low-income programs delivered through this network; these provided nearly $589 million in 47 states. When adjusted for inflation, this was a very significant increase of 20 percent from the total expenditures of the same states in FY 1995. Roughly $215 million, or 37 percent, was spent for early childhood development and child care programs in 41 states, a 19 percent increase from 1995. The federal funding for child care, nutrition and education reported above was most likely coordinated with this investment. Nearly $174 million, or 29 percent, of state funding was distributed to programs that did not fit neatly into the categories provided by the CSBG/IS. An analysis of these "other" state programs shows that, like most funding in the CSBG network, the vast majority are human services programs, such as children and family services, aging and health programs. Local Government and Private Resources Forty-six states reported on FY 1996 local government resources in the network totaling nearly $279 million, an increase of 15 percent from the previous year. The bulk of this support consisted of $126 million in unrestricted local government appropriations for general support of agency programs and services in 44 states. Forty-five states also reported on private contributions to the CSBG network. The value of private funding and in-kind donations was nearly $338 million, plus over 28 million volunteer hours donated in 40 states. These hours are worth an additional $119 million when valued at just the minimum wage. When CSBG is compared to the non-federal funds mobilized by CAAs, its effectiveness as a "leveraging" tool is clear. Private funds and donations again exceeded CSBG funds in local agencies in FY 1996. Altogether, each dollar of CSBG was matched by nearly $4 in state, local and private contributions. E. Local CSBG Programs and Coordinated Resources This section of the report provides data on local expenditures of CSBG and the other resources coordinated by the CAAs. It shows how local agencies use CSBG-paid staff and CSBG organizational infrastructure to organize a much larger set of low-income community services. This section describes the uses of 69 percent of all the "total resources" reported in the previous section, since not all resources in the CSBG network are directly coordinated with CSBG-funded activities. CSBG and CSBG-coordinated expenditures are categorized into nine service categories, as shown in Table E, including employment, education, income management, housing, emergency services, nutrition, linkages, self-sufficiency, and health care. As Figure G shows, the two largest categories of CSBG expenditures were for linkage programs and emergency services. Twenty-two percent of the expenditures reported, or nearly $74 million, was dedicated to linkage initiatives in 49 states. Another 20 percent of CSBG funds, about $68 million, was devoted to emergency services by 49 states. These two distinctive functions of local agencies together accounted for 42 percent of CSBG local resources. Forty-four million CSBG dollars were spent on nutrition programs, while employment and education initiatives received about $32 million and $30 million, respectively.
Forty-seven states responding were able to report on sources of at least some of the other resources coordinated with the CSBG. Expenditures of nearly $3.3 billion in CSBG-coordinated funds were reported by these states and listed under the types of program activity for which the CSBG funds were allocated. Most of the CSBG is used to perform the tasks of creating new initiatives and coordinating and enhancing narrowly-focused programs. Most non-CSBG sources of funds are directed to conventional categories, like education and employment, and are usually earmarked for special services or for specific groups of low-income people. Figure H shows the program uses of the resources coordinated with CSBG. In many cases, the priorities for the CSBG are different from those of the other coordinated resources. For CSBG-coordinated resources, the top four expenditures were for the following service categories: education (36 percent); emergency services (13 percent); nutrition (13 percent); and housing (11 percent).
F. Trends in Network Resources and Expenditures Figure I shows the non-CSBG funding of the CSBG network, in constant 1992 dollars, as reported by 45 states. The value of total non-CSBG resources reached a peak of $4.3 billion in FY 1994. While FY 1996 network resources totaled 17 percent more in real dollars than in FY 1992, they were slightly lower than in FY 1995, and nearly four percent less than in FY 1994. Each funding source also showed overall growth from their FY 1992 levels, with federal and private funding each increasing by 15 percent, and local funding increasing by 16 percent. State funding showed the most remarkable gains, increasing by 34 percent from FY 1992 levels. However, the real value of all types of resources, except private, dropped from the peak reached in FY 1994. 
Figure I The appropriations for the block grant itself continued to decline in real value. Figure J shows the appropriations over five years for the CSBG state block grant and the Emergency Services to the Homeless Program (ESHP). In FY 1996, the block grant was worth about three percent less than in FY 1992, when adjusted for inflation. The ESHP program was not funded in FY 1996, and as a result of the combined decrease in CSBG and ESHP funding since FY 1992, ten percent less funding was distributed directly to the CSBG network in FY 1996.
This report demonstrates that, in FY 1996, the CSBG continued to provide unique resources that permitted the multi-billion dollar state and local network to respond to the causes of poverty in their low-income communities. The institutional funding base provided by the CSBG allowed CAAs to identify, leverage and coordinate multiple funding and other resources in the design of programs that addressed poverty conditions in their communities and met the particular needs of their low-income clients. However, the resources in the CSBG local programs were shrinking in relation to the growing needs in the low-income communities they served. While the poverty rate was the same as in the previous year, nearly 500,000 more people than in 1995 were classified as being "very poor," or having incomes lower than 50 percent of poverty threshold for their family’s size, the client data in this report verifies that a majority of CAA clients had incomes substantially lower than the poverty level. The cost of serving those with the largest income deficit depends to some extent on the size of the ‘gaps’ in resources that must be overcome. The time spent in providing assistance and the amount of grant, loan, or scholarship funds required to stabilize families so the breadwinners gain self-sufficiency varies indirectly with the contributions or skills the families bring to the effort. Consequently, during FY 1996 local agencies in the CSBG network faced growing needs among the same number of potential clients, but did not have additional resources to meet this challenge.
For hard cover copies or copies of the full report, contact:
|
