Community Services Block Grant Statistical Report. FY 2002.pdf

8/11/2019 Community Services Block Grant Statistical Report. FY 2002.pdf

1/22

Community ServicesBlock Grant

Statistical ReportFY 2002Executive Summary

National Association for

State Community ServicesPrograms


2/22


3/22

The Community ServicesBlock GrantStatistical Report

FY 2002Executive Summary

Meg Power, Ph.D.Gretchen KnowltonRamsey Alwin

Editing by Mary Loebig Giles.

This publication was developed under a grant from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Community Services.

However, the contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the Department of Health and Human Services, and the endorsement of

the federal government should not be assumed unless otherwise granted.

Prepared by

The National Association for State Community Services

Programs

With the assistance of Economic Opportunity Studies, Inc.

January 2004

Washington, DC


4/22


5/22


6/22


7/22

Community Services Block Grant Statistical Report FY 2002

Executive Summary i

Community Services Block GrantFY 2002 Statistical Report

Executive Summary

Introduction

The CSBG network, the subject of this report, is a state-administered local network composed of

more than 1,100 local agencies predominantly Community Action Agencies (CAAs) that

create, coordinate and deliver a broad array of programs and services to low-income Americans.

Their institutional operations are supported by the federal Community Services Block Grant

(CSBG). Its purpose is to fund initiatives to change conditions that perpetuate poverty,

especially unemployment, inadequate housing, poor nutrition, and lack of educational

opportunity. The universal characteristics of the local community-governed CSBG-funded

programs is that they support mobilization of the residents of the area served and the general

public to build or rebuild the low-income community and to provide resources to support

families and individuals seeking to become self-sufficient.

The networks FY 2002 program data was gathered by the Community Services Block Grant

Information System (CSBG/IS) survey, administered by the National Association for State

Community Services Programs (NASCSP) and supported by the U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services, Office of Community Services (OCS). Forty-eight states, the District of

Columbia (DC), and Puerto Rico provided information about the level and uses of their FY 2002

CSBG funds, the sources and uses of other funding, their activities, and the number and

characteristics of families and individuals participating in their programs.

A. FY 2002 CSBG Funding and Expenditures

Congress appropriated nearly $697 million for the FY 2002 Community Services Block Grant

(CSBG). This included the block grant to the states of $650 million, a figure more than 8%

higher than in the previous year. The state block grant is the focus of this report.


8/22


Fifty states reported on how they used CSBG, and Table B summarizes their data. Collectively,

they distributed 92% of the block grant to their localeligible entities.

ii Executive Summary

Table ACSBG Appropriations, FY 2002

Programs Funds

Block Grant to the States $650,000,000Community Food & Nutrition Program $7,300,000

Community Services Discretionary Activities* $39,500,000

Total $696,800,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Table BState Uses of FY 2002 CSBG Funds in 48 States, DC and Puerto Rico

Uses of Funds Amount Number of Percentage of Expended* States Funding Used

Grants to Local Eligible Entities $562,278,300 50 92%

State Administrative Costs $25,713,700 50 4%

Discretionary Projects $23,766,500 45 4%

Total used in FY 2002 $611,758,500 50 100%Carried forward to FY 2003 $58,049,900 31

*All figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.

*Includes Rural Facilities and Economic Development Funding.

Thirty-one states reported they carried forward an additional $58 million forward to FY 2002

programs. About 4% of funding used was for state administrative expenditures, and the

remaining 4% used was for state discretionary projects that addressed a broad range of needs

with a mix of strategies in 45 states. More than half of these projects were awarded to eligible

entities or their statewide associations.


9/22


B. State Management of the Block Grant

Nearly half of the state managers of the CSBG worked in the state Departments of Human

Services, Human Resources or Social Services, while almost one-third were executives in De-

partments of Community Affairs or Community Development; the rest were housed in other

offices, such as Departments of Commerce, Labor, or state executive offices. The block grant

funded all or part of the 578 positions in 49 statesadministrative structures; the hours funded

were the equivalent of more than 254 full-time state employees. Most CSBG administrators

were also responsible for a number of other state programs designed to assist the poor.

The FY 2002 CSBG Local Network

There were 1,086 local CSBGeligible entities

in the 50 states. Table C below displays the

numbers of local agencies of each type and shows that the vast majority (87%) were Community

Action Agencies.

These local agencies served at least part of 96% of all U.S. counties. Figure A shows those counties.

Executive Summary iii

Table CScope of the FY 2002 Demographic Survey in 48 States, DC and Puerto Rico*

Number of states reporting 50

Number of local agencies reporting 1068

Percent of total network resources in agencies reporting 97%

Individuals assisted* 13,065,600

Individuals surveyed* 10,031,600

Families assisted* 5,626,500

Families surveyed* 4,661,100

*All figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.


10/22


Figure A

C. The Participants in the CSBG Network FY 2002 Programs

CAAs in 50 states reported that they provided services to more than 13 million individuals who

were members of 5.6 million families. The 1,068 local agencies that reported on client

demographics managed 97% of all of the CSBG networks FY 2002 funding. Their data indicate

that a heterogeneous group of low-income Americans participated in CSBG-funded initiatives.

The typical CAA client: Lived in a family with children,

Was white and non-Hispanic,

Was very poor, and

Had family members currently working or with work experience.

iv Executive Summary

Counties Served by a CAA in FY 2002


11/22


Figure B

Nearly three-fifths of the CAAsparticipant families included children younger than 18 years

old. While 37% of them lived with both parents, more than half lived only with their mothers;

single fathers headed yet another 6% of families. As Figure B shows, children made up about

40% of all program participants; this figure includes only children who were themselves

participating in CAA programs; it excludes those indirectly affected by the programs because

their family members were assisted.

Executive Summary v

FY 2002 CAA Program Participantsby Age Group

Nearly 9 Million Individuals in 50 States

Seniors 55+17%

3.5 Million Children and Youth in 48 States

Ages of Child and Youth Participants

Adult 24-5435%

Youth Adult 18-239%

Children0-17

39%

Age 12-1728%

Age 6-1132%

Age 0-540%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Table DLocal CSBG Agencies by Type, FY 2002 in 48 States, DC and Puerto Rico

Category of Eligible Entity Number of Unduplicated Number of Entities Reported Count of Entities* States

Community Action Agencies 947 947 50

Limited Purpose Agencies 34 34 11

Migrant and/or Seasonal Farm61 13 19

Worker Organizations

Local Government Agencies 192 68 20

Others 114 24 9

Total 1,086 50

* Includes CAAs and organizations not designated as Community Action Agencies that were, therefore, not

counted in the first column.


12/22


Figure C

About 8% of program participants were 70 years of age or older, and another 9% were between

55 and 70 years old. As Figure C shows, 70% of CAA participant familiesincomes were below

the HHS poverty guideline of $15,020 for a family of three. In fact, about 22% of the clients in

poverty, more than 822,000 families, were severely poor.This means they had incomes at or

below 50% of their poverty guideline, or below $7,511 for a family of three. About 13% of

families had incomes exceeding the poverty guideline but lower than 125% of the guideline, and

another 14% had incomes slightly higher.

These figures suggest the CSBG local network served 27% of all those in poverty in the U.S. in

2002, as well as a million near-poor families.iHowever, this national average masked interstate

variation; in a few states the CAAs served between 50% and 82% of all the states poor.

vi Executive Summary

The data on the sources of CAA program participant familiesincome in states show that the

working poorturned to CAAs in substantial numbers:

Nearly 1.6 million families, more than one-third of those reporting their income, included atleast one member of the 2002 workforce, either active workers or job seekers receiving

Unemployment Insurance;

More than a million of them had wage income only;

About 403,080 families had wages plus some other form of income (e.g. disability or

assistance payments);

More than 1.1 million families included one or more retired workers;

Ethnicity of CSBG Network ClientsFY 2002

8.8 Million Individuals

White54%

Hispanic16%

African-American24%

Native/Alaskan2%

Asian2%

Other2%


13/22


Almost 500,000 TANF-participant households, who may also have been working, were taking

part in CAA FY 2002 programs. Analysis of HHS caseload data on TANF families in 50 states

shows that the population CAAs served was equivalent to about 23% of the average monthly

TANF population in the same states. Further, CAAs in eight of those states served at least halfthe states average monthly TANF population.ii

The large number of families with no income, over 489,000, broke the previous record set in FY

2000. Generally, these represent the most vulnerable working poorAmericans. Because of the

shortage of living-wage jobs, those who had previously left TANF often experienced severe

hardships if they became unable to work. CAA programs were called upon for appropriate

emergency interventions and linkages to resources that could provide continuing support forreturning to stability.

The CAAsclientele was also ethnically diverse, as shown in Figure D. More than half were

white and non-Hispanic, 24% were African-American, and 16% were of Hispanic origin.

Figure D

Number of FY 2002 Client Familiesby Poverty Status

Executive Summary vii

NumberofClientFamilies

4,000,000

3,500,000

3,000,000

2,500,000

2,000,000

1,500,000

1,000,000

500,000

0

150% of Poverty Guideline125% of Poverty Guideline

Poverty Guideline

75% of Poverty Guideline

50% of Poverty Guideline


14/22


viii Executive Summary

Of the 3.8 million adult CSBG program participants for whom education data was reported, just

over half had a high school diploma or equivalency certification, and only 14%, just over one

quarter of those completing high school, had undertaken any post-secondary study. The majority

of adult CSBG clients had levels of education so low that their odds of leaving poverty behind

without additional training were very low.

D. FY 2002 CSBG Resources and Programs

The CSBG/IS asks for data two ways; first, it seeks reports on all resources expended by CAAs

from all funding sources and, second, on all funds that are coordinateddirectly with CSBG funds in

programs or activities. The latter are referred to in the report as CSBG-coordinated resources.

Table E compares the FY 2002 total network resources and the CSBG-coordinated resources.

Table E

CSBG Network Resources, FY 2002in 48 States, DC and Puerto Rico (Millions of Dollars)*

Source of Funds Total CSBG and Coordinated

Federal (not CSBG) $ 6,303 $ 4,380

State $ 1,111 $ 716

Local $ 674 $ 332

Private $ 896 $ 519

Private: Volunteers**(39.8 million @ $5.15 per hour) $ 205 NA

Subtotal: Non-CSBG Resources $ 9,189 $ 5,947

CSBG Resources $ 579 $ 551

Total Resources $ 9,768 $6,498

* Rounded to the nearest million. Columns may not add up to exact totals listed due to rounding.

** Volunteer hours are not reported as coordinated with the funds in the right-hand column.

In FY 2002, the total spent by the CSBG network in 50 states, including federal CSBG

appropriations, was nearly $9.6 billion; if the value of volunteerstime is added, as shown in

Table E, the figure would have been nearly $9.8 billion.


15/22


Leveraging

Every CSBG dollar was matched in the local network by $15.52 from all other sources. When

only non-federal leveraged funds and resources are considered, CSBG leveraged $4.63 of state,

local, and private resources for each CSBG dollar as shown in Table F. In fact, private sector

contributions alone represented $1.55 for each CSBG dollar spent.

Executive Summary ix

Table F

FY 2002 Ratio of Non-Federal Leveraged Resources to CSBG Funds,by Source, in 50 States*

Source Ratio per $1.00 of CSBG Funds Compared to CSBG $578,890,600

State $1.92 $1,110,955,300

Local $1.16 $673,753,000Private** $1.55 $895,818,000

All Non-Federal $4.63 $2,680,526,300

* Rounded to the nearest hundred.

**If volunteer hours valued at minimum wage are included, the ratio becomes $1.90.

Federal Resources Other Than CSBG

Approximately 66% of all FY 2002 leveragedresources, over $6 billion, came from federal

programs other than the CSBG. The largest of these federal programs were Head Start and Early

Head Start with more than $2.7 billion in combined funding, or over 42% of all non-CSBG

federal funding reported.

Total State, Local Government, Private and Volunteer Resources

States utilize the CSBG local network to deliver a large number of state-funded, low-income

programs. Sixteen provided state appropriations for general support of CSBG local agencies

programs. Grants and contracts for specific state low-income programs delivered by CAAs

provided $1.1 billion. Roughly one-third of state funds were spent on early childhood

development and child care programs.


16/22


Local Agency Uses of FY 2002 CSBG Funds

Self-Sufficiency15%

Linkages16%

Nutrition8%

Emergency Services18%

Housing9%

Income Management

4%

Education13%

Employment10%

Other3%

Health4%

$551 Million in 50 States

Forty-nine states reported on their FY 2002 local government resources, which totaled nearly

$674 million, including grants, unrestricted funds and contracts to administer specific initiatives.

All states reported on private contributions to the CSBG network. The value of private funds,

client-paid fees and in-kind donations was nearly $896 million.

Almost 40 million volunteer hours were donated. When conservatively valued at the 2002

minimum wage of $5.15, they contributed an additional $205 million.

E. CSBG and Coordinated Resources

CAAs draw upon many categories of limited-purpose programs and coordinate them to combat a

single cause of poverty. Nearly $551 million of FY 2002 CSBG funding was coordinated with

over $5.9 billion from other sources. Figure E shows the use of CSBG funds by nine program

categories. It shows the three largest categories of CSBG expenditures were linkage programs,

emergency services and self-sufficiency services as shown in Figure E. These claimed 16%,

18%, and 15% of CSBG resources respectively.

x Executive Summary

Figure E


17/22


Executive Summary xi

F. Trends in Network Resources and Expenditures

The data that follow are based on $8.3 billion of the $9.2 billion in FY 2002 non-CSBG funding

analyzed above, with the figures adjusted to reflect 1998 dollar values. On that basis, the FY

2002 network resources were 41% greater than in 1998 and 2% higher than in the previous year.Figure F shows the non-CSBG funding of 47 states from FY 1998 through FY 2002.

State, local, and private resources grew steadily over the five years, as did CSBG appropriations.

State resources alone were 28% higher in real dollars than in 1998 and $105 million higher than

in any previous year. Local government funding was 46% more than in FY 1998. Private

donations of funds and goods to the network increased 9% over the previous fiscal year and

represented a real dollar figure nearly double the FY 1998 inflation-adjusted total. As a result,

the federal funds made up a lower share of FY 2002 CAA budgets, 66%, even though there was

also some growth in federal CAA programs.

Figure F

Trends in Leveraged Resources, FY 1998FY 2002(in 1998 Dollars)

Private(not volunteer hours)

Local

State

Federal

$8,000

$7,000

$6,000

$5,000

$4,000

$3,000

$2,000

$1,000

0

FundinginMillions

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002


18/22


CSBG is used to fund project planning and development and to mobilize resources, as well as for

direct support of local projects. Table F compares the leveragingpower of a CSBG dollar

before and after the CSBG expansion in the 47 states that reported in both 1998 and 2002.

xii Executive Summary

Table G

CSBG Leveraging Trends: Value of the Networks Non-FederalResources to CSBG Funds, FY 1998 v. FY 2002 (in 1998 Dollars)

1998 State, Local, and 2002 State, Local, andNon-Federal Funds Source Private Leveraged Private Leveraged

per $1.00 of CSBG* per $1.00 of CSBG

State $1.92 $1.92

Local $0.87 $1.16

Private (with volunteer hours) $1.18 $1.90

All Non-Federal $3.97 $4.98

* Source: CSBG/IS Statistical Report, 1998, NASCSP p. 26-27.


19/22


Conclusion

In 2002, the U.S. poverty rate increased for the second year in a row reaching 12.1%, a .4%

(.004) jump. In 2001, the rate had been 11.7%. Therefore, by 2002, there were 1.7 million morepersons whose household incomes were at or below their poverty threshold than there had been

just one year earlier. This meant a total of 34.6 million people, including nearly 12.1 million

children, were officially in poverty, the equivalent of having an income at or below $15,020 for a

family of three. This number included almost half a million more children than were in poverty a

year earlier. The increase in the individuals needing the kind of assistance offered by the CSBG

network was exacerbated by the extreme deprivation that most of the poor endured. Nearly 41%

of these individuals had family incomes at, or lower than, 50% of their poverty threshold, and

about 4.4 million were near poor,i.e. they had family incomes between 100% and 125% of

their poverty threshold.iii

Many of the poor and near poorin communities across the country approached their CAAs for

assistance. In response, Community Action Agencies expanded the reach of their work. While the

resources of federal, local, and private sources did not drop below FY 2001 levels, state resources

were cut back. As the fiscal year closed, significant state and local budget cuts were predicted

for the ensuing year, a small federal cut to all HHS FY 2003 discretionary programs was also

enacted, and the CSBG network made plans for continuing responses to acute and, perhaps,

growing need.

Executive Summary xiii


20/22


21/22


22/22

Documents

Community Services Block Grant Statistical Report. FY 2002.pdf